The contents of these articles are based on Fact and Truth. Challenges are invited.
The day’s top political news:
Poll: Expectations low on health summit
Public expectations are low for today's high-profile White House summit on health care: Three of four Americans in a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll predict President Obama and congressional leaders won't reach agreement on a bill.
There's also no consensus that the public wants a deal. By 49%-43%, those surveyed oppose passage of a health care bill like those that Democrats have drafted — and the foes hold their views more strongly than the supporters do.
The survey ahead of the six-hour meeting, open to live TV coverage, underscores the challenges for the White House and Democrats after a year of debate over health care. Their options: Watch the signature domestic initiative of Obama's presidency fall in defeat, or pass a bill that commands more opposition than support.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-02-24-healthcare-poll-results_N.htm
More than healthcare riding on Thursday's summit
President Obama's move to renew the healthcare debate at this stage could alter the political landscape ahead of the midterm election.
Reporting from Washington — The healthcare summit that convenes today in Washington has emerged as a high-stakes gambit for President Obama and opposing Republican lawmakers, carrying risks for both sides that could not only alter the outcome of the healthcare debate but also November's midterm elections.
By this point in the calendar, the White House had thought its healthcare overhaul would be completed, allowing Obama to swivel to the near 10% unemployment rate that has Americans so unnerved. Republicans had hoped the plan would be dead -- a casualty of the Democrats' loss last month of the 60-vote Senate margin needed to end filibusters.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/24/nation/la-na-summit-stakes25-2010feb25
Senate breaks rule, OKs jobs bill
It took less than two weeks for lawmakers on Capitol Hill to vote to break rules requiring that new spending be offset elsewhere in the budget, waiving the requirement just minutes before a strong bipartisan majority pushed through a $15 billion job-creation bill in the Senate on Wednesday.
The bill provides money to continue funding highway construction and offers a tax break for businesses that hire unemployed workers. Given the state of the economy, supporters said, the bill was too important to hold up.
But opponents - mostly Republicans - said the bill doesn't do enough, shuts out other Republican ideas and violates the recently passed pay-as-you-go, or "pay-go," spending rules.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/25/senate-breaks-rule-oks-jobs-bill/?feat=home_headlines
Opinion:
Obama desperation on display for all to see
Understand what we are seeing today from Blair House. It’s a last gasp struggle for Obama and his Democrats to breathe life into their health care takeover scheme.
They do this, despite the fact most Americans don’t want their plan, despite Obama has already published a plan, and despite the fact Democrats threaten to pass whatever they wish anyway.
When Democrats suggest today’s session is, in any way, an honest exchange of ideas and effort at compromise, they are lying again. It’s a TV show, plain and simple. Democrats contrived this idea because they think Obama got the better of Republicans when he appeared at the GOP retreat in Baltimore a few weeks back.
That’s the Democrat myth, but the polling clearly shows otherwise. Obama got no bump and is now shown at his lowest point based on Rasmussen’s daily tracking study. Not many saw Obama’s declaration “I’m not an ideologue” as a plus for him. He was putting into words what a lot of Americans believe – Obama IS an ideologue – a far left ideologue, if you please.
Bill O’Reilly left a lot of heads shaking in wonder when he took pains to declare those who think Obama is a socialist as extremists. Say what? Obama is very much a socialist and no wonder. He has spent his life (what little he and his handlers have allowed to be reported) within far left zones. His role model in Hawaii was an avowed Communist – Frank Marshall – who some reports say was dispatched to Hawaii by the Communist Party to set up cells in the 50th state.
Then we have seen one after another of Obama’s close associates openly admitting communist connections. White House spokeswoman, Anita Dunn, told students Mao Zedong, the Chinese Communist dictator, was an idol of hers – on a par, she claimed with Mother Teresa. Anita’s hubby is White House counsel.
Then there is Vann Jones – one of Obama’s Czars – this one in charge of moving forward with Al Gore’s myths about man-made Global Warming – a theory that has collapsed around its advocate’s ears in recent weeks. Gore has been spectacularly absent during the demise of his franchise,
Jones is another admitted Communist – and was eventually forced out of his White House job.
Obama’s health care effort is a continuation of a scheme hatched by ideologues. Many Democrats just hate the fact their public option scheme has been dropped – at least for now. “Public Option” was a code word for “single payer” health care – a clone of Canada’s socialized medicine.
But, back to Blair House and today’s show and tell TV show.
Democrats threaten the process with a “our way or the highway” approach.
Liberal Sen. Chris Dodd, D.-Conn., who will be among those participating today, worked a rally of supporters last night. He issued a dire comment: "After that meeting, you can either join us or get out of the way," Dodd said.
That really sets a stage for compromise and common cause.
Under Obama’s scheme, most Americans would be required to carry health insurance and prove it to the IRS. Under his plan a family of four making $66,000 would have to pay $6,257 in premiums, close to 10 percent of its income. That's even after receiving $3,000 in federal tax credits.
Some plans would allow prosecution of those families who don’t comply. Imagine. Jail time for not buying the health insurance the government suggests. O Reilly should be paying attention about that.
Of course, it’s not necessary to take Democrats – including Obama – at their word. As one Democrat explained earlier, this is only an opening step -- once Democrats impose their version of health care on the American people (who reject the idea) they intend to revisit the issue from time to time and modify its provisions. No telling how extreme Democrat dreams are regarding what they conspire to impose.
Doesn’t matter, Democrats are imposing their will. They could not care less what America wants or what Republican alternatives provide. Today’s session at Blair House is a show trial.
“Nuff said” applies again.
Buddy
Top blogs:
1.
Congressman Spencer Bachus (R-Al), Chairman Benanke: the debt is unsustainable.
WASHINGTON – In response to questions from Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Spencer Bachus on whether federal deficit levels are unsustainable, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said that “given the numbers that the CBO or the OMB have projected, that's right.” Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke warned that “I do think that it’s very important that we begin to look at the path, the trajectory, of the deficit as it goes forward.” In response to a Bachus question on whether it was critical to have a long-term plan to reduce the debt, Bernanke said that “it would be very helpful, even to the current recovery, to market confidence, if there were a sustainable credible plan for a fiscal exit.”
The following is a transcript of the exchange in the House Financial Services Committee hearing.
BACHUS: Chairman Bernanke, Mr. Frank mentioned the deficit and the debt in passing. That’s what I want to ask you about. Our debt is going to double in the next five years and triple in the next ten years. And it’s fueled by historic deficits.
I heard this morning on TV that we have in many cases across the U.S. of children, and even adults, walking out on the thin ice. They walk out day after day and they get some comfort. But thin ice is dangerous. And, I submit that this type of budget path is dangerous and the deficit is dangerous. I would ask you, is our budget path sustainable, is there an urgent need for Congress to come up with a concrete plan to change that budget path, and do you believe there is an urgency in that?
BERNANKE: Congressman, when you ask about sustainability, you're talking about the medium-term structural deficit that remains even after the economy has returned close to more normal levels of activity.
Estimates of the structural deficit range from 4 percent by the OMB to up to 7 percent of GDP in some scenarios run by the CBO. Those numbers are above a sustainable level. I think in order to maintain a stable ratio of debt to GDP, you need to have a deficit that's 2.5 percent, 3 percent at the most.
So I think, yes, under current projections we have a deficit and a debt that will continue to grow. Interest rate costs that will continue to grow. So I do think that it's very important that we begin to look at the path, the trajectory, of the deficit as it goes forward. And there could be a bonus there. To the extent that we can achieve credible plans to reduce medium- to long-term deficits, we'll actually have more flexibility in the short term if we want to take other kinds of action.
BACHUS: Right. So the current budget path is not sustainable, is it?
BERNANKE: Given the numbers that the CBO or the OMB have projected, that's right.
BACHUS: And it might be upon us sooner than we think. Is that a good analogy that I've used, of walking on thin ice?
BERNANKE: Yes, sir, that's true. It's not necessarily just a long-term issue because it is possible that bond markets will become worried about the sustainability and we may find ourselves facing higher interest rates, even today, given that concern.
BACHUS: So is it critical that we have a long-term plan, and we have it now.
BERNANKE: Yes, I think it's very important that Congress -- I realize it's extremely difficult -- extremely difficult. I don't underestimate in any way how difficult it is. And it's also difficult to address issues which are still a few years away. I understand that as well.
But it would be very helpful, even to the current recovery, to market confidence, if there were a sustainable, credible plan for -- for a fiscal exit, if you will.
BACHUS: Well, if we don't address them now, I'm not sure we can address them, you know, in a effective way, two or three years from now or four or five years.
BERNANKE: It'll become increasingly difficult because the cuts that you'll need to make will be even sharper and with the tax increases, even sharper.
BACHUS: I very much appreciate your testimony. And I do believe that you've addressed many of the concerns. And I'm happy that you mentioned that this sterile reserves legislation [authorizing the payment of interest on excess reserves maintained at the Federal Reserve] that we passed in a bipartisan way has been an important tool.
2.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33486.html#ixzz0gYsJ2Qlt
The big bipartisan lie
If President Barack Obama really wanted to show he’s serious about winning over Republicans on health care reform, he could offer up some key concessions at Thursday’s summit, like caps on malpractice awards or allowing insurers to sell across state lines.
And if Republicans wanted to reciprocate, they could at least acknowledge the congressional scorekeepers are right – the Democratic plans cut the deficit in the long term and rein in health care costs.
But that would assume either side is willing to do this.
Heading into Thursday’s summit, there’s been a lot of talk on both sides about how they’re the reasonable ones, willing to meet in the middle – and it’s the other side that’s to blame.
But the reality is, both sides have been responding to the overwhelming incentives to play to the home team, and to tailor their positions to seek partisan advantage and political gain.
So in the end, the health care summit seems most likely to clarify what has been an obvious reality lurking just below the surface at almost every turn in this episode, which is that neither side is really on the level when they say they were committed to bipartisanship.
Nor do they really want to split the difference – to do something in six hours at Blair House that they wouldn’t do all year.
The parties have become so entrenched in their positions that Republicans say they will never accept the Democratic comprehensive reform bill, and Democrats say they will never start over and adopt the GOP’s scaled-back, market-driven approach.
But the opportunities will be there, to be sure. Republicans will push a six-step plan for enacting health care reform, which includes many ideas that have already been embraced to a lesser degree in the Democratic bills.
And a central element of the Democratic strategy – hashed out on a conference call with President Barack Obama himself Wednesday — will involve pointing that out at every turn, to essentially shame the GOP to get on board.
Yet neither side showed any sign of cooling off ahead of the summit.
"If they are coming in and saying start over, there is nothing to talk about,” said Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.)
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) shot back: "Why not start over? The overwhelming majority of the American people want us to start over."
The tit-for-tat continued until hours before the summit convened. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) pushed to expand the invite list to include governors, but the White House denied the request.
So Boehner offered a spot to Rep. Bart Stupak, a Democrat from Michigan who crafted an anti-abortion provision in the House bill that infuriated liberals. But Stupak later said the minority leader never consulted him.
3.
NAACP to Honor Van Jones as 'American Treasure'
FOXNews.com
White House green jobs adviser Van Jones quit the post last year after he was dogged by past remarks and associations, but that isn't stopping the NAACP from awarding him one of its Image Awards
White House green jobs adviser Van Jones quit the post last year after he was dogged by past remarks and associations, but that isn't stopping the NAACP from awarding him one of its Image Awards -- and even calling him a "American treasure."
Jones, who served as an adviser to the White House Council on Environmental Quality, generated mounting criticism last summer, first for calling Republicans "assholes" during a videotaped address earlier in the year and then for signing a petition in 2004 supporting the "9/11 truther" movement, which believes the Bush administration may have been involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
The latter development, which came on top of several others, was perhaps the most devastating and led to calls for his resignation.
But Jones still has his share of outspoken supporters, and one of them is Benjamin Todd Jealous, president and CEO of the NAACP.
"Van Jones is an American treasure," Jealous writes in an opinion piece posted at CNN.com. "He is quite simply one of the few Americans in recent years to have generated powerful new ideas that are creating new jobs."
Jealous cites Jones' book "The Green Collar Economy," his role in passing the 2007 Green Jobs Act and his work with low-income people in Oakland, Calif.
At the time of his resignation, Jones said the controversies had become an unceasing distraction, and he assailed his critics.
"On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me. They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide," Jones said.
Jones is considered a rising star in environmental circles. In addition to writing "The Green Collar Economy," he has co-founded and worked with several groups dedicated to helping low-income and minority communities -- often through green jobs and better environmental policy. He got his start as a San Francisco-area activist.
Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, speaking last year on "Fox News Sunday," called Jones' resignation a "loss for the country."
But critics raised questions about his fitness for a White House-level office, pointing to his radical activities a decade ago as well as more recent controversial stances.
Jones was a self-described "communist" during the 1990s and previously worked with a group dedicated to Marxist and Leninist philosophies. His comments, even in recent years, were often racially charged. He's blamed "white polluters and white environmentalists" for "steering poison" to minority communities. In 2005, he drew a distinction between white and black youths involved in shooting incidents by referencing the 1999 Columbine High School massacre.
"You've never seen a Columbine done by a black child. Never," Jones said. "They always say, 'We can't believe it happened here. We can't believe it's these suburban white kids.' It's only them!" he said. "Now, a black kid might shoot another black kid. He's not going to shoot up the whole school."
Such statements did not draw widespread attention until after a February video surfaced showing him calling Republicans "assholes" during an address in Berkeley, Calif. Jones apologized, but faced down his past again when it was discovered that he signed a 2004 statement calling on then-New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and others to launch an investigation into evidence that suggests "people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war."
Jones afterward issued a blanket apology for his past statements and said the petition does not reflect his views. An aide said Jones didn't carefully review the petition at the time.
But that claim was swiftly disputed by 911Truth.org. "He did agree with that statement and he did sign on to it," 911Truth.org spokesman Mike Berger told Fox News in a telephone interview from St. Louis on Friday. Berger said the group's "original board members individually confirmed all signatories that had signed on to the statement."
The calls for resignation mounted. And lawmakers said the problems surrounding Jones spoke to the broader concern about so-called White House "czars," top advisers and officials who do not need congressional approval.
Comments