Jamesb101.com

commentary on Politics and a little bit of everything else

Open Thread for the last day of the year…Decemeber 31….2009….

The last day of the year…a good day…to refelcet, and to giddy up along……

Subscribe.….. you Dog friends!…….

Advertisements

December 30, 2009 Posted by | Open thread | | 53 Comments

Rush Lambaugh rushed to the hospital…..complaining of chest pains…..

Hope he’s alright…….

He maybe a knucklehead…but I wish the best for him…..

He’s in Hawaii…..

December 30, 2009 Posted by | Breaking News, Health, Media, Men, Politics, Updates | , | 4 Comments

Mariah Carey may star as Vanessa Hudgens mother in a movie?

Wow…..Mariah Carey is only 39 years old…and Hudgens ia only 19……I mean ……that would be entirely possible……

Mariah better do a good job…another ‘Glitter ‘and she’s had it……

Say…is she gonna have a kid?…..( I know that is sexist, but is she gonna have a kid?…for real?….JLo had twins……)

December 30, 2009 Posted by | Entertainment, Family, Media, Movies, Women | , , , , | Leave a comment

Tiger Woods seen with Rachel Uchitel…..

I stopped writing about the ‘brother’….but I told my wife he’s gonna end up with Rachel….

I hate to go there…… but remember Prince Charles of England?

Update:…..her lawyer says the reports are untrue….hum?

December 30, 2009 Posted by | Breaking News, Entertainment, Family, Media, Men, Sports, Updates, Women | , , | 3 Comments

The Feds are trying make mortagage closings more human……

You ever buy a house?

The closing is just one endless sign this…sign that…sign this…..write out a check for that……

Good Faith Estimates have been around for decades, but there was no standard format. Under the new rules, lenders and mortgage brokers will be required to give consumers the estimate forms within three days of receiving a loan application.

Lenders aren’t allowed to increase the origination fee from the estimate. Some other charges not included in the origination fee, such as title services and recording charges, can increase by as much as a combined 10% from the estimate. Estimates for other charges, such as homeowner’s insurance and other services provided by third parties selected by the borrower, aren’t subject to such limits.

Title insurance typically is the largest fee, and the new forms let consumers know they don’t have to accept the insurer suggested by the lender.  Title insurance can be “vastly overpriced” and consumers should take the time to shop for it.

Take it from me…You still are going come out from your lawyer’s office, or the bank happy after buying your dream house…..but, still thinking,What???

December 30, 2009 Posted by | Breaking News, Government, Home, Law, Politics, The Economy | , , , , | Leave a comment

The Democrats are set to drop 'superdelegates ' from their primary process…..amen…..

The Democrat National Committee is set to make the ‘superdelegates’ honorary positions…..taking them out of the nominating process…the policy to use them is carry over from when the party could pick its candidates in back room deals ( which probably can still happen ) but not in public……..

It’s about time….while Hillary could have surely benefited from a reversal of the primary votes in each state …the grief it would have caused in the media would have made such a deal worthless…..get rid of the system…..

….and stick to the tentative deal to push back most of the state primary dates further into the years….the last run was way too early……

December 30, 2009 Posted by | Breaking News, Government, Media, Other Things, Politics | , , , | Leave a comment

The Democrats are set to drop ‘superdelegates ‘ from their primary process…..amen…..

The Democrat National Committee is set to make the ‘superdelegates’ honorary positions…..taking them out of the nominating process…the policy to use them is carry over from when the party could pick its candidates in back room deals ( which probably can still happen ) but not in public……..

It’s about time….while Hillary could have surely benefited from a reversal of the primary votes in each state …the grief it would have caused in the media would have made such a deal worthless…..get rid of the system…..

….and stick to the tentative deal to push back most of the state primary dates further into the years….the last run was way too early……

December 30, 2009 Posted by | Breaking News, Government, Media, Other Things, Politics | , , , | Leave a comment

13 GOP Attorney General's want the "Nebraska Compromise" stripped from the Healthacare Bill….

They have written to Speaker of the House Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid formally requesting Senator Ben Nelson’s (D- Neb.) sweetner be eliminated as illegal……

Here’s more…..

“The fundamental unfairness of H.R. 3590 may also give rise to claims under the due process, equal protection, privileges and immunities clauses and other provisions of the Constitution,” they wrote.

The state officials say they are “contemplating” legal action but would not go through with it if it is removed from the bill. They claim they do not find any other Constitutional objections to the bill.

Some Republicans have argued that the bill’s individual mandate to buy health insurance also violated the Constitution.

…..and this is copy of the letter…….

December 30, 2009

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi

Speaker, United States House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Harry Reid

Majority Leader, United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

The undersigned state attorneys general, in response to numerous inquiries, write to express our grave concern with the Senate version of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“H.R. 3590”). The current iteration of the bill contains a provision that affords special treatment to the state of Nebraska under the federal Medicaid program. We believe this provision is constitutionally flawed. As chief legal officers of our states we are contemplating a legal challenge to this provision and we ask you to take action to render this challenge unnecessary by striking that provision.

It has been reported that Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson’s vote, for H.R. 3590, was secured only after striking a deal that the federal government would bear the cost of newly eligible Nebraska Medicaid enrollees. In marked contrast all other states would not be similarly treated, and instead would be required to allocate substantial sums, potentially totaling billions of dollars, to accommodate H.R. 3590’s new Medicaid mandates. In addition to violating the most basic and universally held notions of what is fair and just, we also believe this provision of H.R. 3590 is inconsistent with protections afforded by the United States Constitution against arbitrary legislation.

In Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S 619, 640 (1937), the United States Supreme Court warned that Congress does not possess the right under the Spending Power to demonstrate a “display of arbitrary power.” Congressional spending cannot be arbitrary and capricious. The spending power of Congress includes authority to accomplish policy objectives by conditioning receipt of federal funds on compliance with statutory directives, as in the Medicaid program. However, the power is not unlimited and “must be in pursuit of the ‘general welfare.’ ” South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 207 (1987). In Dole the Supreme Court stated, “that conditions on federal grants might be illegitimate if they are unrelated to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs.” Id. at 207. It seems axiomatic that the federal interest in H.R. 3590 is not simply requiring universal health care, but also ensuring that the states share with the federal government the cost of providing such care to their citizens. This federal interest is evident from the fact this legislation would require every state, except Nebraska, to shoulder its fair share of the increased Medicaid costs the bill will generate. The provision of the bill that relieves a single state from this cost-sharing program appears to be not only unrelated, but also antithetical to the legitimate federal interests in the bill.

The fundamental unfairness of H.R. 3590 may also give rise to claims under the due process, equal protection, privileges and immunities clauses and other provisions of the Constitution. As a practical matter, the deal struck by the United States Senate on the “Nebraska Compromise” is a disadvantage to the citizens of 49 states. Every state’s tax dollars, except Nebraska’s, will be devoted to cost-sharing required by the bill, and will be therefore unavailable for other essential state programs. Only the citizens of Nebraska will be freed from this diminution in state resources for critical state services. Since the only basis for the Nebraska preference is arbitrary and unrelated to the substance of the legislation, it is unlikely that the difference would survive even minimal scrutiny.

We ask that Congress delete the Nebraska provision from the pending legislation, as we prefer to avoid litigation. Because this provision has serious implications for the country and the future of our nation’s legislative process, we urge you to take appropriate steps to protect the Constitution and the rights of the citizens of our nation. We believe this issue is readily resolved by removing the provision in question from the bill, and we ask that you do so.

By singling out the particular provision relating to special treatment of Nebraska, we do not suggest there are no other legal or constitutional issues in the proposed health care legislation.

Please let us know if we can be of assistance as you consider this matter.

Sincerely,

Henry McMaster

Attorney General, South Carolina

Rob McKenna

Attorney General, Washington

Mike Cox

Attorney General, Michigan

Greg Abbott

Attorney General, Texas

John Suthers

Attorney General, Colorado

Troy King

Attorney General, Alabama

Wayne Stenehjem

Attorney General, North Dakota

Bill Mims

Attorney General, Virginia

Tom Corbett

Attorney General, Pennsylvania

Mark Shurtleff

Attorney General, Utah

Bill McCollum

Attorney General, Florida

Lawrence Wasden

Attorney General, Idaho

Marty Jackley

Attorney General, South Dakota

Ok, how far is this going to go?……Does a state have a chance against something the majority party wants?…..the Supremes can read the tea leaves also……

Stay tuned….

December 30, 2009 Posted by | Breaking News, Government, Healthcare, Law, Media, Politics, The Economy | , , , , , | 9 Comments

13 GOP Attorney General’s want the “Nebraska Compromise” stripped from the Healthacare Bill….

They have written to Speaker of the House Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid formally requesting Senator Ben Nelson’s (D- Neb.) sweetner be eliminated as illegal……

Here’s more…..

“The fundamental unfairness of H.R. 3590 may also give rise to claims under the due process, equal protection, privileges and immunities clauses and other provisions of the Constitution,” they wrote.

The state officials say they are “contemplating” legal action but would not go through with it if it is removed from the bill. They claim they do not find any other Constitutional objections to the bill.

Some Republicans have argued that the bill’s individual mandate to buy health insurance also violated the Constitution.

…..and this is copy of the letter…….

December 30, 2009

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi

Speaker, United States House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Harry Reid

Majority Leader, United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

The undersigned state attorneys general, in response to numerous inquiries, write to express our grave concern with the Senate version of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“H.R. 3590”). The current iteration of the bill contains a provision that affords special treatment to the state of Nebraska under the federal Medicaid program. We believe this provision is constitutionally flawed. As chief legal officers of our states we are contemplating a legal challenge to this provision and we ask you to take action to render this challenge unnecessary by striking that provision.

It has been reported that Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson’s vote, for H.R. 3590, was secured only after striking a deal that the federal government would bear the cost of newly eligible Nebraska Medicaid enrollees. In marked contrast all other states would not be similarly treated, and instead would be required to allocate substantial sums, potentially totaling billions of dollars, to accommodate H.R. 3590’s new Medicaid mandates. In addition to violating the most basic and universally held notions of what is fair and just, we also believe this provision of H.R. 3590 is inconsistent with protections afforded by the United States Constitution against arbitrary legislation.

In Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S 619, 640 (1937), the United States Supreme Court warned that Congress does not possess the right under the Spending Power to demonstrate a “display of arbitrary power.” Congressional spending cannot be arbitrary and capricious. The spending power of Congress includes authority to accomplish policy objectives by conditioning receipt of federal funds on compliance with statutory directives, as in the Medicaid program. However, the power is not unlimited and “must be in pursuit of the ‘general welfare.’ ” South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 207 (1987). In Dole the Supreme Court stated, “that conditions on federal grants might be illegitimate if they are unrelated to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs.” Id. at 207. It seems axiomatic that the federal interest in H.R. 3590 is not simply requiring universal health care, but also ensuring that the states share with the federal government the cost of providing such care to their citizens. This federal interest is evident from the fact this legislation would require every state, except Nebraska, to shoulder its fair share of the increased Medicaid costs the bill will generate. The provision of the bill that relieves a single state from this cost-sharing program appears to be not only unrelated, but also antithetical to the legitimate federal interests in the bill.

The fundamental unfairness of H.R. 3590 may also give rise to claims under the due process, equal protection, privileges and immunities clauses and other provisions of the Constitution. As a practical matter, the deal struck by the United States Senate on the “Nebraska Compromise” is a disadvantage to the citizens of 49 states. Every state’s tax dollars, except Nebraska’s, will be devoted to cost-sharing required by the bill, and will be therefore unavailable for other essential state programs. Only the citizens of Nebraska will be freed from this diminution in state resources for critical state services. Since the only basis for the Nebraska preference is arbitrary and unrelated to the substance of the legislation, it is unlikely that the difference would survive even minimal scrutiny.

We ask that Congress delete the Nebraska provision from the pending legislation, as we prefer to avoid litigation. Because this provision has serious implications for the country and the future of our nation’s legislative process, we urge you to take appropriate steps to protect the Constitution and the rights of the citizens of our nation. We believe this issue is readily resolved by removing the provision in question from the bill, and we ask that you do so.

By singling out the particular provision relating to special treatment of Nebraska, we do not suggest there are no other legal or constitutional issues in the proposed health care legislation.

Please let us know if we can be of assistance as you consider this matter.

Sincerely,

Henry McMaster

Attorney General, South Carolina

Rob McKenna

Attorney General, Washington

Mike Cox

Attorney General, Michigan

Greg Abbott

Attorney General, Texas

John Suthers

Attorney General, Colorado

Troy King

Attorney General, Alabama

Wayne Stenehjem

Attorney General, North Dakota

Bill Mims

Attorney General, Virginia

Tom Corbett

Attorney General, Pennsylvania

Mark Shurtleff

Attorney General, Utah

Bill McCollum

Attorney General, Florida

Lawrence Wasden

Attorney General, Idaho

Marty Jackley

Attorney General, South Dakota

Ok, how far is this going to go?……Does a state have a chance against something the majority party wants?…..the Supremes can read the tea leaves also……

Stay tuned….

December 30, 2009 Posted by | Breaking News, Government, Healthcare, Law, Media, Politics, The Economy | , , , , , | 9 Comments

Females sharing apartments comes top Japan…..

Single women have multiplied in Japan’s big cities and the economic troubles the country suffered along with everywhere else has created a glut of empty apartments too expensive for single female’s in that country to rent…..

What to do?

How about renting rooms in large apartments to individual females?

The idea is new and different to the country…but with real estate agents realizing they can get more money per apartment with multiple renter and young women making a room rentals to save money …the idea has caught on…..I don’t live in Japan so I don’t know how much….the author of this piece seems to think it’s there to stay……

Ah, they are still going to have to work the kinks out….I’m sure……

December 30, 2009 Posted by | Family, Home, Travel, Women | , , , | Leave a comment