Last night the House of Representatives passed the “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009” (H.R. 2454), more appropriately known as the “Cap and Tax bill.” The vote was extremely close, 219-212. Many groups, including the ERLC, worked feverishly to prevent passage of this monstrosity. In fact, on Thursday, even leading Democrats were saying they didn’t think they had the votes. But at 3 a.m. Friday morning, the Democrats added 300 pages of amendments to the bill by way of the Manager’s Amendment, essentially add-ons arranged behind closed doors that are included as a package. The majority of the contents of the Manager’s Amendment consisted of deals the Democrats cut to get enough votes to pass their Cap and Tax bill.
The floor debate lasted more than 3 hours. It was deplorable. If you want to see just how broken our legislative process is, all you need to do is watch those proceedings. The effort by Joe Barton and a few other congressmen to get Chair Ellen Tauscher to answer some basic questions about the whereabouts of the Manager’s Amendment so members could consult it was heroic. It was shocking to see such willingness on the part of Democrat leadership to be so obstructive. No one had opportunity to read the bill in its final form before the vote was taken. In fact, the pages of the Manager’s Amendment were being hand-collated into the bill on the floor during the debate!
One of the most interesting moments occurred when John Boehner displayed a chart that showed just how intrusive, bureaucratic, and unmanageable the program authorized by the bill would be. You can view the chart here, http://erlc.com/documents/pdf/WaxmanMarkey.pdf, but be prepared to be thoroughly baffled. It’s not a problem with the chart, but of the program this Cap and Tax plan is going to birth.
It’s impossible to describe fully the way in which this bill will change life for everyone in this country. I had two of the ERLC interns compile a brief list of some of the negative impacts of the policies contained in the bill. Here is a sample of what they catalogued:
Negative Impacts of the Bill:
1. Indeed, the Waxman-Markey Bill would be the largest tax increase in world history.[1]
2. It is a tax on all Americans, even the 95% that President Obama pledged would never see a tax increase.[2]
3. Independent economic studies have estimated the costs from $1,500 to more than $3,000 per year for the average family.[3]
4. Total GDP loss by 2035 would equal $9.4 trillion.
5. The national debt would balloon, saddling a family of four with $114,915 of additional national debt.
6. Unemployment will increase by nearly 2 million in 2012, the first year of the program.[4] The Bureau of Labor Statistics defines mass layoffs as "…where employers indicate that 50 or more workers were separated from their jobs for at least 31 days." Under Waxman-Markey,a on verage each congressional district would experience the equivalent of more than 52 mass layoffs.”
7. Further analysis of the economic impact projects that by 2035 the bill would raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation; raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 58 percent; and raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent.[5]
I can’t remember when I have been more disappointed in our Congress. Yesterday’s fiasco disgraced our Founding Fathers. Those who voted for this bill should be forced to give a full accounting to the millions of families their pathetic behavior has jeopardized.
I have included below the list of Republicans who voted for the Waxman-Markey Cap and Tax bill. If one of these people is your congressman, you may want to have a long conversation with him of her. I have also included the list of Democrats who could not be bought. If one of these people is your congressman, you may want to speak a word of thanks. If you don’t see a particular Republican name in the Republican list, it means he or she voted no. If you don’t see a particular Democrat name in the Democrat list, it means he or she voted yes. And there were three who couldn’t make up their minds and didn’t vote at all, Flake (R-AZ), Hastings (D-FL), and Sullivan (R-OK).
You may want to be careful with how effusive you are in thanking those who voted against the bill, however. Believe it or not, some voted no because they don’t think the bill does enough to stop global warming!
Republicans who voted for the Waxman-Markey Cap and Tax Global Warming bill:
Bono Mack (CA), Castle (DE), Kirk (IL), Lance (NJ), LoBiondo (NJ), McHugh (NY), Reichert (WA), Smith (NJ).
Democrats who voted against the Waxman-Markey Cap and Tax Global Warming bill:
Altmire (PA), Arcuri (NY), Barrow (GA), Berry (AR), Boren (OK), Bright (AL), Carney (PA), Childers (MS), Costa (CA), Costello (IL), Dahlkemper (PA), Davis (AL), Davis (TN), DeFazio (OR), Donnelly (IN), Edwards (TX), Ellsworth (IN), Foster (IL), Griffith (AL), Herseth Sandlin (SD), Holden (PA), Kirkpatrick (AZ), Kissell (NC), Kucinich (OH), Marshall (GA), Massa (NY), Matheson (UT), McIntyre (NC), Melancon (LA), Minnick (ID), Mitchell (AZ), Mollohan (WV), Nye (VA), Ortiz (TX), Pomeroy (ND), Rahall (WV), Rodriguez (TX), Ross (AR), Salazar (CO), Stark (CA), Tanner (TN), Taylor (MS), Visclosky (IN), Wilson (OH).
This battle moves to the Senate now. I hope you are ready for a fierce battle. If the House bill or anything like it becomes law, your children, my children, and every child in America will grow up in a less competitive, severely weakened country, with a much lower standard of living as the center of global economic power shifts to Asia.
Barrett
[1] Ebell, Myron, “Trojan Hearse: ‘Cap and Trade’ = Economy-Killer”, June 25, 2009, NY Post Online posted at 2:29 a.m. (http://www.nypost.com/seven/06252009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/trojan_hearse_175976.htm).
[2] Investor’s Business Daily, “Waxman-Markey: Man-Made Disaster”, IBD Editorials Online, June 25, 2009 posted at 4:20 p.m. (http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?secid=1501&status=article&id=330822830678035&secure=1&show=1&rss=1).
[3] Ebell, Myron, “Trojan Hearse: ‘Cap and Trade’ = Economy-Killer”, June 25, 2009, NY Post Online posted at 2:29 a.m. (http://www.nypost.com/seven/06252009/postopinion/opedcolumnists/trojan_hearse_175976.htm).
[4] Campbell, Karen Ph.D. and David Kreutzer, Ph.D., “Waxman-Markey Global Warming Bill: Economic Impact by Congressional District”, June 25, 2009, Heritage Foundation Web Memo # 2504
[5] Beach, William W., David Kreutzer, Ph.D., Karen Campbell, Ph.D. and Ben Lieberman, “Son of Waxman-Markey: More Politics Makes for More Costly Bill”, May 18, 2009, Heritage Foundation Web Memo # 2450
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Sunday, June 21, 2009
More on Health Care Reform
Friends:
The range of issues being discussed in Washington these days is beginning to narrow to the three big ticket items of the Obama administration: health care, energy, and education. This week I am providing you with a compilation of articles on the health care debate released by the Galen Institute, http://www.galen.org, in their newsletter Health Policy Matters. The group is run by Grace-Marie Turner, President of the Galen Institute. She has a good handle on the various ideas being promoted and is working to prevent a government take-over of health care. I have copied below much of her recent newsletter. I encourage you to at least read each synopsis. You will find them extremely informative.
Blessings,
Barrett
---------------------------------------------------------
Health Policy Matters newsletter
June 19, 2009
The bombshells started dropping on the health reform front this week:
Soaring costs: The Congressional Budget Office told the Senate health committee its bill would cost $1 trillion over the next 10 years and would only provide health insurance for a net 16 million more people. It said 15 million would lose their coverage at work and eight million would lose coverage from other sources, leaving 36 million uninsured. Since the goal is to have virtually everyone covered with no deficit spending, this was a double whammy, especially since there is even more spending in the bill that the CBO hasn't yet scored.
Delay: The Senate Finance Committee was forced to delay its work on developing its bill when the CBO offered a preliminary cost estimate of $1.6 trillion over 10 years. Somehow in the hall of budget mirrors in the U.S. Congress, the most they are willing to spend of future generations' money is $1 trillion.
No agreement: President Obama traveled to Chicago to speak at the annual meeting of the American Medical Association, hoping to sway them to support his health reform plan. He again faced protest signs outside the hall. Inside, there were boos when he said he wouldn't go along with their proposal to cap malpractice awards.
AMA rebuffs: Worse, when a resolution came to the floor of the AMA which would have endorsed Mr. Obama's idea of a new government health plan, the language he had hoped for was stripped out, and it became a mere restatement of the AMA's long-standing goals supporting "pluralism, freedom of choice, freedom of practice, and universal access for patients."
More cost-shifting: The CBO also says that congressional plans to rein in federal spending through public plans could end up shifting more of the costs to private insurers, employers, and people with private medical coverage. While there are many efficient providers currently practicing, experts don't yet know how to spread that efficiency throughout the system, and policy makers won't be able to do so "through fiat or good intentions," the CBO said.
"I think there's definitely risk that a portion of the reduction in hospital payments from Medicare will wind up as increased payments by private insurers," said Paul B. Ginsburg, president of the Center for Studying Health System Change. Hospitals may have the motive and means to "transfer those charges to somebody else," and "we'll see costs increasing on the private side and not necessarily falling everywhere," said Harold S. Luft, director of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation Research Institute.
Don't take it to the bank: The CBO also says that it can't give credit for most of the $2 trillion in savings that were announced with great fanfare in May. You will recall the brouhaha between the White House and six industry groups over whether they had or had not pledged to reduce health spending by 1.5% a year over 10 years through disease management, information technology, coordinated care, etc.
"What was originally offered up as a down payment on healthcare reform simply can't be accurately estimated by the CBO and will result in far less savings than the originally promised $2 trillion," said Republican senator Mike Enzi of Wyoming, the ranking member of the Senate health committee. "The administration will need to come up with far greater savings proposals -- savings that Congress can take to the bank -- to achieve the massive healthcare bill Democrats are proposing." The Senate Finance committee still offers the best prospects of a bi-partisan bill. It has gone back to the drawing board and is not expected to release its bill until after the July 4 recess -- missing its first deadline of committee action by the end of June. Here is an outline of the bill as of last evening. The goal for final action is now expected to be closer to Christmas. The longer it slips, the more difficult it will be to pass the sweeping reform the White House and congressional liberals envision.
Genuine compromise: The Bipartisan Policy Center did us a favor this week in releasing a health reform plan that shows us what a true compromise bill could look like. Former Senate Majority Leaders Tom Daschle, Howard Baker, and Bob Dole have been working since last year to forge a budget-neutral plan that could gain the support of Democrats and Republicans. They offer innovative ideas and approach problems with a scalpel rather than a sledge hammer. For example, they offer a system of refundable tax credits for health insurance that are income related and tied to the costs of income-appropriate health plans. While a compromise plan is never anyone's first choice, there are certainly things here that we like, including a cap on the tax exclusion, no public plan, and authority to the states to expand coverage options. Mark McClellan, who headed the FDA and CMS before creating the new Engelberg Center for Health Care Reform at the Brookings Institution, helped navigate the policy shoals. If Congress is looking for a true compromise bill, they could find it here.
And about the public plan: I am so tired of politicians saying they are in a government health plan. They are in a plan offered by their employer that contracts with a number of private health plans to offer coverage through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Their employer happens to be the government but their choices are all private plans. The government doesn't run them; it contracts with them. If members of Congers want to see what a real government-run health plan looks like, then they should try Medicaid or Medicare. Actually running a health plan requires sophisticated skills that federal officials do not have. They know how to set prices, write and interpret regulations, and turn on computers to spew out checks. But managing networks of doctors and negotiating contracts for benefits are not skill sets that the government has. If members of Congress don't even know this, then how on earth can we expect them to have the skills to make good decisions about reorganizing the entire health sector?
Quote of the week: "Obviously this is not going to go as fast as we thought," Democrat Barbara Mikulski of Maryland said during a Senate health committee session on Thursday where the committee marked up 17 of the 300 or more amendments that have been submitted so far.
Aircraft design: During the Clinton health reform debate in 1993, the White House decided to create the perfect bill and worry later about how much it would cost and how to pay for it. The strategy backfired as cost estimate blew off the roof. Ira Magaziner and his task force had to go back to the drawing board to revise the plan. It never recovered from the reverse engineering. This reminds me of when I was a Washington correspondent for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram: General Dynamics was a big employer in the city and we covered Pentagon decisions closely. Congress was ready to fund a new fighter airplane, and it was the Air Force's "turn" to have first crack at the design. The Navy was incensed: Aircraft carriers have three or four steel cables stretched across the deck at 20-foot intervals which bring a plane, traveling at 150 miles per hour to a complete stop in about 320 feet. It would pull an ordinary plane apart. The Navy's needs for a high-impact plane clearly should have trumped the Air Force in practical engineering terms. But politics dictated that the Air Force would get the first shot at design. That's the problem that Congress is running into today. Cost considerations have to come first. That's the stress test of health reform. Congress should start by deciding how we can gain maximum efficiency from the system, where the resources are to pay for reform, and what we can afford.
Recent News Articles and Studies
Medicare: A Model Mess
Grace-Marie Turner, Galen Institute
New York Post, 06/16/09
The government's sorry track record with Medicare just doesn't justify giving it authority to create a multitrillion-dollar public plan, writes Turner. Originally, Congress promised that Medicare wouldn't lead to interference in the doctor-patient relationship and assured seniors they could buy medical services privately. That went out the window in 1997, and a litany of other promises has been broken over the years as well. But despite its monopoly on seniors' health care, the Medicare trustees recently announced that the program is at least $37.8 trillion in the red over coming decades -- and will start running out of money in just eight years. Medicare's history shows what's in store under a "public option" for health insurance: Americans will lose their private coverage and come under the government's wing, with soaring costs and ultimately restrictions on access to care, writes Turner.
Obama Heads into the AMA Lion's Den
Grace-Marie Turner, Galen Institute
National Review Online: The Corner, 06/15/09
President Obama tried to build support for his increasingly problematic health reform plan at a speech before the American Medical Association this week, but he did not counteract doctors' fears about the juggernaut of a new government plan that many fear would dramatically cut into their earnings and even their ability to keep their office doors open, writes Turner. Nearly 120 million Americans would lose their private health insurance if the public plan were made available and paid doctors at Medicare rates, which are at least 15% less than their costs of providing care. It's absolutely vital to be careful and deliberate with this legislation because it will have consequences for millions of Americans for decades to come, writes Turner. Hasty action to rush these bills through this summer could lead to catastrophic mistakes.
Good Ideas from Private Insurers
Grace-Marie Turner, Galen Institute
The New York Times: Room for Debate, 06/18/09
Much of the unnecessary spending on health care in the United States could be eliminated if doctors, patients, hospitals, and other providers had more and better information about care management, writes Turner. Payment systems need to be restructured in the public sector, as they increasingly are already in the private sector, to engage patients as partners in managing their health care and health spending. And doctors need more and better information about what works in medical care. The government can contribute to development of a knowledge-based health care system by setting up the infrastructure for comparative effectiveness research in a way that would allow the process of learning and innovation to continue so a patient-centered, information-based health care system can evolve.
The Federal Government Should Have Limited, But Crucial, Role In Comp Effectiveness
Grace-Marie Turner, Galen Institute
Kaiser Health News, 06/18/09
Federal officials are expected to offer recommendations this month on one of the first installments of health reform -- a new initiative to compare the value and merits of competing medical treatments. While getting better information is needed to achieve better value, patients, especially those with rare diseases and multiple chronic illnesses, are worried that their unique needs may be disregarded in mega-studies, writes Turner. Doctors fear their clinical expertise will be replaced by formulas. Medical device and pharmaceutical companies are concerned that they may face another layer of government approval that would stifle innovation. Rather than serve as an arbiter that makes final decisions on the value of one treatment over another, the federal government can play a crucial role in aggregating information about the effectiveness of various medicines and treatments and disseminating that information to researchers, clinicians, and patients.
Rebuffing Health Care Rationing
Grace-Marie Turner, Galen Institute
The Athens Banner-Herald, 06/06/09
If public insurance programs like Medicare and Medicaid begin using comparative effectiveness research (CER) to deny patients access to new treatments because of cost, CER would have a disastrous impact on patient health, writes Turner. Restrictions and rationing already are a reality in many countries that have similar agencies. For example, New Zealand's CER agency took nearly five years to approve the use of the anti-cancer drug Herceptin even though the breakthrough drug was shown to increase the survival rate of certain early-stage breast cancer patients by up to 95%. And Britain's CER agency has denied approval for three kidney cancer drugs widely available in other countries, claiming the medicines are too costly. Lawmakers must not repeat the mistakes of other countries by misusing comparative effectiveness research to systematically deny patients access to top-flight treatments and ultimately diminish the incentive for researchers to develop new drugs in the future, concludes Turner.
HEALTH CARE REFORM
Mr. Burd Goes to Washington
Kimberley A. Strassel
The Wall Street Journal, 06/19/09
As most of corporate America sits on the health care sidelines, Safeway CEO Steve Burd has charged into the political debate, writes Strassel. "I'm genuinely concerned someone might try to solve this by nationalizing health care, at the moment we at Safeway have proven that it is the market that reins in costs," said Burd. The Safeway plan has two main parts that work in tandem. The company today fully pays for an array of primary and preventive visits and tests and deposits $1,000 each year into a "health reimbursement account." Safeway is alive with stories of people who no longer visit the emergency room for routine care but instead call around to doctors to ask prices, and swap information with colleagues. The second part of Safeway's plan is its voluntary "Healthy Measures" program. Employees are tested for smoking, weight, blood pressure and cholesterol. Every area they "pass" results in a reduction of their premium of as much as $1,560 for a family, a year. When asked what Mr. Burd hopes to accomplish on this trip to Capitol Hill, he is blunt that one goal is to prevent a "public option" that would only "piggyback on the experience of Medicare." It's a "Trojan Horse" that will steer people to government and ultimately squeeze out innovative programs like his.
When the Government Runs Health Insurance
James C. Capretta, Ethics and Public Policy Center
National Review Online: The Corner, 06/16/09
The Obama plan to cut Medicare's reimbursement rates should be exhibit A in the case against ObamaCare, writes Capretta. This is what governments do when they run health insurance plans. They promise targeted "reforms" to root out waste and inefficiency, but what they actually deliver is indiscriminate, across-the-board price controls that do nothing to change the underlying cost structure of health care. These cuts won't "bend the cost-curve," they will simply further widen the gap between public and private payment rates, thus shifting more of the costs to private premium payers. The idea that the government could hire a bunch of analysts to run the U.S. health care system from Washington with precise and painless efficiency was always a fiction, writes Capretta. The only reliable and lasting way to drive greater efficiency in health care is with cost-conscious consumers in a reformed marketplace. Absent that, the government will always resort to arbitrary cost-cutting to meet budget targets, with no distinction made between high-value and low-value care. And with price cuts come waiting lists and queues. Call it ObamaCare.
'Public Option': Son of Medicaid
Daniel Henninger
The Wall Street Journal, 06/18/09
The reform known as Medicaid is worth our attention now because Mr. Obama is more or less demanding that the nation accept another reform, his "optional" federalized health insurance program, writes Henninger. After 45 years, Medicaid has crushed state budgets. Since the program's inception, Congress has loaded it up every few years with more notions of what to cover, shifting about 43% of the ever-upward cost onto someone else's tab, mainly the states. A study by the National Governors Association said a decade ago that because of "new requirements" imposed by federal law -- meaning Congress -- "Medicaid has evolved into a program whose size, cost and significance are far beyond the original vision of its creators." The list of add-ons is endless, and there's little about it that's thoughtful. Why shouldn't one think that, as with Medicare and Medicaid, the Obama Public Option in time will become an impossible fog for patients to navigate?
Public Opinion on Health Care Issues
Kaiser Family Foundation, 06/09
A solid majority of the American people (61%) continue to believe that health reform is more important than ever given the country's economic problems, according to this Kaiser poll. Although sizeable majorities support key elements of reform currently being debated such as employer mandates and the public plan option, less than half of the public (41%) say they are willing to pay more for health reform, with a similar number supporting changing the tax treatment of employer-based health insurance (40%), one of the major revenue raisers being discussed. Overall opinion remains highly moveable, with support for many elements of reform susceptible to arguments pro and con and often moving by as much as 40 percentage points when arguments are tested.
Reform Measures Should Not Weaken Our Health Care
Donald J. Palmisano, Coalition to Protect Patients' Rights
Chicago Tribune, 06/15/09
The public plan option would seriously weaken the health care system we enjoy today, writes Palmisano, former president of the American Medical Association. We must find ways to expand access to affordable health care to the uninsured. America can solve the current problems with a system that expands insurance coverage through tax credits, consumer choice and market enhancements. However, in the process of expanding care, we cannot create a weaker system for the 80% of Americans who are happy with their coverage. It would be a serious mistake to have a government-controlled micromanaged medical system that would result in diminished quality of care, long waiting lines for doctors' visits and surgical care, a lack of access to emerging technologies and the virtual end to new and hopeful medical discovery, concludes Palmisano.
HEALTH CARE COSTS
U.S. Health Costs Out of Control
Jeffrey A. Miron, Harvard University
CNN.com, 06/15/09
To restrain government health spending, policy must reduce existing subsidies, not introduce new government insurance, writes Miron, a senior lecturer in economics at Harvard University. Inefficiencies in health care are a problem but they persist because existing subsidies mean health care providers face limited incentives to control costs. A new government insurance program for the uninsured just makes things worse. In addition, this program will undoubtedly cost far more than initial estimates, as has occurred with Medicare and Medicaid. One way to reduce health insurance subsidies is to eliminate the tax-exemption for employer-paid health insurance premiums, while simultaneously lowering other taxes to hold revenue constant, writes Miron. This change in the structure of taxation would cause those now covered by employer plans to choose less generous packages and therefore make more efficient choices about health care.
PATIENT-CENTERED HEALTH CARE
Emerging Data on Consumer-Driven Health Plans
American Academy of Actuaries, 05/09
Properly designed consumer-driven health plans can produce significant (even substantial) savings without adversely affecting member health status, according to a study from the American Academy of Actuaries Consumer-Driven Health Plans Work Group. This monograph summarizes the findings of several studies published about consumer-driven health plans. With regard to first year cost savings, all studies showed a favorable effect on cost in the first year of a CDH plan, generating savings as much as 12% to 20%. Generally, all of the studies indicated that cost savings did not result from avoidance of inappropriate care and that necessary care was received in equal or greater degrees relative to traditional plans. All of the studies reviewed reported a significant increase in preventive services for CDH participants. Three of the studies found that CDH plan participants received recommended care for chronic conditions at the same or higher level than traditional (non-CDH) plan participants. Finally, the studies indicated that while the possibility for employer cost-shifting exists with CDH plans (as it does with traditional plans), most employers are not doing so, and might even be reducing employee cost-sharing under certain circumstances.
The range of issues being discussed in Washington these days is beginning to narrow to the three big ticket items of the Obama administration: health care, energy, and education. This week I am providing you with a compilation of articles on the health care debate released by the Galen Institute, http://www.galen.org, in their newsletter Health Policy Matters. The group is run by Grace-Marie Turner, President of the Galen Institute. She has a good handle on the various ideas being promoted and is working to prevent a government take-over of health care. I have copied below much of her recent newsletter. I encourage you to at least read each synopsis. You will find them extremely informative.
Blessings,
Barrett
---------------------------------------------------------
Health Policy Matters newsletter
June 19, 2009
The bombshells started dropping on the health reform front this week:
Soaring costs: The Congressional Budget Office told the Senate health committee its bill would cost $1 trillion over the next 10 years and would only provide health insurance for a net 16 million more people. It said 15 million would lose their coverage at work and eight million would lose coverage from other sources, leaving 36 million uninsured. Since the goal is to have virtually everyone covered with no deficit spending, this was a double whammy, especially since there is even more spending in the bill that the CBO hasn't yet scored.
Delay: The Senate Finance Committee was forced to delay its work on developing its bill when the CBO offered a preliminary cost estimate of $1.6 trillion over 10 years. Somehow in the hall of budget mirrors in the U.S. Congress, the most they are willing to spend of future generations' money is $1 trillion.
No agreement: President Obama traveled to Chicago to speak at the annual meeting of the American Medical Association, hoping to sway them to support his health reform plan. He again faced protest signs outside the hall. Inside, there were boos when he said he wouldn't go along with their proposal to cap malpractice awards.
AMA rebuffs: Worse, when a resolution came to the floor of the AMA which would have endorsed Mr. Obama's idea of a new government health plan, the language he had hoped for was stripped out, and it became a mere restatement of the AMA's long-standing goals supporting "pluralism, freedom of choice, freedom of practice, and universal access for patients."
More cost-shifting: The CBO also says that congressional plans to rein in federal spending through public plans could end up shifting more of the costs to private insurers, employers, and people with private medical coverage. While there are many efficient providers currently practicing, experts don't yet know how to spread that efficiency throughout the system, and policy makers won't be able to do so "through fiat or good intentions," the CBO said.
"I think there's definitely risk that a portion of the reduction in hospital payments from Medicare will wind up as increased payments by private insurers," said Paul B. Ginsburg, president of the Center for Studying Health System Change. Hospitals may have the motive and means to "transfer those charges to somebody else," and "we'll see costs increasing on the private side and not necessarily falling everywhere," said Harold S. Luft, director of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation Research Institute.
Don't take it to the bank: The CBO also says that it can't give credit for most of the $2 trillion in savings that were announced with great fanfare in May. You will recall the brouhaha between the White House and six industry groups over whether they had or had not pledged to reduce health spending by 1.5% a year over 10 years through disease management, information technology, coordinated care, etc.
"What was originally offered up as a down payment on healthcare reform simply can't be accurately estimated by the CBO and will result in far less savings than the originally promised $2 trillion," said Republican senator Mike Enzi of Wyoming, the ranking member of the Senate health committee. "The administration will need to come up with far greater savings proposals -- savings that Congress can take to the bank -- to achieve the massive healthcare bill Democrats are proposing." The Senate Finance committee still offers the best prospects of a bi-partisan bill. It has gone back to the drawing board and is not expected to release its bill until after the July 4 recess -- missing its first deadline of committee action by the end of June. Here is an outline of the bill as of last evening. The goal for final action is now expected to be closer to Christmas. The longer it slips, the more difficult it will be to pass the sweeping reform the White House and congressional liberals envision.
Genuine compromise: The Bipartisan Policy Center did us a favor this week in releasing a health reform plan that shows us what a true compromise bill could look like. Former Senate Majority Leaders Tom Daschle, Howard Baker, and Bob Dole have been working since last year to forge a budget-neutral plan that could gain the support of Democrats and Republicans. They offer innovative ideas and approach problems with a scalpel rather than a sledge hammer. For example, they offer a system of refundable tax credits for health insurance that are income related and tied to the costs of income-appropriate health plans. While a compromise plan is never anyone's first choice, there are certainly things here that we like, including a cap on the tax exclusion, no public plan, and authority to the states to expand coverage options. Mark McClellan, who headed the FDA and CMS before creating the new Engelberg Center for Health Care Reform at the Brookings Institution, helped navigate the policy shoals. If Congress is looking for a true compromise bill, they could find it here.
And about the public plan: I am so tired of politicians saying they are in a government health plan. They are in a plan offered by their employer that contracts with a number of private health plans to offer coverage through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Their employer happens to be the government but their choices are all private plans. The government doesn't run them; it contracts with them. If members of Congers want to see what a real government-run health plan looks like, then they should try Medicaid or Medicare. Actually running a health plan requires sophisticated skills that federal officials do not have. They know how to set prices, write and interpret regulations, and turn on computers to spew out checks. But managing networks of doctors and negotiating contracts for benefits are not skill sets that the government has. If members of Congress don't even know this, then how on earth can we expect them to have the skills to make good decisions about reorganizing the entire health sector?
Quote of the week: "Obviously this is not going to go as fast as we thought," Democrat Barbara Mikulski of Maryland said during a Senate health committee session on Thursday where the committee marked up 17 of the 300 or more amendments that have been submitted so far.
Aircraft design: During the Clinton health reform debate in 1993, the White House decided to create the perfect bill and worry later about how much it would cost and how to pay for it. The strategy backfired as cost estimate blew off the roof. Ira Magaziner and his task force had to go back to the drawing board to revise the plan. It never recovered from the reverse engineering. This reminds me of when I was a Washington correspondent for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram: General Dynamics was a big employer in the city and we covered Pentagon decisions closely. Congress was ready to fund a new fighter airplane, and it was the Air Force's "turn" to have first crack at the design. The Navy was incensed: Aircraft carriers have three or four steel cables stretched across the deck at 20-foot intervals which bring a plane, traveling at 150 miles per hour to a complete stop in about 320 feet. It would pull an ordinary plane apart. The Navy's needs for a high-impact plane clearly should have trumped the Air Force in practical engineering terms. But politics dictated that the Air Force would get the first shot at design. That's the problem that Congress is running into today. Cost considerations have to come first. That's the stress test of health reform. Congress should start by deciding how we can gain maximum efficiency from the system, where the resources are to pay for reform, and what we can afford.
Recent News Articles and Studies
Medicare: A Model Mess
Grace-Marie Turner, Galen Institute
New York Post, 06/16/09
The government's sorry track record with Medicare just doesn't justify giving it authority to create a multitrillion-dollar public plan, writes Turner. Originally, Congress promised that Medicare wouldn't lead to interference in the doctor-patient relationship and assured seniors they could buy medical services privately. That went out the window in 1997, and a litany of other promises has been broken over the years as well. But despite its monopoly on seniors' health care, the Medicare trustees recently announced that the program is at least $37.8 trillion in the red over coming decades -- and will start running out of money in just eight years. Medicare's history shows what's in store under a "public option" for health insurance: Americans will lose their private coverage and come under the government's wing, with soaring costs and ultimately restrictions on access to care, writes Turner.
Obama Heads into the AMA Lion's Den
Grace-Marie Turner, Galen Institute
National Review Online: The Corner, 06/15/09
President Obama tried to build support for his increasingly problematic health reform plan at a speech before the American Medical Association this week, but he did not counteract doctors' fears about the juggernaut of a new government plan that many fear would dramatically cut into their earnings and even their ability to keep their office doors open, writes Turner. Nearly 120 million Americans would lose their private health insurance if the public plan were made available and paid doctors at Medicare rates, which are at least 15% less than their costs of providing care. It's absolutely vital to be careful and deliberate with this legislation because it will have consequences for millions of Americans for decades to come, writes Turner. Hasty action to rush these bills through this summer could lead to catastrophic mistakes.
Good Ideas from Private Insurers
Grace-Marie Turner, Galen Institute
The New York Times: Room for Debate, 06/18/09
Much of the unnecessary spending on health care in the United States could be eliminated if doctors, patients, hospitals, and other providers had more and better information about care management, writes Turner. Payment systems need to be restructured in the public sector, as they increasingly are already in the private sector, to engage patients as partners in managing their health care and health spending. And doctors need more and better information about what works in medical care. The government can contribute to development of a knowledge-based health care system by setting up the infrastructure for comparative effectiveness research in a way that would allow the process of learning and innovation to continue so a patient-centered, information-based health care system can evolve.
The Federal Government Should Have Limited, But Crucial, Role In Comp Effectiveness
Grace-Marie Turner, Galen Institute
Kaiser Health News, 06/18/09
Federal officials are expected to offer recommendations this month on one of the first installments of health reform -- a new initiative to compare the value and merits of competing medical treatments. While getting better information is needed to achieve better value, patients, especially those with rare diseases and multiple chronic illnesses, are worried that their unique needs may be disregarded in mega-studies, writes Turner. Doctors fear their clinical expertise will be replaced by formulas. Medical device and pharmaceutical companies are concerned that they may face another layer of government approval that would stifle innovation. Rather than serve as an arbiter that makes final decisions on the value of one treatment over another, the federal government can play a crucial role in aggregating information about the effectiveness of various medicines and treatments and disseminating that information to researchers, clinicians, and patients.
Rebuffing Health Care Rationing
Grace-Marie Turner, Galen Institute
The Athens Banner-Herald, 06/06/09
If public insurance programs like Medicare and Medicaid begin using comparative effectiveness research (CER) to deny patients access to new treatments because of cost, CER would have a disastrous impact on patient health, writes Turner. Restrictions and rationing already are a reality in many countries that have similar agencies. For example, New Zealand's CER agency took nearly five years to approve the use of the anti-cancer drug Herceptin even though the breakthrough drug was shown to increase the survival rate of certain early-stage breast cancer patients by up to 95%. And Britain's CER agency has denied approval for three kidney cancer drugs widely available in other countries, claiming the medicines are too costly. Lawmakers must not repeat the mistakes of other countries by misusing comparative effectiveness research to systematically deny patients access to top-flight treatments and ultimately diminish the incentive for researchers to develop new drugs in the future, concludes Turner.
HEALTH CARE REFORM
Mr. Burd Goes to Washington
Kimberley A. Strassel
The Wall Street Journal, 06/19/09
As most of corporate America sits on the health care sidelines, Safeway CEO Steve Burd has charged into the political debate, writes Strassel. "I'm genuinely concerned someone might try to solve this by nationalizing health care, at the moment we at Safeway have proven that it is the market that reins in costs," said Burd. The Safeway plan has two main parts that work in tandem. The company today fully pays for an array of primary and preventive visits and tests and deposits $1,000 each year into a "health reimbursement account." Safeway is alive with stories of people who no longer visit the emergency room for routine care but instead call around to doctors to ask prices, and swap information with colleagues. The second part of Safeway's plan is its voluntary "Healthy Measures" program. Employees are tested for smoking, weight, blood pressure and cholesterol. Every area they "pass" results in a reduction of their premium of as much as $1,560 for a family, a year. When asked what Mr. Burd hopes to accomplish on this trip to Capitol Hill, he is blunt that one goal is to prevent a "public option" that would only "piggyback on the experience of Medicare." It's a "Trojan Horse" that will steer people to government and ultimately squeeze out innovative programs like his.
When the Government Runs Health Insurance
James C. Capretta, Ethics and Public Policy Center
National Review Online: The Corner, 06/16/09
The Obama plan to cut Medicare's reimbursement rates should be exhibit A in the case against ObamaCare, writes Capretta. This is what governments do when they run health insurance plans. They promise targeted "reforms" to root out waste and inefficiency, but what they actually deliver is indiscriminate, across-the-board price controls that do nothing to change the underlying cost structure of health care. These cuts won't "bend the cost-curve," they will simply further widen the gap between public and private payment rates, thus shifting more of the costs to private premium payers. The idea that the government could hire a bunch of analysts to run the U.S. health care system from Washington with precise and painless efficiency was always a fiction, writes Capretta. The only reliable and lasting way to drive greater efficiency in health care is with cost-conscious consumers in a reformed marketplace. Absent that, the government will always resort to arbitrary cost-cutting to meet budget targets, with no distinction made between high-value and low-value care. And with price cuts come waiting lists and queues. Call it ObamaCare.
'Public Option': Son of Medicaid
Daniel Henninger
The Wall Street Journal, 06/18/09
The reform known as Medicaid is worth our attention now because Mr. Obama is more or less demanding that the nation accept another reform, his "optional" federalized health insurance program, writes Henninger. After 45 years, Medicaid has crushed state budgets. Since the program's inception, Congress has loaded it up every few years with more notions of what to cover, shifting about 43% of the ever-upward cost onto someone else's tab, mainly the states. A study by the National Governors Association said a decade ago that because of "new requirements" imposed by federal law -- meaning Congress -- "Medicaid has evolved into a program whose size, cost and significance are far beyond the original vision of its creators." The list of add-ons is endless, and there's little about it that's thoughtful. Why shouldn't one think that, as with Medicare and Medicaid, the Obama Public Option in time will become an impossible fog for patients to navigate?
Public Opinion on Health Care Issues
Kaiser Family Foundation, 06/09
A solid majority of the American people (61%) continue to believe that health reform is more important than ever given the country's economic problems, according to this Kaiser poll. Although sizeable majorities support key elements of reform currently being debated such as employer mandates and the public plan option, less than half of the public (41%) say they are willing to pay more for health reform, with a similar number supporting changing the tax treatment of employer-based health insurance (40%), one of the major revenue raisers being discussed. Overall opinion remains highly moveable, with support for many elements of reform susceptible to arguments pro and con and often moving by as much as 40 percentage points when arguments are tested.
Reform Measures Should Not Weaken Our Health Care
Donald J. Palmisano, Coalition to Protect Patients' Rights
Chicago Tribune, 06/15/09
The public plan option would seriously weaken the health care system we enjoy today, writes Palmisano, former president of the American Medical Association. We must find ways to expand access to affordable health care to the uninsured. America can solve the current problems with a system that expands insurance coverage through tax credits, consumer choice and market enhancements. However, in the process of expanding care, we cannot create a weaker system for the 80% of Americans who are happy with their coverage. It would be a serious mistake to have a government-controlled micromanaged medical system that would result in diminished quality of care, long waiting lines for doctors' visits and surgical care, a lack of access to emerging technologies and the virtual end to new and hopeful medical discovery, concludes Palmisano.
HEALTH CARE COSTS
U.S. Health Costs Out of Control
Jeffrey A. Miron, Harvard University
CNN.com, 06/15/09
To restrain government health spending, policy must reduce existing subsidies, not introduce new government insurance, writes Miron, a senior lecturer in economics at Harvard University. Inefficiencies in health care are a problem but they persist because existing subsidies mean health care providers face limited incentives to control costs. A new government insurance program for the uninsured just makes things worse. In addition, this program will undoubtedly cost far more than initial estimates, as has occurred with Medicare and Medicaid. One way to reduce health insurance subsidies is to eliminate the tax-exemption for employer-paid health insurance premiums, while simultaneously lowering other taxes to hold revenue constant, writes Miron. This change in the structure of taxation would cause those now covered by employer plans to choose less generous packages and therefore make more efficient choices about health care.
PATIENT-CENTERED HEALTH CARE
Emerging Data on Consumer-Driven Health Plans
American Academy of Actuaries, 05/09
Properly designed consumer-driven health plans can produce significant (even substantial) savings without adversely affecting member health status, according to a study from the American Academy of Actuaries Consumer-Driven Health Plans Work Group. This monograph summarizes the findings of several studies published about consumer-driven health plans. With regard to first year cost savings, all studies showed a favorable effect on cost in the first year of a CDH plan, generating savings as much as 12% to 20%. Generally, all of the studies indicated that cost savings did not result from avoidance of inappropriate care and that necessary care was received in equal or greater degrees relative to traditional plans. All of the studies reviewed reported a significant increase in preventive services for CDH participants. Three of the studies found that CDH plan participants received recommended care for chronic conditions at the same or higher level than traditional (non-CDH) plan participants. Finally, the studies indicated that while the possibility for employer cost-shifting exists with CDH plans (as it does with traditional plans), most employers are not doing so, and might even be reducing employee cost-sharing under certain circumstances.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Items of Interest
Dear Friends:
There was plenty to keep up with this week. Here are some items you don't want to miss.
The Debt Threat
This article in Fortune, http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/05/retirement/next_crisis_americas_debt.fortune/index.htm, is the best article I've seen--on my layman's level of understanding--on the coming debt spiral that will very likely change the way we live indefinitely. Here's what the author says, "After 2019 the debt rises with no ceiling in sight, according to all major forecasts, driven by the growth of interest and entitlements. The Government Accountability Office estimates that if current policies continue, interest will absorb 30% of all revenues by 2040 and entitlements will consume the rest, leaving nothing for defense, education, or veterans' benefits." He argues that a VAT is probably the inevitable solution, which will take between 10 and 15% more of everyone's money to keep the government solvent. We shouldn't be surprised that this is the solution liberal economists are coming up with. It's how the nanny states of Europe are maintaining their massive entitlement obligations, and many in government and elsewhere seem determined to lead us into a European style of socialism. Back in March, I called for a repeal of the Stimulus Bill. I was gratified to hear Congressman Todd Tiahrt announce this week that he had introduced the "Repeal the Stimulus Act of 2009" to do just that. We must get our nation's spending under control, and we need to do it soon.
The Real Cost of Government-run Health Care
Further pressure on our coming debt spiral can be found in the liberals' determination to create a government-run health care plan. I agree that we need to find a way to make it possible for everyone in the country to obtain health-care insurance if they want it, but asking the government to create a plan for this is like asking a child to guard a candy store. The government does not know the meaning of restraint when it comes to spending other people's money to pay for their projects. Here's the latest projection of the cost of their plan, "Asked whether the cost of a health-care overhaul would be more than $1 trillion over a decade, Rangel said, “the answer is yes.” Some Senate Republicans, including Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, say the costs will likely exceed $1.5 trillion," http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_en&sid=aqLNecbH0dcg.
Mona Charen has an excellent piece, http://townhall.com/columnists/MonaCharen/2009/06/09/health_care_bill_is_the_ball_game, about the problem with run-away health care costs. It is possible that the plan that will come out of Congress will look a lot like the one Mitt Romney gave Massachusetts. Many people are speaking positively about it, but what they aren't acknowledging is this fact that Mona mentions, "Like every other government health care program, Romney's has vastly exceeded cost projections. Initially projected at $125 million per year, the program actually cost taxpayers $133 million in 2007, $647 million in 2008, $869 million in 2009, and could top $1.1 billion next year." Massachusetts cannot afford their government-run health care plan, but it is being promoted as a model for a national version.
A Real Energy Solution
The drive toward energy independence makes sense. There are plenty of reasons to develop a more responsible national energy policy than the global warming hysteria that has gripped liberals and some conservatives in Congress. Our nation should not be dependent on other nations, many of which do not share our values, in order to assure that we have the energy we need to keep our economy alive and our homes heated. We certainly shouldn't be sending billions of dollars to regimes that deplore our own values and too-often support those determined to destroy us. House Republicans unveiled a superb plan this week to achieve the goal of energy independence. It even includes incentives for alternative energy development. Here is what their plan proposes:
• Increase production of American-made energy in an environmentally-sound manner.
• Promote new, clean and renewable sources of energy such as nuclear, clean-coal-technology, wind and solar energy.
• Encourage greater efficiency and conservation by extending tax incentives for energy efficiency and rewarding development of greater conservation techniques and new energy sources.
• Cut red-tape and reduce frivolous litigation.
We don't need global warming alarmism to move to a more realistic solution to our nation's energy needs. We must move to energy independence because it's in the best interest of our national security and is one of the most effective ways of reducing funds for terrorists around the world. The Republican plan deserves serious consideration. You can read a two-page summary here, http://docs.google.com/a/erlc.com/gview?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.1&thid=121caacca5ed5ac1&mt=application%2Fpdf. The entire bill is available here, http://docs.google.com/a/erlc.com/gview?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.3&thid=121caacca5ed5ac1&mt=application%2Fpdf.
Common Sense Pushes Back
We are not the only people worried about the direction of our nation. Europeans and others are becoming more concerned about developments in their own countries as well. This article by Bruce Walker, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/09/the_collapsing_global_left_96906.html, describes the growing unrest in many nations and the political shift to the right they are now experiencing. No doubt much of the voter anger in Europe revolves around their growing immigration problems, but the shift to the right will bring in more conservative thinking about other issues as well.
New Compilation of Data Regarding Homosexuality
The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) has produced an analysis of literature to answer three key APA claims about homosexuality. It is entitled "What Research Shows: NARTH's Response to the APA Claims on Homosexuality." Here is what they say a review of the literature reveals:
"In What Research Shows, over a century of experiential evidence, clinical reports, and research evidence demonstrate that it is possible for both men and women to change from homosexuality to heterosexuality; that efforts to change are not generally harmful; and that homosexual men and women do indeed have greater risk factors for medical, psychological and relational pathology than do the general population. Based on our review of 125 years of reports by clinicians, researchers, and former clients, we conclude that reorientation treatment has been shown to be beneficial—and not harmful—and therefore should continue to be available to those who seek it."
We know these things are true. This volume supplies the evidence from research conducted by experts in the field to back it up. The volume is easy to read and filled with references to peer-reviewed literature. I highly recommend that you get a copy. You can order it for $15 from NARTH's web site, Go here, http://www.narth.com/menus/journal.html, for more information and to order it.
Blessings,
Barrett
There was plenty to keep up with this week. Here are some items you don't want to miss.
The Debt Threat
This article in Fortune, http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/05/retirement/next_crisis_americas_debt.fortune/index.htm, is the best article I've seen--on my layman's level of understanding--on the coming debt spiral that will very likely change the way we live indefinitely. Here's what the author says, "After 2019 the debt rises with no ceiling in sight, according to all major forecasts, driven by the growth of interest and entitlements. The Government Accountability Office estimates that if current policies continue, interest will absorb 30% of all revenues by 2040 and entitlements will consume the rest, leaving nothing for defense, education, or veterans' benefits." He argues that a VAT is probably the inevitable solution, which will take between 10 and 15% more of everyone's money to keep the government solvent. We shouldn't be surprised that this is the solution liberal economists are coming up with. It's how the nanny states of Europe are maintaining their massive entitlement obligations, and many in government and elsewhere seem determined to lead us into a European style of socialism. Back in March, I called for a repeal of the Stimulus Bill. I was gratified to hear Congressman Todd Tiahrt announce this week that he had introduced the "Repeal the Stimulus Act of 2009" to do just that. We must get our nation's spending under control, and we need to do it soon.
The Real Cost of Government-run Health Care
Further pressure on our coming debt spiral can be found in the liberals' determination to create a government-run health care plan. I agree that we need to find a way to make it possible for everyone in the country to obtain health-care insurance if they want it, but asking the government to create a plan for this is like asking a child to guard a candy store. The government does not know the meaning of restraint when it comes to spending other people's money to pay for their projects. Here's the latest projection of the cost of their plan, "Asked whether the cost of a health-care overhaul would be more than $1 trillion over a decade, Rangel said, “the answer is yes.” Some Senate Republicans, including Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah, say the costs will likely exceed $1.5 trillion," http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=email_en&sid=aqLNecbH0dcg.
Mona Charen has an excellent piece, http://townhall.com/columnists/MonaCharen/2009/06/09/health_care_bill_is_the_ball_game, about the problem with run-away health care costs. It is possible that the plan that will come out of Congress will look a lot like the one Mitt Romney gave Massachusetts. Many people are speaking positively about it, but what they aren't acknowledging is this fact that Mona mentions, "Like every other government health care program, Romney's has vastly exceeded cost projections. Initially projected at $125 million per year, the program actually cost taxpayers $133 million in 2007, $647 million in 2008, $869 million in 2009, and could top $1.1 billion next year." Massachusetts cannot afford their government-run health care plan, but it is being promoted as a model for a national version.
A Real Energy Solution
The drive toward energy independence makes sense. There are plenty of reasons to develop a more responsible national energy policy than the global warming hysteria that has gripped liberals and some conservatives in Congress. Our nation should not be dependent on other nations, many of which do not share our values, in order to assure that we have the energy we need to keep our economy alive and our homes heated. We certainly shouldn't be sending billions of dollars to regimes that deplore our own values and too-often support those determined to destroy us. House Republicans unveiled a superb plan this week to achieve the goal of energy independence. It even includes incentives for alternative energy development. Here is what their plan proposes:
• Increase production of American-made energy in an environmentally-sound manner.
• Promote new, clean and renewable sources of energy such as nuclear, clean-coal-technology, wind and solar energy.
• Encourage greater efficiency and conservation by extending tax incentives for energy efficiency and rewarding development of greater conservation techniques and new energy sources.
• Cut red-tape and reduce frivolous litigation.
We don't need global warming alarmism to move to a more realistic solution to our nation's energy needs. We must move to energy independence because it's in the best interest of our national security and is one of the most effective ways of reducing funds for terrorists around the world. The Republican plan deserves serious consideration. You can read a two-page summary here, http://docs.google.com/a/erlc.com/gview?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.1&thid=121caacca5ed5ac1&mt=application%2Fpdf. The entire bill is available here, http://docs.google.com/a/erlc.com/gview?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.3&thid=121caacca5ed5ac1&mt=application%2Fpdf.
Common Sense Pushes Back
We are not the only people worried about the direction of our nation. Europeans and others are becoming more concerned about developments in their own countries as well. This article by Bruce Walker, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/09/the_collapsing_global_left_96906.html, describes the growing unrest in many nations and the political shift to the right they are now experiencing. No doubt much of the voter anger in Europe revolves around their growing immigration problems, but the shift to the right will bring in more conservative thinking about other issues as well.
New Compilation of Data Regarding Homosexuality
The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) has produced an analysis of literature to answer three key APA claims about homosexuality. It is entitled "What Research Shows: NARTH's Response to the APA Claims on Homosexuality." Here is what they say a review of the literature reveals:
"In What Research Shows, over a century of experiential evidence, clinical reports, and research evidence demonstrate that it is possible for both men and women to change from homosexuality to heterosexuality; that efforts to change are not generally harmful; and that homosexual men and women do indeed have greater risk factors for medical, psychological and relational pathology than do the general population. Based on our review of 125 years of reports by clinicians, researchers, and former clients, we conclude that reorientation treatment has been shown to be beneficial—and not harmful—and therefore should continue to be available to those who seek it."
We know these things are true. This volume supplies the evidence from research conducted by experts in the field to back it up. The volume is easy to read and filled with references to peer-reviewed literature. I highly recommend that you get a copy. You can order it for $15 from NARTH's web site, Go here, http://www.narth.com/menus/journal.html, for more information and to order it.
Blessings,
Barrett
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Items of Interest
Dear Friends:
Here are a few issues I wrestled with last week that I thought might be of interest to you. I hope you find them helpful.
Blessings,
Barrett
------------------------------------------------------------
DEMONIZING THE PROLIFE COMMUNITY
This article by Michelle Malkin, http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/03/mapping-the-climate-of-hate/, discusses the differences in the reporting of the murder of George TIller and the murder and shooting of two soldiers in Arkansas. What first drew my attention to the nature of the reporting on Tiller was a story that described his murder as an "assassination." It seemed strange to me that someone would call it that. The other day, I mentioned this to a strong prolife advocate I work with in DC and he brought it all into focus. He said the word suggests that Tiller's murderer was "under orders." In other words, by calling it an "assassination" Tiller's killer is labeled as part of a larger movement. He simply becomes the agent of the movement rather than a lone actor. The murder of George Tiller was an abominable act, a complete violation of the very principle of the sanctity of human life, but to call it an assassination is not only irresponsible, it will certainly inflame hatred and could potentially lead to acts of violence against innocent prolife advocates. Now, compare the response to Tiller's murder with the response to the murder of Private William Long. The press and the White House both downplayed, nearly to the point of ignoring, his murder by a muslim convert. One could argue that the liberal press and the liberal White House believe that the army's "chickens are coming home to roost." President Obama himself declared the Iraq war a war of "choice." Most liberals seem to think of the military as an unwanted necessity, at best. So the silence of some of them could be explained from that perspective. Possibly, other members of the press, and hopefully the White House, limited their response to the murder of an army private by a muslim convert because they didn't want to give muslim extremists any press. That would be helpful, and would certainly be something new for many of them, considering how they seemed to revel in reporting the activities of muslim extremists in Iraq during all the Bush years. But, if they have changed their attitude about reporting these kinds of atrocities in order to deny muslim extremists the publicity they seek, I consider that to be helpful. The publicity will only encourage our enemies and potentially lead to more acts of violence. But then the question arises, Why did the press and the White House respond so differently to these two heinous acts? The only conclusion I can come to is that they relished the opportunity to demonize the prolife community and cared little about the potential hatred toward prolife advocates they might inflame.
LOSING FRIENDS AND ENCOURAGING ENEMIES
Much has been said about President Obama's speech in Cairo. I appreciate some of what he said. It was not a one-sided bashing. He had some very strong words for some of the world's worst actors, but I also agree that he deserves a lot of the criticism he has gotten. His numerous attempts of moral equivalence were certainly in error. Now, I understand what the President was trying to do. He was trying to bring the worst of the world's thugs to the table. You can't get someone to see things your way if you're busy poking him in the eye. Unfortunately, it appears that the President believes that his comparisons are morally equivalent, and that is where much of the danger lies. Obama thinks he needs to admit that the grievances our enemies have against the US are valid and that he needs to apologize on our behalf. Unfortunately, while he is empathizing with our sworn enemies, he is alienating our sworn allies. The condescension and preachiness came across clearly. From his high moral position, the President wants to serve as the conscience of the world, pointing out for all of us the error of our ways and telling us what we need to do to fix them. In doing so, he is alienating our allies and may very well be emboldening our enemies. Consider the growing distance between Obama and Israel and Germany's Angela Merkel and France's Nicolas Sarkozy as evidence of the alienation of our allies on the one hand, and the increasing militarism of North Korea as evidence on the other hand. Amir Taheri has written a thought-provoking piece on this. He concludes, "In trying to prove that he is not George Bush, Barack Obama has committed big mistakes on key issues of foreign policy. His Cairo address, and his “one-size-fits-all” Islam policy, is just the latest. It encourages Islamists and ruling despots, discourages the forces of reform and change and, ultimately, could produce greater resentment of the United States among peoples thirsting for freedom, human rights and decent governance." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6410051.ece. You can add to this the President's decision to fund abortion overseas once again with the cancellation of the Mexico City Policy. Prolife countries are now complaining that the United States is actively engaged in efforts to undermine their prolife policies.
THE GROWING BODY OF COMPLAINTS
This Heritage blog, http://blog.heritage.org/2009/04/30/fact-checking-obama/, provides some useful insight to a number of President Obama’s claims. What is especially useful is a comment posted in the blog by M.L. in Pennsylvania. It provides a great reminder of what we have already witnessed during these 100+ days of the Obama administration. I wish I had seen this last month, but it is so compelling, I thought it worth bringing to your attention. I copied it below.
M.L., PA writes:
This is TORTURE.
The first 100 days that MSNBC does not focus on:
Undermining Our Values
1. Calling for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act on the White House website.
2. Calling on the White House website for the expansion of federal hate crimes to include homosexual behavior.
3. Calling on the White House website for policies like the “Fairness Doctrine” that could silence conservative and Christian talk radio.
4. Repealing limitations on taxpayer-funding of human embryonic stem cell research.
5. Repealing limitations on taxpayer-funding of abortions overseas.
6. Pledging $50 million to the United Nation’s Population Fund, which supports China’s draconian one-child policy.
7. Proposing new rules to gut conscience clause protections for pro-life doctors and other medical personnel who don’t want to be forced to perform abortions or other procedures that violate their values.
8. Proposing increased funding for the nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood.
9. Calling on the White House website for “mandatory volunteerism”).
10. Inviting homosexual families to the White House Easter Egg Roll.
11. Allowing his attorney general to call for the reinstatement of Clinton-era restrictions on the Second Amendment.
12. Breaking his promise not to appoint lobbyists to his administration. He hired 17 in his first two weeks.
13. Breaking his promise to sign legislation only after a five-day period of public comments. (Stimulus package bill had NONE; legislators were only given a few hours to read over 1,000 pages)
14. Asking that the monogram for Jesus Christ be covered up during a televised speech at a Catholic university in which Obama quotes the Sermon on the Mount.
Undermining Our National Security
15. Apologizing for America in Europe and Latin America.
16. Bowing before the Muslim king of Saudi Arabia.
17. Pledging to base America’s foreign policy toward Iran on “mutual respect” in a video to the Iranian people and Iran’s Holocaust-denying dictator.
18. Returning the bust of Winston Churchill given to George Bush after 9/11 by our British allies.
19. Giving British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, the leader of America’s most loyal ally, a box of DVDs that don’t work in British DVD players.
20. Ordering Guantanamo Bay closed without any idea of where to send the terrorist suspects held there.
21. Suggesting that some of those terrorists now at GITMO may kill again, but may also be released onto U.S. soil and set up with welfare benefits.
22. Caving to communist Cuba by relaxing travel restrictions and remittances for Cuban Americans before any Cuban political prisoners have been released.
23. Shaking hands with Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez.
24. Sitting silently though a 50-minute anti-American diatribe by Nicaragua’s communist president, Daniel Ortega.
25. Releasing Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the suspected of masterminding the 2000 suicide bombing of the U.S.S. Cole.
26. Releasing classified CIA memos outlining our interrogation techniques.
27. Telling our CIA agents not to be discouraged when he acknowledges their “mistakes.”
28. Declaring a new openness to “truth commissions” and prosecuting intelligence officials involved in enhanced interrogations of terrorists.
29. Proposing to send a $900 million foreign aid package to Palestinians in Gaza.
30. Asking Congress to relax the law so that some of that money could go to the terrorist organization Hamas.
31. Calling for the U.S. to eliminate its nuclear weapons.
32. Telling Russian President Demitri Medvedev that America’s commitment to missile defense is negotiable.
33. Dropping the term “enemy combatants” for GITMO detainees.
34. Dropping the term “terrorism” for “man-made disaster.”
35. Dropping the term “Global War on Terror” for “overseas contingency operations.”
36. Giving his first interview as president to the Arab language network Al-Arabiya.
37. Telling the Muslim world that his “job” was to communicate “that the Americans are not your enemy,” when it’s Muslim extremists who have declared war on us.
38. Proposing that military veterans use private insurance for the cost of a service-related injury before they would be eligible for coverage through the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
Undermining Free Enterprise
39. Signing the trillion-dollar plus so-called “stimulus” bill, which the Congressional Budget Office said would actually hurt long-term economic growth.
40. Saying Caterpillar wouldn’t lay off workers if his trillion-dollar stimulus bill passed Congress. Obama signed the bill on Feb. 17th. On March 17th, Caterpillar laid off nearly 2,500 workers.
41. Hosting a “Fiscal Responsibility Summit” one week after signing the trillion-dollar “stimulus” bill.
42. Railing against “outrageous recklessness and greed” of AIG bonuses that were legally protected in the so-called “stimulus” bill he signed four days after it passed, not five as he promised.
43. Breaking his promise on earmark reform by signing the $410 billion “omnibus” spending bill with billions in earmarks.
44. Proposing a $3.6 trillion budget that doubles the national debt in five years and triples it in ten years.
45. Proposing a “carbon cap and trade” scheme that will raise energy taxes by hundreds of billions, even trillions, of dollars.
46. Burning more than 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to fly to Iowa for Earth Day to promote “wind power.”
47. Proposing $634 billion in higher taxes for socialized health care.
48. Proposing to raise taxes on small business owners.
49. Saying the White House is open to the idea of taxing employer-sponsored health care benefits as income.
50. Signing a massive expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, calling it “a down payment on my commitment to cover every single American.”
51. Establishing the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research to give bureaucrats the power to ration health care and tell your doctors what care you can and cannot have.
52. Signing the 2009 Omnibus Public Land Management Act, which the Sierra Club praised specifically because it “will safeguard millions of acres … from oil and gas leasing.”
53. Suggesting he has found $1.5 trillion in bogus “savings” by not spending money in Iraq that we were not planning to spend years from now.
54. Ordering his Cabinet to “cut” $100 million in spending in 90 days, after proposing nearly $5 trillion in spending in his first 90 days.
55. Proposing to limit tax deductions for home mortgage interest.
56. Proposing to limit tax deductions for charitable donations.
57. Refusing to allow banks to repay TARP money.
58. Bailing out AMTRAK with a 10% increase in its taxpayer subsidies.
59. Bailing out the United Auto Workers Union with billions of taxpayer dollars to GM and Chrysler.
60. Bailing out the United Auto Workers by giving it a majority ownership stake in Chrysler. Yes, the union will own the company.
61. Bailing out Big Labor by issuing an executive order mandating that infrastructure projects paid for with “stimulus” funds must use union labor, guaranteeing higher costs for the taxpayer.
62. Bailing out Big Labor again by repealing regulations requiring the disclosure of how union dues are spent. So much for “transparency.”
63. Saying, “The United States government has no interest in running GM,” then vowing that the government will back auto warranties.
64. Saying, “The United States government has no interest in running GM,” then firing the CEO of General Motors.
65. Allowing states to set their own fuel efficiency and emissions standards, making it harder for struggling auto makers to compete.
Personnel Is Policy
66. Nominating Timothy “The Turbo Tax Evader” Geithner as Treasury Secretary to oversee the IRS.
67. Nominating as attorney general Eric Holder, who urged Bill Clinton to pardon tax evader Marc Rich and 8 FALN terrorists.
68. Nominating David Ogden, a prominent attorney for the pornography industry, to be Deputy Attorney General.
69. Nominating Tom Daschle, who owed more than $140,000 in back taxes, as Health and Human Services Secretary.
70. Nominating Kathleen Sebelius, who is ardently pro-abortion and owed $8,000 in back taxes, to be HHS Secretary.
71. Nominating Janet Napolitano, who said, “crossing the border is not a crime per se,” as Homeland Security Secretary.
72. Nominating Steven Chu as Energy Secretary. Last September, Chu said, “Somehow, we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” which at that time were roughly $8.00 a gallon.
73. Nominating Ron Kirk, who owed more than $6,000 in back taxes, as Trade Representative.
74. Nominating Bill Richardson, who was embroiled in an ethics scandal, as Secretary of Commerce.
75. Nominating Nancy Killefer, who also owed back taxes, to be the government’s “Efficiency Czar.”
76. Nominating Rosa Brooks, a leftwing acolyte of George Soros, as an advisor to the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy.
77. Nominating Harold Koh, an ardent supporter of using international law in the interpretation of our Constitution, to be the top legal advisor to the State Department.
78. Nominating Carol Browner, who was a member of the Socialist International, to be “Climate and Energy Czar.”
79. Nominating John Holdren, an environmental extremist and advocate of population control, as the White House Science Advisor.
80. Nominating Dawn Johnsen, who is so pro-abortion she once compared pregnancy to slavery, to to direct the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department.
81. Nominating Charles Freeman, an anti-Israel, pro-Arab apologist, to be head of the National Intelligence Council.
82. Nominating Tony West, who represented American Taliban John Walker Lindh and exposed the Bush Administration’s terrorist surveillance program, to the Justice Department’s Civil Division.
83. Nominating Annette Nazareth to be Deputy Treasury Secretary, who withdrew after a month-long probe into her taxes.
84. Trying to nominate pro-abortion Catholics to be ambassador to the Vatican, a move even John Kerry opposed.
85. Appointing Ellen Moran of the pro-abortion group Emily’s List as his White House communications director.
86. Appointing Melody Barnes, a board member of Emily’s List and Planned Parenthood, as his director of the Domestic Policy Council.
87. Appointing Harry Knox of the Human Rights Campaign (the largest homosexual rights lobbying group) to the White House’s Faith Based Advisory Council.
88. Appointing Adolfo Carrion as Director of White House Office of Urban Affairs, even though he is under investigation for kickbacks in a scandal nearly identical to one that cost GOP Senator Ted Stevens his election.
89. Nominating David Hamilton as his first appointment to a federal appeals court. Judge Hamilton has issued a number of controversial rulings, including prohibiting the Indiana House of Representatives from opening sessions with prayers in the name of Jesus.
Other Obama Outrages
90. Telling congressional Republicans to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh.
91. Coordinating attacks on Rush Limbaugh, Rick Santelli and Jim Cramer out of the White House.
92. Hosting weekly parties at the White House, serving up $100-a-pound Waygu beef during what Obama called, “the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.”
93. Laughing it up on 60 Minutes as the country is mired in a recession.
94. Allowing Air Force One to buzz the Statue of Liberty and lower Manhattan, creating panic in New York City.
95. Disparaging Special Olympians on the Tonight Show.
96. Allowing his Department of Homeland Security to issue a report accusing pro-life, smaller government conservatives and returning Iraq/Afghanistan veterans of being “rightwing extremists.”
97. Promising to push for comprehensive immigration reform, i.e., amnesty.
98. Killing the school voucher program in the District of Columbia, while sending his two daughters to an elite private school, rather than D.C.’s public schools.
99. Moving the Census out of the Department of Commerce and into the White House.
100. Relying too much on his teleprompter.
Here are a few issues I wrestled with last week that I thought might be of interest to you. I hope you find them helpful.
Blessings,
Barrett
------------------------------------------------------------
DEMONIZING THE PROLIFE COMMUNITY
This article by Michelle Malkin, http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/03/mapping-the-climate-of-hate/, discusses the differences in the reporting of the murder of George TIller and the murder and shooting of two soldiers in Arkansas. What first drew my attention to the nature of the reporting on Tiller was a story that described his murder as an "assassination." It seemed strange to me that someone would call it that. The other day, I mentioned this to a strong prolife advocate I work with in DC and he brought it all into focus. He said the word suggests that Tiller's murderer was "under orders." In other words, by calling it an "assassination" Tiller's killer is labeled as part of a larger movement. He simply becomes the agent of the movement rather than a lone actor. The murder of George Tiller was an abominable act, a complete violation of the very principle of the sanctity of human life, but to call it an assassination is not only irresponsible, it will certainly inflame hatred and could potentially lead to acts of violence against innocent prolife advocates. Now, compare the response to Tiller's murder with the response to the murder of Private William Long. The press and the White House both downplayed, nearly to the point of ignoring, his murder by a muslim convert. One could argue that the liberal press and the liberal White House believe that the army's "chickens are coming home to roost." President Obama himself declared the Iraq war a war of "choice." Most liberals seem to think of the military as an unwanted necessity, at best. So the silence of some of them could be explained from that perspective. Possibly, other members of the press, and hopefully the White House, limited their response to the murder of an army private by a muslim convert because they didn't want to give muslim extremists any press. That would be helpful, and would certainly be something new for many of them, considering how they seemed to revel in reporting the activities of muslim extremists in Iraq during all the Bush years. But, if they have changed their attitude about reporting these kinds of atrocities in order to deny muslim extremists the publicity they seek, I consider that to be helpful. The publicity will only encourage our enemies and potentially lead to more acts of violence. But then the question arises, Why did the press and the White House respond so differently to these two heinous acts? The only conclusion I can come to is that they relished the opportunity to demonize the prolife community and cared little about the potential hatred toward prolife advocates they might inflame.
LOSING FRIENDS AND ENCOURAGING ENEMIES
Much has been said about President Obama's speech in Cairo. I appreciate some of what he said. It was not a one-sided bashing. He had some very strong words for some of the world's worst actors, but I also agree that he deserves a lot of the criticism he has gotten. His numerous attempts of moral equivalence were certainly in error. Now, I understand what the President was trying to do. He was trying to bring the worst of the world's thugs to the table. You can't get someone to see things your way if you're busy poking him in the eye. Unfortunately, it appears that the President believes that his comparisons are morally equivalent, and that is where much of the danger lies. Obama thinks he needs to admit that the grievances our enemies have against the US are valid and that he needs to apologize on our behalf. Unfortunately, while he is empathizing with our sworn enemies, he is alienating our sworn allies. The condescension and preachiness came across clearly. From his high moral position, the President wants to serve as the conscience of the world, pointing out for all of us the error of our ways and telling us what we need to do to fix them. In doing so, he is alienating our allies and may very well be emboldening our enemies. Consider the growing distance between Obama and Israel and Germany's Angela Merkel and France's Nicolas Sarkozy as evidence of the alienation of our allies on the one hand, and the increasing militarism of North Korea as evidence on the other hand. Amir Taheri has written a thought-provoking piece on this. He concludes, "In trying to prove that he is not George Bush, Barack Obama has committed big mistakes on key issues of foreign policy. His Cairo address, and his “one-size-fits-all” Islam policy, is just the latest. It encourages Islamists and ruling despots, discourages the forces of reform and change and, ultimately, could produce greater resentment of the United States among peoples thirsting for freedom, human rights and decent governance." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6410051.ece. You can add to this the President's decision to fund abortion overseas once again with the cancellation of the Mexico City Policy. Prolife countries are now complaining that the United States is actively engaged in efforts to undermine their prolife policies.
THE GROWING BODY OF COMPLAINTS
This Heritage blog, http://blog.heritage.org/2009/04/30/fact-checking-obama/, provides some useful insight to a number of President Obama’s claims. What is especially useful is a comment posted in the blog by M.L. in Pennsylvania. It provides a great reminder of what we have already witnessed during these 100+ days of the Obama administration. I wish I had seen this last month, but it is so compelling, I thought it worth bringing to your attention. I copied it below.
M.L., PA writes:
This is TORTURE.
The first 100 days that MSNBC does not focus on:
Undermining Our Values
1. Calling for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act on the White House website.
2. Calling on the White House website for the expansion of federal hate crimes to include homosexual behavior.
3. Calling on the White House website for policies like the “Fairness Doctrine” that could silence conservative and Christian talk radio.
4. Repealing limitations on taxpayer-funding of human embryonic stem cell research.
5. Repealing limitations on taxpayer-funding of abortions overseas.
6. Pledging $50 million to the United Nation’s Population Fund, which supports China’s draconian one-child policy.
7. Proposing new rules to gut conscience clause protections for pro-life doctors and other medical personnel who don’t want to be forced to perform abortions or other procedures that violate their values.
8. Proposing increased funding for the nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood.
9. Calling on the White House website for “mandatory volunteerism”).
10. Inviting homosexual families to the White House Easter Egg Roll.
11. Allowing his attorney general to call for the reinstatement of Clinton-era restrictions on the Second Amendment.
12. Breaking his promise not to appoint lobbyists to his administration. He hired 17 in his first two weeks.
13. Breaking his promise to sign legislation only after a five-day period of public comments. (Stimulus package bill had NONE; legislators were only given a few hours to read over 1,000 pages)
14. Asking that the monogram for Jesus Christ be covered up during a televised speech at a Catholic university in which Obama quotes the Sermon on the Mount.
Undermining Our National Security
15. Apologizing for America in Europe and Latin America.
16. Bowing before the Muslim king of Saudi Arabia.
17. Pledging to base America’s foreign policy toward Iran on “mutual respect” in a video to the Iranian people and Iran’s Holocaust-denying dictator.
18. Returning the bust of Winston Churchill given to George Bush after 9/11 by our British allies.
19. Giving British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, the leader of America’s most loyal ally, a box of DVDs that don’t work in British DVD players.
20. Ordering Guantanamo Bay closed without any idea of where to send the terrorist suspects held there.
21. Suggesting that some of those terrorists now at GITMO may kill again, but may also be released onto U.S. soil and set up with welfare benefits.
22. Caving to communist Cuba by relaxing travel restrictions and remittances for Cuban Americans before any Cuban political prisoners have been released.
23. Shaking hands with Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez.
24. Sitting silently though a 50-minute anti-American diatribe by Nicaragua’s communist president, Daniel Ortega.
25. Releasing Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, the suspected of masterminding the 2000 suicide bombing of the U.S.S. Cole.
26. Releasing classified CIA memos outlining our interrogation techniques.
27. Telling our CIA agents not to be discouraged when he acknowledges their “mistakes.”
28. Declaring a new openness to “truth commissions” and prosecuting intelligence officials involved in enhanced interrogations of terrorists.
29. Proposing to send a $900 million foreign aid package to Palestinians in Gaza.
30. Asking Congress to relax the law so that some of that money could go to the terrorist organization Hamas.
31. Calling for the U.S. to eliminate its nuclear weapons.
32. Telling Russian President Demitri Medvedev that America’s commitment to missile defense is negotiable.
33. Dropping the term “enemy combatants” for GITMO detainees.
34. Dropping the term “terrorism” for “man-made disaster.”
35. Dropping the term “Global War on Terror” for “overseas contingency operations.”
36. Giving his first interview as president to the Arab language network Al-Arabiya.
37. Telling the Muslim world that his “job” was to communicate “that the Americans are not your enemy,” when it’s Muslim extremists who have declared war on us.
38. Proposing that military veterans use private insurance for the cost of a service-related injury before they would be eligible for coverage through the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
Undermining Free Enterprise
39. Signing the trillion-dollar plus so-called “stimulus” bill, which the Congressional Budget Office said would actually hurt long-term economic growth.
40. Saying Caterpillar wouldn’t lay off workers if his trillion-dollar stimulus bill passed Congress. Obama signed the bill on Feb. 17th. On March 17th, Caterpillar laid off nearly 2,500 workers.
41. Hosting a “Fiscal Responsibility Summit” one week after signing the trillion-dollar “stimulus” bill.
42. Railing against “outrageous recklessness and greed” of AIG bonuses that were legally protected in the so-called “stimulus” bill he signed four days after it passed, not five as he promised.
43. Breaking his promise on earmark reform by signing the $410 billion “omnibus” spending bill with billions in earmarks.
44. Proposing a $3.6 trillion budget that doubles the national debt in five years and triples it in ten years.
45. Proposing a “carbon cap and trade” scheme that will raise energy taxes by hundreds of billions, even trillions, of dollars.
46. Burning more than 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to fly to Iowa for Earth Day to promote “wind power.”
47. Proposing $634 billion in higher taxes for socialized health care.
48. Proposing to raise taxes on small business owners.
49. Saying the White House is open to the idea of taxing employer-sponsored health care benefits as income.
50. Signing a massive expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, calling it “a down payment on my commitment to cover every single American.”
51. Establishing the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research to give bureaucrats the power to ration health care and tell your doctors what care you can and cannot have.
52. Signing the 2009 Omnibus Public Land Management Act, which the Sierra Club praised specifically because it “will safeguard millions of acres … from oil and gas leasing.”
53. Suggesting he has found $1.5 trillion in bogus “savings” by not spending money in Iraq that we were not planning to spend years from now.
54. Ordering his Cabinet to “cut” $100 million in spending in 90 days, after proposing nearly $5 trillion in spending in his first 90 days.
55. Proposing to limit tax deductions for home mortgage interest.
56. Proposing to limit tax deductions for charitable donations.
57. Refusing to allow banks to repay TARP money.
58. Bailing out AMTRAK with a 10% increase in its taxpayer subsidies.
59. Bailing out the United Auto Workers Union with billions of taxpayer dollars to GM and Chrysler.
60. Bailing out the United Auto Workers by giving it a majority ownership stake in Chrysler. Yes, the union will own the company.
61. Bailing out Big Labor by issuing an executive order mandating that infrastructure projects paid for with “stimulus” funds must use union labor, guaranteeing higher costs for the taxpayer.
62. Bailing out Big Labor again by repealing regulations requiring the disclosure of how union dues are spent. So much for “transparency.”
63. Saying, “The United States government has no interest in running GM,” then vowing that the government will back auto warranties.
64. Saying, “The United States government has no interest in running GM,” then firing the CEO of General Motors.
65. Allowing states to set their own fuel efficiency and emissions standards, making it harder for struggling auto makers to compete.
Personnel Is Policy
66. Nominating Timothy “The Turbo Tax Evader” Geithner as Treasury Secretary to oversee the IRS.
67. Nominating as attorney general Eric Holder, who urged Bill Clinton to pardon tax evader Marc Rich and 8 FALN terrorists.
68. Nominating David Ogden, a prominent attorney for the pornography industry, to be Deputy Attorney General.
69. Nominating Tom Daschle, who owed more than $140,000 in back taxes, as Health and Human Services Secretary.
70. Nominating Kathleen Sebelius, who is ardently pro-abortion and owed $8,000 in back taxes, to be HHS Secretary.
71. Nominating Janet Napolitano, who said, “crossing the border is not a crime per se,” as Homeland Security Secretary.
72. Nominating Steven Chu as Energy Secretary. Last September, Chu said, “Somehow, we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe,” which at that time were roughly $8.00 a gallon.
73. Nominating Ron Kirk, who owed more than $6,000 in back taxes, as Trade Representative.
74. Nominating Bill Richardson, who was embroiled in an ethics scandal, as Secretary of Commerce.
75. Nominating Nancy Killefer, who also owed back taxes, to be the government’s “Efficiency Czar.”
76. Nominating Rosa Brooks, a leftwing acolyte of George Soros, as an advisor to the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy.
77. Nominating Harold Koh, an ardent supporter of using international law in the interpretation of our Constitution, to be the top legal advisor to the State Department.
78. Nominating Carol Browner, who was a member of the Socialist International, to be “Climate and Energy Czar.”
79. Nominating John Holdren, an environmental extremist and advocate of population control, as the White House Science Advisor.
80. Nominating Dawn Johnsen, who is so pro-abortion she once compared pregnancy to slavery, to to direct the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department.
81. Nominating Charles Freeman, an anti-Israel, pro-Arab apologist, to be head of the National Intelligence Council.
82. Nominating Tony West, who represented American Taliban John Walker Lindh and exposed the Bush Administration’s terrorist surveillance program, to the Justice Department’s Civil Division.
83. Nominating Annette Nazareth to be Deputy Treasury Secretary, who withdrew after a month-long probe into her taxes.
84. Trying to nominate pro-abortion Catholics to be ambassador to the Vatican, a move even John Kerry opposed.
85. Appointing Ellen Moran of the pro-abortion group Emily’s List as his White House communications director.
86. Appointing Melody Barnes, a board member of Emily’s List and Planned Parenthood, as his director of the Domestic Policy Council.
87. Appointing Harry Knox of the Human Rights Campaign (the largest homosexual rights lobbying group) to the White House’s Faith Based Advisory Council.
88. Appointing Adolfo Carrion as Director of White House Office of Urban Affairs, even though he is under investigation for kickbacks in a scandal nearly identical to one that cost GOP Senator Ted Stevens his election.
89. Nominating David Hamilton as his first appointment to a federal appeals court. Judge Hamilton has issued a number of controversial rulings, including prohibiting the Indiana House of Representatives from opening sessions with prayers in the name of Jesus.
Other Obama Outrages
90. Telling congressional Republicans to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh.
91. Coordinating attacks on Rush Limbaugh, Rick Santelli and Jim Cramer out of the White House.
92. Hosting weekly parties at the White House, serving up $100-a-pound Waygu beef during what Obama called, “the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.”
93. Laughing it up on 60 Minutes as the country is mired in a recession.
94. Allowing Air Force One to buzz the Statue of Liberty and lower Manhattan, creating panic in New York City.
95. Disparaging Special Olympians on the Tonight Show.
96. Allowing his Department of Homeland Security to issue a report accusing pro-life, smaller government conservatives and returning Iraq/Afghanistan veterans of being “rightwing extremists.”
97. Promising to push for comprehensive immigration reform, i.e., amnesty.
98. Killing the school voucher program in the District of Columbia, while sending his two daughters to an elite private school, rather than D.C.’s public schools.
99. Moving the Census out of the Department of Commerce and into the White House.
100. Relying too much on his teleprompter.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
