News for social, fiscal & national security conservatives who believe in God, family & the USA. Upholding the rights granted by God & guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, traditional family values, "republican" principles / ideals, transparent & limited government, free markets, liberty & individual freedom. All content approval rests with the ARRA News Service Editor. Opinions are those of the authors. While varied positions are reported, beliefs & principles remain fixed. No revenue is generated for this site - no paid ads accepted - no payments for articles. Fair Use doctrine is posted & used. Editor/Founder: Bill Smith, Ph.D. [aka: OzarkGuru] - email@example.com (Pub. Since July, 2006)Home Page
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Environmentalism's Endless Lies
Alan Caruba, Contributing Author: I am on the Friends of the Earth (FOE) email list and receive a steady stream of theirs and the Sierra Club’s lies about the environment. A recent FOE mailing stating that “Devastation from climate change has become all too frequent.”
This is simply an outright lie. Inherent in natural events such as hurricanes and typhoons, blizzards, tornadoes, floods, droughts, and forest fires is the damage they cause, but FOE asserted that “People in vulnerable communities are already struggling with dirty air, unsafe housing and increased cancer rates. So when extreme weather hits, its impacts are even more devastating.”
All communities, from small towns to major cities are by definition “vulnerable”, but the air has undergone significant clean-up over the years so this is not a common problem anywhere. As for cancer rates, they too have been in decline thanks to advances in medical care. It is doubtful that most Americans live in allegedly unsafe housing these days. Houses on both coastlines are vulnerable to ocean storms. Houses inland are vulnerable to floods and fires. There is nothing inherently "environmental" about this. It's about location.
All this is little more than blatant scare mongering and FOE was calling on its members and others who received its email to “Call on President Obama to ensure that all Americans are protected from climate disasters.”
No President has any control over weather events. To FOE, however, this is a call for “critical environmental justice.”
There is no such thing as “environmental justice.” It is an invention of environmental groups that are intent on convincing people that whatever they do or fail to do somehow has an impact on the weather.
Indeed, the entire global warming hoax, now called climate change, was based on the lie that humans were responsible for producing huge amounts of carbon dioxide via industry, driving, or making some toast for breakfast. The environmental enemy was and is the use of energy, but it is energy that has so vastly improved and protected everyone’s life.
In a recent article, Dr. Craig Idso, the founder and former president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, a coeditor of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, and James M. Taylor, a senior fellow of The Heartland Institute and the managing editor of Environmental & Climate News, a monthly publication, examined how “Global Warming Alarmism Denies Sound Science.”
They took note of the way the Fifth Assessment Report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change moved away from its earlier predictions and assertions. “The IPCC report contradicts claims that global warming is causing more extreme weather” and “admits the lack of global warming this century defies nearly all computer models that predict rapid future warming.” The organization devoted to the global warming hoax has been forced to retreat from decades of lies about it.
While FOE tries to scare people with references to “extreme weather disasters”, Idso and Taylor pointed to the fact that “Global hurricane frequency is undergoing a long-term decline, with global hurricane and tropical storm activity at record lows during the past several years…The United States is benefitting from the longest period in recorded history without a major hurricane strike. Tornado activity is in long-term decline, with major tornado strikes (F3 or higher) showing a remarkable decline in recent decades.”
This is not to say that hurricanes like super storm Sandy or tornadoes have not occurred, but it is to say that there have been far less. These weather events affecting the United States have been in decline and that is the reality.
The FOE claim that any President can possibly “protect communities” is absurd. It is a lie.
The most worrisome aspect of environmental lies is that they are used to justify governmental policies.
The new Environmental Protection Agency administrator, Gina McCarthy, ahead of a trip to China, told a liberal advocacy group in Washington that she has devoted her life to protecting the environment: “And I really see no greater issue and no more urgent threat to public health than climate change.”
There is NOTHING the EPA can do about CLIMATE CHANGE.
The present global climate is, in fact, in a lengthy cooling cycle, not caused by anything to do with human activity, but by a reduction in solar radiation due to its own diminished cycle of magnetic storms (sunspots).
Cleaning the nation’s air and water is a public health activity, but denying Americans access to the nation’s vast reservoirs of coal, oil, and natural gas is an attack on the nation’s economic growth and a denial of the energy it requires to recover from the 2008 financial crisis, providing jobs and keeping energy costs under control.
Environmentalism is based on lies and the lies reflect an agenda that regards humanity as the enemy of the Earth.
------------------------- Alan Caruba is a writer by profession; has authored several books, and writes a daily column, Warning Signs disseminated on many Internet news and opinion websites and blogs. He is a contributing author at ARRA News Service. Tags:environmentalism, lies, EPA, CO2, climate change, Alan Caruba, warning signsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
The smaller defeat was closing the federal government on account of an insignificant dusting of snow. The weather was so mild no one in Denver or Minneapolis would have noticed it.
Federal employees--who we had been told throughout the shutdown were eager to go to work--suddenly had another paid day off.
I went to an 8:00 am breakfast next to the White House. The roads were clear (and empty as everyone stayed home). We had 15 people on time at 8:00 am. There was no snow accumulating at the White House.
Then I drove out to Dulles Airport with no problems. There were 200 people at that meeting.
Everyone made it to our business meeting at work later in the day and one person even flew in that morning.
So the private sector kept moving through the light snow earning the tax money to pay the federal workers who couldn't manage to make their way through the flurries.
Washington had won and the country would pay for it.
The larger defeat came when the budget deal was announced.
You could tell how bad a deal it was when no one could describe it honestly.
The budget deal has tax increases but they can't be called tax increases or no Republican could vote for them, so they are simply described in misleading language. But if you fly you will pay a higher tax no matter what the politicians call it.
The sequester is broken and spending will go up.
Since no Republican can vote for spending increases there had to be offsetting out-year cuts.
Of course the immediate spending increases will be real and the out-year cuts will never happen.
It is sad that no one can tell the truth in plain language.
The real disappointment isn't just that the budget deal is so bad it cant be honestly described.
The real disappointment is the lack of imagination and lack of new thinking and creativity.
As I describe in my new book, Breakout, there are many new developments which could be used to shrink spending, cut out waste, improve services, increase competition, grow the economy and get back to a balanced federal budget.
Sadly the opportunities to break out are ignored while the opportunities to tax more and spend more dominate.
---------------- Newt Gingrich is a former Georgia Congressman and Speaker of the U.S. House. He co-authored and was the chief architect of the "Contract with America" and a major leader in the Republican victory in the 1994 congressional elections. He is noted speaker and writer. The above commentary was shared via his Gingrich Productions. Tags:Washington wins, America loses, snow, budget deal, Newt Gingrich, Gingrich ProductionsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
PILLARD: “[The notion that] the Constitution requires deference to Church decisions about who qualifies as a minister… seems like a real stretch… the big news will be if the Court decides it for the Church.” (Georgetown’s Supreme Court Institute, Supreme Court Press Briefing, P.2, 9/19/11)
PILLARD: “…the Lutheran Church’s position here is a substantial threat to the American rule of law – it would effectively empower any religion to create its own autonomous Vatican City-style regime... It is hard to see the Supreme Court deciding that that is what the First Amendment law requires.” (Georgetown’s Supreme Court Institute, Supreme Court Press Briefing, P.3-4, 9/19/11)
PILLARD: Abortion Plays ‘A Central Role In Freeing Women From… Conscription Into Maternity’
PILLARD: Baby ultrasounds are ‘deceptive images of fetus-as-autonomous-being’ “Casting reproductive rights in terms of equality holds promise to recenter the debate towards the real stakes for women… and away from the deceptive images of fetus-as-autonomous-being that the anti-choice movement has popularized since the advent of amniocentesis.”
PILLARD: Limiting abortion “reinforces broader patterns of discrimination against women as a class of presumptive breeders…”
PILLARD: “…the rights to… abortion, play a central role in freeing women from historically routine conscription into maternity.”
PILLARD:“Antiabortion laws… enforce women’s incubation of unwanted pregnancies…” Tags:"Nina" Pillard, Post-Nuclear Nominee, radical, abortion, judicial nomineeTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
by Phyllis Schlafly: The media are currently filled with reports that U.S. students are scoring poorly on international tests. The Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), which compares 15-year-olds in most industrialized countries, reported that U.S. students dropped from 25th to 31st in math, 11th to 21st in reading, and 20th to 24th in science.
The solution offered for these low rankings is always that we should spend more money on schooling. But numerous studies of the billions of dollars we’ve spent on education in the last decade show that money has not improved U.S. student performance, and higher scoring foreign countries spend far less per pupil than we do.
Now we are told we need a new national system called Common Core (CC) standards, but this has provoked a grassroots uprising. Parents don’t want federal control or a federal curriculum, and teachers don’t like the CC tests.
Common Core advocates loudly proclaim that there isn’t any CC curriculum, there are only standards based on which the local schools can write their own curriculum. But the CC tests (usually called assessments) are the mechanism of federal control over the curriculum because teachers must teach to the test.
As Common Core is beginning to be implemented by the states, parents and teachers are discovering many things they don’t like. An Oak Forest, Illinois high school government class required students and their parents to fill out a questionnaire that identifies their positions on controversial political issues and then places themselves on a “political spectrum.”
The best way to describe the leftwing bias of this curriculum is to quote some of the questions assigned to the students, all of which are ideologically slanted. Students are instructed to “put a check in front of each statement with which you agree.”
Here are two of the pro-big government statements: “The government has an obligation to regulate businesses in order to preserve the environment for future generations.” “Unregulated free enterprise benefits the rich at the expense of the poor.”
Here are two more slanted statements: “The government should guarantee medical care for all citizens.” “The federal government should guarantee the rights of homosexuals.”
Common Core then requires the students to self-identify their political philosophy: “I consider myself A. liberal, B. conservative, C. don’t know.”
Here is one of the “outcomes” specified as the objective of this biased survey. “Students will be familiar with: 1. Fascism as an historical example of a reactionary group. 2. American Revolution as an historical example of a revolutionary viewpoint.”
After checking all the statements with which the students agree, students are given a so-called “Performance Task” to “Conduct a Political Spectrum Interview with someone 40 years or older” using this same survey.
It’s no wonder that parents are upset about this assignment, which asks for information that is none of the school’s business. This survey, published by “The Center for Learning,” is from a textbook called “U.S. Government 2,” which is part of the Common Core curriculum used by Oak Forest High School.
A Common Core-approved history textbook, “The American Experience” published by Prentice-Hall, gives an account of World War II that the “greatest generation” would not recognize. World War II is presented primarily by photos of the devastation of Hiroshima with text from John Hersey’s article on “Hiroshima.”
The Washington Postpublished a letter from a Delaware teacher who is highly critical of Common Core because she was instructed that she is required “to teach the curriculum word-for-word.” Also, she must “stop teaching for 6 weeks in the spring to make sure our students pass that test.”
New Mexico Senator Tim Keller described in a recent editorial the complaints he hears from parents who “stress deep objection to the continuing trend of out-of-state, for-profit testing companies’ intrusion into the classroom.” There’s just too much testing driven by those with a nefarious “incentive to make the case for more testing.”
Of course, tests are important to measure performance. But Common Core tests are a big money-making industry and are used by the Obama Administration to control the content of the curriculum.
And some of the tests sound downright ridiculous. Here is how a New York City high school principal reported one question on a Common Core first-grade math test:
“Take a look at question No. 1, which shows students five pennies, under which it says ‘part I know,’ and then a full coffee cup labeled with a ’6′ and, under it, the word ‘Whole.’ Students are asked to find ‘the missing part’ from a list of four numbers. My assistant principal for mathematics was not sure what the question was asking. How could pennies be part of a cup?”
-------------------- Phyllis Schlafly has been a national leader of the conservative movement since 1964. She founded and is president of Eagle Forum. She has testified before more than 50 Congressional and State Legislative committees on constitutional, national defense, and family issues. Tags:parents, teachers, objections, common core, Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle ForumTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
VIDEO: What Exactly Is Dark Money? Jason Stverak, Franklin, Center for Gov't
Public Integrity president, was on
Fox News to discuss what ‘dark money’
is and who is accepting these funds.
The opportunities we enjoy today were forged by those who, many years ago, invested their lives, fortunes and sacred honor on our behalf. They sought little from government, save protection from its overreach. It is our obligation to re-claim this independence for our posterity. Some of our countrymen think otherwise and too often resort to coercion and fabrication rather than civil debate to get their way. Most of you have been recent targets because you promote freedom. Acceptance of “dark money” – meaning non-disclosure of donors – is one specious core claim against you and us. We’re reminded that “dark money” has remedied injustices and healed countless sorrows in our country’s history. There are significant reasons to protect the privacy of those who voluntarily give to causes they hold near and dear. We thank those who give freely of their fortunes – small and large – so that together, we might pursue liberty for this generation and the next.~ Tracie Sharp, president, SPN by Adam Meyerson, State Policy Network: A LONG LEGAL tradition protects the rights of Americans to make charitable contributions without publicly disclosing them. This right to confidentiality in charitable giving is grounded in our constitutional freedom of association, and it is one of the most important elements of philanthropic freedom.
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in NAACP v. Alabama in 1958 that “freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the ‘liberty’ assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” In a landmark judgment written by Justice John Marshall Harlan II, the court held that the state of Alabama could not compel the NAACP to reveal the names and addresses of its members because doing so would expose its supporters “to economic reprisal, loss of employment, threat of physical coercion, and other manifestations of public hostility” and thereby restrain “their right to freedom of association.” This right of confidentiality applies to members of all associations, whether they be religious, educational, cultural, ideological, or devoted to other causes. As professor Anita Allen of the University of Pennsylvania Law School has put it, “Thanks to NAACP v. Alabama, government may not force even a controversial group to identify its members, absent a compelling state interest in disclosure.”
Our tax code similarly protects the confidentiality of individual contributions to public charities. In their 990 tax returns, public charities have to disclose their largest contributors, but this is for purposes of tax administration only. The Internal Revenue Service is strictly forbidden by statute from revealing these names to the public or even, with a very limited number of exceptions, to other government agencies. The same prohibitions apply when individual taxpayers have to provide the IRS with documentation about their charitable contributions. Indeed, one of the most disturbing allegations in the current IRS scandal is the charge that the agency in recent years has violated its rules and long tradition protecting donor privacy.
Donors do have to disclose publicly their contributions to private grant-making foundations, which in turn have to disclose their grants to public charities. These transparency requirements help to protect against self-dealing and to make sure that foundation grants support genuinely charitable organizations.
Donor-advised funds, America’s most rapidly growing charitable vehicle, receive donations from individuals and then make grants to other public charities on the recommendations of the original donors. Like foundations, the sponsors of donor-advised funds (which include regional community foundations; Christian and Jewish funds; and for-profits such as Fidelity and Schwab) are required to disclose the grants they make to other charities; this helps ensure that the grants are going to charities and not to for-profit or partisan political operations. But consistent with America’s historic confidentiality protection for individual donors to public charities, the sponsors can keep private their own donors as well as those donors’ individual grant recommendations.
This protection is sometimes misunderstood. For instance, conservative critics of the Tides Foundation, a liberal-left donor-advised-fund sponsor, have called it a system “to evade transparency.” Liberal critics of DonorsTrust, a donor-advised-fund sponsor for “organizations that promote liberty,” have labeled it as a “secretive funding network” and “dark-money ATM.” But the right to privacy enjoyed by contributors to donor-advised funds is no different than the right to privacy that governs the overwhelming majority of charitable giving.
Most donors of course are happy to see their contributions publicized. But a sizable minority want their philanthropy to be anonymous and will not give unless they can keep their donations confidential.
There are multiple reasons to give privately. The great 12th-century Jewish theologian Maimonides held that the second highest form of giving was “to give to the poor without knowing to whom one gives, and without the recipient knowing from whom he received.” In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus taught that “when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you…do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret.”
Many anonymous donors want to protect themselves from unwanted solicitations, to protect their children from knowledge of their family’s wealth, or to be able to visit prospective grantees and “kick the tires” without anyone knowing they are a funder. Still others, like the 1950’s NAACP donors, want the freedom to support controversial organizations without fear of reprisal or ostracism.
So-called “dark money” illuminates our free society.
--------------- Adam Meyerson is president of the Philanthropy Roundtable. This article originally appeared in from Fall 2013 issue of Philanthropy magazine. The State Policy Network (SPN) is made up of free market think tanks - at least one in every state - fighting to limit government and advance market-friendly public policy at the state and local levels. Tags:Dark Money, misconceptions, Adam Meyerson, Philanthropy Roundtable, SPN, State Policy Network, video, Jason Stverak, Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
The Senate will reconvene at 2 PM today and resume post-cloture consideration of the nomination of Cornelia Pillard to be a judge on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Pillard is the second of three judicial nominees Senate Democrats are using as part of a court-packing plan to provide a rubber stamp for President Obama’s regulatory agenda. Republicans initially blocked her nomination, but majority Democrats then used the nuclear option to break the rules of the Senate to advance her nomination. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is using this week to push through a group of Obama nominees now that Democrats have stripped Republicans of the ability to block them.
There are 30 hours of post-cloture debate time available on the Pillard nomination. If all time is used, a vote to confirm her nomination could be held at 1 AM.
Yesterday, Democrats utilized the nuclear option for the first time. They forced through the nominations of Patricia Millett to be a U.S. Circuit Judge for the DC Circuit and Rep. Mel Watt (D-NC) to head the Federal Housing agency Finance Agency(FHFA) that oversees Fannie and Freddie. Republicans forced a series of procedural votes on each nominee, but majority Democrats prevailed, and liberal progressive Millett was confirmed for life by a vote of 56-38 and Rep. Watt was confirmed by a vote of 57-41. Now, Rep. Watt who was one of the biggest supporters of affordable housing mandates will guard the hen house at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
During these votes, Leader McConnell forced Democrats to go on record again on the nuclear option, breaking Senate rules to change the rules.
Last night, Reid began a series of votes to bring back the Pillard nomination. The Senate voted 54-44 to proceed to the motion to reconsider the previously failed cloture vote on the Pillard nomination, then voted 54-44 to reconsider the cloture vote. Then Democrats used the precedent they set with the nuclear option to invoke cloture (cut off debate) on the Pillard nomination with less than 60 votes, by a vote of 56-42.
Reid has also filed cloture on 10 more nominations, taking advantage of the nuclear option. Among the nominations Reid is trying to move are Jeh Johnson to be Secretary of Homeland Security, 4 district judges, and Deborah James to be Secretary of the Air Force. When confirmed, James will become the second female Air Force secretary. That position has been empty since Michael Donley stepped down in June. While the Secretary of the Air Force does not have command and control authority, they are essential to overseeing the funding and provisioning of the Air Force. And with the pending budget situation, and the legal requirement for the Secretary of the Air Force to exclusively sign off on certain issues, the Air Force has been struggling over these issues.
The House reconvened at 10 AM. Today, the House will consider: H.R. 2319 — "To clarify certain provisions of the Native American Veterans' Memorial Establishment Act of 1994." S. 1471 — "To authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of the Army to reconsider decisions to inter or honor the memory of a person in a national cemetery, and for other purposes." H.R. 3212 — "To ensure compliance with the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction by countries with which the United States enjoys reciprocal obligations, to establish procedures for the prompt return of children abducted to other countries, and for other purposes." H.R. 1992 — "To amend the requirements relating to assessment of Israel's qualitative military edge over military threats, and for other purposes." H.R. 2019 — "To eliminate taxpayer financing of presidential campaigns and party conventions and reprogram savings to provide for a 10-year pediatric research initiative through the Common Fund administered by the National Institutes of Health, and for other purposes."
Yesterday the House passed the following bills:
H.R. 3521 (346-1) — "To authorize Department of Veterans Affairs major medical facility leases, and for other purposes."
H.R. 1402 (353-0) — "To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the authorization of appropriations for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to pay a monthly assistance allowance to disabled veterans training or competing for the Paralympic Team and the authorization of appropriations for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide assistance to United States Paralympics, Inc."
This morning at 10 AM, the House Energy & Commerce Committee hearing with Health & Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. As National Journal reported this morning, “Republicans will focus … on what happens Jan. 1, when they say people who signed up for coverage will face higher out-of-pocket costs, new doctors, and canceled employer plans.” POLITICO adds that “she’ll most likely have to answer Republican attacks on an ever-growing list of uncomfortable topics, from the canceled policies to ‘sticker shock’ to the latest GOP theme — that people in certain situations won’t be able to keep their doctors, contrary to Obama’s promises.”
Also today, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) underscored the devastating impact the president’s broken ObamaCare promises are having on Americans families, small businesses, and our economy. He said, “ObamaCare continues to wreak havoc on American families, small businesses, and our economy. I think when we get to January 1st it’ll be clear that more Americans will have lost their health insurance than will sign up under the new ObamaCare policies.
“This is not what the president promised the American people. He promised them they could keep the health plans they like - turned out not to be true. The president promised the American people they could keep the doctor that they’ve had all these years - that’s turned out to not be true as well. It’s time for the president to get serious about stopping this law before it wreaks any more havoc on American families, small businesses, and our economy.”
In addition to the negative responses by conservatives in the referenced article. today the Heritage Foundation identifies three key facts that sour the budget deal deal:
1. It busts through supposed spending “caps.” The way Congress operates, it’s ridiculous for Members to set spending caps. They just keep busting right through them. The deal announced yesterday raises discretionary spending above the bipartisan spending agreement forged in 2011 as part of the Budget Control Act. Spending for defense and non-defense domestic programs would be raised by $45 billion in 2014 and by $18 billion in 2015. . . .
2. It taxes and spends. The agreement says that the increased spending is fully offset elsewhere in the budget, using a mix of spending cuts and non-tax revenue. Make no mistake, raising revenue to spend more is simply taxing and spending. If anything, automatic spending cuts could be exchanged for targeted spending cuts. Trading spending cuts for more revenue, however, grows the burden of government. After all, Washington suffers from a spending problem, not a revenue one.
3. It spends now and delays savings till later. The budget deal would spend $63 billion more over the next two years—but take 10 years to make up for this splurge. This is a common Washington gimmick. To the conferees’ credit, the deal suggests one-third in additional deficit reduction—the details of which remain to be evaluated. . . .
Politico writes, “Americans disapprove of the Affordable Care Act in the wake of the disastrous roll out of HealthCare.Gov, and the president’s approval ratings remain under water, two new polls show Tuesday. A Pew survey released Tuesday shows that 54 percent of Americans disapprove of President Barack Obama’s signature domestic policy achievement, while only 41 percent are in favor of it. . . . Forty-nine percent of those surveyed by Pew still disapproved of the job Obama is doing. Another poll released Tuesday by Quinnipiac, however, paints a less favorable picture of Obama, showing the president’s job approval dropping to a new low of 38 percent in December from 39 percent in November. Fifty-seven percent of those surveyed by Quinnipiac disapproved. According to the Quinnipiac poll, 62 percent disapprove of the way the president has handled health care in the country.”
And last night, The Wall Street Journal reported, “The federal health-care law is becoming a heavier political burden for President Barack Obama and his party . . . a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll suggests. Disapproval of Mr. Obama's job performance hit an all-time high in the poll, at 54%, amid the flawed rollout of the health law. Half of those polled now consider the law a bad idea, also a record high. The survey of 1,000 adults conducted between Dec. 4 and Dec. 8 found a sharp erosion since January in many of the attributes—honesty, leadership, ability to handle a crisis—that had kept Mr. Obama aloft through the economic and political turmoil of his first term. In a clear parallel to sentiment toward President George W. Bush at the same point in his second term, just over half in the poll said events in recent months had dealt Mr. Obama a setback from which he wouldn't likely recover. Asked what shaped their view of the president this year, almost 60% cited the 2010 health-care law, the Affordable Care Act, as a chief factor. The poll found faith in Mr. Obama had dropped noticeably in recent months among young voters and Hispanics, two groups that had been among his steadiest supporters. ‘The president is being weighed down by one issue, his health-care law,’ said Democratic pollster Fred Yang, who helped direct the poll. ‘It's probably fair to say that as goes health care, so goes the Obama presidency for the next year.’”
These new polls show the same trend as others in recent days. According to the AP, “Americans' perceptions of President Barack Obama are falling not only on his handling of the economy and other big issues, but also on more personal qualities such as honesty, a poll finds. A clear majority of adults, 56 percent, say ‘honest" does not describe Obama well, according to The Associated Press-GfK poll. That's worse than his 52 percent rating in an October poll. As for Obama's overall approval rating, 58 percent disapprove of the job he's doing, while 42 percent approve. Disapproval of his handling of several specific issues hovers around 60 percent. They include the economy, federal budget deficit and unemployment.” A New York Times/CBS News poll from last week found 50% disapprove of President Obama and 55% disapprove of his handling of health care. The same poll found 50% disapproving of Obamacare.
As these polls have come out, there hasn’t been any news on Obamacare to really make Americans think otherwise. Today,The Baltimore Sun reports, “[Maryland] Lt. Gov. Anthony G. Brown [D] cast uncertainty Tuesday on the administration's ability to meet a deadline for repairs of the state's online insurance marketplace, which has had one of the country's most troubled rollouts under Obamacare. . . . Frozen screens, problems verifying applicants and error messages have hampered the website. It was supposed to allow the estimated 800,000 uninsured Marylanders to sign in and browse 45 plans from six insurers, but instead crashed within minutes of its launch. State officials have acknowledged problems with the site, but had given few details publicly about what was wrong. Email messages and other documents obtained by The Baltimore Sun through a public information request revealed infighting between contractors, management issues and more detail about technical problems with the site.” And the Washington Examiner’s Philip Klein notes, “Oregon, once touted as a model for President Obama's health care law, signed up just 44 people for insurance through November, despite spending more than $300 million on its state-based exchange. The state’s exchange had the fewest sign-ups in the nation, according to a new report today by the Department of Health and Human Services.”
Asked about the president’s damage control efforts in bringing former Clinton hand John Podesta back to the White House yesterday, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell pointed to Americans’ clear frustrations with Obamacare, saying, “[Y]ou know, when your numbers are tanking, when your approval rating is now below 40 percent and the American people are consumed with the way Obamacare is adversely impacting their lives, it's not surprising they want to shake up the team. In my view, it's going to take a lot more than shaking up the team to sell Obamacare to the American people. They haven't bought it for four years. They're even less happy with it now than they were when it was passed. I won't give the president any advice on his own staff, but the problem here is the substance of his number-one issue, the issue he wanted to be most associated with, is a failure. And no amount of shifting the chairs around on the Titanic is going to solve that problem.” Tags:Senate, confirmations, nuclear option, polls, House bills, Obamacare, Affordable healthcare, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Alan Caruba, Contributing Author: I think the bulk of the U.S. population, particularly likely voters in 2014, have reached the point where they no longer believe anything President Obama says.
It coincides with what may be the lowest level of confidence in the U.S. Congress. Its Democratic members all voted for Obamacare without reading it and the harm it is doing to millions of Americans, along with its total lack of constitutional legitimacy, will likely see those running for election and reelection in the 2014 midterms defeated.
As the first year of Obama’s second term is completed in January, the nation is at a point that I don’t think has existed since the days leading up to the Civil War in 1861. It took until 1865 to conclude that split and a hundred more years to make right the many wrongs that led up to it.
In my life, more than seven and a half decades, I cannot recall a President who has generated such a deep sense of distrust. I say “distrust” because that differs from just disagreeing with a particular President’s policies. I say “distrust” in the context of what people believe no matter their political affiliation.
What we all know now is that President Obama cannot be trusted when he speaks about anything whether it is his signature legislation, the Affordable Health Care Act, or his rejection of decades of U.S. policy toward Iran that began in 1979 when they seized our diplomats in 1979. In the United Nations and in Congress, sanctions were applied that were, until his recent announcement, working effectively to influence its determination to make its own nuclear weapons. All that effort has been undermined by a process conducted in total secrecy because Obama knew it would be rejected. It should be noted that this occurred when Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State.
Obama is the fulfillment of a long effort by the former Soviet Union, begun in the 1920s, to transform our society from one whose values and policies led the world in the effort to oppose communism even as it and European allies embraced socialist programs that are now threatening theirs and our economic stability. “Social justice” is the term adopted and exercised through “political correctness”, a philosophy that paints the U.S. as a heartless, rapacious, racist, capitalist nation more to be hated than admired.
Political correctness played a major role in the election of a virtually unknown first term Senator from Illinois because Americans wanted to demonstrate to the world that a black man could be elected President.
The failure of the Republican Party to strongly advocate the traditions and patriotic beliefs of Americans led to his reelection. The other factor was the adoption of the Alinski-inspired methods of character assassination and the distortions of our history that is heard and read daily in the mainstream press and taught in our nation’s schools from kindergarten to college.
America has fallen prey to the infiltration and takeover of our education system that is filled with lessons and books that distort our history, denigrate our Founders, and teach disrespect for our Constitution, if it is taught at all. Our culture has been degraded by a Hollywood that turns out films depicting capitalism as corrupt and fills our lives with cultural messages that degrade our society.
From the earliest days of his first term, Obama has publicly attacked America in ways no previous President ever did.
In April 2006, in a speech delivered in Strasbourg, France, Obama said, “America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive (towards Europe)” when, in fact, America had twice come to the aid of Europe, first in World War One, and saving it from the worst totalitarian threat in World War Two. The graves of U.S. soldiers are found in cemeteries throughout Europe and it was the expenditure of trillions during and after WWII that attest to our long-term policies, not of conquest, but of liberation.
At home, Obama has striven to fulfill the “politically correct” policies of dividing the nation ethnically, emphasizing the national and religious differences that have existed in a culture of tolerance that earlier accepted waves of immigration of those who were eager to assimilate and become “Americans” as opposed to those who arrive, now often illegally, and demand the rights of native-born and nationalized Americans.
Obama has by-passed the limits the Constitution imposes on the executive branch with little or no opposition in a Senate controlled by the Democrats. The effort by the Republican controlled House led to the government shutdown and is now used against it despite the refusal of the President to negotiate and avoid it.
Even among “low information voters” the accumulated awareness of the many Obama administrations scandals is beginning to exercise some influence. From Fast and Furious to the Benghazi lies, even those who pay little attention to the government are growing aware of the massive waste of money the stimulus represented and the increase of U.S. debt, the failure to pass a budget for five years that the Constitution requires, suspicious huge purchases of ammunition by Homeland Security, and, of course, Obamacare. They may not understand what these scandals mean, but they sense something is very wrong with America.
A President who is widely perceived as a liar has lost the most important factor that all Presidents require to function, his credibility.
What is needed now more than ever before is a Congress that vigorously opposes his actions and the months between now and the midterm elections will be critical for Republicans and independents to assert the role of this branch. The attack on a long established voting rule in the Senate has made this more difficult.
It can only be hoped that enough Americans, Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, and independents will wake from their stupor and demand action.
------------------------- Alan Caruba is a writer by profession; has authored several books, and writes a daily column, Warning Signs disseminated on many Internet news and opinion websites and blogs. He is a contributing author at ARRA News Service. Tags:President Obama, moment of truth, lies, credibility, op-ed, Alan Caruba, warning signsTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Update: Washington, D.C. - Budget Deal Source The Newsmax wire services and cable channels, and key members of The Budget Conference Committee are reporting that a budget deal has been reached. The Committee was led by House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Senate Budget Committee Chair Patty Murray (D-WA). However, feelings over the deal are mixed.
The two-year agreement is aimed at avoiding a government shutdown on Jan. 15, cutting $23 billion from the federal deficit, and stopping the huge Pentagon sequestration cuts over the next two years.
"This budget is a step in the right direction," Rep. Paul Ryan said at a Tuesday evening news conference. "It is a clear improvement on the status quo." "It cuts taxes in a smarter way — and it reduces the deficit without raising taxes," Ryan added.
"We have broken through the partisanship and the gridlock, and we have reached a deal," Sen. Patty Murray said at the news conference with Ryan. "Over the past few years, we have lurched from crisis to crisis."
The new $85 billion deal should win passage in the House of Representatives with Republican support, Ryan said. He called the deal a "step in the right direction," that would avoid threats of another government shutdown in January, when current funding expires, and in October next year, when the next fiscal year starts.
"What am I getting out of this? I'm getting more deficit reduction. So the deficit will go down more by passing this than if we did nothing," he told a news conference.
House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) issued a statement on the budget agreement. “I am grateful for the work done by Chairmen Ryan and Murray. While modest in scale, this agreement represents a positive step forward by replacing one-time spending cuts with permanent reforms to mandatory spending programs that will produce real, lasting savings. This framework is consistent with sequester replacement legislation passed by the House in 2012. It would also help to further reduce the deficit without tax hikes that would hurt our economy. Lastly, this agreement would help protect important national security priorities.
“Federal spending remains on an unsustainable course. Whether it is offering a plan to balance the budget, strengthen the federal safety net, or cut wasteful spending on behalf of hardworking taxpayers, only one party has led efforts to bring fiscal sanity back to Washington. Republicans will continue to lead that effort because it is essential to growing our economy, expanding opportunity for all Americans, and preserving the American Dream.”
President Barack Obama praised the budget deal as a "good first step" to overcome recurring crises that have wracked the government since 2011. "It's a good sign that Democrats and Republicans in Congress were able to come together and break the cycle of short-sighted, crisis-driven decision-making to get this done," the president said of the agreement that, if passed, would avoid a disastrous repeat of a government shutdown that paralyzed Washington in October.
Sen. Patty Murray added that in the coming debate over the budget in Congress they could "trim some military spending as well as outlays for federal workers' retirement programs. As agreed by the Conference Committee, the deal would cut $12 billion from the two accounts." Murray also said that congressional leaders are discussing the possibility of extending some expiring federal benefits for the long-term unemployed but that such legislation will not be included in the two-year budget deal.
Americans for Limited Government President Nathan Mehrens issued a statement blasting the budget deal that will cancel the $65 billion sequestration over the next two years: ""It is disappointing that House Republican Budget Chairman Paul Ryan would bust the $65 billion sequestration and raise government fees and other assessments, in return for other supposed cuts in the out years that likely will just be rolled back later. The sequester needed restructuring as it disproportionately hurt our national defense capabilities, but Ryan's plan to raise taxes is unacceptable, and the supposed out year cuts are simply a cynical insult to taxpayers who now know that when push comes to shove, the cuts will not be kept.
"This is just one more example of how out of touch our national leaders are to the real priorities of the American public. It must be defeated by those who believe in keeping the size and scope of government under control."
Tim Phillips, president of Americans for Prosperity, is urging Republican legislators to "stand firm" in opposing any budget deal that would increase spending. "Otherwise, congressional Republicans are joining liberal Democrats in breaking their word to the American people to finally begin reining in government over-spending that has left us over $17 trillion in debt," he said.
Heritage Action, the lobbying arm of the Heritage Foundation, said it could not support any such budget deal. The emerging plan would increase spending "in the near term for promises of woefully inadequate long-term reductions," the group said. They say that the House GOP is reneging on its promise to support the sequestration cuts of $91 billion in favor of smaller cuts supported by Congressional Democrats.
NewsMax summarized: It remains uncertain whether any budget plan would pass both houses of Congress. The House could vote on it by Friday. If the deal passes the House, the Senate, which is controlled by Democrats, is likely to vote on it late this week or early next week.
Should Congress approve the deal, it could end fierce budget standoffs in the immediate future — including the one that led to the 16-day government shutdown in October because federal agencies ran out of money — and enable lawmakers to write annual spending bills in a more orderly fashion.
Congress has not enacted a budget bill since 2009.
Without a deal, another shutdown could occur on Jan. 15, when current funds for most agencies are expected to run out. If left in place, the reductions would carve $91 billion from the daily budgets of the Pentagon and domestic agencies when compared with spending limits set by the 2011 budget agreement.
Backing for a budget plan to ease the reductions is strongest among defense supporters in both houses and in both parties, who fear the impact on military readiness from a looming $20 billion cut in Pentagon spending.
Senate Democrats hope to get the support of at least five Republicans who want to ease the Pentagon's automatic spending cuts.
While Republicans are pushing against limiting the sequestration cuts, Democrats do not want an agreement that seeks greater pension contributions from federal workers without requiring sacrifices from wealthier Americans.
Further, Democrats also are pushing for an extension of federal benefits for the long-term unemployed, which are set to expire at the end of this month. Republicans are objecting to the extension, citing a falling jobless rate.
"I am cautiously optimistic that we have a deal," said Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
The Heritage Foundation notedthe following this morning before the Budget announcement.
When you hear Members of Congress complaining that they can’t find anywhere to cut—that even existing spending cuts should be undone so they can spend more—remember these little goodies:
These are only the beginning. In fact, Heritage experts have helpfully identified outdated or unnecessary government programs that could be eliminated so Congress could save $42 billion of your money.
So let’s not hear that there’s nowhere to cut. It’s time for budgeting—and staying within that budget. Tags:budget Deal, budget conference committee, Paul Ryan, Patty Murray, conservative groups, reaction, NewsMaxTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
by Eric Boehm: Obamacare is striking out with young people — those healthy folks who are suppose to actually make it work.
Young people are perhaps the most important demographic to the success of the Affordable Care Act, but most Americans under 30 are opposed to the law. They particularly dislike the individual mandate that requires them to buy insurance or pay fines in form of higher taxes.
A new survey from Harvard University found a large majority of young Americans do not believe the law will save them money, do not believe it will improve their health and do not intend to sign up for insurance through the new exchanges.
If that’s all true – particularly the last part – it is very bad news for President Barack Obama’s signature policy achievement.
The Affordable Care Act hinges on getting young, mostly healthy people to sign up for insurance. That will help spread out the costs incurred by the older, more expensive enrollees who also will use the system.
This cost-pooling is central to the economics that underpin the law, and if young people decline to enroll, costs for everyone else could skyrocket.
The 2013 Harvard Public Opinion survey included interviews with 2,089 Americans between the ages of 18 and 29. Interviews were conducted between Oct. 30 and Nov. 11, and the poll has a margin of error of 2.1 percent.
The results show many young people are not buying the promises of Obamacare. A mere 17 percent of those polled believe their quality of health care will improve under the Affordable Care Act, while 44 say it will get worse.
But millennials’ views on health care costs are even bleaker.
Only 10 percent of those surveyed said the ACA will decrease their health care costs, with 50 percent saying it will increase their costs and 36 percent expecting their costs to stay the same, according to the Harvard poll.
Of those surveyed, only 20 percent said they plan to enroll in a health care plan through an exchange, while 47 percent said they would not enroll.
Elise Wilkinson, a 25-year-old who recently graduated from Quinnipaic Law School in Connecticut, said her biggest worry about Obamacare is the uncertainty of everything. She’ll be off her parents’ health plan in less than a year and expects to see high premiums.
“I also see a lot of friends around my age who are seeing their plans go up in cost while either adding nothing or requiring add-ons they don’t want or need,” she told Watchdog.org. “It makes me foresee high costs in my future.”
With young people being such an important demographic for Obamacare’s success, both sides have focused outreach efforts on millennials.
The anti-Obamacare group Generation Opportunityhas run a series of web advertisements featuring a “creepy Uncle Sam” posing as a doctor. The group wants to get young people to “opt-out” of Obamacare by telling them upfront about the costs and consequences of signing up for insurance through the exchanges.
“Obamacare’s success depends on millions of young people paying three times more for insurance so older people can pay slightly less. It’s a generational game rigged against us, and we’re not interested in playing,” Evan Feinberg, the group’s president, said in a statement.
The White House has taken notice. Obama recently took a thinly-veiled shot at Generation Opportunity’s outreach efforts.
“That’s a really bizarre way to spend your money, to try to convince people not to get health insurance, not to get free preventive care, not to make sure that they’re able to survive an accident or an illness,” Obama said of the group’s advertisements and college campus visits with their big-headed Uncle Sam mascot.
While speaking to a crowd of youth activists, Obama made the case for why young people should sign up for health insurance.
“If you get sick, and you get to the hospital and you don’t have any coverage, then somebody else is also going to be paying for it,” he said.
Pro-Obamacare groups like Progress Now also have crafted ads aimed at young people.
On the federal and state-based health insurance exchanges, the biggest premium hikes are for those under 27, according to research from the conservative Heritage Foundation.
In one ad, college students are told to sign up for Obamacare so they can have access to contraception for post-party hookups. Another ad warns of injuries from keg stands and suggests that buying insurance through Obamacare is the best solution – instead of, perhaps, suggesting that binge drinking might be a problem.
But the Harvard poll shows many young people can see through those efforts, and the numbers indicate millennials are right to be worried about the cost of health insurance and the transfer of wealth from one generation to another.
And critics say the fundamental premise of the health care law, which depends on young people helping offset the cost of older enrollees, continues a trend that has been rolling along for a while.
According to the Pew Research Center, households headed by people 65 or older had 10 times the wealth of households headed by people under 35, in 1984.
By 2009, that gap had increased to the point that households headed by people over 65 had 47 times the wealth of households headed by people under 35.
The number of people under 35 living in poverty, meanwhile, is double the number of poverty-stricken senior citizens, according to the same data.
------------------ Eric Boehm first reported this for Watchdog.org. He can be reached at EBoehm@Watchdog.org. Follow him on Twitter @EricBoehm87 . Tags:Harvard Study, Young Americans, rejecting, Obamacare, Watchdog, Eric BoehmTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Today in Washington, D.C. - Dec. 10, 2013 The Senate reconvened at 10 AM today. At 10:15, the Senate voted 56-38 to confirm Patricia Millett to be a U.S. Circuit Judge for the DC Circuit. Millett is a nominee whom Republicans initially blocked since Democrats announced they were pushing her as part of a court-packing plan to provide a rubber stamp for President Obama’s regulatory agenda. But majority Democrats then used the nuclear option to break the rules of the Senate to advance her nomination.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) then moved the Senate to the nomination of Rep. Mel Watt (D-NC) to head the federal housing agency overseeing Fannie and Freddie. Republicans had previously blocked his nomination. The Senate voted 54-42 to proceed to the motion to reconsider the failed cloture vote on the Watt nomination and then voted 54-42 to agree to the motion to reconsider the cloture vote.
Leader McConnell then called for a parliamentary point of order and delayed the Watt nomination by forcing Democrats to vote again to uphold their nuclear option vote to break the rules of the Senate.51 Democrats voted to reaffirm their power grab.
The Senate then used Democrats’ new rules to invoke cloture (cut off debate) on the Watt nomination by a vote of 57-40. Following lunches, the Senate will resume post-cloture consideration of the Watt nomination.
Last night Reid filed cloture on 10 more nominations, taking advantage of the nuclear option. Among the nominations Reid is trying to move are Jeh Johnson to be Secretary of Homeland Security, 4 district judges, and Deborah James to be Secretary of the Air Force.
The House reconvened at Noon today. The House is considering three bills today: H.R. 3521 — "To authorize Department of Veterans Affairs major medical facility leases, and for other purposes." H.R. 1402 — "To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the authorization of appropriations for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to pay a monthly assistance allowance to disabled veterans training or competing for the Paralympic Team and the authorization of appropriations for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide assistance to United States Paralympics, Inc."
Yesterday the house passed by Voice Vote: H.R. 3627 — "To require the Attorney General to report on State law penalties for certain child abusers, and for other purposes." –
Budget Negotiations have been going on in the The Budget Conference Committee led by House Budget Committee Chair Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Senate Budget Committee Char Patty Murray (D-WA). The buzz is they will release their budget proposal later today. Many conservatives are concerned that the formerly established Republican negotiated $65 billion sequestration level will be sacrificed to get Democrats to agree to a budget. News reports indicate that revenue increases may be included alongside spending increases. The problem in Washington has been and still is that Washington spends too much – not that it takes in too little. Maneuvers like increasing airline passenger taxes amount to gimmicks that force travelers to pick up tab for Washington’s slack.
Americans are tired of broken promises, and the abandonment of the bipartisan spending limits only reinforces voters’ beliefs that politicians in Washington cannot keep their word. Public Notice polling conducted this month found that 58% of voters want Washington to stick to the 2011 limits. But, if it’s not, politicians should consider the electoral implications which were also reflected in the Public Notice polling which showed voters will reward politicians who cut spending and punish those who increase it. Seventy-one percent of voters said they would be more likely to support their member of congress if he or she votes to cut spending.
According to the Economist, only 8% of adults say the budget deficit is the most important issue to them. The economy (33%), Social Security (13%) and health care (8%) received higher percentages. Still, 54% of adults think the budget deficit is a “very” important issue. Public Notice is an independent non-profit dedicated to providing facts and insight on the economy and government policy.
Speaking on the Senate floor this morning, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell began by discussing Americans’ frustrations with Obamacare. “Folks are frustrated and upset by what’s happening with their health care under Obamacare. And they’re outraged at the tactics and the outright deception that led to its passage. It’s now clear that the President knew perfectly well that a lot of folks wouldn’t be able to keep the plans they had and liked, despite the endless assurances to the contrary they heard from the President himself. Many are also now starting to realize that the talking points they heard about their premiums and keeping their doctors weren’t worth the paper they were written on either.”
He continued, “If anybody needed any proof that Big Government liberalism doesn’t work, they’ve gotten a clinic over the past two months. It’s clearer now than ever that we need to replace this law with common-sense, patient-centered reforms that will actually drive down costs and increase innovation. The idea that making our health care system more like the DMV will somehow improve the final product has now been thoroughly discredited. And a thousand presidential speeches won’t change that.”
“But,” he pointed out, “here’s the larger story: Obamacare isn’t an isolated case. It may be the most obvious example of this administration’s determination to advance its agenda by any means possible. But it’s one example of many.”
McConnell explained, “The latest example was the administration’s complicity in the power grab we saw last month in the Senate. News reports suggest that a President who denounced this tactic ... in 2005 was actively lobbying for it ahead of the Majority Leader’s fateful decision to pull the trigger. So the President and the Majority Leader were for the protection of minority rights in the Senate until they were no longer in the minority. At that point, minority rights, the Rules of the Senate, and the principle of a meaningful check on the Executive became an inconvenience that stood in the way of their desire for more power. As I indicated last month, this was a pure power grab. If the majority party can’t be expected to follow the rules, there are no rules. So this was a grave mistake. And it was a grave betrayal of trust, since some of the main players had previously vowed they would never do it. But then they did — just as the President had vowed that if you liked your health care you could keep it. For the President and his enablers in Congress, the ends now clearly justify the means.”
As Leader McConnell said, “[W]e see the results of this mindset most powerfully with Obamacare — a law that this administration was determined to force through Congress by hook or by crook, regardless of what half-truths it had to repeat to get there; regardless of whichever senators it had to coax and cajole. But the pattern didn’t end with the law’s passage. The administration has repeatedly invoked executive power to change whichever parts of the law prove inconvenient. Its friends begged for relief from the law, so they carved out special loopholes. Statutory deadlines became an irritation, so they waived them. ‘Incorrect promises’ made to sell the law became an embarrassment, so they changed entire sections on the fly.To many Washington Democrats, this is all fine — not because they necessarily want to circumvent the law, perhaps, but because they feel justified in doing so if that’s what it takes to enact their agenda.We’ve seen Democrats use this same approach with immigration policy, welfare reform, recess appointments. We’ve seen them use it to justify government-sanctioned harassment of entire groups of people over at the IRS. And two weeks ago, we saw Washington Democrats take this ends-justify-the-means approach to a whole new level entirely, by eliminating the right of the minority party to be heard in the Senate — something they themselves had warned against for years when they were in the minority …. something the Vice President called ‘a naked power grab’ when he was in the Senate.Washington Democrats changed our democracy irrevocably — they did something they basically promised they would never do — and to what end? To pack the courts with judges they expect will rubberstamp the President’s partisan agenda… to eliminate one of the last remaining obstacles standing between the President and the enactment of his agenda through executive fiat. In short, because they wanted power that the voters have denied them at the ballot box.”
He concluded, “Two weeks ago, the President and his Democrat allies defied two centuries of tradition, their own prior statements, and – in the case of some Democrat Leaders – their own public commitments about following the rules of the Senate. They did this for one reason: to advance an agenda the American people don’t want. It’s an agenda that runs straight through the D.C. Circuit — so now they’re putting their people in place, to quote one member of their leadership, ‘one way or another.’ . . . Washington Democrats unfortunately are focusing their energy on saying and doing anything to circumvent the representatives of the people. But ultimately, they are accountable to the American people. And the American people will have their say again soon – sooner than many ... might hope.” Tags:White House, Obamacare Example, Senate, Democrats, Nuclear Option, Advance Obama Agenda, Budgets, polling, editorial cartoon, AF BrancoTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Administration Discovering Private Enterprise Is Complicated
Let’s Not Play Hobble-Horse
Seton Motley, Contributing Author: President Barack Obama recently uttered one of the most frustrating, angering and mind-numbingly uninformed things ever extruded by a government official.
ObamaCare is in the midst of its gi-normous, historic, inevitable fail - taking down with it the entire health insurance industry and large swaths of the broader private sector. And the man who led the demand that government do this said of the rolling, slow-motion train wreck, "What were discovering is insurance is complicated to buy.”
Spoken like a man who has spent almost zero time in private, productive employment. And who described his very brief tenure in private, productive employment as being “Like a spy behind enemy lines.”
The president doesn’t like the free enterprise system. He fails utterly to understand it. (Or, or perhaps additionally, all of this wreckage is intentional, but that’s another essay.)
We could do this all day. This administration has been all-encompassing in its anti-private sector push. Joined by Democrats everywhere — until elections forced them to begin to acquiesce to reality.
Upon Obama’s inauguration, arguably the freest faction of the “free” market was the technology sector. Which is why the wired and wireless Internet Revolution has delivered unto us a free-speech, free-market Xanadu.
Nothing has made the First Amendment more horizontal than the World Wide Web. No longer does one need to cede speech to the pro-government media — just start a blog, speak your mind and spread the word. Find like-minded others, and start assembling. The Genesis, Exodus and Deuteronomy of the Tea Party all took place on the Net.
The omni-directional dynamism of the Internet’s economic impact is already huge — and only in its new-born infancy. It’s so new, we do not have but the merest inkling of all the wonderments to better our lives that will emerge.
Which is why it is vitally important we do not over-regulate or micromanage it. Even the tiniest of government interventions warps and truncates its evolution, depriving us of what might have been. The World Wide Web is our oyster — government seals it off and preempts the pearls to come.
So what (amongst other things) does the Obama Administration do to the Tech sector?
This Crony Socialist, picking-losers-at-the-expense of winners move would be horrible for the advancement of the web. You know who says so? New York Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer: That is why I urge you, in structuring these auctions, to maximize participation by broadcasters and bidders alike by avoiding limitations that could lower the potential return and disincentivize broadcasters from offering their spectrum for auction. While I understand that some have advocated for rules that would limit participation by some wireless carriers, the effect of such rules would simply be to reduce the amount of spectrum offered for auction as well as the revenue that would be generated in return.Who says bipartisanship in DC is dead? There’s lots of it — in opposition to the president and his anti-private sector agenda. (At least with looming 2014 electoral losses staring down the Democrats.)
Indeed, Mister President, private enterprise is complicated to do. It becomes ever more difficult the more you and government insist you know how to do it better.
Henceforth, let’s use the Yellow Pages Rule. If you can find it in the Yellow Pages (or on YellowPages.com) — the government shouldn’t do it.
------------- Seton Motley is the President of Less Government and he contributes to ARRA News Service. Daily Caller also published this article. Please feel free to follow him on TwitterFacebook. Tags:Barack Obama, Obamacare, Seton Motley, spectrum auctions, private enterpriseTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
Comments by contributors or sources do not necessarily reflect the position of ARRA, its Officers, memberships or the Editors.
Fair Use: This site/blog may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as provided for in section Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Per said section, the material on this site/blog is distributed without profit to readers to view for the expressed purpose of viewing the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. Any person/entity seeking to use copyrighted material shared on this site/blog for purposes that go beyond "fair use," must obtain permission from the copyright owner.