NEWMAN FOR CONGRESS 2012

Where I Stand On the Issues Facing America

2011-11-05T08:48:00.002-05:00

HERE’S WHERE I STAND:

On Healthcare:

I believe that every American must have access to necessary healthcare, whether that person can afford it or not, because that has always been the American way, since we Americans never throw underdogs under the bus.

However, being there for the needy is not an excuse to force people to buy a government product they don’t wish to purchase. Nor is it a reason to take away freedom of choice.

I will support any law that will give freedom of healthcare choice back to the people, while maintaining a safety net for those who legitimately need help.

My path to affordable and accessible healthcare is as follows:

1 – Take away the litigation gravy train.

2 – Make the purchase of healthcare nationwide, beefing-up real competition.

3 – Create a watchdog to keep insurance companies from colluding to fix prices.

4 – Leave the responsibility for the delivery of healthcare to the Healthcare Providers and Elected State Representatives.

On Energy And Energy Independence:

America is blessed with an extraordinary abundance of natural energy resources, from oil, to gas, to nuclear . . . DEVELOP IT ALL!

In less than a decade, between the oil and gas that is available to us from Canada, and all of the resources that exist at our fingertips, we can be totally energy INDEPENDENT.

But more than that – by developing our own resources, we can knock the cost of energy down so low, that all Americans will benefit from lower prices and more jobs.

And by bringing the cost of energy way down, especially if we break the back of OPEC, we will deliver a deathblow to those countries that want to do us harm.

On Jobs:

Governments do not and cannot create jobs. The only “jobs” the government creates are liabilities by using taxpayer money to increase the size of the already much bloated civil service.

If you want real job creation, this is what the government has to do.

1 – Deregulate everything that is absolutely not necessary to the common need of the people.

2 – Don’t make hiring people an obligation where businesses must become the Big Brother of their workforce.

3 – Totally revamp the tax system as I’ve written about in my section on taxes.

In essence, job creation is as simple an endeavor as getting government out of the way.

On Taxes And The IRS:

Do away with the IRS. Simply by doing away with the insane tax code that was and continues to be written in favor of Big Business and Big Government, against the well being of small to medium sized businesses and average wage earners.

I like the idea of a flat tax for businesses, salaries, and purchases, where everyone pays the same percentage without deductions and special accommodations that are ONLY available to the rich and powerful.

In this manner, the government can’t hide behind indescribable tax laws as they pretend to cut taxes while they do just the opposite.

On Entitlements:

If we have any hopes whatsoever to having healthcare, a pension and other necessary services for our elderly, now is the time to raise the age of entitlements for people who are under 55 years old today, while honoring the commitments made by previous politicians for all people 55 years and older.

As much as everyone wants to be generous and hand out entitlements like Santa Claus hands out Christmas gifts, the government is not Santa Claus.

We’ve allowed ourselves to build up unsustainable debts by encouraging the politicians to buy our votes with our own money. And now, as a result, we’ve run out of money. And as I see it, we have two simple choices:

1 – We face the problem today and do what has to be done to save the retirement benefits that our elderly have been promised, worked for, expect, and depend upon.

2 – We pretend that we can live beyond our means forever, until the whole system comes crashing down, leaving our most vulnerable citizens alone and penniless.

I opt for the first choice so we don’t have to live the nightmare of the second choice.

On Illegal Immigration:

First, we have to understand that there is no such thing as undocumented immigrants, because whether they are known or not known, documented or undocumented, if they overstayed their welcome in America, or crept across our border, they are illegal.

Undocumented is nothing else but double talk for people who should not be in America.

As much as we would all like to roll back the clock, and throw the illegal immigrants out, that is not going to happen. Whether we like it or not, we are not going to deport between TWELVE MILLION to TWENTY MILLION PEOPLE.

Americans not going to destroy families where illegal parents will be separated from their legal children; or some illegal children separated from their legal siblings.

We cannot throw out millions of people who have in their own way made a life for themselves in our country by adding to our lives. Also, we cannot deny that millions of illegal immigrants have contributed to our labor-force by doing jobs far too many Americans refuse to do.

SO HERE’S WHAT I PROPOSE:

1 – SEAL THE BORDERS LIKE FORT KNOX.

2 – Register all illegal immigrants.

3 – Deport all felons.

4 – Give all registered illegal immigrants a special Green Card.

5 – Make the English language the ONLY official language in the USA.

6 – Make it so, that no one given the special Green Card will ever be able to become a citizen, or ever be able to vote unless they leave the USA and properly file from abroad for a “normal” Green Card leading to eventual citizenship.

To make this viable, so that America will not lose its cultural identity, it is critical that all official federal documents be available ONLY in the English language. Anyone wishing to become an American citizen must pass his or her citizenship test in the English language.

Encourage states, cities and corporations to do the same in terms of using English only in greetings, signs and instructions.

By opening up a path to becoming legal in America this way, it would give the special green card immigrants the Constitutional rights enjoyed by citizens, without having any say in how “we the people” choose our governments.

This policy will also provide America with a future generation of citizens who will be comfortable with the Secular Rule of Law that is prescribed in the Constitution based upon Judeo/Christian values.

On The Second Amendment:

Without the Second Amendment, there would be nothing to protect and ensure the First Amendment. Tyranny exists where the government is not afraid of the people, and where the people live in fear of the government.

On Homeland Security:

Define who the enemy is. Name the enemy. And call them TERRORISTS, instead if the touchy-feely names given to Moslem Activists who are sworn by their belief in the Koran to destroy the values that makes us who we are.

Stop punishing American travelers through invasive X-Ray machines and indecent pat-downs. If the Israelis can keep their airlines and people safe without violating the rights of people . . . so can we.

SEAL THE SOUTHERN BORDER - DECLARE WAR ON THE TRAFFICKERS.

On The Environment:

Not only do the LEFT not have a lock on environmental responsibility, they in their own hypocritical way are massive contributors to pollution. Just ask folk like Al Gore who lives way beyond his household needs, while flying around in his private jet.

Like any American patriot, I believe in doing what is necessary to protect our drinking water, the soil that grows our food, and the air that we breathe. But, I don’t believe that we have to destroy the America of our youth to do it.

All of this Green-Job hype, (proven to be a miserable failure: wind mills, Solyndra, solar panels, etc.) has done, is cost the average American so dearly, that it has killed jobs, made transport so expensive that it has added to inflation, and has made it more than just difficult for the most vulnerable within our society to heat their homes and put food on the table.

On Government Debt And Procedures:

Pay down the debt and make a federally balanced budget the law.

Pass no Bill, to which Members of Congress have not signed a legal document that declares they read and understand the Bill they are going to vote upon.

Make all earmarks illegal. Give the President a Line-Item Veto.

On International Affairs:

Support our allies while staying out of bed with the enemies of our allies.

Use our financial might to rehabilitate the United Nations, or simply stop paying for the Dictators’ Social Club.

On Social Issues:

I am not in favor of government paid abortion. I also believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Paul Ryan -- the Man Who Could Save America

2010-04-25T10:58:00.002-05:00

Paul Ryan -- the Man Who Could Save America

By Doug Hornig, Casey Research

Since the stunning result of the Massachusetts senatorial race, President Obama has softened his tone quite a bit, essentially saying to Republicans that if they have any good ideas, “Bring ’em on.”

Whether he’s sincere or not remains to be seen, but the implication is that he’s unworried, because in his opinion the opposition party only knows how to criticize and doesn’t have anything constructive to say.

He needs to call Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, ranking member of the Committee on the Budget, and have him over for tea.

Ryan is a representative who appears to take his job – overseeing the federal budget – seriously. In 2008, he introduced legislation called “A Roadmap for America’s Future.” It died, so he’s reintroducing it this year. It won’t pass, unless the Democrats somehow manage to lose control of the House. It’s just too simple.

It’s also breathtakingly visionary. In one fell swoop, Ryan takes on taxes, health care, Social Security, and the federal deficit, and fixes them all. He puts the government back on the road to solvency, something no other plan comes close to achieving. Most important, he wants to shift our mindset, so we finally recognize that the cure for debt problems is not to pile up more debt.

Income and Other Taxes

Ryan has a nicely targeted sense of humor. For those who can’t bear to part with today’s elephantine tax code, he leaves it in place, and anyone who loves it can still use it. For the rest of us: Single filers would pay 10% on income up to $50,000 ($100,000 for joint filers) and 25% thereafter, with a generous standard deduction and personal exemption ($39,000 for a family of four). That’s it. No loopholes, deductions, credits or exclusions. Fill out the postcard and mail it in.

Additionally, the plan promotes saving by eliminating a whole bunch of other taxes -- on interest, dividends and capital gains. It scraps the alternative minimum tax and abolishes the death tax. It replaces the corporate income tax – currently the second highest in the industrialized world – with a business consumption tax of 8.5%, about half the world average, putting American companies and workers in a stronger position to compete in the global economy. And it allows for immediate expensing of new business investment.

Health Care

A refundable tax credit – $2,300 for individuals and $5,700 for families – to purchase coverage (from another state if they so choose) and keep it with them if they move or change jobs. State-based high-risk pools. Supplemental payments to low-income recipients, who can choose their care rather than be consigned to Medicaid.

Medicare

Large-scale, common-sense reforms involving vouchers and medical savings accounts, along with a very gradual rise in eligibility age, designed to preserve the best parts of Medicare while securing its solvency for generations to come.

Social Security

Maintains benefits for current recipients, while making the program permanently solvent by combining a modest adjustment in the growth of initial Social Security benefits for higher income individuals with a gradual, modest increase in the retirement age. Includes a property right, so that your vested Social Security interest does not die with you. Those who own these accounts can pass on assets to their heirs.

Making all this work would require some adjustments, though. Nondefense discretionary spending, for example, would be frozen for ten years at 2009 levels in nominal terms and allowed to grow thereafter by an amount linked to CPI.

There has been immediate criticism from Democrats, mainly centered around cuts to Medicare. And some of the objections could be valid; maybe the plan could be tweaked a little to bring more of the opposition on board. Or maybe they’ll just continue to complain because reducing the size of government doesn’t sit well with them.

But the thing is, even the critics have been forced to admit that the plan would probably work. How do we know? Ryan had the confidence to submit it to the Congressional Budget Office for analysis. As you probably know, the CBO has stated frankly that continuing along the current path leads to unsustainable deficit levels and bankruptcy for the country.

According to CBO projections, debt will spike sharply upward in 2015, rising – relentlessly and unstoppably – to over 700% of GDP in 2080. Of course, the economy will be destroyed and government forced to default long before then.

If Ryan’s Roadmap were adopted, however, the CBO estimates that debt/GDP would peak at 100% in 2043 and “decline thereafter, reaching zero by 2080,” then move into surplus. (For the complete CBO report, go here.)

Yes, all predictions are bound to be flawed. Yes, we must remain skeptical of anything that comes from a politician. And yes, it’d be better for government to shrink more than this proposal envisions. But, especially concerning taxes, it’s a big step in the right direction.

The president is wrong. There is another idea out there, and according to the government’s own budgetary watchdogs, it’s a good one. It “just” necessitates adopting a 75-year time line.

Of course, the odds of Congress looking that far ahead are slim to none, and you know where Slim is. But who knows, if enough Americans beat the drum for Paul Ryan, this country may actually have a future.

Doug Casey and his team keep saying that in this day and age, politics is inseparable from the economy and the markets. In The Casey Report, we closely follow the actions of Washington’s movers and shakers, which help us, stake out the best action plan for our portfolio. Learn how to make the best of any crisis – and profit while others lose their shirts. Click here for more.

WHY is the USA BANKRUPT?

2010-04-19T16:20:00.000-05:00

WHY is the USA BANKRUPT?

Informative, and mind boggling!You think the war in Iraq was costing us too much? Read this:
We have been hammered with the propaganda that it was the Iraq war and the war on terror that is bankrupting us.

I now find that to be RIDICULOUS.
I hope the following 14 reasons are forwarded over and over again until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them. I also have included the URL's for verification of all the following facts...

1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments.


Verify at: http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters7fd8


2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.HTML

3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens. Verify at: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.HTML

4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!

Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt..0.HTML

5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
Verify at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML

6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens. Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/%20TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML

7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://transcripts.CNN.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML <http://transcripts/..cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML%3E;

8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.

Verify at: http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.HTML

9. $200 Billion dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSC%20RI%20PTS/0604/01/ldt.01.HTML

10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US .

Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn..com/TRANscriptS/0606/12/ldt..01.HTML <http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0606/12/ldt..01.HTML%3E;


11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries.. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the US from the Southern border.

Verify at: Homeland Security Report:

12. The National policy Institute estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.
Verify at: http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute..org/PDF/deportation.PDF

13. In 2006, illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances to their countries of origin.
Verify at: http://www/..rense.com/general75/niht.htm <http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm%3E;

14.The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One million sex crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States .
   Verify at: http: // www.drdsk.com/articleshtml <http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml%3E; http://ww/%20w.drdsk.com/articleshtml <http://20w.drdsk.com/articleshtml%3E;%C2%A0%C2%A0;

The total cost is a whopping $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR AND IF YOU'RE LIKE ME, HAVING TROUBLE UNDERSTANDING THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY; IT IS $338,300,000,000.00 WHICH WOULD BE ENOUGH TO STIMULATE THE ECONOMY FOR THE CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY.


Are we THAT stupid? YES, FOR LETTING THOSE IN THE U.S.CONGRESS GET AWAY WITH LETTING THIS HAPPEN YEAR AFTER YEAR!!!!!


If this doesn't bother you then just delete the message. If, on the other hand, it does raise the hair on the back of your neck, I hope you forward it to every legal resident in the United States AND PLEASE REMEMBER IT AT THE NEXT ELECTIONS!!!

Article from the Wall Street Journal - by Eddie Sessions

2010-04-11T16:21:00.002-05:00

Article from the Wall Street Journal   - by Eddie Sessions

"I have this theory about Barack Obama. I think he's led a kind of make-believe life in which money was provided and doors were opened because at some point early on somebody or some group took a look at this tall, good looking, half-white, half-black, young man with an exotic African/Muslim name and concluded he could be guided toward a life in politics where his facile speaking skills could even put him in the White House.

In a very real way, he has been a young man in a very big hurry. Who else do you know has written two memoirs before the age of 45? "Dreams of My Father" was published in 1995 when he was only 34 years old. The "Audacity of Hope" followed in 2006. If, indeed, he did write them himself. There are some who think that his mentor and friend, Bill Ayers, a man who calls himself a "communist with a small 'c'" was the real author.

His political skills consisted of rarely voting on anything that might be deemed controversial. He went from a legislator in the Illinois legislature to the Senator from that state because he had the good fortune of having Mayor Daley's formidable political machine at his disposal.

He was in the U.S. Senate so briefly that his bid for the presidency was either an act of astonishing self-confidence or part of some greater game plan that had been determined before he first stepped foot in the Capital. How, many must wonder, was he selected to be a 2004 keynote speaker at the Democrat convention that nominated John Kerry when virtually no one had ever even heard of him before?

He outmaneuvered Hillary Clinton in primaries. He took Iowa by storm. A charming young man, an anomaly in the state with a very small black population, he oozed "cool" in a place where agriculture was the antithesis of cool. He dazzled the locals. And he had an army of volunteers drawn to a charisma that hid any real substance.

And then he had the great good fortune of having the Republicans select one of the most inept candidates for the presidency since Bob Dole. And then John McCain did something crazy. He picked Sarah Palin, an unknown female governor from the very distant state of Alaska . It was a ticket that was reminiscent of 1984's Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro and they went down to defeat.

The mainstream political media fell in love with him. It was a schoolgirl crush with febrile commentators like Chris Mathews swooning then and now over the man. The venom directed against McCain and, in particular, Palin, was extraordinary.

Now, nearly a full year into his first term, all of those gilded years leading up to the White House have left him unprepared to be President. Left to his own instincts, he has a talent for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. It swiftly became a joke that he could not deliver even the briefest of statements without the ever-present Tele-Prompters.

Far worse, however, is his capacity to want to "wish away" some terrible realities, not the least of which is the Islamist intention to destroy America and enslave the West. Any student of history knows how swiftly Islam initially spread. It knocked on the doors of Europe, having gained a foothold in Spain .

The great crowds that greeted him at home or on his campaign "world tour" were no substitute for having even the slightest grasp of history and the reality of a world filled with really bad people with really bad intentions.

Oddly and perhaps even inevitably, his political experience, a cakewalk, has positioned him to destroy the Democrat Party's hold on power in Congress because in the end it was never about the Party. It was always about his communist ideology, learned at an early age from family, mentors, college professors, and extreme leftist friends and colleagues.

Obama is a man who could deliver a snap judgment about a Boston police officer who arrested an "obstreperous" Harvard professor-friend, but would warn Americans against "jumping to conclusions" about a mass murderer at Fort Hood who shouted "Allahu Akbar." The absurdity of that was lost on no one. He has since compounded this by calling the Christmas bomber "an isolated extremist" only to have to admit a day or two later that he was part of an al Qaeda plot.

He is a man who could strive to close down our detention facility at Guantanamo even though those released were known to have returned to the battlefield against America . He could even instruct his Attorney General to afford the perpetrator of 9/11 a civil trial when no one else would ever even consider such an obscenity. And he is a man who could wait three days before having anything to say about the perpetrator of yet another terrorist attack on Americans and then have to elaborate on his remarks the following day because his first statement was so lame.

The pattern repeats itself. He either blames any problem on the Bush administration or he naively seeks to wish away the truth.

Knock, knock. Anyone home? Anyone there? Barack Obama exists only as the sock puppet of his handlers, of the people who have maneuvered and manufactured this pathetic individual's life.

When anyone else would quickly and easily produce a birth certificate, this man has spent over a million dollars to deny access to his. Most other documents, the paper trail we all leave in our wake, have been sequestered from review. He has lived a make-believe life whose true facts remain hidden.

We laugh at the ventriloquist's dummy, but what do you do when the dummy is President of the United States of America ?"

Soon to happen NATIONWIDE!!! From the Wall Street Journal

2010-04-09T19:13:00.002-05:00

The Massachusetts Insurance Blackout

Insurers go on strike after Deval Patrick imposes price controls.

This week it became impossible in Massachusetts for small businesses and individuals to buy health-care coverage after Governor Deval Patrick imposed price controls on premiums. Read on, because under ObamaCare this kind of political showdown will soon be coming to an insurance market near you.

The Massachusetts small-group market that serves about 800,000 residents shut down after Mr. Patrick kicked off his re-election campaign by presumptively rejecting about 90% of the premium increases the state's insurers had asked regulators to approve. Health costs have run off the rails since former GOP Governor Mitt Romney and Beacon Hill passed universal coverage in 2006, and Mr. Patrick now claims price controls are the sensible response to this ostensibly industry greed.
Yet all of the major Massachusetts insurers are nonprofits. Three of largest four—Blue Cross Blue Shield, Tufts Health Plan and Fallon Community Health—posted operating losses in 2009. In an emergency suit heard in Boston superior court yesterday, they argued that the arbitrary rate cap will result in another $100 million in collective losses this year and make it impossible to pay the anticipated cost of claims. It may even threaten the near-term solvency of some companies. So until the matter is resolved, the insurers have simply stopped selling new policies.
A court decision is expected by Monday, but state officials have demanded that the insurers—under the threat of fines and other regulatory punishments—resume offering quotes by today and to revert to year-old base premiums. Let that one sink in: Mr. Patrick has made the health insurance business so painful the government actually has to order private companies to sell their products (albeit at sub-market costs).
One irony is that Mr. Patrick's own Attorney General and his insurance regulators have concluded—to their apparent surprise—that the reason Massachusetts premiums are the highest in the nation is the underlying cost of health care, not the supposed industry abuses that Mr. Patrick and his political mentor President Obama like to cite.
On top of that, like ObamaCare, integral to the Massachusetts overhaul are mandates that require insurers to cover anyone who applies regardless of health status or pre-existing conditions and to charge everyone about the same rates. This allows people to wait until they're about to incur major medical expenses before buying insurance and transfer the costs to everyone else. This week Blue Cross Blue Shield reported a big uptick in short-term customers who ran up costs more than four times the average, only to drop the coverage within three months.
Last July, Charlie Baker detailed similar gaming at Harvard Pilgrim, the health plan he used to run. Between April 2008 and March 2009, about 40% of its new enrollees stayed with it for fewer than five months and on average incurred costs about 600% higher than the company would have otherwise expected.
Mr. Baker is almost certain to be Mr. Patrick's GOP opponent in the fall election. The Governor's lurch toward price controls is obviously part of a bid to tar the former CEO as an industry villain. David Plouffe, the architect of Mr. Obama's Presidential campaign, has signed on as a Patrick 2010 consultant. These kinds of collisions between politics and health care are going to occur constantly across the country as ObamaCare kicks in.

Sen. LeMieux Busts 10 Myths Surrounding Health Care Reform Debate

2010-04-03T16:22:00.002-05:00

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator George LeMieux (R-FL) today called attention to a number of myths that have become part of the health care debate as if they were fact. Senator LeMieux made his remarks on the floor of the Senate this evening.

"We know this comprehensive proposal will not reduce costs for Americans, it will not guarantee that you can keep your health care plan if you like it, and it does not truly reduce the deficit," said LeMieux. "These proposed reforms will take half a trillion dollars from Medicare, they will not reduce the demands on emergency rooms, and they will only go after fraud at the edges."
BACKGROUND ON BUSTED MYTHS:
MYTH 1: YOU CAN KEEP YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE IF YOU LIKE IT
• As recently as today, President Obama has said, "If you have a plan you like, you can keep it."
A: Employers will drop coverage
• CBO says, "Between 8 million and 9 million other people who would be covered by an employment based plan under current law would not have an offer of such coverage under the proposal." Because of the employer mandate some businesses would likely drop existing coverage or fail to offer new coverage.
• Rick Foster, the CMS actuary says this number could be even higher. He concluded that 17 million people will lose their employer-sponsored coverage. Many smaller employers would be, "inclined to terminate their existing coverage" so their workers could qualify for "heavily subsidized coverage" through the exchange.
B: Medicare Advantage will be downgraded
• Foster also says, "Lower benchmarks would reduce Medicare Advantage rebates to plans and thereby result in less generous benefit packages. We estimate that in 2015...enrollment in Medicare Advantage plans would decrease by about 33 percent (from a projected level of 13.7 million under current law to 9.2 million under the proposal)."
C: Mandates will usher in era of one-size-fits all health care system
• Mandates eliminate patient choice and force Americans onto certain plans.

MYTH 2: YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS WILL GO DOWN
• One of the President's earliest stated goals was to control health care costs, including lowering insurance premiums.
• CBO estimates that a majority of Americans who receive their insurance through an employer will notice only a negligible impact on their premiums. Essentially, this is a continuation of the status quo.• Those who buy their own insurance from the individual market can expect premiums to rise.
• According to CBO, "Average premiums per policy in the non-group market in 2016 would be roughly $5,800 for single policies and $15,200 for family policies under the proposal, compared with roughly $5,500 for single policies and $13,100 for family policies under current law. The weighted average of the differences in those amounts equals the change of 10 percent to 13 percent in the average premium per person summarized above..."

MYTH 3: DEMS' PLAN WILL LOWER COSTS• In today's Washington Post, Robert Samuelson takes on the President's claim that his plan will control costs.
• Samuelson writes: "When people get insurance, they use more health services. Spending rises. By the government's latest forecast, health spending goes from 17 percent of the economy in 2009 to 19 percent in 2019. Health ‘reform' would probably increase that."
• According to the CMS actuary, "We estimate that overall national health expenditures under this bill would increase by an estimated total of $222 billion (0.6 percent) during calendar years 2010-2019."
• It would also increase the government's share of health care spending. According to CBO, "Under the legislation, federal outlays for health care would increase...by about $210 billion" during the 2010-2019 period.
• For all of its 2,000 pages, the bill does not include ideas to lower costs:
o No transparency;
o No consumer-driven ideas for reducing costs,
o No changes to laws prohibiting purchases across state lines
• Real reform should include medical malpractice reform, which according to CBO, could save as much as $54 billion over the next decade -10 times more than previously estimated.

MYTH 4: DEMS' PLAN WILL REDUCE THE DEFICIT
• The Senate bill relies on budget gimmickry to achieve what appears to be a deficit reduction, but will actually result in another mountain of crushing government spending.
A: Six years of spending/10 years of taxes
• CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf wrote in his December 19, 2009 letter to Senator Reid, "A detailed year-by-year projection for years beyond 2019, like those that CBO prepares for the 10-year budget window, would not be meaningful because the uncertainties involved are simply too great."
• CBO has also said, "Under the legislation, federal outlays for health care would increase during the 2010-2019 period, as would the federal budgetary commitment to health care."
B: Budget-buster for states
• The proposal also forces states that cannot afford their current Medicaid programs to contribute tens of billions more to fund new coverage expansions beginning in 2018.
• Tennessee Democratic Gov. Phil Bredesen called it, "the mother of all unfunded mandates."
• The head of Washington State's Medicaid program believes that states facing severe financial distress may say, "I have to get out of the Medicaid program altogether."
• CBO released its first estimate of expected discretionary spending under the Senate-passed bill, confirming the $10-20 billion in discretionary spending over the next decade to implement the legislation - $5-10 billion each for the IRS and HHS.
• CBO also estimates an additional $55.6 billion in discretionary spending on the various grant programs authorized (but not appropriated) in the measure.
C: Will be a trillion-dollar program
• The total to enact health "reform" will easily exceed $1 trillion.
• Government programs rarely cost less than projected.
• The White House has not explained how all this new discretionary spending comports with the President's plan for a spending "freeze" over the next three years.

MYTH 5: MEDICARE CUTS WON'T AFFECT SENIORS
• The bill cuts a half a trillion dollars from Medicare, including nearly $120 billion from Medicare Advantage, which delivers a range of health care options to nearly 11 million seniors, almost one-quarter of those enrolled in the Medicare program.
A: Effect on Medicare
• In his letter to Senator Reid, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf wrote that the effects of the cuts to Medicare remain unclear, but warned that they could "reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care."
• These cuts include:
o $135 billion from hospitals
o $120 billion from Medicare Advantage
o Nearly $15 billion from nursing homes
o Nearly $40 billion from home health agencies
o Nearly $7 billion from hospices
• The CMS Actuary says that many of the Medicare cuts are "unrelated to the providers' costs of furnishing services to beneficiaries." He concludes that it is "doubtful" that providers could reduce costs to keep up with the cuts.
• The CMS actuary also finds that because of the bill's severe cuts to Medicare, "providers for whom Medicare constitutes a substantive portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable and might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries)."
• Because of the increased demand for health care, the Actuary says that access to care problems are "plausible and even probable" under the Reid bill.
B: Doctors are turning away patients
• According to a June 2008 Medicare Payment Advisory Commission report, 29 percent of the Medicare beneficiaries it surveyed who were looking for a primary care doctor had a problem finding one to treat them - up from 24 percent in 2007.
C: Florida
• Florida is disproportionately affected since it has the second highest population of seniors and the highest concentration of seniors in the nation at 19 percent.
• Ron Malone, Vice President of Gentiva Health Services expects these cuts to devastate home health care in Florida.
• The Florida Medical Association - the largest physician's association in Florida with nearly 20,000 members says, "...this legislation does not adequately fix what's wrong with our current system. It contains many provisions that would allow government bureaucrats to interfere with patient care decisions and actually raises the cost of health insurance unnecessarily."

MYTH 6: EMERGENCY ROOMS WILL BE LESS BURDENED
• According to the Urban Institute, after Massachusetts adopted a somewhat similar plan, emergency-room use remained higher than the national average.
• More than two-fifths of these visits were for non-emergencies. And of these, a majority of the adult respondents said it was "more convenient" to check into the E.R. because they were not able to get in to see a doctor.
• Massachusetts' plan has worsened the state's doctor shortage. The Massachusetts Hospital Association found that two thirds of hospitals say their community has too few primary care clinicians.
• The 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society Report found that 12 of the 18 physician specialties had, "critical or severe shortages." The problems were particularly acute in the family and internal medicine fields.
• The percentage of family medicine physicians no longer accepting new patients rose from 25 percent in 2006 to 35 percent in 2008.
• Waiting times increased from an average of 15 days in 2008 to 18 in 2009.
• With a shortage of doctors in rural communities nationwide, such a plan on a national scale will only make matters worse.

MYTH 7: THE DEMS' PLAN TAKES ON INSURANCE COMPANIES
• Contains tax credit for insurance companies. According to the Senate Finance Committee's report, "The premium tax credit, which is refundable and payable in advance directly to the insurer, subsidizes the purchase of certain health insurance plans through the state exchanges."

MYTH 8: BILL TAKES UNPRESCEDENTED STEPS IN FIGHTING HEALTH CARE FRAUD, WASTE, AND ABUSE
• The bill only continues the pay-and-chase method of fighting Medicare fraud, waste, and abuse.
• I believe more money can be saved on the front end. There is a more efficient way of fighting the estimated $60 billion lost through waste, fraud, and abuse each year.
• We can look no further than the private sector for innovative ways to save money and stop wasting Americans' hard-earned dollars.
A: S.2128
• Under my plan, we adopt the predictive modeling used by the credit card industry.
• Predictive modeling has realized as much as a 30 to 1 return on investment in the financial services industry.
• Using predictive modeling, the credit card industry loses about 7 cents for every 100 dollars transacted due to fraud, a fraction of 1 percent of total transactions. Medicare, on the other hand, loses 1 out of every 7 dollars or approximately 14 percent of the entire payouts.
B: Background checks
• My plan will stop fraud before the checks are sent out - ensuring the people rendering medical services or selling medical devices are not criminals.
• According to independent estimates, once the system is fully operational, my plan would result in the savings of $22 to $35 billion per year.
• Predictive modeling is not limited to the financial services industry. In fact, private health care companies have saved millions of dollars after implementing this technology. The Federal government can, too.

MYTH 9: DEMS' HEALTH CARE REFORM WILL NOT IMPACT PATIENT-DOCTOR RELATIONSHIP
• I agree with my colleague, Dr. Barasso, who supports a patient-centered approach.
• Real health care reform should ensure a doctor and a patient can work together toward the best health for that patient.
• This bill will increase costs for patients, create more bureaucratic headaches for doctors, and result in an America where the health of our people is only as good as the health of our nation's balance sheet.

MYTH 10: TAXES WILL NOT GO UP• This bill is a jobs bill for the tax collector.
• National Federation of Independent Businesses - I talked with the Florida NFIB members and they have great concern about this bill and the impact the taxes will have.
• The NFIB released a statement on their Web site on December 8 expressing their opposition to the Reid bill: "When evaluating health care reform options, small business owners ask themselves two specific questions. First, will the bill lower insurance costs? Second, will the bill increase the overall cost of doing business? In both cases, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act fails the small business test and, therefore, fails small business."
• If you have insurance...you get taxed.
• If you DON'T have insurance...you get taxed.
• If you need prescription drugs...you get taxed.
• If you need a medical device...you get taxed.
• If you have high out-of-pocket health expenses...you get taxed.
• Some of these taxes go into effect right away, while the majority of the benefits do not kick in for 4 years.

$1 Billion AT&T Headache is Just Obamacare's First Side Effect

2010-03-30T09:18:00.000-05:00

$1 Billion AT&T Headache is Just Obamacare's First Side Effect

In the closing days of the Congressional health care debate, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told the National Association of Counties: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." Today marks the end of just the first week of life under Obamacare and Speaker Pelosi has been proven right: we are just now finding out what is in it. This past Friday, AT&T, the biggest U.S. telephone company, announced that it would take a $1 billion charge against earnings thanks to tax changes buried in the 2,300+ page bill. $1 billion. That is a full third of AT&T's $3 billion earnings for the fourth quarter of 2009.

The tax charges stem from changes Obamacare makes to the tax treatment of prescription-drug benefits for retirees. Companies used to be able to deduct part of their costs for providing drug benefits to their retirees, but Obamacare cancels that deduction. Roland McDevitt, director of health care research at Towers Watson, tells the Wall Street Journal, they "have a stream of tax benefits they are losing way out in the future." Since companies had counted on these deductions for current and future retirees as an existing asset under the old law, accounting rules require firms to take the full loss for the change in the same quarter in which the tax law is changed. Hence Friday's announcement to inform shareholders that AT&T's bottom line was about to take a $1 billion hit.

AT&T's billion-dollar Obamacare headache is so large due to the size (281,000 employees) of the company. Piper Jaffray & Co. analyst Chris Larsen tells Bloomberg: "Companies like AT&T, that have large employee bases, are going to have higher health-care costs and, therefore, lower earnings unless they can negotiate something or offer less to their employees." And changes to current and future retirees' health care seem to be exactly what will AT&T will do as a side effect of Obamacare. AT&T wrote in their Friday filing: "As a result of this legislation, including the additional tax burden, AT&T will be evaluating prospective changes to the active and retiree health-care benefits offered by the company."

And AT&T is not alone. Towers Watson estimates that just this tax change alone will eliminate $14 billion in U.S. corporate profits. That's $14 billion less American employers have to spend creating new jobs when our unemployment rate is still 9.7%. And AT&T is not the only company informing employees that Obamacare is going to mean worse care for them. Verizon Communications, the second biggest U.S. phone company, told employees last week that Obamacare "may have significant implications for both retirees and employers."

The Heritage Foundation will be keeping you apprised of all of the consequences of Obamacare as they are learned with our new Foundry feature "Side Effects." Already our health care experts have identified negative intended and unintended consequences from the legislation to children's health insurance and health insurance taxes.

The American people already do not like this law. But to repeal it, we must keep Americans educated about all of Obamacare's failures and offer our “Second Opinion” on what conservative idea would fix it.

A START towards Undermining Our Nuclear Security

2010-03-26T06:18:00.000-05:00

A START towards Undermining Our Nuclear Security

Yesterday the Kremlin announced that the Obama administration and Russia had reached agreement on a new nuclear arms agreement intended to replace the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). The declaration appeared to surprise the White House, as Press Secretary Robert Gibbs could only confirm that the two sides were "close" to a treaty. But U.S. officials confirm that "all major obstacles" in negotiations with Moscow have been cleared.

Russian approval of a new START agreement has been the cornerstone of President Barack Obama's "long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons" policy. President Obama's desire to appease Russia is why he began negotiations by unilaterally surrendering to Kremlin demands that the United States betray our Czech Republic and Polish allies by going back on our promise to build ballistic missile defense facilities in Eastern Europe. Russians took President Obama's easy and early capitulation on missile defense as a sign of naivete and weakness and concluded that the Obama administration was far more desperate for a new nuclear treaty than they were and, as The Los Angeles Times reports, "used that fact in negotiations."

The full text of the new agreement has not been released, but early reports indicate that it will not adequately address three key issues and would therefore compromise U.S. national security:

Verification: The Russians have a long and well documented history of violating arms control agreements. By focusing intently on the reduction in each nation’s strategic arsenal, the U.S. has lost some negotiating ground on the issue of verification. The Senate must ensure that the new treaty is adequately verifiable. There is no reason to sign the treaty if the verification mechanisms fall by the wayside.

Nuclear Modernization: Some arms control advocates insist that the U.S. has a robust nuclear modernization program. This claim is simply inaccurate. The truth is that America’s nuclear infrastructure is rapidly aging, in deep atrophy, and is losing its reliability and effectiveness. The U.S. is not producing new nuclear weapons, and its ICBM force is shrinking and not being modernized. In contrast, Russia and China are engaged in a major modernization effort. On December 16, 41 U.S. Senators voiced their concerns and signed a letter saying they will oppose the new treaty if it does not include specific plans for U.S. nuclear modernization as stipulated in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010.

Missile Defense: It is absolutely imperative that a new START agreement not undermine our post-Cold War defensive posture by linking offensive weapons with missile defense. But early reports indicate that the treaty does exactly that. The New York Times reports: "Administration officials describing the draft treaty said its preamble recognized the relationship between offensive weapons and missile defense, but that the language was not binding." But the Times goes on to quote retired major general Vladimir Dvorkin who says Moscow will scrap the treaty if the U.S. pursues missile defense: "If, for example, the U.S. unilaterally deploys considerable amounts of missile defense, then Russia has the right to withdraw from the agreement because the spirit of the preamble has been violated."

The Obama Administration's arms control strategy has been deeply flawed. It is based on outdated 1970s arms control strategy and 1960s idealism and naivete. It will not work because it does not account for Russian nuclear strategy, which is based on approximate parity between the two sides, Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), denial of missile defenses to the U.S., and nuclear warfighting capability. The U.S. needs to reset the reset before the Obama administration is allowed to seriously undermine our national security.

20 ways health care takes your freedom

2010-03-25T06:38:00.000-05:00

1. You are young and don’t want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the “privilege.” (Section 1501)

2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You’ll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That’s because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person’s health status. (Section 2701).

3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).

4. Think you’d like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn’t cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that’s what the customer wants. (Section 2712).

5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn’t allow your employees’ slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).

6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

You’re a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You’re a woman who can’t have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You’re a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).

7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost-sharing and low premiums? Well, the best you can do is a “Bronze plan,” which has benefits that provide benefits that are the actuarial equivalent to 60% of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan. Anything lower than that, tough. (Section 1302 (d) (1) (A))

8. You are an employer in the small-group insurance market and you’d like to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families? Tough. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A).

9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 50 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under the reconciliation changes). Think you know how to better spend that money? Tough. (Section 1513).

10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from their salaries for it? Sorry, can’t do that. (Section 9005 (i)).

11. If you are a physician and you don’t want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational purposes. It’s not like the government will ever use it to intervene in your practice and patients’ care. Of course not. (Section 3003 (i))

12. If you are a physician and you want to own your own hospital, you must be an owner and have a “Medicare provider agreement” by Feb. 1, 2010. (Dec. 31, 2010 in the reconciliation changes.) If you didn’t have those by then, you are out of luck. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A))
13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can’t (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a county where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)).

14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed “unreasonable” by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003)

15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000. (Under reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in 2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)).

16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will pay depends on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough. (Section 9009 (b)).

The reconciliation package turns that into a 2.9% excise tax for medical device makers. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 1405).

17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from insurance companies. If you are an insurer, what you will pay depends on your share of net premiums plus 200% of your administrative costs. So, if your net premiums and administrative costs are equal to 10% of the total, you will pay 10% of $6.7 billion, or $670,000,000. In the reconciliation bill, the fee will start at $8 billion in 2014, $11.3 billion in 2015, $1.9 billion in 2017, and $14.3 billion in 2018 (Section 1406).Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B).)

18. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO is worth more than $500,000 in deferred compensation? Tough.(Section 9014).

19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015).

That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Like you need to ask. (Section 1402).

20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9017).

Obama Administration Awarded Hundreds of Thousands in Airport Grants to Stupak’s District Two Days Before Vote

2010-03-24T06:42:00.000-05:00

This is the kind of thing that enrages people!! Being lied to by Jerry Costello has enraged the voters of the 12th District beyond all human reason. Don't LIE to the citizens!!!

Obama Administration Awarded Hundreds of Thousands in Airport Grants to Stupak’s District Two Days Before Vote

Was this Yet Another Backroom Deal to Force Obama’s Bill Down the American People’s Throats?
Three airports in the district of infamous fence-sitting and ultimately kowtowing Democrat Bart Stupak were awarded $726,409 in grants by the Obama Administration just two days before a vote on Obama and Pelosi’s government takeover of healthcare.
Did Stupak compromise his supposed principled stand against taxpayer funding of abortion in exchange for taxpayer dollars for pet projects?
Alpena County Regional Airport received a $85,500 grant, but had only 7,519 passenger boardings in 2008 (the most recent year for which there is information) according to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) data. Alpena County Regional Airport serves fewer passengers than even the late Rep. John Murtha’s famous “Airport for Nobody.”
Delta County Airport has even less customers than that, but still received a $179,209 grant.
Chippewa County International Airport received a $461,700 grant, but had only 13,733 passenger boardings in 2008.
Will Stupak come clean about this apparent backroom deal for his vote?
Call Stupak’s district office at (989) 356-0690 and ask.
Learn more at http://gopcodered.com/

America's Coming High-Speed Rail Financial Disaster

2010-03-23T12:04:00.000-05:00

As if the Health Care Pipe Dream wasn't bad enough:

America's Coming High-Speed Rail Financial Disaster

Published on March 19, 2010 by Ronald Utt, Ph.D.

Abstract: President Barack Obama has committed the United States to building at least 13 high-speed rail (HSR) lines, one of the most expensive forms of transportation that a nation could choose. Even in a strong economy, building HSR makes little sense, offering minimal reductions in travel times at exorbitant costs. In the current weak economy and with the government facing massive budget deficits, the country simply cannot afford to squander $8 billion in stimulus funding, $5 billion over the next five years, and billions of dollars in matching state funding on a transportation system that will at best serve a minute fraction of the traveling public. The country would be better off either not spending the money or spending it on something productive.
In January 2010, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) of the U.S. Department of Transportation belatedly awarded $8 billion in the stimulus grants for high-speed rail (HSR) as authorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).[1] By pushing for these grants and promising to spend an additional $5 billion over the next five years, the Obama Administration has committed the United States to one of the most expensive forms of transportation that a nation could choose.
In addition to the billions of dollars in capital costs that the federal and state governments will incur, domestic and international experience indicates that the President has committed the nation to providing a perpetual stream of substantial subsidies to offset the difference between fare revenues and operating costs of HSR and passenger rail in general. As a result, the HSR program could come to rival the nature of some entitlement programs in how much it will contribute to out-of-control annual federal deficits.
High Costs of Low Technology
At present, the United States has no genuine HSR lines, although some consider the Acela, which operates in the Northeast Corridor, to be an HSR line. Although there is no fixed rule as to what constitutes HSR, a common definition is a rail line that operates at an average speed of at least 125 miles per hour (mph). Some HSR lines in France and Japan maintain average speeds in excess of 180 mph. While the Acela averages about 85 mph, it can reach about 150 mph on a short section of the line between New York City and Boston.
To sustain these speeds over long routes requires a substantial investment in a secure and exclusive roadbed built to precise standards and tolerances, using equipment that meets the same high standards. As a result, an HSR line costs much more to build and operate than an ordinary passenger rail line. It is believed that only two HSR lines in the world earn enough revenue to cover operating and capital costs: Paris-Lyon and Tokyo-Osaka.[2]
The world's passenger rail systems consist mostly of "ordinary" passenger rail, which operates at average speeds between 50 mph and 85 mph. Some systems include a few genuine HSR lines. In the United States, passenger rail (Amtrak) is the most heavily subsidized of all passenger travel modes, requiring a federal subsidy of $237.53 per 1,000 passenger miles, compared to $4.23 for commercial aviation and $1.50 for intercity busses.[3] Rail subsidies in Europe are just as high, if not higher.
In addition to the high costs that the HSR program will impose on taxpayers during a period of economic hardship and slow recovery, the President's commitment to HSR raises serious questions about his judgment and the judgment of his economic advisers. They presumably thought, given all of the options before them, that this program would be a good use of scarce taxpayer money to spur the economy. As the editorial board of the liberal St. Louis Post-Dispatch recently concluded, "With apologies to futurists, people in the construction industry and rail buffs, investing $13 billion (or even $8 billion) in passenger railroads is a little like building a bridge to the 19th century."[4]
How Could They Have Gone So Wrong?
The FRA report listing each of the HSR awards and the brief justification for each award actually reveals how little benefit the FRA can find in each of these projects relative to their cost. This deeply flawed outcome makes one wonder what could possibly have transpired during the FRA decision-making process to produce this multi-year, multibillion-dollar commitment to obsolete technology.
One has to wonder what exactly motivated the FRA review team to endorse the proposed $1.1 billion investment in the Kansas City-St. Louis-Chicago route, which would allow customers to reach their destinations 10 percent faster than they could by driving between Chicago and St. Louis. The same thought applies to the $1.25 billion federal investment in a $3.2 billion project to build a high-speed rail line between Orlando and Tampa, which would reduce travel time between the two cities to less than one hour, compared to about 90 minutes by car.[5] In essence, the federal government is paying massive subsidies to achieve minor benefits for a tiny fraction of the traveling public.
From another perspective, the Obama transportation team apparently thinks that shaving a few minutes here and a few minutes there from a handful of intercity trips will soften the pain of the Great Recession and propel the economy forward. Yet achieving these modest goals will require a number of years, $8 billion in federal taxpayer money today, another $5 billion in federal money over the next five years, and an even greater sum from the unfortunate taxpayers of the states that are receiving these federal awards.
However extravagant this commitment to jazzed-up 19th century technology may be, the ultimate costs of bringing HSR to the 13 corridors already approved by the FRA will be staggering. California received a $2.3 billion grant toward an HSR rail system with an official cost of $50.2 billion (in 2006 dollars), but independent analysts contend that it will more likely cost $81.4 billion.[6]
The supposed benefits do not even begin to justify the exorbitant costs. Along the Northeast Corridor, Amtrak's Acela pretends to provide high-speed train service. The U.S. Department of Transportation's Inspector General estimates that reducing travel time between Washington, D.C., and New York City and between New York City and Boston by 30 minutes each will cost $14 billion while reducing auto ridership along the corridor by less than 1 percent.[7]
The Foreign Experience
Other countries' experiences with HSR and passenger rail in all of its costly forms are instructive in judging how fiscally damaging the Administration's enthusiastic commitment to HSR may prove to be.[8]
Europe in General. In 2008, Amtrak's inspector general published an analysis of government subsidies to passenger rail in Europe and compared them to Amtrak's subsidies. One purpose of the review was to address the contention that passenger rail in other countries, especially HSR, operates at a profit (i.e., without subsidies). For 1995-2006, the study found that the governments of Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Spain, Denmark, and Austria spent "a combined total of $42 billion annually on their national passenger railroads."[9] The $42 billion that these six countries, which have a combined population of 269 million, spent on just passenger rail in 2006[10] is roughly proportionate to the $54.8 billion (most of which was funded by user fees) that the government of the United States (population of 309 million) spent on all forms of transportation, including highways, rail, aviation, water transport, and mass transit.[11]
To put the European commitment to passenger rail in perspective, rail ridership (high speed, conventional intercity, and metropolitan commuter rail) in these six countries accounted for just 7.9 percent of all surface transportation modes on a per passenger, per billion kilometer basis. This suggests that these countries received a poor return on their money given that more than 90 percent of passengers in these countries chose other travel modes-- mostly auto--despite the subsidies.
In Europe as a whole (EU-27), rail accounted for only 6.1 percent of passenger travel in 2007, including travel by air and sea. Buses accounted for 8.3 percent of the market, and air travel accounted for 8.8 percent. Despite Europe's huge investment in passenger rail, its market share declined from 6.6 percent in 1995 to 6.1 percent in 2007. Over that same period, commercial air increased its share from 6.3 percent to 8.8 percent. By providing faster service and competitive prices, it took passengers away from rail, buses, and autos.
This last point is of some importance because one goal of the HSR scheme is to shift travel from largely unsubsidized commercial aviation to heavily subsidized trains. Yet the same scheme in Europe seems to have failed over the past dozen years, despite massive government subsidies. Nonetheless, as problematic as the general European experience with passenger rail has been, some individual countries have experienced even worse results.
Japan . Japan's passenger rail--both high speed and not-so-high speed--has been extremely costly and has been a contributing factor in the genteel process of decline now enveloping this onetime economic superpower.[12] Japan began operating an HSR system in 1964 at speeds of about 130 mph. By the 1990s, speeds in excess of 180 mph were common.
As a result of this commitment to HSR and the costs associated with the rest of the passenger rail system, the Japanese National Railway (JNR) was losing $20 billion per year and was issuing debt to cover all but the $5 billion covered by direct government subsidies. By the mid-1980s, the JNR's accumulated debt exceeded $300 billion. Recognizing that the JNR was not financially sustainable as a government program, the government began privatizing the passenger rail system in 1987, converting the JNR into seven separate joint stock companies and selling them off to the public over the next several years.[13]
In Japan, unlike the United States, where Amtrak's losses can be attributed to half-filled trains, a trivial market share, and powerful unions, about 28.7 percent of passengers traveled by rail in 2007--the highest rate of rail use in the developed world.[14] Today, several of the restructured, privatized Japanese passenger rail lines run at a profit, but only because they were acquired at a fraction of their capital costs and the government absorbed much of the system's debt.
United Kingdom . In the U.K., 6.4 percent of surface passengers (excluding air and sea travel) travel by a passenger rail system that was privatized beginning in 1994 by way of concessions provided to private rail operators. Much like Japan, the U.K. decided to privatize its passenger rail system because of the burden of providing operating subsidies and the lack of government financial resources to refurbish the deteriorating infrastructure. Importantly, while a Conservative government implemented the privatization process, the subsequent Labor government made no effort to halt or undo the privatization process, despite the many problems that have emerged in the operations of the privatized rail system.
Although service has improved and ridership has increased to record levels since privatization, ticket prices have also increased, and government subsidies have exceeded pre-privatization levels.[15] In the 1994-1995 budget year, just before privatization, government rail subsidies totaled an inflation-adjusted £2,178 million ($3.4 billion), but after more than a decade of privatization, government rail subsidies for the 2008-2009 budget year totaled £4,896 million ($7.6 billion).[16]
Demonstrating that poor judgment is not unique to any one party or ideology, the opposition Conservative Party has promised to introduce HSR if it is returned to power, notwithstanding the high subsidy costs and high government deficits incurred by maintaining an ordinary passenger rail service used by just 6.4 percent of the market.[17] In response, the Labor Party has promised to build an HSR rail line connecting London to Manchester and Leeds at an estimated cost of $45 billion.[18]
The point of reviewing the recent U.K. experience is not to criticize the rail reforms that the U.K. undertook, but to note that regardless of organization, ownership, and the intensity of the reform effort, building and operating a system of passenger rail service still requires massive public subsidies.
France. The French government operates 30,500 miles of track, 1,160 miles of which are genuine HSR lines (called TGV) that have average speeds of about 180 mph. Although the entire French passenger rail system receives an estimated annual government subsidy of approximately $10 billion (compared to the annual estimated subsidy of $22.8 billion for the somewhat larger German passenger rail system, which also includes an HSR component),[19] the HSR service between Paris and Lyon--one of 11 TGV lines and 267 miles of the system--is believed by some to be one of only two HSR routes in the world that generate enough revenue to cover both capital and operating costs.[20]
Taiwan. In 2007, a privately owned and partially privately financed HSR system began operating HSR on a 214-mile route connecting Taipei and Kaoshiung, the two largest cities in Taiwan. Building the system cost an estimated $15 billion. It uses Japanese technology, and the trains run at a top speed of 186 mph.
Since opening, the system has lost $2.1 billion, leading The China Post to describe the situation as a "hyper-modern technology [that] was meant to be a source of pride, but instead has turned into a rich source of embarrassment."[21] The company operating the system is now seeking government subsidies.
Spain. Spain opened its first HSR line in 1992. Since 2003, it reportedly has spent more on rail than on roads.[22] Despite this commitment, the EU reports that rail in Spain accounts for only 5.1 percent of ridership, almost 2 percentage points below the EU-27 average of 6.9 percent for all surface transportation modes.[23]
Decision Time for America
As the preceding analysis reveals, the potential for serious financial problems with an HSR program include:

Perpetual massive government subsidies and larger budget deficits;
Wasted money because few passengers will use the system even with the high per-passenger subsidies for operating and capital costs;
Service provided to only a small fraction of the traveling public in a handful of communities;
Additional burdens imposed on hard-pressed state governments, which will be required to match the perpetual federal subsidies to build the system;
Little or no difference in passenger mobility or environmental quality; and
The creation of high-paying, low-productivity union jobs for political supporters.

While these deficiencies make the HSR program a winner for some of the President's supporters and some Members of Congress, it will be a major loser for the taxpayers who will be forced to fund this new system.
Most taxpayers will continue to travel by more cost-effective and largely self-financed modes, such as cars and airplanes. They will also find that government will continue to shortchange their preferred transportation choices, notably autos and airlines, to pander to key constituencies: environmentalists, rail hobbyists, and labor unions. Given that more than 20 percent of federal transportation funding already goes to transit, which serves less than 2 percent of passengers nationwide, the federal government is quite capable of squandering even more money on additional low-value and underutilized transportation projects such as HSR.
Conclusion
As a chastened Congress looks back at the many mistakes it has made over the past year and a half, its more sensible Members will have many opportunities in 2010 to make amends and restore some measure of fiscal sanity to the federal government. Two of the first opportunities will be President Obama's over-the-top follow-up HSR spending plans: an additional $8 billion through the ARRA and $5 billion over the next five years in the Administration's FY 2010 budget proposal. Meanwhile, Representative James Oberstar (D-WI), chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, has introduced legislation to provide $50 billion to HSR over the next five years. All of these proposals would waste massive amounts of money that the nation can ill afford to waste.
Ronald D. Utt, Ph.D., is Herbert and Joyce Morgan Senior Research Fellow in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

THE REAL ARITHMETIC OF HEALTH REFORM

2010-03-23T11:56:00.002-05:00

THE REAL ARITHMETIC OF HEALTH REFORM

On Thursday, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the latest health care reform legislation would, over the next 10 years, cost about $950 billion, but it would also lower federal deficits by $138 billion. Could this really be true? Not according to Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and president of the American Action Forum.
How can the budget office give a green light to a bill that commits the federal government to spending nearly $1 trillion more over the next 10 years? The answer, unfortunately, is that the budget office is required to take written legislation at face value and not second-guess the plausibility of what it is handed. So fantasy in, fantasy out.
In reality, if you strip out all the gimmicks and budgetary games and rework the calculus, a wholly different picture emerges:

The health care reform legislation would raise, not lower, federal deficits by $562 billion, says Holtz-Eakin.
The bill front-loads revenues and backloads spending, meaning the taxes and fees it calls for are set to begin immediately, but its new subsidies would be deferred so that the first 10 years of revenue would be used to pay for only six years of spending.
To operate the new programs over the first 10 years, future Congresses would need to vote for $114 billion in additional annual spending, but this so-called discretionary spending is excluded from the CBO's tabulation.
In perhaps the most amazing bit of unrealistic accounting, the legislation proposes to trim $463 billion from Medicare spending and use it to finance insurance subsidies, but Medicare is already bleeding red ink and the health care bill has no reforms that would enable the program to operate more cheaply in the future.

The bottom line is that Congress would spend a lot more; stead funds from education, Social Security and long-term care to cover the gap; and promise that future Congresses will make up for it by taxing more and spending less, says Holtz-Eakin.
Source: Douglas Holtz-Eakin, "The Real Arithmetic of Health Care Reform," New York Times, March 20, 2010

OUR FUTURE UNDER OBAMACARE

2010-03-23T11:54:00.000-05:00

OUR FUTURE UNDER OBAMACARE

What will the future look like under Obamacare? Not good, according to Michael Tanner, senior fellow at the Cato Institute.
The bill will cost more than advertised. It won't be long before Congress is shocked -- shocked! -- to discover that health care reform is going to cost a lot more than expected. Take Medicare, for example:

When it was instituted in 1965, it was estimated that the cost of Medicare Part A would be $9 billion by 1990.
In actuality, it was seven times higher - $67 billion.
In 1987, Medicaid's special hospitals subsidy was projected to cost $100 million annually by 1992, just five years later; it actually cost $11 billion, more than 100 times as much.

Insurance premiums will keep rising. According to the Congressional Budget Office, insurance premiums will double in the next few years. The bill will do nothing to diminish that increase. In fact, for the millions of Americans who get their insurance through the individual market, rather than from an employer, this bill will raise premiums by 10-13 percent more than if we do nothing. Young and healthy people can expect their premiums to go up even more.
The quality of care will be worse. Doctors' reimbursements for providing care will be squeezed, making it harder to find a doctor.

A new survey in the New England Journal of Medicine reports that 46 percent of doctors may give up their practice in the wake of this bill.
While that is probably exaggerated, many doctors will likely decide to reduce their patient loads or retire.
In Massachusetts, after the passage of Romneycare, the wait to see a primary care physician increased from 33 days to 52 days.

The Left will keep pushing for more. Faced with rising costs and higher premiums, not to mention millions still uninsured, Democrats will blame the "evil" insurance companies and demand further reform.

A Question and Answer interview with me

2010-03-19T19:06:00.000-05:00

http://electioninfo.wordpress.com/2010/03/19/qa-with-teri-davis-newman-republican-candidate-for-illinois-12th-congressional-district/

A Question and Answer interview with me. The questions were interesting and thought-provoking and I hope you like my answers!

92 Billion Wasted on Medicaid fraud in New York alone.....

2010-03-17T11:11:00.000-05:00

By NICHOLAS CONFESSORE New York’s Medicaid system, the state’s largest single expense, lost at least $92 million to improper payments, billing errors and poor recordkeeping during the last five years, according to several audits released Tuesday by State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli.
In one instance, a Medicaid recipient in Poughkeepsie was provided with $300 round-trip daily taxi service to visit her child in a long-term care facility in Albany, which cost the state roughly $196,000 before the authorization was revoked.
One of the three audits revealed that the State Department of Health made at least $53 million in improper payments for nearly 26,000 people who had improperly been assigned two Medicaid identification numbers by local social service agencies, apparently in error. Another found that an incorrect reimbursement rate entered into the Health Department’s claims system had resulted in $20.3 million in improper payments.
At least $1.2 million was paid out incorrectly for neonatal services or for transportation services not covered by Medicaid, according to Mr. DiNapoli.
“The state’s Medicaid system is leaking millions of taxpayer dollars,” Mr. DiNapoli said during a news conference in Albany on Tuesday.
The audits were the latest blows to New York’s troubled Medicaid system, which is both the most expensive in the country and one that earns consistently low ratings in terms of health care quality.
Medicaid is a federal-state program that provides health care for indigent people.
In a series of audits over the last three years, Mr. DiNapoli’s office has identified roughly $400 million in improper payments, for services including home care for dead people and a dentist’s charges for patients who lived hundreds of miles away.
Mr. DiNapoli’s audits on Tuesday cited at least $5.4 million in improper payments to 10 hospitals that had billed for discharging patients who had been transferred to another hospital. Under Medicaid rules, hospitals receive more for discharging patients than for transferring them.
One such patient was hospitalized for 18 days before being transferred. The hospital claimed he had been discharged, earning a $253,000 payment for the patient’s treatment, rather than the $92,000 it would have gotten had it reported the transfer correctly.
Mr. DiNapoli also criticized the Department of Health for seeking to recover only a small fraction of the $53 million paid to providers in claims for individuals with multiple Medicaid numbers.
The department said the improper claims highlighted in the audits amount to a tiny fraction of total Medicaid claims, which total tens of billions of dollars a year.
In a statement, Claudia Hutton, a spokeswoman for the department, said that officials there were committed to preventing Medicaid waste, but disputed some of the audits’ conclusions.
The taxi rides were provided to the Poughkeepsie woman, Ms. Hutton said, because her son’s doctor had determined that she should be trained to provide home care for her son after he was released, training that would cost taxpayers less than a professional home health aide.
Ms. Hutton also said that it was not clear whether individuals with two Medicaid numbers had caused the state to be billed twice for the same services. In cases in which providers had provided legitimate services to patients, she said, the state had an obligation to reimburse them.
“Not all claims are as simple as the comptroller portrays them, and the route to recoup the funds is likewise complex,” Ms. Hutton said. “Nevertheless, we appreciate the auditors’ efforts to identify improvements.”

KSDK St. Louis News Interview

2010-03-17T10:12:00.002-05:00

U.S. House of Rep. IL 12th District, Teri Newman (R)

Recommended (3)
Print
Email Article
Larger

KSDK -- Teri Newman is running for the 12th Congressional District seat for the U.S. House of Representatives in the Illinois Republican Primary on February 2.
NewsChannel 5 sent an email to each candidate asking them to answer a series of questions to better prepare voters for the primary election.
Newman's responses are below.
Do you think healthcare needs to be overhauled in the United States? If no, why not? If yes, to what extent?
Health care does need to be reformed but not with the bill currently before Congress. I support extensive tort reforms and allowing interstate insurance coverage and competition. Doctors should contribute to tort reform by better policing their profession, removing bad doctors from the practice of medicine and making disciplinary records public instead of hiding dangerous and incompetent doctors and nurses behind a cloak of secrecy. Medicare and Medicaid fraud is staggering because of the incredible inefficiency in policing the providers. With the technology available today it should be easy to spot false claims and those who are cheating the taxpayers, and prosecution should be swift and certain with harsh punishment. Decisions about patient care are best made by doctors, not bureaucrats and government policies. Government does not belong in the health care business or any other business for that matter. It's nothing but an ill-disguised power grab to take over one-sixth of the U.S. economy.
How long should U.S. troops remain in Afghanistan? Also, how many troops would you support sending to Afghanistan?

As many as we need and they stay until we win. The terrorists are intent upon killing all of the infidels which is anyone who isn't Muslim. The war on terror is one that we MUST win and I am totally supportive of our military. Cut-and-run Costello voted to cut the funding for our troops; what kind of a message is this from the man who calls himself "the patron saint of Scott Air Force Base"? Of course anyone who takes close to 3 million in PAC "contributions" when running unopposed isn't working for the people, so Jerry has some explaining to do to the taxpayers.
What is your plan for bringing jobs to Southern Illinois?

Tax breaks and incentives have a long history of being successful in job creation and bringing in business. When tax incentives are used to lure businesses to a community to encourage economic growth then it should be obvious that increased taxes have the opposite effect.The government's right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing and this is responsible for billions in waste and mismanagement and the reason people hate to pay taxes is because they watch the government waste their hard-earned money. Fiscal responsibility should be the first priority of the government. Illinois has a horribly unfriendly business atmosphere and businesses are crossing the river to a place where business is welcomed. Less government, lower taxes and cut social spending programs that duplicate each other. We need LESS government, not more! I am a strong supporter of the Fair Tax plan that eliminates the IRS and people keep their entire paycheck. As a businesswoman, I know that there is NO WAY to spend your way to prosperity--and it's insane and irresponsible that the government thinks it's the solution. People are also LEAVING Illinois in droves over taxes and we are going to lose ANOTHER Congressional seat in the next census. Additionally, the more people that leave, the higher they raise the taxes for the rest of us--which means more people leave in a vicious circle that benefits no one and harms many of us. I also have a three-prong plan for turning East St. Louis into a vibrant part of 21st century America and breaking the decades-long cycle of poverty in the city. Jerry Costello has done nothing for the people of ESL except use them for their votes and then dump them until the next election.
Do you support bringing prisoners from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba to a prison in Northern Illinois? Why or Why not?
Guantanamo Bay should not be closed and the terrorists that are being kept there should be tried by the military. They committed acts of war while calling themselves soldiers so the military should retain jurisdiction over them and in Cuba, should they escape, it's a 90-mile swim through shark infested waters to reach American soil. They certainly don't belong in Illinois and would someone PLEASE explain to me how housing 100 prisoners will create (according to Governor Quinn) 3000 jobs. I don't have a math degree but that works out to 30 jobs per prisoner at a cost of about $150,000,000 per year in a state with an 8 BILLION DOLLAR BUDGET DEFICIT this year, so this is yet another example of fiscal irresponsibility. I also think that it is beyond insane to allow terrorists in our prison to recruit new members from the dregs of society who will assist the terrorists in their quest to kill us all. Government needs to take the long view and do what's good for the citizens and the country, NOT the political PACs and special interest groups who give them millions of dollars in "contributions" every campaign.

Why California is Broke*

2010-03-07T18:07:00.000-06:00

40% of all workers in L.A. County (L.A. County has 10.2 million people) are working for cash and not paying taxes. This was because they are predominantly illegal aliens working without a green card.
95% of warrants for murder in Los Angeles are for illegal aliens.
75% of people on the most wanted list in Los Angeles are illegal aliens.
Over 2/3 of all births in Los Angeles County are to illegal alien Mexicans on Medi-Cal, whose births were paid for by taxpayers.
Nearly 25% of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals here illegally.
Over 300,000 illegal aliens in Los Angeles County are living in garages.
The FBI reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegal aliens from south of the border.
Nearly 60% of all occupants of HUD properties are illegal.
There are 21 Spanish language radio stations in Los Angeles.
In L.A. County 5.1 million people speak English. 3.9 million speak Spanish. (There are 10.2 million people in L.A. County ).
Less than 2% of illegal aliens are picking our crops, but 29% are on welfare.
Over 70% of the United States’ annual population growth (and over 90% of California, Florida, and New York) is from illegal aliens.

*Why the rest of the country is going to be broke too!

The BEST Economics lesson I've ever read!!

2010-03-04T13:41:00.000-06:00

An Easily Understandable Explanation of Derivative Markets

Heidi is the proprietor of a bar in Detroit . She realizes that virtually all of her customers are unemployed alcoholics and, as such,can no longer afford to patronize her bar. To solve this problem,she comes up with a new marketing plan that allows her customers to drink now, but pay later. She keeps track of the drinks consumed in a ledger (thereby granting the customers loans).

Word gets around about Heidi's "drink now, pay later" marketing strategy and, as a result, increasing numbers of customers flood into Heidi's bar.Soon she has the largest sales volume for any bar in Detroit .

By providing her customers freedom from immediate payment demands, Heidi gets no resistance when, at regular intervals, she substantially increases her prices for wine and beer, the most consumed beverages.Consequently, Heidi's gross sales volume increases massively.

A young and dynamic Vice President at the local bank recognizes that these customer debts constitute valuable future assets, and increases Heidi's borrowing limit. He sees no reason for any undue concern, since he has the debts of the unemployed alcoholics as collateral.

At the bank's corporate headquarters, expert traders transform these customer loans into DRINKBONDS, ALKIBONDS and PUKEBONDS. These securities are then bundled and traded on international security markets. Naive investors don't really understand that the securities being sold to them as AAA secured bonds are really the debts of unemployed alcoholics.

Nevertheless, the bond prices continuously climb, and the securities soon become the hottest-selling items for some of the nation's leading brokerage houses.

One day, even though the bond prices are still climbing, a risk managerat the original local bank decides that the time has come to demand payment on the debts incurred by the drinkers at Heidi's bar. He so informs Heidi.

Heidi then demands payment from her alcoholic patrons, but being unemployed alcoholics they cannot pay back their drinking debts. Since Heidi cannot fulfill her loan obligations, she is forced into bankruptcy. The bar closes and the eleven employees lose their jobs.

Overnight, DRINKBONDS, ALKIBONDS and PUKEBONDS drop in price by 90%. The collapsed bond asset value destroys the banks liquidity and prevents it from issuing new loans, thus freezing credit and economic activity in the community.

The suppliers of Heidi's bar had granted her generous payment extensions and had invested their firms' pension funds in the various BOND securities. They find they are now faced with not only having to write off her bad debt but also with losing over 90%of the presumed value of the bonds. Her wine supplier claims bankruptcy,closing the doors on a family business that had endured for three generations, and her beer supplier is taken over by a competitor, who immediately closes the local plant and lays off 150 workers.

Fortunately though, the bank, the brokerage houses and their respective executives are saved and bailed out by a multi-billion dollar, no-strings attached cash infusion from their cronies in Government.The funds required for this bailout are obtained by new taxes levied on employed,middle-class, non-drinkers who have never been in Heidi's bar.

Government and the Housing Bust

2010-02-25T20:21:00.001-06:00

You may be surprised to discover that Government meddling in the free market, in the form of social engineering and regulations, caused the big housing bust and resulting economic fallout. Here's a summarized account (much of which is taken from Mark Levin's excellent book Liberty & Tyranny) of what caused that event:
In 1977 Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) to address alleged discrimination by banks in making loans to poor people and minorities in the inner cities (redlining). In 1989, Congress amended the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act requiring banks to collect racial data on mortgage applications. The Boston Federal Reserve Bank took that data and published a 1992 study alleged systemic discrimination by these banks. University of Texas professor Stan Liebowitz has written that "minority mortgage applications were rejected more frequently than other applications, but the overwhelming reason wasn't racial discrimination, but simply that minorities tend to have weaker finances." Liebowitz condemned the Boston FRB study -- "That study was tremendously flawed. A colleague and I ... showed that the data it had used contained thousands of egregious typos, such as loans with negative interest rates. Our study found no evidence of discrimination." However, the study became the standard on which government policy was based.

In 1995, the Clinton administration's Treasury Department issued regulations tracking loans by neighborhoods, income groups and races to rate the performance of banks. The ratings were used by regulators to determine whether the government would approve bank mergers, acquisitions, and new branches. The regulations also encouraged statist-aligned groups, such as ACORN and the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America, to file petitions with regulators, or threaten to, to attack banks that they felt were not making enough of the loans they thought they should be making. These groups were so effective that they were able to legally extort banks into making huge pools of money available to these groups -- money that used to make more bad loans. These loans became known as "subprime" loans, and they are the direct result of government regulators, and the activists working through them, insisting that banks abandon tried-and-true underwriting standards. In other words, if these banks, as free market participants, had been allowed to qualify loan applicants on their own cognizance, they never would have made these loans. One estimate puts the figure of CRA-eligible loans at $4.5 trillion.

In 1992, the Department of Housing and Urban Development pressured two government-chartered corporations -- Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae -- to purchase (securitize) large bundles of these loans for the conflicting purposes of diversifying the risk and making even more money available to banks to make more bad loans. Congress even passed the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act, eventually mandating that these companies buy 45% of all loans from people of low and moderate incomes. In 1995, the Treasury Department established the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, which provided banks with tax dollars to encourage still more bad loans. All the while these guys were cooking the books in order to award themselves tens of millions of dollars.

Alarmed Republicans began to cry foul, warn of pending disaster, and plead for the situation to be corrected. But top congressional Democrats, including Frank, Dodd, and Schumer repeatedly ignored and downplayed these warnings, insisting that they were overstated. The hearings on this issue, broadcast on C-SPAN are available on youtube for anyone to review. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

A by-product of this government intervention and social engineering was a financial instrument called the "derivative," which turned the subprime mortgage market into a ticking time bomb - magnifying the housing bust by orders of magnitude. One huge reason that these derivatives were so attractive and spread so far throughout the markets is that rating agencies like Moody's and Standard & Poor's gave these derivatives a AAA rating. They now claim that they didn't understand what exactly these derivatives were based upon at the time because the financial situation was so unprecedented, and that they can't be held accountable because their ratings are no different than an op-ed piece published in a newspaper. AIG and others invested heavily in these derivatives, which is what led to their downfall.

Also instrumental in the scale of the subsequent bust was the part played by the Federal Reserve Board. The FRB abandoned it's role as steward of the monetary system and tried to use interest rates to artificially and inappropriately manipulate the housing market, interfering with normal market conditions and contributing to destabilizing the economy. Bottom line -- another example of the government meddling with the free market. Brilliant economist Friedrich August von Hayek once wrote, "The past instability of the market economy is the consequence of the exclusion of the most important regulator of the market mechanism, money, from itself being regulated by the market process." How was money prevented from being a regulator in the case of the housing bust? -- By the FRB's regulation of it.

Eventually, the pending disaster that was being warned about happened, everything started to fall apart, and the government started throwing money at the problem like mad in the form of TARP funds, it didn't help anything -- in fact it made things worse (just like in FDR's case), business went bankrupt, jobs were lost, new businesses couldn't start, no new jobs were created, and unemployment went sky-high.

And there you have it. If the free market -- Capitalism -- had been allowed to operate free of social engineering and invasive (rather than protective) government regulation and outright manipulation, we wouldn't have this crisis on our hands.

New Congress? Coming right up!!

2010-02-23T21:50:00.000-06:00

By Charlie Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason.. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall.. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it..

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red ..

If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems..
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power.
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

What Congress and Obama have done for YOU

2010-02-23T12:29:00.001-06:00

It ends November 2, 2010. If this monstrous health care bill passed, I will put one hand on the bible to be sworn in and in the other I will hold a bill to repeal all of Obamacare that I will drop in the hopper as soon as I take the oath to SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC!!
Here's what they've done in a YEAR--think what they will do in 3 more years if we don't stop them in November!!

Unprecedented spending.
Unprecedented deficits.
Unprecedented increases in national debt.
Major tax increases in the midst of a recession.
Gross favoritism to political allies.
Demagogic attacks on all perceived opponents.
Grabs in all directions for more power in government and the private sector.
Bragging about not letting any crisis go to waste.
Shamelessly corrupt bargains to buy votes in Congress.
Appointments of avowed socialists, Marxists, and even an admitted communist to government positions.
Government control of health care.
Cap and tax.
Card check.
Government monopoly of student loans.
Change the law to keep a Republican governor from appointing to fill a U.S. Senate vacancy; change the law again to allow a Democrat governor to appoint a U.S. Senator.
Class warfare.
Famously broken promises from government transparency to the unemployment rate.
Endless apologies to the rest of the world for being the United States of America.

Obama Defeats FDR (in Spending Other People’s Money)

2010-02-18T15:39:00.000-06:00

Wednesday, February 17, 2010
By Terence P. Jeffrey

After he signed a law last week authorizing the U.S. Treasury to borrow an additional $1.9 trillion, President Barack Obama delivered a characteristically sanctimonious speech. It was about his deep commitment to frugality.

“After a decade of profligacy, the American people are tired of politicians who talk the talk but don’t walk the walk when it comes to fiscal responsibility,” he said. “It’s easy to get up in front of the cameras and rant against exploding deficits. What’s hard is actually getting deficits under control. But that’s what we must do. Like families across the country, we have to take responsibility for every dollar we spend.”

To put Obama’s Olympian hypocrisy in perspective, one need only examine the federal budget tables posted on the White House website by Obama’s own Office of Management and Budget.

They reveal these startling facts: When calculated by the average annual percentage of the Gross Domestic Product that he will spend during his presidency, Obama is on track to become the biggest-spending president since 1930, the earliest year reported on the OMB’s historical chart of spending as a percentage of GDP. When calculated by the average annual percentage of GDP he will borrow during his presidency, Obama is on track to become the greatest debter president since Franklin Roosevelt.

Obama will outspend and out-borrow the admittedly profligate George W. Bush, a man Obama and his lieutenants routinely malign for fiscal recklessness and who, when in office, was often hailed even by his allies as a Big Government Republican. Obama will even outspend—but not quite out-borrow—his fellow welfare-state liberal FDR, who had to contend with both the Depression and World War II.

In determining this was the case, I credited the presidents prior to Obama with the federal spending and borrowing that occurred during the fiscal years that started when they were in office. I credited Obama with the spending and borrowing that his own OMB estimates will occur during the fiscal years from 2010 to 2013, which are the four fiscal years starting during Obama’s four-year term. (Before fiscal 1977, fiscal years ran from July 1 to June 30. Since then, they have run from Oct. 1 to Sept. 30.)

FDR was inaugurated in March 1933 and died in April 1945. He is thus responsible for the 12 fiscal years from 1934 to 1945. During those years of depression and world war, according to OMB, federal spending averaged 19.35 percent of GDP. During Obama’s four fiscal years, OMB estimates spending will average 24.13 percent of GDP. That is about 25 percent more than under FDR.

In the first eight fiscal years of FDR’s presidency, before Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, federal spending as a percentage of GDP never exceeded 12 (despite the Depression). During those years, it averaged only 9.85 percent. Under Obama, annual spending as a percentage of GDP will average almost two-and-a-half times that much.

In fiscal 1942, when the U.S. started dramatically ramping up expenditures to fight World War II, federal spending equaled 24.3 percent of GDP. In 2010, the first full fiscal year of the Obama era, spending will reach 25.4 percent of GDP.

Under current estimates, Obama will not beat FDR’s overall record for borrowing, although he will nearly double FDR’s pre-World War II rate of borrowing. From 1934-41, FDR ran annual deficits that averaged 3.56 percent of GDP. Obama, according to OMB, will run average annual deficits of 7.05 percent GDP. When you include the war years of 1942-45, FDR ran average annual deficits of 9.76 percent of GDP. Even without a world war, Obama’s overall prospective borrowing is at least competitive with FDR’s.

And Obama and FDR share one historic debt-accumulating distinction. By OMB’s calculation, they are the only two presidents since 1930 to run up annual deficits that reached double figures as a percentage of GDP. Obama will run up a deficit this year of 10.6 percent of GDP. The last time the deficit hit double digits as a percentage of GDP was 1945 -- when Germany and Japan surrendered.

The U.S. won the Cold War without ever running a double-digit deficit. President Reagan’s highest deficit was 6 percent of GDP in 1983 -- and he bankrupted the Soviet Union not the United States.

So how does Obama compare with the much-maligned George W. Bush? In Bush’s eight fiscal years, annual federal spending averaged 20.43 percent of GDP, significantly less than Obama’s estimated 24.13 percent of GDP.

Bush ran annual deficits that averaged 3.4 percent of GDP—and that includes fiscal 2009, when the deficit soared to 9.9 percent of GDP and Obama signed a $787 billion stimulus bill (some of which was spent in fiscal 2009) after Bush left office. Obama, according to OMB, will run deficits that average 7.05 percent of GDP—or more than twice the average deficits under Bush.

The bottom line on Obama: He puts our money where his mouth is.

NEW CAMPAIGN VIDEO FROM TOM

2010-02-04T20:50:00.001-06:00

Judicial Watch Announces List of Washington's "Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians" for 2009

2010-01-29T15:36:00.000-06:00

Judicial Watch Announces List of Washington's "Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians" for 2009

Please accept my wishes for a Happy New Year. As many of you know, it has become something of a New Year's tradition for Judicial Watch to comb through its files for the year to determine which politicians earn the dubious distinction of being the most corrupt in Washington. The following is Judicial Watch's 2009 "top ten" list in alphabetical order:

Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT): This marks two years in a row for Senator Dodd, who made the 2008 "Ten Most Corrupt" list for his corrupt relationship with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and for accepting preferential treatment and loan terms from Countrywide Financial, a scandal which still dogs him. In 2009, the scandals kept coming for the Connecticut Democrat. In 2009, Judicial Watch filed a Senate ethics complaint against Dodd for undervaluing on his Senate Financial Disclosure forms a property he owns in Ireland. Judicial Watch's complaint forced Dodd to amend the forms. However, press reports suggest the property to this day remains undervalued. Judicial Watch also alleges in the complaint that Dodd obtained a sweetheart deal for the property in exchange for his assistance in obtaining a presidential pardon (during the Clinton administration) and other favors for a long-time friend and business associate. The false financial disclosure forms were part of the cover-up. Dodd remains the head the Senate Banking Committee.
Senator John Ensign (R-NV): A number of scandals popped up in 2009 involving public officials who conducted illicit affairs, and then attempted to cover them up with hush payments and favors, an obvious abuse of power. The year's worst offender might just be Nevada Republican Senator John Ensign. Ensign admitted in June to an extramarital affair with the wife of one of his staff members, who then allegedly obtained special favors from the Nevada Republican in exchange for his silence. According to The New York Times: "The Justice Department and the Senate Ethics Committee are expected to conduct preliminary inquiries into whether Senator John Ensign violated federal law or ethics rules as part of an effort to conceal an affair with the wife of an aide…" The former staffer, Douglas Hampton, began to lobby Mr. Ensign's office immediately upon leaving his congressional job, despite the fact that he was subject to a one-year lobbying ban. Ensign seems to have ignored the law and allowed Hampton lobbying access to his office as a payment for his silence about the affair. (These are potentially criminal offenses.) It looks as if Ensign misused his public office (and taxpayer resources) to cover up his sexual shenanigans.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA): Judicial Watch is investigating a $12 million TARP cash injection provided to the Boston-based OneUnited Bank at the urging of Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank. As reported in the January 22, 2009, edition of the Wall Street Journal, the Treasury Department indicated it would only provide funds to healthy banks to jump-start lending. Not only was OneUnited Bank in massive financial turmoil, but it was also "under attack from its regulators for allegations of poor lending practices and executive-pay abuses, including owning a Porsche for its executives' use." Rep. Frank admitted he spoke to a "federal regulator," and Treasury granted the funds. (The bank continues to flounder despite Frank's intervention for federal dollars.) Moreover, Judicial Watch uncovered documents in 2009 that showed that members of Congress for years were aware that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were playing fast and loose with accounting issues, risk assessment issues and executive compensation issues, even as liberals led by Rep. Frank continued to block attempts to rein in the two Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs). For example, during a hearing on September 10, 2003, before the House Committee on Financial Services considering a Bush administration proposal to further regulate Fannie and Freddie, Rep. Frank stated: "I want to begin by saying that I am glad to consider the legislation, but I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis. That is, in my view, the two Government Sponsored Enterprises we are talking about here, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not in a crisis. We have recently had an accounting problem with Freddie Mac that has led to people being dismissed, as appears to be appropriate. I do not think at this point there is a problem with a threat to the Treasury." Frank received $42,350 in campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac between 1989 and 2008. Frank also engaged in a relationship with a Fannie Mae Executive while serving on the House Banking Committee, which has jurisdiction over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Secretary of Treasury Timothy Geithner: In 2009, Obama Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner admitted that he failed to pay $34,000 in Social Security and Medicare taxes from 2001-2004 on his lucrative salary at the International Monetary Fund (IMF), an organization with 185 member countries that oversees the global financial system. (Did we mention Geithner now runs the IRS?) It wasn't until President Obama tapped Geithner to head the Treasury Department that he paid back most of the money, although the IRS kindly waived the hefty penalties. In March 2009, Geithner also came under fire for his handling of the AIG bonus scandal, where the company used $165 million of its bailout funds to pay out executive bonuses, resulting in a massive public backlash. Of course as head of the New York Federal Reserve, Geithner helped craft the AIG deal in September 2008. However, when the AIG scandal broke, Geithner claimed he knew nothing of the bonuses until March 10, 2009. The timing is important. According to CNN: "Although Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told congressional leaders on Tuesday that he learned of AIG's impending $160 million bonus payments to members of its troubled financial-products unit on March 10, sources tell TIME that the New York Federal Reserve informed Treasury staff that the payments were imminent on Feb. 28. That is ten days before Treasury staffers say they first learned 'full details' of the bonus plan, and three days before the [Obama] Administration launched a new $30 billion infusion of cash for AIG." Throw in another embarrassing disclosure in 2009 that Geithner employed "household help" ineligible to work in the United States, and it becomes clear why the Treasury Secretary has earned a spot on the "Ten Most Corrupt Politicians in Washington" list.
Attorney General Eric Holder: Tim Geithner can be sure he won't be hounded about his tax-dodging by his colleague Eric Holder, US Attorney General. Judicial Watch strongly opposed Holder because of his terrible ethics record, which includes: obstructing an FBI investigation into the theft of nuclear secrets from Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratory; rejecting multiple requests for an independent counsel to investigate alleged fundraising abuses by then-Vice President Al Gore in the Clinton White House; undermining the criminal investigation of President Clinton by Kenneth Starr in the midst of the Lewinsky investigation; and planning the violent raid to seize then-six-year-old Elian Gonzalez at gunpoint in order to return him to Castro's Cuba. Moreover, there is his soft record on terrorism. Holder bypassed Justice Department procedures to push through Bill Clinton's scandalous presidential pardons and commutations, including those for 16 members of FALN, a violent Puerto Rican terrorist group that orchestrated approximately 120 bombings in the United States, killing at least six people and permanently maiming dozens of others, including law enforcement officers. His record in the current administration is no better. As he did during the Clinton administration, Holder continues to ignore serious incidents of corruption that could impact his political bosses at the White House. For example, Holder has refused to investigate charges that the Obama political machine traded VIP access to the White House in exchange for campaign contributions—a scheme eerily similar to one hatched by Holder's former boss, Bill Clinton in the 1990s. The Holder Justice Department also came under fire for dropping a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party. On Election Day 2008, Black Panthers dressed in paramilitary garb threatened voters as they approached polling stations. Holder has also failed to initiate a comprehensive Justice investigation of the notorious organization the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), which is closely tied to President Obama. There were allegedly more than 400,000 fraudulent ACORN voter registrations in the 2008 campaign. And then there were the journalist videos catching ACORN Housing workers advising undercover reporters on how to evade tax, immigration, and child prostitution laws. Holder's controversial decisions on new rights for terrorists and his attacks on previous efforts to combat terrorism remind many of the fact that his former law firm has provided and continues to provide pro bono representation to terrorists at Guantanamo Bay. Holder's politicization of the Justice Department makes one long for the days of Alberto Gonzales.
Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL)/ Senator Roland Burris (D-IL): One of the most serious scandals of 2009 involved a scheme by former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich to sell President Obama's then-vacant Senate seat to the highest bidder. Two men caught smack dab in the middle of the scandal: Senator Roland Burris, who ultimately got the job, and Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, emissaries for Jesse Jackson Jr., named "Senate Candidate A" in the Blagojevich indictment, reportedly offered $1.5 million to Blagojevich during a fundraiser if he named Jackson Jr. to Obama's seat. Three days later federal authorities arrested Blagojevich. Burris, for his part, apparently lied about his contacts with Blagojevich, who was arrested in December 2008 for trying to sell Obama's Senate seat. According to Reuters: "Roland Burris came under fresh scrutiny…after disclosing he tried to raise money for the disgraced former Illinois governor who named him to the U.S. Senate seat once held by President Barack Obama...In the latest of those admissions, Burris said he looked into mounting a fundraiser for Rod Blagojevich—later charged with trying to sell Obama's Senate seat—at the same time he was expressing interest to the then-governor's aides about his desire to be appointed." Burris changed his story five times regarding his contacts with Blagojevich prior to the Illinois governor appointing him to the U.S. Senate. Three of those changing explanations came under oath.
President Barack Obama: During his presidential campaign, President Obama promised to run an ethical and transparent administration. However, in his first year in office, the President has delivered corruption and secrecy, bringing Chicago-style political corruption to the White House. Consider just a few Obama administration "lowlights" from year one: Even before President Obama was sworn into office, he was interviewed by the FBI for a criminal investigation of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's scheme to sell the President's former Senate seat to the highest bidder. (Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and slumlord Valerie Jarrett, both from Chicago, are also tangled up in the Blagojevich scandal.) Moreover, the Obama administration made the startling claim that the Privacy Act does not apply to the White House. The Obama White House believes it can violate the privacy rights of American citizens without any legal consequences or accountability. President Obama boldly proclaimed that "transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency," but his administration is addicted to secrecy, stonewalling far too many of Judicial Watch's Freedom of Information Act requests and is refusing to make public White House visitor logs as federal law requires. The Obama administration turned the National Endowment of the Arts (as well as the agency that runs the AmeriCorps program) into propaganda machines, using tax dollars to persuade "artists" to promote the Obama agenda. According to documents uncovered by Judicial Watch, the idea emerged as a direct result of the Obama campaign and enjoyed White House approval and participation. President Obama has installed a record number of "czars" in positions of power. Too many of these individuals are leftist radicals who answer to no one but the president. And too many of the czars are not subject to Senate confirmation (which raises serious constitutional questions). Under the President's bailout schemes, the federal government continues to appropriate or control—through fiat and threats—large sectors of the private economy, prompting conservative columnist George Will to write: "The administration's central activity—the political allocation of wealth and opportunity—is not merely susceptible to corruption, it is corruption." Government-run healthcare and car companies, White House coercion, uninvestigated ACORN corruption, debasing his office to help Chicago cronies, attacks on conservative media and the private sector, unprecedented and dangerous new rights for terrorists, perks for campaign donors—this is Obama's "ethics" record—and we haven't even gotten through the first year of his presidency.
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): At the heart of the corruption problem in Washington is a sense of entitlement. Politicians believe laws and rules (even the U.S. Constitution) apply to the rest of us but not to them. Case in point: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her excessive and boorish demands for military travel. Judicial Watch obtained documents from the Pentagon in 2008 that suggest Pelosi has been treating the Air Force like her own personal airline. These documents, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, include internal Pentagon email correspondence detailing attempts by Pentagon staff to accommodate Pelosi's numerous requests for military escorts and military aircraft, as well as the speaker's 11th hour cancellations and changes. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also came under fire in April 2009, when she claimed she was never briefed about the CIA's use of the waterboarding technique during terrorism investigations. The CIA produced a report documenting a briefing with Pelosi on September 4, 2002, that suggests otherwise. Judicial Watch also obtained documents, including a CIA Inspector General report, which further confirmed that Congress was fully briefed on the enhanced interrogation techniques. Aside from her own personal transgressions, Nancy Pelosi has ignored serious incidents of corruption within her own party, including many of the individuals on this list. (See Rangel, Murtha, Jesse Jackson, Jr., etc.)
Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) and the rest of the PMA Seven: Rep. John Murtha made headlines in 2009 for all the wrong reasons. The Pennsylvania congressman is under federal investigation for his corrupt relationship with the now-defunct defense lobbyist PMA Group. PMA, founded by a former Murtha associate, has been the congressman's largest campaign contributor. Since 2002, Murtha has raised $1.7 million from PMA and its clients. And what did PMA and its clients receive from Murtha in return for their generosity? Earmarks—over ten million dollars in earmarks. In fact, even with all of the attention surrounding his alleged influence peddling, Murtha kept at it. Following an FBI raid of PMA's offices earlier in 2009, Murtha continued to seek congressional earmarks for PMA clients, while also hitting them up for campaign contributions. According to The Hill, in April, "Murtha reported receiving contributions from three former PMA clients for whom he requested earmarks in the pending appropriations bills." When it comes to the PMA scandal, Murtha is not alone. As many as six other Members of Congress are currently under scrutiny according to The Washington Post. They include: Peter J. Visclosky (D-IN.), James P. Moran Jr. (D-VA), Norm Dicks (D-WA.), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), C.W. Bill Young (R-FL.) and Todd Tiahrt (R-KS.). Of course rather than investigate this serious scandal, according to Roll Call, House Democrats circled the wagons, "cobbling together a defense to offer political cover to their rank and file." The Washington Post also reported in 2009 that Murtha's nephew received $4 million in Defense Department no-bid contracts: "Newly obtained documents...show Robert Murtha mentioning his influential family connection as leverage in his business dealings and holding unusual power with the military."
Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY): Rangel, the man in charge of writing tax policy for the entire country, has yet to adequately explain how he could possibly "forget" to pay taxes on $75,000 in rental income he earned from his off-shore rental property. He also faces allegations that he improperly used his influence to maintain ownership of highly coveted rent-controlled apartments in Harlem, and misused his congressional office to fundraise for his private Rangel Center by preserving a tax loophole for an oil drilling company in exchange for funding. On top of all that, Rangel recently amended his financial disclosure reports, which doubled his reported wealth. (He somehow "forgot" about $1 million in assets.) And what did he do when the House Ethics Committee started looking into all of this? He apparently resorted to making "campaign contributions" to dig his way out of trouble. According to WCBS TV, a New York CBS affiliate: "The reigning member of Congress' top tax committee is apparently 'wrangling' other politicos to get him out of his own financial and tax troubles...Since ethics probes began last year the 79-year-old congressman has given campaign donations to 119 members of Congress, including three of the five Democrats on the House Ethics Committee who are charged with investigating him." Charlie Rangel should not be allowed to remain in Congress, let alone serve as Chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, and he knows it. That's why he felt the need to disburse campaign contributions to Ethics Committee members and other congressional colleagues.