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!

And I pledge that America will always stand with those who stand up for their dignity and their rights, for the student who seeks to learn, the voter who demands to be heard, the innocent who longs to be free, the oppressed who yearns to be equal.

I’d say the Iranians and the Hondurans had to be rolling on the floor in hysterical laughter at that one…

So in Obama’s “just words”, he doesn’t meddles … or maybe he does… if is politically expedient. And proof in the pudding is a White House, now exercising the backroom bully pulpit over Massachussetts laws, and New York gubernatorial races.

As FA reader, Leo Shishmanian, pointed out in his August 21st Reader Post, even prior to his passing, Kennedy was busy trying to overturn MA law for Congressional appointees that the Lion, himself, put into place to thwart any attempt by then Republican Gov. Mitt Romney to seat a Republican for any vacated seat. When the shoe was on the left foot, however, and Kennedy was facing his own inevitable mortality, that law didn’t look so good.

As AP writer, Glenn Johnson, points out today in the SeattlePI, the liberal dominated MA state legislature passed a controversial law… with many dissenting Democrats… that enabled Dem Gov. Deval Patrick to appoint an interim replacement for Kennedy’s Senate seat.

Since MA law requires 90 days to take effect, Patrick usurped the Constitutional waiting period, and made the appointment by signing a letter that declared the bill emergency legislation. Emergency for the Democrat Congress, perhaps… they sure need that 60th supermajority vote.

But of course the GOP cried foul, and filed a law suit… which was promptly rejected by Massachussetts Suffolk Superior Court Judge Thomas Connolly. Additionally, he granted the State’s defense motion to dismiss the suit entirely.

“The (Republican) Party has not shown that it has a chance to succeed on the merits and, therefore, any risk of harm to the party will not outweigh the risk of harm to the governor and the commonwealth,” Connolly wrote in his decision.

The GOP did not immediately say if it would appeal. Instead, it issued a statement saying the governor’s action – and its fight – should convince voters of the need to restore partisan balance in the state. Only 21 Republicans are in the 200-member Legislature.

“It is up to the voters of Massachusetts to finally decide enough is enough and to refuse to re-elect the entrenched incumbents responsible for raising our taxes in the middle of a recession, turning a blind eye to public corruption and manipulating the law to keep their grip on power,” said GOP Chairwoman Jennifer Nassour.

~~~

Legislative Republicans, as well as a host of Democrats, objected to the change, and after it was approved, they defeated a separate request to attach an emergency preamble to the bill. Patrick added the emergency preamble to the bill just moments before he named Kirk, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, to succeed Kennedy.

“The governor’s power to declare an emergency is not absolute,” attorney James O’Brien argued on behalf of the Republicans. “By granting the governor the power to appoint by way of an unconstitutional maneuver, this establishes a dangerous precedent.”

Connolly sounded a skeptical note, foreshadowing his eventual decision, by asking O’Brien to define the irreparable harm the party would suffer – one requirement for granting an injunction.

“The net effect of the motion is that the commonwealth would not have two senators in Washington for 90 days?” Connolly asked O’Brien.

“That is correct,” the attorney replied.

“How does that affect the Massachusetts Republican Party?” the judge asked.

O’Brien said the irreparable harm was the abuse of the constitutional process by allowing one person – the governor – to supersede the authority of the Legislature.

Internal battle, we would assume, yes? Wrong. Apparently the White House was pressuring the Massachusetts lawmakers to get this bill thru, and a Democrat into the halls of Congress forthwith. In an offhand sentence in the third paragraph was this…

President Barack Obama and his staff lobbied for the change as they try to win approval this year for their top legislative priority, overhauling the nation’s health care system.

But the quest for power by the Obama WH isn’t confined only to influencing state legislation, crafted to enable his party’s rigor mortis hold on absolute power. This POTUS is actively engaged in dissing not only one of his own Democrat Governors, but one of the few minority Governors in power…. New York Governor David Paterson.

Gov. David A. Paterson defiantly vowed to run for election next year despite the White House‘s urging that he withdraw from the New York governor’s race.

Appearing tired and agitated at a parade in Harlem on Sunday, the governor told a crowd of reporters that he would not abandon his campaign to seek a full term.

“I have said time and time again that I am running for governor next year,” he said at the 40th annual African-American Day Parade.

Mr. Paterson would not characterize what he was told by the White House, saying that he would not “discuss confidential conversations.”

“I’m not talking about any specific conversations,” he said. “As I said, I am running for office.”

President Obama had sent a request to Mr. Paterson that he withdraw from the New York governor’s race, fearing that Mr. Paterson cannot recover from his dismal political standing, according to two senior administration officials and a New York Democratic operative with direct knowledge of the situation.

The decision to ask Mr. Paterson to step aside was proposed by political advisers to Mr. Obama, but approved by the president himself, one of the administration officials said.

Realizing this type of intrapolitical bully tactics doesn’t look good, the WH started their dance of denial within 24 hours.

The Obama administration on Sunday flatly denied that the president intervened in New York state politics and urged Gov. David Paterson to withdraw from the 2010 governor’s race.

“President Obama is not involved in any way,” a senior administration official told FOX News.

The pushback came after The New York Times reported that Obama asked Paterson, a Democrat, to drop out over concern that he is damaged goods, politically, and could drag down other Democrats in the state. The Times quoted administration officials as saying the president’s request was conveyed to Paterson by Queens Democratic Rep. Gregory Meeks.

But while the administration denied any presidential interference Sunday, the senior official confirmed that White House officials are, at the least, concerned about Paterson’s ability to survive in office — suggesting high-level conversations with Paterson have taken place.

~~~

“Nobody asked him to get out of the race — it is Governor Paterson’s decision to make. We’re confident he’ll make the decision based on the best interests of the state,” the official said.

According to two senior New York Democratic advisers who spoke to The Associated Press, national Democratic Party leaders were the ones who urged Paterson to contemplate dropping out.

Really? Again with this “it’s not my fault” POTUS legacy, the scapegoats vie for the honor of their heads on the chopping block. The only problem is, three days later, it turns out that even Governor Paterson’s wife, is pretty incensed at Obama’s political treachery…. with NY’s First Lady, Michelle Paige Paterson, telling Obama to butt out.

Today, in a series of interview with the Big Apple’s panting news media, New York’s First Lady Michelle Paige Paterson said it was wrong for the White House to get involved.
“David’s the first African American governor in the state of New York and he’s being asked to get out of the race. It’s very unusual and it seems very unfair,” she told the New York Post. “I never heard of a president asking a governor not to run … I don’t think it’s right.”

During a trip to upstate New York on Monday, President Obama told Paterson, according to Michelle Paterson, that he was “a little chagrined about how the White House handled the message.”

I see… so Obama’s not upset about the message and meddling… just the method of delivery.

The overt actions by this sitting President for absolute, unmitigated power… even over the State’s, which he seeks to further usurp and castrate with a healthcare public option… is nothing short of breathtaking.

And perhaps the only thing more jaw dropping than watching this happen with little fanfare is the casual acceptance of these back to back power grabs by a complacent media and prozac-riddled nation of citizens.

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.

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

The Obama administration told a judge late Monday that it will continue to withhold information regarding past detainee policies for national security reasons, a decision assailed by the American Civil Liberties Union, which had been seeking Bush-era documents “including a presidential directive authorizing CIA ‘black sites,’” CIA inspector general records, Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel documents about the CIA’s use of “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

In the ACLU’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuits, U.S. District Court Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the Southern District of New York had ordered the Obama administration to either turn over various documents pertaining to detainee policies by August 31 or provide justification for withholding them.

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?

A few weeks later, when the distraction had faded and poll numbers were sagging again, the Obama Admin tried to suggest that “torture” had been going on without the informed consent of Congress. The problem there was that Congress HAD been informed, and CIA Director Leon Panetta was compelled to release documents showing that Congress had been informed. This put the Speaker of the House in an awkward position, and she handled it poorly.

She tried the torture-distraction-tactic as well by claiming that there were other CIA programs that were illegal, that she had no knowledge of, and that were criminal. Again, CIA Director Panetta was forced to reveal that no, the programs she referred to were not illegal. He tried to claim that it was just a miscommunication and misunderstanding on the Speaker’s part, but she had lost face, argued she understood perfectly, and Panetta had to fall on his sword by claiming he’d screwed up and falsely reported the existence of these illegal programs.

Well, it’s that time of year again. The President and the Democrats’ Congress have sagging approval ratings, SO!!!!!!! Let’s talk torture! Obama’s Department of Justice has re-reviewed some of the already investigated allegations of torture, and decided to re-open some of the cases that had been closed. Will the torture-distraction-tactic work again? Probably not.

There are multiple problems with investigating closed cases from a previous Administration, but the core problem is that there is no statute of limitations on how far back such allegations can be re-opened and re-investigated. Using the exact same argument that’s being used to re-open these allegations of “torture,” the DOJ may be required to pursue standing orders, techniques, and policies that pre-date the Bush Administration. Moreover, if they are re-opening past allegations of “torture”, then when the same or similar tactics and techniques are used today by the Obama Administration, then the DOJ is even more compelled than usual to investigate the Obama Administration OR face a Special Prosecutor. The latter is not likely if Democrats hold control of Congress, but that’s not likely either. If Republicans take even one House of Congress in 14 months, then they very well could have a case for impeachment on their hands-impeachment of President Obama on charges that he authorized the same or similar “torture” and extraordinary rendition of prisoners to other countries FOR torture as did his predecessors Bush and Clinton.

More specifically, if the Obama DOJ investigates the Bush Admin for conducting extraordinary renditions (sending prisoners to other countries so the other country can torture them on our behalf), then the Obama Admin will have to explain why IT TOO is even now conducting extraordinary renditions. It will have to explain why the CIA Director, Leon Panetta, claims to have personally arranged renditions himself when he was President Clinton’s Chief of Staff. President Clinton’s Counterterrorism Czar, Richard Clarke, will have to testify to the extraordinary renditions he admits he personally authorized.

Many on the left will find vigor and woohoo in the idea of possibly prosecuting anyone who had anything to do with the Bush Administration. This is ALWAYS an effective way for Team Obama and the Democrats’ Congresss to refire their base.
Good luck with that this time though. While falling poll numbers are partially the result of an increasingly apathetic and frustrated base, the real problem is the independent-minded swing voter who was promised good things in 2006, and again in 2008, and has yet to see any of the big promises fulfilled.

Besides, Bush and Cheney are surely protected, and just going after them or anyone in their administration open’s a Pandora’s Box of problems for Obama and the Democrats. It’s not like some Republican Congressman from Podunk, USA isn’t going to go on TV and immediately ask pundits, “Why just go after people who did this in the Bush Administration? Why not go after those in the Clinton and Obama Administrations who are doing it even today?”

This problem is made worse by the very real possibility that Republicans will take one or both Houses of Congress next year, and they will steer the investigations towards THEIR political ends rather than towards Obama’s.

Democrats’ face:
Losing Congress for the same reasons they took Congress in 2006
If they lose Congress, Obama becomes a lame duck and goodbye CHANGE

Say it with me,

President Biden, please raise your right and and repeat after me.
Do you solemnly swear…..

UPDATE:
Recall earlier that I said the DOJ would have to appoint a special prosecutor. They’re doing it. Now, if Repubs re-take at least one House of Congress, and this Special Prosecutor hasn’t made a case there can be almost NO DOUBT that Republicans will demand/force the investigation to re-examine Clinton and Obama records on rendition and torture (read the link, and see that some Repubs are already pointing the fingers at Dems as well).

This is a political doomsday bomb in the making if not quelled soon. Obama has GOT to stop letting Rahm Emanuel play politics w national security. It only re-ignites the DNC base for a few days, and each time this little game has been played by the Obama Admin, the Dems have been seriously wounded by the consequences.

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.

The arrogant, elitist response of the Congressman to one of his constituents clearly demonstrates his mindset in regard to his office and the people who elected him to serve.

This sort of arrogance and “in your face” attitude is doing nothing to dissuade the opponents of ObamaCare. It only strengthens their resolve and determination.

Upon hearing of the successful attack on Pearl Harbor, Japanese Admiral Yamamoto said:

“I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant, and fill him with a terrible resolve”

I wonder if that is what Congress has done with the health care issue. Have they wakened the sleeping giant? There is only so much the American people will weather without pushing back.

Is the response we have seen to the bailouts, the stimulus, the budget, the out of control spending, and now health care an indication that we have reached that that point?

How much more can the incumbents do before the scales are tipped irrevocably against them?

How quickly will “We the People” forget the insults, the derision, and the invasions and affronts to our Liberty and Freedom?

Congressman Scott has a lot to learn about the American People.

Roll the tape:

“

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday ramped up her criticism of insurance companies, accusing them of unethical behavior and working to kill a plan to create a new government-run health plan.

“It’s almost immoral what they are doing,” Pelosi said to reporters, referring to insurance companies. “Of course they’ve been immoral all along in how they have treated the people that they insure,” she said, adding, “They are the villains. They have been part of the problem in a major way. They are doing everything in their power to stop a public option from happening.”

oh, but…she’ll still take their money

Pelosi Will Keep “Villains” Campaign Contributions

Blue Dogs Receive Surge In Contributions From Health Industry, Insurance Companies

LOL! Didn’t they say something about ending the lobbying hold on Congress back in 2006 when Dems tookover Congress? Yeah, how’s that working out? Hey, at least it’s Huffington Post reporting it.

House healthcare negotiations dissolved in acrimony on Friday, with Blue Dog Democrats saying they were “lied” to by their Democratic leaders.

The seven Blue Dogs on the Energy and Commerce Committee stormed out of a Friday meeting with their committee chairman, Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), saying Waxman had been negotiating in bad faith over a number of provisions Blue Dogs demanded be changed in the stalled healthcare bill.

“I’ve been lied to,” Blue Dog Coalition Co-Chairman Charlie Melancon (D-La.) said on Friday. “We have not had legitimate negotiations.

“Mr. Waxman has decided to sever discussions with the Blue Dogs who are trying to make this bill work for America,” Melancon said.

Just wait until the far left Democratic Party/Congressional leaders try to push through yet another fake stimulus, another fake bank bailout, and then somehow expect to hold Congress next year as tax rates for small business owners and investors approach 70%.

In an evening news conference, Obama is expected to outline the case for healthcare reform as well as provide an update on what has been accomplished since he took office in January.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told The New York Times Obama intends to use the news conference as a “six-month report card,” to talk about “how we rescued the economy from the worst recession ” and the legislative agenda moving forward, including health care and energy legislation.

Rescued?

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, testifying before Congress for a second day Wednesday, says unemployment threatens to undercut the U.S. recovery. The unemployment rate, at a 26-year high of 9.5 percent, will likely rise to 9.8 percent to 10.1 percent by December, the Fed says.

Specifically, THIS IS WHAT OBAMA MEANS BY RESCUED!?

FOMC participants generally expect that, after declining in the first half of this year, output will increase slightly over the remainder of 2009. The recovery is expected to be gradual in 2010, with some acceleration in activity in 2011. Although the unemployment rate is projected to peak at the end of this year, the projected declines in 2010 and 2011 would still leave unemployment well above FOMC participants’ views of the longer-run sustainable rate.

Trust in President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies to identify the right solutions to problems facing the country has dropped off significantly since March, according to a new Public Strategies Inc./POLITICO poll.

Just as Obama intensifies his efforts to fulfill a campaign promise and reach an agreement with Congress on health care reform, the number of Americans who say they trust the president has fallen from 66 percent to 54 percent. At the same time, the percentage of those who say they do not trust the president has jumped from 31 to 42.

The president’s party has taken a similar hit since the last Public Trust Monitor poll, with only 42 percent of respondents saying that they trust the Democratic Party, compared with 52 percent who do not. The party’s numbers are nearly the inverse of March’s survey, in which 52 percent said they trusted Democrats and 42 percent did not.

Rank-and-file Democrats don’t like it — and aren’t afraid to say so. The speaker has already backpedaled on a key tax increase — putting her in a weaker negotiating position. And one outspoken Democratic critic doesn’t think his leaders are “even close” to the votes they need to pass it.

But perhaps the biggest blow came from Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf, who told a Senate committee Thursday that legislation offered in both chambers “significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs.” In other words, it doesn’t fix the problem of runaway cost.

Read more