New Conservative Network

Andy Stearn/SEIU in charge of…Deficit Reduction???

NCN — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 05:38:08 +0000

Fox Guarding the Henhouse? John Fund of the Wall Street Journal in video interview this morning discusses the latest appointee to Obama’s “Deficit Reduction Commission” of 18 members—most are Congressmen, but not the newest member. It’s Andy Stearn of the SEIU (now at least he will get a paycheck for all those visits to Capitol Hill!). Congress should technically be able to take charge and reduce the deficit but won’t, no one will take a leadership role and do the tough thing, so they formed a committee to make it look like someone is doing something. What’s more, SEIU actually lobbied AGAINST a deficit reduction commission. So what exactly is Andy’s role—some kind of “self-regulation”? Cronyism runs rampant, more than ever before, not really change you can believe in. And conveniently, the Commission “reports” Dec 1—AFTER mid-term elections. What do you think Stearn’s idea of a “fix” will be for the deficit? John Fund says it will be rampant new taxes…. and appointing Stearn “basically guarantees you are not going to address one of the biggest problem we have with government”—-the labor unions.

NOTHING FOR EVERYONE says Washington Examiner

NCN — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:25:15 +0000

Washington Examiner Chris Stirewalt’s entertaining article “I liked that speech better the first time”, citing the Los Angeles Times article “Obama strives to revive the spirit of 2009”: “State of the Union speech last night : ‘Typical Obama: nothing for everyone’….rather than practical ideas about how to create a government of reasonable aims, the president gave a more confrontational version of the speech he gave to Congress almost a year ago….And just as last year, he didn’t offer any plan for actually achieving his goals. There should be a national health plan, but he didn’t suggest a way to revive his moribund legislation in Congress. There should be another stimulus package, but didn’t say of what kind. We should fight global warming, but he didn’t say how….it was mostly a restatement of his existing agenda…..It was the speech of a president who is audacious but not bold. Audacious in his dreams and demands but not bold in his strategies.”

FACT CHECK on State of Union speech

NCN — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:13:57 +0000

The Associated Press (AP) took a look at what was true…and what quite wasn’t….with comments made during the speech in this article: “Fact Check: How State of Union Compares With Reality”

Odd time & place for Supreme Court smack down

NCN — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:11:23 +0000

In his State of the Union speech, Obama did something unusual that flew in the face of decorum and propriety, criticizing the Justices who sat in the audience. In addition to publicly admonishing them for a court decision he disagreed with, Obama’s speechwriter also got MANY facts wrong, just about that topic alone. Obama said that foreign companies can give money to campaigns, but that is just not true. He said the Supreme Court “overturned a century of law” but in fact it was only a decade. The Moderate Voice summarized it best: “This was a rather stunning conclusion coming from a President who was supposed to have taught constitutional law. I’m not sure which is worse… the idea that Obama is intentionally lying about the court decision to score political points or that neither he nor any of his advisers and speech writers understand the court ruling. In any event, when you wake up today and see a number of left leaning writers running around with their hair on fire over Alito’s reaction, just keep the above facts in mind. Alito silently remarked that Obama was “wrong” on the facts. And he was. Totally wrong, as it turns out.” That brief passage was only one of many things that were completely untrue in the State of the Union address. Here is a great video featuring attorney Megan Kelly.

It seemed like a good idea at face value…but look deeper…

NCN — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:59:39 +0000

Campaign finance “reform” was a farce and it’s good it was struck down, said George Will of the Washington Post in his article here: “Campaign finance: a ‘reform’ wisely struck down”. Will says it is false for Obama to have said the reversal by the Supreme Court ”will enable Wall Street and big oil” to decide elections, citing OpenSecrets.org reports that in 2008 lawyers gave more money than either of them…and 78% of those donations went to Democrats in 2008. And 64% of Democrat’s 2008 contributions came from the financial institutions of “Wall Street”. Obama took a lot of money for his campaign andliked the restrictions that others had. Will’s article talks about the hypocrisy of those who had the “in” road to lots of funds and now don’t like it that “others” will too. He points out that the reversal of “reform” will now allow non-profits to distribute pamphlets and direct funds for their causes who won’t risk losing donors, therefore they will be sure spend money on candidates who align with their cause, (or they won’t get any more donations!) and give their donors a voice.

Who’s spending in the 2010 Elections?

NCN — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:53:41 +0000

“527s: Advocacy Group Spending in the 2010 Elections” Open Secrets” article is interesting. See the full list at http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/index.php. Top 5 Committees Receiving Money are these:

American Solutions Winning the Future (conservative 527 group created by former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich)
Emily’s List (Political action committee supporting pro-choice Democratic women candidates)
America Votes (one of the founders is George Soros; progressive group; members include ACORN, AFL-CIO)
Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
Mid-Atlantic Leadership Fund (a group who bought almost $1million in TV ads attacking GOP gubernatorial candidate Christopher Christie).

Top 5 Committees Giving Money so far in 2010:

Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
America votes (one of the founders is George Soros; progressive group; members include ACORN, AFL-CIO)
Laborers Union
National Assn of Realtors
Operating Engineers Union

Bill not worth voting for…without sweetheart deals…

NCN — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 14:35:35 +0000

Less than 1/3 of Americans want this damaging Health Care bill, which is “expansion” (not “reform”) and doesn’t solve the problems (in spite of 100 bills introduced by Republicans that have been rejected: see Nov 4 NCN post)! And apparently many senators couldn’t find enough merit in the Senate version of the bill to vote for it either. Well, unless they had a little incentive—click here for an MSNBC video that gives a list of all the Sweetheart Deals given out in exchange for votes in support of the Health Care bill in the Senate.

Nebraska: exempt (forever) from paying for the Medicare expansion. Also: exemptions from the $6.7 billion in health insurance fees for Nebraska-based companies like Mutual of Omaha
VT: $10 billion for community health centers
CT: Dodd got $100 million for a hospital.
Louisiana: $300 billion
UT & WY: boost in Medicare rates (while other states must accept cuts in reimbursement rates)
FL: gets to keep $5billion Medicare Advantage (even though other states don’t) but only if you already have it. “Presumably Arizona, also the home to many retirees, didn’t qualify because its two Senators are Republicans” according to Wall Street Journal article “The Price of ‘History’: Harry Reid delivers a bundle of special-interest favors.” It went on to say, “This does mean, of course, that if you turn 65 next year and move to Florida and want Medicare Advantage, you don’t qualify for the Nelson Advantage. So some seniors will be more equal than others.” WSJ concluded the article with this, “Thus does your United States Senate, the world’s greatest nondeliberative deliverer of special-interest favors, practice political medicine. Get used to it. As President Obama likes to say, it’s “history” in the making.”

More about the deals: watch this video “Sweetheart Deals and Political Games”.

Keep in mind, if one state is exempt from a cost, the rest of us pay for that state’s expenses, as well as those for our own state—in other words, the bribe for the vote comes from taxpayer dollars from you and me.

Click here for video interview of Senator Lindsey Graham that tells it like it is.

Even Nebraska Governor is embarrassed by the deal Nelson made: click here for video .

Harry Reid is making no apologies (click here for an MSNBC video), saying, in fact, “If a legislator doesn’t have something in the bill that is important to them, then that doesn’t speak well of them.”

“This is not reform. This is the transfer of $1billion from the taxpayers to the insurance companies,” said Senator John Cornyn, as he discussed the lack of transparency with these back-room deals and how this bill will reduce choice and access for patients. The host of MSNBC’s Morning Meeting agreed that this is a mandate to monopolies, and that this is not “reform”, only “expanding coverage”. How will THAT “save” us money? It won’t. The CBO site expresses concern that “cuts” proposed to save money have been in front of Congress MANY times before, and the “cuts” get overridden.

So…a Federal mandate that only applies to 49 states?? And another federal mandate that exempts another state or two? Is that constitutional? The Attorney General in South Carolina is investigating.

Critics include LA Times “Favors and exceptions may get a bill through the Senate, but that doesn’t make them good policy” , The Wall Street Journal “Cost-control and taxes for some, but not for others” (“….In other words, controlling insurance costs is enormously important, unless your very costly insurance is provided by an important Democratic constituency” and “These 11th-hour indulgences make a hash of Mr. Orszag’s cost-control theories and Mr. Obama’s cost-control claims. Their spin has been that wise men would convene and make benevolent decisions about everyone’s health care based only on evidence and the public good. But as the Reid bill shows, politics will always dominate when Washington is directing a U.S. health industry that is larger than the economy of France.”

Primer & Glossary for Health Care

NCN — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 14:17:29 +0000

Great diagram of the process of the Health Care Bill.

Glossary for Healthcare.

FAQ/primer on Healthcare from New York Times.

ACORN Qualifies for Funding in Senate Health Care Bill

NCN — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 14:11:20 +0000

“ ACORN Qualifies for Funding in Senate Health Care Bill”: See Weekly Standard article here.

Future Congresses Cannot Repeal Parts of Reid Bill

NCN — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 14:09:08 +0000

“Reid Bill Says Future Congresses Cannot Repeal Parts of Reid Bill” says Weekly Standard article, for instance, the Independent Medicare Advisory Board. And what exactly is that? Dick Morris explains.