More of Hilary Rosen's "Poorly Chosen" Words

 I am raising children too. But most young American women HAVE to BOTH earn a living AND raise children. You know that don't u?

I can't speak for Ann Romney, but I can speak for myself.  No most do not.  Many choose to work.  It is now the expected thing to do.  The fall back position as it were.  


Let's take some examples.  You for instance.  You stayed home for a period of time.  But your former partner always had a very good career.  You could have stayed home the entire time and didn't.  I know, I know, you were saving the world by going after kids illegally downloading Miley Cyrus.  


Soledad O'Brien has I believe three or four children.  Her husband is a very successful investment banker.  I think he could swing the expenses on his own.


Meghan Kelly is married to an executive of an Internet Security company and retained two residences when they began dating.  I have this feeling that he could afford for his wife to stay home.  


Barack Obama weighed on working mom's of late.  About how Michelle had to work.  Yet he was making a measly $167K when he was a US Senator and she still went to work.  I guess living on that salary for a family of four is really impossible.  The taxes in Illinois must even higher than I thought.  


Paula Zahn's ex-husband was quite wealthy.  She worked when her children were small.  


I know plenty of women who could stay at home, but choose not to.  I had one tell me that they couldn't afford to go to Europe every year if she didn't work.  She might also have to forgo the new Coach handbag she got every season too.  


When you work and are paying for daycare, transportation costs, a wardrobe for your job, possibly dry cleaning costs, lunches, snacks, and all kinds of other expenses, you will find that often it costs just as much to work.  How much are you really making after paying all these additional expenses?  


You can live without 300 channels on cable.  You can live without the really fancy smart phone.  You can live without the extra bathroom that you get with a bigger home,  You don't have to go on expensive vacations.  


It is called prioritizing.  It is called budgeting.  


I don't deny that some women have no choice but to work outside of the home.  But there are plenty of women who don't.  They have bought into this narrative that in order to be fulfilled you must have two degrees and a fancy office.  That staying home and being the caretaker to your children somehow makes you less than.  You are somehow not being the proper role model to your children.  


I can guarantee you, your kids can live without the really expensive sneakers and the trip to Europe in return for you showing up at every school play, every ball game, and being there when they get home from school.  


Every child wants to feel that they are most important thing in the world to you.  


Hilary, the sad part of what you have done over your career is that you have actually limited women's choices, instead of expand them.  Those are the words that you should rightly feel were poorly chosen. The ones you hurled at Ann Romney were meant.  You see, you stayed home for a brief period of time.  Ann made a life being a mother.  Something that someone like you just can't understand.  

Quote of the Day - Ann Romney Edition

“I made a choice to stay home and raise five boys, believe me, it was hard work."

Ann Romney in response to Hillary Rosen's comment she never worked a day in her life.

Ann had stepped in the wonderful world of Twitter.  Her handle is @AnnDRomney

Ms. Rosen you stay at home with five growing boys for lets say two weeks.  You will be on your knees begging to go back to "work".  Twit

War on Women#

Quote of the Day - Hilary Rosen Edition

 His wife has never actually worked a day in her life.

Hilary Rosen, board member Center for American Progress and Obama Campaign Liaison.  


Lets see, she raised five children.  She has worked on the following charities: 
Director of Best Friends; an inner city project designed to work with at risk children.
Ten Point Coalition, another charity that works with urban at risk children.
She received a lifetime achievement award from the Charity Operation Kids in Salt Lake City
She also sat on the board of United Way of America.  
But no, she never worked a day in her life.   

Are we so worried about right vs. left that we have forgotten right and wrong?

I am beginning to think so.  Much has been made about National Review's Rich Lowry firing John Derbyshire.  I would think it was a pretty simple clear-cut case.  Derbyshire wrote an article about his version of "The Talk" you have with your children.  His version was for people of white and Asian backgrounds.  It was in a word, disgusting.  He flat-out says that black should be judged by a different standard as whites, especially in terms of politicians.  I don't know about you, but I will take Tim Scott over Nancy Pelosi any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

He also went to try to demonstrate that blacks are stupid and violent.  He used some "evidence" to back up his claims, but what he didn't do was talk about how socio-economics factor into those numbers.  Take a good hard look at any poor performing school district anywhere in the country and the standardized test results are lower.  Not all poor performing schools are in predominately black areas.

He also said to tell your white children to stay out of mostly black neighborhoods.  Does he include the neighborhoods of Prince George's County Maryland as well?  That is the most affluent black community in the country, or did he just mean instruct your children to stay out of neighborhoods that have high crime rates?  Of course, any parent that isn't living in one of those areas will tell their children that.  But again, not all high crime areas across the country are black communities.

This man is free to think and feel what ever he so chooses to.  That isn't the issue.  The issue becomes does National Review have to employ someone who so blatantly demonstrates those views?  I don't think they do.

I have read different things across the conservative blogosphere in regards to his firing.  Many are upset about the fact that he was let go and say that Lowry has no right to fire him.  Why exactly is that?  Stacy McCain has explained it that since Derbyshire has been expressing these types of views for quite sometime the only difference is that the left complained about it.  While there is truth to that in part, it isn't the whole truth.  Derbyshire has always been  provocative in his writings, but he has never gone this far before.  This was an outing of his racist views.

— n
1.	the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others

There can be no doubt that his little rant is racist by the true definition of the word.

Now, the right spends a great deal of time pointing out the racist views of those on the left.  Pointing out that the likes of Al Sharpton is considered a hero by many on the left and is allowed to spew his views on television.  There is currently an online petition going around asking MSNBC to fire him.  There are all sorts of things being said about how Eric Holder is doing nothing about the threats made against George Zimmerman, the man who shot and killed a black teenager in what he claims to be self-defense.  The truth is that the Eric Holder has no power over what the black panthers are currently doing.  That is a state issue.  The person that should be answering the question of why nothing is being done is AG Pam Bondi or the local police departments.  Not Eric Holder.  It is easy to make him a target, but in this case he shouldn't be one.  But AG Bondi is a conservative republican so the questions are not forthcoming.

If you think that it the right thing to do to take Al Sharpton off the air for his views, then how can it be wrong that Lowry fired Derbyshire?  What Derbyshire said was equally offensive.

I have heard others say that Lowry should have used this as way to disprove him.  Others have said the answer to bad speech is more speech.  I don't disagree with either of those statements.  But neither justifies keeping him employed.  You can actually do both things; fire him and prove him wrong.

There is right and wrong in the world.  Derbyshire can be as racist as he wants to be.  That is his business.  But Rick Lowry has a responsibility to National Review and to its readers to give fair and accurate accounts of the happenings in the world.  Giving a platform to a man who holds the views that blacks are stupid and violent by nature is neither of those things.  Good riddens, Mr. Derbyshire.

It is time that we admit that racism is neither right nor left.  It is a human condition.  Racism knows no boundaries when it comes to politics or to social strata.  It will rear its ugly head in just about any place and by people of any color or background.

Santorum Calls it Quits - Video

Pennsylvania was really tightening and would have been a huge embarrassment had he lost and Texas was going to be done proportionally instead of winner take all.  There was no path to the nomination, so this was the best thing for everyone, especially the party.  Romney can now start gearing up for the fall campaign.  He has to get offices opened and volunteer centers into place.  


I know many are disappointed that Romney is our nominee (myself among them) but it is what it is.  This is what he have.  Everyone has to decide what they are and are not going to do.  I know some have said they won't vote for him (myself among them), others have said they will vote for him, but won't do any phone banking or door knocking.  Others are willing to go all in to get rid of Obama.  Everyone has to decide that for themselves.  


Santorum did better than anyone would have thought a year ago.  Heck even 6 months ago.  He has a great deal to be proud of.  It is no secret that I didn't think he was right for the job as POTUS, but that doesn't mean I think he doesn't have a place in the debate in the country.  Personally, I firmly believe that he should start up a non-profit group and spread his message of family to poorer, urban areas where two parent homes are hard to come by.  He could do some real good.  The welfare system is destroying families in poorer communities and they need to be given a chance to see how it can be different.  

Allen West Black by Birth Not By Choice

I keep getting hits about this "statement"

In light of this month being Black History Month, I feel no way involved with this negro celebration of half accomplishments and borderline Communist agendas. View the list of these “fearless” leaders of black America. Black inhabitants of America knew their place at the table, and knew they could not eat off the same plate of the more than welcoming white men and women of the time. These men, I use that term lightly, like Malcolm X pushed themselves into the homes of innocent white Americans. This action riled up the negro, and scared the living hell out of people. I am no way apart of this community of transported Africans, I myself am an American. I’m a good ol’ boy from the great state of Florida, and a citizen of this great nation. I know God recognizes me as my true self, a proud, strong white man given dark pigmentation. God had to give the blacks at least one intelligent person, so he chose to give me dark skin. I curse my birth as a black man every day. I’m black by birth, not by choice. It will all be sorted out when my name is called, and I step in front of the great white Jesus himself.

Sorry all you race baiters, Allen West never said this.  This is originally posted on satirical site.  The left ran with the quote even though the site is clearly a satire and is labeled as such.  Just one more way to smear a conservative of color.  The link to the original posting is below.

http://www.freewoodpost.com/2012/02/25/west-im-black-by-birth-not-by-choice/

Rules are Rules - Sgt. Gary Stein Case

Sgt. Gary Stein is facing discharge from the U.S. Marines due to a posting he made on a military tea party page that depicted President Obama as a jackass and called him the domestic enemy.  He is fighting this discharge even though a military board has recommended that they move forward with a discharge that will be done other than honorable.  Which basically means he will lose rank and benefits.  A very big price to pay.   This is something that will follow him for the rest of his life, this is something that is asked on most job applications.  But here is the rule that he is being charged with violating:

Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct

This has also been updated to include enlisted service members as well.  It seem to me that he is indeed guilty of  violating the rules.  It is hard to deny that.  His attorney's are not denying that his posting would be a violation of these rules.  They are questioning his rights to free speech on his own time.  

You make posting on a Facebook page that is clearly designed for military members then claim it was something done on your own time and would not fall under the purview of the code?  I am sure he did the posting when he was off duty, but it was a page that very much broadcasts the fact that they are military members.  

There are reasons why the military has rules and regulations on free speech when it comes to badmouthing your commanders.  discipline in a military setting is essential in order for the system to work properly.  One of the things that every marine I have met takes a great deal of pride in is the discipline that corp provides.  Most marines are pretty hard-core went it comes to the reputation of honor that comes with being a good marine.  

Look, I don't like President Obama policies any more than this guy seems to.  But I am not in the military and I am free to say whatever I want.  I don't have to worry about it.  But he is marine, he knew the rules and he still chose to make this posting.  Now he is paying the price for that choice.  That is called personal responsibility.  

He is Risen

The Politics of the Death of Trayvon Martin

The death of Trayvon Martin is still in the headlines and getting a great deal of coverage on the cable news shows.  I personally watch very little television, but when I do turn on CNN or MSNBC this is a major topic.  New polling is out that shows a racial divide on how you look at the case.  Many whites, myself among them, feel that this has been politicized by the likes of Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton.  Now, I will admit anytime that Rev. Al gets involved in something I am more than just a tad suspicious.   See, I grew up outside of New York City and I remember the Tawana Brawley Case.  A very sad story of young teenaged girl who made accusations of rape at the hands of white attackers.  The longer it when on the more of the circus it became.  Brawley came from an abused background and had a step-father who was literally a killer and a mother who had abused her in the past for running away.  The racial strife that besieged the city during this incident is well-remembered by the people who had to live with it once this story left the news.  While Sharpton was successfully sued, he didn't pay the monetary damages, people paid it for him.  We then can move onto the Duke LaCrosse players.  Rev. Al tried to destroy these young men's lives based on a lie.  When there is a big spotlight that he can climb into, he never misses the opportunity.  He is nothing more than a race hustler and a con man.  How this man continues to have any creditability is beyond my comprehension.  Al Sharpton has blood on his hands.

I have been on record as being disgusted about how some one the right have decided to put Trayvon on trial.  This doesn't belong in the court of public opinion.  This case is moving along in the justice system.  More slowly than many people would like, but nonetheless it is moving along.

There are many things that we don't know about this case.  What does the coroner's report say about where the bullet entered Trayvon's body.  They can tell what angle the gun was held at and how close the gun was to his body when it went off.  Did Trayvon have any defensive wounds, did he have Zimmerman's DNA under his fingernails, and did he have any other injuries beside the gunshot?   Where was Trayvon's body in relation to Zimmerman's car?  Where was Trayvon spotted in comparison to the store and his dad's home?  All of these things will help bolster or help destroy Zimmerman's statement of events that led to the shooting.  None of these things have been made public, so we have no way of knowing what evidence the state has and what they don't.  Zimmerman has said that Trayvon went for his gun.  Is his fingerprints on the gun or the holster?  If so, game over; Zimmerman will be a free man.  Rightfully so, in my opinion.  That will be a clear-cut case of self-defense.

I have nothing but sympathy for the parents of Trayvon.  They buried their child.  Let me say that again, they buried their child.  That is a pain that no person should have to go through.  No matter the circumstances, it is one of the most painful things that anyone will endure.  They want justice done in the name of their son.  A perfectly understandable thing.  Any parent would want a full accounting of what happened to their child and how they died.  I am even willing to cut the woman some slack about getting the trademarks.  She has a very good attorney who I am sure told her to do this.  Lets be honest here, people would have tried to make money off her son's death and this prevents people from profiting off her pain and loss.

What I find so troubling is how this boy's death is being used and politicized.  The family made an appearance on Capitol Hill in regards to Stand Your Ground laws.  That is a state issue and has nothing to do with the federal government.  But people have decided to use this death to further their anti-gun agenda.  Stand Your Ground Laws isn't really a gun law.  It says that you can use up to deadly force to protect yourself  even off your own property.  You can do that in any number of ways that don't include a gun.  Some people are well-trained in martial arts and could end another's life with their bare hands.  You could use a knife if you happen to have one, a tire iron if you are on the side of the road changing a tire and some one tries to attack you.  The law isn't designed to be about guns, it is designed to allow people who are being threatened with imminent danger to protect themselves.  But of course the anti-gun lobby will use anything that they can to limit the constitutional rights of gun owners.

We also see cries of racism.  There is zero proof that Zimmerman is a racist.  Zero.  The people who are perpetuating this should be hanging their heads in shame (Rev. Al).  Racism is a very serious charge and it should not be made lightly.  There is word on the 911 call that you can't make out.  Somehow this has turned into the word "coon".  When is the last time you heard a person use that word to describe a black person?  That is not something that is part of the everyday conversation about race in this country.  When you make claims of racism that have little to no basis in fact, you are taking away from the true claims of racism.  I have heard one person go as far as to say that Zimmerman's tutoring of underprivileged people was actually proof that he is a racist.  He did it to prove his superiority or something like that.

The Congressional Black Congress is not going to be outdone by Rev. Al, so they have decided to enter a resolution to honor the life of the young slain teen and it also calls for a repeal of the stand your ground laws.  Oddly, one of the people who signed onto the resolution is Congresswoman Frederica Wilson who helped pass the law in the Florida legislator.  Oh, the irony and how it is not being reported that this law passed unopposed.

The media bias in this case is well documented.  NBC has admitted to "editing" the 911 call.  Apparently that happened in the control room.  Uh, huh.  They purposely reported this case as a white on black hate crime.  They have done everything in their power to convict Zimmerman, to heck with the facts; or more precisely the lack thereof.  They have led to some of this uneven polling that we are seeing.  They have taken an unfortunate set of circumstances that we don't have all the facts about and turned it into political theater.  A very sad commentary on how the view their jobs as unbiased reporters of facts.   They are losing even the bare threads of journalistic integrity that they had left.  Especially when you consider Al Sharpton is allowed to lead rallies then report on them during his show.  While he is opinion and should be given a little more leeway, he has been allowed to use that platform to push a point a view about a criminal matter.

Rev. Al says it is people  on the right who have decided that Zimmerman is not guilty.  I don't believe that to be true.  I think most on the right feel that they don't have enough facts to say what did or did not happen and we would like to see what the special prosecutor has to say about the available evidence.

I have heard on interview with Trayvon's mother.  She won't accept anything but a conviction.  Of course she is still in mourning and dealing with her grief.  I can't imagine that Al Sharpton will accept it if the prosecutors come back and say that the evidence shows that Zimmerman acted within the law and no charges will be brought.  I know some who will not accept it either.  At least at this point.  They have made up their minds.  They ignore the fact that there is a witness that backs up Zimmerman's claims.  Trayvon was on top of him punching him.  There are wounds seen on him in the video that released.  There was tape on his nose showing that their was some sort of injury.  To me the only way that Zimmerman should have felt reasonably in danger was if Trayvon did go for his gun.  If not, he was not justified in shooting him.

I have come to the conclusion that at the end of the day we will find that both Zimmerman and Trayvon both made some bad choices.  Zimmerman should have stayed in his car and locked the door once he knew the police were coming.  Trayvon should have either ran to his dad's or called 911 when he was made uncomfortable once he realized that some strange man was following him.  If either of them had done these things, Trayvon would still be alive today.

Passion of the Christ - Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews

John 19-21

English Standard Version (ESV)

Jesus Delivered to Be Crucified

19 Then Pilate took Jesus and flogged him. ²  And the soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on his head and arrayed him in a purple robe. ³ They came up to him, saying, “Hail, King of the Jews!” and struck him with their hands. ⁴ Pilate went out again and said to them, “See, I am bringing him out to you that you may know that I find no guilt in him.” ⁵ So Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe. Pilate said to them, “Behold the man!” ⁶ When the chief priests and the officers saw him, they cried out, “Crucify him, crucify him!” Pilate said to them, “Take him yourselves and crucify him, for I find no guilt in him.” ⁷ The Jews^[a] answered him, “We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God.” ⁸ When Pilate heard this statement, he was even more afraid. ⁹  He entered his headquarters again and said to Jesus, “Where are you from?” But Jesus gave him no answer. ¹⁰ So Pilate said to him, “You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have authority to release you and authority to crucify you?” ¹¹ Jesus answered him, “You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin.”

¹² From then on Pilate sought to release him, but the Jews cried out, “If you release this man, you are not Caesar's friend. Everyone who makes himself a king opposes Caesar.”¹³ So when Pilate heard these words, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judgment seat at a place called The Stone Pavement, and in Aramaic^[b] Gabbatha. ¹⁴ Now it was the day of Preparation of the Passover. It was about the sixth hour.^[c] He said to the Jews,“Behold your King!” ¹⁵ They cried out, “Away with him, away with him, crucify him!” Pilate said to them, “Shall I crucify your King?” The chief priests answered, “We have no king but Caesar.” ¹⁶  So he delivered him over to them to be crucified.

The Crucifixion

So they took Jesus, ¹⁷ and he went out, bearing his own cross, to the place called The Place of a Skull, which in Aramaic is called Golgotha. ¹⁸  There they crucified him, and with him two others, one on either side, and Jesus between them. ¹⁹ Pilate also wrote an inscription and put it on the cross. It read, “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.” ²⁰ Many of the Jews read this inscription, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and it was written in Aramaic, in Latin, and in Greek. ²¹ So the chief priests of the Jews said to Pilate, “Do not write, ‘The King of the Jews,’ but rather, ‘This man said, I am King of the Jews.’” ²² Pilate answered, “What I have written I have written.”
²³  When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his garments and divided them into four parts, one part for each soldier; also his tunic.^[d] But the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom, ²⁴ so they said to one another, “Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it shall be.” This was to fulfill the Scripture which says,

“They divided my garments among them,
    and for my clothing they cast lots.”

So the soldiers did these things, ²⁵  but standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene. ²⁶ When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” ²⁷ Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.

The Death of Jesus

²⁸ After this, Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, said ( to fulfill the Scripture), “I thirst.” ²⁹ A jar full of sour wine stood there, so they put a sponge full of the sour wine on a hyssop branch and held it to his mouth. ³⁰ When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said,“It is finished,” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

Jesus' Side Is Pierced

³¹ Since it was the day of Preparation, and so that the bodies would not remain on the cross on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was a high day), the Jews asked Pilate that their legs might be broken and that they might be taken away. ³² So the soldiers came and broke the legs of the first, and of the other who had been crucified with him. ³³ But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. ³⁴ But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water. ³⁵  He who saw it has borne witness— his testimony is true, and he knows that he is telling the truth— that you also may believe. ³⁶  For these things took place that the Scripture might be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken.” ³⁷ And again another Scripture says,“They will look on him whom they have pierced.”

Jesus Is Buried

³⁸  After these things Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, asked Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus, and Pilate gave him permission. So he came and took away his body. ³⁹  Nicodemus also, who earlier had come to Jesus^[e] by night, came bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds^[f] in weight. ⁴⁰ So they took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen cloths with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews. ⁴¹ Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb in which no one had yet been laid. ⁴² So because of the Jewish day of Preparation, since the tomb was close at hand, they laid Jesus there.

Bad Politician, Bad CT Democratic Primary Debate Gets Heated

As you may know, Senator Joe Lieberman is retiring at the end of this term.  The primary for the democratic seat has really heated up and during a debate Congressman Chris Murphy (CT-5) was called a whore on live television.  You see he supports Israel.  Apparently that is sin according to Lee Whitnum, who is obviously very anti-Israel.  She also decided to call William Tong ignorant in her closing remarks.  


Whitnum has a history.  She is currently suing now the Governor for slander because he called her anti-Semitic.  Gee, I wonder where he got that idea.  Some comments from tonight include:

"drinking the AIPAC Kool-Aid,"

"cancer in our government" when referring to AIPAC.  

Looks liked moving from my home state wasn't such a bad idea.  

View more videos at: http://nbcconnecticut.com.

44 Years Ago Today The World Said Goodbye to MLK Jr.

His final public speech, the night before he was murdered.

Marion Barry - The Gift that Just Keeps on Giving - Dirty Asians Start Up Dirty Businesses

The scariest part of this is that he said that after winning his primary race Tuesday night.  What in heavens name is wrong with the people in Ward 8?  See the demographic data of the people who keep voting this man into office.  You need to understand that when a democrat wins the primary, he will be elected.  Most times there are no republican challengers.  

Caption Please

I'll Start:

Maybe those birthers are on to something.

Hilda Solis' New Art for Department of Labor

So much for our government not taking sides and just enforcing the law.

Solis Sharpton Jackson DOL Poster


Is it election day yet?

A Little Study Guide for our Constitutional Professor President on Separation of Powers

We made this real easy.  Look at the picture, and it will show you how the framers set up the government.  It is called separation of powers.  Really, not that hard.  They do get a voice on Obamacare. 

Paul Ryan Sets the Record Straight after President Obama's False Claims

In today's disappointing speech, the President made a series of claims that are simply false.

The President's attacks began with an admission that his assumptions reflect White House spin, not our budget's substance: “I want to go through what it would mean for our country if these cuts were to be spread out evenly."  Of course, the assumption that our budget makes these kinds of indiscriminate cuts is false. The House Budget Committee made dozens of specific assumptions to justify our numbers, and we made these assumptions public in the hundreds of pages of text we posted in plain view on the House Budget Committee’s website. It’s not a “secret plan” to “never tell us where the knife may fall” – it is a specific plan to cut waste, eliminate programs that don’t work, end crony politics, and carefully prioritize hardworking taxpayers’ money in precisely the way leaders of the President’s party have refused to do for over three years. In a related vein, does this new standard allow for analyses of the President’s budget to go through what it would mean for the country if the President’s $2 trillion tax increase were to be spread out evenly?

Instead of using numbers from the actual House-passed budget, the President’s claims relied on false assumptions created out of thin air by the White House.

As a matter of fact, it is actually the President’s budget that makes it far more likely that college students, the sick, mothers, young children, seniors and all Americans would face harsh disruptions in government services and indiscriminate cuts. By making our unsustainable fiscal trajectory worse, his budget guarantees a debt-fueled economic crisis, which would hurt society’s most vulnerable the first and the worst.

With respect the many false claims from today’s speech:

• CLAIM: The Path to Prosperity would gut “the very things we need to grow an economy that's built to last -- education and training; research and development.”
• REALITY:
• Education: The Obama administration’s policies have recklessly endangered the viability of the Pell program and helped fuel an unprecedented surge in tuition costs, which rose by over 8 percent last year. The Path to Prosperity aims to tackle the urgent problem of tuition inflation by encouraging innovation in higher education and making the Pell program sustainable. Contrary to the President’s false attacks, The Path to Prosperity maintains the maximum Pell award of $5,550.
• Job Training: The Obama administration’s track record in this area has been dismal: For instance, the  “green” skills training program, funded by $500 million in stimulus funds, that resulted in a mere 2 percent of trainees retaining jobs for more than six months. The Path to Prosperity advances reforms to increase job-training outcomes across the board by calling for the streamlining of duplicative federal job-training programs into a strengthened workforce development system with fewer funding streams that provide accountable, targeted career scholarship programs.
• Research and Development: The Obama administration has steered government away from investments in basic research and toward investments in specific companies, often controlled by top donors to the Democratic Party. The Path to Prosperity would continue funding essential government missions, including energy security and basic research and development, while putting an end to the administration’s crony politics. The Path to Prosperity rejects the administration’s insistence on taking from hardworking taxpayers in order to fuel special interest favoritism, like its failed ‘investments’ in specific companies like the now-bankrupt solar company Solyndra.

• CLAIM: The Path to Prosperity’s Medicaid reforms would “take away health care for about 19 million Americans -- 19 million.” 
• REALITY: 19 million is about the number of Americans forced into Medicaid by the President’s new health care law – so the President is just using a novel way of saying that we oppose his health care takeover and propose to repeal it. Medicaid is failing the people it currently serves, because the straightjacket of one-size-fits-all federal mandates imposed on the states has limited their flexibility to design programs that effectively serve their unique populations. Forcing another 20 million Americans into a broken Medicaid system is one of the many reasons Republicans opposed the President’s health care law and continue to support its repeal. Turning power over Medicaid to the states would result in a better program that more effectively serves those it is intended to help.

• CLAIM: “Who are these Americans?  Many are someone’s grandparents who, without Medicaid, won’t be able to afford nursing home care without Medicaid.  Many are poor children.  Some are middle-class families who have children with autism or Down’s Syndrome.  Some are kids with disabilities so severe that they require 24-hour care.  These are the people who count on Medicaid.” 
• REALITY: If the President is talking about new Americans added to Medicaid as a result of the health care law, then these are not people who currently rely on Medicaid for their care. As for people who do currently rely on Medicaid, freeing states to focus aid on the truly needy individuals the President describes is the only way to ensure that these individuals are guaranteed affordable, quality care. The one-size-fits-all approach favored by the President forces states to save money by making one-size-fits-all cuts – hitting all Medicaid-eligible individual with the same cuts, regardless of need. The President is the one jeopardizing care for the people he describes.  

• CLAIM: “Instead of being enrolled in Medicare when they turn 65, seniors who retire a decade from now would get a voucher that equals the cost of the second cheapest health care plan in their area.  If Medicare is more expensive than that private plan, they’ll have to pay more if they want to enroll in traditional Medicare.” 
• REALITY: The President appears to be either grossly misinformed or determined to mislead with regard to the House Republicans’ proposal to save and strengthen Medicare. All plans offered in the new Medicare exchange would be required to cover at least the actuarial value of the benefits offered by traditional Medicare, meaning that if the second-lowest-cost private plan is cheaper than traditional Medicare it is providing the same benefits in a more cost-effective way. The whole point is that private plans should be allowed to compete with traditional Medicare to deliver the same benefits at a lower cost. The result? Seniors get better value as providers are forced to compete against each other to better serve the patient. The President fails to grasp the basic concept that choice and competition remain the best means to delivers higher quality care at a lower cost. 

• CLAIM: “If health care costs rise faster than the amount of the voucher -- as, by the way, they’ve been doing for decades -- that’s too bad.” 
• REALITY: That too is wrong.  Under competitive bidding, there is no risk that any senior will be unable to afford his or her guaranteed Medicare benefits. There will always be one plan that is fully covered by the premium-support payment, and there will always be one plan that costs even less. Lower-income seniors and those with greater health risks receive extra protection – fully funded savings accounts to offset out-of-pocket costs and risk-adjusted payments to cover greater health care needs. Bipartisan experts agree that implementing these reforms in Medicare could be the key to putting downward pressure on health care costs for everyone. 

• CLAIM: “Seniors bear the risk.  If the voucher isn’t enough to buy a private plan with the specific doctors and care that you need, that’s too bad.” 
• REALITY: Incorrect: If Medicare spending grows faster than GDP + 0.5 percent – the same growth rate that the President has proposed for his board of 15 unaccountable bureaucrats(IPAB) to impose upon Medicare – then Congress would be required to intervene and could implement policies that change provider reimbursements, program overhead, and means-tested premiums. Under our plan, the entire risk would not fall on the beneficiary – Congress would be required to act. Under the President’s plan, the entire risk of IPAB’s cuts – which Medicare’s own chief actuary has said could “jeopardize access to care for beneficiaries” – would fall on the senior unless a supermajority of Congress voted to intervene.   

• CLAIM: “So most experts will tell you the way this voucher plan encourages savings is not through better care at cheaper cost.  The way these private insurance companies save money is by designing and marketing plans to attract the youngest and healthiest seniors -- cherry-picking -- leaving the older and sicker seniors in traditional Medicare, where they have access to a wide range of doctors and guaranteed care.  But that, of course, makes the traditional Medicare program even more expensive, and raise premiums even further.” 
• REALITY: Again, the President is simply wrong. Cherry-picking is prohibited under our reforms.Page 53 explicitly states “Seniors would be guaranteed a plan that is at least the value of the traditional fee-for‐service Medicare option. Health plans that participate alongside a traditional Medicare option in the Medicare Exchange would be required to offer insurance to all seniors — regardless of age and health status — thereby preventing insurers from cherry-picking only the healthiest seniors for coverage under their plans. These protections ensure that Medicare’s sickest and highest‐cost beneficiaries have access to affordable and quality coverage choices. The proposal requires all plans on the Exchange to include guaranteed issue (i.e., they cannot deny coverage based on pre‐existing conditions) and community rating (i.e., they cannot impose prohibitively disparate costs on seniors) to ensure that seniors are able to choose an affordable health plan that works best for them — without fear of denial or discrimination.”
• Not only are all seniors guaranteed coverage regardless of health history, our plan includes risk-adjusting as an extra precaution against cherry-picking. On page 53-54: “The federal contribution to seniors’ health plans would be risk‐adjusted so that the sickest seniors are protected from high premiums as well as adverse selection from insurers. Building on the risk‐adjustment tools currently used by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), proper risk adjustment would ensure that seniors with the highest health costs would still be able to find an affordable plan. Federal contributions would be increased to account for a senior’s health status and age. CMS would also conduct an annual risk review audit of all insurance plans participating in the Medicare Exchange. Insurance plans covering a higher‐than‐average number of low‐risk seniors would pay a fee. Conversely, insurance plans covering a higher-than‐average number of high‐risk seniors would receive an incentive payment. The fees and incentive payments would flow internally through the same fund, so that payments to plans that cover high-cost patients would be funded wholly by the fees from plans that cover low-cost patients.”
• The President is clearly, indisputably wrong.

• CLAIM: “The net result is that our country will end up spending more on health care, and the only reason the government will save any money -- it won’t be on our books -- is because we’ve shifted it to seniors.  They’ll bear more of the costs themselves.  It’s a bad idea, and it will ultimately end Medicare as we know it.”
• REALITY: The President’s health care law ended Medicare as we know it when it put the program’s future in the hands of 15 unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats and vested them with nearly unchecked power to cut Medicare spending in ways that will leave seniors with denied access to care. By contrast, our vision puts 50 million seniors in charge of their own health care decisions and lets the power of choice and competition work to improve quality and lower costs in health care.

To learn more: http://budget.house.gov/SettingtheRecordStraight/

Quote of the Day - Matt Lauer Edition Part 2

"Are you reading some newspapers?"

Matt Lauer to Gov. Sarah Palin in a pre-interview before her co-hosting duties on the Today show tomorrow.  


Nice.