Obama and Saudi Largest Arms Deal In History moving forward; Liberals Silent

RWB News: We know how Obama and his administration love to break records. You can add completing the largest arms deal in history with Saudi Arabia to the record number of Americans on food stamps, A record 14 months unemployment has risen and the deficit. Remember how George Bush was crucified for deals with the Saudi's by the Libs? And now Obama breaks the record? Kinda like the Patriot Act….Baaaad for Bush Gooood for Obama.

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is expected to notify Congress on Wednesday of a multibillion-dollar sale of fighter jets and military helicopters to Saudi Arabia, officials said Tuesday.

The State Department scheduled a news conference for Wednesday to announce the deal, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the notification had not yet been made.

From the WSJ

Saudi Arms Deal Advances

White House to Notify Congress Soon of $60 Billion Package, Largest Ever for U.S.

The Obama administration is set to notify Congress of plans to offer advanced aircraft to Saudi Arabia worth up to $60 billion, the largest U.S. arms deal ever, and is in talks with the kingdom about potential naval and missile-defense upgrades that could be worth tens of billions of dollars more.

The administration plans to tout the $60 billion package as a major job creator—supporting at least 75,000 jobs, according to company estimates—and sees the sale of advanced fighter jets and military helicopters to key Middle Eastern ally Riyadh as part of a broader policy aimed at shoring up Arab allies against Iran.

The talks between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia have been widely known for months, but many new details are only now coming into focus. These include the number and type of aircraft involved, how much the Saudis intend to spend in an initial installment, and the ongoing negotiations to also upgrade the kingdom's navy and missile defenses.

The $60 billion in fighter jets and helicopters is the top-line amount requested by the Saudis, even though the kingdom is likely to commit initially to buying only about half that amount.

Read More: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704621204575488361149625050.html

swenbwr

http://redwhitebluenews.com/?p=9903

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

Pimco Says U.S. Will Disappoint With 1.75% Growth

The U.S. economy will disappoint investors by expanding at a rate of 1.75 percent over the next year, said Ramin Toloui at Pacific Investment Management Co., which runs the world's biggest bond fund.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-10-19/pimco-says-u-s-will-disappoint-with-1-75-growth.html

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

Soldiers Can't Vote: Obama's Department of Justice Will Not Protect the Military's Ballots (PJTV Spe

DOJ Whistleblower J. Christian Adams and Jesse Jane Duff, USMC (RET) talk to Joe Hicks about the many problems involving military ballots.
 

http://www.pjtv.com/video/PJTV_Special/Soldiers_Can%27t_Vote%3A_Obama%27s_Department_of_Justice_Will_Not_Protect_the_Military%27s_Ballots/4295/

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

Obama and Democrats lie about Citizens United and campaign money

Barack Obama and the Democrats have a story about this election. It goes like this. The Supreme Court ruled that corporations have free speech rights in the Supreme Court decision Citizens United. Since then, all this corporate money has flowed into campaigns, blah blah blah. And the press has completely accepted this line of thinking.

It is complete nonsense. They probably want to concoct a falsehood so that this election somehow is not about the White House. But the reality is that their core narrative is simply false on its face.

The basic claim of the left and the media is this: Citizens United allowed (a) a new flood of corporate money that is (b) completely undisclosed. Both (a) and (b) are false. Find out why after the jump.The first point, that this decision will, to quote the President from his State of the Union speech, "open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections," is simply false. In fact, the history of these ads go back all the way to 2000.

Even that profoundly right-wing news outlet, the New York Times, points out that the White House's narrative is simply not true.

So far, however, the nightmare situation envisioned by some campaign finance watchdogs — droves of commercial corporations vying for voters' attention through a Super Bowl-style frenzy of advertising bearing their company logos — has not materialized. Instead, corporate money is being funneled through third-party groups, many of them organized under Section 501(c) of the tax code, which can accept donations of unlimited size and generally do not have to disclose their donors under Internal Revenue Service rules. Rulemaking by the election commission after the Wisconsin Right to Life case further enabled this.

There is absolutely nothing new about 501(c) organizations, and in particular, the 501(c)(4) organizations that have been active this cycle. George Washington University's Campaign Finance Institute noted in 2008 that "With the advent of legislation requiring 527s to publicly disclosure their finances in 2000, the 501(c)s now had the advantage of little or no public disclosure." In that same memo, they noted a number of organizations: "National Rifle Association, National Right to Life Committee, U.S. Chamber of Commerce (the only 501(c)(6) group), Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund, Friends of the Earth Action Fund, League of Conservation Voters Inc., NARAL Pro-Choice America, and Planned Parenthood Action Fund." That is, the Chamber was doing what they are doing in 2008 and earlier. And many lefty groups, including Planned Parenthood, the League of Conservation Voters, etc. were also active. (Note that in 2006, the FEC fined the League for Conservation voters for violating campaign finance law, along with MoveOn and the Swift Boat guys)

But it gets better. In 2007, CFI had a round-up on the legal structures behind the 2006 election. They said:

In addition, [George Soros] donated $3,890,000 to Section 527 political organizations, was the largest investor in "Catalist," a company formed to supply voter files to politically active pro-Democratic interest groups, and was one of about 100 "partners" in the Democracy Alliance which channeled funds to "center-left" 501(c)(4) social welfare organizations and 527s that were active in federal elections.

They went on to say:

Another important development has been the rise of certain 501(c)s that undertake issue campaigns with strong electoral overtones. Among these groups were: Americans United for Change, Communities United to Strengthen America and Progress for America, all of which were closely associated with organizations directly involved in campaigns. These groups' efforts paralleled explicit campaign themes and were targeted to key "battleground" voters.

They had a similar round-up after the 2008 election in which they noted.

As Table 1shows, we were able to document $196 million in estimated 501(c) group soft money campaign spending in the 2008 federal elections. We have little doubt that the real figure is in excess of $200 million. We lack credible estimates  for spending by at least three groups reported tohave conducted multimillion dollar campaigns: Committee to Defend America, Americans United for Change and National Right to Life Committee. Furthermore, even 501 (c) spending that is subject to FEC reporting requirements does not include expenses for administration, fundraising,and polling.

Note that two lefty groups, Americans United for Change and the Committee to Defend America did not disclose their spending (not donations, spending. See below). In fact, Americans United for Change was headed by a certain Brad Woodhouse who is now the Communications Director for the Democratic National Committee. The Politico's Ben Smith noted that AUC ran campaign ads of exactly the sort that Mr. Woodhouse is now condemning from the DNC. Indeed, Al Franken — whose vote passed Obamacare — may have  been elected due to these ads.

So we have established that there is nothing new about the legal structure. The foreign money canard, rejected by FactCheck.org, the New York Times, etc. Follows from this. The claim is that it comes in through the Chamber which has the same tax structure as before or 501(c)(4)s which also existed before.

The upshot is that Citizens United has had no meaningful impact on the amount of money coming into politics. In fact the only claim that the New York Times could substantiate is that there was a "psychological" effect.

The second part of the claim is that Citizens United is resulting in new undisclosed money in politics. This is also silly. The only new legal structure post-CU is the so-called "Super-PACs". These are PACs that disclose their donors and expenditures to the FEC. Here was the Washington Post's description:

Super PAC: Can raise and spend unlimited amounts on politics, but must operate independently of candidates and cannot contribute to individual candidates. Donors must be disclosed to the Federal Election Commission

The reason that these are new post-CU is that these PACs can take unlimited contributions, as opposed to $5,000 prior to the decision.

I think I have made it clear that the White House's fundamental story about campaign finance is a lie. It is based on a falsehood about a Supreme Court decision that, in fact, has had little demonstrable impact. The White House's primary demons, the Chamber and others, are organized by structures that have been in existence since 2000. I doubt the press will notice or understand this.

But it is telling that this White House would invest so much energy on pushing an argument that is so fundamentally false on its face. It tells you something about their respect for the American people, their belief in the gullibility of the media, and their character.

http://www.redstate.com/soren_dayton/2010/10/19/obama-and-democrats-lie-about-citizens-united-and-campaign-money/

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

And the explanation for Obama twice dropping 'Creator' is ...

Quotations from Declaration of Independence just said 'endowed with rights'

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=217497

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

14 States Move to Deny ‘Anchor Babies’ Citizenship

PHOENIX (AP) — Lawmakers in at least 14 states are collaborating on proposed legislation to deny U.S. citizenship to children of illegal immigrants, according to lawmakers, including the sponsor of Arizona's 2010 law targeting illegal immigration.

"We're taking a leadership role on things that need to be fixed in America. We can't get Congress to do it," Republican state Sen. Russell Pearce, of Mesa, said Tuesday. "It's a national work group so that we have model legislation that we know will be successful, that meets the constitutional criteria."

The efforts by the state legislators come amid calls to change the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which grants automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants. Supporters cite costs to taxpayers for services provided to illegal immigrants and their children.

Pennsylvania state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, the founder of a national group of legislators critical of illegal immigration, said the 14th Amendment "greatly incentives foreign invaders to violate our border and our laws." He had a news conference Tuesday in Harrisburg, Pa., on the multistate endeavor.

The effort could run afoul of the language in the 14th Amendment and lead to a court battle over the constitutionality of the law. But Metcalfe said providing birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants is an "ongoing distortion and twisting" of the amendment.

Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

Metcalfe's office said lawmakers in at least 12 other states besides Arizona and Pennsylvania said they were making their own announcements about working on the citizenship legislation. Those other states: Alabama, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Texas and Utah. Legislators from a total of 41 states are involved in a Metcalfe-founded group concerned with immigration issues.

Pearce was the main sponsor of an Arizona law that would require police enforcing other laws to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they're in the United States illegally. It was to go into effect this summer, but a judge put on hold key provisions pending the resolution of a legal challenge.

Pearce also was the chief sponsor of a 2007 state law targeting employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.

He and fellow Arizona legislators plan a Tuesday afternoon news conference to formally announce the effort.

Pearce said the legislation has yet to be drafted, and he declined to comment on possible approaches, including whether it would focus on the issuance of state birth certificates.

"We're going to address the issue of the unconstitutional declaration of citizenship to those born to non-citizens," Pearce said. "It is a violation of the 14th Amendment."

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the 2010 law and who is championing the state's legal defense of it against a court challenge mounted by the U.S. Justice Department, was noncommittal when asked whether lawmakers should approve legislation on citizenship.

However, Brewer said she was "always concerned" by the possibility of involving the state in a court fight. "No one wants to be in court. No one wants to be fighting the federal government," she said.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/14-states-move-to-deny-anchor-babies-citizenship/

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

New Mexico Wilderness Bill – Another Disastrous Federal Land Grab

(Photo Courtesy of PFPOWH)

-The presence of any Wilderness on the Mexican border is a danger to the security of the United States.-Jim Switzer, National Association of Former Border Patrol Agents

The New Mexico Wilderness Bill, if enacted, will be disastrous for New Mexico and disastrous for America.

New Mexico Senators Udal (D), a member of the Progressive Caucus, and Bingaman (D) have sponsored two conservation bills, S.874/H.R.5334 in northern NM and S.1689 in southern New Mexico's Dona Ana County.  Should these bills be enacted into law roughly 739,000 additional acres of land will be placed under the purview of the Department of the Interior (DOI).  This legislation imposes Federal Wilderness Designation, the most restrictive of all federal land management designations, on 241,400 acres of lands in Dona Ana County, along with 99,150 acres of National Conservation Area (NCA) designation.

How much land is this?  This area is over 532 square miles of land, nearly 14% of Dona Ana County, and over a little over half the size of the state of Rhode Island.  On the US/Mexico border!

What does Federal Wilderness Designation mean?  When land is designated as Federal Wilderness under the 1964 Wilderness Act, there are numerous prohibitions, such as:

• no permanent road within any Wilderness area
• no temporary road
• no use of motorized vehicles
• no motorized equipment of motorboats
• no landing of aircraft
• no form of mechanical transport
• no structure or installation

Of course these restrictions would not concern people that have no regard for U.S. laws.  People like the drug cartels, drug smugglers, illegal aliens, human traffickers, etc.  The DOI has submitted a 2002 report titled "Threat Assessment of Public Lands" that outlines the dangers that we face on a daily basis from illegal incursions on these lands.  The report contains grim statistics.  Video here.

Then there's the issue of the Border Patrol not having ready access to these federally designated lands.

Bigdawz reports:

"Interior Department Aids and Abets Illegal Entry into US".

The Interior Department of the Obama Administration is blocking access to federal lands, preventing the US Border Patrol from sealing, or even patrolling vast areas of the US southern border with Mexico. This according to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) draft report.

More than 40 percent of the southwest borderland has been deemed "federal land" and is managed by the Interior Department. The GAO reports that Department of Interior's federal land managers are actively preventing Border Patrol agents from doing their job.  The report says, "With limited access for patrols and monitoring, some illegal entries may go undetected." The question is "how many?" The likely answer is "thousands."

"The severity of the crisis along the border cannot be underestimated," says Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah. Sweeping areas of America's borderlands, wilderness, and parklands are now determined to be too dangerous for American citizens and have been effectively surrendered to waves of drug traffickers and human-smugglers feeding on desperate, illegal immigrants. Homeland Security's mission to prevent potential terrorists from entering is also thwarted.

The federal government has authorized expenditures of the American taxpayer's money in the amount of $1.6 billion through the US Border Patrol over the last five years in the Secure Border Initiative. However, the border is at its very weakest and is most unprotected exactly where it's under the federal management of the Interior Department.

In a written statement, Rep. Bishop says, "When you take a look at the track record of the border patrol you will see that they are extremely effective and successful in the border areas they are able to routinely patrol—private and state lands. Unfortunately, this does not include the federal lands and it should." As the lives of American citizens become more endangered and tragic crimes mount, the Interior Department defends their interference with Border Patrol operations by claiming they are "protecting the wilderness." The GAO reports among several anecdotal examples, that Border Patrol agents encounter locked gates at the San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge in Arizona. The administrative roads that Border Patrol agents would use to patrol the border are blocked because their vehicles might "threaten the habitat of the endangered Yaqui chub fish."

In a dangerous and twisted irony that can only be wrought from the poorly managed and grossly ineffective federal government, the Interior Department points to its goal of protecting the land from human interference. But by blocking access to the Border Patrol, they have facilitated hoards of illegal immigrants and drug traffickers to trample and trash the very same wilderness refuge they claim to want to protect.

Who's the driving force behind this legislation? The New Mexico Wilderness Alliance, a non-profit 501(C)(3), grassroots, environmental organization dedicated to the protection, restoration, and continued enjoyment of New Mexico's wildlands and Wilderness areas. The primary goal of the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance is to ensure the protection and restoration of all remaining wild lands in New Mexico through administrative designations, federal wilderness designation, and on-going advocacy. The co-founder of NWA is Dave Foreman.  Mr. Foreman is the founder of Earth First! and the author of "Confessions of An Eco-Warrior".

The group opposing this legislation is The People For The Preservation of Our Western Heritage (PFPOWH), an advocacy group whose Mission Statement is "To Preserve, Promote, and Protect the Farming, Ranching, and and Rural Heritage of Our Western Lands".  Their Motto is "Preserve The Land For The People, Not From The People".

In Dona Ana County there are two political candidates who reject this proposed legislation.  Susana Martinez, candidate for Governor (R), a native of Las Cruces, calls S.1689 a "land grab" and Terry McMillan M.D., candidate for State Rep. District 37, is a member of PFPOWN and  has also spoken out against S.1689.  His opponent, Jeff Steinborn, State Rep, is a Director of The Southern NM Wilderness Alliance and a strong proponent of S.1689.

As Michele Malkin points out in her article titled "The Great Obama Land Grab" for the Washington Examiner, the federal government currently owns one of every three acres of land in the United States.

Indeed, the feds have enough trouble as it is managing the vast amount of land they already control. As the D.C.-based Americans for Limited Government group, which defends private property rights, points out:

"The [National Park Service] claims it would need about $9.5 billion just to clear its backlog of the necessary improvements and repairs. At a time when our existing national parks are suffering, it doesn't make sense for the federal government to grab new lands."

The bureaucrats behind Obama's "Great Outdoors Initiative" plan on wrapping up their public comment solicitation by Nov. 15. The initiative's taxpayer-funded web site (http://ideas.usda.gov/ago/ideas.nsf/) has been dominated by left-wing environmental activists proposing human population reduction, private property confiscation, and gun bans, hunting bans and vehicle bans in national parks.

It's time for private property owners to send their own loud, clear message to the land-hungry feds: Take a hike.

Tomorrow I'll detail the outcomes Arizona is experiencing since designating border lands Federal Wilderness Areas.  Outcomes that New Mexico can expect to be repeated here should this legislation be enacted into law.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Albert Einstein, (attributed)
US (German-born) physicist (1879 – 1955)

HT – Rachel Pulaski

http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/10/new-mexico-wilderness-bill-another-disastrous-federal-land-grab/

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

Protective Agreement to Limit Missile Defense and Space Systems Should Delay New START

Senate consideration of New START can wait

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/10/Protective-Agreement-to-Limit-Missile-Defense-and-Space-Systems-Should-Delay-New-START

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

Fwd: News Alert: High-Level Talks Aim for an End to the Afghan War

>

> Breaking News Alert
> The New York Times
> Tue, October 19, 2010
> -----
>
> High-Level Talks Aim for an End to the Afghan War
>
> Talks to end the war in Afghanistan involve extensive,
> face-to-face discussions with Taliban commanders from the
> highest levels of the group's leadership, who are secretly
> leaving their sanctuaries in Pakistan with the help of NATO
> troops, officials here say.
>
> The discussions, some of which have taken place in Kabul, are
> unfolding between the inner circle of President Hamid Karzai
> and members of the Quetta shura, the leadership group that
> oversees the Taliban war effort inside Afghanistan. Afghan
> leaders have also held discussions with leaders of the
> Haqqani network, considered to be one of the most hard-line
> guerrilla factions fighting here; and members of the Peshawar
> shura, whose fighters are based in eastern Afghanistan.
>
> Read More:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/20/world/asia/20afghan.html?emc=na
>
>
>

Redstate: Erick Erickson: Senate May “Restructure” Obamacare Rather Than Defund & Repeal

Well, that idea is a big, fat fail. I hope they have a change of heart. Otherwise, names please. After this election, it's time to repeal and defund wimpy Senators unwilling to go after Obamacare.

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/patriotroom/eKBL/~3/P5sQ_hj4DTE/

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

Feds Investigate Foreclosures As They Tell Banks To Continue Foreclosing

Those whose mantra is Fed Knows Best, need to rethink their blind faith in the Federal government:

Federal agencies are investigating banks' foreclosure-documentation process after some major financial institutions have said they would either review or suspend foreclosures because of possible errors, the Associated Press reported, citing White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. Meanwhile, Chicago-area law enforcers are halting foreclosure-related evictions until banks provide them with affidavits legitimizing the foreclosures, AP said in a separate report Tuesday.

Gibbs said an interagency task force on financial fraud is probing the foreclosure process, while the Federal Housing Administration, which guarantees mortgages, has launched its own investigation as well. Gibbs added that the White House will support efforts from all 50 states to investigate the foreclosure process.

And then there's a mortgage re-buy effort?

Not even a month ago, the Fed seemed to be wanting to paint a positive picture.

I'm not sure I understand what all is going on, but, mortgages seem to be the tip of the crazy economic iceberg. Maxed Out Mama is talking about the Fed's unemployment numbers. Those are weird and manipulated, too.

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/patriotroom/eKBL/~3/9sdI7nQh9gA/

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

Officials hint Fed on the verge of more easing - Yahoo! Finance

Found this interesting link on the Drudge Report:

Officials hint Fed on the verge of more easing - Yahoo! Finance

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Officials-hint-Fed-on-the-rb-117614773.html?x=0

Obama Continues to Omit ‘Creator’ From Declaration of Independence

During a speech Monday, President Barack Obama once again omitted the Declaration of Independence's mention of man's "Creator" as the source of his "unalienable rights." While delivering remarks at a dinner fundraiser for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) in Rockville, Md., President Obama spoke about what he called the "essence" of the upcoming midterm election:

As wonderful as the land is here in the United States, as much as we have been blessed by the bounty of this magnificent continent that stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific, what makes this place special is not something physical. It has to do with this idea that was started by 13 colonies that decided to throw off the yoke of an empire, and said, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that each of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

The sole mention of man's Creator in Obama's remarks came at the end when he thanked the audience and said, "God bless you."

This isn't the first time the president has selectively edited the Declaration in not acknowledging the role of God in bestowing these rights upon man. During a Sept. 15 speech before the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute's Annual Awards Gala, the president omitted the religious reference, but the White House dismissed criticism, saying that Obama "went off script and adlibbed when he made that mistake." But just a week later, the President made the exact same "mistake" speaking during another fundraiser, this time in New York City.

When asked why the president did not use the words "endowed by their Creator" in his Monday speech, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters Tuesday, "I can assure you the president believes in the Declaration of Independence."

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-continues-to-omit-creator-from-declaration-of-independence/

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

Say goodbye to traditional free checking

By PALLAVI GOGOI 2010-10-19T22:30:59Z

NEW YORK (AP) -- Free checking as we know it is ending. The days when you could walk into a bank branch and open an account with no charges and no strings attached appear to be over. Now you have to jump through some hoops - keep a high balance, use direct deposit or swipe your debit card several times a month....

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_BANK_OF_AMERICA_END_OF_FREE_CHECKING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

Trade War Erupts Between U.S. and China?

HONG KONG — China, which has been blocking shipments of crucial minerals to Japan for the last month, has now quietly halted shipments of some of those same materials to the United States and Europe, three industry officials said on Tuesday.
 
The Chinese action, involving rare earth minerals that are crucial to manufacturing many advanced products, seems certain to further ratchet up already rising trade and currency tensions with the West. Until recently, China typically sought quick and quiet accommodations on trade issues. But the interruption in rare earth supplies is the latest sign from Beijing that Chinese officials are willing to use their growing economic muscle.
 
"The embargo is expanding" beyond Japan, said one of the three rare earth industry officials, all of whom insisted on anonymity for fear of business retaliation by Chinese authorities. They said Chinese customs officials imposed the broader shipment restrictions Monday morning, hours after a top Chinese official had summoned international news media Sunday night to denounceUnited States trade actions.
 
China mines 95 percent of the world's rare earth elements, which have broad commercial and military applications, and are vital to the manufacture of diverse products including large wind turbines and guided missiles. Any curtailment of Chinese supplies of rare earths is likely to be greeted with alarm in Western capitals, particularly because Western companies are believed to keep much smaller stockpiles of rare earths than Japanese companies do.
 
China's commerce ministry has repeatedly denied that it has imposed an embargo on shipments to Japan, even though Japanese ministers and industry executives say the shipments to their country have been systematically blocked by Chinese customs officials since Sept. 21.

http://www.thefoxnation.com/china-us-relations/2010/10/19/trade-war-erupts-between-us-and-china

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

Sikh Temple Visit Dropped Over 'Muslim Obama' Fears

Barack Obama has reportedly abandoned plans to visit Amritsar's Golden Temple during his visit to India next month over fears that photographs of him with his head covered would revive false claims that he is a Muslim.
 
Members of Mr Obama's White House team reportedly visited India last month and told Indian officials of their concerns.
 
Mr Obama, whose father was a non-observant Muslim, has been dogged by rumours regarding his faith since his battle for the Democratic presidential nomination against Hillary Clinton in 2008. At times since becoming president he has highlighted the fact that his middle name is Hussein to boost his credibility abroad.
 
In August, a poll conducted by Time magazine found that almost one in four Americans thought he was a follower of Islam. The results came days after he waded into the dispute over controversial plans to build an Islamic centre near the site of the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York.
 
Temple sources said on Tuesday that three teams of officials from the U.S. embassy in New Delhi had visited them in the past six weeks but that they were unaware there was any concern over wearing a headscarf. According to the Indian Express, one American official had told his Indian counterparts that Mr Obama had to remind America "each day that he should not be mistaken for Muslim just because his middle name is Hussein".

http://www.thefoxnation.com/international/2010/10/19/sikh-temple-visit-dropped-over-muslim-obama-fears

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

AP sources: US to tell Congress of Saudi arms deal

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration is expected to notify Congress on Wednesday of a multibillion-dollar sale of fighter jets and military helicopters to Saudi Arabia, officials said Tuesday. The State Department scheduled a news conference for Wednesday to announce the deal, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the notification had not yet [...]

http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/19/ap-sources-us-to-tell-congress-of-saudi-arms-deal/

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

HHS Waivers and the Three I’s of Obamacare

Yuval Levin has made the important point that, when HHS granted waivers exempting some employer health plans from Obamacare's prohibition on annual benefit limits, it was the "kind of government by whim, and not by law" that is "the essence of the regulatory state." It is indeed a very troubling effect, and one that will be a byproduct of numerous other Obamacare provisions as well.

That said, it is worth noting that the "McDonald's issue" also highlights the ignorance and incompetence behind the crafting of this health-care legislation.

As to the first: Anyone with more than a passing familiarity with health-insurance markets should be aware of the existence of the so-called "mini-med" plans in question. Mini-med health plans are essentially the mirror image of "high-deductible" plans. They cover routine care with little or no co-pays, but not major medical expenses. Most people probably don't know that, it's true, but it's simply inexcusable to be a congressman (or a congressional health staffer) responsible for writing this legislation and not realize that prohibiting health plans from setting annual coverage limits will drive mini-med plans out of the market.

As to the second: Setting aside whether or not one thinks it's good public policy to regulate mini-meds out of existence, consider that Obamacare's designers had not one, but two very simple legislative fixes available to them, both of which could easily have prevented the substantive (and public-relations) problems they created for themselves on this score.

One option would have been to simply delay the effective date of the prohibition on annual coverage limits until after 2014, when the legislation's new subsidies for more comprehensive coverage become available to workers losing their current mini-med coverage.

The other option would have been to exempt mini-meds plans from the new coverage requirement by definitionally excluding them as a form of "supplemental coverage." This second approach even has a statutory precedent that Obamacare's designers should have been well aware of. Specifically, the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) — Congress's first and much more limited foray into federal regulation of health plans — established a list of "supplemental" coverages that are exempted from requirements imposed on comprehensive medical insurance. Such exempted insurance products include dental-only, vision-only, workman's compensation, long-term care, etc. Obamacare does nothing to alter those existing statutory exemptions, and Congress could easily have avoided this issue by adding mini-med plans to that list.

Thus, if the McDonald's plan in question were instead, say, a dental plan, the coverage would clearly be exempt — under both current law and Obamacare — and it would never have become an issue or a PR problem for the administration and for Obamacare supporters.

While this may all seem somewhat arcane, it is far from arcane to the million-plus workers for whom continuation of their current coverage is now contingent on the politically motivated decisions of HHS political appointees.

The whole law is bad policy. But even if one agrees with the policy, one can still recognize that the legislation itself was badly executed. The way for conservatives to drive Obamacare's negatives even higher than they already are is by repeatedly reinforcing the theme that Obamacare is the product of three "I" words: ideology, ignorance, and incompetence. The more negative the public's opinion of Obamacare becomes, the more likely repeal becomes, regardless of the partisan make-up of the next Congress.

So far, conservatives have done a fairly good job focusing on the ideology part, but we can do more to highlight the other two. It is also a message conservatives can take to those who may not object to Obamacare's ideological underpinnings as strongly as we do, but who will become increasingly disillusioned with its results as they unfold.

Cross-posted at Critical Condition.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/10/19/hhs-waivers-and-the-three-i%e2%80%99s-of-obamacare/

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

Obamacare and Abortion: The Facts

Today, Americans United for Life held a telephone press conference to discuss a hot political topic: Did Obamacare mark a huge expansion of abortion? This is important, because many self-identified pro-life Democrats voted for Obamacare, and some of those are up for reelection in races where this question has taken center stage.

The answer is yes, Obamacare did mark a significant expansion of abortion. It violated one plank of the "Hyde Amendment principles" (Hyde itself does not apply, since Obamacare is funded outside of Health & Human Services appropriations): no federal funding of insurance plans that provide abortions. The state exchanges established under Obamacare will certainly include plans that cover abortion. These plans will receive federal subsidies, thus violating Hyde principles. The meaningless "restriction" in the law is that the subsidies go to the insurance provider, not the individual, and that the abortions are paid for from a pool established by mandatory monthly payments by insurees. And even this restriction lapses if Hyde itself is not renewed (it is subject to yearly renewal).

Beyond this, there are virtually no restrictions on abortion in Obamacare. Funding streams such as those through Community Health Centers were thus unaffected. And while that particular problem was addressed in Obama's executive order, the order failed to address anything else.

For instance, one loophole left open by the EO involved the high-risk pools. In fact, HHS would have directly funded abortion thereunder but for the protests of pro-life advocates. But HHS' initial decision came as no surprise. As both the Congressional Research Service and the pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Rights pointed out, there was no legal restriction against HHS approving such funding since neither the law itself nor the executive order forbade it.

Another loophole left unclosed by the EO is the meaning of "preventive care," which must be covered by all private insurance plans under the new law. The government can define it to include abortion. If so, every insurance plan -- not just those on the state exchanges -- would have to cover it. This is a hole wide enough to drive the proverbial truck through.

Finally, one thing we know from court decisions in many circuits is that unless abortion is expressly prohibited, courts will read it into laws providing for health-care services.

In short, Obamacare marked a decisive pro-abortion shift. Representatives who voted for it should not be surprised if their constituents hold them accountable for doing so.

— William L. Saunders is a senior vice-president at Americans United for Life.

William L. Saunders

http://www.nationalreview.com/critical-condition/250356/obamacare-and-abortion-facts-william-l-saunders

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

Is the EPA banning the most useful chemical in the world?

Siloxane, a silicone compound, has become the latest target of the nanny statists at the EPA.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/19/is-the-epa-banning-the-most-useful-chemical-in-the-world/

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

UnitedHealth Says 2011 Profit May Drop as Costs Rise

UnitedHealth Group Inc., the biggest U.S. insurer by sales, said 2011 profit may decline because of rising medical costs and the U.S. health-care overhaul. The forecast sent the company's shares down the most in two weeks.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-10-19/unitedhealth-says-2011-profit-may-drop-as-costs-rise.html

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

More Tolerance from The Religion of Peace: Muslims Raid Chechen Parliament, Slaughter 6

Brought to you by the same Muslims who committed the most heinous crimes against humanity at Beslan.

Countdown to Christiane Amanpour apologizing for these barbarians...3....2...1....

Islamic militants raid Chechen parliament, 6 dead Yahoo

GROZNY, Russia – Islamic insurgents attacked Chechnya's parliament Tuesday in a brazen suicide raid that left six people dead and 17 wounded, defying Kremlin claims of stability in the volatile southern region.

In a clear challenge to Moscow, the raid occurred just as Russia's interior minister was visiting the provincial capital of Grozny.

The three attackers drove to the tightly guarded parliament complex and got inside. One militant blew himself up at the doors and another two ran into the building shouting "Allahu akbar!" — "God is great!" in Arabic — as they opened fire on the people inside, said Chechen police spokesman Ramzan Bekkhoyev.

The regional chief prosecutor's office said the remaining two attackers also blew themselves up after exchanging fire with police, while other officials said they were killed in a gunbattle. Two police officers and a civilian government employee were killed in the raid and 17 others were wounded, prosecutors said.

Bloodstains, body parts and a decapitated corpse were still scattered outside the building hours after the attack as police and special forces backed by armored vehicles patrolled the area.

Allahu FUBAR.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/10/more-tolerance-from-the-religion-of-peace-muslims-raid-chenchen-parliament-slaughter-6.html

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

Gibbs: Obama Will Work to ‘Ensure’ DADT Passes During Lame Duck Congress

During Tuesday's press briefing, the press corps grilled Robert Gibbs on the president's stance on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Far from clarifying the president's position, Gibbs left reporters baffled.

However, he did make two things clear: the president will work to "ensure" DADT is repealed during the lame duck session of Congress, and Republicans will bear the responsibility of not properly funding the military should they refuse to vote for the defense bill that contains the repeal amendment.

(H/T: Mediaite)

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/gibbs-obama-will-work-to-ensure-dadt-passes-during-lame-duck-congress/

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

GREAT MERCIFUL ZEUS: Obamacare intentionally designed to give Muslims free healthcare and make Chri

We invite all of you, especially lawyers and scholars, to punch holes in our reasoning with this if you can…but last night when the lot of us were sitting around talking about Obamacare something dawned on us that we have not seen reported anywhere.  The puzzle pieces are all there, but no one has apparently [...]

http://hillbuzz.org/2010/10/19/great-merciful-zeus-obamacare-intentionally-designed-to-give-muslims-free-healthcare-and-make-christians-pay-for-it/

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

Democrats' New Mission Same as the Old Mission: Selling the Failed Stimulus

“It’s awful hard to say it’s [$1.2 trillion stimulus] working…but if the dog hadn’t stopped would it have caught...

http://www.gop.gov/policy-news/10/10/19/democrats-new-mission-same-as

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

What’s the Worst That Could Happen With The New Health Law?

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is one of the largest and most complicated overhauls ever enacted. Policy experts continue to debate the impact it will have.

Among the issues that has raised concerns is its cost. Supporters point to an estimate by the Congressional Budget Office that the law will reduce the nation's budget deficit by about $140 billion over the next 10 years.

But according to an analysis by The Heritage Foundation, the health overhaul could end up costing American taxpayers millions of dollars in higher health insurance premiums or put a tremendous amount of pressure on an already soaring national debt. The foundation offers an interactive Web calculator where readers can test their own judgments about the effect of the law, too.

We investigated what would happen to the estimates from the Congressional Budget Office, the official scorekeeping arm of Congress charged with analyzing the budget implications of legislative proposals, if different assumptions were made about how the health overhaul will work. This is important because, during the health reform legislative debates, CBO provided Congress with cost estimates and impact reports about the bill. But CBO scores can be gamed. One rule Congress has repeatedly abused is that the CBO must score legislation as if all the provisions in a bill end up being enacted exactly as intended. But that rarely ever happens, especially with a law that calls for a massive change to one-sixth of the U.S. economy.

For instance, the agency's baseline assumed that the alternative minimum tax will never be patched or another Medicare "Doc Fix" to prevent a big cut in doctors' reimbursements will never happen. Yet both of these short-term fixes have occurred every year since the issues arose more than a decade ago. Recognizing how political realities often are at odds with projected outcomes, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf recently acknowledged that certain parts of the estimates are unrealistic because public outcry and political maneuvering likely won't allow some of the legislation's key provisions to take effect.

Since CBO is confined in its estimates, Heritage decided to draw from a larger crowd of outside experts to determine what happens if certain overhaul provisions don't deliver, or the results are better than expected. We looked at seven factors that came up repeatedly during the health reform debate, and then analyzed how various changes to each one could alter the CBO's final scorecard.

Those factors include the individual mandate which, beginning in 2014, will require almost everyone to buy health insurance; planned Medicare cuts; expected losses in employer coverage; a new "Cadillac" tax on rich benefit plans as well as other new health care taxes; more adoption of health information technology; and a reduction in health insurers' administrative costs.

The calculator draws on estimates from sources such as Harvard economist David Cutler, The Lewin Group and includes estimates from former CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who has suggested that the number of individuals covered by employer-sponsored insurance will undergo a larger change than what the official CBO score approximated.

Our findings demonstrate just how sensitive the CBO's scorecard can be when slight differences are applied to the agency's underlying assumptions. For instance, if only 40 percent of the scheduled Medicare cuts actually occur, the law will push up the federal deficit by more than $132 billion in the first 10 years.

In addition, if 14 million Americans (rather than the 8 million predicted by the CBO) end up leaving their employer-sponsored health plans, the federal deficit would jump by more than $300 billion. This could happen because more are enrolled in Medicaid or qualify for subsidies to purchase coverage in national health insurance exchanges.

And, because the health law imposes a 2.3 percent excise tax on medical devices (such as powered wheelchairs, hearing aids, breast-milk pumps, prosthetics, replacement joints, and diagnostic tools like MRI and CT scanners), that tax will likely be passed down to consumers (patients) in the form of higher premiums. Common economic theory explains that the burden of any tax is likely to be shared between the supplier and consumer.

The bottom line is that no one knows what the exact impact of health law will be once all of its provisions go into effect, which will take many years to occur and analyze. Americans need to be prepared for what they could face if it fails to meet up to CBO expectations.

Co-authored by Paul Winfreee.

Cross-posted at Kaiser Health News.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/10/19/whats-the-worst-that-could-happen-with-the-new-health-law/

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

If Dems lose, Obama will blame everyone but himself

Obama will blame voters, not himself. At a small fundraiser in Massachusetts Saturday, Obama suggested Democrats are in trouble because recession-weary Americans simply aren't thinking clearly.

By: Byron York at Washington Examiner

EXCERPTS:

All indications coming out of the White House suggest that if Democrats suffer major losses, the president and his top aides will resolutely refuse to reconsider the policies — national health care, stimulus, runaway spending — that led to their defeat.

Obama will spin the outcome as an illegitimate GOP victory. In recent weeks, the president and top administration officials have accused the Chamber of Commerce of illegally using foreign contributions to fund ads critical of Democrats.

Obama will blame a broken process.

Obama will reaffirm, not reconsider, his achievements.

Obama will resist real change inside the White House.

Tie all those threads together, and in the wake of a Republican victory in November you can virtually guarantee the White House will not concede that the president hurt himself by pushing an unpopular national health care program through Congress; by pushing nearly a trillion dollars in stimulus spending that failed to reduce unemployment as predicted; by pushing a costly cap-and-trade agenda; or by advocating any number of other initiatives that flew in the face of voter sentiments.

FULL STORY

http://usactionnews.com/2010/10/if-dems-lose-obama-will-blame-everyone-but-himself/

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

Chicago, Other Cities Face Huge Tab for Their Government Pensions

It turns out that many city public pension plans are just as underfunded as various state plans are. For instance, Chicago has only about $22 billion in pension assets to pay for $66 billion in pension promises to its city workers, while New York City has $93 billion available to pay $215 billion in city pension promises, and Boston has only $3.5 billion available to pay $11 billion in promises. That means that every household in Chicago has a liability of about $42,000 just to pay pensions to city workers, while each household in New York City owes $39,000, and each in Boston owes about $31,000. These are existing pension promises and would remain the same even if that city's pension plans were frozen.

A new report by Robert Novy-Marx of the University of Rochester and Jonathan Rauh of Northwestern University—the same academics who did an earlier report on underfunded state pension plans—says that major pension plans for city workers have a combined estimated underfunding of $574 billion. This is on top of the $1.8 trillion to $3.4 trillion underfunding for state public pensions.

The report covers 77 major public employee pension plans located in 50 major cities and counties, accounting for about two-thirds of workers covered by city and county pension plans. Using more realistic estimations of the underfunding of each plan than is used by most public pensions, the report paints a dire picture of the burden that taxpayers face unless they can find a legal way to reduce those costs.

However, not all public pension plans are underfunded, and they are certainly not equally underfunded. Certain cities have done a better job of controlling their pension promises or funding them than others.

Chicago takes first prize in underfunded city pensions, and this in a state that already has such seriously underfunded state employee pension plans that each household in the city already owes $29,000 just for the state plans. The authors estimate that the combined underfunding of the two jurisdictions equals about $71,000 per household.

However, other city pension funds are so underfunded that they could run out of money in the next few years regardless of the amount owed per household. In order, the first 10 to run out of money unless they do some major reforms quickly are as follows:

1.                  Philadelphia: $9 billion underfunding ($16,700 per household) in 2015
2.                  Chicago: $45 billion underfunding ($42,000 per household) in 2019
3.                  Boston: $7.5 billion underfunding ($31,000 per household) in 2019
4.                  Cincinnati: $4 billion underfunding ($15,700 per household) in 2020
5.                  St. Paul, MN: $1.4 billion underfunding ($13,700 per household) in 2020
6.                  Jacksonville, FL: $4 billion underfunding ($13,000 per household) in 2020
7.                  New York City: $122 billion underfunding ($38,900 per household in 2021
8.                  Baltimore: $3.7 billion underfunding ($15,400 per household) in 2022
9.                  Detroit: $6.4 billion underfunding ($18,600 per household) in 2023
10.              Fort Worth, TX: $2 billion underfunding ($7,200 per household) in 2023

As this list indicates, the city public pensions plans must be fixed quickly, or the situation will get even worse. Unfortunately, most of these cities are doing nothing major at this point. For instance, Chicago has been given a funding holiday by the state legislature, a move that is almost certain to make the problem grow very rapidly.

Cities and counties can receive aid from the states or declare bankruptcy. However, they must solve their own problems and not turn to the federal government for a bailout. Such a move would only guarantee that many cities would go back to their bad habits, convinced that a federal handout awaits them once they get into trouble again.

http://blog.heritage.org/2010/10/19/chicago-other-cities-face-huge-tab-for-their-government-pensions/

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

US House Whip-Up Tue 10/19/10: 1 in 4 dems leave Obama? Try 1 in 3

The Hill reports that Speaker Pelosi acknowledges: "We all know that not enough has been accomplished," Pelosi added. "We need many, many more jobs."  What the Speaker conveniently left out is that while she has served as Speaker for the last four years & Democrats have had complete control of Washington for two, they have failed to focus on jobs and in the process made it harder for businesses to expand and grow.  Now that the chickens are coming home to roost, the Speaker thinks  that she can simply say the word 'jobs' and all will be well.   Well, Speaker Pelosi has tried that before and now even the Democrats' base appears ready to jump ship.  A new CBS News poll out this morning, now shows one in three Democrats are prepared to vote against the Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda.   That's astounding.

Now on to the news …

AGENDA WATCH: Americans Are Continuing To Reject The Obama/Pelosi Agenda Because It Hasn't Focused On Jobs

1 In 3 Democrats Say They Are Prepared To Vote Against President Obama's Agenda. Only two-thirds of Democrats who voted for President Obama in 2008 say they'll vote for one of his fellow Democrats in 2010. The biggest erosion of support is among independents; just 42 percent of Obama's 2008 independent voters say they'll support a Democrat this year.  CBS News

Speaker Pelosi Acknowledges The Democrats' Failure To Focus On Jobs. "We all know that not enough has been accomplished," Pelosi added. "We need many, many more jobs."  The Hill

Herbert:  Democrats Always Had Something To Focus On Other Then What Americans Wanted …Jobs. Employment never seemed to be the top priority. What ordinary voters see is an economy that is not working for them and an increasingly dismal outlook for their children. From that perspective, the enormous budget deficits don't seem to be providing much of a tangible return. … Democrats are in trouble because they have not been nearly aggressive enough in confronting this profound economic crisis facing so many millions of ordinary Americans. The New York Times

Change … Only 16% Of Obama Voters Believe In. The one-word slogan that defined candidate Obama's campaign, "change" has been hard to come by, according to those surveyed. Just 16 percent of Obama voters believe he has brought significant change to the way Washington works. Almost half (48 percent) of independents say he's brought little change, or none at all.  CBS News

THE ECONOMY:  Democrats Are Rethinking Their Economic Beliefs As Keynesian Economics Fails To Get The Economy Back On Track

Keynesian Economics On The Ropes?  Democrats Distance Themselves From The Stimulus. For decades, Keynesian policies, which call for government spending to make up for the shortfall in private-sector demand during an economic downturn, have been a central element of the Democratic tool kit and a principle of the party's identity. But the unpopularity of the stimulus package signed into law by President Obama has left many Democrats in competitive races distancing themselves from such programs, raising questions about whether the party is beginning a more fundamental rethinking of its approach to the economy.  The New York Times

$814 Billion Spent Yet Unemployment Is Expected To Rise. Gallup on Monday predicted that the government's unemployment rate report for October will be between 9.7 and 9.9 percent when it is released on Nov. 5.  Unemployment for September was 9.6 percent.  The Hill

HEALTH CARE UPDATE:  More Americans Are Forced To Pay Higher Rates For Their Health Care Due To ObamaCare

Fallout:  Roughly 90,000 Boeing Employees Will Pay Higher Prices For Insurance. Responding to what it says are rapidly rising costs, including some as a result of the new health-care bill, Boeing Co. plans to increase the price of employee health insurance for its non-union workforce over the next few years.  In a letter sent to the roughly 90,000 affected employees on Oct. 14 by Rick Stephens, Boeing's senior vice president for human resources, the company lays out a plan that will phase in higher employee costs for deductibles, co-payments and co-insurance during 2011. In 2012, the letter says, employees under a certain type of plan will see their coinsurance payments go from 10% to 20% up to the out-of-pocket maximum. … "The newly enacted health care reform legislation, while intended to expand access to care for millions of uninsured Americans, is also adding cost pressure as requirements of the new law are phased in over the next several years," he wrote. The Wall Street Journal

WHAT TO WATCH

Thiessen:  Who's Funding The Democrats' Ads? … it's time for the Democrats to start answering the same charges that they leveled against the Chamber and American Crossroads with such abandon. Is organized labor using foreign money to elect Democrats this November? To paraphrase the president, they could be — we just don't know.  The Washington Post

Fund: Speaking of Foreign Money, What About Obama's? The Wall Street Journal

Democrats' Grip On The South Continues To Slip … The New York Times

99 Problems … Politico

IN OTHER NEWS

• Upton: Declaring War On The Regulatory State
• CNN: U.S. Finalizing Aid Package To Help Pakistan Fight Extremists
• Ignatius: Petraeus Rewrites The Playbook In Afghanistan
• Scarborough: Desperate Obama Tries Demogoguery

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/patriotroom/eKBL/~3/yhEuGKajteY/

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

Fwd: Some Company Retirees Can’t Keep Their Health Care Plan After All

October 19, 2010 Some Company Retirees Can't Keep Their Health Care Plan After All Late last month global consulting firm Towers Watson started sending its retirees scary notices that their health-care premiums were about to go up substantially. Some retirees point to Obamacare as the source of their woes, and even the company warns that "health care reform may affect the future of all retiree medical coverage." Retirees such as Joan Mitchell said the change could be devastating. She's 75 years old and her husband, George, a retiree of Sun Oil Co., is 84. The two live on fixed incomes. "We live within our means," Mitchell said. "This could affect our means." Mitchell worked for Towers Perrin, a precursor to Towers Watson, for 22 years. She started as an executive secretary and eventually became an internal consultant with a staff of 20 people. Towers Watson, which employs 14,000 associates, currently subsidizes the cost of retiree medical and dental coverage by contributing a fixed percentage of premiums — but, as of Jan. 1, 2012, it will cap its contributions at a set dollar amount. The change ultimately means retirees will pay more for medical care starting in 2013, while the company's share will remain the same. For example, if the monthly premium for a retiree is $250 and Towers Watson's subsidy is 70 percent, the company would contribute $175 a month and the retiree would pay $75. If that premium increased to $300 in 2013, Towers Watson would continue to pay $175 per month and the retiree's cost would increase to $125, reflecting the $50 premium increase. Just why the company decided to change its plan now is unclear — but Mitchell said she thinks it's a response to Obamacare. "Well, we know why," she said. "It's because of what's happening in Washington." The company, which confirmed the policy change, disputed the assertion that it's directly related to Obamacare. "It really was not the sole driver behind our decision," said Lisa Swatland, global leader in external communications and media relations for Towers Watson. "The policy has changed, but health care reform was not the driver &hellip We had a merger, as you may know, so we were aligning our company benefits and taking a look at a lot of different things because we had to bring the two together." Mitchell was troubled by the notice not only because of the adjustment it did include, but also because it hinted at changes to come. In it, Towers Watson reserves the right "to make further changes to [retiree] benefits, including increasing the cost of coverage or eliminating coverage entirely. Also note that that (sic) health care reform may affect the future of all retiree medical coverage." Mitchell's been relatively healthy, she said, but last year she had to have a stent placed in her heart. "I'm getting older now, and I was very happy to have the kind of coverage that I had," she said. "When I got this letter, I thought, 'What if I have to do something like this again and they drop my coverage? At our age, where would we even get coverage?" Mitchell's not the only retiree who's concerned. Albert Hill worked for the firm in finance for nearly 20 years, and his wife, Mary, worked for the company for about 30 years and is now on the company's long-term disability plan. Hill won't be immediately affected by the change — he's currently covered as a dependent under his wife's insurance — but, while his wife is considered an active employee now, she'll eventually retire and the policy change will hit them hard at that point. Hill has no question it's connected to Obamacare. "Personally, I think it's intrinsically linked into that, especially with some of the surveys Towers Watson has done right after the bill was signed," he said. One such Towers Watson survey, for example, revealed a majority of employers anticipate that health care reform will increase their organization's health benefit costs. Some 88 percent of respondents plan to pass on the increase to employees and 74 percent plan to reduce health benefits and programs, according to the survey. Towers Watson might have conducted that research, but Swatland maintained that Obamacare does not entirely account for the policy adjustment, But as Hill put it, "It almost states that it's linked in with health care. If it's not linked in, why even bring it up?" The question of what really did motivate the firm has sparked fierce online debate among retirees. The manner in which Towers Watson notified retirees has also raised eyebrows. Towers Watson, which advises other organizations in the areas of employee benefits, talent management, rewards and risk and capital management, didn't follow its own guidance about the importance of internal communication, retirees said. A notice one day simply appeared in their mailboxes, undated and unsigned — and it wasn't even on company letterhead. "It looks like somebody just ran [it] off on a Xerox machine," Mitchell said. "'Subject: Retiree Medical Cost Sharing.' How cold can you get?" This article was first published in The Washington Examiner by Tina Korbe, a reporter in the Center for Media and Public Policy at The Heritage Foundation. RECENT ENTRIES The Verdict Is In: Medicare Advantage Will Suffer Under Obamacare A Legal Victory on the Road to Repeal The States to Speaker Pelosi: They're Serious Share Today's Side Effects Facebook Myspace Digg Linkdin Twitter   Facebook Twitter YouTube Kindle Flickr Support our work by becoming a member with your gift of $25 or more. The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002-4999 Call us at (202) 546-4400 Add newsletters@heritage.org to your address book to ensure that you receive emails from us.