Thursday, 11 March 2010


Ken Berwitz\

From today's Washington Times:

Some Democrats shun Obama event in St. Louis

By Joseph Curl

The Show Me State temporarily became the No-Show State on Wednesday as some prominent Missouri Democrats decided they'd rather be somewhere else when President Obama came to push his massive health care overhaul plan.

Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, the all-but-certain Democratic nominee for the Senate seat being vacated by Republican Sen. Christopher S. "Kit" Bond, was "already locked in" to meetings in Washington, D.C., on Wall Street financial reforms, said her spokesman, Linden Zakula, who downplayed her absence for Mr. Obama's visit to St. Charles, just outside St. Louis.

"Yes, she could have been there, but she feels very strongly about the need for financial regulatory reform," Mr. Zakula said. "We've got eight months to go. ... I'm sure we'll be seeing him out on the campaign trail this fall."

But her spokesman didn't mention that Mrs. Carnahan was also in Washington for a Tuesday night $5,000-a-plate fundraiser at the home of Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu, who most recently made headlines for the secret backroom deal known as the "Louisiana Purchase," which would send $300 million in additional Medicaid taxpayer funding to her state.

Rep. Ike Skelton, one of 39 House Democrats who voted against the party's health care overhaul bill in December, also skipped the presidential stop in his home state. Mr. Skelton, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, was taking part in a House floor debate on the future of the war in Afghanistan.

In addition, Rep. Russ Carnahan, a Democrat from St. Louis and Mrs. Carnahan's brother, skipped the event, even though it was in his home district.

Not coincidentally, yesterday's Rasmussen poll showed President Obama at his worst approval ratings since taking office.  And today the Gallup poll did the same.  

That, and the Democratic losses in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts - with Mr. Obama campaigning for all three candidates - is probably going to assure that, over the next few months, you are going to see a lot of "Nobama" politicians when the President comes to town.

Do you blame them?


Ken Berwitz

When I was very young, maybe 3 or 4, I was very active.  I used to flail my arms, flail my arms and scream out god only knows what.  My parents called it my "crazy dance".

The "crazy dance" period was probably for a matter of months and was long gone before I hit kindergarten.  But, strangely, some of us continue to "crazy dance" in one form or another even as adults.

With this in mind, please read the following piece, about congressperson Patrick Kennedy, by Brent Baker of

NBCs Williams Showcases Gripping Kennedy Screaming Against Media from the Left

By Brent Baker (Bio | Archive)
Thu, 03/11/2010 - 02:19 ET 


When conservatives take to the House floor to criticize the news medias liberal distortions, thats not newsworthy to NBC, but Wednesdays NBC Nightly News made time to showcase an unhinged liberal Democrat, Representative Patrick Kennedy, screaming against the media during House floor remarks in favor of a Dennis Kucinich-backed resolution to withdraw all troops from Afghanistan by the end of the year, a fringe proposition which was soundly defeated 356 to 65.

Left wing blogs, such as Huffington Post, also jumped to publicize Kennedys rant, with Talking Points Memo calling it a must-see moment.

Anchor Brian Williams characterized Kennedys yelling tirade as a gripping moment, describing how Kennedy railed against U.S. strategy in the war, then he turned on the news media and how few have bothered to show up to cover the debate. Williams embracing set up, with Speaking Out as the on-screen heading:


There was a gripping moment this afternoon here in Washington. It happened on the floor of the House of Representatives as the House was debating withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan. Congressman Patrick Kennedy, a Democrat who represents Rhode Island, the son of the late Ted Kennedy, got up and gave a loud, emotional and angry speech about U.S. losses in the war, U.S. strategy in the war, then he turned on the news media and how few have bothered to show up to cover the debate.


Viewers were then treated to a screaming Kennedy:


If anybody wants to know where cynicism is, cynicism is that there's one, two press people in this gallery! Were talking about Eric Massa 24/7 on the TV. Were talking about war and peace, $3 billion, 1,000 lives and no press? No press?! You want to know why the American public is fit? Theyre fit because theyre not seeing their Congress do the work they are sent to do. It's because the press, the press of the United States is not covering the most significant issue of national importance, and that's the laying of lives down in the nation for the service of our country! It's despicable the national press corps right now.

Audio:   MP3 clip, with Kennedy's screaming.    Video:   Click here

Williams finished up without mentioning the overwhelming defeat for the measure: Congressman Patrick Kennedy, who recently announced in the wake of his fathers death, he will not run for re-election to Congress. Hes coming to the end of his eighth term in office.

A few points should be made about this eminently embarrassing event (or, at any rate, what should  be eminently embarrassing):

-There is no point to Mr. Kennedy's anger over how few media were in the chamber. Afghanistan is covered in the media every day, often as a front page, even lead, story. The fact that a debate over Dennis Kucinich's resolution, which had no chance at all of passing, was not well covered, is more a statement of how futile a gesture it was than any effort to underreport Afghanistan;

-I notice that Mr. Kennedy's attack was exclusively against the media. This leads me to wonder why he did not attack his own party, since a vast majority of Democrats (over 3/4 of them) voted against the Kucinich resolution. Using his logic, doesn't this mean that Democrats are despicable too?;

-The most remarkable part of Mr. Kennedy's statement was when he described his belief that we should not be trying to secure ground in Afghanistan. Instead, according to Kennedy, "We ought to be going after the taliban, the terrorists, anybody who is organizing to strike at our country". Other than Kabul, the country's capital, wasn't that, in large part, President Bush's policy in Afghanistan?   I wonder if Patrick Kennedy realized as much while his arms flailed and his voice screamed;.

-One last point:  That was a helluva reporting job by Brian Williams.  "Gripping"?  Kennedy's rant was only "gripping" because it made him look like an uncontrollable nutjob who just took a double dose of uppers.....oh, wait, this is Patrick Kennedy, isn't it?  Hey, maybe......

Mercifully, Mr. Kennedy has declined to run for a 9th term in congress.  Maybe, instead of the alcohol and/or drug rehabs he has been to in the past, he can find a place where they address people who rave and gesticulate in public places.

Zeke .... .... .... Can't wait for the Pat 'n Eric Show ... Stand-Up Ranters who formerly were Crazy Congressmen. Maybe MC'd by (hopefully) former Crazy Senator, Harry Reid. (03/11/10)


Ken Berwitz

I take no pleasure in posting this commentary, because I think of Tom Hanks as a really good guy, and probably the greatest male actor in this country (I waver between him and Gene Hackman). 

But Hanks is also a very influential man.  When he speaks, people both in and out of the entertainment industry listen.  So when he says something this ripe it is hard to look the other way.

From John Hinderaker at

Does Hollywood Make You Stupid?

March 10, 2010 Posted by John at 7:48 PM


It seems that way. Tom Hanks is one of Hollywood's more respectable denizens, but that doesn't save him from this remarkably dim-witted exchange, featured in the current issue of Time, as dissected by John Nolte at Big Hollywood. The subject is Hanks's new HBO series on World War II in the Pacific. This is how the Time story ends:

[Hanks] doesn't see the series as simply eye-opening history. He hopes it offers Americans a chance to ponder the sacrifices of our current soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. "From the outset, we wanted to make people wonder how our troops can re-enter society in the first place," Hanks says. "How could they just pick up their lives and get on with the rest of us? Back in World War II, we viewed the Japanese as 'yellow, slant-eyed dogs' that believed in different gods. They were out to kill us because our way of living was different. We, in turn, wanted to annihilate them because they were different. Does that sound familiar, by any chance, to what's going on today?"


There's no such thing as a definitive history. But what was once a passing interest for Hanks has become an obsession. He's a man on a mission to make our back pages come alive, to keep overhauling the history we know and, in the process, get us to understand not just the past but the choices we make today.

This is painfully stupid. We expect that from the current incarnation of Time as a journal of liberal opinion, but I would have hoped for better from Hanks. Nolte makes the basic point well:

Really, we wanted to annihilate the Japanese because they were different, because we saw them as "yellow, slant-eyed dogs that believed in different gods?" I thought it was due to the fact that "we viewed them" as barbaric imperialists who had attacked us first and wanted to enslave the world.


But there's no reason to speculate about America's motivations during WWII because history has proven Hanks wrong. We had every opportunity to annihilate these "different" people. Instead we chose, at great expense, to rebuild Japan and return the sovereignty of that nation over to the "yellow, slant-eyed dogs who believed in different gods." Or, as most people prefer to call them: our newly liberated allies.


And to answer Hanks's question: No -- annihilating people who are different sounds NOTHING like what's going on today.

This country spends billions and billions of dollars on weapons designed to target the enemy and save the lives of people who are "different" -- those who are not our enemy but still manage to look different, speak languages we don't and worship in ways unfamiliar to us. The irony is that as Hanks spoke those slanderous words, the American Military remains in the middle of two conflicts that have cost us thousands of precious lives and hundreds of billions of dollars all towards the noble goal of liberating 50 million "different" people in Iraq and Afghanistan

What is happening today actually bears a considerable resemblance to the aftermath of Pearl Harbor. Contrary to Hanks's thoughtless slander, before 1941 probably not a single American was interested in "annihilating [the Japanese] because they were different." As evidenced by our laxity when it came to national defense.  After Pearl Harbor, however, we had no choice but to swing into action--not to annihilate those who are different, but to defeat Japan and restore the peace. The Filipinos were "different" too, of course, so did we take time out to annihilate them? Um, no.


Likewise with the current conflicts. Prior to September 11, far from setting out to annihilate those who are "different," we protected Muslims in Bosnia, tried to save Somalians from the warlords, and rescued Kuwait from Saddam Hussein.


Notwithstanding endless provocations, Americans were happy to leave it at that until Islamic terrorists murdered 3,000 Americans. Once again, we had to swing into action. So, did we "annihilate" those "different" Afghans and Iraqis? No, we established democracies and tried to bring both of those countries into the modern world by, among other things, liberating their women. How can a person of normal intelligence, as Hanks no doubt is, be so blind to reality? Presumably it has to do with swimming in the perverse, liberal water of Hollywood.


Far worse is Matt Damon's upcoming Green Zone, which will open on Friday. Green Zone is history as imagined at the Daily Kos and Democratic Underground. The film is a fevered portrayal of a fictional world in which the CIA warned President Bush that Saddam had no WMDs and in which Sunni insurgents are heroic patriots who are brutally targeted by evil American death squads. Kyle Smith concludes, in the New York Post:

"Green Zone" isn't cinema. It's slander. It will go down in history as one of the most egregiously anti-American movies ever released by a major studio.

The only consolation, I suppose, is that Green Zone will lose a fortune. But that hardly matters: someday soon, it will be taken as history.

Sometimes I wonder whether Hollywood is "The Emperor's New Clothes" on a massive scale. 

I wonder if Hollywood is populated by many hundreds, even thousands, of people all of whom are convinced that the only way to survive and prosper there is to spout the latest hard-left position, so they do so not out of conviction but because they figure their careers are deadended if they don't.

I wonder what would happen if someone said that on a specific day at a specific time:  Say April 15 (income tax day, why not), at noon, the ones who do not believe in the relentless left wing mantra would gather at Hollywood and Vine and scream "I'm not going to pretend I believe this crap anymore", and realize that they are far, far from alone.  Would there be a big crowd?

That would be something to see.

free` Hollywood started slandering our soldiers back in the late 60s early 70s using the Vietnam War as the back drop. It sickens me all the misinformation hollywood puts out and the morons that think they are seeing how it really is/was. After reading and seeing what these actors "believe" it ruins their movies for me, I wish they would just shut up and do their job. (03/11/10)


Ken Berwitz

When Nancy Pelosi tells the truth, it deserves a headline.  I mean, how often does it happen?

But wait until you see what "truth" Ms. Pelosi told.

From James Taranto, writing for the Wall Street Journal:

Pelosi's Pig in a Poke

"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."


Speaker Nancy Pelosi turned up yesterday at the Washington conference of the National Association of Counties, and she engaged in a little cheerleading for ObamaCare:


You've heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don't know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention--it's about diet, not diabetes. It's going to be very, very exciting.


But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.


Yes, reader, she really said, "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." If you don't believe us, ask YouTube. And Pelosi is not alone in equating knowledge of the bill's contents to enactment of it. Consider the lead paragraph of this Associated Press dispatch about Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, who cast the deciding vote allowing passage of the Senate's version of ObamaCare;


A moderate Democrat insisted Tuesday she remained opposed to pushing a health care bill through the Senate with a simple majority vote, despite saying she wanted to see what was in the legislation.


These people are trying to sell us a pig in a poke. Actually, that's not quite right: They've failed to sell us a pig in a poke. At nearly every opportunity, voters have responded to the ObamaCare sales pitch by shouting "No!"--even going so far as to elect a Republican to the Senate from Massachusetts.


But if Pelosi and President Obama have their way, we will get their pig, and will we ever pay for it. Is it any wonder that, as the Associated Press reports, "Americans have come to detest Congress ever more deeply as it nears the end of a nasty fight over health care"?

A 2,700 page bill, encompassing an estimated one-sixth of the entire US budget, and Ms. Pelosi - along with Mr. Obama and Mr. Reid - are demanding that it be passed without anyone but a a few Democrats in congress (if even that many) knowing what the eff is in it.

Republicans don't know what's in it either. But they are at even more of a disadvantage, since they also had nothing to do with putting it together.  In the spirit of Obama bipartisanship, Republicans were allowed to participate in writing this monstrosity, only in offering amendments after the fact. 

And, not incidentally, if you believe virtually every major poll, the public has been more than clear in rejecting it as well.

Now tell me why the Obama administration is in full battle-mode to pass this legislation. 

-Is it for Barack Obama's monumental ego, so that he won't be embarrassed by a defeat on one of his major initiatives? 

-Is it to make his hard left, sorosian base happy so their millions (yes, lots of left wing activists, george soros being primary among them, are fabulously wealthy) will keep flowing?

-Is it one or more other reasons? (To readers who disagree with me:  This is your chance to pipe up and say "Maybe he wants to pass it because it's the right thing to do!"  But since you don't know what's in it - if most of congress doesn't, you don't either - forget about it.  You're dead before you start).

Whatever the reason, wouldn't it be a good idea if someone knew what they were voting on?

The 2010 elections cannot come fast enough.  And that goes double for 2012.

free` From the article: "A 2,700 page bill, encompassing an estimated one-sixth of the entire US budget" It is actually worse than that, it is 1/6th of the economy not the budget. The budget is between 2 and 3 trillion, the economy [gdp] is 12-13 trillion. (03/11/10)


Ken Berwitz

Naomi Regan is a columnist, a playwright and a woman's rights activist.  She was born and raised in the US but has lived in Israel for many years. 

Here is Ms. Regan's email regarding Joe Biden's just-finished visit to the middle east:


The headlines in Israel during Mr. Biden's visit are making me angry. First,
his statement that Israel's announced plan to build 1,600 housing unit in
East Jerusalem "undermines peace."

What peace is that?  The Arab "piece" plan, where Israel turns over more and
more "pieces" of  land to Palestinians who can then turn them into
"terror-tory," as they did with Gush Katif?  Mr. Biden, you come here
declaring that the Israeli and Palestinian sides are  'not that far apart'
and only Israel's policies are holding peace from breaking out, "endangering
American soldiers," as one headline put it.

Are you for real?

You tell Israel not to attack Iran, and expect six million of us to wait
patiently as the current American administration pussyfoots with healthcare
while an A-Bomb is aimed at our heads.  And ISRAELIS ARE ENDANGERING
AMERICANS? Are you for real?? Nothing on the Palestinian side has changed
since the lies of Oslo and yet you fully expect Israel to give up
sovereignty over her capital, Jerusalem, in exchange for ....what? 

I would like to remind Mr.Biden of the following Congressional resolution,
April 24, 1990:

"House Resolution Expressing Support for Jerusalem as Israel's Capital
Whereas the State of Israel has declared Jerusalem to be its capital;
Whereas from 1948 to 1967 Jerusalem was a divided city and Israeli citizens
of all faiths were not permitted access to holy sites in the area controlled
by Jordan;

Whereas since 1967 Jerusalem has been a united city administered by Israel
and persons of all religious faiths have been guaranteed full access to holy
sites within the city; Whereas the President and the Secretary of State have
demonstrated their strong desire to achieve a just and lasting peace in the
Middle East and have worked diligently toward that end;

Whereas ambiguous statements by the Government of the United States
concerning the right of Jews to live in all parts of Jerusalem raise
concerns in Israel that Jerusalem might one day be redivided and access to
religious sites in Jerusalem denied to Israeli citizens; and the search for
a lasting peace in the region: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House
of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the Congress

(1) acknowledges that Jerusalem is and should remain the capital of the
State of Israel;

(2) strongly believes that Jerusalem must remain an undivided city in which
the rights of every ethnic religious group are protected; and

(3) calls upon all parties involved in the search for peace to maintain
their strong efforts to bring about negotiations between Israel and
Palestinian representatives."

Bye, bye Mr. Biden.  Thanks for dropping by.  Come again soon when you have
your next liaison with reality, and the American administration is a little
more deserving of Israel's trust.

Joe Biden?  Liaison with reality?  What a kidder Naomi is.


Ken Berwitz

They say a picture is worth a thousand words.

Well, here are a couple of thousand for you, and they tell a story:

Joe Biden, Jill Biden, Benjamin Netanyahu, Sara Netanyahu

Snub: U.S. Vice President Joe Biden (left) and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (right) pose for photographers before their dinner. Mr Biden arrived 90 minutes late after Israel's announcement to build homes on war-won land


Joe Biden and Salam Fayyad

All smiles: Mr Biden shakes hands with Palestinian leader Salam Fayyad

And why is this happening?  Because Israel has the temerity to build housing in its own capital city. 

Name another country in the world, including any country with disputed land claims, that would be condemned for building residential housing in its capital city.  Give me even one.  I'll wait.

Oh, one other thing.  What perfect imagery:  fayyad standing in front of a picture of himself, and Biden standing in front of, virtually taking the place of, yasir arafat.  In this particular case, despite the fact that Biden is usually supportive of Israel, the visual comparative is correct.  arafat would have been against Israel building housing for its people too.

Maybe one day Biden and his master in the White House will realize that if Israel stops building in the part of Jerusalem Palestinian Arabs demand for themselves (along with the rest of Israel, let's remember), it means, both symbolically and tangibly, that Israel has at least tacitly agreed to hand it over.  Then there isn't anything to negotiate, it's just a matter of what day Israel surrenders half of its capital city, and starts "negotiating" about the rest of the country.

That is what Biden and Obama are asking of Israel.  Why are they surprised that the answer is "no"?


Ken Berwitz

Let me start off by stating, as I have many times on this blog, that I am a strong proponent of unions.  I believe that working people with common interests must be able to band together, in order to have any kind of reasonable leverage with corporations.  What's fair is fair, and that's fair.

But, as I also have said many times, I have a major problem with unions in non-competitive situations. 

Where there is competition, it is in union members' best interests to make their company's products/services better so they will be more successful in the marketplace.  Doing so will keep them at their jobs, may open up opportunities for advancement, etc. 

But in a monopoly, competition is not a factor; it doesn't exist.  So the entire situation changes.  Inefficiency doesn't send unhappy customers elsewhere, because there is no elsewhere.  And, since there is no market share to worry about, the only consequence of a monopoly running inefficiently is that more, not fewer, jobs are created.  Where are union members' interests then?

Public school unions are an excellent example of what I am talking about.  Unless parents have thousands of dollars to burn each year on private schooling, or all the time in the world for home-schooling, public schools are a virtual monopoly in most cities.

And what does that lead to? 

Well, in this blog it leads to USA Today's excellent editorial on the subject.  And here it is:

Our view on school reform: Unions protect bad teachers, harming kids education

Mass firing in Rhode Island reflects need to shake up the status quo.

At this time of high unemployment, one group of professionals has no shortage of job security: bad teachers. Few public school principals in the country are able to dismiss an incompetent teacher without a protracted, expensive struggle, and therefore firings rarely happen. Yet researchers agree that hiring good teachers, and ditching bad ones, is the best way to improve education.

Nationwide, 2% or fewer teachers are ever fired or fail to have their contracts renewed because of poor performance. Among tenured teachers those who get job security, typically after two or three years of satisfactory performance there are often no dismissals at all, according to the U.S. Education Department.

In Arkansas, Delaware, Hawaii, Montana, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah and Vermont states in which fewer than half of fourth-graders are proficient at reading or math the average school district did not remove a single tenured teacher in 2007-08. It's no wonder: Dismissing one teacher can cost upwards of $100,000, and the legal struggle can drag on for years.

A prime example of the irrationality is in New York City, where teachers accused of misconduct or incompetence can spend years in "rubber rooms" doing nothing, collecting their full salaries and accruing benefits while their cases crawl through the arbitration process.

At long last, some troubled school districts are deciding that enough is enough. Rhode Island officials have given five failing schools until next Wednesday to decide to close down permanently or restart with tools that include new management, merit-based teaching jobs and more teaching hours. At a sixth, Central Falls High, the teachers' union balked at such a restart plan. As a result, all the teachers and the principal were fired, with their work ending this June. No more than half can be rehired for next fall.

When Education Secretary Arne Duncan and then President Obama expressed support for the mass firings, the unions protested. But if unions take their protection of incompetence much further, they risk, and perhaps deserve, the fate that befell federal air traffic controllers in 1981, when President Reagan fired more than 11,000 of them for staging an illegal strike.

An extreme step, to be sure, but a clear message about the public interest and who's in charge.

At most schools, things don't have to go that far. Brave state lawmakers could support ending tenure, which protects employment and rewards incompetence in a manner unparalleled in the private sector. Lawmakers could tie teacher evaluations to students' standardized test results. They could streamline disciplinary systems. And they could do much of this while taking political cover under the Obama administration's Race to the Top program, which rewards reforms with federal funding.

Congratulations to Secretary Duncan and President Obama for taking a firm stand in the Rhode Island situation.  It gives me hope that they are committed to real change - for the better - when it comes to schools. 

And congratulations to USA today for running today's editorial.  If our educational systems are to come back from the morass they are currently residing in, this is the kind of thinking that has to take hold.


Ken Berwitz

How fraudulent is the cooked budget for ObamaCare?  The brilliant columnist, Deroy Murdock takes this complicated issue and makes it simple to understand:

Obamacare: Cooked Books You Can Believe In

Not one dime will be added to the deficit? Not exactly.

Wouldnt it be nice if you could use a $100 bill to buy groceries and then deposit that same Benjamin in the bank to help pay your monthly credit-card statement? Regular Americans would call this either magic or fraud. Washington Democrats call this health-care reform.

Obamacare rests upon such double counting. It repeatedly shanghais taxpayer funds for Obamas plan while simultaneously shielding that same money for Medicare, Social Security, and other programs. Such chicanery may explain why only 32 percent of adults  support Obamacare, according to a new Investors Business Daily/TIPP survey.

You cant count a dollar twice, Sen. Charles Grassley (R., Iowa) observed at President Obamas February 25 reform summit. Common sense tells you that. You dont even have to have an accountant tell you that.

Team Obama clearly ignored Grassley. They should not count a dollar twice. And yet they do.

The health-care-reform bill that Senate Democrats passed last Christmas Eve, for instance, would drain $464.6 billion from Medicares coffers to underwrite Obamacare.  

However, if these Medicare cuts are improving the solvency of Medicare, Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) explained, then you cant use that money to spend on the creation of another government program. Ryan, the House Budget Committees top Republican, said on February 28s Fox News Sunday: You cant count it both for paying benefits and reducing the deficit.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office likewise warned last December 23 that Obamacares putative savings would be received by the government only once, so they cannot be set aside to pay for future Medicare spending and, at the same time, pay for current spending on other parts of the legislation or on other programs. . . . To describe the full amount of [Hospital Insurance] trust fund savings as both improving the governments ability to pay future Medicare benefits and financing new spending outside of Medicare would essentially double-count a large share of those savings and thus overstate the improvement in the governments fiscal position.

Consequently, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.) predicts: Taxpayers will be left holding billions in debt bonds to the Medicare Trust Fund that must be repaid.."

The Senate's Obamacare bill would take $52 billioin in anticipated Social Security revenues and divert them to offset Obamacare's overall net cost.  But wait:  Those who have been promised future Social Security payments expect that $52 billion to be available to prevent their pension checks from bouncing.  These $104 billion in political pledges cost only $52 billion.


This bill also includes something called Community Living Services and Support. This CLASS Act would offer long-term-care insurance with premiums invoiced immediately, but with benefits commencing in 2016. In the interim, the CBO expects a $72 billion surplus to accumulate. Congressional Democrats already have dedicated that sum to counterbalance and thus lower Obamacares perceived cost. But the Treasury needs that same $72 billion to finance the CLASS Acts medical services. So, which is it?

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) described
this scam in the Washington Post as a Ponzi scheme of the first order, the kind of thing that Bernie Madoff would have been proud of.

Conrad is right. At its core, Obamacare relies on Madoff-style accounting. The convicted swindler routinely took cash belonging to one group of investors and used it to pay off a different set of stakeholders. When the investors requested their money, it already was gone.

Future retirees similarly will demand their Medicare benefits. But much of that money already will have been swiped for Obamacare .  And thats when this double counting will sparkle in all its crooked splendor.

So what would uncooking Obamacares books do to its price tag?

The CBO says the Senate bill would reduce the federal deficit by $132 billion in its first ten years. Congressman Ryan disputes this figure without blaming CBO. Like a scale that dutifully measures something as weighing twelve ounces, whether gold or lead, CBO loyally accepts the assumptions in the bills it analyzes, no matter their luster.

If you take all the double counting out of the bill, Ryan told Fox News Sundays Chris Wallace, this thing has a $460 billion deficit in the first ten years, a $1.4 trillion deficit in the second ten years.

President Obama claims his proposal does not add one dime to the deficit. In truth, Obamacare just keeps the red ink coming. And it does so as deviously as possible.

For weeks and weeks, the Democratic party has been yawping out a claim that the CBO says ObamaCare will lower the deficit.  But, thanks to Mr. Murdock, you can plainly see the chicanery used to create their phoney-baloney illusion.

What liars.  What frauds.

The 2010 elections cannot come fast enough to prevent this atrocity from being voted on.  That's too bad for us, because, via backroom deals and assorted other scams and dishonesties, it just might squeak through.

But whether or not it does, as citizens we should be making these liars and frauds pay for this in November.

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.

About Us

Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.

At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!