IF you are a member of a group like "Rid the Republican Party of R.I.N.O.s" then the RINO is you.
Every time you bash the Republican Party and its members and its elected officials, YOU are the Republican In Name Only.
People who claim to be more Constitutional than the US Surpeme Court are like a Catholic who claims to be more Catholic than the Pope. I do not believe them.
People who claim to be conservative and hate democracy, the consent of the people, I do not believe them.
People who claim to be Republican and are "RINO Hunters" who bash the party and its elected officials, I do not believe.
If you proudly claim to be a member of the Republican Party without bashing the Party or its elected officials, that I will believe.
You have NO business attempting to define what it is to be a Republican when you only CLAIM to be a "Constitutionalist, Christian, Conservative, or Patriotic.
Dec 31, 2009
Attorney Generals' Letter to Pelosi & Reid On Unconstitutional Health Care Bill
December 30, 2009
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker, United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable Harry Reid
Majority Leader, United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
The undersigned state attorneys general, in response to numerous inquiries, write to express our grave concern with the Senate version of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“H.R. 3590”). The current iteration of the bill contains a provision that affords special treatment to the state of Nebraska under the federal Medicaid program. We believe this provision is constitutionally flawed.
As chief legal officers ofour states we are contemplating a legal challenge to this provision and we ask you to take action to render this challenge unnecessary by striking that provision.
It has been reported that Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson’s vote, for H.R. 3590, was secured only after striking a deal that the federal government would bear the cost of newly eligible Nebraska Medicaid enrollees.
In marked contrast all other states would not be similarly treated, and instead would be required to allocate substantial sums, potentially totaling billions of dollars, to accommodate H.R. 3590’s new Medicaid mandates.
In addition to violating the most basic and universally held notions of what isfair and just, we also believe this provision of H.R. 3590 is inconsistent with protections afforded by the United States Constitution against arbitrary legislation.
In Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S 619, 640 (1937), the United States Supreme Court warned that Congress does not possess the right under the Spending Power to demonstrate a "display of arbitrary power." Congressional spending cannot be arbitrary and capricious.
The spending power of Congress includes authority to accomplish policy objectives by conditioning receipt of federal funds on compliance with statutory directives, as in the Medicaid program.
However, the power is not unlimited and “must be in pursuit of the
‘general welfare.’ ” South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 207 (1987). In Dole the Supreme Court stated, “that conditions on federal grants might be illegitimate if they are unrelated to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs.” Id. at 207.
It seems axiomatic that the federal interest in H.R. 3590 is not simply requiring universalhealth care, but also ensuring that the states share with the federal government the cost of providing such care to their citizens. This federal interest is evident from the fact this legislation would require every state, except Nebraska, to shoulder its fair share of theincreased Medicaid costs the bill will generate.
The provision of the bill that relieves a single state from this cost-sharing program appears to be not only unrelated, but also antithetical to the legitimate federal interests in the bill.
The fundamental unfairness of H.R. 3590 may also give rise to claims under the due process, equal protection, privileges and immunities clauses and other provisions of the Constitution.
As a practical matter, the deal struck by the United States Senate on the
“Nebraska Compromise” is a disadvantage to the citizens of 49 states. Every state’s tax dollars, except Nebraska’s, will be devoted to cost-sharing required by the bill, and will be therefore unavailable for other essential state programs.
Only the citizens of Nebraska will be freed from this diminution in state resources for critical state services. Since the only basis for the Nebraska preference is arbitrary and unrelated to the substance of the legislation, it is unlikely that the difference would survive even minimal scrutiny.
We ask that Congress delete the Nebraska provision from the pending legislation, as we prefer to avoid litigation. Because this provision has serious implications for the country and the future of our nation’s legislative process, we urge you to take appropriate steps to protect the Constitution and the rights of the citizens of our nation. We believe this issueis readily resolved by removing the provision in question from the bill, and we ask that you do so.
By singling out the particular provision relating to special treatment of Nebraska, we do not suggest there are no other legal or constitutional issues in the proposed health care legislation.
Please let us know if we can be of assistance as you consider this matter.
Sincerely,
Henry McMaster Attorney General, South Carolina
Rob McKennaAttorney General, Washington
Mike CoxAttorney General, Michigan
Greg AbbottAttorney General, Texas
John SuthersAttorney General, Colorado
Troy KingAttorney General, Alabama
Wayne StenehjemAttorney General, North Dakota
Bill MimsAttorney General, Virginia
Tom CorbettAttorney General, Pennsylvania
Mark ShurtleffAttorney General, Utah
Bill McCollumAttorney General, Florida
Lawrence WasdenAttorney General, Idaho
Marty JackleyAttorney General, South DakotaEdit Post
Delete Post
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker, United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable Harry Reid
Majority Leader, United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
The undersigned state attorneys general, in response to numerous inquiries, write to express our grave concern with the Senate version of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“H.R. 3590”). The current iteration of the bill contains a provision that affords special treatment to the state of Nebraska under the federal Medicaid program. We believe this provision is constitutionally flawed.
As chief legal officers ofour states we are contemplating a legal challenge to this provision and we ask you to take action to render this challenge unnecessary by striking that provision.
It has been reported that Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson’s vote, for H.R. 3590, was secured only after striking a deal that the federal government would bear the cost of newly eligible Nebraska Medicaid enrollees.
In marked contrast all other states would not be similarly treated, and instead would be required to allocate substantial sums, potentially totaling billions of dollars, to accommodate H.R. 3590’s new Medicaid mandates.
In addition to violating the most basic and universally held notions of what isfair and just, we also believe this provision of H.R. 3590 is inconsistent with protections afforded by the United States Constitution against arbitrary legislation.
In Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S 619, 640 (1937), the United States Supreme Court warned that Congress does not possess the right under the Spending Power to demonstrate a "display of arbitrary power." Congressional spending cannot be arbitrary and capricious.
The spending power of Congress includes authority to accomplish policy objectives by conditioning receipt of federal funds on compliance with statutory directives, as in the Medicaid program.
However, the power is not unlimited and “must be in pursuit of the
‘general welfare.’ ” South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 207 (1987). In Dole the Supreme Court stated, “that conditions on federal grants might be illegitimate if they are unrelated to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs.” Id. at 207.
It seems axiomatic that the federal interest in H.R. 3590 is not simply requiring universalhealth care, but also ensuring that the states share with the federal government the cost of providing such care to their citizens. This federal interest is evident from the fact this legislation would require every state, except Nebraska, to shoulder its fair share of theincreased Medicaid costs the bill will generate.
The provision of the bill that relieves a single state from this cost-sharing program appears to be not only unrelated, but also antithetical to the legitimate federal interests in the bill.
The fundamental unfairness of H.R. 3590 may also give rise to claims under the due process, equal protection, privileges and immunities clauses and other provisions of the Constitution.
As a practical matter, the deal struck by the United States Senate on the
“Nebraska Compromise” is a disadvantage to the citizens of 49 states. Every state’s tax dollars, except Nebraska’s, will be devoted to cost-sharing required by the bill, and will be therefore unavailable for other essential state programs.
Only the citizens of Nebraska will be freed from this diminution in state resources for critical state services. Since the only basis for the Nebraska preference is arbitrary and unrelated to the substance of the legislation, it is unlikely that the difference would survive even minimal scrutiny.
We ask that Congress delete the Nebraska provision from the pending legislation, as we prefer to avoid litigation. Because this provision has serious implications for the country and the future of our nation’s legislative process, we urge you to take appropriate steps to protect the Constitution and the rights of the citizens of our nation. We believe this issueis readily resolved by removing the provision in question from the bill, and we ask that you do so.
By singling out the particular provision relating to special treatment of Nebraska, we do not suggest there are no other legal or constitutional issues in the proposed health care legislation.
Please let us know if we can be of assistance as you consider this matter.
Sincerely,
Henry McMaster Attorney General, South Carolina
Rob McKennaAttorney General, Washington
Mike CoxAttorney General, Michigan
Greg AbbottAttorney General, Texas
John SuthersAttorney General, Colorado
Troy KingAttorney General, Alabama
Wayne StenehjemAttorney General, North Dakota
Bill MimsAttorney General, Virginia
Tom CorbettAttorney General, Pennsylvania
Mark ShurtleffAttorney General, Utah
Bill McCollumAttorney General, Florida
Lawrence WasdenAttorney General, Idaho
Marty JackleyAttorney General, South DakotaEdit Post
Delete Post
Dec 29, 2009
Dec 24, 2009
Dec 22, 2009
Mrs. HUTCHISON on MORE MANDATES AND TAXES FROM 1:00AM AMENDMENT:
Mrs. HUTCHISON on MORE MANDATES AND TAXES FROM 1:00AM AMENDMENT:
I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, for weeks we have been debating legislation that will dramatically and permanently reform our health care industry. It will impact the life of every American, and it will add to our growing national debt.
On Saturday, the... majority leader filed an amendment increasing the size of this bill. Early this morning at 1 a.m., we had a vote to proceed to the revised bill that makes a mockery of transparency and public policy. Yet even though the majority took the opportunity to amend the bill, it is clear the concerns of the American people were not heard by my friends on the other side of the aisle.
I was astounded to see this revised bill still contains $ 1/2 trillion in new taxes, $ 1/2 trillion in Medicare cuts and mandates and penalties on individuals and businesses throughout our country at a time when businesses are struggling, unemployment is up, and families are trying to make ends meet.
I wish to talk about the taxes. The revised bill has an additional $25 billion in taxes than the bill as introduced. We have been hearing for weeks about families who are struggling to pay their mortgage, struggling to find a job, struggling to pay their utility bills. Yet what do we find in this new bill? More taxes and more mandates.
The American people overwhelmingly oppose this bill, and just when we thought the final product could not get any worse, it does.
Under the revised bill, the taxes collected from individuals who cannot afford health insurance has been raised from $8 billion to $15 billion--almost double. Why? Because the penalty for not purchasing insurance has become more severe. If you cannot afford insurance, the tax is either $750 or 2 percent of your taxable income, whichever is higher.
There are still taxes that begin next month, less than 2 weeks from now. [Page: S13657]
Less than 2 weeks from now in this bill, $22 billion in taxes on prescription drug companies will start, and the public can expect to see higher prices for medicines.
In 2011, we see $60 billion in taxes on insurance companies except for companies in two particular States. That does not seem fair. Fortunately, the Constitution's equal protection clause may have something to say about this gross situation. This will not stand the test of the Constitution, I hope, because the deals that have been made to get votes from specific Senators cannot be considered equal protection under the law.
If it does stand and the taxes start in 2011, people who have insurance are going to pay higher premiums--even higher than what has been projected already.
In 2011, we also see the taxes on medical device manufacturers. So the public can expect to see higher prices for devices--thermometers, blood sugar machines, canes, walkers--the things people need to stay healthy. That is another $19 billion in taxes.
Then there is another round of taxes in 2013: $149 billion in taxes on high-benefit plans; a 40-percent excise tax on the amount by which premiums exceed $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for families; $87 billion collected from a Medicare payroll tax. This tax is actually $33 billion higher than in the prior bill. Individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples earning more than $250,000 are now assessed at a tax rate of 2.35 percent for a new Medicare payroll tax rather than 1.45 percent.
So if you are a couple earning $125,000 each, you have another tax increase, in addition to possibly a tax on not having insurance or a high-benefit plan.
Also, $15 billion will be collected by raising the threshold for the medical deduction. To receive the medical deduction, you must now spend 10 percent of your income on medical expenses rather than 7.5 percent. This tax will impact those who have high medical costs or are suffering from a catastrophic or chronic illness.
This bill taxes those who have insurance and those who do not. All these taxes are collected. All the taxes I have mentioned will be collected before there would be the option that is the purpose of this bill. Whatever the insurance option becomes, it takes effect in 2014. All the taxes I have mentioned start before 2014.
Senator Thune and I had a motion that would have sent this bill back to the committee and required that everything in this bill start at the same time. So if the program starts in 2014, the taxes would start in 2014. Under our motion, not one dime in taxes would be paid before Americans are offered the insurance option in the bill. The motion was defeated. Now the Democrats have revised their bill and the taxes collected are even higher than the previous bill.
But do not forget the penalties to businesses that cannot afford to offer health insurance to their employees. A tax of $750 per employee is assessed. This at a time when unemployment has reached double digits. We should be encouraging employers to hire new workers. Yet this bill imposes $28 billion in new taxes on employers.
What will these taxes do to small businesses which create 70 percent of the new jobs in our country? In a letter sent to the majority leader, the Small Business Coalition for Affordable Health Care stated:
With its new taxes, mandates, growth in government programs and overall price tag, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act--
The bill we are discussing--
costs too much and delivers too little. ..... Any potential savings from those reforms are more than outweighed by the new taxes, new mandates and expensive new government programs included in this bill.
That letter is signed, in addition to the Small Business Coalition, by associations such as the Farm Bureau, Associated Builders and Contractors, Associated General Contractors of America, the National Association of Homebuilders, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Automobile Dealers Association, the National Retail Federation, and more.
The National Federation of Independent Business, which is the voice of small business, sent a letter expressing their strong concerns over this bill. It says:
The current bill does not do enough to reduce costs for small business owners and their employees. Despite the inclusion of insurance market reforms in the small-group and individual marketplaces, the savings that may materialize are too small for too few and the increase in premium costs are too great for too many.
That is the tax situation. How about the $ 1/2 trillion in Medicare cuts? They are still there. They were in the first bill, and they are there now.
There are $120 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage, which we know reduces choices for seniors. In my State of Texas, over 500,000 currently enrolled enjoy the benefits of Medicare Advantage. That is in my State alone. Millions across the country like Medicare Advantage, but many seniors, without a doubt, are going to lose this option.
Oddly enough, once again, one of the points in the new bill is, there was an opt-out for certain States on Medicare Advantage cuts. So some States are going to have the Medicare Advantage cuts while other States will not.
The individual fixes for certain States, presumably to get the votes of certain Senators, do not pass the test of transparency. If you put it in the nicest way, it does not pass the test for fairness, for due process and equal treatment under the law, and it certainly does not pass the test for what is the right way for us to pass comprehensive reform legislation.
The other health care cuts in Medicare would be $186 billion in cuts to nursing homes, home health care, and hospice providers.
Then there are the cuts to hospitals, approximately $135 billion in cuts to hospitals. The Texas Hospital Association has estimated that hospitals in my State will suffer almost $10 billion in reduced payments.
I have a letter from the Texas Hospital Association that outlines their concerns with these cuts and this bill and they are very concerned. Here is one of the quotes from their letter. The Texas Hospital Association says:
With a significant reduction in payments, hospitals may be forced to reduce medical services. [H]ospitals ..... may be forced to close or merge with another hospital, or severely reduce the services they provide to their community. Essential services, such as maternity care, emergency services, medical-surgical services or wellness programs may be reduced or entirely eliminated.
I have talked with so many hospital administrators and people on hospital boards, and they are very concerned about the cuts in this bill because most of them are on very thin margins. They are struggling, especially in our rural areas. They are very worried there are going to be shutdowns of hospitals throughout our State and certainly our country.
Our aging population is growing, so cutting payments to providers who treat those patients, whether it is in hospitals or health care providers, does not seem to be a way to reform Medicare.
Cuts in Medicare, and especially the payments for treating low-income seniors, will disproportionately impact rural hospitals which are the safety net for health care outside the metropolitan areas. The Texas Organization of Rural and Community Hospitals, which represents 150 rural hospitals in Texas, said in a letter:
We also fear the Medicare cuts as proposed could disproportionately hurt rural hospitals which are the health care safety net for more than 2 million rural Texans. Because of lower financial margins and higher percentage of Medicare patients, rural hospitals will be impacted more than urban hospitals by any reductions in reimbursement. These proposed Medicare cuts could have a devastating effect ..... which could lead to curtailing of certain services. And the closure of some of these Texas hospitals
is a very real possibility. .....
How could anyone support a reform bill that will result in seniors having to drive 30, 60, 90 miles and more to get the care they need--care that was accessible in their own community before this bill took effect?
Mr. President, what we have is a bill heavy with tax hikes, Medicare cuts, and government intrusion. This bill is being forced through Congress the week of Christmas because everyone knows this is not the reform that Americans want. The polls are showing that. We all know polls can have margins of error, and maybe they are not completely accurate, but the trend in the polls is clear: It has gone from people thinking that health care reform is a good thing and supporting it, in the majority, to
going down now to the point where the trend is clear the [Page: S13658]
American people now do not support this bill, they would rather have nothing, according to the latest polls, and have Congress start all over and do what
they hoped it would do, and that is bring down the cost of health care not have this be a big government increase in debt, cuts to Medicare, and increases on taxes to small business and families, especially at this time in our country's economic period.
My Republican colleagues and I have tried to offer fiscally responsible alternatives to reform, allowing small businesses to pool together, increase the size of their risk pools, which will bring premiums down. If you have an exchange it would be fine unless you have so many mandates, such as we see in this bill, that are going to cause the prices to stay up and even go higher because of all the taxes on the underlying companies that are providing the health care.
Creating an online marketplace free from mandates and government interference where the public can easily compare and select insurance plans would be a Republican proposal, something that I think would be a point at which we could start having health care reform that would be truly effective for America, if you didn't have the mandates that would drive up the cost.
Offering tax credits to individuals and families who purchase insurance on their own, that is a bill that we have put forward. Five thousand dollars per family would cut the cost and make it affordable without any government intervention that would be necessary.
Of course, medical malpractice reform could take $54 billion out of the cost of health care by stopping the frivolous lawsuits, or at least limiting them. Yet Republicans were really not at the table. The bill was written in a room, with no transparency, no C-SPAN cameras, and no Republicans. We did not have input into this bill. That is why it is a partisan bill. That is why the vote last night--or this morning at 1 a.m.--was completely, 100 percent partisan. Why would a Republican vote for
a bill that goes against every principle we have--higher taxes, higher mandates, and cuts in Medicare--and in which we had not one amendment pass? We offered amendments, but there were hundreds of amendments left on the table that we were closed out of offering because of the rush to pass this bill before Christmas.
Mr. President, Americans asked for reform; they deserve it. This bill is not the reform Americans hoped to get from a Congress that should have acted responsibly but did not.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, for weeks we have been debating legislation that will dramatically and permanently reform our health care industry. It will impact the life of every American, and it will add to our growing national debt.
On Saturday, the... majority leader filed an amendment increasing the size of this bill. Early this morning at 1 a.m., we had a vote to proceed to the revised bill that makes a mockery of transparency and public policy. Yet even though the majority took the opportunity to amend the bill, it is clear the concerns of the American people were not heard by my friends on the other side of the aisle.
I was astounded to see this revised bill still contains $ 1/2 trillion in new taxes, $ 1/2 trillion in Medicare cuts and mandates and penalties on individuals and businesses throughout our country at a time when businesses are struggling, unemployment is up, and families are trying to make ends meet.
I wish to talk about the taxes. The revised bill has an additional $25 billion in taxes than the bill as introduced. We have been hearing for weeks about families who are struggling to pay their mortgage, struggling to find a job, struggling to pay their utility bills. Yet what do we find in this new bill? More taxes and more mandates.
The American people overwhelmingly oppose this bill, and just when we thought the final product could not get any worse, it does.
Under the revised bill, the taxes collected from individuals who cannot afford health insurance has been raised from $8 billion to $15 billion--almost double. Why? Because the penalty for not purchasing insurance has become more severe. If you cannot afford insurance, the tax is either $750 or 2 percent of your taxable income, whichever is higher.
There are still taxes that begin next month, less than 2 weeks from now. [Page: S13657]
Less than 2 weeks from now in this bill, $22 billion in taxes on prescription drug companies will start, and the public can expect to see higher prices for medicines.
In 2011, we see $60 billion in taxes on insurance companies except for companies in two particular States. That does not seem fair. Fortunately, the Constitution's equal protection clause may have something to say about this gross situation. This will not stand the test of the Constitution, I hope, because the deals that have been made to get votes from specific Senators cannot be considered equal protection under the law.
If it does stand and the taxes start in 2011, people who have insurance are going to pay higher premiums--even higher than what has been projected already.
In 2011, we also see the taxes on medical device manufacturers. So the public can expect to see higher prices for devices--thermometers, blood sugar machines, canes, walkers--the things people need to stay healthy. That is another $19 billion in taxes.
Then there is another round of taxes in 2013: $149 billion in taxes on high-benefit plans; a 40-percent excise tax on the amount by which premiums exceed $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for families; $87 billion collected from a Medicare payroll tax. This tax is actually $33 billion higher than in the prior bill. Individuals earning more than $200,000 and couples earning more than $250,000 are now assessed at a tax rate of 2.35 percent for a new Medicare payroll tax rather than 1.45 percent.
So if you are a couple earning $125,000 each, you have another tax increase, in addition to possibly a tax on not having insurance or a high-benefit plan.
Also, $15 billion will be collected by raising the threshold for the medical deduction. To receive the medical deduction, you must now spend 10 percent of your income on medical expenses rather than 7.5 percent. This tax will impact those who have high medical costs or are suffering from a catastrophic or chronic illness.
This bill taxes those who have insurance and those who do not. All these taxes are collected. All the taxes I have mentioned will be collected before there would be the option that is the purpose of this bill. Whatever the insurance option becomes, it takes effect in 2014. All the taxes I have mentioned start before 2014.
Senator Thune and I had a motion that would have sent this bill back to the committee and required that everything in this bill start at the same time. So if the program starts in 2014, the taxes would start in 2014. Under our motion, not one dime in taxes would be paid before Americans are offered the insurance option in the bill. The motion was defeated. Now the Democrats have revised their bill and the taxes collected are even higher than the previous bill.
But do not forget the penalties to businesses that cannot afford to offer health insurance to their employees. A tax of $750 per employee is assessed. This at a time when unemployment has reached double digits. We should be encouraging employers to hire new workers. Yet this bill imposes $28 billion in new taxes on employers.
What will these taxes do to small businesses which create 70 percent of the new jobs in our country? In a letter sent to the majority leader, the Small Business Coalition for Affordable Health Care stated:
With its new taxes, mandates, growth in government programs and overall price tag, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act--
The bill we are discussing--
costs too much and delivers too little. ..... Any potential savings from those reforms are more than outweighed by the new taxes, new mandates and expensive new government programs included in this bill.
That letter is signed, in addition to the Small Business Coalition, by associations such as the Farm Bureau, Associated Builders and Contractors, Associated General Contractors of America, the National Association of Homebuilders, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Automobile Dealers Association, the National Retail Federation, and more.
The National Federation of Independent Business, which is the voice of small business, sent a letter expressing their strong concerns over this bill. It says:
The current bill does not do enough to reduce costs for small business owners and their employees. Despite the inclusion of insurance market reforms in the small-group and individual marketplaces, the savings that may materialize are too small for too few and the increase in premium costs are too great for too many.
That is the tax situation. How about the $ 1/2 trillion in Medicare cuts? They are still there. They were in the first bill, and they are there now.
There are $120 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage, which we know reduces choices for seniors. In my State of Texas, over 500,000 currently enrolled enjoy the benefits of Medicare Advantage. That is in my State alone. Millions across the country like Medicare Advantage, but many seniors, without a doubt, are going to lose this option.
Oddly enough, once again, one of the points in the new bill is, there was an opt-out for certain States on Medicare Advantage cuts. So some States are going to have the Medicare Advantage cuts while other States will not.
The individual fixes for certain States, presumably to get the votes of certain Senators, do not pass the test of transparency. If you put it in the nicest way, it does not pass the test for fairness, for due process and equal treatment under the law, and it certainly does not pass the test for what is the right way for us to pass comprehensive reform legislation.
The other health care cuts in Medicare would be $186 billion in cuts to nursing homes, home health care, and hospice providers.
Then there are the cuts to hospitals, approximately $135 billion in cuts to hospitals. The Texas Hospital Association has estimated that hospitals in my State will suffer almost $10 billion in reduced payments.
I have a letter from the Texas Hospital Association that outlines their concerns with these cuts and this bill and they are very concerned. Here is one of the quotes from their letter. The Texas Hospital Association says:
With a significant reduction in payments, hospitals may be forced to reduce medical services. [H]ospitals ..... may be forced to close or merge with another hospital, or severely reduce the services they provide to their community. Essential services, such as maternity care, emergency services, medical-surgical services or wellness programs may be reduced or entirely eliminated.
I have talked with so many hospital administrators and people on hospital boards, and they are very concerned about the cuts in this bill because most of them are on very thin margins. They are struggling, especially in our rural areas. They are very worried there are going to be shutdowns of hospitals throughout our State and certainly our country.
Our aging population is growing, so cutting payments to providers who treat those patients, whether it is in hospitals or health care providers, does not seem to be a way to reform Medicare.
Cuts in Medicare, and especially the payments for treating low-income seniors, will disproportionately impact rural hospitals which are the safety net for health care outside the metropolitan areas. The Texas Organization of Rural and Community Hospitals, which represents 150 rural hospitals in Texas, said in a letter:
We also fear the Medicare cuts as proposed could disproportionately hurt rural hospitals which are the health care safety net for more than 2 million rural Texans. Because of lower financial margins and higher percentage of Medicare patients, rural hospitals will be impacted more than urban hospitals by any reductions in reimbursement. These proposed Medicare cuts could have a devastating effect ..... which could lead to curtailing of certain services. And the closure of some of these Texas hospitals
is a very real possibility. .....
How could anyone support a reform bill that will result in seniors having to drive 30, 60, 90 miles and more to get the care they need--care that was accessible in their own community before this bill took effect?
Mr. President, what we have is a bill heavy with tax hikes, Medicare cuts, and government intrusion. This bill is being forced through Congress the week of Christmas because everyone knows this is not the reform that Americans want. The polls are showing that. We all know polls can have margins of error, and maybe they are not completely accurate, but the trend in the polls is clear: It has gone from people thinking that health care reform is a good thing and supporting it, in the majority, to
going down now to the point where the trend is clear the [Page: S13658]
American people now do not support this bill, they would rather have nothing, according to the latest polls, and have Congress start all over and do what
they hoped it would do, and that is bring down the cost of health care not have this be a big government increase in debt, cuts to Medicare, and increases on taxes to small business and families, especially at this time in our country's economic period.
My Republican colleagues and I have tried to offer fiscally responsible alternatives to reform, allowing small businesses to pool together, increase the size of their risk pools, which will bring premiums down. If you have an exchange it would be fine unless you have so many mandates, such as we see in this bill, that are going to cause the prices to stay up and even go higher because of all the taxes on the underlying companies that are providing the health care.
Creating an online marketplace free from mandates and government interference where the public can easily compare and select insurance plans would be a Republican proposal, something that I think would be a point at which we could start having health care reform that would be truly effective for America, if you didn't have the mandates that would drive up the cost.
Offering tax credits to individuals and families who purchase insurance on their own, that is a bill that we have put forward. Five thousand dollars per family would cut the cost and make it affordable without any government intervention that would be necessary.
Of course, medical malpractice reform could take $54 billion out of the cost of health care by stopping the frivolous lawsuits, or at least limiting them. Yet Republicans were really not at the table. The bill was written in a room, with no transparency, no C-SPAN cameras, and no Republicans. We did not have input into this bill. That is why it is a partisan bill. That is why the vote last night--or this morning at 1 a.m.--was completely, 100 percent partisan. Why would a Republican vote for
a bill that goes against every principle we have--higher taxes, higher mandates, and cuts in Medicare--and in which we had not one amendment pass? We offered amendments, but there were hundreds of amendments left on the table that we were closed out of offering because of the rush to pass this bill before Christmas.
Mr. President, Americans asked for reform; they deserve it. This bill is not the reform Americans hoped to get from a Congress that should have acted responsibly but did not.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Presidential Approval: Mere Approval Eclipsed By Strongly Disapprove
Today, 12/22/09, marked the first time that those who Strongly Disapprove has reached 46%. Those who merely disapprove are 56% is also at a new high for this Democrat Administration. The Strongly Approve is 25%, so the index of those who Strongly approve minus those who Strongly Disapprove is -21, another historic high for this Democrat Administration.
Dec 15, 2009
Name the Writer of that Quote
The true rule, in determining to embrace, or reject any thing, is not whether it have any evil in it; but whether it have more of evil, than of good. There are few things wholly evil, or wholly good. Almost every thing, especially of governmental policy, is an inseparable compound of the two; so that our best judgment of the preponderance between them is continually demanded.
Nov 17, 2009
Nov 10, 2009
"RINO Hunters"
IF you are a member like "Rid the Republican Party of R.I.N.O.s" then the RINO is you.
Every time you bash the Republican Party and its members and its elected officials, YOU are the Republican In Name Only.
People who claim to be more Constitutional than the US Surpeme Court are like a Catholic who claims to be more Catholic than the Pope. I do not believe them.
People who claim to be conservative and hate democracy, the consent of the people, I do not believe them.
People who claim to be Republican and are "RINO Hunters" who bash the party and its elected officials, I do not believe.
If you proudly claim to be a member of the Republican Party without bashing the Party or its elected officials, that I will believe.
You have NO business attempting to define what it is to be a Republican when you only CLAIM to be a "Constitutionalist, Christian, Conservative, or Patriotic.
Every time you bash the Republican Party and its members and its elected officials, YOU are the Republican In Name Only.
People who claim to be more Constitutional than the US Surpeme Court are like a Catholic who claims to be more Catholic than the Pope. I do not believe them.
People who claim to be conservative and hate democracy, the consent of the people, I do not believe them.
People who claim to be Republican and are "RINO Hunters" who bash the party and its elected officials, I do not believe.
If you proudly claim to be a member of the Republican Party without bashing the Party or its elected officials, that I will believe.
You have NO business attempting to define what it is to be a Republican when you only CLAIM to be a "Constitutionalist, Christian, Conservative, or Patriotic.
Oct 30, 2009
Affordable Health Care For America Act?
H.R. 3962: Affordable Health Care for America Act is repressive rather than progressive. There was no referendum to pass this 1,990 page restructuring of 15.3% of our economy. If health care is the problem, insurance is not the cause, and bigger government is not the answer.
Fortune 500 shows that last year's profits for the ten largest private insurance companies in America were eight billion-altogether. Medicare lost to faud 20 times the profit of the most profitable insurance company
It has little to do with making health care affordable for Americans and great deal to do with usurping personal choices by empowering the American Government. It is health care being delivered by the U.S. Postal Service and administered by the Internal Revenue Service.
Do you want your medications delivered to you the way this government misdelivers the mail of other people to you. Do you want your health care administered by the IRS under the Department of the Treasury? If you like how the IRS determines deductions and hunts down taxpayers for missing payments, you will love how they determine benefits and demand premiums.
Imagine another 111 bureacracies that only ultimately must listen to the Secretary of the Treasury - another "service" of which is the IRS.
This huge bill was not created because of a lack of ideas from Republicans in readable segments with alternative bills. It is inspite of them. The Democrats do not fight corruption. They reward it with trillions of dollars in pork. Medicare is failing, but wait until they make it look like ACORN.
The REPUBLICAN Affordable Health Care For America Act would be MAKING HEALTH Care Affordable For EVERY AmeriCAN.
Besides the connection to all of H.3932 above, there are connections for detailed summaries and a comprehensive list of tax hikes at the end.
Just to start with, you can start and listen to the videos at the end while you read the this:
Affordable Health Care for America Act Section by Section Analysis
Detailed Summary of Affordable Health Care for America Act
AMERICANS FOR TAX REFORM has checked this for new taxes and found a:
COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF ALL TAX HIKES IN HOUSE GOVERNMENT HEALTH BILL
Republican Response to Democrat Health Care Bill-10/29/09
SenJohnCornyn
Sen. Cornyn's Floor Speech on the Pelosi Health Bill and its Impact on Jobs
John Boehner quoting NTUF blog on the wording of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act
Fortune 500 shows that last year's profits for the ten largest private insurance companies in America were eight billion-altogether. Medicare lost to faud 20 times the profit of the most profitable insurance company
It has little to do with making health care affordable for Americans and great deal to do with usurping personal choices by empowering the American Government. It is health care being delivered by the U.S. Postal Service and administered by the Internal Revenue Service.
Do you want your medications delivered to you the way this government misdelivers the mail of other people to you. Do you want your health care administered by the IRS under the Department of the Treasury? If you like how the IRS determines deductions and hunts down taxpayers for missing payments, you will love how they determine benefits and demand premiums.
Imagine another 111 bureacracies that only ultimately must listen to the Secretary of the Treasury - another "service" of which is the IRS.
This huge bill was not created because of a lack of ideas from Republicans in readable segments with alternative bills. It is inspite of them. The Democrats do not fight corruption. They reward it with trillions of dollars in pork. Medicare is failing, but wait until they make it look like ACORN.
The REPUBLICAN Affordable Health Care For America Act would be MAKING HEALTH Care Affordable For EVERY AmeriCAN.
Besides the connection to all of H.3932 above, there are connections for detailed summaries and a comprehensive list of tax hikes at the end.
Just to start with, you can start and listen to the videos at the end while you read the this:
Affordable Health Care for America Act Section by Section Analysis
Detailed Summary of Affordable Health Care for America Act
AMERICANS FOR TAX REFORM has checked this for new taxes and found a:
COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF ALL TAX HIKES IN HOUSE GOVERNMENT HEALTH BILL
Employer Mandate Excise Tax (Page 275): If an employer does not pay 72.5 percent of a singleemployee’s health premium (65 percent of a family employee), the employer must pay an excise tax equal to 8 percent of average wages. Small employers (measured by payroll size) have smaller payroll tax rates of 0 percent (<$500,000), 2 percent ($500,000-$585,000), 4 percent ($585,000-$670,000), and 6 percent ($670,000-$750,000).
Individual Mandate Surtax (Page 296): If an individual fails to obtain qualifying coverage, he must pay an income surtax equal to the lesser of 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) or the average premium. MAGI adds back in the foreign earned income exclusion and municipal bond interest.
Medicine Cabinet Tax (Page 324): Non-prescription medications would no longer be able to be purchased from health savings accounts (HSAs), flexible spending accounts (FSAs), or health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs). Insulin excepted.
Cap on FSAs (Page 325): FSAs would face an annual cap of $2500 (currently uncapped). Increased Additional Tax on Non-Qualified HSA Distributions (Page 326): Non-qualified distributions from HSAs would face an additional tax of 20 percent (current law is 10 percent). This disadvantages HSAs relative to other tax-free accounts (e.g. IRAs, 401(k)s, 529 plans, etc.)
Denial of Tax Deduction for Employer Health Plans Coordinating with Medicare Part D (Page 327): This would further erode private sector participation in delivery of Medicare services. Surtax on Individuals and Small Businesses (Page 336): Imposes an income surtax of 5.4 percent on MAGI over $500,000 ($1 million married filing jointly). MAGI adds back in the itemized deduction for margin loan interest. This would raise the top marginal tax rate in 2011 from 39.6 percent under current law to 45 percent—a new effective top rate.
Excise Tax on Medical Devices (Page 339): Imposes a new excise tax on medical device manufacturers equal to 2.5 percent of the wholesale price. It excludes retail sales and unspecified medical devices sold to the general public.
Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting (Page 344): Requires that 1099-MISC forms be issued to corporations as well as persons for trade or business payments. Current law limits to just persons for small business compliance complexity reasons. Also expands reporting to exchanges of property.
Delay in Worldwide Allocation of Interest (Page 345): Delays for nine years the worldwide allocation of interest, a corporate tax relief provision from the American Jobs Creation Act.
Jobs Creation Act Limitation on Tax Treaty Benefits for Certain Payments (Page 346): Increases taxes on U.S. employers with overseas operations looking to avoid double taxation of earnings.
Codification of the “Economic Substance Doctrine” (Page 349): Empowers the IRS to disallow a perfectly legal tax deduction or other tax relief merely because the IRS deems that the motive of the taxpayer was not primarily business-related.
Application of “More Likely Than Not” Rule (Page 357): Publicly-traded partnerships and corporations with annual gross receipts in excess of $100 million have raised standards on penalties. If there is a tax underpayment by these taxpayers, they must be able to prove that the estimated tax paid would have more likely than not been sufficient to cover final tax liability.
OTHER ISSUES:
Page 94—Section 202(c) prohibits the sale of private individual health insurance policies, beginning in 2013, forcing individuals to purchase coverage through the federal government
Page 110—Section 222(e) requires the use of federal dollars to fund abortions through the government-run health plan—and, if the Hyde Amendment were ever not renewed, would require the plan to fund elective abortions
Page 111—Section 223 establishes a new board of federal bureaucrats (the “Health Benefits Advisory Committee”) to dictate the health plans that all individuals must purchase—and would likely require all Americans to subsidize and purchase plans that cover any abortion
Page 211—Section 321 establishes a new government-run health plan that, according to non-partisan actuaries at theHULewin GroupUH, would cause as many as 114 million Americans to lose their existing coverage
Page 225—Section 330 permits—but does not require—Members of Congress to enroll in government-run health care
Page 255—Section 345 includes language requiring verification of income for individuals wishing to receive federal health care subsidies under the bill—while the bill includes a requirement for applicants to verify their citizenship, it does not include a similar requirement to verify applicants’ identity, thus encouraging identity fraud for undocumented immigrants and others wishing to receive taxpayer-subsidized health benefits
Page 297—Section 501 imposes a 2.5 percent tax on all individuals who do not purchase “bureaucrat-approved” health insurance—the tax would apply on individuals with incomes under $250,000, thus breaking a central HUpromiseUH of then-Senator Obama’s presidential campaign
Page 313—Section 512 imposes an 8 percent “tax on jobs” for firms that cannot afford to purchase “bureaucrat-approved” health coverage; according to an HUanalysisUH by Harvard Professor Kate Baicker, such a tax would place millions “at substantial risk of unemployment”—Uwith minority workers losing their jobs at twice the rate of their white counterparts
Page 336—Section 551 imposes additional job-killing taxes, in the form of a half-trillion dollar “surcharge,” more than half of which will hit small businesses; according to a model developed by President Obama’s senior economic advisor, such taxes could cost up to 5.5 million jobs
Page 520—Section 1161 cuts more than $150 billion from Medicare Advantage plans, potentially jeopardizing millions of seniors’ existing coverage
Page 733—Section 1401 establishes a new Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research; the bill includes no provisions preventing the government-run health plan from using such research to deny access to life-saving treatments on cost grounds, similar to Britain’s National Health Service, which denies patient treatments costing more than £35,000
Page 1174—Section 1802(b) includes provisions entitled “TAXES ON CERTAIN INSURANCE POLICIES” to fund comparative effectiveness research, breaking Speaker Pelosi’s promise that “UWe will not be taxing [health] benefits in any bill that passes the HouseU,” and the President’s promise not to raise taxes on families with incomes under $250,000
Republican Response to Democrat Health Care Bill-10/29/09
SenJohnCornyn
Sen. Cornyn's Floor Speech on the Pelosi Health Bill and its Impact on Jobs
John Boehner quoting NTUF blog on the wording of the America's Affordable Health Choices Act
Oct 26, 2009
When Liberal Senators Become Concerned About Tzars
Perhaps the two most moderate Senators in office at this time are Senator Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman, ID-Conn., and Ranking Member Susan Collins, R-Me.
According to the American Conservative Union ratings, Senator Lieberman is moderate to "left" among Democrats and Senator Collins is to the "left" of most Republicans.
On October 22nd, 2009, they held a hearing on their concerns about the Czars appointed by President Obama.
At the beginning of the meeting, Senator Collins said,“This is not an academic exercise.Czars – not Cabinet secretaries – are negotiating with members of Congress on key policy issues."
She asked, Where is the Cabinet official in these talks? As I have stated before, this is not a partisan issue; this is not a political issue. It is an issue of institutional imperative and Constitutional prerogative.”
A PARTIAL HISTORY OF CZARS
The use of "Czars" can trace its history back at least to President Andrew Jackson's "Kitchen Cabinet." Nor can it be claimed that the Bush Administration did not have Czars. President Roosevelt had 12 Czar type jobs and 19 appointees reviewed by the Senate.
President G.W. Bush had 31 Czars and 46 appointees in eight years. Some of those positions were due, in part, to the 9/11 terrorist attack. So far, President B.H. Obama has created 31 Czars and 35 appointees in eight months.
Thomas J. Ridge, the original Home Security Czar and the first Secretary of Home Security gave testimony. He said his interest was in the issues of effective management, good governance, transparency and lines of authority:
1. Who’s reporting to whom?
2. How specific is the job description?
3. Does the individual initiate, coordinate or execute policy?
4. To whom does the individual report?
5. Is it the same person to whom the individual is accountable?
President Obama's Czars have were appointed with minimal public clarification of duty and have a Department of subject authority, that is supposed to be led by a Senate-approved Secretary. What is the line of authority? Are they directly accountable to the President or to the Secretary? Or both? Do they just make policy or do they direct it as well?
If an organization such as a company or non-profit organization needs to remain in compliance with policy, whom do they consult with? It contributes to conflict and reduces the effectiveness of both the Secretary and the Czar.
Former Attorney-Advisor in the Office of Legal Counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice, Lee Casey, gave testimony that divided the Czars into three types. The first are those who are in offices appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate such as the "Drug Czar" and the "Intellegence Czar." The second are those who do not necessarily develop policy or coordinate function, such as Ambassadore Holbrooke who has been appointed to the Department of State acting as the "Afghanistan Czar" to Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The third type is the one causing the most concern, the White House policy Czar. They are presidential assistants employed as part of the White House staff, or otherwise in the Executive Office of the President (“EOP”).
They are appointed by the President, and, ultimately, responsible only to him. They are exempt from recordkeeping and public disclosure requirements generally applicable to Executive Branch agencies. That was established by Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President under the Clinton Administration in 1996.
Examples of these are the Energy and Environment Czar, the Domestic Violence Czar, the Faith-Based Czar and the Green Jobs Czar. The last, Green Jobs Czar, is the most notorious, as it was held by Mr. Van Jones whose sudden resignation has caused a great deal of controversy and brought this issue into public scrutiny.
Expect these Czars to be more widely discussed, but Senator Collins restricted herself to naming only 18 Czars that may or may not fit this category:
SENATOR COLLINS' LIST OF 18 CZARS
According to the American Conservative Union ratings, Senator Lieberman is moderate to "left" among Democrats and Senator Collins is to the "left" of most Republicans.
On October 22nd, 2009, they held a hearing on their concerns about the Czars appointed by President Obama.
At the beginning of the meeting, Senator Collins said,“This is not an academic exercise.Czars – not Cabinet secretaries – are negotiating with members of Congress on key policy issues."
She asked, Where is the Cabinet official in these talks? As I have stated before, this is not a partisan issue; this is not a political issue. It is an issue of institutional imperative and Constitutional prerogative.”
A PARTIAL HISTORY OF CZARS
The use of "Czars" can trace its history back at least to President Andrew Jackson's "Kitchen Cabinet." Nor can it be claimed that the Bush Administration did not have Czars. President Roosevelt had 12 Czar type jobs and 19 appointees reviewed by the Senate.
President G.W. Bush had 31 Czars and 46 appointees in eight years. Some of those positions were due, in part, to the 9/11 terrorist attack. So far, President B.H. Obama has created 31 Czars and 35 appointees in eight months.
Thomas J. Ridge, the original Home Security Czar and the first Secretary of Home Security gave testimony. He said his interest was in the issues of effective management, good governance, transparency and lines of authority:
1. Who’s reporting to whom?
2. How specific is the job description?
3. Does the individual initiate, coordinate or execute policy?
4. To whom does the individual report?
5. Is it the same person to whom the individual is accountable?
President Obama's Czars have were appointed with minimal public clarification of duty and have a Department of subject authority, that is supposed to be led by a Senate-approved Secretary. What is the line of authority? Are they directly accountable to the President or to the Secretary? Or both? Do they just make policy or do they direct it as well?
If an organization such as a company or non-profit organization needs to remain in compliance with policy, whom do they consult with? It contributes to conflict and reduces the effectiveness of both the Secretary and the Czar.
Former Attorney-Advisor in the Office of Legal Counsel at the U.S. Department of Justice, Lee Casey, gave testimony that divided the Czars into three types. The first are those who are in offices appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate such as the "Drug Czar" and the "Intellegence Czar." The second are those who do not necessarily develop policy or coordinate function, such as Ambassadore Holbrooke who has been appointed to the Department of State acting as the "Afghanistan Czar" to Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The third type is the one causing the most concern, the White House policy Czar. They are presidential assistants employed as part of the White House staff, or otherwise in the Executive Office of the President (“EOP”).
They are appointed by the President, and, ultimately, responsible only to him. They are exempt from recordkeeping and public disclosure requirements generally applicable to Executive Branch agencies. That was established by Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President under the Clinton Administration in 1996.
Examples of these are the Energy and Environment Czar, the Domestic Violence Czar, the Faith-Based Czar and the Green Jobs Czar. The last, Green Jobs Czar, is the most notorious, as it was held by Mr. Van Jones whose sudden resignation has caused a great deal of controversy and brought this issue into public scrutiny.
Expect these Czars to be more widely discussed, but Senator Collins restricted herself to naming only 18 Czars that may or may not fit this category:
SENATOR COLLINS' LIST OF 18 CZARS
Positions in the Executive Office of the President (10)
Central Region Czar: Dennis Ross
Official Title: Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for the Central Region
Reports to: National Security Adviser Gen. James L. Jones
Cybersecurity Czar: Phil ReitingerReported Duties: Will have broad authority to develop strategy to protect the nation's government-run and private computer networks.
Reports to: National Security Advisor Gen. James L. Jones and Larry Summers, the President’s top economic advisor
Domestic Violence Czar: Lynn Rosenthal
Official Title: White House Advisor on Violence Against Women
Reported Duties: Will advise the President and Vice President on domestic violence and sexual assault issues.
Reports to: President Obama and Vice President Biden
Economic Czar: Paul Volcker
Official Title: Chairman of the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board
Reported Duties: Charged with offering independent, nonpartisan information, analysis and advice to the President as he formulates and implements his plans for economic recovery.
Reports to: President Obama
Energy and Environment Czar: Carol Browner
Official Title: Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change
Reported Duties: Coordinate energy and climate policy, emphasizing regulation and conservation.
Reports to: President Obama
Health Czar: Nancy-Ann DeParle
Official Title: Counselor to the President and Director of the White House Office of Health Reform
Reported Duties: Coordinates the development of the Administration’s healthcare policy agenda.
Reports to: President Obama
Senior Director for Information Sharing Policy: Mike Resnick
Reported Duties: Lead a comprehensive review of information sharing and lead an interagency policy process to identify information sharing and access priorities going forward. (Perhaps performing functions statutorily assigned to the Program Manager for the Information Sharing Environment).
Reports to: Unknown
Urban Affairs Czar: Adolfo Carrion Jr.
Official Title: White House Director of Urban Affairs
Reported Duties: Coordinating transportation and housing initiatives, as well as serving as a conduit for federal aid to economically hard-hit cities.
Reports to: President Obama
WMD Policy Czar: Gary Samore
Official Title: White House Coordinator for Weapons of Mass Destruction, Security and Arms Control
Reported Duties: Will coordinate issues related to weapons of mass destruction across the government, including: proliferation, nuclear and conventional arms control, threat reduction, and terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction.
Reports to: National Security Advisor Gen. James L. Jones
Green Jobs Czar: TBD (Van Jones – Resigned)
Official Title: Special Adviser for Green Jobs, Enterprise, and Innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality
Reported Duties: Will focus on environmentally-friendly employment within the administration and boost support for the idea nationwide.
Reports to: Head of Council on Environmental QualityPositions in a Department or Agency (8)
Afghanistan Czar: Richard Holbrooke
Official Title: Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan
Reported Duties: Will work with CENTCOM head to integrate U.S. civilian and military efforts in the region.
Reports to: Secretary of State (position is within the Department of State)
Auto Recovery Czar: Ed Montgomery
Official Title: Director of Recovery for Auto Communities and Workers
Reported Duties: Will work to leverage government resources to support the workers, communities, and regions that rely on the American auto industry.
Reports to: Labor Secretary and Larry Summers, the President’s top economic advisor (position is within the Department of Labor)
Car Czar (Manufacturing Policy): Ron Bloom
Official Title: Counselor to the Secretary of the Treasury
Reported Duties: Leader of the White House task force overseeing auto company bailouts; worked on the restructuring of General Motors and Chrysler LLC.
Reports to: Treasury Secretary and Larry Summers, the President’s top economic advisor (position is within the Department of Treasury)
Great Lakes Czar: Cameron Davis
Official Title: Special advisor to the U.S. EPA overseeing its Great Lakes restoration plan
Reported Duties: Oversees the Administration’s initiative to restore the Great Lakes’ environment.
Reports to: Environmental Protection Agency Administrator (position is within the Environmental Protection Agency)
Pay Czar: Kenneth Feinberg
Official Title: Special Master on executive pay
Reported Duties: Examines compensation practices at companies that have been bailed out more than once by the federal government.
Reports to: Treasury Secretary (position is within the Department of the Treasury)
Guantanamo Closure Czar: Daniel Fried
Official Title: Special Envoy to oversee the closure of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay
Reported Duties: Works to get help of foreign governments in moving toward closure of Guantanamo Bay.
Reports to: Secretary of State (position is within the Department of State)
International Climate Czar: Todd Stern
Official Title: Special Envoy for Climate Change
Reported Duties: Responsible for developing international approaches to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.
Reports to: Secretary of State (position is within the Department of State)
Special Representative for Border Affairs and Assistant Secretary for International Affairs (dubbed “Border Czar”): Alan Bersin
Official Title: Assistant Secretary for International Affairs
Reported Duties: Will coordinate all of the Department’s border security and law-enforcement efforts.
Reports to: Homeland Security Secretary (position is within the Department of Homeland Security
Oct 24, 2009
MSNBC GETS IT: Geithner At Center of Economic Woes Before Appointment
The MSNBC talking head, Dylan Ratigan,stresses the comparison of the banks being like a casino with the banks being the high rollers who get paid off regardless.
Representative Darrell Issa (R)points out how Secretary Geithner was at the center of the abuse of credit that lead to the banking crisis. I have pointed this out often in the Yahoo Groups I participate in, but this is the first I have heard about it being pursued in Congress. From what is being said here, an investigation into whether Tim Geithner violated SEC rules is the question.
This should have been pursued before he took over as it was well known that he was lose with credit at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Geithner was made its president in October of 2003. Of course, we know that the Federal Reserve is the central bank of the US and a quisi-governmental entity whose governing board chairman, since February 1, 2006, is Ben S. Bernanke.
At this point, it will be difficult to proceed when the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is the investigative organ for this and is under the authority of President Obama.
Then President Geithner was under the authority of then Chairman Berneke when in May 2007 he worked to reduce the capital required to run a bank.
In March 2008, he arranged the rescue and sale of Bear Stearns. Geithner made both decisions to bail out AIG as well as the government decision not to save Lehman Brothers from bankruptcy.
Essentially, Secretary Geithner was both the cause of the need for bailouts and the author of those bailouts. His plan was criticized by Nobel economist Paul Krugman as well as Nobel laureate and former World Bank Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz.
Obviously, the Nobel Committee was not the first to debase the intended value of that honor. President Obama and Secretary Geithner ignored those previously honored without much concern.
If Representative Darrell Issa can gather the investigative power to attack this issue, there actually may be change and hope for our government. That depends on the integrity of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Time will tell.
I remember in 2006 when Speaker Pelosi claimed she would get rid of the alligators of corruption by draining the swamp. Obviously, "Dollar Bill" Jefferson and "Cold Cash" Rangel are protected alligators in protected "wetlands."
Will there be a bipartisan effort to combat corruption? Or will Congress continue to subsidized it? Time will tell.
Oct 22, 2009
Presidental Tracking Poll: 10/22/09
President Obama's Approval Index has been in the double digit negative range for a week of daily polling. His 26% who Strongly Approve of his job performance is the lowest yet recorded.
Oct 20, 2009
Oct 16, 2009
Mainstream Media Vs. Marginalized Socialist Media
Marginalized Socialist Media
The "MSM" acronym commonly used I have been told means "Mainstream Media." Since they depend on turning "Mainstream" into two words, "Main Stream," that becomes a bit awkward.
Right after the elections in November of 2008, even though President Obama won, they self identified as conservative according to the Battleground Poll by the Tarrance Group of the George Washington University. (Nov. 5-6, 2008 / N=1,001 Registered 2008 Voters / ±3.1% M.O.). It indicated 69% are fiscal conservatives and 53% are social conservatives.
FOX NEWS is often identified as conservative and MSNBC is often identified as liberal. Yet FOX NEWS out performs all others by at least double the audience and has over three times the audience of MSNBC.
For MSNBC to be called "MSM," would force defining of that as Marginalized Socialist Media, if you consult the most recent numbers I could find:
Cable News Ratings for Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Posted on 15 October 2009 by Robert Seidman Live + Same Day Cable News Daily Ratings for October 14, 2009
The "MSM" acronym commonly used I have been told means "Mainstream Media." Since they depend on turning "Mainstream" into two words, "Main Stream," that becomes a bit awkward.
Right after the elections in November of 2008, even though President Obama won, they self identified as conservative according to the Battleground Poll by the Tarrance Group of the George Washington University. (Nov. 5-6, 2008 / N=1,001 Registered 2008 Voters / ±3.1% M.O.). It indicated 69% are fiscal conservatives and 53% are social conservatives.
FOX NEWS is often identified as conservative and MSNBC is often identified as liberal. Yet FOX NEWS out performs all others by at least double the audience and has over three times the audience of MSNBC.
For MSNBC to be called "MSM," would force defining of that as Marginalized Socialist Media, if you consult the most recent numbers I could find:
Cable News Ratings for Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Posted on 15 October 2009 by Robert Seidman Live + Same Day Cable News Daily Ratings for October 14, 2009
P2+ Total Day
FNC – 1,437,000 viewers
CNN – 520,000 viewers
MSNBC –380,000 viewers
CNBC – 233,000 viewers
HLN –333,000 viewers
P2+ Prime Time
FNC – 2,699,000viewers
CNN— 933,000 viewers
MSNBC –887,000 viewers
CNBC – 206,000 viewers
HLN – 730,000 viewers
Read the full story
Oct 10, 2009
President Obama and the Less Noble Award
"Let me be clear: I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations," he said at the White House. "To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize."
Perhaps President Obama sees it as a manipulation and a bribe. The Constitution, Article I, Section 9, that says:
No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or,foreign state.
"Unlike the other Nobel Prizes, which are awarded by Swedish institutions, the peace prize is given out by the five-member committee elected by the Norwegian Parliament," according to the Huffington Post.
It is also a violation of the US Code to accept gifts of over $100 under:
Receipt and disposition of foreign gifts and decorations
TITLE 5 > PART III > Subpart F > CHAPTER 73 > SUBCHAPTER IV > § 7342. Receipt and disposition of foreign gifts and decorations (a) For the purpose of this section— (1) “employee” means— (E) the President and the Vice President;
The nominations can come from any foreign state, though. Those nominations are a secret for fifty years and it must have been made before February 1st of 2009.
Therefore, we will not know who nominated President Obama until 2059. We do know it was likely done after his November election and before February, but it could have been a nomination by Hugo Chavez, Kim Jung Il, Dmitry Medvedev, and any other totalitarian despot.
Alfred Nobel stipulated that the peace prize should go to the "person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations and the abolition or reduction of standing armies and the formation and spreading of peace congresses."
Most work? Best work? Abolition or reductiong of standing armies? Formation AND spreading of peace congresses? Perhaps it is hard to argue when weasel words like most and best are used.
It has not been approved by Congress and yet the money from it has been designated to go to a charity. It is, therefore, a case of President Obama failing to keep his oath to support and defend the Constitution by accepting the Nobel Prize without the approval of Congress.
Oct 5, 2009
Another Compromised Congress Person Out of Illinois
US Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) has been accused of having a lesbian affair with a Turkish spy. The accuser, Sibel Edmonds, was a translator working for the FBI when she became aware of the alleged affair. Schakowsky denies the entire thing, but a US Dept of Justice report said that the Edmonds accusations have enough merit to warrant a thorough investigation. Schakowsky called Edmonds a liar - in this video, I ask her "It's all lies?" and she responds, "It is." But Edmonds has challenged Schakowsky to take a polygraph.
Oct 3, 2009
Traitors To The Reagan Revolution:Hastert&Frist
Republicans are bound to lose if they do not avoid the legacy of the Hastert/Frist Regime. They had to go in a hurry after their misbehavior.
If you think the President is much more than a glorified cheerleader, you need to check back over the last 16 years of politics. The Republican Party did not change. After Newt Gingrich left we went from Contract With America to Contract On Capitalism.
Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert never saw an Entitlement program he did not like. His culture of corruption spread wide and far. This is what you get out of letting anyone from Illinois get their hands on the People's money. Their politics have tainted the whole nation.
Senator Frist was even more scary.
The Military Commissions Act of 2006: The Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA) ushered in military commission law for US citizens and non-citizens alike. Text in the MCA allows for the institution of a military alternative to the constitutional justice system for "any person" arbitrarily deemed to be an enemy of the state, regardless of American citizenship. Senator Bill Frist and Senator John Warner were the two co-sponsors of the bill.
Both of them were RINOs. That bill would sound conservative to the willingly ignorant. Now, perhaps, you see the folly of concentrating power in a Party or a President.
As much as I like Senator Mitch McConnell and Representative John Boehner, we need to get away from trusting personalities in politics. We need executives to run the government and legislators to write policies, but we need to engage constantly in the workings of our government to defeat the special interests.
Republican Leader Boehner seems to have gotten the message when he said:
The Speaker of the House holds the people's purse strings. You cannot increase Entitlements without the Speaker's cooperation, if not instigation.
You can have the same President and change the Speaker, like was done under Clinton for surpluses. Speaker Gingrich was the author of our surpluses until 2000.
You can lose ground under Bush as was done by Hastert with ever increasing Entitlements. Entitlements ("welfare") grew by 2005 to be larger than the entire budget of 2000. The surpluses were gone.
When Speaker Pelosi got in, she changed the rules and consolodated all the power into her office. We did not just go from the frying pan to the fire. We fell into a blast furnace. They tanked the housing market and used the Treasury to compete with private industry for credit.
Without the people engaged, the only change in government will be toward more nationalization of whole sections of our economy.
None dare say it, but we are on track to becoming a totalitarian nation with a President who violates the Consitution through a culture of corruption that includes the Speaker Pelosi and is propelled by a Personality Cult .
If you think the President is much more than a glorified cheerleader, you need to check back over the last 16 years of politics. The Republican Party did not change. After Newt Gingrich left we went from Contract With America to Contract On Capitalism.
Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert never saw an Entitlement program he did not like. His culture of corruption spread wide and far. This is what you get out of letting anyone from Illinois get their hands on the People's money. Their politics have tainted the whole nation.
Senator Frist was even more scary.
The Military Commissions Act of 2006: The Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA) ushered in military commission law for US citizens and non-citizens alike. Text in the MCA allows for the institution of a military alternative to the constitutional justice system for "any person" arbitrarily deemed to be an enemy of the state, regardless of American citizenship. Senator Bill Frist and Senator John Warner were the two co-sponsors of the bill.
Both of them were RINOs. That bill would sound conservative to the willingly ignorant. Now, perhaps, you see the folly of concentrating power in a Party or a President.
As much as I like Senator Mitch McConnell and Representative John Boehner, we need to get away from trusting personalities in politics. We need executives to run the government and legislators to write policies, but we need to engage constantly in the workings of our government to defeat the special interests.
Republican Leader Boehner seems to have gotten the message when he said:
"I think people are seeing Republicans take principled stands against their government takeover of health care, spending and clearly the issue of their national energy tax. And, so, we continue to show people that we've learned our lessons from the past, that we can stand on principle, and as people begin to hear about our better solutions, I think we're going to do fine."(Audio)
"I'm just telling you, we're going to have our hands full. The only way that we can stop this is if with the American people stay engaged in their government. You know, they did a great job over the summer and through September but we've gotta have the American people engaged or they are going to find some way to ram this thing through Congress."(Audio)
The Speaker of the House holds the people's purse strings. You cannot increase Entitlements without the Speaker's cooperation, if not instigation.
You can have the same President and change the Speaker, like was done under Clinton for surpluses. Speaker Gingrich was the author of our surpluses until 2000.
You can lose ground under Bush as was done by Hastert with ever increasing Entitlements. Entitlements ("welfare") grew by 2005 to be larger than the entire budget of 2000. The surpluses were gone.
When Speaker Pelosi got in, she changed the rules and consolodated all the power into her office. We did not just go from the frying pan to the fire. We fell into a blast furnace. They tanked the housing market and used the Treasury to compete with private industry for credit.
Without the people engaged, the only change in government will be toward more nationalization of whole sections of our economy.
None dare say it, but we are on track to becoming a totalitarian nation with a President who violates the Consitution through a culture of corruption that includes the Speaker Pelosi and is propelled by a Personality Cult .
Who Was Van Jones: The Apollo File
The Apollo File :
Summary: The radical environmentalistsof the Apollo Alliance have tremendous clout with the Obama administration and Congress. The shadowy group is home tos elf-described communists and left-wingterrorists from the 1960s yet it somehow maintains a squeaky clean public image .In February lawmakers inserted into stimulus legislation its “green jobs” program, agovernment make-work project based on the fantasy that America could painlessly transition to an oil-free economy.
Ignored by the MSM, or Marginalized Socialistic Media as I referred to it, the Van Jones story has cooled down. Likely it will be out of the minds of most of the pubic, if President Obama's Administration has its way.
Van Jones called himself a small-c communist. That was years after that label had lost its shock value and the official party had self-destructed. When Van Jones was even a young Yalie, it has been noted that he was a pain in the neck to work with as a born-again eco-capitalist.
Van Jones is evidently charming, bright and charismatic. He is also arrogant and uncooperative. He has that quick intelligence that creates the power to move audiences, like President Obama.He is ambitious, and likes to be the center of attention in whatever he does.
Rumors say the same thing about Rahm Emanuel. Perhaps there is a story there of a clash. At some point Van Jones made his midnight decision with an email sort of resignation.
That left it up for the media to make up its own rationale. The populists who saw the recent revelations of the background of Van Jones claimed a victory for the more libertarian portion of the media. The collectivists claimed President Obama caved in to pressure from the more popular media like the Fox Network and various radio show personalities.
The question still remains. How did Van Jones get into his position as "Green Czar?" Perhaps it began with Van Jones co-founding the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in 1996. That gave him the creditials to be on the National Steering Committee of the Apollo Alliance.
A founder of the Apolllo Alliance is Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr., US Congress (D-IL). Besides being the son of the well known former candidate for U.S. President, Jackson served as a national co-chairman of the Barack Obama presidential campaign.
When Candidate Obama vacated his position as Senator, he authorized Rahlm Emanuel to pass on the names of four people he considered to be highly qualified to take over his seat — Illinois Comptroller Dan Hynes, Illinois Veterans’ Affairs Director Tammy Duckworth, Rep. Jan Schakowsky and Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.
When is Governor Blagojevich claimed emissaries offered up to a million dollars in exchange for the appointment, that likely killed the possibility of Jackson, becoming the Senator Jesse Jackson Jr.
In no way did the Obama Administration go looking for a "Green Czar" and discover Van Jones out of 307 million U.S. citizens. While we cannot assume Van Jones received his appointment as a pay-for-play issue, you have to begin to wonder whether the "Culture of Corruption," so much in the media was the motivating factor without monetary payoffs.
Summary: The radical environmentalistsof the Apollo Alliance have tremendous clout with the Obama administration and Congress. The shadowy group is home tos elf-described communists and left-wingterrorists from the 1960s yet it somehow maintains a squeaky clean public image .In February lawmakers inserted into stimulus legislation its “green jobs” program, agovernment make-work project based on the fantasy that America could painlessly transition to an oil-free economy.
Ignored by the MSM, or Marginalized Socialistic Media as I referred to it, the Van Jones story has cooled down. Likely it will be out of the minds of most of the pubic, if President Obama's Administration has its way.
Van Jones called himself a small-c communist. That was years after that label had lost its shock value and the official party had self-destructed. When Van Jones was even a young Yalie, it has been noted that he was a pain in the neck to work with as a born-again eco-capitalist.
Van Jones is evidently charming, bright and charismatic. He is also arrogant and uncooperative. He has that quick intelligence that creates the power to move audiences, like President Obama.He is ambitious, and likes to be the center of attention in whatever he does.
Rumors say the same thing about Rahm Emanuel. Perhaps there is a story there of a clash. At some point Van Jones made his midnight decision with an email sort of resignation.
That left it up for the media to make up its own rationale. The populists who saw the recent revelations of the background of Van Jones claimed a victory for the more libertarian portion of the media. The collectivists claimed President Obama caved in to pressure from the more popular media like the Fox Network and various radio show personalities.
The question still remains. How did Van Jones get into his position as "Green Czar?" Perhaps it began with Van Jones co-founding the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in 1996. That gave him the creditials to be on the National Steering Committee of the Apollo Alliance.
A founder of the Apolllo Alliance is Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr., US Congress (D-IL). Besides being the son of the well known former candidate for U.S. President, Jackson served as a national co-chairman of the Barack Obama presidential campaign.
When Candidate Obama vacated his position as Senator, he authorized Rahlm Emanuel to pass on the names of four people he considered to be highly qualified to take over his seat — Illinois Comptroller Dan Hynes, Illinois Veterans’ Affairs Director Tammy Duckworth, Rep. Jan Schakowsky and Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.
When is Governor Blagojevich claimed emissaries offered up to a million dollars in exchange for the appointment, that likely killed the possibility of Jackson, becoming the Senator Jesse Jackson Jr.
In no way did the Obama Administration go looking for a "Green Czar" and discover Van Jones out of 307 million U.S. citizens. While we cannot assume Van Jones received his appointment as a pay-for-play issue, you have to begin to wonder whether the "Culture of Corruption," so much in the media was the motivating factor without monetary payoffs.
Oct 1, 2009
More Thoughts On Health Care.....
People focus on what they have contact with and assume the problem is there. I looked up the profit margin on insurance companies. They go from 0% to 5%. I am with Regency BlueCross/BlueShield. They are a non-profit and I pay $476 per month for just myself. It is 15.3% of my income after taxes. That 15.3% is also the portion of our economy that health care costs.
Premiums go up because health care goes up. It goes up because people who are not insured are paid for by the hospitals and doctors. Guess who pays for it? Your insurance and you. Federal law forces hospitals to accept all comers for emergent medical care.
If you do not have property to lose in a medical bankruptsy from a car accident or treatment for a major disease, you might be correct about the lack of motivaton to be insured. Of course, you need not to want to buy a car or a house either because a bankruptsy means not having credit.
Obama'SCare will lead us by the nose into nationalization of health care. Like Medicare, it will tank after they have used the Public Option monopoly to destroy private health insurance.
People seem to forget the US Government is the largest corporation in the world and writes the regulations. Would you want General Motors running your health care? Do you remember that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are US corporations run by the government? Would you like them doing to health care what they did to the mortgages/housing bubble?
How many letters to you get from someone not at your address from the U.S. Postal Service? Would you like them delivering your medications? How about the IRS? Would you like them determining your eligibility for medical treatments?
What throws me is how the proposed "Health Choices Administration" is going to be under the Treasury with tax collecting functions.
HR 2502 is on the surface an apportionment of taxes for health care research. However it also funds communication between health care providers - which will include your medical records. Whatever the Government funds, the Government has access to by law.
MORE INFO ON MY SOURCES?:
Sure. Use the Google financial. They list the ones on the stock exchange.
I would start with UnitedHealth Group . They are the largest in the US, I believe.
Wellpoint is a big one in California.
Tenet Health Care is one in the mid range .
The Blue Cross/Blue Shield collection are essentially non-profits. Of that one example is:
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan is Michigan's leading health benefits organization, serving some 4.7 million members residing in the state or employed by companies headquartered there. The company's insurance offerings include traditional indemnity, PPO, and POS plans, in addition to its Blue Care Network HMO plans. It also offers consumer-directed Flexible Blue plans paired with health savings accounts, as well as options for individual buyers and Medicare beneficiaries. The not-for-profit organization is an independent licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association.
There is a WHOLE LIST of those.
Premiums go up because health care goes up. It goes up because people who are not insured are paid for by the hospitals and doctors. Guess who pays for it? Your insurance and you. Federal law forces hospitals to accept all comers for emergent medical care.
If you do not have property to lose in a medical bankruptsy from a car accident or treatment for a major disease, you might be correct about the lack of motivaton to be insured. Of course, you need not to want to buy a car or a house either because a bankruptsy means not having credit.
Obama'SCare will lead us by the nose into nationalization of health care. Like Medicare, it will tank after they have used the Public Option monopoly to destroy private health insurance.
People seem to forget the US Government is the largest corporation in the world and writes the regulations. Would you want General Motors running your health care? Do you remember that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are US corporations run by the government? Would you like them doing to health care what they did to the mortgages/housing bubble?
How many letters to you get from someone not at your address from the U.S. Postal Service? Would you like them delivering your medications? How about the IRS? Would you like them determining your eligibility for medical treatments?
What throws me is how the proposed "Health Choices Administration" is going to be under the Treasury with tax collecting functions.
HR 2502 is on the surface an apportionment of taxes for health care research. However it also funds communication between health care providers - which will include your medical records. Whatever the Government funds, the Government has access to by law.
MORE INFO ON MY SOURCES?:
Sure. Use the Google financial. They list the ones on the stock exchange.
I would start with UnitedHealth Group . They are the largest in the US, I believe.
Wellpoint is a big one in California.
Tenet Health Care is one in the mid range .
The Blue Cross/Blue Shield collection are essentially non-profits. Of that one example is:
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan is Michigan's leading health benefits organization, serving some 4.7 million members residing in the state or employed by companies headquartered there. The company's insurance offerings include traditional indemnity, PPO, and POS plans, in addition to its Blue Care Network HMO plans. It also offers consumer-directed Flexible Blue plans paired with health savings accounts, as well as options for individual buyers and Medicare beneficiaries. The not-for-profit organization is an independent licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association.
There is a WHOLE LIST of those.
Sep 30, 2009
Fourth Amendment Rights and Mandatory H1N1 Innoculations
http://AmericasNewsToday.Com/ Freedom Watch w/ Judge Andrew Napolitano: Obama's H1N1 Bill to Enact Martial Law
New York is the first state in the country to mandate flu vaccinations for its health care workers. The first doses of swine flu vaccine will be available beginning next week. Much of it is reserved for state health care workers, but there is growing opposition to required innoculations.
Health care workers in Hauppauge screamed "No forced shots!" as they rallied Tuesday against the state regulation requiring them to roll up their sleeves.
New York is the first state in the country to mandate flu vaccinations for its health care workers. The first doses of swine flu vaccine will be available beginning next week. Much of it is reserved for state health care workers, but there is growing opposition to required innoculations.
Health care workers in Hauppauge screamed "No forced shots!" as they rallied Tuesday against the state regulation requiring them to roll up their sleeves.
Americans should be allowed to know the contents of major bills before they are brought to a vote in the House. Previous Congresses, including Republican ones, have failed to meet this common-sense standard. But never in history has the failure been more acute than under Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi, particularly over the past nine months.
Reps. John Culberson (R-TX) and Brian Baird (D-WA) have introduced a resolution that would require all bills to be posted online publicly for at least 72 hours before they are brought to a vote.
Appearing on Fox News' America's Newsroom with Bill Hemmer and Megyn Kelly, House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) discussed a effort underway by Republicans and rank-and-file Democrats in Congress to force Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to post all major bills online for at least 72 hours before a House vote to ensure that the American people and their elected representatives can review them. The effort is being led by Reps. Greg Walden (R-OR), Brian Baird (D-WA), and John Culberson (R-TX). More than 160 Members of Congress have already signed onto a Walden-authored petition that would force Speaker Pelosi to allow a vote on a House rules change requiring a 72-hour review period. He also touched on the Democrats proposed government takeover of health care and media reports suggesting that Speaker Pelosi plans to bring up a House bill that is more liberal, more costly, with more government involvement than ever before.
Reps. John Culberson (R-TX) and Brian Baird (D-WA) have introduced a resolution that would require all bills to be posted online publicly for at least 72 hours before they are brought to a vote.
Appearing on Fox News' America's Newsroom with Bill Hemmer and Megyn Kelly, House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) discussed a effort underway by Republicans and rank-and-file Democrats in Congress to force Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to post all major bills online for at least 72 hours before a House vote to ensure that the American people and their elected representatives can review them. The effort is being led by Reps. Greg Walden (R-OR), Brian Baird (D-WA), and John Culberson (R-TX). More than 160 Members of Congress have already signed onto a Walden-authored petition that would force Speaker Pelosi to allow a vote on a House rules change requiring a 72-hour review period. He also touched on the Democrats proposed government takeover of health care and media reports suggesting that Speaker Pelosi plans to bring up a House bill that is more liberal, more costly, with more government involvement than ever before.
Where's the Jobs? Send Out The Bloodhounds!
The pace of layoffs continued to slow in September as the private sector shed fewer jobs than the previous month, setting the stage for more job losses Friday.
Meanwhile, gross domestic product decreased at a 0.7% annual rate in the second quarter, better than the 1.0% decline previously estimated, the Commerce Department said Wednesday. It's a welcome improvement over GDP's 6.4% decline in the first quarter.
Private nonfarm payrolls fell by 254,000 in September, down from a revised 277,000 drop in August, according to a report by Automatic Data Processing Inc. and forecasting firm Macroeconomic Advisers released Wednesday.
"It's obviously a little worse than expected, but the broader theme is that the labor market is getting less worse. It's very difficult to draw any conclusions for Friday's number because of this," said Dan Greenhaus, analyst at Miller Tabak & Co in New York, referring to the government's monthly non-farm payrolls report on Friday.
"Given the uncertainty surrounding job creation, there's only so much we can read into it, but in any event, 254,000 private sector jobs lost in a month remains a very poor reading."The ADP and Macroeconomic Advisers said its National Employment Report is designed as a proxy of the non-farm payrolls report.
The U.S. Labor Department will release its September payroll figures at 8:30 a.m. on Friday, which are more comprehensive because they include both the private and public sectors.
It is expected to show the labor market's rate of deterioration slowing, with analysts forecasting a loss of 180,000 jobs in September versus 216,000 in August.
However, the unemployment rate is expected to rise to a 26-year high of 9.8 percent from 9.7 percent the previous month.
Meanwhile, gross domestic product decreased at a 0.7% annual rate in the second quarter, better than the 1.0% decline previously estimated, the Commerce Department said Wednesday. It's a welcome improvement over GDP's 6.4% decline in the first quarter.
Private nonfarm payrolls fell by 254,000 in September, down from a revised 277,000 drop in August, according to a report by Automatic Data Processing Inc. and forecasting firm Macroeconomic Advisers released Wednesday.
"It's obviously a little worse than expected, but the broader theme is that the labor market is getting less worse. It's very difficult to draw any conclusions for Friday's number because of this," said Dan Greenhaus, analyst at Miller Tabak & Co in New York, referring to the government's monthly non-farm payrolls report on Friday.
"Given the uncertainty surrounding job creation, there's only so much we can read into it, but in any event, 254,000 private sector jobs lost in a month remains a very poor reading."The ADP and Macroeconomic Advisers said its National Employment Report is designed as a proxy of the non-farm payrolls report.
The U.S. Labor Department will release its September payroll figures at 8:30 a.m. on Friday, which are more comprehensive because they include both the private and public sectors.
It is expected to show the labor market's rate of deterioration slowing, with analysts forecasting a loss of 180,000 jobs in September versus 216,000 in August.
However, the unemployment rate is expected to rise to a 26-year high of 9.8 percent from 9.7 percent the previous month.
Sep 29, 2009
Sep 28, 2009
Questions on ACORN Suit Filed 9/23/09 in Circuit Court of Baltimore
The address given by ACORN of 2069 Canal Street, New Orleans, LA does not seem to be a correct one. The addresses go from 2061 to 2071 right next door. Across the street is an AVIS car rental building. ACORN is incorporated in Arkansas and supposedly has its headquarters in Loisianna. It has about $3.7 million in tax liens and is under investigation for that in Louisianna.
My first question is whether the address for ACORN on the suit filed by them against James E. O'Keefe and Hanna Giles is mandated to be correct? Can a suit be valid if the filing is fraudulent?
My investigation indicates ACORN has received volunteers for community service from the Circuit Court of Baltimore.
My second question is whether this would cause a conflict of interest where this case is being held in that court?
My third question is if ACORN profits in this tort, will those proceeds be applied to taxes owed to the US, Louisianna, or Arkansas first?
Govenment Health Care: A Reagan Perspective
From the 1961 Operation Coffee Cup Campaign against Socialized Medicine as proposed by the Democrats, then a private citizen Ronald Reagan Speaks out against socialized medicine. There is no video because this was an LP sent out by the American Medical Association
Sep 27, 2009
Personality Cult Song Sweet To The Ears of Totalitarian Leaders
A cult of personality arises when a country's leader uses mass media to create an idealized and heroic public image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise. Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships and Stalinist governments.
A cult of personality is similar to general hero worship, except that it is created specifically for political leaders. However, the term may be applied by analogy to refer to adulation of religious or non-political leaders.
Liberal Hypocrisy Exposed
Watch this video and try to find the hypocrisy in this MSNBC news report. It's tough to spot, so pay close attention! Have fun!
This video has everything to do with demonstrating media bias and nothing to do with supporting Bush.
This video has everything to do with demonstrating media bias and nothing to do with supporting Bush.
Government Hospital Hiding Malpractic in Medicine
Imagine a nation where the government owns the hospital and can restrict you from discovery in a malpractice suit.
Hospital Does Not Have To Disclose Quality Assurance Reports In Medical Malpractice Case Michael Watts, Kathy O'Brien
Abstract:
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice released a significant judgment in November 2002, confirming that quality assurance reports prepared by a Quality Assurance Subcommittee of the Medical Advisory Committee are confidential and privileged and need not be produced by the hospital in a medical malpractice lawsuit. The case provides valuable guidance to risk managers and medical leaders about the steps they need to take to establish and protect the confidentiality of these QA reports.
The case, Steep (Litigation Guardian of) v. Scott (2003), 62 O.R. (3d) 173, involved a medical malpractice action arising from the birth of an infant with severe brain damage. The parents sought production of two quality assurance reports from the Kingston General Hospital that related to the case. The court dismissed the production request.
Hospital Does Not Have To Disclose Quality Assurance Reports In Medical Malpractice Case Michael Watts, Kathy O'Brien
Abstract:
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice released a significant judgment in November 2002, confirming that quality assurance reports prepared by a Quality Assurance Subcommittee of the Medical Advisory Committee are confidential and privileged and need not be produced by the hospital in a medical malpractice lawsuit. The case provides valuable guidance to risk managers and medical leaders about the steps they need to take to establish and protect the confidentiality of these QA reports.
The case, Steep (Litigation Guardian of) v. Scott (2003), 62 O.R. (3d) 173, involved a medical malpractice action arising from the birth of an infant with severe brain damage. The parents sought production of two quality assurance reports from the Kingston General Hospital that related to the case. The court dismissed the production request.
Sep 23, 2009
Propaganda Video:How The World Works
HowTheWorldWorks
May 13, 2009
The Story of Stuff is a Leftist Indoctrination Movie Being Shown in Schools All Over America. NYT Puff Piece:
The Story of Stuff is a Leftist Indoctrination Movie Being Shown in Schools All Over America.
May 13, 2009
The Story of Stuff is a Leftist Indoctrination Movie Being Shown in Schools All Over America. NYT Puff Piece:
The Story of Stuff is a Leftist Indoctrination Movie Being Shown in Schools All Over America.
Sep 12, 2009
HIghlights from the 9/12 Taxpayer Tea Party March on Washington, DC
Amateurs who couldn’t turn out a crowd? Corporate shills? Do they not have a coherent message or are they stifled with ideological single-mindedness. Is this a organized but empty protests that won’t translate into electoral results?
This Movement movement has given birth to a new generation of movers and shakers who have rejected establishment partisan politics for nimble, Internet-facilitated, issues-based advocacy. When it comes to a populist progressive movement, this seems to put all the professional community organizers to shame.
Tens of thousands of conservative activists converge on Capitol grounds
By Mike Soraghan - 09/12/09 05:54 PM ET
The conservative activists who took over the west lawn of the Capitol on Saturday made it clear their anger extends far past President Barack Obama's healthcare plan, and even back into the previous administration.
Protesters and speakers used the rally to voice their anger at Obama's stimulus package, the House-passed "cap-and-trade" energy bill, and the $700 billion Wall Street bailout.
But it went well beyond that to include anger about federal funds going to the liberal group Acorn, the number of "czars" appointed in the Obama administration and accusations that the White House solicited critics' e-mails to compile an "enemies list." Others pushed for tort reform and making English the official language and questioned whether Obama was born in the United States.
And they really, really like Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), who has been thrust into the spotlights of the left and the right after bursting out "You lie!" at Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday.
"It started last year when the Republicans were bailing out Wall Street and started again this year when the Democrats rammed the stimulus down our throats," said Brendan Steinhauser, an organizer for FreedomWorks, which sponsored the rally.
The idea of increased federal involvement in healthcare, many said, simply brought their anger to a boil.
"It's the power being amassed with all these programs," said Carl Hilschur of Luray, Va., who toted a "Joe Wilson for President" sign. "Things are getting to the point where you have to do something. It might not make a difference, but you have to try."
Reliable crowd estimates for the event were not available, and are a likely source of debate between liberal and conservative groups, but the crowd was in the tens of thousands. The crowd filled the west lawn of the Capitol and spread from there. Organizers said 450 buses carried protesters to the march. About 30,000 registered for the march online.
The march and rally were extension of the Tea Party Patriot movement that turned town halls raucous in August. The official name of the event was the "Taxpayer March on Washington," but it was also commonly called the 9-12 march. Several speakers also indicated they plan to hold a similar march next year. If such a march was held at the same time, it would come as the 2010 election season heats up.
Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) said from the stage he believed the crowd was bigger than the the one assembled for Obama's inauguration in January.
"It's amazing they got so many people here with so little organization," Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) said in an interview. DeMint also was a speaker at the rally.
The list of speakers included only a sprinkling of politicians. The highest ranking was Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), chairman of the House Republican Conference. The other politicians on the roster of speakers were Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), State Rep. Tom Graves of Georgia and Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock. Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, now the leader of FreedomWorks, also spoke.
Many of the other speakers represented conservative groups like the National Taxpayers Union and Grassfire.org.
But it was a politician who wasn't there – Wilson – who got the most praise. Wilson's outburst made him a hero to many of the protesters and speakers. "Joe Wilson for President" was a common slogan on signs. Another said "Congress, you're fired. (Except Joe Wilson)."
"He said what 250 million Americans are saying," said Mike Galvin of Troy, N.Y., who carried a Palin-Wilson 2012 sign. "They're the only two politicians in the country with the stones to say what needs to be said."
Galvin said he paid $200 of the $250 he had in the bank to make it to the protest. He rode a bus all night, leaving behind his sick wife, and planned to be back home by midnight. Though he's a disabled veteran, he said he gets health insurance through his accounting job.
“I am here to protest the expansion of government spending,” said Stuwart Ingman of Kansas. Ingman spoke proudly of how he spent his own money so that he could be in Washington and scoffed at the idea that the people sitting on the Mall represent a fringe element of American politics.
“These are some of the most caring people you will ever meet,” Ingman said. “These are the kind of people that I would see in my hometown. We are certainly not a bunch of loons.”
Though most of the fire was directed at Obama and the Democratic Congress, Republicans took some shots as well. Rob DeVoll of Charleston carried a sign telling Republicans to get a "spine." Though he disagrees with Democrats, he said, "I'm not a Democrat."
"I'm tired of the takeover," DeVoll said. "When Bush was in power he did the same thing."
Counter-protests were limited. But a small group of young people mocked the protesters, walking around in tuxes and evening gowns, chanting "Bring Back Bush," and holding signs that read "Fight socialism: End Medicare."
Though protesters had a wide variety of complaints, Obama's healthcare plan did come in for a mighty drubbing. One common printed sign read "Bury Obamacare with Kennedy."
"We will not tolerate a government takeover of our healthcare," Price said from the stage.
Michael M. Gleeson contributed to this report
Source:
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/58431-tens-of-thousands-of-conservative-activists-converge-on-capitol
The contents of this site are © 2009 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsisiary of News Communications, Inc.
The Hill Archives: Senate | House | Administration | Campaign | Business & Lobbying | Capital Living | Opinion
View News by Subject:
Defense & Homeland Security | Energy & Environment | Healthcare | Finance & Economy | Technology | Foreign Policy | Labor | Transportation & Infrastructure GO TO THE HILL HOME »Most Popular Stories
Most ViewedObama sets stage for using budget maneuver to pass health reformWilson hires professional TweeterWilson took caffeine pills in 2007Google online library battle hits HouseSpeaker Pelosi agrees to plan to scold Rep. Wilson for 'You lie' outburstEmailedObama sets stage for using budget maneuver to pass health reformI am sorryWilson hires professional TweeterBuffett tells Dems rich need to pay moreSupport democracy in Honduras (Rep. Dana Rohrabacher)DiscussedObama sets stage for using budget maneuver to pass health reformWilson hires professional TweeterSpeaker Pelosi agrees to plan to scold Rep. Wilson for 'You lie' outburstBuffett tells Dems rich need to pay moreLoud 9/12 protest reaches the CapitolHome/News » Most Viewed RSS Feed »
More Administration Headlines
Obama follows up address by pushing talking points on the roadGOP questions White House's 'fuzzy' math with stimulus jobsObama hits road to promote healthcare reform
More Administration Headlines »
Administration News RSS feed »
Briefing RoomKey Blago investigation subject deadSATURDAY ROUNDUPMcDonnell drops f-bomb during radio interview
More Briefing Room »
Congress BlogWhat Yesterday’s Poverty and Income Numbers Don’t Tell Us About Economic Hardship The Big Question, Sept. 11: Did Obama's speech improve the chances of passing healthcare reform?Address mental health in reform legislation
More Congress Blog »
Pundits BlogI am sorryWilson: Not that sorry ...What about the lobbyists, Mr. President?
More Pundits Blog »
Twitter RoomTown hall group receives bomb threatHatch tweets latest gripe with college football bowls TOP TWEETS
More Twitter Room »
Blogs News Feed
COLUMNISTS
Cheri Jacobus Start over, Mr. President John Del Cecato No more kicking the can
A.B. Stoddard Lessons for Obama Ben Goddard Vietnamistan
More Columnists »
Get latest news from The Hill direct to your inbox, RSS reader and mobile devices.
This Movement movement has given birth to a new generation of movers and shakers who have rejected establishment partisan politics for nimble, Internet-facilitated, issues-based advocacy. When it comes to a populist progressive movement, this seems to put all the professional community organizers to shame.
Tens of thousands of conservative activists converge on Capitol grounds
By Mike Soraghan - 09/12/09 05:54 PM ET
The conservative activists who took over the west lawn of the Capitol on Saturday made it clear their anger extends far past President Barack Obama's healthcare plan, and even back into the previous administration.
Protesters and speakers used the rally to voice their anger at Obama's stimulus package, the House-passed "cap-and-trade" energy bill, and the $700 billion Wall Street bailout.
But it went well beyond that to include anger about federal funds going to the liberal group Acorn, the number of "czars" appointed in the Obama administration and accusations that the White House solicited critics' e-mails to compile an "enemies list." Others pushed for tort reform and making English the official language and questioned whether Obama was born in the United States.
And they really, really like Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.), who has been thrust into the spotlights of the left and the right after bursting out "You lie!" at Obama's speech to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday.
"It started last year when the Republicans were bailing out Wall Street and started again this year when the Democrats rammed the stimulus down our throats," said Brendan Steinhauser, an organizer for FreedomWorks, which sponsored the rally.
The idea of increased federal involvement in healthcare, many said, simply brought their anger to a boil.
"It's the power being amassed with all these programs," said Carl Hilschur of Luray, Va., who toted a "Joe Wilson for President" sign. "Things are getting to the point where you have to do something. It might not make a difference, but you have to try."
Reliable crowd estimates for the event were not available, and are a likely source of debate between liberal and conservative groups, but the crowd was in the tens of thousands. The crowd filled the west lawn of the Capitol and spread from there. Organizers said 450 buses carried protesters to the march. About 30,000 registered for the march online.
The march and rally were extension of the Tea Party Patriot movement that turned town halls raucous in August. The official name of the event was the "Taxpayer March on Washington," but it was also commonly called the 9-12 march. Several speakers also indicated they plan to hold a similar march next year. If such a march was held at the same time, it would come as the 2010 election season heats up.
Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) said from the stage he believed the crowd was bigger than the the one assembled for Obama's inauguration in January.
"It's amazing they got so many people here with so little organization," Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) said in an interview. DeMint also was a speaker at the rally.
The list of speakers included only a sprinkling of politicians. The highest ranking was Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), chairman of the House Republican Conference. The other politicians on the roster of speakers were Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), State Rep. Tom Graves of Georgia and Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock. Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, now the leader of FreedomWorks, also spoke.
Many of the other speakers represented conservative groups like the National Taxpayers Union and Grassfire.org.
But it was a politician who wasn't there – Wilson – who got the most praise. Wilson's outburst made him a hero to many of the protesters and speakers. "Joe Wilson for President" was a common slogan on signs. Another said "Congress, you're fired. (Except Joe Wilson)."
"He said what 250 million Americans are saying," said Mike Galvin of Troy, N.Y., who carried a Palin-Wilson 2012 sign. "They're the only two politicians in the country with the stones to say what needs to be said."
Galvin said he paid $200 of the $250 he had in the bank to make it to the protest. He rode a bus all night, leaving behind his sick wife, and planned to be back home by midnight. Though he's a disabled veteran, he said he gets health insurance through his accounting job.
“I am here to protest the expansion of government spending,” said Stuwart Ingman of Kansas. Ingman spoke proudly of how he spent his own money so that he could be in Washington and scoffed at the idea that the people sitting on the Mall represent a fringe element of American politics.
“These are some of the most caring people you will ever meet,” Ingman said. “These are the kind of people that I would see in my hometown. We are certainly not a bunch of loons.”
Though most of the fire was directed at Obama and the Democratic Congress, Republicans took some shots as well. Rob DeVoll of Charleston carried a sign telling Republicans to get a "spine." Though he disagrees with Democrats, he said, "I'm not a Democrat."
"I'm tired of the takeover," DeVoll said. "When Bush was in power he did the same thing."
Counter-protests were limited. But a small group of young people mocked the protesters, walking around in tuxes and evening gowns, chanting "Bring Back Bush," and holding signs that read "Fight socialism: End Medicare."
Though protesters had a wide variety of complaints, Obama's healthcare plan did come in for a mighty drubbing. One common printed sign read "Bury Obamacare with Kennedy."
"We will not tolerate a government takeover of our healthcare," Price said from the stage.
Michael M. Gleeson contributed to this report
Source:
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/58431-tens-of-thousands-of-conservative-activists-converge-on-capitol
The contents of this site are © 2009 Capitol Hill Publishing Corp., a subsisiary of News Communications, Inc.
The Hill Archives: Senate | House | Administration | Campaign | Business & Lobbying | Capital Living | Opinion
View News by Subject:
Defense & Homeland Security | Energy & Environment | Healthcare | Finance & Economy | Technology | Foreign Policy | Labor | Transportation & Infrastructure GO TO THE HILL HOME »Most Popular Stories
Most ViewedObama sets stage for using budget maneuver to pass health reformWilson hires professional TweeterWilson took caffeine pills in 2007Google online library battle hits HouseSpeaker Pelosi agrees to plan to scold Rep. Wilson for 'You lie' outburstEmailedObama sets stage for using budget maneuver to pass health reformI am sorryWilson hires professional TweeterBuffett tells Dems rich need to pay moreSupport democracy in Honduras (Rep. Dana Rohrabacher)DiscussedObama sets stage for using budget maneuver to pass health reformWilson hires professional TweeterSpeaker Pelosi agrees to plan to scold Rep. Wilson for 'You lie' outburstBuffett tells Dems rich need to pay moreLoud 9/12 protest reaches the CapitolHome/News » Most Viewed RSS Feed »
More Administration Headlines
Obama follows up address by pushing talking points on the roadGOP questions White House's 'fuzzy' math with stimulus jobsObama hits road to promote healthcare reform
More Administration Headlines »
Administration News RSS feed »
Briefing RoomKey Blago investigation subject deadSATURDAY ROUNDUPMcDonnell drops f-bomb during radio interview
More Briefing Room »
Congress BlogWhat Yesterday’s Poverty and Income Numbers Don’t Tell Us About Economic Hardship The Big Question, Sept. 11: Did Obama's speech improve the chances of passing healthcare reform?Address mental health in reform legislation
More Congress Blog »
Pundits BlogI am sorryWilson: Not that sorry ...What about the lobbyists, Mr. President?
More Pundits Blog »
Twitter RoomTown hall group receives bomb threatHatch tweets latest gripe with college football bowls TOP TWEETS
More Twitter Room »
Blogs News Feed
COLUMNISTS
Cheri Jacobus Start over, Mr. President John Del Cecato No more kicking the can
A.B. Stoddard Lessons for Obama Ben Goddard Vietnamistan
More Columnists »
Get latest news from The Hill direct to your inbox, RSS reader and mobile devices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)