Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sully- who wrote (75812)	12/7/2009 2:15:01 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 90947

Shut up, he explained By Scott Power Line In its battle to nationalize health care the Obama administration has done its best to buy off or silence big business. Taking a lesson from the defeat of Hillarycare, the Obama administration has sought to preempt the return of Harry and Louise. This time around, Harry and Louise have returned, but now they support nationalized medicine. Funny how that works. As part of a backroom deal with the White House this past summer the drug industry agreed to "contribute $80 billion over 10 years to the cost of the health care overhaul" and authorized its lobbyists to spend as much as $150 million on television commercials supporting Obamacare. The insurance industry has likewise been pumping millions of dollars into advertising campaigns pushing the Obamacare agenda. The union of big government and big business should set off alarm bells. The man-crush between GE chief executive officer Jeffrey Immelt and Barack Obama deserves a screaming siren unto itself. GE Capital has reaped what Immelt has sown, while taxpayers have footed the bill. Again, funny how that works. With a few exceptions (such as former Clinton Secretary of Labor Robert Reich), the left seems to like the romance between big government and big business just fine. 3M is one corporate giant that is not yet fully on board with the program of nationalized health care on the table in the bills pending before Congress. It recently spelled out its qualms and invited employees to contact their representatives on the subject. Here in its entirety is the email message it sent to 3M employees (the internal links are dead): <<< To: All U.S.-based 3M Employees: Subject: ACT NOW: 3M Call-to-Action on Health Care Reform As you probably know, health care reform is one of the top issues facing our nation. Congress and the Administration are currently debating how best to address concerns such as the uninsured, rising costs and the quality of medical care provided to Americans. No doubt you have seen recent news reports that the U.S. House of Representatives passed its health care reform bill. With passage of a House bill, focus has now shifted to the U.S. Senate: reports indicate they will likely begin debating health care reform legislation immediately. Now is a pivotal time to provide input to U.S. Senators as they review the legislation and decide how to vote on it. 3M has shared its thoughts on health care legislation with dozens of Members of Congress engaged in the reform process. While these comments are welcomed, U.S. Senators also appreciate hearing from constituents directly about how these issues will impact them individually. In an effort to assist you, I am including a document that outlines 3M's position on the issue of health care reform, its potential impact on employees, and the concerns we believe the U.S. Senate must address before we can endorse their work product. The latest edition of "Government Compass" newsletter articulates 3M's concerns as the health care reform debate continues to unfold. Included is a concise explanation of why the health care benefits of 3Mers are at risk under legislation currently moving through the U.S. Congress. Finally, the newsletter summarizes actions 3M believes Congress must take to ensure the health care benefits of our employees, retirees and their dependents are not harmed. Click on link to view the "Government Compass" health care newsletter" >> Link As I've highlighted, 3M believes reform is an important goal. However - and this is a critically important caveat - legislation should not compromise 3M's ability to continue providing the benefits that are today enjoyed by more than 110,000 individuals, including 3M employees, retirees and their dependents. Nor should the reforms increase 3M's net cost of providing coverage for our employees, retirees and their dependents, whether by virtue of increased cost shift from government plans to private plans or by additional taxation on the health care benefits 3M provides or the medical products we sell. That is why we believe now is the time for 3Mers to actively participate in the debate. We invite you to communicate with your respective U.S. Senators and express your thoughts. We have included draft language - which can be found in the following link - to help you prepare an e-mail to your two Senators. However, you should feel free to modify this prepared statement or write a totally new message of your own. Click here to quickly generate automated e-mails to your U.S. senators. Providing for an even better health care system in America is an admirable goal and one which 3M supports. Such a goal, however, should not be achieved by harming currently existing health care plans like 3M's. I hope you will consider contacting your U.S. Senators. And, thank you for your interest in this vitally important issue. Best regards, Angie Angela S. Lalor Senior Vice President 3M Human Resources PS: If you have questions or comments you'd like to share, please send them to the Public Affairs mailbox which can be found in the "reply to" section of this note. >>> 3M is a Minnesota-based company with headquarters in suburban St. Paul. In today's Minneapolis Star Tribune Nick Coleman castigates 3M for opposing Obamacare and for inviting its employees to express their views to their representatives. Coleman does not take issue with the facts asserted in 3M's message or in the related one-page Government Compass newsletter on Obamacare. He asserts only that their accuracy "is debatable." What's the problem with that? "There has been no debate." Good God, man, where have you been? Don't you read the newspapers? Coleman suggests that 3M employees need to take a few days off to study the bills pending before Congress. The whole darn thing is just so complicated. And it's apparently not for Coleman to clear things up. He is content to put up for debate "the responsibility and obligations of Fortune 500 companies in helping make basic health care available and affordable to all." What a contribution to public discourse. On Friday I spoke with 3M spokesman Jacqueline Berry (quoted in Coleman's column) about 3M's communication with employees on Obamacare. Berry expressed great confidence in the ability of 3M's workforce to understand the issues. Indeed, 3M is a company that runs on the work of scientists and engineers. It must have one of the smartest and most highly educated workforces in the country. In any event, Coleman declines to debate 3M's views as stated either in the message or the related Government Compass newsletter. Rather, he invites the company to shut up. Like the drug industry, you might say, Coleman has climbed on board with the Obama administration, but without the industry's incentive or excuse. powerlineblog.com

To: Sully- who wrote (75812)	12/7/2009 2:22:34 PM
From: Jim S	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

I think maybe I should dust off the old sandwich boards that say, "Repent, the end is nigh." <GGG>

To: Sully- who wrote (75812)	12/7/2009 2:26:13 PM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 90947

Climategate -- the Washington Post's take By Paul Power Line This was a big weekend for the Washington Post. In a front-page story today, it exposed, albeit almost sub silentio, the incompetence of the Obama administration's decision-making process with respect to Afghanistan. And in a front-page story yesterday, it reported, for the first time I believe, on Climategate. Why did it take the Post so long to provide an account of Climategate? It seems to me that the authors, David Farhenthold and Juliet Eilperin, reveal the reason when they claim that the "scandal has done what many slide shows and public-service ads could not: focus public attention on the science of a warming planet." It seems so unfair, doesn't it? The left-liberal community, including the Washington Post, has been unable (in its view) to win the hearts and minds of the public on "global warming" through calm reason. And now, a juicy scandal that cuts against the left-liberal position is about to capture the public's imagination. I suppose we should consider ourselves lucky that the Post finally decided to report the scandal at all. That said, the Post's report itself is pretty good, I think. Fahrenthold and Eilperin write: <<< [The emails] don't provide proof that human-caused climate change is a lie or a swindle. But they do raise hard questions. In an effort to control what the public hears, did prominent scientists who link climate change to human behavior try to squelch a back-and-forth that is central to the scientific method? Is the science of global warming messier than they have admitted? >>> For the Post, these may not quite be rhetorical questions. But its report leaves little doubt that the answer to both questions is "yes." The Post suggests that science was the victim of politics. In other words, politicians have demanded more certainty than science can provide, and this created pressure on scientists to fudge results or give short shrift to science they don't like. This is a questionable hypothesis. It seems just as likely that fanatical scientists, with opportunistic politicians as their hand-maidens, have helped create the frenzied political atmosphere that some now blame for the bad science. To me, it's a "chicken or the egg" sort of question that's of little interest. It's worth noting, though, that some politicians have been able to advocate a liberal approach to the climate change issue without denying the scientific uncertainly that surrounds the issue. For example, during the presidential campaign, John McCain argued that the smart policy bet is to resolve uncertainty in favor of the view that man is causing too much global warming. His position was that if we enact legislation on this assumption and the assumption turns out to be correct, then we may be able to avert major problems or even a catastrophe. If the assumption is incorrect, we'll still enjoy the benefits of a better environment. The obvious problem with this analysis is that it doesn't take into account the economic costs of the kind of climate change legislation the left advocates. The higher these costs, the less sanguine we can be about enacting climate control legislation without a high degree of confidence in the science that supports that agenda. Perhaps it is an appreciation of these costs, or more likely an appreciation of their resonance in the public mind, that induces some scientists to engage in propaganda, instead of true science, so as to create undue alarm. The Post's hand-wringing about the public's alleged lack of responsiveness to slide shows and public service ads strikes me as the tip of that iceberg, if you'll excuse the expression. JOHN adds a couple of other thoughts about McCain's position: First, carbon dioxide isn't a pollutant, so it isn't true that even if anthropogenic global warming turns out to be overblown, we've still improved the environment. A higher level of CO2 improves crop yields. Second, if we approach the issue in terms of risk assessment, by far the biggest risk to be averted is catastrophic cooling--the next ice age, which is surely coming and some say is overdue. If we really believe that human and bovine emissions of CO2 and methane tend to warm the planet, we should encourage more of them as an insurance policy against global cooling, which, unlike global warming, actually would devastate human civilization. powerlineblog.com