http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p_mUwzoYcc&feature=player_embedded
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
Ed Freeman - he died two years ago, but still worth honoring the man!
You're a 19 year old kid. You're critically wounded and dying in the jungle in the Ia Drang Valley , on
11-14-1965, LZ X-ray , Vietnam . Your infantry unit is outnumbered 8 - 1 and the enemy fire is so intense, from 100 or 200 yards away, that your own Infantry Commander has ordered the MediVac helicopters to stop coming in. You're lying there, listening to the enemy machine guns and you know you're not getting out.
Your family is 1/2 way around the world, 12,000 miles away and you'll never see them again. As the world starts to fade in and out, you know this is the day. Then - over the machine gun noise - you faintly hear that sound of a helicopter..!! You look up to see an un-armed Huey!! But.... it doesn't seem real because no Medi-Vac markings are on it. Ed Freeman is coming for you..!! He's not Medi-Vac so it's not his job, but he's flying his Huey down into the machine gun fireanyway. Even after the Medi-Vacs were ordered not to come. He's coming anyway. And he drops it in and sits there in the machine gun fire, as they load 2 or 3 of you on board. Then he flies you up and out through the gunfire to the Doctors and Nurses. And, he kept coming back..!! 13 more times..!! He took about 30 of you and your buddies out who would never have gotten out. Medal of Honor Recipient, Ed Freeman, died last Wednesday at the age of 80, in Boise , ID.
May God Rest His Soul.
11-14-1965, LZ X-ray , Vietnam . Your infantry unit is outnumbered 8 - 1 and the enemy fire is so intense, from 100 or 200 yards away, that your own Infantry Commander has ordered the MediVac helicopters to stop coming in. You're lying there, listening to the enemy machine guns and you know you're not getting out.
Your family is 1/2 way around the world, 12,000 miles away and you'll never see them again. As the world starts to fade in and out, you know this is the day. Then - over the machine gun noise - you faintly hear that sound of a helicopter..!! You look up to see an un-armed Huey!! But.... it doesn't seem real because no Medi-Vac markings are on it. Ed Freeman is coming for you..!! He's not Medi-Vac so it's not his job, but he's flying his Huey down into the machine gun fireanyway. Even after the Medi-Vacs were ordered not to come. He's coming anyway. And he drops it in and sits there in the machine gun fire, as they load 2 or 3 of you on board. Then he flies you up and out through the gunfire to the Doctors and Nurses. And, he kept coming back..!! 13 more times..!! He took about 30 of you and your buddies out who would never have gotten out. Medal of Honor Recipient, Ed Freeman, died last Wednesday at the age of 80, in Boise , ID.
May God Rest His Soul.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
This just in from Rasmussen
For the first time in recent years, voters trust Republicans more than Democrats on all 10 key electoral issues regularly tracked by Rasmussen Reports. The GOP holds double-digit advantages on five of them.
Republicans have nearly doubled their lead over Democrats on economic issues to 49% to 35%, after leading by eight points in September.
The GOP also holds a 54% to 31% advantage on national security issues and a 50% to 31% lead on the handling of the war in Iraq.
But voters are less sure which party they trust more to handle government ethics and corruption, an issue that passed the economy in voter importance last month. Thirty-three percent (33%) trust Republicans more while 29% have more confidence in Democrats. Another 38% are undecided. Last month, the parties were virtually tied on the issue.
A recent Rasmussen Reports video report finds that voters are more disappointed lately with Obama’s performance in dealing with corruption in Washington.
Among unaffiliated voters who see ethics as the most important issue, 26% trust the GOP more while 23% trust Democrats more. Most (51%) are not sure which party they trust.
On the highly contentious issue of health care, voters now give the edge to Republicans 46% to 40%. The parties tied on the issue last month, after Republicans took the lead on it for the first time in August.
Separate polling released today shows 49% of voters nationwide say that passing no health care reform bill this year would be better than passing the plan currently working its way through Congress. Most voters (54%) oppose the health care reform plan proposed by the president and congressional Democrats, but 42% are in favor of it.
On taxes, Republicans are now ahead of Democrats 50% to 35%, nearly doubling their September lead on the issue. Prior to July, the percentage of voters who trusted the GOP more on taxes never reached 50%. It has done so three times since then.
Thirty-eight percent (38%) of voters say cutting the federal budget deficit in half in the next four years should be the Obama administration's top priority, while 23% say health care reform is most important.
Republicans are down to a seven-point lead on immigration after enjoying a 13-point advantage last month. Recent polling shows that 56% think the policies of the federal government encourage people to enter the United States illegally.
Voters trust Republicans more on Social Security by a 45% to 37% margin, after the GOP trailed Democrats by two points on the issue in the last survey.
The president is proposing a one-time $250 payment to seniors who for the first time in years won't be getting a cost of living increase in their Social Security checks because inflation's down. While half of voters support this idea, they are more skeptical when told how much it will cost.
Republicans lead on the issue of education 43% to 38%. Last month Democrats had a five-point lead.
Voters also trust Republicans more on the handling of abortion 47% to 35%.
The GOP advantage over Democrats increased from two points to five in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot. Forty-two percent (42%) would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate while 37% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent. This is not going to help Obama pass his leftist agenda, and too many are already worried about running for reelection with the stigma of supporting Obamas policies.
But 73% of GOP voters nationwide think Republicans in Congress have lost touch with their voting base.
We need to find out what is behind this and reconnect with our GOP base. In any event, this poll is welcome news that Americans are clearly not comfortable with the Obama/Pelosi/Reid leftist agenda.
Republicans have nearly doubled their lead over Democrats on economic issues to 49% to 35%, after leading by eight points in September.
The GOP also holds a 54% to 31% advantage on national security issues and a 50% to 31% lead on the handling of the war in Iraq.
But voters are less sure which party they trust more to handle government ethics and corruption, an issue that passed the economy in voter importance last month. Thirty-three percent (33%) trust Republicans more while 29% have more confidence in Democrats. Another 38% are undecided. Last month, the parties were virtually tied on the issue.
A recent Rasmussen Reports video report finds that voters are more disappointed lately with Obama’s performance in dealing with corruption in Washington.
Among unaffiliated voters who see ethics as the most important issue, 26% trust the GOP more while 23% trust Democrats more. Most (51%) are not sure which party they trust.
On the highly contentious issue of health care, voters now give the edge to Republicans 46% to 40%. The parties tied on the issue last month, after Republicans took the lead on it for the first time in August.
Separate polling released today shows 49% of voters nationwide say that passing no health care reform bill this year would be better than passing the plan currently working its way through Congress. Most voters (54%) oppose the health care reform plan proposed by the president and congressional Democrats, but 42% are in favor of it.
On taxes, Republicans are now ahead of Democrats 50% to 35%, nearly doubling their September lead on the issue. Prior to July, the percentage of voters who trusted the GOP more on taxes never reached 50%. It has done so three times since then.
Thirty-eight percent (38%) of voters say cutting the federal budget deficit in half in the next four years should be the Obama administration's top priority, while 23% say health care reform is most important.
Republicans are down to a seven-point lead on immigration after enjoying a 13-point advantage last month. Recent polling shows that 56% think the policies of the federal government encourage people to enter the United States illegally.
Voters trust Republicans more on Social Security by a 45% to 37% margin, after the GOP trailed Democrats by two points on the issue in the last survey.
The president is proposing a one-time $250 payment to seniors who for the first time in years won't be getting a cost of living increase in their Social Security checks because inflation's down. While half of voters support this idea, they are more skeptical when told how much it will cost.
Republicans lead on the issue of education 43% to 38%. Last month Democrats had a five-point lead.
Voters also trust Republicans more on the handling of abortion 47% to 35%.
The GOP advantage over Democrats increased from two points to five in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot. Forty-two percent (42%) would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate while 37% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent. This is not going to help Obama pass his leftist agenda, and too many are already worried about running for reelection with the stigma of supporting Obamas policies.
But 73% of GOP voters nationwide think Republicans in Congress have lost touch with their voting base.
We need to find out what is behind this and reconnect with our GOP base. In any event, this poll is welcome news that Americans are clearly not comfortable with the Obama/Pelosi/Reid leftist agenda.
Keeping up With Obama
1. I am reading Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky to better understand what makes Obama & Team think they way they think. I've only read the Prologue so far, but it's very consistent with the Obama playbook. It's also very obvious that Obama misread the change America was interested in. In reality, I think most voted for Obama because he was the "anti-Bush," not because they embraced his change agenda. It's clear now that he does not have the political capital to pull off his radical agenda. I will post excerpts from the book and how I think they are germain to what is going on with Obama and the resistance building against his agenda.
2. Read the AEI Political Report today. Very good insights into how Americans think of Obama and his policies and how he is handling the issues.
2. Read the AEI Political Report today. Very good insights into how Americans think of Obama and his policies and how he is handling the issues.
- Obama get the nod by >50% on 3 issues - Terrorism, the Environment and Energy. He gets 50% or less on the economy, Iraq, healthcare, the deficit, Taxes, immigration, Afghanistan and unemployment. These polls are as of October 2009.
- 5% of Americans think Obama is "too conservative." Go figure.
- Despite these critical assessments of Obama, Democrats get more positive marks than Republicans, although the gap is narrowing.
- Seemingly at odds with the last point, 62% think that Congress pays "not much or not at all" to what regular Americans think when it decides what to do.
- Despite 50% thinking that Obama is not doing what it takes to win in Afghanistan, more (38%) think that we should decrease the number of troops in Afghanistan than the number (37%) who think we need to increase the number of troops.
- On Iran, 61% think that "to precent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if it means taking military action is more important" than avoiding conflice (24%)
- 67% do not belive that Obama's healthcare plan will "not add one dime to the deficit today or in the future."
- 60% do not believe that they will not have to make a change to their insurance as a result of reform.
- 59% support surcharges on the rich to pay for reform.
- 65% oppose a second stimulus
- 83% support a photo id at polling places to help avoid fraud
- When asked what % of every dollar is wasted at various levels of government they answered:
50% - Federal government
42% State government
37% Local government
Let's hope they remember how they answered these questions the next time they are in the voting booth.
Friday, October 23, 2009
The Chicago Way
This is an excellent editorial by Kim Strassel at the Wall Street Journal. My takeaway from all of this is that the Obambi administration is unable to sell their policies on their own merits. When confronted with opposition, rather that argue on the merits of what is said, they result to bully tactics (or it is childish tactics?). What does that tell you about their convictions regarding their proposals. It's also worth noting that increasing amounts of Democratic representatives are voting against Obama's policies as well. His plummiting approval ratings suggest that voters who voted for him are feeling like victims of a bait and switch - they thought they were electing a centrist Democrat, instead they elected a rabid left wing nutjob who will not listen to logic or reason.
The Chicago Way
The Chamber of Commerce is only the latest target of the Chicago Gang in the White House.
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way. – Jim Malone, "The Untouchables"
When Barack Obama promised to deliver "a new kind of politics" to Washington, most folk didn't picture Rahm Emanuel with a baseball bat. These days, the capital would make David Mamet, who wrote Malone's memorable movie dialogue, proud.
A White House set on kneecapping its opponents isn't, of course, entirely new. (See: Nixon) What is a little novel is the public and bare-knuckle way in which the Obama team is waging these campaigns against the other side.
In recent weeks the Windy City gang added a new name to their list of societal offenders: the Chamber of Commerce. For the cheek of disagreeing with Democrats on climate and financial regulation, it was reported the Oval Office will neuter the business lobby. Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett slammed the outfit as "old school," and warned CEOs they'd be wise to seek better protection.
That was after the president accused the business lobby of false advertising. And that recent black eye for the Chamber (when several companies, all with Democratic ties, quit in a huff)—think that happened on its own? ("Somebody messes with me, I'm gonna mess with him! Somebody steals from me, I'm gonna say you stole. Not talk to him for spitting on the sidewalk. Understand!?")
The Chamber can at least take comfort in crowds. Who isn't on the business end of the White House's sawed-off shotgun? First up were Chrysler bondholders who—upon balking at a White House deal that rewarded only unions—were privately threatened and then publicly excoriated by the president.
Next, every pharmaceutical, hospital and insurance executive in the nation was held out as a prime obstacle to health-care nirvana. And that was their reward for cooperating. When Humana warned customers about cuts to Medicare under "reform," the White House didn't bother to complain. They went straight for the gag order. When the insurance industry criticized the Baucus health bill, the response was this week's bill to strip them of their federal antitrust immunity. ("I want you to find this nancy-boy . . . I want him dead! I want his family dead! I want his house burned to the ground!")
This summer Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl criticized stimulus dollars. Obama cabinet secretaries sent letters to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer. One read: "if you prefer to forfeit the money we are making available to the state, as Senator Kyl suggests," let us know. The Arizona Republic wrote: "Let's not mince words here: The White House is intent on shutting Kyl up . . . using whatever means necessary." When Sens. Robert Bennett and Lamar Alexander took issue with the administration's czars, the White House singled them out, by name, on its blog. Sen. Alexander was annoyed enough to take to the floor this week to warn the White House off an "enemies list."
House Minority Whip Eric Cantor? Targeted for the sin of being a up-and-coming conservative voice. Though even Mr. Cantor was shoved aside in August so the Chicago gang could target at least seven Democratic senators, via the president's campaign arm, Organizing for America, for not doing more on health care. ("What I'm saying is: What are you prepared to do??!!")
And don't forget Fox News Channel ("nothing but a lot of talk and a badge!"). Fox, like MSNBC, has its share of commentators. But according to Obama Communications Director Anita Dunn, the entire network is "opinion journalism masquerading as news." Many previous White House press officers, when faced with criticism, try this thing called outreach. The Chicago crowd has boycotted Fox altogether.
What makes these efforts notable is that they are not the lashing out of a frustrated political operation. They are calculated campaigns, designed to create bogeymen, to divide the opposition, to frighten players into compliance. The White House sees a once-in-a-generation opportunity on health care and climate. It is obsessed with winning these near-term battles, and will take no prisoners. It knows that CEOs are easily intimidated and (Fox News ratings aside) it is getting some of its way. Besides, roughing up conservatives gives the liberal blogosphere something to write about besides Guantanamo.
The Oval Office might be more concerned with the long term. It is 10 months in; more than three long years to go. The strategy to play dirty now and triangulate later is risky. One day, say when immigration reform comes due, the Chamber might come in handy. That is if the Chamber isn't too far gone.
White House targets also aren't dopes. The corporate community is realizing that playing nice doesn't guarantee safety. The health executives signed up for reform, only to remain the president's political piñatas. It surely grates that the unions—now running their own ads against ObamaCare—haven't been targeted. If the choice is cooperate and get nailed, or oppose and possibly win, some might take that bet.
There's also the little fact that many Americans voted for this president in thrall to his vow to bring the country together. It's hard to do that amid gunfire, and voters might just notice.
("I do not approve of your methods! Yeah, well . . . You're not from Chicago.")
Write to kim@wsj.com
The Chicago Way
The Chamber of Commerce is only the latest target of the Chicago Gang in the White House.
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way. – Jim Malone, "The Untouchables"
When Barack Obama promised to deliver "a new kind of politics" to Washington, most folk didn't picture Rahm Emanuel with a baseball bat. These days, the capital would make David Mamet, who wrote Malone's memorable movie dialogue, proud.
A White House set on kneecapping its opponents isn't, of course, entirely new. (See: Nixon) What is a little novel is the public and bare-knuckle way in which the Obama team is waging these campaigns against the other side.
In recent weeks the Windy City gang added a new name to their list of societal offenders: the Chamber of Commerce. For the cheek of disagreeing with Democrats on climate and financial regulation, it was reported the Oval Office will neuter the business lobby. Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett slammed the outfit as "old school," and warned CEOs they'd be wise to seek better protection.
That was after the president accused the business lobby of false advertising. And that recent black eye for the Chamber (when several companies, all with Democratic ties, quit in a huff)—think that happened on its own? ("Somebody messes with me, I'm gonna mess with him! Somebody steals from me, I'm gonna say you stole. Not talk to him for spitting on the sidewalk. Understand!?")
The Chamber can at least take comfort in crowds. Who isn't on the business end of the White House's sawed-off shotgun? First up were Chrysler bondholders who—upon balking at a White House deal that rewarded only unions—were privately threatened and then publicly excoriated by the president.
Next, every pharmaceutical, hospital and insurance executive in the nation was held out as a prime obstacle to health-care nirvana. And that was their reward for cooperating. When Humana warned customers about cuts to Medicare under "reform," the White House didn't bother to complain. They went straight for the gag order. When the insurance industry criticized the Baucus health bill, the response was this week's bill to strip them of their federal antitrust immunity. ("I want you to find this nancy-boy . . . I want him dead! I want his family dead! I want his house burned to the ground!")
This summer Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl criticized stimulus dollars. Obama cabinet secretaries sent letters to Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer. One read: "if you prefer to forfeit the money we are making available to the state, as Senator Kyl suggests," let us know. The Arizona Republic wrote: "Let's not mince words here: The White House is intent on shutting Kyl up . . . using whatever means necessary." When Sens. Robert Bennett and Lamar Alexander took issue with the administration's czars, the White House singled them out, by name, on its blog. Sen. Alexander was annoyed enough to take to the floor this week to warn the White House off an "enemies list."
House Minority Whip Eric Cantor? Targeted for the sin of being a up-and-coming conservative voice. Though even Mr. Cantor was shoved aside in August so the Chicago gang could target at least seven Democratic senators, via the president's campaign arm, Organizing for America, for not doing more on health care. ("What I'm saying is: What are you prepared to do??!!")
And don't forget Fox News Channel ("nothing but a lot of talk and a badge!"). Fox, like MSNBC, has its share of commentators. But according to Obama Communications Director Anita Dunn, the entire network is "opinion journalism masquerading as news." Many previous White House press officers, when faced with criticism, try this thing called outreach. The Chicago crowd has boycotted Fox altogether.
What makes these efforts notable is that they are not the lashing out of a frustrated political operation. They are calculated campaigns, designed to create bogeymen, to divide the opposition, to frighten players into compliance. The White House sees a once-in-a-generation opportunity on health care and climate. It is obsessed with winning these near-term battles, and will take no prisoners. It knows that CEOs are easily intimidated and (Fox News ratings aside) it is getting some of its way. Besides, roughing up conservatives gives the liberal blogosphere something to write about besides Guantanamo.
The Oval Office might be more concerned with the long term. It is 10 months in; more than three long years to go. The strategy to play dirty now and triangulate later is risky. One day, say when immigration reform comes due, the Chamber might come in handy. That is if the Chamber isn't too far gone.
White House targets also aren't dopes. The corporate community is realizing that playing nice doesn't guarantee safety. The health executives signed up for reform, only to remain the president's political piñatas. It surely grates that the unions—now running their own ads against ObamaCare—haven't been targeted. If the choice is cooperate and get nailed, or oppose and possibly win, some might take that bet.
There's also the little fact that many Americans voted for this president in thrall to his vow to bring the country together. It's hard to do that amid gunfire, and voters might just notice.
("I do not approve of your methods! Yeah, well . . . You're not from Chicago.")
Write to kim@wsj.com
Investors.com - Canadian Patients Feel Wait Of The World
Investors.com - Canadian Patients Feel Wait Of The World
Imagine your access to timely health care being decided by a judge. This is the trade off between access to care and cost. There is not free lunch, so the question is, do you want access the health care on a timely basis or do you want cheaper insurance? Sadly, bureaucrats eliminated options that would lower cost - high deductible plans + health savings accounts, which would incentivize individuals (imagine that - personal responsibility) to think "do I really need this treatment" instead of the "all you can eat buffet" for a copay.
Imagine your access to timely health care being decided by a judge. This is the trade off between access to care and cost. There is not free lunch, so the question is, do you want access the health care on a timely basis or do you want cheaper insurance? Sadly, bureaucrats eliminated options that would lower cost - high deductible plans + health savings accounts, which would incentivize individuals (imagine that - personal responsibility) to think "do I really need this treatment" instead of the "all you can eat buffet" for a copay.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
A whole new Health Care Ball Game (Heritage Foundation)
You have to read all the way to page A-25 in today’s New York Times to learn about it, but the Senate took its first floor vote on Obamacare yesterday and the White House lost. Big. The NYT reports: “Democrats lost a big test vote on health care legislation on Wednesday as the Senate blocked action on a bill to increase Medicare payments to doctors at a cost of $247 billion over 10 years. The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, needed 60 votes to proceed. He won only 47. And he could not blame Republicans. A dozen Democrats and one independent crossed party lines and voted with Republicans on the 53 to 47 roll call.”
As we reported on Monday and Tuesday, yesterday’s “doc fix” vote was part of a White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel strategy to smooth passage of President Barack Obama’s $1 trillion-plus health care overhaul by transferring a quarter of its cost into a separate, and completely unpaid for, bill. This transparently dishonest shell game was too much for honest Democratic Senators like Evan Bayh (D-IN), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Bill Nelson (D-FL), and Ron Wyden (D-OR). Wyden told the NYT: “On the eve of a historic debate on health care, it’s essential to show a commitment to real reform,” which includes fiscal responsibility.
Yesterday’s vote marks a significant failure of the Left’s special interest approach to passing Obamacare. From the beginning, the White House thought that if it bought off all of the business interests involved (the American Medical Association, the drug industry, health insurers, hospitals, etc.) opposition to the plan would whither. In one sense, the plan worked. USA Today reports PhRMA, Pfizer, America’s Health Insurance Plans, and the Federation of American Hospitals have all ponied up millions of dollars for lobbying and television ads in support of Obamacare. Can you blame them, it's everyman for himself!?
But all these special interest television ads failed to rid Americans of their common sense objections to Obamacare’s government takeover of health care. Gallup reports today that Americans now more than ever believe the costs their family pays for health care will get worse if Obamacare passes. And more Americans now believe that Obamacare will lower the quality of care they receive, reduce their health care coverage, and complicate the insurance company requirements they have to meet to get certain treatments covered. And yet CNN claims that 62% support the public option! Ha!
Instead of the massive overhaul being pursued by the White House, a solid majority of Americans tell Gallup they want to see Congress move in the opposite direction. By 58% to 38%, Americans would generally prefer to see Congress deal with health care reform “on a gradual basis over several years” rather than “try to pass a comprehensive health care reform plan this year.” Bipartisan, fiscally responsible, reform such as equalizing the tax treatment of health insurance purchases, freeing customers to purchase health insurance across state lines, and allowing states more flexibility on Medicaid spending are readily doable. And that is what the people want.
As we reported on Monday and Tuesday, yesterday’s “doc fix” vote was part of a White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel strategy to smooth passage of President Barack Obama’s $1 trillion-plus health care overhaul by transferring a quarter of its cost into a separate, and completely unpaid for, bill. This transparently dishonest shell game was too much for honest Democratic Senators like Evan Bayh (D-IN), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Bill Nelson (D-FL), and Ron Wyden (D-OR). Wyden told the NYT: “On the eve of a historic debate on health care, it’s essential to show a commitment to real reform,” which includes fiscal responsibility.
Yesterday’s vote marks a significant failure of the Left’s special interest approach to passing Obamacare. From the beginning, the White House thought that if it bought off all of the business interests involved (the American Medical Association, the drug industry, health insurers, hospitals, etc.) opposition to the plan would whither. In one sense, the plan worked. USA Today reports PhRMA, Pfizer, America’s Health Insurance Plans, and the Federation of American Hospitals have all ponied up millions of dollars for lobbying and television ads in support of Obamacare. Can you blame them, it's everyman for himself!?
But all these special interest television ads failed to rid Americans of their common sense objections to Obamacare’s government takeover of health care. Gallup reports today that Americans now more than ever believe the costs their family pays for health care will get worse if Obamacare passes. And more Americans now believe that Obamacare will lower the quality of care they receive, reduce their health care coverage, and complicate the insurance company requirements they have to meet to get certain treatments covered. And yet CNN claims that 62% support the public option! Ha!
Instead of the massive overhaul being pursued by the White House, a solid majority of Americans tell Gallup they want to see Congress move in the opposite direction. By 58% to 38%, Americans would generally prefer to see Congress deal with health care reform “on a gradual basis over several years” rather than “try to pass a comprehensive health care reform plan this year.” Bipartisan, fiscally responsible, reform such as equalizing the tax treatment of health insurance purchases, freeing customers to purchase health insurance across state lines, and allowing states more flexibility on Medicaid spending are readily doable. And that is what the people want.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Dr. Charles Krauthammer - Speech at the Manhattan Institute
Awsome speech. A true conservative, working at of all places, the Washington Post (soon to be toast?)
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/video/wriston/
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/video/wriston/
Congress Should Pay for the Medicare Doctor Fix | e21 - An initiative for 21st Century Economic Policies
Congress Should Pay for the Medicare Doctor Fix e21 - An initiative for 21st Century Economic Policies
This is from Don Marron.
Donald Marron is an expert on U.S. economic policies and federal budgeting. Prior to joining GPPI, he served in a series of senior government positions, including as a member of the President's Council of Economic Advisers and as acting director of the Congressional Budget Office. Before his public service, Marron had a varied career as a professor, consultant, and entrepreneur. At GPPI, he teaches the core courses, Introduction to Microtheory and Public Finance.
This is from Don Marron.
Donald Marron is an expert on U.S. economic policies and federal budgeting. Prior to joining GPPI, he served in a series of senior government positions, including as a member of the President's Council of Economic Advisers and as acting director of the Congressional Budget Office. Before his public service, Marron had a varied career as a professor, consultant, and entrepreneur. At GPPI, he teaches the core courses, Introduction to Microtheory and Public Finance.
Senate Finance Committee Bill
I read HR 3200, and I still have a headache. I'll wait until the SFC bill makes it's way through the sausage factory (Congress) before I consider reading another bill. I assume it's like HR 3200- too much techincal language for a layman to understand the details hiddin by references to existing law.
http://finance.senate.gov/press/Bpress/2009press/prb101909.pdf
http://finance.senate.gov/press/Bpress/2009press/prb101909.pdf
Red Ink Hiding
So, the Liberals in Congress are acknowledging that the budget impact from the Seante Finance Committee was a hoax. Now they (led by Harry Reid) want a seperate bill to deal with the "Doc Fix." Prior legislation required reimbursement to doctors serving Medicare patients to be reduced annually to keep the cost in line for the total Medicare budget. Congress has deferred these rate cuts (as they will under the current reform) to the point that to pay for all of those deferred cuts, the current cut would amount to a 21.5% pay cut. Two things are clear. One, Medicare doctors are already underpaid. Cutting their rates by another 21.5% would be adding insult to injury. The second issue is that if the doc fix were not implemented, even more doctors would refuse to accept Medicare patients. As discussed in a previous post, the Senate Finance committee assumed that the doc fix would not take place and that doctor reimbursement would grow at a "Sustainable Growth Rate." This allowed the Finance Committee to "save" $247b over the next 10 years. As discussed, this would never happen and the Finance Committee bill would eventually reflect this cost, and expose the lie that was built into the Finance Committee bill. This brings us to today, where Harry Reid and a Senator from Michigan (the bailout state), want a seperate bill to deal with the doc fix, so they can still claim that the "Reform" bill is at worst deficit neutral. Clearly they think we are not paying attention. Also, it proves that they do not give a damn about deficits. They just want "reform" to be wrapped up in "defict neutral" wrapping paper. This is in addition to the "Cadillac Tax" that was also a big source of revenue, contributing to the deficit neutrality of the bill. As predicted, the Unions have leaned on Congressional Liberals, and even that tax is in jeaopardy. It's safe to say that Obambi will not call a stop to these games, as he needs a political victory to get his ratings out of the basement. Sadly, all of this is taking place in the context of more Americans opposed to reform that are in favor. We're getting something we don't want and we have to pay for it too!
Friday, October 16, 2009
Red Ink Rising
Dumbocrats in Congress are planning on cutting the tax on "Cadillac" healthcare plans. This is not a surprise as this would impact unions, who are the bread and butter of Liberal fundraising. They also want to curry favor with doctors (wasn't Obama excoriating doctors for ordering unnecessary tests to pad their wallet?) by shielding them from cust in Medicare reimbursement. Recall that the CBO scored the Senate Finance Committee bill has having an $829 billion on the deficit over the 2010-2019 period. This is dramatically understated as the taxes would begin in 2010 and the spending would not start until 2013. Nonetheless, if the Cadillac tax and the "Doc Fix," were removed from the bill the 10 year cost (also understated) would go from $829 billion to $1.226 trillion. Note that this is before the Libs try to insert a public option as it makes its way through the sausage factory, otherwise know as Congress.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Brilliant!
Under pressure from the "Pay Czar" Ken Feinberg, Citigroup sold Phibro LLC, an energy trading business. Why did they sell this? Well, Andrew Hall, a star trader was likely to make $100m this year after having made $98.9m in 2008. This was politically unacceptable give the degree to which Citigroup had benefitted from bailout money. So, to eliminate this "optical" problem, Citi sold Phibro to Occidential Petroleum for $250 million. According to the Wall Street Journal, Phibro earned $1.86 billion dollars over the past five years. Using the average of the last 5 years, Phibro was sold for 67% of earnings. How much sense does this make? In the spirit of political correctness (having to pay a trader $100m for generating substantial gains for his employer), Citi sells the business for a song (67% of earnings - in other words, .67x earnings) when the average company in the S&P 500 trades for 17 times earnings. This is an example how government makes idiotic decisions when the focus is not on "what is the best use of taxpayer money," rather than, which decision is going to make me more popular with the largest share of potential voters. Idiot!
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Democrats Weigh Tax On Financial Transactions
By JOHN D. MCKINNON
WASHINGTON -- Taxing financial transactions on Wall Street is gathering support in high places.
With federal budget deficits soaring, policy makers and other advocates are eyeing the huge sums that could be raised as a way to cover the costs of new initiatives.
Labor unions, in particular the AFL-CIO, have proposed a financial-transactions tax as a way to defray costs of a health-care overhaul. Lawmakers have discussed a similar fee as a way to cover the cost of future financial oversight. Liberal advocates are pushing the tax to pay for new stimulus spending.
Taxing Wall Street's financial transactions is back on the table. WSJ's John McKinnon says the populist notion is gaining support on Capitol Hill and with the IMF.
This week, the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute floated the idea of a national transaction tax that would raise $100 billion to $150 billion a year. The tax, at a rate of 0.1% to 0.25% of the value of the trade, would be levied on all financial transactions such as stock trades, but not on consumer transactions such as with credit cards. So, if middle class Americans executes a stock transaction, they Obama will have raised another tax on those he promised that they would not see an increase in ANY tax. Where is Joe Wilson?
The money would be used initially to pay for temporary aid to states, hiring incentives for public- and private-sector employers and school construction money.
"We are in a difficult time right now, so people are looking at every opportunity to gain some revenue to fund" new initiatives, said Rep. Stephen Lynch (D., Mass.), a member of the House Financial Services Committee. "Because I was one of the first to suggest using this to fund [new] regulatory infrastructure, folks have come to me and said, 'That's a good idea; I've got a better one: Why don't we use it for stimulus or especially health care?'"
One Democratic aide said the idea is under consideration among House leadership, though the discussions are preliminary.
A spokeswoman for Republican House leader John Boehner of Ohio criticized the idea. "How is killing more American jobs by stifling capital investment, further eroding families' savings and diverting much-needed investment out of the United States a good idea during a severe economic downturn?" said the spokeswoman, Antonia Ferrier. It's not a good idea, but they need to fund their spending spree, so they will tax anything they can to get it done.
Unnoticed by many, the concept already has found its way into federal law. At the urging of House Democratic leaders, last year's $700 billion financial-bailout bill contains a provision requiring the president to submit legislation to "recoup" from the financial-services industry any eventual shortfall in the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.
The provision, inserted during last-minute negotiations, was encouraged by moderate Democrats who worried that taxpayers would be left footing the bill if the government investment produced big losses.
Transactions taxes first were proposed in the 1970s for currency trading, to reduce volatility in exchange rates. The idea later was seized on as a way to reduce volatility in financial systems.
In an interview Friday, Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said he supported the legislation's idea of recouping future losses from the industry. As this is described, it's not paid by the industry, but buy those engaging in transactions.
"I was one of the ones who suggested" the idea for the TARP provision, said the Massachusetts Democrat. He said he didn't specifically propose a financial-transactions tax. The provision could be structured as either a tax or a fee, he said, and could be a one-time provision rather than a permanent tax.
That would make it less likely that parties to financial transactions would seek to escape the tax by moving activity to another country. He said imposing such a tax "country by country...would be a problem."
Many economists have argued against a financial-transactions tax on policy grounds, saying it could have consequences for markets, in part by driving activity outside the U.S. Critics said it also would throw sand in the gears of capital markets.
Still, some appear to be changing their minds. "I'm not as hostile as I used to be," said Len Burman, a Syracuse University professor and former head of the Tax Policy Center, a venture of the left-of-center Brookings Institution and Urban Institute. Curbing frequent trading might be a good idea, he said, though he is "skeptical this is the best way to do it."
Mr. Frank said additional fees might be imposed on financial-industry participants such as payday lenders in order to pay for a consumer-protection agency.
Fees to pay for regulatory activities aren't considered a tax under House rules. The new fees would be relatively minor, he said, adding that details haven't been worked out. Similar fees already help pay for the operations of some agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission. How stupid do they think we are. This is not about regulation. This is about tax & spend!
A broader question is whether levies on the financial industry might be used to help establish a rescue fund for future calamities.
In response to a question at a House hearing in September, White House economic adviser and former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker said it "might be interesting" if Congress ordered a study of the idea of a transactions tax. But he pointed to the problem of driving transactions to other countries. "That's the No. 1 problem; you'll have to get some consistency internationally," he said.
Trade unions are backing the idea to reduce government deficits and pay for new jobs initiatives, among other purposes. Amid their urging, the Group of 20 industrial and developing nations recently pushed the International Monetary Fund to study the idea, which has drawn endorsements from some leaders in the U.K. and Germany. Since when do Unions have a say in legislation. Never mind, that's a dumb question!
WASHINGTON -- Taxing financial transactions on Wall Street is gathering support in high places.
With federal budget deficits soaring, policy makers and other advocates are eyeing the huge sums that could be raised as a way to cover the costs of new initiatives.
Labor unions, in particular the AFL-CIO, have proposed a financial-transactions tax as a way to defray costs of a health-care overhaul. Lawmakers have discussed a similar fee as a way to cover the cost of future financial oversight. Liberal advocates are pushing the tax to pay for new stimulus spending.
Taxing Wall Street's financial transactions is back on the table. WSJ's John McKinnon says the populist notion is gaining support on Capitol Hill and with the IMF.
This week, the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute floated the idea of a national transaction tax that would raise $100 billion to $150 billion a year. The tax, at a rate of 0.1% to 0.25% of the value of the trade, would be levied on all financial transactions such as stock trades, but not on consumer transactions such as with credit cards. So, if middle class Americans executes a stock transaction, they Obama will have raised another tax on those he promised that they would not see an increase in ANY tax. Where is Joe Wilson?
The money would be used initially to pay for temporary aid to states, hiring incentives for public- and private-sector employers and school construction money.
"We are in a difficult time right now, so people are looking at every opportunity to gain some revenue to fund" new initiatives, said Rep. Stephen Lynch (D., Mass.), a member of the House Financial Services Committee. "Because I was one of the first to suggest using this to fund [new] regulatory infrastructure, folks have come to me and said, 'That's a good idea; I've got a better one: Why don't we use it for stimulus or especially health care?'"
One Democratic aide said the idea is under consideration among House leadership, though the discussions are preliminary.
A spokeswoman for Republican House leader John Boehner of Ohio criticized the idea. "How is killing more American jobs by stifling capital investment, further eroding families' savings and diverting much-needed investment out of the United States a good idea during a severe economic downturn?" said the spokeswoman, Antonia Ferrier. It's not a good idea, but they need to fund their spending spree, so they will tax anything they can to get it done.
Unnoticed by many, the concept already has found its way into federal law. At the urging of House Democratic leaders, last year's $700 billion financial-bailout bill contains a provision requiring the president to submit legislation to "recoup" from the financial-services industry any eventual shortfall in the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.
The provision, inserted during last-minute negotiations, was encouraged by moderate Democrats who worried that taxpayers would be left footing the bill if the government investment produced big losses.
Transactions taxes first were proposed in the 1970s for currency trading, to reduce volatility in exchange rates. The idea later was seized on as a way to reduce volatility in financial systems.
In an interview Friday, Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said he supported the legislation's idea of recouping future losses from the industry. As this is described, it's not paid by the industry, but buy those engaging in transactions.
"I was one of the ones who suggested" the idea for the TARP provision, said the Massachusetts Democrat. He said he didn't specifically propose a financial-transactions tax. The provision could be structured as either a tax or a fee, he said, and could be a one-time provision rather than a permanent tax.
That would make it less likely that parties to financial transactions would seek to escape the tax by moving activity to another country. He said imposing such a tax "country by country...would be a problem."
Many economists have argued against a financial-transactions tax on policy grounds, saying it could have consequences for markets, in part by driving activity outside the U.S. Critics said it also would throw sand in the gears of capital markets.
Still, some appear to be changing their minds. "I'm not as hostile as I used to be," said Len Burman, a Syracuse University professor and former head of the Tax Policy Center, a venture of the left-of-center Brookings Institution and Urban Institute. Curbing frequent trading might be a good idea, he said, though he is "skeptical this is the best way to do it."
Mr. Frank said additional fees might be imposed on financial-industry participants such as payday lenders in order to pay for a consumer-protection agency.
Fees to pay for regulatory activities aren't considered a tax under House rules. The new fees would be relatively minor, he said, adding that details haven't been worked out. Similar fees already help pay for the operations of some agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission. How stupid do they think we are. This is not about regulation. This is about tax & spend!
A broader question is whether levies on the financial industry might be used to help establish a rescue fund for future calamities.
In response to a question at a House hearing in September, White House economic adviser and former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker said it "might be interesting" if Congress ordered a study of the idea of a transactions tax. But he pointed to the problem of driving transactions to other countries. "That's the No. 1 problem; you'll have to get some consistency internationally," he said.
Trade unions are backing the idea to reduce government deficits and pay for new jobs initiatives, among other purposes. Amid their urging, the Group of 20 industrial and developing nations recently pushed the International Monetary Fund to study the idea, which has drawn endorsements from some leaders in the U.K. and Germany. Since when do Unions have a say in legislation. Never mind, that's a dumb question!
Robert E. Moffit: CBO report shows Baucus bill's problems
Robert E. Moffit: CBO report shows Baucus bill's problems
By: Robert E. Moffit
OpEd Contributor
October 9, 2009 Finally, a victory for Obamacare! Or so the media claims.
According to reports, the CBO said the Senate Finance Committee's highly conceptual health reform legislation, put together by committee Chairman Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., would reduce the federal budget in 10 years. But what exactly did the CBO say?
We read the report, and highlighted some important sentences omitted from that cheering coverage:
"CBO and [the Joint Committee on Taxation's] analysis is preliminary in large part because the Chairman's mark, as amended, has not yet been embodied in legislative language." In other words, the Senate Finance Committee has yet to produce a real bill, with real bill language, and instead has been marking up a conceptual framework. There is no telling what would change once there was an actual bill, or what that would mean for CBO's projection. As the CBO notes, "Those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty."
"These projections assume that the proposals are enacted and remain unchanged throughout the next two decades, which is not often the case for major legislation." Much of the deficit reductions the CBO credits come from significant cuts in Medicare, primarily in payment reductions for Medicare Advantage.
but ....
Congress has a long and uncomplicated history of restoring the cuts it makes to Medicare. Just look at the "doc fix" issue, in which Congress, year after year, delayed cuts in physician payments. But CBO actually takes pain to explain these deficits aren't likely to happen.
Congress has a long and uncomplicated history of restoring the cuts it makes to Medicare. Just look at the "doc fix" issue, in which Congress, year after year, delayed cuts in physician payments. But CBO actually takes pain to explain these deficits aren't likely to happen.
"CBO has not extrapolated estimates further in the future, because the uncertainties surrounding them are magnified even more." America is swimming in debt. While the CBO provides analysis for the first 10 years, there are no mentions of what this enormous legislative framework could do to deficits 20 or 30 years later.
We know the federal budget is hemorrhaging trillions in deficits. Economists predict this will worsen from the current unfunded promises to be paid out for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. We have no idea what the real, long-term cost of a new federal health program would be.
What Americans need is real legislative language, the five days President Obama promised the public would have to see any bill online before it's voted on, and more accountability from our elected officials. After all, they're overhauling one-sixth of the U.S. economy, and changing the way we get (or don't get) our health care.
Remember when the SFC has a bill, Harry Reid will "meld" it with the Senate HELP Committe bill. Then that bill will be voted on by the Senate. After that, the Senate Bill will have to be merged with the House bill (which is left of Barney Frank). So, the "final product" to emerge from the Congerssional sausage factory is unlikely to resemble the SFC bill, and will likely be significantly more expensive and as a result, it will not reduce the deficit.
By: Robert E. Moffit
OpEd Contributor
October 9, 2009 Finally, a victory for Obamacare! Or so the media claims.
According to reports, the CBO said the Senate Finance Committee's highly conceptual health reform legislation, put together by committee Chairman Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., would reduce the federal budget in 10 years. But what exactly did the CBO say?
We read the report, and highlighted some important sentences omitted from that cheering coverage:
"CBO and [the Joint Committee on Taxation's] analysis is preliminary in large part because the Chairman's mark, as amended, has not yet been embodied in legislative language." In other words, the Senate Finance Committee has yet to produce a real bill, with real bill language, and instead has been marking up a conceptual framework. There is no telling what would change once there was an actual bill, or what that would mean for CBO's projection. As the CBO notes, "Those estimates are all subject to substantial uncertainty."
"These projections assume that the proposals are enacted and remain unchanged throughout the next two decades, which is not often the case for major legislation." Much of the deficit reductions the CBO credits come from significant cuts in Medicare, primarily in payment reductions for Medicare Advantage.
but ....
Congress has a long and uncomplicated history of restoring the cuts it makes to Medicare. Just look at the "doc fix" issue, in which Congress, year after year, delayed cuts in physician payments. But CBO actually takes pain to explain these deficits aren't likely to happen.
Congress has a long and uncomplicated history of restoring the cuts it makes to Medicare. Just look at the "doc fix" issue, in which Congress, year after year, delayed cuts in physician payments. But CBO actually takes pain to explain these deficits aren't likely to happen.
"CBO has not extrapolated estimates further in the future, because the uncertainties surrounding them are magnified even more." America is swimming in debt. While the CBO provides analysis for the first 10 years, there are no mentions of what this enormous legislative framework could do to deficits 20 or 30 years later.
We know the federal budget is hemorrhaging trillions in deficits. Economists predict this will worsen from the current unfunded promises to be paid out for Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. We have no idea what the real, long-term cost of a new federal health program would be.
What Americans need is real legislative language, the five days President Obama promised the public would have to see any bill online before it's voted on, and more accountability from our elected officials. After all, they're overhauling one-sixth of the U.S. economy, and changing the way we get (or don't get) our health care.
Remember when the SFC has a bill, Harry Reid will "meld" it with the Senate HELP Committe bill. Then that bill will be voted on by the Senate. After that, the Senate Bill will have to be merged with the House bill (which is left of Barney Frank). So, the "final product" to emerge from the Congerssional sausage factory is unlikely to resemble the SFC bill, and will likely be significantly more expensive and as a result, it will not reduce the deficit.
Who is John Galt?
For twelve years you've been asking "Who is John Galt?" This is John Galt speaking. I'm the man who's taken away your victims and thus destroyed your world. You've heard it said that this is an age of moral crisis and that Man's sins are destroying the world. But your chief virtue has been sacrifice, and you've demanded more sacrifices at every disaster. You've sacrificed justice to mercy and happiness to duty. So why should you be afraid of the world around you?
Your world is only the product of your sacrifices. While you were dragging the men who made your happiness possible to your sacrificial altars, I beat you to it. I reached them first and told them about the game you were playing and where it would take them. I explained the consequences of your 'brother-love' morality, which they had been too innocently generous to understand. You won't find them now, when you need them more than ever.
We're on strike against your creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded duties. If you want to know how I made them quit, I told them exactly what I'm telling you tonight. I taught them the morality of Reason -- that it was right to pursue one's own happiness as one's principal goal in life. I don't consider the pleasure of others my goal in life, nor do I consider my pleasure the goal of anyone else's life.
I am a trader. I earn what I get in trade for what I produce. I ask for nothing more or nothing less than what I earn. That is justice. I don't force anyone to trade with me; I only trade for mutual benefit. Force is the great evil that has no place in a rational world. One may never force another human to act against his/her judgment. If you deny a man's right to Reason, you must also deny your right to your own judgment. Yet you have allowed your world to be run by means of force, by men who claim that fear and joy are equal incentives, but that fear and force are more practical.
You've allowed such men to occupy positions of power in your world by preaching that all men are evil from the moment they're born. When men believe this, they see nothing wrong in acting in any way they please. The name of this absurdity is 'original sin'. That's inmpossible. That which is outside the possibility of choice is also outside the province of morality. To call sin that which is outside man's choice is a mockery of justice. To say that men are born with a free will but with a tendency toward evil is ridiculous. If the tendency is one of choice, it doesn't come at birth. If it is not a tendency of choice, then man's will is not free.
And then there's your 'brother-love' morality. Why is it moral to serve others, but not yourself? If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but not by you? Why is it immoral to produce something of value and keep it for yourself, when it is moral for others who haven't earned it to accept it? If it's virtuous to give, isn't it then selfish to take?
Your acceptance of the code of selflessness has made you fear the man who has a dollar less than you because it makes you feel that that dollar is rightfully his. You hate the man with a dollar more than you because the dollar he's keeping is rightfully yours. Your code has made it impossible to know when to give and when to grab.
You know that you can't give away everything and starve yourself. You've forced yourselves to live with undeserved, irrational guilt. Is it ever proper to help another man? No, if he demands it as his right or as a duty that you owe him. Yes, if it's your own free choice based on your judgment of the value of that person and his struggle. This country wasn't built by men who sought handouts. In its brilliant youth, this country showed the rest of the world what greatness was possible to Man and what happiness is possible on Earth.
Then it began apologizing for its greatness and began giving away its wealth, feeling guilty for having produced more than ikts neighbors. Twelve years ago, I saw what was wrong with the world and where the battle for Life had to be fought. I saw that the enemy was an inverted morality and that my acceptance of that morality was its only power. I was the first of the men who refused to give up the pursuit of his own happiness in order to serve others.
To those of you who retain some remnant of dignity and the will to live your lives for yourselves, you have the chance to make the same choice. Examine your values and understand that you must choose one side or the other. Any compromise between good and evil only hurts the good and helps the evil.
If you've understood what I've said, stop supporting your destroyers. Don't accept their philosophy. Your destroyers hold you by means of your endurance, your generosity, your innocence, and your love. Don't exhaust yourself to help build the kind of world that you see around you now. In the name of the best within you, don't sacrifice the world to those who will take away your happiness for it.
The world will change when you are ready to pronounce this oath:
I swear by my Life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man,
nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.
From http://www.working-minds.com/galtmini.htm
If you have not read "Atlas Shrugged," you should. You will think it was written yesterday!!!
Your world is only the product of your sacrifices. While you were dragging the men who made your happiness possible to your sacrificial altars, I beat you to it. I reached them first and told them about the game you were playing and where it would take them. I explained the consequences of your 'brother-love' morality, which they had been too innocently generous to understand. You won't find them now, when you need them more than ever.
We're on strike against your creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded duties. If you want to know how I made them quit, I told them exactly what I'm telling you tonight. I taught them the morality of Reason -- that it was right to pursue one's own happiness as one's principal goal in life. I don't consider the pleasure of others my goal in life, nor do I consider my pleasure the goal of anyone else's life.
I am a trader. I earn what I get in trade for what I produce. I ask for nothing more or nothing less than what I earn. That is justice. I don't force anyone to trade with me; I only trade for mutual benefit. Force is the great evil that has no place in a rational world. One may never force another human to act against his/her judgment. If you deny a man's right to Reason, you must also deny your right to your own judgment. Yet you have allowed your world to be run by means of force, by men who claim that fear and joy are equal incentives, but that fear and force are more practical.
You've allowed such men to occupy positions of power in your world by preaching that all men are evil from the moment they're born. When men believe this, they see nothing wrong in acting in any way they please. The name of this absurdity is 'original sin'. That's inmpossible. That which is outside the possibility of choice is also outside the province of morality. To call sin that which is outside man's choice is a mockery of justice. To say that men are born with a free will but with a tendency toward evil is ridiculous. If the tendency is one of choice, it doesn't come at birth. If it is not a tendency of choice, then man's will is not free.
And then there's your 'brother-love' morality. Why is it moral to serve others, but not yourself? If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but not by you? Why is it immoral to produce something of value and keep it for yourself, when it is moral for others who haven't earned it to accept it? If it's virtuous to give, isn't it then selfish to take?
Your acceptance of the code of selflessness has made you fear the man who has a dollar less than you because it makes you feel that that dollar is rightfully his. You hate the man with a dollar more than you because the dollar he's keeping is rightfully yours. Your code has made it impossible to know when to give and when to grab.
You know that you can't give away everything and starve yourself. You've forced yourselves to live with undeserved, irrational guilt. Is it ever proper to help another man? No, if he demands it as his right or as a duty that you owe him. Yes, if it's your own free choice based on your judgment of the value of that person and his struggle. This country wasn't built by men who sought handouts. In its brilliant youth, this country showed the rest of the world what greatness was possible to Man and what happiness is possible on Earth.
Then it began apologizing for its greatness and began giving away its wealth, feeling guilty for having produced more than ikts neighbors. Twelve years ago, I saw what was wrong with the world and where the battle for Life had to be fought. I saw that the enemy was an inverted morality and that my acceptance of that morality was its only power. I was the first of the men who refused to give up the pursuit of his own happiness in order to serve others.
To those of you who retain some remnant of dignity and the will to live your lives for yourselves, you have the chance to make the same choice. Examine your values and understand that you must choose one side or the other. Any compromise between good and evil only hurts the good and helps the evil.
If you've understood what I've said, stop supporting your destroyers. Don't accept their philosophy. Your destroyers hold you by means of your endurance, your generosity, your innocence, and your love. Don't exhaust yourself to help build the kind of world that you see around you now. In the name of the best within you, don't sacrifice the world to those who will take away your happiness for it.
The world will change when you are ready to pronounce this oath:
I swear by my Life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man,
nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.
From http://www.working-minds.com/galtmini.htm
If you have not read "Atlas Shrugged," you should. You will think it was written yesterday!!!
What's next for Obama after the Nobel Peace Prize?????
You say "what has he done to deserve this?" What does that have to do with it?
What Price for Obama’s Nobel Prize?
From Pajamas Media
What Price for Obama’s Nobel Prize?
What do the Norwegian Nobel arbiters expect to collect from President Barack Obama? They have just awarded him a peace prize which Obama himself suggests was extended on credit — or so he implied in telling reporters Friday morning that he wasn’t sure he’d done enough to deserve it.
But the Nobel Norwegians express not only their hope that he will play out their fantasies, but their confidence that he is “now the world’s leading spokesman” for their preferred “international policy and attitudes.”
Who are these folks issuing Obama a prize on credit to steer America along their preferred course? The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by a committee of five Norwegians, whose members are appointed by the parliament of Norway. Ever heard of Thorbjorn Jagland? Active for decades in the Socialist International, a collectivist who navigated a long series of embarrassing moments in Norwegian politics to become current Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Jagland now heads the Norwegian Nobel Committee. His fellow members who have just issued this Nobel IOU to a sitting American president are — are we ready for global policy guided by this crowd? – Kaci Kullman Five, Sissel Marie Ronbeck, Inger-Marie Ytterhorn and Agot Valle.
What, more specifically, might they be expecting of Obama? For starters, Norway, along with neighboring Sweden and Denmark, has been banging the drum for America to hand over to the United Nations enormous control over and constraints upon the U.S. economy, in the name of (warming/cooling/take-your-pick) climate change. Thus did Norway’s Nobel committee bestow its favors in 2007 on Al Gore and the UN’s Self-Interested Panel of Politically Corrupted Science — excuse me, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And this December the UN is convening a big climate conference in Copenhagen, with which the U.N. hopes to “seal” its growth-stunting UN-enriching climate “deal.”
Whatever Obama’s instincts to sign on wholesale, one might hope they would be balanced by the realities of the huge cost and burden this would impose on Americans. This is what hangs in the balance for the overlapping crew of U.N. and Scandinavian gurus who have carved out a profitable niche for themselves as doom-saying oracles of world weather. If Obama was in any way put off by the Olympic slap in Copenhagen last week, Norway has just handed him a feel-good consolation prize; a message that he can return to Scandinavia without losing face.
More broadly, Norway’s Nobel grandees have presented themselves in recent years as cheerleaders for some of the UN’s more grossly embarrassing performances. Recall the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the UN and its former secretary-general, Kofi Annan, in 2001 — during the period in which, with Annan at the helm, Oil-for-Food mushroomed into the most massively corrupt endeavor in the history of humanitarian relief. And of course there was the Nobel in 2006 for the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed El Baradei – who, if he deserves any award, really ought to get one from Tehran for his convenient and apparently endless existential doubts over the Iranian bomb program.
For more than 60 years, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and for that matter the rest of Western Europe, have basked in relative peace. This is not thanks to the conversational charms of select members of the Norwegian parliament. America’s system of individualism and free enterprise produced the wealth and — yes — the weapons that went into winning both World War II and the Cold War. Americans have fought and died in a series of wars to keep the totalitarian shadows at bay. Americans are at the forefront of those fighting and dying along those same front lines today, notably in Afghanistan – where Norway is part of the coalition, but among those serving, 869 Americans have died, versus 4 Norwegians (even taking into account Norway’s much smaller population, this means that, proportionally, more than three times as many Americans have sacrificed their lives in Afghanistan than have Norwegians). And this is part of a broader conflict, with flashpoints ahead that years of dialogue, U.N. resolutions and Nobel prattle have all failed so far to defuse.
America, in the course of defending its own freedoms, has long extended to the likes of Norway, Denmark and Sweden a protective umbrella. Under that shelter, too many Europols have come to believe that peace is a function of nothing more than talk and hope and dreams and …premature prizes.
Obama said on Friday morning that he will accept this award as “a call to action.” Action on whose behalf? The five Norwegians who make up the Nobel peace prize committee chose to give him this award, for their own purposes. Obama, and America, owe them nothing. The real hope is that Obama will remember he took an oath (twice) not to serve as global spokesman for the Norwegian Nobel Committee, but “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Before his presidency is over, keeping faith with that oath may require him to do things would knock the stuffing out of the featherbed philosophy of this sanctimonious crowd of Scandinavian free-riders.
What Price for Obama’s Nobel Prize?
What do the Norwegian Nobel arbiters expect to collect from President Barack Obama? They have just awarded him a peace prize which Obama himself suggests was extended on credit — or so he implied in telling reporters Friday morning that he wasn’t sure he’d done enough to deserve it.
But the Nobel Norwegians express not only their hope that he will play out their fantasies, but their confidence that he is “now the world’s leading spokesman” for their preferred “international policy and attitudes.”
Who are these folks issuing Obama a prize on credit to steer America along their preferred course? The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by a committee of five Norwegians, whose members are appointed by the parliament of Norway. Ever heard of Thorbjorn Jagland? Active for decades in the Socialist International, a collectivist who navigated a long series of embarrassing moments in Norwegian politics to become current Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Jagland now heads the Norwegian Nobel Committee. His fellow members who have just issued this Nobel IOU to a sitting American president are — are we ready for global policy guided by this crowd? – Kaci Kullman Five, Sissel Marie Ronbeck, Inger-Marie Ytterhorn and Agot Valle.
What, more specifically, might they be expecting of Obama? For starters, Norway, along with neighboring Sweden and Denmark, has been banging the drum for America to hand over to the United Nations enormous control over and constraints upon the U.S. economy, in the name of (warming/cooling/take-your-pick) climate change. Thus did Norway’s Nobel committee bestow its favors in 2007 on Al Gore and the UN’s Self-Interested Panel of Politically Corrupted Science — excuse me, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And this December the UN is convening a big climate conference in Copenhagen, with which the U.N. hopes to “seal” its growth-stunting UN-enriching climate “deal.”
Whatever Obama’s instincts to sign on wholesale, one might hope they would be balanced by the realities of the huge cost and burden this would impose on Americans. This is what hangs in the balance for the overlapping crew of U.N. and Scandinavian gurus who have carved out a profitable niche for themselves as doom-saying oracles of world weather. If Obama was in any way put off by the Olympic slap in Copenhagen last week, Norway has just handed him a feel-good consolation prize; a message that he can return to Scandinavia without losing face.
More broadly, Norway’s Nobel grandees have presented themselves in recent years as cheerleaders for some of the UN’s more grossly embarrassing performances. Recall the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the UN and its former secretary-general, Kofi Annan, in 2001 — during the period in which, with Annan at the helm, Oil-for-Food mushroomed into the most massively corrupt endeavor in the history of humanitarian relief. And of course there was the Nobel in 2006 for the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed El Baradei – who, if he deserves any award, really ought to get one from Tehran for his convenient and apparently endless existential doubts over the Iranian bomb program.
For more than 60 years, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and for that matter the rest of Western Europe, have basked in relative peace. This is not thanks to the conversational charms of select members of the Norwegian parliament. America’s system of individualism and free enterprise produced the wealth and — yes — the weapons that went into winning both World War II and the Cold War. Americans have fought and died in a series of wars to keep the totalitarian shadows at bay. Americans are at the forefront of those fighting and dying along those same front lines today, notably in Afghanistan – where Norway is part of the coalition, but among those serving, 869 Americans have died, versus 4 Norwegians (even taking into account Norway’s much smaller population, this means that, proportionally, more than three times as many Americans have sacrificed their lives in Afghanistan than have Norwegians). And this is part of a broader conflict, with flashpoints ahead that years of dialogue, U.N. resolutions and Nobel prattle have all failed so far to defuse.
America, in the course of defending its own freedoms, has long extended to the likes of Norway, Denmark and Sweden a protective umbrella. Under that shelter, too many Europols have come to believe that peace is a function of nothing more than talk and hope and dreams and …premature prizes.
Obama said on Friday morning that he will accept this award as “a call to action.” Action on whose behalf? The five Norwegians who make up the Nobel peace prize committee chose to give him this award, for their own purposes. Obama, and America, owe them nothing. The real hope is that Obama will remember he took an oath (twice) not to serve as global spokesman for the Norwegian Nobel Committee, but “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Before his presidency is over, keeping faith with that oath may require him to do things would knock the stuffing out of the featherbed philosophy of this sanctimonious crowd of Scandinavian free-riders.
The Nobel Hope Prize - An award for the end of American exceptionalism.
The Nobel Hope Prize
An award for the end of American exceptionalism.
The Nobel Peace Prize awarded to President Obama yesterday was greeted with astonishment as much as any other emotion, even among many of his admirers. Our own reaction is bemusement at the Norwegian decision to offer what amounts to the world's first futures prize in diplomacy, with the Nobel Committee anticipating the heroic concessions that it believes Mr. Obama will make to secure treaties that will produce a new era of global serenity.
Mr. Obama seemed more than a little amazed himself, after only nine months on the job and having been inaugurated only 12 days before Nobel nominations were due in February. The prize isn't "a recognition of my own accomplishment," the President said yesterday, adding that "I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize." Humility grace note accepted.
Yet something more than the power of charisma induced the Norwegians to honor Mr. Obama, so this is also a teachable moment. The committee's citation provides a crib sheet. The Norwegians hailed "Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons," noting "a new climate" in which "multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position." In other words, it's a reward for being naive.
The statement extols the American's support for the U.N. and notes that "dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts." Praise comes as well for Mr. Obama's commitment to fight climate change by capping greenhouse gas emissions. George W. Bush may have retired from American public life, but the Europeans want the Yanks to know they never want to see his likes again. Counting Jimmy Carter in 2002 and Al Gore in 2007, this is the third Nobel Non-Bush Peace Prize.
On one level, all of this represents the parochial European foreign policy agenda. But somehow we doubt Mr. Obama would have received the Nobel merely for believing in climate change. The Norwegians rightly detect something larger in Mr. Obama's vision. As Thorbjørn Jagland, who chairs the Nobel Committee, told CNN: "He has done a lot already" and this award will "enhance the ideals Barack Obama is promoting." So, while the American people are telling him to "Cool it," they want to tell him to "keep it up!"
What ideals are those? Well, the Nobel citation declares that Mr. Obama's "diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population." Now, the world is a big place, much of it run by despots and crooks, each of whom gets the same vote in the U.N. General Assembly as America. The Europeans are applauding that at long last there is an American President willing to let himself and his country mingle as equals with this amorphous global "majority."
The Norwegians are on to something. In a mere nine months, the President has promulgated a vision for the U.S. role in the world that breaks with both Republican and Democratic predecessors. Madeleine Albright, Bill Clinton's Secretary of State, called America the "indispensable nation" a decade ago. Ronald Reagan called it a "city on the Hill," an example to the world.
Mr. Obama sees the U.S. differently, as weaker than it was and the rest of the planet as stronger, and so he calls for a humbler America, at best a first among equals, working primarily through the U.N. The world's challenges, he emphasized yesterday, "can't be met by any one leader or any one nation." What this suggests to us—and to the Norwegians—is the end of what has been called "American exceptionalism." This is the view that U.S. values have universal application and should be promoted without apology, and defended with military force when necessary. Guess what, that America still exists and will outlive Obama!
Put in this context, we wonder if most Americans will count this peace-of-the-future prize as a compliment. Hell No!!! Appearing at the Rose Garden yesterday, Mr. Obama seemed to have noticed what the Norwegians have noticed about him, as he was at pains to spin his award for Americans. For once, he refrained from making his habitual remark about having restored America's standing in the world, or apologizing for some U.S. transgression. Instead he wrapped the Nobel in the U.S. flag "as an affirmation of American leadership" and concluded that, "I believe America will continue to lead."
We all have at least three more years to learn if Mr. Obama will fulfill the audacity of hope that the Nobel Committee has put on him to bow to the values of the world's "majority." Sadly, I fear the answer is yes. He sees it as a "call to action! "
An award for the end of American exceptionalism.
The Nobel Peace Prize awarded to President Obama yesterday was greeted with astonishment as much as any other emotion, even among many of his admirers. Our own reaction is bemusement at the Norwegian decision to offer what amounts to the world's first futures prize in diplomacy, with the Nobel Committee anticipating the heroic concessions that it believes Mr. Obama will make to secure treaties that will produce a new era of global serenity.
Mr. Obama seemed more than a little amazed himself, after only nine months on the job and having been inaugurated only 12 days before Nobel nominations were due in February. The prize isn't "a recognition of my own accomplishment," the President said yesterday, adding that "I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize." Humility grace note accepted.
Yet something more than the power of charisma induced the Norwegians to honor Mr. Obama, so this is also a teachable moment. The committee's citation provides a crib sheet. The Norwegians hailed "Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons," noting "a new climate" in which "multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position." In other words, it's a reward for being naive.
The statement extols the American's support for the U.N. and notes that "dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts." Praise comes as well for Mr. Obama's commitment to fight climate change by capping greenhouse gas emissions. George W. Bush may have retired from American public life, but the Europeans want the Yanks to know they never want to see his likes again. Counting Jimmy Carter in 2002 and Al Gore in 2007, this is the third Nobel Non-Bush Peace Prize.
On one level, all of this represents the parochial European foreign policy agenda. But somehow we doubt Mr. Obama would have received the Nobel merely for believing in climate change. The Norwegians rightly detect something larger in Mr. Obama's vision. As Thorbjørn Jagland, who chairs the Nobel Committee, told CNN: "He has done a lot already" and this award will "enhance the ideals Barack Obama is promoting." So, while the American people are telling him to "Cool it," they want to tell him to "keep it up!"
What ideals are those? Well, the Nobel citation declares that Mr. Obama's "diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population." Now, the world is a big place, much of it run by despots and crooks, each of whom gets the same vote in the U.N. General Assembly as America. The Europeans are applauding that at long last there is an American President willing to let himself and his country mingle as equals with this amorphous global "majority."
The Norwegians are on to something. In a mere nine months, the President has promulgated a vision for the U.S. role in the world that breaks with both Republican and Democratic predecessors. Madeleine Albright, Bill Clinton's Secretary of State, called America the "indispensable nation" a decade ago. Ronald Reagan called it a "city on the Hill," an example to the world.
Mr. Obama sees the U.S. differently, as weaker than it was and the rest of the planet as stronger, and so he calls for a humbler America, at best a first among equals, working primarily through the U.N. The world's challenges, he emphasized yesterday, "can't be met by any one leader or any one nation." What this suggests to us—and to the Norwegians—is the end of what has been called "American exceptionalism." This is the view that U.S. values have universal application and should be promoted without apology, and defended with military force when necessary. Guess what, that America still exists and will outlive Obama!
Put in this context, we wonder if most Americans will count this peace-of-the-future prize as a compliment. Hell No!!! Appearing at the Rose Garden yesterday, Mr. Obama seemed to have noticed what the Norwegians have noticed about him, as he was at pains to spin his award for Americans. For once, he refrained from making his habitual remark about having restored America's standing in the world, or apologizing for some U.S. transgression. Instead he wrapped the Nobel in the U.S. flag "as an affirmation of American leadership" and concluded that, "I believe America will continue to lead."
We all have at least three more years to learn if Mr. Obama will fulfill the audacity of hope that the Nobel Committee has put on him to bow to the values of the world's "majority." Sadly, I fear the answer is yes. He sees it as a "call to action! "
What I heard in Honduras
Our ambassador is the only person I met there who thinks there was a 'coup.' Let's release the State Department legal analysis.
By JIM DEMINT
Tegucigalpa
In the last three months, much has been made of a supposed military "coup" that whisked former Honduran President Manuel Zelaya from power and the supposed chaos it has created.
After visiting Tegucigalpa last week and meeting with a cross section of leaders from Honduras's government, business community, and civil society, I can report there is no chaos there. There is, however, chaos to spare in the Obama administration's policy toward our poor and loyal allies in Honduras.
That policy was set in a snap decision the day Mr. Zelaya was removed from office, without a full assessment of either the facts or reliable legal analysis of the constitutional provisions at issue. Three months later, it remains in force, despite mounting evidence of its moral and legal incoherence. Obama isn't the kind of guy that admits he made a mistake. Maybe he needs to have Micheletti come to the White House for a beer.
While in Honduras, I spoke to dozens of Hondurans, from nonpartisan members of civil society to former Zelaya political allies, from Supreme Court judges to presidential candidates and even personal friends of Mr. Zelaya. Each relayed stories of a man changed and corrupted by power. The evidence of Mr. Zelaya's abuses of presidential power—and his illegal attempts to rewrite the Honduran Constitution, a la Hugo Chávez—is not only overwhelming but uncontroverted.
As all strong democracies do after cleansing themselves of usurpers, Honduras has moved on.
The presidential election is on schedule for Nov. 29. Under Honduras's one-term-limit, Mr. Zelaya could not have sought re-election anyway. Current President Roberto Micheletti—who was installed after Mr. Zelaya's removal, per the Honduran Constitution—is not on the ballot either. The presidential candidates were nominated in primary elections almost a year ago, and all of them—including Mr. Zelaya's former vice president—expect the elections to be free, fair and transparent, as has every Honduran election for a generation.
Indeed, the desire to move beyond the Zelaya era was almost universal in our meetings. Almost.
In a day packed with meetings, we met only one person in Honduras who opposed Mr. Zelaya's ouster, who wishes his return, and who mystifyingly rejects the legitimacy of the November elections: U.S. Ambassador Hugo Llorens.
When I asked Ambassador Llorens why the U.S. government insists on labeling what appears to the entire country to be the constitutional removal of Mr. Zelaya a "coup," he urged me to read the legal opinion drafted by the State Department's top lawyer, Harold Koh. As it happens, I have asked to see Mr. Koh's report before and since my trip, but all requests to publicly disclose it have been denied.
On the other hand, the only thorough examination of the facts to date—conducted by a senior analyst at the Law Library of Congress—confirms the legality and constitutionality of Mr. Zelaya's ouster. (It's on the Internet here .)
Unlike the Obama administration's snap decision after June 28, the Law Library report is grounded in the facts of the case and the intricacies of Honduran constitutional law. So persuasive is the report that after its release, the New Republic's James Kirchick concluded in an Oct. 3 article that President Obama's hastily decided Honduras policy is now "a mistake in search of a rationale."
The Hondurans I met agree. All everyone seemed to want was a chance to make their case, or at least an independent review of the facts.
So far, the Obama administration has ignored these requests and instead has repeatedly doubled down. It's revoked the U.S. travel visas of President Micheletti, his government and private citizens, and refuses to talk to the government in Tegucigalpa. It's frozen desperately needed financial assistance to one of the poorest and friendliest U.S. allies in the region. It won't release the legal basis for its insistence on Mr. Zelaya's restoration to power. Nor has it explained why it's setting aside America's longstanding policy of supporting free elections to settle these kinds of disputes.
But these elections are the only way out—a fact even the Obama administration must see. The Honduran constitution prohibits Zelaya's return to power. The election date is set by law for Nov. 29. The elections will be monitored by international observers and overseen by an apolitical body, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, whose impartiality and independence has been roundly praised, even by Ambassador Llorens.
America's Founding Fathers—like the framers of Honduras's own constitution—believed strong institutions were necessary to defend freedom and democracy from the ambitions of would-be tyrants and dictators. Faced by Mr. Zelaya's attempted usurpations, the institutions of Honduran democracy performed as designed, and as our own Founding Fathers would have hoped.
Hondurans are therefore left scratching their heads. They know why Hugo Chávez, Daniel Ortega and the Castro brothers oppose free elections and the removal of would-be dictators, but they can't understand why the Obama administration does.
They're not the only ones.
Mr. DeMint, a Republican senator from South Carolina, is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Why should Obama respect the Constitution of Honduras. I'm still waiting for him to respect the Constitution of the United States!
By JIM DEMINT
Tegucigalpa
In the last three months, much has been made of a supposed military "coup" that whisked former Honduran President Manuel Zelaya from power and the supposed chaos it has created.
After visiting Tegucigalpa last week and meeting with a cross section of leaders from Honduras's government, business community, and civil society, I can report there is no chaos there. There is, however, chaos to spare in the Obama administration's policy toward our poor and loyal allies in Honduras.
That policy was set in a snap decision the day Mr. Zelaya was removed from office, without a full assessment of either the facts or reliable legal analysis of the constitutional provisions at issue. Three months later, it remains in force, despite mounting evidence of its moral and legal incoherence. Obama isn't the kind of guy that admits he made a mistake. Maybe he needs to have Micheletti come to the White House for a beer.
While in Honduras, I spoke to dozens of Hondurans, from nonpartisan members of civil society to former Zelaya political allies, from Supreme Court judges to presidential candidates and even personal friends of Mr. Zelaya. Each relayed stories of a man changed and corrupted by power. The evidence of Mr. Zelaya's abuses of presidential power—and his illegal attempts to rewrite the Honduran Constitution, a la Hugo Chávez—is not only overwhelming but uncontroverted.
As all strong democracies do after cleansing themselves of usurpers, Honduras has moved on.
The presidential election is on schedule for Nov. 29. Under Honduras's one-term-limit, Mr. Zelaya could not have sought re-election anyway. Current President Roberto Micheletti—who was installed after Mr. Zelaya's removal, per the Honduran Constitution—is not on the ballot either. The presidential candidates were nominated in primary elections almost a year ago, and all of them—including Mr. Zelaya's former vice president—expect the elections to be free, fair and transparent, as has every Honduran election for a generation.
Indeed, the desire to move beyond the Zelaya era was almost universal in our meetings. Almost.
In a day packed with meetings, we met only one person in Honduras who opposed Mr. Zelaya's ouster, who wishes his return, and who mystifyingly rejects the legitimacy of the November elections: U.S. Ambassador Hugo Llorens.
When I asked Ambassador Llorens why the U.S. government insists on labeling what appears to the entire country to be the constitutional removal of Mr. Zelaya a "coup," he urged me to read the legal opinion drafted by the State Department's top lawyer, Harold Koh. As it happens, I have asked to see Mr. Koh's report before and since my trip, but all requests to publicly disclose it have been denied.
On the other hand, the only thorough examination of the facts to date—conducted by a senior analyst at the Law Library of Congress—confirms the legality and constitutionality of Mr. Zelaya's ouster. (It's on the Internet here .)
Unlike the Obama administration's snap decision after June 28, the Law Library report is grounded in the facts of the case and the intricacies of Honduran constitutional law. So persuasive is the report that after its release, the New Republic's James Kirchick concluded in an Oct. 3 article that President Obama's hastily decided Honduras policy is now "a mistake in search of a rationale."
The Hondurans I met agree. All everyone seemed to want was a chance to make their case, or at least an independent review of the facts.
So far, the Obama administration has ignored these requests and instead has repeatedly doubled down. It's revoked the U.S. travel visas of President Micheletti, his government and private citizens, and refuses to talk to the government in Tegucigalpa. It's frozen desperately needed financial assistance to one of the poorest and friendliest U.S. allies in the region. It won't release the legal basis for its insistence on Mr. Zelaya's restoration to power. Nor has it explained why it's setting aside America's longstanding policy of supporting free elections to settle these kinds of disputes.
But these elections are the only way out—a fact even the Obama administration must see. The Honduran constitution prohibits Zelaya's return to power. The election date is set by law for Nov. 29. The elections will be monitored by international observers and overseen by an apolitical body, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, whose impartiality and independence has been roundly praised, even by Ambassador Llorens.
America's Founding Fathers—like the framers of Honduras's own constitution—believed strong institutions were necessary to defend freedom and democracy from the ambitions of would-be tyrants and dictators. Faced by Mr. Zelaya's attempted usurpations, the institutions of Honduran democracy performed as designed, and as our own Founding Fathers would have hoped.
Hondurans are therefore left scratching their heads. They know why Hugo Chávez, Daniel Ortega and the Castro brothers oppose free elections and the removal of would-be dictators, but they can't understand why the Obama administration does.
They're not the only ones.
Mr. DeMint, a Republican senator from South Carolina, is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Why should Obama respect the Constitution of Honduras. I'm still waiting for him to respect the Constitution of the United States!
Obama's Nobel and His Obligation to Afhanistan
When it comes to moral reputation, almost nothing matters more than keeping your word.
By BOB KERREY
In a wonderfully stunning decision, the Nobel Committee in Oslo awarded our president its Peace Prize. They said the award was as much for the hope that he will contribute to a more peaceful world as it was for any specific accomplishment during his first nine months in office.
This is the same hope I had when I voted for President Barack Obama, contributed to him financially, and campaigned for him in a few states. I believed he could successfully manage the process of U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. I believed he would help build a bridge to the Muslim world. And I believed he would bring his unique story to inspire us to overcome our divisiveness. I still hold fast to these beliefs, in spite of the fact that his presidency already seems to have brought out the worst in some.
By awarding the prize to Mr. Obama, the Nobel committee also surely hoped to influence the debate about U.S. policy in Afghanistan. I wish they had waited until the debate was settled here at home. My wish is based on a fear that American political leaders (Liberals) are about to talk themselves into breaking yet another foreign policy commitment.
In December 2006, President George W. Bush was faced with a similarly difficult foreign policy decision. The Republicans had suffered tremendous losses in the November election, in part because of the conduct of the war in Iraq. At the time, the unpopular Republican president was being pressured by ascendant congressional Democrats and some members of his own party into withdrawing from Iraq. Failure in Iraq loomed, as public opinion for the effort to help the democratically elected government survive had faded thanks to a series of tactical blunders and inaccurate assessments of what would be needed to accomplish the mission.
Then, against all reasonable predictions, President Bush chose to increase rather than decrease our military commitment. The "surge," as it became known, worked. Victory was snatched from the jaws of defeat.
From what I have seen, President Obama has the same ability to step outside the swirl of public opinion and make the right decision. While success in Afghanistan may not look the same as it does in Iraq, I believe there is a very good chance that a stable democracy can survive there. If it does, it would be good for the Afghan people, good for the security of the region, and good for the United States. But does Obama want to spurn the Norweigans?The heroism of Afghan voters who turned out this past August in spite of the Taliban's violence should inspire us to stand by their side until security and stability are established in their country.
There are four primary components of any foreign policy: vision and strategy; quality of the leadership team; domestic strength; and capacity to manage crises. Weakness in any of these realms can lead to overall failure.
On vision, President Obama is very inspiring. He has given moderates in Muslim countries room to move by speaking to them directly and respectfully, while at the same time continuing to wage an aggressive and necessary battle against radical Islamists who have declared war on the U.S. However, he has made too many apologies. And at this point, his strategy is too naïve and has too little coherence to be called a strategy. If the issue of foreign policy had been more important in his presidential campaign—and therefore important to the electorate—I might be more critical. And if I weren't a supporter, my judgment would be harsher. But in this realm, I'm still hoping for improvement.
On the quality of the leadership team he has recruited, President Obama has excelled. Across the board, from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the president has assembled an exceptional team. Their depth of experience and intellect provide him the kind of judgment and analysis he needs to make tough choices. He's assuming he seeks their input and listens to them!
President Obama's lack of domestic strength is his biggest problem. His actions to stabilize the financial system prevented an economic meltdown of dire proportions. However, our economy is still very fragile. Our public debt is growing at the fastest rate since the World War II, the dollar is weakening, and economic experts are making ominous statements about the possibility of our currency being replaced as the world currency of choice. Anxiety over unemployment and the devaluation of assets has contributed to America's unwillingness to support much of anything that doesn't contribute directly to our recovery.
As for his capacity to manage crises, this skill is being tested right now in Afghanistan. There is surely a strong temptation to conform his better judgment to popular opinion. If he chooses this politically safe route and does not give his military commander on the ground the resources needed to win, history will judge him harshly. Great American leaders of our past have ignored popular sentiment and pressed on during the darkest hours, even when setbacks give rhetorical ammunition to the skeptics.
President Obama's decision is extremely difficult. Today, less than 50% of Americans support the war. No doubt even fewer Americans would be on the side of doing what Gen. Stanley McChrystal wants to do: temporarily increase the number of troops and dramatically change our strategy.
The way we have provided development assistance to the government in Afghanistan hasn't improved the lives of the Afghan people. A cloud of illegitimacy hangs over President Hamid Karzai because of the recent election. Even friends of the Karzai administration have reported cronyism and corruption.
Yet despite these setbacks, our leaders must remain focused on the fact that success in Afghanistan bolsters our national security and yes, our moral reputation. This war is not Vietnam. The Taliban are not popular and have very little support other than what they secure through terror.
Afghanistan is also not Iraq. No serious leader in Kabul is asking us to leave. Instead we are being asked to withdraw by American leaders who begin their analysis with the presumption that victory is not possible. They seem to want to ensure defeat by leaving at the very moment when our military leader on the ground has laid out a coherent and compelling strategy for victory.
When it comes to foreign policy, almost nothing matters more then your friends and your enemies knowing you will keep your word and follow through on your commitments. This is the real test of presidential leadership. I hope that President Obama—soon to be a Nobel laureate—passes with flying colors.
Mr. Kerrey, a former Democratic senator from Nebraska, is president of The New School.
The question is - will Obama try to appease the Norweigans for their "honor," or will he fufill the mission to fight terrorism?
By BOB KERREY
In a wonderfully stunning decision, the Nobel Committee in Oslo awarded our president its Peace Prize. They said the award was as much for the hope that he will contribute to a more peaceful world as it was for any specific accomplishment during his first nine months in office.
This is the same hope I had when I voted for President Barack Obama, contributed to him financially, and campaigned for him in a few states. I believed he could successfully manage the process of U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. I believed he would help build a bridge to the Muslim world. And I believed he would bring his unique story to inspire us to overcome our divisiveness. I still hold fast to these beliefs, in spite of the fact that his presidency already seems to have brought out the worst in some.
By awarding the prize to Mr. Obama, the Nobel committee also surely hoped to influence the debate about U.S. policy in Afghanistan. I wish they had waited until the debate was settled here at home. My wish is based on a fear that American political leaders (Liberals) are about to talk themselves into breaking yet another foreign policy commitment.
In December 2006, President George W. Bush was faced with a similarly difficult foreign policy decision. The Republicans had suffered tremendous losses in the November election, in part because of the conduct of the war in Iraq. At the time, the unpopular Republican president was being pressured by ascendant congressional Democrats and some members of his own party into withdrawing from Iraq. Failure in Iraq loomed, as public opinion for the effort to help the democratically elected government survive had faded thanks to a series of tactical blunders and inaccurate assessments of what would be needed to accomplish the mission.
Then, against all reasonable predictions, President Bush chose to increase rather than decrease our military commitment. The "surge," as it became known, worked. Victory was snatched from the jaws of defeat.
From what I have seen, President Obama has the same ability to step outside the swirl of public opinion and make the right decision. While success in Afghanistan may not look the same as it does in Iraq, I believe there is a very good chance that a stable democracy can survive there. If it does, it would be good for the Afghan people, good for the security of the region, and good for the United States. But does Obama want to spurn the Norweigans?The heroism of Afghan voters who turned out this past August in spite of the Taliban's violence should inspire us to stand by their side until security and stability are established in their country.
There are four primary components of any foreign policy: vision and strategy; quality of the leadership team; domestic strength; and capacity to manage crises. Weakness in any of these realms can lead to overall failure.
On vision, President Obama is very inspiring. He has given moderates in Muslim countries room to move by speaking to them directly and respectfully, while at the same time continuing to wage an aggressive and necessary battle against radical Islamists who have declared war on the U.S. However, he has made too many apologies. And at this point, his strategy is too naïve and has too little coherence to be called a strategy. If the issue of foreign policy had been more important in his presidential campaign—and therefore important to the electorate—I might be more critical. And if I weren't a supporter, my judgment would be harsher. But in this realm, I'm still hoping for improvement.
On the quality of the leadership team he has recruited, President Obama has excelled. Across the board, from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the president has assembled an exceptional team. Their depth of experience and intellect provide him the kind of judgment and analysis he needs to make tough choices. He's assuming he seeks their input and listens to them!
President Obama's lack of domestic strength is his biggest problem. His actions to stabilize the financial system prevented an economic meltdown of dire proportions. However, our economy is still very fragile. Our public debt is growing at the fastest rate since the World War II, the dollar is weakening, and economic experts are making ominous statements about the possibility of our currency being replaced as the world currency of choice. Anxiety over unemployment and the devaluation of assets has contributed to America's unwillingness to support much of anything that doesn't contribute directly to our recovery.
As for his capacity to manage crises, this skill is being tested right now in Afghanistan. There is surely a strong temptation to conform his better judgment to popular opinion. If he chooses this politically safe route and does not give his military commander on the ground the resources needed to win, history will judge him harshly. Great American leaders of our past have ignored popular sentiment and pressed on during the darkest hours, even when setbacks give rhetorical ammunition to the skeptics.
President Obama's decision is extremely difficult. Today, less than 50% of Americans support the war. No doubt even fewer Americans would be on the side of doing what Gen. Stanley McChrystal wants to do: temporarily increase the number of troops and dramatically change our strategy.
The way we have provided development assistance to the government in Afghanistan hasn't improved the lives of the Afghan people. A cloud of illegitimacy hangs over President Hamid Karzai because of the recent election. Even friends of the Karzai administration have reported cronyism and corruption.
Yet despite these setbacks, our leaders must remain focused on the fact that success in Afghanistan bolsters our national security and yes, our moral reputation. This war is not Vietnam. The Taliban are not popular and have very little support other than what they secure through terror.
Afghanistan is also not Iraq. No serious leader in Kabul is asking us to leave. Instead we are being asked to withdraw by American leaders who begin their analysis with the presumption that victory is not possible. They seem to want to ensure defeat by leaving at the very moment when our military leader on the ground has laid out a coherent and compelling strategy for victory.
When it comes to foreign policy, almost nothing matters more then your friends and your enemies knowing you will keep your word and follow through on your commitments. This is the real test of presidential leadership. I hope that President Obama—soon to be a Nobel laureate—passes with flying colors.
Mr. Kerrey, a former Democratic senator from Nebraska, is president of The New School.
The question is - will Obama try to appease the Norweigans for their "honor," or will he fufill the mission to fight terrorism?
Paying the Health Tax in Massachusetts
Be warned: Even people with good insurance will risk fines if mandatory insurance becomes the national law.
By WENDY WILLIAMS
Cape Cod, Mass.
My husband retired from IBM about a decade ago, and as we aren't old enough for Medicare we still buy our health insurance through the company. But IBM, with its typical courtesy, informed us recently that we will be fined by the state.
Why? Because Massachusetts requires every resident to have health insurance, and this year, without informing us directly, the state had changed the rules in a way that made our bare-bones policy no longer acceptable. Unless we ponied up for a pricier policy we neither need nor want—or enrolled in a government-sponsored insurance plan—we would have to pay $1,000 each year to the state.
My husband's response was muted; I was shaking mad. We hadn't imposed our health-care costs on anyone else, yet we were being fined ("taxed" was the word the letter used).
We've spent much of our lives putting away what money we could for retirement. We always intended to be self-sufficient. We've paid off the mortgage on our home, don't carry credit-card debt, and have savings in case of an emergency. We also have a regular monthly income of about $3,000, which includes an IBM pension. My husband, 61, earns a little money on the side, sometimes working as an electronics consultant on renewable energy projects. I'm 58 and make some money writing science books. We are not wealthy, but we aren't a risk of becoming a burden on society either. How did we become outlaws?
The turning point was three years ago, when then-Republican Gov. Mitt Romney pushed through the state legislature a health-care plan that he promised would provide universal coverage while lifting from the middle-class the burden of having to pay for those who do not have insurance. His argument was that the uninsured drove up the cost of health care for everyone by seeking care at emergency rooms and then skipping out on their medical bills. Hospitals make up for those unpaid bills by charging everyone else more than they otherwise would.
The central plank of the Romney plan was a mandate that required everyone to buy health insurance or pay a fine for posing a risk to society by walking around without coverage. There would be subsidies for those who couldn't afford insurance, and residents would be required to buy a minimum amount of health insurance, on the grounds that they might buy a policy that doesn't cover the cost of their care and end up skipping out on their medical bills. "We insist that everybody who drives a car has insurance, and cars are a lot less expensive than people," Mr. Romney told the Boston Globe in 2006.
Mr. Romney and Sen. Ted Kennedy publicly promised that the middle class—that is, people like us—would not be taxed and that our health-care costs would actually decrease if the plan became law.
My husband and I weren't convinced. It all seemed inane, but we are neither politically or socially conservative and figured the plan wouldn't affect us much. Besides, who could be against a plan that covers more people for less money?
For the first two years of the mandate, our IBM health insurance was seen as acceptable in the eyes of the state. This year the rules changed. The state requires that health plans cap out-of-pocket expenses for individuals (not including monthly premiums) at $2,000 a year. Our plan's cap is $2,500.
Ten years ago, we had excellent coverage through a more gold-plated plan. But we found that it was no longer worth paying the premiums and scaled back to a more modest policy. Today, we pay about $300 a month for catastrophic care. If we went with the next step up in plans offered to us by IBM, our monthly premium would increase to $800. We simply don't need to pay that kind of money for the amount of health care we actually consume.
Nonetheless, we now owe the state an extra $1,000. Ironically, that's about the extra amount we would pay out-of-pocket under our current plan if both of us actually fell ill in the same year.
We could choose a state-sponsored plan. It would mean paying more than what we pay now, but less than what IBM's next step up would cost. But we don't want to.
IBM seems like a rock of stability compared to the state of Massachusetts. It's apparent that state health-care policies can change at the whim of politicians in Boston, and we might not be able to adjust to the new rules. The way we figure it, if we sign up for a state-subsidized plan we will be at the mercy of the state.
So we are sticking with our plan and paying the tax. But what bothers me most is that a similar health-care mandate is being proposed in Washington, and some of the same promises that were made here are being made again—such as that the mandate will never hit middle-class folks with a new tax. When asked about the mandate, Maine Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe said recently, according to the New York Times, "It surprises me that we would have these high-level penalties on average Americans."
Well, I don't find it surprising. The mandate in Massachusetts was sold as something that wouldn't penalize people like my husband and me. But those political promises were only good for as long as it took to get the mandate enacted into law.
If reform was all about reducing healthcare spending, these folks would not have any issues. Since reform is about greater control by the government, any plan that actually gives patients an interest in controlling how they spend their healthcare dollars is not allowed - it would impact the growth of healthcare spending and eliminate the need for Big Brother to have his nose in our health care system.
By WENDY WILLIAMS
Cape Cod, Mass.
My husband retired from IBM about a decade ago, and as we aren't old enough for Medicare we still buy our health insurance through the company. But IBM, with its typical courtesy, informed us recently that we will be fined by the state.
Why? Because Massachusetts requires every resident to have health insurance, and this year, without informing us directly, the state had changed the rules in a way that made our bare-bones policy no longer acceptable. Unless we ponied up for a pricier policy we neither need nor want—or enrolled in a government-sponsored insurance plan—we would have to pay $1,000 each year to the state.
My husband's response was muted; I was shaking mad. We hadn't imposed our health-care costs on anyone else, yet we were being fined ("taxed" was the word the letter used).
We've spent much of our lives putting away what money we could for retirement. We always intended to be self-sufficient. We've paid off the mortgage on our home, don't carry credit-card debt, and have savings in case of an emergency. We also have a regular monthly income of about $3,000, which includes an IBM pension. My husband, 61, earns a little money on the side, sometimes working as an electronics consultant on renewable energy projects. I'm 58 and make some money writing science books. We are not wealthy, but we aren't a risk of becoming a burden on society either. How did we become outlaws?
The turning point was three years ago, when then-Republican Gov. Mitt Romney pushed through the state legislature a health-care plan that he promised would provide universal coverage while lifting from the middle-class the burden of having to pay for those who do not have insurance. His argument was that the uninsured drove up the cost of health care for everyone by seeking care at emergency rooms and then skipping out on their medical bills. Hospitals make up for those unpaid bills by charging everyone else more than they otherwise would.
The central plank of the Romney plan was a mandate that required everyone to buy health insurance or pay a fine for posing a risk to society by walking around without coverage. There would be subsidies for those who couldn't afford insurance, and residents would be required to buy a minimum amount of health insurance, on the grounds that they might buy a policy that doesn't cover the cost of their care and end up skipping out on their medical bills. "We insist that everybody who drives a car has insurance, and cars are a lot less expensive than people," Mr. Romney told the Boston Globe in 2006.
Mr. Romney and Sen. Ted Kennedy publicly promised that the middle class—that is, people like us—would not be taxed and that our health-care costs would actually decrease if the plan became law.
My husband and I weren't convinced. It all seemed inane, but we are neither politically or socially conservative and figured the plan wouldn't affect us much. Besides, who could be against a plan that covers more people for less money?
For the first two years of the mandate, our IBM health insurance was seen as acceptable in the eyes of the state. This year the rules changed. The state requires that health plans cap out-of-pocket expenses for individuals (not including monthly premiums) at $2,000 a year. Our plan's cap is $2,500.
Ten years ago, we had excellent coverage through a more gold-plated plan. But we found that it was no longer worth paying the premiums and scaled back to a more modest policy. Today, we pay about $300 a month for catastrophic care. If we went with the next step up in plans offered to us by IBM, our monthly premium would increase to $800. We simply don't need to pay that kind of money for the amount of health care we actually consume.
Nonetheless, we now owe the state an extra $1,000. Ironically, that's about the extra amount we would pay out-of-pocket under our current plan if both of us actually fell ill in the same year.
We could choose a state-sponsored plan. It would mean paying more than what we pay now, but less than what IBM's next step up would cost. But we don't want to.
IBM seems like a rock of stability compared to the state of Massachusetts. It's apparent that state health-care policies can change at the whim of politicians in Boston, and we might not be able to adjust to the new rules. The way we figure it, if we sign up for a state-subsidized plan we will be at the mercy of the state.
So we are sticking with our plan and paying the tax. But what bothers me most is that a similar health-care mandate is being proposed in Washington, and some of the same promises that were made here are being made again—such as that the mandate will never hit middle-class folks with a new tax. When asked about the mandate, Maine Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe said recently, according to the New York Times, "It surprises me that we would have these high-level penalties on average Americans."
Well, I don't find it surprising. The mandate in Massachusetts was sold as something that wouldn't penalize people like my husband and me. But those political promises were only good for as long as it took to get the mandate enacted into law.
If reform was all about reducing healthcare spending, these folks would not have any issues. Since reform is about greater control by the government, any plan that actually gives patients an interest in controlling how they spend their healthcare dollars is not allowed - it would impact the growth of healthcare spending and eliminate the need for Big Brother to have his nose in our health care system.
Friday, October 9, 2009
The ‘Tax and Spend’ Left are Back with a Vengeance
Morning Bell: The ‘Tax and Spend’ Left are Back with a Vengeance
Heritage Foundation
Posted By Conn Carroll On October 7, 2009 @ 9:12 am In Enterprise and Free Markets
9 Comments
According to exit polls, Americans who voted last November 4th described themselves as 34% conservative, 44% moderate and only 22% liberal. 34% conservative? LOL! [1] One third of new voters were independents — and about two-thirds of them voted for President Barack Obama [2]. How did President Obama win over so many moderates and independents? By explicitly renouncing his party’s tax and spend past. Specifically, Obama promised to “cut taxes for 95% of workers and their families [3]” and enact “a net spending cut [4]” for the federal government. Not only has President Obama failed to keep these promises, but his leftist base is stepping up their campaign for massive new tax hikes and spending increases.
Obama’s ‘no tax increases on families making $250,000 a year or less [5]‘ lasted exactly 15 days. On February 4th, the President signed into law a bill expanding the children’s health insurance program that was paid for with a 156% tax hike on tobacco. [6] Since slightly more than half of today’s smokers (53%) earn less than $36,000 per year [7], there is no way this bill can not be considered a tax hike on the poor. Democrats in the House have also passed a trillion dollar energy tax hike [8], and the Senate is about to approve new taxes on individuals who don’t have health insurance [9], businesses that want to create jobs [10], and on families with high cost health insurance plans [11]. But even all those new taxes are just the beginning. This past Monday on Charlie Rose, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said a new value-added tax (VAT) is “on the table” as well.
A VAT is a type of national sales tax. However, instead of being collected at the cash register, it is imposed on manufacturers at each “value added” stage of the production process. Since everybody buys stuff, including families making less than $250,000 a year, any VAT would necessarily break Obama’s no tax hike promise. Worse, a VAT would expand the size of government, inadvertently increase income tax rates, and destroy jobs. [12]
And it is that last part, the destroying jobs part, that should most worry Americans today. The latest Bureau of Labor and Statistics report released last Friday contained some truly sobering employment numbers that completely undercut any claims that the President’s $787 billion stimulus plan is working. Every aspect of the labor market in September was negative [13]. The labor force participation rate fell to 65.2 percent, the lowest point of this recession and the lowest rate in 25 years. The unemployment rate increased by only 0.1 to 9.8 percent, but the unemployment rate would have been higher had 571,000 not left the labor force. The male unemployment rate reached 10.3 percent, the highest level since the Great Depression.
So what is the left’s answer to the President’s failed spending? More spending. The New York Times editorial board [14] recommends “more stimulus to spur job creation” or “a large federal jobs program” or, we love this one: “surprise us.” Not to be outdone, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman is suggesting the federal government should raise its deficit stimulus spending to at least $1.2 trillion [15]. And none of this even includes the trillion dollar price tag for Obamacare [16] or President Obama’s long-term budget which would permanently keep annual spending between $5,000 and $8,000 per household higher than it had been under President George W. Bush. [17]
Here is the promise!
"I can make a firm pledge," he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."
He repeatedly vowed "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."
Joe Wilson was right!
Heritage Foundation
Posted By Conn Carroll On October 7, 2009 @ 9:12 am In Enterprise and Free Markets
9 Comments
According to exit polls, Americans who voted last November 4th described themselves as 34% conservative, 44% moderate and only 22% liberal. 34% conservative? LOL! [1] One third of new voters were independents — and about two-thirds of them voted for President Barack Obama [2]. How did President Obama win over so many moderates and independents? By explicitly renouncing his party’s tax and spend past. Specifically, Obama promised to “cut taxes for 95% of workers and their families [3]” and enact “a net spending cut [4]” for the federal government. Not only has President Obama failed to keep these promises, but his leftist base is stepping up their campaign for massive new tax hikes and spending increases.
Obama’s ‘no tax increases on families making $250,000 a year or less [5]‘ lasted exactly 15 days. On February 4th, the President signed into law a bill expanding the children’s health insurance program that was paid for with a 156% tax hike on tobacco. [6] Since slightly more than half of today’s smokers (53%) earn less than $36,000 per year [7], there is no way this bill can not be considered a tax hike on the poor. Democrats in the House have also passed a trillion dollar energy tax hike [8], and the Senate is about to approve new taxes on individuals who don’t have health insurance [9], businesses that want to create jobs [10], and on families with high cost health insurance plans [11]. But even all those new taxes are just the beginning. This past Monday on Charlie Rose, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said a new value-added tax (VAT) is “on the table” as well.
A VAT is a type of national sales tax. However, instead of being collected at the cash register, it is imposed on manufacturers at each “value added” stage of the production process. Since everybody buys stuff, including families making less than $250,000 a year, any VAT would necessarily break Obama’s no tax hike promise. Worse, a VAT would expand the size of government, inadvertently increase income tax rates, and destroy jobs. [12]
And it is that last part, the destroying jobs part, that should most worry Americans today. The latest Bureau of Labor and Statistics report released last Friday contained some truly sobering employment numbers that completely undercut any claims that the President’s $787 billion stimulus plan is working. Every aspect of the labor market in September was negative [13]. The labor force participation rate fell to 65.2 percent, the lowest point of this recession and the lowest rate in 25 years. The unemployment rate increased by only 0.1 to 9.8 percent, but the unemployment rate would have been higher had 571,000 not left the labor force. The male unemployment rate reached 10.3 percent, the highest level since the Great Depression.
So what is the left’s answer to the President’s failed spending? More spending. The New York Times editorial board [14] recommends “more stimulus to spur job creation” or “a large federal jobs program” or, we love this one: “surprise us.” Not to be outdone, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman is suggesting the federal government should raise its deficit stimulus spending to at least $1.2 trillion [15]. And none of this even includes the trillion dollar price tag for Obamacare [16] or President Obama’s long-term budget which would permanently keep annual spending between $5,000 and $8,000 per household higher than it had been under President George W. Bush. [17]
Here is the promise!
"I can make a firm pledge," he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."
He repeatedly vowed "you will not see any of your taxes increase one single dime."
Joe Wilson was right!
Talk about "AstroTurf!!!"
The White House made a big deal of the support it has garnered from physicians around the country. Yesterday they even held a doctors’ rally - complete with white smocks - to show support. Yet the physicians in attendance weren’t the disinterested crowd President Obama suggested - many were longtime Democrat donors.
Based on the list of attendees provided to Time, it seems that the crowd was full of ringers. Here is a look at the history of political donations by some in attendance. It is not complete, but this is what I was able to find by searching the database at Congressional Quarterly:
• Dr. Hershey Garner: more than $10,000 in donations to Democrats since 2001.
• Dr. Mona Mangat: $500 in donations to Barack Obama last year.
• Dr. Amanda McKinney: $2,750 in donations to Democrats since 2001.
• ________________________________________
Dr. Alice Chen: $1,810 in donations to Barack Obama since last year.
• Dr. Michael Newman: $4,550 in donations to Democrats since 2001.
• Dr. Jason Schneider: $600 in donations to Democrats since 2001.
• Dr. Stanton McKenna: $1,000 in donations to Democrats since 2001.
• Dr. Biron Baker: $500 donated to Barack Obama last year.
• Dr. Nick Perencevich: $500 in donations to Democrats since 2008.
• Dr. Elaine Bradshaw: $500 in donations to Barack Obama last year.
• Dr. Boyd Shook: $3,500 in donations to Democrats since 2002.
• Dr. Tracy Nelson: $1,500 in donations to Barack Obama.
• Dr. Winfred Parnell: More than $5,700 in donations to Democrats since 2001.
• Dr. Gary Goldbaum: $300 in donations to Democrats since 2004.
• Dr. Jan Sarnecki: $3,400 in donations to Democrats since 2004.
According to the White House, the rally was attended by about 150 doctors. I have only checked the backgrounds of the 50 identified to Time. Given the highly political nature of the debate, I’m willing to bet that the White House did its best to highlight the support of those who don’t have a long history of supporting Democrats. Thus, we might expect that the other 100 doctors are more consistent Democrat donors.
It’s too bad the White House didn’t state up front that some unspecified swath of those in attendance were confirmed partisans - not the impartial experts the White House claimed.
They should change their name to Liberal Doctors for America.
Heritage Foundation
Based on the list of attendees provided to Time, it seems that the crowd was full of ringers. Here is a look at the history of political donations by some in attendance. It is not complete, but this is what I was able to find by searching the database at Congressional Quarterly:
• Dr. Hershey Garner: more than $10,000 in donations to Democrats since 2001.
• Dr. Mona Mangat: $500 in donations to Barack Obama last year.
• Dr. Amanda McKinney: $2,750 in donations to Democrats since 2001.
• ________________________________________
Dr. Alice Chen: $1,810 in donations to Barack Obama since last year.
• Dr. Michael Newman: $4,550 in donations to Democrats since 2001.
• Dr. Jason Schneider: $600 in donations to Democrats since 2001.
• Dr. Stanton McKenna: $1,000 in donations to Democrats since 2001.
• Dr. Biron Baker: $500 donated to Barack Obama last year.
• Dr. Nick Perencevich: $500 in donations to Democrats since 2008.
• Dr. Elaine Bradshaw: $500 in donations to Barack Obama last year.
• Dr. Boyd Shook: $3,500 in donations to Democrats since 2002.
• Dr. Tracy Nelson: $1,500 in donations to Barack Obama.
• Dr. Winfred Parnell: More than $5,700 in donations to Democrats since 2001.
• Dr. Gary Goldbaum: $300 in donations to Democrats since 2004.
• Dr. Jan Sarnecki: $3,400 in donations to Democrats since 2004.
According to the White House, the rally was attended by about 150 doctors. I have only checked the backgrounds of the 50 identified to Time. Given the highly political nature of the debate, I’m willing to bet that the White House did its best to highlight the support of those who don’t have a long history of supporting Democrats. Thus, we might expect that the other 100 doctors are more consistent Democrat donors.
It’s too bad the White House didn’t state up front that some unspecified swath of those in attendance were confirmed partisans - not the impartial experts the White House claimed.
They should change their name to Liberal Doctors for America.
Heritage Foundation
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES
If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't` eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy.
If a liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.
If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
If a person of color is conservative, they see themselves as independently successful.
Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.
If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.
If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.
If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.
If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.
If a conservative slips and falls in a store, he gets up, laughs and is embarrassed.
If a liberal slips and falls, he grabs his neck, moans like he's in labor and then sues.
If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A liberal will delete it because he's "offended".
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.
If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't` eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy.
If a liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.
If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
If a person of color is conservative, they see themselves as independently successful.
Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.
If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.
If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.
If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.
If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.
If a conservative slips and falls in a store, he gets up, laughs and is embarrassed.
If a liberal slips and falls, he grabs his neck, moans like he's in labor and then sues.
If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A liberal will delete it because he's "offended".
MEDICARE CAN'T CONTROL ITS OWN COSTS ...
By Neal Boortz
... but you still expect the government to control the costs of your healthcare? According to Medicare's own auditors, it overpays for almost everything it buys. And it does so knowingly. FoxNews has some examples:
-- $7,215 to rent an oxygen concentrator, when the purchase price is $600.
-- $4,018 for a standard wheelchair, while the private sector pays $1,048.
-- $1,825 for a hospital bed, compared to an Internet price of $1,071.
-- $3,335 for a respiratory pump, versus an advertised price of $1,987.
-- $82 for a diabetic supply kit, instead of a $47 price on the Web.
So last year (under the Bush administration) the Health and Human Services Department determined that Medicare could save $1 billion in a single year nationwide, if it replaced its fixed-price fee schedule with a competitive bidding program.
But here's where Congress comes in. Congressmen Fortney "Pete" Stark and Dave Camp introduced legislation that essentially killed any chances of these changes coming to pass. So the competitive bidding programs were deferred. End of story.
And you don't think these kinds of shenanigans and politics won't happen every day when the government gets a hold of your healthcare?
... but you still expect the government to control the costs of your healthcare? According to Medicare's own auditors, it overpays for almost everything it buys. And it does so knowingly. FoxNews has some examples:
-- $7,215 to rent an oxygen concentrator, when the purchase price is $600.
-- $4,018 for a standard wheelchair, while the private sector pays $1,048.
-- $1,825 for a hospital bed, compared to an Internet price of $1,071.
-- $3,335 for a respiratory pump, versus an advertised price of $1,987.
-- $82 for a diabetic supply kit, instead of a $47 price on the Web.
So last year (under the Bush administration) the Health and Human Services Department determined that Medicare could save $1 billion in a single year nationwide, if it replaced its fixed-price fee schedule with a competitive bidding program.
But here's where Congress comes in. Congressmen Fortney "Pete" Stark and Dave Camp introduced legislation that essentially killed any chances of these changes coming to pass. So the competitive bidding programs were deferred. End of story.
And you don't think these kinds of shenanigans and politics won't happen every day when the government gets a hold of your healthcare?
The Greatest Show on Earth - Wall Street Journal
The Greatest Show on Earth
Step right up: A new entitlement that cuts the deficit!
Washington spent the week waiting for the Congressional Budget Office to roll in with its new cost estimates of the Senate health-care bill, and what a carnival. Behold: a new $829 billion entitlement that will subsidize insurance for tens of millions of people—and reduce deficits by $81 billion at the same time. In the next tent, see the mermaid and a two-headed cow.
The political and media classes are proving they'll believe anything, as they are now pronouncing that this never-before-seen miracle is a "green light" for ObamaCare. (What isn't these days?) The irony is that the CBO's guesstimate exposes the fraudulence and fiscal sleight-of-hand underlying this whole exercise. Anyone who reads beyond the top-line numbers will find that the bill creates massive new spending commitments that will inevitably explode over time, and that this is "paid for" with huge tax increases plus phantom spending cuts that will never happen in practice.
The better part of the 10-year $829 billion overall cost will finance insurance "exchanges" where individuals and families could purchase coverage at heavily subsidized rates. Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus kept a lid on the cost by making this program non-universal: Enrollment is limited to those who aren't offered employer-sponsored insurance and earn under 400% of the poverty level, or about $88,000 for a family of four. CBO expects some 23 million people to sign up by 2019.
But this "firewall" is unlikely to last even that long. Liberals are demanding heftier subsidies, and once people see the deal their neighbors are getting on "free" health care, they too will want in. Even CBO seems to find this unrealistic, noting "These projections assume that the proposals are enacted and remain unchanged throughout the next two decades, which is often not the case for major legislation." Scratch "often."
Then there are the many budget gimmicks. Take the "failsafe budgeting mechanism" that would require automatic cuts in exchange spending if it increases the deficit. CBO expects 15% reductions in exchange subsidies each year from 2015 to 2018, even though the exchanges don't open until 2014. That kind of re-gifting should have been laughed out of the committee room, but the ruse helps to move future spending off the current budget "score."
Mr. Baucus spends $10.9 billion to eliminate the scheduled Medicare cuts to physician payments—but only for next year. In 2011, he assumes they'll be reduced by 25%, with even deeper cuts later. Congress has overridden this "sustainable growth rate" every year since 2003 and will continue to do so because deeper cuts in Medicare's price controls will cause many doctors to quit the program. Fixing this alone would add $245 billion to the bill's costs, according to an earlier CBO estimate. This is the infamous "Doc Fix"
The Baucus bill also expands ailing Medicaid by $345 billion—even as it busts state budgets by imposing an additional $33 billion unfunded mandate. The only Medicare cut that isn't made merely on paper is $117 billion in Medicare Advantage, which Democrats hate because it gives one of five seniors private insurance options.
Recall that when President Obama started the health-care debate, the goal was "bending the curve"—finding a way to reduce both Medicare and overall health spending. Budget director Peter Orszag talked about "game changers," which CBO has now outed as nonchangers. Comparative effectiveness research about what treatments work best? That will save all of $300 million in Medicare, even as it costs $2.6 billion in new taxes on premiums. More prevention and primary care will increase spending by $4.2 billion.
Meanwhile, the bill piles on new taxes, albeit on health-care businesses so the costs are hidden from customers. Insurance companies offering policies that cost more than $8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for families will pay $201 billion per a 40% excise tax, which will be passed down to all policy holders in higher premiums. Another $180 billion will hit the likes of drug and device makers, including $29 billion because companies won't be allowed to deduct these "fees" from their corporate income taxes. Then there's the $4 billion in penalty payments on those who don't buy insurance because all of ObamaCare's other new taxes and mandates have made it more expensive.
Senate Finance votes next week, and no doubt this freak of political nature will pass amid fanfare and self-congratulation that their new entitlement will reduce deficits. Never mind that such a spectacle has never happened in the history of the republic. P.T. Barnum had nothing on this crowd, and the bill hasn't even hit the Senate floor yet.
Step right up: A new entitlement that cuts the deficit!
Washington spent the week waiting for the Congressional Budget Office to roll in with its new cost estimates of the Senate health-care bill, and what a carnival. Behold: a new $829 billion entitlement that will subsidize insurance for tens of millions of people—and reduce deficits by $81 billion at the same time. In the next tent, see the mermaid and a two-headed cow.
The political and media classes are proving they'll believe anything, as they are now pronouncing that this never-before-seen miracle is a "green light" for ObamaCare. (What isn't these days?) The irony is that the CBO's guesstimate exposes the fraudulence and fiscal sleight-of-hand underlying this whole exercise. Anyone who reads beyond the top-line numbers will find that the bill creates massive new spending commitments that will inevitably explode over time, and that this is "paid for" with huge tax increases plus phantom spending cuts that will never happen in practice.
The better part of the 10-year $829 billion overall cost will finance insurance "exchanges" where individuals and families could purchase coverage at heavily subsidized rates. Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus kept a lid on the cost by making this program non-universal: Enrollment is limited to those who aren't offered employer-sponsored insurance and earn under 400% of the poverty level, or about $88,000 for a family of four. CBO expects some 23 million people to sign up by 2019.
But this "firewall" is unlikely to last even that long. Liberals are demanding heftier subsidies, and once people see the deal their neighbors are getting on "free" health care, they too will want in. Even CBO seems to find this unrealistic, noting "These projections assume that the proposals are enacted and remain unchanged throughout the next two decades, which is often not the case for major legislation." Scratch "often."
Then there are the many budget gimmicks. Take the "failsafe budgeting mechanism" that would require automatic cuts in exchange spending if it increases the deficit. CBO expects 15% reductions in exchange subsidies each year from 2015 to 2018, even though the exchanges don't open until 2014. That kind of re-gifting should have been laughed out of the committee room, but the ruse helps to move future spending off the current budget "score."
Mr. Baucus spends $10.9 billion to eliminate the scheduled Medicare cuts to physician payments—but only for next year. In 2011, he assumes they'll be reduced by 25%, with even deeper cuts later. Congress has overridden this "sustainable growth rate" every year since 2003 and will continue to do so because deeper cuts in Medicare's price controls will cause many doctors to quit the program. Fixing this alone would add $245 billion to the bill's costs, according to an earlier CBO estimate. This is the infamous "Doc Fix"
The Baucus bill also expands ailing Medicaid by $345 billion—even as it busts state budgets by imposing an additional $33 billion unfunded mandate. The only Medicare cut that isn't made merely on paper is $117 billion in Medicare Advantage, which Democrats hate because it gives one of five seniors private insurance options.
Recall that when President Obama started the health-care debate, the goal was "bending the curve"—finding a way to reduce both Medicare and overall health spending. Budget director Peter Orszag talked about "game changers," which CBO has now outed as nonchangers. Comparative effectiveness research about what treatments work best? That will save all of $300 million in Medicare, even as it costs $2.6 billion in new taxes on premiums. More prevention and primary care will increase spending by $4.2 billion.
Meanwhile, the bill piles on new taxes, albeit on health-care businesses so the costs are hidden from customers. Insurance companies offering policies that cost more than $8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for families will pay $201 billion per a 40% excise tax, which will be passed down to all policy holders in higher premiums. Another $180 billion will hit the likes of drug and device makers, including $29 billion because companies won't be allowed to deduct these "fees" from their corporate income taxes. Then there's the $4 billion in penalty payments on those who don't buy insurance because all of ObamaCare's other new taxes and mandates have made it more expensive.
Senate Finance votes next week, and no doubt this freak of political nature will pass amid fanfare and self-congratulation that their new entitlement will reduce deficits. Never mind that such a spectacle has never happened in the history of the republic. P.T. Barnum had nothing on this crowd, and the bill hasn't even hit the Senate floor yet.
States of Personal Privilege
Senators aren't counting on reform savings when it comes to their constituents.
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL - Wall Street Journal
How good is Sen. Max Baucus's health reform bill? So good that Democrats have made sure some of the most costly provisions don't apply to their own states.
The Senate Finance Committee is gearing up for a final vote next week, and Chairman Baucus now appears to have the Democratic votes to pass his bill. Getting this far has of course meant cutting deals, and those deals, it turns out, are illuminating. The senators are all for imposing "reform" on the nation, so long as it doesn't disadvantage their constituents.
Sens. Harry Reid (Nevada) and Charles Schumer (New York) are among those inserting goodies for their states.
A central feature of the Baucus bill is the vast expansion of state Medicaid programs. This is necessary, we are told, to cover more of the nation's uninsured. The provision has angered governors, since the federal government will cover only part of the expansion and stick fiscally strapped states with an additional $37 billion in costs. The "states, with our financial challenges right now, are not in a position to accept additional Medicaid responsibilities," griped Democratic Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland.
Poor Mr. Strickland. If only he lived in . . . Nevada! Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who is worried about losing his seat next year, worked out a deal by which the federal government will pay all of his home state's additional Medicaid expenses for the next five years. Under the majority leader's very special formula, only three other states—Oregon, Rhode Island and Michigan—qualify for this perk, on the grounds, as Mr. Reid put it recently on the Senate floor, that they "are suffering more than most."
Tell that to Mr. Strickland, who is still trying to figure out how to close an $850 million budget hole, in a state with near 11% unemployment. And tell it to Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander, who quipped: "I wonder how citizens in Wyoming, in California and Florida and other states will feel if they pay more taxes so that Nevadans can pay less taxes." Welcome to our world, where hardworking Americans pay more in taxes to subsidize others (The "Rob Peter to Pay Paul" approach) Well they would feel like hard working Americans who pay more in taxes to subsidize someone else. To pay the bill for his version of ObamaCare, Mr. Baucus's legislation would tax high-value insurance plans—a 40% tax on plans that cost more than $21,000 a year. Democrats argue it is reform to make those who can afford "luxury" health care chip in for those who can't afford any at all.
That is, unless you live in a state such as New York. That state, along with some others, has many high-value plans—in part because it boasts a lot of union members with "Cadillac" plans, in part because the state has imposed so many insurance regulations that even skimpy plans are expensive. Sen. Chuck Schumer didn't want a lot of angry overtaxed New Yorkers on his hands, so he and other similarly situated Democrats carved out a deal by which the threshold for this tax will be higher in their states. If you live in Kentucky, you get taxed at $21,000. If you live in Massachusetts you don't get taxed until $25,000. This carve-out is at least more sweeping, applying to 17 (largely blue) states, though that's cold comfort if you live in Louisville.
Mr. Baucus will also pay for his bill by socking it to pharmaceutical companies, on the principle that drug companies are filthy rich and should have to contribute to health care. The view is a bit different in New Jersey. The state's Web site boasts it is the "global epicenter" of the drug industry, where "15 of the world's 20 largest pharmaceutical companies have major facilities." And Sen. Bob Menendez, of the Garden State, seems concerned that his home-state employers are going to struggle to both pay their federal liabilities and to continue to grow and innovate. Thus Mr. Menendez's quiet deal for a $1 billion tax credit for companies investing in drug R&D.
The Baucus bill, we are assured by many Dems, will successfully "bend down" the health-care cost curve. Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow isn't counting on it when it comes to her constituents. She and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry included $5 billion in the bill for a reinsurance program designed to defray the medical costs of union members.
"This will help our employers, whether it's the auto industry or whether it's other industries, be able to lower their costs for early retirees," said Ms. Stabenow. She is apparently unaware that this is what the broader bill is supposed to do, even without $5 billion in union slush money.
So, health-care "reform" is good, smart and necessary, so long as it isn't fully applied to the states of the senators who are pushing it. The Democrats' growing problem is that somebody is ultimately going to have to pay, and Mr. Reid's bad example has given every one the same idea. "If Colorado has a fair claim on being treated the same way Nevada has been, of course we're going to ask to have that kind of treatment," promised Sen. Mark Udall, upon news of the Reid deal. Well, we knew that when they voted against families being consumers of Obamacare. Well, we knew that when they voted against having their families be consumers of Obamacare! Most senators are saving up their special state demands for when the bill hits the Senate floor. At that point, we'll get an even better idea of how much health-care change Democrats truly believe in.
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL - Wall Street Journal
How good is Sen. Max Baucus's health reform bill? So good that Democrats have made sure some of the most costly provisions don't apply to their own states.
The Senate Finance Committee is gearing up for a final vote next week, and Chairman Baucus now appears to have the Democratic votes to pass his bill. Getting this far has of course meant cutting deals, and those deals, it turns out, are illuminating. The senators are all for imposing "reform" on the nation, so long as it doesn't disadvantage their constituents.
Sens. Harry Reid (Nevada) and Charles Schumer (New York) are among those inserting goodies for their states.
A central feature of the Baucus bill is the vast expansion of state Medicaid programs. This is necessary, we are told, to cover more of the nation's uninsured. The provision has angered governors, since the federal government will cover only part of the expansion and stick fiscally strapped states with an additional $37 billion in costs. The "states, with our financial challenges right now, are not in a position to accept additional Medicaid responsibilities," griped Democratic Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland.
Poor Mr. Strickland. If only he lived in . . . Nevada! Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who is worried about losing his seat next year, worked out a deal by which the federal government will pay all of his home state's additional Medicaid expenses for the next five years. Under the majority leader's very special formula, only three other states—Oregon, Rhode Island and Michigan—qualify for this perk, on the grounds, as Mr. Reid put it recently on the Senate floor, that they "are suffering more than most."
Tell that to Mr. Strickland, who is still trying to figure out how to close an $850 million budget hole, in a state with near 11% unemployment. And tell it to Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander, who quipped: "I wonder how citizens in Wyoming, in California and Florida and other states will feel if they pay more taxes so that Nevadans can pay less taxes." Welcome to our world, where hardworking Americans pay more in taxes to subsidize others (The "Rob Peter to Pay Paul" approach) Well they would feel like hard working Americans who pay more in taxes to subsidize someone else. To pay the bill for his version of ObamaCare, Mr. Baucus's legislation would tax high-value insurance plans—a 40% tax on plans that cost more than $21,000 a year. Democrats argue it is reform to make those who can afford "luxury" health care chip in for those who can't afford any at all.
That is, unless you live in a state such as New York. That state, along with some others, has many high-value plans—in part because it boasts a lot of union members with "Cadillac" plans, in part because the state has imposed so many insurance regulations that even skimpy plans are expensive. Sen. Chuck Schumer didn't want a lot of angry overtaxed New Yorkers on his hands, so he and other similarly situated Democrats carved out a deal by which the threshold for this tax will be higher in their states. If you live in Kentucky, you get taxed at $21,000. If you live in Massachusetts you don't get taxed until $25,000. This carve-out is at least more sweeping, applying to 17 (largely blue) states, though that's cold comfort if you live in Louisville.
Mr. Baucus will also pay for his bill by socking it to pharmaceutical companies, on the principle that drug companies are filthy rich and should have to contribute to health care. The view is a bit different in New Jersey. The state's Web site boasts it is the "global epicenter" of the drug industry, where "15 of the world's 20 largest pharmaceutical companies have major facilities." And Sen. Bob Menendez, of the Garden State, seems concerned that his home-state employers are going to struggle to both pay their federal liabilities and to continue to grow and innovate. Thus Mr. Menendez's quiet deal for a $1 billion tax credit for companies investing in drug R&D.
The Baucus bill, we are assured by many Dems, will successfully "bend down" the health-care cost curve. Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow isn't counting on it when it comes to her constituents. She and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry included $5 billion in the bill for a reinsurance program designed to defray the medical costs of union members.
"This will help our employers, whether it's the auto industry or whether it's other industries, be able to lower their costs for early retirees," said Ms. Stabenow. She is apparently unaware that this is what the broader bill is supposed to do, even without $5 billion in union slush money.
So, health-care "reform" is good, smart and necessary, so long as it isn't fully applied to the states of the senators who are pushing it. The Democrats' growing problem is that somebody is ultimately going to have to pay, and Mr. Reid's bad example has given every one the same idea. "If Colorado has a fair claim on being treated the same way Nevada has been, of course we're going to ask to have that kind of treatment," promised Sen. Mark Udall, upon news of the Reid deal. Well, we knew that when they voted against families being consumers of Obamacare. Well, we knew that when they voted against having their families be consumers of Obamacare! Most senators are saving up their special state demands for when the bill hits the Senate floor. At that point, we'll get an even better idea of how much health-care change Democrats truly believe in.
Baucus Bill’s Out of Pocket Costs
Baucus Bill’s Out of Pocket Costs
Heritage Foundation
Posted By Rea Hederman On October 9, 2009 @ 9:20 am In Health Care
Under the Baucus plan, just about everyone who is not covered by a government health program will be required to purchase insurance by 2013. To help pay for the mandated minimum coverage, individuals and families with incomes below 4 times the poverty line will receive a subsidy calculated on a sliding scale worth a percentage of their income, while those with incomes up to 3 times the poverty line will also qualify for a cost-sharing subsidy.
However, even with help from the government subsidies, families will be required to pay substantial out-of-pocket costs for health insurance. As analysis from the Heritage Foundation has shown, on average a family of four with an income at 2 times the poverty line will be forced to shell out 16 percent of their income to buy insurance – and this is even after all the subsidies!
Likewise, a family of four with an income at 3 times the poverty line will be required to pay just fewer than 20 percent of their income for insurance. This escalating cost should be especially alarming in a time of economic downturn. This is because as work becomes more expensive as a family’s income increases some may face a disincentive to work more.
Heritage Foundation
Posted By Rea Hederman On October 9, 2009 @ 9:20 am In Health Care
Under the Baucus plan, just about everyone who is not covered by a government health program will be required to purchase insurance by 2013. To help pay for the mandated minimum coverage, individuals and families with incomes below 4 times the poverty line will receive a subsidy calculated on a sliding scale worth a percentage of their income, while those with incomes up to 3 times the poverty line will also qualify for a cost-sharing subsidy.
However, even with help from the government subsidies, families will be required to pay substantial out-of-pocket costs for health insurance. As analysis from the Heritage Foundation has shown, on average a family of four with an income at 2 times the poverty line will be forced to shell out 16 percent of their income to buy insurance – and this is even after all the subsidies!
Likewise, a family of four with an income at 3 times the poverty line will be required to pay just fewer than 20 percent of their income for insurance. This escalating cost should be especially alarming in a time of economic downturn. This is because as work becomes more expensive as a family’s income increases some may face a disincentive to work more.
Michael Cannon (CATO) on Baucus Bill
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Michael F. Cannon, director of health policy studies:
The CBO score of the Baucus bill is like a mystery novel with the last 50 pages missing. It fails to reveal both the full cost of the bill and the budget gimmicks that Mr. Baucus uses to hide that cost. Sadly, the CBO has limited ability to comment on these items. They did comment on the “Sustainable Growth Rate” mechanism*, but the off budget costs are not part of their oversight.
The Baucus bill will not reduce the deficit, and it would ultimately cost taxpayers more than $2 trillion—just like every other bill Congress has produced so far.
The biggest gimmick employed by the bill is that its individual mandate pushes more than half of the legislation's cost off-budget, and onto businesses and individuals who will have to shoulder that burden. A real-world parallel already exists in the Massachusetts health care plan, where private-sector mandates account for 60 percent of the cost. In 1994, CBO counted those mandated private payments in the federal budget, and it helped kill the Clinton health plan. This time around, Democrats were very careful to craft their mandates so that they just barely avoided having the CBO include those payments in the federal budget. But the CBO's decision does not change the fact that those private-sector mandates are part of the cost of this bill.
The second-biggest gimmick is assuming that Congress will let the "Sustainable Growth Rate" cuts in Medicare physician payments to occur. Starting in 2003, Congress has repeatedly blocked those cuts, and there is no reason to think that Congress will behave any differently in the future. So yes, provided that the sun rises in the West, the Baucus bill would reduce the federal deficit.
*For example, the sustainable growth rate (SGR)
mechanism governing Medicare’s payments to physicians has frequently
been modified (either through legislation or administrative action) to avoid
reductions in those payments. The projected savings for the proposal reflect
the cumulative impact of a number of specifications that would constrain
payment rates for providers of Medicare services. In particular, the proposal
would increase payment rates for physicians’ services for 2010, but those
rates would be reduced by about 25 percent for 2011 and then remain at
current-law levels (that is, as specified under the SGR) for subsequent
years. Under the proposal, increases in payment rates for many other
providers would be held below the rate of inflation (in expectation of
ongoing productivity improvements in the delivery of health care). The
projected longer-term savings for the proposal also assume that the
Medicare Commission is relatively effective in reducing costs—beyond the
reductions that would be achieved by other aspects of the proposal—to
meet the targets specified in the legislation. The long-term budgetary
impact could be quite different if those provisions were ultimately changed
or not fully implemented.
Michael F. Cannon, director of health policy studies:
The CBO score of the Baucus bill is like a mystery novel with the last 50 pages missing. It fails to reveal both the full cost of the bill and the budget gimmicks that Mr. Baucus uses to hide that cost. Sadly, the CBO has limited ability to comment on these items. They did comment on the “Sustainable Growth Rate” mechanism*, but the off budget costs are not part of their oversight.
The Baucus bill will not reduce the deficit, and it would ultimately cost taxpayers more than $2 trillion—just like every other bill Congress has produced so far.
The biggest gimmick employed by the bill is that its individual mandate pushes more than half of the legislation's cost off-budget, and onto businesses and individuals who will have to shoulder that burden. A real-world parallel already exists in the Massachusetts health care plan, where private-sector mandates account for 60 percent of the cost. In 1994, CBO counted those mandated private payments in the federal budget, and it helped kill the Clinton health plan. This time around, Democrats were very careful to craft their mandates so that they just barely avoided having the CBO include those payments in the federal budget. But the CBO's decision does not change the fact that those private-sector mandates are part of the cost of this bill.
The second-biggest gimmick is assuming that Congress will let the "Sustainable Growth Rate" cuts in Medicare physician payments to occur. Starting in 2003, Congress has repeatedly blocked those cuts, and there is no reason to think that Congress will behave any differently in the future. So yes, provided that the sun rises in the West, the Baucus bill would reduce the federal deficit.
*For example, the sustainable growth rate (SGR)
mechanism governing Medicare’s payments to physicians has frequently
been modified (either through legislation or administrative action) to avoid
reductions in those payments. The projected savings for the proposal reflect
the cumulative impact of a number of specifications that would constrain
payment rates for providers of Medicare services. In particular, the proposal
would increase payment rates for physicians’ services for 2010, but those
rates would be reduced by about 25 percent for 2011 and then remain at
current-law levels (that is, as specified under the SGR) for subsequent
years. Under the proposal, increases in payment rates for many other
providers would be held below the rate of inflation (in expectation of
ongoing productivity improvements in the delivery of health care). The
projected longer-term savings for the proposal also assume that the
Medicare Commission is relatively effective in reducing costs—beyond the
reductions that would be achieved by other aspects of the proposal—to
meet the targets specified in the legislation. The long-term budgetary
impact could be quite different if those provisions were ultimately changed
or not fully implemented.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
