The Cool Blue Blog

Greed is unseemly in a recession

Saturday night, the President took a poke at an easy, populist target: Wall Street.

"I did not run for office to be helping out a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street," Mr Obama said. "They're still puzzled why it is that people are mad at the banks. Well, let's see. You guys are drawing down 10, 20 million dollar bonuses after America went through the worst economic year in decades and you guys caused the problem."

He plans on meeting with the "industry leaders" with the intent of taking them to the woodshed.

Now this is great theater and there is no doubt that ordinary people are plenty mad at the captains of industry, especially since the Government has been so ardent at making them the scapegoat for problems government itself created. There is no doubt that "Wall Street" and banks played a role, but there is also little doubt that both the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch encouraged banks and other lenders to back mortgages for people who could not afford it.

Last week, USA Today reported that

The number of federal workers earning six-figure salaries has exploded during the recession, according to a USA TODAY analysis of federal salary data.

Federal employees making salaries of $100,000 or more jumped from 14% to 19% of civil servants during the recession's first 18 months — and that's before overtime pay and bonuses are counted.

What?! Bonuses? Greedy bastards. Does the President know?

Federal workers are enjoying an extraordinary boom time — in pay and hiring — during a recession that has cost 7.3 million jobs in the private sector....

The growth in six-figure salaries has pushed the average federal worker's pay to $71,206, compared with $40,331 in the private sector.

And yesterday, the Senate passed the House's omnibus appropriations bill in which the government agenies who are the recipients of the funding grew by an average of 10%.

Yes, that's right, while private industry is downsizing and doing with less (which includes workers), the Federal Government which is in debt to China increased spending.

The 1,088-page, $1.1 trillion measure would provide $447 billion in operating budgets for 10 Cabinet departments, awarding increases averaging almost 10 percent. On top of that comes more than $600 billion in payments for federal benefit programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.

(The bill also allows Guantanamo detainees to be imprisoned within the US, but that's another post)

$1.1 trillion and they have yet to fund defense.

Or health care.

So is the President going to take Congress to the woodshed?

I'm thinkin' not.

Obama proves Bush right yet again

President Obama has at this point conceded a number of policy issues to his predessor. He has maintained the so-called "domestic wiretap" program in place. He has used the "state secrets" defense. He has continued the practice of rendition.

And although he famously made a pledge to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay Cuba, he has now all but conceded that Bush's solution was the best available. And in the exception that proves the rule, no one is happy that 9-11 perpetrators are being tried in US Courts instead of military commissions.

And it goes without saying that Obama is sticking to the plan for Iraq laid out by Bush.

Now, it turns out, that Bush was right about Iran as well, but only now is the President figuring out that talking to Iran is not going to work very well.

Iran has defied international pressure to halt its nuclear program, announcing it will build 10 new enrichment plants.

State television says work on the new facilities will begin in two months.

When the US and Iran talked a while ago, the President thought he had convinced Iran to cease and desist. Everyone was all smiles when Iran agreed to ship their nuclear material to Russia and China for enrichment.

Then Iran backed out. Publicly.

And when the UNs International Atomic Energy Agency then rebuked Iran, Iran decided to rebuke the UN by announcing the new nuclear facilities.

Now the thread upon which the Obama Administration can hang its hat is that both Russia and China joined in the rebuke.

But the rebuke is non-binding.

We'll see what happens when the Security Council takes up the matter of sanctions. I'm thinking Russia and China will show the President what else he's missing with regards to Foreign Policy savvy.

Perhaps he needs to consult with Bush on how to proceed...

Hang 'em high

In defending the Obama Administration's decision to try  Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other Guantanamo Bay detainees in a civilian court, Senator Patrick Leahy said:

"By trying them in our federal courts, we demonstrate to the world that the most powerful nation on earth also trusts its judicial system -- a system respected around the world,"

Well, there are a number of things about that. First is that our world-respected judicial system requires that a defendant be considered innocent until proven guilty. But when speaking to Bob Schieffer, Leahy said:

I think it’s an example we’re showing the rest of the world. We have systems that work. We’re not afraid of these people. We’re ready to stand up to them. I don’t think we should run and hide and cower. Let’s use our system. And let’s convict them.

And he's not the only one. Both the Attorney General and the President believe the out come will be a conviction. So what does it say to the world when the people they hear have a presumption of guilt, not innocence? How does that reflect on our legal system.

And if there is a presumtion of innocence, might it not come about that one or more of these guys might be let go for one reason or another?

SCHIEFFER: What if he should be acquitted?

LEAHY: I don’t think he’s going to be acquitted. I’ve discussed the evidence that’s available. Again, I’ve not prosecuted this kind of a case, but I’ve prosecuted a lot of murder cases. I think most prosecutors know what is going to happen.

You have got Eric Holder, who is one of the most experienced prosecutors this country has ever had as attorney general. He’s got one of the greatest teams of prosecutors around him. I’ve gone over the case with him. I’d rather be the prosecutor than the defense counsel in this case.

And why is an aquittal or a mistrial so unlikely? Why it appears that the conviction rate of terrorism suspects in Federal courts is high (91%) it is not 100%. What's more, that 91% conviction rate was achieved when law-enforcement and prosecuters were intending to bring the case to court. That means that evidence was achieved by means of a search warrant; the suspect is read his or her Miranda Rights; evidenciary chain of custody was rigorously maintained. Do we have that wit, say KSM?

How could we? First, he was arrested in foreign country and the circumstances of his arrested are not even well understood. Some accounts have him arrested by Pakistani's. Others by a joint effort of Pakistani's and the CIA's Special Activities Division; or the Paks and the FBI; or the Paks and the US Diplomatic Security Service. Even when he was taken into custody is in doubt.

One thing is for sure, it was highly touted in numerous places that he asked for a lawyer and was denied.

How much evidence will be allowed into court given all this? What if none is allowed? And if the rules of evidence are abrogated for these cases, what will that tell the world about our much vaunted justice system? And what will it mean for everyone else? As James Taranto points out, if the rules of evidence are watered down for KSM et. al., will that not affect everyone else who is brought to trial?

Senator Leahy hand waves these concerns away.

SCHIEFFER: You know, anybody who has watched “Law and Order” or any of the other crime shows on television knows that the first thing that happens when a law enforcement arrests someone, they advise them of their rights, that they have a right to an attorney and so on. Now, there was no attorney here. This man was waterboarded 183 times. Do you think that we can find untainted evidence, enough of it, to convict him? Because if you say, well, he didn’t have a lawyer from the beginning, would that say to people, to a judge, well, you can’t use any of that evidence?

LEAHY: No, I think that we have plenty of evidence as obtained outside of the -- whatever he said in waterboarding. Keep in mind, they indicted him long before this waterboarding. They had evidence enough to bring indictments against him long before that. I don’t -- with the review that I’ve had of the evidence available, I have no question that they have enough evidence untainted by the waterboarding that will be admissible in court. And he will be convicted.

But the evidence required to gain an indictment are much lower than what it takes to convict, and execute, a defendant in a Capital case.

So let's just say that the case is thrown out of court for lack of evidence, or worse, he is acquitted because the jury could not agree on reasonable doubt, then what. Will the Obama Administration let him walk?

Not likely.

But if not, what will that say to the world about our judicial system?

And what would have been the point of the trial in the first place?

Jobs, jobs, jobs

So after ten months as President, Mr Obama has decided to focus on job creation.

President Obama plans to hold a White House forum on job creation next month, an attempt to signal his concern about the growing ranks of the unemployed and build consensus on future action to stoke the economy.

But wait! I thought that's what the $800 billion Stimulus was supposed to fix. Did I miss something?

Of course I'm being ironic. After all the months of the President and Vice-President trying to convince us what a great job creator the stimulus was, all of a sudden more needs to be done.

The real problem, and the real reason the President is suddenly focused on Jobs, has everything to do with the Democrats losing the governorships in New Jersy and Virginia. It was here that the President and the Democratic leadership finnally got through their heads that Health Care reform is not job one: Jobs and the Economy is.

In analyzing the election results, Steve Lombardo writing at Pollster.com notes:

The economy was a key driver of anti-incumbency sentiment last week and this will continue unless perceptions of economic performance improve. While the Dow is soaring again, unemployment has hit 10.2%. Despite the growing talk about a recovery, it has yet to hit Main Street. A recent Ipsos/McClatchy poll shows that only seven percent of Americans believe that the U.S. economy has "turned the corner." From most voter perspectives, the economy is still a mess and they are unsatisfied with the Democrats' response. This is confirmed by the exit polls:

• 89% of NJ voters were worried about the economy and Christie won 51% of the vote among them (Corzine 43%, Daggett 5%).
• 85% of VA voters were worried about economy and McDonnell won 63% - 36% among that group.

In short, voter attitudes regarding the direction of the country are really hurting the President and Democrats right now.

Meanwhile, support for healthcare reform is plummeting. In fact, most people, when asked,don't think it is the government's job to make sure everytone has health care.

More Americans now say it is not the federal government's responsibility to make sure all Americans have healthcare coverage (50%) than say it is (47%). This is a first since Gallup began tracking this question, and a significant shift from as recently as three years ago, when two-thirds said ensuring healthcare coverage was the government's responsibility.

What's more, Gallup found that 61% of people have decided that maintaining the current system of healhcare is preferable to letting the government run it.

Throughout this decade, a plurality of Americans have consistently favored maintaining the current system, although support has fluctuated. In November 2007, the edge for the private system over the government-run system was just 7 points, vs. a 31-point gap in 2004. The current 29-point gap is thus at the high end of the historical range.

Almost 9 out of 10 Republicans and Republican leaners favor maintaining the current healthcare system based mostly on private health insurance. Democrats and Democratic leaners favor the concept of replacing the current system with a government-run system, but Democratic opinion is less monolithic than Republican opinion; more than a third of Democrats would favor maintaining the current system.

The President's epiphany that people are worried about jobs and the economy more than healthcare is not about him feeling your pain, it's about him feeling the pain of the people who are required to help him pass his agenda. An agenda which includes passing healthcare.

Whether you want him to or not...

Incomprehensible

Walid Phares writing at The CounterTerrorism blog points out

The shooting inside a US military installation that led to the killing of many personnel compels us to ponder. Over the past few years and months authorities have stopped attempts on similar attacks. The Fort Dix Jihadi plot, dismantled in 2006, aimed at performing a killing of military personnel inside the base. Other cells, dismantled in Georgia, New York and North Carolina also had plans for attacking military installations on US soil. But more importantly a number of lone wolves have also expressed intentions to attack military personnel.

This year, a person by the name Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, 23, shot two US military at the Army-Navy Career Center in a shopping center in west Little Rock, killing one. In cyberspace Jihadi threats against US military in the homeland and against American cities has been ongoing. Information collected by authorities, including from suspects and indicted individuals has shown a pattern by the Jihadists (militants or propagandists) indicating their intentions to strike at military and security installations.

And yet, our Commander-in-Chief finds this current attack "incomprehensible".

What makes this incomprehensible? The enemy will try to win in any manner possible; on the battlefield or behind enemy lines. And make no mistake, we are their enemy.

At Forbes.com, Claudia Rosett writes:

In the media, the question of the hour is how the military could have missed the warning signs of Hasan's impending attack. Such details are important, and it would be a great idea to have better mechanisms (or any mechanisms at all?) within the military to catch the warning signs and act in time. But vigilance of that kind starts at the top. Right now the biggest warning sign of all is a president who looks at a pattern of jihadi communications, recruiting and attacks on America, and tells the public that the bloodshed at Fort Hood is "incomprehensible." Not for the first time, the system is blinking red.

The media is one thing, but signals from the White House are broadcasting that the President is floundering

A senior Administration official said the President did not plan to accept any of the options presented to him in a war council meeting yesterday. Instead he pushed for revisions to clarify how and when United States troops would turn over responsibility to the Afghan Government.

While Europe remains steadfast:

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said he shared the concern of the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan about sending more troops to the country but stressed that the allies must stay the course and commit more to training Afghan forces.

"We are not in Afghanistan to protect and defend a specific government, but to make sure Afghanistan does not once again become a safe haven for terrorists who could easily spread from Afghanistan through Central Asia and further, not to mention the risk of destabilising Pakistan, a nuclear power, which would create a very dangerous situation," he said.

But what good will such sentiment be if the US gives up?

The Taliban senses confusion in our foreign policy:

"The shooting incident which was executed by the Muslim American soldier Nidal Malek Hasan, against the American soldiers at Fort Hood base in the state of Texas last Thursday, and caused the death of 13 and injury of 38 [soldiers], has caused fright and trance and enormous fears within the military and civil circles in America."

"Silence was declared in the American Congress; Obama considered the incident very confusing and very terrifying in the history of America..."

"The American army has killed tens of thousands of innocent people in two confusing wars and without directions, and lasted eight years; hundreds of thousands were injured, and other millions were displaced; away from their homes and refuges in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it also caused the death of thousands of their own soldiers and the injury of the same number whether wounds, handicap and psychological illnesses. These repeated disasters and carnage have awoken the human sympathy in the souls of the American soldier, and a question has personified itself for them: why are they, and other humans, are engaged in two wars with unclear features?"

But who is unclear? President Bush was never unclear about our goals in this war. Previous Presidents could use the word "Victory".

But not this President.

Fort Hood and all evidence that Jihadists are looking to attack our military at home and abroad makes it clear that the enemy is vibrant and will use all forces available to them in order to obtain a victory.

Will we?

Benign Contact

OK, so is there enough evidence for us now to proclaim that Nidal Malik Hasan performed a terrorist act when he shot the soldiers at Fort Hood?

OK, you may not have believed early reports that he shouted "Allahu Akbar!" as he begain firing. Or that he wrote  "We love death more than you love life" when referring to people he consider true Muslim's.

But it is no longer possible to deny that he had contact with the al Qaeda recruiter Anwar al-Awlaki who later praised Maj Hasan's actions. Nor is it possible to deny that he had "more unexplained connections to people being tracked by the FBI" than just radical cleric Anwar al Awlaki.

You may call him a lunatic, but what makes him any more of a lunatic than the suicide bombers that he revered?

What is inexplicable is how a muslim Islamist, whose investigation for contacting the likes of Anwar al -Awlaki, could have concluded that his exchanges with the terrorist recruiter was deemed benign contact.

How is any conversation with a terrorist recruiter benign let alone conversation with a known al Qaeda recruiter and a known Islamist serving in the US Army.

But the weeding out of others who are like Hasan will be much more difficult when you have the Army's top guy saying "I'm concerned that this increased speculation could cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers. And I've asked our Army leaders to be on the lookout for that,"

How about being on the lookout for more traitors in military uniform. The bad part is that Maj Hasan made no secret of his afinity for Jihadists and it is at least likely that he was not reported because "Army leaders would be on the lookout" for people who seemed to be prejudice against muslim soldiers.

It is very true that the direction from the top military brass needs to be balanced. We do not want a witch hunt. But at the same time we can not afford another Hasan either in a war zone or at home.

But General Casey does not seem to be able to strike the right balance. His direction comes down on the side of political correctness which is detrimental to the welfare of our troops and our country.

General Casey should be replaced by someone who can strike the right balance.

Radical encouragement

I noticed during the Presidential campaign Mr Obama's distain for free speech; or at least speech that was critical of him anyway. I asked at the time

Is this what we are in for with an Obama Presidency? A systematic attack on the Bill of Rights?

Now that he has become President, we have seen the trend continue with the White House's open attack on Fox News. When called on it by "friendly" media, that is media perceived as friendly to the White House, their words need to be recalled so they are not branded the next Fox News-like organization.

On National Public Radio's "Talk of the Nation" Wednesday, NPR political editor Ken Rudin said the White House campaign against Fox News is a bad idea. "It's not only aggressive, it's almost Nixonesque," Rudin said. "I mean, you think of what Nixon and Agnew did with their enemies list and their attacks on the media; certainly Vice President Agnew's constant denunciation of the media. Of course, then it was a conservative president denouncing a liberal media, and of course, a lot of good liberals said, 'Oh, that's ridiculous. That's an infringement on the freedom of press.' And now you see a lot of liberals almost kind of applauding what the White House is doing to Fox News, which I think is distressing."

It's not the usual thing you hear from NPR analysts. Reaction from the NPR audience was negative, and within 24 hours, Rudin was in backtrack mode. "I made a boneheaded mistake yesterday," Rudin wrote on his NPR blog. "Comparing the tactics of the Nixon administration -- which bugged and intimidated and harrassed journalists -- to that of the Obama administration was foolish, facile, ridiculous and, ultimately, embarrassing to me. I should have known better and, in fact, I do know better. I was around during the Nixon years. I am fully cognizant of what they did and attempted to do."

"I apologize for a dumb comparison."

Rudin's full-180 earned warm praise from NPR ombudsman Alicia Shepard. "While it was a dumb thing to say, I applaud Rudin for quickly apologizing," Shepard wrote. "Journalists are going to make mistakes -- not intentionally but they will happen. Acknowledging them goes a long way to maintaining credibility."

And thus, disaster was averted.

But it doesn't stop there. In a less well publicized move, the Obama Administration voted to encourage blasphemy laws at the UN Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva a few weeks ago.

While attracting surprisingly little attention, the Obama administration supported the effort of largely Muslim nations in the U.N. Human Rights Council to recognize exceptions to free speech for any "negative racial and religious stereotyping." The exception was made as part of a resolution supporting free speech that passed this month, but it is the exception, not the rule that worries civil libertarians. Though the resolution was passed unanimously, European and developing countries made it clear that they remain at odds on the issue of protecting religions from criticism. It is viewed as a transparent bid to appeal to the "Muslim street" and our Arab allies, with the administration seeking greater coexistence through the curtailment of objectionable speech.

Recall the UN Human Rights Council for a moment

The Geneva-based Human Rights Council was established in March 2006 to replace the 60-year-old Human Rights Commission, which lost international credibility after countries with abysmal rights records, such as Sudan and Zimbabwe, were allowed to join and thwart criticism of their actions.

The Bush administration refused to join the new rights body, saying it was not convinced that it represented much of an improvement over its predecessor. John R. Bolton, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations when the council was created, said at the time that the United States would have more "leverage in terms of the performance of the new council" by not participating in it and thus signaling a rejection of "business as usual."

Reached Tuesday, Bolton denounced the Obama administration's decision. "This is like getting on board the Titanic after it's hit the iceberg," he said. "This is the theology of engagement at work. There is no concrete American interest served by this, and it legitimizes something that doesn't deserve legitimacy."

The Obama administration and rights advocates concede that the Human Rights Council has failed to emerge as a powerful champion of human rights, saying it has devoted excessive attention to alleged abuses by Israel and too little to abuses in places such as Darfur, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe.

Participating is one thing, actively endorsing blasphemt laws is something else entirely.

But it seems to be consistent with the current Administrations apparant disdain for free speech.

Hope you're not an atheist.

Or a Fox News employee....

It ain't just Iran

It's not surprising to find that Iran is again backing away from a deal that would have helped ease the fears that they are attempting to become a nuclear power. The original agreement had holes you could drive a starship through but even that apparently was unacceptable to them.

But what makes them so bold? Perhaps the knowledge that even though Russia was at the negotiating table, their very reminded Iran that no significant action against them would be taken at the UN Security council because Russia still maintains that they will veto any attempt to place sanctions on the country.

Russia is supplying not only arms to Iran, but nuclear material and expertise. All of this would end if sanctions were imposed. In fact Russia, if it wanted to, could severly cripple Iran's nuclear progam all by itself by simply refusing to supply expertise and material. It could threaten to do so unless Iran yielded demands of rigorous monitoring of their nuclear facilities.

But Russia does none of these and publicly maintains it will veto sanctions.

Meanwhile, Russia itself is stomping on the the President's rhetoric of attaining a nuclear-free world by testing a new multiple-warhead missile that if deployed would be in violation of the existing START treaty.

The missile in question is the SS-27

The Russian SS-27, or Topol-M, is an intercontinental-range, ground-based, solid propellant ballistic missile. It represents the pinnacle of ballistic missile technology, incorporating modern fuel and warhead designs, as well as being capable of being launched from both missile silos and Transporter-Erector-Launcher (TEL) vehicles. Current Russian accounts stress that the SS-27 is invulnerable to any modern anti-ballistic missile (ABM) defenses. Yuriy Solomonov, director of the Moscow Institute of Heat Technology and designer-general of the Topol family of missiles, has stated that the SS-27 will be the foundation of the Russian strategic nuclear arsenal by 2015.

Now in exchange for the Hope that Mocow would help with Iran, the President gave away the missile defense shield for Eastern Europe. The Bush Administration had always claimed that the missile shild was not aimed at Russia, but at rogue nations who would acquire nuclear missiles.

But you know what? They knew about the SS-27 too.

And Russia knew that such a shield would counter the SS-27 as well as missiles from, say, Iran.

When the President threw away the missile shield in Eastern Europe, he got nothing from Russia on Iran and Russia removed the counterbalance to the SS-27 as well as Iran's missiles.

Back in September, The President lauded a UN non-poliferation agreement, but other world leaders took a more cautious view as expressed by French President Nicolas Sarkozy:

Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, came close to mocking his American counterpart for the good intentions, which Mr Obama had heralded as an "historic" step towards nuclear abolition, even though it set no specific targets or fresh mandates.

"We live in a real world not a virtual world," the Frenchman told the 15-member council. "And the real world expects us to take decisions.

"President Obama dreams of a world without weapons ... but right in front of us two countries are doing the exact opposite.

"Iran since 2005 has flouted five security council resolutions. North Korea has been defying council resolutions since 1993.

"I support the extended hand of the Americans, but what good has proposals for dialogue brought the international community? More uranium enrichment and declarations by the leaders of Iran to wipe a UN member state off the map," he continued, referring to Israel.

The sharp-tongued French leader even implied that Mr Obama's resolution 1887 had used up valuable diplomatic energy.

"If we have courage to impose sanctions together it will lend viability to our commitment to reduce our own weapons and to making a world without nuke weapons," he said.

Mr Sarkozy has previously called the US president's disarmament crusade "naïve".

The Russians have expressed the same sentiment with their deeds because such words from the Russians would be counter-productive to their cause.

Who are those folks?

The whole TEA Party thing is very confounding to the Left, but it shouldn't be. I and others have been pointing out since the beginning that this was not a "Republican" thing. In fact, the situation that allowed the Democrats to take control of Congress was more about the failure of Republicans to give people what they want (less government and less government spending) than it was about any attraction people had to the Democratic Party.

All that has obviously changed. The budget deficit has surged to an all-time high of US$1.42 trillion and that is without health care "reform" or Stimulus II. People feel burdened  while the Left likes to disparage these folks by calling them tea baggers, they forget that what they call themselves is Taxed Enough Already.

But some Democrats and Leftists (in general) have deluded themselves thus far into thinking that these people were shills for the Republican Party; they called their demonstrations "astroturf". But then it became obvious to even the main stream media that these folks were not Republican shills; they're a movment all their own.

The rise of conservative "tea party" activists around the country has created a dilemma for Republicans. They are breathing life into the party's quest to regain power. But they're also waging war on some candidates hand-picked by GOP leaders as the most likely to win.

But even here the media doesn't have things exactly right. When does "Conservative" mean in this context? Sure some are social conservatives, but not most. So some are say anti-abortion, but not most. Some are anti-gay marriage but not most.

What does unite these Republicans, Democrats and Independents is they are all more fiscally conservative and more Federalist than Congress; and in many cases this means Republicans as well.

Begun as a loosely affiliated groundswell of Constitution-waving protesters in tri-cornered hats, the Tea Party movement is now starting to rock the political establishment in key arenas.

The growing numbers of Americans coming out to the Tax Day Tea Party, the Fourth of July Tea Parties, and then the 9/12 Tea Party march on Washington are going back to their home districts and keeping up — even intensifying — the fight for smaller government and more transparency on spending and taxation.

As the evidence mounts, opponents of small government and a restrained Federal Government has come up with a new delusion: That the movement the Republicans started are now turning on their masters.

And they continue with their delusion that any and all criticism of the President and the Democratic majority is racially based. The latest instance refers to a Louisiana justice of the peace who refused to marry an interracial couple. He was referred to as a right-wing hate-monger.

But it turned out this guy was a life-long Democrat until 2008. I wonder what happened in 2008 that made him change parties?

Here's the situation that has the Left worked up: They are going to lose seats in Congress next year and they are doing their best to blunt that embarrassment now. They are even more fearful that they will lose control of one or more chambers of Congress and they need to do something to prevent that from occurring.

I've got an idea: How about not spending so much, pass legislation that addresses our runaway spending, and pass health care legislation that actually addresses the issues?

I'm afraid that Congress just can not go there the way it is currently configured.

So change is gonna come.

And if Republicans do again get control of Congress, they had better heed the lessons or change is gonna come again.

And again.

Until we get a political class that has some respect for the constiutional limits of federal power.

Towards a costlier health care system

People, that is Republicans, Democrats and Independents want health-care reform as a general goal. And regardless of your "orientation" you want that reform to accomplish a number of basic goals:

1) reduce costs, or minimally do something to flatten the upward trend of costs

2) make it so preexisting conditions do not exclude one from obtaining affordable insurance

3) make health care affordable for people regardless of their work situation.

Now the fact of the matter is these three goals do not not require a "public option" though that is an improbably but possible solution.

The problem currently is that the package being voted on in the Senate today does not accomplish these goals.

Now back when all of this was still being kicked around, the Insurance companies were brought in to help craft the legislation and some give and take was negotiated. The Insurance companies all said that sure, we can do what you want, but you have to get all Americans involved because we need premiums from a large population of healthy people who are not likely to use their insurance to cover the cost of people who are chronically using their health care insurance. And if you free us from state mandates for minimum coverage and allow us to compete nationwide, we will be able to provide lower costs and more options for people.

And for a while, it looked like at least some of that might happen.

But then Congress got involved in the nitty gritty and things got screwed up royally.

The mandate for everyone to be all in got diluted to the point where the insurance companies were no longer able to support the legislation. As a result, they issued their own report to counter the overly-rosy CBO report that was supporting the current legislation and factuallu support their position.

Key Findings

• Health reform could have a significant impact on the cost of private health insurance coverage.

• There are four provisions included in the Senate Finance Committee proposal that could increase private health insurance premiums above the levels projected under current law:

o Insurance market reforms coupled with a weak coverage requirement,
o A new tax on high-cost health care plans,
o Cost-shifting as a result of cuts to Medicare, and
o New taxes on several health care sectors.

• The overall impact of these provisions will be to increase the cost of private insurance coverage for individuals, families, and businesses above what these costs would be in the absence of reform.

• On average, the cost of private health insurance coverage will increase:

o 26 percent between 2009 and 2013 under the current system and by 40 percent during this same period if these four provisions are implemented.
o 50 percent between 2009 and 2016 under the current system and by 73 percent during this same period if these four provisions are implemented.
o 79 percent between 2009 and 2019 under the current system and by 111 percent during this same period if these four provisions are implemented.

Supporters of the current Senate Legislation got all upset

Democrats and their allies scrambled on Monday to knock down a new industry-funded study forecasting that Senate legislation, over time, will add thousands of dollars to the cost of a typical policy. "Distorted and flawed," said White House spokeswoman Linda Douglass. "Fundamentally dishonest," said AARP's senior policy strategist, John Rother. "A hatchet job," said a spokesman for Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont.

Harsh word for folks who were their former partners.

"The misleading and harmful claims made by the profit-driven insurance companies are politicking for corporate gain at its worst," said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.

But this is a misleading claim in and of itself.

...in 29 of the 43 states that data are available for in the American Medical Association report mentioned earlier, the dominant company in the “full” insurance market is a non-profit company. In state after state, Blue Cross and Blue Shield hold the largest market share. On average, the largest non-profit hold over half of the “full” market share in those 29 states.

And when you calculate out the premiums people will pay with or without this legislation, this is what you get.

What people want is real solutions.

And while the half-hearted attempt to get everyone involved in health insurance is not going to cut it, at least an attempt was made.

Right now there is nothing in the legislation allowing insurance companies to compete nation-wide which would save costs and there is nothing in the legislation that deals with tort-reform which would save $54 billion according to the CBO.

People want health care reform.

What they don't want is smoke and mirrors promoted by Congressfolk with hidden agendas.