Monday, August 31, 2009

Political Tactics

It’s like watching a ping-pong game with your nose six inches from the net. It makes your neck ache.

First, people were concerned about the source of Obama’s campaign money. It’s really hard to trace $10 at a time. And he had the nerve to renege on his promise to use only the public campaign money. (Does that make Obama a reneger?)

And everyone knows that the GOP funds their campaigns with big business cash from insurance companies and doctors. Six months ago it was automakers. Twelve months ago it was mortgage companies. It’s funny how that works.

Then came the tea party protests brought to you by highly organized astroturfers. (Or so the story goes.)

Of course, Saul Alinsky’s rules came up again, suggesting that Obama keeps Saul’s writings in the center desk drawer in the Oval Office. (Not true. All that good stuff is in the drawer on the left.)

Obama resorts to flagging people who disagree with him on healthcare, all in the interest of clearing up misinformation. He even goes to the extreme of sending unsolicited emails to explain the 1,100 pages of the bill in a few short paragraphs. (Is David Axelrod really that good?)

Now we learn that the town hall meetings are being scripted by the left to protect the congressman, ridicule those who are critical of the president, and steer the discussion in order to spin the meetings.

I think you’ll like this youtube about the creation and use of icons.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdtqtfXdR-c
We all need to know that things are never as they seem.

Saturday, August 29, 2009

Attention Idaho!

You are under attack.

Read this story below:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705326673/Idaho-potato-boycott-urged.html

It seems some group in Connecticut has called for a boycott on tater tots. Why?
The wolf hunt. How dare they issue hunting permits to thin 200 wolves from Idaho? What barbarians!

So, to get even they are calling for people to eschew the Idaho potato.

Pass the sour cream.

Friday, August 28, 2009

Microsoft steps in it

Microsoft ran the ad on the top in the United States.
The bottom ad is the version they used in Poland.
And the BBC and Americans are livid about it.

You can't marginalize a minority any more definitively than airbrushing him out of history. Or so they say.

So what's the solution? Well, Microsoft pulled the ad and apologized. And race-baiters like Dawn Trice over at the Chicago Tribune are milking it as part of her "dialog" on race in the United States.

(Trice can be read here: http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/race/2009/08/microsoft-ad-swaps-out-black-guy-for-white-guy.html)

Me? I think the whole thing is foolish. If Microsoft wants to put Homer Simpson's face on that body they should have a right to do so.

In fact, I get a little more than irritated when advertisers and institutions go out of their way to represent the UN in all their ads. We get spun enough; we don't need the rainbow coalition jammed down our throats.

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Glenn Beck

Glenn Beck is the new liberal punchline.

Please be aware that anyone with strong conservative views on taxes, cash for clunkers, health care, immigration, affirmative action, Supreme court appointments, government corruption, Sarah Palin, abortion, stimulus...will automatically be tagged as a Glenn Beck supporter.

And chances are they will throw in a comment about gun totting and/or tinfoil hats.

The left continues to marginalize those who disagree with their agenda by simply calling them names.

It used to be Rush Limbaugh. Now it is Glenn Beck. And it really doesn't matter if you watch Beck or even know who he is. In the eyes of the progressives, you must be a Glenn Beck minion.

Here's a sample comment on a story about a Tea Party meeting (rant night) held in Elgin. ru486 wrote: "Our town has been taken over by a pack of crazy, idiotic fascists who have been brainwashed by Glenn Beck."

See how easy that is? You don't have to refute the logic of those who spoke at the meeting or even put forth your own proposal. No sir. Just call them names and say those two magic words: "Glenn Beck." And the group is officially marginalized.

Based on the way those town hall meetings are going, Beck must be a very powerful man indeed.

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Strange bedfellows

The passing of Senator Ted Kennedy calls to mind his strange alliance with George W Bush in the spring of 2007.

You'll recall the "Gang of 12" and Harry Reid's "Clay Pigeons" and the May Day parades where the protesters (most of them anyway) left their Mexican flags at home and just carried the posters printed by the SEIU.

Ah, those were great days.

And Kennedy promised to deliver the Democrats while Bush whipped the GOP into line.

There is a story told here of an interesting twist of events. Bush had sent a new version of the immigration reform bill over to Ted Kennedy. Ted called the White House to tell the President he'd made a mistake; he left out the back taxes requirement for amnesty.

And Bush explained that it was no mistake. Bush had deliberately taken out the back taxes. He didn't just limit it to the most recent one or two years; he took it out completely!

Bush had out-liberaled Ted Kennedy on Ted's favorite topic!

Read it here:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/05/19/bush_removes_provision_requiring_back_taxes_from_illegal_immigrants/

A prime example of what Senator Alan Simpson meant when he said that the immigration issue brought about "the goofiest ideological bedfellow activity I've ever seen."

From Commies to CEOs

Senator Joseph McCarthy

Congressman Henry Waxman
The term “McCarthyism” refers to overzealous investigation of your enemy, even discarding the Bill of Rights to do so. It speaks of ruining someone’s reputation by innuendo and the power of suggestion.

Instead of doing away with this shameful political practice we’ve elevated it to an art form. You already know how I feel about congressional hearings; they are nothing more than sideshows designed to grab headlines for your cause.

Along comes Henry Waxman, congressman from California, to drive another nail in the coffin of Capitalism. We are to believe that profits, high salaries, and bonuses are evil. The mantra is that wealth must be ill-gotten and is always worthy of derision.

(One wonders if these geniuses in Washington stop to think who employs people? Who pays the highest taxes? Who subsidizes all the charities?)

Here is a letter sent by Waxman to insurance company executives as part of his fact-finding project:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/waxmanletter20090818.pdf

We’ve seen similar efforts to discredit the wealthy in these industries:
Oil
Automobiles
Banks
Airlines

The words “Profit”, “Bonus” and “Capitalism” have become dirty words since….oh….2006 when the Democrats took control of Congress.

And they are easy targets, especially when people are out of work.

Oh, and did you hear the Obama administration has named a union boss as Chairman of the New York Federal Reserve? Read it and weep:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/24/AR2009082403124.html?hpid=topnews

This one is a stretch. There must be a shortage of bankers since this guy has no banking experience. And the New York Fed can hardly be considered a backwater post.

Another swig of the Islamic Kool-Aid and it’ll be against the law to charge interest on loans.

And the Obama generation has no strong negative reaction to the term “Socialism” as Rasmussen found out in April.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/april_2009/just_53_say_capitalism_better_than_socialism
From Joe-the-Plumber to the car-czar, none of this should surprise us. The American Dream seems to have more to do with entitlements than opportunity, at least from the view at the White House.

Monday, August 24, 2009

Obama continues

President Obama continues his program of theological affirmative action with a five-minute video speech to Muslims at the beginning of Ramadan.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Ramadan-Kareem/

So, why the special treatment of Muslims? A generous estimate of the Muslim population in the United States is around 6 million.

Why, that’s about the same as the Mormon population in the United States. Where was his five-minute video tribute to them on Pioneer Day, July 24th?

Did Obama bow to the leader of the Mormon Church during his recent visit to the White House? Of course not!

Obama extols the virtues of Muslims for their charitable efforts around the world. The Mormons do the same, arriving at disaster scenes with water, tarps, and food. Mormons around the world are assembling hygiene kits, collecting wheelchairs, and sending doctors to small villages to treat the sick.

Mormons send clothes, build schools, dig wells, and teach agriculture in remote areas of the world.

So, Mr. President, why are you playing favorites with Muslims? Because of your step-father? Because of the political clout? Because of oil? Because some of them are terrorists?

What say you honor your own, red-blooded, American institutions now and then.

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Harry Reid is at it again

Word comes from the office of Senator Harry Reid, D-Nevada, that his patience is running thin over health care reform. So, he's threatening a parliamentary maneuver to get the bill passed.

If he can't get the 60 votes to pass it, he'll dig up some rules so he only needs 51. It's called conciliation

Harry, Harry, Harry...you know those shenanigans never work. Remember two years ago when you were trying to pass immigration reform? Did the clay pigeon thing work? No.

How about the Rule 14 trick? Did it work? No.

One of these days you're going to pass a bill using one of your tricks and American will REALLY be mad at you. Just let the process work and build support for your agenda. If it doesn't happen, listen to the hidden message...America doesn't want what you're selling! And we don't think you know best. Just look at your track record and your approval ratings.

A lack of public support is like pain in your body; it's trying to tell you something.

Why are politicians so dense? And why does Reid insist on trying to shove things down our throats?

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Aping for the audience

When a politician speaks to old warriors, he talks of war. When he speaks to the progressives, he talks of peace.

As it turned out, on the 40th anniversary of Woodstock Obama found himself in front of the Veterans of Foreign Wars annual convention...and he spoke of war.

Said he: "As I said when I announced this strategy, there will be more difficult days ahead. The insurgency in Afghanistan didn't just happen overnight and we won't defeat it overnight. This will not be quick, nor easy. But we must never forget: This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is a -- this is fundamental to the defense of our people."

As CBS News reported on March 25, 2003:
Rumsfeld also cautioned that the war had a long way to go. "We're still, needless to say, much closer to the beginning than to the end," he said.

Still, President Bush forecast victory during a visit to the Pentagon. "The Iraqi regime will be ended ... and our world will be more secure and peaceful,” he said.

And in October of 2003, Rumsfeld gave this assessment of the war:
"It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog."

It's really too bad Obama didn't address the Woodstock crowd. That would have made an interesting comparison, especially if he had talked about Vietnam or Afghanistan.

But at least in this setting (The VFW) he speaks like a warrior, a refreshing change indeed.

Monday, August 17, 2009

The White House improves

The Obama White House improves its response time, and doesn't even whine about it.

When confronted late last week (8/13/09) about people getting Spam from the White House (not government cheese) Press Secretary Gibbs pled the fifth after a Scott McClellen-esque interchange with reporters:

Q Speaking of the e-mail, how was the list for who would receive it determined?
MR. GIBBS: I believe it's for people that have signed up to receive e-mail updates from the White House.
Q The reason I ask is I have received e-mails from people who did not, in any way, shape, or form, seek any communication from the White House, who have never registered on OFA, who have never registered on a campaign Web site --
MR. GIBBS: Well, hold on, let's --
Q Let me finish my question, let me finish my question.
MR. GIBBS: No, no, no, but let's be clear, because --
Q Let me finish my question.
MR. GIBBS: No, no, no, but let's be clear before you -- I'm going to give you a chance to finish your question. You've done this a couple of times, Major, and I just want to be very clear, okay. OFA -- no, no, no, no, don't look funny. OFA, whether Obama for America or Organizing for America has nothing to do with, never has had anything to do with what -- if you sign up for, through whitehouse.gov, to receive e-mails, so let's just -- the reason I interrupted you is because I want you to rephrase your question that doesn't continue to assume that --
Q Well, all I'm trying to get at is --
MR. GIBBS: -- somebody is violating the law and mixing up political --
Q -- I receive e-mails from people who have never, ever signed up for anything related to this White House, Senator Obama as a candidate, Senator Obama as anything, and have received e-mails from David Axelrod. How could that be?
MR. GIBBS: I'd have to look at who you said got the e-mail.
Q I mean, do you seek other pieces of information identifying who might be curious about health care outside of people who have asked for e-mails?
MR. GIBBS: I'm sorry, say that again.
Q Do you in any way seek databases or information about people who might be interested in health care?
MR. GIBBS: I will certainly check. I will certainly check. I am not under that impression. But again --
Q I mean, folks have emailed me -- I just want to know -- would like to know how they get an e-mail from the White House when they have never asked for one.
MR. GIBBS: I'd be interested to see who you got that e-mail from and whether or not they're on the list. I don't --
Q May I follow up politely on one of Major Garrett's --
MR. GIBBS: Well, let me -- let me finish needling Major.
Q -- this row, please.
MR. GIBBS: Again, I just want to be -- but I just want to be very --
Q So what you're telling me is I need to give you these people's e-mails so you can check them on a list? I'm just asking.
MR. GIBBS: Well, you're asking me if they're on a list.
Q No, they're telling me --
MR. GIBBS: If you can figure out a different way of checking without asking me to double-check the name, I'm happy to --
Q Perhaps I'm not phrasing this correctly. They're telling me they're not -- they can't be on a list because they never asked for an e-mail from the White House.
MR. GIBBS: Right, but what I'm saying is I don't -- I'd have to look and see --
Q So there's no -- you don't have an explanation for how someone who never signed up and never asked for anything from the White House would get an e-mail from David Axelrod?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I hesitate to give you an answer, because you might impugn the motives of the answer.
Q Why would you say that?
MR. GIBBS: Because of the way you phrased your follow-up. I'd have to look at what you got, Major. I don't -- I appreciate the fact that I have omnipotent clarity as to what you've received in your e-mail box today.
Q You don't have to have omnipotent clarity. You don't have to impugn anything. I'm telling you what I got -- e-mails from people who said they never asked anything from the White House --
MR. GIBBS: And I'm simply saying --
Q -- and yet they received something.
MR. GIBBS: We can -- let me go to someplace else that might be constructive.


And today the White House indicates that there was a problem with third party groups (presumably groups other than OFA - Obama for America or Organizing for America) sharing email addresses with the White House which David Axelrod used to send out messages pitching Obamacare.

Pretty good. Four days to issue a back-handed admission of guilt and halt the pratice.

Then the line went dead on "Obama's snitch on my critics" email address, aka flag@whitehouse.gov. Mail sent there as of today is returned with a fatal error.

I find all of this rather humorous given Obama's tech-savvy campaign. The media said it was a near-flawless execution of technology that won him the younger vote. Suddenly he's making mistakes that make him look like an old guy like...well, like John McCain.

Still, Gibbs comes across as an uninformed white guy who tries to be funny but isn't a serious source of presidential information. And it really isn't his fault. He's an Obama mushroom with a huge gap of information known as deniability.

Watch for some heads to roll over these two cyberblunders. Maybe...
Aneesh Chopra (born in New Jersey but a strong advocate of identity politics. "In 2006, Aneesh discusses how South Asians can make it in politics and perhaps most interestingly, makes a direct tie between his sense of duty and Hindu philosophy." )
link: http://theindofiles.com/2009/04/18/introducing-aneesh-chopra-americas-cto/
Vivek Kundra (born in New Dehli, India)

Who'da thunk the White House would go to India for technology expertise?

In line at O'Hare




The "L" gates are the last outpost at O'Hare. You'll find no glass archway, no flags of the nations flying at "L". "L" is where they stuff a menagerie of assorted airlines in a dark concourse with low ceilings.

And I found myself waiting in the security line at the far end of Terminal 3, gateway to the "L" concourse.

The screening line is equipped with two x-ray lines and one walk-through magnetometer...and a long line of passengers.

A heavy-set woman in a white uniform shirt limped up and down the line shouting that they were trying to find more staff but that we were the real problem.

She said that any electronic item larger than a cd player needed to be put in a separate tub. Because we weren't doing that, more bags had to be pulled for manual inspection and screening.

With TSA, it's always our fault.

And, they shouted to us to put our shoes right on the belt, not a tub...and make sure they are placed on the belt with the soles down...and nothing inside the shoes (like coins or watches).

So, I get up there and put my liquids and gels in a grey tub with my jacket.

And I got pulled aside because of my little ziplock with shampoo and 1/4th of a tube of toothpaste.

The x-ray tech flagged it and handed it to a younger woman who looked at it, shrugged, and handed it to another TSA worker.

This fellow was intense. He studied the bottom of my shampoo bottle, ostensibly looking for something that said 3.5 ozs so he could bust me for having more than 3 ounces. But it wasn't there.

Gratefully, it was a recyclable bottle or they would have called in the EPA and I would have missed my flight.

As for the 2 ounces of toothpaste remaining in the tube, he was obviously displeased that I hadn't purchased a travel size tube.

I sort of glared at him and he said, "What!" I replied, "Nothing", knowing that he had the authority to strip search me or otherwise make my life miserable for a couple of hours.

Once again, TSA comes through with a bad travel experience for me. The blue cub scout shirts did nothing to make them more traveler-friendly. I don't feel more secure because they are there.

History shows that Europe has exposed the threats. It was two flight attendants, a doctor, and passengers on a flight from Paris that detected and restrained Richard Reid and his shoe bomb plot, leading to the removal and x-ray of all shoes.

The 3-1-1 liquids and gels restriction came about in 2006 when police in the UK arrested 24 suspects who were planning to blow up airplanes by carrying various chemicals on board and mixing them, then using a spark from a battery to detonate the bombs.

Or so it seems. At the end of the day, only three of the 24 were convicted, and they were not convicted of an attempt to blow up an aircraft. Sadly our Homeland Security was nowhere to be found when it came to uncovering these plots. But to avoid embarrassment, they made knee-jerk reactions we are still living with.

But pilots see it as worse than nonsense, making air travel harder and less enjoyable.

"The sheep are buying it, " writes one American pilot on a website used by air crew. "We've already seen Angie Airhead, the 6pm news reporter, on the scene at the airport interviewing passengers stuck in hour-long screening lines. Angie: 'How do you feel about these new security measures?' Traveller: 'If it promotes the war on terror, I'll gladly give up my tube of Pepsodent.' The only thing it promotes, moron, is tooth decay."


So, maybe TSA needs a new name?
Totally Senseless Arrogance?
Travel Suppression Agency
Traveler Swearword Aggravator

In any case, their measures are intended to give the illusion of control while it seems obvious that well-funded terrorists will find a way around these silly rules.
Oh, and on my return flight that same bag of liquids and gels didn't even create a second glance from TSA.

The message escapes him

Below is an editorial I e-mailed to the White House. And below that (in blue) you will find the answer I received back from President Obama.

Obviously, he doesn't get the message that our spending can't go on this way. Instead, he saw the topic "taxes" and sent off a blurb about the Obama philosophy on the tax code.

Beyond missing the message of this editorial the White House continues to tell us that a tax break for 95% of us is still possible. Yet Obama's own people are telling us that the middle class are destined for higher taxes to offset the growing deficit. If they don't China could call in their loans and we are in real trouble.

So, don't expect correspondence from the White House to address the real issues. The drop-down box of topics will get you a canned answer, regardless of the question.

Editorial: Soaking the middle class
The Detroit News
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Having doubled the federal budget deficit in just six months in office, the Obama administration now says that the expanding deficit threatens the nation's fragile economic recovery and will require sacrifice to contain.

Sacrifice in the form of middle-class tax hikes, according to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Chief Economic Adviser Larry Summers.

Voters who swallowed candidate Barack Obama's oft-repeated pledge not to increase taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year may be surprised to hear this warning. But they shouldn't be.

Politicians are notorious for breaking no-new-taxes pledges. Had they only done the math, voters would have realized that Obama couldn't deliver on his sweeping expansion of government by cutting out waste and soaking the rich, as he promised. The president gave up early trying to find big money from trimming government fat, coming up with less than a half-percent of savings in his first budget. And there's only so much he can squeeze out of the wealthy.

The middle class is where the money is, and that's where the administration will have to go to get the cash to fund its programs.

This would be a good time for those middle-income earners to think about how much they're willing to pay for Obama's ambitions. Congress is on summer vacation, and most members are back in their districts, presumably listening to constituents.

They should be getting an earful from the taxpayers who will be saddled with the $1 trillion to $2 trillion 10-year cost of the administration's health care plan.

With Summers and Geithner already talking about broad tax hikes to cover the deficits the administration has posted so far, voters may want to seriously weigh how much more government they can afford.

Likewise with the carbon cap-and-trade proposal that has already passed the House. It will cost the average household an estimated $3,000 annually in the form of higher prices for goods and services.

Everyone wants a cleaner environment and everyone wants health care reform. But how much of each taxpayers are able to pay for should be a major consideration as these policies are shaped.

This isn't the end of what Obama has on his wish list. He also envisions expanding social spending on everything from college tuition to housing, and can be expected to drive up the deficit further with additional economic stimulus outlays.

It's good that Geithner and Summers have finally dropped the fantasy that the wealthy will pick up the tab for these vast new programs and everyone else will enjoy a free ride. It's not going to happen that way.

Taxpayers should make sure Congress understands their tolerance level for higher tax bills before it resumes debate this fall on massive new spending programs.

And the next time they come across a political candidate who promises them they can have a bright, new world that someone else will pay for, they should be a lot less gullible.

And here's the reply from the White House
Dear Friend:
Thank you for sharing your perspective on taxes.

I am committed to a fair and simple tax code that helps create jobs and spurs economic growth. My tax policy is based on the needs of everyday Americans--not on the failed philosophy that tax cuts given to those at the top eventually trickle down. Especially during this time of economic hardship, changes to our tax system must help those who are working to keep the American Dream alive.

My Administration has already implemented immediate tax relief. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided an immediate tax cut to 95 percent of American workers, assisting 120 million families. Specific tax relief also helps small businesses who record losses, college students, seniors, and first-time homebuyers. Additional tax credits assist families with children, veterans, people with disabilities, and unemployed workers.

The tax code must also be fairly designed and enforced. I have laid out reforms to crack down on illegal overseas tax evasion, close tax loopholes, and encourage job creation here in the United States. I also intend to end overly generous tax breaks for the wealthiest two percent of Americans.

Along with these changes, I am committed to restoring fiscal responsibility in the Federal government. I began by identifying $2 trillion in long-term deficit reductions and will continue this effort by cutting programs that do not work and eliminating unnecessary spending.

To learn more about our tax reform plans, visit: www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/taxes.

Again, thank you for writing about this important issue.
Sincerely,Barack Obama

To be a part of our agenda for change, join us at www.WhiteHouse.gov

Friday, August 7, 2009

My kind of flag

Remember the trouble Candidate Obama had with the flag? His non-salute followed by the nonsense about the lapel pin?

Well, finally there is a flag he can believe in...flagging any hint of dissent or criticism of his health care plan.

Citizens are encouraged to scour the Internet for e-mails, blogs, or websites that speak negatively about Obamacare and turn them in to the White House for handling...all in the name of obliterating misinformation.

So, flag away Komrades! Welcome to the watchful eye of Obama.

On a related matter, the media has decided that those who question Obama's credentials for office ("birthers", they call them) are for sure the same people who question healthcare reform. This lumping and clumping has gone to an extreme.

I guess the focus groups suggest that "birthers" are considered extreme right and not accepted by the general public. Lumping them with the legitimate concerns about healthcare serve them well.

So, gay rights people must be the same as pro-abortion people, right? Or if you favor strict gun control laws you must also favor legalizing street drugs. Is that correct?

It is all nonsense. People have individual feelings and values and they cannot be subdivided by the media. I hope the public is smarter than that.

Wednesday, August 5, 2009

Boggy Peak no more

In honor of the birthday of President Obama, Antigua has renamed it's highest peak Mount Obama.
(It isn't exactly having Marilyn Monroe sing Happy Birthday, but that's already been done.)
There she is, all 1,300 feet of her.

But, like Obama himself, the view is more impressive than the peak. It sort of looks like Camelot Lite, don't you think?
But, these days the vision of utopia can be a bit obscure.

Hope and change need a little calibration now and then.
Congratulations on your Caribbean birthday gift.

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Obamacare - The smell test

On July 16th Douglas Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued an analysis of the Obama health care reform proposals (there are more than one, and they are in constant flux) .

Elmendorf's message: The numbers don’t add up.

Obama called him to the principal’s office on July 21st. He was sent into the room with the Obama braintrust. Elmendorf went over his analysis again and told them what was wrong. He even gave them some ideas for improvement based on CBO research.

Most importantly, he didn’t walk out of the meeting with Obama and revise his analysis.
The bottom line: Health care reform won’t pay for itself and Obama should stop saying it will.

Even factcheck.org, a group I believe has a strong liberal bias (see the Michelle Obama analysis below), doesn’t buy Obama’s numbers.

It only makes sense that you can't play Robin Hood all the time. Health care is too big a nut to crack.

Besides, insurance companies have been at this game for decades, trying to reduce costs. We've all had battles over coverage and fees. And we've all paid more for our insurance coverage over the years (except maybe government employees).

On the other hand, government health programs have had significant cost overruns, been rife with corruption cases, and are of lesser quality than what is available to the privately insured.

Then there is the temptation for providers to get rich off the government. Just watch local TV during the daytime. The pitch is the same, If you are on Medicaid we'll do all the paperwork and it won't cost you a dime. And they promise the world if you call the 800 number.

These pitches are for adult diapers, diabetes meters/supplies, and motorized wheelchairs.

Have you ever wondered why they don't make a big deal of these products if you have Blue Cross? Maybe because the insurance companies are doing a pretty good job in the control department. (Too good by most accounts.)

Here's the rub, and it is finally coming to light. Obama can't do all he promises without going to the bank...the bank called the middle class taxpayer. I end today's lesson with a masterful editorial by The Detroit News.


Editorial: Soaking the middle class
The Detroit News
Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Having doubled the federal budget deficit in just six months in office, the Obama administration now says that the expanding deficit threatens the nation's fragile economic recovery and will require sacrifice to contain.

Sacrifice in the form of middle-class tax hikes, according to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Chief Economic Adviser Larry Summers.

Voters who swallowed candidate Barack Obama's oft-repeated pledge not to increase taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year may be surprised to hear this warning. But they shouldn't be.

Politicians are notorious for breaking no-new-taxes pledges. Had they only done the math, voters would have realized that Obama couldn't deliver on his sweeping expansion of government by cutting out waste and soaking the rich, as he promised. The president gave up early trying to find big money from trimming government fat, coming up with less than a half-percent of savings in his first budget. And there's only so much he can squeeze out of the wealthy.

The middle class is where the money is, and that's where the administration will have to go to get the cash to fund its programs.

This would be a good time for those middle-income earners to think about how much they're willing to pay for Obama's ambitions. Congress is on summer vacation, and most members are back in their districts, presumably listening to constituents.

They should be getting an earful from the taxpayers who will be saddled with the $1 trillion to $2 trillion 10-year cost of the administration's health care plan.

With Summers and Geithner already talking about broad tax hikes to cover the deficits the administration has posted so far, voters may want to seriously weigh how much more government they can afford.

Likewise with the carbon cap-and-trade proposal that has already passed the House. It will cost the average household an estimated $3,000 annually in the form of higher prices for goods and services.

Everyone wants a cleaner environment and everyone wants health care reform. But how much of each taxpayers are able to pay for should be a major consideration as these policies are shaped.

This isn't the end of what Obama has on his wish list. He also envisions expanding social spending on everything from college tuition to housing, and can be expected to drive up the deficit further with additional economic stimulus outlays.

It's good that Geithner and Summers have finally dropped the fantasy that the wealthy will pick up the tab for these vast new programs and everyone else will enjoy a free ride. It's not going to happen that way.

Taxpayers should make sure Congress understands their tolerance level for higher tax bills before it resumes debate this fall on massive new spending programs.
And the next time they come across a political candidate who promises them they can have a bright, new world that someone else will pay for, they should be a lot less gullible.

Saturday, August 1, 2009

Michelle Obama and health care

Us older folks will recall that Hillary Clinton carried the ball for Bill in pushing for health care reform in 1993. That didn’t work out so well.

So, what does Michelle Obama think about health care reform? We forget that she was employed by The University of Chicago Medical Center until she moved to Washington in January.

Her job title? Vice president for community and external affairs

Her salary history?
2004 $121,910
2005 $316,962
2006 $273,618
2007 $103,633 (switched to part time)
2008 $62,709 (Took unpaid leave to campaign)

Her effectiveness?
In 2006 a $1 MILLION federal grant was authorized to build a new pavilion at the hospital. And who wrote the earmark and submitted it? None other than Senator Barack Obama.

Now, factcheck.org (or should it be fatcheck.org?) looked into it and declared that everything is on the up-and-up. Whew. I thought we had a scandal here with all the close ties and earmarks.

So, what did factcheck.org find out? Well, the numbers are correct but there is no favoritism here. Who says? Well, the principal players in this Chicago political drama.

For example, factcheck.org says: But Michael Riordan, who served as the medical center's president at the time, told the Chicago Tribune that it had nothing to do with her husband. "She was hired before Barack was Barack,” Riordan told the newspaper. "She is worth her weight in gold, and she is just terrific." The Tribune reported that Riordan "had planned early on for the position [of executive director of community affairs] to evolve into a vice president’s post as a way of showing the organization’s commitment to community outreach."

So, if the guy who hired her and promoted her says there is no scandal it must be true. (I’m beginning to lose respect for factcheck.org.)

Here’s another chunk of the report: Second, the column implies that her "networking" was what caused her then-senator husband to request a "$1 million earmark for the UC Medical Center" back in 2006. But that's unsubstantiated also. He did request the funds for the "construction of a new hospital pavilion" at the University of Chicago, but both Obama and hospital officials denied that the request was influenced by his wife's position. And during the campaign, Obama's aides were quick to point out that the request was one of many projects that the former senator made in 2005 and 2006 that were killed by Congress.

So, Obama and hospital officials deny any influence peddling. (They write this with a straight face? It usually takes a wiretap to get a confession in this town. Do you think they’ll own up to something in The New York Times?)

And here’s the final official explanation from factcheck.org: Lastly, the column questioned the hospital's decision not to fill the position vacated by the first lady, asking: "How can that be, if the work she did was vital enough to be worth $317,000?" It's true that after her departure, the hospital did not fill the position of vice president for community and external affairs. But the column doesn't mention that she had reduced her work schedule to part time well before she left and wasn't making that much money when she officially resigned. Easton told us that "the responsibilities related to that position have been absorbed by those in other roles." Dr. James Madara, CEO of the Medical Center, announced that the Office of Community and External Affairs would be "reorganized" under Dr. Eric Whitaker, executive vice president for strategic affiliations, according to a hospital press release.
Now there’s a name I remember. Dr. Eric Whitaker is a classmate of the Prez from Harvard, one of the ivy league inner circle of blacks. Whitaker still shoots hoop with Obama whenever he can. (The above AP photo was taken in Hawaii just last August.)

And Barack put in a good word for Whitaker to none other than Tony Rezko. And suddenly Whitaker is appointed by Blago to be the Director of the Illinios Department of Public Health.

They remain close friends. When the White House called a forum on health care reform on March 7th, Whitaker was right there with Valerie Jarrett and Zeke Emanuel…all Chicago political hacks.

So, don’t worry. There’s no favoritism here. Factcheck.org says so. But I think it tells quite a story about Obama, politics, and the evil medical business. And it explains why Michelle isn’t the frontman on health care reform.

Sweet throws the grenade

The setting is a July 22nd press conference where Obama tries to pitch his health care reform.

The final question was by Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times. If you ever believed these press conferences were spontaneous, the article linked below should remove that idea from your mind.

Reporters are selected in advance and notified. They are also told they will probably be able to ask a question. And, as the article also reveals, the reporters are chosen in part because of the outlet they represent, sometimes pitting one paper against another in the same city.

(So much for the theatrics that lead us to believe that the president is merely scanning the crowd for a raised hand. I suppose this is NOT an Obama invention, but rather the procedure for previous presidents as well.)

So, here’s Lynn Sweet’s account of the press conference:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/1682926,CST-NWS-sweet24.article

Wonks will debate whether or not the question itself was a plant by Obama or at least approved in advance. Sweet says no. Some folks simply don’t believe her.

If the question was known in advance I’d say the president did a poor job of answering it. Some say he wanted to stir controversy to either deflect attention away from Washington or invigorate the black agenda. We may never know.

We DO know that Sweet’s bomb and Obama’s fumble nourished the media for days. Here it is ten days out and we are now exploiting the minor characters, finding out all there is to know about the 911 caller. Gates made news by sending her flowers.

Next, I suppose we’ll be exploring the day-to-day life of the dispatcher. Or perhaps the guy who maintained the police car used in the call.

Speaking of flowers, I hope every media outlet in the land is sending flowers to Lynn Sweet. After all, she’s a rainmaker.

Note: I happen to like the way Lynn Sweet handled the Blago scandal. Her own words are less important than the source information she provides. Sweet makes sure we have transcripts and pdfs of indictments and other cool stuff for those of us who like to read it for ourselves.