Civilian cop Mark Todd was REAL hero whose shots ended Ft. Hood masscare, says his mom! By Rich Schapiro

Source: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2009/11/12/2009-11-12_civilian_cop_mark_todd_was_real_hero_whose_shots_ended_ft_hood_masscare_says_his.html

November 13th 2009

Sgt. Mark Todd, 42, of the Killeen police department is the person who actually shot Major Nidel Malik Hasan in last week's massacre.

My son's a hero, too!

The mother of a civilian cop whose role in ending the Fort Hood massacre was overshadowed by his tiny, female partner insisted Thursday her son deserves commendation.

"When he told me what happened, I was thinking, 'Why are they giving this woman all the credit?'" Mary Todd, 66, the mother of Sgt. Mark Todd, told the Daily News.

"I don't want to diminish what she did. I just hope they give him credit, too."

In the days after Thursday's mass shooting at Fort Hood, Sgt. Kimberly Munley was widely lauded for her role in taking down gunman Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan.

One Fort Hood official described how a wounded Munley stayed on her feet in a raging gun battle with Hasan and ended his rampage with two well-placed bullets into his torso.

That account appears to be false.

Todd, 42, said Thursday his bullets felled Hasan. Providing the most detailed account of the takedown, Todd said he and Munley arrived at the base processing center at the same time, but split up.

Munley encountered Hasan first and was shot three times in the ensuing gun battle. It's unclear if Hasan was hit.

Still on his feet, the blood-thirsty Army psychiatrist paused to load his handgun before Todd found him.

"I came around. I challenged him. I saw him turn toward me and I started taking fire again, and then I returned fire," Todd told NBC's "Today" show.

Todd said that his shots knocked Hasan off of his feet and he then he checked the gunman for other weapons.

"I thank God to this day that I wasn't hit," Todd added. "It was a miracle."

Wake Up America, Your Standard of Living Is In Jeopardy! By Mallory Factor

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/11/09/mallory-factor-america-decline-standard-living-downhill/

November 09, 2009

Old-fashioned parents know how important it is to teach their children the “value of a dollar.” Uncle Sam doesn’t seem to have learned this lesson though, which has grave implications for our future standard of living.

For most of this decade, the Federal Reserve has pursued a policy of having a “weak” dollar, a dollar that’s cheap in relation to other currencies. Current Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke prevailed on former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan to adopt this policy, and Bernanke is now continuing it. And if continued much longer, a weak dollar policy—combined with overspending and bad tax policy--will irreparably reduce America’s standard of living.

Inherent in the idea of standard of living is the level of our present and future consumption. America’s “standard of living” is generally considered a measure of how easy it is for us to satisfy our material desires. There are many ways we might look at this--how many televisions or computers we have per household, how much health care we consume on a per capita basis and how many families in our nation live below the poverty level. But however our standard of living is measured, current monetary, fiscal and tax policies will diminish it if we stay on our current path.

Now, clearly some people benefit from a weak dollar. Farmers and other exporters who sell abroad benefit because their products are cheaper (and thus more attractive) on world markets. But because we purchase so many more foreign goods than we export, a weak dollar policy is very bad for consumers and decreases our purchasing power.

Over the last 20 years, America’s appetite for foreign goods has increased multifold. And it is not that easy just to “buy American.” In many cases, there may not be an American choice in a particular product category and if there is, the “American” product may still have significant foreign content in it. This means that as the dollar weakens, our purchases of foreign goods cost much, much more. We will see our household purchasing power decline in future years as effects of the weak dollar policy filter through our economy.

Another effect of a weakening dollar is that investors fear holding assets in dollars. And so the steadily weakening dollar has produced capital flight from the U.S. which harms our economy, as investors seek assets denominated in other, stronger currencies. This leads to a downward spiral as dollars become less and less desirable.

U.S. per capita gross domestic product (GDP) has fallen over 25% since 2000 when measured in euros (a more stable gauge of value than the weak dollar), according to top Wall Street economist David Malpass. Germany’s GDP has overtaken America’s GDP on a per capita basis. And America’s standard of living relative to the rest of the world is falling off a cliff -- with President Obama’s policies giving it a two-armed push over the edge.

Spending plays a major role. The Obama budget also includes record shattering federal spending increases and trillion dollar annual deficits, doubling the national debt in five years, and tripling it in ten. The Administration’s own budget numbers now show total Federal debt reaching $23.3 trillion in 2019. That debt will exceed 100% of GDP by 2011, giving us the honor of the 7th highest government debt-to-GDP ratio in the world. As Judy Shelton recently reported in The Wall Street Journal, that puts us in the company of Zimbabwe, Lebanon, Singapore, Jamaica, Japan, and Italy.

To put our national debt in perspective -- a country cannot even join the European Union unless its government debt-to-GDP ratio does not exceed 60%. This means that even if we wanted to join the EU, our economic fundamentals may soon be seen as too weak.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) projects that under current policies, the federal debt will climb to almost 300% of GDP by 2040. Even during World War II, the national debt peaked at 113% of GDP. This was only a temporary condition and at least we vanquished Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in return for spike in the debt. Now, huge debts are a way of life in America. Obama’s budget busters include increasing federal welfare spending by one third in just his first two years, with total welfare spending soaring to $1 trillion by 2014 and $10.3 trillion over the next 10 years, according to the Heritage Foundation.

Consider also the effect of taxes. President Obama’s budget provides for increasing the capital gains tax rate by 33% at the start of 2011. The top federal income tax rate would also increase by almost 30% if a health care reform bill similar to the one passed by the House this weekend becomes law. These prospective tax increases on earnings in dollars would cause further capital flight, increasing the downward spiral of the dollar and our standard of living.

These soaring tax rates and crushing deficits will lead to a continued decline of American living standards. Based on the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office’s GDP and inflation assumptions, continued declines in household wealth holdings are projected from 2009 to 2014, with real U.S. per capita GDP falling to below 2000 levels. So much for the Obama recovery.

But the hit to our standard of living could be much worse than even these numbers show. The economy has performed substantially worse this year than was assumed in the Obama budget, with our growth lower and unemployment at a much higher level. Economists predict that these negative trends will continue in the near future. -- This means future deficits and debt will be far higher than the administration projects.



Unlike our government, Americans have drastically cut back on their discretionary spending in response to frightening economic conditions. In some cases, Americans have done this because they are unemployed and can’t afford to spend, but many others have done this out of fear of what may be to come. We may think that it is appropriate for Americans to learn to consume less. But even if we chose now voluntarily to reduce our consumption of cars, electronics and houses, we still want to be able to afford to purchase them in the future.

The decline of America’s standard of living can be reversed with a dramatic change in course to pro-growth economic policies. But American voters need to wake up, or face declining standards of living far into the future. While a Susan B. Anthony dollar may be larger than a euro in size, it will take change to our fiscal and monetary policies to make the value of our dollar approach that of the euro any time soon.

Mallory Factor is the co-chairman and co-founder of the Monday Meeting, an influential meeting of economic conservatives, journalists and corporate leaders in New York City. Mr. Factor is a well-known merchant banker and speaks and writes frequently on economic and fiscal topics for news stations, leading newspapers and other print and online publications. Mr. Factor appears  on "Fox & Friends,"  "The Strategy Room" and other Fox News Channel programs. He is a frequent contributor to the Fox Forum . Contact him at mallory.factor@malloryfactor.com.

Health Reform Would Bury Small Business By Sally Pipes

Source: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=511634

11/06/2009

President Obama recently delivered a special address aimed at quelling small-business owners' concerns about Democratic plans for health care reform.

The legislation, he assured, would "benefit millions of small businesses" and was "being written with the interests of Americans like you and your employees in mind."

That's a nice sentiment. But it's not backed up by the facts. Several new studies show that ObamaCare will dramatically increase health costs for most small businesses.

One study relied on actuarial data from WellPoint, a large health insurer that provided customer data in 14 states where it operates Blue Cross plans. The report concluded that 70% of small businesses would experience higher health insurance premiums if the Democrats' health plan passes.

For the average small employer in New York City, the increase in premiums would be modest — just 6%. But in Franklin County, Ohio, a typical small business would be hit with an 86% increase. Similarly sized businesses in Louisville, Ky., and Richmond, Va., would see their premiums go up 20% and 25%, respectively.

These findings align with the results of a different study, produced by Blue Cross Blue Shield and the consulting firm Oliver Wyman. It estimated that the average small business would experience a 19% jump in premiums within the first five years of ObamaCare's passage.

A third study, from America's Health Insurance Plans and PricewaterhouseCoopers, found that the reform bill approved by the Senate Finance Committee would result in a 28% increase in premiums for firms with fewer than 50 workers by 2019.

Simply put, the Democrats' reform plans would raise the cost of insurance for small businesses. A quick look at the various elements of their legislative package shows why.

For starters, the Democrats' proposal would require every insurance policy to cover a minimum set of benefits, even if the customer doesn't want or need them. At the state level, such benefit mandates can increase the cost of a basic insurance plan by 20% to 50%.

Why? Insurers price their products based on how much they might have to pay out in claims. The more treatments an insurer is on the hook for, the more costly it is to cover each customer, and therefore the higher the premium.

The Democrats' package would also institute a federal "guaranteed-issue" law, which would prohibit insurers from denying coverage to customers based on pre-existing conditions.

This reform is well-intentioned. But it ensures that many people will wait until they get sick to buy health insurance. Insurers' risk pools will dry up until only those with chronic health problems remain. Companies will respond by jacking up premiums. Indeed, states that have implemented guaranteed-issue laws have seen premiums jump 227%.

Of course, rising health-insurance prices hurt all employers — big and small. But the bigger ones have the luxury of spreading those costs among many workers. They can also use their purchasing clout to negotiate lower rates with carriers.

Small businesses don't have these advantages. That's why, on average, they pay 18% higher premiums than their large counterparts, according to the Commonwealth Fund.

Even without the Democrats' "reforms," small-business health premiums were expected to go up, on average, by 15% over the next year. And to add insult to injury, the House would also impose a 5.4% surtax on individuals with annual incomes of more than $500,000 and families of more than $1 million.

The tax would not be adjusted for inflation, so more and more small-business owners would be ensnared by it each year.

Managers would likely compensate for these new costs by discontinuing health benefits, cutting wages, holding off on new hires or even laying off workers. Can the Democrats' efforts really be called "reform" if they'd leave workers and businesses alike worse off?

The administration has dismissed accounts critical of its health reform plan out of hand. But the facts don't lie. The Democrats' reform package will make health insurance more expensive for small firms. If the president and his congressional allies are serious about defending the interests of small businesses, they need to get a new plan.

• Pipes is president and CEO of the Pacific Research Institute. Her latest book is "The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care."

Warden Pelosi

Source: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=511806

11/09/2009

Health Care Reform: Failure to buy health insurance in the just-passed health care bill could get you five years in jail with a $250,000 fine. How can violating a law that's unconstitutional be a felony?

The passage last Saturday night of the House health care measure by a fragile 220-215 margin may well prove to be a Pyrrhic victory. In polls, townhall meetings and tea parties, Americans have shown they don't want a "reform" that costs a staggering $1.2 trillion yet fails to meet the left's desire of insuring all the uninsured.

And they certainly don't want a bill that threatens them with incarceration if they don't comply.

This monstrosity would raise insurance premiums and taxes to prohibitive levels and add unconscionably to the national debt.

It will force physicians to leave the medical profession in droves, exacerbating an already perilous doctor shortage. This and so-called cost controls will lead to rationing.

The mechanisms for deciding who gets what, if any, care — and even what care will be available — are already in place. Some, like a cost-effectiveness board, slipped into the failed stimulus bill.

Under sections 7201 and 7203 of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's bill, Americans who don't maintain acceptable health insurance coverage and who choose not to pay a fine/tax of up to 2.5% of income are subject to fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.

As Dave Camp, R-Mich., ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee, observed, "This is the ultimate example of the Democrats' command-and-control style of governing — buy what we tell you or go to jail."

Evading the income tax is punishable by jail time. But the income tax required a constitutional amendment; it was not imposed by judicial fiat.

When asked by CNSNews where in the Constitution Congress is authorized to force Americans to buy insurance or imprison them, Pelosi gave the wide-eyed response, "Are you serious?"

Yes, Madam Speaker, we are. The Supreme Court, in United States vs. Lopez in 1995, has already specifically rejected the idea that Congress can regulate non-economic activities of individuals simply because, through a chain of events, they might have some impact down the road.

The U.S. Senate should give this nonsense a decent burial. Otherwise, that classic film line might take on a whole new meaning: "What are you in for?"

Friends hail police Sgt. Kimberly Munley for taking down Fort Hood gunman, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan By Rich Schapiro

Source: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2009/11/06/2009-11-06_police_sgt_kimberly_munley_credited_with_ending_fort_hood_gunman_maj_nidal_malik.html

November 6th 2009

Police Sgt. Kimberly Munley is credited with ending the Fort Hood mass shooting before even more people were shot."

The hero cop who ended the bloody rampage at Fort Hood by pumping four bullets into the crazed gunman even though she was wounded is known for her toughness, friends say.

Before relocating to Texas, civilian police Sgt. Kimberly Munley spent about five years as a cop in North Carolina where she forged a reputation as a no-nonsense officer.

"I'd like to say I'm surprised, but I'm really not," said close friend Drew Peterson, 27.

"She was born and bred to be a police officer. If you were ever to be in a fight, she'd be the first person to stand up next to you and back you up. She's a tough cookie."

Munley's toughness and grace under pressure were on display Thursday when she and her partner responded within three minutes of reported gunfire, said Army Lt. Gen. Bob Cone.

Munley, who had been trained in active-response tactics, rushed into the building and confronted the shooter as he was turning a corner, Cone said.

"It was an amazing and an aggressive performance by this police officer," Cone said.

Munley was only a few feet from Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan when she opened fire.

Wounded in the exchange of bullets, the 34-year-old Munley was reported in stable condition at a local hospital.

In a posting on her Twitter page before the shooting, she wrote: "I live a good life....a hard one, but I go to sleep peacefully @ night knowing that I may have made a difference in someone's life."

Munley's brother Daniel Barbour told ABC News that his sister had been shot three times in the hand and the leg.
One of the bullets pierced an artery, requiring her to undergo surgery Friday.

The diminutive Munley - she stands 5-foot-4 and weighs about 120 pounds - served as a cop in Wrightsville Beach,
N.C., before she moved to Texas to enlist in the military, friends said.

She is married with two daughters and is no longer in the armed forces.

"She's the happiest, sweetest, most fun-loving girl you'd ever want to be friends with - and never want to cross," Peterson said.

The hero cop spent Thursday night phoning fellow officers to let them know she was fine and to find out about casualties in the attack - the deadliest ever on a military base in the U.S., Cone said.

Cone said Munley's aggressive response training taught her that "if you act aggressively to take out a shooter you will have less fatalities."

"She walked up and engaged him," he said. He praised her as "one of our most impressive young police officers."

10 Failed Doomsday Predictions By Benjamin Radford

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/10faileddoomsdaypredictions

Nov 4, 2009

With the upcoming disaster film "2012" and the current hype about Mayan calendars and doomsday predictions, it seems like a good time to put such notions in context.


Most prophets of doom come from a religious perspective, though the secular crowd has caused its share of scares as well. One thing the doomsday scenarios tend to share in common: They don't come to pass.


Here are 10 that didn't pan out, so far:


The Prophet Hen of Leeds, 1806


History has countless examples of people who have proclaimed that the return of Jesus Christ is imminent, but perhaps there has never been a stranger messenger than a hen in the English town of Leeds in 1806. It seems that a hen began laying eggs on which the phrase "Christ is coming" was written. As news of this miracle spread, many people became convinced that doomsday was at hand - until a curious local actually watched the hen laying one of the prophetic eggs and discovered someone had hatched a hoax.


The Millerites, April 23, 1843


A New England farmer named William Miller, after several years of very careful study of his Bible, concluded that God's chosen time to destroy the world could be divined from a strict literal interpretation of scripture. As he explained to anyone who would listen, the world would end some time between March 21, 1843 and March 21, 1844. He preached and published enough to eventually lead thousands of followers (known as Millerites) who decided that the actual date was April 23, 1843. Many sold or gave away their possessions, assuming they would not be needed; though when April 23 arrived (but Jesus didn't) the group eventually disbanded-some of them forming what is now the Seventh Day Adventists.


Mormon Armageddon, 1891 or earlier


Joseph Smith, founder of the Mormon church, called a meeting of his church leaders in February 1835 to tell them that he had spoken to God recently, and during their conversation he learned that Jesus would return within the next 56 years, after which the End Times would begin promptly.


Halley's Comet, 1910


In 1881, an astronomer discovered through spectral analysis that comet tails include a deadly gas called cyanogen (related, as the name imples, to cyanide). This was of only passing interest until someone realized that Earth would pass through the tail of Halley's comet in 1910. Would everyone on the planet be bathed in deadly toxic gas? That was the speculation reprinted on the front pages of "The New York Times" and other newspapers, resulting in a widespread panic across the United States and abroad. Finally even-headed scientists explained that there was nothing to fear.


Pat Robertson, 1982


In May 1980, televangelist and Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson startled and alarmed many when - contrary to Matthew 24:36 ("No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven...") he informed his "700 Club" TV show audience around the world that he knew when the world would end. "I guarantee you by the end of 1982 there is going to be a judgment on the world," Robertson said.


Heaven's Gate, 1997


When comet Hale-Bopp appeared in 1997, rumors surfaced that an alien spacecraft was following the comet - covered up, of course, by NASA and the astronomical community. Though the claim was refuted by astronomers (and could be refuted by anyone with a good telescope), the rumors were publicized on Art Bell's paranormal radio talk show "Coast to Coast AM." These claims inspired a San Diego UFO cult named Heaven's Gate to conclude that the world would end soon. The world did indeed end for 39 of the cult members, who committed suicide on March 26, 1997.


Nostradamus, August 1999


The heavily obfuscated and metaphorical writings of Michel de Nostrdame have intrigued people for over 400 years. His writings, the accuracy of which relies heavily upon very flexible interpretations, have been translated and re-translated in dozens of different versions. One of the most famous quatrains read, "The year 1999, seventh month / From the sky will come great king of terror." Many Nostradamus


devotees grew concerned that this was the famed prognosticator's vision of Armageddon.

Y2K, Jan. 1, 2000

As the last century drew to a close, many people grew concerned that computers might bring about doomsday. The problem, first noted in the early 1970s, was that many computers would not be able to tell the difference between 2000 and 1900 dates. No one was really sure what that would do, but many suggested catastrophic problems ranging from vast blackouts to nuclear holocaust. Gun sales jumped and survivalists prepared to live in bunkers, but the new millennium began with only a few glitches.


May 5, 2000

In case the Y2K bug didn't do us in, global catastrophe was assured by Richard Noone, author of the 1997 book "5/5/2000 Ice: the Ultimate Disaster." According to Noone, the Antarctic ice mass would be three miles thick by May 5, 2000 - a date in which the planets would be aligned in the heavens, somehow resulting in a global icy death (or at least a lot of book sales). Perhaps global warming kept the ice age at bay.


God's Church Ministry, Fall 2008

According to God's Church minister Ronald Weinland, the end times are upon us-- again. His 2006 book "2008: God's Final Witness" states that hundreds of millions of people will die, and by the end of 2006, "there will be a maximum time of two years remaining before the world will be plunged into the worst time of all human history. By the fall of 2008, the United States will have collapsed as a world power, and no longer exist as an independent nation." As the book notes, "Ronald Weinland places his reputation on the line as the end-time prophet of God."

Video: 2012 Cataclysm or Ancient Myth?


Benjamin Radford is managing editor of the Skeptical Inquirer science magazine. His books, films, and other projects can be found on his website. His Bad Science column appears regularly on LiveScience.

Let states lead the way: Washington's one-size-fits-all reform won't work By Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/05/AR2009110504328.html

November 6, 2009

Congress is on the verge of enacting the largest unfunded mandate in American history. At a time when most states are struggling with rising unemployment, declining tax revenue and the worst national economic climate in 30 years, Congress is demonstrating that it is more out of touch than ever.

The Democratic health "reform" bill in the Senate would require states to expand Medicaid to include all people earning up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, or $29,327 for a family of four. House Democrats want to require expansion to 150 percent of the poverty level, or $33,075 for a family of four. Even Texas, which has a balanced budget and nearly $9 billion in its rainy-day fund, isn't prepared to absorb this type of blow.

Complaints from majorities of Republican and Democratic governors alike continue to fall on deaf ears. Congress seems intent on forcing a one-size-fits-all mandate on states, some of which actually have solutions to repair their health-care systems that Washington is preventing them from trying.

Texas, for example, has adopted approaches to controlling health-care costs while improving choice, advancing quality of care and expanding coverage. Consider the successful 2003 tort reform. Fewer frivolous lawsuits have attracted record numbers of doctors to the state as medical malpractice insurance premiums dropped by half. Christus Health, a large Catholic nonprofit system with a significant presence in Texas, spent about $100 million on liability defense payments in 2003. Last year, Christus spent $2.3 million on such payments. Much of that savings has gone into expanding health-care services in low-income neighborhoods.

You might think Washington would be curious about plans to provide more low-income Texans with insurance, reduce expensive emergency-room visits for basic care and make it easier to buy into employer-sponsored insurance. Unfortunately, Washington has failed for 18 months to give Texas permission to use Medicaid dollars for these policies.

Historically, the federal government has paid an average of 57 percent of state Medicaid costs. In a transparent attempt to bribe governors and state legislatures into accepting 15 million to 20 million new people nationwide onto Medicaid rolls, Congress is proposing a series of additional subsidies to states to cover 90 percent of the costs of the newly mandated populations. In true Washington form, these handouts would be debt-financed, through the generosity of foreign bankers, to be paid back by future generations of American taxpayers.

Expanding the Medicaid program in Texas alone to include an additional 2 million people would cost $20 billion to $30 billion over the next 10 years. Regardless of how that cost is shared between the federal and state governments down the road, we believe that level of new mandated spending is grossly unacceptable.

Even more stunning than this fiscal irresponsibility is Congress's disregard for the quality of the Medicaid program and the well-being of the people in it. Medicaid is the lowest payer in the health-care system. It reimburses physicians 20 to 30 percent less than even Medicare, which pays costs at a much lower rate than do private insurers. If a doctor or hospital is facing bills, staff salaries and medical malpractice premiums, it is obvious which patients will get preference.

We note with concern that the Government Accountability Office reported in January that Medicaid made an estimated $32.7 billion in improper payments in 2007, equal to a full 10 percent of the program. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) pointed out that the average improper payment rate for non-health government programs is 3.9 percent. He introduced an amendment in the Senate Finance Committee that would have prevented expansions of Medicaid until the secretary of health and human services could certify that its improper payment rate was equivalent to that of non-health programs, but that amendment failed on a party-line vote. The rate of improper payments needs to be addressed.

The Democratic health-care proposals do nothing to expand choice, lower costs and empower patients. They would add to, without reforming, bulky, overpriced programs that would in turn add to our already crushing burden of national debt. Reckless expansion would ultimately reduce the quality of U.S. medical care.

Such tragedies can be averted if the powers-that-be in Washington set aside their devotion to centrally planned, debt-financed, one-size-fits-all solutions and work cooperatively with those laboratories of innovation known as states. Otherwise, we'll end up with a one-size-hurts-all situation.

Newt Gingrich, founder of the Center for Health Transformation, was speaker of the House of Representatives from 1995 to 1999. Rick Perry is governor of Texas.

Health Reform Faces Moment Of Untruth By Sen. Tom Coburn and Rep. Paul Ryan

Source: http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=511167

11/03/2009

As Congress works to "make history" with health care reform, the American people have a far more sensible ambition for policymakers: get a grip on our unsustainable fiscal course.

By 2-to-1, Americans continue to believe that Congress should address the deficit first, then health care. Yet the best that Congress has come up with to address our entitlement and fiscal crisis is to create a costly new open-ended entitlement.

The American people suspect what we know to be true: Congress really has no idea how to pay for "reform," or anything else for that matter. Fiscal restraint remains off the agenda, while there is of course the desire to appear to be fiscally responsible.

Behind closed doors, negotiators have been performing budget gymnastics. House and Senate leaders have been fudging their cost estimates to meet the president's demand of not adding a dime to the deficit.

For instance, the bill won't be fully implemented until 2013, but tax hikes will take effect immediately. This gimmick will produce 10 years of revenues but only seven years of cost. Once fully implemented, however, the plan will cost nearly $2 trillion over 10 years — double the $900 billion touted as a passing grade from the Congressional Budget Office.

Still, congressional leaders are sticking to their talking point. "We're very excited by the CBO scores," Speaker Nancy Pelosi said gleefully when the plan's Enron-style accounting produced a positive score. The CBO, however, is less excited about Congress' fiscal management. As it recently told Congress, "Slowing the growth rate of outlays for Medicare and Medicaid is the central long-term challenge for federal fiscal policy."

President Obama seems to agree. He recently said: "If we do nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs, we will eventually be spending more on Medicare and Medicaid than every other government program combined. Put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem. Nothing else even comes close."

He's right, which makes the fiscal irresponsibility of the "reform" process all the more breathtaking. The current bills dump half of the uninsured in Medicaid, create new federal handouts paid for by taxpayers, and build on the unsustainable Medicare status quo while cutting what's working best in Medicare.

Budget gimmicks are not only disingenuous, but will harm our economy. Sustained economic growth is not possible should Congress continue to pile debt on top of debt, or attempt to tax our way out of our fiscal hole.

As the CBO reminded Congress, "If spending grew as projected and taxes were raised in tandem, tax rates would have to reach levels never seen in the U.S. High tax rates would slow the growth of the economy, making the spending burden harder to bear."

Especially troubling is the fact that Congress' long-term cost estimates of government-run health programs have been notoriously inaccurate. When Medicare was created, Congress predicted it would cost $12 billion in 1990. It cost $110 billion in 1990. Medicaid now costs 37 times what it did when it was launched in 1965; Medicare 16 times, both adjusted for inflation.

If the current reform bill outperforms Medicare and Medicaid and grows by a factor of 10, it will cost $1.8 trillion every year. If it follows the path of Medicaid, it will cost $6.7 trillion every year.

What is at stake in this process is not merely a lower standard of living for future generations, but a decline of freedom at home and abroad. We are risking our own national economic stability and security if we continue — through excessive borrowing — to hand potential adversaries leverage over our foreign and domestic policy.

We believe health care needs to be reformed, which is why earlier this year we introduced detailed legislation, the Patients' Choice Act. We drafted our plan cognizant of the fact that we already spend more than 2 1/2 times per person on health care than any other country in the world.

If our health care sector were a stand-alone economy, at $2 trillion it would be the eighth largest in the world, ahead of countries like India and Russia. We don't need to spend more, nor do we need to raise taxes. Instead, we need to direct resources to actual health care rather than the bureaucratic management of health care.

The current reform product does not meet the test of either real reform or fiscal responsibility. Nor does it represent the best of both parties. It represents the frustrated ideological ambitions of one party that believes the way to pull the welfare state back from bankruptcy is by expanding it.

We can fix what's broken in health care without breaking what's working, and without creating a huge new entitlement program that will accelerate the bankruptcy of this country. The American people deserve better.

• Coburn, a practicing physician, is the junior senator from Oklahoma.

IN DEFENSE OF CALLING OBAMA BY THE ADJECTIVES HE DESERVES: ON THE DELICATE BUT IMPORTANT TASK OF DESCRIBING OUR PRESIDENT By Herb Denenberg

Source: http://www.thedenenbergreport.org/article.php?index=1551

November 01, 2009

THE PHONY, FAKER, FRAUD, FOUR-FLUSHING FIBBER WHO HATES AMERICA AND MARCHES US STRAIGHT TOWARD SOCIALISM, FASCISM, AND DESTRUCTION. OR DO WE LET CIVILILITY, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, AND FAUX POLITNESS TRUMP THE TRUTH?

My recent column titled “Obama Taking Us on a Path to Fascism” (October 28, 2009) started an explosion, with both praise and criticism bursting forth. So I thought I’d write a column explaining and justifying some of the uncomplimentary adjectives I’ve aimed at President Barack Hussein Obama, ‘Mm, ‘Mm, ‘Mm. Many people aren’t used to having their political Messiah described with the parade of pejoratives I’ve been launching since the earliest days of the 2008 presidential election.

What happens when legitimate criticism, when telling like it is, when calling a spade a spade and a phony a phony, when the plain unvarnished truth goes out of style because of demands for civility, because of the pressure of political correctness, because of fear of being accused of name-calling, and because of an assumed need for faux politeness when describing our president? And I might add when legitimate criticism and truth telling are jarring because the critic wants to describe the president of the United States in most uncomplimentary but truthful terms. I happen to be in the cross fire on this issue because as soon as Barack Hussein Obama emerged as a serious candidate, I labeled him as a world-class liar, phony, fraud, fibber, faker and four-flusher who also can’t be trusted because of his long association with America-haters, bigots, racists, and even terrorists. That crew of Obama’s close associates includes Rev. Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright, Bill “Terrorist” Ayres, Father Michael “Racist” Pfleger, Bernadine “Terrorist” Dohrn, and all the rest.


I responded to my critics that I was not name-calling, as I had carefully documented those well-chosen adjectives describing Obama in over 100 columns written for the Philadelphia Bulletin. I believe in civility in public discourse, but civility should not trump truth telling, and political correctness can be potentially fatal and dangerous, as it is when the Obama administration refuses to use the words “war against terror” and “jihadism” and wants to substitute such words as “overseas contingency operation.” That kind of denial is not just semantic shading; it is insanity pure and simple. It is denial and dangerous delusion wrapped in deception. Can you defeat an enemy you are unwilling to correctly describe and instead insist on sanitizing and euphemizing those posing an existential threat?


Take a few of the adjectives used above and consider their applicability to President Barack Hussein ‘Mm ‘Mm ‘Mm Obama. I know this is a hard dose of truth and reality, especially when the mainstream media and much of the public view this man as a Messiah, the Anointed One, and the Chosen One.


LIAR. This is perhaps the easiest case to make, starting with his denial of knowing what Rev. Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright was up to. After sitting in the pews of his church for twenty years, after closely working with him, after selecting his church to facilitate his own (i.e., Obama’s) political advancement, after using the title of one of his sermons for the title of his book, Obama claims to have heard nothing, to have read nothing, and to know nothing about Rev. Wright’s bigoted views. After being an active community organizer and politician in Wright’s community and being exposed to all kinds of stories and discussions of Wright and his philosophy, he still knows nothing. This means Obama is either the biggest liar in the world or the biggest idiot. I give him the benefit of the doubt by charitably accepting the former rather than the latter explanation. For further proof of Obama’s status as an habitual world-class liar consider a few of the things he’s said about Obamacare: If you like your doctor or your health insurance plan, you can keep it. The bill does not cover illegal immigrants or abortion. The bill will not add one dime to the deficit. Remember his campaign promises to keep lobbyists out of his administration and to accept public financing of his election. And what about his constant theme of bipartisanship and transparency? He is as bipartisan as Genghis Khan and as transparent as a 12-inch wall of lead.


PHONY AND HYPOCRITE. Obama clearly does the opposite of what he says. He was the great non-partisan, bipartisan hope, a man who saw not Blue States and Red States but the United States. In practice, over his career and certainly in the White House he is the most partisan of politicians. He says he wants to listen to all points of view, but comes over as one who rejects all criticism as the “old politics” and as “game playing.” He is a thin-skinned crybaby who apparently has never learned to take criticism and listen to opposing points of view. He promises a most transparent administration and then delivers the opposite. He stands by without objection as the Democratic Congress ignores and locks out the Republicans. The latest outrage is that they can’t even look at the Senate bill that just came out of committee.


SOCIALIST. This description came into vogue after his “spread the wealth” remark to Joe “The Plumber.” But his whole history shows not only Marxist and Communist associations, but also his frequent statements of that philosophy. He criticized the U.S. Constitution for not providing for “economic freedom” and redistribution of wealth. And now his answer to every problem is to redistribute wealth and soak the rich. Under his sweet rhetoric there is a full-scale class war going on, in which capitalism, profit, and free markets are demonized. In March, the Pew Research Center found 70 percent of Americans believe in the free market system, but a socialist, anti-free-market system is being rammed down their throats.


FASCIST. I’d add one final description, perhaps the harshest but nonetheless on target. Elements of fascism include the suppression of opposition and the suppression of private enterprise. Both are obvious Obama’s objectives. The latter is most obvious, as he expands the reach of government, takes over auto companies and banks, and expands government and our national debt in an unsustainable and reckless manner, thus crowding out private enterprise. He wants to take over the health care industry, one-sixth of the economy, and the energy sector, with Cap and Trade (and Tax) legislation. Then there is the attempt to regulate the pay of executives in financial institutions, not just the ones taking federal bailout money. As Steve Moore of the Wall Street Journal put it, this is an unprecedented government regulatory grab, subjecting private enterprise to a Pay Czar “Mussolini.” Every move is to expand government programs and government itself. There’s an entitlement or a bag of them for one Democratic interest group after another. And now look what he is doing with critics. Humana and other insurers were subjected to a “gag order” when they criticized Obamacare. The Fox Cable News Network has been the subject of a White House attack that attempts to destroy, delegitimize, and demonize a major television network. He is after the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, as an evil demon, that spends a half a billion dollars on lobbying, to defeat essential reforms. He moves to punish critics in the insurance industry by trying to repeal their anti-trust exemption. He moves or his Congressional supporters move on all kinds of anti-democratic measures to silence critics and aid supporters –such as the Fairness Doctrine, diversity and localism to kill conservative talk radio, the Net Neutrality Rules to launch a government takeover of the Internet, and the Employee Free Choice Act to strengthen his friends, the labor bosses, and to destroy the secret ballot in union elections and put decision making on union contracts in the hands of government bureaucrats. Then there is Obama’s close association over many years with ACORN, the corrupt community organization that has often used intimidation to force businesses to take action on the ACORN agenda. But what did you expect when Obama surrounds himself and brings into the White House Marxists, communists, extremists, radicals, those who view Chavez’s revolution as “democratic,” and look to Mao for advice and wisdom, those who disparage America and seem to carry a portfolio of anti-American values and programs?


Don’t kid yourself. America, as we know it, America, as conceived by the Founding Fathers, is under attack by Obama, the Democratic Congress, and the Obama Administration. He has to be stopped if America is to be saved. The great columnist Thomas Sowell is right when he said that it’s time to stop weighing the evidence, and start stopping Obama as his anti-American programs and values are crystal clear to anyone paying attention. This will require an organized uprising of citizens to stop his programs, especially the most dangerous and damaging ones such as Obamacare and Cap and Trade. The time for action is right now, and any delay may be fatal to the survival of the greatest nation in the history of the world. We better hear “freedom’s call” and answer it now in its defense in every legal and appropriate way. Or we may be well on the way to becoming a broken down banana republic, a European socialist-style state or worse. There is a war going on against America values, and we better fight back in full force or we will lose that war and will lose America.


(Herb Denenberg is a veteran Philadelphia journalist, writing columns and doing television for over 30 years. He has served as Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commissioner, and the Loman Professor of Insurance at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. He has also served as a consultant to over a dozen government agencies, and has won over 100 journalistic awards, including 42 local Emmys and awards from the National Press Club and the American Board of Trial Advocates. He has often testified before Congress on such matters as consumer protection, health care and insurance regulation, and co-authored “The Social Protection Plan of Puerto Rico,” the first no-fault law passed in a U.S. jurisdiction and was Associate Director of the Wisconsin Laws Revision Commission that was responsible for the most comprehensive revision of insurance laws in American history. He was elected to the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences. He blogs for “Freedom’s Call,” an activist organization that was recently launched. He is a graduate of Johns Hopkins (B.S.), Creighton University’s Law School (J.D.), Harvard Law School (LL.M.) and the University of Pennsylvania (Ph.D.) He has also received honorary degrees from Allentown College (now DeSales University) and Spring Garden College. He can be reached at hdenenberg@aol.com.)




Herb Denenberg is a former Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner, professor at the Wharton School, and Pennsylvania Public Utility Commissioner. He is a member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences and is a board member of the Center for Safe Medication Use. He is an adjunct professor of insurance and information science and technology at Cabrini College. You can write Herb at POB 7301,St. Davids, PA e-mail him at hdenenberg@aol.com or reach him at his two Web sites: thedenenbergreport.org or denenbergsdump.org