A Taxing Problem for President Obama

An article from the Associated Press on last quarter's unexpected economic growth presents President Obama a problem. How to keep it going.

"The economy's faster-than-expected growth at the end of last year, fueled by companies boosting output to keep stockpiles up, is likely to weaken as consumers keep a lid on spending.

Many estimate the nation's gross domestic product will grow 2.5 percent to 3 percent in the current quarter and about 2.5 percent or less for the full year."

The economy felt a spurt, but the American people don't want to spend their money to keep it going. How to solve this dilemma?

"The economic recovery could falter if consumers, who account for 70 percent of economic activity, lack the income to ramp up spending."

With unemployment high and expected to "remain close to 10 percent through the end of the year," what can Washington do to spur consumer spending and confidence?

"...for all of last year, workers' compensation rose by the smallest amount on records going back more than a quarter-century."

How to put more money in people's pocket so they will spend the money and keep the economic engine revving up.

If only there were a way to CUT down on the TAXing nature of this problem. If only there were a way to REDUCE how much this problem TAXES our economy. We must LOWER the TAXATION this problem places on the economy in order to SPUR THE ECONOMY.

Obama: Not "Re-Litigating the Past" at State of Union Means Bashing Your Predecessor?

Last night, during the State of the Union speech, President Obama told us in a matter-of-fact way: I'm not interested in re-litigating the past.

I am not sure what he mean by re-litigating the past; did somebody sue the past and lose?

Whatever he meant, Obama certainly had no problem pointing back and tossing the blame for all our problems on the last administration. If you managed to slog though the 75-minute monologue, here are several examples of Obama not "relitigating the past":

One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by a severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression.

One year ago is certainly not the past, is it?

At the beginning of the last decade, the year 2000, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. (Applause.) By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. All this was before I walked in the door.

Certainly no criticism of past presidential decisions here.

So I supported the last administration's efforts to create the financial rescue program. And when we took that program over, we made it more transparent and more accountable.

Darn that last administration, why does the last administration have to be in past so Obama can't criticize how non-transparent and unaccountable they were?

Now, even after paying for what we spent on my watch, we'll still face the massive deficit we had when I took office.

When I took office (a year ago) sounds like a reference to the past. Maybe Obama means by not re-litigating that he wants to move on without blaming the Bush administration for all our problems?

The problem is that's what we did for eight years. That's what helped us into this crisis. It's what helped lead to these deficits. We can't do it again.

Well, that's not it.

That's why -– for the first time in history –- my administration posts on our White House visitors online.

Not a swipe at the past, but a boring and meaningless self-aggrandizing plug. Wow, look how many times SEIU chief Andy "There are terrorist in the Senate" Stern has visited Obama! I wonder how many of his other visitors are completely insane?

Again, I have no idea how one re-litigates (or litigates) the past, but Obama sure spent a lot of time passing the buck backwards. Regardless of your opinion of President Bush, aren't you getting a little weary of Obama tossing out the "Blame Bush" mantra and carping about all the problems "he inherited"?

Come to think, if Bush hadn't created all the problems that Obama is whining about, odds are on that Obama would not be president today.

Obama Spending Freeze Another Phony Photo Op

President Obama is poised to initiate a spending freeze on "domestic spending."

The three-year plan will be part of the budget Obama will submit Feb. 1, senior administration officials said, commenting on condition of anonymity to reveal private details.

On the surface, which is how most people look at these things, it sounds good. Liberals are apoplectic about the plan, which has to be good. But, a quick look at the numbers shows that this -- yet again -- might be a Barack Obama phony photo-op.

The savings would be small at first, perhaps $10 billion to $15 billion, one official said. But over the coming decade, savings would add up to $250 billion.

Now, $15 billion off the annual budget is a lot of money, no doubt; but when you consider that the federal budget for 2009 was $3.5 trillion. You do the math; too many zeros for me.

The proposals (Obama) described won't create jobs, but he said they could "re-establish some of the security that's slipped away."

That's certainly good news for the more than 15 million people out of work. I am sure they all will feel more "secure" when the late fees on bills add up, the cancellation notices appear, the foreclosure warnings start; with the sheriff knocking on the door, take heart that Obama has taken out his scalpel, left the hatched behind, and plans to nick 0.004% off his spending next year. I think that is roughly equivalent to the average family clipping a coupon to get a free box of Cheerios.

Himalayan Glaciar Claim Melts Down Faster than the Glacier

More Stories from the Man-Made Global-Warming is Neither Department

In the past few months, we have seen much of the "science" behind anthropological-caused global warming to be riddled with errors, improperly or not peer-reviewed, and just plain wrong.

Now comes two new stories that we "deniers" can add to the growing cachet of evidence that man-made global-warming is neither.

It seems that a couple of years ago, a critically-acclaimed and Nobel prize winning article by the UN included a claim that the Himalayan glaciers would be gone in 25 years. Well, turns out that this claim -- like so much in the pro-global warming debate -- is both bogus and fraudulent.

The scientist behind the claim that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.

In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr. (Murari) Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: 'It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action. It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.'

In short, it sounded good so they threw it in just to scare people.

This bizzare charge came from an article by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) who wrote their article around two 1999 magazine interviews with glaciologist Syed Hasnain, which they took on faith. Dr. Lal spun the WWF article into an article of his own, without question.

Which is tragic, for had any of the scientists bothered to have someone take a second look, they may have noticed a tiny mathematical error.

The World Wildlife Fund article also contained a basic error in its arithmetic. A claim that one glacier was retreating at the alarming rate of 134 metres a year should in fact have said 23 metres – the authors had divided the total loss measured over 121 years by 21, not 121.

The time-line on the melting glaciers did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research, Dr Lal admitted. No kidding.

But, WWF did apologize on its Web site for the oversight saying the group regrets any confusion caused. {Note: The statement seems to have disappeared from the site, but ironically, one can find a piece called Separating Myth From Reality http://www.worldwildlife.org/climate/act-for-our-future/myth-from-reality.html). No comment from Dr. Lal if he accepted WWF's apology for the inconvenience of having to apologize himself.

I made up a lie about global warming and I told two friends and they told two friends and so on...

Critics of the glacier claim seemed to have be aplenty before the UN study was published; however, Dr. Lal seems to have been more intent to scare people than inform:

...an analysis of those 500-plus formal review comments, to be published tomorrow by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), the new body founded by former Chancellor Nigel Lawson, suggests that when reviewers did raise issues that called the claim into question, Dr Lal and his colleagues simply ignored them.

Benny Peiser, the GWPF’s director, said the affair suggested the IPCC review process was ‘skewed by a bias towards alarmist assessments’. I couldn't agree more.

When reached for comment, Dr Lal reportedly said: "I am shocked, shocked to find that my claim is incorrect."

Part 2 tomorrow

United States Senator Scott Brown

Congratulations, Mr. Brown on your exciting and convincing victory in the Massachusetts Senatorial Special Election.

It was a great pleasure to finally again cast a vote that counted, and that matters.

Now, please go to Washington D.C. and be the senator you promised to be throughout your campaign. Do not turn into a typical politician (or self-serving-son-of-a-bitch as my wife would say about most or all politicians). Fight for us, the voters; fight for the United States of America; fight for our Constitution, from all enemies foreign and domestic.

Congratulations again, United States Senator Scott Brown.

BREAKING NEWS; Boston Globe Endoreses Martha Coakley for US Senate

The Boston Globe, in a truly surprise move, actually endorsed the Democrat candidate in a Massachusetts election. This is the first time since the last election in Massachusetts that the Globe did not support the Republican. In fact, I can't recall the Globe ever endorsing a Republican.

In a bizzare two Internet-page endorsement, the Globe rolled out a host of lies and distortions in their effort to bolster the Coakley campaign (much the same way that Coakley has in her recent negative campaign ad blitz).

From the editorial:

"Coakley, for one, deeply opposes the restrictions on abortion coverage (in Washington health care plans), but would not block the whole reform effort to get her way."

Here, the Globe celebrates a person who abandons her principles, to support the party-line. We do need more of that in the U.S. Seante.

"Blocking bills is easy; finding a politically acceptable response to complicated problems is hard."

While true that Coakley has never found "a politically acceptable response to complicated problems;" that is because she has never held a position that would require her to. It is hard to compromise on legislation when when has never held a representative elected position.

Scott Brown has. In fact, one "compromise" he made regarding emergency contraception is at the heart of a cruel lie being perpetuated by Coakley.

"She is by far the more qualified candidate, in experience and judgment. She has prosecuted hundreds of criminals and helped coordinate plans to protect the state from terrorist threats."

Exactly how does this qualify her to be a U.S. Senator? One could argue that state senate experience may not prepare someone for U.S. Senate, but to say experience being Attorney General does is ludicrous.

"But this year, a lot of people want to send a message. The message they should send is this: Massachusetts is fed up with Senate wrangling and wants clear answers on health care, climate change, and loose regulation of financial institutions. Coakley, with her hard work and proven skills, is well-qualified to carry this message to Washington."

Coakley supports measures opposed by the majority of MA voters; the current health care proposals, cap-and-trade, increased taxation. She will most certainly not carry the message to D.C. that the voters of Massachusetts want. She will certainly carry the voice of the special interests and lobbyists that she has been courting.

The true message that should be carried is that we are fed up with the way business is currently transacted in D.C. Sending a rubber-stamp vote to Senate is hardly the way to change this.

"Coakley wasn’t the most forceful or visionary candidate in the Democratic field"

Well, I can't argue with that. Nor is she the "most forceful or visionary candidate" in this race either.

"A cap-and-trade plan to reduce pollution is the cheapest and most efficient way to combat global warming"

First, there is no clear evidence that global warming even exists (and real evidence exists to suggest it is a ); and second, in Obama's own words, energy costs would "necessarily skyrocket" Doesn't sound like a cheap option to me.

"Brown hasn’t hidden his positions"

Again, true; but the editorial fails to mention how Coakley has hidden hers.

"It’s a vote for gridlock, in the form of endless Republican filibusters, and for the status quo in health care, climate change, and financial regulation. That’s what will happen if Brown gives the Republicans the additional vote they need to tie up the Senate."

Wrong again. Having a 41st vote will make it harder for the Dems to force things through with no input from the opposition. The majority party can pass anything with only 51 votes (or 50 with the vice president breaking the tie). The 60-vote threshold is for cloture, which moves a bill towards a majority vote.

Failing to achieve cloture is a relatively rare occurrence and is generally a sign that the bill is truly partisan.

In this article, they mention some of the more positive outcomes of a potential Brown victory:

...(Brown)would give the Republicans enough votes to block, under Senate rules, anything Obama wants to do.

And, conversely, Coakley would do anything that Obama wants to do, without question or hesitation.

Republican State Senator Scott Brown, who drives an old truck, channels voter skepticism more directly.

That is because, unlike Coakley, Brown actually listens to the voters.

In this bizarre endorsement, Coakley's name was mention 7 times; while Brown's name appears 14 times.

This is not an endorsement of Coakley as much as it is a screed against Brown. Which, knowing the Globe, is a backwards endorsement of Scott Brown, if you ask me.

CBO: Health Care Reform May "Reduce Access to Care"

According to a blog post on the Weekly Standard's Web site, Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Douglas Elmendorf has defined the "death panels" that have been alleged to be an integral part of the Obama/Democrat health care "reform" efforts.

In a letter to Sen Harry Reid, the Weekly Standard has discovered, the cuts to Medicare may well necessitate health care rationing:

It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved, and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care.

Shouldn't we all slow down and figure out if these alleged Medicare savings could be achieve through "greater efficiencies" or by slashing care for our Seniors before we institute these reductions?

After all, the provisions in the health care "reform" won't kick in for four more years; it seems that such a waiting period would allow some further investigation.

But, even if the savings work, it seems that they aren't savings at all:

Republicans, emboldened by a new letter from the Congressional Budget Office, accused Democrats on Wednesday of "Bernie Madoff accounting" for double counting the savings from Medicare as a means to pay for the Senate health care bill.

Check this out from CBO top-dog Elmendorf:

..(the) government counts money two ways, either through trust fund accounting, in which money is borrowed from future Medicare payments to pay for existing Medicare programs but is like a revolving line of credit, or unified budget accounting, in which the trust fund money is borrowed from Medicare but then spent on other health care programs that don't generate money to be be paid back into Medicare later.

Say what?

Even after we find out if this works or grandma gets left out in the medical cold, the Liberals in the Senate are trying to make sure no one fixes -- I mean, changes -- the Medicare "reforms" later on.

In a questionably Constitutional, and definitely immoral, provision, Harry Reid et. al. want to block any changes to the Medicare "reforms" they are instituting:

"it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."

Once the Death Panels are firmly established, the Libs want no one to take them away.

One can only hope that the Republicans gain some traction with their charges that parts of the Senate bill are unconstitutional.

Two key issues seem to be attracting the bulk of the legal threats: a mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance and the special treatment that states like Nebraska are getting in the bill.

"I don't believe Congress has the legal or moral authority to force this mandate on its citizens," Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev said in a statement.

But, lest anyone think that the Liberals have no interest in the Constitution, Harry Reid calls the efforts to ensure Constitutionality as "a sign of desperation."

Yes, Harry, we are desperate. You must kill this bill before it kills the best medical system in the world.

Sen. Ben Nelson "Compromises" His Principles for Cash

Another great day in the U.S. political system.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid engineered a last-minute compromise in the health care debate that has won the support of the lone Democratic holdout and clinched the required 60 votes to pass a sweeping overhaul of the U.S. health care system.

The compromise? Nebraska DEMOCRAT Ben Nelson sold out his principles for a couple hundred million dollars that the U.S. doesn't have so that he can buy votes back home.

Democratic leaders offered Nelson a deal similar to the $300 million in Medicaid assistance Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana got for her support, numerous sources told Fox News.

Is there any wonder why Congress' rating are in the tank and 60-70% of American don't want them screwing with the best medical care system in the world?

Thank gawd for political whores.

Health Care Control for All

For those who think that the health care plans being debated by Congress will not affect you if ObamaCare goes through, you are mistaken.

After all, we have all heard President Obama tell us that if like our health care plan, we can keep it. While this is true on a semantic level, on a paperwork level, the government will tell your health insurance company what all plans can and must include.

From the latest version of the health care bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives (H.R. 3926):

Sec. 201: On or after the first day of Y1, a health benefits plan shall not be a qualified health benefits plan under this division unless the plan meets the applicable requirements of the following subtitles for the type of plan and plan year involved:
4 (1) Subtitle B (relating to affordable coverage).

Sec. 221 A qualified health benefits plan shall provide coverage that at least meets the benefit standards adopted under section 224 for the essential benefits package described in section 222 for the plan year involved.

This means that a health care plan will not be considered qualified unless it meets requirements that will be decided upon later. While we have no idea what will actually be covered by health insurance plans, we do know that your plan will be "average."

Sec. 222. In this division, the term ‘‘essential benefits package’’ means health benefits coverage, consistent with standards adopted under section 224, to ensure the provision of quality health care and financial security, that—

(5) is equivalent in its scope of benefits, as certified by Office of the Actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, to the average prevailing employer-sponsored coverage in Y1.

In order to carry out paragraph (5), the Secretary of Labor shall conduct a survey of employer-sponsored coverage to determine the benefits typically covered by employers, including multiemployer plans, and provide a report on such survey to the Health Benefits Advisory Committee and to the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

After all, average is fair. We can't have people buying "cadillac" plans when others can only afford to buy, or their employers can only support, Kia plans. You won't mind sacrificing on medical care coverage for your family, will you?

Sec. 224 Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary (of Health and Human Service) shall, through the rulemaking process consistent with subsection (a), adopt an initial set of benefit standards.

But, Obama told us we can keep our plan! Where does it say that it will change?

Right here:

Sec. 241 The Health Commissioner shall...promote accountability of Qualified Health Plan Benefits offering entities in meeting Federal health insurance requirements, regardless of whether such accountability is with respect to qualified health benefits plans offered through the Health Insurance Exchange or outside of such Exchange.

But, that just talks about "qualified" health plans. Can't my insurer come up with a scaled-down plan, like a catastrophic plan, that will cover my basic needs but not necessarily meet the "initial set of benefit standards"?

Well, they could, but:

Sec 241. In the case that the Commissioner determines that a QHBP offering entity violates a requirement of this title, the Commissioner may... (work) with State insurance regulators to terminate plans for repeated failure by the offering entity to meet the requirements of this title.

So you see folks, the federal government, through a agency of unelected, unaccountable people, including at least one practicing physician (Sec. 223), will be deciding what your health insurance plan can and will offer and what kind of medical care your doctor can provide to you -- and your children and your family -- whether you sign up for the plan "offered through the Health Insurance Exchange or outside of such Exchange."

And there ain't no other way to get a health insurance plan.

AP's Palin Investigation 52 Times Higher Than Health Care Bills. No Media Bias Here!

A brilliant piece published in the Best of the Web Today column from the Wall Street Journal online highlights -- yet again! -- just how Liberally-biased the mainstream media are. This time, the Associated Press, whose stories run in papers across the country, gives the white-gloves treatment to the biography of Sarah Palin while giving passing glances at the U.S. House and Senate health care bills:

An Associated Press dispatch, written by Erica Werner and Richard Alonso-Zaldivar, compares the House and Senate ObamaCare bills. We'd like to compare this dispatch to the AP's dispatch earlier this week "fact checking" Sarah Palin's new book. Here goes:

Number of AP reporters assigned to story:
• ObamaCare bills: 2
• Palin book: 11

Number of pages in document being covered:
• ObamaCare bills: 4,064
• Palin book: 432

Number of pages per AP reporter:
• ObamaCare bill: 2,032
• Palin book: 39.3

On a per-page basis, that is, the AP devoted 52 times as much manpower to the memoir of a former Republican officeholder as to a piece of legislation that will cost trillions of dollars and an untold number of lives. That's what they call accountability journalism.

That's what I call Liberal bias.