Joe Biden: "Everybody Guessed Wrong" About Stimulus Package

So that's what government does? Make guesses only to have those guesses turn out wrong?

Many promises were made by those who supported the stimulus/spendulus/porkulus package, promises that those of us who opposed the measure knew could never be kept. Joe Biden finally admitted as much.

From the Associated Press:

Vice President Joe Biden said Sunday that "everyone guessed wrong" on the impact of the economic stimulus, but he defended the administration's spending designed to combat rising joblessness. ... "The bottom line is that jobs are being created that would not have been there before," Biden said. But they are not coming at the pace first estimated. Just 10 days before taking office, Obama's top economic advisers released a report predicting unemployment would remain at 8 percent of below through this year if an economic stimulus plan won congressional approval.

"Jobs are being created that would not have been there before." What Biden left out (deliberately it would seem) is that more jobs that were there before are not there now. In other words, jobs are being lost faster than the stimulus/spendulus/porkulus package could have possibly created them. Why is this so?

Because government cannot create jobs. Government can destroy jobs through excessive taxation and over-regulation or can tranfer jobs from the private sector into the lower-paying government tent, but government cannot create jobs.

Therein lies the fatal flaw of the stimulus/spendulus/porkulus package; it assumes an untruth to be the truth. And that is why Joe Biden is now admitting that "everybody guessed wrong."

His full quote:

"Everyone guessed wrong at the time the estimate was made about what the state of the economy was at the moment this was passed," Biden said.

Not everyone, just those who supported the measure. Those of us who opposed it knew exactly what the outcome would be.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Biden Says 'Everyone Guessed Wrong' On Unemployment Numbers
Associated Press via Fox News
June 14, 2009

Time has an even more scathing analysis:

Biden tells "Meet the Press" that "everyone guessed wrong" on the impact of the stimulus, economy was worse off than anyone thought. Backs away from the estimate that the funds could create or save 3.5 million jobs, instead promises 600,000 by the end of the summer.

You can access that story on-line here:

Stimulus Concession
Mark Halperin
Time
June 14, 2009

The First 100 Days: What Did You Do To Celebrate It?

Me? I was working my butt off at my job. Why? Because in addition to taking care of my wife and 4-month-old son, Obama and the other socialists in Washington have decreed that I also have to work to take care of various Peggy the Moochers out there who think that a life is owed to them and they can just sit back and sponge off of the tax dollars that come from hard working people like me.

But, it is important to look at how the leftists celbrated it and how they twisted the truth for Obama's benifit. Those twists are nothing more than insults to the intelligence of those of us who do our own research and try to verify our information before putting it out there.

Let's look at some of Obama's 100 Days quotes that don't pass the smell test:

We began by passing a recovery act that has already saved or created over 150,000 jobs and provided a tax cut to 95 percent of all working families.

Well, the unemployement figures show that more jobs are being lost than saved or created. I guess Obama believes that this is somehow a good thing.

As for that tax quote, it has long since been established that 43% of Americans effectively have a tax bill of $0 after their deductions and credits are factored in. That is, they either recoup their entire tax bill or get more money back than they paid in. So, how can you offer a tax break to someone who effectively doesn't even pay taxes?

On bipartisanship:

And if that is how bipartisanship is defined, a situation in which basically, wherever there are philosophical differences, I have to simply go along with ideas that have been rejected by the American people in a historic election, you know, we're probably not going to make progress. If, on the other hand, the definition is that we're open to each other's ideas, there are going to be differences, the majority will probably be determinative when it comes to resolving just hard, core differences that we can't resolve, but there is a whole host of other areas where we can work together, then I think we can make progress.

In that first sentence, Obama is basically saying that it is his way or the highway. But his way is a hell of a lot more radical than he let onto during the campaign.

As for that second paragraph, well, perhaps Obama should have spent a few minutes explaining how locking the Republicans out of various meetings and discussions on the Porkulus/Spendulus package amounted to "bipartisanship."

On the economy:

I didn't anticipate the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

I don't know if Obama is aware of this or not, but we have not reached that point yet. The economic crisis that resulted from Jimmy Carter's disastrous presidency was worse than what we are experiencing now. If the current crisis does reach the proportions of the Great Depression, it will be because of Obama's socialist policies, not because of the previous eight years.

On the Auto industry:

I don't think that we should micromanage ...

Unless you want to push out the CEO of GM, then micomanaging is just fine in his opinion.

And of course, Obama tried to re-write history with some of his comments. Take for example the following:

I was struck by an article that I was reading the other day talking about the fact that the British during World War II, when London was being bombed to smithereens, had 200 or so detainees. And Churchill said, "We don't torture," when the entire British -- all of the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat. And then the reason was that Churchill understood, you start taking short-cuts, over time, that corrodes what's -- what's best in a people. It corrodes the character of a country.

If Obama actually believes this, then he has been drinking the kool-aid of some historical revisionist who outright changed the facts. The British most definitely did use torture techniques, even to the point of drugging prisoners, in order to get information out of Nazi captives during World War II. Why Obama would make such a glaringly false statement, I don't know.

Every single question thrown at Obama was a soft-ball and seemed a part of a love-fest that the media was having at the time. No one asked a serious question or any of the hard questions that the American people want answered.

For example, here is a question that should have been asked: "Mr. President, if the Democrats hold that a $1 trillion deficit is irresponsible, then shouldn't the Democrats consider your budget plan to quadruple the deficit as being five times as irresponsible?"

But then, a media that is so deep in the tank for a socialist president would never have the courage nor the integrity to ask such pertinent questions.

AIG Bonus Furor: Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) Made The Bonuses Possible

Don't you just love it when a Senator steps on his/her own foot and trips him/herself up? I do. That's why I am blogging about Senator Chris Dodd and his hypocrisy about bonuses being paid out by American International Group (AIG).

While Congress was working on the porkulus/spendulus bill, Sen. Dodd added an amendment that I am pretty sure he wishes nobody remembered.

According to Fox Business:

That amendment provides an “exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009” -- which exempts the very AIG bonuses Dodd and others are now seeking to tax. The amendment made it into the final version of the bill, and is law.

So, the Democrats (and a few ignorant Republicans) are all up in arms about bonuses being paid out in strict accordance with a law that they themselves passed!

Can you say CHUTZPAH?

Here are the rules of the Dodd amendment:

Crack down on bonuses, retention awards and incentive compensation: Bonuses can only be paid in the form of long-term restricted stock, equal to no greater than 1/3 of total annual compensation, and will vest only when taxpayer funds are repaid. There is an exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009. For institutions that received assistance totaling less than $25 million, the bonus restriction applies to the highest compensated employee; $25 million to $250 million, applies to the top five employees; $250 million to $500 million, applies to the senior executive officers and the next top 10 employees; and more than $500 million applies to the senior executive officers and the next top 20 employees (or such higher number as the Secretary determines is in the public interest).

Now, why would Sen. Dodd have done something like this? Perhaps OpenSecrets.org can provide us with the answer:



Note that Chris Dodd and Barack Obama were the two top recipients of money from AIG.

Now, people have known for over a year that these bonuses were coming out and a Democrat Senator introduced an amendment to make sure that those bonuses were legal. Why is their such a furor going on over all of it?

It is a distraction from other things, that's why. It turns out that AIG was used as a launderer to spread money around to other banks. Someone doesn't want us investigating that so they blow the bonus issue way out of proportion to try and make it into some type of scandal.

As for the outrage, I wonder why there was no outrage when public funds were used to shore up UAW retirement accounts?

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Amid AIG Furor, Dodd Tries To Undo Bonus Protections He Put In
Rich Edson
Fox Business
March 17, 2009

Obama's Tax Increases: Heralding The Beginning Of The Second Great Depression

Are you ready for double-digit unemployment and double-digit inflation rates? We haven't seen that since Jimmy Carter. But, they are on their way here again.

Barack Obama's tax-and-spend liberal policies are the same exact policies that Jimmy Carter tried and the same exact policies that took us into the recession of late 70's/early 80's. We got out of that recession by cutting taxes and letting the American economy grow.

Only this time, Obama's policies are Carter's policies on steroids. The results are going to be even more catastrophic than Carter's, and those of us who remember 1979 know exactly how catastrophic they were. It was the first time since the Great Depression that we has a misiery index over 20. (Misery index = inflation rate plus unemployment rate.)

Here is what Barack Obama wants to do to our economy according to Jake Tapper of ABC News:

President Obama's budget proposes $989 billion in new taxes over the course of the next 10 years, starting fiscal year 2011, most of which are tax increases on individuals. 1) On people making more than $250,000. $338 billion - Bush tax cuts expire $179 billlion - eliminate itemized deduction $118 billion - capital gains tax hike Total: $636 billion/10 years 2) Businesses: $17 billion - Reinstate Superfund taxes $24 billion - tax carried-interest as income $5 billion - codify "economic substance doctrine" $61 billion - repeal LIFO $210 billion - international enforcement, reform deferral, other tax reform $4 billion - information reporting for rental payments $5.3 billion - excise tax on Gulf of Mexico oil and gas $3.4 billion - repeal expensing of tangible drilling costs $62 million - repeal deduction for tertiary injectants $49 million - repeal passive loss exception for working interests in oil and natural gas properties $13 billion - repeal manufacturing tax deduction for oil and natural gas companies $1 billion - increase to 7 years geological and geophysical amortization period for independent producers $882 million - eliminate advanced earned income tax credit Total: $353 billion/10 years

Several things to notice here:

1. Look at all the new taxes on oil and gas companies. How high do you think the price for a gallon of gas will go? How badly do you think that will affect low and middle income families? It is not only the gas that will go up in price but anything that has to be transported will go up in price as well. That includes food, clothing and any other consumer commodity that must be transported by ship, truck or rail.

2. The total revenue on these new taxes is $989 billion. That doesn't even cover the porkulus/spendulus bill (1.3 trillion total in spending and interest) and represents only about half of Obama's proposed $1.75 trillion deficit! Who among you really believes that the Dems are going to stop their tax-and-spend orgy at people making more than $250,000 per year? How long before the proposed new taxes extend downwards towards people making $100,000 per year, or $75,000 per year or $50,000 per year? I'm betting months.

I have historical fact on my side for that last assertion. In 1992, Bill Clinton promised that his new taxes would not affect anyone making less than $90,000 per year. After they added up all the numbers, a new tax law was passed through Congress which levied new taxes on people making as little as $36,000 per year. So much for unkeepable promises.

These new taxes will mark the beginning of the Second Great Depression, just as Smoot-Hawley heralded the onset of the First Great Depression.

When all is said and done, the Democrats will only have themselves to blame for the coming financial disaster, but you can be certain they will be trying to pass the blame off on someone else.

You can access the complete entry on-line here:

Obama's Budget: Almost $1 Trillion In New Taxes Over Next 10 yrs, Starting 2011
Jake Tapper
ABC News
February 26, 2009

Fact-Checking Obama's Speech: His Words Ring Hollow

A look at a few of Obama's statements from his speech last night. Clearly, as he did with his comments on the deficit, he is trying to lay blame at someone else's feet if the economy gets worse, which under his policies, it most certainly will.

Here they are:

OBAMA: "We have launched a housing plan that will help responsible families facing the threat of foreclosure lower their monthly payments and refinance their mortgages. It's a plan that won't help speculators or that neighbor down the street who bought a house he could never hope to afford, but it will help millions of Americans who are struggling with declining home values." THE FACTS: If the administration has come up with a way to ensure money only goes to those who got in honest trouble, it hasn't said so. Defending the program Tuesday at a Senate hearing, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said it's important to save those who made bad calls, for the greater good. He likened it to calling the fire department to put out a blaze caused by someone smoking in bed. "I think the smart way to deal with a situation like that is to put out the fire, save him from his own consequences of his own action but then, going forward, enact penalties and set tougher rules about smoking in bed." Similarly, the head of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. suggested this month it's not likely aid will be denied to all homeowners who overstated their income or assets to get a mortgage they couldn't afford. "I think it's just simply impractical to try to do a forensic analysis of each and every one of these delinquent loans," Sheila Bair told National Public Radio.

In other words, you and I will be working to pay off mortgages for people like Peggy The Moocher.

OBAMA: "And I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it." THE FACTS: Depends what your definition of automobiles, is. According to the Library of Congress, the inventor of the first true automobile was probably Germany's Karl Benz, who created the first auto powered by an internal combustion gasoline engine, in 1885 or 1886. In the U.S., Charles Duryea tested what library researchers called the first successful gas-powered car in 1893. Nobody disputes that Henry Ford created the first assembly line that made cars affordable.

It's hard to believe that any Ivy League institution would be proud of an alumnus who can't get the facts of history straight.

OBAMA: "We have known for decades that our survival depends on finding new sources of energy. Yet we import more oil today than ever before." THE FACTS: Oil imports peaked in 2005 at just over 5 billion barrels, and have been declining slightly since. The figure in 2007 was 4.9 billion barrels, or about 58 percent of total consumption. The nation is on pace this year to import 4.7 billion barrels, and government projections are for imports to hold steady or decrease a bit over the next two decades.

Again, scare tactics from the One who wanted to give us "hope and change." What he is basically saying here is that he wants us all to pony up more money for unproven technologies and make his environmentalist friends and lobbyists rich in the process.

OBAMA: "We have already identified $2 trillion in savings over the next decade." THE FACTS: Although 10-year projections are common in government, they don't mean much. And at times, they are a way for a president to pass on the most painful steps to his successor, by putting off big tax increases or spending cuts until someone else is in the White House. Obama only has a real say on spending during the four years of his term. He may not be president after that and he certainly won't be 10 years from now.

And don't forget that the price tag of the porkulus package is over $1.3 trillion. If Obama's above statement were true, then there is no deficit right now and our children and grandchildren won't have to work to pay off our debt. I don't know of a single reputable economist who would agree with that. Certainly, the Congressional Budget Office does not agree with that assessment since they are predicting that our economy will shrink as a result of the porkulus/spendulus bill.

OBAMA: "Regulations were gutted for the sake of a quick profit at the expense of a healthy market. People bought homes they knew they couldn't afford from banks and lenders who pushed those bad loans anyway. And all the while, critical debates and difficult decisions were put off for some other time on some other day." THE FACTS: This may be so, but it isn't only Republicans who pushed for deregulation of the financial industries. The Clinton administration championed an easing of banking regulations, including legislation that ended the barrier between regular banks and Wall Street banks. That led to a deregulation that kept regular banks under tight federal regulation but extended lax regulation of Wall Street banks. Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, later an economic adviser to candidate Obama, was in the forefront in pushing for this deregulation.

And here you have probably the most glaring example of Obama trying to pass the buck. I can tell you one set of regulations that wasn't gutted: those regulations in the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act that forced banks to make bad loans to risky home buyers and ultimately resulted in the credit crisis we are in today. Obama actually tells a bold-faced lie here by making it seem like lenders did this voluntarily. Sorry, but it was the 1977 CRA (passed and signed into law by Democrats) that is to blame, not the Republicans.

OBAMA: "In this budget, we will end education programs that don't work and end direct payments to large agribusinesses that don't need them. We'll eliminate the no-bid contracts that have wasted billions in Iraq, and reform our defense budget so that we're not paying for Cold War-era weapons systems we don't use. We will root out the waste, fraud and abuse in our Medicare program that doesn't make our seniors any healthier, and we will restore a sense of fairness and balance to our tax code by finally ending the tax breaks for corporations that ship our jobs overseas." THE FACTS: First, his budget does not accomplish any of that. It only proposes those steps. That's all a president can do, because control over spending rests with Congress. Obama's proposals here are a wish list and some items, including corporate tax increases and cuts in agricultural aid, will be a tough sale in Congress. Second, waste, fraud and abuse are routinely targeted by presidents who later find that the savings realized seldom amount to significant sums. Programs that a president might consider wasteful have staunch defenders in Congress who have fought off similar efforts in the past.

This also shows Obama's ignorance on economic matters. Companies do not outsource jobs because the American tax system gives them a break, they outsource them because the tax system already makes it more expensive to hire American than it does to ship the jobs offshore. If our corporate tax code were not so suffocating, fewer jobs would get shipped overseas. Obama's plans will ensure that more jobs go outside of the United States.

OBAMA: "Thanks to our recovery plan, we will double this nation's supply of renewable energy in the next three years." THE FACTS: While the president's stimulus package includes billions in aid for renewable energy and conservation, his goal is unlikely to be achieved through the recovery plan alone. In 2007, the U.S. produced 8.4 percent of its electricity from renewable sources, including hydroelectric dams, solar panels and windmills. Under the status quo, the Energy Department says, it will take more than two decades to boost that figure to 12.5 percent.

And it will cost more to implement and continue to run these energy production facilities than it costs to use the proven technologies we already have. Plus, you have hypocrits like Ted Kennedy opposing windmills near their vacation homes because it somehow disrupts their view.

OBAMA: "Over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs." THE FACTS: This is a recurrent Obama formulation. But job creation projections are uncertain even in stable times, and some of the economists relied on by Obama in making his forecast acknowledge a great deal of uncertainty in their numbers. The president's own economists, in a report prepared last month, stated, "It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error."

It also means they will have wiggle room to blame others when their own policies come up severely short.

Obama's entire speech was nothing more than window dressing. He and the Democrats are looking for a pipe dream that simply will not come true. Government cannot magically create jobs and energy sources have these nagging little things like the laws of physics to contend with. Further, taxpayers will not appreciate having to bail out people like Peggy the Moocher and other malcontents waiting for a welfare handout while the rest of us actually get off of our rears and at least try to do work.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

FACT CHECK: Obama's Words On Home Aid Ring Hollow
Calvin Woodward and Jim Kuhnhenn (Tom Raum, Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar and Dina Cappiello also contributed)
Associated press via TownHall.com
February 25, 2009

Time For Americans To Say "NO!"

Laura Hollis began her most recent column with a quote from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. Would you like to read it? Here it is:

I saw that there comes a point, in the defeat of any man of virtue, when his own consent is needed for evil to win – and that no manner of injury done to him by others can succeed if he chooses to withhold his consent. I saw that I could put an end to your outrages by pronouncing a single word in my mind … The word [is] ‘No.’” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Why is this so significant? Because we are on our way to a disaster known as socialism, against our wills apprently. And it is looking like the only way we can forstall this transition is to say "No."

How hard is it to say "No?" Pretty hard for most people. Mostly for two reasons: 1) they are not fully informed about what is being done in their name and 2) they rely on the old saying "to get along you have to go along." Wrong. Going along means simply that you have become a sheep and are willing to be led around by the nose, even if it means going in a direction that you don't want to go.

The current economic situation underscores my point. The American taxpayer did not cause any of the current conditions. Government did beginning with the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act. But, the taxpayer is being made to pay for it with things like the recent $1.3 trillion pork-spending package that more than doubled our deficit. And Obama and his socialist allies in Congress are betting on the "go along to get along" mentality to get away with squandering our children's and grandchildren's futures without being called to account on it.

This is where we say "No!"

Read on:

We are having hundreds of billions of our hard-earned tax dollars taken from us and given to the same organizations that got us in this mess, under the advice and counsel of the same irresponsible and deceitful politicians like Barney Frank and others who ignored warnings about the bad lending practices in the first place. And those same politicians now see fit to lecture us about patriotism and fiscal responsibility? This is a travesty so appalling that it should be prompting protests in the streets. As hardworking, tax-paying Americans have watched this Obamadrama play out, they have become increasingly distressed, saying, “But what do we do?” We start saying NO. Obama’s campaign mantra was “Yes, we can.” Here’s the new mantra for the American taxpayer: “No, we won’t.”

And we keep saying "No" right up to the 2010 elections and beyond. We let our government know that we will not go quietly into the night and we will not allow them to destory the American Dream with socialist policies that have failed every single time they were implemented. They failed in the former Soniet Union, they failed in Eastern Europe, they failed in Western Europe and they will fail here too. History is replete with such lessons and we, the people, must remind the government of such lessons by saying "No."

We also need to let the elitists in Congress know that we see through their hypocrisy:

More:

Where’s the “shared sacrifice” if you’re cutting back to make your mortgage payment, and the government hits you up to pay some stranger’s mortgage as well? And it’s hard to call for belt-tightening when Congress clamors to sign the bill within hours of receiving it so that Nancy Pelosi can jet off to Rome for a private audience with the Pope, and President Obama can ride a taxpayer-funded 747 back to Chicago to take Michelle out for a romantic Valentine’s Day dinner. (What, there aren’t any restaurants in D.C.?)

You see, the elistes like Obama and Pelosi believe that they are entitled to whatever they want and we, the plebian class, must pay for it, even if it means taking resources away from our own families.

But, we shouldn't have to take it, and we won't.

You take a page out of the civil rights playbook. Protest. Picket. Storm your representatives’ offices. Use the legal system. Go straight to your county or federal courthouse and file for a temporary restraining order, and then a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the law or regulation. If you are fined, do not pay it. Make the government defend civil litigation in every city and every state across the country. The government cannot possibly do this, anymore than it can possibly shut down every single Christian, conservative, right-wing, Republican or Libertarian show and/or station in the country. More to the point, they won’t want the country to see them try. If you think Santelli’s rant generated public outrage, imagine how the public would react to footage of government agents coming into your studio or station and forcing you to shut down. Imagine that happening all over the country. When blacks marched peacefully through the streets of the south in the 1960s, and they had the water hoses turned on them, and attack dogs unleashed on them, the rest of America saw those governments for what they were. This government is depending upon our complicity in its takeover. Not anymore. This time, we are saying, “No.”

You can access the complete column on-line here:

The Taxpayers' Mantra: No We Won't
Laura Hollis
TownHall.com
February 24, 2009

Obama's Lies About Deficits

Okay, how many of you were doubled over with laughter after President Obama made the following remark yesterday:

"We're not going to be able to fall back into the same old habits," Mr. Obama said. "The casual dishonesty of hiding irresponsible spending with clever accounting tricks, the costly overruns, the fraud and abuse, the endless excuses."

This, coming from a President who forced a piece of legislation, crafted behind closed doors and without the input of the opposition party, through Congress and even broke his own promise of openess, transparency and a five-day window for the public to review legislation before he signs it into law.

And how about that "fraud and abuse" part. Did he not see the earmarks going to ACORN, the notorius voter fraud organization? Did he not notice other pork and wasteful spending in his porkulus package? And now, he expects us to believe that he is fiscally responsible? His next spending plan has over 9,000 earmarks in it!

How dumb does Barack Obama think were are? Only the most brain-washed partisan Democrats would believe Obama's remarks.

Here's some more idoicy from a man who graduated from an Ivy League school:

"If we confront this crisis without also confronting the deficits that helped cause it, we risk sinking into another crisis down the road," the president warned, promising to cut the yearly deficit in half by the end of his four-year term. "We cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences."

And yet, he had no problem signing into law a package that will have to be paid off by our children and grandchildren. Again, how stupid does he think we are?

More:

"We are paying the price for these deficits right now," Obama said, estimating the country spends $250 billion — one in every ten dollars of taxpayer money — in interest on the national debt. "I refuse to leave our children with a debt that they cannot repay."

But that is precisely what the President is doing. He is simply trying to lay the blame at someone else's feet. I don't buy it. After that porkulus/spendulus bill passed, the Dems now own this economy. They have no one to blame but themsleves and they know it. That is why Obama and the Dems are scrambling to pass the buck so that their popularity doesn't take too much of a hit.

They say that actions speak louder than words. Right now, Obama's words are being drowned out by his actions and the actions of his socialist allies in Congress. He is lying to us and the Dems are hoping that you and I will buy it hook, line and sinker.

I'm not that blind. I see what is really happening and no amount of spin or lies from the Oval Office and the Democrat controlled Congress will ever change the truth.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama Pledges Decrease In Deficit — After Increase (More Than Doubling It)
Associated Press via NewsMax.com
February 23, 2009

Appropriate Cartoons Today

Our children and grandchildren may never forgive us for what Barack Obama is about to sign, nor should they.

Socialized Medicine: Enforcing Your "Duty To Die"

As noted earlier, the Porkulus/Spendulus/Stimulus Package passed by the socialist Democrats in Congress and set for signature by our socialist President Barack Obama, contains language that will begin setting up American Health Care in the style of European Health Care (or more accurately, lack thereof if you happen to be one of the unfortunate ones who fall into certain categories). That language will allow the creation fo a Federal Council that will have the power to over-ride your doctor's treatment prescriptions if some faceless bureaucrat with little to no medical traiing decides that you are not worth treating.

Writing for Town Hall, Austin Hill has this:

Western Europe’s utopian ambitions to “insure everybody” and make healthcare “free” have by no means been realized. In fact, the nationalizing of healthcare in Europe has led to worsening government deficits, and increased healthcare costs, and efforts to contain those costs have resulted in the denial of treatment to those persons not expected to live much longer - - that is, the elderly and the seriously ill. This “need” to deny people health care has frequently, in Europe, been cast in terms of one’s “duty to die.” The idea is that, once you have lived “long enough;” after you have consumed your “fair share” of the earth’s resources; and when your combined age and health conditions make it “obvious” that further efforts to prolong your life just simply “aren’t worth it;” you will then have a responsibility to accept these consequences, and to accept that you’ll just have to get along without life-sustaining healthcare. In other words, once a government employee has determined that spending healthcare resources on you will not produce much of a “return on the investment,” you will then have a “duty to die.”

That is precisely what we are heading for. And, in this world of ironies, the American Association of Retired Persons was lobbying Republicans to pass this beast. In essence, the AARP wanted to pass legislation that would make it legally acceptable for the government to withhold medical treat from AARP members!

Moreover, you are about to lose the privilidge of doctor-patient confidentiality:

Forget the notion that the Doctor-patient relationship is “sacred,” or that you will make “private” decisions about your health care, in consultation with your Doctor. If Democrats continue the trend of "Europeanizing" our American health care, the office of the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology will eventually be overseeing your healthcare, making sure that if your Doctor spends “too much” on you, they will face federal “penalties, ” the likes of which have yet to be fully defined. For over three decades, the Democratic Party has insisted that it is wrong for government to “interfere” with a woman’s medical decisions with respect to the child in the womb. Now, President Obama and congressional Democrats are insisting that government must be involved in everybody’s medical decisions. Worse yet, their proposals threaten human life on yet another front: not only are unborn children threatened by their policies, but so, also, are the ill and the elderly. If Americans continue voting for “more government” as a means to “cure” all our societal ills, we will continue to move closer to the point where anonymous government bureaucrats determine when you have lived “long enough,” when you have consumed your “fair share” of resources, and when it is “obvious” that you won’t live much longer. President Obama and the Democratic Congress are determined to take us to this point.

More double-standards. If that was the "change" you wanted in Washington D.C., I'd say you now have it.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Democrats, Health Care "Reform," And Your "Duty To Die"
Austin Hill
TownHall.com
February 15, 2009

Democrats Delay Bill Release To Conceal Hidden Agenda, Uploaded It In Non-Searchable Format

Whatever happened to the promise of making bills public for at least 48 hours before a vote so that the bill can be reviewed before debate begins? Apparently, the Dems had no intention of keeping that promise. Nor did they want the public to be able to do key-word searches on the porkulus/spendulus package going before a vote today.

From Connie Hair at Human Events:

Democratic staffers released the final version of the stimulus bill at about 11 p.m. last night after delaying the release for hours to put it into a format which people cannot “search” on their home computers. Instead of publishing the bill as a regular internet document -- which people can search by “key words” and otherwise, the Dems took hours to convert the final bill from the regular searchable format into “pdf” files, which can be read but not searched. Three of the four .pdf files had no text embedded, just images of the text, which did not permit text searches of the bill. That move to conceal the bill’s provisions had not been remedied this morning at the time of publication of this article.

Why did the Democrats go to such lengths to conceal what is in this bill? Why are they making it so difficult for people to research and study its contents? It is almost like a little child trying to hide a piece of food that he/she doesn't want to eat while not knowing that Mom and Dad are watching them search for a hiding place.

There is alot the Dems want to hide. The aforementioned Health Care provisions that allow the Federal government to step in and reverse your doctor's decisions are among them. But, there are some more sinister ones that may even be unconstitutional:

We found one provision that may be a good example of why the Democrats are desperate to stop any exposure of what is in this bill. Like this gem: SEC. 1607. (a) CERTIFICATION BY GOVERNOR -- Not later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act, for funds provided to any State or agency thereof, the Governor of the State shall certify that: 1) the State request and use funds provided by this Act , and; 2) funds be used to create jobs and promote economic growth. (b) ACCEPTANCE BY STATE LEGISLATURE -- If funds provided to any State in any division of this Act are not accepted for use by the Governor, then acceptance by the State legislature, by means of the adoption of a concurrent resolution, shall be sufficient to provide funding to such State. This provision -- apparently aimed at conservative governors such as South Carolina’s Mark Sanford who does not want the federal money -- would overturn state laws and constitutions, intervening directly in the state’s government to give the legislature the power to overturn a government’s decision. This provision probably violates the U.S. Constitution, a matter which will be of no concern to Congressional Democrats.

That's right. The Constitution of the United States guarantees each state a "Republican form of government" and the 10th Amendment relegates all powers not enumerated in that document to the several states.

Pretty easy to see why the Dems are trying to slip this one past us hoping that we wouldn't notice.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Democrats Delay Bill Release To Conceal Details
Connie Hair
Human Event Online
February 13, 2009

Blog Entry From Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MI)

As Congress readies itself to spend $300 million on golf carts as part of their multi-hundred-billion-dollar stimulus proposal, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has provided some very alarming numbers - and Congress should take heed. According to the CBO, in 2009 and 2010, 98% of the tax cuts in the Democrats' economic "stimulus" package will go into effect, providing for 1.4% growth in our nation's Gross Domestic Product in that time. However, the other 2% of the stimulus tax cuts will go into the economy between 2011 and 2019 - along with about half the spending in the package. The problem with this equation is that the $1.1-trillion price tag (which includes the interest on the total package), our increasing debt and our crowding out of private sector activity will drive down our Gross Domestic Product to .2% less than it is today, prior to the stimulus. So what you want to take away from these numbers is this: Spending $1.1 trillion today will result in a loss of 0.2% of our wealth tomorrow. (Check out the Graph) According to the peer-reviewed research and methodology of Dr. Christina Romer, the President’s head of the Council of Economic Advisors and the nation’s chief economist, The Republican Economic Recovery Plan creates twice the jobs at half the cost. Americans know that tax cuts are a better way to immediately stimulate the economy than wasteful government spending.

You can access this blog entry on-line here:

Spending Money Today To Lose Money Tomorrow
Michele Bachmann
TownHall.com
February 12, 2009

Letters to Senators Web And Warner About The Porkulus/Spendulus Spending Bill

Here is the text of a letter that I will be faxing/emailing this morning to Senators Webb and Warner, both liberal Democrats from Virginia. Feel free to copy/paste the letter and fax or email it in yourself. Contact information is provided below.

Dear [Senator], I am writing this letter to ask you to vote “Nay” on S. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. This bill was a bad idea from the beginning. It will cost $1.3 trillion that we do not have, and $1.3 trillion that our children and grandchildren will have to work to pay off. And, given the new revelations of health care provisions (which have nothing to do with stimulating the economy) that were stealthily inserted into this bill, it is even more imperative that you vote against it. In particular, I am referring to Title VII, the subsection titled “Agency for Healthcare and Research Quality.” It states: "That the funding appropriated in this paragraph shall be used to accelerate the development and dissemination of research assessing the comparative clinical effectiveness of health care treatments and strategies, including through efforts that: (1) conduct, support, or synthesize research that compares the clinical outcomes, effectiveness, and appropriateness of items, services, and procedures that are used to prevent, diagnose, or treat diseases, disorders, and other health conditions and (2) encourage the development and use of clinical registries, clinical data networks, and other forms of electronic health data that can be used to generate or obtain outcomes data: Provided further, That the Secretary shall enter into a contract with the Institute of Medicine, for which no more than $1,500,000 shall be made available from funds provided in this paragraph, to produce and submit a report to the Congress and the Secretary by not later than June 30, 2009 that includes recommendations on the national priorities for comparative clinical effectiveness research to be conducted or supported with the funds provided in this paragraph and that considers input from stakeholders: Provided further, That the Secretary shall consider any recommendations of the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Clinical Effectiveness Research established by section 802 of this Act" This is very dangerous wording and will lead us to the socialized health care systems that have wreaked havoc on the people of Canada and Europe. Essentially, it allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a standard of who and what can be treated by doctors and hospitals and who and what cannot. In other words, it will permit the Federal Government to approve or disapprove of a doctor’s recommended treatment of a patient. It will effectively allow the Federal Government to over-ride a doctor’s decision. Given the fact that these bureaucrats will have little to no medical training themselves, that alone is reason enough to oppose this bill. Further, this provision was hidden in this bill for a specific reason. Tom Daschle, the tax-evading former HHS appointee, wrote in his 2008 book, Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis, that he supported the failed socialized medicine plan of the Clintons in 1994 and said that its failure was due to delay. (In actuality, the American people do not want the government making medical decisions for them.) Hence, Daschle wrote “If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it. The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol.” Thus, this socialized medicine provision was written in to the bill during some late-night session when the cameras were not rolling and the Republicans had been locked out of the proceedings. Please vote “Nay.” On this bill and help to preserve quality health care for Virginia and America and to protect our children and grandchildren from a debt that they had no hand in creating. Thank you.

Senator Webb's contact information:

Fax: 202-228-6363
On-line contact: Contact Senator Webb

Senator Warner's contact information:

Fax: 202-224-6295
On-line contact: Contact Senator Warner

Democrat Chuck Schumer: "Americans Don't Care About Pork"

Yep. He really said that. He also referred to those of us criticizing the pork in this spending bill as "the chattering class" that focuses on the pork.

Yes, Chuck, we do focus on things that, especially when we have two-month-old children who are going to have to work to pay off your efforts to reward to your political allies.

From the New York Post:

"And let me say this to all of the chattering class that so much focuses on those little, tiny, yes, porky amendments, the American people really don't care," Schumer said on the Senate floor.

I'll make sure my son remembers this as he enters the work force in eighteen years so that he can pay off his share of a debt that he had no hand in creating.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Senator Charles Schumer: Americans Don't Mind A Little Pork
Post Staff Report
New York Post
February 10, 2009