Obama's Smoke and Mirrors Health Care Financing

During ABC News' forum on President Obama's health care plans, a program called Prescription for America, Obama summarized his ambitions towards health care reform as "Build on what works, fix what's broken, and still save substantial money."

Fine and reasonable-sounding goals.

However, as he discussed financing his plans throughout the evening, the reasonableness started to fade quickly from what he was saying. In short, Obama believes he can finance the $1.6 billion to $3 billion estimated price tag by:

• capping tax deductions on charitable deductions for people making over $250,000
• "reallocating existing health care dollars that are not money that is not being spent wisely."
• incorporating anticipated savings from changing the way health care is managed(such as "paying for quality instead of quantity and making sure we are investing in prevention").

Using these three methods, he assures us, will allow him to cover the alleged 46 million uninsured people. Color me skeptical.

The amount of money from capping tax deductions is unquantifiable. No one can predict the affect that changing the tax deduction for charitable deductions will affect the amount people donate. We know historically that charitable deductions are greatly affected by the economy. Why would one assume that changing tax deductability will not reduce the amount donated and, thus, the amount of taxes that can be put towards health care (not to mention the severe disconnect between charitable giving and health care funding). If revenue targets are not met, what next? Does he continue to lower the thresholds until revenue is satisfied or all charitable deductions are eliminated?

Next, Obama discussed this amorphous reallocation of unwisely spent funds without discussing now much this represents. He repeatedly mentioned that "all the experts" agree that 30% of health care spending is not being spent "wisely." Here again is a classic Obama trick -- what is "wisely" and who will determine which funds can be "reallocated" and to where.

And, of course, is the ridiculous notion of counting upon estimated future savings to pay for current programs. It is pure common sense that one should not include speculative future savings in the current budget. It is such a common sense measure that the politically independent Congressional Budget Office, whose entire function is to evaluate the costs of government programs, is not allowed to consider future savings.

Obama assured us that "only 2-3 % (of taxpayers) would see tax increase" in order to fund his health care initiatives.

If you believe that, I have a health insurance bridge plan to sell you.

Obama to Iran: Please Come to My July 4 Party. It Will Be Great Fun!

What better way to celebrate United States' freedom and democracy than to invite to the barbecue representatives of a country that believes in neither? What better way to honor the lives of the hundreds of thousands who have died defending the notion that man is born to be free than by honoring a country that is today slaughtering demonstrators in cold blood.

Well, that is exactly what President Obama is STILL planning to do by keeping open invitations to Iranian diplomats to join the July 4th festivities at American embassies throughout the world.

President Barack Obama's administration said earlier this month it would invite Iran to US embassy barbecues for the national holiday for the first time since the two nations severed relations following the 1979 Islamic revolution.

"There's no thought to rescinding the invitations to Iranian diplomats," State Department spokesman Ian Kelly told reporters.

This attitude might have made sense before the June 12 "election" in Iran. But, in the bloody aftermath of the election, not even considering dis-inviting Iranian diplomats is borderline insane.

The White House announced yesterday -- nearly two weeks into the protests of the Iran election, during which 17 protesters have been killed by government forces (so far) -- that it will not back down on its "gesture of goodwill" towards Iran.

How difficult would it be for Obama to actually take a stand on something and tell Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that in light of the current political and civil unrest in Iran, both of our countries might be better served by putting off this goodwill gesture until a more appropriate time.

Maybe Labor Day, Mr. Supreme Leader; would work for you?

And You Want These People to Run Healthcare -- part VII

While I understand the debate between New York Governor David Paterson and New York senators involves state-level and not federal-level politicians, you can't read this story and not fret what might come if we allow politicians on any level to run the health care system in this country.

Since two dissident Democratic senators teamed up with Republicans to form a coalition government and oust Majority Leader Malcolm Smith, angry Democrats have refused to take part in Senate sessions and have hidden bills and agendas from the coalition.

These knuckleheads are so dysfunctional that the governor has to throw a hissy fit and send the senators to their rooms over the weekend and holidays if the senators don't get over their hissy fit.

"If the senators do not cooperate with this order (for a special legislative session), I will convene a special session everyday until they do," Paterson said. "That includes Saturdays and Sundays, that includes Fourth of July. There will be no excuses, and there will be no tolerance to non-compliance to this order."

While the governor can't force senators to vote on or debate bills, the New York Constitution grants him the power to call a special legislative session – and experts say he can even keep the senators in the state house with the help of state police.

Without comment on the merits of any side in this spitting match, do you really want people this narcissistic and self-involved to make decisions that will directly affect your ability to deal with illness or injury in yourself or your family?

Not me; I will stick with Blue Cross, thank you very much.

UN to NOKO: Can We Pretty Please Look for Contraband on Your Ship?

I am far from the first to comment on this issue, and farther still from the last to.

But, this one line from the Associated Press cannot go without comment.

The Security Council resolution calls on all 192 U.N. member states to inspect vessels on the high seas "if they have information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the cargo" contains banned weapons or material to make them, and if approval is given by the country whose flag the ship sails under.

If I am reading this right, we get intelligence that a country is illegally putting illegal materials on a ship and illegally transporting those materials to another country, where they could be sold to parties who would use them against us, we have to ask the country performing these illegal acts for permission to search the ship?

Are they serious?

Excuse me, Mr. Kim Jong-il, we have satellite photos of your people putting nuclear missiles on that boat of yours; we think they are being shipped to a country hostile to us, and could eventually be used against us. Can we pretty please, with sugar on top, take a look?
No?
Well, then, Supreme Leader sir, could you direct the ship to a friendly port, where they can inspect the contents, oh please, please, please?
No?
Well, OK then. Thanks anyway; smooth sailing!

No wonder why Mr Il is smiling.

Does anybody else find this U.N. decree a complete lunacy?

The Latest Obama Outrage -- Forced Relocation!

According to the Telegraph newspaper in England, President Barack Obama has signed onto a plan to "shrink" cities in the U.S.

The government looking at expanding a pioneering scheme in Flint, one of the poorest US cities, which involves razing entire districts and returning the land to nature.

The radical experiment is the brainchild of Dan Kildee, treasurer of Genesee County, which includes Flint (MI).

The plan is to focus on 50 U.S. cities "most" of which are in the Mid-West Rust Belt region of the country. In Flint alone, Kildee wants the city to buy more than 4,000 houses, level them, and return most of the land to nature.

Mr Kildee, who has lived there nearly all his life, said he had first to overcome a deeply ingrained American cultural mindset that "big is good" and that cities should sprawl – Flint covers 34 square miles.

He said: "The obsession with growth is sadly a very American thing. Across the US, there's an assumption that all development is good, that if communities are growing they are successful...

I am glad that Kildee is happy with this notion; who cares if the rest of us like the idea?

Does Obama plan to buy up thousands of homes in 50 cities across the nation and destroy them? Once again, the question begs, with what money, Barack? Even at fire-sale prices, buying tens of thousands of home and paying the labor to level the buildings and clear the land will not come cheap.

And, despite assurances by Kildee that no one would be forced to move, if there are holdouts, they will certainly be taken to court and required to relocate against their will. The Supreme Court has already decided that the government can toss out pretty much anyone from his house if it improves the community in someone's eyes.

Further, if people refuse to relocate, the planned savings from consolidating public services will be lost.

Think, too, about the political disaster that deciding what neighborhoods will be taken and who will be forced to move. This administration couldn't even close a few car dealerships without their political motives called into question (full-disclosure, yes I did too).

It might be interesting to study what effect these relocation will have on political districts and electoral populations.

The city is buying up houses in more affluent areas to offer people in neighbourhoods it wants to demolish.

Here again comes the problem of who gets forced to sell and at how much of a loss? What happens to someone who lives in a "more affluent" area, but doesn't want to sell? Simple, the government buys around them, sub-divides the neighbor's houses and changes the quality of the neighborhood. The "more affluent" people would effectually be forced to sell their home at a greatly reduced price and leave their neighborhood or home town, should they want to maintain their lifestyle.

Call me cynical, but I see a direct parallel between this concept and the uber-liberal notion that we should all live in planned communities in urban centers. Could this be step one in a subversive mission to accomplish this?

It is all-too predictable what will happen in a few years when the economy comes back: these public-owned areas will be sold to friends and supporters who will re-develop the land, and again plant new, large, sprawling homes and mansions. Quite a scheme.

You just know this is not going to be pretty, effective, or cheap.

Is Obama Imitating Hugo Chavez?

An intersting confluence of stories leaves me wondering about the motives and goals of President Obama.

From Caracas, Venezuela:

The Venezuelan government of U.S.-critic President Hugo Chavez on Wednesday ordered Coca-Cola Co to withdraw its Coke Zero beverage from the South American nation, citing unspecified dangers to health. The decision follows a wave of nationalizations and increased scrutiny of businesses in South America's top oil exporter.

From Washington, D.C. USA (or, I think Obama is the president of the USA):

The Obama administration says executive compensation must be better managed to prevent the sort of risk-taking that jeopardizes the economy.

Gene Sperling, who advises Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, said Thursday the administration does not want to impose caps on executive pay. But he also laid out for the House Financial Services Committee a list of guidelines calling on publicly-held companies to link compensation to long-term performance, not short-term gains.

Sperling said in prepared testimony that the administration believes compensation practices "must be better aligned with long-term value and prudent risk management at all firms, and not just for the financial services industry."

Call me a simpleton, if you will, but the government producing guidelines about how much a private company can pay its executives sounds like "increased scrutiny of business" to me.

"I can say with certainty that nobody in the Obama administration is proposing such a thing," Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said.

Combine this with the U.S. government's unprecedented ownership stake in auto manufacturers, insurance companies, and banks.

CitiBank on Wednesday said it was moving forward with a plan to convert a large chunk of its preferred shares into common equity. The long-awaited move is expected to give the United States government a 34 percent ownership stake in the troubled bank.

When the president of the United States is making moves that parallel the murderous dictatorial Hugo Chavez, this country is going in the wrong direction.

Obama is Nothing if Not Inconsistent

Back in March, President Obama assured us that terrorists would not be read their Miranda rights.

And two months after his Inauguration, President Obama reiterated, "Now, do these folks deserve miranda rights? Do they deserve to be treated like a shoplifter down the block? Of course not."

Well, in the last two months, Obama seems to have changed his mind.

For, the Obama Justice Department has quietly ordered FBI agents to read Miranda rights to high value detainees captured and held at U.S. detention facilities in Afghanistan, according a senior Republican on the House Intelligence Committee.

And then, there is his hard line on spending:

"The 'pay-as-you-go' rule is very simple," Obama said. "Congress can only spend a dollar if it saves a dollar elsewhere."

Last month Obama suggested a tougher plan that would prohibit Congress from swelling the deficit in one year by putting off until later years the tax increases or spending cuts to pay for it.

Except, of course, when it comes to his own priorities:

President Barack Obama on Tuesday proposed budget rules that would allow Congress to borrow tens of billions of dollars and put the nation deeper in debt to jump-start the administration's emerging health care overhaul.

Why bother being consistent and keep your word if no one in the mainstream media will hold you to it.

Roughly twice as much of the (media) coverage of Obama (44%) has concerned his personal and leadership qualities than was the case for Bush (22%) or Clinton (26%). Less of the coverage, meanwhile, has focused on his policy agenda.

Why bother commenting on Obama's proposals when you can gush about Michelle's arms?