Filed under: Election 2012, Foreign Policy, National Security, Politics, Progressivism, The United States | Tags: All About Obama, Campaign Politics, Narcissist-in-Chief
Back in May, it was discovered that white House staff had edited the biographies of past presidents on the White House website to include a bullet point or two to insert President Obama into each historical essay.
Examples cited are when President Calvin Coolidge had been the first president to make a public radio address, President Obama is on Linkedin. While President Roosevelt introduced Social Security, under President Obama, it still exists. They managed to add incorrectly to President Ronald Reagan’s biographical sketch :
In a June 28, 1985 speech Reagan called for a fairer tax code, one where a multi-millionaire did not have a lower tax rate than his secretary. Today, President Obama is calling for the same with the Buffett Rule.
This is an embarrassing example of Obama failing to recognize the nature of the presidency. It’s not a self-aggrandizing role, but a protective and preservative one. Caring for the institution, and the predecessors and successors.
Now he’s apparently at it again. Heritage’s Jim Roberts who, when he worked at the State Department, wrote the “Background Notes,” which were analytical, objective histories of other countries, that help readers to understand the country and its relation to the United States, and are more comprehensive than the CIA “Factbook.” Now State is abandoning the “Background Notes” and replacing them with “Fact Sheets” which seem to be brag sheets, treating countries more favorably when Obama agrees with their government, and celebrating Obama’s relationship with the country.
Mr. Roberts describes the 4,100 word” Background Note” on Brazil written during the Bush administration, as full of facts and figures helpful in analyzing the country. No U.S. president is mentioned, and U.S.-Brazil relations only take up about 300 words.
Fully 70 percent of the “Brazil Fact Sheet” discusses President Obama either directly by name or in the context of the many programs the Administration h as launched with Brazil, including a shared “commitment to combat discrimination based on race, gender, ethnicity, or lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender status, to advance gender equality, a bilateral instrument that targets racism, support for HIV/AIDS prevention, promotion of clean energy technologies in Brazil, and mitigation of climate change.”
The “Background Notes” covered every country in the world and have long been a service to the American public. Now they seem to be campaign documents for the Obama administration. Under the Obama administration, the budget of the State Department has increased from $38.7 billion to $50.2 billion and thousands have been added to the payroll.
Filed under: Democrat Corruption, Economy, Election 2012, Freedom, Liberalism | Tags: Don't Talk About Jobs, Don't Talk About the Economy, Talk About Romney's Taxes
The White House continues to try to get Mitt Romney to release more of his tax returns. The customary 2 years is not enough for the liberals who hope to find that Mitt Romney is a filthy-rich man who didn’t pay enough taxes. Anybody who is wealthy and has a significant amount of income from investments has their tax returns examined with a fine tooth comb by the IRS, who have very fine combs indeed. Reject their fishing expedition. I’m quoting someone here, but I’ve forgotten who it was:
“I don’t care how Mitt Romney is spending his money; I care about how Obama is spending mine.”
Filed under: Freedom, Health Care, Liberalism, Politics | Tags: Contracption, Nine Dollars a Month, Taxpayer Paid?
Filed under: Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Economy, Election 2012, Health Care, Law, Politics | Tags: Capping Costs, Leftist Delusions, Reforming Medicare
In the beginning, the imperative for ObamaCare was upwardly spiraling health care costs. And what was it that was spiraling upwardly so fast that it needed immediate attention? It was Medicare. Not the overall cost of medicine.
Ideologically, the Democrats have always wanted single-payer health care. Complete government control. The farther left the Democrat, the more passionately they not only wanted it, but were determined that ObamaCare would become single-payer. Why? Got me. I cannot grasp the far left mind. Is it a matter of control? A matter of faith in governmental ability to do good? I’d be glad to listen to anyone’s analysis, but I cannot understand the thinking.
Ruth Marcus, Liberal columnist, parrots the talking point about turning Medicare into a “voucher program”, and asks rhetorically who do responsible Democrats turn to for answers? She turns to a list of 23 responsible leading Democrat thinkers: (don’t laugh) like John Podesta, Peter Orszag, Neera Tanden, Donald Berwick, Tom Daschle( former health care lobbyist) and Ezekiel Emanuel (Rham’s brother) who have a solution. You just cap costs.
The most far-reaching proposal is to have states, with the encouragement of federal grants, put in place a mechanism to set overall health cost caps, covering public and private spending….
The argument for caps is that otherwise costs are not lowered, just shifted around in a health care version of hot potato. If Medicare squeezes providers, they charge more to private insurers. If large insurers squeeze providers, they hike costs to smaller insurers.
The federal government should give bonus payments to states that ease laws restricting non-physician providers, such as highly skilled nurses, from providing services. Doctors should be shielded from malpractice suits if they adhere to best-practices guidelines. In other words, the authors do not shrink from ox-goring, and of a rather substantial herd: hospitals, doctors, medical manufacturers, trial lawyers.
These admirable Democrats are all exceedingly enthusiastic admirers of the British National Health Service (NHS), and want to imitate it. Theodore Dalrymple, pen name of Anthony Daniels, British physician, psychiatrist and author, explains in the LA Times the few admirable characteristics in a truly lousy system.
What you should notice is the almost automatic assumption on the part of Liberals that you control costs by cutting back on payments to doctors, hospitals and other providers. Has nobody noticed that doctors are leaving the profession in droves? In 2010 there were over 40 physicians running for office nationally. You probably know doctors who have quit. I know 4 personally, and I don’t know a lot of doctors. The Doctor Patient Medical Association reports that 83 percent of doctors have considered quitting because of ObamaCare. The DPMA reports that “America will face a shortage of at least 90,000 doctors by 2020.
The whole reason we had to reform health care was because Medicare costs were spiraling out of control, so Obama took $716 billion out of Medicare to lower the official cost of ObamaCare so that it would pass a solidly Democratic Congress
The dirty secret is that ObamaCare simply won’t work. The 90,000 doctor shortage should convince anyone. Why would the best and brightest continue to go into medicine? The tax on medical device makers is already strangling innovation, and sending companies overseas.
Liberals may think that doctors are rich and we pay them too much so we’ll make medicine cost less by capping payments. This whole stupid mindset can be summed up by Sandra Fluke’s demand that taxpayers pay for her contraceptives. It was quickly proven that the medication was available for $9 a month in some pharmacies, but liberals could not get over the idea that was something taxpayers should do for women. Personally, I would far rather have help with the bill for the $90,000 life-saving surgery.
When there is a shortage of doctors, Doctors refuse medical care to the patients where the reimbursement is not enough to cover their expenses. Medicare and Medicaid patients will be unable to find doctors. Obviously, they will go to the emergency room, and costs will rise.
It won’t work. We have to get rid of it.