Is Grandma Safe? - Growing Nursing Home Deficiencies

A representative from GAO was speaking on C-SPAN this morning on a congressional report released this month on the effectiveness of Nursing Home monitoring. And guess what? The final conclusion was:

Federal Monitoring Surveys Demonstrate Continued Understatement of Serious Care Problems and CMS Oversight Weaknesses.

As a Marketing major, surveys are one of my most sacred tools to capture accurate information. It is because of this that I am astonished by the GAO’s recommendations on how to correct the survey’s flaws in administering the surveys. The recent Executive Action was issued:

- Executive Action -

To address weaknesses in CMS’s management of the federal monitoring survey database that also affect the agency’s ability to effectively track understatement, we recommend that the Administrator of CMS take the following actions:

• Require regional offices to determine if there was understatement when state surveyors cite a deficiency at a lower scope and severity level than federal surveyors do and to track this information in the federal monitoring survey database.

• Establish quality controls to improve the accuracy and reliability of information entered into the federal monitoring survey database.

To address weaknesses that affect CMS’s ability to oversee regional office implementation of the federal monitoring survey program, we recommend that the Administrator of CMS take the following two actions:

• Routinely examine comparative survey data and hold regional offices accountable for implementing CMS guidance that is intended to ensure that comparative surveys more accurately capture the conditions at the time of the state survey.

• Regularly analyze and compare federal comparative and observational survey results.

While these recommendations would improve the processing and analytical side of surveys, it does not address the root of the problem. The root problem is that Monitoring surveys are skewed to a point where they are not getting an accurate reflection of the care given in nursing homes. The way these surveys are currently done, gives the nursing homes advanced knowledge on inspections. It is universally acknowledged that if a person, business, or corporation is given notice prior to inspections, the survey will be skewed. The survey will not reflect day to day actives of the nursing home’s care, but instead show a higher level of care created by the institution to pass inspection. Without changing the manor in which the surveys and inspections are conducted, by creating a more spontaneous environment, changing the processing and analytical side of the surveys will do little to improve the reliability and accuracy of the surveys.

It’s a Hurricane! Quick, Check Everyone’s Citizenship!

U.S. Customs and Border Protection has announced that during storm and hurricane evacuations from the Rio Grand Valley region they will be performing citizenship checks on individuals; both of people boarding evacuation buses and those fleeing via inland traffic – they plan to set up traffic checkpoints on all major evacuation routes.

Yes, you read that right. During an emergency evacuation, where people are fleeing for their lives, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers are going to be running citizenship checks. They will be slowing down the already pitifully inefficient evacuation system by checking all people boarding buses and stopping cars and traffic at evacuation route checkpoints. What do they plan to do with those whom cannot show legal documentation you ask? They will be put on separate buses and in separate areas to be shipped off to ‘detention camps’ – yes, very Nazi-esque if you ask me.

Here’s what’s interesting, this policy assumes that all people running, evacuating, and fleeing for their lives will be carrying with them proper documentation and identification – everyone from children up to your 98 year old grandmother. How likely is it that in an emergency evacuation all people will be carrying this information? I’d imagine it’s not very likely. Logistics of carrying paperwork aside, let’s consider the basic logistics of the evacuation. Evacuations already take substantial amounts of time; now add to it checking citizenship of each person, stopping individuals boarding buses, stopping cars, questioning people, arguing with people and so on. The logistics do not add up. This policy is likely to cause far more harm than any good.

Let’s also consider something else. If individuals fear U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and let’s face it both legal and illegal immigrants are beginning to fear them today, they are far less likely to attempt to evacuate a storm zone. This policy is going to cause hard, it will endanger lives. Whether legal or illegal people are still people and they should not be threatened when they are seeking help. This new policy by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection will not stop illegal immigration, it will likely hurt and kill many people; those left behind who did not want to chance ‘border troubles’ will suffer. The people and their safety, and security should be priority in an emergency evacuation, hands down. Whether or not someone is a citizen is no reason to slow the process or cause further detriment.

This policy is completely un-American and it is racist. It puts people in danger and is a humanitarian crisis in the making.

Interesting Houston Chronicle article here.

Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door. - The Statue of Liberty

Foreca$t thi$, $peculate that…

Oil, oil, oil, that is all we hear about in the news every day, nonstop. Well guess what happened today in the world of oil? The King of Saudi Arabia told President Bush he would not increase oil production because he did not think the price justified it………………………………

Wait a second here, did my ears hear this right? The price did not justify it….. Easy words coming from the person who gets free oil and the profits from the sale while our troops sit in his country keeping those who would like to cut his head off at bay. Yet, I also remember a nice little thing OPEC said not even 10 years ago when I was 16 and paying $0.99 a gallon to fill the tank on my first car. They thought $20-$30 a barrel was fair!!! In addition, when it hit the mid $40’s for the first time they all went scrambling to produce more to keep it low because they thought it would drive “down” consumption. Now they have realized this isn’t the case. The dealer has realized the addiction and doesn’t care what the prices do anymore, or about their users, because they know there are new addicts waiting to take our place (China, India, etc)…

But wait; have we not invited this upon ourselves? When I say this, I do not mean the war or any other political views. The excuse that this is a sign that out providers don’t care if we have to sell our first born too fill up our vehicle isn’t it either, and the drive for alternative sources I will save for another post. I am talking about the speculators and forecasters.

Today, Goldman Sachs, the best forecasting company in the world some would argue (considering they are the only ones who bet on the right side of the sub-prime crisis) forecasted oil at $150-$200 a barrel. That’s right $150-$200. Then guess what the market did? It shot up over $2.00 a barrel to an all time high of $126.xx after the announcement. Don’t get me wrong but let’s see, everyone says there is ample oil in the market to produce everything we want to produce, even with China and India, Brazil discovers one of the largest oil deposits in history, and we let the speculators loose on the prices over little things like a pipeline burst that will be fixed within a week or a fire that will close a platform in the gulf for 2 weeks. Everyone knows 20%-30% of the current price at least is from speculators and this forecast does not help. Once you forecast something, it gives the market an excuse for it to happen or produce that result. Now when it hits $130, $140, and $190 everyone will just shrug their shoulders and be like, “It was expected, Goldman Sachs predicted it.” Until today, everyday was a guessing game, could it hit a new record or not. Goldman just set a new bulls-eye on the record price, $150-$200…

Shame on you Goldman, Shame…..

Till Death Do US Part

Today we saw gay marriage legal in California. I am not going to go into the debate upon this decision itself as it would go nowhere. So I would like to offer my solution to the gay and straight marriage problem. My understanding is that marriage is a religious invention, not the governments. The objections people have to gay marriage are about morals and beliefs. Therefore it belongs in the religious community, not the government. Given we have separation of church and state in our country I believe that is how we should view marriage.

Starting tomorrow the USA government should no longer recognize new marriages and treat existing ones with a grandfathered legal exception. If you want to get married, go to church, and if they will not marry you because of your orientation, start your own legitimate church and make a fortune marrying gay couples.

The government should develop their own union to replace the legal definition of marriage which everyone falls under, straight, gay, etc… They can even come up with a new catchy word or title for it like, “Certified USDA Union.” Think about it, you get married in church and then go to the court house and get a government produced marriage license saying you are legally married which entitles you to the benefits of marriage. These benefits are not given or paid by the church, but by the state. So why do we let the church set the definition of marriage or what the government should recognize or pay?

All I am saying is if you want to get married go to church. If you want a legal union with all the government benefits and everything else that comes with it, no matter who you are or who you are marrying, go to the court house and get a union.

Regulations: Trucking, Shipping, and Electronic On-Board Recorders

In today’s motor carrier industry, driver fatigue is one of the biggest reasons for carrier accidents. Because of pressure from shippers, truckers are encouraged to drive for longer periods of time in order to stay on schedule. The hours of service rule imposed on the motor carrier industry by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is structured in a way to discourage these extended driving periods. However, this has resulted in drivers altering their logbooks to avoid being in violation of their hours of service regulations and paying fines.

The Pre-2003 HOS regulation rules required only 8 hours of being off-duty before allowing 10 hours of driving time and prohibited driving after 15 hours of being on-duty. The truckers could also drive for only 60 hours in 7 consecutive days or 70 hours in 8 consecutive days. These rules were a bit more flexible because any time that the driver took off-duty during the work shift it did not count towards his 15-hour limit. One driver, by the name of Charles, misses this particular freedom because it allowed the drivers to take naps, breaks, or participate in other activities they needed to accomplish without an excess amount of pressure. This was especially convenient for the truckers, because if they arrived at a shipper who took a particularly long time getting the shipment onto the truck, the driver would have the flexibility to drive the whole 10 hours even if the loading and unloading time took longer than expected. Of course, the drivers may not have been resting during these off-duty times and, as a result, were still fatigued. These type of situations resulted in changes in 2003.

The current regulations set up by the HOS rule in 2003, became stricter with hopes that by allowing less freedom, driver fatigue would be reduced. These new rules kept the 60/70 hour restrictions in the 7/8 day period, while changing two things. Firstly, they created a “restart” for the 60/70 hours if a driver took a consecutive 34 hours off. This was believed to allow truckers more freedom to tailor their schedules to their business requirements. Secondly, they increased the driving time to 11 hours, believing that this allowed most drivers to make it back home, or to a destination where they would be able to quit driving. However, the total on-duty time was reduced to 14 hours. This left a total of 3 hours for loading and unloading of the trucker’s loads. These new driving restrictions also did not allow drivers to “stop the clock” while on duty, therefore if loading and unloading took longer than 3 hours, the trucker’s driving time would be reduced. Most of the drivers admitted to adjusting their logbooks in order to make up for time lost in the loading and unloading processes.

Because of these illegal adjustments, the FMCSR would like to mandate the use of electronic on-board recorders for drivers with poor safety records, while providing additional incentives for those who will switch voluntarily. In theory, these logbooks would be tamper-proof while forcing drivers to adhere to the HOS restrictions and save time by no longer using the paper log. There are beliefs that the requirement for EOBR’s could eventually be industry wide. However, there is some concern for this mandate because the EOBR is installed at the cost of the truck owner. This will create higher driving expenses and shipping costs which will ultimately reach the end consumer. Also, if the EOBR’s are not required for everyone at the same time there will be an uneven responsibility for drivers in terms of costs, not only owner operators but also motor carrier companies. This will force some to leave the already-short-handed trucking industry.

When speaking with the truckers, most agreed that some type of hours of service regulations were needed to encourage safety and reduce driver fatigue. However, they do not believe that the current HOS rules are fair or productive to the industry. Even more believe that the enforcement of an EOBR would just lead to more stress and aggravation. Few thought that the EOBR would be used correctly and a few saw it as an invasion of privacy for someone to know what they are doing at all times. Like with most situations, people will try to manipulate the system to work for them. So unless the EOBRs can be made tamper-proof, drivers believe that most carriers will find ways to cheat on their hours of service. Most also concluded that completely tamper-proof EOBRs would be a long time in creating.

Also, a main issue the truckers pointed out was that there are not enough rest stops to accommodate the trucking industry. For example, a long haul driver may come to the end of their 11 hours of driving, and not be in an area where they may stop or cannot find a parking spot, leading to illegal adjustments of their log books. With an EOBR, drivers would be put in the situation of continuing to drive to find a place to stop, exceeding their hours and facing fines, or stopping in an area which may be unsafe or unsuited to accommodate the truckers. Ultimately, the EOBR would lead to an increase in driver’s hours of service violations because inputs are updated automatically. So because the drivers’ logs are recorded in real time there is less opportunity to behave illegally but less flexibility if in a situation as previously stated.

If EOBRs were used without first solving this parking issue, the drivers could potentially be fined every time they exceed their hours of service. All this accomplishes is adding insult to injury. Therefore it would be my recommendation to the FMCSA that the EOBR rule not be adopted. Instead I would suggest a study be conducted to identify major trucking routes, the volume of trucks, and estimate how many rest stops and trucking spots are needed to ensure that the carrier industry is able to adhere to its rules. Another option would be to change the hour of service laws so that they are more flexible to fit the motor carrier industry. Only after trucks are logistically able to adhere to hours of service rule should the EOBR rule be considered.

reason.tv: “Living Large - America’s Middle Class”

Check out this great reason.tv spot on the middle class in America.

In the Bag? Not my vote!!!

Today I was asked who I was voting for this fall by a fellow student here in London and I responded with, “I have not decided yet, it is way too early to decide.” He then started to say I must be a McCain supporter because Obama is going to win and I don’t want to admit it. It amazes me the average European’s ignorance in American politics given how much they discuss them ALL THE TIME. Granted I can’t say the average American could tell you how many members the EU has either… Yet Americans don’t think European politics is their business, funny how this is not returned. Nobody I know here in London has watched a debate, nobody knows their voting histories, and nobody could even tell you where they stand on most issues (except Iraq). That seems to be the only issue Europeans care about, is Iraq, and getting the Americans out…

So let me give my current opinion on the three candidates since I apparently am hiding my true colors. Keep in mind I have watched all televised debates of both parties and read the news pages daily to stay informed.

Clinton: I would vote for her yet she has a very liberal voting record and is a pusher for big government and universal healthcare. I give her credit for saying how her healthcare system would work and naming the $900 credit which is hidden in all plans to cover uninsured Americans which should help. She is also very direct and will name the taxes she will raise and to what levels. She says she would start pulling troops out of Iraq, yet if you really listen she says she would be more engaged in Afghanistan and Pakistan… That means more troops going there!!!

Clinton would be a contender for my vote in the fall.

Obama: I do have a personal issue with him and it comes down to selling himself as something he is not. He has one of the most liberal voting records in the history of the senate. Yet he claims he will reach across to the Republicans, funny; he has never done it in the past, so why would he start now? He also will not name the taxes he will raise or to what levels. He says he will raise income tax on people making more than $200,000 a year, but he will not say the amount of the increase and he will also not say if he would raise the Social Security Tax on people making more than $97,000 a year. Another thing that really bothers me and sorry for not being as easily convinced as everyone else seems to be, change, change, change… It is all I have heard come from his mouth. What is he going to change? He does not name what he is going to change as Clinton has pointed out a million times and when asked he gives a nice general all around good feeling answer, yet does not address the question. Don’t forget, you need the House and Senate to make change and they are even asking what he means by change. I am sorry, but I like most Americans do not like substantial change, let alone unknown change with an office for 4 years. He like Clinton are the same page with Iraq, he would pull troops out as well and be more engaged in Afghanistan and Pakistan. So again, the troops would just be trading one home for another…

Obama could have my vote, yet he really needs to start explaining what he will really do, and explain in detail what this change stuff consist of…

McCain: I wanted McCain in 2000 and thought he could have clinched the nominated in 2004 had he ran, but he did not. He is a hard case to figure out these days. He does have one of, if not the best record of voting across with democrats and creating legislation with them. This means a lot to me because I think a compromising President, House, and Senate is what we need to get things done right now on issues that really affect us. McCain had my vote at the beginning of this race yet has lost it into the open sky. He has now decided to lean far too right for me trying to secure right wing votes on many issues. This makes a centrist such as myself very worrisome. He is losing the independents that have loved him for years. McCain also has a healthcare plan, yet is done with a massive tax credit which I just don’t see how it will work to be honest. I don’t think it would pass either… McCain has lined out his tax ideas for a fairer flatter tax system which I like. On the issue of Iraq, one has to keep in mind he has been right since the start in regards to saying how it would end and he proposed the surge months in advance and was cut down by his own party. This shows he has the backbone to step away from his party when needed. This I like!!! He also was in the military and a prisoner of war. He knows what he is getting our soldiers into when he gives an order for an operation. Yet he says he will stay in Iraq till it is finished and we will have a permanent base their as in Germany or Korea. I do agree we need to clean up our mess, yet I am not big on overseas bases which just eat tax payer’s money…

McCain could gain my vote back, yet he needs to show what he is willing to do to compromise and lead our country, not play to the right.

I guess what I am saying is, “I am still undecided as I think most Americans are, so don’t think one candidate has this in the bag. There are still over 6 months to go and many debates to outline the future. I would say to all, listen to what they say about the economy, jobs, education, healthcare, taxes, free trade, NAFTA, the military, the future, millions of other/small issues, and ask yourself if this is the America you want and the person I see leading me there!!!”

A McCain Idea Anyone Can Get Along With!

Sen. John McCain has stated that as president he would like to change a few ‘things’, one of these things is accountability. McCain recently announced that he would like to see the US learn from the British. In the UK, the Prime Minister goes before the House of Commons on a regular basis to face questions, address concerns, accusations and so forth. Senator McCain would like to see the same type of functions here, before the US House and Senate. McCain stated:

I will ask Congress to grant me the privilege of coming before both houses to take questions, and address criticism, much the same as the prime minister of Great Britain appears regularly before the House of Commons.

This would be an excellent and much needed change in communication and accountability between the branches of government. Three cheers to McCain for suggesting it! McCain also stated; “When we make errors, I will confess them readily, and explain what we intend to do to correct them.” Such a change would be wonderful and is a non-partisan approach to government accountability and simple reforms.

Hopefully Obama will follow this example and promise the same type of action; for this is a needed change in the current system, no matter who is elected to be our next president.

Reuters article here.

CU-Boulder: Apply Within - Professor of Conservative Thought

Yes… the overly liberal and proud University of Colorado at Bolder is seeking to hire a new faculty member. Not just your normal or traditional college faculty member however; especially not the norm for CU-Bolder. The school is seeking to hire a Chair and Professor of Conservative Thought and Policy. That’s right - ‘conservative thought and policy’ - whatever that truly means. The university Chancellor, in his attempt to balance the school and present a rounded academic environment has come up with this rather different idea and approach and he plans to raise $9 million to create this new endowed position over the next year.

This is certainly an interesting approach and twist on academic hiring; especially for a campus where a pro-marijuana rally recently hosted over 10,000 individuals, protest rallies are the equivalent of a typical night-out-on-the-town, 9/11 conspiracies are birthed and shared, and “according to one professor’s analysis of voter registration, the 800-strong faculty includes just 32 Republicans”. Interestingly enough; the liberal faculty at CU are declaring this move to be to bold, and “radical”. That’s right, one of the most liberal (arguably radical itself) campuses in the county thinks a professor of conservative thought (just one person mind you) is too radical of an idea. It’s all a matter of opinion and radical or not, it’s a weak argument against the position. While the concept of radicalism is certainly not a logical or rational argument against the position; there are others that stand out in my mind. While I believe balanced academia is important, and shifts should be made so that all ideas can be equally shared in the university setting, I do not believe a position of this nature is the proper approach.

One must consider what truly falls under the umbrella of ‘conservative thought and policy’. Such a term is overly vague. ‘Conservative’ has so many meanings to so many people. A conservative here is different than another over there. What or who will determine what is and is not a conservative though, policy, or ideal? Who would make that call? Would this amazing new professor get to decide? What is his conservatism? What if his conservatism is not the conservatism of another? Will he be biased to social conservatism, economic conservatism, international conservatism and policy, domestic, etc - and what do all of those truly mean? Is it right to place so much in the hands of one? If a single person is set up and “branded” as ‘the conservative’ it will likely damage conservative thought and policy; not expand, educate, or inform. Simply bestowing someone with this title and position, unheard of on college campuses or elsewhere is inappropriate and solves nothing. If anything, it creates further problem as disputes over what truly constitutes the broad umbrella of conservative thought and policy; and I highly doubt many would allow CU-Bolder to determine what is constituted as conservative and what is not. Also, the university is content on hiring anyone for this position. They state that the person need not be ‘conservative’ (again - what ever that truly means). How is a non conservative going to establish an academic study of conservatives any better than a conservative? This returns us to many of the same concerns I mentioned above.

To broaden and expand the ideas shared on campus you have to have professors that are dynamic and are willing to engage in multiple areas of thought. The problem is not that too many professors are too liberal on campuses across the county; for they have that right. The problem is their unwillingness to discuss and debate all matters of thought, their inability to teach all sides of a topic, and their discontent for students that think in ways different from their own. The lack of respect by college professors to students and other professors not in line with their views is astronomical, and is of real concern to academic balancing and education in general. Special positions will not fix the problems. Accountable professors dedicated to education will. We need educators, not issue advocates in our universities. Professors must teach and educate, that is their priority and responsibility as a university professor. They can be issue advocates off-the-clock and outside of the class room. If they do not like it that way - they should look elsewhere for employment.

CU-Boulder; hire true educators and your balancing problem will correct itself.

Interesting Wall Street Journal article here.

Will Nebraska Be the Next State to Abolish the Death Penalty?

A recent court decision in the Nebraska Supreme Court has essentially banned the practice of capital punishment within the state. The court has declared the electric chair to be unconstitutional. The court’s decision rules that the electric chair is a form of torture and thus has no place in the modern legal system. This decision, for all practice purposes, bans putting convicted criminals to death in Nebraska. The only, or only formerly legal method to carry out the sentence of death in the state was via the electric chair. Now that is no longer the case. So, will the state legislature fully eliminate the death sentence from the books? It is possible - but it will be a bumpy road.

Last year a measure to eliminate the death penalty was defeated by only one legislative vote. The bill, created by State Sen. Ernie Chambers would have specifically alloted only two legal sentences for first-degree murder offenses; “life in prison or life in prison without the possibility of parole”. The bill has been reintroduced as LB1063 and given the circumstances has no reason to fail again. However, even if the bill passes the unicameral, Nebraska State Governor Dave Heineman plans to veto the bill; requiring a legislative override with a super majority. Recent measurements show that;

Nebraskans are sharply split over the death penalty, with 51 percent in a 2007 Nebraskans Against the Death Penalty poll favoring repeal if accompanied by a sentence of life without parole and restitution to the victim’s estate. (Journal Star)

With the majority of the state favoring the legislation is it wise for the governor to disapprove? Of course not. Recent scientific advances through DNA testing and other investigative means have lead to the freeing of many innocent individuals siting on death row. In fact evidence has even cleared the names of many who were already killed through the death penalty; innocent lives lost through a faulty justice system. Is this margin of error acceptable? Is any margin of error acceptable? Should murder by the state ‘right’ another murder? Absolutely not! Beyond the high risk to faulty decision making we should also consider that the death penalty shows no evidence of being a deterrent from violent crime. The punishment does not truly punish, it does not deter and it does not provide true justice. What does it do for society? Nothing. It should simply not exist. Death is not the responsibility of the state; period.

Gov. Heineman has no reason to veto a bill that would fix a flaw in the American justice system. The legislature in Nebraska, and the governor alike must take this opportunity to correct the mistake that is the death penalty. Not simply because it is torture, not because specific approaches are inhumane, for there is no humane way to kill someone - but because life is an essential individual right. The responsibility of government is to protect that right of each individual - not destroy it.

See also, my past posting on the Death Penalty and Human Rights

Lincoln Journal Star Editorial here.

Renegotiate NAFTA? I thought suicide was illegal…

For my first post here at the Skittzo I want to address an issue that is sure to be a HUGE political debate this fall no matter who wins the Democratic nomination. That issue is the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Both Clinton and Obama have said they would call for the trade agreement’s renegotiation with partners Canada and Mexico. This would be a huge disaster given the current standing of the United States economy and dependence on oil. I will address this issue in two sections.

First, let’s look past all the ups and downs of NAFTA which groups argue about and understand the democratic justification for the renegotiation of NAFTA. These justifications are bringing jobs back to the USA and mandating workers rights in Mexico. Bringing jobs back to the USA will not happen if you renegotiate NAFTA!!! Those jobs are gone….. The average auto worker in the USA today still averages over $20.00 an hour, some say closer to $25.00. You will never be able to negotiate that salary up in Mexico or down in the USA with the unions to justify the auto makers to build in the USA again. Also, if you take jobs away from Mexico, do you know where those people look for new jobs? Here is a hint, it is not south of the Rio Grande.

The other argument is to mandate worker’s rights in Mexico. This wonderful scheme is sold to the general public as helping workers around the world by mandating their employers provide the same working conditions that exist in the USA. We see this same thing in international trade conferences as well. This has nothing to do with workers conditions!!! It is protectionism hiding in the skin of a helping hand. This is an attempt to mandate significant social and economic changes upon a government and system that can’t afford it (I.E. Mexico). This would cost Mexico and Its employer’s money they don’t have and would therefore force them to significantly raise their manufacturing prices. The unions hope this would make the price difference in production abroad so little that there would be no reason to leave the USA. It’s plain despicable trying to sell worker’s rights on the surface while trying to save yourself underneath.

Second, let’s look at my main argument even if you don’t agree with my first. One word OIL!!! Little do people know the USA gets a large amount of its oil from our NAFTA partners. USA’s #1 provider of oil is Canada with 1.7 million barrels a day, #2 Saudi Arabia at 1.5 million barrels a day, and #3 Mexico with 1.2 million barrels a day. Now one must understand that Oil falls under Chapter 6 of NAFTA: “Energy and Basic Petrochemicals.” (Article 604 explicitly prohibits NAFTA members from imposing any export tax or duty on the sale of energy or petrochemical products, unless the same tax is placed on all NAFTA members, including the exporting party). In other words, oil from Canada and Mexico, two of our top providers comes to us duty free/tax free/tariff free whatever you want to call it.

Imagine if the USA pulled out of NAFTA under Clinton or Obama; imagine what taxes Canada and Mexico could impose upon exporting oil per barrel and in addition you know the government of the USA would add on their own tax to make additional revenue. I can see the speculators now running the price up another $10.00+ a barrel. This would literally be an example of what some call stuck between a rock and a hard place with Canada being the rock and Mexico being the hard place. Prime Minister Stephen Harper himself said at the last NAFTA trade summit a few weeks ago, he would be open to a renegotiation if it was requested by the next president primarily because he said, “Canada stands in a good position.” Truth is he is 100% right. The USA would be the losing party in any renegotiations just because oil would be held over the head of the USA every time. One more reason for an oil independent America…

Clinton’s West Virginia

Yes it’s true - Clinton is leading heavily in West Virginia; and she is so very proud of herself! But should she be?

Even winning WV will not give Clinton the nomination. Mathematically she has lost. Yet, she continues to waist money, time, and energy in WV and on the election in general. On top of that she is destroying her own party. When asked of them, WV Democrats supporting Clinton say in a general election they will vote McCain if Obama is the party candidate. Shouldn’t Clinton, a democrat, want her party to be placed above over her own agenda - seeking democratic cohesion; especially when she has no chance of winning? Apparently not.

Clinton is continuing to destroy her party and allowing her WV supporters to do the same. In fact, she is happy to allow her supporters to vote for her knowing the party is falling apart, knowing they are uninformed about the truth, and knowing they are voting for her - not because of the issues - but because she is not Obama. A Clinton supporter indicated his support for Clinton by stating; “I heard that Obama is a Muslim and his wife’s an atheist” (FYI: he isn’t and she isn’t either… and does it matter?!).

Oh yes… Clinton should be so proud of her ill informed supporters, of her prejudiced backers, and her personal destruction of the democratic party.

HILLARY CLINTON - DROP OUT ALREADY!

Interesting Financial Times article here.