Obama also said it was NOT a tax, but now in court he is arguing it is a tax and that's why it's constitutional....Wouldn't it be great to have a President that told the truth...at least some of the time....
Judge uses Obama’s words against him
By Stephen Dinan The Washington Times 4:47 p.m., Monday, January 31, 2011
In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, arguing that there are other ways to tackle health care short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.
“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.
Judge Vinson, a federal judge in the northern district of Florida, struck down the entire health care law as unconstitutional on Monday, though he is allowing the Obama administration to continue to implement and enforce it while the government appeals his ruling.
The footnote was attached to the most critical part of Judge Vinson‘s ruling, in which he said the “principal dispute” in the case was not whether Congress has the power to tackle health care, but whether it has the power to compel the purchase of insurance.
Judge Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s campaign words from an interview with CNN to show that there are other options that could fall within the Constitution — including then-candidate Obama‘s plan.
During the presidential campaign, one key difference between Mr. Obama and his chief opponent, then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, was Mrs. Clinton‘s plan required all Americans to purchase insurance, and Mr. Obama‘s did not.
In the heat of the primaries in 2008, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman predicted Mr. Obama‘s opposition to an individual mandate could come back to haunt him: “If Mr. Obama gets to the White House and tries to achieve universal coverage, he’ll find that it can’t be done without mandates — but if he tries to institute mandates, the enemies of reform will use his own words against him.”
Mr. Obama has since defended the constitutionality of the individual mandate, arguing it’s the linchpin of the program to bring in more customers, which is key to expanding the availability and affordability of insurance.
Much of the 78-page ruling was a discussion of how the nation’s founding fathers, such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, set limits on congressional power. Judge Vinson also hypothesized that, under the Obama administration‘s legal theory, the government could mandate eating broccoli.
White House officials said that sort of “surpassingly curious reading” called into question Judge Vinson‘s entire ruling.
“There’s something thoroughly odd and unconventional about the analysis,” said a White House official who briefed reporters late Monday afternoon, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Obama .....No Sense of Smell....
Obama doesn't want to see the big problem the American People are most concerned about....he'd rather ignore it and spend more money, grow more government and socialize the country....
Can Obama show Leadership in the Egypt Crisis????
Once again Obama is late to the party and takes the wrong side....IF Egypt ends up in the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood Obama should be held to account...his actions to date are again less than impressive....
A Time for Leadership
January 30, 2011 11:07 A.M. By Jamie M. Fly
The Obama administration’s response to the rapidly developing situation in Egypt has been, like its response to the protests that rocked Iran in June 2009, constantly evolving. The administration initially was behind the curve, appearing to believe that Hosni Mubarak’s government was stable. Even once their statements began to swing in the opposite direction, there were still discordant notes. As he has often been known to do, Vice President Joe Biden raised eyebrows at home and abroad when he refused to call Mubarak a “dictator” and seemed to question whether the concerns of the protesters were “legitimate.”
The administration now appears to be distancing itself from Hosni Mubarak, even as the Egyptian President has made a pathetic last minute attempt to remain in power by firing his cabinet and naming the intelligence chief, Omar Suleiman, as his vice president. These efforts will do nothing to calm the situation. Omar Suleiman represents everything that is wrong with Mubarak’s Egypt. It is now only a matter of time before the government collapses and Mubarak is swept aside.
Recognizing this, the Bipartisan Working Group on Egypt released a statement on Saturday outlining a sensible list of recommendations that represent a reasonable way forward.
President Obama’s reluctance to firmly put the moral weight of the United States behind the protesters will not be remembered kindly, just as his failure to support democratic opposition groups during his first two years in office will be recalled by the Egyptian democrats who may soon take power. President Obama tried to use Cairo as a prop in his efforts to engage the Muslim world, but he and leading administration officials refused to talk of democracy and refused, despite their desperate efforts now to rewrite history, to seriously pressure Mubarak to reform.
It is worth remembering that less than one month ago, President Obama appointed former U.S. ambassador to Egypt Frank Riccardone, to be the new U.S. ambassador to Turkey over the opposition of a number of Republican senators. Riccardone was infamous for his statements about supposed freedoms in Egypt and the wisdom and greatness of Hosni Mubarak, who he once said at an event with Egyptian students, “could win elections in the United States as a leader who is a giant on the world stage.”
Riccardone was the messenger for an amoral U.S. policy toward Egypt pursued for decades by administrations of both parties. But the Obama administration was particularly egregious. After seeds of progress were planted during the Bush administration, the Obama administration’s approach became “anything but Bush.” During a trip to Egypt in November 2009 to attend a conference with democracy activists, I heard firsthand how these activists’ initial hopes about the young, articulate Barack Obama had been quashed as their U.S. funding and moral support disappeared. The signs of U.S. disengagement were so clear that a security service minder taunted one of my activist friends, “If you need U.S. funding, let me know, we are close to the Americans.”
There will be much handwringing in the days to come about what type of Egypt will emerge after Mubarak. Concerns about a militant Islamist regime are likely exaggerated. There are moderate forces that will compete for political space with the Muslim Brotherhood. Regardless, it is in the interest of the United States that the Egyptian people finally be free.
The Obama administration will have an opportunity in the coming days to recover from its disastrous handling of this crisis over the last week and assist the transition of power away from Mubarak. Let’s hope that this will be the moment when they finally end their habitual reluctance to stand up for freedom irrespective of where it manifests itself. If they fail to do so, history will judge them harshly, for history is on the side of the young Egyptians taking to the streets.
– Jamie M. Fly is executive director of the Foreign Policy Initiative.
A Time for Leadership
January 30, 2011 11:07 A.M. By Jamie M. Fly
The Obama administration’s response to the rapidly developing situation in Egypt has been, like its response to the protests that rocked Iran in June 2009, constantly evolving. The administration initially was behind the curve, appearing to believe that Hosni Mubarak’s government was stable. Even once their statements began to swing in the opposite direction, there were still discordant notes. As he has often been known to do, Vice President Joe Biden raised eyebrows at home and abroad when he refused to call Mubarak a “dictator” and seemed to question whether the concerns of the protesters were “legitimate.”
The administration now appears to be distancing itself from Hosni Mubarak, even as the Egyptian President has made a pathetic last minute attempt to remain in power by firing his cabinet and naming the intelligence chief, Omar Suleiman, as his vice president. These efforts will do nothing to calm the situation. Omar Suleiman represents everything that is wrong with Mubarak’s Egypt. It is now only a matter of time before the government collapses and Mubarak is swept aside.
Recognizing this, the Bipartisan Working Group on Egypt released a statement on Saturday outlining a sensible list of recommendations that represent a reasonable way forward.
President Obama’s reluctance to firmly put the moral weight of the United States behind the protesters will not be remembered kindly, just as his failure to support democratic opposition groups during his first two years in office will be recalled by the Egyptian democrats who may soon take power. President Obama tried to use Cairo as a prop in his efforts to engage the Muslim world, but he and leading administration officials refused to talk of democracy and refused, despite their desperate efforts now to rewrite history, to seriously pressure Mubarak to reform.
It is worth remembering that less than one month ago, President Obama appointed former U.S. ambassador to Egypt Frank Riccardone, to be the new U.S. ambassador to Turkey over the opposition of a number of Republican senators. Riccardone was infamous for his statements about supposed freedoms in Egypt and the wisdom and greatness of Hosni Mubarak, who he once said at an event with Egyptian students, “could win elections in the United States as a leader who is a giant on the world stage.”
Riccardone was the messenger for an amoral U.S. policy toward Egypt pursued for decades by administrations of both parties. But the Obama administration was particularly egregious. After seeds of progress were planted during the Bush administration, the Obama administration’s approach became “anything but Bush.” During a trip to Egypt in November 2009 to attend a conference with democracy activists, I heard firsthand how these activists’ initial hopes about the young, articulate Barack Obama had been quashed as their U.S. funding and moral support disappeared. The signs of U.S. disengagement were so clear that a security service minder taunted one of my activist friends, “If you need U.S. funding, let me know, we are close to the Americans.”
There will be much handwringing in the days to come about what type of Egypt will emerge after Mubarak. Concerns about a militant Islamist regime are likely exaggerated. There are moderate forces that will compete for political space with the Muslim Brotherhood. Regardless, it is in the interest of the United States that the Egyptian people finally be free.
The Obama administration will have an opportunity in the coming days to recover from its disastrous handling of this crisis over the last week and assist the transition of power away from Mubarak. Let’s hope that this will be the moment when they finally end their habitual reluctance to stand up for freedom irrespective of where it manifests itself. If they fail to do so, history will judge them harshly, for history is on the side of the young Egyptians taking to the streets.
– Jamie M. Fly is executive director of the Foreign Policy Initiative.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Was CNN responsible for Bachmanns off center presentation at her response to the SOTU?
There are now serious questions as to whether CNN intentionally filmed the Bachmann response off center....and what makes it even more interesting is that I was watching CNN and they commented about Bachmann's unprofessional presentation..and here it is probably all set up by them....another State-Run media issue...
Will Obama lose Egypt to the Muslims....
Will Obama Lose Egypt to the Muslims???? I have little confidence in him and his administration....
WHO LOST EGYPT?
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on January 29, 2011
In the 1950s, the accusation "who lost China" resonated throughout American politics and led to the defeat of the Democratic Party in the presidential elections of 1952. Unless President Obama reverses field and strongly opposes letting the Muslim brotherhood take over Egypt, he will be hit with the modern equivalent of the 1952 question: Who Lost Egypt?
The Iranian government is waiting for Egypt to fall into its lap. The Muslim Brotherhood, dominated by Iranian Islamic fundamentalism, will doubtless emerge as the winner should the government of Egypt fall. The Obama Administration, in failing to throw its weight against an Islamic takeover, is guilty of the same mistake that led President Carter to fail to support the Shah, opening the door for the Ayatollah Khomeini to take over Iran.
The United States has enormous leverage in Egypt - far more than it had in Iran. We provide Egypt with upwards of $2 billion a year in foreign aid under the provisos of the Camp David Accords orchestrated by Carter. The Egyptian military, in particular, receives $1.3 billion of this money. The United States, as the pay master, needs to send a signal to the military that it will be supportive of its efforts to keep Egypt out of the hands of the Islamic fundamentalists. Instead, Obama has put our military aid to Egypt "under review" to pressure Mubarak to mute his response to the demonstrators and has given top priority to "preventing the loss of human life."
President Obama should say that Egypt has always been a friend of the United States. He should point out that it was the first Arab country to make peace with Israel. He should recall that President Sadat, who signed the peace accords, paid for doing so with his life and that President Mubarak has carried on in his footsteps. He should condemn the efforts of the Muslim Brotherhood extremists to take over the country and indicate that America stands by her longtime ally. He should address the need for reform and urge Mubarak to enact needed changes. But his emphasis should be on standing with our ally.
The return of Nobel laureate Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has to Egypt as the presumptive heir to Mubarak tells us where this revolution is headed. Carolyn Glick, a columnist for the Jerusalem Post, explains how dangerous ElBaradei is. "As IAEA head," she writes, "Elbaradei shielded Iran's nuclear weapons program from the Security Council. He [has] continued to lobby against significant UN Security Council sanctions or other actions against Iran...Last week, he dismissed the threat of a nuclear armed Iran [saying] 'there is a lot of hype in this debate'."
As for the Muslim Brotherhood, Glick notes that "it forms the largest and best organized opposition to the Mubarak regime and [is] the progenitor of Hamas and al Qaidi. It seeks Egypt's transformation into an Islamic regime that will stand at the forefront of the global jihad."
Now is the time for Republicans and conservatives to start asking the question: Who is losing Egypt? We need to debunk the starry eyed idealistic yearning for reform and the fantasy that a liberal democracy will come from these demonstrations. It won't. Iranian domination will.
Egypt, with 80 million people, is the largest country in the Middle East or North Africa. Combined with Iran's 75 million (the second largest) they have 155 million people. By contrast the entire rest of the region -- Algeria, Morocco, Libya, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Tunisia, Jordan, UAE, Lebanon, Kuwait, Oman, and Qatar combined-- have only 200 million.
We must not let the two most populous and powerful nations in the region fall under the sway of Muslim extremism, the one through the weakness of Jimmy Carter and the other through the weakness of Barack Obama.
WHO LOST EGYPT?
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on January 29, 2011
In the 1950s, the accusation "who lost China" resonated throughout American politics and led to the defeat of the Democratic Party in the presidential elections of 1952. Unless President Obama reverses field and strongly opposes letting the Muslim brotherhood take over Egypt, he will be hit with the modern equivalent of the 1952 question: Who Lost Egypt?
The Iranian government is waiting for Egypt to fall into its lap. The Muslim Brotherhood, dominated by Iranian Islamic fundamentalism, will doubtless emerge as the winner should the government of Egypt fall. The Obama Administration, in failing to throw its weight against an Islamic takeover, is guilty of the same mistake that led President Carter to fail to support the Shah, opening the door for the Ayatollah Khomeini to take over Iran.
The United States has enormous leverage in Egypt - far more than it had in Iran. We provide Egypt with upwards of $2 billion a year in foreign aid under the provisos of the Camp David Accords orchestrated by Carter. The Egyptian military, in particular, receives $1.3 billion of this money. The United States, as the pay master, needs to send a signal to the military that it will be supportive of its efforts to keep Egypt out of the hands of the Islamic fundamentalists. Instead, Obama has put our military aid to Egypt "under review" to pressure Mubarak to mute his response to the demonstrators and has given top priority to "preventing the loss of human life."
President Obama should say that Egypt has always been a friend of the United States. He should point out that it was the first Arab country to make peace with Israel. He should recall that President Sadat, who signed the peace accords, paid for doing so with his life and that President Mubarak has carried on in his footsteps. He should condemn the efforts of the Muslim Brotherhood extremists to take over the country and indicate that America stands by her longtime ally. He should address the need for reform and urge Mubarak to enact needed changes. But his emphasis should be on standing with our ally.
The return of Nobel laureate Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has to Egypt as the presumptive heir to Mubarak tells us where this revolution is headed. Carolyn Glick, a columnist for the Jerusalem Post, explains how dangerous ElBaradei is. "As IAEA head," she writes, "Elbaradei shielded Iran's nuclear weapons program from the Security Council. He [has] continued to lobby against significant UN Security Council sanctions or other actions against Iran...Last week, he dismissed the threat of a nuclear armed Iran [saying] 'there is a lot of hype in this debate'."
As for the Muslim Brotherhood, Glick notes that "it forms the largest and best organized opposition to the Mubarak regime and [is] the progenitor of Hamas and al Qaidi. It seeks Egypt's transformation into an Islamic regime that will stand at the forefront of the global jihad."
Now is the time for Republicans and conservatives to start asking the question: Who is losing Egypt? We need to debunk the starry eyed idealistic yearning for reform and the fantasy that a liberal democracy will come from these demonstrations. It won't. Iranian domination will.
Egypt, with 80 million people, is the largest country in the Middle East or North Africa. Combined with Iran's 75 million (the second largest) they have 155 million people. By contrast the entire rest of the region -- Algeria, Morocco, Libya, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, Tunisia, Jordan, UAE, Lebanon, Kuwait, Oman, and Qatar combined-- have only 200 million.
We must not let the two most populous and powerful nations in the region fall under the sway of Muslim extremism, the one through the weakness of Jimmy Carter and the other through the weakness of Barack Obama.
Obama has us in a pickle....He needs to go in 2012!
This sounds like everything that Obama has done....
Muslims against the West
Who says there's not a war between the muslims and west brewing....and we are allowing a mosque to be built at ground zero....we are NUTS!!!
Jordan's opposition: Arabs will topple tyrants
Jan 29, 1:10 PM (ET) By JAMAL HALABY
AMMAN, Jordan (AP) - The leader of Jordan's powerful Muslim Brotherhood warned Saturday that unrest in Egypt will spread across the Mideast and Arabs will topple leaders allied with the United States.
Hammam Saeed's comments were made at a protest outside the Egyptian Embassy in Amman, inspired by massive rallies in neighboring Egypt demanding the downfall of the country's longtime president, Hosni Mubarak.
About 100 members of the fundamentalist group and activists from other leftist organizations and trade unions chanted "Mubarak, step down" and "the decision is made, the people's revolt will remain."
Elsewhere, a separate group of 300 protesters gathered in front of the office of Jordanian Prime Minister Samir Rifai, demanding his ouster. "Rifai, it's time for you to go," chanted the group.
Jordan's protests have been relatively small in size, but they underline a rising tension with Jordan's King Abdullah II, a key U.S. ally who has been making promises of reform in recent days in an apparent attempt to quell domestic discontent over economic degradation and lack of political freedoms.
But as a monarch with deep support from the Bedouin-dominated military, Jordan's ruler is not seen as vulnerable as Mubarak or Tunisia's deposed leader. Even the Brotherhood - a fiery critic of Jordan's moderate government - has remained largely loyal to the king, who claims ancestry to Islam's Prophet Muhammad.
Many believe it's unlikely King Abdullah will bow to demands for popular election of the prime minister and Cabinet officials, traditionally appointed by the king.
Saeed said Arabs have grown disgruntled with U.S. domination of their oil wealth, military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and its support for "totalitarian" leaders in the region.
"The Americans and (President Barack) Obama must be losing sleep over the popular revolt in Egypt," he said. "Now, Obama must understand that the people have woken up and are ready to unseat the tyrant leaders who remained in power because of U.S. backing."
Saeed did not specifically name King Abdullah. But he said Jordan's prime minister "must draw lessons from Tunisia and Egypt and must swiftly implement political reforms."
"We tell the Americans 'enough is enough'," he said.
Rifai has in the last two weeks announced a $550 million package of new subsidies for fuel and staple products like rice, sugar, livestock and liquefied gas used for heating and cooking. It includes a raise for civil servants and security personnel.
Still, Jordan's economy struggles, weighed down by a record deficit of $2 billion this year, rising inflation and rampant unemployment and poverty.
Jordan's opposition: Arabs will topple tyrants
Jan 29, 1:10 PM (ET) By JAMAL HALABY
AMMAN, Jordan (AP) - The leader of Jordan's powerful Muslim Brotherhood warned Saturday that unrest in Egypt will spread across the Mideast and Arabs will topple leaders allied with the United States.
Hammam Saeed's comments were made at a protest outside the Egyptian Embassy in Amman, inspired by massive rallies in neighboring Egypt demanding the downfall of the country's longtime president, Hosni Mubarak.
About 100 members of the fundamentalist group and activists from other leftist organizations and trade unions chanted "Mubarak, step down" and "the decision is made, the people's revolt will remain."
Elsewhere, a separate group of 300 protesters gathered in front of the office of Jordanian Prime Minister Samir Rifai, demanding his ouster. "Rifai, it's time for you to go," chanted the group.
Jordan's protests have been relatively small in size, but they underline a rising tension with Jordan's King Abdullah II, a key U.S. ally who has been making promises of reform in recent days in an apparent attempt to quell domestic discontent over economic degradation and lack of political freedoms.
But as a monarch with deep support from the Bedouin-dominated military, Jordan's ruler is not seen as vulnerable as Mubarak or Tunisia's deposed leader. Even the Brotherhood - a fiery critic of Jordan's moderate government - has remained largely loyal to the king, who claims ancestry to Islam's Prophet Muhammad.
Many believe it's unlikely King Abdullah will bow to demands for popular election of the prime minister and Cabinet officials, traditionally appointed by the king.
Saeed said Arabs have grown disgruntled with U.S. domination of their oil wealth, military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and its support for "totalitarian" leaders in the region.
"The Americans and (President Barack) Obama must be losing sleep over the popular revolt in Egypt," he said. "Now, Obama must understand that the people have woken up and are ready to unseat the tyrant leaders who remained in power because of U.S. backing."
Saeed did not specifically name King Abdullah. But he said Jordan's prime minister "must draw lessons from Tunisia and Egypt and must swiftly implement political reforms."
"We tell the Americans 'enough is enough'," he said.
Rifai has in the last two weeks announced a $550 million package of new subsidies for fuel and staple products like rice, sugar, livestock and liquefied gas used for heating and cooking. It includes a raise for civil servants and security personnel.
Still, Jordan's economy struggles, weighed down by a record deficit of $2 billion this year, rising inflation and rampant unemployment and poverty.
Repeal Obamacare NOW!
Health Care Costs in Question as Obama Administration Grant Waivers
By Jim Angle Published January 29, 2011
The Obama Administration claimed Friday its health care law will bring down costs for everyone once it takes full effect in 2014, even as the President made fun of its critics.
"You may have heard once or twice that this is a job-crushing, granny-threatening, budget-busting monstrosity. That's about how it's been portrayed by opponents," he joked to laughter among the crowd at a FamiliesUSA conference in Washington.
A new Health and Human Services Report states that families will save money under the law.
The original source of that conclusion is a 2009 analysis from the Congressional Budget office that looked at some provisions and predicted that "Average [health care] premiums would be seven to 10 percent lower..."
But the same analysis also predicted that other provisions of the law would have the opposite effect, saying "Average [health care] premiums would be 27 percent to 30 percent higher..."
That prompted Michigan Rep. Dave Camp, the Republican chairman of the Ways and Means Committee to issue a statement saying "This report would be laughable if it wasn't so disingenuous. The facts remain clear: the Democrats' health care law increases health care costs."
Meanwhile, the Obama administration has now tripled the number of waivers granted to employers who cannot meet with the requirements of the new law -- from a little more than 200 to more than 700.
"Even the Obama administration is admitting by granting these waivers that they better make some exceptions or they're going to have the unintended consequence of having more uninsured, not less," according to Jim Capretta of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a former official in the White House Office of Management and Budget from 2001 to 2004.
John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis says "What's happening is the federal government is trying to force workers to have a health insurance plan that's more expensive than they or their employers can afford."
The law now forces all plans to offer at least 750,000 dollars in annual benefits, but the administration has already granted waivers to McDonald's and other low wage firms.
Goodman and others fear employers will just drop insurance altogether and pay the penalties, or hire fewer people.
"The cheapest thing for an employer not to do is not to hire people," Goodman says, "to hire only temporary workers. To hire contract laborers. And then you get out from under the fines. You get out from under the mandates, but is that really where we want to go?"
Hundreds of entities from banks to church groups to school districts are saying they can't live up to the law.
The group also includes dozens of unions chapters, most of which supported passage of the bill -- from electrical workers to Teamsters to the Service Employees Union, which organizes low wage workers.
Even a union representing NY Firefighters asked for a waiver, as well as several states whose own health care requirements were lower than the new federal law.
The waivers last for a year but can be renewed until 2014, at which point everyone has to get insurance from their employer, or through state run exchanges where those making less than 80 thousand dollars a year will get federal subsidies.
"They will be eligible for a new federal subsidy structure that will provide them with discounted premiums. That's the new entitlement in the health care law that's going to be so expensive."
And at the moment, the cost is the hottest issue. The administration promises everyone can have better health care at lower prices. Critics say they're spending a trillion dollars over ten years... and that money has to come from somewhere.
By Jim Angle Published January 29, 2011
The Obama Administration claimed Friday its health care law will bring down costs for everyone once it takes full effect in 2014, even as the President made fun of its critics.
"You may have heard once or twice that this is a job-crushing, granny-threatening, budget-busting monstrosity. That's about how it's been portrayed by opponents," he joked to laughter among the crowd at a FamiliesUSA conference in Washington.
A new Health and Human Services Report states that families will save money under the law.
The original source of that conclusion is a 2009 analysis from the Congressional Budget office that looked at some provisions and predicted that "Average [health care] premiums would be seven to 10 percent lower..."
But the same analysis also predicted that other provisions of the law would have the opposite effect, saying "Average [health care] premiums would be 27 percent to 30 percent higher..."
That prompted Michigan Rep. Dave Camp, the Republican chairman of the Ways and Means Committee to issue a statement saying "This report would be laughable if it wasn't so disingenuous. The facts remain clear: the Democrats' health care law increases health care costs."
Meanwhile, the Obama administration has now tripled the number of waivers granted to employers who cannot meet with the requirements of the new law -- from a little more than 200 to more than 700.
"Even the Obama administration is admitting by granting these waivers that they better make some exceptions or they're going to have the unintended consequence of having more uninsured, not less," according to Jim Capretta of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a former official in the White House Office of Management and Budget from 2001 to 2004.
John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis says "What's happening is the federal government is trying to force workers to have a health insurance plan that's more expensive than they or their employers can afford."
The law now forces all plans to offer at least 750,000 dollars in annual benefits, but the administration has already granted waivers to McDonald's and other low wage firms.
Goodman and others fear employers will just drop insurance altogether and pay the penalties, or hire fewer people.
"The cheapest thing for an employer not to do is not to hire people," Goodman says, "to hire only temporary workers. To hire contract laborers. And then you get out from under the fines. You get out from under the mandates, but is that really where we want to go?"
Hundreds of entities from banks to church groups to school districts are saying they can't live up to the law.
The group also includes dozens of unions chapters, most of which supported passage of the bill -- from electrical workers to Teamsters to the Service Employees Union, which organizes low wage workers.
Even a union representing NY Firefighters asked for a waiver, as well as several states whose own health care requirements were lower than the new federal law.
The waivers last for a year but can be renewed until 2014, at which point everyone has to get insurance from their employer, or through state run exchanges where those making less than 80 thousand dollars a year will get federal subsidies.
"They will be eligible for a new federal subsidy structure that will provide them with discounted premiums. That's the new entitlement in the health care law that's going to be so expensive."
And at the moment, the cost is the hottest issue. The administration promises everyone can have better health care at lower prices. Critics say they're spending a trillion dollars over ten years... and that money has to come from somewhere.
More Obama hypocricy.....He critcized Egypt for shutting down their internet, but he wants to be able to shut down ours....
It's amazing to me that Obama and the world is mad at Egypt for shutting down social networks and the internet, but Obama wants to be able to shut down our internet if he sees it necessary.....This is a massive overreach of government again...It again creates another government agency and expands government's reach....It's just more of Obama's Hypocracy.....and what can I say about Susan Collins....she's a RINO that really needs to go....
Committee Passes Plan for Internet ‘Kill Switch’ in Egypt — U.S.
Posted on January 29, 2011 at 1:52pm by Meredith Jessup Print
Pending legislation that would grant the President of the United States the power to pull the plug on the country’s internet access in a declared “emergency” returned to the forefront this week on the same day Egyptians faced a nation-wide blackout designed to curtail widespread government protests. Egypt flipped it’s so-called “kill switch” — will the U.S.?
The bipartisan bill is sponsored by Maine Sen. Susan Collins, the ranking Republican on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The bill — called “The Protecting Cyberspace As A National Asset Act of 2010” S.3480 — was approved by a Senate panel this week.
S. 3480 would create a new government agency called the National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications. The NCCC would have sweeping powers to control the Internet, including the ability to shut down the web for a 30-day period. Considering that at least 60% of Americans get their daily news fix from the Internet, this is a staggering proposal.
Blaze writer Mike Opelka also notes that groups such as the ACLU see this proposed legislation potentially giving the President a giant kill switch for the Internet. Before the bill moves to the Senate floor for a vote, the ACLU has formally noted their disapproval.
While Collins insists her bill would not grant the president the same powers as Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak has exercised this week, many are wondering what kinds of implications the measure would have on Americans’ freedom.
Many in the high-tech world join the ACLU in questioning the bill as well.
PC Magazine‘s Dan Costa warned Friday that the United States must learn from Egypt’s “state-sponsored denial of service attack” on its citizens. “The surprising thing isn’t that a corrupt, authoritarian regime would launch this kind of state-sponsored denial off service attack on its own citizens. Nor that it is willing to jeopardize its economy by cutting its businesses off from world markets. No, the thing that surprises me is that the U.S. government has plans for its own Internet Kill Switch,” Costa wrote.
The legislation was first introduced last summer by Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), and the former has promised to bring it to the floor again in 2011. It isn’t called anything as obvious as the Internet Kill Switch, of course. It is called the “Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act.” Who could be against that? Anyone who’s watching the news on TV today, that’s who.
The proposal calls for the Department of Homeland Security to establish and maintain a list of systems or assets that constitute critical cyber-infrastructure. The President would be able to be able to control those systems. He or she would have ability to turn them off. The kicker: none of this would be subject to judicial review. This is just a proposal, mind you, but it certainly warrants concern. Particularly given the heavy-handed example being provided by Egypt.
The bill, co-sponsored by Sen. Joe Liebermann, I-Conn., previously sailed through the Homeland Security Committee just before the 111th Congress ended, and will have to be reconsidered in the new 112th Congress.
Intended to protect the country against “significant” cyber threats, Sen. Collins says the bill “would provide a mechanism for the government to work with the private sector in the event of a true cyber emergency.”
“It would give our nation the best tools available to swiftly respond to a significant threat,” she added.
Wired.com reports:
An aide to the Homeland Security committee described the bill as one that does not mandate the shuttering of the entire internet. Instead, it would authorize the president to demand turning off access to so-called “critical infrastructure” where necessary.
An example, the aide said, would require infrastructure connected to “the system that controls the floodgates to the Hoover dam” to cut its connection to the net if the government detected an imminent cyber attack.
What’s unclear, however, is how the government would have any idea when a cyber attack was imminent or why the operator wouldn’t shutter itself if it detected a looming attack.
About two dozen groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Library Association, Electronic Frontier Foundation and Center for Democracy & Technology, were skeptical enough to file an open letter opposing the idea. They are concerned that the measure, if it became law, might be used to censor the internet.
“It is imperative that cyber-security legislation not erode our rights,” (.pdf) the groups wrote last year to Congress.
On Friday, executives with London-based Vodofone came under scrutiny after admitting they had complied with the Egyptian government’s request to shut down internet and mobile phone access in Egypt. According to a report from the Wall Street Journal, Vodofone Group CEO Vittorio Cola expressed concern with the state-ordered blackout, but the company determined that the request was “legitimate under Egyptian law,” and therefore complied with the request.
In addition, Al Jazeera reported that protesters on Friday destroyed Vodafone stores in Cairo, among other locations tied to the ruling regime.
In the meantime, Costa insists that such a “kill switch” initiative could be devastating for the United States — not just because of the real impact on individual liberties, but also because of widespread economic ramifications:
The U.S. telecommunication industry is much more complex and far more decentralized [than Egypt's]. To do something similar in the U.S. would require a lot more than four phone calls. There are simply too many connections inside the nation already for them to be silenced. Also, since our economy is more dependent on the Internet obstructing the free flow of information would be disastrous. Still, the push for a U.S. Internet Kill Switch is here, but no one understands the consequences.
The fact is, no one in the U.S. should ever have the right or the ability to take the Internet offline. As an editor of a purely online publication (we made the switch from print a few years ago), it’s very clear to me that freedom of the press relies more than ever on the Internet. No one in the U.S.—or anywhere—should have the right to shut it down.
Committee Passes Plan for Internet ‘Kill Switch’ in Egypt — U.S.
Posted on January 29, 2011 at 1:52pm by Meredith Jessup Print
Pending legislation that would grant the President of the United States the power to pull the plug on the country’s internet access in a declared “emergency” returned to the forefront this week on the same day Egyptians faced a nation-wide blackout designed to curtail widespread government protests. Egypt flipped it’s so-called “kill switch” — will the U.S.?
The bipartisan bill is sponsored by Maine Sen. Susan Collins, the ranking Republican on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The bill — called “The Protecting Cyberspace As A National Asset Act of 2010” S.3480 — was approved by a Senate panel this week.
S. 3480 would create a new government agency called the National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications. The NCCC would have sweeping powers to control the Internet, including the ability to shut down the web for a 30-day period. Considering that at least 60% of Americans get their daily news fix from the Internet, this is a staggering proposal.
Blaze writer Mike Opelka also notes that groups such as the ACLU see this proposed legislation potentially giving the President a giant kill switch for the Internet. Before the bill moves to the Senate floor for a vote, the ACLU has formally noted their disapproval.
While Collins insists her bill would not grant the president the same powers as Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak has exercised this week, many are wondering what kinds of implications the measure would have on Americans’ freedom.
Many in the high-tech world join the ACLU in questioning the bill as well.
PC Magazine‘s Dan Costa warned Friday that the United States must learn from Egypt’s “state-sponsored denial of service attack” on its citizens. “The surprising thing isn’t that a corrupt, authoritarian regime would launch this kind of state-sponsored denial off service attack on its own citizens. Nor that it is willing to jeopardize its economy by cutting its businesses off from world markets. No, the thing that surprises me is that the U.S. government has plans for its own Internet Kill Switch,” Costa wrote.
The legislation was first introduced last summer by Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), and the former has promised to bring it to the floor again in 2011. It isn’t called anything as obvious as the Internet Kill Switch, of course. It is called the “Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act.” Who could be against that? Anyone who’s watching the news on TV today, that’s who.
The proposal calls for the Department of Homeland Security to establish and maintain a list of systems or assets that constitute critical cyber-infrastructure. The President would be able to be able to control those systems. He or she would have ability to turn them off. The kicker: none of this would be subject to judicial review. This is just a proposal, mind you, but it certainly warrants concern. Particularly given the heavy-handed example being provided by Egypt.
The bill, co-sponsored by Sen. Joe Liebermann, I-Conn., previously sailed through the Homeland Security Committee just before the 111th Congress ended, and will have to be reconsidered in the new 112th Congress.
Intended to protect the country against “significant” cyber threats, Sen. Collins says the bill “would provide a mechanism for the government to work with the private sector in the event of a true cyber emergency.”
“It would give our nation the best tools available to swiftly respond to a significant threat,” she added.
Wired.com reports:
An aide to the Homeland Security committee described the bill as one that does not mandate the shuttering of the entire internet. Instead, it would authorize the president to demand turning off access to so-called “critical infrastructure” where necessary.
An example, the aide said, would require infrastructure connected to “the system that controls the floodgates to the Hoover dam” to cut its connection to the net if the government detected an imminent cyber attack.
What’s unclear, however, is how the government would have any idea when a cyber attack was imminent or why the operator wouldn’t shutter itself if it detected a looming attack.
About two dozen groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Library Association, Electronic Frontier Foundation and Center for Democracy & Technology, were skeptical enough to file an open letter opposing the idea. They are concerned that the measure, if it became law, might be used to censor the internet.
“It is imperative that cyber-security legislation not erode our rights,” (.pdf) the groups wrote last year to Congress.
On Friday, executives with London-based Vodofone came under scrutiny after admitting they had complied with the Egyptian government’s request to shut down internet and mobile phone access in Egypt. According to a report from the Wall Street Journal, Vodofone Group CEO Vittorio Cola expressed concern with the state-ordered blackout, but the company determined that the request was “legitimate under Egyptian law,” and therefore complied with the request.
In addition, Al Jazeera reported that protesters on Friday destroyed Vodafone stores in Cairo, among other locations tied to the ruling regime.
In the meantime, Costa insists that such a “kill switch” initiative could be devastating for the United States — not just because of the real impact on individual liberties, but also because of widespread economic ramifications:
The U.S. telecommunication industry is much more complex and far more decentralized [than Egypt's]. To do something similar in the U.S. would require a lot more than four phone calls. There are simply too many connections inside the nation already for them to be silenced. Also, since our economy is more dependent on the Internet obstructing the free flow of information would be disastrous. Still, the push for a U.S. Internet Kill Switch is here, but no one understands the consequences.
The fact is, no one in the U.S. should ever have the right or the ability to take the Internet offline. As an editor of a purely online publication (we made the switch from print a few years ago), it’s very clear to me that freedom of the press relies more than ever on the Internet. No one in the U.S.—or anywhere—should have the right to shut it down.
I agree with Michelle Bachmann....We need to cut Veterans Benefits...
We need to look at Veteran's benefits.....my 85 year old father in law was still going to the veterans hospital for healthcare after he had been out of the service since 1953....he suffered no lifelong injury from serving and in my opinion had no right to any veterans benefits once he left the service. Certainly it is different for any soldier that suffered injuries while in service that effect him throughout the rest of his life, but that was NOT the case with my father in law....had he worked in construction for those same years he served in the military and left to go on to his career in insurance that construction employer would certainly not be liable for any further healthcare SO why should the American People?????
I value and thank our veterans for serving, but for those that leave the service with no lingering injuries, I don't think the American taxpayers owe them any healthcare for life....Getting anything for life is an idea that's time has passed.
Bachmann Takes Heat From Veterans' Group for Proposing Benefits Cuts
Published January 29, 2011 | FoxNews.com
Rep. Michele Bachmann waits to speak at a reception by the Iowans for Tax Relief Jan. 21 in Des Moines.
Conservative Rep. Michele Bachmann is taking heat from the nation's largest combat veterans' organization for proposing, as part of a broad list of spending cuts, a combination of reductions and caps in veterans' benefits.
"No way, no how, will we let this proposal get any traction in Congress," Richard Eubank, head of Veterans of Foreign Wars, said in a written statement released Friday.
The Minnesota Republican congresswoman, who is positioning herself as a leading critic of the Obama administration in the wake of the midterm elections, earlier this week outlined $400 billion worth of possible spending cuts. The plan projected huge savings from drastic measures like abolishing the Department of Education, overhauling farm subsidies and eliminating a host of Justice Department grants and programs.
Tucked into the outline was $4.5 billion in cuts targeting veterans. She proposed capping increases for health care spending at the Department of Veterans Affairs and cutting disability payments "to account for (Social Security) disability payments."
Reached for comment, Bachmann spokesman Doug Sachtleben told FoxNews.com in an e-mail that Bachmann is not pushing a "budget plan" and "has not introduced legislation to cut veterans benefits."
"Congresswoman Bachmann is not advocating for veterans' benefits to be abolished. She has always said that our nation must properly care for its heroes," he said.
Rather, Sachtleben described the proposal as a "list of suggested cuts to open things up for discussion" on how to reduce the nation's $14 trillion debt.
Mission accomplished.
Eubank called the pitch for veterans' payment cuts "totally out of step with America's commitment to our veterans."
"There are certain things you do not do when our nation is at war, and at the top of that list is not caring for our wounded and disabled servicemen and women when they return home," he said in a statement, urging Bachmann to tour a Minneapolis VA medical center and trauma center.
"The day this nation can't afford to take care of her veterans is the day this nation should quit creating them," he said.
Bachmann is one of several GOP lawmakers rolling out suggestions for high-dollar spending cuts, as the Congressional Budget Office warns that the nation's debt could reach the size of its entire economy by the end of the decade. President Obama is proposing a five-year partial spending freeze projected to save $400 billion. But that's just a fraction of the $1.5 trillion in red ink the federal government is expected to create this year alone.
I value and thank our veterans for serving, but for those that leave the service with no lingering injuries, I don't think the American taxpayers owe them any healthcare for life....Getting anything for life is an idea that's time has passed.
Bachmann Takes Heat From Veterans' Group for Proposing Benefits Cuts
Published January 29, 2011 | FoxNews.com
Rep. Michele Bachmann waits to speak at a reception by the Iowans for Tax Relief Jan. 21 in Des Moines.
Conservative Rep. Michele Bachmann is taking heat from the nation's largest combat veterans' organization for proposing, as part of a broad list of spending cuts, a combination of reductions and caps in veterans' benefits.
"No way, no how, will we let this proposal get any traction in Congress," Richard Eubank, head of Veterans of Foreign Wars, said in a written statement released Friday.
The Minnesota Republican congresswoman, who is positioning herself as a leading critic of the Obama administration in the wake of the midterm elections, earlier this week outlined $400 billion worth of possible spending cuts. The plan projected huge savings from drastic measures like abolishing the Department of Education, overhauling farm subsidies and eliminating a host of Justice Department grants and programs.
Tucked into the outline was $4.5 billion in cuts targeting veterans. She proposed capping increases for health care spending at the Department of Veterans Affairs and cutting disability payments "to account for (Social Security) disability payments."
Reached for comment, Bachmann spokesman Doug Sachtleben told FoxNews.com in an e-mail that Bachmann is not pushing a "budget plan" and "has not introduced legislation to cut veterans benefits."
"Congresswoman Bachmann is not advocating for veterans' benefits to be abolished. She has always said that our nation must properly care for its heroes," he said.
Rather, Sachtleben described the proposal as a "list of suggested cuts to open things up for discussion" on how to reduce the nation's $14 trillion debt.
Mission accomplished.
Eubank called the pitch for veterans' payment cuts "totally out of step with America's commitment to our veterans."
"There are certain things you do not do when our nation is at war, and at the top of that list is not caring for our wounded and disabled servicemen and women when they return home," he said in a statement, urging Bachmann to tour a Minneapolis VA medical center and trauma center.
"The day this nation can't afford to take care of her veterans is the day this nation should quit creating them," he said.
Bachmann is one of several GOP lawmakers rolling out suggestions for high-dollar spending cuts, as the Congressional Budget Office warns that the nation's debt could reach the size of its entire economy by the end of the decade. President Obama is proposing a five-year partial spending freeze projected to save $400 billion. But that's just a fraction of the $1.5 trillion in red ink the federal government is expected to create this year alone.
O'Reilly with some simple common sense....
Simple Common Sense....why doesn't Obama and his Administration have any common sense????
Needless ‘investments’ derailing U.S.
By Bill O’Reilly Saturday, January 29, 2011 - Updated 15 hours ago
Finally, an issue all Americans can rally behind: winning the future! Surely most of us would like to be victorious down the road. The alternative is losing the future, and that doesn’t sound very good, does it? If the future is lost, then what will become of us?
Thus, President Barack Obama’s new mantra, “winning the future,” got immediate traction.
His State of the Union speech was full of optimistic ways that we can win. Most of those ways involve “investing” in stuff like education, infrastructure jobs and alternative fuels.
“Investing,” of course, is the new word for government spending. The president doesn’t want to spend anymore; he wants to “invest.”
So Obama’s speech was uplifting to say the least. We are going to beat those Chinese people in the marketplace, and our kids will be smarter than those Korean kids. Yes, we can! And the federal government’s checkbook will lead the way.
In response, Republican Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin essentially said “no, we can’t.” We’re broke. How uplifting is that?
Obama is a liberal who is convinced that a large federal government can, indeed, improve the lives of most Americans.
With a $14 trillion debt, however, Obama can no longer trumpet expanding the federal apparatus, but that doesn’t mean he’s against it. Let’s take the high-speed train deal as an example.
The president loves the idea of these trains, and they do work well in places like Japan.
But over the past 10 years, the government-run Amtrak outfit has lost an astonishing $13 billion. So what makes Obama believe that pumping even more tax money into high-speed rail will be good for the country?
Talk about losing the past.
And then there’s ethanol. Tons of federal money spent, little to show for it. T. Boone Pickens, a very savvy guy, tried wind power. He got blown away. The complexity of wind-driven energy makes it almost impossible to market.
I am a simple guy. My questions are not complicated. So here’s another one regarding the winning thing:
Didn’t the Soviet Union want to win the future? The pinheads in Moscow spent gazillions of dollars trying to dominate the world. And exactly how did that giant central government-run operation turn out? I believe it evaporated, did it not?
Huge bureaucracies are not set up for winning the future. They exist to tell folks what to do and to take their money.
But the president and I do have some common ground on this “winning the future” theme.
We are both for it. I, however, believe the folks are the key component to future success because they have repeatedly won in the past.
So let’s stop the massive government spending, Mr. President, and unleash the American people by lowering taxes and encouraging private enterprise. Yes, we can.
Bill O’Reilly is host of the Fox News show, “The O’Reilly Factor.”
Needless ‘investments’ derailing U.S.
By Bill O’Reilly Saturday, January 29, 2011 - Updated 15 hours ago
Finally, an issue all Americans can rally behind: winning the future! Surely most of us would like to be victorious down the road. The alternative is losing the future, and that doesn’t sound very good, does it? If the future is lost, then what will become of us?
Thus, President Barack Obama’s new mantra, “winning the future,” got immediate traction.
His State of the Union speech was full of optimistic ways that we can win. Most of those ways involve “investing” in stuff like education, infrastructure jobs and alternative fuels.
“Investing,” of course, is the new word for government spending. The president doesn’t want to spend anymore; he wants to “invest.”
So Obama’s speech was uplifting to say the least. We are going to beat those Chinese people in the marketplace, and our kids will be smarter than those Korean kids. Yes, we can! And the federal government’s checkbook will lead the way.
In response, Republican Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin essentially said “no, we can’t.” We’re broke. How uplifting is that?
Obama is a liberal who is convinced that a large federal government can, indeed, improve the lives of most Americans.
With a $14 trillion debt, however, Obama can no longer trumpet expanding the federal apparatus, but that doesn’t mean he’s against it. Let’s take the high-speed train deal as an example.
The president loves the idea of these trains, and they do work well in places like Japan.
But over the past 10 years, the government-run Amtrak outfit has lost an astonishing $13 billion. So what makes Obama believe that pumping even more tax money into high-speed rail will be good for the country?
Talk about losing the past.
And then there’s ethanol. Tons of federal money spent, little to show for it. T. Boone Pickens, a very savvy guy, tried wind power. He got blown away. The complexity of wind-driven energy makes it almost impossible to market.
I am a simple guy. My questions are not complicated. So here’s another one regarding the winning thing:
Didn’t the Soviet Union want to win the future? The pinheads in Moscow spent gazillions of dollars trying to dominate the world. And exactly how did that giant central government-run operation turn out? I believe it evaporated, did it not?
Huge bureaucracies are not set up for winning the future. They exist to tell folks what to do and to take their money.
But the president and I do have some common ground on this “winning the future” theme.
We are both for it. I, however, believe the folks are the key component to future success because they have repeatedly won in the past.
So let’s stop the massive government spending, Mr. President, and unleash the American people by lowering taxes and encouraging private enterprise. Yes, we can.
Bill O’Reilly is host of the Fox News show, “The O’Reilly Factor.”
Waivers for Favors.....Obama lets Big Labor out of Obamacare!
The very organizations that poured tons of money into getting Obamacare passed now have gotten waivers to exclude them from the program....it's not good for them, but it's evidently fine for the rest of us....more disturbing is the connection between Obama and his administration to the organizations getting the waivers....many/most are part of his special interests or lobbyists....Obama's always crying about lobbyists, but he fails to explain his connection to unions......Once again he's just totally hypocritical....
January 28, 2011
Waivers for Favors: Big Labor's Obamacare Escape Hatch
By Michelle Malkin
President Obama's storytellers recently launched a White House blog series called "Voices of Health Reform," where "readers can meet average Americans already benefiting from the health reform law."
I propose a new White House series: "Voices of Health Reform Waivers," where taxpayers can meet all the politically connected unions benefiting from exclusive get-out-of-Obamacare passes -- after squandering millions of their workers' dues to lobby for the job-killing, private insurance-sabotaging law from which they are now exempt.
At the end of last year, the Department of Health and Human Services had granted some 222 temporary waivers to businesses small and large, insurers, labor and other organizations that offer affordable health insurance or prescription drug coverage with limited benefits. On Wednesday, the agency quietly updated its online list, which now reveals a whopping total of 729 Obamacare escapees -- in addition to four states, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio and Tennessee -- who collectively cover about 2.1 million enrollees.
At least one eyebrow-raising waiver recipient -- the left-leaning, nationalized health care-promoting Robert Wood Johnson Foundation -- has direct ties to the White House. Obama health care czar Nancy-Ann DeParle sits on the foundation's board of trustees.
Most noteworthy: One-fourth of all the waivers (182) so far have gone to Big Labor groups across the country.
The Teamsters Union, which hailed Obama last March for "enacting historic health care reform, providing health insurance to millions of Americans who don't have it and controlling costs for millions more who do," obtained waivers for 17 different locals.
The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW), which celebrated the passage of Obamacare as "an achievement that will rank among the highest in our national experience," secured waivers for 28 different affiliates.
The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers -- which exulted after the health care law's passage that "finally, affordable and comprehensive health care coverage will be available for millions of working Americans" -- saw eight of its affiliates win shelter from the Obamacare wrecking ball.
The Communications Workers of America, which sent its workers to lobby for Obamacare on Capitol Hill as part of the left-wing billionaire George Soros-funded Health Care for America Now front group, snagged a waiver that will spare a hefty 19,000 of its members from the onerous federal mandate.
And the Service Employees International Union, which poured $60 million into Democratic/Obama coffers in 2008 and millions more into the campaign for the federal health care takeover, added four new affiliates to the waiver list: SEIU Local 2000 Health and Welfare Fund, representing 161 enrollees; SEIU 32BJ North Health Benefit Fund, representing 7,020 enrollees; SEIU Local 300, Civil Service Forum Employees Welfare Fund, representing 2,000 enrollees; and SEIU Health & Welfare Fund, representing 1,620 enrollees.
That's in addition to three other previous SEIU waiver winners: Local 25 SEIU in Chicago with 31,000 enrollees; Local 1199 SEIU Greater New York Benefit Fund with 4,544 enrollees; and SEIU Local 1 Cleveland Welfare Fund with 520 enrollees. This brings the total number of Obamacare-promoting SEIU Obamacare refugees to an estimated 45,000 workers represented by seven SEIU locals.
Without the HHS-approved exemptions, these health providers would have been forced to drop low-cost coverage for seasonal, part-time and low-wage workers due to skyrocketing premiums. The only way they are keeping their health care is by successfully begging the feds to spare them from Obamacare.
The Democrats' law seeks to eliminate the low-cost plans (known as "mini-med" plans) under the guise of controlling insurer spending on executive salaries and marketing. The ultimate goal, as I've reported before: forcing a massive shift from private to public insurance designed by government-knows-best bureaucrats.
House and Senate Republicans plan separate investigations of the Obamacare waiver process. Who got one when and why? Who knew whom? Who didn't? HHS acknowledged Thursday that some 50 sanctuary-seekers had their waiver applications denied, but would not say more. Perhaps the White House storytellers, so eager to profile the "Voices of Health Reform," can enlighten us.
January 28, 2011
Waivers for Favors: Big Labor's Obamacare Escape Hatch
By Michelle Malkin
President Obama's storytellers recently launched a White House blog series called "Voices of Health Reform," where "readers can meet average Americans already benefiting from the health reform law."
I propose a new White House series: "Voices of Health Reform Waivers," where taxpayers can meet all the politically connected unions benefiting from exclusive get-out-of-Obamacare passes -- after squandering millions of their workers' dues to lobby for the job-killing, private insurance-sabotaging law from which they are now exempt.
At the end of last year, the Department of Health and Human Services had granted some 222 temporary waivers to businesses small and large, insurers, labor and other organizations that offer affordable health insurance or prescription drug coverage with limited benefits. On Wednesday, the agency quietly updated its online list, which now reveals a whopping total of 729 Obamacare escapees -- in addition to four states, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio and Tennessee -- who collectively cover about 2.1 million enrollees.
At least one eyebrow-raising waiver recipient -- the left-leaning, nationalized health care-promoting Robert Wood Johnson Foundation -- has direct ties to the White House. Obama health care czar Nancy-Ann DeParle sits on the foundation's board of trustees.
Most noteworthy: One-fourth of all the waivers (182) so far have gone to Big Labor groups across the country.
The Teamsters Union, which hailed Obama last March for "enacting historic health care reform, providing health insurance to millions of Americans who don't have it and controlling costs for millions more who do," obtained waivers for 17 different locals.
The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW), which celebrated the passage of Obamacare as "an achievement that will rank among the highest in our national experience," secured waivers for 28 different affiliates.
The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers -- which exulted after the health care law's passage that "finally, affordable and comprehensive health care coverage will be available for millions of working Americans" -- saw eight of its affiliates win shelter from the Obamacare wrecking ball.
The Communications Workers of America, which sent its workers to lobby for Obamacare on Capitol Hill as part of the left-wing billionaire George Soros-funded Health Care for America Now front group, snagged a waiver that will spare a hefty 19,000 of its members from the onerous federal mandate.
And the Service Employees International Union, which poured $60 million into Democratic/Obama coffers in 2008 and millions more into the campaign for the federal health care takeover, added four new affiliates to the waiver list: SEIU Local 2000 Health and Welfare Fund, representing 161 enrollees; SEIU 32BJ North Health Benefit Fund, representing 7,020 enrollees; SEIU Local 300, Civil Service Forum Employees Welfare Fund, representing 2,000 enrollees; and SEIU Health & Welfare Fund, representing 1,620 enrollees.
That's in addition to three other previous SEIU waiver winners: Local 25 SEIU in Chicago with 31,000 enrollees; Local 1199 SEIU Greater New York Benefit Fund with 4,544 enrollees; and SEIU Local 1 Cleveland Welfare Fund with 520 enrollees. This brings the total number of Obamacare-promoting SEIU Obamacare refugees to an estimated 45,000 workers represented by seven SEIU locals.
Without the HHS-approved exemptions, these health providers would have been forced to drop low-cost coverage for seasonal, part-time and low-wage workers due to skyrocketing premiums. The only way they are keeping their health care is by successfully begging the feds to spare them from Obamacare.
The Democrats' law seeks to eliminate the low-cost plans (known as "mini-med" plans) under the guise of controlling insurer spending on executive salaries and marketing. The ultimate goal, as I've reported before: forcing a massive shift from private to public insurance designed by government-knows-best bureaucrats.
House and Senate Republicans plan separate investigations of the Obamacare waiver process. Who got one when and why? Who knew whom? Who didn't? HHS acknowledged Thursday that some 50 sanctuary-seekers had their waiver applications denied, but would not say more. Perhaps the White House storytellers, so eager to profile the "Voices of Health Reform," can enlighten us.
Krauthammer is right AGAIN!
Charles Krauthammer gets it right again....Obama can change his words, but he's still the same old liberal, socialist, distributor of weath that he's always been out there promoting big spending and big government....We cannot afford to reelect him in 2012...
The Old Obama in New Clothing
Obama tries to cast more-of-the-same as a call to national greatness.
The November election sent a clear message to Washington: less government, less debt, less spending. President Obama certainly heard it, but judging from his State of the Union address, he doesn’t believe a word of it. The people say they want cuts? Sure they do — in the abstract. But any party that actually dares carry them out will be punished severely. On that, Obama stakes his reelection.
No other conclusion can be drawn from a speech that didn’t even address the debt issue until 35 minutes in. And then what did he offer? A freeze on domestic discretionary spending that he himself admitted would affect a mere one-eighth of the budget.
Obama seemed impressed, however, that it would produce $400 billion in savings over 10 years. That’s an average of $40 billion a year. The deficit for last year alone was more than 30 times as much. And total federal spending was more than 85 times that amount. A $40 billion annual savings for a government that just racked up $3 trillion in new debt over the last two years is deeply unserious. It’s spillage, a rounding error.
As for entitlements, which are where the real money is, Obama said practically nothing. He is happy to discuss, but if Republicans dare take anything from granny, he shall be Horatius at the bridge.
This entire pantomime about debt reduction came after the first half of a speech devoted to, yes, new spending. One almost has to admire Obama’s defiance. His 2009 stimulus and budget-busting health-care reform are precisely what stirred the popular revolt that delivered his November shellacking. And yet he’s back for more.
It’s as if Obama is daring the voters — and the Republicans — to prove they really want smaller government. He’s manning the barricades for Obamacare and he’s here with yet another spending — excuse me, investment — spree. To face down those overachieving Asians, Obama wants to sink yet more monies into yet more road and bridge repair, more federally subsidized teachers — with a bit of high-speed rail tossed in for style. That will show the Chinese.
And of course, once again, there is the magic lure of a green economy created by the brilliance of Washington experts and politicians. This is to be our “Sputnik moment,” when the fear of the foreigner spurs us to innovation and greatness of the kind that yielded NASA and the moon landing.
Apart from the irony of this appeal being made by the very president who has just killed NASA’s manned space program, there is the fact that for three decades, since Jimmy Carter’s synfuel fantasy, Washington has poured billions of taxpayer dollars down a rat hole in vain pursuit of economically competitive renewable energy.
This is nothing but a retread of what used to be called industrial policy, government picking winners and losers. Except that in a field that is not nearly technologically ready to match fossil fuels, we pick one loser after another — from ethanol, a $6 billion boondoggle that even Al Gore admits was a mistake, to the $41,000 Chevy Volt that only the rich can afford (with their extended Bush tax cuts, of course).
Perhaps this is all to be expected from Democrats — the party of government — and from a president who from his very first address to Congress has boldly displayed his zeal to fundamentally transform the American social contract and place it on a “New Foundation” (an Obama slogan that never took). He’s been chastened enough by the election of 2010 to make gestures toward the center. But the State of the Union address revealed a man ideologically unbowed and undeterred. He served up an insignificant spending cut, yet another (if more modest) stimulus, and a promise to fight any Republican attempt to significantly shrink the size of government.
Indeed, he went beyond this. He tried to cast this more-of-the-same into a call to national greatness, citing two Michigan brothers who produce solar shingles as a stirring example of rising to the Sputnik moment.
“We do big things,” Obama declared at the end of an address that was, on the contrary, the finest example of small-ball Clintonian minimalism since the days of school uniforms and midnight basketball.
From the moon landing to solar shingles. Is there a better example of American decline?
The Old Obama in New Clothing
Obama tries to cast more-of-the-same as a call to national greatness.
The November election sent a clear message to Washington: less government, less debt, less spending. President Obama certainly heard it, but judging from his State of the Union address, he doesn’t believe a word of it. The people say they want cuts? Sure they do — in the abstract. But any party that actually dares carry them out will be punished severely. On that, Obama stakes his reelection.
No other conclusion can be drawn from a speech that didn’t even address the debt issue until 35 minutes in. And then what did he offer? A freeze on domestic discretionary spending that he himself admitted would affect a mere one-eighth of the budget.
Obama seemed impressed, however, that it would produce $400 billion in savings over 10 years. That’s an average of $40 billion a year. The deficit for last year alone was more than 30 times as much. And total federal spending was more than 85 times that amount. A $40 billion annual savings for a government that just racked up $3 trillion in new debt over the last two years is deeply unserious. It’s spillage, a rounding error.
As for entitlements, which are where the real money is, Obama said practically nothing. He is happy to discuss, but if Republicans dare take anything from granny, he shall be Horatius at the bridge.
This entire pantomime about debt reduction came after the first half of a speech devoted to, yes, new spending. One almost has to admire Obama’s defiance. His 2009 stimulus and budget-busting health-care reform are precisely what stirred the popular revolt that delivered his November shellacking. And yet he’s back for more.
It’s as if Obama is daring the voters — and the Republicans — to prove they really want smaller government. He’s manning the barricades for Obamacare and he’s here with yet another spending — excuse me, investment — spree. To face down those overachieving Asians, Obama wants to sink yet more monies into yet more road and bridge repair, more federally subsidized teachers — with a bit of high-speed rail tossed in for style. That will show the Chinese.
And of course, once again, there is the magic lure of a green economy created by the brilliance of Washington experts and politicians. This is to be our “Sputnik moment,” when the fear of the foreigner spurs us to innovation and greatness of the kind that yielded NASA and the moon landing.
Apart from the irony of this appeal being made by the very president who has just killed NASA’s manned space program, there is the fact that for three decades, since Jimmy Carter’s synfuel fantasy, Washington has poured billions of taxpayer dollars down a rat hole in vain pursuit of economically competitive renewable energy.
This is nothing but a retread of what used to be called industrial policy, government picking winners and losers. Except that in a field that is not nearly technologically ready to match fossil fuels, we pick one loser after another — from ethanol, a $6 billion boondoggle that even Al Gore admits was a mistake, to the $41,000 Chevy Volt that only the rich can afford (with their extended Bush tax cuts, of course).
Perhaps this is all to be expected from Democrats — the party of government — and from a president who from his very first address to Congress has boldly displayed his zeal to fundamentally transform the American social contract and place it on a “New Foundation” (an Obama slogan that never took). He’s been chastened enough by the election of 2010 to make gestures toward the center. But the State of the Union address revealed a man ideologically unbowed and undeterred. He served up an insignificant spending cut, yet another (if more modest) stimulus, and a promise to fight any Republican attempt to significantly shrink the size of government.
Indeed, he went beyond this. He tried to cast this more-of-the-same into a call to national greatness, citing two Michigan brothers who produce solar shingles as a stirring example of rising to the Sputnik moment.
“We do big things,” Obama declared at the end of an address that was, on the contrary, the finest example of small-ball Clintonian minimalism since the days of school uniforms and midnight basketball.
From the moon landing to solar shingles. Is there a better example of American decline?
Tea Party....A Main Street Movement....I agree with Rubio...
I agree with Rubio...the power of the Tea Party is on Main Street NOT in Washington...once politicians get a hold of it it will cease to exist.....
The Politically Correct Insanity of the Left Wing...
More Left Wing crackpots getting all upset over minutia....why are they so politically correct when it impacts them, but when their left wing comedians/entertainers like Colber and Stewart do the same thing aimed at the right It's OK!!!! I agree State Senator Lee is a "cry baby" at the very least.....Grow up Mr. Lee.....get busy on the things that matter...like how you drive your state of California into bankruptcy...
Maybe Mr Lee doesn't know that the Leader of China is a dictator that could care less about human rights...why would we afford him any respect....?
Asian-American lawmakers demand Limbaugh apology
By JUDY LIN, Associated Press Judy Lin, Associated Press – Fri Jan 28, 5:52 am ET
SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Rush Limbaugh's imitation of the Chinese language during a recent speech made by Chinese President Hu Jintao has stirred a backlash among Asian-American lawmakers in California and nationally.
California state Sen. Leland Yee, a Democrat from San Francisco, is leading a fight in demanding an apology from the radio talk show host for what he and others view as racist and derogatory remarks against the Chinese people.
In recent days, the state lawmaker has rallied civil rights groups in a boycott of companies like Pro Flowers, Sleep Train and Domino's Pizza that advertise on Limbaugh's national talk radio show.
"The comments that he made — the mimicking of the Chinese language — harkens back to when I was a little boy growing up in San Francisco and those were hard days, rather insensitive days," Yee said in an interview Thursday. "You think you've arrived and all of a sudden get shot back to the reality that you're a second-class citizen."
During a Jan. 19 radio program, Limbaugh said there was no translation of the Chinese president's speech during a visit to the White House.
"He was speaking and they weren't translating," Limbaugh said. "They normally translate every couple of words. Hu Jintao was just going ching chong, ching chong cha."
He then launched into a 20-second-long imitation of the Chinese leader's dialect.
The next day, Limbaugh said he "did a remarkable job" of imitating China's president for someone who doesn't know a language spoken by more than 1 billion people.
"Back in the old days, Sid Caesar, for those of you old enough to remember, was called a comic genius for impersonating foreign languages that he couldn't speak," Limbaugh said. "But today the left says that was racism; it was bigotry; it was insulting. And it wasn't. It was a service."
A telephone and e-mail to Limbaugh's station operator Clear Channel Communications Inc. was not returned Thursday. Clear Channel's Premiere Radio Networks Inc. is home to Limbaugh, Jim Rome, Ryan Seacrest, Glenn Beck, Bob Costas and Sean Hannity.
An e-mail to Limbaugh's show requesting comment was also not returned.
Yee has been joined by Asian-American state and federal lawmakers who say Limbaugh's comments are inciting hate and intolerance amid a polarized atmosphere. A number of civil rights groups, including Chinese for Affirmative Action, Japanese American Citizens League and the California National Organization for Women, have joined Yee in calling on sponsors to pull advertisements from Limbaugh's program.
An online petition has been created on Yee's website.
"I want an apology at the very least," said New York Assemblywoman Grace Meng, a Queens Democrat. "Making fun of any country's leader is just very disrespectful for someone who says he is a proud American."
She added: "He was, in his own way, trying to attack the leader of another country, and that's his prerogative as well, but at the same time he offended 13 percent of New York City's population."
There are about 14 million, or 4.5 percent, Asian-Americans in the United States, more if counting those of mixed races.
In California, Asians make up more than 12 percent of the state's 38 million population.
While Asian-American lawmakers demand an apology from Limbaugh, some are increasingly concerned for Yee's personal safety. Public officials have been put on alert after the deadly rampage in Tucson where U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot while meeting with constituents.
Shortly after condemning Limbaugh's remarks, Yee said he received racist death threats to his San Francisco and Sacramento offices. The lawmaker also received a profanity-filled telephone message Thursday.
The caller, who did not identify himself, called Yee a "cry baby" and urged him to resign from office.
Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Tony Beard Jr. confirmed the Legislature has launched an investigation and is cooperating with other security agencies.
He said Yee had received similar faxes in April after he called on a state university to disclose how much it was paying Sarah Palin for a fundraiser.
"We need to stand up for civility and be respectful of one another. Otherwise the consequences are dreadful as we can already see in the death threats against Senator Yee," said Rep. Judy Chu, a Democrat who represents a large Asian district outside Los Angeles.
Yee, who has a chance to become San Francisco's first elected Asian mayor, said he has no plans to change his behavior because doing so would amount to "stepping down." He said his staff has received additional security training.
"It's just been a disappointing experience," Yee said. "I'm not angry about it, more disappointed that in the year 2011, we still have individuals who are racist."
Threats to minority lawmakers are not new. California state Assemblyman Paul Fong said he was the target of racist comments in 2009, when he introduced a resolution officially expressing California's regret for the way it treated Chinese living in the state.
___
Maybe Mr Lee doesn't know that the Leader of China is a dictator that could care less about human rights...why would we afford him any respect....?
Asian-American lawmakers demand Limbaugh apology
By JUDY LIN, Associated Press Judy Lin, Associated Press – Fri Jan 28, 5:52 am ET
SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Rush Limbaugh's imitation of the Chinese language during a recent speech made by Chinese President Hu Jintao has stirred a backlash among Asian-American lawmakers in California and nationally.
California state Sen. Leland Yee, a Democrat from San Francisco, is leading a fight in demanding an apology from the radio talk show host for what he and others view as racist and derogatory remarks against the Chinese people.
In recent days, the state lawmaker has rallied civil rights groups in a boycott of companies like Pro Flowers, Sleep Train and Domino's Pizza that advertise on Limbaugh's national talk radio show.
"The comments that he made — the mimicking of the Chinese language — harkens back to when I was a little boy growing up in San Francisco and those were hard days, rather insensitive days," Yee said in an interview Thursday. "You think you've arrived and all of a sudden get shot back to the reality that you're a second-class citizen."
During a Jan. 19 radio program, Limbaugh said there was no translation of the Chinese president's speech during a visit to the White House.
"He was speaking and they weren't translating," Limbaugh said. "They normally translate every couple of words. Hu Jintao was just going ching chong, ching chong cha."
He then launched into a 20-second-long imitation of the Chinese leader's dialect.
The next day, Limbaugh said he "did a remarkable job" of imitating China's president for someone who doesn't know a language spoken by more than 1 billion people.
"Back in the old days, Sid Caesar, for those of you old enough to remember, was called a comic genius for impersonating foreign languages that he couldn't speak," Limbaugh said. "But today the left says that was racism; it was bigotry; it was insulting. And it wasn't. It was a service."
A telephone and e-mail to Limbaugh's station operator Clear Channel Communications Inc. was not returned Thursday. Clear Channel's Premiere Radio Networks Inc. is home to Limbaugh, Jim Rome, Ryan Seacrest, Glenn Beck, Bob Costas and Sean Hannity.
An e-mail to Limbaugh's show requesting comment was also not returned.
Yee has been joined by Asian-American state and federal lawmakers who say Limbaugh's comments are inciting hate and intolerance amid a polarized atmosphere. A number of civil rights groups, including Chinese for Affirmative Action, Japanese American Citizens League and the California National Organization for Women, have joined Yee in calling on sponsors to pull advertisements from Limbaugh's program.
An online petition has been created on Yee's website.
"I want an apology at the very least," said New York Assemblywoman Grace Meng, a Queens Democrat. "Making fun of any country's leader is just very disrespectful for someone who says he is a proud American."
She added: "He was, in his own way, trying to attack the leader of another country, and that's his prerogative as well, but at the same time he offended 13 percent of New York City's population."
There are about 14 million, or 4.5 percent, Asian-Americans in the United States, more if counting those of mixed races.
In California, Asians make up more than 12 percent of the state's 38 million population.
While Asian-American lawmakers demand an apology from Limbaugh, some are increasingly concerned for Yee's personal safety. Public officials have been put on alert after the deadly rampage in Tucson where U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot while meeting with constituents.
Shortly after condemning Limbaugh's remarks, Yee said he received racist death threats to his San Francisco and Sacramento offices. The lawmaker also received a profanity-filled telephone message Thursday.
The caller, who did not identify himself, called Yee a "cry baby" and urged him to resign from office.
Senate Sergeant-at-Arms Tony Beard Jr. confirmed the Legislature has launched an investigation and is cooperating with other security agencies.
He said Yee had received similar faxes in April after he called on a state university to disclose how much it was paying Sarah Palin for a fundraiser.
"We need to stand up for civility and be respectful of one another. Otherwise the consequences are dreadful as we can already see in the death threats against Senator Yee," said Rep. Judy Chu, a Democrat who represents a large Asian district outside Los Angeles.
Yee, who has a chance to become San Francisco's first elected Asian mayor, said he has no plans to change his behavior because doing so would amount to "stepping down." He said his staff has received additional security training.
"It's just been a disappointing experience," Yee said. "I'm not angry about it, more disappointed that in the year 2011, we still have individuals who are racist."
Threats to minority lawmakers are not new. California state Assemblyman Paul Fong said he was the target of racist comments in 2009, when he introduced a resolution officially expressing California's regret for the way it treated Chinese living in the state.
___
Friday, January 28, 2011
American Public Education....a Failed System driven by the Unions....
Have our American Freedoms been stomped on....I think so!....this is just ONE MORE reason why public unions/education unions need to GO!....we are spending too much money on salaries, benefits when we should be spending it on the kids....we need to introduce the private sector into education with public funding (vouchers)....if/when that happens the substandard public school system will go out of business....and that coudln't happen too soon...
We don't need more taxpayer funding of education...we need to start to get our monies worth of benefit from the excessive dollars we are already spending....
The Left Must End Their War on School Choice
This Wednesday morning at 10 am, after serving nine days of a 10-day sentence, Kelley Williams-Bolar was released from the Summit County Jail in Akron, Ohio. Her crime? Trying to provide her two daughters with a better education. How on earth did trying to provide your children with a better education became a crime in the United States? Because the political party that currently occupies the White House is completely dependent on the power of education unions, and these unions see all efforts to shift power away from them, and to parents like Williams-Bolar, as a threat to their very existence. The case of Williams-Bolar is a perfect opportunity for the left to stop and reconsider their war on school choice.
Before January 15, Williams-Bolar had no criminal record. She lived in an Akron housing project with her two daughters, worked as a teaching assistant at Buchtel High School, and was going to college to further her own education career. Like any parent, Williams-Bolar wanted to give her children the best education possible. But the grade 6 reading and math scores of students in the Akron City School District are almost 30 points lower than those in neighboring Copley-Fairlawn City School District. While Ohio does allow school choice intradistrict, Copley-Fairlawn does not offer open enrollment to children who live in the Akron City School District. Ohio also offers private-school-tuition scholarships to students in Cleveland, but that program is not available to children in Akron.
So starting in August 2006, Williams-Bolar signed forms claiming her two daughters lived at their father’s address in the Copley-Fairlawn School District. Two years later the Copley-Fairlawn School District hired a private investigator who shot video of Williams-Bolar driving her children from their home in the Akron City School District to a school in their district. “It does not matter if, when she started the lie in 2006, she didn’t know she was going to get caught,” Summit County prosecutor Michael Cody yelled in his closing argument.
While Williams-Bolar went to jail for practicing school choice, leaders of the Democratic Party practice it themselves every day. Growing up in Chicago, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan attended a private school. Later as Chicago Public Schools chief, Duncan maintained a list of requests from the politically connected for their children to attend the schools of their choice. In the 111th Congress, 44 percent of Senators and 36 percent of Representatives had at one time sent their children to private school.
Growing up in Hawaii, President Obama attended a private school. Growing up first in Chicago and now in Washington, Obama’s two daughters attended and still attend private schools. Questioned how he could possibly justify this in September, President Obama responded: “I’ll be very honest with you. Given my position, if I wanted to find a great public school for Malia and Sasha to be in, we could probably maneuver to do it. But the broader problem is: For a mom or a dad who are working hard but don’t have a bunch of connections, don’t have a choice in terms of where they live, they should be getting the same quality education as anybody else, and they don’t have that yet.”
So then why did President Obama take away such a choice for 216 children as one of his first acts as President? The District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program (DCOSP) was passed by Congress in January 2004 and provides $7,500 scholarships to low-income D.C. school children. In the fall of 2008, 216 new low-income students were notified by the Department of Education that they had been selected to receive scholarships. Then at the behest of Obama’s education union allies, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan sent letters to the 216 families informing them that he was taking back the $7,500 in scholarship money that the DCOSP had previously awarded them. The Democratically controlled Congress later voted to phase the program out entirely. Mothers like Latasha Bennett were left scrambling to find good schools for their kids. The DCOSP has been a tremendous success. Students that used a scholarship to attend a private school have a 91 percent graduation rate compared to the less than half of children in D.C. public schools that graduate high school.
The same morning that Williams-Bolar was released from prison, House Speaker John Boehner (R–OH) and Senator Joe Lieberman (I–CT) announced that they will introduce a bill—the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results (SOAR) Act—to reinstate the DCOSP. The announcement was intended to coincide with the height of National School Choice Week, but the story of Williams-Bolar makes it all the more poignant. Do we really want to live in a nation that jails parents for sending their children to the school of their choice?
We don't need more taxpayer funding of education...we need to start to get our monies worth of benefit from the excessive dollars we are already spending....
The Left Must End Their War on School Choice
This Wednesday morning at 10 am, after serving nine days of a 10-day sentence, Kelley Williams-Bolar was released from the Summit County Jail in Akron, Ohio. Her crime? Trying to provide her two daughters with a better education. How on earth did trying to provide your children with a better education became a crime in the United States? Because the political party that currently occupies the White House is completely dependent on the power of education unions, and these unions see all efforts to shift power away from them, and to parents like Williams-Bolar, as a threat to their very existence. The case of Williams-Bolar is a perfect opportunity for the left to stop and reconsider their war on school choice.
Before January 15, Williams-Bolar had no criminal record. She lived in an Akron housing project with her two daughters, worked as a teaching assistant at Buchtel High School, and was going to college to further her own education career. Like any parent, Williams-Bolar wanted to give her children the best education possible. But the grade 6 reading and math scores of students in the Akron City School District are almost 30 points lower than those in neighboring Copley-Fairlawn City School District. While Ohio does allow school choice intradistrict, Copley-Fairlawn does not offer open enrollment to children who live in the Akron City School District. Ohio also offers private-school-tuition scholarships to students in Cleveland, but that program is not available to children in Akron.
So starting in August 2006, Williams-Bolar signed forms claiming her two daughters lived at their father’s address in the Copley-Fairlawn School District. Two years later the Copley-Fairlawn School District hired a private investigator who shot video of Williams-Bolar driving her children from their home in the Akron City School District to a school in their district. “It does not matter if, when she started the lie in 2006, she didn’t know she was going to get caught,” Summit County prosecutor Michael Cody yelled in his closing argument.
While Williams-Bolar went to jail for practicing school choice, leaders of the Democratic Party practice it themselves every day. Growing up in Chicago, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan attended a private school. Later as Chicago Public Schools chief, Duncan maintained a list of requests from the politically connected for their children to attend the schools of their choice. In the 111th Congress, 44 percent of Senators and 36 percent of Representatives had at one time sent their children to private school.
Growing up in Hawaii, President Obama attended a private school. Growing up first in Chicago and now in Washington, Obama’s two daughters attended and still attend private schools. Questioned how he could possibly justify this in September, President Obama responded: “I’ll be very honest with you. Given my position, if I wanted to find a great public school for Malia and Sasha to be in, we could probably maneuver to do it. But the broader problem is: For a mom or a dad who are working hard but don’t have a bunch of connections, don’t have a choice in terms of where they live, they should be getting the same quality education as anybody else, and they don’t have that yet.”
So then why did President Obama take away such a choice for 216 children as one of his first acts as President? The District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program (DCOSP) was passed by Congress in January 2004 and provides $7,500 scholarships to low-income D.C. school children. In the fall of 2008, 216 new low-income students were notified by the Department of Education that they had been selected to receive scholarships. Then at the behest of Obama’s education union allies, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan sent letters to the 216 families informing them that he was taking back the $7,500 in scholarship money that the DCOSP had previously awarded them. The Democratically controlled Congress later voted to phase the program out entirely. Mothers like Latasha Bennett were left scrambling to find good schools for their kids. The DCOSP has been a tremendous success. Students that used a scholarship to attend a private school have a 91 percent graduation rate compared to the less than half of children in D.C. public schools that graduate high school.
The same morning that Williams-Bolar was released from prison, House Speaker John Boehner (R–OH) and Senator Joe Lieberman (I–CT) announced that they will introduce a bill—the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results (SOAR) Act—to reinstate the DCOSP. The announcement was intended to coincide with the height of National School Choice Week, but the story of Williams-Bolar makes it all the more poignant. Do we really want to live in a nation that jails parents for sending their children to the school of their choice?
Only on the LEFT COAST....Only in California
It's got to be California....the state is flat BROKE...cities across the state are totally out of money and this Yahooooo wants to play bird songs on city streets....What an Idiot....this guy needs to get voted out asap....but in California he will probably get reelected.....
Lancaster Mayor Wants To Broadcast Bird Songs
January 27, 2011 2:34 PM
LANCASTER (AP) — It may sound like a bird-brained idea, but the mayor of Lancaster wants to brighten up the Mojave Desert city by broadcasting recorded bird songs.
R. Rex Parris proposed the idea during his State of the City talk on Monday.
The Antelope Valley Press says Parris wants to play the bird chatter from loudspeakers on Lancaster Boulevard. The mayor says there’s science to show that listening to birdsong makes people happier.
On other topics, the mayor says Lancaster must continue its drive to become a research capital for solar and alternative energy.
Parris is known for his flamboyant ideas. He got a law passed giving the city the right to castrate pit bulls, ordered city officials to learn Mandarin in a bid to woo Chinese business, and riled some people by saying he was growing Lancaster into a Christian community.
Lancaster Mayor Wants To Broadcast Bird Songs
January 27, 2011 2:34 PM
LANCASTER (AP) — It may sound like a bird-brained idea, but the mayor of Lancaster wants to brighten up the Mojave Desert city by broadcasting recorded bird songs.
R. Rex Parris proposed the idea during his State of the City talk on Monday.
The Antelope Valley Press says Parris wants to play the bird chatter from loudspeakers on Lancaster Boulevard. The mayor says there’s science to show that listening to birdsong makes people happier.
On other topics, the mayor says Lancaster must continue its drive to become a research capital for solar and alternative energy.
Parris is known for his flamboyant ideas. He got a law passed giving the city the right to castrate pit bulls, ordered city officials to learn Mandarin in a bid to woo Chinese business, and riled some people by saying he was growing Lancaster into a Christian community.
The Muslims are coming....actually the Muslim extremists are coming....Time to really secure the borders....
Don't believe that Muslims are not trying to enter the United States through our southern Mexican borders....the Muslims have a plan to take over the world and if we don't take it seriously we will in the position of the middle east at some point in the future...Between this and the ISLAM terrorist book found at the border the other day I think it's pretty clear we have a problem...
That's just one more reason to make certain we secure the borders....
Controversial Muslim cleric caught being smuggled into U.S. over Mexico border
By Daily Mail Reporter Last updated at 1:04 PM on 28th January 2011
U.S. border guards got a surprise when they searched a Mexican BMW and found a hardline Muslim cleric - banned from France and Canada - curled up in the boot.
Said Jaziri, who called for the death of a Danish cartoonist that drew pictures of the prophet Mohammed, was being smuggled into California when he was arrested, along with his driver Kenneth Robert Lawler.
The 43-year-old was deported from Canada to his homeland Tunisia in 2007 after it emerged he had lied on his refugee application about having served jail time in France.
Asylum: Jaziri had allegedly paid a Tijuana-based smuggling group $5,000 to get him across the border near Tecate, saying he wanted to be taken to a 'safe place anywhere in the U.S.'
His fire and brimstone sermons and rabble-rousing antics catapulted him into the public eye during his short tenure as imam at a Montreal mosque.
He branded homosexuality a disease and led protests over cartoonist Kurt Westergaard's illustrations poked fun at Islam and were published in a Danish newspaper in 2006.
He also caused anger when he campaigned for a bigger mosque to accommodate Montreal's burgeoning Muslim population.
But after his deportation he complained that he had been physically and mentally tortured during the 13-hour flight repatriating him to Tunisia, a claim Canadian authorities deny.
He was being held as a material witness in the criminal case against Mr Lawler, who has been charged with immigrant smuggling.
Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard sparked controversy when his drawings of Mohammed appeared in a newspaper in 2006
Jaziri had allegedly paid a Tijuana-based smuggling cartel $5,000 to take him across the border near Tecate, saying he wanted to be taken to a 'safe place anywhere in the U.S.'
According to the court documents, a Mexican guide led Jaziri and a Mexican immigrant over the border fence near Tecate.
They then trekked across the rugged terrain under cover of darkness to a spot popular for drivers who pick up immigrants for smuggling runs into San Diego.
He allegedly told officials he had flown from Africa to Europe, then to Central America and Chetumal, Mexico, on the Mexico-Belize border, where he took a bus to Tijuana.
Lise Garon, a professor of communications at Laval University in Quebec City, told the Los Angeles Times: 'His nickname in Quebec was the controversial imam.
'I think he was deported because people hated his ideas.'
His case drew support from the Muslim community as well as Amnesty International after he claimed he would be tortured if sent back to Tunisia.
That's just one more reason to make certain we secure the borders....
Controversial Muslim cleric caught being smuggled into U.S. over Mexico border
By Daily Mail Reporter Last updated at 1:04 PM on 28th January 2011
U.S. border guards got a surprise when they searched a Mexican BMW and found a hardline Muslim cleric - banned from France and Canada - curled up in the boot.
Said Jaziri, who called for the death of a Danish cartoonist that drew pictures of the prophet Mohammed, was being smuggled into California when he was arrested, along with his driver Kenneth Robert Lawler.
The 43-year-old was deported from Canada to his homeland Tunisia in 2007 after it emerged he had lied on his refugee application about having served jail time in France.
Asylum: Jaziri had allegedly paid a Tijuana-based smuggling group $5,000 to get him across the border near Tecate, saying he wanted to be taken to a 'safe place anywhere in the U.S.'
His fire and brimstone sermons and rabble-rousing antics catapulted him into the public eye during his short tenure as imam at a Montreal mosque.
He branded homosexuality a disease and led protests over cartoonist Kurt Westergaard's illustrations poked fun at Islam and were published in a Danish newspaper in 2006.
He also caused anger when he campaigned for a bigger mosque to accommodate Montreal's burgeoning Muslim population.
But after his deportation he complained that he had been physically and mentally tortured during the 13-hour flight repatriating him to Tunisia, a claim Canadian authorities deny.
He was being held as a material witness in the criminal case against Mr Lawler, who has been charged with immigrant smuggling.
Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard sparked controversy when his drawings of Mohammed appeared in a newspaper in 2006
Jaziri had allegedly paid a Tijuana-based smuggling cartel $5,000 to take him across the border near Tecate, saying he wanted to be taken to a 'safe place anywhere in the U.S.'
According to the court documents, a Mexican guide led Jaziri and a Mexican immigrant over the border fence near Tecate.
They then trekked across the rugged terrain under cover of darkness to a spot popular for drivers who pick up immigrants for smuggling runs into San Diego.
He allegedly told officials he had flown from Africa to Europe, then to Central America and Chetumal, Mexico, on the Mexico-Belize border, where he took a bus to Tijuana.
Lise Garon, a professor of communications at Laval University in Quebec City, told the Los Angeles Times: 'His nickname in Quebec was the controversial imam.
'I think he was deported because people hated his ideas.'
His case drew support from the Muslim community as well as Amnesty International after he claimed he would be tortured if sent back to Tunisia.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Democrats Do Not Care About the Health of the Nation...
One more BIG reason we have put Republicans back in majority in the Senate in 2012 and change out Obama...something has to be done about the spending or we will be Greece...the Democrats do NOT seem to care....
Senate Republicans beg for spending addiction intervention, Dems say no way
By Chris Moody - The Daily Caller | Published: 1:48 AM 01/27/2011 | Updated: 9:32 AM 01/27/2011
As part of what appeared to be a desperate cry for help with their addiction to spending other people’s money, a group of Senate Republicans requested Wednesday that Congress assist them in kicking the habit by passing a strict balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Led by Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, the amendment would cap federal spending at 20 percent of GDP, require Congress to take measures to meet a budget, and force the president to submit a balanced budget except in times of war.
Senate Republicans said Wednesday that without a rule requiring them to balance the budget, they would never be able to bring themselves to do it on their own.
“If you don’t have this kind of fiscal discipline, you’ll never get there,” Hatch said. “We’re worse than addicts.”
Hatch forced a vote on a similar amendment in 1997 and got 66 Senators to support it, one vote shy of the 67 required to pass it onto the states. Each attempt since then, and there have been many, has failed.
Hatch said he had no confidence that Republicans would succeed at balancing the federal budget even if they held majorities in both chambers of Congress and controlled the White House. When Republicans did control the federal government for a period during the Bush era, deficits increased.
“This is needed no matter who’s in charge,” Hatch said.
The other members who joined Hatch, including Nevada Sen. John Ensign, Texas Sen. John Cornyn, Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe and Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia, also showed little faith in their collective capability to spend no more than what they had.
“We have to be forced to do the jobs that we should do on our own, which we haven’t shown the political courage to do,” Ensign said. “Republican and Democrat governors across the country are making these kinds of touch decisions at the state level. Why? Because they’re being forced to. We need to be forced to, and the only way to have that discipline is to have a constitutional balanced budget amendment passed by the House, the Senate and the states.”
Every state government except Vermont requires the legislature and the governor to balance the budget annually.
Speaking to reporters Wednesday, each senator took turns telling their own stories of what it was like to suffer from a spending addiction, and agreed the only way to get clean was through blunt force. Like an after-school special, there were even testimonials from senators who had survived the politically treacherous waters of once balancing a government checkbook.
“The balance budget requirement allowed me to just say no,” Isakson said, referring to his 17 years balancing the books as a member of the Georgia state legislature. “It’s great to have a discipline that imposes on you the discipline you need to just say no and back away.”
The Congressional Budget Office released an estimate this week that the federal government is set to spend a record $1.5 trillion this fiscal year, and if policies do not change, the federal deficit would grow to 77 percent of GDP over the next ten years. The U.S. debt limit currently stands at $14.3 trillion and the Congress must raise it even more within the next few months to avoid defaulting on loans.
Democratic leaders, who have offered their own solutions to the budget problem, provided little indication that the Republican proposal would receive nearly enough bipartisan support required to pass the ratification process. Constitutional amendments require a two-thirds majority in both chambers of Congress and approval from three-fourths of the state legislatures to be ratified.
“I think probably the consensus position is that if you can balance your budget, let’s do it right here, right now,” said Maryland Democrat Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the ranking members of the House Budget Committee. “The most serious approach I believe to dealing with this problem is to get together on a bipartisan basis and put together a long term plan rather than pretending that these things that are full of all kinds of loopholes will do the job.”
Even if the proposal were to pass the House, which it foreseeably could given the wide Republican majority, a balanced budget amendment would face a much tougher audience in the Senate. Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the second highest ranking Democrat, said he had his doubts.
“I’m just not one of those people who races to amend the Constitution. Taking a roller to a Rembrandt is never been my goal while serving in Congress,” Durbin said. “There are people who see a need for a constitutional amendment on a regular basis and I’m not one of them. I’m skeptical of that approach.”
Senate Republicans beg for spending addiction intervention, Dems say no way
By Chris Moody - The Daily Caller | Published: 1:48 AM 01/27/2011 | Updated: 9:32 AM 01/27/2011
As part of what appeared to be a desperate cry for help with their addiction to spending other people’s money, a group of Senate Republicans requested Wednesday that Congress assist them in kicking the habit by passing a strict balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Led by Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, the amendment would cap federal spending at 20 percent of GDP, require Congress to take measures to meet a budget, and force the president to submit a balanced budget except in times of war.
Senate Republicans said Wednesday that without a rule requiring them to balance the budget, they would never be able to bring themselves to do it on their own.
“If you don’t have this kind of fiscal discipline, you’ll never get there,” Hatch said. “We’re worse than addicts.”
Hatch forced a vote on a similar amendment in 1997 and got 66 Senators to support it, one vote shy of the 67 required to pass it onto the states. Each attempt since then, and there have been many, has failed.
Hatch said he had no confidence that Republicans would succeed at balancing the federal budget even if they held majorities in both chambers of Congress and controlled the White House. When Republicans did control the federal government for a period during the Bush era, deficits increased.
“This is needed no matter who’s in charge,” Hatch said.
The other members who joined Hatch, including Nevada Sen. John Ensign, Texas Sen. John Cornyn, Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe and Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia, also showed little faith in their collective capability to spend no more than what they had.
“We have to be forced to do the jobs that we should do on our own, which we haven’t shown the political courage to do,” Ensign said. “Republican and Democrat governors across the country are making these kinds of touch decisions at the state level. Why? Because they’re being forced to. We need to be forced to, and the only way to have that discipline is to have a constitutional balanced budget amendment passed by the House, the Senate and the states.”
Every state government except Vermont requires the legislature and the governor to balance the budget annually.
Speaking to reporters Wednesday, each senator took turns telling their own stories of what it was like to suffer from a spending addiction, and agreed the only way to get clean was through blunt force. Like an after-school special, there were even testimonials from senators who had survived the politically treacherous waters of once balancing a government checkbook.
“The balance budget requirement allowed me to just say no,” Isakson said, referring to his 17 years balancing the books as a member of the Georgia state legislature. “It’s great to have a discipline that imposes on you the discipline you need to just say no and back away.”
The Congressional Budget Office released an estimate this week that the federal government is set to spend a record $1.5 trillion this fiscal year, and if policies do not change, the federal deficit would grow to 77 percent of GDP over the next ten years. The U.S. debt limit currently stands at $14.3 trillion and the Congress must raise it even more within the next few months to avoid defaulting on loans.
Democratic leaders, who have offered their own solutions to the budget problem, provided little indication that the Republican proposal would receive nearly enough bipartisan support required to pass the ratification process. Constitutional amendments require a two-thirds majority in both chambers of Congress and approval from three-fourths of the state legislatures to be ratified.
“I think probably the consensus position is that if you can balance your budget, let’s do it right here, right now,” said Maryland Democrat Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the ranking members of the House Budget Committee. “The most serious approach I believe to dealing with this problem is to get together on a bipartisan basis and put together a long term plan rather than pretending that these things that are full of all kinds of loopholes will do the job.”
Even if the proposal were to pass the House, which it foreseeably could given the wide Republican majority, a balanced budget amendment would face a much tougher audience in the Senate. Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the second highest ranking Democrat, said he had his doubts.
“I’m just not one of those people who races to amend the Constitution. Taking a roller to a Rembrandt is never been my goal while serving in Congress,” Durbin said. “There are people who see a need for a constitutional amendment on a regular basis and I’m not one of them. I’m skeptical of that approach.”
Irresponsible Jon Stewart....
Jon Stewart is a comedian, but he needs to take responsibilty for his words...He is the first to criticize, but he continually misstates reality....O'Reilly you are right AGAIN...
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Allen West on Israel
Every Democrat voting Jew needs to see this.....the Republicans have your back much more so than the Democrats...
Obama's SOTU was a Bomb!...Oh can I say that?'
Except for Rendell and Chris Matthews the pundits were very much less than impressed by Obama's State of the Union.....and you know MSNBC...they are to the left of California and Oh by the Way....Ed Rendell is curently trying to sign a deal wiht MSNBC....and then there's Pelosi....she can't put two sentences together much less give a credible opinion about anything....she looks like she's on drugs like the rest of her congressional district in San Francisco.....
All in all the wonder boy we less than impressive last night....
All in all the wonder boy we less than impressive last night....
Democrat Congressman...no personal responsibility...
This is just an example of the Democrat A_ _holes we have serving in Congress....It's hard to talk about personal responsiblity when the Democrat Congressmen don't want to take any personal responsibility themselves....this Jerk want $150,000 because he broke a tooth......What an A_ _ hole!
Kucinich Suing Congressional Cafeteria for Unsavory Olive
January 26, 2011 2:22 PM John R. Parkinson reports:
It's not necessarily because the food sucks there, but Rep. Dennis Kucinich is suing four venders that supply the Congressional cafeteria because he bit into a sandwich wrap containing an unpitted olive, resulting in a cracked tooth for the Ohio Democrat.
When asked whether he could confirm or comment on the suit, a spokesman with Kucinich, D-Ohio, told ABC News "no comment, sorry" and abruptly ended the phone call.
A complaint filed in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia says Kucinich suffered "serious and permanent dental and oral injuries" in the incident and asserts that the tainted wrap was “unwholesome and unfit for human consumption, in that it was represented to contain pitted olives, yet unknown to plaintiff contained an unpitted olive.”
The complaint further states that Kucinich “could not visually detect” the unpitted olive prior to consumption.
Kucinich, who ran for the Democratic nomination for president in 2008, bought the sandwich from the Longworth House Office Building cafeteria on April 17, 2008, according to the complaint.
The complaint also says that Kucinich “sustained serious and permanent dental and oral injuries requiring multiple surgery and oral procedures” and claims Kucinich has sustained other damages, “including significant pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment.”
Kucinich is seeking $150,000 in damages, plus interest and costs, from Restaurant Associates, which manages the cafeteria, and three other businesses that stock and help run the operation.
Andrew Young, Kucinich's lawyer who filed the suit, said that the firm - Nurenberg, Paris, Heller & McCarthy in Cleveland, Ohio - is not releasing any immediate comment except to say that this is a personal matter and that the firm does not want to have the case litigated in the press.
Kucinich Suing Congressional Cafeteria for Unsavory Olive
January 26, 2011 2:22 PM John R. Parkinson reports:
It's not necessarily because the food sucks there, but Rep. Dennis Kucinich is suing four venders that supply the Congressional cafeteria because he bit into a sandwich wrap containing an unpitted olive, resulting in a cracked tooth for the Ohio Democrat.
When asked whether he could confirm or comment on the suit, a spokesman with Kucinich, D-Ohio, told ABC News "no comment, sorry" and abruptly ended the phone call.
A complaint filed in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia says Kucinich suffered "serious and permanent dental and oral injuries" in the incident and asserts that the tainted wrap was “unwholesome and unfit for human consumption, in that it was represented to contain pitted olives, yet unknown to plaintiff contained an unpitted olive.”
The complaint further states that Kucinich “could not visually detect” the unpitted olive prior to consumption.
Kucinich, who ran for the Democratic nomination for president in 2008, bought the sandwich from the Longworth House Office Building cafeteria on April 17, 2008, according to the complaint.
The complaint also says that Kucinich “sustained serious and permanent dental and oral injuries requiring multiple surgery and oral procedures” and claims Kucinich has sustained other damages, “including significant pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment.”
Kucinich is seeking $150,000 in damages, plus interest and costs, from Restaurant Associates, which manages the cafeteria, and three other businesses that stock and help run the operation.
Andrew Young, Kucinich's lawyer who filed the suit, said that the firm - Nurenberg, Paris, Heller & McCarthy in Cleveland, Ohio - is not releasing any immediate comment except to say that this is a personal matter and that the firm does not want to have the case litigated in the press.
Anthony Weiner...Just a New York JOKE!
This Anthony Weiner is a joke...he doesn't want to own up to the big challenges that face this nation today...all he wants to do is hear that everything is fine and when we end up in bankrupcy like Greece he's be gone and we'll all suffer...these kinds of liberal Democrats need to go home....they are not about solving the problems America is facing today....
STATE-RUN CNN gets corrected with FACTS.....isn't it interesting when actual facts are reported....
FINALLY....a conservative takes on the liberal state-run media with some facts....it's interesting to see how confused Gergen is when confronted with some FACTS.....
O's SOTU was a dereliction of duty...
What Crisis?
January 25, 2011 11:46 P.M. By Yuval Levin
It is not hard to see how the Obama White House might have thought that tonight’s speech would be perceived as a sensible move to the center. The American exceptionalism that has been so rare in Obama’s rhetoric in the past was nice to hear, as was the celebration of entrepreneurship. And in substantive terms, they seemed at times to be going for a kind of (as Mona put it below) “Republican speech.”
In fact, a significant amount of the policy substance of this speech seemed to be lifted from (or at least to bear an odd resemblance to) the domestic-policy half of George W. Bush’s 2006 State of the Union address—including a competitiveness initiative to invest in clean energy, hire 100,000 new math and science teachers, reduce burdensome regulations, and increase federal spending on basic research; mention of comprehensive immigration reform; a promise to simplify and lower corporate taxes, advance free trade, and pass a discretionary spending freeze (Bush proposed a tiny cut, actually); a vague call to look at entitlements someday (but not today!); and a pledge to fight earmarks.
The rest could easily have come from Bill Clinton’s 1996 State of the Union Address—the high speed rail and high speed internet, the bizarre liberal nostalgia for that imaginary time when you could just go to the factory and get a job, or for the imaginary solidarity of the Sputnik era or the great Interstate Highway projects.
But this is not 1996 or 2006. Clinton had a strong economy to lean on, and was basically just trying to stay out of his own way. Bush allowed himself to advance some inane “State of the Union in a box” ideas in 2006 (believe me, I was in the White House domestic policy shop then, and well remember the pain) because he believed he needed to focus on the war, and his speech (which largely focused on the war) amply demonstrates that.
But what is the Obama team’s excuse? This speech certainly didn’t focus on foreign policy or the war on terror. This is certainly not a time when the economy is strong or steady, or when the public’s concerns are elsewhere. It is certainly not a moment for business as usual.
The Obama White House tonight seemed to be betting that the public thinks it is such a moment; that everything is basically fine again, and it is safe to go back to the usual kind of Clintonian chatter about solar panels; indeed, that doing so (as opposed to creating more massive new entitlements and taking over more car companies) would be seen as moderate; that we should be careful to learn nothing from the past three years, and from the glimpse they have given us of what a debt crisis might look like. But the result was a speech wholly and oddly divorced from the moment. That is not what a move to the center would look like today. It not only offered no concession to the strong public mood evident in the last election, it evinced no awareness—not even in passing, for rhetorical effect—of the economic facts and pressures underlying that mood and defining this time in our nation’s life. The president merely notified us that he had appointed a commission to look at the deficit, he noted that we ought to think about entitlements, he mentioned the terms “Medicare” and “Medicaid.” But he proposed to do nothing about any of it.
I think the president and his team are wrong about the public mood, but we shall see. I’m quite sure, however, that they are wrong about this moment on the merits. We have an opportunity in the next few years to avoid a truly disastrous entitlement and debt crisis and foster the conditions for vibrant growth again. We still have a chance to implement reforms that could do this without crushing austerity or terrible disruptions for seniors and other vulnerable Americans. That chance won’t last long, however, and it is profoundly irresponsible to just pretend we needn’t worry about it and can go back to the petty distractions of 1996, or (on the domestic front) 2006.
This speech was worse than bland and empty, it was a dereliction of duty. Let us hope that Republicans do not succumb to the same temptation, but rather follow Paul Ryan’s fine example.
January 25, 2011 11:46 P.M. By Yuval Levin
It is not hard to see how the Obama White House might have thought that tonight’s speech would be perceived as a sensible move to the center. The American exceptionalism that has been so rare in Obama’s rhetoric in the past was nice to hear, as was the celebration of entrepreneurship. And in substantive terms, they seemed at times to be going for a kind of (as Mona put it below) “Republican speech.”
In fact, a significant amount of the policy substance of this speech seemed to be lifted from (or at least to bear an odd resemblance to) the domestic-policy half of George W. Bush’s 2006 State of the Union address—including a competitiveness initiative to invest in clean energy, hire 100,000 new math and science teachers, reduce burdensome regulations, and increase federal spending on basic research; mention of comprehensive immigration reform; a promise to simplify and lower corporate taxes, advance free trade, and pass a discretionary spending freeze (Bush proposed a tiny cut, actually); a vague call to look at entitlements someday (but not today!); and a pledge to fight earmarks.
The rest could easily have come from Bill Clinton’s 1996 State of the Union Address—the high speed rail and high speed internet, the bizarre liberal nostalgia for that imaginary time when you could just go to the factory and get a job, or for the imaginary solidarity of the Sputnik era or the great Interstate Highway projects.
But this is not 1996 or 2006. Clinton had a strong economy to lean on, and was basically just trying to stay out of his own way. Bush allowed himself to advance some inane “State of the Union in a box” ideas in 2006 (believe me, I was in the White House domestic policy shop then, and well remember the pain) because he believed he needed to focus on the war, and his speech (which largely focused on the war) amply demonstrates that.
But what is the Obama team’s excuse? This speech certainly didn’t focus on foreign policy or the war on terror. This is certainly not a time when the economy is strong or steady, or when the public’s concerns are elsewhere. It is certainly not a moment for business as usual.
The Obama White House tonight seemed to be betting that the public thinks it is such a moment; that everything is basically fine again, and it is safe to go back to the usual kind of Clintonian chatter about solar panels; indeed, that doing so (as opposed to creating more massive new entitlements and taking over more car companies) would be seen as moderate; that we should be careful to learn nothing from the past three years, and from the glimpse they have given us of what a debt crisis might look like. But the result was a speech wholly and oddly divorced from the moment. That is not what a move to the center would look like today. It not only offered no concession to the strong public mood evident in the last election, it evinced no awareness—not even in passing, for rhetorical effect—of the economic facts and pressures underlying that mood and defining this time in our nation’s life. The president merely notified us that he had appointed a commission to look at the deficit, he noted that we ought to think about entitlements, he mentioned the terms “Medicare” and “Medicaid.” But he proposed to do nothing about any of it.
I think the president and his team are wrong about the public mood, but we shall see. I’m quite sure, however, that they are wrong about this moment on the merits. We have an opportunity in the next few years to avoid a truly disastrous entitlement and debt crisis and foster the conditions for vibrant growth again. We still have a chance to implement reforms that could do this without crushing austerity or terrible disruptions for seniors and other vulnerable Americans. That chance won’t last long, however, and it is profoundly irresponsible to just pretend we needn’t worry about it and can go back to the petty distractions of 1996, or (on the domestic front) 2006.
This speech was worse than bland and empty, it was a dereliction of duty. Let us hope that Republicans do not succumb to the same temptation, but rather follow Paul Ryan’s fine example.
Jim DeMint has it Right!
Jim DeMint has it right...how can you believe anything Obama says anymore....
DeMint’s Reaction
January 26, 2011 12:47 P.M. By Robert Costa
Sen. Jim DeMint, the conservative Republican from South Carolina, tells National Review Online that President Obama disappointed him last night. “Frankly, I can’t believe what he says anymore,” he admits. “It was really hard to take it seriously.” Obama’s “duplicity,” DeMint argues, was the key takeaway. “It was hard to listen to the contradictions.”
On spending, “he promised so much more, which he called ‘investment,’ while calling on Congress to cut. Yet his idea of cutting spending is to put it on cruise control at the highest level we’ve ever seen,” DeMint says. “None of that made a lot of sense.” And on health care, the president “just laughed at folks who disagree.”
Still, DeMint acknowledges, the president avoided making a major political gaffe. “Unless you are quite discerning about it, this was a very persuasive speech. He knows what he’s doing.”
“If I had not seen what the president had done over the last two years, I would have thought he was a free-market capitalist who believes in individualism, hard work, and opportunity,” DeMint muses. “But everything he has done has been contrary to that — more central planning, top-down government control.” Obama’s policies, DeMint says, have been “pure socialism.”
But it wasn’t all bad: DeMint saw a few points of light. The South Carolinian says the president’s talk of earmark vetoes and tax reform was “a nice step in the right direction.”
On the Republican front, DeMint has high praise for Rep. Paul Ryan, the Wisconsin Republican who delivered the official GOP rebuttal. “I think Paul Ryan did a good job last night,” he says. “In a winsome way, he tried to resell to America the idea of how limited government, freedom, and prosperity are all interconnected.”
Ryan’s approach, DeMint says, should be followed by fellow Republicans. “We are going to have to be educators, winsome, and good salesman,” he says. “We need to convince Americans that the things that made this country great can restore our greatness.”
DeMint’s Reaction
January 26, 2011 12:47 P.M. By Robert Costa
Sen. Jim DeMint, the conservative Republican from South Carolina, tells National Review Online that President Obama disappointed him last night. “Frankly, I can’t believe what he says anymore,” he admits. “It was really hard to take it seriously.” Obama’s “duplicity,” DeMint argues, was the key takeaway. “It was hard to listen to the contradictions.”
On spending, “he promised so much more, which he called ‘investment,’ while calling on Congress to cut. Yet his idea of cutting spending is to put it on cruise control at the highest level we’ve ever seen,” DeMint says. “None of that made a lot of sense.” And on health care, the president “just laughed at folks who disagree.”
Still, DeMint acknowledges, the president avoided making a major political gaffe. “Unless you are quite discerning about it, this was a very persuasive speech. He knows what he’s doing.”
“If I had not seen what the president had done over the last two years, I would have thought he was a free-market capitalist who believes in individualism, hard work, and opportunity,” DeMint muses. “But everything he has done has been contrary to that — more central planning, top-down government control.” Obama’s policies, DeMint says, have been “pure socialism.”
But it wasn’t all bad: DeMint saw a few points of light. The South Carolinian says the president’s talk of earmark vetoes and tax reform was “a nice step in the right direction.”
On the Republican front, DeMint has high praise for Rep. Paul Ryan, the Wisconsin Republican who delivered the official GOP rebuttal. “I think Paul Ryan did a good job last night,” he says. “In a winsome way, he tried to resell to America the idea of how limited government, freedom, and prosperity are all interconnected.”
Ryan’s approach, DeMint says, should be followed by fellow Republicans. “We are going to have to be educators, winsome, and good salesman,” he says. “We need to convince Americans that the things that made this country great can restore our greatness.”
No Wonder Noone Watches MSNBC
This is just ONE of the reasons that NOONE watches MSNBC....the other is Rachel Maddow....
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Obama doesn't get the deficit.....or much of anything else...
As you can tell from Obama's SOTU address last night asking for "investment" (more spending)he certainly doesn't get it...
Deficits on pace to hit $2.58 trillion
By DAVID ROGERS | 1/26/11 10:21 AM EST
New budget estimates Wednesday paint a grim picture of the nation’s fiscal state, with the government on pace to rack up combined deficits of $2.58 trillion for 2011 and 2012 even with an improved economy.
With the Treasury already warning it will have exhausted the government’s borrowing authority this spring, the Congressional Budget Office report is the most up-to-date analysis of just how big an increase in the debt ceiling will be needed prior to the 2012 elections.
“CBO’s report should be another wake-up call to the nation,” said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.). “We can’t continue to put this off. We need to reach an agreement this year. The President’s Fiscal Commission provided a model for a bipartisan way forward. Now it is up to the administration and members on both sides of the aisle in Congress to come together to finish the job.”
The deficit numbers are sure to add to the pressure now from Republicans for more spending cuts first, but the GOP must also contend with the added cost of the year-end bargain it struck with the White House expanding on Bush-era tax breaks and adding payroll tax relief.
For the current fiscal year ending Sept. 30, CBO is projecting a deficit of $1.48 trillion, or $414 billion more than it assumed last August. And in fiscal 2012—for which President Barack Obama will submit his budget next month—CBO’s baseline now assumes a deficit of $1.1 trillion compared to $665 billion last summer.
Following so quickly on the president’s State of the Union address, the CBO report underscores concerns too from moderates in both parties that Obama has not yet conveyed enough urgency about the mounting debt problem.
The typically friendly Washington Post editorial page took the president to task Wednesday morning for having missed an opportunity “to prepare Americans for fiscal austerity.”
And Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), a member of the Senate leadership and important voice on budget matters, signaled that the pressure is now on Obama to do more when he submits his new 2012 spending plan next month.
“The president was eloquent, but what we need from him is a greater sense of urgency and a plan to reduce spending and debt at a time when Washington borrows 42 cents of every dollar it spends,” Alexander said.
Deficits on pace to hit $2.58 trillion
By DAVID ROGERS | 1/26/11 10:21 AM EST
New budget estimates Wednesday paint a grim picture of the nation’s fiscal state, with the government on pace to rack up combined deficits of $2.58 trillion for 2011 and 2012 even with an improved economy.
With the Treasury already warning it will have exhausted the government’s borrowing authority this spring, the Congressional Budget Office report is the most up-to-date analysis of just how big an increase in the debt ceiling will be needed prior to the 2012 elections.
“CBO’s report should be another wake-up call to the nation,” said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.). “We can’t continue to put this off. We need to reach an agreement this year. The President’s Fiscal Commission provided a model for a bipartisan way forward. Now it is up to the administration and members on both sides of the aisle in Congress to come together to finish the job.”
The deficit numbers are sure to add to the pressure now from Republicans for more spending cuts first, but the GOP must also contend with the added cost of the year-end bargain it struck with the White House expanding on Bush-era tax breaks and adding payroll tax relief.
For the current fiscal year ending Sept. 30, CBO is projecting a deficit of $1.48 trillion, or $414 billion more than it assumed last August. And in fiscal 2012—for which President Barack Obama will submit his budget next month—CBO’s baseline now assumes a deficit of $1.1 trillion compared to $665 billion last summer.
Following so quickly on the president’s State of the Union address, the CBO report underscores concerns too from moderates in both parties that Obama has not yet conveyed enough urgency about the mounting debt problem.
The typically friendly Washington Post editorial page took the president to task Wednesday morning for having missed an opportunity “to prepare Americans for fiscal austerity.”
And Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), a member of the Senate leadership and important voice on budget matters, signaled that the pressure is now on Obama to do more when he submits his new 2012 spending plan next month.
“The president was eloquent, but what we need from him is a greater sense of urgency and a plan to reduce spending and debt at a time when Washington borrows 42 cents of every dollar it spends,” Alexander said.
Obama's Praise of China 'Low Point' in Speech: Trump - CNBC
Even the Donald knows this President is a disaster....
Obama's Praise of China 'Low Point' in Speech: Trump - CNBC
Obama's Praise of China 'Low Point' in Speech: Trump - CNBC
Same Old Obama.....spend and grow government!
This is an excellent analysis of the lackluster, nonfactual SOTU address Obama gave last evening. This man still doesn't have a clue what has made America Great and he certainly is incapable of leading us back into Global Leadership....I got a kick our of his analogy of the "Sputnik moment".....He's the guy that scrubbed the manned space program in America.....
He's still all about spending and big government...his push for green jobs without helping the nation in the short term produce as much oil as possible to get us off of foreign dependence is totally misguided....
Important to read the analysis from today's Heritage Foundation....
Losing the Future
Last night, in his State of the Union, President Barack Obama claimed, “We have to make America the best place on Earth to do business. ... That’s how our people will prosper. That’s how we’ll win the future.” This is true. But then he went on to say: “We know what it takes to compete for the jobs and industries of our time.” No. No, he doesn’t. The rest of the President’s speech made it very clear that he has no idea what makes America the best place on earth to do business.
On issue after issue (education, energy, infrastructure), the President identified more government “investment” as the key to “winning the future.” But if centrally planned government spending is the key to America’s future success, then we are in big trouble, because China will beat us in raw bureaucratic efficiency every time. The source of American exceptionalism is not an expansive and powerful central government. As Heritage Foundation Center for American Studies Director Matthew Spalding has stated, the American creed “is set forth most clearly in the Declaration of Independence ... a timeless statement of inherent rights, the proper purposes of government, and the limits on political authority.”
You can read the full reactions of Heritage experts to last night’s State of the Union here. Highlights include:
Spending
The President’s proposed freeze of non-security discretionary spending would essentially lock in the 25 percent expansion these programs have received since 2007. Yet paring back deficits requires actually reducing runaway spending, starting with the House Republican plan to cut this spending back to 2008 or even 2006 levels. ... While investment indeed drives economic growth, politicians have proven to be poor investors. Federal K-12 education spending has grown 219 percent faster than inflation over the past decade, yet student test scores have stagnated. Thirty years of federal energy spending has failed to significantly improve the alternative energy market. And massive increases in federal transportation spending have been diverted into earmarks, bike paths, and museums or allocated to budget-busting transit programs that governors do not want. If President Obama truly wants to encourage investment, he should focus on reducing the budget deficit—which is crowding out private investment—and reduce barriers to productive private sector investments.—Brian Riedl
Deficits
On one vital point, the nation has almost without exception reached a consensus when it comes to entitlement spending—current policy is unaffordable and unsustainable. President Obama acknowledged this clearly when he announced the creation of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform and again when he received the commission’s final report. ... The President in short has turned his back on his own commission, on his vows of leadership, and on future generations. On these issues it will now be up to Congress to take up the mantle of leadership the President has found too heavy to bear.—J. D. Foster
Education
We agree with the President: No Child Left Behind is broken. Unfortunately, the similarities end there. Although both sides of the aisle agree that No Child Left Behind is broken, the Obama Administration does not believe the federal role in education is fundamentally flawed. They’re still holding onto the hope that after 40 years of failed federal interventions, this time, Washington will get it right. ... The President’s speech also lacked any serious discussion of school choice, despite the fact that the highly effective D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program is on life support in his back yard. By contrast, Speaker John Boehner had parents and children from the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program as guests in the Speaker’s Box during the SOTU tonight—a sure sign that he plans to make school choice in the District a priority.—Lindsey Burke
Energy
Last year’s poster children for clean-energy jobs, Solyndra and Evergreen Solar, are this year’s object lessons in the futility of trying to subsidize our way to good, permanent job creation. Mere months after receiving a $535 million government loan (and after a well-publicized presidential photo op), Solyndra withdrew its initial public offering because it got a sub-par review from an independent auditor. And a year after getting their half-billion dollars, Solyndra closed a factory and got rid of nearly 200 jobs. ... If a company needs a subsidy to hire a worker, that worker will be out on the street when the subsidy expires. Private enterprise provides energy, creates jobs, and develops innovative technology. It does so because private enterprise succeeds only when the energy, jobs, and technology provide value that exceeds the cost. That’s how we get good, durable jobs.—David Kreutzer
Entrepreneurship
The government programs that led to the Internet, computer chips, and GPS were not programs to develop technologies to meet a commercial demand. They were each the result of defense-related programs that were created to meet national security requirements. ... In essence, the federal government invested to develop capabilities that did not exist and were needed for specific government activities. Entrepreneurs gained access to that basic work and commercialized it. This is an entirely different model from what the President is suggesting the United States take to develop new energy technologies. Not only does he want the federal government to choose which energy sources Americans can access, but he believes that the government is best prepared to oversee the entire business development process. He does not want to support research and development, but he wants to drive commercialization and define the market.—Jack Spencer
Progressivism’s infatuation with expert government planning has so blinded President Obama as to the true source of American exceptionalism that he couldn’t help contradicting himself in a matter of mere seconds. Early on last night the President said: “None of us can predict with certainty what the next big industry will be or where the new jobs will come from.” But then just three paragraphs later he said: “We’ll invest in biomedical research, information technology, and especially clean energy technology … and create countless new jobs for our people.”
So which is it, Mr. President? Is the federal government really just a big venture capital firm where Secretary of Energy Steven Chu picks which electric car firms and solar companies are most deserving of taxpayer “investments”? Does the federal government best ensure economic growth by partnering with General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt and making him czar of the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness? Or is America exceptional because our Founders recognized—and enshrined in the Constitution—that liberty is best protected when the federal government has clear limits? Our country does desperately need to change course to “win the future.” But President Obama’s Progressive big government plans will only make us losers.
He's still all about spending and big government...his push for green jobs without helping the nation in the short term produce as much oil as possible to get us off of foreign dependence is totally misguided....
Important to read the analysis from today's Heritage Foundation....
Losing the Future
Last night, in his State of the Union, President Barack Obama claimed, “We have to make America the best place on Earth to do business. ... That’s how our people will prosper. That’s how we’ll win the future.” This is true. But then he went on to say: “We know what it takes to compete for the jobs and industries of our time.” No. No, he doesn’t. The rest of the President’s speech made it very clear that he has no idea what makes America the best place on earth to do business.
On issue after issue (education, energy, infrastructure), the President identified more government “investment” as the key to “winning the future.” But if centrally planned government spending is the key to America’s future success, then we are in big trouble, because China will beat us in raw bureaucratic efficiency every time. The source of American exceptionalism is not an expansive and powerful central government. As Heritage Foundation Center for American Studies Director Matthew Spalding has stated, the American creed “is set forth most clearly in the Declaration of Independence ... a timeless statement of inherent rights, the proper purposes of government, and the limits on political authority.”
You can read the full reactions of Heritage experts to last night’s State of the Union here. Highlights include:
Spending
The President’s proposed freeze of non-security discretionary spending would essentially lock in the 25 percent expansion these programs have received since 2007. Yet paring back deficits requires actually reducing runaway spending, starting with the House Republican plan to cut this spending back to 2008 or even 2006 levels. ... While investment indeed drives economic growth, politicians have proven to be poor investors. Federal K-12 education spending has grown 219 percent faster than inflation over the past decade, yet student test scores have stagnated. Thirty years of federal energy spending has failed to significantly improve the alternative energy market. And massive increases in federal transportation spending have been diverted into earmarks, bike paths, and museums or allocated to budget-busting transit programs that governors do not want. If President Obama truly wants to encourage investment, he should focus on reducing the budget deficit—which is crowding out private investment—and reduce barriers to productive private sector investments.—Brian Riedl
Deficits
On one vital point, the nation has almost without exception reached a consensus when it comes to entitlement spending—current policy is unaffordable and unsustainable. President Obama acknowledged this clearly when he announced the creation of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform and again when he received the commission’s final report. ... The President in short has turned his back on his own commission, on his vows of leadership, and on future generations. On these issues it will now be up to Congress to take up the mantle of leadership the President has found too heavy to bear.—J. D. Foster
Education
We agree with the President: No Child Left Behind is broken. Unfortunately, the similarities end there. Although both sides of the aisle agree that No Child Left Behind is broken, the Obama Administration does not believe the federal role in education is fundamentally flawed. They’re still holding onto the hope that after 40 years of failed federal interventions, this time, Washington will get it right. ... The President’s speech also lacked any serious discussion of school choice, despite the fact that the highly effective D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program is on life support in his back yard. By contrast, Speaker John Boehner had parents and children from the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program as guests in the Speaker’s Box during the SOTU tonight—a sure sign that he plans to make school choice in the District a priority.—Lindsey Burke
Energy
Last year’s poster children for clean-energy jobs, Solyndra and Evergreen Solar, are this year’s object lessons in the futility of trying to subsidize our way to good, permanent job creation. Mere months after receiving a $535 million government loan (and after a well-publicized presidential photo op), Solyndra withdrew its initial public offering because it got a sub-par review from an independent auditor. And a year after getting their half-billion dollars, Solyndra closed a factory and got rid of nearly 200 jobs. ... If a company needs a subsidy to hire a worker, that worker will be out on the street when the subsidy expires. Private enterprise provides energy, creates jobs, and develops innovative technology. It does so because private enterprise succeeds only when the energy, jobs, and technology provide value that exceeds the cost. That’s how we get good, durable jobs.—David Kreutzer
Entrepreneurship
The government programs that led to the Internet, computer chips, and GPS were not programs to develop technologies to meet a commercial demand. They were each the result of defense-related programs that were created to meet national security requirements. ... In essence, the federal government invested to develop capabilities that did not exist and were needed for specific government activities. Entrepreneurs gained access to that basic work and commercialized it. This is an entirely different model from what the President is suggesting the United States take to develop new energy technologies. Not only does he want the federal government to choose which energy sources Americans can access, but he believes that the government is best prepared to oversee the entire business development process. He does not want to support research and development, but he wants to drive commercialization and define the market.—Jack Spencer
Progressivism’s infatuation with expert government planning has so blinded President Obama as to the true source of American exceptionalism that he couldn’t help contradicting himself in a matter of mere seconds. Early on last night the President said: “None of us can predict with certainty what the next big industry will be or where the new jobs will come from.” But then just three paragraphs later he said: “We’ll invest in biomedical research, information technology, and especially clean energy technology … and create countless new jobs for our people.”
So which is it, Mr. President? Is the federal government really just a big venture capital firm where Secretary of Energy Steven Chu picks which electric car firms and solar companies are most deserving of taxpayer “investments”? Does the federal government best ensure economic growth by partnering with General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt and making him czar of the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness? Or is America exceptional because our Founders recognized—and enshrined in the Constitution—that liberty is best protected when the federal government has clear limits? Our country does desperately need to change course to “win the future.” But President Obama’s Progressive big government plans will only make us losers.
Once again Obama has trouble with the TRUTH!
Once again the TRUTH is not high on Obama's priority list....His words never reflect the truth and his actions never bear out his words....He's the same old Obama...Liberal...Socialist.....Elitist....Arrogant!.....and where was his ribbon for Gabby Giffords???? He's too good to wear one? This President is a JOKE!
Obama and his imbalanced ledger - FACT CHECK: A tricky juggling act as Obama urges more spending and a freeze on spending
.
Calvin Woodward, Associated Press, On Tuesday January 25, 2011, 10:24 pm EST
WASHINGTON (AP) --
The ledger did not appear to be adding up Tuesday night when President Barack Obama urged more spending on one hand and a spending freeze on the other.
Obama spoke ambitiously of putting money into roads, research, education, efficient cars, high-speed rail and other initiatives in his State of the Union speech. He pointed to the transportation and construction projects of the last two years and proposed "we redouble these efforts." He coupled this with a call to "freeze annual domestic spending for the next five years."
But Obama offered far more examples of where he would spend than where he would cut, and some of the areas he identified for savings are not certain to yield much if anything.
For example, he said he wants to eliminate "billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies." Yet he made a similar proposal last year that went nowhere. He sought $36.5 billion in tax increases on oil and gas companies over the next decade, but Congress largely ignored the request, even though Democrats were then in charge of both houses of Congress.
A look at some of Obama's statements Tuesday night and how they compare with the facts:
OBAMA: Tackling the deficit "means further reducing health care costs, including programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which are the single biggest contributor to our long-term deficit. Health insurance reform will slow these rising costs, which is part of why nonpartisan economists have said that repealing the health care law would add a quarter of a trillion dollars to our deficit."
THE FACTS: The idea that Obama's health care law saves money for the government is based on some arguable assumptions.
To be sure, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated the law will slightly reduce red ink over 10 years. But the office's analysis assumes that steep cuts in Medicare spending, as called for in the law, will actually take place. Others in the government have concluded it is unrealistic to expect such savings from Medicare.
In recent years, for example, Congress has repeatedly overridden a law that would save the treasury billions by cutting deeply into Medicare pay for doctors. Just last month, the government once again put off the scheduled cuts for another year, at a cost of $19 billion. That money is being taken out of the health care overhaul. Congress has shown itself sensitive to pressure from seniors and their doctors, and there's little reason to think that will change.
OBAMA: Vowed to veto any bills sent to him that include "earmarks," pet spending provisions pushed by individual lawmakers. "Both parties in Congress should know this: If a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it."
THE FACTS: House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has promised that no bill with earmarks will be sent to Obama in the first place. Republicans have taken the lead in battling earmarks while Obama signed plenty of earmark-laden spending bills when Democrats controlled both houses.
It's a turnabout for the president; in early 2009, Obama sounded like an apologist for the practice: "Done right, earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their districts, and that's why I've opposed their outright elimination," he said then.
OBAMA: "I'm willing to look at other ideas to bring down costs, including one that Republicans suggested last year: medical malpractice reform to rein in frivolous lawsuits."
THE FACTS: Republicans may be forgiven if this offer makes them feel like Charlie Brown running up to kick the football, only to have it pulled away, again.
Obama has expressed openness before to this prominent Republican proposal, but it has not come to much. It was one of several GOP ideas that were dropped or diminished in the health care law after Obama endorsed them in a televised bipartisan meeting at the height of the debate.
Republicans want federal action to limit jury awards in medical malpractice cases; what Obama appears to be offering, by supporting state efforts, falls short of that. The president has said he agrees that fear of being sued leads to unnecessary tests and procedures that drive up health care costs. So far the administration has only wanted to pay for pilot programs and studies.
Trial lawyers, major political donors to Democratic candidates, are strongly opposed to caps on jury awards. But the administration has been reluctant to support other approaches, such as the creation of specialized courts where expert judges, not juries, would decide malpractice cases.
OBAMA: Praised the "important progress" made by the bipartisan fiscal commission he created last year.
THE FACTS: The panel's co-chairmen last month recommended a painful mix of spending cuts and tax increases, each of them unpopular with one constituency or another, including raising the Social Security retirement age, cutting future benefit increases, raising the gasoline tax and rolling back popular tax breaks like the mortgage interest deduction. But Obama has yet to sign on to any of the ideas, even though he promised when creating the panel that it would not be "one of those Washington gimmicks."
Obama missed another chance Tuesday night to embrace the tough medicine proposed by the commission for bringing down the deficit. For example, the president said he wanted to "strengthen Social Security for future generations" -- but ruled out slashing benefits or partially privatizing the program, and made no reference to raising the retirement age. That left listeners to guess how he plans to do anything to salvage the popular retirement program whose trust funds are expected to run out of money in 2037 without changes.
OBAMA: As testament to the fruits of his administration's diplomatic efforts to control the spread of nuclear weapons, he said the Iranian government "faces tougher and tighter sanctions than ever before."
THE FACTS: That is true, and it reflects Obama's promise one year ago that Iran would face "growing consequences" if it failed to heed international demands to constrain its nuclear program. But what Obama didn't say was that U.S. diplomacy has failed to persuade Tehran to negotiate over U.N. demands that it take steps to prove it is not on the path toward a bomb. Preliminary talks with Iran earlier this month broke off after the Iranians demanded U.S. sanctions be lifted.
Associated Press writers Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Jim Drinkard, Erica Werner, Jim Kuhnhenn, Andrew Taylor, Stephen Ohlemacher and Robert Burns contributed to this report.
Obama and his imbalanced ledger - FACT CHECK: A tricky juggling act as Obama urges more spending and a freeze on spending
.
Calvin Woodward, Associated Press, On Tuesday January 25, 2011, 10:24 pm EST
WASHINGTON (AP) --
The ledger did not appear to be adding up Tuesday night when President Barack Obama urged more spending on one hand and a spending freeze on the other.
Obama spoke ambitiously of putting money into roads, research, education, efficient cars, high-speed rail and other initiatives in his State of the Union speech. He pointed to the transportation and construction projects of the last two years and proposed "we redouble these efforts." He coupled this with a call to "freeze annual domestic spending for the next five years."
But Obama offered far more examples of where he would spend than where he would cut, and some of the areas he identified for savings are not certain to yield much if anything.
For example, he said he wants to eliminate "billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies." Yet he made a similar proposal last year that went nowhere. He sought $36.5 billion in tax increases on oil and gas companies over the next decade, but Congress largely ignored the request, even though Democrats were then in charge of both houses of Congress.
A look at some of Obama's statements Tuesday night and how they compare with the facts:
OBAMA: Tackling the deficit "means further reducing health care costs, including programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which are the single biggest contributor to our long-term deficit. Health insurance reform will slow these rising costs, which is part of why nonpartisan economists have said that repealing the health care law would add a quarter of a trillion dollars to our deficit."
THE FACTS: The idea that Obama's health care law saves money for the government is based on some arguable assumptions.
To be sure, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated the law will slightly reduce red ink over 10 years. But the office's analysis assumes that steep cuts in Medicare spending, as called for in the law, will actually take place. Others in the government have concluded it is unrealistic to expect such savings from Medicare.
In recent years, for example, Congress has repeatedly overridden a law that would save the treasury billions by cutting deeply into Medicare pay for doctors. Just last month, the government once again put off the scheduled cuts for another year, at a cost of $19 billion. That money is being taken out of the health care overhaul. Congress has shown itself sensitive to pressure from seniors and their doctors, and there's little reason to think that will change.
OBAMA: Vowed to veto any bills sent to him that include "earmarks," pet spending provisions pushed by individual lawmakers. "Both parties in Congress should know this: If a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it."
THE FACTS: House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has promised that no bill with earmarks will be sent to Obama in the first place. Republicans have taken the lead in battling earmarks while Obama signed plenty of earmark-laden spending bills when Democrats controlled both houses.
It's a turnabout for the president; in early 2009, Obama sounded like an apologist for the practice: "Done right, earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their districts, and that's why I've opposed their outright elimination," he said then.
OBAMA: "I'm willing to look at other ideas to bring down costs, including one that Republicans suggested last year: medical malpractice reform to rein in frivolous lawsuits."
THE FACTS: Republicans may be forgiven if this offer makes them feel like Charlie Brown running up to kick the football, only to have it pulled away, again.
Obama has expressed openness before to this prominent Republican proposal, but it has not come to much. It was one of several GOP ideas that were dropped or diminished in the health care law after Obama endorsed them in a televised bipartisan meeting at the height of the debate.
Republicans want federal action to limit jury awards in medical malpractice cases; what Obama appears to be offering, by supporting state efforts, falls short of that. The president has said he agrees that fear of being sued leads to unnecessary tests and procedures that drive up health care costs. So far the administration has only wanted to pay for pilot programs and studies.
Trial lawyers, major political donors to Democratic candidates, are strongly opposed to caps on jury awards. But the administration has been reluctant to support other approaches, such as the creation of specialized courts where expert judges, not juries, would decide malpractice cases.
OBAMA: Praised the "important progress" made by the bipartisan fiscal commission he created last year.
THE FACTS: The panel's co-chairmen last month recommended a painful mix of spending cuts and tax increases, each of them unpopular with one constituency or another, including raising the Social Security retirement age, cutting future benefit increases, raising the gasoline tax and rolling back popular tax breaks like the mortgage interest deduction. But Obama has yet to sign on to any of the ideas, even though he promised when creating the panel that it would not be "one of those Washington gimmicks."
Obama missed another chance Tuesday night to embrace the tough medicine proposed by the commission for bringing down the deficit. For example, the president said he wanted to "strengthen Social Security for future generations" -- but ruled out slashing benefits or partially privatizing the program, and made no reference to raising the retirement age. That left listeners to guess how he plans to do anything to salvage the popular retirement program whose trust funds are expected to run out of money in 2037 without changes.
OBAMA: As testament to the fruits of his administration's diplomatic efforts to control the spread of nuclear weapons, he said the Iranian government "faces tougher and tighter sanctions than ever before."
THE FACTS: That is true, and it reflects Obama's promise one year ago that Iran would face "growing consequences" if it failed to heed international demands to constrain its nuclear program. But what Obama didn't say was that U.S. diplomacy has failed to persuade Tehran to negotiate over U.N. demands that it take steps to prove it is not on the path toward a bomb. Preliminary talks with Iran earlier this month broke off after the Iranians demanded U.S. sanctions be lifted.
Associated Press writers Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Jim Drinkard, Erica Werner, Jim Kuhnhenn, Andrew Taylor, Stephen Ohlemacher and Robert Burns contributed to this report.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)