Free

President Obama to Congress on Solyndra:

F*UCK YOU!

President Obama’s attorney sent a letter to Congressional investigators on Friday, saying the White House would not cooperate with a subpoena requesting documents related to its doling out a $535 million loan guarantee to now bankrupt solar panel manufacturer Solyndra.

“I can only conclude that your decision to issue a subpoena, authorized by a party-line vote, was driven more by partisan politics than a legitimate effort to conduct a responsible investigation,” Obama’s counsel, Kathryn Ruemmler, wrote in a letter to the top Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce committee. (Read Ruemmler’s full letter here).

Gee, I wonder what would have happen if they said that about, oh, Valerie Plame?

Oh, that’s right they did and the Democrats just kept right on coming because it’s “don’t do as I do do as I say”… 🙂

Committee chairman Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich, blasted the White House response:

“We have been reasonable every step of the way in this investigation, and it is a shame that the Obama Administration and House Democrats continue to put up partisan roadblocks to hide the truth from taxpayers. Solyndra was a jobs program gone bad, and we must learn the lessons of Solyndra as we work to turn our economy around and put folks back to work. Our judicious and methodical work over the last eight months has garnered tens of thousands of pages of documents from DOE and OMB that have proven we are on the right track. Now, we need to know the White House’s role in the Solyndra debacle in order to learn the full truth about why taxpayers now find themselves a half billion dollars in the hole. The White House could have avoided the need for subpoena authorizations if they had simply chosen to cooperate. That would have been the route we preferred, and frankly, it would have been better for the White House to get the information out now, rather than continue to drag this out. Our request for documents is reasonable – we are not demanding the President’s blackberry messages as we are respectful of Executive Privilege. What is the West Wing trying to hide? We owe it to American taxpayers to find out.”

I can’t wait for the race card on this one… 😦

Massachusetts brought you State Required Health Insurance. Now they can bring you a free car!!

Gov. Deval Patrick’s free wheels for welfare recipients program is revving up despite the stalled economy, as the keys to donated cars loaded with state-funded insurance, repairs and even AAA membership are handed out to get them to work.

But the program – fueled by a funding boost despite the state’s fiscal crash – allows those who end up back on welfare to keep the cars anyway.

“It’s mind-boggling. You’ve got people out there saying, ‘I just lost my job. Hey, can I get a free car, too?’ ” said House Minority Leader Brad Jones (R-North Reading).

The Patrick administration decided last month to funnel an additional $30,000 to the nearly $400,000 annual car ownership program.

The program, which is provided by the State Department of Transitional Assistance, gives out about 65 cars a year, said DTA Commissioner Julia Kehoe.

The state pays for the car’s insurance, inspection, excise tax, title, registration, repairs and a AAA membership for one year at a total cost of roughly $6,000 per car.

“If you look at the overall picture, this helps make sure people aren’t staying on cash assistance. It’s a relatively short payment for a long-term benefit,” Kehoe said.

But Kehoe admitted about 20 percent of those who received a car ended up back on welfare, and while they lose the insurance and other benefits, they don’t have to return the car.

Mark Steyn

Corporate Collaborators
Standing with “the 99%” means supporting the destruction of civilized society.

Way back in 1968, after the riots at the Democratic Convention in Chicago, Mayor Daley declared that his forces were there to “preserve disorder.” I believe that was one of Hizzoner’s famous malapropisms. Forty-three years later Jean Quan, mayor of Oakland, and the Oakland city council have made “preserving disorder” the official municipal policy. On Wednesday, the “Occupy Oakland” occupiers rampaged through the city, shutting down the nation’s fifth-busiest port, forcing stores to close, terrorizing those residents foolish enough to commit the reactionary crime of “shopping,” destroying ATMs, spraying the Christ the Light Cathedral with the insightful observation “F**k,” etc. And how did the Oakland city council react? The following day they considered a resolution to express their support for “Occupy Oakland” and to call on the city administration to “collaborate with protesters.”

That’s “collaborate” in the Nazi-occupied-France sense: The city’s feckless political class are collaborating with anarchists against the taxpayers who maintain them in their sinecures. They’re not the only ones. When the rumor spread that the Whole Foods store, of all unlikely corporate villains, had threatened to fire employees who participated in the protest, the regional president, David Lannon, took to Facebook: “We totally support our Team Members participating in the General Strike today — rumors are false!” But, despite his “total support,” they trashed his store anyway, breaking windows and spraypainting walls. As the Oakland Tribunereported:

A man who witnessed the Whole Foods attack, but asked not to be identified, said he was in the store buying an organic orange when the crowd arrived.

There’s an epitaph for the republic if ever I heard one.

The experience was surreal, the man said. “They were wearing masks. There was this whole mess of people, and no police here. That was weird.”

No, it wasn’t. It was municipal policy. In fairness to the miserable David Lannon, Whole Foods was in damage-control mode. Men’s Wearhouse in Oakland had no such excuse. In solidarity with the masses, they printed up a huge poster declaring “We stand with the 99%” and announcing they’d be closed that day. In return, they got their windows smashed.

I’m a proud member of the 1 percent, and I’d have been tempted to smash ’em myself. A few weeks back, finding myself suddenly without luggage, I shopped at a Men’s Wearhouse, faute de mieux, in Burlington, Vt. Never again. I’m not interested in patronizing craven corporations so decadent and self-indulgent that as a matter of corporate policy they support the destruction of civilized society. Did George Zimmer, founder of Men’s Wearhouse and backer of Howard Dean, marijuana decriminalization, and many other fashionable causes, ever glance at the photos of the OWS occupiers and ponder how many of “the 99%” were ever likely to be in need of his two-for-one deal on suits and neckties? And did he think even these dummies were dumb enough to fall for such a feebly corporatist attempt at appeasing the mob?

I don’t “stand with the 99%,” and certainly not downwind of them. But I’m all for their “occupation” continuing on its merry way. It usefully clarifies the stakes. At first glance, an alliance of anarchists and government might appear to be somewhat paradoxical. But the formal convergence in Oakland makes explicit the movement’s aims: They’re anarchists for statism, wild free-spirited youth demanding more and more total government control of every aspect of life — just so long as it respects the fundamental human right to sloth. What’s happening in Oakland is a logical exercise in class solidarity: The government class enthusiastically backing the breakdown of civil order is making common cause with the leisured varsity class, the thuggish union class, and the criminal class in order to stick it to what’s left of the beleaguered productive class. It’s a grand alliance of all those societal interests that wish to enjoy in perpetuity a lifestyle they are not willing to earn. Only the criminal class is reasonably upfront about this. The rest — the lifetime legislators, the unions defending lavish and unsustainable benefits, the “scholars” whiling away a somnolent half decade at Complacency U — are obliged to dress it up a little with some hooey about “social justice” and whatnot.

But that’s all it takes to get the media and modish if insecure corporate entities to string along. Whole Foods can probably pull it off. So can Ben & Jerry’s, the wholly owned subsidiary of the Anglo-Dutch corporation Unilever that nevertheless successfully passes itself off as some sort of tie-dyed Vermont hippie commune. But a chain of stores that sells shirts, ties, the garb of the corporate lackey has a tougher sell. The class that gets up in the morning, pulls on its lousy Men’s Wearhouse get-up, and trudges off to work has to pay for all the other classes, and the strain is beginning to tell.

Let it be said that the “occupiers” are right on the banks: They shouldn’t have been bailed out. America has one of the most dysfunctional banking systems in the civilized world, and most of its allegedly indispensable institutions should have been allowed to fail. But the Occupy Oakland types have no serious response, other than the overthrow of capitalism and its replacement by government-funded inertia.

America is seizing up before our eyes: The decrepit airports, the underwater property market, the education racket, the hyper-regulated business environment. Yet curiously the best example of this sclerosis is the alleged “revolutionary” movement itself. It’s the voice of youth, yet everything about it is cobwebbed. It’s more like an open-mike karaoke night of a revolution than the real thing. I don’t mean just the placards with the same old portable quotes by Lenin et al., but also, say, the photograph in Forbes of Rachel, a 20-year-old “unemployed cosmetologist” with remarkably uncosmetological complexion, dressed in pink hair and nose ring as if it’s London, 1977, and she’s killing time at Camden Lock before the Pistols gig. Except that that’s three and a half decades ago, so it would be like the Sex Pistols dressing like the Andrews Sisters. Are America’s revolting youth so totally pathetically moribund they can’t even invent their own hideous fashion statements? Last weekend, the nonagenarian Commie Pete Seeger was wheeled out at Zuccotti Park to serenade the oppressed masses with “If I Had a Hammer.” As it happens, I do have a hammer. Pace Mr. Seeger, they’re not that difficult to acquire, even in a recession. But, if I took it to Zuccotti Park, I doubt very much anyone would know how to use it, or be able to muster the energy to do so.

At heart, Oakland’s occupiers and worthless political class want more of the same fix that has made America the Brokest Nation in History: They expect to live as beneficiaries of a prosperous Western society without making any contribution to the productivity necessary to sustain it. This is the “idealism” that the media are happy to sentimentalize, and that enough poseurs among the corporate executives are happy to indulge — at least until the window-smashing starts. To “occupy” Oakland or anywhere else, you have to have something to put in there. Yet the most striking feature of OWS is its hollowness. And in a strange way the emptiness of its threats may be a more telling indictment of a fin de civilisation West than a more coherent protest movement could ever have mounted.

Tragedy Avoidable

An illegal immigrant has been charged with vehicular homicide after hitting a 23-year-old man and driving away….drunk.

An illegal immigrant who allegedly killed a 23-year-old Massachusetts man in a hit-and-run accident Saturday is being held on $100,000 cash bail, the Milford Daily News reports.

Nicolas D. Guaman, 34, of Milford, Mass., was arrested Saturday after his vehicle struck Matthew J. Denice, who was on a motorcycle, according to police. Guaman’s pickup truck had allegedly dragged Denice’s body a quarter-mile, the newspaper reports.

Judge Robert Calagione entered a not guilty plea on behalf of Guaman in Milford District Court on Tuesday.

Michael Maloney, Denice’s stepfather, is reportedly calling the accident a “murder.” He described Denice, who had just graduated from Framingham State University with a computer degree, as a “great all-American kid,” according to the newspaper.

Police in Milford confirmed that Guaman was in the country illegally, and Denice’s family has called for him to receive a lengthy sentence in the U.S., rather than simply being deported.

Guaman is accused of negligent vehicular homicide while driving under the influence of liquor, leaving the scene of an accident involving personal injury and death, possession of an open container of alcohol in a vehicle and unlicensed driving, among other charges.

If found guilty of vehicular homicide, he could get up to 15 years in jail.

So, not only was a 23-year-old Michael Maloney’s life cut way too short by an illegal driving drunk and without a license, but taxpayers are now footing the bill for Guaman to be represented in a court of law and to keep him in a U.S. jail despite the fact Guaman isn’t a U.S. citizen and previously broke the law by coming into the U.S. illegally in the first place. This is just one of many tragic and irresponsible crime stories that happen everyday in the U.S. involving illegal immigrants. 

Nicolas D. Guaman, 34, of 10 Cherry St., Apt. 1, Milford, who authorities say was driving drunk when he struck Matthew J. Denice, who was riding a motorcycle. Denice, 23, was dragged a quarter-mile and died as a result of the crash.

He was arrested several years ago for beating up a cop. He wasn’t even prosecuted and no report to Immigration authorities was ever made.

And the other tragic part? The Obama Administration’s new amnesty policies may allow this guy to avoid deportation. (He’s not “violent” enough in Massachusetts)

MILFORD —With the death of a Milford man allegedly at the hands of an illegal immigrant who was drunk behind the wheel, lawmakers and law enforcement officials are urging the state to join a federal program that shares fingerprints and other information.
It’s like this, Massachusetts has NO database of any Illegal Aliens in the state. None. Zip. Zero. Nada! And the Governor and the bureaucrats don’t want one either!
They aren’t illegal. They’re just potential Democrats!

In June, Gov. Deval Patrick did not sign a memorandum that would have launched the program <Secure Communities> in the state, citing worries it would deport people who were not convicted of serious crimes, could lead to racial profiling and may keep immigrants from reporting crimes, according to a letter from Secretary of Public Safety Marybeth Heffernan to ICE.

Yesterday, Patrick press secretary Alex Goldstein said in a statement that “the governor’s policy is that serious criminals who are here illegally should be deported. Massachusetts has and will continue to send fingerprints to the federal government, and the Massachusetts Department of Correction will continue to work with Immigration and Customs Enforcement to facilitate removal of undocumented immigrants who have been convicted of felonies.”

The parents, family and friend of the victim appreciate that, Governor! 😦

Frank Slouts, a spokesman for the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition, agreed with Patrick’s rationale. Domestic violence victims may be discouraged from reporting crimes under Secure Communities because police often hear counter-arguments and arrest both the offender and the alleged victim, he said. “I think there’s universal condemnation that this is a heinous act, but the fact that he’s undocumented isn’t the main issue,” Slouts said. “It’s that he was already part of the criminal justice system and wasn’t (convicted).”

Nice Open Borders title dickhead!

Gian Bontempo said he has lived in town for more than 40 years and is not against immigration, because it is what Milford was built on.

“It doesn’t matter what nationality (Guaman) was if he was drunk,” Bontempo said.

Yeah, but if he’d been deported after he beat up a cop and we had a secure border there would be one less dead person in the world. One less tragedy.
But that would deprive the Democrats of their new voter base and we can’t have that!
Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

I Have a Secret

Very disturbing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ajkAP_M4ZAM#at=60

******

Ben Bernanke, The Fed Chairman held a news conference for the first in it’s history. Be Afraid Be very Afraid.

If the Fed is resorting to explaining itself in a press conference, you know we are in the doo-doo big time.

“The markdown of growth in 2011, in particular, reflects the somewhat slower than anticipated pace of growth in the first quarter,” Bernanke said in prepared remarks before he took reporter questions.

The U.S. dollar fell to a fresh 3-year low against major currencies while Bernanke spoke.

Politics, re-election, and The Fed’s policies. A Lethal combination??

U.S. economic growth slowed more than expected in the first quarter as higher food and gasoline prices dampened consumer spending, and sent a broad measure of inflation rising at its fastest pace in 2-1/2 years.

Political Cartoons by Eric Allie

As usual, Paul Krugman is leading the liberals to the briar patch, calling death panels a necessity to help balance the budget. In a roundtable discussion on ABC’s “This Week,” Krugman said of what recently came out of the president’s deficit commission: “Some years down the pike, we’re going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes.” He also said, “Medicare is going to have to decide what it’s going to pay for. And at least for starters, it’s going to have to decide which medical procedures are not effective at all and should not be paid for at all. In other words, [the deficit commission] should have endorsed the panel that was part of the health care reform.”

Once Krugman pulled back the curtain, other liberals started talking about the “lie of the year.”

Writing for the Atlanta Constitution, Jay Booker admitted that death panels exist and defended their goals in a column entitled “Why ‘Death Panels’ are a necessary evil.” He said:

By law, the panel is prohibited from recommending health-care rationing; its role is simply to find the most cost-effective approaches to health care, with Congress given the power to override its decisions.

Inevitably, that proposal revived talk of “death panels.” It’s an emotionally powerful phrase, but only because it strips things down to uncomfortable truth: Death panels exist, they will exist in any conceivable system of health-care delivery, and we all know they are necessary but prefer to ignore it.

The only problem is, when it comes to medicine, what works for someone else may not work for you. But if the IPAB deems something unworthy of payment, it doesn’t matter that your doctor thinks is may work for you. You won’t get it, unless you’re wealthy and can pay for it yourself.

Leftist columnist Cynthia Tucker also joined the crusade, proclaiming: “Yes, we need death panels.” In Tucker’s world, the government would pick winners and losers in the health care arena. She writes, “If we keep spending our health care dollars disproportionately on the elderly, we will have little left to spend on children. That makes for an upside-down society that cannot thrive for long.” Kids win. Seniors lose.

These liberals are giving cover to the bureaucrats who are beginning to implement their vision of a new health care system in America. While this may seem a ways away, the bureaucrats at the FDA are already moving to deny the cancer drug Avastin to breast cancer patients. This is just the fist volley in the fight over rationing, and the IPAB hasn’t even started yet.

MASSACHUSETTS VOTES TO CUT COLLECTIVE BARGAINING!

Oh here’s news you probably won’t here on the Mainstream Liberal media:

Government-sector collective bargaining reform: When the Republican dictator Governor of Wisconsin accomplishes it with a series of high-profile votes, all hell breaks loose.  When the Democrat-dominated Massachusetts House passes it by a huge margin — crickets:

House lawmakers voted overwhelmingly last night to strip police officers, teachers, and other municipal employees of most of their rights to bargain over health care, saying the change would save millions of dollars for financially strapped cities and towns.

The 111-to-42 vote followed tougher measures to broadly eliminate collective bargaining rights for public employees in Ohio, Wisconsin, and other states. But unlike those efforts, the push in Massachusetts was led by Democrats who have traditionally stood with labor to oppose any reduction in workers’ rights.

DeLeo said the House measure would save $100 million for cities and towns in the upcoming budget year, helping them avoid layoffs and reductions in services. He called his plan one of the most significant reforms the state can adopt to help control escalating health care costs.

“By spending less on the health care costs of municipal employees, our cities and towns will be able to retain jobs and allot more funding to necessary services like education and public safety,’’ he said in a statement.

But union leaders said that even with the last-minute concessions, the bill was an assault on workers’ rights, unthinkable in a state that has long been a bastion of union support. Some Democrats accused DeLeo of following the lead of Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin and other Republicans who have targeted public employee benefits

By the looks of that quote in bold, it seems as though Speaker DeLeo hired Scott Walker’s speechwriter.  Meanwhile, the Bay State’s liberal Democratic Governor, Deval Patrick, has lent some mild support to the measure and is urging incensed labor leaders to “dial down” their heated rhetoric in opposing the bill:

There’s “room for debate” about whether a House-passed bill gives labor unions enough of a seat at the table on health insurance issues, Gov. Deval Patrick said today, adding that he’s glad the House dealt with the controversial topic and hopes to see a final bill soon.

“I want labor to be involved,” Patrick told reporters after signing a financial literacy bill. “I want labor to be at the table.”

The governor also urged labor unions, who are comparing the House plan to the stripping of collective bargaining rights that has occurred in Wisconsin, to pull back on their commentary. “They should dial it down because that’s not what’s happening here,” said Patrick, who plans to visit Wisconsin on Saturday at the invitation of Democrats in that state to discuss collective bargaining issues.
True, the Wisconsin law limits the scope of government-sector employees’ collective bargaining privileges to wages, whereas the Massachusetts law only constrains the public unions’ ability to collectively bargain on healthcare benefits.  But the Wisconsin law exempted unions representing first responders from the new rules; the Massachusetts has no such carve-outs. 

After Gov. Walker signed his controversial bill into law, lefty commentators predicted that his actions would trigger a powerful pro-labor backlash across the country.  No dice.  Wisconsinites re-elected a conservative supreme court justice in the face of intense left-wing opposition, Ohio passed a more expansive measure, and now deep blue Massachusetts has taken a major step to do the same.  It’s amazing what a little political courage can do.

UPDATE: In case you’re curious about just how blue Massachusetts is, the state House is currently comprised of 128 Democrats and 32 Republicans.  All but two of the GOP lawmakers voted with the Speaker’s plan.  Theoretically, every single Republican in the chamber could have voted no, and the bill still would have passed comfortably.

Soo…shh..It’s a secret…

Just like Bernanke working to get Obama re-elected regardless of the harm and the inflation it will cause… 🙂

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Covering Their Fannie (and Freddie)

Keep in Mind that the Financial Reform Bill, which is now in some trouble, is written largely by Sen. Chris Dodd and Barney Frank. The people who brought you the subprime mess to begin with their insistence on subprime mortgages for people who couldn’t even afford those.

But we were discriminating against the poor!

Oh No! We can’t have that!

Everyone must be equal! 🙂

Subprime Scandal: Missing from stories about finance reform is what Democrats left out of it: a fix for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which continue to bleed billions.

Nor has it been explained why the two mortgage giants at the heart of the housing crisis were excluded. A little research, however, provides answers. Many of the Senate and House conferees who assembled the final overhaul bill are among the biggest recipients of cash from Fannie and Freddie, which over the years have been plagued by Democrat cronyism and corruption.

Some of the Hill’s biggest protectors of the toxic twins and their market-distorting “affordable housing” mission landed key positions as conferees on the panel that wrote the final draft of the bank reform legislation. For example, conference committee leaders Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., respectively raked in more than $133,000 and $40,000 in donations from Fannie and Freddie, Federal Election Commission records show.

The two lawmakers, in turn, have been the congressional chartered companies’ staunchest defenders. Leading up to the housing meltdown, Dodd insisted time and again — despite growing evidence to the contrary — that Fannie and Freddie were “fundamentally strong” and “in good shape.”

Frank maintained that “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis.” “The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies,” Frank griped, “the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

To satisfy such politically mandated lending goals, Washington-based Fannie and Freddie loaded up on subprime and other high-risk home loans. Their exposure was greater than all the major Wall Street players combined. And now they’re insolvent, with taxpayers potentially on the hook for as much as $1 trillion.

Already Fannie and Freddie’s $160 billion government bailout has topped that spent on AIG, Citigroup and other Democrat poster boys of the crisis, making their rescue the mother of all bailouts.

We can’t think of two entities more deserving of overhaul. Yet the Dodd-Frank Act doesn’t even try to reform them. This means nothing will change except the size of government’s hand in the economy. By not addressing Fannie and Freddie, economist Brian Wesbury noted “the government is taking no blame for the subprime crisis and is demanding more power over the U.S. financial system.”

Several other conferees instrumental in keeping Fannie and Freddie exempt from the new financial rules also show up among the top beneficiaries of Fannie and Freddie campaign cash (see table).

President Obama and top aide Rahm Emanuel also ranked among top recipients of Fannie and Freddie gifts when they were in Congress. From the White House, they lobbied Congress for a financial overhaul and got 90% of what they asked — including a pass for Fannie and Freddie, where Emanuel once served as director.

Their private piggy bank for “social justice” — which they used to provide high-risk loans that otherwise were out of reach for constituents — remains safe from promised “sweeping reform.”

In the ultimate insult, the two lawmakers most deserving of blame for the financial crisis carry the name of the legislation that supposedly will deliver us from financial crisis. The villains are, according to the media, the white knights riding in to save us from the havoc they caused. A more sinister script could not have been written. (IBD)

Unless you’re an elitist Democrat who has complete contempt for “the people” and are only out there to push your agenda and nothing else.

But don’t worry, we’re from the government and we are here to help you!! 🙂

UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE: A PREVIEW

Anyone wanting a preview of Obama-Care need just focus on Massachusetts, the state that provided the blueprint for Obama’s plan. It makes a great case for making haste in repealing ObamaCare.

In Massachusetts, health care prices are out of control, emergency rooms are overcrowded, the government is at war with itself and private insurers are running in the red, refusing to enter critical markets on the government’s unrealistic terms.

The party line now is that the Bay State’s reform was not about cost control but rather expanding access to care. The program’s backers claim that the price spiral they find themselves in was expected, anticipated, even if they didn’t actually have a plan for it.

That’s a revisionist’s tale. In early 2006, the plan’s backers — led by then Republican Gov. Mitt Romney — adamantly asserted that his plan would in fact control costs, provide universal coverage and improve the quality of care. (If this sounds familiar, it’s because Obama’s team borrowed the marketing scripts.)

Disinterested outsiders predicted that both prices and total costs would most likely increase under the government-dominated system, since massive new demand, reimbursed at the lowest prices, would be forced on a fixed supply. They were shouted down by insiders vested in getting the reform passed.

Guess who was right? 🙂

Three years prior to reform, insurance premiums for employers were increasing 3.7% more slowly in Massachusetts than in the rest of the country.  Today, the opposite is true.  Prices in Massachusetts are increasing 5.7% more than in other states. In Boston, prices for employer-provided family plans are increasing 8.2% faster than in other large metropolitan areas.

“Because the plan’s main components are the same as those of the new health reform law,” the study’s authors note, “the effects of the plan provide a window onto the country’s future.”

But it’s “fair”. 🙂

******

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION & BORDER SECURITY

While President Obama was meeting at the White House with The Congressional Hispanic Caucus and other Hispanic activists, he sent a Power Point presentation that said virtually nothing to Gov. Brewer.

Now he’s going to make a Campaign Speech tonight on it.

I know I’m excited! 😦

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama hopes to rally new momentum behind the push for an immigration overhaul by explaining why he thinks a comprehensive approach is the only way to fix what he and others say is a system badly in need of repair.

(aka Sen. Jon Kyl’s “hostage” comment) Do it my way, that benefits me or not at all.

Obama was laying out his rationale in a {Campaign} speech Thursday, his first as president on the issue.

Obama wasn’t expected to announce any new proposals or policy changes. But feeling pressure from a range of supporters, he was aiming to jump-start the effort he had promised to make a priority in his first year and which advocates had hoped would be completed by now.

aka “Amnesty”.

The speech follows up on back-to-back meetings Obama had with advocates and lawmakers at the White House this week.

Gov. Brewer got 20 minutes crammed into the schedule at the last minute and then a Power Point presentation nearly a month later. 😦

Obama has said a comprehensive solution means “accountability for everybody” — from the U.S. government meeting its obligation to secure the border, to businesses facing the consequences of knowingly employing illegal immigrants, to those who enter the country illegally owning up to their actions before they can begin the process of becoming citizens.

Has anyone told Labor Secretary Hilda Solis who a week ago put out a PSA saying if your Illegal and being treated or paid unfairly to giver her a call and The US Dept. of Labor would help you out??

Recent developments on immigration influenced his decision to give a speech, White House officials say, most notably Arizona’s enactment of a tough anti-immigrant law and protests across the country against it.

“He thought this was a good time to talk plainly with the American people about his views on immigration,” spokesman Bill Burton said.

Talk Plainly, Obama? Now that’s a novel idea.

Is he even capable of that?

NO.

Oh, and there’s that pesky LAWSUIT against SB1070. You know the one where we are “racists” and “misguided”. 😦

So this is a campaign ploy.

As everything else is.

He looks tough.

He panders to his base.

The Ministry of Truth slobber all over him.

Liberal go all mushy.

Then nothing happens.

But it looks good.

And he wants “to do something”. Or at least look and sound like it.

Sound and Fury, Signifying Nothing!  (Richard III)


Just Plain Silly

Massachusetts, The Socialist Commonwealth, has many new Liberal ideas starting out there.

There auto insurance is so heavily regulated they have a lot less competition going on in that state. BTW, did you know you have the option to buy coverage to have it apply out-of-state!

See part 5: This option provides coverage for accidents beyond Massachusetts to anywhere in the United States, its territories or possessions, or Canada.

http://www.mypolicy.com/insurance-personal/automobile-12parts.htm

Universal Health care started there in 2007 and was bankrupt by 2009, but that doesn’t deter anyone.

So here is an editorial from The Daily Caller that stuck my fancy.

If you’re planning to spend the next New Year’s Day in Concord, Massachusetts, don’t get caught nursing your annual hangover with a plastic bottle of cool spring water — you might be breaking the law.

The city of Concord passed a law in April banning all bottled water in plastic containers, effective January 1, 2011. Supporters of the law say ridding the town of bottled water is a first step toward a cleaner planet. Never mind that plastic water bottles only account less than one percent of landfill space. Who are we to let facts get in the way of a good regulation?

In commemoration of the successful campaign to rid Concord of bottled H20, we decided to take a look at a few of the other laws that have come out of the Bay State, a land full of people who clearly think they are incapable of making personal decisions on their own accord.

1. A January 2010 law mandates that all children in Massachusetts daycare centers must brush their teeth after lunch — or else.

It is against the law for daycare providers to not help children brush their teeth after meals. While parents can opt out (either on libertarian principle or family tradition if they’re from some parts of Alabama), they can rest easy knowing that state bureaucrats are looking out for their children’s pearly whites. Heck, the state even provides toothpaste, brushes and holders! What? No floss?! There oughta be a law…

2. It is illegal in Massachusetts to deface a milk carton.

From what we can gather, there was once a rogue band of underground milkmen roaming the New England countryside defacing poor innocent milk cartons with giant Sharpie pens.  The horror! The mayhem! The curdling! Well, the state put an end to that, slapping a $10 fine on anyone who dared to vandalize a container of 2 percent.

3. It is illegal in Dudley, Massachusetts to own more than three cats without government permission.

Here’s to you, Dudley, for finding a way to push that nice lady with kitty litter in her hair and all those pussycats even further into desperate reclusion.  Residents of the town decided to impose a $100-per-day fine for owning too many cats after someone living next to the town cat lady complained about the felines ruining his yard. The cat lady promptly put her home up for sale, packed her 15 cats, and never looked back. Success!

4. Children in Attleboro, Massachusetts are forbidden from playing “tag” or other running games during playtime.

Heaven forbid an American child loses all that self-esteem his teachers worked so hard to build over the years. (Remember, everyone’s a winner!) A school in Massachusetts made national headlines in 2006 for issuing playground rules that restricted children from playing “chasing” games like tag and touch football because they were “dangerous” and “exclusionary.” In a rousing match of phone tag, a spokesman for the school refused to confirm or deny to The Daily Caller that tag is  still allowed today. Guess that means we’re it.

5. A Massachusetts fisherman was fined for saving a whale caught in his net.

As Clare Boothe Luce once quipped, no good deed goes unpunished. A U.S. District Court fined fisherman Robert J. Eldridge $500 after he untangled a whale from his nets and set the giant sea mammal free. What he should have done, the court told him, was call state authorities and wait for them do it. Never mind that the whale may have suffocated if they didn’t arrive in time. But hey, Eldridge should consider himself lucky: He could have faced a $100,000 fine and up to a year in jail. That’ll teach him.

Honorable Mention: Group in Cambridge calls for a ban on all meat on Mondays.

The Cambridge Climate Congress, established to make recommendations for climate laws for the People’s Republic of Cambridge, recently proposed a ban on all meat sales once a week to curb the “climate emergency.” (It didn’t pass.) As the logic goes, meat comes from cows, and cows emit gas (farts) that heats up the planet. Let’s take a moment to thank the selfless citizens of Cambridge for making a good faith effort to rid the world of climate change and those smelly bovine backsides.
So what new hot liberal trend to run your life for you will be coming to a town near you, or even yours.

Let’s Wait and see. 🙂

Playing The System

Democrats claim their newly passed health insurance reform will eventually provide health coverage for more than 30 million uninsured people. Don’t bet on it.

I doubt they are betting on it, it just sounded good. After all, as I have said, the Health Care Reform bill wasn’t about covering people and lowering costs, it was strictly about Government control of who lives and who dies. Control of Life itself.

Eventually.

The poison in the bill has to have time to kill off Private Industry first.

The key to achieving that goal, Democrats believe — along with expanding Medicaid and subsidies for buying coverage — is the individual mandate, which requires individuals to have health insurance or pay a fine. The mandate is supposed to push nearly everyone into the pool to minimize free-riding on the system. But what if millions of Americans decide it’s a better deal to pay the fine and remain uninsured until they need coverage?

And they will. And so will companies.

That is, when the government catches up to them.

There was a guy on the radio last week who has lives in Socialist Utopia of Massachusetts that has had no health insurance since the law was passed 4 years ago.

He hasn’t received an letters about fines until now, 4 years later.

He still can’t afford the insurance, even in Massachusetts…

Imagine that Nationwide.

Sure, the IRS is hiring new people, but not to go after you for Health Insurance…right….

It appears that’s exactly what’s happening in Massachusetts, which passed its own ObamaCare-like reform with an individual mandate in 2006.

Last year, Charles Baker, former CEO of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, one of Massachusetts’s largest health plans, noticed some health insurance brokers posting comments on his widely read blog. They were suspicious that people were applying for health coverage after a medical condition developed, got the care they needed, and then dropped the coverage.

Coverage for an individual, noted Mr. Baker, now a Republican candidate for governor, might be $2,000 to $3,000 a year, while the penalty was only about $900. So he asked his finance people to see if they noticed any discernible patterns. Boy, did they.

From April 2008 to March 2009, 40% of the individuals who applied to Harvard Pilgrim stayed covered for less than five months. Yet claims were averaging about $2,400 a month, about six times what one would expect.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts has now confirmed it is experiencing similar problems. The company says that in 2009, 936 people signed up for three months or less and ran up claims of more than $1,000.

The disparity between the cost of expensive coverage and the fine for not getting it encourages individuals buying their own coverage — i.e., those not in an employer plan — to game the system by paying the fine and remaining uninsured until they need coverage.

Insurers have long recognized this problem, known as “adverse selection,” which is why every type of insurance normally restricts people from obtaining coverage after an incident has occurred. Someone can’t, for example, buy a homeowners policy for a house that is already on fire. But Democrats have decided to do away with that basic actuarial principle with regard to health insurance.

And they did it because, to do otherwise would not get them to their goal: Total control of who lives and who dies.

Remember, this “reform” was not about reform the Private sector, it was about destroying it, so the Government–a Liberal Government– could step and save you from the evil capitalists and control you.

Screw actuarial principles.

After all, when the government controls everything what actuarial principle will be left??

If they need more money they will either print it, borrow it or just raise taxes.

It’s not like you’ll have a choice by then.

That means it’s all about the penalties. Under the existing Massachusetts law, Bay Staters face a penalty of perhaps a half to a third of the cost of the premium. And yet, as Mr. Baker indicates, there appears to be a lot of gaming going on.

ObamaCare, by contrast, has a minimum individual penalty of $95 in 2014, $325 in 2015, rising up to 2.5% of income (or $2,085 maximum) per family in 2016. So the first-year spread between the penalty and the cost of coverage for an individual may be 20-to-1 or 30-to-1. Think that might encourage even more gaming than they are seeing in Massachusetts?

In supporting the individual mandate, Democrats frequently cite the fact that nearly every state requires drivers to purchase auto insurance. But that mandate hasn’t gotten everyone insured. Auto insurance mandates usually have fairly low penalties, and they are often sporadically enforced. And so people game that system, too.

And then there’s the fact that if you don’t have an auto, you are not required to have insurance.

Whoops!

Indeed, the problem of uninsured drivers is so bad that many states require drivers to buy uninsured motorist coverage to protect them from all of those drivers who are required to have auto insurance but don’t.

The growing adverse selection problem has some Massachusetts officials considering other options; the governor has proposed legislation for a semi-annual open-enrollment period. That’s where people would have a limited time to enter the system or change health plans. Open enrollments don’t solve all the problems, but they help.

To be sure, the higher penalties in Obama-Care’s out years will discourage some gaming of the system, but they won’t eliminate it — not as long as there is a gap between the cost of coverage and a penalty. And that’s only if Congress keeps the current penalty schedule.

The Congressional Budget estimates the government will collect $17 billion in penalties from individuals over 10 years. But members of Congress don’t like penalizing their constituents, and there will be a lot of pressure to delay or reduce the penalties, just as there was when the 2003 Medicare prescription drug benefit was being implemented.

But then the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was never about creating an actuarially or financially sound health care system; it was about creating a new entitlement where everyone has coverage — when they need it. (IBD)

Regardless.

It sounds “fair”

And the Government gets to save you from the evil capitalists when this unsound economics drives them to raise premiums so much that they are driven out of business.

Then the Government owns your health.

And there is no one left to game, but The IRS.

Good Luck with that. 😦

The Law with Unintended Consequences

In a new report, the Congressional Research Service says the law may have significant unintended consequences for the “personal health insurance coverage” of senators, representatives and their staff members.

“It is unclear whether members of Congress and Congressional staff who are currently participating in F.E.H.B.P. may be able to retain this coverage,” the CRS wrote in a 8,100-word memorandum, the Times reports.

For example, it says, the law may “remove members of Congress and Congressional staff” from their current coverage, in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, before any alternatives are available. . . .

The law apparently bars members of Congress from the federal employees health program, on the assumption that lawmakers should join many of their constituents in getting coverage through new state-based markets known as insurance exchanges.

But the research service found that this provision was written in an imprecise, confusing way, so it is not clear when it takes effect.

The new exchanges do not have to be in operation until 2014. But because of a possible “drafting error,” the report says, Congress did not specify an effective date for the section excluding lawmakers from the existing program.

Under well-established canons of statutory interpretation, the report said, “a law takes effect on the date of its enactment” unless Congress clearly specifies otherwise. And Congress did not specify any other effective date for this part of the health care law. The law was enacted when President Obama signed it three weeks ago.

That means that congressmen and their staffers may be afoul of the law right now.

ObamaCare is proving to be even more of a shambles than critics had expected. Is this because the Democrats who currently run Congress are unusually incompetent? Tempting as it is to say yes, probably not. Put it down, instead, to hubris and haste. In their mad rush to outrun public opinion and impose “universal health care” on their unwilling constituents, Harry Pelosi, Nancy Reid & Co. simply didn’t bother paying attention to the details.

If CRS is right and congressmen and their staffers are now forbidden to be insured as federal employees, this may turn out to be ObamaCare’s fatal flaw. The Times observes that Congress “could try for a legislative fix,” and it quotes Sen. Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican, as urging just that: “After the committee completed its work, the coverage provision was redrafted by others, and that’s where mistakes were made. Congress can and should act to correct the mistakes.”

Good luck with that, guys. Are congressmen really going to pass legislation to rectify the harm ObamaCare did to them,Yuval Levin points out: “If you had your own research service to help you figure out what the law will do to your insurance, the answer would likely be just as confusing and discouraging.” The CRS’s findings are a powerful reminder that ObamaCare likely holds horrible surprises for everyone. while continuing to subject everyone else to this awful, hated law? Leaving the law in place isn’t a politically attractive option either, for the reason National Review’s Yuval Levin points out: “If you had your own research service to help you figure out what the law will do to your insurance, the answer would likely be just as confusing and discouraging.” The CRS’s findings are a powerful reminder that ObamaCare likely holds horrible surprises for everyone.

The logic of the situation inexorably points toward repeal–though we expect President Obama and this Congress will defy logic as firmly and for as long as they can. (WSJ)

While ObamaCare is an abomination that will hurt future generations it would be fitting if Congress was hoist on their own petard.

But I suspect that once they determine if they are screwed or not rather than revisit the bill in an overhaul and draw lots of unwanted attention they’ll just sneak it into a bill later on in the dead of night.

That would be the modis operandi of this Congress. Do it in secret, in a back room, without anyone knowing until it was too late to doanything about what you cooked up.

And if they do find out, Lie, Obfuscate, and attack.

I’m sure we have years and years of surprise and new horrors ahead of us.

This from the Toronto Star is just Curious:

Proof of medical coverage will become mandatory for all visitors to Cuba starting May 1.

The Cuba Tourist Bureau in Canada notified tour operators recently, and promises a general announcement with more details shortly.

So how long before ObamaCare follows suit, after all Cuba has a great medical system according to the Far Left who are in love with it. See “Sicko” by Michael “I by My own press” Moore.

At current exchange rates, Cubalinda will charge $2.70. a day for up to $7,558 of medical emergency insurance, plus assorted other types of coverage. It will charge about $3.24 a day for $27,000 of medical coverage and $7,558 for transportation of deceased, injured or sick persons.

That compares with as little as $1.81 a day or a minimum of $16 a week for a young Canadian to get $5 million of medical coverage from a Canadian insurer, says Aguirre. Meanwhile, a reasonably healthy senior, age 70 to 74, would pay $6.36 a day for a short trip to a non-U.S. destination, says Cappon.

Aguirre’s company’s president, Robin Ingle, concedes the skimpy Cuban policies would provide enough coverage for the vast majority of illnesses or injuries travelers might experience in Cuba.

“The Cubalinda.com website says ‘the insurer will not assume payment for treatment of pre-existing medical condition (sic), known or unknown to the insured person’.”

You could pay the modest premium and discover later you have no coverage when you need it.

So proceed with caution. Don’t leave home without adequate coverage.

Where’s Karl Malden when you need him??

And a Preview of Things to Come

A Massachusetts court Monday ruled against health insurance providers seeking to raise their premiums 8 to 32 percent in a closely watched case.

Massachusetts enacted a universal health care plan in 2006 that includes politically controversial measures such as the individual mandate requiring all adults to purchase insurance. With opponents of the national health care legislation passed weeks ago promising legal action, the Massachusetts case was seen a foretaste of what could lie ahead.

In this instance, the court affirmed that, for now at least, the state has the authority to oversee the industry.

The challenge arose from a bid by health insurance providers in Massachusetts several weeks ago to raise their premiums. Massachusetts Insurance commissioner Joseph Murphy called the increases “excessive,” noting that the medical consumer price index – an indicator of how much medical goods and services cost – projected a necessary increase of only 5 percent. Mr. Murphy rejected 235 of 274 proposed rate hikes.

Six insurance companies sued, arguing the state does not have the regulatory authority to cap premiums. They said they would lose $100 million without the premium increase, plus even more in the administrative costs of having to redesign their plans.

In addition to the suit, the insurance companies filed a preliminary injunction to prevent the state from regulating their premium increases until the case is decided. They also asked for an expedited trial.

Suffolk Superior Court Judge Stephen Neel denied the request to expedite the trial and the injunction. He said that until the health insurance companies exhausted all available administrative remedies within the state Department of Insurance, the court had no jurisdiction. Only then could the insurance companies move through the normal legal process, he said.

He added that he wanted to avoid “stepping in the [insurance] commissioner’s shoes” and revising the regulations temporarily until the later court date.

Furthermore, the regulations did not cause “irreparable harm” because lost profits could later be recouped, Judge Neel said.

Recouped how?

Don’t worry, the Government is here to save you from evil capitalists! 😦