Employers may put a cap in place for their employees, but this would put a cap in federal tax law for the first time.  According to the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI), 30 million American families use an FSA.

• For most people, the $2500 cap won't be noticed. FSAs tend to be used for things like small deductibles, co-payments, eyeglasses, over-the-counter medicines, and laser eye surgery. The amount deferred in the typical FSA is probably much less than $2500 today
• There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year.
• Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. According to IRS Publication 502, Medical Expenses:

You can include in medical expenses fees you pay on a doctor's recommendation for a child's tutoring by a teacher who is specially trained and qualified to work with children who have learning disabilities caused by mental or physical impairments, including nervous system disorders.

You can include in medical expenses the cost (tuition, meals, and lodging) of attending a school that furnishes special education to help a child to overcome learning disabilities. A doctor must recommend that the child attend the school. Overcoming the learning disabilities must be a principal reason for attending the school, and any ordinary education received must be incidental to the special education provided. Special education include teaching Braille to a visually impaired person; teaching lip reading to a hearing-impaired person, or giving remedial language training to correct a condition caused by a birth defect.

[PERMALINK]

 -------------------------------

Americans for Tax Reform is a non-partisan coalition of taxpayers and taxpayer groups who oppose all tax increases.  For more information or to arrange an interview please contact John Kartch at (202) 785-0266 or by email at jkartch@atr.org.

A 1976 graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law, Robert Bauer bleeds Democrat blue. He has served as counsel to the Democratic Senatorial and Congressional Campaign Committees for many years. In 1999 he was counsel to Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, the South Dakota Democrat who led his party's defense of Bill Clinton in the latter's impeachment trial. Each day during the trial proceedings, Bauer and Democratic leaders strategized on how they could best help Clinton beat the charges against him - perjury, abuse of power, and obstruction of justice.

In 1999-2000, Bauer was general counsel to the Bill Bradley for President Committee. Also in 2000, he filed a racketeering lawsuit against then-House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, accusing the Texas Republican of extortion and money laundering. In 2004 Bauer served as general counsel to the Democratic National Committee during the presidential campaign of Senator John Kerry. Today Bauer heads the political law group at Perkins Coie, the powerful, Democrat-aligned Seattle law firm that represents, among others, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, Richard Gephardt, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Bauer forged a close affiliation with Barack Obama after the latter was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004. He became Obama's private attorney and then, when the Senator declared his candidacy for President in February 2007, Bauer was appointed as general counsel for Obama's presidential campaign - a project dubbed "Obama For America" (OFA). In January 2009, when OFA merged with the Democratic National Committee and became known as Organizing for America, Bauer retained his position as the entity's general counsel.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama, who has never made his original birth certificate available for public scrutiny, hired Perkins Coie to defend him in court cases challenging his status as a "natural born" U.S. citizen - a status upon which Obama's eligibility to hold the office of President is contingent. According to Federal Election Commission records, OFA has already paid Perkins Coie $1,352,378.95 for its legal services in these cases.

Also in 2008, Bauer was intimately involved in Obama's controversial decision to break the pledge he had made to accept public funding for the presidential campaign. Bauer and Obama based that decision on their calculation that the candidate was a fundraising powerhouse who would be able to collect far more money via his own efforts than he could ever get from the public financing system.

While Obama campaigned against Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, and then against Republican opponent John McCain, Bauer quietly wrote letters to television-station managers and to Assistant Attorney General John Keeney, contending that Federal Election Commission (FEC) rules forbade the airing of any anti-Obama television ads that made even the barest mention of the Senator's well-documented association with former Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers. Bauer filed FEC complaints against groups that were seeking to run such ads, and he intervened on Obama's behalf to prevent the American Leadership Project - a pro-Hillary organization - from running TV spots exposing the strong support Obama had received from the thuggish Service Employees International Union. The SEIU is led by former New Leftist Andrew Stern, who was taught the tactics of radical activism at the Midwest Academy, the training ground established by former Students for a Democratic Society radicals Paul and Heather Booth. Stern also has close ties to the billionaire financier of far-left causes, George Soros, and sits on the Executive Committee of the Soros-funded America Coming Together - a massive get-out-the vote project for Democrat candidates. Bauer himself has lent his legal expertise to ACT.

In 2009 Obama hired Bauer as legal counsel to represent him in a criminal probe investigating whether former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich may have sought - with Obama's (or Rahm Emanuel's) knowledge - to sell to the highest bidder the U.S. Senate seat Obama had vacated when he assumed the presidency.

Bauer also has worked on issues related to Obama's ties to Tony Rezko, a Chicago-based restaurateur and real-estate developer who was one of the first major financial contributors to Obama's political campaigns in the 1990s. Over a span of several years, Rezko raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for Obama. A few months after Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004, he and Rezko's wife purchased (in a deal that may have been handled, in part, by Robert Bauer) adjacent pieces of property in Chicago's Kenwood neighborhood. Obama's portion of the deal involved a mansion for which he paid $1.65 million - $300,000 below the seller's asking price. Meanwhile, Rezko's wife (who had little income and owned few assets) paid the full asking price - $625,000 - for a vacant lot adjacent to Obama's mansion. The owners of the house and the lot had stipulated that neither property could be sold unless a deal for the other also closed on the same day. Both deals indeed closed on the same day in June 2005.

At that time, Mr. Rezko, who owed more than $10 million on defaulted loans and failed business ventures, was being hotly pursued by creditors; at least 12 lawsuits had been filed against him and his businesses. Moreover, he was under federal investigation on charges that he had solicited kickbacks from companies seeking state pension business under his friend, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, for whom Rezko reportedly had raised as much as $500,000. For more than two years before the property purchases, news articles also had raised questions about Mr. Rezko's influence over state appointments and contracts. Moreover, reports swirled that the FBI was investigating accusations of a shakedown scheme in which Rezko had suggested particular candidates for appointment to a state hospital board.

What does all this have to do with Robert Bauer's current, and sudden, ascendancy to the position of White House Counsel? According to The American Spectator, one former Obama transition team adviser puts it this way:

"[Bauer] knows where all the bodies are buried, and this indicates that there is something amiss with this White House, or at least someone is nervous about what is going on. You don't just make these kinds of changes [Bauer's appointment as Gregory Craig's replacement] for the sake of rearranging the deck chairs, and not at this time with at least three legislative and policy decisions looming that the Counsel's office would have been deeply involved in."

A highly placed Washington attorney (who has served as counsel in the Senate and in previous presidential administrations) characterizes Bauer's sudden appointment as "pretty damn weird." "I'm surprised not only that the press seems to be ignoring the fact that two presidential lawyers have left at about the same time," adds the attorney, "but that no one seems to care that for the first time, I think ever, we have a President's personal attorney also serving as White House counsel. I don't care if Bob [Bauer] recuses himself from future personal legal business, this should be troubling to anyone who cares about the Executive Office of the President."

Ultimately, Anita Dunn's affinity for Chairman Mao may prove to be far less significant than her husband's unrivaled familiarity with the skeletons in President Obama's closet.

------------------------------------------

More Insane Acts by Congress on Health Care

The "Secretary" is mentioned 2500 times in the Reid "Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act".  The most common mention is for the Secretary of Health and Human Services who is granted extensive new powers in the bill (along with the Secretary of the Treasury).  The Bill consistently describes creation of a bureaucratic infrastructure to interfere in the patient physician relationship specifically designed to drastically reduce spending on patients prescribed by doctors for their benefit. Coupled with the massive increase in health insurance premiums and taxes, the whole bill is more properly labeled the "Patient Assault and Expensive Health Care Act".

The Penalize Doctors into Submission/interfere in patient-physician relationship Act. Section 3007, pg 680. ^[i] The Government will arbitrarily set a budget for patient care and penalize doctors financially and professionally if they dare to spend more than approved on their patients.  Quality Measures that are valid will be used if "PRACTICABLE" and the Secretary may ignore recommendations of medical societies and arbitrarily use the governments. The Secretary shall set acceptable government spending limits for patient care (rationing goals) also called "efficiency".   There will be payment incentives to those doctors who cut spending on patients and comply with quality measures that have not even been shown to improve outcomes.  Those doctors who refuse to follow the arbitrary budget cap or cookbook medicine protocols to instead serve the best interest of their patients will be penalized.  There shall be no additional funds for incentives.  Penalties on one set of doctors will be used to fund "incentives" for doctors who are "government approved".

(Violates several AMA policies including those on Pay for Performance and recently passed directive to AMA leadership ^[ii] to actively and publicly oppose such financial penalty schemes). ("AMA to actively and publicly oppose ...•      Redistributed Medicare payments among providers based on outcomes, quality, and risk-adjustment factors that currently do not exist; measurements that are not scientifically valid, verifiable and accurate;"  VIOLATES AMA POLICY PRINCIPLE that medical decisions will remain in hands of patients and that health system reform will be based on freedom" -  AMA 11/9/2009: " Assurance that health care decisions will remain in the hands of patients and their physicians, not insurance companies or government officials")

Avoid High Risk Patients Act - aka report your data or face the consequence ACT. Section 3002, page 652. Doctors who do not report their medical data on meaningless "processs measures" ("best" practices) will be penalized.  The "best" practices will not be required to be valid nor will be required to actually improve the outcomes of patients. Compliance with them may have actually been shown to directly hurt patients. Doctors will avoid high risk (sicker and more difficult patients) to ensure a good report card score. The Government will thus expand a program that has proven to harm patients and not proven to help anyone other than the government in cutting patient care costs. (Violates AMA Polices on Pay for Performance that require voluntary participation, valid data, proof of validity in pilot programs and a recent directive to the AMA leadership on "redistributed payments based on "quality" that are not valid)

The "Doctor buy a computer for the government and jeopardize patient privacy" act. Section 3002, page 656.  In the February "Stimulus bill" laws were passed to penalize doctors who did not buy and use computers for electronic medical records in ways approved by the government.  Incentive payments of $44,000 were offered for an estimated $120,000 worth of expenses and non-adopters faced a $42,500 penalty.  The current new act further penalizes doctors if they don't adopt electronic medical records to report patient medical information to the government. No guarantees are offered for patients privacy and no provisions made to compensate patients who are harmed by accidental disclosure of their medical data. (Violates AMA Policy on Pay for Performance requiring voluntary participation, adequate financial compensation for implementation of a government mandate and adequate compensation for EMR's as well as protection of patient privacy.)

The "Kiss the Feet of the Monarch Act"/deny constitutional right III: Section 3002, page 656.  Doctors shall NOT have access to administrative review or the courts to appeal unfair, inaccurate or adverse decisions of the Secretary or the Government regarding "appropriate" reporting of "quality" and "efficiency" data as determined by the Secretary.  However, Congress has seen fit to deem an "informal appeals process" of those professionals deemed "eligible" by the Secretary on whether their submission of data was "satisfactory" to the Secretary/Monarch. (Violates  AMA Policy H-340.971 "Medicare Program Due Process")

---------------------------------------

David McKalip, M.D., Neurological Surgeon

Individual Freedom - Hard to earn. Easy to lose.

The following information is provided by Americans for Tax Reform

Read the full bill   Read the tax revenue score from the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT)

Read the budget and tax score from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)  PDF of this Document

Individual Mandate Tax (Page 324/Sec. 1501/$8 bil): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying "qualifying" health insurance must pay an income surtax according to the following schedule

                           Single              Single +1                     Single+2<

2014                $95                 $190                            $285

2015                $350                $700                            $1050

2016 etc.          $750                $1500                          $2250

Exemptions for religious objectors, undocumented immigrants, prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian tribes, and hardship cases (determined by HHS).

Employer Mandate Tax (Page 348/Sec. 1513/$28 bil): If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $750 for all full-time employees. Applies to all employers with 50 or more employees.

If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer).

Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans (Page 1979/Sec. 9001/$149.1 bil):

Starting in 2013, new 40 percent excise tax on "Cadillac" health insurance plans ($8500 single/$23,000 family). Higher threshold ($9850 single/$26,000 family) for early retirees and high-risk professions. CPI +1 percentage point indexed.

From 2013-2015, the 17 highest-cost states are 120% of this level.

Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 (Page 1996/Sec. 9002/Min$): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns.

Medicine Cabinet Tax (Page 1997/Sec. 9003/$5 bil): No longer allowable to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin)

HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike (Page 1998/Sec. 9004/$1.3 bil): Increases additional tax on nonmedical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.

FSA Cap (Page 1999/Sec. 9005/$14.6 bil): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited).

Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting (Page 1999/Sec. 9006/$17.1 bil): Requires businesses to send 1099-MISC information tax forms to corporations (currently limited to individuals), a huge compliance burden for small employers

Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Page 2001/Sec. 9007/Min$): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS.

Tax on Innovator Drug Companies (Page 2010/Sec. 9008/$22.2 bil): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year.

Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers (Page 2020/Sec. 9009/$19.3 bil): $2 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to shares of sales made that year. Exempts items retailing for <$100.

Tax on Health Insurers (Page 2026/Sec. 9010/$60.4 bil): $6.7 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year.

Eliminate tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D (Page 2034/Sec. 9012/$5.4 bil)

Raise "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI (Page 2034/Sec. 9013/$15.2 bil): Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only

$500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives (Page 2035/Sec. 9014/$0.6 bil)

Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax (Page 2040/Sec. 9015/$53.8 bil): Current law and changes:

The 0.5% new rate addition is not deductible for the self-employment tax adjustment.

Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike (Page 2044/Sec. 9016/$0.4 bil): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services

Tax on Cosmetic Medical Procedures (Page 2045/Sec. 9017/$5.8 bil): New 5% excise tax on elective cosmetic surgery to be paid by the surgery patient

11/18/09 For more information, contact ATR Tax Policy Director Ryan Ellis at rellis@atr.org

All figures inflation-indexed unless otherwise noted.

An Act of Congress?  More Like Multiple Acts of Insanity. - Part I

We have all heard about how it takes an "act of Congress" to make major changes.  Well the Senator Reid's so called "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" is more like an act of medical, fiscal and Congressional Insanity than a solution to any problem. The underlying theme of the bill, as in the House bill, is to grant broad and inappropriate powers to the government to define medical quality and create a cost-control regime directly intended to cut spending on needed medical care. 

The worst aspect is that it creates a system of penalties for doctors who go over-budget and seeks to redefine the profession of medicine to one designed, managed and approved by bureaucrats and government agents.  A read-through the bill brings to mind more appropriate names for this "Act of Congress" for the hundreds of sections in this 2075 page bill that will force Americans to buy higher priced insurance and tax the economy into submission. All while placing an unsustainable economic burden on future taxpayers and our children that will grow far beyond the government's frequently inaccurate spending forecasts.  So what kinds of Acts are more appropriate titles for the sections in this bill?

Promote the Secretary to Monarch Act. Throughout the Bill the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is granted broad new powers that are completely outside of congressional oversight. The Secretary: determines quality; determines appropriate budgets for patient care; determines physician payment; penalties and incentives; determines who is eligible for key programs; determines what groups of doctors patients will see; determines where physicians can practice to avoid a penalty and more; requires reports from physicians. The term "secretary"

Big Brother Is Watching Your Doctor Act.  Section 5404, p 1430 ^[i]A Primary Care Extension program will send government agents to physician practices to supervise doctors reporting to the government of compliance with performance measurements.  "Clinicians" can be primary care providers and are not necessarily required to be physicians. There will be an effort to disseminate "new knowledge" to ensure evidence based practices.  For instance, on insuring that only women over 50 get mammograms!

Redfine Nurses as Doctors Act - Remove Constitutional Rights act' Section5501, page 1440 Redefines nurses, physician assistants and clinical nurse specialists as "Primary Care Providers".  From 2011-2016- Provides a 10% "incentive" for  "primary Care services" ; Prevents administrative or Judicial Review on disputes (denies constitutional due process rights of "providers");

"Practice Surgery Where you are Told" Act.  Sect 5501(b), page 1443: If you practice general surgery in an "underserved" area (defined by government - the Sec. of HHS), receive  an "incentive" from 2011-2016.  Be Penalized 10% for practicing surgery in an area that is not "underserved" - and lose "incentive" after 5 years and hopefully have a practice that can be sustained when incentive is gone.   

Saving Money off of Children's Medical Care Act: Section 2706, page546:  The Secretary of HHS is granted more power to arbitrarily cut costs for medical care, but for children's health care.  Pediatricians would be organized into "Accountable Care organizations" and given "incentives" (payments) if they achieve "minimal savings" established "by the state".  Such incentives will be directly proportional to the amount of money saved for "the state" but there will be a cap for incentives that will limit payments to physicians.  

Penalize Doctors for Going "over-budget" Act:  Section 3022, page 739; In the "Medicare Shared Savings" sections, doctors are pressured into "accountable Care organizations" - Accountable to the Secretary, HHS. Secretary given broad new powers to define "quality" and "Efficiency" and determine appropriate "utilization" of hospitalization and ambulatory care conditions.  Equivalent to the capitation model that was widely rejected under managed care in the '90's.  ACO must have primary care providers and cover at least 5,000 Medicare beneficiaries for three years.  Will Only receive a bonus (avoid a penalty) if meet the spending cut "benchmark" established by the Secretary.  Does not provide for new funds for bonuses but rewards "incentives" only based on actual savings to Medicare that will occur by denying care to patients. (VIOLATES AMA PRINCIPLES ON PAY FOR PERFORMANCE RELATING TO VOLUNTARY PARTICIAPTION, AVOIDING ECONOMIC UNDERMINING OF NON PARTICIPATING PHYSICIANS AND FAILURE TO PROVIDE NEW FUNDS FOR INCENTIVES).

Tie the doctor's hands and deny their judicial rights act part II. Section 3022, page 750 Will Penalize a doctor who avoids a "high risk" patient to ensure costs are kept low. (The "Tie the Doctor's Hands Act").  There shall be no appeal rights to any administrative law judge or court for decision on payment or quality made by "the Secretary"

Patient- Go See the Doctor you are Told Act  Section 3022, page 745 ^[ii]"The Secretary" will decide which doctors a patients (a "Medicare Feee For Service Beneficiary") will see by making sure they go to the ones that save the most money for the government.  Only those doctors saving the most money for the government will get the highest payments to themselves.

Put 'em all on a Budget and make 'em Fight for payment Act  Section 3023, pg 751-  "The Secretary" would "BUNDLE" all payments for an "Episode" of care to Hospitals, Doctors, Nursing Homes, and "other Services" (defined by Secretary) for up to eight conditions also defined by the Secretary.  Each group would have to fight among themselves for payment with doctors usually at the mercy of hospitals. Patients will lose as each group engages in a race to the bottom to deliver the cheapest possible care often by denying services to patients so they can find a way to get paid. In other words for a condition (like a heart attack), all the money is in one basket for a patient and each group must jealously guard their share and will get a bonus if they spend less on the patients. Their will be a "bidding" process to the Secretary that will result in a "low bid" mentality for patient care. Good luck Patient for any care you need 3 days prior and 30 days after hospitalization (or longer if the Secretary says so).

 -------------------------------------

^[i]

 Section 5404, Page 1430

1    ''(2) PURPOSE.-The Primary Care Extension

2     Program shall provide support and assistance to pri

3     mary care providers to educate providers about pre

4     ventive medicine, health promotion, chronic disease

5     management, mental and behavioral health services

6     (including substance abuse prevention and treatment

7     services), and evidence-based and evidence-informed

8     therapies and techniques, in order to enable pro

9     viders to incorporate such matters into their practice

10    and to improve community health by working with

11    community-based health connectors (referred to in

12    this section as 'Health Extension Agents').

13    ''(3) DEFINITIONS.-In this section:

14    ''(A) HEALTH EXTENSION AGENT.-The

15    term 'Health Extension Agent' means any local,

16    community-based health worker who facilitates

17    and provides assistance to primary care prac

18    tices by implementing quality improvement or

19    system redesign, incorporating the principles of

20    the patient-centered medical home to provide

21    high-quality, effective, efficient, and safe pri

22    mary care and to provide guidance to patients

23    in culturally and linguistically appropriate ways,

24    and linking practices to diverse health system

25    resources.

page 1433

O:\KER\KER09924.xml [file 5 of 9] S.L.C.

1     ''(B) PRIMARY CARE PROVIDER.-The

2     term 'primary care provider' means a clinician

3     who provides integrated, accessible health care

4     services and who is accountable for addressing

5     a large majority of personal health care needs,

6     including providing preventive and health pro

7     motion services for men, women, and children

8     of all ages, developing a sustained partnership

9     with patients, and practicing in the context of

10   family and community, as recognized by a State

11   licensing or regulatory authority, unless other

12   wise specified in this section.

Primary Care Extension Agencies established by a Hub

13     under paragraph (1) shall-

14     ''(i) assist primary care providers to

15     implement a patient-centered medical home

16     to improve the accessibility, quality, and

17     efficiency of primary care services, includ

18     ing health homes;

''(ii) develop and support primary care

20     learning communities to enhance the dis

21     semination of research findings for evi

22     dence-based practice, assess implementa

23     tion of practice improvement, share best

24     practices, and involve community clinicians

25     in the generation of new knowledge and

1       identification of important questions for

2       research; 

^[ii]

''(c) ASSIGNMENT OF MEDICARE FEE-FOR-SERVICE  BENEFICIARIES TO ACOS.-The Secretary shall determine an appropriate method to assign Medicare fee-for service beneficiaries to an ACO based on their utilization of primary care services provided under this title by an  ACO professional described in subsection (h)(1)(A).

--------------------------------------------------------------

David McKalip, M.D., Neurological Surgeon

Individual Freedom - Hard to earn. Easy to lose.

There has been a story flying around the internet in recent days that the Obama administration intends to purge Republicans from the bureaucracy by using a new federal Office of Personnel Management (OPM) rule requiring that all applicants for career civil service jobs who held political jobs "within the past five years" be approved by OPM. The assertion is that "past five years" can only refer to Bush appointees, and that OPM's memo authorizes the agency to ferret out Republican civil service hires and find some bureaucratic pretext to kick them out.

A close reading of the OPM memo and statements by Elaine Kaplan, OPM General Counsel, provide reassurance that, however the Obama administration plans to handle Republicans working in the bureaucracy, this OPM rule is not intended to affect them.

OPM has long had the authority to evaluate political appointees' fitness for career civil service jobs, and as the memo pointed out, currently vets certain political appointees seeking career service during presidential election years only. The memo explains their intention to extend this vetting procedure in the future to all new applicants having held political appointments within five years from the time of their application.

This idea did not originate with the Obama administration. According to General Counsel Kaplan, discussions about this proposal were the result of longstanding criticisms from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the Senior Executive Association and others, about how political appointees often avoid the competitive employment process, thereby denying the position in question to possibly better qualified applicants. The proposal was developed by the Center for Merit Systems Accountability, an office within OPM that has studied and advised on such issues since OPM was created.

The controversy appears to have come originally from Instapundit, was picked up by Redstate, and Rush Limbaugh commented on it, identifying Redstate and Instapundit as the source. Media Matters for America, the widely recognized Soros-funded shill for all things Democrat, pounced on Rush immediately for "falsely hyping" OPM's power to fire political appointees.

The memo states:

Beginning January 1, 2010, agencies must seek prior approval from OPM before they can appoint a current or recent political appointee to a competitive or non-political excepted service position at any level under the provisions of title 5 United States Code. OPM will review these proposed appointments to ensure they comply with merit system principles and applicable civil service laws.

The confusion stems from the requirement that this rule cover:

The appointment of a current political Schedule A or Schedule C Executive Branch employee who held the position within the last five years to a competitive or non-political excepted service position...(Emphsasis added)

OPM stressed that this rule does not apply to current employees who have already been accepted into the civil service. It will only affect new hires going forward from January 1st. So OPM will not be going back and examining the credentials of current civil service employees who were at one time political appointees. This seems clear from the memo.

However, a question remains. What happens if a current civil service employee who was political within the past five years applies for a new job within the civilian service?

For example, if someone had been a political appointee under George W. Bush, and had switched to a career federal job, say three years ago, what would happen if he/she applied for a new position within the bureaucracy, e.g. moving from a field managerial position to a higher level position in headquarters, or to a completely different position in another agency? Would these new rules then apply, or would the person be treated as any other employee with in the civil service and simply evaluated by the hiring agency on his/her merits?

The memo is silent on this question, and as written could be interpreted to include such people. In any event it is certainly easy to envision the hyper-political Obama administration interpreting it this way. All the memo says is that anyone seeking civil service employment who held a political appointment within the past five years must receive OPM approval.

This was the concern Rush had - a legitimate question completely overlooked by the hyperventilators at Media Matters. In fact, according to OPM the same concern was raised by a federal agency.

The Center for Merit Systems Accountability, which developed the rule in the first place, responded directly to this question:

The policy announced last week simply does not apply to a former political appointee who was hired for a career federal job and applies for a different federal job at the same or another agency. For example, a Bush appointee from 2005 who was hired by HHS as a GS-14 career federal employee in 2007 can apply for another federal job at the VA and the VA's selection of that person will NOT be reviewed by OPM under the new policy.

As is commonly done, OPM is going to be sending out a "Q and A" to Federal agencies that will address this and other related implementation issues that were not spelled out in detail in the Director's memorandum. The Q & A will go out in December, before the January 1 start date for the new policy.

Kaplan stated flatly, "If a current career Federal employee applies for a new career Federal job in the same or another agency, we would not review the matter even if that person was a political appointee within the past five years..."

So while Rush raised a legitimate concern, OPM has provided reassurances that the memo simply lacked clarification on that point.

Meanwhile, in addition to their ad hominem attack and hyperbolic language, Media Matters cursory read of the memo misinterpreted its purpose too. The rule was not created to prevent politicals from "burrowing in" to the bureaucracy, as Media Matters asserts. It was created to make all applicants subject to the same standards. Nonetheless, they were correct in concluding that Republicans weren't targeted. Who would have thought? Apparently even a blind pig ...

This administration has plenty wrong with it and is rapidly moving to expand its power and influence in an unprecedented fashion. It is critical however, to separate fact from fancy, and not immediately see evil with every initiative coming out of the federal government. The OPM memo addresses a longstanding problem within government and represents a reasonable approach to resolving it.

---------------------------------------------

This article appeared originally in American Thinker.  Visit other Jim Simpson articles on Examiner.com

columnist Jim Simpson is a former White House staff economist and budget analyst. His writings have been published in American Thinker, Washington Times, Worldnet Daily, FrontPage Magazine, DefenseWatch, , Soldier of Fortune and others. You may read more of his articles on his blog, Truth and Consequences.

"I have been clear in the past that my administration fully supports a one-China policy, as reflected in the three joint communiqués that date back several decades, in terms of our relations with Taiwan as well as our relations with the People's Republic of China. We don't want to change that policy and that approach... and it is my deep desire and hope that we will continue to see great improvement between Taiwan and the rest of -- and the People's Republic in resolving many of these issues."  Barack Hussein Obama, Bejing, Nov 17, 2009

To understand just what Obama did here, we would have to go back across the long tragic history of  relations between America and Taiwan. Suffice it to say that after Jimmy Carter chose to unilaterally break a mutual defense treaty between the United States and Taiwan (an illegal act that resulted in a Supreme Court case filed by none other than Senator Barry Goldwater), the United States has maintained a slippery balance in its relations with Taiwan.

Before Obama, the United States has maintained the understanding that there is "One China", an understanding held by both the Communist People's Republic of China and the Nationalist Republic of China in Taiwan, who agree that there is only one government for all of China, but disagree which of them is that government. In the wake of Nixon and Carter's betrayals of Taiwan, the United States adopted the position that Taiwan is not a state, but neither is it part of the PRC. In a handful of sentences, Obama has aligned the US interpretation of the One China policy with that of the Communist PRC's interpretation of the One China Policy.

Obama first stated that he "supports" a One China policy, rather than following the traditional US formula of "acknowledging" a One China policy. The difference is that acknowledging the policy, does not mean that the US adopts it. By contrast by supporting the policy, Obama has committed the US to backing the PRC position on One China.

Even the second of the Three Communiques, a work of the Carter Administration, maintained that distinction

"The Government of the United States of America acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China."

The difference may seem technical, but keep in mind that entire countries have been given away based on "technical" diplomatic language. Obama knew exactly what he was saying here and what he was giving away by pledging support for the PRC's version of the One China policy. 

Obama further referenced the Three Communiques as bearing the definitive American position on the matter. This sidelines the Taiwan Relations Act passed by Congress in the aftermath of Carter's betrayal of Taiwan. The significance of that is that the Taiwan Relations Act provided for American guarantees for Taiwan's defense. The Three Communiques which were signed by the US and China, cut both Congress and Taiwan out of the loop. In turn Congress has repeatedly passed resolutions to reaffirm the primary of the Taiwan Relations Act in the relationship between America and Taiwan. The latest such resolution was passed this year though the reference to the TRA as the "cornerstone" of American policy toward Taiwan was removed from it, a forerunner of what was to come. After some work the original wording was restored, only for Obama to once again undo it.

The Clinton Administration had already undermined Reagan's Six Assurances to Taiwan. Now Obama has thrown out the fifth assurance altogether. The PRC leadership certainly understands what they have gained. Hu was quick to issue a statement that Obama has recognized his regime's "One China" policy.

Chinese President Hu Jintao hailed U.S. President Barack Obama's recognition of sovereignty issues dear to China, after a bilateral meeting in Beijing on Tuesday.

"China approves of President Obama's repeated reiteration of the one-China principle," Hu told reporters.

Finally Obama stated that Taiwan was not part of China, but rather part of the People's Republic of China. This is effectively a denial of any sovereignty for Taiwan whatsoever. Obama has erased the deliberate ambiguity that the US has cultivated with regard to the position of Taiwan by stating that Taiwan is part of the PRC. This reduces it to the status of a rebellious province, a position that China has always held. And while Obama did not explicitly disavow further US arms sales to Taiwan, considering his disregard for the TRA and the Six Assurances, such a move may not be long in coming.

Obama's actions are not completely unprecedented. Nixon and Carter paved the way, and Clinton on his own visit to China in 1997 significantly downgraded Taiwan's status. The question is whether Congress will respond to Obama's remarks, the way it did to Clinton's "Three Noes".Considering the current Democratic congress, the answer is probably no. 

This policy should not be seen as a complete surprise either. Rejected former nominee for Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, was openly on the PRC payroll and an apologist for its worst atrocities. By drafting the National Intelligence Estimate, Freeman would have been in an ideal position to put pen to paper and make the argument that Taiwan was no longer threatened by the People's Republic of China, and thereby drastically limit or cut off arms sales to China entirely.

Dennis C. Blair, Obama's Director of National Intelligence, who nominated Freeman and backed him all the way, served as a collaborator in the Muslim Indonesian genocide of East Timor, also got rather cozy with China, assuring the Bush Administration that there was nothing to worry about with regard to an invasion of Taiwan, until he was finally forced out by Rumsfeld. That is the character of the Obama Administration's position on Taiwan.

As a Senator running for office, Obama refused to back the sale of F-16's to Taiwan. As Taiwan's air force continues to age, it will have less ability to resist the People's Republic of China, without additional US arms sales. Obama dodged the question about arms sales to Taiwan, and it's likely that he will continue to dodge it, thereby weakening Taiwan and strengthening China.

In 1973 Mao assumed that the People's Republic of China would have to wait another century to seize Taiwan. But he had not counted on Carter and Obama who less than 50 years later, have brought the vision of that red handed mass murderer closer to being than ever.

---------------------------------------

Sultan Knish - From NY To Israel Sultan Reveals The Stories Behind The News

Members of the self-proclaimed fastest-growing union in North America have started fights at town hall meetings, share office space with ACORN and spent over $60 million to elect President Barack Obama.

The left-wing, 2.1 million-member Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and its president, Andy Stern, spent much of 2009 campaigning for health care reform that would include a government-run insurance plan, and for the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), which would make it easier to unionize. Critics of EFCA say it would result in worker intimidation (not something that would bother SEIU, if its recent history is any guide).

Well-connected, Stern was the most frequent White House visitor in the first six months of Obama's presidency.

But ABC, NBC and CBS haven't reported any of those things. In fact, a search of Nexis transcripts for all of 2009 only turned up one story mentioning either SEIU or Andy Stern. That was an Aug. 20 story from Jake Tapper of ABC which identified Stern as "a close ally of the President's and the leader of a major union."

While the networks ignored it, The Washington Post, New York Times and Wall Street Journal all reported Stern's frequent visits to the White House, and The Los Angeles Times has reported that the huge union spent $60 million to help Obama get elected. Both the Post and the New York Times also exposed the close alliance between SEIU and ACORN.

The latest controversy that should have gotten the networks attention began Nov. 16, when two conservative groups, Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) and the Alliance for Worker Freedom (AWF), petitioned the United States Attorney to investigate Andy Stern for possible illegal lobbying activities. Their letter delivered to the U.S. Attorney said:

Specifically, it is important to determine whether those and related activities could constitute unregistered "lobbying" by Mr. Stern in violation of the Lobbying Disclosure Act (LDA), 2 U.S.C. 1601, et seq. In fact, Mr. Stern was a registered lobbyist for SEIU until January of 2007 when he terminated his registration.

On Nov. 16, BigGovernment.com mentioned a possible motivation for Stern not registering as a lobbyist - Obama's opposition to working with lobbyists.

Brian Johnson wrote, "Registered lobbyists can't get stimulus money, can't be White House advisors and are not allowed access to meetings and summits. So how does one get around that? It's simple; you just don't register as a lobbyist. That's what Andy Stern did and it may come back to bite him."

ATR and AWF asserted in their letter and documentation that Stern has spent extensive time lobbying the White House and others, based on visitor logs released by the White House, Stern's own Twitter page and news reports.

So far that has gone unreported by the three major networks, which also ignored the story when the initial visitor logs were released Oct. 30 naming Stern as the top visitor with 22 White House visits in just six months.

SEIU Campaigns for Health Care, Card Check

The 2.1 million member union wants some very specific things from the administration it paid $60 million to elect, including health care "reform" that includes a government-run insurance program and individual mandates for insurance.

The Missoulian reported Stern's role in pushing a health care package after the union leader spoke in Billings, Mont. in August.

"SEIU is behind proposals being pushed by President Barack Obama and many Democratic leaders in Congress," wrote Mike Dennison of the Missoulian State Bureau.

Dennison also quoted Stern who said, "We've built our campaign since the beginning of March, to try to be ready for a pivotal moment like this, to try to get health care done this year."

Why would the union be so concerned with health care legislation? According to Mark Mix, president of National Right to Work Committee, there are provisions buried in the bills that would be a huge boon to unions like SEIU and "have devastating consequences" for health care and the overall economy.

Mix wrote in the Wall Street Journal that the Senate bill would "open the door" to forced unionization and one House bill (H.R. 3200) would give Kathleen Sebelius plenty of authority to regulate health care workers under "public option." Not to mention giveaways for union health care plans, grants for training programs and exemptions for union plans.

A Washington Examiner column also gave the union credit for being the "most influential" union pushing the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA), known by its critics as "card check."

AWF pointed to the the competition between SEIU and the National Union of Healthcare Workers going on in California right now and said EFCA would allow intimidation by union reps to run rampant. AWF cited Journal reports of bullying and intimidation, particularly of immigrants.

That column quoted Ivan Osorio of the Competitive Enterprise Institute saying, "SEIU has perfected the strategy of the corporate campaign. This is a multi-faceted strategy that includes liberal pressure groups. It is meant to look spontaneous when in fact it is organized and planned."

Gladney Says He was Beaten by SEIU 'Thugs'

SEIU hasn't only been criticized for intimidation in California, some have claimed that the union members have been violent at town hall meetings during the August congressional recess.

One person who made that claim was Kenneth Gladney who said he was working as a vendor at a town hall meeting Aug. 6 in St. Louis, Mo. when he was punched in the face by someone in a group of people wearing purple t-shirts.

Gladney recounted the incident on BigGovernment.com saying the person shouted: "'What kind of nigger are you?!' Then, he grabbed my board, so I quickly grabbed it back, then the man punched me in the face and charged at me. I put my hands up to block the second blow from the large man, when two other people from that group grabbed me and threw me to the ground and started punching and kicking me. I was kicked in the head and in the back, legs and buttocks. Then a white woman ran up to me while I was on the ground and began kicking me in my head as well. A few people came to my rescue for which I am forever grateful."

Who were the people in purple t-shirts? According to Harris Himes who also attended that town hall and calls himself an eyewitness to the attack, they were "union thugs" whose shirts read "Organizing for America" on the back and "SEIU" on the front.

The union also has close ties to the disgraced left-wing activist group ACORN which got in hot water after video was released that appeared to show ACORN employees dispensing advice on running brothels and evading taxation. ACORN has also been implicated in a number of fraudulent voter registration schemes.

The New York Times and Washington Post both reported the SEIU/ACORN alliance in October. The Times called the union "one of ACORN's closest allies."

The Post went further saying, "SEIU and ACORN have long worked closely together, with the union paying the association more than $3.6 million in the past three years and sharing some office locations and leaders with the group."

Dominant Social Theme: The logic of globalization calls for an international currency.

Free-Market Analysis: It really is astonishing. The Anglo-American monetary cartel, having come within a whisker of collapsing the entire international economy is no way dismayed by the economic crisis that is in our opinion still taking place. Having stabilized markets around the world by printing virtually trillions of dollars, they are now onto the next task which is using the IMF as a stalking horse for a global currency. Well of course, there is a global currency already. It is recognized in China, India and the West. It is called gold or honest money. We will include silver as well.

From our point of view, these constant efforts at creating a global currency are just one more monetary elite dominant social theme. For readers who don't enjoy the repetition of the world "meme" we will state plainly that an international currency is a promotion - just as global warming is a promotion, and overpopulation too, etc., etc. The crisis itself may or may not be real (and most are not) but the solution is as phony as a counterfeiter's coin. There is no earthly reason why an international fiat currency will work any better than a regional or localized one. It will be subject to the same pressures and eventually the same kind of collapses. Here's some more from the article:

China has kept the yuan, also known as the renminbi (RMB), pegged around 6.83 per dollar since July 2008, following a 21 percent rise over the previous three years, to help its exporters weather the global economic crisis.

"We do believe firmly in the IMF that the RMB is undervalued and that it is not only in the interests of the global economy but also in the interests of China to have a revaluation of the currency," he said.

An undervalued currency introduces economic distortions, which might confer certain advantages but at a cost to other parts of economy, Strauss-Kahn explained.

"So China has a trade advantage, but it also has the wrong prices, leading to wrong decisions about investment in the long run. It is now time for China, having accumulated a lot of advantages from an undervalued currency, to look more forward to investment and long-term stability, and this long-term stability goes with getting rid of this distortion," he said.

What a hoot this is. How does Strauss-Kahn understand what constitutes a distorted money price and what constitutes a normal one? He claims the yuan is undervalued compared to the dollar, but how does he know the dollar is fairly valued? The dollar's value is partially set by the Federal Reserve, which simply fixes the price of money and its quantity where it wants to based on various arcane data that its bankers wish you to believe, dear reader, are especially significant.

But it is impossible to figure out how much money to supply the markets because of the laws of supply and demand and marginal utility - in other words, basic natural economics. Inevitably, the market itself will come up with a new formulation based on the money that the central bank is printing. Central bankers always expect one result and get another. It cannot be otherwise. It is as immutable a law as any in physics. (That doesn't stop them from trying of course and introducing distortions into the market on a daily basis.)

So Strauss-Kahn may believe the yuan is undervalued, but in order to make this statement it would seem he has to maintain that the dollar is fairly valued - and on what basis does he make this statement? We would say the dollar is anything but fairly valued. We would venture to say that the dollar itself is ever-cheapening and that too many dollars have been printed (by trillions). We think the price of gold, which is a better indicator, tells us more about the state of the dollar than Strauss-Kahn.

Strauss-Kahn is apparently unabashed. There is no sense of modesty here. One reason, perhaps, is that people do not for the most part understand what money is (still) or what has happened to it. Another reason is that Strauss-Kahn is himself engaged in promoting a dominant social theme. The monetary elite desperately wants the world to move toward a single currency. Here's what the article reports Strauss-Kahn and others say about a global currency:

Strauss-Kahn expressed concern that political willingness to overhaul the international monetary system will falter if, in a year's time, the visible signs of the economic crisis have faded.

He said the momentum to cooperate had already eased somewhat, six months after the London summit of the Group of 20 agreed on a need for change to ensure a more stable global financial order.

A former IMF chief, Michel Camdessus, said time was of the essence to embark on reform of the global monetary system.

"This favorable window of opportunity is there. It will not stay open forever," he said.

Camdessus gave broad backing to a recent proposal by Chinese central bank governor Zhou Xiaochuan that an expanded SDR could eventually replace the dollar as the global reserve currency.

"Our Chinese friends mean business," he said of Zhou's plan.

The IMF is an Anglo-American invention, as is the United Nations of which it is part. The entire post-war global order was virtually invented by the Anglo-American axis. If Strauss-Kahn and others want to, in some way, pretend that upcoming monetary decisions are somehow out of their hands, then they will. But pretending does not make it so. The monetary system, worldwide, is still an Anglo-American one and will be, in our opinion, even if IMF SDRs somehow morph into acceptable money.

From our point of view those pushing for a more global currency have gotten a bit more desperate in the past few years. The EU has rammed through its bureaucratic wish list regardless of the sentiments of its subjects. And the monetary elite may be seen as retreating from the idea of creating currency regions given the amount of pushback they are getting on the subject. The Mexican/Canadian/American currency union seems a non-starter for instance, no matter how many treaties are signed at the top (and former President George Bush signed a good number of them). Strauss-Kahn seems visibly worried that the momentum for a unified currency is fading and voices those sentiments in this article.

There is no advantage to a fiat-money global currency that we can see. It is nothing in our humble opinion but a monetary promotion. It persists despite logic, despite facts that would tend to show that it will not make the world's economy better (and may in fact make it worse) and is not supported by any substantial information that would prove its merit. These are all signifiers of a monetary promotion. The global warming meme is not supported by facts at this point, but it persists nonetheless because powerful forces wish it to persist.

Conclusion: Whenever logic fails, but the arguments and sociopolitical action continue nonetheless, the chances are that the monetary elite is involved. It is moving more quickly on numerous fronts, in our opinion, because the Internet is providing increasing opposition. Numerous sources of wealth and power are jeopardized, as is the planning process for more-such. One thing is certain in our opinion. If the international community were serious about erecting a money that would be both efficient and non-injurious they would allow the creation of a private-market gold and silver standard of the kind that, historically, served the world well.

As a proponent of market-based health care reform, I'm often accused of believing that free markets will cure what ails our broken health care system and that we just need to get government out of the way to make it all better. I believe no such thing. And I never use the term "free markets." It too often connotes that markets can operate in the absence of government regulation. That's not how it works.

I understand why so many people believe in "free" markets, because markets themselves are a natural phenomenon arising from fundamental human behavior. Certainly no government ever invented them. Markets just happened, because people want things they lack, and they have found they can get them in return for their own labor and produce.

No one really understands why markets work, because they are such indescribably complex, nonlinear, adaptive systems. But somehow they do. They're messy as hell, but they perform well enough to allow a paraphrase of Churchill's famous comment on democracy: Market capitalism is the worst form of economic organization-except for all the others that have been tried.

I'm not saying that free markets don't exist. They do. But lacking a basis in law, they occur only in the primitive forms of black markets and criminal enterprises in which property rights, contracts, protection from theft, and other essential elements are enforced-if at all-by violence, corruption, and, by definition, lawlessness.

Legitimate markets of the complexity necessary to sustain major economies cannot exist without law and regulation to ensure property rights, enforceability of contracts, rights of commercial speech and assembly, a sound currency, public infrastructure, a stable banking system, orderly bankruptcy procedures, national defense, social and economic safety nets, effective trade policies, efficient capital formation, prevention of corruption and criminality, protection from unacceptable negative externalities (e.g., environmental damage), and resolution of significant market failures (e.g., health care).

These government functions are the desiderata of real markets. Some economists even suggest that such regulation originally arose as a means to reduce the costs of doing business, not to impede it. The trick, though, is for regulation to allow markets the freedom to function without unnecessary interference in the voluntary exchange of information and value that makes them so effective.

Health care constitutes a massive opportunity for an enlightened government regulatory role that will allow markets to cure all its problems of cost, quality, and access. Currently, health care is the only one of our five fundamental human needs not being met by well-functioning markets (the other needs are food, clothing, housing, and transportation). Yet health care, like the others, is what economists call an economic good, having both the scarcity and the discernible prices that normally allow markets to self-develop to become the optimal medium of production and distribution.

Why is health care the exception? Free-market advocates claim it's because of decades of government interference with programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP that prevent markets from functioning properly. But that's not the reason. Those programs are simply a response-a poor response to be sure-to a fundamental market failure arising from the fact that no natural, self-organizing market will ever provide the necessary health insurance that everyone needs for protection against the risks of unaffordable, necessary medical care.

Health insurance works according to the Pareto Principle, more commonly known as the 80/20 rule. At any given time, about 20% of the people consume 80% of the medical care. To pay for it, an insurer's customers must also include the 80% who are healthy. Imagine an intellectually-challenged entrepreneur who opens a comprehensive, 24/7 health insurance supermarket that works like a food market or a clothing store.

Any customer can walk in, take an insurance policy off the shelf, and pay for it at checkout. But who will actually shop in this supermarket? Right, sick people. Healthy people will stay away until they get sick, thus depriving the entrepreneur of the healthy 80% necessary to pay the bills. He will quickly go broke.

Although such insurance supermarkets can't work, entrepreneurs figured out a long time ago that there are two-and only two-natural markets for health insurance: large employer groups and healthy individuals. Large employer groups are inherently insurable because they fit the 80/20 rule (and not because of a WWII tax ruling that excluded employer-provided health benefits from federal taxes). That's also true for healthy individuals, as long as the insurer is allowed to confirm their healthy status before agreeing to insure them.

Unfortunately, however, there are no natural health insurance markets for the elderly, the disabled, the poor, or for sick individuals. This constitutes a fundamental market failure in health care that no "free" market will ever correct.

It turns out, though, that this failure is one that could have been identified and corrected by relatively straightforward government regulatory and safety net reform at any time during the past eighty years. Such reforms would have yielded universal medical care with twice today's quality at half the cost.

Instead, the government bypassed regulated market-based solutions in favor of direct government interventions that have utterly failed to assure high quality, affordable cost, universal access, or long-term sustainability. The government has stepped outside of its appropriate role, and, as evidenced by the just-passed House health reform bill, plans to stay there.

In Part 2, I'll discuss how to set this aright, so that all Americans can voluntarily and sustainably consume the full range of necessary medical care.

More about the author and his website

Stephen S. Hyde has been a public company CEO and chairman and board member of numerous health care companies. A successful health care entrepreneur, consultant, actuary, insurance expert, medical group CEO, and federal government managed care regulator, he has nearly 40 years of experience in virtually every major aspect of health regulation, insurance, and care delivery. 

Visiting the federal government's stimulus tracking website sure won't help anyone find them. You can try, but your search will lead you in all sorts of different directions.

In fact, ABC News has located "several examples on the government's web site outlining hundreds of millions of dollars spent and jobs created in Congressional districts that have been misidentified."

"Here's a stimulus success story: In Arizona's 15th congressional district, 30 jobs have been saved or created with just $761,420 in federal stimulus spending. At least that's what the Web site set up by the Obama administration to track the $787 billion stimulus says. There's one problem, though: There is no 15th congressional district in Arizona; the state has only eight districts.

And ABC News has found many more entries for projects like this in places that are incorrectly identified. "

Minnesota has eight Congressional districts, but the website lists 19 different districts, all of which have received stimulus funds. Taken together, the 11 mystery congressional districts posted received more than $7 million in stimulus spending, and created or saved about 50 jobs.  Who's in charge of managing the accuracy of this website and properly distributing stimulus dollars?  The same federal government that wants to take control of your health care. Talk about a lack of fiscal responsibility and transparency.

This is government accountability at its best.

-------------------------

 CongressWoman Michele Bachmann - Elected in 2006, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is the first Republican woman to be elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Minnesota. In only her first term, Congresswoman Bachmann developed a reputation as a "principled reformer" who stays true to her conservative beliefs while pushing for real reform of the broken ways of Washington. And, her strong advocacy for her constituents earned her a second term in Congress in November 2008.

Prior to serving in the U.S. Congress, Bachmann served in the Minnesota State Senate.  She was elected to the Minnesota State Senate in 2000 where she championed the Taxpayers Bill of Rights.  And, prior to that, Bachmann spent five years as a federal tax litigation attorney, working on hundreds of civil and criminal cases.  That experience solidified Bachmann's strong support for efforts to simplify the Tax Code and reduce tax burdens on family and small business budgets.

WASHINGTON, D.C. - House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) issued the following statement today after the national debt topped $12 trillion for the first time in U.S. history:

             "A $12 trillion national debt is just the latest fallout from Washington Democrats' unprecedented spending binge.  The American people are asking 'where are the jobs?' but all they are getting from out-of-touch Washington Democrats is more unsustainable spending and debt to be paid by our kids and grandkids.  Instead of taking immediate, bipartisan action to cut spending, Washington Democrats are preparing to double down on their trillion-dollar 'stimulus' with a $1.3 trillion government takeover of health care and a promise to address fiscal responsibility sometime next year.

           "The American people deserve better than a government that kicks the can down the road.  It is past time for Congress to adopt strict budget caps that limit federal spending on an annual basis, which was a critical plank in the budget alternative Republicans proposed earlier this year."

Bachmann, at 53, is a darling of the so-called Tea Party movement, which has campaigned vociferously against healthcare reform, the economic stimulus package and legislation to combat climate change. Her followers have been behind mass rallies in Washington and smaller ones all over the country.

She has emerged as one of the most visible politicians in America, frequently appearing on the conservative Fox News channel, whose hosts often champion her causes. She is part of an increasingly visible "female brand" of conservatism that is rising in America in the wake of the election of Obama. They include notable syndicated Sarah Palin commentators such as Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter, whose dislike for liberals has grown ever more shrill in recent months. And, of course, Palin herself. She is still a giant of the political and media landscape and next week embarks on a book tour to sell her autobiography. It has already sparked a media frenzy, with a heavily hyped appearance on Oprah Winfrey's show, and become a huge bestseller on pre-orders alone. - UK Guardian

Dominant Social Theme: The new wave in US politics is female.

Free-Market Analysis: It is great to read this article in the Guardian, a leftist British newspaper of note, because the machinery of mainstream media manipulation is laid out for anyone to see here. The dominant social theme being constructed is once again the conservative one. We have of course written about this numerous times already and probably will continue to follow this meme closely as it plays out. It is one of the most important memes that the monetary elite operates (outside of central banking).

It is very important to convince the electorate in the West, especially the United States and Britain that there are only two main political choices when it comes to government. One side wants to build out government, along with higher taxes and regulation, to initiate social programs that supposedly help the poor and disadvantaged and make society fairer. The other side claims to want less taxation and government involvement in the private marketplace but tends to support an overwhelmingly large and aggressive military industrial complex - and will use the leverage inherent in state power, including taxes and monetary stimulation, to get it.

Thus it is that this political dominant social theme organizes both sides to utilize state action. But as we pointed out most recently in our article on Sarah Palin, there is a third point of view, which is generally anti-state. It is the view of Thomas Jefferson and is the view of the American Constitution itself. This is the same view held by outspoken individuals such as US Congressman Ron Paul (R-Tex). This is the constitutionalist view that America was founded on. It is in direct opposition not to one but to both major political parties in the US, Britain and elsewhere.

From this standpoint, the Guardian article is both useful and interesting. It ignores the American constitutionalist/libertarian movement, which is quite likely the most powerful and interesting political phenomenon to come along in years. Instead, it focuses on "Conservative" female firebrands who partake of the right wing statist meme. Is this serendipity? We cannot help but think it is a purposeful media manipulation since one sees it over and over. As we have pointed out before, ignoring obvious facts is part of the process of spinning the memes of the monetary elite. The green/climate change meme ignores the past decade of colder weather. The conservative-socialist meme ignores the evermore clamorous libertarian movements in the US and abroad.

Here's some more from the article:

All these women express a mood of conservative discontent that is becoming increasingly vocal and, some experts warn, extreme. The have been kicked out of power in the White House and Congress. The party is becoming more white and southern at the same time as national demographic changes give power to other regions and minorities. Many Americans are also suffering in the recession. That is a grim picture but one that also makes many voters vulnerable to a talented rabble- rouser. "They are tapping into grassroots frustration... they are charging up an already highly charged group of people," said Shaun Bowler, a political scientist at the University of California at Riverside. ...

The politics espoused by Bachmann, Palin and others on the far right of the conservative movement warn darkly of Obama's intentions. They paint a picture of an America that is under threat from its own president. Bachmann has spoken of the possibility of the White House setting up "re-education camps" for America's youth. Palin once accused Obama of "palling around" with terrorists. To the many critics of this new breed of conservatism, people such as Bachmann and Palin are putting an attractive female face to a very ugly brand of politics. ...

What makes liberal Americans laugh or cry has got the conservative wing of the Republican party extremely excited. In an article that sent shockwaves through America's political classes, top conservative newspaper columnist George Will recently wrote a piece anointing Bachmann as a new star of the movement. "Some of her supposed excesses are... not merely defensible, they are admirable," Will wrote. It is easy to see why Bachmann is being so enthusiastically embraced by conservatives. The high profile of Palin showed the impact a charismatic, young conservative woman could have on the right wing of the Republican party. ...

But Bachmann - and Palin too - are more than just individual politicians. They have come to represent a mass social movement that stretches far beyond just turning up on election day. ... Palin's brand of homespun wisdom, rooted in uber-patriotism and killer heels, was a breath of fresh air that conservatives had been looking for. So were unashamedly conservative views and a willingness to state bluntly what she thought about Democrats. Palin's subsequent self-destruction in a series of media interviews only served to make her more popular.

Indeed, to examine the impact of both Palin and Bachmann is to see an America split firmly into two different worlds. The first is a liberal one where such politicians make outlandish comments that become the butt of jokes on the Daily Show or Saturday Night Live. The other is one where Palin and Bachmann are the victims of a liberal media that hates its own country.

Many of the signifiers of a certain kind of political dominant social theme are in the above excerpt. The article divides the American political world into two camps - Conservative and Progressive - and then picks terror as a main flash point between the two competing camps. It goes out of its way to point to Sarah Palin's "uber patriotism" and generally makes the case that the differences between the two parties have much to do with the American military industrial and intelligence complex.

Michelle Malkin is well known for her support of the American war on terror and the ever-expanding federal anti-terror programs of Homeland Security that supposedly combat it. Ann Coulter at one point attacked widows of 9/11 for questioning government conclusions about 9/11. Unfortunately for Ms. Coulter, the leader litigator of the 9/11 Commission, John J. Farmer, has just concluded that government officials generally lied to the commission about the events surrounding 9/11 and makes the case in his new book "The Ground Truth: The Untold Story of America Under Attack on 9/11."

Readers of this article, therefore, are cleverly led to see that there are only two choices. Either they subscribe to a party that supports the current American military and civil defense posture, or they do not. If they do not, then they must support the Progressive side of the political discussion that is less forceful about military issues but far more forceful about leveraging the power of government in the service of socialism. The "third way" - a party that seeks to shrink government generally - is nowhere to be found in the above discussion. It is an old mainstream media trick, one used very successfully in the 20th century to keep state power alive and growing. But it is ending now.

Many of the memes of the monetary elite are beginning to collapse in our humble opinion. Promotions that are obviously untruthful have difficulty in the era of the Internet. The global warming dominant social theme has morphed into the climate change meme because too many people know that the last decade was a cooling one. The central banking meme - that a small pool of wise men can fix the price and quantity of money to benefit everyone - is collapsing as well thanks to the economic crisis and increased 'Net coverage of free-market, Austrian, economics. And finally, the all-important Conservative/Progressive meme is collapsing as free-market oriented politicians such as Ron Paul relentlessly pound away at it, offering a constitutional conservative view of government that wishes to shrink BOTH civil and military spending.

There are many other elite memes that are imploding besides the ones mentioned above. The collapse is slow-motion and not always easily visible. But these promotions all have the same context and profiles. They seek to scare people into helplessness by overwhelming them with notions of catastrophe. Then the solution that is offered is some sort of government action, the bigger (and more global) the better. Lost in the translation is the control that the monetary elite generally has over government - and thus the benefits that accrue to it (wealth and power) if people can willingly be made to accept more government say in their lives.

Conclusion: The Gutenberg press caused a similar collapse of the monetary elite's authority in its day. We anticipate that the Internet will eventually cause an elite retreat as well. In fact, we will continue to try to point out. And It is for this reason we write (continually) and with some confidence that sooner or later there will come a time when the world (or part of it anyway) will come to accept, and even welcome, a private-market gold and silver standard analogous to what has driven eras of prosperity around the world for literally thousands of years in the past.

© Copyright 2008 - 2009 Appenzeller Business Press AG. All Rights Reserved. The Daily Bell is an informative compendium of independent economic views and analysis, which is published by Appenzeller Business Press AG. The information contained in the Daily Bell is for informational purposes only, is impersonal and not tailored to the investment needs of any particular person and should not be construed as financial or investment advice. Appenzeller Business Press AG does not accept any liability or responsibility for, nor does it verify the accurateness of the information being provided in the Daily Bell. Readers of the Daily Bell or any affiliated or linked sources or sites must accept the responsibility for performing their own due diligence before acting on any of the information provided within the report regardless of the source

Just 18 days earlier, an event occurred that slid under the radar screen of virtually the entire mainstream media.

On Thursday, September 15, 2008, at approximately 11 am, the Federal Reserve noticed a tremendous draw down of money market accounts in the nation, amounting to $550 billion dollars. It occurred within an hour or two. The money was removed electronically.

It has never been made public which accounts were affected, nor where the withdrawn funds were sent. If we knew those facts, we would know who launched an attack on the United States that has been more devastating than any in our history.

Had the Federal Reserve not closed down the accounts involved it is estimated that by 2 pm, $5.5 trillion would have been withdrawn and the entire economy of the nation would have collapsed. It would have been followed within a day with the collapse of the world's economy.

What followed was the sub-prime mortgage loan debacle that can be traced to the government's intervention into the housing loan marketplace via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They ended up owning fifty percent of all the loans.

Americans were using home ownership as a credit card and government policies were mandating the issuance of bad loans in the name of "social justice." Home ownership became "a right," not an aspiration.

Throughout the 1990s, as communities revalued homes, increasing their alleged worth in order to impose higher property taxes, it was only a matter of time before a financial collapse became a reality. Virtually every State was spending beyond its means and increasing property taxes was the preferred choice to make up the difference.

That collapse, however, was initiated by unknown persons at precisely the time Americans were preparing to select a new president. That was not a coincidence.  

In the October edition of "Budget & Tax News", a publication of The Heartland Institute, a non-profit, free market think tank, there was an article by Sandra Fabry, the government affairs manager for Americans for Tax Reform and executive director of the Center for Fiscal accountability, a project of the organization.

The article was titled "61% of National Income Goes to Government."

"Americans this year had to toil until August 12 to pay for federal, state, and local governments, according to the annual Cost of Government Day report by the Americans for Tax Reform Foundation and Center for Fiscal Accountability."

"In 2009, the government will consume a whopping 61.34 percent of national income."

The redistribution of income has reached a point in which 30.36 percent of the money Americans earn is consumed by federal spending. State governments take their percentage as well in income, sales, and other forms of taxation.

It means that Americans worked for 111 days of the year just to pay for the costs of the federal government and federal spending has reached a record 28.5 percent of GDP.

With the passage by the House of the government's attempted takeover of the nation's healthcare system and the up-coming cap-and-trade bill, a massive tax on energy use, there is no telling how many more government spending programs, huge redistribution schemes, Americans will be obliged to pay for.

The Obama administration swiftly embarked on an unprecedented spending spree, "bailing out" General Motors and Chrysler, in effect owning AIG, the insurance giant, and giving funds to various banks to "stimulate" loans, i.e. credit, that Americans and their business enterprises depend upon to function.

Peter Schiff, CEO of Euro-Pacific Capital, has long argued that the problems of the American economy were created by excess credit and debt, and that a massive infusion of credit and debt into the economy only exacerbates the problem. He is right.

The "stimulus" has not worked and the billions still unspent by the program should be returned to the American treasury. Taxes should be cut in order to allow Americans to save or spend their own money. Contracts with civil service and teacher's union should be renegotiated. A vast regulatory revision to remove obstacles to economic growth should be implemented.

Meanwhile the government's "official" figures say 10.2 million Americans are out of work, but the actual figure is estimated to be closer to 17 million or more. Nothing is being done to facilitate hiring with tax credits and reduced taxation of small businesses, nor are the highest corporate taxes in the world being reduced to encourage domestic investment and growth.

And our present difficulties began on September 15, 2008 in a calculated attack that got Barack Obama elected and was immediately followed by all the subsequent efforts to grow the federal government ever larger to make more Americans dependent upon it. The Obama administration has increased the national debt more than all previous presidencies combined.

There is a determined effort under way to undermine the free market capitalist system that made America the greatest economic and military power in the world. Both the White House and Congress are parties to it, but the identities of those who launched that September attack remain hidden.

--------------------------------- 

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Alan Caruba writes a weekly column, "Warning Signs", posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center. His book, "Right Answers: Separating Fact from Fantasy", is published by Merrill Press.

With the strict evidentiary rules in force in federal civilian courts, it is easy to see how the prosecution of Mohammed could morph into an indictment of the Bush administration's interrogation techniques and waterboarding. As in rape trials, the magnitude of the underlying crime (masterminding the 9/11 attacks) might well be lost as the defense puts the victim (in this case, the government) on trial.

It is not political theater itself to which Obama objects - but theater that highlights issues that liberals would rather forget. He is quite content to let the Mohammed trial become the theater of the left. Perhaps even eager.

Obama and his handlers know that the key to building favorable ratings is to control the agenda. And the more the national discussion centers on national security and terrorism, the more Republicans gain. So the Fort Hood terror attack comes at an awful time for an administration trying to turn the nation's attention away from the terrorist threat.

As soon as the killing spree was over, Obama hastened to call it "an act of violence" - obscuring the obvious fact that it was the most serious terror attack on US soil since 9/11. And, as evidence mounts that the FBI was on to Major Nidal Malik Hasan for years, the president is doing his best to stop Congress from finding out why these warnings went unheeded.

Even as Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee confirmed that the government knew of 10 to 20 e-mails between Hasan and a radical imam in Yemen - who was urging the killing of American troops - starting last December, Obama hastened to urge Congress to refrain from investigating why the danger signs were ignored.

The Obama administration has a clear agenda here:

1) Stop people from focusing in how his administration permitted the worst domestic terror attack in eight years.

2) Avoid a national airing of how liberal policies - restraints on the intelligence community, political correctness in the armed forces - might have inhibited the military from reining in Hasan.

3) Re-ignite a firestorm on the left and abroad against the aggressive anti-terror policies of the Bush administration.

Making all this particularly important for Obama are his other political needs.

As he likely decides to send more troops to Afghanistan and eyes abandoning the "public option" to secure Senate passage of his health-care plan, Obama has to rebuild his credibility on the left. A public circus that focuses on waterboarding and interrogations could be just what he wants and needs.

---------------------------------------------