Tuesday, April 27, 2010

Barker's Newsbites: Tuesday, April 27, 2010


I just LOVE this frigg'n song...!
Posted by at

10 comments:

William R. Barker said...

http://healthcare.nationalreview.com/post/?q=Y2U5YjAzMjkxODY1YTViYmNjN2JjNGZjYWY4ZjliNDc=

The White House is trying to spin the new report from Medicare’s chief actuary Richard Foster as only half bad because it concludes that, while costs will increase, "only" 23 million people will remain uninsured (instead of 24 million previously estimated).

(*SNORT*)

But looking at the details of Foster’s report shows the many, many danger signs for Obamacare and how many of its promises will be broken:

About 14 million people will lose their employer coverage by 2019, as smaller employers terminate their plans and workers who currently have employer coverage enroll in Medicaid. Half of all seniors on Medicare Advantage could lose their coverage and the extra benefits the plans offer.

Tens of billions of dollars in new fees and excise taxes will be “passed through to health consumers in the form of higher drug and devices prices and higher premiums,” according to Foster. A separate report shows small businesses will be hit hardest.

The new “CLASS Act” long-term-care insurance program will face “a significant risk of failure,” according to Foster. Indeed, he finds, “there is a very serious risk that the problem of adverse selection will make the CLASS program unsustainable.”

Under the new law, national health spending will increase by $311 billion over the coming decade. And instead of bending the federal spending curve down, it will move it upward “by a net total of $251 billion” over the next decade.

An estimated 23 million people will remain uninsured in 2019, roughly 5 million of whom would be undocumented aliens; the remainder would be the 18 million who decline to get coverage and who will pay the penalty.

Fifteen percent of all hospitals, nursing homes, and other providers treating Medicare patients could be operating at a loss by 2019... Doctors are threatening to drop out of Medicare because cuts in Medicare reimbursement rates mean they can’t even cover their costs. A significant portion of those newly eligible for Medicaid will have trouble finding physicians who will see them, and the increased demand for Medicaid services could be difficult to meet.

April 27, 2010 at 9:11 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=146341

With the support of 70% of its citizens, Arizona has ordered sheriffs and police to secure the border and remove illegal aliens, half a million of whom now reside there. Arizona acted because the U.S. government has abdicated its constitutional duty to protect the states from invasion and refuses to enforce America's immigration laws. "We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act," said Gov. Jan Brewer; "Decades of inaction and misguided policy have created an unacceptable situation."

We have a crisis in Arizona because we have a failed state in Washington.

* GOD BLESS PAT BUCHANAN - THE AUTHOR OF THIS OP-ED!

What is the response of Barack Obama, who took an oath to see to it that federal laws are faithfully executed?

He is siding with the law-breakers.

He is pandering to the ethnic lobbies.

He is not berating a Mexican regime that aids and abets this invasion of the country of which he is commander in chief. (*SIGH*) Instead, he attacks the government of Arizona for trying to fill a gaping hole in law enforcement left by his own dereliction of duty.

[The state of Arizona] has a fiscal crisis caused in part by the burden of providing schooling and social welfare for illegals and their families, who consume far more in services than they pay in taxes and who continue to pour in.

Police officers and a prominent rancher have been murdered. There have been kidnappings believed to be tied to the Mexican drug cartels. There are nightly high-speed chases through the barrios where innocent people are constantly at risk.

Arizona has been compelled to assume the feds' role because the feds won't do their job. And for that dereliction of duty the buck stops on the desk of the president of the United States.

What we are talking about here is the Balkanization and breakup of a nation into ethnic enclaves. A country that cannot control its borders isn't really a country anymore, Ronald Reagan reminded us.

[T]he nation rose up as one to reject the "path-to-citizenship" – i.e., amnesty – that the 2007 plan of George W. Bush, McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama envisioned.

Al Sharpton threatens to go to Phoenix and march in the streets against the new Arizona law. Let him go. Let us see how many African-Americans, who are today frozen out of the 8 million jobs held by illegal aliens that might otherwise go to them or their children, will march to defend an invasion for which they are themselves paying the heaviest price.

* AMEN...!!!

Last year, while Americans were losing a net of 5 million jobs, the U.S. government – Bush and Obama both – issued 1,131,000 green cards to legal immigrants to come and take the jobs that did open up, a flood of immigrants equaled in only four other years in our history.

What are we doing to our own people?

April 27, 2010 at 9:51 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sen-jeff-sessions-president-obama-judges-promote-agenda/story?id=10482549

As President Obama considers his options for a Supreme Court vacancy, Senate Republicans are preparing to use the upcoming hearings to explore...the expanded role of government under the Obama presidency...

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)...the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee...told ABC News in an interview, "It's pretty clear to me that President Obama sees judges as allies...And that's not law. That's not law - that's politics. And it's a poison in our legal system, and the American people ...don't think that courts ought to be there to rubber-stamp President Obama's or anybody's agenda."

* AMEN! COURTS ARE NOT LAW "MAKERS." NOR OR THEY SUPPOSED TO BE LAW "UNMAKERS" EXCEPT IN VERY, VERY SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE AN ACT OF CONGRESS OR PRESIDENTIAL ACTION VIOLATES THE LETTER OR CLEAR INTENT OF THE CONSTITUTION.

"What I'm hearing from my constituents is a cry that Washington is losing all recognition that it is a government of limited, delegated powers, and that it is assuming roles that go far beyond anything the governed ever thought that they would be doing," Sessions said.

* HEAR! HEAR!

Sessions said Republicans on the Judiciary Committee will bring a particular scrutiny to the nominee's stance on such issues as the new health care law's requirement that individuals purchase insurance..."You have the fundamental question: Is this what the Framers had in mind when they created a limited government, and created a Commerce Clause?" [Sessions] added.

* GOD BLESS YOU, SENATOR SESSIONS...

April 27, 2010 at 9:52 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.concordcoalition.org/tabulation/fiscal-commission%E2%80%99s-short-term-goal-distraction

President Obama’s bipartisan fiscal commission will hold its first meeting on April 27. It has two very ambitious assignments - find a way to balance the budget excluding interest on the debt by 2015...

* YEP. (*SNORT*) YOU READ THAT CORRECTLY KIDS... "EXCLUDING THE INTEREST ON THE DEBT."

...and “meaningfully improve” the long-term fiscal outlook. All of this is supposed to be done by December 1, 2010.

(*ROLLING MY EYES*)

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) baseline, traditionally the starting point for the congressional budget resolution, shows a deficit of $472 billion in 2015. Almost all of it ($462 billion) represents interest payments. Using this baseline, the commission would have to trim just $10 billion.

* YEP. (*SMIRK*) YOU READ THAT CORRECTLY ALSO, KIDS... ALMOST HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF INTEREST PAYMENTS ALONE. (BUT WAIT! IT GETS EVEN WORSE!)

However, the CBO baseline is considered unrealistic because it assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts will expire on schedule; that the government will collect a windfall of additional revenues from the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) and that Medicare physician reimbursement rates will be substantially cut. The administration has crafted its own baseline that assumes extension of the tax cuts, relief from the AMT and no Medicare cuts for doctors. Under this baseline, the projected 2015 deficit is $983 billion of which $586 billion represents interest payments.

The President concedes that his budget leaves an unacceptably high deficit in 2015...

* AND YET... (*MASSIVE MIGRAINE HEADACHE*)... HE PUSHES AHEAD TRYING TO PASS THIS "BUDGET."

* FOLKS... WE'RE LIVING IN THE AGE OF OBAMA (IN WONDERLAND)!

April 27, 2010 at 11:14 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.house.gov/htbin/blog_inc?BLOG,tx14_paul,blog,999,All,Item%20not%20found,ID=100426_3695,TEMPLATE=postingdetail.shtml

(*THUNDER CLAP*)

(*CHOIR OF HEAVENLY ANGELS*)

* BEHOLD! THE WORDS OF RON PAUL... (*WINK*)

Lately many have characterized this administration as socialist, or having strong socialist leanings. I differ with this characterization.

This is not to say Mr. Obama believes in free-markets by any means. On the contrary, he has done and said much that demonstrates his fundamental misunderstanding and hostility towards the truly free market.

But a closer, honest examination of his policies and actions in office reveals that, much like the previous administration, he is very much a corporatist. This in many ways can be more insidious and worse than being an outright socialist.

Socialism is a system where the government directly owns and manages businesses. Corporatism is a system where businesses are nominally in private hands, but are in fact controlled by the government.

* CORPORATISM IS THE "SOFTER" FACE OF FASCISM. (SERIOUSLY...!)

In a corporatist state, government officials often act in collusion with their favored business interests to design polices that give those interests a monopoly position, to the detriment of both competitors and consumers.

* A TRULY FASCIST STATE ADDS TO "THE KEY PLAYERS" THE LEADERS OF THE MILITARY AND STATE SECURITY APPARATUS.

A careful examination of the policies pursued by the Obama administration and his allies in Congress shows that their agenda is corporatist. For example, the health care bill that recently passed does not establish a Canadian-style government-run single payer health care system. Instead, it relies on mandates forcing every American to purchase private health insurance or pay a fine. It also includes subsidies for low-income Americans and government-run health care “exchanges.”

Contrary to the claims of the proponents of the health care bill, large insurance and pharmaceutical companies were enthusiastic supporters of many provisions of this legislation because they knew in the end their bottom lines would be enriched by Obamacare.

Similarly, Obama's “cap-and-trade” legislation provides subsidies and specials privileges to large businesses that engage in “carbon trading.” This is why large corporations, such as General Electric support cap-and-trade.

* FOLKS... COM'ON... I HIGHLIGHT THE LINKS CONGRESSMAN PAUL IDENTIFIES ON PRETTY MUCH A DAILY BASIS; YOU GUYS KNOW IT'S TRUE... (*SIGH*)

When he is a called a socialist, the President and his defenders can easily deflect that charge by pointing out that the historical meaning of socialism is government ownership of industry; under the President’s policies, industry remains in nominally private hands. Using the more accurate term – corporatism - forces the President to defend his policies that increase government control of private industries and expand de facto subsidies to big businesses.

(This also promotes the understanding that though the current system may not be pure socialism, neither is it free-market since government controls the private sector through taxes, regulations, and subsidies, and has done so for decades.)

Using precise terms can prevent future statists from successfully blaming the inevitable failure of their programs on the remnants of the free market that are still allowed to exist. We must not allow the disastrous results of corporatism to be ascribed incorrectly to free market capitalism or used as a justification for more government expansion. Most importantly, we must learn what freedom really is and educate others on how infringements on our economic liberties caused our economic woes in the first place. Government is the problem; [reducing it's scope, size, and power is] the solution.

April 27, 2010 at 11:15 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36389.html

Sen. Chuck Schumer invited Harry Reid to spend Monday morning with him in Brooklyn, where some of Schumer’s well-heeled friends opened their checkbooks to help the Senate majority leader’s struggling reelection bid.

Democratic Whip Dick Durbin has invited Reid to join him next week in Chicago, where he’ll connect the Nevada Democrat with Windy City business leaders who’ll pour even more money into Reid’s campaign.

So, there Schumer was Monday morning, introducing Reid to the big-money developers of the New Jersey Nets’ new $4.9 billion facility in Brooklyn.

* "VITAL INFRASTRUCTURE" NO DOUBT. (*SMIRK*) SCREW REPAIRING ROADS, BRIDGES, AQUEDUCTS... (*SIGH*)

Sunday night, Reid also cashed in at an intimate dinner in New York organized by his campaign finance team and sponsored by Roger Altman, a former deputy Treasury secretary under President Bill Clinton who is now chairman of Evercore Partners, which claims that it’s the “most active investment banking boutique in the world.”

(*MIRTHLESS LAUGHTER TINGED WITH CONTEMPT AND DISGUST*)

April 27, 2010 at 11:15 AM
William R. Barker said...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Europe-debt-crisis-spreads-to-apf-2454032847.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=

The government debt crisis that has shaken Europe's shared currency widened and intensified Tuesday as Portugal saw its credit rating cut - and Greece's was reduced to junk status.

* HMM... APPARENTLY NO ONE TOLD THE FINE FOLKS OF GREECE AND PORTUGAL THAT WE'RE IN A WORLDWIDE ECONOMIC RECOVERY... (*SMIRK*)

Stocks slid worldwide on the news of the double blow that increased the likelihood of a continent-wide debt meltdown and more market turmoil.

* TO TELL YOU THE HONEST TO GOD TRUTH... I WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN SURPRISED IF THE STOCK MARKET HAD RISEN INSTEAD. YOU SEE, FOLKS, THE STOCK MARKET IS TOTALLY DISCONNECTED FROM ECONOMIC REALITY; THINK OF OF AS VEGAS FOR FOLKS WEARING SUITS. (*AND SERIOUSLY... 200 POINTS IS NOT A HUGE DROP ON NEWS OF THIS MAGNITUDE*)

* HEY... FAIR WARNING TO THOSE OF YOU WHO DON'T FOLLOW THIS STUFF... IRELAND IS NEXT.

April 27, 2010 at 4:58 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471204575210102200492256.html?mod=WSJ_Markets_section_Deals

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Weighs Bankruptcy...

* THAT'S THE HEADLINE FOLKS; OUR NATIONAL ECONOMIC RECOVERY UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF OBAMA, BERNANKE, GEITHNER, PELOSI, AND REID IS SURE GOING GANGBUSTERS, HUH...! (*SMIRK*)

Harrisburg is coping with $288 million in debt related to a failed revamp of an incinerator. The $68 million in payments on the debt this year exceed the city's annual budget.

* HEY... REMEMBER THAT EARLIER NEWSBITE WHICH INFORMED YOU GUYS THAT OBAMA'S BUDGETING DOESN'T "COUNT" INTEREST LIABILITIES ON THE FEDERAL DEBT...??? (*SNORT*)

City Controller Daniel C. Miller has advocated filing for municipal bankruptcy, known as Chapter 9, to deal with the debt.

"We are looking for the least worst option," he told the seven-member council during a committee meeting Monday, and added, "bankruptcy is a viable option" and one that "does provide immediate benefits."

* AMERICA IN THE AGE OF OBAMA!

* HEY... ISN'T ED RENDELL THE GOVERNOR OF PENNSYLVANIA...???

* HMM... AREN'T PENNSYLVANIA'S TWO SENATORS - SPECTER AND CASEY - BOTH DEMOCRATS...???

* HEY... I'M SURE IT'S ALL COINCIDENCE... (*SHRUG*)

April 27, 2010 at 4:58 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=531378

The Obama Democrats' stealth strategy for increasing the size and scope of the federal government is well under way, despite huge voter backlash. Federal spending has been increased from a 30-year average of 21% of gross domestic product to 25%...

Presidential economic adviser Paul Volcker has already called for a value-added tax, a form of national sales tax, and presidential press secretary Robert Gibbs has declined to rule it out.

The assumption in some quarters is that a tax increase is inevitable and that the public won't allow any significant decrease in public spending. But there's reason to question that assumption.

Spending cuts have proved politically sustainable in other advanced countries. Economist Tyler Cowen, writing in the New York Times, notes that in the last two decades Canada, Sweden and Finland all cut government spending 20% within a few years when faced with structural budget deficits. We may also be seeing some examples in American states....In Virginia, Republican Bob McDonnell has shepherded "painful cuts" in spending through a divided legislature. In New Jersey, Republican Chris Christie, facing an $11 billion deficit, has used his office's unusually great powers to cut spending way back.

Christie has taken on the teacher unions. That required some guts. Christie seems to be marshaling more voter support... Last week, New Jersey voters turned out in large numbers and defeated 260 of 479 local school budgets; usually 70% are approved.

What's happening in states like Virginia and New Jersey - and what happened not so long ago in Canada, Sweden and Finland - suggests that voters may support spending cuts more than most American politicians and pundits have assumed. And much more than a value-added tax.

April 27, 2010 at 11:06 PM
William R. Barker said...

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=531387

Since the Obama administration took over, Washington has passed two recovery bills costing more than $800 billion. At that price, shouldn't we be experiencing an employment boom?

Less than a month after his inauguration, President Obama signed the $787 billion stimulus bill. The promises flowed freely. In the flush of the moment, the White House said that by the end of 2010, 3.5 million jobs would be created or saved - 90% of them in the private sector - and unemployment would peak at 8%. As he signed the legislation, Obama declared that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act "does not mark the end of our economic troubles," but that it would "mark the beginning of the end - the beginning of what we need to do to create jobs for Americans scrambling in the wake of layoffs."

* REMEMBER THE "SHOVEL READY" PROJECTS OBAMA, PELOSI, REID, AND THEIR UNDERLINGS PROMISED US... (*SMIRK*)

A little more than a year later, with unemployment at nearly 10%, Congress passed a jobs bill that includes $17.5 billion in tax cuts, business credits and subsidies for state and local construction bonds. It also bumps $20 billion into the federal highway trust fund to be spent on highway and transit programs. [T]he March 18th Rose Garden signing ceremony for the jobs bill included another round of empty promises. "We may soon be adding jobs instead of losing them," Obama said. "The jobs bill I'm signing today is intended to help accelerate this process."

(*ANOTHER SMIRK*)

So how has the legislation played out in the real world?

About as well as we expected, which is to say Washington is spending a lot of other people's money on initiatives that won't achieve what they were intended to.

Economic history tells us that government spending does not create private-sector jobs, though it does help boost public-sector employment, which does nothing to promote economic growth. A government cannot spend a country into prosperity or even out of a recession. Stimulus legislation merely redistributes wealth to the politically connected and the politically favored.

Vice President Joe Biden, who is intimately familiar with political hyperbole, has said Americans were getting their money's worth from the stimulus. As we have previously noted, that's more punch line than policy analysis. Since the bill was passed, the net job loss has been 3.5 million. When compared with the number of jobs the stimulus was supposed to create, the net loss is almost 7 million.

By any objective definition, that constitutes a failure.

April 27, 2010 at 11:07 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)