YID With LID

ACORN Received Funds From the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT

2009-11-20T17:47:00.004-05:00

When you hear about ACORN getting help from the Justice Department (DOJ), most people hope it refers to the community organizing group getting an nice small room with bars, a warm bed and three squares a day. Unfortunately this is about the criminal enterprise ACORN, receiving money from the US department charged with maintaining law and order.

The Office of the Inspector General of the Justice Department investigated whether the DOJ had provided grants to ACORN. The investigation covered whether:

ACORN applied for federal funds through DOJ-administered grant programs
ACORN received federal funds through DOJ-administered grant programs
Controls were placed on the use of DOJ grant funds awarded to ACORN
The DOJ conducted any reviews or audits of the use of DOJ grant funds awarded to ACORN.

Initially they did not find any direct DOJ grants to ACORN during the past 7 years, but they did find one recipient of DOJ grant funds entered into a sub-agreement with ACORN for program activities. They also found three instances in which a DOJ grantee entered into a sub-award with an ACORN affiliate, and one direct grant of DOJ funds to an affiliate of ACORN, In total, ACORN received one direct grant and four sub-awards totaling approximately $200,000 between fiscal years (FY) 2002 and 2009.

According to the Hill

The report, requested by House Judiciary Committee ranking member Lamar Smith (R-Texas), also found a few instances of ACORN mismanagement of federally contracted work.

For example, ACORN received a $20,000 sub-contract to do community outreach on crime prevention in New York. The organization that contracted with ACORN has not released the funds yet, claiming that ACORN submitted reimbursements "outside the scope of the agreement," including "fringe benefits" for the salaried staffer working on the project.

In another instance the city of Phoenix contracted with the "ACORN Institute" to receive about $9,000 to canvass citizens and raise awareness about a tax credit and a tax assistance program. The city hasn't paid ACORN yet due to "poor reporting by the ACORN Institute regarding another project not related to DOJ grant funds." Phoenix is trying to terminate its contract with ACORN.

The DOJ did not audit the funds that went to ACORN or its affiliates, but did conduct an audit of one of the organizations that contracted with an ACORN affiliate. That audit concluded that the organization "did not properly manage the grant and did not adequately monitor some of its 36 sub-grantees, including the [American Institute of Social Justice]," an ACORN affiliate.

Smith seized on the report to call for a broader review of ACORN activities.

"Given the willingness of some ACORN employees to ignore the law, it comes as no surprise that the IG’s report found several instances in which ACORN and its affiliates failed to adhere to proper procedures," Smith said in a statement.

"Because the Justice Department’s review found only small amounts of taxpayer dollars going to ACORN, it is imperative that the Inspectors General from federal agencies that have provided millions to ACORN undertake the same kind of review. The Justice Department IG’s report may prove to be just the tip of an iceberg-sized fraud."

In a related story Andrew Breitbart had some choice words for the Eric Holder, the Head of the Justice Department about ACORN on Sean Hannity last night:

BREITBART: Well, there's a lot of hypocrisy, and the dust has settled for ACORN. And at the end of the day they've recognized that Eric Holder, the attorney general, has not initiated an investigation into ACORN, after we now have seven tapes. There were five initially that came out.

ACORN was defunded by the Senate, was defunded by the House, lost its link to the Census. While all that damage occurred, Congress didn't come in to investigate them. Obviously, not the attorney general's office.

And they've now realized, "Let's get back into — get back into business," because they realize that the dust settled, and they were not being investigated. It was Hannah, James and me who were being investigated. That's why we've been forced to offer this latest tape.

HANNITY: Yes. Well, are you saying, Andrew, that there are more tapes?

BREITBART: Oh, my goodness, there are. Not only are there more tapes; it's not just ACORN.

HANNITY: Wow.

BREITBART: And this message is to Attorney General Holder. I want you to know that we have more tapes. It's not just ACORN. And we're going to hold out until the next election cycle.

Or else, if you want to do a clean investigation, we will give you the rest of what we have. We will comply with you. We will give you the documentation we have from countless ACORN whistleblowers who want to come forward but are fearful of this organization and the retribution that they fear, that this is a dangerous organization.

So if you get into an investigation, we will give you the tapes. And if you don't give us the tapes, we will revisit these tapes come election time.

Wow !! Kind of makes one hope that Holder does not bother to investigate so we can see what Andrew Brietbart has up his sleeve. Well since we have to wait for Brietbart's evidence, let me suggest you take a click over to Michelle Malkin's site where she has a story about MORE corruption in the justice department. Click on the headline below:

Corruptocrat AG Eric Holder’s conflicted DOJ

BOMBSHELL: Stolen Documents Reveal Supression of Anti-Global Warming Science

2009-11-20T14:34:00.001-05:00

This is the global warming version of the Pentagon Papers, when Daniel Ellsberg stole a top-secret study of American Decision making during the Vietnam war and gave it to the NY Times. A Hacker got into the files of the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites these confidential files onto the internet. What these files outline is a systematic cover-up of science disproving global warming the climate change moonbats.

According to the BBC, A university spokesman confirmed the email system had been hacked and that information was taken and published without permission. What was published is explosive. As summarized in the Andrew Bolt in the Australian Herald Sun:

So the 1079 emails and 72 documents seem indeed evidence of a scandal involving most of the most prominent scientists pushing the man-made warming theory - a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science...emails suggesting conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more. If it is as it now seems, never again will “peer review” be used to shout down sceptics. This is clearly not the work of some hacker, but of an insider who’s now blown the whistle.

Here are some examples of what was released by the Hacker:

Hiding Evidence

From: Phil Jones
To: ray bradley ,mann@XXXX, mhughes@XXXX
Subject: Diagram for WMO Statement
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000
Cc: k.briffa@XXX.osborn@XXXX
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow.

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone XXXX
School of Environmental Sciences Fax XXXX
University of East Anglia
Norwich
.

Admitting that the global warming was no where to be found:

From: Kevin Trenberth
To: Michael Mann
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer
Hi all

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.
This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
***
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.***

Erasing Emails to Hide Anti-Global Warming Evidence:

From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit

Suppressing Facts that would cast doubt on Global Warming:

At 14:09 -0600 13-09-06, Jonathan Overpeck wrote:
thanks David - lets see what others think. I agree, that we don’t want to be seen as being too clever or defensive. Note however, that all the TAR said was “likely” the warmest in the last 1000 years. Our chapter and figs (including 6.10) make it clear that it is unlikely any multi-decadal period was as warm as the last 50 years. But, that said, I do feel your are right that our team would not have said what the TAR said about 1998, and thus, we should delete that second sentence any other thoughts team?

Reluctance to share information that would dispute claims, messing with the data to make it hard to read:

Options appear to be:
Send them the data
Send them a subset removing station data from some of the countries who made us pay in the normals papers of Hulme et al. (1990s) and also any number that David can remember. This should also omit some other countries like (Australia, NZ, Canada, Antarctica). Also could extract some of the sources that Anders added in (31-38 source codes in J&M 2003). Also should remove many of the early stations that we coded up in the 1980s.
Send them the raw data as is, by reconstructing it from GHCN. How could this be done? Replace all stations where the WMO ID agrees with what is in GHCN. This would be the raw data, but it would annoy them.

Screening comments at websites, to block any contrary data/opinions:

From: “Michael E. Mann”
To: Tim Osborn, Keith Briffa
Subject: update
Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2006 16:51:53 -0500
Cc: Gavin Schmidt
guys, I see that Science has already gone online w/ the new issue, so we put up the RC post. By now, you’ve probably read that nasty McIntyre thing. Apparently, he violated the embargo on his website (I don’t go there personally, but so I’m informed).
Anyway, I wanted you guys to know that you’re free to use RC in any way you think would be helpful. Gavin and I are going to be careful about what comments we screen through, and we’ll be very careful to answer any questions that come up to any extent we can. On the other hand, you might want to visit the thread and post replies yourself. We can hold
comments up in the queue and contact you about whether or not you think they should be screened through or not, and if so, any comments you’d like us to include.
You’re also welcome to do a followup guest post, etc. think of RC as a resource that is at your disposal to combat any disinformation put forward by the McIntyres of the world. Just let us know. We’ll use our best discretion to make sure the skeptics dont’get to use the RC comments as a megaphone…

I have mentioned “conspiracy”, right? RealClimate is so far silent.
UPDATE 9
Reader Chemist finds more which - if true - make this proof of a conspiracy which is one of the largest, most extraordinary and most disgraceful in moderrn science, given the stakes:

Here are some gems. “I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails unless this was ‘normal’ deleting to keep emails manageable!""Yes, I am aware of the confusion surrounding what the Hadley Centre did and why. It is even messier than you realize. I have forcing data sets (more than one!) from Jonathon Gregory that differ from the numbers yougave in your email!!""Ed to be really honest, I don’t see how this was ever accepted for publication in Nature.""Mike,I’d rather you didn’t. I think it should be sufficient to forward the para from Andrew Conrie’semail that says the paper has been rejected by all 3 reviewers. You can say that the paper was an extended and updated version of that which appeared in CR.Obviously, under no circumstances should any of this get back to Pielke.Cheers""we are having trouble to express the real message of the reconstructions - being scientifically sound in representing uncertainty , while still getting the crux of the information across clearly.”

Intentionally exaggerating existing climate information to make their claims look better:

From: Tom Wigley [...]
To: Phil Jones [...]
Subject: 1940s
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
Cc: Ben Santer [...]
Phil,
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that theland also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).
So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean – but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips—higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.
Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH—just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.
The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note – from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not)—but not really enough.
So ... why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.)
This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.
Tom.

Not allowing peer-reviewed reports from "skeptics" to be published:

The other paper by MM is just garbage – as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well – frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. K and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

This is only a smattering of the information revealed so far. Even this amount of evidence casts major doubts on the veracity of the claims by the supporters of the Man-made climate change theory. Folks we need to get this information out and fast. Before the Obama Administration shoves global warming policies down our throats.

HUSH MONEY? New AmeriCorps IG Walpin Firing Scandal Revelation

2009-11-20T12:31:00.001-05:00

Despite the efforts of Obama administration to go after Gerald Walpin personally, it looks as if the scandal that the former IG was trying to investigate may be bursting out of its cover -up. Until a few months Wolpin was the inspector general for AmeriCorps. He claims he was fired because he made the mistake of Investigation a friend of Obama (FOB), Kevin Johnson former NBA star who is now mayor of Sacramento, California, for the misuse of AmeriCorps funds.

Pressed for a reasoning for the dismissal the Administration trashed Walpin hinting that he was in the early stages of dementia. They said the IG seemed "disoriented" at one meeting. But Walpin's version of the story was confirmed by a AmeriCorps board member who confirmed that he was fired to protect the Democrats from a political scandal.

A GOP report contends that the Obama White House was politically motivated when it fired inspector general Gerald Walpin after his 2008 investigation of Kevin Johnson, now Sacramento's mayor. The report by Senators Issa and Grassley criticizes the White House ethics counsel, for not examining what Walpin had been investigating at the time of his dismissal, including the allegations of sexual misconduct by Johnson and hush-money payoffs by his now-fiancee Michelle Rhee.

As reported by Byron York in the Washington Examiner:

The investigation began after the AmeriCorps inspector general, Gerald Walpin, received reports that Johnson had misused some of the $800,000 in federal AmeriCorps money provided to St. Hope, a non-profit school that Johnson headed for several years.

Walpin was looking into charges that AmeriCorps-paid volunteers ran personal errands for him, washed his car, and took part in political activities. In the course of investigating those allegations, the congressional report says, Walpin's investigators were told that Johnson had made inappropriate advances toward three young women involved in the St. Hope program -- and that Johnson offered at least one of those young women money to keep quiet.

At the time, Rhee was on the board of St. Hope. A former St. Hope employee who reported one of the allegations of inappropriate sexual conduct by Johnson told Walpin's investigators that Rhee "learned of the allegations and played the role of a fixer, doing 'damage control,'" the congressional report says.

The employee told investigators that Rhee told her that "she was making this her number one priority, and she would take care of the situation." A short time later, the employee learned that the girl who had complained about Johnson had received a visit from Johnson's personal attorney.

The congressional report quotes the girl as saying the attorney "basically asked me to keep quiet," and Johnson offered her $1,000 a month for the duration of her time with St. Hope. Once investigators learned about that, the report says, they had "reasonable suspicions about potential hush money payments and witness tampering at a federally funded entity."

Walpin included the allegations of inappropriate sexual conduct, along with evidence of misuse of federal money, in a criminal referral to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Sacramento. The acting U.S. Attorney, Lawrence Brown, reached a settlement with Johnson under which St. Hope was obligated to pay back some of the money, but took no action on the other matters.

...In August 2008, at the time Walpin referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney, he also presented the evidence of misuse of federal money to officials at the Corporation for National and Community Service, the federal agency that oversees AmeriCorps. In September 2008, those officials barred Johnson from receiving any more federal money.

All this was happening as Johnson was running for mayor of Sacramento, a race he won in November 2008. Johnson's suspension from receiving federal money became a hot issue in early 2009 after Congress passed the $787 billion stimulus bill. Many people in Sacramento worried that the city would not be able to get its share of that money if the mayor was banned from receiving federal dollars.

Amid that atmosphere of anxiety, in April of this year, the U.S. Attorney's office announced a deal under which St. Hope would pay back about half of the money it received from AmeriCorps and, in return, Johnson would no longer be banned from receiving federal money. Brown released a statement saying the settlement "removes any cloud whether the City of Sacramento will be prevented from receiving much-needed federal stimulus funds."

...After the settlement, Walpin wanted to continue probing the St. Hope affair, particularly a new allegation that St. Hope employees might have destroyed evidence. Walpin made his case to the board of the Corporation for National and Community Service at a meeting on May 20. He also strongly criticized the board for making what he felt was a bad settlement and for failing to exercise sufficient oversight of the matter.

The Issa/Grassley report suggests that Walpin was indeed fired because of the St. Hope affair and concludes that Johnson's friends in the White House "orchestrated an after-the-fact smear campaign to justify" Walpin's dismissal.

The report says the allegations of sexual misconduct and a cover-up "provide important context for Walpin's insistence that the St. Hope matter should not have been settled without further inquiry." In light of those allegations, the report says, complaints that Walpin was being too aggressive seem unfounded. "The content of the referral tends to undermine any notion that the [inspector general's] investigation was driven by inappropriate motives on the part of Walpin," the report says. "Rather, it appears to have been driven by non-political, career investigators simply following the facts."

There seems little doubt that Johnson's alleged conduct contributed to a sometimes troubled atmosphere at St. Hope. In the criminal referral, Walpin wrote that the allegations "seriously impact on both the security of young [volunteers] placed in the care of [St. Hope] and, if such incidents occur, the ability of AmeriCorps to continue to attract volunteers." The referral, which Grassley and Issa's investigators have released in its entirety along with the new report, contains the following description of one of the incidents, a description which uses the AmeriCorps terminology of referring to young volunteers as "Members."

Our investigation disclosed evidence of sexual misconduct towards young female Members by Mr. Johnson. One Member reported that, in the February/March 2007 time frame, she was entering grades in the [school's] database system per Mr. Johnson's instructions at the St. Hope office at night, purportedly as part of her AmeriCorps service. [The girl] contacted Mr. Johnson to inform him that she had completed the grades and wanted him to review them.

About 11:00 p.m., Mr. Johnson arrived at St. Hope and instructed [the girl] to gather her things and come with him. Mr. Johnson drove to [the girl's] apartment, which is managed by St. Hope Development and houses its AmeriCorps Members, purportedly so that they could review the students' grades. While in [the girl's] apartment, in which another AmeriCorps Member had a separate bedroom, Mr. Johnson laid down on [the girl's] bed. [The girl] sat on the edge of the bed to show him the grades, at which time Mr. Johnson "laid down behind me cupping his body around mine like the letter C. After about 2-3 minutes or so, I felt his hand on my left side where my hip bone is."

Further, although not detailed in her written statement, [the girl] during the interview demonstrated while explaining that Mr. Johnson's hand went under her untucked shirt and moved until his hand was on her hip. [The girl] immediately got up and stated she was done and left the room. When she returned, Mr. Johnson was still in her bed, but now apparently sleeping. Only after [the girl] sought to take a blanket to sleep elsewhere did Mr. Johnson exit to the living room of the apartment. [The girl] related that Mr. Johnson slept on the couch in her apartment living room that night and subsequently left the apartment at approximately 6 a.m. the next day. The young woman told investigators that after she "got the courage" to tell her supervisors, she was visited by Johnson's lawyer, who, the girl said, "basically asked me to keep quiet." Later, the girl said, Johnson himself "offered to give me $1,000 a month until the end of the program." Johnson, the girl said, said the arrangement would be confidential -- "between him and I."

This entire affair reads like a bad nighttime soap opera, unfortunately its real life. And the this "most transparent administration in history," may be participating in it's cover-up.

UN Nuclear Chief PROTECTING Irans Nuke Program

2009-11-20T11:33:00.001-05:00

Departing United Nations Nuke Watchdog, IAEA director Dr. Mohammed El-Baradei is just a hack for the Iranian Nuke program: Last year the Wall Street Journal described him this way:

The IAEA director seems intent on undercutting Security Council diplomacy. Just weeks after President George Bush toured the Middle East to build Arab support for pressure on Tehran, Mr. ElBaradei appeared on Egyptian television on Feb. 5 to urge Arabs in the opposite direction, insisting Iran was cooperating and should not be pressured. And as he grows more and more isolated from Western powers intent on disarming Iran, Mr. ElBaradei has found champions in the developing and Arab world. They cheer his self-imposed mission -- to hamstring U.S. efforts to constrain Iran's program, whether or not the regime is violating its non-proliferation obligations or pursuing nuclear weapons.

In working to undermine sanctions, however, Mr. ElBaradei demeans the purpose of his agency and undercuts its non-proliferation mission. He also makes military action all the more likely, because if there is no non-military option, Israel will act to defend herself.

In August Israel accused El-Baradei of protecting Iran, hiding evidence that it was pursuing a nuclear weapon, that charge was backed up by France a month later. Yes that France, the one with the Eiffel Tower, etc.

El-Baradei has done all that he can to help Iran in its effort to build a bomb, and as he enters the last days before his ouster from office. he is still protecting the terrorist state, he is urging the west NOT to place new sanctions on Iran because if its lack of cooperation in creating a deal to prevent further development of its nuclear weapons program:

ElBaradei advises West not to impose sanctions on Iran

UN nuclear watchdog chief urges Tehran to agree fuel deal by year, says plan is rare chance to defuse mistrust over its nuclear program

The United Nations nuclear watchdog chief urged Iran on Friday to accept an offer to process its enriched uranium abroad by the end of 2009 and advised Western powers not to impose further sanctions on Tehran.

Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said a plan brokered by the IAEA in which Iran would send low-enriched uranium to Russia and France for conversion into fuel for a Tehran medical reactor was a rare chance to defuse mistrust over its nuclear program.

"I would hope definitely that we'll get an agreement before the end of the year," he told a news conference in Berlin. "I believe frankly the ball is very much in the Iranian court. I hope they will not miss this unique but fleeting opportunity."

ElBaradei, who retires on November 30 [he was not renewed] after 12 tough years trying to stop the spread of nuclear weapons know-how, praised the role in talks with Iran played by US President Barack Obama, saying he had initiated a "complete change of policy."

....Today's meeting -- involving China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States -- "is to review the latest developments on the Iran nuclear issue," according to a spokeswoman for European Union foreign policy head Javier Solana. Further details were not available.

International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei, who offered the formal plan to Tehran, said he hoped the six states would not pursue additional sanctions. Iran has already been hit with three rounds of U.N. Security Council sanctions.

"I think the group of six are partly meeting in an environment of desperation," ElBaradei, who is in his final days as head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, said in Berlin. "I haven't really talked to them but again, they talk about the dual track [of diplomatic outreach and economic penalties], but to me the second track is a dead-end street." ElBaradei's plan was intended to reduce immediate fears that Iran could use its existing stock of low-enriched uranium to produce weapon-grade material. Leaders in other states hoped that the proposal could also give them breathing room for further negotiations aimed at permanently halting Iran's uranium enrichment operations, which could produce reactor fuel but also weapons material. Iran has rejected calls to halt its work, saying the program is strictly civilian in nature

Sure its peaceful, that's why the AP has reported that one of their Nuke Plants is too small for anything except making bombs:

One of the diplomats — a senior official from a European nation — said Thursday that the enrichment hall is too small to house the tens of thousands of centrifuges needed for peaceful industrial nuclear enrichment, but is the right size to contain the few thousand advanced machines that could generate the amount of weapons-grade uranium needed to make nuclear warheads.

The actions of this sham of a UN Nuclear Chief proves once again the real mission of the United Nations is to support tyrants, despots and other nations that threaten world peace.

Public Blame For Recession Shifting to Democrats--Congress Getting Antsy

2009-11-20T09:28:00.000-05:00

The latest economic polling from CNN shows an interesting trend. The biggest of which may be the closing of the window for the Democrat's blame of George Bush for everything from the lousy economy to the three traffic accidents had by Joe Biden's motorcade this week.

As you may expect 82% of the country believe the economy is somewhat or very poor. But only 38 percent of America blames the GOP for current economic problems. In May 53% blamed the GOP. The poll reported that 27% blame the Democrats for the recession, up from 19%. The number who blame both parties (27%) is up 5% since May.

Besides the obvious reason (unemployment) the voters may be moving away from the Democrats because of the trillions of dollars added to the deficit since President Obama took office. Two-thirds of America feel that the government should balance the budget even when the country is in a recession and is at war.

Congress is beginning to feel the heat about the bad economy, even democrats are beginning to question the administration's handling of the economy.

Angry Congress lashes out at Obama ECONOMIC WOES TAKING A TOLL

By Brady Dennis, Zachary A. Goldfarb and Neil Irwin

Growing discontent over the economy and frustration with efforts to speed its recovery boiled over Thursday on Capitol Hill in a wave of criticism and outright anger directed at the Obama administration.

Episodes in both houses of Congress exposed the raw nerves of lawmakers flooded with stories of unemployment and economic hardship back home. They also underscored the stiff headwinds that the administration faces as it pushes to enact sweeping changes to the financial regulatory system while also trying to create jobs for ordinary Americans.

President Obama's allies in the Congressional Black Caucus, exasperated by the administration's handling of the economy, unexpectedly blocked one his top priorities, using a legislative maneuver to postpone the approval of financial reform legislation by a key House committee.

Two buildings away, at a session of the Joint Economic Committee, Republicans escalated their attacks on Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, including a call for his resignation.

"Conservatives agree that as point person, you failed. Liberals are growing in that consensus as well," said Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Tex.). "For the sake of our jobs, will you step down from your post?"

Rep. Michael C. Burgess (R-Tex.) took a different tack. "I don't think that you should be fired," he told Geithner. "I thought you should have never been hired."

Even Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), a friend of the administration, suggested that Geithner had been inconsistent in addressing China's practice of keeping its currency low against the dollar.

And Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) said Wednesday on MSNBC that he thinks Geithner should step down, pointing to his handling of the aftermath of American International Group's meltdown.

Across Capitol Hill, senators signaled their opposition to rushing regulatory reform. While some Democrats voiced reservations about parts of the bill, Republicans went further, faulting Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) for pushing ahead before the roots of the crisis were understood.

Perhaps most troubling for the administration was that one of the few measures to succeed Thursday was an amendment by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) that would subject the Federal Reserve to unprecedented scrutiny. The amendment, which won bipartisan support in the House Financial Services Committee despite the reservations of administration officials, would allow the Government Accountability Office to audit all of the Fed's operations, including its decisions on interest rates and its transactions with foreign central banks.

Paul and allies in both parties -- more than 300 members of Congress have endorsed the measure -- are looking to increase oversight of an institution they consider partly to blame for the financial crisis. Federal officials and many private economists worry that the amendment could make future central bank policymakers reluctant to take unpopular steps to prevent inflation or support the economy for fear of second-guessing by Congress and government auditors.

The House committee had been set to vote to send the final piece of its regulatory reform package to the House floor after months of debate. That is, until the committee's chairman, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), told a shocked committee room that passage of the bill would be delayed until Dec. 1 because the Congressional Black Caucus wanted the administration to do more to help African American communities suffering in the economic decline.

Frank told committee members that black lawmakers were "frustrated by the response to the economic situation by the administration." He said the caucus had no issues with the legislation itself. "They want obviously to continue to have some bargaining power with the administration," he said after the hearing.

The caucus itself did not publicly detail its concerns Thursday, but one member, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), issued a statement: "The recession has created a unique systemic risk that threatens all parts of the African-American community, including the poor and the middle class."

The caucus began discussing its concerns with Frank and the administration several weeks ago. Frank hosted a meeting Monday night between caucus members, Geithner and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel.

"You're talking about people whose constituents have been badly hammered by this," Frank said. "Given the nature of this recession, there needs to be some more conversations."

Frank said the caucus had concerns about whether minorities were being fairly represented in helping carry out Treasury's bailout programs and other federal efforts to resolve the financial crisis. The government has contracted out much of the work to Wall Street firms.

Congressional aides said the caucus's concerns are similar to those of the Democratic Party's liberal wing. Caucus members are pushing for legislation that would directly lead to new jobs by providing tax benefits, for example, that would provide incentives for home renovations and funding for new infrastructure projects. They also want to extend health-care and unemployment benefits.

Meanwhile, Geithner was taking a beating as he urged Congress to pass regulatory reform as quickly as possible, arguing that delay would create uncertainty for businesses across the country. Lawmakers sharply criticized him for his role in the crisis during the tense Joint Economic Committee meeting. They were particularly critical of his involvement in the decision, as president of the New York Fed, to bail out AIG.

But Geithner pressed forward: "To ensure the vitality, the strength and the stability of our economy going forward, we must bring our system of financial regulation into the 21st century. Nobody in my job should ever be in the position again of having to come into a crisis like this without those basic authorities."

Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, chose the marbled Caucus Room in the Russell Senate Office Building -- site of past hearings on Watergate, Pearl Harbor and the Wall Street abuses during the Great Depression -- to open debate on a massive draft bill designed to achieve the most ambitious reworking of the financial system in decades.

"This is one of those moments in our nation's history that compels us to be bold," Dodd said.

But soon, ranking committee Republican Richard C. Shelby (Ala.) took the floor, and for 18 uninterrupted minutes he opined that nearly every element of Dodd's bill was misinformed, uninformed, unnecessarily rushed or just plain flawed. "This committee has not done the necessary work to even begin discussing changes of this magnitude. Nevertheless, you have laid a bill before the committee," Shelby said. "I will be opposing this legislation. Not because we disagree on its ends, but rather on its means."

Shelby said Dodd was wrong not to conduct an investigation into the causes of the recent financial crisis before pushing forward with legislation. He said rather than ending the problem of institutions that are "too big to fail," the current bill expands the government's ability to bail out big banks. Shelby apologized for the length of his critique, expressed his hope that the two men might "yet find some common ground," and yielded the floor.

"Well," Dodd said in the morning's only moment of levity, "I thank you for the endorsement."

New ACORN Pimp/Hooker Sting Video/Not All of Los Angeles is Honest

2009-11-19T22:17:00.000-05:00

Just when we thought it was all over, the ACORN Pimp/Hooker Scandal rises again. Our heroes, Hannah Giles and James O' Keefe the fake pimp and hooker were in Philadelphia meeting with the folks at ACORN.

Next Stop, Sunny Los Angeles. The first tape released from the ACORN of sunny LA was of Felix Harris Mr. Harris didn’t care about that the two were involved with prostitution in regards to a housing loan, but when the O'Keefe/Giles team started talking about underage girls, he said that ACORN did not get involved with things like that. Felix was the only person in the entire country-wide sting operation who who did not "bite."

Harris, however, did not throw out the pair-- so they met with someone else Lavelle Stewart. Lavelle was not as steadfast against crime as Mr. Harris. She recommended to O'Keefe/Giles to hook up with “someone who’s on that international sex business level,” that “14 and 15 year olds been traveling overseas for years.” She even offered to do independent research for the pair, and bragged that she had meetings with Larry Flynt. As for laundering the sex money into my faux political campaign, Lavelle said, “there are ways, people do it all the time. Yeah there are ways, especially out here in California.”

Watch the videos of the O'Keefe/Giles meetings with Lavelle Stewart Below via Big Goverment

Fort Hood Terrorist: Yet ANOTHER Red Flag Ignored

2009-11-19T20:59:00.002-05:00

Almost every day since the Major Nidal Hasan waged a horrific terror attack against his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood two weeks ago, there has been another part of Nidal's history revealed that should have raised a red flag about the Palestinian Islamist.

Many of the revelations surround radical Imam, Anwar al Awlaki. When it was first revealed that Hasan had contacted the Imam via E-mail, we were told that the correspondence was very benign, it fit in with the research he was doing on PTSD. According to a new report from ABC, the emails were not as mainstream as initially reported:

United States Army Major Nidal Hasan told a radical cleric considered by authorities to be an al-Qaeda recruiter, "I can't wait to join you" in the afterlife, according to an American official with top secret access to 18 e-mails exchanged between Hasan and the cleric, Anwar al Awlaki, over a six month period between Dec. 2008 and June 2009.

"It sounds like code words," said Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, a military analyst at the Center for Advanced Defense Studies. "That he's actually either offering himself up or that he's already crossed that line in his own mind."

Code words, YOU THINK? And it didn't cross anyone's mind that that Nisan was going to join the Imam in the afterlife as a Martyr? Either way it sure doesn't sound like research on PTSD.

Other messages include questions, the official with access to the e-mails said, that include when is jihad appropriate, and whether it is permissible if there are innocents killed in a suicide attack.

"Hasan told Awlaki he couldn't wait to join him in the discussions they would having over non-alcoholic wine in the afterlife," the official said.

HELLO?? Someone read read this and didn't say this guy is dangerous? I guess not because the report said that two different FBI task forces read the intercepted emails, but deemed them innocent.

"The choice of this recipient of emails says a lot about what Hasan was looking for," said Senator Joseph Lieberman, chair of the Senate's Homeland Security committee. Lieberman's committee held a hearing on the Fort Hood shootings, and announced that it was launching an investigation.

"What I'm getting at," said Lieberman, "Is he may have been looking for spiritual sanctions for what he's accused of ultimately doing."

The American-born Awlaki is considered a recruiter for al-Qaeda. He has been in hiding since the shooting, but a Yemeni journalist told ABC News today that the e-mails show Hasan was "almost a member of al-Qaeda."

It doesn't really matter if Hasan had an al-Quada membership card in his wallet, or sent a few box tops to some PO Box in Indiana to get the al-Qaeda secret decoder ring, it is obvious that political correctness caused investigators to miss all the red flags that would identified Major Hasan as an Islamic terrorist.

The 13 New Major Taxes/Fees In Harry Reid's Healthcare Bill

2009-11-19T20:56:00.000-05:00

One of the primary tenets of Medicine is Primum non nocere a Latin phrase that means First, do no harm. The Senate version of the Obamacare bill ignores that phrase and is poised to raise health care costs for all Americans, of all income groups, not only through taxes but via fees on health products that will be passed along to consumers. Below is an outline of the unlucky (for America) 13 New Taxes in Harry Reid's Bill:

40% excise tax on health coverage in excess of $8,500/$23,000 indexed for inflation by CPI-U plus 1% and increased thresholds for over age 55 retirees or certain high-risk professions; levied at insurer level; employer aggregates and issues information return for insurers indicating amount subject to the excise tax; nondeductible; high 17 state transition relief

Conform the definition of medical expenses for health savings accounts, Archer MSAs, health flexible spending arrangements, and health reimbursement arrangements to the definition of the itemized deduction for medical expenses (excluding over-the-counter medicines prescribed by a physician). Effectively this is a tax on Seniors and the Poor.

Increase the penalty for nonqualified health savings account distributions to 20%. This penalty takes money out of the hands of the middle and low income families that need to dip into their medical savings account for emergencies.

Limit health flexible spending arrangements in cafeteria plans to $2,500. The flexible plans are a favorite of the middle class.

Impose annual fee on manufacturers and importers of branded drugs. Those fees will be passed on the the consumer.

Impose annual fee on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices. This is essentially a tax on Seniors as the fees for medical items needed by older citizens, such as pacemakers, hip joint replacements, powered wheelchairs, hearing aids, and Prosthetic heart valve rotators, will be passed along to consumers.

Impose annual fee on health insurance providers. A deliberate attempt to raise the costs of the public plan's competition.

Eliminate deduction for expenses allocable to Medicare Part D subsidy.

Raise 7.5% AGI floor on medical expenses deduction to 10%; AGI floor for individuals age 65 and older (and their spouses) remains at 7.5% (sunset 12/31/16). Tax Increase for everyone who is 59 years old and under today.

$500,000 deduction limitation on taxable year remuneration to officers, employees, directors, and service providers of covered health insurance providers. Basically a tax on insurance companies designed to deflate the wages of its Employees.

Additional 0.5% hospital insurance tax on wages in excess of $200,000 ($250,000 joint). This is NOT indexed for inflation. As inflation hits the economy this tax will reach below the $200,000 ($250,000 joint) level.

Modification of section 833 treatment of certain health organizations. This reduces deductions allowed by the IRS. Increases the taxes and costs the insurance companies, making it harder for them to compete with the government control option.

Impose 5% excise tax on cosmetic surgery and similar similar procedures. There goes my hair plugs.

Source: Joint Council on Taxation

This country is in the midst of a deep recession. The only way to get out of it is to reduce taxes on individuals and businesses so they can grow, spend and create new jobs. The Harry Reid version of the Obamacare bill, will increase taxes and fees on those individuals and businesses insuring that economic growth in the United States is retarded for years to come. Unlike medicine, this bill's tenet is at first DO harm.

See the full Spreadsheet from the Joint Council on Taxation Below:

Tax Provisions -

Did a Computer Virus Screw-up NY-23 Voting Machines?

2009-11-19T18:58:00.003-05:00

There are new suspicions about the veracity of the election results in NY's 23rd Congressional District. After the election, a recanvassing of the 11-county district had Owens’ lead narrowing to 3,026 votes over Hoffman, 66,698 to 63,672, with about 10,000 absentee ballots to be counted according to the latest unofficial results from the state Board of Elections. In Hoffman's stronghold, Oswego County, where the conservative was reported to lead by only 500 votes with 93 percent of the vote counted election night, inspectors found Hoffman actually won by 1,748 votes -- 12,748 to 11,000.

There is new bad news for those hoping for a fair election, according to the Northern NY News many of the computerized voting machines were infected with a computer virus that may have tainted the results of the election.

The computerized voting machines used by many voters in the 23rd district had a computer virus - tainting the results, not just from those machines known to have been infected, but casting doubt on the accuracy of counts retrieved from any of the machines.

Cathleen Rogers, the Democratic Elections Commissioner in Hamilton County stated that they discovered a problem with their voting machines the week prior to the election and that the "virus" was fixed by a Technical Support representative from Dominion, the manufacturer. The Dominion/Sequoia Voting Systems representative "reprogrammed" their machines in time for them to use in the Nov. 3rd Special Election. None of the machines (from the same manufacturer) used in the other counties within the 23rd district were looked at nor were they recertified after the "reprogramming" that occurred in Hamilton County.

.....Commissioners in other counties have stated that they were not made aware of the virus issue in Hamilton County. In Jefferson County, inspectors from four districts claim that "human error" resulted in their "mistakenly" entering 0 votes for Hoffman in several districts, resulting in Owens leading Jefferson County on election night though the recanvas of the computer counts now show that Hoffman is leading. Jefferson County has not conducted a manual paper ballot recount.

In St. Lawrence County, machines in Louisville, Waddington, Claire, and Rossie "broke" early in the voting process on election day. Republican Commissioner Deborah Pahler said that the machines kept "freezing up... like Windows does all the time," and that they experienced several paper jams as well. The voted ballots that could not be scanned were placed in an Emergency Lock Box and re-scanned later at the St. Lawrence County Board of Elections. Election officials in St. Lawrence County were given no advance knowledge of a potential virus in the system.

Now here is the scary part:

At least one County official thus far has raised concern that it's possible that ALL of the machines used in the NY-23 election had the 'virus' but only a few malfunctioned as a result. The counts from any district that used the ImageCast machines are suspect due to "the virus" discovered in Hamilton County, last-minute "reprogramming" by Dominion workers, and security flaws in the systems themselves. A manual paper-ballot recount of the vote could resolve computer vote accuracy questions.

Now there is no way to tell if some of the voting machines were tampered with AFTER the election. Any recount would also be suspect.

The machines themselves are languishing at the St. Lawrence County Board of Elections until after the election results have been certified to the state on November 28th, 2009. Pahler indicated that they have not yet been able to examine the machines to determine why they malfunctioned. A qualified technician would be able to verify the presence of a virus in the computers, but, other than the infected machines, no security precautions were taken to ensure chain of custody on the remaining computerized voting machines utilized in the 23rd district.

Doug Hoffman, the Conservative candidate in this election says that he was forced to concede after having been given erroneous election results on Nov. 3rd, in particular from Oswego County. Oswego County's election night results were off by over 1,000 votes. Hoffman claims that the "chaos" on which Oswego County chairs blame the errors and "inspectors who read numbers incorrectly when phoning in results... sounds like a tactic right from the ACORN playbook."

To be honest, this sounds more like an example of that old adage, "To Err is Human, but to Really Screw Things up you need a computer. Whether the strange results are computer error, or the underhanded work of the President's favorite community organizers, the counted results from from the election are extremely suspect.

Hoffman is raising funds for a possible legal challenge to the results and requesting that the Boards of Election hand-count every vote. On Tuesday, he "unconceded" the race [only hours after a high campaign source told me that he was not going to unconcede]. In light of the current concerns over the accuracy of the machine-counted votes, Hoffman may now have a legitimate reason to contest the election results.

Of further note, the models of ImageCast machines used in the districts have a slot through which the paper ballot is deposited into a secure holding tank underneath the machine after the ballot is scanned by the machine. The problem is that the slot is readily accessible to the voter (or poll worker) to stuff manually. 10 voted ballots could be deposited in the slot for every one voter... and if the electronic count was compromised, the "paper backup" would be useless.

The ImageCast machines have one more significant and scary flaw: USB ports. USB ports allow various devices to be attached to a computer in order to input information, connect a device, add wireless network capability and so on. Wireless network devices and USB storage devices can (and are) made small enough to fit into a regular wristwatch or bracelet.

Through either type of device, software hacks or remote control of the voting machine could be implemented or a virus introduced. Since standard count audits are only done on 3% of the machines unless there is a malfunction, a functional hack or software change could adjust election counts with the County or State Boards of Election none the wiser.

Put it all together it means...grab your popcorn, the most interesting race of the 2009 elections is about to get much more interesting.

Harry Reid LIED About Cost of Senate Bill/Reduction of Deficit

2009-11-19T16:06:00.000-05:00

Yesterday Harry Reid Proudly announced CBO had scored the Senate’s bill and that claimed that the bill would save $109 Billion during the first ten years years of the plan's Today the CBO released a letter showing that Reid's information is wrong. The Majority leader "forgot to include the "doctor’s fix“, in his scoring. Once that is done the effect of the Senate Bill is to INCREASE the the deficit by $89 billion in the first 10 years. Among the facts theCBO head said in a letter:

CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation estimate that enacting H.R. 3962, by itself, would reduce federal budget deficits by $109 billion over the 2010–2019 period through its effects on direct spending and revenues.
CBO estimates that enacting both H.R. 3961 and H.R. 3962 would add $89 billion to budget deficits over the 2010–2019 period. That amount is about $12 billion less than the sum of the effects of enacting the bills separately. The $12 billion difference results from two types of interactions. The higher payment rates for physicians’ services under H.R. 3961 would increase the net cost of provisions in H.R. 3962 by about $3 billion. However, that difference would be more than offset by the effect of a change under H.R. 3962 in how payment rates for Medicare Advantage plans are set. That change would reduce the effect of the changes made by H.R. 3961 to Medicare’s payments for physicians’ services in the fee-for-service sector on payment rates for Medicare Advantage plans. As a result, the estimated increase in payments to Medicare Advantage plans would be $15 billion smaller if both bills were enacted than under H.R. 3961 alone.

(The full letter is at the bottom of this post)

As Billy Mays used to say...And That's Not All! As they say, timing is everything:

The Democrats cite the bills’ projected costs from 2010-19. Yet, as the Congressional Budget Office reports, the bill would cost just $9 billion total from 2010 through 2013 — versus $147 billion in 2016 alone. In the first 40 percent of what the Democrats are calling the bill’s “first 10 years,” only 1 percent of its costs would yet have hit.

As the CBO analysis indicates, the bill’s real 10-year costs would start in 2014. And in its true first decade (2014 to 2023), CBO projects the bill’s costs to be $1.8 trillion — double the price Reid is advertising. And that’s even though the CBO optimistically assumes the government-run “public option” wouldn’t cost a cent. Over this same 10-year span, the 2,074-page bill would hike taxes and fines on Americans by $892 billion — more than the alleged price of the bill.

This bill is a tax and spend disaster. It includes taxes that will slow down the economy and spending that will bankrupt the government for generations to come.

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director
U.S. Congress
Washington, DC 20515
November 19, 2009
Honorable Paul Ryan
Ranking Member
Committee on the Budget
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Congressman:

This letter responds to questions you have asked about Medicare’s payments to
physicians and the budgetary effects of H.R. 3961, the Medicare Physicians Payment
Reform Act of 2009, as introduced on October 29, 2009. In particular, you inquired about
the budgetary impact of a new regulation specifying how payments to physicians should
be determined under current law and about the total budgetary impact of enacting both
H.R. 3961 and H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act.
The New Rule Governing Medicare’s Payments to Physicians

On October 30, 2009, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services promulgated a
final rule, “Payment Policies Under the Physician Fee Schedule and Other Revisions to
Part B for CY 2010.” 1 That rule removes physician-administered (P-A) drugs from the
calculation of the sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula, which determines the updates
to payment rates for physicians’ services. Removal of P-A drugs from the SGR will
increase Medicare’s spending for fee-for-service physicians’ services and the Medicare
Advantage (MA) program, as well as the Department of Defense’s outlays for the
TRICARE program. Because beneficiaries enrolled in Part B of Medicare pay premiums
that offset about 25 percent of the costs of their benefits, premium income will rise to
offset part of the added costs. On net, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates
that this new rule will increase federal spending by $78 billion over the 2010–2019
period.

The Budgetary Impact of Enacting Both H.R. 3961 and H.R. 3962

Under current law, including the new rule, Medicare’s payment rates for physicians’
services will be reduced by about 21 percent in January 2010, and CBO estimates those
payment rates will be reduced by about 2 percent annually for several subsequent years.
H.R. 3961 would increase those payment rates by 1.2 percent in 2010 and restructure the

The final rule removed spending for physicianadministered drugs from the SGR calculations, specified the Medicare economic index for 2010, and made numerous other changes to the physician fee schedule.

SGR beginning in 2011. Those changes would result in significantly higher payment
rates for physicians than those that would result under current law. CBO estimates that
enacting H.R. 3961, by itself, would cost $210 billion over the 2010–2019 period.2
H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, would establish a mandate for
most legal residents of the United States to obtain health insurance, set up insurance
“exchanges” through which certain individuals could receive federal subsidies toward the
purchase of such insurance, and make numerous other changes in the health insurance
system, in federal health care programs, and in the federal tax code. CBO and the staff of
the Joint Committee on Taxation estimate that enacting H.R. 3962, by itself, would
reduce federal budget deficits by $109 billion over the 2010–2019 period through its
effects on direct spending and revenues.3

CBO estimates that enacting both H.R. 3961 and H.R. 3962 would add $89 billion to
budget deficits over the 2010–2019 period. That amount is about $12 billion less than the
sum of the effects of enacting the bills separately. The $12 billion difference results from
two types of interactions. The higher payment rates for physicians’ services under
H.R. 3961 would increase the net cost of provisions in H.R. 3962 by about $3 billion.
However, that difference would be more than offset by the effect of a change under
H.R. 3962 in how payment rates for Medicare Advantage plans are set. That change
would reduce the effect of the changes made by H.R. 3961 to Medicare’s payments for
physicians’ services in the fee-for-service sector on payment rates for Medicare
Advantage plans. As a result, the estimated increase in payments to Medicare Advantage
plans would be $15 billion smaller if both bills were enacted than under H.R. 3961 alone.
You also asked about the long-term effects on the federal budget of enacting both bills. A
detailed year-by-year projection, like those that CBO prepares for the 10-year budget
window, would not be meaningful because the uncertainties involved are simply too
great. Among other factors, a wide range of changes could occur—in people’s health, in
the sources and extent of their insurance coverage, and in the delivery of medical care
(such as advances in medical research, technological developments, and changes in
physicians’ practice patterns)—that are likely to be significant but are very difficult to
predict, both under current law and under any proposal.

CBO has therefore developed a rough outlook for the decade following the 10-year
budget window. The agency estimates that the two bills together would cost about
$32 billion more in 2019 than H.R. 3962 alone and that the combination of the two bills
would increase the budget deficit in 2019 by $23 billion relative to current law. Those

increments would grow during the following decade. As stated in its October 29, 2009,
letter to Congressman Charles B. Rangel, “CBO expects that [H.R. 3962] would slightly
reduce federal budget deficits in that decade relative to those projected under current
law—with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between zero and onequarter percent of GDP [gross domestic product].” If both H.R. 3961 and H.R. 3962 were enacted, CBO expects that federal budget deficits during the decade following the
10-year budget window would increase relative to those projected under current law—
with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between zero and onequarter percent of GDP.

1 See http://www.federalregister.gov/OFRUpload/OFRData/2009-26502_PI.pdf.

2 See CBO’s cost estimate for H.R. 3961 (November 4, 2009) at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10704/hr3961.pdf .

3 See CBO’s cost estimate for H.R. 3962 (November 6, 2009) at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10710/
hr3962Dingell_mgr_amendment_update.pdf .
If you wish further details, CBO would be happy to provide them. The staff contacts for
this estimate are Lori Housman and Tom Bradley.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf
Director
cc: Honorable John M. Spratt, Jr.
Chairman, Committee on the Budget
Honorable Charles B. Rangel
Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means
Honorable Dave Camp
Ranking Member
Honorable George Miller
Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor
Honorable John Kline
Senior Republican
Honorable Henry A. Waxman
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce
Honorable Joe Barton
Ranking Member

Senator Pat Leahy Gets Visit From the "Stupid Fairy"

2009-11-19T12:06:00.001-05:00

If you were in Washington DC earlier in the week, you would have seen an extra twinkling object in the night sky over the Capitol building. That twinkle was just the Fairy of Stupidity spreading his stupid dust over the office of Senator Pat Leahy. And that fairy dust is working very well on the Senator, maybe too well.

Yesterday during the Senate questioning of Attorney General Eric Holder, Senator Lindsey Graham asked the AG whether bin Laden should be afforded due process in courts if he were captured.

"The big problem I have is you're criminalizing the war, that if we caught bin Laden tomorrow, we have mixed theories and couldn't turn him over to the CIA, the FBI, military intelligence for an interrogation on the battlefield, because now you're saying he's subject to criminal court in the United States and you're confusing the people fighting this war," Graham said."

Leahy was later interviewed on C-span, he disagreed with his colleague, he said described Graham's question as a red herring.

"The red herring that my friend [Sen.] Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) was covering is not realistic," Leahy said during an appearance on "Washington Journal" on C-SPAN.

"For one thing, capturing Osama bin Laden -- we've had enough on him, we don't need to interrogate him," Leahy added.

Huh? We wouldn't need to interrogate him? There is no information about the operations of al Qaeda we would want to know? Any Plots to blow up buildings in the works? How do we find where the terrorist cells are? ANYTHING????

Clearly the Stupid Fairy gave the Senator too much stupid dust.

"We're going to bring them back to New York and prosecute them," he [Leahy] said. "I think we ought to stand up and applaud that."

Well Senator before you stand and applaud please check and make sure you wore pants today, that stupid dust works for at least a week.

The full Video of the Leahy interview is below (H/T The Hill):

Rasmussen : Voters to Democrats-CUT TAXES AND STOP SPENDING

2009-11-19T10:30:00.000-05:00

American Voters have an idea about how to save jobs, especially Congressional Jobs. According to the latest report from Rasmussen voters believe that to create Jobs, cut taxes and stop spending. Lets face it, it worked when Reagan did it, it worked when JFK did it.

62% of all voters believe tax cuts will "save and create" Job. Only 21% believe that a new porkulus plan will be more effective. This number is exactly the same as it was when the first stimulus package was being debated in Congress, 62% of voters wanted the plan to have more tax cuts and less spending.

Given the choice 51% of voters feel canceling the rest of the stimulus money would create more jobs only 32% say spending the money would is a better option.

Of course the Politicos feel different:

While voters believe that tax cuts and stopping spending is the path to job creation, the Political Class disagrees. Sixty-nine percent (69%) of those in the Political Class say that spending the stimulus money would create more jobs than canceling the remaining stimulus spending. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the Political Class believes that new spending will create more jobs than tax cuts. Only 13% believe the tax cutting would do more .

On both questions, there is also a substantial partisan divide. Democrats are fairly evenly divided on both questions while Republicans overwhelmingly believe that canceling the rest of the stimulus money and cutting taxes are better job creation tools than additional stimulus spending. As for those not affiliated with either major party, just over 50% say that stopping spending and cutting taxes is the best way to create jobs.

The poll also reported that voters feel Obama's claims regarding saving or creating jobs via the porkulus plan is a load of hooey. 58% say it’s unlikely that the stimulus plan has saved or created more than 600,000 jobs and 62%) of voters say "don't do me any favors we are opposed to a second stimulus package.

Maybe that's why the President's ratings are so low.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 27% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -14. That matches the lowest Approval Index rating yet recorded for this President