Thursday, September 30, 2010

McDonald’s & Obamacare

The Wall St. Journal reported this morning that McDonalds may have to drop their health insurance because of rising costs, which would affect 30,000 employees:

McDonald’s Corp. has warned federal regulators that it could drop its health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 hourly restaurant workers unless regulators waive a new requirement of the U.S. health overhaul.

The move is one of the clearest indications that new rules may disrupt workers’ health plans as the law ripples through the real world. …

While many restaurants don’t offer health coverage, McDonald’s provides mini-med plans for workers at 10,500 U.S. locations, most of them franchised. A single worker can pay $14 a week for a plan that caps annual benefits at $2,000, or about $32 a week to get coverage up to $10,000 a year.

Last week, a senior McDonald’s official informed the Department of Health and Human Services that the restaurant chain’s insurer won’t meet a 2011 requirement to spend at least 80% to 85% of its premium revenue on medical care.

McDonald’s and trade groups say the percentage, called a medical loss ratio, is unrealistic for mini-med plans because of high administrative costs owing to frequent worker turnover, combined with relatively low spending on claims.

I have written about this medical loss ratio before, which is basically designed to help put insurance companies out of business:

One of the biggest problems is their 65 -35 model (65 in claims payment; 35 for administration and claims expense storage for major catastrophes) which has been an industry standard was changed today to 85-15, which leaves the insurance companies only 15% on the dollar to pay for all administrative costs as well as catastrophe savings. It makes all insurance companies financially unstable. That doesn’t include all the colonoscopies and mammograms that are now included under preventative medicine that they have to pay for in full. Insurance companies will go out of business under this model.

Despite all of this, now McDonalds has come out this morning to deny that they are even considering dropping their health plans for their employees:

My guess is that they are trying to avoid the public demonization that would likely come from this administration and this Congress – ya know, those greedy white fatcats stuffing their pockets at the oppression and exploitation of their employees. Yeah that demonization.

Plus, it sounds like they aren’t ready to announce this, and want to avoid the internal implications this could have on employees. Either way, the medical loss ratio is what it is, thanks to ObamaCare, and I wonder how long these insurance companies will be able to stay afloat. Hopefully, long enough for us to regain control and roll this disaster of a health plan back.

What Was FBI-Raided Radical Abudayyeh Doing at Obama White House & Why Was He Awarded $457,000 in Taxpayer Money?

Last Friday FBI agents raided the homes of far left activists in Chicago and Minneapolis who are linked to the Marxist FARC terrorists and Islamic radicals as part of a terrorism investigation.

The home of radical Hatem Abudayyeh in Chicago was raided in the terror sweep.

Radical Hatem Abudayyeh protested against Israel in Chicago in January 2009. (Daylife)

Hatem Abudayyeh is the executive director of the Arab American Action Network (AAAN). Hatem Abudayyeh has been with the Arab American Action Network (AAAN) since 1999, and was appointed Executive Director in 2003. The Arab American Action Network was founded by former PLO operative and close Obama family friend Rashid Khalidi. Obama was a director of the Woods Fund from 1994 through 2001, when the board approved a $40,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network.

In 2003 Barack Obama was an honored guest at a dinner sponsored by the AAAN for former PLO-operative Rashid Khalidi. During the dinner a video was taken that shows Barack Obama celebrating with members of this Palestinian group who are openly hostile towards Israel. Barack Obama even gave a toast to a Rashid Khalidi at this going away party. The LA Times will not release the video from this Jew-bashing dinner.

Not only was Hatem Abudayyeh’s radical organization given $40,000 by Barack Obama and the Woods Fund but his organization also collected nearly half a million in taxpayer money.

ABC Local reported:

When FBI agents raided the Chicago home of Hatem Abudayyeh last Friday, they took his laptop computer and paper records, anything with the word “Palestine” on it, according to the man’s attorney.

Federal search warrants indicate that authorities are looking for connections between terrorist organizations in the Middle East and South America and certain anti-war leaders and organizations in the U.S.

As executive director of the Arab American Action Network in Chicago, Mr. Abudayyeh is a well-known advocate for immigrant rights. When federal officers raided his North Side home last week, along with residences in Minneapolis, they were looking for funding links between Abudayyeh and the radical Islamic group Hamas that took power in the Gaza Strip three years ago.

Even as Abudayyeh is under investigation by a federal grand jury, city of Chicago records obtained by the ABC7 I-Team show that his Arab American Action Network has received thousands of dollars in city grants: as much as $457,000 since 1998. According to city officials, the money was intended for an after-school program for high-risk students who struggle with English.

So how did that happen?
And would someone in the Obama Administration explain what Abudayyeh was doing in the White House this year?

Hat Tip Steve H.

This deserves an explanation.

Debbie Schlussel has much more on this radical here and here.

FBI Raids Home of RNC Leftist Activist As Part of Terrorism Investigation
FBI Raids Home of Obama Associate & Radical AAAN Leader in Terrorism Sweep

Yes, Obamacare Does Include A Big New Real Estate Tax

Nancy Pelosi told us that we’d have to make Obamacare law to find out what’s in it. Americans are clearly finding out just how true that is judging by my inbox. I’ve been getting email forwards left and right demanding to know if it’s true that the Obamacare legislation will impose a new tax on real estate.

That’s absolutely true. Here’s a summary of what’s in store:

One of the latest revelations is a 3.8-percent new tax on home sale “profits” when the equity pocketed by an individual seller exceeds $250,000 or $500,000 for a couple. We doubt many Americans for or against the health care overhaul expected it also to result in paying an additional tax on top of the existing capital-gains tax when they sell their homes.

It’s difficult to gauge the full effect, but real estate experts at tell us about 88 percent of Orange County homeowners with mortgages have some amount of equity. Of course, homeowners who paid off or substantially paid down their mortgages have considerable equity, and there aren’t many Orange County houses selling for less than $250,000, the new tax threshold for individuals.

The stealth 3.8-percent tax is piled on top of the capital-gains tax, which is 15 percent for people in most tax brackets, but will increase next year to 20 percent.

What’s interesting is that this tax won’t just be applying to the proceeds from selling your home, but also to any proceeds from real estate in general including rent. Meaning that land lords and property investors across the country will soon be passing this tax on to renters:

The new tax also applies to “interest, dividends, annuities, royalties, rents, passive income” as well as “net capital gain from the disposition of non-business property,” including personal residences.

To be fair, the tax doesn’t kick in until after the capital gains threshold has been passed, and applies only to single taxpayers earning $200,000 and joint filers at $250,000. But notice that the capital gains tax this new tax piles on top of is going up next year thanks to the presumed expiration of the Bush tax cuts.

This is a massive new tax, and while most Americans will fall short of paying it, it will mean more money out of the private sector and into government. Something we can ill-afford at this point.

Wednesday, September 29, 2010

Not Again! Obama Takes Roadshow to Iowa – Gets Earful

This wasn’t supposed to happen.

Iowan supporters blasted the president today during his latest backyard meeting.
Even The Washington Post admitted that Obama got an earful.

Back in Iowa, President Obama got an earful Wednesday from voters about two of his key policies: health care, and his desire to roll back Bush-era tax cuts.

In a state with a highly educated electorate – and where voters are accustomed to challenging aspiring presidents every four years – Obama did his share of listening while audience members did a big portion of the talking.

Standing in the back yard of a resident, Obama stood patiently as one woman described, at length, her fears that the U.S. health-care system will soon resemble that of Great Britain. Next, a man spent several minutes describing the way his small business works – and his unhappiness with the prospects of a tax hike.

When the man veered off into his thoughts on Chinese currency, Obama interrupted.

“Okay, we’re going way afield now,” Obama said, jumping in to address part of the man’s earlier observations.

He then attacked the GOP for his failed big government policies.

Obama Openly Lies About National Deficit at Iowa Campaign Stop

If only we had a responsible, non-biased and honest media.
But we don’t. We have a corrupt media and that is why not one news organization will challenge Obama’s blatant lie about the national deficit.

Obama says its Bush’s fault.
That’s crazy. Good grief, look at the chart:

Sorry Barack, that wasn’t Bush’s fault and you know it.

The Des Moines Register reported this today from Obama’s traveling economic sideshow:

Obama defended the health care bill he signed in March, saying neither it, nor the stimulus package nor the automotive industry bailout last year was responsible for the size of the federal deficit to the extent that (Bush) tax cuts were.

He was challenged by a Des Moines manufacturing company owner, who described allowing expiration of the tax cut for families earning $250,000 or more a year, including small businesses, as “strangling the engine that does create the jobs.”

“Yeah, there’s a lot of wealth, but it’s trapped in the buildings … inventory and accounts receivable,” David Greenspon, president of Competitive Edge advertising, told Obama.

Senate Democrats have postponed action on Obama’s proposal until after the Nov. 2 election. House Democratic leaders have suggested members may still vote this week before leaving Washington to campaign.

What a blatant lie.


During the Bush years, despite the 2000 Recession, the attacks on 9-11, the stock market scandals, Hurricane Katrina, and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush Administration was able to reduce the budget deficit from 412 billion dollars in 2004 to 162 billion dollars in 2007, a sixty percent drop. In 2004 the federal budget deficit was 412 billion dollars. In 2005 it dropped to 318 billion dollars. In 2006 the deficit dipped to 248 billion dollars. And, in 2007 it fell below 200 billion to 162 billion dollars. During the Bush years the average unemployment rate was 5.2 percent, the economy saw the strongest productivity growth in four decades and there was robust GDP growth.

Not only were more jobs lost after the 9-11 attacks in 2001 than in the 2008 market crash, but more jobs were created by President Bush’s pro-business policies and tax cuts than by the Obama-Pelosi “spend your way to hell” Keynesian failure.


Obama’s trillion dollar stimulus package failed.
Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi tripled the national deficit last year by nearly a trillion dollars – something unheard of in our nation’s history.

After an unheard of record deficit last year of $1.4 Trillion the economy is on track to experience a $1.3 Trillion deficit this year.

Now Obama wants you to believe that this was Bush’s fault.
It’s a lie.

Monday, September 20, 2010

Obama Supporter Slams President at Town Hall: “Quite Frankly, I’m Exhausted. I’m Tired of Defending You.”

This wasn’t supposed to happen. How was this woman able to sneak past the Obama town hall stagers?

An Obama supporter blasted the president today at a town hall event in Washington.
The supporter told Obama:
“Frankly, I’m exhausted. I’m tired of defending you… My husband and I thought we were beyond the hot dog and beans of our lives.

CNBC sponsored the town hall today but “forgot” to mention the testy exchange in their report for some strange reason. Imagine that?

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

British Teenager Banned From US For Life For Sending Obama Nasty Email

A teenager in Great Britain got drunk and sent Obama an email calling him a prick. The response? He’s now banned from the United States for the rest of his life, and the FBI told local British authorities to tell the kid that the email was “unacceptable.”

A British teenager who sent an email to the White House calling President Obama an obscenity was banned from America for life, The Sun reported Monday.

The FBI asked local cops to tell college student Luke Angel, 17, his drunken insult was “unacceptable.”

Angel said he fired off a single email criticizing the U.S. government after seeing a TV program about the 9/11 attacks.

He said, “I don’t remember exactly what I wrote as I was drunk. But I think I called Barack Obama a p***k. It was silly — the sort of thing you do when you’re a teenager and have had a few.”

Angel, of Bedford, in central England, said it was "a bit extreme" for the FBI to act. "The police came and took my picture and told me I was banned from America forever. I don't really care but my parents aren't very happy."

A Bedford Police spokesman confirmed they had spoken to Angel about the email. Officers will take no criminal action.

Joanne Ferreira, of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, said there are about 60 reasons a person can be barred from visiting America.

She said, "We are prohibited from discussing specific cases."

Uh, since when is calling the President a “prick” unacceptable? I mean, he’s not King Obama. He’s an elected leader, and if calling politicians dirty names is illegal then, well, there aren’t going to be many of us who aren’t criminals.

I’ll grant that it’s not exactly the most mature or polite thing to do, but since when were immaturity and rude words illegal?

Obama's kids are so off-limits they're on the cover of his new book

In August 2009 a nutrition-advocacy group put up posters in Washington DC featuring a photo of a young girl with the caption, "President Obama's daughters get healthy school lunches. Why don't I?"

The group, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, soon got a call from the White House with the word: the posters must go. "They called and said, 'Please take those down, you can't mention the kids' and so forth," the group's president told the Washington Post. "They felt that mentioning the president's children was off-limits. They said [they're] not going to allow the use of their daughters as leverage."

A year earlier, in July 2008, candidate Obama allowed his two daughters, Sasha and Malia, to appear on a segment of "Access Hollywood," but soon came to regret his decision. ''I don't think it's healthy,'' he told ABC, ''and it's something that we'll be avoiding in the future.'' Since that time, there has been a general rule that Obama's children are off-limits for most public discussion. But it's been a rule the president has observed at times and ignored at others. Now, it appears, is one of those times he's ignoring it.

Today Alfred A. Knopf for Young Readers is announcing the publication of a new book, Of Thee I Sing: A Letter to My Daughters, by Barack Obama. The cover will be a painting depicting the two young girls, along with First Dog Bo.

Politics Daily's Lynn Sweet reports the book is part of a three-book, $1.9 million deal Obama signed shortly after being elected to the Senate in 2004. The first book was The Audacity of Hope, the new children's book is the second, and the third has been postponed until after Obama leaves the White House. Sweet reports the book is "a tribute to 13 Americans, including artist Georgia O'Keeffe, baseball legend Jackie Robinson, and George Washington." It is 40 pages long, will list for $17.99 (although Amazon is now selling it for $9.89), and the money from sales will go to charity.

Leave the Obama daughters alone, except when POTUS needs to sell books

Many times we have been lectured by the White House to leave President Obama’s wife and daughters alone because they are not “public figures.”

Except, of course, when they are needed to…

hawk People magazine

…reach the all-important Access Hollywood demographic

shill for Obamacare

…flog the FLOTUS anti-obesity campaign

promote Parade magazine

spice up a Gulf swim photo-op

…and now, sell books for dad’s contractually-obligated children’s book

As part of the book deal then-Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., inked in 2004, Random House today announced the publication of a children’s book by the president, “Of Thee I Sing: A Letter to My Daughters.”

The book will be released on November 16 – roughly two weeks after the midterm elections — with a 500,000-copy first printing. …

The book will be published by Alfred A. Knopf Books for Young Readers and is part of the three-book, $1.9 million deal that then-Sen. Obama reached with Random House through his powerful attorney Bob Barnett.

The announcement about the book urging children to pursue their dreams comes just as Obama prepares to broadcast his second back-to-school speech to schoolchildren — prime book-buying targets — today striking the same theme.

“Of thee I sing” — or “Of ME I sing?”


Heh. Doug Powers comments: “He’s also working on a motivational book entitled “Who Moved My Teleprompter?”

Michelle Obama Wears $200 T-Shirt While Painting on "National Day of Service"

Michelle Obama Wears $200 T-Shirt While Painting on 9-11 National Day of Service

Gee… Do you think this was a photo-op?

Via FOX Nation:
Michelle Obama wore a $200 T-Shirt while painting on the Van Jones inspired National Day of Service… what was formerly known as the Anniversary of 9-11 but is now a socialist day of service and soup kitchens.

Thursday, September 9, 2010

Obama Added More to Debt in First 19 Months Than All Presidents From Washington to Reagan COMBINED

You may have thought things were bad under Obama… You had no idea.

Obama is the worst jobs president since the Great Depression. The Obama-Pelosi economic plan resulted in a cumulative 7.5 million jobs deficit. By every objective measure the democrat’s Trillion dollar stimulus bomb was a complete disaster.

Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi tripled the national deficit last year by nearly a trillion dollars – something unheard of in our nation’s history.
After an unheard of record deficit last year of $1.4 Trillion the economy is on track to experience a $1.3 Trillion deficit this year.

Instead of focusing on the economy the past two years the radicals in Washington beat up on business and rammed through an unpopular nationalized health care entitlement program.

Then there’s this…
The Obama-Pelosi regime added more to the national debt in his first 19 months in office than all presidents from Washington to Ronald Reagan… COMBINED.
CNS News reported:

In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.

The U.S. Treasury Department divides the federal debt into two categories. One is “debt held by the public,” which includes U.S. government securities owned by individuals, corporations, state or local governments, foreign governments and other entities outside the federal government itself. The other is “intragovernmental” debt, which includes I.O.U.s the federal government gives to itself when, for example, the Treasury borrows money out of the Social Security “trust fund” to pay for expenses other than Social Security.

At the end of fiscal year 1989, which ended eight months after President Reagan left office, the total federal debt held by the public was $2.1907 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That means all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan had accumulated only that much publicly held debt on behalf of American taxpayers. That is $335.3 billion less than the $2.5260 trillion that was added to the federal debt held by the public just between Jan. 20, 2009, when President Obama was inaugurated, and Aug. 20, 2010, the 19-month anniversary of Obama’s inauguration.

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

The Barack Obama Experience — Taxes: Bold as Love

On Monday I wrote a bit about President Obama’s now semi-notorious “they talk about me like a dog” line that was supposedly improvised during a speech in Milwaukee.

As it turns out, some intrepid researchers are speculating that Obama might have been channeling a line from the Jimi Hendrix song “Stone Free.”

I was skeptical at first, but it kind of makes sense, because another line in that song is “I got to, got to, got to get away” — perfect for somebody who just came off several weeks worth of vacations.

Not only that, but the Hendrix song “Spanish Castle Magic” would cover the first lady’s Antoinette-esque trip to Costa del Sol.

“Hey Joe” creates a nice parallel with Vice President Biden, and “Purple Haze” has the SEIU written all over it.

If that’s not enough, Obama is left-handed, and so was Jimi. I’m officially creeped out!

If you’re still not convinced, consider the fact that Jimi Hendrix once also recorded a song called “I will not extend the Bush tax cuts” — or so I hear.

Doug Powers -

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

Obama sinkhole recipe: Hey, let’s create a new, government-run infrastructure bank!

It’s actually not a “new” idea. It’s an old, recycled one borrowed from corruptocrat Democrat Sen. Chris Dodd, who sponsored a bill to create a federally-operated “infrastructure bank” in 2007. President Obama tried to get $5 billion in funding for one in his 2010 budget and $4 billion is proposed for one in his 2011 budget. Democrat Rep. Rosa De Lauro is pushing a House version — and her expansive, pipe-dream plans tell you all you need to know about what a disastrous, costly slush fund this thing would inevitably grow into:

Ms. DeLauro’s plan would create an infrastructure bank that would be part of the United States Treasury, where it would attract money from institutional investors, then channel the funds to projects selected by a panel. The program, which would make loans much like the World Bank, would finance projects with the potential to transform whole regions, or even the national economy, the way the interstate highway system and the first transcontinental railway once did.

The outside investors would expect a competitive return on their money, so many of the completed projects would have to charge fees, taxes or tolls. In an interview, Ms. DeLauro said she would be “looking at a broader base,” meaning the bank would finance not just roads and rails, but also telecommunications, water, drainage, green energy and other large-scale works.

But if the projects did not raise enough money, the Treasury might get stuck paying back the investors, a prospect that gave pause to so-called deficit hawks like Mr. Tiberi. In an e-mail last week, he said he agreed the nation’s road and communications networks needed to be improved but was concerned about creating another company like Fannie Mae that might need a bailout.

Inside the White House, the idea for a transportation initiative, and in particular an infrastructure bank, is one that the White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, has been promoting.

(Fun fact reminder: Rahm lived rent-free for five years in the D.C. basement of De Lauro and her Democratic pollster hubby Stanley Greenberg. But I digress.)

So, like Stimulus I, which was initially intended to put infrastructure spending first, but evolved into a multi-purpose slush fund that put infrastructure last, the “infrastructure bank” envisioned by progressives on Capitol Hill would be “looking at a broader base” to finance “green energy” and “other large-scale works” based on “social benefits” determined by a panel appointed by the president.

Moreover, this “bank” would be anything but a bank in the normal sense of the word. Ron Utt at Heritage exposed the farce in March:

This bank would be capitalized by federal appropriations to leverage a greater volume of debt borrowed under the full faith and credit of the federal government. In turn the bank would use these funds to finance eligible infrastructure projects. While these proposed entities—and similar ones that exist in the states from earlier legislation—are described as “banks,” they are no such thing.

The common meaning of a “bank” describes an entity that borrows money at one interest rate and lends it out to creditworthy borrowers at a somewhat higher interest rate to cover the borrowing, administrative, and bad debt costs incurred in the act of financial intermediation. In contrast, many of the federal infrastructure bank proposals (and those already in existence) follow only the borrowing part. Instead most allow the infrastructure bank to use borrowed funds to provide grants and subsidies to approved infrastructure projects. A grant, of course, is not paid back and does not require interest payments. So this raises an important question: How can the bank service its debt if it has no earnings?

Alert readers will recognize that this sounds alarmingly similar to the predicament of the federally sponsored lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when their earnings failed to cover debt costs, thereby necessitating a taxpayer bailout that now totals $126 billion.[1] Oddly, such apparent parallels were acknowledged by Representative Rosa DeLauro (D–CT), sponsor of current infrastructure bank legislation, when she noted that her bank would be “an innovative public-private partnership like Fannie Mae.”

“Innovative” = another massive taxpayer sinkhole. Heaven help us.


More on the elastic “economic development” projects that will undoubtedly be funded under the guise of infrastructure spending, via Kevin Williamson at NRO. (h/t commenter Netfest)

Obama's Oval Office Rug FAIL

This is a minor failure. The sort of trivial, stupid thing that isn't really a big deal in the grand scheme of things - not nearly as important as dithering on important military decisions, destroying the US economy and displaying weakness on the international stage.

But this is the Obama Fail Blog and all failures of the Obama administration are fair game:

This is embarrassing. President Obama put a new rug in the Oval office and according to the Washington Post a big mistake was made that goes beyond the beige color of the rug.

The new presidential rug contains quotes around the edge from Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.

For King the quote is: "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

Great quote. Only one problem -- those words belong not to King, but to Theodore Parker, a Boston abolitionist and preacher. While King did use the quote many times, he credited Parker. It was an important detail President Obama never quite absorbed.

Source: Las Vegas Review-Journal

The Dog Daze of a Presidency

President Obama apparently strayed off-prompter briefly Monday. This somewhat whiny reference seems like something that would come from a politician exhausted by marathon campaigning and beaten down by the opposition, which is odd for someone whose party is still in control of Washington and who spent the better part of the summer on vacation:

Obama was in Milwaukee to speak at the Milwaukee Laborfest, attended by Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka. He used the speech to promote his $50 billion infrastructure plan and to criticize Republicans ahead of crucial midterm elections.

“Some powerful interests who had been dominating the agenda in Washington for a very long time and they’re not always happy with me. They talk about me like a dog. That’s not in my prepared remarks, but it’s true,” he told the union crowd.

If by “like a dog” Obama means that every one year of his presidency feels like seven, I’m forced to agree with him. Otherwise it’s a little insulting, if for no other reason than that there are many breeds of dogs that could run the country at a lower unemployment rate.

How exactly does one talk about somebody like a dog? Or are the “powerful interests” talking to a dog — or are they speaking as a dog? Are the “powerful interests” dog haters? Are the “powerful interests” democrats who are trying to get re-elected? It’s anybody’s guess.

Here’s the video:

I officially take back everything I wrote this summer — I liked him better when he was on vacation.

Doug Powers -

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

Grim Milestone: US Suffers More Fatalities in Afghanistan Under Obama Than Bush

Don’t expect this to make any headlines. Don’t expect the radical antiwar left to hold any protests.
The United States has now lost more military men and women in Afghanistan under President Obama than during 8 years of the Bush Administration.


God bless our soldiers and Marines.

Related… As U.S. deaths in Afghanistan rise, military families grow critical.

First Rule of Obamacare Club Is: You Do Not Talk About Obamacare Club

First they had to pass it so we could find out what’s in it, and now they know what’s in it but they can’t talk about it:

The progressive coalition Health Care for America Now fought hard to pass health care reform. Now it’s fighting hard to help reelect lawmakers who voted for the bill — even if it means not talking about it.

While polls show that health reform has become slightly more popular since passage, it’s still a polarizing issue, particularly in districts where Republicans and conservative groups have bombarded voters with negative ads.

Now, HCAN’s field crews are finding that the best way to support reform-friendly lawmakers is to talk about something else: jobs, the economy or other issues likely to resonate more with voters.

Yeah, that’s a good idea — re-direct voters’ focus from the Health Care Bill to something more upbeat, like jobs, the economy and “Recovery Summer.”

That’s a little like punching a guy in the face and then trying to calm his anger by changing the subject and making him aware that you also slashed his tires and slept with his wife.

(h/t HotAir)

Doug Powers -

No Kidding… Disgraced Obama Economic Adviser Admits: “We Didn’t Understand the Recession”

Last year White House Offical Christina Romer claimed the Obama-Pelosi Trillion dollar stimulus was working.

But, that was last year.
Today, the disgraced Obama economic adviser admitted in her farewell speech that the Obama Administration did not understand the recession.
No kidding.
Business Insider reported:

As she prepares to leave The White House, outgoing economic advisor Christina Romer has delivered something of a valedictory speech to the National Press Club. The title: Not My Father’s Recession.

For Romer, her Father’s recession was the one in the early 80s, when unemployment surged above 10%, and Romer’s own father got laid off.

But the title basically tells you what you need to know: It’s different this time — this recession was not anything like the Fed-induced recession of her father — and the old recovery playbook could not possibly go as anticipated.

Here’s the key part of the text, via Brad DeLong’s blog:

But compared with the problems we face, the turnaround has been insufficient….

In a report that Jared Bernstein and I issued during the transition, we estimated that by the end of 2010, a stimulus package like the Recovery Act would raise real GDP by about 3 1⁄2 percent and employment by about 31⁄2 million jobs, relative to what otherwise would have occurred. As the Council of Economic Advisers has documented in a series of reports to Congress, there is widespread agreement that the Act is broadly on track to meet these milestones….

What the Act hasn’t done is prevent unemployment from going above 8 percent, something else that Jared and I projected it would do. The reason that prediction was so far off is implicit in much of what I have been saying this afternoon. An estimate of what the economy will look like if a policy is adopted contains two components: a forecast of what would happen in the absence of the policy, and an estimate of the effect of the policy. As I’ve described, our estimates of the impact of the Recovery Act have proven quite accurate. But we, like virtually every other forecaster, failed to anticipate just how violent the recession would be in the absence of policy, and the degree to which the usual relationship between GDP and unemployment would break down.

But despite her awful economic record Christina Romer still believes the answer is more stimulus.
Good-bye, Christina.