Wind Farms Kill Thousands of Birds?

Bird Killers (http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/sunday-replay-3/)

We also looked into a claim by “This Week” conservative commentator George Will, who said “wind farms kill a lot more birds daily than are probably going to be killed in this oil spill.” That might be true. The American Bird Conservancy says that wind farms kill a lot of birds. The group estimates “that between 10,000 and 40,000 birds may be killed each year at wind farms across the country — about 80% of which are songbirds, and 10% may be birds of prey.” Supporters of wind energy claim that many more birds die from other causes; for example, a 1997 Wisconsin study estimated that free-ranging cats kill 39 million birds each year in that state alone.

These conservatives obviously have forgotten how to fact check anything whatsoever.

Twitter or Blog?

Well, lately I have switched from my original facebook account (I deactivated it but didn’t delete it) to using Twitter for items I have found about this election and how stupid it is getting to be!

But I see that I also have this blog that auto twitters and does google+ as well……

Who would have thought?

Love Google and the internet!

Women’s Rights

Unbelievable….but this is the GOP:

Gov. Kasich: VETO THIS BILL

When Republican Senate President Keith Faber was asked why he advanced such a clearly unconstitutional bill — he said, “new president, new Supreme Court justice appointees change the dynamic.

Yes, you read that right. Ohio Republicans have shed all pretense; they believe politicians should intervene in this most personal of decisions — whether a woman decides to become a parent or not. They think like Trump does — that women should be punished for making this decision.

We can’t wait until after Trump’s inauguration to start fighting back.

Gov. Kasich: VETO THIS BILL – dirkfour4@gmail.com – Gmail

Paid for by the Ohio Democratic Party and not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. https://ohiodems.org

#Trumpland Minimum Wage

This is what half the country voted for:

At one point during the campaign, he [Trump] argued that low minimum wages are necessary to keep the United States competitive, but he later seemed to endorse a higher minimum wage, saying he is “very different from most Republicans.” Later, though, he backed off that position.

And Medical Care Related

5. Limit medical malpractice suits.  The cost of federal healthcare programs is increased substantially by measures doctors and hospitals must take to protect themselves from malpractice suits.  Not only is the high cost of malpractice insurance built into the rate structure for medical treatment, but doctors routinely order unnecessary tests and procedures in order to protect themselves against malpractice suits.  This CBO option would impose nationwide caps on the awards that can be made in malpractice torts, reduce the statute of limitations on civil actions to one year, and establish equitable sharing of responsibility for healthcare mishaps — thereby reducing the financial burden of excessive malpractice awards on federal healthcare programs. Total savings over ten years: $57 billion.

With all the lawyers in Congress they continue to talk about reducing costs by limiting malpractice suits.  I’m not sure who this benefits….not the lawyers for sure…and won’t they oppose this?

6. Reduce health insurance exchange subsidies under the Affordable Care Act.  No discussion of the potential for sizable federal savings would be complete without some mention of the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare.  The act sets up a series of mechanisms for making healthcare more accessible that includes subsidies in the form of tax credits for participants in newly-created health insurance exchanges.  Said subsidies would be available to households with incomes ranging from 100-400% of the federal poverty level.  The upper end of that range greatly exceeds the average annual income in the U.S. for a family of four. This CBO option would eliminate the subsidies for people making more than 300% of the federal poverty level — meaning above $46,000 annually for an individual and $71,000 for a family of four.  Total savings over ten years: $109 billion.

Well, not going to have to worry about #6 here….they are going to repeal the ACA and only god knows that might replace it…as the GOP hasn’t worked on a replacement in 8 years.  Oh…except to allow insurance companies to sell across state lines (which they already do) and give vouchers for buying insurance…..not much of a choice is there?

Double Dipping….oh yeah!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2013/11/19/how-to-cut-federal-spending-by-a-trillion-dollars-without-sequestration-or-serious-hardship/#6eaeca958c71

Check this out….this should REALLY make the services happy!  (Though I am for this one)

It will never happen though, there will be such an uproar that the GOP would be run out of office.  You usually can’t take something back that you have already given.

4. Eliminate concurrent receipt of retirement and disability benefits by veterans.  Back when compensation levels for the All Volunteer Force were still closely aligned with private-sector labor costs, veterans had to make a choice between receiving retirement pay and compensation for disabilities that were incurred or made worse as a result of military service.  Starting in 2003, policies were changed to allow concurrent receipt of both benefits, without one offsetting the other in determining total compensation.  Under this savings option, CBO proposes that the government revert back to the old system so that “disabled veterans would no longer be compensated twice for their service.”  Without delving into the intricacies of the military benefits system, which are extensive, CBO estimates annual savings from implementing this option would average $14 billion annually after 2020.  Total savings over ten years: $108 billion.

Block Grants to fix the deficit??

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2013/11/19/how-to-cut-federal-spending-by-a-trillion-dollars-without-sequestration-or-serious-hardship/#6eaeca958c71

 Turn poverty programs into block grants for states.  The federal government spends about 5% of its budget on programs designed to improve the income and nutrition of poor people.  Supplemental Nutrition, better known as Food Stamps, costs $83 billion annually; Supplemental Security Income costs $54 billion; targeted child nutrition initiatives such as the National School Lunch Program cost $19 billion.  CBO proposes in this option that such programs be converted from federally-based efforts to block grants for states, and that inflation-adjusted funding (purchasing power) be reduced to that prevailing for each program in 2007 — before the recent recession.  This option reflects the fact that the economy has been recovering for four years, and that states are better at tailoring solutions to local circumstances than Washington is.  Total savings over ten years: $404 billion.

I have a problem with the Republicans continuing to kill food for hungry kids…..that just me?  I don’t understand how giving block grants reduces spending other then by allowing Republican State Legislators to starve people!

Chained CPI-But Defense Expenditures OK

How to cut our budget by one trillion dollars:

Cut Senior programs and give it all to the Defense Dept and Corporations who build bombs and bullets and bombers and nuc subs and destroyers….some trade off huh?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2013/11/19/how-to-cut-federal-spending-by-a-trillion-dollars-without-sequestration-or-serious-hardship/#6eaeca958c71

2.  Use a more accurate inflation measure in computing cost-of-living increases.  Several mandatory programs such as Social Security and Supplemental Nutrition (“Food Stamps”) give recipients annual cost-of-living increases to protect benefits from the ravages of inflation.  However, the Consumer Price Index used to calculate these increases tends to exaggerate the loss of buying power from inflation.  A different index computed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics called “chained CPI” captures the effects of inflation more accurately.  The spread between the two measures is only about 0.25 percentage points annually, but because the mandatory programs are so big, switching to chained CPI to calculate cost-of-living increases would generate substantial savings.  Total savings over ten years: $162 billion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Chained_Consumer_Price_Index

The United States Chained Consumer Price Index (C-CPI-U), also known as chain-weighted CPI or chain-linked CPI is a time series measure of price levels of consumer goods and services created by the Bureau of Labor Statistics as an alternative Consumer Price Index. It is based on the idea that in an inflationary environment, consumers will choose less-expensive substitutes. This reduces the rate of cost of living increases through the reduction of the quality of consumed goods. The “fixed weight” CPI also takes such substitutions into account, but does so through a periodic adjustment of the “basket of goods” that it represents, rather than through a continuous estimation of the declining quality of goods consumed. Application of the chained CPI to federal benefits has been controversially proposed to reduce the federal deficit.

You Ready For This?

How to cut our budget by one trillion dollars:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2013/11/19/how-to-cut-federal-spending-by-a-trillion-dollars-without-sequestration-or-serious-hardship/#6eaeca958c71

1. Adjust Social Security benefits to reflect rising life expectancy.  When Social Security was established, the average man lived for about 12 years after qualifying for full benefits at age 65, and the average woman lived for 13 years.  Today, males typically live 18 years beyond their 65th birthday, and females 20 years.  Because the age at which recipients qualify for full benefits has only been adjusted upward by a couple of years since the program’s inception, people today typically take a lot more money out of the program than their parents did.  CBO suggests two options for savings: increase the threshold for full benefits to age 70 for recipients born after 1975, and increase the number of years in a person’s earnings history used to compute their benefits from 35 to 38 years.  The latter step would include more of a recipient’s early working years in the computation, when wages were lower.  Total TOT +0.33% savings over ten years: $101 billion.

Nothing that I see really wrong with this so long as the life expectancy is taken into account as well as actual cost of living….or maybe just tying it to the congressional salaries!!