Obama and his Administration are Playing

Fast and Loose with the Jobless Numbers

Obama and his Administration are playing games with the jobless numbers to confuse the voting public.  When Obama, Biden and the Democrats say they created 4.5 million jobs, they are downright lying.  In February 2009, right after Obama and Biden were sworn in, the number of Americans working was 132,837,000 in non-farm jobs.  In August 2012 that number was 133,300,000, for an increase of 463,000 non-farm jobs.  Two of the smoke and mirrors tricks that the Obama/Biden Administration have been using are (1) to play fast and loose with the seasonal adjustments and (2) to revise the prior months’ job numbers downward, so that the most recent month always seems better than it really is.  For example, in the most recent report for August 2012 the Obama Administration reported 96,000 new non-farm jobs, but the July jobs number was lowered from 163,000 to 141,000 for a reduction of 22,000 and the June number was revised downward from 64,000 to 45,000 for a reduction of 19,000.   That adds up to a 41,000 reduction in the jobs base just over those two months.  So the real increase in September adjusted for the July reduction would be 72,000 new non-farm jobs and adjusted for the June and July reductions would be 51,000 new jobs in September 2012.  By failing to take into consideration the various adjustments to the jobs numbers over the last 43 months and only counting the new jobs allegedly created, without subtracting the downward adjustments that have been made, the Obama Administration has fraudulently stretched the jobs increase during its administration from 463,000 to 4.5 million.  (Eamon Javers, CNBC Business News, 9/7/12.)

Furthermore, if the workforce participation rate was the same as it was when Obama was sworn in, the unemployment rate would be 11.2%, rather than the 8.1% claimed last month.  In fact, 368,000 people left the labor force during the month of August or almost 4 people left the labor force for every job allegedly created.  The labor participation rate is at a 31 year low of 63.5%.  Even if one went back to the labor participation of only one month ago of 63.7%, the unemployment rate would have gone up to 8.4%, rather than down to 8.1%.  The Obama Administration had claimed that the unemployment rate would never go above 7% and would be at 5.5% today, if Congress would only give them a stimulus package that will cost the taxpayers a trillion dollars, counting interest expenses.  “Weak Job Growth, Labor Force Exodus Signal Major Woes,” Investor’s Business Daily (“IBD”), 9/10/12, p.1.  If one counts the underemployed and those who have given up looking, the percentage would be closer to 17.1%.  There are 23 million Americans who are unemployed or part time/underemployed, but want full time jobs, but cannot find them.

According to the US Department of Labor, during the downturn, 60% of the jobs lost were considered mid-wage jobs ($13.84 to $21.13 per hour), while during the alleged “recovery” 58% of the new jobs were low wage jobs ($7.66 to $13.83 per hour).  According to Obama’s own Treasury, Labor, Energy and Agriculture Departments, under Obama’s Presidency unemployment rose from 7.8% to 8.1%, median income went down $4,019, gasoline rose from $1.84 to $3.82 per gallon and people on food stamps went from 31.9 to 46.7 million.  With 46.7 million, or one in seven, Americans on food stamps, people taking 99 weeks of unemployment insurance, more people claiming disability than ever before and about 15% of the population below the poverty line, Obama cannot honestly claim his policies have created a good economy.  African Americans have fared ever worse the rest of the population with a poverty rate of 27.6%.  Furthermore, contrary to Obama income redistribution programs and attacks on the rich, inequality has also increased between blacks and whites and between rich and poor.  “Obamanomics: The Results Are In,” IBD, 9/13/12, p.1.  Furthermore, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, in his Jackson Hole speech, warned that this prolonged high unemployment could lead to structural damage to the economy.  We now have 5,033,000 million Americans who have been unemployed for 27 weeks or longer.

When one also reduces Obama's performance by all of the stimulus that the Federal Reserve provided (extended low interest rates, QE1, QE2, Twist 1, Twist 2, expanding its balance sheet and the monetary base by some $2.3 trillion), Obama's economic performance is obviously abysmal.  Obamanomics has been such a failure, that Ben Bernanke and the Fed just announced QE3, which will include open ended buying of $40 billion of mortgage backed securities and will continue buying $45 billion of treasury bonds in the ongoing operation twist.  “Fed Set To Launch Big New Bond Buys To Bolster Growth,” IBD 9/14/12, p.1.

Furthermore, half of the jobs that have been created since the recession ended in June of 2009, have been created in Texas, where the policies are the polar opposite of Obama’s.  Texas has no income tax, has right-to-work laws, and passed tort reform.  In fact, states with Republican Governors average unemployment rates that are 1% lower than the national average.  The Republican state policies on the surface makes Obama’s miserable performance not seem quite as bad as it actually is, until one examines where and why the jobs are actually being created.

Obama and his Democrats in Congress have not passed a budget in over 3 years (over 1,200 days and climbing), even though the law requires them to do so every year. This failure is despite the fact that they had overwhelming majorities in both houses of Congress for two years and still have a majority in the Senate.  Furthermore, Obama’s own proposed budgets could not even get one vote from either party in either the House or the Senate.   Since the Republicans took control of the House, they have done their job and repeatedly passed budgets.  However, Obama’s ally in the Senate, Harry Reid has refused to act on them or pass his own version, so that the differences could be resolved in a joint committee.  Instead, Obama and the Democrats have just run deficits of $1.3 to $1.5 trillion a year.  Obama has increased the National Debt by over $5 trillion in just over three and a half years until the debt now exceeds $16 trillion dollars or more than our GDP.  With the recent United States debt rating downgrade by Egan-Jones Rating Co., the US debt has been downgraded twice due to Obama’s spending and borrowing policies.  These two downgrades are the first US debt downgrades in history.  If Obama continues on his spending and borrowing spree, there will be more debt rating downgrades.

When Obama was sworn in, the United States was ranked number one for global competitiveness.  Each year that he has been in office our global competitiveness has dropped.  Last year we ranked 5^th in this area and this year we rank 7^th.  Clearly, Obama’s policies have hurt our global competitiveness and those policies should be ended.

And as far as the “he inherited a bad economy" myth, Obama, working with ACORN as a community organizer, helped Bill Clinton destroy the economy through Clinton’s amendments to Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act, Clinton’s leveraging up Fannie and Freddie to an almost 50 to 1 debt to equity ratio and his requiring Fannie and Freddie to make 42% of their loans to low and subprime borrowers.  These terrible Clinton programs permitted people like Barack Obama, working with ACORN as community organizers and using the Saul Alinsky methods, to extort banks to make loans to people who could not possibly pay them back.

Clinton lied at the Democratic Convention when he said nobody could have turned around an economy as bad as the one in January 2009 in only four years.  Reagan turned around an even worse economy in four years.  Within four years of taking office, Reagan reduced unemployment from 10.8% to 7.0% and thereafter reduced unemployment to 5.0%.  Only the lying Democratic spin doctors could claim that Obama has done a good job and deserves another term.

The Greens Want None of the Above Energy Policy

The left-wing environmentalist greens really want a ‘none of the above’ energy policy.   The greens are clearly and vehemently opposed to conventional sources of energy that have not only been proven to work, but provide over 90% of our needed energy.  Driven by their now proven fraudulent  “Global Cooling,” “the Next Ice Age is Coming,” “Global Warming” or “Climate Change” claims, the greens not only want to attack and destroy coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear sources of energy, they are now suing to stop all allegedly “clean” sources of energy.  The examples abound.

In one example, the Portland Audubon Society and Oregon Natural Desert Association are suing to stop a wind farm on Oregon’s Steen’s Mountain, claiming the project will threaten eagles, big horn sheep and sage grouse.  They consider the project to be an irresponsible renewable energy development.  “Environmentalists Fight Solar, Wind, Renewable Energy,” Investor’s Business Daily, 8/10/12, p. 1.  Environmentalists sued a 100-turbine wind project in Kern County, California, claiming it would endanger golden eagles, condors, and other birds.    In remote Valley County, Montana, near the Canadian border, environmentalists succeeded in blocking a 500-megawatt wind project.  Id.

The greens hate coal plants, are hostile to oil refineries and protest against nuclear power plants, but, when it comes to the very type of alternative energy that they claim they are for and that they claim we must have to “save the planet” and keep the “oceans from rising,” they sue to stop it.  Remember that Ted Kennedy, the environmentalists’ poster child, used his weighty power to fight a wind farm in Nantucket Sound, near the Kennedy compound.

Another environmentalist group sued to save the allegedly endangered blunt- nose lizard and the kangaroo rat from a 3,200 acre, 399-megawatt solar power plant in California’s Panoche Valley.  The group claimed it was not a proper site.  The Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife and Natural Resources Defense Council sued to stop the 4,600-acre Calico solar plant in Pisgah Valley near L.A., claiming it was “one of the most ecologically damaging renewable energy projects in the state.”  Id.  The environmentalists are not only hostile to all forms of conventional energy, they also have allegedly “valid reasons” why all alternative energy is bad.  If one is going to build a solar plant, logically it should be built where there is plenty of sunshine, such as a desert.  However, environmental groups alleged that solar plants, such as the Panoche Valley and Pisgah Valley plants, can disrupt desert ecosystems.  The greens have also sued in Nevada, West Virginia, Maryland, Vermont, Southern California and elsewhere.  Id.

In theory, a wind farm should be built where the wind blows a lot, but the Audubon Society says that’s where the endangered birds fly.  Environmentalists claim that biomass plants emit pollutants, hydroelectric dams disrupt fish migrations and spawning, and transmission lines needed to carry alternative energy from where it can be produced to where it is needed give off dangerous electromagnetic energy. The Center for Biological Diversity has even tried to stop the EPA from issuing an exemption to biomass plants from the EPA regulation on greenhouse gas emissions.  Id.  The bottom line is the greens have gone to the legislatures to have the legislatures mandate alternative green energy, but if anyone tries to produce it, the environmentalists will sue to stop the production of the alternative energy.

The U. S. Chamber of Commerce, in its appropriately name “Project No Project” report, found 140 renewable projects that were delayed or killed by fierce environmental groups’ opposition.  The Chamber’s report found 10 transmission projects, designed to bring solar and wind power to where it is needed, that were challenged by the greens, including killing the Green Path North Transmission Line, which was designed to carry “green” power to L.A. The Policy Review journal found that every one of the solar, wind and geothermal projects in the desert Southwest met with opposition from environmental groups.   Wind and solar projects use too much land.  Offshore wind projects not only use up large areas of otherwise navigable water and kill birds, they are also the most expensive form of electric generation by the Department of Energy’s own estimates.  The Energy Information Administration, an arm of the DOE, found that offshore wind generation costs $330.6/mwh verses $86.6/mwh from natural gas or almost four times as much.

For a while, Greens had supported natural gas as what they called a “bridge fuel.”  But once  completely safe fracking techniques, that had been used for over 70 years, were combined with horizontal and diagonal drilling to make shale oil and gas commercially viable, the greens started a fraudulent and hysterical attack on the very safe, long standing use of fracking.  The environmentalists saw the reduction of natural gas prices caused by combining horizontal drilling and fracking as an existential threat to their green agenda.

Clearly, the environmentalists only want A NONE OF THE ABOVE, NONE OF THE BELOW ENERGY POLICY.  They want us all to live life without power.  You might say they want us to return to wood for energy.  But many areas already have restrictions on burning wood.  Who does the environmentalist fight against all forms of energy policy help?  Clearly their policies do not help Americans.  But their policies do help Vladimir Putin’s Russia, Hugo Chavez’ Venezuela and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Iran by driving up the price of oil and natural gas that their economies produce, depend on and export.  We could have wonderfully low energy prices here that would foster prosperity – we have abundant oil, natural gas and coal and, if environmentalists and Federal and local governments stopped attacking all three, we could become the “Saudi Arabia” of oil, natural gas and coal.  But by following the playbook of the U.N.’s Agenda 21, the greens are aiming to reduce the American way of life to a memory.

Obamacare is Unconstitutional and Unconscionable and

Affects Everyone in the Country

Obamacare is not only a national issue, it is a local issue that will affect every citizen of this country as well as every business and every government entity in this country.  For example, Obamacare will expand Medicaid in every State and have a devastating effect on each State’s budget.  It is important for Americans to understand the unconstitutionality of forcing everyone to buy, not just health insurance, but health insurance approved by Obama and his bureaucrats.  The Florida and Virginia Courts were correct in finding that this provision violates the Commerce Clause, and the Supreme Court affirmed that.  The Commerce Clause permits the Federal Government to regulate commerce among the several States but does not permit the Federal Government to order citizens to purchase anything.  Article I, Section 8 Paragraph 2 of the Federal Constitution.  There are more unconstitutional and unconscionable provisions in Obamacare than space here permits. However, a few of the additional unconstitutional provisions of Obamacare that have been raised in various lawsuits against Obamacare include: (1) the violation of section 1 of the 14^th Amendment due to the lack of due process, since there is no appeal of the bureaucrats’ decisions; (2) the violation of the 4^th  Amendment’s search and seizure clause, because the IRS can search people’s financial records without a search warrant or establishing probable cause; (3) the violation of the equal protection clause of Section 1 of the 14^th Amendment by granting waivers to some organizations, because they are politically connected, but not to everyone, and (4) a violation of the 10^th Amendment, because the matters, such as health, police and education that were not granted to the Federal Government in Article I, Section 8, were reserved to the several States.  The 10th Amendment; See also, e.g., James Madison, Federalist Papers No. 45.  The Supreme Court only heard arguments on a few limited issues this year.  These other issues may still make their way through the courts.

Examples of unconscionable provisions include: (1) taking half a trillion dollars from Medicare, which is already scheduled to go bankrupt, and diverting it to pay for Obamacare (which diversion also violates the ‘takings clause’ of the 5^th Amendment); (2) having a panel of 15 bureaucrats appointed by Obama decide what health care will be provided, rather than our doctors and family; and (3) the mandate that coerces States to expand the eligibility for Medicaid (which violates the 10^th Amendment).  The Supreme Court correctly found that Obamacare’s mandate of forcing the States to expand their Medicaid eligibility or lose all Federal funds for Medicaid, even the Medicaid the States were providing, was unconstitutionally coercive.  According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, New Jersey’s Medicaid population would increase by almost 43 percent if the State is coerced into the Obamacare mandate!  In 2010, Medicaid represented 21 percent of New Jersey’s total expenditures.  This increase will ensure the bankruptcy of New Jersey.  New Jersey and several other States have announced that they will not comply with the Obama Medicaid mandate. Many other States will surely follow suit.  Only five States currently have balanced budgets.  Obamacare will take that number to zero.

Obamacare has turned Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health & Human Services, into an unconstitutional czar.  The Supreme Court has stated many times that the Constitution provides that Congress was granted the authority to pass legislation in accordance with Article I, and cannot completely delegate that function to a bureaucracy.  Congress must provide the outline of the law and the guidelines that the bureaucracy must follow in the statutes, and the bureaucracy has limited discretion in filling in the details.   Congress must provide, an “intelligible principle.” J. W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States,  (Chief Justice Taft, 1928); see also, Wayman v. Southard, 23 U.S. (10 Wheat) 1,41 (Chief Justice Marshall, 1825); United States v. Shreveport Grain & Elevator, 278 U.S. 77,85 (1932).  The Supreme Court has struck down laws under this often cited principle, and Obamacare should also be struck down.  Obamacare clearly exceeds the limits on Congress’ constitutional authority to delegate.  This excessive delegation of authority is made clear by the huge number of mandates granted to the Secretary of HHS and by the actual mandates issued by Sebelius, working with Obama.  These mandates have demonstrated clear dictatorial misconduct and abuse of power.  Many lawsuits have already been filed to strike down this unconstitutional abuse of power.  If there ever was a case for striking down a statute for unconstitutional delegation of legislative power, Obamacare is definitely that case.

The taxpayers of the various states are already tapped out.  The taxpayers of New Jersey will have to pay for the expansion of Medicaid, if the State caves in to Obama. Furthermore, the State’s Supreme Court has just unconstitutionally legislated from the bench by ordering the State to pay an additional $500 million in aid to failed urban schools and their Transportation Trust Fund that is going broke.  Most people who have paid into Medicare their entire working careers are very upset that Obamacare is taking $500 billion out of Medicare and would like their Federal and State legislators to do whatever they can to stop the unconstitutional and unconscionable Obamacare from harming them more.  Even raising awareness on this issue will help bring an end to this terrible and egregiously overreaching legislation.  Obamacare must be repealed.  We must elect Mitt Romney and Conservative Republicans to majorities in both houses of Congress and make the repeal of this unconstitutional, unconscionable, intrusive and abhorred legislation a top priority.

                    Everyone Benefits from the Right to Work:

There are advantages of the Right to Work for both employees and employers. News coverage usually points to the obvious advantages to businesses of letting employees choose whether or not to join a union, but leaves out the advantages to employees. A recent survey of CEOs ranked states in which they would like to do business on a variety of measures. All of the states in the top 10 were Right to Work States. Not one of the states in the bottom 20 was a Right to Work State.   In the 'worst states for jobs' list, New Jersey came in 45th out of 50.   For most expensive states, New Jersey came in 5th highest, above even New York.   Economists have noted that Right to Work States have more labor force flexibility, faster economic growth, higher employment, greater inward migration, lower living costs and higher real compensation. In the ten Right to Work States rated the best in the nation, private sector employment increased 10.6% from 2000 to 2010, while in the 10 compulsory-unionism states rated the worst in the nation, which included New Jersey, employment increased just 1.9% over the same ten year period.  It is obvious the increase in employment and greater labor force flexibility, due to the absence of strict union rules, together with lower cost of living in Right to Work States, helps employees. Right-to-Work Laws are win-win laws for both employees and employers. See, “More ‘Raspberries’ For Compulsory Union Dues,” National Right To Work Newsletter (“NRWN”), June 2112, p.1. New Jersey has suffered net outward migration and its high taxes, high living expenses, forced union dues and excessive regulations are all part of the cause.

"Poll after poll shows nearly 80% of the Americans who regularly vote in federal elections support the Right to Work principle.” “Hoosiers Deliver Clear Message to Congress,” NRWN, Feb. 2012, p. 3. “Of course, scientific surveys regularly show rank-and-file Democrats and Independents, as well as rank-and-file Republicans, overwhelmingly oppose compulsory unionism.” Id. The American people feel that “Forced Unionism Is ‘Morally Wrong’ and It Is Also An ‘Economic Albatross’”. “Major Right to Work Victory in the Midwest” Id. p. 1 at p. 2. The Republicans would do well with the general public to support the right of employees to work without being forced to pay union dues.

Obamacare And Obama’s Other Programs will Bankrupt the Country

Health care represents about 16% of the US economy and the percentage is increasing rapidly (some say it has already increased to 20%). The increase in the percentage is because the increase in health care costs exceeds the rate of inflation and many new costly procedures and pharmaceuticals are being developed all of the time. Many of these new products save lives or improve outcomes, but often increase the cost of treatment, although some of them actually decrease the overall cost of treatment by shortening the recovery time. The percentage of GDP spent of health care will increase unless there is Tort Reform. But there is no Tort Reform or any other cost saving proposals in ObamaCare. There are only tax increases that will actually increase the cost of health care.

Most economists agree that for a healthy economy, the Government’s taxes and expenses should not exceed 18% of GDP or at most 20%. Higher percentages lead to inflation, deficit spending and a weak currency. Government expenditures were at approximately 22% of GDP, before the February 2009 $787 billion stimulus or “porkulus” package, the phony 6 month pork packed extension of the ’08-’09 budget, and the largest in history pork packed ’09-’10 budget. In his first six months in office, Obama spent more money than every president before him from the first George W., George Washington to the last George W., George W. Bush. Of this money Obama spent, one dollar was borrowed for every two dollars that was spent. Adding the entire health care costs of 16% to 20% of GDP under Obama’s single payer system, together with the rest of the Government expenditures (including legitimate expenses, pork, waste, corruption and fraud), will cause the economy to collapse. We need to cut Government spending and cut taxes to grow the economy again.

If ObamaCare doesn’t bring down the economy by itself, Obama’s proposed Cap-and-Trade will. Obama’s Cap-and-Trade plan will cap and destroy our economy and trade our jobs to China and India. No economy could survive this massive tax and regulation on industrial production, energy production, food production, transportation and every other activity in life. Production and jobs will move to low cost and high polluting countries, such as China, India and Mexico. Since these countries are some of the biggest polluting countries in the world, pollution and the alleged “green house” gases will increase and not decrease, as the proponents of the bill claim, while destroying the US economy.

And, if ObamaCare and Cap-and-Trade do not bring the econ0my down, Card Check will. Card Check will take away the secret ballot from employees, when union thugs intimidate employees to sign union organizing cards, and will impose binding arbitration for union contracts, if the company being organized does not cave in quickly to the union’s demands. Who would Obama appoint to be an arbitrator? Van Jones? Why Van Jones, Obama’s former Communist Green Jobs Czar, is now available. He is currently sitting down the way from the White House at the Center for Americans for Progress, where he was promptly hired by Leon Pannetta the day after he “resigned.” The Center for Americans for Progress was funded by the Hungarian Communist George Soros.

Unions have been very detrimental to the economy. In addition to the UAW bringing down GM and Chrysler, almost every manufacturing job, which has been lost in the recent recession, was from a union company. Unions demand more pay, benefits and job restrictions, than the economic conditions and value of their output justifies. For example, the American automobile companies cannot even upgrade equipment or shut down a production line without the UAW’s permission. That is why these US automobile companies were often profitable outside the US, while they lost money in the US. These high demands on employers in a competitive economy, particularly during a recession, result in layoffs, business failures and manufacturing jobs being shipped overseas.

Thus, there is a growing body of evidence that the collapse of the US economy will be the result of Obama’s initiatives. Could that be his plan?

Bullet Points on ObamaCare

• Rasmussen Daily Tracking Poll for 9/25-26/09 on Obama’s health care plan: 56% Opposed, 41% Support. Only 16% of seniors support Obama’s health care plan.

• Poll Says 45% of Doctors Said That They Would Consider Quitting If ObamaCare Passes. An IBD/TIPP Poll found that 65% of doctors oppose the Government proposed health care plan and 45% said that they would consider quitting their practice or taking early retirement if it passes. See, Investor’s Business Daily (“IBD”), 9/16/2009, p. 1; search, www.ibdeditorials.com . The poll said that 71% of doctors do not believe that the Government can cover 47 million more people for less money and with better quality of care. There is nothing in any of the plans that will increase the number of doctors to handle the additional people covered. In fact, the Governments proposal will drive doctors out of practice. The biggest thing that will cut cost is tort reform. “Doctors’ Best Medical Cost-Cutting Ideas: Tort Reform, Tort Reform and Tort Reform,” IBD, 9/24/09, p. 1. But the plaintiff lawyers have bought the Democratic Party, so it won’t happen with Democrats in control.

• Obama’s Joint Session of Congress Speech. On September 9th, Obama gave an overly lengthy campaign speech to a Joint Session of Congress on “His” health care plan. However, Obama has not submitted a health care plan. Every time his statements began with “under my Plan,” his statements conflicted with HR 3200 and the other plans floating around Congress. “His Plan” must have been referring to the “Plan” on “His” teleprompter and on video tape. Now, since Obama changes what he says on a regular basis, no one can trust his “Teleprompter Plan.”

• Your Current Plan. Obama has consistently said, “If you like your current health insurance plan, you can keep it. No one will take it away from you.” There are several problems with this oft-repeated statement. Page 16 of HR 3200, says you can only keep your insurance if it was in effect on January 1 of the year in which this law is enacted. Therefore, if you switch jobs, you will not be able to get the insurance of your new employer, because your insurance would not have been in effect on January 1. Nor could you switch between different plans offered by your employer as your circumstances change. In these cases, you would be forced into the Government Plan.

• Medicare. According to HR 3200, Obama, Pelosi and Reid want to cut half a trillion dollars from Medicare. They want to take $500,000,000,000 from people who paid into the system for 30 or 40 years and who need it most, and use it to pay for people who have not paid into the system, including illegal immigrants. The money stolen from Medicare will also help pay for the $10 billion earmarked to pay for the health care of “retired” union workers, who are between the ages of 55 and 65. Wait! Why should people over 65 have their funds stolen to pay for “retired” union workers, many of whom are healthy and young enough to get another job? Furthermore, since Medicare is already headed for bankruptcy, it is a stupid place from which to take money.

• Medicare Advantage Programs. In particular, Obama, Pelosi and Reid are targeting Medicare Advantage Programs (“MAPs”). Under MAPs, participants generally accept a Health Maintenance Organization (“HMO”) and work through a gateway doctor. HMO’s were first introduced in the 80’s and took off during the 90’s as a method of bringing health care costs down, while promoting healthier participants through regular checkups and prophylactic treatments. One can only surmise that the reason Obama, Pelosi and Reid are targeting these highly successful programs is that MAPs require a private insurance company to participate, whereas Obama, Pelosi and Reid want a Government takeover of our health care system. This attack on MAPs is just another example of people who like their current health plan not being permitted to keep their plan under ObamaCare.

• The Humana Gag Order. When Humana Health Insurance Company sent out letters to its MAP’s participants containing the truth about HR 3200 and the “so-called” Baucus Plan making cuts in their MAP’s programs, Senator Baucus ordered the Obama Administration to threaten legal action and to start an investigation. This was a clear violation of the First Amendment’s protection of Freedom of Speech. These outrageous actions by Baucus and Obama show their willingness to lie and suppress the truth about Obama’s Government Plan and the Baucus Plan.

• Many Employers Will Dump Their Employees into The Government Plan. For many employers, the average cost of employer-sponsored health insurance plans exceeds Obama’s proposed 8% tax on employers who do not provide insurance to their employees. Therefore, once The Government Plan is in effect, many employers will just dump their employees onto The Government Plan to save money. Various studies have estimated that between 80 million and 120 million employees currently covered would lose their employer-sponsored health insurance due to employers availing themselves of this cost savings opportunity, but it would cost the taxpayers trillions of dollars. The people who may be thrown out of their employers’ plans are just another example of people who may not be able to keep their health care plans. ObamaCare was designed to add only 15 million allegedly uninsured persons to coverage at a cost of 0ne trillion dollars in the first 10 years of the Plan and 3 trillion dollars in the second 10 years, even before considering inflation and, worse, Congress’s standard practice of grossly under estimating costs to get programs passed. It is stupid to throw 80 to 120 million people out of insurance to possibly add 15 million, while bankrupting the United States of America. To use Obama’s own words, Obama is “acting stupidly.”

• Obama Wants A Single Payer System. During his campaign Obama is on video tape telling a cheering mob of Obamanites that during his first term he would move the country to a single payer system. After he was elected, Obama is on video tape telling a group from the Service Employees International Union that HR 3200 is only the first step and that it will take years to move the whole country to a single payer system. Therefore, when Obama says that he is not for a single payer system, he is lying.

• Obama’s Tax on Health Care Appears To Be Unconstitutional. The 16th Amendment to the Constitution only permits direct taxes on “incomes.” Other Federal direct taxes are restrained by Article I, Sections 2 and 9, which limit direct taxes to those that are proportioned to the Numbers (or Population) of the States. Not buying health insurance is not ”income,” nor is it a “thing,” so that it cannot be subjected to an excise tax.

• You can learn more and help to stop this plan before it’s too late. Most of the information you need can be found on Dr. Betsy McCaughey’s wonderful website: www.DefendYourHealthCare.us. The full texts of the proposed legislations are there along with loads of other information. Please take action to let your representatives in Washington know that you think the proposed health care plans are not what this country needs to move forward.

Obama and the Democrats Lie When they Say Bush and the Republicans Caused the Current Economic Crisis:
Clinton’s Revisions to The Community Reinvestment Act, and his Expansion of Fannie and Freddie’s Low Income Lending Requirements Led to the Subprime Mess

In the beginning of the Bill Clinton administration, under pressure from Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton had the Democratic-controlled Congress pass amendments to Carter’s 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (the “CRA”). These amendments increased the requirements on banks to make loans into low income neighborhoods and provided for the securitization of mortgages including those to low income persons (“Subprime Mortgages”). Clinton also raised Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s requirements to buy moderate and low income mortgages. See, “How A Clinton-Era Rule Rewrite Made Subprime Crisis Inevitable,” Investor’s Business Daily, 9/25/08, p. 1, www.ibdeditorials.com. To get most of the Subprime Loans that Clinton, ACORN, Obama and other Democrats had forced the banks to make, off the banks’ books, Clinton’s legislation allowed the banks and Wall Street (read Rubin’s friends at Goldman Sachs) to securitize the mortgages in what are called mortgage backed securities (“MBS”). The MBS market was launched immediately and it rapidly turned into a multi-billion dollar market. MBS, including Subprime Mortgages, were sliced and diced and sold to the public, to mutual funds, pension funds, insurance companies, and hedge funds here and around the world.

Clinton’s idea of multicultural housing policy was to bring housing ownership to low income persons who could not afford to own a home (i.e. “were bad credit risks”) or in some cases they may have been discriminated against because of race or the poor neighborhood in which they lived. The mechanism was to require all Federally Chartered Banks to make loans into poor neighborhoods, and banks that did not meet the requirements of the CRA could be barred from opening branches or merging with other banks, thus limiting their growth prospects. Four government agencies audited the banks to determine their CRA Rating, making the CRA rating more important to the Clinton Administration than the banks’ own credit rating. Community groups, such as ACORN, could bring lawsuits to enjoin proposed mergers, if ACORN or another community group did not think that the banks involved had made enough loans into poor neighborhoods. Obama represented ACORN as an attorney and taught ACORN leaders the intimidation methods that ACORN used to extort banks into making loans to people who couldn’t pay them back. So Obama was very much part of the cause of the Subprime Mess. In fact, his very first act when he became a US Senator was to vote to support the Democratic filibuster that prevented Bush and McCain from improving the controls of Fannie and Freddie.

The CRA sounded like a noble idea to many, and anyone who opposed it was labeled a racist. Investors Daily Business (IBD) has written a series of articles on how the CRA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac led to the subprime mess, starting on September 23, 2008 on page 1 with an article entitled “’Crony’ Capitalism Is Root Cause of Fannie and Freddie Troubles,” search: www.ibdeditorials.com.

After the Republicans took over Congress in 1995, Clinton decided to increase the low and moderate income lending requirements of Fannie and Freddie though administrative agencies, rather than dealing with an uncooperative Republican Congress. In 1995 Clinton ordered his Treasury Secretary, Robert Rubin to rewrite the CRA Rules. The rewritten rules increased the numerical quotas and added new measures for “diversity” in the banks’ loan portfolios. Id., “Clinton-Era Rewrite.” After Andrew Cuomo became Clinton’s Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (1997-2001), Clinton got Cuomo to raise the low and moderate income lending requirements of Fannie and Freddie again and to reduce the capital requirements to 2.5% vs. 10% for banks. See, e.g. Id.

The stage was set for Clinton’s appointments of Jim Johnson and Franklin D. Raines, sequentially, as the head of Fannie. There are strong indications that both men played fast and loose with Fannie’s books and took out millions of dollars in compensation. Raines stretched the debt-to-equity of Fannie and failed to write off non-performing mortgages to maximize the value of his bonus and stock options. The Democrats, including Obama, Dodd and Frank, received very large campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie, so that the same Democrats who should have been regulating Fannie and Freddie, instead protected them from all attempts of Bush, McCain and the Republicans to reform Fannie and Freddie.

The Fannie and Freddie total portfolio of mortgages exceeded $5.4 trillion. When the mortgages they insured are also considered, they wound up standing behind approximately 90% of the mortgage market. See, Id. “’Crony’ Capitalism.” After Raines finally left Fannie in 2005, multiple audits kept finding more and more financial problems in Fannie’s financial statements. Fannie was not able to file reasonably clean financial statements until early 2008. Both Jim Johnson and Franklin Raines, who mismanaged Fannie and, if justice were to be served, probably should be in jail, instead have served as economic advisors to Obama. Id.

We now know that Clinton, Rubin, Cuomo, Raines, Obama and the Democrats in Congress are responsible for the failure of Fannie and Freddie and the Subprime Mess that brought the economy down. They are responsible because they voted for the CRA, its revisions, and the Fannie and Freddie amendments and they protected Fannie and Freddie and the Democrats’ cronies who were mismanaging them. Obama is particularly responsible for the massive subprime loans, because he trained ACORN leaders to intimidate banks to make bad loans. Now that you are armed with the facts, when the Democrats shout they the inherited the economic mess from Bush and the Republicans, be sure to call the Democrats the liars that they are.