03 Wednesday Mar 2010
Posted in health care, Obama, Politics
Tags
Ugh! Another health care speech?
“Obama plans to unveil his latest proposal Wednesday, starting at 1:45 p.m., at a White House ceremony, an administration official said, speaking anonymously under White House ground rules.”
It’s a good thing all our economic problems are solved and we’re back to full employment.
27 Saturday Feb 2010
Posted in Congress, Democrats, health care, Obama, Politics, Progressives
Tags
bait and switch, health care, House, Nancy Pelosi, President Obama, Rahm Emanuel, reconciliation, Senate bill
Don’t do it, Nancy. Don’t do it:
“Rahm Emanuel ventured to the Capitol Friday evening to hash out health care strategy with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a White House aide confirmed.
Senior Hill aides speculated to HuffPost that Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, would bring the message that the House must move first, with a pledge from Senate Democrats that they would follow.”
The meeting comes as Democrats are searching for a way to get to the health care finish line, though neither chamber wants to move first. Senate leaders want the House to pass the Senate bill first, after which the Senate would use reconciliation to fix the legislation to the liking of the Senate. House leaders contend that the votes aren’t there for the Senate bill if the upper chamber doesn’t move. The House, after two centuries of watching the Senate lag behind, doesn’t trust that it’ll act.
Dear Speaker Pelosi,
You’re being conned. The Senate wants the Senate bill without the modifications. President Obama wants the Senate bill without the modifications. He only proposed them as bait, next come the switch. And trust me, President Obama is the master of the bait and switch. Just ask those who voted for him in November of ‘08. Ask me, I fell for it. If you go first and pass the Senate bill the promised reconciliation fixes will NEVER happen. Don’t say you weren’t warned.
Sincerely,
A victim of OBSS (Obama Bait and Switch Syndrome)
24 Wednesday Feb 2010
Posted in Congress, Democrats, health care, Obama, Politics, special interests
Tags
campaign contributions, Democrats, Glenn Greenwald, health care reform, individual mandate, insurance industry, Jay Rockefeller, PhRMA deal, President Obama, public option, reconciliation, Salon, Senate, subsidies, Villain Rotation
I hesitate to even comment on the health care reform charade any more because that’s exactly what it is and has been from the get-go, a charade. But Glenn Greenwald had a piece in Salon yesterday which nailed the situation perfectly. The bottom line is this–there will be no real reform for one reason–those in power don’t want it. Sure they, meaning the president and Democrats in the Senate, want to give the appearance of being for substantial reform, but the fact is they all benefit too much from the status quo. They aren’t about to kill the corporate goose that lays the golden campaign contribution eggs, and especially now that the Supreme Court has allowed corporations, like the insurance industry, to spend unlimited amounts on advertising for and against candidates.
Greenwald cites Sen. Jay Rockefeller as the latest example of what he calls “Villain Rotation.”
“They always have a handful of Democratic Senators announce that they will be the ones to deviate this time from the ostensible party position and impede success, but the designated Villain constantly shifts, so the Party itself can claim it supports these measures while an always-changing handful of their members invariably prevent it.”
From Politics Daily on October 4, 2009:
“Jay Rockefeller has waited a long time for this moment. . . . He’s a longtime advocate of health care for children and the poor — and, as Congress moves toward its moment of truth on health care, perhaps the most earnest, dogged Senate champion of a nationwide public health insurance plan to compete with private insurance companies.
“I will not relent on that. That’s the only way to go,” Rockefeller told me in an interview. “There’s got to be a safe harbor.”
“Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) threw a wrench into Democratic efforts to get a public option passed through reconciliation, saying that he thought the maneuver was overly partisan and that he was inclined to oppose it. . .
“I don’t think the timing of it is very good,” the West Virginia Democrat said on Monday. “I’m probably not going to vote for that.”
Greenwald:
“In other words, Rockefeller was willing to be a righteous champion for the public option as long as it had no chance of passing (sadly, we just can’t do it, because although it has 50 votes in favor it doesn’t have 60) But now that Democrats are strongly considering the reconciliation process — which will allow passage with only 50 rather than 60 votes and thus enable them to enact a public option — Rockefeller is suddenly “inclined to oppose it” because he doesn’t “think the timing of it is very good” and it’s “too partisan.” What strange excuses for someone to make with regard to a provision that he claimed, a mere five months ago (when he knew it couldn’t pass), was such a moral and policy imperative that he “would not relent” in ensuring its enactment.
The Obama White House did the same thing…[B]ack in August the evidence was clear that while the President was publicly claiming that he supported the public option, the White House, in private, was doing everything possible to ensure its exclusion from the final bill (in order not to alienate the health insurance industry by providing competition for it). Yesterday, Obama — while having his aides signal that they would use reconciliation if necessary–finally unveiled his first-ever health care plan as President, and guess what it did not include? The public option, which he spent all year insisting that he favored oh-so-much but sadly could not get enacted: Gosh, I really want the public option, but we just don’t have 60 votes for it; what can I do?.”
The problem was, and is, that the president and the Democrats in Congress are getting exactly what they wanted to start with. The backroom deal with PhRMA is intact. The individual mandate remains, forcing people to buy from private insurance companies. The president’s plan also raises the subsidies, which shovels taxpayers dollars to the same private companies, which in turn keeps the corporate contributions flowing and away from the Republicans.
If this plan passes, I would suggest buying stock in Aetna, WellPoint, United Health Care, et al. Maybe the dividends will help cover the cost of the premiums.
16 Tuesday Feb 2010
Posted in Bill of Rights, Congress, Obama, Politics, war on terror
The Constitutional Scholar-In-Chief is ready to deal away Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections in exchange for Lindsey Graham’s vote to close Gitmo. Well, not actually close it, just re-locate it to Illinois (emphasis mine):
“The White House is considering endorsing a law that would allow the indefinite detention of some alleged terrorists without trial as part of efforts to break a logjam with Congress over President Barack Obama’s plans to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Monday.
“I’m sure that that’s what Sen. Graham thinks [but] I don’t have any reason to think the administration has changed its view on this…said Elisa Massimino of Human Rights First. “In both private conversations and in public, the attorney general and other people in the administration said they’re committed to driving the people detained without charge to zero. I think that would be inconsistent with a pledge to do that.”
…speaking at a news conference in Greenville, S.C. Monday, Graham said the White House now seems open to a new law to lay out the standards for open-ended imprisonment of those alleged to be members of or fighters for Al Qaeda or the Taliban.
…While Graham has long favored closing Guantanamo, he said Monday that his support for doing so is contingent on a new law to govern the detention of those the government wants to keep in custody outside the criminal justice system. He also said that, with such a statute in place, he could support Obama’s plan to convert a state prison in Illinois to a federal facility for former Guantanamo inmates.
…Some human rights advocates said Monday that they didn’t doubt Graham had discussed a detention statute with the White House, but were skeptical that officials there are actively considering it.
Right. It would be the height of inconsistency for this administration to backtrack on a pledge or a campaign promise. There’s nothing in the past year to make anyone think they might “change” their views or principles, as if they had any, in the face of the slightest amount of pressure, or in pursuit of another sellout compromise. Perish the thought.
13 Saturday Feb 2010
Posted in Financial Crisis, Obama, Politics, special interests, Wall Street
Tags
Jamie Dimon, Lloyd Blankfein, obscene, President Obama, savvy businessmen, shameful, Wall Street bonuses
President Obama certainly has had a “change” of heart regarding Wall Street bonuses. He has gone from referring to the payouts as “shameful,” “the height of irresponsibility,” and “obscene” to saying he doesn’t “begrudge” Chase CEO Jamie Dimon and Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein their bonuses because, “I know both those guys; they are very savvy businessmen.”
What happened in between the time the president said, “I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street,” and “I, like most of the American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of the free- market system.”
“Just two years after Mr. Obama helped his party pull in record Wall Street contributions — $89 million from the securities and investment business, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics — some of his biggest supporters, like Mr. Dimon, have become the industry’s chief lobbyists against his regulatory agenda…And industry executives and lobbyists are warning Democrats that if Mr. Obama keeps attacking Wall Street “fat cats,” they may fight back by withholding their cash.”
Warning duly noted and appropriate corrective measures taken.
10 Wednesday Feb 2010
Posted in George W. Bush, Obama, Politics, terrorism, war on terror
Other than President Obama’s apparent determination to be seen as George W. Bush’s third term, why is the extension of the Patriot Act in the new jobs bill?
SEC. 645. EXTENSION OF INTELLIGENCE AUTHORITY SUNSETS.
(a) USA PATRIOT IMPROVEMENT ANDREAUTHORIZATION ACT OF
2005.—Section 102(b)(1) of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109–177; 50 U.S.C. 1805 note, 50 U.S.C. 211861 note, and 50 U.S.C. 1862 note) is amended by striking ‘‘February 28, 2010’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2010’’.
(b) INTELLIGENCE REFORM AND TERRORISM PREVENTION ACT OF
2004.—Section 6001(b)(1) of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Public Law 108–458; 118 Stat. 3742; 50 U.S.C. 1801 2note) is amended by striking ‘‘February 28, 2010’’ and inserting ‘‘December 31, 2010’’.
Gotta love that openness and transparency.
04 Thursday Feb 2010
Question-and-answer session or dog and pony show? You decide (emphasis mine):
“Senate Democrats held back from asking President Barack Obama about healthcare reform during a carefully scripted question-and-answer session in front of television cameras…With the cameras rolling, a group of senators selected in advance by the Democratic leadership asked questions about such topics as partisan gridlock and GOP obstruction.
Democratic leaders planned their question time with Obama well in advance, discussing during a meeting earlier in the week who would get to ask questions.”
…There was a vigorous discussion about that afterward with some of his top advisers and others,” Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) said regarding the healthcare discussion.
“I think people were probably aware that there was no easy answer and this is being broadcast on live national television and didn’t want to put him on the spot,” Bayh said.
I’ll take dog and pony show for $1,000 Alex.
04 Thursday Feb 2010
Posted in economy, Financial Crisis, Obama, Politics, Uncategorized
As if the staggering numbers that are in President Obama’s budget weren’t enough, take a look at what’s not there:
“Feb. 4 (Bloomberg) — Look through President Barack Obama’s proposed 2011 budget and you’ll see a line calling for a $235 million increase in the Justice Department’s funding to fight financial fraud. Lucky for them, the people who wrote the budget can’t be prosecuted for cooking the government’s books.
…They are keeping Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac off the government’s balance sheet and out of the federal budget, along with their $1.6 trillion of corporate debt and $4.7 trillion of mortgage obligations...Fannie and Freddie aren’t merely wards of the state. Practically speaking, they are the entire U.S. housing market. Their liabilities are the government’s liabilities.
White House budget director Peter Orszag on September 9, 2008, two days after Fannie and Freddie were seized, when he was director of the Congressional Budget Office:
“The degree of control exercised by the federal government over these entities is so strong that the best treatment is to incorporate them into the federal budget.”
That control is stronger today. Congress and the Treasury have given the companies a blank check to blow through whatever taxpayer money is necessary to keep the U.S. housing market afloat. Anyone buying large quantities of U.S. government bonds knows these liabilities exist. So why pretend they don’t?”
A good question for those who promised openness and transparency.
03 Wednesday Jun 2009
Posted in Obama, Politics, Uncategorized
Tags
ABC News, far right web sites, Jake Tapper, Middle East, nutjobs, President Obama, Seekrit Mooslim crowd, trip
They’re baaaaaaaack! As President Obama takes his trip to the Middle East where he will give a speech in Cairo and, as a last-minute add-on, attend a private meeting in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia with King Abdullah (where he can undoubtedly bow before the King without photographers present this time) an article from Jake Tapper of ABC News has the Obama is a Seekrit Mooslim crowd all fired up again.
“During a conference call in preparation for President Obama’s trip to Cairo, Egypt, where he will address the Muslim world, deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Denis McDonough said “the President himself experienced Islam on three continents before he was able to — or before he’s been able to visit, really, the heart of the Islamic world — you know, growing up in Indonesia, having a Muslim father — obviously Muslim Americans (are) a key part of Illinois and Chicago.”
To add to the paranoia, President Obama said in an interview with French TV:
“And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world. And so there’s got to be a better dialogue and a better understanding between the two peoples.”
Well there you have it, conclusive proof that Barack Hussein Obama covered up (with the support of the liberal, leftist media) his Muslim heritage during the campaign, and now he is saying that America is a large Muslim country, letting slip his future plans for forced conversion of us all to Islam, no doubt.
Or maybe he is trying to improve our relations with the Muslim world by telling them that we are no longer on George Bush’s “crusade,” and that American foreign policy is no longer “either you are with us or against us.” Nah, must be the first explanation, not the second.
Cue the comments from the nutjobs on the far-right web sites in 3…2…1…
Anyone else dread his coming apology speech to the jihadists during his trip?
When is someone going to step up to the plate and remove this evil bozo?
Wait till Obama tries to murder every jew in israel
The American Liberal Media would put HITLER into office today if he were running for President.
Obama’s Socialism is as close to Hitler, as Hitler was close to Joseph Goebbels
HE IS AN IMPOSTOR — IMPEACH HIM NOW!
Anyone want to take bets on the exact date that re-education in the USA about Islam becomes mandatory from the Federal government? August of this year? (too soon?) February of 2010? (still too soon?) How about May of 2011?
Never forget the Muslim saying “War is deceit”. Barack Hussein (don’t forget that BOTH names are Arabic) is at war with America. He and his henchmen are succeeding in their destruction of the US.
If he had his way we would have 10 million rag bags in the USA. A complete and total loser, liar and charlatan. I say we make the USA a muslim free zone, starting with the mullah obamaham!
He has lost all touch with reality. He needs to be removed from office.
He bowed to a Muslim king and now he’s bowing to his Muslim people. Hail Hussein Obama, Muslim King of America!!
We have to realize that the lamestream media is now the State-Run Media, and they’re in the tank for this guy. Of course, BHO’s reckless and irresponsible comment will be glossed over. He is all for the destruction of the United States and its customs, culture, and freedom as we have known it.
United States of America
July 4, 1776-January 20, 2009
Cause of Death: Barack Hussein Obama.
Pathetic.
23 Saturday May 2009
Posted in Obama, Politics, Uncategorized
Tags
9/11, Bush administration, Cheney, Guantanamo, Keeping Americans safe, President Obama, speech, Thursday
There is an often-repeated phrase that I’ve been hearing lately in the debate over the actions of the Bush administration, and in relation to the closing of Guantanamo and what to do with the people being held there. President Obama repeated it in his speech on national security Thursday.
Former Vice-President Cheney has used it several times as his justification for the Bush administration’s “enhanced interrogation techniques.” It was the priority of the administration and the aim of it’s policies after 9/11, according to Mr. Cheney.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs included it in his press briefing on Wednesday, citing it as “the most important job” of President Obama. The president himself said in his speech it is his “single most important responsibility.”
That phrase is “keeping Americans safe.”
I would argue that Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Cheney, and President Obama are mistaken. In my opinion, the most important job of the President of the United States, and what should guide every president and their administration, is to fulfill to the presidential oath of office, which is:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Nothing there about keeping the people safe.
In his inaugural address, President Obama spoke of not sacrificing our principles for safety:
“As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.
Our founding fathers faced with perils that we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations.
Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake.”
Preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution that includes the protection from unreasonable search and seizure, and the rights of due process, trial by jury, and of the accused to be “informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.”
But in his otherwise excellent speech on Thursday, President Obama included something that was unsettling to me and should be to anyone who holds these protections dear. That is the notion of “preventive detention”–indefinite imprisonment of those whose crimes can’t be proven in a court of law but who are deemed “dangerous” because of what they might do if released.
In Glen Greenwald’s piece for Salon, he explained it this way:
“It’s important to be clear about what “preventive detention” authorizes. It does not merely allow the U.S. Government to imprison people alleged to have committed Terrorist acts yet who are unable to be convicted in a civilian court proceeding. That class is merely a subset, perhaps a small subset, of who the Government can detain. Far more significant, “preventive detention” allows indefinite imprisonment not based on proven crimes or past violations of law, but of those deemed generally “dangerous” by the Government for various reasons.
…After all, once you accept the rationale on which this proposal is based — namely, that the U.S. Government must, in order to keep us safe, preventively detain “dangerous” people even when they can’t prove they violated any laws — there’s no coherent reason whatsoever to limit that power to people already at Guantanamo, as opposed to indefinitely imprisoning with no trials all allegedly “dangerous” combatants, whether located in Pakistan, Thailand, Indonesia, Western countries and even the U.S.”
Not a road I think we want to start down in the name of “keeping us safe.”
To be clear, this isn’t about my not trusting President Obama to do what he thinks is best for our country, which I do. But that trust is not absolute and without limits. It is about trusting government, no matter who the president happens to be, with this kind of power.
The government may keep us safe from the terrorists, our Constitutional protections are there to keep us safe from the government. To me, the second protection is more important than the first.
Desperado's Outpost 