Mitt Romney Trying to Muddy the Issue on Medicare

Count me as one Republican who has had it with the lies from the RNC Chair Priebus, Mitt Romney and now Paul Ryan when it comes to Medicare.  Obama has not 'stolen' $700B from Medicare which is an outright lie being spouted by those three:

Of course, Mitt Romney is trying to muddy the issue. On the day he announced Ryan as his running mate, Romney accused President Obama of using the reform law to cut $700 billion from the Medicare program. That’s not true. In reality, that figure is what the Congressional Budget Office estimates will be saved over the next several years as a result of changes in the way Medicare pays doctors, hospitals and drug companies—changes that doctors, hospitals and drug companies endorsed. 

The real truth but we are not allowed to believe the 'real' truth in Republican circles because anything that doesn't come from Fox News or conservative pundits like Rush, Hannity and others along with conservative sites cannot be true.  Do you know how dumb that sounds but that is what they want out of today's Republicans. We are supposed to follow what they say like mind numbed robots to remain in good standing in the Republican Party.  Why would I care if I remain in good standing in the Republican Party when the Chair and the candidates for the White House are lying?  The attackers don't know me or they would know they are wasting their time and causing me to do more research to prove them wrong.  My stand on wanting truth out about Romney has caused me to lose some friends and gain some others.  What is important to me is that my three grown children are standing with me on what I have to say about this Republican Party.

The dishonesty of this whole deal shows a campaign that is losing big when you have to resort to using LIES to make your campaign look good.   They have gone from using innuendos some time ago to using outright lies using Rush Limbaugh and Fox News as their consultants.  Some days I think when I see a clip of Limbaugh, he is going to have a heart attack as he gets so worked up and mad unless it is an act.  Rush is hemorrhaging sponsors and costing his syndicator millions since he went on his rant against Fluke and women who dare to want access to contraceptives plus the Romney campaign as a whole.  The Rush hatred for Obama is so far over the top you have wonder why because he becomes unhinged when talking about Obama.  Surely he aware that a lot of what he spouts is not true and are lies being repeated against Obama.

Rush and Fox speaks and then these three parrots say exactly what they are instructed along with the parrot from the Romney campaign John Sununu who if you remember was fired by then George W. Bush for his father because he kept using government resources to play golf  like using helicopter transportation for starters.  Now he has latched on to Romney.  Bush 41 should have dumped Sununu long before he finally did and maybe he wouldn't have lost.

Last night I listened to Wendall Potter speak out and came away with confirmation on what I had found when resourcing what had happened with Obama and Medicare.  Turns Obama didn't steal a penny from seniors but this is a savings which will happen because in the Medicare program, he is cutting cost by the insurers, including the  and making the program more efficient.  Those private healthcare companies allowed by Medicare to serve Medicare recipients have driven up costs while some of them have provided poor service.  Having dealt with one for my Mom before she died, I would say whoever came up with that idea didn't know what they were doing.  That is what Obama is cutting.  That experience taught me you don't want anything to do with vouchers for Medicare.  The companies talked a good act to seniors but when it came to delivering, I never had as much trouble as I had with them and their charges to Medicare were out of sight.

Seniors have not seen nor will they see a degradation of their benefits under the Affordable Healthcare Act but why let the truth stand in the way of a lie from Priebus, Romney, and now Ryan who knows better as he used the money savings from Obama in his budget plan.  Now he trashes it like he doesn't know a thing about it.

From ABC:

The Obama campaign wasted no time before rolling out an attack ad featuring Floridian seniors voicing concerns about how Medicare cuts under Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his running mate Rep. Paul Ryan will affect them. But the ads raise questions about whether the Republican duo will really be “ending Medicare care as we know it” and increasing “seniors’ health costs by $6,350 a year.” 

So ABCNews.com fact-checked the claims for you, and found that they’re generally accurate given the information we have – assuming Romney embraces a plan that’s similar to Ryan’s budget proposal, that is.

 Been hearing from different people that the reason the insurance industry likes Romney is that they are going to get wealthier.  BTW, why did the Federal Governor allow insurance companies to become investment companies?

The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, (Pub.L. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, enacted November 12, 1999) is an act of the 106th United States Congress (1999–2001). It repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, removing barriers in the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies that prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company. With the passage of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms, and insurance companies were allowed to consolidate. The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

Anyone notice how some of the rich became richer after this and our health insurance premiums have gone out of sight?  Now if Romney/Ryan were elected the insurance companies and their investors could be making more money:

Wendell Potter: Ryan is a 'dream come true' for health insurance industry 

Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:55 AM EDT 

As someone who worked nearly two decades as a health insurance executive, I know that Mitt Romney’s selection of Rep. Paul Ryan as his running-mate is a dream come true for my former colleagues—and a potential nightmare for just about everyone else in America under the age of 55.

For years, the insurance industry has contributed generously to candidates who want to hand over the Medicare program to private insurance companies. That’s exactly what Ryan’s so-called “Path to Prosperity” would do. It would end the Medicare program as it has existed for almost half a century—a program that guarantees access to affordable care for senior citizens—and replace it with a scheme in which beneficiaries would be given “premium support” to help them buy coverage on the private market. Yes, the traditional Medicare program would continue to be a choice under the 2012 version of Ryan’s plan, but it would have to compete with private insurance companies. And because, under Ryan's plan, insurers would be able to cherry-pick the healthiest seniors, the traditional Medicare program would likely be unable to survive over the long haul. Perhaps it should come as no surprise that Ryan's wife is a former lobbyist for the health insurance industry. 

As the head of corporate communications for Cigna—charged, among other tasks, with disseminating financial information to the news media—I came to understand the lengths insurers routinely go to to satisfy shareholders and analysts. During congressional testimony in 2009, I explained how they make promises they have no intention of keeping, how they flout regulations designed to protect consumers, and how they make it nearly impossible to understand—or even obtain—information consumers need. I described how the big for-profit insurance corporations, in their quest to meet Wall Street’s profit expectations, often cancel the coverage of policyholders who get sick and how they implement “medical management” practices that often result in policyholders being denied coverage for care their doctors recommend.

The Affordable Care Act outlaws many of the most egregious practices of the insurance industry, such as refusing to sell coverage to people with preexisting conditions and charging older people many times more than what they charge younger people for the same coverage. Ryan proposes not only to privatize Medicare but also to scrap those consumer protections, by repealing the reform law. 

(snip)

They endorsed it because they understand the importance of providing coverage to the millions of people who are currently uninsured. The uninsured all too often show up at the emergency room to get care when they get sick or injured, and all too often they can’t pay their bills. Hospitals call this uncompensated care, but somebody has to pay for it, and that somebody is everybody with private insurance. Family premiums now cost more than $1,000 extra to help cover that uncompensated care. That’s what cost shifting is all about. 

Romney’s misleading talking point about that $700 billion reminded me of the work my former colleagues in the insurance industry and I used to do to scare people into believing things that were not true, such as calling the Affordable Care Act a “government takeover of health care.” It wasn't hard to get our friends in politics and the media to take our spin and run with it.
And given what a boon Ryan's plan would be for the industry, it looks like health insurers just got a very well-placed friend indeed.   

Read More at Lean Forward 

Now we are learning that Romney lied about Senator Wyden (D-OR) 'co-leading a piece of legislation' with Paul Ryan.  Will let Wyden explain:

But according to Wyden, Romney's telling of events is misleading and inaccurate.“Governor Romney is talking nonsense," Wyden said in an emailed statement Saturday night. "Bipartisanship requires that you not make up the facts. I did not ‘co-lead a piece of legislation.' I wrote a policy paper on options for Medicare."

Wyden noted he had spoken and voted against the Medicare provisions in the Ryan budget. "Governor Romney needs to learn you don't protect seniors by makings things up, and his comments sure won't help promote real bipartisanship,” he added. 

Wyden and Ryan did collaborate on a policy paper in December, proposing that seniors be given a choice between traditional Medicare coverage and an alternative private plan. Wyden's decision to team up with Ryan resulted in a fair amount of criticism from fellow Democrats, prompting him to defend the collaboration in a 2,380-word op-ed published on The Huffington Post. 

In the opinion piece, the Oregon senator clearly stated that the Wyden-Ryan approach was “simply a policy paper intended to start a conversation about how Democrats and Republicans might work together to uphold the Medicare Guarantee" and made it clear the proposal would in no way eliminate the traditional Medicare plan. 

Wyden also took issue with Romney in the March op-ed, stating, "Mitt Romney, for example, claims to have helped write Wyden-Ryan even though I have never spoken to him about Medicare reform and have yet to hear him declare that there should always be a role for traditional government-run Medicare." 

Wyden added that even if House Republicans incorporated the joint Medicare proposal in their budget, he couldn't "imagine a scenario" in which he would support that budget as a whole. 

Regardless of Wyden's push back, Republicans will likely continue to seize on the Wyden-Ryan plan to counter Democratic attacks on Ryan's original 2011 budget proposal. President Barack Obama has repeatedly targeted Romney for embracing the Ryan budget and calling it "marvelous," even though Romney has maintained that it is not the plan he would put forward if elected president. 

Even though Wyden set the record straight, Romney/Ryan continue to lie about what was involved.  It might be easier to keep track of when Romney tells the truth.

Just when the poor thought they had a shot at getting health insurance, five Republican Governors come along and pull the rug out from under them.  Will someone please tell me how someone doesn't qualify for Medicaid when they make only $5,000 a year in Texas or Louisiana, $8,000 in MS, $11,000 in FL, and $16,900 in South Carolina?  Now the Governors of those five states rejected Medicaid Expansion which will still not allow these people to get Medicaid.

People without any healthcare clog up emergency rooms and costing those of us with insurance a lot of money as our insurance premiums rise to compensate for the uninsured.  What part of that do the Governors not understand?  Maybe if they spent less time and money in their legislatures on bills about abortion, personhood, and gay marriage, there would be money to cover more people.  When you talk about lack of empathy, these five Republican Governors qualify for those badges:  Rick Perry (TX), Bobby Jindal (LA), Phil Bryant (MS), Rick Scott (FL), and Nikki Haley (SC).

Know some of those on the right will say these are bleeding heart stories, but these are real people with jobs not just sitting at home waiting for a welfare check like Romney declared.  Millionaire Governors declaring that poor will not get Medicaid in their state is beyond disgusting:

Medicaid Expansion Rejected By Governors Who Say Earning $11,000 Is Too Much

By CARLA K. JOHNSON and KELLI KENNEDY 08/14/12 06:57 PM ET  

 MIAMI — Sandra Pico is poor, but not poor enough.

She makes about $15,000 a year, supporting her daughter and unemployed husband. She thought she'd be able to get health insurance after the Supreme Court upheld President Barack Obama's health care law. 

Then she heard that her own governor won't agree to the federal plan to extend Medicaid coverage to people like her in two years. So she expects to remain uninsured, struggling to pay for her blood pressure medicine. 

"You fall through the cracks and there's nothing you can do about it," said the 52-year-old home health aide. "It makes me feel like garbage, like the American dream, my dream in my homeland is not being accomplished." 

Many working parents like Pico are below the federal poverty line but don't qualify for Medicaid, a decades-old state-federal insurance program. That's especially true in states where conservative governors say they'll reject the Medicaid expansion under Obama's health law.
In South Carolina, a yearly income of $16,900 is too much for Medicaid for a family of three. In Florida, $11,000 a year is too much. In Mississippi, $8,200 a year is too much. In Louisiana and Texas, earning more than just $5,000 a year makes you ineligible for Medicaid. 

Governors in those five states have said they'll reject the Medicaid expansion underpinning Obama's health law after the Supreme Court's decision gave states that option. They favor small government and say they can't afford the added cost to their states even if it's delayed by several years. Some states estimate the expansion could ultimately cost them a billion dollars a year or more. 

Many of the people affected by the decision are working parents who are poor – but not poor enough – to qualify for Medicaid. 

Republican Mitt Romney's new running mate, conservative Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan, has a budget plan that would turn Medicaid over to the states and sharply limit federal dollars. Romney hasn't specifically said where he stands on Ryan's idea, but has expressed broad support for his vice presidential pick's proposals. 

(snip) 

The political rhetoric during a presidential campaign focuses on the middle class and leaves the uninsured working poor largely invisible, said Rand Corp. researcher Dr. Art Kellermann. 

"We hear a lot of talk about unemployment and the aspirations of middle-class Americans. But we don't hear about the consequences of unemployment and the consequences of the collapsing middle class," Kellermann said. Losing health insurance is one of those consequences. 

"It's like the public just doesn't want to believe anything else until it hits home," he said, "Until it's their own child, brother or parent that got laid off when they were 58, until then, it's not real."   

Excerpt:  Read More at Huffington Post

Today President George W Bush who is trashed roundly by the far right for his 'compassionate conservatism' makes me very proud to have supported him and now realize that his worst enemies came from within the Republican Party's huge donors and far right.  He understood the plight of the poor and seniors doing all he could to help them because he believed like many of us that is our obligation to help those less fortunate who are poor through no fault of their own.  These people hold jobs sometimes more than one and still cannot make ends meet as they have no benefits to go with those jobs.

Walmart and other places have made their owners very wealthy while their employees get the shaft by only allowing them to work so many hours so they qualify as a part-time employee.  Greed seems to have taken over in this Country now being led by today's Republicans along with the wealthy donors.  I have opposed unions for years but with what I am seeing, I am beginning to question a place like Walmart with no union representation.  My biggest gripe is with public service unions at the Federal Level but now with Romney/Ryan wanting to cut the DoD civilian workforce so drastically so their huge donor contractors can take over the jobs, I am even questioning my opposition to AFGE.  Maybe it is time to rejoin the National Active and Retired Federal Employees (NARFE) Association.

It is time for everyone to take an honest look at today's candidates and decide who to vote for instead of following the party blindly.  Surprising what taking off the blindfolds will do for you.  This Republican Party is nothing like the one I have supported for years.  It is a shame that Greed has infiltrated the RNC and campaigns of a lot of Republicans.  How many members of Congress were elected who made an above average living only to become millionaires by the time they left Congress?  Surely someone has done the research on that!

Blue Dog Democrats Headed for Extinction?

When I read last night that Almire and Holden had lost their Democrat primaries in PA, figured the days of the Blue Dogs were going away rapidly.  What this means is that the House becomes more polarizing and less about working together to get things done for the American people.

Living in Oklahoma, home of Congressman Dan Boren who is retiring at the end of this session, we observed up close what it is like to have a Blue Dog Democrat.  When it comes to Defense, he has always been there for our military and has represented our bases well.  He was a voice of reason on the Democrat side with his fellow Blue Dogs but Pelosi didn't see it that way so she set out to destroy the Blue Dog coalition and get more liberal Democrats in the House.  Now you have the Republican Establishment trying to get more moderate/liberal members of Congress instead of Conservatives.  That leaves both parties trying to kick out more conservative members.  Why?

It is getting more obvious that some establishment types don't want smaller government and prefer to have a government that does all.  In the process, we get a ruling class of politicians who only care about themselves and getting richer.  Is that where we are headed today?  Both parties need a reality check that a lot voters on both sides of the aisle are not happy with our choices for President and how Congress is performing.  Now we are also seeing Blue Dogs retiring or defeated in their own primaries.  It is shocking when you see the figures:

Only two short years ago, the Blue Dog Coalition numbered 54 as Democrats controlled the House. But they were decimated by the 2010 elections, as many of the GOP victories came at the expense of moderate Democrats who had previously held those swing districts. 

By the swearing-in of the 112th Congress, the Blue Dogs' numbers had been cut in half. Now, they are flirting with slipping into the teens.

The polling across America when it comes to Congress as a whole shows a very low opinion of how Congress is doing.  It is ridiculous how little really gets done.  All talk and no show which is probably a good thing as they are not spending more money.  There seem to be a lot of members who forget they work for the people and need to do what is best for their constitutions no matter the party which is lost on a lot of them.  Now with the Blue Dogs heading for extinction, the voice of common sense is going to be even less which is not a good thing.

Looks like the establishment of both sides are flexing their muscle using big donors on the GOP side and unions on the Democrat side to oust members they don't like and protect their fair haired members who when they say "jump," they jump.

What will the 113th Congress look like?  Too early to tell but on the Democrat side it is definitely going to become more liberal.

Blue Dogs Headed for ExtinctionBy Shane GoldmacherApril 25, 2012 | 10:28 AM 

The Blue Dogs' bark in Congress is sounding more and more like a whimper. 

The once-powerful coalition of conservative Democrats suffered two more casualties on Tuesday as Rep. Jason Altmire, D-Pa., lost to fellow Democratic Rep. Mark Critz, and Rep. Tim Holden, D-Pa., was ousted by political newcomer Matt Cartwright. 

Congressional elections are just underway in 2012 but the Blue Dog losses are already starting to pile up, as several senior members have opted to retire, others face more challenging districts and those who've confronted the voters -- Altmire and Holden -- have been involuntarily sent packing. 

(snip)

The losses of Altmire and Holden highlight the electoral predicament Blue Dogs are in: They are vulnerable to challenges from both ends of the political spectrum. 

Holden, a ten-term congressman, had successfully fended off GOP challengers for years. But Pennsylvania mapmakers redrew his district to be more Democratic and he lost to a more liberal challenger. Similarly, labor unions propelled Critz past the more moderate Altmire, who voted against President Obama's health care law. 

"Redistricting and a broken, polarized Congress have made it tough to be a moderate in Congress," said Arkansas Rep. Mike Ross, a Blue Dog leader, in a statement after the Pennsylvania results. "The Blue Dogs are in the middle, and we're used to being attacked from both sides." 

The group's PAC has endorsed eight new candidates, but it is not just rank-and-file Blue Dogs that are departing this year - it's the group's leadership. Three of the four official leaders, Ross and Reps. Heath Shuler, D-N.C., and Dan Boren, D-Okla., have already opted to retire. And the fourth, Rep. John Barrow, D-Ga., is a top target of congressional Republicans. During the Masters golf tournament, which is in Barrow's district, House Republicans ran ads trying to link Barrow and Obama, buying golf-themed ads and billboards. 

Republicans used redistricting to remap Blue Dogs across the country into less favorable terrain. In North Carolina, two Blue Dog congressmen, Larry Kissell and Mike McIntyre, are atop the GOP target list after being put into more GOP heavy seats. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has already reserved more than $2 million in television time to hold those seats. In Utah, the state's lone Democratic Rep. Jim Matheson must campaign in new terrain to keep his job. 

(snip)

Excerpt:  Read More at The National Journal 

Statement by Bob Haus, Iowa Campaign Chairman on Romney's Right to Work Comments

Maybe it is because Oklahoma is a fairly new Right to Work state as we passed Right to Work in September 2001, that I was in no mood to see a Republican candidate, Romney, come down on the side of the labor unions against Ohio's Governor Kasich.  Can still remember it like yesterday that about 90% of the money to fight Right to Work came from outside Oklahoma including the Clintons getting involved.  Yet on the Right to Work side about 90% of the donations came from within the state.  It was hard fought as the national unions flooded the state with their people some of them thugs.  Can remember being at the precinct where I live watching for problems from the paid union thugs the day of the election.  My precinct remained quiet so no need to call out a lawyer.

At the end of the day, Oklahomans passed Right to Work and now it is paying off with new jobs for the state especially after we passed Tort Reform following the lead of our neighbors to the south, Texas.

I will admit I saw red when I saw what Romney had to say about Right to Work in Ohio since I grew up there and know how hard they have been working to pass Right to Work in increments.  Romney took the side of the labor unions which undercut Governor Kasich no matter what Romney says today as he flip flops.  Guess you could say we saw his true colors.  After he realized he made a blunder, he tried to call it a gotcha question.  Going back to what we would say when I worked for the Air Force -- that was a load of Bravo Sierra out of Romney.

Believe what we saw was he true belief that he is against Right to Work like most liberals.  Always remember he became an independent because of Reagan/Bush and ran to the left of Ted Kennedy when he ran for Senate.  Then he vowed he would be the pro-choice Governor and went on to pass the liberal Romneycare after getting elected so being against Right to Work would fit in with his ideology until he realized that Republicans are for Right to Work and then he flip flopped.  That flip flop doesn't work with a lot of us!

Statement by Bob Haus, Iowa Campaign Chairman
Posted on October 27th, 2011 

WEST DES MOINES, Iowa – Campaign Chairman Bob Haus today released the following statement:

“For almost 65 years, Iowa has been a proud right to work state. Gov. Romney’s flip-flops on right to work laws was just plain wrong. When presented with a chance to be a leader and to stand up for workers and taxpayers, he shrugged his shoulders and looked the other way. In doing so, he undercut what has been a cornerstone of Iowa’s economic growth and individual freedoms for the past 65 years. Gov. Romney may have shrugged off right to work protections, but Iowans took key note.”

 Source:  RickPerry.org

Doctor Excuses -- ON DEMAND!

Source:  TobyToons

So now after Obama and the DNC supported and encouraged the Union protestors to go after Governor Walker and the Republicans including the runaway Democrat Senators, we have this spin coming out today:

White House now disavowing involvement in Wisconsin protests

The Obama admin must be seeing some polls that look even worse than Rasmussen’s. Doug Ross has both the new WH denial that it’s involved, and the evidence that they forgot about putting out last week, bragging that they are involved. But hey, that was Thursday, this is Monday. That’s practically a lifetime.

We have also have the liberal media who was backing Obama, the DNC, and the union thugs that rampaged through the State Capitol Building, and the union protestors who called in sick and got phoney doctor's slips against Governor Walker. In one fell swoop he has tossed the union protestors, media, and Democrat runaway Wisconsin Senators under the bus. When they going to learn that Obama has no core values and may be worse than Clinton when it comes to throwing someone under the bus. He doesn't care who he leaves in his wake as long as he looks better. In this case, he gets an "F" for trying to use this situation for his political purposes.

This paragraph from the article shows the length Obama will go for his reelection campaign. He has zero ethics to go with zero integrity. In the end this type of action will come back to bite and bite hard. Obama and his campaign's Organizing for America worked in close coordination to make this happen. Guess Obama still hasn't heard of the 10th Amendment and if he has, he will continue to ignore. What a poor excuse for a President.

The Wisconsin political blitzkrieg on Gov. Walker was not a spontaneous eruption. It is now clear that it was a highly organized operation planned in Washington, D.C., to unleash a national counterattack on the gains made by Republicans and Tea Party activists. Getting OFA and the president to act in close coordination was itself no small feat. The plan included busing in thousands of government employees, arranging for Democratic lawmakers to flee to an adjoining state, flying speakers and political organizers into Madison, organizing thousands to leave their jobs in public safety and in classrooms, and staging rallies inside and outside the statehouse. They even enticed sympathetic doctors to draft bogus doctor excuses for government workers.

In the end all of this support by the White House, DNC, and media most likely be putting nails in the union coffins in more states than in Wisconsin as taxpayers across America are fed up with the coddled public service union employees.

Government workers are demonstrating here in Oklahoma today for better pay while they have the day off for President's Day -- they are an association not a union. How about less state employees? Try and get a State Agency to help if you have a problem.

Under the former Democrat Governor the unemployment website to file a weekly claim would just 'happen to go down' every time an unemployment report was due to in DC. You couldn't file for several days so the weekly pay was late. Am I inferring that it was done on purpose -- no, I am saying it outright and one reason why I think the unemployment numbers are suspect.

With pay raises on hold for federal civil service and social security why should any state employee get a raise? They always cite surrounding states here but it is cheaper to live in Oklahoma. If they don't like the pay, get another job.

This is a must read article on how this all came about in hopes it would boost Obama's political campaign in 2012. Same tone deaf Obama who never understood how so many voters went against the Democrats in 2010 as he campaigned for people like Feingold who lost in Wisconsin. Obama is politically tone deaf and looks like the people around him are as well.

Don't think George Allen has to worry if Kaine who heads the DNC decides to run for VA Senate. This was a gross miscalulation on the part of the DNC as well as Obama.

Why Obama and the Dems Blundered in Wisconsin
Another stunning political miscalculation. (Also read: "White House now disavowing involvement in Wisconsin protests.")
February 21, 2011 - by Richard Pollock

It is becoming clear that the Wisconsin battle was a strategic political blunder for President Obama and the Democratic Party. The decision by the Democratic Party and its allies to draw a line in the sand in Wisconsin was the wrong strategy, in the wrong state, at the wrong time, on the wrong issue, and executed in the wrong way.

The White House, which for the last two years seemed so tone deaf over health care, jobs, and the economy, may again be displaying a stunning political miscalculation. Unless the Democrats pull the plug on their ill-conceived Wisconsin campaign, the statewide and national backlash now beginning to emerge may continue to resonate all the way to the 2012 presidential elections.

It will take time to unearth exactly who designed and sold the Wisconsin strategy to the president. But what is emerging is that the White House may have developed two strategies for 2011, not one. The first track, clear to us all, was for the president to tack to the right on the national stage, seek the statesmanlike high road, and negotiate deals with national Republicans.

The second strategy, now emerging, was to pick a target outside the beltway that could serve as a broad political narrative, attack it, nationalize it, and use it to rally Obama’s demoralized political base. It was a bold strategy. They chose Madison, Wisconsin, Gov. Scott Walker’s budget-tightening initiative, and his effort to rein in public employee unions. They further decided to let loose angry union members serve as shock troops. Wisconsin would be the first test case, which would be replicated in other states, including Ohio, Indiana, and Idaho.

The plan seems to have been born both within the war room of the Democratic National Committee and within the Oval Office. The overall coordination for the operation was the remnants of the president’s 2008 political campaign organization, Organizing for America (OFA). The strategy would be launched by the DNC and by the president, who, during the height of the Egyptian crisis, incongruously granted an exclusive interview to a Milwaukee TV reporter over union policy. While Cairo burned, he took time to decry a Wisconsin governor’s effort to rein in the budget and limit union benefits. Shaping the narrative for the attack, he said that Gov. Scott Walker’s effort “seems like more of an assault on unions.”

(snip)

It all worked like a charm. Except that it struck all the wrong notes and portrayed all the wrong images. There is nothing more unseemly that to see a president serve as healer in Tucson and a political hack in Madison.

For in the end, the images and messages tell the story. The showdown in Madison pits pampered public employees against hard-pressed taxpayers. It portrays union workers as an angry mob against those seeking orderly legislative deliberation. It paints Democratic lawmakers as outlaws on the run, undermining the democratic process. It launched a national debate about the generous salaries and benefits for government workers during a time of economic shortages. And it showcased school teachers who abandoned their children in favor of narrow, partisan political gain.

This is a bad unraveling of a political campaign.

Excerpt: Read More at Pajamas Media

The more you read about this being a political calculation by Obama and the DNC the madder you get. People like the Tea Party Express better think long and hard before they take on any Republican incumbent and cost us any seat like they did in the last election when we could have had more Senate seats.

The Madison Disgrace by Larry Kudlow

This is what the union thugs are objecting to from Governor Walker:

Governor Walker is facing a $3.6 billion budget deficit, and he wants state workers to pay one-half of their pension costs and 12.6 percent of their health benefits. Currently, most state employees pay nothing for their pensions and virtually nothing for their health insurance. That’s an outrage.

What employee should get free health benefits and a free pension in America? Wisconsin state employees. What other states do the same? Had no idea some states paid the whole amount for their state employees. Unions are more on the take than I thought.

As a former federal employee who paid 7.5% into the federal pension, I am appalled that any state employee gets a pension for nothing like in Wisconsin. Then there is the 'little' amount federal employees pay month for health benefits for plans like Blue Cross -- over $400 a month out of our pocket. Yet the union thugs in Wisconsin want to continue to get benefits while they pay nothing?

This is what Obama supports -- free benefits for union members? I don't think so! Vote out all Democrats who support public unions and their right to strike like teachers and who agree public service unions should pay nothing for health benefits or pension. Time to end this travesty.

The Madison Disgrace

By Larry Kudlow

The Democratic/government-union days of rage in Madison, Wis., are a disgrace. Paul Ryan calls it Cairo coming to Madison. But the protesters in Egypt were pro-Democracy. The government-union protesters in Madison are anti-democracy. In fact, Democratic legislators are fleeing the state so as not to vote on Gov. Scott Walker’s budget cuts.

The teachers union is going on strike in Milwaukee and elsewhere. They ought to be fired. Think Reagan PATCO in 1981. Think Calvin Coolidge police strike in 1919.

....

Nationwide, state and local government unions have a 45 percent total-compensation advantage over their private-sector counterpart. With high-pay compensation and virtually no benefits co-pay, the politically arrogant unions are bankrupting America — which by some estimates is suffering from $3 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

Exempting police, fire, and state troopers, Governor Walker would end collective bargaining for the rest. Unions could still represent workers, but could not get pay increases above the CPI. Nor could they force employees to pay dues. And in exchange for this, Walker promises no furloughs for layoffs.

So, having lost badly in the last election, the government-union Democrats have taken to the streets. This is a European-style revolt, like those seen in Greece, France, and elsewhere. So it becomes greater than just a fiscal issue. It is becoming a law-and-order issue.

President Obama, who keeps telling us he’s a budget cutter, has taken the side of the public unions. John Boehner correctly rapped Obama’s knuckles for this. If the state of Wisconsin voters elected a Chris Christie-type governor with a Republican legislature, then it is a local states’ rights issue.

Obama should stay out. And Governor Walker should stand tall and stick to his principles. Otherwise, a nationwide revolt of state-government unions will destroy the country as well as its finances.

Source: National Review.com

Will someone please explain to us why it is okay for teachers to strike. These men and women have the education for the future of America in their hands.  What is it teaching children if they strike to put themselves ahead of everything. Self centered and selfish is not a desirable trait in a teacher.

When you go to work for the Federal Government you sign a paper that you won't strike or if you do, you are subject to being fired. Why don't states have the same rules? Why should public service employees be allowed to strike? They know when they take the job that they have an obligation to the people they serve to stay on the job. If want a strike, become a UAW employee as they love to strike over small items as the GM workers in Midwest City, OK, proved and one reason that GM shut down the plant.

Obama is making the union members think they can do anything they want and is leading them down a path they cannot win. Just because he supports the SEIU doesn't mean most thinking Americans do. If this is going to turn into union members versus taxpayers and the people voters election on November 2nd, Obama and his union thugs are going to be on the short end of that stick. Just wait until voters realize that SEIU members and others in WI and other states pay nothing for their benefits. Is the media going to do unbiased reporting or are they going to side with Obama and the unions?

Wisconson Governor Walker irked by Obama's meddling

White House and DNC Deploy to Wisconsin is not a headline we should be seeing. The President is interfering with the State of Wisconsin and their right to balance the budget. Sending in more union thugs from around the Country flies in the face of the 10th amendment. Who died and made Obama King?

Public union members have been getting a free ride for years and it is time it stopped. We applaud the Governor of Wisconson and the legislature for taking this stand and his statement about state employees:

“I've said repeatedly [that] good, decent people work for the government,” Walker said. “But they shouldn't be excluded from what everybody else in society is going through in these tough economic times -- we've all got to be in it together.”

Why shouldn't union members have to anti-up when there are so many people out of work and state budgets are busted in part by high unemployment numbers, pension funds, and all the union benefits that the Democrats have given them over the years on the backs of taxpayers. Lack of tort reform due to trial attorneys is also hurting a lot of states.

Why do we have public service unions who have collective bargaining? Are they getting paid while they are demonstrating in Wisconsin? The chicken Democrats legislators fled Wisconsin to prohibit a vote at the request of the unions. You can tell who the Democrats favor starting at the top with Obama -- union members over tax payers. He doesn't care that public unions are bankrupting governments all across the Country because he owes them for his election so he puts them first.

Don't understand public service unions like teachers going on strike when their job is educate children -- you cannot do that while striking. The Democrats love to talk about education and what is wrong but never want to admit the union teachers play a huge part in poor education for our young people as they make sure bad teachers are kept employed, not fired.

Know what it is like to be involved in trying to oust someone who is a member of a public service union like the federal ones. We had a clerk-typist who came to work maybe two days a week -- always an excuse but the union backed her 100% and took two years to get her off the Federal rolls. Union went all out and claimed discrimination because she was black. Her race made no difference because she was lazy. She was hired under one of the minority programs -- couldn't spell or type worth anything and they gave her a GS-4 even though she failed every test.

Then we had a white secretary who claimed she fell on the steps and became too disabled to work. She do didn't do much work before -- they gave her a disability based on a fraudulent statement by a doctor and the union backed her 100%. The Government finally proved she was lying after several years and had to pay back the disability payments.

Finally came to the conclusion that the federal employees who were eligible to join the union and didn't were the best employees. They were not looking to scam the system. The Federal Unions I thought were the worst until I learned about the SEIU and their thugs at the state and local level. SEIU is nothing but a thug union as witnessed in the last election.

Public service unions should not have collective bargaining so they can threaten to strike. If they strike, fire them like President Reagan did the Air Traffic Controllers. They are getting paid by the taxpayers and we should have some say. No one who works deserves free health benefits and pensions where they get paid more AFTER they retire.

Time to tighten the belts in states starting with the unions and their benefits. Also time for Obama to mind his own business and stay out of the state's business when it comes to how they budget for their state. He should be worried about the Federal Government deficit not the unions and their state benefits.

It is going to backfire on Obama as most Americans are tired of union thugs and their demands.

Walker irked by Obama's meddling
By MJ LEE | 02/18/11 8:28 AM Updated: 02/18/11 9:27 AM


Gov. Scott Walker is confronted with thousands of protesters outside of the state capitol.

 Republican Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, confronted with thousands of protesters outside of the state capitol in Madison, says “it would be wise for the president” to stay out of his state’s business.

“I think we’re focused on balancing our budget,” Walker said on Fox News Friday morning. “It would be wise for the president and others in Washington to focus on balancing their budget, which they are a long ways from doing.”

The governor – just a mere six weeks into his job – added that he is not threatened by the agenda of Washington politicians. “We're not going to be intimidated by people coming in from outside of Wisconsin trying to tell us what we need to do to balance our budget,” Walker said. “The bottom line is, we got elected to do a job.”

For days, Wisconsin’s union members have been demonstrating against legislation proposed by Walker last week that aims to reduce the power of public sector unions and cut into members’ paychecks. But Walker continued to insist that his decision is not about “degrading public employees.”

....

Source: Politico44

Then we have the absentee Democrats from the Wisconsin legislature so there is no quorum. Are they still getting paid and have benefits when they walked out on their jobs? Reminds me of the Texas Democrats they found in Ardmore, OK. Where are they headed next as there is an 'all points bulletin' out for the jerks. Guess they don't like being the minority party because they cannot take care of their union buddies and bankrupt Wisconsin even more.

Texas Governor Rick Perry highlighted the 10th Amendment and State's Rights during his CPAC speech -- this is a prime example of Obama and the DNC ignoring the 10th Amendment. Do these people even care we have a Constitution? Doesn't look like it to us.

Hope Governor Walker docks the pay for every Democrat member of the legislature who decided to leave WI so there wouldn't be a vote. Democrats are showing less and less class by the day. Republicans in Congress for two years were very outmanned by the Democrats but they didn't abdicate their duties and run away -- they stood up and kept fighting. Seems when Democrats lose control like they have in Wisconsin, they cut and run just like the idiot Democrats did the other year when they left Texas for Ardmore, OK. There seems to be a lack of ethics and integrity in the Democrat Party as witnessed by Obama, the DNC, and others sending union thugs from other states into Wisconsin to demonstrate.

Governor Walker is standing tall -- we should be very proud of the people we elected as Governors across the Country who understand that the state budgets have to be brought under control and that means every last person involved in state government has to do their part including union members.

Barack Obama: "They talk about me like a dog." as Obama Panders to Unions on the Economy

'What was he thinking?' is the most common reply to this comment of Obama's:

"Some powerful interests who had been dominating the agenda in Washington for a very long time and they're not always happy with me. They talk about me like a dog. That's not in my prepared remarks, but it's true," President Obama told an audience in Wisconsin.

That is quickly followed by I love my dogs but I don't like Obama. What a dumb remark for a President to make in any speech. Most Americans treat their dogs like members of their family. We are called racist by this President and now this. Have a hard time believing this came out of anyone elected to be President.

Self-described mutt Barack Obama:
Don't 'talk about me like a dog'

Telegraph [UK], by Toby Harnden

AP

Just when it seemed that Barack Obama couldn’t dig himself any deeper into the political hole he’s in, he does something really stupid. (Snip) “They talk about me like a dog. That’s not in my prepared remarks, but it’s true.” The comment makes him look ridiculous. First off, there are inevitable racial overtones to it. To be treated “like a dog” is to be treated as something less than human. In the Muslim world, to call someone a dog is a pretty serious insult (and no, I’m not suggesting Obama is a Muslim).

Excerpt: Read More at Telegraph

Know we have said this many times before but maybe if the media had not covered up his background from what little was released or actually done the investigation of his background, he would not be President. At least we knew Hillary was American, born here, raised here, and went to college in the United States. Like her agenda or not, we knew who she was.

We know little about Obama today as he refuses to this day to release his paperwork. If you think he is not hiding something, watch this entire video. It is shocking what this Court Martial judge had to say about the Obama paperwork requested in a court martial trial by the defendent:





Yesterday in Wisconsin where Sen Russ Feingold (D-WI) is in a fight for his political life, he was no where to be seen around Obama because he had 'scheduling conflicts' just like Alex Sink in Florida when Obama showed up for her and the Dems fundraiser in south Florida. She practically ran off the stage to get out of there before Obama appeared. Why won't they be seen with the person they supported 100% without knowing who he was, but he was their 'savior' for the Democrats? Wonder what goes through their minds now? They supported the voter fraud against Hillary Clinton by the ACORN and SEIU thugs by remaining silent and this is what they gave America -- Obama!

Now comes Obama's pandering on Labor Day to the union construction workers. Don't know about any of you, but around here road construction projects take forever to complete and are backed up like on I-35. By the time they get it completed in the OKC area, it will be time for a redo. How does he think throwing more money is going to create jobs before the election? That's what this is all about -- making people think he is doing something about the economy which he has ignored for over 18 months after passing the stimulus that didn't work.

Some of his ideas come from Republican ideas that he ignored in early 2009 and now he wants to implement them which is way too late to do any good for months or maybe years the shape the economy is in today. The one idea that made us laugh about how dumb he thinks we are was when he wants to give a credit for business with capital investment aka Section 179 which is on the books and needs to stay there.  Guess he considers that a bone since he was planning to do away with all the Bush Tax Cuts starting with the ones for people earning over $250,000 and then it went lower and lower.  Throwing more money after bad and offering a tax break for business that is already there is not going to help the economy but it does show the American people this President and his advisors have no clue!

Obama's 'pivot' to the economy comes far too late
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
September 6, 2010

In early November 2009, as the fight over Obamacare threatened to stretch all the way to New Years, I discussed the battle with a well-connected Democratic strategist. He wanted health care to pass, but he was eager for President Obama to turn his attention to the issues Americans cared about most: the economy and federal spending. "As soon as health care reform is over, he needs to pivot hard to becoming a deficit and spending hawk and a jobs creator," the strategist told me....

But health care dragged on even longer; the bill didn't pass until March 21. Even then, with his No. 1 priority accomplished, Obama did not execute the long-awaited pivot and go full-tilt on the economy. In fact, at times it was hard to tell just what he was doing. "So has he already made the hard pivot to jobs, or are we still waiting for that to happen?" a reporter asked White House press secretary Robert Gibbs during that time.

Then came months during which Obama sometimes talked about the economy and sometimes talked about energy and sometimes about immigration and sometimes the Middle East and sometimes about other stuff. Watching the polls, Democrats squirmed, seeing their hopes for November grow dimmer and dimmer. Republicans looked on, bewildered.

"I don't get it," GOP pollster David Winston told me at the time. "I don't understand what he is doing. He's not addressing the No. 1 issue that Americans want him to address."...

Instead, they got policy potpourri and "Recovery Summer."

Now, with unemployment stuck at 9.6 percent, it appears the waiting is over. On his 595th day in office, less than eight weeks before voters go to the polls, Obama is making that now-infamous pivot. In a flurry this week, he's proposing spending $50 billion on the nation's roads and railways. He's proposing a $100 billion research tax credit for businesses. He'll have more proposals in the days ahead.

White House officials insist these are serious policy initiatives that are not being put forth just so Obama can say he's doing something about the economy. But that leads to the question: If these are such great ideas, why wasn't the president pushing them earlier?

"They've had nearly two years to think about it, and they've come up with a Democrat caricature: tax and spend," says one high-ranking GOP Hill aide.

But even if Obama's proposals were good policy, it's not just too late for them to have any significant economic effect by November. It's also too late for them to have any significant political benefit for Democrats. Large segments of the public believe Obama and his party focused on the wrong issue -- health care -- for too long in 2009 and 2010, and when they did pass a big economic measure, the $814 billion stimulus, they got it wrong. That will be a hard perception to change by Nov. 2.

"The die has been cast in many voters' minds," says another Hill Republican deeply involved in the midterm effort. "People believe the stimulus was a failure. By trying to 'pivot,' Democrats can't all of a sudden hide from their signature jobs effort. After all, didn't we just have the recovery summer?"...

Byron York, The Examiner's chief political correspondent, can be contacted at byork@washingtonexaminer.com. His column appears on Tuesday and Friday, and his stories and blogposts appear on ExaminerPolitics.com.

Read more at the Washington Examiner

Bottom Line: Obama gave a speech to union members on his plans for the economy while even the Democrats are running away from Obama and his agenda, accused all of us of treating him like a dog, and blamed the economy on everyone but him and his advisors. IOTW typical day for Obama except for going off the teleprompter for his 'dog' comment to chastise us for not liking his agenda and giving him little respect. Don't like his agenda and have ZERO respect for anyone who refuses to release even their birth certificate, but still don't treat him like a dog as I treat my two dogs very well as members of the family.

Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) Daily Update

Today we are bringing you all three topics from CEI because they are timely and people need to see what is happening. We love the fact that Senator Murkowski from Alaska has laid the regulations in the clean air act right at the foot of Obama -- there is nothing bipartisan about this scam. EPA has done more over the years to hurt the economy than they have to help the environment with some of the strangest rules they come up with like reformulated gas which costs people in most places 10 cents more a gallon. Why? What good does it do?

Now we learn that the Jones Act being strictly enforced by Obama is harming the efforts in the Gulf on the oil spill. To learn he is being tougher than the unions leaves us asking another Why? What good does it do? Why not take the help and not worry about the Jones Law when we have Gulf states under attack from the BP oil spill but then we are still wondering why he wouldn't talk to the President of BP at the beginning.

Ethanol the last topic of the day is one that leaves a really bad taste in our mouth as nothing has been proven it helps gasoline in any way but we are stuck paying extra to get ethanol free gas. This was done as a subsidy to corn farmers of Iowa without any justification whatsoever except some environmentalists pipe dream as a way to make money for corn producers and be less reliant on oil. Now we learn that a tariff is being put on imported ethanol which will raise the price even more. Why?

When does all this nonsense stop by this inept Administration? Election 2010 cannot come too soon for us.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute
Daily Update
Issues in the News
June 15, 2010

1. ENVIRONMENT

Last week, the Senate rejected Lisa Murkowski’s resolution of disapproval against the EPA.

CEI Expert Available to Comment: Senior Fellow Marlo Lewis on why Murkowski has won a political victory, even if she suffered a legislative defeat.

“By denying President Obama bipartisan cover for greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act, Sen. Murkowski has made EPA’s endangerment rule a political liability for Democrats and a political asset for Republicans in an election year. That should increase the pressure on moderate Dems and Republicans alike to distance themselves from Democratic leaders and eschew cap-and-trade, which, like EPA’s regulations, would increase consumer energy prices, killing jobs and growth.”

2. POLITICS

President Obama has refused offers from several European countries to help clean up the oil spill because he would have to waive union-backed laws mandating that American vessels have American crews.

CEI Expert Available to Comment: Senior Counsel Hans Bader on why the President’s priorities are skewed.

“Ironically, even the staunchest supporters of the Jones Act are now distancing themselves from refusals to accept foreign help, saying they have ‘not and will not stand in the way of the use of these well-established waiver procedures to address this crisis.’ Obama is being more intransigently pro-union than the unions themselves.”

3. TRADE

United Ethanol signs an agreement to license GreenShift Corporation’s patented corn oil extraction technology.

CEI Expert Available to Comment: Research Associate Brian McGraw on why the Congress should end the U.S. tariff on Brazilian ethanol.

“Taxes on imported ethanol force consumers to rely on inefficient and expensive ethanol produced from corn in the United States. These tariffs, in effect, declare war on consumers, raising the price at the pump as well as the price of all goods and services that require transportation to their final point of sale.”

Democrat Caddell rips White House for obeisance to organized labor

This is beyond amazing to have Pat Cadell say that Obama White House is creating "a world in which there is no dissent" because that is how Obama comes across to us. You do not disagree with Obama and his Chicago thugs or you are on the outside looking in which looks to be what happened to Cadell, a democrat consultant.

We were concerned that unions would have the upper hand in the Obama White House and it looks like that it is the case. It is pretty evident that Obama is bought and paid for by the SEIU and other union groups. We have yet to figure out why federal employees have such heavy handed unions when by law they are not allowed to strike. Actually when you stop to think, it makes you wonder why there are any unions representing public employees. Not only do they have unions but very strong unions who use thug tactics.

Obama seems to be the perfect example of saying one thing during the campaign and doing a 180 after elected for the most part but one thing has come true -- the fear a lot of us had that the unions would be running the Government.

“What I said about Andy Stern and the SEIU? Sure, they’re thugs,” said Caddell

It is one thing for us to say that the SEIU is a group of thugs, but to have Pat Caddell say the same thing gives extra credibility to the 'thug' statement.

Democrat Caddell rips White House for obeisance to organized labor
Jon Ward
February 17, 2010

Longtime Democratic strategist Pat Caddell on Wednesday blasted the Obama White House for creating “a world in which there is no dissent,” following his banishment from Colorado Democrat Andrew Romanoff’s campaign for Senate.

Caddell, in a phone interview with The Daily Caller, doubled down on the comments he made in November, when he said public sector employee unions in Colorado used as leverage to get him tossed from the Romanoff campaign.

“What I said about Andy Stern and the SEIU? Sure, they’re thugs,” said Caddell, a former adviser to President Jimmy Carter, who until Wednesday had an informal advising role with the primary challenger to incumbent Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet.

Caddell said he does not fault Romanoff, a former state House speaker, for cutting ties with him after his remarks from November — in which he called the Service Employee Union International (SEIU) “thugs” and said the goal of the environmental movement is to “deconstruct capitalism” — were made public.

But Caddell said the comments were pushed into the public spotlight by the state chapters of the SEIU and the AFL-CIO, who called on the Romanoff campaign to get rid of him or risk losing any chance of getting labor’s endorsement.

“The unions have been considering endorsing Romanoff, and basically they told him that if I was involved with the campaign, ‘sayonara,’ which I think is the definition of thuggery isn’t it?” said Caddell, who has worked for a who’s who of Democratic politicians over the last few decades, including Ted Kennedy, George McGovern, Mario Cuomo and Gary Hart.

The SEIU and AFL-CIO have not responded to requests for comment. Neither have the Bennet campaign or the Romanoff campaign.

Caddell’s larger point is that Obama has allowed the Democratic party to be run by special interests such as the SEIU, and that the White House itself has reinforced the idea that no disagreement with their policies or ideas can be expressed.

“What they have created is a world in which there is no dissent. Don’t look at me. Look at [Sen.] Evan Bayh. People, with some justification, may think that I’m crazy. But he is the center of the establishment if there was ever was someone,” Caddell said. “When there’s no room in the Democratic party for him and there’s no room in the Democratic party for me, and the unions do get to make those kinds of calls in defense of the indefensible, because, ‘We own you,’ well, the Democratic party will be finished.”

The White House has not responded to request for comment.

Caddell said he is being ostracized for sounding alarms about the problem that public sector unions are posing for the Democratic party. He said he supports industrial unions but that government employee unions such as the SEIU — which is one of the Democratic party’s biggest campaign contributors — violate the raison d’etre of the party, which is to “stand up for ordinary average Americans, not money and special interests.”

“I think the public unions are going to take the country and the Democratic party down the tubes,” Caddell said. “They’re in the business of taking care of — of asking taxpayers, asking ordinary people, to pay for people who make twice as much as they make, with benefit packages they will never see, and they’re told, you may not cut those.”

Excerpt: Read More at Daily Caller

'Too High of Price' (Chicago Education and NEA)

This morning we have decided that everyone is probably as sick and tired of reading about Obamacare after that phony victory last night as we are. Cap and trade (tax) has turned into a joke after what was revealed this week that the data used was tweaked to get the results they wanted so they could report something that was not true. It has shown some scientists who touted global warming to be extremely unethical.

While looking for a new and different subject to highlight on this Sunday morning we ran across an editorial on education that struck at the heart of the problem in school systems like Chicago.

The Chicago Tribune editorial this morning,"Too High of Price," gives the details of what is wrong with Chicago Public Schools and frankly we would like to say across America where schools are run by state and local teacher's unions. Local teacher's unions support the National Education Association (NEA) which is nothing more then a National Union for Teachers. In many cases, NEA members put their own benefits ahead of students which leaves the classrooms without the necessary resources they need -- like new books with enough for every student to have their own book to use not share a book. We believe that teacher's should not be allowed to strike to get more benefits for themselves. When they strike they are hurting the students while getting a vacation.

Thanks to state Sen. James Meeks, the Chicago Democrat, a pastor of Salem Baptist Church on the South Side, who provided the Chicago Tribune this You Tube Video and The Chicago Tribune for making it public. The video is from the National Education Association (NEA) aka Teacher's Union Convention in San Diego in July. We found it extremely interesting and uplifting that Sen Meeks is not going to be intimidated by the Chicago Teacher's Union. From the Tribune Editorial:

Meeks, who chairs the Illinois Senate Education Committee, has been in a war with the Chicago Teachers Union since he had some tough things to say about public education in a Tribune essay and in a speech at Rainbow Push.

The CTU responded with a vow not to give him another dime in campaign money until he apologized. Meeks promptly wrote a check for $4,000, giving back every dime the union had already given him.

No apology.

You have to love this guy. He's genuinely looking out for kids and doesn't back down to pressure.

This video provided by Sen Meeks will make you cringe when you realize people like this are involved in your children's education. It is an 'eye opener video' showing the top lawyer of the NEA, Bob Chanin, giving his last speech as their lawyer at the July NEA national meeting.

We are appalled after watching this video and believe the Chicago Tribune editorial writer sums up the video perfectly in his editorial:

Chanin closed his nearly 25-minute speech by explaining the influence of the NEA:

Despite what some among us would like to believe it is not because of our creative ideas. It is not because of the merit of our positions. It is not because we care about children and it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power.

And we have power because there are more than 3.2 million people who are willing to pay us hundreds of millions of dollars in dues each year, because they believe that we are the unions that can most effectively represent them, the unions that can protect their rights and advance their interests as education employees.

Oh, it gets more interesting.

This is not to say that the concern of NEA and its affiliates with closing achievement gaps, reducing dropout rates, improving teacher quality and the like are unimportant or inappropriate. To the contrary. These are the goals that guide the work we do. But they need not and must not be achieved at the expense of due process, employee rights and collective bargaining. That simply is too high a price to pay.

Too high a price to pay for educated children. Chanin got wild applause from thousands of NEA members at the San Diego Convention Centerfor his remarks.

NOTE: NEA refused to return phone calls of the Chicago Tribune which comes under fire everytime they write an article critical of the Chicago Teacher's Union. Seems to us they could write an editorial every day and be doing a public service. All the Tribune wanted to know was "if the rest of the union leadership believed that kids ranked behind collective bargaining on the teacher priority list." Crickets are still chirping from the NEA.

We found this information from the Chicago Tribune editorial to be the most refreshing we have seen on Chicago Education in years if not ever:

Meeks plans to introduce a bill in January that would give the kids at Chicago's lowest-performing schools a choice. It would give kids at 15 high schools and 48 elementary schools a voucher to pay for another school.

He plans to push to remove the cap on the number of charter schools in Illinois. The legislature raised the cap this year. But there should be no cap at all.

Meeks met on Thursday with Sen. Dan Cronin, the Republican leader on the Education Committee, to see if they can work out a bipartisan agenda.

Illinois and Chicago need more people like Senator Meeks who is willing to stand up for Chicago schoolchildren. Education should be bi-partisan and politics taken out of the public schools not only in the Chicago Public Schools but in all school districts in America once and for all and concentrate on the educating of children.

All of these years and the huge amounts of money given to the Chicago Public Schools has seen very little change in the classrooms and their ability to educate Chicago schoolchildren because of graft by politicians and their friends, and a union who puts themselves above the students. They control Chicago Public Schools and don't seem to mind the children are not getting a decent education. Any teacher that speaks out on failing schools and lack of Administration support is the subject of intimidation by the union. Recently, it was discovered that about 1,000 Chicago public school teachers call in sick "DAILY" which is disgusting, but then some teacher's make $90,000 in Chicago which is even more digusting when you factor in the test results from their students. The result is a huge public school system which is a dismal failure. We just learned from a friend of this site, that there is also a substitute teacher's union in Chicago who need to make money. Add 2+2 and you chances are the reason for so many teachers calling in sick is that substitutes need paid as well.

The recent 'suicide' of the President of the Chicago School Board Michael Scott which is still under investigation brings into question about the ethics of people running the schools in Chicago. We find that Mr. Scott was heavily involved in the Chicago Olympic bid with Valerie Jarrett where large pieces of property in the southside would have been bought up for huge sums for the venues. We did discover that when he was pulled from the river, the fire department hosed down the whole area before the crime scene investigators had a chance to investigate. Not saying he did anything improper with the Chicago Olympic Committee but his death with no suicide note makes you wonder if this is just another in a long line of suspicious deaths in Chicago.

With Chicago having a failing school system, many of us question why Arne Duncan, Superintendent of Chicago Public Schools, was named by his good friend Obama, to be Secretary of Education. Obama expects school districts to pay attention to what Duncan has to say? Not going to happen in most independent school districts. Was the naming of Duncan a payback to the National Education Association (NEA) for their huge support of Obama? We believe it was.

In looking deeper at Chicago Public Schools, we would be remiss if we did not bring up Obama's role in the $500M Annenberg Challenge which in the final analysis people see little benefit to the Chicago Public School but some people lined their pockets from this effort. Why was Obama chosen by Bill Ayers to head this project when Obama had little background? Rumor has it that Obama didn't make a move without Ayers' blessing.

If you don't believe us about the Anneberg Challenge was a failure, check the Fordham study on the the results of the Anneberg Challened which was to pump $500M into Chicago Public Schools. Here is the bottom line of their study from Alexander:

According to a piece done by Alexander Russo for the Thomas B Fordham Institute:

--snip--

But, while those who have benefited monetarily from the grants have enthusiastically praised it, there is little evidence to show that the program his enjoyed any actual success.

Beyond testimonials from those associated with the Challenge, however, it becomes difficult to find conclusive indications of the program's impact. Outside of anecdotal examples, few of the networks contacted were able to distinguish clearly what specific role Annenberg funds had played in their effectiveness, and none of the networks contacted could supply research that attributes student-achievement gains to Annenberg funding.

--snip--

Therein lies the problem. While few connected with them doubt the value of the programs supported by the Chicago Challenge, their impact is not yet established. This lack of hard evaluation data on the effectiveness of the Challenge is a source of widespread frustration in a city where test scores have increasingly become the coin of the realm. "We don't have a lot to tell you," admitted University of Illinois professor Mark Smylie, who is principal investigator for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge Study being conducted by the Consortium on Chicago School Research at the University of Chicago. The Challenge is "a difficult thing to evaluate," he explained. "None of these Challenges reflects a tightly designed programmatic initiative that renders itself useful to traditional evaluation."

While those closely associated with the challenge are certain that it is having a positive impact on the schools, there is no actual evidence to prove it.

So, what we have, is multi-million dollar educational boondoggle, being run by Ayres. What, you might be asking, does this have to do with Barack Obama? Thank you for asking.

Ayres, and the other founders of the Annenberg Challenge chose Barack Obama to be the first Chairman of the Board for the new program. Barack Obama, whose relationship to Ayres was "flimsy at best" worked directly for Ayres for eight years. This would seem to be more than just a casual relationship.

Bottom line of all of this is that Teacher's Unions for the most part put their own wants and needs ahead of their students or they wouldn't strike against their students. We have Chicago politicians running their schools which by all accounts are horrible schools and some of the worst in the Nation, but they continue to line their pockets and get elected by the Chicago Teacher's Union.

What Chicago needs on their school board are people like Rep Meeks who put the students first in spite of the thug tactics of the union. Only then will Chicago Schools start to educate their students instead of making politicians wealthy.

Not only is the Chicago Teacher's Union a powerful force in the Chicago Public Schools which they have virtually destroyed but are in many of the Colleges that dot the landscape of Chicago. First semester you are on probation but the second semester you have to join the union. The benefit is that your pay rises almost double for the same one class you were teaching the semester before. Same professor, same curriculum, but get a lot more pay because you are now a union member. Make sense to you -- it doesn't to us. That doesn't even include the fact you don't just have to join one union to teach local colleges but you have to join one at each and every one you teach. If you teach two classes under the non-union wage for the first semester, then the second semester when you join the union you teach one class for the same amount of money as you received from teaching two classes. Make sense? Only in union circles does it make sense.
This is your tax dollars at work! Thank you local teacher union member for putting themselves ahead of students all across America. Under Obama they are going to get even stronger. America needs to wake up and take back schools from the NEA and local teacher's union. Today is a fine day to start in Chicago and around the Country after this editorial which can be read in its entirety at 'Too High Price'.

Note: If you live in Chicago and want to help Senator Meeks, suggest you contact him at his Springfield Office at (217) 782-8066 or his district office at (708) 862-1515 and offer your support including support for his reelection since it looks like the Chicago Teacher's Union has made him a target. We are more then happy to support a Democrat on this site who puts Chicago school children first.

Another Democrat Taking Orders from Big Labor: Reid makes Concessions to Labor Unions on Healthcare

For all of you out there who have been wondering who is behind Obamacare, we are getting the answer. AFL-CIO President is telling Reid what the Labor Unions will accept with this bill. Makes no difference that the voters don't want a public option because the unions do and that is who pulls the strings of the Democrats and funds their campaigns along with ACORN voter fraud.

Looks like Reid like so many Democrats is bought and paid for by the Unions. Shame that the people of Nevada ever elected him to represent them as he has one master and that looks to be Labor Unions who fund and work his campaign even if a lot of them don't even live in Nevada.

Unions who were getting weaker have sprung back to life with this Administration. We would like to say it is for their workers but we all know better because it is to line the pockets of the union officials at all levels.

Read this article and see for yourself that the head of the US Senate has sold out to the Unions once again. Democrats might as well wear a big tag that says "I am Bought and Paid for by Labor Unions!"

Reid makes concessions to labor unions on Senate healthcare bill The Hill
October 26, 2009
Alexander Bolton

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has made several significant concessions to organized labor in the healthcare reform bill he is preparing for the Senate floor, according to a source familiar with the legislation.

Reid has increased the threshold of high-cost insurance plans that would be subject to taxation to pay for healthcare reform.

Legislation passed by the Senate Finance Committee would impose a 40 percent excise tax on family plans costing more than $21,000, a provision estimated to raise $201 billion for healthcare reform. Under heavy pressure from unions, Reid has increased the threshold so that only family plans costing $23,000 or more would be taxed, said a source familiar with the bill.

The taxable threshold would increase each year by the rate of the Consumer Price Index plus one percent.

Union officials are happy that Reid has listened to their concerns, even though they would like to see the controversial tax scrapped altogether.

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka praised Reid on Monday for trying to lessen the impact of the insurance plan tax on working families.

"Sen. Reid is working hard to lessen the impact of this tax and we appreciate his hard work on this," Trumka said during a conference call with reporters.

The Senate bill that Reid has crafted would also include a national government-run insurance plan and allow individual states to opt out of the program. Trumka said his union would not support an “opt in/opt out” compromise on the public option but he said it was a step in the right direction.

“It’s on its way but it’s not there yet,” he said.

The legislation Reid is crafting with Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) would also increase the penalty on employers who fail to provide healthcare insurance for employees.

A spokeswoman for Reid did not respond immediately to a request for comment.

SOURCE: The Hill