Surprise Surprise!

In September 2009, President Obama promised the country that “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future.”

And if you thought he was being truthful, you really are a naive.

But it turns out Obama did sign such a plan — in fact, ObamaCare could add upwards of 180 billion dimes to the deficit in its first 10 years, an IBD analysis of various official budget reports found.

And when the Medicare cuts that were double counted as both cost and savings don’t happen for political reasons then it will skyrocket even more.

According to the Congressional Budget Office’s initial forecast made in March 2010, ObamaCare was supposed to cut the deficit a total of $124 billion in its first decade. Democrats seized on this to show Obama had lived up to his promise.

Almost as soon as Obama signed the law, however, his administration started making changes that added costs and cut revenues. The most recent was the one-year delay in the employer mandate.

The result is instead of a $124 billion deficit cut from 2010 to 2019, ObamaCare will likely add about $18 billion in red ink over those same years. And that assumes nothing else changes in the years ahead.

Which it will.

Costly Delays

When the administration announced the employer mandate delay, it said its decision resulted from business complaints about complex reporting requirements.

What it didn’t say is it would cost as much as $10 billion in lost revenues, which is how much the CBO expected in fines from companies that didn’t provide health benefits to workers that first year.

In addition, experts believe the delay will push more people into the subsidized exchanges, which could add as much as $5.3 billion in taxpayer costs, according to an analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration has also been putting off steep cuts to the Medicare Advantage program, which were supposed to help cover ObamaCare costs.

Medicare Advantage lets seniors choose from an array of private health plans, with premiums largely paid by Medicare. About 28% have enrolled in one of these plans.

Obama has been critical of Medicare Advantage, saying it provided “unwarranted subsidies” that “pad their profits but don’t improve the care of seniors.” And ObamaCare planned to squeeze $136 billion out of it between 2010 and 2019.

But just as these cuts were set to bite, the administration started handing out $8.35 billion in “quality improvement” bonuses to Advantage companies, under the guise of a “demonstration project.”

The bonuses eliminated most of the scheduled cuts in 2012, according to the Government Accountability Office, which also challenged the claim that it was a legitimate demonstration project. That led to charges that Obama was just postponing the cuts to avoid upsetting seniors in an election year.

Just like now. 🙂

He wants to escape any of the blame for this monster and for it to be “his legacy” and for it not to effect HIM while in office, after that then it will be someone elses fault! And they just suck it up…

Earlier this year, his administration again reversed course on Medicare Advantage cuts, turning a planned 2.3% reduction in payments for 2014 into a 3.3% increase. Regulators claimed the payment boost resulted from a new methodology, but the change came after a flurry of protests from industry and lawmakers.

CLASS Dismissed

And in October 2011, Obama jettisoned an ObamaCare program, called CLASS, that was supposed to provide subsidized long-term care insurance for seniors.

Because CLASS collected premiums for years before paying any benefits, it appeared to cut ObamaCare’s costs by $72 billion in the first 10 years.

But the program was so badly designed it would have gone bankrupt soon after that, and so the administration dumped it.

Just like they want to dump the medical devices tax.

That decision, however, vaporized more than half of ObamaCare’s promised deficit cuts.

After accounting for all these changes, along with overall changes in the CBO’s cost projections, the law is now on track to add to the federal deficit in the first 10 years, albeit by a relatively small amount.

Supporters argue that even with these changes ObamaCare is still cutting deficits because it’s lowering health spending and improving efficiency, and these savings will grow over time as deeper Medicare cuts and bigger tax bills kick in.

But a January report from the Government Accountability Office found that claims of long-term ObamaCare deficit cuts are based on dubious cost-saving assumptions that several independent agencies “expressed concerns about.”

After factoring those out, the GAO found ObamaCare will add $6.2 trillion to deficits over the next 75 years.

Gee, no one saw that coming…
Political Cartoons by Gary McCoy
Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

It’s a Liberal Thing

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

And my own…FEAR IS HOPE!

More of the same:

On a special broadcast of MSNBC’s “Hardball” on Saturday, weekend morning host Melissa Harris-Perry expressed her displeasure with the selection of Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney’s running mate.

In particular, Harris-Perry took issue with Ryan quoting Thomas Jefferson’s line in the Declaration of Independence, in which he declared rights come from God and nature and not from government.

“The thing I really have against him is actually how he and Gov. Romney have misused the Declaration of Independence,” she said. “I’m deeply irritated by their notion that the ‘pursuit of happiness’ means money for the richest and that we extricate the capacity of ordinary people to pursue happiness. When they say ‘God and nature give us our rights, not government,’ that is a lovely thing to say as a wealthy white man.”

“But we could not have them until there was a Civil War that allowed the federal government to impose those nature and God-given rights would actually be respected by our government. And I think that they cannot continue to go down this line on the Declaration of Independence.”

Should we mention the Wealthy White Slave owners in the South and the Freed Slaves in the North?
Probably not. She’d probably think we we were making it up.
Racism, it’s a Liberal Thing! 🙂
“There’s only one president that I know of in history that robbed Medicare, $716 billion to pay for a new risky program of his own that we call Obamacare,” Romney told Schieffer. “What Paul Ryan and I have talked about is saving Medicare, is providing people greater choice in Medicare, making sure it’s there for current seniors. No changes, by the way, for current seniors, or those nearing retirement. But looking for young people down the road and saying, ‘We’re going to give you a bigger choice.’ In America, the nature of this country has been giving people more freedom, more choices. That’s how we make Medicare work down the road.”

According to HotAir.com, the following remark by Ryan was cut and did not air but is crucial in explaining to viewers, especially Florida seniors, that his plan does not affect senior citizens and that his own mother is a Medicare senior.

“My mom is a Medicare senior in Florida,” Ryan said. “Our point is we need to preserve their benefits, because government made promises to them that they’ve organized their retirements around. In order to make sure we can do that, you must reform it for those of us who are younger. And we think these reforms are good reforms that have bipartisan origins. They started from the Clinton commission in the late ’90s.”

HotAir.com called the broadcast cut “journalistic malpractice.”

“Ryan’s plan doesn’t affect those already eligible for Medicare,” Ed Morrissey of HotAir.com wrote. “In fact, one of the conservative criticisms of the plan was that he didn’t give current Medicare recipients the option to choose a private-insurance plan, as younger Americans will get once they become eligible. That’s a pretty newsworthy detail, no?”

The Ryan budget proposes the partial privatization of Medicare by turning it into a premium-support system within a federal exchange, where insurance companies compete for business while meeting coverage requirements.  That’s really no different than Medicare Advantage, which puts market power into cost control and gets the government out of paying providers over a period of several years.  It’s not a perfect solution, as it maintains the third-party-payer system that interferes with pricing signals, which is the main problem driving the cost spiral.  However, it’s as close as we can get to a good political solution, since there is absolutely no support for dismantling Medicare entirely, and it at least lessens the problems of price-signal opacity.

This demonstrates the advantage that Romney gets in picking Ryan as his running mate.  Democrats would have hung the Ryan plan around his neck anyway.  Now Ryan himself gets to answer those attacks on the biggest stage, and the more people hear what Ryan actually proposes, the more apt they are to like it.

Update: The CBS broadcast transcript shows pretty clearly that none of this actually aired on 60 Minutes. (Hot air and Newsmax)

Journalistic “editing” it’s a Liberal Thing. 🙂
Medicare Advantage was scheduled to be destroyed by ObamaCare because the liberals didn’t like it’s cost containment success and beside they had some crony capitalism to dole out, TO AARP!!
It’s called Medi-Gap. It costs most and is less efficient, but politically, it’s a winner!
Now that’s definitely a Liberal thing.
And then there’s the debates:

Apparently, ABC News’s Brian Ross was busy, so the ABC moderator chosen for the vice presidential debate in Danville, Ky., on Oct. 11 of this year will be the network’s Chief Foreign Correspondent, Martha Raddatz.

Matt Drudge has the rest of the debate lineup: Jim Lehrer, of PBS, will ask the questions at the first presidential debate, which is Oct. 3 in Denver. Next comes CNN’s Candy Crowley, who will pick questioners at a town hall-style event in Hempstead, N.Y. on Oct. 16. Bringing up the rear will be veteran CBS reporter Bob Schieffer, who will host the final debate in Boca Raton, Fla., on Oct. 22, Boca Raton.

All moderated by Liberal Journalist who will be in gotcha mode looking for to destroy their evil opponents. Journalism will not be anywhere in sight.

The fix is in. “objectivity” is nigh.

So the side will be loaded and very heavily biased in the Liberals favor so it’s “fair”.

That’s a very liberal thing.

To believe that Ryan’s budget will somehow hurt the ticket is to buy deeply into the notion that U.S. Hispanics are pre-ordained to live as helpless wards of the State, unable to function without the benevolent guidance and assistance that can only come from the enlightened experts of our government Überklasse.

The fact is that Hispanics are just as exposed to debt and deficits as anyone else, and have as much of a stake in the coming debate over debt and deficits, if not more so.  For Hispanics (as well as other immigrants), this election presents a stark choice between a return to the promise of the America they emigrated to, or a continued march down the road to an America that more closely resembles the country they intended to leave behind. (Hot air)

But guilt,fear and self-editing is a very Liberal thing. And they want you to practice it every moment of your life.

You can’t possibly succeed in life without them.

Oh, and anyone who opposes them is an extremist!

Congressman Paul Ryan is the poster boy for the extreme Republican leadership in a Congress whose overall approval rating is 12 percent. His plan to dismantle Medicare is deeply unpopular with the general public, and especially undecided voters.

You might be wondering why the hell Romney picked this guy. But this is a strategic pick that carries real danger for us.

Here’s the calculation: Mitt Romney doesn’t need or expect Paul Ryan to convince even one undecided voter to cast their ballot for him. That’s not what he’s on the ticket for. He’s there to reassure and inspire ultraconservative ideologues and corporate interests that they will have one of their own a heartbeat from the presidency.

That means tens or even hundreds of millions more dollars for the Romney campaign and the array of outside groups supporting him — and if current trends hold, more than 90 percent of that money will be spent on TV ads — lying, distorting and trashing Barack Obama. Those ads will have more impact on undecided voters than anything Paul Ryan himself does or says.

Please donate $3 or more today:

<<website address deleted by me>> (it’s a conservative thing! 🙂 )

More soon.

Jim Messina
Campaign Manager
Obama for America

Its a Liberal thing. 🙂

So, why the hell did Romney choose Paul Ryan as his running mate? Because Ryan has a plan, he has a vision and he’s working. (Katie Pavlich)
And boy do they HATE that.
And HATE is a very Liberal Thing.
Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Robert Ariail

 Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert
 Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Your Lord and Master

Click to visit the original post

One of the things that gauls me the most about Liberals is their sanctimony.
There absolute conviction that they are the superior moral being and your just a dumb greedy mindless chimp.
A guy on the radio was spewing his sanctimony about “equality” and “fairness” where rich people needed to have their money taken from them because he was more concerned about  the poor and starving and giving them a “fair shot” and an “opportunity”.

Because after all, they have no shot now. And they are incompetent to begin with so government must step in and save the day!
When asked if he was concerned about giving the government the ability to just take a persons money just because they have millions of dollars the sanctimonious liberal just comes back repeated about rich people have different morals and he was concerned with the poor and the starving and refused to answer the question and just want to pontificate about how superior his “morality” was compared to evil non-liberals.
That’s what makes him “feel” good.
All emotion no logic.
All sanctimony.
Paraphrase: “when two babies are born I see one that will work at McDonalds and the other has a trust fund”
The sanctimonious liberal wants to piously pontificate about opportunity for the poor.

The way to do that is take from the rich and give it to the poor but that’s not “redistribution of wealth” because the Liberal puffed himself up and said with due pride “I’m not a socialist I’m just concerned about the poor”.

Yikes! Orwell would be proud of you my son.
That way they have an equal opportunity to work hard and be successful.
Notice anything wrong with that logic??
And then there’s the problem of when does the person who was poor and worked their ass off to make themselves rich cross the line into Evil, rich greed, immoral bastard worthy of having their success stripped from them in the name of the Liberal holy sanctimony??
And what incentive does that give to the person to become rich anyhow?
None.
Hey, if the Liberals are always going to give you everyone’s fish because it’s “fair” and they will “feel” good doing it then why do you need to learn to fish for yourself.

If Master Liberal is always going to promise you that they will deliver the booty why then do you need to “struggle”??

The only struggle you need is to elect Democrats so they can take the money from someone else and give it to you.

From Media Matters- The Propaganda Arm of The Obama Administration (as proven by Fast & Furious): In a report released April 9, researchers at the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimated that food stamps “reduced the poverty rate by nearly 8 percent in 2009.” That year, USDA researchers concluded, food stamps reduced the depth of child poverty by 20.9 percent.

As MSNBC’s Al Sharpton explained, “facts matter” in the debate over anti-poverty programs.

Valerie Jarrett: according to her, unemployment checks — in some round about way — are actually “good for” and “stimulate” the economy. “People Who Receive That Unemployment Check Go Out And Spend It And Help Stimulate The Economy.”

Nancy Pelosi: “It is the biggest bang for the buck when you do food stamps and unemployment insurance. The biggest bang for the buck,” she said.

Dean Baker: Unemployment Insurance “Stimulates The Economy” By “Put[ting] Money In … [The] Pockets” Of People Who Are “Very Likely To Spend” It. In an August 30, 2011, email to Media Matters, Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research

Moody’s Economist Sophia Koropeckyj: They’ve likely depleted their savings, and this is really all the income that they have. And they have kids to feed, they have rent to pay, and there’s a very, very high probability they’re going to spend that entire amount that they get.

<LYNN> NEARY (NPR Host): And where do they spend it? In stores.

KOROPECKYJ: That initial infusion into the economy of the unemployment insurance benefits then reverberates through the economy, flows through the economy in a variety of ways, and so that, you know, $1 of benefits is magnified. [NPR, All Things Considered, 7/11/10]

Then Media Matters goes on to cites the CBO.

But when the CBO came out with ObamaCare was going to cost twice as much and would cause lots of people to lose their own insurance they ignored it.

Funny how that worked out.

The fact that they only give you the scraps and make you “feel” good about and gin up Class Warfare to cover up it’s deficiencies and fakery and keep most of it for THEIR cronies is immaterial because you are told you are entitled to it so when the government hands out its meager portions to you the peasants you are so grateful to your Lord and Master for their protection, wisdom, guidance and love.

If this is starting to sound like a Medieval King-Lord-Royalty-Peasant relationship you are catching my drift.

The Elites and The “grateful” peasants.

Also sounds a bit like Communism.

Funny how that worked out. 🙂

OBAMACARE

Call it President Obama’s Committee for the Re-Election of the President — a political slush fund at the Health and Human Services Department.

Only this isn’t some little fund from shadowy private sources; this is taxpayer money, redirected to help Obama win another term. A massive amount of it, too — $8.3 billion. Yes, that’s billion, with a B.

Here is how it works.

The most oppressive aspects of the ObamaCare law don’t kick in until after the 2012 election, when the president will no longer be answerable to voters. More “flexibility,” he recently explained to the Russians.

But certain voters would surely notice one highly painful part of the law before then — namely, the way it guts the popular Medicare Advantage program.

For years, 12 million seniors have relied on these policies, a more market-oriented alternative to traditional Medicare, without the aggravating gaps in coverage.

But as part of its hundreds of billions in Medicare cuts, the Obama one-size-fits-all plan slashes reimbursement rates for Medicare Advantage starting next year — herding many seniors back into the government-run program.

The cuts were 1/2 of what was supposed to be the offest of the cost of the original price of ObamaCare. Which is now a 1/4 because the costs of ObamaCare have gone up even before this happens.

But funny how it was all set for after the election… 🙂

Under federal “open-enrollment” guidelines, seniors must pick their Medicare coverage program for next year by the end of this year — which means they should be finding out before Election Day.

Nothing is more politically volatile than monkeying with the health insurance of seniors, who aren’t too keen on confusing upheavals in their health care and are the most diligent voters in the land. This could make the Tea Party look like a tea party.

Making matters even more politically dangerous for Obama is that open enrollment begins Oct. 15, less than three weeks before voters go to the polls.

It’s hard to imagine a bigger electoral disaster for a president than seniors in crucial states like Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio discovering that he’s taken away their beloved Medicare Advantage just weeks before an election.

This political ticking time bomb could become the biggest “October Surprise” in US political history.

But the administration’s devised a way to postpone the pain one more year, getting Obama past his last election; it plans to spend $8 billion to temporarily restore Medicare Advantage funds so that seniors in key markets don’t lose their trusted insurance program in the middle of Obama’s re-election bid.

The money is to come from funds that Health and Human Services is allowed to use for “demonstration projects.” But to make it legal, HHS has to pretend that it’s doing an “experiment” to study the effect of this money on the insurance market.

That is, to “study” what happens when the government doesn’t change anything but merely continues a program that’s been going on for years.

Obama can temporarily prop up Medicare Advantage long enough to get re-elected by exploiting an obscure bit of federal law. Under a 1967 statute, the HHS secretary can spend money without specific approval by Congress on “experiments” directly aimed at “increasing the efficiency and economy of health services.”

Past demonstration projects have studied new medical techniques or strategies aimed at improving care or reducing costs. The point is to find ways to lower the costs of Medicare by allowing medical technocrats to make efficient decisions without interference from vested interests.

Now Obama means to turn it on its head — diverting the money to a blatantly nonexperimental purpose to serve his political needs.

A Government Accounting Office report released this morning shows, quite starkly, that there simply is no experiment being conducted, just money being spent. Understandably, the GAO recommends that HHS cancel the project.

Congress should immediately launch an investigation into this unprecedented misuse of taxpayer money and violation of the public trust, which certainly presses the boundaries of legality and very well may breach them.

If he’s not stopped, Obama will spend $8 billion in taxpayer funds for a scheme to mask the debilitating effects on seniors of his signature piece of legislation just long enough to get himself re-elected.

Now that is some serious audacity. (NY Post)

And AARP’s stake in MediGap, the “alternative” to Medicare Advantage (which was a program that has worked better than most) has nothing to do with their support of ObamaCare.

If you opted for a Medicare Advantage health plan (aka Part C), you cannot also buy a Medigap policy. (from AARP’s Website).

So if you have the government gut your competition silently as part of the cost cutting of “waste,fraud and abuse” so much the better for you.

Which is why AARP is not a seniors advocacy group, it’s an insurance company! and it’s looking out for it’s bottom line, the greedy capitalist bastards! 🙂

And so, if you have a slush fund for “Medicare” costs that technically  don’t exist yet, and it just happens to find it’s way into your pockets because, after all, this election is all about YOU and YOU are so superior to everyone else and you can’t allow the peasant to revolt against their Lord and Masters now can you!- That’s ok.

Liberals are so superior to you peasants in their minds that how “stupid” and “racist” are you to want to get rid of them.

So, for your own good they must lie,cheat and steal the election to preserve the proper and “fair” relationship of the government and it’s people–The Lords and Masters to the peasants.

“The Peasants are Revolting!”

“Yeah, they stink on ice.” — Mel Brooks History of the World Part 1

Monty Python & The Holy Grail

King Arthur: I am your king.
Peasant Woman: Well, I didn’t vote for you.
King Arthur: You don’t vote for kings.
Peasant Woman: Well, how’d you become king, then?
[Angelic music plays… ]
King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Dennis the Peasant: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Arthur: Be quiet!
Dennis the Peasant: You can’t expect to wield supreme power just ’cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Arthur: [grabs Dennis] Shut up! Will you shut up?!
Dennis: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system!
Arthur: [shakes Dennis] Shut up!
Dennis: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help, I’m being repressed!
Arthur: Bloody Peasant!
Dennis: Ooh, what a giveaway!
#2: WARNING- Foul Language

Can I have an Order of Fear & Freeloaders, Please…

A Michigan man who won $2 million in a state lottery game continues to collect food stamps 11 months after striking it rich.

And there’s nothing the state can do about it, at least for now.

Leroy Fick, 59, of Auburn won $2 million in the state lottery TV show “Make Me Rich!” last June. But the state’s Department of Human Services determined he was still eligible for food stamps, Fick’s attorney, John Wilson of Midland, said Tuesday.

Eligibility for food stamps is based on gross income and follows federal guidelines; lottery winnings are considered liquid assets and don’t count as income. As long as Fick’s gross income stays below the eligibility requirement for food stamps, he can receive them, even if he has a million dollars in the bank.

Food stamps are paid for through tax dollars and are meant to help support low-income families.

“If you’re going to try to make me feel bad, you’re not going to do it,” Fick told WNEM-TV in Saginaw on Monday.

After all, he’s “entitled”. As I have said before and will say again, Liberals are the greediest, most self-centered because they feel the most entitled to other people’s money.

Oh, and if you disagree with Liberals on this Grandma is going to be thrown off a cliff (that’s coming later on in this blog).

Then there are the frauds. Like AARP.

“I think I’m scheduled to get my AARP card in a couple of years?” President Barack Obama asked today.

“Anytime you want one,” the organization told him. “Platinum.”

Obama at AARP.jpg

The stage was set at AARP, the powerful Washington-based lobby for senior Americans, for Obama to host another “town hall” forum on healthcare reform, where the president allowed that both he and his wife Michelle have “living wills” drafted but hope they don’t have to use them anytime soon.

“If you have insurance that you like, you will be able to keep that insurance,” Obama said of the healthcare reforms that he is pursuing on Capitol Hill. “Nobody is trying to change what works.” (Obama 2009)

They were a massive supporter of ObamaCare.

Now they get a waiver for their MediGap insurance. Their main rival, Medical Advantage gets savaged by ObamaCare.

Effectively, AARP is no longer a senior advocacy group, but just another “evil” “greedy” insurance company. But since they are in bed with Obama and the Liberals, that’s ok.

Their moral outrage is selective.

The Daily Caller has learned that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rate review rules, which it finalized on Thursday, exempt “Medigap” policy providers, like the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), from oversight when such providers increase payment rates for their supplemental insurance plans.

Insurance providers who aren’t exempt from Obamacare’s rate review rules are required to publicly release and explain some health care payment rate increases.

The AARP is the nation’s biggest seller of Medigap policies, or supplemental healthcare plans that add onto what Medicare won’t cover for seniors. The senior citizens interest group advocated for Obamacare to include an attack on Medigap policies’ biggest competitor, Medicare Advantage.

Though the White House and HHS dismiss allegations of political favoritism when it comes to who’s getting exceptions from the new health care regulations – such as in the recent uproar over the disproportionate number of Obamacare waivers that went to companies in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s district — Obamacare critics say the mere appearance of the administration helping friends is disturbing.

The appearance of favoritism exists with the new AARP exemptions, too. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sens. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, and Max Baucus, Montana Democrat, wrote to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius last October asking her not to do what HHS just finalized today – that is exempt Medigap policies from rate increase oversight.underwriter

“While Medicare Advantage premiums are declining, we are hearing disturbing stories from beneficiaries across the country about excessive premium increases for Medigap supplemental insurance policies,” Reid, Baucus and Kerry wrote to Sebelius on Oct. 6.

“For example, some beneficiaries enrolled in the United of Omaha Life Insurance Company will see their Medigap premiums increase by approximately 40 percent between 2010 and 2011,” the letter read. “An increase of this magnitude raises serious concerns about premium-setting practices and rate review procedures in place for Medigap policies.”

Instead of listening to three top Senate Democrats, the Obama administration decided to go ahead anyway with the Medigap exceptions from rate increase reviews.

The AARP was a driving force behind getting Obamacare through Congress, contributing a large sum to the $121 million advertising campaign pushing it, and spending millions more lobbying for it on Capitol Hill.

The senior citizen advocacy organization stands to make huge profits from Medicare Advantage cuts and from the exemptions it will benefit from when it comes to the Medigap plans sold under what AARP CEO A. Barry Rand calls the AARP’s “for-profit side.”

The AARP’s support of Obamacare during the debate over the legislation raised lots of eyebrows nationwide, as President Obama called for $313 billion in cuts to Medicare to push the plan through. Seniors weren’t happy about it, and many ripped AARP representatives at town hall meetings nationwide.

Now, though, it’s clear that the AARP is set to make millions, if not billions, of extra dollars in Medigap plan sales moving forward because they’ve effectively knocked out their biggest competitor, Medicare Advantage, through Obamacare. (DC)

AARP aided and abetted Democrats’ efforts to inflict a disastrous bill on an unwilling public.  They now stand to profit from the resulting law — while simultaneously receiving convenient exemptions from provisions that may hurt their bottom line.  Ed Morrissey pens the appropriate response to this outrageous report:  “If the AARP and the labor unions that backed ObamaCare need waivers from its consequences, then we all do.”  Amen.  I’ll leave you with this delightful AARP/Obama walk down memory lane.  This clip still makes my blood boil:
Update from AARP: “To be clear, AARP is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with a membership. While there are insurance products that carry the AARP name, they are underwritten by insurers such as Delta Dental, UnitedHealth Group, and Aetna and others—not AARP.  We work to ensure those products meet our standards and provide value to our members.

And, NATO is the US so the US didn’t attack Libya…right….. 😦
Oh and if you disagree with them, Grandma is going off a cliff…
Democrats continue to try to scare seniors with a new anti-GOP Medicare ad that shows “Grandma” getting thrown off a cliff and then asks, “Is America beautiful without Medicare?”

Welcome to the land of the freeloaders and the home of the depraved. No image captures America’s regressive ethos better than that of 30-year-old Stanley Thornton Jr., self-proclaimed “Adult Baby.” Profiled on a recent National Geographic reality television show, Thornton claims to suffer from a bizarre infantilism that leads him to wear diapers, lounge around in an oversized crib and seek constant coddling.

The nappies may be extreme, but let’s face it: Thornton Jr. — let’s just call him Junior — is a symptom of our Nanny State run amok, not an anomaly.

Junior came to Washington’s attention this week when Oklahoma GOP Sen. Tom Coburn challenged the Social Security Administration to probe into how the baby bottle-guzzling 350-pound man qualified for federal disability benefits. A former security guard, Junior is handy enough to have crafted his own wooden high chair and playpen.

Junior can drive a car and has sense enough not to go out in public in his XXL footie pajamas. Yet, welfare administrators treat him as an incurable dependent. Also collecting taxpayer-subsidized paychecks: Thornton’s adult roommate, a former nurse, who has indulged Thornton’s baby role-playing for the past decade.

Junior, naturally, threw a tantrum when his government teat-sucking was called into question. He wiped his nose and un-balled his fists long enough to type out an e-mail to The Washington Times: “You wanna test how damn serious I am about leaving this world, screw with my check that pays for this apartment and food. Try it. See how serious I am. I don’t care,” Junior threatened. “I have no problem killing myself. Take away the last thing keeping me here, and see what happens. Next time you see me on the news, it will be me in a body bag.”

Not from nowhere has this stubborn, self-destructive sense of entitlement sprung. As I reported last month, a record-breaking 12 million Americans have been added to the federal food stamp rolls over the past two years, and the bloated $6 billion AmeriCorps social justice army has been converted into a publicist corps for the welfare machine.

Just this week, a Michigan man boasted that he’s still collecting food stamps after winning a $2 million government-sponsored lottery prize. “If you’re going to … try to make me feel bad, you aren’t going to do it,” he told a local TV reporter. Embedded in his rebuke is the eternal refrain of the self-esteem-puffed teenager: “You can’t judge me!”

Diana West, author of “The Death of the Grown-Up,” traced the modern abdication of adulthood to the Baby Boomer generation. “The common compass of the past — the urge to grow up and into long pants; to be old enough to dance at the ball (amazingly enough, to the music adults danced to); to assume one’s rights and responsibilities — completely disappeared” after World War II. A culture of behavioral restraint gave way to “anything goes” and morphed into the current generation’s “whatever” attitude.

Look around: Junior’s infantilism is of a piece with the refusal of celebrity mothers Dina Lohan and Tish Cyrus to act like parents — and instead serve as best friends and tattoo parlor pals for their wayward daughters Lindsay and Miley. They’re the kind of women who shop at Forever 21, buy beer for their daughters’ prom parties and give them Botox certificates for high school graduation.

Junior’s penchant for pajamas is of a piece with perpetually stunted Hugh Hefner’s fetish for velvet robes 24/7 and self-indulgent decadence. Junior’s giant playpen is a cringe-inducing symbol of the Farmville-tethered, “funemployed” class of self-gratifiers who continue to live for today and spend like there’s no tomorrow.

Adult Baby Syndrome isn’t an isolated pathology. It’s the new American Way. Or, I should say, the new American Wahhhhh. (Michelle Malkin)

On issue after issue, Republicans are putting forward serious, sober and often politically risky solutions (if sometimes a bit weak kneed) to the nation’s most pressing problems, while Democrats play class-warfare games and stoke the public’s fear.

Oh, and today was supposed to be the end of the world… 🙂

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Political Cartoons by Nate Beeler

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

The Golden Years

I’ve said this before, that AARP is not a seniors advocacy group any longer. It’s a business. And mostly, it’s a greedy, capitalist one.

It’s an INSURANCE company really. 🙂  A tax-exempt one at that.

It will benefit from the destruction of Medicare Advantage. The more expensive and less productive MediGap insurance is backed by….AARP.

Gee, now that’s not ruthless, heartless, Me-me, capitalism now is it!

Gee, I thought Liberals were against such tawdry things. 🙂

Health Reform: The tax-exempt seniors group that pushed hard to get ObamaCare passed stands to reap a billion-dollar reward over the next decade as ObamaCare destroys the competition to the products it endorses.

During what passed for a debate on ObamaCare, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which administers benefits under Medicare, issued what can only be called a gag order after private insurer Humana Inc. warned its Medicare Advantage customers in a letter that ObamaCare might cause them to lose some benefits.

It was because that letter exposed one of Obama-Care’s biggest lies — the claim that if you liked your coverage you can keep it. Millions of seniors liked Medicare Advantage and still do. Fearful of the consequences of the hundreds of billions ObamaCare would cut out of Medicare, and angry about AARP’s support for health care reform, CBS News reported in 2009 how at least 60,000 seniors tore up and mailed back their AARP membership cards.

President Obama told a town meeting in Portsmouth, N.H., “We have the AARP on board because they know this is a good deal for our seniors.” Now a new report released by GOP members on the House Ways and Means Committee, “Behind the Veil: The AARP America Doesn’t Know,” says the AARP may have been on board simply because it was a good deal for it.

The report by House Ways and Means Committee members Wally Herger, R-Calif., and Dave Reichert, R-Wash., compiles the results of a yearlong investigation. It notes that as a result of the health care law, the Obama administration estimates more than 7 million seniors will lose their current Medicare Advantage plan and that AARP stands to benefit handsomely from that fact and the law it lobbied for through the sale of its competing, endorsed Medicare insurance products.

According to the report, AARP had the fourth-highest lobbying expenditures from 1998 to 2010, just below General Electric but above PhRMA. In its lobbying efforts, AARP sold itself as an advocate for seniors against those big, bad insurance companies. Yet it makes tons of cash from endorsing products sold by those same insurance companies.

Royalties from licensing the use of AARP’s name earned $657 million for the organization in 2009, some 46% of its total revenue vs. just 17% from membership dues. Since 2002, income derived from AARP’s business relationships, primarily with insurance companies, has nearly tripled, increasing by $417 million.

The millions forced by ObamaCare to lose the Medicare Advantage coverage will result, the report says “in a massive migration of seniors to Medigap plans. AARP is the nation’s leading provider of Medigap plans and has a contract in which AARP financially gains for every additional Medigap enrollee. “

The amount AARP will gain from ObamaCare — with cost-effectiveness mandates leading to rationed care, the destruction of medical innovation and health care decisions made by bureaucrats rather than doctors and patients — is staggering.

“AARP’s financial gain from the health care law,” the report states, “could exceed $1 billion during the next 10 years. This is because AARP will see their royalty payments increase as seniors are forced out of (Medicare Advantage) plans and buy AARP Medigap plans instead.”

This morphing of a touted seniors service organization to just another lobby feeding at the federal trough for fun and profit has Republicans questioning the group’s tax-exempt status.

“During this investigation it became very clear that despite its privileged tax-exempt status, in many cases, AARP represents a for-profit entity, in fact, an insurance company,” said Ways and Means Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La.

This shameless exploitation of seniors for profit is yet one more reason for pulling the plug on ObamaCare and issuing a “do not resuscitate” order for this government power grab.

So next time you see an AARP commercial about how great they are, wonder just a bit more about whether they actually give a crap about grandma, or whether it’s their bottom line that comes first.

Like a all good demonized “evil” capitalists. 🙂

Political Cartoons by Glenn Foden

Greed

I went to the movies yesterday. I saw “I Want Your Money” http://www.iwantyourmoney.net/

Every American should see this movie.

I Want Your Money Poster - Click to View Extra Large Image

But admittedly, it will make Liberals and Progressives explode, it has some harsh words for Republicans especially after 2003 when they did become Democrats and how we can’t afford that again.

But the big one that I thought was really fascinating was: Greed.

The Liberals have made this their center post for most of my life and they especially have made it the big focus now that they stand on the precipice of not having it like they did or not at all.

What is Greed?

And one of the questions raised in the documentary,” Name me one society that is not based on greed?”

That’s a more profound question than it looks because if you’re truly honest with yourself and with others you already know the real answer.

None.

It doesn’t exist.

So using “greed” as a political weapon is dishonest at best.

The liberals and the progressives are greedy. There just greedy with your money.

They are greedy for their own power.

And their class warfare against “the rich” is just using your greed to further theirs.

“The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money [to spend].” (attributed to many people).

And we’ve run out of money period. But yet, Obama and crew still want to spend even more. They don’t know any other way.

Greed is a pernicious thing.

We all do it.

I do it.

Getting “something for free” is a form of greed because nothing tangible is ever free.

Just yesterday I saw a new version of the Andy Griffith Health Care pimp-me commercial talking about all the “free” stuff that Medicare patients were going to get under ObamaCare.

That’s disingenuous at best, and a lie at worst.

1) If Doctors stop taking Medicare patients then you’re screwed. And they are.

2) the “free” service has to be paid by someone. That someone being you. it’s called the premium. That shared risk pool money you pay for insurance.

So they are being greedy with your money.

And Medicare is going to be cut by $500 Billion (at least according to the bill), especially Medicare Advantage.

Do Democrats tout that one? Of Course not!

And then the Democrats go after “the rich” and make you envious of them.

That’s a form of greed. Because you lust after their money. You covet their money. The money they’ve earned and you haven’t.

Mind you, Democrats have plenty of “rich” people backing them and plenty of  Unions that are International entities (AFL-CIO and SEIU just to name 2) and could get money from foreign sources.

But they aren’t going to mention it.

And neither will the Ministry of Truth Media.

Why would they. They are playing on your emotions. They are manipulating you. Why point out their duplicity. 🙂

Welfare is greedy.

You’re being paid by other people’s labor.

So, name me a society free of greed.

It doesn’t exist.

So when the Democrats trot out class warfare and  proclaim piously how they are for the working man and the poor against “the rich” and the”greedy” laugh in their both of their two faces!!

Just this weekend: “They’re fighting back. The empire is striking back. To win this election, they are plowing tens of millions of dollars into front groups. They are running misleading negative ads all across the country.”-President Obama

And Democrats aren’t?

What about his front groups like Moveon.Org (Foreign Billionaire George Soros), The SEIU, The AFL-CIO, The UAW, Media Matters, and on and on and on??

What of their nothing but negative ads??

And where is the “fair” media. The “journalists”??

They are in bed with Obama. Incestuously so.

Have  you seen any of this out of Katie Couric? Or Brian Williams? Or Diane Sawyer?

No. And you won’t either.

“I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of, you know, fat-cat bankers on Wall Street,” President Barack Obama told CBS’ “60 Minutes.” He also has decried the “arrogance and greed” and “excess greed, excess compensation” of America’s business executives.

Top Democrats like Obama constantly denounce private avarice. But when the fat cats are feds, not financiers, they go silent. To leading Democrats, government greed is good.

Just as Wall Street and corporate America relentlessly pursue profits, Congress and federal bureaucrats possess a ravenous hunger for trillions of tax dollars to fuel lavish spending schemes, underwrite gluttonous public salaries and benefits, and seize increasing power.

These days, the wallets of many American taxpayers feel like helium balloons. Yet Washington always wants more.

A post-election, Democrat-led, lame-duck congressional session may tax “the rich” ― specifically, individuals who earn north of $200,000 annually and married couples who make above $250,000.

If so, top tax rates would rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. Remember: These disgusting plutocrats are expected to pay higher taxes and simultaneously hire the unemployed.

Furthermore, the capital gains tax could jump from 15 percent to 20 percent (rising to 23.8 percent in 2013, thanks to ObamaCare), and the dividends tax could soar from 15 percent to 39.6 percent. This also would snatch growth capital from the productive sector.

The Death Tax now dead could be resurrected at 55 percent on estates exceeding $1 million. If key Democrats prevail, they would slam this sickly economy with at least $678 billion in higher taxes, the National Taxpayers Union estimates.

Meanwhile, as Americans miss mortgage payments, shutter businesses and abandon their dreams, it’s happy hour for government employees. What reformist Republican Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey properly calls “shared sacrifice” means something completely different in Washington: The American people sacrifice, and the feds share in the proceeds.

As the Heritage Foundation calculates, between December 2007 (the start of the Great Recession) and July 2010, private-sector employment shrank by 7,837,000 positions, or 6.8 percent.

However, federal civilian employment grew by 198,000 positions, or 10 percent, not counting temporary Census workers. In 2009, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reports, private-sector salaries and benefits averaged $61,051.

The federal-civilian figure? $123,049 ― more than double. Also, the Office of Personnel Management found that between December 2007 and June 2009, the number of federal employees earning at least $170,000 zoomed 93 percent.

As if devouring your money were not enough, Washington also sticks its collective snout everywhere. The feds have ordered New York City to change 250,900 street signs from ALL CAPS to caps and lower case, supposedly because “BROADWAY” is tougher to read than “Broadway.”

Rather than invite D.C. to SHOVE IT, Mayor Michael Bloomberg rolled over and appropriated $27.6 million to obey Washington’s latest edict. This sum could pay 219 rookie cops their $41,975 starting salaries for three years. (Deroy Murdock in Korea Times)

But the Democrats aren’t “greedy”. 🙂

It’s only Republicans and non-Democrats who are “greedy” for both money and power. 🙂

Don’t believe me? Just ask them…

The Safety Net

“It’s very sad. I think it’s just illustrating what dire straits our federal government budget is in,” said Sheila Zedlewski, director of the Urban Institute’s Income and Benefits Center. “It’s unprecedented to raid one safety net program to feed another.”

Democrats who reluctantly slashed a food stamp program to fund a state aid bill may have to do so again to pay for a top priority of first lady Michelle Obama.

The House will soon consider an $8 billion child nutrition bill that’s at the center of the first lady’s “Let’s Move” initiative. Before leaving for the summer recess, the Senate passed a smaller version of the legislation that is paid for by trimming the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as food stamps.

The proposed cuts would come on top of a 13.6 percent food stamp reduction in the $26 billion Medicaid and education state funding bill that President Obama signed this week.

Food stamps have made multiple appearances on the fiscal chopping block because Democrats have few other places to turn to offset the cost of legislation.

Party leaders raided the budget to find off-setting tax increases and spending cuts to pay for their top legislative priorities, including the roughly $900 billion health care law.

Democrats have turned to the food stamp program because funding increases enacted in the stimulus package last year were already scheduled to phase out over time. The changes proposed in the state aid and nutrition bills would simply cut off that increase early, in March 2014. Because the cuts would not take effect for more than three years, Democratic leaders have voiced the hope that they will be able to stop them in future legislation.

But House liberals are balking now, saying that while they swallowed the food stamp cuts to pay for urgent funding for Medicaid and teachers, they will not vote for more cuts in the child nutrition bill.

A House leadership aide noted that the food stamp decrease approved in the state aid bill will not take effect right away and will leave the program at the same funding level it was at before the stimulus law was signed. “That doesn’t mean many Democrats are not concerned about the issue, but this is a process which gives us time to deal with immediate issues (like jobs) and helping the economy grow, while giving you time to deal with the food stamp issue,” the aide said. (The Hill)

In other words, the card shuffling rob Peter-to-Pay-Paul-Wimpy-I’ll Pay you tomorrow for a hamburger (or food stamp)-today economics may be running a bit thin.

The idea that you can pay for massive spending with cuts 3 years from now in the hope that everything will be fine and and you won’t have to cut them in 3 years is some how saving money now is just wrong.

And these were eliminating increases that that they’d already passed!

Sounds like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic after it’s hit the iceberg! 😦

But when you have The Agenda, and the Agenda must be passed and the end justifies the means, you’ll do and say anything to make it happen.

The deeper food stamp reductions in the Senate version would set an earlier date — in November 2013 — for eliminating the increased benefits passed last year.  A family of four would see their benefit reduced by $59 a month, or about 9 percent. The bill would also cut funding for nutrition education programs aimed at low-income neighborhoods and households.

But don’t worry, It will still be George W Bush’s fault if the cuts actually happen. Or evil rich people. Or Class warfare. It certainly won’t be there fault. And it’s just cutting an increase anyhow so no big deal (unless you’re the Bush Tax cuts where not increasing taxes is bad).

The truth is certainly not endangered. 🙂

I like this comment made on the article, it was suitably sarcastic:

No big deal. Just put a “cancel” on any payments from the treasury to cover charges for the Obama family’s entertainment amd travel budget. It would onlly take a few months of austerity in the White House to jumpstart the economy, balance the budget, and slash the deficit. If that doesn’t do it, garnish Obama’s salary, eliminate his empire of czars, and fire “Bozo” Gibbs. The first two measures would be sacrifices, and the third would be a sign of at least some intelligent life in the White House.

Now why would they want to interrupt their latest lavish vacation to do that? Gee, they are the elites and they are the ruling family why would they want to show any restraint?

They deserve it. They are better than you.

I guess we could always Eat their words… 🙂

Congress’ rationale for eliminating the 2003 Bush tax cuts is deficit reduction. This position would be more credible were congress not teeing-up additional discretionary spending programs in the form of various stimuli packages for union members and favored political allies whom Democrats need to please in order to ensure their re-election in November. The deficit can never be reduced if Congress doesn’t stop non-essential spending. (or this kind of Wimpy-I’ll-pay-tomorrow-for-what-I-spend-today economics).

Currently, it is not clear if the confiscatory tax policies proposed by Democrats are designed to reduce the deficit by increasing the government’s revenue or if they are designed to punish political opponents and those whose don’t share the flawed, Democrat, wealth-redistribution ideology. Increasingly, it’s looking as if the goal is to punish.

Low tax rates incentivize economic growth and investment. This has been proven time after time. But, Democrats prefer to focus, instead, on taxes on the “rich”, using inflammatory rhetoric that plays on our deepest fears and ego, fear that someone might be better than we are, have more than we do, rhetoric that encourages schadenfreude, a smug pleasure that those who have more than we, might be brought low by confiscatory tax policies.

The Democrat leaders in congress advocating against the Bush tax cuts are looking for a bogeyman—the rich—to be blamed for the failed Democrat fiscal and job creation policies. Punishing the “rich” is a campaign strategy that they hope will play well with voters this fall. (Townhall.com)

Let them EAT the “rich”. Meanwhile, the apparatchiks are being porked out of their minds.

And you, get to pay for it either way. 🙂

Oh, and just in case you didn’t know, their was another stimulus (aka bribe) recently also:

WASHINGTON (AP) — A check from Uncle Sam gets your attention, even if the money doesn’t help that much with the bills.

More than 750,000 Medicare recipients with high prescription costs each got a $250 government check this summer, and 3 million-plus more checks are going out to people who land in the program’s anxiety-inducing coverage gap.

Democrats, running scared in an election year, are trying to overcome older people’s mistrust of the new health care law, which expands coverage for younger generations by cutting Medicare payments to hospitals and insurers.

Will the ploy work?

“It’s like a teaser,” says Virginia Brant, 65, of Glendale, Ariz. “You go to Vegas and they give you the free spin on the wheel. We have had our teaser — the $250 — for us to say, ‘Gee, look at what we have coming.’”

Brant spent hers to help pay down a credit card she keeps for medications.

The checks arrive with a letter addressed directly to each beneficiary and signed by Kathleen Sebelius, President Barack Obama’s health secretary.

The money is “to bring you some needed relief on your prescription drug costs … the first step toward closing your coverage gap,” Sebelius says. Then comes the pitch: “Stay tuned for more information … on how this new law will help make Medicare more financially secure and provide you with higher quality and more affordable health care.”

Ooh, $250 bucks! Wow! that makes The Health Care Mandate  and the cuts in Medicare Advantage  (which is used for prescriptions mostly :)) so much more palatable and makes me want to vote for a Democrat so they can continue to pork people without regard to the consequences!

I guess they could always cut food stamps again to pay for it…. 🙂

So The democrats want to demagogue the rich, pay off their apparatchiks with your money and bribe people to vote for them in November.

Well at least some things haven’t changed in the swamp. 🙂