Sir, you did the best you could, but now it's time to step aside and give someone else a shot. Your colleagues chose you as Senate minority leader because you know the arcane rules of the US Senate backwards and forwards. Your skill set would be helpful and possibly decisive if the republican caucus consisted of 43 or even 42 members. However, you only have forty votes, two of which, Sens. Snowe and Collins of Maine love to play footsie with the democrats. In short, you never had a shot. Look, any Pats' fan can tell you having a coach who knows the x's and o's better than anyone(Belichick)doesn't mean bupkiss if you don't have players able to execute the game plan. Senate majority leader Harry Reid is as likely to be confused with LBJ as Chad Henne is with Peyton Manning, but against an undermanned squad they'll get the job done just the same. Besides, Harry Reid hasn't been shy about opening the peoples' checkbook and buying votes when necessary.
Now that Harry Reid has sixty votes in his pocket it's time for a new game plan and a new minority leader. To say the way Reid went about getting those votes was seedy would be too kind. But arguing that the process was corrupt is a losing hand. We need a leader that can communicate to the vast majority of Americans that don't pay attention to the day to day machinations of the Senate. These folks will tune in to talk of "cloture" and "arbitrary timelines" for as long as it takes me to change the channel on a Australian rules football game(match). It's not that they don't know what's happening in D.C. will impact their lives; it's that they don't know the rules and never will in a political world ruled by thirty second sound bites. For example, pointing out that the Senate Parliamentarian is a shill for Harry Reid and probably would have let him get anything he wanted out of the Senate via reconciliation if that proved necessary makes about as much sense to your average American as a Christmas card written in sanskrit.
It's time to storm the barricades,(figurativley speaking Sec. Napolitano and Sen. "Big Sheldon" Whitehouse) and for that we need passion. Sen. McConnell, I say this as one charisma challenged guy to another, you could recite Henry V's St. Crispins Day speech word for word and still find yourself storming the walls all alone. An obvious replacement for republican standard bearer doesn't leap out, but we need to try. Maybe there is a diamond in the rough amongst your thirty nine cohorts. I do know, that a rhetorical bomb, "death panels" lobbed by Sarah Palin on her Facebook page caused the previous arbitrary deadlines of August and Thanksgiving to go by the wayside. This legislation provides plenty of opportunities for potential bunker-busters, but we need a leader willing to throw them:
1) The mandates, including provisions for imprisoning Americans that don't comply.
2) Medicaid exploding state budgets' except Nebraska of course and the massive property tax increases this will entail.
3) The potential bankrupting and closure of 20% of our nations' hospitals.
etc...
The American people are the only thing standing in the way of this bill's passage. We need leadership that will give them the information they need to fight it.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Nelson Folds
FREE Sign Up! Community Events Front Page What is Red Hampshire Why Red Hampshire Matters Nelson Folds
December 19, 2009Paul Breau
From the Washington Post:
“Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.), the final Democratic holdout on health care, was prepared to announce to his caucus Saturday morning that he would support the Senate reform bill, clearing the way for final passage by Christmas.
“We’re there,” said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), as he headed into a special meeting to announce the deal.
Democratic leaders spent days trying to hammer out a deal with Nelson, and worked late Friday night with Nelson on abortion coverage language that had proved the major stumbling block. But Nelson also secured other favors for his home state.
Asked if he was prepared to support the bill, Nelson said, “Yeah.”".
Harry Reid gave Nelson his 30 pieces of silver and he folded like a cheap suit.
The 2010 election is now officially nationalized. Every Republican needs to run on repealing this monstrosity. The benefit of the Dems playing the CBO score to hide the true cost of the bill is that spending doesn’t kick in until 2014. Once Americans get a “free” ie..someone else is footing the bill service, it’s impossible to repeal.
December 19, 2009Paul Breau
From the Washington Post:
“Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.), the final Democratic holdout on health care, was prepared to announce to his caucus Saturday morning that he would support the Senate reform bill, clearing the way for final passage by Christmas.
“We’re there,” said Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), as he headed into a special meeting to announce the deal.
Democratic leaders spent days trying to hammer out a deal with Nelson, and worked late Friday night with Nelson on abortion coverage language that had proved the major stumbling block. But Nelson also secured other favors for his home state.
Asked if he was prepared to support the bill, Nelson said, “Yeah.”".
Harry Reid gave Nelson his 30 pieces of silver and he folded like a cheap suit.
The 2010 election is now officially nationalized. Every Republican needs to run on repealing this monstrosity. The benefit of the Dems playing the CBO score to hide the true cost of the bill is that spending doesn’t kick in until 2014. Once Americans get a “free” ie..someone else is footing the bill service, it’s impossible to repeal.
Friday, December 18, 2009
Obamacare: Harmful To Children
Years ago when the Simpsons was still funny they had a recurring bit where a concerned citizen would plead "Won't somebody please think of the children?". Today I ask is there not one member of the Senate with a D after their name that will stand up for the children of America? While Harry Reid is busy trying to concoct a bill behind closed doors that can get 60 votes by his artificial Christmas deadline. One thing remains clear. If the eventual bill resembles all the others that have seen the light of day it will have a terrible impact on children.
For starters, the employer mandates will hit small businesses very hard and will lead to yet more layoffs. This legislation makes it too expensive for small business, the growth engine of our economy to maintain current employment levels let alone expand their operations. There are millions of jobs at stake, both in potential layoffs and new jobs that won't be created. Any child whose parent loses a job or can't find one because of this bill is worse off for its passage.
This legislation will cause health insurance rates to increase, not decrease as promised. For those Americans that receive their health coverage through their employer they will be hit with higher premiums and see any wage gains swallowed in icreased medical costs paid by their employers. For those whose employers decide to drop medical coverage altogether, they and their families can look forward to a future on Medicaid. Families shunted onto Medicaid could lose their doctors. One third of physicians don't accept Medicaid because of its way below market reimbursement rates. If losing their family doctor isn't bad enough they will be forced onto a plan, Medicaid, that already has trillions of dollars of liabilities in the coming years that it doesn't have the funds to pay for. This is the equivalent of piling children onto the Titanic just before it slips beneath the waves.
If the substandard health care received under Medicaid isn't bad enough, this legislation will also impact childrens' education. Governor Bredesen (D-TN):"described the options in the event of a Medicaid expansion as putting one's state "into bankruptcy" or its education system "in the tank.". Medicaid is a joint Federal/State program so any increase in the number of people on the program means higher bills for state governments'. Because most if not all states' require balanced budgets this will mean increased taxes and spending cuts. Simply put, expanding Medicaid means a decrease in funding for schools and local aid by cash strapped state governments'.
Finally, the last bill we had a CBO score for came in at a budget busting 2.5 trillion dollar ten year pricetag. When you add this spending on top of the yearly trillion dollar plus deficits the Obama administration is already projecting as far as the eye can see, it's not hard to see the fiscal trainwreak that awaits America's children. Their future will be one of extortionary tax levels coupled with anemic growth. This legislation will end the American dream of every generation being better off than the one before it. The debts that are being run up today must be paid and it's immoral to saddle future generations with misery for a pyrrhic health care reform victory.
The question of the moment remains whether Senator Nelson (D-NE) holds his ground or caves to the pressure being exerted by President Obama. It's truly sad, considering what's at stake that Nelson seems to be all alone on his side of the aisle. Let's hope he stays strong, if not for us, for the sake of the children.
For starters, the employer mandates will hit small businesses very hard and will lead to yet more layoffs. This legislation makes it too expensive for small business, the growth engine of our economy to maintain current employment levels let alone expand their operations. There are millions of jobs at stake, both in potential layoffs and new jobs that won't be created. Any child whose parent loses a job or can't find one because of this bill is worse off for its passage.
This legislation will cause health insurance rates to increase, not decrease as promised. For those Americans that receive their health coverage through their employer they will be hit with higher premiums and see any wage gains swallowed in icreased medical costs paid by their employers. For those whose employers decide to drop medical coverage altogether, they and their families can look forward to a future on Medicaid. Families shunted onto Medicaid could lose their doctors. One third of physicians don't accept Medicaid because of its way below market reimbursement rates. If losing their family doctor isn't bad enough they will be forced onto a plan, Medicaid, that already has trillions of dollars of liabilities in the coming years that it doesn't have the funds to pay for. This is the equivalent of piling children onto the Titanic just before it slips beneath the waves.
If the substandard health care received under Medicaid isn't bad enough, this legislation will also impact childrens' education. Governor Bredesen (D-TN):"described the options in the event of a Medicaid expansion as putting one's state "into bankruptcy" or its education system "in the tank.". Medicaid is a joint Federal/State program so any increase in the number of people on the program means higher bills for state governments'. Because most if not all states' require balanced budgets this will mean increased taxes and spending cuts. Simply put, expanding Medicaid means a decrease in funding for schools and local aid by cash strapped state governments'.
Finally, the last bill we had a CBO score for came in at a budget busting 2.5 trillion dollar ten year pricetag. When you add this spending on top of the yearly trillion dollar plus deficits the Obama administration is already projecting as far as the eye can see, it's not hard to see the fiscal trainwreak that awaits America's children. Their future will be one of extortionary tax levels coupled with anemic growth. This legislation will end the American dream of every generation being better off than the one before it. The debts that are being run up today must be paid and it's immoral to saddle future generations with misery for a pyrrhic health care reform victory.
The question of the moment remains whether Senator Nelson (D-NE) holds his ground or caves to the pressure being exerted by President Obama. It's truly sad, considering what's at stake that Nelson seems to be all alone on his side of the aisle. Let's hope he stays strong, if not for us, for the sake of the children.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Humble Leviathan, Before It's Too Late
This last week has produced several stories that demonstrate the growing gap between the citizen and the state that theoretically serves us. While the six million bucks Democratic pollster Mark Penn received from the stimulus bill is hard to swallow, it's just a symptom of a bigger problem. Most shook their heads when Vice President Biden declared that the stimulus exceeded expectations, but it has largely achieved its purpose. It was designed to benefit one constituency, government employees. During the course of this recession 7.3 million Americans in the private sector have lost jobs, over four million of those after the stimulus bill passed, while public employees remain largely unaffected. In fact, the federal government is in the midst of a hiring binge.
USA Today released a story that should be a must read for every American. There, in black and white is evidence that the story of the "haves and have nots" in our country is becoming increasingly dependent on whether one works for the government or as part of the dwindling productive class. The numbers:
"Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession's first 18 months — and that's before overtime pay and bonuses are counted."
"Defense Department civilian employees earning $150,000 or more increased from 1,868 in December 2007 to 10,100 in June 2009, the most recent figure available.
When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000.
The trend to six-figure salaries is occurring throughout the federal government, in agencies big and small, high-tech and low-tech. The primary cause: substantial pay raises and new salary rules."
Federal employees making $100,000 or more have increased by 46%, those making more than $150,000 by 119% and those making $170,000 or more have increased by 93%. All this during a recession. The average salary of a federal employee is now $71,206 while in the private sector it stands at $40,331.
The overall employment figures since the beginning of the recession: federal government jobs have increased by 192,700, a gain of 9.8%, state and municipal jobs saw a smaller increase of 33,000, for a gain of .2%, while as mentioned earlier, the private sector shed 7.3 million jobs, for a loss of 6.3%.
The stimulus bill, even with its massive bailout for profligate state governments', wasn't enough to insulate municipal and state workers from the effects of the recession. To maintain full employment for government employees, MA and many other states saddled their already struggling citizens' with huge tax increases. I won't say unprecedented, because what they are doing is straight from Hoovernomics 101. For the hard-pressed residents of MA, the 25% increase in the sales tax to 6.25% and applying that tax to alcohol has proven insufficient to balance the budget. To remedy this shortfall, they held hearings on Beacon Hill with the goal of raising the gas tax by another 13%.
Adding insult to injury most cities and towns have decided to play pigpile on the taxpayer by raising property taxes. The city of Boston just announced a whopping 6.3%increase. Mayor Menino waited until he was safely re-elected before he shared this little bit of holiday cheer with the residents of Boston.
How is it that when many Americans are suffering, government employees are thriving? Simple. Big unions, both public and private spent a ton of cash electing democrats and that bet has paid huge dividends.The nexus between big government and big union is best represented in the person of Andrew Stern, head honcho of SEIU. He boasts of spending over 60 million dollars of his members' dues to elect President Obama. So, it should come as no surprise that he has been the most frequent visitor to the Obama White House or that his members were deployed as shock troops during the August town halls. I wonder if his purple-shirted goon squad saw any irony in the words "Don't tread on me" written on the Gadsden flags Kenneth Gladney was selling before they beat him senseless.
How can we prevent the big union, big government combination from taxing us into oblivion? We need to use the petition process and the ballot box to stop them in their tracks. It won't be easy, but our forefathers faced much longer odds in their struggles. Their lot required the use of bullets and bloodshed to first gain independence and the freedoms we enjoy and later to prevent disunion and end the abhorrent practice of slavery. How can we call ourselves worthy of their inheritance if we shrink at the first sign of SEIU thugs? I believe our way of life is worth fighting for, even if it means we will be on the receiving end of epithets at best and fists at worst.
Some ideas to achieve the end of preserving constitutional government:
The large sums of money, derived from compulsory dues government employee unions like AFGE, AFSCME and the NEA spend lobbying for ever bigger government should be banned. These sums break the spirit if not the letter of the law of the Hatch Act. Any member of these unions should be free to donate to any candidate or party they choose, as is their right under the first amendment.
The seperate and unequal health and retirement programs of government versus private sector employment should end. All new hires to any government should pay into the social security system and receive their health benefits on the private market. Just like the people they work for. The only exceptions to this rule being members of the US military, members of the intelligence communities and police and firefighters. These are people that put their lives on the line for us every day and their careers do not lend themselves to retirement at the age of 65.
Amending the Constitution to require a balanced budget with an exception for national emergencies. These should be limited to real emergencies like war and natural disasters, not the latest omnibus spending bill only has 936 earmarks in it.
Constitutional amendments on both the federal and state levels setting term limits. Being an elected representative is an honor and a privilege that was never intended by the founders to be a career.
Constitutional amendents on the federal and for states that don't already do this, making legislatures meet for only a part of the year, with provisions for recall by the president or for states, governor, in case of emergency. Legislatures should do the peoples' business and go home. Meeting year-round only leads to mischief ie. they find ways to spend the peoples' hard earned money.
Others can probably come up with a multitude of different and better ideas. This missive is simply meant to get a conversation started. To ensure that our government remains in Lincoln's immortal words from the Gettysburg address "that government of the people, by the people, for the people", and is not replaced by a government of the bureaucrat, by the bureaucrat and for the apparatchik.
USA Today released a story that should be a must read for every American. There, in black and white is evidence that the story of the "haves and have nots" in our country is becoming increasingly dependent on whether one works for the government or as part of the dwindling productive class. The numbers:
"Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession's first 18 months — and that's before overtime pay and bonuses are counted."
"Defense Department civilian employees earning $150,000 or more increased from 1,868 in December 2007 to 10,100 in June 2009, the most recent figure available.
When the recession started, the Transportation Department had only one person earning a salary of $170,000 or more. Eighteen months later, 1,690 employees had salaries above $170,000.
The trend to six-figure salaries is occurring throughout the federal government, in agencies big and small, high-tech and low-tech. The primary cause: substantial pay raises and new salary rules."
Federal employees making $100,000 or more have increased by 46%, those making more than $150,000 by 119% and those making $170,000 or more have increased by 93%. All this during a recession. The average salary of a federal employee is now $71,206 while in the private sector it stands at $40,331.
The overall employment figures since the beginning of the recession: federal government jobs have increased by 192,700, a gain of 9.8%, state and municipal jobs saw a smaller increase of 33,000, for a gain of .2%, while as mentioned earlier, the private sector shed 7.3 million jobs, for a loss of 6.3%.
The stimulus bill, even with its massive bailout for profligate state governments', wasn't enough to insulate municipal and state workers from the effects of the recession. To maintain full employment for government employees, MA and many other states saddled their already struggling citizens' with huge tax increases. I won't say unprecedented, because what they are doing is straight from Hoovernomics 101. For the hard-pressed residents of MA, the 25% increase in the sales tax to 6.25% and applying that tax to alcohol has proven insufficient to balance the budget. To remedy this shortfall, they held hearings on Beacon Hill with the goal of raising the gas tax by another 13%.
Adding insult to injury most cities and towns have decided to play pigpile on the taxpayer by raising property taxes. The city of Boston just announced a whopping 6.3%increase. Mayor Menino waited until he was safely re-elected before he shared this little bit of holiday cheer with the residents of Boston.
How is it that when many Americans are suffering, government employees are thriving? Simple. Big unions, both public and private spent a ton of cash electing democrats and that bet has paid huge dividends.The nexus between big government and big union is best represented in the person of Andrew Stern, head honcho of SEIU. He boasts of spending over 60 million dollars of his members' dues to elect President Obama. So, it should come as no surprise that he has been the most frequent visitor to the Obama White House or that his members were deployed as shock troops during the August town halls. I wonder if his purple-shirted goon squad saw any irony in the words "Don't tread on me" written on the Gadsden flags Kenneth Gladney was selling before they beat him senseless.
How can we prevent the big union, big government combination from taxing us into oblivion? We need to use the petition process and the ballot box to stop them in their tracks. It won't be easy, but our forefathers faced much longer odds in their struggles. Their lot required the use of bullets and bloodshed to first gain independence and the freedoms we enjoy and later to prevent disunion and end the abhorrent practice of slavery. How can we call ourselves worthy of their inheritance if we shrink at the first sign of SEIU thugs? I believe our way of life is worth fighting for, even if it means we will be on the receiving end of epithets at best and fists at worst.
Some ideas to achieve the end of preserving constitutional government:
The large sums of money, derived from compulsory dues government employee unions like AFGE, AFSCME and the NEA spend lobbying for ever bigger government should be banned. These sums break the spirit if not the letter of the law of the Hatch Act. Any member of these unions should be free to donate to any candidate or party they choose, as is their right under the first amendment.
The seperate and unequal health and retirement programs of government versus private sector employment should end. All new hires to any government should pay into the social security system and receive their health benefits on the private market. Just like the people they work for. The only exceptions to this rule being members of the US military, members of the intelligence communities and police and firefighters. These are people that put their lives on the line for us every day and their careers do not lend themselves to retirement at the age of 65.
Amending the Constitution to require a balanced budget with an exception for national emergencies. These should be limited to real emergencies like war and natural disasters, not the latest omnibus spending bill only has 936 earmarks in it.
Constitutional amendments on both the federal and state levels setting term limits. Being an elected representative is an honor and a privilege that was never intended by the founders to be a career.
Constitutional amendents on the federal and for states that don't already do this, making legislatures meet for only a part of the year, with provisions for recall by the president or for states, governor, in case of emergency. Legislatures should do the peoples' business and go home. Meeting year-round only leads to mischief ie. they find ways to spend the peoples' hard earned money.
Others can probably come up with a multitude of different and better ideas. This missive is simply meant to get a conversation started. To ensure that our government remains in Lincoln's immortal words from the Gettysburg address "that government of the people, by the people, for the people", and is not replaced by a government of the bureaucrat, by the bureaucrat and for the apparatchik.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Is A Brown Win Possible?
I believe Scott Brown has a chance, albeit a slight one, to shock the political world on January 19th. Call this assessment one part innate republican optimism and one part observations from Ward 2, Newburyport on primary day.
For starters, the lack of intensity by democrats yesterday was simply stunning. MA hasn't had a Senate vacancy since 1984 and turnout was pathetic. What's behind the apathy? One theory expressed to the Daily News "I think it's because people aren't particularly excited about this race. They don't see a big difference in the candidates. They seem pleased with them all," Erickson said." I agree with the first part of this statement and think the second part is dead wrong. There wasn't a dimes worth of difference seperating the 4 democratic candidates on the major issues of this campaign and that's the problem.
If people are excited about a candidate they are going to express it by volunteering or at least showing up to the polls to vote. Yesterday, the only campaign that had folks holding signs was Scott Brown's. Admittedly, it was a bit chilly out there yesterday, but it wasn't unseasonably cold, it is December after all. This lack of excitement is the canary in the coal mine moment for the democrats and they ignore it at their peril.
The US Senate is currently debating legislation on: health care, energy, a potential second (jobs bill) stimulus and a promise/threat of taking up "immigration reform". If enacted these bills will transfer unprecedented power to the Federal government and registered democrats responded to this by staying home. If the majority of democrats in MA were excited by this agenda they would have voted in large numbers. The truth is that this agenda is only popular with the far left of the democratic party, even here in deep blue MA and independents are scared to death by it.
Some completely anecdotal, unscientific examples from yesterday. An independent voter approached me to tell me that he had voted for Scott. He also told me the guy at the desk told him he was requesting the "wrong ballot", just part of the joy of living in MA. Another told me he works for a small plumbing supply company and if the health care bill passes they will be forced to cut their employees from 55 down to 49. They don't want to do this, they simply can't afford to pay the mandates that will be imposed by this legislation.
So, how does all this help Scott? Martha Coakley will be campaigning on issues that only appeal to a small percentage of voters. If Scott Brown and this is a big if, can convince the independens that are a majority of voters in this state to cast a ballot for a republican, probably for the first time in their lives he has a fighting chance.
To give Scott a fighting chance the republicans in the US Senate need to stand up and fight instead of playing nice guy. This election needs to be fought on big issues. The principal one being a victory by Scott Brown denies the democrats 60 votes for the federal takeover of health care.
For starters, the lack of intensity by democrats yesterday was simply stunning. MA hasn't had a Senate vacancy since 1984 and turnout was pathetic. What's behind the apathy? One theory expressed to the Daily News "I think it's because people aren't particularly excited about this race. They don't see a big difference in the candidates. They seem pleased with them all," Erickson said." I agree with the first part of this statement and think the second part is dead wrong. There wasn't a dimes worth of difference seperating the 4 democratic candidates on the major issues of this campaign and that's the problem.
If people are excited about a candidate they are going to express it by volunteering or at least showing up to the polls to vote. Yesterday, the only campaign that had folks holding signs was Scott Brown's. Admittedly, it was a bit chilly out there yesterday, but it wasn't unseasonably cold, it is December after all. This lack of excitement is the canary in the coal mine moment for the democrats and they ignore it at their peril.
The US Senate is currently debating legislation on: health care, energy, a potential second (jobs bill) stimulus and a promise/threat of taking up "immigration reform". If enacted these bills will transfer unprecedented power to the Federal government and registered democrats responded to this by staying home. If the majority of democrats in MA were excited by this agenda they would have voted in large numbers. The truth is that this agenda is only popular with the far left of the democratic party, even here in deep blue MA and independents are scared to death by it.
Some completely anecdotal, unscientific examples from yesterday. An independent voter approached me to tell me that he had voted for Scott. He also told me the guy at the desk told him he was requesting the "wrong ballot", just part of the joy of living in MA. Another told me he works for a small plumbing supply company and if the health care bill passes they will be forced to cut their employees from 55 down to 49. They don't want to do this, they simply can't afford to pay the mandates that will be imposed by this legislation.
So, how does all this help Scott? Martha Coakley will be campaigning on issues that only appeal to a small percentage of voters. If Scott Brown and this is a big if, can convince the independens that are a majority of voters in this state to cast a ballot for a republican, probably for the first time in their lives he has a fighting chance.
To give Scott a fighting chance the republicans in the US Senate need to stand up and fight instead of playing nice guy. This election needs to be fought on big issues. The principal one being a victory by Scott Brown denies the democrats 60 votes for the federal takeover of health care.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Soros, EPA Tagteam America
George Soros is about to make a mint off his investments in the Democratic party. The benefit of being worth billions is that he could afford to squander millions in his effort to defeat former President Bush in 04 and turn around and spend even more on democrats in 06 and 08. The Obama admistration just made those bets pay off. Big time!
Yesterday EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson declared CO2 a danger to public health that will henceforth be regulated by the Federal government. This decision gives the Federal government complete control over our economy. Ian Murray and Marlo Lewis explain the probable scope of the decision:
"Large apartment buildings and hospitals would need EPA operating permits to continue running their furnaces. Lawnmowers and aircraft alike would be regulated for fuel economy like automobiles. And as the EPA orders a retooling or even closure of the nation's power plants, electricity prices would skyrocket, and blackouts would become common."
and
"It will trigger a regulatory avalanche that vastly expand the number of activities that require EPA permitting -- fast-food franchises, apartment buildings and hospitals will soon all have to face the same crushing federal bureaucracy that has bedeviled energy firms for years."
When Europe went down this road they tried to ban propane grills. Having a backyard barbecue makes one an eco-criminal to the average EU bureaucrat. Seattle WA is trying to ban campfires on the beach because they claim it contributes to global warming. The statists meeting in Copenhagen won't be happy until they can regulate i.e. control everything we do. The Obama administration chose to ignore the Climategate scandal and its implications because they see the finish line before them. An honest person/administration would have admitted that the leaked e-mails cast the "consensus" of man made global warming into doubt and would not have labled CO2 a health hazard.
The Lisa Jackson's of the world can't accept that climate change happens regularly. More importantly, they can't accept that humans have very little impact on whether the planet warms or grows colder. Admitting this fact would undermine their ability to control our behavior. The American people would never submit to the massive tax increases and energy bills living under this regime would entail if they were told it would have no benefit to the planet and their ability to live on it. Until some archaeologist digs up a fleet of fossil fuel burning vehicles that early man drove across the land bridge between Siberia and Alaska causing the glaciers to melt and the flooding of the Bering Sea; I'll continue to believe that solar cycles, not man are the main cause behind climate change.
How did Ms. Jackson's decision benefit Mr. Soros? Simple.He's betting big on Brazil, in particular Petrobas. "Among investors bullish on Petrobras is George Soros, who last year made the oil company the largest single holding in his investment fund, according to Bloomberg." While the folks that he helped put in office are putting the American economy in a straight jacket he's putting his money into country that doesn't choose to commit economic suicide. For him it's the best of both worlds. He can live in a country following his progressive dream and still make a fortune in a country that won't sacrifice economic growth to appease the warmists at the UN.
Yesterday EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson declared CO2 a danger to public health that will henceforth be regulated by the Federal government. This decision gives the Federal government complete control over our economy. Ian Murray and Marlo Lewis explain the probable scope of the decision:
"Large apartment buildings and hospitals would need EPA operating permits to continue running their furnaces. Lawnmowers and aircraft alike would be regulated for fuel economy like automobiles. And as the EPA orders a retooling or even closure of the nation's power plants, electricity prices would skyrocket, and blackouts would become common."
and
"It will trigger a regulatory avalanche that vastly expand the number of activities that require EPA permitting -- fast-food franchises, apartment buildings and hospitals will soon all have to face the same crushing federal bureaucracy that has bedeviled energy firms for years."
When Europe went down this road they tried to ban propane grills. Having a backyard barbecue makes one an eco-criminal to the average EU bureaucrat. Seattle WA is trying to ban campfires on the beach because they claim it contributes to global warming. The statists meeting in Copenhagen won't be happy until they can regulate i.e. control everything we do. The Obama administration chose to ignore the Climategate scandal and its implications because they see the finish line before them. An honest person/administration would have admitted that the leaked e-mails cast the "consensus" of man made global warming into doubt and would not have labled CO2 a health hazard.
The Lisa Jackson's of the world can't accept that climate change happens regularly. More importantly, they can't accept that humans have very little impact on whether the planet warms or grows colder. Admitting this fact would undermine their ability to control our behavior. The American people would never submit to the massive tax increases and energy bills living under this regime would entail if they were told it would have no benefit to the planet and their ability to live on it. Until some archaeologist digs up a fleet of fossil fuel burning vehicles that early man drove across the land bridge between Siberia and Alaska causing the glaciers to melt and the flooding of the Bering Sea; I'll continue to believe that solar cycles, not man are the main cause behind climate change.
How did Ms. Jackson's decision benefit Mr. Soros? Simple.He's betting big on Brazil, in particular Petrobas. "Among investors bullish on Petrobras is George Soros, who last year made the oil company the largest single holding in his investment fund, according to Bloomberg." While the folks that he helped put in office are putting the American economy in a straight jacket he's putting his money into country that doesn't choose to commit economic suicide. For him it's the best of both worlds. He can live in a country following his progressive dream and still make a fortune in a country that won't sacrifice economic growth to appease the warmists at the UN.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Obama Declares Ostrich To Be New National Symbol
President Obama, uncomfortable with the martial image portrayed by the bald eagle has found a new bird to embody the new, improved America, the ostrich. Following her leader, Lisa Jackson of the EPA has embraced the new symbol with gusto. The ostrich's claim to fame is that it chooses to bury its head in the sand rather than face the ugly truth. That's exactly what the EPA has done with Climategate.
From the Wall Street Journal:
By IAN TALLEY
WASHINGTON--"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will early next week, possibly as soon as Monday, officially declare carbon dioxide a public danger, a trigger that could mean regulation for emitters across the economy, according to several people close to the matter.
Such an "endangerment" decision is necessary for the EPA to move ahead early next year with new emission standards for cars. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has said it could also mean large emitters such as power stations, cement kilns, crude-oil refineries and chemical plants would have to curb their greenhouse gas output.
The announcement would also give President Barack Obama and his climate envoy negotiating leverage at a global climate summit starting next week in Copenhagen, Denmark and increase pressure on Congress to pass a climate bill that would modify the price of polluting.
While environmentalists celebrate EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases, it has caused many large emitters to cringe at the potential costs of compliance.
According to a preliminary endangerment finding published in April, EPA scientists fear that man-made carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are contributing to a warming of the global climate. Senior EPA officials said in November the agency would likely make a final decision in December around the time of the summit."
The Obama administration won't let a little data fudging at CRU stop its drive to regulate the American economy into submission. Much of the world, heck even the UN understands that the leaked e-mails undercut the case for making drastic, painful reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide. Instead of abandoning this policy, or at the very least questioning whether increasing the costs of energy production and consumption will provide any benefit at all, the Obama administration is going full steam ahead. In fact, President Obama is still planning to go to Copenhagen to negotiate higher taxes for Americans when we are still in recession, paying winter heating bills and shopping for Christmas gifts. Ignoring the leaked e-mails, with phrases like "hide the decline" and "it's a tragedy we can't explain the cooling" is borderline criminal.
The refusal of the president and his administration to see that these documents have changed the game provides republicans with a wonderful opportunity. The American public gives democrats credit for their supposed dedication to science. By ignoring the fact that the global warming alarmists were cooking the books, democrats and the president are destroying that image. Ask the average American how long they would keep a financial advisor who told them to invest everything they have with Bernie Madoff after his ponzi scheme had been revealed. They would fire that person in a heartbeat. What the president is doing by ignoring the cooked warming data is no different than looking at Madoff's cooked returns and saying "it's easy money, only a fool wouldn't invest". Well, as the saying goes a fool and his money are soon parted. If democrats keep insisting that the American people be saddled with massive taxes to "save the planet" they'll soon be parted from their majorities in Congress.
From the Wall Street Journal:
By IAN TALLEY
WASHINGTON--"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will early next week, possibly as soon as Monday, officially declare carbon dioxide a public danger, a trigger that could mean regulation for emitters across the economy, according to several people close to the matter.
Such an "endangerment" decision is necessary for the EPA to move ahead early next year with new emission standards for cars. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has said it could also mean large emitters such as power stations, cement kilns, crude-oil refineries and chemical plants would have to curb their greenhouse gas output.
The announcement would also give President Barack Obama and his climate envoy negotiating leverage at a global climate summit starting next week in Copenhagen, Denmark and increase pressure on Congress to pass a climate bill that would modify the price of polluting.
While environmentalists celebrate EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases, it has caused many large emitters to cringe at the potential costs of compliance.
According to a preliminary endangerment finding published in April, EPA scientists fear that man-made carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are contributing to a warming of the global climate. Senior EPA officials said in November the agency would likely make a final decision in December around the time of the summit."
The Obama administration won't let a little data fudging at CRU stop its drive to regulate the American economy into submission. Much of the world, heck even the UN understands that the leaked e-mails undercut the case for making drastic, painful reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide. Instead of abandoning this policy, or at the very least questioning whether increasing the costs of energy production and consumption will provide any benefit at all, the Obama administration is going full steam ahead. In fact, President Obama is still planning to go to Copenhagen to negotiate higher taxes for Americans when we are still in recession, paying winter heating bills and shopping for Christmas gifts. Ignoring the leaked e-mails, with phrases like "hide the decline" and "it's a tragedy we can't explain the cooling" is borderline criminal.
The refusal of the president and his administration to see that these documents have changed the game provides republicans with a wonderful opportunity. The American public gives democrats credit for their supposed dedication to science. By ignoring the fact that the global warming alarmists were cooking the books, democrats and the president are destroying that image. Ask the average American how long they would keep a financial advisor who told them to invest everything they have with Bernie Madoff after his ponzi scheme had been revealed. They would fire that person in a heartbeat. What the president is doing by ignoring the cooked warming data is no different than looking at Madoff's cooked returns and saying "it's easy money, only a fool wouldn't invest". Well, as the saying goes a fool and his money are soon parted. If democrats keep insisting that the American people be saddled with massive taxes to "save the planet" they'll soon be parted from their majorities in Congress.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
A winning message
Conservatives worry that Carly Fiorina is another liberal republican in the mold of the ladies from Maine, Sens. Collins and Snowe. If nothing else, she wil be solid on health care. One can hope that if she realizes a government takeover in one sector of the economy imperils freedom, she can be convinced when it comes to energy etc. She will also be a huge improvement over Barbara Boxer. Her message will resonate with the general public, particularly women.
Friday, December 4, 2009
To Create Jobs, First Do No Harm
The unemployment numbers for November were just released and Wall Street is chearing that only 11,000 Americans lost their jobs. The news media will no doubt be trumpeting the success of President Obama's job summit. I can just see a gleeful Brian Williams informing America that "only one day after his job summit President Obama has turned the economy around". The sad truth is that 10% unemployment is nothing to crow about. Even more troubling, is that the president doesn't understand that his policies are to blame. In the snippet of the summit aired on the Nightly News an unidentified businessman told the president that companies weren't hiring because of the pending cap and trade and health care legislation. The president nodded and then told this gentleman, who presumably knows a thing or two about creating jobs, that when passed, the legislation will help, not hurt the economy.
For a cool aid free assesment, here's the Heritage Foundation's take:
"Executives like Dan DiMicco, CEO of steelmaker Nucor Corp, who told the Wall Street Journal: “Companies large and small are saying, ‘I am not going to do anything until these things — health care, climate legislation — go away or are resolved.’” Or Porta-King CEO Steve Schulte who tells USA Today his company is not investing because “proposals in Congress to tackle climate change and overhaul health care would raise costs.” These businessmen have every right to be worried. As we’ve detailed before, the Senate Health Bill currently being debated in the Senate would be a disaster for the U.S. economy."
Kills Jobs: All told, the Reid Bill raises taxes by $370.2 billion over the next ten years with many of those taxes starting to be collected this year with unemployment at 10.2% and rising. Worse, the bill includes a job killing employer mandate which taxes companies for hiring people. Specifically, companies with more than 50 employees that do not offer a health plan approved by federal bureaucrats will be forced to pay a $750 per employee job tax.
Hurts Small Businesses: The Reid Bill acknowledges it is terrible public policy for small businesses and tries to address this problem by including a “small business tax credit” to minimize the impact of the job killing employer mandates and regulation-caused increases in private health insurance premiums. But the tax credit only lasts two years and largely excludes small business owners, small businesses with high-average payrolls, and firms with 25 or more workers. Essentially, after all exclusions, the only eligible firms are those firms with 10 or fewer workers as well as those with low-income workers—the least likely to offer coverage even with a significant price reduction.
Hurts Poor: The Reid Bill’s employer mandate is especially punitive on poor families. Firms that hire an employee from a low-income family who qualify for an insurance subsidy are charged a tax penalty of $3,000. So a company could save $3,000 by hiring, say, someone with a working spouse or a teenager with working parents, rather than a single mother with three children. Worse, companies only have to pay $750 an employee instead of $3,000 if one quarter of employees are low-income. This creates a situation where, if a company has a lot of low-income workers, they can actually save money by dropping their health plan and just dumping all their employees into the federal exchange at their own expense."
President Obama refuses to see that his plans for ever bigger government are not good for the American economy. Even the revelations of Climategate haven't changed his mind on the need to reduce carbon emissions via painful tax increases. He only sees the green jobs potentially created covering the states of Arizona with solar panels and West Virginia with windmills.
The American economy will eventually recover and begin to actually add jobs instead of just losing them at a slower pace. The fewer shackles the government places on businesses and consumers, the faster the economy will recover and more jobs will be created.
For a cool aid free assesment, here's the Heritage Foundation's take:
"Executives like Dan DiMicco, CEO of steelmaker Nucor Corp, who told the Wall Street Journal: “Companies large and small are saying, ‘I am not going to do anything until these things — health care, climate legislation — go away or are resolved.’” Or Porta-King CEO Steve Schulte who tells USA Today his company is not investing because “proposals in Congress to tackle climate change and overhaul health care would raise costs.” These businessmen have every right to be worried. As we’ve detailed before, the Senate Health Bill currently being debated in the Senate would be a disaster for the U.S. economy."
Kills Jobs: All told, the Reid Bill raises taxes by $370.2 billion over the next ten years with many of those taxes starting to be collected this year with unemployment at 10.2% and rising. Worse, the bill includes a job killing employer mandate which taxes companies for hiring people. Specifically, companies with more than 50 employees that do not offer a health plan approved by federal bureaucrats will be forced to pay a $750 per employee job tax.
Hurts Small Businesses: The Reid Bill acknowledges it is terrible public policy for small businesses and tries to address this problem by including a “small business tax credit” to minimize the impact of the job killing employer mandates and regulation-caused increases in private health insurance premiums. But the tax credit only lasts two years and largely excludes small business owners, small businesses with high-average payrolls, and firms with 25 or more workers. Essentially, after all exclusions, the only eligible firms are those firms with 10 or fewer workers as well as those with low-income workers—the least likely to offer coverage even with a significant price reduction.
Hurts Poor: The Reid Bill’s employer mandate is especially punitive on poor families. Firms that hire an employee from a low-income family who qualify for an insurance subsidy are charged a tax penalty of $3,000. So a company could save $3,000 by hiring, say, someone with a working spouse or a teenager with working parents, rather than a single mother with three children. Worse, companies only have to pay $750 an employee instead of $3,000 if one quarter of employees are low-income. This creates a situation where, if a company has a lot of low-income workers, they can actually save money by dropping their health plan and just dumping all their employees into the federal exchange at their own expense."
President Obama refuses to see that his plans for ever bigger government are not good for the American economy. Even the revelations of Climategate haven't changed his mind on the need to reduce carbon emissions via painful tax increases. He only sees the green jobs potentially created covering the states of Arizona with solar panels and West Virginia with windmills.
The American economy will eventually recover and begin to actually add jobs instead of just losing them at a slower pace. The fewer shackles the government places on businesses and consumers, the faster the economy will recover and more jobs will be created.
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Chris Matthews jumps the shark
The cadets at West Point do not represent an " enemy camp". I have no doubt they will do their best, some will give their lives to defend our nation. Just because they didn't seem to have a collective tingle up their legs at the President's oratory doesn't mean they will not follow the orders of their Commander and Chief. To suggest otherwise is reprehensible. Chris Matthews owes them an apology. If you agree I urge you to e-mail hardball@msnbc.com .
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Letter from a Mississippi doctor
This letter is making the rounds, but I thought I would post it here as well.
Dear Sirs:
"During my last night's shift in the ER, I had the pleasure of evaluating a patient with a shiny new gold tooth, multiple elaborate tattoos, a very expensive brand of tennis shoes and a new cellular telephone equipped with her favorite R&B tune for a ringtone. Glancing over the chart, one could not help noticing her payer status: Medicaid. She smokes more than one costly pack of cigarettes every day and, somehow, still has money to buy beer.
And our Congress expects me to pay for this woman's health care? Our nation's health care crisis is not a shortage of quality hospitals, doctors or nurses. It is a crisis of culture - a culture in which it is perfectly acceptable to spend money on vices while refusing to take care of one's self or, heaven forbid, purchase health insurance. A culture that thinks "I can do whatever I want to because someone else will always take care of me". Life is really not that hard. Most of us reap what we sow.
Don't you agree?
STARNER JONES, MD Jackson , MS
This tracks with a conversation I had over Thanksgiving. A woman approaching retirement age stated that when she was younger, she made buying health care coverage a priority over going out all the time. She asked me why she should have to pay to cover people that make the opposite decision than she did. I had no answer for her. Before they institute nationalized health care the politicians better be able to give her one.
Dear Sirs:
"During my last night's shift in the ER, I had the pleasure of evaluating a patient with a shiny new gold tooth, multiple elaborate tattoos, a very expensive brand of tennis shoes and a new cellular telephone equipped with her favorite R&B tune for a ringtone. Glancing over the chart, one could not help noticing her payer status: Medicaid. She smokes more than one costly pack of cigarettes every day and, somehow, still has money to buy beer.
And our Congress expects me to pay for this woman's health care? Our nation's health care crisis is not a shortage of quality hospitals, doctors or nurses. It is a crisis of culture - a culture in which it is perfectly acceptable to spend money on vices while refusing to take care of one's self or, heaven forbid, purchase health insurance. A culture that thinks "I can do whatever I want to because someone else will always take care of me". Life is really not that hard. Most of us reap what we sow.
Don't you agree?
STARNER JONES, MD Jackson , MS
This tracks with a conversation I had over Thanksgiving. A woman approaching retirement age stated that when she was younger, she made buying health care coverage a priority over going out all the time. She asked me why she should have to pay to cover people that make the opposite decision than she did. I had no answer for her. Before they institute nationalized health care the politicians better be able to give her one.
Platform for Prosperity
The Colorado GOP gets it. They are offering a platform, like Newt did in 94 with the Contract for America. Here are the policy positions that they are asking all Republican candidates to endorse.
Key Points from the Colorado GOP's 'Platform for Prosperity'
*Oppose efforts to increase taxes and fees unless they're put to a popular vote
*Restore a cap on state spending
*Invest in roads, bridges, higher education and workforce training
*Support a law to make health insurance portable from job to job
*Allow patients to purchase health insurance across state lines
*Promote responsible development of Colorado's energy resources
*Expand charter schools
*Require employers to verify that their workers are in the U.S. legally
*Prohibit state grants for women's health care to any organization that also provides abortions
*Oppose future stimulus bills
2010 has the potential to be a great year for Republicans. The Democrats will continue to enjoy a huge financial advantage however, which may limit their losses. Having a platform to run on can aid underfunded challengers that lack the ability to pay for mailings or advertising defeat entrenched Democrats. It's possible, the first time voters may see the name of the Republican candidate is when they are in the voting booth, but they will know what that Republican stands for.
Key Points from the Colorado GOP's 'Platform for Prosperity'
*Oppose efforts to increase taxes and fees unless they're put to a popular vote
*Restore a cap on state spending
*Invest in roads, bridges, higher education and workforce training
*Support a law to make health insurance portable from job to job
*Allow patients to purchase health insurance across state lines
*Promote responsible development of Colorado's energy resources
*Expand charter schools
*Require employers to verify that their workers are in the U.S. legally
*Prohibit state grants for women's health care to any organization that also provides abortions
*Oppose future stimulus bills
2010 has the potential to be a great year for Republicans. The Democrats will continue to enjoy a huge financial advantage however, which may limit their losses. Having a platform to run on can aid underfunded challengers that lack the ability to pay for mailings or advertising defeat entrenched Democrats. It's possible, the first time voters may see the name of the Republican candidate is when they are in the voting booth, but they will know what that Republican stands for.
Monday, November 30, 2009
ACORN's Back in Business
Eric Holder's Justice Department has overturned the will of Congress and re-opened the Federal spigot to ACORN. This Attorney General is rewarding fraud, instead of prosecuting it. The money is to be spent for ACORN's housing assistance, the very program that James O'Keefe and Hannah Giles exposed as rife with corruption.
When he wasn't writing entertaining stories, C.S. Lewis was offering sage political advice. He advised the progressives' of his day "If you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.". Being a true-blue progressive, Wrong-way Eric is following the road dictated by the monied interests of the left, moveon.org and George Soros. The ACORN decision is just the latest case where politics has trumped justice. Some examples:
1)Ignoring the OLC decision that the vote to give Washington D.C. a representative in the U.S. House was unconstitutional.
2)Dismissing charges in a voter intimidation case against three members of the New Black Panther Party after they had been convicted.
3)Forcing a U.S. Attorney in New Mexico to drop an investigation of Governor Bill Richardson.
4)Re-opening a case against members of the CIA for the interrogation techniques they employed against members of Al Qaeda.
5)Treating KSM and his 9/11 co-conspirators as common criminals worthy of a jury trial in NYC.
6)Inviting Democratic strategist Donna Brazile to speak to employees of the Justice Department.
I believe the above examples make a pretty good case that under Eric Holder's leadership we have the most politicized justice department in modern memory. This latest decision to restore funds to ACORN overturns the will of Democrats as well as Republicans. I hope the Democratic members of Congress will join their Republican colleagues and insist that the funding ban they enacted be enforced.
Andrew Breitbart of biggovernment.com recently issued A.G. Holder a challenge, "investigate ACORN or I'll release the rest of what I have on ACORN before the 2010 elections". With this decision, Holder has doubled down on his bet on ACORN. I say, if Mr. Breitbart has more evidence of dirty dealing by ACORN it needs to be released now rather than later.
When he wasn't writing entertaining stories, C.S. Lewis was offering sage political advice. He advised the progressives' of his day "If you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.". Being a true-blue progressive, Wrong-way Eric is following the road dictated by the monied interests of the left, moveon.org and George Soros. The ACORN decision is just the latest case where politics has trumped justice. Some examples:
1)Ignoring the OLC decision that the vote to give Washington D.C. a representative in the U.S. House was unconstitutional.
2)Dismissing charges in a voter intimidation case against three members of the New Black Panther Party after they had been convicted.
3)Forcing a U.S. Attorney in New Mexico to drop an investigation of Governor Bill Richardson.
4)Re-opening a case against members of the CIA for the interrogation techniques they employed against members of Al Qaeda.
5)Treating KSM and his 9/11 co-conspirators as common criminals worthy of a jury trial in NYC.
6)Inviting Democratic strategist Donna Brazile to speak to employees of the Justice Department.
I believe the above examples make a pretty good case that under Eric Holder's leadership we have the most politicized justice department in modern memory. This latest decision to restore funds to ACORN overturns the will of Democrats as well as Republicans. I hope the Democratic members of Congress will join their Republican colleagues and insist that the funding ban they enacted be enforced.
Andrew Breitbart of biggovernment.com recently issued A.G. Holder a challenge, "investigate ACORN or I'll release the rest of what I have on ACORN before the 2010 elections". With this decision, Holder has doubled down on his bet on ACORN. I say, if Mr. Breitbart has more evidence of dirty dealing by ACORN it needs to be released now rather than later.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
One More Freedom Lost
While it would be an exaggeration to suggest that our forefathers at Bunker Hill were fighting King George to protect themselves and their progeny from paying a tax to fish for stripers. It's only because taxing people for fishing was a step too far, even for the tax loving British parliament. Hence, a freedom we have enjoyed since colonial times was lost late Monday night. Starting in January, surfcasters and those fishing within 3 miles of shore will need to pony up $10 to the Commonwealth for the privilege of wetting a line.
Governor Patrick claims his hand was forced by the Feds. "The Patrick administration is emphasizing the lower permit fee and the local retention of fee revenues to cover program administration, better fisheries management and improved public access for recreational fishing". A more honest response would be to admit that with the budget deficit Massachusetts is experiencing, there is no way the Patrick administration would forgo a new revenue stream. After all, those of us who already pay $29 for a fresh water license will not be spared from paying the new fee.
To maintain that the fee is to cover better fisheries management is a joke. In all the years I have been buying a license, no official has asked to see it. In all the years that I have been fishing, the only people to ask if I had caught anything were fellow anglers. Now, I suppose some of them may have been undercover agents of the Fish and Game department, but I highly doubt it.
This money is going to pad the budget of some bureaucrat in that black hole of taxpayer money on Beacon Hill. Trust me, that $10 fee will only increase and probably quickly.
Governor Patrick claims his hand was forced by the Feds. "The Patrick administration is emphasizing the lower permit fee and the local retention of fee revenues to cover program administration, better fisheries management and improved public access for recreational fishing". A more honest response would be to admit that with the budget deficit Massachusetts is experiencing, there is no way the Patrick administration would forgo a new revenue stream. After all, those of us who already pay $29 for a fresh water license will not be spared from paying the new fee.
To maintain that the fee is to cover better fisheries management is a joke. In all the years I have been buying a license, no official has asked to see it. In all the years that I have been fishing, the only people to ask if I had caught anything were fellow anglers. Now, I suppose some of them may have been undercover agents of the Fish and Game department, but I highly doubt it.
This money is going to pad the budget of some bureaucrat in that black hole of taxpayer money on Beacon Hill. Trust me, that $10 fee will only increase and probably quickly.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Smile
Some Friday fun before the hard work begins in the Senate. The only thing standing between socialized medicine becoming a reality is the American people. The best we can hope for is that the Republicans in the Senate can keep debate going on long enough that a Democrat blinks. I'm talking to you Se. Nelson of Nebraska.
Go directly to jail
This is a letter to the editor published by the Newburyport Daily News on 11/18/09. It was not posted online,so I'm posting it here.
To the editor:
Nancy Pelosi has strong-armed her health care control bill through the U.S. House. She accomplished this feat by a margin of 3 votes, 220-215(218 needed for passage). A lone Republican, Rep. Cao of New Orleans, who doesn't seem to understand the concepts of limited government or individual liberty, voted for passage. Considering the narrowness of the vote, President Obama's intervention proved decisive. He rallied wavering Democrats by referring to opponents of nationalized health care as "teabag, anti-government extremists". So much for the promise of a unifying, post-partisan presidency, but I digress.
As for the bill itself. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has found that the true 10-year cost is almost $3 trillion. Remember, to disguise the impact on our national debt, the bill starts taxing right away, but doesn't start spending until 2014. The bill increases taxes by $1.2 trillion and cuts Medicare spending by $628 billion. Seniors can decide for themselves if these cuts will lead to rationed care.
The bill also imposes a federal mandate to purchase insurance. Every American will be required to buy " acceptable health insurance coverage"; the CBO projects the cheapest family plan will cost $15,000 in 2016. The plan does provide subsidies, but those are likely to disappear when the costs explode. So, many Americans will be forced to buy insurance they can't afford or pay a penalty of 2.5% of their income. What happens to those Americans who can't afford to pay the fine because they are trying to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table? They can be sent to prison. From H.R. 3962: Section 7203-misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year. Section 7201-felony willful evasion punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to 5 years.
The Democrats in Congress have decided they know what's best for America. It's either follow their rules or go to prison. Hardworking Americans deserve a better choice.
Paul Breau
Newburyport
To the editor:
Nancy Pelosi has strong-armed her health care control bill through the U.S. House. She accomplished this feat by a margin of 3 votes, 220-215(218 needed for passage). A lone Republican, Rep. Cao of New Orleans, who doesn't seem to understand the concepts of limited government or individual liberty, voted for passage. Considering the narrowness of the vote, President Obama's intervention proved decisive. He rallied wavering Democrats by referring to opponents of nationalized health care as "teabag, anti-government extremists". So much for the promise of a unifying, post-partisan presidency, but I digress.
As for the bill itself. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has found that the true 10-year cost is almost $3 trillion. Remember, to disguise the impact on our national debt, the bill starts taxing right away, but doesn't start spending until 2014. The bill increases taxes by $1.2 trillion and cuts Medicare spending by $628 billion. Seniors can decide for themselves if these cuts will lead to rationed care.
The bill also imposes a federal mandate to purchase insurance. Every American will be required to buy " acceptable health insurance coverage"; the CBO projects the cheapest family plan will cost $15,000 in 2016. The plan does provide subsidies, but those are likely to disappear when the costs explode. So, many Americans will be forced to buy insurance they can't afford or pay a penalty of 2.5% of their income. What happens to those Americans who can't afford to pay the fine because they are trying to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table? They can be sent to prison. From H.R. 3962: Section 7203-misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year. Section 7201-felony willful evasion punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to 5 years.
The Democrats in Congress have decided they know what's best for America. It's either follow their rules or go to prison. Hardworking Americans deserve a better choice.
Paul Breau
Newburyport
Another Big Government Republican
The eyes of the nation will soon focus on Massachusetts. We have it in our power to deny Harry Reid a filibuster proof majority. Which is why it's so disappointing that one of our candidates in the upcoming special election is choosing to act more like a Democrat than a Republican. Massachusetts-style big government is the path we should not follow and any Republican that hasn't been in a coma for the last 60 years should know better. So why is Jack E. Robinson looking to out Democrat the Democrats?
The answer. Mr. Robinson has caught bailout fever. He wants to give all public transportation systems and their riders a bailout. From the Herald:
“(The government) put $185 billion into (troubled lender) AIG. That would fund the T for 40 years,” Robinson said yesterday. “There is money to be used smartly and intelligently.”
Robinson, who is running against state Sen. Scott Brown for the GOP nomination in the race for the late U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s vacant seat, is suggesting the MBTA bailout as part of a proposal to make all public transportation nationwide free. Robinson aides said there are cities in Washington and Oregon that offer free public transit."
His plan is meeting the typical response. “I think that’s awesome,” 33-year-old commuter Jason Harris of Boston said. “Free is great.”. One would hope that someone who has reached the age of 33 would realize that other Americans would be paying for his "free ride". While Mr. Harris doesn't have the slightest concept of economics, I have no doubt he is one of those smug, more enlightened than thou Democrats that populate the Commonwealth.
We need a Republican that is going to fight tooth and nail against the statist policies of the Obama administration not emulate them. Scott Brown should be our next US Senator.
The answer. Mr. Robinson has caught bailout fever. He wants to give all public transportation systems and their riders a bailout. From the Herald:
“(The government) put $185 billion into (troubled lender) AIG. That would fund the T for 40 years,” Robinson said yesterday. “There is money to be used smartly and intelligently.”
Robinson, who is running against state Sen. Scott Brown for the GOP nomination in the race for the late U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s vacant seat, is suggesting the MBTA bailout as part of a proposal to make all public transportation nationwide free. Robinson aides said there are cities in Washington and Oregon that offer free public transit."
His plan is meeting the typical response. “I think that’s awesome,” 33-year-old commuter Jason Harris of Boston said. “Free is great.”. One would hope that someone who has reached the age of 33 would realize that other Americans would be paying for his "free ride". While Mr. Harris doesn't have the slightest concept of economics, I have no doubt he is one of those smug, more enlightened than thou Democrats that populate the Commonwealth.
We need a Republican that is going to fight tooth and nail against the statist policies of the Obama administration not emulate them. Scott Brown should be our next US Senator.
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
The true enemies of reform
Two stories from todays Boston Herald spotlight the pervasive and negative power the teachers unions have over our government. In the first case, the union is standing in the way of their members receiving a bonus for being outstanding at their job.
"The Boston Teachers Union staunchly opposes a performance bonus plan for top teachers - launched at the John D. O’Bryant School in 2008 and funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates and Exxon Mobil foundations - insisting the dough be divvied up among all of a school’s teachers, good and bad.
“It’s insanity,” said Jim Stergios, executive director of the nonpartisan Pioneer Institute. “They’re less concerned about promoting the interest of individual members than maintaining control over their members.”
As a product of public schools I can tell you that I had some fantastic, dedicated and in a couple of cases inspiring teachers. I also had more than a few that were clearly just collecting a paycheck and counting the days until they could retire. Excellence, in whatever field should be rewarded. If the deadwood teachers receive a bonus just for showing up it sends the wrong message.
The other issue has to do with charter schools. If you want to see an official at the National Education Association lapse into a blinding, spittle producing rage just mention the words charter school. It takes a special person to become a teacher at a charter school. They are generally required to work longer hours and are expected to be more invested in their students success. They are the type of teacher that our education system is in dire need of and they are enemy number one of the education lobby. Massachusetts with the support of Governor Patrick is trying to expand the number of charter schools in our state and the education lobby is having none of it.
"School unions swarmed the State House yesterday, leaning on lawmakers to snuff key aspects of an education reform plan that would allow more charter schools - a move that could cost the cash-strapped state $250 million in federal funding."
"Senate lawmakers advanced the bill last night after two days of bruising debate, but House lawmakers seemed doubtful the legislation would pass today, the last day of formal sessions this year.
“Who really controls the lawmaking process here? Is it the elected officials or is it the labor unions?” asked Rep. Jeff Perry (R-Sandwich), who sits on the education committee."
These unions, which typically can't get enough funding from the public trough are willing to leave money on the table in their effort to stifle reform. They are more interested in protecting their turf than seeing the children that desperately need a better education system get one. It's their government, at least in Massachusetts, we just pay the bills.
"The Boston Teachers Union staunchly opposes a performance bonus plan for top teachers - launched at the John D. O’Bryant School in 2008 and funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates and Exxon Mobil foundations - insisting the dough be divvied up among all of a school’s teachers, good and bad.
“It’s insanity,” said Jim Stergios, executive director of the nonpartisan Pioneer Institute. “They’re less concerned about promoting the interest of individual members than maintaining control over their members.”
As a product of public schools I can tell you that I had some fantastic, dedicated and in a couple of cases inspiring teachers. I also had more than a few that were clearly just collecting a paycheck and counting the days until they could retire. Excellence, in whatever field should be rewarded. If the deadwood teachers receive a bonus just for showing up it sends the wrong message.
The other issue has to do with charter schools. If you want to see an official at the National Education Association lapse into a blinding, spittle producing rage just mention the words charter school. It takes a special person to become a teacher at a charter school. They are generally required to work longer hours and are expected to be more invested in their students success. They are the type of teacher that our education system is in dire need of and they are enemy number one of the education lobby. Massachusetts with the support of Governor Patrick is trying to expand the number of charter schools in our state and the education lobby is having none of it.
"School unions swarmed the State House yesterday, leaning on lawmakers to snuff key aspects of an education reform plan that would allow more charter schools - a move that could cost the cash-strapped state $250 million in federal funding."
"Senate lawmakers advanced the bill last night after two days of bruising debate, but House lawmakers seemed doubtful the legislation would pass today, the last day of formal sessions this year.
“Who really controls the lawmaking process here? Is it the elected officials or is it the labor unions?” asked Rep. Jeff Perry (R-Sandwich), who sits on the education committee."
These unions, which typically can't get enough funding from the public trough are willing to leave money on the table in their effort to stifle reform. They are more interested in protecting their turf than seeing the children that desperately need a better education system get one. It's their government, at least in Massachusetts, we just pay the bills.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Massachusetts Miracle 2.0
There has been a lot of gloom and doom talk about residents of Massachusetts packing up and leaving the state, mainly to lower tax New Hampshire. With the census coming up our entrenched members of Congress have been wondering which one is going to be redistricted out of a seat. Face it, the only way we are ever going to get rid of these guys and girl is if they are forced to run against each other. It will be a case of addition by subtraction for those of us who believe in actually limiting the scope of the Federal government.
Well, according to Recovery.gov our representatives for life can rest easier in the knowledge that they will never have to worry about making a living in the private sector. For you see, President Obama's magical stimulus has created new Congressional districts for the Commonwealth, and in some of them it has actually created jobs. So instead of losing a seat or two we have gained 6. If Stevie Pags is unable to buy his way into the Senate he may want to try for one of our new seats in the U.S. House. They are(complete with jobs created and money spent):
District/ Jobs created/ Money spent
00/ 162/ 2,222,406
11/ 17.9/ 1,353,691
14/ 0/ 214,463
20/ 0/ 281,790
25/ 0/ 24,404,085
86/ 0/ 1,405,891
Don't worry folks, our counrty is in the very best of hands.
Well, according to Recovery.gov our representatives for life can rest easier in the knowledge that they will never have to worry about making a living in the private sector. For you see, President Obama's magical stimulus has created new Congressional districts for the Commonwealth, and in some of them it has actually created jobs. So instead of losing a seat or two we have gained 6. If Stevie Pags is unable to buy his way into the Senate he may want to try for one of our new seats in the U.S. House. They are(complete with jobs created and money spent):
District/ Jobs created/ Money spent
00/ 162/ 2,222,406
11/ 17.9/ 1,353,691
14/ 0/ 214,463
20/ 0/ 281,790
25/ 0/ 24,404,085
86/ 0/ 1,405,891
Don't worry folks, our counrty is in the very best of hands.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Debate begins
The Senate is set to begin debate this week on Obamacare. The fine print of the House bill, passed with one Republican vote has been examined and the prognosis for the nations' fiscal health is dire. The non-partisan Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services released a report on Friday detailing what becomes of our health care delivery system if this legislation becomes law. Short version, all the promises President Obama has made to Americans will be broken. Some of the center's findings:
Health Care Costs Increase: “In aggregate, we estimate that for calendar years 2010 through 2019 [national health expenditures (NHE)] would increase by $289 billion, or 0.8 percent, over the updates baseline projection that was released on June 29, 2009.”
“However, a number of workers who currently have employer coverage would likely become enrolled in the expanded Medicaid program or receive subsidized coverage through the Exchange. For example, some smaller employers would be inclined to terminate their existing coverage, and companies with low average salaries might find it to their - and their employees’ - advantage to end their plans … We estimate that such actions would collectively reduce the number of people with employer-sponsored health coverage by about 12 million.”
“18 million are estimated to choose not to be insured and to pay the penalty associated with the individual mandate. For the most part, these would be individuals with relatively low health care expenses for whom the individual or family insurance premium would be significantly in excess of the penalty and their anticipated health benefit value.”
“Section 1161 of Division B of H.R. 3962 would set Medicare Advantage capitation benchmarks … We estimate that in 2014 when the MA provisions would be fully phased in, enrollment in MA plans would decreased by 64 percent (from its projected level of 13.2 million under current law to 4.7 million under the proposal).”
“Of the additional 34 million who are estimated to be insured in 2019 as a result of H.R. 3962, about three-fifths (21 million) would receive Medicaid coverage due to the expansion of eligibility to those adults under 150 percent of the FPL.”
“H.R. 3962 would introduce permanent annual productivity adjustments to price updates for institutional providers… Over time, a sustained reduction in payment updates, based on productivity expectations that are difficult to attain, would cause Medicare payment rates to grow more slowly than and in a way that was unrelated to, the providers’ costs of furnishing services to beneficiaries. Thus, providers for whom Medicare constitutes a substantive portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable and might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries).”
“In practice, supply constraints might interfere with providing the services by the additional 34 million insured persons. …providers might tend to accept more patients who have private insurance (with relatively attractive payment rates) and fewer Medicaid patients, exacerbating existing access problems for the latter group."
The American people can't afford a bill that: increases the costs of health insurance, will cause millions, including seniors to lose their existing coverage, adds to the budget deficit. The American people need to make sure their Senators know that voting for nationalized health care will be political suicide.
Health Care Costs Increase: “In aggregate, we estimate that for calendar years 2010 through 2019 [national health expenditures (NHE)] would increase by $289 billion, or 0.8 percent, over the updates baseline projection that was released on June 29, 2009.”
“However, a number of workers who currently have employer coverage would likely become enrolled in the expanded Medicaid program or receive subsidized coverage through the Exchange. For example, some smaller employers would be inclined to terminate their existing coverage, and companies with low average salaries might find it to their - and their employees’ - advantage to end their plans … We estimate that such actions would collectively reduce the number of people with employer-sponsored health coverage by about 12 million.”
“18 million are estimated to choose not to be insured and to pay the penalty associated with the individual mandate. For the most part, these would be individuals with relatively low health care expenses for whom the individual or family insurance premium would be significantly in excess of the penalty and their anticipated health benefit value.”
“Section 1161 of Division B of H.R. 3962 would set Medicare Advantage capitation benchmarks … We estimate that in 2014 when the MA provisions would be fully phased in, enrollment in MA plans would decreased by 64 percent (from its projected level of 13.2 million under current law to 4.7 million under the proposal).”
“Of the additional 34 million who are estimated to be insured in 2019 as a result of H.R. 3962, about three-fifths (21 million) would receive Medicaid coverage due to the expansion of eligibility to those adults under 150 percent of the FPL.”
“H.R. 3962 would introduce permanent annual productivity adjustments to price updates for institutional providers… Over time, a sustained reduction in payment updates, based on productivity expectations that are difficult to attain, would cause Medicare payment rates to grow more slowly than and in a way that was unrelated to, the providers’ costs of furnishing services to beneficiaries. Thus, providers for whom Medicare constitutes a substantive portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable and might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries).”
“In practice, supply constraints might interfere with providing the services by the additional 34 million insured persons. …providers might tend to accept more patients who have private insurance (with relatively attractive payment rates) and fewer Medicaid patients, exacerbating existing access problems for the latter group."
The American people can't afford a bill that: increases the costs of health insurance, will cause millions, including seniors to lose their existing coverage, adds to the budget deficit. The American people need to make sure their Senators know that voting for nationalized health care will be political suicide.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Here we go
Following the advice of former President Clinton to speed things along, Harry Reid filed a motion to start debate next Monday the 16th. The Republicans can object which will delay things till Tuesday. Former President Clinton is afraid the "teabaggers" will win the debate if the Senate delays the health care bill any longer. Actually, he says they are mad because they are losing the debate, but his actions belie his words. So, being a good soldier Harry Reid will introduce his vapor bill and debate will begin next week. It's called a vapor bill because it hasn't even been written yet. They will be debating a bill to nationalize one fifth of our economy and the public won't be able to read the fine print.
Why are the Democrats in such a rush to pass a bill? Todays numbers from Gallup have the Republicans winning the Generic Congressional ballot by 4 points. More importantly they win independents 52-30. Harry Reid is so desperate because he knows the longer they take to vote, the more time the American public has to learn what the Democrats are trying to do to their health care. The last thing Harry Reid can afford is for his caucus to go home for Thanksgiving and be confronted by angry voters. Sens. Nelson, Bayh, Lincoln etc. may decide they would rather stay in office than realize the progressives' dream of socializing American medicine and not be around to enjoy the benefits of greater government control over its citizens.
Why are the Democrats in such a rush to pass a bill? Todays numbers from Gallup have the Republicans winning the Generic Congressional ballot by 4 points. More importantly they win independents 52-30. Harry Reid is so desperate because he knows the longer they take to vote, the more time the American public has to learn what the Democrats are trying to do to their health care. The last thing Harry Reid can afford is for his caucus to go home for Thanksgiving and be confronted by angry voters. Sens. Nelson, Bayh, Lincoln etc. may decide they would rather stay in office than realize the progressives' dream of socializing American medicine and not be around to enjoy the benefits of greater government control over its citizens.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
220-215
Pelosicare has passed the House and now moves to the Senate. Republicans with the exception of Rep. Cao(R-LA)stood up for the American taxpayer. I hope Rep. Cao had the foresight to get his bribe, I mean promises from Nancy Pelosi in writing. The Democrats will promise you the world to sell out your principles and then stiff you after you have done their bidding. Just ask Arlen Specter.
Rep. Cao this little nugget is part of the legislation you voted to foist on the American people you represent. How can you call yourself a Republican when you think it is acceptable to throw Americans in jail for not buying a government approved health care plan?
PELOSI: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail
JCT Confirms Failure to Comply with Democrats’ Mandate Can Lead to 5 Years in Jail
Friday, November 06, 2009
Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.
In response to the JCT letter, Camp said: “This is the ultimate example of the Democrats’ command-and-control style of governing – buy what we tell you or go to jail. It is outrageous and it should be stopped immediately.”
Key excerpts from the JCT letter appear below:
“H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1]
- - - - - - - - - -
“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…” [page 2]
- - - - - - - - - -
“Criminal penalties
Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:
• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3]
When confronted with this same issue during its consideration of a similar individual mandate tax, the Senate Finance Committee worked on a bipartisan basis to include language in its bill that shielded Americans from civil and criminal penalties. The Pelosi bill, however, contains no similar language protecting American citizens from civil and criminal tax penalties that could include a $250,000 fine and five years in jail.
“The Senate Finance Committee had the good sense to eliminate the extreme penalty of incarceration. Speaker Pelosi’s decision to leave in the jail time provision is a threat to every family who cannot afford the $15,000 premium her plan creates. Fortunately, Republicans have an alternative that will lower health insurance costs without raising taxes or cutting Medicare,” said Camp.
According to the Congressional Budget Office the lowest cost family non-group plan under the Speaker’s bill would cost $15,000 in 2016.
Rep. Cao this little nugget is part of the legislation you voted to foist on the American people you represent. How can you call yourself a Republican when you think it is acceptable to throw Americans in jail for not buying a government approved health care plan?
PELOSI: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail
JCT Confirms Failure to Comply with Democrats’ Mandate Can Lead to 5 Years in Jail
Friday, November 06, 2009
Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.
In response to the JCT letter, Camp said: “This is the ultimate example of the Democrats’ command-and-control style of governing – buy what we tell you or go to jail. It is outrageous and it should be stopped immediately.”
Key excerpts from the JCT letter appear below:
“H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1]
- - - - - - - - - -
“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…” [page 2]
- - - - - - - - - -
“Criminal penalties
Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:
• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3]
When confronted with this same issue during its consideration of a similar individual mandate tax, the Senate Finance Committee worked on a bipartisan basis to include language in its bill that shielded Americans from civil and criminal penalties. The Pelosi bill, however, contains no similar language protecting American citizens from civil and criminal tax penalties that could include a $250,000 fine and five years in jail.
“The Senate Finance Committee had the good sense to eliminate the extreme penalty of incarceration. Speaker Pelosi’s decision to leave in the jail time provision is a threat to every family who cannot afford the $15,000 premium her plan creates. Fortunately, Republicans have an alternative that will lower health insurance costs without raising taxes or cutting Medicare,” said Camp.
According to the Congressional Budget Office the lowest cost family non-group plan under the Speaker’s bill would cost $15,000 in 2016.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Price tag: 3 Trillion
Senator Gregg (R-NH) has taken a look at what the House bill actually will cost. He finds:
Senator Gregg stated, “The CBO estimate released last night finally sheds light on the smoke and mirrors game the majority has been playing with the cost of their health care reform proposal. Over the first 10 years, this legislation builds in gross new spending of $1.7 trillion – and most of the new spending doesn’t even start until 2014. Once that spending is fully phased in, the House Democratic bill rings up at more than $3 trillion over ten years.
“Additionally, this bill cuts critical Medicare and Medicaid funding by $628 billion, accounts for nearly $1.2 trillion in tax and fee increases and will explode the scope of government by putting the nation’s health care system in the hands of Washington bureaucrats. The $3 trillion price tag defies common sense – we simply cannot add all this new spending to the government rolls and claim to control the deficit.
“If we continue to pile more and more debt on the next generation, they will never be able to get out from under it. The health care system needs reform, but this massive expansion of government, financed by our children and grandchildren, is the wrong way to proceed.".
Is it any wonder that Nancy Pelosi is pushing a vote before these numbers can be digested by the American people? For the record this bill raises taxes on the middle class, adds to the national debt and will force some health care plans out of the market. President Obama promised that he wouldn't sign legislation that included any of these provisions let alone all three. The time is rapidly approaching to see if he is a man of his word. Don't bet on it.
Senator Gregg stated, “The CBO estimate released last night finally sheds light on the smoke and mirrors game the majority has been playing with the cost of their health care reform proposal. Over the first 10 years, this legislation builds in gross new spending of $1.7 trillion – and most of the new spending doesn’t even start until 2014. Once that spending is fully phased in, the House Democratic bill rings up at more than $3 trillion over ten years.
“Additionally, this bill cuts critical Medicare and Medicaid funding by $628 billion, accounts for nearly $1.2 trillion in tax and fee increases and will explode the scope of government by putting the nation’s health care system in the hands of Washington bureaucrats. The $3 trillion price tag defies common sense – we simply cannot add all this new spending to the government rolls and claim to control the deficit.
“If we continue to pile more and more debt on the next generation, they will never be able to get out from under it. The health care system needs reform, but this massive expansion of government, financed by our children and grandchildren, is the wrong way to proceed.".
Is it any wonder that Nancy Pelosi is pushing a vote before these numbers can be digested by the American people? For the record this bill raises taxes on the middle class, adds to the national debt and will force some health care plans out of the market. President Obama promised that he wouldn't sign legislation that included any of these provisions let alone all three. The time is rapidly approaching to see if he is a man of his word. Don't bet on it.
Friday, November 6, 2009
What's at stake
It's a shame we don't have a single member of our Congressional delegation like Mr. Rogers. I'm sure when the vote happens on Saturday they will vote 10-0 for Pelosicare.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Full speed ahead
The Democratic victories in NY-23 and CA-10 last night by proponents of the "public option" will encourage Nancy Pelosi to move ahead with with her health care scheme. Centrist Democrats will see the Democratic pickup in NY-23 as evidence that a vote for nationalized medicine is not political suicide after all. In fact, they may fear losing in a primary for not supporting this abomination of a bill more than losing to a Republican in the general election. The Republican leadership and the grassroots need to pick themselves up this morning and work together to prevent this bill from being rammed through Congress before the public knows what this bill means for their future. Because the more the public knows about this bill the less popular it will become and voting for it really will be joing the " Kamikaze caucus".
For starters, one of the chief arguments the advocates' of government intervention make is that private insurers spend too much money on overhead. They claim the Medicare and Medicaid model of low administrative costs is the path we should follow. Nevermind the billions in Medicare and Medicaid fraud that occurs because of said lax oversight every year. Nothing to see behind that curtain. Next argument: insurance companies are evil, look at their obscene profits! Actually the inurance industry profit margin averaged 2.2% last year. So, I guess don't look behind curtain two either.
The House Republican Conference has looked at the Pelosi bill and has found that it creates a bureaucratic maze of new health care gatekeepers, 111 to be exact. They are:
1. Retiree Reserve Trust Fund (Section 111(d), p. 61)
2. Grant program for wellness programs to small employers (Section 112, p. 62)
3. Grant program for State health access programs (Section 114, p. 72)
4. Program of administrative simplification (Section 115, p. 76)
5. Health Benefits Advisory Committee (Section 223, p. 111)
6. Health Choices Administration (Section 241, p. 131)
7. Qualified Health Benefits Plan Ombudsman (Section 244, p. 138)
8. Health Insurance Exchange (Section 201, p. 155)
9. Program for technical assistance to employees of small businesses buying Exchange coverage (Section 305(h), p. 191)
10. Mechanism for insurance risk pooling to be established by Health Choices Commissioner (Section 306(b), p. 194)
11. Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund (Section 307, p. 195)
12. State-based Health Insurance Exchanges (Section 308, p. 197)
13. Grant program for health insurance cooperatives (Section 310, p. 206)
14. "Public Health Insurance Option" (Section 321, p. 211)
15. Ombudsman for "Public Health Insurance Option" (Section 321(d), p. 213)
16. Account for receipts and disbursements for "Public Health Insurance Option" (Section 322(b), p. 215)
17. Telehealth Advisory Committee (Section 1191 (b), p. 589)
18. Demonstration program providing reimbursement for "culturally and linguistically appropriate services" (Section 1222, p. 617)
19. Demonstration program for shared decision making using patient decision aids (Section 1236, p. 648)
20. Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicare (Section 1301, p. 653)
21. Independent patient-centered medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302, p. 672)
22. Community-based medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302(d), p. 681)
23. Independence at home demonstration program (Section 1312, p. 718)
24. Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research (Section 1401(a), p. 734)
25. Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission (Section 1401(a), p. 738)
26. Patient ombudsman for comparative effectiveness research (Section 1401(a), p. 753)
27. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1412(b)(1), p. 784)
28. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for nursing facilities (Section 1412 (b)(2), p. 786)
29. Special focus facility program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1413(a)(3), p. 796)
30. Special focus facility program for nursing facilities (Section 1413(b)(3), p. 804)
31. National independent monitor pilot program for skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities (Section 1422, p. 859)
32. Demonstration program for approved teaching health centers with respect to Medicare GME (Section 1502(d), p. 933)
33. Pilot program to develop anti-fraud compliance systems for Medicare providers (Section 1635, p. 978)
34. Special Inspector General for the Health Insurance Exchange (Section 1647, p. 1000)
35. Medical home pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1722, p. 1058)
36. Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1730A, p. 1073)
37. Nursing facility supplemental payment program (Section 1745, p. 1106)
38. Demonstration program for Medicaid coverage to stabilize emergency medical conditions in institutions for mental diseases (Section 1787, p. 1149)
39. Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund (Section 1802, p. 1162)
40. "Identifiable office or program" within CMS to "provide for improved coordination between Medicare and Medicaid in the case of dual eligibles" (Section 1905, p. 1191)
41. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Section 1907, p. 1198)
42. Public Health Investment Fund (Section 2002, p. 1214)
43. Scholarships for service in health professional needs areas (Section 2211, p. 1224)
44. Program for training medical residents in community-based settings (Section 2214, p. 1236)45. Grant program for training in dentistry programs (Section 2215, p. 1240)
46. Public Health Workforce Corps (Section 2231, p. 1253)
47. Public health workforce scholarship program (Section 2231, p. 1254)
48. Public health workforce loan forgiveness program (Section 2231, p. 1258)
49. Grant program for innovations in interdisciplinary care (Section 2252, p. 1272)
50. Advisory Committee on Health Workforce Evaluation and Assessment (Section 2261, p. 1275)
51. Prevention and Wellness Trust (Section 2301, p. 1286)
52. Clinical Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1295)
53. Community Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1301)
54. Grant program for community prevention and wellness research (Section 2301, p. 1305)
55. Grant program for research and demonstration projects related to wellness incentives (Section 2301, p. 1305)
56. Grant program for community prevention and wellness services (Section 2301, p. 1308)
57. Grant program for public health infrastructure (Section 2301, p. 1313)
58. Center for Quality Improvement (Section 2401, p. 1322)
59. Assistant Secretary for Health Information (Section 2402, p. 1330)
60. Grant program to support the operation of school-based health clinics (Section 2511, p. 1352)
61. Grant program for nurse-managed health centers (Section 2512, p. 1361)
62. Grants for labor-management programs for nursing training (Section 2521, p. 1372)
63. Grant program for interdisciplinary mental and behavioral health training (Section 2522, p. 1382)
64. "No Child Left Unimmunized Against Influenza" demonstration grant program (Section 2524, p. 1391)
65. Healthy Teen Initiative grant program regarding teen pregnancy (Section 2526, p. 1398)
66. Grant program for interdisciplinary training, education, and services for individuals with autism (Section 2527(a), p. 1402)
67. University centers for excellence in developmental disabilities education (Section 2527(b), p. 1410)
68. Grant program to implement medication therapy management services (Section 2528, p. 1412)
69. Grant program to promote positive health behaviors in underserved communities (Section 2530, p. 1422)
70. Grant program for State alternative medical liability laws (Section 2531, p. 1431)
71. Grant program to develop infant mortality programs (Section 2532, p. 1433)
72. Grant program to prepare secondary school students for careers in health professions (Section 2533, p. 1437)
73. Grant program for community-based collaborative care (Section 2534, p. 1440)
74. Grant program for community-based overweight and obesity prevention (Section 2535, p. 1457)
75. Grant program for reducing the student-to-school nurse ratio in primary and secondary schools (Section 2536, p. 1462)
76. Demonstration project of grants to medical-legal partnerships (Section 2537, p. 1464)
77. Center for Emergency Care under the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (Section 2552, p. 1478)
78. Council for Emergency Care (Section 2552, p 1479)
79. Grant program to support demonstration programs that design and implement regionalized emergency care systems (Section 2553, p. 1480)
80. Grant program to assist veterans who wish to become emergency medical technicians upon discharge (Section 2554, p. 1487)
81. Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee (Section 2562, p. 1494)
82. National Medical Device Registry (Section 2571, p. 1501)
83. CLASS Independence Fund (Section 2581, p. 1597)
84. CLASS Independence Fund Board of Trustees (Section 2581, p. 1598)
85. CLASS Independence Advisory Council (Section 2581, p. 1602)
86. Health and Human Services Coordinating Committee on Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1610)
87. National Women's Health Information Center (Section 2588, p. 1611)
88. Centers for Disease Control Office of Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1614)
89. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Women's Health and Gender-Based Research (Section 2588, p. 1617)
90. Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1618)
91. Food and Drug Administration Office of Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1621)
92. Personal Care Attendant Workforce Advisory Panel (Section 2589(a)(2), p. 1624)
93. Grant program for national health workforce online training (Section 2591, p. 1629)
94. Grant program to disseminate best practices on implementing health workforce investment programs (Section 2591, p. 1632)
95. Demonstration program for chronic shortages of health professionals (Section 3101, p. 1717)96. Demonstration program for substance abuse counselor educational curricula (Section 3101, p. 1719)49. Grant program for innovations in interdisciplinary care (Section 2252, p. 1272)
97. Program of Indian community education on mental illness (Section 3101, p. 1722)
98. Intergovernmental Task Force on Indian environmental and nuclear hazards (Section 3101, p. 1754)
99. Office of Indian Men's Health (Section 3101, p. 1765)
100. Indian Health facilities appropriation advisory board (Section 3101, p. 1774)
101. Indian Health facilities needs assessment workgroup (Section 3101, p. 1775)
102. Indian Health Service tribal facilities joint venture demonstration projects (Section 3101, p. 1809)
103. Urban youth treatment center demonstration project (Section 3101, p. 1873)
104. Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for diabetes prevention (Section 3101, p. 1874)
105. Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for health IT adoption (Section 3101, p. 1877)
106. Mental health technician training program (Section 3101, p. 1898)
107. Indian youth telemental health demonstration project (Section 3101, p. 1909)
108. Program for treatment of child sexual abuse victims and perpetrators (Section 3101, p. 1925)
109. Program for treatment of domestic violence and sexual abuse (Section 3101, p. 1927)
110. Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1966)
111. Committee for the Establishment of the Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1968)
This bureaucracy is what will stand between you and your doctor if Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and President Obama get their way. Keep fighting! While the odds are heavily stacked against the ideals of limited government and individual liberty, they are not insurmountable.
For starters, one of the chief arguments the advocates' of government intervention make is that private insurers spend too much money on overhead. They claim the Medicare and Medicaid model of low administrative costs is the path we should follow. Nevermind the billions in Medicare and Medicaid fraud that occurs because of said lax oversight every year. Nothing to see behind that curtain. Next argument: insurance companies are evil, look at their obscene profits! Actually the inurance industry profit margin averaged 2.2% last year. So, I guess don't look behind curtain two either.
The House Republican Conference has looked at the Pelosi bill and has found that it creates a bureaucratic maze of new health care gatekeepers, 111 to be exact. They are:
1. Retiree Reserve Trust Fund (Section 111(d), p. 61)
2. Grant program for wellness programs to small employers (Section 112, p. 62)
3. Grant program for State health access programs (Section 114, p. 72)
4. Program of administrative simplification (Section 115, p. 76)
5. Health Benefits Advisory Committee (Section 223, p. 111)
6. Health Choices Administration (Section 241, p. 131)
7. Qualified Health Benefits Plan Ombudsman (Section 244, p. 138)
8. Health Insurance Exchange (Section 201, p. 155)
9. Program for technical assistance to employees of small businesses buying Exchange coverage (Section 305(h), p. 191)
10. Mechanism for insurance risk pooling to be established by Health Choices Commissioner (Section 306(b), p. 194)
11. Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund (Section 307, p. 195)
12. State-based Health Insurance Exchanges (Section 308, p. 197)
13. Grant program for health insurance cooperatives (Section 310, p. 206)
14. "Public Health Insurance Option" (Section 321, p. 211)
15. Ombudsman for "Public Health Insurance Option" (Section 321(d), p. 213)
16. Account for receipts and disbursements for "Public Health Insurance Option" (Section 322(b), p. 215)
17. Telehealth Advisory Committee (Section 1191 (b), p. 589)
18. Demonstration program providing reimbursement for "culturally and linguistically appropriate services" (Section 1222, p. 617)
19. Demonstration program for shared decision making using patient decision aids (Section 1236, p. 648)
20. Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicare (Section 1301, p. 653)
21. Independent patient-centered medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302, p. 672)
22. Community-based medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302(d), p. 681)
23. Independence at home demonstration program (Section 1312, p. 718)
24. Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research (Section 1401(a), p. 734)
25. Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission (Section 1401(a), p. 738)
26. Patient ombudsman for comparative effectiveness research (Section 1401(a), p. 753)
27. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1412(b)(1), p. 784)
28. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for nursing facilities (Section 1412 (b)(2), p. 786)
29. Special focus facility program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1413(a)(3), p. 796)
30. Special focus facility program for nursing facilities (Section 1413(b)(3), p. 804)
31. National independent monitor pilot program for skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities (Section 1422, p. 859)
32. Demonstration program for approved teaching health centers with respect to Medicare GME (Section 1502(d), p. 933)
33. Pilot program to develop anti-fraud compliance systems for Medicare providers (Section 1635, p. 978)
34. Special Inspector General for the Health Insurance Exchange (Section 1647, p. 1000)
35. Medical home pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1722, p. 1058)
36. Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1730A, p. 1073)
37. Nursing facility supplemental payment program (Section 1745, p. 1106)
38. Demonstration program for Medicaid coverage to stabilize emergency medical conditions in institutions for mental diseases (Section 1787, p. 1149)
39. Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund (Section 1802, p. 1162)
40. "Identifiable office or program" within CMS to "provide for improved coordination between Medicare and Medicaid in the case of dual eligibles" (Section 1905, p. 1191)
41. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Section 1907, p. 1198)
42. Public Health Investment Fund (Section 2002, p. 1214)
43. Scholarships for service in health professional needs areas (Section 2211, p. 1224)
44. Program for training medical residents in community-based settings (Section 2214, p. 1236)45. Grant program for training in dentistry programs (Section 2215, p. 1240)
46. Public Health Workforce Corps (Section 2231, p. 1253)
47. Public health workforce scholarship program (Section 2231, p. 1254)
48. Public health workforce loan forgiveness program (Section 2231, p. 1258)
49. Grant program for innovations in interdisciplinary care (Section 2252, p. 1272)
50. Advisory Committee on Health Workforce Evaluation and Assessment (Section 2261, p. 1275)
51. Prevention and Wellness Trust (Section 2301, p. 1286)
52. Clinical Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1295)
53. Community Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1301)
54. Grant program for community prevention and wellness research (Section 2301, p. 1305)
55. Grant program for research and demonstration projects related to wellness incentives (Section 2301, p. 1305)
56. Grant program for community prevention and wellness services (Section 2301, p. 1308)
57. Grant program for public health infrastructure (Section 2301, p. 1313)
58. Center for Quality Improvement (Section 2401, p. 1322)
59. Assistant Secretary for Health Information (Section 2402, p. 1330)
60. Grant program to support the operation of school-based health clinics (Section 2511, p. 1352)
61. Grant program for nurse-managed health centers (Section 2512, p. 1361)
62. Grants for labor-management programs for nursing training (Section 2521, p. 1372)
63. Grant program for interdisciplinary mental and behavioral health training (Section 2522, p. 1382)
64. "No Child Left Unimmunized Against Influenza" demonstration grant program (Section 2524, p. 1391)
65. Healthy Teen Initiative grant program regarding teen pregnancy (Section 2526, p. 1398)
66. Grant program for interdisciplinary training, education, and services for individuals with autism (Section 2527(a), p. 1402)
67. University centers for excellence in developmental disabilities education (Section 2527(b), p. 1410)
68. Grant program to implement medication therapy management services (Section 2528, p. 1412)
69. Grant program to promote positive health behaviors in underserved communities (Section 2530, p. 1422)
70. Grant program for State alternative medical liability laws (Section 2531, p. 1431)
71. Grant program to develop infant mortality programs (Section 2532, p. 1433)
72. Grant program to prepare secondary school students for careers in health professions (Section 2533, p. 1437)
73. Grant program for community-based collaborative care (Section 2534, p. 1440)
74. Grant program for community-based overweight and obesity prevention (Section 2535, p. 1457)
75. Grant program for reducing the student-to-school nurse ratio in primary and secondary schools (Section 2536, p. 1462)
76. Demonstration project of grants to medical-legal partnerships (Section 2537, p. 1464)
77. Center for Emergency Care under the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (Section 2552, p. 1478)
78. Council for Emergency Care (Section 2552, p 1479)
79. Grant program to support demonstration programs that design and implement regionalized emergency care systems (Section 2553, p. 1480)
80. Grant program to assist veterans who wish to become emergency medical technicians upon discharge (Section 2554, p. 1487)
81. Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee (Section 2562, p. 1494)
82. National Medical Device Registry (Section 2571, p. 1501)
83. CLASS Independence Fund (Section 2581, p. 1597)
84. CLASS Independence Fund Board of Trustees (Section 2581, p. 1598)
85. CLASS Independence Advisory Council (Section 2581, p. 1602)
86. Health and Human Services Coordinating Committee on Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1610)
87. National Women's Health Information Center (Section 2588, p. 1611)
88. Centers for Disease Control Office of Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1614)
89. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Women's Health and Gender-Based Research (Section 2588, p. 1617)
90. Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1618)
91. Food and Drug Administration Office of Women's Health (Section 2588, p. 1621)
92. Personal Care Attendant Workforce Advisory Panel (Section 2589(a)(2), p. 1624)
93. Grant program for national health workforce online training (Section 2591, p. 1629)
94. Grant program to disseminate best practices on implementing health workforce investment programs (Section 2591, p. 1632)
95. Demonstration program for chronic shortages of health professionals (Section 3101, p. 1717)96. Demonstration program for substance abuse counselor educational curricula (Section 3101, p. 1719)49. Grant program for innovations in interdisciplinary care (Section 2252, p. 1272)
97. Program of Indian community education on mental illness (Section 3101, p. 1722)
98. Intergovernmental Task Force on Indian environmental and nuclear hazards (Section 3101, p. 1754)
99. Office of Indian Men's Health (Section 3101, p. 1765)
100. Indian Health facilities appropriation advisory board (Section 3101, p. 1774)
101. Indian Health facilities needs assessment workgroup (Section 3101, p. 1775)
102. Indian Health Service tribal facilities joint venture demonstration projects (Section 3101, p. 1809)
103. Urban youth treatment center demonstration project (Section 3101, p. 1873)
104. Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for diabetes prevention (Section 3101, p. 1874)
105. Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for health IT adoption (Section 3101, p. 1877)
106. Mental health technician training program (Section 3101, p. 1898)
107. Indian youth telemental health demonstration project (Section 3101, p. 1909)
108. Program for treatment of child sexual abuse victims and perpetrators (Section 3101, p. 1925)
109. Program for treatment of domestic violence and sexual abuse (Section 3101, p. 1927)
110. Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1966)
111. Committee for the Establishment of the Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1968)
This bureaucracy is what will stand between you and your doctor if Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and President Obama get their way. Keep fighting! While the odds are heavily stacked against the ideals of limited government and individual liberty, they are not insurmountable.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Entourage: The White House years
The Canadian Free Press is about to join Fox news on the White House enemies list. They have taken the time to document the large staff that caters to Michelle Obama:
$172,200 - Sher, Susan (CHIEF OF STAFF)$140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR OF POLICY AND PROJECTS FOR THE FIRST LADY)$113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND WHITE HOUSE SOCIAL SECRETARY)$102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE FIRST LADY)Winter, Melissa E. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE FIRST LADY)$90,000 - Medina, David S. (DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE FIRST LADY)$84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. (DIRECTOR AND PRESS SECRETARY TO THE FIRST LADY)$75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (DIRECTOR OF SCHEDULING AND ADVANCE FOR THE FIRST LADY)$70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF POLICY AND PROJECTS FOR THE FIRST LADY)$65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY SOCIAL SECRETARY)Reinstein, Joseph B. (DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY SOCIAL SECRETARY)$62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SCHEDULING AND EVENTS COORDINATOR FOR THE FIRST LADY)$60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ADVANCE AND TRIP DIRECTOR FOR THE FIRST LADY)$52,500 - Lewis, Dana M. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT AND PERSONAL AIDE TO THE FIRST LADY)$52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY TO THE FIRST LADY)$50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT FOR SCHEDULING AND TRAVELING AIDE TO THE FIRST LADY)$45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE FIRST LADY)$45,000 - Tubman, Samantha (DEPUTY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR,SOCIAL OFFICE)$40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE FIRST LADY)$36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M (STAFF ASSISTANT TO THE SOCIAL SECRETARY)Bookey, Natalie (STAFF ASSISTANT)Jackson, Deilia A. (DEPUTY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE FIRST LADY)This adds up to a whopping $1,600,700.00 and the amount doesn't include the elite benefit packages granted to the White House staff and their significant others (include same-sex partners). Nor does the figure take into account the salaries for the two additional full-time staff members mentioned by Mrs. Obama's Press Secretary nor the full time hair-dresser and makeup artist assigned to her. A guesstimate of the total salaries for Mrs. Obama's attendants is $1,750,00.00 plus the additional benefits.
So, the First Lady has a staff with a cumulative salary of almost 2 million dollars. When is the American media going to get off their duffs and report this great waste of the taxpayers dollars? The Obama's think nothing of flying up to New York for a date night or to Denmark for a day to pitch for the Olympics on the taxpayers' dime. This is unseemly excess in a time when most Americans are trying to make every penny count.
$172,200 - Sher, Susan (CHIEF OF STAFF)$140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (DEPUTY ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR OF POLICY AND PROJECTS FOR THE FIRST LADY)$113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND WHITE HOUSE SOCIAL SECRETARY)$102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR OF COMMUNICATIONS FOR THE FIRST LADY)Winter, Melissa E. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE FIRST LADY)$90,000 - Medina, David S. (DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE FIRST LADY)$84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. (DIRECTOR AND PRESS SECRETARY TO THE FIRST LADY)$75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (DIRECTOR OF SCHEDULING AND ADVANCE FOR THE FIRST LADY)$70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF POLICY AND PROJECTS FOR THE FIRST LADY)$65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY SOCIAL SECRETARY)Reinstein, Joseph B. (DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY SOCIAL SECRETARY)$62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF SCHEDULING AND EVENTS COORDINATOR FOR THE FIRST LADY)$60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF ADVANCE AND TRIP DIRECTOR FOR THE FIRST LADY)$52,500 - Lewis, Dana M. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT AND PERSONAL AIDE TO THE FIRST LADY)$52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR AND DEPUTY PRESS SECRETARY TO THE FIRST LADY)$50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (SPECIAL ASSISTANT FOR SCHEDULING AND TRAVELING AIDE TO THE FIRST LADY)$45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE FIRST LADY)$45,000 - Tubman, Samantha (DEPUTY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR,SOCIAL OFFICE)$40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT TO THE CHIEF OF STAFF TO THE FIRST LADY)$36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M (STAFF ASSISTANT TO THE SOCIAL SECRETARY)Bookey, Natalie (STAFF ASSISTANT)Jackson, Deilia A. (DEPUTY ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF CORRESPONDENCE FOR THE FIRST LADY)This adds up to a whopping $1,600,700.00 and the amount doesn't include the elite benefit packages granted to the White House staff and their significant others (include same-sex partners). Nor does the figure take into account the salaries for the two additional full-time staff members mentioned by Mrs. Obama's Press Secretary nor the full time hair-dresser and makeup artist assigned to her. A guesstimate of the total salaries for Mrs. Obama's attendants is $1,750,00.00 plus the additional benefits.
So, the First Lady has a staff with a cumulative salary of almost 2 million dollars. When is the American media going to get off their duffs and report this great waste of the taxpayers dollars? The Obama's think nothing of flying up to New York for a date night or to Denmark for a day to pitch for the Olympics on the taxpayers' dime. This is unseemly excess in a time when most Americans are trying to make every penny count.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Harry "Kamikaze" Reid
This scene is from Ohio, but it is being repeated all over the nation. The government promised to deliver over 100 million doses of H1N1 vaccine by now, they have delivered barely a fifth of that total. My fiance's nephew, who due to asthma is considered high risk, received a dose last week, but it was too late. We found out yesterday that he has contracted H1N1 and at 7 years of age will be quarantined to his room to keep his family from becoming infected. Since we saw him on Friday, when he was technically contagious, my fiance and I are hoping our contact was brief enough to spare us the ordeal that is swine flu. The inability of the government to deliver vaccine and the long lines that develop when some becomes available give a taste of what will happen if the government becomes responsible for providing our health care.
Yesterday Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that the public option will be included in the Senate bill. It's somehow fitting that since Halloween is this week that the public option has returned from the dead. Gallup just released a poll that shows a majority of Americans do not support the public option and more importantly know that it is more trick than treat. They know it is going to cause their health care costs to go up and their access and quality of care to go down. Obamacare isn't the only thing polling poorly these days, Harry Reid's re-elect numbers are in the toilet. So why is he putting his seat in the Senate in jeapardy to push an unpopular plan? Simple. Harry Reid considers nationalizing health care and the power it will give the government over the lives of Americans' worth the risk. He's also counting on his "opt out" faux federalism provision for states to muddy the issue with the voters; its faux federalism because the taxes to pay for this boondoggle can't be opted out of. How many states are going to "opt out" of a system that their residents will still have to pay for? His ace in the hole is the campaign contributions that he'll receive from the activist left that demands a route to single payer as part of any health care reform legislation. The Reid campaign has already promised a scorched earth campaign next year and they will have the money to make it a reality.
Currently the Democratic Kamikaze caucus stands at two, Reid and Alan Grayson (D-Fl) in the House. How many Democrats from center right districts or states will join the Vegas gambler, Searchlight actually, in his high stakes plan? The Democrats only need to convince a few more members to join their suicidal caucus to make government run health care a reality.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Stimulus or lack thereof, by the numbers
This chart of job losses by state was put out by the republicans on the House ways and means committee. Congrats to North Dakota, the only state to add jobs since the stimulus billed passed. So what happened to those 3.5 million new jobs the Obama administration promised would materialize if we borrowed and spent 787 billion dollars? Veronique de Rugy explains on reason.com:"Since then, Romer has told CNBC she couldn’t say for sure how many jobs would be created, since we can’t know what would have happened without the stimulus. But didn’t her report pro-ject what would happen if the stimulus wasn’t passed? Wasn’t the 3.5 million number supposed to be the difference between employment with the stimulus and employment without it?
The confusion flows from the faulty theory underlying the stimulus bill. In Keynesian thought, a decline in demand causes a decline in spending; since one person’s spending is someone else’s income, a fall in demand makes a nation poorer. As a poorer nation cuts back on spending, it sets off another wave of declining income. So any big shock to consumer spending or business confidence can set off waves of job losses and layoffs, as fewer goods are demanded and more workers become useless.
Under this logic, one possible remedy is for public spending to take the place of private spending. As government increases its spending, the money creates new employment. That, in turn, spurs those new workers to consume more and prompts businesses to buy more machines and equipment to meet the government-induced demand. Economists call this increase in aggregate income the “multiplier” effect. One dollar of government spending, the theory goes, ends up creating more than a dollar of new income. It’s a rare free lunch.
As appealing as the Keynesian story sounds, many economists have long doubted it. In 1991, looking across 100 countries, Robert Barro of Harvard presented historical evidence that high government spending actually hurts economies in the long run by crowding out private spending and shifting resources to the uses preferred by politicians rather than consumers. For a dollar of government spending, we end up seeing less than a dollar of growth. Can long-term poison be short-term medicine?".
If you don't want to take the republicans' numbers as proof of the stimulus bills failure to stimulate job creation. I offer the governments' website http://www.recovery.gov/. According to the Obama administration, stimulus spending in Massachusetts has created 584 jobs while spending $47,620,000. That's $81,541 per job.
To check out the job loss numbers on the above chart just click to enlarge.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Obamacare stumbles out of the gate
The fight to nationalize health care began in earnest today in the Senate and the Democrats lost the first round. The Democrats attempted to remove a funding provision to the tune of 247 billion for Medicare out of the health care bill. Because in the Democrats' world paying doctors for their services to Medicare patients has nothing to do with health care reform. Reality just slapped them in the face. They lost the vote 47-53. Not only did Olympia Snowe stand up against their underhanded tactics, which is a miracle in itself, but Sens. Feingold, Bayh, McCaskill, Conrad and Webb all Democrats voted against leadership. They were joined by Joe Lieberman (I-CT), who while solid in our battle with radical Islam is usually a reliable vote for Harry Reid and the Democrats when it comes to fiscal matters. Now Harry Reid has to go back to the drawing board and figure out how to fix the payment structure for doctors without raising the cost of his health bill above the magic trillion dollar threshold. Because the president promised not to sign a bill that adds one dime to the budget deficit. I have it from a reliable source that he pinky swore this promise to the American people, so there's no way he will break that pledge. Right Mr. President? There are many more battles to come, but the first round goes to those who value the freedom of the individual.
Scorecard
Friends of Deval: 3 Regular Joes:-91
By Dave Wedge | Tuesday, October 20, 2009 | http://www.bostonherald.com | Local Politics
Photo by Herald file
Gov. Deval Patrick has issued pink slips to nearly 100 state Department of Conservation and Recreation workers but spared a high-paid trio including the sister of his campaign manager and her two pals, the Herald has learned.
DCR Commissioner Rick Sullivan confirmed 91 workers have been let go, including some who held their jobs for years.
But Patty Vantine - the sister of Gov. Deval Patrick’s campaign manager and state Democratic chairman John Walsh - and two friends she hired are not among those hitting the unemployment line.
“The whole process is unfair,” said Sen. Richard R. Tisei (R-Wakefield). “Scores of people have used political connections to get their jobs and they’re going to use their political connections to keep their jobs as well.”
Vantine, a former accountant for the state Democratic party, was given a $20,000 raise last year that bumped her pay to $105,000 when she was promoted to a top DCR administrative post.
The Herald reported in May that Vantine hired her friend and Abington neighbor Kathleen Reilly to an $83,000-a-year administrative post. Reilly previously had worked for the state for 18 years but was a stay-at-home mom until Vantine brought her back onto the state payroll earlier this year.
Vantine also hired her Abington neighbor Kevin Whalen, a former analyst for State Street Corp., to a $68,000 “waterfront coordinator” position.
Walsh did not return a call. Sullivan said the DCR layoffs were “targeted” and several departments were eliminated. Most of the cuts affected union workers and were done by seniority. Vantine, Reilly and Whalen, who have given a combined $2,000 to Patrick’s campaign, evaded termination because they’re valued non-union managers, Sullivan said.
“These individuals are skilled, experienced professionals who hold key management responsibilities,” Sullivan said. “DCR is lucky to have them.”
Among the cuts were forest firefighters, golf course managers, marketing and graphic arts professionals and environmentalists.
“Obviously none of these decisions are easy,” Sullivan said. “Unfortunately, I think this is a permanent situation . . . and I am certainly not prepared to say this is even the end of it. But we’ll continue to do the best job we can with the resources we’re given.”
Tisei said the retention of the three highlights how Patrick has “larded up all the state agencies with high-priced political appointees.”
Mass GOP executive director Nick Connors said, “Jobs should be based on what you know, not who you know. Government should not be raising taxes to fund hack jobs when people are losing their jobs.”
By Dave Wedge | Tuesday, October 20, 2009 | http://www.bostonherald.com | Local Politics
Photo by Herald file
Gov. Deval Patrick has issued pink slips to nearly 100 state Department of Conservation and Recreation workers but spared a high-paid trio including the sister of his campaign manager and her two pals, the Herald has learned.
DCR Commissioner Rick Sullivan confirmed 91 workers have been let go, including some who held their jobs for years.
But Patty Vantine - the sister of Gov. Deval Patrick’s campaign manager and state Democratic chairman John Walsh - and two friends she hired are not among those hitting the unemployment line.
“The whole process is unfair,” said Sen. Richard R. Tisei (R-Wakefield). “Scores of people have used political connections to get their jobs and they’re going to use their political connections to keep their jobs as well.”
Vantine, a former accountant for the state Democratic party, was given a $20,000 raise last year that bumped her pay to $105,000 when she was promoted to a top DCR administrative post.
The Herald reported in May that Vantine hired her friend and Abington neighbor Kathleen Reilly to an $83,000-a-year administrative post. Reilly previously had worked for the state for 18 years but was a stay-at-home mom until Vantine brought her back onto the state payroll earlier this year.
Vantine also hired her Abington neighbor Kevin Whalen, a former analyst for State Street Corp., to a $68,000 “waterfront coordinator” position.
Walsh did not return a call. Sullivan said the DCR layoffs were “targeted” and several departments were eliminated. Most of the cuts affected union workers and were done by seniority. Vantine, Reilly and Whalen, who have given a combined $2,000 to Patrick’s campaign, evaded termination because they’re valued non-union managers, Sullivan said.
“These individuals are skilled, experienced professionals who hold key management responsibilities,” Sullivan said. “DCR is lucky to have them.”
Among the cuts were forest firefighters, golf course managers, marketing and graphic arts professionals and environmentalists.
“Obviously none of these decisions are easy,” Sullivan said. “Unfortunately, I think this is a permanent situation . . . and I am certainly not prepared to say this is even the end of it. But we’ll continue to do the best job we can with the resources we’re given.”
Tisei said the retention of the three highlights how Patrick has “larded up all the state agencies with high-priced political appointees.”
Mass GOP executive director Nick Connors said, “Jobs should be based on what you know, not who you know. Government should not be raising taxes to fund hack jobs when people are losing their jobs.”
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Explaing the value added tax
This video takes an in depth look at what effects the VAT will have on our economy. Nancy Pelosi has already stated that a "VAT is on the table". The democratic program is to grow the government first and then find the money to pay for it later. The VAT is the only means to close the budget deficits they are creating. The only other option is to make your voices heard and prevent the democrats from growing the beast. Time is running out.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Part five: Obamacare puts you on welfare
"This Morning Bell is the final installment of a five-part week-long series on how Obamacare will affect you.Lost in all of last weeks headlines on how the Senate Finance Committee (SFC) finally delivered a health care product that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) was willing to say would reduce the deficit, was how exactly they achieved it. At a price tag of $829 billion, the SFC ’framework’ will reduce the number of uninsured Americans by 29 million, moving the overall percentage of nonelderly Americans with health insurance from 83% in 2010 to 94% in 2019. But of those 29 million with new insurance coverage, almost half (14 million), will get their coverage through the welfare programs Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). That is equivalent to adding every resident of Ohio and Nevada to the welfare rolls.
In other words, for half of those Americans who are being promised health reform, they are going to be stunned to find themselves in a welfare office applying for Medicaid. Under the current baselines for Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), there will be 76 million individuals served by these programs for at least some part of the year in 2019. If the SFC proposal becomes law, the number on Medicaid/SCHIP will top 90 million. So why do Obamacare supporters want to put 90 million Americans on the welfare rolls? It is cheaper than providing them with real quality health care.Medicaid was originally created to provide access to health care for families on welfare. Medicaid pays providers 20-25 percent less than does the private sector, forcing doctors and hospitals to subsidize Medicaid through lower rates. This deters doctors and hospitals from participating in the program, creating a lack of access that itself is a form of rationing. As Time magazine reported this July: “But there are real questions as to whether the program could handle the strain of that many new clients. Already, it is difficult in some areas to find health-care providers who are willing to accept Medicaid patients.”Even those who are not pushed into welfare will feel the strain on the health care system. The majority of individuals moved into Medicaid will be young and healthy. Keeping them on welfare rolls will shift even more costs to individuals and families buying private health insurance, as doctors and hospitals recoup their losses from Medicare/SCHIP by charging more to the privately insured. In effect, the congressional policy seems to be to expand dependency by discriminating against individuals based on their income.And then there is the effect on states. The CBO estimates that the Finance Committee plan will cost states $33 billion over 10 years. But even that may be a low estimate. Governor Phil Bredesen (D-TN) has warned that the costs for his state alone could be as high as $3 billion. Thanks to strings attached to Obama’s failed stimulus, states already are facing an erosion of their authority to manage their Medicaid programs. The true cost to taxpayers in the states will only become apparent as spending for education, child welfare, public health, and investment in transportation systems and infrastructure are crowded out over time.As Heritage Senior Fellow Dennis Smith reminds us:
In June, President Obama told Senate Democrats, “As we move forward on health care reform, it is not sufficient for us simply to add more people to Medicare or Medicaid.” Unfortunately, that is precisely what Congress is going to do with the Baucus proposal."
Obamacare will bankrupt the states and actually worsen access to health care. What good is having a healthcare plan if you can't find a doctor who accepts it? If this health bill passes the democrats long march to vanquish individual freedom will be nearly complete. We will be reduced to wards of the state and the "American dream" of upward mobility will die, to be replaced by ennui. How ironic that our freedom was gained with assistance from France and it will be lost by adopting their failed economic model.
In other words, for half of those Americans who are being promised health reform, they are going to be stunned to find themselves in a welfare office applying for Medicaid. Under the current baselines for Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), there will be 76 million individuals served by these programs for at least some part of the year in 2019. If the SFC proposal becomes law, the number on Medicaid/SCHIP will top 90 million. So why do Obamacare supporters want to put 90 million Americans on the welfare rolls? It is cheaper than providing them with real quality health care.Medicaid was originally created to provide access to health care for families on welfare. Medicaid pays providers 20-25 percent less than does the private sector, forcing doctors and hospitals to subsidize Medicaid through lower rates. This deters doctors and hospitals from participating in the program, creating a lack of access that itself is a form of rationing. As Time magazine reported this July: “But there are real questions as to whether the program could handle the strain of that many new clients. Already, it is difficult in some areas to find health-care providers who are willing to accept Medicaid patients.”Even those who are not pushed into welfare will feel the strain on the health care system. The majority of individuals moved into Medicaid will be young and healthy. Keeping them on welfare rolls will shift even more costs to individuals and families buying private health insurance, as doctors and hospitals recoup their losses from Medicare/SCHIP by charging more to the privately insured. In effect, the congressional policy seems to be to expand dependency by discriminating against individuals based on their income.And then there is the effect on states. The CBO estimates that the Finance Committee plan will cost states $33 billion over 10 years. But even that may be a low estimate. Governor Phil Bredesen (D-TN) has warned that the costs for his state alone could be as high as $3 billion. Thanks to strings attached to Obama’s failed stimulus, states already are facing an erosion of their authority to manage their Medicaid programs. The true cost to taxpayers in the states will only become apparent as spending for education, child welfare, public health, and investment in transportation systems and infrastructure are crowded out over time.As Heritage Senior Fellow Dennis Smith reminds us:
In June, President Obama told Senate Democrats, “As we move forward on health care reform, it is not sufficient for us simply to add more people to Medicare or Medicaid.” Unfortunately, that is precisely what Congress is going to do with the Baucus proposal."
Obamacare will bankrupt the states and actually worsen access to health care. What good is having a healthcare plan if you can't find a doctor who accepts it? If this health bill passes the democrats long march to vanquish individual freedom will be nearly complete. We will be reduced to wards of the state and the "American dream" of upward mobility will die, to be replaced by ennui. How ironic that our freedom was gained with assistance from France and it will be lost by adopting their failed economic model.
Part four: abortion
"This Morning Bell is the third in a five-part week-long series on how Obamacare will affect you.“Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions,” Or so President Barack Obama promised to the American people in his health care address before a Joint Session of Congress on September 9th. But then why did the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops send a letter to Congress on October 8th writing: “No one should be required to pay for or participate in abortion. … No current bill meets this test”?
Who is telling the truth? The President or the Bishops? Last Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was asked this question during his daily press briefing and answered: “Well, I don’t want to get me in trouble at church, but I would mention there’s a law that precludes the use of federal funds for abortion that isn’t going to be changed in these health care bills.” Unsatisfied, the CNS News’ Fred Lucas again pressed on Friday:
The Catholic bishops have repeatedly said that the Hyde amendment would not apply to the health care bill and yesterday in the letter that they sent to Congress they said that if language expressly prohibiting abortion funding is not added to the health care bill, they will vigorously — “vigorously oppose” — that’s a quote — the bill. My question on that, does the President support the bishops on this?Gibbs replied:
My answer isn’t different than it was on Wednesday. There may be a legal interpretation that has been lost here, but there’s a fairly clear federal law prohibiting the federal use of money for abortion. I think it is — again, it’s exceedingly clear in the law.
How to put this politely … it is safe to say that Gibbs’ above statement is less than true. The next time anyone tries to convince you that the White House is telling the truth ask them where exactly in the Federal Code it says this. The truth is…it doesn’t.But what about the Hyde amendment mentioned by the White House reporter? Is the Hyde amendment not the law of the land? No, it is not even a statute. First passed in 1976 by Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL) as a rider to the Health and Human Services appropriations bill, the Hyde amendment must be passed again every year as part of the HHS appropriations bill and even then it only applies to current HHS programs. The Hyde amendment would do nothing to stop Obamacare from funding abortions and all the versions of Obamacare passed by Congressional committees so far do exactly that.Conservatives introduced amendments in all five committee markups (three in the House and two in the Senate) that would have specifically prohibited federal funds from being used to cover abortion. None of them passed. Worse, the “compromise” the White House has adopted is an amendment sponsored by Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) who has a 100% pro-abortion voting record according to the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). Not only does the Capps amendment allow for federal money to subsidize abortions in private plans and mandate federal funding for abortions in the public option (this according to FactCheck.org), it also requires that at least one insurance plan cover abortion in every geographical region in the country.In 2007, then candidate Barack Obama promised Planned Parenthood: “We’re gonna set up a public plan that all persons and all women can access if they don’t have health insurance. It will be a plan that will provide all essential services including reproductive services. … We will also subsidize those who choose to stay in the private insurance market, except, the insurers are going to have to abide by the same rules in terms of providing comprehensive care including reproductive care.”
A Rasmussen poll released last month showed that only 13% of Americans want the health-care reform bill to use tax dollars to fund abortions, clearly demonstrating that even most pro-choice believers do not favor taxpayer funded abortions. A Pew Research Center poll two weeks ago showed that support for legalized abortion has dropped to its lowest level in years to 47%, down from 54% last year. Obama can either please NARAL and Planned Parenthood or he can honor the beliefs of the overwhelming majority of Americans. He can’t do both."
Don't believe what they say, believe what they do. If the democrats didn't want the public option to cover abortion they would have voted to prohibit it from doing so. The president and Congress are lying to the American people about abortion coverage and coverage for illegal immigrants. Make your voices heard before it's too late.
Who is telling the truth? The President or the Bishops? Last Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was asked this question during his daily press briefing and answered: “Well, I don’t want to get me in trouble at church, but I would mention there’s a law that precludes the use of federal funds for abortion that isn’t going to be changed in these health care bills.” Unsatisfied, the CNS News’ Fred Lucas again pressed on Friday:
The Catholic bishops have repeatedly said that the Hyde amendment would not apply to the health care bill and yesterday in the letter that they sent to Congress they said that if language expressly prohibiting abortion funding is not added to the health care bill, they will vigorously — “vigorously oppose” — that’s a quote — the bill. My question on that, does the President support the bishops on this?Gibbs replied:
My answer isn’t different than it was on Wednesday. There may be a legal interpretation that has been lost here, but there’s a fairly clear federal law prohibiting the federal use of money for abortion. I think it is — again, it’s exceedingly clear in the law.
How to put this politely … it is safe to say that Gibbs’ above statement is less than true. The next time anyone tries to convince you that the White House is telling the truth ask them where exactly in the Federal Code it says this. The truth is…it doesn’t.But what about the Hyde amendment mentioned by the White House reporter? Is the Hyde amendment not the law of the land? No, it is not even a statute. First passed in 1976 by Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL) as a rider to the Health and Human Services appropriations bill, the Hyde amendment must be passed again every year as part of the HHS appropriations bill and even then it only applies to current HHS programs. The Hyde amendment would do nothing to stop Obamacare from funding abortions and all the versions of Obamacare passed by Congressional committees so far do exactly that.Conservatives introduced amendments in all five committee markups (three in the House and two in the Senate) that would have specifically prohibited federal funds from being used to cover abortion. None of them passed. Worse, the “compromise” the White House has adopted is an amendment sponsored by Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) who has a 100% pro-abortion voting record according to the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). Not only does the Capps amendment allow for federal money to subsidize abortions in private plans and mandate federal funding for abortions in the public option (this according to FactCheck.org), it also requires that at least one insurance plan cover abortion in every geographical region in the country.In 2007, then candidate Barack Obama promised Planned Parenthood: “We’re gonna set up a public plan that all persons and all women can access if they don’t have health insurance. It will be a plan that will provide all essential services including reproductive services. … We will also subsidize those who choose to stay in the private insurance market, except, the insurers are going to have to abide by the same rules in terms of providing comprehensive care including reproductive care.”
A Rasmussen poll released last month showed that only 13% of Americans want the health-care reform bill to use tax dollars to fund abortions, clearly demonstrating that even most pro-choice believers do not favor taxpayer funded abortions. A Pew Research Center poll two weeks ago showed that support for legalized abortion has dropped to its lowest level in years to 47%, down from 54% last year. Obama can either please NARAL and Planned Parenthood or he can honor the beliefs of the overwhelming majority of Americans. He can’t do both."
Don't believe what they say, believe what they do. If the democrats didn't want the public option to cover abortion they would have voted to prohibit it from doing so. The president and Congress are lying to the American people about abortion coverage and coverage for illegal immigrants. Make your voices heard before it's too late.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
