Obama: Corruption, Deception, Dishonesty, Deceit and Promises Broken

[Soul Crusher]

October 19, 2010
The EPA'S Odd View of 'Consumer Choice'
By Patrick Michaels
www.realclearpolitics.co m
________________________ _____________

Earlier this month, the Environmental Protection Agency proposed in a "Notice of Intent" that passenger vehicle fuel economy average as much as 62 miles per gallon 14 years from now. The agency was able to arrive at this lofty mark by conveniently ignoring everything we know about the state of automotive art and the marketplace today.

For one thing, the average passenger car is going to have to get a lot more than 62 mpg to meet EPA's standard. People are still going to need trucks, vans, and high-volume vehicles that will fall far short of the 62-mpg standard. As a result, what is today's Honda Civic or Ford Fusion is somehow going to have to crank out about 80 miles per gallon.


Today, the vaunted hybrid versions of those cars generally deliver 35-40 mpg if driven with a very light touch. ("Your mileage will vary.")

The current mileage champion, at 50 mpg, is the third-generation Toyota Prius. But don't look for that design to meet EPA's prospective standard; it's just too heavy to squeeze much more juice out of the gas.

To bolster its 62-mpg proposal, EPA produced a numbing 245-page analysis of prospective automotive technologies -- many of which don't exist, the rest of which have been rejected by consumers. The report doesn't mandate any one technology, but instead offers a myriad of pipe-dream possibilities.

Why aren't these technologies widely available now? Excellent question -- especially because this isn't the government's first attempt to command the 80-mpg passenger car.

In 1993, the Clinton administration grandiosely announced the "Program for a New Generation of Vehicles" (PNGV), which showered the then-Big Three with about a billion bucks to produce a fuel-sipper. It never appeared.

The technological solutions proposed then really aren't very different from what we see now. Cost and acceptability were the two factors that condemned the PNGV to failure, and things haven't changed enough to expect a different result today.

A non-participant in PNGV, Honda, decided to throw every fuel-saving technology it could muster into one platform. It hit 66 mpg with the 2000 Insight, a frameless 1,850-pound aluminum vehicle that seats two.

Consumer demand? An average of 2,250 sold annually in the six years it was offered.

Despite the relative success of Toyota's Prius, the fact is that people just aren't flocking to hybrid vehicles. Their lack of appeal mainly has to do with price; people just don't want to pony up an additional cost that may take more than 10 years to recoup at the gas pump.

Despite this history, EPA thinks there will be a massive shift to subcompact cars in the next six years. Instead of the Accord, you get the Fit. Camrys turn into Yarises. Consumer preferences magically change.

Indeed.

EPA forecasts that despite their current unpopularity, hybrid sales will grow by orders of magnitude. Especially large numbers of Honda-style hybrids are predicted to be purchased (despite the fact that hybrid customers clearly prefer the heavier Toyota and Ford versions).

Sales of "plug-in" hybrids also supposedly will take off. These are vehicles that can run on battery power alone for 20-40 miles, and then (as in the new Chevrolet Volt) a gas engine kicks in as a generator. EPA is also counting on pure electric vehicles, with a range of up to 100 miles before they must be charged -- a process that takes hours at special charging stations on the street or overnight at home.

Drive the Chevy Volt more than 30 or so miles and it will be powered by a generator -- not a motor -- inefficiently powering a 3,500-pound car. No one knows the true fuel economy, but it's not even likely to beat the Prius in real-world driving. That leaves us a long way from 80 mpg.

(The above information about the Volt was what I was told by a GM engineer at the Detroit auto show last January, while sitting in the very car. GM revealed on Oct. 10 that the internal combustion engine indeed will drive the wheels at high speed. This is no breakthrough automobile; on the freeway it is a conventional hybrid.)

Then there's the heavily subsidized, all-electric Nissan Leaf. The company's president, Carlos Ghosn, says he will be happy to produce them as long as Uncle Sam guarantees him a profit on a vehicle that simply can't stand on its own four wheels. The electricity that charges it probably comes from the combustion of fossil fuels, which emit greenhouse gases. Calculating the actual mpg of this car is therefore complicated at best.

So far as one can tell from EPA's 62-mpg proposal, the agency thinks that in a mere 14 years Americans will buy hybrids that they can't stand, subcompacts that families hate, an electric car that can only run 30 miles before it likely becomes more inefficient than its conventional counterpart, and a 100-mile electric car that requires hours of charging once it runs out of juice.

This piece appeared here and is reprinted with permission.

[Soul Crusher]

ObamaCare will
clog system
Updated 8h 40m ago
By Marc Siegel
www.usatoday.com
________________________ ____________________


 A month ago, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sent a letter to the
president of America's Health Insurance Plans stating that the impact on insurance premiums from
"the new consumer protections and increased quality provisions" of the new health reform law "will
be minimal ... no more than 1% to 2%." Sebelius warned Karen Ignagni that there would be "zero
tolerance" for insurers blaming unjustified premium increases on the new law. Talk about subtle.

 Sebelius' threat, though, obscures a larger problem:
 
The new health care law mandates and extends the kind of insurance that breeds overuse, thereby
driving up costs and premiums. And here I thought the reform intended to reduce costs.

As the details of this massive government-led health care overhaul begin to trickle out, let me be clear (to
borrow the president's go-to phrase): The medical system is about to be overwhelmed because there
are no disincentives for overuse.

A free-for-all

ObamaCare was lauded by many for covering all Americans with pre-existing conditions. That's not
the issue. We're going to get into trouble because of the kinds of coverage that the new law mandates.
There are no brakes on the system. Co-pays and deductibles will be kept low, and preventive services
will have no co-pays at all. That sounds like a good deal for patients, yes? But without at least a pause to
consider necessity and/or cost, expect waiting times to increase, ERs to be clogged and longer lead
times needed to make an appointment.

Patients with new Medicaid cards who can't find a doctor will go where? To emergency rooms. The
escalating costs of these visits (necessary and unnecessary) will be transferred directly to the
American public, both in the form of taxes as well as escalating insurance premiums.

Beginning in 2014, insurance exchanges will be set up in every state so that individuals can choose a health insurance plan. This will help control costs, right? Wrong. Don't expect to find individually tailored plans or those with higher deductibles or
co-pays. They won't be there because they can't receive the government stamp of approval.

In the new system, my patients will be able to see me as often as they'd like. But will they get the same
level of care? I don't think so. I anticipate that more expensive chemotherapies and cardiac stents or
transplants, for instance, will have a tougher time being approved, as is already the case in Canada.

Over on the public side, the new Independent Payment Advisory Board — established by the health
reform law to "recommend proposals to limit Medicare spending growth" — will advise Medicare
that some treatments are more essential and more cost-effective than others. I believe that value
judgments inevitably will have to be made, reducing my options as a practicing physician. Private
insurers will follow suit, as they often do.

During the battle over this reform, you often heard, even from President Obama, that you'd be able to
keep the plan you have. What he didn't say — but what we now know — is that because of this new
law, the private markets will have to remake their plans, that the costs will rise and that the plan you
were told you could "keep" is in all likelihood no longer available. But when your plan changes,
backers of reform will simply blame it on those evil private insurance companies.

The truth is, private health insurance is a low-profit industry, with profit margins of 4% compared with
over 20% for major drug manufacturers. With the additional costs of no lifetime caps and no
exclusion for pre-existing conditions, these companies will be compelled to raise their
premiums in order to stay in business. The individual mandate is supposed to be the tradeoff
by providing millions of new customers, but there is no guarantee that this additional volume will
preserve profits with all the new regulations. This is what occurred in New York state in 1992, when a
new law denied exclusion on the basis of pre-existing conditions.

Every scratch or dent

None of this is terribly surprising. I mean, imagine if your car insurance covered every scratch or dent.
Wouldn't you expect your premiums to rise to meet the expanded coverage? And wouldn't you expect
your auto repair shops to become clogged with cars that didn't really need to be repaired, competing for
time and space with other cars with broken transmissions or burnt-out motors?

If we want lower insurance premiums, we will need to return to a system that favors high deductible,
high co-pay catastrophic-type insurance with a built-in disincentive for overuse, such as the kind
that some employers have provided as an option up until now. Patients could pay for office visits from
health savings accounts or other flexible spending tax shelters. More than 10 million Americans
already have such accounts.

Unfortunately, the new law is taking us away from the kind of insurance that compels patients to have
more skin in the game. As a result, we'll all pay in the long run — both financially and with less
efficient, perhaps even lower quality, care.

The kind of insurance the new law mandates will, over the years, wear out the health care system in
the same way that overuse in orthopedics wears out an elbow or knee joint. This won't be fun for
doctors or, most important, for patients.

Marc Siegel is an associate professor of medicine and medical director of Doctor Radio at NYU Langone Medical Center.

[Soul Crusher]

New York Fed Chief Says The Economy Is Garbage, And That There Won't Be A Jobs Recovery For Years
The Business Insider ^ | 10-19-2010 | Joe Weisenthal


New York Fed Chief Says The Economy Is Garbage, And That There Won't Be A Jobs Recovery For Years

Joe Weisenthal
Oct. 19, 2010, 9:40 AM

Here's your first of many Fed speeches for the day, courtesy of NYFRB CEO Dudley:

----------------

Remarks at the Quarterly Regional Economic Press Briefing, New York City

Good morning and welcome once again to the New York Fed's Quarterly Regional Economic Press Briefing. As always, I am pleased to have this opportunity to talk with the journalists covering our region—and through you, to the people in our District. This morning I will focus on regional economic conditions, with particular attention to the housing sector in the nation and especially the Second Federal Reserve District, which covers New York, northern New Jersey, Fairfield County, Connecticut; Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. My colleagues will follow my remarks and provide more detail. As always, what I have to say reflects my own views and not necessarily those of the Federal Open Market Committee or the Federal Reserve System.

National Economic Conditions To provide context, let me start with a few comments about national economic conditions. As I discussed in a recent speech, the long and deep recession that ended in June 2009 has been followed by a very tepid recovery. Since June 2009, economic activity has grown—but only slowly from levels far below the productive capacity of the economy.

In recent months, the momentum of the recovery has slowed. For example, after rising at a 3.25 percent annual rate during the second half of 2009, there has been a progressive slowing—to a 2.75 percent annual rate during the first half of 2010 and, most likely, to an even slower rate when the third-quarter real gross domestic product (GDP)

[snip].


(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...

[Soul Crusher]

Obama administration to press bans on all cell-phone use while driving?; Update: Poll added
Hot Air ^ | 11:36 am on October 18, 2010 | Ed Morrissey

________________________ ________________________ ______________________


We must have solved all our other problems if the Obama administration is aiming at cell-phone use while driving. In his interview with Bloomberg, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood says he may push for an all-out ban on the practice, even when conducted by “hands-free” technology, depending on the results of research LaHood is authorizing. Perhaps he should also research jurisdiction and enforcement as well (via The Week):

LaHood, whose campaign against texting and making calls while driving has led to restrictions in 30 states, says his concerns extend to vehicle information and entertainment systems such as Ford Motor Co.’s Sync and General Motors Co.’s OnStar.

“I don’t want people talking on phones, having them up to their ear or texting while they’re driving,” LaHood said in an interview this week. “We need a lot better research on other distractions,” including Bluetooth-enabled hands-free calls and the in-car systems, he said.

Even without a ban, which would have to be implemented by individual states, LaHood’s escalating campaign may limit the growth of vehicle features such as Sync, being added by automakers to attract younger buyers. His push also may reduce calls made from vehicles and the revenue of mobile-phone companies such as Verizon Wireless and AT&T Inc.

LaHood, 64, said even hands-free phone conversations are a “cognitive distraction.” Calling for a ban on hands-free communications is a possible outcome of research under way at the Transportation Department’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration into all driver distractions, Olivia Alair, a department spokeswoman, said.


(Excerpt) Read more at hotair.com ...

[Kazan]

While I agree that talking/texting while driving is stupid, this is a state issue and federal government needs to back the fuck off. I'm getting tired of these unelected officials and government created department making policy

[Soul Crusher]

“I don’t want people talking on phones, having them up to their ear or texting while they’re driving,” LaHood said in an interview this week. “We need a lot better research on other distractions,” including Bluetooth-enabled hands-free calls and the in-car systems, he said.

________________________ _____________


   

[Kazan]

“I don’t want people talking on phones, having them up to their ear or texting while they’re driving,” LaHood said in an interview this week. “We need a lot better research on other distractions,” including Bluetooth-enabled hands-free calls and the in-car systems, he said.

________________________ _____________


   

Oh he doesn't want, where exactly did this guy get that kind of power?

[Soul Crusher]

Oh he doesn't want, where exactly did this guy get that kind of power?

Its called - FUCK YOU KAZAN - YOU DON'T MATTER - DO AS I SAY OR ELSE!

[Kazan]

Its called - FUCK YOU KAZAN - YOU DON'T MATTER - DO AS I SAY OR ELSE!

That in it self is the point, as long as we the people allow them to do this shit they will.

[Soul Crusher]

DEMOCRATS’ NEW MISFIRE ON HEALTH CARE
18 October 2010
www.thedailybeast.com
________________________ _____________________

It’s probably too late to save the party from electoral disaster next month. But Obama and the Democrats can turn health care from an albatross into a positive for 2012 by flipping their script on the issue, says Douglas E. Schoen.

By Douglas Schoen
The Daily Beast

Earlier this year, top Democrats forecast boldly that once the president’s health-care bill passed, seemingly reluctant Americans would support the legislation.

They were wrong.

Back then, I wrote with Pat Caddell that ignoring the growing public opinion against the bill meant that the Democrats risked “unmitigated disaster” this fall.

Just a month before the midterm elections, the polls have demonstrated that my prediction was closer to the mark than that of the White House, and the administration and the Democrats are suffering as a result.

At least half, if not more, of the American people favor repealing the bill, according to a recent Rasmussen poll of likely voters, and other polling has echoed that finding.

Right now, almost all the Democrats who voted against the bill are campaigning against it. And most Democrats who voted for the legislation are distancing themselves as much as they can.

Both groups are avoiding talking about what the electorate wants and requires: a smart, reasonable, and rational discussion about health care in the next two years.

But by changing their dialogue fundamentally on health care, the Democrats can turn what almost certainly will prove to be an electoral disaster this year into a positive going forward—both for congressional Democrats and President Obama, as he approaches 2012.

The health-care reform bill actually contains a number of components that are popular on a bipartisan basis, and can be emphasized—both in the waning days of the campaign, and in the future—as long as the Democrats fundamentally change their approach to the issue. 
Only with a different type of dialogue, message, and policies can they regain the high ground on health care and do what the American people want: contain costs, provide high-quality care, and take steps to rein in excesses in the system.


The American people do want insurance reform that prevents insurance companies from dropping coverage for people who become very ill. And they don’t want insurance companies to deny coverage to patients with preexisting conditions, which will be prohibited as of 2014.

The majority of Americans support a number of long-overdue reforms included in the bill that allow families to get free preventive check-ups with their doctor and young adults to stay on their parents’ insurance plans, and eliminating the “doughnut hole” in Medicare prescription drug coverage.

There’s no need for the Democrats to run away from these popular elements of the bill, if they are put in the appropriate issue frame.

But if they are to have a meaningful dialogue on health care, the Democrats must talk not only about these popular initiatives, but also about what they have done and will do to curtail costs, as well as to develop new drugs.

Put simply, the Democrats must talk about health care within the context of fiscal discipline and budgetary restraint, specifically referencing the work of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, a bipartisan commission chaired by former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-WY) and former Clinton chief of staff Erskine Bowles that has been charged with addressing the nation’s overall budget problems.

The party must exhibit a willingness to take on all aspects of spending and make clear that the administration is committed to entitlement reform while addressing the large-scale fiscal problems facing the nation.

But beyond that the Democrats must put forth a national strategy that facilitates and encourages private sector innovation as one of the critical ways to resolve our economic crisis and create a path that ensures long-term economic opportunities are facilitated, as well as developing the cutting-edge technologies and new drugs we need to help cure chronic, debilitating, and frequently fatal diseases.

If the Democrats can succeed in doing this in a way that makes it clear that they have a positive and optimistic agenda, they will be able to achieve two goals the American people regard as fundamental:

Address costs in a serious and sustained manner.

They can talk about cost containment in several ways.

The Democrats should talk about reducing insurance costs—not simply by bashing insurance companies but by working with them constructively, as part of a public-private sector initiative.

To that end, IBM CEO Samuel Palmisano recently met with Obama and offered to work, free of charge, to reduce health-care waste, fraud, and costs by $900 billion. The Obama administration turned down this offer flat, for reasons best known to itself.

To be fair, the new health-care law did attempt to contain Medicare costs through a new body called the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which has gotten little attention to date.

Medicare cost containment is critical, and the IPAB has the opportunity to become a model of bipartisanship, efficacy, and accountability to average voters by functioning as the body to rein in Medicare’s cost growth.

Finally, there needs to be a commitment to and a mechanism that takes the recommendations of the bipartisan budget commission and the IPAB and make them operational.

The bottom line remains that unless the Democrats are able to become credible advocates for cost containment, they will not succeed politically, and they certainly will not begin to have any success in doing what the American people regard as fundamental: reining in costs.

Health-care reform has been an unmitigated disaster to date, that’s for sure. But it does not have to be that way going forward.

With an emphasis on those aspects of the bill that work, an acknowledgement that the health-care reform needs to be fundamentally recast to encourage innovation and the development of new drugs, and by putting cost containment at the center of all efforts going forward, the Democrats have the chance to recast an initiative that could well play a major role in costing them control of the House and the Senate next month.

Douglas Schoen is a political strategist and author of the upcoming book Mad as Hell: How the Tea Party Movement is Fundamentally Remaking Our Two-Party System to be published by Harper, an imprint of HarperCollins on September 14. Schoen has worked on numerous campaigns, including those of Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Michael Bloomberg, Evan Bayh, Tony Blair, and Ed Koch.

See Related: LOCAL POLITICS

[Soul Crusher]

Arthur Brooks: Top 10 ways government kills jobs in America
By: Arthur Brooks
OpEd Contributor

________________________ ________________________ ___________


October 19, 2010


Our politicians all seem to agree on at least one thing: There will be no recovery unless America gets back to work.

But that’s often where the agreement ends.  Once you move on to discuss how to get America back to work, opinions begin to diverge.

In general, the worst thing for job creation is a poor entrepreneurial climate.  Such a climate is brought on by the large fiscal debt, unpredictable health care costs, and a generally anti-business and pro-regulation approach by government.

In the run-up to the midterm elections, all of us should be thinking about “climate change”—about the best ways to create jobs in our nation.  We’ll hear lots of talk about recovery and stimulus, about fairness and equity, the future and change.

As we listen to the rhetoric, remember the reality.  These are the Top job killers in America.

1.      Uncertainty and business: What you don’t know can (and does) hurt you.  Businesses plan around rules.  And they are unlikely to invest if they can’t be reasonably sure about what the rules will be.  When things are uncertain, businesses hold back cash to protect themselves—and this kills jobs. My colleague Allan Meltzer has made this point in two recent WSJ op-eds: “High uncertainty is the enemy of investment and growth,” he declares in one.  “The most important restriction on investment today is not tight monetary policy, but uncertainty about administration policy,” he argues in the other.

2.      Uncertainty and the consumer: Uncertainty isn’t just bad for companies—it’s bad for consumers, too. If I think government policy may provoke a double dip in the economy and my job is on the line, there’s no way I’m going out to buy a new car.  For that matter, even the possibility of a huge gas tax would make me less likely to make a car purchase decision. All this kills jobs.

3.      High corporate taxes: Americans are shocked to learn that we have some of the highest corporate taxes in the world.  In fact, Japan is the only developed country with a higher corporate tax rate than the United States. Whether we like it or not, the corporate tax is a tax on jobs. It makes it more expensive for firms to function, which costs jobs. But even worse, it drives companies to find more tax-friendly environments in other countries.

4.      Unhealthy health insurance costs: The high health insurance costs associated with hiring new workers hits small businesses particularly hard, according to AEI economist Aparna Mathur. Government health mandates specify exactly what kinds of coverage have to be included in insurance policies.  This makes increasing headcount a costly exercise, and so kills jobs. One major CEO told me recently that his hiring was stunted by the new mandate to cover workers’ kids up to age 26.

5.      The threat of unionization: In a global economy, it’s fairly simple for a lot of firms to avoid unionization: They can move overseas and take their jobs with them. Policies that favor unions make this decision more attractive.

6.      Inability to hire and fire: In Europe, government regulations and employment protection laws reduce the flexibility of firms to downsize their operations when they need to.  They also discourage those same firms from upsizing their operations when they would otherwise do so, and are thus a job killer. This is why Spain has a 20% unemployment rate (and about 40% among workers under 25). Restrictions on firing are a job killer.

7.      Trade restrictions: Free trade favors consumers everywhere, and benefits workers in industries where America has a comparative advantage. Tariffs and other barriers benefit industries that are already in decline. This is why economists always tell us that over the long run, trade barriers slow modernization are a net job killer.

8.      Credit: Poor credit access especially hurts new and young firms that are eager to expand their operations.  The new Consumer Financial Protection Agency could make matters worse by expanding burdensome regulation of these financial markets, killing jobs in the process.

9.      Increasing unemployment insurance: Everyone wants to ease the burden on the unemployed, so it is tempting to extend unemployment insurance, as our government has recently—today, to as much as 73 additional weeks. Unfortunately, this kills jobs and economic recovery. Harvard economist Robert Barro estimates that if unemployment insurance had not been expanded, the unemployment rate would now be 6.8% rather than 9.5%.

10. Encouraging frivolous lawsuits: This increases the costs of doing business in America, with one study estimating that we waste as much as $900 billion a year on excessive tort litigation—that’s 6.5 percent of GNP or $12,000 annually for a family of four. As a result, company capital that could be used for expansion and job creation goes to the trial lawyers instead. And like so many anti-business measures, such litigation drives up costs for consumers, which reduces demand and kills jobs even more.

Arthur Brooks is president of the American Enterprise Institute and author of The Battle: How the fight between free enterprise and big government will shape America’s future.



Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/OpEd-Contributor/Arthur-Brooks-Top-10-ways-government-kills-jobs-in-America-105302968.html#ixzz12u0coDBf

[Soul Crusher]

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION’S RECORD FROM THE OUTRAGEOUS TO THE ABSURD


________________________ ________________________ _______________


$26.2 Trillion:   Projected Federal Debt In 2020 Due To Obama’s Binge Spending. (OMB, 7/23/10)

$13.6 Trillion:   Current National Debt. (U.S. Treasury Department, Accessed 10/19/10)

$8.5 Trillion:     Cumulative Deficits Caused By President Obama’s Proposed Budget, FY2011-2020. (OMB, 7/23/10)

$3.9 Trillion:     Total Cost Of The Democrats’ Tax Hike To Taxpayers. (Joint Committee On Taxation, 8/6/10)

$3.0 Trillion:     Amount Added To The National Debt Since Obama Took Office. (U.S. Treasury Department, Accessed 10/19/10)

$2.5 Trillion:     True Cost Of ObamaCare Once Fully Implemented. (Sen. Max Baucus, Floor Remarks, 12/2/09)

$1.42 Trillion:   Federal Budget Deficit For FY2009 – Highest In U.S. History. (Congressional Budget Office, 10/7/10)

$1.29 Trillion:   Federal Budget Deficit For FY2010 – Second Highest In U.S. History. (Congressional Budget Office, 10/7/10)

$868.4 Billion:  American Debt Held By China. (U.S. Treasury Department, Accessed 10/19/10)

$831 Billion:     Net Interest Payment On Our National Debt In 2020 Due To Obama’s Budget. (OMB, 7/23/10)

$814 Billion:     Price Tag Of Obama’s Failed Stimulus. (Bloomberg, 8/20/10)

$575 Billion:     Amount Of Medicare Cuts In ObamaCare. (CMS Chief Actuary Richard S. Foster, Memo, 4/22/10)

$569.2 Billion:  Amount Of Taxes In ObamaCare. (Letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, 3/18/10)

$10 Billion:      The Cost Of The Teacher Union Bailout. (The Washington Post, 10/8/10)

$54 Million:      Amount Of Stimulus Funds Spent On A Napa Valley Wine Train. (ABC News’ “Good Morning America,” 2/2/10)

41.8 Million:     Number Of Americans Receiving Food Stamps. (Bloomberg, 10/5/10)

40 Million:        Number Of Businesses That Will Be Burdened By The Onerous IRS 1099 Requirement. (The Washington Post, 8/29/10)

$18 Million:      Cost Of The Stimulus Website Recovery.org. (ABC News’ “The Note“ Blog, 7/8/09)

14.8 Million:     Unemployed Americans. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 10/8/10)

9.5 Million:       Americans Working Part-Time For Economic Reasons. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 10/8/10)

6.1 Million:       Americans Unemployed For Longer Than 27 Weeks. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 10/8/10)

5.4 Million:       Number Of Properties Receiving Foreclosure Filings Since Obama Took Office. (RealtyTrac, Accessed 10/19/10)

3.8 Million:       Increase In the Number Of People Who Were In Poverty In 2009 Over 2008. (NPR, 9/16/10)

2.6 Million:       Jobs Lost Since Stimulus Was Passed. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 10/8/10)

2.3 Million:       Private Sector Jobs Lost Since Stimulus Was Passed. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 10/8/10)

1.2 Million:       Americans That Have Given Up Looking For Work. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 10/8/10)

964,900:            Number Of Jobs That Could Be Lost Per Year Under Cap And Trade. (Tax Foundation, 3/09)

89,000:             The Number Of Stimulus Checks Sent to Dead Or Incarcerated People. (The Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire" Blog, 10/7/10)

$43,000:            Your Share Of The National Debt. (“The Daily History Of The Debt Results,” TreasuryDirect, Accessed 10/19/10; U.S. Census Bureau, www.census.gov, Accessed 10/1910)

23,000:             The Number Of Jobs Obama Knew His Drilling Moratorium Could Kill. (The Wall Street Journal, 8/21/10)

22,000:             Number Of Seniors In MA, NH And ME That Will Lose Their Medicare Advantage Plans As A Result Of ObamaCare. (The Boston Globe, 9/28/10)

$1,761:             Cost To American Families Per Year As A Result Of Cap And Trade. (CBS News' "Taking Liberties" Blog, 9/16/09)

$1,540:             The Amount Of The Tax Hike The Average Middle Class Family Will See As A Result Of The Dems’ Tax Hike. (Tax Foundation, 8/1/10)

1099:                The IRS Form Every Business Will Have To File After Doing $600 Worth Of Business With A Vendor. (CNNMoney.com, 5/5/10)

100:                  Percent Of GDP That Our National Debt Will Rise To In 2012. (Office Of Management And Budget, 7/23/10)

83:                    Number Of Fundraisers Obama Has Attended As Of 10/12/10. (CBS News' Mark Knoller’s Twitter Feed, Accessed 10/19/10; CBS News, 8/16/10)

80:                    Percent Of Small Businesses That Could Be Forced To Change Health Care Plans As A Result Of ObamaCare. (The Washington Post, 6/15/10)

79:                    Percent Of Stimulus Funds For Wind, Solar And Geothermal Energy Projects That Went To Foreign Firms. (Investigating Reporting Workshop/ABC’s World News Tonight/Watchdog Institute, 2/8/10)

68:                    Percent Of Americans Who Think The Stimulus Was A Waste. (The Hill's “Briefing Room” Blog, 10/5/10)

60:                    The Percent Of Young Voters Who Are “More Cynical About Politics” Now Than When Obama Was Elected. (The Huffington Post, 9/15/10)

58:                    Percent Of Ohioans Who Say Obama’s Frequent Visits To The State Make No Difference In How They’ll Vote. (The Hill, 10/19/10)

53:                    Rounds Of Golf Played By President Obama Since Taking Office. (CBS News' Mark Knoller’s Twitter Feed, Accessed 10/19/10; CBS News' Mark Knoller’s Twitter Feed, Accessed 10/19/10 )

49:                    Visits To The White House By Andy Stern, Former President Of SEIU. (WhiteHouse.gov, Accessed 10/19/10)

37:                    Number Of Town Halls Obama Has Done Since Taking Office. (CBS News’ Mark Knoller’s Twitter Feed, Accessed 10/19/10)

33.3:                 Average Number Of Weeks It Takes An Unemployed Worker To Find A Job. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 10/8/10)

30:                    Number Of Waivers Granted To Businesses So That The White House Could Avoid Admitting ObamaCare Was Making People Lose Their Health Care Plans. (USA Today, 10/7/10)

27:                    Percent Increase In Premiums By Some Insurers In Colorado As A Result Of ObamaCare. (The Denver Post, 9/20/10)

25:                    DVDs Given To The UK’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown On His First Visit. (The Daily Mail (UK), 3/9/10)

20:                    Straight Months That Food Stamp Participation Has Hit A Record. (Bloomberg, 10/5/10)

17.1:                 Percent Of Americans Either Unemployed Or Working Part-Time For Economic Reasons. (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 10/8/10)

14:                    Straight Months With Unemployment Above 9.5%. (Bureau Of Labor Statistics, 10/8/10)

9:                     Number Of Vacations Taken By President Obama. (CBS News, 8/19/10)

4:                     Out Of 10 Likely Voters Who Once Backed Obama But Are Less Supportive Or No Longer Support Obama.  (Bloomberg, 10/12/10)

2:                     Place In The Line Of Succession That Joe Biden Believes He Is In (Hint: He’s #1). (CBS News’ Mark Knoller’s Twitter Feed, Accessed 10/19/10)

2:                     Visits To The White House By Actor George Clooney. (E! Online, 10/12/10)

1:                     Number Of White House Investigations. (CBS News, 10/6/10)

1:                     Teacher Union Bailout To Motivate Teacher Unions For Midterm Elections. (The Washington Post, 10/8/10)

0:                     Other People Obama Will Have Left To Blame For His Failures In 2012. (The American People, 11/6/12)



Read more: http://www.gop.com/index.php/briefing/comments/obama_by_the_numbers#ixzz12u77B7Fg

[Soul Crusher]

Fannie, Freddie bailout could nearly double in size

By Zachary A. Goldfarb
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, October 21, 2010; 1:53 PM

________________________ ________________________ _____________________




The federal bailout for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could nearly double in size during the next three years, according to projections from the companies' federal regulator.

Fannie and Freddie, the federally controlled mortgage finance giants, will need as much as $215 billion more from taxpayers in the next three years to meet their financial obligations, the Federal Housing Finance Agency said Thursday, but much of that money would automatically be returned to the government.

The growing taxpayer infusions will cover losses Fannie and Freddie suffer on home loans, as well as payments the companies must make to the U.S. Treasury in exchange for a federal guarantee to provide cash to keep the companies solvent.

Over time, the majority of funds flowing to Fannie and Freddie from taxpayers will go to pay that dividend. As a result, most of the additional funds that go to the companies from taxpayers will ultimately be paid back. An Obama administration official said this arrangement is not being reconsidered at this time.

To date, the Treasury has injected $148 billion into Fannie and Freddie, $13 billion of which has been returned to the government. Under the worst case, in which the country enters a second recession, the total infusion would be $363 billion in three years. In this situation, after dividends are paid back to the Treasury, the total cost of the bailout would be $259 billion.

Under a more moderate possibility, in which housing prices decline a little, stay flat for a while and then slowly rise, the total taxpayer bailout would be $238 billion. After dividends are paid back, the total cost would be $154 billion.

The projections of additional bailouts for Fannie and Freddie are in sharp contrast to recent discussions by the Obama administration about how the bank rescue known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program, originally valued at $700 billion, is expected to cost taxpayers less than a tenth of that.

Fannie and Freddie were seized by their federal regulator in September 2008 as the crisis in the housing market threatened to topple them. The Bush administration pledged $200 billion to keep them solvent. Early on, the Obama administration doubled that number to $400 billion, then late last year made a pledge of unlimited support.

The companies play a central role in the housing market, buying or guaranteeing most home loans. With the collapse of the private market for home loans, they have been essential to keeping interest rates low and the housing market from declining more.

But they also are deeply controversial and were one of the causes of the financial crisis. The Obama administration is set to release a proposal to overhaul or replace them in January. That decision ultimately will be made by the administration in concert with Congress.

"In the most likely economic scenario, nearly 90 percent of the losses at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are already behind us, and that almost all of those losses are attributable to mortgages that were already on those businesses' books prior to" the government seizing them, said Jeffrey Goldstein, Treasury undersecretary for domestic finance, in a statement. "But that news should not distract us from the pressing need for reform so that taxpayers aren't put on the hook in the future. From the beginning, the Obama Administration has made clear that the current structure of the government's role in housing finance, while necessary in the short-term to provide critical support to a still-fragile housing market, is simply not acceptable for the long-term."

An administration official said the dividend - 10 percent - is a fair price for the companies to pay in exchange for taxpayer support and would be reexamined only in the context of an overall revamp of housing finance policy next year.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency made the projections based on stress tests similar to those that were applied to the largest banks last year. In the best case, housing prices would start to recover immediately and there would be minimal additional costs to taxpayers.

"These projections are intended to give policymakers and the public useful snapshots of potential outcomes for the taxpayer support of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac," said FHFA acting Director Edward J. DeMarco. "These are not predictions; the results reflect the potential effects of a limited set of hypothetical changes in house prices, a key variable driving credit losses for the enterprises."

[Soul Crusher]

WOLF: Obamacare's Unkeepable Promises
Utopian vision was a fraud from the beginning
By Dr. Milton R. Wolf
-
The Washington Times
5:57 p.m., Thursday, October 21, 2010


________________________ ________________________ _____________________



We are witnessing the unmistakable collapse of an American presidency. While this may not yet be irreversible, it certainly was predictable and preventable. Chief among its causes has been the unbridled hubris that prompted this president to force Obamacare, the government takeover of the finest health care system in the world, against the clear will of "we the people" while turning his back on the free-market principles that once made us the most prosperous nation on earth.

A diminished president, even - or perhaps especially - if his fate is self-inflicted, is not good for America and should not be pleasing to any patriot regardless of his or her political leanings. It certainly is not pleasing to me, as this president is my cousin. But as a physician who took an inviolate oath to my patients, I am duty-bound to take this stand, particularly after watching Barack Obama make so many unkeepable Obamacare promises:

c Obamacare would reduce our deficit. We were to believe that millions of Americans would be added to the insurance rolls, that medical care would not suffer, and somehow, almost magically, costs would go down. We might as well promise it will never rain on weekends. Gravity caught up to this wishful thinking, and even the president's own actuary now admits the overhaul will increase, not decrease, the deficit.

c Obamacare would allow you to keep your doctor and your current insurance. How can you keep your doctor if your doctor can't keep his practice? The New England Journal of Medicine reported a survey that showed nearly half of America's doctors are being forced to consider leaving their practice if Obamacare is implemented. And businesses already are finding they can no longer provide the same insurance policies to their employees that they had before Obamacare. Oklahoma's Republican Sen. Tom Coburn, also a physician, estimates 90 million Americans will lose their current insurance policies because of the takeover. Millions of them will be forced into Medicaid and government exchanges.

c Obamacare would not jeopardize senior citizens' care. The continued viability of Medicare Advantage is in serious jeopardy because of Mr. Obama's Medicare cuts to pay for other parts of his health care overhaul. Companies already are announcing that they can no longer offer this very popular free-market Medicare reform. What's more, fewer doctors are able to accept Medicare patients with the downward pressure on reimbursement levels, currently stuck at 1980s levels. Too often, physicians' practices cannot survive being in business with the federal government. Already, 42 percent of doctors do not accept Medicare, and that number is increasing. Your shiny government-issued Medicare card is meaningless without doctors who will accept it.

c Obamacare would not ration health care. The president promised time and time again that he would not ration health care, and then promptly, under the cloak of a recess appointment, installed as the head of Medicare a man who would do it for him. Dr. Donald Berwick has announced unambiguously and with glee many times over that he will indeed ration America's medical care (in addition to his own bizarre promises to redistribute your wealth) but he assures us that he's our intellectual better, so it will be fine. He also declares he's "romantic" about the British-government-run system and specifically admires how the British purposefully undersupply medical needs to alleviate "bottlenecks." They've been alleviated all right. Britain's colon cancer mortality rate, for example, is 40 percent higher than America's; breast cancer 88 percent higher; prostate cancer a staggering 604 percent higher. All those unnecessary deaths unburden the system of patients seeking care. Some might call this rationing. Mr. Berwick, by the way, created his own health care golden parachute to assure that he and his wife would never be forced to submit themselves to the Medicare rules he creates. How convenient.

c Obamacare would not raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 a year.

"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." New excise taxes on pharmaceuticals and medical products will, of course, by necessity be passed on to the patients who depend on these lifesaving medicines, pacemakers, MRI machines or even tongue depressors. Even more flagrant, there are new Obamacare taxes on everything from tampons to tanning salons, from gold to the sale of your home.

c Obamacare would create 4 million new jobs, 400,000 almost immediately. Not to be outdone, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi added this grand promise of her own. However, since the health care takeover was signed into law, no such jobs boom has occurred.

c Obamacare hearings would be held in public. Unlike the other promises, this one could have been kept and in fact may have prevented all these other catastrophic failures, but sadly, it was wantonly ignored by this president. Candidate Obama pledged eight times to hold health care hearings in public. Invite the C-SPAN cameras, he said, because open hearings would allow Americans to know who was on their side. Indeed it would have.

Mr. President - Barack - I offer to you the next best thing. Let's you and I hold a public discussion on America's health care for those C-SPAN cameras once and for all. I know your administration is desperately attempting the full-court press to promote your health care reform as it continues to suffer badly in all the polls, and you with it. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius even said Americans need "re-education." Let's finally give Americans the honest and cordial discussion they deserve. You know that I have dedicated my life to serving patients, and nowhere will you find a person who will be more respectful to you. You also know I hold nothing against you personally. I understand you may feel, as a lawyer, that you're a little out of your element discussing health care with a physician, so I urge you to bring Dr. Berwick along. America deserves to hear, at least one time, from the man who holds more health care power over them than even a U.S. Supreme Court justice.

Until then, what should we do? We must defund, repeal and replace Obamacare before it defunds America, destroys the finest health care system in the world and replaces it with a European social-welfare government-run version.

Can we really repeal Obamacare? Let me be clear. Yes, we can.

First, in 2010, elect candidates who understand that health care freedom - like our other freedoms - saves lives. Elect candidates who pledge to first defund Obamacare immediately and then will vote for its repeal. Second, let's convince this president that it's in the nation's best interest - and his own - to undo this unholy government takeover that bears his name. If we cannot, then in 2012, let's find a president who will.

Dr. Milton R. Wolf is a board-certified, practicing diagnostic radiologist and cousin of President Obama's. He is also a member of Docs4PatientCare.

© Copyright 2010 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

[Soul Crusher]

CBO Confirms: ObamaCare Discourages Work 
By Jed Graham     
Fri., Oct. 22, 2010 4:56 PM ET

________________________ ___________________-


Congressional Budget Office director Doug Elmendorf said Friday that ObamaCare includes work disincentives likely to shrink the amount of labor used in the economy.

In a speech on ObamaCare’s economic impact outside the health care sector, Elmendorf said that those effects will primarily be related to the labor market and “will probably be small.”

Factoring in additional demand for workers in health care and insurance, CBO estimates that “the legislation, on net, will reduce the amount of labor used in the economy by roughly half a percent,” he said.

The reason: The expansion of Medicaid and new health insurance subsidies will reduce “the amount of labor that workers choose to supply.”

(For perspective, half a percent of current payrolls is 651,000 jobs, though the impact would show up in both fewer jobs and fewer hours worked.)

The conclusion isn’t a surprising one; any extra support from the government takes some pressure off of workers to provide for themselves. However, ObamaCare’s progressive subsidies, i.e. more generous for those who earn less, carry more of a disincentive than the flat, universal benefit favored by some Republicans.

As Capital Hill has noted previously, work disincentives will be particularly strong for older workers because both health care premiums and the law’s subsidies grow much bigger with age.

Further, the new health law will give some older households without access to employer care a big incentive not to earn too much. That’s because earning more than 400% of the poverty level would make them ineligible for subsidies that may be well in excess of $10,000 for couples.

Consider this example of a single individual age 62 in a high-cost area and no access to employer care. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Health Reform Subsidy Calculator:

* At 200% of the poverty level, or $23,000 in income in 2014, an individual would get $10,750 in premium subsidies.

* At 400% of the poverty level, or $46,000, an individual would get $7,830 in premium subsidies.

* And at 401% of the poverty level, an individual would get no government support.

For workers turning 62 and becoming eligible for Social Security, ObamaCare will make early retirement somewhat more likely because the total package of benefits at that age will be much more valuable starting in 2014 than it is currently. What’s more, health care benefits will be a bit richer for those who give up a higher paying salary for a more modest Social Security check.

Just how much of a difference this extra dollop of government transfers will make to retirement decisions is hard to know. But the reason it should be a concern is that even before ObamaCare and the recent recession, half of all workers claimed retirement benefits at age 62 and the average age of collection was roughly 63.

While Democrats argue that the new health care subsidies are a moral imperative, the risk is that they will work against one of the most constructive approaches to reining in unsustainable entitlement spending on seniors: getting them to work longer and rely on the safety net later.

Once the labor market recovers and the retirement of the baby boomers begins to exert long-expected strains on the work force, tailoring the safety net to incentivize longer careers would reap economic dividends and additional tax revenue. Most importantly, delayed retirement could provide a needed boost to personal finances.

Paradoxically, as life expectancy increases, government safety nets that encourage retirement at 62 will put seniors at growing risk of outliving their savings and being left to scrape by on an insufficient Social Security check in very old age.

Consider that after a 30% penalty — the impending reduction for retiring at 62 — a single person retiring now after a full career earning $30,000 a year would receive only a poverty-level benefit.

Early retirement penalties are the crack in Social Security’s foundation that makes additional benefit cuts untenable in very old age.

That is why there is only one approach for reforming Social Security that can produce both an affordable and an effective safety net: Scaling back income support in the initial years of retirement to avoid benefit cuts in very old age.

That was true before ObamaCare, and tilting Social Security’s incentives in favor of delayed retirement has become even more critical now that early retirement benefits, in totality, are about to become even richer.

While it makes sense to reduce the incentive for retiring too early and to encourage longer careers, up until now the only cost-saving ideas for doing so would cut away critical parts of the safety net.

For example, if the retirement age were raised to 70, retirees who opt for benefits at 62 would face a 43% benefit cut for life.

Some suggest raising the earliest age for benefits to 65 in tandem with a hike in the retirement age to 70, keeping the maximum penalty at 30%. Yet this approach could still leave those who retire at 65 and outlive their savings to scrape by on an insufficient Social Security check. It also would pull away the floor of income support for those who may depend on Social Security early in their 60s.

What is more, a retirement age of 70 is probably a nonstarter politically, because the burden would fall so much more heavily on lower earners who aren’t enjoying the same gains in life expectancy.

In a new book, “A Well-Tailored Safety Net: The Only Fair and Sensible Way to Save Social Security,” I offer an alternative.

(The book does not reflect the editorial view of IBD.)

Under a new provision called Old-Age Risk-Sharing, the maximum benefit cut would come in the first year of retirement and fully unwind over 20 years to ensure a robust safety net in very old age, when almost everyone will depend on it.

To learn more, please read about what I told President Obama’s fiscal commission.

 
http://blogs.investors.com/capitalhill/index.php/home/35-politicsinvesting/2154-cbo-confirms-obamacare-discourages-work

[Soul Crusher]

Obama aims to toughen big-vehicle mileage rules
The White House is pushing for tougher fuel-economy rules to cut dependence on oil and greenhouse gas emissions.

(Gerry Broome/Associated Press/File 2008)
Associated Press / October 25, 2010

________________________ ________________________ ___________________


 
WASHINGTON — Future tractor-trailers, school buses, delivery vans, garbage trucks, and heavy-duty pickup trucks would have to use less energy under fuel-efficiency rules proposed by the Obama administration — the first ever for such vehicles.

The Environmental Protection Agency and the Transportation Department are moving ahead with a proposal for medium- and heavy-duty trucks, beginning with those sold in the 2014 model year and into the 2018 model year.

The plan is expected to call for about a 20 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and fuel consumption for long-haul trucks, said people familiar with the plan. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they did not want to speak publicly before the official announcement, expected today.

Overall, the proposal is expected to seek reductions of 10 to 20 percent in fuel consumption and emissions, depending on vehicle size. Large tractor-trailers tend to be driven up to 150,000 miles a year, making them candidates for improved mileage.

The rules would cover big-rig tractor-trailers, “vocational trucks’’ such as garbage trucks and transit and school buses, and work trucks such as heavy-duty versions of the Ford F-Series, Dodge Ram, and Chevrolet Silverado.

The White House has pushed for tougher fuel standards as a way of reducing dependence on oil and cutting greenhouse gas emissions, which are linked to global warming.

New cars, pickup trucks, and SUVs would need to reach 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016, and the government is developing plans that could push the standards to 47 to 62 miles per gallon by 2025.

Medium-duty and heavy-duty trucks are much less fuel-efficient than conventional automobiles; tractor-trailers typically get about 6 to 7 miles per gallon, while work trucks can achieve 10 to 11 miles per gallon. But they still consume about 20 percent of the transportation fuel used in the United States.

Margo Oge, director of the EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality, last week told reporters that the proposed rules would be a “win-win situation for the country, the economy, climate change, and energy security.’’

She declined to release details.

Improvements in fuel efficiency are expected to be achieved through a combination of more efficient engines, improved aerodynamics, and better tires.

© Copyright 2010 Globe Newspaper Company.


________________________ ________________________ ________________________ __

More crap - this is going to drive the costs of these vechicles through the damn roof unless the tech is there. 

More incompetence. 

[Soul Crusher]

The roots of Obama's demise
www.washingtonpost.com
By Marc A. Thiessen
Monday, October 25, 2010;


________________________ ________________________ ___
 


The decline of the Obama presidency can be traced to a meeting at the White House just three days after the inauguration, when the new president gathered congressional leaders of both parties to discuss his proposed economic stimulus. House Republican Whip Eric Cantor gave President Obama a list of modest proposals for the bill. Obama said he would consider the GOP ideas, but told the assembled Republicans that "elections have consequences" and "I won." Backed by the largest congressional majorities in decades, the president was not terribly interested in giving ground to his vanquished adversaries.

He may rue that decision next Tuesday. Whether the midterm elections are a tidal wave that sweeps Democrats out of power on Capitol Hill or simply result in major losses for the president's party, one thing is clear: The stimulus will play a major role in determining the outcome.

The legislation has not kept the unemployment rate below 8 percent, as the White House promised -- but it has been an electoral boon to Republicans, and an albatross around the necks of many Democrats who voted for it. It might have been a different story had Obama handled the stimulus differently. In January 2009, Republicans were running scared -- still reeling from the thumping they received in the past two elections, and afraid to so much as criticize the new Democratic president with stratospheric approval ratings.

In these circumstances, the president could have easily co-opted the GOP by making it a partner in crafting the stimulus. He could have told Republicans: Take half of the money and use it for tax relief, spending, or both. Indeed, Republicans introduced several alternative stimulus bills that cost half as much as Obama's ("twice the jobs at half the cost" was the GOP mantra). Had Obama really wanted to be the first "post-partisan" president, he could have incorporated one of these alternatives into his final stimulus legislation.

If Republicans had gone along, they would have had to defend the stimulus for the next two years. If they had refused, they would have been in no position to criticize a bill that they had turned down the opportunity to help shape. If the stimulus worked, both sides could have taken credit. And if it failed, reaching out to Republicans would have inoculated the president from the resulting criticism. Had he given them half the booty, they would have shared half the blame.

Would Republicans have accepted hundreds of billions in new government spending in exchange for including pro-growth tax relief and other GOP proposals? The offer would likely have split the party, with a significant number supporting the bill. The grass-roots movement for fiscal discipline had not yet been born, and many of the same Republicans who voted in favor of the "Bridge to Nowhere" would have gladly compromised with the popular new Democratic president. The stimulus would probably have passed with significant bipartisan support, instead of near-unanimous Republican opposition.

But Obama was not interested in compromise. He decided to go it alone. He picked off a few easy GOP votes and rode roughshod over the rest of the Republicans to pass a maximalist bill over their objections. That may have seemed like a good idea at the time. But looking back now, a week from the midterm elections, the wisdom of his approach is hard to discern.

The stimulus united Republicans for the first time in opposition to the president. It gave rise to the Tea Party movement that has fundamentally transformed the nation's political landscape in the GOP's favor. It changed Obama in the eyes of millions of Americans from the first "post-partisan" president into what many now perceive as (to quote Obama himself) "the same old tax-and-spend liberal Democrat." And his subsequent decision to ram Obamacare through Congress over unanimous Republican opposition sealed this impression, which voters will carry into the voting booth next Tuesday.

Almost two years later, the president still doesn't get it. In a recent New York Times profile, Obama says the lesson of his political setbacks is that "you can't be neglecting of marketing and PR and public opinion." Obama's problem was not marketing and PR -- it was his insistence on imposing big government liberalism on Americans against their will, and his failure to anticipate the blowback this approach would produce.

Will Obama figure this out after next Tuesday? Even if he does, it will be too late. Should next week's elections turn out the way most pollsters predict, Republicans will have no incentive to compromise with Obama on expanding the size of government. To the contrary, newly elected Republicans will arrive with a clear mandate to cut spending and restore fiscal discipline. If they fail to follow this mandate, they will likely have very short tours in Washington.

In January 2009, Republicans were on their heels, ready to compromise with the president. In January 2011, Republicans will likely be energized and emboldened to roll back Obama's most egregious initiatives. The president was right. Elections do have consequences.

Marc A. Thiessen is a visiting fellow with the American Enterprise Institute and writes a weekly column for The Post.

[Soul Crusher]

Great damn clip.   WWWAAAKKKEEE   UUUPPPPP

[Soul Crusher]

Employers in U.S. Start Bracing for Higher Tax Withholding
By Timothy R. Homan - Oct 27, 2010 
www.bloomberg.com

________________________ ________________________ _______________


U.S. President Barack Obama and most Democrats want tax cuts extended for middle-income earners and to end for the wealthiest Americans, the top 2 or 3 percent of earners. Photographer: Joshua Roberts/Bloomberg

Employers in the U.S. are starting to warn their workers to prepare for slimmer paychecks if Congress fails to vote on an extension of Bush-era tax cuts.

“I’ve been doing payroll for probably close to 30 years now, and never have we seen something like this where it gets that down to the wire,” said Dennis Danilewicz, who manages payroll services for about 14,000 employees at New York University’s Langone Medical Center. “That’s what’s got a lot of people nervous. All we can do is start preparing communications with a couple of different scenarios.”

Lawmakers won’t start debating whether to extend the cuts, which expire Dec. 31, until after the Nov. 2 elections. Because it takes weeks to prepare withholding schedules, the Internal Revenue Service will probably have to assume the cuts will expire and direct employers to increase payroll deductions starting Jan. 1, experts say.

“We’re kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place,” said Ron Moser, head of human resources for the school district of Kenmore-Town of Tonawanda, New York, which pays about 1,900 teachers, custodians and aides each month. In upstate New York, where winter heating costs are among the highest in the country, many school employees earn between $20,000 and $40,000 a year, he said, and losing $50 in a paycheck is “a significant dollar amount.”

Employees Calls

“We’re starting to get the calls” from employees asking what they need to do for the next tax year, Moser said.

President Barack Obama and most Democrats want tax cuts extended for middle-income earners and to end for the wealthiest Americans, the top 2 or 3 percent of earners. Republicans want tax cuts extended for everyone, arguing that an increase makes little sense as the economy recovers from the worst recession since the 1930s. Tax cuts went into effect in 2001 and 2003.

For Moser, the challenge of the moment is keeping people in the Buffalo suburb, home to about 78,000 residents, calm about what will happen in January. The area has several manufacturing employers -- including 3M Co., General Motors Co. and Praxair Inc. -- and unemployment is 7.6 percent, lower than the national rate of 9.6 percent. Still, many people are worried, he said.

“The bulk of our employees don’t understand” the coming tax debate in Congress, Moser said. “When they see this type of thing happening they go into panic mode. They don’t follow what’s going on.”

June 2001 Rates

If Congress fails to act, income tax rates will revert to higher levels dating from June 2001.

For a married couple with an income of $80,000, that would drain an extra $221.48 in withholding from a semi-monthly paycheck, according to calculations by the Tax Institute at H&R Block. Married individuals earning $240,000 a year would lose an additional $557.78 to withholding in a single semi-monthly paycheck. The Tax Institute at H&R Block calculated federal tax rates for single-income earners and married taxpayers without children.

Paychecks could shrink in January and into February, depending on how long it takes Congress to act.

January could well be a time of “sticker shock” for salaried employees and their employers, said Kathy Pickering, executive director of the Tax Institute, an independent research division at Kansas City, Missouri-based H&R Block Inc.

“If the laws get passed late in December, it’s just necessarily going to take one to three weeks to get those payroll tables updated and implemented into the system,” Pickering said.

Blow to Spending

Allowing the tax cuts to expire, even temporarily, would deal a blow to disposable income and could curtail the consumer spending that accounts for about 70 percent of the economy, said Alec Phillips, a Washington-based economist at Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

“The longer the expiration lasts, the more significant the impact will be,” he said.

Economists raised estimates for consumer spending in the third quarter to 2 percent from 1.9 percent, according to the median forecast on a Bloomberg News survey this month. Spending rose at a 2.2 percent pace in the second quarter. The Commerce Department will release third-quarter data on Oct. 29.

Making a withholding-rate change could take longer for small businesses that don’t outsource payroll services, experts said. If a business can’t react fast enough, employees could recoup any over-withholding by filing a new W-4 tax form to temporarily lower their federal withholding rate.

Another option is to wait until 2012 when workers file their tax returns for the previous year.

Taxpayer Strategy

Taxpayers could use the same strategies if Congress reinstates the tax cuts next year and they need to recoup the extra withholding.

Jodi Parsons, manager of payroll and accounts payable at IFMC, a health care management company based in West Des Moines, Iowa, said if the IRS issues two sets of withholding tables, her two-person office could be overwhelmed with processing changes to W-4 forms.

“We’d have to basically go back and hand calculate checks for all 800-900 employees to determine whether or not we need to deduct additional taxes from them or refund taxes,” Parsons said. “We’d like to see changes in mid-November just to make sure we have time.”

There are now six federal tax brackets, ranging from 10 percent to 35 percent. If Congress doesn’t act, there will be five rates with the top bracket reaching 39.6 percent.

Nov. 20 notice

Last year, the IRS alerted payroll departments on Nov. 20 about the 2010 tax tables, said Scott Mezistrano, senior manager of government relations at the American Payroll Association in Washington. He said a delay in guidance from the IRS could increase costs for some small businesses.

The Treasury Department last week issued a statement that it was “maintaining flexibility” with regards to the release of the withholding tables for 2011.

If the IRS issues tables in mid-November and then again later, businesses will double their programming costs, Mezistrano said. A related concern, he said, is if Congress makes a last-minute decision to extend the cuts and companies aren’t able to implement the change before January.

Business owners may face “tons of angry employees pounding at my office door saying, ‘What have you done to my paycheck?’” Mezistrano said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Timothy R. Homan in Washington at thoman1@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Christopher Wellisz at cwellisz@bloomberg.net


________________________ ________________________ ________________



HOPE & CHANGE BITCHES!   
 

[Soul Crusher]

ROLLING BLACKOUTS ANYONE?    

________________________ ________________________ ________________________ __


NERC Releases Assessment on Resource Adequacy Impacts of EPA Regulations
The North American Electric Reliability Corporation ^ | 10.27.10 | NERC

________________________ ________________________ ________________________ _


In the United States, several regulations are being proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that directly affects the electric industry. Depending on the outcome of any or all of these regulations, the results could accelerate the retirement of a significant number of fossil fuel-fired power plants. EPA is currently developing rules that would mandate existing power suppliers to invest in retrofitted environmental controls at existing generating plants or retire them. The most significant proposed EPA rules have been in development for over ten years and are currently undergoing court-ordered revisions that must be implemented within mandatory timeframes.

The results of this assessment show a significant potential impact to reliability should the four EPA rules be implemented as proposed. The reliability impact will be dependent on whether sufficient replacement capacity can be added in a timely manner to replace the generation capacity that is retired or lost because of the implementation of these rules. Implementation of the rules must allow sufficient time to construct new capacity or retrofit existing capacity. Planning Reserve Margins appear to be significantly impacted, deteriorating resource adequacy in a majority of the NERC Regions/subregions. In this scenario, reduced Planning Reserve Margins are a result of a loss of up to 19 percent of fossil fuel-fired steam capacity in the United States by 2018.1 Additionally, considerable operational challenges will exist in managing, coordinating, and scheduling an industry-wide environmental control retrofit effort.

This assessment examines four proposed EPA rulemaking proceedings that could result in unit retirements or forced retrofits between 2015 and 2018. Specifically, the proposed rules under development include:

1. Clean Water Act – Section 316(b), Cooling Water Intake Structures

2. Title I of the Clean Air Act – National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

(NESHAP) for the electric power industry (referred to herein as Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) Standard)

3. Clean Air Transport Rule (CATR)

4. Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) Disposal Regulations...

[Soul Crusher]

W.H.: No regrets on health, climate
By: Darren Samuelsohn
October 27, 2010 10:55 AM EDT

________________________ ________________________ __________


 
The White House doesn't regret simultaneously pushing health care and climate change legislation, despite the ultimate failure to pass cap and trade, President Barack Obama's domestic policy adviser said Wednesday.

"We really felt like it was a walk and talk, walk and chew gum" situation, said Melody Barnes, director of the White House Domestic Policy Council.

Barnes said the White House believes the country can still tackle climate change without Congress passing legislation that caps greenhouse gas emissions, noting the push for executive agencies to curb emissions, coupled with efforts at the state and local government levels.

"The president feels that it's critical that we move forward, and whether or not it's through legislation, which would set a big comprehensive framework for companies, for the private sector, for investors and for the rest of the world to see, and obviously that's a priority and that's why we tried to move it in the first two years, that there's still other ways that we can advance this energy agenda," Barnes said during an event hosted by The Atlantic Magazine.

The House passed a sweeping climate bill in June 2009, but it stalled in the Senate over objections from Republicans and moderate Democrats. A likely GOP takeover in the House or Senate is sure to kill any cap-and-trade bill over the next two years, prompting the administration to start looking for emission cuts in other venues.

“We’ve been absolutely thinking about this at every level,” Barnes said, citing the Environmental Protection Agency and Energy Department programs, as well as federal grants to help local governments build more sidewalks, light rail lines and street trolleys.

Barnes laughed when asked to predict when Congress would eventually pass a mandatory limits on greenhouse gases. "One of the things I've learned is that if you start to put your money down on when you think Congress will act, you will inevitably lose your money."
 
 
© 2010 Capitol News Company, LLC
 

________________________ ________________________ __________

Time to impeach this asshole. 

[Kazan]

Ways to advance the energy agenda, like having the FDA ( an unelected body) making "law". If that isn't a bunch of unconstitutional bullshit I don't know what is.

[Soul Crusher]

Barnes said the White House believes the country can still tackle climate change without Congress passing legislation that caps greenhouse gas emissions, noting the push for executive agencies to curb emissions, coupled with efforts at the state and local government levels.

________________________ ________________________ ___---

WTF is that? 

Obama's job is supposed to be to UPHOLD & ENFORCE the laws of the United States, not try to do end runs to jack up energy costs.

[Soul Crusher]

Bailout Oversight Panel Slams Obama Administration Over Foreclosure Crisis
First Posted: 10-27-10 06:40 PM   |   Updated: 10-27-10 08:25 PM

________________________ ________________________ _--


 WASHINGTON -- A key government panel keeping tabs on the bailout strongly criticized the Obama administration Wednesday for its apparent failure on a variety of housing-related fronts, from its ineffective foreclosure-prevention initiatives to its refusal to acknowledge the growing crisis sparked by widespread evidence that mortgage companies frequently take their customers' homes via fraud.

Faced with increasingly heated criticism from the Congressional Oversight Panel, the administration's representative -- the Treasury Department's housing rescue chief, Phyllis Caldwell -- hunkered down, refusing to answer basic questions.

It was a familiar scene.

As the housing market continues to flirt with the risk of falling into a double dip -- prices are already heading downward, and the Federal Housing Finance Agency forecasts prices to return to their June 30, 2010 level in the fourth quarter of 2013 -- the Obama administration continues to face assaults on its attempts to fix the crisis threatening Americans' most valuable asset.

Some independent experts, while critical overall, praise the administration for its role in spacing out the negative shocks from the record home repossessions taking place, lessening the chances of the economy suffering a fatal blow. Others say the administration's efforts have simply prolonged the crisis and delayed the recovery. Either way, the consensus is that the administration hasn't pursued the right policies to jumpstart the recovery.

During Wednesday's hearing, members of the Congressional Oversight Panel said Treasury's foreclosure-prevention programs "failed to provide meaningful relief," generated "false expectations," and have been a "major disappointment." COP is an independent, nonpartisan commission created by Congress.

More than 20 months after President Barack Obama announced a plan to "enable as many as three to four million homeowners to modify the terms of their mortgages to avoid foreclosure," just 640,300 homeowners remain in the program. Nearly 729,000 struggling homeowners have been kicked out.

Story continues below
Advertisement"We are faced with a choice here," said Damon Silvers, a member of the panel who also works as director of policy and special counsel at the AFL-CIO. "We can either have a rational resolution to the foreclosure crisis or we can preserve the capital structure of the banks. We can't do both."

The commissioners were just as critical when it came to assessing Treasury's response to the growing crisis emanating from mortgage companies' use of fraudulent paperwork to foreclose on homeowners.

That consequences of that, though, may pale in comparison to the risk faced by the nation's biggest banks when it comes to demands for them to buy back the faulty home mortgages that they bundled and sold to investors as securities. Estimates from Wall Street analysts range well into the hundreds of billions of dollars.

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York is part of a group of investors that sent a letter demanding Bank of America buy back some $47 billion in dodgy mortgages. The New York Fed owns the mortgage debt as a result of its 2008 bailout of Bear Stearns, the fallen global investment bank.

The administration and financial regulators are conducting a review, though it's unclear how comprehensive it is or how many people have been devoted to it. Administration officials say that thus far "there is no evidence of systemic risk."

Not taking that for an answer, Silvers bore into Caldwell.

"I'm concerned about Treasury making representations categorically that you don't see a systemic risk," Silvers told Treasury's chief homeownership officer. "And let me walk you through exactly why."

"That letter asks for $47 billion of mortgages -- of mortgage- backed securities to be repurchased at par," Silvers went on. "Do you know what those mortgages are currently carried at ... the market value of those bonds today?"

Caldwell declined to comment.

Silvers continued:

"OK, fine. Let me tell you what the Fed says they're worth. The Fed tells us they're worth 50 cents on the dollar. So if the Fed's request to Bank of America is honored, right, Bank of America, assuming they are carrying these bonds, assuming when they buy them back they mark them to market, Bank of America will take a $23 billion loss.

"The Federal Reserve further informs us that there is nothing particularly unique about that particular set of mortgage-backed securities -- meaning they have not been chosen...because they're particularly bad. They believe they are of a common quality with the rest of Bank of America's underwritten mortgage-backed securities. There are $2 trillion [worth] of Bank of America's underwritten mortgage-backed securities.

"Five such deals -- five such requests, if honored to Bank of America...will amount to more than the current market capitalization of Bank of America, which is $115 billion.

"Now do you wish to retract your statement that there is no systemic risk in this situation? And the word is 'risk' -- not 'certainty' -- but 'risk'? And I would urge you to do so, because these things can be embarrassing later."


Caldwell repeated her earlier claim that it was still early in the review. She added that Treasury is working "very closely" with "11 regulatory and federal agencies," and that the administration is "watching this every day.

"And that at this stage there appears to be no evidence of a systemic risk -- but again it is early and it is something we are monitoring daily," Caldwell said.

Silvers questioned her again.

"Let me suggest to you that the 'it is still early' is a perfectly acceptable position. ... Is it your position that Bank of America honoring five of these things would not present a systemic risk? ... Is Bank of America not systemically significant?"

Caldwell responded that she and Treasury "didn't say there was no risk. We said there didn't appear to be evidence of a major systemic risk."

"I hope that ... if the Treasury comes back to us and is discussing whether or not we need to deploy further public funds to rescue Bank of America, or such other institutions as might be affected by these events, that we get a similar kind of indifference to their fate after it's too late," Silvers shot back. "Because it strikes me that in light of the mathematics I've gone through with you, it is not a plausible position that there is no systemic risk here."

Silvers is a Democrat, but the panel's concerns were bipartisan. Republican panelist J. Mark McWatters, a high-powered corporate tax lawyer and CPA, similarly peppered Caldwell with questions.

After asking whether "Treasury [was] concerned that any of the large, too-big-to-fail financial institutions may experience a solvency or liquidity or capital crisis over the next few years" due to investor demands that it buy back faulty mortgages, and being told that Treasury had yet to find evidence of "systemic risk," McWatters continued to press Caldwell.

Citing the roughly $2.3 trillion of non-government-backed mortgage securities held by investors at the height of the housing bubble, McWatters said that "even if a relatively small percentage of those are put back and the banks have to buy them back at face [value], this could be a substantial problem.

"Also, considering that this is not just a one-shot deal. I mean, when a mortgage is originated and put in a [mortgage-backed security], it may be multiplied through synthetic CDOs. So you may have the synthetic CDO problems also going back to the banks," he added.

CDOs, or collateralized debt obligations, are securities based on the value of other securities, like home mortgage bonds. Synthetic CDOs are essentially side bets on those securities.

"So, I mean, it sounds like Treasury as of today has not done even a back-of-the-envelope sketch as to what the potential put-back rights could be to the TARP financial institutions," McWatters said, referring to the risk big banks face from investors forcing them to buy back dicey mortgages.

Caldwell repeated that Treasury is "monitoring this situation daily." She declined to offer specifics, though at one point she did say that the administration was "monitoring litigation risk."

Despite the many questions, and various hypothetical scenarios, Caldwell declined to give any more details on the foreclosure paperwork crisis than had already been disclosed by other members of the administration. The panel was forced to make do with open questions and a lack of details on what, exactly, the administration was looking at, how hard it was looking, and whether they are considering or planning for worst-case scenarios.

McWatters likely summed up the feelings of the entire panel when he said, "It's a little bit frightening."




*************************

Shahien Nasiripour is the business reporter for The Huffington Post. You can send him an e-mail; bookmark his page; subscribe to his RSS feed; follow him on Twitter; friend him on Facebook; become a fan; and/or get e-mail alerts when he reports the latest news. He can be reached at 646-274-2455.

[Soul Crusher]

Surge Of M.D.s Into Politics Shows Doctors Aren't Fans Of ObamaCare
IBD Editorials ^ | October 28, 2010 | JEFFREY H. ANDERSON AND ANDY WICKERSHAM


________________________ ________________________ ________________________ __________



Do doctors like ObamaCare? Judging by the number of doctors who are running for Congress in opposition to it, the answer would appear to be a resounding no.

By our count, 42 doctors (counting 35 M.D.s, five dentists, an optometrist and a psychologist) are running for one of the 435 House seats or 37 Senate seats at stake in the upcoming midterm elections. Far fewer than one in 100 Americans are doctors, yet one in 12 races for Congress now involves a doctor. And that's even without counting third-party candidates in the tally.

Most striking, however, is the party composition of these doctors: 34 are Republicans, while only eight are Democrats. Correspondingly, 34 oppose ObamaCare, while only eight support it. And 33 support ObamaCare's repeal. (One wants to try to repair it.)

So, at least among the folks running for federal office, four out of five doctors recommend repeal.


(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...