Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Crushing debt and mounting deficits in the face of a fragile recovery, if in fact there is one, adds to concern about the liberal agenda and out of touch POLS in Washington as well as at the state and local level. Tea parties and other outspoken critics have raised the ante for November 2010 midterm elections while being attacked by entrenched power brokers in the culture of corruption.

President Obama’s frequent reminder that we must pass ‘health insurance reform’ and other agenda items of the Democratic party are at odds with the report presented here expressing his belief that ‘deficit spending is unsustainable.’

One consistent feature of The One’s rhetoric blames the whole mess on problems that he ‘inherited.’ It has been stated on this site before that candidate Obama knew exactly what lay before him in his pursuit of the highest office in the land. At some point Mr President you must accept responsibility for the leadership role you now have. Do not pre-empt your agenda’s likely failure by putting the weight on someone else. Your agenda succeeds or fails on its own merits or lack of same.

One can almost hear his 2012 concession speech. I had a dream. To change the foundation of this nation into my own image and likeness but Bush sabotaged my plan.

Some have said authorizing a government ‘commission’ to oversee debt and deficit reduction attempts is simply a way to remove political risk from elected officials and place it on a group of bureaucrats. Whatever the strategy we don’t need another government commission for anything. Simply have the stones to reduce spending, taxes and the growth of government. But then that notion runs counter to any liberal agenda. That supports the opinion on why this commission was born.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Obama Confronts US Debt as More Americans File for Jobess Benefits
18 February 2010
Michael Bowman | Washington

President Barack Obama announced a bipartisan commission on Thursday to tackle mounting U.S. federal budget deficits that economists say imperil the nation’s economic future. The president acted to correct America’s long term fiscal imbalances while short term economic signals point to a bumpy recovery after a deep recession.

President Obama says he inherited massive budget deficits and a staggering national debt when he entered office, and that he has had to incur even more debt to combat a financial crisis and prevent a prolonged economic recession from becoming a depression.

But he is quick to add that deficit spending is unsustainable.

“Without action, the accumulated weight of that structural deficit, of ever increasing debt, will hobble our economy,” Mr. Obama said. “It will cloud our future and it will saddle every child in America with an intolerable burden.”

Mr. Obama spoke at the White House, where he signed an executive order creating a bipartisan commission that will craft solutions to bring federal spending in line with tax receipts.

Standing behind the president were the two men who will lead the panel - Democrat Erskine Bowles, who served as White House chief of staff during the Clinton administration, and former Republican Senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming.

“I am asking them [Erskine and Simpson] to produce clear recommendations on how to cover the costs of all federal programs by 2015 and to meaningfully improve our long term fiscal picture,” Mr. Obama said.

More than half of federal spending goes to so-called entitlement programs such as Social Security for retirees, and medical subsidies for the poor and the elderly. Cutting such programs is politically unpopular.

National defense consumes another large portion of the budget, and is difficult to rein in during a time of war.

President Obama has proposed a freeze on the remainder the federal budget, beginning next year. But a limited freeze along will not eliminate a deficit that exceeded $1 trillion last year and is projected to do so again this year.

Congress rejected creating a budget commission of its own that would have been empowered to draft fiscal solutions and to compel the legislature to consider its recommendations.

Meanwhile, fresh signs of weakness emerged in the U.S. labor market that analysts say point to a slow economic recovery. The number of newly-laid off workers filing for unemployment benefits stood at 473,000 last week - 31,000 more than the previous week.

Global Insight chief economist, Nariman Behravesh:

“After substantial progress in fixing or at least improving the jobs situation, we seem to have backtracked a little bit,” Behravesh said. “This is not so unusual. When you reach a turning point [in the economy after a recession], the progress is not uniform - two steps forward, one step back. And I think that is what we are seeing - the one step back.”

At the same time, a broad measure of future economic vitality, the Conference Board’s Index of Leading Economic Indicators, rose for the 10th consecutive month, but at a slower pace than in previous months. And spiking energy costs caused U.S. wholesale prices to rise 1.4 percent in January - double what many economists had anticipated.

This is not political rhetoric or some lobbyist’s scheme to support a strategy not in the public interest. It is what this country has been missing lately. Plain, everyday, good old-fashioned American common sense.

An excerpt from a WaPo report on health reform provides a reasonable introduction to what’s wrong and why a step by step approach to reform the wise choice.

Their efforts suggest a return to the frenzied pace of last year’s health-care debate, which prompted more than $200 million in advocacy ads and broke records for lobbying. Companies and trade groups last year hired more than 4,500 lobbyists to influence health reform — amounting to about eight lobbyists for each member of Congress, according to an analysis released last week by the Center for Public Integrity.

Reacting to President Obama’s recent statements that he will move ahead with legislation, health insurance companies have enlisted hundreds of lobbyists in a full-court press against the proposed overhaul, which would force dramatic cuts and increased regulation on the industry. At the same time, insurers are pushing back against a separate bill approved by the House last week that would remove the industry’s antitrust exemption.

Assuming the article’s facts are straight, ‘eight lobbyists for each member of Congress’ should tell you all you need to know. But add to that all the talk of ‘agendas’ and what some POLS are obviously trying to do and it becomes clear there is little in the way of public interest included in this legislative nightmare.

For instance, by itself in the spirit of ’step by step’ do you suppose anyone would object to a ban on deals between drug manufacturers to keep generics off the market? That’s right. The only ones who would object are the drug manufacturers and their lobbyists.

Would anyone object to allowing insurance companies to compete across statelines? Sure, state and local POLS who claim their legislation protects the public by allowing only approved players to participate. Do you suppose any of the same political shenanigans are involved at the state level?

These are some of the cost-cutting ideas that may come from either side of the aisle and appear to have merit without benefit of reading specific legislative language that may render them less than ideal. But the point is without taking unthinkable risk with national debt and deficits in addition to what already exists, doing things step by step would remove the all or nothing pitfalls from what is otherwise just more politcal theatre.

Our nation needs to address health issues. But the manner in which it is being done currently does not resemble anything close to the word reform. You might want to tell your elected representative we should take a break, eliminate the insanity and take a common sense step by step approach to solving health issues.

Sure, the step by step idea has been a GOP mantra for some time now. So if you are a liberal you naturally oppose it. But this post does not suggest all the GOP talk is correct. But there is no benefit to dismissing all the GOP or the Democrats say just to present an argument. The generic deals ban mentioned above may quite possibly be a Democrat’s idea. It seems reasonable. Step by step was proposed by the GOP. Another reasonable idea.

So let’s scrap these reform bills that are nothing more than political agendas. And do it right one piece at a time.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

News reports out today regarding the Dems jobs bill and the vote of newly minted Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) raise questions. Brown is being described by some as a sellout. Others suggest he had no choice given circumstances in the state he represents.

You can view the roll call vote by clicking here. The questions about this vote should ask more than why did Senator Scott Brown vote for it. Why did seven other GOP members not vote?

Among those not voting was Senator Jeff Sessions. To this point Senator Sessions has been viewed as a positive force in the US Senate and that will probably continue. But the question remains. Why did he and six others not vote on this bill?

Voinovich and Bond voted ‘yes’ and are retiring. Collins and Snowe voted ‘yes’ and that is no surprise given they are RINOs. That suggests Scott Brown does not plan on being in the Senate long or is a RINO or both. If nothing else the last three statements are humorous. But only because the vote’s outcome is so pathetic.

The previous post on Romney, McCain and Palin is troubling. This post adds to that concern. Again, what the hell are Republicans thinking (or are they)?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Are we serious this time? Among the other items within the liberal agenda spearheaded by President Barack Obama as well as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and others, amnesty for illegal immigrants, no deportation for those here illegally and lax national security and border control feature prominently. But a few members of Congress, 22 to be exact, have put forth a resolution reminding everyone the rule of law must prevail to secure America’s borders and protect the nation.

111th CONGRESS 2d SessionH. RES. 1026Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the continued peace, prosperity, liberty, and national security of the United States and its people depend upon the rule of law and credible and effective immigration enforcement policies which both welcome lawful immigrants and non-immigrants and also prevent the unlawful entry or unlawful continuing presence of foreign persons.IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 21, 2010

Mr. CHAFFETZ (for himself, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. KRATOVIL, Mr. NYE, Mr. FLEMING, Mrs. LUMMIS, Mr. COFFMAN of Colorado, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. POSEY, Mr. ROE of Tennessee, Mr. HARPER, Ms. JENKINS, Mr. BARROW, Mr. BRIGHT, Mr. LUETKEMEYER, Mr. OLSON, Mr. TAYLOR, Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. KAGEN, Mr. SHULER, and Mr. CHILDERS) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Education and Labor and Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

---

RESOLUTIONExpressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the continued peace, prosperity, liberty, and national security of the United States and its people depend upon the rule of law and credible and effective immigration enforcement policies which both welcome lawful immigrants and non-immigrants and also prevent the unlawful entry or unlawful continuing presence of foreign persons.Whereas the United States, as a nation of immigrants, recognizes and celebrates the economic and cultural contributions of generations of lawful immigrants;

Whereas the United States must remain a place where lawful immigrants can come to enjoy the promises of religious, political, and economic freedom; and

Whereas the continued peace, prosperity, liberty, and national security of the United States and its people depend upon the rule of law and credible and effective immigration enforcement policies which both welcome lawful immigrants and non-immigrants and also prevent the unlawful entry or unlawful continuing presence of foreign persons: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that–

(1) the use of a basic pilot program described in section 403(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note; commonly known as the E-verify program) by employers of workers within the United States should be mandatory, and that enforcement policies should hold both employers and employees responsible whenever an individual’s employment violates United States immigration law;

(2) installing and sustaining the necessary border infrastructure and manpower to effectively secure and control United States borders to prevent the unauthorized passage of persons or contraband is a critical responsibility of the Federal Government; and

(3) any immigration reform proposal adopted by Congress should not legalize, grant amnesty for, or confer any other legal status condoning the otherwise unlawful entry or presence in the United States of any individual.

It is not everything we need but it IS a good start. Problems remain with those supporting amnesty for illegal immigrants like Mayor Bloomberg.

NY Mayor Bloomberg to promote immigration reform

On the hot-button issue of immigration, he favors more liberal laws on allowing immigrants into the country and legalizing those who lack documentation. That will draw opposition from advocates of tightening the border and deportation of illegal aliens.

“We’re committing what I call national suicide,” Bloomberg said on the NBC’s “Meet the Press” last Sunday. “Somehow or other, after 9/11 we went from reaching out and trying to get the best and the brightest to come here, to trying to keep them out.”

“In fact, we do the stupidest thing, we give them educations and then don’t give them green cards.”

What planet is Bloomberg living on? Sure, foreign nationals are educated in the US. But that is but one aspect of the problem. We’re talking about illegal immigration. Is Bloomberg suggesting students from foreign countries are here illegally? Probably not.

And his suggestion that educating the best and the brightest is a direct insult to American citizens who are pursuing their education here or already received it. Yet in addition he wants to loosen the almost non-existent immigration law and enforcement further.

This is the mindset that must be resisted. What Bloomberg suggests IS NOT reform. He merely wants to eliminate immigration law and completely open the borders. You don’t fix what is wrong with your country by importing replacements for your own citizens or exporting their jobs to another country. That has been Mexico’s answer to their country’s problems. Export it to the US. Then they benefit by the money sent by illegals back to Mexico.

The point is the US needs to improve education and the performance of students and teachers without abusing immigration law. And Mexico and other countries need to fix their own country’s problems without burdening the US. Stop sending American jobs overseas and importing cheaper labor here. And let other countries fix their own problems without affecting the US.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Transparency and accountability have been a focus in the long battle to defeat liberal control of healthcare in the United States. While the antiseptic qualities apply, described in the phrase, sunshine is the best disinfectant, public demand to review healthcare reform legislation and have input is key. President Obama’s release of his budget proposal for 2011 which begins in October requires the same scrutiny and public focus.

Are you kidding me? A three point eight trillion dollar budget ($3.8 trillion) is not what the doctor ordered. Just as the Democratic party and their agenda is on life support so is the US economy. Given that the vast majority of federal budgets are entitlements and discretionary spending this budget number is preposterous. Like the stark reality being experienced by the unemployed and under-employed the White House and Congress need a wake up call.

The plan includes big increases in personal and business taxes, modest spending cuts and increased outlays for education, defense and jobs initiatives.

First of all, tax increases are nonsense in this economy. Second, modest spending cuts are equally ignorant. As for education, sure, it is important. But the simple fact that everyone will have to suffer includes education. So your college plans are postponed for a year or two. Join the Peace Corps or something. And why do we think education can only be improved by spending money. That hasn’t improved student or teacher performance yet.

Cutting more entitlements would certainly help paying for any defense needs. And who the hell needs a jobs bill now that needs to be paid for over ten years? $80 to $100 billion over ten years for government make work jobs? That’s ridiculous.

And enough with the future timelines for reducing spending, deficits and the national debt. Do it now. Right now, in this budget in this year turn the corner and halt the damage being done by government malfeasance. As an ending note to this post Lamar Alexander put it best in describing current politics in Washington.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.), appearing on the same program, praised Mr. Obama for talking about spending and tax cuts, but said his ideas were flawed. “I’ll give the president some credit,” he said. “He’s in the right church but the wrong pew.”

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

BTW, following links to the WSJ articles is worth the trip.  And so is the following link.

Debt deluge: Here comes the $1.6 trillion flood of red ink (Michelle Malkin) 

What a strange coincidence that a story about Hannah Giles partner in exposing ACORN corruption would appear the day of or day after this blog publishes a post (or more correctly, a video and link) advocating for Giles defense fund regarding legal action against her based on their earlier documentary film.

Federal officials accused four men, including a conservative activist, of posing as telephone repairmen to tamper with phones at the New Orleans offices of Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu.

Why would James O’Keefe and three others be interested in Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA)?

ABC News’ Jonathan Karl reports:

What does it take to get a wavering senator to vote for health care reform?

Here’s a case study.

On page 432 of the Reid bill, there is a section increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster.”

The section spends two pages defining which “states” would qualify, saying, among other things, that it would be states that “during the preceding 7 fiscal years” have been declared a “major disaster area.”

I am told the section applies to exactly one state: Louisiana, the home of moderate Democrat Mary Landrieu, who has been playing hard to get on the health care bill.

Landrieu would be the recipient of what amounts to a payoff (bribe) for her healthcare vote in the form of $100 million, taxpayer dollars, for increased Medicaid coverage for Louisiana. This is exactly the same kind of payoff offered to Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) for the state of Nebraska.

So what’s the deal? First, Hannah Giles is not involved in this story other than to mention she and O’Keefe put together the documentary exposing ACORN corruption which everyone should be familiar with by now. Second, this blogger still enthusiastically supports Giles and O’Keefe for their ACORN documentary and equally objects to Congress giving any more money to ACORN. Third, who knows what O’Keefe was thinking on this latest story but it changes nothing about the earlier documentary.

Finally, you are still encouraged to defend Hannah Giles as indicated in the previous post. You can do so by following the link provided in that post. As the sole statement in that post suggests, if you have money for Haiti you have money for Hannah. Send a few bucks to help her out. She did a fine job exposing ACORN for what it is….. corrupt. And there is no reason to think she had anything to do with O’Keefe going off the reservation. If that is in fact what happened. But the report from WSJ seems to suggest no one is denying what took place at Landrieu’s offices regarding O’Keefe and three others.

Defend Hannah Giles

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Every politician invokes the use of ’spin’ to some degree and with some frequency during their their term or terms in office. That is the essence of politics. And that is the dominant feature which cripples effective governance. Political games are often defended as a ncessary evil in government and public affairs. Of couse, politicians and those who craft strategy are the only ones who subscribe to that philosphy. And it is responsible for Scott Brown’s victory in the Massachusetts special election held last week.

But politicians and community organizers are addicted to that unfortunate part of the process. Enter President Barack Obama. Defined by supporters, of which there are less these days, as the consummate campaigner President Obama is once again embracing that which had served him well in getting elected. Even though it is largely responsible for his falling approval rating, failing agenda, dismal first year in office and party prospects in 2010.

White House officials say they understand why emotions are running high. The president’s top political aide says President Obama has had to take unpopular action to deal with an economic crisis far worse than anyone expected when he took office.

David Axelrod says he warned the president early on that his public approval ratings were likely to drop. “I said to him a year ago, Mr. President your numbers are going to be considerably worse a year from now than they are today because you can not govern in an economy like this without great disaffection,” he said.

Axelrod told the ABC television program This Week that he believes the president did the right thing. “I have no regrets about that. I think history will look back and say the President of the United States met his responsibilities,” he said.

Someone is smoking crack if they think reaction to Obama’s agenda is due to ‘an economic crisis far worse than anyone expected when he took office.’ Or have they forgotten all the Bush bashing in his last year of office over the ‘worst financial crisis since the Great Depression’?

Of course Axlerod suggests what history will say about Obama. There is nothing he can point to currently putting the President in a favorable light. The same goes for the President and the Democratic party’s agenda. Nothing positive is promised until years in the future with the expectation it can be passed and the sham will not be noticed for years.

With all this President Obama continues the spin strategy of politics.

Going into year two, political strategists expect the president to re-center himself Wednesday as a hard-fighting, bank-busting, Obama-on-your-side jobs president, while acknowledging the hiccups in getting to this point.

At the State of the Union, the state of the presidency may be the question that most needs answering.

“It’s going to be jobs, jobs, jobs. Economy, economy, economy,” said Democratic strategist Joe Trippi. “Year two’s gonna be this guy.”

And when that doesn’t work it will be some other guy. The never ending campaign continues.

Now, he is taking a more populist approach - focusing on the day-to-day issues that create money woes for many families.

He says it is part of an effort to show the administration cares about workers who are struggling to pay their bills or have anxieties about losing their jobs.

An entire year goes by before the tranformational President of hope and change recognizes the economy and jobs are the largest concern for voters. How reassuring.

Jan. 25 (Bloomberg) — President Barack Obama will propose a three-year freeze on federal spending outside of national security to save an estimated $250 billion over a decade as part of an effort to rein in record deficits, administration officials said.

Let’s see. Push a New Deal, eighty year liberal pursuit of the nanny state holy grail of government-run healthcare at 2 1/2 trillion dollars and then suggest a pultry $250 billion savings over the same time period as a new agenda strategy. It is remarkable his ratings are quoted at only down to about 50%. There must be a considerable number of people in favor of more job killing entitlements.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

“Anyone who isn’t insured, we bump their pay up. They go through the Connector,” he said, referring to the state agency that connects residents with health plans.Massachusetts is the only state that requires universal health coverage, although there are exceptions. About 97 percent of residents are insured.

Coakley provides coverage for her workers.

Brown said his 12 campaign staffers are independent contractors - which also allows him to avoid payroll taxes - and most were already insured.

At first glance it may have appeared to Martha Coakley that exploiting information about Scott Brown’s campaign staffers was a smart move. If that’s the case she should have taken a second look. While the item above is a brief report from the Boston Herald’s Jessica Fargen more attention is paid to Brown’s staffers than Coakley’s. The focus is on how Brown’s staffers are covered and reference to the infamous MA universal healthcare plan passed by the liberal legislature and signed by then Governor Mitt Romney. All it says about Coakley’s staffers is that Coakley provides coverage. So does Brown.

Is Coakley drawing a comparison between Taxachusetts universal healthcare mandates and those currently on the table in Washington? Even if that was not the intent it is the effect. Everyone under Demcare will be required to have health insurance. And the choices available to employers and employees will be similarly limited. The only thing that won’t be limited is what we have to pay for it.

In the case of Scott Brown’s staffers they chose to work for his campaign. Those who did not have coverage had their pay increased and followed the options under the state’s healthcare mandates. Of course the report does not provide the details on the coverage for Coakley’s staffers for comparison. But you have to ask yourself the question. Given the sad state of affairs with Martha Coakley’s liberal senate campaign why would she choose this pathetic attempt to make healthcare an issue in Massachusetts? With most Democrats uneasy about reform and the vast majority of voters downright angry about it Coakley’s choice here may explain her lagging in the polls.

One last note on the story deserves attention. Brown’s campaign staffers just like Coakley’s did not sign up for a permanent campaign job. Regardless of the outcome on January 19th some will transition to new jobs with the victor while others will move on to something else. It is not likely that health insurance was a high priority in their decision to participate.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Clinton, like many who’ve studied the health-care bills, has problems with them. But to steal an Obama line, don’t let the perfect stand in the way of the good. We can either get a toe in the reform door now and fix things as we go along - like we fixed every piece of major legislation ever passed. Or we can “go back to the drawing board,” as Brown says, which means: Forget about it.

Whether the special election in Taxachusetts for Ted Kennedy’s vacant seat is about broader issues or simply political math for healthcare reform the piece above from the Boston Herald touts the liberal spin and perhaps unknowingly makes an argument against it.

Conceding the ability to produce a ‘perfect’ bill right now but fixing it later is how we get into problems with entitlements. Three quarters of the budget in recent years and probably longer is spending on entitlements. Social security, Medicare and Medicaid are unsustainable. This is what the liberal agenda has given us since FDR.

It’s natural that citizens who did not voluntarily contribute to these programs through payroll deductions expect to receive the benefits after a lifetime of paying for them. There in lies the rub. The liberal agenda is patient. They try to convince the public their agenda is in the public interest. Over time the cost goes up and the benefits go down but the government gets bigger and the political power is secure. Too bad the same cannot be said for your future or that of your children.

‘Like we fixed every major piece of legislation ever passed.’ Does it really seem to you right now that anyone EVER fixed entitlements? Touching the third rail of politics causes political suicide. So all POLS can muster is ignoring the problems all together or continuing to raise taxes and reduce benefits to pay for programs that are simply not feasible.

Martha Coakley would tow the party line abusing majority status to heap more liabilities on American taxpayers in the name of reform. At least Scott Brown offers a chance to correct the problems and pursue reasoned solutions to critical issues. We cannot continue to spend money we don’t have. That is part of what caused the issues we face now…. spending what we don’t have.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

What’s the single largest problem with passing healthcare reform in one of its current versions or proposals in Congress? The funding of currently proposed legislation for healthcare reform starts almost immediately if passed. Whether you can keep your current coverage may begin to change in as little as one year. But the reform part, good, bad or ugly does not begin until 2014.

Start paying for reform as soon as any legislation passes but wait for any perceived benefit for four years. The most troubling issue with that condition is Congress can continue to alter the game after initial passage and make ‘reform’ worse than it is right now as the public loses interest over time. If you review most legislation that moves through Congress that is what it does, alters previous legislation.

So your chances for any benefit from what proponents call reform starts with pay for no play and diminishes from there. Opponents of healthcare reform point to higher taxes, higher premiums and less choice on medical care. If they’re right, regardless of your opinion of reform, you stand to lose immediately by paying for what reform covers with no chance to benefit for at least four years. And your chances beyond that period of time are small.

So even if you live in Nebraska or Louisiana where Senators Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA) sold their yes votes on healthcare reform for Medicaid deals for their respective states, you lose. And even residents of those two states stand to lose over time regardless of initial perks for selling their votes. Another member of Congress, Rep Joseph Cao (R-LA) from the 2nd district sold his vote for healthcare on the mere promise from President Obama that he would help him with healthcare issues. Well, that’s the public version of what happened.

For something of a reality check on healthcare reform and its politics here is an excerpt and link to Kimberly A. Strassel’s take on the situation.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The Health Lady Has Yet to Sing

JANUARY 14, 2010, 10:35 P.M. ET
By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL

Critics of the legislation shouldn’t get their hopes too high. The Democratic leadership is now clinically obsessed with passage. No first-round yes vote has yet jumped ship, and even if some do, Mrs. Pelosi has options. Prior no votes might be convinced that a more “moderate” Senate bill gives them cover to flip. Three no votes, including Tennessee’s John Tanner, are retiring, and may feel liberated. The White House no doubt has a list of plum jobs it can offer people as consolation prizes for voting yes and losing their seats.

The point is rather that there is now officially enough nervousness that anything can happen. Whatever the Tuesday election outcome, Mr. Brown already claims victory for rattling Democratic minds. And should he win, health care becomes even more toxic. This isn’t over yet.

Urge Democratic Leader to Comply with Open Government Act of 2007
Jan 12 2010

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., and Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., today joined 21 of their Senate Republican colleagues in signing a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., asking him to provide a list of all earmarks and congressional directed spending in the Senate health care bill, as well as in any future version of the health care bill that House and Senate Democrats might push to a vote.

Isakson and Chambliss have repeatedly criticized the lack of transparency throughout the process of drafting the $2.5 trillion health care bill, as well as the backroom deals that Reid made with certain Senate Democrats in order to secure their votes.

The text of the letter is below:

Dear Majority Leader Reid,

We write to express our concern over the inclusion of several provisions in the Manager’s Amendment to The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Since the nearly 400 page amendment was introduced, we discovered over half a dozen provisions that appear to have been included for the primary purpose of benefitting some states in particular. Though your office has referred to these provisions as “a normal part of the legislative process,” we are concerned that the inclusion of these items without appropriate disclosure may violate The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007.

The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-81) changed Senate rules to enhance transparency in the legislative process. The relevant change requires any amendment sponsor to publicly disclose each congressionally directed spending item and limited tax benefit included in that amendment. The design of this provision was to ensure that the American people know which lawmakers advocated for specific carve outs and earmarks.

It is clear that the Manager’s Amendment, in addition to the underlying bill, includes specific provisions which benefit some states and not others. We therefore ask you, as the sponsor of the Manager’s Amendment and underlying bill, to provide a list of all earmarks and congressional directed spending as required by The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. We request this information be shared with our offices and posted on the majority’s website within 24 hours.

Finally, we anticipate that in coming weeks you and Speaker Pelosi will introduce a bill combining the House and Senate health bills. Upon the introduction of that bill we request a similar list of provisions, as required by The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, be shared with our offices and posted on the majority’s website within 24 hours.

The American people deserve a transparent Congressional process. All Americans should know which States and entities will benefit from Congressional negotiations related to the health bills and amendments.

You gotta love the CBO. Okay, you don’t have to but they’re so cool they have been added to this blog’s resource list in the sidebar. Both the CBO and The Director’s Blog have a link. This reaction to the CBO could change at any time as with other links featured here. But certainly the work of the CBO in the current political climate deserves credit.

Both sides of the healthcare debate as well as other issues have frequently referred to the CBO’s analysis to make their case. But just like the one presented on this blog today you need to follow the link to make up your own mind and form an opinion.

The linked excerpts below highlight the business as usual aspects of the current healthcare debate on one aspect of the so-called reform. Proponents of the Democrats’ healthcare reform legislation love to say it will strengthen Medicare. Opponents, including this blog, say it will weaken it.

The title of the Director’s Blog post featured here describes the analysis presented. This particular one was published one day before Democrats in the Senate forced through ‘reform’ late at night on Christmas Eve.

Effects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act on the Federal Budget and the Balance in the Hospital Insurance Trust Fund

The permanent charade by politicians and program financing such as Medicare is highlighted in the next link.

The HI trust fund, like other federal trust funds, is essentially an accounting mechanism.

The effect of this accounting is explained as follows and again is nothing new.

However, because the government has used the cash from the trust fund surpluses to finance other current activities rather than saving the cash by running unified budget surpluses, the government as a whole has not been truly prefunding Medicare benefits.

Why this is important in the current debate is explained below.

Unified budget accounting shows that the majority of the HI trust fund savings would be used to pay for other spending under the PPACA and would not enhance the ability of the government to redeem the bonds credited to the trust fund to pay for future Medicare benefits.

Clearly, those suggesting current healthcare reform strengthens Medicare are WRONG. With Social Security and Medicare and probably with the remainder of the staggering three fourths of the annual budget which is entitlements, it is all smoke and mirrors. But CBO was polite enough to simply call it an accounting mechanism. After pressure applied by the White House on the CBO it is understandable. That’s another reason CBO is cool.

This is not new or some sort of revelation. If one reviews the experience of government programs, the legislation that causes it as well as modifying it from time to time one fact remains clear. The costs always exceed the forecasts. Certainly at the outset Social Security and Medicare were never predicted to become insolvent. Nor were their proponents suggesting a continuous increase in the taxes needed to keep them from going broke.

The same applies to current healthcare reform. As an example, the CBO often reminds the public about the limitations of its analysis. Projecting outcomes over a ten year analysis has some uncertainty but appears manageable. However, analysis beyond the initial ten year window is all but meaningless. The variables of what may happen over that much time are too difficult to predict. No one can take into account all the events that may happen by then. Including more meddling by politicians that always occurs.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

New Jersey Senate Defeats Gay Marriage Bill

The Freedom of Religion and Equality in Marriage Act failed by a vote of 20 to 14. The vote was scheduled to take place last month, but was postponed due to an apparent lack of support, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported.

Five states currently allow same sex marriage, while thirty have rejected similar measures in referendum votes. The state senate in neighboring New York, where many New Jersey residents work, rejected a gay marriage bill 38 to 24 in December.

Once again the author of this blog is compelled to address this issue. Not because the legislation in this report failed as that is viewed a good thing. Media reports and perhaps the legislation as well make use of the terms ‘gay’ and ‘marriage’ or sometimes ’same sex’ marriage. The terminology should be rejected more swiftly than the legislation. For it is merely a special interest ploy to characterize this distortion of marriage as something other than what it is.

It is the pursuit of a legal precedent to allow homosexuals to be married. It’s not ‘gay’ although it can be described as ’same sex’. But it is really homosexual and the special interest and agenda is produced by those who are. Crafting a message to fool the public is their chosen task.

It is often characterized as an equality issue. That is also the special interest and agenda talking. Living in what is often described as a free society does not imply you can do whatever you want. Our behavior and our choices are restrained to the extent that those items viewed as harmful to society are not supported or endorsed.

It is the purpose of the special interest and their agenda to blur those distinctions. The end game is the same for any special interest; personal gain through special treatment under the guise of fairness, equity or similar propaganda. If the scam is successful the argument no longer matters and is discarded or reused for another scam.

Continued rejection of this special interest as harmful to society should be supported and endorsed.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

“Building a robust clean energy sector is how we will create the jobs of the future,” Obama said in prepared remarks. “The Recovery Act awards I am announcing today will help close the clean energy gap that has grown between America and other nations while creating good jobs, reducing our carbon emissions and increasing our energy security.”

The excerpt above is from ABC News. The expose’ below is from Michelle Malkin.

“Green Jobs” = SEIU/Union Jobs

Via Inside Charm City, Maryland’s Democrat Senators dole out green job funding to an SEIU partnership… 

Via Morgen at Verum Serum, a closer look at the latest round of Big Labor’s green pork grant recipients:

All of this is nothing more than paying off your accomplices, Mr President. Beyond the obvious culture of corruption this represents, adding insult to injury, you’re doing it with taxpayer money.

But somehow you cannot bring yourself to do the right thing.  Give the tax money back to those in the private sector who really create jobs and fuel the economy.  They always have and always will.  Your make work scams and union payoffs will do nothing for the taxpayers whose money you divert to your cronies.

Man up and do the right thing.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com