HEADLINES

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

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.








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However, he did make two things clear: the president will work to "ensure" DADT is repealed during the lame duck session of Congress, and Republicans will bear the responsibility of not properly funding the military should they refuse to vote for the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








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 [...]







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...







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.








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








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.








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 WATCHAmericans 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








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
FacebookFacebookMyspaceMyspace
Digg IconDiggLinkdinLinkdin
TwitterTwitter 

facebookFacebooktwitterTwitteryoutubeYouTubeyoutubeKindleyoutubeFlickr
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.

Amid reports of bin Laden living under protection of Pakistan's ISI, U.S. finalizing new aid package

Funding Pakistan's double game for another round, even while reports emerge of bin Laden and al-Zawahiri living in Pakistan under ISI protection, and even after years of Pakistan's demonstrable aiding and abetting of jihadists, including the ISI's backing of the Taliban inside Afghanistan.

The U.S. is allowing itself to be blackmailed, sending Pakistan the message that Washington can be leveraged with the choice of the ongoing, duplicitous policy, or losing even the friendly lip service to cooperation, such as the insistence of Pakistan's Foreign Ministry spokesman: "Let me reiterate that Pakistan is committed not to allow its territory for terrorist actions anywhere in the world."

Except when it does. Funny how that keeps happening.

According to Bob Woodward's book, Obama's Wars, the status of U.S. relations with Pakistan was like a "cold shower" for the Obama administration. And yet, Pakistan is in line for another $2 billion funded on the backs of the American taxpayer. "Sources: U.S. finalizing aid package to help Pakistan fight extremists," by Elise Labott for CNN, October 18:

Washington (CNN) -- The Obama administration is putting the final touches on a security assistance package totaling as much as $2 billion over five years to help Pakistan fight extremists on its border with Afghanistan, senior U.S. officials and diplomatic sources tell CNN.
The aid is expected to be announced later this week when Pakistani officials are in Washington to hold high-level talks.
The package aims to address Pakistan's insistence it does not have the capability to go after terrorists, and needs more support from the United States, the sources said. The aid will help the Pakistanis purchase helicopters, weapons systems and equipment to intercept communications.

They need more support, they say, after squandering money financing the jihad against India and propping up jihadist groups in Kashmir.

It falls under the United States' Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program, which provides grants and loans to countries to purchase weapons and defense equipment produced in the United States. It also includes more counterinsurgency assistance to Pakistani troops and a program allowing members of the Pakistani military to study at American war colleges.
The $2 billion package is on top of billions of dollars the United States already gives Pakistan in military aid and a $7.5 billion aid package over five years in non-military counter-terrorism assistance approved by Congress last year.
"They [sic] key is to beef up their ability to go after militants, it can't be diverted to other threats," one senior U.S. official said.
Pakistan has long claimed its military is geared toward defending itself against threats from countries like India, and does not have the kind of equipment it needs to fight insurgents. U.S. officials said they recognize Pakistan's current military hardware is not perfectly suited toward such operations, but made clear the new aid must be directed toward fighting extremists, rather than India....

There is that military adage: "Hope is not a method." What substantive measures is Washington willing to take to avoid funding the jihad with taxpayer money via Islamabad?








Sent from my iPhone

Heritage Foundation

DrudgeFeed.com - Drudge Report RSS feed

RedState

Right Wing News

RenewAmerica

Hot Air » Top Picks

Conservative Outpost

Conservative Examiner

Michelle Malkin

Big Government

Big Journalism

Big Hollywood

Pajamas Media