Friday, July 31, 2009

Octoberfest At The White House and Novemberfest At The Justice Department

The Voter Intimidation Case Against 3 Members Of The Black Panther Party Was Dropped Despite Recommendations To Pursue It

This While The President Puts On His Public Relations Beer Party At The White House

First, for those who are interested (and why you would be is beyond me), the good Professor requested a Red Stripe, the Cambridge cop requested a Blue Moon and the President a Bud Light. For the record no domestics among them. The beers I mean.




The following story in the Washington Times goes into the fact that a voter intimidation case against 3 Black Panthers outside a Philadelphia polling place was order to be dropped by the number three man at the Justice Department, Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli, despite the fact that the career civil rights lawyers at Justice recommended that it move forward.

On a day when President Obama is having some beers at the White House to smooth over his statements regarding his perception of the treatment of his black friend by a white officer, the report that his Justice Department number 3 is dropping this case is a somewhat puzzling development. I do not know all of the facts in this case, but I have watched the video and have to put some amount of credence in the fact that those lawyers who worked on the case probably had a better vantage point of the facts to make their recommendation than did Perrelli.

As I said, just another puzzling development. Read on...

(Newsroom America) Report: No. 3 Justice Official Drops Black Panthers Complaint
2009-07-30 03:51am

The No. 3 official at the Obama administration's Justice Department, Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli, has decided to drop charges against members of the National Black Panther Party accused of intimidating voters in Philadelphia during the November election.

The Washington Times reported Thursday that career civil rights lawyers at Justice, who worked on the case for five months, had recommended the department seek sanctions against the NBPP and three of its members, after the federal government had already won a default judgment against the men.

The Times said front-line attorneys were nearly finished completing that work when, in late April, they were told to seek a delay after a meeting between political appointees and career supervisors within the department.

The delay was ultimately ordered by then-acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King, after consultations with Perelli.

King, a career senior executive service official, had been named by President Obama to temporarily fill the vacant political position of assistant attorney general for civil rights until a permanent replacement could be found.

King and other career supervisors "ultimately recommended dropping the case against two of the men and the party and seeking a restraining order against the one man who wielded a nightstick at the Philadelphia polling place," the Times reported. Perelli then approved the plan.

A Republican blogger hired to monitor the polling place in question in Philadelphia videotaped the alleged intimidation by the NBPP members, the paper reported.

Some members of Congress are questioning why the case was dropped. Rep. Frank R. Wolf, R-Va., told the paper he has been prevented from meeting with and interviewing the frontline lawyers in the case.

"Why am I being prevented from meeting with the trial team on this case?" he told the Times. "There are many questions that need to be answered. This whole thing just stinks to high heaven."

Obama had come into office promising a new era of racial harmony and government openness but, critics say, the NBPP case is indicative of neither.

Perrelli, a prominent private practice attorney, served previously as a counsel to Attorney General Janet Reno in the Clinton administration and was an Obama supporter who raised more than $500,000 for the Democrat candidate in the 2008 elections, the Times reported.

Thursday, July 30, 2009

Why Polling Numbers Say Health Care Reform May In Trouble

Health Care Reform Is "Important" To The Democrats, But What If The Polling Numbers Say Americans Feel Differently?

If polling numbers regarding the faith of the American public in the ability of the government to manage all of our medical care continues to dwindle, will health care remain such a high priority for the Democrats? The fact of the matter is that far less than 50% of those polled feel that their own personal medical situation will improve under the proposed program. That does not bode well for them, particularly with mid-term elections right around the corner.

If the charts below get cut off, please use the Gallup link to view them on their website.

Here is the analysis by Gallup

PRINCETON, NJ -- Forty-four percent of Americans believe a new healthcare reform law would improve medical care in the U.S., contrasted with 26% who say it would improve their personal medical care. Forty-seven percent of Americans believe reform will expand access to healthcare in the U.S., while 21% say it will expand their own access to healthcare.

These results are important because much of the debate on healthcare reform rests on the assumption that it is imperative to fix what is assumed to be a broken healthcare system in the U.S. One aspect of the healthcare debate focuses on the benefits of healthcare reform to the country as a whole, while another addresses the benefits to the average American. Yet the majority of Americans are not sold on the notion that reform would have a positive effect on either.

The wariness with which the public approaches the possible effects of healthcare reform on their personal situations is evident from results showing that more Americans say healthcare would worsen their medical care and reduce their access to healthcare, than say it would have the contrasting, positive effects. These "net negative" results contrast with the net positive perceptions Americans have about the likely impact of healthcare reform on the U.S. more generally -- albeit one that is quite muted.


be6





Wednesday, July 29, 2009

The Brewmaster-in-Chief

What To Do About A Public Relations Faux Pas

Let's Have A Beer!!!



If you are President Obama, with the media tucked firmly in your pocket, you take what was a major gaff and turn it into a model for solving the problems of race relations. Never mind that the initial reaction of the President to the incident in Cambridge during his daily television show was extremely telling, that Reverend Wright his political mentor has faded in public memory, that some of the speak by Professor Gates in the past has been somewhat inflammatory as to race relations.

No matter. Let's have a beer at the White House in what is one of the corniest public relations stunts in recent memory, particularly for a President, and all will be forgotten. There will be smiles and handshakes, and recriminations at the big "misunderstanding". Is it all that easy? What beer will he choose to have at the meeting? That is what America wants to know. Will it be a micro-brewery that will be put on the map, an exotic import, a domestic staple? That is the depth of the study into what it is that the Presidents words mean.

What An Ingenious Smokescreen

Where is the media that tried to destroy the careers of those that have made racial statements in the past and then tried to rectify them only to be vilified for their insincerity. If this was the first example of the President being involved in a racial controversy, then let bygones be bygones and accept his apology for a mistake that was made. The problem is that he seems to have a past in which some of his relationships have been, and may continue to be, with people that have what could be considered to be radical views.

No matter, let's all eat, drink and be merry.

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Political Face Substitution: Conrad for Clinton

Who Do These Guys Think They Are Kidding?



Substitute Senator Conrad's face for President Clinton's, and the word mortgage for sex, and Countrywide for Monica Lewinsky, and you get an idea of whether we can believe Senators Dodd and Conrad regarding the fact that they did not know they were getting sweetheart mortgage deals.

"Sens. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) are fiercely denying a report that they knew they were getting sweetheart mortgage deals — accusing a Countrywide Financial loan officer of distorting their relationships with the former mortgage giant." (Politico)

You gotta love politicians. When will they learn the coverup is worse than the crime?

Blue Dog Democrats May Save Us From Socialized Healthcare

What Is A Blue Dog Democrat And Why Can They Help To Save Us From Socialized Medicine?

7 22 09 Bearman Cartoon Bad Blue Dog

"The Blue Dog Coalition - who celebrated 15 years of leadership in 2009 - has built a reputation as a serious player in the policy arena, promoting positions which bridge the gap between ideological extremes. Many of the group's policy proposals have been praised as fair, responsible, and positive additions to a Congressional environment too often marked as partisan and antagonistic.

The 51 conservative and moderate Democrats in the group hail from every region of the country, although the group acknowledges some southern ancestry which accounts for the group's nickname. Taken from the South's longtime description of a party loyalist as one who would vote for a yellow dog if it were on the ballot as a Democrat, the "Blue Dog" moniker was taken by members of The Coalition because their moderate-to-conservative-views had been "choked blue" by their party in the years leading up to the 1994 election.

The Coalition was formed in the 104th Congress as a policy-oriented group to give moderate and conservative Democrats in the House of Representatives a common sense, bridge-building voice within the institution..." (The Blue Dog Coalition)

Why They May Save Us From Socialized Medicine

These Blue Dog Democrats in the House are not your Ted Kennedy/Henry Waxman Democrats. They are fiscally conservative politicians that were brought into the Democrat fold years ago for political expediency (Democrat retaking of Congress), and who have come back through the years to bite the Party in the butt. This is no more true than on the issue of the socialized health care bill that Nancy Pelosi is trying to get through the House.

The 7 Blue Dog members on the House Energy and Commerce Committee have blocked the legislation from going to a full House vote, raising the ire of Henry "Cap and Trade" Waxman who publicly blasted them for their petulance in having the gall to stand in the way of a country changing plan they deem destructive and inferior.

Nancy Pelosi on the talking head shows Sunday said that when the bill goes to the floor it will have the votes to pass. In Washington speak this means she will have to give away the store in order to bring the Blue Dogs into the fold. These conservative Democrats will hopefully have the political courage to stick by their guns and make sure, for the good of the American public not just today but for the generations going forward, that any move to socialized medicine is defeated.

What we have going for us is that both Obama and Pelosi, who had been on a strict timeline of the summer recess to get this done, have backpedaled and have moved to the position that a delay to the fall is okay. In political parlance this could be a big win for the country.

Monday, July 27, 2009

Another Side Of Professor Gates

Professor Gates: The Movie

On the blog Chicago Ray Report, there is a post with a video of the Professor speaking on affirmative action and other topics, as well as a description of the 911 call from the now famous incident. The real story of and behind this we may never know, but the video is very interesting as was the 911 call that never seemed to mention race. Please visit Chicago Ray Report to read the story, and view the video below.

If A Black Man Is Arrested By A White Officer On The Streets Of Harlem, Does It Still Create A Firestorm?

The Presidency Is Not A Bully Pulpit To Protect Friends (at least until your final days in office), And Certainly Not The Place To Create Racial Tension

Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates is Arrested by Police Sgt. Jim Crowley in Cambridge, Ma.

Regardless of the facts of the case, this is not the venue for the Commander in Chief who appoints the Attorney General (the highest law enforcement official in the land) to get involved and inject his opinion as to the facts that have yet to play themselves out. Of notice is that the arrested is a FOO (Friend of Obama).

The need for a hands off policy is particularly true in a racially charged case where the President comes down on the side of the accused, and invokes the history of racial injustice in the country. All this at a prime time news conference that was meant to plug the holes in the sinking health care reform ship.

There was nothing good that could have come out of his remarks, only bad. It does, however, show the thoughts of the man when put in the position to answer an off the topic question without a tele-prompter provided answer. Even if it turns out that the President is correct in his analysis of the goings on in Cambridge that day, it is not his place to articulate it. That is the job of legal process.

Where is this man, who so enjoys the bully pulpit, the limelight, the face time and the attention, when real or perceived injustice is going on every day in cities across America. Is his indignation only for the wealthy or the wealthy who are his friends.

Remember President Obama, the stipulations of the Constitution in Article II, Section 3 applies to all.

US Constitution

Friday, July 24, 2009

Overseas Contingency Operation? Not In My Backyard!

Remember When The Global War On Terror Got A New Name?

Back in March 2009 the Obama Administration unofficially changed the name of the Global War On Terror to Overseas Contingency Operations. It was a political move designed to move away from a catch phrase used in the Bush Administration.

The new phrase, unfortunately, minimizes or ignores the reality that we in America continue to face the prospect of an enemy that wants to kill us, destroy us and wipe us off of the face of the earth. Not necessarily in that order. Every day! Despite pictures that show operations overseas, the War On Terror is worldwide.

Operation Enduring Freedom

A Dose Of Terror Reality

As if we needed this fact of domestic danger to be hammered home (how quickly the Democrats forget the location of the 9-11 attacks), transcripts were recently released from a captured American turned Al-Qaeda recruit, Bryant Neal Vinas formerly of Middle Island, Long Island, New York. In this prepared statement, he details how he received training in traditional combat, explosives and suicide bombings. Not your typical post high school training for a kid from America.

Most troubling of all, is the fact that he apparently provided detailed information to Al-Qaeda on the operation of the Long Island Rail Road commuter rail system. The purpose of providing this information was to plan a bombing attack intended to kill innocent men, women and children. Who he told, and how seriously he was taken, is not known, nor does it matter.

We in America, and in countries around the world (some who have experienced this type of terror) face an enemy that does not give up, has no shortage of hatred or new recruits, and whose goal is our demise. We have short memories and have thank God not had an event in this country since 9-11, but let us not be complacent or naive.

The threat has not gone away, and we must all stay vigilant against this Global War On Terror!

Harry Reid Pushes Back The Health Care Debate: But "Inaction Is Not An Option"

Health Care Reform Put Off Until After Summer Vacation

This health care debate over a bill to cover the uninsured and to make health care available to all Americans is, according to the President and the Democrats in the House and Senate, a pressing matter. It is imperative to make health care affordable to all and to get the Federal Government involved in the process, due to the fact that the Federal Government is expert in running businesses. That of course is tongue in cheek. The government is abysmal in these efforts.

Dump Reid!

In any event, as pressing as this matter is, the citizens who they would like to cover will just have to wait until the debate begins again sometime in September, because the summer vacation for these guys is just a little more important. Is it that, or is it the fact that the polling winds are beginning to shift, and they need to get home in order to find out just how important this legislation is to their constituents? Probably a little bit of both. If the polling data indicates a turn away from this type of legislation, you will be able to hear the political backpedaling from here.

Now that the politicians are getting out of the insulated world of the Beltway, when they return you can be fairly certain that the components of this bill will change. Obama had his chance, and the inmates are now escaping the asylum. In an explanation of the delay, Harry Reid, in a transparent statement attempting to be both bi-partisan and to lay the blame at the feet of the Republicans said:

“Working with Republicans, one of the things that they ask is for more time,” Reid said Thursday. “The decision was made to give them more time… I don’t think it’s unreasonable. This is a complex, difficult issue.” (The Hill)

Obviously, the Democrats do not need the additional time to wade through this complex issue, because as they have proven in the past they are more than willing to pursue legislation without reading it first.

Lastly, Harry Reid on his website said this:

“...But it appears some want to ignore the doctor’s orders. I wish I could say they do so only at their own peril. Yet if a handful of Senators stand in the way of the change we so desperately and urgently need, they will endanger all of us. They will endanger families of every background, businesses of every size, and our nation's collective future..." (Senator Harry Reid)

The arrogance of this statement, and the reason that he can go on his summer vacation, is apparent in the second sentence. He talks about how delay "...will endanger all of us...). It will not endanger him or any of his other Senate and House buddies. As written about before, he has his gold standard health insurance and will for the rest of his life. We don't.

Enjoy your summer vacation Senator Reid. Go home. Find out what direction is politically expedient and follow it. And throw another shrimp on the barbie.

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Zero Hedge: Barack Morpheus Preaching To Americans To Believe Whatever They Want To Believe

From Zero Hedge

Zero Hedge: Barack Morpheus Preaching To Americans To Believe Whatever They Want To Believe

THURSDAY, JULY 23, 2009

Barack Morpheus Preaching To Americans To Believe Whatever They Want To Believe
Posted by Tyler Durden at 9:20 AM

Zero Hedge presents Obama's take on healthcare reform as represented by popular movie culture. Mr. President, just as an FYI, the blue pill was (is) the wrong choice.

Morhpeus: This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill - the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill - you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.

As an aside: is America doomed to promote policy and relate to a mass audience only by anchoring to widely symbolic film narrative such as "The Matrix", "The Big Lebowski", and, of course, "Fight Club"

Health Care: Do As I Say And Not As I Do

Representative Paul Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin, asked our representatives in Congress to be subject to the same health care plan that is currently being debated. He was asking them to give up the plan that they currently get in Washington, and that they will be entitled to for the rest of their lives.

He was merely asking in his amendment for those debating the future of you and me to have some "skin in the game". Pontificating on the future of our health care when you and your family will still have the gold standard and the rest of America will have socialized medicine is a sham and a charade.

Bottom line? The amendment failed on a party line vote with only one Democrat voting for it. It is inconceivable that these self serving, self important politicians that we put into office have the gall to demand a better system than they are more than willing to shove down our throats.



The following is a transcript of Representative Paul Ryan talking about the facts behind the public plan driving Americans off of private insurance and onto government run health insurance. Canadians and Brits come to this country now for treatment they cannot get at home. Where will we go if this plan passes?

House Ways and Means Committee Markup on H.R. 3200

Let me begin by saying how I agree with something that Mr. Stark said at the beginning of this hearing. He said that this debate is a profound one, and that this vote may possibly be the most important vote ever taken in our service here in Congress. I agree. It’s a big issue. It’s a big debate.

I have a number of regrets – let me list a few. The bill we got less than 48 years ago. The Chairman’s mark we got at three minutes to midnight last night. I regret the fact that not a single person that is about to vote on this bill today has read this bill. I also regret the fact that the Congressional Budget Office has just told us that they don't know what it costs. So we’re about to vote a bill that we haven’t read and we don’t know what it costs.

What’s also been quite amazing in this debate as this year has proceeded is that the rhetoric has been so sweet. The words work really well. The things that have been said about this bill sound so good.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen an issue where the rhetoric so clearly contradicts the substance of this legislation. “No one that makes under $250,000 will be taxed at all.” Ha! There’s a bunch of taxes in here – for everybody. If you like the insurance you have, you can keep it. Well that’s what this amendment is all about.

This amendment is very simple. It strikes the public plan. It says no government-run plan.

Let me explain why it’s a stacked deck. Let me explain why the public plan is really a case where they are the player and the referee in the same game. Let me explain why it is virtually impossible for a public plan to compete fairly – on a level playing field – with the private insurance market.

Four big advantages the public plan has:

1. The public plan doesn’t pay taxes and the private competitors do.
2. The public plan doesn’t have to have large capital reserves, the private competitors do.
3. The public plan doesn’t have to account for its payroll and benefit costs of its employees, the private sector does.
4. The public plan gets to dictate the prices it will pay for services, and clearly the private plans do not.

A reputable actuarial firm tells us that in three years 122 million people will get pushed off of their private health insurance. Two out of every three Americans will lose what they have and get pushed onto the public plan because of all of these factors – because of the cost-shifting occurs. If we’re underpaying hospitals by 30% with Medicare and underpaying doctors by 20% with Medicare - where are they going to make up that difference? Studies show that a combined family of four will have higher premiums of $3620 right now because of Medicare and Medicaid underpayment. And so we’re going to exacerbate that underpayment.

Let me read a quick line from an editorial today from Investor’s Business Daily: “The public option won't be an option for many, but rather a mandate for buying government care. A free people should be outraged at this advance of soft tyranny.”

Pretty harsh words. These are words I think that are appropriate for this moment.

Why don’t we say: Let’s make private health insurance work? Why don’t we work together to make it affordable for everybody? Why don’t we pass legislation to address the problems we have? Those that don’t have health insurance; those with preexisting conditions that can’t get insurance; and the fact that health care costs are rising so much.

We could do that together if our agenda was not to have a government take over of health care. With the public plan, no matter what actuarial model you look at, it goes in that direction. In this debate, direction is destiny. The destination of this bill is to have the public plan crowd out the private sector.

I am looking forward to a vibrant debate on this point. But I urge my colleagues to think twice about this moment. Think twice about the moment when you are going to vote for this bill. Think about what your constituents are going to say to you in three or four years when they have lost the health insurance that they have.

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

The Congressional Summer Recess: On Second Thought, Have A Great Time Guys!

Oh, The Life Of Congress!

The talk lately has been about how the clock is ticking for Obama to push through the health care program sooner rather than later as he is quickly losing popular support, and the do nothing Congress is getting ready to leave for it's summer vacation. As if these guys perform hard labor or any labor during the year and require some R&R to get a second wind for the end of year push.

summer fun

They have accomplished little if anything, and as politicians will have focused on earning political points back home for the next election cycle that they will face. Doing the peoples business? Hardly, unless feathering your own nest is the peoples business. Compared to pretty much any profession out there, the Congress and the Senate as a difficult workplace is laughable. That is unless deciding what junkets to go on, where to have lunch or which lobbyist to go out for dinner and drinks with is difficult.

The bottom line is this. If there is a legislative agenda that takes one, two or three weeks into the recess to get done, then that is what our public servants should be doing. Unless of course it would be legislation, such as health care that would be destructive to the nation and it's citizens.

On second thought, have a great time guys!

The article below was written in Notoriously Conservative, and although it was back in February, is still on the laser point now:

How Often is Congress in Session? How Much do They Actually Work?

Posted by Nifty Nick . 2/16/2009

The current salary (2009) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year. But they work hard you say, they deserve it you say. Well, perhaps. So how much do they work? Well, congress is in session anywhere from 130 to 190 days a year. On average, over the last 9 years, they have met about 140 days a year. So far this congress has worked 23 days, out of a possible 46 days, or 50% of the time. Here is a little vacation calender posted on the house.gov website (please note a "work period" is a fancy way of saying day off):

January 6 -111th Congress, 1st Session convenes
January 19 -Martin Luther King, Jr. Day
January 20 -Inauguration Day
January 29-31 -Republican Conference Issues Conference
February 5-7 -Democratic Caucus Issues Conference
February 16 -Presidents Day
February 16 - 20 -Presidents Day District Work Period
March 8 -Daylight Savings Time Begins
March 17 -St. Patrick's Day
April 6 - April 17 -Spring District Work Period
April 8 -Passover Begins
April 10 -Good Friday
April 12 -Easter Sunday
May 10 -Mother's Day
May 25 -Memorial Day
May 25 - May 29 -Memorial Day District Work Period
June 14 -Flag Day
June 21 -Father's Day
June 29 - July 3 -Independence Day District Work Period
July 4 -Independence Day
August 3 - September 4 -Summer District Work Period
September 7 -Labor Day
September 18 -Rosh Hashanah Begins
September 27 -Yom Kipper Begins
October 12 -Columbus Day
October 30 -Target Adjournment
November 1 -Daylight Savings Time Ends
November 11 -Veterans Day
November 26 -Thanksgiving Day
December 11 -Hanukkah Begins
December 25 -Christmas Day

Let's compare that to say, my work schedule. Well, I get New Years Day off, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Easter, Thanksgiving Day, a half day on Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, and a half day on New Years Eve. I also get three sick days, and two weeks of vacation. That's a total of twenty days off, and then of course weekends, for a total of 120 days off a year, and 245 days a year working. That means I work 68% of the year. Congress meets, on average 140 days a year, and is off 225 days. That means congress works 38% of the year.

Hmmm. So if the average congressman makes $174,000 a year, that's $1257.14 a day, $157.14 an hour (based on an 8 hour day). I make, well, significantly less than that. How much do you make? How hard do you work for it?

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Senator Chris Dodd Renounces Lobbyists? I Don't Think So!

Senator Dodd, Democrat from Connecticut, Remember That It Is Not What You Say, But What You Do That Counts!



This is an ad paid for by the Friends Of Chris Dodd that shows lobbyists crying because the game, according to what Chris Dodd says, has apparently changed. No longer do lobbyists have this Senators ear. He is a man of the people and for the people. Right? That's what he says. It must be true.

It can't be that his populist rhetoric has anything to do with his approval rating hovering below 40 % and a re-election fight looming can it? It couldn't be because this incumbent Democrat Senator is running 6 points behind in a year when incumbent democrat re-election should be a given?

Listen, as an observer of Washington and politicians in general, they would never say something just to get votes. Right?

Well, according to the National Republican Senatorial Committee in describing Dodd:

“It is worth noting that over the years you have accepted nearly $1 million in campaign contributions from lobbyists and millions more from PACs,” NRSC Executive Director Rob Jesmer wrote to Dodd. “In fact, during the second quarter of this year alone, almost 40 percent of your total contributions came from PACs.” (Politico)

Even more interesting is the fact that this past weekend Senator Dodd was at a retreat on Martha's Vineyard hosted by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. On the list of invited guests were some of the biggest lobbyists who were there to mingle with Senators and try and push whatever agenda they were hired to push.

"The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) hosted its annual retreat this weekend at the high-class getaway. Designed for candidates to meet with senators for campaign advice and policy guidance, several high-powered lobbyists also attend and network with lawmakers during the retreat." (The Hill)

This event at a posh resort with the same people crying in the video above is just more of the business as usual Washington hypocrisy. Do as I say, but certainly not as I do. C'mon Senator Dodd. Give the people some credit for being able to see through the campaign fluff and get to the truth. The truth in this case that the lobbyists are not crying, they are still right there donating and seeking to curry your favor.

Perhaps after this election you will be one of them.

Monday, July 20, 2009

Healthcare Reform: I'm Mad As Hell...

Another Reaction To The Obama Health Care Plan

On Friday I wrote Obama Health Care Plan: A New Tax Avalanche Onto The "Wealthy" Could Doom Any Jobs Recovery detailing how this ill advised and poorly conceived plan could impact an economic recovery, and in fact potentially doom one.

One of my readers at the website BloggerBase had some very insightful thoughts and strong comments on the potential of this type of government intervention to do more harm than good. He speaks from a base of experience having lived a similar type of program in his state. You can read some of his comments below, or click on the BloggerBase link to read them there.

Before we go to this readers thoughts, take a look at this. Apparently nationalized health care is good enough for us regular folk, but not our esteemed politicians:

ON THE "ABC..OBAMA SPECIAL ON HEALTH CARE"......OBAMA WAS ASKED:=
"MR. PRESIDENT WILL YOU AND YOUR FAMILY GIVE UP YOUR CURRENT HEALTH CARE=
PROGRAM AND JOIN THE NEW "UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE PROGRAM" THAT THE REST OF=
US WILL BE ON ? OBAMA IGNORED THE QUESTION AND DIDN'T ANSWER IT!!!

A NUMBER OF SENATORS WERE ASKED THE SAME QUESTION AND THEIR RESPONSE WAS=
... WE WILL THINK ABOUT IT !!!!

IT WAS ALSO ANNOUNCED TODAY ON THE NEWS THAT THE "KENNEDY HEALTH CARE BILL=
" HAS WRITTEN INTO IT THAT CONGRESS WILL BE (FROM THIS GREAT HEALTH CARE=
PLAN) EXEMPT !!!!!

I'm Mad as Hell

I am sorry if I keep on pounding the issue, but this topic angers me because I know first hand how government control ruins people's lives and the "unaware" need to know what we are being promised with "Universal healthcare" (aka, single payer; aka, public option) is pie in the sky...and if it passes, it's going to be similar to ingesting a lethal dose of poison and no vaccine to counteract it.

Once the government gets its tentacles on "free" cash it never lets go. NOT ONE piece of legislation that was ever passed on a TEMPORARY basis (beginning with income tax) has EVER being rolled back! IF government healthcare takes hold it will be turn out like Medicare/Medicaid and S.S., here to stay and the ONLY way to maintain them afloat will be for the government to find new ways to extort us!!
It literally sickens me!


Two of the BIGGEST lies Obama et al perpetrate when advancing their agenda of the "health care" legislation is that reform is necessary..

a. to keep the cost of healthcare down;

b. to ensure ALL Americans "enjoy" being insured.

First off, whatever the cost of healthcare nowadays, it will only skyrocket once the government gets involved.

How do I know this?

Because Massachusetts politicians used the same deceitful argument in order to pass "mandated health insurance."
Not ONLY rates have not come down, but they have actually risen in the less than 2 years the law has been passed, and they continue to climb EVERY month. Part of the reason is that the state of Ma gets a kickback for every policy it sells. In its first year (2007) it was 5%. More likely it has gone up. The other reason is that a new agency, called the "Connector," composed by a bunch of bureaucrats (close to 2 dozens), is in charge of implementing this scam. They are accountable to no one and their hefty salaries begin in the mid 100,000 figures.
Any of this starting to sound familiar?

Secondly, having no health insurance doesn't not equal loss of healthcare. Like me, many people in this state, prior to the law, went to the doctor and paid out of their pocket.

Since the law went into effect, I still cannot afford the monthly premiums, which are OUTRAGEOUS, and because I have opted NOT buy into the scam, I am getting penalized EVERY month and still have NO insurance. BTW, I am not alone.

Those who have benefited from the MA's mandated insurance are the usual suspects. People who got it free before, because of their "low" income and illegals.

What a bunkum that health insurance is doled out on the basis of income!

Other issues come into play, but for those unfamiliar with the state of affairs in MA, what I have already shared may need some digesting.

Let me end by saying, that IF liberals have their way and pass this heinous bill, it will be far worse than what our liberal politicians have dumped on the citizens of Massachusetts.
The "rich" including the middle class will ALL suffer the power grab and the quality of healthcare will go south.
For those eager for "universal healthcare", PLEASE move to Canada...


I have been beating my head against the wall here where I live trying to educate people as to the many downsides of our "mandated" law. The result? The majority of people prefer to live in oblivion, ignorance, b/c as long as it doesn't affect them personally, who cares!?

The same is true around the country. People are either in denial, ill-informed or exhibiting a Pollyanna's attitude...until their own world collapses.

A small number of influential people with big audiences, like Rush L., Glenn Beck, Hannity are out there sounding the alarm, but still I don't get WHY they don't use the REAL life example of what MA's mandate has done to this state.

People and doctors have left, companies relocated, those of us who remain feel powerless and are still uninsured.. I expect libs to support this "law", because it fits with their ideology, but republican Romney?! To brag this law is a "success" is a complete denial of reality. More and more I wonder if many republicans are drunk on kool-aid.

The CBO's assessed that this healthcare legislation will cause health costs to rise and liberal "rosy" predictions are not to be believed.
So, today, Schumer (D-NY) speaking of the CBO's evaluation retorted, "They are not quite fair because they don’t measure the cost savings down the road, just the immediate spending."

Here we have a non-partisan agency (CBO) making a realistic assessment and a liberal politician grandstanding and accusing the CBO of "unfairness"!?
Schumer's words are the same BS politicians sold here.

It is a FACT that mandated health insurance has not decreased any costs! Au contraire, it's bankrupted the state and our pockets.

So why should Schumer or liberals be believed?

Do you see why it's so important that people with clout who understand the problem, use the Massachusetts model to discredit the falsity liberals are attempting to s

Friday, July 17, 2009

Obama Health Care Plan: A New Tax Avalanche Onto The "Wealthy" Could Doom Any Jobs Recovery

The Obama Mantra Is New Taxes Only On The Wealthy, But What Would That Mean For Business, The Economy And A Jobs Recovery?

The Senate Health Committee cleared a health care overhaul bill on Wednesday, and the House started work yesterday on legislation that would require businesses and individuals to contribute to the cost of coverage. The House bill will cost between $1,000,000,000,000 and $1,200,000,000,000 over the next 10 years as per an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The CBO also predicts the bill would still leave about 17,000,000 people uninsured.

I used the zeros instead of the typical way of stating trillions in order to try and give some reality to the numbers, but in this day and age where billions and trillions are discussed the way nickels and dimes used to be, seeing it is not providing any real impact, at least for me.

fat cats & toxic investments

Part of the House plan will include a 5.2% surtax on "wealthy" Americans earning over $350,000. Individuals, like the guy in the picture above are the ones who would pay the additional tax. Who cares right? What is the difference if these fat cats have to pay so everyone can have health insurance? They are making a lot of money and in the scheme of things there aren't that many of them. Probably in the ballpark of less than 1% of all U.S. taxpayers. Let'em pony up a little more so that this plan can work for all the people, right. Not exactly.

The problem: These "fat cats" are many of the same people that own the small to medium sized businesses that account for a large part of new jobs creation. The same job creation that this economy needs in order to move forward and begin to grow again. These new taxes will not only contribute to negating job growth, but potentially cause the loss of existing jobs as the tax burden causes these companies to cut back or even shut down.

All of this on top of the fact that the government is not very accomplished in running any enterprise in an efficient manner, particularly one as complex and critical as health care.

The Proposed New Tax Would Push The Highest Marginal Tax Rates In 39 States Above 50%

Table 1
Top Effective Marginal Rates under Proposed Health Care Surtax by State Sorted by Combined Top Tax Rate in 2011


State

Avg. Local Rate

Top
State Rate

Top Federal Ordinary Rate

New
Surtax

Medicare
Tax

Combined
Top Rate

Rank

Oregon

0.36%

11.00%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

57.54%

1

Hawaii

0.00%

11.00%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

57.22%

2

New Jersey

0.09%

10.75%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

57.07%

3

New York^

1.70%

8.97%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

56.92%

4

California

0.00%

10.55%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

56.81%

5

Rhode Island

0.00%

9.90%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

56.22%

6

Vermont

0.00%

9.40%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

55.77%

7

Maryland

2.98%

6.25%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

55.61%

8

Minnesota

0.00%

7.85%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

54.36%

9

Idaho

0.00%

7.80%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

54.32%

10

North Carolina

0.00%

7.75%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

54.27%

11

Wisconsin

0.00%

7.75%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

54.27%

11

Ohio

1.82%

5.93%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

54.27%

13

Delaware

0.16%

6.95%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

53.69%

14

Arkansas

0.06%

7.00%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

53.65%

15

South Carolina

0.00%

7.00%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

53.59%

16

Maine

0.00%

6.85%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

53.46%

17

Nebraska

0.00%

6.84%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

53.45%

18

Kentucky

0.76%

6.00%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

53.37%

19

West Virginia

0.00%

6.50%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

53.14%

20

Kansas

0.00%

6.45%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

53.09%

21

Missouri

0.12%

6.00%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

52.79%

22

Georgia

0.00%

6.00%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

52.69%

23

Virginia

0.00%

5.75%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

52.46%

24

Oklahoma

0.00%

5.50%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

52.23%

25

Massachusetts

0.00%

5.30%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

52.05%

26

Connecticut

0.00%

5.00%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

51.78%

27

Mississippi

0.00%

5.00%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

51.78%

27

Utah

0.00%

5.00%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

51.78%

27

New Mexico

0.00%

4.90%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

51.69%

30

North Dakota

0.00%

4.86%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

51.65%

31

Iowa

0.30%

8.98%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

51.61%

32

Michigan

0.44%

4.35%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

51.59%

33

Colorado

0.00%

4.63%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

51.44%

34

Indiana

1.16%

3.40%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

51.38%

35

Arizona

0.00%

4.54%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

51.36%

36

Pennsylvania

1.25%

3.07%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

51.16%

37

Montana

0.00%

6.90%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

50.48%

38

Louisiana

0.00%

6.00%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

50.05%

39

Illinois

0.00%

3.00%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

49.97%

40

Alabama

0.19%

5.00%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

49.67%

41

Alaska

0.00%

0.00%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

47.25%

42

Florida

0.00%

0.00%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

47.25%

42

Nevada

0.00%

0.00%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

47.25%

42

New Hampshire

0.00%

0.00%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

47.25%

42

South Dakota

0.00%

0.00%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

47.25%

42

Tennessee

0.00%

0.00%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

47.25%

42

Texas

0.00%

0.00%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

47.25%

42

Washington

0.00%

0.00%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

47.25%

42

Wyoming

0.00%

0.00%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

47.25%

42

District of Columbia

0.00%

8.50%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

54.95%

New York City^

3.65%

8.97%

39.6%

5.4%

2.9%

58.68%

Source: Tax Foundation calculations, State Individual Income Tax Rates

Note: The rightmost column, Combined Top Rate, is the top effective marginal rate, taking into account deductions and adjustments, and therefore does not equal the sum of the first four rates.


;