Mass. Democrat Hammers Obama Plan

To turn off WRKO sound bite scroll down below text.

Tim Cahill Slams Barack Obama, Dems On Health Care
By Jessica Van Sack Wednesday, March 17, 2010

State Treasurer Tim Cahill, taking swipes at both Gov. Deval Patrick and President Obama, boosted his bipartisan chops yesterday, telling Herald columnist Howie Carr on WRKO, “I voted for John McCain, believe it or not.”
Cahill, saying he was barred from the 2008 Democratic National Convention because he wouldn’t endorse either Obama or Hillary Clinton, said, “My own party basically voted me out.”
“I was afraid of what we had already been getting in Massachusetts, and at that point in 2008, I was aware that it wasn’t working,” he said. Separately yesterday, Cahill accused Obama of “propping up” the Bay State’s health plan with federal aid in order to help push the Democrats’ plan through Congress.
“The real problem is that this . . . sucking sound of money has been going into this health-care reform,” Cahill said. “And I would argue that it’s being propped up so that the federal government and the Obama administration can drive it through.”
Gov. Deval Patrick argues the state’s universal health care program has added 1 percent to the budget, but Cahill said the real impact is buffered by federal dollars.
Meanwhile, Republican Charles Baker’s campaign said Patrick “has consistently failed to address rising health-care costs in Massachusetts.” Baker, the former Harvard Pilgrim CEO, advocated for years for greater transparency on the part of medical service providers.
Cahill called on congressional Democrats yesterday to go “back to the drawing board,” saying he fears they will “bankrupt” the country.
Patrick’s campaign yesterday used Cahill’s health-care smackdown in its latest fund-raising pitch, e-mailing supporters that Cahill “is advocating policies that could put that access, and their health, in jeopardy.” Patrick, whose administration held a hearing on health-care costs yesterday, said exorbitant premium increases and medical service costs need to be curbed through legislation he has proposed.
Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=1240176

Watch this at WRKO

When It Comes To Barack Obama, the mainstream media sees no evil, hears no evil and speaks no evil...

Talking Points vs. Realty

 

"Fraud has been at the heart of this medical care takeover plan from day one."

  

Thomas Sowell - Syndicated Columnist - 3/16/2010

 

In a swindle that would make Bernie Madoff look like an amateur, Barack Obama has gotten a substantial segment of the population to believe that he can add millions of people to the government-insured rolls without increasing the already record-breaking federal deficit.

Those who think in terms of talking points, instead of realities, can point to the fact that the Congressional Budget Office has concurred with budget numbers that the Obama administration has presented.

Anyone who is so old-fashioned as to stop and think, instead of being swept along by rhetoric, can understand that a budget-- any budget-- is not a record of hard facts but a projection of future financial plans. A budget tells us what will happen if everything works out according to plan.

The Congressional Budget Office can only deal with the numbers that Congress supplies. Those numbers may well be consistent with each other, even if they are wholly inconsistent with anything that is likely to happen in the real world.

The Obama health care plan can be financed without increasing the federal deficit-- if the administration takes hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare. But Medicare itself does not have enough money to pay its own way over time.

However money is juggled in the short run, the government's financial liabilities are increased by adding this huge new entitlement of government-provided insurance. The fact that these new financial liabilities can be kept out of the official federal deficit projection, by claiming that they will be paid for with money taken from Medicare, changes nothing in the real world.

I can say that I can afford to buy a Rolls Royce, without going into debt, by using my inheritance from a rich uncle. But, in the real world, the question would arise immediately whether I in fact have a rich uncle, not to mention whether this hypothetical rich uncle would be likely to leave me enough money to buy a Rolls Royce.

In politics, however, you can say all sorts of things that have no relationship with reality. If you have a mainstream media that sees no evil, hears no evil and speaks no evil-- when it comes to Barack Obama-- you can say that you will pay for a vast expansion of government-provided insurance by taking money from the Medicare budget and using other gimmicks.

Whether this administration, or any future administration, will in fact take enough money from Medicare to pay for this new massive entitlement is a question that only the future can answer, regardless of what today's budget projection says.

On paper, you can treat Medicare like the hypothetical rich uncle who is going to leave me enough money to buy a Rolls Royce. But only on paper. In real life, you can't get blood from a turnip, and you can't keep on getting money from a Medicare program that is itself running out of money.

An even more transparent gimmick is collecting money for the new Obama health care program for the first ten years but delaying the payments of its benefits for four years. By collecting money for 10 years and spending it for only 6 years, you can make the program look self-supporting, but only on paper and only in the short run.

This is a game you can play just once, during the first decade. After that, you are going to be collecting money for 10 years and paying out money for 10 years. That is when you discover that your uncle doesn't have enough money to support himself, much less leave you an inheritance to pay for a Rolls Royce.

But a postponed revelation is not part of the official federal deficit today. And that provides a talking point, in order to soothe people who take talking points seriously.

Fraud has been at the heart of this medical care takeover plan from day one. The succession of wholly arbitrary deadlines for rushing this massive legislation through, before anyone has time to read it all, serves no other purpose than to keep its specifics from being scrutinized-- or even recognized-- before it becomes a fait accompli and "the law of the land."

Would you buy a used car under these conditions, even if it was a Rolls Royce?

The ACLU...not only are they bullies

Source: OneNewsNow.com
ACLU's M.O. - intimidate and bully...again

Charlie Butts - OneNewsNow - 3/15/2010 7:00:00 AM

The valedictorian at Greenwood High School near Indianapolis has filed suit to block a student-initiated prayer at the graduation ceremony.


The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is representing 18-year-old Eric Workman, who claims the prayer unconstitutionally subjects religious practice to majority rule, even though the students voted on the matter and a majority decided that the graduation prayer should take place.

"They [the ACLU] are again using a student, a teenager here, as a pawn in their attempt to revise history and to recreate an America in their own, secular humanist self image," comments Matt Barber, head of cultural affairs at Liberty Counsel.

He notes that federal courts have repeatedly upheld student-initiated prayer as constitutional, and he believes the ACLU searches far and wide to find a school district they think might be vulnerable.

"They come in and intimidate and bully in order to try to force their will -- and frankly, their unconstitutional will -- on the school district, hoping that they will surrender, that they will capitulate because of the costs associated with challenging such a lawsuit," Barber explains.

Liberty Counsel has over a 90-percent win record against the ACLU in such cases, and the cultural affairs director believes Congress needs to look at that record and apply sanctions when frivolous lawsuits are filed.

_____________

The ACLU: Self-Righteous Fools and Fascistic Bullies   Source Big Hollywood

by Burt Prelutsky

I am not a religious man.  I’m neither proud of that nor ashamed. I merely state that fact to establish where I’m coming from.  I have friends who are believers and friends who are not.  Where religion is concerned, I believe in live and let live.  I only wish that the ACLU shared that attitude.  I don’t like to describe myself as an agnostic or an atheist because I don’t care to align myself with the people whose own religion consists of a profound antipathy to everybody else’s.

I decided a long time ago that religion would play no part in my life, but I felt no compulsion to convert others.  Oddly enough, I never resented the folks who would ring my doorbell and try to proselytize me.  Although I don’t like dealing with uninvited guests, I always thought it was nice of them to be that concerned about the eternal soul of a perfect stranger. Having said all that, I wish to announce that I despise the ACLU for its relentless attacks on Christianity and Judaism.  It’s bad enough that they will wage battle on behalf of any busybody looking to banish Christmas and Hanukkah symbols from public places, including one’s own front yard.
However, these very same lawyers will eagerly go to the mat to safeguard a Muslim’s right to wear a disguise on her driver’s license, a Navajo’s right to ingest peyote, and a cultist’s right to ritualistically slaughter small animals.
The ACLU proclaims that they’re merely abiding by the Constitution’s insistence on the separation of church and state.  The only problem with that position is that the Constitution says no such thing.  Although the secular Left has glommed on to that catch phrase like a pitbull gnawing on a shinbone, the First Amendment simply states: “Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” 
That is a far cry from forcing apartment dwellers to remove holiday wreaths from their door, or insisting that communities remove Nativity scenes from parks, or compelling small towns to change “Christmas Holiday” in their high school calendars to “Winter Break.” 
The problem with the ACLU is that it is composed in equal measure of self-righteous fools and fascistic bullies.  Because so many of their members are rich and privileged, they will, on the one hand, blather on about their love of democracy, while, at the same time, assume they alone know what’s best for everyone else. 
Because they are so out of step with the majority, they can rarely have their way via a democratic ballot.  There are, in fact, only two means by which they ever have their way.  The first is by getting liberal judges to set aside election results, as they have done over such issues as capital punishment, illegal immigration, and affirmative action.  The second way is by intimidating those — be they individuals, cities or organizations – that lack the backbone or the financial wherewithal to defend themselves against the ACLU’s mob of shysters. 
If the authors of the Constitution had ever, in their worst nightmares, envisioned a group as vile as the ACLU, I feel certain that they would have rephrased the First Amendment to read: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Period!  And we’re not kidding, so help us God!” 
BurtPrelutsky@aol.com

The Best Game Ever ...without a doubt!

Next! Meet the real players...

$2.5 trillion stashed away ...but that's just in theory...your government already spent it all!

A Note From The Heritage Foundation

Is Now Really The Time To Create A New $2.5 Trillion Entitlement? 

In theory, the federal government has $2.5 trillion stashed away in a nondescript office building in the sleepy little town of Parkersburg, West Virginia. That is where the Treasury Department keeps stacks of nonnegotiable Treasury bonds payable to the Social Security Administration. But as the Associated Press reported yesterday, for the first time since the 1980s, the federal government will not be adding to that stack. Thanks to an aging population and slow economy, Social Security will pay out $29 billion more this year than it takes in. And the Congressional Budget Office reports that after small surpluses in 2014 and 2015, the program is projected to be in the red from 2016 until forever.

But what about Al Gore's Social Security "Lock Box?" Can't we just spend that $2.5 trillion in the Social Security Trust Fund? As Heritage experts David John and Brian Reidl explain, since 1939 federal law has required Social Security to "invest" its extra money in Treasury bonds. Those bonds are really just IOUs from the government to the government. The feds already spent that $2.5 trillion long ago on programs such as education, foreign aid and defense. Add the $2.5 trillion Social Security obligation onto our other obligations and our current national debt  stands at $12.5 trillion, or nearly $42,000 for every man, woman, and child in the country. And it will only get worse under President Barack Obama's Budget. It would: 1) borrow 42 cents for each dollar spent in 2010; 2) leave permanent annual deficits that top $1 trillion as late as 2020;  and 3) dump an additional $74,000 per household of debt into the laps of our children and grandchildren.