August 12th, 2009

Donald Luskin,

Workers Wages will go down if Obamacare Passes

It’s going to hammer labor wages. Here’s a technical paper by two scholars from pay and benefits consultant Watson Wyatt [you can download it, but first there’s a simple and free registration procedure]. A very well-informed reader who asked for anonymity sums it up nicely:

A lengthy study co-authored by Steven Nyce and Syl Schieber was released today that could well have devastating implications for the health care reform debate if it’s widely disseminated and properly understood. (Syl Schieber is a noted pension/benefits expert with Watson Wyatt. He’s currently chairman of the Social Security Advisory Board, and served on the Clinton Administration’s Social Security Advisory Council of 1994-96.)

In a nutshell, the study models the costs to worker wages of expanding health care coverage, under various health care cost inflation scenarios.

Read the Report:

Caution: Obama’s weird scientists at work

Lead Story

Caution: Obama’s weird scientists at work

By Michelle Malkin  •  August 12, 2009 01:09 PM

Nature reports that all the president’s science experts met last week “mull priorities.” Heading the meeting? Eugenics-embracer and science czar John Holdren.

Pay attention:

An elite group of 21 US researchers met publicly for the first time last week as the new advisory panel to US President Barack Obama on scientific and technical matters. But despite an enthusiastic inaugural meeting, it will take time to know how effective the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) will be.

PCAST has already put together its first report, on the government’s H1N1 pandemic strategy. Other topics likely to be high on its agenda include how science can help the economic recovery, and how best to deliver on Obama’s ambitious climate and energy research portfolio.

Opening the meeting on 6 August, co-chair John Holdren called the council “a spectacular cast of leaders of our science, technology and innovation communities”. Holdren, who is Obama’s chief science adviser, chairs PCAST with Harold Varmus, former director of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, and Eric Lander, director of the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The full group boasts three Nobel laureates and 16 members of the national academies of science, engineering or medicine.

The blogosphere and alternative media are the only sources of skepticism and investigation into Holdren’s radical views. The White House czar’s office continues to stonewall. The MSM continues to yawn.

No matter.

Blogger and Internet journalist Zombie, who first posted extensive PDF images of Holdren’s mass sterilization/forced abortion tract, Ecoscience, is back with a new report on Holdren’s intellectual mentor and colleague, Harrison Brown — whose work I called attention to last month.

Read it all here. Pass it on. Spread the word. The truth will out.

Anti-gun Propaganda from Time Magazine

Anti-gun Propaganda from Time Magazine

Lance Fairchok
In a Time Magazine article entitled “Obama’s Mexico Mission: Keep Guns in El Norte” Journalist Ioan Grillo conjures up images of back alley gun deals where Americans sell sniper rifles, machine guns and other “heavy weapons” to Mexican drug lords who load them in unmarked panel trucks and smuggle them south. With all the melodrama and sensationalism of a dime store detective novel, Grillo tells us that “vast arsenals” flow south from the United States.

“But seven months into Obama’s administration the guns keep flowing south and show no sign of abating. Mexican government raids continue to turn up vast arsenals of brand new firearms that can be traced to shops north of the Rio Grande.”   IOAN GRILLO, Time Magazine


It would be despicably evil stuff, selling “vast arsenals” to brutal murderers who use them against innocent civilians and police. Luckily it’s not true.  Virtually nothing in Grillo’s article is supportable by real evidence. In fact his article reads like a progressive left talking paper on how to build support for gun restrictions in the US, “to help Mexico” against the drug cartels.  Strangely, it is published as President Obama visits that corrupt and blighted country.  If you think that’s a coincidence I have a bridge in Juarez to sell you.


The truth is not hard to find, unless of course you are unconcerned with truth and care more for your ideology.  Let’s look at some facts that the legacy press will not tell you, omitting them from your view as they program the American public with the anti-gun perspective they support.  


FOX news reported in April 09 that:


“In 2007-2008, according to ATF Special Agent William Newell, Mexico submitted 11,000 guns to the ATF for tracing. Close to 6,000 were successfully traced — and of those, 90 percent — 5,114 to be exact, according to testimony in Congress by William Hoover — were found to have come from the U.S.
“But in those same two years, according to the Mexican government, 29,000 guns were recovered at crime scenes.
“In other words, 68 percent of the guns that were recovered were never submitted for tracing. And when you weed out the roughly 6,000 guns that could not be traced from the remaining 32 percent, it means 83 percent of the guns found at crime scenes in Mexico could not be traced to the U.S.”


Only 17 percent, not exactly what we heard from Grillo and his pals in the nation’s newsrooms was it?  FOX did not make these numbers up; they got them from the ATF.  So where do all the guns come from?  Mostly through Central and South America, Mexico is a smugglers paradise, where bribes, kickbacks and payoffs are a way of life.  Every imaginable weapon can be found in the Mexican black market, including Korean grenades, Belgian rifles, and Spanish rocket propelled grenades, Chinese explosives and fully automatic Russian assault rifles that cannot be purchased in the US. 


Many of the weapons come from the Mexican Army, mostly M-16s that deserting soldiers took with them when they left for the high pay the drug cartels provide (150,000 over the last six years according to FOX).  Hugo Chavez has been active also, facilitating drug and gun smuggling through terrorist groups like Columbia’s FARC. Ecuador, Bolivia, Cuba and Nicaragua and the rest of the Bolivarian Alliance also have their hands in the drug smuggling business. 


In May 2008 the Washington Post reported that one cartel went so far as to hang a banner recruiting soldiers across one of the busiest roads in Nuevo Laredo saying: “We’re offering you a good salary, food and medical care for your families.”  Los Zetas, a hit squad formed former Special Forces soldiers were behind the recruitment campaign. Mexico has deep seated cultural and political problems that go far beyond anything the US can do by restricting our citizen’s freedoms.    


The reason for Gallo’s article becomes apparent quickly. It originates from the usual suspects and is part of an agenda we have anticipated since Election Day. It is the typical straw man set up, following the Alinsky model. “You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments.”  Alinsky instructed in his book Rules for Radicals.  It is eminently moral to help a neighbor in need the Democrats will argue.  What compassionate American would not support a ban on terrible weapons that kill innocents in Mexico? 


“Obama concedes that one major problem in stopping the traffic is the strength of U.S. gun laws – and the gun lobby supporting them. Mexican officials have pushed for the United States to reinstate a Clinton-era ban on assault rifles. Such weapons – especially Kalashnikovs and AR15s – are behind the vast majority of Mexican gang killings. Both types of guns have been sold widely in Arizona and Texas since the U.S. ban on sale of assault weapons was repealed in 2004.”


Who is it in the Obama administration that sends out memos on appropriate topics for “progressive” journalists to write to compliment the Presidents agenda? You can anticipate heart-rending investigative reports exposing American complicity in the Mexican violence.  After all, for the left, every bad thing in the world is our fault.  Along with the press propaganda we will see legislation from Democrats to restrict, register and criminalize a wide variety of popular rifles and pistols; first will be the “assault rifles” with high capacity magazines.  Next will be anything that looks “military” regardless of function or capacity.  Next will be anything semi-automatic.  If that does not work they will try to restrict ammo, then private reloading, then gun shows, then concealed carry permits, and any number of concocted back door assaults on second amendment freedoms.  Grillo writing is a triumph of anti-gun exaggeration.


“The camcorder shakes as it films the thud of thick .50 caliber bullets ripping through a steel plate target in the heat of the Arizona desert. Panning across the jagged rocks and cacti, the camera then focuses on the shooter: a smiling Mexican sitting down on the dust as he uses both hands to fire the huge state-of-the-art weapon that can tear through tank armor. He was the happy customer, having bought the killing machine from an Arizona gun shop for about $21,000.”


He got ripped off.  A .50 caliber rifle only costs about three or four grand, or maybe Grillo made up the dollar amount to be more sensational.  It would be in keeping with the rest of his fallacious article.  Grillo is not a very good journalist.  He does very poor research. The rifle won’t pierce tank armor, and it’s not particularly state of the art. We used them in WW2.  Grillo should try fiction writing as he has already proven he has some skill at it.


Grillo is an advocacy journalist, which is to say he is a propagandist, part of a disinformation campaign whose tempo is picking up to follow Obama’s radical socialist vision.  A free people with guns will not be content to be ruled by elites, so the left is congenitally driven to control them. To achieve this they use the press as a weapon. What do we call it when the press conspires with government to mislead and deceive the American public?  We call it tyranny.  What do we do about it?  Show up to vote those responsible out in 2010.  As for Time Magazine and its lack of “ethics”, don’t buy it and don’t read it. Hit them in their pocket book.  There are still a few “free market” solutions left.

Page Printed from: at August 13, 2009 – 08:59:42 AM EDT

Never a teleprompter around when you need one

Never a teleprompter around when you need one

Ethel C. Fenig
What happens to President Barack Hussein Obama (D) without a teleprompter? He makes mistakes.

A lot of them.

Even when he awards the Medal of Freedom to tennis great Billie Jean King, Politico reports.

But he didn’t get any of it right, according to King herself.”They didn’t get any of my facts right,” King lightheartedly noted afterward. “Did you see all the – how many titles I won? I was cracking up.”

“Not even in the ballpark,” she continued.

She was good natured about Obama’s numerous mistakes; after all she still won all the medals, she still has her accomplishments and she definitely deserves the Medal of Freedom.

But what happens when Obama’s mistakes aren’t so correctable? When the outcomes are more serious? When he doesn’t have a teleprompter and Obama policies, on, for example, the economy, sink under its multi trillion dollar debt, ObamaCare is a disaster, and Iran continues to disengage from the US and continues its pursuit of nuclear weapons all implode?

With the stakes so high and so many impacted the reaction unfortunately can’t be as breezy as King’s.

“That’s not what’s important,” she explained. So when Obama got it wrong, “I thought even was more cute…I go, ‘Oh that’s really sweet.”



Page Printed from: at August 13, 2009 – 08:57:24 AM EDT

Connect the Dots on ObamaCare

Connect the Dots on ObamaCare

By Geoffrey P. Hunt

The use of logical corollary, a fancier way of saying connect the dots, has eluded the defenders of ObamaCare.  Critics of those who have exposed ObamCare’s contradictions and incoherencies are either unwilling to connect the dots or too stubborn (dare I say stupid) to acknowledge what the dots really mean.   Connecting the dots in this case doesn’t require unusual skills, much less a background in symbolic logic, merely perseverance in reading the text of HR 3200.


Let’s start with Sec 123, the formation of the Health Benefits Advisory Committee, and Sec 124, the creation of the Health Choices Administration and Health Choices Commissioner. Why have this committee, administration and commissioner? Simple, to run the public health care — read single payer — option, determine what benefits are to be covered and what the reimbursement rates will be. Running the single payer system would not be trivial, covering at least an additional 100 million people initially, managing claims of a trillion dollars per year, not counting the costs to run the system.


The new Health Choices Commissioner would be a cabinet level position. Remember how other modern era cabinet level jobs — EPA and Department of Energy — were rather modest when first established, but have mushroomed in 30 years  to consume nearly $40 billion every year from the federal budget and now control everything from septic tank standards to lightbulbs.


If Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress only intended to improve health care access to the chronically uninsured, around 15 million people, it would have been easy enough to fold them under Medicare and Health and Human Services. But of course, a single payer system eventually covering 300 million Americans would be impossible to run under any current government agency, thus necessitating a new stand alone bureaucracy on a scale rivaling the Pentagon. So when ObamaCare defenders try to tell you a single payer outcome isn’t in the works, then why the need for an enormous separate cabinet level bureaucracy? Connect the dots.


Let’s now turn to Sec 111, Prohibiting Pre-existing Conditions Exclusions, Sec 113 Insurance Rating Rules, Sec 116 Ensuring Value and Lower Premiums and Sec 121 Coverage of Essential Benefits. These and other mandates such as cost sharing limitations and bans on lifetime maximum out-of-pocket deductibles or co-pays have the apparent design to improve accessibility and availability of private insurance plans. But we already know these types of mandates will render private plans economically non-viable, as insurance premiums would be priced off the charts so no one individual or company could afford to buy coverage or underwrite a group plan. Of course the real story is that no company would choose to voluntarily subscribe to such extraordinary plan provisions and the costs they entail.  Many company sponsored comprehensive plans today carry costs as a percent to payroll of around 10 to 20%. These new mandates and coverage rules would double those costs, easily convincing the vast majority of company CFOs to abandon health care plans altogether, opting for the penalty box which is only 8% of payroll.  How to get 100 million Americans into a single payer plan within three years if not sooner? Connect the dots.


By the way, mandates driving out private health care are precisely why Obama’s comment about UPS, FedEx and the Post Office in Portsmouth NH was so asinine. Apart from the multi-billion dollar bleeding annually of the Postal Service, once more proving the federal government can’t run a business, UPS and FedEx are free from the government mandates that are suffocating the Postal Service. How long would UPS and FedEx survive if they had to maintain staffing for thousands of small town and rural post offices and guaranteed delivery six days a week to every residence anywhere charging rates that are a fraction of the cost?


Let’s turn to Title IV Subtitle A Comparative Effectiveness Research, “CER”, Sec 1401. In its purest form, evaluating and ranking the most effective clinical remedies for diseases and illnesses is innocent enough and widely endorsed, as an initiative independent from government carried out by the medical profession.  Dennis Cortez MD, CEO of the Mayo Clinic writes in the National Journal:


“In the case of comparative effectiveness, we can say it is a fundamental component to providing the highest quality, most effective, safest health care for individual patients.”


Darrell Kirch MD,  President and CEO of the Association of American Medical Colleges says  there four criteria to judge CER:


“1) diseases and disabilities that impose the heaviest personal burden on patients and financial burden on society; 2) conditions for which there is a high degree of uncertainty in the medical community about the “right” thing to do (given the range of approaches and interventions available) ; 3) decisions that have especially significant consequences for patients (e.g., high-risk interventions); and 4) questions for which the data we need are largely available and can be quickly gathered and analyzed”


Notice that neither Drs Cortez nor Kirch mention cost of remedies, economic value, productivity, nor a government agency to collect the data and rank effectiveness priorities. They only discuss CER in the context of the best and most effective patient outcomes from a clinical perspective.


But cost is clearly linked to CER in Obama’s mind when he says Medicare costs must come down 20%.  And the House bill in Sec 1401 amending the Social Security Act  establishes the CER Commission and a CER Center to “determine the national priorities in consultation with a broad array of stakeholders…including payers” and to “Make recommendations that enable…payers to make more informed health care  decisions that improve quality and value”. Now, who’s the number one payer under the HR 3200 public plan option? And isn’t value a cost measurement? Connect the dots.


And if mandated CER to be reported to “payers” isn’t enough to drive down cost by introducing CER ratios that factor cost and quality of life, Sec 1233 under Medicare, Advance Care Planning Consultation requires health care providers to have end-of-life discussions with patients and report to the HHS Secretary “quality measures on end-of-life care and advanced care planning that have been adopted by a consensus based organization.” Why devote over 100 paragraphs and some 500 lines of text to end-of-life consultations, living wills, health care proxies and reporting?  To reduce costly end-of-life interventions that extend the life of the elderly. Cost reduction derived from denying medical interventions in favor of more aggressive hospice is the only reason for such a preoccupation in the House bill. There is no other reason for such proposed legislation. None. Connect the dots.


Obama must assume we are fools when he tries to persuade us that this plan is anything but a complete federal takeover of health care coupled with medical treatment rationing to contain costs. It is impossible to come to any other conclusion. George Orwell said it best, “One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: No ordinary man could be such a fool.” 


The town hall uprisings and dramatic polling results of likely voters by Rasmussen showing that an overwhelming number of self-described Independents are opposed to ObamaCare  proves the American electorate are not fools. Ordinary people can read the text and connect the dots. Since we’re not fools, Obama must be one himself or simply lying to the nation. Connect the dots.

Page Printed from: at August 13, 2009 – 08:55:25 AM EDT

Obama’s Nazi Straw man: An Old Alinsky Trick

Obama’s Nazi Straw man: An Old Alinsky Trick

By Kyle-Anne Shiver

When I saw this video interview of Bill Burton, White House Deputy Press Secretary, I could not help but be reminded of one of old Saul Alinsky’s favorite fake-em-out tricks of the revolutionary trade.  Burton is reinforcing Pelosi’s earlier claim that people were carrying Swastikas at townhalls, but goes even further and claims that folks are actually “dressing up like Hitler.”


You got to give ole Saul a little credit.  He was one wily deceiver, right after his hero, Deceiver in Spades, Lucifer.


Saul Alinsky, crusader for the downtrodden, darling of the Auxiliary Archbishop of Chicago, was just an underachieving nobody with neither guts nor moral code, who flummoxed a whole lot of willing-to-be-deceived power seekers.  Saul Alinsky didn’t invent a single new thing.  His whole methodology, so widely-hailed by whole generations of leftists, could have been devised by any 12 year-old gang-style bully with half a brain and an ounce of charisma.


It’s quite disheartening, now, to see the top echelons of the Democratic Party using Alinsky tactics in an attempt to freeze political dialogue, most especially when that dialogue is about the most intimate service we Americans procure for ourselves and our families:  our medical care.


Nevertheless, they’ve decided to go at this whole hog, even if it means stripping off their dignity and parading their political bloomers right out in the public square.


When Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and now the president’s own deputy press secretary conjure up images of Nazis at healthcare townhalls, they are engaging in one of the oldest tricks in anyone’s book, but an especial favorite of their mentor, Saul Alinsky.


Alinsky himself employed this method, quite deviously.  Alinsky biographer, Sanford D. Horwitt provides an anecdote using precisely this same diabolical tactic to deceive the people.  From Horwitt’s Let Them Call Me Rebel:


“…in the spring of 1972, at Tulane University…students asked Alinsky to help plan a protest of a scheduled speech by George H. W. Bush, then U.S. representative to the United Nations – a speech likely to include a defense of the Nixon administration’s Vietnam War policies.  The students told Alinsky they were thinking about picketing or disrupting Bush’s address.  That’s the wrong approach, he rejoined, not very creative – and besides causing a disruption might get them thrown out of school.  He told them, instead, to go to hear the speech dressed as members of the Ku Klux Klan, and whenever Bush said something in defense of the Vietnam War, they should cheer and wave placards reading, ‘The KKK supports Bush.’  And that is what they did, with very successful, attention-getting results.”


Planting major falsehoods has been a favorite Alinsky strategy from the start.  His acolyte, Barack Obama, learned his Industrial Areas Foundation lessons on deceiving for power while on a side trip during his Harvard years, then taught the Alinsky power tactics at the University of Chicago. 


Hardly qualifies as ‘Constitutional Law’ if you ask me.


Covering for oneself by accusing the other fellow has been the left’s most successful deception for decades now.  It took on its best traction lately, as leftists within and others have used this Nazi smear tactic for the past eight years against George W. Bush.  They’ve seen how well it’s worked and just can’t stop themselves now. 


Here’s a little hint from me on the Nazi card.  If a few folks actually do start showing up at townhalls, opposing the MediCoup*, even dressed like Hitler and carrying a Swastika poster, I’ll lay good hard cash on a bet that they’ve been sent by this Alinskyite President or his minions to deceive, just as Saul did with getting students to dress like the KKK at that rally back in the 70s. 


And any newsman worth an ounce of table salt ought to be able to pin the tail right on that Alinsky donkey.


*MediCoup is a term coined by writer, James Lewis, right here on American Thinker.


Kyle-Anne Shiver is a frequent contributor to American Thinker and a newly syndicated columnist for Creators Syndicate.  She welcomes your comments at 

Page Printed from: at August 13, 2009 – 08:52:42 AM EDT