Friday, July 31, 2009

MN Congressman John Kline fights Democrat student loan squeeze




Senior Republican vows student loan bill fight

By Kevin Drawbaugh
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republicans will keep fighting a Democratic bill in the U.S. Congress that would squeeze banks out of the $92 billion student loan origination business, a top Republican lawmaker said on Wednesday.
Despite the likelihood that the legislation will pass the House of Representatives in September, Representative John Kline told Reuters he and others will resist the bill in the House and suggested it could stall in the Senate.
Companies with a stake in the matter include Sallie Mae (SLM.N), Bank of America (BAC.N), Citigroup (C.N) (STU.N), Wells Fargo (WFC.N), JPMorgan Chase (JPM.N) and many others.
"I have resisted and will continue to resist erasing private capital and the private sector from the student lending business," said Kline, who last month became the top-ranked Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee.
"Given the numbers, the chances are that it will pass the House. We'll make every argument we can. We'll put the debate out there ... Then we'll see what the Senate can do," Kline, a conservative from Minnesota, said in an interview.
First elected to Congress in 2002, Kline takes over the leadership of the Republican minority on the committee as a long struggle over the future of higher education finance enters a pivotal stage.
The committee last week voted to shut down the $55 billion Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program, which for 35 years has been at the core of a lucrative government-guaranteed student loan business model used by private-sector lenders.
The 30-17 committee vote moved Democrats closer to a long-held goal -- closing FFEL and moving most student loans into the U.S. Education Department's Direct Loan program.
The idea is to save taxpayers money by eliminating subsidies paid to private-sector lenders and to shield student lending from the volatile ups and downs of Wall Street.
MILLER SEES VOTE SOON
Democratic Representative George Miller, the committee's chairman, told Reuters on Tuesday in an interview that the legislation will be brought to the House floor for a vote "probably right after the August break."
Passage would represent a step forward for the Obama administration's broad effort to tighten banking and capital market regulations following the worst financial crisis in generations and a deep and prolonged economic recession.
The House is scheduled to begin its summer recess on Friday and return in early September.
Republicans have been fighting to preserve FFEL, arguing its shutdown will eliminate thousands of jobs and that FFEL has a good record of serving college students.
"We are making the counter-argument that for 40 years we had somewhere on the order of $70 billion in private capital in the lending business," Kline said.
FFEL lenders were embarrassed in 2007 by a scandal in which some were found to have given money and gifts to college financial aid officers to drum up business.
Last year, the government had to intervene with emergency aid in the student loan market to keep it from freezing up in the general crisis that engulfed global capital markets.
KLINE SEES "EXCUSE"
The Democrats are using the financial crisis "as an excuse" to squeeze out the private sector, Kline said.
"Everybody ought to be watching what's happened here. You can erase a private industry. I just find that to be sort of shocking and appalling," he said.
Miller's bill would leave room for some private-sector firms to carry on in the market as student loan servicers.
"Clearly it will keep some people employed," Kline said, but he added that the business opportunity envisioned for servicers is "nowhere near what we've got now."
He said, "This is just servicing, not origination. So it's a very, very big impact ... People will lose their jobs. There's no question about that."

Government to fund news? How will that will ensure fair coverage?



Disgraced news anchor Dan Rather now wants White House commision ...
Examiner.com - ‎2 hours ago‎
Disgraced CBS News anchor Dan Rather feels his chosen "profession" is in such dire straits that he wants President Obama to establish a White House ...
Dan Rather Wants Obama To Fix His Problems PerezHilton.com
Is Dan Rather Lobbying For a Media Czar Title? Hot Air
Dan Rather Calls On Obama: Form a White House Commission on Public ... Burnt Orange Report
National Review Online Blogs - NBC Chicago
all 24 news articles »


Jawa Report
Dan Rather Proposes Federal Media Commission
Jawa Report - Mike Pechar - ‎10 hours ago‎
Former mainstream media (MSM) stalwart Dan Rather was quite emotional in a speech Tuesday before the Aspen Institute as he called on President Obama to save ...

Aspen Daily News
Dan Rather Calls for White House to Save Journalism from Financial ...
Business Media Institute - Jeff Poor - ‎Jul 29, 2009‎
As if the relationship between the Obama Administration and the news media weren't cozy enough already, former “CBS Evening News” anchor Dan ...
Dan Rather: Help Us, Obi-wan Obama, You're Our Only Hope! Reason Online
Rather laments journalism's rapid decline Aspen Times
Rather calls on Obama to form White House commission on public media The Colorado Independent
Opposing Views
all 7 news articles »

Dan Rather Slams the Corporate Media
Prison Planet.com - ‎16 hours ago‎
Dan Rather slammed the corporate media in a talk Tuesday for the erosion of quality journalism, and the corporatization, politicization, ...
We'd rather the Prez ignores Rather
Radio Business Report - ‎11 hours ago‎
Former CBS anchor and present hdnet reporter Dan Rather called on President Obama to step in and help the press get through its current financial woes. ...

The Standard
Judge: Dan Rather Can Again Pursue Fraud Claim In CBS Suit
Wall Street Journal - Chad Bray - ‎Jul 21, 2009‎
NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--A state judge on Tuesday reinstated a fraud claim by former CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather in ...
Rather Wins Access to Thousands of Documents in Suit Against CBS New York Times
Judge restores Dan Rather suit against CBS Reuters
Judge Reinstates Dan Rather Fraud Claim Against CBS Over Firing Bloomberg
The Associated Press
all 259 news articles »
CBS

Rather to Obama: Journalism Needs Help
The Latest Free Press - Candace Clement - ‎Jul 30, 2009‎
In a passionate speech in Colorado on Tuesday night, former CBS News anchor Dan Rather called on President Obama to form a White House commission on ...

Bachman leads with pro-life funding

From MN Independent at http://minnesotaindependent.com/40699/in-6th-district-race-abortion-foes-fund-bachmann-decry-clark:

Minnesota Independent: News. Politics. Media. » Abortion foes fund ...By Andy Birkey An analysis of anti-abortion campaign donations finds that Rep. Michele Bachmann is one of the country's top earners — and she's delivered for her contributors on that issue. At the same time, local anti-abortion forces are already ... John Kline ($9050), Collin Peterson ($6307), and James Oberstar ($3289) have received money from the anti-abortion lobby. Three other members — Reps. Betty McCollum ($11900), Tim Walz ($19400) and Keith Ellison ( $4600) — have accepted ...

Democrats won't budge on abortion funding in health care reform

Abortion Measure Fails On 2nd vote; Work Resumes Today
WXIA-TV - Gary Franklin - ‎1 hour ago‎
requirements for coverage of abortion, except in limited cases. The Energy and Commerce Committee approved it in an initial vote, after conservative ...

Health Care: Pro-life lawmakers raise alarm: Absent amendment ...
World Magazine - Krieg Barrie - ‎2 hours ago‎
WASHINGTON—On July 17, House lawmakers rode to the rescue of the nation's wild horse population, passing a bill to prevent their slaughter by adding ...
Too successful?...Abortion amendment drama...Shuttle due back
9&10 News - ‎2 hours ago‎
WASHINGTON (AP) — The government's "cash for clunkers" program may turn out to be a victim of its own success. The White House says it's assessing its ...


House committee rejects limiting abortion coverage in healthcare ...
Los Angeles Times - ‎6 hours ago‎
AP Washington -- An anti-abortion amendment to a sweeping healthcare overhaul bill was rejected by a House committee late Thursday -- a dramatic reversal ...
After passing, abortion measure fails in House panel... KXNet ...
Reiten Television KXMB Bismarck - ‎6 hours ago‎
AP Washington (AP) In a dramatic reversal, an anti-abortion amendment to a health overhaul bill was voted down in a House committee late Thursday. ...

Abortion measure passes, then fails, in House
The Associated Press - ‎7 hours ago‎
WASHINGTON — An anti-abortion amendment to a sweeping health overhaul bill was voted down in a House committee late Thursday — a dramatic reversal just ...
House lawmakers endorse measure opposing abortion
The Associated Press - ‎9 hours ago‎
WASHINGTON — Lawmakers have amended a sweeping health overhaul bill to ensure it does not require coverage of abortions. The anti-abortion measure was ...

Kohls: "stand up and fight for limited government"

From Politics in Minnesota:

What makes them run: Kohls vows to "stand up and fight for limited ...
Politics in Minnesota - Steve Perry - ‎Jul 27, 2009‎
Four-term GOP state Rep. Paul Kohls (R-Victoria) was at home today taking a lunchtime break with his family when we spoke with him about his campaign for the state's highest office.
Paul Kohls/vitals
Born: 1974; Education: B.A., University of St. Thomas (political science); J.D., University of Minnesota; Occupation: Attorney; Elected: 2002 (4th term); Committees: Crime Victims/Criminal Records Division; Finance; Public Safety Finance Division; Public Safety Policy and Oversight; Taxes; campaign website.
[See previous What makes them run interviews with 2010 gubernatorial candidates.]
PIM: Why are you running for governor?
Paul Kohls: I'm running for governor because I believe that Minnesota needs a leader who's going to stand up and fight for limited government and advocate policies that I believe will result in a more vibrant and productive private sector. I think that's the key to turning around our economy not only nationally but here in Minnesota--focusing on making Minnesota a better place to do business.
That's the "why" behind my candidacy. We've seen a lot of people in St. Paul over the last many years advocating for more and more government for every real and perceived problem. I just don't think that's the right direction for us to be heading.
PIM: What are the two or three most important challenges facing Minnesota, and what would you do to solve them?
Kohls: Two or three, huh? [laughs] There's a lot of challenges facing Minnesota, but I guess the two or three that are probably most significant are--well, the state budget. We need to--as you know, we've had budget deficit after budget deficit after budget deficit. And it's not because we don't tax the hard-working people and businesses of Minnesota enough. It's, from my perspective, because we simply spend too much money and we've failed to set priorities.
We've tried to make everything a priority, and when you make everything a priority, I don't think anything's a priority. So we need to set priorities. We need to focus on what state government has to do and has to do well. And again, as I said, we need to make sure that it's easier through government policies for businesses to start and stay and grow here in Minnesota. Because it's private sector growth that's the key to turning our economy around.
Private sector growth is not going to happen if we continue to raise taxes on job providers and increase regulation. They're going to flee the state and that's the wrong direction for them to head. So I think, back to what I said about the first state budget. We need to do a better job of setting priorities.
The other big challenge, I think, is getting our arms around the Health and Human Services spending in the state of Minnesota. That's not going to be easy to do. It's going to be very difficult to do. But the path that we are on right now is simply not sustainable. So we need to figure out how much government Minnesotans can afford. And we need to make some of the very tough choices now about what we're going to do in the Health and Human Services area. We simply cannot afford to have that part of our budget growing by 20 percent-plus every biennium.
The result of that is that education and some of our other priorities are struggling to get any increase. It's simply squeezing out the rest of the state priorities. Getting our arms around Health and Human Services spending is going to be a big challenge for us.
PIM: How many campaign events have you attended so far?Kohls: Oh, boy. I'm attending events and meetings--several of them a day. I'm campaigning fulltime, so all of my effort right now is meeting with Republican party activists and financial contributors. I haven't kept any kind of running tally, but it's literally at least a couple of events a day. Everything from meetings with a local Republican leader to a bigger party meeting. Or this weekend, for example, I was at a picnic in Burnsville with Republicans from Senate District 40.
I'm keeping very busy. I think over the last three weeks, I've put about 2,400 miles on my car. I'm literally traveling all over the state meeting with Republican party activists and donors.
PIM: What are the main messages you're hearing from Minnesotans as you campaign around the state?Kohls: The underlying theme to most of what I'm hearing relates to the economy both nationally and here in Minnesota. Whether it's unemployment or people having their hours cut or their wages frozen or whatever the case may be. And what that is resulting in--sort of the corollary to that--is that people are taking a much closer look at the revenue side of government's balance sheet, but the expenditures side as well.
People are much more interested in and concerned about how and where state government is spending money than I think they have been, certainly since I've been elected, and even going back years before that.
PIM: If you don't receive your party's endorsement, will you run in the primary?
Kohls: No.PIM: Who or what would you say are the most important influences on your life and outlook?
Kohls: Without question, it's my parents first and foremost. And a very close second is my wife, Kelly.
My parents were great role models for me as a child and a young adult. They're small business owners. They worked very, very hard for everything that they have. They've really been inspirational to me. They gave me a lot of opportunity, and I hope I can return that to my children, or model that for my children, as well.
My wife is obviously the most important person in my life today. As you probably know, there's no way that a candidate for the state Legislature, let alone a statewide office like governor, can do this without the support of their family. My wife is incredibly supportive. She's an amazing woman and is doing a great job raising our two kids and supporting me. She's an inspiration to me as well, and certainly a partner in this venture.
PIM: What's the first thing you can remember wanting to be when you grew up?
Kohls: I saw that question that you had asked of some of the others, and I thought about that. The more I thought about it, the first thing I can remember wanting to be when I was still in elementary school was a fighter pilot. I just thought those guys were so cool. I've always admired the military and I've always been fascinated by air travel.
So the first thing I wanted to be was a fighter pilot. And when I was a little older and realized that I didn't have the vision to be a military pilot, I thought maybe I'll be a commercial pilot. [laughs] I enjoy flying, but I'm not a pilot.

What makes them run: Haas says it's about bringing jobs back to Minnesota


From Politics in Minnesota:

Earlier today PIM spoke by phone with GOP gubernatorial candidate Bill Haas, whose political resume includes a tenure as mayor of Champlin and 10 years in the Minnesota House of Representatives.
Bill Haas/vitals
Born: 1949, Burbank, California; Education: A.A., University of Minnesota (math/biology); Occupation: Insurance broker, lobbyist, consultant; Electoral history: former mayor of Champlin, MN; served in Minnesota House of Representatives, 1995-2005; no campaign website.
PIM: Why are you running for governor?
Bill Haas: Why am I running for governor? Because I've been watching the Legislature since I've been out. I've been down there working and kind of seen what's going on, and just thought, it's time to do this.
It's just like the other offices I've run for. I see problems that are rising, and I feel I've got the experience and the knowledge and the ability and the vision to move Minnesota forward.
PIM: What are the two or three most important challenges facing Minnesota, and what would you do to solve them?

Probe into dealer cuts continues

Obama Auto Adviser Tells Lawmakers Not to Undo Dealer Closings
New York Times - Nick Bunkley - ‎Jul 21, 2009‎
The Chrysler dealerships slated for elimination closed on June 9, and Chrysler is nearly done redistributing their inventory. GM dealers being cut have ...

Dems Split in Fight Over Chrysler, GM Dealer Cuts BNET
Top House, Senator leaders support dealer bill The Detroit News
GM, Chrysler defend dealer cuts The Associated Press

Oh, government runs things best ... this would never happen with Health Care Reform!!!


'Cash for Clunkers' running out of gas
NBC2 News - ‎14 minutes ago‎
... rumors swirled that the program would be suspended. But the White House says it will keep cash for clunkers in place while it assesses the situation. ...


Video: Cash for Clunkers Program Has Run Out of Cash
WWLP.com
“Cash-for-Clunkers” Already Running Out of Cash? Atlanta Journal Constitution
Auto 'Clunkers' Offer in Doubt After Going Through $1 Billion Bloomberg
CNNMoney.com - Examiner.com
all 2,080 news articles »

'Cash for Clunkers' faces uncertainty after suspension off for now
Muncie Star Press - ‎8 minutes ago‎
AP • July 31, 2009 WASHINGTON — The government's popular "cash for clunkers" program may be running out of money after only a matter of days as car shoppers ...
America forced to dump $1billion 'cash for clunkers' car buying ... Daily Mail
all 4 news articles »

Cash for Clunkers Crashes
WKZO News - ‎4 minutes ago‎
That means “the Cash For Clunkers” program is being suspended until they know how much has been committed by dealers, who could be left with a lot of ...
'Clunkers' Auto Rebate Plan So Popular That It's Broke
Ocala - Matthew L. Wald - ‎3 minutes ago‎
WASHINGTON — New-car shoppers appear to have already snapped up all the $1 billion that Congress appropriated for the “cash for clunkers” program, ...
Cash-for-clunkers program is apparently on empty
Minneapolis Star Tribune - Abby Simons - ‎6 minutes ago‎
As of Thursday morning, the cash for clunkers website listed $858 million left for redemption, he said. "Where did the money go?" he said. ...
Auto 'Clunkers' Offer in Doubt After Going Through $1 Billion
Bloomberg - Angela Greiling Keane, John Hughes - ‎1 hour ago‎
July 31 (Bloomberg) -- The US government's $1 billion “cash for clunkers” program to spur new car sales ran through the money six days after it began, Senator Debbie Stabenow said.


Video: Cash for Clunkers Program Has Run Out of Cash
WWLP.com
Too many clunkers, too little cash CNNMoney.com

Spending news in Carver County

Excerpt from the Chaska Herald:

A historical marker and rest area along County Road 61 are getting spiffed up this summer as part of Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) efforts to turn back the road to Carver County.

The rest area will also be repaved, the buckthorn removed and a new picnic table installed as part of the $170,000 project (spending pushed by Democrat County Commissioner Randy Maluchnik).

Where's the transparency in government spending?

From the National Taxpayers Union and its "Show Me The Spending" Coalition which is dedicated to transparency in government spending:

New Jersey Fails to Uphold Transparency Promises
On January 13, 2009, New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine delivered his State of the State address and pledged to promote transparency in government spending by creating an easy-to-use, searchable website to record how the state’s share of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act stimulus money was being spent. Six months later, however, much remains to be done.

New Jersey Senator Joe Pennacchio, a prominent sponsor of the Transparency in Government Act, recently issued a statement calling for Governor Corzine to fulfill his promise by making the state’s transparency website, easier to use for busy taxpayers. Pennacchio wants New Jersey’s site to include a “county-by-county, community-by-community, and project-by-project” breakdown of where $17 billion of federal stimulus funds is being spent.

Pennaccio acknowledges that community-operated sites like stimuluswatch.org have been launched to aid in the transparency effort, but notes that the government alone knows which proposals are under serious consideration and which have already received requested funds, and so the government alone is responsible for making the goal of full transparency a reality.

Rhode Island Pushes for Stimulus Transparency
While many were not immediately thrilled with the federal economic stimulus package, state lawmakers took advantage of the funding to help repair their state’s delicate financial situation. Now, while considering next year’s budget and the 2010 elections, they must decide what to do once there is no more stimulus money coming into the state. Will we be back to strategic accounting techniques or shady budgeting?

“What’s the exit strategy when this is over?” asked State Representative Steven Costantino, “The stimulus is really a one-shot infusion that at some point ends.” With that in mind, it is imperative that Rhode Island continue to expand its financial records available to the public, to hold lawmakers accountable for state spending. We should thank Governor Donald Carcieri for supporting transparency and urge him to create a searchable website for all government expenditures similar to what General Treasurer Frank Caprio has done with the Online Checkbook.

Two Steps Forward, One Step Back
Colorado’s Jefferson County has just launched a new transparency website COST, Colorado Spending Transparency. It is the most comprehensive website so far that Colorado has to offer. Congratulations to Jefferson County for setting an example for the best transparency at the local level!

Also worthy of mentioning, is Delaware’s new transparency portal maintained by the Caesar Rodney Institute. Like other transparency websites, the goal of DelawareSpends.com is to give taxpayers an opportunity to research, analyze, compare and share government spending data. Unfortunately, Georgia counties are not doing well with spending transparency.

The Sam Adams Alliance has released a transparency grade for all county websites in Georgia. No county received higher than a B- for their openness and forty-four counties did not have a website at all! "Citizens deserve to know what their government is doing and how their hard-earned tax dollars are being spent," said Kristin McMurray, managing editor of Sunshine Review. "We hope county officials will welcome our findings and begin taking the necessary steps to achieve greater open and honest government by meeting all ten points on the transparency checklist."

For more information about the checklist or other information about the Sam Adams Alliance’s work, click http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Evaluation_of_Georgia_county_websites.

Thursday, July 30, 2009

Rybak "Very Likely" To Run For Governor

Gov. Pawlenty on National stage

"Anybody who is out focusing on (2012) instead of working toward getting the party moving forward or back in a better position in 2010 is really doing us a disservice"
- Gov. Tim Pawlenty



Pawlenty Attacks Obama's Health Plan With Eye on 2012 Presidential Run
FOXNews - Carl Cameron - ‎2 hours ago‎
Tim Pawlenty, who has chosen not to run next year for a third term as Minnesota governor, is focusing on a 2012 White House run and rebuilding the GOP. ...

Pawlenty's Blue-State Appeal Washington Post

Can Pawlenty Win Evangelicals and Moderates (Unlike Palin and ... U.S. News & World Report

GOP Minn. Gov. Pawlenty builds

GOP Minn. Gov. Pawlenty builds brand nationally

By BRIAN BAKST Associated Press Writer
Posted: Today at 4:31 a.m.
ST. PAUL, Minn. — Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty is a man on the move. Next stop, the Republican National Committee meeting in California. Future stop? Maybe the White House.
The two-term fiscal and social conservative is taking necessary steps toward a possible presidential bid - headlining GOP fundraisers, taking an influential job at the Republican Governors Association, mulling his own political action committee.
But Pawlenty says he's focused on the party, not 2012.
"Anybody who is out focusing on (2012) instead of working toward getting the party moving forward or back in a better position in 2010 is really doing us a disservice," Pawlenty told The Associated Press.
However, his track record of GOP building in Minnesota is less than stellar. Republicans have lost ground in every election since he became governor in 2003. He is the sole statewide GOP officeholder and his party controls its fewest legislative seats since 1992. Pawlenty himself narrowly survived a three-way election contest to win his second term. But the governor said that's not his fault.
Minnesota is "probably one of the most liberal states in the country," he said. "When the pendulum swung back to the left, we were at a tenuous point to begin with."
At age 48, with almost two decades of state government service under his belt, Pawlenty denies looking very far down the national road. But he's getting the early exposure he'll need if he formally joins a GOP field that could include better-known former governors like Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee.
He has assumed the No. 2 post at the Republican Governors Association, a perch that will involve steering assistance to GOP candidates in close races. And he's jumped into the national health care debate, criticizing President Barack Obama's plan in a way also seen as a veiled swipe at potential rival Romney. (He labeled a Massachusetts overhaul enacted under Romney an "experiment" with a swelling price tag.)
Pawlenty also told the AP he's considering forming a political action committee - a staple that gives potential presidential candidates a way to raise money and organize travel to election battlegrounds.
Pawlenty's recent travel has taken him to Washington, Arkansas and Colorado. But he hasn't yet ventured to presidential proving grounds Iowa or New Hampshire and wouldn't say when he would. He visited both while campaigning for 2008 nominee John McCain - who considered him for the running mate slot Palin got - but still has plenty of work to do.
Republican John Finnegan, 50, of Concord, said Wednesday he had heard Pawlenty's name but not much else.
"I don't know anything about the guy," he said.
In Iowa, Sioux City businessman and former state GOP chairman Ray Hoffman rated Pawlenty as merely a possibility. "Would I put him at the top of the list? At this point, no," Hoffman said.
At least one Iowa conservative group, the American Future Fund, has invited him to speak. Organizer Tim Albrecht said Iowa Republicans are eager to hear from their neighboring governor firsthand, but understand why he hasn't come yet.
"The biggest risk in coming to Iowa too early is it can seem overeager or ambitious to talk about 2012," Albrecht said. "It is a delicate balance, a tightrope they need to walk in order to be successful."
But Republican strategist Terry Nelson, who managed McCain's early campaign efforts, said potential candidates' groundwork must be laid to move quickly after the 2010 election.
"Really, candidates have to decide that in the next 18 months because it's not the kind of thing anymore you can decide in June or July of 2011," Nelson said.
Republican national committeewoman Phyllis Woods of New Hampshire plans to ask Pawlenty to visit her state when she sees him in California. Woods said she met Pawlenty during last summer's GOP convention in the Twin Cities and considers him a "feet-on-the-ground, good, solid, conservative Republican."
"I would like to learn more about him," she said.
Woods and representatives from all 50 states will get their chance at Pawlenty's speech Thursday.
Pawlenty tends to stick a formula at the podium: He'll begin with a self-deprecating joke - usually about a comment by his wife or two daughters - and connect the punch line to a broader point of his speech.
The son of a truck driver, he's also fond of talking about "Sam's Club Republicans," potential GOP voters with blue-collar backgrounds who want leaders to apply customer values to government. Lately, Pawlenty has shared a tough-love message with Republican audiences, saying his party will keep "losing market share to our competitors" until it finds a better, more inspiring message.
Whether Pawlenty can break through to sustain a 2012 campaign is hard to say.
Drake University politics professor Dennis Goldford said a northern governor must find a way to appeal to an increasingly southern GOP base. He needs to weave a message attractive both to people who want to make the party more pure and to those seeking centrist remodeling.
"At this point you just don't know the political terrain," Goldford said. "All you can do right now is introduce yourself and put yourself in people's vision and mind and then say `I'll be back."

Pawlenty test drives 2012 messagePolitico
According to those present, he focused only on getting to know the officials and discussing the 2009 and 2010 elections. Further lending an aura of 2012 ...

Seniors say AARP doesn't represent them

AARP wrong to support Obama health plan
Baltimore Sun - ‎1 hour ago‎
After being a dues paying member of AARP for over 16 years now, I submitted my resignation from July 28. AARP has taken the wrong course here by going out ...


AARP MEMBERS REVOLT! Fight Obamacare by ripping up your card! Examiner.com

'AARP - Ain't Always Retiree Phriendly'
Examiner.com - ‎1 hour ago‎
Being a writer about all things, including politics, I discovered several years ago and reported in the papers I was writing for at that time, that the AARP ...

Rationed care will hit seniors, 2010 looking good for GOP

Rationing - Obama care would contain costs by cutting senior care (end of life counseling), price controls:

Polls drop for Obama


Excerpts from the Wall Street Journal at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124890178435291341.html:

Support Slips for Health Plan
Obama Push Faces Growing Doubts in Poll; Overhaul Advances in House, Senate


WASHINGTON -- Support for President Barack Obama's health-care effort has declined over the past five weeks, particularly among those who already have insurance, a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found, amid prolonged debate over costs and quality of care.
In mid-June, respondents were evenly divided when asked whether they thought Mr. Obama's health plan was a good or bad idea. In the new poll, conducted July 24-27, 42% called it a bad idea while 36% said it was a good idea.
Among those with private insurance, the proportion calling the plan a bad idea rose to 47% from 37%.
Declining popularity of the health-care overhaul reflects rising anxiety over the federal budget deficit and congressional debate over the most contentious aspects of the legislation, including how to pay for it. The poll also shows concern over the role of government in determining personal medical decisions.
...The White House is eager to show progress and build public support before Congress breaks for summer, when opponents plan to continue their campaign. "If this bill hangs out there over the August recess my guess is it will get shredded," House Minority Leader John Boehner (R., Ohio), said.
In the Journal poll, only two in 10 people said the quality of their own care would improve under the Obama plan; just 15% of those with private insurance thought it would. Twice as many overall, and three times as many with private coverage, predicted their own care would get worse.
"You can't pass a substantial health reform unless privately insured people see there's a benefit for them," said Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster who conducts the poll with Democrat Peter D. Hart.
...The poll had a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points for the overall sample.
...the debate in Washington, which has been dominated by the $1 trillion, 10-year price tag for covering the uninsured. That makes it hard to persuade people that the bill will lead to reduced costs, said Mr. Axelrod.
"People are properly skeptical about any proposals out of Washington that speak to cost because they've been singed by past experience," said the senior Obama adviser.
...On the question of how to pay for the measure, the poll found only one idea with majority support: a surtax on the rich, the approach taken in the bill moving through the House, but which isn't expected in the Senate version.
Public support for fining businesses that don't offer insurance dropped from last month, with half of those polled now in favor. Only four in 10 liked the idea of taxing insurance companies that offer particularly generous health plans, an idea that has gained currency in the Senate Finance Committee.
The poll found that Mr. Obama's overall ratings have fallen amid worries over the economy, with the decline due almost entirely to dwindling support by Republicans. His score is solid by historical standards but no longer at the high-flying levels of his early weeks.
Overall, Mr. Obama's ratings fell on a series of measures. His job approval now stands at 53%, down from a high of 61% in April. That is three points higher than President George W. Bush had in June 2001, following a contentious election victory.
The proportion of people who said it was very or fairly likely that Mr. Obama would bring "real change" dropped to 51% from 61% in February. The share of those who said he could be trusted to keep his word fell to 48% this month from 58% in April.
Mr. Hart, the Democratic pollster, said rising concerns over employment and the economy explained Mr. Obama's falling ratings.
"He seems embroiled in so many of the issues of the day without much sense of relief on the economic front," he said.
The poll also found a rising sense of partisanship. More than three in 10 surveyed said the current Congress has been more partisan and divided than in the past, compared with just 11% who said it has been less partisan.
...On other issues, the poll found:
...Falling support for the economic stimulus plan, with 34% in favor, down from 44% in February; 43% now say it is a bad idea.
...

Excerpts from the New York Times at http://documents.nytimes.com/new-york-times-cbs-news-poll-health-care-overhaul#p=1:

New Poll Finds Growing Unease on Health Plan

By ADAM NAGOURNEY and MEGAN THEE-BRENAN
Published: July 29, 2009
President Obama’s ability to shape the debate on health care appears to be eroding as opponents aggressively portray his overhaul plan as a government takeover that could limit Americans’ ability to choose their doctors and course of treatment, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
Protesters and supporters lined Mr. Obama’s route in Raleigh, N.C. A poll shows concern about the effect of an overhaul.
Americans are concerned that revamping the health care system would reduce the quality of their care, increase their out-of-pocket health costs and tax bills, and limit their options in choosing doctors, treatments and tests, the poll found. The percentage who describe health care costs as a serious threat to the American economy — a central argument made by Mr. Obama — has dropped over the past month.
...reflecting a problem that has hindered efforts to bring major changes to health care for decades, Americans expressed considerable unease about what the end result would mean for them individually.
...With Congress now almost certain to recess until after Labor Day without floor votes on any specific plan, a vigorous advertising and grass-roots effort to shift public opinion is likely in the next month or two. The poll offers hope to both sides.
The changes in the public’s attitude over the past month, even if not huge, suggest one reason Mr. Obama sought so hard to get Congress to vote on some version of an overhaul before heading home.
Opponents of the proposed health care overhaul have already spent $9 million on television advertisements raising concerns about it, said Evan Tracey, the chief operating officer of Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks political advertising. The advertisements are financed by the Republican National Committee and aimed at constituents of wavering lawmakers. The committee is also running radio spots.
...The advertisements present the overhaul as a risky experiment, or a government takeover of health care that would prevent people from choosing their own doctors.
...The national poll was conducted by telephone starting on Friday and ending on Tuesday. It involved 1,050 adults, and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.
Mr. Obama’s job approval rating has dropped 10 points, to 58 percent, from a high point in April.
And despite his efforts — in speeches, news conferences, town-hall-style meetings and other forums — to address public misgivings, 69 percent of respondents in the poll said they were concerned that the quality of their own care would decline if the government created a program that covers everyone.
...The poll found 66 percent of respondents were concerned that they might eventually lose their insurance if the government did not create a new health care system, and 80 percent said they were concerned that the percentage of Americans without health care would continue to rise if Congress did not act.
...
Over all, the poll portrays a nation torn by conflicting impulses and confusion.
In one finding, 75 percent of respondents said they were concerned that the cost of their own health care would eventually go up if the government did not create a system of providing health care for all Americans. But in another finding, 77 percent said they were concerned that the cost of health care would go up if the government did create such a system.

From Newsweek at http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/07/30/how-worried-should-obama-be-about-his-poll-numbers.aspx:

How Worried Should Obama Be About His Poll Numbers?
Katie Connolly
Today’s headlines are screaming with bad news for President Obama. Two significant polls – from the Wall Street Journal / NBC and the New York Times / CBS – show support for his health care reform plans slipping, alongside his general approval rating. This is perhaps an unsurprising development when health care is dominating the national debate. History has proven repeatedly that this issue is kryptonite for presidents. Health care reform is an easy issue to dog – it’s far simpler to criticize a system than fix it, and promoting fear of change is easier than explaining the complex nuances of policy alterations. Simply put, health care is a really hard sell, even for gifted communicators. Just ask Bill Clinton.

So just how bad are these polls for the President? They’re certainly worrying, but in my view there are hopeful signs. We in the news media delight in dramatic narratives, and these polls can easily paint a damaging picture. But there is enough conflicting evidence in the numbers that the message I’m taking away is this: Americans are hedging. Let’s check out the evidence, starting with the positives.

The Good News for Obama

Although his approval rating has dropped, it is still in the majority and relatively high. Comparisons to Bill Clinton have been thrown around in the press today, but they’re misleading. Yes, only around 41 percent of people approve of Obama’s handling of healthcare, and yes, that’s about the same about Clinton’s approval ratings in August of 1994 when his health reform plan died. But, those two figures aren’t the right ones to compare. We should be comparing overall approval, where Obama’s is still 12-15 points higher than Clinton’s 41 percent depending on the poll. That’s good news for Obama – he still has credibility with voters and can build on it. He’s also much further along the process than Clinton was, another reason for him to take heart. Moreover, respondents in the New York Times poll prefer Obama’s ideas on health care to Republicans in Congress 55 percent to 26 percent.

The polls seem to indicate that Americans both want and fear reform. Take this nugget form The New York Times: “In one finding, 75 percent of respondents said they were concerned that the cost of their own health care would eventually go up if the government did not create a system of providing health care for all Americans. But in another finding, 77 percent said they were concerned that the cost of health care would go up if the government did create such a system.” They also report that two thirds of people are worried about losing insurance and 80% believe the numbers of uninsured will rise if reform fails,

So, probably as a result of the mixed messages emanating from DC, respondents worry about reform and at the same time worry about reform failing. This could be an opportunity for Obama, particularly if this insight from NBC plays out: “When read the specifics of his goals for health care — like requiring insurers to cover those with pre-existing conditions, providing low-income families with subsidies to help them afford insurance, and raising taxes on the wealthy to pay for the subsidies — 56 percent say they support Obama’s plan. Only 38 percent oppose.” Perhaps what these polls show most clearly is that Obama hasn’t been specific enough in his plans, especially while his opponents have been so explicit in their criticisms. He’s losing because he’s combating particulars with generalities. When respondents are answering questions about “Obama’s plan” it’s still not even clear what that plan is. The President certainly hasn’t detailed it. In this debate, specifics will always prevail over abstractions, but fortunately for Obama, that’s not such a hard problem to remedy.

The Bad News for Obama

Most of the bad news is obvious (approval slipping etc), so there’s no need for me to rehash in detail. The most worrying trend for Obama shouldn’t be top-line numbers but the reasons respondents cite for concern: limiting choice of physicians, increasing out of pocket expenses, increasing taxes etc. The New York Times reports, “69 percent of respondents in the poll said they were concerned that the quality of their own care would decline if the government created a program that covers everyone.” All of this adds up to one thing: GOP talking points are sticking. In an unusual turnaround for his presidency, Obama hasn’t been able to communicate effectively. That’s partly because he is working against history: the concerns listed above haven’t changed since the 90s, or even the 70s. They are the residue of past failed attempts, which is why they’re so sticky. Worries over choice and cost are so deeply ingrained in the American psyche that the best way overcome them is to create a different bogeyman. We’ve seen the White House do that this week, as Obama has shifted his focus to insurance companies, referring repeatedly to “health insurance reform.” But that strategy is too new for it’s effectiveness to be measured in these polls.

The potency of opposition talking points is double bad news for Obama as Congress heads toward recess. He’s facing a month where the legislation will stall but advertising will ramp up. It will be increasingly difficult for him to control the debate. And Republicans will focus on rallying points, like the public plan, diverting attention away from other critical parts of the debate – like the health insurance exchange, tax-exempt status, reimbursement regimes and cost controls. This is exactly why the President wanted a bill passed before August, and exactly why looking down Pennsylvania Avenue at an empty Capitol next month should make him nervous.

Abortion and euthanasia = Government "care"

From the Canadian Press at http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jZtRrbWgyY4lW7AA-C0IX4353xLw:

Abortion and euthanasia injected into health-care reform debate in U.S.
By Lee-Anne Goodman (CP) – WASHINGTON — The commercial opens with an aging couple sitting at their kitchen table, plaintive piano music playing in the background.
"They won't pay for my surgery, but we're forced to pay for abortions," says the miffed husband in the new spot produced by the pro-life Family Research Council.
It ends with this warning from the narrator: "Our greatest generation denied care. Our future generation denied life. Call your senator. Stop the government takeover of health care."
As is so often the case in the United States, another political battle has become a war waged over values as health-care reform remains the top order of business this week on Capitol Hill.
Democrats reached a fragile agreement on Wednesday with the party's rebellious rank-and-file fiscal conservatives, clearing the way for a vote in September on health-care legislation.
Six senators were also engaged in closed-door negotiations aimed at a bipartisan deal as a new Gallup poll suggested only 44 per cent of Americans believe new health-care laws would improve medical care in the United States.
Amid this uneasy environment, interest groups opposed to President Barack Obama's plans have been pulling out all the stops by injecting values into the argument, suggesting his plan will result in more abortions and seniors being encouraged to end their lives.
Republicans have been urging House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for an explicit exclusion of abortion services in any health-care bill, and have threatened to stall debate in the House of Representatives if it doesn't happen.
There's no mention of abortion or any other specific medical procedure in the 1,000-page bill currently before the House, prompting some pro-lifers to say it contains a hidden "abortion mandate."
"What you probably haven't heard is that the health-care bill being advanced by Democrats is the abortion industry's dream come true," James Dobson of Focus on the Family said in a recent Webcast.
"In fact, it is the most disturbing piece of pro-abortion legislation in recent memory."
A provision tucked deep within the House bill is at the heart of euthanasia fears. The legislation would provide Medicare coverage for an end-of-life consultation once every five years, and more frequent sessions if a person is suffering a life-threatening disease.
Conservatives are characterizing the consultations as something that would become a requirement under law.
"Congress would make it mandatory, absolutely require, that every five years, people in Medicare have a required counselling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner," Betsy McCaughey, a former lieutenant governor of New York State and a vocal critic of health-care reform, said in a recent interview.
House Minority Leader John Boehner, a Republican, and his colleague, Thaddeus McCotter, also issued a statement containing dire warnings about the provision, saying it "may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia."
Those remarks come despite the fact that end-of-life consultations have been embodied in federal law since 1990, and supported by both Republicans and Democrats for years.
Proponents of the provision point out that nothing is mandated in the bill - end-of-life consultations are simply something that would be provided if any American wants it.
"This measure would not only help people make the best decisions for themselves but also better ensure that their wishes are followed," John Rother of the American Association For Retired People said in a statement.
"To suggest otherwise is a gross, and even cruel, distortion."
With polls suggesting Americans are still struggling to figure out whether they want health-care reform, one Atlanta woman said Wednesday she resented the attempts by the right to inject values into the debate.
"I actually don't know how I feel about Obama's plan yet, but we aren't going to get anywhere if right-wing wingnuts start throwing wrenches in the gears based on made-up allegations about abortions for all," said Chelsea Samuel, 26, who lost her health insurance when she was laid off a few months ago.
"When they act like they're on some moral crusade to save the unborn, they lose their credibility - with me, at least. The current system that we have is completely broken and it's a shame some of our lawmakers are able to so easily ignore that."

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Public Option debate

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Meet John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar

Obama's advisors have a different value of life, as reported by the Washington Post July 15 http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/More-Holdren-Traditional-family-is-obsolete-50807107.html?utm_source=Ideas+in+Action&utm_campaign=45774ec5f0-Ideas_in_Action07_17_2009&utm_medium=email:

Obama's Science Czar: Traditional family is obsolete, punish large families
By: David Fredd, Commentary Staff Writer

President Obama's Science Czar, John Holdren, took a controversial and amoral approach to the science of population by recommending mass compulsory sterilization and even forced abortion (and/or forced marriages) under certain circumstances. His 1977 tome, Ecoscience, which he co-authored with Paul and Anne Ehrlich, also displays a revealing disregard for the institution of the traditional human family.

Holdren and the Ehrlichs write:
Radical changes in family structure and relationships are inevitable, whether population control is instituted or not. Inaction, attended by a steady deterioration in living conditions for the poor majority, will bring changes everywhere that no one could consider beneficial. Thus, it is beside the point to object to population-control measures simply on the grounds that they might change the social structure or family relationships.

Holdren, with a blithe “of course,” encourages government to wage an effective war on the family in America. It begins with the abolition of “pronatalist” policies and continues with their complete reversal:

As United States taxpayers know, income tax laws have long implicitly encouraged marriage and childbearing...Such a pronatalist bias of course is no longer appropriate. In countries that are affluent enough for the majority of citizens to pay taxes, tax laws could be adjusted to favor (instead of penalize) single people, working wives, and small families. Other tax measures might also include high marriage fees, taxes on luxury baby goods and toys, and removal of family allowances where they exist. Other possibilities include the limitation of maternal or educational benefits to two children per family.

Holdren notes that some of these proposals “have the potential disadvantage of heavily penalizing children (and in the long run society as well).” This is not a disqualifier, though, as long as the proposals are “carefully adjusted to avoid denying at least minimum care for poor families, regardless of the number of children they may have.” Even here, the objection is practical, not ethical. It's fine to level stiff penalties against those who choose families and children, but not to the point that this policy exacerbates the original problem (unwanted children, living in squalor) that population control purports to combat.

Some Americans might cite the Founding Fathers and argue that a government whose policy is to make war on the family in the name of science has clearly overstepped its mandate. That was not the opinion expressed by John Holdren, the man President Obama has put in charge in the nation's science policy.


Holdren also defines "a fetus" as extended several years beyond birth, who at some point will "become human." Here are more links from the web:
ZombieTime: John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar - EXTREMESKINS.com
3 posts - 3 authors - Last post: Jul 11ZombieTime: John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar The Tailgate. ... Apparently, this book "Ecoscience" is also listed on Holdren's CV. ... Shouldn't a 6 month, developed fetus have the same legal rights as a chicken? ...www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?t=291325 - Cached - Similar -
New at zombietime: John Holdren, forced abortions and mass ...
John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization .... and disavow the opinions and recommendations he made in the book Ecoscience; ..... are subject to prosecution if they reveal the sex of a fetus. ...www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=576 - Cached - Similar -
The Mind-boggling Extremism of Obama “Science Czar” John P. Holdren
Jul 14, 2009 ... To: Former Fetus. I wonder, since the Sanhedrin was a gaggle of seventy, ... Obama's Science Czar John Holdren Considered Putting Sterilants in Our ... Below are a few quotations from Ecoscience, which he coauthored with ...www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2292467/posts - Cached - Similar -
informationliberation - John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar: Forced ...
John Holdren really did say those things, and this report contains the proof. ... of pages in the book Ecoscience, co-authored in 1977 by John Holdren and his .... their own neighborhoods, yet they will kill to save the life of a fetus. ...www.informationliberation.com/?id=26965 - Cached - Similar -


and, finally, below, an opinion piece in the American Catholic at http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/07/13/more-on-ecoscience/:

More on “Ecoscience”

I wasn’t sure whether or not to post this as an update to my earlier post on John Holdren, but I thought it was interesting enough to warrant its own posting.

I’ve read some of the scanned pages of Ecoscience, the 1977 book co-authored by Holdren that calls for horrifying coercive measures for population control.
Interestingly, Holdren & Co. felt the need to address pro-life arguments in their book. Their moral reasoning only proves, yet again, how dangerous (not to mention illogical) some ’scientists’ can become when they venture into moral philosophy. This provides us an opportunity to take a tour through the inhuman humanism condemned by Pope Benedict in Caritas in Veritate.

In one particular section of the book, the authors are attempting to justify their arguments within the framework of the US Constitution (I invite all readers to go to zombietime’s website and read these scanned pages). They believe, simply put, that the Constitution does not actually prohibit limits on population size and measures that would be needed in order to sustain those limits. For instance, they argue on page 838:

The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?
The legal argument has been made that the First Amendment provision for the separation of church and state prevents the United States government from regulating family size. The notion is that family size is God’s affair and no business of the state [how quaint! -- J.H.].

But the same argument has been made against the taxation of church property, prohibition on polygamy, compulsory education and medical treatment for children, and many similar measures that have been enacted.

Unfortunately, the answer to the question makes no sense if you don’t believe that life has any inherent value to begin with. Why shouldn’t the law be able to regulate children? Because that ultimately means compulsory abortion, the deliberate destruction of an innocent human being and a grave violation of the rights of both mother and father. From the premise that life is not valuable or sacred, it makes perfect sense to resort to coercion to regulate family size. This is from page 839:

Those who argue that a fetus has a right to life usually proceed from the assumption that life begins at or soon after conception ['soon after'? Who argues this? -- J.H.].

As stated elsewhere, the question When does life begin? is misleading. Life does not begin; it began . (emphasis added by me)

Like other more sophisticated advocates of abortion, Holdren & Co. do not believe that the question of life itself is in dispute at all. They go on to argue:


The real question from a legal, as well as from religious, moral, and ethical points of view, is as follows: in what forms, at what stages, and for what purposes should society protect human life?
Obviously overweight people regard their fat cells different from their brain cells. A wandering sperm cell is not the same thing as a fertilized egg; nor is a fetus a child. Yet a fat cell, a sperm cell, a fetus, an adult, and even a group of people are all human life.

How could someone make the drastic – and in my view, manifestly absurd – leap from a ‘fat cell’ to a fetus? Anyone who has seen a picture of an unborn child that is actually developed enough to be surgically aborted in the first place can tell you the difference between that being, and an individual cell.

An individual fat cell – or even a whole group of fat cells – is not a human being. A sperm is alive, yes – but it is not a human being. How desperate to make the case for abortion must one be to fail to understand the distinction between fat cells or genetic material on the one hand, and a unique human being on the other?

The materialists have no conception of what it means to exist, to “be”. They do not see a “human being”, they see a more complicated arrangement of cells that eventually acquires the ability to think and speak, but nothing greater than the sum of its mechanical parts. It is therefore not surprising that they can so easily advocate a totalitarian regime of population control.
If all we are is matter, then only pleasure and pain can possibly serve as the parameters on what is just or unjust. A more pleasurable world for the enlightened few who have the privilege of belonging to the upper classes and the protection of the state is only made possible by eliminating the vast majority of undesirables, who from their point of view, are nothing but extra consumers of resources.
It is hard to understand when or where or if ever a human being actually comes into existence in the materialist worldview.
The authors do go on to acknowledge that infanticide is illegal in the US and do not attempt to argue for it – but why not? There is no logical reason for them to reject infanticide. It would serve the exact same purpose they want to attain – population control. It would be done to a living organism not much more developed than a fetus. Peter Singer had no trouble seeing this, but then, he wasn’t trying to dance with the US Constitution either.

In the end the problem is that the authors, and all those who share their views, have no answer to their own question. I’ll present it again: “The real question from a legal, as well as from religious, moral, and ethical points of view, is as follows: in what forms, at what stages, and for what purposes should society protect human life?”

They don’t know. They don’t answer it.
They go on to state what they think the Constitution has to say about it. “The common law and the drafters of the U.S. Constitution”, they argue, “did not consider a fetus a human being”. This is not quite accurate – prior to “quickening”, the first stirrings of the unborn child in the womb, they did not consider whatever was in there to even be alive. They did not have the same understanding of pre-natal development that we have today.
Their views cannot be considered authoritative in that case.
But why should it matter? If we look back again on page 838, the authors argue that if there is a “compelling, subordinating interest” the government can do whatever it damned well pleases.
So why not extermination camps for adults – you know, those highly complex arrangements of cells without an inherent nature differentiating them from fat or sperm – who refuse to comply too?

I believe there is a reason why Hitler dubbed his plan for eliminating the Jews of Europe, “The Final Solution”. It is “final” because it is the final implication of a belief that a certain group poses a threat to the existence of humanity. You can begin, as Hitler did, with laws preventing intermarriage. You can move on to compulsory sterilization, as the Third Reich did. You can proceed to place the dangerous people in ghettos to quarantine them from the rest of the population.

But all of that, in the end, is not going to be enough. They might get out. They might find ways to get around sterilization. The only way to be sure they no longer pose a threat is to get rid of them once and for all. If the problem is bad enough, if the crisis is severe enough, why not?

Whether or not Holdren and his colleagues are conscious of that eventuality and are simply coddling us with Constitutional considerations, or whether they sincerely and stupidly believe it can be avoided, is besides the point. Moreover, I would oppose all of the measures they propose whether they lead to a “final solution” or not, because they are inherently disordered. Even so, this gives us all the more reason to do what we must to oppose the decayed,inhuman philosophy of materialism and its partner, hedonism.

As a closer, let me present what I believe to be the real question, one which no materialist can ever provide a satisfactory answer to:

“Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?” –Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia

Cong. Peterson thinks his constituents are nuts

Excerpt from the Strib at http://www.startribune.com/local/51861647.html?elr=KArks7PYDiaK7DUdcOy_nc:DKUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aU7DYaGEP7vDEh7P:DiUs:

Rep. Peterson in hot water over 9/11 crack
By BOB VON STERNBERG, Star Tribune

Oops.
U.S. Rep. Collin Peterson scrambled Monday to defuse a comment that, on its face, insulted a quarter of his constituents in the Seventh Congressional District.
Peterson had been quoted in an online story about conspiracy theorists, saying "25 percent of my people believe the Pentagon and Rumsfeld were responsible for taking the twin towers down. That's why I don't do town meetings."
Within a few hours, the state's Republican Party pounced, calling Peterson's statement "outrageous and offensive."
In a press release, GOP Chairman Tony Sutton was quoted as saying, "Peterson revealed just how out of touch and disconnected he has become in Washington. Given his liberal voting record, the real reason Peterson doesn't hold town hall meetings is because he is afraid to face the residents of his district."....

and other links to the same story:

Congress Matters :: Collin Peterson is unusually frank.
Collin Peterson, a Democrat who represents a conservative Republican district in Minnesota. "That's why I don't do town meetings." ...www.congressmatters.com/storyonly/2009/7/28/02911/9188 - Similar
Twitter / Tom Freeman: Colin Peterson says 25% of ...
19 hours ago - Colin Peterson says 25% of people in his district are crazy so he doesnt do town halls? http://bit.ly/roBnV #tcot #blackhelicopterconspiracy.twitter.com/Tom_Freeman/statuses/2873703815 - Similar
Twitter / Rob Port: Rep. Collin Peterson Appar ...
14 hours ago - Rep. Collin Peterson Apparently Has A Pretty Low Opinion Of His Constituents http://bit.ly/BdPTY.twitter.com/robport/statuses/2879389443 - Similar
Collin Peterson:Truthermania Running Wild In MN-7
6 hours ago - True North - Pointing Minnesota in the Right Direction.looktruenorth.com/.../9085-collin-petersontruthermania-running-wild-in-mn-7.html - Similar
The Big Question » Collin Peterson
21 hours ago - Find breaking news, multimedia, opinion on politics in Minnesota and the nation.politicalblogs.startribune.com/bigquestionblog/?cat=53 - Similar
rep Collin Peterson , 25 % of my people think rumsfeld ...
22 hours ago - Ron Paul, Deflation, Campaign for Liberty, Liberty Caucus, RonPaul.org, Austrian Economics, Inflation, End the Fed, housing bust, recession, stock market, ...www.dailypaul.com/node/100939 - Similar
Minnesota Independent: News. Politics. Media. » Peterson afraid of ...
20 hours ago - Collin Peterson about left-leaning 9/11 conspiracies. Peterson says conspiracy theorists keep him from holding town meetings. ...minnesotaindependent.com/40348/peterson-afraid-of-911-truthers

Rush: Government trying to control freedom

Vicious assault on elderly and Boomer generation in Democrat/Obama Health Care Bill

Listen to Fred Thompson's shocking, scary interview with Betsy McCaughey, Patient Advocate and Founder of the Committee to Reduce Infectious Deaths, discuss Obama's Healthcare Plan .... and says it encourages people to cut their lives short for "society's best interest" ...

forgoing hydration and nutrition!!!

How it's "end of life counseling" will deny health care to those with incurable diseases and those beyond a government determined birth date, mental capacity, etc. The interview alerts people that it is a lie that the plan would allow you to keep your current health plan -

It lays out "shared decision-making" that may not include the patient's decision!!

listen here (both July 27 interviews):
http://fredthompsonshow.com/premiumstream?dispid=320&headerDest=L3BnL2pzcC9tZWRpYS9mbGFzaHdlbGNvbWUuanNwP3BpZD03MzUxJnBsYXlsaXN0PXRydWUmY2hhcnR0eXBlPWNoYXJ0JmNoYXJ0SUQ9MzIwJnBsYXlsaXN0U2l6ZT01

More can be found at DEFENDYOURHEALTHCARE.com at http://www.defendyourhealthcare.us/home.html

Monday, July 27, 2009

America thought we defeated this kind of facism in WWII

From the Washington Examiner at http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Obama-advisor-would-deny-medical-care-to-seniors-demented-51414342.html:

Obama advisor would ration medical care to seniors, young children, the demented
By: Mark TapscottEditorial Page Editor

No wonder President Obama is in such a rush to get his health care reform package through Congress before the August recess. And before the public finds out about Ezekiel Emanuel, special advisor to Peter Orzag, Obama's director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and brother to White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

Emanuel has written in medical journals of how health care should be rationed, with priority given to younger people over seniors and over those suffering from dementia, according to John Goodman, president of the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA). Ezekiel also believes that very young children should be lower on the priority list than younger people who have received public educations.Goodman cites an article Ezekiel co-authored with two other men that appeared in the January 31, 2009, edition of the British medical journal, The Lancet.

Goodman also cites a 1996 article by Ezekiel that appeared in The Hastings Report. In the latter, which was titled "Where civic republicanism and deliberative democracy meet," Ezekiel argued for limiting health care for “individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens.”

He cited "not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia” as an example.

Goodman offers additional analysis on his blog of Ezekiel's presence among Obama's health care advisors. Goodman notes that the health care reform legislation now being crafted in Congress includes a provision designed to ration the availability of MRI, CT and other advanced technology scans that often are critical to identifying dangerous diseases at a sufficiently early stage to enable life-extending treatment:“An example of what can be done is actually in legislation being written on Capitol Hill. Buried somewhere in the 1,000 plus pages is a provision to severely limit what Medicare pays for CT and MRI scans performed in doctors' offices.

This would force elderly patients, for example, to go to the hospital for their radiology — where there are often lengthy waits. Patients in rural areas who must travel long distances to get to hospital-based testing facilities may be discouraged from getting the tests done at all.”

“individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens.” Emanuel wrote, “An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.”Goodman notes that the World Health Organization estimates that 25,000 cancer patients die in Britain annually as a result of such restrictions on medical scans

Doctors, medical societies oppose Obama's Health Care Reform, despite his touting AMA support

From American Medical News at http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2009/07/27/gvl10727.htm, also reported by Kaiser Health News at http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2009/July/27/AMA-Dissent.aspx:

AMA backs House health system reform bill that includes Medicare pay overhaul
President Obama and others call the support crucial and historic, but some medical societies are rejecting the legislation.
By David Glendinning, AMNews staff.
Washington -- The American Medical Association has thrown its support behind a Democratic national health system reform measure making its way toward the House floor, so far the first comprehensive bill that addresses Medicare physician pay.
On July 16, the AMA announced it would support America's Affordable Health Choices Act, comprehensive legislation officially introduced two days earlier by House Democratic leaders and closely based on a discussion draft unveiled a month before that. The three House committees with primary jurisdiction over health care moved quickly to approve the legislation for House consideration, with two of the panels passing their versions July 17.
The House plan
The AMA is supporting the legislation partly on the strength of its Medicare payment reform plan, which would spend an estimated $245 billion over 10 years to align physician rates more closely with the costs of providing care. But the Association also backed the bill because it would use health insurance market reforms to cover most Americans, offer a choice of plans to consumers through a health insurance exchange, dedicate new money to boost primary care services and address physician work force problems.
"We are committed to passing health reform this year, consistent with principles of pluralism, freedom of choice, freedom of practice and universal access for patients," said AMA President J. James Rohack, MD, in announcing the AMA endorsement. He was echoing reform principles reaffirmed by the House of Delegates at its Annual Meeting in June.
Dr. Rohack said the AMA decided to back the bill after its authors made several key changes to the original discussion draft. Although the legislation still includes a public plan option, it no longer would require Medicare-participating physicians to accept the new plan's patients. It also would not prohibit balance billing of those patients or ban doctors from privately contracting with patients.
The AMA does not consider the pending bill to be a finished product, Dr. Rohack said. By remaining at the table, the Association aims to push lawmakers to include medical liability reforms missing from the measure and reconsider the bill's ban on self-referral for new physician-owned hospitals.
President Obama cheered the support and noted that physicians have joined nurses in backing reform this year.
Rep. John Dingell (D, Mich.) called the AMA endorsement a milestone in reform and said such a level of physician support indicates that the bill would not threaten the doctor-patient relationship. "The historical significance of the AMA's support should not be underestimated," he said, noting that the Association has not always been in favor of reform efforts.
Some reject public plan, mandates
Several other physician organizations lined up to support the House legislation. The American Academy of Family Physicians is backing the measure, in part, for including primary care bonuses, though it would like to see those incentives boosted. For similar reasons, the American College of Physicians said it expects to back the bill once it is out of the final committee.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee counted about another dozen physician organizations among the list of bill supporters, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American College of Surgeons.
But not all doctors are on board with the House bill.
Led by the Medical Assn. of Georgia, seven other state and local medical societies and three surgical specialty societies signed a July 21 letter to Congress that opposes the legislation. Two former AMA presidents, Donald J. Palmisano, MD, and William G. Plested III, MD, also signed the letter. The inclusion of a government-sponsored public insurance plan option that would compete with private plans is a major reason for these physicians' opposition. They also reject individual and employer insurance mandates in the bill.
"We adamantly oppose the following as inconsistent with quality medical care and the principles of freedom and liberty that lie at the heart of our form of government and our society," the letter said. The Texas Medical Assn. drafted its own statement, saying it could not support a bill that would create another government-payer health plan when existing federal plans work so poorly.
Twelve members of the GOP Doctors Caucus wrote a July 17 letter to AMA Executive Vice President and CEO Michael D. Maves, MD, MBA, urging the Association to reconsider its support of the legislation. The bill would work against physician priorities by using a government-run plan to drive out private insurance competition, force Medicare-based rates on doctors and prompt many physicians to close their doors for good, they said.
"Based on the endorsement of this legislation, we fully believe that the AMA has lost touch with the vast majority of physicians in this country," the caucus letter said.
Dr. Rohack acknowledged that some physicians and lawmakers are opposed to the AMA's show of support but said many others are enthusiastically in favor. By consistently following its four guiding reform principles, the AMA will best be able to advocate for all physicians, he said.
Cost concerns threaten time line
The plan by House Democratic leaders to move the health system reform bill to the floor before the congressional August recess sustained a major blow when new concerns arose over long-term health spending.
At a July 16 appearance before the Senate Budget Committee, Congressional Budget Office Director Doug Elmendorf said none of the bills before lawmakers includes the necessary system changes to keep long-term health spending in check. Although Obama has called for the need to "bend the cost curve" when implementing health reform, this would not occur under the current plans. "The curve is being raised," Elmendorf said.
GOP leaders pounced on the statement, calling on Democratic leaders to scrap the bill and start over with a new bipartisan proposal and a new time line. Conservative House Democrats who make up the Blue Dog Coalition were able to slow down a markup of the bill in the House Energy and Commerce Committee over concerns that the long-term-spending issue was not being addressed.
Obama responded to the revitalized assault on the Democratic bill, saying in a July 21 news conference that opponents are simply following the time-worn tactic of delaying reform with the intention of killing it. "But make no mistake, we are closer than ever before to the reform that the American people need, and we're going to get the job done."
This content was published online only.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

The House plan
House Democratic health system reform legislation has gained the support of the AMA and several other physician organizations, though some state and specialty medical societies oppose it. The bill includes numerous major reforms that would impact physicians.
Medicare payment: Rebases the physician pay formula and gives doctors a pay increase in 2010 instead of a 21.5% cut. Establishes a new formula, starting in 2011, that allows annual spending targets to grow based on a rate of the gross domestic product plus 1%, with GDP plus 2% for evaluation and management services and preventive care. Provides a 5% Medicare bonus for physicians in primary care specialties.

Health insurance reform: Implements a national health insurance exchange that includes a government-sponsored, national public plan option financed only through premiums. Prohibits insurers from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions; establishing annual or lifetime limits; or basing premiums on anything other than age, geography or family size. Establishes an essential benefits package that all plans must offer.

Health care affordability: Offers scaled, income-based credits for the purchase of health insurance to people earning up to 400% of the poverty level. Caps annual out-of-pocket spending to prevent bankruptcies from medical costs. Expands Medicaid to all people earning up to 133% of the poverty level.

Coverage responsibility: Requires individuals who do not qualify for a hardship exemption to obtain health coverage or pay a penalty of 2.5% of modified adjusted gross income above a specified level. Requires employers who do not qualify for a small business exemption to offer health insurance to their workers or pay a phased-in penalty of up to 8% of their payroll.
Physician work force: Boosts funding for the National Health Service Corps, primary care physician training, and scholarships and loan forgiveness for physicians who work in underserved areas. Redistributes unused graduate medical education residency slots to train more primary care doctors.

Physician-owned hospitals: Prohibits self-referral of Medicare patients by physician-owned hospitals that did not have a Medicare agreement in place by Jan. 1, 2009.
Source: House Energy and Commerce Committee energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20090714/hr3200_summary.pdf

Obama's plan means higher taxes, less health care, no protection

Opinion from the Washington Post at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/07/27/ST2009072701939.html?sid=ST2009072701939

Obama's Plan Isn't the Answer
By Martin Feldstein
For the 85 percent of Americans who already have health insurance, the Obama health plan is bad news. It means higher taxes, less health care and no protection if they lose their current insurance because of unemployment or early retirement.

President Obama's primary goal is to extend formal health insurance to those low-income individuals who are currently uninsured despite the nearly $300-billion-a-year Medicaid program. Doing so the Obama way would cost more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years.

There surely must be better and less costly ways to improve the health and health care of that low-income group.

Although the president claims he can finance the enormous increase in costs by raising taxes only on high-income individuals, tax experts know that this won't work. Experience shows that raising the top income-tax rate from 35 percent today to more than 45 percent -- the effect of adding the proposed health surcharge to the increase resulting from letting the Bush tax cuts expire for high-income taxpayers -- would change the behavior of high-income individuals in ways that would shrink their taxable incomes and therefore produce less revenue. The result would be larger deficits and higher taxes on the middle class. Because of the unprecedented deficits forecast for the next decade, this is definitely not a time to start a major new spending program.

A second key goal of the Obama health plan is to slow the growth of health-care spending. The president's budget calls explicitly for cutting Medicare to help pay for the expanded benefits for low-income individuals. But the administration's goal is bigger than that. It is to cut dramatically the amount of health care that we all consume.

A recent report by the White House Council of Economic Advisers claims that the government can cut the projected level of health spending by 15 percent over the next decade and by 30 percent over the next 20 years. Although the reduced spending would result from fewer services rather than lower payments to providers, we are told that this can be done without lowering the quality of care or diminishing our health. I don't believe it.

To support their claim that costs can be radically reduced without adverse effects, the health planners point to the fact that about half of all hospital costs are for patients in the last year of life. I don't find that persuasive. Do doctors really know which of their very ill patients will benefit from expensive care and which will die regardless of the care they receive? In a world of uncertainty, many of us will want to hope that care will help.

We are also often told that patients in Minnesota receive many fewer dollars of care per capita than patients in New York and California without adverse health effects. When I hear that, I wonder whether we should cut back on care, as these experts advocate, move to Minnesota, or wish we had the genetic stock of Minnesotans.

The administration's health planners believe that the new "cost effectiveness research" will allow officials to eliminate wasteful spending by defining the "appropriate" care that will be paid for by the government and by private insurance. Such a constrained, one-size-fits-all form of medicine may be necessary in some European health programs in which the government pays all the bills. But Americans have shown that we prefer to retain a diversity of options and the ability to choose among doctors, hospitals and standards of care.

At a time when medical science offers the hope of major improvements in the treatment of a wide range of dread diseases, should Washington be limiting the available care and, in the process, discouraging medical researchers from developing new procedures and products? Although health care is much more expensive than it was 30 years ago, who today would settle for the health care of the 1970s?

Obama has said that he would favor a British-style "single payer" system in which the government owns the hospitals and the doctors are salaried but that he recognizes that such a shift would be too disruptive to the health-care industry. The Obama plan to have a government insurance provider that can undercut the premiums charged by private insurers would undoubtedly speed the arrival of such a single-payer plan. It is hard to think of any other reason for the administration to want a government insurer when there is already a very competitive private insurance market that could be made more so by removing government restrictions on interstate competition.

There is much that can be done to improve our health-care system, but the Obama plan is not the way to do it. One helpful change that could be made right away is fixing the COBRA system so that middle-income households that lose their insurance because of early retirement or a permanent layoff are not deterred by the cost of continuing their previous coverage.
Now that congressional leaders have made it clear that Obama will not see health legislation until at least the end of the year, the president should look beyond health policy and turn his attention to the problems that are impeding our economic recovery.

Martin Feldstein, a professor of economics at Harvard University and president emeritus of the nonprofit National Bureau of Economic Research, was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers from 1982 to 1984.

"Reform" that will leave the country worse off

An opinion from Robert Samuelson of the Washington Post at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/26/AR2009072602188.html:

By Robert J. Samuelson
The most misused word in the health care debate is "reform." Everyone wants "reform," but what constitutes "reform" is another matter. If you listen to President Obama, his "reform" will satisfy almost everyone. It will insure the uninsured, control runaway health spending, subdue future budget deficits, preserve choice for patients and improve quality of care. These claims are self-serving exaggerations and political fantasies. They have destroyed what should be a serious national discussion of health care.

The health-care conundrum involves a contradiction that the administration steadfastly obscures: In the short run -- meaning four to eight years -- government cannot both insure the uninsured and rein in health spending. Here's why. The notion that the uninsured get little or no care is a myth: They now receive about 50 to 70 percent as much health care as the insured. If they become insured, they would use more health care, possibly as much as today's insured. That would increase both government and private health spending, depending on how the insurance is provided.

Until health-care costs are better controlled, expanding insurance coverage will be expensive. The president talks endlessly about the need to limit spending and eliminate waste. These are worthy goals. But changing the way medical care is delivered and paid for would take years and involve disruptive and unpopular measures. Patient co-payments might increase; networks of doctors and hospitals might displace individual practices; the tax exclusion for employer-paid health insurance might be curbed. Obama downplays the obstacles. His "reform" isn't likely to compel needed changes, partly because it's not clear what will work.

Evaluations of proposals reflect this reality. The Congressional Budget Office judges that the legislation in the House would, through expanded Medicaid and subsidies for private insurance, reduce the uninsured from 46 million in 2007 to 17 million in 2019. But the cost would be $1 trillion over a decade; of that, $239 billion would add to the budget deficit. Worse, the costs would rise faster than the sources of financing, including a tax on the wealthy. In 2019, the projection's last year, the deficit would be $65 billion. Assuming that the deficit rises 4 percent a year, the cumulative shortfall in the second decade would total about $800 billion.

But Obama sees all blue sky. "Here's what reform will mean for you," he said at a recent rally. "It will mean lower costs and more choices and coverage you can count on. Health insurance reform will save you and your family money," he said. (Note: Except for subsidies, it's doubtful families will experience savings anytime soon.) And later: "We'll also change incentives so that our doctors and our nurses can finally start providing patients with the best care and not just the most expensive care. And if we do that, then reform . . . will lower our deficits in the long run."
Contrast Obama's reassuring rhetoric with this exchange at a congressional hearing between Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, and Douglas Elmendorf, head of the CBO.

Conrad: "From what you have seen from the product of the committees that have reported, do you see a successful effort being mounted to bend the long-term cost curve?"
Elmendorf: "No, Mr. Chairman. In the legislation that has been reported, we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs. . . . The (cost) curve is being raised."
Judged objectively, "reform" may do exactly the opposite of what Obama says. But because the president is so well-spoken, he has the ability to make misleading statements sound reasonable or sophisticated. Still, they're misleading.

The administration had to make choices; it could emphasize expanded insurance coverage ("access") or cost control, but not both. It chose coverage, embracing the long-standing liberal grail of "universal" insurance. Millions of Americans would receive more health care, though how much their health would improve is uncertain (the administration can't logically argue that much health care is wasteful and also that the uninsured will automatically benefit from more of it). Many with insurance would gain the peace of mind that they won't lose it.

But what helps many Americans as individuals may hurt society as a whole. That's the paradox. Unchecked health spending is depressing take-home pay, squeezing other government programs -- state and local programs as well as federal -- and driving up taxes and budget deficits. The president has said all of this; he simply isn't doing much about it. He offers the illusion of "reform" while perpetuating the status quo of four decades: expand benefits, talk about controlling costs. The press should put "reform" in quote marks, because this is one "reform" that might leave the country worse off.
On Monday July 27 2009 Senator Claire McCaskill's office held a town hall meeting at Forest Park Community College in St. Louis... A Tea Party Protest broke out.


A St. Louis Tea Party protester fired up the crowd at the McCaskill town hall when she asked, "Will Pelosi and Reid be reguired to join the same plan that they are requiring us to join?"



On July 17, tea party goers wanted to express their disapproval of Obama's Health Care Refor and Claire McCaskill's office locked their doors, pulled the blinds

The police were let into her office and told the protesters they had to move off the public sidewalk

Worse than rationed care - Advisors behind health the health care bill would decide who deserves life

From today's New York Post http://www.nypost.com/seven/07242009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/deadly_doctors_180941.htm:

DEADLY DOCTORS
ADVISERS WANT TO RATION CARE

Emanuel: Believes in withholding care from elderly for greater good.

THE health bills coming out of Congress would put the de cisions about your care in the hands of presidential appointees. They'd decide what plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have and what seniors get under Medicare.

Yet at least two of President Obama's top health advisers should never be trusted with that power.

Start with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.

Emanuel bluntly admits that the cuts will not be pain-free. "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change," he wrote last year (Health Affairs Feb. 27, 2008).

Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).

Yes, that's what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else.

Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they'll tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.

Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).

Translation: Don't give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy.

He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years" (Lancet, Jan. 31).

The bills being rushed through Congress will be paid for largely by a $500 billion-plus cut in Medicare over 10 years. Knowing how unpopular the cuts will be, the president's budget director, Peter Orszag, urged Congress this week to delegate its own authority over Medicare to a new, presidentially-appointed bureaucracy that wouldn't be accountable to the public.

Since Medicare was founded in 1965, seniors' lives have been transformed by new medical treatments such as angioplasty, bypass surgery and hip and knee replacements. These innovations allow the elderly to lead active lives. But Emanuel criticizes Americans for being too "enamored with technology" and is determined to reduce access to it.

Dr. David Blumenthal, another key Obama adviser, agrees. He recommends slowing medical innovation to control health spending.

Blumenthal has long advocated government health-spending controls, though he concedes they're "associated with longer waits" and "reduced availability of new and expensive treatments and devices" (New England Journal of Medicine, March 8, 2001). But he calls it "debatable" whether the timely care Americans get is worth the cost. (Ask a cancer patient, and you'll get a different answer. Delay lowers your chances of survival.)

Obama appointed Blumenthal as national coordinator of health-information technology, a job that involves making sure doctors obey electronically deivered guidelines about what care the government deems appropriate and cost effective.

In the April 9 New England Journal of Medicine, Blumenthal predicted that many doctors would resist "embedded clinical decision support" -- a euphemism for computers telling doctors what to do.

Americans need to know what the president's health advisers have in mind for them. Emanuel sees even basic amenities as luxuries and says Americans expect too much: "Hospital rooms in the United States offer more privacy . . . physicians' offices are typically more conveniently located and have parking nearby and more attractive waiting rooms" (JAMA, June 18, 2008).

No one has leveled with the public about these dangerous views. Nor have most people heard about the arm-twisting, Chicago-style tactics being used to force support. In a Nov. 16, 2008, Health Care Watch column, Emanuel explained how business should be done: "Every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health-care reform agenda. If the automakers want a bailout, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration's health-reform effort."

Do we want a "reform" that empowers people like this to decide for us?
Betsy McCaughey is founder of the Committee to Reduce Infec tion Deaths and a former New York lieutenant governor.

Obama's health care reformers plan to save costs by refusing care for certain types of citizens

Those reforming health care are cutting costs by finding ways to limit or deny treatment for certain classes of citizens. Take look at the wording found on page 389 into page 390 of the Health Care Bill on President Obama's "obvious" insensitivity to mentally impaired citizens ...

‘‘(II) CERTAIN OTHER INDIVIDUALS.—In the case of an individual who is a full-benefit dual eligible individual and with respect to whom there has been a determination that but for the provision of home and community based care (whether under section 1915, 1932, or under a waiver under section 1115) the individual would require the level of care provided in a hospital or a nursing facility or intermediate care facility for the mentally retarded the cost of which could be reimbursed under the State plan under title XIX, the elimination of any beneficiary coinsurance described in section 1860D–2(b)(2) (for all amounts through the total amount of expenditures at which benefits are available under section 1860D–2(b)(4)).’’.

then remember Obama's Special Olympics joke on Jay Leno's show.....


If your elderly, you won't be eligible for medical treatment - Obama says you'll just get a pill

Health Care Bill includes funding for abortions

Opinion by a physician posted on the Blogger News Network at http://www.bloggernews.net/121620:

Will Ethical Issues Derail the Health Care Bill?
Posted on July 19th, 2009
by Nancy Reyes (Nancy Reyes is a retired physician living in the Philippines. She writes medical essays at Hey Doc Xanga Blog.)
Over the weekend, a White House adviser admitted that their “comprehensive” Health Care plan “might” include tax payer funding for abortion.
The possibility that a Health Care bill will mandate people to pay for abortions has caused a “heads-up” among blue dog Democrats.
The House voted Thursday on a rule to limit amendments on a financial-services spending bill, with 39 anti-abortion Democrats voting against the rule because it bars a vote on an abortion-related amendment.
You see, unless there is language in the bill to prohibit paying for abortion, all that is needed is a bill that “allows” some government committee or bureaucrat to decide what is considered an “essential benefit”. The Obama administration is full of “pro choice” types, so one suspects that they will include abortion as one of these “essentially benefits”, and if not, one suspects that eventually a court will do it for them.
Right now, taxpayer money does not fund most abortions, and most private insurance plans similarly do not fund most abortions, and most federally funded clinics, such as the one where I worked, will only fund abortions if the fetus has a high chance of deformation or the mother’s life is at risk.
The reason is only partly “religious”.
A lot of it is a deep fear of Eugenics: That the government will support programs to coerce or encourage the “wrong type of people” to stop having kids. Of course, it will not be said so crudely.
As Justice Ginsburg observed, (i.e. this was not her personal opinion) at the time when the Supreme Court changed the law, the consensus of the elites was behind it, in order to control the population, especially the population of undesirables:
“…Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. ..”
In the late 1960’s, I myself heard many comments to the same effect by medical students, physicians, and patients. Some even insisted that by letting these women abort, there would be less unloved, neglected children who would grow up to be criminals.
There were many strictures on tubal ligations, but once abortion became legal, suddenly poor women were asked if they wanted tubal ligations right after they had their baby: even when they were ambivalent about the procedure, I saw coercion by health care providers to do just that. And a result of this abuse was a tightening of the law, including a waiting period, for women who wished a tubal ligation under Medicaid.
The reason I bring all this up is that the Eugenics aspect of health care is now part of the discussion, thanks to Justice Ginsburg and Peter Singer’s essay in the NYTimes Magazine saying that if the treatment is too expensive, or your quality of life is too low, you shouldn’t get care.
Ironically, variations of Singer’s argument have been around for years. For example, in 1987, Daniel Callahan, of the Hastings Center (an influential Ethics think tank), wrote a book Setting Limits, advocating limiting health care if your quality of life was low or if you were old.
The argument on the excess use of technology in the elderly, which merely prolongs the dying process, is subtle, but Callahan would even withhold antibiotics for simple infections from some patients.
But there is a societal problem with arguments like Callahan: Because when a medical profession is taught that the handicapped or retarded should not get care, soon you see abuse and neglect as the trickle down effect of this mindset.
Add to this toxic mix of cost control and quality of life calculations an Obama administration that has removed the right of conscience from federal regulations, and a court system that rejects the right of conscience as unscientific, as if ancient religious and ethical traditions were personal quirks.
The Health Care plan is a perfect solution to those who lack medical care, so most of us would like to support it.
And this is the irony of the Health Care plan: That those who would support it because it helps their patients will ultimately reject it because of it’s potential to become a lynchpin for what John Paul II has called a “culture of death”, where euphemisms are used to hide that the weak are eliminated in order to benefit the strong and rich.

Sunday, July 26, 2009

FORTUNE: "5 freedoms you'd lose in health care reform"

Even CNN is reporting on the Fortune Article detailing the loss of freedom in Obama's health care plan at http://money.cnn.com/2009/07/24/news/economy/health_care_reform_obama.fortune/index.htm:

If you read the fine print in the Congressional plans, you'll find that a lot of cherished aspects of the current system would disappear.

By Shawn Tully, editor at large
NEW YORK (Fortune) -- In promoting his health-care agenda, President Obama has repeatedly reassured Americans that they can keep their existing health plans -- and that the benefits and access they prize will be enhanced through reform.

A close reading of the two main bills, one backed by Democrats in the House and the other issued by Sen. Edward Kennedy's Health committee, contradict the President's assurances. To be sure, it isn't easy to comb through their 2,000 pages of tortured legal language. But page by page, the bills reveal a web of restrictions, fines, and mandates that would radically change your health-care coverage.

If you prize choosing your own cardiologist or urologist under your company's Preferred Provider Organization plan (PPO), if your employer rewards your non-smoking, healthy lifestyle with reduced premiums, if you love the bargain Health Savings Account (HSA) that insures you just for the essentials, or if you simply take comfort in the freedom to spend your own money for a policy that covers the newest drugs and diagnostic tests -- you may be shocked to learn that you could lose all of those good things under the rules proposed in the two bills that herald a health-care revolution.

In short, the Obama platform would mandate extremely full, expensive, and highly subsidized coverage -- including a lot of benefits people would never pay for with their own money -- but deliver it through a highly restrictive, HMO-style plan that will determine what care and tests you can and can't have. It's a revolution, all right, but in the wrong direction.

Let's explore the five freedoms that Americans would lose under Obamacare:
1. Freedom to choose what's in your plan
The bills in both houses require that Americans purchase insurance through "qualified" plans offered by health-care "exchanges" that would be set up in each state. The rub is that the plans can't really compete based on what they offer. The reason: The federal government will impose a minimum list of benefits that each plan is required to offer.

Today, many states require these "standard benefits packages" -- and they're a major cause for the rise in health-care costs. Every group, from chiropractors to alcohol-abuse counselors, do lobbying to get included. Connecticut, for example, requires reimbursement for hair transplants, hearing aids, and in vitro fertilization.

The Senate bill would require coverage for prescription drugs, mental-health benefits, and substance-abuse services. It also requires policies to insure "children" until the age of 26. That's just the starting list. The bills would allow the Department of Health and Human Services to add to the list of required benefits, based on recommendations from a committee of experts. Americans, therefore, wouldn't even know what's in their plans and what they're required to pay for, directly or indirectly, until after the bills become law.

2. Freedom to be rewarded for healthy living, or pay your real costs
As with the previous example, the Obama plan enshrines into federal law one of the worst features of state legislation: community rating. Eleven states, ranging from New York to Oregon, have some form of community rating. In its purest form, community rating requires that all patients pay the same rates for their level of coverage regardless of their age or medical condition.

Americans with pre-existing conditions need subsidies under any plan, but community rating is a dubious way to bring fairness to health care. The reason is twofold: First, it forces young people, who typically have lower incomes than older workers, to pay far more than their actual cost, and gives older workers, who can afford to pay more, a big discount. The state laws gouging the young are a major reason so many of them have joined the ranks of uninsured.
Under the Senate plan, insurers would be barred from charging any more than twice as much for one patient vs. any other patient with the same coverage. So if a 20-year-old who costs just $800 a year to insure is forced to pay $2,500, a 62-year-old who costs $7,500 would pay no more than $5,000.

Second, the bills would ban insurers from charging differing premiums based on the health of their customers. Again, that's understandable for folks with diabetes or cancer. But the bills would bar rewarding people who pursue a healthy lifestyle of exercise or a cholesterol-conscious diet. That's hardly a formula for lower costs. It's as if car insurers had to charge the same rates to safe drivers as to chronic speeders with a history of accidents.

3. Freedom to choose high-deductible coverage
The bills threaten to eliminate the one part of the market truly driven by consumers spending their own money. That's what makes a market, and health care needs more of it, not less.
Hundreds of companies now offer Health Savings Accounts to about 5 million employees. Those workers deposit tax-free money in the accounts and get a matching contribution from their employer. They can use the funds to buy a high-deductible plan -- say for major medical costs over $12,000. Preventive care is reimbursed, but patients pay all other routine doctor visits and tests with their own money from the HSA account. As a result, HSA users are far more cost-conscious than customers who are reimbursed for the majority of their care.

The bills seriously endanger the trend toward consumer-driven care in general. By requiring minimum packages, they would prevent patients from choosing stripped-down plans that cover only major medical expenses. "The government could set extremely low deductibles that would eliminate HSAs," says John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis, a free-market research group. "And they could do it after the bills are passed."

4. Freedom to keep your existing plan
This is the freedom that the President keeps emphasizing. Yet the bills appear to say otherwise. It's worth diving into the weeds -- the territory where most pundits and politicians don't seem to have ventured.

The legislation divides the insured into two main groups, and those two groups are treated differently with respect to their current plans. The first are employees covered by the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974. ERISA regulates companies that are self-insured, meaning they pay claims out of their cash flow, and don't have real insurance. Those are the GEs (GE, Fortune 500) and Time Warners (TWX, Fortune 500) and most other big companies.

The House bill states that employees covered by ERISA plans are "grandfathered." Under ERISA, the plans can do pretty much what they want -- they're exempt from standard packages and community rating and can reward employees for healthy lifestyles even in restrictive states.
But read on.
The bill gives ERISA employers a five-year grace period when they can keep offering plans free from the restrictions of the "qualified" policies offered on the exchanges. But after five years, they would have to offer only approved plans, with the myriad rules we've already discussed. So for Americans in large corporations, "keeping your own plan" has a strict deadline. In five years, like it or not, you'll get dumped into the exchange. As we'll see, it could happen a lot earlier.

The outlook is worse for the second group. It encompasses employees who aren't under ERISA but get actual insurance either on their own or through small businesses. After the legislation passes, all insurers that offer a wide range of plans to these employees will be forced to offer only "qualified" plans to new customers, via the exchanges.

The employees who got their coverage before the law goes into effect can keep their plans, but once again, there's a catch. If the plan changes in any way -- by altering co-pays, deductibles, or even switching coverage for this or that drug -- the employee must drop out and shop through the exchange. Since these plans generally change their policies every year, it's likely that millions of employees will lose their plans in 12 months.

5. Freedom to choose your doctors
The Senate bill requires that Americans buying through the exchanges -- and as we've seen, that will soon be most Americans -- must get their care through something called "medical home." Medical home is similar to an HMO. You're assigned a primary care doctor, and the doctor controls your access to specialists. The primary care physicians will decide which services, like MRIs and other diagnostic scans, are best for you, and will decide when you really need to see a cardiologists or orthopedists.

Under the proposals, the gatekeepers would theoretically guide patients to tests and treatments that have proved most cost-effective. The danger is that doctors will be financially rewarded for denying care, as were HMO physicians more than a decade ago. It was consumer outrage over despotic gatekeepers that made the HMOs so unpopular, and killed what was billed as the solution to America's health-care cost explosion.

The bills do not specifically rule out fee-for-service plans as options to be offered through the exchanges. But remember, those plans -- if they exist -- would be barred from charging sick or elderly patients more than young and healthy ones. So patients would be inclined to game the system, staying in the HMO while they're healthy and switching to fee-for-service when they become seriously ill. "That would kill fee-for-service in a hurry," says Goodman.

In reality, the flexible, employer-based plans that now dominate the landscape, and that Americans so cherish, could disappear far faster than the 5 year "grace period" that's barely being discussed.

Companies would have the option of paying an 8% payroll tax into a fund that pays for coverage for Americans who aren't covered by their employers. It won't happen right away -- large companies must wait a couple of years before they opt out. But it will happen, since it's likely that the tax will rise a lot more slowly than corporate health-care costs, especially since they'll be lobbying Washington to keep the tax under control in the righteous name of job creation.

The best solution is to move to a let-freedom-ring regime of high deductibles, no community rating, no standard benefits, and cross-state shopping for bargains (another market-based reform that's strictly taboo in the bills). I'll propose my own solution in another piece soon on Fortune.com. For now, we suffer with a flawed health-care system, but we still have our Five Freedoms. Call them the Five Endangered Freedoms.

All MN Gubernatorial Candidates to Join Carver Co. GOP Debate Sept. 17


All of the Republican candidates running for Minnesota Governor have agreed to debate Sept. 17 when the Carver County Republicans sponsor the first Minnesota Gubernatorial Debate at the new Chanhassen High School, 2200 Lyman Boulevard in Chanhassen.

The Carver County Republicans' debate will run from 7-10 p.m. between all Republican candidates that have officially filed to run for Minnesota Governor, which include state Rep. Paul Kohls of Victoria who represents much of Carver County. The other candidates are: former state Auditor Pat Anderson of Eagan, state Rep. and former Asst. Minority Leader Tom Emmer of Delano, former state Rep. Bill Haas of Champlain, state Sen. David Hann of Eden Prarie, State Sen. Mike Jungbauer of East Bethel, state Rep. and former Minority Leader Marty Seifert of Marshall.

The Carver County Republicans are a grassroots organization elected for two year terms by the citizens and voters of Carver County. Carver County Republicans have not officially endorsed a candidate for governor. Delegates to the Minnesota Republican Party will cast a straw poll for Governor in October.

All citizens are welcome to attend the debate. Please RSVP with to AAndersonPR@gmail.com.

Friday, July 24, 2009

Obama slurs doctors, insurance companies, cops in his pitch for health care reform



NBC report on physician reaction at http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/us_world/Tonsil-Doctors-Fight-Obama-Smear.html:

Tonsil Doctors Fight Obama Smear

Ear, nose and throat surgeons appalled at president's health care prognosis.
Tonsil Doctors Fight Obama Smear Ear, nose and throat surgeons appalled at president's health care prognosis.
By SARA K. SMITH

Getty
Hey, Mr. President: you don't get into the tonsil trade for money. You do it for love.

President Obama managed to offend two very powerful interest groups during his press conference on Wednesday night: the National Fraternal Order of Police, who did not take well to the suggestion that the Cambridge Police Department had acted "stupidly" in arresting a Harvard professor for disorderly conduct; and, even worse, otolaryngologists whom he falsely suggested enjoy frivolously removing young people's precious tonsils

Take a look at the best photos of President Obama and his family captured during his first year in office.
It is one thing to be accused of poor police procedure or even racism, but to be labeled a reckless tonsil-harvester is a smear from which few recover. Here is the vicious speculative falsehood that President Obama uttered during his rather long and lecturey talk with the press:
Right now, doctors, a lot of times, are forced to make decisions based on the fee payment schedule that's out there. So if ... your child has a bad sore throat, or has repeated sore throats, the doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, "You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid's tonsils out."
Now, that may be the right thing to do. But I'd rather have that doctor making those decisions just based on whether you really need your kid's tonsils out or whether it might make more sense just to change -- maybe they have allergies. Maybe they have something else that would make a difference.
The American Academy of Otolaryngology - Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS) hastened to release a statement expressing its grave disappointment that the president would speak so capriciously of tonsillectomy, which, as a point of fact, may be a lot cheaper than treating allergies or whatever.
[T]he AAO-HNS is disappointed by the President's portrayal of the decision making processes by the physicians who perform these surgeries. In many cases, tonsillectomy may be a more effective treatment, and less costly, than prolonged or repeated treatments for an infected throat.
Thank heavens they cleared that up! Because most people, in their ignorance and fear of otolaryngologists, assume that such doctors are just a pack of tonsil-thieving weasels. When the president of the United States perpetuates this unfortunate stereotype, it just makes the job of a responsible and fair otolaryngologist that much harder.
Also, who is President Obama to speak at all on the topic of health care when he does not even know the proper course of treatment for chronic juvenile bronchitis? Whatever medical school he went to should have its license revoked.
Ear, nose and throat specialist Sara K. Smith writes for NBC and Wonkette.
Copyright NBC Local Media


And an opinion by Bill Kristol for the Washington Post at http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/07/obama_attacks_docs_and_cops.html:


Obama Attacks Docs and Cops
President Obama spent most of his
press conference tonight denying what President Kennedy famously affirmed -- that to govern is to choose. Obama promised us health care this is at once better and cheaper, with both more regulation and more freedom to choose, featuring an assurance that government won’t limit our care and a commitment to a government panel that will save money by restricting care.
The juvenile happy talk reached its peak with this presidential statement: “If there's a blue pill and a red pill, and the blue pill is half the price of the red pill and works just as well, why not pay half price for the thing that's going to make you well?” Now, there’s good idea. Why hasn’t anyone else thought of that? For this reform, we need to spend $1 trillion?
So on health care, I’d be surprised if the president changed any minds, because he never seriously tried to address criticism of his proposal on the merits.
But at press conferences there are often throwaway lines and unscripted moments that are interesting. I was struck by two that seemed to exemplify Obama’s easy disdain for the less enlightened among us -- in this case, for family docs and for Cambridge cops.

First, Obama offered this example of how doctors make decisions under the current system instead of doing what’s in their patients’ best interests:
Right now, doctors a lot of times are forced to make decisions based on the fee payment schedule that's out there. So if they're looking and you come in and you've got a bad sore throat or your child has a bad sore throat or has repeated sore throats, the doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, "You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid's tonsils out."Does Obama really think pediatricians knowingly order unnecessary tonsillectomies in order to “make a lot more money?” Isn’t this a rather casual slander of a lot of doctors? And in any case, is this what’s driving up health-care costs? It’s probably as likely health-care costs are high because hospitals have too many vice presidents for government relations making $300,000 a year. But I wouldn’t think it appropriate for the president to single them out for attack either.
Second, Obama answered a question about his friend Henry Louis Gates’s
run-in with the Cambridge cops, after acknowledging “not having been there and not seeing all the facts,” by nonetheless asserting that “the Cambridge police acted stupidly.” Does he really know enough about what happened to say that? Maybe it was Professor Gates who behaved stupidly, or at least arrogantly. He is, after all, a Harvard professor. I was once a Harvard professor, and my instinct is to side with the Cambridge cops. But if I were president of the United States, I might pause before casually accusing other Americans of acting stupidly unless I were confident I knew what I was talking about.

Voices that plead with America to "Wake Up!"

An opinion from Ben Stein printed in the American Spectator at http://spectator.org/archives/2009/07/24/weve-figured-him-out:

We've Figured Him Out
By Ben Stein
Why is President Barack Obama in such a hurry to get his socialized medicine bill passed?
Because he and his cunning circle realize some basic truths:
The American people in their unimaginable kindness and trust voted for a pig in a poke in 2008. They wanted so much to believe Barack Obama was somehow better and different from other ultra-leftists that they simply took him on faith.
They ignored his anti-white writings in his books. They ignored his quiet acceptance of hysterical anti-American diatribes by his minister, Jeremiah Wright.
They ignored his refusal to explain years at a time of his life as a student. They ignored his ultra-left record as a "community organizer," Illinois state legislator, and Senator.
The American people ignored his total zero of an academic record as a student and teacher, his complete lack of scholarship when he was being touted as a scholar.
Now, the American people are starting to wake up to the truth. Barack Obama is a super likeable super leftist, not a fan of this country, way, way too cozy with the terrorist leaders in the Middle East, way beyond naïveté, all the way into active destruction of our interests and our allies and our future.
The American people have already awakened to the truth that the stimulus bill -- a great idea in theory -- was really an immense bribe to Democrat interest groups, and in no way an effort to help all Americans.
Now, Americans are waking up to the truth that ObamaCare basically means that every time you are sick or injured, you will have a clerk from the Department of Motor Vehicles telling your doctor what he can and cannot do.
The American people already know that Mr. Obama's plan to lower health costs while expanding coverage and bureaucracy is a myth, a promise of something that never was and never will be -- a bureaucracy lowering costs in a free society. Either the costs go up or the free society goes away.
These are perilous times. Mrs. Hillary Clinton, our Secretary of State, has given Iran the go-ahead to have nuclear weapons, an unqualified betrayal of the nation. Now, we face a devastating loss of freedom at home in health care. It will be joined by controls on our lives to "protect us" from global warming, itself largely a fraud if believed to be caused by man.
Mr. Obama knows Americans are getting wise and will stop him if he delays at all in taking away our freedoms.
There is his urgency and our opportunity. Once freedom is lost, America is lost. Wake up, beloved America.

Ben Stein is a writer, actor, economist, and lawyer living in Beverly Hills and Malibu. He writes "Ben Stein's Diary" for every issue of The American Spectator.

Call to probe GM's dealer closings

Rockefeller said in a statement that an investigation was warranted because
"there is substantial confusion, even among dealers themselves, as to how GM and
Chrysler selected dealerships to terminate and what benefits, if any, they might
gain by doing so."
more by Jay
Rockefeller
- Jul 24, 2009 - Wall
Street Journal Blogs
(15 occurrences)



Rockefeller Wants Probe of Car Makers' Decisions on Dealerships
Wall Street Journal Blogs - Josh Mitchell - ‎Jul 24, 2009‎
In the latest congressional move to get the car companies to reinstate dealers or compensate them more generously for losing their franchises, ...

Jay wants study into car dealership closures
Charleston Gazette - ‎Jul 23, 2009‎
... "it is clear that there is substantial confusion, even among dealers themselves, as to how GM and Chrysler selected dealerships for termination and what ...

Auto dealer: Congress should expose 'big lie' of General Motors ...
Frederick News Post (subscription) (subscription) - Ike Wilson - ‎Jul 23, 2009‎
... wake of the Chrysler LLC and General Motors Corp. bankruptcies. The committee's primary focus is on securing passage of the bipartisan Automobile Dealer ...

Car dealer disputes cost of showrooms
Washington Times - William Ehart - ‎Jul 22, 2009‎
The wind-down payments can be as much as $1 million per dealer, GM has said. Chrysler attorney Kevin Orr told the subcommittee that the automaker can't ...

Chrysler May Liquidate If Dealer Bill Passes - Exec
Wall Street Journal - Josh Mitchell - ‎Jul 22, 2009‎

UPDATE:

(Updates with new emphasis on Chrysler executive's testimony.) By Josh Mitchell
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--
Chrysler Group LLC could be forced to liquidate if the U.S. Congress passes legislation to overturn the closings of 789 dealerships as part of the car maker's restructuring, a company executive warned Wednesday.
Chrysler closed the dealerships June 9 as part of a broad reorganization ordered by the Obama administration to justify more government aid for the company. Chrysler said the closings, which reduced its network to about 2,400, will improve brand value and ultimately lead to bigger profits.
Testifying before a U.S. House panel Wednesday, Louann Van Der Wiele, Chrysler's vice president and associate general counsel, said reversing the closings would risk undoing the monthslong reorganization the car maker just completed.
"Legislation aimed at reversing some of the painful but necessary actions taken" during bankruptcy will lead Chrysler back to the brink of collapse, but without a willing buyer this time, Van Der Wiele said. "Complete liquidation, with all of its dire consequences, could follow."
Her testimony came on the second day of a two-day hearing before a U.S. House Judiciary subcommittee to examine the Obama administration's rescues of General Motors Co. and Chrysler. Plans by the auto makers to cut as many as 3,200 dealers from their retail networks are the central focus.
Tuesday, Ron Bloom, President Barack Obama's chief auto adviser, also warned against congressional attempts to reinstate auto dealers, which he said could threaten the auto makers' future success.
The House passed a bill last week to force GM and Chrysler to restore dealer rights under state franchise laws. The measure could force the car companies to reopen dealerships, hold off on plans to close others and increase severance payments to closed dealerships.
Support in the Senate appears less certain, and the White House has said it strongly opposes the bill.
But the issue won't die in the House, where dealers hold significant clout.
Hoping to blunt criticism that dealers have been treated unfairly, Michael Robinson, GM's vice president and general counsel of North America, testified at Wednesday's hearing that the company is providing $600 million in assistance to about 1,300 dealers that have signed "wind down" agreements. That translates to an average payment of $462,000 to rejected dealers.
"GM developed a unique wind-down process that we believe is considerably more favorable to dealers" than what they may have received without GM's cooperation in bankruptcy court, Robinson said.
Dealers that have signed wind-down agreements will be able to remain open through October 2010, with sufficient time to sell remaining inventory, Robinson said.
GM expects hundreds of additional dealerships to close on their own by the end of 2010, primarily because of the discontinuation of certain brands as part of the company's restructuring. The company expects its retail network of about 6,000 to have been cut by about one-third by the end of 2010.

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Another Democrat gets in Gov race

DFL Rep. Paul Thissen joins growing list of gubernatorial hopefuls
Pioneer Press - Dennis Lien - ‎Jul 23, 2009‎
Tom Emmer, Paul Kohls and Marty Seifert; former Rep. Bill Haas; state Sens. David Hann and Michael Jungbauer and former congressional candidate Phil Herwig. ...
Thissen Jumps Into Minn. Governor's Race KAALtv.com
Dem State Rep. Thissen Starts Run for Governor KSTP.com
DFLer Thissen in the race for governor Pioneer Press

Health care is being defined as a right to push socilization

Hann says state needs focus on productivity

From Politics in Minnesota:

What makes them run: Hann says key economic issue isn't jobs but productivity
Posted 9:58 am, July 22nd, 2009 by Steve Perry

State Sen. David Hann (R-Eden Prairie) was driving through a rainstorm near Moorhead en route to a campaign event when we caught up with him by phone this week to ask the seven questions we've been posing to the Minnesota 2010 gubernatorial candidates.
David Hann/vitals
Born: 1952; Elected: 2002 (2nd term); Education: B.A., Gustavus Adolphus College; graduate studies, University of Chicago; Occupation: Business process consultant; Committees: Agriculture and Veterans; Education; Finance - Agriculture and Veterans Budget and Policy Division; Finance - E-12 Education Budget and Policy Division; Finance - Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Budget Division; Health, Housing and Family Security; campaign website.
PIM: Why are you running for governor?David Hann: I am running primarily because we need to do something about education. What I've been telling people is that the most urgent thing in our state is the economy. We have to restore the private sector economy. We need to do that by reducing taxes and regulatory burdens, and quit driving capital investment away from the state. It's sort of like, if your house is burning down, then the first thing you've got to do is put out the fire. We've got to get the Minnesota economy back on track.But the most important thing in the long term, I think, is getting our public education system to work--to perform better than what it does. That's the thing that got me interested in elective politics when I ran for school board, and it's the primary reason I ran for the state senate. It's something that most people recognize needs to improve, and we've been talking about it for years and years and years and spending lots and lots of money. And we really haven't made any progress. I think we need to focus on that, and it's the primary reason why I'm trying to do this.PIM: What are the two or three most important challenges facing Minnesota right now, and what would you do to solve them?Hann: As I said, I think the urgent thing is to get the economy on track. We need to reduce the tax burden on the productive sector of the economy and deal with the regulatory climate so that we become more attractive. A lot of people are saying this is about jobs, and it isn't. It's not about jobs. It's about productivity and taking money out of the private sector. and having legislatures hire people to do things that are not really needed does not help the economy. It may give people jobs, but it doesn't help the economy. We need to do things to encourage productivity in the economy. That's the first thing. That's the most urgent thing.The second thing, as I said, is education, and trying to restore--to create or restore--a structure that is likely to produce the results that we all expect. Right now the structure we have is highly political and is focused on solving the problems that are internal to the organization, and not focused on how to do education itself better. The third area for me is health care--which again is a structural problem. How do you get the kind of system that will provide people with affordable health care and do it in ways that everyone can have access to, and find ways to pay for it? Those are the top three things.PIM: How many campaign events have you held so far?Hann: We've had a number of fundraising events in the last week or 10 days. And I've been traveling. I'm up here near Moorhead going to an event right now, and I'm driving in a downpour. Can you hear that [rain]? I hope I don't lose you here.I don't have an exact number, but in the last 10 days in particular, we've been doing a lot of events--fundraisers, and events to meet delegates. PIM: What are the main messages you're hearing from Minnesotans as you campaign around the state?Hann: Concern about the economy. Concern about reform in government. It's too large, too wasteful, too inefficient. Concern about health care. Those are the major things.PIM: If you don't get your party's endorsement, will you run in the primary?Hann: No.PIM: Who, or what, would you say are the most important influences on your life and outlook?Hann: Are you talking about political influences? I think from a political perspective, I have read and studied a lot about the period of American history prior to the Civil War, and a lot about Abraham Lincoln. He was the first Republican, I think, at least at the national level, and I've learned a lot about the way politics ought to be conducted by reading about his life and reading his speeches and understanding the political climate that they were immersed in and the issues they were faced with. There are many similarities between that time and today. So I think from a political standpoint, Lincoln was the most influential in my life. And continues to be. I've read probably 60 or 70 books about that period of history in the last few years. PIM: What's the first thing you can remember wanting to be when you grew up?Hann: [laughs] I remember, when I was pretty young, that I was interested in politics. I was very intrigued by why things happened the way they did, and why there was so much disagreement over public events. I was very fascinated by that at a very young age, going back to grade school. That's when I started doing a lot of reading. So I think probably my first recollection of what I wanted to do--I wanted to do something in politics from the time I was very, very young.

Where are the jobs?

links to AP:

Weak recovery to provide little relief for jobless
The Associated Press - Christopher S. Rugaber - ‎Jul 23, 2009‎
The National Employment Law Project, an advocacy group, projects that 540000 people will use up their unemployment benefits by the end of September. ...

Gov. Pawlenty: health care reform is a scam

Coleman postpones decision on running for governor

Will Norm Coleman run for governor in 2010? He'll tell you next ...
Pioneer Press - Rachel Stassen-Berger - ‎Jul 27, 2009‎
Tom Emmer, Paul Kohls and Marty Seifert; and former state Rep. Bill Haas. Democrats face a similarly crowded field with eight candidates already formally ...
Coleman Won't Decide On MN Governor Run Until 2010 WCCO

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Are the people being heard?

Monday, July 20, 2009

Government between you and your doctor

Saturday, July 18, 2009

Seifert is running for jobs, fewer regulations

From Politics in Minnesota:

Marty Seifert
What makes them run: For Marty Seifert, "it's all about jobs and the economy"--and cutting regulations
July 17th, 2009 by Steve Perry

Here's the second in PIM's series of interviews with candidates looking to replace Gov. Tim Pawlenty in the corner office at the Capitol. We're asking all the declared major party candidates the same seven questions about their campaigns, and quizzing them on what they like to read and watch on their own time while we're at it. (You'll find Seifert's and Paul Thissen's picks in today's PIM Weekly Report. And our Thissen interview, published yesterday, is here.)
On Wednesday former House Minority Leader Marty Seifert, who resigned his leadership post to pursue a campaign for governor on the day after Pawlenty announced he would not run again, talked with us from his home in Marshall.
Marty Seifert/Vitals
Born: 1972; Elected: 1996 (7th term); Education: BA, Southwest Minnesota State University; graduate work, MSU-Mankato; Occupation: Property manager/university admissions counselor (on unpaid leave); Committees: Rules and Legislative Administration; Campaign website
PIM: Why are you running for governor?
Marty Seifert: For me, it's all about improving Minnesota. And my main theme is going to be--common sense is the umbrella, but it's all about jobs and the economy. I really think right now that government is not helping create jobs. They are hurting job creation. In our 15-city tour, we learned a lot about where the places are that government is hurting in job creation. There's a mine trying to open in the northeast part of the state, and the government's not allowing them to get permitted to open. [Plus] a hog facility in the northwest part of the state, an ethanol facility inthe southwest part of the state, an oncology clinic in the metro.
There's just a series of regulations, rules, licensing, permits, etc., that are causing a stunting of job growth in the state. The main reason I'm running is to change that, to help improve the state. I look at it as a mathematical formula. Jobs plus reform equal prosperity.
PIM: What are the two or three most important challenges facing Minnesota, and what would you do to solve them?

Thursday, July 09, 2009

A law to make sure our Congressmen "read" their bills

Seifert's hat's in

From the Marshall Independent at http://www.marshallindependent.com/?page=search.results:

Seifert in the Ring
FRIDLEY (AP) - State Rep. Marty Seifert, R-Marshall, who steered House Republicans through three tumultuous legislative sessions, began his bid Tuesday to trade up to the Minnesota governor's office.
He set off on a four-day, 14-city tour of the state at a high-tech factory in this Twin Cities suburb. He said he wanted to drive home his planned emphasis on jobs.
''It's not just what you say. It's not just how you say it. But it's also where you say it: We need job opportunities in this great state. We need economic opportunities in this great state,'' Seifert said. ''It will be my top priority.''
Seifert said about 60 to 70 people turned out for the official start of his campaign for governor of Minnesota in Fridley.
"That's a good crowd on a work day on a day after the July 4 weekend," Seifert said.
Seifert will end his campaign tour Friday. Friday's stops include a morning stop in Marshall, and the tour will end in the afternoon in New Ulm.
Seifert had said he planned to end the tour with a stop in Marshall but a family event prevented that from happening Friday. At 37, Seifert is aiming to become the youngest Minnesota governor in 70 years and the first from outside the Twin Cities metropolitan area elected since 1986. He lives in Marshall, a city closer to the South Dakota border than it is to St. Paul.
The 2010 race is a clear tossup, made so by GOP Gov. Tim Pawlenty's decision to bow out after two terms.
Standing with his family in the factory's parts warehouse, Seifert offered a sneak peak at his agenda. He said he would try to fuel job growth by easing permitting and licensing. He said he would attempt to hold down property taxes by requiring local governments to hold a referendum to increase spending above a certain level. He said he would change education by boosting the amount of time children are in the classroom.
Seifert ticked off the jobs he's held since his boyhood days on a southwestern Minnesota farm: picking vegetables, serving ice cream, delivering pizzas, teaching and legislating during seven statehouse terms. He relinquished his minority leader title last month in anticipation of the campaign.
''The values I grew up with have everything to do with my run for governor,'' Seifert said. ''Frugality, humility, service to people and, most of all, common sense. It is missing from our government today. I intend to make sure that from top-to-bottom our government reflects those values and does not wish them away.''
But getting this job won't be easy. He first must gain the party's endorsement next June because he pledged to leave the race without it. There's the possibility of a GOP primary a few months later. And the general election could be a three-way battle - against candidates from the Democratic and Independence parties - if the past three contests are any clue.
In the last week, the Republican field has shifted.
State Sens. David Hann of Eden Prairie and Mike Jungbauer of East Bethel set campaigns for governor in motion. Rep. Tom Emmer, who for a time was Seifert's deputy, also threw his hat in the ring. Emmer, of Delano, is likely to appeal to the conservative wing of the party.
And former U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman didn't rule out making another try at the governor's office as he conceded defeat to Democrat Al Franken in the Senate race. Coleman was the GOP nominee for governor in 1998, losing to ex-wrestler Jesse Ventura.
Seifert said he told the media at his news conference Tuesday he would abide by the Republican endorsement.
Also, while there has been speculation that Coleman would enter the Republican race for governor, Seifert said he wouldn't speculate on that.
When asked by the Independent if he'd change his plans if Coleman entered the governor's race, Seifert said he planned to move forward "full steam ahead," without speculating.
He would let the people decide, Seifert said.
Former Rep. Bill Haas of Champlin and Rep. Paul Kohls of Victoria also entered the race last month, and other GOP politicians are considering campaigns.
Democrats have been maneuvering since last year, hoping to take back an office they haven't held in two decades.
Announced Democratic candidates are: former U.S. Sen. Mark Dayton, state Sen. Tom Bakk of Cook, state Sen. John Marty of Roseville, state Rep. Paul Thissen of Minneapolis, former state Rep. Matt Entenza of St. Paul, Ramsey County attorney Susan Gaertner, former state Sen. Steve Kelley and painter Ole Savior.
The next governor will undoubtedly face another mammoth budget deficit, with projections ranging from $4 billion to $7 billion.
Seifert said he's undaunted by the challenge.
''I view the deficit as an opportunity,'' he said. ''I don't view the deficit as something that is going to be punitive.''