We should be ashamed for allowing it to get this bad. We need to stand up to Obama and the Democrats on this. We can't excuse Bush or Congressional Republicans, either. Deficit spending to fight wars and plagues and to respond to natural disasters is one thing, but we should not have allowed all of the federal spending that we have. We need to place fiscal responsibility ahead of promises of goodies.

Does Obama or any Congressperson have a legislative proposal that will actually increase the number of medical facilities or medical personnel (doctors, nurses, etc.)? If not, anything they are proposing can only redistribute medical care  - at best. Unless we reduce the number of patients. But how do you do that without reducing the number of potential providers?

So who is using a hospital bed that shouldn't be?

Who is seeing a doctor that shouldn't be?

How are politicians going to change that?

Remember the law of supply and demand?

Seems to me, one way of keeping health care costs in check is by increasing "supply" and this competition - encouraging the construction/expansion of medical facilities, encouraging the development of new medicines, medical technologies, and medical procedures, encouraging more people to go into the medical field.

How does Obamacare do that? Taxation, regulation, and overlitigation tend to kill those things.

How can we discourage people from using an emergency room when they really need some other form of medical care? How can we discourage people from visiting a doctor when they don't need to? Aren't there things that can be handled by, say, nurses that we currently mandate be done by doctors?

Previously: It is the medical pro, not the politician, who gives health care.

This just in: Humankind still made of both males and females. Also: It still takes a man and a woman to make babies.

Alas, the bride+groom combination is still what combines both basic units of society into a legal, social, and spiritual unit and still is the best way to provide children with both a mother and a father, raising them in cooperation.

Here is my analysis of the LATimes.com coverage of NOM's latest actions.

Also, one of the federal lawsuits against DOMA has been rejected in a technicality.

A supermajority of the fifty states still affirm with their licensing that marriage unites the sexes.

Repair California is a group that wants a new state constitution - because they don't think a state with San Francisco is Leftist enough. This editorial from the Los Angeles Times discusses the issue, including quoting Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa (fka Tony Villar):

"A small group of extremists can hold the government hostage,"

Well, sure, if they are all duly elected to office. All it takes is a few dozen of them to be elected.

But who are the extremists? Those who say we ware taxed enough already, or those who want to raise taxes more in an overtaxed state? People who believe parents have the responsibility to raise their own children, or people who think the village should be doing it? People who think that there are men and women, or people who think these are largely artificial social constructs? People who believe the people should decide how marriage licenses are issued, or the people who think that courts should forcefully neuter state marriage licensing?

"I've always believed that term limits are a function of demagoguery."

I don't support term limits. They seem to give lobbyists more power.

"Proposition 13 has been a sacred cow. But you know, it's time to look at Proposition 13."

Tell you what- you can get rid of Prop 13 if you replace it with someone else that will prevent people from being taxed out of their homes and that will keep other taxes from being raised too high.

And why is it that people who bash Prop 13 seem to favor rent control? The government should be able to tax us out of our homes, but landlords should not be able to raise rent as the market will allow? This combination will result in small-time property owners losing their properties.

This whole "California needs a new constitution" business is fueled by two darling Leftist issues:

1) Voter rejection of some tax hikes/extensions.
2) Voter rejection of the state judiciary neutering our marriage licensing.

That's it. Because we voted "YES!" on Proposition 8, and "NO!" more recently on Prop1A, these people say we need a new constitution. Talk about crybabies.

It is interesting that the editorial doesn't mention Citizens For California Reform.  This group may be on to something.

It would also help if we were a Right to Work state.

How about this - you can come up with a new constitution if, at the same time, some of the counties can leave the state. Make secession easier - for counties that want to leave the state, for cities that want to leave a county, and for neighborhoods that want to leave a city.

That way, you can have your high-tax socialism, your lousy public transit, your sanctuary cities, your bloated-from-top-to-bottom state government, your overregulation, your restrictive gun laws, your lenient treatment of criminals, your racial quotas, and your gender confusion social engineering. All of us "extremists" who value masculinity and femininity, economic liberty, a business-friendly environment, protection of citizens, and despise racism will be out of your hair. But then, so will our money, which you just can't allow.

There is a fight in Wisconsin over a domestic partnership law. The state's Attorney General has decided against defending a law passed by the legislature. My comments over at The Opine Editorials.

According to this Los Angeles Times article by Jason Song and Jason Felch, California Governor Schwarzenegger is asking state legislators to adopt education reforms to qualify for some federal funding.

The governor's proposed legislation, to be considered during a special session that ends by Oct. 5, was met almost immediately by criticism from the powerful state teacher unions, which called Schwarzenegger's plans rushed and unnecessary.

The union will oppose anything that will do any of the following:
1) empower parents
2) reward good teachers and punish bad teachers
3) reduce the number of public school teachers, or the planned increase in the number of teachers (= dues payers)
4) make it easier to be a teacher who is not a member of their union, or to not support the union's political activities
5) reduce the ability of a teacher to have the time and energy to do the union's political bidding

The only federal funding there should be for education is for military academies, tuition reimbursement for federal employees, and scholarships for military veterans, so in this case I'd rather the federal funding not go ANYWHERE. In California's case, it would be getting some of our own money back, as we are a "donor state". Regardless of federal funding, we should be doing what's right as far as increasing liberty and encouraging innovation.

Not only should the federal government be out of education, but California’s state government should be out of education as well. The Left, however, will fight that tooth and nail, if for nothing else because this is one way they hope to keep making more Leftists - taxpayer-funded indoctrination and social engineering.

Check out this blog entry at Stand to Reason, including the comments.  And on the move by the ELCA Lutherans.  And here's Duke Helfand's Los Angeles Times article on the move by the ELCA Lutherans.

The national church's presiding bishop, Mark S. Hanson, acknowledged that the change in church policies has caused strains on both sides of the debate and on others who remain undecided.

Even as Hanson described the deliberations over the issue as heartfelt, he appealed directly to those on the losing end. All Lutherans, he said, share a common faith.

He still wants your contributions of money and time, of course.  But there is no common faith if they can't agree on whether or not the Bible is more authoritative than personal feelings.

"It would be tragic if we talked away from one another."

What's tragic is a church abdicating its role of calling sinners to repent.

I don’t maintain that it is easy for someone with homosexual feelings who wants to follow Christ. But this isn't the way to deal with the problems they face.  Ultimately, this isn't the loving thing to do. When I faced a conflict between the Bible and my own sexual desires (the desire to fornicate), the solution wasn't to start a movement to get my church to lie to me and say that fornication was okay.

If the denomination is willing to abandon Biblical authority in this area, will they abandon it in other areas as well? I would think that will be more likely now.

America's largest Lutheran denomination has decided to care to a whiny minority within their ranks, no doubt alienating even more followers of Christ.  Associated Press Writer Patrick Condon has the story.

Under the new policy, individual ELCA congregations will be allowed to hire [people who openly, unrepentantly practice homosexual behavior] as clergy as long as they are in a committed relationships. Until now, gays and lesbians had to remain celibate to serve as clergy.

Why the requirement of a committed relationship?  How is that defined, anyway?

Conservative congregations will not be forced to hire gay clergy.

...Yet.

Nevertheless, opponents of the shift decried what they saw as straying from clear Scriptural direction, and warned it could lead some congregations and individual churchgoers to split off from the ELCA.

Yes, but all that matters is that homosexual behavior is celebrated and esteemed, don't you see?

"This will cause an ever greater loss in members and finances. I can't believe the church I loved and served for 40 years can condone what God condemns," said the Rev. Richard Mahan, pastor at St. Timothy Lutheran Church in Charleston, W.Va. "Nowhere in Scripture does it say homosexuality and same-sex marriage is acceptable to God. Instead, it says it is immoral and perverted."

The Bible, over and over again, teaches that sex is for marriage, and that marriage unites the sexes.  The implications are inescapable.

But ELCA supporters of its change said failure to ratify it ran just as great a risk of alienating large portions of the membership, particularly those from younger generations.

And so are they going to endorse heterosexual fornication for the same reason?  The church is supposed to call people towards godly living, not conform to the ungodly world.

Tim Mumm, a gay man and an assembly delegate from Whitewater, Wis., said the Scripture that guides opponents of the more liberal policy was written by mortals, at a much earlier time, and doesn't reflect what many Christians now believe.

Why should anyone bother to show up are your church when you reject your own Scriptures?  Why not drop the pretense of being a Christian church?

"I believe for me to marry a woman would be wrong - even sinful," Mumm said.

Maybe it would be - but there aren't just two options.

Under the new policy, heterosexual clergy and professional lay workers will still have to abstain from sex outside marriage.

Why?  On what grounds???

I offer my condolences to followers of Christ in the ECLA.

Words mean things.  While there have been various things about marriage that have been different in different cultures, one of the few core elements has remained.  Is it time to go along with changing that essence?  My thoughts are over at The Opine Editorials.

Rebecca Isaacs of Los Angeles, president and chief executive of an organization that dismembers, tortures and slaughters babies, aids and abets destruction of evidence in statutory rape cases, and subverts parental authority over their minor children (Planned Parenthood Los Angeles), wrote in to the Los Angeles Times recently about Obamacare.

And what a surprise!  She wants the federal government to forcefully take money from people to give her more business.

At Planned Parenthood, we see women, men and teens every day who are seeking affordable, high-quality medical care. For 60% of the people we serve, we are their primary source of care and preferred provider of annual cancer screenings, contraception and STD testing and treatment.  Reform must include access to these essential services at providers like Planned Parenthood.

Contraception and STD testing and treatment are "essential services"?

How can that be, when millions of Americans have full, happy, healthy, productive lives without ever using them?

I have a few questions for those who insist that we are morally obligated to provide high quality health care, including preventative health care, via extensive "health insurance", to everyone in our nation, regardless of their ability to pay.

1) Have you personally tried to meet this obligation by volunteering to provide health care to strangers?

2) Have you personally tried to meet this obligation by freely giving your own money to provide health care to strangers?

3) What if everyone who agrees with you did those two things?

4) Do you really believe that using the force of federal government is the only way to meet more of the needs of the sick and injured?


5) Are you generally in favor of legislating morality?

Feel free to use these questions.

I'm generally in favor of that.  I'm also in favor of people keeping private consensual behavior... private.  I don't need to see it on parade.

J. Kelly Strader, a professor of law at Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles, has a commentary in today's Los Angeles Times discussing the impact – or the alleged lack thereof – of the Lawrence vs. Texas decision on laws and court rulings about sexual behavior. The piece starts out mentioning the effort to repeal the California Marriage Amendment, then quickly moves on to Lawrence, maintaining that that there is a "constant threat to our privacy rights."

My analysis is over at The Opine Editorials.


(Blogging note: I will likely not be blogging again for the rest of the day, or at least not until very late in the day.)

Sandy Banks has an edition of her column in the Los Angeles Times in which she talks about the murder of six-year-old Dae'von Bailey, found beaten to death in his South [-Central] Los Angeles home.

In the Los Angeles area recently, there have been several high-profile murders of children who have been on the radar of the county government long before they were killed.

Police believe Dae'von was killed by his mother's former boyfriend, Marcas Fisher. Dae'von was living with Fisher because his 28-year-old mother "was going through things" and parceled out her six children to friends and relatives.

That is important to remember.  His mother chose to associate with this guy.  She chose to leave her child with this guy.  She chose to have children in the first place.

In the months before he died, Dae'von told adults at school that Fisher had punched him in the stomach and slammed his head into a bathroom sink. He repeated the complaints to social workers who interviewed him and to medical professionals who examined him for injuries. But he was sent back twice to his violent home.

However the county authorities screwed up - or not - blame falls primarily on the murderer, but also with the person who left the child in the murderer's "care".

But it wasn't only the system that failed Dae'von. "I place the blame on the shoulders of mother Tylette Davis," a West Hills reader wrote in a letter published in The Times. "She chose to have these children, then she chose to abandon them and leave their care to others. I have trouble feeling any pain for Tylette."

The sick joke about the whole thing is that she'll probably sue the county and walk way with six or seven or even eight figures from the taxpayers.

County Supervisor Gloria Molina expressed much the same sentiment at a board meeting last month -- interrupting a speaker's monologue about the "gigantic, enormous problem that's within the system that needs to be rectified."

"Parenting services . . . bus tokens, housing assistance, mental health counseling . . . and constant supervision to maintain her house," Molina said, reading from the list of public services that had been provided to Tylette Davis since before Dae'von was born.

"You need to go back and sit down with this mommy and tell her she has other children to take care of. She has to get her house in order . . . deal with her issues," Molina said.

Kudos to Molina.  Molina is the first person to blame county staff when they drop the ball, so these comments should not be taken lightly.  The county had been involved and providing assistance.  But there's only so much the county government can - or should - do.  People show up to yell at the County Board of Supervisors, but what are they doing about people in their own family - their friends - their neighbors?

The columnist checks in with the victim's grandmother...

Her daughter Tylette is not a bad mother, "just spoiled," she said.

This is from a woman who had her own children taken away temporarily.  It Tylette isn't a bad mother, I don't know what a bad mother is.

She had her first baby at 14, and five more by the time she was 23.

Now there’s good motherly planning.  Of course, any pregnancy she had before age 18 was evidence of statutory rape committed against her.  Was that ever pursued?

If only we had...
...the freedom to say "no" to intercourse.
...a dozen different forms of contraception.
..."safe" and legal abortion on demand.
...safe-surrender laws.
...various forms of adoption.
...domestic violence programs and shelters...

...stuff like this wouldn’t happen!

The man accused of killing Dae'von was the father of Tylette's youngest child "and the only daddy Dae-Dae ever knew," Dotson-Davis said. "He raised that child from when he was a baby. My daughter never thought he would bring that boy harm."

Your daughter isn’t very perceptive.  This kind of thing is all too common, despite the fact that there are decent stepfathers out there.

She ticks off the things her daughter has to do to get custody of her kids:

Get treatment for addiction. Find a place to live. Come up with a way to support them. Make sure the children get counseling. And, finally, pass those parenting classes.

How about telling other people in the community to avoid this problem by:
1) Staying in school.
2) Going to church.
3) Reading (there are public libraries, if nothing else).
4) Taking up a hobby, sport, instrument, whatever.
5) Avoiding crime.
6) Avoiding substance abuse.
7) Avoiding criminals, substance abusers, and people abusers.
8) Avoiding intercourse until marriage.
9) Getting a job and sticking with it, only quitting when one has secured a better job to replace it. (This will be easier if the previous steps are followed.)
10) Not spending more money than they bring in.

If people follow those steps, situations like the one in this story will be avoided. Dae'von Bailey didn’t have to die.

People living in the Los Angeles Unified School District, in addition to federal income taxes and gasoline taxes, are paying state income and gas taxes, utility taxes, a sales tax just shy of 10%, and property taxes... and various other fees and assessments.  Now, the LAUSD wants to sharply raise their property taxes.  Howard Blume has the Los Angeles Times article.

The district is allowed to raise taxes under little-known legal protections for bond holders. In essence, if revenues from property taxes can't cover installment payments for bond debt, L.A. Unified can raise tax rates, even if they rise above past projections.

The current rate is about $123 per $100,000 of assessed value. That's actually lower than the original projections, but the good news ends there.

Officials wouldn't reveal estimates for next year but, when pressed, said they expected rates above $200 by 2012. In an interview, L.A. schools Supt. Ramon C. Cortines mentioned a rate of $207, though he didn't specify the year.

For a home worth the current Los Angeles County median assessed value of $325,300, the difference, using Cortines' figure, would be about $275. For a $700,000 home, the rise would probably exceed $550, for a total bond tax bill of about $1,450.

Drip... drip... drip...

Under the $20.1-billion construction program, 80 new schools have been built, with 51 more on the way, and thousands of others have been repaired and modernized.

Guess what, though?  Enrollment is down.

The increasing tax rates could also spell trouble for L.A. Unified's nascent effort to put a different kind of property tax before voters. A parcel tax could be used to pay for ongoing expenses, such as teacher salaries, but it must be approved by a two-thirds margin.

More money!

For future construction projects, officials have time to figure out alternative funding sources, said Guy Mehula, chief facilities executive. The options include arranging for builders or banks to front the money. The district would repay them with interest.

Where are they going to get the repayment money?

A year ago, officials used a rosy forecast to justify Measure Q, the school system's fifth bond issue since 1997. An analysis projected that property assessments would grow an average of 6% a year. Experts characterized that as conservative.
...
The district's analysis failed to adequately consider the possibility of a real estate downturn, even though fewer than 20 years have passed since the prior downturn and history suggests that changes in home values are cyclical.

Whoops.  Keep in mind that there are very few schools in the LAUSD that I find usable.

Public education - it just gets more and more expensive.  Is there a lesson there when it comes to public health care?

Here's today's update on the Lutherans.  Duke Helfand of the Los Angeles Times has the article.

Leaders of the 4.7-million-member Evangelical Lutheran Church in America are expected to decide during their weeklong Churchwide Assembly in Minneapolis whether to alter existing policy, which requires gays and lesbians in ministry to remain celibate.

This can’t be right.  Surely they allow someone who has previously identified as homosexual to enter into holy matrinony, and thus not have to remain celibate?

The new policy would permit local congregations, if they wanted, to choose ministers or lay leaders who were in "lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships."

And how is anyone supposed to know if it is a lifelong, or monogamous relationships?  Even if they are, if there is pseudosexual behavior taking place, the church should not be condoning it in leadership.

Similar efforts to change the policy have failed five times over the last 12 years, according to church analysts.

But they'll keep trying.  Let’s face it - most of us get married at some point in life, and most of us have children.  These things take a lot of time, money, and energy.  We can't devote as much time to getting churches to endorse our sins.

The governing body's 1,045 voting members also will consider a long-anticipated social statement on human sexuality that, among various things, identifies marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Such statements are intended to guide church policy. Heterosexual clergy are allowed to have sex only within marriage.

Interesting.  What would that all mean, exactly?  That a man and woman couldn't claim to be in "lifelong, monogamous" relationships and thus get these positions, without being married?

Advocates of change in the Lutheran denomination argue that their church has a responsibility to accept all its members equally.

Since when does accepting all members equally mean condoning open, ongoing sin?  My church accepts all people equally - and calls all of us to repent of our sins, whatever they may be.  If a leader messes around with someone other than his wife, church leadership doesn't say, "Hey, it is time to get with it and accept that people have these feelings."  It boots him until he repents and is restored.

"We fully believe the church will be a better place and a better student for its mission if it is fully inclusive," said Phil Soucy, a spokesman for Goodsoil, a coalition of gay rights groups in the church. "Christ did not discriminate."

Christ certainly discriminated, rightly and justly.  He still does.

But those who favor traditional Lutheran positions on marriage believe the proposed policy reflects cultural norms rather than the word of God.

Exactly.  What is the point of having a church that mirrors the culture? You can join clubs and charities instead.  The church is there to worship God, make disciples, and serve the needy, thus transforming culture as He transforms the believer.

Related is my analysis of today's news on Obama's take on DOMA, over at The Opine Editorials.