CBO Says Obamacare will save no money over 10 years

Do you think that maybe NOW Obama will understand why the blue dogs revolted?

For the second time this month, congressional budget analysts have dealt a blow to the Democrat’s health reform efforts, this time by saying a plan touted by the White House as crucial to paying for the bill would actually save almost no money over 10 years.
A key House chairman and moderate House Democrats on Tuesday agreed to a White House-backed proposal that would give an outside panel the power to make cuts to government-financed health care programs. White House budget director Peter Orszag declared the plan “probably the most important piece that can be added” to the House’s health care reform legislation.
But on Saturday, the Congressional Budget Office said the proposal to give an independent panel the power to keep Medicare spending in check would only save about $2 billion over 10 years- a drop in the bucket compared to the bill’s $1 trillion price tag.
“In CBO’s judgment, the probability is high that no savings would be realized … but there is also a chance that substantial savings might be realized. Looking beyond the 10-year budget window, CBO expects that this proposal would generate larger but still modest savings on the same probabilistic basis,” CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf wrote in a letter to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer on Saturday.
via CBO deals new blow to health plan – Chris Frates – POLITICO.com.

The Blue Dog Democrats revolted on this stupid plan, because they know; what the majority of clear-thinking Americans know. That the Nation’s Economy is in the Toilet and is not expected not to get any better anytime soon. The passing of this Health-care Bill and the Nationalization of our Health-care system is going to sooner or later drive America into Bankruptcy. The Blue Dog Democrats know this, they are not under the spell of hope and change, like Obama wants them to be. In other words, they are not drinking the Kool-Aid on the Obamassiah.

One trillion dollars and The economy is at it worst since the 1980’s? Is this President serious?

I think the President and the Democratic Party need to seriously reconsider what they are attempting to do here. Because if they do not, this country may just end with a one party system after the damage is all done. Some Republicans might be thrilled at the prospect of the total and complete destruction of the Democratic Party; but I would not be thrilled at all. Why?

I will tell you why, because, like Bill O’Reilly; believe that a two-party system in this Country is important. I believe, personally, that neither of these parties; Republican Party or The Democratic Party have all of the answers. There is good and bad in both of them, and because of this, I believe that the Democratic Party is about to do one of the stupidest an horrific overreaches in many years. It was attempted in Clinton Administration and it failed, and now it is about to be attempted again. This time, it will be a disaster.

Somebody up there on Capital Hill needs have some clear thinking and really seriously consider what might become of the Democratic Party, should this blow up in their faces. Because I have a feeling that this all is going to get much uglier, before it gets any better.

Others: RedState, Weekly Standard, theblogprof, Betsy’s Page, Cold Fury, Economix, PrairiePundit, Hot Air and The Hill

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: No Healthcare Vote Before August Recess

A victory, albeit a minor one:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said today that the Senate would not attempt to pass sweeping health care reform until after returning from the August recess.
“It’s better to get a product that’s based on quality and thoughtfulness than on trying to just get something through,” Reid told reporters.
Reid said the Senate would try to complete a package in the fall.
Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin said Wednesday that he expected that a bill would not be passed before the upper chamber breaks for recess on August 7.
“All this is no surprise to anyone,” Reid said.
Reid also said that the Senate Finance Committee’s long-awaited markup would be completed before the August 7 date.
Reid said Republicans, who have shown intense resistance to President Obama’s push for health care reform, had asked for more time to work out a package.
“We will do what we can to make sure their concerns are not buried,” Reid said.
via Reid: Health care won’t happen before recess – Politico.com.

So, it looks like the President’s little dog and pony show last night was all for naught. Instead of forcing the hand of Congress; Obama succeeded in making himself look like quite the jackass, in front of the American people. Instead of Obama pushing his Healthcare plan; Obama just played the game of trying to reassure the American people. Which, in this writers opinion failed; because he simply dealt in generalities, instead of specifics.

Seems to me that President Obama believes that the entire Democratic Party is just going to roll over and allow this Healthcare bill to pass unchallenged. It just does not work that way. The entire Democratic Party, is just not sold on the idea of President Obama’s far left socialism. The Blue-Dogs as they are called, still believe in free market values. They are just not going to swallow Obama’s agenda; just because he is black. This was the fatal flaw in the Obama strategy, thinking that he was going to get his way; and if anyone tried to block it, he would play the race card. It worked during the campaign, but it will not work in Washington D.C.; because the Blog Dogs just are not that stupid.

If the Blue Dogs are going to be convinced to pass something like this, they will have to be told how, in very specific terms, this Healthcare program is going to be paid for. So far, Obama has not given that. Only simple generalities; that will not fly with the Blue Dog Democrats at all.

I will continue to cover this interesting little story. Because I want to see what strategy that the Obama Administration employs. I can tell you, that if the Obama Administration tries to employ the “race card”, there could be some backlash from that as well. Because some in the Democratic Party just do not buy into that whole, “Play the card, if you’re losing the argument” strategy. It could cost Obama in poll numbers and possibly in 2012, should he decide to run again.

Update: You can read the round up of opinions on Memeornadum

The Wall Street Journal's shocking Discovery: "Obama is not Post-Partisan"

You mean, they are just now figuring this out? Raised Eyebrow

Only last summer we were told that Barack Obama’s political appeal rested on his vision for a “post-partisan future.” The post-partisan future was one of the press corps’ favorite phrases. It served as shorthand for the candidate’s repeated references to “unity of purpose,” looking beyond a red or blue America, and so on.
Six months into the president’s term, you don’t read much about this post-partisan future anymore. It may be because on almost every big-ticket legislative item (the stimulus, climate change, and now health care), Mr. Obama has been pushing a highly ideological agenda with little (and in some cases zero) support from across the aisle. Yet far from stating the obvious—that sitting in the Oval Office is a very partisan president—the press corps is allowing Mr. Obama to evade the issue by coming up with novel redefinitions.
via Let’s Face It: Obama Is No Post-Partisan – WSJ.com.

You know, if I were one of those uncouth types; I would say something along the lines of, “Well, Duh!” But that would be unbecoming of a blogger of my caliber. Now if you will pardon me, I need to adjust my top head and tails. Smug

Seriously folks, you mean to tell me the Rupert’s people up at the WSJ are just now figuring this out? I mean, did not the whole “I won” sniveling line to the Republicans, give them any clue at all that Obama did not intend to bend an ear to the Republicans?

But of course Obama is not a Post-Partisan; He is going to ride this ever-rapidly-decreasing wave of support to get his agenda through, while he still has the sixty-seat majority in the Congress; to pass his agenda. Well, that is if the “Blue Dog” Democrats do not derail it. Which most likely will happen. I mean, I ridicule the Democrats quite a bit. But the Conservative wing of the Democratic Party; small as it might be, is still there and I just do not believe that they are just going to bend and allow Obama to bowl them over.

I just cannot believe that WSJ is just now figuring this out. They seriously need to hire me. I mean, I could told them this eons ago. Big Grin

Technorati Tags: Congress ,Conservatism ,Conservative ,Conservatives ,Democrats ,healthcare ,Liberals ,Obama ,Obama Administration ,Opinion ,Politics ,Republican ,Republican Party ,Republicans

ACU Offers support for a price, Democrats rejoice; But! Democrats do the same thing….

Well, Maybe a little worse. But anyhow…Here’s the quote:

The American Conservative Union asked FedEx for a check for $2 million to $3 million in return for the group’s support in a bitter legislative dispute, then the group’s chairman flipped and sided with UPS after FedEx refused to pay.
For the $2 million plus, ACU offered a range of services that included: “Producing op-eds and articles written by ACU’s Chairman David Keene and/or other members of the ACU’s board of directors. (Note that Mr. Keene writes a weekly column that appears in The Hill.)”
The conservative group’s remarkable demand — black-and-white proof of the longtime Washington practice known as “pay for play” — was contained in a private letter to FedEx , which was provided to POLITICO.
The letter exposes the practice by some political interest groups of taking stands not for reasons of pure principle, as their members and supporters might assume, but also in part because a sponsor is paying big money.
In the three-page letter asking for money on June 30, the conservative group backed FedEx. After FedEx says it rejected the offer, Keene signed onto a two-page July 15 letter backing UPS. Keene did not return a message left on his cell phone.
via Exclusive: Conservative group offers support for $2M – Mike Allen – POLITICO.com.

Video via Politico:

Without missing a beat, the Democrat/Liberal bloggers all jumped up at once and said, “Ho Ho! See??!?! The Conservative are in the bed with BIG BUSINESS!”

….and the Democratic Party is without fault and never commits acts of dishonesty, right? Well, Not so much. As the Politico’s Glenn Thrush points out: (H/T to HotAir.com)

Three House Democratic leaders who were whipping members on the climate change bill gave tens of thousands in campaign cash to party moderates around the time of the 219-212 vote on June 26, according to Federal Election Commission records.
It’s impossible to tell if that torrent of cash was an attempt to schmear wavering Democrats — or just part of the usual cash dump made by leaders on the eve of the June 30 quarterly fundraising deadline.
Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-SC) doled out $28,000 to reps who eventually voted yes on June 24, two days before the big vote — on a day when House leaders were doing some heavy-duty arm-twisting.
Clyburn recipients who voted for the bill included a who’s-who of battleground district Dems: Steve Driehaus, D-OH ($2,000); Martin Heinrich, D-NM ($2,000); Suzanne Kosmas, D-Fla. ($4,000); Betsy Markey, D-Colo. ($2,000); Carol Shea-Porter, D-NH ($2,000), Baron Hill, D-Ind. ($2,000); Alan Grayson, D-Fla. ($2,000); Leonard Boswell, D-Iowa ($2,000); Jim Himes, D-Conn. ($2,000); Mary Jo Kilroy, D-OH ($2,000); Kurt Schrader, D-Ore. ($2,000); Jerry McNerney, D-Calif. ($2,000) and Tom Perriello, D-Va. ($2,000).
On the other hand, Clyburn also gave at least $14,000 to Democrats who voted no despite his pressure: Mike Arcuri, D-NY ($2,000); Marion Berry, D-Ark. ($2,000); Bobby Bright, D-Ala. ($2,000); Chris Carney, D-Penn. ($2,000); Chet Edwards (D-Tx.), Travis Childers , D-Miss. ($2,000); Parker Griffith, D-Ala. ($2,000) and Harry Mitchell, D-NM ($2,000).
The same pattern held true for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who gave $4,000 to yes-voting Ohio Democrat Zack Space and the same amount to no-voting Chris Carney.
House Energy and Commerce Henry Waxman gave at least $16,000 to yes-voters on June, 25, FEC records show.
A Waxman campaign spokesman said the payouts were part of the usual “end-of-quarter activity.”
Ken Spain, communications director of the National Republican Congressional Committee emails this response:
“If this was a concerted effort by the Democratic leadership to purchase votes for Nancy Pelosi’s national energy tax at the eleventh hour, then it is unconscionable at best and corrupt at worst. The sad fact for those Democrats who were seemingly bought and paid for, is that it will take a lot more money than they received to defend such an atrocious vote.”

Of course, the Democrats right away sent Glenn a list of Republicans; who supposedly have done the same thing. Mostly vulnerable Republicans who may lose their seats in the 2010 election. (But of course!)

The point of this is, both of these parties are inherently corrupt and both need a good cleaning out and need new faces and new leadership; preferably ones that cannot be bought.

Others, on both sides of the fence: The Huffington Post, Michelle Malkin, Outside The Beltway, Right Wing News, Think Progress, Zandar Versus The Stupid, Firedoglake, Hot Air, The Note, Gawker, The Volokh Conspiracy, MoJo Blog Posts, Balloon Juice, Weekly Standard, Riehl World View, Washington Monthly, Democracy in America, Salon, Reason, The Corner, Newshoggers.com, The Atlantic Business Channel, Vox Popoli, Michael Calderone’s Blog, Say Anything, Eschaton, Conservatives4Palin.com and The Washington Independent

Unbelievable: Eric Holder Considering Prosecuting Bush Administration officials; for keeping America safe

This piece of sorry news comes from NewsWeek:

It’s the morning after Independence Day, and Eric Holder Jr. is feeling the weight of history. The night before, he’d stood on the roof of the White House alongside the president of the United States, leaning over a railing to watch fireworks burst over the Mall, the monuments to Lincoln and Washington aglow at either end. “I was so struck by the fact that for the first time in history an African-American was presiding over this celebration of what our nation is all about,” he says. Now, sitting at his kitchen table in jeans and a gray polo shirt, as his 11-year-old son, Buddy, dashes in and out of the room, Holder is reflecting on his own role. He doesn’t dwell on the fact that he’s the country’s first black attorney general. He is focused instead on the tension that the best of his predecessors have confronted: how does one faithfully serve both the law and the president?
Alone among cabinet officers, attorneys general are partisan appointees expected to rise above partisanship. All struggle to find a happy medium between loyalty and independence. Few succeed. At one extreme looms Alberto Gonzales, who allowed the Justice Department to be run like Tammany Hall. At the other is Janet Reno, whose righteousness and folksy eccentricities marginalized her within the Clinton administration. Lean too far one way and you corrupt the office, too far the other way and you render yourself impotent. Mindful of history, Holder is trying to get the balance right. “You have the responsibility of enforcing the nation’s laws, and you have to be seen as neutral, detached, and nonpartisan in that effort,” Holder says. “But the reality of being A.G. is that I’m also part of the president’s team. I want the president to succeed; I campaigned for him. I share his world view and values.”
These are not just the philosophical musings of a new attorney general. Holder, 58, may be on the verge of asserting his independence in a profound way. Four knowledgeable sources tell NEWSWEEK that he is now leaning toward appointing a prosecutor to investigate the Bush administration’s brutal interrogation practices, something the president has been reluctant to do. While no final decision has been made, an announcement could come in a matter of weeks, say these sources, who decline to be identified discussing a sensitive law-enforcement matter. Such a decision would roil the country, would likely plunge Washington into a new round of partisan warfare, and could even imperil Obama’s domestic priorities, including health care and energy reform. Holder knows all this, and he has been wrestling with the question for months. “I hope that whatever decision I make would not have a negative impact on the president’s agenda,” he says. “But that can’t be a part of my decision.”

[….]

Holder began to review those policies in April. As he pored over reports and listened to briefings, he became increasingly troubled. There were startling indications that some interrogators had gone far beyond what had been authorized in the legal opinions issued by the Justice Department, which were themselves controversial. He told one intimate that what he saw “turned my stomach.”
It was soon clear to Holder that he might have to launch an investigation to determine whether crimes were committed under the Bush administration and prosecutions warranted. The obstacles were obvious. For a new administration to reach back and investigate its predecessor is rare, if not unprecedented. After having been deeply involved in the decision to authorize Ken Starr to investigate Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky, Holder well knew how politicized things could get. He worried about the impact on the CIA, whose operatives would be at the center of any probe. And he could clearly read the signals coming out of the White House. President Obama had already deflected the left wing of his party and human-rights organizations by saying, “We should be looking forward and not backwards” when it came to Bush-era abuses.
Still, Holder couldn’t shake what he had learned in reports about the treatment of prisoners at the CIA’s “black sites.” If the public knew the details, he and his aides figured, there would be a groundswell of support for an independent probe. He raised with his staff the possibility of appointing a prosecutor. According to three sources familiar with the process, they discussed several potential choices and the criteria for such a sensitive investigation. Holder was looking for someone with “gravitas and grit,” according to one of these sources, all of whom declined to be named. At one point, an aide joked that Holder might need to clone Patrick Fitzgerald, the hard-charging, independent-minded U.S. attorney who had prosecuted Scooter Libby in the Plamegate affair. In the end, Holder asked for a list of 10 candidates, five from within the Justice Department and five from outside.

[…]

The next few weeks, though, could test Holder’s confidence. After the prospect of torture investigations seemed to lose momentum in April, the attorney general and his aides turned to other pressing issues. They were preoccupied with Gitmo, developing a hugely complex new set of detention and prosecution policies, and putting out the daily fires that go along with running a 110,000-person department. The regular meetings Holder’s team had been having on the torture question died down. Some aides began to wonder whether the idea of appointing a prosecutor was off the table.
But in late June Holder asked an aide for a copy of the CIA inspector general’s thick classified report on interrogation abuses. He cleared his schedule and, over two days, holed up alone in his Justice Depart ment office, immersed himself in what Dick Cheney once referred to as “the dark side.” He read the report twice, the first time as a lawyer, looking for evidence and instances of transgressions that might call for prosecution. The second time, he started to absorb what he was reading at a more emotional level. He was “shocked and saddened,” he told a friend, by what government servants were alleged to have done in America’s name. When he was done he stood at his window for a long time, staring at Constitution Avenue.

I hope that if and when Mr. Holder decides to appoint this special prosecutor; that he keeps the follow items in mind: (H/T to The Corner)

* Alberto Gonzales did not attempt to mislead Congress in 2007 when he testified that the controversy that erupted at the Justice Department in 2004 was not over what was popularly known as the “terrorist surveillance program” (i.e., the NSA’s warrantless surveillance program to intercept suspected terrorist communications that crossed U.S. borders — the effort the Left smeared as “domestic spying”). In fact, as Gonzales told the Senate judiciary Committee, the controversy was about other intelligence activities.
* When congressional Democrats rolled their eyes, suggested that Gonzales was lying, and groused that a special prosecutor should be appointed, they well knew he wasn’t lying — but they also knew he couldn’t discuss the intellligence activities at the center of the controversy because those activities were (and remain) highly classified. That is, they knowingly badgered the Attorney General of the United States at a hearing in a calculated effort to make him look dishonest and to intimate something they knew to be untrue: namely, that the dispute at DOJ arose because senior officials believed warrantless surveillance was illegal.
* Before Gonzales and President Bush’s then chief-of-staff, Andy Card, went to see Attorney General Ashcroft in the hospital (where he was being treated for pancreatitis), President Bush directed his administration to meet with top congressional Democrats and Republicans (Senate leaders Frist and Daschle, Speaker Hastert and House minority leader Pelosi, Roberts and Rockefeller from Senate Intel, and Goss and Harman from House Intel) to alert them that Ashcroft’s deputy, Jim Comey, had refused to sign off on intelligence activities that Ashcroft had previously approved. Advised of the problem, the Gang of Eight did not agree to a quick legislative fix but, according to Gonzales’s contemporaneous notes, agreed that the intelligence activities should continue. (Three years later, after Gonzales’s testimony, Pelosi, Rockefeller and Daschle claimed that they hadn’t agreed.)
* Only after this meeting with the bipartisan congressional leaders, and with the prior 45-day authorization for all the program’s activities about to expire, did Gonzales and Card go to the hospital to visit the ailing Ashcroft — at the direction of President Bush.
* Between the time the time the collection intelligence activities that came to be known as the “Terrorist Surveillance Program” was first authorized after the 9/11 attacks until the warrantless surveillance aspect of the program was exposed by the New York Times in December 2005, the Bush administration briefed the bipartisan leadership of the congressional intelligence committees 17 times about the activities involved in the program.

In sum, congressional Democrats knew about the program and knew that the dissent of the Justice Department’s senior leadership in 2004 was not about warrantless surveillance. They knew that if they postured that the dissent was about warrantless surveillance, Gonzales — not an adept communicator — would not be able to rebut them in a public hearing because the details of the dispute were classified. Congressional Democrats also knew that President Bush agreed to make changes in the program in March 2004 to assuage DOJ’s concerns, and they knew that the program activities continued thereafter for a year-and-a-half (i.e., until the Times blew part of the program) without incident and with bipartisan congressional leadership continuing to be briefed.

The point I am trying to make is this, that the so-called “torture”; which was approved by Congress, prevented attacks on Los Angeles and various cities around the country. It also saves lives and gets people to talk. It is also used to train our Military as well.

My advice to Holder is this; if you want to tear this Country apart, again, after a long eight years of it being sharply divided; go right ahead. If you want to tear down the Democratic Party; you know; the one of your own boss? The go right ahead and do this. If you want ruin the chances of America ever defending itself from another terrorist attack, then go right ahead and do this. If you want to make a mockery of yourself and the entire polical system in America, go right Mr. Holder and do what you must do. It will be on your hands, what becomes of this Country.

I dread the next coming months.

Others: Gateway Pundit, Atlas Shrugs,

Congress put the brakes on Obama's Cap and Trade bill

Looks like the Hope and Change will be slightly delayed.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama’s push for quick action by Congress on climate change legislation suffered a setback on Thursday when the U.S. Senate committee leading the drive delayed work on the bill until September.
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer said her self-imposed deadline of early August for finishing writing a bill to combat global warming has been put off until after Congress returns from a recess that ends in early September.
“We’ll do it as soon as we get back” from that break, Boxer told reporters. Asked if this delay jeopardizes chances the Senate will pass a bill this year, Boxer said, “Not a bit … we’ll be in (session) until Christmas, so I’m not worried about it.”
But Boxer did not guarantee Congress will be able to finish a bill and deliver it to Obama by December, when he plans to attend an international summit on climate change in Copenhagen.
“I want to take this as far as we can take it (before Copenhagen). The more we do the better,” Boxer said.
via Obama’s drive for climate change bill delayed – Washington Post. (H/T to HotAir)

Contrary to what the Democrats are trying to tell the media, this here is why the bill has been delayed:

WHEELING – He is not yet back to work in the Senate chamber, but U.S. Sen. Robert Byrd is opposing “cap and trade” legislation pushed by the Obama administration.
The 91-year-old Byrd, D-W.Va., was released from an unidentified Washington, D.C. hospital last week after a month-long stay for a staph infection. He expects to return to the chamber before the Senate begins debate on “cap and trade” – which is tentatively set for this fall, according to Byrd’s office.
“I cannot support the House bill in its present form,” Byrd said in a statement. “I continue to believe that clean coal can be a ‘green’ energy. Those of us who understand coal’s great potential in our quest for energy independence must continue to work diligently in shaping a climate bill that will ensure access to affordable energy for West Virginians. I remain bullish about the future of coal, and am so very proud of the miners who labor and toil in the coalfields of West Virginia.”
Byrd grew up in the coalfields of Stotesbury, W.Va., in Raleigh County. Jesse Jacobs, spokesman for Byrd, said the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will begin marking up the “cap and trade” bill later this month, with floor debate scheduled for September or October.

I will give kudo’s to that old man. He might have been a Klan member at one point; something that he has profusely apologized for many times. He might be a democrat, but I cannot sit her and fault a man for looking out for his people. That is what Congressman are supposed to do, and I give all the credit due for that. Senator Byrd is of the old school Democratic Party. Before the stupidity of socialism took it over, he still believes in the principles of free markets and capitalism; in short, he has not sold out to the Socialist nonsense of the modern day Democratic Party.

God Bless Him for that. 🙂

How’s that stimulus working out for you Barry?

Apparently not too well it seems.

The Washington Post (!) Reports:

Five months after Congress approved a massive package of spending and tax cuts aimed at reviving an ailing economy, the jobless rate is still climbing and the White House is scrambling to reassure an anxious public that President Obama’s prescription for economic recovery is on the right track.
Yesterday, Obama took time out of his first presidential trip to Moscow to defend the $787 billion stimulus package, arguing that the measure was the right medicine at the right time. “There’s nothing that we would have done differently,” he told ABC News

So, beings the Democratic Party’s proverbial teeth chattering session, where they realize, “Uh-Oh, we messed up! Now how do we fix it?”

Back in Washington, senior Democrats on Capitol Hill were nervously contemplating whether additional government stimulus spending may be needed to pull the nation out of the worst recession since the 1930s. Senior administration officials acknowledged that the effects of the stimulus package have been overshadowed by an unexpectedly sharp drop-off in employment since the measure passed in February. But they reported that only about $100 billion has so far been spent and that as increasingly large sums flow out of Washington, the program is on pace to save or create 600,000 jobs over the next 100 days.
“It is clear from the data that there needs to be more fiscal stimulus in the second half of the year than there was in the first half of the year,” White House economic adviser Lawrence H. Summers said. “Fortunately, the stimulus program designed by the president and passed by Congress provides exactly that.”
Leading economists agree that the most powerful effects of the stimulus package have yet to be felt. But even if the measure lives up to Obama’s expectations, it would barely offset the 433,000 jobs the nation lost last month alone, and the resulting employment would represent a drop in the bucket compared with the 6.5 million jobs lost since the recession began in December 2007.
“Just 130 days out on the adoption of a very, very major effort to get the economy moving, certainly I don’t think we can make a determination as to whether or not that’s been successful,” House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said yesterday. But, he said, “I think we need to be open to whether or not we need additional action.”

Oh Yes! We just poured a couple generation’s worth of money into a Economic system that is basically; on it’s face, is broken and does not work. This did not work, so, we’re going to basically pour money into that same broken system and see if we can make the economy recover. Rolling Eyes

If anything this ought be a lesson for the Democratic Party that Keynesian Pump Priming, just does not work. But you think that the Democrats would learn that lesson? No. Because they’re dumb! Silly

Of course, the Republicans are a bit more smarter about this:

Republicans, meanwhile, pounced on news that the unemployment rate increased to 9.5 percent in June and accused the Democrats of sinking the nation deeper into debt to finance an economic recovery package that has failed to save American jobs. Noting that the Obama administration predicted earlier this year that stimulus spending would keep the unemployment rate under 8 percent, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the No. 2 Republican in the House, said, “I think any objective measure would indicate there’s a failure when you have a commitment of nearly $800 billion in taxpayer funds and you have the type of job loss we’re experiencing.”
With many economists forecasting that the jobless rate will continue to climb — and is likely to stay above 10 percent through much of next year — Republicans vowed to make the 2010 midterm election a referendum on Obama’s stewardship of the economy. “I think they’re going to have some significant problems,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), who leads the GOP campaign operation in the Senate, “and I view those as opportunities for us.”

Hopefully, the Republicans will frame these opportunities properly. Of course, their track record here as of late, has not been too good.

Meanwhile, in the reality sector:

Despite the deepening pain of the recession, many Democrats in the White House and on Capitol Hill yesterday counseled patience. They said it would be extraordinarily difficult to win approval for more spending on the economy when Obama is pursuing a host of other expensive initiatives, including a $1 trillion expansion of the nation’s health-care system. And they argued that the current stimulus package should be given a chance to work.
The stimulus was designed to deliver a gradually stronger push to the economy through the end of next year. It contains about $499 billion in new spending and about $288 billion in tax cuts for working families, businesses, college students and first-time home buyers.
When the measure passed, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted that about a quarter of the money would be spent by year’s end, and that about 75 percent would flow by the end of 2010. So far, economists said, spending appears to be on track.
According to administration estimates, about $158 billion in new spending had been committed to specific projects by the end of June, but just a fraction of that money — about $56 billion — had been delivered to struggling state governments, unemployed workers and other recipients. An additional $43 billion had been left in the pockets of individuals and businesses through uncollected taxes, much of it the result of Obama’s signature Making Work Pay tax credit for working families.
Those figures track closely with estimates by Mark Zandi, chief economist for Moody’s Economy.com, who calculates that the government made $242 billion in stimulus funds available for various purposes through the end of June and paid out about $110 billion. In a recent analysis, Zandi predicted that “the maximum contribution from the stimulus should occur in the second and third quarters of this year,” when it will add more than three percentage points to overall economic growth.
“It’s pretty much according to plan in terms of the payout and in terms of its economic impact. This is in the script,” Zandi said. The problem, he said, is that “the economy has been measurably worse than anyone expected,” with a surprisingly sharp “collapse in employment and surge in unemployment” that caught most economists off guard.
“That’s why the administration’s forecasts have been so wrong,” he said.

None of this surprises me in the least. I warned on this blog long ago that this would happen. But, of course, you have the Democrats spinning this, and very hard too:

The White House continues to predict that the stimulus package will save or create 3.5 million jobs by the end of next year. Zandi predicts it will fall short of that, producing about 2.5 million jobs — still a significant impact.
Whatever the number, Democrats are hoping it will be enough to convince voters that Obama is leading them out of the economic wilderness.
“I think the president was very clear that things were going to take a long time to turn around,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who leads the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in charge of electing Democrats to the House. Republicans “are making the argument to the American people that doing nothing would have been the best policy. And I don’t think people will buy that. . . .
“The measures we have taken have certainly prevented things from getting much worse.”

According to what figures? Because the charts I have seen, say otherwise:

stimulus-vs-unemployment-june-proj-dots

What this chart shows is that unemployment was far higher with the stimulus plan, than it would have been, if Team Teleprompter would have just left well enough alone.

What this means to me personally is this; I will most likely be unemployed until like 2010 or longer. Thereby making myself impossible to he hired anywhere, because I haven’t worked in so long. Which is just wonderful. Rolling Eyes

Thank you President Bambi Teleprompter for ruining America, you feckless idiot! Angry

Others: Hot Air,

The Southern Avenger says "Partisans Make Us Less Safe"

How support for both “financial security” and “national security” reveal partisan hypocrisy and make us less safe.

President Obama, The time is now.

That’s correct, you read that headline right. Enough is enough, the deception and lies needs to stop. I am sure that most of you have been following the internet Meme floating around right now about Nancy Pelosi’s saying that the CIA lied to her about the enhanced interrogations. Well, the accusations just got some serious merit and I do mean huge serious merit.

The Huffington Post is now reporting:

In testimony that could bolster Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s claim that the CIA misled her during briefings on detainee interrogations, former Senator Bob Graham insisted on Thursday that he too was kept in the dark about the use of waterboarding, and called the agency’s records on these briefings "suspect."
In an interview with the Huffington Post, the former Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman said that approximately a month ago, the CIA provided him with false information about how many times and when he was briefed on enhanced interrogations.
"When this issue started to resurface I called the appropriate people in the agency and said I would like to know the dates from your records that briefings were held," Graham recalled. "And they contacted me and gave me four dates — two in April ’02 and two in September ’02. Now, one of the things I do, and for which I have taken some flack, is keep a spiral notebook of what I do throughout the day. And so I went through my records and through a combination of my daily schedule, which I keep, and my notebooks, I confirmed and the CIA agreed that my notes were accurate; that three of those four dates there had been no briefing. There was only one day that I had been briefed, which was September the 27th of 2002."
As for the one briefing he did attend, the Florida Democrat said that he had "no recollection that issues such as waterboarding were discussed." He was not, per the sensitive nature of the matters discussed, allowed to take notes at the time. But he did highlight what he considered to be pretty strong proof that the controversial technique was not discussed.
"What struck me…was the fact that in that briefing, there were also two staff members," he said. "As you know, the general rule is that the executive is to brief the full committees of the House and Senate Intelligence committees about any ongoing or proposed action. The exception to that is what is called "covert action," where the president…only briefs the Gang of Eight, which is the four congressional leaders and the four intelligence committee leaders. Those sessions are generally conducted at an executive site, primarily at the White House itself. And they are conducted with just the authorized personnel, not with any staff or any other member of the committee…. Which leads me to conclude that this was not considered by the CIA to be a Gang of Eight briefing. Otherwise they would not have had staff in the room. And that leads me to then believe that they didn’t brief us on any of the sensitive programs such as the waterboarding or other forms of excessive interrogation."
The remarks made by Graham bolster the comments offered by Pelosi on Thursday. The Speaker told reporters that during her briefing session in the fall of 2002 she was not just kept in the dark about the issue of waterboarding, she was assured that it had not been used.
[….]
"The irony," said Graham, "is that the whole series of events in late September of ’02 were concurrent with the CIA’s release of the first classified version of the National Intelligence Estimate, which was one of the key factors that led me to vote against the war in Iraq because I thought that their case was so weak. And they were making to the public these very bold statements about how we were in extreme danger if we didn’t move quickly to eradicate Saddam Hussein. The whole, ‘a smoking gun may appear in the form of a mushroom cloud’ kind of argument."

I know some Conservatives that read this blog are going to say something to the effect of, “Oh, that’s the Huffington Post, you cannot trust what they say.” Well, to that I say; Unsinn! (nonsense!) While I may have a personal problem with the way that the comment sections are handled over there and I may have some issues with the political ideology behind that website. I am quite sorry to say it, but news is news; and this my friends is big news.

Since I began blogging back in the winter of 2006; first as a populist and then when my site was hacked, and which at the time this happened; I had began to change my views, and I finally came out as a “Right of Center” or a Traditional Conservative or if you will, a Paleo-Conservative. (As opposed to a Wilsonian, Neo-Conservative; like George W. Bush) I made it quite clear for my disdain of the Wilsonian, Neo-Conservatism of George W. Bush and his Administration. Having said this, I believe it is time that I be the first “Right of Center” blogger to say this:

It is time that the United States of America actually used it’s systems of “Check and Balances.” It is time for a formal investigation into the Bush Administration.

I realize that the Obama Administration wants to avoid a “partisan witch-hunt.” I can respect this, but at this point, this whole mess has gone way beyond the bounds of partisanship, and to the point of an outright betrayal of the American values and of the United States Constitution that the now former President was supposed to swear to uphold. It is quite obvious to this writer that the now former President of the United States and his Administration fully instructed the C.I.A. to lie to the Democrats in office about the techniques used in the enhanced interrogations that took place after the invasion of Iraq.

Lying to the Congress of the United States of America under the orders of the President of the United States of America for the sole purpose of achieving a political goal, in this case the Iraq War and the supposed “War on terror,” in this writers opinion, amounts to treason of the worst kind. Lying to Congress in order to skirt around the agreements signed by the United States of America and many other Nations, under the accord of the United Nations is a crime and should be dealt with immediately. I am not a huge fan of the United Nations, but agreements are agreements and laws are laws, and it is quite obvious, to this writer, that this previous Administration was not interested in upholding those laws or the United States Constitution or the Geneva Conventions. Instead the President of the United States ordered the C.I.A. to lie to Congress on it’s use to waterboarding in the enhanced interrogations. This, my friends, is treason. It is wrong, and it should be prosecuted.

I realize that some Conservatives are going to disagree, that is their prerogative. However, those Conservatives and those who are non-partisan who believe that the rule of law in this Country should be upheld, not just for Conservative Presidents, but also for Democratic Party Presidents; will agree with me in saying that the current attorney should open a full an unbia
sed investigation into this situation forthwith. The future of this Constitutional Republic depends on it.

Mr. President, The time is now.

The Worry in my Father’s Eyes (A Personal GM Posting)

As many of you know, I am the son of a retired General Motors worker. Ironically, I am also a Conservative. No, I am not a Republican; or even a formal Libertarian. I am someone that believes that the less Governmental interference in my life, the better. However, there is a place, where my politics ends and a genuine concern for my family begins.

I see that General Motors is going to be taking more money from the Government, and is desperately trying to salvage what is left of that company:

Quote:

General Motors Corp. will get up to $5 billion and Chrysler LLC $500 million in short-term aid, according to a 250-page government report obtained Monday by The Detroit News.
The Detroit News reported Friday that GM would get about $5 billion and Chrysler $500 million, citing an Obama administration official, which prompted a denial from the White House.
The short-term aid figures are disclosed in the report from the Treasury Department’s Inspector General on the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program.
The report was obtained from a congressional source late Monday.

Meanwhile General Motors is is doing its damnedest to rid itself of waste:

General Motors Corp. has started notifying about 1,600 white-collar workers — most of whom work in southeast Michigan — that they will lose their jobs this week as the cash-strapped automaker cuts costs that could help the automaker qualify for up to $16.6 billion in additional federal aid.
The announcement was made by GM North American President Troy Clarke in an e-mail sent to employees today, spokesperson Tom Wilkinson said.
“This is part of really restructuring the company to a smaller, leaner company, one that can, as the (Obama) administration requested, be profitable on an ongoing basis,” Wilkinson said.

While this might be a good thing, there are those out there that believe that this is too little too late:

It’s ironic enough that Italy’s Fiat Auto could end up being the savior for Chrysler. After all, former Chrysler President Bob Lutz once likened Fiat to a dead bride when his old boss, Lee Iacocca, wanted the company to join up with the Italian carmaker. Now, Lutz is at General Motors until he retires in December, and Fiat may help his current employer.
Yes, the Italian carmaker is reportedly in talks with GM about forming a partnership with its European and South American businesses, says Automotive News. How ironic is that? Well, in 2000, GM bought 20% of Fiat Auto for $2.4 billion. Back then, GM was healthy and Fiat was in serious financial trouble. The Italian company was wracked by quality issues. It was so bad that GM actually paid another $2 billion a few years later just to avoid a put option that would have made GM the sole owner of Fiat. GM’s board didn’t want that kind of headache.
But now, after Fiat CEO Sergio Marchionne has fixed the company, he could help save Chrysler in the U.S. and GM in Europe. GM lost $1.5 billion in the Olde World last year, with its Opel and Vauxhaul brands suffering mightily with too many factories. GM is actually doing very well in Latin America, where the auto giant earned $1.3 billion last year. Fiat is pretty strong there, too, so they could make a powerful pair down there. The only catch is that Fiat doesn’t have any cash either. But the alliances will help be getting each company jointly-engineered vehicles and sharing parts.
The bottom line: Fiat is not a great carmaker by any stretch. But Chrysler and GM are in so much trouble that anyone could help at this point. Even Fiat.

Which brings me to my point; have any of you really looked at your Father? I have. I see worry in his eyes. I see worry in both my parents eyes. The questions my parents are facing, as they enter into their golden years are unfathomable, for someone my age. Will my parents lose everything that my father worked hard to obtain? We are talking 31 years worth of blood, sweat, and tears. My Father earned every damned last penny. I dare some idiot beltway type to say otherwise.

I have been a critic of the Obama Administration for much, as of late. However, I will give him credit for one thing. The President is looking out my Father. I just hope he does not throw my Father under the bus, as he has many others in his short time in the White House.

Some of you might look at this posting and call me some sort of a hypocrite. That is your right as an American.

However, if you could only see my Father’s eyes; you might just might be able to understand.