Byron York - Will Obama pay the price for cutting Medicare?

In the health care debate, Barack Obama is getting away with the rhetorical equivalent of murder.

To pay for the bulk of his proposed remake of the health care system, the president has a two-part plan. Half the money would come from tax increases, and the other half from reduced spending on Medicare.

So far, the health care battle has not focused specifically on the proposed Medicare cuts. But older Americans are the most avid voters in the country, and the latest Gallup poll shows that just 48 percent of people age 65 or older approve of the job Obama is doing as president -- the lowest of any age group. Much of Obama's problem with them can be traced directly to the health care issue.

Click to read entire article: Byron York - Will Obama pay the price for cutting Medicare?

John McCain: Pork-Barrel Spending Update

This week, President Obama signed the $410 billion omnibus bill into law containing over 9,000 earmarks totaling $7.7 billion in wasted taxpayer funds. As a vocal opponent of this bill, Senator McCain urged President Obama to use his veto power to reject the bill so the Congress could start over without the pork.

Unfortunately, President Obama chose to pass up this opportunity.

In response, Senator McCain said, "The President's rhetoric is impressive, but his statement affirms we will continue to do business as usual in Washington regarding earmarks in appropriations legislation."

Country First PAC is dedicated to electing reform candidates to federal office who will join Senator McCain in the fight against pork-barrel spending. It's more important than ever that we elect leaders to Congress who will act in the best interest of the taxpayer and who will not dig us further into debt. We must continue to hold President Obama and his allies accountable for the many promises of "change" they made while campaigning for president and other offices.

Thank you for your support and we will continue to keep you updated on Country First PAC's fight against pork-barrel spending.

Stimulus Projects by State

Thanks to Amanda for passing this along to me:

http://www.stimuluswatch.org/project/by_state

Find projects by state or territory
Alaska (46 projects)
Alabama (318 projects)
Arkansas (199 projects)
Arizona (743 projects)
California (1971 projects)
Colorado (201 projects)
Connecticut (449 projects)
Washington, D.C. (8 projects)
Delaware (7 projects)
Florida (1752 projects)
Georgia (266 projects)
Hawaii (316 projects)
Iowa (51 projects)
Idaho (348 projects)
Illinois (1031 projects)
Indiana (713 projects)
Kansas (139 projects)
Kentucky (524 projects)
Louisiana (433 projects) < /span>
Massachusetts (266 projects)
Maryland (54 projects)
Maine (72 projects)
Michigan (782 projects)
Minnesota (335 projects)
Missouri (403 projects)
Mississippi (552 projects)
Montana (57 projects)
North Carolina (319 projects)
North Dakota (61 projects)
Nebraska (154 projects)
New Jersey (261 projects)
New Mexico (215 projects)
Nevada (163 projects)
New York (289 projects)
Ohio (847 projects)
Oklahoma (223 projects)
Oregon (159 projects)
Pennsylvania (352 projects)
Puerto Rico (340 projects)
Rhode Island (116 projects)
South Carolina (271 projects)
South Dakota (30 projects)
Tennessee (103 projects)
Texas (1240 projects)
Utah (298 projects)
Virginia (400 projects)
Vermont (61 projects)
Washington (368 projects)
Wisconsin (358 projects)
West Virginia (1 projects)
Wyoming (85 projects

A Nation on Welfare

Let's see, $700 billion for TARP, $410 billion scheduled in more spending this year (omnibus package that I bet most of you haven't even heard about yet), NOW we're at over a trillion in the so-called stimulus package... how much has the government tossed at and/or committed to willy-nilly throwing at trying to fix the problem?

Try this number on for size - $9.7 TRILLION dollars according to an article in Bloomberg today (see below).

Not a paltry trillion like they're talking about in the Senate today... NINE point SEVEN trillion.

The $9.7 trillion in pledges would be enough to send a $1,430 check to every man, woman and child alive in the world. It’s 13 times what the U.S. has spent so far on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Congressional Budget Office data, and is almost enough to pay off every home mortgage loan in the U.S., calculated at $10.5 trillion by the Federal Reserve.

You know, I think I could fix the problems real easy with less money than that. Somewhere in MY stimulus package would be a cut in government spending and government agencies.

While I might send some money out to individuals, it would be judicious. You and I might be able to manage our money carefully and wisely. However, when I think about all those who've won the lottery and ended up in worse shape after they blew it, I'm not inclined to just cut everyone a huge check. We don't need to set up another generation to think thriving means waiting for a government check.

Incentives to work? Help in creating jobs... real jobs, not fixing lawns in D.C. or buying condoms or many of the other programs in the current stimulus.

We've created a monster and rather than trying to kill it or tame it, we're feeding the darn thing.

It struck me recently that we have become a nation on welfare. The government is supporting so many agencies, groups, people, and now industries, that we're dependent. We grouse about the Welfare program and how we've created a welfare mentality, but watch what we're ALL doing. The schools are dependent on government money. How many agencies live and die with government subsidies? The Arts, national public radio, roads, transportation, the list goes on an on. Everyone is clamoring for government grants. What about research? We have government agencies, AND we have private industry research that is dependent on government grants.

Our colleges aren't self-supporting. Even with huge alumni endowments, corporate donations and tuition they are seemingly in dire need of handouts from the government.

The list of government intrusion and life-support goes on and on.

The government doesn't even KNOW where it's spent the money they've thrown at the problem thus far! And the government isn't willing to share what it does know about the spending:

Bloomberg requested details of Fed lending under the Freedom of Information Act and filed a federal lawsuit against the central bank Nov. 7 seeking to force disclosure of borrower banks and their collateral. Arguments in the suit may be heard as soon as this month, according to the court docket. Bloomberg asked the Treasury in an FOIA request Jan. 28 for a detailed list of the securities it planned to guarantee for Citigroup and Bank of America. Bloomberg hasn’t received a response to the request. The Bloomberg lawsuit is Bloomberg LP v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 08-CV-9595, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).

I know the lawsuit was filed during the last administration, however, we're now supposedly under a more "open and transparent" administration. They're going to put everything out on the Internet so we can wade through it if we'd like. Nothing is out there yet, private groups are putting the info on the stimulus package out there for us to read (www.readthestimulus.org). Even when everything is out on the Internet (assuming it ever happens), do you trust the government to put all the details out there? Can you understand government-speak?

They're good at candy-coating bad bills. Think about the Fairness Doctrine which shuts down free speech, or the Employee Free Choice Act which takes away free choice by stopping employees from voting via secret ballots.

These are two excellent articles and I hope you'll read through them. I didn't even begin to touch on the issues they raise!

Regarding the 2nd half of TARP spending (approx. $350 billion):
U.S. Delays Finance Plan as Officials Debate Debt (Update1)
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner delayed the announcement of the Obama administration’s financial-recovery plan as officials debated proposals aimed at addressing the toxic debt clogging banks’ balance sheets....
...Officials continue to consider a so-called bad bank to buy them, perhaps in cooperation with private investors, such as hedge funds and private equity. It’s unclear how big a role there’ll be for federal guarantees of securities that remain on banks’ balance sheets...
...For now, the government doesn’t intend to ask for more money, while leaving open the option of requesting more later. Most of the second half of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program has yet to be allocated...
...Geithner will try to sell the plan as a clean break from the Bush administration, while offering many of the same programs and policy tools bequeathed by former Secretary Henry Paulson...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a7g9LIzUPd5w&refer=home

U.S. Taxpayers Risk $9.7 Trillion on Bailouts as Senate Votes
The stimulus package the U.S. Congress is completing would raise the government’s commitment to solving the financial crisis to $9.7 trillion, enough to pay off more than 90 percent of the nation’s home mortgages.
The Federal Reserve, Treasury Department and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have lent or spent almost $3 trillion over the past two years and pledged to provide up to $5.7 trillion more if needed. The total already tapped has decreased about 1 percent since November, mostly because foreign central banks are using fewer dollars in currency-exchange agreements called swaps.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aGq2B3XeGKok&refer=home
---
www.FayetteFrontPage.com
Fayette Front Page
Community News You Can Use
Fayetteville, Peachtree City, Tyrone
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
---

Latest Porkulus List in S.1 from Heritage (via #TCOT)

* $2 billion earmark to re-start FutureGen, a near-zero emissions coal power plant in Illinois that the Dept. of Energy defunded last year because the project was inefficient

* $650 million for the digital television (DTV) converter box coupon program

* $88 million for the Coast Guard to design a new polar icebreaker (arctic ship)

* $448 million for constructing the Dept. of Homeland Security headquarters

* $248 million for furniture at the new Dept. of Homeland Security headquarters

* $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees

* $400 million for the CDC to screen and prevent STD's

* $1.4 billion for a rural waste disposal programs

* $125 million for the Washington, D.C. sewer system

* $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities

* $1 billion for the 2010 Census, which has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion

* $200 million for public computer centers at community colleges

* $75 million for salaries of employees at the FBI

* $25 million for tribal alcohol and substance abuse reduction

* $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River

* $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas

* $6 billion to turn federal buildings into "green" buildings

* $500 million for state and local fire stations

* $650 million for wildland fire management on Forest Service lands

* $150 million for Smithsonian museum facilities

* $1.2 billion for "youth activities," including youth summer job programs

* $88 million for renovating the headquarters of the Public Health Service

* $412 million for CDC buildings and property

* $500 million for building and repairing NIH facilities in Bethesda, MD

* $160 million for "paid volunteers" at the Corporation for National and Community Service

* $5.5 million for "energy efficiency initiatives" at the VA "National Cemetery Administration"

* $60 million for Arlington National Cemetery

* $850 million for Amtrak

* $100 million for reducing the hazard of lead-based paint

* $75M to construct a new "security training" facility for State

Dept Security officers when they can be trained at existing facilities of other agencies.

* $110 million to the Farm Service Agency to upgrade computer systems

* $200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations.

* $275 million for "watershed and flood prevention operations"

* Unspecified assistance for "nonambulatory cattle"

Johnny Isakson's response to my email to vote NO on porkulus

I sent an email with thoughts on the "stimulus". Strip it of every bit of pork that can be negotiated out of it, then when it's as thin as possible, vote no anyway. I phrased it better than that... It's definitely a form letter, didn't expect anything more. I didn't suggest any projects as the form letter indicates.

Since I sent me email a lot has happened and things are changing minute-by-minute in Washington. I've read conflicting stories about what's going on behind the scenes so I'm in a wait-and-see mode (although I'm still sending emails and calling Senators).

One good thing that's happening is that more and more people are becoming aware of how little there is in this pork package that will do anything to help us.

I think Nancy Pelosi is going to ultimately be the fall 'guy' on this one. She was SO gleeful when she rammed it through. I was watching as she took the count and they zeroed in on her face. She was gloating, smiling so big I thought her face would crack from the tension. Now she's dealing with dissension in the ranks, possibly an Obama White House that isn't happy with her and a Senate that is busily stripping her Christmas list of wants out of the bill. (see my last post)

OK, I'll quit typing and let you read Isakson's letter (emphasis is mine):

Thank you for contacting me regarding President Obama's Economic Stimulus plan. I appreciate your thoughts and the opportunity to respond.

Recently President Obama has been meeting with Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi regarding his ideas for a second economic stimulus. At this time I am unsure as to whether I will or will not support this legislation due to the fact that there is no bill text to evaluate at this point, only constantly changing news reports. My staff and I, however, are glad to hear your thoughts on suggested projects that you believe should be included in this proposed plan. Rest assured I will strongly advocate on the behalf of Georgia projects for maximum investment.

As our nation continues to struggle through the current economic crisis it is important to stay focused on the recovery aspects. I believe the key to returning stability to the economy lies within the housing market. We must find a way to keep people in their homes, stabilize foreclosures and return consumer confidence to the marketplace. Once stability comes back to the housing market, you will see investors and small business begin to reinvesting in job creating activities, which will put hard working Americans back to work. I am committed to taking the necessary steps to work with my Senate colleagues to make this come to pass. Our nation has always demonstrated a strong resiliency and I am confident we will once again bounce back stronger than ever, where hard working Americans are at the front lines of economic prosperity.

Thank you again for contacting me. Please visit my webpage at http://isakson.senate.gov/ for more information on the issues important to you and to sign up for my e-newsletter

"Stimulus" Stats...

Contact every Senator, the Governor (stories are out saying Republican Governors are pressuring Congress to vote yes so they'll get their share of the money). If you think the so-called "stimulus package" is good for America, read the following excerpts from an article in the Canadian Free Press (http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/8006):

Alan Reynolds at the Wall Street Journal also tells us the stimulus package doesn’t even target the groups hardest hit by unemployment.

The December unemployment rate was only 2.3% for government workers and 3.8% in education and health. Unemployment rates in manufacturing and construction, by contrast, were 8.3% and 15.2% respectively. Yet 39% of the $550 billion in the bill would go to state and local governments. Another 17.3% would go to health and education—sectors where relatively secure government jobs are also prevalent. If the intent of the plan is to alleviate unemployment, why spend over half of the money on sectors where unemployment is lowest?

Here's a list of some of the things included in the "stimulus" package:

Global Warming

$2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects Link
$400 million for global-warming research Link

Government Upgrades

$2.5 billion for the National Science Foundation Link
$2.0 billion for the National Park Service Link
$800 million for AMTRAK Link
$650 million for the U.S. Forest Service Link
$600 million for NASA Link
$276 million to the State Department to upgrade and modernize its information technology Link
$150 million for maintenance work at the Smithsonian Institution Link
$209 million for maintenance work for the Federal Agricultural Research Service Link
$44 million for repairs and improvements at the Washington, D.C. headquarters of the Department of Agriculture Link
$245 million to upgrade the information technology of the Farm Service Agency Link
The Coast Guard wants more than $572 million for “Acquisition, Construction, & Improvements” They claim these funds will create 1,235 new jobs. Crunch the numbers and this brings the cost of “creating” each job to a staggering $460,000+ Link
$200 million for Dep. of Defense to acquire alternative energy vehicles. Link
$600 million for new cars for the federal government Link
$200 million to re-sod the National Mall Link
$400 million for a new Social Security Administration computer system Link
$1.9 billion for the Energy Department for “basic research into the physical sciences Link

Schools

$66B on education, but they specifically exclude private K-12 schools from getting one dime of it. Link
$17 billion for Pell Grants Link
$13 billion in IDEA, Part B State grants to help pay for “the excess costs of providing special education and related services to children with disabilities. Link
$13 billion in Title I grants “to provide extra academic support to help raise the achievement of students at risk of educational failure or to help all students in high-poverty schools meet challenging State academic standards Link
$6 billion goes to college and universities Link
$3.5 billion for higher education facilities. Link
$2.1 billion is for Head Start Link
$1 billion for Technology Education Link
$250-million for an after-school snack program. Link

Social Programs

$87 billion is to be spent on Medicaid, a welfare program already costing roughly $400 billion per year Link
$83 billion for the earned income credit for people who don’t pay income tax Link
$36 billion for expanded unemployment benefits Link
$20 billion for increased food stamps, including lifting restrictions on how long welfare dependents can receive food stamp benefits. Link
$6 billion program to “weatherize modest-income homes Link
$5 billion is devoted to public housing Link
$3 billion for health care prevention and wellness programs, such as childhood immunizations and other state and local public health programs Link
$2 billion is to be spent on Child Care Development Block Grants, which provide day care. Link
$1.7 billion is to be spent to help the homeless Link
$1.1 billion for so-called federal comparative effectiveness research in regard to health-care services Link
$1 billion goes for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance program, to help low income families pay their heating bills Link
$500 million to speed the processing of applications for Social Security disability claims. Link
$200 million goes for senior nutrition programs, such as Meals on Wheels Link
$200 million for AmeriCorps, to help satisfy “increased demand for services for vulnerable populations to meet critical needs in communities across the U.S. Link
$120 million to finance part-time work for seniors in community service agencies. Link
$100 million to reduce lead-based paint hazards for children in low income housing Link

MISC

New Programs $136 billion of the bill is for unproven ideas—to start 32 new federal programs. Link
$79 billion is to go the states to maintain their runaway government spending, particularly for such spendthrift jurisdictions as California, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts Link
$5.2 billion for ACORN, the left-leaning nonprofit group under federal investigation for massive voter fraud. Link “Community organizers,” such as the left-wing lobbying group ACORN, would get their own new slush fund of up to $750-million. Link
$4.2 billion provided to the Neighborhood Stabilization Fund, which provides the funds to local governments to purchase and rehab vacant housing due to foreclosure Link
$2 billion for Superfund cleanup Link
$1.2 billion for summer jobs for youth Link
$650 million for digital TV coupons to help Americans upgrade to digital cable television Link
$335 million for sexually transmitted disease education and prevention programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Link
$50 million for the National Endowment of the Arts to help “the arts community throughout the United States.
$400 million for “habitat restoration projects” of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Link
$75 million for smoking cessation Link

Presidential Line-item veto?

Giving the release posted below a quick glance caused me to do a double-take. Giving the President line-item veto power is something that is talked about often enough, but rarely does anyone attempt to do anything about it in Congress.

It takes away some of their power for one thing. It also puts the President in play as they bargain and cajole.

All those extras that are attached to bills aren't done simply to sneak something through. They are bargaining chips.

Let's say the Democratic party wants a bill of some sort pushed through but they need 20 more votes. Whoever wants the bill goes to those opposed and those who are on the fence and starts working on them.

"What's it going to take to get you to vote yes on this bill?"
"Well, I'm thinking you need to change this little bit here and it might be easier to swallow."
"Darn, that's one that we've already discussed and we can't budge on that."
"Hmm, let's see. Did I tell you about that bridge I wanted for my constituents? The company that will build it made some huge donations to my campaign."

Yeah, that last bit about the donation to the campaign isn't something I'd expect any of them to verbalize... but we all believe that payback is part of it, don't we?

I'm sure there are many other things in play when it comes to all those "extras" that get tagged onto the end of the bills that slide through. I would imagine they might also be used as a reward for someone who's toeing the party line, or as a help for someone in a tight race needing to bring home some pork.

Give the President line-item veto power and he gets to play in the game, too. Plus, he looks good doing it, too, as he can say he's just saving the tax payers money.

As I've written in previous blogs, neither Party wants to take a chance that a President from the other Party would have line-item veto power. Thus, the bill proposed below really surprised me. My first thought was this might have a chance of sliding through as it's the END of the President's term and the Democrats are probably thinking they've got a good shot at taking the Presidency. It was proposed by a Republican, too!

Then I read the release through to the end. There's a line in there that seems to nullify the idea of a Presidential line-item veto. AFTER he uses his red pen, it then has to be affirmed by Congress. Can you see the cat fights coming? Can you see the extra time it will take to get a bill through? Can you see any real chance of it working any differently than it does now?

I'm going to have to think on this one more and watch to see what happens as it goes forward. I can see that this would give the President more yelling power. He'd be able to bring attention to some of the pork. He'd also be on the line when he DIDN'T call attention to certain additions.

I like a lot of what Isakson is proposing, it's broader than just line-item veto power for the President.

I'm going to read the following release again and maybe, if time permits, I'll go pull up a copy of the proposal in its entirety and see if I can make some sense of it!

Isakson Co-Sponsors Constitutional Amendment to Give President Line-Item Veto Power
1/24/08 U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., today announced that he is co-sponsoring a constitutional amendment that would allow the President to use the line-item veto to either eliminate or reduce appropriations in any bill passed by the Congress.

“We must take bold and immediate steps to end the reckless spending that is threatening the future of our nation,” Isakson said. “This amendment will give the President much-needed authority to remove items from appropriations bills that are considered wasteful on a national perspective.”

Isakson noted that governors in 43 states – including Georgia – have line-item veto authority.

Congress passed a line-item veto bill in 1996, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional. The 1996 bill allowed the president to cancel, but not reduce, spending items in appropriation bills. The legislation Isakson is co-sponsoring would give the President more flexibility by allowing him to cancel or reduce any appropriation passed by Congress.

“One of the problems we have in America with deficit spending is spending money on projects that by anybody's definition are unnecessary projects,” Isakson said. “We need to have politicians justifying what they just spent rather than promising what they will spend.”

Isakson said he is committed to trying to pass legislation to curb federal spending and to demand more accountability from programs that receive federal dollars. To that end, Isakson has co-sponsored several pieces of legislation in addition to the line-item veto:

· The Stop Over-Spending (“S.O.S.”) Act would create a line-item veto mechanism for the President to use to eliminate wasteful spending and require Congressional affirmation for any deletions proposed by the President. It would implement procedures to automatically slow the rate of growth for mandatory programs if Congress fails to meet deficit reduction targets and reinstate statutory caps on discretionary spending. In addition, the S.O.S. Act would create two new bi-partisan commissions. The first would study the accountability and efficiency of government programs. The second commission would examine and provide solutions to the impending entitlement crisis.

· The Commission on Congressional Budgetary Accountability and Review of Federal Agencies Act would establish a bipartisan commission to review federal agencies and programs in an effort to eliminate federal spending on programs that are duplicative, wasteful, inefficient or outdated.

President Bush, Weekly Radio Address

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. New Year's Day will soon be upon us, and with it will come New Year's resolutions. This weekend is a good time to give thanks for our blessings -- and to resolve to do better in the coming year.

One of our greatest blessings as Americans is that we live in a country with a growing economy -- where people can pursue their dreams, turn ideas into enterprises, and provide for their families. It is a measure of our economy's resilience that even with high oil prices and softness in the housing market, we're still growing. In November, our economy added jobs for the 51st straight month, making this the longest period of uninterrupted job growth on record. Unemployment is a low 4.7 percent. Exports are up. And the fundamentals of our economy are strong.

Economic statistics are important indicators. Yet it is more important to remember that behind all these numbers are real people. These people include the entrepreneurs who live their dreams by starting up new businesses. These people include small business owners who create most of the new jobs in our economy. And most of all, these people include the tens of millions of working moms and dads whose jobs provide for their families.

I know that even in this growing economy some of you have real concerns. Some of you worry about your ability to afford healthcare coverage for your families. Some of you are concerned about meeting your monthly mortgage payments. Some of you worry about the impact of rising energy costs on fueling your cars and heating your homes. You expect your elected leaders in Washington to address these pressures on our economy and give you more options to help you deal with them. And I have put forth several proposals to do so.

In the last month, Congress has responded to some of my initiatives. They passed a good energy bill, they passed a temporary patch to protect middle class families from the burden of the Alternative Minimum Tax, and they passed a law that will help protect families from higher taxes when their lenders reduce their mortgage debt. But this is only a start. Congress needs to do more to decrease America's dependence on oil. Congress needs to pass legislation that will help make health care coverage more affordable for small businesses and workers who buy their own policies. And Congress needs to act quickly on the rest of my proposals to help families struggling with rising mortgage payments keep their homes.

Most of all, we need to set a good example in Washington by being careful with your money. I'm disappointed that leaders in Congress sent me a massive spending bill that includes about 9,800 earmarks. Earmarks are special interest items that are slipped into big spending bills like this one -- often at the last hour, without discussion or debate. Among the earmarks Congress approved was one for a prison museum and another for a sailing school. In the last election, congressional leaders ran on a promise that they would reform earmarks. They made some progress, but not nearly enough. So my Administration is reviewing options to address wasteful earmark spending.

As we address earmarks, we also must restrain spending, keep taxes low, and continue on a path towards a balanced budget. And that is what the budget I submit in February will do. You work hard for your money and to live within your means. As you provide for your families, the last thing you need is wasteful spending that will lead to a tax hike. My resolution for the New Year is this: to work with Congress to keep our economy growing, to keep your tax burden low, and to ensure that the money you send to Washington is spent wisely -- or not at all.

Thank you for listening, and Happy New Year