The Light: Hillary

/ Bumped up /

Well, this came as a bit of a surprise, a pleasant one at that. You will recall that Rep. Maxine Waters had inserted a provision into the Financial Reform Bill creating quotas for women and minorities for financial institutions.

But not so fast says the US Commission on Civil Rights, as this article by Caroline May makes clear, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Demands Changes to Democrats’ Financial Reform Bill. That pretty much says it all, but wait until you see what some of the members actually said about this issue:

[snip] Commissioners Peter Kirsanow, Ashley Taylor, Gail Heriot, and Todd Gaziano affixed their names to the letter, which charges the Senate with either “consciously or unconsciously” promoting discrimination.

“All too often, when bureaucrats are charged with the worthy task of preventing race or gender discrimination, they in fact do precisely the opposite,” the letter reads. “They require discrimination by setting overly optimistic goals that can only be fulfilled by discriminating in favor of the groups the goals are supposed to benefit.”

The letter continues, “In this case, the bureaucrats are not even being asked to prevent discrimination, but to ensure ‘fair inclusion.’ The likelihood that it will in fact promote discrimination is overwhelming.”

Holy moley – they are not mincing any words here. And good for them for that. But they did not stop there:

[snip] “Some legislators have evidently come to think of women and minorities as just another constituency whose leaders must be brought on board with incentives when major legislation is being considered,” the letter says. “The notion that legislation should include ‘a little something’ for everyone is troubling in any context, but it is especially troubling in the context of race and gender, given the requirements of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.”

Commissioner Todd Gaziano told The Daily Caller that Section 342, whether it intends to or not, could have dire implications for the financial markets.

“The likely end of creating offices that require these types of racial and gender goals is that it will result in quotas and discrimination,” he said. “There are many existing laws and enforcement mechanisms that already prohibit discrimination. This provision, by contrast, takes affirmative steps to guarantee discrimination.”

That sounds like a fairly damning assessment to me. Clearly, there are so many problems with inserting these quotas on so many different levels. That the Civil Rights Commission is coming out against it, and so strongly, is telling. Previously, the former chief economist at the US Department of Labor, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, also came out strongly against this provision:

“This is a radical shift in employment legislation,” she said. “The law effectively changes the standard by which institutions are evaluated from anti-discrimination regulations to quotas. In order to be in compliance with the law these businesses will have to show that they have a certain percentage of women and a certain percentage of minorities.”

Furchtgott-Roth worries that this might be a harbinger of things to come.

“So what does this mean? Are we going to get rid of anti-discrimination laws all together and just put in quotas? Could this be what’s to come in other sectors?” she questioned.

And an excellent question it is. Disturbing question, too, I might add.

So what will become of this letter by some of the members of the US Civil Rights Commission on this issue? Well, I wish I could tell you it was going to make all the difference:

Commissioner Peter Kirsanow was more blunt.

“I don’t think it is going to have a substantial effect,” he said. “I think they will ignore it as they have other letters we have sent. Just recently, they ignored our concerns with the health care bill, which contains a number of highly suspect racial provisions embedded deep within the text. They will emerge at some point and we will have to deal with them.” (Emphasis mine.)

Kirsanow added that in addition to the constitutional problems associated with mandating quotas, the political implications are also troubling.

“There is considerable evidence over the years that these types of quota provisions dissolve into a political spoils system—we see it at the federal, state and local level—with certain positions being reserved for certain people,” he said.

Uh, yeah. Again, I urge you to read the full article here. It is well worth your time.

I just have to wonder why this was even put into this bill in the first place, especially if there is evidence showing it is so counter productive. Perhaps the excuse, um, I mean, explanation, will come to light at some point (though I am not holding my breath). At the very least, I hope this provision is removed.

I’m not holding my breath for that, either.

By the BP oil spill crisis, and it is certainly worthy of our attention, don’t think things have stopped going on in Washington, DC.

Actually, come to think of it, there is a connection between the BP oil crisis and one major issue in DC, the Obamacare program. That connection is – wait for it – labor unions.

Yep, Obama still refuses to waive the Jones Act, which would allow foreign ships and oil skimmers to come in so as not to upset the labor unions. The oil continues to gush from the earth’s surface, harming our marine life, our ocean, and too many people’s livelihoods at a time when jobs are already hard enough to come by (newest unemployment data for today skyrocketed to 472,000 jobless claims this week).

Add to that the moratorium Obama put on deepwater drilling, despite Salazar’s advisers advising against the moratorium, and many more people will be struggling before too long, especially in the Gulf. Like they need any more hardship. Obama even admitted as much, yet he is determined to go forward with his plan, halting any more drilling.

But how are the unions related to Obamacare promises that our health care, if we have it, will remain unchanged? Well, as it turns out – SURPRISE – most of us WILL have our current health care changed by Obamacare. Which group will not? You know the answer, labor unions:

Watch the latest video at FOXNews.com

That’s right, unions will be grandfathered in as this article highlights, “New Rules Could Make 66 Percent Of Employer Plans Lose ‘Grandfathered’ Status.” Gee, none of us who were following this massive takeover saw that coming, did we? Oh, right – we DID, and were told we were just haters for it. Well, we’re hating now:

New rules from the Obama administration that regulate health care plans that existed before the reform bill was passed highlight the difficulty the administration faces in both reforming the system and allowing people to keep the plans they like.

Under new regulations issued Monday, anywhere from 39 percent to 66 percent of employer plans will lose their “grandfathered status” by 2013, according to estimates included with the rules.

For plans that do not fall under the grandfathered status, employers would have to find a plan that complies with the health care bill passed March 23. Whether or not costs for the new plans will be less than grandfathered plans has yet to be seen.

Small businesses would be harder hit than large employers, losing grandfathered status for as few as 49 percent and as many as 80 percent of plans. Employers may keep their plan if it does not raise its prices beyond “reasonable changes” and if it does not cut substantially cut benefits for a particular condition.

Oh, there’s a big surprise. Small businesses, the backbone of our economy, are going to be taking the biggest hit here. Golly, too bad no one said anything about this before. That’s snark, just in case you missed it. Hell to the yes we were saying it. Again, we were roundly discounted. How many times do I have to say this? We were RIGHT:

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius reiterated a saying that President Obama said many times during the health care debate: “If you like the plan you have, you can keep it,” Sebelius said at a press conference Tuesday.

But experts say the new regulations reflect the limits to which that promise can be kept.

“Given the direction that President Obama wanted to go with health care, his promise that people could keep their existing plans was always a dicey one,” said Tevi Troy, former HHS deputy secretary under President Bush and visiting senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.

The administration said that it would “take into account reasonable changes” that insurers routinely make in response to changes in cost and availability but would not outline details about what “reasonable changes” might be.

The regulations stipulate that insurers may make changes to their plans, but only to increase benefits or adapt to consumer protections outlined in the health care bill.

“They give all Americans with health insurance some important protections this year and create a path to the consumer-friendly health insurance marketplace of the future,” Sebelius said.

The new rules mandate that new individuals may not be added to grandfathered health plans after a business merger or restructuring so that grandfather status is not traded as a commodity. Thus companies will likely have employees with two different types of health care coverage, if the companies stay with their current plan.

Troy anticipates that insurance companies will try to freeze their plans to retain their grandfathered status for as long as possible.

“Freezing is not sustainable,” Troy told the Daily Caller. “The majority of plans will lose their grandfathered status in relatively short order, which I suspect was the unstated intent of both the legislators and the regulators.”

Here’s the bottom line. MANY of us knew this was going to happen. Many of us knew this was a hugely flawed bill from the get-go, not the least because the vast majority of the people voting on it hadn’t read the damn thing. With its jumping off point being big giveaways to Big Pharma, it could only go downhill from there, and did.

At what point do the people who buy every single word coming out of Obama’s mouth finally accept that they are being had? How many times must we say, “We told you so” before they will remove their blinders, their rose-colored glasses, or whatever it is that is keeping them from seeing the truth of who this man is? Despite his strong words, he is selling out the Gulf to the unions. Despite his claims to the contrary, those of us not in unions are likely to be screwed when it comes to health care, while the only ones NOT feeling the pain will be the unions.

Obama is not working in OUR best interest, but in the UNION’S best interest. As I have said before, they are sure getting their money’s worth with him. And what are we getting? Oh, you know that, too – the shaft.

Recently, we have been focusing on our neighbors to the south as we discuss issues of illegal immigration. But while we have been focusing our energies down there, something has been going on up in Canada. And it’s big.

What is it, you may ask? Well, this: Soaring Costs Force Canada To Reassess Health Model. Oh, dear. Isn’t this the model the Democrats claimed worked so well, and was one to emulate here in the States? Wasn’t that the constant rallying cry to shove through Obamacare, whether we wanted it or not (and “or not” was what we wanted)? Were not those of us who tried to point out that there were very real problems with the Canadian system scoffed at, derided, and dismissed? Yes, yes we were.

Well, here’s the thing. Once again, we were right, as the article mentioned above demonstrates:

Pressured by an aging population and the need to rein in budget deficits, Canada’s provinces are taking tough measures to curb healthcare costs, a trend that could erode the principles of the popular state-funded system.

Ontario, Canada’s most populous province, kicked off a fierce battle with drug companies and pharmacies when it said earlier this year it would halve generic drug prices and eliminate “incentive fees” to generic drug manufacturers.

British Columbia is replacing block grants to hospitals with fee-for-procedure payments and Quebec has a new flat health tax and a proposal for payments on each medical visit — an idea that critics say is an illegal user fee.

And a few provinces are also experimenting with private funding for procedures such as hip, knee and cataract surgery.

It’s likely just a start as the provinces, responsible for delivering healthcare, cope with the demands of a retiring baby-boom generation. Official figures show that senior citizens will make up 25 percent of the population by 2036.

“There’s got to be some change to the status quo whether it happens in three years or 10 years,” said Derek Burleton, senior economist at Toronto-Dominion Bank.

“We can’t continually see health spending growing above and beyond the growth rate in the economy because, at some point, it means crowding out of all the other government services.

“At some stage we’re going to hit a breaking point.”

Huh. Here Canada is having problems, and their relationship with drug companies seems to be a tad bit different from the one Obama has. That is to say, they are actively fighting them, and fighting FOR their citizens, as opposed to Obama making a deal with Big Pharma from the Get-go which definitely was in Big Pharma’s favor. Yt, Canada is having problems:

MIRROR IMAGE DEBATE

In some ways the Canadian debate is the mirror image of discussions going on in the United States.

Canada, fretting over budget strains, wants to prune its system, while the United States, worrying about an army of uninsured, aims to create a state-backed safety net.

Healthcare in Canada is delivered through a publicly funded system, which covers all “medically necessary” hospital and physician care and curbs the role of private medicine. It ate up about 40 percent of provincial budgets, or some C$183 billion ($174 billion) last year.

Spending has been rising 6 percent a year under a deal that added C$41.3 billion of federal funding over 10 years.

But that deal ends in 2013, and the federal government is unlikely to be as generous in future, especially for one-off projects.

“As Ottawa looks to repair its budget balance … one could see these one-time allocations to specific health projects might be curtailed,” said Mary Webb, senior economist at Scotia Capital.

Brian Golden, a professor at University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Business, said provinces are weighing new sources of funding, including “means-testing” and moving toward evidence-based and pay-for-performance models.

“Why are we paying more or the same for cataract surgery when it costs substantially less today than it did 10 years ago? There’s going to be a finer look at what we’re paying for and, more importantly, what we’re getting for it,” he said.

Other problems include trying to control independently set salaries for top hospital executives and doctors and rein in spiraling costs for new medical technologies and drugs.

Ontario says healthcare could eat up 70 percent of its budget in 12 years, if all these costs are left unchecked.

SEVENTY PERCENT?? Well, I don’t have to be a Nobel Prize Winner in Economics to know THAT is not good (though these days, accomplishments have become passe – ahem):

“Our objective is to preserve the quality healthcare system we have and indeed to enhance it. But there are difficult decisions ahead and we will continue to make them,” Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Duncan told Reuters.

The province has introduced legislation that ties hospital chief executive pay with the quality of patient care and says it wants to put more physicians on salary to save money.

In a report released last week, TD Bank said Ontario should consider other proposals to help cut costs, including scaling back drug coverage for affluent seniors and paying doctors according to quality and efficiency of care.

Those sound like some possible options, but the outcome is unclear:

WINNERS AND LOSERS

The losers could be drug companies and pharmacies, both of which are getting increasingly nervous.

“Many of the advances in healthcare and life expectancy are due to the pharmaceutical industry so we should never demonize them,” said U of T’s Golden. “We need to ensure that they maintain a profitable business but our ability to make it very very profitable is constrained right now.”

Scotia Capital’s Webb said one cost-saving idea may be to make patients aware of how much it costs each time they visit a healthcare professional. “(The public) will use the services more wisely if they know how much it’s costing,” she said.

“If it’s absolutely free with no information on the cost and the information of an alternative that would be have been more practical, then how can we expect the public to wisely use the service?”

But change may come slowly. Universal healthcare is central to Canada’s national identity, and decisions are made as much on politics as economics.

“It’s an area that Canadians don’t want to see touched,” said TD’s Burleton. “Essentially it boils down the wishes of the population. But I think, from an economist’s standpoint, we point to the fact that sometimes Canadians in the short term may not realize the cost.”

($1=$1.05 Canadian) (Reporting by Claire Sibonney; editing by Janet Guttsman and Peter Galloway)

Isn’t that the single biggest issue right now? Once a social program has begun, people do not want to give them up? Isn’t that what happened in Greece? Isn’t that a big problem for the US, too? We continue to expand and extend programs that have massive benefits we cannot afford. For example, did you know in some states Unemployment Benefits were extended to 99 weeks? I’m sure you can do the math, but that’s almost 2 years! Could that money not have been better used in a WPA sort of way? Or some other jobs-creation plan? There are claims that the EUC is actually expanding unemployment. That is, simply put, problematic.

But here’s the biggest problem with the whole Canadian health care crisis compared to ours – our financial numbers were fudged. Only after the bill became a law did the REAL numbers start coming out, and they are NOT good. Check out what former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin stated recently:

Watch the latest news video at video.foxnews.com

Yikes. Again, this is what happens when a bill is rammed through without people bothering to read it first, filling it full of pork and giveaways, and expecting more service for less money. That is to say, it was fraught with problems from the beginning. We can only hope that before it is fully implemented, there is a massive overhaul or repeal.

I am all for people having health care, but as I have said before, let’s be smart about it. Do our homework first. REALLY look at the numbers, get out of Obama’s Big Pharma deal, and do right by all of our citizens, not corporations or political parties. Let Canada be a warning to us.

Bet you didn’t see this one coming.

One of the cost control measures under the new health care law passed just last month was “medical loss ratio” floors that go into effect on January 1, 2011. The MLR floor requires health insurers to spend at least 80 cents out of every insurance premium dollar in the individual and small group markets, and at least 85 cents in the large group market on medical expenses (as opposed to administrative costs and profits).

But according to the just released report from  U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on how health insurance companies spend the billions of dollars in premiums that American consumers pay them annually for health care coverage, the MLR floors could present a problem for health insurers.

2009 medical loss ratio results show that the largest for-profit health insurers are still spending too much of consumers’ premium dollars on administrative costs and profits. In the individual health care market, for example, the largest health insurers spent on average more than 26 cents out of every premium dollar on administrative costs and profits. In some individual markets, insurers are spending more than one third of each premium dollar on non-medical expenses.

That is ten percent below the floor.  Ouch!  That means compliance could take a sizable chunk out of health insurers profits (and bonuses). But never fear, the insurers are already working on a fix.

the insurance industry is beginning to consider the financial impact of the new federally required minimum loss ratio requirements, including questionable changes in their accounting practices. WellPoint, for example, has already “reclassified” more than half a billion dollars of administrative expenses as medical expenses. A leading industry analyst also recently released a separate report explaining why for-profit insurers might attempt to satisfy consumer protections in the law through an “MLR shift” – reclassifying previously identified administrative expenses as medical expense to create the appearance of a higher medical loss ratio.

So is anyone out there surprised by this?

What would you bet that the accountants had  this all worked out long ago?

It will be interesting to see how the National Association of Insurance Commissioners debates the meaning of medical care and medical costs.

While several states impose their own MLR requirements for commercial and individual policies, the U.S. minimums that the group of state insurance commissioners is developing with the Department of Health and Human Services are new and frequently higher.

Even though the law calls on the NAIC [National Association of Insurance Commissioners] to provide the uniform MLR definitions by year end, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who must certify them, asked the group this week to provide the guidelines, as well as standardized calculation methods and other related information, by June 1, as the provisions will be effective for plan years starting later this year.
–
Wendell Potter, a former Cigna Corp. (CI) spokesman turned health-reform activist, is now a consumer representative to the NAIC. He said he will suggest that the NAIC use what has been standard industry practice in deciding what counts in the MLR, which would mean keeping nurse hotlines and disease management as administrative costs.

So how confident are you that insurers will get to keep their reclassifications and more?

Dylan Ratigan discussing this issue

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I think we are in for a world of hurt. So does Chairman Ben Bernanke:

Did you catch that? Our federal debt will exceed 100% of our GDP. Um, that’s a bit of a problem, folks. And ten years is not that far away, either.

Remember when Nancy Pelosi said Congress needed to pass healthcare so we could see what’s in it? Remember when she and her cohorts said we’d love it once we understood it better? She may yet change her tune. Robert Pear of the New York Times states…

…the new health care law will affect almost every American in some way. And, perhaps fittingly if unintentionally, no one may be more affected than members of Congress themselves.

The Congressional Research Service says “the law may have significant unintended consequences for the “personal health insurance coverage” of senators, representatives and their staff members.”

This is too good – “the law may “remove members of Congress and Congressional staff” from their current coverage, in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, before any alternatives are available.”

The law apparently bars members of Congress from the federal employees health program, on the assumption that lawmakers should join many of their constituents in getting coverage through new state-based markets known as insurance exchanges.

But the research service found that this provision was written in an imprecise, confusing way, so it is not clear when it takes effect.

The new exchanges do not have to be in operation until 2014. But because of a possible “drafting error,” the report says, Congress did not specify an effective date for the section excluding lawmakers from the existing program.

Um, yeah. The exchanges don’t exist yet, but Congress is supposed to take part in them now? Well, Nancy and Harry – that’s what happens when you pass something you don’t read first!

Under well-established canons of statutory interpretation, the report said, “a law takes effect on the date of its enactment” unless Congress clearly specifies otherwise. And Congress did not specify any other effective date for this part of the health care law. The law was enacted when President Obama signed it three weeks ago.

Okay, Nancy. No more health care for you!!

But this is the quote of the day – if I could write these words in huge letters across the sky, I would:

The confusion raises the inevitable question: If they did not know exactly what they were doing to themselves, did lawmakers who wrote and passed the bill fully grasp the details of how it would influence the lives of other Americans?

Ding ding ding ding ding ding!! Congratulations, Ms. Nancy and Mr. Harry. You two get the booby prize.

“It is unclear whether members of Congress and Congressional staff who are currently participating in F.E.H.B.P. may be able to retain this coverage,” the research service said in an 8,100-word memorandum.

And even if current members of Congress can stay in the popular program for federal employees, that option will probably not be available to newly elected lawmakers, the report says.

[snip]

These seemingly technical questions will affect 535 members of Congress and thousands of Congressional employees. But the issue also has immense symbolic and political importance. Lawmakers of both parties have repeatedly said their goal is to provide all Americans with access to health insurance as good as what Congress has.

I wonder how fast they’ll move to fix that particular snag in the legislative mess they just rammed through Congress – for ego purposes only.

Moreover, it says, the strictures of the new law will apply to staff members who work in the personal office of a member of Congress. But they may or may not apply to people who work on the staff of Congressional committees and in “leadership offices” like those of the House speaker and the Democratic and Republican leaders and whips in the two chambers.

In addition, the report says, Congress did not designate anyone to resolve these “ambiguities” or to help arrange health insurance for members of Congress in the future.

Oops.

“This omission, whether intentional or inadvertent, raises questions regarding interpretation and implementation that cannot be definitively resolved by the Congressional Research Service,” the report says. “The statute does not appear to be self-executing, but rather seems to require an administrating or implementing authority that is not specifically provided for by the statutory text.”

The White House said last month that Mr. Obama would voluntarily participate in the health insurance exchange, though the law does not require him or other administration officials to do so. His participation as president may depend on his getting re-elected in 2012.

Representative Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah, said lawmakers were in the same boat as many Americans, trying to figure out what the new law meant for them.

“If members of Congress cannot explain how it’s going to work for them and their staff, how will they explain it to the rest of America?” Mr. Chaffetz asked in an interview.

The provision governing members of Congress can be traced to the Senate Finance Committee. When the panel was working on the legislation last September, Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, proposed an amendment to require that elected federal officials and all federal employees buy coverage through an exchange, “rather than using the traditional Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.”

A scaled-back version of the amendment, applying to members of Congress and their aides, was accepted in the committee without objection.

Thank you, Senator Grassley – they didn’t even notice what you were doing – they were too busy beating the drum and beating all opposition to a pulp. Do you think the Senator did this deliberately – just to point out how poorly this legislation was being crafted?

And I thought the elites in Congress knew what was best for the rest of us.

The words just desserts come to mind. We’ll keep you posted on new developments.

Some readers of this blog took exception to my post titled “Fear Itself,” which was published on April 6.

I’d like to address the objections.

Protest is the American way. The health care bill, a massive piece of legislation, had many elements which some could find objectionable. Mandates are worrying, as is the fear that premiums could go up. There are genuine concerns that the “reform” could turn out to be a souped-up version of COBRA, making insurance obligatory but unaffordable, ultimately benefitting only the insurance companies. Reasonable people can disagree reasonably. That’s one of the great aspects of living in a democracy.

What is not reasonable, however, is circulating pictures of the President disguised as a witch doctor, or spitting on and hurling racial and other epithets at Congressmen (or anyone else), or sending images of nooses, or issuing death threats. This form of “protest” has nothing to do with TARP or health care or anything else. Anyone who defends such behavior should hang their head in shame. Indeed, such acts should be vehemently discouraged and the perpetrators shunned from civilized society.

The Tea Party’s message of smaller government and fiscal responsibility is being drowned out by the movement’s most extreme elements. In this the movement is comparable to A.N.S.W.E.R, a group begun to oppose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which then degraded into an umbrella group for every embittered leftist with an ax to grind, from PETA to the Free Mumia crowd to the pro-Palestinian folks. Ultimately the anti-war message was diluted and A.N.S.W.E.R turned into a joke.

Another group that found itself in the trashbin of history was the loosely formed anti-World Bank/WTO/IMF crowd, whose members had no problem protesting the worthy cause of international debt reduction by rampaging in the streets and committing acts of vandalism while filming all the exciting anti-globalist fervor with video cameras and cell phones imported from Asia. Any sympathy they may have generated went up in smoke as the public watched the violence and mayhem.

During campaign 2008, left-wing blogs turned into cesspools of misinformation and ad hominem attacks on the Clintons, going so far as to resurrect the “Vince Foster Was Murdered” canard. The outrageous sexism of the blogosphere and the media was harshly and justifiably criticized on this blog. To ignore the extreme elements of the Tea Party is to do an injustice to those decent people who want to have their voices heard, but do not want to be associated with the ugliness of the extremes.

So Mr. Transparency and his Pelosi-led crew have been mighty busy over the past couple of weeks. Okay, okay, his entire presidency thus far. But the past couple of weeks have been particularly bad. First there was the whole health care bill rammed down our throats.

But also inside that Health Care bill was a massive change to Student Loans. I am all for student loans – I used them for graduate school myself. But what the heck do Student Loans have to do with Health Care? Just another budgetary trick by the “Transparency” Party. And today, President Obama will be signing THIS piece into law:

Then there are Obama’s recess appointments. Now, all presidents do this, that we know. But there was one person in particular who was opposed by both Democrats and Republicans. The following sets the stage:

Oh, yes. This Becker guy, friend to the SEIU is JUST who we need in a Labor position, isn’t he? Well, you know what’s coming. Obama appointed him despte all of the opposition:

Watch the latest news video at video.foxnews.com

So Student Loan overhaul was used to “balance” the Health Care costs (and we know it really didn’t, given the double dipping shell games used in that procedure), but another victim of the budget is a benefit. It applies to the spouses of those serving in the Armed Services:

Watch the latest news video at video.foxnews.com

I hope the Pentagon is able to figure out a way to restore this benefit. It is an important benefit to those who serve the country, too, by supporting their spouses in the military.

Obama will be meeting today with French President Sarkozy. Unlike other allies who have visited the White House recently, Sarkozy will actually have a dinner in his honor. Why, you might ask? What makes him more important than, say, Netanyahu? Because Obama wants to ask him to send more troops o Afghanistan. I mean, really, after the way he has treated the British, he can’t exactly go with hat in hand to them, can he? No, to our friends he is arrogant; to our enemies, he is solicitous. Go figure.

Oh, and one last thing, also a direct result of Obama’s “Transparent” Health Care Law. Rep. Henry Waxman is a bit miffed that all of these big corporations are coming out saying how much this law is going to cost them, thus cost new jobs, and put more people into government run programs (which I contend was Obama’s intent all along). He is demanding that they come to the Hill and testify April 21st. And they better bring all of their paperwork showing how they came to these conclusions:

Waxman’s demands for documents are far-reaching. “To assist the Committee with its preparation for the hearing,” he wrote to Stephenson, “we request that you provide the following documents from January 1, 2009, through the present:

(1) any analyses related to the projected impact of health care reform on AT&T; and (2) any documents, including e-mail messages, sent to or prepared or reviewed by senior company officials related to the projected impact of health care reform on AT&T. We also request an explanation of the accounting methods used by AT&T since 2003 to estimate the financial impact on your company of the 28 percent subsidy for retiree drug coverage and its deductibility or nondeductibility, including the accounting methods used in preparing the cost impact statement released by AT&T this week.

Waxman’s request could prove particularly troubling for the companies. The executives will undoubtedly view such documents as confidential, but if they fail to give Waxman everything he wants, they run the risk of subpoenas and threats from the chairman. And all as punishment for making a business decision in light of a new tax situation.

The particular problem for the companies involves the prescription drug coverage they offer retired workers. In 2003, when President Bush and the Republican Congress passed the Medicare prescription drug entitlement, they offered a tax break to companies that continued to provide drug coverage for their retirees, rather than forcing them into the Medicare system. The new national health care bill ends that tax break, making it more expensive for the companies to continue offering the coverage. Ultimately, some analysts believe, the companies will stop covering the retirees, pushing them into the government system.

It’s ironic, isn’t it? Waxman, because these companies are harshing Obama’s buzz from getting this thing passed is demanding something from these corporations that WE didn’t get from Congress. Yes, the irony, the irony.

Not to mention some validation – I knew the government was trying to force more people into the government run system. Yeppers – just another piece of the Obama pie. I am sure more will be coming out about this issue in the intervening time before the Trial On The Hill.

So – what else is flying under the radar today? Let’s hear it!

NRO has a post today supposedly listing all of Obama’s broken promises. I have a feeling it’s not entirely comprehensive, so feel free to add others.

Here are a few snips.

HEALTH CARE NEGOTIATIONS ON C-SPAN
STATEMENT: “These negotiations will be on C-SPAN, and so the public will be part of the conversation and will see the decisions that are being made.” January 20, 2008, and seven other times.
EXPIRATION DATE: Throughout the summer, fall, and winter of 2009 and 2010; when John McCain asked about it during the health care summit February 26, Obama dismissed the issue by declaring, “the campaign is over, John.”

RAISING TAXES
STATEMENT: “No family making less than $250,000 will see any form of tax increase.” (multiple times on the campaign trail)
EXPIRATION DATE: Broken multiple times, including the raised taxes on tobacco, a new tax on indoor tanning salons, but most prominently on February 11, 2010: “President Barack Obama said he is “agnostic” about raising taxes on households making less than $250,000 as part of a broad effort to rein in the budget deficit.”
————–

BORDER SECURITY
STATEMENT: “We need tougher border security, and a renewed focus on busting up gangs and traffickers crossing our border. . . . That begins at home, with comprehensive immigration reform. That means securing our border and passing tough employer enforcement laws.” then-candidate Obama, discussing the need for border security, speaking in Miami on May 23, 2008:
EXPIRATION DATE: March 17, 2010: The Obama administration halted new work on a “virtual fence” on the U.S.-Mexican border, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced Tuesday, diverting $50 million in planned economic stimulus funds for the project to other purposes.

The following are some other promises Obama made according to NRO.

16. “I’ll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we’ll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills.”

17. “Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.” Obama is 1-for-11 on this promise so far.

One question only. WHO can RELY on this guy? Seriously, what person, organization or country hasn’t Obama betrayed in one way or another? Although that’s a fun question to debate, I’m actually more interested in a related one: Who can rely on Obama no matter what? Who won’t be betrayed?

Here is one of many videos about broken promises.

In light of the recent Health Care vote, the Tea Party marches, and the current sentiment in the country, I found this article by Peggy Noonan to be particularly timely:

The Heat Is On. We May Get Burned. Political rage is a national problem, not a partisan one.

So where are we? In a dangerous place, actually.

Politics is a rough arena, and understandably so, for our politicians tell us more and more how to order our lives. Naturally there will be resistance, and strong opposition. We have a long history of hurly-burly debate, and we all know examples the past 200 years of terrible things said and done. Capitol tour guides enjoy showing the stain on the marble steps supposedly left by the blood of Sen. Charles Sumner, beaten half to death on the floor of the senate in 1856 by Rep. Preston Brooks, who wielded a thick gold-tipped cane. So we’ve had our moments.

But it’s a mistake not to see something new, something raw and bitter and dangerous, in the particular moment we’re in.

Steny Hoyer, the House majority leader, this week announced that 10 congressional Democrats have recently been menaced and threatened with violence, and that they found it necessary to meet with the FBI and Capitol Police. A congressman apparently said a casket had been left near his home; a congresswoman reportedly said she was worried for the safety of her children.

This is all completely believable.

Democratic officials are right to call attention to what they believe is a growing threat. It is a truly terrible thing. But it would be deeply unhelpful for the Democrats to use this story as a mere political opportunity, as a way to undermine opposition to ObamaCare by painting opponents as dangerous and unhinged. That would only inflame the country, and in any case is not true. The truth is this sickness works both ways.

Indeed. It is unacceptable that a member of Congress has to fear for the safety of her children. That just should not happen. But the casket was not left on the lawn of a Congressman:

The coffin, in fact, was used as a prop at a prayer vigil on Mar. 21 to symbolize the “loss of freedom and the loss of lives due to government medical rationing,” said the activists.

Back to Noonan:

There probably isn’t a Republican leader who has not the past few years been menaced, and in exactly the same ways as the Democrats. Thursday I asked a staffer for a congressman who is a significant and respected opponent of the health-care bill if he had ever been threatened. Yes indeed. “Over the years and as recently as yesterday,” both the congressman and his staff “have received countless threats—both threats of violence and of death. These come in the form of letters, faxes, emails, phone calls, and voice-mail messages. We’ve had the front window smashed in at one of our district offices. Rather than call TV crews or the Washington Post, we report threats to the proper authorities, and move on. We’d take issue with the recent narrative that conservatives are disproportionately hostile, prone to violence or whatever message the left is pushing these days. They have anecdotes, we have anecdotes.”

Even columnists and pundits have anecdotes. Just about everyone in public life on whatever level gets threats now.

Here’s the tenor and tone of the moment:

Under the news story on Mr. Hoyer’s statement on the Yahoo! news site on Thursday, there was a lengthy comment thread, with more than 800 people offering their thoughts. “An American Hitler might be in the making who would purge the leftists,” said one, who of course didn’t use his or her name. “Republicans are criminals and terrorists,” said another. “Republicans . . . are thugs, scoundrels and rascals.” And: “What did they expect when they . . . went against the American people and are FORCING this bill on us.” “It’s what happens before the revolution . . . people are frustrated over not being heard . . . let the battle begin.”

Here, edited for a family newspaper, are some of the recorded telephone messages left on the answering machine of Rep. Bart Stupak. These are messages left by individuals who appear to be pro-life activists—that is, people who have put themselves on the line to support generous and compassionate treatment of the unborn.

“I hope you bleed out your ___, get cancer and die.” “You will rue the day. . . . I hope you’re haunted the rest of your living day. . . . We think you’re a devil. . . . The country loathes you.” “You are one big piece of human ____. There are people across the country who wish you ill, and all of those thoughts projected on you will materialize into something that’s not very good for you. Go to hell, you piece of ____.”

These are people whose professed mission it is to save children. Whatever else these particular individuals are, they are people whose nerves have been rubbed raw.

There is no excuse for that kind of behavior, to be sure. It does not further dialogue, it does not engender good will, and it sure doesn’t help to prove one’s point. But Noonan is right – people’s nerves are frayed, and too close to the surface:

Responsible leaders on all levels of American life ought to stop, breathe in, and see the level of anger and agitation that’s rippling through the country. Both sides should try to cool it, or something bad is going to happen. In fact I am struck now by how, when I worry aloud about this and say to a conservative or a liberal, a Republican or a Democrat, that I fear something bad is going to happen, no one disagrees. No one says, “Don’t worry, it’s nothing.” They say—again, left, right and center: “I’m afraid of that too.”

What I keep thinking of is a beehive. A modern, high tech, highly politicized democracy is a busy beehive, and sometimes the bees are angry, and sometimes someone comes by and sticks a big sharp stick in the hive. The biggest thing Washington should do right now is stop it, stop poking the stick.

The beehive was already angry about a million things a year ago, and most of those things, obviously, were not the fault of the administration. People are angry at their economic vulnerability. They are angry at the deterioration of our culture, angry at our nation’s deteriorating position in the world, at our debts and deficits, our spending and taxing, our threatened security in a world of weapons of mass destruction. Their anger is stoked by cynical politicians and radio ranters and people who come home at night, have a few drinks, and spew out their rage on the comment thread. It’s a world full of people always cocking the gun and ready to say, if things turn bad, “But I didn’t tell anyone to shoot!”

And yes, this mood, this anger, has only been made worse by this yearlong, enervating, exhausting, enraging fight over health care. The administration is full of people who are so bright, and led by one who is very bright, and yet they have a signal failure: They do not know what time it is. They cannot see how high the temperature is. They cannot for the life of them understand that they raise it.

Okay, I could so say something right now about how BRIGHT Obama and his Administration people are alleged to be, but for this once, I’ll bite my tongue:

What we need now in our leaders is the knowledge that there is so much that is tearing us apart as a nation and that the great project now is to keep us together, to hold us together as much as possible, because future trends will be to come apart, and for many reasons. To come apart because we’re no longer held close and firmly by the old glue of appreciation for a common heritage, history and culture; to come apart because we’re a country that increasingly feels there are people in the cart and people pulling the cart, and the latter are increasingly overwhelmed and fearful; coming apart because we’re now in at least our second generation of young, lost, unguided children with no fully functioning parent in their lives, kids being raised by a microwave and a TV set. All of these things weigh and grate.

They are all, of course, too big and complicated to be adequately dealt with in a year or even a decade. But one immediate thing can be done right now, and that is: lower the temperature. Any way you can, and everybody. Just lower it.

I cannot disagree with Ms. Noonan. I, for one, would love to see some civility in political (and other) discourse, a cessation of demonizing the other side to make ourselves feel superior. Even worse, to taunt and belittle the other side, as we have seen so much of these past few years.

But articles like this one, “In The Faces Of Tea Party Shouters, Images of Hate And History,” by Colbert I. King. I won’t include it all here, but this should give you an idea:

The angry faces at Tea Party rallies are eerily familiar. They resemble faces of protesters lining the street at the University of Alabama in 1956 as Autherine Lucy, the school’s first black student, bravely tried to walk to class.

Those same jeering faces could be seen gathered around the Arkansas National Guard troopers who blocked nine black children from entering Little Rock’s Central High School in 1957.

“They moved closer and closer,” recalled Elizabeth Eckford, one of the Little Rock Nine. “Somebody started yelling, ‘Lynch her! Lynch her!’ I tried to see a friendly face somewhere in the crowd — someone who maybe could help. I looked into the face of an old woman and it seemed a kind face, but when I looked at her again, she spat on me.”

Those were the faces I saw at a David Duke rally in Metairie, La., in 1991: sullen with resentment, wallowing in victimhood, then exploding with yells of excitement as the ex-Klansman and Republican gubernatorial candidate spewed vitriolic white-power rhetoric.

People like that old woman in Little Rock, the Alabama mob that hounded Autherine Lucy, the embracers of Duke’s demagoguery in Louisiana, never go away.

It gets worse from there:

Hence, an explanation for the familiarity of faces: today’s Tea Party adherents are George Wallace legacies.

They, like Wallace’s followers, smolder with anger. They fear they are being driven from their rightful place in America.

Holy cow. Talk about stoking the fires of hatred and division. I do not consider myself a Tea Party member or anything, but I find this article to be exceedingly offensive. Never mind that the majority of Tea Party members are women, but to equate them with such a painful time in our history, without founding, is obscene. I don’t think Mr. King is going to be one of the ones turning down the heat, if this article is any indication.

Neither will this man. The problem with him, though, is he isn’t just a columnist for a newspaper. He’s the President of the United States:

Watch the latest news video at video.foxnews.com

Well, when you have that kind of rhetoric coming from Obama, it is hard to expect any of his followers to tone it down, either.

Of course I am not saying it is only those on the left who need to ratchet it back, but I do find it interesting that Tea Party members are depicted as racist, homophobic lunatics because they feel government has gotten too large (and it has under Obama, as well as spending way too much money on TARP, programs, and even the increase of federal employees making six-figure incomes during this economic downturn). They have good reasons for their discontent. Calling them names and depicting them as horrible people for their use of Constitutional rights is extremely harmful.

And while the Tea Party members are being belittled by the other side, people raging against the war, or marching for Gay Rights, or against the World Bank, etc., are depicted as perfectly sane, as Jonah Goldberg pointed out recently. I guess it’s all a matter of spin, and right now, the message being put out is that ANYONE who opposes Obama for any reason whatsoever is a racist, homophobic, nutjob. While that may entertain Obama’s followers, it demonizes half of the country, and does a grave disservice by attempting to silence their speech.

That, as Peggy Noonan pointed out, doesn’t help. It doesn’t foster understanding, respect for differing opinions, or civility in discourse or action, as the egging of a Tea Party bus this weekend exemplifies. It needs to stop. The media needs to stop depicting people who think differently from them as a bunch of hillbilly yahoos, and OBAMA needs to stop depicting people who don’t support his policies, be they Republicans, Independents, or true Democrats, in such an “Us v. THEM” way, fanning the flames of intolerance and division. I agree with Noonan – this needs to stop, and it needs to stop before the anger spills over in ways we don’t want to see, by both sides and the middle. And it can happen none too soon…