Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Say it ain’t so. Harry Reid is abandoning cap and trade? Or was this simply one of those times the House passed a bill knowing all the while the Senate would kill it? Dems like to claim cap and trade, aka the national energy tax, was proposed over concern about global warming. The GOP claims it is a tax on energy and job killer. Truth is that many including Al Gore and many in the federal government stand to profit through carbon credit exchanges.

It is easy to doom a legislative proposal by adding additional language making the bill a multi-purpose scam. Loose references to bipartisan negotiations were reported to break down over offshore drilling disputes and the immigration reform issue. But all that could have been intentional poison pills inserted to guarantee failure.

The strategy being those supporting it really oppose cap and trade but look good to eco voters and other liberals in an election year. The other side gets their pick of items in the bill to mask their true intentions. All in Congress get political cover in an election year with such tactics and then wonder what causes voter outrage.

It is interesting that some state the reason the bill would fail is the need for 60 votes. That did not seem to stop passage of Obama’s financial fiasco commonly and mistakenly referred to as Wall Street reform.

Bribes for votes were offered to three RINOs named Collins, Snowe and Brown. Just like the 60 vote hurdle was overcome in a similar fashion for Obamacare by offering Cornhusker Cash and the Louisiana Purchase for Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu.

The titles of ‘Senator’ were intentionally omitted for these elected officials as their actions do not warrant the respect. If what they did is not a violation of their oath or affirmation, nothing is.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Read the complete article here. (click)

BTW, by the time this post is published all this could change.

Yet another news report includes a reference to anonymous sources. Those ‘familiar with the allegations’ are ‘not authorized to discuss them publicly’. And this story is about ethics. Not the lack of ethics of the sources but that same lack ‘alleged’ for Charlie Rangel.

Whether the sources are acting on their own or it’s all a big charade arranged by those in charge of the ‘leak’ it should cease. Of course what renders this episode of anonymous sources more ridiculous than others is the story topic of ethics. Whether Rangel is sanctioned or not the ’sources’ should be out of a job.

As for Rangel, the worst case scenario is expulsion followed by censure or the dreaded committee report. Rangel is charged with misuse of official stationery, rental programs, disclosure rules and accepting improper gifts. Jail time should be an option. Violating the public trust should have severe consequences.

You can read the rest of the story here. (click)

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

It would be comforting if politicians would tell you what they are going to do and then deliver as promised. And party affiliation would not matter. That is because all POLS tell you their intentions are good and they govern for your benefit.

Republicans long on optimism, short on specifics
By: Susan Ferrechio
Chief Congressional Correspondent
July 19, 2010

Top Republicans are forecasting big wins in November and could even take over the majority in the House, but still struggle to say how they would run the government.

In the brief article from the Washington Examiner some words of top Republicans and the Vice President on the Sunday talk shows demonstrate it’s an election year. Democrats will continue with their agenda if left in the majority after November. Republicans will tip toe forward until after the elections fearful that major blunders right now will keep them in the minority.

If you are the minority party in Washington your options are limited. If you are a weak majority in Washington your options are limited. Both major political parties in America are pursuing the brass ring of politics. Having an overwhelming majority that allows either to do as they please.

Which brings us back to their intentions, governing and delivering as promised. None of that is necessary if you own a powerful majority. Protecting your political career, pandering to lobbyists and legislating favors to some constituents keeps you in office. And that’s the problem.

It’s okay if the GOP is short on specifics this election year. Specifics from previous campaigns and delivering as promised rarely pans out. And if you think the current administration is any different, think again. What they promised is not what they delivered.

If you pay attention long enough that will become clear. But they’re hoping you won’t. Thousands of pages of legislation and timelines that stretch out for decades do not produce good results. But it does hide the truth.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

H/T: http://www.marktalk.com/blog/
From CNN: Roland Martin and Mark Williams debate on AC 360
July 15th, 2010

Once again a familiar expression on this blog must be repeated. Some people believe if you are white you are racist. And once again Tea Party participants are described as racist. And once again ‘new’ Black Panther members who dress in para-military gear sporting night sticks to intimidate voters or call for killing white people are given a pass. That’s right. No accusations of hate crimes or hate speech or proceeding with violations of, go figure, civil rights and voting laws. But white people are racist.

Okay, I’m white. Based on recent stories on the topic of ‘race relations’ that suggests I’m racist. Sorry, I disagree with that assessment.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Once again the community organizer-in-chief engages in exactly what he claims his political opposition is doing… playing politics. In the very same week HIS party’s financial legislation was passed with the help of three GOP Senators; Collins, Snowe and Brown the President has the audacity to charge Republicans of blocking his agenda.

Mr President, if you cannot pass legislation with a majority of Democrats in both houses of Congress it is not the fault of the GOP. The rules of Congress have been developed over a long period of time. Like everything else in Washington, DC politics is at play and the game has all POLS, including you, putting that first.

If the sixty vote requirement for passing legislation obstructs YOUR agenda you might consider it’s the agenda’s fault not the GOP or Democrats who are not crazy about it.

The programs you claim will help are exactly that - programs. That means more government spending more taxpayer money and increasing deficits and the national debt. Even your own commission has agreed with the majority of Americans. We cannot continue spending, raising deficits and increasing debt.

How long do you think the unemployed should continue to receive benefits on the backs of other taxpayers? How long do you think the government should be using taxpayer money for bailouts, takeovers and stimulus bills that stimulate nothing except more public sector waste?

If you had simply reinstated legislation that had been repealed, e.g., portions of Glass-Steagall rather than wasting time and money on YOUR financial reforms we would be better off. At the very least that simple step could have been implemented easily, was already tested and worked when it was previously in place for many years.

But I suppose that is one of ‘those misguided policies’ you express in your weekly address. And yes, Mr President, some people live off public sector money like unemployment benefits as long as they are available. That goes for scammers of supplemental social security money, Medicaid and just about any public assistance ‘program’.

Here’s one for you Mr President. How about extending the tax cuts that are about to expire? How about removing the added burden of Obamacare from the small businesses you claim to be worried about? How about reducing the nearly three quarters of each budget dedicated to entitlement ‘programs’?

You might consider all those ways of saving money, improving the economy, reducing spending and waste. Or you can continue to blame the GOP for your own failures.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The de Rothschild’s fortune may be a publicly unknown quantity but theories abound on its size. It has been estimated by some as in the trillions and some accounts place it in the hundreds of millions when at first the dynasty was born.

David de Rothschild may not be your typical or average limousine liberal. With the size of the family fortune a whole new label may be required. But what de Rothschild shares in common with the long car lefties is an affection for anthropogenic global warming.

Why is it that well-heeled individuals take a Hollywood approach when telling the rest of us how to live? Is it possible that those who shoulder the burden of living with massive fortunes the rest of us can only dream about have no clue? It would make more sense if those short on targets for their fortunes invested in practical solutions to the issues they embrace.

But that would illuminate the real story. It is not about AGW or any real issue. It’s about them and their personal interests.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

from VOA News….

A British adventurer is spreading his own message in a bottle by crossing the Pacific Ocean aboard an 18-meter catamaran made of thousands of plastic soda bottles.

David de Rothschild’s unusual boat is his way of drawing attention to the plastic polluting the world’s oceans while also showcasing a solution. The 31 year old hopes to inspire followers with the boat he calls the “Plastiki.”

Global mission

“We’re on a mission to beat waste,” says de Rothschild. “The Plastiki project is really trying to showcase that waste is inefficient design and that we can reuse everyday materials and rather than them ending up in landfill, or in our oceans, or being incinerated and ending up in our atmosphere, we can repurpose and build items that can be reused so we can close the loop.”

After reading a United Nations report about the huge swirls of plastic trash in the oceans, the British banking heir thought up the expedition to draw attention to the problem.

The name Plastiki echoes the Kon-Tiki, the raft that Norwegian anthropologist and adventurer Thor Heyerdahl built to cross the Pacific in 1947.

His grandson, Olaf Heyerdahl, was one of six crew members on the first leg of the Plastiki voyage, from San Francisco to Christmas Island.

Hardly a day goes by without some ‘rights group’ being featured in the MSM. There are groups that could be defined as ‘responsibility groups’ but they receive little attention from those individuals that regard themselves as journalists or organizations that claim to present news and information based on standards of journalism.

Last week one report opened by describing Human Rights Watch as a ‘leading human rights group.’ Could the author be referring to the executive director’s salary? Since 1993 a lawyer named Kenneth Roth has been the executive director of HRW with an annual salary of $350,000. That’s nearly 18% of HRW’s management and general expenses for the year. And they may have 275 employees. And let’s not forget their fundraising expenses of $8,641,358 for 2008 (according to Wiki).

The non-governmental organization claims they do not accept government money directly. But they receive funds from other groups who may. And they supported ACORN at least in 2000 and/or 2001 to the tune of a half-million dollars.

So what’s this all about? The report out last week has Human Rights Watch whining about the rights of illegals. And for all their whining the problem they perceive could be solved if no one entered the United States illegally. They bad mouth countries all over the world for claimed wrongdoing. It is interesting that they say nothing about Mexico’s ‘responsibility’ to correct their own problems and eliminate the attraction to cross the border illegally into another country.

Here’s the report. Have a good laugh. HRW is a scam. The last three paragraphs assume the reader is extremely gullible. Correction, the entire report assumes you are gullible.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

from VOA News….

A leading human rights group is calling on the U.S. Congress and the Obama administration to include protections for immigrants’ rights in their proposals for immigration reform.

New York-based Human Rights Watch released a report Friday saying more needs to be done to protect undocumented immigrants in the workplace and in court.

The group says at work such people are vulnerable to exploitation - including sexual abuse and poor working conditions - and should be allowed to find other jobs in such cases.

It also recommends giving undocumented immigrants a path to legalization that includes government protection, so they feel safe to report crimes.

Earlier this month, President Obama called for bipartisan support for immigration reform. He described overhauling the system as a “moral imperative.” Congress is sharply divided over the issue, with Republicans generally opposing what they call amnesty programs.

The Human Rights Watch report also urges the government to allow immigration judges to consider the ties legal permanent residents have in the United States before deporting them for minor crimes. The group says thousands of legal residents are deported each year without having their family connections or past military service considered.

Human Rights Watch also calls on the government to limit immigrant detentions. The group says those who have committed nonviolent crimes should be exempt from detention.

For President Obama the honeymoon has long since past. The first 100 days analysis of each new American president is more common these days since ‘honeymoon’ characterizations may have faded with frequent two term administrations like Reagan, Clinton and Bush 43. The question in either case was how long will it take for the promises of a campaign to be discarded after election.

Hope and change was as pathetic a slogan as one might hear from a snake oil salesman. But the distinction between the ambitions of a community organizer and a seller of dubious liniments can no longer be defended.

With the midterm elections approaching Democrats prove the pundit forecast predicting the probability of the GOP retaking the congressional majority. Rather than a carnival atmosphere liberals appear as cannibals feeding on their own to redirect blame for their failure to govern properly.

Democrats are having a jolly good time beating up the White House.

You can see why. President Obama has caused the party to squander a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reclaim permanent majority status.

An example of how bad things are for Dems in the report above has this little tidbit:

Out in Iowa, the Democratic Governors’ Association spent money on mailers trashing Republican gubernatorial candidate Terry Branstad for being too much like Obama on health care.

Who’s selling the snake oil now? But it gets better.

WASHINGTON — Republicans are outraising Democrats in nearly a dozen open Senate races, increasing their hopes of significantly narrowing the Democrats’ majority in November.

Money as the root of all evil is not a phrase lost on politics. The idea that he who has the most money wins may be a subject for debate given the strength of the tea party and new conservative candidates. But outdoing your opponents on fundraising suggests more people support you than your opponent.

What else does the money game offer POLS?

WASHINGTON — A Republican lawmaker says documents show more senators and staff members than previously known received sweetheart mortgages from the former Countrywide Financial Corp., based on their perceived ability to help the company.

It wasn’t just Chris Dodd or Kent Conrad who took perks from Countrywide. This is no different than money from lobbyists or other special interest powerbrokers. Then there’s vote selling (bribes) like Cornhusker Cash (Sen Ben Nelson), the Louisiana Purchase (Sen Mary Landrieu) and the following:

GOP Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine and Scott Brown of Massachusetts voted for the bill after Democrats agreed to drop a provision to raise $19 billion by imposing fees on banks.

It’s not quite that innocent. Collins, Snowe and Brown received perks for their states as the price paid for their vote to pass the bill. How is that different from Dodd or others taking perks from Countrywide in exchange for political favors?

That’s right. Throw the bums out. Repeat as necessary.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

This video presentation is dated from the end of June 2010. Although DeMint is speaking about a particular piece of legislation he also expresses the continuing need for our US government to abandon an agenda that does not work and runs counter to our founding in addition to the immediate need for economic recovery.

That is why this video is presented. It emphasizes the desire by most Americans to adhere to those principles that have served us well for so long. The notable and well-known examples are to stop spending, stop increasing deficits and the national debt and above all get government out of the way of Americans who are the engine that drives our economic prosperity.

Thank you Senator Jim Demint (R-SC)

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

This is no surprise to anyone. Beyond the problem of national security, border control and ignoring the rule of law and founding principles of our nation illegal immigration is a crushing economic burden. It’s time for a reminder to all the liberals supporting shamnesty. Like the rest of the liberal agenda the notion of shamnesty is dangerous. An excerpt from a new report on the economic risks associated with illegal immigration is presented below followed by a link to the full report. Read it and weep, or join the fight against illegal immigration to save our country.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers

Executive Summary

This report estimates the annual costs of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level to be about $113 billion; nearly $29 billion at the federal level and $84.2 billion at the state and local level.

The full report (click here)

In an apparent throwback to the Cold War, Moscow and Washington are discussing a deal to swap 10 of the suspected deep-cover Russian agents arrested last month in the U.S. for prisoners held in Russia, according to people familiar with the talks.

That’s how a story about recently arrested Russian spies opens at the WSJ. How about there’s no ‘throwback’ at all? The Cold War never ended. Remember Hillary Clinton’s gaffe translating the English word ‘reset’ to Russian and being politely punked by a Russian official? That essentially sums up the current administration’s grip on foreign relations. In other words they don’t have a clue.

Hearings in the US for the Russians arrested for spying have been delayed. The Russians don’t want to comment and those all too familiar unnamed sources close to the story suggest a spy swap is in the works. But not unlike the 70’s the US may swap garden variety prisoners in Russia for those arrested for spying in the US. Does that sound smart to you?

“We’re rolling back the clock,” said Yuri Ryzhov, a former Russian ambassador and prominent academic who heads a commission that has defended scholars accused of treason. “It’s the 1970s now.”

Prisoners that may have been accused by the Russians of treason in Russia would be swapped for likely Russian spies?

As if the entire liberal agenda in Washington, DC wasn’t bad enough now the Obama administration is adding more foreign affairs blunders to their list of achievements.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Like DeMint you can pass by the Steele problem as it is merely a distraction. There are many reasons why ousting Democrats this November is important. Not the least of which is the Obama Administration’s decision to sue over Arizona defending its borders since the Obamanation will not. The other items mentioned in the title are equally important.

But the overall consideration is to return this beloved nation back to its founding principles and only conservatives seem interested in that goal. And be clear. Candidates like Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina are not conservatives. Fiorina destroyed HP. Fiorina is an establishment Republican who is in lock step with RINO McCain. Whitman is in the news for two things recently. Her support from other billionaires and shamnesty. Like Bloomberg and Murdoch as well as other limousine liberals they claim conservative values while eroding the rule of law and support liberal fantasies that are dangerous.

Find real conservatives to support and get them in office. Our nation needs them. Let’s move the country in the right direction after years of neglect.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The previous post touched on President Obama’s recent immigration speech. Reviewing the speech once again compels commentary. The first excerpt to be evaluated demonstrates that Mr Obama can present inspirational messages.

I was a candidate for President that day, and some may recall I argued that our country had reached a tipping point; that after years in which we had deferred our most pressing problems, and too often yielded to the politics of the moment, we now faced a choice: We could squarely confront our challenges with honesty and determination, or we could consign ourselves and our children to a future less prosperous and less secure.

That IS the speechmaking undoubtedly responsible for many casting a ballot for then candidate Barack Obama. But as Mr Barone pointed out in his writing at the Washington Examiner referenced in the previous post this particular immigration speech was all about election year politics. The very plague that then candidate Obama denounced to get elected.

It gets worse.

I believed that then and I believe it now. And that’s why, even as we’ve tackled the most severe economic crisis since the Great Depression, even as we’ve wound down the war in Iraq and refocused our efforts in Afghanistan, my administration has refused to ignore some of the fundamental challenges facing this generation.

Sorry Mr President, you have not ‘tackled’ the economic problems. And you and your liberal followers used anti-war rhetoric, campaigning and personal attacks on the very man you now hail as the best choice to lead the military operations in Afghanistan, General Petraeus. In addition you and your crew have refused to acknowledge the success of the surge in Iraq for allowing the winding down in Iraq. Your senate leader Harry Reid went so far as to say the war was lost.

But you are correct on the last point. Your administration has refused to ignore ’some’ of the challenges. Those items you choose to target are for purposes of your liberal agenda. The items you mention in this speech: the economy, healthcare, Wall Street, energy and immigration are all targets of your liberal agenda and your attention to them has nothing to do with ‘confronting the great challenges of our times’.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

When the last vestige of the Kennedy political machine lost the liberal lion, Ted Kennedy’s US Senate seat was transferred to rookie politician Scott Brown. Brown’s performance as the junior senator from Taxachusetts may be the only transparency in Washington, DC.

A laughable commentary at Salon might serve as the liberal take on the subject given Brown’s negotiation with the majority party, his campaign finance sources and the status of financial legislation pending in Congress.

Let the mockery begin. Mere moments ago, I was urging Democrats to go on the attack, and make it clear that Republicans simply aren’t serious about governing. But as it stands now, the Dems are folding without a fight. The Republicans might not be serious, but the Democrats are simply incapable.

That excerpt is from a diatribe on so-called Wall Street reform and the author’s frustration about Scott Brown impeding the liberal agenda.

The take from WaPo features some quotes from the junior Senator.

Brown said in a statement Monday that he was “surprised and extremely disappointed” by the proposed assessment. “While I’m still reviewing the bill’s details, these provisions were not in the Senate version of the bill which I previously supported,” he said. “My fear is that these costs would be passed onto consumers in the form of higher bank, ATM and credit card fees and put a strain on lending at the worst possible time for our economy. I’ve said repeatedly that I cannot support any bill that raises taxes.”

Too often POLS of one stripe who successfully seek office in an area dominated by the other stripe become double agents and in the case of Republicans, RINOs. Part of a report from Forbes on this topic makes the point.

Some of the biggest contributors to his campaign committee include political action committees and employees associated with FMR (think Fidelity Investments), Bain Capital, Credit Suisse Group and Barclay’s, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Whether it’s regarding constituents or campaign contributors, Brown has quickly learned in Washington that it’s not smart to bite that hand that feeds you.

As with health care reform, don’t expect the Massachusetts Republican to derail financial regulatory reform. But he’s certainly making life difficult for Democrats.

The writer from Salon must not have considered the oldest ploy in politics. Your contributors are your masters. Brown has no interest in being conservative. He is acting on behalf of Massachusetts’ employers and his largest campaign donors. As Forbes suggests, he will not torpedo liberal Wall Street legislation. He will just play conservative long enough to get what he wants…. re-elected.

If there are any conservatives in Massachusetts they need to find a replacement for Scott Brown next time around.

As for the other members of the Senate who voted against others in their respective political party the five have their stated reasons.

U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) voted against the Senate version of a financial regulatory reform bill, saying it did not close potentially dangerous loopholes in the derivatives regulations.

Leave it to Russ Feingold to tie his vote to a plausible explanation that would play well to voters whether liberal or conservative. That may explain why he has been re-elected. Casual voters do not detect the ruse. And of course, liberals only vote for liberals. The following is Senator Feingold’s stated reason for voting against the bill.

“The bill does not eliminate the risk to our economy posed by ‘too big to fail’ financial firms, nor does it restore the proven safeguards established after the Great Depression, which separated Main Street banks from big Wall Street firms and are essential to preventing another economic meltdown. The recent financial crisis triggered the nation’s worst recession since the Great Depression. The bill should have included reforms to prevent another such crisis. Regrettably, it did not.”

Brown voted for the bill because Dems said they would give him what he wanted.

Grassley voted for the bill because his amendments were passed.

Collins voted for the bill because her amendments were passed.

Snowe voted for the bill because her amendments were passed.

Feingold and Grassley face re-election this year. Brown, Cantwell and Snowe face re-election in 2012 and Collins in 2014. It is easy to believe Feingold opposed the bill to please conservative voters in the liberal-leaning state of Wisconsin while Grassley supported it to please the liberals in Iowa. Brown supports it with conditions his state gets perks in the bill. Collins and Snowe are well-known RINOs and their support for the bill was expected as well as for the rest of the liberal agenda. Cantwell is a liberal in a liberal state. Who knows if her stated reason is genuine?

If you follow the link below and click on the bill number there are reports available including the minority view (GOP) on the legislation considered. These are statements offering compelling arguments in opposition to the proposed legislation. Something many people probably do not read (but should).

Roll Call Vote for H.R. 4173 (Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009 )

This blog has frequently published items that include the sentiment of ‘throwing the bums out’. Some of what is discussed in this post gives rise to that rallying cry again. The legislative process serves the legislators and not the voting public. Bills that produce thousands of pages and much lawyer speak as well as the hideous phrase ‘and for other purposes’ suggest most legislation is bad. And it is.

The public needs to push elected officials to change the process. All bills should be limited in scope and effect. This would reduce the time necessary to determine whether or not a bill has merit and eliminate much of the charade that allows politicians to game the system. And the public would not be burdened by results of poor legislation that only serves the POLS and those whose financial support aids in their re-election. That merely allows this flawed arrangement to continue indefinitely.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), chairman of the finance committee and key player in passing Obamacare posted an item in Roll Call defending his work. The November 2010 elections are approaching and apparently Mr Baucus, like Mr Obama is focusing on damage control. If that were not the case and if Obamacare was inspired legislation that is good for the nation he would not have to defend it.  But defend it he does, again.

I have some questions for you Senator Baucus. But you probably will never read them on this tiny and obscure little blog in cyberspace.  And I do not have the time or patients to try to get your attention by other methods.  So let’s just give it a go and see how it works out.

The first question has essentially been asked at the top of this post.  If Obamacare, Demcare, HillaryCare, LiberalCare is so wonderful why do you need to defend it?  Good legislation that can stand on its own merits does not need to be defended.

Question two: Given the CBO estimates, your own actuary reports from HHS and numerous other sources, how can you claim Obamacare will ‘lower skyrocketing costs’ of healthcare? Just the half trillion dollars to be removed from Medicare plunges an iceberg into this titanic.

Question three: Given the power to be bestowed on bureaucrats to decide what constitutes insurance coverage, how doctors will be paid and what treatments are authorized how can you claim the quality of care will be improved?

Your anecdote on Billie Jo Meglen is heartwarming Mr Baucus.  But tell me; if the doughnut hole is $2000 and your fine legislation provided Billie Jo with a $250 ‘rebate’ check how does that really help? $250 is 12 1/2% of $2000.  Put another way, the $2000 she would pay without benefit of the $250 ‘rebate’ is 14.28% higher than with the $250 from the taxpayer. I can get a bigger discount by haggling with the pharmacy or the drug company.

And question four: I know, you said after that a 50% discount would be in place for drugs, etc.  Is that what the $80 billion payoff from Big Pharma was for or will the taxpayer be on the hook for the difference? Unless the drug companies keep handing you billions those discounts will be paid by taxpayers.

Mr Baucus, where is the offset to pay for the 35% discount to employers who provide health insurance?  And by the way, there’s a rumor out there that 60% or better of the current employer based plans will be disallowed once this thing gets going.  What say you, Senator?

And Senator, how is it you can magically make things disappear?  Like annual and lifetime claim limits and pre-existing conditions? If there is no limitation on claims a not-so-unlucky insurance carrier could easily go bust with too many high cost customers. How does Obamacare establish or maintain the basic idea of insurance for pooling risk?

And I really am unsure if I understand your terms when it comes to insurance company disclosure. If what you pay for claims are ‘costs’ how do you ask them to pay 80% of profits on those costs? Isn’t profit what you hopefully have left over after paying costs? BTW, just what is an ‘exorbitant salary’?  Who gets to make that determination?

Your claims and defense of Obamacare seems vague and ripe with generalities.  Like how ‘Americans and small businesses’ (interesting distinction) will receive billions in tax credits without, shall we say, breaking the bank?

‘The new law is fully paid for and won’t add a dime to the national debt.’ That’s a real difficult claim to believe Mr Baucus.  I didn’t believe it the first time I heard it.

Do you really expect American taxpayers to accept these claims? Especially given all the evidence to the contrary.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com