Obama, Reagan, and the Economy

Great opinion piece by Frank Donatelli, GOPAC Chairman, in this morning's Politico...

It’s easy to understand why President Barack Obama’s friends don’t want to acknowledge that July represents 17 months since Congress passed the $787 billion economic stimulus bill — the president’s signature measure to jump-start the economy and fight unemployment.

Obama says the economy is headed in the right direction; jobs are being created, not lost, and he is doing everything possible to revive the “worst economy since the Great Depression.” Most of the national press has been remarkably accepting of this narrative — even if the president has been vague, at best, about when we might finally see an uptick in economic growth and job creation.

But in another economic time, President Ronald Reagan’s economic recovery program took 17 months to take hold. It took from the time Congress passed his tax cuts, in August 1981, until the recession he inherited finally ended in January 1983.

Unemployment hit a high of 10.8 percent in December 1982. But then economic growth spiked, and the unemployment rate began a long, steady decline throughout the 1980s. It was obvious the program was working when people stopped calling it “Reaganomics.”

Tax cuts were a part of Reagan’s effort to cut the size and scope of government to fight economic stagnation. “Government is not the solution,” Reagan said in his remarkably clear inaugural address. “It is the problem.”

In addition to tax cuts, Reagan reduced domestic discretionary spending and streamlined regulations to make them less of a burden on businesses seeking to create jobs. He believed that government should give individuals and businesses the proper incentives to grow and expand and not inhibit the private sector with high taxes and cumbersome regulations.

Reagan faced obstacles that Obama did not. The House he had to work with was always controlled by Democrats. More ominously, inflation was running at double-digit rates, and it took nearly a year for the Federal Reserve to squeeze those pressures out of the system.

Regardless, in the end, Reagan’s program worked. The turnaround began 17 months later.

Fast-forward to today. The Obama administration says that government-directed investment, via huge spending increases, can revive the economy. It’s now stimulus plus 17. Is there a turnaround in sight?

Apparently not. Obama’s own budget estimates, released just last week, project trillion-dollar deficits, anemic economic growth coming out of a recession and unemployment near 9 percent for 2011 and 8 percent for 2012.

You have to go back to the 1930s to find a period in which unemployment has been so high for so long. This economic record would make former President Jimmy Carter blush.

Yet Obama continues to get a pass on his version of recent economic events. He has said that he inherited the worst recession since the Great Depression. He didn’t. The economies inherited by both President Gerald Ford in 1974 and Reagan in 1981 were far worse.

Obama has said the stimulus has saved 3 million jobs. It hasn’t. We have nearly that many fewer jobs than before the stimulus was passed in February 2009, and the unemployment rate is 1½ percentage points higher than what he claimed would be the high point once his program was enacted.

Obama has said he is doing all he can to revive the economy. Actually, he’s doing too much. The economic uncertainty that his “historic” health care and budget bills have created is doing more to hold back economic growth than anything else. Companies are hoarding cash rather than invest in Obama’s uncertain economic climate.

As a result, the recovery is anemic by historic standards.

So we have two historic presidents. Both inherited bad economies. One cut spending and taxes, and then, 17 months later, the economy boomed. The other increased taxes and spending. It’s now 17 months later.

Mr. President, we’re waiting.

Frank Donatelli is chairman of GOPAC, which helps and advises young Republican leaders.

Observations from a Busy Week....

Apologies for not posting any updates last week on the many happenings that took place across the country affecting our lives and liberty.  The week was a lot busier than we had hoped, which kept us away from the posting thoughts to the RC Blog.  Anyway, enough excuses.  Here are a few thoughts on some of the bigger events of the past week:

McDonald vs. City of Chicago -- On Monday, the Supreme Court handed down a 5-4 decision in favor of gun rights of individuals.  This landmark decision follows a similar ruling in the Heller case which ruled in favor of handgun ownership in the District of Columbia.  Kudos to the NRA and other organizations for helping get this long battle through the court system.   This decision has the anti-gun groups up in arms!  We must add, however, that the RC Blog is greatly disappointed in the NRA's decision to drop its fight against the Disclose Act, only after it received an exemption from the bill along with the unions.  This bill is a blatant violation of our First Amendment rights and is an example of the Left's crooked attempts to downplay the impacts of the Citizens United ruling on the upcoming November elections. The bill ultimately passed the House 216-209 in late June and awaits action in the Senate.  The NRA has traditionally being a strong supporter of both First and Second Amendment rights of Americans, but in this case it ignored the First Amendment. 

Obama Accepts Foreign Help for Oil Cleanup -- On Day 70, that's 7-0, President Obama finally accepted some help from foreign allies who have been offering their assistance since the first few days of the disaster.  This acceptance still requires all the bureaucratic hurdles that come with such assistance -- approvals from State, DOD, DHS, USCG, EPA, etc.  President Obama's has exhibited in the past month some strange tendencies of being a Globalist and a Protectionist at the same time.  We nearly gagged when he encouraged other countries to continue government-type spending in order to stop the global recession that is before us.  Is he kidding?  European countries like France are finally looking to reduce long-standing entitlements and other facets of welfare state economics, while we seem to be doing the opposite.  Who would have thought that we would see a day when France is moving toward our economic model and we are moving towards theirs.  Sad....

Kagan Hearing -- We did listen and/or watch a good amount of the Elaina Kagan confirmation hearings this week in the Senate.  Ms. Kagan was stymied by several questions, especially those posed by Senators Sessions, Hatch, and Kyl.  At one point during the questioning, Ms. Kagan wouldn't answer a question asking if the government has the right to tell Americans what they can or cannot eat.  In addition, Senator Franken fell asleep during the hearings and doodled some cartoons instead of paying attention.  Sadly, the RC Blog expects her to be confirmed as the newest member of the court.  She will be as Left as any previous judge in history.  The only good news is that she is replacing another Liberal judge, so the vote counts should not expect to change much.  We are hard pressed to believe that President Obama could not have selected a more experienced candidate for this important position.  Instead, he selected a close associate who will be sure to enforce his Leftist agenda on the highest court in the land.

The Economy -- After a brief and artificial bump in the economy over the past several months, led only by tax incentives and temporary federal hiring for the Census, the economy has begun another downward path.  We envision a major tumble in jobs, consumer spending, and the stock market.  Not only did the stock market take a major dip this week, but the employment and housing numbers released were pitiful.  How many more times will we be fooled by Keynesian economic model, which supports heavy government spending, as a solution to improve our economy!!!

Virginia's Battle for Liberty -- We did get a post in earlier this week on the results of the oral arguments made by Virginia in federal court against the Federal Government's opinion that the lawsuit against ObamaCare be thrown out.  Keep your fingers crossed for a decision in Virginia's favor in late July or early August.  As Virginia AG Cuccinelli has pointed out on several occasions, this is not a lawsuit against the health care reform; it is a lawsuit for liberty.  The exact same lawsuit would have been filed if the government was trying to force us to be crayons.

Why Won't Obama Waiver the Jones Act?

Nice piece by Robert Bluey, Heritage Foundation blog guru, which appeared on FoxNews.com.  This is one of the most egregious examples of Obama's catering to the unions of our nation, who strongly supported and funded his campaign.  The Jones Act outlived its usefulness more than half a century ago.  The decision to temporarily waive the Jones Act was a no-brainer.  Unfortunately, we had President Obama to make that decision...

Five years ago, in the midst of another crisis in the Gulf of Mexico, the Bush administration waived the Jones Act, easing the way for foreign vessels to move in U.S. waters and between ports. The decision came with the administration under duress for its handling of Hurricane Katrina.

Today the Obama administration faces a different set of challenges with the Gulf oil spill cleanup.

But unlike his predecessor, President Obama has declined to suspend the law, even temporarily.

Obama's decision has turned into a public relations headache for an administration already reeling from its oversight of the oil spill. European allies, longtime opponents of the Jones Act, have asserted they were turned away when making offers of assistance. The State Department acknowledges it has had 21 aid offers from 17 countries.

Critics in both parties are now seizing on the issue to question the administration's competence. It took center stage at a House subcommittee hearing Thursday.

Some critics have suggested that Obama is protecting the pocketbooks of his union allies by keeping foreign vessels at bay. But several Jones Act experts told me that makes little sense because unions have minimal influence in the Gulf. Foreign competition, therefore, would do little to hurt their bottom line.

In addition, the Seafarers International Union, while supporters of the Jones Act, maintained good relations with the Bush administration. In 2000, the union donated $3,544 to candidate George W. Bush and nothing to Democrat Al Gore. Bush benefited with a $2,000 donation in 2004, while Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) received nothing. The union didn't donate any money to candidate Obama in 2008.

So why won't the Obama administration simply issue a blanket waiver, just as the Bush administration did in 2005? It would end the controversy and quiet a growing chorus of critics.

The administration defends its stance by citing a well-established waiver process for foreign vessels. In short, a request to U.S. Customs and Border Protection prompts an inquiry to the Maritime Administration, which leads to a search of the U.S. fleet. If an American ship can provide the same services, the request is denied. Otherwise, the foreign vessel gets a waiver.

That process differs from a blanket waiver -- the tactic used by then-Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff in 2005 after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The Bush administration justified the move by citing a need to transport oil and gasoline in the Gulf region.

Jones Act expert Charlie Papavizas said the 2005 Katrina waiver, which lasted from Sept. 1 to Sept. 19, was used primarily to move cargo between ports, but it didn't result in any new foreign ships in the region. "Twenty days is not enough time to reposition and do anything useful," he said.

Mark Ruge, who works with the Maritime Cabotage Task Force, was even blunter: "After the fact, if you look at Katrina and ask, 'What was the advantage to the United States of America by blanket waiving the Jones Act?' The answer is nothing came of that -- nothing that couldn't have been accomplished with the usual process. It was just one more thing you could say you did."

The Obama administration's critics think otherwise and show no signs of relenting.

Sen. George LeMieux (R-Fla.) pressed the president on the Jones Act during a recent face-to-face meeting. LeMieux said the action would signal America's allies that their help is wanted. Given the dire situation in the Gulf, what's the harm?

Two other members from Florida, Reps. Corrine Brown (D) and John Mica (R), said their state is suffering while skimmers sit idle. At a hearing on Thursday, Brown held up photos of vessels in Mexico and Norway, asking, "What is the process for the state to take advantage of skimmers from other countries?"

Mica trained his criticism on Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano for failing to mobilize the entire American fleet. "U.S.-flag vessels have the capacity to bolster the current oil skimming and removal taking place in the Gulf of Mexico," he said. "Over the last couple of weeks, we have seen oil products wash up on the shores of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida while vessels, which could have been pressed into service, sit idle. This is unacceptable."

With the spill cleanup reaching its 63rd day, is it too late for a Jones Act waiver to have an impact? LeMiuex believes there's still time for foreign vessels to help near the coast, given the uncertainty about how long the cleanup will last. He's disappointed it has taken the administration so long to act.

This, of course, is the primary criticism of the Obama administration's handling of the spill. While the president says he "will not settle for inaction," his failure to waive the Jones Act -- even if for the sole purpose of sending a message to our allies -- suggests he's not doing everything he can.

Update on Virginia's Healthcare Lawsuit

Earlier this week, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli provided the following update on the Commonwealth's legal challenge to President Obama's healthcare reform:

I am writing you tonight to make sure you know of an important development in Virginia's case against the federal healthcare law. Today, Virginia filed its brief in opposition to the federal government's attempt to dismiss Virginia's lawsuit against the new federal healthcare law.

While it's over two months since we first filed this suit - in legal terms, this case is moving at a lightning pace!

As I wrote all of you last week - the U.S. responded to our lawsuit with a motion to dismiss the case - which we fully expected.

What I didn't share with you was the in-depth legal reasoning behind their claims - and our opposition to their motion to dismiss. Below is a simple but thorough chart which explains our arguments in the case.  I would encourage all of you to take a look - and let me know your thoughts!

The U.S. has to file its reply brief by June 22, and then the oral arguments on the motion to dismiss will take place on July 1 at 10 a.m. - one hour for each side.

If Virginia's case is not dismissed and moves forward, a summary judgment hearing is scheduled for October 18.

The information below is a good preview; however, I hope all of you will sign up to attend our exciting webcast being held on June 16th - next Wednesday - to discuss the case and its foundation. Please sign up by clicking here today!

This case is fascinating, and I would encourage each of you to read our brief, as it is a spectacular mix of Constitutional law, American history and relevant commentary on the process the healthcare bill went through on its way to becoming law. To see a copy of Virginia's brief click here, but the first line gets right to a counter to the US's sickly view of federalism: "In the view of Secretary Sebelius, federalism is so withered and near death that States lack the power and right to go to federal court to test the validity of their own enactments when they conflict with federal law."

It's worth the time to read it, and you'll be better prepared to advocate on behalf of the first principles we're defending. And, by the way, that's also why we'd like you to join us for the webcast on the healthcare law and lawsuit - so you'll better understand why we are doing what we're doing, and you'll be able to educate others on our precious first principles. So, please sign up today! It requires pre-registration.

I hope you like the chart, I happen to think it's a pretty cool way to lay the whole case out at this stage.

Federal Government's Claim:  Virginia is not injured by the federal health care law.
Virginia's Response: 
Because the federal health care law purports to invalidate a Virginia law (the Health Care Freedom Act) under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, Virginia's sovereign interests have been injured.

Federal Government's Claim:  Because the mandate doesn't take effect until 2014, the case is not "ripe".
Virginia's Response: 
1) Based on several previous Supreme Court decisions, if a dispute is certain to occur in the future, this does not prohibit the suit from being brought in the present.
2) Virginia has already been forced to make decisions regarding insurance exchanges under the act, as well as changes to Medicaid. One of those decisions made the commonwealth forego more than $100 million in federal money.

Federal Government's Claim:  Virginia's suit is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act.
Virginia's Response:  The act does not apply to states under these circumstances, because Virginia's action falls within an exception to the act that has been recognized by the Supreme Court.

Federal Government's Claim:  The government has the power under the Constitution's Commerce Clause to mandate the purchase of individual health insurance.
Virginia's Response: 
1) The federal government's argument is contrary to the text of the Constitution.
2) The federal government's argument is contrary to the meaning of the words of the Commerce Clause as understood by the Founders.
3) The federal government's argument is contrary to the historical context of the nation's founding. When Great Britain instituted a tax on tea, the colonists' response was to boycott and to not buy tea. Parliament had the power to regulate commerce, but even it did not attempt to force colonists to buy the taxed product.
4) The federal government's argument is contrary to the traditional uses of the Commerce Clause. The clause has always been used to regulate economic activity; never inactivity.
5) The federal government's argument is contrary to the precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court has set outer limits to the reaches of the Commerce Clause, including in cases such as Lopez and Morrison, saying that the clause must have principled limits, otherwise the federal government essentially would have unlimited power, rather than the limited powers enumerated in the Constitution.

Federal Government's Claim:  Even if refusing to buy insurance is not commerce, the government can still force people to buy health insurance using the Constitution's Necessary and Proper Clause.
Virginia's Response: 
1) Since 1819, the Supreme Court has held that any use of the Necessary and Proper Clause must be consistent with both "the letter and spirit" of the Constitution. Any interpretation that would destroy the federal form of government (where federal power is limited only to those powers enumerated in the Constitution, with remaining powers reserved to the states and the people) is not allowed under that standard.
2) In May, the Supreme Court decided Comstock.
The Court adopted a historical approach to the use of the Necessary and Proper Clause. Because the mandate is utterly unprecedented, it is unlikely to be upheld under a historical approach.

Federal Government's Claim:  Even if the government cannot win using the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause arguments, the federal health insurance mandate can be justified under the government's taxing authority.
Virginia's Response:
1) The penalty for not buying insurance is not a tax. Congress called it a "penalty" and claimed authority to act only under the Commerce Clause. To argue otherwise now ignores what Congress actually did.
2) A penalty for inaction is not a tax of any kid known to the Constitution, when judged historically.

A Friday of Frustration, Fun, and Sadness...

It was quite a day yesterday -- one filled with frustration and fun, but ended with sadness...

Employment Numbers Released -- In the morning, the Obama Administration released the May employment numbers for the country and their policies and the impossible-to-fail stimulus bills have created a whopping 20,000 private-sector jobs.  The other 411,000 jobs created in May were ALL government jobs and mostly temporary Census-related jobs.  Absolutely incredible!  We added more than $1 trillion of debt with all the promises made about all the new jobs that would be created.  Hopefully, citizens will learn that government doesn't stimulate real jobs, only the private sector can do that.  Sadly, additional burdens on small businesses like Obamacare will make it even more difficult for job creation.

Nationals Win! -- Went to my first Nats game of the year last night and saw the rising Nationals beat the Cincinnati Reds 4-2.  There was definitely a different atmosphere in the stadium in terms of those coming out to the park.  It seems like the team's overall improvement and the anticipation of Stephen Strasburg's arrival next week has attracted the "20-30 somethings" in town.  There were fans tailgating near the public lots and just a different environment.  It was nice to see especially with the low crowds of the past few years.  The team has the No. 1 pick in Monday's draft so they are definitely on the right track.  Ryan Zimmerman continues to show why he is the best third baseman in the National League, both with the glove and the bat.

Legendary Coach John Wooden Passes Away at 99 -- Towards the end of last night's Nats game, I went to ESPN.com on the BlackBerry and saw the news flash that legendary UCLA coach John Wooden had passed away at 99.  Coach Wooden is not only recognized as the greatest sports coach in American history, he is also considered one of its greatest motivators.  His coaching record speaks for itself -- at UCLA, he won 620 games in 27 seasons and 10 NCAA titles during his last 12 seasons, including seven in a row from 1967 to 1973. His UCLA teams also had a record winning streak of 88 games and four perfect 30–0 seasons. They also won 38 straight games in NCAA Tournaments and a record 98 straight home game wins at Pauley Pavilion. Wooden was named NCAA College Basketball's "Coach of the Year" in 1964, 1967, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, and 1973.  He is in the basketball hall of fame as both a coach and a player (Purdue).  He was recognized as such a great coach and motivator that the Pittsburgh Pirates offered him the manager's job in the early 1970s, even though he had no substantial baseball experience.

What made him so successful?  It was his attention to detail.  The stories are legendary.  Each year, his team's first practice did not include basketballs.  All of his players spent the practice time working on putting on their socks properly.  Why?  Because if they didn't put their socks on properly, they would develop blisters and then the player would not be effective for the team.  The second day of practice, the players graduated to lacing shoes, making sure that they put an equal amount of tension on each set of eyelets.  These first two days of practice took place each and every year, even when UCLA was at the height of their dominance.  Can you imagine the look on the faces of 10 McDonald's All-Americans when they come to UCLA as freshmen and practice putting on socks and shoes?

His greatest impact to his players was off the court.  He remained close to all of his players after they graduated and many of them remained close to him even 40 years after graduating. 

I could go on and on about Coach Wooden -- his only love in life whom he met when he was a teenager, his wife Nellie who passed away 27 years ago (he wrote her love letters every month after her death); his "Pryamid of Success" (download here), which I keep next to my desk at work; and his strong sense of faith.

Here is ESPN's tribute to the great Coach John Wooden:



To learn more about Coach Wooden and his inspirational life, visit http://www.coachwooden.com/.

Sestak Scandal Update

Here's the latest, as reported by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann:

The New York Times revealed this afternoon that anonymous sources have informed it that Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel asked former President Bill Clinton to offer Congressman Joe Sestak a high but unpaid advisory post in the Administration if he would drop out of the Senate race against Senator Arlen Specter. One post mentioned was service on the President's Intelligence Advisory Board.

The idea was to immunize Obama and Rahm from possible criminal prosecution by using Clinton, not a government employee, as a cut out and to keep the offer to an unpaid job in hopes of not running afoul of the federal bribery statute.

But these evasions will not blunt the force of the law. If Clinton acted at Emanuel's request, he was Rahm's agent and the Chief of Staff is still on the hook. And, an unpaid position is still "something of value" within the meaning of the bribery statute which prohibits the offering of something of value in return for a vote.

And, remember why they wanted Sestak out of the race. The White House needed Specter's vote to kill filibusters and could only get it if he would switch parties, a move he conditioned on getting Sestak to drop out and assure him a clear field for the nomination of his new party. So the bribe offer to Sestak was made by an agent of a government employee, it involved something of value, and it was to procure a vote in the Senate -- all the elements needed for a felony to have taken place.

"Very Encouraging News..."

"And today, I'm happy to report that we received some very encouraging news... I should also note that the unemployment rate ticked up slightly from 9.7 to 9.9 [percent]." President Obama, May 7, 2010.

Unemployed More Than 6 Months

Median length of unemployment:

January 2009: 10.6 weeks
April 2010: 21.6 weeks
May 1983 (highest prior to April 2009): 12.3 weeks

Source: St. Louis Fed

President Obama Coming to Fairfax, Va. (George Mason University) March 19 to Discuss Health Care Reform

Attention all Northern Virginia Conservatives!

President Obama will be coming to George Mason University's Patriot Center in Fairfax on Friday, March 19 to discuss the health care reform.  This is an obvious attempt to pursuade Rep. Gerry Connolly in his home district to move from "undecided" to "yes".  Connolly is make a last-ditch attempt to distance himself from both Obama and the health care issue, but it's not working.  He knows he's in a no-win situation.  If he votes "yes", he is in serious jeopardy of becoming a one-term member; if he votes "no", he'll be in Pelosi and Obama's doghouse and could jeopardize the bill's passage.

The event at the Patriot Center is first-come in terms of attendance.  The more Conservatives in attendance and/or rallying outside the facility, the better we can make our position clear to attendees and the media.

Here is a link regarding the event: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=367623438109&ref=mf

Obama's State of the Union Address

As always, great job by FactCheck.org for its analysis of President Obama's State of the Union speech last night. 

Summary

President Obama peppered his State of the Union address to Congress and the nation with facts, which were mostly right but sometimes cherry-picked, strained or otherwise misleading.

• He said “there are about 2 million Americans working right now” because of last year’s stimulus bill. But his own economic advisers say the total could be as little as 1.5 million, and independent estimates range down to as low as 800,000.

• He quoted the Congressional Budget Office as saying health care legislation could “bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion” over the next 20 years. But CBO has made clear that’s a soft and uncertain estimate.

• He said that when he took office, the deficit already was projected to total $8 trillion over the next 10 years. But the estimate is from his own Office of Management and Budget; the CBO put the figure at trillions less.

• He said he believes a Supreme Court decision will allow foreign corporations to spend in U.S. elections. Perhaps so, but it actually did not address a law still on the books forbidding any foreign-based corporation from spending on electioneering here.

Analysis

This was the president’s first State of the Union address, but not his first speech to a joint session of Congress. We found a number of errors in his first one on Feb. 24, 2009, and also in his health care speech Sept. 9 (when a GOP House member shouted "you lie").

This time Republicans merely scoffed and grumbled at some of Obama’s statements. And while we found Obama strained the facts or cited uncertain statistics at times, we uncovered nothing we could show to be false.

How Many Jobs?

The president said the stimulus bill was responsible for "about 2 million" jobs, but that’s far from certain. Other estimates put the total as low as 800,000.

Obama: Because of the steps we took, there are about 2 million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed.

The 2 million jobs estimate comes from the latest report of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. It said: "CEA estimates that as of the fourth quarter of 2009, the [stimulus bill] has raised employment relative to what it otherwise would have been by 1½ to 2 million." So his own economic advisers say the number could be as low as 1.5 million, but Obama took the higher number in their range. And the CEA report also cited fourth-quarter estimates from others, including the Congressional Budget Office and private economic forecasting firms, most of which are lower than the 2 million figure Obama used. The other estimates for job creation are:

• CBO: 800,000 to 2.4 million

• IHS/Global Insight: 1.25 million

• Macroeconomic Advisers: 1.1 million

• Moody’s Economy.com: 1.6 million

Furthermore, it’s difficult to say definitively what the employment situation would have been without the legislation, and the CEA report acknowledges that, saying: "As we have emphasized, measuring what a policy action has contributed to growth and employment is inherently difficult because we do not observe what would have occurred without the policy. Therefore, it must be understood that our estimates are subject to substantial margins of error."

Hopeful on Health Care

Obama touted an optimistic — and highly uncertain — estimate on how the Senate health care bill could affect the deficit:

Obama: And according to the Congressional Budget Office – the independent organization that both parties have cited as the official scorekeeper for Congress – our approach would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades.

It’s true that the CBO’s admittedly rough estimate said the bill could reduce the deficit below its projected level by “as much as” about $1 trillion over 20 years — but it also said the reduction could be half of that amount. And it noted the estimate is subject to a great deal of uncertainty.

CBO normally gives estimates for 10-year periods, and the nonpartisan entity doesn’t like to go beyond that. It said the Senate bill could produce a net deficit reduction of $132 billion over 2010-2019. For the next decade, CBO said the reduction would be “in a broad range between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of GDP.” Senate Democrats estimated that would mean a reduction of $650 billion to $1.3 trillion.

But CBO emphasized how squishy that large range is: “The imprecision of that calculation reflects the even greater degree of uncertainty that attends to it.” Plus, the numbers count on a reduction in the growth of Medicare spending, of which CBO isn’t so confident. “It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved, and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care,” CBO Director Douglas W. Elmendorf wrote.

Stretching Deficit Facts?

Republicans laughed when Obama described the huge deficits he had inherited when he took office.

Obama: At the beginning of the last decade, the year 2000, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. (Applause.) By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. All this was before I walked in the door. (Laughter and applause.)

Now — just stating the facts.

Despite the Republican scoffing, Obama’s claims are backed up by the historical record — mostly.

• Budget surplus in 2000: The Congressional Budget Office reported on Nov. 14, 2000, in its Monthly Budget Review: "Fiscal year 2000 ended with a total budget surplus of $237 billion."

• Deficit when Obama took office: By the time Obama took office, that black ink had turned to gushers of red. "CBO projects that the deficit this year will total $1.2 trillion," CBO said in its "Budget and Economic Outlook." That was released Jan. 8, 2009, days before Obama’s inauguration.

So the president actually understated matters regarding annual surpluses and deficits for years past, but he may have strained the facts when he spoke of what was being predicted for future years at the time he assumed office. He said he inherited a projected 10-year deficit of $8 trillion. But at the time, CBO projected only a $3.1 trillion deficit over 10 years (Table 4, page 15).

In fairness, that CBO figure assumed that all of President Bush’s tax cuts would be allowed to expire on schedule. And in reality, Obama and congressional Democrats supported extending many of the cuts, while Republicans supported extending all of them. Extending all of the Bush tax cuts would add another $2.9 trillion to that (Table 7, page 22), for a total of $6 trillion — still short of Obama’s claim.

His figure is based on a "baseline" projection issued Feb. 20 by his own Office of Management and Budget (Table S-2, page 115). The OMB projected a 10-year deficit of $8.9 trillion, including the $787 billion stimulus package that Obama had just signed.

So it’s fair to say that Obama was facing an ocean of red ink when he took office, but it could have been anywhere between $3.1 trillion (CBO’s unrealistically low estimate) to a bit over $8 trillion (OMB’s estimate minus Obama’s stimulus bill).

Foreign Corporations Donating?

The president claimed that "foreign corporations" could begin spending big money to influence U.S. elections under a recent Supreme Court decision.

Obama: Last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections.

Justice Samuel Alito, who with the other justices sat at the very front of the chamber last night, was seen shaking his head and mouthing what appeared to be the words "not true" as Obama said this. Alito joined the majority in the 5-4 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision issued by the Court last week, which knocked down restrictions on corporate spending on elections.

But it’s unclear whether the court’s opinion will lead to allowing foreign-based corporations to buy campaign ads and engage in other electioneering activities. There is still a law barring foreign corporations from spending money in connection with U.S. elections (see 2 U.S.C. 441e(b)(3)), and that’s a matter likely to be litigated further. The court’s most recent decision explicitly didn’t deal with that question. But strictly speaking, Obama couched his claim as something "I believe," making it a statement of opinion and not of fact. So whether his view turns out to be right remains to be seen.

Taxes

The president correctly pointed out that he signed a number of tax cuts for individuals and businesses as part of the stimulus package, and also said this:

Obama: And we haven’t raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person. Not a single dime.

That’s true, according to Bob Williams of the Tax Policy Center. But it’s not the whole story. As Obama himself later said, tax increases are coming, at least for some:

Obama: To help working families, we’ll extend our middle-class tax cuts. But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, for investment fund managers, and for those making over $250,000 a year. We just can’t afford it.

A Deathblow to Obamacare

From today's Heritage Foundation "Morning Bell" e-mail...

A report released Friday by the non-partisan and independent Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the agency in charge of running Medicare and Medicaid, blows the lid off of every one of Obama’s claims. All of the following quotes are from the report itself:

Health Care Costs Increase: “In aggregate, we estimate that for calendar years 2010 through 2019 [national health expenditures (NHE)] would increase by $289 billion, or 0.8 percent, over the updates baseline projection that was released on June 29, 2009.” In other words, Obamacare bends the cost curve up, not down.

Millions Lose Existing Private Coverage: “However, a number of workers who currently have employer coverage would likely become enrolled in the expanded Medicaid program or receive subsidized coverage through the Exchange. For example, some smaller employers would be inclined to terminate their existing coverage, and companies with low average salaries might find it to their - and their employees’ - advantage to end their plans … We estimate that such actions would collectively reduce the number of people with employer-sponsored health coverage by about 12 million.” In other words, Obamacare will cause millions of Americans to lose their existing private coverage.

Millions Pay Fines Yet Remain Uncovered: “18 million are estimated to choose not to be insured and to pay the penalty associated with the individual mandate. For the most part, these would be individuals with relatively low health care expenses for whom the individual or family insurance premium would be significantly in excess of the penalty and their anticipated health benefit value.” In other words, 18 million Americans will either face jail time or be forced to pay a new tax they will receive no benefit from.

Millions Lose Medicare Advantage: “Section 1161 of Division B of H.R. 3962 would set Medicare Advantage capitation benchmarks … We estimate that in 2014 when the MA provisions would be fully phased in, enrollment in MA plans would decreased by 64 percent (from its projected level of 13.2 million under current law to 4.7 million under the proposal).” In other words, 8.5 million seniors who currently get such services as coordinated care for chronic conditions, routine eye and hearing examinations, and preventive-care services would lose their existing private coverage.

Millions Placed on Welfare: “Of the additional 34 million who are estimated to be insured in 2019 as a result of H.R. 3962, about three-fifths (21 million) would receive Medicaid coverage due to the expansion of eligibility to those adults under 150 percent of the FPL.” In other words, more than half the people who gain health insurance will receive it through the welfare program Medicaid.

Seniors Access to Care Jeopardized: “H.R. 3962 would introduce permanent annual productivity adjustments to price updates for institutional providers… Over time, a sustained reduction in payment updates, based on productivity expectations that are difficult to attain, would cause Medicare payment rates to grow more slowly than and in a way that was unrelated to, the providers’ costs of furnishing services to beneficiaries. Thus, 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).” In other words, the Medicare cuts in the House bill are so out of touch with reality that hospitals currently serving Medicare patients might be forced to stop doing so. Thus making it much more difficult for seniors to get health care.

Poor’s Access Problems Exacerbated: “In practice, supply constraints might interfere with providing the services by the additional 34 million insured persons. …providers might tend to accept more patients who have private insurance (with relatively attractive payment rates) and fewer Medicaid patients, exacerbating existing access problems for the latter group.” In other words, those 21 million people who are gaining health insurance through Medicaid are going to have a very tough time finding a doctor who will treat them.

Reacting in part to Friday’s CMS report, Robert J. Samuelson writes in today’s Washington Post:

The disconnect between what President Obama says and what he’s doing is so glaring that most people could not abide it. The president, his advisers and allies have no trouble. But reconciling blatantly contradictory objectives requires them to engage in willful self-deception, public dishonesty, or both.

There is a reason why as more Americans learn about Obamacare, the less popular it gets.

How Bad was George W. Bush?

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVD's, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had misspelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and "potato" as proof of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush's administration had Okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11.?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

If George W Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive?

Can't think of anything? Don't worry.

He's done all this in his first 10 months – so you'll have three years and two months to come up with an answer.

The Nobel Prize for Good Intentions

Here's the latest from Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer of Human Life International:

I am not the only one who sees a strange anomaly in the Oslo committee awarding Mr. Obama the Nobel Peace Prize last week. Considering that his actual nomination had to have taken place before February 1st when he was not even two weeks in office, he could not have possibly done anything to merit this award and he certainly hasn't done anything since! In fact, the winner of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize is the shameless leader of the war against unborn children around the world; his alliance with Planned Parenthood testifies vocally to his pro-death agenda, not to mention his wiping out of the Mexico City Policy to fund the death peddlers around the world. His administration's debates about whether to send 40,000 more troops into Afghanistan seem mildly aggressive in comparison to the war against babies. It is just astounding to think that neither Mahatma Gandhi nor Pope John Paul II received this Prize in their lifetimes, a fact that speaks volumes about the Scandinavians' sense of what constitutes true peace-making.

Keep in mind that American policies can have huge consequences around the world. Already we are seeing evidence that the anti-life movement has been tremendously emboldened by the election of America's strongest abortion promoter ever and one who "released funds" to abortion-promoting organizations by wiping out the Mexico City Policy on his third day in office. In very real terms, this meant the unleashing of terrorism on the unborn with American dollars and influence. Our affiliate in Tanzania recently reported to us that a new sterilization campaign has blanketed his beloved country because the anti-lifers know that they will get away with it now that the US government has no veto power over these things. The UN and the European Union have already been putting pressure on pro-life Catholic countries like Poland and Malta to legalize abortion, and just last week Ireland voted Yes to the Lisbon Treaty which a year ago they had turned down cold. This EU treaty will cajole, slacken and manipulate another pro-life country into eventually legalizing the killing of its own babies. It's just a foot in the door to taking away Ireland's sovereignty on the issue of life and will undoubtedly have a huge long-term impact on the country.

There will be no peace in any society as long as a nation accepts and/or endorses the principle that babies are disposable commodities and can be murdered at will. HLI missionaries continuously tell the remaining pro-life nations that abortion is a war on children which no society can long survive. Its effects are entirely negative and will never get better. Furthermore, there are certain conscientious persons in every population that will fight with every fiber of their beings to see that abortion is never normalized or accepted as a good, and social conflict will be the inevitable outcome. Society will suffer because of the millions of women and men who will be both physically and emotionally injured by abortion and the millions of families that will be destroyed as a result. The worst effect of this war on children is the deadening of conscience that the unrepentant killing of innocents has on the national soul.

Clearly, those who want peace must work for it in a concerted effort to protect the most vulnerable citizens of a nation, not in the good intentions of war-mongering politicians. The Nobel Peace Prize should have been given to the thousands of men and women praying in front of the killing centers of our world and working in the crisis pregnancy centers consoling the desperate women who need peace and resources to choose life. These are the real heroes who actually do have something to show for their peace-making efforts. More peace has come to our world from the pro-life movement than the Nobel Committee could ever dream of.

Tell that to the leftists in Oslo. Tell that to Mr. Obama, war-monger-in chief against the children of this world.

Another Failed Presidency

From "American Thinkers" Geoffrey P. Hunt....

Barack Obama is on track to have the most spectacularly failed presidency since Woodrow Wilson.

In the modern era, we've seen several failed presidencies--led by Jimmy Carter and LBJ. Failed presidents have one strong common trait-- they are repudiated, in the vernacular, spat out. Of course, LBJ wisely took the exit ramp early, avoiding a shove into oncoming traffic by his own party. Richard Nixon indeed resigned in disgrace, yet his reputation as a statesman has been partially restored by his triumphant overture to China.

George Bush Jr didn't fail so much as he was perceived to have been too much of a patrician while being uncomfortable with his more conservative allies. Yet George Bush Sr is still perceived as a man of uncommon decency, loyal to the enduring American character of rugged self-determination, free markets, and generosity. George W will eventually be treated more kindly by historians as one whose potential was squashed by his own compromise of conservative principles, in some ways repeating the mistakes of his father, while ignoring many lessons in executive leadership he should have learned at Harvard Business School. Of course George W could never quite overcome being dogged from the outset by half of the nation convinced he was electorally illegitimate -- thus aiding the resurgence of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

But, Barack Obama is failing. Failing big. Failing fast. And failing everywhere: foreign policy, domestic initiatives, and most importantly, in forging connections with the American people. The incomparable Dorothy Rabinowitz in the Wall Street Journal put her finger on it: He is failing because he has no understanding of the American people, and may indeed loathe them. Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard says he is failing because he has lost control of his message, and is overexposed. Clarice Feldman of American Thinker produced a dispositive commentary showing that Obama is failing because fundamentally he is neither smart nor articulate; his intellectual dishonesty is conspicuous by its audacity and lack of shame.

But, there is something more seriously wrong: How could a new president riding in on a wave of unprecedented promise and goodwill have forfeited his tenure and become a lame duck in six months? His poll ratings are in free fall. In generic balloting, the Republicans have now seized a five point advantage. This truly is unbelievable. What's going on?

No narrative. Obama doesn't have a narrative. No, not a narrative about himself. He has a self-narrative, much of it fabricated, cleverly disguised or written by someone else. But this self-narrative is isolated and doesn't connect with us. He doesn't have an American narrative that draws upon the rest of us. All successful presidents have a narrative about the American character that intersects with their own where they display a command of history and reveal an authenticity at the core of their personality that resonates in a positive endearing way with the majority of Americans. We admire those presidents whose narratives not only touch our own, but who seem stronger, wiser, and smarter than we are. Presidents we admire are aspirational peers, even those whose politics don't align exactly with our own: Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Harry Truman, Ike, Reagan.

But not this president. It's not so much that he's a phony, knows nothing about economics, is historically illiterate, and woefully small minded for the size of the task-- all contributory of course. It's that he's not one of us. And whatever he is, his profile is fuzzy and devoid of content, like a cardboard cutout made from delaminated corrugated paper. Moreover, he doesn't command our respect and is unable to appeal to our own common sense. His notions of right and wrong are repugnant and how things work just don't add up. They are not existential. His descriptions of the world we live in don't make sense and don't correspond with our experience.

In the meantime, while we've been struggling to take a measurement of this man, he's dissed just about every one of us--financiers, energy producers, banks, insurance executives, police officers, doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, post office workers, and anybody else who has a non-green job. Expect Obama to lament at his last press conference in 2012: "For those of you I offended, I apologize. For those of you who were not offended, you just didn't give me enough time; if only I'd had a second term, I could have offended you too."

Mercifully, the Founders at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 devised a useful remedy for such a desperate state--staggered terms for both houses of the legislature and the executive. An equally abominable Congress can get voted out next year. With a new Congress, there's always hope of legislative gridlock until we vote for president again two short years after that.

Yes, small presidents do fail, Barack Obama among them. The coyotes howl but the wagon train keeps rolling along.

Green Jobs and 9/11 Truthers: A Match Made in the Obama White House

This April President Barack Obama said he wanted to rebuild the entire United States economy based on a foundation of “five pillars that will grow our economy and make this new century another American century.” One of those pillars was government “investments” in renewable energy and technology that will create “green jobs” for millions of Americans. To oversee the planning for all these green jobs, President Obama tapped Van Jones, author of the 2008 New York Times best-seller The Green Collar Economy, to be his Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation.

Of course green jobs are complete fiction. For starters, nobody, including the Obama administration, even has a definition for what a green job is. Furthermore, research both here in the U.S., and abroad, has repeatedly demonstrated that subsidizing high cost renewable energies destroys more jobs than it creates.

But that is what makes Jones such a perfect fit to be Obama’s green jobs czar. It turns out that Jones is no stranger to crazy. The Washington Times Amanda Carpenter reports that along with comedienne Janeane Garofalo, ex-Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), Code Pink founder Medea Benjamin, and Howard Zinn, Jones has signed 911Truth.org’s 9/11 Truth Statement which calls for an investigation by then-New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer into whether the Bush administration may have had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks.

That’s right, Obama’s hand picked Green Jobs Czar doesn’t believe al Qaeda is responsible for 9/11, instead he accusses President George Bush. Crazy is as crazy does.

(Source: Heritage Foundation)

No Treats for Obama

Obama to Raise 10-Year Deficit to $9 Trillion

Of course, the White House waiting until 6:30 p.m. on Friday night (the best time of the week to bury a bad news story...) to announce that it is raising the deficit projections for the next decade.

Here's the report from Jeff Mason of Reuters:

The Obama administration will raise its 10-year budget deficit projection to approximately $9 trillion from $7.108 trillion in a report next week, a senior administration official told Reuters on Friday.

The higher deficit figure, based on updated economic data, brings the White House budget office into line with outside estimates and gives further fuel to President Barack Obama's opponents, who say his spending plans are too expensive in light of budget shortfalls.

The White House took heat for sticking with its $7.108 trillion forecast earlier this year after the Congressional Budget Office forecast that deficits between 2010 and 2019 would total $9.1 trillion.

"The new forecasts are based on new data that reflect how severe the economic downturn was in the late fall of last year and the winter of this year," said the administration official, who is familiar with the budget mid-session review that is slated to be released next week.

"Our budget projections are now in line with the spring and summer projections that the Congressional Budget Office put out."

The White House budget office will also lower its deficit forecast for this fiscal year, which ends September 30, to $1.58 trillion from $1.84 trillion next week after removing $250 billion set aside for bank bailouts.

Record-breaking deficits have raised concerns about America's ability to finance its debt and whether the United States can maintain its top-tier AAA credit rating.

Politically, the deficit has been an albatross for Obama, a Democrat who is pushing forward with plans to overhaul the U.S. healthcare industry -- an initiative that could cost up to $1 trillion over 10 years -- and other promises, including reforming education and how the country handles energy.

DEFICIT WORRIES

Republicans have pounced on Obama for planning to spend too much when deficits are so high, and the issue is likely to loom large in next year's Congressional elections.

Obama, who has promised to halve the deficit by the end of his four-year term and likes to remind constituents he inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit from former President George W. Bush, says bringing down healthcare costs is critical to long-term deficit reduction.

Treasury markets have been worried all year about the mounting deficit. The United States relies on large foreign buyers such as China and Japan to cheaply finance its debt, and they may demand higher interest rates if they begin to doubt that the government can control its deficits.

"It's one of those underlying pieces of news that is liable to haunt the bond market at some point in the future," said Kim Rupert, managing director of global fixed income analysis at Action Economics LLC in San Francisco, referring to the revised 10-year deficit projection.

Many economists think it is unlikely the government can curtail spending, which means taxes would have to go up to cover the rising costs of providing retirement and healthcare benefits to aging Americans.

Higher taxes, which could slow economic growth, are also a major concern of voters on both sides of the political divide. Obama has promised not to raise taxes on Americans making less than $250,000 a year.

American College of Surgeons Issues Statement on Erroneous Comments Made by President Obama

Statement from the American College of Surgeons Regarding Recent Comments from President Obama :

CHICAGO--The American College of Surgeons is deeply disturbed over the uninformed public comments President Obama continues to make about the high-quality care provided by surgeons in the United States. When the President makes statements that are incorrect or not based in fact, we think he does a disservice to the American people at a time when they want clear, understandable facts about health care reform. We want to set the record straight.

Yesterday during a town hall meeting, President Obama got his facts completely wrong. He stated that a surgeon gets paid $50,000 for a leg amputation when, in fact, Medicare pays a surgeon between $740 and $1,140 for a leg amputation. This payment also includes the evaluation of the patient on the day of the operation plus patient follow-up care that is provided for 90 days after the operation. Private insurers pay some variation of the Medicare reimbursement for this service.

Three weeks ago, the President suggested that a surgeon's decision to remove a child's tonsils is based on the desire to make a lot of money. That remark was ill-informed and dangerous, and we were dismayed by this characterization of the work surgeons do. Surgeons make decisions about recommending operations based on what's right for the patient.

We agree with the President that the best thing for patients with diabetes is to manage the disease proactively to avoid the bad consequences that can occur, including blindness, stroke, and amputation. But as is the case for a person who has been treated for cancer and still needs to have a tumor removed, or a person who is in a terrible car crash and needs access to a trauma surgeon, there are times when even a perfectly managed diabetic patient needs a surgeon. The President's remarks are truly alarming and run the risk of damaging the all-important trust between surgeons and their patients.

We assume that the President made these mistakes unintentionally, but we would urge him to have his facts correct before making another inflammatory and incorrect statement about surgeons and surgical care.

Sincerely,

L.D. Britt, M.D., FACS, Chair of the ACS Board of Regents
John Cameron, M.D., FACS, President of the American College of Surgeons
Andrew Warshaw, M.D., FACS, Chair of the ACS Health Policy and Advocacy Group
Christian Shalgian, ACS Director, Division of Advocacy and Health Policy


About the American College of Surgeons

The American College of Surgeons is a scientific and educational organization of surgeons that was founded in 1913 to raise the standards of surgical practice and to improve the care of the surgical patient. The College is dedicated to the ethical and competent practice of surgery. Its achievements have significantly influenced the course of scientific surgery in America and have established it as an important advocate for all surgical patients. The College has more than 76,000 members and is the largest organization of surgeons in the world.

Obama, Heath Care Continue to Fall in the Polls

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 30% of the nation's voters “Strongly Approve” of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-seven percent (37%) “Strongly Disapprove” giving Obama a “Presidential Approval Index” rating of -7 (see trends). Forty-five percent (45%) give the President good or excellent marks for leadership.

New Rasmussen Reports polling shows public support for the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats has fallen to a new low. Data released yesterday shows that 51% fear the federal government more than private insurance companies. Thirty-two percent (32%) favor a single-payer health care system for the U.S., while 57% are opposed.

The “Presidential Approval Index” is calculated by subtracting the number who “Strongly Disapprove” from the number who “Strongly Approve”. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern.

Overall, 49% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty percent (50%) disapprove.

CBO Deals Another Crushing Blow to Obamacare

From this morning's Heritage Foundation Morning Bell Report:

For the second time in less than two weeks, the independent and non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has dealt a crushing blow to President Barack Obama’s health care plans. First, on July 17th, CBO director Doug Elmendorf sent a letter to House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel (D-NY), explaining that, in direct contradiction to President Obama’s promise that his health plan would not add “even one dime to our deficit over the next decade,” the House health plan would actually increase the budget deficit by $239 billion over ten years.

Reeling from this setback, the White House then put all of its cost-containing reform eggs in one basket: a massive transfer of power from Congress to the Executive branch in the form of an “Independent Medicare Advisory Council” (IMAC) that would be “the equivalent of a federal health board determining how health care was rationed for all seniors.”

But as draconian as that solution would be, the CBO again refused to toe the White House line. In a letter to Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Elmendorf writes:

The proposed legislation states that IMAC’s recommendations cannot generate increased Medicare expenditures, but it does not explicitly direct the council to reduce such expenditures nor does it establish any target for such reductions. … As proposed, the composition of the council could be weighted toward medical providers who might not be inclined to recommend cuts in payments to providers or significant changes to the delivery system. … In CBO’s judgment, the probability is high that no savings would be realized … CBO estimates that enacting the proposal, as drafted, would yield savings of $2 billion over the 2010–2019 period.

Just $2 billion! That would leave the House bill still $237 billion short of meeting Obama’s promise to not add a dime to the deficit over the next ten years. Put another way, that $2 billion in savings is two tenths of one percent of what Obama wants to spend on health care over the next ten years. Now Democrats are pushing back against the CBO, claiming the official score keeper just doesn’t understand how wonderful their cost containment schemes really are. One senior House leadership aide told The Hill: “At CBO, they are accountants, but we still have to make our case. They are doing their thing and we are doing ours.”

Now Americans may ask just how accurate is the CBO when scoring the costs of health care reform? Does the CBO have a track record of underestimating how much new health care entitlements will cost? Or is the CBO too conservative and often over estimates new health care spending? Scholars at the CATO Institute went back and compared past CBO estimates on health care to actual spending numbers and found:

When Medicare was launched in 1965, Part A was projected to cost $9 billion by 1990, but ended up costing $67 billion. When Medicaid’s special hospitals subsidy was added in 1987, it was supposed to cost $100 million annually, but it already cost $11 billion by 1992. When Medicare’s home care benefit was added in 1988, it was projected to cost $4 billion in 1993, but ended up costing $10 billion.

History clearly shows that the costs of new heath care entitlements are routinely underestimated. And what would American be getting for their $2 billion in savings from IMAC? The Washington Post’s David Broder wrote yesterday:

But Congress will have to decide if it is willing to yield that degree of control to five unelected IMAC commissioners. And Americans will have to decide if they are comfortable having those commissioners determine how they will be treated when they are ill.

Huge cost estimates that are likely underestimated in exchange for a federal health board deciding the terms of your personal health care is not the reform people were expecting. But more importantly, if the Obama administration can’t trust a federal office to properly score their bill, how is it they trust a similar office to decide which medical treatments you receive?

Critics Attack ABC News for Refusing to Air Opposing Ads During Obama's Health Care Special

Opponents of President Obama's proposed health care reform are blasting ABC News for refusing to air opposing ads during a prime time special next Wednesday, just as a new study finds ABC News coverage of the president's health care plan is favorable by a ratio of 3 to 1.

The prime time special -- called "Questions for the President: Prescription for America" -- will be a nationally televised event during which Obama will answer questions presented by audience members selected by ABC News. The network has refused to accept advocacy ads during the hourlong show.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele accused ABC News and anchor Charles Gibson of making Obama's case for "nationalized" health care "without any opportunity for opposing views to be aired.

In a fundraising e-mail aimed at raising nearly $100,000 to buy air time for a counterprogram, Steele said the RNC's request to add its views to the debate during the special was "flatly rejected" by ABC News.

"What are the Democrats and their media allies afraid of? The truth?" he asked in a fundraising letter to supporters. "That is outrageous! And we will not take it!"

But ABC News spokesman Jeffrey Schneider told FOXNews.com that it has been a "longstanding" policy not to accept "advocacy" ads.

Schneider explained that the policy was established decades ago and only local ABC affiliates air issue ads.

"Local stations have different standards," he said, adding that ABC News refused to air Obama's infomercial the week before the presidential election in November because it did not meet the station's standards.

Since the president's inauguration in January, ABC's "World News" and "Good Morning America" have aired stories that feature Obama or supporters of his health care plan 55 times compared to 18 appearances by critics of his plan, according to a Business & Media Institute (BMI) analysis released Wednesday.

Schneider said during Wednesday's broadcast a roomful of people will present a broad range of opinions on health care and be able to ask the president questions. Viewers will also be able to submit questions via ABCNews.com.

"We're going to be producing a fair and open and honest debate about health care, which is vitally important to the country" he said. "The point of the debate is to hear from all sides."

Rick Scott, chairman of Conservatives for Patients Rights, is pushing ABC News to reconsider its ban on issue ads.

"It is unfortunate -- and unusual -- that ABC is refusing to accept paid advertising that would present an alternative viewpoint for the White House health care program," he said in a statement, noting estimates that potential legislation costs at least $1 trillion of taxpayer money.

"The American people deserve a healthy, robust debate on this issue and ABC's decision -- as of now -- to exclude even paid advertisements that present an alternative view does a disservice to the public."

Some conservative bloggers are calling for people to boycott advertisers on ABC.

"All Americans who are opposed to a major media arm becoming a visible branch of the presidential political machine" should use the marketplace to voice their objection, one blogger wrote.