kool-aid: (viua Instapundit)
POLLS: Obama’s approval among independents down to … 34/51; Support for ObamaCare down to 40/52.
Message to Dems: That makes ObamaCare considerably less popular than Sarah Palin.
UH OH: Sarah Palin approval 47, Barack Obama approval 46.
Posted at 9:51 pm by Glenn Reynolds
Friday, November 20, 2009
And the $1.8tn assumes 500bn medicare cuts
...that won't...ever...happen.
"Reid's fuzzy math 'Reform' bill's true cost is twice advertised price"
By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is touting the Senate’s newest health-care bill as costing $849 billion over 10 years. But this uses the same accounting trick as past versions: 99 percent of the costs don’t kick in until the fifth year of that “10 year” period. And the true 10-year costs are well over twice what Reid's advertising: $1.8 trillion.
"Reid's fuzzy math 'Reform' bill's true cost is twice advertised price"
By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is touting the Senate’s newest health-care bill as costing $849 billion over 10 years. But this uses the same accounting trick as past versions: 99 percent of the costs don’t kick in until the fifth year of that “10 year” period. And the true 10-year costs are well over twice what Reid's advertising: $1.8 trillion.
The Democrats cite the bills’ projected costs from 2010-19. Yet, as the Congressional Budget Office reports, the bill would cost just $9 billion total from 2010 through 2013 — versus $147 billion in 2016 alone. In the first 40 percent of what the Democrats are calling the bill’s “first 10 years,” only 1 percent of its costs would yet have hit.
As the CBO analysis indicates, the bill’s real 10-year costs would start in 2014. And in its true first decade (2014 to 2023), CBO projects the bill’s costs to be $1.8 trillion — double the price Reid is advertising.
And that’s even though the CBO optimistically assumes the government-run “public option” wouldn’t cost a cent.
Over this same 10-year span, the 2,074-page bill would hike taxes and fines on Americans by $892 billion — more than the alleged price of the bill.
Just as problematic are the bill’s effects on entitlement spending and deficits.
Medicare is already teetering on the edge of insolvency. This year’s Medicare Trustees Report (signed by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, among others) warns that the Medicare Hospital Trust Fund — the main funding channel for the largest part of Medicare — will become insolvent in 2017.
Worse, nearly four people are now paying into Medicare for every beneficiary — but, with the baby boomers’ retirement fast approaching, that number will drop over the next 20 years to about 2½. Fewer and fewer people will be paying higher and higher costs.
Yet, as CBO notes, in its real first decade, the Senate bill would siphon $802 billion out of Medicare to spend elsewhere. With its financial outlook already beyond bleak, Medicare is the last place to look to for “free” money.
Among the $802 billion that Reid would divert from Medicare is $431 billion in cuts in doctors’ pay (far more than the misleading figure for 2010-19). The bill says it would cut payments to doctors for services to Medicare patients by 23 percent in 2011 — and never raise them back up, ever.
No one who’s been in Washington for more than five minutes actually expects this reduction to occur — and if it doesn’t, then the Senate health bill would increase our deficits by $286 billion in its true first decade, according to CBO projections.
In his historic speech to Congress on Sept. 9, President Obama pledged not to support any health bill “if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period.” This bill would raise the deficit by 2.86 trillion dimes — and yet the president is its most visible and audible supporter.
According to The Washington Post, the president has also stated “flatly that he won’t accept a bill that doesn’t ‘bend the curve’ on rising health-care costs.” Yet nothing in the CBO analysis suggests that the Senate bill would bend the cost-curve downward.
Meanwhile, the Office of the Chief Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has just concluded that the House health bill — which the President also champions — would bend the curve upward, raising nationwide health-care costs by over half a trillion dollars by 2020 (and by $289 billion even in the unlikely event that doctors’ pay is actually slashed).
If Congress is to consider legislation to remake a sixth of the US economy and insert the government into the health-care decisions of every American, it should at least be honest about the costs. In its first 10 years of actually being in effect in any meaningful way, Sen. Reid’s bill would cost $1.8 trillion. And it’s a simple fact that every penny of that would have to be paid by the American people through some combination of three things: cuts to existing programs, higher deficits, and higher taxes.
Jeffrey H. Anderson, director of the Benjamin Rush Society, was the senior speechwriter for Secretary Mike Leavitt at the Department of Health and Human Services.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/reid_fuzzy_math_bykKhLTE2JnwN40xtayzWMFake jobs...fake shmobs...fool the shlubs...us
"Surprise: Recovery.gov Has a Credibility Problem" by Kristina Rasmussen
Recovery.gov has a vast and challenging mandate: “to allow taxpayers to see precisely what entities receive [stimulus] money in addition to how and where the money is spent.” To its credit, Recovery.gov offers a fascinating look into how government goes about spending $787 billion.
However, the website is troubled with inaccuracies, and these problems are undermining its credibility. Wisconsin Democrat Rep. Dave Obey agrees: “The inaccuracies on recovery.gov that have come to light are outrageous and the Administration owes itself, the Congress, and every American a commitment to work night and day to correct the ludicrous mistakes.”
Given that stimulus award recipients are responsible for providing much of the information you see on Recovery.gov, it’s reasonable to expect some errors in the reporting process. Alas, some of the information seems to come out of thin air.
Phantom Congressional Districts.
Picking up on a story from ABC News about stimulus jobs created in phantom congressional districts, I found jobs/awards reported for the following Illinois “districts”: 0, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 28th, 33rd, 34th, 42nd, 44th, 53rd, and 59th. Or as Stephen Colbert would say, “the fightin’ 59th.” Too bad Colbert couldn’t “better know these districts,” because they don’t exist. Notes the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, “the federal government is attributing about $6.5 million in stimulus spending to non-existent congressional districts in Illinois.”
Counting Irregularities.
Recovery.gov touts state-by-state totals for jobs “created or saved.” Some of the counts are little more than guesses. For example, the Illinois Institute of Technology was awarded $97,900 to “purchase a high performance computer cluster” and related software. One job was counted created/saved; the related entry surmised: “I think the vendor of the computer equipment can retain about one job for this amount of purchase.” That’s totally unsubstantiated. Still, it was added to Illinois’s statewide jobs tally.
For some projects, the descriptive “job creation” information does not match the numerical “number of jobs” entry. One entry for Head Start in Illinois noted they would use $169,279 to “hire 2 additional staff and increase compensation of staff through a COLA to improve overall quality of program.” Yet under “number of jobs” they listed 63.65 positions, which counted toward the statewide jobs total.
Misallocation of Job Counts.
Recovery.gov breaks down the jobs created/saved by the stimulus by congressional district. For Illinois, the vast majority of jobs were supposedly created/saved in the 18th congressional district. With 16,996 jobs created/saved in the 18th district (the next largest jobs total is 3,444 in the 7th district). A closer look at the details shows that 14,233 of those central Illinois jobs came from the Illinois State Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, which is located in state capital of Springfield. The State Office counted education jobs saved across the state, yet all were allocated to the 18th district. If the designers of Recovery.gov hope to sway future congressional votes with the district-by-district job numbers, they’re need to present credible information.
Where are the Private Sector Jobs?
You’ll remember that back in January 2009 President Barack Obama promised that 90 percent of the jobs saved or created by the stimulus would be in the private sector. So far, that’s not the case. If the 90 percent promise held up, 22,003 of the 24,448 Illinois jobs would be in the private sector. But looking at the data, the big job saver is a government entity, otherwise known as “Illinois, State of.” Some 14,233 jobs were saved in public education. The “Chicago Transit Authority” is another big job saver and/or creator, accounting for 2,071 jobs. Seen in this light, the stimulus was more of a state and local government bailout than a private-sector engine starter.
But are these state government numbers even trustworthy?...
http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/18/surprise-recovery-gov-has-a-credibility-problem/
Recovery.gov has a vast and challenging mandate: “to allow taxpayers to see precisely what entities receive [stimulus] money in addition to how and where the money is spent.” To its credit, Recovery.gov offers a fascinating look into how government goes about spending $787 billion.
However, the website is troubled with inaccuracies, and these problems are undermining its credibility. Wisconsin Democrat Rep. Dave Obey agrees: “The inaccuracies on recovery.gov that have come to light are outrageous and the Administration owes itself, the Congress, and every American a commitment to work night and day to correct the ludicrous mistakes.”
Given that stimulus award recipients are responsible for providing much of the information you see on Recovery.gov, it’s reasonable to expect some errors in the reporting process. Alas, some of the information seems to come out of thin air.
Phantom Congressional Districts.
Picking up on a story from ABC News about stimulus jobs created in phantom congressional districts, I found jobs/awards reported for the following Illinois “districts”: 0, 20th, 21st, 22nd, 28th, 33rd, 34th, 42nd, 44th, 53rd, and 59th. Or as Stephen Colbert would say, “the fightin’ 59th.” Too bad Colbert couldn’t “better know these districts,” because they don’t exist. Notes the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, “the federal government is attributing about $6.5 million in stimulus spending to non-existent congressional districts in Illinois.”
Counting Irregularities.
Recovery.gov touts state-by-state totals for jobs “created or saved.” Some of the counts are little more than guesses. For example, the Illinois Institute of Technology was awarded $97,900 to “purchase a high performance computer cluster” and related software. One job was counted created/saved; the related entry surmised: “I think the vendor of the computer equipment can retain about one job for this amount of purchase.” That’s totally unsubstantiated. Still, it was added to Illinois’s statewide jobs tally.
For some projects, the descriptive “job creation” information does not match the numerical “number of jobs” entry. One entry for Head Start in Illinois noted they would use $169,279 to “hire 2 additional staff and increase compensation of staff through a COLA to improve overall quality of program.” Yet under “number of jobs” they listed 63.65 positions, which counted toward the statewide jobs total.
Misallocation of Job Counts.
Recovery.gov breaks down the jobs created/saved by the stimulus by congressional district. For Illinois, the vast majority of jobs were supposedly created/saved in the 18th congressional district. With 16,996 jobs created/saved in the 18th district (the next largest jobs total is 3,444 in the 7th district). A closer look at the details shows that 14,233 of those central Illinois jobs came from the Illinois State Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, which is located in state capital of Springfield. The State Office counted education jobs saved across the state, yet all were allocated to the 18th district. If the designers of Recovery.gov hope to sway future congressional votes with the district-by-district job numbers, they’re need to present credible information.
Where are the Private Sector Jobs?
You’ll remember that back in January 2009 President Barack Obama promised that 90 percent of the jobs saved or created by the stimulus would be in the private sector. So far, that’s not the case. If the 90 percent promise held up, 22,003 of the 24,448 Illinois jobs would be in the private sector. But looking at the data, the big job saver is a government entity, otherwise known as “Illinois, State of.” Some 14,233 jobs were saved in public education. The “Chicago Transit Authority” is another big job saver and/or creator, accounting for 2,071 jobs. Seen in this light, the stimulus was more of a state and local government bailout than a private-sector engine starter.
But are these state government numbers even trustworthy?...
http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/18/surprise-recovery-gov-has-a-credibility-problem/
Fake budget $s from big tax hikes (+ med cuts)
Major tax increases in the Reid health care bill
Posted on November 18th, 2009 by kbh (K. Hennessey):
The following is from the Joint Tax Committee estimate of the revenue effects of the Reid bill. I have listed provisions with major revenue effects (+$20 B / 10 years) and a few others that have significant policy or political impacts. There are some smaller changes as well, which you can see for yourself in the 3-page document. All revenue figures are revenues raised over the ten-year period 2010-2019.
1.40% excise tax on health coverage in excess of $8,500 (individuals) / $23,000 (families). Amounts are indexed for inflation by CPI-U + 1% – begins in 2013 – $149 B tax increase
2.Additional 0.5% Medicare (Hospital Insurance) tax on wages in excess of $200,000 ($250,000 for joint filers) – begins in 2013 – $54 B tax increase
3.Impose annual fee on manufacturers and importers of branded drugs – begins in 2009 – $22 B tax increase
4.Impose annual fee on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices – begins in 2009 – $19 B tax increase
5.Impose annual fee on manufacturers and importers of health insurance plans – begins in 2009 – $60 B tax increase
6.Cut in half (to $500K) the amount of an executive’s compensation that a health plan can deduct from its corporate income taxes – begins in 2013 – $600 million tax increase
7.Impose 5% excise tax on cosmetic surgery and similar procedures – begins for surgery in 2010 – $6 B tax increase!
In total the bill would raise taxes by $370 B over ten years.
The original is must-reading if you want any appreciation of the gall of these people:
http://keithhennessey.com/2009/11/18/reid-tax-increases/
Posted on November 18th, 2009 by kbh (K. Hennessey):
The following is from the Joint Tax Committee estimate of the revenue effects of the Reid bill. I have listed provisions with major revenue effects (+$20 B / 10 years) and a few others that have significant policy or political impacts. There are some smaller changes as well, which you can see for yourself in the 3-page document. All revenue figures are revenues raised over the ten-year period 2010-2019.
1.40% excise tax on health coverage in excess of $8,500 (individuals) / $23,000 (families). Amounts are indexed for inflation by CPI-U + 1% – begins in 2013 – $149 B tax increase
2.Additional 0.5% Medicare (Hospital Insurance) tax on wages in excess of $200,000 ($250,000 for joint filers) – begins in 2013 – $54 B tax increase
3.Impose annual fee on manufacturers and importers of branded drugs – begins in 2009 – $22 B tax increase
4.Impose annual fee on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices – begins in 2009 – $19 B tax increase
5.Impose annual fee on manufacturers and importers of health insurance plans – begins in 2009 – $60 B tax increase
6.Cut in half (to $500K) the amount of an executive’s compensation that a health plan can deduct from its corporate income taxes – begins in 2013 – $600 million tax increase
7.Impose 5% excise tax on cosmetic surgery and similar procedures – begins for surgery in 2010 – $6 B tax increase!
In total the bill would raise taxes by $370 B over ten years.
The original is must-reading if you want any appreciation of the gall of these people:
http://keithhennessey.com/2009/11/18/reid-tax-increases/
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Long but worthy read on the Obama-created...
diminishment of every aspect of American prestige and position in the world.
(via NRO): "That Same Old Carter Feeling Again" [Seth Leibsohn]
Yesterday, I detailed how little respect the Chinese authorities gave the Obama administration in its requests for media, "less respect than was given presidents Bush or Clinton" was how the New York Times put it yesterday. "A retreat," the NYT said. This morning the LAT has more, about less: "In China, Obama's Hosts Show No Signs of Budging" is the headline. The subheading: "President Obama is Leaving China Without Any Definable Concessions on Tougher Sanctions on Iran or Currency Exchanges."
The story continues:
When it came to China, President Obama's famous powers of persuasion failed to persuade.
He came bearing a long shopping list, including Chinese support for tougher sanctions on Iran and more flexibility by Beijing on currency exchange rates, but Obama was met with polite, yet stony, silences. . . . Not only is the U.S. president coming away without any definable concessions, but the Chinese appeared to be digging in their heels. . . . Perhaps most disappointing was China's failure to budge in its opposition to tougher sanctions on Iran. With their extensive oil interests influencing their policies toward Tehran, the Chinese are increasingly seen as an obstacle to reining in Iran's nuclear ambitions. . . .
Obama did not meet with Chinese journalists, lawyers, human rights advocates, environmentalists or any ordinary Chinese, and an expected meeting with Hu Shuli, who recently resigned as editor of China's leading business magazine, did not materialize.Obama's limited results in part reflect the profound shift in Sino-U.S. relations and global politics, with China's rapid rise and America's weakened position, especially in the wake of the financial crisis.
There's more. Helene Cooper of the NYT reports: "China held firm against most American demands. With China’s micro-management of Mr. Obama’s appearances in the country, the trip did more to showcase China’s ability to push back against outside pressure than it did to advance the main issues on Mr. Obama’s agenda, analysts said."
And now the Washington Post: "If there was any significant change during this trip, in fact, it was in the United States' newly conciliatory and sometimes laudatory tone. . . . Obama's trip stood in stark contrast to visits by his predecessors."
This gives me no pleasure to report. One might ask what the Asia trip was for? The two most important things happening in and about Asia are Afghanistan, where President Obama did not go, and China's support for our attempt at an Iran policy, which Obama did not get. No budging from China. The whole idea of negotiating with Iran was based on sanctions. And the whole idea around sanctions was that it would work if China cooperated. I never thought sanctions would work; I never thought negotiating with Iran would work. And, regardless, China is not playing ball with President Obama — in part because of our "weakened position."
This is reminiscent of the Jimmy Carter years — the last time the U.S. was seen as weak — unable to move and coax other countries, unable to reassure dependent allies, unable to have the respect of the world and, of course, unable to move the mullocracy of Iran.
As for our "weakened position," there are any number of ways to change that. Yes, our economy is the first problem and right now we have little leverage there. But our foreign policy has been one of retreat and capitulation as well. We capitulated to China on the Dalai Lama, we are capitulating to the Chinese client state of the Sudan, President Obama on Monday shook hands with the prime minister of repressive Myanmar (another China vassal state), of course he bowed to Japan, he took missile defenses out of Eastern Europe at the request of Russia, he has refused to say anything of strength about Iran, and has shown appeasement to Latin American dictators. Looking at this record: Why would a skeptical country like China think we are strong, deserving of respect?
This is not only sad, it is dangerous. A weak and disrespected America is bad for America, sends the wrong message to enemies (including terrorists), hurts dissident movements abroad, and — as a political matter, again — reminds us nothing so much as it does of the years of Jimmy Carter, which it took even more years to overcome.
Not a very good first year for America, or the world, under a new leadership that promised a new respect, a new start, and a new way of doing business. It's new alright — it just isn't any good.
— Seth Leibsohn is a fellow of the Claremont Institute.
(via NRO): "That Same Old Carter Feeling Again" [Seth Leibsohn]
Yesterday, I detailed how little respect the Chinese authorities gave the Obama administration in its requests for media, "less respect than was given presidents Bush or Clinton" was how the New York Times put it yesterday. "A retreat," the NYT said. This morning the LAT has more, about less: "In China, Obama's Hosts Show No Signs of Budging" is the headline. The subheading: "President Obama is Leaving China Without Any Definable Concessions on Tougher Sanctions on Iran or Currency Exchanges."
The story continues:
When it came to China, President Obama's famous powers of persuasion failed to persuade.
He came bearing a long shopping list, including Chinese support for tougher sanctions on Iran and more flexibility by Beijing on currency exchange rates, but Obama was met with polite, yet stony, silences. . . . Not only is the U.S. president coming away without any definable concessions, but the Chinese appeared to be digging in their heels. . . . Perhaps most disappointing was China's failure to budge in its opposition to tougher sanctions on Iran. With their extensive oil interests influencing their policies toward Tehran, the Chinese are increasingly seen as an obstacle to reining in Iran's nuclear ambitions. . . .
Obama did not meet with Chinese journalists, lawyers, human rights advocates, environmentalists or any ordinary Chinese, and an expected meeting with Hu Shuli, who recently resigned as editor of China's leading business magazine, did not materialize.Obama's limited results in part reflect the profound shift in Sino-U.S. relations and global politics, with China's rapid rise and America's weakened position, especially in the wake of the financial crisis.
There's more. Helene Cooper of the NYT reports: "China held firm against most American demands. With China’s micro-management of Mr. Obama’s appearances in the country, the trip did more to showcase China’s ability to push back against outside pressure than it did to advance the main issues on Mr. Obama’s agenda, analysts said."
And now the Washington Post: "If there was any significant change during this trip, in fact, it was in the United States' newly conciliatory and sometimes laudatory tone. . . . Obama's trip stood in stark contrast to visits by his predecessors."
This gives me no pleasure to report. One might ask what the Asia trip was for? The two most important things happening in and about Asia are Afghanistan, where President Obama did not go, and China's support for our attempt at an Iran policy, which Obama did not get. No budging from China. The whole idea of negotiating with Iran was based on sanctions. And the whole idea around sanctions was that it would work if China cooperated. I never thought sanctions would work; I never thought negotiating with Iran would work. And, regardless, China is not playing ball with President Obama — in part because of our "weakened position."
This is reminiscent of the Jimmy Carter years — the last time the U.S. was seen as weak — unable to move and coax other countries, unable to reassure dependent allies, unable to have the respect of the world and, of course, unable to move the mullocracy of Iran.
As for our "weakened position," there are any number of ways to change that. Yes, our economy is the first problem and right now we have little leverage there. But our foreign policy has been one of retreat and capitulation as well. We capitulated to China on the Dalai Lama, we are capitulating to the Chinese client state of the Sudan, President Obama on Monday shook hands with the prime minister of repressive Myanmar (another China vassal state), of course he bowed to Japan, he took missile defenses out of Eastern Europe at the request of Russia, he has refused to say anything of strength about Iran, and has shown appeasement to Latin American dictators. Looking at this record: Why would a skeptical country like China think we are strong, deserving of respect?
This is not only sad, it is dangerous. A weak and disrespected America is bad for America, sends the wrong message to enemies (including terrorists), hurts dissident movements abroad, and — as a political matter, again — reminds us nothing so much as it does of the years of Jimmy Carter, which it took even more years to overcome.
Not a very good first year for America, or the world, under a new leadership that promised a new respect, a new start, and a new way of doing business. It's new alright — it just isn't any good.
— Seth Leibsohn is a fellow of the Claremont Institute.
Dithering on Afghan...
Stand Up Notes From Flyover Country: Dithering on Afghanistan by Jeffrey Jena (via Big Government)
The situation in Afghanistan is like a poker game. There are only three options for action: raise, call or fold. The President seems to be unable to pick one that doesn’t have Americans on both sides of the debate pulling out their hair.
During his campaign for the White House President Obama said, “We have seen Afghanistan worsen, deteriorate. We need more troops there. We need more resources there… I would send two to three additional brigades to Afghanistan.”
He promised to send another ten to fifteen thousand troops to help those already there. He also declared that the war in Afghanistan was the proper front in the war against terror. Now that he is Commander-in-Chief, his vision seems to be less clear.
The military commanders gave the President four troop deployment options earlier this week but he refused all four. Not for military reasons but because of some hooey about the corruption of the government in Kabul and their inability to run a fair election. Mr. President, if our support for governments was based on whether they are corrupt or not and could run a fair election, we would have pulled federal funding from Chicago years ago. The problem with pulling out of Afghanistan, or Chicago for that matter, is that they would fall into violent anarchy. We have already seen that happen in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.
Current thinking on what to do in Afghanistan is based on two faulty assumptions:
The first is that wars are clear and concise events with specific outcomes and easy to find exit points. When John McCain told us the truth about how long we might be in Iraq, we didn’t want to hear it. We have been in Japan and Germany for over sixty years and in the Philippines for much longer. I wonder if back during the Spanish- American War leftist were telling the President that the Philippines were tribal islands and would never be able to be organized into a stable democratic government?
The second faulty assumption is that if we walk away from Afghanistan, simply pull all of our troops out, the war it then over. How long would it be before the Taliban was running things again and Al Qaeda was using it as a base of operations? We will be fighting the same people again in the future, perhaps armed with nuclear weapons from Iran or Pakistan. Our national attention span has shortened to Twitter-like dimensions while our enemies think in terms of centuries.
The real problem for President Obama is that is if he deploys more troops and commits to staying, Afghanistan is no longer Bush’s war but his. Not even a year into his term and he is already worried about his legacy rather than doing what is best for the country. He is worried that his presidency will get bogged down in the battle for liberty instead of being able to focus on strengthening ACORN and the SEIU.
The left doesn’t mind waging long, costly, and non-winnable wars, so long as they are they start them themselves. Look at the war on poverty and the war on drugs. Our cities are littered with the lives ruined by those wars. We have thrown enough money into those two rat holes to finance Iraq and Afghanistan for the next fifty years and toss in twenty years of free government health care to boot. Do we have an exit strategy from the Welfare State, Mr. President?
The situation in Afghanistan is like a poker game. There are only three options for action: raise, call or fold. The President seems to be unable to pick one that doesn’t have Americans on both sides of the debate pulling out their hair.
During his campaign for the White House President Obama said, “We have seen Afghanistan worsen, deteriorate. We need more troops there. We need more resources there… I would send two to three additional brigades to Afghanistan.”
He promised to send another ten to fifteen thousand troops to help those already there. He also declared that the war in Afghanistan was the proper front in the war against terror. Now that he is Commander-in-Chief, his vision seems to be less clear.
The military commanders gave the President four troop deployment options earlier this week but he refused all four. Not for military reasons but because of some hooey about the corruption of the government in Kabul and their inability to run a fair election. Mr. President, if our support for governments was based on whether they are corrupt or not and could run a fair election, we would have pulled federal funding from Chicago years ago. The problem with pulling out of Afghanistan, or Chicago for that matter, is that they would fall into violent anarchy. We have already seen that happen in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.
Current thinking on what to do in Afghanistan is based on two faulty assumptions:
The first is that wars are clear and concise events with specific outcomes and easy to find exit points. When John McCain told us the truth about how long we might be in Iraq, we didn’t want to hear it. We have been in Japan and Germany for over sixty years and in the Philippines for much longer. I wonder if back during the Spanish- American War leftist were telling the President that the Philippines were tribal islands and would never be able to be organized into a stable democratic government?
The second faulty assumption is that if we walk away from Afghanistan, simply pull all of our troops out, the war it then over. How long would it be before the Taliban was running things again and Al Qaeda was using it as a base of operations? We will be fighting the same people again in the future, perhaps armed with nuclear weapons from Iran or Pakistan. Our national attention span has shortened to Twitter-like dimensions while our enemies think in terms of centuries.
The real problem for President Obama is that is if he deploys more troops and commits to staying, Afghanistan is no longer Bush’s war but his. Not even a year into his term and he is already worried about his legacy rather than doing what is best for the country. He is worried that his presidency will get bogged down in the battle for liberty instead of being able to focus on strengthening ACORN and the SEIU.
The left doesn’t mind waging long, costly, and non-winnable wars, so long as they are they start them themselves. Look at the war on poverty and the war on drugs. Our cities are littered with the lives ruined by those wars. We have thrown enough money into those two rat holes to finance Iraq and Afghanistan for the next fifty years and toss in twenty years of free government health care to boot. Do we have an exit strategy from the Welfare State, Mr. President?
Obama polling via RCP
November 18th, 2009
Quinnipiac: Obama Under 50 For First Time
President Barack Obama's job approval rating is under 50% for the first time, according to a new national survey from Quinnipiac University. The survey, conducted November 9-16 among 2,518 registered voters, shows 48% approve of the way Obama is handling his job as president, while 42% disapprove. That is a slight decline from Quinnipiac's last poll in early October, which showed 50% approval and 41% disapproval.
Support for Obama's handling of specific issues has also declined in the past month, most notably on Afghanistan:
Afghanistan
Approve 38 (-4 vs. last poll 10/8)
Disapprove 49 (+9)...
Read the rest:
http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/11/18/quinnipiac-obama-under-50-for-first-time/
Quinnipiac: Obama Under 50 For First Time
President Barack Obama's job approval rating is under 50% for the first time, according to a new national survey from Quinnipiac University. The survey, conducted November 9-16 among 2,518 registered voters, shows 48% approve of the way Obama is handling his job as president, while 42% disapprove. That is a slight decline from Quinnipiac's last poll in early October, which showed 50% approval and 41% disapproval.
Support for Obama's handling of specific issues has also declined in the past month, most notably on Afghanistan:
Afghanistan
Approve 38 (-4 vs. last poll 10/8)
Disapprove 49 (+9)...
Read the rest:
http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/11/18/quinnipiac-obama-under-50-for-first-time/
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
This is Obama-nomics: fake tax cut, then bill
From Tax Prof blog:
TIGTA: Obama Tax Credit to Leave 15.4m Workers With Additional Tax Bill
The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration has released Millions of Taxpayers May Be Negatively Affected by the Reduced Withholding Associated With the Making Work Pay Credit (2010-41-002):
The Making Work Pay Credit, a provision of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, will apply to most taxpayers with earned income. The credit will be in effect for Tax Years 2009 and 2010. The Making Work Pay Credit was implemented using new income tax withholding tables issued by the IRS. Application of the tables could negatively affect a significant number of taxpayers. The overall objective of this review was to assess IRS efforts to implement the Making Work Pay Credit and to evaluate its impact on taxpayers. ...
Based on an analysis of Tax Year 2007 tax return data, TIGTA estimates that more than 15.4 million taxpayers could unexpectedly owe taxes for Tax Year 2009 as a result of the Making Work Pay Credit.
Associated Press, Millions Will Have to Repay Part of Obama Tax Credit
Bloomberg, Obama Tax Credit Leaves 15 Million Owing IRS: Report
L.A. Times, Millions May Have to Repay Part of Obama Tax Credit
Wall Street Journal, Millions to Owe IRS Due to Stimulus Credit -- Treasury
TIGTA: Obama Tax Credit to Leave 15.4m Workers With Additional Tax Bill
The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration has released Millions of Taxpayers May Be Negatively Affected by the Reduced Withholding Associated With the Making Work Pay Credit (2010-41-002):
The Making Work Pay Credit, a provision of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, will apply to most taxpayers with earned income. The credit will be in effect for Tax Years 2009 and 2010. The Making Work Pay Credit was implemented using new income tax withholding tables issued by the IRS. Application of the tables could negatively affect a significant number of taxpayers. The overall objective of this review was to assess IRS efforts to implement the Making Work Pay Credit and to evaluate its impact on taxpayers. ...
Based on an analysis of Tax Year 2007 tax return data, TIGTA estimates that more than 15.4 million taxpayers could unexpectedly owe taxes for Tax Year 2009 as a result of the Making Work Pay Credit.
Associated Press, Millions Will Have to Repay Part of Obama Tax Credit
Bloomberg, Obama Tax Credit Leaves 15 Million Owing IRS: Report
L.A. Times, Millions May Have to Repay Part of Obama Tax Credit
Wall Street Journal, Millions to Owe IRS Due to Stimulus Credit -- Treasury
Obama's 2012 defeat will be due to KSM move
DP: Upon hearing of the trial being moved to NYC, I predicted it would still be in various states of delay, motions, maneuvers, etc in 2012, giving any Republican that emerges from a (hopefully Republican-only) primary, who has the necessary go-for-the jugular political skills...the biggest, fattest campaign issue a candidate could have. ONE. TERM. PRESIDENCY.
(via World Net Daily) "Is America at war, or not?" by Pat Buchanan
Are we at war – or not?
For if we are at war, why is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed headed for trial in federal court in the Southern District of New York? Why is he entitled to a presumption of innocence and all of the constitutional protections of a U.S. citizen?
Is it possible we have done an injustice to this man by keeping him locked up all these years without trial? For that is what this trial implies – that he may not be guilty.
And if we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KSM was complicit in mass murder, by what right do we send Predators and Special Forces to kill his al-Qaida comrades wherever we find them? For none of them has been granted a fair trial.
When the Justice Department sets up a task force to wage war on a crime organization like the Mafia or MS-13, no U.S. official has a right to shoot Mafia or gang members on sight. No one has a right to bomb their homes. No one has a right to regard the possible death of their wives and children in an attack as acceptable collateral damage.
Yet that is what we do to al-Qaida, to which KSM belongs.
We conduct those strikes in good conscience because we believe we are at war. But if we are at war, what is KSM doing in a U.S. court?
Minoru Genda, who planned the attack on Pearl Harbor, a naval base on U.S. soil, when America was at peace, and killed nearly as many Americans as the Sept. 11 hijackers, was not brought here for trial. He was an enemy combatant under the Geneva Conventions and treated as such.
When Maj. Andre, the British spy and collaborator of Benedict Arnold, was captured, he got a military tribunal, after which he was hanged. When Gen. Andrew Jackson captured two British subjects in Spanish Florida aiding renegade Indians, Jackson had both tried and hanged on the spot.
Enemy soldiers who commit atrocities are not sent to the United States for trial. Under the Geneva Conventions, soldiers who commit atrocities are shot when caught.
When and where did Khalid Sheikh Mohammed acquire his right to a trial by a jury of his peers in a U.S. court?
When John Wilkes Booth shot Abraham Lincoln, alleged collaborators like Mary Surratt were tried before a military tribunal and hanged at Fort McNair. When eight German saboteurs were caught in 1942 after being put ashore by U-boat, they were tried in secret before a military commission and executed, with the approval of the Supreme Court. What makes KSM special?...
(Read the rest for a glimpse of what could very well go wrong, base on what normally happens in criminal trials):
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=116268
(via World Net Daily) "Is America at war, or not?" by Pat Buchanan
Are we at war – or not?
For if we are at war, why is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed headed for trial in federal court in the Southern District of New York? Why is he entitled to a presumption of innocence and all of the constitutional protections of a U.S. citizen?
Is it possible we have done an injustice to this man by keeping him locked up all these years without trial? For that is what this trial implies – that he may not be guilty.
And if we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KSM was complicit in mass murder, by what right do we send Predators and Special Forces to kill his al-Qaida comrades wherever we find them? For none of them has been granted a fair trial.
When the Justice Department sets up a task force to wage war on a crime organization like the Mafia or MS-13, no U.S. official has a right to shoot Mafia or gang members on sight. No one has a right to bomb their homes. No one has a right to regard the possible death of their wives and children in an attack as acceptable collateral damage.
Yet that is what we do to al-Qaida, to which KSM belongs.
We conduct those strikes in good conscience because we believe we are at war. But if we are at war, what is KSM doing in a U.S. court?
Minoru Genda, who planned the attack on Pearl Harbor, a naval base on U.S. soil, when America was at peace, and killed nearly as many Americans as the Sept. 11 hijackers, was not brought here for trial. He was an enemy combatant under the Geneva Conventions and treated as such.
When Maj. Andre, the British spy and collaborator of Benedict Arnold, was captured, he got a military tribunal, after which he was hanged. When Gen. Andrew Jackson captured two British subjects in Spanish Florida aiding renegade Indians, Jackson had both tried and hanged on the spot.
Enemy soldiers who commit atrocities are not sent to the United States for trial. Under the Geneva Conventions, soldiers who commit atrocities are shot when caught.
When and where did Khalid Sheikh Mohammed acquire his right to a trial by a jury of his peers in a U.S. court?
When John Wilkes Booth shot Abraham Lincoln, alleged collaborators like Mary Surratt were tried before a military tribunal and hanged at Fort McNair. When eight German saboteurs were caught in 1942 after being put ashore by U-boat, they were tried in secret before a military commission and executed, with the approval of the Supreme Court. What makes KSM special?...
(Read the rest for a glimpse of what could very well go wrong, base on what normally happens in criminal trials):
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=116268
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Remember--much of health care results not...
...due to supposed lack-of-insurance:
(via Powerline) The Washington Post reports that "the U.S. [is] losing ground on preventable deaths." Although the U.S. is the international leader in the detection and treatment of most cancers, the death rate from diseases that need not cause a high rate of mortality among people under the age of 70 -- diabetes, for example -- is high here. Ten years ago, the U.S. ranked 15th out of 19 industrialized countries in the "preventable death" category. Now it ranks 19th out of 19th. Meanwhile, per capita medical spending in this country continues to outstrip such spending in the rest of the industrialized world.
The Post tries to tie our high "preventable death" rate to the fact that many Americans are uninsured, but its case isn't particularly persuasive. For example, the Post suggests that a lack of regular check-ups among people without medical coverage is a significant contributor to the high death rate from diseases that shouldn't kill. But early detection is also crucial to surviving diseases that are likely to kill, and the Post acknowledges that the U.S. is a leader in detecting and preventing deaths from such diseases.
To understand why so many Americans are dying before their time from diseases like diabetes, it might be instructive to walk down a typical street in most American cities or towns and eyeball the population. Compared to other industrialized counties I've visited, or population doesn't appear to be taking good care of itself. It may not be our medical system and its providers that are letting us down; we may be the ones who are letting us down.
Recall too in this connection that there are an estimated 4.5 million Americans who are eligible for Medicaid or S-CHIP but have not enrolled. It's tough to save people who lack the initiative to take advantage of free health care.
It used to be fashionable for leftists to condemn America for having a high infant mortality rate. But was America to blame for the habits and behavior pattens of pregnant girls who recklessly endangered the babies they were carrying?
Fortunately, most Americans don't seem to be buying the left's indictment of our health care system. They have more confidence in their own eyes than in the misleading statistics being fed to them by the liberal MSM, and thank God for that.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/10/024653.php
(via Powerline) The Washington Post reports that "the U.S. [is] losing ground on preventable deaths." Although the U.S. is the international leader in the detection and treatment of most cancers, the death rate from diseases that need not cause a high rate of mortality among people under the age of 70 -- diabetes, for example -- is high here. Ten years ago, the U.S. ranked 15th out of 19 industrialized countries in the "preventable death" category. Now it ranks 19th out of 19th. Meanwhile, per capita medical spending in this country continues to outstrip such spending in the rest of the industrialized world.
The Post tries to tie our high "preventable death" rate to the fact that many Americans are uninsured, but its case isn't particularly persuasive. For example, the Post suggests that a lack of regular check-ups among people without medical coverage is a significant contributor to the high death rate from diseases that shouldn't kill. But early detection is also crucial to surviving diseases that are likely to kill, and the Post acknowledges that the U.S. is a leader in detecting and preventing deaths from such diseases.
To understand why so many Americans are dying before their time from diseases like diabetes, it might be instructive to walk down a typical street in most American cities or towns and eyeball the population. Compared to other industrialized counties I've visited, or population doesn't appear to be taking good care of itself. It may not be our medical system and its providers that are letting us down; we may be the ones who are letting us down.
Recall too in this connection that there are an estimated 4.5 million Americans who are eligible for Medicaid or S-CHIP but have not enrolled. It's tough to save people who lack the initiative to take advantage of free health care.
It used to be fashionable for leftists to condemn America for having a high infant mortality rate. But was America to blame for the habits and behavior pattens of pregnant girls who recklessly endangered the babies they were carrying?
Fortunately, most Americans don't seem to be buying the left's indictment of our health care system. They have more confidence in their own eyes than in the misleading statistics being fed to them by the liberal MSM, and thank God for that.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/10/024653.php
Mucho money for not-so-mucho coverage
"In A Sane World, This Report Would Kill Obamacare"
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt
The chief actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services --a non-partisan oversight agency of the federal government-- has analyzed the Obamacare bill passed by the House. The Hill links to the full report and you should wade through it.
Key takeaways from the auditor's report:
"*After 10 years under the new regime, 23 million Americans would still be without insurance;
"*The bill cuts $570 billion from Medicare; and
"*The bill does not stop the exploding cost of health care."
In a nutshell, Obamacare uses massive new tax hikes and massive cuts to Medicare to give health benefits to some of the currently uninsured, but does nothing to contain health costs. The Democrats spin on this devastating report cannot conceal that Obamacare fails every test of genuine "reform." It is being pushed solely for political reasons, primarily to expand the size and reach of government and with it the public sector employee unions that power so much of the Democratic Party machinery.
http://www.hughhewitt.com/blog/g/b63b2ea9-44af-4efc-b799-6fbc3794d2a2
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt
The chief actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services --a non-partisan oversight agency of the federal government-- has analyzed the Obamacare bill passed by the House. The Hill links to the full report and you should wade through it.
Key takeaways from the auditor's report:
"*After 10 years under the new regime, 23 million Americans would still be without insurance;
"*The bill cuts $570 billion from Medicare; and
"*The bill does not stop the exploding cost of health care."
In a nutshell, Obamacare uses massive new tax hikes and massive cuts to Medicare to give health benefits to some of the currently uninsured, but does nothing to contain health costs. The Democrats spin on this devastating report cannot conceal that Obamacare fails every test of genuine "reform." It is being pushed solely for political reasons, primarily to expand the size and reach of government and with it the public sector employee unions that power so much of the Democratic Party machinery.
http://www.hughhewitt.com/blog/g/b63b2ea9-44af-4efc-b799-6fbc3794d2a2
We know cost will rise--they insist otherwise
"'Reform' at your expense "
Health premiums to skyrocket By SALLY PIPES:
The health-reform bill that the Senate will soon debate may differ markedly from the one written by Speaker Nancy Pelosi that passed the House -- but both would raise the cost of health care for ordinary Americans.
Health premiums to skyrocket By SALLY PIPES:
The health-reform bill that the Senate will soon debate may differ markedly from the one written by Speaker Nancy Pelosi that passed the House -- but both would raise the cost of health care for ordinary Americans.
Such an approach is at odds with the chief goal of reform -- to increase access to care by reducing the cost.
The Empire State is ill-equipped to deal with higher health costs. New York's health system is already one of the most expensive in the country, with total private and public health-care spending of more than $6,500 a person a year. Only two other states and the District of Columbia spend more. Meanwhile, 13.6 percent of New York residents are uninsured.
But Congress seems hell-bent on making life harder for ordinary New Yorkers. Several recent reports confirm this. A recent analysis done by PriceWaterhouseCoopers, the large insurer Wellpoint and consulting firm Oliver Wyman (using WellPoint's membership data) showed that an average New York family with two children covered by a basic individual-market policy would see its premiums rise 82 percent under Sen. Harry Reid's version of the bill, which includes new excise taxes on insurers, drug companies and medical-device firms, which would all be passed on to consumers.
(It'd be even worse in other states: A 25-year-old man in Kentucky, for instance, would see his monthly premium rise from $61 to $181 -- nearly a threefold jump.)
New York's small businesses would fare somewhat better. Premiums for a New York City-based firm with eight employees would rise 6 percent if the reform plan takes root.
A big part of that 6 percent hike would come from the Senate's plan to tax so-called "Cadillac" high-cost insurance plans. Because insurance in New York is already so expensive, the tax would hit many workers' policies. By 2014, New Yorkers would be forking over $33 million to the federal government in "Cadillac" taxes alone.
Democrats claim that government subsidies would help families adjust to the higher cost of insurance. But those subsidies won't offset many people's hikes. For example, premiums for a two-child family with annual income of $66,150 would still go up 24 percent under the Senate's plan -- afterthe subsidy is taken into account. That's an extra $80 a month.
It's easy to understand how "reform" will raise health costs -- by imposing onerous new regulations on insurance. For instance, reforms passed by the House and under consideration in the Senate would mandate that all policies cover such benefits as pediatric dental services and maternity coverage -- even if you don't want such coverage. The reform package's new minimum-benefit requirements alone would add $245 a month to the average New York family's premium.
What should lawmakers be doing instead? First, prune needless regulations and mandates. Such action would allow insurers to offer a variety of plans that meet individual consumers' needs and budgets. It would also lower costs, as benefit mandates add from 20 to 50 percent to the cost of a basic insurance policy.
When Congress set out to reform the US health-care system, its primary goals were to lower health costs and improve access to insurance. The leading House and Senate health-reform proposals would do the opposite -- and make average Americans worse off in the process.
Sally Pipes is president & CEO of the Pacific Research Institute. Her latest book is "The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care."
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/reform_at_your_expense_Cv3TM1Cqlwc4oMQf4tXBOO#ixzz0X8u5sXFx
Another delusion/lie down: Chi-coms doubt...
...that the health care scheme (why is it that only Republican proposals are derided with the scare-word "scheme"?) and accompanying debt are fiscally sustainable.
"China questions costs of U.S. healthcare reform" by James Pethokoukis:
Guess what? It turns out the Chinese are kind of curious about how President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform plans would impact America’s huge fiscal deficit. Government officials are using his Asian trip as an opportunity to ask the White House questions. Detailed questions.
Boilerplate assurances that America won’t default on its debt or inflate the shortfall away are apparently not cutting it. Nor should they, when one owns nearly $2 trillion in assets denominated in the currency of a country about to double its national debt over the next decade.
Nothing happening in Washington today should give Beijing any comfort or confidence about what may happen tomorrow. Healthcare reform was originally promoted as a way to “bend the curve” on escalating entitlement costs, the major part of which is financing Medicare and Medicaid. That is looking more and more like an overpromised deliverable.
For instance, a new study from the U.S. government’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services finds that the healthcare reform bill recently passed in the House of Representatives would increase healthcare spending to 21.3 percent of GDP by 2019 compared with 20.8 percent under current law. That’s bending the curve the wrong way. The study also questions the “long-term viability” of the $500 billion in Medicare cuts meant to help pay for expanded insurance coverage.
In addition, the CMS study gives a clearer cost estimate than the one provided by the Congressional Budget Office. According to the CBO, the 10-year cost of PelosiCare is $894 billion. But that analysis includes early years with little government spending, According to the CMS, the House approach would cost $1 trillion from 2013-2019, or some $140 billion a year when fully put into effect.
Few realists in Washington think any of the current reform plans make a significant dent in the long-term healthcare cost to government. ...
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/reform_at_your_expense_Cv3TM1Cqlwc4oMQf4tXBOO
"China questions costs of U.S. healthcare reform" by James Pethokoukis:
Guess what? It turns out the Chinese are kind of curious about how President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform plans would impact America’s huge fiscal deficit. Government officials are using his Asian trip as an opportunity to ask the White House questions. Detailed questions.
Boilerplate assurances that America won’t default on its debt or inflate the shortfall away are apparently not cutting it. Nor should they, when one owns nearly $2 trillion in assets denominated in the currency of a country about to double its national debt over the next decade.
Nothing happening in Washington today should give Beijing any comfort or confidence about what may happen tomorrow. Healthcare reform was originally promoted as a way to “bend the curve” on escalating entitlement costs, the major part of which is financing Medicare and Medicaid. That is looking more and more like an overpromised deliverable.
For instance, a new study from the U.S. government’s Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services finds that the healthcare reform bill recently passed in the House of Representatives would increase healthcare spending to 21.3 percent of GDP by 2019 compared with 20.8 percent under current law. That’s bending the curve the wrong way. The study also questions the “long-term viability” of the $500 billion in Medicare cuts meant to help pay for expanded insurance coverage.
In addition, the CMS study gives a clearer cost estimate than the one provided by the Congressional Budget Office. According to the CBO, the 10-year cost of PelosiCare is $894 billion. But that analysis includes early years with little government spending, According to the CMS, the House approach would cost $1 trillion from 2013-2019, or some $140 billion a year when fully put into effect.
Few realists in Washington think any of the current reform plans make a significant dent in the long-term healthcare cost to government. ...
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/reform_at_your_expense_Cv3TM1Cqlwc4oMQf4tXBOO
"No cuts for seniors" lie disproved by Post
More Great Headlines for Obamacare [Rich Lowry] (via NRO):
From Washington Post:
"Report: Bill would reduce senior care
"A plan to slash more than $500 billion from future Medicare spending — one of the biggest sources of funding for President Obama's proposed overhaul of the nation's health-care system — would sharply reduce benefits for some senior citizens and could jeopardize access to care for millions of others, according to a government evaluation released Saturday.
"The report, requested by House Republicans, found that Medicare cuts contained in the health package approved by the House on Nov. 7 are likely to prove so costly to hospitals and nursing homes that they could stop taking Medicare altogether.
"Congress could intervene to avoid such an outcome, but "so doing would likely result in significantly smaller actual savings" than is currently projected, according to the analysis by the chief actuary for the agency that administers Medicare and Medicaid. That would wipe out a big chunk of the financing for the health-care reform package, which is projected to cost $1.05 trillion over the next decade."
From Washington Post:
"Report: Bill would reduce senior care
"A plan to slash more than $500 billion from future Medicare spending — one of the biggest sources of funding for President Obama's proposed overhaul of the nation's health-care system — would sharply reduce benefits for some senior citizens and could jeopardize access to care for millions of others, according to a government evaluation released Saturday.
"The report, requested by House Republicans, found that Medicare cuts contained in the health package approved by the House on Nov. 7 are likely to prove so costly to hospitals and nursing homes that they could stop taking Medicare altogether.
"Congress could intervene to avoid such an outcome, but "so doing would likely result in significantly smaller actual savings" than is currently projected, according to the analysis by the chief actuary for the agency that administers Medicare and Medicaid. That would wipe out a big chunk of the financing for the health-care reform package, which is projected to cost $1.05 trillion over the next decade."
More, hardly the first, phony numbers on jobs
(via Instapundit) THE COUNTRY’S IN THE VERY BEST OF HANDS: Recovery.gov shows money flowing to nonexistent Congressional districts. “Recovery.gov also shows 2,893.9 jobs created with $194,537,372 in stimulus funding in New Hampshire’s 00 congressional district. But, there is no such thing. The site also shows $1,471,518 going to New Hampshire’s 6th congressional district, $1,033,809 to the 4th congressional district and $124,774 to the 27th congressional district. In fact, New Hampshire only has two congressional districts; inviting confusion about where the money listed for the 00, 4th, 6th and 27th districts is going.”
Reader David Kirkham emails: “Must be in one of those 57 states somewhere…”
Posted at 12:06 pm by Glenn Reynolds
http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/back-story/2009/nov/17/recoverygov-shows-money-flowing-to-nonexistent-di/
Reader David Kirkham emails: “Must be in one of those 57 states somewhere…”
Posted at 12:06 pm by Glenn Reynolds
http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/back-story/2009/nov/17/recoverygov-shows-money-flowing-to-nonexistent-di/
Monday, November 16, 2009
So, how's that reset w/Muslim world going?
From Col. Ralph Peters: "Bam's Muslim-world muddle"
Half a year ago in Cairo, President Obama addressed the Muslim world. Global leftists lauded the speech as heralding instant change in the Middle East.
The Obama-adoring pundits were right. Change came. But it's all bad.
Instead of listening to the extravagant claims of our leftward-plunging media about how profoundly that speech affected Muslims, let's look at what's actually happened since Obama praised Islam and trashed America:
DP: Use link to read how from Pakistan to Yemen, there's been only one direction--downhill.
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/bam_muslim_world_muddle_3UJGct0Q4622YP4G47QhRK#ixzz0X2yBI2PT
Half a year ago in Cairo, President Obama addressed the Muslim world. Global leftists lauded the speech as heralding instant change in the Middle East.
The Obama-adoring pundits were right. Change came. But it's all bad.
Instead of listening to the extravagant claims of our leftward-plunging media about how profoundly that speech affected Muslims, let's look at what's actually happened since Obama praised Islam and trashed America:
DP: Use link to read how from Pakistan to Yemen, there's been only one direction--downhill.
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/bam_muslim_world_muddle_3UJGct0Q4622YP4G47QhRK#ixzz0X2yBI2PT
Things some of the anti-warriors really believe
As stated in Monday's column, here are some profound and incisive observations from the folks that talked to me on Saturday, October 31, at their weekly "Peace Vigil" in front of the do-nut shop at Oak and Main:
The signs were rather stock-in-trade for anti-warriors: "Bring them back home," "Bring them back alive," " Vet for peace," "War kills the future," and "Health care not warfare."
The question on whether American military deaths were ever for a good cause prompted one gentleman to offer that they have always been for the purpose of "perpetuating empire on earth" starting with the war against Indians, or Native Americans, if you will.
President Obama came in for some critical remarks with admonishments to "Show some leadership" and to not be "wishy washy on his agenda." A comment was made to the effect that "war is not the purpose" of his presidency, I guess.
On woman who would not talk to me contended that I twisted the responses of the anti-war folks 4 years ago when I conducted a previous poll. I insisted I had not in any way misrepresented the answers given to me in the questions I posed at that time. I still have the raw poll question sheet with their answers, as well as the column from Nov. 21, 2005, and offered it to the woman to point out how exactly I did what she alleged. As I expected, she had no interest in backing up her accusation with actual evidence or analysis of what I wrote. That means her assertion was nothing more than a bit of hyperbolic, anecdotal and unsupportable opining and aspersion without merit.
Do spend some time if you are here at Polecat News and Views to peruse the posts which I think you will find to be, as I state, some of the best commentary I can find from around the web, on the most burning issues of current controversy. Very little of it will you find emanating from the mainstream media (MSM), whose job of digging for the truth, no matter who is made uncomfortable and transparently disingenuous, has been blatantly surrendered on the altar of their new role as transcribers and public relations arms for the Obama/Democrat ruling elite.
The signs were rather stock-in-trade for anti-warriors: "Bring them back home," "Bring them back alive," " Vet for peace," "War kills the future," and "Health care not warfare."
The question on whether American military deaths were ever for a good cause prompted one gentleman to offer that they have always been for the purpose of "perpetuating empire on earth" starting with the war against Indians, or Native Americans, if you will.
President Obama came in for some critical remarks with admonishments to "Show some leadership" and to not be "wishy washy on his agenda." A comment was made to the effect that "war is not the purpose" of his presidency, I guess.
On woman who would not talk to me contended that I twisted the responses of the anti-war folks 4 years ago when I conducted a previous poll. I insisted I had not in any way misrepresented the answers given to me in the questions I posed at that time. I still have the raw poll question sheet with their answers, as well as the column from Nov. 21, 2005, and offered it to the woman to point out how exactly I did what she alleged. As I expected, she had no interest in backing up her accusation with actual evidence or analysis of what I wrote. That means her assertion was nothing more than a bit of hyperbolic, anecdotal and unsupportable opining and aspersion without merit.
Do spend some time if you are here at Polecat News and Views to peruse the posts which I think you will find to be, as I state, some of the best commentary I can find from around the web, on the most burning issues of current controversy. Very little of it will you find emanating from the mainstream media (MSM), whose job of digging for the truth, no matter who is made uncomfortable and transparently disingenuous, has been blatantly surrendered on the altar of their new role as transcribers and public relations arms for the Obama/Democrat ruling elite.
Why does Obama emulate the worst of Carter
"Why Does He Hate Us?"
John Hinderacker: Don't miss Paul's Sunday column in the Examiner on the roots of President Obama's anti-Americanism. It must be an odd thing to be President of a country that you think has an evil history.
"In the area of foreign and national security policy, however, Obama can operate largely unchecked. And a weak, guilt-ridden policy toward our foreign adversaries is almost certain to produce grave consequences.
"To some extent, we have seen this act before. The damage of just four years of Jimmy Carter's America-effacing presidency included Soviet expansion, communist inroads in Latin America, the replacement of a friendly government with a virulently anti-American theocracy in Iran, and a prolonged hostage crisis that came to symbolize the new American impotence.
"But although Carter was ambivalent about America, his efforts to promote democracy abroad showed that he thought we had something to offer t[he] world. Obama will not grant America even that.
"Emulating Carter the ex-president, rather than President Carter, Obama has shown essentially no interest in human rights or democracy promotion. His belated support of the Iranian protesters following this summer's election could hardly have been more lukewarm.
"It seems that, in Obama's view, all we have to offer the world is our non-interference in its affairs, except perhaps when it comes to bullying our allies..."
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024957.php
John Hinderacker: Don't miss Paul's Sunday column in the Examiner on the roots of President Obama's anti-Americanism. It must be an odd thing to be President of a country that you think has an evil history.
"In the area of foreign and national security policy, however, Obama can operate largely unchecked. And a weak, guilt-ridden policy toward our foreign adversaries is almost certain to produce grave consequences.
"To some extent, we have seen this act before. The damage of just four years of Jimmy Carter's America-effacing presidency included Soviet expansion, communist inroads in Latin America, the replacement of a friendly government with a virulently anti-American theocracy in Iran, and a prolonged hostage crisis that came to symbolize the new American impotence.
"But although Carter was ambivalent about America, his efforts to promote democracy abroad showed that he thought we had something to offer t[he] world. Obama will not grant America even that.
"Emulating Carter the ex-president, rather than President Carter, Obama has shown essentially no interest in human rights or democracy promotion. His belated support of the Iranian protesters following this summer's election could hardly have been more lukewarm.
"It seems that, in Obama's view, all we have to offer the world is our non-interference in its affairs, except perhaps when it comes to bullying our allies..."
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024957.php
Is there anything Obama can be honest about?
(via Ed Driscoll): John J. Pitney Jr. does the job that AP used to do, before they transferred all of their staff over to research Sarah Palin’s book, and fact checks a slightly hyperbolic claim by the president:
“As America’s first Pacific president,” said President Obama in Tokyo, “I promise you that this Pacific nation will strengthen and sustain our leadership in this vitally important part of the world.”
It is true that the president was born in Hawaii (sorry, birthers), lived from ages six to ten in Indonesia, and attended a Honolulu prep school. But he is not our first Pacific president. Richard Nixon was born in California in 1913, and spent much more of his life in the Pacific region than the current president has. Moreover, while Barack Obama made his career in Chicago and Springfield, Ronald Reagan made his in Los Angeles and Sacramento.
And the incumbent is hardly the first chief executive to have lived in another Pacific Rim country. William Howard Taft was governor-general of the Philippines. Dwight Eisenhower had military postings in the Philippines and the Panama Canal Zone. Herbert Hoover worked as a mining engineer in Australia and China; he even learned to speak Mandarin. Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Bush 41 all served in the Pacific during the Second World War. What they did as adults was perhaps more consequential than what Obama did as a child.
http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/2009/11/14/americas-first-pacific-president/
“As America’s first Pacific president,” said President Obama in Tokyo, “I promise you that this Pacific nation will strengthen and sustain our leadership in this vitally important part of the world.”
It is true that the president was born in Hawaii (sorry, birthers), lived from ages six to ten in Indonesia, and attended a Honolulu prep school. But he is not our first Pacific president. Richard Nixon was born in California in 1913, and spent much more of his life in the Pacific region than the current president has. Moreover, while Barack Obama made his career in Chicago and Springfield, Ronald Reagan made his in Los Angeles and Sacramento.
And the incumbent is hardly the first chief executive to have lived in another Pacific Rim country. William Howard Taft was governor-general of the Philippines. Dwight Eisenhower had military postings in the Philippines and the Panama Canal Zone. Herbert Hoover worked as a mining engineer in Australia and China; he even learned to speak Mandarin. Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Bush 41 all served in the Pacific during the Second World War. What they did as adults was perhaps more consequential than what Obama did as a child.
http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/2009/11/14/americas-first-pacific-president/
Sunday, November 15, 2009
AP's factually deficient fact-checking of Palin
DP: I read the shortened version in the Redding Record-Searchlight and found not one actual disproval of the supposedly fact-challenged Palin assertions. I was hardly alone as you can read below:
"Rogue's Eleven" [Mark Steyn]:
If you wonder why American newspapering is dying, consider this sign-off:
"AP writers Matt Apuzzo, Sharon Theimer, Tom Raum, Rita Beamish, Beth Fouhy, H. Josef Hebert, Justin D. Pritchard, Garance Burke, Dan Joling and Lewis Shaine contributed to this report."
Wow. That's ten "AP writers" plus Calvin Woodward, the AP writer whose twinkling pen honed the above contributions into the turgid sludge of the actual report. That's 11 writers for a 695-word report. What on? Obamacare? The Iranian nuke program? The upcoming trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?
No, the Associated Press assigned 11 writers to "fact-check" Sarah Palin's new book, and in return the 11 fact-checkers triumphantly unearthed six errors. That's 1.8333333 writers for each error. What earth-shattering misstatements did they uncover for this impressive investment? Stand well back:
"PALIN: Says she made frugality a point when traveling on state business as Alaska governor, asking "only" for reasonably priced rooms and not "often" going for the "high-end, robe-and-slippers" hotels.
"THE FACTS: Although she usually opted for less-pricey hotels while governor, Palin and daughter Bristol stayed five days and four nights at the $707.29-per-night Essex House luxury hotel (robes and slippers come standard)..."
That looks like AP paid 1.8333333 fact-checkers to agree with Mrs Palin: She says she didn't "often" go for "high-end" hotels; they say she "usually opted for less-pricey hotels". That's gonna make one must-see edition of "Point/Counterpoint".
Or is AP arguing "four nights" counts as "often"? Is that the point? AP assigned 11 reporters to demonstrate that four is a large number?
Over at Powerline, John Hinderaker and his vast team of researchers (17 Minneapolis-area Somali jihadists, 29 Acorn-accredited child-sex slaves, and 43 unemployed Columbia School of Journalism graduates) fact-check AP's fact-checkers.
Coming next:
PALIN: How many AP fact-checkers does it take to change a lightbulb?
FACT: Palin has gone seriously "rogue" in her facts here. AP fact-checkers are prevented per union regulations from changing lightbulbs.
AP writers Matt Apuzzo, Sharon Theimer, Tom Raum, Rita Beamish, Beth Fouhy, H. Josef Hebert, Justin D. Pritchard, Garance Burke, Dan Joling and Lewis Shaine contributed to this joke. We'll be here all week.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTE2YmEyMDZkM2Y3NjAzYWZjOTRmYjExZDg4MGE0NzE=
John Hinderacker takes up further analysis:
"Fact-Check This":
The Associated Press got an advance copy of Sarah Palin's book, Going Rogue, and assigned eleven reporters, apparently, to try to find errors in it. The eleven collaborated on an article titled "FACT CHECK: Palin's book goes rogue on some facts." In fact, though, the AP's catalogue of alleged errors--six in total--is thin at best.
The AP starts with this one:
"PALIN: Says she made frugality a point when traveling on state business as Alaska governor, asking "only" for reasonably priced rooms and not "often" going for the "high-end, robe-and-slippers" hotels.
"THE FACTS: Although she usually opted for less-pricey hotels while governor, Palin and daughter Bristol stayed five days and four nights at the $707.29-per-night Essex House luxury hotel (robes and slippers come standard) for a five-hour women's leadership conference in New York in October 2007. With air fare, the cost to Alaska was well over $3,000."
This is frankly pathetic. Palin says she didn't "often" stay at high-end hotels, and the AP counters by saying she did, once. Yes, that's why she said "not often" rather than "never." What is indisputable is that Palin sold the Governor's private jet and flew commercial, thereby saving the taxpayers a large amount of money and qualifying her as a frugal traveler.
The rest are about as lame. Here is another:
"PALIN: Rails against taxpayer-financed bailouts, which she attributes to Obama. She recounts telling daughter Bristol that to succeed in business, "you'll have to be brave enough to fail."
"THE FACTS: Palin is blurring Obama's stimulus plan--a $787 billion package of tax cuts, state aid, social programs and government contracts--and the federal bailout that President George W. Bush signed.
"Palin's views on bailouts appeared to evolve as John McCain's vice presidential running mate. In September 2008, she said "taxpayers cannot be looked to" to bail out Wall Street.
"The next month, she praised McCain for being "instrumental in bringing folks together" to pass the $700 billion bailout. After that, she said "it is a time of crisis and government did have to step in." "
The AP doesn't quote Palin, so it's hard to say whether she "blurs" the bailouts or not. But by the AP's own account, Palin has consistently opposed bailouts, except that during the Presidential campaign, she loyally supported McCain's position on the initial TARP program. That's what a Vice-Presidential candidate is supposed to do, and this is not a "fact-check."
This one, I simply don't believe:
"PALIN: Welcomes last year's Supreme Court decision deciding punitive damages for victims of the nation's largest oil spill tragedy, the Exxon Valdez disaster, stating it had taken 20 years to achieve victory. As governor, she says, she'd had the state argue in favor of the victims, and she says the court's ruling went "in favor of the people."
"THE FACTS: That response is at odds with her reaction at the time to the ruling, which resolved the case by reducing punitive damages for victims to $500 million from $2.5 billion. Palin said then she was "extremely disappointed" and it was "tragic" so many fishermen and families put their lives on hold waiting for the decision."
Again, the AP doesn't quote Palin but rather asks us to take their word for the fact that Palin "welcomes" the Supreme Court's Exxon Valdez decision in her book as a "ruling [that] went 'in favor of the people.'" I would bet that the AP is mischaracterizing what Palin says in her book. She criticized the Supreme Court's decision at the time, as did most Alaskans, and cited it as a Supreme Court decision with which she disagreed in the Katie Couric interview. I seriously doubt that she contradicts that position in her book, although I wouldn't doubt that she called the verdict against Exxon (which was slashed by the Supreme Court) as a decision "in favor of the people."
It appears to be a tribute to the factual accuracy of Palin's book that eleven hostile AP reporters can't come up with anything better than this.
DP: Posted above is a genuine "fact check" of Obama's ludicrous claim to be the "first Pacific President." Obviously, not by AP. Go to the Powerline link below for the rest of the piece I just excerpted, that provides some "fact checking" of John Kerry. Also, not from AP:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024946.php
"Rogue's Eleven" [Mark Steyn]:
If you wonder why American newspapering is dying, consider this sign-off:
"AP writers Matt Apuzzo, Sharon Theimer, Tom Raum, Rita Beamish, Beth Fouhy, H. Josef Hebert, Justin D. Pritchard, Garance Burke, Dan Joling and Lewis Shaine contributed to this report."
Wow. That's ten "AP writers" plus Calvin Woodward, the AP writer whose twinkling pen honed the above contributions into the turgid sludge of the actual report. That's 11 writers for a 695-word report. What on? Obamacare? The Iranian nuke program? The upcoming trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?
No, the Associated Press assigned 11 writers to "fact-check" Sarah Palin's new book, and in return the 11 fact-checkers triumphantly unearthed six errors. That's 1.8333333 writers for each error. What earth-shattering misstatements did they uncover for this impressive investment? Stand well back:
"PALIN: Says she made frugality a point when traveling on state business as Alaska governor, asking "only" for reasonably priced rooms and not "often" going for the "high-end, robe-and-slippers" hotels.
"THE FACTS: Although she usually opted for less-pricey hotels while governor, Palin and daughter Bristol stayed five days and four nights at the $707.29-per-night Essex House luxury hotel (robes and slippers come standard)..."
That looks like AP paid 1.8333333 fact-checkers to agree with Mrs Palin: She says she didn't "often" go for "high-end" hotels; they say she "usually opted for less-pricey hotels". That's gonna make one must-see edition of "Point/Counterpoint".
Or is AP arguing "four nights" counts as "often"? Is that the point? AP assigned 11 reporters to demonstrate that four is a large number?
Over at Powerline, John Hinderaker and his vast team of researchers (17 Minneapolis-area Somali jihadists, 29 Acorn-accredited child-sex slaves, and 43 unemployed Columbia School of Journalism graduates) fact-check AP's fact-checkers.
Coming next:
PALIN: How many AP fact-checkers does it take to change a lightbulb?
FACT: Palin has gone seriously "rogue" in her facts here. AP fact-checkers are prevented per union regulations from changing lightbulbs.
AP writers Matt Apuzzo, Sharon Theimer, Tom Raum, Rita Beamish, Beth Fouhy, H. Josef Hebert, Justin D. Pritchard, Garance Burke, Dan Joling and Lewis Shaine contributed to this joke. We'll be here all week.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTE2YmEyMDZkM2Y3NjAzYWZjOTRmYjExZDg4MGE0NzE=
John Hinderacker takes up further analysis:
"Fact-Check This":
The Associated Press got an advance copy of Sarah Palin's book, Going Rogue, and assigned eleven reporters, apparently, to try to find errors in it. The eleven collaborated on an article titled "FACT CHECK: Palin's book goes rogue on some facts." In fact, though, the AP's catalogue of alleged errors--six in total--is thin at best.
The AP starts with this one:
"PALIN: Says she made frugality a point when traveling on state business as Alaska governor, asking "only" for reasonably priced rooms and not "often" going for the "high-end, robe-and-slippers" hotels.
"THE FACTS: Although she usually opted for less-pricey hotels while governor, Palin and daughter Bristol stayed five days and four nights at the $707.29-per-night Essex House luxury hotel (robes and slippers come standard) for a five-hour women's leadership conference in New York in October 2007. With air fare, the cost to Alaska was well over $3,000."
This is frankly pathetic. Palin says she didn't "often" stay at high-end hotels, and the AP counters by saying she did, once. Yes, that's why she said "not often" rather than "never." What is indisputable is that Palin sold the Governor's private jet and flew commercial, thereby saving the taxpayers a large amount of money and qualifying her as a frugal traveler.
The rest are about as lame. Here is another:
"PALIN: Rails against taxpayer-financed bailouts, which she attributes to Obama. She recounts telling daughter Bristol that to succeed in business, "you'll have to be brave enough to fail."
"THE FACTS: Palin is blurring Obama's stimulus plan--a $787 billion package of tax cuts, state aid, social programs and government contracts--and the federal bailout that President George W. Bush signed.
"Palin's views on bailouts appeared to evolve as John McCain's vice presidential running mate. In September 2008, she said "taxpayers cannot be looked to" to bail out Wall Street.
"The next month, she praised McCain for being "instrumental in bringing folks together" to pass the $700 billion bailout. After that, she said "it is a time of crisis and government did have to step in." "
The AP doesn't quote Palin, so it's hard to say whether she "blurs" the bailouts or not. But by the AP's own account, Palin has consistently opposed bailouts, except that during the Presidential campaign, she loyally supported McCain's position on the initial TARP program. That's what a Vice-Presidential candidate is supposed to do, and this is not a "fact-check."
This one, I simply don't believe:
"PALIN: Welcomes last year's Supreme Court decision deciding punitive damages for victims of the nation's largest oil spill tragedy, the Exxon Valdez disaster, stating it had taken 20 years to achieve victory. As governor, she says, she'd had the state argue in favor of the victims, and she says the court's ruling went "in favor of the people."
"THE FACTS: That response is at odds with her reaction at the time to the ruling, which resolved the case by reducing punitive damages for victims to $500 million from $2.5 billion. Palin said then she was "extremely disappointed" and it was "tragic" so many fishermen and families put their lives on hold waiting for the decision."
Again, the AP doesn't quote Palin but rather asks us to take their word for the fact that Palin "welcomes" the Supreme Court's Exxon Valdez decision in her book as a "ruling [that] went 'in favor of the people.'" I would bet that the AP is mischaracterizing what Palin says in her book. She criticized the Supreme Court's decision at the time, as did most Alaskans, and cited it as a Supreme Court decision with which she disagreed in the Katie Couric interview. I seriously doubt that she contradicts that position in her book, although I wouldn't doubt that she called the verdict against Exxon (which was slashed by the Supreme Court) as a decision "in favor of the people."
It appears to be a tribute to the factual accuracy of Palin's book that eleven hostile AP reporters can't come up with anything better than this.
DP: Posted above is a genuine "fact check" of Obama's ludicrous claim to be the "first Pacific President." Obviously, not by AP. Go to the Powerline link below for the rest of the piece I just excerpted, that provides some "fact checking" of John Kerry. Also, not from AP:
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024946.php
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)