ObamaCare Summit: An Impasse-able Meeting Of The Minds

President Obama held his oft promised televised health care summit at the Blair House on February 25, 2010 with members of both parties in the House and Senate. Ostensibly the objective of the President’s health care summit meeting was twofold; (1) have a meeting of the minds between both parties to move forward with bi-partisan health care reform legislation and (2) because he promised the American public eight times during his 2008 campaign that, "…we will work on this process publicly. It'll be on C-SPAN. It'll be streaming on the Internet” (better a year and a half late than never to deliver on that promise).

However the actual reason for President Obama to suddenly call this summit in the “spirit of bi-partisanship” is that, in the wake of Scott Brown’s Republican Senatorial victory in Massachusetts, he no longer has the opportunity to ram his grossly unpopular ObamaCare package through a supermajority Democratic Senate. So after losing the “race with the angel” with Scott Brown’s 2010 election, he fabricates this ObamaCare summit as a political ploy in an attempt to dupe the public into thinking he is actually “listening” to their concerns over his health care package.

Listening? The “summer of 2009” Tea Parties, anti-ObamaCare Town Hall rallies, polls consistently showing that the majority of Americans are not in favor (approx. 60% according to Rasmussen polls) of his ObamaCare package were not a loud enough message for this President to abandon ObamaCare and, as Republicans suggested, start over,? Even his own 2009 super majority Democratic House and Senate could not “agree to agree” on his ObamaCare proposal and allow him to sign it into legislation in 2009 before the “race with the angel”. In the face of anti-ObamaCare outcries he has continued to move forward with his unpopular agenda. If not a believer, just take a look at his 2010 deficit budget package of $3.8 trillion in spending, showing a deficit of $1.6 trillion. This is not a President that listens! Hopefully, the President’s own Federal Employees Health Benefits program has a provision for reimbursing hearing aids.

So how would one characterize the tenor of the ObamaCare summit? Do the words grandstanding, insolent, condescending and overbearing come to mind? As Republican attendees Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Eric Cantor (R-VA) dazzled the President with facts, the President dismissed their points with double-talk sarcasm. Rep. Ryan hoisted the President with his own petard by cornering him with his creative ObamaCare double accounting, which results in a $500 billion deficit in its first ten years and a $1.4 trillion deficit in its second ten years. See the following exchange between Rep. Ryan and our back peddling President, which drives home this point:


Rep. Cantor was condescendingly chastised by the President Obama for bringing to the summit the Democratic Senate’s 2,400 page bill and the President’s 11 page proposal. The President referred to it as a prop,

“…when we do prop like this, stack it up and you repeat 2,400 pages, et cetera, you know, the truth of the matter is -- is that health care's very complicated.”

A PROP?? IT’S HIS BILL!!!

So after the President reminded everyone that he didn’t want to actually SEE the mess he created, in his exchange with Rep. Cantor he resurfaced his “share the wealth” analogy with his proposal of a governmental controlled health insurance risk pool to include both healthy and unhealthy insured. After a frustrated Rep. Cantor informed the President for the umpteenth time that his ObamaCare plan is unaffordable, the President skirts the issue. Surprised? Since he ascended to the Presidency when has Mr. Obama ever thoughtfully considered American costs as he systematically bankrupts America with his proposals. See the exchange below, especially 10:20 into it when the President does his “share the wealth” dance on his governmental insurance pool proposal.


Towards the end (13:05) of the Cantor-Obama exchange Vice-President Biden actually had a lucid moment and made a point that sums up the impasse between the Obama left-wing faction of Congress and the Republicans and the American people. The Vice-President remarked that,

"…the question is how far to go. So ... you're either in or you're out. (Either) the government can't do it -- none of it -- or they can do some."

Exactly. The Republicans and the American people have long ago recognized that the government “can’t do it” and are “out”. But, again, this is a President and Democratic Congress that is hearing impaired and refuses to listen. Taking the Vice-President’s remarks one question further, why would the American people respond by saying the government “can’t do it”?

It is not as though Republicans and the American people do not believe in holistic health care reform as to care and cost. But they want this achieved through private sector, free-enterprise health insurance purchasing opportunities sold across state lines, with limited government oversight, that affords them personal choices as to cost and coverage. Republicans and Americans are seeking meaningful medical malpractice tort reform which in turn would reduce defensive medicine practices and their overall health insurance premiums. And Republicans and Americans want the Federal government to return to them their freedoms and prosperity, not imposing more governmental control over their lives while bankrupting them in the process.

When it comes to health care reform the Republicans are not the party of “no”; that handle is written all over the Democratic Congress. Republicans have put forth 31 measures for meaningful health care reform that have all been summarily killed by the hearing impaired Democratic leadership in the name of obstructionism, to serve their special interests and socialistic agenda for America.

It is plain to see that President Obama went into his summit with a foregone conclusion that his ObamaCare package will be passed as is come hell or high water and damn the 2010 elections. The latest development is that Democratic led Senate will “force feed” ObamaCare on America by using reconciliation, aka the nuclear option, which requires only a 51 majority vote to pass the ObamaCare bill. The Hill reports that,

“President Barack Obama closed Wednesday’s healthcare summit by stating his willingness to use controversial rules to pass healthcare with a simple majority vote. “We cannot have another yearlong debate about this,” Obama said. “When it comes to the most contentious issue, I'm not sure we can bridge the gap”.

The Hill also reports that Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), an attendee at the summit, said,

“I think one of the results of today’s meeting is that the American people fully understand that this bill needs to go forward with a majority,” Waxman said. “I don’t think too many people are going to quibble if it involves reconciliation.”

And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi must have many Democrats who are up for re-election in November this year grabbing their collective chests with her latest bomb. According to the Speaker she personally doesn’t care about the 2010 election results as long as her left-wing, socialist Democratic party passes ObamaCare and imposes more government control, cost and waste on the American people. After the ObamaCare summit Pelosi said the following,

"We're not here just to self-perpetuate our service in Congress," she said. "We're here to do the job for the American people.”

Perhaps the Speaker meant to say “…do the job ON the American people”.

All in all President Obama’s health care summit was nothing more than one of his grand taxpayer funded photo-ops not worth the used napkins at the lunch breaks.

• the Republicans have offered health care solutions to the President, House and Senate leadership that are dismissed out of hand,


• the American people have offered their voice of opposition to ObamaCare through Tea Parties, Town Halls, New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts Republican victories,


• the Congressional Budget Office has scored ObamaCare as a long-term deficit ridden disaster,


• and public policy health care experts have stated emphatically that ObamaCare will result in more costs, less options and reduced care.

President Obama and his Democratic Congressional leadership’s response are to ignore and dismiss those messages and selfishly progress along their disconnected path towards socializing America.

President Obama’s health care summit was the final recognition that America and his agenda are at an impasse that cannot be bridged. But this deep philosophical divide between President Obama and his Democratic Congress and that of the American people will be resolved come this year’s November elections. To that point there was one comment made by the President as he wound up his summit that was agreed by all,

“…that's what elections are for”.

Rep. Paul Ryan's "Roadmap For America's Future": Brave, Courageous And Bold

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), ranking member of the House Budget Committee and a senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee, has put forth a controversial but courageous visionary budget policy for the future. Rep Ryan’s proposal entitled “Roadmap for America’s Future” is a statesman’like plea to the American people for “getting real” when it comes to fiscal responsibility. Rep. Ryan’s Roadmap is so “real” that the CBO agreed to score it against the Obama administration's fiscal policies and projections. According to the CBO scores Ryan's budget proposal moves the country in the right fiscal direction on every policy point as compared to the Obama budget projections, which does the polar opposite.

Rep. Ryan's Roadmap is fraught with tough love budgetary policies engineered to finally put America’s fiscal house in order. This Roadmap is not your typical politician’s duplicitous budget plan ripe with special interest and base-pleasing provisions that only rearranges the deficit spending deck chairs. Ryan’s Roadmap is asking Americans to make some immediate tough choices given the dire financial prospects facing all Americans as we white knuckle on the Obamanomic runaway spending express.

His plan would bend the federal debt, spending and economic curves in the opposite direction of the current administration’s projections. But at the same time the Roadmap requires all Americans to take upon themselves more personal responsibility for their future retirement health care and pensions through concessions in entitlement programs, the major causes and drains on public debt and spending.

The provisions in Ryan’s courageous plan are not for the faint of heart, but if you really want a heart stopper take a glimpse of our future at the attached CBO analysis comparing Ryan’s Roadmap proposal to the current administrations off-the-chart trajectories of 3 key economic indicators: government spending, public debt and economic growth/capita. According to the CBO for each indicator Ryan’s Roadmap bends the trajectories in the correct dierction, i.e., the polar opposite of the Obamanomic projections.

Chart 1: Obamanomic Govt. Spending Compared to Ryan Roadmap

In chart 1 under Ryan’s Roadmap, federal spending peaks in 2033 at 24.1% of GDP. It levels off and drops after that and settles at approximately 15% of GDP by 2080. The Obamanomic federal spending levels would continue to rise each year from 2010 up to a startling 65% of GDP by 2080.

Chart 2: Obamanomic Public Debt Compared to Ryan Roadmap

In chart 2 Ryan's Roadmap keeps debt held by the public from spiraling to unsustainable levels. Under Obama’s current policy, debt held by the public soars to the improbable level of more than 750% of GDP (though the economy would crash well before this level was reached). As CBO notes in its June 2009 "The Long-Term Budget Outlook", countries that carry debt of more than 100% of GDP must change their fiscal policies because those levels are not sustainable over the long run. The Roadmap also slows the accumulation of debt held by the public, and eventually reduces debt year-over-year beginning just before the middle of the century.

Chart 3: Obamanomic Economic Growth Compared to Ryan Roadmap

Chart 3 shows data from CBO that, under Ryan’s Roadmap, the standard of living for a child born today would double the time he or she reached middle age, just after the middle of the century. In this way, the sustainable budget path continues the American legacy of providing the next generation with the opportunity for continued prosperity. This contrasts with the Obamanomic fiscal policy, which leads to stagnant, and declining, standards of living. In short, unlike the current Obamanomic fiscal path, Ryan's Roadmap supports the American legacy of leaving the next generation better off than it's predecessor generation.

So what are the directions in Rep. Ryan’s Roadmap to point these charts in the right trajectory and arrive at our destination of fiscal sanity ? Rep. Ryan gets us there by blazing a trail reshaping the three major impediments to fiscal responsibility: Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security and punitive progressive tax rates. Taking aim at controlling Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security costs is imperative to controlling fiscal spending, and this point may not be well understood by most Americans. Bruce Bartlett, a former domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush, confirms this by stating,

"Many polls show that the vast majority of Americans have no idea of the true composition of federal spending. According to a recent Rasmussen survey, just 35% of Americans know that Social Security, Medicare and national defense spending constitute more than 50% of the federal budget. A 2001 poll showed that half of all Americans thought foreign aid comprised at least 20% of the budget, and the average response was 25%. In fact, foreign aid is less than 1% of the budget and has been for decades."

The highlights of Ryan's Roadmap provisions are as follows:

• Medicare: current Medicare recipients and those enrolling in the next decade would continue under today's program, though wealthier recipients would pay somewhat higher premiums. In 2021, Medicare would become a voucher program for new recipients (those today 54 or younger). With vouchers, recipients would buy Medicare-certified private insurance. In today's dollars, the vouchers would ultimately grow to $11,000. Eligibility ages for Medicare and Social Security would slowly increase toward 69 and 70, respectively.
  
• Medicaid: modernizes Medicaid and strengthens the health care safety net by reforming high-risk pools, giving states maximum flexibility to tailor Medicaid programs to the specific needs of their populations. Allows Medicaid recipients to take part in the same variety of options and high-quality care available to everyone through the tax credit option.


• Social Security: for those 55 or older today, the program would remain unchanged. For those younger, benefits would be reduced, with no cuts for the poorest workers. Workers 55 or younger in 2011 could establish individual investment accounts that would be funded with part of their payroll taxes. Government would guarantee a return equal to inflation.


• Tax Reform: taxpayers could choose between today's incomprehensible tax system and a streamlined replacement having no deductions and virtually no special tax breaks. Above a tax-free amount of $39,000 for a family of four, taxpayers would pay only two rates: 10 percent up to $100,000 for joint filers and 25 percent on income greater than $100,000.

In addition Ryan proposes a spending freeze at 2009 levels from 2010 to 2019 for non-defense discretionary spending, which is about 1/6th of the federal budget.

Political commentary reaction to Rep. Ryan’s proposal has on many fronts been laudatory and praises his proactive concern for America’s fiscal future. Ezra Klein writes in the Washington Post the following,

“…But it is also impressive. I wouldn't balance the budget in anything like the way Ryan proposes. His solution works by making care less affordable for seniors. I'd prefer to aggressively reform the system itself so the care becomes cheaper, even if that causes significant pain to providers. I also wouldn't waste money by moving to a private system when the public system is cheaper. But his proposal is among the few I've seen that's willing to propose solutions in proportion to the problem. Whether or not you like his answer, you have to give him credit for stepping up to the chalkboard.”

Robert Samuleson of the Post also praises Ryan’s courageous proposal and calls for the Obama administration to step up to the plate on a fiscal solution. Samuleson writes,

“…But the larger point is that Ryan is trying to start a conversation on the desirable role and limits of government. He's trying to make it possible to talk about sensitive issues -- mainly Social Security and Medicare -- without being vilified. President Obama recognized that when he called Ryan's plan a "serious proposal." But since then, Democrats have resorted to ritualistic denunciations of him as pillaging Social Security and Medicare. Legitimate debate becomes impossible. If Democrats don't like Ryan's vision, the proper response is to design and defend their own plan. The fact that they don't have one is a national embarrassment."

Notwithstanding the Washington Post’s support, in spirit, for Ryan’s Roadmap the question is whether it is politically feasible. The Democratic party has expectedly greeted Rep. Ryan’s Roadmap with no acceptance and no alternatives to their systematic dismantling of America’s fiscal security. The Washington Post reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded to Rep. Ryan’s proposal with her typical vacuous political (vs. statesperson) "Bush-baiting" charges by saying

"The Republican budget provides tax breaks for the wealthy, ends Medicare as we know it and privatizes Social Security. Here they go again, rehashing the same failed Bush policies."

A no-surprise political response from a no-solution leader. The Republican leadership, though, is treading cautiously around Ryan’s Roadmap and has not embraced it as expected. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) distanced himself from the legislation by saying "it's his," referring to Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.). Boehner emphasized the document did not have the backing of all House Republicans.

Bruce Bartlett confirms both party leadership’s lack of support for Ryan’s proposal and calls for a needed public and congressional attitude transformation in order to get real about runaway fiscal spending. In Forbes Bartlett says,

“The Ryan plan is, of course, politically ludicrous. It would be impossible to get Congress to even implement one of its major provisions, let alone all of them simultaneously. And I say this as someone who in principle supports many of the ideas in his plan. For example, I believe we must raise the retirement age, and it's hard to see how we can meaningfully reform the health system to reduce cost inflation as long as health insurance is free of taxation. But I don't delude myself that it is possible to implement such changes absent a major transformation in political attitudes or conditions that do not now exist."

Bartlett’s perspective is dead on and places American attitudes towards government spending at the crossroads of fiscal ideology. As Rep. Ryan points out in his Roadmap letter to America the two paths are clear:

(1) ever-rising levels of government spending that will overwhelm the Federal budget and the U.S. economy with crushing burdens of debt and higher taxes and a future in which America’s best century is the past century or (2) a second future- one in which the principles that created America’s freedom and prosperity are restored.

Rep. Ryan has stepped out on to the proverbial political limb and bared his soul for all to see how deep his concern is for regaining America’s prosperity . His ambitious Roadmap may not be, in its totality, a politically pragmatic nor practical solution to the challenges facing America’s economic future. However it sets the pace and tone for the courageous conversation to commence. If the Obama administration, Congress and the public have the courage to meet him half way on his Roadmap for America’s Success perhaps America will regain its path towards economic prosperity.

Brave, courageous and bold expectations for all.

For more information on Rep. Ryan’s “Roadmap for America’s Success” please visit its website at http://www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov/.

Also, the below Cato Institute podcast by Chris Edwards provides some excellent insight into how aspects of Rep. Ryan’s Roadmap prevents America from continuing it’s economic “death spiral” into financial obscurity under the dangerous Obamanomic policies holding hostage America’s economy.

Chris Edwards is the director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute and a top expert on federal and state tax and budget issues. Before joining Cato in 2001, Edwards was senior economist on the congressional Joint Economic Committee examining tax, budget, and entrepreneurship issues. Edwards' articles on tax and budget policies have appeared in the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, Investor's Business Daily, and other newspapers. He is the author of "Downsizing the Federal Government" and co-author of "Global Tax Revolution". He holds a B.A. and M.A. in economics.

President Obama's State Of The Union Address: Bullying On The Bully Pulpit

President Obama needs to learn to play nice in the sandbox and not bully his playmates. At least that is the message America needs to send to Mr. Obama after his first State of the Union (“SOTU”) address on Wednesday, 1/27/10. In 2009 President Barack Hussein Obama, the leader and most powerful figure of the free world, had the gift of a super Democratic majority in the House and Senate upon taking occupancy in the White House and was the darling of the national and international press corps. And what did he accomplish over his first full year in office with that massive front line? A hopeless agenda of anti-American change rejected not only by the American people and the GOP, but by his own party.

So in the President’s SOTU address whose fault is that? According to President Obama it’s everyone’s but his. Throughout his 70 minute SOTU tirade he kicked, yelled and pointed his finger at former President George W. Bush (surprise, surprise), both parties of Congress, the Supreme Court no less, lobbyists and the American people to let them know as much. One only wishes President Obama would express such exuberant passion against terrorists, praising our country and for growing the economy as he does when he doesn’t get to play with all his toys.

Peter Wehner in Politics Daily has this to say about the President’s address,

“The speech was defensive and petulant, backward-looking and condescending, petty and graceless. He didn't persuade people; he lectured them. What was on display last night was a man of unsurpassed self-righteousness engaged in constant self-justification. His first year in office has been, by almost every measure, a failure – and it is perceived as a failure by much of the public. Mr. Obama cannot stand this fact; it is clearly eating away at him. So he decided to use his first State of the Union to press his case. What he did was to set back his cause.”

The most glaring example of Mr. Obama’s petulance in his address was his unprecedented unpresidential, disrespectful dressing down of the Supreme Court, compounded by that he didn’t even have the facts correct in his condescension to the Court, as evidenced by Justice Alito’s reaction to the President’s remarks (see video below).


America has in their midst a President who has been coddled and entitled his entire life. From affirmative opportunity entrance to Harvard law school preceding a mediocre college career, an undistinguished law professor and “present voting" Illinois state senator career that led to his “empty suit” 304 day stint as Illinois U.S. Senator, Barack Obama has always been provided all the toys he wanted without earning the right to have them. Now he doesn’t quite understand why, as President, that the yellow brick road that guided him to the presidency has turned rusty and riddled with such obstinate obstacles as the U.S. constitution, bill of rights, freedom of speech, good old fashioned American capitalism and pesky Republican victories in New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts. Well, Mr. Obama, you’re not in Chicago anymore.

A bully’s tactic is overtly premised on fear and intimidation to accomplish their goal, but is covertly driven by insecurity and inadequacy. In President Obama address he attempted to convey fear to the American people if they did not support his domestic agendas and intimidation to Democrats and Republicans alike if they didn’t earnestly work towards enacting said agenda. But what drives his fear and intimidation is his miserable failures as a first year President as evidenced by American tea party and Washington march outcries and even a lack of confidence in his agenda by his own super Democratic majorities.

CBS News poll




President Obama’s first full year in office has been remarkably dismal and is reflected in his polls showing, according to Gallup, one of the lowest average approval ratings for a first year President in over 50 years. After a full year in office the President has managed to create unprecedented national debts and deficits, record breaking unemployment, imposed anti-capitalist tax laden and failed stimulus spending, held hostage important initiatives while promoting a failed socialist and unconstitutional $2.5 trillion health care agenda, employed socialist/government takeover of American industries, dismantled and compromised national security measures and enacted policies that provide more leniency to terrorists than America’s own intelligence agencies. Ergo, are we surprised by the poll ratings?

Mr. Obama doesn’t accept those ratings nor does he accept that his playmates, Congress, the Supreme Court and the American people are not entitling his failed agenda. So in his SOTU does Obama take a page from former President Clinton’s playbook in 1994 when Democrats lost the House and show America he gets it, have a “lesson learned” and pivot to the center away from his socialist/progressive agenda? No, his choice is NOT to listen, but to arrogantly bully, cajole, intimidate, strike fear and blame Washington for the very same old and cold tactics of influence that he campaigned to “change”.

But who is Washington? President Obama IS Washington and his presidential promise to change its old ways cloaked in a marketing message of “hoax” and change” has been exposed. In the President’s SOTU address he put lobbyists on the chopping block by saying,

“We must take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to end the outsized influence of lobbyists...that's why we've excluded lobbyists from policy-making jobs or seats on federal boards and commissions."

However, as reported in The Hill, within 24 hours of that comment the administration invited those very same lobbyists he threw under the bus in his SOTU address to participate in a series of off-the-record conference calls with senior officials to discuss a range of topics; a prime example of the hypocritical behavior of an intimidating bully who desk pounds “do as I say, not as I do”.

America and President Obama would like to put behind us his connections to his ACORN, Saul Alinsky and Bill Ayers days of years past that trained him in the tactics of intimidation and fear. The “hope and change” President Obama campaigned on is not a wish for America, but one America wishes for Mr. Obama. For America wishes and hopes he will change his philosophical approach to his presidency and come to the realization that he represents all Americans, will put forth policies to utilize America's unique platform of opportunity for success and capitalize on those building blocks to improve America's status.

But if President Obama continues his socialist agenda grounded in American resentment employing ACORN/Alinsky bullying tactics his presidency will be lame-duck long before its time.

This is because, in the end, bullies never win; they are simply exposed for what they are.


The below is the GOP response to the President's SOTU address, ably delivered by newly inaugurated Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell

National Guard Tribute: "Always Ready, Always There"

The National Guard, the oldest component of the Armed Forces of the United States and one of the nation's longest-enduring institutions, celebrated its 373rd birthday on December 13, 2009. The National Guard traces its history back to the earliest English colonies in North America. Responsible for their own defense, the colonists drew on English military tradition and organized their able-bodied male citizens into militias.

Following World War II, National Guard aviation units, some of them dating back to World War I, became the Air National Guard, the nation's newest Reserve component. The Guard stood on the frontiers of freedom during the Cold War, sending soldiers and airmen to fight in Korea and to reinforce NATO during the Berlin crisis of 1961-1962. During the Vietnam war, almost 23,000 Army and Air Guardsmen were called up for a year of active duty; some 8,700 were deployed to Vietnam. Over 75,000 Army and Air Guardsmen were called upon to help bring a swift end to Desert Storm in 1991.

Since that time, the National Guard has seen the nature of its Federal mission change, with more frequent call ups in response to crises in Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, and the skies over Iraq. Most recently, following the attacks of September 11, 2001, more than 50,000 Guardmembers were called up by both their States and the Federal government to provide security at home and combat terrorism abroad. In the largest and swiftest response to a domestic disaster in history, the Guard deployed more than 50,000 troops in support of the Gulf States following Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

Today, tens of thousands of Guardmembers are serving in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan, as the National Guard continues its historic dual mission, providing to the states units trained and equipped to protect life and property, while providing to the nation units trained, equipped and ready to defend the United States and its interests, all over the globe.

A belated happy birthday to the National Guard and God bless America's brave men and women of the National Guard who are "always ready and always there" to protect and serve our nation on it's shores and abroad.

For more information on the National Guard please visit it's website at http://www.ng.mil/.

Bank Of Obama: Where The Distraction Is

President Barack Obama is channeling infamous bank robber Willie Sutton. Over his career Willie Sutton was purportedly responsible for robbing over $2 million from banks. When asked why he robbed banks legend has it that Sutton responded by saying, “because that's where the money is." President Obama obviously agrees with Mr. Sutton and knows this all too well given his latest legislative “heist” proposal.

Since President Obama is incapable of and refuses to control budgetary costs due to his reckless government spending programs he predictably, like a good little socialist, is attacking and attaching corporate America profits to do his job for him. And which corporate industry does he target? Again, predictably, he pursues his favorite corporate “whipping boy’, the financial institutions “because that’s where the money is”. But is it really about money or is there something else afoot with Mr. Obama's latest socialist brain child proposal?

Obama has now proposed legislation to Congress to impose a 0.15% fee on certain liabilities of financial institutions with more than $50 billion in assets to, ostensibly, help recoup TARP bailout dollars and trim the federal budget deficit. This temporary (and we all know how long temporary is) fee, aka tax, is expected to raise as much as $90 billion over 10 years.

There is only one overarching flaw with this flavor-of-the-week politically motivated ObamaNomic fiscal strategy and that is THE INSTITUTIONS THAT CAUSED THE TARP LOSSES ARE FOR THE MOST PART EXEMPT FROM THIS OBAMA TAX AND THAT INCLUDES THE AUTOMAKERS, FANNIE MAE, FREDDIE MAC AND DELINQUENT MORTGAGE BORROWERS. ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF OBAMA POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT LEGISLATION TO PUNISH SUCCESS AND REWARD FAILURE.

Let’s once again attempt to comprehend the sophistry behind this latest and greatest ObamaNomic socialist/populist proposal, which is no more than a means to mask his socialist policies to date, force feed Americans more of the same and curry favor with his socialist political base. To quote Shakespeare’s Henry V, “Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more”.

David C. John of the Heritage Foundation helps to that end and provides excellent insight into the “Obamalogic” surrounding the President's latest proposed legislative debacle. To quote Mr. John’s reasoning,

“When President Obama announced the details of his Administration's plan to tax financial institutions, he said, "We want our money back, and we are going to get it." However, he doesn't seem to care who pays the money back, as most of the firms who would be forced to pay the "fee" either paid the money back with interest, took TARP money under duress only because the Treasury told them that they had to, or never took any money in the first place. The companies that have caused most of the TARP losses so far--GM and Chrysler--are exempt. The White House needs a villain to blame for the nation's continuing economic woes, and Treasury desperately needs revenue to reduce the massive deficits caused by the Obama Administration's spending policies. This is the wrong approach to reducing the swollen deficit and would inevitably cause more problems than it solves. It is a bad idea being used to score political points and should be dropped.”

Mr. John also notes major some points on how this Obama bank tax is both ineaquitable, economically unsound and politically motivated:

With one exception, the Obama bank tax does not apply to the entities that caused TARP's losses. As of September 30, 2009, TARP lost money on its bailout of AIG, auto companies GM and Chrysler, and the administration's program to help people refinance mortgages. TARP's other programs actually showed a small profit and Congress is certainly not going to make those individuals who benefited from the mortgage refinancing plan repay the losses of that program. The fee would not apply to Chrysler or GM, either.

the Obama bank tax is not designed just to recapture some of the profits that financial institutions made last year since it would apply to both profitable and unprofitable financial institutions. This structure would make it even harder for undercapitalized financial institutions to rebuild their financial strength and increase the risk of failure if the economy goes back into recession.

the Obama bank tax would be on top of both (1) another proposed new Obama FDIC fee that would apply to roughly the same group of financial institutions, and (2) the corporate income taxes that they currently pay.

the Obama bank tax is not structured in a way that would reduce irresponsible risk taking. Although the cost will be highest on firms that use riskier ways to finance their operations, the 0.15% level is not high enough to discourage them from doing so. Instead, this Obama bank tax is much more a case of Washington seeking a “cut of the bank’s action”.

despite claims that the Obama bank tax would be collected only until TARP deficits are "paid for" (about 10 years), history suggests that these temporary taxes become a permanent tax.

Warren Buffet, chairman and chief executive officer of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., is not pleased with this latest Obama proposal and had this to say about it,

“I don’t see any reason why they should be paying a special tax. Supporters of the plan to tax the banks are trying to punish people. I don’t see the rationale for it. Look at the damage Fannie and Freddie caused, and they were run by the Congress. Should they have a special tax on congressmen because they let this thing happen to Freddie and Fannie? I don’t think so. Most of the banks didn’t need to be saved.”

Doug Elliott, a fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington and a former managing director at JPMorgan Chase & Co, is quoted as saying, “The politics on this is really quite easy. The public would be supportive of anything up to shooting and burning the bankers.” For more comments on the pros, cons, likes and dislikes of the proposed Obama bank tax The Hill has commentary from an array of yea and nay sayers.

But all of the above must take time to understand the ObamaNomic sophistry behind Obama’s new flavor-of-the-week proposal. In his January 16, 2010 radio address Mr. Obama paints the picture of the bank "villain", handlebar mustache and all, quite well ,

“Like clockwork, the banks and politicians who curry their favor are already trying to stop this fee from going into effect. The very same firms reaping billions of dollars in profits, and reportedly handing out more money in bonuses and compensation than ever before in history, are now pleading poverty. It's a sight to see. If banks can afford to pay out all those bonuses, he said, then they can repay taxpayers, too. "We're not going to let Wall Street take the money and run. We're going to pass this fee into law,"

So there we have it-- a new Obama piece of larcenous legislation that is inequitable, benign as far as contributing to reducing the Obama deficit, will only reconfirm financial institution’s fears as to future uncertainty under the Obama economic regime and, in turn, will cause less business lending and greater effort toward retarding job growth.

Mr. Obama will, in his narcissistic sophist manner, exploit successful institutions to cause all of the above to mask his failures and socialist agenda, politicize an ongoing failing economy (which he created), along with blurring the lines even further between free and government-controlled enterprises. All of this done at the expense of the American worker.

In response to the question posed at the outset as to whether there is something else afoot here, other than money, with Mr. Obama's new and improved bank crusade I submit there is and it's called the old "shell game". A distraction from and an opportunity to continue the failed Obama socialist economic policies and agenda. Mr. Obama is simply applying his hero Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals #11--pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. And the target for President Obama is the banks.

Recall that Willie Sutton said he robbed banks because that’s where the money is; President Obama robs them because that’s where the distraction is.

Obama Terrorist Policy: America's Date With Disaster

As a follow-up to Political Policy’s post dated 1/15/10 entitled "Liberal Left's Loathing of the CIA", the following is an excerpt of an essay written by Mark Thiessen entitled "Stop Blaming the CIA", which was published in The Daily Beast. Mr. Thiessen is a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush and author of “Courting Disaster: How the CIA Kept America Safe and How Barack Obama is Inviting the Next Attack”.

“The report released by the White House on Thursday, January 21, 2010 into the failure to stop al Qaeda’s attempt to blow up a passenger plane over Detroit in 2009 on Christmas day found a number of mistakes and according to the New York Times, “The report concluded that the government’s counterterrorism operations had been caught off guard by the sophistication and strength of a Qaeda cell in Yemen, where officials say the plot against the United States originated.”

President Obama laid blame for this failure on the agency he has put under siege since his second day in office: the CIA. “This was not a failure to collect intelligence,” he declared this week, “it was a failure to integrate and understand the intelligence we had …. That’s not acceptable and I will not tolerate it.” But Obama’s chief counterterrorism advisor, John Brennan, told a different story, acknowledging that we did not, in fact, have all the intelligence we needed: “We did have the information throughout the course of the summer and fall about … plans to carry out attacks,” Brennan said. “We had snippets of information …. We may have had a partial name. We might have had an indication of a Nigerian. But there was nothing that brought it all together.”

The question is: why did we have nothing that brought all the “snippets” of information together?
Within 48 hours after taking office, President Obama eliminated the only tool that would allow the intelligence community to do so: the CIA program to interrogate senior terrorist leaders. Thanks to Obama, America no longer have the capability to detain and question the only individuals who know how the information fits together—the terrorists themselves.”

In National Review’s critique of “Courting Disaster” they write that Mr. Thiessen,

“tells the story of how America's dedicated intelligence professionals went head- to-head with the world's most dangerous terrorists, got them to tell us their plans, and kept America safe for eight years, until Barack Obama exposed their secrets to the enemy, unilaterally disarmed in the face of terror, and invited the next attack. In exposing these secrets, writes Thiessen, President Obama repeated a number of lies about the CIA program -- falsehoods that have been widely echoed in the news media and have become part of the conventional wisdom. Courting Disaster challenges that conventional wisdom, and refutes the false arguments that have been made by Obama and the critics of the CIA program.”

For an example of liberal media falsehoods about the CIA enhanced interrogation program, look no further than the attached video of Marc Thiessen challenging, exposing and holding accountable CNN's Christiane Amanpour as one of the guilty on that score.

Political Policy advises all those concerned about America’s national security and it's systematic dismantling in the name of political correctness by the Obama administration to read Mr. Thiessen’s essay in The Daily Beast and his new book “Courting Disaster”.

Through his book "Courting Disaster" Mr. Thiessen has performed a great service to his country by exposing the inherent dangers posed by the Obama administration’s naive, corrupt and incompetent national security policies that undermine both America's national intelligence agencies and it's homeland defense.

Post-Brown Syndrome and America's Holy War

We have all seen those insane religious fanatics on street corners spinning the gospel to satisfy their twisted religious beliefs. To find such a spectacle within the fanatical socialist religiosity of the left wing of the Democratic party look no further than the attached videos of their high priests and messiah doing the same on the street corners of the airwaves.

The aftermath of Republican Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts special election for Ted Kennedy’s vacant senate seat (aka, the real “Boston Tea Party”, the “Boston Massacre”, the “Boston Stranglehold”) has been much more than simply a clear message to the socialist wing of the Democratic Party that America rejects their agenda, it has been a religious meltdown experience for them. They are now speaking in tongues!!

If in doubt please view the following two videos. The first video is an hysterical, schizophrenic theocratic exchange between two Obama disciples, Chris Matthews and Howard Dean, on MS (“Many Socialists”) NBC’s Hardball two days after Scott Brown’s election. The second video is the messiah himself providing twisted “ecclesiastical” insight as to why Scott Brown was elected.

I don’t want to spoil the fun of watching these 3 religious fanatics of the church of LDS (“liberal democratic socialists”), but here is some of the exchange.

Matthews/Dean

MATTHEWS: Oh! You rationally would not have voted for the conservative Republican because he’s against health care, but you say the voters are irrational. They somehow send smoke signals in their voting. They vote for a conservative Republican who’s totally against health care to tell the country they want a progressive health care program. That’s crazy!
DEAN: We know what they did.
MATTHEWS: Are voters crazy?
DEAN: We actually know that they did.
MATTHEWS: Are voters crazy?
DEAN: Chris, there’s only one crazy person around here, and I may hold up a mirror. You may see him in a minute here.
MATTHEWS: But you mean that voters…?
DEAN: Don’t be silly.
MATTHEWS: I’m just looking at the results. I’m not cheering them; I’m looking at them. And you’re not looking at them.
DEAN: We –
MATTHEWS: You’re saying no matter who won… Suppose Coakley had won. You would have said that was a victory for progressive Democrats. Wouldn’t it be?
DEAN: No, I woulda said –
MATTHEWS: Wouldn’t you have said it if she won?
DEAN: I — I — I would have said, “Thank God the right person won.”
MATTHEWS: Okay. In other words, if she wins, that’s a victory for your side. If she loses, that’s a victory for your side.

The messiah himself in an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos

"Here's my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country: the same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office," the president said in an exclusive interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos. "People are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years."

So the socialist high priest Howard Dean believes that if Martha Coakley won OR lost the Massachusetts special election it is a victory for the Democratic party’s agenda and the messiah, aka President Obama, believes that electing a Republican in the Massachusetts special election is a referendum on the public’s anger over the Republican Bush years. I’m not a psychiatrist, but after viewing these two interviews there must be some connection between an intractable, fanatical religious-like belief in fatally flawed socialistic policies and delusional schizophrenia.

It is the best of times and the worst of times in America. With the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts it is the best of times for the Republican party as it is poised to take back America from the radical left leadership in Washington who are on a religious mission to deconstruct America and rebuild it into a socialist’s nirvana. The worst of times because, as those who love America wage this holy war against socialism, the country will continue to suffer dire consequences as the White House and the democratic congressional leadership continue their efforts to ravage American freedoms, foundations and security.

In the spirit of America’s Judeo-Christian foundations, we should all pray that both sides find solace and peace.