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. 🙂

Carry me back to old Virginny

The Commonwealth of Virginia is obvious the next target for the Chicago Mob in the White House.

But will they go there? That is the question.

The Commonwealth has enacted an Illegal Immigration strategy that is very similar to Arizona, but with some key differences.

But they have also won Round 1 in the “Up Yours!” Obamacare fight. And they are just the first out of the gate.

The state of Virginia can continue its lawsuit to stop the nation’s new health care law from taking effect, a federal judge ruled Monday.

U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson said he is allowing the suit against the U.S. government to proceed, saying no court has ever ruled on whether it’s constitutional to require Americans to purchase a product.

“While this case raises a host of complex constitutional issues, all seem to distill to the single question of whether or not Congress has the power to regulate — and tax — a citizen’s decision not to participate in interstate commerce,” Hudson wrote in a 32-page decision.

“The congressional enactment under review — the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision — literally forges new ground and extends (the U.S. Constitution’s) Commerce Clause powers beyond its current high watermark,” Hudson said.

“Given the presence of some authority arguably supporting the theory underlying each side’s position, this court cannot conclude at this stage that the complaint fails to state a cause of action,” he wrote.

The decision is a small step, but in no way a minor matter to opponents of the health care bill rejected by all congressional Republicans but signed into law by President Obama earlier this year.
“This lawsuit is not about health care, it’s about our freedom and about standing up and calling on the federal government to follow the ultimate law of the land — the Constitution,” said Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who brought the suit. “The government cannot draft an unwilling citizen into commerce just so it can regulate him under the Commerce Clause.”

“Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has brought forward a specific and narrowly tailored objection to the Act. It warrants a full and thorough hearing in our courts. It is meritorious and constitutionally correct. … I look forward to the full hearing this fall,” said Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell.

Cuccinelli filed the suit almost immediately after the law was signed, arguing that it conflicts with Virginia’s legislation — also passed this year — exempting state residents from the requirement that all Americans be forced into health care coverage. Cuccinelli argued that the law violates the Constitution’s Commerce Clause.

The Commerce Clause allows the U.S. government to regulate economic activity. But Virginia argued that it’s not economic activity when someone chooses to refrain from participating in commerce.

The U.S. government, which was defending itself through the Health and Human Services Department run by Secretary Kathleen Sebelius argued that everyone will need medical services at some point in their life and therefore is either a “current or future participation in the health care market,” and therefore subject to taxation.

“We do not leave people to die at the emergency room door — whether they have insurance or not. Those costs — an estimated $43 billion annually — are absorbed by everyone else paying into the health care market including doctors, hospitals and insured patients. Congress has the authority under the Commerce Clause to address that cost-shifting burdening the interstate market for health care,” argues the brief filed by the Justice Department on behalf of HHS.

“Today’s ruling is merely a procedural decision by the court to allow this case to move forward. We believe there is clear and well-established legal precedent that Congress acted within its constitutional authority in passing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. We are confident that the health care reform statute is constitutional and that we will ultimately prevail,” the department said in a statement.

Supporters of the law say the decision Monday is merely procedural, but the law will be proven constitutional when it gets to a hearing on the content.

“This case is really a politically motivated ploy aimed at diverting attention from the many benefits of the new law,” said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, which lobbied in favor of the bill. “The decision today should not distract states and the federal government from focusing on implementing the new law in the most effective way possible. The benefits of the new law are just becoming apparent, and substantially more help is on the way.”

More than a dozen state attorneys general have filed a lawsuit in Florida challenging the federal law, but Virginia’s is the first to reach a courtroom. (FOX)

Missouri voters are expected to pass a measure on Tuesday to forbid the federal government from penalizing individuals for refusing to buy health insurance. But it could be symbolic because federal law typically supersedes state laws.

The federal penalty provision does not take effect until 2014 and the Obama administration has pointed to tax credits, subsidies and other mechanisms to help those who cannot afford to buy insurance. Some 46 million people in the United States lack healthcare coverage.

The Obama administration has countered that the government always has the ability to levy taxes and that the Constitution places the federal government’s powers over the states.

Shut up and sit down, we have supreme executive power and can do anything we want! 🙂

Never before has Congress sought to use its powers under the Commerce Clause to force a private citizen to buy a good or service from another private person or entity.  If Congress can do that in the name of ensuring that everyone has health insurance, what is to stop it from ordering citizens to buy a particular brand of car to ensure that everyone has a car to drive?  The possibilities, and hence the power claimed, are virtually limitless.– Virgina AG Cucchinelli

Naturally, the Ministry of Truth and the Liberals are playing it down as no big deal. Just a “procedural” victory they all say in unison. It’s no big deal.

But the “procedural” partial victory they got in the Arizona case was a full-on party-hardy yippee! victory against the evil racists!

Fascinating… 🙂

The media’s bias and ideology shines through again!

Meanwhile, It’s Mayberry to the Rescue!

The latest ObamaCare ad, curiously out at the same time as this decision, 🙂 has Andy Griffith touting the greatness of Medicare and now ObamaCare and how it’s going to take care of Seniors.

I saw they ad, it thought it was very self-centered, arrogant, and greedy. Which means it’s perfect for Obama.

Factcheck.org:

Would the sheriff of Mayberry mislead you about Medicare? Alas, yes.

In a new TV spot from the Obama administration, actor Andy Griffith, famous for his 1960s portrayal of the top law enforcement official in the fictional town of Mayberry, N.C., touts benefits of the new health care law. Griffith tells his fellow senior citizens, “like always, we’ll have our guaranteed [Medicare] benefits.” But the truth is that the new law is guaranteed to result in benefit cuts for one class of Medicare beneficiaries — those in private Medicare Advantage plans.

The White House released the ad on the 45th anniversary of the Medicare program, and said it would run nationally on cable TV networks. Griffith, whose “Andy Griffith Show” was a TV comedy hit at the time Medicare was first enacted in 1965, explains the “good things” that the new health care law will mean for Medicare beneficiaries.

“This year, like always, we’ll have our guaranteed benefits,” he says. An announcement of the ad on the White House website reinforces that claim, saying: “Under the Affordable Care Act … Seniors guaranteed Medicare benefits will remain the same.” But the truth is, for millions of seniors, benefits won’t remain the same.

As we wrote most recently last December, about 10 million Medicare Advantage recipients could see their extra benefits reduced by an average of $43 per month, according to the Congressional Budget Office. And more recently, a detailed analysis by the Medicare program’s own chief actuary, Richard Foster, stated in April:

Medicare Actuary Richard Foster: The new provisions will generally reduce MA rebates to plans and thereby result in less generous benefit packages. We estimate that in 2017, when the MA provisions will be fully phased in, enrollment in MA plans will be lower by about 50 percent (from its projected level of 14.8 million under the prior law to 7.4 million under the new law).

Even the head of the White House Office of Health Reform, Nancy-Ann DeParle, acknowledges that Medicare Advantage benefits are going to be reduced. “I’m sure that some of those additional benefits have been nice,” the Wall Street Journal quoted her as saying in a July 25 report. “But I think what we have to look at here is what’s fair and what’s important for the strength of the Medicare program long term.”

A Weasel Word

So how can the Obama administration claim that “guaranteed Medicare benefits will remain the same”? The answer is that the term “guaranteed” is a weasel word — a qualifier that sucks the meaning out of a phrase in the way that weasels supposedly suck the contents out of an egg. It may sound to the casual listener as though this ad is saying that the benefits of all Medicare recipients are guaranteed to stay the same — and that may well be the way the ad’s sponsors wish listeners to hear it. But what the administration is really saying is that only those benefits that are guaranteed in law will remain the same.

There’s even a section in the new law (section 3601) that says: “Nothing in the provisions of, or amendments made by, this Act shall result in a reduction of guaranteed benefits under title XVIII of the Social Security Act” (the title that establishes the Medicare program). Section 3602 says even Medicare Advantage recipients won’t suffer any reduction of “any benefits guaranteed by law.”

But here’s the catch: The extra benefits generally offered by Medicare Advantage plans aren’t guaranteed by law. They are offered by private insurance companies as inducements. The companies have been able to offer somewhat more generous packages than traditional, fee-for-service Medicare because the system pays them as much as 40 percent more per patient than it pays for traditional Medicare, according to the chief actuary. The average in 2009 was about 14 percent more, according to the most recent analysis by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, issued in February. But the new law generally eliminates the extra payments in the coming years. Foster, the chief actuary, estimates that federal spending for Medicare Advantage will be reduced by $145 billion over the law’s first decade.

Currently, about 1 in every 4 Medicare beneficiary is enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan. For many of them, the words in this ad ring hollow, and the promise that “benefits will remain the same” is just as fictional as the town of Mayberry was when Griffith played the local sheriff.

But Barney Fife wrote the Law and now expects you believe them when they say, it’s for your own good. 🙂

The The American Spectator and American’s For Tax Reform:

The Spectator blog reports on a conference call held this morning by HHS Secretary Sebelius to promote a new report regarding the health law’s impact on Medicare.  Questioned about claims by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ chief actuary that the Medicare reductions in the law “cannot be simultaneously used to finance other federal outlays and to extend the [Medicare] trust fund” solvency, Secretary Sebelius replied that

There are two different operating methods of looking at this, and the CMS actuary in the report that you cite differs in his strategic opinion from every accounting methodology that’s used for every other program in the federal budget, that has traditionally used for Medicare.  And he has a different interpretation that is not agreed upon by either the Congressional Budget Office or the OMB or traditionally in Congress.

Unfortunately for the Secretary, however, the Congressional Budget Office has on numerous occasions confirmed that any claims the law will improve Medicare’s solvency revolve around notional double-counting under federal budgetary conventions.  A January CBO letter found that “the majority of the [Medicare] trust fund savings…would be used to pay for other spending and therefore would not enhance the ability of the government to pay for future Medicare benefits.”  And in a March letter, CBO quantified the amount of that double-counting, estimating that, if the law’s Medicare savings were actually set aside to improve the solvency of the Medicare trust fund (as opposed to being used for other spending), the bill would increase the deficit by $260 billion over its first ten years alone.

In other words, the CBO agrees with the CMS actuary that the same money the same money can’t be used twice – once to expand coverage, and a second time to extend the life of the Medicare trust fund.  The Secretary’s statement that “there are two different operating methods of looking at this,” and that CBO disagrees with the Administration’s own actuaries on the impact of this budgetary double-counting, is demonstrably FALSE.

But don’t worry, the Ministry of Truth is right on top of it. 🙂

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2010/08/03/pkg.tuchman.sanctuary.city.cnn?hpt=C2

President Obama described officials who “demagogue” immigration or take sudden “anti-immigrant” stances as people who want to make a name for themselves and not help solve what he called “a national problem.” (CBS)

But his demagoguery is not worth mentioning. 🙂

“I understand the frustration of people in Arizona,” Mr. Obama said. “But what we can’t do is demagogue the issue, and what we can’t do is allow a patchwork of 50 different states, or cities or localities, where anybody who wants to make a name for themselves suddenly says, ‘I’m going to be anti-immigrant, and I’m going try to see if I can solve the problem ourself.’ This is a national problem.”– on CBS “Early Show”

But I end on a Vote of No Confidence  on ICE Director John Morton, from his own people.

http://www.pdfdownload.org/pdf2html/view_online.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fkfyi.com%2Fcc-common%2Fmlib%2F622%2F08%2F622_1280843100.pdf

or http://kfyi.com/pages/jimsharpe.html

But don’t it’s all for your own good. We are the Washington Elites, we are just better than you unwashed peasant masses.

And now the New York City government elites says it’s ok for there to be a 13-story Islamic Mosque 600 yards from Ground Zero built by a guy who believes in Shiria Law in America.

Doesn’t that just make you feel safer about the government. 🙂

Behind the Times

The Obama administration, headed up by a liberal dogma that has been trying to create it’s socialist utopia since Woodrow Wilson is not going to give up it’s sole dream of controlling everyone and everything ‘for their own good’ and “fairness”.

But it is curious that the Europeans who already went down this road in large part are starting to go back in our former direction.

It’s kind of like driving towards a massive accident and seeing people coming back from it bloodied and hurt, but you decide it can’t happen to me so you keep going anyhow.

That’s National Health Care now nearly 5 months after it was crammed down the throats of the American public in the single most partisan vote in memory.

Damn The Torpedoes! Full Steam ahead!

LONDON — Perhaps the only consistent thing about Britain’s socialized health care system is that it is in a perpetual state of flux, its structure constantly changing as governments search for the elusive formula that will deliver the best care for the cheapest price while costs and demand escalate.

Even as the new coalition government said it would make enormous cuts in the public sector, it initially promised to leave health care alone. But in one of its most surprising moves so far, it has done the opposite, proposing what would be the most radical reorganization of the National Health Service, as the system is called, since its inception in 1948.

Practical details of the plan are still sketchy. But its aim is clear: to shift control of England’s $160 billion annual health budget from a centralized bureaucracy to doctors at the local level. Under the plan, $100 billion to $125 billion a year would be meted out to general practitioners, who would use the money to buy services from hospitals and other health care providers.

The plan would also shrink the bureaucratic apparatus, in keeping with the government’s goal to effect $30 billion in “efficiency savings” in the health budget by 2014 and to reduce administrative costs by 45 percent. Tens of thousands of jobs would be lost because layers of bureaucracy would be abolished. (London Times)

So like the G20 Summit where “austerity” was the watchword by the Europeans and Obama stood there stamping his foot demanding people spend even more.

Not only are the Democrats and their dream out of date they are out of step even with the people they still want to dance with.

They wanted to be them.

Now it’s too late.

But that won’t stop them, of course.

Zealots who have been waiting 80 years+ for this will not be so easily deterred.

But the effects of this are beginning.

MANDEVILLE, La.—Mark Baumann, a 44-year-old uninsured diabetic, sees in the Obama administration’s health-care law a future with stable coverage to pay for his insulin shots and blood tests.

That’s likely to come indirectly at the expense of his mother’s generous health-care plan.

Humana Inc., Mary Baumann’s insurer, intends to pare her “Medicare Advantage” plan to make up for the smaller government payments it will soon receive as a result of the new law, leaving her with higher costs or fewer services. On the table are beefed-up co-payments and premiums, as well as the loss of perks such as her free membership at a health club.

Most Americans know the overhaul is designed to cover the uninsured, a decades-long goal of Democrats. But it also represents a change in how the government spreads its social safety net underneath Americans. Already, it’s creating tensions that are a harbinger of debates to come.

Since the creation of Social Security and Medicare, younger workers have funded programs for the elderly. It’s a compact in which workers paid for retirees with the understanding that they’d be looked after by the generation behind them.

The health overhaul diverges by tapping a program for the elderly to help provide insurance to 32 million Americans of younger generations. Nearly half the funding for the law is supposed to come from paying lower fees to hospitals, insurers and other health-care providers that participate in Medicare, the federal insurance program for Americans age 65 and older, as well as younger disabled people.

The 44 million Americans on Medicare won’t see changes to their guaranteed benefits under the law. But of those, 11.3 million on Medicare Advantage plans, a public-private hybrid of the type used by Ms. Baumann, who is 79, are likely to begin seeing extra benefits go away as soon as next year. Medicare Advantage cuts are slated to pay for 15% of the health-care law’s tab.

The trims mark the leading edge of a spending shift that could broaden as lawmakers grapple with a deficit expected to hit $1.47 trillion this year. Left unchanged, Medicare and Social Security will consume half of all federal spending by 2035, up from about one third today, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

And remember, by recess appointment an NHS-loving administrator is the head of Medicare.

And if, as predicted by many, including me, that private health insurance is driven completely to extinction then you’ll have health cost also in that GDP soup and with already half the people in this country not paying any taxes it does very bleak.

But at least it’s “fair”. 🙂

And, of course, the solution that will be published after the election by Obama’s “deficit commission” is a forgone conclusion, The VAT TAX and other taxes.

Then came Financial “reform” where one of the biggest cause of the problem, just like in Health Care (Trial Lawyers anyone?), were ignored because of partisan politics — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

And then with the massive tax increases, even on the poor, slated for Jan 1,2011 you have the perfect storm.

But the Democrats will not change course. You know that. I know now that. They know that.

Damn the Torpedoes! Full Steam ahead!

They don’t care how many European train wrecks occur.

It’s their time and they will do it anyhow!

For “fairness” and “equality” and “social justice”! 🙂

Meanwhile, the rationing the Democrats say will not happen here are happening in their beloved NHS, acocrding to the  liberal Sun Telegraph newspaper:

Some of the most common operations — including hip replacements and cataract surgery — will be rationed as part of attempts to save billions of pounds, despite government promises that front-line services would be protected.

Patients’ groups have described the measures as “astonishingly brutal”.

An investigation by The Sunday Telegraph has uncovered widespread cuts planned across the NHS, many of which have already been agreed by senior health service officials. They include:

* Restrictions on some of the most basic and common operations, including hip and knee replacements, cataract surgery and orthodontic procedures.

* Plans to cut hundreds of thousands of pounds from budgets for the terminally ill, with dying cancer patients to be told to manage their own symptoms if their condition worsens at evenings or weekends.

* The closure of nursing homes for the elderly.

* A reduction in acute hospital beds, including those for the mentally ill, with targets to discourage GPs from sending patients to hospitals and reduce the number of people using accident and emergency departments.

* Tighter rationing of NHS funding for IVF treatment, and for surgery for obesity.

* Thousands of job losses at NHS hospitals, including 500 staff to go at a trust where cancer patients recently suffered delays in diagnosis and treatment because of staff shortages.

* Cost-cutting programmes in paediatric and maternity services, care of the elderly and services that provide respite breaks to long-term carers.

And now back to US…

We badly need to, over time and very gradually, reallocate resources from the elderly to younger families and their children,” said Isabel Sawhill, senior fellow at the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution.

“I’m sure that some of those additional benefits have been nice,” Nancy-Ann DeParle, who runs the White House’s Office of Health Reform, says of Medicare Advantage plans. “But I think what we have to look at here is what’s fair and what’s important for the strength of the Medicare program long term.”

Sun Telegraph: The Government has promised to protect the overall budget of the NHS, which will continue to receive above-inflation increases, but said the service must make “efficiency savings” of up to £20 billion by 2014, which would be diverted back to the front line.

Brother from another socialist mother? 🙂

Dr Peter Carter, the head of the Royal College of Nursing, said he was “incredibly worried” about the disclosures.

Dr Carter said: “Andrew Lansley keeps saying that the Government will protect the front line from cuts – but the reality appears to be quite the opposite. We are seeing trusts making job cuts even when they have already admitted to being short staffed.

Trust boards are the ones who make the health care calls now.

Much like the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology  that was in the Stimulus Bill.

And we won’t even go over the Food Police again this time.

Sun Telegraph: On Thursday, the board of Sutton and Merton primary care trust (PCT) in London agreed more than £50 million of savings in two years. The plan included more than £400,000 to be saved by “reducing length of stay” in hospital for the terminally ill.

As well as sending more patients home to die, the paper said the savings would be made by admitting fewer terminally ill cancer patients to hospital because they were struggling to cope with symptoms such as pain. Instead, more patients would be given advice on “self management” of their condition.

Bill Gillespie, the trust’s chief executive, said patients would stay at home, or be discharged from hospital only if that was their choice, and would be given support in their homes.

The president told the {New York Times in 2008}magazine that the chronically ill and elderly represent 80 percent of American healthcare costs, and said, “(T)here is going to have to be a conversation that is guided by doctors, scientists, ethicists. And then there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place.”

“And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance,” he added.

That “independent group” turns out to be the government, now run by him. Funny how that worked out. 🙂

But the president questioned whether his now-deceased grandmother should have received her hip replacement while suffering a terminal illness.

Recounting the dilemma, Obama said, “(T)he question was, does she get hip replacement surgery even though she was fragile enough that they weren’t sure how long she would last (or) whether she could get through the surgery.”

“I think families all across America are going through decisions like that all the time,” Obama said.

This was not the first time the president had used his grandmother to illustrate his point on health care. In an April 2008 interview with The New York Times Magazine, Obama suggested much of the cost of health care in America comes from the elderly and those with chronic illness.

“That’s where you get into some very difficult moral issues,” Obama said – specifically considering whether “in the aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else’s aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they’re terminally ill is a sustainable model, is a very difficult question.”

This was BEFORE he became president mind you. But the Journo-List inspired Media was not going to let you dwell on it.

2009 Newsweek article on the “The Five biggest Lies in the Health Care Debate”:

What we can say is that there is de facto rationing under the current system, by both Medicare and private insurance. No plan covers everything, but coverage decisions “are now made in opaque ways by insurance companies,” says Dr. Donald Berwick of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement.

Donald Berwick? Where have I heard that name recently.

Oh yeah, he’s the guy who was appointed by Obama as Head of Medicare and Medicaid without Senate approval by a recess appointment and he’s an admitted lover of the NHS.

Gee, that couldn’t be a coincidence now could it? 🙂

The {Health Care} law will spend $938 billion over a decade, mostly to expand coverage to lower-income Americans. To finance that, there will be $455 billion coming from cuts in government payments to health-care providers that serve patients on Medicare and two other federal programs. The hardest hit—to the tune of $136 billion—will be private insurance companies that run Medicare Advantage plans.

The payment cuts to Medicare Advantage begin in 2012.

“With the president being younger, my biggest concern is that we don’t mean anything,” said Sandy Reed, a 61-year-old who has a Medicare Advantage plan because she qualifies as disabled. “We’re disposable.”

‘Death Panels’ indeed…

And it has come out on the Daily Caller in their further investigation of the Journo-List scandal that the Mainstream media were in full bore mode of destruction when Gov. Palin was announced as McCain’s running mate.

All that savagery was plotted out.

So what you do when your opponent speaks the truth to power, destroy her.

So that’s why the ‘death panels’ comment was so widely and uniformly from left mocked, dismissed and discredited.

To this very day she is the most hated woman in America by the Left.

Most of the rest will be funded by new levies, including taxes on health-care companies, a higher Medicare payroll tax for wealthy Americans and a tax on high-value insurance plans. Critics of the law say its total cost is likely higher than advertised.

But it’s not like the Democrats actually care.

Their one and only shot at injecting their socialist cancer, that they’ve been waiting since their grandparents time in many cases, is all that matters.

Those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

But at least it’s “fair”. 🙂

Chicxulub II

Americans & Democracy are being systemically exterminated.

“There ain’t no rules here, we’re trying to accomplish  something. . .  .All this talk about rules. . . When the deal goes down . . . we make  ’em up as we go along.”—Rep. Alcee Hastings (Fla.)

Let me remind you this [Americans allegedly dying because of lack of universal health care] has been going on for years. We are bringing it to a halt. The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re going to pass legislation that will cover 300 [million] American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.–Rep Rep. John Dingell (D-MI)

WASHINGTON – House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, Jr. (D-MI) and Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution Chairman Russ Feingold (D-WI) introduced bills in both chambers of Congress today that will restore voting rights to millions of American citizens with past felony convictions. An estimated 5.3 million citizens cannot vote as a result of felony convictions, and nearly 4 million of those individuals are living and working in their communities. The Democracy Restoration Act of 2009 is a welcome measure that will establish a uniform standard restoring voting rights in federal elections to millions of Americans who are not incarcerated, but continue to be denied their ability to fully participate in civic life.(ACLU)

And it’s a fact that Democrats traditionally get the majority of the “Felon Vote”.

So add the Felons to the Amnesty Illegals and you have as many as 25 million new Democrats who can be herded to the polls and informed to vote for the people who will kiss their buts.

And in the gerrymandering of the Census  (after it is being run by the White House and not the Treasury Dept) for the 2012 election cycle.

You get some real Chicago Politics.

Now we just need the Dead voting for Democrats.

President Obama said his bill will end some of the worst practices by insurance companies, provide the same health care coverage that Congress receives to the uninsured and small businesses, and will decrease health care costs. (Crains)

Problem: There is a provision in the bill to exempt members of congress from the regulations in the bill. What is more under this bill if you don’t have a “qualified plan” you will be fined for several thousand dollars. The other problem in the quote, “nothing changes for you”…that is, unless the plan you currently have doesn’t qualify on the government’s list of what is acceptable. If it doesn’t qualify you will be fined and given a plan of their choice. Ouch!

“Most of the major public policy changes embodied in the health care reform legislation will become effective only after the next presidential election in 2012,” said Maury Harris, an economist with UBS AG, said in a research report.

Gee, I wonder why… 😦

Insurers also will have to reveal how much of members’ premiums they spend on medical care, as opposed to executive salaries or other administrative costs. Next year, they’ll owe a rebate to customers if the insurers spend less than 80 percent on benefits for people in individual or small-group plans. (Bloomberg).

NYT: There will also be limits on overhead and profit. Insurers will be required to spend between 80 cents and 85 cents of every premium dollar on health care. They have been paying about 74 cents on average.

So You have a business that is required to spend 80-85% of their money on expenses and cover millions of new people and high-risk people that they previous didn’t and children they previously didn’t.

Some of them have to be covered for little or for free on preventative care, like colonoscopy’s and mammograms.

And forget things like employee expenses and business expenses.

Sounds like a sustainable business to me, doesn’t it. 😦

But then again, that was the plan.

Private Health Insurance was just hit with it’s own Chicxulub Meteor (the one that killed off the Dinosaurs) and will be extinct in 5 years or less I’d bet.

Leaving, guess who to step in and save the day!!! 😦

Mind you, a lot of this is based on Medicare and Medicaid, that are almost bankrupt and will have $500 Billion dollars in cuts (at least that’s what is supposed to happen, what are the chances it won’t happen).

The Cuts are most in Medicare Advantage, because AARP’s insurance arm has a higher cost alternative plan that will not be targeted.

Gee, I wonder why AARP supported the bill. 😦

So the idea that premiums will go down is fantasy.

And then there’s your friendly IRS agent. ALL 16,000 new ones to be Health Care Enforcement.

HR 4872 (The Reconciliation bill), Heritage reports, would “force companies to pay a tax penalty if that business employs 50 or more workers as soon as one worker qualifies for, and opts to accept, a health insurance premium subsidy.”

That $3,000 penalty is on top of the $2,000-per-worker penalty for all workers beyond the first 30 for such companies not offering a “qualified” health plan or paying 60% of employee health premiums. Such companies would be faced with a $3,000 penalty for hiring a single parent, the very kind of person desperately in need of employment.
Here’s where it gets even more bizarre. According to Heritage, under the reconciliation bill, if Company A lays off an employee with a working spouse, this could generate a $3,000 tax penalty for the other spouse’s employer, unless Company B also lays off the other spouse.

We’re not making this up. This byzantine legislation is a job-killer that will destroy small business, the major creator of new jobs. Some 77,000 businesses in the U.S. have 50 to 200 workers that could face the $2,000-per-employee tax penalty. An additional 116,000 businesses have 35 to 49 workers.

This nonsense will stunt economic growth and worsen the economic downturn by actually providing financial incentives to not hire people. It’s not worth the trouble. Businesses that might have expanded will stop at 49 employees. Those already considered a “large” business will face a minefield of taxes and penalties due in some cases to events beyond their control.

The power to tax is indeed the power to destroy. As we have said, this is not about health care. This is about power and the redistribution of wealth. And the IRS will be making a list and checking it twice to see who’s being naughty and who’s being nice.

And this you add this ditty:  In a joint statement to Congress, the president’s top economic advisers hedged against expectations of lower unemployment this year, saying the jobless rate — still hovering around 10% — will “remain elevated for an extended period.” “We do not expect further declines in unemployment this year,” the White House budget director, top economist and Treasury secretary testified.(IBD)

But at least they’ll have Government Health Care, in the future, that’s what’s really important. 🙂

And so, for Obama and The Democrats, it’s on to the next target.

They have to cram as much of this in this year as they can, so if they lose in November, they still win in the long term.

Amnesty, Financial “reform”, Global Warming, The EPA…

So much to control, so little time.

The Acid Rain and aftershocks  from the 21st century Chicxulub Meteor are now upon us.

And all we can do is our best.

It’s all we have left.