There certainly doesn't seem to be any effort to conserve expense when it comes to Obama spending taxpayer's money on himself and his family....He's living GRAND while the rest of the country scrimps and saves.....
President and family on multi-million dollar Christmas vacation in Hawaii
Nobody questions a president's right or need to take take away from the White House, but an investigation by Hawaii Reporter has turned up some eye-opening information about the costs and other aspects of the Obama get-away.
Just consider these estimates on part of the costs of the latest Obama Hawaii trip:
* Mrs. Obama’s early flight to Hawaii: $63,000 (White House Dossier)
* Obama’s round trip flight to Hawaii: $1 million (GAO estimates)
* Housing in beachfront homes for Secret Service and Seals in Kailua ($1,200 a day for 14 days): $16,800
* Costs for White House staff staying at Moana Hotel: $134,400 ($400 per day for 24 staff) – excluding meals and other room costs
* Police overtime: $250,000 (2009 costs reported by Honolulu Police Department)
* Ambulance: $10,000 (City Spokesperson)
TOTAL COST: $1,474,200
But that $1.47 million figure leaves out a number of signficant costs that simply could not be calculated by Hawaii Reporter:
* Rental of office building in Kailua on canal
* Security upgrades and additional phone lines.
* Costs for car rentals and fuel for White House staff staying at Moana Hotel (Secret Service imports most of the cars used here to escort the president).
* Surveillance before the president arrives.
* Travel costs for Secret Service and White House staff traveling ahead of the President.
White House spokesmen insist Obama's vacation expenses are in line with those of previous presidents, which may well be true, but, since the government refuses to disclose many important details about any presidential journey, nobody can know for sure.
There appear to be reasons to suspect the Obamas' trip could have been done for less, according to Hawaii Reporter.
"They could have chosen a less expensive and more secure place to stay such as a beachfront home on the Kaneohe Marine Corps Air Station – just a two-minute drive away from the Kailuana Place property where they are now," according to Hawaii Reporter.
"The president visits the military base daily to workout, bowl with his kids or enjoy the more private beach there. He also could have stayed at a home 15 minutes away on the beach fronting Bellows Air Force Base as President Bill Clinton did."
But Obama and friends opted instead to secure use of three luxury beachfront places, including the “Winter White House” – or Kailua home that the president rents two weeks a year.
That facility, Hawaii Reporter, noted, normally rents for an estimated $3,500 a day or $75,000 a month, according to the web site Gadling.com.
The latter describes the place as a “7,000 square foot home [that] features 5 bedrooms, 5 ½ bathrooms, a media room with surround sound, a kitchen suited for a master chef, a dining room and great room, a secluded lagoon-style pool with tropical waterfalls and a lavish island spa. The ocean lanai and garden lanai showcase ornate landscaping and stunning views of Kailua Bay and Mount Olomana.”
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Sanitation workers selfishly slowed down the cleanup - NYPOST.com
This is just one more reason to NOT have city, state or federal workers unionized....this is just terrible...two people died in New York after the storm because emergency workers could not get to them...and it appears the Sanitation Workers and their union are responsible for those deaths. Something has to be done about government unions....they are paid outrageous wages and their benefit programs are going to break the bank of most city/state and federal governments.
I will be interested to see what Bloomberg's comments are about this and what the union will say about it's responsibility for the deaths.....not to mention the inconvenience, lost productivity and chaos this slowdown caused...
Sanitation workers selfishly slowed down the cleanup - NYPOST.com
I will be interested to see what Bloomberg's comments are about this and what the union will say about it's responsibility for the deaths.....not to mention the inconvenience, lost productivity and chaos this slowdown caused...
Sanitation workers selfishly slowed down the cleanup - NYPOST.com
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
He's Not "No Labels"....His New Label is Incompetent
After Days of saying the city of New York functioned to the best of it's ability Mayor Bloomberg now changes his tune....and this liberal wants to be President in the future when he can't even get snow shoveled up in the city....What a JOKE!.....
Breitbart.tv » No Labels New Label: Incompetent
Breitbart.tv » No Labels New Label: Incompetent
Obama is planning on you paying MORE for energy!....It's part of his PLAN!
Another Example where the STATE-RUN media is failing America....no one will challenge the President on the rising energy prices and he is in fact a big part of the problem and cause of the rise in prices. His liberal mission is to raise prices on conventional energy so he can prove that alternative energy is affordable...The end result for America is that we will ALL be paying for energy for our homes and cars. But he really doesn't care.
IF we had real journalists in this country they would be making this a prominent issue when questioning the President and his Administration...they would be questioning the drilling holdups in the Gulf and be outraged by the increases we are seeing at the pumps....
But since the won't, it's time for the American People to stand up ....
Obama Will Make You Pay More at the Pump
“What do you say to people who are losing patience with gas prices at $3 a gallon? And how much of a political price do you think you're paying for that, right now?” This was a question asked of the president at a press conference in August…of 2006. The president was George W. Bush. In fact, it was a question that was asked in one way or another regularly during the entire eight years of the Bush presidency, regardless of where energy prices stood at that moment.
In May 2004, The New York Times reported that congressional Democrats “were stepping up pressure on the Bush Administration to ease gasoline prices,” when prices were still under $2/gallon. In April 2005, at another press conference, a journalist stated: “Mr. President a majority of Americans disapprove of your handling of social security, gas prices…” In 2006, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) exclaimed: “Since George Bush and Dick Cheney took over as president and vice president, gas prices have doubled...They are too cozy with the oil industry” after she drove one less-than-energy-efficient block to a press conference at a local Exxon station.
In 2008, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) “blasted” the president for rising gas prices on his (and her) watch. In July 2008, ABC News asked the president what was his “short term advice for Americans about gas prices?” repeating a nearly identical question asked at a February 2008 press conference. In April 2008, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said gas prices were “the number one issue facing America today.”
You get the point. Yet, at the end of President Bush’s presidency, gas prices were 9% lower than when he took office (adjusted for inflation). So where have these outspoken critics been since Bush left office?
Since President Barack Obama was inaugurated, gas prices have been on the steady rise, as have home energy prices. During his tenure, he presided over arguably the worst federal response to an oil spill in our nation’s history, and has pressed legislation on Capitol Hill that would, in his own words, cause electricity prices to “skyrocket.” Yet there has been almost nothing said by the media as consumers face $3/gallon gasoline at the pump in December for the first time in U.S. history and see their home heating bills soar in the winter months.
Now this week, analysts including former president of Shell Oil, John Hofmeister, say Americans could be paying $5/gallon of gasoline by 2012. Investment banks are predicting a return to $100/barrel oil, and OPEC is refusing to raise production. All of this news would be less frightening if the White House were focusing on potential ways to lower energy prices. Instead, President Obama is admittedly fixated with raising them.
Just last week (as frigid temperatures and blizzards blasted Europe and the U.S.), the EPA announced that it will begin regulating power plants and oil refineries in an attempt to curb global warming. The new regulations will seek to cut greenhouse gas emissions by making it more expensive to turn fossil fuels into energy. And Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced that the Bureau of Land Management would issue new rules making it harder to develop natural resources on government-owned land. These measures will not only drive up the cost of electricity and gasoline but will also make us more dependent on foreign sources of energy.
But none of these actions compare to the brazen way President Obama has unilaterally declared the U.S. oil industry dead. During the BP oil spill, Obama needlessly declared a moratorium on deepwater and shallow water drilling, since no White House advisers apparently could draw a distinction between the two. After two federal courts said the moratorium was illegal, the Obama administration instead moved to a de facto moratorium, by issuing no permits, while speeding up the permitting process for wind farms.
In October, President Obama “lifted” the moratorium, but since then has issued almost no new permits. In late November, his administration effectively issued a seven-year ban on drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and across the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. We’re not even talking about ANWR anymore; these are publicly and politically accepted areas of drilling. These actions, of course, increase our reliance on foreign oil, which as OPEC points out, will only become more expensive in the near future.
Finally, this all spells disaster for the jobs market. Higher energy prices translate into higher costs for small businesses, which cause less hiring. Energy producers are moving platforms out of U.S. waters rather than have multi-million dollar assets sit idle as the president destroys an industry. And local businesses and retailers who service this industry along the coast are losing money and employees, if not entirely shutting down.
President Obama knows energy prices are skyrocketing. The liberal mantra has long been to disincentive Americans from purchasing cheap fossil fuels, by driving costs up. Because the only way consumers will choose the vastly-more-expensive wind and solar alternatives is if all prices are high, rather than wait for the market to bring alternative prices down. This is a reckless and devastating way to make a point about global warming at the expense of American families.
Nearly no questions have been asked of President Obama by the media regarding: 1) his bungled response to the oil spill; 2) his unilateral policies that are creating higher home energy prices; 3) rising gas and oil prices; or 4) the de facto moratorium on domestic oil exploration. It’s time to start asking the White House some tough questions. A two year moratorium on accountability is long enough.
IF we had real journalists in this country they would be making this a prominent issue when questioning the President and his Administration...they would be questioning the drilling holdups in the Gulf and be outraged by the increases we are seeing at the pumps....
But since the won't, it's time for the American People to stand up ....
Obama Will Make You Pay More at the Pump
“What do you say to people who are losing patience with gas prices at $3 a gallon? And how much of a political price do you think you're paying for that, right now?” This was a question asked of the president at a press conference in August…of 2006. The president was George W. Bush. In fact, it was a question that was asked in one way or another regularly during the entire eight years of the Bush presidency, regardless of where energy prices stood at that moment.
In May 2004, The New York Times reported that congressional Democrats “were stepping up pressure on the Bush Administration to ease gasoline prices,” when prices were still under $2/gallon. In April 2005, at another press conference, a journalist stated: “Mr. President a majority of Americans disapprove of your handling of social security, gas prices…” In 2006, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) exclaimed: “Since George Bush and Dick Cheney took over as president and vice president, gas prices have doubled...They are too cozy with the oil industry” after she drove one less-than-energy-efficient block to a press conference at a local Exxon station.
In 2008, then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) “blasted” the president for rising gas prices on his (and her) watch. In July 2008, ABC News asked the president what was his “short term advice for Americans about gas prices?” repeating a nearly identical question asked at a February 2008 press conference. In April 2008, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said gas prices were “the number one issue facing America today.”
You get the point. Yet, at the end of President Bush’s presidency, gas prices were 9% lower than when he took office (adjusted for inflation). So where have these outspoken critics been since Bush left office?
Since President Barack Obama was inaugurated, gas prices have been on the steady rise, as have home energy prices. During his tenure, he presided over arguably the worst federal response to an oil spill in our nation’s history, and has pressed legislation on Capitol Hill that would, in his own words, cause electricity prices to “skyrocket.” Yet there has been almost nothing said by the media as consumers face $3/gallon gasoline at the pump in December for the first time in U.S. history and see their home heating bills soar in the winter months.
Now this week, analysts including former president of Shell Oil, John Hofmeister, say Americans could be paying $5/gallon of gasoline by 2012. Investment banks are predicting a return to $100/barrel oil, and OPEC is refusing to raise production. All of this news would be less frightening if the White House were focusing on potential ways to lower energy prices. Instead, President Obama is admittedly fixated with raising them.
Just last week (as frigid temperatures and blizzards blasted Europe and the U.S.), the EPA announced that it will begin regulating power plants and oil refineries in an attempt to curb global warming. The new regulations will seek to cut greenhouse gas emissions by making it more expensive to turn fossil fuels into energy. And Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced that the Bureau of Land Management would issue new rules making it harder to develop natural resources on government-owned land. These measures will not only drive up the cost of electricity and gasoline but will also make us more dependent on foreign sources of energy.
But none of these actions compare to the brazen way President Obama has unilaterally declared the U.S. oil industry dead. During the BP oil spill, Obama needlessly declared a moratorium on deepwater and shallow water drilling, since no White House advisers apparently could draw a distinction between the two. After two federal courts said the moratorium was illegal, the Obama administration instead moved to a de facto moratorium, by issuing no permits, while speeding up the permitting process for wind farms.
In October, President Obama “lifted” the moratorium, but since then has issued almost no new permits. In late November, his administration effectively issued a seven-year ban on drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and across the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. We’re not even talking about ANWR anymore; these are publicly and politically accepted areas of drilling. These actions, of course, increase our reliance on foreign oil, which as OPEC points out, will only become more expensive in the near future.
Finally, this all spells disaster for the jobs market. Higher energy prices translate into higher costs for small businesses, which cause less hiring. Energy producers are moving platforms out of U.S. waters rather than have multi-million dollar assets sit idle as the president destroys an industry. And local businesses and retailers who service this industry along the coast are losing money and employees, if not entirely shutting down.
President Obama knows energy prices are skyrocketing. The liberal mantra has long been to disincentive Americans from purchasing cheap fossil fuels, by driving costs up. Because the only way consumers will choose the vastly-more-expensive wind and solar alternatives is if all prices are high, rather than wait for the market to bring alternative prices down. This is a reckless and devastating way to make a point about global warming at the expense of American families.
Nearly no questions have been asked of President Obama by the media regarding: 1) his bungled response to the oil spill; 2) his unilateral policies that are creating higher home energy prices; 3) rising gas and oil prices; or 4) the de facto moratorium on domestic oil exploration. It’s time to start asking the White House some tough questions. A two year moratorium on accountability is long enough.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Just 21% Want FCC to Regulate Internet, Most Fear Regulation Would Promote Political Agenda
The more Americans know about Obama's power grabs through regulatory agencies the more outraged they will be...the challenge is getting the word out..the State-Run media will not be covering it well....only Fox, The Blogs and word of mouth can get the word to the American People...
Just 21% Want FCC to Regulate Internet, Most Fear Regulation Would Promote Political Agenda
Just 21% Want FCC to Regulate Internet, Most Fear Regulation Would Promote Political Agenda
The Next Big Issue: City, State and Federal Wages and Benefits Out of Control!
This is the next big issue....the out of control city, state and federal wages and benefits including outrageous pension funds that no one can afford. As private industry has done away with pensions for the most part over the past 10 years the city, state and federal workers just continued to get increased benefits. That's the problem with operating in an environment that has no competition, no profit and loss statement, no real accountability....
The first step here is to inform the public about these wages and benefits...once the American people understand just how outrageous they are, they will be clamoring for Officials to get them under control and fast....and yes bankruptcy might be the only way to get out from under these unrealistic obligations.
Stop the State Bailouts Before They Start
Hamtramck, Michigan, is running out of money. City Manager William Cooper tells The New York Times: “We can make it until March 1—maybe.” And Hamtramck is not alone. According to the Times, 15 municipalities have pursued bankruptcy in the past two years. And if the economy does not improve revenues, many other local governments will be in the same boat.
Many of these cities, like Hamtramck, have already cut spending on parks, senior centers, and road maintenance. But there is one area they can’t cut: salaries, benefits, and pensions of government workers. According to the Times, 60 percent of Hamtramck’s general fund goes to paying 75 current police officers and firefighters and about 240 worker and spouse pensions. “They kind of have the Cadillac plan,” Cooper tells the Times, “and we’d kind of like the Chevy.”
Reforming how police and fire workers are paid is an uphill climb politically, but polling shows that once voters are educated, they are open to change. A recent poll by the Florida League of Cities on Police and Fire Benefits found that, initially, most respondents did believe police and fire benefits were “about right” or “too low.” But when told that police officers and firefighters can retire after 20 years of service and receive 80 percent of their salaries for the rest of their lives, 66 percent of respondents strongly opposed this policy. And when asked if they knew that the retirement pay for an average police officer was over $70,000 per year, 71 percent said that was too high.
The cumulative result of these pensions and benefit promises is staggering. A recent study by Robert Novy-Marx of the University of Rochester and Joshua Rauh of Northwestern University found that major pension plans for city workers have a combined estimated under-funding of $574 billion. Heritage Foundation scholar David John details: “For instance, Chicago has only about $22 billion in pension assets to pay for $66 billion in pension promises to its city workers, while New York City has $93 billion available to pay $215 billion in city pension promises, and Boston has only $3.5 billion available to pay $11 billion in promises. That means that every household in Chicago has a liability of about $42,000 just to pay pensions to city workers, while each household in New York City owes $39,000, and each in Boston owes about $31,000.”
The problem is even worse at the state level. An earlier Novy-Marx and Rauh study of the 116 major pension plans sponsored by the 50 states found these plans had assets of about $1.8 trillion to pay pension promises of between $3.6 trillion and $5.2 trillion. This leaves a gap of between $1.8 trillion and $3.4 trillion. Unsustainable public employee compensation is a major reason why large states like California, Illinois, and New York are teetering on the brink of insolvency.
Cities like Hamtramck may eventually be able to escape their government union contracts through bankruptcy. But that road is very difficult. About half the states have laws that allow for municipal bankruptcy filings. But many set limits, including Michigan, which appears ready to force Hamtramck to borrow money from an emergency loan board before it can file for bankruptcy. But what happens when the states run out of money bailing out their local governments? States currently do not have the ability to file for bankruptcy. So what will they do?
California already came to Washington asking for an $8 billion bailout last year. The spendthrift 111th Congress said no. At a bare minimum the 112th Congress should hold the line and refuse to bailout any state government. Instead, Congress should consider a way for states to file for bankruptcy or its fiscal equivalent. While such a law would raise some serious federalism issues, as long as states are allowed to enter into bankruptcy voluntary, it could be constitutionally acceptable. But David John warns:
"Such a process should not be part of a deal under which states can also receive a federal bailout. State and local governments made the mess of their finances, and they should have to clean them up. Congress should provide a mechanism to make the process more direct, giving the states the flexibility to address their fiscal problems consistent with federalism and the principles of limited constitutional government."
The first step here is to inform the public about these wages and benefits...once the American people understand just how outrageous they are, they will be clamoring for Officials to get them under control and fast....and yes bankruptcy might be the only way to get out from under these unrealistic obligations.
Stop the State Bailouts Before They Start
Hamtramck, Michigan, is running out of money. City Manager William Cooper tells The New York Times: “We can make it until March 1—maybe.” And Hamtramck is not alone. According to the Times, 15 municipalities have pursued bankruptcy in the past two years. And if the economy does not improve revenues, many other local governments will be in the same boat.
Many of these cities, like Hamtramck, have already cut spending on parks, senior centers, and road maintenance. But there is one area they can’t cut: salaries, benefits, and pensions of government workers. According to the Times, 60 percent of Hamtramck’s general fund goes to paying 75 current police officers and firefighters and about 240 worker and spouse pensions. “They kind of have the Cadillac plan,” Cooper tells the Times, “and we’d kind of like the Chevy.”
Reforming how police and fire workers are paid is an uphill climb politically, but polling shows that once voters are educated, they are open to change. A recent poll by the Florida League of Cities on Police and Fire Benefits found that, initially, most respondents did believe police and fire benefits were “about right” or “too low.” But when told that police officers and firefighters can retire after 20 years of service and receive 80 percent of their salaries for the rest of their lives, 66 percent of respondents strongly opposed this policy. And when asked if they knew that the retirement pay for an average police officer was over $70,000 per year, 71 percent said that was too high.
The cumulative result of these pensions and benefit promises is staggering. A recent study by Robert Novy-Marx of the University of Rochester and Joshua Rauh of Northwestern University found that major pension plans for city workers have a combined estimated under-funding of $574 billion. Heritage Foundation scholar David John details: “For instance, Chicago has only about $22 billion in pension assets to pay for $66 billion in pension promises to its city workers, while New York City has $93 billion available to pay $215 billion in city pension promises, and Boston has only $3.5 billion available to pay $11 billion in promises. That means that every household in Chicago has a liability of about $42,000 just to pay pensions to city workers, while each household in New York City owes $39,000, and each in Boston owes about $31,000.”
The problem is even worse at the state level. An earlier Novy-Marx and Rauh study of the 116 major pension plans sponsored by the 50 states found these plans had assets of about $1.8 trillion to pay pension promises of between $3.6 trillion and $5.2 trillion. This leaves a gap of between $1.8 trillion and $3.4 trillion. Unsustainable public employee compensation is a major reason why large states like California, Illinois, and New York are teetering on the brink of insolvency.
Cities like Hamtramck may eventually be able to escape their government union contracts through bankruptcy. But that road is very difficult. About half the states have laws that allow for municipal bankruptcy filings. But many set limits, including Michigan, which appears ready to force Hamtramck to borrow money from an emergency loan board before it can file for bankruptcy. But what happens when the states run out of money bailing out their local governments? States currently do not have the ability to file for bankruptcy. So what will they do?
California already came to Washington asking for an $8 billion bailout last year. The spendthrift 111th Congress said no. At a bare minimum the 112th Congress should hold the line and refuse to bailout any state government. Instead, Congress should consider a way for states to file for bankruptcy or its fiscal equivalent. While such a law would raise some serious federalism issues, as long as states are allowed to enter into bankruptcy voluntary, it could be constitutionally acceptable. But David John warns:
"Such a process should not be part of a deal under which states can also receive a federal bailout. State and local governments made the mess of their finances, and they should have to clean them up. Congress should provide a mechanism to make the process more direct, giving the states the flexibility to address their fiscal problems consistent with federalism and the principles of limited constitutional government."
111th Congress added more debt than the first 100 Congresses COMBINED!
And the STATE-RUN media is calling the 111th Congress the most productive of all time....What is their definition of "productive"????
111th Congress added more debt than first 100 Congresses combined: $10,429 per person in U.S.
By Terence P. Jeffrey - CNS News | Published: 10:03 AM 12/28/2010
(CNSNews.com) – The federal government has accumulated more new debt–$3.22 trillion ($3,220,103,625,307.29)—during the tenure of the 111th Congress than it did during the first 100 Congresses combined, according to official debt figures published by the U.S. Treasury.
That equals $10,429.64 in new debt for each and every one of the 308,745,538 people counted in the United States by the 2010 Census.
The total national debt of $13,858,529,371,601.09 (or $13.859 trillion), as recorded by the U.S. Treasury at the close of business on Dec. 22, now equals $44,886.57 for every man, woman and child in the United States.
111th Congress added more debt than first 100 Congresses combined: $10,429 per person in U.S.
By Terence P. Jeffrey - CNS News | Published: 10:03 AM 12/28/2010
(CNSNews.com) – The federal government has accumulated more new debt–$3.22 trillion ($3,220,103,625,307.29)—during the tenure of the 111th Congress than it did during the first 100 Congresses combined, according to official debt figures published by the U.S. Treasury.
That equals $10,429.64 in new debt for each and every one of the 308,745,538 people counted in the United States by the 2010 Census.
The total national debt of $13,858,529,371,601.09 (or $13.859 trillion), as recorded by the U.S. Treasury at the close of business on Dec. 22, now equals $44,886.57 for every man, woman and child in the United States.
Monday, December 27, 2010
Obama has put the "Death Panels" back in the Obamacare Legislation....
This is how this Deceitful President and Administration works...after promising that Obamacare did NOT contain "death panels" the regulators have just added them to the bill....and not only did they do it...they intentionally tried to keep it quiet so no one would know!!!!....This is TRANSPARENT Government!!!...At least this is Obama's idea of transparent....Spread this word...it was printed in the New York Times on Christmas in the midst of a snow storm to further keep it quiet...
Americans need to be OUTRAGED about this action and let it be know they will not stand for it.....
Obama Returns to End-of-Life Plan That Caused Stir
By ROBERT PEAR Published: December 25, 2010
Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.
Congressional supporters of the new policy, though pleased, have kept quiet. They fear provoking another furor like the one in 2009 when Republicans seized on the idea of end-of-life counseling to argue that the Democrats’ bill would allow the government to cut off care for the critically ill.
The final version of the health care legislation, signed into law by President Obama in March, authorized Medicare coverage of yearly physical examinations, or wellness visits. The new rule says Medicare will cover “voluntary advance care planning,” to discuss end-of-life treatment, as part of the annual visit.
Under the rule, doctors can provide information to patients on how to prepare an “advance directive,” stating how aggressively they wish to be treated if they are so sick that they cannot make health care decisions for themselves.
While the new law does not mention advance care planning, the Obama administration has been able to achieve its policy goal through the regulation-writing process, a strategy that could become more prevalent in the next two years as the president deals with a strengthened Republican opposition in Congress.
In this case, the administration said research had shown the value of end-of-life planning.
“Advance care planning improves end-of-life care and patient and family satisfaction and reduces stress, anxiety and depression in surviving relatives,” the administration said in the preamble to the Medicare regulation, quoting research published this year in the British Medical Journal.
The administration also cited research by Dr. Stacy M. Fischer, an assistant professor at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, who found that “end-of-life discussions between doctor and patient help ensure that one gets the care one wants.” In this sense, Dr. Fischer said, such consultations “protect patient autonomy.”
Opponents said the Obama administration was bringing back a procedure that could be used to justify the premature withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from people with severe illnesses and disabilities.
Section 1233 of the bill passed by the House in November 2009 — but not included in the final legislation — allowed Medicare to pay for consultations about advance care planning every five years. In contrast, the new rule allows annual discussions as part of the wellness visit.
Elizabeth D. Wickham, executive director of LifeTree, which describes itself as “a pro-life Christian educational ministry,” said she was concerned that end-of-life counseling would encourage patients to forgo or curtail care, thus hastening death.
“The infamous Section 1233 is still alive and kicking,” Ms. Wickham said. “Patients will lose the ability to control treatments at the end of life.”
Several Democratic members of Congress, led by Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, had urged the administration to cover end-of-life planning as a service offered under the Medicare wellness benefit. A national organization of hospice care providers made the same recommendation.
Mr. Blumenauer, the author of the original end-of-life proposal, praised the rule as “a step in the right direction.”
“It will give people more control over the care they receive,” Mr. Blumenauer said in an interview. “It means that doctors and patients can have these conversations in the normal course of business, as part of our health care routine, not as something put off until we are forced to do it.”
After learning of the administration’s decision, Mr. Blumenauer’s office celebrated “a quiet victory,” but urged supporters not to crow about it.
“While we are very happy with the result, we won’t be shouting it from the rooftops because we aren’t out of the woods yet,” Mr. Blumenauer’s office said in an e-mail in early November to people working with him on the issue. “This regulation could be modified or reversed, especially if Republican leaders try to use this small provision to perpetuate the ‘death panel’ myth.”
Moreover, the e-mail said: “We would ask that you not broadcast this accomplishment out to any of your lists, even if they are ‘supporters’ — e-mails can too easily be forwarded.”
The e-mail continued: “Thus far, it seems that no press or blogs have discovered it, but we will be keeping a close watch and may be calling on you if we need a rapid, targeted response. The longer this goes unnoticed, the better our chances of keeping it.”
In the interview, Mr. Blumenauer said, “Lies can go viral if people use them for political purposes.”
The proposal for Medicare coverage of advance care planning was omitted from the final health care bill because of the uproar over unsubstantiated claims that it would encourage euthanasia.
Sarah Palin, the 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate, and Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, led the criticism in the summer of 2009. Ms. Palin said “Obama’s death panel” would decide who was worthy of health care. Mr. Boehner, who is in line to become speaker, said, “This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia.” Forced onto the defensive, Mr. Obama said that nothing in the bill would “pull the plug on grandma.”
A recent poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation suggests that the idea of death panels persists. In the September poll, 30 percent of Americans 65 and older said the new health care law allowed a government panel to make decisions about end-of-life care for people on Medicare. The law has no such provision.
The new policy is included in a huge Medicare regulation setting payment rates for thousands of services including arthroscopy, mastectomy and X-rays.
The rule was issued by Dr. Donald M. Berwick, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and a longtime advocate for better end-of-life care.
“Using unwanted procedures in terminal illness is a form of assault,” Dr. Berwick has said. “In economic terms, it is waste. Several techniques, including advance directives and involvement of patients and families in decision-making, have been shown to reduce inappropriate care at the end of life, leading to both lower cost and more humane care.”
Ellen B. Griffith, a spokeswoman for the Medicare agency, said, “The final health care reform law has no provision for voluntary advance care planning.” But Ms. Griffith added, under the new rule, such planning “may be included as an element in both the first and subsequent annual wellness visits, providing an opportunity to periodically review and update the beneficiary’s wishes and preferences for his or her medical care.”
Mr. Blumenauer and Mr. Rockefeller said that advance directives would help doctors and nurses provide care in keeping with patients’ wishes.
“Early advance care planning is important because a person’s ability to make decisions may diminish over time, and he or she may suddenly lose the capability to participate in health care decisions,” the lawmakers said in a letter to Dr. Berwick in August.
In a recent study of 3,700 people near the end of life, Dr. Maria J. Silveira of the University of Michigan found that many had “treatable, life-threatening conditions” but lacked decision-making capacity in their final days. With the new Medicare coverage, doctors can learn a patient’s wishes before a crisis occurs.
For example, Dr. Silveira said, she might ask a person with heart disease, “If you have another heart attack and your heart stops beating, would you want us to try to restart it?” A patient dying of emphysema might be asked, “Do you want to go on a breathing machine for the rest of your life?” And, she said, a patient with incurable cancer might be asked, “When the time comes, do you want us to use technology to try and delay your death?”
Americans need to be OUTRAGED about this action and let it be know they will not stand for it.....
Obama Returns to End-of-Life Plan That Caused Stir
By ROBERT PEAR Published: December 25, 2010
Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.
Congressional supporters of the new policy, though pleased, have kept quiet. They fear provoking another furor like the one in 2009 when Republicans seized on the idea of end-of-life counseling to argue that the Democrats’ bill would allow the government to cut off care for the critically ill.
The final version of the health care legislation, signed into law by President Obama in March, authorized Medicare coverage of yearly physical examinations, or wellness visits. The new rule says Medicare will cover “voluntary advance care planning,” to discuss end-of-life treatment, as part of the annual visit.
Under the rule, doctors can provide information to patients on how to prepare an “advance directive,” stating how aggressively they wish to be treated if they are so sick that they cannot make health care decisions for themselves.
While the new law does not mention advance care planning, the Obama administration has been able to achieve its policy goal through the regulation-writing process, a strategy that could become more prevalent in the next two years as the president deals with a strengthened Republican opposition in Congress.
In this case, the administration said research had shown the value of end-of-life planning.
“Advance care planning improves end-of-life care and patient and family satisfaction and reduces stress, anxiety and depression in surviving relatives,” the administration said in the preamble to the Medicare regulation, quoting research published this year in the British Medical Journal.
The administration also cited research by Dr. Stacy M. Fischer, an assistant professor at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, who found that “end-of-life discussions between doctor and patient help ensure that one gets the care one wants.” In this sense, Dr. Fischer said, such consultations “protect patient autonomy.”
Opponents said the Obama administration was bringing back a procedure that could be used to justify the premature withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment from people with severe illnesses and disabilities.
Section 1233 of the bill passed by the House in November 2009 — but not included in the final legislation — allowed Medicare to pay for consultations about advance care planning every five years. In contrast, the new rule allows annual discussions as part of the wellness visit.
Elizabeth D. Wickham, executive director of LifeTree, which describes itself as “a pro-life Christian educational ministry,” said she was concerned that end-of-life counseling would encourage patients to forgo or curtail care, thus hastening death.
“The infamous Section 1233 is still alive and kicking,” Ms. Wickham said. “Patients will lose the ability to control treatments at the end of life.”
Several Democratic members of Congress, led by Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, had urged the administration to cover end-of-life planning as a service offered under the Medicare wellness benefit. A national organization of hospice care providers made the same recommendation.
Mr. Blumenauer, the author of the original end-of-life proposal, praised the rule as “a step in the right direction.”
“It will give people more control over the care they receive,” Mr. Blumenauer said in an interview. “It means that doctors and patients can have these conversations in the normal course of business, as part of our health care routine, not as something put off until we are forced to do it.”
After learning of the administration’s decision, Mr. Blumenauer’s office celebrated “a quiet victory,” but urged supporters not to crow about it.
“While we are very happy with the result, we won’t be shouting it from the rooftops because we aren’t out of the woods yet,” Mr. Blumenauer’s office said in an e-mail in early November to people working with him on the issue. “This regulation could be modified or reversed, especially if Republican leaders try to use this small provision to perpetuate the ‘death panel’ myth.”
Moreover, the e-mail said: “We would ask that you not broadcast this accomplishment out to any of your lists, even if they are ‘supporters’ — e-mails can too easily be forwarded.”
The e-mail continued: “Thus far, it seems that no press or blogs have discovered it, but we will be keeping a close watch and may be calling on you if we need a rapid, targeted response. The longer this goes unnoticed, the better our chances of keeping it.”
In the interview, Mr. Blumenauer said, “Lies can go viral if people use them for political purposes.”
The proposal for Medicare coverage of advance care planning was omitted from the final health care bill because of the uproar over unsubstantiated claims that it would encourage euthanasia.
Sarah Palin, the 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate, and Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, led the criticism in the summer of 2009. Ms. Palin said “Obama’s death panel” would decide who was worthy of health care. Mr. Boehner, who is in line to become speaker, said, “This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia.” Forced onto the defensive, Mr. Obama said that nothing in the bill would “pull the plug on grandma.”
A recent poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation suggests that the idea of death panels persists. In the September poll, 30 percent of Americans 65 and older said the new health care law allowed a government panel to make decisions about end-of-life care for people on Medicare. The law has no such provision.
The new policy is included in a huge Medicare regulation setting payment rates for thousands of services including arthroscopy, mastectomy and X-rays.
The rule was issued by Dr. Donald M. Berwick, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and a longtime advocate for better end-of-life care.
“Using unwanted procedures in terminal illness is a form of assault,” Dr. Berwick has said. “In economic terms, it is waste. Several techniques, including advance directives and involvement of patients and families in decision-making, have been shown to reduce inappropriate care at the end of life, leading to both lower cost and more humane care.”
Ellen B. Griffith, a spokeswoman for the Medicare agency, said, “The final health care reform law has no provision for voluntary advance care planning.” But Ms. Griffith added, under the new rule, such planning “may be included as an element in both the first and subsequent annual wellness visits, providing an opportunity to periodically review and update the beneficiary’s wishes and preferences for his or her medical care.”
Mr. Blumenauer and Mr. Rockefeller said that advance directives would help doctors and nurses provide care in keeping with patients’ wishes.
“Early advance care planning is important because a person’s ability to make decisions may diminish over time, and he or she may suddenly lose the capability to participate in health care decisions,” the lawmakers said in a letter to Dr. Berwick in August.
In a recent study of 3,700 people near the end of life, Dr. Maria J. Silveira of the University of Michigan found that many had “treatable, life-threatening conditions” but lacked decision-making capacity in their final days. With the new Medicare coverage, doctors can learn a patient’s wishes before a crisis occurs.
For example, Dr. Silveira said, she might ask a person with heart disease, “If you have another heart attack and your heart stops beating, would you want us to try to restart it?” A patient dying of emphysema might be asked, “Do you want to go on a breathing machine for the rest of your life?” And, she said, a patient with incurable cancer might be asked, “When the time comes, do you want us to use technology to try and delay your death?”
Closing the books on the worst congress of all time!
I could not agree more...except I would add the WORST PRESIDENT as well!
Examiner Editorial: Closing the books on the worst Congress
Examiner Editorial 12/25/10 8:05 PM
Mark Wilson/Getty ImagesAmericans can give thanks in this Christmas season for an end to the reckless and destructive 111th Congress. This is the Congress that passed Obamacare, against the wishes of a substantial majority of the public, on Christmas Eve of last year. In the dead of night, Democratic lawmakers stuffed the monstrous 2,700-page bill with special-interest goodies and political payoffs like the "Cornhusker Kickback" and the "Louisiana Purchase." As we have learned since, most members were still ignorant of the bill's contents three months later, when it gained final passage in the House. No surprise that its immediate results -- both intended and unintended -- have been almost uniformly bad.
Similarly, odds are that not one member of the 111th Congress actually read the so-called "cap-and-trade" bill before it passed the House in June 2009. Even a speed-reader could not have digested House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman's last-second, 309-page amendment, which read as clear as mud: "Page 14, strike lines 1 through 3 and insert the following. ..." It was filed after 1:30 a.m. just before the vote on final passage. There is also serious doubt that any member of Congress understood the 2,000-page financial reform bill that Congress passed this summer. One of its two main sponsors, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., remarked, "No one will know until this is actually in place how it works. But we believe we've done something that has been needed for a long time. ..."
And Democrats wonder why Gallup found this Congress to be the least popular in the history of its polls?
After suffering a comprehensive and humiliating defeat in the midterm election, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the unfrocked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led lame-duck congressional Democrats on a last-minute banzai charge for more federal spending, debt, earmarks, taxes and regulations. They unsuccessfully pushed for the biggest tax increase in American history, a yearlong spending bill loaded with pork, and a DREAM Act to award amnesty to certain children of illegal immigrants. We hope that voters will remember these misguided initiatives in two years.
Our Founding Fathers were always wary of those who wanted government to do lots of big things. That's why they created a system that separated powers among three more or less equal branches and provided each of them with powerful checks and balances. When professional politicians become frustrated with Congress, it is a sign that our system is working as intended. Columbia University historian Alan Brinkley told Bloomberg News recently that "this is probably the most productive session of Congress since at least the '60s." When Congress votes on bills that no one reads or understands, it can be quite "productive." Americans have already rendered a verdict on such productivity and elected a new Congress with orders to clean up the mess in Washington.
.
Examiner Editorial: Closing the books on the worst Congress
Examiner Editorial 12/25/10 8:05 PM
Mark Wilson/Getty ImagesAmericans can give thanks in this Christmas season for an end to the reckless and destructive 111th Congress. This is the Congress that passed Obamacare, against the wishes of a substantial majority of the public, on Christmas Eve of last year. In the dead of night, Democratic lawmakers stuffed the monstrous 2,700-page bill with special-interest goodies and political payoffs like the "Cornhusker Kickback" and the "Louisiana Purchase." As we have learned since, most members were still ignorant of the bill's contents three months later, when it gained final passage in the House. No surprise that its immediate results -- both intended and unintended -- have been almost uniformly bad.
Similarly, odds are that not one member of the 111th Congress actually read the so-called "cap-and-trade" bill before it passed the House in June 2009. Even a speed-reader could not have digested House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman's last-second, 309-page amendment, which read as clear as mud: "Page 14, strike lines 1 through 3 and insert the following. ..." It was filed after 1:30 a.m. just before the vote on final passage. There is also serious doubt that any member of Congress understood the 2,000-page financial reform bill that Congress passed this summer. One of its two main sponsors, Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., remarked, "No one will know until this is actually in place how it works. But we believe we've done something that has been needed for a long time. ..."
And Democrats wonder why Gallup found this Congress to be the least popular in the history of its polls?
After suffering a comprehensive and humiliating defeat in the midterm election, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and the unfrocked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led lame-duck congressional Democrats on a last-minute banzai charge for more federal spending, debt, earmarks, taxes and regulations. They unsuccessfully pushed for the biggest tax increase in American history, a yearlong spending bill loaded with pork, and a DREAM Act to award amnesty to certain children of illegal immigrants. We hope that voters will remember these misguided initiatives in two years.
Our Founding Fathers were always wary of those who wanted government to do lots of big things. That's why they created a system that separated powers among three more or less equal branches and provided each of them with powerful checks and balances. When professional politicians become frustrated with Congress, it is a sign that our system is working as intended. Columbia University historian Alan Brinkley told Bloomberg News recently that "this is probably the most productive session of Congress since at least the '60s." When Congress votes on bills that no one reads or understands, it can be quite "productive." Americans have already rendered a verdict on such productivity and elected a new Congress with orders to clean up the mess in Washington.
.
The New Obama Battlefield for the Next Two Years...Stopping Obama's Regulatory Power Grabs...
The New Battle front for the next two years....It will be about trying to keep the Obama Administration from making laws through the regulatory agencies and trying to circumvent Congress altogether...Trust me Obama is STILL going to try to find every underhanded way to get his socialist agenda passed.....And by the way in addition to the issues highlighted here in the Heritage Foundation article the Health and Human Services Agency has added "death panels" back to the Obamacare legislation after they were stricken during last year's fight in Congress....This is a President that has NO RESPECT for the rule of law.....
We need to stay vigilant and stay engaged...Obama will publicly sound like he's coming to the center, but that couldn't be farther from the truth....
Big Government Strikes Back
The 111th Congress, the most unpopular Congress in the recorded history if the United States, ended last week with a flurry of legislative activity that set a record for a lame duck Congress. Some in the media are eager to make the case that last week’s events portend a new era of bipartisan accomplishment, led by the White House, that will extend into the 112th Congress. They are half right.
Last week’s events in Washington were a preview of lawmaking in 2011, but Congress was not where the real action was. While the media was distracted by the last breaths of a defeated leftist majority in Congress, it was the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that gave true picture of how the Obama Administration will advance their agenda in 2011.
First on Tuesday, the HHS unveiled new price controls for the health insurance industry. Using new powers granted by Obamacare, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced that starting next year, health insurance companies must receive permission from the Obama Administration before they can raise rates by more than 10 percent. The experts at HHS believe these price controls will help decrease rising health care costs. They are wrong. Price controls attack the symptoms of runaway costs, not the cause. As any Econ 101 student can tell you, they will cause only shortages, not better health care. This is only one of thousands of new powers Obamacare granted the HHS. Left unchecked, there are many new health care regulations to come.
Later on Tuesday, the FCC released its “net neutrality” rules, which will allow the federal government to begin regulating the Internet. This despite opposition from Congress and a contrary federal court ruling. Dissenting FCC commissioner Robert McDowell described the unprecedented power grab last week: “Nothing is broken that needs fixing, however. The Internet has been open and freedom-enhancing since it was spun off from a government research project in the early 1990s. Its nature as a diffuse and dynamic global network of networks defies top-down authority. Ample laws to protect consumers already exist.” And just how competent is the Internet’s new rulers? Just before the FCC decision, visitors to the commission’s Web site couldn’t even access the 1,900 pages of documents pertaining to the net neutrality ruling. The very commission seeking to regulate the Internet saw its Web site go down due to “scheduled maintenance.”
Then on Thursday the EPA announced that it will begin regulating power plants and oil refineries in an attempt to stop global warming. The new regulations will seek to cut greenhouse gas emissions by making it more expensive to turn fossil fuels into energy. But the Obama Administration did not stop there. Later in the day, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced that the Bureau of Land Management was issuing new rules that would make it harder to develop natural resources on government-owned land. Both of these measures will not only drive up the cost of electricity but will also make us more dependent on foreign sources of energy.
The ability of the Obama Administration to step up their leftist agenda even after it was thoroughly “shellacked” at the polls is not an accident. It is the purposeful design of the Progressive movement, which has been working to undermine the Founders’ vision of our republic for over a century now. Thomas G. West, contributor to The Progressive Revolution in Politics and Political Science, explains:
The Founders thought that laws should be made by a body of elected officials with roots in local communities. They should not be “experts,” but they should have “most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society” (Madison). The wisdom in question was the kind on display in The Federalist, which relentlessly dissected the political errors of the previous decade in terms accessible to any person of intelligence and common sense.
The Progressives did not intend to abolish democracy, to be sure. They wanted the people’s will to be more efficiently translated into government policy. But what democracy meant for the Progressives is that the people would take power out of the hands of locally elected officials and political parties and place it instead into the hands of the central government, which would in turn establish administrative agencies run by neutral experts, scientifically trained, to translate the people’s inchoate will into concrete policies.
This will be the fight of 2011: the unelected central planning “experts” of the Obama Administration versus the newly elected House of Representatives and state and local governments. The people are not powerless. Congress still has the power of the purse and can withhold funding for implementing Obamacare or writing global warming regulations. There is also the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to review and overrule regulations issued by government agencies. State and local governments can also thwart the federal administrative state by asserting their rights whenever possible. We can return power from Washington back to the people. Saying good-bye to the 111th Congress is a great first step.
We need to stay vigilant and stay engaged...Obama will publicly sound like he's coming to the center, but that couldn't be farther from the truth....
Big Government Strikes Back
The 111th Congress, the most unpopular Congress in the recorded history if the United States, ended last week with a flurry of legislative activity that set a record for a lame duck Congress. Some in the media are eager to make the case that last week’s events portend a new era of bipartisan accomplishment, led by the White House, that will extend into the 112th Congress. They are half right.
Last week’s events in Washington were a preview of lawmaking in 2011, but Congress was not where the real action was. While the media was distracted by the last breaths of a defeated leftist majority in Congress, it was the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that gave true picture of how the Obama Administration will advance their agenda in 2011.
First on Tuesday, the HHS unveiled new price controls for the health insurance industry. Using new powers granted by Obamacare, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced that starting next year, health insurance companies must receive permission from the Obama Administration before they can raise rates by more than 10 percent. The experts at HHS believe these price controls will help decrease rising health care costs. They are wrong. Price controls attack the symptoms of runaway costs, not the cause. As any Econ 101 student can tell you, they will cause only shortages, not better health care. This is only one of thousands of new powers Obamacare granted the HHS. Left unchecked, there are many new health care regulations to come.
Later on Tuesday, the FCC released its “net neutrality” rules, which will allow the federal government to begin regulating the Internet. This despite opposition from Congress and a contrary federal court ruling. Dissenting FCC commissioner Robert McDowell described the unprecedented power grab last week: “Nothing is broken that needs fixing, however. The Internet has been open and freedom-enhancing since it was spun off from a government research project in the early 1990s. Its nature as a diffuse and dynamic global network of networks defies top-down authority. Ample laws to protect consumers already exist.” And just how competent is the Internet’s new rulers? Just before the FCC decision, visitors to the commission’s Web site couldn’t even access the 1,900 pages of documents pertaining to the net neutrality ruling. The very commission seeking to regulate the Internet saw its Web site go down due to “scheduled maintenance.”
Then on Thursday the EPA announced that it will begin regulating power plants and oil refineries in an attempt to stop global warming. The new regulations will seek to cut greenhouse gas emissions by making it more expensive to turn fossil fuels into energy. But the Obama Administration did not stop there. Later in the day, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced that the Bureau of Land Management was issuing new rules that would make it harder to develop natural resources on government-owned land. Both of these measures will not only drive up the cost of electricity but will also make us more dependent on foreign sources of energy.
The ability of the Obama Administration to step up their leftist agenda even after it was thoroughly “shellacked” at the polls is not an accident. It is the purposeful design of the Progressive movement, which has been working to undermine the Founders’ vision of our republic for over a century now. Thomas G. West, contributor to The Progressive Revolution in Politics and Political Science, explains:
The Founders thought that laws should be made by a body of elected officials with roots in local communities. They should not be “experts,” but they should have “most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue, the common good of the society” (Madison). The wisdom in question was the kind on display in The Federalist, which relentlessly dissected the political errors of the previous decade in terms accessible to any person of intelligence and common sense.
The Progressives did not intend to abolish democracy, to be sure. They wanted the people’s will to be more efficiently translated into government policy. But what democracy meant for the Progressives is that the people would take power out of the hands of locally elected officials and political parties and place it instead into the hands of the central government, which would in turn establish administrative agencies run by neutral experts, scientifically trained, to translate the people’s inchoate will into concrete policies.
This will be the fight of 2011: the unelected central planning “experts” of the Obama Administration versus the newly elected House of Representatives and state and local governments. The people are not powerless. Congress still has the power of the purse and can withhold funding for implementing Obamacare or writing global warming regulations. There is also the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to review and overrule regulations issued by government agencies. State and local governments can also thwart the federal administrative state by asserting their rights whenever possible. We can return power from Washington back to the people. Saying good-bye to the 111th Congress is a great first step.
Friday, December 24, 2010
Obama Corruption AGAIN....He exempts AARP as payback for their support for Obamacare....
Here's the payback to AARP for them putting their support behind Obamacare....they got and exemption!....This President and his Administration is just sooooooo Corrupt!....you might think we lived in a third world country...
Some AARP Medicare Policies Exempted From New Health Care Rate Rules
Published December 24, 2010 | FoxNews.com
Health insurance company lobbyists have launched a new line of criticism against President Obama's health care overhaul, claiming the AARP got preferential treatment in regulations released this week.
The Department of Health and Human Services on Tuesday proposed a set of regulations to ensure that large insurance rate increases are "thoroughly reviewed" at either the state or federal level. The rules would exempt so-called Medigap policies
-- supplemental insurance plans meant to fill gaps in Medicare coverage. And AARP, which endorsed the health care overhaul, sells these policies on behalf of a private insurer.
The White House called the claim that AARP is getting a break "categorically untrue."
Medicare expert Gail Wilensky, who ran Medicare and Medicaid under former President George H.W. Bush, says the regulation exemption is an early surprise in a complex law.
"There are just hundreds and hundreds of provisions that most people, even those who think they're informed, don't know about it," she said. "You can count on every year, for the next six or seven years as this unfolds, that we are going to discover provisions that no one was aware was in that legislation."
Wilensky is on the board of an insurance company whose Medigap plans are sponsored by AARP. She said the Medigap plans should not be included as part of the rate review anyway, but that neither should the other plans. "States have the right to regulate insurance," she said.
So did AARP get a break? It escapes certain health care overhaul regulations -- such as a restriction on insurance industry executive pay and a tax on insurance companies -- but AARP is not an insurance company.
But the Medigap plans, one of several kinds of health insurance plans AARP sells, will avoid the new rate reviews.
Under that system, insurers seeking increases of 10 percent or more would have to publicly justify them. Those plans would then be either scrutinized by the state or the federal Department of Health and Human Services.
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has promised to study supplemental Medicare insurance costs, but she notes the federal government has no authority to order changes.
An AARP representative could not be reached for comment.
Meanwhile, the White House continues to portray insurance companies as the bad guys of the health industry.
"I think there's genuine benefits that the law provided to Americans that they're going to have to talk about what happens when you put insurance companies rather than families in charge of medical decisions," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said.
And Republicans continue to look for ways to undermine the health care law. The temporary government funding bill Congress passed during the lame-duck session doesn't include money for implementing the health reforms.
House Speaker-designate John Boehner signaled a month ago that starving the program is part of the GOP strategy.
"Well, there's a lot of tricks up our sleeves in terms of how we can dent this, kick it, slow it down to make sure it never happens. And trust me, I'm going to make sure this health care bill never ever, ever is implemented," he said.
Some AARP Medicare Policies Exempted From New Health Care Rate Rules
Published December 24, 2010 | FoxNews.com
Health insurance company lobbyists have launched a new line of criticism against President Obama's health care overhaul, claiming the AARP got preferential treatment in regulations released this week.
The Department of Health and Human Services on Tuesday proposed a set of regulations to ensure that large insurance rate increases are "thoroughly reviewed" at either the state or federal level. The rules would exempt so-called Medigap policies
-- supplemental insurance plans meant to fill gaps in Medicare coverage. And AARP, which endorsed the health care overhaul, sells these policies on behalf of a private insurer.
The White House called the claim that AARP is getting a break "categorically untrue."
Medicare expert Gail Wilensky, who ran Medicare and Medicaid under former President George H.W. Bush, says the regulation exemption is an early surprise in a complex law.
"There are just hundreds and hundreds of provisions that most people, even those who think they're informed, don't know about it," she said. "You can count on every year, for the next six or seven years as this unfolds, that we are going to discover provisions that no one was aware was in that legislation."
Wilensky is on the board of an insurance company whose Medigap plans are sponsored by AARP. She said the Medigap plans should not be included as part of the rate review anyway, but that neither should the other plans. "States have the right to regulate insurance," she said.
So did AARP get a break? It escapes certain health care overhaul regulations -- such as a restriction on insurance industry executive pay and a tax on insurance companies -- but AARP is not an insurance company.
But the Medigap plans, one of several kinds of health insurance plans AARP sells, will avoid the new rate reviews.
Under that system, insurers seeking increases of 10 percent or more would have to publicly justify them. Those plans would then be either scrutinized by the state or the federal Department of Health and Human Services.
HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has promised to study supplemental Medicare insurance costs, but she notes the federal government has no authority to order changes.
An AARP representative could not be reached for comment.
Meanwhile, the White House continues to portray insurance companies as the bad guys of the health industry.
"I think there's genuine benefits that the law provided to Americans that they're going to have to talk about what happens when you put insurance companies rather than families in charge of medical decisions," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said.
And Republicans continue to look for ways to undermine the health care law. The temporary government funding bill Congress passed during the lame-duck session doesn't include money for implementing the health reforms.
House Speaker-designate John Boehner signaled a month ago that starving the program is part of the GOP strategy.
"Well, there's a lot of tricks up our sleeves in terms of how we can dent this, kick it, slow it down to make sure it never happens. And trust me, I'm going to make sure this health care bill never ever, ever is implemented," he said.
Another Obama "end run" around Congress to usurp power.....
Here's another Obama "end run" to legislate what HE wants without getting the approval of Congress.....Who does this guy think he is???? Like Net Neutrality it's now up to Congress to rein in these agencies who are grabbing power without approval of elected officals. Obama is about as corrupt as they come...he will do ANYTHING, say ANYTHING, step over ANYONE to get what he wants....REGARDLESS of how the American People feel....this tendency will only increase in the coming Congress when he can't get everything he wants....HE HAS TO BE CHALLENGED AND STOPPED NOW!!!
EPA Moving Unilaterally to Limit Greenhouse Gases
Published December 24, 2010 | Associated Press
Stymied in Congress, the Obama administration is moving unilaterally to clamp down on power plant and oil refinery greenhouse emissions, announcing plans for developing new standards over the next year.
In a statement posted on the agency's website late Thursday, Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa Jackson said the aim was to better cope with pollution contributing to climate change.
"We are following through on our commitment to proceed in a measured and careful way to reduce GHG pollution that threatens the health and welfare of Americans," Jackson said in a statement. She said emissions from power plants and oil refineries constitute about 40 percent of the greenhouse gas pollution in this country.
President Obama had said two days after the midterm elections that he was disappointed Congress hadn't acted on legislation achieving the same end, signaling that other options were under consideration.
Jackson's announcement came on the same day that the administration showed a go-it-alone approach on federal wilderness protection -- another major environmental issue. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said his agency was repealing the Bush era's policy limiting wilderness protection, which was adopted under former Interior Secretary Gale Norton.
On climate change, legislation in Congress putting a limit on heat-trapping greenhouse gases and allowing companies to buy and sell pollution permits under that ceiling -- a system known as "cap and trade" -- stalled in the Senate earlier this year after narrowly clearing the House. Republicans assailed it as "cap and tax," arguing that it would raise energy prices.
But the Senate in late June rejected by a 53-47 vote a challenge brought by Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski that would have denied the EPA the authority to move ahead with the rules.
Jackson noted in Thursday's statement that her agency that several state and local governments and environmental groups had sued EPA over the agency's failure to update or publish new standards for fossil fuel plants and petroleum refineries. The announcement Thursday came in connection with a settlement of the suit the states brought against the EPA.
The EPA also announced Thursday that it was taking the unprecedented step of directly issuing air permits to industries in Texas, citing the state's unwillingness to comply with greenhouse gas regulations going into effect Jan. 2. EPA officials said they reluctantly were taking over Clean Air Act Permits for greenhouse gas emissions because "officials in Texas have made clear.they have no intention of implementing this portion of the federal air permitting program."
Two days after the midterm elections, Obama served notice that he would look for ways to control global warming pollution other than Congress placing a ceiling on it.
"Cap-and-trade was just one way of skinning the cat; it was not the only way," he said. "I'm going to be looking for other means to address this problem."
The EPA was at the center of the battle in Congress over climate change policy, especially in the wake of a 2007 Supreme Court ruling giving the agency the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases.
"While there will be attacks on (EPA's) authority, it is important that there not be any surrender on EPA's ability to do the job," Trip Van Noppen, president of the environmental group Earthjustice, said earlier this year.
The EPA moved against climate change on another front earlier this year, issuing the first-ever federal guidelines for reducing greenhouse emissions from industrial sources. On Nov. 10, the agency sent new guidelines to states. It suggested that dirty fuel used to power oil refineries be replaced with cleaner sources and it called for more efficient electricity and energy use with existing nuclear power plants.
In Thursday's announcement, Jackson said that under an agreement associated with the court suit, EPA will propose standards for power plants in July 2011 and refineries in December 2011 and will issue final standards in May and November 2012, respectively.
In this time, the agency will schedule "listening sessions" with representatives of business and local governments, ahead of the formal rule-making process.
EPA Moving Unilaterally to Limit Greenhouse Gases
Published December 24, 2010 | Associated Press
Stymied in Congress, the Obama administration is moving unilaterally to clamp down on power plant and oil refinery greenhouse emissions, announcing plans for developing new standards over the next year.
In a statement posted on the agency's website late Thursday, Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa Jackson said the aim was to better cope with pollution contributing to climate change.
"We are following through on our commitment to proceed in a measured and careful way to reduce GHG pollution that threatens the health and welfare of Americans," Jackson said in a statement. She said emissions from power plants and oil refineries constitute about 40 percent of the greenhouse gas pollution in this country.
President Obama had said two days after the midterm elections that he was disappointed Congress hadn't acted on legislation achieving the same end, signaling that other options were under consideration.
Jackson's announcement came on the same day that the administration showed a go-it-alone approach on federal wilderness protection -- another major environmental issue. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said his agency was repealing the Bush era's policy limiting wilderness protection, which was adopted under former Interior Secretary Gale Norton.
On climate change, legislation in Congress putting a limit on heat-trapping greenhouse gases and allowing companies to buy and sell pollution permits under that ceiling -- a system known as "cap and trade" -- stalled in the Senate earlier this year after narrowly clearing the House. Republicans assailed it as "cap and tax," arguing that it would raise energy prices.
But the Senate in late June rejected by a 53-47 vote a challenge brought by Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski that would have denied the EPA the authority to move ahead with the rules.
Jackson noted in Thursday's statement that her agency that several state and local governments and environmental groups had sued EPA over the agency's failure to update or publish new standards for fossil fuel plants and petroleum refineries. The announcement Thursday came in connection with a settlement of the suit the states brought against the EPA.
The EPA also announced Thursday that it was taking the unprecedented step of directly issuing air permits to industries in Texas, citing the state's unwillingness to comply with greenhouse gas regulations going into effect Jan. 2. EPA officials said they reluctantly were taking over Clean Air Act Permits for greenhouse gas emissions because "officials in Texas have made clear.they have no intention of implementing this portion of the federal air permitting program."
Two days after the midterm elections, Obama served notice that he would look for ways to control global warming pollution other than Congress placing a ceiling on it.
"Cap-and-trade was just one way of skinning the cat; it was not the only way," he said. "I'm going to be looking for other means to address this problem."
The EPA was at the center of the battle in Congress over climate change policy, especially in the wake of a 2007 Supreme Court ruling giving the agency the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases.
"While there will be attacks on (EPA's) authority, it is important that there not be any surrender on EPA's ability to do the job," Trip Van Noppen, president of the environmental group Earthjustice, said earlier this year.
The EPA moved against climate change on another front earlier this year, issuing the first-ever federal guidelines for reducing greenhouse emissions from industrial sources. On Nov. 10, the agency sent new guidelines to states. It suggested that dirty fuel used to power oil refineries be replaced with cleaner sources and it called for more efficient electricity and energy use with existing nuclear power plants.
In Thursday's announcement, Jackson said that under an agreement associated with the court suit, EPA will propose standards for power plants in July 2011 and refineries in December 2011 and will issue final standards in May and November 2012, respectively.
In this time, the agency will schedule "listening sessions" with representatives of business and local governments, ahead of the formal rule-making process.
Next step for Obama.....Move to Gay Marriage...
Don't be confused...this is where the liberals, Obama, Pelosi, Biden and Reid are heading....DANT was just step #1.....and they will do it whether the American People want it or not....What all the underhanded deals and activities that will take place....Get Ready....Get Activated....
More Proof that Obama will LIE to get what he wants....
Just more proof that Obama will do anything, say anything to get what he wants...The numbers Obama and his Administration presented during the Obamacare discussions continue to be totally untrue and unrealistic.....but for him it doesn't matter...he go what he wanted and the expense to the American Peoople simply is not his concern.....
What a shame to have a President and an Administration that doesn't care about the truth or the future wellbeing of the American People...
GAO Gives Up on Auditing Government Over Medicare Projections, Cites 'Uncertainties'
Published December 23, 2010 | FoxNews.com
It's official. The United States' financial projections are on such shaky ground that to audit them would be an exercise in futility.
In so many words, that was the conclusion of the Government Accountability Office this week as it threw up its hands when asked to issue an opinion on the Treasury Department's government-wide financial statements for 2010. The wonky watchdog office cited several problems with the government's numbers but particularly called out its projections on Medicare in explaining its ultimate decision not to release a decision.
Though projected Medicare savings were used to build the case for the Obama administration's health care overhaul, the GAO report -- rather, non-report -- declared "significant uncertainties" in those assumptions.
The audit stated that as a result, "we are unable to, and we do not, express an opinion on the 2010 Statement of Social Insurance," which covers long-term budget projections for Social Security, Medicare and other benefits programs. The statement is the latest budgetary document to raise questions about whether the government's plans for reining in Medicare will hold.
"We couldn't determine whether the numbers were fairly presented in the statement," Robert Dacey, chief GAO accountant, told FoxNews.com. "There are a lot of concerns about whether or not (planned cost reductions) could be achieved."
As listed, the projections show unfathomable shortfalls in the long term, but the reality might be even worse.
The GAO report cited an alternative projection showing the long-term shortfall over 75 years could actually be $12.4 trillion more than the $22.8 trillion estimated by the federal government. The huge gap between possible budget scenarios made it virtually impossible to weigh in, Dacey said.
The office noted concerns that Medicare costs will probably exceed those in current projections, in part because of a law that would nix planned reductions in doctor payments through the end of next year. The report specifically questioned a projection that doctor payment rates would be reduced by 30 percent over three years.
"There are significant uncertainties concerning the achievement of these projected decreases in Medicare costs," GAO said.
These concerns are not new.
Medicare's chief actuary caused a stir earlier this year when he openly challenged the projections of the Board of Trustees. Richard Foster, chief actuary with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, issued a statement in August citing the same concerns found in the GAO audit. He called the 30 percent rate-reduction goal "implausible."
Further, he said Congress would "have to intervene" to prevent Medicare payments from falling so low as to trigger the "withdrawal of providers from the Medicare market." Foster said long-term projections show some Medicare prices falling to less than half their level under prior law and "far below" what private insurers pay. He suggested that would have to change in order for doctors to keep accepting Medicare patients, calling the Medicare numbers into serious question.
David Walker, former comptroller general and trustee for Social Security and Medicare, said the GAO decision was directly related to the troubles raised by the actuary. He said in a statement that while the audit will probably not attract a lot of attention, "the decision of the GAO to disclaim an opinion on the Statement of Social Insurance after they issued a clean opinion on the same statement last year shows that the federal government is moving in the wrong direction from a financial accounting and accountability perspective."
In the latest report, the GAO gave "clean opinions" to the budget numbers for 19 of 24 major agencies, but problems with the rest of the agencies and Medicare threw off the exercise. The GAO cited financial problems with the Defense Department's statements, as well as those of the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Labor.
"Even though significant progress has been made since the enactment of key financial management reforms in the 1990s, our report on the U.S. government's consolidated financial statement illustrates that much work remains to be done to improve federal financial management," Gene Dodaro, acting U.S. comptroller general, said in a written statement.
What a shame to have a President and an Administration that doesn't care about the truth or the future wellbeing of the American People...
GAO Gives Up on Auditing Government Over Medicare Projections, Cites 'Uncertainties'
Published December 23, 2010 | FoxNews.com
It's official. The United States' financial projections are on such shaky ground that to audit them would be an exercise in futility.
In so many words, that was the conclusion of the Government Accountability Office this week as it threw up its hands when asked to issue an opinion on the Treasury Department's government-wide financial statements for 2010. The wonky watchdog office cited several problems with the government's numbers but particularly called out its projections on Medicare in explaining its ultimate decision not to release a decision.
Though projected Medicare savings were used to build the case for the Obama administration's health care overhaul, the GAO report -- rather, non-report -- declared "significant uncertainties" in those assumptions.
The audit stated that as a result, "we are unable to, and we do not, express an opinion on the 2010 Statement of Social Insurance," which covers long-term budget projections for Social Security, Medicare and other benefits programs. The statement is the latest budgetary document to raise questions about whether the government's plans for reining in Medicare will hold.
"We couldn't determine whether the numbers were fairly presented in the statement," Robert Dacey, chief GAO accountant, told FoxNews.com. "There are a lot of concerns about whether or not (planned cost reductions) could be achieved."
As listed, the projections show unfathomable shortfalls in the long term, but the reality might be even worse.
The GAO report cited an alternative projection showing the long-term shortfall over 75 years could actually be $12.4 trillion more than the $22.8 trillion estimated by the federal government. The huge gap between possible budget scenarios made it virtually impossible to weigh in, Dacey said.
The office noted concerns that Medicare costs will probably exceed those in current projections, in part because of a law that would nix planned reductions in doctor payments through the end of next year. The report specifically questioned a projection that doctor payment rates would be reduced by 30 percent over three years.
"There are significant uncertainties concerning the achievement of these projected decreases in Medicare costs," GAO said.
These concerns are not new.
Medicare's chief actuary caused a stir earlier this year when he openly challenged the projections of the Board of Trustees. Richard Foster, chief actuary with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, issued a statement in August citing the same concerns found in the GAO audit. He called the 30 percent rate-reduction goal "implausible."
Further, he said Congress would "have to intervene" to prevent Medicare payments from falling so low as to trigger the "withdrawal of providers from the Medicare market." Foster said long-term projections show some Medicare prices falling to less than half their level under prior law and "far below" what private insurers pay. He suggested that would have to change in order for doctors to keep accepting Medicare patients, calling the Medicare numbers into serious question.
David Walker, former comptroller general and trustee for Social Security and Medicare, said the GAO decision was directly related to the troubles raised by the actuary. He said in a statement that while the audit will probably not attract a lot of attention, "the decision of the GAO to disclaim an opinion on the Statement of Social Insurance after they issued a clean opinion on the same statement last year shows that the federal government is moving in the wrong direction from a financial accounting and accountability perspective."
In the latest report, the GAO gave "clean opinions" to the budget numbers for 19 of 24 major agencies, but problems with the rest of the agencies and Medicare threw off the exercise. The GAO cited financial problems with the Defense Department's statements, as well as those of the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Labor.
"Even though significant progress has been made since the enactment of key financial management reforms in the 1990s, our report on the U.S. government's consolidated financial statement illustrates that much work remains to be done to improve federal financial management," Gene Dodaro, acting U.S. comptroller general, said in a written statement.
More Evidence of the STATE-RUN Media in American Today...
More Evidence that the State-Run Media is just that....STATE-RUN....the same talking points..the same language...the very same words.....if that's not coming directly form the White House then where would it be coming from...and to call this Congress "Productive" when the Democrats got literally BLOWN OUT in the midterms for the fact that the legislation that they passed was unproductive and against the will of the American People is isane!.....Do these "journalists" (and I cautiously use that term) not know that their job is to critique, question, challenge not gush over everything this Administration does....When will we ever get a real national media back...that's why everyone is watching Fox News and listening to Conservative Talk Radio....
Thursday, December 23, 2010
The STATE-RUN Media in this Nation is disgusting.... Reporters Offer Biased Questions For Their Favorite President
Could there have been any more softball questions to the President?...Where is the Press???? Where is the fourth leg of American Journalism??? Are we not teaching journalists that it's their job to question, probe and get under the propaganda to the truth????
Breitbart.tv » Reporters Offer Biased Questions For Their Favorite President
Breitbart.tv » Reporters Offer Biased Questions For Their Favorite President
Republicans will try to Stop Net Neutrality, Time for US to get into ACTION!
This is positive news, but to get it done there has to be an outcry from the American People....Obama is for this change presently and he has to feel the pressure to go along with congressional action to try to stop it.....I posted a petition yesterday that you can sign to express your dissatisfaction, but I would also suggest you write to your Congressmen, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner to express your outrage. I would also suggest you contact the White House and express your dissatisfaction....
Republicans Aim to Block FCC's New Internet Rules Before They Go Into Effect
By Stephen Clark Published December 22, 2010
The Federal Communications Commission this week adopted a plan to police the web, but it will take at least a couple of months to implement the new rules – a procedural delay that could benefit Republican critics in Congress who are determined to erect a blockade.
The Internet regulations -- which aim to prevent service providers from discriminating against websites and companies using their networks -- cannot go into effect until 60 days have passed after they have been posted in the Federal Register. But the rules won't be released until the dissent by commissioners who voted against them are addressed.
A source with knowledge of the FCC's workings told FoxNews.com that the rules are likely to be made public in January, putting them on track to be enacted sometime in March.
But it might be too late by then.
Republicans, who will control the House and an additional five seats in the Senate in the next Congress, are planning to take advantage of the procedural delay.
"It gives us time to put a coalition together to push back," a Republican Senate aide told FoxNews.com.
Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress can strike down a regulation by passing a joint resolution. If President Obama vetoes the resolution, Congress could overturn it by a two-thirds majority.
While blocking the FCC's Internet rules appear to be a longshot, Republicans aren't backing down.
Sens. John Ensign and Kay Bailey Hutchison plan to introduce a resolution of disapproval to stop the ruling from going into effect.
"This vote is an unprecedented power-grab by the unelected members of the Federal Communications Commission, spearheaded by Chairman Genachowski," Hutchison said in a statement, referring to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowksi. "The FCC is attempting to push excessive government regulation of the Internet through without congressional authority and these actions threaten the very future of the technology."
"Individuals and businesses alike are rightfully concerned about government attempts to seize control of the Internet, and I will introduce a resolution of disapproval in an effort to overturn this troubling regulatory overreach by the FCC," she added.
Rep. Fred Upton, who will oversee the powerful House Energy and Commerce in the next Congress, has pledged to summon all members of the FCC to Capitol Hill to explain their move while working to block the plan "by any legislative means necessary."
But some analysts give Republicans little chance of success -- even with the procedural delay.
"I don't think that any delay in publishing the final rules by the FCC will affect how Congress will act," Paul Gallant, a research analyst at MFGlobal, told FoxNews.com. "The Republican position seems pretty clear. They're opposed."
Gallant issued a report in which he said a legislative reversal of the FCC rules is "unlikely" because a divided Congress would almost certainly not be able to overcome a presidential veto.
But Gallant said a legal challenge posed a more serious risk, citing concerns from commissioners in both political parties.
"So there is clearly some risk that yesterday's ruling will ultimately be overturned in court, although the final outcome may not be known for several years," he wrote.
Gallant told FoxNews.com that the FCC delay in enacting the rules won't affect likely court challenges either.
"The delay doesn't matter at all," he said. "A delay in publishing the rules just slightly postpones the filing of a lawsuit."
Republicans Aim to Block FCC's New Internet Rules Before They Go Into Effect
By Stephen Clark Published December 22, 2010
The Federal Communications Commission this week adopted a plan to police the web, but it will take at least a couple of months to implement the new rules – a procedural delay that could benefit Republican critics in Congress who are determined to erect a blockade.
The Internet regulations -- which aim to prevent service providers from discriminating against websites and companies using their networks -- cannot go into effect until 60 days have passed after they have been posted in the Federal Register. But the rules won't be released until the dissent by commissioners who voted against them are addressed.
A source with knowledge of the FCC's workings told FoxNews.com that the rules are likely to be made public in January, putting them on track to be enacted sometime in March.
But it might be too late by then.
Republicans, who will control the House and an additional five seats in the Senate in the next Congress, are planning to take advantage of the procedural delay.
"It gives us time to put a coalition together to push back," a Republican Senate aide told FoxNews.com.
Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress can strike down a regulation by passing a joint resolution. If President Obama vetoes the resolution, Congress could overturn it by a two-thirds majority.
While blocking the FCC's Internet rules appear to be a longshot, Republicans aren't backing down.
Sens. John Ensign and Kay Bailey Hutchison plan to introduce a resolution of disapproval to stop the ruling from going into effect.
"This vote is an unprecedented power-grab by the unelected members of the Federal Communications Commission, spearheaded by Chairman Genachowski," Hutchison said in a statement, referring to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowksi. "The FCC is attempting to push excessive government regulation of the Internet through without congressional authority and these actions threaten the very future of the technology."
"Individuals and businesses alike are rightfully concerned about government attempts to seize control of the Internet, and I will introduce a resolution of disapproval in an effort to overturn this troubling regulatory overreach by the FCC," she added.
Rep. Fred Upton, who will oversee the powerful House Energy and Commerce in the next Congress, has pledged to summon all members of the FCC to Capitol Hill to explain their move while working to block the plan "by any legislative means necessary."
But some analysts give Republicans little chance of success -- even with the procedural delay.
"I don't think that any delay in publishing the final rules by the FCC will affect how Congress will act," Paul Gallant, a research analyst at MFGlobal, told FoxNews.com. "The Republican position seems pretty clear. They're opposed."
Gallant issued a report in which he said a legislative reversal of the FCC rules is "unlikely" because a divided Congress would almost certainly not be able to overcome a presidential veto.
But Gallant said a legal challenge posed a more serious risk, citing concerns from commissioners in both political parties.
"So there is clearly some risk that yesterday's ruling will ultimately be overturned in court, although the final outcome may not be known for several years," he wrote.
Gallant told FoxNews.com that the FCC delay in enacting the rules won't affect likely court challenges either.
"The delay doesn't matter at all," he said. "A delay in publishing the rules just slightly postpones the filing of a lawsuit."
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Same Old Obama pledges....Same Old Lies....
This is the EXACT same thing Obama has said for the past two years!!! In fact if you remember it was the main theme of his 2010 State of the Union Address. What would make ANYONE believe him now???? This man doesn't even know how to focus on the economy...he doesn't know what makes it work or how to create jobs....unless they are government jobs.
Let's hope the Republicans have enough power in 2011 to get things turned around...cutting spending...keeping taxes as low a possible and giving private business the opportunity to grow is the only way to make progress....and some of that depends on reducing regulation and government programs....and the Republicans should be able to at least control the purse strings that fund many of those programs.....Start with Obamacare and then move to the next priority...
Obama pledges economic focus during next 2 years
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama says the economy will be his "singular focus" over the next two years.
He says the nation is past the "crisis point" in the economy, and that he'll now be working to bring down the jobless rate and equip the nation to compete with the rest of the world.
Obama told reporters at a Wednesday news conference that the government needs to be a "good partner" with the private sector, in getting rid of regulations that stand in the way of innovation. But he says the government also needs to make sure consumers, workers and the environment are protected.
Obama says the American people will hold both parties accountable for the impact of their policies on the economy.
Let's hope the Republicans have enough power in 2011 to get things turned around...cutting spending...keeping taxes as low a possible and giving private business the opportunity to grow is the only way to make progress....and some of that depends on reducing regulation and government programs....and the Republicans should be able to at least control the purse strings that fund many of those programs.....Start with Obamacare and then move to the next priority...
Obama pledges economic focus during next 2 years
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama says the economy will be his "singular focus" over the next two years.
He says the nation is past the "crisis point" in the economy, and that he'll now be working to bring down the jobless rate and equip the nation to compete with the rest of the world.
Obama told reporters at a Wednesday news conference that the government needs to be a "good partner" with the private sector, in getting rid of regulations that stand in the way of innovation. But he says the government also needs to make sure consumers, workers and the environment are protected.
Obama says the American people will hold both parties accountable for the impact of their policies on the economy.
Help STOP the Net Neutrality Power Grab by the FCC
The Net Neutrality Power Grab by the FCC is an ultimate threat to our freedom of speech....There is NO reason that the Federal Government and Obama needs to control the internet, except they want to regulate and control everything in our lives....It's just more of the Big Government/More Regulation agenda Obama has been pushing for the past two years EXCEPT this time he has circumvented Congress and gone directly through the FCC....I would urge you to write to your Congressmen and write to Mitch McConnell and John Boehner to make certain they have this on their agenda for early 2011 so it can be overturned.....
Below is a link to Grassfire Nation who is putting together a petition of citizens that oppose this outrageous power grab.....I urge you to add your name....
Grassfire Nation
Below is a link to Grassfire Nation who is putting together a petition of citizens that oppose this outrageous power grab.....I urge you to add your name....
Grassfire Nation
UnIntended Consequences....A Real Case for Less Government!
A 9:46 video that makes a GREAT CASE for less government spending and just LESS GOVERNMENT!!!...example after example show the unintended consequences of government programs...duplicate government programs that address the same issue just waste money...my hope is that the new Republicans coming to Congress will take a bold stand on these issues and really change the future of government...
Pigford Corruption Runs Deep and NOT addressed by the Federal Government...
This Pigford Settlement is a joke....it is full of fraud as reported from many sources and it cost the American Taxpayers tons of money....And again we see NO ACCOUNTABILITY among Federal Workers or from their leaders....Another reason why we need a much smaller footprint for the Federal Government....It's time to do away with and severely downsize many agencies....This is one of them that needs to at very least be greatly downsized...
They DON'T have a CLUE....Obama’s Top Intelligence Official Learns of London Terror Arrests From Diane Sawyer
This Video should help YOU sleep at night.....here are the three Obama Boobs that are in charge of national security and one of them doesn't even know about terrorist arrests in London.....This Administration is just unbelievable.....I am glad to hear they don't sleep much, but after hearing them speak I am not sure I will sleep much now either....And now they want to approve the START Treaty and handcuff our missle defenses going forward...
Breitbart.tv » Obama’s Top Intelligence Official Learns of London Terror Arrests From Diane Sawyer
Breitbart.tv » Obama’s Top Intelligence Official Learns of London Terror Arrests From Diane Sawyer
Good Riddance Arlen Spector!
Good Riddance Arlen Spector....you parasite! You spent your whole career trying to determine which way the wind blew rather than standing up for anything you might have really believed in....you should have been voted out of office years ago....I am glad to see you go!
Boehner changing some rules to add Accountability in the House...
Small but good first step to start to get some accountability in the workings of the House.....
GOP unveils strict new House rules
By JONATHAN ALLEN & JAKE SHERMAN
The new House Republican majority will force lawmakers to vote when they want to raise the nation's debt ceiling, publish committee attendance records, ban former members from lobbying in the House gym and require new mandatory spending to be offset by cuts to other programs.
Those planned changes to rules in the House and elsewhere, scheduled to be adopted Jan. 5, are described in a summary that was provided by House Republicans early Wednesday morning. The actual text of the rules package, which still could be amended by the full Republican Conference on Jan. 4, was not yet available.
House Republicans will even provide for a reading of the Constitution in the House chamber on the second day of the next Congress.
House Republicans have left untouched rules governing the controversial Office of Congressional Ethics, an independent watchdog agency that has the power to investigate lawmakers and refer cases to the internal House ethics committee.
Taken together, the rules changes appear aimed at addressing complaints that the legislative process isn't transparent enough, that Congress is rigged to overspend and that lawmakers ignore the Constitution when formulating policy.
"These reforms represent Republicans' first step in keeping the promises we outlined in the Pledge to America to change the way Washington works and address the people’s priorities: creating jobs and cutting spending,” Speaker-designate John Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a statement issued with the summary.
Many of the new rules focus on the operations of committees. One that promises to cause consternation among lawmakers — and fodder for challengers on the campaign trail — is a requirement that committees publish online records of who did and didn't show up for committee meetings. In addition, chairmen will be required to circulate the text of bills at least 24 hours before they are considered, post the text of amendments and vote results online, publish "truth in testimony" statements, so that potential conflicts of interest for witnesses are known, and give three days of notice before a markup.
Some of the committee rules — and at least one for the full House — address concerns that legislators don't spend enough time reading bills and members of the public have trouble accessing them.
"[I]t shall not be in order to consider a bill or joint resolution which has not been reported by a committee until the third calendar day … on which such measure has been publicly available in electronic form,” reads one new rule.
It's not clear, however, that the rules changes will require that Rules Committee alterations to major bills be posted online three days in advance of consideration on the floor. That would leave GOP leaders a significant exemption to make last-minute changes without such a long period of public scrutiny. But the GOP will make standard printing bills in electronic form.
On the spending front, Republicans plan to implement a series of rules called CUT/GO — a conservative answer to the PAY/GO rules instituted by Democrats. Under CUT/GO, increases in mandatory spending would have to be offset by spending cuts in other programs. Mandatory spending refers to the autopilot portion of the budget covering Social Security, Medicare and other programs designed to make payouts based on eligibility criteria rather than a set dollar figure each year.
Under CUT/GO, offsets could not be achieved by raising taxes, according to the summary.
In addition, GOP leaders will eliminate the so-called Gephardt Rule, which has long allowed House members to avoid a direct vote on raising the nation's debt ceiling. The rule provided that a bill increasing the debt limit was automatically generated when the House adopted a conference report on the annual budget resolution.
Former lawmakers who register as lobbyists will no longer be given access to the House gym, where they've been able to bend ears while pumping iron.
Republicans will also restore House rules limiting chairmen to three two-year terms and prohibiting delegates and resident commissioners from voting on amendments on the floor.
The GOP is renaming restoring the Education and Labor Committee to the Education and Workforce Committee, renaming the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct the Committee on Ethics and the Committee on Science and Technology will now be called the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
GOP unveils strict new House rules
By JONATHAN ALLEN & JAKE SHERMAN
The new House Republican majority will force lawmakers to vote when they want to raise the nation's debt ceiling, publish committee attendance records, ban former members from lobbying in the House gym and require new mandatory spending to be offset by cuts to other programs.
Those planned changes to rules in the House and elsewhere, scheduled to be adopted Jan. 5, are described in a summary that was provided by House Republicans early Wednesday morning. The actual text of the rules package, which still could be amended by the full Republican Conference on Jan. 4, was not yet available.
House Republicans will even provide for a reading of the Constitution in the House chamber on the second day of the next Congress.
House Republicans have left untouched rules governing the controversial Office of Congressional Ethics, an independent watchdog agency that has the power to investigate lawmakers and refer cases to the internal House ethics committee.
Taken together, the rules changes appear aimed at addressing complaints that the legislative process isn't transparent enough, that Congress is rigged to overspend and that lawmakers ignore the Constitution when formulating policy.
"These reforms represent Republicans' first step in keeping the promises we outlined in the Pledge to America to change the way Washington works and address the people’s priorities: creating jobs and cutting spending,” Speaker-designate John Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a statement issued with the summary.
Many of the new rules focus on the operations of committees. One that promises to cause consternation among lawmakers — and fodder for challengers on the campaign trail — is a requirement that committees publish online records of who did and didn't show up for committee meetings. In addition, chairmen will be required to circulate the text of bills at least 24 hours before they are considered, post the text of amendments and vote results online, publish "truth in testimony" statements, so that potential conflicts of interest for witnesses are known, and give three days of notice before a markup.
Some of the committee rules — and at least one for the full House — address concerns that legislators don't spend enough time reading bills and members of the public have trouble accessing them.
"[I]t shall not be in order to consider a bill or joint resolution which has not been reported by a committee until the third calendar day … on which such measure has been publicly available in electronic form,” reads one new rule.
It's not clear, however, that the rules changes will require that Rules Committee alterations to major bills be posted online three days in advance of consideration on the floor. That would leave GOP leaders a significant exemption to make last-minute changes without such a long period of public scrutiny. But the GOP will make standard printing bills in electronic form.
On the spending front, Republicans plan to implement a series of rules called CUT/GO — a conservative answer to the PAY/GO rules instituted by Democrats. Under CUT/GO, increases in mandatory spending would have to be offset by spending cuts in other programs. Mandatory spending refers to the autopilot portion of the budget covering Social Security, Medicare and other programs designed to make payouts based on eligibility criteria rather than a set dollar figure each year.
Under CUT/GO, offsets could not be achieved by raising taxes, according to the summary.
In addition, GOP leaders will eliminate the so-called Gephardt Rule, which has long allowed House members to avoid a direct vote on raising the nation's debt ceiling. The rule provided that a bill increasing the debt limit was automatically generated when the House adopted a conference report on the annual budget resolution.
Former lawmakers who register as lobbyists will no longer be given access to the House gym, where they've been able to bend ears while pumping iron.
Republicans will also restore House rules limiting chairmen to three two-year terms and prohibiting delegates and resident commissioners from voting on amendments on the floor.
The GOP is renaming restoring the Education and Labor Committee to the Education and Workforce Committee, renaming the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct the Committee on Ethics and the Committee on Science and Technology will now be called the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
More Obama Big Government Control.....
More Obama Big Government....and like he always does he's again going around elected officals and Congress to get it done......The FCC will most likely today take a power grab over controlling the internet...this is NOT GOOD.....Now we'll see if the Congress have the guts to act against the FCC and put them back in their place....Republicans, It's time to ACT!!!!
It's Time to Stop the FCC Internet Czars
Imagine a future where the Internet is governed by unelected bureaucrats in Washington, DC, who rule at their own whim, regardless of legislators' demands or judicial rule. Sadly, that future is now. Today, the Federal Communications Commission is poised to make an unprecedented power grab and assert the authority to regulate the Internet, despite opposition from Congress and a contrary federal court ruling. And while it's a story that has gone largely unnoticed amid Congress' big-ticket lame duck decisions, it's a tale of unchecked government expansion that must be told.
Meet FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a political appointee and Harvard Law classmate of President Barack Obama. Genachowski is leading the FCC's charge for new powers over the Internet so it can enact a policy known as "net neutrality," which would allow the commission to regulate how Internet providers like Comcast or Verizon offer their services. If you're someone who is suspicious of big corporations, that sounds like a great idea. If you're someone who is fearful of big government, take heed. In reality, the policy will limit consumer choice while granting the federal government unprecedented power over the Internet. As Heritage's James Gattuso describes:
The net result [of net neutrality]— a slower and more congested Internet, and more frustration for users. Even worse, investment in expanding the Internet will be chilled, as FCC control of network management makes investment less inviting. The amounts at stake aren’t trivial, with tens of billions invested each year in Internet expansion.
There are those, too, who argue that those regulations are not even necessary. FCC commissioner Robert McDowell (who opposes the net neutrality policy) wrote in Sunday’s Wall Street Journal:
Nothing is broken that needs fixing, however. The Internet has been open and freedom-enhancing since it was spun off from a government research project in the early 1990s. Its nature as a diffuse and dynamic global network of networks defies top-down authority. Ample laws to protect consumers already exist.
And while the threat of unnecessary and harmful government regulation is worrisome, the way in which the FCC is pursuing its expanded powers is flat out alarming. Federal agencies like the FCC only have power as granted to them by Congress under the law. In this case, the FCC is charging forward full steam ahead, ignoring both Congress and the courts in order to act as it pleases -- in effect, making the FCC commissioners self-proclaimed Internet Czars. But it wouldn’t be the first time the Commission has pushed the envelope of its power.
In 2008, the FCC tried to enlarge its authority when it ruled that Comcast violated net neutrality rules. The Commission based its decision on a broad reading of its powers. In April of this year, a federal court smacked down the FCC's actions, ruling that the Commission had no authority under the law. Then in May, when the FCC flirted with another set of net neutrality rules, members of Congress from both sides of the aisle stepped in and told the FCC to cease and desist until Congress took action. And now, after a failed attempt by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) to muster-up net neutrality legislation in the House, the FCC is back for another bite at the apple and is ready to grant itself the power to rule. Apparently neither courts nor Congress matters to the FCC Internet Czars.
So what can America say about it? Very little. For starters, FCC commissioners are, by their nature, unelected appointees not subject to the democratic process. And over the weekend, just before the FCC decision, visitors to the commission's website couldn't even access the 1,900 pages of documents pertaining to the net neutrality ruling. Ironically enough, the very Commission seeking to regulate the Internet saw its website go down due to "scheduled maintenance." As galling as that is, it's no more shocking than what Commissioner McDowell says we will witness today:
On this winter solstice, we will witness jaw-dropping interventionist chutzpah as the FCC bypasses branches of our government in the dogged pursuit of needless and harmful regulation. The darkest day of the year may end up marking the beginning of a long winter's night for Internet freedom.
For the time being, it looks like the FCC will succeed in sinking its regulatory claws into the Internet. Now it's up to Congress and the courts to put the FCC monster back in its cage and remind the self-proclaimed Internet Czars that the only powers it has are those granted to them by law.
It's Time to Stop the FCC Internet Czars
Imagine a future where the Internet is governed by unelected bureaucrats in Washington, DC, who rule at their own whim, regardless of legislators' demands or judicial rule. Sadly, that future is now. Today, the Federal Communications Commission is poised to make an unprecedented power grab and assert the authority to regulate the Internet, despite opposition from Congress and a contrary federal court ruling. And while it's a story that has gone largely unnoticed amid Congress' big-ticket lame duck decisions, it's a tale of unchecked government expansion that must be told.
Meet FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a political appointee and Harvard Law classmate of President Barack Obama. Genachowski is leading the FCC's charge for new powers over the Internet so it can enact a policy known as "net neutrality," which would allow the commission to regulate how Internet providers like Comcast or Verizon offer their services. If you're someone who is suspicious of big corporations, that sounds like a great idea. If you're someone who is fearful of big government, take heed. In reality, the policy will limit consumer choice while granting the federal government unprecedented power over the Internet. As Heritage's James Gattuso describes:
The net result [of net neutrality]— a slower and more congested Internet, and more frustration for users. Even worse, investment in expanding the Internet will be chilled, as FCC control of network management makes investment less inviting. The amounts at stake aren’t trivial, with tens of billions invested each year in Internet expansion.
There are those, too, who argue that those regulations are not even necessary. FCC commissioner Robert McDowell (who opposes the net neutrality policy) wrote in Sunday’s Wall Street Journal:
Nothing is broken that needs fixing, however. The Internet has been open and freedom-enhancing since it was spun off from a government research project in the early 1990s. Its nature as a diffuse and dynamic global network of networks defies top-down authority. Ample laws to protect consumers already exist.
And while the threat of unnecessary and harmful government regulation is worrisome, the way in which the FCC is pursuing its expanded powers is flat out alarming. Federal agencies like the FCC only have power as granted to them by Congress under the law. In this case, the FCC is charging forward full steam ahead, ignoring both Congress and the courts in order to act as it pleases -- in effect, making the FCC commissioners self-proclaimed Internet Czars. But it wouldn’t be the first time the Commission has pushed the envelope of its power.
In 2008, the FCC tried to enlarge its authority when it ruled that Comcast violated net neutrality rules. The Commission based its decision on a broad reading of its powers. In April of this year, a federal court smacked down the FCC's actions, ruling that the Commission had no authority under the law. Then in May, when the FCC flirted with another set of net neutrality rules, members of Congress from both sides of the aisle stepped in and told the FCC to cease and desist until Congress took action. And now, after a failed attempt by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) to muster-up net neutrality legislation in the House, the FCC is back for another bite at the apple and is ready to grant itself the power to rule. Apparently neither courts nor Congress matters to the FCC Internet Czars.
So what can America say about it? Very little. For starters, FCC commissioners are, by their nature, unelected appointees not subject to the democratic process. And over the weekend, just before the FCC decision, visitors to the commission's website couldn't even access the 1,900 pages of documents pertaining to the net neutrality ruling. Ironically enough, the very Commission seeking to regulate the Internet saw its website go down due to "scheduled maintenance." As galling as that is, it's no more shocking than what Commissioner McDowell says we will witness today:
On this winter solstice, we will witness jaw-dropping interventionist chutzpah as the FCC bypasses branches of our government in the dogged pursuit of needless and harmful regulation. The darkest day of the year may end up marking the beginning of a long winter's night for Internet freedom.
For the time being, it looks like the FCC will succeed in sinking its regulatory claws into the Internet. Now it's up to Congress and the courts to put the FCC monster back in its cage and remind the self-proclaimed Internet Czars that the only powers it has are those granted to them by law.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Republicans need to hold up on START and take the discussion of it onto the Next Congress....
The START Treaty is a BAD DEAL....and any Republican Congressman that would believe what Barack Obama says is simply CRAZY!!!! Obama has a major problem with the Truth especially when he is pushing something he wants....If the preamble language is not right then let it be changed to make perfectly clear what we mean....but Obama and the Democrats do NOT want to do that....
The Ghost of Broken Promises Past
Last week, on the vote to begin debate on the New START treaty, the White House got the nine Republican votes they will need to ratify it: Senators Bob Bennett (UT), Scott Brown (MA), Susan Collins (ME), Lindsey Graham (SC), Dick Lugar (IN), John McCain (AZ), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Olympia Snowe (ME), and George Voinovich (OH). So now that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–NV) has filed for cloture, is Tuesday’s vote a foregone conclusion? No.
This Sunday, Senator Graham (R-SC) told CBS’s “Face the Nation” that he will vote against the treaty. Graham explained his mostly procedural objections to New START: “If you want to have a chance of passing START, you better start over and do it in the next Congress, because this lame duck has been poisoned.” And Graham is not the only member of the New START Nine rethinking their support. The treaty’s preamble contains language that links our development of missile defense to Russian nuclear weapons. The White House had claimed that the language was not legally binding, so Senator McCain offered an amendment to solve the problem by just removing the language entirely. That amendment failed, and now McCain tells National Review he has not made a decision on the treaty.
The White House is still confident that, despite losing Graham and possibly McCain, they can still muster the nine Republican votes needed for ratification. Yesterday, President Barack Obama issued a letter pledging to fully develop missile defense in Europe. In the letter, the President claims that New START “places no limitations on the development or deployment of our missile defense programs” and promises that he “will take every action available to me to support the deployment of all four phases” of a missile defense system in Europe. Senator Bob Corker (R–TN) took to the floor welcoming the President’s letter: “A number of people on our side of the aisle have asked for it.”
These are some real nice promises that President Obama is making in this letter. But what are they worth? Did Senate conservatives believe President Obama when he said he would close Guantanamo Bay? Because it’s still open. Did these Senate conservatives believe President Obama when he said the individual mandate was not a tax? Because his lawyers have been claiming the exact opposite in court. Did these Senate conservatives believe the White House when they said the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8 percent? Because it is currently at 9.8 percent.
Senators should keep in mind this Administration’s hostility toward missile defense to begin with. Within months of assuming office, the Obama Administration announced a $1.4 billion cut to missile defense. The successful Airborne Laser boost-phase program was cut, the Multiple Kill Vehicle and Kinetic Energy Interceptor was terminated, and the expansion of ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California were canceled. Adding insult to injury, President Obama then installed long-time anti-missile defense crusader Phillip Coyle as Associate Director for National Security in the White House Office of Science and Technology … by recess appointment. That’s right—this President not only appointed the “high priest” of missile defense denialism as his top adviser on missile defense, but he did so in a way to purposefully avoid Senate consultation on the matter. This is the President some Senate conservatives want to trust? On missile defense? Really?
New START is a bad deal for national security at any time. The Administration still refuses to release the treaty’s negotiation records. The Congress elected last month has a far more legitimate claim to approve this treaty than the one sworn into office two years ago, despite Senator John Kerry (D-MA) saying new members don't count. The tax rates have been frozen. The spending has been frozen. This Senate should just leave New START to the next Congress and go home.
The Ghost of Broken Promises Past
Last week, on the vote to begin debate on the New START treaty, the White House got the nine Republican votes they will need to ratify it: Senators Bob Bennett (UT), Scott Brown (MA), Susan Collins (ME), Lindsey Graham (SC), Dick Lugar (IN), John McCain (AZ), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Olympia Snowe (ME), and George Voinovich (OH). So now that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–NV) has filed for cloture, is Tuesday’s vote a foregone conclusion? No.
This Sunday, Senator Graham (R-SC) told CBS’s “Face the Nation” that he will vote against the treaty. Graham explained his mostly procedural objections to New START: “If you want to have a chance of passing START, you better start over and do it in the next Congress, because this lame duck has been poisoned.” And Graham is not the only member of the New START Nine rethinking their support. The treaty’s preamble contains language that links our development of missile defense to Russian nuclear weapons. The White House had claimed that the language was not legally binding, so Senator McCain offered an amendment to solve the problem by just removing the language entirely. That amendment failed, and now McCain tells National Review he has not made a decision on the treaty.
The White House is still confident that, despite losing Graham and possibly McCain, they can still muster the nine Republican votes needed for ratification. Yesterday, President Barack Obama issued a letter pledging to fully develop missile defense in Europe. In the letter, the President claims that New START “places no limitations on the development or deployment of our missile defense programs” and promises that he “will take every action available to me to support the deployment of all four phases” of a missile defense system in Europe. Senator Bob Corker (R–TN) took to the floor welcoming the President’s letter: “A number of people on our side of the aisle have asked for it.”
These are some real nice promises that President Obama is making in this letter. But what are they worth? Did Senate conservatives believe President Obama when he said he would close Guantanamo Bay? Because it’s still open. Did these Senate conservatives believe President Obama when he said the individual mandate was not a tax? Because his lawyers have been claiming the exact opposite in court. Did these Senate conservatives believe the White House when they said the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8 percent? Because it is currently at 9.8 percent.
Senators should keep in mind this Administration’s hostility toward missile defense to begin with. Within months of assuming office, the Obama Administration announced a $1.4 billion cut to missile defense. The successful Airborne Laser boost-phase program was cut, the Multiple Kill Vehicle and Kinetic Energy Interceptor was terminated, and the expansion of ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California were canceled. Adding insult to injury, President Obama then installed long-time anti-missile defense crusader Phillip Coyle as Associate Director for National Security in the White House Office of Science and Technology … by recess appointment. That’s right—this President not only appointed the “high priest” of missile defense denialism as his top adviser on missile defense, but he did so in a way to purposefully avoid Senate consultation on the matter. This is the President some Senate conservatives want to trust? On missile defense? Really?
New START is a bad deal for national security at any time. The Administration still refuses to release the treaty’s negotiation records. The Congress elected last month has a far more legitimate claim to approve this treaty than the one sworn into office two years ago, despite Senator John Kerry (D-MA) saying new members don't count. The tax rates have been frozen. The spending has been frozen. This Senate should just leave New START to the next Congress and go home.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
The Will and Activiism of the American People MAKES A DIFFERENCE!
This week's Republican Address summarizes the power the American People can have when they vote for change and make noise....the emails, letters, phone calls etc. made a difference last week and even these Democrats who really don't care what the American People want have to listen and change course....It's also important that Republican keep the RINOs in line...whether it's Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Mark Kirk or a few others we have to keep the pressure on these Rinos to act like conservative republicans! STAY ACTIVE!!!! STAY ENGAGED!!!!
Elections have consequences and when Americans make their will known that also have consequences....
Elections have consequences and when Americans make their will known that also have consequences....
One More Big Difference between Republicans and Democrats
Just One More Difference between the Republicans and Democrats....this is well worth watching....be certain to watch it to the end....
Friday, December 17, 2010
One more area the Federal Government needs to Stay Out Of!
Here's one more area where the Federal Government is prying onto out lives where they have no right to do so.....and for Michelle to be setting the standards????That's a JOKE...Have you seen her BUTT????
Most Americans oppose Michelle Obama’s Healthy Hunger-free Kids Act
By Jeff Winkler | Published: 10:53 AM 12/17/2010
A significant percentage Americans oppose the Healthy Hunger-free Kids Act pushed by First Lady Michelle Obama and signed into law by President Barack Obama signed on Monday.
Among other things, the $4.6 billion law allows the USDA to set nutritional standards for foods made and sold in schools; increases the number of children who qualify for school meal programs, and “sets basic standards for school wellness policies including goals for nutrition promotion and education and physical activity.”
According to a new Rasmussen poll, however, only 23 percent of those surveyed think the federal government should have a direct role in setting the nutritional standards for public schools.
As the act was pushed through Congress, both Michelle Obama and Nancy Pelosi stressed the need for the new regulations, saying that childhood obesity was not only a “economic threat,” but a “national security issue” as well. While recent polls show that Americans are concerned about issues of obesity in the country, 51 percent failed to see the threat to national security.
Preferences for federal intervention in childhood nutrition are more divided when factoring in race. A majority of whites, 34 percent, think parents and local governments should have the ultimate say in kids’ eating habits. Conversely, a majority 31 percent of blacks believe the federal government was capable of the decision.
Overall, however, 34 percent of respondents thought that parents should have the ultimate say in their child’s nutritional diet. Seventeen percent believed state and local governments, respectfully, know best when setting such standards.
Most Americans oppose Michelle Obama’s Healthy Hunger-free Kids Act
By Jeff Winkler | Published: 10:53 AM 12/17/2010
A significant percentage Americans oppose the Healthy Hunger-free Kids Act pushed by First Lady Michelle Obama and signed into law by President Barack Obama signed on Monday.
Among other things, the $4.6 billion law allows the USDA to set nutritional standards for foods made and sold in schools; increases the number of children who qualify for school meal programs, and “sets basic standards for school wellness policies including goals for nutrition promotion and education and physical activity.”
According to a new Rasmussen poll, however, only 23 percent of those surveyed think the federal government should have a direct role in setting the nutritional standards for public schools.
As the act was pushed through Congress, both Michelle Obama and Nancy Pelosi stressed the need for the new regulations, saying that childhood obesity was not only a “economic threat,” but a “national security issue” as well. While recent polls show that Americans are concerned about issues of obesity in the country, 51 percent failed to see the threat to national security.
Preferences for federal intervention in childhood nutrition are more divided when factoring in race. A majority of whites, 34 percent, think parents and local governments should have the ultimate say in kids’ eating habits. Conversely, a majority 31 percent of blacks believe the federal government was capable of the decision.
Overall, however, 34 percent of respondents thought that parents should have the ultimate say in their child’s nutritional diet. Seventeen percent believed state and local governments, respectfully, know best when setting such standards.
"Dirty" Harry Reid's doing a great job for his state...upemployment UP to 14.3%...
Great Job "Dirty" Harry Reid!
Nevada jobless rate rises to 14.3 percent
By JENNIFER ROBISON
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL Nevada's jobless rate has ticked up slightly, from 14.2 percent in October to 14.3 percent in November, the state Department of Employment, Training & Rehabilitation reported this morning.
In Las Vegas, joblessness increased from 14.1 percent to 14.3 percent.
In all, 185,900 Nevadans are unemployed and seeking jobs. That figure includes 137,000 Las Vegans.
The small gains in unemployment follow October's dip, the first in five years. Despite the increase, the employment department said signs point to continued stabilization in joblessness, with the state's unemployment rate hovering between 14.2 percent and 14.4 percent since June. In the same period in 2008 and 2009, joblessness had jumped 1.6 percentage points and 1.4 percentage points respectively.
"The stabilizing unemployment rate indicates that the worst of the recession is over. However, the unemployment rate will likely remain elevated well into 2011 before declining slowly over a number of years," said Bill Anderson, the employment department's chief economist, in a statement.
Results of the employer survey showed a decline in non-farm employment.
Employers shed roughly 2,500 jobs between October and November. The leisure and hospitality industry cut 2,900 positions, while the construction industry shed 1,500. Construction employment fell below 60,000 jobs in Nevada for the first time since February 1995. Employment in the manufacturing industry continues to contract, falling by 400 to 37,800. Since peaking in September 2006, manufacturing employment has fallen by 13,500, or 26.3 percent.
But some industries showed improvement in November.
Retail trade added 1,300 jobs, and is up by over 4,000 since the start of 2010. Professional and business services increased by 900 and education and health services added 500.
Unemployment nationwide came in at 9.8 percent in November.
Nevada has led the nation in unemployment since May.
Nevada jobless rate rises to 14.3 percent
By JENNIFER ROBISON
LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL Nevada's jobless rate has ticked up slightly, from 14.2 percent in October to 14.3 percent in November, the state Department of Employment, Training & Rehabilitation reported this morning.
In Las Vegas, joblessness increased from 14.1 percent to 14.3 percent.
In all, 185,900 Nevadans are unemployed and seeking jobs. That figure includes 137,000 Las Vegans.
The small gains in unemployment follow October's dip, the first in five years. Despite the increase, the employment department said signs point to continued stabilization in joblessness, with the state's unemployment rate hovering between 14.2 percent and 14.4 percent since June. In the same period in 2008 and 2009, joblessness had jumped 1.6 percentage points and 1.4 percentage points respectively.
"The stabilizing unemployment rate indicates that the worst of the recession is over. However, the unemployment rate will likely remain elevated well into 2011 before declining slowly over a number of years," said Bill Anderson, the employment department's chief economist, in a statement.
Results of the employer survey showed a decline in non-farm employment.
Employers shed roughly 2,500 jobs between October and November. The leisure and hospitality industry cut 2,900 positions, while the construction industry shed 1,500. Construction employment fell below 60,000 jobs in Nevada for the first time since February 1995. Employment in the manufacturing industry continues to contract, falling by 400 to 37,800. Since peaking in September 2006, manufacturing employment has fallen by 13,500, or 26.3 percent.
But some industries showed improvement in November.
Retail trade added 1,300 jobs, and is up by over 4,000 since the start of 2010. Professional and business services increased by 900 and education and health services added 500.
Unemployment nationwide came in at 9.8 percent in November.
Nevada has led the nation in unemployment since May.
No TRUE Conservative Could Possibly Support the START Treaty as it Stands!
Notate the highlighted Republicans in the first paragraph...these RINOs need to go the next time they are up for election....Might as well have democrats in these offices...this is what happens when folks vote for Republicans that are not conservatives....They need to GO!
Release the START Negotiating Record
Yesterday, the Senate voted 66–32 to begin debate on the New START agreement with Russia. Only a simple majority (51) was required, but vote counters can use yesterday’s roll call as a benchmark for final ratification, which will need 67 votes to pass. With the seating of Senator Mark Kirk (R–IL), the White House needs nine Republicans to join the Senate’s 58 Democrats. They got those nine yesterday, including Senators Bob Bennett (UT), Scott Brown (MA), Susan Collins (ME), Lindsey Graham (SC), Dick Lugar (IN), John McCain (AZ), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Olympia Snowe (ME), and George Voinovich (OH).
But of those, according to The Hill, only Lugar, Collins, and Snowe have fully backed ratification. And at least two of those nine went on record in favor of letting the next Congress be the treaty’s judge. Early yesterday, McCain took to former Senator Fred Thompson’s nationally syndicated radio show where he called the treaty “a good idea” but also said he has “serious concerns about the missile defense part of it” and wanted to vote on it next year. Meanwhile, Bennett attended a press conference organized by Senator Jon Kyl (R–AZ) where he told reporters: “I would hope that we could reach accord, and I would hope that it would be next year.”
Kyl’s press conference was a major blow to the White House as a slew of potential yes votes lined up to announce they would not vote for the treaty this year, including the newly sworn-in Senator Kirk and Senators Lamar Alexander (R–TN), Kit Bond (R–MO), Saxby Chambliss (R–GA), Orrin Hatch (R–UT), Mike Johanns (R–NE), George Lemieux (R–FL), and John Thune (R–SD).
Senator John Kerry (D–MA) staged a counter press conference just minutes after Kyl closed his where he insisted that allowing the next Congress to ratify the treaty would be “a recipe for endless delay on a matter of enormous national security significance.” Kerry added: “Nine hundred questions were filed and asked and answered by the Administration.”
Kerry may be right that hundreds of questions have been asked and answered. But many questions also remain unanswered. Let’s start with just two: Where are the negotiating documents, and when will we be allowed to see them? These documents are crucial to resolving key ambiguities about the treaty, one of the biggest being the treaty’s effect on our nation’s right to implement new missile defense systems.
The Administration has claimed from the beginning that New START will have no impact on our nation’s ability to defend itself against ballistic missile attack. Then why did Russians insist on inserting language into the treaty’s preamble limiting our missile defenses? The American people have a right to know. Conservatives won a major victory Tuesday when the Senate parliamentarian ruled that preambles to treaties are amendable. If, as the White House and Senator Kerry claim, the missile defense language in the preamble has no impact on our missile defense rights, then they should also have no objection to removing it from the treaty entirely. When that vote occurs, we will see which Senators truly support missile defense and which do not.
In Why Does Sovereignty Matter to America?, part of The Heritage Foundation’s Understanding America series, Steve Groves writes:
The proper exercise of diplomacy by the United States does not threaten our sovereignty. The Founding Fathers understood the value of diplomacy. They drafted the Constitution, in part, because they wanted the United States to be able to negotiate treaties with other nations. But they also understood that American foreign policy must ultimately be controlled by the American people.
That is why, for instance, the United States Senate must approve treaties that are negotiated by the President. That is how our diplomatic process works. But today, American sovereignty is threatened by the many treaties that seek to take power away from the nations that negotiate them. The solution is not to reject treaties or diplomacy: it is to return to the vision of the Founders, and to their belief that the American people have an inherent right of self-government, through their elected representatives, that cannot be extinguished by any treaty.
President Obama’s New START creates an implementing body, called the Bilateral Consultative Commission (BCC), and gives it broad powers to promote the objectives of the treaty. These powers could include imposing additional restrictions on the U.S. missile defense program. This is an unacceptable cession of our national sovereignty. President Ronald Reagan walked away from Mikhail Gorbachev’s offer to eliminate nuclear weapons because he asked us to give up our missile defenses in return. No true conservative could support this treaty as it stands.
Release the START Negotiating Record
Yesterday, the Senate voted 66–32 to begin debate on the New START agreement with Russia. Only a simple majority (51) was required, but vote counters can use yesterday’s roll call as a benchmark for final ratification, which will need 67 votes to pass. With the seating of Senator Mark Kirk (R–IL), the White House needs nine Republicans to join the Senate’s 58 Democrats. They got those nine yesterday, including Senators Bob Bennett (UT), Scott Brown (MA), Susan Collins (ME), Lindsey Graham (SC), Dick Lugar (IN), John McCain (AZ), Lisa Murkowski (AK), Olympia Snowe (ME), and George Voinovich (OH).
But of those, according to The Hill, only Lugar, Collins, and Snowe have fully backed ratification. And at least two of those nine went on record in favor of letting the next Congress be the treaty’s judge. Early yesterday, McCain took to former Senator Fred Thompson’s nationally syndicated radio show where he called the treaty “a good idea” but also said he has “serious concerns about the missile defense part of it” and wanted to vote on it next year. Meanwhile, Bennett attended a press conference organized by Senator Jon Kyl (R–AZ) where he told reporters: “I would hope that we could reach accord, and I would hope that it would be next year.”
Kyl’s press conference was a major blow to the White House as a slew of potential yes votes lined up to announce they would not vote for the treaty this year, including the newly sworn-in Senator Kirk and Senators Lamar Alexander (R–TN), Kit Bond (R–MO), Saxby Chambliss (R–GA), Orrin Hatch (R–UT), Mike Johanns (R–NE), George Lemieux (R–FL), and John Thune (R–SD).
Senator John Kerry (D–MA) staged a counter press conference just minutes after Kyl closed his where he insisted that allowing the next Congress to ratify the treaty would be “a recipe for endless delay on a matter of enormous national security significance.” Kerry added: “Nine hundred questions were filed and asked and answered by the Administration.”
Kerry may be right that hundreds of questions have been asked and answered. But many questions also remain unanswered. Let’s start with just two: Where are the negotiating documents, and when will we be allowed to see them? These documents are crucial to resolving key ambiguities about the treaty, one of the biggest being the treaty’s effect on our nation’s right to implement new missile defense systems.
The Administration has claimed from the beginning that New START will have no impact on our nation’s ability to defend itself against ballistic missile attack. Then why did Russians insist on inserting language into the treaty’s preamble limiting our missile defenses? The American people have a right to know. Conservatives won a major victory Tuesday when the Senate parliamentarian ruled that preambles to treaties are amendable. If, as the White House and Senator Kerry claim, the missile defense language in the preamble has no impact on our missile defense rights, then they should also have no objection to removing it from the treaty entirely. When that vote occurs, we will see which Senators truly support missile defense and which do not.
In Why Does Sovereignty Matter to America?, part of The Heritage Foundation’s Understanding America series, Steve Groves writes:
The proper exercise of diplomacy by the United States does not threaten our sovereignty. The Founding Fathers understood the value of diplomacy. They drafted the Constitution, in part, because they wanted the United States to be able to negotiate treaties with other nations. But they also understood that American foreign policy must ultimately be controlled by the American people.
That is why, for instance, the United States Senate must approve treaties that are negotiated by the President. That is how our diplomatic process works. But today, American sovereignty is threatened by the many treaties that seek to take power away from the nations that negotiate them. The solution is not to reject treaties or diplomacy: it is to return to the vision of the Founders, and to their belief that the American people have an inherent right of self-government, through their elected representatives, that cannot be extinguished by any treaty.
President Obama’s New START creates an implementing body, called the Bilateral Consultative Commission (BCC), and gives it broad powers to promote the objectives of the treaty. These powers could include imposing additional restrictions on the U.S. missile defense program. This is an unacceptable cession of our national sovereignty. President Ronald Reagan walked away from Mikhail Gorbachev’s offer to eliminate nuclear weapons because he asked us to give up our missile defenses in return. No true conservative could support this treaty as it stands.
A Win for the American People
A Win for the People of America.....The Democrats still haven't listened, they just couldn't act because they couldn't get the votes....Now it's on to defeat the other Democrat issues.....the Dream Act....Don't Ask, Don't Tell.....the START TREATY...If we mobilize and write our congressmen we can win those as well.
The Tea Party is Back
Two hundred and thirty-seven years ago last night, a group of colonists disguised as Indians boarded British merchant ships and dumped an estimated £10,000 worth of tea into Boston Harbor. This Boston Tea Party, which John Adams described as the “grandest event which has ever yet happened since the controversy with Britain opened,” was not just a protest about taxation. Our forefathers did not destroy tea because of a simple tax dispute. The 1773 Tea Party were protesting the process by which the British government taxed them. They were fundamentally rejecting the way the British were governing them.
Last night, the spirit of the Tea Party won another major victory when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–NV) was forced to drop his $1.27 trillion, 1,924-page omnibus spending bill. The problem with Reid’s omnibus spending bill was not just its size—although our federal government does spend far too much of other people’s money—but the way it was drafted and forced on the American people. For far too long our Congress has amassed more and more spending power into fewer and fewer legislative acts while waiting until the last possible minute to consider them. Lobbyists have made an entire business model out of identifying must-pass appropriations and tax bills and then getting pliant Members of Congress to insert their special breaks, loopholes, and giveaways. The omnibus collapse was a complete rejection of that way of doing business in Washington. Senator John McCain (R–AZ) told National Review: “I know this is a seminal moment, because for the first time since I’ve been here, we stood up and said ‘enough.’”
Last night’s victory could not have happened without the Tea Party. Earlier in the day, Tea Party–defeated outgoing- Senator Robert Bennett (R–UT) was working “actively to round up as many as nine potential Republican votes” for the omnibus bill stuffed with 6,000 earmarks worth $8 billion. But then Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–KY) worked the phones all day twisting the arms of those nine Republicans, many of them members of the Senate Appropriations Committee, to drop their support for the bill. It was not an easy sell. Senator Thad Cochran (R–MS), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, had 281 earmarks worth $561 million in the bill. McConnell himself had 48 earmarks worth $113 million. But wisely, these lawmakers eventually saw the light. McConnell told National Review afterward: “We decided that we’re not going to pass a 2,000-page bill that nobody has seen since yesterday. That’s not the way to operate and that’s not the message from the November elections.”
Tea Party activists across the country should take a moment to celebrate this victory. But only a moment. Not all of the 111th Congress has gotten the message of the November elections. Too many on Capitol Hill seem to be operating under the belief that the American people voted in November to have President Barack Obama’s agenda shoved down their throats in December. The Hill reports: “Democrats will move instead to two high priorities on their legislative agenda: the DREAM Act, which would grant permanent legal residency to illegal immigrants under a certain age, and a repeal of the military’s ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy.” And let’s not forget the Boxer–Reid Land Grab and New START.
None of these issues demands resolution by a Congress that was “shellacked” at the polls last month. According to Gallup, the American people dislike this 111th Congress more than any other Congress in history. Specifically, a full 83 percent of Americans disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job, while only 13 percent approve. That is the worst approval rating in more than 30 years of tracking congressional job performance. Last night Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D–CA) House voted to prevent a massive tax hike on the American people. It now looks like Congress will pass a simple bill that freezes spending through February of next year. The 111th Congress has no mandate; they must go home and let the Tea Party Congress govern.
The Tea Party is Back
Two hundred and thirty-seven years ago last night, a group of colonists disguised as Indians boarded British merchant ships and dumped an estimated £10,000 worth of tea into Boston Harbor. This Boston Tea Party, which John Adams described as the “grandest event which has ever yet happened since the controversy with Britain opened,” was not just a protest about taxation. Our forefathers did not destroy tea because of a simple tax dispute. The 1773 Tea Party were protesting the process by which the British government taxed them. They were fundamentally rejecting the way the British were governing them.
Last night, the spirit of the Tea Party won another major victory when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–NV) was forced to drop his $1.27 trillion, 1,924-page omnibus spending bill. The problem with Reid’s omnibus spending bill was not just its size—although our federal government does spend far too much of other people’s money—but the way it was drafted and forced on the American people. For far too long our Congress has amassed more and more spending power into fewer and fewer legislative acts while waiting until the last possible minute to consider them. Lobbyists have made an entire business model out of identifying must-pass appropriations and tax bills and then getting pliant Members of Congress to insert their special breaks, loopholes, and giveaways. The omnibus collapse was a complete rejection of that way of doing business in Washington. Senator John McCain (R–AZ) told National Review: “I know this is a seminal moment, because for the first time since I’ve been here, we stood up and said ‘enough.’”
Last night’s victory could not have happened without the Tea Party. Earlier in the day, Tea Party–defeated outgoing- Senator Robert Bennett (R–UT) was working “actively to round up as many as nine potential Republican votes” for the omnibus bill stuffed with 6,000 earmarks worth $8 billion. But then Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–KY) worked the phones all day twisting the arms of those nine Republicans, many of them members of the Senate Appropriations Committee, to drop their support for the bill. It was not an easy sell. Senator Thad Cochran (R–MS), the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, had 281 earmarks worth $561 million in the bill. McConnell himself had 48 earmarks worth $113 million. But wisely, these lawmakers eventually saw the light. McConnell told National Review afterward: “We decided that we’re not going to pass a 2,000-page bill that nobody has seen since yesterday. That’s not the way to operate and that’s not the message from the November elections.”
Tea Party activists across the country should take a moment to celebrate this victory. But only a moment. Not all of the 111th Congress has gotten the message of the November elections. Too many on Capitol Hill seem to be operating under the belief that the American people voted in November to have President Barack Obama’s agenda shoved down their throats in December. The Hill reports: “Democrats will move instead to two high priorities on their legislative agenda: the DREAM Act, which would grant permanent legal residency to illegal immigrants under a certain age, and a repeal of the military’s ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy.” And let’s not forget the Boxer–Reid Land Grab and New START.
None of these issues demands resolution by a Congress that was “shellacked” at the polls last month. According to Gallup, the American people dislike this 111th Congress more than any other Congress in history. Specifically, a full 83 percent of Americans disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job, while only 13 percent approve. That is the worst approval rating in more than 30 years of tracking congressional job performance. Last night Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D–CA) House voted to prevent a massive tax hike on the American people. It now looks like Congress will pass a simple bill that freezes spending through February of next year. The 111th Congress has no mandate; they must go home and let the Tea Party Congress govern.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
The Will of the American People on Obama - He's a One Term President!
Fox News Poll: Just 29 Percent of Voters Think Obama Will Win Re-Election
Published December 16, 2010 | FoxNews.com
Barack Obama's second year as president is ending on a low note in the eyes of American voters, according to a Fox News poll released Thursday.
The president continues to suffer from upside-down job ratings, and the number who thinks he will be re-elected is down significantly. A slim majority now says the country would be better off with someone else as president. Even so, more voters would still rather have Obama as president right now than George W. Bush.
These are just some of the findings from the latest Fox News national poll of registered voters.
Expectations for Obama's presidency have declined: 29 percent of voters expect Obama to rate as either “one of the country’s greatest” or as a “good” president. That’s down from 43 percent who felt that way a year ago -- and down dramatically from 62 percent who had similarly high expectations soon after he was elected (December 2008).
In addition, the number of Democrats who think Obama will be “one of the country’s greatest presidents” stands at 9 percent -- down from a high of 30 percent in 2008.
YOU MIGHT ALSO BE
INTERESTED IN
2010 List of Failed Banks Why the Health-Care Law Got Slammed EXCLUSIVE: Olivia Wilde Felt 'Challenged' to Fit Into Skin-Tight 'Tron' Suit Study Reveals Dangers of ‘No Preset Spending Limit’ Credit Cards - FoxBusiness.com Revolt: Republicans Angry About Omnibus Spending Bill Decry 'Total Mess' The new poll shows 33 percent think Obama’s presidency will rate as “average,” 19 percent say “below average,” and 15 percent say he will be seen as “one of the country’s worst” presidents.
About a third of voters (35 percent) think Obama deserves to be re-elected. A slim 53 percent majority says the country would be better off with someone else.
Democrats are alone in thinking Obama deserves another term (67 percent). Most Republicans (84 percent) and half of independents (50 percent) disagree. And one in five Democrats (20 percent) think the country would be better off with someone else as president.
Looking ahead to 2012, some 29 percent of voters predict Obama will be re-elected, down from 44 percent who thought so a year ago. Sixty-four percent now don’t think Obama will win another term, up from 46 percent in December 2009.
Overall, 40 percent of voters approve and 51 percent disapprove of the job Obama is doing. While that is close to his previous rating of 41 percent approval and 50 percent disapproval in late October, the new ratings are his lowest to date.
Obama’s approval rating among Democrats stands at 75 percent, and 70 percent among self-identified liberals -- both are record lows.
The Fox News Poll was conducted by Opinion Dynamics Corp. among 900 randomly chosen registered voters from December 15 - December 16. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points for the total sample.
Optimism for 2011
Nearly half of voters -- 48 percent -- feel this was a “bad” year for their family. Four in 10 say 2010 was a “good” year (40 percent), compared to 34 percent who felt that way about 2009.
Most are optimistic about the upcoming year: 69 percent expect 2011 will be better than 2010, while just 13 percent think it will be worse. Another 14 percent think things will be the same.
Among those who felt 2010 was a bad year, 63 percent expect 2011 to be better.
Finally, 6 in 10 voters (60 percent) say they are “happy” about the outcome of the 2010 midterm elections. That’s more than twice as many as the 27 percent who are unhappy.
Published December 16, 2010 | FoxNews.com
Barack Obama's second year as president is ending on a low note in the eyes of American voters, according to a Fox News poll released Thursday.
The president continues to suffer from upside-down job ratings, and the number who thinks he will be re-elected is down significantly. A slim majority now says the country would be better off with someone else as president. Even so, more voters would still rather have Obama as president right now than George W. Bush.
These are just some of the findings from the latest Fox News national poll of registered voters.
Expectations for Obama's presidency have declined: 29 percent of voters expect Obama to rate as either “one of the country’s greatest” or as a “good” president. That’s down from 43 percent who felt that way a year ago -- and down dramatically from 62 percent who had similarly high expectations soon after he was elected (December 2008).
In addition, the number of Democrats who think Obama will be “one of the country’s greatest presidents” stands at 9 percent -- down from a high of 30 percent in 2008.
YOU MIGHT ALSO BE
INTERESTED IN
2010 List of Failed Banks Why the Health-Care Law Got Slammed EXCLUSIVE: Olivia Wilde Felt 'Challenged' to Fit Into Skin-Tight 'Tron' Suit Study Reveals Dangers of ‘No Preset Spending Limit’ Credit Cards - FoxBusiness.com Revolt: Republicans Angry About Omnibus Spending Bill Decry 'Total Mess' The new poll shows 33 percent think Obama’s presidency will rate as “average,” 19 percent say “below average,” and 15 percent say he will be seen as “one of the country’s worst” presidents.
About a third of voters (35 percent) think Obama deserves to be re-elected. A slim 53 percent majority says the country would be better off with someone else.
Democrats are alone in thinking Obama deserves another term (67 percent). Most Republicans (84 percent) and half of independents (50 percent) disagree. And one in five Democrats (20 percent) think the country would be better off with someone else as president.
Looking ahead to 2012, some 29 percent of voters predict Obama will be re-elected, down from 44 percent who thought so a year ago. Sixty-four percent now don’t think Obama will win another term, up from 46 percent in December 2009.
Overall, 40 percent of voters approve and 51 percent disapprove of the job Obama is doing. While that is close to his previous rating of 41 percent approval and 50 percent disapproval in late October, the new ratings are his lowest to date.
Obama’s approval rating among Democrats stands at 75 percent, and 70 percent among self-identified liberals -- both are record lows.
The Fox News Poll was conducted by Opinion Dynamics Corp. among 900 randomly chosen registered voters from December 15 - December 16. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points for the total sample.
Optimism for 2011
Nearly half of voters -- 48 percent -- feel this was a “bad” year for their family. Four in 10 say 2010 was a “good” year (40 percent), compared to 34 percent who felt that way about 2009.
Most are optimistic about the upcoming year: 69 percent expect 2011 will be better than 2010, while just 13 percent think it will be worse. Another 14 percent think things will be the same.
Among those who felt 2010 was a bad year, 63 percent expect 2011 to be better.
Finally, 6 in 10 voters (60 percent) say they are “happy” about the outcome of the 2010 midterm elections. That’s more than twice as many as the 27 percent who are unhappy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)