34 to O

The voters of the Missouri, our 34th state, told President Obama exactly what they think of his idea of health care "reform". Here's how the NRSC framed the results:

Show Me State voters also approved Proposition C — which attempts to shield Missourians from the Washington Democrats’ mandate to buy ObamaCare — by a massive 71-29 margin. Recent surveys show that 61 percent of Missourians oppose the Democrats’ recent health care law.

What is the President's reaction to such a lopsided result on his policies?

Asked what the vote meant to the White House, press secretary Robert Gibbs said: "Nothing."

When you lose a vote 71-29 and you claim not to care you either:

1) really don't care what the American people want

or

2) are scared witless and aren't honest enough to admit that your signature legislation was a terrible mistake

Frankly, I'm surprised the White House didn't take the opportunity to chastize Missourians for running up the score.

Dems Mis-Placed Priorities

Ronald Reagan attempted to "starve the beast" by cutting taxes and hoping a Democratic majority in the U.S. House would go along with his efforts to cut federal spending. The result, large budget deficits and a growing national debt.

Now that Democrats have large majorities in both the House and Senate and control of the White House the plan is to "gorge the beast". In effect, increase spending to the point that taxes have to be raised. So far their plan is going swimmingly.

CNN writes up the CBO Director's testimony:

Douglas Elmendorf, chief budget cruncher for Congress, got to play the role of bad-news bear before the president's bipartisan fiscal commission on Wednesday.

His job: Present the Congressional Budget Office's latest assessment of the long-term federal budget.

The gist of his testimony went something like this: The outlook is bad under current law and daunting if many current policies are extended as expected. And even that may understate the fiscal problem the country faces, because it doesn't factor in potential effects of debt on economic growth.

Under the rosiest scenario painted by Elmendorf, the debt held by the public is on track to rise to 80% in 2035 from 62% at the end of this year. At that point, interest payments on that debt would jump to 4% of GDP, up from roughly 1% today. That's the equivalent of a third of all federal revenue.

Based on current policies, debt held by the public would hit 185% of GDP in 2035. And interest payments on that debt would jump to nearly 9% of GDP.

Why should the average American care about the national debt anyway?

The larger the debt burden grows, the less money there will be for domestic investment. That, in turn, can suppress income growth and economic growth, which then reduces tax revenue.

Which as Vice President Biden would say it's all about that important three letter word "Jobs", "Jobs", "Jobs".

Mr. Elmenorf's suggestion?

The only way to bring the federal budget into better balance would be to sharply reduce U.S. spending, drastically increase taxes to rates never before seen in the United States or some less dramatic combination of the two, Elmendorf said.

So, where do the Democrats plan to cut spending? Our national defense. This take on Barney Frank's wishlist comes from the Daily Caller:

The Obama administration intends to slash the defense budget in order to pay for its riotous spending on bailouts, “stimulus bills,” their signature healthcare program, and massive pork bribes for votes from congressmen who hopefully will not survive this November’s balloting. To continue the spending spree, the White House plans to eliminate over a trillion defense dollars in the next ten years. Details of those proposed cuts were laid out by Rep. Barney Frank’s (D-MA) Sustainable Defense Task Force in a 56 page report titled: Debt, Deficits, & Defense – A Way Forward. None of the service arms are spared.

The Navy will be reduced to eight aircraft carriers (from twelve planned) and seven air wings. Eight ballistic missile submarines will be cut from the planned force of 14, leaving just six. Building of nuclear attack submarines will be cut in half, leaving a force of 40 by 2020. The four active guided missile submarines would be cut, too. Destroyer building would be frozen and the new DDG-1000 destroyer program cancelled. Among other huge cuts, the fleet is to be reduced to 230 combat ships, eliminating 57 vessels from a current force level of 287.

The Air Force must retire six fighter air wings equivalents, and at the same time build 301 fewer F-35 fighters. The nuclear bomber force will be completely eliminated in the name of unilateral disarmament—the B-1 and B-2 and B-52 and other bombers will still be able to drop bombs, but their nuclear weapon wiring and controls will simply be removed. Procurement of the new refueling tanker and the C-17 cargo aircraft will be cancelled. Directed energy beam research and other advanced missile and space warfare defense projects will also be eliminated or curtailed.

Active duty Army personnel will be slashed from 562,400 to 360,000. That includes elimination of about five active-component brigade combat teams (the report is not exactly). The Army will also suffer a myriad of other cuts, including closure of overseas bases.

The Marine Corps would be cut by 30%, from 202,000 to 145,000, and the other funding cuts planned for the Corps mean the United States will not be able to mount a major amphibious landing on any hostile shore. Marine Corps programs to be killed include the V-22 Osprey tilt rotor aircraft and the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle.

Downsizing and effictively disarming our military only gets them so far, so they cut benefits for the folks that will be left standing.

The hot button item of reducing pay, pension, healthcare and other benefits for our soldiers, their wives, their families and their widows is stated as: “Resetting the calculation of military compensation and reforming the provision of military health care…” Whatever those mysterious words will ultimately come to mean, the task force report shows a planned reduction of pay and benefits for the troops and their families to the tune of $120 billion.

All this to save $1 trillion. I have a better idea, scrap Obamacare, not our military. That will save a projected $1.2 trillion. An extra $200 billion of savings should please that noted deficit hawk Frank and we will still be able to defend ourselves.

More Obamacare Stinkbombs

Just in case you thought we had learned all the nasty little surprises in our new health care regime, think again. This is what happens when you "pass the bill to see what's inside it" in the hopefully immortal words of Speaker Pelosi, instead of reading it first.

Karl Rove in the Journal:

Which brings us to President Obama's many claims about his health-care reform. Take his oft-expressed statement that if you like the coverage you have, you can keep it. That sounds good—but perverse incentives in his new law will cause most Americans to lose their existing insurance.

This was brought home to me when I asked the CEO of a major restaurant chain about health reform's effect on his company, which now spends $25 million a year on employee health insurance. That will jump to at least $90 million a year once the new law is phased in. It will be cheaper, he told me, for the company to dump its coverage and pay a fine—$2,000 for each full-time worker—and make sure that no part-time employee accidentally worked 31 hours and thereby incurred the fine.

and

Health plans would no longer be grandfathered if a business changes insurance companies (a common practice when employers shop for lower prices), raises deductibles more than 5%, drops any existing benefits, or even increases co-pays by as little as $5.

Complying with these new rules would raise costs for companies who provide coverage, reduce competition among health insurance companies, and discourage efforts to make employees more price conscious. The Obama administration itself estimates that these draft rules could cost up to 80% of small employers and 64% of large employers their grandfathered status. This translates to between 87 million and 115 million Americans losing their current coverage.

To paraphrase Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC), whose office was just vandalized, "You lied Mr. President".

These nuggets were passed on to me, but I couldn't verify them on snopes.com. Take them with a grain of salt and a stiff drink if they're true:

A Real Estate Tax?

Under the new health care bill - did you know that all real estate
transactions are now subject to a 3.8% Sales Tax? The bulk of these new
taxes don't kick in until 2013 (presumably after Obama's re-election). You
can thank Nancy, Harry and Barack and your local Democrat Congressman for
this one. If you sell your $400,000 home, there will be a $15,200 tax.

Taxing your health benefits?

Starting in 2011 (next year folks) your W 2 tax form sent by your employer will be increased to show the value of what ever health insurance you are given by the company. It does not matter if that's a private concern or Governmental body of some sort. If you're retired ? So what; your gross will go up by the amount of insurance you get the dollar value (cost of what the company pays for your insurance) will be considered income and added to your gross pay. You will be taxed on the total.You will be required to pay taxes on a large sum of money that you have never seen.

Take your tax form you just finished and see what $15,000 or $20,000 additional gross does to your tax debt. That's what you'll pay next year. For many it also puts you into a new higher bracket so it's even worse.

This is how the government is going to buy insurance for 15 % that don't have insurance and it's only part of the tax increases..

Not believing this I researched the summaries and here's what I read:

On page 25 of 29 :

TITLE IX REVENUE PROVISIONS- SUBTITLE A: REVENUE OFFSET PROVISIONS-(sec . 9001 , as modified by sec. 10901)
Sec.9002. "requires employers to include in the W-2 form of each employee the aggregate cost of applicable employer sponsored group health coverage that is excludable from the employees gross income."

Joan Pryde is the senior tax editor for the Kiplinger letters. Go to Kiplingers and read about 13 tax changes that could affect you. Number 3 is what I just told you about.

Kiplingers is subsciption only, so I couldn't check this out. Come to think of it, I may just have that stiff drink after all.

Remember to vote on 11/2/10 and do everything you can to help a deserving candidate before then. The future of our country is at stake.

Dems Put Campaign Cash Before National Security

The House voted to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" against the wishes of the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs. Notice the common theme of their objections?

"Secretary Gates continues to believe that ideally the DOD review should be completed before there is any legislation to repeal the Don't Ask Don't Tell law," Defense spokesman Geoff Morell said in a statement. "With Congress having indicated that is not possible, the secretary can accept the language in the proposed amendment."

and

But chiefs of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines have objected. In letters solicited by Senator John McCain of Arizona, the senior Republican on the Armed Services Committee, they urged Congress to delay voting on the issue until after the Defense Department completed its report.

They simply want Congress to wait until the Pentagon has reviewed how it will impact our military readiness.

Why is Congress in such an all-fired rush to pass repeal before we even know how it will affect national security? Simple. The gay rights lobby has made no secret that they are very unhappy with the lack of progress on Don't Ask, Don't Tell and they have threatened to close their checkbooks. The DNC has pledged to raise and spend $50million for Democrats who ignored the people's will and voted for Obamacare. Without the financial backing from the LGBT community, the Democrats will be hard-pressed to raise those funds. In essence, the Democrats are putting their re-elections before the safety and security of Americans. The time-table "With Congress having indicated that is not possible" tells all, the review will be completed on Dec 1, but the elections happen on Nov.2.

Congressional Dems are quick to point out and Peter Orzag confirms that the repeal won't happen immediately. How exactly is the White House budget director an expert on military matters anyway? Just asking.

Budget Director Peter Orszag said Monday the Pentagon would still be able to complete a review to "ensure that the implementation of the repeal is consistent with standards of military readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion, recruiting and retention." The study is to be submitted to Congress by Dec. 1.

Notice, "the implementation of the repeal", the White House envisions that the Pentagon's review will come to the "correct" conclusion that gay men and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly. It's not clear how the transgendered will be treated in this bill.

As we approach Memorial Day it would be naive and just plain wrong to believe that gays haven't served honorably in our military throughout our history. I'm sure there were gays in Washington's army and Grant's and there are some risking their lives to protect us in Iraq and Afghanistan today. I understand that those in the gay community believe they are fighting for a civil right. But, our national security must come first. The Pentagon should decide, without political pressure from the White House or Congress if it's better to preserve Don't ask, Don't Tell or allow gays to serve openly. By voting to pass repeal now Congress is prejudging and prejudicing the review process. Congress is essentially telling any officer that to oppose repeal is career suicide.

Haven't we learned from the Nidal Hassan affair that political correctness and the military don't mix very well? A look the other way and pray for the best policy implemented while we are fighting two wars could be disastrous. Give the Pentagon time to decide which policy keeps us safest.

Romney's Top Ten

The first ten(of 64) bullet points from Mitt's book No Apology.

Agenda For A Free And Strong America

1) Promote small business and entrepeneurship(with lower taxes, especially where there is "double taxation", by eliminating outdated and burdensome regulations, by refusing to impose unions on employees, and by enacting tort reform)

2) Stop the trillion-dollar deficits, and spend only what we have. No more borrowing for unnecessary "nice to have" government programs.

3) Publish an annual balance sheet for the country

4) Adopt dynamic regulations

5) Reduce and simplify taxes, especially double taxes that depress job creation. Do not allow taxes to be raised.

6) Adopt a "strong dollar" strategy, including spending restraint and entitlement sustainability reforms.

7) Reform entitlements to make them sustainable in the long term and honor all the promises that have been made to our seniors

8) Adopt an annual budget process for entitlements

9) Reform tort liability to reduce the burden of frivolous lawsuits

10) Stop any new "government-growing" stimulus program

The book is well worth reading and Mr. Romney makes a compelling case to be the "Mr. Fix-It" our country needs in the White House. Now, if he could only find a way to explain how under Romneycare insurance premiums have gone up in MA 40% while the national average has been 20%. Obamacare is already blowing its cost estimates out of the water and the Republican nominee needs to be in a position to put President Obama on the defensive. Unless Romney can acknowledge the cost over-runs of the plan he championed in MA, he won't be the nominee.

Romneycare

Governor Patrick has gone to war with the health insurance industry in Massachusetts and wonder of wonders they are fighting back. I guess he figured that since the insurance industry didn't fight President Obama's federal takeover, they would take baby Obama's campaign posturing lying down as well. The difference is that Obamacare promises the health care insurers a few boom years before the bust, in MA we're officially at bust time.

Want a preview of ObamaCare in action? Check out the Massachusetts insurance market—which earlier this week entered a state of "market chaos" after Governor Deval Patrick denied a host of health insurance rate increases.

More from the Wall Street Journal:

This week it became impossible in Massachusetts for small businesses and individuals to buy health-care coverage after Governor Deval Patrick imposed price controls on premiums. Read on, because under ObamaCare this kind of political showdown will soon be coming to an insurance market near you.

The Massachusetts small-group market that serves about 800,000 residents shut down after Mr. Patrick kicked off his re-election campaign by presumptively rejecting about 90% of the premium increases the state's insurers had asked regulators to approve. Health costs have run off the rails since former GOP Governor Mitt Romney and Beacon Hill passed universal coverage in 2006, and Mr. Patrick now claims price controls are the sensible response to this ostensibly industry greed.

Yet all of the major Massachusetts insurers are nonprofits. Three of largest four — Blue Cross Blue Shield, Tufts Health Plan and Fallon Community Health — posted operating losses in 2009. In an emergency suit heard in Boston superior court yesterday, they argued that the arbitrary rate cap will result in another $100 million in collective losses this year and make it impossible to pay the anticipated cost of claims. It may even threaten the near-term solvency of some companies. So until the matter is resolved, the insurers have simply stopped selling new policies.

How do companies, even non-profits, manage to lose money when the citizens of MA are mandated to buy their product? Simple:

The Boston Globe reports, “Thousands of consumers are gaming Massachusetts’ 2006 health insurance law by buying insurance when they need to cover pricey medical care, such as fertility treatments and knee surgery, and then swiftly dropping coverage, a practice that insurance executives say is driving up costs for other people and small businesses.”

Predictably, costs in Massachusetts — always high — have only gone higher; the state now spends about 30 percent more per capita on health care than the rest of the nation. Predictably, the insurance regulations have only made insurance more expensive, as has been the case elsewhere; premiums in the individual market have been growing at a 30 percent annual rate. Predictably, the new health-care program has cost more than expected; spending grew by about 40 percent from 2006 to 2009.

It's funny how every government "entitlement program" ends up costing a lot more than the bean counters expected. First it was Social Security that needed a fix, aka a tax hike and increase in retirement age and then Medicare and Medicaid began busting holes in the federal and states' budgets. Now, it's Romneycare in MA,and ME,TN,KY and OR have all experienced budget busting experiences with socialized medicine, soon Obamacare will bring the phenomenon nationwide.

On a related note:

Dependency: The Democrats' reform bill had hardly become law before doctors and insurers began getting calls asking about free health care. The growing sense of entitlement is disheartening, to say the least.
'Where do we get the free ObamaCare, and how do I sign up for that?" That's what Carrie McLean, an agent for eHealthInsurance.com, told McClatchy newspapers she's been hearing from callers.
She said that the company's phone center has been "inundated by uninsured consumers who were hoping that the overhaul would translate into instant, affordable coverage."

Mitt Romney has the skills and smarts to be a very effective president. Unfortunately, his obstinancy in defending a deeply flawed and costly health care delivery system makes that increasingly unlikely.

The Violent Tea Party Fallacy

Michelle Malkin nails it:

How the Left Fakes the Hate: A Primer

If you can’t stand the heat, manufacture a hate-crime epidemic.

After years of covering racial hoaxes on college campuses and victim sob stories in the public arena, I’ve encountered countless opportunists who live by that demented mindset. At best, the fakers are desperately seeking 15 minutes of infamy. At worst, their aim is the criminalization of political dissent.

Upon decimating the deliberative process to hand President Obama a health-care “reform” victory, unpopular Beltway Democrats and their media water-carriers now claim there’s a tea-party epidemic of racism, harassment, and violence against them.

On Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a tepid, obligatory statement against smearing all conservatives as national-security threats. But her lieutenants had already emptied their tar buckets. Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman Chris Van Hollen accused Republican leaders of “stoking the flames.” Majority Whip Rep. James Clyburn accused the GOP of “aiding and abetting” what he called “terrorism.”

Yet, the claims that tea-party activists shouted “nigger” at black House Democrats remain uncorroborated. The coffin reportedly left outside Missouri Democratic congressman Russ Carnahan’s home was used in a prayer vigil by pro-life activists in St. Louis who were protesting the phony Demcare abortion-funding ban in Obama’s deal-cutting executive order. Videotape of a supposed intentional-spitting incident targeting Missouri Democratic congressman Emanuel Cleaver at the Capitol shows no such thing. Cleaver himself backed off the claim a few days later. He described his heckler to the Washington Post in more passive terms as “the man who allowed his saliva to hit my face.” Slovenliness equals terrorism!

The FBI is now investigating the most serious allegation — that tea-party activists in Virginia are somehow responsible for a cut gas line at the home of Democratic representative Tom Perriello’s brother. But instead of waiting for the outcome of that probe, liberal pundits have enshrined the claim as conclusive evidence of the tea-party reign of terror.

Need more reasons to treat the latest Democratic hysteria with a grain of salt the size of their gargantuan health-care bill? Remember:

In November 2009, Kentucky census worker Bill Sparkman was found dead in a secluded rural cemetery with the word “Fed” scrawled on his chest and a rope around his neck. The Atlantic Monthly, the Huffington Post, and liberal media hosts stampeded over themselves to blame Fox News, conservative blogs, Republicans, and right-wing radio. Federal, state, and local authorities discovered that Sparkman had killed himself and deliberately concocted a hate-crime hoax as part of an insurance scam to benefit his surviving son.

In mid-October 2008, news outlets from the Scranton Times-Tribune to ABC News to the Associated Press and MSNBC reported that someone at a Sarah Palin rally shouted “kill him” when Obama’s name was mentioned. In fact, the Secret Service (which was at the event in full force) couldn’t find a single person to corroborate the story — other than the local reporter for the Scranton Times-Tribune who made an international incident out of the claim. Agent Bill Slavoski “said he was in the audience, along with an undisclosed number of additional secret service agents and other law enforcement officers, and not one heard the comment,” the paper reported in a red-faced follow-up. Maybe the shouter is hiding with Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman’s real killer.

In late October 2008, a gaggle of liberal blogs spread the rumor that a Republican supporter of vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s had shouted that Obama was “a nigger” during a campaign rally in Iowa. Video and firsthand accounts showed that the protester did not shout “he’s a nigger,” but “he’s a redistributor.” A lefty activist at the “progressive” Daily Kos blog confirmed the truth — but to this day, the crisis-manufacturing smear stands uncorrected and unretracted across the Internet.

In September 2009, supporters of Colorado Democratic congressman John Salazar falsely accused a town-hall protester of hurling a death threat at the congressman. Liberal blogs again disseminated the angry-tea-party-mob narrative. A week later, the local press quietly reported that Grand Junction police had investigated the incident — and determined the claim was “unfounded.” A police spokeswoman revealed that “people who witnessed the interaction between the man who made the complaint and the suspect confirmed they never heard any direct threats made regarding Congressman Salazar.” Witnesses included a Grand Junction cop “in close proximity when the interaction took place.”

In late August 2009, as lawmakers faced citizen revolts at health-care town halls nationwide, the Colorado Democratic party decried a vandalism attack at its Denver headquarters. A hammer-wielding thug smashed eleven windows and caused $11,000 in property damage. The perpetrator, Maurice Schwenkler, turned out to be a far-left nutball/transgender activist/single-payer anarchist who had worked for an SEIU-tied 527 group and canvassed for a Democratic candidate. Nevertheless, Colorado Democratic party chair Pat Waak continued to blame “people opposed to health care” for the attack.

Then, as now, being a Democratic party official means never having to say you’re sorry for smearing conservative dissent.

To add to that list we have a Congressional district office in Cincinnati that supposedly had a rock thrown through the window. The media portrayed this as another attack by the out of control tea partiers. The only problem, the office is on the 30th floor and the window was intact.

This is all about painting the opponents of the president in a negative light. When the facts aren't there, they simply make things up. President Obama and his minions in the mainstream media don't want to talk about how they passed a health care bill over the opposition of a majority of Americans. So they fabricate tales of out of control tea partiers for the likes of Ann Curry to grill John McCain about instead of talking about what's in the health care legislation that was just railroaded through Congress.

The truth is that it's much more likely that a tea partier will be a victim of violence than the perpetrator.

Ken Gladney was beaten by a goon squad of SEIU union members and required hospitalization.

A gentleman in California had a finger bitten off by a angry moveon.org sympathiser.

And now we can add Nevada to the list. Sarah Palin was supposed to be at the event. I don't know if her bus was the one that was hit.

Harry Reid Supporters Egg Tea Party Express Buses in Route

Supporters of Senator Harry Reid have just thrown eggs at the Tea Party Express bus caravan - striking at least one of the three buses (the red Tea Party Express bus) with multiple eggs.

About 35 Reid supporters had lined Highway 95 in front of the Nugget Casino in Searchlight where they were attempting a counter-demonstration the tens of thousands of tea party supporters who are gathering for the "Showdown in Searchlight."

Notice the disparity in numbers, 35 against tens of thousands. The American people are not going to forget who voted for the federal takeover of our health care system. The Democrats that deluded themselves into thinking that voting for this monstrosity was good politics are in for a rude awakening.

How Many Doctors Will Go This Route?

March 23, 2010

My Dear Patient,

As you must know, Congress has just passed extensive legislation governing health care delivery and insurance systems. Whether you agree with what it does or not, we are all now subject to this law and its sweeping changes.

I have always conducted my medical practice with my patient’s best interests as my first priority. Although not legally obliged to do so, I have routinely provided you with a receipt that has all the codes necessary to bill your own health insurance company for any reimbursement to which you are entitled. Until now, that insurance company was a free enterprise despite the fact that it was heavily regulated by state and federal laws. Now the situation is quite different. Through the new law’s mandates, regulatory powers and reform, health insurance is and will be largely a government activity which will have an ever larger jurisdiction over how doctors practice, make clinical judgments and are paid.

The new law provides for about 150 new government agencies, many of which are designed to be ‘oversight’ bureaucracies which will have the right to decide what medical care is legal to provide through insurance. Among other things, they will have the right to review my medical care of you and read your medical record. Now, as soon as you submit our economic transaction to your insurance company for reimbursement, you have involved me in these regulations and put me in the jurisdiction of government for my activities, decisions and behavior as your doctor.

No one can have two masters. Either I can serve you as my patient or I can serve the government. Either I can continue to make your welfare and health my only concern, including the protection of your privacy and medical records, or I can abide by ever-increasing amounts of government regulations and dictates to my decisions. I can’t do both. I choose to continue to follow my conscience and practice medicine to serve you.

For this reason, I am responding to the situation created by this new law by exercising my right not to participate in any health insurance program. I will still provide you with the same medical services that I always have, but the interaction will be exclusively and privately between you and me. This means that I will provide you only with a receipt for the services you have paid for, but without the additional information that is required to submit your receipt for reimbursement to your health insurance company. That is the only way I can make sure there will be no conflict between following the law and serving you. Because the law is now in effect, so must these changes be to my practice.

Sincerely,

Linda Johnston, MD

How many of you were aware that your medical history would be mandatorily shared with federal bureaucrats?

How many knew that the bill calls for hiring 17,500 more IRS agents to enforce compliance?

President Obama responded to efforts to repeal this monstrosity with a condescending "Go For it". I'm beginning to think it may not be as impossible as I once thought. So, let's take his advice and go for it. Now that the line seperating government and our health care no longer exists, in a way we're just following our doctor's advice.

Now They Come Clean

Whenever conservatives would say that the federal takeover of health care was about control and power, the Dems screamed that we were lying to the people. Now, Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) admits as much. Funny how this didn't come out before the vote.



Nancy Pelosi insisted that they needed to pass the bill in order to see what's in it. We're beginning to find out and it's as ugly as many feared.

As noted in several places, the new health-care bill has already made the cost of employees more expensive and taken away capital that could otherwise have been used to hire workers.

Farm-equipment manufacturer John Deere "said it expects its expenses to rise by around $150 million on an after-tax basis, mainly in the second quarter, as a result of the legislation."

Verizon "told employees in an email Tuesday that Verizon's costs will go up in the near term, pinpointing a tax-subsidy reduction for retiree health benefits."

Heavy-equipment manufacturer Caterpillar "said that its first-quarter earnings will be hit with a $100 million after-tax charge under tax law changes attached to the new health care reform legislation."

AK Steele Holding Corp., "the third largest U.S. steelmaker by sales, said it will record a non-cash charge of about $31 million resulting from the health-care overhaul signed into law by President Barack Obama. The charge will be recorded in the first quarter of 2010."

Valero Energy "will take a $15 million to $20 million charge to second-quarter earnings for the same reason."

Medical-device maker Medtronic "warned that new taxes on its products could force it to lay off a thousand workers."

AT&T Inc. said it plans to take a non-cash charge of about $1 billion in the first quarter following the passage of the health-care reform bill earlier this week, according to a filing submitted by the company Friday. The telecommunication giant will also evaluate changes to its health care benefits for employees and retirees.

Remember when President Obama promised that if you liked your health care plan you could keep it? Tell that to the folks at AT&T or the folks at Medtronic in Chelmsford who are about to lose their health care plans, because they're going to lose their jobs.

The Deem and Pass Abomination

Artwork by Jim Geraghty

We grew up with idealistic visions of democracy and our Republic thanks to the good folks at Schoolhouse Rock. Who knew in 30 short years would we become a Banana Republic. From the NY Post:

Dems' 'deem' scheme
Last Updated: 2:34 AM, March 17, 2010

Posted: 2:12 AM, March 17, 2010

Nancy Pelosi is a coward, a bully and a hypocrite -- and Barack Obama is hiding behind her skirts.

So what does that make him?

Pelosi obviously can't find enough votes in her own party for ObamaCare, so the House speaker is preparing to approve the president's health-care bill by legislative legerdemain -- that is, by not voting on it.

And to hell with the Constitution.

Not to mention President Obama's long-abandoned vow that the health-care-reform process would be "completely open and transparent."

Indeed, Pelosi has just the opposite in mind: She intends to employ an arcane bit of backroom alchemy known as "deem and pass," in which the House would vote on a few less-controversial fixes to the Senate's health-care bill.

Then, under terms of a special rule, such passage would automatically mean that the House "deems" that the entire bill has been approved.

Say what?

Well, Pelosi says, "no one wants to vote for the Senate bill."

No kidding.

If they did, it would have become law long ago -- and now midterm congressional elections are rapidly approaching.

This would seem to be a pretty good argument for scrapping the bill and starting all over again.

Au contraire.

Instead, Pelosi plans to stand the Constitution on its head and ram through legislation that the American people overwhelmingly oppose -- and that even members of the president's own party in Congress don't want.

But what makes this even more outrageous is that Pelosi and New York Rep. Louise Slaughter, who proposed the idea, know full well just how wrong it is.

Because five years ago, they and a number of Democratic colleagues joined in a lawsuit charging that the use of "deem and pass" by the Republicans was unconstitutional.

True, they lost that case, but on procedural grounds -- the courts never ruled on the constitutionality of "deem and pass." And the Supreme Court ruled in 1998 that each house must pass the exact same text of a bill before it becomes law.

Anyway, "deem and pass" has been used in the past only for routine, non-controversial issues.

Using it to radically overhaul the nation's entire health-care system -- one-sixth of the economy -- would be a thumb in the eye to the fundamental principles governing the United States of America.

In practical terms, it most certainly would lead directly to years of litigation over its legality. How that would reduce health-care costs and help the uninsured is a mystery.

Moreover, if the ploy is successful, it won't be the last time it's employed. Not by a long shot.

Stumping for ObamaCare in Ohio on Monday, the president declared: "I don't know about the politics, but I know what's the right thing to do."

Tearing a hole in the Constitution is the "right thing to do"?

No, it's not.

Even a reliably Democrat supporting paper like The Washington Post has a editorial titled "Deem This". Robert Gibbs doesn't believe the American people care about "process". He should ask Senator Brown (R-MA) what he makes of that theory. I'm fairly positive that Sen. Brown would tell him that if it weren't for the "Cornhusker Kickback" used to buy Ben Nelson's vote, he wouldn't be the junior senator from MA. Nancy Pelosi, with the backing of President Obama will see for herself how much the American people care about the process if she decides to shred the Constitution by going the "deem and pass" route. If the Democrats pass a government takeover of health care in this manner, I doubt you'll need more than your fingers and toes to count the Democratic caucus in the House next January.

Nancy says: HC Reform Will Release Your Inner Artist

This week will be full of speculation on whether or not Speaker Pelosi has the votes to nationalize the American health care system. If one were inclined to read tea leaves, her appearance on Rachel Maddow's show would indicate she probably has the votes she needs. Then again, it could mean that because she has a tendency to put her foot in her mouth, President Obama is keeping her on a short leash. Reading tea leaves is tricky and Nancy is cagey. After all, how much damage can she do to the cause if she only appears on shows with hosts who are in the tank? If the media gives this statement the light of day it deserves, the answer is plenty.

"Think of an economy where people could be an artist or a photographer or a writer without worrying about keeping their day job in order to have health insurance."

Evidently, Speaker Pelosi thinks we should all quit our jobs and pursue our until now impossible dreams of opening up a puppet theatre or writng the next great anti-American novel. You see, in her mind, a mime act on Haight-Ashbury taking on the evil, racist tea partiers is a worthier profession than owning your own business and actually producing something worthwhile. Not to mention, paying your own way through life.

In Speaker Pelosi's world, health care reform is not only good for the body, it is good for the soul. If it takes the "Slaughter Solution" to get us there so be it. Progressives have always considered the Constitution to be a hindrance in giving the rubes the government they desperately need, but are too stupid to realize, so it's best to shred it now, once and for all. Nirvana awaits. The massive deficits and unsustainable debt this reform will create are things only shabby capitalists worry about and we're all artists now.

Those of us who have been fighting the government takeover of our health care have just been looking at it all wrong. This isn't about Obama/Pelosi/Reid ignoring the will of the people and telling us to "bend over and take it". It's about our leaders' in their divine wisdom knowing what's truly best for us and the colonoscopy they are about to administer to our rights is our opportunity to become performance artists. Leave it to San Fran Nan to frame it perfectly.

The "Slaughter solution"

This was written by one of our nation's finest and is must reading as far as I'm concerned.

This We Will Defend
"Slaughter Strategy" Is An Affront To The Constitution
By Steve Schippert | March 11, 2010
Lose sight of what you are defending and defense isn't all that important, is it?

This simple reminder compels us to shift focus for the moment from our combative enemies and onto that which we defend. We do not engage in such rigorous defense - in its many forms - simply to preserve soil or borders or lives. We engage in rigorous defense of ideas. Ideas embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America. We do not defend simply the shores and borders and people of America. We defend - rigorously - so much more than that. We defend what it means to be American. We defend what it is that inspires so many countless others to risk life, limb and treasure to get to America even still.

And, to put it plainly, there is tyranny afoot and it must be confronted and defeated with confidence, determination and passion. The confrontation is not about health care or any other piece of legislation. It is not about politicians, politics or parties.

The confrontation is about process. The confrontation is about fidelity to the Constitution.

House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter says she is "prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill." She continued, explaining how House passage of a separate bill containing "changes" to the Senate version would lead House leadership to "deem" the actual Senate HealthCare Bill passed - without a direct vote.

This is not simply tyrannical in nature, it is absolute political cowardice.

Whether any American likes or dislikes any bill - any bill - none of us are governed under a Constitution nor any Congress within a Constitution that affords for an individual in an elected body to "deem" anything. We elected you, for better or worse, to vote on legislation, whether we like the specific outcome or not. There is a process within both the letter and spirit of the Constitution.

The notion of anyone "deeming" anything "passed" without going through the actual voting process of real passage is the kind of governance seen in Saddam Hussein's Iraq or Bashar Assad's Syria or Castro's Cuba.

Few things in this lifetime have inspired such furious rage as this brazen attempt to undermine the legislative process as set forth within the Constitution of the United States.

In 1985, I swore an oath. It was not an oath to defend soil, borders or even lives. It was to defend something vastly more important than any of them, revered as they are. I swore the following:

"I, Steve Schippert, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

That oath stands honored - and, frankly, more thoroughly understood and respected - to this day, long after my 8 years of active duty service as a United States Marine.

Nowhere under that oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States is it stated or implied to include defending the right of any individual in an elected Congressional body to have the power, through assumption or parliamentary "rules changes," to "deem" anything passed without the majority consent (through votes) of the full elected body of Congress.

I understand, House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter, that this may be lost on you.

Understand that it is not lost on me. Understand that it is especially not lost on veterans who view the Constitution as something more than an artifact and a museum piece.

Understand that the blood spilled and lives lost on historic battlefields here and on distant shores abroad were not sacrificed in order that an individual in government might acquire the power to deem fundamental changes to America's systems or society. Blood, treasure and lives have been sacrificed standing against precisely that, which is an affront to the concept of "consent of the governed" and individual Liberty.

"Deem" a single thing as "passed" and I and many others will go broke and into bankruptcy driving you and those who stand with you out of our House of Representatives in order to preserve and restore fidelity to the Constitution within our own government.

Discount this at your peril. For it should not be lost upon you or others that men who have sworn (and likewise performed) that the Constitution of the United States is worth more than any of our individual lives would likewise also hold that it is worth more than our mere monetary treasure, be it modest or great.

A wise man once warned a foreign enemy that "there is a price we will not pay and there is a line you must not cross." Ms. Slaughter, you and those who stand with you are standing on that line.

No man, no bill, no law, no program, no amount of treasure is worth more than the Constitution of the United States of America. We swore to defend this, not simply soil or to merely fight wars when so ordered.

I, Steve Schippert, do solemnly swear that I still support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I still bear true faith and allegiance to the same. So help me God.

And I am not alone. I am, in fact, in the majority of Americans - not in opposition to the legal passage of a Health Care bill that I do not agree with. But rather in opposition to an individual in any elected body with the assumed or altered power to "deem" any legislation passed without proper vote as proscribed by the Constitution of the United States of America.

Our Constitution does not afford for the legislating of tyranny, nor for "rules changes" to affect the same.

This we will defend.

Lose sight of what you are defending and defense isn't all that important, is it?

Tierney's Choice

The insurance companies with their perennial double-digit rate hikes are easy to loathe. Which is why President Obama on his latest barnstorming effort to save his health care bill has torn into them with such gusto. When you look beyond the president's rhetoric, the picture isn't nearly as clear as he would make it seem. The combined profits last year of the 10 largest of those "evil" health insurers was $8.3 billion, giving them an average profit margin of 2.5%. This is hardly the makings of modern day robber barons. So, if the insurance companies aren't making huge profits where does all the money from those outrageously expensive premiums go? The biggest drivers of rate hikes are: demographics,government mandated coverage and defensive medicine.

The Baby Boomers, even the ones with Peter Pan issues are beginning to retire. It's pretty simple to understand that the older a person gets, the more medical services they will require. As our country's largest age cohort, this represents a large increase in costs. The other major culprit in driving costs up is the sad fact that nearly a third and growing of our fellow citizens would qualify as contestants on the Biggest Loser. With America's expanding waistline come greater medical costs for diabetes, high blood-pressure, heart disease etc.

Nationwide, state legislatures at the behest of lobbyists have mandated services that must be included in all health care coverage. In MA the list is as long as your arm and includes expensive procedures like in-vitro fertilization and drug and alchohol rehab. Most will never need these services, but we are required to pay for them, making insurance more expensive than it needs to be. Just imagine how expensive it would be to insure your car if your policy had to cover oil changes, tune-ups, tires etc.

In America, doctors spend $26 billion annually on medical liability premiums, with the rates increasing roughly 12% a year. To protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits they order tests and give referrals that aren't medically necessary. This defensive medicine costs in excess of $100 billion every year. The MA Medical Society released a study in which 83% of MA physicians admitted to the practice. Frankly, I'm surprised it wasn't higher.

The bill that Congressman Tierney will be asked to vote on addresses none of these issues.

It does cut Medicare by half a trillion dollars which the Conressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates will cause 20% of our nation's hospitals to go bankrupt.

As Democratic Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) admitted, the bill won't rein in rising health care premiums. You can bet he didn't make this confession out of the goodness of his heart. The CBO estimates that rates will increase by 8% a year for those with employer based coverage an 10-13% for those in the individual market.

The New England Journal of Medicine just released a study with this gem:

"nearly one third of physicians responding to the survey indicated that they will want to leave medical practice after health reform is implemented."

The ranks of primary-care doctors would be decimated as 46% indicated they would leave. An overwhelming 63% of doctors want the government to take a more gradual approach.

At $2.5 trillion over 10 years this bill is simply too expensive and does too much harm to our medical infrastructure.

As bad as the provisions of this bill are for the medical community it is also a terrible deal for the middle class. It does provide subsidies to help pay for insurance, but they are a devil's bargain. These subsidies penalize marriage, work and investment. Many Americans will find themselves in a situation where it will cost them more to accept a promotion because their new income won't equal the lost subsidy. This is the same formula used in welfare that has been so detrimental to the poor in this country. The government promises and provides benefits that will disappear if you try to better your lot in life.

So Rep. Tierney it's time to choose. The voters of your district, in an election that was largely a referendum on the government takeover of health care gave Scott Brown 60% support. You need to decide if you represent the people of the sixth district or the special interests: trial lawyers, big labor,left-wing pressure groups like moveon.org. The people are watching.

How Low Will They Go?

The Dems in the House are preparing to change the rules so they can "deem" the Senate healthcare bill passed without ever voting for it.

House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday.

Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.

Slaughter has not taken the plan to Speaker Pelosi as Democrats await CBO scores on the corrections bill. "Once the CBO gives us the score we'll spring right on it," she said. . . .

House members are concerned the Senate could fail to approve the corrections bill, making them nervous about passing the Senate bill with its much-maligned sweetheart deals for certain states.
"We're well beyond that," Pelosi said Tuesday, though she did not clarify.

It is even theoretically legal, although it stinks to high heaven.

Unlike in the Senate, where individual Senators have broad discretion to steer debate and introduce amendments, the legislative process in the House is rigidly governed by the Rules Committee. This limits the Republicans' options in fighting a self-executing rule for Obamacare. As one Republican House staffer put it to me today, “the Rules Committee can do just about anything if they can get the votes to pass the rule.”

This is an exercise in raw political power. Is it any wonder that a recent Rasmussen poll showed that only 21% of American voters consider the federal government to have the consent of the governed?

The Oracle Of Omaha Speaks

But will President Obama listen? He did refer to Mr. Buffett as one of the wise men whose counsel he would seek on important matters of state. Considering how many campaign promises have been cast aside, one shouldn't be surprised when this one is ignored as well. After all, the president has a country to remake in the image of Greece.

Billionaire investor Warren Buffett advised President Barack Obama on Monday to scrap the health care bill and start over.

and

In an interview with CNBC, Buffett said the current bill does not focus on controlling costs, which he sees as the central problem that must be addressed to reform the system.

finally

"If it was a choice today between plan A, which is what we've got, or plan B, what is in front of - the Senate bill, I would vote for the Senate bill," Buffett said. "But I would much rather see a plan C that really attacks costs. And I think that's what the American public wants to see. I mean, the American public is not behind this bill. And we need the American public behind the bill, because it's going to have to do some tough things."

Of course the White House will probably trumpet this as "Buffett endorses Senate Bill". It sounds like the exact message Republicans were trying to get across to the president at last Thursday's health care summit. Which party is supposed to represent the "reality based community" again?

The Stakes

If you don't already read Mark Steyn's Saturday column on National Review Online every week you're missing this:

While Barack Obama was making his latest pitch for a brand-new, even-more-unsustainable entitlement at the health-care “summit,” thousands of Greeks took to the streets to riot. An enterprising cable network might have shown the two scenes on a continuous split-screen — because they’re part of the same story. It’s just that Greece is a little further along in the plot: They’re at the point where the canoe is about to plunge over the falls. America is farther upstream and can still pull for shore, but has decided instead that what it needs to do is catch up with the Greek canoe. Chapter One (the introduction of unsustainable entitlements) leads eventually to Chapter Twenty (total societal collapse): The Greeks are at Chapter Seventeen or Eighteen.

and this

What’s happening in the developed world today isn’t so very hard to understand: The 20th-century Bismarckian welfare state has run out of people to stick it to. In America, the feckless, insatiable boobs in Washington, Sacramento, Albany, and elsewhere are screwing over our kids and grandkids. In Europe, they’ve reached the next stage in social-democratic evolution: There are no kids or grandkids to screw over.

finally

Think of Greece as California: Every year an irresponsible and corrupt bureaucracy awards itself higher pay and better benefits paid for by an ever-shrinking wealth-generating class. And think of Germany as one of the less profligate, still-just-about-functioning corners of America such as my own state of New Hampshire: Responsibility doesn’t pay. You’ll wind up bailing out anyway. The problem is there are never enough of “the rich” to fund the entitlement state, because in the end it disincentivizes everything from wealth creation to self-reliance to the basic survival instinct, as represented by the fertility rate. In Greece, they’ve run out Greeks, so they’ll stick it to the Germans, like French farmers do. In Germany, the Germans have only been able to afford to subsidize French farming because they stick their defense tab to the Americans. And in America, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are saying we need to paddle faster to catch up with the Greeks and Germans. What could go wrong?

Andy McCarthy, also of National Review demonstrates the why and how of the Democrats' plans for achieving this goal:

That is, I think our side is analyzing this all wrong: Today's Democrats are controlled by the radical Left, and it is more important to them to execute the permanent transformation of American society than it is to win the upcoming election cycles. They have already factored in losing in November — even losing big. For them, winning big now outweighs that. I think they're right.

I hear Republicans getting giddy over the fact that "reconciliation," if it comes to that, is a huge political loser. That's the wrong way to look at it. The Democratic leadership has already internalized the inevitablility of taking its political lumps. That makes reconciliation truly scary. Since the Dems know they will have to ram this monstrosity through, they figure it might as well be as monstrous as they can get wavering Democrats to go along with. Clipping the leadership's statist ambitions in order to peel off a few Republicans is not going to work. I'm glad Republicans have held firm, but let's not be under any illusions about what that means. In the Democrat leadership, we are not dealing with conventional politicians for whom the goal of being reelected is paramount and will rein in their radicalism. They want socialized medicine and all it entails about government control even more than they want to win elections. After all, if the party of government transforms the relationship between the citizen and the state, its power over our lives will be vast even in those cycles when it is not in the majority. This is about power, and there is more to power than winning elections, especially if you've calculated that your opposition does not have the gumption to dismantle your ballooning welfare state.

The question for those of us that oppose this radical agenda is simple. How do we stop them?

Harry Reid has 50 votes for reconciliation and a compliant parliamentarian that will allow him to get whatever he wants to out of the Senate. This battle will be won or lost in the House.

Reps. Tierney, Tsongas, McGovern and Delahunt need to hear from their constituents from now until the moment the vote is taken. By electing Scott Brown, the voters of Massachusetts and their districts were very clear that they have no desire for the health care bill that is about to be shoved down our throats. In case any of these Representatives suffer from short term memory loss they need to be reminded of this fact. Tea Party anyone?

Ryan's Woodshed

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) in 6 minutes completely exposes the Democratic talking points as lies and more damned lies. Every American needs to see this.

Obama's Death Stare

The president looks like he's enjoying himself.

I wonder if he would have made this face if one of the members' of Congress had the sense to make the same point as this woman:

This morning I chatted with Ovid Lamontagne, a Republican businessman who's running for Senate in New Hampshire. He repeated a commonsense observation from a Granite State waitress about those special deals: "Any bill that people have to be bribed into voting for can't any good."

or if they had pointed out that Democrats in both the House and Senate voted to exempt themselves from the legislation. If they really believe that the health care system is going to be better after they get done "reforming" it, why don't they want their families subject to the plan?

For an answer let's look up north, after all the Democrats are always telling us how wonderful the Canadian health care system is and that we should be following their model:

If I were minded to make a health-care TV ad, I'd rustle up the premier of Newfoundland's interview on NTV last night. Justifying his decision to eschew the pleasures of the monopoly government health-care system he presides over for heart surgery in a Florida hospital, Danny Williams told his fellow Newfs:

It's my health, it's my choice.

By the way, the Canadian state does not accept that proposition, which is why, if a Canadian such as Mr. Williams wishes to exercise his choice he is obliged to leave the country.

If Obamacare passes where will Canadian politicians get their health care?

Dems Vow To Go Nuclear

In yet another example, if one were necessary, that the upcoming health summit is just political theater; the White House is threatening to use reconciliation to get their health care behemoth through the Senate. In announcing the $950 Billion downpayment on the government takeover of our health care system they were quite blunt:

In the course of unveiling Obama’s new health reform proposal on a conference call with reporters this morning, White House advisers made it clearer than ever before: If the GOP filibusters health reform, Dems will move forward on their own and pass it via reconciliation.

The assertion, which is likely to spark an angry response from GOP leaders, ups the stakes in advance of the summit by essentially daring Republicans to try to block reform.

“The President expects and believes the American people deserve an up or down vote on health reform,” White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer said on the call.

The Obama administration sees nothing wrong with extending deadlines with the Iranian regime in its quest to achieve a nuclear weapon. When it comes to dealing with the mad mullahs negotiation is without limit.

President Obama has very different ideas when it comes to the government takeover of health care. As far as he is concerned the time for negotiation has ended, it's time for the Republicans to get on board or get run over.

Minority leader Mitch McConnell is already throwing his hands in the air claiming that he doesn't have the votes to stop reconciliation. That's no reason not to fight. The American people deserve a Senate Minority leader that is willing to use every tool at his disposal to make the fight last as long as possible. The more time the American public has to learn what the Democrats are up to and how little they value the opinion of the people they claim to represent, the more involved the people will beome. The Democrats in their hubris will awaken a righteous anger that will sweep across this great land and refresh the spirit of liberty that has been long dormant.

The Wall St. Journal Gets it, Do The Democrats?

Another Liberal Crackup
The real reason Evan Bayh wants out of Washington.

The political retirement of Evan Bayh, at age 54, is being portrayed by various sages as a result of too much partisanship, or the Senate's dysfunction, or even the systemic breakdown of American governance. Most of this is rationalization. The real story, of which Mr. Bayh's frustration is merely the latest sign, is the failure once again of liberal governance.
For the fourth time since the 1960s, American voters in 2008 gave Democrats overwhelming control of both Congress and the White House. Republicans haven't had such large majorities since the 1920s. Yet once again, Democratic leaders have tried to govern the country from the left, only to find that their policies have hit a wall of practical and popular resistance.
Democrats failed in the latter half of the 1960s, as the twin burdens of the Great Society and Vietnam ended the Kennedy boom and split their party. They failed again after Watergate, as Congress dragged Jimmy Carter to the left and liberals had no answer for stagflation. They failed a third time in the first two Bill Clinton years, as tax increases and HillaryCare led to the Gingrich Congress before Mr. Clinton salvaged his Presidency by tacking to the center.

A fourth crackup is already well underway and is even more remarkable considering how Democrats were set up for success. Inheriting a recession amid GOP failures, Democrats had the chance to restore economic confidence and fix the financial system with modest reforms that would let them take credit for the inevitable recovery. Yet only 13 months later, Democrats are down in the polls, their agenda is stymied by Democratic opposition, and their House and Senate majorities are in peril as moderates like Mr. Bayh flee the scene of this political accident.
Democrats have responded by blaming "obstructionist" Republicans, who lack the votes to block anything by themselves; or a failure to communicate the right message, though President Obama is a master communicator; or even Madison's framework of checks and balances, though this system has worked better than all others for some 225 years.
John Podesta, who ran Mr. Obama's transition and heads the Center for American Progess that has supplied the Administration's ideas, summed up the liberal-media mood last week when he told the Financial Times that American governance now "sucks." If you can't blame your own ideas, blame the system.
The real source of this mess is the agenda that Democrats have tried to ram through the political system. Far from offering new ideas to reform the welfare state or compete better against rising global powers, Democrats have with rare exception tried to impose the same spending, tax and regulatory agenda that failed in the 1960s, 1970s and 1990s. Mr. Obama was a new face promising new hope, but his ideas are as old as the average Congressional Chairman.
To fix the economy, Democrats sent federal spending to peacetime heights in the name of replacing private investment with "public demand." But instead of spurring recovery, this spending spree has retarded it by frightening the public and business about future tax increases and the rising burden of public debt. The new jobs Democrats promised still haven't arrived, and while the recovery should finally produce job growth this year, Americans know they have received little for their $862 billion in "stimulus."
The rest of Mr. Obama's liberal agenda has foundered on its own overreaching implausibility. To fight the speculative threat of global warming, Democrats have tried to impose vast new taxes to raise energy prices. To address rising health-care costs, they proposed huge new health subsidies and political control of medical decisions. Medicare is heading toward bankruptcy, yet Mr. Obama's response is to make the entire health-care system like Medicare. And to fix the financial system, they have declared war on bankers while proposing reforms that would do little to prevent future bank bailouts.
The central contradiction in modern liberal politics is that Otto von Bismarck's entitlement state for cradle to grave financial security is no longer affordable. The model has reached the limit of its ability to tax private income and still allow enough economic growth to finance its transfer payments.
You can see this in bankrupt Greece, where government spends 52% of GDP; or in California and New York, where the government-employee unions have pushed tax rates to punishing levels and the states still can't pay their bills. Americans can see that this is where Mr. Obama's agenda is also taking Washington, and this is why they are rejecting it.

Can Mr. Obama still make a mid-course correction, a la Bill Clinton after 1994? Of course he can. What we don't know is whether he has the political instincts and nerve to do so. As a creature of Chicago politics and the legal class, he has lived his entire life in precincts dominated by the political left. On the other hand, he says he is not "an ideologue."
Americans have already sent one rebuke to Democrats in the form of Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts. Now Mr. Bayh, a senior Member of their own party, has sent another by skipping town and putting another Senate seat in play. Our guess is that it will take one more repudiation in November before Democrats relearn that you can't govern America successfully from the political left.

Evidently the White House will unveil their new health care plan on Monday. This unveiling comes with the promise/threat that if need be the White House and Harry Reid will force the plan through the Senate using reconciliation which only requires 51 votes.

Is it any coincidence that President Obama was just in Nevada helping Reid's flagging re-election effort? What Obama/Pelosi/Reid can't seem to undertand is that Americans don't want a radical remaking of our society, in short, they're stuck on stupid. If they force through a radical transformation of the health care system using the gimmick of reconciliation, which was never intended to be used in this way, the backlash will be enormous.

Listen up members of Congress. If you choose to ignore the wishes of your constituents and push through a hyper-partisan bill using a budgeting gimmick, the townhalls of last August will look like child play compared to what you have coming your way.

It's really very simple. Who are you more afraid of? Your party leadership? Or your constituents? At the end of the day only one has the power to end your career. You better start listening to them before you find yourself unemployed next January.