The Smell of Corruption

            As I grow older I find that some of my senses aren't as sharp as they used to be. My eyes need contacts to see clearly, my right ear is almost completely deaf, my taste buds don't appreciate fine food and wine like they used to, and so on. But one of my senses is as sharp as ever, and that is my sense of smell. Let me explain.

            A report in the Los Angeles Times on November 13 has set my nostrils flaring in anger at the smell of corruption emanating from Washington. It seems that investigative reporters have uncovered a $433 million government contract with Siga Technologies, a pharmaceutical company from New York, to produce 1.7 million doses of an experimental smallpox drug, even if it's not certain the drug is needed or will even work.

            Now, smallpox has been eradicated throughout the world; the last documented infection was in 1978. But just in case, this country stores enough smallpox vaccine to inoculate everyone in the country at the cost of $3 per. So why do we need a new vaccine? We're told it's just in case the disease somehow reappears and someone doesn't get vaccinated in time. Of course, we don't know if this new vaccine will work, since it's impossible to test it. The story gets worse.

            The report says that the new vaccine will cost $255 per dose. Outrageous, you say? That's nothing. Siga projects that it will make 180% profit on the drug. Now that's obscenely outrageous. How could our government possibly approve such a contract?

            Well, get this. The contract was awarded to Siga as a sole source, otherwise known as a no-bid contract. If this vaccine was necessary in the first place, competition to make it should have been open to all drug manufacturers. But it wasn't. The administration cleared the way for Siga to be the sole source and, thereby, to set any price it wanted.

            And consider this, also. Siga's controlling share is held by a man named Robert O. Perelman. He is one of the richest men in the world. If he believed this drug was really needed, he could have developed it on his own without a government subsidy. So how was he able to swing such a sweet deal?

            Well, it just so happens that Robert O. Perelman is a big Obama supporter and a major contributor to the Democrat Party. Gee. I wonder if there's a connection there. Does this remind anyone of the smell of scandal in the Solyndra affair?

            I don't know about anyone else. But for me the stench is overpowering.

Punter-in-Chief

            When he was an Illinois legislator Barack Obama voted "Present" 129 times instead of taking a stand on tough issues? Well, the Punter-in-Chief hasn't changed his MO.

            The President is in full campaign mode, flying all over the country at taxpayer expense to push his jobs bill, which can't even get passed by the Democrat-controlled Senate. He assures us that his first thoughts when he gets up in the morning and last thoughts before hitting the sack in the evening are about jobs.

            Well, there just happens to be a $7 billion "shovel ready" project that would create something in the neighborhood of 20,000 jobs. All it needs is a permit from the government, i.e., a Yes or a No from our leader.  Instead, President Obama has punted once again.

            The project is the Keystone XL Pipeline that would bring crude oil from the Alberta tar sands to refineries in Texas. It would make a huge dent in the amount of oil now imported from the Middle East. We can all agree that this is a good thing. Right?

            So what's the problem? This should be a no-brainer for the President, especially since most of those 20,000 jobs would be going to his union friends. But greenies, another Obama base, have objected on the grounds that the pipeline might contaminate the air, the ground, the water, and, I suppose, be a health hazard for wildlife. Why not throw in unborn babies while we're at it?

            Faced with making a decision that would displease either his union base or his green base, Obama punted. He ordered more environmental studies beyond the extensive studies that have already been done, and put off a decision until after the elections in 2012. In the words of John Boehner, "20,000 jobs have been sacrificed in the name of political expediency."

            Is there a downside to the President's non-decision? Probably not. The greenies will continue to vote for him, and so will the unions. After all, where are they going to go?

            But what about the oil? Where is it going to go? Well, if the Trans Canada Corporation can't pipe its oil across Nebraska to get to Texas, it says it can go directly to the west coast and from there directly to....guess where? China.

            And China doesn't fumble punts.

           

Welfare, California Style

            I recently saw a video in which a young single mother in California was discussing how much assistance she was getting each month from the state. It was astounding.

            First, she mentioned a payment of $221 for general relief (GR). To that she added $179 in free food per person She then mentioned that through the WIC (Women, Infants, & Children) program she was getting free housing, free utilities, and free medical and dental care. On top of all that, she said she received money for her children's day care, money that did not go to any day care center but to her friend who watched the kids and split the money with her.

            Assessing the value of all this assistance, the woman's final comment was, "Who would want to work in America?"

            Today the media floods us with news of the impending disaster in Greece due to unfunded liabilities in overly generous government programs. Can it be any worse there than in California?

            The latest statistics have California's overall unemployment rate at 11.4 percent, with the rate in one county at 18.1 percent. Those numbers don't include people who have stopped looking for work, are working part time, or who derive their income from the underground economy. And they don't include that young woman described above who can't imagine ever getting a job, because she couldn't possibly earn the kind of money and benefits she is getting from  welfare programs.

            California is the worst example of the nanny state. Is it any wonder it is sinking under the weight of financial debt?

            Is the rest of the country far behind?