Category Archives: Obama

Why are Barack Obama and other Democrat leaders so intent on passing a government takeover of healthcare now…Now…NOW?

They must know that costs will rise and the quality of care will fall, right?   They must know that Obamacare would destroy the economy, right?   Of course they do.  But, they also know that the federal government would tighten its grip on the nation.   They know that Obama’s czars and other appointees would be authorized to bypass Congress in enacting sweeping regulations on nearly every aspect of a person’s life.   And, they know that these new powers of the federal government would be concentrated in the hands of the Democratic Party and the President.

Here’s what else they know.   History affords many examples of regimes whose motto was “Never let a crisis go to waste.”   In 1933, having campaigned for “hope” and “change,” the National Socialist Worker’s Party forced through the German parliament a Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Nation, also known as the Enabling Act.

This new law enabled the German chancellor and his appointees to bypass parliament in imposing sweeping regulations on the people:

“In addition to the procedure prescribed by the constitution, laws of the Reich may also be enacted by the government of the Reich [i.e., the Cabinet].”

The constitution of the Weimar Republic became so irrelevant that the new regime never saw a need to actually repeal it.

By this vote, the National Socialist Workers Party assumed absolute power and the Chancellor made history.

Sometimes the GOP Hits the Mark. Today It Was a Bull’s-Eye….

Senator Scott Brown delivered the GOP Weekly Address today.

The freshman Republican Senator from Massachusetts scored a direct hit on Barack Obama and fellow Democrats for their “bitter, destructive and endless drive to pass health care.”

Choosing Brown to deliver this week’s address was a great move. It was a timely reminder to democrats on how Americans feel about their drive to nationalize the nation’s health care system. Brown currently holds a 70% approval rating… in Massachusetts.

This was devastating:

Terrific… Nothing like a little reminder to democrats on the mood of the nation a week before they plan to ram Obamacare down our throats.

Here’s the transcript:

Hello, I’m United States Senator Scott Brown from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

“When the people of my state elected me in January, they sent more than a senator to Washington – they sent a message. Across party lines, the voters told politicians in Washington to get its priorities right.

“And from my travels and conversation with people throughout this country, they told me that they want their President and Congress to focus on creating jobs and reviving America’s economy. Instead, for more than a year now, we have seen a bitter, destructive, and endless drive to completely transform America’s health care system.

“In January of last year, unemployment hit 7.2 percent and our economy was hurting badly. But, early in President Obama’s term, he and the Democratic leadership of Congress made takeover of health care their first priority.

“Today, times are even tougher across our nation when it comes to our economy. Nearly one in ten Americans are still out of work. And still, the President and Congress are focused on ramming through their health-care bill, whatever it takes, whatever the cost.

“Maybe you remember what President Obama promised in his State of the Union address. He said he was going to finally focus on jobs and the economy for the remainder of this year. I applauded him for that. Well, here it is, it’s almost spring. And what is he out there talking about again? That same 2,700-page, multi-trillion dollar health care legislation.

“So, an entire year has gone to waste. Millions of Americans have lost their jobs, and many more jobs are in danger. Even now, the President still hasn’t gotten the message.

“Somehow, the greater the public opposition to the health care bill, the more determined they seem to force it on us anyway. Their attitude shows Washington at its very worst – the presumption that they know best, and they’re going to get their way whether the American people like it or not.

“And, when politicians start thinking like that, they don’t let anything get in their way – not public opinion, not the rules of fair play, not even their own promises.

“They pledged transparency. Instead, we have a health care bill tainted by secrecy, concealed cost, and full of backroom deals– and that’s just not right. They should do better. The American people expect more.

“They pledged a true bipartisan effort. Instead, they have resorted to bending the rules, and they now intend to seize control of health care in America on a strict party-line vote.

“In speech after speech on his health care plan, the President has tried to convince us that what he is proposing will be good for America. But, how can it be good for America if it raises taxes by a half trillion dollars and costs a trillion dollars or more to implement? In addition, how can it be good if it takes another half a trillion dollars away from seniors on Medicare, and still includes all the backroom deals you have been hearing about for months?

“Well, for the past year or more, the new establishment in Washington has tried again and again to sell this plan to the American people. But the Americans aren’t buying it, and for good reason. And now, what’s going on is a last, desperate power play. They actually tell us that passing the bill is necessary, if only to prove that something can get done in Washington.

“Well, I haven’t been here very long, but, I can tell you this much already: Nothing has distracted the attention and energy of the nation’s capital more than this disastrous detour. And, the surest way to return to the people’s business is to listen to the people themselves: We need to drop this whole scheme of federally controlled health care, start over, and work together on real reforms at the state level that will contain costs and won’t leave America trillions of dollars deeper in debt.

“This, above all, was the message that the people of my state sent to the President and the Congress in the election over a month ago.

“You know some of my Democratic colleagues, you know, are being leaned on mighty hard right now. Speaker Pelosi and others are handing down their marching orders, telling them to vote for this bill no matter what. Rarely have elected leaders been so intent on defying the public will. For many members of Congress, the time for choosing is near – do what the party leadership demands, or do what the people have asked you to do. If my colleagues don’t mind some advice from a newcomer, I’d suggest going with the will of the people.

“After all, from the very beginning of this debate, the American people have called it correctly. In every part of the country, Republicans and Democrats have agreed on serious, straightforward, commonsense health care reform. They expect us in Washington to do the same – working together, acting fairly and by the rules, and staying focused on the need to make the American economy as strong as it can be. That is the business that brought me here on an unexpected journey to Washington. And, it’s the responsibility of everyone sent here to serve our country. We can do better – and I challenge my colleagues and the President to do just that.

“I’m Senator Scott Brown and thank you very much for listening.”

Excellent.

The AP added this on today’s GOP address:

Brown himself can claim responsibility for the Democrats’ failure to pass health overhaul legislation to date. They were on the verge of doing so before Brown claimed the late Edward M. Kennedy’s Senate seat in a special election upset in January, depriving Democrats of their filibuster-proof supermajority and throwing the health care effort into limbo.

Northrop Grumman has announced it will not compete for the contract to build the U.S. Air Force’s new refueling tanker, stating that the specifications of the RFP were unfair. Northrop’s partners in Europe are lashing out at the United States. One French official said this week, “I can assure you that there will be consequences” for the United States. The Euros were planning on using Northrop as the American face of their plane, but the fact remained that most of it would have been built in France and to many observers that seemed like a bad deal for out of work Americans. In fact, EADS/Airbus, who would have actually built the plane Northrop was proposing, was counting on the American taxpayer-funded refueling tanker to help its financial situation.

Meanwhile, an advocacy organization called Build Them Both is urging President Obama to step in “fix” it all. “Build Them Both urges President Obama to step in and – with the stroke of a pen – hire each company to build its proposed new tanker. This will put 100,000 Americans to work, provide the Air Force more tankers more quickly and offer massive taxpayer savings over building only one,” says the group’s spokesperson Carrie Giddins, who is also a Democratic political operative.

Build Them Both, which does not disclose its funders, further argues that the United States should yield to French threats and “European outrage.”

But the “build them both” solution would actually be the worst of all possible ideas. It would, in fact, be a terrible deal for taxpayers. The costs of building two tankers would be astronomical, costing taxpayers more upfront and long term. Designing and building two separate refueling tankers would require two separate sets of specifications. It would also require training two separate groups of pilots and maintenance crews and developing and maintaining distinct resupply networks. Its important to note that Northrop’s partner EADS/Airbus was proposing to build a completely different plane; which would require its own hangars, air base taxiways and landing strips. All of these considerations carry enormous costs.

And of course one cannot forget the principal reason Northrop decided its bid would ultimately be unsuccessful: The jobs it was proposing to create would for the most part have been European – mainly French – jobs. This was confirmed on Wednesday with the release of a new study.

Protectionism is a serious threat to our economic health. But this is not a case of protectionism. Northrop backed our of its deal with EADS/Airbus because they partnership was offering a bad deal, one that would have cost an extraordinary amount or money for little value to U.S. taxpayers.

With the resignation of hyper-partisan progressive Robert Wexler from Congress last October, a Special Election for the vacated congressional seat in FL-19 was set by Governor Crist for this coming April 13^th.   There’s a good chance you haven’t yet heard anything about this race, but ours is the next federal election that will be held in the country.  And with the House Democratic Caucus now deciding the fate of Obamacare behind closed doors, it goes without saying  that our Special Election takes on newfound importance, as every last vote in the House of Representatives can be the decisive one.

For those of you unfamiliar with our congressional district, the FL-19 district encompasses Broward and Palm Beach counties, from West Palm Beach up north to Tamarac down south.  FL-19 has one of the highest concentrations of senior citizens in the country, and it’s a district where Democrats have a 2-1 voter registration advantage over Republicans.  The voter registration stats in the District are 50% Democrat, 25% Republican, and the remaining 25% are registered Independent.

But several major factors can negate Democrats’ structural advantages in this race.  The first is the fact that special elections almost always have substantially lower turnout— approximately 15% of your typical Presidential election, making success in this race heavily dependent upon whose side is most engaged and enthusiastic.  Second, more than any demographic, seniors are opposed to Obamacare by nearly a 2-1 margin by virtue of the fact that their access to our health care system is directly jeopardized by the proposed $500 billion cuts to Medicare over the next 10 years.  But the most important factor is obvious- with the outcome of President Obama’s government takeover of the health care system potentially at stake, and with the increased significance of every House vote, our race should now attract increased attention from concerned citizen activists across the country.  While we don’t know exactly when the House vote on Obamacare will commence, it is entirely possible that a vote could take place after April 13th, and my vote is an affirmative “NAY” vote against Obamacare.

In addition to the prevailing political currents in our favor, there are 110,000 registered Republicans in District 19.

Combine that figure with an increasing  number of  independents and disenfranchised Democrats that are not happy with Obama agenda, and all of a sudden we have the makings of an upset.  If we can simply turn out just half of the registered Republican vote, we will win.  We are very fortunate to have some of the most committed activists from across the country come down to our district to walk precincts and volunteer on our behalf.  They know that a victory for this seat would not only reverberate across country – it could very well be the final nail in Obamacare’s coffin.   Stay tuned to this space for frequent campaign updates in the lead up to our election on April 13th, and please visit our website www.electlynch.com if you are interested in finding out more about me or contributing to our campaign.

The stakes in the health care debate continue to climb. For the Democrats, they truly are in between a self- imposed Barack and a hard place. If they produce a health care bill that Obama signs over the objections of the American people, they risk losing 55 or more House seats and 8-10 Senate seats. If they don’t push through a bill, they will have angered yet another part of their base.

For the Republicans, any failure to demonstrate a principled resistance to the Democrats will hurt them, in the Fall, among Tea Party voters and their base. If it passes, it will do irrevocable harm to our health care system and the solvency of our government, while hurting the economy and the dollar for decades to come. Worse yet, history has shown that de-nationalizing socialized healthcare is beyond difficult. In other words, hoping for the repeal of ObamaCare is not a good option.

That much danger requires that the Republicans pull out all of the stops to literally stop its passage. As the “final” vote on the bill looms, Republicans in Congress simply must enlist the voice of the American people in their effort and force the Democrats to abandon the bill. Here is a 3 point plan to do just that.

1. Adopt a HealthCare Covenant With America. The existing health care bill represents everything that is wrong with American government today. It is a 2600 page monolith and few have any idea of its true contents – as Nancy Pelosi so eloquently noted (“But we have to pass the [health care ] bill so that you can find out what is in it.”) Republicans quickly and simply must contrast that with a one page charter, contract, or declaration. which sets forth 7 – 10 key reforms in simple straightforward language. The contents should obviously emphasize private sector reforms, such as the promotion of HealthCare Savings Accounts (“HSAs”), coupled with the modernization of government regulations, i.e. updated regulations/laws to allow increased pooling across state lines – all with an eye to addressing the deficiencies of the current health care system.

2. Have Republican Candidates Take the HealthCare Covenant Pledge. Leaders in Congress and the RNC should then work to have each Congressional candidate take a HealthCare Covenant Pledge to effect that they will vote for those reforms if elected to Congress. It should become central plank for all Congressional candidates this Fall.

3. Revolutionize The Marketing/Promotion of The Covenant. Republicans can’t run against City Hall from within City Hall. If they are trailing in votes in the halls of Congress, they need to empower the voters outside of Washington. To do that, Republicans cannot conduct business as usual. They need to market this Health Care Covenant in a completely different manner.

As soon as practical, the Republicans should declare a HealthCare Covenant Day. On that day:

(a) Republicans should hold a National Townhall using a coalition of the willing cable television and radio outlets. That National Townhall should be used to promote the virtues of the HealthCare Covenant while demonstrating the vast shortcomings of ObamaCare. As part of that effort, Republicans should organize watch parties coupled with voter registration drives across the country; and

(b) Republicans should flood the new media (Internet/blogs) and the old media (newspapers) with editorials reinforcing the virtues of the HealthCare Covenant while demonstrating the vast shortcomings of ObamaCare; and

(c) Republicans should invite Tea Party groups and others to hold demonstrations that day; and

(d) Republicans should flood talk radio shows around the Country, leading up to the Townhall, with guests that reinforce the message; and

(e) Republicans should email vital details across the nation to activists and encourage them to contact Democrat lawmakers.

The vast majority of Americans are against this healthcare takeover. It is time for Republicans to enlist their support in a meaningful way as part of a peaceful revolt. If they don’t, America may never be the same. If they do, it will be a victory for Republicans and a more important victory for America.

Via Roll Call

The Senate Parliamentarian has ruled that President Barack Obama must sign Congress’ original health care reform bill before the Senate can act on a companion reconciliation package, senior GOP sources said Thursday.

The Senate Parliamentarian’s Office was responding to questions posed by the Republican leadership. The answers were provided verbally, sources said.

House Democratic leaders have been searching for a way to ensure that any move they make to approve the Senate-passed $871 billion health care reform bill is followed by Senate action on a reconciliation package of adjustments to the original bill. One idea is to have the House and Senate act on reconciliation prior to House action on the Senate’s original health care bill.

Information Republicans say they have received from the Senate Parliamentarian’s Office eliminates that option. House Democratic leaders last week began looking at crafting a legislative rule that would allow the House to approve the Senate health care bill, but not forward it to Obama for his signature until the Senate clears the reconciliation package.

This just confirms what I’ve been saying all along: the House vote is the final vote.

Now, will the House Democrats trust the Senate Democrats and Obama? Harry Reid now appears to have a change of heart and will now allow Republicans input and to offer amendments. Reid wrote:

“Reconciliation is designed to deal with budget-related matters, and some have expressed doubt that it could be used for comprehensive health care reform that includes many policies with no budget implications. But the reconciliation bill now under consideration would not be the vehicle for comprehensive reform — that bill already passed outside of reconciliation with 60 votes,” Reid wrote to McConnell.

“Reconciliation will not exclude Republicans from the legislative process. You will continue to have an opportunity to offer amendments and change the shape of the legislation. In addition, at the end of the process, the bill can pass only if it wins a democratic, up-or-down majority vote. If Republicans want to vote against a bill that reduces health care costs, fills the prescription drug ‘donut hole’ for seniors and reduces the deficit, you will have every right to do so,” he said.

Obviously, Republicans would have to be a part of the legislative process; however, does anyone actually think that a single GOP amendment would really be passed to amend the bill. Furthermore, for Reid to say “a democratic, up-or-down majority vote” is simply disingenuous. Reid knows that he does indeed 60 votes to pass amendments and he is circumventing the GOP filibuster to make any further changes.

That is the bait for the House Democrats–to use the up-or-down vote, which requires only 51 votes to pass the ObamaCare bill changes. The House Democrats must trust that the Senate Democrats will hold true to their word. They also have to make certain that Obama will sign the amended legislation.

As for Obama’s track record of broken promises and bait and switch, I’d go over to Change.gov for a serious reminder of what health reform should look like and what he originally promised voters.

By Tom Fitton

Documents released today by Judicial Watch reference serious allegations of corruption and voter registration fraud by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform (ACORN), as well as the Obama administration’s decision to shut down a criminal investigation into these matters.

Two specific complaints were filed against ACORN for alleged voter fraud in October 2008 by Lucy Corelli and Joseph Borges, Republican Registrars of Voters in Stamford and Bridgeport, Connecticut, respectively. As part of its continuing investigation into alleged criminal activities of ACORN, Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for documents concerning this matter with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

According to Corelli, on August 1, 2008, her office received 1,200 ACORN voter registration cards from the Secretary of State’s office. Over 300 of these cards were rejected because of “duplicates, underage, illegible and invalid addresses,” which “put a tremendous strain on our office staff and caused endless work hours at taxpayers’ expense.” Corelli claimed the total cost of the extra work caused by ACORN corruption was $20,000. Likewise, Borges contended that: “The organization ACORN during the summer of 2008 conducted a registration drive which has produced over 100 rejections due to incomplete forms and individuals who are not citizens…” Among the examples cited by Borges was a seven-year old child who was registered to vote by ACORN through the use of a forged signature and a fake birth certificate claiming she was 27-years old. By burdening these election officials with fraudulent registrations, ACORN put those who legally registered at risk of not being put on voting rolls at all.

The FBI and Department of Justice opened an investigation. However, the Obama Justice Department, while noting that ACORN had engaged in “questionable hiring and training practices,” closed down the investigation in March 2009, claiming ACORN broke no laws.

By contrast, the documents also include records related to a federal investigation of ACORN corruption in St. Louis, Missouri, involving 1,492 allegedly fraudulent voter registration cards submitted by Project Vote, a liberal non-profit organization affiliated with ACORN on voter registration drives, during the 2006 election season. Assistant United States Attorney Hal Goldsmith initiated the investigation with “concurrence” from the Department of Justice and the participation of the FBI. According to a Justice Department memo, Goldsmith “advised he would prosecute any individual responsible for submitting fraudulent voter registration cards.” Goldsmith identified the statute for prosecution: Title 42, USC 1973 (gg), which provides for criminal penalties for fraudulent voter registrations. In April 2008, eight former ACORN employees from the St. Louis office pled guilty to voter registration fraud. Oddly, the FBI document that details the shut down of the Connecticut investigation seems to ignore this legal issue.

Other documents show that the Bush Justice Department failed to prosecute ACORN voter registration fraud of non-citizens in Phoenix, Arizona in 2007 because the allegations that led to the opening of the investigation were “unverifiable.” Notably, the FBI document detailing this questionable decision reveals that a “draft Intelligence Bulletin…concludes that ACORN’s employment practices perpetuate fraudulent voter registration.”

The ACORN documents include internal FBI memoranda, signed affidavits, subpoenas, fraudulent voter registration cards, and publications describing ACORN’s policies and practices. The documents also include details regarding numerous allegations of corruption extending beyond voter registration fraud, to include attempts by ACORN employees to coerce workers to participate in campaign activities on behalf of Democratic candidates.

These documents reflect seemingly systematic voter registration fraud by ACORN. It is unconscionable that the Justice Department has not conducted a fully comprehensive criminal investigation into – and prosecution of – this matter. Given President Obama’s close connections to ACORN, including his campaign’s hiring of the ACORN’s Project Vote organization, it seems questionable at best that Attorney General Holder has failed to seriously investigate these and other alleged ACORN criminal activities.

You can download the documents here and here.

Tom Fitton is president of Judicial Watch, a nonpartisan, nonprofit educational foundation that fights government corruption.

Newsmax first reported that Organizing for America, the community organizing outfit under the auspices of the Democratic National Committee, has launched a plan to inundate talk radio shows with callers.  The action will occur when a particular radio show is discussing ObamaCare.

This is an extension of OFA’s and Health Care for America Now’s campaign to flood last summer’s town hall meetings with union members and left-wing activists supporting Obama’s government takeover of health care.

The intent then, just as it is now, was to drown out average taxpayers showing up  to voice their concerns or vent their frustrations.  The intent is also to run out the clock on real debate and take a vote on health reform with as little resistance as possible.

HCAN and ACORN were busing non-constituents, some from as far as 200 miles away, to fill the seats and skew the crowd.  It was to give the false impression that constituents really wanted ObamaCare.

But the result was even worse.  HCAN and union members, particularly SEIU, were filling the seats which would have otherwise been occupied by the average person just getting out of work.

So, the campaign now is geared toward achieving the same result: flood different talk radio shows with left-wing activists and ObamaCare apologists.  The OFA’s website has a talk radio du jour with a call-in number and “discussion points” – talking points for the latest version of the Democrats’ plan.

Be aware and be prepared, Talk Radio: The president’s got your number and his foot soldiers are coming for you.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is bluffing here when she says:

“Yes,” Pelosi said when asked if she believed the House would end up having the votes to approve healthcare.

“If we took it up today, yes,” the speaker quickly added.

The speaker still cautioned, though, that the timing and actual vote count on the bill couldn’t be entirely set in stone until the final legislative language was finalized and until the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) delivers its score of the bill’s impact.

There is no chance Pelosi has the votes to pass ObamaCare and she knows it. If she did have the votes, she would have already had the vote and wouldn’t need the “Slaughter Solution.”

House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday. Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version. Slaughter has not taken the plan to Speaker Pelosi as Democrats await CBO scores on the corrections bill. “Once the CBO gives us the score we’ll spring right on it,” she said.

The Slaughter Solution has one very large obstacle–the Constitution Article I, Section 7–which states:

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.  Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

Clearly, this Congress is so desperate to pass ObamaCare, despite the American people’s utter hatred of the bill and everything it represents–including the path to socialism and government control of the people. However, if this Congress continues down this path of violating the Constitution, the “people” will have a viable case, class-action or otherwise, in the US courts because it is going to be extremely difficult for a judge to ignore that the 111th Democrat-Progressive led Congress violated Article I, Section 7 to the most obscene extent.

I have to say, I did not agree with Sen. McCain during the 2008 campaign when he took the Guantánamo issue off the table by endorsing candidate Obama’s call to close it. The U.S. detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, is an ideal place to hold military tribunals for jihadists captured on the battlefield. And it would still be the ideal place to hold Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the 23-year old Nigerian jihadist, who tried to blow up his inbound jet in Detroit on Christmas Day.

Claims that detainees were being mistreated there were false. Capt. Pete Hegseth of Veterans for Freedom served at Guantánamo during the time that Newsweek and other liberal sources were spreading false claims that U.S. guards had “defiled” copies of the Koran. These false reports circulated throughout the world and sparked riots among Muslims.

Capt. Hegseth served a year at “Gitmo” with the New Jersey National Guard. He supervised guards at the detention facilities. He set the record straight. The only time their Korans were besmirched was when the detainees themselves threw human waste on their guards. Gitmo was never Abu Ghraib. No photos of abuse by guards ever came out of Gitmo, because there was none.

But if, after all is said and done, sensible voices in Congress do not prevail, then I have a recommendation for where the detainees should be held and tried. Adak was an important naval installation throughout the Cold War. It’s an island in the central Aleutians, that thousand-mile chain off Alaska.

Adak has many facilities that were in use by the Navy that could be retrofitted now for detainee trials and long-term detention. Adak’s climate is severe. It’s cold. It’s overcast much of the time. During some snowstorms, “whiteout” conditions prevail. Then, it’s dangerous for any personnel to venture outside of buildings unescorted.

A number of U.S. Senators are pressing the administration for the names of political appointees to the U.S. Justice Department who previously served as counsel to the Guantánamo detainees. We deserve to know who those public officials are. We deserve to be assured that none of these lawyers are involved in the decision to close Gitmo or to give civilian trials to jihadists.

This is not suggested in spite. As Lincoln said, “I shall do nothing in malice.” The business he was in was too weighty for that. That should be our watchword, too.

For our military guards and their families, there is this consolation. Many of the Navy families who spent two-year tours on Adak recall their time there with fondness. The severe weather conditions and the remoteness of the island station bred a real fellowship among the hardy folk who called Adak home. We owe these self-sacrificing Americans our respect and our gratitude. Adak would not be a punishment assignment for them.

Adak’s primary virtue is its remoteness. As with Gitmo, the American people would not have to worry about any escapes. It’s five hours behind Washington. One of the most pressing concerns is that jihadists whom we are holding should not be permitted to inflame other prisoners among our U.S. prisoner population.

Finally, we do not want any jihadists to attack U.S. prisons, even on a suicide mission, because this administration unwisely brought them to the mainland. Adak, like Gitmo, could be secured from such attacks.

Once again, we should not close Gitmo. But, if the Obama administration takes this unnecessary and expensive step, Adak, would be a good alternative.

The other day I exposed the fact that Harry Reid switched the language in the House-passed H.R. 3590 Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 and inserted the Senate version of the healthcare bill via a manager’s amendment in order to meet the requirement that all legislation raising taxes must originate in the House.

The Senate passed the revised bill with the healthcare language in it, and now the House must revote on the deceptively gutted changed bill because, according to the Constitution, the identical bill must pass both the House and Senate in order to be signed into law.  And, once the Senate Health Care bill pass the House, President Obama will sign it right away.

The threat of reconciliation in the Senate is hollow. There isn’t going to be any reconciliation.

On January 31, 2010, before the House was set to take up the Senate bill, WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, during an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union” stated:

“If the House would take up the Senate bill then that bill would go to the president’s desk,” Gibbs said.

For further confirmation, here is the audio of that exchange.  Listen from about 4:20 to 5.00 and you will here Gibbs confirm that once the House passes the Senate’s version of the healthcare bill, it’s a done deal.  No talk of reconciliation here, because reconciliation is not needed at all.

Let me be clear, if the Senate healthcare bill passes the House, it goes to directly to the President for his signature.  No reconciliation, no conference, no more negotiations, nothing.  Why?  Because they don’t have to; the healthcare takeover will be completed.  There is no more incentive for the Senate to keep its promise to the House.  And with this Congress the end definitely justifies the means.

The fact that Gibbs confirmed that Obama would sign the Senate version of healthcare bill as is should signal to Americans that he inherently doesn’t have any problems with it–even with all the bribes and abortion funding–as he has also been a huge supporter of this version.

There are still so many people talking about reconciliation.  Reconciliation of the bills is not needed for the House to pass the Senate bill. All the talk of reconciliation is to convince wavering House Democrats will soon…we promise, we swear, cross our hearts…fix all the provisions that give House members fears of November.

Stupak and the pro-life Democrats are fooling themselves–especially Kildee–who is now a confirmed “yes” vote on healthcare due to his satisfaction on the abortion language.

Once the House approves the Senate bill, all the talk of reconciliation will evaporate. The Senate health care bill provides the foundation for a government takeover of health care. Do you really think Senate Democrats are going to prolong the health care debate for weeks on end to strip abortion funding from the bill? Again, I can’t be more clear:  this is the Code Red alert for the final vote to pass healthcare.

If you ask people on the street (outside of Chicago) if they have ever heard of ShoreBank, the answer would likely be “no.” While ShoreBank isn’t a Goldman Sachs, a Bank of America, or a JP Morgan, to the Progressives, this “little” bank is in many ways every bit as big and important as the aforementioned “large banks.”

Why?

One of the core components of President Obama’s fundamental change for America is to create clean energy jobs, also known as “green jobs”.  During his campaign and as recently as his State of the Union Address, President Obama continues to talk about the need “green” jobs. In fact, during his State of the Union 2010 speech, the President stated, “We should put more Americans to work building clean energy facilities –  and give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy-efficient, which supports clean energy jobs. “

In a speech given by the President in Virginia on Dec. 15, 2009, he said, “The simple act of retrofitting these buildings to make them more energy-efficient — installing new windows and doors, insulation, roofing, sealing leaks, modernizing heating and cooling equipment — is one of the fastest, easiest and cheapest things we can do to put Americans back to work while saving families money and reducing harmful emissions.”

In the  stimulus package last year, President Obama devoted nearly $60 billion of his plan for building a new green-based economy.

Retro-fitting older homes to save money on heating and cooling costs is a great idea; but in today’s economy, how many people can afford to spend that kind of money up front? And if people aren’t buying green building materials, like replacement windows, how will any of this create green jobs?   If there isn’t an increase in green jobs, then the billions spent in stimulus money would be a waste — and the President can’t let that happen.

Enter ShoreBank.

ShoreBank has been active in helping homebuyers with making their homes more energy efficient for years.  In 2005, then-governor Rod Blagojevich “announced a $10 Million Homeownership Initiative to Revitalize Homes in Chicago’s South and West Sides.”  This venture was administered by ShoreBank, which also provided homebuyers with education on “how to choose energy-efficient products…..”

ShoreBank’s own website states, “In Chicago, borrowers are rated on types of windows and light bulbs used, and a free energy audit is often required before a loan is granted.”

Recently, ShoreBank received $35 million in “new market tax credits” to finance green buildings and other projects in Chicago, Detroit and Cleveland – the communities it serves.

Now what if you just had a product that needed to be made by green jobs that could be sold by a bank?  Enter Serious Windows, made by Serious Materials.

Serious  Windows took over the Republic Windows and Door Factory in Chicago. They make energy efficient windows which have been selected by the Community and Economic Development Association of Cook County to be used in their low-income multifamily dwellings that qualify under the Illinois Home Weatherization Assistance Program.  This Assistance Program was awarded $242.5 million in the ARRA stimulus money.

Serious Windows must be important windows in the Obama Master Plan. The company has been singled out (in speeches made by the administration) as being the best windows in America.  And Serious Materials received $548,100 in Recovery Act Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credits for clean energy manufacturing projects – while no other window company received this same credit.

Now you have all the pieces in place to put together a plan to create green jobs. You have a window manufacturer (Serious Windows) receiving government money. You have a weatherization project, also government funded, awarded to the Community and Economic Development Association of Cook County.  And then there’s the Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, which recommends Serious Windows, trains energy auditors and develops certified contractor lists.  And finally, there’s ShoreBank, a bank with long ties to the Progressives that has also received government money.  ShoreBank requires that an energy audit be completed before a home loan is approved.  (Oh, and did I mention that one of the board members for Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance works for ShoreBank?  Joel Freehling is the Manager of Triple Bottom Line Innovations at ShoreBank, whose  “… primary task is the creation of innovative financial products to promote energy efficiency and green development in urban markets, such as ShoreBank’s Homeowners’ Energy Conservation Program.” )

If ShoreBank can loan money to people to buy homes and recommend Serious Windows (which creates green jobs), it will be a win-win for the green jobs stimulus project.  Is it any wonder that Senator Dick Durbin and Rep. Jan Schakowsky are applying pressure as they ask for a $100 million bail out of ShoreBank?

Based on the Recovery.gov data, more than two third of the 594,754.3 jobs “created or saved” with the stimulus funds were “created or saved” in the Department of Education (see chart).  Basically, what the administration meant by shovel ready projects was funding for your next door teacher.

Now, let’s recap some of findings and news of the previous weeks.

1. Most jobs are created in the Department of Education

2. In 2009, for the first time ever, more public-sector employees (7.9 million) belonged to a union than did private-sector employees (7.4 million) despite there being five times more wage and salary workers in the private sector.

3. A third of all union jobs are in Education

4. 33 percent of the education industry is unionized

5.  The union boss, Andy Stern, was appointed to be on the president’s debt commission.

It all makes sense, doesn’t it?

Now, what do you think the chance are that the stimulus funds for education will be made permanent?

(Cool chart and data here)

One of the more extreme proposals floated early in the national health care debate was the idea of taxing soda and other sugary beverages. That trial balloon was almost immediately shot down by the American public, but the Obama administration is attempting to achieve, by subterfuge, soda taxes and a lot of other ways to micromanage our lives in the name of public health—whether or not ObamaCare passes. The mechanism is buried in last year’s $862-billion-and-counting stimulus bill, and works by diverting hundreds of millions of dollars that should be promoting economic growth to instead pay lobbyists to push for higher taxes and nanny-state controls over our lives.

It’s on pages 66 and 67 on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which created a $1 billion “Prevention and Wellness Fund.” Of that, $650 million went to Kathleen Sebelius’s Department of Health and Human Services and has been used to start a new program at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) called “Communities Putting Prevention to Work” (CPPW).

Where does that giant pot of grant funding under the CPPW go? What it calls “MAPPS Interventions for Communities Putting Prevention to Work.” MAPPS stands for “Media, Access, Point of decision information, Price, and Social support/services.” In other words, strategies for changing our behavior, for social engineering on a large-scale, and, it seems, circumventing the normal democratic process. In a 14-page guidance for grant applicants, the CDC details tactics that grant applicants should include in their plans. It includes “counter-advertising” against targeted products, complete tobacco usage bans, limiting “unhealthy food availability” (the really bad stuff like “whole milk, sugar sweetened beverages, high-fat snacks”), and of course taxes (or in CDC lingo: “changing relative prices of healthy vs. unhealthy items”).

A supplemental document explains in more detail what the targets are, including restricting availability of soft drinks “in homes, schools, work sites, and communities.”

It also recommends local zoning changes to put fast food restaurants out of business, trans-fat bans, salt regulation, and food taxes. They even suggest a TV ban of sorts, recommending: “specific regulations/policies that limit television and other screen media.”

The first $120 million of funds has already been awarded to the states, and local grant recipients are expected to be announced soon. In Wisconsin, for example, we already know that the state department of health submitted a grant to use federal stimulus dollars to hire lobbyists to push for bans on flavored tobacco programs at the local level.

Although the grants under this program are supposedly restricted from funding lobbying activities, there is imply no way these objectives can be accomplished without major legislative changes at the state and local level. Our federal stimulus dollars are being used to hire lobbyists to push for these taxes, bans, restrictions, rules and regulations on what we eat, drink, smoke, and do for recreation. It’s a sweeping micromanagement of our lives that we didn’t vote for, made even worse by the fact that it’s being funded by stimulus money that was supposed to put people other than lobbyists back to work.

Barack Obama’s money train has steamrolled uncontrollably across the country, compiling record-breaking budgets, deficits, and debt along its path. Now, the train is running out of fuel, and the nation’s retirement money may find its way on board, to keep the train on the tracks.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Treasury and Labor Departments began a public discussion on the aim to convert 401(k) saving plans and Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) into annuities and other forms of guaranteed income streams. Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary Mark Iwry stated, “the question is how to encourage it, and whether the government can and should be helpful in that regard.” The supposition that the government is looking to be helpful with this proposal should automatically cause alarm.

The rationale for what would ultimately serve as a government takeover of the nation’s private pension system is of the same mold as the position Obama and Congressional Democrats have staked throughout the debate on health-care reform; “trust us, we know better than you”. Their assertion is that a weakened economy and a volatile stock market call for them to protect you and your interests, in this case your retirement money.

Last month, Newt Gingrich and Peter Ferrara editorialized on the Investor’s Business Daily website:

“The idea is for the government to take your retirement savings in return for a promise to pay you some monthly benefit in your retirement years. They will tell you that you are “investing” your money in U.S. Treasury bonds. But they will use your money immediately to pay for their unprecedented trillion-dollar budget deficits, leaving nothing to back up their political promises, just as they have raided the Social Security trust funds.”

If such a scheme sounds familiar to you, that’s because it is—cue Amos Lee’s I’ve Seen It All Before.

When Obama-mania was sweeping the world, and the then-Senator from Illinois was weeks away from making history, Argentina was searching for a solution to keep its own runaway train on the tracks—in hopes of improving its ability to service the nation’s debt and prevent another national default. Socialist President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner’s solution came in the form of the seizure of the $30 billion Argentines had amassed in their private pension funds and immediate transfer of the money into the nation’s social security system. Unsurprisingly, her administration defended the nationalization of the system as a means to guarantee pensions during a time of global economic uncertainty, and attacked the private system’s administrators who criticized the government’s intervention.

In February, Obama unveiled his budget for fiscal year 2011 which includes a proposal to require small businesses to establish automatic IRAs for employees. With his cronies from the financial services industry by his side, the measure is being marketed as a means to create a nation of savers. But this proposal wasn’t conjured up with your interests at heart. In actuality, the president is licking his lips, with his eyes set on sweetening an already massive lottery jackpot for the government.

As of the third quarter of 2009, Americans held a combined $8 trillion in 401(k) plans and IRAs, according to the most recent retirement market report from the Washington D.C.-based Investment Company Institute. Furthermore, his proposal for health-care reform calls for an extension of the 2.9% Medicare tax to unearned income, which means those annuities and other forms of guaranteed income streams you would receive in exchange for relinquishing the freedom you currently possess over your retirement funds, would be subject to taxation. The American people consistently lose when the government desires to be helpful.

The presidency of Barack Obama is nearly 14 months old, and the campaign-feel good rhetoric waxed about the Change We Need in Washington has materialized into the concoction of a young president channeling his inner-Daley to transform the nation’s capital into Chicago on the Potomac. Now, the citizenry of this nation should prepare for him to channel his inner-Kirchner to provide a taste of Argentine politics.

Unfortunately, it won’t taste as good as the steak.

Knowing that federal and state money doesn’t come from Obama’s stash and does come from our own paychecks and our friend’s and neighbor’s paychecks, I found the 2010 US Census form letter puzzling. Yes, I know that the census is required (but not all forms are completed) and helps allocate federal funds, but this was much more in-your-face and clearly baits the reader with federal funds that they “need” as quoted:

Dear Resident:

About one week from now, you will receive a 2010 Census form in the mail. When you receive your form, please fill it out and mail it in promptly. Your response is important. Results from the 2010 Census will be used to help each community get its fair share of government funds for highways, schools, health facilities, and many other programs you and your neighbors need. Without a complete, accurate census, your community may not receive its fair share. Thank you in advance for your help.

Sincerely, Robert M. Groves
Director, U.S. Census Bureau

Go to for help completing your 2010 Census form when it arrives. [Note: this sentence is repeated in Spanish, Chinese, Vietnamese and Russian]

On the web it continues to tell about the 2010 census; this section does not appear on the actual form letter:

ABOUT THE 2010 CENSUS
The 2010 Census is a count of everyone living in the United States and is mandated by the U.S. Constitution. Census data are used to apportion congressional seats to states, to distribute more than $400 billion in federal funds to tribal, state and local governments each year and to make decisions about what community services to provide. The 2010 Census form will be one of the shortest in U.S. history, consisting of 10 questions, taking about 10 minutes to complete. Strict confidentiality laws protect the respondents and the information they provide.

According to the Constitution the census is to be taken every ten years to count the population to accurately determine how to apportion Congressional Representatives among the states. The census is also used to allocate federal funding to the states. Now, the White House oversees the census and Congress enacts, via law, the questions the 2010 will ask.

In addition, the census process has had to endure a White House power grab making Americans very skeptical of the WH’s true intentions. Moreover, there’s is some inherent distrust of how the census is designed and the information it may yield that could allow for a permanent Democrat-controlled government:

The civil rights community won an important battle today in the fight for a fair and accurate 2010 census that counts every person in the United States as required by the U.S. Constitution.

By voting today for cloture on the Commerce-State-Justice Appropriations bill, the Senate effectively ended debate on the divisive Vitter-Bennett amendment. The amendment, which would have forced the Census Bureau to add questions on citizenship and immigration status to the census form less than six months before the count, is clearly unconstitutional. Under the 14th amendment to the Constitution, the apportionment of members of the House of Representatives is based on a full count of persons – not just citizens – in each state. emphasis mine

Unconstitutional? Not sure about that if the people they are referring to are in this country illegally. But, because the citizenship question is not on the form, illegal residents will be more inclined to fill out the form.

Furthermore, the questions asked are quite intrusive and appear unconstitutional.

Finally, this form letter has all the characteristics of Obama’s “fair share” and ”spread the wealth around” sentiment because, as we clearly know now, he will return the wealth to its rightful owner–and it’s not the ones who earned it–because that wouldn’t be fair.  And it’s disturbing that other people’s money is used as the bait to motivate people to fill out the census form.

All this talk about reconciliation is a distraction from the bigger picture: In one year Obama has lost his own party. He can’t get them to pass his signature bill. And now he has lost their trust. (Even though the media rarely mentions it, he had a filibuster proof majority in the senate and a super majority in the house and he STILL couldn’t get it done.)

The WSJ has a great piece on this

The cleanest option for Democrats would be for the House to pass the Senate’s Christmas Eve bill word for word, thereby bypassing a Senate filibuster under the normal rules and forwarding ObamaCare directly to the Rose Garden signing ceremony. But Speaker Nancy Pelosi has repeatedly said the votes simply don’t exist for the Senate bill as is…

Thus the convoluted scheme the White House has mapped out. The House would first pass the Senate bill, and then pass a reconciliation bill that addresses these objections—in effect converting the process into a makeshift and unprecedented vehicle for amendments…

Iron-clad promise—or double-cross? After all, the White House would much prefer the Senate bill, because by its lights the cost-control programs are tougher than what the House prefers…

In other words, perhaps Mr. Obama has embraced this reconciliation two-step only to renege as soon as the House gives him what he wants.

Add in Rep. Massa’s (D-NY) accusations that Obama’s boys booted him out because he voted against the “health care” bill and the allegations that Obama gave away a judicial appointment to Congressman Matheson (D-Utah) to get his vote for health care and the unbelievable has occurred. The bill looks sleazier than it did after the Cornhusker Kickback, The Louisiana Purchase and the Gator Aid.

Moderate Democrats can’t trust their own president. Getting ANY health care bill passed is now Obama’s top priority. He has convinced himself that it will be his legacy. He knows it’s very unpopular with the American people. (Even SNL knows that). But he believes the people just don’t know what’s good for them and they will eventually thank him for it. The lefties think you are too stupid to handle your own affairs – watch Robert Reich.

REICH: Yes, let them compete across state lines, fine. But not a race to the bottom. Set minimum federal standards because we’ve seen over and over again that the recipients of health insurance don’t know what they are buying very often. Until there are common standards, minimal standards, then people are going to be taken. And that is what’s happened over and over again.

WILL: There you have the premise of this legislation and the core of today’s liberalism: the American people are such dopes they can’t be counted upon to buy their own insurance.

See, they are smarter than you and you need to let them make the major decisions in your life. They want the government in charge of your retirement, your health care, your education, and even the amount of money you make.

I’m seriously worried how close they are to having their way. Thankfully, I think people are waking up.

Hey, Obama finally apologized for health care and I know how long Charlie Rangel’s “leave of absence” will be. Check it out.

Washington is abuzz these days with talk of “reconciliation” a word in our usual lexicon that suggests bringing people together. In this case, however, it is a larceny of language. It is divisive and not conciliatory and it is, understandably, creating anguish and outrage among those who understand the subterfuge at play here. Political mischief is about to run amok as this corruption of Senate rules becomes the strategic center piece President Obama and the Democratic majority in Congress will utilize to ram their health care bill into law.

To be sure, the reconciliation process has been used a number of times during the past thirty years, usually without much angst or controversy. It has, essentially, been used in the past to remove legislative stumbling blocks to initiatives with fairly strong bi-partisan support. American tradition as well as old-fashioned common sense has generally dictated that consequential legislation enjoy broad bipartisan consensus and, in fact, the most ambitious reconciliation bills of the past have been, more often than not, popular on both sides of the aisle. In these cases, reconciliation was used for procedural reasons, not to force through a bill that couldn’t get 60 votes. It has, however, never been used to advance legislation that a substantial majority of Americans have said they do not want. Nor should it be.

It was one of the wisest and most respected of Democrats, the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who warned his colleagues, “Never pass major legislation that affects most Americans without real bipartisan support. It opens the door to all kinds of political trouble.” It appears that the Administration and the congressional Democrats are, indeed, going to open the door to all kinds of political trouble. To paraphrase Professor Harold Hill who once bellowed in the musical comedy Music Man, “There’s trouble right (there) in River City”…the river now being the Potomac and the city being our nation’s capital, Washington, D.C.

To better understand this, we need to take a quick look at the rules of the United States Senate. Back in 1789 both the House and Senate allowed debate to be ended and a vote taken upon the vote of a simple majority when the question was called. That changed during the Jefferson Administration in 1804 when the Senate dropped the rule opting instead for unlimited debate, a practice that in one form or another has been used in other western democracies. This non-stop talkathon is known as a filibuster. The actual filibuster is no longer required. The declared intent to use it is enough under current Senate rules to stop the advance of contentious legislation.

We can always expect sanctimonious protests from either side of the aisle that “a few are thwarting the will of the majority,” when the proponents of contentious legislation are stymied by the 60-vote rule. In practice, however, the opposite is often true. For instance, what is being stymied by the threat of a filibuster in the current health care debate is an extreme makeover of a major segment of our economy that most Americans have said, repeatedly, they do not want.
In 1917 President Wilson, angry about Congress’ failure to vote on certain war measures, convinced the Senate to adopt a rule cutting off debate by a two-thirds vote. In 1975 the required vote was reduced to three-fifths or sixty percent.

Nevertheless, even with a reduction to a three-fifths vote the Senate also adopted a new process intended to allow consideration of contentious budget bills by a mere majority pursuant to reconciliation instructions in a budget resolution. The process was further refined by adoption of a rule in 1985 (the so-called Byrd Rule) that explains what kind of fiscal bill is subject to reconciliation. Since that time both parties have invoked the reconciliation process over 20 times, but never on anything resembling such a massive change in the relationship between government and private citizens and never without even a modicum of bipartisan support.

Senator Byrd, considered by many to be the dean of parliamentary law and the man who penned the Byrd rule mentioned above, stated in a written opinion at the outset of the healthcare debate, “I oppose using the budget reconciliation process to pass health care reform and climate change legislation. Such a proposal would violate the intent and spirit of the budget process, and do serious injury to the Constitutional role of the Senate.”

Rule changes often push the envelope and test the limits of legislative propriety. In the case of the reconciliation process, who advocates its use depends on whose ox is being gored. Back in 2005 when President Bush’s judicial nominees were being filibustered, making a mockery of the “advise and consent” process, the frustrated GOP majority threatened to invoke reconciliation to get up or down votes on the nominees, a threat which the Democrats named “the nuclear option.” Ironically, the very same Democrats who were so outraged by the Republican threat to use the reconciliation process to allow an up or down vote on judicial nominees now refer to its use as “nothing extraordinary.”

Then Senator Obama said “he [President Bush] hasn’t gotten his way and that is now prompting a change in the Senate rules that really, I think, would change the character of the Senate forever and what I worry about is that you essentially have … two chambers … but you have…absolute power on either side and that’s not what the Founders intended.” No, it certainly wasn’t what the Founders intended, but it does seem to be what President Obama intends now that he is in the White House and not merely in the Senate.

Now comes current Majority Leader Harry Reid, the poster-boy for hypocrisy, who noted back then “the right to extend a debate is never more important than when one party controls both Congress and the White House. The filibuster serves as a check on power [to] preserve our limited government.” Perhaps, someone should remind Senator Reid that limitation on government is particularly important when the people are sending clear messages that they are strongly opposed to what the Congress is doing.

Current Secretary of State, but then Senator, Clinton then called on her GOP colleagues to go to Bush and tell him reconciliation is “a bridge too far” that “you have to restrain yourself Mr. President.” Senator Charles Schumer then spoke of using reconciliation as bringing us to “the precipice of a constitutional crisis” saying to the majority that if “you didn’t get your way 100% of the time [it is like] throwing a temper tantrum.” However, in 2005, a bipartisan group of senators avoided testing the limits of reconciliation by agreeing to an up or down vote on several of the nominees and the issue died down.

Backing away from the brink on health care may prove more difficult. The better part of a year has been devoted to what is seen as President Obama’s signature issue. Moreover, in 2008, the Democrats were handed, by recent historical standards, very significant majorities in Congress. They interpreted this not as a rejection of the exorbitant spending during the Bush Administration or weariness with an unpopular war, but as a mandate to make unprecedented changes to enlarge the role of government in our lives. Then candidate Obama boasted, “We are going to fundamentally transform America.” With regard to health care, the President and the Democratic Congress now propose to take over more than 17% of our economy just at a time when the public has become far more attuned to the enormous danger the country faces as a result of our ever-growing budget deficits and our gargantuan national debt.

Moreover, public opinion polls in the last year, along with several off-year elections, town hall meetings and the growing anti-incumbent sentiment make it clear that the American public does not want the 2,700-page bill now before Congress. In the face of this evidence, however, and because of the election of Scott Brown to the Senate, thereby denying the Democrats a veto proof majority, the majority party proposes to undo over 200 years of Senate procedure to narrowly enact into law a 2.5 trillion dollar measure. It is a proposal of no less importance or long lasting implications to our society than the enactment of Social Security and Medicare…. and it is being pushed down the throats of the American People under the entreaties of the same Democratic politicians who in 2005 railed against expansion of the reconciliation procedure on an issue nowhere near as far reaching. Is it any wonder, Americans have lost faith in their elected leaders?

Leave aside the merits, or lack thereof, of the health care legislation. The use of reconciliation to pass a bill of such magnitude and over the objections of most Americans represents what may be the greatest display of arrogance by Congress in American history. It shows a complete disregard for the Senate’s own rules whenever it suits them. If this process is used, can anyone give us an example of any legislation when it would be improper? Actually, come to think of it we can: whenever Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi or Barack Obama find it to their partisan advantage. Does anyone see a resemblance, however, faint it might still be, to Hugo Chavez’s brand of democracy?

To add insult to injury, if the Democrats use reconciliation to advance their health care bill they would also have to engage in other legislative chicanery. The Senate, it seems, would have to pass a new and separate bill containing only amendments to its original bill in order to satisfy the House, which opposes the Senate bill as it stands. The House would then have to pass the Senate amendment bill and send that bill to the president for signature. Then the House would have to pass the first Senate bill and send it to the president for signature. The president would then have to sign the separate amendment into law first and then sign the original bill, in effect enacting into law an amendment to a law that did not yet officially exist. This sleight of hand would cross the eyes of any legitimate parliamentarian. Of course if the Senate Parliamentarian nixes the procedure, Vice President Biden, as the presiding officer of the Senate, can over-rule the Parliamentarian and the proverbial fix would be in.

We would argue that the elites of the liberal left believe they are smarter than everyone else and that the rest of the public simply won’t notice their perversion of acceptable procedure. But, the public does notice and it resents being steamrolled and taken for fools. The entire country ultimately sees and takes into account all the abuses of power that a tyrannical majority tries to get away with no matter who is in power.

Thus, the importance of this arcane little rule may have far more profound consequences than jamming a terrible and unpopular health care bill into law as bad and costly as that may be to the nation. What may very well be far worse is the price we pay in the loss of respect Americans have for their government. For more than two centuries this American experiment has endured, and indeed, strengthened in times of crisis because we trust its basic premise that it is founded on the rule of law. When that trust is stretched to the breaking point, we risk the emergence of even more fringe groups, conspiracy theorists, dangerous demagogues and the emergence of a segment of the population that simply will justify the evasion of what they perceive to be unjust law. Our system, at its core, depends upon the trust of the people. Loss of that trust would free a genie we may never be able to get back in the bottle.
by HAL GERSHOWITZ AND STEPHEN PORTER
Of Thee I Sing 1776

Some Defense Department lawyers are worried. Actually, quite a few of them are. They see a train wreck coming with the Obama administration’s evolving Guantanamo Bay detainee policies. Since it is DOD lawyers tasked with much of the footwork for administration decisions, they see firsthand how disorganized, inept, and ideologically extreme the handling of the issue has been. The DOJ, now thoroughly politicized and partisan under Eric Holder, is lock step with Obama’s White House on the issue, and is thoroughly at odds with its legal counterparts in the DOD. At a time when former Guantanamo Bay detainees are battling US forces in Afghanistan, and Jihadists are resurgent worldwide, the country can ill afford the administration’s criminalizing of admitted terrorists or of enemy combatants captured in battle against US forces.

What DOD lawyers are worried about are second-order effects. Namely, the unanticipated consequences of decisions made without due consideration or examination of facts. They are deeply concerned that the administration’s political appointees making decisions on the issue are as likely to be chosen for ideological purity as they are for their acumen on applicable laws. The political appointees are perceived by many in the DOD as caring more for their political ideological creed than for the safety of US citizens, or for the responsible stewardship of tax dollars. It is Leftist canon that Guantanamo Bay be closed, the risks and consequences be damned. Every policy decision pursuing that goal equates to thousands of man hours for DOD lawyers and millions of dollars.

DOD attorneys, including prosecutors and defense attorneys of all political stripes, are of the opinion that closing Guantanamo Bay is an illogical and irresponsible political move made without the facts, and one that will cost billions. No stateside facility has the resources Guantanamo Bay does. As for which stateside facility should replace Guantanamo, the administration cannot make up its mind. As Obama’s minions position for optimum political influence, they have flitted from military sites in Leavenworth, Kansas and Charleston AFB, South Carolina, to civilian facilities in Standish, Michigan and Thomson, Illinois.

The MSM has been telling Americans less that the truth on the detainee issue. Americans have not been told how well thought out was the construction of Guantanamo Bay. Its courtroom was designed by the William and Mary Law School – it is state of the art, capable of handling testimony involving top secret evidence. It has a media center. As for the detainees, forget the horror stories that represent the disinformation tactics of terrorist sympathizers who aim to sway public opinion. Detainees receive the best in medical and dental care. They have daily access to soccer fields. They have exercise areas that overlook the Caribbean, books and movies, as well as a menu where they can choose from several entrée’s cooked to Islamic Halal standards.

They are not tortured and they never were.

Lawyers, sympathic to the detainees, want you to forget that the murderers, terrorists and assassins held in Guantanamo Bay are dedicated to destroying the US. They want you to forget that they have no moral compunction against slaughtering innocents. They want you to think they were all peaceful farmers caught up in an overzealous imperialist military action. Even the Uyghur’s, members of the oppressed Chinese ethnic minority, were training to be terrorists – albeit terrorists against the Chinese, not the US. Their lawyers want them released in the US. The US has so far advocated sending them to other countries willing to accept them. They may well end up here.

Obama and Eric Holder will make a final decision only when forced to, draining time and money when justice would be served at Guantanamo Bay without endangering US citizens or allowing terrorists to exploit the US justice system. And exploit it they are, and will. Lawyers for detainees have been busily petitioning the Supreme Court and searching for sympathetic federal judges. Should trials be held in the US it is a distinct possibility that procedural tactics will allow some of the terrorists held at Guantanamo to go free. And that is exactly what many of the leftist lawyers that flocked to Guantanamo from the very beginning hope for.

What DOD lawyers understand is that the defense of the nation must be decisive, just as must the justice meted out to its enemies. They take their oath to defend the nation seriously. Their very real fear is that justice will not be served by those whose sympathies lay in part with the terrorists, believing their own country responsible for all the miseries delivered on it on 9-11-2001, and after. They perceive that the proposal to transfer detainees to the US is not about justice, but about exploiting a crisis and engaging in political manipulation. All in the quest for the opiate of power.

Last Thursday, February 25th, the Obama Administration staged a ‘Health Care Summit’ at Blair House. It was to be the President’s President “Moses Moment,” when e would part the seas and bring the Republicans, Democrats and Our country together and get everyone on board his “much maligned” Federally Run Health Care Program. (ObamaCare 2.0). His approach would be to “Listen,” particularly to The Republicans and Independents, and then part the Seas of Conflict and pass through to the Promised Land of a compromise. Well, it was over, finally over, after 7 hours of heavy winds. The event showed Obama less like a Moses parting the Red Sea, and more like a deadly tsunami poised to wreak havoc on American shores.

On his walk from The White House to The Blair House earlier in the morning, Mr. Obama declared he was going “to listen.” He listened, but not so much. When the meeting was over it turned out that his soliloquy lasted over 122 minutes, The Democrats spoke 135 minutes, and The Republicans were “allowed” to speak for 111 minutes (30% of the entire meeting). So it is official, he is not The Listener in Chief. When asked about his lack of listening ability and his penchant for wanting to listen to his own voice, Mr. Obama responded, “I don’t count my time because I am…The President.” This is the official 2010 version of “Let Them Eat Cake.”

Unfortunately for Mr. Obama, the week’s health care rollout did not start off well, when on Monday he posted a new ObamaCare 2.0 on The White House website. This Plan was eerily similar to a “worst of” compilation of excerpts from the House and Senate Health Care Plans. This Plan did not have any input from Republicans or Independents. Isn’t it odd that ObamaCare 2.0 was posted on the site — without a Press Conference? This Administration has a Press Conference when he sneezes, but no such fanfare for what the Administration claims is the most important domestic issue. The teleprompter must have developed Swine Flu, or maybe Mr. Obama held off on the press event because he would have to answer questions on HIS health care plan from that pesky press.

If Mr. Obama were sincere about input from The Republicans and Independents at “The Parting of The Seas Meeting,” why not wait until after the meeting and incorporate some of their ideas in HIS plan? Because, of course, the meeting was merely a media spectacle designed to give the illusion (a poor one at that) of potential compromise.

ObamaCare 2.0 is troubling on many fronts. ObamaCare is a combination of the House and Senate Bills, which takes control of every American’s health care life. This plan would not improve the current system, and is fatally flawed because it:

• Rations and denies access to healthcare. Denying access to healthcare is the most inhumane and unethical means of cutting costs;
• Costs $1 TRILLION ( $100 Billion more than The Senate Bill) ;
• Creates over 110 Federal Agencies, commissions and boards;
• Creates The Health Insurance Rate Authority….a direct violation of States’ Rights;
• Establishes a “ Comprehensive Database” on Americans;
• Establishes Individual and Employer Mandates ( Mr. Obama’s own Chair of Council of Economic Advisors has stated that this alone would cost 5.5 Million jobs….more unemployment. );
• Institutes $748 Billion in new taxes;
• Cuts Medicare by $500 Billion, over a period when 30% MORE Americans will be added to Medicare rolls, (You do the math…);
• Imposes $136 Billion in tax hikes on working families making LESS THAN $250,000 (Americans for Tax Reform Analysis);
• Ends Medicare Advantage Program for Seniors and forces them to a more expensive plan with less benefits;
• Applies Medicare Tax to unearned income;
• Increases Medicare Payroll Tax from 2.95 to 3.8%; and
• Increases unfunded mandates on every State.

To make matters worse, when The Congressional Budget Office was asked to review and “score” ObamaCare 2.0, its response was: “The CBO can not score or evaluate the plan due to a lack of detail.”

In the final five minutes of “The Parting of The Seas” Meeting , Mr. Obama looked to the Republican and Independent side of the room and implied that if they did not sign on to ObamaCare 2.0, He and The Democratic Majority would “get it done without them.” In other words, he would resort to Reconciliation, jamming it through Congress on a procedural gimmick. The Democrats cannot even win the issue with their own dominant majority, for a very good reason. They cannot even convince their own Democrat rank and file that they know best, when the American Public has made it clear that they do NOT want this Plan.

The meeting turned out not to be a Parting of the Seas event, but appears to have been the prelude to a tsunami that could damage our country, wash away our rights and liberties, and adversely impact every American. He seems determined, come hell or high water, to ram his way through. Let’s move to higher ground.

President Obama is proposing a series of major tax increases. His budget envisions higher tax rates on personal income, increased double taxation of dividends and capital gains, and a big increase in the death tax. His health care plan includes significant tax hikes, including the imposition of the Medicare payroll tax on capital income – thus exacerbating the tax code’s bias against saving and investment. It is unclear why the White House is pursuing these punitive policies. The President said during the 2008 campaign that he favored soak-the-rich taxes even if they did not raise revenue, but his budget predicts the proposals will raise lots of additional money.

Because of Laffer Curve reasons, it is highly unlikely that all of this additional revenue will materialize if the President’s budget is approved. The core insight of the Laffer Curve is not that all tax increases lose money and that all tax cuts raise revenues. That only happens in rare circumstances. Instead, the Laffer Curve simply reveals that higher tax rates will lead to less taxable income (or that lower tax rates will lead to more taxable income) and that it is an empirical matter to figure out the degree to which the change in tax revenue resulting from the shift in the tax rate is offset by the change in tax revenue caused by the shift in the other direction for taxable income. This should be an uncontroversial proposition, and was explained in the video from this post. But since many comments and emails expressed disbelief, this video looks at the real world evidence.

Interestingly, the DC government (which certainly is not a bastion of free-market thinking) has just acknowledged the Laffer Curve. As the excerpt below illustrates, an increase in the cigarette tax did not raise the amount of revenue that local politicians expected. The evidence is so strong that the city’s budget experts warn that a further increase will reduce revenue (for further evidence, see here, here, and here):

One of the gap-closing measures for the FY 2010 budget was an increase in the excise tax on cigarettes from $2.00 to $2.50 per pack. The 50 cent increase in the cigarette tax rate was projected to increase revenue but also reduce volume. Collections year-to-date point to a more severe drop in volumes than projected. Anecdotal evidence suggests that Maryland smokers who were purchasing in DC in FY 2008, because the tax rate in the District was less than the tax rate in Maryland, have shifted purchases back to Maryland now that the tax rate in the District is higher. Virginia analyzed the impact of demand when the federal rate went up by $0.61 in April and has been surprised that demand is much stronger than they had projected–raising the possibility that purchasing in DC has moved across the river.  Whatever the actual cause, because of the lower than anticipated collections, the estimate for cigarette tax revenue is revised downwards by $15.4 million in FY 2010 and $15.2 million in FY 2011. Given that cigarette tax rates in neighboring jurisdictions are now lower than that of the District, future increases in the tax rate will likely generate less revenue rather than more.

A study released Tuesday by the American Consumer Institute contains some bad news for proponents of net neutrality. Whereas advocates of “open internet” rules often argue that the institution of the policy is necessary to preserve innovation and would benefit consumers, the study finds that “new Internet regulations, including those now under consideration by the FCC, would restrict technology advances, innovation and job growth.”

The study further notes that “broadband network providers are a leading source of both innovation and new investment in Internet infrastructures.” Innovation and investment are often seen by tech policy observers as integral efforts that will help ensure that a broader base of consumers benefits from high-quality broadband service.

Study co-author Larry F. Darby explicitly tied proposed net neutrality regulations to a likely diminution in “motive” that would, under present circumstances, propel Internet companies to innovate and invest. Said Darby, “All indications are that these well intended regulations would dampen both incentives and opportunities for firms in the Internet ecosystem to continue to invest and to embed new technologies in core networks on which downstream applications and content providers depend.”

A recent study by Entropy Economics also indicated that contrary to assertions by “open internet” advocates, net neutrality would not increase jobs. Analysis of the effect of proposed net neutrality regulation comes as Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski continues to pursue its implementation.

Supertrain 2010 = Supertrain 1979!

President Barack Obama has pledged $8 billion in tax dollars to build a national network of high-speed rail—trains that can carry passengers at speeds in excess of 150 MPH.

But the Supertrain fantasy was a mistake back in the 1970s, when it gave rise to one of the most expensive—and rotten—TV shows in history. And it’s just as much of a wreck in the 21st century for at least three reasons:

1. The lowball costs. CNN estimates that delivering on the plan could cost well over $500 billion and take decades to build, all while failing to cover much of the country at all. Internationally, only two high-speed rail lines have recouped their capital costs and all depend on huge subsidies to stay in operation.

2. The supposed benefits. “We’re gonna be taking cars off of congested highways and reducing carbon emissions,” says Vice President Joe Biden, an ardent rail booster. But most traffic jams are urban, not inter-city, so high-speed rail between metro areas will have no effect on your daily commute. And when construction costs are factored in, high-speed rail “may yield only marginal net greenhouse gas reductions,” say UC-Berkeley researchers.

3. The delusional Amtrak example. Obama and Biden look to Amtrak as precedent, but since its founding in 1971, the nation’s passenger rail system has sucked up almost $35 billion in subsidies and, says The Washington Post’s Robert J. Samuelson, “a typical trip is subsidized by about $50.” About 140 million Americans shlep to work every day, while Amtrak carries just 78,000 passengers. There’s no reason to think that high-speed rail will pump up those numbers, though there’s every reason to believe its costs will grow and grow.

“Supertrain 2010″ was written and produced by Meredith Bragg and Nick Gillespie, who also hosts. Approximately 3 minutes.

Go to Reason.tv for iPod, HD, and audio versions, and for supporting materials and more videos.

And subscribe to Reason.tv’s YouTube channel to get automatic notifications when new material goes live.

Yesterday, The Weekly Standard reported that President Obama hosted 10 Democrat House members at the White House last night:

Tonight, Barack Obama will host ten House Democrats who voted against the health care bill in November at the White House; he’s obviously trying to persuade them to switch their votes to yes. One of the ten is Jim Matheson of Utah. The White House just sent out a press release announcing that today President Obama nominated Matheson’s brother Scott M. Matheson, Jr. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Apparently, Obama thinks that Matheson’s brother is qualified to become a federal judge:

“Scott Matheson is a distinguished candidate for the Tenth Circuit court,” President Obama said. “Both his legal and academic credentials are impressive and his commitment to judicial integrity is unwavering. I am honored to nominate this lifelong Utahn to the federal bench.”

Matheson’s background reads:

Scott M. Matheson currently holds the Hugh B. Brown Presidential Endowed Chair at the S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah, where he has been a member of the faculty since 1985. He served as Dean of the Law School from 1998 to 2006. He also taught First Amendment Law at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government from 1989 to 1990.

While on public service leave from the University of Utah from 1993 to 1997, Matheson served as United States Attorney for the District of Utah. In 2007, he was appointed by Governor Jon Huntsman to chair the Utah Mine Safety Commission. He also worked as a Deputy County Attorney for Salt Lake County from 1988 to 1989. Prior to joining the University faculty, Matheson was an associate attorney from 1981 to 1985 at Williams & Connolly LLP in Washington, D.C.

Matheson was born and raised in Utah and is a sixth generation Utahn. He received an A.B. from Stanford University in 1975, an M.A. from Oxford University, where he was a Rhodes Scholar, and a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1980.

Seems that Matheson is hurdling a few career steps to become a judge. Wonder how his brother will vote now. After all, he did vote “no” the first time around on health care and the House is just not that fond of the Senate bill.

On January 8^th, BigGovernment.com posted a blog that began, “Outrageously, U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) Secretary Hilda Solis and other DOL Obama appointees appear to have blatantly disregarded the President’s Executive Order #13490 – the Ethics Pledge.”

Somebody at the U.S. Department of Labor must be reading BigGovernment.com because just 11 days after the posting, the DOL ethics officer wrote a letter to The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation President Mark Mix and provided copies of signed “EO 13490 ethics pledges.”  (See related Foundation ongoing lawsuit against DOL for DOL’s failure to comply with the Freedom of Information Act.) Each of these newly provided pledges matched the ethics order language (more on this in another post) unlike the self-administered waivers included in the publicly distributed pledges provided to ProPublica.org and referenced in the earlier blog.

In addition, the DOL ethics officer asserted that 51 people at the DOL have signed the ethics pledge and there has been only one (1) ethics waiver issued by DOL and that was for Naomi Walker.  Her Job:  Big Labor Liaison (an Associate Deputy Secretary position). Her past experience includes a stint as an AFL-CIO lobbyist among others.  Walker’s ethics waiver is the subject of this blog.

Walker’s ethics waiver and its accompanying explanatory memo was approved “after consultation with the Counsel to the President” expose The President’s Ethics Executive Order for the joke that it is.

The ethics officer provides a four-page memo (probably written in a large part by the Counsel to the President) to justify the reasons that Walker must be provided an ethics waiver of Obama’s ethics executive order.   My summary of the memo follows:

The Counsel to President Obama and the Department of Labor reached the conclusion that it would be impossible for Walker not to violate the Ethics Order because of her previous positions with the AFL-CIO; therefore, she must be granted an ethics waiver so that she can do the job for which she was appointed.

Wasn’t the reason for the ethics pledge to prevent appointing someone to a position where their previous employer could greatly benefit with them as a government insider?

Because of the circular logic of the waiver, it is important to note that the DOL ethics officer relied upon White House consultation.  The reasons/excuses for providing the waiver as approved by the Counsel to the President are at complete odds with the Presidential Executive Order and President Obama’s claims that necessitated his Ethics Executive Order 13490.

President Obama claimed that he was creating “firm rules of the road,” yet this waiver clearly bypasses his proclaimed ethics rules:

The president then announced “firm rules of the road for my administration and all who serve in it … We need to close the revolving door that lets … them use their time in public service as a way to promote their own interests over the interests of the American people when they leave.

The Counsel to the President and the DOL ethics officer apparently do not believe this executive order created “firm rules of the road;” more like squishy rules of the road at best.  Under the ethics rubric created by the DOL ethics waiver memo, appointing someone to a position where it would be impossible for them not to violate the Obama’s Ethic Executive Order is a legitimate reason to provide an ethics waiver.

This is what happens when Big Labor paybacks meet governmental reasoning, logic is thrown out the window.

The DOL ethics waiver and supporting reasoning clearly are not what President Obama promised during multiple campaign events and on his first full day as President as he grandiosely signed his Ethics Executive Order 13490.

The Administration’s actions speak louder than words.  (And, yes there is already enough material for an “Obama Big Labor Department Ignores Ethics Pledge – Part III.”)

Renown pollster Scott Rasmussen discussed the reason a backlash against Democratic health care reform is brewing. Rasmussen also discusses Obama, Evan Bayh, upcoming Republican victories and various other topics.

“I think the other thing that is hurting Democrats on the health care issue right now is sort of the sense of they were going to push it through regardless of the fact that it was unpopular, and I don’t think that’s the kind of responsiveness that people are looking for.”

“Right now you’d have to say the likelihood is the Democrats will lose 5 to 8 seats in the Senate, which means the Republicans would not gain control. That’s probably good news for the GOP because I don’t think they want to be in charge heading into 2012. Also expect that the Republicans will pick up maybe 25 or 30 seats in the House.”

Please visit our website for additional interviews.

In a further attack on the housing market, the New York Times recently reported that President Obama may be amending his loan modification program to make it even more difficult for defaulting homeowners to be foreclosed upon.  The Times states:

The Obama administration, under intense pressure to help millions of people in danger of losing their homes, is considering a ban on foreclosures unless they have first been examined for potential modification, according to a set of draft proposals.

That would raise the stakes from the current practice, which strongly encourages lenders to evaluate defaulting borrowers for a modification but does not make it mandatory.

Meg Reilly, a Treasury Department spokeswoman, said Thursday that the proposed foreclosure ban was “one of the many ideas under consideration in the administration’s ongoing housing stabilization efforts.” The proposal was first reported by Bloomberg News.

To be fair, the effects of this program may be minimal, with some interpreting the ban to be more about PR than anything substantive:

Laurie Goodman, a senior managing director at the Amherst Securities Group who has been highly critical of the government’s modification program, said even if the proposal came to pass, it would not be “a major change. We think there is a large public relations element to this.”

…The Mortgage Bankers Association said its members were already doing what the administration was considering.

“Lenders generally go to foreclosure as a measure of last resort, after all other options, including loan modification, are exhausted,” said John Mechem, the trade group’s vice president for public affairs.

Any enhancements the government made to the modification program would be unlikely to stem many foreclosures, said Howard Glaser, a prominent housing consultant.

Regardless of the impact however, this potential loan modification addendum adds insult to the injury of an already wrongheaded and destructive policy, and will only prolong the pain in the housing market.

The reasons for the woes in housing are quite simple.  Banks extended mortgages to borrowers that were poor credit risks, and many borrowers took out mortgages that they shouldn’t have either out of speculation or profligacy.  That the depression is throwing people out of work and keeping many jobless exacerbates the problem, in that unfortunately many who could have reasonably expected to afford their homes now cannot given their lack of sufficient cash flow.  Of course, truly prudent buyers might have saved to purchase their homes outright with cash.

In any event, to fix the housing market requires these folks to be foreclosed upon.  Keeping homes off the market artificially suppresses supply, propping up prices that already necessarily needed to fall, as house prices rose to unjustifiable levels due to the Fed’s pump priming, the CRA and the surge in demand these two factors engendered.  To keep people in homes they cannot afford besides creating moral hazard and distorting banks’ balance sheets also has the effect of keeping worthy buyers from purchasing homes at decreased prices.  It further prevents apartment owners from renting out their excess inventory to underwater and/or insolvent former homeowners.  The effects of the government intervention in the housing market are amplified significantly when one considers the volume of securities backed by mortgages not being adequately serviced.

Government has no business in throwing this market into disequilibrium.  But President Obama believes otherwise.  In campaigning for Harry Reid and while announcing a further imprudent measure to provide $1.5 billion in mortgage relief in five states hit acutely by the downturn, Obama had this to say about the housing market:

“Now, government has a responsibility to help deal with this problem. Government can’t solve this problem alone. We got to be honest about that. Government alone can’t solve this problem. And it shouldn’t…It can’t stop every foreclosure, and tax dollars shouldn’t be used to reward the very irresponsible lenders and borrowers who helped bring about the housing crisis. But what we can do is help families who’ve done everything right stay in their homes whenever possible.”

This is typical Obama.  He knows how to frame the issue so that while what he is saying sets a dangerous precedent, he comes off as pragmatic.  He uses his rhetoric to appease those being taken advantage of by his policy, while spinning nicely the fact that he is going to screw them over. It is akin to when he defended himself as an “ardent defender of the free market” while touting his massive intervention into all aspects of the economy at the recent “Business Roundtable.”

Every single time he addresses an issue, you can bet that it will follow the same formula: “on the one hand [insert rational, conservative argument], but on the other [insert emotional/generally bleeding heart, liberal argument].”  It allows him to come off as a moderate and practical leader while he obfuscates the public by saying nothing.  His true stripes only show when he speaks in front of his people.

At the end of the day, the man should be judged by his actions and not his words, and his actions in the housing market are illustrative of his overall view of government’s role in the economy.  Wherever market forces are working to correct the imbalances and malinvestments of a 70-year credit expansion, this President is going to implement policies to prevent the market from working and perpetuate an illusory economy.

Factor in his foreign policy and treatment of our war with Islam, and you get the sense that this President is intentionally trying to hurt this country.  Somewhere, Jeremiah Wright is smiling.  Ironically, for all of President Obama’s apologies for our arrogance and destructiveness, as he helps sully our preeminence and power with his own policies, he remains the most arrogant and destructive American of all.

Recently the Obama Administration cut funding to Upward Bound, a successful educational program with a proven track record. Upward Bound provides support to participating students in their preparation for college entrance. Upward Bound serves high school students from low-income families and high school students from families in which neither parent holds a bachelor’s degree. 95% of Upward Bound graduates have entered post-secondary education and are four times more likely to earn a college degree than students from similar back-grounds who do not participate in the program. The Obama Administration will cut funding for this successful educational program.

Radical Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings will get a fat raise in funding this year.

At the same time, despite the runaway federal spending and record budget deficits, Barack Obama is including $410 million in the 2011 budget for his “safe schools” czar Kevin Jennings. This is an increase of $45 million over last year’s budget. Obviously, some things are more important than others. These funds ought to buy a whole mess of fisting kits, leather bar guides and child porn books. And, the money will come in handy for the sexual indoctrination of teens and pre-teens.
Citizen Link Blog reported:

So want does Jennings intend to do with this money?

For starters, he says he’s going to make “school climate” measurement a top priority—and, in fact, he’d love for “school climate” to eventually be made part of the “Common Core” national standards movement! He plans to begin with “a new grant program coming out of this department where we’ll be providing possibly as much as $70 million for investments in school climate projects.” (He revealed all this and much more in this month’s Phi Delta Kappan magazine. Scroll down to the “Safe at School” title.)

So at this point, you might be wondering, What on earth does “school climate” really mean? I think it’s best to take that definition from Kevin Jennings–based on his record as the longtime founder and leader of GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network).

Under Jennings’ leadership, GLSEN has provided students with a “school climate” continuum measurement tool. This tool reveals a lot about Jennings’ true goals: A positively rated “inclusive school,” for instance, is defined as one where “LGBT themes are fully integrated into curricula across a variety of subject areas and grade levels.”

I.e., Jennings and GLSEN want homosexual, bisexual and transgender themes taught in every subject at every grade, all the way down to the kindergarten level, maybe even preschool.

In other words Jennings will be using millions of taxpayer dollars to promote “inclusive schools” where LGBT themes are fully integrated across a variety of subject areas and grade levels. This may appear innocent enough until you take a closer look at the radical GLSEN agenda.

Kevin Jennings, the founder of the GLSEN organization, has a long history of promoting sexual material in classrooms including books that describe sex between first graders and books that promote S&M. The GLSEN group also pushes books that romanticize child rape and books that show men having sex with boy scouts in the background. Jennings’ GLSEN group also organized student-teacher seminars where instructors held fisting lectures. He sounds like just the person who deserves a fat $45 million raise, huh?

Last week, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, a crime syndicate dedicated to tightening the Democratic Party’s grip on America, dissolved its national structure.  Too much of ACORN’s corruption had been exposed to public scrutiny for it to run its vote fraud and extortion rackets effectively.  So, ACORN activists will have to soldier on in state-level organizations, such as New York Communities for Change and New England United for Justice in Massachusetts.

ACORN does indeed operate like the Mafia, but it more closely resembles another organization that began as an affiliate of the Democratic Party, the Ku Klux Klan.  Aside from intimidating some bank executives, ACORN does not engage in violence, but like the KKK it has vote fraud as a top priority.

There have been two distinct organizations known as the Ku Klux Klan.  The modern-day KKK, with whom most people are familiar, was spawned in 1915 by the Hollywood epic Birth of a Nation, premiered at the White House by a Democrat president, Woodrow Wilson.  Cross-burning and other rituals were actually inspired by the movie.  The Klan came to dominate the Democratic Party so thoroughly that the 1924 Democratic National Convention was known as the “Klanbake.”

It is not so much this Klan 2.0 that ACORN parallels as the original version.  Established in 1866, Klan 1.0 was an affiliate of the Democratic Party during the Reconstruction era.  Named for “kuklos,” the Greek word for “circle,” the Ku Klux Klan waged war against the Republican Party in the former Confederate states.  Goofy titles for its commanders such as Wizard and Cyclops were intended to disguise the fact that the KKK was a paramilitary organization.  In some areas, leadership of the Ku Klux Klan and the Democratic Party were indistinguishable.

Democrats used the Klan to suppress their political opposition, with vote fraud and intimidation and violence.  Klansmen aimed at African-Americans, nearly all Republicans in those days, and at white Republicans who tried to help them.  Once threatened by the KKK, Republicans could in many cases save their lives only by publicly swearing allegiance to the Democratic Party.  According to a southern governor, “Few Republicans dare sleep in their houses at night.”

“The suppression of enough GOP votes could ensure a Democratic victory,” wrote one historian.  “There’s no question that Klansmen closely watched the polls” – easy to do before the secret ballot was introduced in the United States in the 1880s.  All too often, Republican ballots were not even counted.

Like ACORN, the Ku Klux Klan operated with impunity until Republican politicians and journalists sounded an alarm.  In 1869, Nathan Bedford Forrest, the KKK’s Grand Dragon, ordered the Klan disbanded.  Why?  The national organization was getting too much attention, so Klansmen would have to soldier on in state-level organizations, such as the Red Shirts in South Carolina and the Men of Justice in Alabama.   Nonetheless, most members of these spin-off groups considered themselves to be Klansmen.

A congressional investigation reported that “the operations of the Klan are executed in the night and are invariably directed against members of the Republican Party.”

In 1871, the Republican-controlled 41st Congress passed the Ku Klux Klan Act, and a Republican president, Ulysses Grant, signed it.  Until overturned by the Supreme Court twelve years later, the law effectively banned the KKK.  Federal troops crushed Klan uprisings in South Carolina and Louisiana, while hundreds of Klansmen were convicted in federal court.  Law enforcement played a role in eliminating the Ku Klux Klan, but primarily the Klan disappeared because after Democrat regimes replaced the Reconstruction state governments there was no need for Democrats to suppress Republican opposition by covert means when government authorities could do so openly.

Back then, Klansmen had to contend with a Republican administration, but now, with a Democrat in the White House, ACORNistas know that the federal government is on their side.  With Eric Holder’s Justice Department condoning polling place thuggery [pictured] and other illicit activity against the GOP, there is less incentive for Democrats to suppress Republican opposition by covert means when government authorities are doing so openly.

The Democrat-controlled 111th Congress has made ACORN spin-off groups eligible for billions of taxpayer dollars.  Once an insurgency, community organizers are now part of the establishment.  To the victors go the spoils.

Last week, with eyes glazed to the tube and hands filled with overflowing tubs of popcorn, the nation watched as the most powerful man in the world temporarily stepped down from his post to serve as a mere committee chairman of the bipartisan health care summit.

The Chairman-in-Chief spoke condescendingly, counted everyone’s minutes except his own, and ultimately watched his team get thoroughly embarrassed on national television in a political Stupor Bowl.

For nearly the past year, Congressional Democrats have run around like chickens with their heads cut off, ignoring the opposition to the president’s legacy-making initiative, and feverishly making deals which each other so enough support could be garnered to get a bill passed—any bill.

In their haste to make history, it’s unfortunate that the manufactured-crisis of health-care reform has unnecessarily dominated the national debate while a real, alive-and-well, housing crisis has continued to manifest itself.

Last year, the president’s signature housing program, Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), was supposed to stem the tide of foreclosures. In the words of his Treasury Secretary, the initiative would “show results quickly”, but homeowners, mortgage companies, and legislators all questioned its effectiveness. For a few months, foreclosures were down, until December, when filings had its first month to month increase since July.

Was the increase a sign of things to come?

In a word, yes.

On Christmas Eve, while the nation was more engaged in holiday festivities than the day’s news cycle, the president calmly and coolly signed an executive order that issued a blank check to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to cover their losses from the reeling residential real estate market.

Freddie Mac had to be ecstatic; after all, it posted a $7.8 billion loss in the year’s Q4. But CEO Charles E. Haldeman, Jr. proclaimed we’re far from being out of the woods of the housing crisis.

“We start 2010 with some early signs of stabilization in the housing market, with house prices and home sales likely nearing the bottom sometime in 2010. We expect that low mortgage rates, relatively high affordability and the homebuyer tax credit will help continue to fuel the recovery. Still, the housing recovery remains fragile, with significant downside risk posed by high unemployment and a potential large wave of foreclosures.”

The president’s administration already has a solution to the potential large wave of foreclosures coming down the pike; banning foreclosures altogether. This past week, Bloomberg reported that the administration is hoping to convert HAMP into the ultimate authority on foreclosures. The program’s bureaucrats would have the power to screen and reject foreclosure attempts.

Coming from a president who purports to not be a proponent of big government, I’m absolutely shocked, and by shocked I mean I’m not surprised at all.

People shouldn’t be given the ability to remain in homes they can’t and won’t be able to afford. It’s only furthering their misery and allowing Freddie Mac to celebrate a decrease in losses on its balance sheet.

This nation needs a leader who understands that until individuals and businesses accept responsibility for their actions and take the subsequent losses as a result, the economy can’t possibly recover because there won’t have been any sort of correction to allow it to do so.

Unfortunately, in November of 2008, the electorate of the greatest nation ever known to man chose the handout president, who’s determined to control the nation’s resources and provide its citizenry with what he feels it needs. The never-ending gifts of housing, unemployment benefits, expansions of already existing entitlements, and creations of new entitlements will expand the societal underclass and perpetuate its dependence upon the government for its way of life.

This is not the American dream; he’s not The One.

A former reporter for the New York Times, Fox Butterfield, became a bit of a laughingstock in the 1990s for publishing a series of articles addressing the supposed quandary of how crime rates could be falling during periods when prison populations were expanding. A number of critics sarcastically explained that crimes rates were falling because bad guys were behind bars and invented the term “Butterfield Effect” to describe the failure of leftists to put 2 + 2 together.

We now have a version of the Butterfield Effect in tax policy. Recent IRS data show that rich people earned a record amount of income in 2007 and also faced their lowest effective tax rate in almost two decades. Proponents of soak-the-rich tax policy complain about these developments, but they seem oblivious to the Laffer Curve insight that rich people earned more income in part because tax rates were lower. This video explains how the Laffer Curve works.

Liberals don’t understand that if they penalize the rich with higher tax rates, as President Obama is proposing, they will be disappointed to discover that they collect considerably less revenue than predicted for the simple reason that wealthy taxpayers will respond by earning less taxable income. This Bloomberg excerpt is a good example. The leftist quoted in the article assumes that income is a fixed variable and successful taxpayers will passively endure higher taxes.

The 400 highest-earning U.S. households reported an average of $345 million in income in 2007, up 31 percent from a year earlier, IRS statistics show. The average tax rate for the households fell to the lowest in almost 20 years. …The statistics underscore “two long-term trends: that income at the very top has exploded and their taxes have been cut dramatically,” said Chuck Marr, director of federal tax policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington-based research group that supports increasing taxes on high-income individuals.

As an aside, it’s also worth noting that the IRS tax-rate numbers in the Bloomberg article are very misleading. The tax burden on the rich has dropped largely because of lower tax rates on dividends and capital gains. But when the IRS says upper-income taxpayers had an average tax rate of 16.6 percent, this does not include the other layers of tax that are imposed.

The corporate income tax is 35 percent (just counting the federal level), for instance, so the actual average tax rate on these forms of income is far higher. Double taxation is counterproductive to growth and competitiveness, though, which is why the correct tax rate on dividends and capital gains is zero.

A former reporter for the New York Times, Fox Butterfield, became a bit of a laughingstock in the 1990s for publishing a series of articles addressing the supposed quandary of how crime rates could be falling during periods when prison populations were expanding. A number of critics sarcastically explained that crimes rates were falling because bad guys were behind bars and invented the term “Butterfield Effect” to describe the failure of leftists to put 2 + 2 together.

We now have a version of the Butterfield Effect in tax policy. Recent IRS data show that rich people earned a record amount of income in 2007 and also faced their lowest effective tax rate in almost two decades. Proponents of soak-the-rich tax policy complain about these developments, but they seem oblivious to the Laffer Curve insight that rich people earned more income in part because tax rates were lower. This video explains how the Laffer Curve works.

Liberals don’t understand that if they penalize the rich with higher tax rates, as President Obama is proposing, they will be disappointed to discover that they collect considerably less revenue than predicted for the simple reason that wealthy taxpayers will respond by earning less taxable income. This Bloomberg excerpt is a good example. The leftist quoted in the article assumes that income is a fixed variable and successful taxpayers will passively endure higher taxes.

The 400 highest-earning U.S. households reported an average of $345 million in income in 2007, up 31 percent from a year earlier, IRS statistics show. The average tax rate for the households fell to the lowest in almost 20 years. …The statistics underscore “two long-term trends: that income at the very top has exploded and their taxes have been cut dramatically,” said Chuck Marr, director of federal tax policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington-based research group that supports increasing taxes on high-income individuals.

As an aside, it’s also worth noting that the IRS tax-rate numbers in the Bloomberg article are very misleading. The tax burden on the rich has dropped largely because of lower tax rates on dividends and capital gains. But when the IRS says upper-income taxpayers had an average tax rate of 16.6 percent, this does not include the other layers of tax that are imposed.

The corporate income tax is 35 percent (just counting the federal level), for instance, so the actual average tax rate on these forms of income is far higher. Double taxation is counterproductive to growth and competitiveness, though, which is why the correct tax rate on dividends and capital gains is zero.

Good evening, and thank you for joining me.  Many of you in this room are my friends.  Some of you are members of “Organizing For America,” formerly called “Obama For America,” and before that “Operation PUSH.”

Many of you know me.  You have cheered for me.  I miss those days.  I just want to say to each of you, simply and directly, that I am deeply sorry for my irresponsible and selfish behavior.

I was unfaithful.  I consorted with Republicans.  I engaged in bipartisanship.  What I did is not acceptable, and I am the only person to blame.

As you know, I am trying to get a health care reform bill through Congress.  In so doing, I made a reach-around across the aisle.  I avoided talk of a single-payer system.  I watered down and then removed the public option.  I took out the death panels, benefits to undocumented immigrants, and federal funding for abortion that our critics so callously and falsely observed were in the bill.

I know I have bitterly disappointed all of you.  I have made you question who I am and how I could have done the things I did.  I am embarrassed that I have put you in this position.

To everyone involved in the White House, my staff, cronies, minions, toadies, lackeys, lickspittles, parasites, finaglers, blackmailers, and, most importantly, the young people, I want you to know that I’m sorry.

To my outside allies, the netroots, Daily Kos, MoveOn.org, myDD, firedoglake, trousersnakeswamp, and the Soros Alliance for Liberalism And Democracy — shout-out to my SALAD tossers! — your support means more than ever.

I know people want to find out how I could be so selfish and so foolish. People want to know how I could have done these things to my wife Michelle, who had just become proud of this country.

I knew my actions were wrong, but I convinced myself that the normal rules didn’t apply.  I ran straight through the boundaries that a liberal president should live by.  I felt that I had worked hard for several months of my entire life and deserved to enjoy all the temptations that the Beltway could provide, including the forbidden fruit of David Gergen’s love.  I felt I was entitled.  I was not.

First, let me address one issue.  Some people have speculated that Susan Collins somehow hurt or attacked me.  It angers me that people would fabricate a story like that.  Yes, we had lunch several times.  Once, Susan became angry with me when I made her pick up the check because I mistakenly thought she was nodding her head.  And yes, we engaged in a threesome with Olympia Snowe at a public golf course.  I shot an 87.  That is no excuse for rumor-mongering.

Still, I have much to atone for.  I stopped living by the core values that were inculcated in me at a young age by the public schools of Jakarta.  It was there that I was taught such Christian beliefs as love thy neighbor, do unto others, and there is no God but God.

Those values led me to consider the opinions and beliefs of my Republican friends.  This was wrong.  As a liberal president with large congressional majorities, I should not have given in to the temptations of bipartisanship.  I am deeply ashamed that our health care bill was so badly compromised it attracted one Republican vote.  Some Vietnamese dude.  Let me be clear, I shall never cave in again.

It’s hard to admit that I need help, but I do.  For 30 days since the election of Scott Brown, I have been receiving inpatient therapy from Barney Frank, Barbara Lee, and Bernie Sanders.  I also built a house for homeless AIDS patients.  It has been rewarding and enlightening work.  But I know I have a long way to go.

As we move forward on legislation that shares our progressive values, such as closing Guantanamo Bay and eliminating the scourge of carbon dioxide from this Earth, I will adhere to the one clear path, the path of partisanship.  You have opened my eyes.  I will no longer engage in backdoor shenanigans.  I will not bend over for Ben Nelson.

I once heard, and I believe it’s true, that it’s not what you achieve in life that matters.  For that reason, I have tried to achieve as little as possible.  Instead, it’s what you overcome that’s important.

Together, we shall overcome the false prophets who say this is one America, red, white, and blue.  It is blue, period.  And as long as I’m in the White House, the blues will continue.  Thank you.

President Obama signed the renewal of the Patriot Act in the quiet of a slow-news Saturday–the Act was set to expire Sunday, February 28–as reported by The Hill.

Photo Credit: AP Photo

The reauthorization did NOT include any reforms to the current Patriot Act–an odd display of agreement and submission to Bush-era policy–even though the Democrats had the numbers to reform the Act. The continuance of the current Patriot Act signals that Democrats are fearful of further controversary in light of American’s distrust and poor approval ratings of the Democrat-controlled Congress. From the Hill:

The House approved the bill 315-97 on Thursday, a day after the extension passed the Senate.

The provisions, including roving wiretaps, records access and tracking terror suspects not affiliated with any group, were set to expire on Sunday. Democrats opposing the extension were unable to add desired civil-liberties protections.

The Patriot Act was first passed by Congress after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks as a defense mechanism against terrorists.

The House and the Senate, behind the scenes of the healthcare fervor, quietly passed this bill with little oppostion and outrage. Democrats could have modified the Patriot Act, but didn’t.

Apparently without Bush, the Patriot Act is no longer Orwellian as Michael Moore would have it and the ACLU is now quietly voicing its differences. Even Obama criticized the Act’s compromise in 2006, but had no issue, as President, signing the identical Act he wanted reforms on.  In 2006, Obama stated on the Senate floor:

So, I will be supporting the Patriot Act compromise. But I urge my colleagues to continue working on ways to improve the civil liberties protections in the Patriot Act after it is reauthorized.

The Democrats had the numbers to make changes, but another civil war would have ensued.  In addition, it appears that when these controversial legislative pieces are passed by the Democrats, it makes it all better.  No more outrage from the MSM and the far-left, because the rules of war and engagement are clearly different because, you know, the Democrats are in charge.

Barack Obama, it was claimed, would “repair” our reputation both with our enemies and our friends. So how has he done? Let’s take Britain for example. Has he “fixed” our special relationship with the British Isles? Well, if by fixed you mean he has fastened that relationship to a negative track, well then “fixed” it is.

Let’s review some of the slights that Barack Obama delivered to our closest allies, the British.

In February, immediately after he entered office, President Obama summarily rejected the most famous bust of Winston Churchill in England loaned to the U.S. for display in the Oval Office by the people of England. The bust was sent to us by the people of the U.K. as a gesture of solidarity and friendship in the aftermath of 9/11. Despite their generosity, Obama returned the generously loaned statuette without alerting the Brits that he intended to do so, blindsiding Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s government.

Then in March Obama slighted the British once again by refusing to meet PM Brown at the airport in the previously arranged welcome-to-America press conference when the Brown’s came for a state visit.

During that same visit Obama callously gave Brown, a man who is nearly blind, a set of American DVD movies as an official gift from the U.S.A., movies that won’t even play on English DVD machines (America is “Region 1” while England is “Region 2” in DVD formats). To add insult to injury Mrs. Obama gave the Brown’s boys a few cheap toy helicopters from a Washington gift shop — likely made in China. On the other hand PM Brown gave some significant and thoughtful gifts to the Obama’s and our nation.

For his part, PM Brown gave two symbolic gifts and one that expressed national pride. Brown came bearing a pen holder carved from the timbers of the sister ship of that which gave the wood to create the famous “Resolute Desk,” the desk that has been in America’s charge since 1880. He also gave Obama the framed commission for that famous ship, the HMS Resolute. His third gift was a seven-volume biography of one of England’s greatest leaders, Winston Churchill.

Also during this state visit at least one person in Obama’s administration denigrated the famed “special relationship” that the U.S. and the U.K. have had since WWII. When Brown’s aids tried to interact with Obama’s, one of Obama’s aids reportedly said that there was no special relationship and that the Brits would be treated like any other nation in the age of Obama. Not very diplomatic that.

During March, British officials began to complain that Obama’s administration was neglecting the diplomatic phone calls that British officials were making to try to coordinate international policies. Apparently no one was picking up the phone in Washington when the Brits rang.

Later in April, the Obama’s showed an utter lack of protocol when visiting the Queen of England. Obama’s wife broke protocol by placing her hand upon the Queen’s back, a definite no-no. Michelle, it seems, was entirely too casual about her appearance before the Queen and the British were appalled by Michelle’s lack of respect. By itself this incident might seem small, but taken with all the others it seems apiece with how unimportant the Obama’s consider the British. Even long-standing protocol isn’t important enough to observe as far as the Obama’s are concerned.

Then in May Team Obama left the Queen out of its D-Day memorial plans again showing the Brits that they weren’t important enough for Obama’s attention.

It should be remembered that the D-Day incident occurred around the same time that Obama was bowing in supplication before the Saudi King showing the world that Obama would pay more deference to a repressive regime than any western democracy.

By June the British press was beginning to wonder why Obama hated them so much. Even the New York Times worried that, “on a more basic level, there is a sense that the Obama administration is ignoring the needs and counsel of longtime allies.” And so, during June several other western democracies were pronouncing their disgust at how they were being mistreated or ignored by Obama and his administration. Along with the British, the Germans, the French, and the Israelis were also becoming miffed at their treatment at Obama’s hands.

We should contrast these slights with how Obama had been bowing and scraping (both figuratively and literally) to Saudi Kings, North Korean madmen, dictatorial Iranian regimes, and South American strong men throughout this entire time. Obama was also seen in November bowing nearly to the floor before another national leader, this time before Japan’s Emperor Akihito. The Brits must have really been confused by this one. He bows to a Japanese Emperor — whose predecessor was an enemy to the U.S. — but shows little interest in their Queen — who was herself one of our longest allies and fought with us during WWII?

And now Obama’s upturned nose is again shown England as she fights to retain control of the Falklands. Instead of supporting the Brit’s assertion that the Falklands are their lawful possession Obama ignored the whole question, saying nothing, and leaving the British to twist in the wind lending Argentina’s claims upon the Islands more credence than it otherwise would have had if the U.S. had officially upheld the Brit’s rights to them.

The word in London is that Obama is punishing the British for having released sensitive U.S. intelligence on a terror suspect recently. In retaliation Obama has refused to uphold the U.K.’s long-held sovereignty over the Falklands.

This wasn’t the only punishment Obama dealt the Brits over this incident. Last week Obama also abruptly canceled a planned conference to celebrate 60 years of the two nation’s intelligence sharing arrangement.

In the final analysis it seems that Obama can act tough with the British, can callously dismiss the French and the Germans, but goes all soft in the face of murderous regimes like Iran, the Saudis, and North Korea. One would suspect that Obama hasn’t the spine to deal with real problems but, like the cuckolded hubby, lashes out where he knows its safe to do so but not where some lashing out would do some good.

Washington News Observer spoke with various outspoken Republicans.  Some Republicans claimed that Republicans came out on top at this summit, while other dismissed it as a waste of time. The following clips feature Reps. Michelle Bachmann, Steve King and Brian Bilbray.

“Well in my opinion I think that we probably will see more substance come out of the Beer Summit at the White House than we will out of the current Health Care Summit today. So I don’t think we’re going to see a lot of productivity unfortunately because it would have been nice if we actually could’ve seen something move down the road. Instead I think what we’re seeing is a President who has dug his heels in and he plans to do nothing but defend his incomprehensible over 2,000 page long plan.

“They want to use the nuclear option on Republicans, and they want to allow Iran to develop nuclear capability. And the conditions that he offered to Ahmadinejad have been denied to Republicans. He insists on keeping his bills on the table; the reconciliation nuclear option on the table. He refuses to open and extend his hand with a blank slate or a blank piece of paper.”

“The Republicans walked into the President’s house and actually gave broadside after broadside and matched him one for one. I think the President realizes that he could not filibuster with the Members.”

Please visit our website for additional interviews and the latest coverage from Washington.

“Oh, no…  What have I done?”

That is the lament of innumerable people staring into a mirror at the garish tattoo they added to their lower backsides the previous night during a spell of misjudgment.

Such tattoos are often referred to as “tramp stamps,” a term that has gained such cultural currency that it was named one of the “Words of the Year” for 2009 by the New Oxford American Dictionary.  Perhaps the best definition, however, can be found atwww.urbandictionary.com:

2.  Tramp Stamp:  “Tramp Stamp” is a derogatory term referring to a tattoo which a woman places on her lower back.  It is especially popular among women born in the late ‘70s, ‘80s, and even early ‘90s.  Fair or unfair, these tattoos have a socially constructed connotation associated with them.  Although these are often biased and generalized claims, there have been sociological studies done by the American Psychological Association, Federal Bureau of Prisons, and other demographic researchers showing strong correlative evidence associating tattoos with high-risk behavior, illegal substance abuse and sexual promiscuity.  These risk factors are greatest in the age range which these types of tattoos are gaining mainstream popularity.  Some have also jokingly stated that by 2050, the “tramp stamp” will be renamed the “gramp stamp.”

What thus seemed at first a hip, daring way of demonstrating individuality to the world quickly becomes a lasting and unsightly cliché of indiscretion.

It seemed so cool at the time.  But now, the cool is gone and all that remains is a silly permanent mark.

Today, one can travel down any busy American street or highway and usually spot the new political equivalent of the tramp stamp.  Namely, the ubiquitous 2008 campaign decal with the cartoonish stenciled portrait of Barack Obama gazing wistfully into the distance above the nebulous term “HOPE.”

Created by “street artist” and George W. Bush antagonist Shepard Fairey based upon the 2006 photograph of Obama by Associated Press (AP) photographer Mannie Garcia, the image became synonymous with the Obama hysteria.

Apparently unconcerned with the sinister association, Laura Barton of the left-wing Guardian newspaper gushed that “Hope” had “acquired the kind of instant recognition of Jim Fitzpatrick’s Che Guevara poster, and is surely set to grace t-shirts, coffee mugs and the walls of student bedrooms in years to come.”

Humorously, Fairey’s imagery ultimately became the subject of a lawsuit when the AP claimed unfair use of its photograph and demanded compensation.

Irrespective of the legal imbroglio surrounding “Hope,” Obama’s disastrous first year has obliterated the cachet the image so recently possessed.  Obama has performed so poorly after entering office with such high (albeit unfounded) accolades that his approval among the American electorate has plummeted more steeply than any elected President in the history of scientific polling.

And justifiably so.

Obama promised to reduce the federal debt by scouring the budget “line-by-line,” but he has instead dangerously inflated spending and debt.  He promised to usher in a new era of international peace and cooperation by literally and figuratively bowing to foreign counterparts, but instead dangerous regimes like Iran, North Korea, Venezuela and Russia have increased their influence and belligerence.  He promised a reversal of the Reagan Revolution that brought a quarter-century of unprecedented prosperity and a peaceful end to the Cold War, but has instead failed so miserably that he managed to see a Republican elected to fill Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat.  He promised to bring bipartisan healthcare reform, but has instead been forced to roll out multiple “one last time” speeches and summits to sell ObamaCare to an unwilling nation.  Just this week, he unveiled ObamaCare 1.0, or 3.0, or 7.0 – it is simply too difficult to keep track.

As a result, the omnipresent “Hope” bumper sticker now possesses approximately the same value as the secret formula for New Coke.

Unfortunately, though, there’s one important distinction between the faded and tattered “Hope” decal versus the larger Obama agenda that it came to represent.  Passé bumper stickers and other fads like the pet rock can simply be relegated to the attic or recycle bin.  In contrast, a garish tattoo is more permanent and removal is painful.

Even more painful will be reversal of whatever items from the Obama agenda America allows to become law.

After the conclusion of yesterday’s nationally-televised health care “summit” hosted by President Obama, in a video for YouTube’s Citizen Tube I answered five health care questions submitted and voted on by the You Tube community.  The questions posed on You Tube are the same questions and concerns I hear from Americans across the country.  They want to us scrap the current bill and start over with common-sense, step-by-step measures that lower health care costs.  And they want to know why Congress insists on passing massive bills that no one in America has time to read or understand.  My Republican colleagues and I agree a different approach is needed – not just to health care reform, but to the way Congress works on every issue.

In the video, I respond to citizens’ questions about health care reform.  On one question, for example, about whether I believe that health care is a right, I said that, “I believe that freedom is a right, and that any health care bill that takes away Americans’ freedom is wrong.” I also answered questions about my support for health care reforms aimed at lowering Americans’ health care costs, such as medical liability reform and allowing Americans to purchase health insurance across state lines, and pledged I will insist on smaller, simpler bills and implement a mandatory 72-hour online reading period for all bills if Republicans are entrusted with the majority.

Over the past year, Republicans have used new media tools to interact directly with the American people.  Whether on Twitter, where House Republicans outnumber their Democratic counterparts two-to-one, or YouTube, where eight of the top 10 most-viewed and most-subscribed YouTube channels in Congress are from the GOP, House Republicans are listening to and learning from the American people.  Below is full text of my answers to You Tube:

“Hi, I’m Congressman John Boehner.

“First let me thank the YouTube community for submitting some very thoughtful questions and comments.  My colleagues and I believe the best ideas come from you, not from bureaucrats here in Washington.  This effort is just one more example of that.

“Before I get into your questions, I want to also make sure you know this isn’t the only chance you have to weigh in on the issues that are important to you and your family.  Visit GOPLeader.gov to send me a message, or follow and reply to GOPLeader on Twitter.  With your help, direct media is making government more transparent and accountable.  Forward this video to your friends, and let’s work together to make sure Washington listens to the people.

“The first submission is from ‘Blinn’ in Illinois.  Blinn says ‘All people voting on these bills should be required to personally read the entire bill before being allowed to vote on it. It is ridiculous that these bills are thousands of pages long. Bills should be written in clear language.’

“Blinn, Americans have the right to know what is in these massive bills before Congress votes on them, and if I become Speaker of the House, we’ll run the House differently – differently from the current majority and from past Republican ones. And if I become speaker, there will be a 72 hour reading period before any bill is brought to the floor.  It’s part of our congressional transparency Initiative – you can check it out at GOPLeader.gov/ReadTheBill.

“But in addition to that, we don’t need to have these really big bills.  We can keep these bills smaller, more targeted, so that people actually can read them and understand what they’re voting on before they come to the floor.

“Next, ‘C. Rodgers’ from Lincoln, Nebraska asks ‘Why not quit artificially limiting the market? Stop tying health insurance to employers and increase the market dramatically. Allow insurance providers to sell across state lines and increase it even more. The larger the market the lower the price.’

“This is really one of the centerpieces of our Republican health care proposal.  Marsha Blackburn talked about it today at the summit.  Democrats claim they’ve included it in their bill, but they really haven’t.

What they really are trying to do is say, we’ve got the same thing – buying across state lines – but only  if you go to a government–run exchange with a government mandated health insurance policy that’s going to be designed by the government as well.

“Republicans believe that you should be able to buy any insurance policy across state lines and you can decide for yourself fits the needs for you and your family.

“Up next we have Pat from Chicago who asks ‘Thompson Reuters had performed a study in which they concluded that 40% of healthcare waste was from unnecessary care. Unnecessary care is primarily a result of a fear of being sued, aka malpractice. What is being done to address malpractice?’

“Well Pat, you heard today that medical malpractice is really important.  And it’s not just that we reform this so that we’re not driving doctors out of states and out of communities, it’s also because of the defensive medicine that doctors practice.

“You know it was brought up today a number of times, but we never really got into the numbers.  The Congressional Budget Office says that we would save $54 billion over the next ten years in the government-run programs if we had medical malpractice reform.  PricewaterhouseCoopers issued a report in 2006 that said that we would save up to $125 billion over the next ten years.

“And we’ve got other reports.  One that came out was a Gallup study that was done just six weeks ago, and they interviewed doctors all across the country, and a majority of doctors claimed that 26 percent of the care they give is defensive medicine.  We know that if we can eliminate all of this defensive medicine that’s going on, we can dramatically lower the cost of health insurance around the country.

“Brian, a student, asks: ‘Do you believe that healthcare is a right, or that health insurance is a right?’

“We all know that if you have a health emergency in America, you have a right to be treated.  It’s as clear as that.  Health insurance – I’m not quite sure I’d call it a right – but we would clearly like to make health insurance affordable for more Americans.  And the way to do that is to drive down costs in the current system.

“I believe freedom is a right, and any health care bill that takes away Americans’ freedom is wrong.  I think Americans should have the freedom to choose their own health care, and that the government shouldn’t choose it for them.

“Finally, the number one question based on your votes comes from Chris at the University of Florida.  Chris says: ‘What is the explicit reasoning behind mandating the purchase of healthcare services?’

“Well, Chris, liberals believe mandating health care coverage will lower costs.  I believe that mandating coverage like this for everyone is unconstitutional.  And I think there are better things we can do to lower the cost of health care and make it more affordable for all Americans.

“Well, that’s the last of the questions, but this conversation on health care is far from over.  VisitGOPLeader.gov and reply to me via Twitter at GOPLeader. Thanks for watching.”

After the conclusion of yesterday’s nationally-televised health care “summit” hosted by President Obama, in a video for YouTube’s Citizen Tube I answered five health care questions submitted and voted on by the You Tube community.  The questions posed on You Tube are the same questions and concerns I hear from Americans across the country.  They want to us scrap the current bill and start over with common-sense, step-by-step measures that lower health care costs.  And they want to know why Congress insists on passing massive bills that no one in America has time to read or understand.  My Republican colleagues and I agree a different approach is needed – not just to health care reform, but to the way Congress works on every issue.

In the video, I respond to citizens’ questions about health care reform.  On one question, for example, about whether I believe that health care is a right, I said that, “I believe that freedom is a right, and that any health care bill that takes away Americans’ freedom is wrong.” I also answered questions about my support for health care reforms aimed at lowering Americans’ health care costs, such as medical liability reform and allowing Americans to purchase health insurance across state lines, and pledged I will insist on smaller, simpler bills and implement a mandatory 72-hour online reading period for all bills if Republicans are entrusted with the majority.

Over the past year, Republicans have used new media tools to interact directly with the American people.  Whether on Twitter, where House Republicans outnumber their Democratic counterparts two-to-one, or YouTube, where eight of the top 10 most-viewed and most-subscribed YouTube channels in Congress are from the GOP, House Republicans are listening to and learning from the American people.  Below is full text of my answers to You Tube:

“Hi, I’m Congressman John Boehner.

“First let me thank the YouTube community for submitting some very thoughtful questions and comments.  My colleagues and I believe the best ideas come from you, not from bureaucrats here in Washington.  This effort is just one more example of that.

“Before I get into your questions, I want to also make sure you know this isn’t the only chance you have to weigh in on the issues that are important to you and your family.  Visit GOPLeader.gov to send me a message, or follow and reply to GOPLeader on Twitter.  With your help, direct media is making government more transparent and accountable.  Forward this video to your friends, and let’s work together to make sure Washington listens to the people.

“The first submission is from ‘Blinn’ in Illinois.  Blinn says ‘All people voting on these bills should be required to personally read the entire bill before being allowed to vote on it. It is ridiculous that these bills are thousands of pages long. Bills should be written in clear language.’

“Blinn, Americans have the right to know what is in these massive bills before Congress votes on them, and if I become Speaker of the House, we’ll run the House differently – differently from the current majority and from past Republican ones. And if I become speaker, there will be a 72 hour reading period before any bill is brought to the floor.  It’s part of our congressional transparency Initiative – you can check it out at GOPLeader.gov/ReadTheBill.

“But in addition to that, we don’t need to have these really big bills.  We can keep these bills smaller, more targeted, so that people actually can read them and understand what they’re voting on before they come to the floor.

“Next, ‘C. Rodgers’ from Lincoln, Nebraska asks ‘Why not quit artificially limiting the market? Stop tying health insurance to employers and increase the market dramatically. Allow insurance providers to sell across state lines and increase it even more. The larger the market the lower the price.’

“This is really one of the centerpieces of our Republican health care proposal.  Marsha Blackburn talked about it today at the summit.  Democrats claim they’ve included it in their bill, but they really haven’t.

What they really are trying to do is say, we’ve got the same thing – buying across state lines – but only  if you go to a government–run exchange with a government mandated health insurance policy that’s going to be designed by the government as well.

“Republicans believe that you should be able to buy any insurance policy across state lines and you can decide for yourself fits the needs for you and your family.

“Up next we have Pat from Chicago who asks ‘Thompson Reuters had performed a study in which they concluded that 40% of healthcare waste was from unnecessary care. Unnecessary care is primarily a result of a fear of being sued, aka malpractice. What is being done to address malpractice?’

“Well Pat, you heard today that medical malpractice is really important.  And it’s not just that we reform this so that we’re not driving doctors out of states and out of communities, it’s also because of the defensive medicine that doctors practice.

“You know it was brought up today a number of times, but we never really got into the numbers.  The Congressional Budget Office says that we would save $54 billion over the next ten years in the government-run programs if we had medical malpractice reform.  PricewaterhouseCoopers issued a report in 2006 that said that we would save up to $125 billion over the next ten years.

“And we’ve got other reports.  One that came out was a Gallup study that was done just six weeks ago, and they interviewed doctors all across the country, and a majority of doctors claimed that 26 percent of the care they give is defensive medicine.  We know that if we can eliminate all of this defensive medicine that’s going on, we can dramatically lower the cost of health insurance around the country.

“Brian, a student, asks: ‘Do you believe that healthcare is a right, or that health insurance is a right?’

“We all know that if you have a health emergency in America, you have a right to be treated.  It’s as clear as that.  Health insurance – I’m not quite sure I’d call it a right – but we would clearly like to make health insurance affordable for more Americans.  And the way to do that is to drive down costs in the current system.

“I believe freedom is a right, and any health care bill that takes away Americans’ freedom is wrong.  I think Americans should have the freedom to choose their own health care, and that the government shouldn’t choose it for them.

“Finally, the number one question based on your votes comes from Chris at the University of Florida.  Chris says: ‘What is the explicit reasoning behind mandating the purchase of healthcare services?’

“Well, Chris, liberals believe mandating health care coverage will lower costs.  I believe that mandating coverage like this for everyone is unconstitutional.  And I think there are better things we can do to lower the cost of health care and make it more affordable for all Americans.

“Well, that’s the last of the questions, but this conversation on health care is far from over.  VisitGOPLeader.gov and reply to me via Twitter at GOPLeader. Thanks for watching.”

Two weeks ago the U.S. Senate passed new rules that would require new spending to be offset somewhere else in the budget, the so-called paygo rule. They did this because Democrats and Obama got tired of being called big spending socialists and wanted the veneer of fiscal responsibility with which to cloak themselves. It lasted two weeks before the Senate broke its own new Obama-sponsored rule and went headlong for just another big spending program with its supposed jobs bill.

On February 13 President Obama celebrated the paygo rule as a “common sense” rule that would “rein in spending.” Obama then said that the new rule would assure that Congress would be forced to “pay for what it spends, just like everybody else.”

It all sounds so grand. But it wasn’t to last. Maybe that’s why the Senate couldn’t abide by the rule, it was too much “common sense” for them to put up with?

Two weeks ago the Senate Republicans stood against the President’s “common sense” saying that the paygo rule didn’t do a thing to dampen spending but only gave Congress the dispensation to raise more taxes in order to fund the spending levels desired. All 40 Republican Senators voted against the paygo rule two weeks ago, though this week six voted to suspend the paygo rule for the jobs bill, newly seated Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts being one of them.

Regardless, Republicans were flabbergasted that the Senate could pass what was touted as a fiscally responsible rule one week and the next break that very rule.

“I’m just not sure how you vote for this bill when it violates that rule, which you just voted for two weeks ago,” said Sen. Judd Gregg, New Hampshire Republican. “It just seems to be a bit of inconsistency that’s hard even for a political institution to justify.”

The jobs bill is but more fuel for Obama’s big government juggernaut by funding state projects while doing much of nothing for private sector jobs. But what ever the jobs bill is or isn’t on its own merits the fact is after only two weeks of celebration about those “common sense” paygo rules the whole idea was thrown right out the window at the first opportunity.

What this episode shows is that there is no shame at all even in this wondrous age of Obama’s “fiscal responsibility” and “common sense.” No Congress can be trusted to observe even its own grand ideas of fiscal responsibility.

And will President Obama scold this spendthrift Congress for breaking a rule that hadn’t even aged a month yet? One would not expect so.

Perhaps this is why Congress has a disapproval rating of between 65 and 80 percent at this point in time?

Imagine, if you will, that you are living in a changed America, or in President Obama’s words, an America that begged “re-making.”  In this now-changed America, hope is in big government and her closest ally, big science.

Now imagine that you and your spouse give birth to a child in this brave, new America, in a hospital linked by law to the federal citizens database.  Immediately upon your child’s birth, a hospital clerk assigns your newborn with a “Unique Health Identifier” (UHI), a specially coded number, which is then put into a national electronic database, along with your newborn’s fingerprints and any other identifiers the bureaucrats in D.C. have demanded.

Sex.  Weight.  Length.  Race. APGAR score.  Health appraisal at birth, including any disfigurements or handicaps, identifying traits or birthmarks, and DNA markers.   Information about the child’s parents, such as names, age, race, number of prior pregnancies, number of prior births, number of prior abortions, education attained, occupations, finger prints and criminal records, if any, are also stored.  Almost anything can be included in the database for future government needs, whatever those might be.

Imagine that all constitutional safeguards for an individual’s privacy are deemed to have been complied with, when compiling this database, because healthcare is an interstate activity that the Feds can regulate and government access to the information improves the “general welfare.”  Imagine that it is even required that your newborn, before leaving the hospital, be fitted with a surgically implanted microchip, the way babies are now, in many states, required to be vaccinated and blood-typed.  The implanted microchip can then be accessed with a scanner by anyone who has a scanning device, with or without parental consent.

Imagine an America where your Unique Health Identifier (UHI) is required for every access to a nationally controlled healthcare system.  Imagine an America, where you must give your UHI, via a scan of your surgically implanted biochip, to pick up your prescription at the pharmacy and even when you buy over the counter medications.  The number could eventually be required to purchase alcohol and tobacco products, perhaps even to track quantities of bakery goods, chocolates, trans-fats, beef, and even birth control products — or anything else the nanny bureaucrats decide to monitor.

Sound farfetched?  Like a plot from a conspiracy-theory movie?  Like something from a sci-fi novel?

Think again.

The plans to make these very things a reality right here in America are being made in this administration, under the leadership of the president’s science guru, John Holdren.

For the past several months, I have been working with an appointed member of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), the sub-committee on health and technology.  My contact on the health and technology sub-committee was privy to conversations, which when related to me, literally caused shivers down my spine.

Every single detail in my opening paragraphs of this article were actually discussed in this committee and seen as a good for the future of American society.  Only a scientifically controlled populace, according to these gurus of population and health control, can survive.  These scientists see their mission as one of absolute control over even the most private aspects of human life.

Not since the aftermath of WWII — when the ends of the scientific-progressive state were revealed to the world in vivid pictures of the Nazi death camps — have progressives dared to raise their heads in America to such a degree as they are now, under the leadership of Obama’s science guru, John Holdren.  Holdren, early in his career, declared himself a Malthusian scientist and has, regretfully, never recanted, nor substantially altered his worldview.  In Holdren’s mind, as revealed in confirmation testimony, only his numbers have been off in the past, not his conclusions on the necessity of scientific control as a societal good.

Unfortunately, some of the groundwork for Holdren’s scientist-controlled America was lain in the 1996 passage of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).  Part of HIPAA legislation was the requirement for the development of the Unique Health Identifier (UHI) for individuals.  As detailed by this White Paper by Department of Health and Human Services:

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) outlines a process to achieve uniform national health data standards and health information privacy in the United States. Enacted with the widespread support of the industry and bipartisan support in the Congress, the law requires that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) adopt standards to support the electronic exchange of a variety of administrative and financial health care transactions.

In 2003, privacy rules were enacted that purportedly protect the individual’s right to healthcare confidentiality.  However, a provision of these privacy rules includes a powerful, blanket waiver, which can be used at the discrimination of a “Privacy Board,” acting under HHS.  All privacy rules can be disregarded for research or other “necessary” purpose:

If the covered entity receives appropriate documentation that an IRB or Privacy Board has granted a waiver or an alteration of the Authorization requirement

In other words, American citizens will continue to have the right to privacy and confidentiality between themselves and their healthcare providers, if and only if, the Department of Health and Human Services deems that right justified.  If, on the other hand, the HHS deems the open availability of an individual’s or groups of individuals’ healthcare information to be necessary to the “general welfare,” then a waiver will be granted without the citizen’s consent or even his knowledge.  And this is perfectly legal.

Making something legal, of course, does not make that thing moral or ethical.

A scientist, like John Holdren, along with the support of PCAST and its sub-committee on health and technology, would seem to be nudging Americans towards sublimating their individual needs to the collective, especially in terms of population control and the various side issues, like preventing the births of those they deem unsuitable for their brave new America.

According to my source on the health and technology sub-committee, ultimate biological control of the population is the end goal of the federal healthcare initiative, now being force-fed by the president and the Democratic Party congressional leaders.

Members of this sub-committee were even heard discussing how women’s menstrual periods could be state monitored.  How people’s defecation might be monitored and used to detect broad health concerns through electronic toilet management systems.  How sexual habits could be state-monitored by managing the sale of all birth-control technology through the use of the UHI.

Insanity seems too mild a word to describe the kind of mind that would want to create this sort of world.  These people make Dr. Frankenstein seem like a child playing tiddlywinks in his backyard playpen.

Yet, without passage of one of the current healthcare bills, which provide for the creation of the federal bureaucracies that will be tasked with numbering the whole populace, controlling which medical therapies are given to chosen citizens, and the completion of the electronic medical records system, all of these brave-new-America visions for control will be stymied and postponed indefinitely.

Perhaps this explains why President Obama and his Party are willing to commit political suicide for the passage of this particular healthcare overhaul.  Without it, they may fail in their grand plan to “re-make” America according to their scientific-state, progressive delusions.

With it, nothing else may matter.

Knowledge is power, said Frances Bacon.

And the knowledge of every detail of an individual’s health and lifestyle would be a powerful weapon in the hands of bureaucrats and their political masters.

America, the land of the free and home of the brave?  Perhaps, not for much longer, if the president and his scientific-progressives have their way.  For in their “utopian” world, you and I are nothing much but a number, a stock item, to be controlled for their purposes.

For as Frances Bacon also said, “The desire of power in excess caused the angels to fall; the desire of knowledge in excess caused man to fall.”

It doesn’t take much more than a casual glance at the downfall of the others who’ve tried this mad-science controlled government scheme to see that it isn’t a winner.  Both the Nazis and the Soviets, who built their own totalitarian regimes on Malthusian scientific themes did fall – albeit only after killing untold millions of their own citizens.

The scientifically controlled state as a vehicle for advancing human progress?  Hardly.   As human beings have tragically learned, over and over again, science without morality can indeed be the most efficient killer.

It’s not hard to believe that big government would want this kind of power over the lives of individual citizens.  What is indeed difficult to believe is that this is happening in America.

The only question now is who will stop it?

Congress can raise taxes because it can persuade a sizable fraction of the populace that somebody else will pay.

– Milton Friedman

How dare you save and invest your hard earned money while other people waste it can’t afford to. It’s just not fair that you’re making “unearned” income and we need to take more of that from you to pay for our big government programs.

Terrence Jeffrey has the details from Obamascare 2.0:

“Under current law, workers who earn a salary pay a flat tax of 1.45 percent of their wages to support the Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) trust fund, but those who have substantial unearned income do not, raising issues of fairness,” says the summary.

Fairness?! The Redistributor in Chief wants to go there? Seriously?

Right now, the people who earn very little, or nothing, get way more back in Medicare than they’ve ever paid in and there is no income cap on the Medicare tax. The rich are already paying more than their “fair share.” In addition the money being used to make unearned income has already been taxed at least once.

The Wall Street Journal points out the unprecedented nature of the taxes and how anti-growth it is:

This new ObamaCare bargain would for the first time apply the 2.9% Medicare payroll tax to “interest, dividends, annuities, royalties and rents,” so-called passive income that we are told includes capital gains, though the latter wasn’t explicitly mentioned in the proposal. This antigrowth investment tax would apply to singles earning more than $200,000 and joint filers over $250,000 and comes on top of the Senate’s 0.9-percentage-point increase in the payroll tax, which would bring the combined employee-employer share to 3.8%

Hey, wait a second, didn’t Obama say he wouldn’t raise any tax on families making less than $250k/year?

Single moms and dads making over $200k are going to be slapped with this. Obama hates single parent families!

More on the “fairness” issue: The Tax Foundation does an annual survey of US attitudes on tax and wealth. In their 2006 survey, more than two thirds of the people said no one should pay more than 20% of their income in taxes. That includes state, federal and local taxes. Of course, the top federal income tax rate for 2008 was 35%. That means most Americans believe “the rich” are taxed too much right now. If every American truly understood how excessive our taxation has already become we could create a tax revolution. (I understand we’re talking about payroll Medicare taxes and not income taxes, here, but it all goes into the tax debate. )

These new taxes will have a huge, negative impact on job growth. When will the lefties learn that whatever you tax you will get less of? This is another step into turning Medicare into a welfare program. STOP!

Three-fifths to two-thirds of the federal budget consists of taking property from one American and giving it to another. Were a private person to do the same thing, we’d call it theft. When government does it, we euphemistically call it income redistribution, but that’s exactly what thieves do — redistribute income.

–Walter Williams.

Here’s the latest episode of The Recap, my humorous, conservative look at the week in politics. Watch it, rate it and send it to your friends. Enjoy.

What everyone needs to recognize before the Health Care Summit later today is that the uninsured can be covered at modest additional net cost without the government takeover of health care, government health care rationing, 100 new health control bureaucracies and programs, and trillion dollars in new taxes and spending (woefully underestimated) involved in Obamacare.

The lack of a clear safety net for the uninsured is what gives Democrats the political lift to keep coming back for socialized medicine.  Republicans should advance the modest reforms necessary to establish a true safety net that will ensure that no one will be denied essential health care.  Only that will permanently protect the health care of the American people from government takeover and control.  Republicans should trumpet this point at the health care summit tomorrow.

Reform should start with Medicaid, which already spends over $400 billion a year providing substandard coverage for 50 million poor Americans.  Congress should transform Medicaid to provide assistance to purchase private health insurance for all who otherwise could not afford coverage, ideally with health insurance vouchers.

This one step would enormously benefit the poor already on Medicaid.  The program today pays doctors and hospitals only 60% of costs for their health care services for the poor.  As a result, 40% of doctors and hospitals won’t take Medicaid patients.  This is already a form of rationing, as Medicaid patients find obtaining health care increasingly difficult, and studies show they suffer worse health outcomes as a result.  Health insurance vouchers would free the poor from this Medicaid ghetto, enabling them to obtain the same health care as the middle class, because they would be able to buy the same health insurance in the market.

Ideally this would be done by changing Medicaid financing to provide the federal assistance to the states for the program through finite block grants, which would not vary to match increased state Medicaid spending as today.  States that innovate to reduce costs can then keep the savings.  States that operate programs with continued runaway costs would pay those additional costs themselves.  Such reforms worked spectacularly in stopping the runaway costs of the old AFDC program when Congress adopted welfare reform in 1996.

The block grants should provide states with increased federal funding sufficient, counting state Medicaid funds, to give assistance to all who truly cannot afford health insurance.  The voters of each state can then decide how much assistance for the purchase of health insurance to provide families at different income levels.  This would rightly vary with the different income and cost levels of each state.

Done right, this would ensure that no one would lack health insurance because they can’t afford it.  But to ensure a complete safety net, federal funding should also be provided for each state to set up an uninsurable risk pool.  Those uninsured who become too sick to purchase health insurance in the market for the first time, perhaps because they have cancer or heart disease, would be assured of guaranteed coverage through the risk pool.  They would be charged a premium based on their ability to pay.  Federal and state funding would cover remaining costs.

Such risk pools already exist in over 30 states, and they work well at relatively little cost to the taxpayers because few people actually become truly uninsurable.  This works far better than forcing insurers to cover everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions, or regulations such as guaranteed issue (requiring insurers to cover everyone who applies regardless of health condition) or community rating (requiring insurers to charge everyone the same regardless of health condition).  Such regulation naturally causes health insurance premiums to soar.  That is because it is like requiring insurers to provide fire insurance for houses that are already on fire.  With the above reforms, such cost increases would be avoided, while ensuring that everyone has somewhere to go to get essential coverage and care.

The law already provides that insurers cannot cut off existing policyholders, or impose discriminatory rate increases, because they become sick while covered.  That would be like allowing fire insurers to cut off coverage for houses once they catch on fire.  If this law needs to be modernized, it should be.

With these reforms, those who have insurance can keep it, those who can’t afford it are given help to buy it, and those who nevertheless remain uninsured and then become too sick to buy it have a back up safety net in the risk pools.

This completely solves the problem of the uninsured without any individual or employer mandates, which are burdensome, unnecessary gateways to enormous trouble.  There is also no need whatsoever for any new health care bureaucracy.  Also not needed is any sort of health care rationing, such as fixed health care budgets, accountable care organizations, pay for performance, comparative effectiveness dictates, or “cost effectiveness” regulations.  Republicans should vociferously object to all of this unnecessary socialized medicine baggage at the summit tomorrow.

President Obama and the Democrats are using the uninsured as a foil for the massive expansion of government power and control over health care involved in socialized medicine.  Solving the problem of the uninsured through the above means takes away that foil.

President Barack Obama’s highly anticipated Blair House Summit was sold as a bipartisan negotiation on ObamaCare between House and Senate leaders of both parties.  The White House claims that this day long meeting is an opportunity for the American people to witness a negotiation between Republicans and Democrats.  If you tune into this event, you will not see any negotiation.  You will witness a desparate President trying sell a warmed over version of ObamaCare.  Even for a President well known for his exceptional ability to communicate, the Administration’s attempts to sell a plan that is offensive to a substantial majority of Americans has proven to be an epic failure.

The fact of the matters is that in anticipation of this so called negotiation, the Democrats are crafting a reconciliation strategy.  Reconciliation is a fast track partisan strategy for the Democrats to change the rules of the game so they can avoid a filibuster in the Senate.  I call this new strategy to pass Obamacare the Health Care Nuclear Option because it will blow up what remains of bipartisanship in the Capitol and put the United States on a pathway to European style government run health care.

Furthermore, the American people explicitly reject ObamaCare and don’t want it.  So much for consent of the governed.  This Summit is going to be a day long press conference for President Obama and the ObamaCare Cheerleading Squad to try one last time to sell the President’s health care plan that includes unpopular mandates, higher taxes and cuts to health care providers.

The President’s health care summit was supposed to be an opportunity for Republicans and Democrats to get in a room to negotiate a bipartisan health care reform bill.  Not gonna happen.  From the AP:

Here’s one point on which Democrats and Republicans agree on health care: President Barack Obama’s much-touted televised summit has virtually no chance of breaking the political logjam. That means Democrats will be forced to find a way to pass an overhaul on their own or face a huge political defeat.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said “I’m not quite sure what the purpose is.  It seems the President has already made up his mind.”  And liberal columnist Ruth Marcus wrote for the Washington Post, “the real target of presidential bidding is his own party — specifically House Democrats.”  This is true.  The Democrat Leadership in the House have to convince Blue Dogs and pro-life Democrats to walk the plank and further endanger these member’s chances of coming back to Washington next year as members of Congress.  Basically, this Administration is asking moderate House Democrats to commit political suicide to help pass ObamaCare.

The Senate will be a bit easier, because the Health Care Nuclear Option only requires a simple majority, therefore the Democrats only need 50 Senators to go along with the plan with Vice President Biden providing the deciding vote.  This would provide Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), Jim Webb (D-Va.) and other moderate Democrats an opportunity to vote with a majority of Americans and against ObamaCare.  This is called inside the Beltway a cover vote, because these moderate Senate Democrats can vote against ObamaCare after they voted for it.  If reconciliation passes the House, it will be game over.  Although Republican Senators will have opportunities to raise points of order and force tough votes, they will not be likely able to defeat the bill.

Although the liberals point to to the many times that reconciliation has been used, it would be unprecedented to use reconciliation to pass ObamaCare.  Reconciliation is unusual for the following three issues:

1. Reconciliation has not been used in the past as the procedure of last resort – Last November, the House passed a version of Obamacare by just a five-vote vote margin.  That bill contained a public option, strong anti-abortion language and an income surtax on wealthy individuals, but it has been tossed aside in this new strategy.  On Christmas Eve the Senate passed ObamaCare with no public option, a provision that allows federal monies to go to abortion and a tax on high-cost health plans.  The House plan passed by 5 votes and the Senate plan passed on a party line vote.   When Senator Scott Brown (R-Mass) was elected, they tossed aside the regular rules and are now using the Health Care Nuclear Option.
2. Reconciliation has not been used in the past to amend a bill that has not passed – It is unprecedented to use reconciliation to amend a bill that has not been signed into law yet.  The plan is for the House to pass the Senate version of ObamaCare, then for the House and Senate to use the Health Care Nuclear Option to pass a new bill that amends the old bill.  It is very confusing and they want it that way.  The liberals are using a special procedure to amend ObamaCare in a way they could not do without reconciliation.  This has never happened.
3. Reconciliation has not been used in the past as a means to pass a bill before the American people are allowed to participate in the process- The White House is promoting a quick approval of ObamaCare through reconciliation to steamroll the American people.  Robert Reich, former Clinton Secretary of Labor, argues “my free advice to the President: If you want to get health care enacted you must use reconciliation and quickly.”  They want to get it passed quickly, because they know the American people don’t like the core of the bill.  Reich argues that “Republicans have done a far better job scaring Americans about health care reform than any pollster has been able to uncover.”  Translated into English this means that they are worried that if the American people are allowing time to read the President’s new proposal and review it, then there could be a problem with passage.  Therefore, pass it quick before the American people can have a say.  It is unprecedented to use reconciliation as a means to ignore the will of the American people.

The most offensive part of this charade on the part of the President is that they are rejecting the will of the American people.  The American people reject ObamaCare by wide margins.  The most convincing evidence of this is polling data compiled at Real Clear Politics (From 1/20-2/22 the average ObamaCare poll is 38.4% support and 52.3% oppose it for an average ObamaCare deficit of 13.9%).  Following list are the polling companies that have found recently an intense hatred of ObamaCare among the American people:  Rasmussen Reports – 15% Oppose v Support ObamaCare; Pew Research – 12% Oppose v Support ObamaCare; Quinnipiac – 19% Oppose v Support ObamaCare; Ipsos/McClatchy – 14% Oppose v Support ObamaCare; and, CNN/Opinion Research – 20% Oppose v Support ObamaCare.  Those numbers are damaging enough, yet the election of Scott Brown in liberal Massachusetts, a candidate who ran a campaign to be the 41st vote to obstruct and defeat ObamaCare, should remove any doubt that the American people have rejected ObamaCare.

We live in a nation that treasures the idea of consent of the governed.  The American people should not be fooled by this so called bipartisan summit, because it is merely press conference for the President to sell his legislation.  It is shocking that liberals in Congress are trying to use the Health Care Nuclear Option, a partisan means to ram the bill through the House and Senate, at a time when the American people await this summit that has been marketed as a negotiation between the two parties.  The Health Care Nuclear Option talk may have sabotaged the Blair House Bipartisan Summit and exposed this Administration and liberal Democrats for trying to have it both ways.

As Republicans are preparing for the Press Event with Obama on Thursday, I’d like to see a specific point be made with regard to costs.  Something like this:

“Mr. President, our plan removes the barriers to Interstate Insurance sales, so individuals and families can purchase insurance with specific benefits across state lines.  We’re sure you are aware with insurance every new benefit mandated with the force the Federal government, will increase costs for every US citizen’s own policy.

“As such, we’d like to go over this list of Benefits / Services currently mandates by the states:*

Healthcare Mandates _2_

“Mr. President, you’ll note that there are very few benefits that even 25 of our states require, but there are more than 130 potential mandates.  And if all the state plans are forced to cover the same fifty Federal mandates, people won’t actually have any real choice.  Republicans believe there have to be both low cost, bare bone plans and plans that cover specific types of patients.

“Why do mandates happen Mr. President? Largely because special interest groups (good people in a state all suffering from the same condition and their doctors and drug makers) lobby their state government to have their problem covered by everyone, so their own costs are lower.

“Who can argue with: If special education for autism is covered,  why not home healthcare?  If an Osteopath is covered, why not a Psychiatric nurse. If HIV drugs are covered, why not morbid obesity, why not sickle cell, why not an athletic trainer, why not massage.  Mr. President, special interests have succeeded in getting ALL of these covered in different states.  Do you really believe the federal government can be trusted to say NO?

“Mandates pit patients and their doctors against other patients and doctors.   Who’s health is most important?

“Under our approach, each state can impose mandates to serve a specific group, but that is up to them.  And under our plan, citizens in those states will be free to shop elsewhere, so mandates do not turn all plans into Cadillac plans.  And if someone’s own condition is not covered in their state, they can go get insurance that covers them.

“Mr. President, if CBO agrees that our plan without mandates will keep costs lower, even fora majority of those who are sick, are you willing to leave mandates to the states?”

—-

I want this issue raised, because the common refrain from Obama is without mandates, there will be a, “race to the bottom.”

He means healthy (young) people will go buy polices from Alabama where there very few mandates, so their premiums are low.  And as insurance companies start to lose this business from their own state, there will be pressure on other states to lower their mandates or lots of insurance companies will move to Alabama.

This is not true.

The true positive effect: People with a specific condition will go shopping for plans that cover it, this will lead to pools of people with the same condition grouping into the same policies.  So we’ll have very specific alcoholism insurance plans and morbid obesity plans that spread the cost of that specific kind of care over that group of people. This does wonders to properly place prices on lifestyles and still provide affordable plans.

In most cases this means many plans will look like “Basic Coverage + 1.” As in basic coverage + maternity.  So child bearing age policy holders spread the risk of maternity costs amongst themselves.  Yes, some conditions are very expensive to treat, and grouping those patients will lead to very expensive policies.  But it is better to see where the prices come out, actually look at the number of suffers, understand the costs and types of treatment, see what the policies actually cost and then where aid makes sense, subsidize those policies when it is warranted.

This also leads to better comparative treatment and better competition amongst doctors.  Which Osteopath is not going to accept the insurance that covers many of his potential customers?  It is also much easier to show patients with a “Basic + Osteopath” plan the prices local Osteopaths charge, because they don’t have to pour through an online database with all the diseases and doctors – they just see their local Osteopaths aggregated by their insurance policy.   This “price transparency” would do much to encourage people to purchase high deductible, tax-free HSA accounts that grow balances overtime.   This is truly the smartest kind of policy.  It dramatically drives down premiums.  When people can easily price shop, and keep the money, we’ll see savings.

Smart states will require Insurance companies to offer multiple forms of Basic Coverage Plus.  If CA, NY, TX, and FL require insurance companies to offer 130 different policies of Basic Coverage + (name a mandate), we’ll have true price discovery for each condition / treatment within months. So discussion of subsidies can begin honestly.

A year later, we’ll begin to see people moving towards HSA style versions of those polices because it is the best chance they have saving money for themselves.

The alternative to Basic Coverage Plus, is federal mandates picking favorites and driving us towards Cadillac plans for all.

America needs to see Obama be shown this logic. They need to know the answer to President Obama’s “race to the bottom.”  It is wrong.

* Data take from CAHI

The Obama administration’s determined effort to reduce America’s missile defense capabilities initially seemed to be just standard Leftist fare — of a piece with the Democratic base’s visceral hostility to the idea of protecting us against ballistic missile threats. A just-unveiled symbolic action suggests, however, that something even more nefarious is afoot.

The former would be bad enough, starting with Candidate Obama’s pledge to block “unproven missile defenses.” Once in office, he cut over a billion dollars from the Missile Defense Agency’s budget.  He cancelled the deployment of interceptors and radars in Eastern Europe designed to defend this country, as well as our allies over there.

Among other reprehensible actions, Team Obama terminated the nation’s only program capable of providing a near-term ability to intercept ballistic missiles early in their flight (i.e., the boost-phase).  This Airborne Laser Program nonetheless was successfully tested earlier this month — destroying not one but two missiles similar to those arrayed against us and our friends today and making the case that such systems should be operationalized and deployed as a matter of the utmost urgency.

Then, there are the persistent reports that President Obama is going to accede to Russian demands to reinstitute bilateral restrictions on missile defenses as part of the new START follow-on treaty now being finalized with the Kremlin.  Moscow lost its effective veto over such U.S. systems when George W. Bush withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2001 and the Russians have been as anxious as its American fellow-travelers to be able to exercise it again.

Now, thanks to an astute observation by Christopher Logan of the Logans Warning blog, we have another possible explanation for behavior that — in the face of rapidly growing threats posed by North Korean, Iranian, Russian, Chinese and others’ ballistic missiles — can only be described as treacherous and malfeasant:  Team Obama’s anti-anti-missile initiatives are not simply acts of unilateral disarmament of the sort to be expected from an Alinsky acolyte.  They seem to fit an increasingly obvious and worrying pattern of official U.S. submission to Islam and the theo-political-legal program the latter’s authorities call Shariah.

What could be code-breaking evidence of the latter explanation is to be found in the newly-disclosed redesign of the Missile Defense Agency logo (above).  As Logan helpfully shows, the new MDA shield appears ominously to reflect a morphing of the Islamic crescent and star with the Obama campaign logo. (For a comparison, the previous logo is below.)

Even as the administration has lately made a show of rushing less capable sea- and land-based short-range (theater) missile defenses into the Persian Gulf in the face of rising panic there about Iran’s actual/incipient ballistic missile and nuclear capabilities, Team Obama is behaving in a way that — as the new MDA logo suggests — is all about accommodating that “Islamic Republic” and its ever-more aggressive stance.

Watch this space as we identify and consider various, ominous and far more clear-cut acts of submission to Shariah by President Obama and his team.  Readers are encouraged to offer examples of their own to info@securefreedom.org.

The Democrat Blair House Project is nothing more than political theater in a desperate attempt to legitimize a failed government-run health care agenda. The American people aren’t buying the Democrats’ sales pitch of this new-found effort to include Republicans. After years of shutting Republicans out of the legislative process, one photo-op will not erase the American people’s memory of Nancy Pelosi’s closed-door Congress.

This fall, Democrats may face historic backlash for their failure to listen to the American people and govern effectively. Support the NRCC (www.nrcc.org).

If the goal of the President’s proposal was to drive doctors into hospital based practices or community health centers, or if it was to break the spirit of providers and bend them to the will of the government that holds the threat of criminal prosecution over their heads if they are found to be Medicare cheats, or if the goal was to dumb down the practice of medicine by ramping up the power of the HHS secretary and the evidence-based medicine posse, then the President’s proposal for health care reform was successful.

However, we as physicians are individuals. There are approximately 890,000 doctors currently practicing in the US. Those of us who want the autonomy to practice medicine the way we were trained, those of us who run a private practice who are entrepreneurs at heart, those who are tired of being pitted against our patients and other physicians (the specialist vs. primary care physician meme), and those who are just sick and tired are NOT going to take this. Those of us who can will retire or leave medicine all together. Those within the system will simply opt out.

The President’s summit on Thursday amounts to nothing more than six hours of theater. Not one physician in Congress has been invited to attend. The physicians for single payer have also not been invited. It is his chance to hear from the people on the front line, and it is obvious this bill is NOT about the health of our people. It is about raising revenue, controlling the medical industrial complex completely. How else can you explain the proposal for the government to a) take over control of the cost of insurance premiums; b) limit provider medical decisions based on cost, and c) control what is medically covered for the patient. Under the proposed health care reformed, the government will control how much an insurance company can charge, decide what is covered medically, and sanction the provider for deviating from the norm.

These are some of the proposal highlights that concerned me the most:

Delay and Reform the High-Cost Plan Excise Tax.

Part of the reason for high and rising insurance costs is that insurers have little incentive to lower their premiums.  The Senate bill includes a tax on high-cost health insurance plans.  CBO has estimated that this policy will reduce premiums as well as contribute to long-run deficit reduction. The President’s Proposal changes the effective date of the Senate policy from 2013 to 2018 to provide additional transition time for high-cost plans to become more efficient.  It also raises the amount of premiums that are exempt from the assessment from $8,500 for singles to $10,200 and from $23,000 for families to $27,500 and indexes these amounts for subsequent years at general inflation plus 1 percent.  To the degree that health costs rise unexpectedly quickly between now and 2018, the initial threshold would be adjusted upwards automatically. To ensure that the tax affects firms equitably, the President’s Proposal reforms it by including an adjustment for firms whose health costs are higher due to the age or gender of their workers, and by no longer counting dental and vision benefits as potentially taxable benefits.  The President’s Proposal maintains the Senate bill’s permanent adjustment in favor of high-risk occupations such as “first responders.”

• Unintended consequence, this can have an adverse affect on people with chronic illnesses who often have expensive policies because the insurance companies deem that they are very expensive to underwrite. It is adding insult to injury to have to pay 40% more for an insurance policy that is a lifeline. Those who can’t afford the premiums will be forced to choose lower cost premiums on policies with less coverage and restricted services with resultant restriction of access to care.

Comprehensive Sanctions Database

The President’s Proposal establishes a comprehensive Medicare and Medicaid sanctions database, overseen by the HHS Inspector General.  This database will provide a central storage location, allowing for law enforcement access to information related to past sanctions on health care providers, suppliers and related entities.   (Source: H.R. 3400, “Empowering Patients First Act” (Republican Study Committee bill))

• This has a chilling effect on doctors and other healthcare providers who run afoul of government. There is no mention of what steps exist for the appeals process before you are put on the hit list. Moreover, allowing ‘law enforcement to have access to information’ will have the intended effect of making providers obey the system without deviation because of the threat of criminal prosecution. .

Modify Certain Medicare Medical Review Limitations

The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 placed certain limitations on the type of review that could be conducted by Medicare Administrative Contractors prior to the payment of Medicare Part A and B claims.  The President’s Proposal modifies these statutory provisions that currently limit random medical review and place statutory limitations on the application of Medicare prepayment review. Modifying certain medical review limitations will give Medicare contractors better and more efficient access to medical records and claims, which helps to reduce waste, fraud and abuse.  (Source:  President’s FY 2011 Budget)

• Providers will be subject to more random reviews at the pleasure of the government. This has the potential to waste productivity and adds to the stress that providers already experience in dealing with Medicare. Providers are already subject to a 10,000 fine per occurrence for committing fraud (Fraud extends to overbilling AND under billing Medicare). Providers will be looking over their shoulder even more then they do now. With audits and criminal prosecution looming, it will only drive more providers out of Medicare further decreasing the Medicare patient’s access to care.

Broaden the Medicare Hospital Insurance (HI) Tax Base for High-Income Taxpayers

Under current law, people who earn a salary pay the Medicare HI tax on their earned income, but those who have substantial unearned income do not, raising issues of fairness.  The House bill includes a 5.4% surcharge on high-income households to improve the fairness of the tax system and to support health reform.  The Senate bill includes an increase in the HI tax for high-income households for similar reasons, an increase of 0.9% on earnings above a specific threshold for a total employee assessment of 2.35% on these amounts. The President’s Proposal adopts the Senate bill approach and adds a 2.9 percent assessment (equal to the combined employer and employee share of the existing HI tax) on income from interest, dividends, annuities, royalties and rents, other than such income which is derived in the ordinary course of a trade or business which is not a passive activity (e.g., income from active participation in S corporations) on taxpayers with respect to income above $200,000 for singles and $250,000 for married couples filing jointly.  The additional revenues from the tax on earned income would be credited to the HI trust fund and the revenues from the tax on unearned income would be credited to the Supplemental Medical Insurance (SMI) trust fund.

• Increases and extends taxes

Medicaid for Working Families

Beginning in April of this year, States will be allowed to expand Medicaid eligibility to more individuals.  Starting on January 1, 2014, all low-income, non-elderly and non-disabled individuals will be eligible for Medicaid.  This includes unemployed adults and working families – all people with income below $29,000 for a family of four (133% of poverty).

The Federal Government will support States by providing 100% of the cost of newly eligible people between 2014 and 2017, 95% of the costs between 2018 and 2019, and 90 percent matching for subsequent years.

All states will be treated equally and will not receive any special matching rates under this provision.

• Great, except it does not address the problem of access to physicians who take Medicaid.  The number of providers has been dropping every year and those that still take it are stretched beyond their capacity.

Investing in Primary Care

The Act invests in grant programs that support the training of primary care providers, including family medicine, pediatrics, general internal medicine, and physician assistantship.  It also provides payment bonuses to primary care physicians.

• In fact there is a shortage of doctors in general – both primary care and specialists. Good medical care dictates that a patient has access to both for comprehensive care. There are times that the primary care physician must refer a case to the specialist. If this system is implemented, it will be harder to find one who 1) will not have an available appointment for months, or 2) one who will be within the system. The reform effort has made specialists superfluous, and because of that a two level system will likely result. Those who have the means will leave the system to get specialty care, and/or individualized patient centered care (concierge, fee for service).

It is clear why there is an emphasis on training and expanding the workforce by adding additional, health care providers like the physician assistants and nurses. There will be an exodus of physicians from this system and they will have to have someone to replace them

Over the past couple of years, the medical marijuana industry in Los Angeles has exploded. Estimates vary, but there may be as many as 800 dispensaries currently open for business in the city of angels. An ordinance recently passed by the LA city council, however, is about to change all that.

The new ordinance will force hundreds of dispensaries to close and all but a few to relocate. The goal was to bring clarity to the medical marijuana industry, but the only thing that’s clear is that the transition process will be difficult.

Especially now that the DEA has begun raiding dispensaries again, despite the promises made by the Obama administration to respect state laws legalizing medical marijuana.

While federal, state and local governments struggle to make sense of medical marijuana laws, an increasing number of Californians support a completely different approach: marijuana legalization. Nothing more than a pipe dream? Maybe. But consider this: 56 percent of Californians currently support pot legalization, the same proportion of Californians who voted for the Compassionate Use Act, which legalized medical marijuana, back in 1996.

Produced by Paul Feine. Shot and edited by Alex Manning. Graphics by Hawk Jensen.

Approximately 9 minutes. Go to Reason.tv for iPd, HD, and audio versions of all videos. Subscribe to Reason.tv’s YouTube channel and receive automatic notification when new materials go live.

Economist John Tamny has a piece in Forbes, “The Paradox Of A ‘Giving’ Government”, detailing the new, stepped-up emphasis by business on getting cozy with Washington, and how and why it pays off. In it is a very disturbing example of why we should expect at best weak and highly dispiriting pushback from Republicans when Obama finally gets around to following through on his telegraphed Plan B for the “global warming” agenda, “green jobs”.

“Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., presently a darling among Republicans for his pro-growth policies, has long made known his dislike of the 2009 Obama stimulus plan as a ‘wasteful spending spree.’ Nice rhetoric for sure–and as it turns out not very pure. In October 2009 the congressman wrote a letter to Labor Secretary Hilda Solis in favor of a grant application in his district, which, according to Ryan, would ‘place 1,000 workers in green jobs.’”

That’s pretty stomach-turning, when you consider the source. The government can give us nothing that it has not taken from us. The government cannot give your favored constituencies anything it has not taken away from others. The politics of envy have never been as strong in the United States as in Europe – which fact has given us a chance over the decades, but it appears to be a dwindling chance.

And no one who attended any appreciable part of CPAC this past weekend has any time for the philosophy that these are just the accommodations that one must make to stay here and do good work.

The public increasingly understand the scam that is that new “green jobs” line of argument, and in short green jobs mean pink slips, but not before an awful lot of your money goes to create far more Indian, Chinese and other jobs for every generally temporary gig they set up here.

We also now know there should be tempered optimism about whether Republicans really are ready to lead, that is, whether they are any different than the mess that got tossed out a few short years ago. When your leading thinkers and principled-types can’t resist and/or don’t get the truth about this, they are in trouble. And that’s bad news for the rest of us.

Tea, anyone?

Disgusted by President Obama’s liberal agenda, voters in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts went to the polls and replaced Democrats with Republicans to send a message to Washington. That message is: Stop.

Stop the rampant spending that threatens to send our country spiraling toward insolvency. Stop the rapid expansion of government that continues to encroach on our essential freedoms. And most of all stop trying to shove a radical health care “reform” bill designed to fundamentally restructure the U.S. economy down our throats.

The American people have spoken. The White House hasn’t heard their message.

Now Harry Reid is promising to pass a health care bill through the Senate in sixty days. President Obama is continuing to arrogantly push this radical legislation in the hope of creating a new entitlement program that will continue to nurture America’s dependency on Big Government. When America’s leadership has become so disconnected from Americans’ interests, the American people must stand up boldly in defense of their livelihoods and their liberties.

It is more important now than ever to send a clear, unambiguous message to Washington. That is why I am asking you to sign a petition urging President Obama and his Democrat allies to start over on health insurance reform; to work hand in hand with Republican leaders to craft sensible legislation that will address the real issues that plague our health insurance system; and to listen to and enact the will of the American people.

Stand up for yourself and your country. The White House has not heard your voice. Make them hear it. Sign this petition today.

This past week in Washington, DC has seen the GOP actively engaged in discussions and strategizing about taking back the House of Representatives and taking back the Senate.  But before the GOP, Tea Party, or anyone else, can take back the House or Senate, they will face a more difficult and important battle–taking back our language.

Democrats have made an art form of mis-speak, consistently showing only a passing familiarity with good, old Merriam-Webster.  Think Kafka and Orwell, where words are elastic, and plain-speaking is all but abandoned.

Understanding what President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are saying is difficult; for, though the language may seem to be English, in reality, they speak a different language, the language of the Democrats in DC.  To understand exactly what they are saying, Americans need an “English –Democratic Party Dictionary.   Here is a sampler of some of the most important words and phrases that cause confusion:

• INVESTMENT: President Obama and Speaker Pelosi frequently talk about the need for “investments”. For example, ” President Obama recently identified a need to invest in American infrastructure (and education)  What Mr. Obama and Nancy Pelosi really seem to mean when they talk about “investments” is that government needs to spend more.  Democrats  have learned from extensive polling that disguising calls for more government spending, and even greater national debt, are more palatable (to those that have not yet figured out the scam) if,  they talk about spending as  “investments”.  As most Americans know, making an investment  implies a return worthy of the risk.  Investors always want their money back and a profit to boot.  Fat chance of that!  According to the Democrat-version, “investments” are just spending by another name.  There will never be a return, and taxpayers putting their money are risk will never get their funds back, nor is there any chance of a decent return.

• WORKING MAN: A favorite chestnut of Democrats, which really means Union Worker.   Lots of Democrats talk about being the Party of “the working man”, but what they are really saying is that we need to support Unions and Organized Labor.  Other Americans, that actually work very hard in a thousand different industries,  and especially entrepreneurs, and small  business owners, are not ever considered to be “working men or women”.  Sure they might work 90+ hours a week, to build their business, but that matters not at all.   Democrats support, and honor, only the unionized employee as a “working man or woman.   All other, hard working, Americans are an afterthought, and none merit much attention beyond how much more their taxes should be raised.

• ENTITLEMENTS v. RIGHTS: When Democrats speak of “rights” most people mistakenly assume that they are talking about constitutional rights, that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution, But, that is a big mistake, for Democrats, and Progressives, have so misused and bastardized the “rights” to portray their expansive vision of government ,and the many false promises of something for nothing.  For example, “it’s my right to have cheap healthcare.”  Nowhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights is healthcare identified as a “right“, nor is the concept even discussed.  Progressives also point out that, “it’s every American’s right to have a decent standard of living.”  Wrong again.  What Americans have been promised in our Constitution  is an equal  opportunity to pursue their own dreams and pursue happiness free of excessive government control .   Similarly, it is important to remember that Entitlement programs are not “rights” either.

• JOB CREATION: Democrats in government  talk a lot about job creation and the urgent need for government to create more jobs. But, government does not create any jobs in the private sector, and the only jobs it does create are government jobs, that can only be funded and supported by additional taxes on those that do create jobs.

• SHOVEL READY: Remember this one?  “Shovel Ready” projects were supposed to result in the immediate launch of any number of new construction projects, creating jobs across the country.  But that was a myth; very few “shovel ready” projects ever existed.  Instead, the vast majority of new construction projects were tied up in nightmarish, regulatory processes;  scoring rules, prospectuses, approvals, assessments, FONSIs (Finding of No Significant Impact) and Permitting, are just a few of the obstacles that must be overcome before a project is “shovel ready.” Had President Obama really wanted to push infrastructure projects, he could have eliminated or reduced any or all of the many different  bureaucratic hurdles that a building project must navigate.  Instead, the President merely called for more money to be placed into the maw of a process that grinds too slowly and at great expense to taxpayers. There are all sorts of infrastructure projects that could be made “Shovel Ready”, but that would require  dedicated leadership willing, and able, to curtail excessive bureaucratic reviews and focus more on the actual building of new infrastructure, versus a timid, rote adherence to an unsuccessful process that does not serve the nation.

• CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE: Critical infrastructure  should be restricted to a very narrow definition– roads, bridges and buildings essential to continued or increased commerce of the nation.  But Dems in Congress have, in the Stimulus, expanded the definition to include water parks and studies of the Harvest Marsh Mouse.  According to this view, building new tennis courts, water parks, and stadium parking lots, (especially if they are targeted into their own districts) are all now labeled as “critical infrastructure”.  What Dems in Congress cannot, and will not, ever do is to actually prioritize the nation’s needs, and have the courage and leadership to decide which projects would provide the greatest benefit to the nation as a whole.  Instead, a “critical infrastructure” is defined as any building project, or any spending plan, that will bring federal funds to their home districts.

• SPENDING CUTS / CUT TO THE BONE: Washington is always talking about “cutting to the bone”, but that is a fiction.  There is so much blubber in the budget that it’s been many a decade since Americans saw the “bones.”  When Dems use the term SPENDING Cuts — as in “we must reduce federal spending”, what is really meant is: let’s cut the amount of the increase to the budget line item.  Memo to Congress:  cutting an increase is not a budget cut.

Our country used to be one where a man, or woman, was bound by their word, and their word was their bond in  public and private transactions.  We are so long gone past that because, now, in the 111th Congress, words only means whatever the speaker wants them to mean.  Before we can solve a problem, we need to acknowledge the problem openly and with candor.  When we lose our language, we lose the power to change by civil discourse.  And, that bodes ill for all Americans.

The 2010 midterm elections are shaping up to be a Democrats nightmare.  But the problems for the Democrats and Obama won’t end there.  Indeed, the fallout from the 2010 elections will likely carry over into 2012 which may well feature Hillary running against Obama and Nancy Pelosi’s retirement.  Here’s why:

1. Republican’s Political Carpe Diem.  It appears more everyday that Congressional Republicans are coming to grips with the tide sweeping the Country – Tea Party and otherwise.  If Republicans rekindle their successful strategy of 1994, by setting a clear, practical and limited fall election agenda, then they can successfully frame the election debate,  and . . .

2.  The Democrats Should Lose the House in 2010. As I have chronicled elsewhere, the average loss for the President’s Party in the House, when his approval rating is below 50%, is 41 seats – enough for the Republicans to regain the House in 2010 if that average holds up  – and it should.  The Democrats are continuing to fight amongst themselves – an acceptable exercise in an off year but not in an election year (as in 1968 for the Democrats).  Obama is talking about election year tax increases and using executive powers and a legislative cram down of health care.  None of those dynamics bode well for Democrats, will fuel even more voter anger  and should actually drive Obama’s ratings down further – keeping the modern string going of no President improving his approval ratings in a midterm election year.

3. Pelosi Retires after 2012. If the Democrats lose the House in 2010, it should not be long thereafter that Pelosi retires.  Ask yourself:  How many former Speakers of the House are still in Congress?  It is perhaps the ultimate up and out position in politics – with no place to retreat.  In short, if the House falls – so will she.

4. Hillary Will Run in 2012.  If the Democrats lose the House, they can blame Nancy, Harry and Obama.  Their agenda was far too divisive in an era of divisive politics. No one, however, deserves more blame than Obama.  He picked too many fights with Americans and couldn’t control Pelosi.  That is why his ratings are so low.

Beyond that, Obama will likely not be able to make a Clinton comeback.  Obama couldn’t get his radical agenda passed even though the Democrats controlled the Senate and House because he lacks the necessary skills to build consensus and govern.  His leadership deficiencies mean that he won’t fare any better in a divided government.

In the face of such Carter-like difficulties, the Democrats will have to ask themselves:  Should we place our 2012 Congressional election fate in the hands of Obama?  Many will say yes – enough could well say no because . . .

(a) Obama will have not done much for them.  Keep in mind that Obama was rushed into the Presidency.  He didn’t have a long career of helping other Democrats around the country.  As a result, he doesn’t have a reservoir of good will from battles he fought for them.  Just the opposite, they went out on a limb for him.  Since becoming President, Obama pushed headlong into policy fights that have hurt Democrats more then helped them.  Obama’s campaigning for candidates has not been successful either – just ask Governor Corzine and Senator Coakley.  Indeed, moderate Democrats are telling him to stay away in 2010.  All-in-all, don’t expect too many to bleed for Obama in 2012 – to the contrary, many will prefer to try to stop the bleeding they are suffering at his hands.

(b)  Hillary Will Have Better Ratings Than Obama.  The Clintons are no dummies.  They knew Obama would fail.  So, in anticipation, Hillary simultaneously (a) burnished her foreign policy credentials as Secretary of State, and (b) distanced herself from the domestic problems of the Democrats and her approval ratings have risen accordingly – even if she had no major successes.  Brilliant by comparison to Obama.

She can also correctly say:  “I Told You So – he wasn’t ready and I certainly am.”

The Democrats, or enough them, won’t want to give up the White House in 2012.  Carter was a one term President – Johnson not much more than that.  Their only two-term President was a Clinton – and enough Democrats will urge this Clinton to run in 2012 hoping for another electoral first – a female President.

Too farfetched you say?  Check out my 2010 predictions made in January of 2009.

and  stay tuned – watch for Hillary to resign from her position Secretary of State sooner than later . . .

For more than a year after Barack Obama became president, there was no word from Colin Powell about a man he described as having “great insight into the challenges we’re facing of a military and political and economic nature.”  Today, Powell broke his silence.  Did he have the courage to admit his mistake, his blunder, his betrayal?

No.  Speaking on Face the Nation, Powell said he did not regret endorsing Obama, though the former Republican appointee could not bring himself to say much of anything positive about him.  He claimed, absurdly, that the nation is more financially secure since The One took office and that “slowly but surely we are starting to see the kind of improvements the American people wanted and voted for him for.”  Lackadaisical leadership, cronyism and corruption, massive unemployment, soaring deficits, weakness overseas – does General Powell really believe that these are the changes the American people wanted?

Let’s compare Powell’s analytical skills now with his purported sagacity during the campaign.  Just weeks before the 2008 presidential election, he went on television to attack John McCain and the Republican Party.  He then, in his wisdom, endorsed Barack Obama:

“I watched Mr. Obama during this seven-week period.  And he displayed a steadiness, an intellectual curiosity, a depth of knowledge and an approach to looking at problems like this and picking a vice president that, I think, is ready to be president on day one.  And also, in not just jumping in and changing every day, but showing intellectual vigor.  I think that he has a definitive way of doing business that would serve us well.

Mr. Obama has given us a more inclusive, broader reach into the needs and aspirations of our people.  He’s crossing lines–ethnic lines, racial lines, generational lines.  He’s thinking about all villages have values, all towns have values, not just small towns have values.

I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities – and we have to take that into account – as well as his substance – he has both style and substance – he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president.  I think he is a transformational figure.  He is a new generation coming into the world — onto the world stage, onto the American stage, and for that reason I’ll be voting for Senator Barack Obama.

And I have watched him over the last two years as he has educated himself, as he has become very familiar with these issues.  He speaks authoritatively.  He speaks with great insight into the challenges we’re facing of a military and political and economic nature.  And he is surrounding himself, I’m confident, with people who’ll be able to give him the expertise that he, at the moment, does not have.  And so I have watched an individual who has intellectual vigor and who dives deeply into issues and approaches issues with a very, very steady hand.  And so I’m confident that he will be ready to take on these challenges on January 21st.”

Can you honestly say you are still confident, General Powell?  If not, the nation deserves an apology from you.  General Powell, Douglas MacArthur’s words from 1962 speak to you today: “the very obsession of your public service must be Duty, Honor, Country.”

The Conservative Political Action Conference isn’t all fiery speeches and political red meat.  Following the rousing speech by Rep. Mike Pence on Friday, a much more subdued presentation by Dr. Eric Novack described the efforts of states to pass a version of the Health Care Freedom Act, which I previously discussed here.  Much has happened since I last talked about the efforts of states to protect individual health care rights.

The number of states advancing legislation to protect individual choice from federal mandates has increased since December from 24 states to 35.  But merely introducing legislation isn’t enough; we need victories.

Virginia delivered a first step toward just that, as its state House recently passed a version of the Health Care Freedom Act. Elsewhere, the Tennessee Senate passed the bill 26-1, while other states, such as Idaho, have successfully advanced the bill out of committee.

These bills offer to protect citizens in two crucial ways. First, they would guarantee the right to purchase care directly, so that bureaucrats cannot be forced between patients and doctors against their will. Second, it would assure that citizens are protected from unconstitutional mandates to purchase insurance by allowing them to opt-out from any such federal program.

Although the election of Scott Brown derailed much of the momentum for ObamaCare, it is important to continue pushing legislation that would protect citizens from a new public mandate. As Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama conspire to find alternative ways to ram government-run health care down our throats, we must continue to fight them with any tools available.  Keep putting pressure on national leaders.  Keep electing people who pledge to fight ObamaCare.  But also fight in your backyard, and tell your state representatives that they are still a critical line of defense.

The brazen dishonesty of this president is a bit concerning to say the least.

A newly discovered video shows Obama lying to the American people about his relationship with ACORN:

Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA) from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform released this video at CPAC of Barack Obama discussing his close partnership with ACORN. Obama talked about his long relationship with ACORN privately in this video before the 2008 election:

“When I ran project vote, the voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it. Once I was elected there wasn’t a campaign that ACORN worked on down in Springfield that I wasn’t right there with you. Since I have been in the United States Senate I’ve been always a partner with ACORN as well. I’ve been fighting with ACORN, along side ACORN, on issues you care about my entire career.”

But, when Barack Obama was confronted about his relationship with ACORN publicly before the election he had an entirely different story. This is what he said in October 2008:

Reporter: Senator McCain today said there was voter fraud going on in the battleground states. ACORN has been tampering with America’s most precious right. There has to be a full investigation and he also said you need to disclose your full relationship with ACORN. I’m wondering if you have any reaction to Senator McCain’s charge?

Barack Obama: Well, first of all my relationship with ACORN is pretty straightforward. It’s probably 13 years ago when I was still practicing law, I represented ACORN and my partner in that investigation was the US Justice department in having Illinois implement what was called the motor voter law, to make sure people could go to DMV’s and driver license facilities to get registered. It wasn’t being implemented. That was my relationship and is my relationship to ACORN. There is an ACORN organization in Chicago. They’ve been active. As an elected offiical, I’ve had interactions with them. But, they’re not advising my campaign. We’ve got the best voter registration in politics right now and we don’t need ACORN’s help.

For the record…

ACORN is the largest radical leftist group in America today.
This radical group worked closely with the Obama camp during the election but, the community organizing group was not open about the relationship. The photo below was scrubbed from the ACORN website before the election:

One of Barack Obama’s first big “community organizer” jobs involved ACORN in 1992. He worked along side ACORN before he became an elected official. Obama also trained ACORN employees. He represented ACORN in court. Obama worked with and protested with ACORN. His campaign donated $800,000 to ACORN in 2008 for voter registration efforts.
And, ACORN even canvassed for Obama in 2008.

In 2009 Obama promoted a top ACORN operative, Patrick Gaspard, who’s oranization was fined $775,000 for election violations, to a top post in the White House. Gespard is helping shape domestic policy today.

Obama’s ACORN group was banned from receiving federal funds in September after the group was busted on tape promoting the child sex slave trade.

Attempting to enact his big-government health care scheme, President Obama and his supporters frequently claimed that a “majority” of doctors supported his health-care plans.  When the American Medical Association – which had opposed HillaryCare – signed onto Obama’s plan last year, the organization seemed to make the President’s case.  Most people assumed that the AMA represented most of the doctors in the country.  But in fact, the AMA represents less than 20 percent of all physicians in the United States.  And yet as the organization’s leadership moved more to the left, it held a near monopoly on media attention on issues pertaining to public health.   No longer.

As the AMA has become increasingly politicized in recent years – issuing a statement in support of climate change, for example, in 2008 – a new group of doctors has risen to challenge them.  Like other anti-statist groups that have risen in opposition to the Obama-Reid-Pelosi agenda, Docs4PatientCare are challenging the AMA’s stranglehold on health care matters, just as other groups once challenged the right of the left-leaning American Bar Association to determine what judges are and are not qualified for the United States Supreme Court.  How Docs4PatientCare managed to barge its way into the closed-door meetings of Washington offers a lesson to other groups seeking to have a voice in their federal government.

Founded by Dr. Hal Scherz, a prominent Atlanta physician, the group of doctors expressed concern that like so many other professional groups, the AMA’s leadership have been  thoroughly “Washingtonized” – caring more about the pleadings of other lobbyists on K Street, White House invitations and Capitol Hill committee appearances than the professions they are supposed to represent.  As doctors have taken a battering over several decades from insurance companies, HMOS, and government agencies, Scherz says the AMA was a bystander.

“As the insurance companies become more and more impossible and government intrusion keeps growing, we’ve seen our delivery of care to our patients compromised and our incomes decrease,” he said.

But it was the AMA’s support for ObamaCare that really troubled Scherz and others in his field.

Many doctors run small businesses and by nature are entrepreneurial.  Why then, he wondered, would the AMA favor ObamaCare’s regulatory and taxation burden?   Why would they want a multitude of government panels interfering with the decisions doctors usually make with their patients about care and treatment?  Recognizing that the AMA was compromised, Scherz decided to organize his own group in opposition to the Obama plan.

He recalled how effective talk radio had been the year before in stopping the seemingly unstoppable immigration amnesty bill, and wondered if there was a way for him to get his voice heard on the air.  In fact, Scherz was driving home one night when he heard talk show host Hugh Hewitt ask on the air, “Where are the doctors?” opposing ObamaCare in the health care fight.  Scherz wanted to give him an answer. So when Salem radio brought a “road show” on Obama’s first 100 days to Atlanta last May, he decided to attend.  Listening to Hewitt and other Salem talk show stars like Bill Bennett and Dennis Praeger again ask, “Where are the doctors?” Scherz waited patiently in a long line of people to give them his answer.  But just as he reached the head of the line, the master of ceremonies shut down the mikes for the evening.

Undeterred Scherz called a fellow physician, Congressman Tom Price, and asked the Congressman if he would come address a group of doctors if Scherz could assemble them.   Price agreed and when Scherz got 40 doctors in the waiting room of his office to discuss ObamaCare, the meeting ended with the doctors deciding to form an organization to it.  They christened themselves Docs 4 Patient Care that night and put together enough money to hire an attorney, set up a business structure, and establish a website.

Growing past this initial cadre of supporters proved difficult, however.  Scherz spent as much time as he could emailing and phone calling more doctors to join the effort, but the response rate was slow.  So coming home one night from the operating room, he called the Hewitt show and got in on the call-in queue.  Waiting on hold for two hours, he finally got on the air in the show’s third hour.  Delighted to have his missing-doctor question finally answered, Hewitt spoke with Scherz for a lengthy period.

“Then Hewitt blogged about us and put us the website and that made all the difference,” said Scherz.

Having heard the doctor on Hewitt’s program, Salem Radio’s vice president of content, Lee Habeeb, a legendary talk show producer, booked him on other Salem shows including a co-hosting gig with Mike Gallagher in Dallas, Atlanta, and New York. “Mike and his show were coming on strong. So it was just the right moment.  He made our group a focal point of listener interest and it really helped,” says Scherz. This led to television interviews, involving Scherz and other members of the group to get their message out, such as Fred Shessel, one of Scherz’s partners and vice president, Scott Barbour, a prominent orthopedic and sports medicine surgeon, and Todd Rubin,  a local anesthesiologist who started making something of the website (www.docs4patientcare.org).  One talk show listener and activist, Felicia Horton, asked to be brought on as volunteer executive director.

With their newfound growth and publicity, Docs 4 Patient Care made getting heard in Washington their next objective.  Wearing their scrubs and white jackets, the doctors drew attention as they walked the halls of congress and spoke at rallies on Capitol Hill. Often just showing up in the offices of members of the House and Senate, they would manage to get appointments with the members themselves or key staff members.

One particular meeting that stuck out in memories was with the staff of Senator Olympia Snowe, the Maine Republican senator who was being heavily courted by Democrats in the hope of getting some bipartisan window dressing for the Democratic bill.  The meeting was a long one by Capitol Hill standards and the Snowe staff kept bringing up the arguments made by Democrats on behalf of ObamaCare.  But in the face of the doctor’s facts and experience the arguments didn’t stand up long.  Schertz believes Docs 4 Patient Care may have helped make a difference in Snowe’s ultimate, and fateful, decision not to sign on to ObamaCare.

Another memorable incident cited by members of the group occurred when one of their members, Joyce Lovett MD, an African American female pediatrician, got the doctors into a meeting of the Congressional Black Caucus.  A debate opened up over the health care plan and soon the doctors were text-messaging their colleagues visiting other offices around the capitol for reinforcements.  As the room began filling up, the doctors, doing well in the back and forth of debate, seemed to be changing some minds.  At that point, a worried Black Caucus leader and diehard partisan, John Conyers, broke up the meeting, saying the doctors were more interested in embarrassing the first black president than in achieving real reform.   Unused to this sort of political attack, the astonished doctors told other caucus members  how they felt after taking time from their practices and patients to come all the way to Washington only to hear a member of Congress insinuate they were racists.  One caucus member privately dismissed Conyers’ “old ways of thinking,” suggesting that the CBC might be ready for fresh, and more innovative, leadership.

In addition to return trips to Washington over the next 4 months, Docs4PatientCare also helped organize physician led-rallies around the country with hundreds of doctors participating in Atlanta, Los Angeles, Chicago, Indianapolis and Portland.  The rallies proved crucial as the largely Atlanta-based group made new connections in taking on a national character.   Jaime Ronderos MD, a prominent Texas anesthesiologist, who had already organized many of the doctors in his own state, folded  his group in with D4PC. Also coming on board was Marc Neerhof, a perinatologist who is also on the faculty of the University of Chicago and a skillful op-ed writer.  In addition, Reed Wilson, a well-known Los Angeles cardiologist with a business and political background   became a board member.  And finally, as the group showed its interest in working with all health care professionals, Joel Strom, a Los Angeles dentist and experienced coalition organizer agreed to head up an outreach program.

Only last month, the group had its inaugural  board meeting in Atlanta where, in addition to making plans to increase their public and media presence, they inaugurated a fund raising program that would let them run a  full-blown field operation in the elections this Fall. “We want to be out there in the states and let voters know which members of Congress put patient care second and voted for this power grab by Washington politicians,” said Scherz.

But, beyond this, Scherz and the other board members want Docs 4 patient Care to grow into what the AMA should have been.   This means more than defeating ObamaCare.  The group is non-partisan and anxious to work with all those who want to hear from Docs 4 Patient Care on the dangers of state-run medicine. With chapters recently up and running in several states, he sees growth ahead.   That is likely discouraging news for the status quo world of Washington, D.C., but an inspiration for other Americans who see what their government is doing and want to offer an alternative.

Attempting to enact his big-government health care scheme, President Obama and his supporters frequently claimed that a “majority” of doctors supported his health-care plans.  When the American Medical Association – which had opposed HillaryCare – signed onto Obama’s plan last year, the organization seemed to make the President’s case.  Most people assumed that the AMA represented most of the doctors in the country.  But in fact, the AMA represents less than 20 percent of all physicians in the United States.  And yet as the organization’s leadership moved more to the left, it held a near monopoly on media attention on issues pertaining to public health.   No longer.

As the AMA has become increasingly politicized in recent years – issuing a statement in support of climate change, for example, in 2008 – a new group of doctors has risen to challenge them.  Like other anti-statist groups that have risen in opposition to the Obama-Reid-Pelosi agenda, Docs4PatientCare are challenging the AMA’s stranglehold on health care matters, just as other groups once challenged the right of the left-leaning American Bar Association to determine what judges are and are not qualified for the United States Supreme Court.  How Docs4PatientCare managed to barge its way into the closed-door meetings of Washington offers a lesson to other groups seeking to have a voice in their federal government.

Founded by Dr. Hal Scherz, a prominent Atlanta physician, the group of doctors expressed concern that like so many other professional groups, the AMA’s leadership have been  thoroughly “Washingtonized” – caring more about the pleadings of other lobbyists on K Street, White House invitations and Capitol Hill committee appearances than the professions they are supposed to represent.  As doctors have taken a battering over several decades from insurance companies, HMOS, and government agencies, Scherz says the AMA was a bystander.

“As the insurance companies become more and more impossible and government intrusion keeps growing, we’ve seen our delivery of care to our patients compromised and our incomes decrease,” he said.

But it was the AMA’s support for ObamaCare that really troubled Scherz and others in his field.

Many doctors run small businesses and by nature are entrepreneurial.  Why then, he wondered, would the AMA favor ObamaCare’s regulatory and taxation burden?   Why would they want a multitude of government panels interfering with the decisions doctors usually make with their patients about care and treatment?  Recognizing that the AMA was compromised, Scherz decided to organize his own group in opposition to the Obama plan.

He recalled how effective talk radio had been the year before in stopping the seemingly unstoppable immigration amnesty bill, and wondered if there was a way for him to get his voice heard on the air.  In fact, Scherz was driving home one night when he heard talk show host Hugh Hewitt ask on the air, “Where are the doctors?” opposing ObamaCare in the health care fight.  Scherz wanted to give him an answer. So when Salem radio brought a “road show” on Obama’s first 100 days to Atlanta last May, he decided to attend.  Listening to Hewitt and other Salem talk show stars like Bill Bennett and Dennis Praeger again ask, “Where are the doctors?” Scherz waited patiently in a long line of people to give them his answer.  But just as he reached the head of the line, the master of ceremonies shut down the mikes for the evening.

Undeterred Scherz called a fellow physician, Congressman Tom Price, and asked the Congressman if he would come address a group of doctors if Scherz could assemble them.   Price agreed and when Scherz got 40 doctors in the waiting room of his office to discuss ObamaCare, the meeting ended with the doctors deciding to form an organization to it.  They christened themselves Docs 4 Patient Care that night and put together enough money to hire an attorney, set up a business structure, and establish a website.

Growing past this initial cadre of supporters proved difficult, however.  Scherz spent as much time as he could emailing and phone calling more doctors to join the effort, but the response rate was slow.  So coming home one night from the operating room, he called the Hewitt show and got in on the call-in queue.  Waiting on hold for two hours, he finally got on the air in the show’s third hour.  Delighted to have his missing-doctor question finally answered, Hewitt spoke with Scherz for a lengthy period.

“Then Hewitt blogged about us and put us the website and that made all the difference,” said Scherz.

Having heard the doctor on Hewitt’s program, Salem Radio’s vice president of content, Lee Habeeb, a legendary talk show producer, booked him on other Salem shows including a co-hosting gig with Mike Gallagher in Dallas, Atlanta, and New York. “Mike and his show were coming on strong. So it was just the right moment.  He made our group a focal point of listener interest and it really helped,” says Scherz. This led to television interviews, involving Scherz and other members of the group to get their message out, such as Fred Shessel, one of Scherz’s partners and vice president, Scott Barbour, a prominent orthopedic and sports medicine surgeon, and Todd Rubin,  a local anesthesiologist who started making something of the website (www.docs4patientcare.org).  One talk show listener and activist, Felicia Horton, asked to be brought on as volunteer executive director.

With their newfound growth and publicity, Docs 4 Patient Care made getting heard in Washington their next objective.  Wearing their scrubs and white jackets, the doctors drew attention as they walked the halls of congress and spoke at rallies on Capitol Hill. Often just showing up in the offices of members of the House and Senate, they would manage to get appointments with the members themselves or key staff members.

One particular meeting that stuck out in memories was with the staff of Senator Olympia Snowe, the Maine Republican senator who was being heavily courted by Democrats in the hope of getting some bipartisan window dressing for the Democratic bill.  The meeting was a long one by Capitol Hill standards and the Snowe staff kept bringing up the arguments made by Democrats on behalf of ObamaCare.  But in the face of the doctor’s facts and experience the arguments didn’t stand up long.  Schertz believes Docs 4 Patient Care may have helped make a difference in Snowe’s ultimate, and fateful, decision not to sign on to ObamaCare.

Another memorable incident cited by members of the group occurred when one of their members, Joyce Lovett MD, an African American female pediatrician, got the doctors into a meeting of the Congressional Black Caucus.  A debate opened up over the health care plan and soon the doctors were text-messaging their colleagues visiting other offices around the capitol for reinforcements.  As the room began filling up, the doctors, doing well in the back and forth of debate, seemed to be changing some minds.  At that point, a worried Black Caucus leader and diehard partisan, John Conyers, broke up the meeting, saying the doctors were more interested in embarrassing the first black president than in achieving real reform.   Unused to this sort of political attack, the astonished doctors told other caucus members  how they felt after taking time from their practices and patients to come all the way to Washington only to hear a member of Congress insinuate they were racists.  One caucus member privately dismissed Conyers’ “old ways of thinking,” suggesting that the CBC might be ready for fresh, and more innovative, leadership.

In addition to return trips to Washington over the next 4 months, Docs4PatientCare also helped organize physician led-rallies around the country with hundreds of doctors participating in Atlanta, Los Angeles, Chicago, Indianapolis and Portland.  The rallies proved crucial as the largely Atlanta-based group made new connections in taking on a national character.   Jaime Ronderos MD, a prominent Texas anesthesiologist, who had already organized many of the doctors in his own state, folded  his group in with D4PC. Also coming on board was Marc Neerhof, a perinatologist who is also on the faculty of the University of Chicago and a skillful op-ed writer.  In addition, Reed Wilson, a well-known Los Angeles cardiologist with a business and political background   became a board member.  And finally, as the group showed its interest in working with all health care professionals, Joel Strom, a Los Angeles dentist and experienced coalition organizer agreed to head up an outreach program.

Only last month, the group had its inaugural  board meeting in Atlanta where, in addition to making plans to increase their public and media presence, they inaugurated a fund raising program that would let them run a  full-blown field operation in the elections this Fall. “We want to be out there in the states and let voters know which members of Congress put patient care second and voted for this power grab by Washington politicians,” said Scherz.

But, beyond this, Scherz and the other board members want Docs 4 patient Care to grow into what the AMA should have been.   This means more than defeating ObamaCare.  The group is non-partisan and anxious to work with all those who want to hear from Docs 4 Patient Care on the dangers of state-run medicine. With chapters recently up and running in several states, he sees growth ahead.   That is likely discouraging news for the status quo world of Washington, D.C., but an inspiration for other Americans who see what their government is doing and want to offer an alternative.

From Washington Examiner’s Byron York:

Attorney General Eric Holder says nine Obama appointees in the Justice Department have represented or advocated for terrorist detainees before joining the Justice Department. But he does not reveal any names beyond the two officials whose work has already been publicly reported. And all the lawyers, according to Holder, are eligible to work on general detainee matters, even if there are specific parts of some cases they cannot be involved in.

Holder’s admission comes in the form of an answer to a question posed last November by Republican Sen. Charles Grassley. Noting that one Obama appointee, Principal Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal, formerly represented Osama bin Laden’s driver, and another appointee, Jennifer Daskal, previously advocated for detainees at Human Rights Watch, Grassley asked Holder to give the Senate Judiciary Committee “the names of political appointees in your department who represent detainees or who work for organizations advocating on their behalf…the cases or projects that these appointees work with respect to detainee prior to joining the Justice Department…and the cases or projects relating to detainees that have worked on since joining the Justice Department.”

In his response, Holder has given Grassley almost nothing. He says nine Obama political appointees at the Justice Department have advocated on behalf of detainees, but did not identify any of the nine other than the two, Katyal and Daskal, whose names Grassley already knew. “To the best of our knowledge,” Holder writes,

during their employment prior to joining the government, only five of the lawyers who serve as political appointees in those components represented detainees, and four others either contributed to amicus briefs in detainee-related cases or were otherwise involved in advocacy on behalf of detainees.

Holder says other Obama appointees, like Holder himself, came from law firms which represented detainees but did no work on behalf of the terrorist prisoners. But other than Katyal and Daskal, Holder does not reveal any names of any Obama appointees, nor does he mention the cases they worked on.

Read the whole article here.

The President’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform is what everyone really knows it is—a bipartisan group of former and current political elites that will listen to hours of testimony by a select group of witnesses in order to create a report that will justify a tax increase for which there does not exist political support. The fact that the commission is being created by Executive Order rather than by congressional action tells us what the expected conclusion of the commission will be.

We do not need another commission to know that decades of programs that tax those who work in order to provide benefits to those who are in political favor has led to the point where the promises made to millions of Americans cannot possibly be met. To quote from the Social Security and Medicare Board of Trustees 2009 Annual Report: “Projected long run program costs are not sustainable under current program parameters.” This is government-speak for: “the jig is up.” The Social Security cash flow will be negative by 2016, at which time the baby-boomers will start to retire and things go south ever faster.

To again quote from the report: “Medicare’s financial status is much worse…Medicare already runs cash flow deficits…For the third consecutive year, a ‘Medicare funding warning’ is being triggered, signaling that non-dedicated sources of revenues—primarily general revenues—will soon account for more than 45 percent of Medicare’s outlays. A Presidential proposal will be needed in response to the latest warning.” We don’t need a bipartisan commission to tell us what the problem is. Social Security and Medicare have total unfunded liabilities in excess of $100 trillion. We need Presidential leadership that will address the spending problems that are the result of a government that has been shorn of the limitations of the 10th amendment.

Our budget crisis is a crisis of responsibility and a government that no longer is bound by enumerated powers. Friedrich Hayek wrote that a free society probably demands more than any other that people be guided in their action by a sense of responsibility. Rather than letting the system of markets and family satisfy our retirement and health care needs, we have instead created a government retirement program and two government health insurance companies that make up an annual expenditure of $1.5 trillion out of the projected $3.7 trillion 2011 budget. Adding on another $250 billion for net interest on the national debt, and we know what the problem is.

Raising taxes to sustain government transfer programs is not going to solve our budget crisis. Indeed, this is how we got into the problem in the first place. In 1850, Bastiat wrote in The Law that a just government is based upon our natural right to self-defense. An unjust law is one which violates this natural right, by taking the property of one person to give to another. He also argued that once a government engages in what he termed “legalized plunder” several things will happen, one of which is that people will fail to recognize an unjust law when they see it. The government will become, in his words, “that great fiction by everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.” We have arrived at that time.

We do not need a National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. We need to return to those principles of liberty and responsibility that have resulted in the wealth and social cooperation that we still enjoy. This will include electing representatives that will admit that it is not possible for Americans to retire at the age of 62 with a government pension or to have a government insurance company pay for their medical expenses. We must make the transition to individual retirement savings and a market-based insurance system. This will take strong leadership from our elected officials, not the formation of a commission designed to distract us from the impending difficulties caused by our attempt to use an unbounded government to make us all secure.

Hooray everyone! The Economy is growing!!

The video below was recently released by the Democrat Party, and it touts the Obama-Democrat “recovery” now under way.

Oddly, despite the numerous government CRA/Fannie/Freddie/Sally Mae/HUD scandals, and despite the fact that Democrats have controlled Congress since 2006, it blames ALL of America’s economic problems on reckless bankers, and Bush/Republicans.

Coincidentally, despite the fact that the Democrat controlled government just raised the debt ceiling so they could borrow more money against future generations in order to fund today’s entitlement/pubic sector payroll, the video assigns Democrats with ALL the credit for what they are calling a “recovery”.

The US Government is borrowing TRILLIONS of dollars from foreign countries in order to swell the government sponsored payroll, thereby making it appear on paper as thought there is a “recovery” underway, and the Democrats are crowing as though they have achieved something meaningful?

Don’t get us wrong. We would love to be able to live in the progressive utopia of Obamaland, and bask in the glory of the American economic recovery, if only it could be. We would all stand to gain from an economic recovery. But as fiscal conservatives have been pointing out for years and years and years now, the tab for this monstrosity of a government will come due, and when it does, it will leave us all in ruin.

Worse still, the government is apparently intent on taking ZERO responsibility for their role in our disastrous predicament (as evidenced in the video above). While that is the case, there is no hope of the system being reformed based on anything resembling reality and/or honesty.

No honest reform = No honest recovery.

But hey, as long as the Progressive DNC is happy, why shouldn’t everyone else be?

*As a preemptive comment to the Media Matters for ( a Socialist) America crowd in the audience, who childishly parrot their ironic talking point, “Where were you when Bush was spending us into massive deficits?” we can only suggest that you assume you are addressing people who hate our nation’s shameful debt in a truly non-partisan way. It matters not what labels are worn by the elected officials who have done this to our treasury.

Further, when  Progressives say, “Where were you when Bush was spending us into massive debt?” they are not arguing against racking up massive deficits on top of massive deficits. They are defending the practice while unwittingly refuting their own “change” marketing point. This hardly seems like a strategy befitting intelligent people.

There is a somewhat convoluted story flying under the radar about a White House official, Rashad Hussain, who back in 2004 allegedly spoke out in support of Sami Al-Arian, a man accused (and subsequently convicted) of aiding the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist organization. Hussain has worked in the White House Counsel’s Office since January 2009, and just last week was appointed by the President as his Special Envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).

The source of the allegation is a 2004 article unearthed from the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA) which originally quoted Hussain as saying the following:

Al-Arian’s situation is one of many “politically motivated persecutions,” claimed Rashad Hussain, a Yale law student. Such persecution, he stated, must be fought through hope, faith, and the Muslim vote.

…

Along with many others, said Yale’s Hussain, Dr. Sami Al-Arian has been “used politically to squash dissent.” The Muslim community must speak out against the injustices taking place in America, he emphasized. Otherwise, everyone’s rights will be in jeopardy.

Here is where the story gets interesting. I said the WRMEA article “originally” quoted Hussain because at some point after the original publication the quotes attributed to Hussain were removed from the version of the article published online. You can see the original version courtesy of the Internet Archive here, and the modified version here.

What explains the discrepancy?

As Josh Gerstein from Politico reports, the editor of the WRMEA is now claiming that in the original version of the article the quotes were mistakenly attributed to Hussain:

Washington Report news editor Delinda Hanley said Tuesday that Hussain’s quotes were taken down because the quotes attributed to him actually came from Al-Arian’s daughter, Laila Al-Arian, who took part in the same panel discussion. “Laila Al-Arian said the things attributed to Rashad Hussain, and an intern who attended the event and wrote up the article made an error, which was corrected on our Web site by deleting the two quotes in their entirety,” Hanley wrote in an e-mail to POLITICO.

But not so fast, the “intern” who wrote the article is standing by the accuracy of these quotes according to Gerstein:

However, the author of the article, Shereen Kandil, said Tuesday that she stood by her original report.

“When I worked as a reporter, I understood how important it was to quote the right person, and accurately,” Kandil wrote in response to an e-mailed query from POLITICO asking about the possibility of a misquotation.

“I have never mixed my sources and wouldn’t have quoted Rashad Hussain if it came from Laila Al-Arian. If the editors from WRMEA felt they wanted to remove Rashad Hussain from the article, my assumption is that they did it for reasons other than what you’re saying,” said Kandil, who also works in the Obama administration as a program analyst for the Middle East in the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of International Affairs.

Gerstein further reports that the WRMEA editor Hanley originally claimed on Tuesday that her recollection was that Kandil, the intern who wrote the article, requested this correction herself “many years ago”. But when informed by Gerstein that Kandil is sticking by her original story and that according to her the quotes are accurate, Hanley did some further checking and reported back to Gerstein that her webmaster “thinks the change was made on Feb. 5 2009″, but said that there is not a paper trail to confirm the exact timing, or who had asked her to make the change.

Yes, February 5, 2009. Just a couple of short weeks after the Inauguration and the commencement of Hussain’s employment in the White House Counsel’s Office. Hmmm.

According to multiple reports, the White House is asserting that Hussain has no recollection of making these statements, which of course is not an outright denial.

There is one other relevant fact which has not yet been reported which seems to lend credibility to Kandil’s assertion that the quotes are in fact accurate. As it turns out, Laila Al-Arian was not only the featured speaker at the event where the quotes were attributed to Hussain, but she was also an Editorial Assistant for the WRMEA publication at the time. In fact, she wrote a couple of articles which appeared on the very same page as the article by Kandil.

Given Al-Arian’s role at the publication, their relatively small staff, and the fact that her presentation was the sole focus of Kandil’s article, it seems virtually certain that Al-Arian would have read the article prior to publication. In fact, it seems likely that she would have assisted in editing it given that Kandil was an intern assigned to cover and report on her speaking event. Would she not have sought to correct the error if her quotes were mistakenly attributed to someone else?

Given the confluence of the facts and relationships involved here, I have a really hard time believing that these quotes were misattributed to Hussain, and coincidentally were only corrected soon after he joined the White House last year. In fact, I smell a cover-up. Which if true it seems likely that the changes to the article would have been made at the request of Hussain or on his behalf given that he was the only one who had anything to gain from the “correction”.

Although I have to say that the statements Hussain allegedly made in support of Al-Arian are really not all that damaging considering that he was still in law school at the time, and that Sami Al-Arian’s trial had not even begun. It is certainly embarrassing for Hussain to have been quoted claiming Al-Arian was being politically persecuted given that he ultimately plead guilty to a conspiracy charge, but this seems like relatively small potatoes to risk your career on five years later.

However, a cover-up involving White House personnel is most definitely not small potatoes, and it seems to me that further investigation is warranted.

Update: for a counter-view, Daniel Pipes at NRO has had some past experience with inaccurate reporting by the WRMEA, and is inclined to believe Hussain if he claims he was misquoted. (Which notably he has not yet done.) And credit for the original finding of the modified article by the WRMEA belongs to the Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report and to CNS News for picking up the story.

There is a somewhat convoluted story flying under the radar about a White House official, Rashad Hussain, who back in 2004 allegedly spoke out in support of Sami Al-Arian, a man accused (and subsequently convicted) of aiding the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist organization. Hussain has worked in the White House Counsel’s Office since January 2009, and just last week was appointed by the President as his Special Envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).

The source of the allegation is a 2004 article unearthed from the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA) which originally quoted Hussain as saying the following:

Al-Arian’s situation is one of many “politically motivated persecutions,” claimed Rashad Hussain, a Yale law student. Such persecution, he stated, must be fought through hope, faith, and the Muslim vote.

…

Along with many others, said Yale’s Hussain, Dr. Sami Al-Arian has been “used politically to squash dissent.” The Muslim community must speak out against the injustices taking place in America, he emphasized. Otherwise, everyone’s rights will be in jeopardy.

Here is where the story gets interesting. I said the WRMEA article “originally” quoted Hussain because at some point after the original publication the quotes attributed to Hussain were removed from the version of the article published online. You can see the original version courtesy of the Internet Archive here, and the modified version here.

What explains the discrepancy?

As Josh Gerstein from Politico reports, the editor of the WRMEA is now claiming that in the original version of the article the quotes were mistakenly attributed to Hussain:

Washington Report news editor Delinda Hanley said Tuesday that Hussain’s quotes were taken down because the quotes attributed to him actually came from Al-Arian’s daughter, Laila Al-Arian, who took part in the same panel discussion. “Laila Al-Arian said the things attributed to Rashad Hussain, and an intern who attended the event and wrote up the article made an error, which was corrected on our Web site by deleting the two quotes in their entirety,” Hanley wrote in an e-mail to POLITICO.

But not so fast, the “intern” who wrote the article is standing by the accuracy of these quotes according to Gerstein:

However, the author of the article, Shereen Kandil, said Tuesday that she stood by her original report.

“When I worked as a reporter, I understood how important it was to quote the right person, and accurately,” Kandil wrote in response to an e-mailed query from POLITICO asking about the possibility of a misquotation.

“I have never mixed my sources and wouldn’t have quoted Rashad Hussain if it came from Laila Al-Arian. If the editors from WRMEA felt they wanted to remove Rashad Hussain from the article, my assumption is that they did it for reasons other than what you’re saying,” said Kandil, who also works in the Obama administration as a program analyst for the Middle East in the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of International Affairs.

Gerstein further reports that the WRMEA editor Hanley originally claimed on Tuesday that her recollection was that Kandil, the intern who wrote the article, requested this correction herself “many years ago”. But when informed by Gerstein that Kandil is sticking by her original story and that according to her the quotes are accurate, Hanley did some further checking and reported back to Gerstein that her webmaster “thinks the change was made on Feb. 5 2009″, but said that there is not a paper trail to confirm the exact timing, or who had asked her to make the change.

Yes, February 5, 2009. Just a couple of short weeks after the Inauguration and the commencement of Hussain’s employment in the White House Counsel’s Office. Hmmm.

According to multiple reports, the White House is asserting that Hussain has no recollection of making these statements, which of course is not an outright denial.

There is one other relevant fact which has not yet been reported which seems to lend credibility to Kandil’s assertion that the quotes are in fact accurate. As it turns out, Laila Al-Arian was not only the featured speaker at the event where the quotes were attributed to Hussain, but she was also an Editorial Assistant for the WRMEA publication at the time. In fact, she wrote a couple of articles which appeared on the very same page as the article by Kandil.

Given Al-Arian’s role at the publication, their relatively small staff, and the fact that her presentation was the sole focus of Kandil’s article, it seems virtually certain that Al-Arian would have read the article prior to publication. In fact, it seems likely that she would have assisted in editing it given that Kandil was an intern assigned to cover and report on her speaking event. Would she not have sought to correct the error if her quotes were mistakenly attributed to someone else?

Given the confluence of the facts and relationships involved here, I have a really hard time believing that these quotes were misattributed to Hussain, and coincidentally were only corrected soon after he joined the White House last year. In fact, I smell a cover-up. Which if true it seems likely that the changes to the article would have been made at the request of Hussain or on his behalf given that he was the only one who had anything to gain from the “correction”.

Although I have to say that the statements Hussain allegedly made in support of Al-Arian are really not all that damaging considering that he was still in law school at the time, and that Sami Al-Arian’s trial had not even begun. It is certainly embarrassing for Hussain to have been quoted claiming Al-Arian was being politically persecuted given that he ultimately plead guilty to a conspiracy charge, but this seems like relatively small potatoes to risk your career on five years later.

However, a cover-up involving White House personnel is most definitely not small potatoes, and it seems to me that further investigation is warranted.

Update: for a counter-view, Daniel Pipes at NRO has had some past experience with inaccurate reporting by the WRMEA, and is inclined to believe Hussain if he claims he was misquoted. (Which notably he has not yet done.) And credit for the original finding of the modified article by the WRMEA belongs to the Global Muslim Brotherhood Daily Report and to CNS News for picking up the story.

I have been reading various articles and listening to pundits for months talk about healthcare reform. They have discussed ad nauseam everything from complete government takeover with single payer on one hand to free markets on the other.

Next week, we will be witness to the President’s healthcare forum. This is what we know so far:

• Tort reform is pretty much off the table.

The trial lawyers lobby has seen to that.

• There seems to be no political will to apply anti-trust regulations

This will continue to benefit the health insurance industry since they will be able to continue to run fiefdoms in various markets guaranteeing their market share and profits.

• The public option is really NOT an option.

If it does get implemented it will be a glorified version of Medicare Advantage where the program is administered by the insurance companies. A particularly sweet win-win situation for them since it means we will have to pay them whether we want private insurance or not.

• More taxes

We will be paying money into a governmental black hole for the next 4 years in the hopes that we will get inexpensive, comprehensive health coverage in the end. I have just two words about that – Medicare and Social Security (enough said).

• If you don’t like your insurance too bad

People who don’t like their private insurance plan will not be able to access the exchange system.

We are at a crossroads.

As a practicing physician, I am really concerned about the state of our healthcare system if the Congressional reform bill gets passed. Even if it is an amalgam of both the House and Senate bill, there are so many negatives that the basic tenets that are good, like coverage for pre-existing conditions and not being dropped from an insurance plan, will not make any significant difference in our healthcare overall.

Some have said that the reform effort is a stepping stone to a single payer system and I agree that is possible. What physician would want to enter a system where their freedom to practice medicine is controlled by government task forces, and where the final medical decision is made by a government administrator who will be all about cost savings, and NOT what is best for the individual patient?

The healthcare system in Massachusetts is a look into the future. They have a high number of medical residents that leave the state when they graduate, practicing physicians are also leaving, because of the physician shortage people have to wait to be seen by a doctor, and healthcare costs have gone up significantly since they instituted universal coverage. The physicians who do remain in practice MUST accept all health insurance since getting and renewing their license is contingent upon them doing so. I believe that a government law mandating that all physicians must take health insurance in order to obtain and maintain their license to practice medicine would be the only way to capture enough physicians to help implement this system.

I have a problem with this as someone who was trained that medicine is an art as well as a science. I also have a problem as a professional with being told 1) who I can see; 2) what tools I can use to diagnose; 3) what therapeutic treatment options I can use, and 4) how much my time and expertise are worth. Wouldn’t anyone?

It’s time to change the paradigm. In my opinion neither the government nor the health insurance industry is the answer to the problems of healthcare costs. They are actually part of the problem.  The government’s intrusion into healthcare via Medicare has set the reimbursements without regard to real world costs. Because they are so low and continue to get lower, it leads to cost shifting from those who cannot pay to those who can. This is compounded by the for profit private insurance industry that has injected a new layer of costs that are designed to make sure that they get paid no matter what. They have devised ever more novel ways to increase revenue by 1) increasing the premiums to patients; 2) increasing patient out of pocket expenses via deductibles and co-insurance; 3) decreasing  reimbursement rates to physicians; and 4) adding other methods to reduce payments like multiple procedure discounts(e.g., if a procedure has two sides you get paid 50% or less for the second side), and global surgical days (i.e., a physician will see a patient postoperatively for up to 90 days with no charge and may not charge for supplies ,or anything related to the surgery).

Enough, we are on a path that is unsustainable. Yes, cost is one aspect, but so is the medical workforce. The system will NOT run without enough qualified doctors, nurses and other health professionals.

These are some of the things I would do:

1.  Get rid of insurance companies anti-trust exemption to promote real competition

2. Tort reform that includes a mandatory payment of legal fees for the losing litigant.

This could even the playing field for lawyers who take cases based oncontingency and decrease the number of frivolous law suits which estimates place as high as 40%.

3. Change the way health insurance companies pay benefits.

Since health insurance is unlike any other type of insurance, mandate that a percentage of the yearly premium be used to provide patient care after this amount is met; the patient pays the percentage as set forth by the insurance company. For example, if a yearly premium is 23,000 then 30% needs to be available to be  used for whatever medical treatment or therapy the patient needs (as determined by the patient NOT the insurance company). After the $6900 is met then the patient is responsible for the 30%-40% or whatever is mandated by the insurance company.

• This would encourage the patient to seek medical care before a medical condition became more advanced. It would also encourage patients to shop for the most cost effective treatment. In short, market forces would be engaged in a positive way without limiting patient access.
• The patient would also be encouraged to purchase insurance because they would be getting real value. As it stands now, if a patient never sees a physician they merely pay money to the insurance company without any hope of getting it back. In addition, the increased deductibles and co-insurance have increased the out of pocket expenses and that has also limited patient access.
• Institute a rollover of the unused portion  allowed for medical expenses. This would also benefit the patient because if they didn’t use it, the additional money would potentially add value to the insurance plan. It would encourage people to maintain coverage no matter their age or underlying health.

4. Encourage incentives for adopting a healthy lifestyle

In the form of premium reductions or possible tax credits

5. Allow patient to write off their medical expenses

from the first dollar instead of almost 7,000.

6. Allow physicians to write off bad debt

They would be encouraged to see more indigent people for free, and would also not need to go after and potentially ruin the credit of those patients who owe  money. Currently, if a patient or insurance company does not pay, the physician is forced to write it off.

These are just some examples that I believe would put the power of individual health choices back where it belongs with the patient and the physician. People have good sense, and if given more control of their own healthcare costs along with clearly presented options that include cost transparency (from both health care providers and hospitals who will have to compete for a savvy patient consumer), they will choose what is best for them. When the inflated costs injected by the government and the insurance industry are stripped out, it would lead to a more affordable medical system that will work well for the foreseeable future.

Yesterday, Vice President Joe Biden visited CBS’ “Early Show” for a “wide-ranging interview” during which he said, “We understand why people are angry…We get it.”

Um, no you don’t. Because if you did, Mr. Vice President, we wouldn’t keep hearing stories about the executive branch seeking ways to act unilaterally on domestic issues it can’t seem to get passed in the lopsided, Democrat-controlled Congress.

And we wouldn’t keep reading about SEIU and other bankrollers of the Obama campaign demanding swifter action on agenda items that are in their interest.

Vice Captain Obvious also had this observation: “Washington right now is broken.”  Help me out,  Joe. Your party controls 59 seats in the Senate.  You have a huge majority in the House.  Yet Washington is “broken?” Under whom is it broken, Joe?

This is the same Veep who said we must spend our way out of the recession, and now says our country is in “deep trouble” unless deficits are tackled. What a joke.

Obama’s agenda is in shambles, his poll numbers are sinking lower, and his former disciples in Congress are heading for the exits by the droves.

And somehow the Republicans are to blame.

The message Joe and Barack should have received from the special election in Massachusetts was, “Hey guys, get your act together. Get something going.”

Their problem is that the people want to get job creation and deficit reduction “going,” while the SEIU and the liberal base of the Democratic Party want something entirely different. It’s a vexing challenge that spells real trouble for this administration in the months leading up to the mid-term elections.

Several weeks after the Senate rejected Barack Obama’s plan to create a bipartisan congressional panel charged with decreasing the deficit, the president will use his executive authority to create the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.

The less-powerful bipartisan commission, chaired by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, will be tasked with formulating a plan to decrease the federal budget deficit to 3% of GDP by 2015.

Yawn.

With the signing of this executive order, Obama will add fiscal responsibility to his growing library of political theater. Thus far, his other featured films have starred earmarks, lobbyists, Sonia Sotomayor, bipartisanship, etc. Unsurprisingly, they all share a common theme: disingenuousness. You’re welcome to grab some popcorn and take a seat, but as you watch the production of fiscal responsibility featuring Obama the deficit hawk, keep in mind you’re only being entertained.

In his first year in office, the president spent a record-breaking $3.52 trillion. At the end of the year, he used Christmas Eve to sneakily sign an executive order that provides an unlimited, perpetual bailout to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

At the beginning of this month, he released a $3.8 trillion budget proposal that will increase the deficit to a record-breaking $1.56 trillion, and just last week he signed a bill that increases the federal debt limit from $12.394 trillion to $14.294 trillion.

The president’s track record speaks for itself. He’s not a deficit hawk; he’s a big government ideologue. Unfortunately, big government costs big money, and the formation of Obama’s America will cost unprecedented amounts of money–to use the administration’s favorite word.

So what’s going on here?

As usual, Barack Obama believes he’s the smartest guy in the room, and he can trick the American people because they only pay attention to his words, not his actions.

That’s why he makes a pledge of no lobbyists, but allows waivers to sneak them in the back door. That’s why he makes a pledge of no earmarks, but signs unread legislation filled with thousands of them into law. That’s why he talks about bipartisanship, but behind closed doors proclaims to the GOP, he won, they lost, and they can either go along or get out of the way. And that’s why he creates a commission designed to create the appearance of a president who wants to get the nation’s financial house of cards in order even while he plots to spend it into oblivion.

Films often capture our imaginations, allowing us to believe in the unbelievable. Obama wants us to believe the unbelievable in him, but according to a recent CNN poll, 52% of the participants don’t believe he should be re-elected.

Translation?

The American people don’t believe he’s doing a great job directing, and they’re going to be the ones to say “cut!”

Last summer, I released a web video targeting Washington Democrats’ trillion-dollar “stimulus” bill and asking “where are the jobs?”  Today, on the one-year anniversary of President Obama signing the “stimulus” into law, job-sniffing GOP bloodhound Ellie Mae still hasn’t found any jobs “created or saved” by the “stimulus.”  And I’m re-releasing the video for an encore performance.

The video features a down-home voiceover by Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA), and concludes with an appearance by me and Ellie Mae herself.

When Democrats rushed their massive 1,100 page, “stimulus” through Congress last year, they promised that unemployment would not rise above eight percent and that job creation would begin “almost immediately”.   But one year later, more than three million more Americans have lost their jobs, the deficit is set to hit a record shattering $1.6 trillion, and Administration reports on how many jobs were “saved or created” have been “riddled with inaccuracies and contradictions.”

By the metrics the Democrats themselves set, the “stimulus” hasn’t worked – it’s chock-full of wasteful government spending that’s funneled money to Congressional districts that don’t exist and claims of jobs “saved or created” were so exaggerated that the Administration quietly abandoned the metric at the end of last year.

Poll after poll confirms that an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose the “stimulus” program.  In fact, a CBS/New York Times poll released yesterday found that “just 6 percent of Americans think it has created jobs.”   Any wonder that a CNN survey reported that “3 of 4 Americans say much of stimulus money wasted.”

All Washington Democrats have to offer struggling families asking “where are the jobs?” is more spending, more debt, and more broken promises.  Republicans are offering better solutions to:

• Create jobs by jumpstarting small business growth and restoring confidence in our economy;
• Make Washington do more with less with a responsible budget blueprint that sets strict caps to limit federal spending on annual basis;
• Lower health care premiums by up to 10 percent and consistently reduce federal spending over the next two decades;
• Clean up our environment and meet the nation’s energy needs by employing an “all of the above” strategy;
• Get the federal government out of the bailout business;
• Protect responsible homeowners and revitalize America’s housing market;
• Help rebuild Americans’ savings, whether it’s for retirement, college, or buying a home;
• And bring much-needed transparency to the legislative process so we can accomplish all these goals with the open and honest government taxpayers deserve.

For a look back at the Democrats’ broken “stimulus” promises, please see a new report released today entitled “Where are the Jobs?: A Look Back at One Year of So-Called ‘Stimulus’” outlining the failure of the Democrats’ trillion-dollar “stimulus” to create the jobs they promised while leaving massive deficits in its wake.

Last week, the Huffington Post (here) was all over this  new study showing that low-income workers got hit more severely during the recession than high-income workers (low-income workers suffer an over 30 percent unemployment rate, workers making about $138,000, only a 3.2 percent.)

The data in this study, which turned out to be quite misleading, certainly makes for nice populist headlines. But it is hiding the true debate that we should be having. And that’s not that low-skill workers are vulnerable to recession (duh) but that public-sector employees still have jobs and private employees don’t.

Look at the data:

In this chart, I compare seasonally adjusted unemployment rates across segments of the economy, dividing these segments using the super-categories designated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The chart compares the unemployment rates in January of 2009 (blue) with the unemployment rates in these same sectors a year later (yellow). (FYI, the difference would be even more dramatic if I had used not seasonally adjusted data)

In both years, the unemployment rate within the government has been small relative to the level of unemployment within the entire economy, and particularly so relative to the private sector.   In the course of a year, government employment has decreased by 296,000 jobs to 4.3% unemployment; during the same period, employment in the private, non-agricultural, sector has decreased by 2.3 million jobs to 11.1%. (And if you look at not seasonally adjusted unemployment data, the lose of private jobs reached 3.1 million and the lose of public jobs is roughly 70,000. That’s quite a gap.)

From January 2009 to January 2010, plummeting employment has been concentrated in the private sector. During the time period examined, employment in the private sector decreased by 3.5% while employment within government decreased by 0.5%.  Furthermore, employment has consistently decreased more quickly in the private sector than within the government (in addition to decreasing more on net).  Since January 2009, employment has decreased in the private sector at an average rate of 0.3% each month; this is 6 times faster than employment has decreased in government.

Not only has unemployment been concentrated in the private sector within the past year, it has been concentrated disproportionately so. When measured as a percentage of GDP, government accounted for roughly a quarter of GDP.  Conversely, unemployment in the government sector accounted for 5.9% of the increase in the economy’s total unemployment which has occurred in the past year.  In contrast, job losses in the non-agricultural private sector have accounted for 81.3% of the total increase in unemployment.

By the way, public-sector employees are also the ones benefiting from the stimulus funding, not the private-sector employees. The job-creation data reveals that most of the jobs were “created or saved” in the public sector. Based on data from Recovery.gov, we find that of the 640,000 jobs the administration claims to have created with stimulus funds, only some 140,765 of them were private jobs.

Now, I would love to see a post by Ariana Huffington titled “No Labor Market Recession For America’s government employees, Private Workers Hit Hardest.”

Also, I would love to see the Tea Party Movement get jazzed up about this and expose the stimulus bill for what it is: A job creating machine for the public sector.

On January 20, 2009 President Barack Obama promised to “begin again the work of remaking America.” He wasn’t kidding. In his first year Barack Obama and Democrats set all kinds of spending records. They managed to triple the national debt in a year and watched the unemployment rate jump to double digits. President Obama dithered and waffled on national security and joined with Marxist dictators to side against an American ally.

But you haven’t seen anything yet. The democrats in Congress are moving closer to passing the most radical anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-family bill through Congress that we have seen in decades.

HR4530 is a radical Safe Schools Czar’s dream come true.

Forget reading, writing and arithmatic, Democrats have more important subjects in mind for your child. Democrats are working to push HR 4530 through Congress. This bill will force educators to prohibit harassment, violence and discrimination faced by students based on their sexual orientation. That doesn’t sound so bad, but that’s not all it does.

The bill will also allows educators and education officials like Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings to push their radical agenda in the classroom. And, if you don’t like the new policies or object to the program, the bill authorizes the federal government to cut off the educational assistance to schools that fail to enforce the new rules. Critics of the bill understand the law would give the controversial Safe Schools Czar, Kevin Jennings, almost unlimited authority to mandate sexual indoctrination in public schools at taxpayer expense. It won’t matter what your child is taught at home, this bill will allow radical educators to push their agenda in public schools despite your possible concerns.

U.S. Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) introduced HR 4530 School Non-Discrimination Act of 2010 late last month to prohibit harassment, violence and discrimination faced by students based on their sexual orientation. The bill “prohibits public school students from being excluded from participating in, or subject to discrimination under, any federally-assisted educational program on the basis of their actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity or that of their associates.” The law considers perceived harassment to be a form of discrimination. The bill authorizes federal departments and agencies to enforce these new rules by cutting off the educational assistance of recipients found to be violating them. It allows an aggrieved individual to assert a violation of this Act in a judicial proceeding and recover reasonable attorney’s fees should they prevail. 65 democrats signed on to this bill. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Education and Labor on January 27, 2010.

According to Metro Weekly:

The bill would require that no student in public schools be “excluded from participation in, or be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance” based on the student’s sexual orientation or gender identity. The bill also would prohibit harassment based on either characteristic.

It sounds innocent enough until you look at its real intent.

The purpose of this bill is not what is being stated, but is quite simply to mandate in public schools one acceptable viewpoint on the issue of homosexuality, using purported violence or harassment as the rationale, and the power of the feds as the hammer. The goal is to silence those who may warn about or object to student expression of homosexuality or gender confusion… The federal governmental intrusion and sweeping new unregulated powers in what are local and state matters are proposed in this bill. Enforcement will primarily be through federal agencies, which will craft new regulations to back up this bill’s provisions with the President’s approval. Can you spell “czar”?

In other words, if you oppose radical sexual material detailing sex between first graders or promoting S&M but the Safe Schools Czar or some other official believes it is appropriate- tough. If you disagree with books romanticizing child rape or books with pictures of men having sex- tough. If you oppose weekend student-teacher seminars with fisting lectures and gay bar guides- tough. If government officials want to promote this in your child’s classroom then you’ll just have to get used to it.

No one wants to see a child picked on, harrassed or ridiculed, but this bill takes government control to a whole new level. It is a radical’s dream come true. This bill is a direct assault on our nation’s moral fabric.

No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.

– Mark Twain

The Obama peeps are actually trying to celebrate the one year anniversary of the $862 billion “drive us into perpetual debt” bill. Biden repeatedly told an audience in Saginaw, MI -unemployment 14% – that the “stimulus” is working.

Thanks, Joe! Hey, maybe that’s the next great achievement of The One. Back in the real world people are finally starting to notice that all this debt we’re racking up could lead to inflation, kill your savings and wages, and make it harder for you and businesses to borrow money.

Over the past year alone, the amount the U.S. government owes its lenders has grown to more than half the country’s entire economic output, or gross domestic product.

Even more alarming, experts say, is that those figures will climb to an unprecedented 200 percent of GDP by 2038 without a dramatic shift in course.

“Within 12 years&the largest item in the federal budget will be interest payments on the national debt,” said former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker. “[They are] payments for which we get nothing.”

There’s no getting around the fact that eventually we have to pay this back and the interest payments are killing us.

“I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.”

– Thomas Jefferson, 1743-1826

Okay, debt can be bad, but look at all the good the “stimulus” has done! It’s kept states from cutting their budgets and throwing teachers, firemen and policemen out of work. Does anyone really believe states would have decided THAT was the answer? There are other ways to cut state budgets. We are simply delaying the inevitable and not fixing the problem of outrageous spending. State spending went nuts in the boom years and they need to right their ships now.

We’re also learning more about where the “stimulus” money went.

More than $3.5 billion in economic stimulus funds are going to programs that President Obama wants to eliminate or trim in his new budget.

But wait, there’s more:

“We’ve gone through records that said they spent money on lion and tiger dens at the National Zoo in D.C., stopped modified funding for fish sperm, resetting headstones at cemeteries, cleaning bird droppings,” said Grabell.

The country needs an intervention. We are addicted to spending and the idea that the federal government’s role is to solve all our problems. Until we admit that, we won’t change it. We must get back to the idea of a limited government, lower taxes, less spending, more personal responsibility and voluntarily helping each other instead of stealing from one to redistribute to another.

Families cannot prosper and keep America strong if government becomes a Goliath that preys upon their wealth, usurps their rights, and crushes their spirit.

–Ronald Reagan

On a lighter note, here’s the latest episode of my web show taking a humorous look at the week in politics. Enjoy!