What Fun: We're Like The Soviet Union!

According to Senator Lamar Alexander, anyway:

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.), the U.S. secretary of education from 1991 to 1993, tells National Review Online that President Obama's revamping of the federal student-loan program is "truly brazen" and the "most underreported big-Washington takeover in history."

"As Americans find out what it really does, they'll be really unhappy," Alexander predicts. "The first really unhappy people will be the 19 million students who, after July 1, will have no choice but to go to federal call centers to get their student loans. They'll become even unhappier when they find out that the government is charging 2.8 percent to borrow the money and 6.8 percent to lend it to the students, and spending the difference on the new health-care bill and other programs. In other words, the government will be overcharging 19 million students." The overcharge is "significant," Alexander adds, because "on a $25,000 student loan, which is an average loan, the amount the government will overcharge will average between $1,700 and $1,800."

"Up to now, 15 out of 19 million student loans were private loans, backed by the government," Alexander says. "Now we're going to borrow half-a-trillion from China to pay for billions in new loans. Not only will this add to the debt, but in the middle of a recession, this will throw 31,000 Americans working at community banks and non-profit lenders out of work."

Alexander, a former University of Tennessee president, says the effects of Obama's policy could be felt for decades. "When I was education secretary, one of my major objections to turning it all over to the government was that I didn't think the government could manage it," he says. "This is going to be too big and too congested, and makes getting your student loan about as attractive as lining up to get your driver's license in some states."

"It changes the kind of country we live in more than it changes American education," Alexander concludes. "The American system of higher education has become the best in the world because of choice and competition. Unlike K-12, we give money to students and let them choose among schools, having the choice of private lenders or government lenders. That's been the case for 20 years. Having no choice, and the government running it all, looks more like a Soviet-style, European, and even Asian higher-education model where the government manages everything. In most of those countries, they've been falling over themselves to reject their state-controlled authoritarian universities, which are much worse than ours, and move toward the American model which emphasizes choice, competition, and peer-reviewed research. In that sense, we're now stepping back from our choice-competition culture, which has given us not just some of the best universities in the world, but almost all of them."

Doesn't that just make you feel good?  Obama and the Congressional Dems got us with a two-fer: government control of health care and Soviet-style education.

What's not to love?

There's my two cents.

A True Blood Boiler

This is truly sickening:

In a decision likely to strike many observers as cruel, a federal appeals court ordered the father of a Marine killed in Iraq whose funeral drew protesters from a church notorious for such demonstrations to pay the church leader's $16,510 in legal fees.

… Snyder won his case against Westboro in the lower court but that decision was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in September.

Losers in such cases often are made to pay legal fees and the appeals court may have just been following that common practice.

Cassy Fiano adds:

It's bad enough the Fred Phelps and his band of lowlifes are emerging victorious in this. The judge apparently wants to rub salt into the hero's father's wound. I just cannot believe that a judge can be so heartless and cruel.

Well, I can, but it doesn't make me any less angry.

The American Legion has apparently stepped up to help the Snyders with expenses, but if you'd like to contribute, go here.

Just when you think the liberal Left has reached the lowest level of the sewers, they find a way to break through to whole new levels.

There's my two cents.

***UPDATE***
Fox News' Bill O'Reilly has volunteered to pay Snyder's legal fees.  Patriot!

Obama's About Face Typical Democrat Position On American Energy

Interesting.  I was all set to post this today...

Remember this from Obama's first State of the Union speech?

I agree 100% with his suggestion that we need more safe, clean nuclear power plants, and that we need to open up new offshore oil and natural gas development. Amen! Unfortunately, I don't believe for a second that he'll follow through. Dems have a 100% record of opposing precisely those measures. I sincerely hope he follows through, but I'll be shocked.

Bingo, via RedState:

President Obama shared a vision of our nation's energy future:

But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. That means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. …

Two months later, if you replace "making tough decisions" with "continuing to do nothing" in that sentence, you've got a clear picture of what's happening.

Not only did the President make a disingenuous suggestion of a push to open new offshore areas (read: Virginia and the Eastern Gulf, off Florida) during the SOTU, over a year of foot-dragging by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar may jeopardize the regular annual leasing program in the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico - that 15% of the Outer Continental Shelf that is currently open for leasing.

Is Obama addicted to lying?  I mean, he's lied about so many things since he came onto the national scene (and even before that, really) that I honestly have to wonder.  Actually, I think it's more likely that he understands that the majority of this country is happy with a center-right government, and since he is as far left as it is possible to get, he has to lie about everything in order to disguise his genuine desires and intentions.  Either way, this is just one more example of Barack Obama saying one thing and doing the opposite.

There's my two cents.

Then I saw this:

After dispensing with a health-reform bill that mostly pleased liberals and alienated nearly all conservatives, President Obama heads back to the ideological middle Wednesday with a dramatic -- and controversial -- new plan for domestic oil exploration. "The Obama administration is proposing to open vast expanses of water along the Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the north coast of Alaska to oil and natural gas drilling, much of it for the first time, officials said Tuesday," the New York Times reports, adding: "The proposal -- a compromise that will please oil companies and domestic drilling advocates but anger some residents of affected states and many environmental organizations -- would end a longstanding moratorium on oil exploration along the East Coast from the northern tip of Delaware to the central coast of Florida, covering 167 million acres of ocean.

WHAT?!

Obviously, something is wrong with this picture.  Let's look a little deeper...

...the White House is implying the promise of jam tomorrow - in reality, it's just a study to revisit the denial of jam yesterday - in exchange for jam today. Only the jam today is actually a swarm of angry wasps.  Try again, Mr. President.  Start with rescinding your interference with the Bush drilling permits, and expect to give up more.  A lot more: your opponents are not interested in indulging the Greenies' quaint, somewhat primitive religious sensibilities.

Moe Lane at RedState thinks this is simply setting down political cover for the coming second whack at cap-n-tax.  At best, it will be several years before these studies are finished, so this really doesn't do anything...except make a nebulous promise of future action.

In short, don't be fooled.  Michelle Malkin adds this piece of perspective:

But as always with this administration, there's a catch, via the American Energy Alliance:

"One major flashpoint in the negotiations has been whether to share drilling revenue with states and to allow states to opt in or out of drilling along their coastlines. It was unclear late Tuesday whether Obama endorses revenue-sharing for states. "It appears the Northern Atlantic and entire Pacific Coast will now be under a de facto ban" for drilling, said Patrick Creighton, a spokesman for the Institute for Energy Research. Even if drilling is ultimately allowed in part of the Atlantic, Creighton said, revenue sharing is an essential incentive for states. The administration's plans could meet resistance from at least 10 Senate Democrats representing coastal and Great Lakes states who last week raised concerns about "unfettered access to oil and gas drilling" that could jeopardize fishing, tourism and military exercises. ...

She also reports that Mike Pence isn't taking the bait:

"As usual the devil is in the details. Only in Washington, D.C., can you ban more areas to oil and gas exploration than you open up, delay the date of your new leases and claim you're going to increase production.

"The President's announcement today is a smokescreen. It will almost certainly delay any new offshore exploration until at least 2012 and include only a fraction of the offshore resources that the previous Administration included in its plan.

"Unfortunately, this is yet another feeble attempt to gain votes for the President's national energy tax bill that is languishing in the Senate. At the end of the day this Administration's energy plan is simple: increase the cost of energy on every family in America and trade American jobs oversees at a time when millions of Americans are looking for work."

House Minority Leader John Boehner wasn't suckered, either:

[Boehner] dismissed the president's plan as not going far enough in opening up U.S. waters for exploration.

Obama's decision "continues to defy the will of the American people," Boehner said in a statement, pointing to the president's decision to open Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico waters, while leaving Pacific and many Alaskan waters largely closed to exploration.

"It's long past time for this Administration to stop delaying American energy production off all our shores and start listening to the American people who want an "all of the above" strategy to produce more American energy and create more jobs," the House GOP leader added. "Republicans are listening to the American people and have proposed a better solution – the American Energy Act – which will lower gas prices, increase American energy production, promote new clean and renewable sources of energy, and encourage greater efficiency and conservation." ...

For his part, Boehner tied today's administration decision to potential climate rules under consideration by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as well.

"At the same time the White House makes today's announcement, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is plotting a new massive job-killer that the American people can't afford: a cascade of new EPA regulations that will punish every American who dares to flip on a light switch, drive a car, or buy an American product.  Americans simply don't want this backdoor national energy tax that will drive up energy and manufacturing costs and destroy jobs in our states and local communities," the Ohio Republican said.

That political gamesmanship could explain what's going on all by itself, but I think there's one other piece to this puzzle (emphasis mine):

The Interior Department is ready to announce its analysis and review of defects in a program covering lease sales off much of Alaska's coastline, including Arctic waters, according to a legal filing Tuesday.

Just one lease sale has been conducted under the 2007-2012 five-year Outer Continental Shelf lease program - the February 2008 Chukchi Sea sale that earned the federal government $2.7 billion. Additional sales were scheduled for the Chukchi and three other Alaska areas.

A federal appeals court ruled nearly a year ago that the Bush-era Interior Department did not properly study the environmental impact of expanding oil and gas drilling off the Alaska coast before authorizing its five-year program.

...

Sea ice is a key element in the Beaufort Sea on Alaska's north coast, the Chukchi Sea on the state's northwest coast, and the Bering Sea, including Bristol Bay, home to the world's largest sockeye salmon fishery.

All three seas are on the migratory paths of endangered whales. The Beaufort and Chukchi seas are home to Alaska's two polar bear populations. Indigenous communities rely on marine life for subsistence hunting and fishing, and some fear industrial activity - from ship traffic to noise to spills - will permanently alter their homes.

...  Elected officials in Alaska, which takes in about 90 percent of its general fund revenue from the oil industry, continue to push for lease sales that will lead to exploration and extraction.

Hm, that's very interesting.  Sea ice, whales, and polar bears.  Staple 'em together and you'd have an enviro-nitwit fundraising calendar.  Could Obama be giving with one hand while taking away with the other?  Nah, surely not.  ***cough cough***

Oh, and never forget that one last detail in everything concerning Alaska: Sarah Palin.  I wouldn't be one bit surprised if squeezing her (very non-populous) state was part of the equation out of pure spite, too.  With only one lease sale since 2007, and with Alaska relying on oil revenues for its livelihood, this sure looks like a stranglehold to me...but with Mother Earth's best interests at heart, of course.  Of course.

Is this really a new direction for Obama and the Democrats?  Sure, if you believe I can sprout wings and fly whenever I want to.

Just sayin'...

There's my two cents.

Left Vs. Right In Pictures

It's always informative to see direct comparisons between the Left and the Right. I think it helps present the stark contrast between how the two sides operate, and between what motivates the two sides.

Pajamas Media posts pictures from two rallies just a few days ago:

On March 27, 2010, thousands of people gathered in the small town of Searchlight, Nevada, for a political rally.

Just 250 miles away and seven days earlier, there was another political rally of similar size in Los Angeles on March 20, 2010.

The Searchlight rally was generally oriented toward the political “right.”

The Los Angeles rally was generally oriented toward the political “left.”

Now, if you had only the entrenched media as your sole source of information about these rallies, you might likely assume (without even bothering to investigate) that the right-wing rally was an epicenter of hate, racism and craziness, whereas the left-wing rally was undoubtedly about peace, tolerance and rationalism. Luckily, we no longer have to rely on the mainstream media. In both cases, citizen journalist bloggers were on hand to document the proceedings with eye-opening photo essays

They say you are defined by the company you keep. Time to choose:

Right-wing rally, Searchlight, Nevada, March 27, 2010
(Photos by El Marco)

Sarah Palin.

Hannah Giles.

Left-wing rally, Los Angeles, California, March 20, 2010
(Photos by Ringo)

Quite informative, no? Which one do you think best represents the heart of America? Which one best represents you?

There's my two cents.

You May Have Noticed A Slight Change...

Blogger just released some new template toys, so I wanted to play around with the look of 2Cents. Feel free to drop me a comment to let me know what you think!

Hey, Guess What? TARP Worked So Well That They're Making It Permanent!

No, it's not a sick joke, unfortunately:

In mid-October 2008, at the height of the Presidential campaign, Heritage Foundation analyst Rea Hederman began receiving emails alerting him that he was a star in a new multimillion-dollar ad campaign for then-candidate Barack Obama. The ads claimed that Hederman believed the middle class would be better off under the Obama tax plan. Nothing could have been further from the truth. In fact, Hederman's analysis of the Obama tax plan found the exact opposite: that Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) tax plan would produce twice as many jobs as then-candidate Obama's plan and leave middle-class families with, on average, $1,500 more in after-tax disposable income.

Now President Obama's minions are at again, blatantly misquoting Heritage Foundation analysts in a desperate attempt to make their far left big government agenda appear to be centrist. This time the culprit is Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Neal Wolin, who told a U.S. Chamber of Commerce summit this week:

On Monday evening, we took an important step towards final enactment of financial reform. The Senate Banking Committee has now voted out a comprehensive bill. Along with the bill passed by the House last December, it represents a strong foundation on which to build a safer financial system.
…
This should not be a partisan or ideological debate. As David John of the Heritage Foundation has said, "Taxpayers should never again be forced repeatedly to bail out financial services firms like AIG because a company poses a risk to the entire financial system and regulators lack the necessary tools to close the company safely."

The quote is accurate; The Heritage Foundation does believe that we need financial reform that will ensure taxpayers never again have to bail out Wall Street, but it is 100% false to insinuate that Heritage believes the bill written by Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and passed out of committee this week is the solution to that problem.

Here is, in fact, what John has written about the Dodd bill:

The Senate Banking bill proposes to create a new $50 billion fund to be used in "emergencies" to close or restructure failing financial institutions or those perceived as being in danger of default. This fund is certain to be used for bailing out any politically significant financial institution and is nothing less than a permanent TARP program.
…
Despite rhetoric about using bankruptcy for most failures, the draft makes it clear that this is to be handled through a bureaucracy subject to political pressures, since the bill also does not include language adapting the bankruptcy process to the special needs of complex international financial institutions.

In other words, not only does the Dodd bill not prevent future taxpayer-funded Wall Street bailouts, it virtually guarantees them forever. Just as the original $700 billion TARP fund quickly devolved into President Obama's personal slush fund, the Dodd bill empowers the Treasury Secretary to take over and liquidate any financial firm at any time, and no one can stop him. The Independent Institute's Peter Klein adds:

Perish the thought, but suppose a secretary of the Treasury has a crony who really wants to buy an investment bank on the cheap—and will provide some future quid pro quo. Pick a time when equities are down and you could make a case that a financial company is wobbly. Voila, it gets liquidated in a fire sale.

And so it is business as usual in the Obama White House. The empowerment of big government, the enrichment of cronies, all justified by phony bi-partisanship and centrist rhetoric. Don't be fooled. The Dodd bill and the Obama agenda take the worst of our current financial system and puts it on steroids.

Um...call me crazy, but I'm not exactly thrilled about the idea that the Treasury Secretary can take over any financial institution on a whim.  How about you?  Can anyone say tyranny waiting to happen?

There's my two cents.

Biden Is Honest About His Lean Toward Absolute Devotion To Socialism

Gateway Pundit:

Yahoo Finance reported, via Free Republic:

In part two of my exclusive interview, I asked the Vice President whether we can afford these tax cuts, given the country's massive federal deficits. Biden's view is that we can't afford not to do them: "We can't afford to leave the middle class behind," he says. "These things matter to people who are struggling and they matter to people who have lost their jobs as well."

There's also the issue of whether these tax cuts, in conjunction with the health care reform bill signed last week, represent a redistribution of wealth in America, as many claim.

"It's a simple proposition to us: Everyone is entitled to adequate medical health care," Biden says. "If you call that a 'redistribution of income' — well, so be it. I don't call it that. I call it just being fair — giving the middle class taxpayers an even break that the wealthy have been getting."

The top quintile of Americans earned 55.7% of pretax income and paid 69.3% of federal taxes in 2006, according to the most recent CBO data. But the Vice President isn't buying the idea that the wealthiest are already paying their fair share, noting the top 1% of earners get 22% of all income made in the U.S.

"Taxes have been lowered for the wealthy considerably over the years," he says. "It's about time we get a little tax equity here."

GP comments: "Let's face it. We're ruled by hardcore socialists."

That's most definitely true, but my question would be: is America so far gone that hardcore socialists like Biden and Obama can actually be honest about themselves without fear of repercussions?  We'll find out in the next couple of elections.  I'm pretty confident that's not the case, but it's going to take people who disagree to actually get out and do something about making this country less socialist.

There's my two cents.

The Process Is Important

Joe Hicks at Pajamas Media recently posted an excellent article about Barack Obama's contradictory stances on the process of passing DemCare:

...when I watched Barack Obama's interview with Fox News' Bret Baier, I saw something that made me sit up and take notice. During the interview, President Obama stated:

I don't spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are in the House or the Senate.

What I can tell you is that the vote that's taken in the House will be a vote for health care reform. And if the people vote yes, whatever form that takes, that is going to be a vote for health care reform.  And I don't think we should pretend otherwise.

Let me get this straight. Obama is a Harvard-trained constitutional lawyer who once taught con law at the University of Chicago. Yet, here's this man, the president, saying: "I don't spend a lot of time worrying about what the procedural rules are in the House or the Senate."

Wait a minute — didn't this president have any constitutional concerns about the "procedure" involved in the strong-arm tactics that were employed to pass a government-run health care plan that amounts to a takeover of one-sixth of the nation's economy?

Even Democrats had grave concerns about the process to jam through a health care plan few Americans wanted. Democrat pollsters Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen noted before the House vote that "four-fifths of those who oppose the plan strongly oppose it … while only half of those who support the plan do so strongly."

But what does it matter?  Isn't the outcome the only thing that matters?  No, not really:

...Obama has tried to present himself as a deep thinker, a cautious, intellectual president who moves carefully — in other words, a political pragmatist. However, his ruthless rush to pass a health care bill — damn the consequences or the methods used — exposed him as an opportunist who will trash the Constitution if necessary to gain a legacy for himself and remake America as we've known it. If we let him, Obama — rooted as he is in the beliefs of the old radical Saul Alinsky — would have America resemble a European-style social democracy, not the nation that rose to greatness based on individual liberty and free market capitalism.

The outcome may be what we live with, but the process is how those outcomes are achieved.  By relying on a twisted an unethical process, any twisted and unethical outcome may be achieved.  Indeed, Hicks hits the nail on the head:

Obama's comment that he "doesn't care about the procedural rules" tells us at least one thing: this president is an ideologue.

He wants to remake America and doesn't care if his fellow Democrats will pay the price for what he's done at the ballot box. And he doesn't seem to care that every trick in the political book got played by Pelosi and company to pass his plan. He just wanted the victory — even if it may be Pyrrhic.

There's that ideologue thing again!  Anyone who doesn't understand this about Obama really needs to wake up before it's too late.  Anyway, his willingness to use the twisted an unethical processes that came into play on DemCare makes it clear that he's willing to use the same tactics for any of his other agenda items, thus proving that his remaking project is a vast danger to all law-abiding American citizens.  When the Constitution is ignored, trivialized, or brutalized, we all suffer.

Barack Obama is causing great suffering in America.  Worse, he will not stop until the American people rise up in vast numbers at the ballot box and force him to stop.  He has plainly taken a position squarely in opposition to the will of We The People.  It's our move.

There's my two cents.

It's Time For A Change

I think we all agree that our current tax system sucks eggs. There are a couple viable alternatives, if the political will -- and populist anger -- is there to enact such a sweeping change. Here is one of those alternatives:

I'll admit I haven't studied up on the Flat Tax or the Fair Tax enough to render anything resembling a thorough opinion, but both seem to me to be better alternatives than the inherently unfair and punitive system we have to deal with now. Of course, a corrupt Congress is more than capable of warping any system, which brings us right back to the fact that we need responsible leaders with integrity first, and only then can we address these other issues.

Your thoughts?

There's my two cents.

***UPDATE***

The correct video has now been posted. Sorry about that!

Down The Slippery Slope We Go

Hot Air posts this video which poses a very interesting hypothetical:

Stop and think about that for a minute. If it is constitutional for the government to force all Americans to purchase health insurance (especially from a government exchange or option), why would it be any different for the government to force all Americans to buy anything they want us to buy? It's hard to imagine any more slippery slope, and we're now staring over the precipice, just about reading to step forward.

Is this really the America of the Founders? Is this the America that has been a bastion of freedom for over 200 years? Is this the America that we want to pass to our children and grandchildren?

Better make up your mind fast, because if DemCare isn't repealed -- starting with a massive change at the ballot box to get rid of everyone who supported DemCare -- that's exactly what it will be.

There's my two cents.

Chickens Coming Home To Roost

Cassy Fiano at Hot Air's Greenroom has the first half of the news:

Obamacare can't save this sinking ship. After completely ignoring the will of the American people, Democrats get to enjoy a new low: a disapproval rate of 72%. And guess what? It hasn't been that low since — you guessed it — 1994.

Tucked away inside a new Washington Post/ABC News poll is a key figure — 72 percent. That's the percentage of voters who disapprove of the job Congress is doing, and the number hasn't been that high since — you guessed it — the week before the 1994 election.

The Cornhuser Kickback and Gator-aid — two controversial provisions in the healthcare bill — are a couple of attractively named and accessible reasons why people don't like how Congress operates. And at no point in the last 16 years has that picture been so clear to voters.

Republicans are by no means immune to the dirty politics that permeate Washington. Democrats, though, have brought it to a whole new level. Pelosi promised Americans the most ethical Congress ever — and instead, we got corruption, cronyism, thuggery, bribery, and secrets. Obama promised Americans hope and change — and instead, we got Chicago style corrupt politics as usual. Ethics? Transparency? Yeah, right. It's no wonder that Americans are furious.

And then, Democrats hypothetically spat in the faces of their constituents, passing a takeover of the American health care system against our will.

Americans are furious, all right. And this November, the chickens are coming home to roost. You can't ignore the will of the American people and expect them to smile blandly and keep voting you into office. Represent the American people well, or you will be voted out. It's that simple.

Ace of Spades provides the second half:

Gallup: Obama's Approval Drops to Lowest Level Yet, 46%

With 48% disapproving.

And, as usual, this is with adults, not voters, and definitely not likely voters.

Obama is among those waiting eagerly to see what's in the health care bill. Maybe there's an extra 5% approval for him lurking around in those 2200 pages.

Clinton's Prediction... Of a ten point bounce for Obama upon passage of the socialist health care plan seems in error.

I love chicken, especially fried...

There's my two cents.

The Gory Details

I've already posted a rough outline of what we can expect under DemCare, but here are some more details.  Specifically, this gets into more of the gory details of when your taxes start going up, when your health care gets whacked, and when you'll start feeling the punitive effects of DemCare.  Read it, learn it, deal with it...it's the law now:

Courtesy of the House Committee on Ways and Means comes this timeline of DemCare socialized medicine. And this is only a taste of the hell to come. One thing is absolutely certain: if you like your existing plan, you most definitely will not be able to keep it.

  2009  

• Medicare cuts to hospitals begin (long‐term care (7/1/09) and inpatient and rehabilitation facilities (FY10))

  2010  

• Provide income exclusion for specified Indian tribe health benefits provided after 3/23/10
• Temporary high‐risk pool and high‐cost union retiree reinsurance ($5 B each for 3.5 years) (6/23/10)
• Impose 10% tax on indoor UV tanning (7/1/10)
• Medicare cuts to inpatient psych hospitals (7/1/10)
• Prohibits lifetime and annual benefit for private insurers spending limits (plan years beginning 9/23/10)
• Prohibits non‐group private insurance plans from canceling coverage (rescissions) (plan years beginning 9/23/10)
• Requires private insurance plans to cover, at no charge, most preventive care (plan years beginning 9/23/10)
• Requires private insurance plans to allow dependents to stay on parents' policies through age 26 (plan years
beginning 9/23/10)
• Hospitals in "Frontier States" (ND, MT, WY, SD, UT ) receive higher Medicare payments (FY11)

  2011  

• Hospitals in "low‐cost" areas receive higher Medicare payments for 2 yrs ($400 million, FY11)
• Medicare Advantage cuts begin
• No longer allowed to use FSA, HSA, HRA, Archer MSA distributions for over‐the-counter medicines
• Medicare cuts to home health begin
• Medicare cuts for wealthier seniors ($85k/$170k), who are forced to pay higher Part D premiums (not indexed for inflation in Parts B/D)
• Medicare reimbursement cuts when seniors use diagnostic imaging like MRIs, CT scans, etc.
• Medicare cuts begin to ambulance services, ASCs, diagnostic labs, and durable
medical equipment
• Impose new annual tax on brand name pharmaceutical companies
• Americans begin paying premiums for federal long‐term care insurance (the CLASS Act, which analysis indicates is a ticking fiscal time-bomb)
• Private insurance plans required to spend a minimum of 80% of premiums on medical claims (where 65% is considered the maximum "safe" amount to cover claims). Prior experience at the state level will indisputably harm private health insurance business.
• Physicians in "Frontier States" (ND, MT, WY, SD, UT ) receive higher Medicare payments
• Prohibition on Medicare payments to new physician‐owned hospitals (which will dramatically reduce access to senior care)
• Penalties for non‐qualified HSA and Archer MSA distributions double (to 20%)
• Seniors prohibited from purchasing power wheelchairs unless they first rent for 13 months
• New Medicare cuts to long‐term care hospitals begin (7/1/11)
• Additional Medicare cuts to hospitals and cuts to nursing homes and inpatient rehab facilities begin (FY12)
• New taxes on all private health insurance policies to pay for comparative effectivness research (plan
years beginning FY12)

  2012  

• Medicare cuts to dialysis treatment begins
• Medicare to cut spending by using an HMO‐like coordinated care model (Accountable Care Organizations)
• New Medicare cuts to inpatient psych hospitals (7/1/12)
• Medicare cuts to hospitals with high readmission rates begin (FY13)
• Medicare cuts to hospice begin (FY13)

  2013  

• Impose $2,500 annual cap on FSA contributions (indexed to CPI)
• Increase Medicare wage tax by 0.9% and impose a new 3.8% tax on unearned , nonactive
business income for those earning over $200k/$250k (not indexed to inflation)
• Generally increases (7.5% to 10%) threshold at which medical expenses, as a % of income, can be deductible
• Eliminate deduction for Part D retiree drug subsidy employers receive
• Impose 2.3% excise tax on medical devices
• Medicare cuts to hospitals who treat low‐income seniors begin
• $500,000 deduction cap on compensation paid to insurance company employees and officers

  2014  

• Unconstitutional personal mandate begins: Individuals without government‐approved coverage are subject to a tax of the greater of $695 or 2.5% of income
• Employers who fail to offer "affordable" coverage would pay a $3,000 penalty for every employee that receives a subsidy through the Exchange
• Employers who do not offer insurance must pay a tax penalty of $2,000 for every fulltime employee
• More Medicare cuts to home health begin
• All non‐grandfathered and Exchange health plans required to meet federally mandated levels of coverage
• States must cover parents /childless adults up to 138% of poverty on Medicaid, receive increased FMAP
• Tax credits available for Exchange‐based coverage, amount varies by income up to 400% of poverty
• Private insurers cannot impose any coverage restrictions on pre‐existing conditions (guaranteed issue/renewability, which will bankrupt insurance providers)
• Private insurers must offer coverage to anyone wanting a policy and every policy has to be renewed (which will bankrupt insurance providers)
• Insurance plans must include government‐defined "essential benefits " and coverage levels
• Government board (IPAB) begins submitting proposals to cut Medicare
• Impose tax on nearly all private health insurance plans
• Medicare payment cuts for hospital‐acquired infections begin (FY15)

  2015  

• More Medicare cuts to home health begin

  2016  

• Impose "Cadillac tax on "high cost" plans, 40% tax on the benefit value above a certain threshold: ($10,200 individual coverage, $27,500 family or self‐only union multiemployer coverage)

There should be little doubt that this extravaganza of central planning will be devastating for insurers, pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers, doctors, nurses, hospitals, and their business partners. It will crush an economy that is already flat on its back.

Let me ask you Democrats something. When -- in all of recorded human history -- has this kind of central planning, with price controls, arbitrary dictates, wage-fixing, giveaways, bribes, payoffs, cutout deals, and social engineering experiments, ever worked?

It's a rhetorical question, you anti-American moonbats. This bill sentences our seniors to premature disease and death while assuring our children of poverty, misery and economic dislocation. Of this, there can be no doubt.

How 'bout that hope-n-change now?  No wonder 55% of Americans already want it repealed.

There's my two cents.

Scary True

Current events according to Michael Ramirez...









Hey, he's not wrong...

There's my two cents.

Companies Admit DemCare Will Cause Severe Pain

DemCare is so awesomely awesome that companies are now starting to publicize just how much pain it's going to cause.

Caterpillar

Caterpillar Inc. said the health-care overhaul legislation being considered by the U.S. House would increase the company’s health-care costs by more than $100 million in the first year alone.

John Deere

Farm equipment maker [John] Deere expects after-tax expenses to rise by $150 million this year as a result of the health care reform law President Barack Obama signed this week.

Most of the higher expense will come in Deere’s [DE 60.94 0.45 (+0.74%) ] second quarter, the company said on Thursday. The expense was not included in the company’s earlier 2010 forecast, which called for net income of about $1.3 billion. …

AT&T

“AT&T Inc. will take a $1 billion non-cash charge in the first quarter” the Associated Press reported today. And by “take a non-cash charge” what they really mean is that President Barack Obama’s health spending plan just ate $1 billion out of AT&T’s bottom line. And that’s to pay for just one of the tax hikes wrought by Obamacare.

Let's pause at the moment to examine this a bit more:

AT&T is just one of many companies that subsidize Medicare drug coverage for their retirees. The new health law slaps a tax on those subsidies, effective next year. In addition to costing the communications giant a cool billion, the tax is likely to cost workers and retirees a cherished benefit. AP notes that, because of the legislation, AT&T is now “looking into changing the health care benefits it offers to active and retired workers.”

So much for the promise about being able to keep the health care you have!

Awesome, right? But that's not all...

“3M Company Today That It Expects To Record A One-Time Non-Cash Charge Of $85 To $90 Million After Tax… Resulting From The Recently Enacted Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act.” “3M Company said today that it expects to record a one-time non-cash charge of $85 to $90 million after tax, or approximately 12 cents per share, in the first quarter of 2010, resulting from the recently enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, including modifications made in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 passed by Congress on March 25, 2010. The charge is due to a reduction in the value of the company’s deferred tax asset as a result of a change to the tax treatment of Medicare Part D reimbursements.”

“AK Steel Holding Corp., The Third Largest U.S. Steelmaker By Sales, Said It Will Record A Non-Cash Charge Of About $31 Million Resulting From The Health-Care Overhaul Signed Into Law By President Barack Obama.”

Here's what this means, via Hot Air:

Some may say, Well, great! It pays for ObamaCare. It also takes the cash that would have fueled expansion, new job creation, and retirement income and sticks it into the hands of government bureaucrats. It will massively bleed the economy at a point in time where we desperately need the private sector to invest in itself and create new jobs and new opportunities.

But that's not even the best part. Get a load of this:

This past week several big companies, including Caterpillar, Verizon, and AT&T, announced that ObamaCare would cost them millions of dollars this year. To pay for it they variously suggested layoffs and benefits reductions. Analysts suggest that the total first-quarter hit to S&P 500 firms will be $4.5 billion.

Well, Democrats can't stand to have their precious economy-destroying healthcare program criticized in its very first week, so they've announced an "investigation" into the claims. Late yesterday, the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation sent letters to the CEOs of AT&T, Caterpillar, Deere & Co, and Verizon asking them to appear for a hearing on their claims. In the letters, Waxman and Stupak ask for company documents including accounting analyses and the internal emails of all "senior company officials" related to the projected costs of ObamaCare. How serious are they? The letter actually defines "senior company officials."

Power Line has a copy of one of the letters.

Not content with their victory, Democrats won't rest until they've beaten down anyone who points out the devastation caused by their anti-prosperity policies. This will be as much of an "investigation" as the Democrats' demonization of oil company CEOs last summer or Toyota execs more recently.

Byron York has much more here. Bottom line:

In coming days, Republicans are likely to emphasize the costs, both financial and human, of the new law. In an interview Thursday, Rep. Tom Price, head of the House Republican Study Committee, said his party's first priority will be to "identify as often as possible the detrimental and remarkably consequential effects of this bill on communities." Price specifically pointed to the Caterpillar and Deere announcements as examples of what GOP lawmakers will cite as the adverse effects of the law. (At the time Price spoke, AT&T had not yet announced its decision.)

Given that, it's no wonder Democrats are planning an aggressive campaign against the businesses involved. Elections are coming up, and Democratic leaders are in no mood to hear discouraging words about what they regard as their signature achievement.

Now, let me take you back to January of this year. Remember the furor on the part of Democrats when the Supreme Court allowed businesses and corporations to put out political ads?

It's clear what the Democratic line of attack is going to be this year: all populism all the time. Wall Street, banks, corporations, and disfavored industries like health insurers, petroleum are going to get a hell of a battering while Democrats founder trying to buy votes by pretending to be the best palls of Middle America.

...

[The] core of Citizens United [is]: you have a right to speech, you have a right to associate with others, and you don't give up your right to speech when you choose to associate. The Constitution does not give to Congress the power to pick favored speakers and disfavored speakers. In fact, the First Amendment specifically prohibits such anti-democratic laws.

Democrats, however, place more importance on speech bans than countering speech they don't like. The democratic (small 'd') response to speech you disagree with is more speech. For Democrats, more political speech is to be avoided. For Democrats, too much political participation is bad for democracy. For Democrats, a lone man or woman speaking up for themselves is fine, but a group speaking up for itself is "corruption."

And, of course, 'group' means businesses and corporations. Now that these businesses -- and there's every reason to think many more will do so in the coming months -- are coming out to clearly say that their financial troubles are directly related to DemCare, do we understand why the Dems threw such a hissy fit about them suddenly being able to actively run campaign ads against those who are destroying them?

Mm-hmmm...

Ironically, through all of this, Barack Obama was remarkably honest about one thing:

Bingo. And that's the problem.

There's my two cents.

Fun And Frivolity: Haircuts And Powderpuff Cheerleading

A little humor from Patriot Post:

The Haircut

One day a florist went to a barber for a haircut. After the cut, he asked about his bill, and the barber replied, "I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week." The florist was pleased and left the shop.

When the barber went to open his shop the next morning, there was a "thank you" card and a dozen roses waiting for him at his door.

Later, a police officer came in for a haircut and, when he tried to pay his bill, the barber again replied, "I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week." The officer was happy and left the shop.

The next morning when the barber went to open up, there was a "thank you" card and a dozen donuts waiting for him at his door.

A Congressman came in for a haircut and, when he went to pay his bill, the barber again replied, "I can not accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week." The Congressman was very happy and left the shop.

The next morning, when the barber went to open up, there were a dozen Congressmen lined up waiting for a free haircut. And that, my friends, illustrates the fundamental difference between the citizens of our country and the politicians who run it.

Boy, is that not scary accurate, or what?

I couldn't resist posting this video of a stellar powderpuff cheerleading performance tour de force:

See more funny videos and funny pictures at CollegeHumor.

Now that's being secure in your manhood! (Not sure what they're going to do with those stretched-out cheerleader outfits, though.)

Have a great weekend!

Some Very Timely Words From The Founding Fathers

On the dangers of too much power in a central government...

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."
-- James Madison --

"The multiplication of public offices, increase of expense beyond income, growth and entailment of a public debt, are indications soliciting the employment of the pruning knife."
-- Thomas Jefferson --

You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.  When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
-- Adrian Rogers --

"The house of representatives ... can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as the great mass of society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interest, and sympathy of sentiments, of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny."
-- Federalist No. 57 --

"[T]he Constitution ought to be the standard of construction for the laws, and that wherever there is an evident opposition, the laws ought to give place to the Constitution."
-- Alexander Hamilton --

On the concept of freedom and responsibility...

"A fondness for power is implanted, in most men, and it is natural to abuse it, when acquired."
-- Alexander Hamilton --

"[W]ith respect to future debt; would it not be wise and just for that nation to declare in the constitution they are forming that neither the legislature, nor the nation itself can validly contract more debt, than they may pay within their own age or within the term of 19 years."
-- Thomas Jefferson --

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."
-- Thomas Jefferson --

"Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood."
-- John Adams --

"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm."
-- James Madison --

That is all.

There's my two cents.

CBO Busts The Fudged Job Numbers

What's the biggest thing on most Americans' minds right now?  Jobs.  Obama's stimulus was supposed to have fixed that, but any reader of this blog (or thinking being with a pulse) knows better.  Still, the CBO offered a report a few weeks ago that stated around 1.5 million jobs were saved or created by the stimulus.  Remember, though, that the CBO is legally required to accept all assumptions given to it before it calculates anything...even if those assumptions are ludicrous.  The Dems have simply gotten very good at gaming CBO scores by including ludicrous assumptions in their bills.

Now, the CBO busts 'em for it.  Brian Riedl reports:

A few weeks ago, I posted that CBO's estimate that the stimulus created saved 1.5 million jobs was not based on any actual examination of the post-stimulus economy. Instead, CBO essentially re-released their initial prediction that the stimulus would work, and presented that as proof that it did work.

 

This is like a weather forecaster saying that the high yesterday was 65 degrees, because that is what had been predicted — even though it actually never topped 50 degrees.

 

Now, CBO director Doug Elmendorf has finally conceded that they never actual examined this stimulus bills' affect on the economy. Responding to a questioner following a recent speech, he admitted that the CBO's jobs count was "essentially repeating the same exercise" as their initial projections. When asked if this means their jobs projections would have ignored any failures of stimulus spending to perform as CBO predicted, Mr. Elmendorf responded "that's right." (Exchange begins at 38:20.)

 

CBO never actually counted the jobs. Nor did their analysis take into account the rising unemployment rate. Or the economic figures. Or how effectively the money was spent. They merely assumed this government spending "must have" saved 1.5 million jobs.

 

An asteroid could have destroyed the entire Unites States outside of Washington, D.C., and (as long as the money was spent), the CBO's model would have still claimed the stimulus saved 1.5 million jobs

 

More specifically, CBO first programmed their economic model to automatically assume that stimulus spending creates/saves millions of jobs. And then (surprise!), their model concluded that the stimulus created/saved millions of jobs. This is a classic case of the "begging the question" fallacy, also known as assuming what one is trying to prove.

 

Calculating the stimulus' impact on jobs is never easy or precise. Yet any jobs count that ignores the actual post-stimulus economy, and instead uses a computer model that is pre-programmed to guarantee a specific jobs figure should not be taken seriously.

I think the idea of a CBO scoring system is a good one, but I wonder if it might be more effective if, alongside their official score, they also released a document outlining their opinion of the assumptions and parameters that they were given.  This would give them an opportunity to remain strictly non-partisan (which is sorely needed) while avoiding the problems inherent in being forced to accept ludicrous assumptions.  Call it a score supplemental report or something.  Whatever.  Just do something to propel this important function into reality, and to prevent further abuse of the system.

But, while that may be a nice idea, it isn't how things work now, so it's pretty much irrelevant.  What isn't irrelevant is the fact that the Obama administration has been caught again and again cooking the books to support its destructive policies.  They simply cannot be trusted on anything from this point on.

There's my two cents.

About Obama's Civilian Security Force Private Army...

Remember this from back in 2008:

Earlier in the week, I posted about Obama's proposed civilian security force and included some information about how Hitler did the same thing when he first came to power.  Courtesy of FaultlineUSA, here is some more information on how that whole gig works and why it's a dangerous concept according to history:

The Praetorian Guard was a special force of household troops used by Roman Emperors. Augustus saw the need to establish a body of soldiers explicitly loyal to himself. Following the death of Sejanus the Guards began to play an increasingly ambitious and bloody game in the Empire. With the right amount of money, or at will, they assassinated emperors, bullied their own Prefects, or turned on the people of Rome. In 41 Caligula was killed by conspirators from the senatorial class and from the Guard. The Praetorians placed Claudius on the throne, daring the Senate to oppose their decision.

In 1925 Adolf Hitler formed his own personal bodyguard called the Schutzstaffel (SS). The SS was a major Nazi organization under Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party. The SS grew from a small paramilitary unit to an elite, powerful, force that served as the Fuhrer's "Praetorian Guard' the Nazi Party's "Shield Squadron" and a force with as much political influence as the regular German Armed Forces. Built upon the Nazi racial ideology, the SS, under Heinrich Himmler's command, is said to be primarily responsible for many of the war crimes perpetrated by the Nazis during World War Two.

Recently Mr. B. H. Obama, President-Elect of the United States of America, said the following:
"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Nancy Matthis (via Right Truth) provides us an update (excerpts):

Remember when Obama said he wanted a "national security force"? Not the national guard, but a civilian one that has not sworn to uphold the Constitution? On July 2, 2008 in a speech in Colorado Springs, Barack Obama called for a police state.

Remember that first alarming glimpse of what that army might look like? Notice how much these "Hitler youth" type young men talk about health care!

Obama just got his private army…

…And no one seems to have noticed. It is buried in the Senate revisions to the health care bill.

Subtitle C–Increasing the Supply of the Health Care Workforce
   Sec. 5201. Federally supported student loan funds.
   Sec. 5202. Nursing student loan program.
   Sec. 5203. Health care workforce loan repayment programs.
   Sec. 5204. Public health workforce recruitment and retention programs.
   Sec. 5205. Allied health workforce recruitment and retention programs.
   Sec. 5206. Grants for State and local programs.
   Sec. 5207. Funding for National Health Service Corps.
   Sec. 5208. Nurse-managed health clinics.
   Sec. 5209. Elimination of cap on commissioned corps.
   Sec. 5210. Establishing a Ready Reserve Corps.
Subtitle D–Enhancing Health Care Workforce Education and Training

You may be wondering why a private army might be needed, and what this HEALTHCARE bill dictates this private army will do.  Here you go:

SEC. 5210. ESTABLISHING A READY RESERVE CORPS.
Section 203 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 204) is amended to read as follows:
...
(c) PURPOSE AND USE OF READY RESERVE.–
(1) PURPOSE.–The purpose of the Ready Reserve Corps is to fulfill the need to have additional Commissioned Corps personnel available on short notice (similar to the uniformed service's reserve program) to assist regular Commissioned Corps personnel to meet both routine public health and emergency response missions.
(2) USES.–The Ready Reserve Corps shall–
(A) participate in routine training to meet the general and specific needs of the Commissioned Corps;
(B) be available and ready for involuntary calls to active duty during national emergencies and public health crises, similar to the uniformed service reserve personnel;
(C) be available for backfilling critical positions left vacant during deployment of active duty Commissioned Corps members, as well as for deployment to respond to public health emergencies, both foreign and domestic; and
(D) be available for service assignment in isolated, hardship, and medically underserved communities (as defined in section 399SS) to improve access to health services.
(d) FUNDING.—For the purpose of carrying out the duties and responsibilities of the Commissioned Corps under this section, there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to the Office of the Surgeon General for each of fiscal years 2010 through 2014. Funds appropriated under this subsection shall be used for recruitment and training of Commissioned Corps Officers.

So...does it get any more vague than this?  Basically, it appears that the President can call up his private army and direct them to do whatever he wants as long as he can claim it's in the best interests of public health.

I guess Nancy Pelosi wasn't kidding when she said that we'd have to pass the bill before finding out what was in it.  Of course, this begs the question of what other secret goodies have now been enshrined into law by a bunch of Congressional lemmings following their Pied Piper?

While you ponder that scary thought, take comfort in knowing that Obama Youth is now officially enacted!

Image credit: Reader Rachel in Kentucky

There's my two cents.