Unemployment Benefit Extension: Stimulus or Increase debt

President Obama took a mini-vacation over the weekend will be holding a Rose Garden press conference this morning to berate Republicans for their filibustering of unemployment extended benefits. During Obama's weekly internet address he stated, "Too often, the Republican leadership in the United States Senate chooses to filibuster our recovery and obstruct our progress. And that has very real consequences" (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100717/ts_nm/us_obama_republicans_3). President Obama fails to realize that prior to Sen. Kennedy's death the Democrats had 60 votes to overcome any filibuster Republicans attempted in the Senate. That power in the Senate allowed Obama and Democrats used that power to pass $862 billion stimulus plan last year that was suppose to keep unemployment below 8% and create 8 to 9 million jobs. As we all know unemployment has topped 10% and still hovers around 10%. Now, if one believes the government numbers the Stimulus saved or crated 2.3 million jobs since passing stimulus.

Speaker Pelosi, and was echoed by MSNBC Pundits, are stating that extending unemployment benefits will stimulate the economy. Really? People, on average, are paid just enough money to make the bills. How is just making the bills stimulating the economy? Republicans are right in blocking the extension of unemployment benefits as it does not stimulate the economy. What about President's pledge of "Pay as you Go". It is not the Republicans are against the unemployed; rather they are holding Obama to his own motto. Many economists are stating that the recovery is stalling out.

The Star Tribune ran an article from the New York Times, The Rich are Cutting Back, Stalling Economy's Recovery, on July 17^th. Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody's Analytics stated in the article, "One of the reasons that the recovery has lost momentum is that high-end consumers have become more jittery and more cautious." To which the article hints that additional stimulus may be required. During the last session of the Minnesota Legislature an additional tax on the richest Minnesotans was floated and a similar tax hike is being floating around Washington D.C. and perhaps this is the real reason why the rich are jittery about spending more money.

Motoko Rich, who authored the above article, stated that the top 5 percent income earners represent 60 percent of the country's economic activity. That being said does it make sense to take more money away from the top 5 percent? The CBO warned late last year that the United States is on a collision course as debt ratio is on a trajectory that will put the United States in the league of Greece. So let Obama slam Republicans in the Rose Garden today as the Republicans are just holding Obama to his own words; "Pay as you Go". Still unsure how extending unemployment benefits will stimulate the economy as I doubt people are using those checks to buy a home, a car, a new TV or going on vacation; rather isn't the money being used to keep the lights on, the roof over their heads, and food on the table?

Nationalized Risk of Wall Street done by Congress not Wall Street

Recently, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was heckled by members of ADAPT, a disability rights group, as she addressed a progressive audience this past Tuesday. According to the Politico ADAPT, and other groups, heckled Pelosi for about 20 minutes. As Pelosi wrapped up her speech she, again, accused the ills of the United States economy on the Bush administration. When does the blaming of a prior administration end? Did Pelosi forget that in Bush's final two years the Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress? I understand the blame game is part of politics and is an attempt to keep Americans polarized too.

The most troubling part of her speech was the words she had for Wall Street. "No longer will recklessness on Wall Street be able to cause joblessness on Main Street. No longer will those on Wall Street be able to privatize the gain and nationalize the risk" (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38249.html). WHAT?!?!?! How can Wall Street nationalize the risk? It is Congress that passed the bailouts and not Wall Street. One can make an argument that lobbyist for Wall Street influenced the process but the lobbyist nor Wall Street actually cast a vote or sign on the dotted line. Granted TARP was signed by Bush but it was passed by Pelosi/Reed led Congress. Our current politicians failed America by nationalizing the risk that Wall Street takes.

The dotcom bubble was not nationalized yet Congress chooses to nationalize the housing bubble; why is that? Did the dotcom's not give enough money to Congress? There is nothing wrong with Wall Street in privatizing gains. Remember the increased profits and stock appreciation of Wall Street fuels our 401K's, IRA's and our nest eggs. I do agree with Speaker Pelosi that we cannot nationalize the risk but be honest as to who is nationalizing the risk. It is Congress that is nationalizing risk and the President rubber stamps it.

Sen. Reid marginalizes Slavery

"Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let's start over'. If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right. When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough'. When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn't quite right. When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). I have been watching a lot of the health care debate this summer first hand and have witnessed a lack of bi-partisan approach to health care reform.

During August we heard from the media and Democrats that public radio and Republicans were using scare tactics to sway public opinion. When average Americans showed up at the town hall debates, they were marginalized by the media as a fringe group. Now, Sen. Reid is likening the debate on health care reform to slavery. WHAT!!!! Sen. Reid needs a history lesson as it was under a Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, that the country went to war in an effort to end slavery. I do not see how going to war with one's own citizens is a "slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough" approach; rather it says quite the opposite. Where is the deal, how can anyone, let alone the Senate Majority Leader, assert that health care reform debate equates to emancipation, suffrage, or civil rights is pathetic at best.

The words spoke; see above, by Sen. Reid marginalizes emancipation, suffrage, and civil rights. Health care is not a right nor does the current health care system restrict the rights of others. Health care costs are skyrocketing and premiums continue to rise thus making it difficult for all in America to afford health care insurance but health care is not a right. Does it make sense for a society to succeed that a robust health care system is required; yes. Does the current form of health care reform really reform health care; no. Not only that, Sen. Reid and House Speaker Pelosi do not need the support of one Republican in Congress to pass health care reform. So it begs the question: Who is really digging in their heels?

Those digging in their heels are one-issue Democrats. Sen. Nelson (D-Neb.) amendment to deny taxpayer funds to pay for abortion was killed on the Senate floor yesterday to which the Senator warned that he will filibuster the bill if strict abortion language is not put in the final version. On the other side of the issue, many in the House of Representatives vow not to support a bill unless a public option exists. Moderate Democrats are at odds with their more Liberal brethren. Yes, Republicans are not in favor of the type of reform being proposed but their votes are not warranted to pass "reform". But I digress.

The assertion made by Sen. Reid that health care reform ranks in the annuals of history with emancipation, suffrage, and civil rights just proves the lunacy that exists in the leadership of the Democrat party. Even though I am a white male, I feel outraged by the marginalized comments by Sen. Reid as it belittles those that gave their lives to emancipation, suffrage, and civil rights. We all agree that reform is needed in health care but Sen. Reid's statement trumps any fear mongering alleged during the August research. Or am I missing something? Is health care reform on the same level of emancipation, suffrage, and civil rights?

House passes health care reform over the weekend.

Well we made it back from the woods with meat in the locker and our lives intact. While the viewing of deer was rare, the use of the rifle when needed was not. At 7:47 a.m. on Sunday the woods saw a young buck meet their maker with one shot from 50 yards away. Just a few hours before the rain moved. With a successful hunt under the belt, I was saddened to hear that Pelosi's health care bill passed by two votes over the weekend. Let's hope the Senate is a bit wiser and properly vets their bill to ensure that we do not see additional taxes and increases to our deficit. Here is a link to H.R. 3962 to read it for yourself: http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf

Here is what the Left points out (http://edlabor.house.gov/blog/2009/10/affordable-health-care.shtml):

Increasing choice and competition. The bill will protect and improve consumers' choices.

• If people like their current plans, they will be able to keep them.
  
• For individuals who aren't currently covered by their employer, and some small businesses, the proposal will establish a new Health Insurance Exchange where consumers can comparison shop from a menu of affordable, quality health care options that will include private plans, health co-ops, and a new public health insurance option. The public health insurance option will play on a level playing field with private insurers, spurring additional competition.
  
• This Exchange will create competition based on quality and price that leads to better coverage and care. Patients and doctors will have control over decisions about their health care, instead of insurance companies.
  

Giving Americans peace of mind. The legislation will ensure that Americans have portable, secure health care coverage – so that they won't lose care if their employer drops their plan or they lose their job.

• Every American who receives coverage through the Exchange will have a plan that includes standardized, comprehensive and quality health care benefits.
  
• It will end increases in premiums or denials of care based on pre-existing conditions, race, or gender, and strictly limit age rating.
  
• The proposal will also eliminate co-pays for preventive care, and cap out-of-pocket expenses to protects every American from bankruptcy.
  

Improving quality of care for every American. The legislation will ensure that Americans of all ages, from young children to retirees have access to greater quality of care by focusing on prevention, wellness, and strengthening programs that work.

• Guarantees that every child in America will have health care coverage that includes dental, hearing and vision benefits.
  
• Provides better preventive and wellness care. Every health care plan offered through the exchange and by employers after a grace period will cover preventive care at no cost to the patient.
  
• Increases the health care workforce to ensure that more doctors and nurses are available to provide quality care as more Americans get coverage.
  
• Strengthens Medicare and Medicaid and closes the Medicare Part D 'donut hole' so that seniors and low-income Americans receive better quality of care and see lower prescription drug costs and out-of-pocket expenses.
  

Ensuring shared responsibility. The bill will ensure that individuals, employers, and the federal government share responsibility for a quality and affordable health care system.

• Employers can continue offering coverage to workers, and those who choose not to offer coverage contribute a fee of eight percent of payroll.
  
• All individuals will generally be required to get coverage, either through their employer or the exchange, or pay a penalty of 2.5 percent of income, subject to a hardship exemption.
  
• The federal government will provide affordability credits, available on a sliding scale for low- and middle-income individuals and families to make premiums affordable and reduce cost-sharing.
  

Protecting consumers and reducing waste, fraud, and abuse. The legislation will put the interests of consumers first, protect them from problems in getting and keeping health care coverage, and reduce waste, fraud, and abuse.

• Provides transparency in plans in the Health Exchange so that consumers have the clear, complete information, in plain English, needed to select the plan that best meets their needs.
  
• Establishes consumer advocacy offices as part of the Exchange in order to protect consumers, answer questions, and assist with any problems related to their plans.
  
• Simplifies paperwork and other administrative burdens. Patients, doctors, nurses, insurance companies, providers, and employers will all encounter a streamlined, less confusing, more consumer friendly system.
  
• Increases funding of efforts to reduce waste, fraud and abuse; creates enhanced oversight of Medicare and Medicaid programs.
  

Reducing the deficit and ensuring the solvency of Medicare and Medicaid. The legislation will be entirely paid for – it will not add a dime to the deficit. It will also put Medicare and Medicaid on the path to a more fiscally sound future, so seniors and low-income Americans can continue to receive the quality health care benefits for years to come.

• Pays for the entire cost of the legislation though a combination of savings achieved by making Medicare and Medicaid more efficient – without cutting seniors' benefits in any way – and  revenue generated from placing a surcharge the top 0.3 percent of all households in the U.S.(married couples with adjusted gross income of over $1,000,000) and other tax measures.
  
• The Congressional Budget estimates the bill will reduce the deficit by at least $100 billion over ten years.
  
• Estimates also show the bill will slow the rate of growth of the Medicare program from 6.6 percent annually to 5.3 percent annually.
  

Here is what the Right says (email for Rep. John Kline):

The Pelosi health care bill will cost at least $1.3 trillion and includes $730 billion in new taxes and $500 billion in cuts to Medicare.

For nearly four months, Americans have voiced their overwhelming concerns with a government takeover of health care, yet majority leadership in Congress recklessly plugged its ears today and rammed through a health care bill that leads to new government mandates, bureaucratic red tape, and stifling tax increases. What passed today fails to even come close to the commonsense, bipartisan reform the American people need and deserve.

The consequences of the Pelosi health care bill include:

• Americans who like their employer-provided health care will lose it.
  
• Seniors who depend upon Medicare coverage – especially Medicare Advantage – will lose it.
  
• Taxpayers will be stuck with the bill for massive new entitlement spending.
  
• Small businesses will be taxed, and taxed, and taxed again.
  
• Employers will face new state court liability.
  
• Federal bureaucrats will determine what health care coverage is "acceptable."
  
• Millions of Americans will be pushed into a new, government-run plan modeled on broken government entitlement programs.
  
• Millions more Americans will be forced into a broken Medicaid system.
  
• Government-run health care will continue to underpay hospitals, making it difficult for patients to get care and driving up costs in the rest of the system.
  
• Junk lawsuits will persist in promoting defensive medicine and passing higher costs on to patients.
  

 

Obviously the true answer is somewhere in the middle. Even though the President is pushing the Senate to move forward this year, there are some poison pills in the House version of health care reform that will slow it process through the Senate; namely abortion. I look forward to getting caught up to hear more spin from all sides of the health care debate; especially the benefit that AARP will receive even though they saw a membership drive to leave AARP take place on Friday.

As an aside, I am in process of getting caught up with all the new information on the shooting at Fort Hood.

Deer opener will not halt the health care vote in the House

Today is Friday November 6, 2009 and tomorrow is the opener of deer hunting season for rifles in Minnesota. I will be among the orange clad warriors that will brave the elements in pursuit of venison. While the woods are dotted with blaze orange, the rest of the world will be grappling with events taking place at Fort Hood and on Capitol Hill. All of this in the wake of the announcement of jobless figures that were worst than expected; 10.2% unemployment and 190,000 jobs lost. The break in the woods will give me an opportunity to recharge and allow the media speculation to ferret out the true motive behind why Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan gunned down fellow soldiers at Fort Hood.

The rumors are abounded and the facts after the rampage have changed; first he was dead and now he is alive. I will reserve further opinion on the tragic events at Fort Hood until officials conclude their investigations of a man that was said to be "on the radar for the past six months." The other issue that will play out while I am in the woods is House Speaker Pelosi's push for a House vote on health care reform. Yesterday, thousands of people rallied at the steps of the Capitol in Washington D.C. to protest the House health care bill. Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) proclaimed the House bill "the greatest threat to freedom that I have seen." Albeit a grandiose statement, the proclamation by Rep. Boehner is not far from the mark.

The House bill does not achieve the goals of the Obama administration of reducing costs and making health care affordable for all. Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) admitted this morning on MSNBC's Morning Joe that the current House bill only covers 12M of the 48M uninsured in America. Part of the reason given by Rep. Hoyer was the bill did not provide coverage for illegal or "undocumented" aliens. The words spoken by Rep. Hoyer contradicts a report yesterday by the Associated Press that reported "Rep. Louise Slaughter (D- NY) indicated that the House will have to vote on a bill that allows illegal aliens to use the new healthcare "exchange" and the does not require verification to keep illegal aliens out of the other parts of the proposed new federal healthcare system."

The extent to which illegal aliens are able to access the American taxpayer system is a sticky point; rightfully so. I am not against immigration as it is needed to replenish the aging American workforce but I am not in support of using my taxpayer money to subsidize those here illegally. There is a process, for better or worse, to gain citizenship. Follow it. Now, I will concede the point that American firms have not assisted to rooting out illegal aliens as they see them as a cheap source of labor. The Democrats will need to pass the House version of the bill on the shoulders of Democrat votes alone as Republicans have vowed to not support the current House bill.

The reliance on Democrat votes puts Pelosi and Obama in a pickle. Many "Blue Dog" Democrats are fighting for their collective political life, especially in wake of recent Republican election victories, and with Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY), head of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, warning Pelosi and Obama that the 20 Hispanic votes will be determined by the amount of access illegal aliens have to taxpayer funded healthcare. So what will take place? Although many are touting the Republican Party as the Party of "No", I see their stance as being fiscally and socially appropriate. Especially when it comes to cover illegal immigrants as my ancestors did it right, so why cannot others?

The Senate bill does not allow access for illegal aliens. While I will miss the opportunity to watch the debate on the House bill, which Speaker Pelosi wants to limit to 4 hours, I hope that others will carry the debate on in my absence. A lot concerns are playing out and it will be interesting, especially to us political junkies, on how the vote will go if Speaker Pelosi is able to bring the bill to the floor on Saturday. Good luck to all the Blaze Orange Warriors this weekend. Come back with deer and be safe. Remember to always know what you are shooting at because that sound you shot at could be your child, elder, or anything else but a deer.

Election Results may give pause to health care reform.

On Tuesday many Americans went to the polls to vote on local elections. Even though the elections were for local representation, two elections were getting plenty of national attention. The races for Governor in New Jersey and Virginia were both looked upon as a barometer for 2010 Congressional races. In both cases the sitting Democrat lost to their Republican challenger. While the spin was in high gear yesterday, the true impact will be seen on Capitol Hill as health care reform and cap and trade bills move forward. Even though the Democrats hold majority in both houses of Congress, those Democrats, many known as "Blue Dogs", in swing states are now taking pause to assess the ripple effect the elections have in their districts.

Rep. Gene Taylor (D-Miss.) warned that "The House leadership needs to pay attention to what happened in Virginia." Rep. Taylor's words are echoed in the Senate by Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.). Sen. Conrad responded to the election results by saying, "The American people get it. They know we're on an unsustainable fiscal course." The realization by "Blue Dog" Democrats is reassuring as House Speaker Pelosi is pushing for a vote on the House's health care reform bill which is nearly 3000 pages long. Why, Speaker Pelosi is the bill so long? Health Care reform is not as complex as your bill makes it sound.

Ask yourself why not one single member of Congress in favor of the reform being looked at is not willing to participate in it by giving up their current health insurance coverage and switch to the "reformed" insurance coverage? Health care reform can be obtained without a 3000 page bill that will cost $1.2T over ten years according to the CBO. I have blogged about how to accomplish this without spending a dime but will say it again.

1. Create true competition through the interstate buying and selling of health care insurance.
   
2. Remove the anti-trust exemption.
   
3. Phase out Medicare and Medicaid.
   
4. Establish Medical Saving Accounts.
   
5. Tort reform
   
6. Require all medical record's to be computerized
   
7. Make health insurance portable
   

I know it is not a 12 step plan but it will work and achieve the goals the Obama administration has for health care reform. Doing these seven things to start with will lower premium costs, save taxpayer money, and make insurance available to all. We need fiscal responsible and logical decision making when dealing with an issue that is 1/6^th of our economy. Any other way will only hurt the growth in GDP obtained last quarter. If the election results gives pause to the "Blue Dog" Democrats to delay any rash voting on health care reform then American's will win. If Pelosi and Reed are able to shove through legislation that does nothing but grow government, Americans will continue to see unemployment levels north of 10%. Imagine what the unemployment rate would be if companies had not outsourced many back office duties to India, Ireland, and other locales around the world. Take a moment today to call and write your Congress member to voice your opinion and urge them to vote for sustained growth that does not bankrupt America.

New House Health Care Reform Bill Unveiled: Get informed!!!!!

Today House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) unveiled a new health care package (http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf) that will cost $894 billion. The new house bill is roughly 500 pages longer and $300 billion less than the original House bill. My knee jerk reaction is to ask Speaker Pelosi to go back and craft a bill that is another 1500 pages longer so it will cost $0. All kidding aside the House Bill does cover more people than the current Senate bill; 36M to 29M people. To assist cover some of the cost will be 5.4% surtax on income, thus bringing the IRS into your health care, on individuals earning more than $500K and couples making more than $1M. Although the House bill does contain a public option, it is not based on Medicare rates. Instead the Government will have to negotiate with hospital, clinics and doctors to establish rates.

On the surface this makes sense but it begs the question: How can the government be referee and player at the same time? White House Speaker Robert Gibbs told reporters, "You've seen people say that this is going to drive policies up in price. I don't think that – I think whenever you're adding more choices through greater competition into the health care system, you're driving down costs. That's what the president wants to see. That's a big aim in health care reform, and I think that's what we're working toward" (http://abcnews.go.com/WN/HealthCare/house-democrats-unveil-health-care-bill-public-option/Story?id=8946527&page=2). While I agree with Gibbs that adding more choices will drive down costs through greater competition, but that requires more than one choice. Adding just a public option is not the plural form of additional choice that Gibbs, the White House, and Democrats are pushing. We need more than one choice to drive down costs.

That being said, it does not mean that some things are good in the bill. The elimination of pre-existing conditions and caps on benefits is a good step to make health insurance portable. The House bill does contain a mandate on all Americans have coverage with the belief that it will stem uninsured patients but the penalty for not having health insurance does not deter one from going without. There is another way Congress can achieve the insurance mandate without creating uproar.

The other way is through Medical Savings Programs that replace Medicare and Medicaid for those under 55 years of age. All that needs to be done is to divert all the money deducted from ones paycheck currently for Medicare and Medicaid to a medical savings account (MSA). The MSA would be established and Congress will not be able to touch it, as they did with SSN, then as one required health coverage the money would be there. If one decided to use the MSA as their sole insurance coverage and to pay out of pocket one could. By making all medical records electronic, it would be easy enough for health care providers to collect for MSA's through automatic deductions.

I encourage everyone to read the House bill. I have posted the link above. I know I will. Be informed, make your own decision, and then inform your Congress representative on how you feel about the bill. Also, let's discuss it here and other places to make sure all aspects of the bill are properly vetted before passing the bill.

Health Care: American Holocaust?

Just a few weeks ago Capitol Hill was abuzz with the censure of Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) for his outburst of "You Lie" during President Obama's address to the joint session of Congress. Rep. Wilson apologized to the president but that was not good enough for House Speaker Pelosi or the rest of the Democrats on Capitol Hill. During the month of August a lot was made of the uproars that took place at various town hall meetings. Both cases were bastardized by the media and looked upon as right-wing hate rhetoric of the president and not helpful in pushing the health care reform debate forward. Enter Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL).

Rep. Grayson stood on the floor of the House of Representatives for two minutes and twenty-seven seconds debating health care reform. While giving his two cents on the health care reform topic, Rep. Grayson explained the Republican health care plan. In a serious of placards, Rep. Grayson claimed Republicans plan is, on placards, "1. Don't get sick, 2. If you get sick…, 3. Die Quickly." Rep. Grayson claims that Republicans feel that "If you get sick in America, this is what the Republicans want to you to do; if you get sick America, the Republican health care plan is this: Die Quickly. That's right; the Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick."

Now how does what Rep. Grayson said on the House floor any different than Rep. Wilson's outburst? None. Neither commentary moves the debate forward. The sad thing is that Democrats do not need 1 Republican vote to achieve overhaul of the health care system. Republican leadership has asked for Rep. Grayson to apologize and threatened to introduce a resolution to censure Rep. Grayson. Now, Rep. Grayson had an opportunity to apologize for his rhetoric and worthless commentary on the health care reform debate. Instead of apologizing for his lack of civility on the House floor, Rep. Grayson retorted with, "I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven't voted sooner to end this holocaust in America."

WHAT!!!! Health care reform or lack thereof, is representative of the holocaust that took place during World War II? After bashing the Tea Party goers and those that showed up at town hall meetings for comparisons made between Hitler and Obama, the Democrat leadership is going to remain silent on Rep. Grayson's comparison of health care and the holocaust. Leadership has evaporated at our nation's Capitol. I thought it was evident by the two people put forth by the major parties during the Presidential election but now I am convinced that leaders in Washington fear not the general public. For their sake I hope they go back and read books on the downfall of Rome before the mob revolts. Then again with mainstream media firmly in the back pocket of the Democrats, nothing may come of it.

Who is lying: Pelosi or CIA?

House Speaker Pelosi just needs to shut up. In her press conference last week she made the claim that the CIA “misled” her in September of 2002 and was not told that water boarding was being done, especially on Abu Zubaydah. Friday, after Speaker Pelosi’s grandstand, CIA Director Leon Panetta stated, “CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing ‘the enhanced techniques that have been employed’”.

According the law of the land, it is a crime to lie or mislead Congress. If this is the case, why is it okay then for Speaker Pelosi is able to stand there and lie to the American Public? The surprising message being lost here is the lack of defense of Speaker Pelosi by the White House. Why might this be?

Perhaps it is because the CIA did let Congress know of the techniques being used to ferret out information. On CNN’s State of the Union, Rep. John Boehner said, “If the speaker is accusing the CIA and other intelligence officials of lying or misleading the Congress, then she should come forward with evidence and turn that over to the Justice Department so they be prosecuted. And if that is not the case, I think she ought to apologize to our intelligence professionals around the world.”

As I am writing a promo came on MSNBC for Hardball. Chris Matthews’s teaser put forth the question if the Republican Party is using the Pelosi CIA attack as a distraction to Bush era policy. Now, I understand that Chris Matthews is a commentary but many people in our realm feel he is a news reporter. Why doesn’t the liberal media focus on Pelosi’s retort to CIA Panetta’s charge that she was given full disclosure?

Speaker Pelosi shifted her focus from the CIA to the Bush administration when she put out the statement last Friday, “My criticism of the manner in which the Bush administration did not appropriately inform Congress is separate from my respect for those in the intelligence community who work to keep our country safe.” Really? Is Speaker Pelosi for real? As it has been reported, she first claimed that she was never briefed only to later soften her stance then to an outright blast of the CIA.

It was the role of the CIA to inform Congress of the techniques used, which according to CIA Panetta was done in September 2002. I would love to see a truth commission as it will bring to light to truth. My only concern is if the media will report the facts and not add their bias.

Pelosi is caught red handed

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi held a news conference today in an attempt to clear the air on her knowledge of water boarding. Prior to the meeting today, House Speaker Pelosi contended that she was never briefed on the use of harsh tactics, i.e. water boarding. In her press conference today, she contracted her previous statement when she announced that in September 2002 she was briefed on “enhanced interrogation techniques” were going to be used. The CIA is still contending that both House Speaker Pelosi and Rep. Porter Goss were briefed on the “use of EITS”.

The five months after September 2002 briefing, the CIA briefed Chairman Harmon who in turn, according to her press conference, was “informed” about the CIA briefing of Chairman Harmon and the use of EITS. Now President Obama is doing an about face on releasing additional photos of prisoner abuse. Why? As the debate of CIA Memos continues, it will be interesting to see what the “truth” commission is able to ferret out.

Former Vice President Cheney has been asking for further CIA memos to be released to the public and House Speaker Pelosi asked that the briefing she was given in September 2002 be released as well. The use of water boarding is just one EIT used, so is House Speaker Pelosi okay with the rest but draws the line at water boarding?

Will America see a Nixon cover-up or will President Obama finally have the opportunity to break away from the choke collar that House Speaker Pelosi has on the White House?

You can see House Speaker Pelosi attempting to absolve herself from any responsibility of the use of EITS. Judge for yourself.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2009/05/pelosi_accuses_cia_of.html?hpid=topnews