No, Ms. Sebelius…Americans Are Not “Confused” About ObamaCare

Kathleen Sebelius appeared on Travis Smiley’s PBS Show a few days ago to talk about ObamaCare. He asked her why Republicans shouldn’t make an effort to repeal the bill given the fact that “poll after poll after poll” shows it to be unpopular. Her answer starts at the 3:00 mark:

” Unfortunately, a lot of the American people are still confused about what’s in the bill and what’s not in the bill…”

Okay, I admit I was confused when Obama said our premiums would go down 3000%….

…there was about eighteen months of intentional misinformation given out day in and day out…”

True dat! – but the misinformation was coming from Obama and his minions.

Sebelius even engaged in a little misinformation, herself,  on The Travis Smiley Show:

“Everybody admits that this bill lowers the deficit by about a $100 billion dollars the first ten years, and then by a trillion, the second ten years.”

Really??? Everybody???

I know the Obami love  to use the “everybody agrees with us” approach, but isn’t Ms. Sebelius a little old to be using the Alinsky hippy drippy 60s radical  playbook? As in:

1. “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.”

We’re supposed to believe that 100% of us agree with them that Obamacare will lower the deficit?

The Heritage Foundation, for one, doesn’t buy it:

Contrary to a key intention of the legislation, the combination of mandates and taxes will not help to reduce the deficit. In fact, the PPACA will likely increase the deficit by an average $75 billion per year, and as a result, the nation’s publicly held debt will be $753 billion higher at the end of 2020. Such astronomical debt crowds out other productive investments and will lead to an estimated 670,000 lost job opportunities per year.

Dynamic Analysis Confirms Fears

It was the goal of health care reform to be deficit neutral—as scored by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)—within the first 10 years of enactment. In order to achieve this goal, the new law immediately imposes a combination of new taxes on high-income individuals, medical devices, and pharmaceuticals and Medicare spending cuts. In addition, the PPACA delays subsidy payments to help make insurance affordable for those with lower incomes and Medicaid expansions to cover more of the uninsured.

However, the static budget analysis is limited in that it does not account for how the policy combination of spending and taxes alters the macroeconomic performance of the economy and feeds back onto the budget. A dynamic simulation shows that the higher initial costs are not an investment that pays off with a higher return in later years. Indeed, these front-loaded costs slow economic growth with higher inflation and higher interest rates, which overwhelm the benefits the proposal hoped to gain in later years.

The bill’s taxes, penalties, and fees on investors and businesses will decrease the amount of investment in the economy. This reduced investment will in turn lead to a decline in productivity, causing the economy to produce $706 billion less worth of goods and services. A smaller economic pie means that workers earn lower wages and salaries. Higher taxes on investment also put upward pressure on interest rates as investors seek to achieve their after-tax desired rate of return.[1]

Lower wages reduce the amount of taxable income that could otherwise have been achieved. This will both increase the deficit and grow the total debt—which in turn puts upward pressure on interest rates and crowds out some savings that could have gone to new productive business investments.

Higher interest rates mean that more American tax dollars will go toward paying the interest on the federal debt rather than paying down the principal. Simulations using dynamic analysis estimate that the government would spend an average $23 billion more per year on interest rate payments over the 2010–2020 year window than it would without the PPACA.

Once the government begins paying for health insurance for individuals through subsidies and bringing people into the government insurance programs in the latter half of the decade, this growing debt will balloon. By the end of the 10 years, debt held by the public will be $753 billion higher than it otherwise would have been.

Here are the Top 10 Failures of ObamaCare After Six Months according to Emily Miller at Human Events:

1. Premiums Have Gone Up.

2. You Can’t Keep Your Current Plan And Doctor.

3. National Budget Deficit Is Worse

4. More Children Are Uninsured

5. Small Business Taxes Increased

6. Small Businesses Health Care Burden Increased

7. More Government Spending

8. Senior Citizens Suffer from Medicare Cuts

9. Minorities Get Worse Health Care

10. Democrats Losing Elections

Hit the link for full details.

The truth is, the more people learn about ObamaCare, the more unpopular it becomes.That’s not confusion -it’s clarity.


George Soros’ 9 Most Despicable Acts

The original post at Newsreal Blog by Kathy Shaidle read, George Soros’ 8 Most Despicable Acts, but we get to add one more, since Soros sicced his lawyers on the Canadian because she isn’t protected by the same First Amendment, and libel laws, we Americans are.

Thus despite the fact that the information she presented has floated around the American blogosphere for years and was published in David Horowitz and Richard Poe’s The Shadow Party, because of where she lives Soros’ goons were able to target her with legal threats. That is the nature of the totalitarian personality we’re dealing with here.

Roger Simon has written:

…were I a biographer — an occupation for which I have nowhere near the patience or perspicacity — [George] Soros would be my first choice for a subject. He is a paradigmatic figure for our times, a kind of a monster created in the twentieth century, inexorably metastasizing into the twenty-first.

Everyone’s favorite “progressive” billionaire George Soros has been stomping all over us up here in the Not-So-Great White North this week. Even if you’ve followed the Soros saga for years, you’ll be forgiven for being a tiny bit shocked that his generously funded attack dogs are now going so far as trying to shut down a TV channel that hasn’t even aired yet — in a foreign country, no less.

So let’s review “George Soros’ Most Despicable Acts,” and not just in Canada– with help from his extensive entry in Discover The Networks

Finish reading at Newsreal.


Woodward’s New Book, “Obama’s Wars” Exposes CIC’s Weak War Footing

Reading the first excerpts of Bob Woodward’s new book, “Obama’s Wars” in The Washington Post is an exercise in self induced nausea. You know it’s going to make you sick, but you read it anyway. There are no surprises here. We always suspected that the reason Obama spent so much time in 2009 deciding on a strategy for Afghanistan, was because, despite all of his pro-Afghan War bluster during the 2008 campaign, he just wanted us to get out of there.

That put him at odds with his Generals…

particularly Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. David H. Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command during the 2009 strategy review and now the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan.


During a flight in May, after a glass of wine, Petraeus told his own staffers that the administration was “[expletive] with the wrong guy.” Gates was tempted to walk out of an Oval Office meeting after being offended by comments made by deputy national security adviser Thomas E. Donilon about a general not named in the book.

Ed Morrissey notes:

During the Iraq War, Democrats ripped George W. Bush for supposedly not listening to his generals about sufficient troop commitments and strategic and tactical decisions in the field.  Consider that when reading the Washington Post’s report from Bob Woodward’s inside look at the stewardship of Barack Obama in the Afghanistan war.  Not only did Obama ignore the recommendations of his generals, he wound up writing his own war plan to spite them:

President Obama urgently looked for a way out of the war in Afghanistan last year, repeatedly pressing his top military advisers for an exit plan that they never gave him, according to secret meeting notes and documents cited in a new book by journalist Bob Woodward.

Frustrated with his military commanders for consistently offering only options that required significantly more troops, Obama finally crafted his own strategy, dictating a classified six-page “terms sheet” that sought to limit U.S. involvement, Woodward reports in “Obama’s Wars,” to be released on Monday.

According to Woodward’s meeting-by-meeting, memo-by-memo account of the 2009 Afghan strategy review, the president avoided talk of victory as he described his objectives. …

Obama rejected the military’s request for 40,000 troops as part of an expansive mission that had no foreseeable end. “I’m not doing 10 years,” he told Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at a meeting on Oct. 26, 2009. “I’m not doing long-term nation-building. I am not spending a trillion dollars.”

The most important thing Ace took away from the piece was Obama’s flaming skull-worthy assertion that the country could “absorb” another terrorist attack:

Barack Obama To Bob Woodward This Past July: “We can absorb a terrorist attack. We’ll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger.”

…the left is pushing this idea that we can safely “absorb” many new 9/11’s with an eye towards getting us to “accept” the greater bargain they fatuously offer — peace, and a general wind-down of post-9/11 security “overreactions” like the FBI tracking Muslims suspected of terrorist ties. If only we didn’t overreact to the occasional mass-murder, we could go about our business without war, without increased security measures, without “Islamophobia,” without the rest of it.

The problem, you see, is primarily within us, those being targeted for murder. If only we understood that this was a good bargain in exchange for living in a multicultural country and global economy, then we could be good citizens of the world and not lash out so terribly and uselessly when some of the more aggressive proponents of multiculturalism blow up a few of our buildings.

I’m not clear on whether the remark was made in July of 2009 or 2010, but it looks like most of the interviews took place in 2009..

From the The WaPo article :

Woodward’s book portrays Obama and the White House as barraged by warnings about the threat of terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and confronted with the difficulty in preventing them. During an interview with Woodward in July, the president said, “We can absorb a terrorist attack. We’ll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever . . . we absorbed it and we are stronger.”

We do know that since Obama took office,  there have been an alarming number of terrorist attacks on US soil that have been successful, or were only foiled due to the terrorists’ own incompetence:

May 2009, Binghamton NY: Taliban Chief Claims Responsibility for N.Y. Shooting Massacre

June 2009, Little Rock, AR: Military Recruiting Center Shooting Suspect Under FBI Investigation

November 2009, Fort Hood, TX: Fort Hood Gunman Who Killed 12, Wounded 30 Survived Gun Battle

December 2009, Detroit, MI: Fear and heroism aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 253 after attempted bombing

May 2010, NYC: Holder: Pakistani Taliban Behind Times Square Attack

The fact that so many terrorists have been able to get around our national security apparatus, has prompted conservatives like AJ Strata to notice that Something’s Wrong Inside Obama Administration Concerning Terrorist Bombings.

That something may be a new attitude that puts preserving multiculturalism and “global good citizenry” above  preserving American lives.

We can absorb these attacks. We have absorbed these attacks.

Obama signaled his feelings on this in an April 2007 Dem Primary debate in which he said that he wouldn’t respond to a massive terrorist attack by “alienating the world” based on “bluster and bombast”. His focus was on first responders.

Clinton and Edwards had  both answered that they would respond militarily.

The left may push the idea, but most liberal pols know better than to promote it.

Not our President.


RCP Video: Bolton On Fox News with Megyn Kelly: Obama Is “Cold-Blooded, Cynical” And Manipulates National Security

JOHN BOLTON, FORMER UN AMBASSADOR: “If the book is accurate … it is some of the most cold-blooded, cynical, grotesquely political manipulation of national security that I think we’ve ever seen.”

On “absorbing” another terrorist attack:

“The notion that a President would say that in that kind of callous and just utterly robotic way, I think is yet further indication that Obama is simply not qualified to be Commander-in-Chief,” Bolton added.

Linked by Michelle Malkin, Buzzworthy, thanks!