Political Truth and Fact

Wednesday's Web

The contents of these articles are based on Fact and Truth.  Challenges are invited. 

The day’s top political news:

The ObamaCare Writedowns—II Democrats blame a vast CEO conspiracy.

The wave of corporate writedowns—led by AT&T's $1 billion—isn't caused by ObamaCare after all. The White House claims CEOs are reducing the value of their companies and returns for shareholders merely out of political pique.

A White House staffer told the American Spectator that "These are Republican CEOs who are trying to embarrass the President and Democrats in general. Where do you hear about this stuff? The Wall Street Journal editorial page and conservative Web sites. No one else picked up on this but you guys. It's BS." (We called the White House for elaboration but got no response.)

In other words, CEOs who must abide by U.S. accounting laws under pain of SEC sanction, and who warned about such writedowns for months, are merely trying to ruin President Obama's moment of glory. Sure. Presumably the White House is familiar with the Financial Standard Accounting Board's 1990 statement No. 106, which requires businesses to immediately restate their earnings in light of their expected future retiree health liabilities. AT&T, Deere & Co., AK Steel, Prudential and Caterpillar, among others, are simply reporting the corporate costs of the Democratic decision to raise taxes on retiree drug benefits to finance ObamaCare.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304370304575151760348759360.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

ADP Says U.S. Companies

Companies are still hesitant to add workers until they see sustained sales gains and are convinced the economic recovery has taken hold. Economists surveyed by Bloomberg News anticipate the government’s report April 2 will show payrolls increased by 184,000, in part due to temporary hiring by the federal government to conduct the 2010 census and because of better weather compared with February.

Companies in the U.S. unexpectedly cut payrolls in March, according to data from a private report based on payrolls.

The 23,000 decline was the smallest in two years and followed a revised 24,000 drop the prior month, data from ADP Employer Services showed today. Over the previous six months, ADP’s initial figures have overstated the Labor Department’s first estimate of private payroll losses by as little as 2,000 in February to as much as 151,000 in November.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aSfp5pL7BSTM&pos=2

Feds Investigate Death Threats to IRS Employees After Health Bill Approval

The health care law has sparked protests on radical anti-tax and anti-government Web sites and within their private, password-protected e-mail lists and message boards. Some writers have labeled March 21 -- the day the House passed the bill – "Bloody Sunday," and they see it as a call to violent action against IRS workers.

In the days following the House vote, animosity toward the IRS intensified, and many heated online protests included specific discussions about the best way to go about killing tax agents.

Hundreds of comments were posted in response to an incendiary story on infowars.com, the radical far-right Web site owned by radio host Alex Jones. The story, entitled, "The Cost Of Defying Obamacare: $2,250 a Month And IRS Goons Pointing Guns At Your Family," focused on the “increasing militarization of the IRS” and its expansion of powers under the new health care law.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/03/30/irs-investigates-death-threats-employees-health-approval/

Opinion:
“Home for the Holidays”  Congress returns for Easter

Congress is at home for the Easter recess.  When will shoes start dropping?

Don’t expect Democrats to be very big on town hall meetings during this recess.  They remember their experiences a year ago.

This time last year, demonstrations against Democrat actions on Capitol Hill were beginning to dawn.  They would ultimately be dubbed “Tea Party” protests, and they spread very quickly…nationwide.

Meanwhile, in London, left wing protesters brought 4000 scruffy rioters into the street to shout their displeasure with worldwide financial matters.  The British demonstrations dominated news coverage for several days.

Not so demonstrations in Orlando. Orlando saw  4000 Americans crowd its streets protesting what they saw as unrestrained spending by the federal government.  No windows were broken in Orlando, and there was no violence.  However, the dissent expressed was intense.  The demonstration included dozens of people who had never before been politically active.  The national media ignored Orlando even as they highlighted London. 

Other such demonstrations arose elsewhere.  In Bay County, Florida, Blue Dog Democrat Allen Boyd was ambushed by more than 300 protesters angry over his vote for the high taxes included in the Democrat Cap and Trade scheme.  Boyd had to sneak out a back door.

Within the week, Democrat Senator Arlen Specter was ambushed too – his constituents demanding truthful answers to questions they had about the Obama health care scheme.

Across the country, Democrat denizens of Capitol Hill faced crowds of voters increasingly outraged at what they see as the Obama administration’s veer to the far left.

Obamacare was blocked from meeting the Democrat deadlines,  It was stalled until a couple of weeks ago.  With dominating majorities, Democrats imposed the legislation and expected that would be the end of it.  Democrats fully expected the landmark victory would give Obama and other Democrats a big surge in popularity among voters.

A small blip was recorded in polling right after the vote, but increasingly, the numbers are heading again into negative territory for Democrats.  Obama himself is losing popularity rather rapidly.

Polling collapse will not likely change anytime soon.   Especially since Obama signals an intention to push forward with more of his far left agenda.  He threatens to resume pressures to gain Senate Passage of Cap and Trade legislation – in truth a massive tax increase for all American families – and an even more emotional issue – immigration “reform”.  Expect whatever immigration bill Obama proposes to be a thinly disguised plot to provide amnesty for illegal aliens.

Democrats don’t oppose  illegal immigration.  Once again he is pitting Democrats against public opinion.  A few years back, public opinion shouted down another immigration bill – despite its backing by the US Senate, the Bush White House, and the mainstream media.

Illegal immigration took a back seat in political concerns while the Obama health scheme was being debated.  Opposition to the health bill hasn’t abated, and when Obama brings forth an amnesty bill, those fires will be relit as well.

Just as this issue begins to re-emerge, an American rancher – someone said to have often helped illegal aliens who found themselves in difficulties – shot to death.  Evidence to date suggests an illegal alien is the murderer.  The story is getting increasing coverage, and the story will help further inflame anti illegal immigration sentiment..

Amnesty, however, begins with a bit of Republican support – South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham is pairing with ultra liberal Democrat Senator Charles Shumer to back an immigration bill that has Obama’s support.

Senator Graham is certainly a Republican, but not one who has support from many grass root Republicans.  Quite the contrary.  Graham’s support of an immigration bill wont do much to increase the popularity of the bill, and it certainly wont help Senator Graham’s personal popularity either.

Buddy

The day’s top blogs:

1.

Experts shocked as Jamie Gorelick executes another massive fail

Let me get this straight: your company wants to prevent an out-of-control federal government from nationalizing your sector of the economy. So you hire a key lobbyist to represent your case. And -- of the thousands of connected lobbyists in DC -- you hire "the Mistress of Disaster:

When President Obama signed the Student Lending and Fiscal Responsibility Act today, it dealt an enormous blow to Wall Street banks...

Sallie Mae spent $3 million on lobbyists last year, and got none of what they wanted.  Zero, zip, nada (largely because lobbyists like Tony Podesta and Jamie Gorelick screwed up...).

Long before this debacle, Gorelick earned her nomme de guerre by playing key roles in two massive disasters.

In 2004, observers were "astonished" to discover that a key member of the 9/11 Commission had a fatal conflict-of-interest. Jamie Gorelick had served as a Deputy Attorney General under Bill Clinton from 1994 to 1997.

It was later revealed that Gorelick had established a pre-Patriot Act "wall" that prevented the foreign intelligence and criminal investigative communities from collaborating.

Her 1995 memo, entitled "Instructions on Separation of Certain Foreign Counterintelligence and Criminal Investigations", stated explicitly that they would "go beyond what is legally required, [to] prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation."

The result: shortly before 9/11, Gorelick's wall "specifically impeded the investigation into Zacarias Moussaoui", the so-called "20th hijacker."

At the time, an enraged FBI investigator wrote a memo to headquarters which included the sentence, 'Whatever has happened to this -- someday someone will die -- and wall or not -- the public will not understand why we were not more effective..."

The 2004 disclosure that Gorelick's service as a 9/11 Commissioner was the archetypical conflict-of-interest should have triggered a cacophony of complaints and demands for a new investigation. Instead, the mainstream media turned deaf and dumb and the controversy faded into the background.

Gorelick's "wall" wrapped a blindfold around America just when it needed its vision to stop the attacks that killed thousands and which sucked a half a trillion dollars out of the economy.

Where did Gorelick turn up next?

Though she had no training or experience in finance, Gorelick was appointed the Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae and served in the role from 1997 to 2003. During that six-year period, she earned over $26 million.

During Gorelick's tenure, FNMA suffered a $10 billion accounting scandal, an ominous harbinger of the firm's looming troubles. One of the falsified transactions helped FNMA hit earnings targets for 1998, which triggered bonuses for top executives including nearly $800,000 to Gorelick.

Put simply "Jamie Gorelick was one of the Fannie executives who benefited from inflated bonuses based on Enron-style accounting."

In 2002 Business Week interviewed Gorelick concerning the health of FNMA. She responded, "We believe we are managed safely. We are very pleased that Moody's gave us an A-minus in the area of bank financial strength -- without a reference to the government in any way. Fannie Mae is among the handful of top-quality institutions."

Less than a year later regulators "accused Fannie Mae of improper accounting to the tune of $9 billion in unrecorded losses."

Today, of course, FNMA is on taxpayer-funded life support, hundreds of billions in the red. And because it was thought to have been "managed safely" (Gorelick's words), many top-flight financial services companies held its stock. That's how Fannie helped take out AIG, Lehman Brothers, and other financial institutions that had assumed the GSE was a sound investment. Put simply, mismanagement at Fannie played an indisputable role in the mortgage meltdown.

Now, given this history, you really have to wonder about Sallie Mae. What were they smoking in the board room that day when someone blurted out, "Get me Gorelick on the phone, stat!"?

2.

Promises? You Mean $104 Trillion in Unfunded Promises?
 

Washington, DC – President Obama finished up his speech to students at a rally in Iowa yesterday with an unfortunately laughable line.
 
“And it's because of you that we are going to keep on going to make sure that we fulfill every promise to every child in this country for a brighter future.” (President’s Remarks, 3/25/10)
 
Every promise, huh? Politicians in Washington have made tons of promises to future generations, but unfortunately for “every child in this country,” we don’t have that kind of cash. According to Richard Fisher, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, Social Security and Medicare currently have unfunded liabilities of $104 trillion. No, that is not a typo.
 
“But they largely ignore the severity of the broader problem: accumulated entitlement debt over the infinite horizon. According to our calculations at the Dallas Fed, that unfunded debt of Social Security and Medicare combined has now reached $104 trillion—trillion with a 'T'—in discounted present value.” (Fisher Remarks, 2/10/10)
 
And, in case the President did not notice, Social Security is already paying out more in benefits than it is taking in. Maybe it would have been smart to make sure we’re keeping promises already made before making new ones.

3.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20100322/pl_cq_politics/politics3618953

2012 Looks No Better For Democrats

Shira Toeplitz,

Senate Democrats are no doubt bracing for sizeable losses in the fall elections, but an early look at 2012 map shows a rebound for the party could be difficult next cycle, when President Barack Obama will be at the top of the ticket.

Although most analysis is purely speculative at this point, there isn't a lot of guesswork in the numbers: Of the 33 Senate seats up in 2012, 24 are currently held by Democrats or Independents who caucus with them. What's more, all of the first-term Senators in this class were elected in a mid-term cycle and will likely face a different electorate in a presidential year.

"In '06 we were able to eke out victories by riding a very strong national wave that gave us a couple extra points here and there, but we also didn't have a presidential election going on at the same time that will have its own set of dynamics that will play a role," said Phil Singer, the communications director for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in the 2006 cycle.

When the national mood was in Democrats' favor in 2006, the party picked up six seats and won the majority.

Brian Nick, the communications director for the National Republican Senatorial Committee in 2006, said that if the political environment is anything like it is today, then Republicans will have great opportunities in Senate contests in Virginia, Missouri and Montana during a presidential year.

"Those to me would be clear opportunities to beat freshman incumbents who won in an extremely tumultuous environment for Republicans," Nick said.

Sen. John Tester (D-Mont.) will likely be a top target in 2012 given that he won by about 3,600 votes in 2006 and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) carried the state in the 2008 presidential race. Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) is most often mentioned as a possible opponent, although some local sources say he could opt to run in the open-seat gubernatorial race in 2012 instead.

Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) will also likely face another tough contest if he runs for re-election after winning his first term with just 50 percent of the vote. Although former Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) has been mentioned as a possible opponent, he eschewed that possibility and instead suggested that the man Webb barely defeated -- former Sen. George Allen (R) is looking at a comeback.

"I know he's interested, and I think he's looking for some vindication," Davis said. "I was pleased to leave Congress undefeated and un-indicted."

Missouri is hosting a competitive Senate race in 2010 and will likely have another one in 2012, when Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) is up for re-election. McCaskill narrowly beat then-Sen. Jim Talent (R-Mo.), and according to Talent's 2006 campaign manager, Gregg Keller, he is being encouraged to think about running against her a second time.

"Everywhere he goes in Missouri, he has activists, donors and longtime friends urging him to seriously consider running for Senate in 2012," Keller said.

Obviously any retirements or vacancies in the Senate between now and 2012 could create a competitive race in states such as West Virginia, Hawaii, Wisconsin and other states.

Given 92-year-old Sen. Robert Byrd's (D-W.Va.) age and recent health problems, there is much speculation about whether he will finish his term -- let alone run for re-election. The race will be competitive without Byrd, although Gov. Joe Manchin (D) would make a formidable Democratic nominee. Rep. Shelly Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) is likely the strongest Republican who would run for the seat, although Manchin would be the early favorite in that race if he decides to run.

Several Republican and Democratic sources mentioned 75-year-old Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) might look to retire in 2012. Kohl had less than $25,000 in his bank account at the end of 2009, although he is personally wealthy and gave more than $6 million of his own money to his 2006 race against a little-known Republican. What's more, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) -- a rising star in the House and ranking member on the Budget Committee -- would be a top-flight candidate if Senate Republicans can recruit him to run.

At the age of 85, Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) could also be a possible candidate for retirement after three terms. He also has one of the smallest campaign war chests of anyone in his Senate class, with only $86,000 cash on hand. Hawaii Gov. Linda Lingle (R), arguably one of the most popular Republicans in the history of the state, has not ruled out running for that Senate seat after she is term-limited out of office in 2010.

Nevada is bound to see another heated Senate battle in 2012, whether or not scandal-tarred Sen. John Ensign (R) decides to run for re-election. Rep. Shelley Berkeley (D-Nev.) is one of the top Democratic names circulating as a possible challenger. And Rep. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) has not ruled out a primary challenge. Republicans would prefer to see Ensign step aside and clear the way for Heller, who was recruited to run against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in 2010.

Ensign, who is under investigation by both the Justice Department and the Senate Ethics panel for allegedly helping a former aide find lobbying work after having an affair with the aide's wife, may be forced out of office before the end of his term, in which case the governor would appoint someone to serve out the remainder of the term.

In addition to Nevada, Democrats do have the opportunity to play offense in at least a couple states.

Sen. Scott Brown (D-Mass.) will start the cycle with a target on his back given that his state traditional votes overwhelmingly for Democrats. However, Brown also currently has more money in his campaign than any other Senator up for re-election in 2012, with just over $6 million cash on hand as of early February.

At least one Senate Democratic aide also suggested that the party could look to target Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) in 2010.

But with so many Democrats on the ballot, there's no doubt that the party will be playing defense for the most part in 2012. Democratic Sens. Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Bob Casey (Pa.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), Ben Nelson (Neb.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Kent Conrad (N.D.) and Amy Klobuchar (Minn.) are all running in competitive or Republican-leaning states.

Finally, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (ID-Conn.) could also have a tough re-election battle in the primary and general election for the second cycle in a row. Rep. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) is often mentioned as a possible candidate for Senate if Lieberman decides to retire.

The last time this class of Senators was up for re-election during a presidential year was 2000, when Democrats picked up six seats in Delaware, Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri and Washington. Republicans picked up seats in Virginia and Nevada in 2000.

There's also speculation about who might take over as chairman of both the DSCC and NRSC after this cycle.

DSCC Chairman Robert Menendez (N.J.) is up for re-election in 2012, and therefore can't take another turn heading the committee. A leadership source said there was no obvious successor to Menendez.

Provided that NRSC Chairman John Cornyn (Texas) continues to have a strong tenure this cycle, there is speculation that he might run for another term depending on whether or not he can ascend higher up the leadership ladder. If Cornyn decides not to seek the position again, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) is mentioned as a possible contender to take over in 2012.

Emily Cadei and John McArdle contributed to this report.

Tuesday's Web

The contents of these articles are based on Fact and Truth.  Challenges are invited. 

The day’s top political news:

Obama vows to press ahead with left wing legislation

Obama says specifically that it is Congress move ahead with legislation on energy and immigration policy as well as financial regulatory reform.  This means the Democrat high tax ploy known as “Cap and Trade” and amnesty for illegala.

Democrats succeeded in pushing Obama's healthcare reform plan through Congress without a single vote from Republicans, who said the reforms were too costly and called for too much federal government involvement in the private sector.

Survey research shows Democrats are losing support due to their embracing programs and policies of the far left.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62T1UD20100330

Washington Times EDITORIAL: Obama's white-flight problem

Hostility to the president's policies is not a race issue, yet desperate Democrats and their co-conspirators in the media are busy trying to whip up a race war.

According to the latest Gallup weekly data, only 38 percent of whites approve of Mr. Obama's performance, down from 63 percent when he took office. Of course, if these people were racists, they never would have given Mr. Obama their support to begin with, but the liberal howls of "white flight" are resistant to elementary logic.

Critics focus on racial data because they want to make race the center of the argument. This is a way to avoid the inconvenient truth that vast segments of the electorate are becoming disenchanted with Mr. Obama's broken promises. The American middle class is deserting him in droves.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/30/obamas-white-flight-problem

IT Problems Put Accuracy of Census at Risk, Say Government Auditors

Information Technology (IT) problems at the U.S. Census Bureau could cause inaccuracies in this year's constitutionally mandated decennial tabulation of the U.S. population, according to government auditors.
 
“IT problems place the efficiency and accuracy of Non-Response Follow-Up at risk and final decennial costs remain uncertain,” testified Judith Gordon, the principal assistant inspector general for Audit and Evaluation at the Department of Commerce, which runs the Census Bureau. The NRFU is the census’ largest operation and involves personally interviewing millions of people nationwide who did not respond to the mailed Census questionnaire.
 
Robert Goldenkoff, the director of strategic issues for the Government Accountability Office (GAO), told CNSNews.com that “an estimated 50 million housing units out of a mail-out universe of about 120 million” will be non-respondents that will require an in-person follow-up to count.
 
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/63380

Opinion:
Judge Democrat political desperation by their actions, their claims, and their distortion of truth and fact

An old analogy is an appropriate one for current Democrat fortunes: “their bucket has a hole in it”  and it’s a very big hole that continues to grow.  Voters are bailing on Democrats. 

Democrat decline was apparent when Speaker Nancy Pelosi taunted anti health care demonstrators and did all she could to incite violence as she led a parade of liberal Congressmen through the crowds of anti health care protesters before the actual vote.

Pelosi’s taunting failed.  There were no incidents (other than suspicious reports of racist slurs) But Pelosi and other far left politicians did their best.  Their failure is based on their lack of understanding of conservatives and of the activism spawned by extremist legislation =  such as the Obama health scheme.

Liberals assume conservatives will respond as they know liberals would.  Keep in mind, the only arrest for health care violence was someone protesting a Republican Congressman – someone who shot into a GOP headquarters.  Conservatives and liberals don’t think alike, nor is their behavior similar.

Needless to say, liberals have their jets afire trying to connect the tea party movement with the arrest of Michigan militia groups that plotted violence.  Far be it for me to suggest the DOJ under Eric Holder might have timed the arrests with an eye on the collapsing Obama poll numbers.  But Holder’s DOJ has a very distinct liberal slant.

In any case, violence has not been part of the pervasive conservative movement that is driving political opinion across the country.  Of course, lack of evidence or fact is no deterrent to liberal writers.  Eugene Robinson of the far left Washington Post is a typical example.  He dips his poison pen to write:

“For decades now, the most serious threat of domestic terrorism has come from the growing ranks of paranoid, anti-government hate groups that draw their inspiration, vocabulary and anger from the far right.

It is disingenuous for mainstream purveyors of incendiary far-right rhetoric to dismiss groups such as the Hutaree by saying that there are ‘crazies on both sides’ This simply is not true. “

So here’s to you Mr, Robinson – facts prove you dead wrong.  But facts and the Washington Post are natural enemies.  Recently, political violence has come from the left.  It was a dedicated leftists who murdered a guard at the Holocaust Museum a few months back.  Ditto the nut case who crashed his plane into an IRS office.

I doubt the perp who shot into Eric Cantor’s office is a conservative either.

Robinson’s claim doesn’t hold water – any water.  But the absurdity of Robinson’s claim demonstrates Democrat desperation.  That desperation leads to frantic efforts to distort poll results.

The publication “The Hill” offers another example of Democrat desperation – it accuses the “Drudge Report” of slanting its report on polls.

“Recently a Gallup poll, of course highlighted on Drudge, found that Obama's numbers had (then) turned more unfavorable than favorable. This has (now) dramatically changed, unreported by Drudge, with Obama's favorables now well above his unfavorables. The generic Democratic vote is leading the generic Republican vote in the last Gallup congressional election survey.”

Of course that is not at all what polls are showing.  Republicans continue leading the generic poll by double digits, and Obama’s favorables are hardly “well above his umfavorables.  Quite the contrary. From the liberal blog “Politico”:

“Democrats who held out hopes that President Barack Obama’s health reform win would mean a quick boost to the party’s political fortunes are getting a reality check – a reminder that it takes more than one good week to shake up a year of sliding polls.”

Obama’s approval in the Gallup daily tracking poll stands at 48 percent – near his all-time low of 46 percent in the three-day rolling average”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/35162.html#ixzz0jfO78ge4

Rasmussen also offers a daily tracking poll – Democrats and Obama find no encouragement there either.  A small blip was noted in the immediate wake of passage of Obama’s  scheme, but  the paths resumed almost immediately – opposition rising in support, Obama approval continuing its decline.

Polling is crucial in political planning and strategy, of course, but arguing over whose poll is the more accurate is a waste of time.  Polling is only a guide. Polls are to politics what x-rays are to surgery. Only one poll counts – that one comes in November.

But there are clear signs of what that result will be.  It’s not good news for Obama and his Democrat gangs.  They have to know and that knowledge is what is about to push them over the edge and inspire passage of even more extreme left wing legislation.

The Obama presidency may well have long range and very serious damage to the Democrat brand.  Without a serious event, the future of liberals is not rosy.

Desperation has two prongs – one prong is desperate to mitigate the growing unpopularity of Obama and his liberal efforts in general, the other prong a dash to shove as much of the far left agenda down the throats of unwilling Americans.

Take care. Be skeptical reading editorials and articles of the mainstream media. Beware pending Democrat legislation. It will likely become even more radical. 

Liberals have made “honest journalism” an oxymoron.  Outlets such as the Post and over-the-air TV network news operations are political weapons, not reliable news sources.

Passage of the health care plot was not an ending – it was firing an opening gun in what will become an even more bitter fight for the very soul of America. 

Buddy

The day’s top blogs:

1.

http://webmail.aol.com/31226-111/aol-1/en-us/Suite.aspx

 A threat to our nation: The growing gap between public and private sector pay

With news such as this from the Wall Street Journal (via LaborPains), it's no surprise that some of the richest counties in the United States are clustered around Washington DC.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), from 1998 to 2008 public employee compensation grew by 28.6%, compared with 19.3% for private workers. In the recession year of 2009, with almost no inflation and record budget deficits, more than half the states awarded pay raises to their employees. [...]

By the way, nearly this entire benefits gap is accounted for by unionized public employees. Nonunion public employees are paid roughly what private workers receive. What if government workers earned the average of what private workers earn? States and localities would save $339 billion a year from their more than $2.1 trillion budgets. These savings are larger than the combined estimated deficits for 2010 and 2011 of every state in America. [...]

So if your state is broke, this is a major reason. Eventually, governors, state legislators and city council members are going to have to decide whether protecting America's privileged class of government workers is a higher priority than funding such core functions of government as public safety. Something has to give. It's time to close the biggest pay gap in America.

Last year the number of unionized public sector workers exceeded those who work in the private sector. The results are catastrophic for our nation--Democrats are increasingly beholden to bosses from government unions such as SEIU and AFSCME to keep their coffers filled--and to keep them in office. Fortunately for the nearly 90 percent of those workers who aren't members of a union, there's an election this fall.

Of course at least for now, a majority of American's don't work for the government.

They pay the bills.

2.

From Rudi Giuliani:

"From granting the terrorists who attacked our nation the same constitutional rights you and I enjoy as American citizens to the reckless spending and debt that is bankrupting our nation to the reordering of one-sixth of the economy through nationalization of our health care system, the Obama Democrats are remaking America in their own elitist, liberal vision.

"Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and their leftist allies believe that turning America into a European social welfare state is the solution to the trials we face as a nation." A primer on how high taxes will stifle investment Henry Oliner

This is an oversimplified example, but if you can understand this you will understand how taxes affect investment.

Assume you have an investment opportunity. You can invest a dollar and you stand a 50% chance of losing the dollar and a 50% chance of making $2.  If you only stood a 50% chance of making $1 you would not make the investment because if you prorated the chance of making a dollar with losing a dollar the investment opportunity has no value.

If we tax the profits on the investment at 50% you reduce the payoff to $1 and you drive the value of the investment risk to zero. No rational investor would take the risk.

The closer you take the tax rate on the profit to 50%, the less likely one is to take the risk in this simplified scenario. ( One can argue that this is offset by the tax deduction of losses.  At the risk of complicating this example, taxes on gains are due in the year they are earned. Losses can  be applied against gains, but after that the tax payer is strictly limited to how much he can apply the losses against income in any year. Because of this the investor does not consider the value of a one dollar prospective tax loss equal or even close to the value of a one dollar prospective dollar profit.)

Currently the tax rate on capital gains is 15%. We are expecting Congress to raise it to 20%. The new health care legislation will now add the Medicare tax to investment income, up to 3.8%.  Added to the expected rate of 20% we are now looking at a rate of 23.8%, and increase of 58% over the old rate.  This is a big jump in taxes on investment return and it will substantially reduce the incentive of the investor to take risk. 

This new high investment tax rate will alter investment actions. One will be less likely to take capital gains and thus money will be allocated much less efficiently. Many investors expecting this new tax have likely pushed capital gains into prior periods to avoid the tax. They will also be less likely to make long term investment. Perhaps they will more likely invest in unproductive assets such as art that they can enjoy without producing income, or antique cars, jewelry,  or other consumable or collectable assets that will not generate a visible income to tax.

The result will be less investment in the assets that produce jobs and innovation. And with the reduction in investment assets,  the government will see a reduction in capital gains revenue in spite of the rise in the rates. Economist Arthur Laffer has demonstrated this effect repeatedly in our history of tax increases and decreases.

One can rationally argue that it is unfair for wage earners to be required  to pay the Medicare tax on earned income,  and to allow the wealthy  to avoid  paying  it on investment income. This may be true but it is irrelevant.  Money will go where it is welcomed, not where it is needed.  Is the urge to redistribute worth the action to reduce investment, innovation, jobs and ultimately the amount of dollars to redistribute?

Risk is more than the mathematical calculation; it is hazard plus outrage.  Like it or not the wealthy have options that Congress cannot control.  While the Congress may have been able to bribe and intimidate to barely get the votes they needed for health care reform, they neglected to consider how the investor votes.

Investors vote with their dollars, with their hearts, and with their feet.

Henry Oliner

Blogs at www.rebelyid.com

3.

The Progressives' Perfect Trojan Horse

Lloyd Marcus

As millions of my fellow Americans, I am extremely angry, outraged, and devastated by the Democrats' unbelievable arrogance and disdain for We The People. Despite our screaming "no" from the rooftops, they forced ObamaCare down our throats. Please forgive me for using the following crude saying, but it is very appropriate to describe what has happened. "Don't urinate on me and tell me it's raining."

Democrats say that their mission is to give all Americans health care.. The Democrats are lying. Signing ObamaCare into law against our will and the Constitution is tyranny and step one of their hideous goal of having as many Americans as possible dependent on government, thus controlling our lives and fulfilling Obama's promise to fundamentally transform America.

I keep asking myself: How did our government move so far from the normal procedures of getting things done? Could a white president have so successfully pulled off shredding the Constitution to further his agenda? I think not.

Ironically, proving that America is completely the opposite of the evil, racist country they relentlessly accuse her of being, progressives used America's goodness, guilt, and sense of fair play against her. In their quest to destroy America as we know it, progressives borrowed a brilliant scheme from Greek mythology.

They offered America a modern-day Trojan Horse, a beautifully crafted, golden, shiny new black man as a presidential candidate. Democrat Joe Biden lauded Obama as the first clean and articulate African-American candidate. Democrat Harry Reid said that Obama uses a black dialect only when he wants to.

White America relished the opportunity to vote for a black man, naïvely believing that they would never suffer the pain of being called racist again. Black Americans viewed casting their vote for Obama as the ultimate Affirmative Action for America's sins of the past.

Then there were the entitlement loser voters who said, "I'm votin' for the black dude who promises to take from those rich SOBs and give to me."

Just as the deceived Trojans dragged the beautifully crafted Trojan Horse into Troy as a symbol of their victory, deceived Americans embraced the progressives' young, handsome, articulate, and so-called moderate black presidential candidate as a symbol of their liberation from accusations of being a racist nation. Also like the Trojan Horse, Obama was filled with the enemy hiding inside.

Sunday, March 21, 2010, a secret door opened in Obama, the shiny golden black man. A raging army of Democrats charged out. Without mercy, they began their vicious, bloody slaughter of every value, freedom, and institution we Americans hold dear, launching the end of America as we know it.

Wielding swords of votes reeking with the putrid odor of backdoor deals, the Democrats landed a severe blow to America and individual rights by passing ObamaCare.

The mainstream liberal media has been relentlessly badgering the Tea Party movement with accusations of racism. Because I am a black Tea Party patriot, I am bombarded with interviewers asking me the same veiled question: "Why are you siding with these white racists against America's first African-American president?" I defend my fellow patriots who are white, stating, "These patriots do not give a hoot about Obama's skin color.. They simply love their country and oppose his radical agenda. Obama's race is not an issue."

Recently, I have come to believe that perhaps I am wrong about Obama's race not being an issue. In reality, Obama's presidency has everything to do with racism, but not from the Tea Party movement. Progressives and Obama have exploited his race from the rookie senator's virtually unchallenged presidential campaign to his unprecedented bullying of America into ObamaCare. Obama's race trumped all normal media scrutiny of him as a presidential candidate, and most recently, even the Constitution of the United States.. ObamaCare forces all Americans to purchase health care, which is clearly unconstitutional.

No white president could get away with boldly and arrogantly thwarting the will of the American people and ignoring laws. President Clinton tried universal health care. Bush tried social security reform. The American people said "no" to both presidents' proposals, and that was the end of it. So how can Obama get away with giving the American people the finger? The answer: He is black.

The mainstream liberal media continues to portray all who oppose Obama in any way as racist. Despite a list of failed policies, overreaches into the private sector, violations of the Constitution, and planned, destructive pieces of legislation too numerous to mention in this article, many Americans are still fearful of criticizing our first black president. Incredible.

My fellow Americans, you must not continue to allow yourselves to be "played" and intimidated by Obama's race or the historical context of his presidency. If we are to save America, the greatest nation on the planet, then Obama's progressive agenda must be stopped.

 -Lloyd Marcus, (black) unhyphenated American, singer/songwriter, entertainer, author, artist, and Tea Party patriot.

LloydMarcus.com

 

Monday's Web

The contents of these articles are based on Fact and Truth.  Challenges are invited. 

The day’s top political news:

 

Marco Rubio sets the pace in first Florida face-off for the GOP Senate nomination

Former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio used the first debate of the Republican Senate primary Sunday to repeatedly link Gov. Charlie Crist to President Barack Obama. The race provides a reflection of national political opinion.

In a 40-minute face-off broadcast nationally on “Fox News Sunday,” Rubio hammered Crist for supporting Obama’s 2009 economic stimulus package — a bill deeply unpopular with conservative voters likely to turn out for the August 24 primary.

It’s that frame on the race that has enabled the once-underfunded Rubio to stake out a double-digit lead against Crist, the early establishment favorite. Crist not only defended his embrace of the stimulus but said that he would have voted for it had he been in the Senate, making the case that Florida’s economy was in desperate straits at the time and that his decision reflected an example of “putting people above politics.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/35117.html#ixzz0jZVxWOGO

President Obama to take strong hand with Congress

An emboldened President Barack Obama will take a stronger hand with Congress in coming weeks, planning to push lawmakers to pass new regulations for Wall Street by September, the second anniversary of the meltdown, aides tell POLITICO.

The spring offensive, if successful, would allow Obama to claim concrete progress on all of his domestic priorities, despite a "lost year" between the passage of a stimulus package in February 2009 and the signing of health reform last week. On the list is immigration reform – amnesty, and other liberal initiatives.

Aides say that with the momentum from the most complex domestic bill to pass Congress in 45 years, Obama now will push Congress to close campaign-finance loopholes opened by the Citizens United case, adopt his overhaul of the No Child Left Behind education bill and perhaps even tackle a clean-energy bill.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/35116.html#ixzz0jZXJIIq3

Obama Job Approval at 51% After Healthcare Vote

President Barack Obama's job approval stands at 51% after the passage of landmark healthcare legislation. That is slightly better than, though not fundamentally changed from, his ratings for most of this month.

Obama's approval rating has hovered around 50% since November, and was precisely 50% in the last three days of Gallup polling before the vote took place. However, in recent weeks Obama has been consistently below the majority approval level and his ratings were generally the lowest of his presidency

The passage of healthcare reform in the House, a major victory for the Obama administration, has not yet had an overwhelmingly positive impact on Obama's approval rating. It appears, though, that the healthcare victory did provide enough momentum to put Obama back above the majority approval level for the time being.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/126989/Obama-Job-Approval-51-After-Healthcare-Vote.aspx

Opinion:
Heady days for Obama Democrats – ominous signs for those who are paying attention

These are heady days inside the Obama White House.  They passed the radical Obama Health care scheme and have gleefully gamboled across the political landscape for the past week.  They promote Nancy Pelosi as the most powerful woman in the world, and Obama announces a “Spring Offensive” through which he will push Congress to begin immediate work on passage of additional radical legislation.

Meanwhile, survey research shows Obama got no more than a minor blip from health care passage and even that blip is rapidly disappearing.  None the less, no matter how unpopular the Democrat congress is, despite Obama’s consistently slumping poll numbers, Democrats own the Oval Office and dominating majorities in both houses.

In short, until mid January – liberals can do whatever they wish.  Expect high intensity since it is unlikely they will have such an opportunity again any time soon.  The writing is on the wall, and the message is not a good one for Democrats.

For their part, Republicans have presented solid opposition.  This tells Democrat strategists they are unlikely to get bi-partisan support for any legislation.  Bi=partisanship, for the moment, is a victim of Democrat health care passage.

Expect renewed efforts to gain Senate passage of Cap and Trade – already passed by the House.  The legislation is a craftily hidden huge tax bill of the sort to warm the hearts of liberal Democrats everywhere.

Passage of Cap and Trade will increase family taxes by more than $3000 annually, plus cause a serious spike in the cost of most everything – groceries as one example.  Some liberals salute a potential rise to $7 a gallon for gasoline. In short, Cap and Trade passage will make another batch of liberal Democrats wealthy as a result of Al Gore’s fantasies and myths.  Meanwhile, the US economy will take a major hit.

Some media types conclude illegal immigration has lost its political impact because everyone has been focused on the debate over Obama’s health plan.  They are in for a big surprise when Obama begins pushing for amnesty and open borders.

Florida’s GOP Senate Primary – a reflection of Today’s American political scene

Meanwhile, its worth pointing out the debate on Fox News yesterday featuring former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio and incumbent Governor Charles Crist.  The two Republicans are battling for the Republican Senatorial nomination. Crist, with the firm backing of members of the party elites, led Rubio by double digits this time last year.  Crist, by all normal indications, was assured the nomination and election.

Marco Rubio, however, stepped forward and captured conservative support as a result of Governor Crist having supported Obama’s stimulus scam and was photographed hugging Obama.

“The hug” ignited fires of what came to be labeled “the Tea Party Movement”.  It began stirring in Florida when a spontaneous demonstration by conservatives occurred in Orlando – a central Florida city – bringing into the streets more than 4,000 people angry over government spending and economic issues.  Such protests have now spread to embrace other issues as well.

Today, Rubio leads Crist by double digits, and the momentum is distinctly in Rubio’s favor.  The Fox News debate did Crist no favors and probably locked home a Rubio victory.

To his credit, Crist renounced any thought of running as an Independent.

The importance of the Florida race lies in its reflection of the national political tendencies.  In a face off with more moderate party elites, conservatives these days, win.  Health care passage will likely spur voters even more toward the conservative side of things.

A Florida Democrat Senate candidate, Kendrick Meek, would be defeated badly by either Republican say current polls.  What that fact says about universal Democrat prospects in November, can only be speculated.

Buddy

The day’s top blogs:

1.

A retired Constitutional lawyer has read the entire proposed health care bill etc. Read his conclusions and pass this on as you wish.  This is stunning!

http://michaelconnelly.viviti.com/entries/general/the-truth-about-the-health-care-bills

 
The Truth About the Health Care Bills

Well, I have done it!  I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law.  I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.
 
To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying.  The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.
 
The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business, and put everyone into a government run system.  All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them will not be health care professionals.  Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled by the government.
 
However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface.  In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices.  Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated  If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.
 
The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government.  The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people, and the businesses they own.
 
The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with!  I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.
 
This legislation also provides for access, by the appointees of the Obama administration, of all of your personal healthcare direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital.  All of this is a protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures.  You can also forget about the right to privacy.  That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.
 
If you decide not to have healthcare insurance, or if you have private insurance that is not deemed acceptable to the Health Choices Administrator appointed by Obama, there will be a tax imposed on you.  It is called a tax instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However , that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the due process of law.
 
So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much, out the original ten in the Bill of Rights, that are effectively nullified by this law  It doesn't stop there though.
 
The 9th Amendment that provides: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;
 
The 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people.  Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.
 
<I>I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea.  This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights.  Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution." If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it, without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation.  If I voted for it anyway, I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.
 
For those who might doubt the nature of this threat, I suggest they consult the source, the US Constitution, and Bill of Rights. There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.
 
Michael Connelly Retired attorney, Constitutional Law Instructor Carrollton , Texas 
 
2.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/28/the-lefts-next-move-salary-caps/print/
 

EDITORIAL: The left's next move: Salary caps

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Emboldened by the passage of health care legislation, the Obama administration will set its sights on a new target - regulating how much money you can make.

Recipients of federal bailout money already face regulations designed to rein in "excessive" corporate salaries. Since the administration has proclaimed this first step a success, it is only a matter of time before it seeks broader control over private-sector compensation.

The administration gave itself a pat on the back for a job well done after "only" 16 of 104 senior corporate executives quit when their salaries fell under the pay czar's knife. The administration takes this as indisputable proof that high salaries are not needed to keep executives in their jobs.

The evidence, however, is far from compelling. Most executives are not going to abandon their companies instantly, and the cuts only went into effect in the last few weeks of 2009. While the salary reductions were substantial - on average a 74 percent cut compared to 2008 levels - there is no way to know whether companies are promising to make up the losses to their executives in the future because they think the regulations will be lifted eventually.

Kenneth R. Feinberg, the special master for executive compensation, is a lawyer with no experience running a business. To him, losing 15 percent of company leaders might seem to be an acceptable loss, but it is a different matter to the operations suddenly deprived of management experience and talent. Those firms have a financial stake in the outcome of their decisions. When pay is cut, will the executives be as careful? Will they work as hard? Will they retire sooner?

Such questions need not trouble a government regulator like Mr. Feinberg, who now wants to go after the 25 highest earners at each of 416 companies to slash their salaries. That could affect more than 10,000 high-level corporate officers, and it represents a massive government intervention into the marketplace. The notion that the government is going to decide how much people can earn is shocking, and the damage to the economy will be incalculable.

After taking over General Motors and the entire health care industry, it must seem like a small move to begin micromanaging the internal decisions of another 416 companies. The administration still hasn't learned the lessons from the last century: Central planning does not work.

3.

http://townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2010/03/28/a_birthright__maybe_not

A Birthright? Maybe Not.

George Will

WASHINGTON -- A simple reform would drain some scalding steam from immigration arguments that may soon again be at a roiling boil. It would bring the interpretation of the 14th Amendment into conformity with what the authors of its text intended, and with common sense, thereby removing an incentive for illegal immigration.

To end the practice of "birthright citizenship," all that is required is to correct the misinterpretation of that amendment's first sentence: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." From these words has flowed the practice of conferring citizenship on children born here to illegal immigrants.

A parent from a poor country, writes professor Lino Graglia of the University of Texas law school, "can hardly do more for a child than make him or her an American citizen, entitled to all the advantages of the American welfare state." Therefore, "It is difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry."

Writing in the Texas Review of Law and Politics, Graglia says this irrationality is rooted in a misunderstanding of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." What was this intended or understood to mean by those who wrote it in 1866 and ratified it in 1868? The authors and ratifiers could not have intended birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants because in 1868 there were and never had been any illegal immigrants because no law ever had restricted immigration.

If those who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment had imagined laws restricting immigration -- and had anticipated huge waves of illegal immigration -- is it reasonable to presume they would have wanted to provide the reward of citizenship to the children of the violators of those laws? Surely not.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 begins with language from which the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause is derived: "All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States." (Emphasis added.) The explicit exclusion of Indians from birthright citizenship was not repeated in the 14th Amendment because it was considered unnecessary. Although Indians were at least partially subject to U.S. jurisdiction, they owed allegiance to their tribes, not the United States. This reasoning -- divided allegiance -- applies equally to exclude the children of resident aliens, legal as well as illegal, from birthright citizenship. Indeed, today's regulations issued by the departments of Homeland Security and Justice stipulate:

"A person born in the United States to a foreign diplomatic officer accredited to the United States, as a matter of international law, is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That person is not a United States citizen under the 14th Amendment."

Sen. Lyman Trumbull of Illinois was, Graglia writes, one of two "principal authors of the citizenship clauses in 1866 act and the 14th Amendment." He said that "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" meant subject to its "complete" jurisdiction, meaning "not owing allegiance to anybody else." Hence children whose Indian parents had tribal allegiances were excluded from birthright citizenship.

Appropriately, in 1884 the Supreme Court held that children born to Indian parents were not born "subject to" U.S. jurisdiction because, among other reasons, the person so born could not change his status by his "own will without the action or assent of the United States." And "no one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent." Graglia says this decision "seemed to establish" that U.S. citizenship is "a consensual relation, requiring the consent of the United States." So: "This would clearly settle the question of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens. There cannot be a more total or forceful denial of consent to a person's citizenship than to make the source of that person's presence in the nation illegal."

Congress has heard testimony estimating that more than two-thirds of all births in Los Angeles public hospitals, and more than half of all births in that city, and nearly 10 percent of all births in the nation in recent years, have been to illegal immigrant mothers. Graglia seems to establish that there is no constitutional impediment to Congress ending the granting of birthright citizenship to persons whose presence here is "not only without the government's consent but in violation of its law."

Sunday's Web

The contents of these articles are based on Fact and Truth.  Challenges are invited. 

The day’s top political news:

Obama announces 15 recess appointments, scolds GOP

Obama announces he will bypass a vacationing Senate and name 15 people to key administration jobs, wielding for the first time the blunt political tool known as the recess appointment.

The move immediately deepened the divide between the Democratic president and Republicans in the Senate following a long, bruising fight over health care. Obama revealed his decision by blistering Republicans, accusing them of holding up nominees for months solely to try to score a political advantage on him.

The 15 appointees to boards and agencies include the contentious choice of union lawyer Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board. Republicans had blocked his nomination on grounds he would bring a radical pro-union agenda to the job, and they called on Obama not to appoint Becker over the recess.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100327/D9EN7A9O0.html

Palin to tea party rally: Don't sit down, shut up

Sarah Palin told thousands of tea party activists assembled in the dusty Nevada desert Saturday that Sen. Harry Reid will have to explain his votes when he comes back to his hometown to campaign.

The wind whipped U.S. flags behind the former Alaska governor as she stood on a makeshift stage, holding a microphone and her notes and speaking to a cheering crowd. She told them Reid, fighting for re-election, is "gambling away our future."

At least 9,000 people streamed into tiny Searchlight, a former mining town 60 miles south of Las Vegas, bringing American flags, "Don't Tread on Me" signs and outspoken anger toward Reid, President Barack Obama and the health care overhaul.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100328/D9ENAGDO0.html

White men shun Democrats

Millions of white men who voted for Barack Obama are walking away from the Democratic Party, and it appears increasingly likely that they'll take the midterms elections in November with them. Their departure could well lead to a GOP landslide on a scale not

For more than three decades before the 2008 election, no Democratic president had won a majority of the electorate. In part, that was because of low support -- never more than 38 percent -- among white male voters. Things changed with Obama, who not only won a majority of all people voting, but also pulled in 41 percent of white male voters.

Polling suggests that the shift was not because of Obama but because of the financial meltdown that preceded the election. It was only after the economic collapse that Obama's white male support climbed above the 38 percent ceiling. It was also at that point that Obama first sustained a clear majority among all registered voters, according to the Gallup tracking poll.

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=915922&category=OPINION#ixzz0jTm8882H

Opinion:
The Tea Party Movement – the label doesn’t begin to tell it all

It’s time to drop the convenient catch-all description of the current conservative activism as the “Tea Party Movement”.  The title was appropriate when the movement was first born (about a year ago) with economic concerns causing shouts of outrage.  The outrage found a willing audience and the movement took off.  Now spending is only one issue.

The result has been a major political revolution across the entire country.

Republican victories in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts reflect the massive conservative momentum that has been gathering steam.  Tea parties have provided visible support, per se, but today the term doesn’t begin to accurately label what is afoot.

Once focused primarily on financial concerns, the movement now focuses on opposition to the Obama health scheme, illegal immigration, and, among those who understand the issue, Cap and Trade.

Reports today say one in four Americans actually contacted their elected officials in Washington concerning health care.  That’s an incredible fact.

Small groups of conservatives have adopted various forms of “tea party” in their titles, but such small groups are much like tips of ice bergs --  a massive structure lies hidden beneath the surface.  Democrats seem to only see the tips, oblivious to the mass.

Huge majorities of voters won the recent gubernatorial elections and have achieved far less obvious conservative victories in other arenas as well.  Conservative domination of the Texas text book revision process is among the more important victories that got less publicity than its importance deserved.

Conservatives have now gained control of the textbook process and there is hope it’s a first step on a long road back to repairing the damage to public education liberals and the NEA union have inflicted on public school students..

This is a reflection of the political movement the media dubs “tea partiers”.  It is highly unlikely any of those on the Texas textbook group ever attended or even considered attending any “tea party” meeting.  If asked, they might even deny even a thought of such a thing.   Few voters in Massachusetts are likely to have attended a tea party – and don’t even have a de-coder ring.  Its not an organization, it’s a movement.

It doesn’t matter – it’s the impact and result that is driving politics today, and – after an aberration in the last two elections – returning the country to a path that can potentially lead to the salvation of the country.

Democrats – especially those in Washington – don’t have a remote clue about all this.  If they do, then they are responding with a less than intelligent reaction.  The Pelosi march prior to the health care vote – holding her giant gavel as she would a weapon, and arm in arm with other Democrats, was an in-your-face taunt of those Americans who oppose the Obama scheme.  That’s a majority of Americans.  As if that was not stupid enough, Obama himself, “compounded the felony” by sarcastically chiding health care opponents in his “victory lap” speech in Iowa.  He challenged opponents to “go for it” in defeating Democrats in November.

In truth, he was giving a middle finger salute to an American majority already seething over the political outcome he was celebrating with such glee.  For Conservatives, it was not simply a case of losing an important issue, a majority were also outraged by the process that led to passage. 

Democrat Senate Leader Harry Reid slammed shut his office door and crafted the health bill in total secrecy.  He openly rejected Republicans and the American public and put the extreme legislation together in Democrat isolation – then he sold it through a cluster of  outrageous political bribes.

Things got worse when Democrats declared their intent to impose the health scheme.  Things were no better in the House.  Of course Pelosi and Reid are setting records for low poll ratings. When popularity dips to single digits, not many people are following.

Obama got a small bump in the polls after his health scheme victory – less than that from his State of the Union speech – and the predictable decline has now resumed.

After all, it is Obama himself, and the dominating Democrat majorities in both houses that are as responsible as any other factors for creating what is called the “tea party movement”.  They have combined to provide an extremist effort against which Conservatives can push.  Liberal actions have been so outrageous that “whipping up a crowd” has been far easier.

“We couldn’t have done it without the Democrats” is an apt quote from conservatives.  Radical action makes it easy to rally opposition and Democrats and Obama are radicals. 

Making recess appointments today while the Senate is on vacation, is a tactic most all Presidents have used.  Obama, however, continues a pattern of extremism in the people he chooses.  Politically, it was not a smart move.

In the end, it probably doesn’t matter.  Barring a major event, Democrats will take a bath at the polls in November.  The only question now is how great that defeat will be.  Retaking control of both Houses is a distant and unlikely goal, but given the current political movement – label it anyway you wish – attaining such a goal is not out of the question.

It doesn’t matter what it’s called, the current conservative movement ranks among the most important such happenings in the nation’s history.  Even in New Jersey and Massachusetts it has a majority.  In southern states such as Alabama, Mississippi and Georgia, it may be as widespread and popular as college football.  It doesn’t get bigger than that.

Buddy

The top blogs:

1.

America has changed its course, perhaps forever

PETE DU PONT

Late Sunday night America made its largest public-policy course change since the 1930s: Congress moved 17% of our national economy from the market place to full regulation and control by the federal government. The vote in the House was close, 219-212, but our country's health care system will now be organized, operated and regulated by the federal government.

Tens of thousands of new employees, supervisors and investigators will be in charge of our health-care system's day-to-day operations. And the Heritage Foundation estimates the original Senate bill will retard economic growth to the tune of 620,000 lost jobs.

Add to that the new income-tax increases that will soon be with us. The Bush tax-rate reductions expire at the end of this year, so that the top personal income tax rate will go from 35% to 39.6% and the dividend and capital gains tax rates will rise from 15% to 20%.

Then will come the ObamaCare tax increases. There will be a new 3.8% Medicare tax increase on investment incomes--interest, dividends, capital gains, annuities, royalties and rents--for individuals with annual adjusted gross incomes over $200,000. Those increased rates are estimated to reduce disposable income by $17.3 billion a year. A second Medicare tax increase will take 0.9% of upper-income workers' earnings.

Soon the government will fully regulate health care. As The Wall Street Journal pointed out last weekend, "ObamaCare is really about who commands the country's medical resources. It vastly accelerates the march towards a totally state driven system . . . [and] government rationing will become inevitable [while] . . . doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies will over time become public utilities." Even worse, the government will begin to decide "what kind of treatment options patients are allowed to receive."

And a Republican House Ways and Means Committee report estimated that 16,500 IRS agents will be employed to make sure that people sign up--and pay for--the health insurance they will be forced to purchase.

Consider the impact these policies will have on our country and all of us.

First, tax rates will continue to increase for most everyone as the federal government needs more revenue to cover ever-expanding expenditures. Economist Stephen Entin estimates that the investment taxes discussed above would depress gross domestic product by some 1.3%, reduce capital formation by 3.4%, and thus reduce the after-tax incomes of everyone not paying these taxes by perhaps 1.2%. In other words, federal taxes will rise and personal incomes will fall.

Second, our national debt will continue to mount. From about 1970 to 2008, the U.S. government debt was between 33% and 69% of GDP. The Obama administration projects the national debt will increase to 100% by 2012 and to over $25 trillion by 2020. This will result in fewer jobs and less income for many years as it suppresses our economy.

Third, the federal government's massive interventions, from the General Motors bailout to a prospective cap-and-trade policy, command and control of national health care, and the large increases in the size and scope of government, will slow our growth and depress our economy even more.

Finally there comes the growing loss of trust in America's government. We have seen the national disbelief in the huge government expansions, spending and control over our society. In the health-care debate people figured that the whole bill was some sort of scam to help senators and congressmen in their home districts. There was the Cornhusker Kickback for Nebraska, special dollars for Tennessee, North Dakota, Louisiana, Connecticut, and other states and districts.

As a result of last Sunday's vote, the Europeanization of America is coming to pass, for individual choice and opportunity are being replaced by statism.

Contrast this new American policy direction with our country's history, and it leads to an even worse conclusion. We held our country together in the Civil War, fought two wars in Europe to keep its nations free, won the Cold War, survived the social upheavals of the 1960s and the economic challenges of the '70s, and built a greatly expanded American economy and opportunities in the 1980s.

But now, for the first time in our history, we are becoming just another European nation, with bigger government, higher taxes, more regulation of almost everything, and the basic public-policy preference that the government, not we the people, should be in charge of the nation's choices.

So America has indeed changed, perhaps forever, as the White House and brazen congressional leadership nationalized 17% of our economy, replacing individual choices with governmental regulation. The sunset of the American belief in economic growth and individual choice and responsibility is now with us. If we do not change our course, that will be a shame.

2.

Kansas-Nebraska Act 1854, Redux

A Commentary By Tony Blankley

We are now beginning to enter the Kansas-Nebraska Act stage of the socialist crisis of the Republic. At our constitutional founding, the evil of slavery had been crudely evaded. In 1820, the Missouri Compromise was enacted that prohibited the abomination north of 36/30 degrees latitude (about the middle of Missouri).

But with the western push of the frontier, a new compromise was needed. So the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 decreed that the "popular sovereignty" of each territory should decide whether they would be slave or free states. But then, adherents of both the abomination and freedom migrated to Kansas to struggle -- with their bodily presence -- for their respective causes. First there was politics. Then the political rhetoric turned violent. Then real violence ensued. Kansas became known as Bleeding Kansas. John Brown, most famously, applied unjustified, murderous violence for his righteous cause of ending slavery and was hanged, but the Civil War ensued because, as Lincoln sagely explained:

"A House divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure; permanently half slave and half free.

I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided.

It will become all one thing or all the other.

Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new -- North as well as South."

Now we enter our History's second stage in the struggle against the abomination of socialism. Just as slavery had been contained in the South, so entitlement socialism has, until this week, been more or less contained in service to only the poor and the elderly -- and even in those programs (for the elderly) on the principle of beneficiaries paying monthly premiums for the benefits they will later get (Medicare/ Social Security). Only the poor under Medicaid received benefit without premium payment.

But now, just as the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 broke through the slave state limitation to the South, the Democratic Party's 2010 health care law has broken socialism's boundary of being so limited. Now, the chains of socialism are to be clamped on to the able-bodied middle class -- not merely the already presumed helpless poor and old who have paid their insurance premiums.

Even the New York Times -- after the vote -- admits what the bigger goal has been all along. In Wednesday's edition ("In Health Care Bill, Obama Attacks Wealth Inequality" by David Leonhardt), they point out: " Beyond the health reform's effect on the medical system, it is the centerpiece of his deliberate effort to end what historians have called the age of Reagan. ... Speaking to an ebullient audience of Democratic legislators and White House aides at the bill-signing ceremony on Tuesday, Mr. Obama claimed that health reform would 'mark a new season in America.'.... Above all, the central question that both the Reagan and Obama administrations have tried to answer -- what is the proper balance between the market and the government? -- remains unresolved. But the bill signed on Tuesday certainly shifts our place on that spectrum."

I thank The New York Times for that honest statement of historic fact.

For example, the new law takes away from insurance companies the right to charge for insurance based on actuarial risk -- which is the essence of insurance. Now they will charge what the politicians tell them to charge -- and pay such benefits as the politicians order them to pay. They may, for a while, make money, but that will be at the sufferance of the politicians. One may call this mere regulation, but it is regulation to such a degree that it constitutes effective ownership of the insurance company. The former equity holders in such companies are now merely nominal owners. Also, the new law provides for taxes on investment income to pay for socialized health care, sucking out the lifeblood of our economy to the deathbeds of the destitute.

When these intrusions are combined with 1) the nationalization of GM and Chrysler, 2) the partial nationalization of the banks, 3) the establishment of trillion-dollar taxpayer-funded slush funds (stimulus package and TARP) and 4) the planned 10-year, $10 trillion of further government debt (which steals from our children and grandchildren dollars yet unmade by them to pay foreign debt holders), the center of gravity of our economy moves from the private sector to the public sector.

And just as the free states could not tolerate the spread of slavery into their midst, so, too, free middle-class America -- if it still has its historic character -- will not tolerate the yoke of socialism put upon our necks.

First, the unambiguous will of the majority has been defied by the vote of Congress last Sunday.

Come November, we shall see whether the system can still turn the popular will into the constitutionally permissible legislative will of the majority. If it can, all will be well and the crisis will end. Rallying the vote between now and November is roughly equivalent to the early stage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act period -- people started migrating to Kansas to support their convictions.

But come November, if the majority still opposes the socializing of health care delivery and the other central government intrusions, and yet the corrupt bargains and constitutional distortions of Washington deny that will its just expression -- then, for the second time in our history, we enter that dangerous period where the House resolves its temporary division. Let us devoutly pray --and commit to ourselves -- that this time freedom shall be reacquired … peaceably.

Tony Blankley is executive vice president of Edelman public relations in Washington.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

3.

White men shun Democrats

DAVID PAUL KUHN

Millions of white men who voted for Barack Obama are walking away from the Democratic Party, and it appears increasingly likely that they'll take the midterms elections in November with them. Their departure could well lead to a GOP landslide on a scale not seen since 1994.

For more than three decades before the 2008 election, no Democratic president had won a majority of the electorate. In part, that was because of low support -- never more than 38 percent -- among white male voters. Things changed with Obama, who not only won a majority of all people voting, but also pulled in 41 percent of white male voters.

Polling suggests that the shift was not because of Obama but because of the financial meltdown that preceded the election. It was only after the economic collapse that Obama's white male support climbed above the 38 percent ceiling. It was also at that point that Obama first sustained a clear majority among all registered voters, according to the Gallup tracking poll.

It looked for a moment as though Democrats had finally reached the men of Bruce Springsteen's music, bringing them around to the progressive values Springsteen himself has long endorsed. But liberal analysts failed to understand that these new Democrats were still firmly rooted in American moderation.

Pollsters regularly ask voters whether they would rather see a Democrat or Republican win their district. By February, support for Democrats among white people (male and female) was three percentage points lower than in February 1994, the year of the last Republican landslide.

Today, among whites, only 35 percent of men and 43 percent of women say they will back Democrats in the fall election. Women's preferences have remained steady since July 2009. But white men's support for a Democratic Congress has fallen eight percentage points, according to Gallup.

White men have moved away from Obama as well. The same proportion of white women approve of him -- 46 percent, according to Gallup -- as voted for him in 2008. But only 38 percent of white men approve of the President, which means that millions of white men who voted for Obama have now lost faith in him.

The migration of white men from the Democratic Party was evident in the election of Republican Scott Brown in Massachusetts. His opponent, a white woman, won 52 percent of white women. But white men favored Brown by a 60 percent to 38 percent margin, according to Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates polling.

It's no accident that the flight of white males from the Democratic Party has come as the government has assumed a bigger role, including in banking and health care. Among whites, 71 percent of men and 56 percent of women favor a smaller government with fewer services over a larger government with more services, according to ABC/Washington Post polling.

Obama's brand of liberalism is exactly the sort likely to drive such voters away. More like LBJ's than FDR's, Obama-style liberalism favors benefits over relief, a safety net over direct job programs, health care and environmental reform over financial reform and a stimulus package that has focused more on social service jobs -- health care work, teaching and the like -- than on the areas where a majority of job losses occurred: construction, manufacturing and related sectors.

This recession remains disproportionately a "he-cession." Men account for at least seven of 10 workers who lost jobs, according to the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics data. Nearly half of the casualties are white men, who held 46 percent of all jobs lost.

In 1994, liberals tried to explain their thinning ranks by casting aspersions on the white men who were fleeing, and the media took up the cry. The term "angry white male" or "angry white men" was mentioned 37 times in English-language news media contained in the Nexis database between 1980 and the 1994 election. In the following year, the phrases appear 2,306 times.

Tarnishing their opponents as merely "angry" was poor politics for the Democrats.

Liberals know what it's like to have their views -- most recently on the war in Iraq or George W. Bush -- caricatured as merely irrational anger. Most voters vote their interests. And many white men by the 1980s had decided the Democrats were no longer interested in them.

Think about the average working man. He has already seen financial bailouts for the rich folks above him. Now he sees a health care bailout for the poor folks below him. Big government represents lots of costs and little gain.

Meanwhile, like many women, these men are simply trying to push ahead without being pushed under. Some once believed in Obama. Now they feel forgotten.

Government can only do so much. But recall the Depression. FDR's focus on the economy was single-minded and relentless. Hard times continued, but men never doubted that FDR was trying to do right by them. Democrats should think about why they aren't given that same benefit of the doubt today.

David Paul Kuhn is chief political correspondent for RealClearPolitics and the author of "The Neglected Voter: White Men and the Democratic Dilemma." He wrote this for the Los Angeles Times.
Copyright 1996-2010, Capital Newspapers Division of The Hearst Corporation, Albany, NY
 

Saturday's Web

NOTE:  We regret having been unable to publish the site for the last two days.  Technical problems arose, but have been resolved.

The contents of these articles are based on Fact and Truth.  Challenges are invited. 

The day’s top political news:

Scott Brown: President's Rhetoric 'Inappropriate'

Republicans are not backing down in the face of Democrats' landmark health care victory this week. Instead, the moment has energized some members of the party, giving them a cause to rally around. Massachusetts Republican defends his decision to vote across party lines.

Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., who took office as the 41st vote against health care reform in the Senate, said today it's time to "collectively fix this bill" and that he's prepared to lead the charge to do just that.

Brown's victory in a special election in January to claim the late Ten Kennedy's Senate seat was seen by many Republicans as an indication of popular opposition to Democrats' health care reform effort and a call for more focus on the economy and jobs. Brown says Democrats still haven't gotten the message, taking a shot at President Obama's emphasis on health care.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/scott-brown-sarah-palin-john-mccain-lead-republican/story?id=10207965

Transportation Department Embraces Bikes, practicality and common sense take another hit from the Obama Administation

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has announced a “major policy revision” that aims to give bicycling and walking the same policy and economic consideration as driving.“Today I want to announce a sea change,” he wrote on his blog last week. “This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of nonmotorized.”

The new policy, which was introduced a few days after Mr. LaHood gave a well-received speech from atop a table at the National Bike Summit, is said to reflect the Transportation Department’s support for the development of fully integrated transportation networks.

It calls on state and local governments to go beyond minimum planning and maintenance requirements to provide convenient and safe amenities for bikers and walkers. “Walking and biking should not be an afterthought in roadway design,” the policy states.

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/transportation-department-embraces-bikes-and-business-groups-cry-foul/

New York Democrat Tony Weiner: “Palin Is Stoking Liberal Hate”

Threats against congressmen who voted for the health care bill were tuned up a notch Thursday when Rep. Anthony Weiner's office received a letter containing white powder.

The NYPD's field tests ruled the white powder was not hazardous.  The FBI was also on the scene. It is investigating vandalism and threats to almost a dozen congressmen across the country. 

Though threats have been made against both party members, the media is being used to suggest liberal victims are more numerous. Virginia Republican Eric Cantor’s office was hit by gunfire.
 
http://wcbstv.com/local/white.powder.anthony.2.1590058.html

Opinion:
Health care and the aftermath

Obama was arrogant and expansive when he, as some reports noted, “took a victory lap” in a speech in Iowa.

He made fun of those who described the Democrat victory as an “Armageddon”.  His teleprompter at full speed, he chortled – noting he had looked for asteroids falling and found none.

“There are none so blind as those who will not see” applies.

Democrats have been giddy in the health care aftermath – even returning to “politicking” by suggesting liberal Democrats who voted for the Obama health scheme were being besieged with voice mail and email threats.  (Capitol officials report the level of such threats, telephone and email, has not risen at all.)

For that matter, conservative Congressmen have received their share of sniping and threats.  Back in the days in which I was a target of threats, an old hand advised me not to worry about those who threaten loudly.  He said “it’s those who wait quietly” who are the real dangers..

I suspect he was right.

Republican Eric Cantor was on target in his assaults on Democrats using “threats” as political tactics. Cantor’s own Virginia office was shot at. 

The FBI is investigating the threats – as they most certainly should.  Threatening anyone is reprehensible and unacceptable.  Those who engage in such things should be identified, prosecuted, and punished.  So should those who make false accusations.

Meanwhile, Obama was again moved to preach about his health scheme – feeling it necessary to continue selling.  After all, “snake oil” is medicine.  He and other Democrats such as Speaker Nancy Pelosi are in full gloat.  Of course, Bart Stupak, the Michigan Democrat Congressman whose reversal made passage of the bill possible, is the designated goat, left hanging by his party and taking much deserved heat for his sudden change of heart.

Stupak is either the dumbest member of Congress, or a part of a cynical political tactic. 

Obama may be delighted and dancing these days, but it’s a “not so fast my friend” sort of moment.  Checking the polls, Obama got an expected bounce, but it will probably be momentary.  In any case, his support has not matched the momentary bump he got after the State of the Union speech…a bump that collapsed quite quickly.

Check the Rasmussen daily tracking poll.  They are not good news for Obama.  His support has trended constantly downward, and opposition has risen with an equal consistency. 

Of course the real measure of the political impact of the Obama health scheme will be election outcomes.  But some indication will come from primary voting.  Watch for conservative candidates to do better than those who are not conservatives.  In that regard, perception is the key. “Don’t bother me with fact, my mind is made up” becomes the decision making process for hoards of voters.

In his Iowa speech, Obama noted this about Republicans: ”They are actually going to run on a platform of repeal”.  Yes that is true.  Obama had a “go for it moment” challenging Republicans.  No need, the health scheme is badly flawed.  Especially for seniors, its very bad.  Republicans will certainly take up that challenge and make repeal a battle cry issue.

Meanwhile, some Congressmen and Senators may be ambushed at home if they hold town hall meetings in the just starting Easter recess. 

When the recess is over, Obama threatens to move on plans that, in effect, will support illegal immigration.  Obama wants amnesty, yet a majority of American voters reject the idea – and with intensity.

Passage of his health scheme is behind him, but Obama is far from being out of the wilderness.  He seems intent on push farther and father into the heavy political bush of the far left. .

After all, despite his denials, Obama IS an ideologue.  Very much an ideologue at that.

Buddy

The day’s top blogs:

1.

Rep. Spencer Bachus, top Republican on the Congressional Financial Services Committee, takes on Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner.

Charles Gasparino

You can add Republican Congressman Spencer Bachus to the long and growing list of people who think Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner favored Wall Street over Main Street during the financial crisis, FBN has learned.

At issue for Bachus, the ranking Republican of the House Financial Services Committee, is the government's bailout of insurance giant American International Group (AIG), and how the government completely covered the claims of big firms like Goldman Sachs (GS), but is allowing smaller, community and regional banks that are owed money to take far less than the full amount of their claims.

Even more, what began as a war of words during a congressional hearing last year has now blown up as a nasty battle between the two, with Bachus demanding hearings into the matter and more testimony from the Treasury secretary, FBN has learned.

The AIG bailout cost the American taxpayer more than $180 billion, and is by far the largest single cash infusion into a company during the financial crisis. Much of the money was spent on covering so-called credit default swaps held by Wall Street firms like Goldman and foreign banks. (A credit default swap is essentially an insurance policy to cover losses on holdings of debt.)

Goldman, like the foreign banks, held billions of dollars of complex debt on its balance sheet, which would have produced massive losses during the financial crisis if the government, led by Geithner, then the president of the New York Fed, didn't agree to bailout AIG, which didn’t have the cash to cover those claims.

Geithner believed that by saving AIG, the government saved the financial system from insolvency. Goldman and other holders of credit default swaps were covered entirely for their investments in toxic mortgage debt at 100 cents on the dollar.

But others, including Bachus, believe the government essentially gave the big Wall Street firms a sweet-heart deal by making them completely whole. Moreover, the government is playing favorite; as many as 20 community and regional banks are owed money from AIG, which is still 80 percent owned by the Federal Reserve as part of its bailout, but they are being forced to accept far less than 100 cents on the dollar.

"Secretary Geithner has said that paying AIG's domestic and foreign counterparties 100 cents on the dollar was the 'right thing to do,'" Bachus said in an interview. "If it’s the right thing to do for the megabanks, it is the right thing to do for community and regional banks."

A spokeswoman for Bachus said Democrat Barney Frank, chairman of the committee, is refusing to hold hearings.

"What they're saying to us is that we want to look forward not backward," said spokeswoman Marisol Garibay.

Press officials for Frank and Geithner did not return calls for comment.

The Geithner-Bachus brouhaha is just the latest bit of controversy for the Treasury secretary. Over the past year, he has made ill-timed statements that sent the markets reeling, and he has looked unsteady during congressional hearings when explaining the bailout of the financial system, particularly big Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs, which received tens of billions of dollars in direct and indirect bailout money, while paying their executives huge bonuses.

The betting in Washington is that Geithner will probably leave the administration after the midterm elections, particularly if the Republicans win the majority in the house or the senate.

Before he leaves, however, Bachus wants one more crack at Geithner; the two squared off in March of last year, when Bachus was critical of Geithner for not forcing the big banks to take less than 100 cents on the dollar. Since then they have exchanged several letters on the community bank vs. megabank issue

2.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/26/little-known-long-termhealth-care-provision-budget-buster-say-critics/

Little-Known Health Care Law Provision Is a Budget Buster, Critics Say

William La Jeunesse

FOXNews.com

While Congress spent the last year debating how to provide health insurance for the uninsured, a little-known provision slipped into the heath care law that could cost some Americans upwards of $2,000 a year.

The Class Act, otherwise known as the Community Living Assistance Services and Support Act, is the federal government's first long-term care insurance program.

Under-reported and the under the radar of most lawmakers, the program will allow workers to have an average of roughly $150 or $240 a month, based on age and salary, automatically deducted from their paycheck to save for long-term care.

The Congressional Budget Office expects the government will collect $109 billion in premiums by 2019.

Supporters say the program will relieve pressure on Medicaid and should help keep us out of nursing homes by enabling Americans to save for something most will eventually need -- assistance in eating, bathing or dressing in their old age.

Opponents say the provision is little more than a short-term revenue fix that will eventually add to the federal deficit.

"This is a scary proposition where the government passed a huge new entitlement program with gimmicks and tricks and the American people don't know they will be automatically enrolled in it by their employer if they don’t watch out," said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA).

Nunes says Republicans were blindsided by the provision because they were unable to see the final bill until the very end. But Democratic supporters say the provision, which was championed by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, should not be controversial.

"It promotes independence and choice for people who need long-term care, and over time it will help millions stay where they want to, which is at home," says Jim Firman, director of the National Council on Aging.

Scheduled to go into effect in January, actual deductions could take place in 2012.

Here's how the program will work:

-- The federal government will approach employers next year about alerting workers to the proposed deduction.

-- The deduction will work on a sliding scale based on age. Younger workers will be charged less, older workers more. The Congressional Budget Office pegged the average monthly deduction at $146. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services put it higher, at $240.

-- After a five-year vesting period, enrollees who need help bathing, eating or dressing will be eligible to take out benefits, estimated to be around $75 a day for in-home care.

"Seventy-five dollars a day in flex cash will be enough for most people who are at home to stay at home, which is where they want to be," Firman said. "We are convinced a cash benefit is the best way for consumer to get what they want."

While the plan's opponents don't question the need for long-term care, they say the federal government should not be managing it, and they believe the program will eventually add to the deficit.

"This creates a whole new bureaucracy that is going to break this country," Nunes said. "In the early years there will be money in it, but at the end of the day there won't be enough money to cover the problems because there will be too many people in the program."

The statute says the program is designed to be self-sustaining, with an advisory board to assure the fund remains solvent. But opponents say the fine print already tells another story. Unless modifications are made, according to a CBO analysis of the bill, "the program will add to future federal budget deficits in a large and growing fashion."

Supporters and detractors admit much needs to be worked out, and eventually premiums will be based on how many Americans actually sign up for the insurance.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/obamas_empty_healthcare_victor.html

 3.

Obama's Empty Health Care Victory

J.R. Dunn

One major fantasy of American liberalism is the illusion that they get the last word. That the debate is over when they say it is. That their actions are irreversible, that their decisions and conclusions have both the firmness and the weight of the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, and the Eightfold Way combined, and that nothing in the human universe can ever reverse them once made. We have heard this concerning abortion, concerning climate change, and now, concerning health-care "reform."

This is exactly the way that Roe v. Wade was unveiled in 1973 -- both Warren Burger and Harry Blackmun, the tag team that put that one over, declared that there would be no controversy whatsoever and that a tidy round of state lawmaking would tie up the final loose ends. The actual conflagration that greeted the decision, and which continues to this day, left them and the liberal elite they represented utterly dumbfounded.
 
All this reveals a profound misunderstanding of human nature, an almost childlike conviction that what the book says goes, that the rules are sacrosanct, and that if you're in a position to make those rules -- as American liberals like to think they are -- then the common people simply have to do things your way.
 
That's how it's supposed to work with ObamaCare. Now that Congress has spoken, and the law is on the books, we're supposed to line up and silently take our orders. Forget the chicanery, the sleazy side deals; forget the simple lack of constitutional legitimacy of the thing. It's on the books now, so we have to obey. So says seventy years of modern liberalism.

 4.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/25/AR2010032501309.html
 

Cuban leader applauds US health-care reform bill

PAUL HAVEN
The Associated Press

HAVANA -- It perhaps was not the endorsement President Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress were looking for.

Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro on Thursday declared passage of American health care reform "a miracle" and a major victory for Obama's presidency, but couldn't help chide the United States for taking so long to enact what communist Cuba achieved decades ago.

"We consider health reform to have been an important battle and a success of his (Obama's) government," Castro wrote in an essay published in state media, adding that it would strengthen the president's hand against lobbyists and "mercenaries."

But the Cuban leader also used the lengthy piece to criticize the American president for his lack of leadership on climate change and immigration reform, and for his decision to send more troops to Afghanistan, among many other things.

And he said it was remarkable that the most powerful country on earth took more than two centuries from its founding to approve something as basic as health benefits for all.

"It is really incredible that 234 years after the Declaration of Independence ... the government of that country has approved medical attention for the majority of its citizens, something that Cuba was able to do half a century ago," Castro wrote.

The longtime Cuban leader - who ceded power to his brother Raul in 2008 - has continued to pronounce his thoughts on world issues though frequent essays, titled "Reflections," which are published in state newspapers.

Cuba provides free health care and education to all its citizens, and heavily subsidizes food, housing, utilities and transportation, policies that have earned it global praise. The government has warned that some of those benefits are no longer sustainable given Cuba's ever-struggling economy, though it has so far not made major changes.

In recent speeches, Raul Castro has singled out medicine as an area where the government needs to be spending less, but he has not elaborated.

While Fidel Castro was initially positive about Obama, his essays have become increasingly hostile in recent months as relations between Cuba and the United States have soured. Washington has been increasingly alarmed by Cuba's treatment of political dissidents - one of whom died in February after a long hunger strike.

Cuba was irate over the island's inclusion earlier this year on a list of countries Washington considers to be state sponsors of terrorism. Tensions have also risen following the arrest in December of a U.S. government contractor that Havana accuses of spying.

In Thursday's essay, Castro called Obama a "fanatic believer in capitalist imperialism" but also praised him as "unquestionably intelligent."

"I hope that the stupid things he sometimes says about Cuba don't cloud over that intelligence," he said.

Needless to say, nothing of the sort is going to happen. This battle has only started. Obama has his bill? Indeed he does -- but along with it, he also has:

• Well over half the populace infuriated by the bill and the methods used to push it through. (Poll numbers range from the mid-50s to the lower 60s, depending on how the questions are worded. The latest CNN poll puts opposition at 59%.)
• Thirty-seven states considering laws forbidding the federal government from ordering their citizens to purchase health insurance. (Idaho has already passed such a provision.)
• A raft of lawsuit filings,beginning yesterday, attacking the bill on virtually every level from funding to the "reconciliation" process. (What a misnomer that is!) Many are based on very substantial grounds, and some have an excellent chance before the bench.
• A lengthy and convoluted series of actions that must be taken, beginning now, to assure that the provisions of the bill go into effect without breaking the budgetary barriers and revealing ObamaCare's actual costs. Many are as controversial and unpopular as the bill itself. Chief among these is cutting Medicare benefits, which must be done sometime in the next few months. Need I say more?
• Obama's personal and party poll numbers falling through the floor, as the Democrats shed not only the voters attracted by Obama in 2008, but those who had drifted in the over eight years of the Bush presidency. Independents, Reagan Democrats, liberal Republicans, floaters...all gone. As of this Monday, CNN puts Obama's disapproval rate at 51%. We'll see what seats the Dems can carry with the combined Move On/ACORN vote. (Well, it seems that they can forget about the ACORN part too.   You see how this works?)
 
It will get worse. The liberals have guaranteed as much with their shifty procedural methods along with such cute little schticks as delaying actual implementation until 2013 while beginning most new taxes after the November election. And the weight will fall on Obama himself. He owns the thing. It was his bill, it was his insistence that it go through, and it has his name on it. So the Messiah is going to be fighting this battle for the rest of his term. Nothing short of a massive attack on the United States is going to change that. First come the November elections. Then the Supreme Court case. Then the guerrilla war in Congress, with the new kids elected solely on the basis of rolling back Obama's attempt to hijack the economy entering office in January 2011. And throughout it all, the continuous, everyday acts of defiance and contempt by the little platoons, the people who actually make up this country.
 
What does that leave Obama? Absolutely nothing. He will have no more opportunities. His hands will be full. He will be spending every last minute defending his major achievement, which he sees as his legacy. He will have time for nothing else. While he is otherwise involved, his crew of Chicago gangsters and career political hustlers will be roaming around cutting their own deals and making their own arrangements, further crippling his efforts and infuriating the public. Mark Steyn has suggested that the goal of ObamaCare is to institutionalize the left as America's base political culture. Instead, Obama appears to be bringing it to ruination.
 
Harry Blackmun was the man who actually wrote the extremely flawed -- in truth, legally empty -- Roe decision. He spent the rest of his career defending it. He never accomplished anything else, never put his name on another notable decision, never became associated with any worthy legal doctrine. He deteriorated at last into an isolated, querulous figure, obsessed with Roe v. Wade and his role in seeing it into law. All to achieve no more than to permanently intertwine his name with the legal decision that came closer than any action since the Civil War to rending the country in twain.
 
So it will be with Obama. That's what he has to look forward to, on a much wider stage and in a much shorter compass of time. It may well be that future historians will refer to his term as the short presidency -- effectively brought to an end at his own initiative only fourteen months after it began. It remains up to us to make it so. 
 
J.R. Dunn is consulting editor of American Thinker, and will edit the forthcoming Military Thinker website.

Friday's Web

The contents of these articles are based on Fact and Truth.  Challenges are invited. 

The day’s top political news:

 

Cuban leader applauds US health-care reform bill

It perhaps was not the endorsement President Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress were looking for.

Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro on Thursday declared passage of American health care reform "a miracle" and a major victory for Obama's presidency, but couldn't help chide the United States for taking so long to enact what communist Cuba achieved decades ago.

The Cuban leader also used the lengthy piece to criticize the American president for his lack of leadership on climate change and immigration reform, and for his decision to send more troops to Afghanistan, among many other things.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Cuban-leader-applauds-US-apf-124808403.html?x=0&.v=1

CBO report: Debt will rise to 90% of GDP

President Obama's fiscal 2011 budget will generate nearly $10 trillion in cumulative budget deficits over the next 10 years, $1.2 trillion more than the administration projected, and raise the federal debt to 90 percent of the nation's economic output by 2020, the Congressional Budget Office reported Thursday.

In its 2011 budget, which the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released Feb. 1, the administration projected a 10-year deficit total of $8.53 trillion. After looking it over, CBO said in its final analysis, released Thursday, that the president's budget would generate a combined $9.75 trillion in deficits over the next decade.

The federal public debt, which was $6.3 trillion ($56,000 per household) when Mr. Obama entered office amid an economic crisis, totals $8.2 trillion ($72,000 per household) today, and it's headed toward $20.3 trillion (more than $170,000 per household) in 2020, according to CBO's deficit estimates.  That figure would equal 90 percent of the estimated gross domestic product in 2020, up from 40 percent at the end of fiscal 2008. By comparison, America's debt-to-GDP ratio peaked at 109 percent at the end of World War II, while the ratio for economically troubled Greece hit 115 percent last year.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/26/cbos-2020-vision-debt-will-rise-to-90-of-gdp/

Democrats politicking like it's 1994

Obama learns from Clinton on health care, gays in service

In one week, President Obama has positioned himself for success on both health care and the nettlesome issue of gays serving in the military - the big issues that bedeviled and ultimately weakened President Clinton during his first two years in office.

It's coincidence that both happened this week, but Democrats said together they show the party's commitment to these twin pillars of social policy.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/26/democrats-politicking-like-its-1994/

Threats and Rahm Emanuel’s admonition “never waste a crisis”

It should be made crystal clear: every decent American condemns threats and violence.  The condemnation is not partisan, nor is the violence.

For those in public positions, threats are not uncommon.  As a night TV news anchor in Montgomery, Alabama, during the Civil Rights era, I got telephoned threats on my life.  They came from both sides. 

Years later, I walked into the President Ford’s re-election campaign headquarters in Atlanta and found a cluster of bullets embedded in a wall behind the reception desk.  They had apparently been fired from the street, police found no suspects.

In the last election, violence was threatened at a polling place in Philadelphia, and SEIU thugs roughed up a handicapped conservative protester in Missouri and at least one other demonstration. Union thugs were tagged for vandalism at several McCain headquarters.

Now Democrats are reporting threats in emails and phone calls.  Despite the specific and total condemnation of such things by the Republican leadership at all levels, the media continues beating the drums with insinuations aimed at those Americans who oppose the recently passed Health Care government take over.

In one report: “House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is warning that some of his Democratic colleagues are being threatened with violence when they go back to their districts — and he wants Republicans to stand up and condemn the threats.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34953.html#ixzz0jBoALfPo

Members of the Democrat Black Caucus claimed Sunday they were the objects of racial slurs and spitting – however, despite the ubiquitous crowd of cameras, recorders, and other video devices, no such things were caught or recorded.  Had any newsman on the scene witnessed such things, it’s a certainty they would  have created a feeding frenzy in covering it.  We are left to draw our own conclusions.

Violence and obscene insults will not effectively confront the crisis passage of Obamacare presents Americans.  Republicans in the Senate have succeeded in forcing the bill back for another vote.  It will pass again, of course, but at least the fight continues.

At the moment, in the immediate wake of the passage and signing into law of the health scheme, there is an aura seeming to reflect acceptance of the bill.  The aura will almost certainly fade and pre vote sentiment will return.

The only effective end game must come in November.  In the meantime, Republicans will complete their primary voting and gear up for the General Election.  Despite the glow Democrats are emitting these days, they are almost certain to take a major hit and lose enough seats to provide Republicans with an effective force with which to oppose further extremism by Democrats.  For their part, Democrats are already threatening more far left efforts.  For Americans, this may well mean the huge tax increase and surge in prices that will be the by-product of the Democrat Cap and Trade scam, and Democrats can be expected to continue their push for open borders.

The lines are clearly drawn.

Buddy

The day’s top blogs:

1.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_tony_blankley/sunday_s_socialist_triumph

Sunday's Socialist Triumph

A Commentary By Tony Blankley

The Battle of Capitol Hill is over; the Battle of the Electorate is about to begin.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Sunday launched the Democrats’ argument for the health-care bill, claiming, “This is an American proposal that honors the traditions of our country.” Does that suggest that opposition is un-American? And what are the American traditions that this law fulfills? The Democrats argue that the bill fulfills the “right” of all Americans to government-assured health-care services. The congressional Democrats claim many other things that a majority of the country believes to be inconsistent with truth and reality.

So, considering the rhetorical onslaught that is about to be unleashed on the public, to paraphrase (and with the deepest apologies) Winston Churchill on the occasion of the fall of France in June 1940:

What House Minority Leader John A. Boehner  has called the Battle of Capitol Hill is over. I expect that the Battle of the Electorate is about to begin. Upon this battle depends the survival of a nonsocialist America. Upon it depends our own American way of life and the long continuity of our institutions and our history. The whole fury and might of the media and the Democratic party must very soon be trained on the electorate.

If they can stand up to the coming propaganda, America may be free, and the life of the wider free world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands.

But if the voters succumb to those seven months of blandishments and deceptions, then free America — including all that we have known and cared for — will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.

Let the public therefore brace itself to its duties, and so concentrate its mind on the true facts, that if the American spirit of freedom and dignity last for a thousand years, men will still say, “This was the American voters’ finest hour.”

As I said, apologies to Winston Churchill for borrowing and abusing his immortal words on the fall of France and the beginning of the Battle of Britain.

And yet, for us, now and here is where we must battle for our freedom. Not, pray God, with bullets, but with words and ideas.

This battle will not be fought in the skies over London, but on the Internet and airwaves over America. The target is not the homes and factories of the people, but the minds and judgments of the voters. But the power of a mind confused and misused is every bit as threatening to freedom as is the power of bombs and bullets.

The path to Sunday’s catastrophic vote was paved with cynical blandishments by the Democratic party’s congressional leaders to their members. The votes were induced by the assurance that in the seven remaining months before the election, the true facts of their legislation, which led to overwhelming public opposition to the bill when passed, can be undone in the minds of the voters by remorselessly repeating misconceptions to the public.

The most mendacious, cruel, and destructive proposition put forth by the Democratic congressional leadership — and soon by almost all its rank and file — is, of course, the outlandish claim that the bill will reduce the deficit.

The uncontrolled growth of the annual deficits and total public debt is at the crux of the public’s slack-jawed horror of Washington policy these past 18 months. Washington is placing our grandchildren’s prosperity on a slow boat to China.

Everything that more than 200 years of American invention, investment, labor, suffering, triumph, war, and victory has created is being sold off to the world’s lowest bidders in a matter of months.

So far, the public has not been fooled by the claim that a new entitlement for 30 million people is being created — and it will cost less.

But now the Democrats have the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO ) official accounting — and they plan to use it as shield and sword as they wade into public debate.

Of course, every informed person understands why the CBO calculation is an honest measure of a dishonest bill. Republican congressman Paul Ryan, at the health-care summit and elsewhere, former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin in last Sunday’s New York Times, and hundreds of commentators have all laid out the lamentable, indisputable, and undisputed fact that the CBO methodology has been gamed by congressional Democrats to turn what will be more than a trillion dollars in further public deficit and debt into a fantasy savings of $140 billion.

While Medicare will reach about $30 trillion in unfunded liability by 2070, the bill preposterously claims it is going to cut Medicare by half a trillion dollars a decade. The quarter- to half-trillion dollars per ten years that it will cost to pay Medicare doctors enough to keep them providing services has simply been put in another bill. The mendacities go on and on. They are not merely small, politically useful deceptions. They are of a dimension that may destroy the republic.

The Democratic congressional leadership seems to have a stunningly insulting view of their potential voters’ intelligence. But on such a basis is the battle for the minds of the voters joined.

Never will the wisdom and common sense of the American public be put to a more fateful test. The organized opposition to the bill must do its best. But, as befits a constitutional republic, the fate of American freedom lies with the people.

— Tony Blankley is executive vice president of Edelman public relations in Washington. E-mail him at TonyBlankley@gmail.com. © 2010 Creators.com.

2.

Political Scrum Forms Around GSE Overhaul

Erika Morphy 

WASHINGTON, DC-With the health insurance overhaul done and changes to financial institutions' regulatory apparatus working their way through Congress, Washington is turning its attention to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Not surprisingly, given the politicization of the GSEs by both parties, there appears to be little room for common ground among the various players.

The House Financial Services Committee convened to talk about the fate of the GSEs on Tuesday, reportedly at the urging of Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass), who has, after years of support, recently started calling for a complete overhaul of the agencies--a start-from-scratch approach. He has said he would like to see an even greater emphasis placed on affordable housing.

Testifying before the Committee, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said that the Obama administration wants to keep in place some aspects of their roles. He also signaled the Administration wants to expand its support of the GSEs by ending their status as shareholder-owned companies, noting that the government is going to make clear what it stands behind and what it doesn’t. To many in the industry, this terminology translates into an explicit backing of the agencies, compared to the implicit status it has had thus far. For their part, the House Republicans, led by Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Spencer Bachus, are calling for a plan that would phase out operations of the GSEs within four years.

The commercial real estate industry is weighing in as well. The National Association of Realtors, for example, is advocating a shift in which the GSEs are restructured into government-chartered, non-shareholder-owned authorities. A fully private entity would foster mortgage products more aligned with business goals rather than the nation's housing policy for consumers, according to testimony by Vince Malta, NAR vice president and liaison to government affairs. Also, a fully federal structure would put taxpayers at risk, he added. "We want to eliminate any scenario that would place taxpayers on the hook to protect these entities. And to combine the two, or merge them with Ginnie Mae, would remove competition in the secondary market, and the new entity could lose focus on it missions to serve low- and moderate-income families and maintain

3.

http://webmail.aol.com/31144-311/aol-1/en-us/Suite.aspx

ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE Beware the Emboldened Left

Marc Rotterman

As I write, Congress has just passed Barack Obama's signature issue -- healthcare reform. After a year of stops and starts, imposed deadlines and rancorous debate, President Obama and his allies have prevailed.

He does, in fact, have a victory. And where I come from, a victory is a victory.

Many of my Republican and conservative brethren view this partisan piece of legislation as a stake through the heart of the Left and some are already measuring for new drapes in the Speaker's office.

In fact, in some quarters of the Republican Party "irrational exuberance" has taken hold. Barack Obama's presidency is being compared that of Jimmy Carter.

That, in my view, is a mistake.

Conservatives and Republicans who underestimate President Obama do so at their own electoral peril. Unlike Jimmy Carter, Obama is a true believer, someone who understands that transforming policy translates into votes and a citizenry that is more reliant on the federal government. And unlike Carter, Obama is a streetwise, tough politician who will not give an inch when it to comes to his vision of a "New America" -- one that is modeled after European socialism.

Starting now, the Obama administration will try to position him as a modern day LBJ -- getting things done for the middle class and the poor. The administration, and its allies in the mainstream media will echo Obama's belief that he is transformative figure and that healthcare legislation is akin to the historic Civil Rights Act of the 1960s.

And make no mistake about it -- Barack Obama's next agenda item is "immigration reform" which, unless it is defeated, will further broaden the Left's constituency, strengthen the unions, and undermine the rule of law.

By the way, Obama and his team will not stop there. Those who openly oppose Obama's policies will continue to be targets. First the liberal establishment went after Rush Limbaugh and for months now -- former Vice President Dick Cheney. The Left and progressives' newest devil is Glenn Beck and by extension the Fox News network.

One only has to watch MSNBC and its commentators' rants against Beck or read the Washington Post's two recent hit pieces on Fox and Beck -- one by the former discredited New York Times editor Howell Raines, the other by Howard Kurtz, a CNN employee who hosts the CNN show Reliable Sources -- to understand how far the progressives will go to torpedo Beck and Fox.

My point is that Obama and his allies view governing and campaigning in the same context -- "winning" means all out war and by any means necessary. In contrast, Republicans have, in the past, viewed campaigns from a "management perspective."

To compete and to win in 2010 Republicans and conservatives must outline and define what Obama has in store for this nation. And that is the remaking of the nation as we have known it from its inception. We cannot count on a bad economy to propel us to a majority, or outrage over the healthcare bill.

Yes, they are still a very important part of the debate.

But, we have an obligation in our messaging and advertising to illustrate in stark terms what "Obama's transformation" means to America, its families, traditions and culture. In short, we must campaign against the Left as if we were at war.

One thing we know for certain is that Obama and his cohorts are committed to their ideology and they will do what it takes to stay in power. To win, we must understand our opponents and maneuver according to circumstance.

 

Wednesday's Web

The contents of these articles are based on Fact and Truth.  Challenges are invited. 

The day’s top political news:

Obamacare Vote Gives Candidates, Parties Cash Influx

With both parties’ bases still riled up over Sunday night’s momentous health care vote, House Members and candidates are now stepping up their efforts to cash in on the legislative battle that has generated such fervor.

The Republican National Committee’s “Fire Pelosi” Web site and online fundraising portal, which it launched Sunday evening, tallied more than $1.1 million as of Tuesday evening.

Republican Committees have been running ahead of their Democrat rivals in fund raising so far this year.  Campaign funding is crucial in determining whose message is heard the most.

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/55_109/politics/44604-1.html

Obama Administration Awarded Hundreds of Thousands in Airport Grants to Stupak’s District Two Days Before Stupak caved on his Pro Life Vote

Was this Yet Another Backroom Deal to Force Obama’s Bill Down the American People’s Throats?  Was the fix already in with Stupak?

Three airports in the district of infamous fence-sitting and ultimately kowtowing Democrat Bart Stupak were awarded $726,409 in grants by the Obama Administration just two days before a vote on Obama and Pelosi’s government takeover of healthcare.

Did Stupak compromise his supposed principled stand against taxpayer funding of abortion in exchange for taxpayer dollars for pet projects?

http://www.nrcc.org/codered/dealwatch/?p=52

Americans Remain Skeptical Over Health-Care Revamp

Americans remain skeptical about the health-care overhaul even after the U.S. House passed landmark legislation that promises to provide access to medical coverage for tens of millions of the uninsured.

At the same time, most say the government should play a role in ensuring everyone has access to affordable care, a Bloomberg National Poll shows. A majority also agree that health care is a private matter and consider the new rules approved by Congress to be a government takeover.

The poll found the percentage of Americans who favor the almost $1 trillion 10-year plan remained at about just four in 10 following the House vote on March 21 to send the bill to President Barack Obama, who signed it into law today.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a2R1ChNYjoag

Bachus, King Announce Legal Challenge to Health Care Bill

Congressman Spencer Bachus (AL-6) and Alabama Attorney General Troy King  announced at a Capitol Hill news conference Tuesday that Alabama will challenge the constitutionality of the health care bill signed by President Obama.

Alabama is one of 13 states joining together to file suit against the new law’s individual mandates and taxes and, in the words of Bachus, a “vast overreach” by the federal government on constitutional authority reserved to the states.

Bachus says the law’s mandate that individuals buy insurance or face an I.R.S. tax penalty and its setting of the terms of that insurance, including payments for abortion services, overstep the constitutional authority of the federal government.  Bachus said he has been working with Attorney General King since December to be prepared to challenge unconstitutional provisions in any final health care legislation.

http://bachus.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=961

Opinion:
“Keep your powder dry” is the admonition of the hour for Obamacare opposition

Expect Obama to get a significant bounce in daily tracking polls in the immediate wake of the passage of his radical health care legislation.

It takes about 72 hours before an accurate reading from survey research reflects the impact of a given event.  Monday and Tuesday featured major events with the Democrat celebration of passage of health care legislation. 

Media coverage, of course, has been beating the drums for the Democrat position – even on Fox, Bill O Reilly was striving overtime to prove his “independence” by tut-tutting talk radio hosts for assaulting the bill as socialism and similar ”isms”.  O Reilly also strained a bit in repeating video clips of the Black Caucus while discussing overreaction by conservatives, providing tacit support for claims by Black Democrat politicians that they endured slurs and spitting.

For the record, the accusation conflicts with the normal tactics of current conservative grass root activists. Racism is not an element.  To the contrary.  Yet liberal Democrats have constantly accused the conservative movement as being racist.

In short, the claims by the Democrat Black Caucus Congressmen specifically match the liberal slander of grass root conservatives, especially tea party protesters, and specifically conflict with the observed reality.  Racism has not been an element of the debate –- far  left radicalism has been…and is.  To date, no evidence supporting the claims of the Democrat Congressmen has been provided and it’s unlikely any will be.  Do I believe a liberal Democrat politician would lie in attacking an opponent?  The burden of proof is with the politician. It is a burden they have not met.  End of story.

Expect the media and Democrats as a whole to be in full glee.  They are anxious to mitigate the political damage caused by their passage of a very threatening law, and they are desperate to see the discussion end.  They know they are on a side opposite to a majority of the American people.

Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, one of the more radical Democrats, intoned, “it’s time for the bitter, partisan rancor to stop”.  Democrat politicians want to paper over the fact the health care scheme was crafted in secret, behind closed doors, and passed by a mass of out and out political bribes.  Democrats such as Harkin, want to avoid a debate centering on ethics and morality. 

Meanwhile Bart Stupak, the Michigan Congressman betrayed the pro-life movement by caving in to potential federal funding of abortion.  Stupak claims a promise from Obama of an Executive Order to ban the funding gave him necessary assurance.  The Executive Order is primarily meaningless in this context, and its notable it will be signed today within the secret inner sanctum of the Oval Office

Look to an actual renewal of the struggle to begin this week end or early next week.  Give Democrats time to sweep up the confetti and the corks, and begin another round of conspiratorial strategy sessions.  They are desperate to use the current – hopefully momentary – lull and momentum, to move quickly to pass Cap and Trade tax measures, then move on to celebrating the opening of our borders to illegal immigrants.

If the hoopla gives you pause about opposing Obamacare – never forget who has been tagged to enforce the provisions.

A few thousand new IRS agents 16,000 is an estimate by California Republican Congressman Brian Bilbray – the exact total is not yet determined. 

On a radio talk show, Michigan Democrat John Dingell explained why its taking so long to make Obamacare law.  Dingell explained: “It takes a long time to do the necessary administration steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people”.

Nuff said.

Buddy

The day’s top blogs:

1.

The Real Arithmetic of Health Care Reform

 
DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN

ON Thursday, the Congressional Budget Office reported that, if enacted, the latest health care reform legislation would, over the next 10 years, cost about $950 billion, but because it would raise some revenues and lower some costs, it would also lower federal deficits by $138 billion. In other words, a bill that would set up two new entitlement spending programs — health insurance subsidies and long-term health care benefits — would actually improve the nation’s bottom line.

Could this really be true? How can the budget office give a green light to a bill that commits the federal government to spending nearly $1 trillion more over the next 10 years?

The answer, unfortunately, is that the budget office is required to take written legislation at face value and not second-guess the plausibility of what it is handed. So fantasy in, fantasy out.

In reality, if you strip out all the gimmicks and budgetary games and rework the calculus, a wholly different picture emerges: The health care reform legislation would raise, not lower, federal deficits, by $562 billion.

Gimmick No. 1 is the way the bill front-loads revenues and backloads spending. That is, the taxes and fees it calls for are set to begin immediately, but its new subsidies would be deferred so that the first 10 years of revenue would be used to pay for only 6 years of spending.

Even worse, some costs are left out entirely. To operate the new programs over the first 10 years, future Congresses would need to vote for $114 billion in additional annual spending. But this so-called discretionary spending is excluded from the Congressional Budget Office’s tabulation.

Consider, too, the fate of the $70 billion in premiums expected to be raised in the first 10 years for the legislation’s new long-term health care insurance program. This money is counted as deficit reduction, but the benefits it is intended to finance are assumed not to materialize in the first 10 years, so they appear nowhere in the cost of the legislation.

Another vivid example of how the legislation manipulates revenues is the provision to have corporations deposit $8 billion in higher estimated tax payments in 2014, thereby meeting fiscal targets for the first five years. But since the corporations’ actual taxes would be unchanged, the money would need to be refunded the next year. The net effect is simply to shift dollars from 2015 to 2014.

In addition to this accounting sleight of hand, the legislation would blithely rob Peter to pay Paul. For example, it would use $53 billion in anticipated higher Social Security taxes to offset health care spending. Social Security revenues are expected to rise as employers shift from paying for health insurance to paying higher wages. But if workers have higher wages, they will also qualify for increased Social Security benefits when they retire. So the extra money raised from payroll taxes is already spoken for. (Indeed, it is unlikely to be enough to keep Social Security solvent.) It cannot be used for lowering the deficit.

A government takeover of all federally financed student loans — which obviously has nothing to do with health care — is rolled into the bill because it is expected to generate $19 billion in deficit reduction.

Finally, in perhaps the most amazing bit of unrealistic accounting, the legislation proposes to trim $463 billion from Medicare spending and use it to finance insurance subsidies. But Medicare is already bleeding red ink, and the health care bill has no reforms that would enable the program to operate more cheaply in the future. Instead, Congress is likely to continue to regularly override scheduled cuts in payments to Medicare doctors and other providers.

Removing the unrealistic annual Medicare savings ($463 billion) and the stolen annual revenues from Social Security and long-term care insurance ($123 billion), and adding in the annual spending that so far is not accounted for ($114 billion) quickly generates additional deficits of $562 billion in the first 10 years. And the nation would be on the hook for two more entitlement programs rapidly expanding as far as the eye can see.

The bottom line is that Congress would spend a lot more; steal funds from education, Social Security and long-term care to cover the gap; and promise that future Congresses will make up for it by taxing more and spending less.

The stakes could not be higher. As documented in another recent budget office analysis, the federal deficit is already expected to exceed at least $700 billion every year over the next decade, doubling the national debt to more than $20 trillion. By 2020, the federal deficit — the amount the government must borrow to meet its expenses — is projected to be $1.2 trillion, $900 billion of which represents interest on previous debt.

The health care legislation would only increase this crushing debt. It is a clear indication that Congress does not realize the urgency of putting America’s fiscal house in order.

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who was the director of the Congressional Budget Office from 2003 to 2005, is the president of the American Action Forum, a policy institute.

2.

House Republicans Want to Wind Down GSEs

DIANA GOLOBAY

Republicans in the House of Representatives, led by Financial Services Committee ranking member Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL), authored a list of principals they wish to see as part of “immediate” legislative efforts to plan for the future of the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs).

“It is time to deal with bailed out companies, which were at the center of the mortgage market meltdown that caused the financial crisis, and have cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars,” Bachus said in a statement.

The Republican lawmakers are calling for a timed wind-down of operations at Fannie Mae (FNM: 1.105 +1.38%) and Freddie Mac (FRE: 1.30 +0.78%) within four years, “ending once and for all the disastrous government experiment in privatized profits and socialized losses,” according to their list of 10 principals on GSE reform.

“For years we warned about the systemic risk posed by Fannie and Freddie,” said Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA). “Unfortunately our calls for reform were largely ignored under the guise of promoting affordable housing.”

The plan would reduce the mortgage portfolio holdings of Fannie and Freddie by 25% and phase-in capital requirements consistent with global standards for large and complex financial institutions over a four-year period.

The Republicans urged a phasing out of the elevated conforming loan limits in high-cost areas over two years, “thereby cutting off taxpayer subsidies of millionaires’ mortgages.” The plan would create a regulatory safe harbor for mortgages that meet underwriting standards consisted with the Federal Reserve Board’s final HOEPA rule.

The plan would prevent Fannie and Freddie from funding long-term assets with short-term borrowing, which the House lawmakers said exposes taxpayers to interest rate risk. It would create an Inspector General for the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) that would report regularly to Congress as long as the FHFA oversees the GSEs in conservatorship.

“Taxpayers deserve to know where their dollars are going, what risks they are being exposed to, and how these institutions are being managed or mismanaged,” said Rep. Judy Biggert (R-IL). “Our reforms will impose some common-sense accountability on these intuitions, end the bailouts, and take immediate steps to wind down the immense risks they pose to the long-term stability of our housing market.”

The House Republicans are also calling to move the operations of Fannie and Freddie onto the federal budget and subject the debt issued by the GSEs to the national debt limit. Their plan would suspend compensation packages already approved for senior executives at Fannie and Freddie and would instead establish a compensation system equal to that paid to executive- and senior-level employees of the US government.

The plan would also establish a regulatory framework for a US covered bond market — an effort championed by Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) with the introduction of the highly-anticipated United States Covered Bond Act.

The push by House Republicans to reform the GSEs comes as efforts move forward by Senate Democrats to reform the financial regulatory system.

Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT), chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, last week unveiled details of a new bill to Congress that aims to overhaul the financial regulatory system and establish the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA). Some of the language in the 1,300+ page bill is already earning the criticism of industry professionals that say requirements for credit risk retention could make origination and securitization prohibitively expensive.

The Senate Banking Committee on Monday approved the bill to move to a vote on the full Senate floor.

Former CBO director: Actually, ObamaCare will produce $562 billion in new deficits

3.

 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Ten-inconvenient-questions-about-Obamacare-88853462.html

Ten inconvenient questions about Obamacare

Susan Ferrechio   
Chief Congressional Correspondent  
Washington Examiner

President Obama is promising a massive campaign to sell the health care plan just approved by Congress -- starting with his signature on the Senate version of the legislation on Tuesday. The sales pitch begins even as the Senate considers a raft of modifications to the plan already approved by the House. But as the president makes his pitch, critics will be looking to knock down many of the central claims he and other Democratic leaders have made. Here are 10 inconvenient truths that could dog the president:

1. The bill provides more affordable coverage for the middle class.

According to Dr. Scott Gottlieb, a health care scholar at the free-market American Enterprise Institute, the new bill will actually make it more costly for middle class families to buy health insurance by forcing those who shop on the individual market to buy generous, but expensive plans mandated under the new law. Middle class families earning $88,000 or more a year won't qualify for health care subsidies. A family earning $100,000 would end up spending nearly a quarter of their net income on health care.

2. Health insurance premiums will go down.

Health care premiums for those in the individual insurance market will rise 10 percent to 13 percent by 2016 under the plan, according to the Congressional Budget Office. While the cost of premiums will be subsidized with taxpayer dollars for 57 percent of those enrolled in the new government-run insurance exchanges, the 43 percent of enrollees who do not qualify for assistance will have to pay higher costs.

3. The bill creates jobs.

The Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, says that the health care reform bill will create "between 2.5 million to 4 million additional jobs over the next 10 years." But the fiscally conservative Beacon Hill Institute, part of Boston's Suffolk University, conducted its own analysis and found that in response to higher taxes and mandates on companies to provide insurance, "firms would be induced to fire or lay off workers" to the tune of 120,000 to 700,000 employees by 2019. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, found that the new taxes would kill 690,000 jobs per year.

4. Federal funding will not cover abortion.

Obama agreed on Sunday to sign an executive order to reaffirm the Senate bill's "consistency with long-standing restrictions on the use of federal funds for abortion." But pro-life groups say the executive order does not carry the force of a law and will do nothing to curb the provision in the bill they believe will allow taxpayer dollars to cover the procedure. "The president cannot amend a bill by issuing an order, and the federal courts will enforce what the law says," the National Right to Life Committee said.

5. If you like your current health care plan, you can keep it.

The new health care law will impose a list of benefits each health care plan will have to offer if they are to remain in business. The Congressional Budget Office also estimates that about 4 million people would lose their employer-based plan and be forced to buy plans on the new government exchanges.

6. Medicare costs will be cut, not services.

The bill makes $528 billion in cuts to Medicare, including a $136 billion reduction for Medicare Advantage. The Medicare Advantage cuts will force 4.8 million seniors off the popular plan by 2019. An additional $23 billion in cuts to Medicare will come from a panel charged with slashing Medicare spending.

7. The bill pays for itself.

The CBO found that the bill would reduce the deficit by $138 billion over 10 years, but the savings was achieved by leaving out a $208 billion provision lawmakers will have to enact later to ensure doctors are adequately paid for treating Medicare patients. When the "doc fix" is included in the bill, it runs $59 billion in the red over the next decade. And former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin said that "if you strip out all the gimmicks and budgetary games" the 10-year deficit would exceed $560 billion.

8. State won't get stuck with the bill.

The health care reform bill expands Medicaid to all non-elderly individuals up to 133 percent of the poverty line. The federal government would foot the bill for this expansion, but only until 2016. Beginning in 2017, states would gradually begin paying a portion of it. By 2020, states would cover 10 percent of the cost of Medicaid expansion.

9. There will be no rationing of care.

A survey conducted by the Medicus Firm, a medical recruitment company, found that 46 percent of physicians said they would quit or retire if the Democratic health care reform bill becomes law. The survey noted that "even if a much smaller percentage such as ten, 15, or 20 percent are pushed out of practice over several years at a time when the field needs to expand by over 20 percent, this would be severely detrimental to the quality of the health care system."

10. The bill does not raise taxes.

The bill imposes a 40 percent excise tax on insurance plans costing $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. It also raises revenue by increasing the Medicare payroll tax for those earning more than $200,000, plus a new 3.8 percent tax on unearned income for these earners. The bill also imposes new taxes on drug makers, medical device manufacturers and health insurers that are likely to be passed on to consumers.

sferrechio@washingtonexaminer.com

http://www.smallgovtimes.com/2010/03/requiem-for-america/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Smallgovtimescom+%28SmallGovTimes.com%29

 

Tuesday's Web

The contents of these articles are based on Fact and Truth.  Challenges are invited. 

The day’s top political news:

GOP fighting mad about health bill and have a majority of Americans agreeing

Republican Candidates, lawsuits say challenge is far from overThey'll fight it in the courts. They'll fight it in the states. They'll fight it at the polls in November and in 2012. While Democratic leaders hailed the House vote Sunday night and the likely Senate passage of a companion "reconciliation" bill, Republicans insisted that the war over health care is far from over.

"This will not stand," a defiant Newt Gingrich, a former House speaker and architect of the 1994 GOP takeover of Congress, told The Washington Times in an interview. "We should challenge every candidate in 2010 and 2012 to be for repeal."

Obama is set to sign the bill approved Sunday night by the House, and plans a trip to Iowa on Thursday to tout the legislation's benefits and build political momentum. Separately, the Senate on Tuesday formally takes up a second bill of "fixes" to the first bill, with the Democratic majority using a procedural route to sidestep a GOP filibuster. Republicans in Washington and beyond the Capital Beltway vowed to fight on.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/23/gop-fighting-mad-about-health-bill/

New Health-Care Taxes Help Obama ‘Spread the Wealth’

President Barack Obama said on the campaign trail in October 2008 that he wanted to “spread the wealth around.” With Obama on the verge of signing sweeping health-care overhaul legislation, he’s about to do just that.

If the final version of the legislation passes the Senate, high-income investors will pay higher Medicare taxes, tax breaks for out-of-pocket medical deductions will be curtailed, and it will cost insurance companies more to pay executives millions of dollars. Those levies will help fund expansion of Medicaid services for the poor and subsidize health insurance to cover millions who don’t currently have benefits.

In all, the bill would generate $409.2 billion in additional taxes by 2019, according to an analysis by the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, a nonpartisan agency. The bill also imposes about $69 billion more in penalties for individuals and businesses who don’t meet mandates to buy insurance, according to the Congressional Budget Office, another nonpartisan agency.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ake7tOWwUT6E

ABC News Exclusive: Pelosi Defends Health Care Fight Tactics

Pelosi Says Dems Must Stand Their Ground When There Is No Common GroundHouse Speaker Nancy Pelosi took a muted victory lap today after the historic House vote on health care reform, but didn't dispute a description of her clout in helping win passage of the bill.

"Most powerful woman in American history?" "World News" anchor Diane Sawyer asked Pelosi today, citing an article in The Economist. Pelosi, maintaining the smiling poker player's mask that is her trademark, paused for a moment before saying brightly, "That sounds good. I don't, I don't take it personally, except I take it as a compliment for all women."

But the California Democrat rejected the description by a fellow congresswoman who said it was Pelosi who put the "steel" in President Obama's determination to keeping pushing for a sweeping reform bill rather than a scaled down measure.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Politics/house-speaker-nancy-pelosis-exclusive-interview-diane-sawyer/story?id=10172685

Opinion:
American politics the day after the second phase of the health care takeover begins

The shakeout begins today on reaction to Democrats having passed their health care scheme Sunday.  A cluster of more than 30 state Attorney’s General is poised to file court challenges to the radical legislation the moment Obama affixes his name.

There is a lot to challenge – page upon page – a little under 4,000 pages when all the paper is included.  However, keep in mind, these challenges will face a federal judiciary that has long been left wing corrupted.  Just yesterday, a federal judge turned loose one of the most important Islamic terrorists we hold. 

This is the sort of judicial mindset Americans opposed to Obama’s health care bill face.

Repealing the bill cannot be achieved quickly in any case.  First, Conservative Americans must retake Congress this November in order to bloc further radical legislation.  Conservatives can only hope to stop the madness, since Obama will veto any bill challenging his far left agenda.  There is no way Republicans will attain majorities large enough to override Obama vetoes.

This provides a strategy that not only must focus on this November in the short run, but also must quickly develop goals and objectives through which to defeat and replace Obama in 2012.

The political fallout from Obamacare is already being felt.

Congressman Bart Stupak is the goat of the Democrat victory.  His suspect decision to switch his vote, was the game changer.  His reasoning is baffling. His speech on the floor after having cast a deciding vote, is very telling.  It was pure Democrat dogma, often at odds with the facts.  Stupak had the audacity to suggest Democrats have been supporters of pro life objectives.  It seems Stupak has a lot of  “splainin’” to do.  The impact on his betrayal of pro lifers has begun. As one report tells us:

“One of four Republicans vying for the opportunity to challenge Stupak in November, lifelong surgeon Dr. Dan Benishek, 57, tells Newsmax he had just returned to his Michigan home after a long day on the campaign trail Sunday, and was actually making phone calls for campaign donations, when he turned on his TV to see Stupak discussing his vote change.

Benishek, an Obamacare opponent and political novice running in Michigan’s first congressional district GOP primary, says his phone started ringing before Stupak even completed his remarks.

“Before he was even done talking, people started calling me. They didn't even want to talk to me much. They just wanted to confirm that I was the guy running against Stupak, and how could they send me money. I just couldn't believe it," Benishek tells Newsmax.

Messages of support suddenly flashed onto Facebook pages.

"I'm not in Michigan, but even those of us in New York realize YOU have to beat Stupak in NOV!!!!" one visitor wrote.

"I live in Hawaii but I'm sending you my check today," another stated. "Stupak must go. Please help us take back our beloved country."

The Benishek for Congress Facebook page, which had gone largely unnoticed, added over 13,000 new members overnight. That compares to Stupak's Facebook page, which boasts 2,056 fans.

Many of the newfound support appeared to come from Tea Party activists.

Benishek tells Newsmax, "I admire the tea party people. The tea party people I've met are standing up for the Constitution."

Benishek, a pro-life conservative, says Stupak "obviously caved in" to political pressure, said that within three hours of Stupak's announcement he had received 2,000 e-mails from newfound supporters. His Web site, benishekforcongress.net, got so many hits that he says it crashed.

Jeff Lamb, chairman of the First District Republican's organization, said he's seen the same reaction across the district.”

If Stupak really reversed field on the basis of an Executive Order from Obama, he is stupid and gullible.  When real goals are involved, the far left cannot be believed.

Take for news reports today that Obama’s own ACORN organization is closing shop.  Expect them to acturally continue doing business – and  being involved in voter registration fraud – changing the names, but not the mission.

Normal Americans are on the front lines of the greatest political crisis faced by this nation in 150 years.  The next phase of that struggle begins today when Obama signs the legislation.

Buddy.

The days top blogs:

1.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/03/democrats_take_the_long_view_o.html

Democrats take the long view on Obamacare political fallout

Richard Ridgeway

This is the Democrat Game Plan: It was 1921-1923 when the Republicans last held a super-majority in the Senate. The Democrats are banking on the fact that even after the worst of their blunders and collectivist idealism shoveled upon the populace (see J. Carter for example) throughout American voting history, they must endure brief martyrdom at times for the common good and will strengthen their iron-fisted control substantially after the hiatus of short-term defeat...if they can get Obamacare into the endzone. It's 4th and goal for the Democrats and they smell paydirt. America's goal line stand has got to hold up now.

Currently the seat numbers in the senate are 59 (D) (we include (ID) Lieberman and (I)Sanders in that tally) and 41(R).

There are 36 Senate seats up for election this November 2010 with 18 currently held by democrats and 18 held by Republicans. For the sake of argument let's say every seat held by a (R) remains Republican  and every seat held by a (D) votes in a Republican. Our new tally after the November 2010 midterms would be 59 Republicans and 39 Democrats + the 2 Independents that caucus with the Democrats. So, even if the Democrats are totally shut-out (and we know they won' be) in the upcoming elections they would still have the capability of filibustering every single piece of senate legislation (which would include the Republican attempts to overturn any Obamacare existing law.)

There is no doubt that the Republicans will pick up senate seats and if Obamacare passes, might even regain the majority The Democrat  leadership really does not care. As long as the Democrats don't ever go below the magic number of less than 40 in the Senate; they remain intact and figure to paint the Republicans in a corner on every piece of meaningful legislation (just as they always have done) and with a handmaiden, water-carrying, complicit enabling media, after a few years of Republican majority the big (D) will regain the helm once again to finish us off.

The strategy being employed by the current Democrat leadership is knowing that historical fact of the Republicans not having a Senate super-majority for nearly 9 decades and they believe no matter how bad the political winds appear to disfavor them they will still have enough members to fight off any future attempt of repealing anything they currently shove down our throat.They have to be thinking about it as America didn't vote the Republicans to a super-majority after or during Carter, Clinton and not even during the greatest Reagan era prosperity run. It's been 87 long years since Republicans have had it and the Democrats fully believe it will never happen again. They.Just.Know.It.

2.

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/03/barney-frank-on-rule-of-law.html

Barney Frank on the Rule of Law

The toad-like Barney Frank weighed in this afternoon on the Capitol's raucous crowd as Democrats bribed, cajoled and threatened their caucus to vote for a government takeover of health care.

Rep Michael Turner (R-Ohio) walked by carrying a sign saying “I’m voting no!” Trent Franks, a Republican of Arizona and Pete Olson, a Republican of Texas, came down to thank the Tea Partiers for their support.

Inside the House chamber, a protester was ejected by Capitol Police after yelling from the House gallery.

Frank was visibly angry with his GOP colleagues, whom he believed goaded the protesters.

"Did you guys see the Republicans encouraging the disruption?" Frank left the House floor to tell about 15 reporters. "These clowns are out there encouraging violation of the law and making the job of the guys up there harder. It's really disgraceful."

This pathetic excuse for a legislator spits on the United States Constitution, claims to have granted "rights" by stealing the labor of others, and -- to top it off -- promotes the bankruptcy of the country by expanding entitlements at a time when we can least afford it?

And he's angry about a protester?

I'll tell you what I'm angry about. A man like Barney Frank who started his law-breaking days when he allowed a brothel to operate out of his condo and never paid a price. A man who is culminating his career with the destruction of the American experiment, changing forever the relationship between the individual and government. Citizens of Massachusetts: you could select a representative by throwing a dart at a phone book and do significantly better than this disgraceful troll.

3.

http://biggovernment.com/
 

Obamacare: A Social Justice Nightmare for the Whole World

Kyle-Anne Shiver

According to AP reports, “Catholic nuns are urging Congress to pass President Barack Obama’s health care plan, in an unusual public break with bishops who say it would subsidize abortion.”  Reportedly, 60 leaders of religious orders sent lawmakers a letter pleading with them to pass the Senate healthcare bill.

The AP clearly has not noticed the virtual ongoing war within the Catholic Church, especially with regards to government responsibility as opposed to private/church responsibility.  In no sphere is this internal war more evident than when it comes to matters involving the Church’s Doctrine on Social Justice.

The Doctrines on Social Justice are, perhaps, the most misunderstood and lied-about facets of the Catholic faith.  Just about everyone in public life, including even the majority of Catholics themselves, completely ignore the fundamentals of Social Justice teaching.  They summarily conclude that Social Justice is a synonym for socialist redistributive policies, which seek to equalize material outcomes for all.  I call this the Kumbayah Fallacy.

These nuns have fallen hook, line and sinker for the Kumbayah Fallacy.  Right along with all the liberation theologians, who have shamefully wrapped Marxist doctrine around the cross of Christ for decades.

This mingling of socialism with Christianity makes a diabolical mockery of the Church’s genuine Social Doctrine, as delineated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  In fact, the Catholic Church explicitly rebukes all forms of “communism” and “socialism” right there in plain sight in the Catechism.  While the Church also condemns completely unfettered capitalism, with no regulations whatsoever, She saves most condemnation for the Marxist doctrines, which attempt to regulate the economy “solely by centralized planners,” as this “perverts the basis of social bonds” between human beings.

While President Obama has made wide use of his claim to fighting for Social Justice, especially with his zeal towards a government takeover of our healthcare system, he has utterly ignored the natural – fully predictable – unintended consequences of his attempt to reorder the best medical delivery system the world has ever created.

In fact, this reordering of the American medical delivery system to suit the whims of socialist reformers, President Obama is ensuring a genuine Social Justice nightmare for the whole world.

In which Country do the new drugs, medical innovations and most advanced surgical techniques originate?  Exactly.  In the United States of America.

But the United States is not a selfish Nation.  And every one of these medical “miracles,” the products of free enterprise, under the supervision of government oversight, makes its way quite quickly to the rest of the world.  Socialist countries, unable to produce the cures themselves because they have choked innovation with their own “centralized planner” philosophies, then buy the new American drugs at highly discounted prices for their own citizens.  In effect, the American medical system quite heavily subsidizes all the other medical systems of the world with its own ingenuity and enterprise.  Our doctors routinely travel around the globe, sharing and teaching their techniques to other doctors in other countries.  Our charities routinely offer free medical aid around the globe.

Of course, once Obamacare makes all these “miracle” cures unprofitable, those new innovations will dry up here just as surely as they have in all the other socialized medical systems in the world.

That, in itself, creates a wholly unnecessary Social Justice nightmare for which not only America, but the entire world will pay a hefty price in untold suffering and death.

In addition to drying up incentives for medical innovations, which aid the entire human population, Obamacare will immediately cut the numbers of practicing doctors by up to 45%.  This Investors Business Daily polling data, taken last summer, was widely criticized by liberal advocacy groups, but then was vindicated by a figure of 29.2% doctors quitting in an insert of the New England Journal of Medicine. 

The fact that a sizeable proportion of medical doctors would quit “if patient loads increase while pay decreases,” should not be at all surprising, since this is precisely what has happened in every other country with socialized medical models.  Decreasing the supply of doctors will unarguably strike a blow at Social Justice, which simply cannot be overstated.  One can throw all the taxpayer money he wishes at a disease, but that won’t cure what ails real patients.  Keeping people unnecessarily sick because of a doctor shortage is unconscionable in the realm of Social Justice doctrine.

Another huge piece of the Social Justice puzzle, which is mightily threatened by Obamacare, is the charity sector of American medicine.

There is not a single medical delivery entity in America today, which does not have a social worker charged with helping people pay for their medical costs.  In every hospital in these United States, patients are helped in myriad ways to either work out extended payment plans for services or receive already-available taxpayer assistance or charity dollars to meet their obligations.  American doctors do much pro-bono work, just as lawyers do.  But studies invariably show that once government takes over the obligations of individuals, charity dries up, causing the government burden to be much greater than it was believed it would be at the outset of new programs.  Under Obamacare, not only will taxpayers assume the burdens of more and more entitlements, but will now also assume the burdens being alleviated through generous charity today.

Killing opportunities for charity may fit perfectly with the Marxist-oriented Kumbayah Fallacy, but it proves a diabolical mockery of the doctrines on genuine Social Justice.

Then, of course, there is the abortion component of Obamacare.  As prohibitions against taxpayer funds being funneled to abortion coverage are not included in the Senate bill, every American taxpayer will now be conscripted into the Democrats’ genocidal denial of Social Justice to pre-born Americans – with no provision for conscientious objector status.  This one thing – this fundamental, primordial facet of Social Justice – is more than enough reason to reject Obamacare on its whole.  As the Pope and all others before him have repeatedly proclaimed, the right to life, once conceived, is the fundamental right upon which all others rest.  No one – not even a president – can claim to be fighting for Social Justice without first protecting this unalienable right.

It is a sad commentary on our times, when even Catholics of high standing do not know enough about their own faith to stand up for it in the public square. 

Supporting Obamacare, and the piece-by-piece destruction of the finest medical system ever created,  is an affront to the doctrine of Social Justice.  It will prove a nightmare, not only for Americans, but for the whole world.

4.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/03/about_those_racial_slurs_tosse.html

About those racial slurs allegedly tossed at black congressmen yesterday

Rick Moran

I find it fascinating that in all the reports in the MSM on the story involving racial epithets being shouted at black Congressmen, very few mention that the only evidence for these racial slurs comes from the Congressmen themselves.

And they'd never lie about something like that, right?

Dan Loesch has a video of the Congressmen in question walking past tea party protestors and, while the slurs might have been shouted before or after the video, they are not being used while this particular camera was rolling:

Now let's be clear and let's be fair; it is possible that Rep. Lewis - an icon of the Civil Rights Movement who suffered and nearly died for his advocacy - did indeed, hear the "N" word shouted at him either before this camera started to roll or after it stopped. After all, the recording is only 22 seconds long and only proves that for those 22 seconds, it is impossible to make out any "screams" or "shouts" of the "N" word.

But the fact is, all we have is his word for it. There is no video or audio evidence that has surfaced that would confirm his very serious charges. On the other hand, we have the video above that debunks them.

Who to believe?

Lewis has earned the right to be believed. Would he abuse that trust to make up charges like this in order to cast aspersions on a very effective lobbying force against health care reform? I honestly don't know. But I believe he would not be above exaggerating what happened in order to score political points against his enemies.

Indeed, even if a few yahoos tossed racial epithets in Lewis' direction, is that any cause to tar the entire 10,000 strong protest with the smear of "racist?" Certainly not. And if he's going to make that charge, he better have a helluva lot more proof than his say so.

Carl Sagan used to say "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." In this case - and because this video exists - the burden is on Lewis to prove his incendiary charges. Even with his stellar and much admired reputation, the use of the term racist by Lewis when applied to a fellow American demands more evidence than the Congressman has offered so far.

Monday's Web

The contents of these articles are based on Fact and Truth.  Challenges are invited. 

The day’s top political news:

Senate Fight Starts: GOP Says Senate Parliamentarian Will Kill Fix-Its Bill

Senate Republicans say they can get the whole package of reconciliation fixes – the fix-its that make the Senate plan palatable to House Democrats - thrown out with a trump card procedural motion. And they say Democrats are slow-walking a decision from the parliamentarian until the House passes the Senate bill. 

That means the Senate bill, which everyone in the House seems to universally hate, will be the law of the land. Republicans say Democrats wouldn’t meet with them and the parliamentarian – a charge Democratic staffers call “absurd”. (The timing of the allegation also works as a last-minute, probably too-late message to wavering House Democrats).

Bottom line: Don’t expect the health reform debate to end  just yet even though the health reform bill will become law as soon as Obama signs the Senate bill.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/03/senate-fight-starts-gop-says-senate-parliamentarian-will-kill-fixits-bill.html

Attorney General Holder's future uncertain amid terror trial disputes

US Attorney General Eric Holder took office pledging a sharp shift away from the last administration's policies, but an apparent change of heart in the White House could see the top lawyer leave his job.

Holder, 59, is the first African-American to hold the top legal post, and was generally regarded with bipartisan respect when he took office. But a series of gaffes, fights with both Republicans and Democrats, and apparent disagreements between him and the White House have left Holder looking increasingly embattled.

He came under renewed fire when he told lawmakers Tuesday that Osama bin Laden would not be captured alive, and that US officials would read legal rights to the Al-Qaeda leader's corpse.  But the ridicule and attacks that followed are only the latest blows

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.5d23ae92cb40c3bf35e9df45faae06c8.d31&show_article=1

Schlafly: Health Care Vote Set to Expose the Myth of the 'Pro-Life Democrat'

Phyllis Schlafly, president and founder of the conservative grassroots public policy organization Eagle Forum, made the following remarks after the public announcement that formerly pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak (D-MI) will cast a "yes" vote for the Senate health care bill today in the House:

"It is naive for any elected official, especially one who describes himself as 'pro-life,' to expect that a promise to issue an Executive Order that reasserts the intentions of the Hyde Amendment will be fulfilled by the most pro-abortion president to ever sit in the White House. Perhaps Mr. Stupak and his fellow pro-life Democrats forget that President Obama's first Executive Order was the repeal of the Mexico City Policy to allow for international funding of abortion."

"Not only would an Executive Order be rendered meaningless in the face of Congress passing legislation which actively provides for the massive expansion and funding of abortion services, but anyone who doubts the abortion tsunami which awaits this bill becoming law lives in a fantasy world."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20100321/pl_usnw/DC74083_1

Opinion:
Democrat glee over passage of their health care scheme stokes the fires of anger and resentment on the part of normal America even higher.

Fox News claims it’s fair and balanced, and it usually is, but in anchoring Fox News post health care passage coverage Sunday night, Geraldo Rivera was absolutely pink cheeked with excitement, his mustache atwhirl, airily celebrating of the Democrat scheme and sweeping away Republican constitutional challenges.

It was Geraldo Rivera as Keith Olbermann.

There was also the in-your-face victory march of far left Democrats led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (carrying an oversized gavel).  Pelosi was joined in her victory lap by members of the Democrat Black Caucus who earlier injected phony claims of racist taunts from anti health care demonstrators.

Democrat claims of racist taunts from anti-health care demonstrators – don’t hold water. Such taunts are totally out of character for the current conservative activist movement. Claims of taunting neatly reflect the false image Democrat liberals harbor about those Americans they cluster under the facile term: “tea party demonstrators”.  Democrats just cant swallow the fact the tea party demonstrations are not reflections of racism.  Democrat “analysts” for Homeland Security insist racism is a basic element in opposition to Obama himself.  Democrats are enthralled with a mindset that any who differ with them must, somehow, be racist.  So we get claims of taunts.  Claims that don’t hold water or pass the smell test.

The Pelosi victory march was a Democrat celebration doing nothing to forward any effort to win over opponents.  Normal Americans who overwhelmingly oppose the Democrat health care take over will not be served.  The parade of giddy Democrats Sunday and those appearing on TV interviews Monday morning, rubs salt in the wounds of those Americans who oppose the scheme.  The more most normal Americans discover about what is actually in the Obama scheme, the more they will resent its passage.

The resentment runs very deep and will not ebb any time soon.  Those who claimed once the bill is passed, opposition will melt away, are about to get a serious lesson in political attitudes.  To begin with, the tax bills proceed provisions by four or more years.  “Pay now, get something later”.

Perhaps the biggest loser in the health care debate is Congressman Bart Stupak of Michigan. Stupak was the man of the hour as leader of pro life Democrats.  Such Democrats oppose federal funding of abortions.  (Democrats deny their bill does that)

Stupak is either the dumbest member of Congress, or is a part of a conspiracy designed to set up pro life Americans for betrayal.  Stupak became a deciding vote for the bill after he obtained Obama’s pledge of an Executive Order outlawing abortion funding.  At best. it was a stupid sell out. 

“What the president gives, he can take away”.  What Obama gave Stupak and pro lifers with his executive order, he can cancel with another such order.  No vote, no debate, just a whiff of presidential penmanship, and Stupak’s achievement is history.  In any case, an executive order cannot override provisions of a law.

Stupak’s earlier surrender – the one to the original House health care bill – was almost as stupid.  Pelosi allowed Stupak to submit his prolife amendment and allowed it to pass.  All the while, she was assuring her far left people she would see the amendment was dropped in any and all Conference Committee voting.  Stupak was had back then, and he has been had again.

Stupak is now the fall guy for federal funding of abortion.

Of course, he might have been an element of Democrat strategy – volunteering for some strange reason to become the symbol of support for pro life protection – planning all along to surrender his opposition at a key moment in the debate, thus unleashing a tide that could provide momentum for passage.

In either case, prolife Americans have little respect for Stupak now.  A major pro life group has withdrawn an award earlier intended for Stupak.

All this, and we haven’t even revisited the political bribes that are inherent elements of the health care bill.  Democrats smugly believe they no longer matter.  They contend Americans will soon forget the negatives – the bribery necessary to passage, the secret crafting of the bill, and the serious intrusion into the lives of all Americans.

If Democrats think they won more than passage of an extreme piece of legislation, they are again wrong.  Their actions have ignited a fuse of grass root anger and resentment.  Their arrogance kept alive the embers of resentment during the debate.  Their in-your-face taunting of Americans who oppose government-run health care, only made matters worse.

At a moment in which savvy Democrats would have found opportunities to be inclusive and responsive to people who differ, they chose instead a course of action that has made matters even worse – a mistake that will ensure even more grass root voters show up to defeat incumbent Democrats in November/

Congresswoan Marsha Blackburn (R-Tn) notes “freedom died a little bit” in yesterday’s vote.  She is right…if a bit understated.

Buddy

The day’s top blogs:

1.

http://article.nationalreview.com/428841/obamacare-isnt-inevitable/the-editors

Obamacare Isn’t Inevitable

‘Nil desperandum” — never despair. That is a sentiment that conservatives need to take to heart now that Congress has narrowly passed a bill that simultaneously undermines life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

It takes some ingenuity to add to the costs, inefficiency, and dysfunctions that government has already bequeathed to our health-care system, but the Democrats have proven themselves up to the challenge. Almost nothing about this legislation is free of dispute, but we are convinced that it will increase taxes, increase premiums, and increase debt, while decreasing economic growth, job growth, and the quality of health care.
 
The Democrats had no mandate to take these steps. In 2008, the president campaigned both against forcing people to buy insurance and against taxing their benefits. The legislation runs counter to the campaign on both points. The president promised to change Washington. He has made its stench more noisome, winning this vote by using every kind of deceit and (legal) corruption, and over the objection of a bipartisan coalition representing most Americans.

We are now being told that the campaign to repeal this legislation is over before it has even begun, that Americans will come to appreciate the benefits that a bountiful government is giving them, and that the growth of the welfare state can never be reversed. We understand the odds against repeal. We understand, indeed, that complete repeal of every provision of the bill is impossible. The doughnut hole — a gap in Medicare’s prescription-drug coverage designed to encourage seniors to economize — has been filled, and it is not going to be re-opened.

But the larger thesis seems as superficially plausible, and as ultimately convincing, as were earlier predictions that state socialism or secularization were our inevitable future. It is quite possible that the majority of America that rejects this legislation will get its way in the next few years — if it is given the right leadership. And it is worth the effort to try.

It is possible, for example, that the results of the legislation will turn out to be unpleasant more quickly than most observers realize. The bill requires insurers to charge people with pre-existing conditions the same as everyone else, and the only reason for people not to game the system — dropping their insurance until they get sick and the insurer has to take them — is because the law requires them to buy insurance or pay a fine. For many people, the fine will be a cheap price to avoid premiums that could run around $8,000 a year for a family of four. The effect of the legislation could be to cause the number of healthy people with insurance to fall dramatically — and for premiums to rise, which would cause more people to drop their insurance. If this happens, we can expect liberals to agitate for a single-payer system; but we can also expect the public to blame the Democrats whose health-care system it will now be. A less lopsidedly Democratic Congress is not going to respond to this chaos by enacting s
ingle payer or strengthening the fines.
 
For that matter, the lengthy legislation could turn out to have little time bombs, the nature of which cannot currently be guessed. Nothing about the process that produced the legislation, after all, suggests that it was put together with careful consideration. Conservatives will be able to capitalize on the discrediting of Obamacare, however it takes place, only if they campaign this fall on a pledge to replace this government-heavy system with true reform. Republicans running against Democrats who voted for this legislation will have the easiest task. But even Republicans running against Democrats who voted against it can advance the cause by challenging those Democrats either to advocate repeal and replacement themselves or to expose themselves as false opponents of Obamacare.
 
Nor have pro-lifers lost the war. Pro-lifers should campaign this fall on a pledge to make the Hyde amendment — the partial ban on government funding of abortion, which now applies to portions of federal spending and has to be renewed each year — a permanent feature of law that applies to all federal spending. The Obama administration and most of liberaldom have pretended over the last year to favor both the principle in general and the Hyde amendment in particular. And the principle is popular. Their posturing, disingenuous though it was, has handed pro-lifers a winning issue.

The Democrats have abused the system, ignoring both the Founders’ design and public opinion. The first step toward undoing that abuse is to make them pay a political price for it.

2.

 http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/21217
 
Obama Administration

The Empire of the Out of Touch

Daniel Greenfield  

Three is just not just the number of graces, fates and gorgons—for the Obama Administration there were three major pieces of legislation they had in mind that would radically change America. The first of these was government health care, an approach that would not only eventually lock in all Americans deeper into the government’s cradle to grave programs, but would also make it virtually impossible to reduce government spending, while providing carte blanche for just about any mandatory public health program to be implemented.

Government Health Care was meant to implement control over the people.

The second was to be Cap and Trade, which would implement government control over American industry and turn the financial markets into a government program to push the environmentalist agenda.

The third was an overhaul of immigration that would aggressively seek to remake the American population and replace the base type of American with a more amenable and controllable type.

Government Health Care went first, because it seemed like the potentially most popular and least enraging of the three. Democratic lawmakers seriously thought that it would be a breeze and that its popularity would serve to deter Republican opposition. And having achieved a decisive legislative victory on those grounds, Obama and the left would have intimidated any potential opposition when it came to taking on the next two items on the agenda.

Additionally government health care was supposed to prepare the ground for Cap and Trade and Immigration, by buying public trust for the former and creating an incentive for immigrants in the latter scenario. But as is so often the case with politicians and their ambitions, the Democrats were tripped up by the very situation that they had leveraged to seize power. The economy.

By pushing health care as their number one priority, the Democrats were very clearly ignoring the number one concern of the public—the economy. And selling an expensive health care boondoggle was going to be much more of a challenge at a time when people were being much more budget conscious, both in their budgets which would be strained by such provisions as mandatory health insurance, and the national budget, which was already unworkable to most people. But if government health care couldn’t be sold in tough economic times, Cap and Trade which would kill uncounted numbers of jobs, and immigration, which would wreck an already tight job market, certainly couldn’t be sold.

And that is why Obama refuses to back down from his big health care push. It isn’t simply Rahm Emanuel’s borrowed testosterone at work, though obviously the collapse of health care would be a severe blow to his credibility. But if Obama folds on health care, he folds on everything. Where Bill Clinton could deftly retreat from an unpopular program and do whatever he had to do to stay in office, Obama is a manufactured candidate, elevated for a specific purpose. He has never fought his own battles. His agenda is being set by the people who got him this far, and they didn’t get him this far just to keep him in office. They did it to radically change America.

Where Bill Clinton was a sleazy politician always looking out for himself, Obama is an ideological figurehead for a team effort whose overall price tag is likely to be in the billions. And those billions were not invested in the man, but in the idea. Hope and Change. A dramatic recreation of America that tosses out the old ways and transforms the country into another declining European socialist hive state that the likes of Soros can rob and that Muslim immigrants can turn into a charnel house.

So the only way is to push ahead. For the Obamanites, health care has become not a Waterloo, but a Stalingrad, and they are determined to break through, one way or another. They may be starving and running low on ammo, but they have no choice but to win, because there is no going back. If Rahm Emanuel is trying to position himself as the voice of reason, while looking for a way to transition to a safe Illinois Senate seat, it’s because he sees himself surrounded by compulsive ideologues… and like his old boss Bill, Rahm is only out for himself. He has no interest in killing his career for the cause.

Meanwhile his current boss, Barry, has led too charmed a political life to understand that he can lose. Because he has never been allowed to lose. He’s the kid whose parents never let him play kickball and whose home runs were all scored for him. He’s overflowing with self-esteem but while he poses with the ball, he has no idea what to do when things aren’t going his way. His reaction to any setback is to launch a political hate campaign, deliver a speech or schedule a conference. He has no conception of other people as independent entities, and so is incapable of listening to them. All he does is talk over them, talk down to them or try to win a debate with them. All of which make sense with his background, but they aren’t how you win the game.

What’s even more disastrous is that he’s surrounded by people who think just like him, the privileged left wing elite. Golden children who waited for a decade or two for the chance to get into the White House and rewrite all the rules, again without understanding any of them. The sloppy command structure and the poor damage control typical of the White House right now are endemic to most left wing organizations, which are good at offense, but terrible at defense, and while calling for everyone else to be accountable, lack the basic skills to get their own house in order. Even when it’s the White House.

The left spent a lot of money putting these Brightest Boys and Girls in the Room into a position where they could implement all their bright ideas. And it never occurred to them that a populist movement could threaten them, that congress would bog them down, or that the people would have anything to say about it. Like most amateur generals, they could only see the endgame, not the hard work in between. And like Obama, they could not see people as individuals, only as counters in a political game between them and the Republicans.

For all the sloppy history fed out of buckets to American students, it was not JFK’s vaguely idealistic poses that radically changed America, but the canny LBJ who was a practical politician in a way that JFK was not. But Obama has been much too arrogant to allow an LBJ anywhere near him. Instead he has Joe Biden, who has LBJ’s gift of gaffe, but not his political horse sense. Obama wanted someone who would make him look strong and smart, and Biden accomplishes that just by showing up. But politics is a team effort, and most of Obama’s team is as out of touch as he is. They can’t help him, because they don’t even understand the problem.

Health care seemed like a slam dunk to them, because of the ideological logic. They had no ability to relate to its end results. Only to the ideological purity of their aims. And so like the tone deaf ideologues that they were, they treated each setback as a teachable moment, telling the American people repeatedly, “What we’ve got here is a failure to communicate”, without realizing that this very approach was not only condescending, but betrayed their inability to hear what was being said to them.

Customer service representatives are taught to deal with angry customers by assuring them that they hear what they’re saying, only to then repeat their policy again. The theory is that once the customer understands that he or she is being heard, they will stop feeling frustrated and accept whatever they are told. This theory doesn’t work too well in customer service, and it works very badly when the people who are angry are not your customers, but your bosses. And a constant diet of, “We hear that you’re confused and angry, but we want to tell about a great new service that the government will provide for you for the trifling sum of only 2 trillion dollars” only made the situation worse.

Yet the Obama Administration, this great Empire of the Out of Touch, is the logical outcome of a political system in which politicians increasingly have to appeal to their patrons, more than to the voters.

Obama got as far as he did, to the highest office in the land, without ever once learning how to understand people. And that happened because he got there on fraud, smear campaigns and a whole lot of money backing his cult of personality. More importantly he got there because powerful people were standing behind him all the way up, paving the way for him, clearing away the roadblocks and moving him up the red carpet escalators to the sky. But how do you clear away a roadblock as big as the American Electorate?

So far no one in Obama’s Empire of the Out of Touch has found an answer for that.

Daniel Greenfield is a New York City based writer and freelance commentator. Daniel can be reached at: sultanknish@yahoo.com

3.

Congressman Spencer Bachus (R-Al) speaks out against Democrat health care takeover legislation

As the health care debate was in progress, Cong. Bachus made the following statement on the floor:
 
 
“In our Declaration of Independence, our Forefathers declared that we are endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights.  The first is life.  Yet the bill that we are voting on today would empower the government – through the funding of abortion – to take an innocent life formed by our Creator within a matter of months, weeks, or even days.  The very first act by our government on this innocent and defenseless life would be to end it. This turns the intent of our forefathers on its head.  On this very day – March 21 – exactly 63 years ago, Chaplain Peter Marshall prayed on the floor of the Senate, ‘Save us from accepting a little of what we know to be wrong to get a little of what we imagine to be right.’ 

This is accepting a lot of what is wrong to accept some things that we imagine might be right.  Let me close by again quoting a portion of the prayer Chaplain Marshall addressed to the Lord, our God: ‘Help us to stand up for the inalienable rights of mankind…knowing that Thy Power and Thy Blessing will be upon us only when we are in the right.  May we so speak, and vote, and live, as to merit Thy Blessing.’”

Congressman Bachus voted against the government takeover of health care -- casting the following votes on three key pieces of legislation passed by the Democrat majority:
 
NO on the Rule to consider H.R. 3590 (Senate Health Care Bill) and H.R. 4872 (Reconciliation Bill)
 
NO on the Motion to Concur on Senate Amendments to H.R. 3590 sponsored by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Senate Health Care Bill)
 
NO on H.R. 4872, Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Reconciliation Bill)
 
            Bachus voted in favor of a procedural measure to ban public funding of abortion in the health care legislation.  The measure was defeated when the overwhelming majority of the Democrat caucus voted against it.

Sunday's Web

The contents of these articles are based on Fact and Truth.  Challenges are invited. 

The day’s top political news:

 

Key Democrat Says Votes in Place for Health Bill

The chairman of the Democratic caucus in the House says his party has the 216 votes needed to pass President Barack Obama's historic health care bill. Speaking Sunday on ABC's ''This Week,'' Connecticut Rep. John Larson said, in his words, ''We have the votes now -- as we speak.''

House Democrats are predicting that a rare Sunday session will produce one of the most significant legislative triumphs in decades: passage of a bill to overhaul the nation's health care system to provide coverage to millions of people.

Republicans resolutely oppose the bill.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/03/21/us/politics/AP-US-Health-Care-Overhaul-Larson.html?_r=1

GOP outraises Democrats in February

The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) outraised its Democratic counterpart in February, $5.1 million to $4.4 million.

According to Federal Election Commission (FEC) reports filed Saturday, the (Republcan) NRCC spent $3.2 million for the month and was left with $6.1 million in the bank. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) spent $2.9 million and had $19.8 million cash on hand. The DCCC retains about $667,000 in debt.

The NRCC spent much of 2009 getting out of debt leftover from the 2008 election cycle. Even as it builds toward large gains this year, its bankroll has lagged far behind its Democratic counterpart.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/fundraising/88061-nrcc-raised-51m-in-february

Rule Committee moves healthcare bill to floor

In a vote of 8-5 late Saturday night, the House Rules Committee voted to send the healthcare bill to the floor for a Sunday vote.

Democratic Rep. Mike Arcuri (N.Y.) was the only committee member to break party ranks.

Arcuri is also a firm "no" vote against the health bill. "After several meetings and conversations with the president, Speaker of the House, administration officials and colleagues, I am not convinced enough changes can be made to the Senate health care bill to meet the needs of the people in my district," he had said in his Thursday statement announcing his vote.

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/88073-rule-committee-moves-healthcare-bill-to-the-house-floor

Opinion:
Democrats will win the health care vote, but what they get as a result may not be what they intended.  It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature, or the American public either.

Democrats will pass their health care reform scheme before sundown.

The question remains regarding what they will actually win,   The debate has been rancorous, and Democrats are about to defy – not just Republicans – but a majority of the American people as well.

There is a scene in “Lee’s Lieutenants” – a monumental study of the War Between the States.  As the war headed inevitably toward Appomattox a  Confederate soldier was captured by a squad of Yankees.  Battered, tattered, wounded and hungry, the Southerner raised his hands in surrender and said, “you got me Yank, but it’s one hell of a git you got”.

The same may be said of the victory the far left Democrat party will realize later today when the votes are finally counted.  They will win the vote, what they get in return is quite another matter.

For one thing, the vote separates Democrats from a majority of Americans – especially in terms of how they view the role of government in their lives.  If the full scope of the Obama bill is successfully communicated, grass root anger and resentment will become even greater. 

For one thing, a majority of Americans don’t like being lied to by politicians.  Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have been forced to lie about this bill again and again and again.  They owe their vote count today – not to reasoned debate or honest consideration, but to political brute force.  It’s another display of the sort of bare knuckle politics Obama and his cohorts have brought to the Capitol from the Chicago politicians such as they are call the shots.

Discovering how the bill will increase the power of the IRS and give it access to more and more aspects of our private lives, will increase public resentment.  Democrats will find such things firmly attached to their resumes. 

The pro-Obama, very liberal, Washington Post offers its own analysis:

“The lengthy and rancorous debate has inflicted considerable damage on the president and his party. It helped spark the grass-roots "tea party" movement and generated angry town hall meetings last summer that led to some opponents painting Obama as a socialist and a communist for advocating a greater government role in the health-care industry. The issue now is whether final passage of the legislation -- Senate leaders say they will take up the reconciliation bill this week -- will cause more harm or begin a turnaround in the Democrats' fortunes heading toward the November midterm elections.

“This is not how the struggle over health care was supposed to unfold.”

Democrat proponents call this bill “health care reform”.  It is not.  It’s “health care takeover”. It has been brought to this point by a Democrat leadership willing to do absolutely anything at all to gain passage.  Florida Congressman Alcee Hastings proclaimed they are following no rules, but just doing what is needed to win.  (Hastings was impeached as a federal judge on charges of bribery.)

What we are seeing is liberal domination – a temporary phenomenon – being used to send the nation in a sharp turn toward the far left.

Obama pledges “if you like your doctor and health care, you will be able to keep them”.  Such a pledge is either naïve or a bald faced lie.

Obama is not naïve.

The doctor-patient relationship will be forever shattered.  Many senior citizens will see their access limited and their doctor may either reject accepting Medicare patients,  or leave the profession altogether.

It will get even worse.  Brace yourself for an effort to inject “public options” into health care. “Public Options” provide pathways to the socialized medicine that has been so destructive for Canadians.

Obama care has had one positive impact – it has led to a major arousal of grass root political activism.  American voters have coalesced into a movement that not only opposes Obamacare, but also illegal immigration.  They also resent the rabid overspending in Washington, and worry about the long term erosion in the quality of public education.

Obama, Pelosi, and Barney Frank began last year with control of the White House, and dominating majorities in both houses of Congress.  They reasoned they had the power to do whatever they wish, and proceeded to govern that way.  Political arrogance has been on parade since the Obama Inauguration.  Rahm Emanuel’s middle finger salute from the Inaugural platform, was indicative.  He is quite dismissive of public sentiment.

Democrats have tried to govern that way.  The spontaneous uprisings at town hall meetings across the country were a signal American voters were determined to fight back.

Now a majority of American voters are a part of that activist movement and will likely demonstrate their resentment by defeating a host of Democrat incumbents this November.

Democrats will have a Congressional victory at day’s end.  But for Democrats “it’s a Hell of a git they got”.

We fight on.

Buddy

The day’s top blogs:

1.

http://biggovernment.com/mvadum/2010/03/19/breaking-while-an-anxious-nation-is-transfixed-by-the-healthcare-debate-the-obama-administration-restores-acorn-funding/

Breaking: While An Anxious Nation Is Transfixed By The Healthcare Debate, The Obama Administration Restores ACORN Funding

Matthew Vadum

While America is distracted by Democrats’ attempts to unconstitutionally ram government-run healthcare down the throats of the American people, the Obama administration began preparing to resume funding to President Obama’s favorite community organizing group.
 
The fiscal floodgates are opening for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), the president’s former employer and legal client, despite a congressional ban on funding the activist group that has long been a practitioner of election fraud.

In a March 16 memo Office of Management and Budget (OMB) director Peter Orszag quietly ordered federal agencies to resume funding the group whose employees were caught on hidden camera videos last year condoning a variety of crimes including child prostitution and tax evasion.

The memo came a week after renegade federal judge Nina Gershon of the Eastern District of New York made permanent her temporary injunction prohibiting Congress from cutting off funding for ACORN.

The memo also came despite the fact that the Department of Justice is planning to appeal Gershon’s ruling and seek a stay pending appeal.

It’s unclear why the Obama administration isn’t doing the responsible thing and waiting for the case to work its way through the judicial system.

Could the OMB be moving at lightning speed to restore funding for ACORN, which is under indictment in Nevada for election fraud, because ACORN is in dire financial straits?

Perhaps it’s a reward for ACORN’s loyal support in the ObamaCare battle and Obama's long time personal connections with them.

2.

http://www.examiner.com/x-2684-Law-Enforcement-Examiner~y2010m3d21-Health-care-mandate-to-be-enforced-by-IRS-bounty-hunters

Law Enforcement Examiner

Jim Kouri

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” -- C. S. Lewis (1898 - 1963)

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will see its largest expansion since withholding taxes were first enacted during WWII to enforce the glut of new tax mandates and penalties included in the Democrats’ latest health care plan, according to Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX).

A new analysis by the Joint Economic Committee and the House Ways & Means Committee minority staff estimates up to 16,500 new IRS personnel will be needed to collect, examine and audit new tax information mandated on families and small businesses in the ‘reconciliation’ bill being taken up by the U.S. House of Representatives this weekend, according to Brady.

“When most people think of health care reform they think of more doctors exams, not more IRS exams,” says U.S. Congressman Kevin Brady, the top House Republican on the Joint Economic Committee. “Isn’t the federal government already intruding enough into our lives? We need thousands of new doctors and nurses in America, not thousands more IRS agents.”

Scores of new federal mandates and fifteen different tax increases totaling $400 billion are imposed under the Democratic House bill. In addition to more complicated tax returns, families and small businesses will be forced to reveal further tax information to the IRS, provide proof of ‘government approved’ health care and submit detailed sales information to comply with new excise taxes.

Scores of new federal mandates and fifteen different tax increases totaling $400 billion are imposed under the Democratic House bill. In addition to more complicated tax returns, families and small businesses will be forced to reveal further tax information to the IRS, provide proof of ‘government approved’ health care and submit detailed sales information to comply with new excise taxes.

Unfortunately, according to the Center for American Progress, the structure of the IRS' use of private agencies to collect "debts" encourages abuse. Under the current program, collectors are awarded as much as 25 cents of every dollar they collect, in addition to a $100 bonus for every account they close.

The Internal Revenue Service strategy of paying private debt collectors a 25 percent commission to collect unpaid tax debt originally met with bipartisan resistance from Congress. They claimed that the proposal jeopardized the rights and privacy of American taxpayers. Several organizations voiced their objections to the IRS proposal and have expressed their strong support for the consumer protection legislation Rep. Chris Van Hollen introduced: Citizens for Tax Justice, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, National Consumer Law Center, National Consumers League.

The very nature of the program provides incentives for collectors to push the limits of legality to extract a little more revenue from their targets. As part of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Congress, fearing overly aggressive collection practices, explicitly prohibited the IRS from compensating its own collectors based on the amount of money they collect. If Congress believes that incentive-based pay will cause official IRS collectors to cross the line, why would they think private collectors would behave any differently?

Although IRS officials indicated that the purpose of the limited implementation phase was to assure readiness for full implementation using up to 12 private collection agencies, the IRS has not documented how it will identify and use the lessons learned to ensure that each critical success factor is addressed before expanding the program even further during the current atmosphere of extraordinary government spending.

Because program's success will be affected by how well IRS makes adjustments, assessing the lessons learned in limited implementation is critical. Also, IRS has not documented criteria that it will use to determine whether the limited implementation performance warrants program expansion.

IRS officials indicated that they are considering criteria that could trigger a go/no go decision, such as the amount of penalties collected from Americans unwilling or unable to purchase health care insurance and there are some indications of PCAs abusing taxpayers or misusing taxpayer data.

Paying private debt collectors on a commission basis is costly and threatens the rights and privacy of the American taxpayers. Congress must ensure, as this resolution seeks to do, that federal tax collection functions will not be handed over to private sector bounty hunters.

Critics of the private collection agency program say that, compared with private debt collectors, whose bad apples star in countless horror stories of debtor abuse and intimidation, the IRS's customer-service-based approach may start looking pretty good to taxpayers.

A recent Center for American Progress report noted that "19% of all complaints received by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in 2005 were related to debt collectors, up from 10.5% in 1999. The FTC received more complaints about debt collection in 2005 than about any other industry -- 66,627, a 560% increase over the last six years." The report's writers claim this will likely occur with private agencies working on behalf of the IRS.

IRS officials say they will have a little more than a half year to identify the lessons learned before incorporating them into the next contract solicitation, which IRS intends to release in March 2007.

Related to such decisions on expansion is IRS's planned comparative study of using PCAs. That study is to compare using PCAs to investing IRS's operating costs into having IRS staff work IRS's "next best" collection cases. Under the documented study design, IRS would exclude the fees paid to PCAs from the costs and subtract those fees from the tax debts and health care penalties collected by PCAs.

While such a study might produce useful information, it will not compare the results of using PCAs with the results IRS could get if given the same amount of resources, including the fees to be paid to PCAs, to use in what IRS officials would judge to be the best way to meet tax collection goals.

Adequately designing and implementing the study is important to ensure policymakers are aware of the true costs of contracting with PCAs and know whether PCAs offer the best use of federal funds, while using the least abusive and intrusive tactics to collect tax money owed.

But taxpayer advocate Nina Olsen says that collecting tax revenue is the core job of the IRS, and it should continue to bear that responsibility while protecting taxpayer rights. IRS employees cost only 3 cents for every dollar they collect, making them many times more cost-effective than private collectors.

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he's a columnist for The Examiner (examiner.com) and New Media Alliance (thenma.org).  In addition, he's a blogger for the Cheyenne, Wyoming Fox News Radio affiliate KGAB (www.kgab.com). Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty. 

3.

This Process is Undermining the Rule of Law

This week, NBC News and The Wall Street Journal released poll results that are disturbing but by no means surprising. The March 11th - 14th poll of 1000 American adults showed that only 17% of respondents approve of the job Congress is doing in Washington. And as bad as that number is, the reason why Congress' approval rating is so low is even more disturbing: a full 76% of Americans simply do not trust the U.S. Congress. This was the lowest level of trust for any representative entity tested by NBC/WSJ.

It is no coincidence that these record low ratings come amid current debate over health care in Congress. Yesterday, former U.S. Attorneys General Edwin Meese III and William P. Barr released the following statement:

The convoluted and questionable method under discussion by both Houses of Congress for final passage of the long-debated health care legislation raises serious constitutional concerns, which, at best, will lead to protracted and wholly avoidable litigation and continued doubt about the bill’s validity. Members of Congress from both parties have criticized the use of such sleights of hand, and The Washington Post has rightly editorialized against such “unseemly” and “dodgy” maneuvers for the health care bill. Beyond the obvious practical concerns shared by all citizens, the use of such obscure “rules” for final passage is even harder to justify in light of the real constitutional doubt and the erosion of public confidence in government that it will cause.

Contrary to what President Obama and some congressional leaders have been repeating of late, the American people do care passionately that the process for consideration of health care reform be both constitutional and fair. At a bare minimum, article I, sec. 7, cl. 2 of the U.S. Constitution requires that before it becomes law “(1) a bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate approved precisely the same text; and (3) that text was signed into law by the President.” Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 448 (1998).

The “deem and pass” and similar options under consideration in the House of Representatives plainly violate at least the spirit of the Constitution’s bicameralism and presentment requirements. Those constitutional requirements were intended to ensure democratic transparency with a straightforward up-or-down vote in each House on all bills that become law. More importantly, these requirements were designed to ensure that the new national government actually followed “the consent of the governed,” which the Declaration of Independence had declared to the world was the only basis of legitimate government.

The “deem and pass” options under consideration in the House and the subsequent use of a “reconciliation” process that is reserved for budget issues in acts already signed into law further erode confidence in the rule of law. Some past uses of the “deem and pass” or “self-executing” rules raise similar concerns, but none was as convoluted as the proposed use, and significantly, there may have been no one with legal standing to challenge prior uses in court. Many individuals will have standing to challenge any health reform legislation that restructures one-sixth of the American economy, and the contemplated use of the “deem and pass” maneuver in this instance may be combined with questionable procedural steps in the Senate that render it much more subject to challenge.

There is no need to engage in such procedural machinations, and no asserted reason for doing so exists other than to avoid the traditional legislative safeguards in the Senate and to obscure the appearance that Members of the House actually voted for the Senate bill, which is a prerequisite for genuine reconciliation. The constitutional requirement of bicameralism should not be jettisoned under any circumstances—and certainly not for such trivial and partisan reasons.

Members of Congress take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Members should violate neither the letter nor spirit of the Constitution, especially when there is so much at stake, not only as a policy matter, but when the very legitimacy of the legislative process is in question. Given that many parts of the underlying legislation itself raise substantial constitutional concerns, these “unseemly” and “dodgy” procedures underscore the justified concern the American people have that their elected representatives are blatantly disregarding the Constitution, and as a result, undermining the rule of law.