Nancy Pelosi says she’s ‘proud’ of Obamacare

As Obamacare continues to come under bipartisan attack, Nancy Pelosi offered a full-throated praise of the law, saying she wished it would’ve gone further.

The House minority leader, speaking to reporters Wednesday morning, said she wants to “say every chance I get how proud we are of” Obamacare.

“It was a heavy lift to pass,” Pelosi said of the 2010 law, which she helped write and shepherd through the House. “I myself would’ve preferred single payer or public option, but this was a compromise, this is a compromise. But it does many of the things that we would’ve done under a public option. So we have a plan that is named affordable. That’s a very important word. Affordable. Because no matter what people say about whether they like their plan or not, their plan was not going to be their plan. Everybody’s premiums were going up.”

Pelosi’s defense came as Health and Human Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was testifying about the law’s glitches to the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

(Also on POLITICO: Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi split on staffers’ health coverage)

House Republicans are not only seizing on the flawed website – which the Obama administration says they will fix – but also that some Americans appear to be getting kicked off their current insurance plans, despite promises from President Barack Obama that that wouldn’t happen. Pelosi said that represents a small portion of Americans, who shop for insurance on the individual market.

“In terms of this 5 percent, the fact is the president said if you like your plan, you can keep your plan and they had a plan in 2010, they can keep their plan,” Pelosi said. “They can still keep their plan, but if they want all of the benefits at a lower, more affordable cost then they have options available to them. And for some of them, it may even involve a subsidy, that depends on their income and their financial situation. I’m thrilled about the overarching plan. This is life, a healthier life, liberty to pursue your happiness, as our founders promised.

Glitches will be worked out, and again, there’s a lot of education that has to be done on something that is new.”

Via: Politico

Continue Reading....

Under Boehner: Debt Up $3T In Under 3 Yrs--Enough to Buy Every Household 3 Yrs Tuition at State College

(CNSNews.com) - Since John Boehner became speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives on Jan. 5, 2011, the debt of the federal government has increased by $3,064,063,380,067.72. That is more than the total federal debt accumulated in the first 200 years of the U.S. Congress--during the terms of the first 48 speakers of the House.

It also equals about $26,722 for each of the 114,663,000 households the Census Bureau estimates are now in the United States.

The $26,722 in new debt per household accumulated under Speaker Boehner would have been more than enough to buy every household in the United States a minivan or pickup truck--or to pay three years of in-state tuition (not counting room and board) at the typical state college.

The Republicans won a majority of the House in the November 2010 elections. On Jan. 5, 2011, the new Republican majority elected Rep. John Boehner of Ohio as speaker. At the close of business that day, the federal government's debt was $14,011,526,727,895.85, according to the U.S. Treasury.

On Oct. 17, 2013, the most recent day reported by the Treasury, the federal debt was $17,075,590,107,963.57. That means that since Boehner became speaker, the federal debt has increased $3,064,063,380,067.72.

Via: CNS News

Continue Reading.....

ANALYSIS: TEA PARTY HAS UPPER HAND IN COMING FISCAL FIGHT

The mainstream media gloating over the Democrats' beat-down of the GOP concerning the recent government shutdown may be premature.

Without question, Obama and Harry Reid remained united and came out on top for the time being, forcing Tea Partiers and conventional Republicans alike to take a backseat and tend to their wounds. But if you survey the big picture, the outlook for Republicans and Tea Party advocates seems to fare much better than might first meet the eye.

True enough, Obamacare is here for now, but future policy struggles will revolve around spiraling deficits and the skyrocketing national debt (which has topped $17 trillion for the first time). This is home field turf for the Tea Party warriors and the Republicans in the main. 

Moreover, since 2010, Republicans for the most part reserved the Bush tax cuts with the exception of the highest earners, while trimming government spending via the sequester (which Obama went on to politicize). These victories should not go uncounted.

Widespread counter-punching between Democrats and the moderate establishment GOP and the conservative grassroots over the debt ceiling are likely here to stay. The fight started, and the next round is on February 7th. This gives the Republicans and Tea Partiers another two months to land some blows and hammer their arguments about our economic fragility and the pending disaster of American spending more capital than it has.

Via Breitbart

Continue Reading......

STUDY: AMERICANS IN ALL 50 STATES MORE CONSERVATIVE SINCE 1964

According to Cornell political scientist Peter Enns, conservatives are beginning to break through across the country. Based on “measures of policy mood for eac state from the 1950s to 2010,” Enns and his colleague Julianna Koch found that there has been a conservative opinion shift in every single state across the country. Most of the increases were “statistically significant”; the same held true for regions.

Between 1964 and 2010, America shifted heavily when asked whether every person should be provided a job by the government, or whether government should allow everyone to get ahead individually. Asked whether Washington was becoming too powerful, the country has again shifted dramatically. 

Those statistics do not hold true on same-sex marriage, and there is no question that policy liberalism grew during the 1980s, but then reversed itself. The bad news: the public moves in the opposite direction of policy – so should Republicans win, public opinion is likely to swing to the left. Nonetheless, the study suggests that America has moved steadily to the right since the full-fledged embrace of the welfare state.

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading.....

Retirement roulette is the new American normal

Deciding when to retire is one of the most important, and difficult, decisions an individual has to make, and it's not supposed to be a decision based on fear. That's exactly what's happening, though, across the United States. Fears of vanishing benefits have become a key factor for public sector workers nearing retirement age.

At the height of the recession in California, 9,500 public workers opted for retirement in 2010 rather than take the risk that budget slashing by the state capitol would leave them with less the longer they stayed in the system. That number has dropped to 8,000 through the first three quarters of 2013, but it's a "positive" economic data point that points to a larger, longer-term economic issue. California has recovered nicely from the financial crisis, reducing concern about an immediate legislative threat to benefits—California last year saw through changes in public sector benefits for new employees, which was a relief to existing, older workforce members.

Shires' family experienced the decision firsthand: his wife, a former city planner, was one of those eligible to retire but put off the decision once Governor Jerry Brown's retirement proposal was clearly only going to affect new hires. She faced a tradeoff between getting a lower annual payout by retiring earlier and the risks associated with the potential retirement reforms. Once those risks went away, she chose to delay her pension and to allow it to mature.

Via: CNBC

Continue Reading.....

AP Headline Claims Social Security Inflation Increase Will Be 'Among Lowest in Years,' When 2010 and 2011 Had No Increase at All

There was no annual adjustment to Social Security benefits for inflation during 2010 or 2011. That's because the 2009 increase of 5.8 percent (announced in November 2008, and considered the "2009" increase at this table) was artifically lifted by the $4 per gallon gas prices seen in the summer of 2008, the period used in the annual inflation adjustment calculation. After gas prices came down, overall prices levels were slightly lower during the next two years.

With that background, it's hard to imagine how a headline writer at the Associated Press, aka the Adminstration's Press, could transform what writer Stephen Ohlemacher accurately described as an "historically small increase" to "among the lowest in years" — unless it's to create a false impression among those who only read headlines that the government is being unduly stingy in disbursing benefits. Excerpts from Ohlemacher's report follow the jump (bolds are mine):

SOCIAL SECURITY RAISE TO BE AMONG LOWEST IN YEARS

For the second straight year, millions of Social Security recipients, disabled veterans and federal retirees can expect historically small increases in their benefits come January.

Preliminary figures suggest a benefit increase of roughly 1.5 percent, which would be among the smallest since automatic increases were adopted in 1975, according to an analysis by The Associated Press.

Next year's raise will be small because consumer prices, as measured by the government, haven't gone up much in the past year.

... Nearly 58 million retirees, disabled workers, spouses and children get Social Security benefits. The average monthly payment is $1,162. A 1.5 percent raise would increase the typical monthly payment by about $17.

The COLA also affects benefits for more than 3 million disabled veterans, about 2.5 million federal retirees and their survivors, and more than 8 million people who get Supplemental Security Income, the disability program for the poor.

Automatic COLAs were adopted so that benefits for people on fixed incomes would keep up with rising prices. Many seniors, however, complain that the COLA sometimes falls short, leaving them little wiggle room.

Since 1975, annual Social Security raises have averaged 4.1 percent. Only six times have they been less than 2 percent, including this year, when the increase was 1.7 percent. There was no COLA in 2010 or 2011 because inflation was too low.

The final bolded paragraph above is convenient framing. It is also likely that "many seniors" find that the increases are either adequate or not relevant. But the complainers get the ink and bandwidth. And of course, you can forget about AP reminding readers of Social Security's permanent cash-flow deficit or long-term unsustainability.

Ohlemacher's narrative only implies an important truth about 2010 and 2011. Because the 2009 increase was so large and did not get reduced when overall prices went down, beneficiaries on an overall basis received more in benefits than they needed to maintain their standard of living during the next two years.

But to reiterate the main point: Only two years removed from two consecutive years of no increased at the all, the AP story's headline describing the anticipated 2014 as the "lowest in years" is extraordinarily weak.

Via: Newsbusters

Continue Reading....

California Rep. Devin Nunes bucks GOP strategy California's Rep. Devin Nunes calls some GOP colleagues 'lemmings with suicide vests.' But he still votes with them on the shutdown.

WASHINGTON — Rep. Devin Nunes was a low-profile Republican from California's Central Valley, perhaps best known for his battles with environmentalists over water, including once bringing a bowl of fish to a Capitol Hill hearing to argue that their interests were being elevated over those of farmers.

And then he uttered four words, describing colleagues who were willing to let the federal government shut down over Obamacare as "lemmings with suicide vests.''

That put the six-term legislator in the very small circle ofRepublicans willing to speak out against his party's strategy.

He said the "lemming caucus" that sought to defund the 2010 healthcare law as a condition for keeping the government open has misled his constituents into believing — falsely, he says — that their strategy could succeed. He said that he, too, hates Obamacare but sees no prospect of its repeal with its biggest fan in the White House and Democrats in control of the Senate.

"You guys ever watch 'Sixteen Candles'? ... That's going to be us tomorrow," Nunes recently told reporters, suggesting — tongue in cheek, he later said — that Republicans would end up like a character in the 1984 movie, waking up on a lawn after crashing the car.

The 40-year-old farmer says he believes the shutdown is hurting his party by dominating the headlines when Republicans could otherwise be highlighting problems with the rollout of the healthcare law. He's also taken on Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), a darling of the tea party. "He's the one that got us into this mess," Nunes says.

Via: LA Times

Continue Reading.....

New book takes you behind the scenes of the constitutional challenge to Obamacare

The opportunity to stop Obamacare has largely passed, argues Josh Blackman, author of the new book, ”Unprecedented: The Constitutional Challenge to Obamacare.”

“Despite efforts to defund or stop Obamacare now, the time to stop this law was in 2008. Or 2010. Or 2012,” Blackman told The Daily Caller in an interview about his new tome, which tells the inside story of the legal challenge to overturn President Obama’s health-care law.

“There were three elections that could have stopped the law. If the Republicans had one more vote in the Senate in 2009, they could have filibustered the law, and stopped it dead in its tracks. If the GOP had taken over the Senate and the House in 2010, they could have delayed, or perhaps halted implementation of the parts until after the 2012 election. Had Mitt Romney won the presidency in 2012, he could have signed into law a repeal of Obamacare, before it was implemented. But none of those things happened. In the end of this unprecedented journey, Obamacare survived, and we hurtle towards its implementation in the coming months.

Nonetheless, Blackman, a professor at South Texas College of Law whose friends and colleagues were instrumental actors in the legal fight to overturn Obamacare, says several legal challenges to the law are still on-going.

“There are a few legal challenges remaining against Obamacare,” he said.

“One suit alleges that Obamacare does not permit the federal government to pay out subsidies to people enrolled in the health-care exchanges in states that did not opt into the Medicaid expansion. If this suit is successful, it would halt the Obamacare exchanges in states that are not participating in the expansion. Another suit alleges that because the individual mandate was a tax (as rewritten by the Chief Justice), and because the Constitution requires that all taxes originate in the House, and Obamacare began in the Senate, the law is unconstitutional. If this suit is successful, the mandate would be unconstitutional. Though, a federal judge has already dismissed this suit and it is being appealed.”

Even though the Supreme Court did not overturn President Obama’s health-care law in its 2011 decision, Blackman says determining who actually won the legal battle remains “complicated.”

“It’s complicated on a few levels,” Blackman explained.

Via: The Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

Catholic Hospital Association Continues to Provide Cover for ObamaCare's Abortion Funding

At the height of the contentious debate that surrounded health care reform in 2010, negotiations nearly ground to a halt due objections made by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) over abortion funding provisions in the legislation.  The USCCB, which is considered quite liberal in the American sense of the word on the issues of health care and health insurance, refused to give its blessing to what would become ObamaCare due to the legislation's funding for elective abortions.

At the time, ObamaCare appeared doomed.  Many Democrats stated that they could not support a health care bill which didn't include expanded abortion funding, while other pro-life Democrats (such as then-Rep. Bart Stupak and his "Stupak Dozen") refused to cede any ground and stood with the USCCB.  

Just when it appeared that this controversy would end the Democrats' latest attempt at "health care reform," the Catholic Hospital Association (CHA) intervened in an attempt to end the standoff.  As described by Slate shortly after ObamaCare became law:

In the run-up to passage of the health care bill, representatives of the nearly 60,000 U.S. nuns signed a letter in support of the health care bill, contra the bishops, because, they wrote, supporting better health care is "the real pro-life stance." From there, the dominoes toppled fast-Bart Stupak, the Catholic pro-life Democrat who'd refused to vote in favor of the bill because of the abortion question, initially dismissed the nuns' letter but then backed down and settled for an executive order on abortion of questionable import and scope. And the bill passed.

Via: The American Thinker

Continue Reading

In the Energy Debate between Palin and Obama...Obama Lost

You  know we can't just drill our way to lower gas prices. If we're going to take control of our energy future, and can start avoiding these annual gas price spikes that happen every year when the economy starts getting better, world demand starts increasing, turmoil in the Middle East or some other parts of the world, if we're going to stop being at the mercy of these world events, then we need a sustained, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy - oil, gas, wind, solar, and nuclear, and biofuels, and more.

President Obama made these remarks in February of 2012 at the University of Miami.  The President was criticizing the longstanding argument of political rival Sarah Palin, who urges the nation to "drill, baby, drill."

Palin expounded on these sentiments in 2010:

Although the Left chooses to mock the mantra of "drill, baby, drill," and they ignorantly argue against the facts pertaining to the need for America to responsibly develop her domestic supply of natural resources, surely they can't argue the national security implications of relying on foreign countries to extract supplies that America desperately needs for industry, jobs, and security. Some of the countries we're now reliant upon and will soon be beholden to can easily use energy and mineral supplies as a weapon against us.

In 2011, in an interview with the CBS affiliate WTKR in Hampton Roads, Virginia, the president contradicted his own remarks suggesting that oil prices cannot be lowered by arguing:

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading...