|
|
Barack Obama sells out to the UN by giving the United Nations jurisdiction to go after the State of Arizona and the 22 other
states that are attempting to enforce the immigration laws that he refuses to enforce.
Unfortunately, you read that right. On August 20, the United States, for the first time ever, submitted a
29 page “Universal Periodic Review” (UPR) to the UN Human Rights Council which outlines a laundry list of
alleged human rights abuses supposedly committed by the United States.
Of course, the UPR is pure rubbish, but it’s also much more than an opportunity for Barack Hussein Obama,
the Apologist-In-Chief, to bad-mouth America to the rest of the world. Contained within that laundry list
of so-called abuses is a direct condemnation of S.B. 1070, legislation enacted by the State of Arizona
(and supported by two-thirds of the American people), which seeks to do the job that the federal government
has refused to do… secure the border.
According to the UPR: “A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at
home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal
government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law
are currently enjoined.”
The submission of this UPR is the first step in a United Nations review process which will culminate with
the issuance of a plan of action, approximately 90 days from now, from a panel of UN bureaucrats from
France, Japan, and Cameroon.
And yes… the United States would be expected to “voluntarily” comply with the UN panel’s recommendations,
but as the UN Human Rights Council states on its website: “The Human Rights Council will decide on the
measures it would need to take in case of persistent non-cooperation by a State….”
In short, Barack Obama has upped the ante. Not content with simply filing a frivolous federal suit against
the people of Arizona, Obama has transformed his amnesty feud with the American people into an international
human rights cause and effectively placed the people of Arizona (and the 22 other states that are
considering similar border security legislation) under the jurisdiction of a triumvirate of America-hating
United Nations bureaucrats.
Let your Congressman know how you feel about this sell out to the U.N.
In a bid to stem taxpayer losses for bad loans guaranteed by federal housing agencies Fanny Mae
and Freddy Mac, Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn) proposed that borrowers be required to make a 5%
down payment in order to qualify. His proposal was rejected 57-42 on a party-line vote because,
as Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn) explained:
“passage of such a requirement would restrict home ownership to only those who can afford it.”
I can’t add anything to this. The arrogance of these people continue to amaze me.
Impatiently waiting until November 2010
Last week the Senate was so eager to hand out another $26 billion in bailouts that it forgot to name the bill it passed to provide that funding. The version of the bill that was passed, H.R. 1586, can be seen at Thomas, Congress’s legislation tracking site, with the title “_______Act of______.” Apparently, in the process of amending the bill, placeholder text was used for a new title and was never fixed before the Senate voted on the bill. As noted by WashingtonWatch.com, which first reported the oversight on Sunday, in order to rename the bill, the Senate would have to return from its break and vote on an amended version. And if the House passes the same bill but includes a title, then the Senate will have to vote again on that version. Under the Constitution, the Senate and the House have to pass identical versions of a bill before it can be presented to the President for signing into law. So the country may well have a law titled the “_______Act of______.” These are the folks spending your money.
As mentioned yesterday, here is the Congressional Progressive Caucus Member List as of
Wednesday June 02, 2010
The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) consists of 83 members and is the largest
caucus within the Democratic Caucus.
I would suggest that you make a copy of this list and refer to it often when reading
or listening to the news. This will give you some insight to the reasoning behind these
Progressive Congressmen. You can also use it when you go to the voting booth.
Co-Chairs
Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)
Vice Chairs
Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33)
Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
Hon. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)
Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08)
Senate Members
Hon. Roland Burris (IL)
Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)
Hon. Tom Udall (NM)
House Members
Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Hon. Earl Blumenauer (OR-03)
Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01)
Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03)
Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)
Hon. André Carson (IN-07)
Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
Hon. Judy Chu (CA-32)
Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-01)
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09)
Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)
Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07)
Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)
Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)
Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04)
Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Hon. John Hall (NY-19)
Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)
Hon. Alcee Hastings (FL-23)
Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)
Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)
Hon. John Lewis (GA-05)
Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02)
Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)
Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)
Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Hon. James McGovern (MA-03)
Hon. George Miller (CA-07)
Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Hon. Jim Moran (VA-08)
Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
Hon. John Olver (MA-01)
Hon. Frank Pallone (NJ-06)
Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Hon. Jared Polis (CO-02)
Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Hon. Linda Sánchez (CA-39)
Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Hon. José Serrano (NY-16)
Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)
Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
Hon. John Tierney (MA-06)
Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)
Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30)
Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)
Let’s make Obama a one term president!
Up for election this year are 435 House seats and a third of the Senate
seats. For the GOP to gain control of the House there would have to be a shift
of 45 seats. For Republicans to gain control of the Senate, 6 seats would have
to shift.
The 2010 elections are only a few months away and it’s only proper
that you know what politicians in your State are avowed Socialists.
Below is a list of those politicians that are members of the
DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA as of October 10, 2009. For more information about
the Democratic Socialists of America, you can go to their web site and find out for
yourself what it is all about. The URL is (http://www.dsausa.org) At one time, the
following list of members could be located on the DSA web site. However, Once this
list was made public, The DSA removed the link and the Web page. This list was
obtained from www.resistnet.com. Review the list very
carefully and note those in your State and vote them out of office.
Q: How many members of the U.S. Congress are also
members of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)?
A: Seventy
Q: How many of the DSA members sit on the Judiciary
Committee?
A: Eleven: John Conyers [Chairman of the Judiciary
Committee], Tammy Baldwin, Jerrold Nadler, Luis Gutierrez,
Melvin Watt, Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson, Steve Cohen,
Barbara Lee, Robert Wexler, Linda Sanchez [there are 23
Democrats on the Judiciary Committee of which eleven, almost
half, are now members of the DSA].
Q: Who are these members of 111th Congress?
A: See the listing below:
Co-Chairs
Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)
Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)
Vice Chairs
Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33)
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02)
Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
Arizona
Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
California
Hon. Henry Waxman (CA-30)
Hon. Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Hon. Pete Stark (CA-13)
Hon. Linda Sánchez (CA-47)
Hon. Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)
Hon. George Miller (CA-07)
Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)
Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)
Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)
Connecticut
Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
District of Columbia
Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
Florida
Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08)
Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03)
Hon. Robert Wexler (FL-19)
Georgia
Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Hon. John Lewis (GA-05)
Hawaii
Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)
Iowa
Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02)
Illinois
Hon. Bobby Rush (IL-01)
Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07)
Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)
Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
Hon. Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
Indiana
Hon. André Carson (IN-07)
Maine
Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Maryland
Rep. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)
Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Massachusetts
Hon. John Olver (MA-01)
Hon. James McGovern (MA-03)
Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)
Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04)
Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)
Hon. John Tierney (MA-06)
Michigan
Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)
Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
Minnesota
Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Missouri
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-01)
Mississippi
Hon. Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
North Carolina
Hon. Mel Watt (NC-12)
New Jersey
Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)
New Mexico
Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)
New York
Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
Hon. John Hall (NY-19)
Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Hon. José Serrano (NY-16)
Hon. Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
Hon. Nydia Velazquez (NY-12
Ohio
Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Oregon
Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
Pennsylvania
Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01)
Tennessee
Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09)
Texas
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Vermont
Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)
Hon. Peter Welch (VT-AL)
Virginia
Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
Wisconsin
Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Check back tomorrow for a list of the
Congressional Progressive Caucus.
By Floyd and Mary Beth Brown
Obama debt commission member, Republican Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, launched a scary
trial balloon on ABC News. Gregg suggested the debt commission will likely recommend a massive
$26.7 trillion tax increase. Here are Gregg’s actual words:
“Everything has to be on the table – there’s no question about that… Erskine Bowles, one of the
co-chairmen of the commission, has suggested a 75-25 split — 75 percent of the savings being
in spending, and 25 percent in revenues… I think it’s likely that there will have to be a
revenue component, but it should be significantly, dramatically — and a 3-1 ratio is pretty
dramatic — dramatically less than the initiatives in the spending side of the ledger.”
According to an analysis by Americans for Tax Reform if Bowles wants $3 in spending cuts for
every $1 in tax hikes then the tax increases will be larger than anyone expects:
“Bowles and Gregg can only be talking about cutting $3 in promised Social Security and Medicare
benefits in exchange for $1 in tax increases. In other words, 1/4 of the unfunded liabilities
of Social Security and Medicare would be paid for with tax hikes. So how big is that? According
to the 2009 Social Security and Medicare Actuaries’ Report, the long-run insolvency of the
Social Security and Medicare systems is $106.8 trillion (with a “t”) over the infinite horizon.
To close this gap with one-quarter tax hikes is, therefore, to raise taxes by $26.7 trillion.
Of course, this number is undoubtedly higher since the Obama Administration is sitting on
(read: hiding) the 2010 version of the report (it’s nearly six months overdue).”
On the heels of a huge tax increases included in the over-2000-page ObamaCare package, together
with over-2000-page so-called “Financial Reform Package,” together with the expiration of the
Bush tax cuts, Obama’s economic policies have guaranteed a double-dip recession.
Strap on your safety belts, because the anemic economic recovery of 2010 is about to become a
government-induced second recession or double-dip in 2011. This outcome is baked in the cake
even before any tax increases from the Obama debt commission are enacted.
If they are so greedy as to also try — by passage of a climate control bill — increases in
energy taxes then this second recession will likely lead to deflation and a collapse into a
government-sponsored depression. The economy cannot afford more money being redirected from
investments toward government spending.
Clearly from this evidence alone it is plain to see that Obama isn’t judging his success based
on a record of economic growth, but instead he is pursuing a program of economic redistribution. The administration has no focus on expanding the economic pie; instead, they are concerned with devouring every piece of the pie.
Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform, has been watching the Obama debt
commission closely, and he concluded after hearing reports of Sen. Gregg’s comments:
“It’s been clear from the beginning that the purpose of this Commission was to put GOP
fingerprints on a tax hike, likely a VAT… Gregg seems to be giving them all ten fingers… The
true agenda of this commission has always been to hide the ball on a tax hike until after the
November elections – hence the December reporting date. Gregg’s gaffe today tips their hand,”
Higher taxes are never the answer. With the economy so weak, Congress should be making the Bush
tax cuts permanent. Taxes on capital formation and investment should be eliminated all together. America should be encouraging small business, individual investors and entrepreneurs to be taking risks to increase economic growth in the private sector. Instead, Obama and the socialists in Congress are embarked on a dangerous expedition to punish success. This will end badly.
by Walter E. Williams
Let’s think about President Obama’s failed economic stimulus program. Before getting to the
nitty-gritty of why stimulus packages fail, let’s look at the failed stimulus program of
Obama’s hero, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. FDR’s Treasury Secretary, Henry Morgenthau, wrote
in his diary: “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent
before and it does not work. … We have never made good on our promises. … I say after
eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started …
and an enormous debt to boot!”
Morgenthau was being a bit gracious. The unemployment figures for FDR’s first eight years
were: 18 percent in 1935; 14 percent in 1936; by 1938, unemployment was back to 20 percent.
The stock market fell nearly 50 percent between August 1937 and March 1938. Columnist Walter
Lippmann wrote, “With almost no important exception every measure he (Roosevelt) has been
interested in for the past five months has been to reduce or discourage the production of
wealth.” The last year of the Herbert Hoover administration, the top marginal income tax
rate was raised from 24 to 63 percent. During the Roosevelt administration, the top rate
was raised at first to 79 percent and then later to 90 percent. Hillsdale College economic
historian Professor Burton Folsom notes that in 1941, Roosevelt even proposed a whopping 99.5
percent marginal rate on all incomes over $100,000. Much more of the Hoover/FDR fiasco can be
found in “Great Myths of the Great Depression”.
The Great Depression did not end until after WWII. Why it lasted so long went unanswered until
Harold L. Cole, professor of economics at the University of Pennsylvania, and Lee E. Ohanian,
professor of economics at UCLA, published their research project “How Government Prolonged the
Depression” in the Journal of Political Economy (August 2004). Professor Cole explained, “The
fact that the Depression dragged on for years convinced generations of economists and
policy-makers that capitalism could not be trusted to recover from depressions and that
significant government intervention was required to achieve good outcomes. Ironically, our
work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened.”
Professors Cole and Ohanian argue that FDR’s economic policies added at least seven years to
the depression.
Where do the trillion-plus dollars come from that Congress and Obama are spending in an effort
to stimulate the economy? How about Santa Claus, or maybe the Tooth Fairy? If you said, “Come
on, Williams, you’re being silly! The only way government can spend a dollar is to tax or
borrow it,” go to the head of the class. In the case of a tax, one should ask what would that
taxpayer have done with the dollar had it not been taxed away. He would have spent it on
something that would have created a job for someone. If the government hadn’t borrowed the
dollar, it might have been invested in some project that would have created a job. When
government taxes, borrows and spends, it shifts unemployment from one sector to another. Of
course, the sector that benefits tends to be a political favorite of the shifter.
Between 1787 and 1930, our nation has seen both mild and severe economic downturns, sometimes
called panics, that have ranged from one to seven years. During that interval, no one
considered it to be the business of the federal government to try to get the economy out of a
depression because there was no constitutional authority to do so. It took Hoover, FDR and a
frightened and derelict U.S. Supreme Court to turn what might have been a three- or four-year
sharp downturn into a 15-year meltdown.
Walter E. Williams’s Biography – Dr. Williams serves on the faculty of George Mason University
as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics and is the author of More Liberty Means
Less Government: Our Founders Knew This Well.
by Michelle Oddis
President Obama bypassed Congress Wednesday and through a “recess appointment” put Donald Berwick — a leading advocate of rationing healthcare — in charge of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Berwick will now spear head efforts to cut $500 billion in Medicare and Medicaid programs. Obama claims that he issued this executive order because Republicans were wasting time and playing games for “political purposes.”
But the truth is Berwick is America’s worst nightmare when it comes to healthcare reform. Obama’s recess appointment was clearly an effort to avoid public hearings on Berwick’s controversial views.
Here are the TopTen things the Obama Administration didn’t want you to know about Berwick:
1. Donald Berwick, President Obama’s nominee to administer Medicare and Medicare, has stated openly that he favors rationing healthcare “with our eyes open.” He wants the government to be able to decide how much healthcare you and your family are entitled to.
2. Berwick believes for that healthcare to be effective we must redistribute wealth. “Any healthcare funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent healthcare is by definition redistributional,” said Berwick.
3. Berwick is “in love” with Britain’s National Heath Service. He called the British system — that many here in the U.S. refer to as “free for all, but worthless to many” — a “seductress” about which he is “romantic.”
In an op-ed published in the Washington Post in 1992 Berwick stated about Britain: “At last, a nation where healthcare is a right and carrying a semi-automatic machine gun is a privilege. Berwick also described a “utopian” future in which the government is in complete control of the healthcare system.
4. Berwick believes that ultrasounds in normal pregnancies and cesarean sections amount to an “assault” and wants to cut prenatal care programs.
“As many as 80% of hysterectomies are scientifically unnecessary, so are more than a quarter of the drugs used for ear infections, most of the ultrasounds done in normal pregnancies, and half of cesarean sections in the United States. Isn’t this, with all do respect, some form of assault and battery, however unintended,” said Berwick
5. Berwick has repeatedly expressed his support for a single-payer healthcare system. Berwick has stated that if he could “wave a wand…
* Healthcare is a common good – single payer, speaking and buying for the common good;
* Healthcare is a human right – universality is a non-negotiable starting place;
* Justice is a prerequisite to health –equity is a primary quality goal.”
6. Berwick will cut the number of cardiac centers, cancer-care centers, neonatal intensive-care units, and high-level trama centers.
7. Berwick doesn’t trust the free market. “Don’t trust market forces,” instructs Berwick. Trust “leaders with plans.”
“When you rely on incentives, market forces, competition, and upward reporting for excellence you are playing with fire. I believe it is better to rely instead whenever possible on spirit, purpose, learning cooperation and joy in work.”
8. Berwick will cut preventative care in cases such as mammograms and ultrasounds. “One over demanding service is prevention; annual physicals, screening tests, and other measures that supposedly help catch disease early,” said Berwick in a 1998 Institute for Healthcare Improvement publication.
9. On “End of Life Care,” Berwick stated in a 1993 speech that “only a minority of patients, families, and clinicians support prolonged use of life-sustaining procedures and dramatic interventions in the terminal states of illness, yet substantial use of these procedures continue.”
10. Berwick, highlights race as a factor in healthcare reform. “It’s still true that race, minority race, especially being black in our country, is the strongest critique that we have about health,” said Berwick.
Miss Oddis is Assistant Managing Editor at HUMAN EVENTS.
By Conn Carroll
When Linda O’Boyle was diagnosed with bowel cancer, her doctors told her she could boost her
chances of survival by adding the drug cetuximab to her regimen. But the rationing body for
Britain’s National Health Service, the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence
(NICE), had previously ruled that the drug was not cost-effective and therefore would not be
paid for by the government. So O’Boyle liquidated her savings and paid for the drug herself.
But this is not allowed under NHS rules. When government bureaucrats found out that O’Boyle
had purchased the drug with her own money, she was denied NHS treatment and died within months
.
Defenders of Britain’s health care rationing system may try to claim that this tragic death
is an outlier in an otherwise acceptable government run health care system. They are wrong.
It is the point of the system. As socialized medicine and infanticide advocate Peter Singer
has argued in The New York Times, the NICE bureaucrats must ration care or else free
government health care would bankrupt the British economy. “NICE had set a general limit
of £30,000, or about $49,000, on the cost of extending life for a year,” Singer writes.
Following this logic, Singer supported NICE’s decision not to allow British citizens the
kidney
cancer fighting drug Sutent. As a result of this, and many other rationing
decisions Britain, has one of the lowest cancer survival rates in the Western world.
While 60.3% of men and 61.7% of women in Sweden survive a cancer diagnosis, in Britain the
figure ranges between 40.2% to 48.1% for men and 48% to 54.1% for women. And NICE’s
rationing has not just hit cancer patients. Doctors have warned that patients with terminal
illnesses are being made to die prematurely under the NHS rationing scheme. And according
to the Patients Association, one million NHS patients have been the victims of appalling
care in hospitals across Britain.
Most Americans would find this harrowing. But not President Barack Obama. Yesterday he bypassed
the Senate confirmation process and used a recess appointment to install Dr. Donald Berwick to
be the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS is the agency that
runs the Medicare and Medicaid programs). Dr. Berwick said of Britain’s health care
system: “Cynics beware, I am romantic about the National Health Service; I love it.” And his
love for Britain’s health care system is not in spite of its rationing, but because of it.
In 2009 Dr. Berwick told Biotechnology Healthcare: “NICE is extremely effective and a
conscientious and valuable knowledge-building system. … The decision is not whether or not we
will ration care – the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”
The fact that the White House chose to empower Dr. Berwick by recess appointment is
particularly audacious. The recess appointment power was intended to be used for occasions
when the Senate is out for months at a time. The Senate is currently out of session for
just 11 days. Worse, the Senate majority has never even scheduled a hearing so that
Dr. Berwick’s rationing views could be given an “open” forum. In fact, Dr. Berwick has not
even returned Senators’ written questionnaires.
The White House defends the move
by claiming “there’s no time to waste with Washington game-playing.” But then why did the Obama
administration wait until April 2010, a full 15 months after President Obama was sworn
into office, to nominate Dr. Berwick? Is it because they did not want Dr. Berwick’s well known
and public support for rationing health care to affect the debate over Obamacare?
In a 2005 interview with Health Affairs, Dr. Berwick said: “(G)overnment is an
extraordinarily important player in the American health care scene, and it has inescapable
duties with respect to improvement of care, or we’re not going to get improved care. Government
remains a major purchaser. … So as CMS goes and as Medicaid goes, so goes the system.” And that
was before Obamacare gave far reaching new powers to government bureaucrats.
In June of 2009, President Obama told the American Medical Association that “identifying
what works is not about dictating what kind of care should be provided.” Moreover, the
president has assured the public time and again that the government will not get between
patients and their doctors. His nomination of Don Berwick for Director of CMS, however, tells
a different story [8].
Article printed from The Foundry: Conservative Policy News.: http://blog.heritage.org – URL to article
Here are some amazingly simple home remedies that I’m sure you can
put to good use.
- Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone
else to hold them while you chop.
- Avoid arguments with the Mrs. about lifting the toilet seat by using
the sink.
- For high blood pressure sufferers: simply cut yourself and bleed for
a few minutes, thus reducing the pressure in your veins. Remember
to use a timer.
- A mouse trap, placed on top of your alarm clock, will prevent you
from rolling over and going back to sleep after you hit the snooze
button.
- If you have a bad cough, take a large dose of laxatives; then you’ll
be afraid to cough.
- You only need two tools in life – WD-40 and Duct Tape. If it
doesn’t move and should, use the WD -40. If it shouldn’t move and
does, use the duct tape.
- If you can’t fix it with a hammer, you’ve got an electrical problem.
Remember: Everyone seems normal until you get to know them.
Daily Thought:
SOME PEOPLE ARE LIKE SLINKIES; NOT REALLY GOOD FOR ANYTHING BUT
THEY BRING A SMILE TO YOUR FACE WHEN PUSHED DOWN THE STAIRS.
|
|
