Lucid Links (092409, Morning Updated)
11:30 p.m. Update – I have carried this post, which originally went up at about 10 a.m. this morning, to the top for the following update.
Earlier this afternoon, I left a message for and sent an e-mail to New Trier Superintendent Linda L. Yonke requesting a response to yesterday’s post. I promised that I would give her response fair play here and that I would note her non-response if she chose that course of inaction.
Unless her e-mail got into my junk folder and I missed it, Ms. Yonke has apparently chosen not to respond.
__________________________________________
Thanks to those who linked to yesterday’s post on New Trier (IL) High School’s Obama speech indoctrination. I surely won’t catch ‘em all, and I’ll update today if I see any more, but here goes: Michelle Malkin, Underground Conservative, Backyard Conservative, Sword at the Ready, Conservative Liberal, American Elephant. Also: Unbeknownst to me until now, Conservative Brand was on the case last week.
_______________________________________________
Howler of the morning — This sentence is from a misheadlined Associated Press story (”IRS, ACORN sever ties over scandal”) about ACORN:
ACORN, meanwhile, said it had already suspended its tax program, raising questions about who broke up with whom.
Given what has really happened, what would posses anyone to write that? Who in the bleep does AP writer Stephen Ohlemacher think he’s fooling? Another in a long list of negative alternative names for AP should be “Absolute Protection.”
_______________________________________________
ACORN is suing Andrew Breitbart, James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles.
Three thoughts:
- It’s interested how employees who were supposedly fired for doing unacceptable things end up being co-litigants with their employer. How often does that happen?
- They’re gambling that limiting the action to the alleged violation of Maryland’s law against clandestine recordings will prevent discovery. If they find the “right” (i.e., leftist hack) judge, they might, but I don’t think such a limitation would withstand appeal. I see no reason why the defendants shouldn’t be able to see anything and everything.
- They’re also gambling that they can somehow turn public opinion around andm with the help of the press (see first item above) put sympathy in their corner. Anything’s possible, but I don’t see how.
Then there’s the “little” matter of whether ACORN even has permission to do business in Maryland.
__________________________________________________
Caught this exchange between ACORN’s Bertha Lewis, Congressman Darrell Issa, and Fox News’s Chris Wallace Sunday in the process of doing other posts yesterday (bolds are mine):
WALLACE: He (President Obama) says that he believes that ACORN should be investigated.
LEWIS: Well, that’s his opinion also.
ISSA: Well, it’s also Chairman John Conyers’ opinion, and he’s asked his subcommittee ranking — Chairman Nadler to pursue that. And again, this is not Republicans. This is about all the corporate structure, whether things have been violated.
You know, if you want to have an independent investigation — and I’ve heard that expression used by Bertha many times — you go to Pricewaterhouse or Ernst & Young and you — you walk in and say, “I want an audit of our corporations. I want a — and when we get done with it, make it public.”
WALLACE: Let me — let me interrupt — let me interrupt you, if I may, because you said this last week that you would name an independent auditor by Friday to review ACORN. I looked at your Web site 20 minutes ago. There’s still not a word.
LEWIS: You will have that announcement on Monday, making sure that when we hit the ground running that everything is in place, because it is important that we continue…
WALLACE: Is it going to be somebody…
LEWIS: … to do that.
WALLACE: … independent like Pricewaterhouse? Is it — I mean, you’re naming the auditors…
LEWIS: Well, it’s not going to be…
WALLACE: … so some people are going to…
LEWIS: … Pricewaterhouse.
WALLACE: … wonder whether or not…
LEWIS: You’ll find out who that person is, and you’ll also note that we brought in things last year, new auditors, new financial professionals, to make sure that they gave us sound advice, which I’ve been implementing, as well as making sure that what you just saw never, ever happens again.
In saying, “You’ll find out who that ‘person’ is,” Lewis perhaps inadvertently gave away that she wasn’t going to conduct the “total audit” she had promised only four days earlier. Her follow-up sentence is meant to communicate that “we already have ‘auditors,’ so leave us alone.” Nice try, dear; no sale. You may have engaged “new auditors,” but have they ever done any audits, or has there work been limited to “sound advice” (which could for all we know be totally unrelated to controls and procedures)?
The question remains, “Would no legitimate auditing firm touch the engagement, or did Lewis not even bother to try to get one?”
Instead, as discussed in the update at this Tuesday post, they chose as an “investigator” a Democratic Party hack with a horrid past.
______________________________________________
Oh my — “Obama WH adopts Bush indefinite-detention position.” That’s the title from Ed at Hot Air, who is correct when he says that despite administration spin, “Obama has adopted the Bush position in its entirety.”
I agree with the policy; the political cravenness and refusal to say “Y’know, my predecessor was right about this (and I was wrong during the presidential campaign)” is sophomoric.
I would like to pose a question for you and others who might have some experience with the Law.
The core claim from Barack Obama and the Democrats is they will save money in Medicare and use that savings to subsidize the uninsured. As a matter of legality, since the money was derived from the payroll tax for a specific purpose to fund the Medicare Trust Fund, isn’t it a misappropriation of funds to use any savings from Medicare on NON Medicare expenses? This money is not coming from the general tax revenue receipts, it’s coming from a dedicated tax earmarked specifically for the Medicare Trust Fund. Example, the Highway Trust Fund which is specifically funded by a dedicated federal gasoline tax can not be spend on NON Transportation projects. Congress can only choose not to spend the money from the Fund as done in years past or earmark specific amounts for specific projects that meet the criteria of the Fund’s mission.
Would you advise the GOP and others of standing to file a lawsuit or motion in Federal Court to block any transfer of funds from the Medicare Trust Fund and would they be successful? If so, may I suggest you call on Conservative Lawyers to take up the challenge to block this unlawful appropriation of funds at the expense of the Retiree. We are lawfully entitled to the use of those funds for the STATED purpose because it is a payroll tax that was legally limited to fund only one specified purpose.
Comment by dscott — September 24, 2009 @ 12:21 pm
Oh yes, a story you might be interested in…concerning AARP and Medigap Insurance. It seems AARP makes lots of money from Medigap Insurance and less so from franchising their name to AARP United Health Care (Medicare Advantage type plan). So guess what happens when ObamaCare is successful in wiping out Medicare Advantage? Why all those seniors, some 10 million of them will need Medigap insurance and AARP is positioned to handsomely profit from it! Yes, Tom, anytime a company gets in bed with the government to make some Faustian Bargain you can bet there is something in it for both of them at the expense of the individual. It’s called corporatism. Yeah, big Pharma is along for the ride because Obama made some backdoor deals, so where’s the transparency?
http://www.gop.gov/policy-news/09/09/22/aarp-helping-seniors-or-helping
http://www.citizen.org/congress/reform/rx_benefits/drug_benefit/
Background links: http://www.therubins.com/geninfo/aarp.htm
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/insurance/p45537.asp
Comment by dscott — September 24, 2009 @ 12:56 pm
#1, that is in a very interesting point.
I was going to say that it’s not relevant b/c Medicare has been set up as pay as you go from the beginning (vs. SocSec, which was sold on the Trust Fund myth).
But that doesn’t really matter. Your point that Medicare taxes are supposed to be dedicated towards Medicare expenses means that they shouldn’t be used for anything else. Whether they can’t legally be used for anything else is a darned good question.
Comment by TBlumer — September 24, 2009 @ 1:07 pm
Follow up on #2, what this means to seniors (I know since I’m taking care of a parent with Medicare Advantage) is they will have to shell out an additional $1000 or more a year in order to have the same coverage they have now with Medicare Advantage.
What Obama is doing is shifting the burden of medical insurance costs on the backs of senior citizens. THAT IS WHERE OBAMA IS GOING TO SAVE $150 BILLION FROM MEDICARE, NOT FROM FRAUD, WASTE AND ABUSE!!!!!!!!!!! It appears that Obama’s idea of fraud, waste and abuse is seniors getting benefits. And he is going to give this so called savings to other people who will be inclined to now vote for him…typical corrupt liberal politician.
Comment by dscott — September 24, 2009 @ 1:08 pm
#3, can you raise the question “publicly” with a number of bloggers and put heat on the sleazy liberals to explain themselves.
Comment by dscott — September 24, 2009 @ 1:11 pm
#4, following the logic, that may be the only place he’s LEGALLY allowed to take it from.
I want to raise your issue in #1 with a congressperson as well as bloggers. Update: I have left a message with Joe Barton’s press secretary with the substance of the question.
Comment by TBlumer — September 24, 2009 @ 2:09 pm
#6, while asking that question, bring up the issue that once the camel’s nose is under the tent with the Medicare Trust Fund savings misappropriation of money that means the Medicare Payroll tax can in effect be co-opted as a vehicle to fund medical insurance for the so called uninsured directly. Once you accept the premise that “savings” or rather money not spent on Retirees from Medicare can be spent elsewhere, you open the flood gates to spend it anywhere the idea of health insurance exists such as Medicaid, etc. Yeah, that’s right, the Medicare payroll tax will be in effect the Medicare and Medicaid payroll tax without the name change.
Let me know paint this very grim picture for you by quoting, The Medicare tax rate is 2.9% for the employee and the employer. You will withhold 1.45% of an employee’s wages and pay a matching amount for Medicare tax. There is no wage base for the Medicare portion of the FICA tax. Both the employer and the employee continue to pay Medicare tax, no matter how much is earned. http://www.alllaw.com/articles/tax/article5.asp
No wage cap!!!!! All Congress then has to do is raise the Medicare payroll tax rate to achieve their deficit neutral dream. BTW-this is not about Medicare running out of money, this is about just another way to raise taxes to never pay back the Trust Fund money that was stolen, i.e. mean borrowed…
Comment by dscott — September 24, 2009 @ 2:45 pm
I’m hearing news that Citibank is getting out of the mortgage business and sticking with jumbo loans and credit cards. That’s going to take a whack out of the amount of money available for regular mortgages. Watch for home sales to drop and the pressure for S&Ls and Credit Unions to throw themselves on the CRA created bonfire by lowering lending standards.
Comment by dscott — September 24, 2009 @ 2:50 pm
Obama makes me laugh, better folks than him have tried to combat fraud and waste in Medicare and failed. What makes him think he has any chance when in fact massive, unaccountable fraud and waste are inherent fixtures of government bureaucracies and programs? And who’s gonna pay for all the fraud and waste the ObamaCare boondoggle will generate?
The problem with AARP is that it’s not a true company. It’s a pseudo-”advocacy” socialist lobbying group with a profit making side clumsy and uneasy overlaid unto it all. Very convuluted. It would be better served as a matter of fact, if it actually became a true company and provided a quality service/product, instead of the glorified democrat PR machine it is now.
As for “Big Pharma,” they are gonna be under the Obama admins thumb one way or the other, so their reaction and backdoor dealing might be out of fear for their survival as much as deliberate malfeasance.
And people can call such things “corporatism” all they want, but it’s really just an unnecessary new term for standard good old fashioned socialism/communism, the corporation can choose to get into the bed thinking it’ll save them, but in the end it’s the government that is on top and calls the shots because they have the figurative (and sometimes literal) guns. If it has governmental powers, it’s not a corporation or business, anymore than the fact our government has chosen to get into business ever since the 1930’s makes them corporations or businesses. The term “corporatism” was coined by Mussolini to make it appear his facist/socialist policies allowed the free market to operate independly when in fact the state controlled what those “independent” corporate leaders did. Under so-called coporatism, the Italisn state held large amounts of stock in banks and other companies. It controlled 70% percent of iron production and almost half of steel production. As historian Larry Schweikart put it, “It was as close to communism as one could get without collectivizing all industry.” There is nothing “corporate” in “corporatism.” I say all this because the term has been co-opted by obsessively and rabidly anti-corporation Micheal Moore types to claim corporations are evil and controlling everything and shift the heat away from Big Government or excuse the true coercion of Big Government into the free market in the name of supposedly ridding us of the (imagined) coercion of big business. SO just beware, “corporatism” is a Pyrrhic term. Historically, the abuses by businesses were either abetted or flat out encouraged by those with the real powers – governments. And sometimes they even struck down or hindered those corporations who were doing good work and serving the public well to favor those businesses the government had compromised and therefore had more control over.
One other point, sometimes when the government and a corporation makes a deal it *does* benefit the individual, for example if that deal leads to the government intruding less in the free market. And there was that little deal J.P. Morgan made with the government in the late 1800’s that essentially saved the US from collapse after years of government mismanagement of its finances. And that deal certainty benefited the individual.
BTW, anyone catch Obama’s UN speech? What a weaselly, appeasement pushing, U.S. allies backstabbing, U.S. enemy pleasing sickening piece of work that was. We’re no longer going to promote freedom and democracy in the world anymore, oh no, we’re now about “unity”, “peace” and “multilateralism” at any and all costs. And I hear that the anti-Israel parts garnered the most applause. And then Chavez gets to speak as if he is some legit statesmen. And this on top of the U.N. celebrating Castro on Labor Day. The U.N. has become a sad, disgusting joke.
Comment by zf — September 25, 2009 @ 12:32 am
#9, Corporatism as I used it is consistent with what Mussolini practiced. In fact, here are my thoughts on Corporatism: http://www.publiusforum.com/2009/03/24/corporatism-corruption-and-fascism/
Comment by dscott — September 25, 2009 @ 12:10 pm
Did anyone hear Obama’s reference to sustainable economy? Did I not warn of this a while ago? Warning, warning Will Robinson, Danger!
The U.S. administration will be pushing leaders to agree “on a framework for balanced and sustainable growth, a set of policies, parameters and process” to avoid imbalances that contributed to the global financial meltdown, said Mike Froman, a top economic adviser to U.S. President Barack Obama.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/cbc/090924/topstories/world_g20_pittsburgh_economy481_2
there are times when I really don’t like being right…
Comment by dscott — September 25, 2009 @ 12:39 pm
Tom, here’s another issue that calls into question the idea Medicare Advantage costs more than standard Medicare. Since there are 10 million seniors, at $1000 a year for Medigap private insurance coverage that works out to $10 billion a year the government is shifting onto seniors. Yet Obama claims he is going to save $156 billion over ten years or $15.6 billion a year. Why the discrepancy?
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2917
In their article they claim 9 million on Medicare Advantage so using their figures, $156 billion/10 years/9 million = $1,733 per senior per year. So based on their figures versus the cost of Medigap insurance they are over stating the savings which in actuality is cost shifting to seniors. By their own figures they clearly show that Medicare Advantage is a cost effective program more so than standard Medicare and that’s not even dealing with details of coverage which minimize future medical expenses.
Let’s be honest here regarding Medicare itself, the government by it’s latest deception has shown they don’t want to give back the money they misappropriated from the Medicare Trust Fund. This is undeniable given the facts above. If Medicare isn’t taking in enough money to meet it’s obligations then the Medicare tax needs to be adjusted on a yearly basis to meet it’s obligations like every insurance company does with it’s premiums. But that should only be allowed ONCE the Trust Fund runs dry, otherwise the government is being allowed to steal money from the workers by spending the money for purposes other than specified.
Comment by dscott — September 26, 2009 @ 9:55 am
Sarkozy calls Obama naive.
Mr Sarkozy has previously called the US president’s disarmament crusade “naive.”
http://biggovernment.com/2009/09/25/sarkozy-mocks-obama-at-un-security-council-hello-big-media/
Coming from the French, what more proof do you need that Obama is incompetent?
Comment by dscott — September 26, 2009 @ 10:39 am