The contents are based on Fact and Truth. Challenges are invited.
The day’s top political news:
White House aides: No Afghan decision before Thanksgiving
President Barack Obama will not announce his decision on sending more troops to Afghanistan before the Thanksgiving holiday
Obama and his top military and diplomatic aides have been deliberating for months over how to proceed in Afghanistan, where the United States and its partners have sought for eight years to defeat the Taliban and deny al-Qaeda a safe haven from which it can plan and launch attacks.
Meanwhile, American troops in combat ate left in a sea of uncertainty and allies and enemies throughout the Middle East are drawing conclusion that Obama is preparing to follow the traditional Democrat military strategy of cutting, running, and surrendering to the enemy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/19/AR2009111900904_pf.html
Harry Reid’s Senate health care scam weighs in at 2,074 pages
The Pelosi health care government takeover bill in the House was a mere 1,990 pages when introduced. Both are far too massive for cogent understanding or honest analysis. Maybe that’s the idea.
That means the Senate bill -- like the one in the House -- runs more pages than War and Peace, and has nearly five times as many words as the Torah. The table of contents alone is 14 pages.
“Read the bill!” was a rallying cry of some health reform opponents over the summer. And if Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) gets his way, senators will get a chance to hear every word of it. He’s threatening to the read the legislation from start to finish, which by some estimates could take as long as 48 hours.
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1109/Senate_bill_weighs_in_at_2074_pages.html?showall
Joe Lieberman slams public option; brushes off critics
Sen. Joe Lieberman’s threat to filibuster any health care bill with a public option could kill health reform this year — and embolden Democratic challengers who’d like to send him packing in 2012. Lieberman doesn’t seem worried.
Lieberman left the Democratic Party in 2006 after liberal Ned Lamont beat him in Connecticut’s Democratic Senate primary. Lieberman defeated Lamont in the general election and returned to Washington as an independent, where he continues to caucus with Democrats — even though he accuses them of engaging in a bit of bait and switch when it comes to the public option.
Despite the strong words against some in his old party, Lieberman still entertains the idea of a reunion. Asked this week if he might run again as a Democrat in 2012, Lieberman smiled and said, “Yeah, sure.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29698.html
Opinion:
There are some important items in the news that you may have missed
Obama’s administration has made an absurd decision to try terrorists in federal court in New York City. The White House seems oblivious to the dangers it is generating. They talk about being confident of conviction when that aspect of the scandal is not the primary concern for those who consider the story intelligently.
These terrorists are iconic to radical Islamic terrorists world wide and our television news will provide wall to wall coverage. This will grant the defendants unprecedented opportunities to fire up their co-conspirators everywhere. These will become show trials terrorists will use as prime tools of recruitment.
The trials also place another bulls eye on New York City – challenging Islamic terrorists to attack and prove their power. One car bomb in a taxi – anywhere in the area – would generate massive headlines.
Now, there is word from China:
More Obamateur Hour [Andy McCarthy]
In a meeting with the press in China, President Obama said that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be "convicted" and had "the death penalty applied to him" . . . and then said he wasn't "pre-judging" the case. He made the second statement after it was pointed out to him — by NBC's Chuck Todd — that the first statement would be taken as the president's interfering in the trial process. Obama said that wasn't his intention. I'm sure it wasn't — he's trying to contain the political damage caused by his decision — but that won't matter. He has given the defense its first motion that the executive branch, indeed the president himself, is tainting the jury pool. Nice work.
Thus it is likely defense attorneys will delay any execution for years on end as they challenge any guilty verdict on the basis cited above
Meanwhile, we have these developments regarding our economic crisis:
Words Yesterday: "’It is important though to recognize if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point, people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession,’ [Obama] said.” (Reuters, 11/18/09)
Actions Later: “The Administration strongly supports House passage of H.R. 3961, the Medicare Physician Payment Reform Act of 2009…” (Statement of Administration Policy, 11/18/09)
Consequences for Tomorrow: “The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the House plan to prevent cuts to doctors' Medicare reimbursement rates would cost $210 billion over 10 years, according to a just released analysis.” (Politico, 11/4/09)
Of course Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi, don’t add that latest $210 billion lay out to the total cost of their health care scheme. In truth, the real goal of liberal Democrats is takeover of health care, not honest reform.
Now we see Harry Reid’s take on health care – crafted and developed in secret behind closed doors. Defeating Reid is the next goal for normal America, then defeating all Democrats who votes for the final bill in the 2010 election.
Meanwhile, Sarah Palin continues to terrify liberals. Nothing demonstrates this more than the Associated Press having assigned eleven reporters to sift through every work and nuance in the book – doing all they can to find an error. Too bad the AP no longer provides honest journalism – giving that sort of attention to real threats to our freedoms such as Democrat health care schemes – now products of more than 4,000 pages.
By the way, has Obama allowed anyone to begin referring to the Fort Hood massacre as an act of Islamic terror yet? Speaking plainly, communicating honestly, and being candid about the issues and threats this nation faces, is not a policy of the current group that dominates Capitol Hill – which is precisely why replacing them is so crucial to our survival and to our future.
Buddy
Top blogs:
1.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704782304574541821195013830.html
TARP's Moment of Truth
Senate Democrats get the chance to prove they care about the deficit.
Democrats are now claiming they really truly are worried about the nation's exploding deficits.
Lucky for them, South Dakota Senator John Thune is giving them the perfect chance to prove it.
The Republican yesterday introduced a bill that would bar Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner from extending the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program beyond its expiration date on December 31.
The legislation would not affect the roughly $400 billion worth of handouts that remain with the likes of Citigroup or General Motors. It would, however, halt further lending and immediately return the fund's $300 billion in unobligated money to taxpayers.
The White House keeps claiming it wants to do just that, but Mr. Geithner also refuses to rule out signing a TARP renewal.
What the Administration won't say is that it likes retaining a slush fund that can be doled out carte-blanche to politically worthy recipients.
Only this week AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka dreamed up a new use for TARP money, demanding it be recycled into favored community banks or small businesses. This is how an emergency bailout program morphs into a White House's "walking around" money.
Senator Thune has tried several variations on the end-TARP theme, and with each attempt has picked up Democratic support. When he offers this new proposal—perhaps as part of must-pass legislation to raise the debt ceiling to an eye-popping $13 trillion—taxpayers will be watching "deficit-hawk" Senators, from Alaska's Mark Begich to Arkansas's Blanche Lincoln to Nebraska's Ben Nelson.
For Democrats who claim to care about runaway spending, no vote could be easier. TARP has served its purpose, and then some. End it.
The Wall Street Journal
2.
Speaking of fact checking:
John Stossel shoots down the Washington Post attacks on Republican positions on the liberal tax scam – but the Post is expected to distort things that way
John Stossel
Truth and Lies
Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus, after watching the House health care debates on C-SPAN, claims to have found several falsehoods peddled by Republicans.
Kentucky Representative Brett Guthrie: "The bill raises taxes for just about everyone." Not true. The bill imposes a surtax on the top 0.3 percent of households, individuals making more than $500,000 a year and couples making more than $1 million.
But wait a second, even my former ABC colleague and former Democratic strategist George Stephanopoulos put it to President Obama, "Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?"
Exactly. So, why is it untrue to say this bill raises taxes for just about everyone? It does.
Michigan Republican Dave Camp: "Americans could face five years in jail if they don't comply with the bill's demands to buy approved health insurance." Not true. The bill requires people to obtain insurance or, with some hardship exceptions, pay a fine. No one is being jailed for being uninsured. People who intentionally evade paying the fine could, in theory, be prosecuted -- just like others who cheat on their taxes.
So now the mandate is like a tax? Which is it? I'm not exactly sure what's untrue about Rep. Camp's statement. If you don't pay your taxes, what exactly happens? You go to jail. You don’t get prosecuted “in theory.” Men with guns come to your home and take you away.
[Georgia Republican Tom] Price: "This bill, on Page 94, will make it illegal for any American to obtain health care not approved by Washington." Not true. The vast majority of Americans get their insurance through their employers. The bill envisions setting minimum federal standards for such insurance, in part to determine who is eligible to buy coverage through the newly created insurance exchanges. This is hardly tantamount to making it "illegal" to obtain "health care" without Washington's approval.
Yes it is. Setting “minimum federal standards” for health insurance means that all plans must meet those standards. If Washington's standards do not include, say, high-deductible HSA plans, then it will be illegal for insurance companies to offer them.
You have to wonder: Are the Republican arguments against the bill so weak that they have to resort to these misrepresentations and distortions?
Apparently not. Most Republicans are far from deserving praise in the health care debate, but the mental gymnastics Marcus uses to defend this abominable bill are astounding.
Liberals lying about the health care conspiracy is nothing new – Democrats cant win the argument when they are limited to only truth and fact. Obama quit using such things months ago.
3.
Democrats Fail at Job Creation
Time to Embrace Pro-Growth Conservative Solutions
Washington, D.C. – Republican Study Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-GA) issued the following statement regarding the news that House Democrat leaders are now pushing for a “jobs bill” this year.
“Are Democrats in Washington finally admitting their so-called stimulus package was an enormous failure?” asked Chairman Price. “If so, the real question is, ‘what took them so long?’ With unemployment over 10 percent and still on the rise, hard-working families painfully know that this massive boondoggle has failed to fuel the promised job creation. Having just topped $12 trillion, Americans understand that the only substantive thing the spending bill stimulated is our national debt.
The recent rhetorical shift to jobs from House Democrats is an encouraging sign that they have not completely lost touch with reality, but they have lost all credibility with the American people on this central issue.
“Democrats have demonstrated that they are unable to adopt policies resulting in job creation. It’s time to give the American people the type of pro-growth solution that conservatives have been calling for since January. A real economic recovery package would turn back the rising tide of deficit spending and incentivize job creation by allowing families and businesses to keep more of the money they work so hard to earn. That’s the common sense approach taken by the Republican Study Committee, which last January introduced H.R. 470, the Economic Recovery Act. Real spending restraint and lasting tax relief for families and businesses are the key to helping get Americans back to work.”
Note: H.R. 470 is based on three main themes: 1) Support Families through Tax Relief; 2) Provide Economic Relief for American Businesses and Entrepreneurs; and 3) Save Future Generations from a Crushing Debt Burden. For more information, click here.
Meanwhile, most Americans aren’t buying White House claims:
4.
HEARTBEAT OF AMERICA
Nine Months In, Less than One-in-Ten Americans Buy the Stimulus “Saved or Created” Nonsense
“From what you know so far, which comes closest to your own view? 1. The economic stimulus package has already created a substantial number of new jobs in the U.S., OR 2. It will create a substantial number of new jobs but hasn’t done that yet, OR 3. It will not create a substantial number of new jobs.”
7% Created jobs already
46% Will create jobs eventually
42% Will never create jobs
5% Do not know
5.
PAYGO and the $210 Billion Doc Trick
Stop Me if You’ve Heard This One
Washington, DC – We’ve got a joke for you. Have you heard the one about the “fiscally responsible” bill that adds over $200 billion to the deficit? It’s a classic.
So, there’s this legislation called the “doc fix” that is needed to prevent large reimbursement cuts for physicians’ Medicare services. A highly-worthy undertaking, the language was an integral part of H.R. 3200. But for some reason it got cut out of H.R. 3962, the final House health bill. You see, the “doc fix’s” high cost blew the lid off the claim that the Democrats’ health reform bill would be paid for. Now, it’s a standalone bill, H.R. 3961. But like before, Democrats still don’t have a way to pay for the bill’s $210 billion cost.
Solution? Don’t pay for it and, at the same time, change the budget laws so the cost disappears from the books.
It goes like this: when they pass the “doc fix,” Democrats will attach their sham PAYGO bill. Promoted as a way to “pay for” new spending, the Democrat variation of PAYGO includes some interesting exemptions. On top of excluding the 40% of the federal budget made up by discretionary spending, there is a convenient loophole that removes the need to account in the budget for updates to Medicare physician reimbursement rates…also known as…you got it – the “doc fix”!
Democrats say, “Why pay for something when you can pretend it doesn’t exist?”
So in one foul swoop, Democrats will add $210 billion to the deficit and simultaneously exchange high-fives for being champions of budget discipline by ushering in PAYGO.
What’s the punch line, you ask? The Senate’s already demonstrated it can’t pass a “doc fix” that adds hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit and won’t even consider PAYGO legislation. The House legislation has zero chance of becoming law, and in the end, the joke’s on the patients and physicians who were hoodwinked into supporting a government takeover of health care in the hopes it would ward off the impending physician reimbursement cuts. But you can’t blame ‘em – these Democrats have gotten really good at looking like they are addressing problems without actually producing anything.
So if this bill passes later in the week to great fanfare, and you think adding $210 billion to the deficits can be seen as a demonstration of fiscal restraint, we’ve got a job for you to apply for in Arizona’s 15th Congressional District.
6.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704431804574541471162110460.htm
An Alternative Stimulus Plan
A payroll tax cut would add three to four million jobs at a fraction of the cost of the stimulus bill.
MICHAEL J. BOSKIN
While the economy has finally started to grow, the disturbingly high unemployment rate is increasing pressure from the left to double down on this year's poorly designed fiscal stimulus bill. Since the stimulus bill was signed, the ranks of the unemployed have grown by over three million (over four million if involuntary part-time and discouraged workers are included). The unemployment rate, which the Obama administration projected the stimulus would contain at 8%, is now 10.2%.
There is little likelihood that another round of similar fiscal stimulus would yield much more than the paltry return on the first one. The original transfer payments and tax rebates barely nudged consumer spending, and the federal spending has been painfully slow. The delayed infrastructure spending—the shovels are still in the shed—will have a bigger impact, though less than claimed. Some of the funds to state and local government did reduce layoffs. The stimulus bill surely ranks dead last compared to the natural dynamics of the business cycle, the Fed's zero interest rate policy, and the automatic stabilizers in the tax code (which have reduced taxes proportionally more than income) as far as explanations for the improvement in the economy.
But to evaluate the stimulus properly we should consider not just what we got for the $787 billion cost but the effects of alternative policies that might have been enacted.
My Stanford colleague Pete Klenow and Rochester economist Mark Bils estimated that cutting the payroll tax by six percentage points (of the 12.4% Social Security component) would, under standard assumptions, increase employment by three million to four million workers—an amount equal to all the job losses since the stimulus was passed.
The payroll tax cut would have reduced firms' costs by roughly the same amount as from the entire decline in employment. It would have cost less than half as much as the stimulus bill, gotten far more income into paychecks quickly and, most importantly, greatly reduced incentives for firms to lay off workers. In fact, it would have created incentives to hire.
Even using the administration's claims of one million jobs "created or saved," the stimulus program passed in early February is millions of jobs short of what a cheaper payroll tax suspension would have delivered (see nearby chart).
Yet the president and Congress are preparing vast new taxes on employment in the health-care reform and other legislation. Raising the federal top tax rate to 45% (from the current 35% with a 5.4% surcharge plus the expiration of the Bush tax cuts) will hit successful small businesses especially hard.
The tax hike on capital gains and dividends hidden in the fine print of the health-care legislation will also raise the cost of equity capital, further weakening businesses (including banks) desperate for private capital. Many firms will also face either an 8% additional payroll tax or be forced to pay a higher share of health insurance premiums. Such tax increases will hit employment and wages hard.
It would be far better to junk part of the remaining stimulus in favor of a one-year partial payroll tax cut. Also accelerate spending that needs to be done eventually, such as replenishing depleted military equipment used up in Iraq and Afghanistan and adding a desperately needed two Army brigades.
There are five large interrelated headwinds to jobs and growth. First, continued deleveraging, unresolved toxic assets, and weak banks are constraining credit, especially for small business that is the source of most hiring. Second, household balance sheets depressed from declines in home values and portfolios are likely to constrain consumption growth. Third, government industrial-policy micromanagement with subsidies and mandates from pay to products is forcing noncommercial decisions on wide swaths of the economy from financial services and autos to energy and health care.
Such policies have never worked before—ask the Japanese, Koreans and Europeans. Fourth, the explosion of spending, deficits and debt foreshadows even higher prospective taxes on work, saving, investment and employment. That not only will damage our economic future but is harming jobs and growth now. Fifth, the massive liquidity injections by the Fed raise the specter of future inflation.
By far the best response to these headwinds is to curtail the huge current and contemplated future government control of the economy with a clear, predictable exit strategy—before the programs become permanently entrenched, develop powerful dependent constituencies, and greatly increase the risk of rising interest rates, inflation and taxation. Doing so would more rapidly improve the outlook for permanent private-sector employment, investment and growth than any conceivable second stimulus. It would also allocate capital and labor to their highest value in providing goods and services that people actually want and need, not what government bureaucrats want them to have.
The jobs agenda must begin with a Hippocratic oath: First do no harm to employment. That means jettisoning or at least delaying job-killing energy and health-care legislation with their mandates, taxes and costs that especially hammer small businesses.
Also wind down, as soon as possible, the emergency measures which healthy businesses, households and investors fear will become permanent competitive impediments. Start with the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which the Treasury uses as a permanent revolving fund even for nonfinancial bailouts.
Financial regulation should focus on disclosure, transparency, effective clearing, capital adequacy, and new bankruptcy procedures. We also need a Plan B, modeled on the Resolution Trust Corporation cleanup of the savings and loans, in the event the losses on toxic assets are too large for time, profitability and economic recovery to manage. And the Fed must forestall future inflation by withdrawing its immense liquidity injections as soon and predictably as feasible (its initial steps are commendable).
Finally, if possible, we should complement these pro-employment policies with long-run fiscal reform: control entitlement cost growth, e.g. with price rather than wage indexing of Social Security, and real tax reform with the widest possible tax bases and lowest possible rates. America's corporate tax rate, the second highest among advanced economies, is especially damaging.
That is a far more consistent common-sense recipe for more and better jobs, far sooner than the current contradictory and ineffective policy mess emanating from Washington.
Mr. Boskin is a professor of economics at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He chaired the Council of Economic Advisers under President George H.W. Bush.
Every body admits that life seems to be very expensive, however some people need cash for different things and not every man earns enough cash. So to get quick credit loans and just small business loan would be a proper way out.
Posted by: BeckBrittany32 | August 21, 2011 at 12:16 PM