The danger in those years [2011/2012] will be that Ben Bernanke will attempt yet again to refloat the U.S. economy through inflation, buying government debt to fund the deficit and forcing short term rates well below the inflation rate. This danger is exacerbated by the Obama administration’s insouciance about deficits. Ben Bernanke on his own (and his predecessor Alan Greenspan) bears a large share of responsibility for the 2008 crash, but the Bernanke/Obama combination is potentially even more dangerous. If expansionary monetary and fiscal policies are pursued regardless of market signals, the U.S. will head towards Weimar-style trillion-percent inflation. That would make the government’s position easier as its mountain of Treasury debt became worthless, but devastate everybody else’s savings and impoverish the American people as Weimar impoverished 1920s Germany.

As I said, a train wreck. Probability of arrival: close to 100%. Time of arrival: around the end of 2010, or possibly a bit earlier. And at this stage, there’s very little anyone can do about it; the definitive rise of gold above $1,000 marked the point of no return.

Add to this a few more things:
Next January, people will pay more in taxes than they have in years-at a time when most are worse off than they have been in years (ie w greater effect)
Unemployment is expected to remain high, and even rise MORE before midterms in 2010
Democrats blew their one chance at real economic stimulus on political payoffs, and will increasingly be held to account (it’s already started) for is failure to stimulate, create, or save jobs
Democrats losing independent voters
Democrats are incumbents controlling Congress in a midterm election where the party in power will normally lose
Democrats have accomplished very very little (might not even pass healthcare)
Democrats have pushed back deficit control efforts to 2010
Democrats have broken EVERY major 2006 campaign promise that got them control of Congress

…and then there’s natsec issues
Obama/Dems promised to end the war in Iraq, but just before midterms will still have 50-70,000 troops in Iraq (though re-named from “combat brigades” to “security, logistics, and training forces”)
There’s no way that Afghanistan is gonna end or end well in the next 11 months
Iran has been a complete failure and will likely end w an Israeli strike+possible regional war in the next 11 months
And let’s not even start to talk about how Dems will can’t look tough on natsec before the midterms w a KSM trial of the millenium on 24/7cable!

So….what is it Dems are gonna use as a campaign crutch in 2010?

Asserting that World Wrestling Entertainment has made illegal in-kind campaign contributions to the U.S. Senate campaign of its former CEO Linda McMahon, state Democratic party Chairwoman Nancy DiNardo filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission.

DiNardo says WWE staffers ordered YouTube to remove sexually-provocative WWE videos from its website after those videos became campaign fodder.

~~~

The videos, which depict simulated rape and necrophilia, were the subject of an Oct. 16 press release from state Democrats. Almost immediately after the political news website Talking Points Memo and other blogs published items about the videos, they were removed from YouTube.

“In sum, WWE has selectively enforced its rights only insofar as they benefit Ms. McMahon’s candidacy,” DiNardo’s complaint states. “The facts demonstrate that WWE made expenditures in connection with an election, in clear violation of FECA. WWE expended its corporate resources – including the time of Zimmerman and other corporate personnel, and its attorneys – all used in the service of Ms. McMahon’s campaign to force YouTube to remove only the videos that reflected poorly on Ms. McMahon, while ignoring the multitude of other WWE-owned material still hosted on YouTube.”

This coming from the man who out right lied on CNN about the help he gave to insurance giant AIG:

Senate Banking committee Chairman Christopher Dodd told CNN’s Dana Bash and Wolf Blitzer Wednesday that he was responsible for adding the bonus loophole into the stimulus package that permitted AIG and other companies that received bailout funds to pay bonuses.

On Tuesday, Dodd denied to CNN that he had anything to do with the adding of that provision.

And the same man who helped a criminal out in exchange for some reduced real-estate:

Senator Dodd appeared at a hearing on behalf of Edward Downe, Jr. in 1993 to help Downe obtain a reduced sentence for violations involving tax and securities laws. In 2001, Dodd ultimately helped Downe secure a full presidential pardon for his crimes on President Clinton’s last day in office bypassing the normal pardon vetting process. In 2002, Dodd allegedly received a significantly reduced, below-market sales price, for a two-thirds interest in a property located in County Galway, Ireland, from Downe’s associate, William Kessinger. (Dodd already owned a one-third interest in the property.) Downe’s signature appears on the property transfer documents. He is listed as a witness.

According to the complaint, Senator Dodd, Chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, allegedly failed to report the gift in 2002 and may have filed inaccurate Senate Financial Disclosure forms related to the property ever since, in violation of the 1978 Ethics in Government Act. The penalty for filing false financial disclosure forms is $50,000 and up to one year in prison.

“This seems a straight-up quid pro quo. Dodd helped his apparently crooked friend and seems to have received a cut-rate real estate deal on a property in Ireland in exchange. Moreover, it appears Dodd attempted to cover up the gift by failing to disclose it on his financial disclosure forms. To put it mildly, this type of behavior clearly does not reflect well on the United States Senate. We hope the Senate Ethics Committee does a thorough and speedy investigation. Federal prosecutors also need to take a look at this, as knowingly filing false financial forms is a crime,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

And now his party lackeys are upset because the WWE removed some videos from YouTube.

Classic hypocrisy.

Response from the McMahon campaign:

“It’s absolutely stunning to witness the faux indignation of Chris Dodd’s campaign machinery. These are the same people who, in March, sat by quietly as the Senator knowingly and deliberately misled the country when he vehemently insisted several times over to a CNN producer that he had absolutely nothing to do with sneaking in a bonus exemption for his contributor friends at AIG. We all know what happened with that.”

Healthcare for Christmas: Reid under pressure to slow down
-Turns out moderate Dems will not approve healthcare in Senate if there’s a public option

Whip count shows Democrats lack votes on ‘robust’ public option for healthcare
-Hmph…House Democrats don’t like the far left wingers public option either. Something about it being too expensive to give 300million people a min of $1mil in coverage ($30TRILLION). Who does math in Congress anymore anyways?

Abortion divides House Dems in health care debate
-Geesh, is there anything Democrats can agree on re healthcare? Oh yeah…it’s the Republicans fault somehow. That much they can agree on.

Two Democrats buck Rep. Towns, call for Countrywide probe
-Ask a Dem what caused the Great Recession, and they’ll tell you the DNC talking points (presented by NYT, DailyKOS, and MSNBC): Bush tax cuts for the wealthy investors and business leaders who create jobs, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They’ll ignore the entire Countrywide, homeloans, AIG mess, but….not all Dems will. They all know the reality, and some want it fixed.

Obama hints Afghan decision may wait
-At least on foreign policy the world loves us, right? Um, not so much. Seems the new strategy Obama started in March…in ain’t working. It’s been a few months since his generals in the field asked for more troops and equipment, and despite his promise to the VFW that he’d always provide…Obama’s still clueless on what to do/how to respond to the simplest question ever. Your general tells you he needs more troops and material or the war is lost. What do you do? You send the guy more troops and matl or you lose. Simple

Iran fails to accept UN uranium enrichment plan
-Damn, that open-hand opens a clenched fist thing sounded so cool too. Yeah, no one believed it for a second, but it sounded great….as great as all the other sizzle sans steak. Now what-just let Israel bomb Iran and start a regional or even world war? How will Keith Olbermann respond to a call for war in Iran based on alleged WMD threats and ties to terror? Will we get a countdown every night saying how many days it’s been since Obama threatened harsh sanctions? Please, stop laughing now people as even the Dems are frustrated w Obama’s incompetence here.

Dems face uphill climb on immigration reform
-Guess changing the subject from healthcare to foreign policy to immigration’s probably not a good idea

White House attacks worry moderate Democrats
-Man, you know you’re having a bad week when Democrats give you grief for complaining about FOX News!

The Dem eats Dem list goes on and on. Yeah, they’ll fill 24hrs on MSNBC w White House ordered distraction about how Republicans are to blame, but anyone who knows that the Dems have a supermajority and the WH and the House…those independent minds ain’t buying it. Dems are running the show, and Dems are fouling it up.

Have a GREAT weekend!

As President Obama met with Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow, who apparently belong to real news stations who don’t push a point of view, U.S Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) delivered a message to the President of the United States and the White House, Wednesday morning on the Senate floor:

Based upon that experience and my 40 years since then in and out of public life, I want to make what I hope will be taken as a friendly suggestion to President Obama and his White House, and it is this: Don’t create an enemies list.

As I was leaving the White House in 1970, Mr. Harlow was heading out on the campaign plane with Vice President Spiro Agnew, whose job was to vilify Democrats and to help elect Republicans. The Vice President had the help of talented young speechwriters, the late Bill Safire and Pat Buchanan. In Memphis, he called Albert Gore, Sr., the “southern regional chairman of the eastern liberal establishment,” and then the Vice President labeled the increasingly negative news media as “nattering nabobs of negativism.”

These phrases have become part of our political lore. They began playfully enough, in the back and forth of political election combat. But after I had come home to Tennessee, they escalated into something more. They eventually emerged into the Nixon’s enemies list.

In 1971, Chuck Colson, who was then a member of President Nixon’s staff and today is admired for his decades of selfless work in prison reform, presented to John Dean, the White House Counsel, a list of what he Dean called “persons known to be active in their opposition to our administration.” Mr. Dean said he thought the administration should “maximize our incumbency…[or] to put it more bluntly” — and I am using his quotes — “use the available Federal machinery to screw our political enemies.”

On Colson’s list of 20 people were CBS correspondent Dan Schorr, Washington Star columnist Mary McGrory, Leonard Woodcock, the head of the United Auto Workers, John Conyers, a Democratic Congressman from Michigan, Edwin Guthman, managing editor of the Los Angeles Times, and several prominent businessmen, such as Howard Stein of the Dreyfus Corporation, Arnold Picker, vice president of United Artists. The New York Times and the Washington Post were made out to be enemies of the Republic.

Make no mistake, politics was not such a gentlemanly affair in those days either. After Barry Goldwater won the Presidential nomination in 1964, Daniel Schorr had told CBS viewers that Goldwater had “travel[led] to Germany to join up with the right wing there” and “visit[ed] Hitler’s old stomping ground.” Schorr later corrected that on the air. What was different about Colson and Dean’s effort, though, was the open declaration of war upon anyone who seemed to disagree with administration policies. Colson later expanded his list to include hundreds of people, including Joe Namath, John Lennon, Carol Channing, Gregory Peck, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Congressional Black Caucus, Alabama Governor George Wallace. All this came out during the Watergate hearings. You could see an administration spiraling downwards, and, of course, we all know where that led.

The only reason I mention this is because I have an uneasy feeling only 10 months into this new administration that we are beginning to see the symptoms of this same kind of animus developing in the Obama administration.

According to Politico, the White House plans to “neuter the United States Chamber of Commerce,” an organization with members in almost every major community in America. The chamber had supported the President’s stimulus package and defended some of his early appointments, but has problems with his health care and climate change proposals.

The Department of Health and Human Services imposed a gag order on a large health care company, Humana, that had warned its Medicare Advantage customers that their benefits might be reduced in Democratic health care proposals — a piece of information that is perfectly true. This gag order was lifted only after the Republican leader, Senator McConnell of Kentucky, said he would block any future nominees to the Department until the matter was righted.

The White House communications director recently announced that the administration would treat a major television network, FOX News, as “part of the opposition.” On Sunday, White House officials were all over talk shows urging other news organizations to boycott Fox and not pick up any of its stories. Those stories, for example, would include the video that two amateur filmmakers made of ACORN representatives explaining how to open a brothel. That is a story other media managed to ignore until almost a week after Congress decided to cut ACORN’s funding.

The President himself has not stopped blaming banks and investment houses for the financial meltdown, even as it has become clear that Congress played a huge role, too, by encouraging Americans to borrow money for houses they could not afford. The President was “taking names” of bondholders who resisted the General Motors and Chrysler bailouts. Insurance companies, once allies of the Obama health care proposal, have suddenly become the source of all of its problems because they pointed out — again correctly — that if Congress taxes insurance premiums and restricts coverage to those who are sicker and older, the cost of premiums for millions of Americans is likely to go up instead of down. Because of that insubordination, the President and his allies have threatened to take away the insurance companies’ antitrust exemption.

Even those in Congress have found ourselves in the crosshairs. The assistant Republican leader, Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, said to ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that the stimulus plan wasn’t working. The White House wrote the Governor of Arizona and said: If you don’t want the money, we won’t send it. Senator McCain said this could be perceived as a threat to the people of Arizona.

Senator Bennett of Utah, Senator Collins, Senator Hutchison and I, as well as Democratic Senators Byrd and Feingold, all have questioned the number and power of 18 new White House czars who are not confirmed by the Senate. We have suggested this is a threat to constitutional checks and balances. The White House refused to send anyone to testify at congressional hearings.

Senator Bennett and I found ourselves “called out,” as they say, on the White House blog by the President’s communications director.

Even the President, in his address to Congress on health care, threatened to “call out” Members of Congress who disagree with him.

This behavior is typical of street brawls and political campaign consultants. It is a mistake for the President of the United States and for the White House staff. If the President and his top aides treat people with different views as enemies instead of listening to what they have to say, they are likely to end up with a narrow view and a feeling that the whole world is out to get them. And, as those of us who served in the Nixon administration know, that can get you into a lot of trouble.

This administration is only 10 months old. It is not too late to take a different approach, both at the White House and in Congress. And here is one opportunity: At the beginning of the year, shortly after the President’s inauguration, the Republican leader, Senator McConnell, addressed the National Press Club. He proposed that he and the President work together to make Social Security solvent.

Senator McConnell said he would make sure the President got more support in that effort from Republicans than President George W. Bush got from Democrats when he tried to solve the same problem.

President Obama held a summit on the dangers of runaway costs of entitlements. I was invited and attended. Every expert there said making Social Security solvent is essential to our country’s fiscal stability. There is still time to get that done.

Or on clean energy, Republicans have put forward four ideas — build 100 nuclear plants in 20 years, electrify half our cars and trucks in 20 years, explore offshore for low-carbon natural gas and for oil, and double energy research and development for alternative fuels. The administration agrees with this on electric cars and on research and development. We may not be so far apart on offshore exploration. At his town meeting in New Orleans last week, the President said the United States would be, in his words, “stupid” not to use nuclear power. He is right since nuclear power produces 70 percent of our carbon-free electricity.

So why don’t we work together on this lower cost way to address clean energy and climate change instead of enacting a national energy tax?

On health care, the White House idea of bipartisanship has been akin to that of a marksman at a State fair shooting gallery: hit one target and you win the prize. With such big Democratic majorities, the White House figures all it needs to do is unify the Democrats and pick off one or two Republicans. That strategy may win the prize but lose the country.

Usually on complex issues, the President needs bipartisan support in Congress to reassure and achieve broad and lasting support in the country.

In 1968, I can remember when President Johnson, then with bigger majorities in Congress than President Obama has today, arranged for the civil rights bill to be written in open sessions over several weeks in the office of the Republican leader, Everett Dirksen. Dirksen got some of the credit; Johnson got the legislation he wanted; the country went along with it. Instead of comprehensive health care that raises premiums and increases the debt, why should the White House not work with Republicans step by step to reduce health care costs and then, as we can afford it, reduce the number of Americans who do not have access to health care?

The President and his Education Secretary Arne Duncan have been courageous — there is no better word for it — in advocating paying teachers more for teaching well and expanding the number of charter schools. These ideas are the Holy Grail for school reform. They are also ideas that are anathema to the labor unions who support the President. President Obama’s advocacy of master teachers and charter schools could be the domestic equivalent of President Nixon going to China. I, among others, admire that advocacy and have been doing all I can to help him.

Having once been there, I can understand how those in the White House feel oppressed by those with whom they disagree; how they feel besieged by some of the media. I hope the current White House occupants will understand that this is nothing new in American politics — all the way back to the days when John Adams and Thomas Jefferson exchanged insults. The only thing new is today there are multiple media outlets reporting and encouraging the insults 24 hours a day.

As any veteran of the Nixon White House can attest, we have been down this road before, and it will not end well. An enemies list only denigrates the Presidency and the Republic itself.

Forty years ago, Bryce Harlow would say to me: Now, Lamar, remember that our job here is to push all the merely important issues out of the White House so the President can deal with a handful of issues that are truly Presidential. Then he would slip off for a private meeting in the Capitol with Democratic leaders who controlled the Congress and usually found a way to enact the President’s proposals.

Most successful leaders have eventually seen the wisdom of Lord Palmerston, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, who said:

We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies.

The British writer Edward Dicey was once introduced to President Lincoln as “one of his enemies.” “I did not know I had any enemies,” Lincoln answered. And Dicey later wrote: “I can still feel, as I write, the grip of that great bony hand held out to me in token of friendship.”

In conclusion, here is my point. These are unusually difficult times, with plenty of forces encouraging us to disagree. Let’s not start calling people out and compiling an enemies list. Let’s push the street brawling out of the White House and work together on the truly Presidential issues — creating jobs, reducing health care costs, reducing the debt, creating clean energy.

Not this one:

Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC) appears to be a decent and honorable man. Part of his background includes military service (with four sons currently serving). The truth czar’s impassioned outburst during President Obama’s healthcare speech may seem out of step with his character and his military discipline, but he vented/channeled what many frustrated Americans were shouting into their tv sets, while provoking a million-mob strong march to turn out in D.C.: You LIE.

Not only is former ambassador Joe Wilson a liar; but the current president of the United States is one, too.

Congressman Wilson broke decorum and the rules of civility with his outburst (not like Democrats didn’t do this during Bush’s speech). But he manned up and offered his apology (accepted by President Obama) while not backing down from the facts of the matter. If Democrats wish to press for a forced apology (not happening) for nothing more than political humiliation, then lets bring to the floor Charlie Rangel and his ethical transgress. Where was the disapproval resolution for Democrats who booed President Bush? Did Harry Reid ever pay through the nose for his comment about President Bush as a “loser” and a “liar“? Did the Pelosi vs. CIA embarrassment ever get resolved? Apparently not, since she’s still House Speaker.

Joe Wilson’s charge may have been improper, but it achieved positive results. (He could use your support).

What is most remarkable about President Obama’s speech last Wednesday (and again, since), was just how divisive it was; and how un-evolved from previous speeches. What bizarro world is it that talking heads live in when they ooh and aah the partisan campaign speech that was anything but presidential?

Status quo? Who’s advocating for that?

Republicans haven’t been offering alternative bills and solutions? Lies, spin, strawman, and more lies and spin.

Last Friday, September 11th, Investors Business Daily put out a brilliant piece as part of their Government-Run Healthcare: A Prescription For Failure series. Here, they dismantle piece by piece, some of the misinformation and spin in President Obama’s healthcare speech:

Speaking Of Misinformation

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, September 11, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Reform: Millions of Americans finally got to hear the Democrats’ pitch on health care reform, made by their top salesman. But they heard nothing new — just a lot of discredited myths recycled as the truth.

For the record, we support improving our health care system. As is, it has too many rules, too much government spending and too few market forces to keep costs low and quality high.

We spend north of $2 trillion every year on health care — 17% of our GDP, the most of any wealthy nation. If that sounds like a lot, remember this: An estimated 47% of that already is spent by the government. And government’s share will grow even without “reform.”

Look closely at the plans so far to emerge from Congress. What the Democrats have proposed, in essence, is a government takeover of nearly one-fifth of our nation’s economy. When brought up in Congress, this idea has been rejected repeatedly. Yet, somehow, the idea never dies.

That’s why the president’s speech Wednesday night was a big disappointment.

Rather than a breakthrough that would remove government’s stranglehold on a once-healthy market and move us toward true reform, we heard a lot of old bromides and myths — things we just can’t let go uncorrected. Too much is at stake.

So following are 15 of the biggest misconceptions — and there are many more, we assure you — that we found in the speech:

• “The uninsured . . . live every day just one accident or illness away from bankruptcy. These are not primarily people on welfare.”

Actually, of the 46 million people the census estimates don’t have insurance, some 20 million have incomes above average and could afford to buy it, according to a study by former Congressional Budget Office Director June O’Neill.

Of the remaining 26 million uninsured, an estimated 13.7 million are poor. They are eligible for Medicaid — the state health care programs for the poor. But many, too, are illegals — about 8 million.

Though they’re eligible, research from the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association suggests as many as 14 million uninsured Americans qualify for public coverage, but don’t enroll. And as many as 6 million are enrolled, but don’t report it to the government, according to the National Center for Policy Analysis.

That leaves about 5 million people with no care.

By the way, according to the Census Bureau, America now has 37 million people in poverty. But Medicaid enrollment covers 55 million people — at a cost of $350 billion a year.

Based on this, no one should be without care. Which leads us to wonder: Is nationalizing our health care system really necessary to take care of people who already have care available to them?

• “Many other Americans . . . are still denied insurance due to previous illnesses or conditions that insurance companies decide are too risky or expensive to cover.”

This statement betrays a profound ignorance of what insurance is. If you can buy insurance after you’ve gotten sick, it’s not really insurance, is it? And why have insurance at all? It’s an incentive to simply wait until you get sick, then make someone else pay for it.

To see how absurd this is, let’s take the same concept to auto insurance. Why not let people buy insurance after they get in an accident? One reason, of course, is it leads to fiscal and personal recklessness.

• “There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage . . . every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage.”

As noted above, the bulk of the 30-plus million uninsured actually can get coverage — and in many cases, qualify for existing government programs. But how about 14,000 Americans losing their coverage each day? A little math shows this is just a scare statistic.

Multiply it out, and it comes to 5.1 million people losing coverage in a year. Sound scary? Consider that, according to the census, 46.3 million Americans don’t currently have insurance — 600,000 more than last year. That means that, along with 14,000 Americans losing their coverage each day, another 12,400 Americans are signing up for it — even in the middle of a brutal recession.

Those who lose insurance do so usually because they’ve lost a job. Most are without insurance for a couple of months or so. The best way to boost the number of insured — and one that “costs” nothing — is to cut taxes, ease regulations and slash government spending. Those policies are all proven job creators.

• “We spend one-and-a-half times more per person on health care than any other country, but we aren’t any healthier for it.”

This is a non sequitur. We spend one and a half times more per person, true. But because our health care here is better. That’s right — better. True, our life expectancy of 78.1 years — which is up sharply from just a decade ago — ranks us 30th in the world in longevity. But look a little closer at the data.

The U.S. homicide rate is two to three times higher than in other industrial nations. And we drive a lot more than others, so our auto fatality rate of 14.24 deaths per 100,000 people is higher than in Germany (6.19), France (7.4) or Canada (9.25). Add to this, we eat far more than other countries on average, contributing to higher levels of heart disease, stroke, diabetes and cancer.

When all those factors are figured in, according to a recent study by Robert Ohsfeldt of Texas A&M and John Schneider of the University of Iowa, Americans actually live longer than people in other countries — thanks mainly to our excellent health care.

In case anyone missed it, Charles Krauthammer’s excellent piece regarding the myth of prevention as “cost effective”.

• Rising health care premiums are “why American businesses that compete internationally — like our automakers — are at a huge disadvantage.”

Well, right and wrong. Soaring health care premiums are a problem for some. But who’s to blame for this? Government health care programs, which make up 47% of all health care spending, are the biggest drivers of rising insurance premiums.

For example, Medicare forces doctors and hospitals to give patients 20% to 30% discounts on their care and drugs. Sounds great. But who pays for the “discount”? Private insurers, that’s who. And they pass it on to businesses. This is yet another case of government causing a problem, then blaming the victim.

Even so, in some industries health care premiums are an enormous problem and competitive liability. This is certainly true of the auto and steel industries. But they have no one to blame but themselves.

They gave gold-plated benefit packages to their unions during the fat times, and now that times are lean, want us — taxpayers — to make good on their extravagant promises.

This is why so many big businesses support nationalized health care. It bails them out of their own bad decisions — and by those imposed by government. Just last week a congressional oversight panel announced that taxpayers were unlikely to recoup much of the $81 billion they spent to bail out GM and Chrysler. That’s another indirect health care tax your children and grandchildren will have to pay.

• “Finally, our health care system is placing an unsustainable burden on taxpayers. . . . If we do nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs, we will eventually be spending more on Medicare and Medicaid than every other government program combined.”

Are we supposed to believe that adding more government will bring down government costs?

Medicare is already spending more than it is taking in through payroll taxes. Medicare trustees expect the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund part of the program to be insolvent by 2019. From now through 2017, it will need $342 billion of taxpayers’ money in order to keep paying hospital insurance benefits alone. Over the next 50 years or so, Medicare’s shortfall is expected to hit $37 trillion — an almost unbelievable deficit nearly three times our current GDP.

If Medicare has done one thing, it’s proved that government programs always cost more than their original projections. Citing the runaway costs of Medicare is an argument against, not for, further government intervention.

• “On the right, there are those who argue that we should end the employer-based system and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own. . . . I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn’t, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch.”

Discouraging employer-based coverage and encouraging individuals to buy their own insurance would help. But only if lawmakers make two real reforms, neither requiring a “new system from scratch.”

First, Washington must give tax credits for premiums paid on individual policies. That would make them more affordable for more people. Second, Washington has to make it easier for Americans to have health savings accounts. HSAs hold costs down because account holders self-ration treatment. They also give people more control over their health care.

• “Nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have.”

Shawn Tully, Fortune editor at large, dug into the legislation and found that for “Americans in large corporations, ‘keeping your own plan’ has a strict deadline. In five years, like it or not, you’ll get dumped into the exchange,” a government program in which heavily regulated private companies sell insurance policies.

Workers who buy their own insurance or begin coverage through small businesses will also be forced into the exchange if their plans change in any way, because it’s then considered a new plan. Since plans generally change policies every year, Tully says, “it’s likely that millions of employees will lose their plans in 12 months.”

According to a July study by the Lewin Group and the Heritage Foundation, health reform could cause as many as 88 million Americans to lose their private, employer-based coverage.

• “If you lose your job or change your job, you will be able to get coverage. If you strike out on your own and start a small business, you will be able to get coverage. We will do this by creating a new insurance exchange.”

The president says this is “a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices.” But it won’t be a real marketplace. Participating insurers will be saddled with a host of mandates. Those that don’t like the regulations will be left out. There’ll be little room for competition.

The Cato Institute’s Michael Tanner has said that “in practice, at least as demonstrated in Massachusetts,” an exchange “can quickly devolve into a regulatory body.”

• “Some of people’s concerns have grown out of bogus claims . . . The best example is . . . that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens. . . . It is a lie, plain and simple.”

As far as we know, there is no provision for a death panel buried in the 1,018-page bill. But we do know how Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the administration’s health care czar, feels about treating those who need the most help.

“When the worse-off can benefit only slightly while better-off people could benefit greatly, allocating (treatment) to the better-off is often justifiable.”

So the federal government won’t be actively killing the old and the sick. It will just let them die by denying them the care that will supposedly be available to every American.

• “There are those who also claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false — the reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.”

Tough words are one thing, enforcement is another. As IBD’s Sean Higgins reported last week: “Some independent analysis indicates — contrary to Obama’s claim — that the House health bill could result in coverage being extended to illegal immigrants.”

It starts with the mandate for everyone to buy insurance, including illegals. Their choices will be presumably through the “exchange,” and they won’t be eligible for subsidies to buy. But the non-partisan Congressional Research Service warns there’s no verification mechanism. An amendment by GOP Rep. Dean Heller of Nevada, to use electronic immigration records to verify eligibility for subsidies, was shot down by Democrats.

Enforcement woes are nothing new. The U.K.’s nationalized system treats as many as a million illegal immigrants a year because eligibility verification at the point of service is nearly impossible. It’s now giving up the ghost of trying because illegals have won the right to be treated at taxpayer expense as a “human right.” That’s brought new waves of “health tourism” as word spreads.

Cabinet officials, such as Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, support union demands to give amnesty to 12 million illegals. If so, they will get public health care. And hospitals that continue to treat illegals through emergency rooms, are reimbursed through Medicaid.

• “My health care proposal has also been attacked by some who oppose reform as a ‘government takeover’ of the entire health care system . . . Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75% of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. . . Without competition, the price of insurance goes up and the quality goes down.”

Obama is right about limited numbers of insurers in states. They’re the last ones able to survive the layers of bureaucratic mandates and regulations without going bankrupt.

The fastest way to create choice for consumers isn’t by adding a government option, but by breaking down trade barriers across state lines. By letting citizens buy insurance from any state, a truly competitive market can develop, with choices in coverage, service and price. It would be far better if each American could buy health insurance from any of the nation’s 1,300 insurers, not just a handful in their own states.

• “Despite all this, some . . . argue that these private (insurance) companies can’t fairly compete with the government. And they’d be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public option. But they won’t be. . . . (The public option) would . . . keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better . . .”

When the government acts as both producer and regulator of its own and everyone else’s products, the playing field is tilted because there’s a basic conflict of interest. It’s also a recipe for cronyism and corruption. Witness Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

We looked at the after-tax margins of some big health insurers over the last 12 months. Here’s what we found: Among HMOs, Humana, 3.1%. Cigna, 4%. Wellpoint, 5%. United Health Group, 4.4%. Broader health insurers, like Unum (8.6% after-tax margin) and AFLAC (12.3%), do a bit better.

The point is, these are not outrageous profits. And the health care industry’s $13 billion in 2008 profits pale in comparison to the $65 billion in annual fraud in Medicare alone.

• “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future. Period. And to prove that I’m serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised don’t materialize.”

From the folks who brought us a $10 trillion deficit over the next decade, that’s hard to swallow. The White House has assured us the public option would be funded by premiums. So, it’s hard to know what he means by savings or spending cuts.

Although Medicare and Medicaid, are slated for $313 billion in cuts, the government has yet to eliminate the $65 billion or so that goes to waste and fraud. They don’t need health reform to do that, they can do it now.

• “The only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud as well as unwarranted subsidies in Medicare that go to insurance companies — subsidies that do everything to pad their profits and nothing to improve your care.”

Speaking of waste and fraud, as we said, why can’t it be done today instead of waiting for some health care reform bill to pass? The president proposes $313 billion in Medicaid and Medicare cuts, saying $110 billion would come from reducing scheduled increases in Medicare payments.

“That would encourage health care providers to increase productivity,” White House budget director Peter Orszag told reporters. $110 billion would come from ending payments to hospitals to treat uninsured patients. But much of that comes from treating illegals, who aren’t supposed to be eligible for the public option.

Another $75 billion would come from “better pricing of Medicare drugs,” Orszag said.

What he doesn’t get is that some $10 billion of Medicare funding goes to dubious expenditures like hospitals padding bills because they are paid too little and must make up lost revenue in volume.

Cutting payments more means more padding, as the Mayo Clinic has warned. That means rationing. The Democrats’ plan may not be explicitly mean to ration, but not paying a fair and market-determined price for services will ensure less of it for patients.

President Obama began his speech by noting it’s “been nearly a century since Theodore Roosevelt first called for health reform” and that “nearly every president and Congress, whether Democrat or Republican, has attempted to meet this challenge in some way.”

“A bill for comprehensive care reform was first introduced by John Dingell Sr. in 1943,” he also pointed out. “Sixty-five years later, his son (Rep. John Dingell, Michigan Democrat now in his 28th term) continues to introduce that same bill at the beginning of each session.”

Could it be, we wonder, that the reason why health reform of the kind the Dingells and Democrats have been pushing for 100 years has gone nowhere is that Americans want nothing to do with it? What is it about “No!” that they don’t understand?

Does he see his own image reflected back at him from his telemprompter:

“But we’ve also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have towards their own government. Instead of honest debate, we’ve seen scare tactics. Some have dug into unyielding ideological camps that offer no hope of compromise. Too many have used this as an opportunity to score short-term political points, even if it robs the country of our opportunity to solve a long-term challenged. And out of this blizzard of charges and counter-charges, confusion has reigned.”

-President Barack Obama, “Remarks to a Joint Session of Congress on Health Care,” U.S. Capitol, Washington, D.C., September 9, 2009

That seriously could have been written at the president.

Now, how do I know that? Have I seen the speech? Have I spent the 3-day weekend listening to Churchill, Roosevelt, Kennedy, and re-reading the Gettysburg Address? Was I there were Herodocus debated with Namenicus on the floor of the Roman Senate? No, of course not, but the sheer magnitude and audacity of President Obama means that his speech can be nothing shy of a choir of angels. Thankfully, his one of the greatest orators in modern history, and easily the most inspiring teleprompter-reader of the 21st Century.

Think about it. Just two days before the anniversary of the 911 attacks, President Obama will address every American. The war in Afghanistan that the attacks set in motion is in trouble. Commanders in the field want more troops. Democrats, members of Obama’s own party who control Congress, say they will vote against more troops, and instead want an immediate, unilateral withdrawal, as well as an abandonment of our NATO allies and our Afghan allies. Obama’s Admin and the Pentagon have both seen that support for this troubled war is under 50% among the American people, and they worry about increased opposition to the war from….his own party? The Obama Admin and the Pentagon called for Americans to support the war in Afghanistan, and in response his own party demanded a retreat, and anti-war groups have scheduled protests for the G20 Summit in 2wks. Rather than take this moment in history, just 48hrs before the anniversary of the attacks, to try and build political and popular support for a war that is failing, Obama will talk about healthcare instead. Man, that’s bold. He somehow has calculated that the support from his own party, from the American people, and from the world will come because of nothing more than the eloquence of his address on healthcare.

This speech also comes after the worst Labor Day holiday ever. More Americans are unemployed now than at any time before on a Labor Day. The economy is still in the tank despite trillions of dollars in spending. The American people are furious at the out of control spending (as demonstrated by the Town Hall meetings and so-called Tea Parties and-more importantly-as shown in every poll. Independents and moderates from both parties are no longer supporting Obama and the Democrats because of this completely out of control spending; spending that is already 3x more than all the money ever spent by the Federal government COMBINED…..spending that almost 2yrs after the crisis began still has yet to have an effect on the average American. But, President Obama won’t be talking about the Great Recession. He’s calculated that his speech on healthcare will be so good, so full of awe that the independent swing voters and moderates from both parties will ignore the $2trillion accounting error from last week, the 10% of Americans who are unemployed (15-25% in many states), and the huge decline in both gross domestic product and tax revenues. President Obama thinks that his speech will be so inspiring that those Americans who are disheartened will come back, will support he and the Democratic Party even as they add MORE spending with yet another government program: healthcare. He feels he doesn’t need to address Congress and the nation about The Great Recession. That’s confidence. His speech must be fantastic.

Let’s not forget about Iran either. Iran’s been building nuclear bomb factories for the past two decades. No international pressure has ever even deterred them-not even direct talks with the Bush Administration in Baghdad. President Obama offered them an open hand, carrots, and diplomacy, and he set a deadline of September 24th (less than 2wks from now). Over the weekend Iran said that the Obama Admin was lying about nuclear WMD evidence, and that they were willing to have talks, but that the nuclear issue was not to be part of that. Israel has openly said that they’re just waiting for the United States to realize that diplomacy has failed, and then they’re going to bomb Iran. Iran has said if that happens, they’ll retaliate against Israel by shooting missiles over American forces in Iraq and the Persian Gulf, and that Iran’s terrorist allies/proxies will attack the United States. President Obama’s not going to talk about this threat of regional-even world war. Nope. President Obama has decided he doesn’t need to address Congress, the nation, and the world about this threat. His healthcare speech will be so good that the Iranians will stop their belligerence on their own, and they will be inspired towards peace by his healthcare speech in a way that a speech mentioning this very serious threat could never do.

Add to this the healthcare problem itself. Contrary to straw man rhetorical arguments most Americans want healthcare reform. C’mon, everyone has had to fight with an insurance company, rolled their eyes at bills, and we all fear the coverage as much as the disease or injury. However, 2/3’s of the American people do not want a single-payer, government option. The reasons vary, but they don’t want it. The far left extremists of Obama’s party say screw the will of the people, they want a government option, and eventually want a fully socialist healthcare system. 83 House Democrats have said they simply will not vote for any healthcare reform unless it has a government option and can be the first step towards a socialist system. Contrary to that 52 moderate House Democrats will not vote on any healthcare bill that does include a single-payer, government option. Oh, and another 23 House Democrats….yeah, they’re not happy with the healthcare reform bill in any event, so they’re already going to vote against it. Again, Obama’s coolness is astounding as he has somehow envisioned hat his speech tomorrow night will be so good, so moving, so perfect that the Democrats in the House will come together and form a healthcare plan that they can all agree on. (What about Republicans? Who cares-they’re not in power to even oppose let alone support a plan)

I for one can’t wait to see the President’s speech tomorrow night. He’s a great speaker. His task seems impossible, but surely a man doesn’t call a joint session of Congress, ask every major network to cancel their prime time programming to cover his speech, and ask the American people to view it without expecting it to accomplish something. Moreover, there is no something anymore. At this point…it’s all or nothing, and he’s probably not giving the speech for nothing. He’s going for it all.

This should be the greatest speech in the history of mankind.

Jim Geraghty:

Rep. Baron Hill (D., Ind.) cannot possibly be this big a jerk all the time. At a recent town hall, a young woman raised her hand and identified herself as a journalism student working on a school project who was told she could not videotape the event.

Student: Why can’t I film this, isn’t this my right?

Baron Hill: This is my town hall meeting, and I set the rules, and I’ve had these rules . . . (jeering) Let me repeat that one more time. This is my town hall meeting for you. And you’re not going to tell me how to run my Congressional office. Now, the reason why I don’t allow filming is that usually the films that are done end up on YouTube in a compromising position.

Here’s a clue: You’re in public office. By that very nature, you’re constantly held to scrutiny. How about not saying or doing anything that embarrasses you? Don’t put yourself in “compromising positions” and then blame others for exposing your behavior to a wider audience.

However, the far left wing of the Democratic Party controls the leadership in Congress. They want their socialized medicine. They want it bad. In the House of Representatives, 83 far left Democrats said they will not pass a healthcare reform bill that doesn’t have the single-payer/government option of socialized medicine. The House is also where Blue Dog Democrats blocked passage of a healthcare bill in August because their constituents didn’t want the single-payer option.

In the Senate, far left Democrats want their socialized medicine bigtime, but they waited too long. When Sen. Ted Kennedy was alive, Democrats had a big enough majority to override a filibuster from Republicans who do not want socialized medicine included in healthcare reform. Now that he’s dead, the Democrats won’t have enough votes to ram through a bill until his seat is filled with a Senator who will tow the party line against the will of the American people.

But even with all that, the real catch 22 is not whether to have or not to have a single-payer, socialized healthcare, government option. No, the real conundrum is how to pay for it. Democrats promised in 2006 to balance the budget, end pork spending by revealing names of Congressmen who put wasteful programs into bills, and to do pay-as-you-go spending. 3 yrs later, they have not. President Obama promised for 2 years that he could do his entire domestic agenda (TRILLIONS of dollars in new spending) just by cutting waste from the Federal Budget, but he’s already spent TRILLIONS while only trimming a few hundred million from the budget (a lot of money to be sure, but literally less than .1% of what is needed).

Democrats tell us that healthcare reform (even with a single-payer, government option) will pay for itself with the reduced costs of such a mammoth program, and by $500million in cuts to the Medicare program which is already underfunded, running out of money, and…they can’t/won’t say why they haven’t made those cuts already. Given all this, and the unprecedented spending that’s already been done by the Obama Administration, many people expect healthcare to be paid for by taxes.

Some have proposed adding the amount of money that a person’s insurance spends on healthcare to be added to their taxable income. This would raise people’s taxes. It would specifically raise taxes on the sickest people who-because they are the sickest-spend the most and need the most healthcare.

Others have proposed adding taxes to unhealthy things. A soda pop tax, more cigarette and tobacco taxes, even taxes on fast food have all been proposed as ways to pay for healthcare while making healthier lifestyles more attractive to Americans (thus reducing the cost of a single-payer, government option/socialized medicine).

And here is the real problem. Democrats usually describe themselves as liberal or progressive. Core to their belief is the idea that people should pay a progressive tax-the wealthiest people who gain the most by what America has to offer should pay the most. Additionally, progressives believe that people who gain the least from the United States, the poorest Americans, shouldn’t pay taxes since they’re not getting as much reward as the wealthy. Republicans, conservatives, and libertarians believe everyone should pay the same in taxes. We’re all equal. We should all be treated equally, and we all have an equal ability to succeed or fail depending on what we do ourselves rather than on what the nation gives us for free or in some sort of aid.

This weekend I was chatting with friends about progressive taxation, the tax ideas that might pay for a government option/socialized medicine, and I realized the hard choice for the Democrats. I suggested (for purposes of rhetorical debate) that every American should get have to get a physical every year, and at that physical their doctor would weigh them, assess their overall health, and sign a tax form. The form would tell the IRS how overweight and unhealthy people are. Then, at tax time, for every pound that a person was overweight, they should have to pay $1000 in taxes for the single-payer, government option/socialized medicine. This “Tummy Tax” idea was rejected by popular consent.

Friends preferred a tax on junk food to pay for healthcare. I called it a “Twinkie Tax.” This Twinkie Tax, however, is unfair by the rules of progressive taxation as it is an even tax for everyone rather than just the people who need it most. Not every Twinkie bought/sold/consumed leads to healthcare costs. Eaten in moderation with self-control, there’s no reason it should be a burden on a society’s health. Instead, the people who need the coverage the most are those who eat so many Twinkies, so much junk food, who smoke the most, etc, those are the people who benefit the most and should be taxed the most under the rules of progressive taxation. Now, some would argue that a small tax on Twinkies eaten in moderation is a moderate tax, but abusers of Twinkies pay more. The cost is not just small tax on a Twinkie. Americans who buy a Twinkie, work hard doing exercise and correct their diet for the Twinkie, those venerable hard workers do not deserve to be punished as much as the people who are gluttonous. They work hard for not just their money, but their health-health that costs.

In the United States we have a progressive tax structure with caveats. Alaskan Inuit-American fisherman get special tax breaks. Married couples and unmarried Americans pay different taxes. Still, for the most part the system is progressive. The top 1% pay almost 30% of the taxes. They are taxed more because (according to progressive Democrats) they benefit more from the nation. By that standard, the American people who are the sickest, who are hurt the worst, who are the fattest, laziest, weakest, these people will benefit the most from government healthcare, and they should pay the most. Anyone who wants to argue otherwise must accept that if we all should pay the SAME share instead of a “FAIR” share then there’s no reason a factory worker should pay less in taxes than the richest man in America, and there’s no reason that a single-parent living in a trailer park or ghetto shouldn’t pay the same amount in taxes as the President of the United States.

If Progressive Democrats want healthcare, they need to decide if they want a progressive tax to pay for it (the sickest, laziest, fattest, weakest, oldest Americans pay the most in taxes), or if they want a flat tax on everyone. It’s a choice between the Twinkie Tax and the Tummy Tax

My colleague Dana Bash and I have learned from a source, each one of us, that this White House right now is very quietly in serious conversations with Republican Senator Olympia Snowe, a key moderate.

She is basically the last Republican out of those gang of six senators who have been negotiating, really the last Republican that has an open line to this White House right now.

What we’re hearing that she’s talking about with White House staff is sort of a scaled-back bill that would focus on insurance reforms that both sides could agree to, but would not have a full public option, instead, would have a so-called trigger. What that means in layman’s terms is basically that the insurance companies would have a couple of years to make some dramatic changes.

If they do not make those changes, then a public option would be triggered. So, it would be used down the road. They would hope that this would appease liberals by saying it’s not completely off the table. And the big hope is that this could bring along another moderate Republican, like maybe Susan Collins of Maine, some conservative Democrats, like Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu in the Senate, who don’t want a public option, but would sort of potentially be open to a trigger like this.

Nancy is saying no way:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she is firmly committed to passing a comprehensive healthcare reform bill with a public insurance option despite signals from top White House aides that the president may forge another path to gain bipartisan approval. “We can’t pass a bill without a public option,” Pelosi told reporters after speaking at a healthcare event hosted by the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce in her home district.

Which means there is no coincidence that Obama will host the two nimrods of Congress just before his speech next week:

And I’m also told that next Tuesday afternoon, the president, the day before the speech, is going to host Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid here at the White House Tuesday afternoon to kind of run through the final details with them.

Yup…he will lay down his backdoor plan and they will go along with it. No question about it. But Karl at Protein Wisdom thinks there could be a silver lining in this new tactic:

Sen. Snowe has pushing the notion of a “public option with trigger” for months, and it has been the Left expressing dismay over the idea. True believers like Robert Reich say Snowe is fronting for Big Pharma and health insurers, with conditions that would be easily met by other pieces of the emerging legislation. Rahm Emanuel has been floating the trigger idea since January, again to the dismay of lefty groups like MoveOn. The left notes that congressional Republicans crafted a similar trigger for the Medicare prescription-drug benefit in 2003 — and it has never been triggered. For the left, the “public option” deferred is the “public option” denied.

However, it is a proposal that serves the administration’s interests. Pres. Obama reportedly would like not only to pass a takeover of health insurance based on an individual mandate, but also to get back some of the post-partisan image he had as a candidate. Some administration officials welcome a showdown with the left wing of the party to achieve these goals. The maneuver would also lure Blue Dog Democrats to the bill — and many Blue Dogs still expect to pass some healthcare reform bill.

This tactic carries its own measure of risks for the administration. The first risk is that the progressives continue to balk and refuse to vote for a final bill with a trigger. This seems unlikely, but most of them are from safe seats and plan to hold those seats long after the Obama presidency, so there could be some rebellion at the margin.

The second (and larger) risk is that a proposal designed to grab the center holds only a handful of votes. That is what happened in the dying days of HillaryCare in 1994. Those proposals never made it to any sort of vote.

The third risk is that whatever momentum is left for ObamaCare rests on the notion that politically, failure is not an option on healthcare reform. The theory that Democrats in swing districts are better off voting for an unpopular takeover of one-sixth of the economy has always seemed counter-intuitve. Now, Sean Trende has done a regression analysis of the 1994 midterm election showing that holding all other things equal, had Democrats gone ahead and passed HillaryCare, their losses likely would have been even greater than they were.

Myself, this is all a move by Obama to shore up his falling numbers. Like Bill Clinton, he will sway in the political wind, saying and doing whatever it takes to be liked. We knew the man had no convictions long before he was elected and this just proves it. Remember this?

And I think this will end up biting him in the ass. Moderates and independents are leaving his side, and if he back-peddles on the public option the left will start to leave also.

Either way, we cannot afford to let our guard down. These “triggers” will probably be so easy to trip that the public option will become a reality anyways…

White House officials are increasingly worried liberal, anti-war Democrats will demand a premature end to the Afghanistan war before President Barack Obama can show signs of progress in the eight-year conflict, according to senior administration sources.

These fears, which the officials have discussed on the condition of anonymity over the past few weeks, are rising fast after U.S. casualties hit record levels in July and August.

Read more: www.politico.com…

Gosh
Why would they fear that?

Overall, 46% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance. That’s the lowest level of total approval yet measured for Obama. Fifty-three percent (53%) now disapprove. Eighty-one percent (81%) of Democrats approve while 83% of Republicans disapprove. As for those not affiliated with either major party, 66% disapprove.

This is including one day after the canonization of Kennedy….no push upward from that embarrassing spectacle.

Patterico:

A savvy friend thinks 2010 will be a repeat of 1994. It’s obviously too early to say that, but these numbers can’t be encouraging for the Administration.

He’s not alone in that feeling:

Experts see double-digit Dem losses

After an August recess marked by raucous town halls, troubling polling data and widespread anecdotal evidence of a volatile electorate, the small universe of political analysts who closely follow House races is predicting moderate to heavy Democratic losses in 2010.

Some of the most prominent and respected handicappers can now envision an election in which Democrats suffer double-digit losses in the House — not enough to provide the 40 seats necessary to return the GOP to power but enough to put them within striking distance.

Top political analyst Charlie Cook, in a special August 20 update to subscribers, wrote that “the situation this summer has slipped completely out of control for President Obama and congressional Democrats.”

“Many veteran congressional election watchers, including Democratic ones, report an eerie sense of déjà vu, with a consensus forming that the chances of Democratic losses going higher than 20 seats is just as good as the chances of Democratic losses going lower than 20 seats,” he wrote.

Great news to hear and feel common sense coming back to politics after a surreal 2008 in which a mortal man was made out to be the new messiah and everyone….including Republicans believed it. While it’s heartening to see this kind of news we SHOULD NOT let up. Don’t take this as a sign that we can just now sit on our hands and skate through the next year. No….we have to be vocal and strong against the Socialist ideals being pushed on this country.

“You want it done, pass the bill. But they know it’s poisonous. They know the American people will not tolerate it.”

The Dems finally have the Congressional / White House tiger by the tail.

The question is, will they be able to keep control of it, or will it eat them?

Roll the tape:

2) Recognize, and admit the ugly truth, any healthcare program will have to be either unlimited in funding for people’s treatments, OR there will have to be a government group-just like the insurance companies have-that determines whether or not a 99yr old woman’s chemotherapy gets funded. Simple math tells us that if a single heart bypass can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and a lifetime of doctor visits adds up too, then averaging $1million per American (lowball) is not fiscally feasible. The Federal government cannot afford $300million-million dollars (ie 300TRILLION). The Congressional budget Office points this out, so do former President Clinton’s economic advisors and a long list of others. To make the plan “deficit neutral” it has to either limit coverage or bankrupt that nation down the road. The solution is to make coverage limited by duration like welfare is; 6 months of govt coverage, or 12, or 18, or even 24, but not 100yrs of free and unlimited medical coverage. The entire planet combined couldn’t afford that.

3) Take control of the healthcare plan. Senator Obama blew off his responsibility in making sure the TARP plan had safeguards; he just trusted Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chris Dodd, and Barney Frank. They played him hard. They told him it’d be ok, and rather than read it or study it or form a commission to study it…he said, “ok” and backed them at their word. When the stimulus came around, Mr Obama called for “shovel ready projects” then let go of the ball, tossed it to the same people that failed him on the TARP program’s protections, and they had a porkfest field day. These are the same people that forced Mr Obama to sign a budget that Senator Obama and others had packed with 9000 pork barrel projects…sign it behind closed doors after promising for 2 1/2 yrs not to do so. President Obama needs to take the healthcare reform ball BACK from the failed members of the Democrats’ Congress, and he and his administration need to write the bill. Passing the buck to Congress has proven to cost 2 bucks or more. If the bill will have his name on it, he shouldn’t just read it, he should have been there writing it.

4) Passing the healthcare reform bill is becoming a benchmark for future political power. Independents are the key. If Democrats continue to paint those who question or oppose infinite government spending as racists, loons, covert operatives, misled or misleading people, then they continue to ostracize the very people that put them in power, the people who no longer approve of Congress or the President, and the people who will decide the next election. Policy differences can be swept under the rug, but the sense of alienation, disenfranchisement, and a feeling of being attacked is not so easily forgotten. Rather, instead it is remembered, and historically it has made a difference at the polls.

Mr Obama was elected/convinced independents to vote for him on the idea that he would “end the divisive politics of old,” and now those very same tactics are being used against the very same people who put him there. The left’s “un-American” claims must stop, and the only way to disarm the right is to embrace them. Obama and Democrats need to unclinch their fist and offer an open hand to Republicans as they do the Iranians. Mr Obama should have immediately, and personally, and very strongly come out and publicly chastised Speaker Pelosi for calling opponents of healthcare “un-American.” His failure to do so is a passive embracing of those remarks. It is a sin of omission. The President needs to lead the nation, to unite the United States, and instead he’s playing partisan politics AGAINST the majority of Americans who are skeptical of the plan (Americans have been burned twice by Democrats’ trillion dollar spending-why trust em a third time in 6 months?)

5) President Obama needs his name taken off the healthcare reform issue. It’s been labeled by opponents and the media as Obamacare. Why? Because it’s not a plan that the nation put together, but a plan w his name on it, rushed into play for his political PR benefit, and he’s the one out there defending the plan that there’s no way he could have possibly read let alone written (there are currently FIVE bills averaging 1000 pages each, and if our President has time to read 5000 pages of healthcare reform, then something is wrong).

There way for President Obama to save healthcare reform is to stop the process, make government healthcare coverage a temporary coverage like welfare, set a flatline limit to the coverage person can get from the govt, and encourage them to have private insurance to cover the rest. Take the bill(s) away from a Congress that has screwed up several trillion dollar spending sprees of late, and instead form a commission at the White House where Republicans are represented so much that they have more political capital vested in passing reform than they do in blocking it. Taking the bill away from partisan hacks like Nancy Pelosi will help cool tempers that are nationally rising, and causing violence to stir. This bi-partisanship (if strong enough in sizzle and steak) will bring back independents and silence the right’s organized opposition.

There are of course 5 reasons that President Obama will not do this:

1) He won’t stop the rush to spend because to do so would be admitting a failure. Doing that would at the least give Press Secretary Gibbs a heartattack, and at most remind President Obama that his mandate is gone. Presidential ego (something all Presidents have and must have) prohibits or limits the potential for this humility.

2) Mr Obama can’t tell the American people that govt healthcare coverage is limited for several reasons. First, it would frustrate his political base, and while 9/10 times they’re content to give him a free pass, he’s broken so many campaign promises, and so many hopes (see also no change in Iraq strategy, closing Gitmo, etc) that he’s closing in on that scary 10th broken promise. When it comes, and he starts to lose his base, he will be in the George Bush approval rating zone. Second, if he admits that there’s just not enough money in the world to give everyone unlimited coverage, then he’s admitting that his political rival, Sarah Palin, was right, and there will be a Democrat or commission of Democrats deciding who gets treated, who does not get treated, who lives, and who dies. Third, ego. The President has just staked too much personal clout on the idea that he can give the lowliest trailer park pizza boy the same medical coverage that the President’s daughters will get. Break that promise, and people will ask, “What’s the point? Pay for limited govt insurance via fine/fee or pay for private insurance?”

3) President Obama cannot take control of the healthcare plan away from the Democrats’ Congress because he is clueless on writing bills-let alone multi-trillion dollar bills. As a Senator, he was away campaigning most of the time, and he never wrote-let alone passed-a major bill or reform. He just has no experience doing it. Moreover, if he takes it away from the Democrats’ Congress, then he risks widening a rift that’s already appearing in the party; a rift between Blue Dog Democrats who need to listen to their constituents or they lose their jobs and Democrats lose their supermajority/unchecked power and the partisan Democrats who control the committees and the chambers (albeit with no accomplishments in the past 3yrs). If he takes the bill away from Congress, he might split the party, lose control of one or both houses next year, and become an impotent, lame duck President with approval ratings already falling at a rate faster than even George W Bush’s.

4) Making the healthcare reform effort a bi-partisan one, requires President Obama to silence the right by embracing them while silencing a vengeful left. If anyone can do that, President Obama’s the man, but his track record as a President has always been to bow down and/or bend over to the left’s wishes. Can he go against their 8yrs of salivating want for vengeance and tell them to “end the divisive politics of old”? The answer is no. He’s tried this since he won the nomination, and his followers don’t follow. More and more, people see him as a leader by rank and responsibility rather than by example.

5) Everything adds up to this: can President Obama stomach taking his name off healthcare reform? Forget the politics of it. Does the man really want to get SOMETHING done, or does he want an accomplishment with his name on it (something he’s never had before other than being the first black man elected President)? There’s nothing in his history that shows he really wants to get something done for the sake of getting something done. Sure, he’s claimed it ad nauseum, but what’s he done just to get done? What has he worked hand in hand with the right on to get accomplished? What can he direct independents to look at and say, “See, THIS is how I can bring people together, how I can unite the United States and get things done for all Americans-not just the 20-30% who follow me without question regardless of what I do, but for all Americans.”

Healthcare is failing.
The majority of Americans do no support it right now.
The problem is that independents don’t trust Democrats’ and Obama’s spending anymore (according to polls).
No independents means Obama has a choice: ram healthcare through and lose power in 14months, or abandon the partisan healthcare plans, reboot with so much Republican involvement that they had more vested in passing it than opposing it, and actually get something done…albeit without his name on it.

Failure is in the air.

Will Mr Obama respond w full quotes and citations?
Will he even read the bill?
Will he just try the general rhetoric road that continues to fail in stopping the loss of support for the Democrats’ plan?

Yesterday President Obama responded to my statement that Democratic health care proposals would lead to rationed care; that the sick, the elderly, and the disabled would suffer the most under such rationing; and that under such a system these “unproductive” members of society could face the prospect of government bureaucrats determining whether they deserve health care.

The President made light of these concerns. He said:

“Let me just be specific about some things that I’ve been hearing lately that we just need to dispose of here. The rumor that’s been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for death panels that will basically pull the plug on grandma because we’ve decided that we don’t, it’s too expensive to let her live anymore….It turns out that I guess this arose out of a provision in one of the House bills that allowed Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about end-of-life care, setting up living wills, the availability of hospice, etc. So the intention of the members of Congress was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they’re ready on their own terms. It wasn’t forcing anybody to do anything.” [1]

The provision that President Obama refers to is Section 1233 of HR 3200, entitled “Advance Care Planning Consultation.” [2] With all due respect, it’s misleading for the President to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients. The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context.

Section 1233 authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years, and more often “if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual … or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility… or a hospice program.” [3] During those consultations, practitioners must explain “the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice,” and the government benefits available to pay for such services. [4]

Now put this in context. These consultations are authorized whenever a Medicare recipient’s health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home, and they are part of a bill whose stated purpose is “to reduce the growth in health care spending.” [5] Is it any wonder that senior citizens might view such consultations as attempts to convince them to help reduce health care costs by accepting minimal end-of-life care? As Charles Lane notes in the Washington Post, Section 1233 “addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones…. If it’s all about alleviating suffering, emotional or physical, what’s it doing in a measure to “bend the curve” on health-care costs?” [6]

As Lane also points out:

Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren’t quite “purely voluntary,” as Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) asserts. To me, “purely voluntary” means “not unless the patient requests one.” Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive — money — to do so. Indeed, that’s an incentive to insist.

Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they’re in the meeting, the bill does permit “formulation” of a plug-pulling order right then and there. So when Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) denies that Section 1233 would “place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign,” I don’t think he’s being realistic. [7]

Even columnist Eugene Robinson, a self-described “true believer” who “will almost certainly support” “whatever reform package finally emerges”, agrees that “If the government says it has to control health-care costs and then offers to pay doctors to give advice about hospice care, citizens are not delusional to conclude that the goal is to reduce end-of-life spending.” [8]

So are these usually friendly pundits wrong? Is this all just a “rumor” to be “disposed of”, as President Obama says? Not according to Democratic New York State Senator Ruben Diaz, Chairman of the New York State Senate Aging Committee, who writes:

Section 1233 of House Resolution 3200 puts our senior citizens on a slippery slope and may diminish respect for the inherent dignity of each of their lives…. It is egregious to consider that any senior citizen … should be placed in a situation where he or she would feel pressured to save the government money by dying a little sooner than he or she otherwise would, be required to be counseled about the supposed benefits of killing oneself, or be encouraged to sign any end of life directives that they would not otherwise sign. [9]

Of course, it’s not just this one provision that presents a problem. My original comments concerned statements made by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor to President Obama and the brother of the President’s chief of staff. Dr. Emanuel has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens….An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.” [10] Dr. Emanuel has also advocated basing medical decisions on a system which “produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.” [11]

President Obama can try to gloss over the effects of government authorized end-of-life consultations, but the views of one of his top health care advisors are clear enough. It’s all just more evidence that the Democratic legislative proposals will lead to health care rationing, and more evidence that the top-down plans of government bureaucrats will never result in real health care reform.

[1] See http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/08/president-obama-addresses-sarah-palin-death-panels-wild-representations.html.
[2] See http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
[3] See HR 3200 sec. 1233 (hhh)(1); Sec. 1233 (hhh)(3)(B)(1), above.
[4] See HR 3200 sec. 1233 (hhh)(1)(E), above.
[5] See http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
[6] See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/07/AR2009080703043.html].
[7] Id.
[8] See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/10/AR2009081002455.html].
[9] See http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/letter-congressman-henry-waxman-re-section-1233-hr-3200.
[10] See http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/Where_Civic_Republicanism_and_Deliberative_Democracy_Meet.pdf
[11] See http://www.scribd.com/doc/18280675/Principles-for-Allocation-of-Scarce-Medical-Interventions.

h/t – Joe Dan Gorman at Political Abacus