If the US finds Abdulmutallab in an al Qeda training camp in Yemen, merely preparing for an attack on America, he gets snuffed out by a Predator.

If the US catches Abdulmutallab in the act of attempted mass murder, he gets to go to a Detroit jail and is lawyered up.

That's how a terroist goes from enemy to defendant under the Obama administration.

ObamaCare on Drugs

A tax increase that will cause many seniors to lose private benefits.

Democrats are starting to mash together the Senate and House health-care bills, all of the negotiations taking place in secret. One reason to keep quiet is so voters don't discover items like the Senate's destructive change in the way retiree health benefits are taxed. This is a revenue grab that will cost many retirees their private drug benefit coverage, with knock-on harm for the federal budget and financial markets.

When the Medicare prescription drug benefit was created in 2003, one concern was that businesses that provided private drug coverage for seniors would dump them into the new taxpayer-funded plan. So Congress created a modest tax subsidy—equal to 28% of the total cost of a drug plan—to encourage employers to maintain coverage for retirees who would otherwise enroll in Medicare. On average, this subsidy will cost the government about $665 per person in 2011, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, while the same Medicare coverage would run about $1,209.

Currently, the $665 a business gains by providing benefits—and keeping one senior off Medicare—is not taxed. By instead treating the subsidy as income taxed at the 35% corporate rate, Democrats expect to raise about $5.4 billion for ObamaCare—and while that's a pittance in the scheme of a new multitrillion-dollar price tag, it's also based on a static tax analysis that is surely wrong.

The cost of offering drug benefits will rise by about $233 per retiree, making Medicare a far more attractive option for businesses. Private drug coverage is already on the decline, but Verizon, Xerox, Boeing, Metlife, Caterpillar and other companies are already warning that they may be forced to cut benefits. (Consider this another reward for the Business Roundtable's decision to promote ObamaCare.)

As more employers drop drug coverage, Congress won't be dispensing as many subsidies with the one hand that it can tax with the other, so revenue will fall. The retirees who lose private benefits will simply move onto Medicare, so public drug spending will also rise. The American Benefits Council, which represents the largest employers, estimates the tax will be a net loser for the government if just one out of four retirees is crowded out of private coverage.

That $233 may not sound like a lot, but under an accounting rule established in 1990, companies are required to report and expense their long-term retiree health liabilities on their financial statements, including actual paid claims and certain future payments. The deferred losses from the tax change thus must be immediately reflected on their balance sheets, which would take a huge bite out of reported earnings in 2010. Given the shaky economy, not to mention the political uncertainty that Washington continues to generate, is this really the best idea?

This is merely one example of how careless Democrats have been about the details as they dash to pass ObamaCare, even as they behave as if the results of their major changes to the health market will match perfectly with their perfectly unrealistic rhetoric.

"One of the things I've learned is that the Econ 101 approach to life where all that matters is the direct financial incentives or penalties is just wrong," Obama budget director Peter Orszag said in December. "Not to say that it doesn't matter, but exclusive focus on rational, perfectly optimizing behavior is just not, not where it's at."

When even the budget scorekeeper spurns economic incentives, you know pure politics is in charge. We suspect the White House will discover soon enough that everyone is a lot more rational, and a lot smarter, that it presumes.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703510304574626441126356878.html

I quote what you already admitted....

"I'd vote for Nancy Pelosi before I'll vote for another Republican"

That represents exactly a liberal democrat not an "unaffiliated"

Fanta for PELOSI!!!

Always knew you had a sweet spot in your heart for her....

Nothing Obama is doing is gonna bring back jobs in the numbers we need. Americans will tire of the wait....

The only salvation for most businesses in this crisis is that gas is about two and half bucks a gallon.....

Now is the time to put Americans back to work....all out assault for energy independence. And yes, that includes but not limited to new drilling for oil. Keep the money at home.

CEO of AIG

After you claim everyone elses info comes from blogs and then you post one. Now that's funny!!!

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/12/15/democrats-target-house-republicans-on-financial-overhaul-vote

Yup.....

Many Obama supporters are "Still in Denial"

Good riddance, Senator Reid....

Now that the scariest thought I've ever heard....

I think you r forgetting also how much less the treasury is gonna take in....

In November, Southers assured Senators - under oath - it was an isolated lapse.

"Have you ever in the past misused your access to databases that the government maintains, other than the one incident that lead to this censure?" asked Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine.

"No, Senator, I have not," Southers replied.

But a week later, Southers contradicted that account. It was in a letter he wrote to the Senate Homeland Security Committee Nov. 20, as reported by the Washington Post Friday.

Southers admitted it wasn't someone else who accessed confidential government databases, but he himself. And not once - but twice. Southers also disclosed a third apparent breach: he downloaded confidential law enforcement records in 1987 or 1988.

CBS news today

WOW....bro...you actually beginning to see that Obama has screwed up so royally that a republican might be back in office...

OMG that borders on dumb arse....can't you add 2010, 2011, and 2012
from the chart....and get almost 3 trillion dollars increase in the debt.

Now dems can fool themselves if they wish....bringing the yearly defict down from 1.2 trillion to just under a trillion is not real progress. No two ways about it - even giving all of 2009 to Bush, the debt will increase by three trillion dollars during Obama's first term.

Obama TSA nominee 'misled' Senate, may have broken laws

By: Mark Hemingway
Commentary Staff Writer
01/01/10 12:35 AM EST
Washington Examiner

The Washington Post just dropped this bombshell: "TSA nominee misled Congress about accessing confidential records":

The White House nominee to lead the Transportation Security Administration gave Congress misleading information about incidents in which he inappropriately accessed a federal database, possibly in violation of privacy laws, documents obtained by The Washington Post show.

The disclosure comes as pressure builds from Democrats on Capitol Hill for quick January confirmation of Erroll Southers, whose nomination has been held up by GOP opponents. In the aftermath of an attempted airline bombing on Christmas Day, calls have intensified for lawmakers to install permanent leadership at the TSA, a critical agency in enforcing airline security.

Southers, a former FBI agent, has described inconsistencies in his accounts to Congress as "inadvertent" and the result of poor memory of an incident that dates back 20 years. He said in a Nov. 20 letter to key senators obtained by The Post that he had accepted full responsibility long ago for a "grave error in judgment" in accessing confidential criminal records about his then-estranged wife's new boyfriend.

His letter to Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.), chairman of the Senate homeland security committee, and Susan Collins (Maine), the ranking Republican on the panel, attempts to correct statements about the episode that were made in a sworn affidavit on Oct. 22 and have been reported.

Southers did not respond to a request for an interview.

Following the Christmas Day terror attack, a lot of people have been pointing fingers at the Transportation Safety Administration for failing to do their job. After a news cycle or two of the TSA taking some pretty severe lumps, there appeared to be a coordinated campaign among Democrats to push back against those criticizing the Obama administration's TSA failure by pointing the finger at Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C.

DeMint had a hold on Erroll Southers, Obama's nominee to be TSA head adminsistrator. Of course, the Obama administration waited nine months to nominate anyone to fill the position -- so blaming DeMint for holding up Southers nominee an additional three months seems a bit disingenuous, especially since the delay wasn't entirely DeMint's fault as the Senate Democrats were busy with health care. Further, DeMint had some pretty legitimate national security concerns with regard to Southers.

And now on the heels of a massive TSA failure it's revealed that Obama's nominee to head up that agency wasn't truthful with Congress and may have broken laws. It sure looks as if DeMint is vindicated for holding up Southers' nomination, and this is yet another major national security embarassment for the White House in the wake of what the President admitted was a "catastophic" national security failure on Christmas.

Not so.....just try one of em

.....take #2 from my article and disprove it....

I'll spell in out for yer, almost 3 more trillion added to the total national debt.... for 2010, 2011, and 2012.....All Obama's doing.

And that's using White House figures which are more often than not always worse than stated.

That chart speaks volumes and speaks to who is being duped.

Nice try...

Your article does not dispute the 10 claims made by Betsy McCaughey.

10 Lumps of Coal In The Health Care Bill
Monday, December 28, 2009
By Betsy McCaughey

1. Higher premiums: If you pay for your own insurance, your premiums will cost 10% to 13% more than if the bill didn't pass, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Insurance won't be more affordable. Sixty percent of the newly insured are being enrolled in Medicaid, the public program for the poor.

2. A cost you can't afford and can't avoid: Though moderate-income families will get subsidies, buying insurance is mandatory. A family earning $54,000 will be expected to pay $9,000 (17% of pre-tax income) for the premium, co-pays and deductibles, according to the CBO. If you don't enroll, the IRS will find you and penalize you (Senate bill, p. 345).

3. A one-size-fits-all health plan: Your benefit package will be prescribed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Whether you choose basic, silver or gold, and whether you pay for it yourself or qualify for a subsidy, your benefits are the same.

Gold plans simply collect more up front and give you a lower co-pay or deductible. It's unclear how possible it will be to buy supplemental insurance. The goal is to discourage health consumption and differences based on ability to pay.

4. A sin tax on your generous plan at work: This is another equalizer to discourage some people from getting more than others. The Senate bill puts a 40% tax on Cadillac plans (p. 1,980). About one-fifth of employer-provided plans fall into that "luxury" category. The CBO predicts that employers will downgrade your coverage to avoid the tax or reduce your take home pay.

5. Government controls on your doctors' decisions: The Senate bill bars doctors from participating in the private insurance system unless they implement whatever regulations the secretary of health and human services chooses to impose to "improve health care quality" (p. 149). That broad phrase encompasses everything in medicine.

This would be the first time in history that the federal government is given power over how doctors treat privately insured patients.

6. Hospitals closed to seniors: The House and Senate bills slash payments to hospitals and other institutions that care for seniors. The chief actuary for Medicare, Richard Foster, warns that cuts in the House bill are so severe that some institutions may face severe losses or end their participation in Medicare (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 11/13/09 report). Some seniors won't know where to go.

7. Bare-bones hospital care: Patients of all ages (and all incomes) will suffer when hospitals are in financial distress. Hospital budget cuts will mean shortages of nurses, equipment and cleaning staff. The president's chief health advisor, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, argues that hospitals in the U.S. offer more privacy and comfort than hospitals in Europe, and this "abundance of amenities" drives up costs (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).

8. Future Medicare cuts: Look out baby boomers, the Senate bill establishes an Independent Medicare Advisory Commission to make automatic spending reductions in future years while insulating Congress from the political fallout. You won't get as much care as people in Medicare currently get.

9. A new social agenda: Money is allocated for adult preparation activities, including lessons on positive self-esteem and relationship dynamics, friendships, dating (and) romantic involvement (Senate bill, p.612). There are also giveaways to immigrants. The Senate bill hands low-income legal immigrants government subsidies as soon as they get here, instead of waiting the five years Medicaid requires (Senate bill, p. 274).

10. A tell-all relationship with every doctor you see: What happens in your doctor's office must be recorded in an electronic data base that can send the information to insurers and other medical offices (Senate bill, p. 62-66). Every doctor you see will have access to your medical history. See a psychiatrist? Your foot doctor will know about it.

These congressional tidings bring no comfort or joy. We must save ourselves from Congress' power now that it has gone astray.

Betsy McCaughey is chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former New York lieutenant governor. The Senate and House bills with page numbers can be found at www.defendyourhealthcare.us.

http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/article/59038