Michele Bachmann - Rising star

by Ellen Sauerbrey

There is a new star in the GOP firmament and she is principled, savvy, articulate and beautiful. No, I don't mean Sarah, though the former Alaska Governor has already demonstrated the ability of a conservative woman to connect with the voters.

The rising star is Michele Bachmann, the Congresswoman from Minnesota, an outspoken media-savvy conservative, who is about as feisty as they come. Last week Bachmann asked people to pay a house call on Washington DC, and they came from all over the country by the thousands.

In doing so, the two term Congresswoman was chancing becoming the object of ridicule. If few had responded to her call to action, imagine how the media would have ridiculed her bold effort. However, her gambit was hugely successful as she demonstrated a rare ability to read the mood of the people and to put herself forward as the spark that could light a fire.

"I called and YOU came" she called out to the huge crowd that gathered on the Capitol lawn. Not many politicians have both the courage to issue such a strong battle call and the ability to motivate people to hop on airplanes, trains and cars to pour into Washington on very short notice. As a member of Congress, Michelle Bachmann has repeatedly demonstrated conviction and leadership. She is a true believer in the basic principles of less government and more personal freedom. She has championed a taxpayer bill of rights, earmark reform, increased domestic energy exploration.

An outspoken critic of Democrat proposals for health care reform, cap and trade, and stimulus spending, she describes the Obama policies as "economic Marxism." Supporting that label, she cites a study by University of Arizona economist, Professor William Boyes, contending that the federal government now owns or controls 30 percent of private wealth in America and will exceed 50% if Obama care becomes law. Posing a very different image than the much-maligned "angry white Republican male," Michelle is already being demonized in much the same manner as Sarah Palin. There is already a DumpBachmann blog and a Censure Bachmann campaign. The left calls her everything from a right wing extremist to a retarded Wingnut.

In an interview with Sean Hannity, she cited Thomas Jefferson's statement that a revolution every now and then is a good thing. "We are at the point, Sean, of revolution. And by that, what I mean, is an orderly revolution - where the people of this country wake up, get up and make a decision that this is not going to happen on their watch. It won't be our children and grandchildren that are in debt. It is we who are in debt, we who will be bankrupting this country, inside of ten years, if we don't get a grip. And we can't let the Democrats achieve their ends any longer."

Her words were a clear call to action; certainly not a call to arms. But the hysterical left wing blogosphere reported the interview as the "first prominent Neocon to openly call for the violent overthrow of the Obama administration." The Democrat Congressional Committee website speaks of "her outrageous, out of touch agenda (that) she seems eager to promote on national cable networks." Congresswoman Bachmann is far from out of touch. She and her husband, Marcus employ 42 people in a small business mental health care practice. She is the mother of five children and has also opened her heart to 23 foster children. Like Sarah Palin, she is the real deal.

It is an unwritten rule in politics that the more effective one is, the more vicious and shrill are the attacks from those who fear you. No doubt the left wing media is already scouring for a skeleton in the closet; and preparing to launch non-stop ethics probes! Bachmann is dangerous, so expect an all out effort to destroy her.

Cash for Clunkers: The Ugly Ending

by Jim Pettit

Cash for Clunkers, the Obama Administration’s summer feel-good program for the economy, artificially boosted GDP in the third quarter. Now the bill comes due –$3 billion for the program itself, interest on the debt it caused, back office expenses at the U.S. Department of Transportation, back office expenses at auto dealers, and a steep dive in auto sales expected for the fourth quarter.

Giving away one person’s money to allow other people to buy cars is not the way to a sustainable economic recovery. It’s a social engineering scheme designed to provide a short-term uptick on economic reports so the Administration can move on to larger social engineering experiments – energy and health care regulation among them and more to follow. Energy and health care regulation have less of a chance of getting through Congress unless the Administration can first claim to stabilize the economy. And the Administration had to do something to look like it was in control of the socialized GM and Chrysler operations. Clunkers is a means to an end.

A Russian family, who has lived in Maryland since the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991, put it best when asked about the Clunkers program. “We’ve seen this movie from the middle until the end. You’re seeing it at the beginning.” In other words, it starts off nice and sounds nice – helping people buy cars. But somewhere in the middle of this movie, the plot turns and the ending is ugly. When an economy is not sustainable everyone eventually pays. Feel-good programs like Cash for Clunkers (C4C) ease the way down a slippery slope to oblivion, and that’s what the Russians are talking about. If that dire macroeconomic scenario isn’t enough, consider that C4C helped relatively few people, most of the new cars bought with C4C money were Toyotas and Hondas and it caused used car prices to go up.

Under C4C, consumers trading in relatively poor gas mileage vehicles received up to $4500 to purchase a new, fuel efficient one. C4C generated nearly 700,000 new car sales in a nation that counts 136 million registered automobiles. That means .5% of the vehicles in this country were replaced by new cars.

One consumer, interviewed on a local TV station, exclaimed that the “stars aligned” since she wanted to replace an aging Ford van with a new car anyway and along comes C4C. That’s about the extent of it. For the vast majority of our nation’s 300 million people, the stars do not align in qualifying for bureaucratic hand-outs. Another individual, not interviewed on TV, explained that an ’83 Chevy S-10 pick-up did not qualify for C4C. Why? The truck got 19 miles per gallon, according to the EPA, and the C4C requirement is 18 miles per gallon. No new car for them. For that matter, there was no new car for anyone who wasn’t able to afford to junk a vehicle and shell out thousands for a new one, so forget about helping low-income people with C4C. They didn’t get much time on TV either.

C4C accounts for a 5% to 10% rise in used car prices, especially for vehicles worth $4,500 or less, according to Kelley Blue Book. "It's going to drive prices up of some of the most affordable vehicles we have on the road," said an analyst for the used-car market firm to USA Today in August. Anyone in the market for a cheap used car paid more because the supply and demand dynamics were distorted with 700,000 vehicles suddenly taken out of the market. That’s a direct hit on low-income people trying to buy a vehicle.

The Obama Administration doesn’t want to hear any of that. It is telling when the Administration has the audacity to call out a well-respected industry leader in public. Edmunds, a privately held company providing auto sales data analysis since 1966, used computer forecast modeling to determine C4C’s real impact. According to Edmund’s only 125,000 net vehicle sales were attributed to C4C. The remaining 550,000-plus vehicles sold would have been purchased anyway, without C4C.

That means the government ended up spending about $24,000 each for those 125,000 additional vehicle sales according to the Edmunds analysis.

Here is what a political appointee in the Obama Administration had to say about Edmund’s conclusions, "It is unfortunate that Edmunds.com has had nothing but negative things to say about a wildly successful program…,” said a U.S. DOT spokesman.

So in other words, it is “unfortunate” that an industry expert questions the Obama Administration’s social engineering and government-led automotive policy. In an extraordinary October 29 blog post, The White House itself got into the fray and in attempting to refute the Edmunds analysis devolves into a sarcastic rant. Here is a choice line: “In other words, all the other cars were being sold on Mars, while the rest of the country was caught up in the excitement of the Cash for Clunkers program.”

Here in the U.S., on Earth, consumer spending dropped 0.5% in September, the Commerce Department reported at the end of October. It's the largest decline in nine months. We’ll have to wait and see if the Administration still deems C4C wildly successful and how much excitement there will be when fourth quarter GDP numbers are out.

Harry’s Shell Game

By Ellen Sauerbrey

After months of work by Senate Committees, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stepped up to the microphone and pronounced that in his opinion ““the best way to move forward is to include a public option with the opt-out provision for states.” Though there is little understanding of how an opt-out provision would work, it resurrected the seemingly dead government plan that, if enacted, will eventually destroy the private insurance market.

The inclusion of a public option in the Senate bill was a double cross that immediately resulted in Maine Senator Olympia Snowe, the only Republican who was lending a “bipartisan fig leaf” to any of the Democrat’s health care plans, withdrawing her support. Liberal Democrat Chuck Shumer lauded Senator Reid who, he said, “showed just how deep his commitment is” to the public option.

Reid knows that without the illusion of a bipartisan plan, he is likely to lose several middle of the road Democrats, especially those who must face the voters next year. Senator Joe Lieberman signaled weeks ago his concern that Obama was trying to do too much too fast in a weak economy and has now said he is likely to join a Republican fillibuster.

The likelihood of Reid getting the needed sixty votes to pass a bill out of the Senate with a public option, with or without the new gimmick of a “state opt- out” remains murky at best. So what is his motivation?

The Senate leader is facing a very difficult re-election campaign with polls showing him running behind Republican contenders. His liberal base, in and out of the Senate, demands a public option. The opt- out provision may be a meaningless gimmick but it allows Reid to appear strong with Democrat activist groups back home and perhaps gives cover to worried Democrats.

No one knows the language of the Senate bill, but it is certain that the public option will draw the greatest attention and debate. Even if Reid can’t get the votes for what will become, in reality, a government health care system, he will be credited by his leftist supporters in the Senate, as well as back home for having given it his best. He can then offer up Senator Snowe’s trigger, regain “bipartisan support”, and attract nervous Democrats.

All the while, with the media focusing on the fight over “public option”, “opt-out”, and “trigger” provisions, other equally destructive parts of the bill will be overshadowed.

As Harry’s shell game is played in Congress, voters need to keep an eye on the ball. The problems with this “reform” go far beyond the issue of a public option. With or without the public option, it will be at minimum a trillion dollar proposal with a new “Health Choices Commissioner dictating health insurance plans.

With or without a public option, it forces everyone to buy a government dictated health insurance plan, imposes new job-killing taxes on employers, slashes Medicare for seniors, underpays doctors and hospitals, limits the deductibility of medical expenses on income taxes, imposes billions in new fees on manufacturers of life saving medical devices, creates taxpayer subsidies for abortion and illegal aliens, and leaves millions uninsured.

Harry’s shell game is about his tough re-election prospects in Nevada. Many think he is misreading his state. Unless the people of Nevada really want this new dependency on government, they are about to bury him in “you are fired” pink slips for attempting to destroy the finest health care system in the world.

COMPULSORY INSURANCE –ANOTHER TROJAN HORSE

By Ellen Sauerbrey

Bookies are making bets on whether some version of Obamacare will pass this year, but with five bills floating around, there is no betting on what it will look like.

The threat of a “public option” has generated the hottest protest with voters understanding that the unfair competition of a government plan will quickly destroy the private health insurance system. By contrast some conservatives have expressed support for Senate Finance Committee proposal requiring that everyone must purchase insurance. After all, they reason, isn’t it just a matter of fairness to expect everyone to bear responsibility for their own care?

In reality this is a Trojan horse that will give the government as much power to control the health care system as the “public option”. It is also unconstitutional. But then there is nothing in the text of the constitution that gives the Congress any authority to regulate health care. However, this mandate breaks new ground.

For the first time, the federal government would be ordering Americans to buy a product or service they do not voluntarily choose to purchase. They would be required to purchase health care insurance acceptable to the Health Choices Administrator. This is quite different than government regulation of an activity that individuals have chosen to undertake. Failure to comply with the mandate would result in a tax collected by the IRS but the mandate is itself a hidden tax.

A government bureaucrat would be empowered to determine what coverage a policy must have to comply with the law. Many would be required to purchase health insurance that they cannot afford or that does not best meet their individual needs. For example, many healthy young people need nothing more than a high deductible catastrophic policy. They can afford to pay the doctor for their flu shot or to sprained ankle. For them, insurance is protection against the really big stuff.

What would compulsory insurance look like? Candidate Obama described his idea of “meaningful coverage” as being at least as good as the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. One thing that can be assured is that lobbying would be intense to include dozens of mandated benefits in the plan. For decades health care provider groups have demonstrated their effectiveness in expanding mandates at the state level. These mandates have helped to drive the cost of insurance through the roof in many states, forcing consumers to buy a Cadillac plan when all they may want or need is a basic stripped down Model T Ford.

This is precisely the problem that Massachusetts experienced after the passage of the Romney compulsory insurance plan. Lobbyists convinced legislators to make the mandatory insurance more and comprehensive and more and more expensive. Legislators have proposed requirements for over seventy additional coverages. A federal plan will experience the same political pressures to require consumers to buy increasingly comprehensive insurance and will effectively eliminate low cost and catastrophic plans.

One of the few innovations that has given consumers the incentive to utilize health care more carefully is the Health Savings Account. (HSAs) These plans have a higher deductible but allow families to save what they do not need to use annually. As would be the case with a large majority of plans currently offered by employers, HSAs would not comply with the dictates of the Health Choices Czar.

If the Massachusetts experience tells us anything, it is that compulsory insurance premiums will drive up costs, humongous government subsidies to fund insurance for those who cannot afford it will follow, and the bureaucracy will resort to price controls and rationed care as government expenditures skyrocket well beyond projections.

Sadly much of the insurance industry bought in to the compulsory coverage scheme when it seemed to guarantee them tens of millions of new captive customers. However when it became apparent that the fine for non-compliance had to be lowered to make it politically acceptable, insurers were faced with the prospect that many individuals would pay the fine and buy insurance only when faced with serious medical costs.

Now the insurance industry has turned on the plan and issued a report that the Senate Finance Committee bill will increase insurance rates. Angry Democrats are threatening repeal of the McCarran-Ferguson Act that defines insurance as a state controlled activity.

Industry attempts at appeasement, in hopes that the alligator won’t eat them first, usually backfire. Government compulsion in the market place will gobble up insurers first and then leave consumers as the ultimate victims.

PRESIDENTS AND GENERALS: A TEST OF LEADERSHIP

By Jim Pettit

There is nothing new about a president having different opinions with his generals during war, yet how the commander-in-chief addresses these issues openly tests his character and determines a place in history like no other matter. President Obama’s problem with Gen. Stanley McChrystal is all style, not substance. And it’s the president himself who created the very problem that the White House is now complaining about. Obama has stumbled badly on this.

The administration has not answered the call from McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, who very publicly called for an increase of 40,000 troops. McChrystal is directly responsible for these soldiers’ lives, more so than the president, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. With that burden comes an obligation the rest of us can only imagine.

As a candidate, Obama campaigned on refocusing the war from Iraq to Afghanistan, and as president, he removed the last commander replacing him with McChrystal after having called for a new strategy. Since the president does not yet know how to address the substance of the general’s blueprint for victory, administration officials are denouncing the style in which his recommendations are made. Just today, the administration let it be known that McChrystal need not attend a high-level strategy briefing on Afghanistan, the latest petty maneuver of an orchestrated campaign to marginalize him.

The administration is trying to change the subject to a debate about the military chain of command protocol by saying McChrystal is out of line to get through the next several press cycles. To buy time after that, the administration is going to great lengths to portray a systematic, deliberative decision making process where troop levels is just one among a range of options for going forward in Afghanistan. Picking up on this, Sen. John McCain told the president following McChrystal’s remarks that deciding troop levels should not be conducted at a “leisurely pace.”

According to press reports, unnamed White House advisers were "shocked and angered" by the bluntness of McChrystal's London speech in which he outlined a solution for winning the war. On the Sunday talk shows, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and National Security Advisor James Jones were dispatched to say, in essence, that military advice should be kept private.

When asked by a reporter whether the president is pushing the general aside if he doesn’t listen to advice about increasing troop levels, here is what Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said on October 6:

“I'm not going to get into hypotheticals. I appreciate that you fast-forwarded through the decision-making process. But we're going to focus on that process and getting it right. I'm just not going to get into hypotheticals.”

This situation is not hypothetical. The general stated what he thinks the key to victory is and the White House is dithering while casualties mount.

In the largest loss of U.S. soldiers in a single battle in more than a year, some 200 insurgents stormed an Army base comprised of some 140 American and Afghan forces near the Pakistan border. Eight U.S. soldiers were killed October 3. For months prior to this attack, this base was slated to be closed in the thinly populated area but wasn’t due to delays in getting helicopters in for an airlift. You’re either in or you’re not. Half measures are deadly, and that’s what the U.S. effort is right now.

When Winston Churchill appointed a new admiral of the navy to institute sweeping changes in the British fleet, he said at the time he wanted a “live wire.” Obama appears to have one in McChrystal, but he probably doesn’t know that because he spoke with his general just once since his promotion before these events unfolded.

Looking back at American history, it’s clear that presidents have a high threshold to reach to avoid the political and military fallout that comes from reducing the stature of battlefield commanders. First among presidents who had to deal with wartime generals is Abraham Lincoln, who was frustrated at the slow, wandering pace of the Civil War. Gen. George McClellan lectured the president on how to wage war with the South, yet failed to wage aggressive campaigns required for victory. He was subsequently fired.

Harry Truman sacked Gen. Douglas MacArthur for not following Administration policy on the Korean War. After Truman let him go, he later said it was because MacArthur didn’t respect the authority of the president. Respect for the authority of the president in this case meant not speechmaking, but provoking China which would have drastically widened the war.

Lecturing the general on his style of going public aboard Air Force One for a half hour in Copenhagen to sell Chicago to the Olympics committee does not inspire confidence. The Administration cannot focus on Afghanistan, health care and energy regulation, a last minute trip to see the Olympics committee and a host of other issues all at the same time. When everything is a priority, then nothing is. So for now, its politics as usual: attack the general in the press, exclude him from key meetings and change the subject.

In Obama, we don’t see any qualities even remotely resembling either Lincoln or Truman, who had to endure acute and sustained challenges with their generals on fundamental differences of policy. Lincoln and Truman fired their generals with substantive examples that justified their actions in the long run.

Obama knows he can’t fire McChrsytal – not yet anyway. The fallback approach is a cheap political effort to marginalize the general, and it comes at the added cost of the lives of U.S. troops. This is not leadership.

TERRIBLE TIMING

The pending Unemployment Tax increase is certain to make matters worse.

Ellen Sauerbrey for Maryland Business for Responsive Govenment

With many businesses struggling to survive the current recession, a significant increase in Unemployment Insurance (UI) taxes is a potentially ruinous prospect. Higher taxes in a recessionary climate will pressure employers to delay hiring/or increase the number of layoffs. The irony is that the hefty employer tax increase scheduled to begin in January 2010 is required to replenish the Unemployment Compensation fund which has been depleted by layoffs. Employers who have experienced more layoffs, and presumably are under the greatest stress, are also the ones who will pay the highest tax increase.

In January, Maryland employers will be assigned Unemployment Contribution rates using “Table F,” which is the maximum level for the mandated “contributions” or taxes used to cover employees for Unemployment Insurance. Employers will pay taxes that range between 2.2% and 13.5% of annual taxable wages of all their employees or the first $8,500 in wages paid to each employee. Depending on an employer’s underlying “experience rate,” the actual dollars amount will range from $187 to $1,147.50 per employee earning $8,500 or more per year. A company with no layoffs in the past three years will have the lowest rates increases.

This should not come as a surprise because the formula that mandates this increase was enacted in 2005 with support from the business community. In addition, some of the business community supported extending benefits to part time workers, significantly driving up the number of applicants.

This is an excellent example of how seemingly good public policy can result in adverse unintended consequences.

What is the purpose of the Unemployment Insurance Law in Maryland? The statute (8-102) indicates that the purpose is “to prevent the spread of involuntary unemployment and to lighten its burden…” Before we raise the UI tax on employers to the highest level, perhaps we should ask ourselves whether this will force employers to lay off more people.

Anyone who paid attention in Economics 101 knows the answer is yes. However, if we do not increase these taxes, the UI Trust Fund for Maryland may be depleted and forced to borrow from the federal government. Let’s look at the alternatives before we passively accept the higher fees.

Option I Do Nothing - Allow the increases to take affect and risk the possibility that many businesses will reduce payrolls or move production to other states or out of the country altogether.

Option II Limited Increase - Reduce the required increase (50% or more) and monitor the Trust Fund balance to see what, if any additional increases are needed.

Option III No Increase – Eliminating the increase in UI Tax and allow the Maryland Trust Fund to borrow from the federal government if necessary.

UI Trust Fund balances earn interest; however, unlike other forms of deposit, these amounts are not available for investment in the local economy for job creation. Balances in state UI Trust Funds are used to offset the Federal Deficit, which is an important reason why the federal government encourages states to impose higher taxes and maintain larger balances.

What happens if Maryland borrows from the federal government? Any money that Maryland borrows must be repaid with interest. Absent specific legislation to charge employers, the interest expense in question would be payable from the state’s general fund.

Which is better: impose higher UI taxes without borrowing or lower UI taxes and possibly need to borrow? The answer depends on what you value more – jobs or the UI Trust Fund.

CREATING DEPENDENCY FOR MIDDLE AMERICA

By Ellen Sauerbrey

The Obama administration is moving with lightning speed to destroy the private sector and create a new kind of citizen that must look to the government to meet ever more basic needs. Government takeovers started in earnest a year ago with the seizure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This was followed by the takeover of banks and the car makers. And currently the battle is being fought over the attempted takeover of health care and student loans.

If President Obama and liberal Democrats in Congress have their way, for the first time in history, American citizens will be dependent on bureaucrats in Washington for their home mortgages, their children’s college loans, and their health care. That equates to a dangerous new level of dependency on government for middle America.

The Washington Post reported September 7 that the federal government is now guaranteeing 86 percent of all new home mortgages, up from 30% four years ago. So for most American families, the American dream of home ownership now rests with a federal bureaucracy. This is the same bureaucracy that encouraged people to buy homes they could not afford and stuck the taxpayers with billions in defaulted loans.

In mid September, the House voted for an education-financing measure that would oust private lenders from the student loan business and make the government the sole provider of student loans under federal programs. Should parents be left with no choice but a Washington bureaucracy from which to borrow money for their children’s college education?

As the Wall Street Journal reported, “Loans directly from the feds have been available for decades, but the government's poor customer service has resulted in most borrowers choosing private lenders.” We are told that we need a “public option” to ensure competition in health care, yet when it comes to student loans the government wants to crush competition.

If the Senate passes the measure, the U.S. Department of Education will move from its current 20% share of the student-loan origination market to 80% on July 1, 2010, when private lenders will be barred from making government-guaranteed loans. The remaining 20% of the market is likely to be crowded out by regulations Congress created last year.

Critics argue it is wrong to put the government in near-total control of student lending; that it expands the federal balance sheet by another trillion dollars over the next decade, and can inject politics into loan issuance and loan defaults.

Do American families really want their ability to buy a home or send their children to college dependent on a government bureaucracy? If the Democrats also succeed in their quest to grab control of the American health care system, the mechanism will be in place to control the most intimate aspects of our lives.

CONGRESS TO HUMANA "SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP"

By Ellen Sauerbrey

Excuse me. Is this the former Soviet Union or the United States of America? A blatant effort by the powerful in government to censor speech with which they disagree makes one wonder what country we live in today. Every day seems to raise another challenge to fundamental freedoms.

In an outrageous and un-American attack on dissent aimed at Humana Inc., a major health insurer is being investigated for the crime of communicating its concerns about health care legislation to its enrollees. The mailing sent to seniors subscribed to the Medicare Advantage Program warned that "millions of seniors and disabled individuals could lose many … important benefits and services that make Medicare advantage health plans so valuable." The letter urges enrollees to protest the proposed legislation to their members of Congress.

Insurance experts argue that the proposal to cut “$123 billion in payments to insurance companies that insure about 10 million Medicare recipients will result in cuts in benefits. Most would agree that is a likely outcome.

But Congressional Democrats say “shut up”. Unhappy that an insurer disagrees with the impact of their legislative proposal, they have directed the Administration bureaucracy, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to go after Humana and any other insurance company that sends out letters that might alarm the elderly.

CMS has obliged by sending a warning to Humana. “CMS is concerned that, among other things, this information is misleading and confusing to beneficiaries, represents information to beneficiaries as official communications about the Medicare Advantage program, and is potentially contrary to federal regulations and guidance for the MA and Part D programs and other federal law, including HIPAA. As we continue our research into this issue, we are instructing you to end immediately all such mailings to beneficiaries and to remove any related materials directed to Medicare enrollees from your website…. Please be advised that we take this matter very seriously and, based upon the findings of our investigation, will pursue compliance and enforcement actions. “

A similar letter also went to other Medicare Advantage insurers warning them not to follow Humana’s lead. There is no doubt that such communication from a federal regulatory agency with power over an industry’s destiny would have a very chilling impact on freedom of expression.

The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) weighed in with its own attack on Humana. "The opponents of reform will stop at nothing to derail the process and protect their own vested interests, even if it means misleading older Americans." This from an organization experiencing membership flight by seniors who no longer feel that AARP represents their best interests.

Congressman John Boehner asked "would the Administration impose this sort of gag order if seniors were being given information promoting the Obama health care plan?" Great question! An amendment by Arizona Senator Jon Kyl aimed at protecting the First Amendment rights of insurers to criticize health care legislation was defeated on a strict party line vote with all Democrats in opposition.

Regardless of the merits of the Human letter, Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas said it best. “You have a right to be wrong.” At least in America we used to have that right.

SCUTTLING MISSILE DEFENSE IN A DANGEROUS WORLD

Ellen Sauerbrey

On September 17, 1939, Russia invaded Poland and ironically today, seventy years later, the Obama administration rewarded Russia by caving in to its demands regarding the European phase of our anti-ballistic missile defense program. The plan, negotiated by the Bush Administration with two loyal Eastern European allies, was expected to place a ground based interceptor site in Poland and tracking radar on a site in the Czech Republic.

Jan Firscher, Interim Czech Prime Minister told reporters that "Just after midnight I was informed in a telephone call by President Barack Obama that (his) administration had decided to pull out from the planned missile defense shield installations" . This is not only a blow to our comprehensive U.S. anti-ballistic missile program and to European security, but a major betrayal of two allies who took a significant political risk in their relationship with Russia. Once again, the U.S. is demonstrating to friends that we are a very undependable ally, and this time to two countries that have faithfully stood with us in the War on Terror.

Recognizing the importance of continuing to develop our missile defense program, The Heritage Foundation produced a powerful documentary called “33 MINUTES” and has held numerous showings around the country to educate Americans to the threat and the technical feasibility of missile defense. The title “33 minutes” refers to the length of time it takes from the launching of a ballistic missile from Iran or North Korea, possibly armed with nuclear or biological weapons, to reach a U.S city.

We live in a very dangerous world in which rogue nations like North Korea and Iran are not only developing dangerous weapon systems but may supply them to non-state terrorist networks. Iranian President Mahmoud Adhadinejad has frequently told us of his “desirable and achievable” goal to bring about “a world without America”. In August, it was reported that intelligence sources believe that Iran has the technology to build and detonate a nuclear weapon and within six months could assemble and deliver one on Iran’s existing ballistic missile.

Another threat comes from the capability of this technology being provided to a terrorist to launch a nuclear armed missile into space high above America from a fishing boat off our coast. This would inflict catastrophic damage on this country through an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack. The result of this little discussed danger would be to virtually fry the U.S. electric grid and every piece of electronic equipment, disrupting telecommunications, water, food, sanitation and virtually all basic human needs. Yet a naïve Administration in Washington is putting the country at greater risk by slashing our defenses.

Missile defense technology has proven very effective but the entire system is far from completed. The $8 billion dollars budgeted for the program this year, just a tiny part of the defense budget, has been cut by $1.4 billion, with additional cuts down the road a real possibility.

Many Americans are suffering shock and stress over the decimation of our free market economy. Too few are focused on the catastrophic danger we face by neglecting or decimating our missile defense systems.

The nuclear club continues to grow and many countries now have both nuclear and ballistic missile capability. In 33 minutes, life as we know it could end. All it takes is one missile launched from thousands of miles away at an American city and President Obama will either have the capability to destroy it or to issue apologies to the families of the dead.

SUPPRESSING DISSENT IS UN-AMERICAN

Ellen Sauerbrey:

Webster defines dissent as: to differ in opinion… to disagree. This implies that one has an opinion. Dissent can be effectively stifled by keeping people too ignorant to form opinions, frightening them into silence or shutting down the means to express dissent.

The mass media that should keep the public informed is instead keeping the public ignorant. It acts as a gate keeper deciding what we should know. If facts about a controversial person or policy are never revealed, opinions go unformed and there is no dissent. Thomas Jefferson recognized the importance of educating the public when he stated, "If a nation expects to be ignorant -- and free -- it expects what never was and never will be."

As the 2008 election was nearing, I had occasion to ask many friends if they weren’t troubled by the association of Barack Obama and Weatherman Underground founder and bomber Bill Ayers. Without exception, no one I spoke with had heard of Bill Ayers. No opinion…. no dissent.

When Van Jones, the White House “Green Jobs” Czar stepped down in the dark of night, it was generally reported that he had called Republicans a nasty name and signed the “9/11 truther's petition” suggesting the Bush administration was responsible for the 9/11attacks. If not for Glenn Beck and Fox News, no one would know that Van Jones was a self avowed communist advising the President. That is rather significant information that was withheld from the public and ensured there would be no public outcry.

Then there is demonization of those who voice dissent. It began with the characterization of the tea party and town hall goers as un-American, Nazis, brown shirts, teabaggers, mobsters, and most recently domestic terrorists. But the ugliest technique of all is the race card. Being branded a “racist” is a direct assault on character that makes the average person want to run for cover.

Congressman Joe Wilson was the initial target. His two word outburst on the floor of the House was a breach of decorum, but quickly his very legitimate policy concern was branded “racist” by the likes of New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd.

Next came the race baiting irresponsible former President Jimmie Carter charging that "There is an inherent feeling among many people in this country that an African-American ought not to be president, and ought not to be given the same respect as if he were white."

Charges of racism effectively squelch dissent when people are afraid to express policy differences for fear of being branded a racist.

The April 7^th Homeland Security document profiling, as potential rightwing extremists and domestic terrorists, American citizens concerned about “gun rights” and the "current economic and political climate" was another intimidating event. It led to a policeman detaining an individual by a Louisiana roadside for half an hour to determine if he belonged to an extremist group. His crime was an expression of opinion. He had a “Don’t Tread on Me” bumper sticker on his car.

It caused an uproar when the White House asked people to squeal on their neighbors if they heard some “fishy” ideas about Obamacare. But some individuals are now afraid to sign petitions or express their ideas on Face book for fear of being “flagged” on a White House enemies list.

The major outlets for both information and dissent today are talk radio and the internet. Mark Lloyd, the Federal Communications Commission’s new “Diversity Czar” is a disciple of “Rules for Radicals” Saul Alinski and an admirer of Hugo Chavez. Lloyd describes freedom of speech and the press as a “distraction”. He proposes whipping private radio companies into line by threats to their license renewal or by taxing them so heavily that they would be driven out of existence.

If that doesn’t worry you, consider Senate Bill 773 which would permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector non-governmental computer networks during a so-called cyber security emergency, however that may be defined.

Dissent is not un-American, but trying to intimidate and, squelch free speech is. As the editor of the Morning Journal wrote in an August 9 column, “You had better keep a close eye on this White House. Because the Obama White House apparently has its eyes and ears out on the streets watching, listening and ready to 'flag' anyone who doesn't sing their tune.”

THE SPARK THAT TRIGGERED REBELLION

By Ellen Sauerbrey

'I'm as Mad as Hell, and I'm Not Gonna Take This Anymore!' This sentiment is being voiced by protesters turning out for Tea Parties and Health Care Town Hall Meetings around the country. People are angry and frightened by the prospect of government running their health care system, but their anger goes far beyond a 1000 page health bill.

Health care reform is merely the spark that has touched off a prairie fire of grassroots rebellion among a people who believe their representatives do not represent them, do not listen to them and do not care what they think. Many Americans feel that they are losing control of their financial well being, their values and their culture. Shell shock set in as they tried to absorb the rapidity of drastic change.

The first stirring of protest came with the Tea Parties in the spring. These gatherings were completely misread by a media that ignored them and dismissed the attendees as right wing kooks. The Tea Parties were about taxes, yes. But far more they were about the rapid intrusion of the federal government into private affairs, about deficit spending, and a growing understanding that America was heading down a very dangerous road.

People see a government in Washington that is in the process of destroying the constitutional principles of limited government and maximum personal freedom that made America the freest and most prosperous country the world has ever known.

James Madison, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson must be turning over in their graves at what is being done to the Republic they founded. At the close of Constitutional Convention in 1787, Benjamin Franklin said we gave you "a republic if you can keep it." At the moment, keeping it does not look promising.

Our founding fathers had an incredible understanding of human nature, and of the natural tendency of governments to become oppressive. They gave us a unique Constitution that attempted to limit the power of government and ensure the rights of individuals. In 1798 Thomas Jefferson wrote, "In questions of power, then let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."

Yet today one must ask "where does the Constitution give President Obama the right to fire the CEOs of General Motors or to force the Chrysler Corporation to merge with Fiat, a foreign Corporation?" Where is it written in the Constitution that the government has the right to use my tax dollars and yours to prop up businesses that should either declare bankruptcy or simply dissolve and close their doors?

Tragically, our schools no longer teach our children why America is the freest most prosperous country in history. If the uniqueness of the United States Constitution is no longer celebrated how can we expect the next generation to understand the need to protect and defend it?

For 60 known centuries, people on this earth toiled from dawn to dusk, barely able to feed themselves. Famine was the rule, not the exception. Then suddenly here in America, the course of history reversed and food became so abundant that much is wasted. Our country, unlike much of the world even today, has never experienced famine. Is this just some kind of fluke?

In one century, an economic miracle occurred that provided Americans more wealth, more comfort and leisure than had ever been dreamed of. America rose from a wilderness to become a leading world power. How did that happen?

The answer was the unique guarantee of individual freedom and the absence of government meddling and control. Americans were free to save and invest, to go into business, free to own property, free to compete, to work, to prosper... and free to fail and try again. Every ounce of freedom produced a pound of progress. This great experiment called America proved that freedom and initiative work.

But today, freedom and initiative are being replaced by ever higher taxation, regulation and centralization of power in Washington. Our economy is now stagnant and our standard of living is declining. Each year government takes a bigger share of our earnings, employs more and more of our people, enacts more rules that strangle our economy and controls more and more of our lives.

In the enjoyment of plenty have Americans lost the memory of freedom? When citizens are willing to sacrifice their liberty for security they will have neither liberty nor security and will soon find themselves living under tyranny. But sleeping giant of everyday America is stirring.

The September 12^th National Tea Party will bring hundreds of thousands of people to Washington. They are coming by the busload and they are coming because they fear the avalanche of policies coming out of Washington DC that are destroying the foundations of our free society.

They are coming to protest the most fiscally reckless and irresponsible White House and Congress in our history. They understand that the U.S. is on the road to fiscal ruin with massive spending - soaring deficits and mountains of debt that can never be paid off except by running the printing press, generating phony money, creating inflation that ruins lives, and allowing government bills to be paid with worthless dollars.

They are protesting Congress and the White House crafting new ways to bankrupt America -- through Cap and Trade, nationalized health insurance, pork barrel earmarks, and new across-the-board regulations on the financial industry.

They are protesting that people, who have never even run a candy store, are taking over the running of our auto industry, our banks, and other financial institutions. And they are protesting the massive shadow government of unaccountable czars layered on top of the existing government bureaucracy.

Most of all, they are protesting because they see the capitalist system being dismantled day by day and the nation heading pell-mell down the road to socialism

Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural address in1801 described what he called the sum of good government as, "a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned." But Jefferson also warned, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

Generations of Americans worked to build, fought to protect and died to preserve the liberty the Founders gave us. Despite their sacrifice, freedom is under assault today, as never before in America. But there is increasing reason to believe that a growing army of patriots will refuse to stand by and allow this great country to be destroyed.

WORDS OF WISDOM

---Adrian Rogers , 1931

You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

Republicans Have Offered Three Alternative Health Care Reform Bills

Monday, August 24, 2009 - Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer

(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress -- while pushing their own health care overhauls -- have criticized Republicans as offering only opposition and no ideas for reform, but the GOP, despite the lack of media attention, has introduced three health care bills.

The three Republican bills total almost 400 pages and have been on the table since May and June. In May, Republicans in the House and the Senate formed a bicameral coalition to produce the130-page “Patients Choice Act of 2009.” In June, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) introduced the “Health Care Freedom Plan,” a 41-page proposal. And in July, the Republican Study Committee, under the leadership of Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), unveiled the “Empowering Patients First Act,” a 130-page plan.

Some of the provisions included in one or more of the bills include: investing in preventive medicine, an overhaul of Medicaid, reduction of abuse and fraud in the Medicare program, supplemental health insurance for low-income families, tax credits for health insurance, and a ban on federal funds being used for abortions...(You can access all of these proposals by clicking on the links. )

"To be prepared for war, is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace." --George Washington

"The U.S. has abandoned plans to install a missile defense system in Europe, according to a report. If true, this is a major strategic error that will have serious consequences for our allies in Europe and for us. Quoting a U.S. source, the Polish daily Gazeta Wyborcza says the Obama administration has decided against building a missile shield to protect Poland and the Czech Republic. The reason? Russian opposition. Now, if we want to build a defense system for friends in Europe, we'll have to place it in the Balkans, Israel or somewhere else. That is, if Russia approves. This is a stark reversal of past policy and reneges on promises made by the current administration. Worse, it shows weakness. We got into a staredown with the Russian bear and we blinked. ... We've just weakened America's standing in a critical region of the world -- Eastern Europe -- and let our allies down. We've made them vulnerable, in ways that only we could, to Russia's growing military menace. Polish and Czech friends who had relied on us to stand firm and keep our word no doubt feel betrayed. This diminishes our global influence. What smallish country will now take our word at face value when we promise to protect them? ... Given the threat to millions of American lives -- not to mention millions of our allies -- reducing missile defense is both dangerous and irresponsible." --Investor's Business Daily

SO THIS IS HOPE AND CHANGE?

--Patriot Post

In May, when the federal deficit was projected to be $7 trillion over the next decade, President Barack Obama was asked, "At what point do we run out of money?" His reply was actually rather candid: "Well, we are out of money now," he said. Last Friday, the administration adjusted its deficit projection -- upwards, of course. The White House now says the number will reach $9 trillion, including $1.6 trillion this year and $1.5 trillion next year. So much for The One's promise to end the years of "borrow and spend" budgeting.

The Congressional Budget Office simultaneously projected a deficit of $7 trillion over the next decade, a lower number because the CBO considers only current law, not White House proposals. The Wall Street Journal reports that "these deficit estimates are driven entirely by more domestic spending and already assume huge new tax increases. CBO predicts that debt held by the public as a share of GDP, which was 40.8% in 2008, will rise to 67.8% in 2019 -- and then keep climbing after that. CBO says this is 'unsustainable,' but even this forecast may be optimistic."

Among the problems with the White House estimate is that it depends, in part, on raising $640 billion through the cap-and-tax bill as well as another $200 billion in international business taxes. Both bills face opposition in the Senate, even from some Democrats. And these new taxes aren't guaranteed to produce more federal revenue. Instead, we can count on cap-and-tax to depress the economy, resulting in less revenue. The White House already expects unemployment to hit 10 percent this year.

The CBO estimate, meanwhile, is based on the ridiculous premise that Congress will hold spending to the rate of inflation. The Journal remarks, "CBO actually has overall spending falling between 2009 and 2012, which is less likely than an asteroid hitting the Earth." The CBO also assumes that all of the Bush tax cuts will expire, even those for lower and middle class families.

Finally, the president's crown jewel, ObamaCare, projected to cost at least $1 trillion over the next 10 years, is entirely omitted from the deficit estimate because Obama pledges that it won't add to the deficit. Next, he'll be trying to sell us some oceanfront property in Arizona.

Glenn Beck - Current Events & Politics - The New Republic: America's Future Recap

Glenn Beck - Current Events & Politics - The New Republic: America's Future Recap

This week Glenn Beck has courageously educated his audience about the communists, radicals and revolutionaries that have infiltrated our government at the highest levels. He has raised questions about the purpose of then candidate Obama's proposed civilian national security force, that he said would be "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded as the U.S. military.

Beck has been under attack by one of these radical groups,ColorofChange.org that has attempted to shut him up by attempting to boycott his sponsors. It isn't working. Last night Glenn Beck had over 3 million viewers at 5pm, second only to O’Reilly for the night. But, Beck had more 25-54 viewers than O’Reilly. If you have not been able to access his programs, I have attached those of this past week. He tells a story that every American who loves this country needs to hear.

THE PROBLEM WITH CASH FOR CLUNKERS

---By Jim Pettit

As the Obama Administration completes its victory lap on behalf of the American people on the “Cash for Clunkers” program, automotive dealers will be navigating through a bureaucratic maze indefinitely. And U.S. taxpayers will pay the bill, having subsidized new cars for a tiny percentage of the population who happened to meet the government’s strict requirements, and who very well may have been in the market for a new car anyway. Cash for Clunkers is not working for the businesses it was intended to help or for the vast majority of consumers. The White House has moved on, leaving the messy details to the Transportation Department. This is government out of control.

To help the President finish this victory lap, the phrase “wildly successful” has been used consistently in Administration talking points, speeches and press releases. There is nothing successful, wildly or otherwise, about giving away free money. What’s more, the money isn’t free. There is interest to pay due to a chronic budget deficit and national debt. There are costs associated with what the Department of Transportation calls “private sector” contractors – a thousand or so part-time workers, probably temps, to process the paperwork. The Government had to create a new IT system so dealers can get paid. And while it doesn’t work well, it certainly was not free. Then, of course, there is the cost of the program itself.

This widely-reported $3 billion scheme, borrowed from Germany, involves consumers trading in relatively poor gas mileage vehicles and receiving up to $4500 to purchase a new, fuel efficient one. Cash for Clunkers, or C4C in industry short-hand, generated nearly 700,000 new car sales according to government data released August 25. To put this number in context, there are 136 million registered automobiles in the U.S. Most people did not qualify, unless they had a worn out SUV and desired a new small car and could afford to forego the trade- in value of the used vehicle. For everyone else - too bad.

Dealers, who live or die on a basic financial concept known as the time value of money, are left in the aftermath, with untold millions waiting to be processed in some Transportation Department office in Washington. The website that dealers were required to use to get paid crashed so many times that government-imposed deadlines had to be pushed back.

According to a survey published in Automotive News August 24, 61% of dealer respondents were not confident they will get paid for all their C4C transactions. Yet, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s web site has a prominent link to a statement that is remarkable in both simplicity and arrogance. This statement is now front and center on CARS.gov under bold type saying “CARS closed, ”the aforementioned required website for reimbursement submission. The statement says,

”The CARS program has been a wild success. It … has provided an economic boost to the car dealers, the auto manufacturers, the people who provide consumer loans and scrap yards.” A disclaimer at the bottom, in true bureaucratic fashion, reads: “Please note the submission deadline has no effect on continued processing of invoices that have been or will be rejected for errors.”

According to the U.S. DOT, Maryland dealers submitted $75 million for reimbursement as the program ended. DOT has not disclosed how much dealers in Maryland, or elsewhere, have received to date.

Darcars Automotive Group Vice President Tammy Darvish, who oversees multiple dealerships across Maryland, said 1651 vehicle sales are attributable to C4C. The work that remains is another matter – the dealership has been paid on just 16 of those deals. Stated another way, Darcars has $6.5 million outstanding, and they’ve only been paid 1%. This is what Darvish told me:

“I can tell you that we have hundreds of hours of overtime, over 25,000 pages of photo copies that had to be made to scan the deals for CARS.gov requirements, and we had to purchase computer equipment for each of our dealerships.”

No wonder. The rule, not the law, but the final rule to implement the law, is 136 pages that goes into mind-numbing detail ranging from engine disabling procedures, assessing EPA mileage, and how dealers must mark the title of the trade in vehicle for submission. Darvish goes on to say that additional costs were incurred to comply with rules for junking the vehicles - draining the oil, storage and transportation to the scrapping facility.

As of now, C4C adds expenses to an industry sector already beleaguered with credit problems, dealer closures and slow domestic sales. According to the U.S. DOT, 7% of dealer reimbursements have been “reviewed and approved” for payment as of August 19. What does that mean? Maybe it means the DOT can’t say what the status is of 93% of payments owed to dealers all across the country. And they should know real-time because electronic funds transfer is specified in the rule.

Meanwhile, don’t expect delays in the White House message machine. The Council of Economic Advisors was ready for the August 26 DOT announcement that C4C had concluded, predicting a 0.3-0.4 percentage point boost in the GDP annual rate as a result of the clunker program. It’s hard to say whether that projected economic growth assumes dealers have been paid. Equally hard to say is whether the Council will project future negative impacts with 700,000 people now out of the market.

The only good thing to say about Cash for Clunkers is that it officially ended. However, it was a bad deal for business and consumers alike, sloppy in execution and expensive to administer. This is not what the American government is supposed to be doing. Maybe in Germany, but not here.