The contents of these articles are based on Fact and Truth. Challenges are invited.
The day’s top political news:
Pro-Life House Democrats: “Senate Health Care Bill Dead on Arrival”
The health care reform bill passed by the Senate on Christmas Eve appears to be dead on arrival in the House, as seven anti-abortion Democrats intend to join the ranks of lawmakers who plan to vote against the legislation, Fox News has confirmed.
Seven new no votes would be enough to kill the Senate bill, and several more fence-sitting lawmakers are under pressure from both sides of the aisle. Foremost among the seven new no votes is Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., whose anti-abortion amendment to the House version of the legislation got the bill passed in that chamber last year.
But because the Senate and House Democratic leaders weren't able to agree on joint legislation before losing their supermajority in the Senate this year, they have few options other than getting the House to pass the Senate bill and then making changes to the law through a separate budget reconciliation bill that could pass with simple majorities.
Budget deficit sets record in February
The government ran up the largest monthly deficit in history in February, keeping the flood of red ink on track to top last year's record for the full year.
The Treasury Department said Wednesday that the February deficit totaled $220.9 billion, 14 percent higher than the previous record set in February of last year. The deficit through the first five months of this budget year totals $651.6 billion, 10.5 percent higher than a year ago.
The Obama administration is projecting that the deficit for the 2010 budget year will hit an all-time high of $1.56 trillion, surpassing last year's $1.4 trillion total. The administration is forecasting that the deficit will remain above $1 trillion in 2011, giving the country thrree straight years of $1 trillion-plus deficits.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g-YziTsAJw1ofv-BiXk2MoSXknwQD9EBVD6G0
Immigration provision has Hispanic Caucus threatening ‘no’ health vote
A group of Hispanic lawmakers will tell President Barack Obama today that they may not vote for healthcare reform unless changes are made to the bill’s immigration provisions.
The scheduled meeting comes as Democratic leaders and the White House are struggling to craft a final bill that will attract 216 votes in the lower chamber.
Unlike abortion, immigration has flown beneath the radar, and almost seemed to vanish altogether as House Democrats have wrestled with how to accept a Senate healthcare bill far different from the one they passed in November. Immigration remains just as explosive an issue and carries the same potential to derail the entire healthcare endgame, a number of Democrats said.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/86125-hispanic-caucus-threat-to-vote-no-on-healthcare
Opinion:
Democrats: “There they go again”
Now it’s the House Democrats who are huddled behind closed doors and conspiring in secret to craft yet another version of the Obama Health Care scheme.
This comes a day after Illinois Senator Dick Durbin offered a rare moment of candor in admitting the Obama plan will cause health insurance premium costs to soar. He didn’t see fit to also disclose passage of the Democrat plan will also bring with it new and/or higher taxes as well.
In case you were still wondering – those health taxes will be levied on middle American families, representing another violation of the Obama pledge – oaths taken during the campaign and since his election – that anyone making less than a quarter million dollars a year will not see a dime in increased taxes.
A Democrat politician caught lying to the American people? Perish the thought!
Meanwhile, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her obedient minions are toiling away in secret, behind closed doors, trying to hammer out a plan plotters believe might garner the necessary House votes to pass the massive health bill that threatens to fundamentally change American medicine. Count on normal America to come out the loser.
Pelosi is following the lead of Democrat Senate Leader Harry Reid who created his own health care conspiracy behind the doors of his office – door that were slammed shut to Republicans and to the American people. When Reid emerged from his efforts, a plethora of out and out political bribes were uncovered. Reid promised any Senator anything in order to get another name in his corner,
Fortunately for America, Reid’s conspiracy came apart with the upset win of Scott Brown in the Massachusetts’ special election.
Now it’s Pelosi’s turn. No matter that Obama and others claim to have banned more bribery – if Pelosi does get her votes, count on bribes having been employed along with a lot of severe arm twisting.
Rumors have long suggested Pelosi’s Baltimore kin had more than a nodding relationship with the mob back in the family digs. Who knows? I dont and Pelosi herself says of Washington, "this is rumor city".
When you add those rumors to the known bare knuckle, knee capping, ways of doing business by the Chicago Democrat Machine that now runs the Oval Office, and there is no telling to what lengths Democrats have gone to get this health care bill passed in order for Obama to be able to sign it prior to departing for Asia later this month.
I’m betting Democrats gain passage of the bill. They have too much power, too much White House pressure, and too great a willingness to do whatever might be required to get their way, They also have far too much at stake.
Whether the truth is known or not – count on records for pressures, bribery, and other power plays having been rampant – especially behind the doors to Pelosi’s inner sanctum.
Harry Reid is almost certainly playing his end game – the odds are heavily against his winning re-election in November.
Passage of the health care bill may not be all that bad for Republicans. Among other things, it gives GOP candidates a rallying cry for November’s election – “Repeal Obamacare!”.
Given current polling, such a slogan would likely be quite effective.
Buddy
The day’s top blogs:
1.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-03-10-liberals_N.htm
Obama's liberal base 'disengaged'
Mimi Hall, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Is President Obama losing his base?
Liberal and progressive organizations that helped propel him to the White House are turning on him now, little more than a year after he took office. Their collective discontent, on issues from health care to nuclear energy to the handling of terrorism suspects, could mean bad news for Democrats during this fall's congressional elections.
Polls show that liberals and blacks still approve of the job Obama's doing. That approval, however, doesn't necessarily mean they will make the effort to vote, and many of the activists and groups that worked to get people to the polls in 2008 say they're not inclined right now to help Democrats in the fall.
"The energized base which transformed the nation and elected our first black president (is) now disengaged," Democratic political strategist Donna Brazile says. "If this was September, I would hit the panic button."
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs routinely brushes off questions about whether Obama and the Democrats are losing key constituencies, but he says the notion that the president is taking liberals for granted is "silly."
Still, signs of trouble for the Democratic majority in Congress are springing up in:
•Virginia, where a host of liberal groups are rallying supporters and students to protest the upcoming University of Virginia appearance of former Bush administration top Justice Department official John Yoo.
Yoo, who wrote the legal memos authorizing the use of controversial interrogation techniques against terrorism suspects, will speak at the school in Charlottesville on March 19. He will be greeted by protesters, from groups such as Veterans for Peace and the National Accountability Network, who are angry that the Obama administration has declined to prosecute him for the so-called torture memos.
Organizer David Swanson calls the administration's positions on protecting state secrets and war crimes "a disaster."
The American Civil Liberties Union concurs. The group recently warned the White House not to reverse its decision to try terror suspects in civilian courts.
If Obama has suspects tried before military commissions, "he will betray his campaign promise to restore the rule of law, demonstrate that his principles are up for grabs and lose all credibility with Americans who care about justice and the rule of law," ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero says.
•Georgia and South Carolina, where the environmental group Friends of the Earth (FOE) this month ran TV ads denouncing the Obama administration's decision to approve $55 billion in private industry loan guarantees for what would be the first nuclear reactors built in the United States in three decades.
The group also was alarmed when Obama talked in his State of the Union Address about investing in "clean coal" and opening new offshore oil drilling, spokesman Nick Berning says.
FOE's political arm endorsed candidate Obama, but "we've been disappointed so far with President Obama," Berning says.
•Arkansas, where liberal groups are backing Lt. Gov. Bill Halter in a primary challenge to two-term incumbent Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln, who is backed by Obama.
In three days earlier this month, the liberal group MoveOn.org raised $1 million for Halter, in average donations of $30. He also nabbed the endorsement of the Arkansas AFL-CIO. "This overwhelming response to Bill Halter's candidacy shows the depth of voters' anger towards corporate politicians," MoveOn Director Justin Ruben says.
A chief complaint against Lincoln: She opposed including a government-run health care program, known as the public option, in legislation that passed the Senate in December.
She's unapologetic. "I don't answer to my party," she says in TV ads. "I answer to Arkansas."
Polls show those who represent a significant chunk of Obama's base still back him. Although the samples are small and the margins of error high, a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll in January found that nearly nine in 10 blacks approve of the job Obama's doing, as do more than seven in 10 liberals.
Regardless, a growing number of liberal groups and activists say they've had enough of Democrats who break their promises or cater to conservatives.
"The liberal wing of the Democratic Party is now in shock," says longtime Democratic activist-turned-blogger Chris Bowland, 52, of Santa Rosa, Calif. "It's very clear the party hates us and has no respect for its base."
Bowland, who this month changed his party registration to the Green Party, says the Democrats are going to pay for it at the polls in November.
"Who is it that shows up to man your phone banks and who goes knocking on your doors? Unions and left-wing activists like me," he says. But Obama has broken his campaign promises and now, "we've had it. I'm done."
Republican pollster Frank Luntz says the angst on Obama's left is sure to benefit the GOP.
"It's the perfect storm" for Obama, he says. "All the conservative groups are coalescing out of anger and all the liberal groups are disappearing out of anger. If he moves to satisfy one, he destroys himself with the other. ... He's in a really tough spot."
Brazile says there's time to repair the damage and re-energize liberal activists. "Will it be a tough spin? You betcha," she says. "But I do think President Obama and the party will be up to the task."
2
Michigan's Stupak challenged for Democratic nomination
TODD SPANGLER
WASHINGTON – Michigan’s Bart Stupak, a Democratic congressman who could help bring down health care reform over an abortion provision, is getting a primary challenge this year.
Connie Saltonstall of Charlevoix said today she plans to run against Stupak for the Democratic nomination of Michigan’s First Congressional District, citing Stupak’s efforts to stop health care reform if it doesn’t ban use of government money for abortions. Stupak, a former state trooper from Menominee, has held the seat since 1993.
This year and last, Stupak has made a name for himself as a thorn in the side of some congressional Democrats pushing legislation for health care reform. While largely supportive of those efforts, he successfully attached an amendment last fall to ban use of federal funds to help pay for abortions.
“I believe that he has a right to his personal, religious views, but to deprive his constituents of needed health care reform because of those views is reprehensible,” Saltonstall said in a statement.
A Catholic, Stupak authored an amendment that passed the House of Representatives in November that prohibited federal subsidies going to any plan participating on national insurance exchange that provided abortion coverage. Federal subsidies are seen as a way to help people without coverage through their employers get it at a competitive rate they can afford.
In the Senate, the provision was changed to allow for abortion coverage as long as it was paid for with funds contributed by the policyholder. Stupak has said that’s unacceptable because he believes the federal subsidies are still helping to pay for an insurance plan that covers abortion.
There are worries that Stupak and like-minded Democrats could ruin health care reform’s chances of passage.
Saltonstall, whose supporters are trying to collect the 1,000 signatures needed to put her name on the August primary ballot, said Stupak has let the district down.
Saltonstall, a former teacher who was also a Charlevoix County commissioner, lost a race for state representatives in 2008.
3
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203585004574393110640864526.html
ObamaCare's Crippling Deficits
The higher taxes, debt payments and interest rates needed to pay for health reform mean lower living standards.
MARTIN FELDSTEIN
While the deficits caused by the fiscal stimulus package will end in 2011 and will help to sustain a fragile recovery in 2010, the deficits projected for the longer term are a threat to our economic future. The starting point for controlling those future deficits is for Congress to abandon the administration's health-care plan—a plan that will cost more than $1 trillion.
The deficits projected for the next decade and beyond are unprecedented. According to an assessment released in March by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the president's budget implies that deficits will average 5.2% of GDP over the next decade and will be 5.5% of GDP in 2019. Without the president's proposals, the budget office forecasts a 2019 deficit of only 2% of GDP.
The CBO's deficit projections are based on the optimistic assumptions that the economy will grow at a healthy 3% pace with no recessions during the next decade; that there will be no new spending programs after this year's budget; and that the rising national debt will increase the rate of interest on government bonds by less than 1%. More realistic assumptions would imply a 2019 deficit of more than 8% of GDP and a government debt of more than 100% of GDP.
Such enormous deficits would crowd out productivity-enhancing investments in new equipment and software as the government borrows funds otherwise available to private investors. The result would be slower economic growth and a lower standard of living.
In the nearer term, the projected deficits could cause interest rates on bonds and mortgages to rise sharply if bond investors fear that the government will not prevent inflation. This is a greater risk now that more than half of the U.S. government debt is held by the Chinese and other foreign investors.
Such an interest rate rise could kill a recovery in 2010 or 2011 and depress growth in the years that follow.
Dropping the Obama health plan would significantly reduce fiscal deficits over the next decade and help restore public confidence in the ability of Congress to control spending. The CBO estimates that the House committee versions of the Obama health plan would add more than $1 trillion to federal deficits over the next decade. But the actual costs would be much higher.
For starters, $1 trillion of extra debt-financed spending would cause the government to pay about $300 billion of extra interest in the next decade. Moreover, the CBO's method of estimating the cost of such a program doesn't recognize the incentives it creates for households and firms to change their behavior.
The House health-care bill gives a large subsidy to millions of families with incomes up to three times the poverty level (i.e., up to $66,000 now for a family of four) if they buy their insurance through one of the newly created "insurance exchanges," but not if they get their insurance from their employer. The CBO's cost estimate understates the number who would receive the subsidy because it ignores the incentive for many firms to drop employer-provided coverage. It also ignores the strong incentive that individuals would have to reduce reportable cash incomes to qualify for higher subsidy rates. The total cost of ObamaCare over the next decade likely would be closer to $2 trillion than to $1 trillion.
The administration's claim that the health-care plan would be "self-financing" is both false and irrelevant. It is false because it would only be self-financing if one counts a variety of President Obama's proposed tax increases—and even those would produce much less revenue than is assumed in the budget calculations. The claim is irrelevant because those tax increases have nothing to do with health care and could be used instead to reduce other projected deficits.
For example, the administration and the congressional designers of ObamaCare say they would finance a substantial part of health reform with the revenue from new taxes on corporate foreign profits and on high-income individuals. The likely revenue from these tax changes would be much less than the official estimates because of the induced changes in taxpayer behavior that the estimators ignore.
Previous experience with changes in the marginal tax rates of high-income individuals implies that the current proposal to raise the marginal tax rate to about 50% from today's 40% would produce only about half of the official revenue estimates. No one knows how much of the estimated extra tax revenue on foreign profits would be lost as the resulting fall in international competitiveness reduces profits, and as businesses sell their overseas subsidiaries or shift their profits in other ways.
While abandoning health reform would be an important step, it would not be enough to limit the exploding level of future deficits and debt. That requires substantial reductions in existing spending programs, if large tax increases are to be avoided. Since Medicare is the largest contributor to the explosive growth in government spending, a good way to start shrinking government outlays would be by restructuring Medicare to shift more of its costs to supplementary private insurance, perhaps on an income-related basis.
Given the perceived need for significant additional tax revenue to shrink future fiscal deficits, there is now talk in Washington of introducing a value-added tax (VAT), the kind of national sales tax that European governments use to finance their welfare states. That would be a triply bad idea. Although it is a tax on spending, a VAT effectively raises marginal tax rates. Like the income tax, it reduces the reward for work and entrepreneurship by adding a tax to the prices of all goods and services. A VAT would also be grossly unfair to those whose lifetime savings would now be subject to a new tax when they start to spend those savings.
A VAT would open the door to an explosion of new spending programs. That's because, no matter how low the initial rate, the tax rate would be drawn inevitably to European rates of more than 15%—on top of existing income and payroll taxes.
The key to raising revenue without raising marginal tax rates or creating a new tax is to reduce or eliminate some of the "tax expenditures" that now lower tax revenue by special deductions and exclusions. Ending the current exclusion from taxable income of employer payments for health insurance would increase income tax revenue by more than $1 trillion over the next five years and nearly $3 trillion over the next decade. Eliminating this subsidy would also lead to a restructuring of private health insurance that would give patients the incentive to seek more cost-effective care and thereby bring down the overall cost of health care.
Restructuring Medicare and reforming tax rules would be politically difficult. But a failure by Congress to address the exploding path of fiscal deficits would be morally irresponsible.
Mr. Feldstein, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Ronald Reagan, is a professor at Harvard and a member of The Wall Street Journal's board of contributors.
4.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=127462
CBS poll: Obama flunks 1st year
6 in 10 give him 'F'; another 25% grade him with 'D'
© 2010 WorldNetDaily
An unscientific CBS News poll evaluating President Obama's first year in office gives him – by an overwhelming margin – a failing grade.
In the poll, which has been online for several weeks and has attracted thousands of comments, not even 3 percent of the respondents grade Obama with an "A," barely another 3 percent give him a "B" and about 4 percent give him a "C."
Almost 26 percent give him a "D" and more than 63 percent him an "F."
Said one person on the poll's comments section: "Obama may be a Harvard Law School graduate, but when it comes to common sense, he must of skipped that class, or failed it miserably.
"His problem is that because he doesn't really have any lead[er]ship ability or experiance (sic), he leaves it up to others to make the decisions. Why do you think this whole Health Care Bill is in such trouble, he left it to a bunch of First Class Idiots to compose, and it is so bad they had to buy votes to get it passed in both the House & Senate."
The poll explains CBS is "giving you the chance to weigh in on how you think he has done on the job." Readers are asked to choose a grade from an "A" to "F' scale. The 10 categories are economy, foreign policy, health care, Afghanistan, Iraq, threat of terror, energy and environment, social issues, bipartisanship and overall.
The results showed Americans believe Obama is moving the nation in the wrong direction on every count.
Fewer than 6 percent gave him an "A" or a "B" on the economy. Seventy percent gave him an "F" and another 18 percent a "D." On foreign policy, more than 84 percent gave him a "D" or "F" and only 3.9 percent gave him an "A."
On Obama's proclaimed No. 1 priority, health care, nearly 82 percent graded him with an "F" and nearly another 10 percent handed out a "D." Only 2.6 percent gave him an "A."
On Afghanistan, where Obama has maintained many of George W. Bush's policies – to the point of dispatching more troops to Afghanistan – his grades of "D" or "F" made up about 55 percent of the respondents' total. Under 30 percent granted him a "C."
Overall on terrorism, 61 percent gave him an "F" and 21 percent a "D." On energy and the environment those figures were 58 percent and 22 percent, respectively. On social issues they were 58 and 21.
His "A" grade in those categories was under 4 percent.
One of his poorest ratings was in bipartisanship, following his "I won" remark to congressional Republicans last year and his rebuke to Sen. John McCain that the "election's over."
Nearly 80 percent flunked him in that category, while only 2.9 percent gave him an "A."
Some of commenters on the CBS site were supportive: "The government was in a terrible state when he took over," said one. "It will take a while to get thing (sic) back in order."
Others said Obama is doing no more or less than what should be expected.
"Most Americans were not listening or just didn't want to hear when this president was campaigning. He is doing pretty much what he said he would do ... fundamentally transform America, redistribute the wealth etc. Most Americans did not listen when shown his radical friends and acquaintances. It was all there for anyone to objectively see," said one.
"This guy has zero understanding how to do anything but stand in front of a camera and make another of his long-winded-do-nothing speeches. It is unbelievable that the American voters could even consider a jerk like this with absolutely no experience on how to manage anything," said another.
"This is the time I have ever seen a president screw so much up, so fast," added another.
"He has traveled the world apologizing for our mistakes (his conception), his social agenda is too similar to those which failed in fascist and communist countries, he ignores what is sacred to most Americans regarding, religion, patriotism and independence from big government," added another. "He decries the actions of the opposition regarding healthcare, yet in the present formulation of same, he left them out deliberately. His speeches, which are endless, are repeats of his campaign rhetoric, all promise and no substance. He is charismatic in his delivery of promises and to this 81senior, he reminds me of a few other saviors, Long, Wilkie, Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin. This may seem harsh, but his embracing the likes of Acorn is too reminiscent."
Another contributor stated more succinctly: "I think President Obama is doing the worst job any president has ever done."
Further, there was mention of term limits – "I am talking about both parties."
Another, a self-described Vietnam-era Marine, said, "We as a collective group elected Obama and now see our mistake. We have a problem with no jobs, illegal immigrants, a corrupt government, a situation out of control with over spending, and I could go on and on and on with problems within our country."
He continued, "Folks I do not advocate violence. It is time that we grow a backbone and stand up for the values and principals that made this country the best one on earth. It is time that we say hell no to those who are trying to tear it down."
Comments