A BLACK INTELLECTUAL EVALUATES OUR BLACK PRESIDENT

Thomas Sowell is a distinguished author and a conservative intellectual. He also happens to be black which automatically makes him the scourge of the left. The truth is he is a deep and thoughtful individual with a perspective always worthy of consideration. What follows are his thoughts on Barack Obama in his capacity as President of the United States six months in. I have taken the liberty to sprinkle my comments in BOLD CAPS throughout this piece by Mr. Sowell. I ask his and your indulgence for this exercise. Further, I recommend all of Mr. Sowell's work to you for your review. It is worthwhile reading.


Our New President: Disaster In The Making?
By THOMAS SOWELL

After many a disappointment with someone, and especially after a disaster, we may be able to look back at numerous clues that should have warned us that the person we trusted did not deserve our trust.

When that person is the president of the United States, the potential for disaster is virtually unlimited. [AND THAT BECOMES MORE OBVIOUS WITH EACH PASSING DAY]

Many people are rightly worried about what this administration's reckless spending will do to the economy in our time and to our children and grandchildren, to whom a staggering national debt will be passed on. But if the worst that Barack Obama does is ruin the economy, I will breathe a sigh of relief. [THE DAMAGE TO OUR ECONOMY FROM "STIMULUS" SPENDING & FROM HIS IMMENSE FEDERAL BUDGET IS RETARDING ECONOMIC GROWTH AND AS NOTED IS PASSING ALONG UNSUSTAINABLE, GENERATION DEBT. IN BOTH INSTANCES, MUCH OF THAT UNPRECEDENTED SPENDING COMES IN THE FORM OF POLITICAL PORK BARREL PAYOFFS TO OBAMA'S CONSTITUENT GROUPS AND ALLIES. GIVEN THE ENORMITY OF IT, THAT IS SIMPLY WRONG AS WELL AS FULLY HURTFUL TO ECONOMIC RECOVERY]

He is heading this country toward disaster on many fronts, including a nuclear Iran, which has every prospect of being an irretrievable disaster of almost unimaginable magnitude. We cannot put that genie back in the bottle — and neither can generations yet unborn. They may yet curse us all for leaving them hostages to nuclear terror. [SECRETARY OF STATE CLINTON IN HER RECENT "TOUGH" COMMENTS ABOUT NOT ALLOWING IRAN TO GET A NUKE WENT ON TO SAY THAT, IF THEY DO, WE WILL BE OPPOSED TO THEIR USING IT AS A THREAT. FAR FROM ACTUALLY BEING "TOUGH", HER COMMENTS WERE NOT ONLY LAUGHABLE BUT THEY WERE AN OPEN ADMISSION THAT WE CANNOT STOP THEM FROM GAINING SUCH A WEAPON. THE ISSUE IS WHEN, NOT IF]

Conceivably, Israel can spare us that fate by taking out the Iranian nuclear facilities, instead of relying on Obama's ability to talk the Iranians out of going nuclear. [BUT WE MUST NOTE THAT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION HAS TAKEN TO WARNING AND THREATENING ISRAEL AS TO THEIR MILITARY INTENT AND THEIR SETTLEMENTS. OUR GOVERNMENT IS CURRENTLY AS AGGRESSIVE TOWARDS OUR ALLY ISRAEL AS ANY IN HISTORY. WE CODDLE THE IRANIANS AND TRY TO INTIMIDATE THE ISRAELIS. THAT IS JUST PLAIN BACKWARDS]

What the Israelis cannot spare us, however, are our own internal problems, of which the current flap over President Obama's injecting himself into a local police issue is just a small sign of a very big danger. [THE MOST IMPORTANT SUB STORY OUT OF THE CAMBRIDGE POLICE EVENT IS THAT THE FAR LEFT HAS ALWAYS BEEN AND REMAINS TODAY DEFIANT TO POLICE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY. OBAMA'S SIN IN THIS MATTER, IF THERE IS ONE, IS ALLOWING THE REST OF US TO SEE HIS REAL FAR LEFT SYMPATHIES. HE HAS ALWAYS BEEN A MAN OF THE FAR LEFT, OF THAT THERE IS NO DOUBT]

Nothing has torn more countries apart from inside like racial and ethnic polarization. Just this year, a decades-long civil war, filled with unspeakable atrocities, has finally ended in Sri Lanka. The painful irony is that, when the British colony of Ceylon became the independent nation of Sri Lanka in 1948, its people were considered to be a shining example for the world of good relations between a majority (the Sinhalese) and a minority (the Tamils).

That all changed when politicians decided to "solve" the "problem" that the Tamil minority was much more economically successful than the Sinhalese majority. Group identity politics led to group preferences and quotas that escalated into polarization, mob violence and ultimately civil war. [PLAYING THE GAME OF RACIAL POLITICS HAS BEEN A MODUS OPERANDI OF THE LEFT FOR A VERY, VERY LONG TIME. THEY USE MINORITIES TO GAIN THEIR VOTES BUT CARE LITTLE FOR ACTUALLY IMPROVING THEIR LOT. INSTEAD LEFTISTS PREFER TO TRAP THEM IN DEPENDENCY PROGRAMS THAT ALLOW THE LEFT TO COERCE THE LOYALTY OF RACIAL GROUPS]

Group identity politics has poisoned many other countries, including at various times Kenya, Czechoslovakia, Fiji, Guyana, Canada, Nigeria, India and Rwanda. In some countries the polarization has gone as far as mass expulsions or civil war.

The desire of many Americans for a "post-racial" society is well-founded, though the belief that Barack Obama would move in that direction was extremely ill-advised, given the history of his actions and associations. [THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE POLITICIAN OBAMA HAS USED RACE TO HIS ADVANTAGE REPEATEDLY AND CONTINUES TO ATTEMPT TO DO SO AS PRESIDENT]

This is a president on a mission to remake American society in every aspect, by whatever means are necessary and available. That requires taking all kinds of decisions out of the hands of ordinary Americans and transferring them to Washington elites — and ultimately the No. 1 elite, Barack Obama himself. [THAT WOULD BE LEFTIST ELITES OF COURSE. SINCE AMERICA IS NOT A LEFT ORIENTED SOCIETY, THOSE ELITES KNOW THEY MUST DECEIVE, MISDIRECT, MISLEAD AND FOOL AS MANY VOTERS AS POSSIBLE IN ORDER TO GAIN AND KEEP POWER. FOR EXAMPLE, IF OBAMA HAD HONESTLY TOLD AMERICANS WHAT HE WAS GOING TO DO ONCE IN OFFICE WHILE HE WAS OUT ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL, HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ELECTED]

Like so many before him who have ruined countries around the world, Obama has a greatly inflated idea of his own capabilities and the prospects of what can be accomplished by rhetoric or even by political power. [LIKE MOST ON THE FAR LEFT, OBAMA IS AN IDEOLOGUE AND AMATEUR UTOPIAN. HE LIVES IN A WORLD OF ACADEMIC THEORY THAT HAS LITTLE, IF ANY, CONNECTION TO EVERYDAY REALITY. UTOPIAN IDEOLOGUES ALL THINK THEY KNOW BETTER THAN EVERYONE ELSE AND DO NOT RECOGNIZE THE FACT THAT UTOPIANS THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE ALWAYS FAILED]

Often this has been accompanied by an ignorance of history, including the history of how many people before him have tried similar things with disastrous results.

During a recent TV interview, when President Obama was asked about the prospects of victory in Afghanistan, he replied that it would not be victory like in World War II, with "Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur." [SEE 'SHOWING THE WHITE FLAG IN AFGHANISTAN']

In reality, it was not Emperor Hirohito who surrendered on the battleship Missouri. American troops were already occupying Japan before Hirohito met Gen. Douglas MacArthur for the first time.

This is not the first betrayal of his ignorance by Obama, nor the first overlooked by the media. Moreover, ignorance by itself is not nearly as bad as charging full steam ahead, pretending to know. Barack Obama is doing that on a lot of issues, not just history or a local police incident in Massachusetts. [THE BELIEF ON THE LEFT THAT OBAMA IS A BRILLIANT MAN IS OFTEN BELIED BY HIS BEHAVIOR AND COMMENTS BOTH WHILE IN OFFICE AND ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL. TRUTH BE TOLD HE CANNOT HOLD AN INTELLECTUAL CANDLE TO FORMER PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON OR ESPECIALLY TO A BONAFIDE INTELLECTUAL LIKE THOMAS SOWELL]

While the mainstream media in America will never call him on this, these repeated demonstrations of his amateurism and immaturity will not go unnoticed by this country's enemies around the world. And it is the American people who will pay the price. [AND IT IS THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHO ARE SLOWLY BUT STEADILY WISING UP TO THE REALITY BEFORE US: VOTING OBAMA INTO OFFICE IS THE MOST SIGNIFICANT ELECTORAL MISTAKE IN AMERICAN HISTORY]

Copyright 2008 Creators Syndicate, Inc

Sphere: Related Content

LEFT IN CONGRESS WORRIED ABOUT THE WELFARE OF REPUBLICANS!

Can't you just feel the love when you read the following story? Isn't it reassuring to know that Democrat politicians on Capitol Hill are concerned about the image and welfare of all their Republican buddies relative to the outcome of the vote for our new Supreme Court justice? Doesn't it make you feel good all over that they are looking out for each other?

Give me a break.

Why would Democrat pols warn Republican pols about the danger of voting against this nomination? Because they care about them? NO. Because they want them to look good in the eyes of Latino voters? NO. Or might it be that they desperately need the Republicans to vote right along with them so they don't look bad and lose ground in the polls? That is much more likely.

The Dems in the Senate know that Sotomayer is not all that popular with the public. She did not come across as among the best and the brightest during her confirmation hearings and she has a somewhat divisive track record whenever she is off the bench. As a federal judge, a notable percentage of her rulings that have been appealed to the Supreme Court have been overturned. Does all of this disqualify her? Certainly not. Does it make her nomination somewhat questionable? You bet. And the public is not particularly wild about her candidacy.

Make no mistake, she will be confirmed. But Senate Dems will be largely on their own in that vote. They know that it will cost them to some degree in public opinion so they are doing their disingenuous best to intimidate Republicans by playing the race card. Apparently, most Republicans are not buying it, leaving their Democrat colleagues basically holding the bag. That makes Democrat Senators angry.

The other Democrat concern of course is the plummeting popularity of their dear leader, Barack Obama. Voting for his Supreme Court choice at this point in time is just another high profile link between those Senators and their President. As is typical of the cowardly politicians that populate Congress, they do not want to have to stand up and take the heat that may come their way for being obedient party people. Their lives would be a lot less stressful if the Republicans would just cooperate.

There is also the race factor as mentioned in the article. The Democrat gang risks being seen as playing racial politics to force votes for Sotomayor as opposed to promoting her sterling credentials as a reason to support her candidacy. In what is supposed to be a post racial political environment, being perceived as pushing race based blackmail will not sit well with voters, Latino or otherwise.

One thing that the left has never been able to grasp: people cannot be coerced into counter intuitive behavior for very long. Human nature does not work that way. But the left has never understood much about human nature, which is why it is so difficult for them to be intellectually and politically honest.


Dems warn GOP of backlash for opposing Sotomayor
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – The Senate debate over Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor turned bitter Wednesday, after Democrats warned the GOP it would pay a steep price for opposing the judge who would be the first Hispanic justice, and a top Republican charged they were playing destructive racial politics.
Majority Leader Harry Reid implored Republicans Wednesday to join Democrats in voting to confirm Sotomayor next week, warning that GOP opposition would bring the same sort of public backlash that followed the party's spirited opposition to measures that would have given some illegal immigrants a chance to gain legal status.
"I just think that their voting against this good woman is going to treat them about the same way that they got treated as a result of their votes on immigration," said Reid, D-Nev.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, the head of his party's Senate campaign committee and a Sotomayor opponent, shot back that Reid and other Democrats were trying to exploit the nomination and "giving cover to groups and individuals to nurture racial grievances for political advantage."
"I don't think it influences people's votes, but what it does encourage is a very poisonous — indeed a very toxic — tone of destructive politics," Cornyn told The Associated Press. "They ought to be ashamed of themselves."
Reid's comments and the heated response they drew highlight the incendiary political dynamics surrounding next week's vote to confirm President Barack Obama's first high court nominee, the daughter of Puerto Rican parents who was raised in a South Bronx housing project and educated in the Ivy League before spending 17 years on the federal bench. There is little doubt that Sotomayor, 55, will be confirmed with majority Democrats backing her solidly and a handful of Republicans joining them.
But the debate over her nomination has raised tricky questions of identity politics for both parties. Republicans are torn between a desire to please their conservative base by opposing Sotomayor and a concern that doing so could bring a Hispanic backlash. The dilemma is particularly vexing for senators from states like Cornyn's where more than one third of the population is Latino.
Democrats, too, risk inviting public ire if they are seen to be using Sotomayor's race as a cudgel against Republicans rather than promoting her based on qualifications and record — particularly in the age of Obama's "post-racial" politics.
The decision on how to vote on her confirmation was made more difficult in recent days for some Republicans and Democrats from conservative-leaning battleground states after the National Rifle Association, which has a loyal and politically active base of members, announced that a vote to confirm Sotomayor would count against senators in the group's annual candidate ratings. The NRA calls Sotomayor "hostile" to the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
Since the NRA's threat, no Republican or conservative Democrat has come out publicly to support Sotomayor.
Three Republicans, Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bob Corker of Tennessee and Jim DeMint of South Carolina, announced Wednesday that they planned to vote "no."
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the Judiciary Committee chairman, said he was "disappointed" that more Republicans hadn't sided with him in support of Obama's nominee. His panel's vote Tuesday to send Sotomayor's nomination to the full Senate was nearly along party lines, with just one Republican, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, breaking with the party to back her.
Reid and Leahy appeared at a Capitol Hill news conference with a crowd of activists representing civil rights, Hispanic and women's groups, among others who are enthusiastically backing Sotomayor.
"She knows the law. She knows how to apply the law. She understands the role of a judge. She understands the role of the courts. There is no mystery about this nominee," Leahy said. "Hers is a truly American story, and what a story, and what a model this is going to be for others in America."
Most Republicans, though, say they don't trust Sotomayor to keep her personal prejudices and opinions out of the courtroom. Burr said in a statement that the judge has "let her personal beliefs cloud her judgment." DeMint said she "has not inspired confidence that she will consistently base her decisions on our Constitution and laws," citing in particular her stance on gun and abortion rights.
GOP leadership aides suggest there's little political ground to be lost for their party in opposing Sotomayor, saying Obama has slipped substantially among Hispanic voters in recent weeks, notwithstanding his selection of the judge. They note that Democrats vehemently denied they were being anti-Hispanic during their successful efforts in 2003 to block Honduran-born Miguel Estrada, named by GOP President George W. Bush, from a seat on the federal bench.
Brent Wilkes of the League of United Latin American Citizens said his group was targeting wavering Republicans with local and national campaigns designed to pressure them to vote for Sotomayor, and promised "repercussions" for GOP senators who vote no.
"It appears to me that they're deciding to play racial politics," Wilkes said. He singled out Cornyn and fellow Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, who's seeking her party's 2010 gubernatorial nomination, as Republicans who "made a big mistake" in deciding to oppose Sotomayor, adding: "They will feel the heat from our community."
Cornyn defended his decision, noting that he had been among the first Republicans to publicly fault conservatives who branded Sotomayor "racist." To "say that my vote is based on anything other than a principled opposition to some of her positions is deeply offensive," he said.

Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc

Sphere: Related Content

SHOWING THE WHITE FLAG IN AFGHANISTAN

It was just a week or so ago when Barack Obama noted that he does not want to use the word 'victory' relative to the fight in Afghanistan. Now we have the article that follows promoting the idea of "unprecedented" talks with the Taliban terrorist group about ending their insurgency. Anyone noticing a pattern emerging?

First, regarding the concept of 'victory': if Americans are fighting and dying for something other than victory, the Commander In Chief should bring them home tomorrow. Americans should not be asked to sacrifice their lives for anything short of defeat of the enemy who is attempting to kill them. Only a far left academic theorist like Obama could possibly conger up such absurd ideas. Play to win or get out of the game.

Most significantly, what is the anticipated outcome from "talks" with the Taliban? That they will lay down their arms and peacefully coexist? Not going to happen. That we can trust their word relative to whatever they promise in such talks? Who in their right mind would trust terrorists? The Taliban will promise whatever is required that will eventually lead to their complete and total victory in this conflict. They will not surrender and that has been proven over the historical long haul not to mention over the past eight years.

So what do the British and the Obama administration want to accomplish here? That question has an easy answer. They seek the political cover required to pack up and get out of town without appearing to have given up even though that is precisely what will be the practical result.

The allied leadership is showing the white flag of surrender. The Taliban know it. Al Qaeda knows it. The Afghans know it. And soon the rest of the world will recognize it for what it is. Only the far left will consider it wholly justifiable. And truly, the sacrifice of those who have died there will be in vain.

Those in the Karzai government along with those who have been supportive of the Americans in this war had better get their stuff together and vacate the scene sooner rather than later. Any and all of those who stay behind will be slaughtered and those on our side who created the circumstance that allow that to happen will turn a blind eye to the bloodshed. Leftists like Barack Obama could care less about such outcomes as long as the fighting ends. For them, surrender makes sense.

But rational people with an awareness of the lessons of history know that surrender always leads to disaster. To the victors go the spoils. And the losers are killed, subjugated, often enslaved and usually forgotten.

The article puts out the best spin on this news story as is possible since much of the media is on the far left as well. Some people will be fooled in the short run. But the historical record will live on through the ages and prove, once again, that the anti-war, anti-military, anti-victory left is on the wrong side of history.

The unforgivable part is that thousands will die as a result of their repeatedly failed ideology.


Britain and US prepared to open talks with the Taliban

A concerted effort to start unprecedented talks between Taliban and British and American envoys was outlined yesterday in a significant change in tactics designed to bring about a breakthrough in the attritional, eight-year conflict in Afghanistan.
Senior ministers and commanders on the ground believe they have created the right conditions to open up a dialogue with "second-tier" local leaders now the Taliban have been forced back in a swath of Helmand province.
They are hoping that Britain's continuing military presence in Helmand, strengthened by the arrival of thousands of US troops, will encourage Taliban commanders to end the insurgency. There is even talk in London and Washington of a military "exit strategy".
Speaking at the end of the five-week Operation Panther's Claw in which hundreds of British troops were reported to have cleared insurgents from a vital region of Helmand province, Lieutenant-General Simon Mayall, deputy chief of defence staff, said: "It gives the Taliban 'second tier' room to reconnect with the government and this is absolutely at the heart of this operation."
The second tier of the insurgency are regarded as crucial because they control large numbers of Taliban fighters in Pashtun-dominated southern Afghanistan. The first tier of Taliban commanders – hardliners around Mullah Omar – could not be expected to start talks in the foreseeable future. The third tier – footsoldiers with no strong commitments – are not regarded as influential or significant players.
The change in tactics was revealed as the Ministry of Defence announced that two more British soldiers were killed in southern Afghanistan. One, from the Light Dragoons, was on patrol in Operation Panther's Claw; the other, a soldier from the Royal Artillery, was killed on foot patrol in Sangin. Ten soldiers have died in Operation Panther's Claw.
Mayall is responsible for formulating operational policy in Afghanistan and his remarks gave added weight to interventions by senior ministers yesterday.
David Miliband, the foreign secretary, and Douglas Alexander, the international development secretary, yesterday held out the prospect of reconciliation between the Afghan government and Taliban fighters prepared to renounce violence.
For more than a year, British intelligence officers have been instigating contacts with Taliban commanders and their entourage. But their task has been very delicate given the sensitivities of the Karzai administration in Kabul.
The situation has been complicated further by the influx of hardline and ideologically motivated fighters joining the Taliban and other insurgent groups from across the Pakistani border.
But the fact that senior ministers and military commanders seized on the apparent success of Operation Panther's Claw to highlight the possibility of talks with the Taliban reflects their concern about the lack of progress so far in Nato's counter-insurgency. Significantly, and as if to counter public aversion to talks with the Taliban, ministers and military commanders alike compared the current campaign in southern Afghanistan to anti-terrorist operations in Northern Ireland.
A ComRes poll in today's Independent suggests most people now believe British troops should be pulled out of Afghanistan. Most of those who responded (58%) said the Taliban could not be defeated militarily, and 52% of those surveyed said troops should be withdrawn immediately. This compares with a Guardian/ICM poll earlier this month which showed that 42% of those surveyed wanted troops to be withdrawn immediately.
America's priorities in Afghanistan will be spelled out in a briefing paper drawn up by General Stanley McChrystal, the new US commander in the country, due to be handed to Barack Obama tomorrow.
He will emphasise the need for speeding up the training of Afghan troops, according to defence sources. He is also expected to ask for more troops from Nato allies. British military commanders are drawing up contingency plans to increase the number of British forces to more than 10,000 from the current 9,000.
Asked whether he needed more troops, Brigadier Tim Radford, commander of British troops in Helmand, replied: "I have enough forces to do what I set out to do in Panther's Claw."
The number of British troops that might be deployed in future was "out of my hands", he said. But he added that as the number of Afghan army recruits increased, the number of Nato forces required to train them also increased.
Miliband's call for talks with more moderate Taliban elements was echoed later by Gordon Brown, who said: "Our strategy has always been to complement the military action that we've got to take to clear the Taliban, to threaten al-Qaida in its bases – while at the same time we put in more money to build the Afghan forces, the troops, the police."

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2009

Sphere: Related Content

CAREER POLITICIANS ARE COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY

The article below is all the proof anyone needs to document the case that having professional career politicians is counter intuitive, counterproductive, unnecessary, hurtful and just plain dumb.

It is absurd in the extreme for we the people to continue to send the same hacks and pigs back to the Senate and to the House of Reprehensibles year in and year out. We do not need these people and the fact is a very good case can be made that regularly returning them to office benefits only them and not the rest of us. Most certainly it does virtually nothing for the greater national good.

Yes, this means your local favorite as well as all of the rest of these tiring boors. Why is it important to send back the same people repeatedly other than for purely selfish local self-interest? How does that possibly benefit the nation as a whole?

The current system as it exists is precisely what has gotten us into this mess we have today. It will happen again if we do not exercise our good judgment and send these people back where they came from to get real jobs and earn honest wages. What we need to do in 2010 is put them all, and I do mean all, into the unemployment lines. The nation has been around for 200 or so years without them and it will be around long after they are gone.

When we all go to vote in November 2010 follow this simple guideline: do not vote for any incumbent. None, zero, zip, nada. It is time to completely turn over our national legislature, send new and fresh blood to Washington and stop the lunacy that is career politicians. Let those now in Congress run for something else like state offices or national offices they do not now occupy. Turn them loose. If they are really good they will survive in some other public service capacity. If they are not, and that would be the case with most, they should be shown the door out of office forever.

If you have a Senator up for reelection, vote for someone else. Since all House members are up, vote them all out of office. Going forward employ enough common sense to never again create a "political class".

Frankly, United States Senators serve for six years. That is more than long enough for one individual to feed at the public trough. One term and out of the Senate.

House members serve two year terms and for most of them, that is more than enough time and opportunity to do damage to the health and welfare of America. But if for some unusual reason they provide great service to the entire nation, and not just to the local branch of a national labor union, return them to office for a second two year term. However at the end of four years, no matter what, send them packing and put someone new in office.

In the end our system of governance was designed to be filled with citizen legislators, not professional political hacks who spend their time primarily lining their own pockets as well as those of their friends.

That brings us to the grand prize, the Presidency. For the future welfare of this country as well as all of the rest of the world this should be a one term, four year assignment. No reelection distraction. No endless fundraising. No political paybacks and payouts. Serve one term and hit the road. After all Abraham Lincoln, often considered our greatest President, served but one term. Some of the worst in history have served two.

Can anyone out there articulate an important, non self-serving reason why we the people should not follow such a path? If so, it would be nice to hear it since the reality is there are no quality reasons why we should continue to tolerate and suffer the consequences of the current "political class" sham.

What say you?


CNSNews.com
Conyers Sees No Point in Members Reading 1,000-Page Health Care Bill--Unless They Have 2 Lawyers to Interpret It for Them
By Nicholas Ballasy, Video Reporter

(CNSNews.com) - During his speech at a National Press Club luncheon, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.), questioned the point of lawmakers reading the health care bill.
“I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill,’” said Conyers.
“What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”

Sphere: Related Content

UNIONS RIP OFF THE RANK & FILE

It is beyond ironic that the last vestiges of the communist manifesto "workers paradise" on planet earth is right here in the United States. Workers unions, which once served such an important and noble purpose, are today constantly operating to enrich their leadership and headquarters personnel as the top priority. The rank and file are no longer important beyond their dues paying role and the prospect that they will sheepishly follow instructions from union bosses.

Remember that in the old Soviet Union, the former "workers paradise", it was the Commissars who lived rich, had the nice cars, owned the large dachas on the Black Sea and ate the finest caviar with their expensive champagne. The proletariat, on the other hand, lived a miserable existence, drinking cheap vodka and simply doing what they were told.

So be it with our large labor unions today. As the article that follows attests, while the leadership and their lackeys enrich themselves, the rank and file are being screwed. If members of unions like the SEIU, Teamsters or UFCW do not yet understand that reality, then they are simply mind numbed union dues paying robots who may never wake up to the circumstances within which they are trapped.

Corruption has for some time now been the common practice among labor bosses. And they work gland in hand with their wholly owned leftist politicians to continue to take advantage of rank and file members while doing everything possible to spread their unionized control beyond it's current limits.

The sad part is that so many everyday union members are honest, hard working folks who have been led over the cliff to believe that were it not for their union the world would take advantage of them. What they have yet to discover is that it is their union that takes their dues and messes with their pensions so that those at the top can enrich themselves at the expense of their membership. In many ways it is the modern form of slavery, especially when so many in the rank and file are minorities.

The media will never report that truth and the left, now in control of government, will do everything within it's power to maintain that status quo. Unions were once the champions of the working class.

Today, there are their owners and masters.


Union Pensions in the Red
Labor chiefs are doing better than the workers.

We’ve all read about underfunded corporate pensions, but here’s an unreported story: Union pensions are even more in the red, and it’s one reason union chiefs are so eager to rig organizing rules to gain more dues-paying members.
Only last week, the country’s largest union local re-opened the contract for its 145,000 members two years early and gave up raises and reduced retirement benefits for future hires. The SEIU’s United Healthcare Workers East struck this unusual deal so employers could instead plug a gaping pension hole.
In April, the SEIU National Industry Pension Fund—which covers some 101,000 rank-and-file members—announced that its pension has been put into what the feds call “critical status,” or “red zone.” In other words, it lacks the cash to pay promised benefits and may have to cut them. As of 2007, the last year for which it reported results to the government, the fund had 74.4% of the assets needed to pay its benefits.
Thirteen of the bigger plans operated for the Teamsters have, together, a mere 59.3% of reserves necessary to cover obligations. Or consider that 26 pension funds at the food workers union, the UFCW, are at 58.7%. Seven locals at the United Brotherhood of Carpenters fare better at 67%. As a rule of thumb the government considers a fund to be “endangered” at below 80%, and in “critical” status at below 65%, and requires them to come up with a plan to get off probation within a decade.
You don’t hear labor leaders touting this kind of performance in their organizing riffs, and not many workers are patient enough to review the Form 5500 filings submitted to the IRS and Department of Labor that track these retirement savings. But the data show a steady decline in recent years that can’t be explained merely by the stock market.
For example, Unite HERE’s National Retirement Fund stood at 115% in 1998 and dropped to 83.4% by 2007, well before the crash. The SEIU fund that was put into a “red zone” in April was at 103.4% as recently as 1998. On average, the asset to liability ration at so-called multi-employer plans, which union funds make up the bulk of, stood at 66% in 2006, according to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. By contrast, single employer plans, basically most company-provided pensions, were funded at 96%.
Poor management probably deserves a lot of the blame for the union decline, but the exact causes are a mystery. An even bigger mystery is that the unions do a far better job with funds created for their officers and employees than for mere workers. The SEIU Affiliates, Officers and Employees Pension Plan—which covers the staff and bosses at its locals—was funded as of 2007 at 102.2%. The plan for the folks at SEIU international headquarters was funded at 84.8%.
Union officer benefits are also far more generous than anything dues-paying workers enjoy. Consider again the SEIU, probably the country’s most powerful union. Their officers and employees get a yearly 3% cost of living increase, but SEIU members get none; officers qualify for an early pension at 50 or after more than 30 years of service, but workers can’t retire early with a pension; officers qualify for disability retirement after a year’s service, but workers need 10 years. In the land of union retirement, some workers are more equal than others.
We suspect most current union members would be surprised to learn how their leaders are handling their hard-earned retirement money. The 93% of the private workforce that doesn’t belong to a union, but that might have little choice if Big Labor’s agenda becomes law, would be even more interested.

Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

Sphere: Related Content

HOW TO ENJOY A WEDDING

Getting married? Might as well enjoy the ceremony. The following video suggests one way to have a good time.

Sphere: Related Content

WHITE HOUSE WILL CRUSH THE "BLUE DOGS"

As the accompanying article reports, White House operatives and their Congressional far left allies in the House will bring Obamacare to a vote prior to the August recess. Why? Because unlike conventional wisdom on the matter, they will have the votes to pass it when the time comes. The preliminaries are just window dressing and political gamesmanship.

Team Obama will buy the votes they need for passage or they will, along with the House Speaker, intimidate their supposed "Blue Dog" members into doing exactly what they direct.

Some of these assumed "Blue Dogs" will be allowed to vote against it because they are in very competitive districts (a rarity in America today) but mostly because other "Blue Dogs" will be forced or bribed to vote yes. Anticipate a relatively close vote but a passing vote none the less. The leftists in the administration and in House leadership will not allow Obamacare, the most significant political power grab in American history, to fail given that they are in full and unstoppable control of our federal government.

Pundits and talking heads, mostly on the right, like to delude themselves into believing that there is a revolt within the Democrat ranks. Yeah, good luck with that one. On the left, politics and the political agenda is all that counts. There is no room for principle or the concept of the greater good. In their world the ends always justify the means and the ends are always fully self-serving. The left is about power and nothing more. Those who think otherwise are beyond naive.

Thus expect that the "Blue Dogs" will become the whipped dogs.

But there is a more important point regarding the gist of the article below and that is the prospect of actually having a vote prior to the upcoming recess (ever notice how often our hard working public servants go on recess?).

Given how unsettled the electorate is regarding the high negatives of Obamacare, a vote prior to their vacation would put the left on the record, for all to see, as to their position on this increasingly unpopular proposal. It would leave a month for opponents to raise a huge dust up, focusing attention on this very bad legislation and those in Congress who are on the record in it's support.

In other words, by forcing a vote the White House might well be killing their long term chances to get this mess into law. Voting on and passing Obamacare in the House, where it would be done by pure political maneuver and not done on the merits of the legislation, would generate a long and sustained outcry against socialized medicine. And with Congress out of session, it gives the opposition center stage.

By going for the jugular in their naked attempt to seize permanent control of government power, the left would be self-exposed to a very powerful blow back. Their greed for power might just well be their undoing.

So let's have a vote on Obamacare before the month is out. It might be the best bad idea yet.


Emanuel: Changes To Health System Take Time
by April Fulton

The House of Representatives does plan to vote on health legislation before leaving for its August recess, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told NPR.
Emerging from several hours of meetings Thursday with House leaders, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Emanuel told NPR's Steve Inskeep that "their intention is to go next week and she is working toward that goal."
Despite an earlier push by President Obama for Congress to complete its work on the legislation before the break, he and his chief of staff have acknowledged that a final product is more likely to be seen at the end of the year.
Still, setting the deadline for August was important, Emanuel said, because Congress "can use the summer months to basically work out and iron out differences."
Those differences include debates over thorny issues like taxing the wealthy to pay for expanding health coverage, whether to create a government plan that would compete for patients with private insurers, and what kind of role businesses should play, among other things.
"Having a deadline focuses the mind," he said.
Senate Inches Forward
On Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid acknowledged what had become obvious in recent days — that the full Senate would not vote on health care in August.
"It's better to have a product based on quality and thoughtfulness rather than try to jam something through," Reid said.
But he said the Senate Finance Committee would produce a bill and work on it before the August recess begins.
Still, many members of Congress have raised concerns about leaving incomplete legislation unfinished over the summer to be picked apart.
Emanuel dismissed the idea that this would bring down the bills, noting that 14,000 people a day lose their health insurance.
"The public wants health care reform that fundamentally doesn't put the insurance companies in control of the process, which is where they fundamentally are," he said.
He also said lawmakers would welcome hearing from people in their districts about the issue. "Hearing from constituents will not be the same as hearing from the special interests," he said.
Political Pressure From All Sides
Emanuel shrugged off comments from Sen. Jim DeMint, a Republican from South Carolina, who said Wednesday that health care is Obama's "Waterloo." He also dismissed remarks Thursday by Sen. James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma, that Republicans are plotting the bill's demise on a "week by week" basis.
"At least they're honest about their motivation. Their view about health care is about defeating President Obama," he said. "Politically, I actually appreciate what they said."
But tensions are also evident within the Democratic caucus as the Senate Finance Committee struggles to put together its version of the bill.
The administration's efforts to get and keep big health care interest groups on board has been worrying some Democrats in recent days. Hospitals, physicians, insurance companies and prescription drug industry groups have all pledged varying degrees of support for an overhaul.
Emanuel said it was important to keep the advocates who have been opposed to reform in the past on board, but "not at all costs. That has been a key part of this."
Fiscally conservative Democrats have also raised concerns about cost, but Emanuel urged the country to take a step back and think about the scale of what Congress is trying to accomplish.
"For 40 years, we've had a debate about health care that was solely about expanding coverage. For the first time, you have the dual goals of controlling costs and expanding coverage," he said.
"We're not just running it up on the credit card, which is how they did the prescription drug bill," he said, referring to the passage of a bill in 2003 under a Republican-controlled Congress that added a prescription drug benefit to Medicare.
"They charged it, which is a $900 billion charge," he said. "And nobody paid for it."
Emanuel sees giving more power to a commission already in place to advise Congress on how to hold down Medicare spending as key to keeping costs under control.
Fate Of The Overhaul
Inskeep asked Emanuel about the difficulties of holding together such a varied group of supporters and getting the new votes needed to pass legislation.
"I've seen places where people are trying to find a way to be a 'no,' and I've seen places where people are truly, earnestly trying to find a 'yes.' And I think we're in the process of people trying to find out how to get to a 'yes,' " he said.
At the end of the day, Emanuel expects a bill-signing ceremony.
"We will have a bill by the end of the year for the president to sign on health care that controls costs, expands coverage and provides choice," Emanuel said.
But he declined to predict how, exactly, the president and Congress would get there.
"I don't want to fast forward the movie; you're just going to have to watch the movie all the way through," he said.

Sphere: Related Content

UPDATING OBAMA'S 'GOOD WAR' IN AFGHANISTAN

Barack Obama began his run for office based most notably upon his vehement anti-war stance. He promised that if elected he would immediately withdraw all American troops from Iraq. He's been in office for six months and that outcome is nowhere in sight.

Significantly, his far left anti-war base has had little to say about that fact although they spent every waking moment excoriating Bush over it while he was in office. It seems the left is not anti-war but anti-Bush, using the death of American soldiers to conveniently advance their agenda.

Just to complicate matters, all during the campaign Obama referred to the war in Afghanistan as justified, the right war. He claimed that Bush 'took his eye off the ball' when he took us into Iraq. Now that we can enjoy a bit of perspective with the passage of a little time we find that the war in Iraq has, so far, been successful relative to most of the stated goals thereof. As to Afghanistan, the picture is not so successful.

How are we doing there since Obama took over control of that 'right war'? Let's review where we are as of this date.

1. To begin, it must be recognized that the Afghan war is now wholly Obama's war. He is in charge. He endorsed this war from the beginning. His actions since becoming Commander In Chief have had open and documentable consequences. He owns it.

2. Obama has committed tens of thousands of additional troops to the fight in Afghanistan. In other words he has surged our forces there in spite of the fact that he opposed the surge of troops in Iraq and joined those who declared the surge a failure when in fact it was a success. Seems a bit hypocritical.

3. As the following article records, as of July 20th this month has been the deadliest for US forces in Afghanistan since that war began. Thus with eleven days to go as of that date of publication Americans were dying there in greater numbers than ever before. More of our troops have died in less than one month than during any full month under the Bush administration. Where is the outrage? Where is the 'anti-war' left?

4. Obama has stepped up UAV Predator bombings in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. The result has been hundreds of terrorists killed along with hundreds of innocent "collateral damage" civilians, women and children among them. In the process he has managed to somewhat alienate our Pakistani allies, as unstable as they are, thereby making our position in that region far more tentative. Where are the 'international community' elitists who have long demanded collaborative action over unilateral bombing within civilian populations? And again, where is the 'anti-war' crowd which always screams about civilian deaths? Truth: neither cares as long as they have their man in office.

5. Of late there is the matter of the Commander In Chief publicly stating that victory is not the word he would use to define the end game he seeks in Afghanistan. What? As CIC, does he expect that would be the same mindset within the military? Is there anyone who even remotely expects that our troops on the ground are risking their lives for anything short of victory? How does Obama think such a declaration will sit with the families of those who have died and are dying in this fight? To imply that our troops should put their lives on the line for something short of victory is mindless academic babble. If they are not there fighting to win, bring them home now. No CIC should make such reckless ideological statements during a time of war.

6. Then we have the issue of the Dems in Congress supporting the Obama administration position of cutting the funding for more F-22 fighters as requested by the Air Force. Thus we have a Congress and a President who are willing to cut defense spending during a fighting war at a time when they are spending trillions of dollars on government takeovers of private sector industries. They cannot allocate the funds necessary to keep the nation safe while spending unsustainable amounts of money on political payback projects. That is wrong and completely irresponsible as well as dangerous. But it is very typical of the left which has long hated the American military.

In sum, the answer to how Barack's war is going so far: not very well now and far worse than was the case under his predecessor.

What we have in our favor is the best military ever seen on planet earth. The problem lies with the man who heads it up, our Commander In Chief.

Hopefully the military can overcome that very large obstacle as well.


July becomes deadliest month for US in Afghanistan
By JASON STRAZIUSO
Associated Press Writer

KABUL (AP) - Four Americans were killed Monday when a roadside bomb exploded in eastern Afghanistan, NATO said, making July the deadliest month for U.S. troops in this war.
A NATO statement did not give nationalities, but U.S. spokesman Lt. Robert Carr confirmed that all four were Americans. The deaths bring to 55 the number of international service members killed in July, also the deadliest month for NATO forces.
At least 30 U.S. troops have died this month—two more than the toll for June 2008, which had been the deadliest month for the American force in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, a British fighter jet crashed at NATO's largest base in southern Afghanistan on Monday, the second aircraft to go down there in two days.
The Royal Air Force GR4 Tornado crashed inside Kandahar Airfield during takeoff at 7:20 a.m., said Capt. Ruben Hoornveld, a spokesman for the NATO-led force. The crew's two members ejected and were being treated for injuries at the base hospital.
The Tornado is the fourth aircraft to crash down in Afghanistan in three days and the sixth this month. Military officials say there doesn't appear to be a common reason for the spate of crashes.
There was no indication that insurgent activity caused the latest crash, Hoornveld said, but officials could not immediately say why the plane went down. The jet caught fire and emergency personnel responded.
In the northern province of Kunduz, meanwhile, German forces killed three Afghan civilians Sunday when they fired on a pickup truck they suspected contained Taliban fighters, provincial governor Mohammad Omar said.
The German army said two civilians were killed and two seriously wounded and that the forces opened fire because the vehicle was approaching at high speed and ignored warning shots. It wasn't clear why the death tolls differed.
German and Afghan forces were conducting an operation Sunday in the Chahar Dara district when they observed two Taliban fighters entering a minivan, Omar said. When the minivan later drove toward the German forces, they opened fire, he said, but it appeared the Taliban may have exited the vehicle.
In the west, in Farah province, a van carrying civilians hit a roadside bomb Sunday, killing 11 people aboard, including a child and his mother, said Mohammad Younis Rasouli, the deputy governor.
A British soldier was killed by an explosion Sunday while on a foot patrol in the Sangin region of Helmand province, the British Ministry of Defense said. At least 16 British troops have died in Afghanistan in July, a death toll that has sparked an outcry in Britain.
On Sunday, a Russian-owned civilian Mi-8 helicopter crashed at Kandahar Air Base, killing 16 people on board.
Hoornveld called the two crashes "coincidence."
Two aircraft also went down Saturday. A U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagle fighter jet crashed in central Afghanistan, killing two crew members. U.S. officials say insurgent fire did not bring down the plane. A U.S. helicopter also made what the military calls a "hard landing" the same day. Several troops were injured.
Taliban militants downed a civilian Mi-6 transport helicopter last week in southern Afghanistan, killing six Ukrainian civilians on board and an Afghan child on the ground. Earlier in July, two Canadian soldiers and one British trooper were killed in a helicopter crash in Zabul. Officials said the crash did not appear to be caused by hostile fire.
A U.S. military spokeswoman in Kabul, Lt. Cmdr. Christine Sidenstricker, said she has not heard anything to suggest a common thread tying the crashes together. She noted that several types of aircraft were involved.
"I don't think they're related," she said. "There really hasn't been a lot of similarity between the events except they all happen to be aircraft. In most cases it has not been the result of enemy activity; it has been mechanical problems or other issues."
Last year there were only about 30,000 U.S. troops in the country at this time. Today there is double that, and many more U.S. aircraft. Two of the six recent incidents involved American aircraft.

Associated Press writer Rahim Faiez contributed to this report.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press

Sphere: Related Content

PLAIN TALK: WHY OBAMACARE IS NOT THE ANSWER

It is time to cut through the bovine scatology that is flying in every direction and get down to brass tacks relative to why Obamacare in it's various current forms is not the path to follow relative to solving our national health care challenges.

So here is some plain talk on the matter.

The starting point is the widely held agreement that we need to fix health care in America relative to cost and access. In the process we need to fix the existing systems of Medicare, VA Health Care and Medicaid. What follows is not the answer, which is obviously complex and detailed.

What follows are the common sense reasons why the proposals that Obama and the Congress are now trying to jam down our throats are not only wholly wrong, they are fully counterproductive and will be the ruin of quality health care for everyone (except those making the proposals).

1. The Numbers: One does not need to be chair of the mathematics department at MIT to recognize that the numbers being advocated simply cannot work. Their plan is to take the existing number of doctors, nurses, hospitals and clinics and add all of those currently uninsured to their patient load. No one knows the exact number of uninsured but estimates generally fall in or around 40 million people.

We already know that there are not enough nurses anywhere in the country and there are not enough doctors in most rural areas. Further, we know that hospitals have been closing up shop everywhere for some time now and that trend has not abated. In other words, we are short of nurses, doctors and hospitals even without adding 40 million people to the rolls of the insured.

Additionally, we know costs are too high and have to be brought down. That means less money to be paid to doctors, nurses and hospitals. In turn that meas less of an incentive for people to get into, or stay in, the medical profession or incur the expense of operating treatment facilities.

Clearly, the reality is that the numbers are at war with one another. If you add 40 million people to the system and the system is inadequate today and will shrink going forward, we have total disconnect. In other words, it cannot be done, it will not fly and our medical care system will collapse under it's own weight.

The numbers are obvious and that truth cannot be denied or refuted.

2. The Costs: The politically neutral Congressional Budget Office (CBO) declares that the proposals now in Congress will increase, not decrease, the cost of health care to the tune of over one trillion dollars, or one thousand billion to put it another way. It is impossible to actually understand how much money that involves.

Where will that money come from? They say they will tax the rich but the fact is that even such punitive taxation will not raise near the kind of dollars necessary to reach one trillion. More importantly, do not expect the rich to be fully cooperative with the government effort to raid their bank accounts. They have the resources at hand that are required to hide much of their money in ways that are exempt from such taxes. In the end that means less revenue to the feds. In other words, grab your wallets. It will take a whole lot more people than the rich to pay that tab meaning wage earners across the board will get hit.

They say they will cut the waste that now drives the increasing cost of heath care. Some of that is most certainly possible and should be done. But much of said cost cutting will generate counter productive impacts like those already mentioned in terms of people getting into the industry in the first place. Cutting costs means fewer, not more, resources available within our health care system. Some treatments and procedures now in place will disappear entirely, at least for some groups.

They say the will take some funding away from Medicare. That means older Americans, already subject to this very meager system, will get even less attention. In today's world, many doctors refuse to take Medicare patients because they lose money in the process. The government mandated limits on payouts to doctors are so low that it actually costs a doctor money to see a Medicare patient. That would only get worse and most doctors do not run nonprofits.

Taking federal money away from Medicaid will force the states to spend more on their Medicaid programs. How is your state doing lately? At a time when states are scrambling to cut programs in order to, at least temporarily, balance their budgets, a new and large expense would break their banks.

In the end, it is much wiser to trust the CBO than it is to trust the politicians in Congress and in the White House. The cost increase will destroy the quality and quantity of our health care.

3. The Jobs: At a time in our history when the unemployment rate is spiraling ever higher, putting a burden on the backs of small business in America will only send the jobless numbers well into double digits. The Obamacare gang wants to require businesses to provide medical insurance coverage OR pay an 8% tax on their gross incomes so that the government can provide that coverage.

That is an unambiguous and expensive increase in the cost of doing business to literally each and every organization with employees all across the country. It particularly hits small business the hardest.

Which leaves owners and managers with two choices. One, go out of business. That means every employee loses their job. Two, absorb the additional costs via expense reductions and price increases.

What is the largest expense within most all businesses? Personnel. Thus, the quickest route to expense reduction is to shrink the workforce. Some people therefore become unemployed.

The price increase option tends to be counterproductive to business, especially during a recession but should there be room to raise prices, guess who pays? All the rest of us, who are supposed to be part of the 95% who don't get their taxes raised. Price increases are, in truth, a tax increase for us since the extra money we are forced to spend goes toward paying taxes.

The proposals now before the country will cost jobs, drive up unemployment and thereby further damage an already injured economy. Bad policy and a very bad idea.

4. The Seniors: The direct victims of Obamacare will without a doubt be seniors. If Medicare is cut, seniors suffer the most. If existing costs within the system are cut, the most likely victims of those cuts will be the elderly. These kinds of cuts are what is currently proposed.

Medicare is already a poorly functioning system in many parts of America. Many doctors refuse to take Medicare patients and keep in mind people do not qualify for Medicare until age 65. Often, the places where Medicare is accepted provide below average treatment with long waiting lines at offices and long waiting times to get an appointment in the first place. Cutting Medicare will make that problem worse as will covering an additional 40 million people with Medicare like insurance.

Cost cutting will also impact seniors much more than others. Why? Because as is already well established, most of the medical expense we incur in our lives comes during the last 10-30 years of our lifetimes. That is when people require more medical attention, treatment and care. Thus it is where the costs are highest. Cutting costs means cutting senior care, pure and simple. At that point, we figuratively throw grandma and grandpa under the bus. That is a fact, not a scare tactic.

5. The Rush: We are getting the bums rush from Obama and Congress regarding nationalized health care. That alone raises a huge red flag relative to passing this nonsense.

All the while of course they keep their gold plated health insurance no matter how bad the system becomes for all the rest of us. That alone is a gold plated reason not to move forward in a rush.

Have we seen this desire to stampede the people before? Yes, the 'Stimulus' legislation. And what did we learn? No need to rush as it has not yet worked at all and apparently will not have any real impact for years. What else did we learn? That when our elected representatives don't read the bills they vote on, we get screwed. Almost none of them are reading the health care proposals now on the table.

Obamacare represents a rush to spend ever more money we not only do not have, but in doing so we only further delay the chances of an economic recovery. Without a properly functioning economy, Obamacare will not only fail, it will drive another very large nail in our fiscal coffin.

One does not have to be a genius to know that if we take the time to get our health care fix right, we give the economy time to get well in the process without dumping another unsustainable load into a downward economic spiral.

The article below breaks down the burden to seniors in greater detail. The bottom line: Obamacare is a game breaker that we cannot afford on so very many different levels.

That is the truth.


GovernmentCare’s Assault on Seniors
By Betsy McCaughey

Since Medicare was established in 1965, access to care has enabled older Americans to avoid becoming disabled and to travel and live independently instead of languishing in nursing homes. But legislation now being rushed through Congress—H.R. 3200 and the Senate Health Committee Bill—will reduce access to care, pressure the elderly to end their lives prematurely, and doom baby boomers to painful later years.
The Congressional majority wants to pay for its $1 trillion to $1.6 trillion health bills with new taxes and a $500 billion cut to Medicare. This cut will come just as baby boomers turn 65 and increase Medicare enrollment by 30%. Less money and more patients will necessitate rationing. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that only 1% of Medicare cuts will come from eliminating fraud, waste and abuse.
The assault against seniors began with the stimulus package in February. Slipped into the bill was substantial funding for comparative effectiveness research, which is generally code for limiting care based on the patient’s age. Economists are familiar with the formula, where the cost of a treatment is divided by the number of years (called QALYs, or quality-adjusted life years) that the patient is likely to benefit. In Britain, the formula leads to denying treatments for older patients who have fewer years to benefit from care than younger patients.
When comparative effectiveness research appeared in the stimulus bill, Rep. Charles Boustany Jr., (R., La.) a heart surgeon, warned that it would lead to “denying seniors and the disabled lifesaving care.” He and Sen. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) proposed amendments to no avail that would have barred the federal government from using the research to eliminate treatments for the elderly or deny care based on age.
In a letter this week to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, White House budget chief Peter Orszag urged Congress to delegate its authority over Medicare to a newly created body within the executive branch. This measure is designed to circumvent the democratic process and avoid accountability to the public for cuts in benefits.
Driving these cuts is the misconception that preventative care can eliminate sickness. As President Obama said in a speech to the American Medical Association: “We have to avoid illness and disease in the first place.” That would make sense if most diseases were preventable. But the two most prevalent diseases of aging—cancer and heart disease—are largely caused by genetics and their occurrence increases with age. Your risk of being diagnosed with cancer doubles from age 50 to 60, according to the National Cancer Institute.
The House bill shifts resources from specialty medicine to primary care based on the misconception that Americans overuse specialist care and drive up costs in the process (pp. 660-686). In fact, heart-disease patients treated by generalists instead of specialists are often misdiagnosed and treated incorrectly. They are readmitted to the hospital more frequently, and die sooner.
“Study after study shows that cardiologists adhere to guidelines better than primary care doctors,” according to Jeffrey Moses, a heart specialist at New York Presbyterian Hospital. Adds Jeffrey Borer, chairman of medicine at SUNY Downstate Medical Center: “Seldom do generalists have the knowledge to identify the symptoms of aortic valve disease, even though more than 10% of people over 75 have it. After valve surgery, patients who were too short of breath to walk can resume a normal life into their 80s or 90s.”
While the House bill being pushed by the president reduces access to such cures and specialists, it ensures that seniors are counseled on end-of-life options, including refusing nutrition where state law allows it (pp. 425-446). In Oregon, some cancer patients are being denied care by the state that could extend their lives and instead are afforded the benefit of physician-assisted suicide instead.
The harshest misconception underlying the legislation is that living longer burdens society. Medicare data prove this is untrue. A patient who dies at 67 spends three times as much on health care at the end of life as a patient who lives to 90, according to Dr. Herbert Pardes, CEO of New York Presbyterian Medical Center.
What is costly is when seniors become disabled. In a 2007 Health Affairs article, researchers reported that surgeries to unclog arteries and replace worn out hips and knees have had a major impact on steadily reducing disability rates. And nondisabled seniors use only one-seventh as much health care as disabled seniors. As a result, the annual increase in per capita health spending on the elderly is less than for the rest of the population.
Nevertheless, Medicare is running out of money. The problem is the number of seniors compared with the smaller number of workers supporting the system with payroll taxes. To remedy the problem, the Congressional Budget Office has suggested inching up the eligibility age one month per year until it reaches age 70 in 2043, or asking wealthy seniors to pay more.
These are reasonable solutions—reducing access to treatments and counseling seniors about cutting life short are not. Medicare has made living to a ripe old age a good value. ObamaCare will undo that.
Ms. McCaughey is chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former lieutenant governor of New York state.

Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

Sphere: Related Content

OBAMA IS THE CAUSE OF HIS OWN 'WATERLOO'

One can easily note when Obama critics strike close to the things that he and his team consider vulnerabilities. Applying the proverbial old saw that one will take the most flak when over the target, team Obama is clearly very worried on the matter of nationalized health care.

The article below alludes to the prospect that Obama's socialized medicine plan may turn out to be his 'Waterloo'. And that, true to form, Obama blames others for his circumstances when he reportedly says, "You're going to destroy my presidency".

First, let's recognize the bombast. The health care issue, regardless of how it turns out being legislated, is not going to destroy anything other than, prospectively, the American health care system itself. Obama's presidency will live on, at least until the 2012 elections. That kind of hyperbole can be dismissed out of hand.

Second, and most importantly, a good leader does not point fingers in an effort to blame others for their own failures. They are well aware that the buck stops with them and failure is a direct reflection of their leadership capabilities.

In fact, failure is a painful test. One can pass that exam if they take it on and use it of devise something more beneficial. Or they can try to hide and blame outside forces which of course reveals the content of their character. And earns them a failing grade on the test.

Obama and his team of minions consistently demonstrate their inability to grasp the tenants of successful leadership. They are blame placers and fault finders. They cannot understand or apply the concept of accountability.

That is a major problem for them since most people understand, in their gut if not intellectually, that those who shirk responsibility are cowards, not leaders. It takes character to be accountable and it takes character to lead.

As Obama points a finger at others he overlooks the fact that his three other fingers are pointing back at him. Given his background as a community organizer, lawyer and politician this is not surprising. It is however very, very instructive.

And it is both bad and dangerous for the health and welfare of this nation.


Dems Start To Push Back Hard To Prevent A 'Waterloo'
by Anna Edney, with Kasie Hunt and Peter Cohn contributing

A telling episode recounted by Senate Finance ranking member Charles Grassley reveals the Obama administration might be more worried than they are letting on that a Republican senator's comparison of the healthcare overhaul to Waterloo might be dangerously close to the truth.
Grassley said he spoke with a Democratic House member last week who shared Obama's bleak reaction during a private meeting to reports that some factions of House Democrats were lining up to stall or even take down the overhaul unless leaders made major changes.
"Let's just lay everything on the table," Grassley said. "A Democrat congressman last week told me after a conversation with the president that the president had trouble in the House of Representatives, and it wasn't going to pass if there weren't some changes made ... and the president says, 'You're going to destroy my presidency.' "
The White House did not respond to requests for comment.
Grassley did not name the member but said he was not from the senator's home state of Iowa. He brought up the anecdote in response to a question about whether the president's rebuke of the Waterloo remark Monday was affecting Finance Committee negotiations on a bipartisan overhaul bill. Grassley said the imbroglio was not taking a toll on the bipartisan effort.
President Obama and the Democratic National Committee pushed back hard this week against South Carolina Republican Sen. Jim DeMint's remark Friday that the healthcare overhaul could be Obama's Waterloo. Obama went directly after the comment in a speech Monday and Democratic leaders and organizations have fired off countless e-mails to call out Republicans for attempting to bring down the effort rather than offer constructive alternatives.
Most of the Blue Dog Coalition opposes the House overhaul bill and have managed to delay the Energy and Commerce Committee markup. (See related story.) Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., the Blue Dogs' Health Care Task Force chairman, said Tuesday he is not the member Grassley was referring to.
Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., defended Obama even though he is also opposed to House Democrats' bill. "I can't see him saying that," Stupak said. "He's got too much self-confidence."
House Republicans Tuesday made hay of the issue, with Ways and Means minority staff sending out an e-mail asking, "Who's really blocking health care reform?"
"Do not be fooled by the president's repeated attempts to create a Republican straw man for his health care troubles," the e-mail reads. The GOP pointed to ads the Democratic National Committee is running to pressure Democratic lawmakers.
Meanwhile, the Finance Committee continues to negotiate its bipartisan bill. Seven negotiators have been at the table, but Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus referred Tuesday to "all six in the room." Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, has not been noticed attending the meetings for some time.
Senators discussed offsets for the $1 trillion measure Tuesday afternoon with Thomas Barthold, chief of staff for the Joint Committee on Taxation. An offset offered by Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., meant to be a compromise on taxing employer-based health benefits, is under discussion, Baucus said.
Kerry's idea is similar to a proposal pushed in 1994 by former Sen. Bill Bradley, D-N.J., and approved by the Finance Committee that would tax the difference between the average health insurance premium in a region and insurers' higher-cost plans.
Unions have come out heavily against that proposal because of the potential for higher costs to be passed down to workers. Most big companies offer their own insurance plans to employees, meaning the pain could be spread beyond the insurance industry.
An industry source expressed concern that "self-insured" company plans would be victimized, noting a 2008 Kaiser Family Foundation survey that found 77 percent of firms with more than 200 employees fund their own workers' benefits, rather than contract with an outside insurer. That figure goes up for firms with 1,000 or more workers, where the vast majority are self-insured, said Marisa Milton, vice president for healthcare policy and government relations at the HR Policy Association.
Finance members are looking at the exclusion that protects employees from paying taxes on employer-based health benefits to try to reduce the growth of healthcare spending, but have run into pushback from Democratic leaders and Obama.
The bipartisan Finance group met earlier in the day with two actuaries to discuss potential penalties for individuals and businesses that do not acquire insurance.
Senate Majority Leader Reid insisted Tuesday that the Finance panel would produce a bill this week and begin a markup Saturday, but Finance members were skeptical. Baucus raised his hands and laughed when asked about Reid's comment and Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad went just with a good laugh.

Copyright ©2009 by National Journal Group Inc

Sphere: Related Content

WHAT REALLY GOT OBAMA ELECTED

The truth has finally surfaced as to exactly how Barack Obama won the 2008 election. It is a powerful and meaningful lesson for politicians, voters and political parties.

As the article that follows outlines, it had little to do with much of the post election analysis and talking heads conventional wisdom. And it was almost entirely unrelated to the spin put out by the political party elites themselves who it seems were just trying to convince themselves that their brilliant strategy was effective.

How did Obama win?

No, it wasn't an incredibly massive turnout of formerly disenfranchised voters who hoped for change.
No, it was not because of the truly gigantic amount of money raised by Obama. No, it was not because of the wide spread voting fraud perpetrated by Acorn and other partisan organizations.
No, it was not because America was moving from a center right nation to a center left nation (parish that hope for change).
No, it was not because of the large advantage achieved by campaign Obama in the high tech arena.
No, it was not because of the brilliant Vice President pick made by Obama (that is laughable).
No, it was not the (take your pick): speech in the football stadium; speech about race in America; speech in Berlin; or even the massive crowds that turned out at concert aided campaign events.
And no, it was not the black and Hispanic turnout.

All of the above were active factors but none were decisive. As it turns our there were two major deciding factors, listed in priority order. They were:

1. Two absolutely horrible major party candidates running for President.

2. George Bush.

The first was the more powerful of the two since it was the reality that turned off so many voters, particularly more mature voters. The second was a motivational factor for so many of the less experienced, more easily influenced voters. It was what drove the 'I am not George Bush' emphasis in the Obama campaign.

But the key was the truly pathetic quality of the candidates in the race. Neither was presidential material. Obama had literally zero experience or qualifications to assume such an important leadership position, which is increasing obvious, and although McCain had some leadership expertise his mother was the one who accurately summed up his candidacy when she said that Republicans would just have to hold their noses and 'vote for Johnny'. Well put. Always listen to mom.

One of the most overlooked lessons of American history is that presidential candidates who come straight out of the United States Senate make lousy presidents. Only John Kennedy might have proved that to be false but he did not get the chance to do so.

Senators are not leaders, they are compromisers and accomodaters. Not to mention pontificators and all too often shameless self-promoters (Schumer comes immediately to mind in that regard). Worse yet, they are mostly attorneys. But I repeat myself.

They fancy themselves extra special people because they are a part of the, "World's greatest deliberative body", and thus somehow very important. Really? Barbara Boxer, important? They believe that since they are one among only 100 that they are among the elite in this universe. Harry Reid, elite?

The historical lesson is clear: it is a mistake to choose a sitting Senator to be president. Yet that was the only choice in 2008 and neither candidate had the leadership chops to take on the great challenges of our time.

As a result, voters generally had the choice of simply not voting for either one or picking one to vote against. As the article notes, older voters chose not to vote in droves. That choice accrued to the advantage of Obama. Sitting out the election put a greater value on votes cast by easily influenced young people and racially enamored black voters.

Among those voting against one candidate or the other, again the advantage went of Obama. First and foremost, many anti-voters chose Obama as their means of rejecting George Bush. Although not on the ballot, Bush was a powerful factor in the outcome. There were millions of Bush haters voting in 2008. Add to that the connection between McCain and Bush so regularly played up by the Obama campaign and it is easy to understand how McCain lost ground among anti-voters.

The fully pathetic aspect of all of this is that our political parties cannot come up with far better candidates for the top office beyond such leadership light weights as these.

What is evident is this: when given no real choice, a lot of voters hold their nose and choose the lesser evil or make no choice at all. The nation suffers as a result.


Voting rate dips in 2008 as older whites stay home
By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – For all the attention generated by Barack Obama's candidacy, the share of eligible voters who actually cast ballots in November declined for the first time in a dozen years. The reason: Older whites with little interest in backing either Barack Obama or John McCain stayed home.
Census figures released Monday show about 63.6 percent of the nation's eligible voters, or 131.1 million people, voted last November.
Although that represented an increase of 5 million voters — virtually all of them minorities — the turnout relative to the population of eligible voters was a decrease from 63.8 percent in 2004.
Ohio and Pennsylvania were among those showing declines in white voters, helping Obama carry those battleground states.
"While the significance of minority votes for Obama is clearly key, it cannot be overlooked that reduced white support for a Republican candidate allowed minorities to tip the balance in many slow-growing 'purple' states," said William H. Frey, a demographer for Brookings Institution, referring to key battleground states that don't notably tilt Democrat or Republican.
"The question I would ask is if a continuing stagnating economy could change that," he said.
According to census data, 66 percent of whites voted last November, down 1 percentage point from 2004. Blacks increased their turnout by 5 percentage points to 65 percent, nearly matching whites. Hispanics improved turnout by 3 percentage points, and Asians by 3.5 percentage points, each reaching a turnout of nearly 50 percent. In all, minorities made up nearly 1 in 4 voters in 2008, the most diverse electorate ever.
By age, voters 18-to-24 were the only group to show a statistically significant increase in turnout, with 49 percent casting ballots, compared with 47 percent in 2004.
Blacks had the highest turnout rate among this age group — 55 percent, or an 8 percentage point jump from 2004. In contrast, turnout for whites 18-24 was basically flat at 49 percent. Asians and Hispanics in that age group increased to 41 percent and 39 percent, respectively.
Among whites 45 and older, turnout fell 1.5 percentage point to just under 72 percent.
Asked to identify their reasons for not voting, 46 percent of all whites said they didn't like the candidates, weren't interested or had better things to do, up from 41 percent in 2004. Hispanics had similar numbers for both years.
Not surprisingly, blacks showed a sharp increase in interest.
Among the blacks who failed to vote last fall most cited problems such as illness, being out of town or transportation issues. Just 16 percent of nonvoting blacks cited disinterest, down from 37 percent in 2004.
Among other findings:
_The decline in percentage turnout was the first in a presidential election since 1996. At that time, voter participation fell to 58.4 percent — the lowest in decades — as Democrat Bill Clinton won an easy re-election over Republican Bob Dole amid a strong economy.
_The voting rate in 2008 was highest in the Midwest (66 percent). The other regions were about 63 percent each.
_Minnesota and the District of Columbia had the highest turnout, each with 75 percent. Utah and Hawaii — Obama's birth state — were among the lowest, each with 52 percent.
The figures are the latest to highlight a generational rift between younger, increasingly minority voters and an older white population.
A recent Pew Research Center poll found almost 8 in 10 people believe there is a major difference in the point of view of younger and older people today, mostly over social values. It was the largest generation gap since divisions 40 years ago over Vietnam, civil rights and women's liberation.
Last November, voters under 30 cast ballots for Obama by a 2-to-1 ratio. Still, because of their smaller numbers — in population and turnout — young voters weren't critical to the overall outcome and only made a difference in North Carolina and Indiana, according to Scott Keeter, Pew's director of survey research.
The census figures are based on the Current Population Survey, which asked respondents after Election Day about their turnout. The figures for "white" refer to the whites who are not of Hispanic ethnicity.

On the Net: Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov
Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc.

Sphere: Related Content

OUR DISHONEST WHITE HOUSE

It is hard not to recoil in disgust upon reading the article below. Why?

Blatantly and openly lying to the American public is not only not a good thing, it destroys what few bonds of trust left in existence between the people and their elected leaders.

Try as he might, Barack Obama cannot separate himself from the actions of his team. He is in charge. He is accountable. The buck stops with him.

The President repeatedly promised us all that his would be the most transparent administration in recent history, if not of all time. He guaranteed openness is government. He pledged to put all legislation online for days prior to his signing it so that the public could theoretically review and comment on what it was their Congress was doing. No more politics as usual according to Obama.

Lies, lies and ever more lies. Nothing more than vote for me pledges that lie broken and unfulfilled. Obviously, there was never any intent to perform as promised.

At least the ever secretive Bush administration was open about their desire to keep as much information as possible away from public view. Obama, on the other had, claims that he would never interfere with the flow of public information relative to non national security issues within government and then manipulates that very stream of standard reports and data so as to keep the public uninformed on matters critical to our well being.

In this particular instance he is clearly adjusting the timing of the normally scheduled release of information relevant to the economy so that said data cannot become part of the debate about his rush, rush political agenda.

Transparency? Openness? Honesty? I think not.

Politics as usual? Yes, but in it's lowest and most manipulative form.


White House putting off release of budget update
By Tom Raum, AP

WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House is being forced to acknowledge the wide gap between its once-upbeat predictions about the economy and today's bleak landscape.
The administration's annual midsummer budget update is sure to show higher deficits and unemployment and slower growth than projected in President Barack Obama's budget in February and update in May, and that could complicate his efforts to get his signature health care and global-warming proposals through Congress.
The release of the update - usually scheduled for mid-July - has been put off until the middle of next month, giving rise to speculation the White House is delaying the bad news at least until Congress leaves town on its August 7 summer recess.
The administration is pressing for votes before then on its $1 trillion health care initiative, which lawmakers are arguing over how to finance.
The White House budget director, Peter Orszag, said on Sunday that the administration believes the "chances are high" of getting a health care bill by then. But new analyses showing runaway costs are jeopardizing Senate passage.
"Instead of a dream, this routine report could be a nightmare," Tony Fratto, a former Treasury Department official and White House spokesman under President George W. Bush, said of the delayed budget update. "There are some things that can't be escaped."
The administration earlier this year predicted that unemployment would peak at about 9 percent without a big stimulus package and 8 percent with one. Congress did pass a $787 billion two-year stimulus measure, yet unemployment soared to 9.5 percent in June and appears headed for double digits.
Obama's current forecast anticipates 3.2 percent growth next year, then 4 percent or higher growth from 2011 to 2013. Private forecasts are less optimistic, especially for next year.
Any downward revision in growth or revenue projections would mean that budget deficits would be far higher than the administration is now suggesting.
Setting the stage for bleaker projections, Vice President Joe Biden recently conceded, "We misread how bad the economy was" in January. Obama modified that by suggesting the White House had "incomplete" information.
The new budget update comes as the public and members of Congress are becoming increasingly anxious over Obama's economic policies.
A Washington Post-ABC News survey released Monday shows approval of Obama's handling of health-care reform slipping below 50 percent for the first time. The poll also found support eroding on how Obama is dealing with other issues that are important to Americans right now - the economy, unemployment and the swelling budget deficit.
The Democratic-controlled Congress is reeling from last week's testimony by the head of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, Douglas Elmendorf, that the main health care proposals Congress is considering would not reduce costs - as Obama has insisted - but "significantly expand" the federal financial responsibility for health care.
That gave ammunition to Republican critics of the bill.
Late last week, Obama vowed anew that "health insurance reform cannot add to our deficit over the next decade and I mean it."
The nation's debt - the total of accumulated annual budget deficits - now stands at $11.6 trillion. In the scheme of things, that's more important than talking about the "deficit," which only looks at a one-year slice of bookkeeping and totally ignores previous indebtedness that is still outstanding.
Even so, the administration has projected that the annual deficit for the current budget year will hit $1.84 trillion, four times the size of last year's deficit of $455 billion. Private forecasters suggest that shortfall may actually top $2 trillion.
The administration has projected that the annual deficit for the current budget year will hit $1.84 trillion, four times the size of last year's deficit of $455 billion. Private forecasters suggest that shortfall may top $2 trillion.
If a higher deficit and lower growth numbers are not part of the administration's budget update, that will lead to charges that the White House is manipulating its figures to offer too rosy an outlook - the same criticism leveled at previous administrations.
The midsession review by the White House's Office of Management and Budget will likely reflect weaker numbers. But where is it?
White House officials say it is now expected in mid-August. They blame the delay on the fact that this is a transition year between presidencies and note that Obama didn't release his full budget until early May - instead of the first week in February, when he put out just an outline.
Still, the update mainly involves plugging in changes in economic indicators, not revising program-by-program details. And indicators such as unemployment and gross domestic product changes have been public knowledge for some time.
Standard & Poor's chief economist David Wyss said part of the problem with the administration's earlier numbers is that "they were just stale," essentially put together by budget number-crunchers at the end of last year, before the sharp drop in the economy.
Wyss, like many other economists, says he expects the recession to last at least until September or October. "We're looking for basically a zero second half (of 2009). And then sluggish recovery," he said.
Orszag, making the rounds of Sunday talk shows, insisted the economy at the end of last year, which the White House used for its optimistic budget forecasts, "was weaker at that time than anyone anticipated." He cited a "sense of free fall" not fully recognized at the time.
"It's going to take time to work our way out of it," the White House budget director told "Fox News Sunday."
Even as it prepares to put larger deficit and smaller growth figures into its official forecast, the administration is looking for signs of improvement.
"If we were at the brink of catastrophe at the beginning of the year, we have walked some substantial distance back from the abyss," said Lawrence Summers, Obama's chief economic adviser.

Copyright 2008 Associated Press

Sphere: Related Content