Letter from the White House

I opened up my email this morning and found a letter from Dan Pfeiffer, Senior Advisor to President Obama, previewing the State of the Union speech coming up next week by President Obama. In reading through the email a few points really concern me and should concern all Americans.

In this year of action, the President will seek out as many opportunities as possible to work with Congress in a bipartisan way. But when American jobs and livelihoods depend on getting something done, he will not wait for Congress.

President Obama has a pen and he has a phone, and he will use them to take executive action and enlist every American -- business owners and workers, mayors and state legislators, young people, veterans, and folks in communities from across the country -- in the project to restore opportunity for all.

It will be an optimistic speech. Thanks to the grit and determination of citizens like you, America has a hard-earned right to that optimism. Five years after the President inherited the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, our businesses have created more than eight million new jobs in the past 46 months, and they're primed to create more.

Within these three short paragraphs lies plans if followed through to transform our Republic form of government into something far worse; a socialist state. It is true that President Obama came into office during the worst economic conditions seen in the United States since the Great Depression and it is accurate that since he has taken office five years ago that 8 Million jobs have been filled. Despite these facts the policies of President Obama have created uncertainty in the work force resulting in over 90 Million American's leaving the job force.

President's over time have attempted to expand the use of Executive Orders to side step Congress and ignore the United States Constitution. Also, the Supreme Court has ruled on the expansion of powers with varying degree of outcomes based mainly on the prevailing ideology of the Court. Yet this is the first time in our nations history that a President is so bold and reckless in the threat of Executive Order.

The Affordable Care Act, despite not being passed as a tax was upheld by SCOTUS based on it being so, is a debacle. While elements of it are progress in dealing with the escalating health care costs it created more questions and uncertainty in the market. Without rehashing the debate, President Obama by stroke of the pen waived the mandate for the Executive Branch, Legislative Branch, Big Business and Unions. Thus re-writing the ACA which is not a power the Executive Branch has; yet Americans sit idly by and allow it to happen. 

President Obama needs to understand that the Executive Branch doesn't have the power to create legislation nor re-write legislation signed into law. If the President Obama is serious about getting people back to work then remove the uncertainty of the ACA.

The other part of the email that is concerning and more than likely puts a smile on Karl Marx face is the part of " [enlisting] every American -- business owners and workers, mayors and state legislators, young people, veterans, and folks in communities from across the country -- in the project to restore opportunity for all." The government's role is not to create jobs; rather the government is to ensure employers don't exploit the employees. 

I look forward to listening President Obama speak on Tuesday. My hope is that he will finally earn that Nobel Peace Prize he was awarded after being elected.

Fair Share Equals 18.4%

Yesterday the White House released the First Families tax return for this year. Ironically the Obama's paid a lower tax than Mitt Romney's Secretary! Harkening back to the campaign, the Democrats were all in on the fact that Romney's effective tax rate was lower than his secretaries nominal rate. The rate difference per the Democrats was not fair. Since that time we saw Congress raise the top nominal rate on the highest income earners and increase the capital gains rate as well all in the cloak of "paying  your fair share".

The release of the Obama's tax return illustrates the hypocrisy of Liberals. I do applaud the Obama's for donating over $150,000 to charity. Perhaps some of the charity can rub off on the Biden's who could only muster $7900 to give to charity. Then again the $150,000 in charitable givings by the Obama's is a tax deduction. Why didn't the Obama's give that $150,000 to the government since they firmly believe that government knows best!

It is tiring to hear the rhetoric of "paying your fair share" and then to see wealthy people that tout this mantra pay less tax rate than Mitt Romney's secretary.

Sequester: Death Nail or Savior

Over the past few weeks we have seen the rhetoric of the Sequester ramp up and the blame game go into high gear. Sadly, the Sequester conversation could have been non-existent if Congress and President Obama enacted the results of Simpson-Bowles committee over two years ago. Trouble with Simpson-Bowles outcome is it was a true compromise; a compromise though that President Obama wasn't willing to extend. Unfortunately far to many Americans will believe the hype, the spin and the outright lies when it comes to Sequester.

Earlier in the year Congress put forth a tax bill that raised taxes on those making over $450,000 and did away with the payroll tax holiday. Granted President Obama wanted the top nominal rate to hit those making over $250,000 and the Republicans in Congress wanted it to be on those making over $1M, but a compromise was reached. Part of the compromise was that Congress and the White House work to bring spending under control.

To give enough time for Congress and the White House to cobble a plan, the Sequester was kicked down the road a bit and reset to go into effect March 1st. As Bob Woodward, probably one of the last true investigative journalists, points out in his Op-Ed from yesterday (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bob-woodward-obamas-sequester-deal-changer/2013/02/22/c0b65b5e-7ce1-11e2-9a75-dab0201670da_print.html) the brain child of Sequester falls squarely on the shoulders of the White House.

Woodward even points to an exact time and place that President Obama approved Sequester that White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew cobbled. Also pointed out is that Sequester was not to contain any revenue increases either. The agreement on Sequester was to kick the debate into 2013 as to not be an issue during the 2012 Presidential Election. The looming cuts that President Obama warned the American public about just a few days ago while flanked with men and women in uniform existed prior to the 2012 election as Sequester already hung in the balance.

Why do we give President Obama a pass? Why do people allow President Obama to blatantly lie to the American public?

So what really takes place on March 1st if nothing else is done? First off the $1.2 trillion in cuts takes place immediately and will be spread over the years til 2021. The spread will be evenly over those nine years which means that the cuts made in 2013 will be only $109 billion. The cuts will not touch existing war spending nor SSN or Medicaid. Think about that for a second $109 billion! We are running a deficit in this country of $1 Trillion a year for the past four years. How can President Obama be honest with himself as he stands before the American public claiming job loss when we will still roughly $800 billion more dollars this year than we take in?

Again take a look at the numbers. We spend over $1 trillion more today than we take in and Sequester will cut that by $109 billion dollars. Is the budget of the United States to the point that it cannot take a 10% haircut? If we cannot see a 10% reduction in the increases of debt then how are we ever going to be able to balance the budget and cut the deficit any let alone in half as President Obama promised he would have done by now?

Wake up America. Learn the truth of the spin that our Political Elite attempt to spin on us and realize that the media is not doing their jobs anymore.The Sequester will not put America back into a depression; rather $1 Trillion yearly deficit spending will!

The Most Transparent President Ever!

While on the campaign trail, Sen. Obama blasted past administrations for allowing special interest groups access to the White House and the lack of transparency too. Interesting that as the Fast and Furious debacle plays out that President Obama would exercise Executive Privilege over information Congress is asking Attorney General Holder to provide.

Then the Wall Street Journal is reporting that David Axelrod's advertising group, which he supposedly cut ties with, was intragal in promoting ObamaCare. American's can only hope that the US Supreme Court strikes down ObamaCare but that still doesn't take away the recent efforts of the White House to cover-up and conceal. Perhaps we are witnessing another Watergate!

The 1st Amendment under assault by Obama Administration

White House spokesman Jay Carney also sought to diffuse criticism from Church leaders, telling reporters later on Tuesday that the administration would work with religious organizations "to see if the implementation of the policy can be done in a way that allays some of those concerns." (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/white-house-open-compromise-over-contraception-adviser-152243708.html)

This comment by Mr. Carney is alarming. It is bad enough that the Obama Administration has trampled upon the Constitution by appointing recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess. The controversy with abortion, contraception and sterilization is not the first issue with ObamaCare. What is the next Amendment or freedom "hope and change" is going to take away?

Obama Rejecting Pipeline, Pokes Back At GOP - Amy Harder - NationalJournal.com

Obama Rejecting Pipeline, Pokes Back At GOP - Amy Harder - NationalJournal.com

When President Obama took office he demanded that we pass legislation that would cost over $780 Billion because it would create over 3 Million jobs and keep unemployment below 8%. Included within that bill was "shovel ready jobs". A year after the passing of the "stimulus" bill the White House finally admitted that there was "no shovel ready jobs" as originally billed. Now, Congress passes a bill that put a timeline on President Obama to approve a "shovel ready job" and he claims that the timeline is to soon. Perhaps if we had not vacationed in Hawaii we'd have the studies completed on environmental impact. I wonder if the Hoover Dam, Mount Rushmore or the vast road system would have been able to be built when they were if those projects came up today. The White House told said the company can reapply and would most likely get approved in 2014. Really, why 2014? Pipelines have dramatically improved and are a safe way to transfer oil with limited impact on the environment. Plus, this pipeline would create over 100,000 jobs! Why is President Obama playing politics and not agreeing to a jobs creation bill that Congress passed?

National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform raises the ire of all sides

On February 18, 2010, President Obama signed an executive order establishing a bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform during a ceremony in the Diplomatic Room of the White House. Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson were set as co-chairs of the commission. November 10, 2010, the Co-Chairs Bowles and Simpson put forth their proposal to deal with the United States mid- and long-term fiscal challenges. Here is a link to the Co-Chairs Proposal: http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/CoChair_Draft.pdf and to their $200B in cost cutting measures : http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/Illustrative_List_11.10.2010.pdf.

Some of the headlines that followed the unveiling of the proposal were:

The Debt Commission's Free Ride for Boomers – Business Week

Debt panel head: Congress must 'face up' to issue – The Associated Press

Deficit panel's Schakowsky wants defense cuts, higher corporate
taxes – Washington Post

Stop whining about Bowles-Simpson. Let's make it better – CNN Money

That being said, I did read the entire report to see what all the ire raised by both Liberals and Tea Party members was all about. One particular line I enjoyed was made during the "Our Guiding Principles and Values" section (p. 3) "American families have spent the past 2 years making tough choices in their own lives. They expect us to do the same. The American people are counting on us to put politics aside, pull together not pull apart, and agree on a plan to live within our means and make America strong for the long haul." I couldn't agree more with this assessment the trouble for the commission will be getting lawmakers to agree with it.

The "Five Part Plan" for making America strong laid out by the Commission is:

1. Enact tough discretionary spending caps and provide $200 billion in illustrative domestic and defense savings in 2015.
   
2. Pass tax reform that dramatically reduces rates, simplifies the code, broadens the base, and reduces the deficit.
   
3. Address the "Doc Fix" not through deficit spending but through savings from payment reforms, cost-sharing, and malpractice reform, and long-term measures to control health care costs growth.
   
4. Achieve mandatory savings from farm subsidies, military and civil service retirement.
   
5. Ensure Social Security solvency for the next 75 years while reducing poverty among seniors.
   

 

Some of the ways the Commission is looking to achieve the five part plan is through reducing tax rates, cap revenue at or below 21% of GDP and bring spending down to 21% as well. One of the proposals to achieve the $200 billion in cuts goes directly opposite of Obama's recent announcement to give Congressional and White House staff a raise during the lame duck session. The Commission is looking to save $50.4, mind you in 2015, by reducing Congressional & White House budgets by 15% and freezing federal salaries, bonuses and other compensation at non-defense agencies for three years. While I agree with reducing budgets and the freezing of salaries but why are we waiting until 2015? Just a generation ago 1 in every 40 Americans working worked for the government now that number is 1 in 4. This ratio the Commission does address as they propose to cut the federal workforce by 10%.

Proposal #15 – Slow the growth of foreign aid – is a good step as our foreign aid has gotten out of control. I understand we live in a global economy but we need to take care of home first before helping others throughout the world. Per the report, under Obama, our foreign aid will increase another 40% which builds upon the 80% increase since 2008. This spreading of American wealth is something we need to curb.

Proposal #21 – Eliminate all earmarks – now this has been a topic for years. The Commission reports that in FY2010 "Congress approved more than 9,000 earmarks costing taxpayers at least $16 billion." Per the Commission one such earmark included $1.9 million for "a Pleasure Beach Water Taxi Service in Connecticut." Really? I recall a lot of discussion over the Stimulus Bill and the pork that was in it. I how many jobs this study in Connecticut saved or created!

Proposal #29 – Sell excess federal property – I don't get this one. Will this be similar to the garage sale that California had last year?

Proposal #32 – Cut Funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting - $500 million dollar savings by eliminating NPR is interesting especially with the rise of talk radio being slanted toward the Conservative thought process. Then again NPR is not suppose to be Left leaning but when one of their own voiced an opinion not of the Left he got fired then promptly hired making big dollars.

Proposal #39 – Apply the overhead savings Secretary Gates has promised to deficit reduction. Defense Secretary Gates goal is to create $100 billion over five years while the Commission only looks to save $28 billion. Then again that makes sense since all of these proposals are for 2015. I will admit I do not nor do I recall hearing about Defense Secretary Gates proposal.

Proposal #40 – Freeze federal salaries, bonuses, and other compensation for the civilian workforce at the Department of Defense for three years - $5.3 billion in savings and Proposal #41 – Freeze non-combat military pay at 2011 levels for 3 years - $9.2 billion. Why not freeze the compensation now? Why wait and allow Congress and/or the President to seek higher increases for these workers?

Proposal #51 – Reduce military personal stationed at overseas bases in Europe and Asia by one-third - $8.5 billion in savings. I'd argue let's reduce it further – say cut it in half. Then again we may need the extra forces in both areas if this new SALT Treaty is passed during the lame duck session.

Proposal #58 – Integrate children of military personnel into local schools in the United States - $1.1 billion in savings. I find this one a bit interesting since it would shift the burden onto the States or other localities where bases exists. I defer more to my military friends for additional information though.

For when it comes to tackling the tax code, I don't think the commission goes far enough. It would eliminate the AMT and some mortgage interest deductions. It is time for America to get serious about simplifying the tax code by implementing a flat tax and eliminating all tax credits. By proposing to eliminate all earmarks, it will be tax credits that will achieve similar ideals that earmarks do. While I agree with many this is a starting point, it will be interesting how things go forward. The 2010 mid-terms resulted in more Conservatives in office and they will have the task of putting up what they ran on.

 

 

Political Correctness has become “retarded”

I know that I already posted earlier today but I read this and just couldn't contain myself.

I am sorry but come on. Are we as a society really this sensitive? Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is reported to have commented during a liberal strategy session this past August that liberals planning to run attack ads on conservative Democrats for their stance on Health Care were "F…ing retarded." To which now Emanuel forces Emanuel to meeting with Special Olympics head Tim Shriver at the White House today to discuss the use of the word "retarded". Really, Emanuel needs to apologize for an offhand comment. All the man said is that it was "retarded" for Democrats to attack Democrats. Where is the harm in that?

The Republican Poster Child for Down Syndrome children, Sarah Palin, weighed in by writing on her Facebook page, "Rahm's slur on all God's children with cognitive and developmental disabilities – and the people who love them – is unacceptable, and it's heartbreaking." WHAT!!!!! Now I think Palin brings a fresh face and a nuance to politics that has been lacking but to blast Emanuel for the phrase "F...ing retarded" even I know that is a little too politically correct. What word or phrase is next? Just because someone states that an action is retarded, I am pretty certain they are not trying to equate to Down Syndrome children. Or perhaps I am just naïve. Thoughts….

Recovery Act: Success factors eased

The Associated Press is reporting that the White House has changed the metric to gauge success of the $787B Stimulus package passed earlier this year. The change is "no longer about counting a job as save or created; now it's a matter of counting jobs funded by stimulus" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34830451/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/). The determination of "funded by stimulus" is whether or not stimulus money is used to cover payroll and includes if the money was used for any bonuses or pay raises to keep employees. I thought Congress needed to pass the Recovery Act to ensure unemployment wouldn't top 8% and it would save or create 3.5 million jobs by year end. Unemployment is above 10%, higher in other areas of the country, and the White House claimed it saved or created 650,000 jobs but cannot accurate account for that figure.

Instead of admitting failure of the Recovery Act by the White House, the White House has changed the end zone. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said, "It is troubling that the administration is changing the rules and further inflating the Recovery Act's impact and masking the failure of the stimulus to product sustainable economic growth or real job creation" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34830451/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/). Tom Gavin, a spokesman for the White House Office of Management and Budget, said, "We are trying to make it as easy and simple for the funding recipients" (http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/11/news/economy/stimulus_job_counts/). The lack of accountability by the White House is alarming.

Does this make sense? Are we, as a society, to sit idly by and allow the White House to change the metrics to gauge the success of the Recovery Act? Or is this another veil attempt at the White House to mask a serious flaw in the Recovery Act? Why cannot White House admit failure of the Recovery Act based on the success factors originally set forth?

White House vs. Fox News: The insanity continues

Sen. Obama campaigned last year on the premise of Change, Hope, and bringing people together. The Nobel group awarded Obama with the Nobel Peace Prize, not for what he has done rather for what he stands for; Change, hope, and bringing people together. So why is it then that White House officials were on Sunday talk shows imploring other news outlets alienate Fox News? White House communications director Anita Dunn claimed Sunday that Fox News Channel is "opinion journalism masquerading as news".

David Axelrod, Obama's senior advisor, claimed on to George Stephanopoulos Sunday that Fox is "not a new organization" and added "other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way." The biggest target has been Glenn Beck as is evident by the ongoing fact check blog page on the White House home page. The White House declaration of war on Fox News smacks of the paranoia of the Nixon years. The catalyst of the attack on Fox News appears to be over "Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace's fact checking Tammy Duckworth this past August. Anita Dunn is aghast by the gull of Wallace to fact check since that is "something I've never seen a Sunday show do." The kicker in this tiff is that the White House never said the fact-checking that Wallace did was wrong; rather the White House is upset that Wallace did it in the first place.

Are we really living in an age where News channels cannot fact check anyone let alone an administration official? Although it does not surprise me because little fact checking was done by ABC, CNN, NBC, CBS, and MSNBC during the 2008 Presidential election. With unemployment over 10%, 2% points higher than the White House said would happen if the Stimulus Bill was passed, why isn't the White House focusing their efforts on job creation? Our economy, as many economists have warned, is on the brink of a second recession and need a stronger effort in job creation. The "war" on Fox News Channel is pathetic and smacks of Chicago politics which is something, I thought, Obama campaigned against. Rahm Emanuel, Chief of Staff for Obama, said Sunday on "Face the Nation" when asked about Fox News Channel, "It is not a news organization so much as it has a perspective."

Since Fox News Channel has a prospective that disqualifies them as a news channel? On the criteria alone it would eliminate all "news" channels. David Axelrod explained, on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday, that "The only argument Anita was making is that they're not really a news station. It's not just their commentators, but a lot of their news programming. It's really not news. It's pushing a point of view." I think that the White House is missing the mark here. Granted Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly posses a conservative tinge that is just three hours of Fox News Channel programming. As I have been home finding a new job I have had the luxury of being able to watch programming on several news channels. The programming during the day on Fox News is no different than CNN.

At the end of the day the White House is attempting to exert their power to control the media. The White House has the majority of news channels in their hip pocket while Fox News chooses to fact check them. What happened to journalism? Isn't the journalist supposed to question, investigate, and report the facts of the situation? While true journalism has been going the way of the dinosaur for years, it fell off the cliff last year during the Presidential election cycle. Fox News Channel is reporting the news and their news commenter's – Beck, Hannity, and O'Reilly – have a 1^st amendment right to question and fact check the White House while putting their conservative spin on it. If Americans are not intelligent enough to realize this, just as MSNBC & CNN put their liberal spin on the issue, it is not the job of the White House to wage a war on Fox News. Again, I thought Obama was going to come to Washington to be above petty politics and usher in a new era of transparency and bi-partisanship????

Fox News vs. White House: Sound Strategy?

Has the White House lost it? I mean, what do they hope to gain with their attack and continual denial of granting an interview with Fox News. This past Sunday White House Communications Director Anita Dunn commented about the rift between the White House and Fox News by saying, "What I think is fair to say about Fox – and certainly it's the way we view it – is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party. They take their talking points, put them on the air; take their opposition research, put them on the air. And that's fine. But let's not pretend they're a news network the way CNN is." Now I have been laid off since January and it has given me ample time to watch CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, CSPAN, and other channels that make the claim to be reporting the news. What I have learned is that not one of these channels, with the exception of CSPAN, is unbiased in the programming. I have watched conservative pundits, with the exception of The Morning Joe, removed from MSNBC in favor for more White House friendly pundits.

Regardless of the White House view of the Fox News network the numbers do not lie. According to http://tvbythenumbers.com/category/ratings/cable-news the numbers of viewers for October 12, 2009 were for the major news channels:

Total Day
FNC – 1,385,000 viewers
CNN – 458,000 viewers
MSNBC –335,000 viewers
CNBC – 182,000 viewers
HLN –314,000 viewers

Prime Time
FNC – 2,453,000viewers
CNN— 563,000 viewers
MSNBC –683,000 viewers
CNBC – a scratch w/112,000 viewers
HLN – 566,000 viewers

A few weeks back President Obama appeared on 5 Sunday morning shows and on David Letterman on Monday night. Not one appearance was on Fox News Channel. The goal of President Obama for his media blitz was to get his message out and debunk the myths and rumors being spread on his health care reform plans. One has to question the logic of the Obama Administration. Nielsen Rating data for the week ending October 11, 2009 for cable shows had The O'Reilly Factor Thursday show ranked 25^th. No other political talk show cracked the top 25.

With the ratings game going to Fox News and seemingly garnering the lion share of viewers, does it not make sense for Obama to appear on a channel that reaches the most number of people? Instead of granting the request of Fox News for interviews, the White House has starting using the daily blog to create a "Truth-O-Meter" to monitor lies said on Fox. Here is the statement on www.whitehouse.gov website: "For even more Fox lies, check out the latest "Truth-O-Meter" feature from Politifact that debunks a false claim about a White House staffer that continues to be repeated by Glenn Beck and others on the network."

Really, the White House is wasting their with pundits on Fox News Channel!! Wolf Blitzer last Sunday asked David Gergen on CNN about the White House's use of the blog strategy. David Gergen warned, "It's a risky strategy and it's not one that I would advcate. If you are going to get personal against the media you're going to find that the animosities are just going to deepen, and you're going to find that you are almost going to draw viewers to people you are attacking. You build them up is some ways, you give them stature." Bingo!!! Gergen hits the nail on the head with his assessment.

By singling out one media outlet as the White House is doing they are driving up their ratings and giving them legitimacy. Now the entire channel is not filled with pundits like Glenn Beck just as MSNBC is not riddled with pundits like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, or Rachel Maddow. Anita Dunn while on CNN's "Reliabe Sources" complained the coverage Fox News had during the Presidential compaign ignored stories like the "financial collapse" instead featured stories that focused on "a guy named Bill Ayers and something called ACORN."

Granted Bill Ayers has not blown anything up or killed any cops lately; however he still contends that he wished they, Weatherman Underground, had done more. ACORN has seen their funding stripped, Census activities revoked, and is in the middle of a video scandal involving giving advise to a pimp and prostitute on housing. The Pew Research Center (an independent, non-partisan public opinion research organization) tracked campaign stories during the 2008 Presidentail election. It found that Fox News showed 40% negative stories on Obama as well as 40% on Republican candidate Sen. McCain. Over at CNN the contrast was a 22-point difference with 39% negative stories on Obama and 61% negative stories on McCain. Then we have MSNBC that ran only 14% negative stories on Obama while running 73% negatiave stories on McCain.

Back to my original question: Has the White House lost it?

President Obama needs to be specific tonight on health care reform

Tonight at 7 P.M. CST President Obama will address a joint session of Congress in an attempt to guide them in developing a health care reform bill for him to sign into law. President Obama wanted Congress to pass health care reform before the August recess for good reason; the message on health care reform is no longer being controlled by the White House. The August recess allowed, those really concerned, to review the House bill and get an opportunity to participate in town hall meetings. While not every member of Congress held open forums, they did hold meetings of some sort to hear from constituents on the issue of health care. No one denies, okay maybe one person, that health care costs are growing out of control and reform is needed. The disagreement is how much reform is required to bend the cost curve downward.

The "Gang of Six" is trying to hammer out an idea. The Republicans have a proposal but are unable to get it out of committee or get it scored by the CBO. Republicans do not want to release the plan before it can be scored by the CBO which is politics. I have had the opportunity this summer to witness first hand a number of C-SPAN session of Congress and can attest to Republicans ideas are not given real consideration in committees. The Liberal Left members of the Democrat party have drawn the line in the sand that if reform does not include a public option then they will not vote for reform. The Conservative Right is dead set against the public option and it appears many "Blue" dog Democrats are as well. President Obama campaign on bringing people together; yet he cannot find common ground with members of Congress without creating uproar from the base of the Democrat party.

Thus far the President has touted that "if you like your health care you will be able to keep it." Unfortunately his rhetoric does not match what is being done in Congress which is not a bad thing since there is suppose to be separation of powers. Then again, it his party that is in power and one would think they'd be on the same page. The current HR 3200 bill penalizes companies if they do not offer insurance equal to what the public option will offer. A bit of hypocrisy presents itself here. People in general are happy with the coverage but are unhappy at the rising cost of being covered. Why do we need to penalize companies if people are happy with their insurance cover? Let's not confuse the issue though.

I find it interesting that during the campaign and after taking office President Obama looked to places like Canada and England health care systems as models his administration would emulate. Recently President Obama said, "I've said that the Canadian model works for Canada. It would not work for the United States, in part simply because we've evolved differently. So, we've got to develop a uniquely American approach to this problem" (NYtimes.com). A "uniquely American" approach does not restrict freedom of choice or look to the government for the answer; rather free market ideals are what make our current system a "Uniquely American" approach.

The trouble with the current system is that the free market concept of competition is confined by state borders. By deregulating the health care system to allow one in Minnesota to purchase health care coverage from an insurer in Arizona will increase competition thus reducing costs. If the primary goal is to reduce costs then why not start reforming health care by doing this? America's deficit is spiraling out of control and opening up competition does not cost taxpayers any money; Budget neutral!!!!!

Back in June I was challenged by one of my progressive friends to provide an outline for health care reform which I did in my blog entry, Outline of Health Care and Tax Reform, on June 10, 2009. I recognize that my idea of health care reform does not provide all the answers but it does provide a solid base of ideas that would be budget neutral. One aspect that I neglected in my blog entry back in June was to include tort reform. Without solid tort reform the cost curve will not trend downward.

I am hoping that tonight President Obama will lay out specific plans or changes to current bills of health care reform. The time for lofty rhetoric has past; the time for specific language is required. Without specifics the American public fears will only be heightened. According to Scott Rasmussen, "those opposed to Mr. Obama's reform appear to have momentum on their side. Polling last weekend showed that 48% of voters rate the U.S. health-care system as good or excellent. That's up from 35% in May and up from 29% a year ago. Only 19% now rate the system as poor, down from 37% a year ago. It appears that the prospect of changing health care has made the existing system look better to a lot of people" (Wall Street Journal).

The sliding poll numbers are even more reason why President Obama needs to get specific on health care reform and display how the reform will benefit all Americans. I am one of the 48M uninsured in America right now and it is by choice. Because unemployment is just a portion of my previous income level the cost of health care increases but not due to an increase in cost rather due to the decrease in income. Now there are options for health care coverage that is less expensive and affordable than COBRA or any of those offered in Minnesota but I cannot take advantage of that because the coverage is in another state. I look forward to the speech tonight and hope that President Obama can produce on his campaign promise for health care reform that allows those with coverage to keep their coverage for as long as they are employed at their current employer.

Big Pharma sweetheart deal: $80 billion for what??

This morning I opened my email to the regular spam, Facebook notifications, family and friend correspondence, and several from liberal and conservative sources. David Axelrod sent an email to me, probably millions of others, warning me of the “rumors and scare tactics” being engaged in by those disrupting town hall meetings. In fact, based on several media sources, only two town hall meetings in recent days have produced outbursts that led to arrests or injuries.

In David Axelrod’s a new online resource has been launched to combat conservative attempts to de-rail health care reform; Whitehouse.gov/realitycheck. Mr. Axelrod goes onto say, “We knew going into this effort that accomplishing comprehensive health insurance reform wasn’t going to be easy. Achieving real change never is. The entrenched interests that benefit from the status quo always use their influence in Washington to try and keep things just as they are.” The core of the White House plan is to establish a public option to drive costs down within the market and Mr. Axelrod is saying that “entrenched interests” are trying influence Washington.

Last week the White House announced a deal brokered with Big Pharma to cut $80 billion from future drug costs. Are we to assume or does the White House feel Americans are naïve to believe that Big Pharma receives no benefit from the deal struck? During George W. Bush’s time in office a similar deal was struck between the White House and Big Pharma in regards to Medicare. The goal of that deal was to lower drug prices; yet Big Pharma has enjoyed booming profits since that time.


As Robert Reich wrote yesterday on his blog, “Let me remind you: Any bonanza for the drug industry means higher health-care costs for the rest of us, which is one reason why critics of the emerging healthcare plans, including the Congressional Budget Office, are so worried about their failure to adequately stem future healthcare costs. To be sure, as part of its deal with the White House, Big Pharma apparently has promised to cut future drug costs by $80 billion. But neither the industry nor the White House nor any congressional committee has announced exactly where the $80 billion in savings will show up nor how this portion of the deal will be enforced. In any event, you can bet that the bonanza Big Pharma will reap far exceeds $80 billion. Otherwise, why would it have agreed?”


To add to the pot, Big Pharma is running ads on television and radio in support of the White House plan. Once again, do our politicians believe that Americans are naïve to believe that Big Pharma will not, as Robert Reich put it, “reap” the rewards of future profits far beyond the $80 billion plus advertising? Where is the transparency the president promised us? It is time for Americans to shed the cloak of apathy and step to the soapbox to let the voice be heard.

For those that read my blog that live in Minnesota here is a list of our representation in Washington. Find yours and call them. No matter which side of the aisle you fall on. We all agree that reform is needed but let’s make sure reform is done correctly and not rush things through. We do not need another entitlement program that will be broke in ten or twenty years.

Senators


Amy Klobuchar – 612-727-5220
Al Franken – 651-221-1016

Representatives


1st Congressional District – Timothy Walz – 507-206-0643
2nd Congressional District – John Kline – 952-808-1213
3rd Congressional District – Erik Paulsen – 952-405-8510
4th Congressional District – Betty McCollum – 651-224-9191
5th Congressional District – Keith Ellison – 612-522-1212
6th Congressional District – Michele Bachmann – 320-253-5931
7th Congressional District – Collin Peterson – 218-847-5056
8th Congressional District – James Oberstar – 218-727-7474


For those not residing in Minnesota you can obtain your Representative by going to http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml and clicking on your state. To obtain your Senators go to http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm.

Let your voice be heard. Do not give power to those in Congress by continuing down the path of political apathy. Change is a coming and it is time that Americans voice their thoughts. Opinionate, theorize, debate, and discuss like our Forefathers did. Those elected to Congress need to be reminded that they report to us the American citizen. The American citizen is their CEO.

ABC News: Unofficial spokesman of the White House

Abuse of the media is happening again. ABC announced that on June 24th they plan to turn over their news programming to President Obama and the White House to tout his health care plan. The one day infomercial will, as of today, be void of bipartisan discussion on the health care topic. According to a report on Drudge Report the agenda of the day will include:

“ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver World News form the Blue Room of the White House. The network plans a primetime special – ‘Prescription for America’ – originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.”

Now Republican National Committee Chief of Staff Ken McKay filed a complaint with the head of ABCNEWS on Monday night according the Drudge Report. Mr. McKay objects that “ABC News will air a primetime health care reform “town hall” at the White House with President Obama” which begs the question; How can one have a “town hall” meeting when all sides of the issue are not presented?

Simply put, one cannot!!! The abuse of power by President Obama is evident and borders on the manner in which Hugo Chavez controls the media in Venezuela. ABCNEWS Senior Vice President Kerry Smith responded yesterday to Mr. McKay’s objection by saying, “ABCNEWS alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the President. Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control. To suggest otherwise is quite unfair to both our journalists and our audience” according to Drudge Report.

VP Smith’s attempt to explain away the lack of ethical standards in programming falls short. In the past, and currently, many in Congress have pushed for programming to equate equal time to both liberal and conservative voices. Based on what has been reported by the Drudge Report and ABC’s programming website, I do not see where their programming on June 24, 2009 will be give equal time; rather yellow journalism is expanded.

We all agree that health care costs are skyrocketing and millions of people are without health care in the United States. I am open for reform, actually I have put an outline of change on the blog, but we cannot have reform dictated to us. The arrogance of President Obama and the Democrat party is pathetic. Why doesn’t ABC News take this opportunity to really get to the bottom of the President’s plan and any other plan that exist?

Rep. Paul Ryan from Wisconsin held a web discussion last week on health care and rolled out his plan for reform. Why doesn’t ABC News invite Rep. Ryan to the programming that day to present another plan and discuss the merits of both plans? Is it because ABC News doesn’t really have editorial control and it really resides with Linda Douglass who worked for ABC News form 1998-2006 and is now the Director of Communications at the White House Office of Health Reform. Coincidence that ABC News is turning a full day of news programming over to the White House; I think so.

My hope that during the infomercial on June 24 on ABC will bring to light the true nature of President Obama’s radical plan to nationalize health care and Americans will wake up to this realization. I will watch the programming of the day with an open mind. I understand many reading the blog will discount my last statement because of my stance on “single payer” or public option. I will be looking for ways the Government plan will create fail safes that prevent business from dropping health care from their benefit packages and how the public option will “mandate” doctors to accept the public option.

Democratic Principles eroding under the Obama Adminstration

Democracy is being challenged by the cloak of “Best interest of the United States”. Two alarming episodes playing out are the continual detaining of suspected terrorist and the message sent by Vice President Joe Biden. Granted the unending detaining of suspected terrorist subjects has been policy since 9-11, the thought that “change” was coming gave a glimmer of hope that America’s United States Constitution may regain its importance.

The President while campaigning for office set forth the notion of closing Gitmo detention center and to deal with those detained. The presumption was that all those housed in the facility would face trial and depending on the outcome would be either released or retained per court ruling. During the past week, President Obama and former Vice President Cheney have traded barbs on the issue of closing Gitmo and CIA memo results. Congress stripped out $80M that was to fund the closing of Gitmo due to no clear plan by the White House.

After the dueling speeches by Obama and Cheney, surrogates on all sides have laid out the plans going forward. One of the moves indicates that some detainees will be held “indefinitely” because they pose a threat to the United States even though proof, in the court of law, does not agree. The US Constitution protects the liberties of people accused of crimes from unnecessary punishment and a right to a speedy trial. Set aside the point that Bush has done the same thing as America voted for “change” in the last election cycle.

President Obama has proved, i.e. firing of CEO’s, that the US Constitution is a piece of paper worthy of nothing. It should not shock anyone that part of the plan for Gitmo detainees is to remand them indefinitely. The other affront to Democracy is being done through the message Vice President Biden is sent the Lebanon.

On Friday, Vice President Biden landed in Lebanon to carry the message that future US Aid to Lebanon hinged on the outcome of upcoming “Democratic” elections. Vice President Biden stated after a meeting with President Suleiman, “I do not come here to back any particular party or any particular person. I come here to back certain principles.” The United States has labeled Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.

Hezbollah has made inroads in recent elections by becoming an emerging force in the “Democratic” process. Hezbollah response to Vice President Biden’s statements is one of caution and “strong suspicion as to the real reason behind it”. Good or bad, if we are to stay true to our ideals of Democracy then the Obama Administration is not to dangle US Aid in front of the Lebonanese people in an effort to sway their vote.

Continuing the platform of “change” will lead America down the road of ruin and forever alter our liberties and pursuit of happiness within our own borders.

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.

Supreme Court Justice Hillary Clinton

Over the past few days I have extended the distance I take Mischka for a walk from 1.5 miles to 3 miles. Since Mischka is heeling without being reminded, the walk is a lot quieter. The peaceful walk, except for the occasional barking dog or car passing, has allotted my mind greater freedom to explore events, concepts, and ideas without interruption. During our walk on Wednesday my thoughts traveled back to the Democrat Primary and the ultimate selection of Sen. Obama as their nominee.

My focus was not on the eventual historic bid for the White House rather on rival that did not get tapped; Sen. Hillary Clinton. Many whom I talked with when Democrat nominee Obama tapped Sen. Joe Biden to be the tickets Vice President thought Obama made a poor decision. The misstep of Sen. Biden instead of tapping Sen. Clinton looked to be fatal then the Republican Party gave the Democrats a gift when they added Gov. Palin to the ticket.

The adding of Gov. Palin allowed the conversation of the non-appointment of Sen. Clinton to subside. Why is it that Sen. Obama did not choose Sen. Clinton to form the ultimate “Dream” ticket? Was it perhaps a larger picture was being painted? The bigger picture being painted is the Supreme Court.

On President Obama’s 100th day in office, Justice Souter notified the President of his intention to retire from the bench. The news stirred up the mass media as to what type of person President Obama ought to choose for the highest court in our land. Currently the Supreme Court has one female and one black with the remaining Justices being white males. The pressure on President Obama is to appoint a minority female to the bench.

President Obama has established a list of criteria that he will look for in the next Supreme Court Justice. The number one criteria being empathy while top Democrats are looking for President Obama to appoint a non-judge type. I believe that President Obama will appoint a female but it will not be a minority.

Thinking back to the primary and the fallout after Sen. Biden was tapped to be the Vice President instead of Sen. Clinton, perhaps the media missed the second great story to come from last year historic election season. It appeared that the Clinton’s were on the outside looking in as the Democrats pushed toward the White House but that was all a façade.

The ground was being laid to pave the way, if Democrat nominee Obama was elected, for Sen. Clinton’s appointment to the Supreme Court. Granted the right Justice had to step down as to make the choice of Sen. Clinton the right one. The next Supreme Court Justice will be Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The pondering point is if the President will offer up a sacrificial lamb prior to Secretary of State Clinton’s confirmation hearing.