Despite mainstream media reports and a weekend statement by the White House that they are no longer pushing for a public option, the option is alive, well, and may become a swift reality. Moreover, if the current course of events is not altered, Republicans may have no legislative ability to prevent the public option from becoming a reality.
Senate leadership and the Obama administration are currently working out details on how to combine competing versions of health care reform this week. A primary point of contention is the creation of a public option versus non-profit cooperatives. After Obama administration comments this weekend, it has become clear that the final Senate bill will most likely not contain the so-called "public option" in order to garner the 60 votes needed to overcome an impending Republican filibuster. Once the bill has overcome a filibuster, it will allow a small number of Senate Democrats who are facing challenges in the 2010 elections to then vote no on the final bill. However, the public option will not die with the passage of the Senate bill and once the White House has overcome a potential filibuster it will re-open the door to the public option.
The House of Representatives, under Nancy Pelosi, has not abandoned the government option and such a government option will pass the House of Representatives. As a result, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, the White House and a handful of chosen delegates will conference to hammer out the details of final legislation. The problem is that all three of the parties involved in combining House and Senate versions of health care bills support and have lobbied for a government option. As a result, this conference is likely to produce a final bill that not only contains a public option, but is also no longer subject to cloture rules within the Senate. The end result is a final bill that may contain a government option that only needs 50 Senate votes for final passage.
The installation of the government option within a final bill would inevitably cause a massive bloating of costs in order to appease Senate Democrats on the fence. For instance, the current Baucus bill cost estimates are based upon a 25% cut in Medicare reimbursement to providers. Currently, Medicare and Medicaid reimburse health care providers at a rate 17%-19% less than private insurance. Such a cut would mean that reimbursement rates would fall to nearly 40% less than private insurance, thus devastating the medical community and limiting care. In order to garner support for a public option, the conference committee would likely eliminate such language causing costs of the bill to skyrocket. In addition, Senator's such as Kent Conrad (D-ND), who are facing tough reelection bids, have already stated that they would not vote for a public option that was built upon current medicare reimbursement schedules (notice the carefully worded statements of such politicians). As a result, we will likely see a final bill that abandons the medicare payment basis and provide higher reimbursement rates for government run health insurance. Such a move would soften medical community opposition, maintain the support of wavering Senate Democrats, but also cause costs to balloon even further.
If the public would step back and take a second look, they would quickly find that the thrust of the White House has been solely upon passage of a Senate bill. Little attention has been paid to current House legislation and no pressure has been placed upon the House to adopt a bill without the government option. What we are witnessing is the worst of political posturing, publicly admonishing a public option, while privately working out details as to how to pass such an option. The public, for their part, is blind, naively trusting our legislative leaders to do the right thing, abandon government run health care and pass a bill designed to lower medical costs. However, in our blindness, we are overlooking the reality that Washington has no interest in lowering health care costs, if they were then reform would begin at the production level of goods and services rather than the end-user insurance level.
Fascinated by the President's receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday, the mainstream media largely ignored a Department of Labor report that highlighted the complete failure of the Obama stimulus package. On Friday, the Job Openings and Labor turnover summary showed that the number of new job openings in August fell not only to its lowest level since the onset of the recession, but its lowest level since the 1970's.
The Department of labor reported that the number of new job openings in August fell to 2,387,000 positions, a decrease of decrease of 21,000 from the month of July. The 2.387 million new job openings reached a level exactly 50% lower than the recent high of 4.8 new jobs in June of 2007. The number of new job openings has consistently dropped since September of 2008 and has reached a level nearly 600,000 jobs lower than February, 2009 when the Economic Recovery Act was passed.
The report showed that the number of job openings and hire rates dropped amid every sector of the economy including the construction, manufacturing and transportation sectors supposedly targeted by the stimulus act. According to the Department of Labor, there are now 6 applicants for every new job opening, the highest level in more than 30 years. Moreover, the summary highlights the lowest per-capita level of small business hiring since the government began publishing the report. Prior to this recession, small business accounted for more than 1/3 of all new job hires; today, that number has dropped into the 20th percentile as small business hiring has nearly frozen.
The Job Opening and Labor Turnover Summary highlights the failure of the Economic Recovery Act as the number of job openings and hires has consistently decreased since February. Moreover, the stagnancy in numbers within recent months demonstrates that as federal spending ramps up, job creation is not following. Detractors of the so-called stimulus plan, such as myself, highlighted that the spending bill failed to provide consumer based stimulus and tax incentives to small businesses. Moreover, federal stimulus money severely restricted industries that received such funds, requiring that the money be invested on unneeded capital projects rather than utilized to shore-up deficit budgets, enhance services and rev up supply. The failure of the Obama Stimulus plan may ultimately represent the most wasted spending in government history considering that the recovery act was nearly 5 times larger than any stimulus plan in U.S. history.
The bottom line is that you can not have long term economic growth without job creation. It is now evident that our nation is headed into an economic abyss similar to that of the 1970's.
The blogosphere and pundits will be in full force today discussing the accomplishments or lack thereof of President Obama. The left will spin the announcement of the Nobel Peace Prize award as a reflection of the United States new found adoration brought on by President Obama. Meanwhile, his detractors will inevitably refer to lack of international diplomatic success of the administration, the increased belligerence of nations such as Iran, North Korea and Venezuela, the strained US-Israeli relationship, the Chicago Olympics debacle and criticism by the French president.
Inevitably, the historical significance of the prize will be discussed. There will be references to the award being the first time a sitting US president has received the prize. Likewise, the references to past award winner such as Arafat, Vietnamese diplomat Lo Duc and Gorbachev will be invoked. You will hear the discussion about past nominees such as Neville Chamberlain, Hitler, Stalin and others. In the end we will be barraged with discussions centering upon the past, with little discussion as to the unintended effect of receiving the award.
The world is ruled by largely egotistical, alpha males who do not react well to criticism and react even more negatively to arrogance or condescension by other leaders. No example typifies this better than how global leadership reacted to President Wilson in 1919. The President arrived in Europe, touring the continent to be greeted by record-breaking crowds of adoring fans. Publicly, European leaders positioned themselves to the side of Wilson, bowing before his public greatness and showering him with praise. However, privately they despised the arrogance of the President and despised the popularity of Wilson even more. At Versailles, they utilized his naivety and arrogance against him, shredding the Presidents peace plan until all that remained was the creation of the League of Nations and the most lopsided and damaging peace treaty in history. President Wilson never recovered from the humiliation of Versailles.
As we pointed out throughout the campaign and as recently as last month, President Obama is the first President in the past century to display a level of hubris, condescension and idealism that rivals that of President Wilson. On the world stage, belligerent countries have consistently challenged the resolve of the US over the past 9 months only to be met with a tepid response by Washington. Following the G20 summit, European leaders expressed private discontent and offered criticism of the naivete of President Obama's world views and the President's condemnation of another secret Iranian nuclear facility was offset by the disclosure that the President learned of the facility prior to his inauguration.
The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize will inevitably handicap U.S. diplomatic efforts as the self-serving egotism of other global leaders causes them to pursue policies aimed at embarrassing the President and enforcing their sense of power. Compounding U.S. diplomatic challenges is the reality that President Obama has displayed typical Beta-male behavior in dealing with foreign leaders as The American Thinker pointed out. The end result will be that even the leaders or closest allies will inadvertently work to improve their own sense of self-worth and superiority when dealing with an administration whose own arrogance will only grow as world peace is added to a list of accomplishments that have yet to occur.
Much of the world is demonstrating dismay this morning as they learn that President Obama has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. From the bewilderment of the crowd at the announcement to dropped jaws in Afghanistan and Iraq, the announcement was a shock and a body-shot to the egos of other world leaders. Ultimately, the Noble Peace Prize committee has damaged already strained U.S. diplomatic efforts.
This spring President Obama alluded to his intentions of taking up immigration reform, aka Amnesty, in November or December of this year. Yet, administration officials have not publicly discussed the subject in months and now with votes looming on current health insurance proposals, administration officials are taking steps in preparation of an immigration bill.
The President has made clear that he wants a bill that will not cover illegal aliens, yet, every proposed bill on the table does not require verification of citizenship. In fact, each and every time that House and Senate Republicans have offered amendments that specifically bar illegal immigrants and require verification, they have been rejected. Yet, the legislative language and legal verification will not mean a thing if the Congressional Democrats and the President grant amnesty to the 12-17 million illegals living in the United States.
The administration and Democrat congressional leaders are pushing for passage of Health Care legislation prior to November 15th, which would fit the timeline for the introduction and attempt to ramrod an amnesty bill down Americans' throats during the holiday season when many Americans are focused on other issues. This past week, Kathleen Sebelius slipped up during a press conference and alluded to the administration's plans to push for amnesty. In addition, the Department of Homeland Security ordered Arizona sheriff Arpaio to halt his roundup of illegals and then announced plans to reform detention procedures of illegal immigrants.
This week news flowed out of Chicago that immigration reform activists are pushing for passage of a resolution calling upon Washington to enact immigration reform and grant amnesty. Considering President Obama's allegiance to the Chicago political machine, it is safe to assume that he will be supportive of their efforts.
The movement of the administration towards granting amnesty to illegal aliens is directly tied to the health care reform debate. Current CBO estimates of each plan are based upon the exclusion of illegal aliens. If the administration were successful in pushing their amnesty agenda it would add tens of billions, if not hundreds of billions of dollars to the cost of the programs. The lack of transparency and disclosure by the administration in regards to this agenda is a travesty and represents the worst of our political system. The administration understands that if the American people were to recognize the correlation between health care and immigration reform plans, they uprising would be severe. Then again, how are the American masses able to recognize such a correlation when the media has become the lapdog of the President.
The writing is on the wall and the move towards amnesty is inevitable. Higher taxes, higher premiums, cuts to Medicare and the inclusion of illegal aliens are not the change that Americans voted for....or at least what those blinded by celebrity thought they were voting for.
President Obama has painted himself into the proverbial corner in regards to our mission in Afghanistan. On the campaign trail he consistently criticized the Bush administration, accusing them of diverting needed resources from Afghanistan and failing to wage a war of victory within the nation. However, as many of us warned then candidate Obama's rhetoric was based upon a need to demonstrate foreign policy strength rather than sound military strategy. President Obama promised the American people that he would lead us to victory over the Taliban and Al-Quaeda, but months of diverting attention from Afghanistan have culminated in the demonstration that President Obama only strategy for Afghanistan is to choose the path that will provide the least political damage.
Upon taking office, President Obama's lack of resolve in regard to Afghanistan was quickly demonstrated when he first referenced the "War on Terror" as an oversees contingency plan. However, the upsurge in violence and deaths of NATO soldiers prove that Afghanistan is indeed all out warfare.
The President's first and foremost obligation is to protect US citizens and fully support our armed forces. As a wartime President he has a further obligation to enact policies designed to achieve operational objectives and achieve victory in a manner that supports rather than strains our armed forces. The uptick in Afghanistan violence is not a recent event, but rather a pattern that has developed over the past two years as insurgents have fled the battle in Iraq to fight on more friendly soil. In large part, the success of the Iraqi surge in establishing security in that nation has directly attributed to the increased insurgency in Afghanistan. Yet, it has taken President Obama eight months to address the war in Afghanistan.
Supporters of the President will point to his increase in troop levels when he took office. However, that increase has not taken full effect and represented a fraction of the troop levels requested by our commanders in the field. The President was fulfilling a campaign promise, rather than instituting sound military strategy. Although the President took limited action following his inauguration, Afghanistan has since been largely ignored. Indeed, it was only after a leaked request for additional troops that the President was forced to address the War in Afghanistan.
What action has the President taken?
None. The first reports of troop level requests occurred more than 3 weeks ago and the Presidents response has been one of indecision. The President promised on the campaign trail that he had the "plan" for success in Afghanistan; however, it is safe to say that the White House response demonstrates that the President had no plan for victory, nor any consideration of developing a plan. The President has had eight months to develop his Afghanistan strategy and has waited until forced by the media to make a decision.
In the past week, the President has waffled on any decision with regard to troop levels and forward-looking strategy. He is now placed himself in a environment of choosing between the plans of our experienced commanders or those of lifetime politicians and bureaucrats. Such indecision is reminiscent of troop and supply requests that were unmet by President Johnson during the onset and early years of the Vietnam War. Just as President Johnson did, it now appears that President Obama's lack of experience and resolve will culminate in a decision in a "half-way" plan designed to portray a centrist position. Such a politically weighted decision would demonstrate a complete and total failure of leadership as Commander in Chief.
The mere reality that the President would adopt a strategy based upon political impact demonstrates the degradation of presidential leadership that has occurred since the fall of the Soviet Union. The American Electorate once chose statesman, individuals of integrity and character who demonstrated resolve and leadership when faced with crisis. Today it appears that the American electorate has become content with choosing career politicians lacking resolve and discussing the value of consensus building. If such leadership was present in 1930's, we would have been wholly unprepared for the onslaught of WWII and the attempts to direct public opinion into positions supporting our British allies never would have occurred. If such indecisiveness and reliance upon political implications existed in the early 1960's, the United States would still be the target of Cuban-based nuclear missiles today. We elect Presidents to make decisions and fulfill their obligations to this nation, we do not elect them to ignore the problems for months and then stall while they weigh the political implications of those decisions.
The lack of leadership in Washington truly has become a sad state of affairs.
Following diplomatic talks with Iran, the mainstream media was abuzz with the stunning success of the Obama administration. During the short meeting, Iran agreed to allow inspections of another secret nuclear facility publicly disclosed during the G20 summit. But is Iran's agreement to inspections of the nuclear facility a genuine success?
History tells us that the Obama Administrations direct engagement yielded no more results than the failed global approach of the past 7 years. Since proof was first submitted in 2002 or Iran's secret nuclear program, the Iranian government has agreed 7 times to allow the inspections to occur.
In February of 2003, following the discovery of Iran's nuclear facilities, then Iranian President, Mohammad Khatami, publicly disclosed that his nation had indeed built two factories in which nuclear materials were being produced. On February 21st, Iran would agree to allow scheduled nuclear inspections. After inspections begin later that Spring, IAEA Inspectors disclose in August that Iran has developed two types of enriched Uranium not needed for peaceful energy production.
During the Fall of 2003, international pressure would mount on Iran. The Iranian Government would temporarily suspend enrichment at its facilities after the IAEA report and by the end of October, would agree to sign an additional protocol to the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. On December 18, 2003 Iran would sign the NPT protocol and agree disclose all facilities and submit to unannounced IAEA inspections. The signing of the protocol would represent the pinnacle of international attempts to curb Iran's nuclear program. Never again would nuclear talks achieve the short-lived promises agreed to by Iran.
In March of 2004, Iran would abruptly bar UN inspections of nuclear facilities aimed at determining the source of two highly enriched uranium samples and previously discovered equipment used in the weaponization process. An IAEA report and UN resolution would condemn Iran for failing to disclose nuclear operations and facilities in violation of the 3-month old NPT protocol. Following the resolution, Iran would once again agree to allow inspections but would further stall IAEA inspectors until a new timeline was established in April.
By the middle of June 2004, it was apparent that Iran had no intention of abiding by the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, nor the additional protocol signed 6 months earlier. In June, Iran would announce that it would resume Uranium enrichment. A subsequent IAEA report would allude to Iran's failure to abide by the additional protocol and would disclose satellite photos of an additional suspected secret facility. After another round of mounting pressure throughout the fall of 2004, Iran would once again agree to allow inspections and suspend uranium enrichment. On November 14th Iran would suspend enrichment activities and would subsequently (Feb. 27,2005) sign an international accord to purchase nuclear material (not utilized for weaponization) from Russia.
Five months later, Iran would abruptly announce its intentions to resume Uranium enrichment in direct violation of all earlier agreements. On August 3rd, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
would take office and just 2 days later Iran's nuclear facilities were back online. On September 2nd, the IAEA would confirm that nuclear operations had resumed. A draft report condemns the actions of Iran, but without Chinese or Russian support the nation avoids action by the United Nations Security Council.
Between September 2005 and January 2006, Iran would continue to prepare for full-scale uranium enrichment. On January 10th, 2006 Iran would remove the IAEA seals from enrichment equipment at one facility sparking international calls to bring the nation in front of the security council. Security Council members would agree, but postpone a meeting until March. Following failed last minute negotiations, on March 29, 2006, the security council give Iran 30 days to suspend enrichment. On April 29th, Iran would once again agree to allow inspections of nuclear facilities in an attempt to avoid sanctions while still enriching uranium. The United Nations backs down and Iran continues enrichment activities and allows limited inspections to self-chosen sites. The remainder of 2006 would be marred by blocked IAEA attempts to inspect nuclear facilities and continued international threats of sanctions.
In May of 2007, the IAEA would announce Iran had progressed to a point in which they would have enough material to produce a nuclear bomb in 3 to 8 years. The assessment, in addition to various IAEA reports, would force the Security Council to once again debate international sanctions against Iran. The impending referral to the security council and planned vote for sanctions, would lead to an offer by Iran to allow inspections of a heavy water facility previously blocked to IAEA inspectors. Once again, the Security Council caved, delaying sanctions until November.
By November 2007, no progress had been made in regards to full disclosure, full inspections or a halt to enrichment activities. The security council, facing opposition by Russia and China, would delay UN imposed sanctions as member-nations attempted to reach an agreement with Iran. As a result in January 2008, Iran would agree to "clarify" all questions that the IAEA had in regards to their nuclear program within 30 days. After 3 months, the IAEA would conclude that Iran had failed to fully disclose its nuclear activities and was "not cooperative".
Since May of 2008, little has changed in regards to international dealings with Iran. That is until last week when the mainstream media hyped the Obama administration success in getting Iran to agree to inspections. However, what the press failed to mention is the stark reality that President Obama could only achieve the same level of diplomatic success that the international community had achieved each and every year since 2003. Every year since the admission of their nuclear program Iran has agreed to allow inspections and continue talks, only to obstruct such inspections and return to its hardline stance. The press would lead you to believe that this was a great step forward towards peace, yet the results of the meeting follow the exact process of "promise and stall" that the Iranians have been engaged in for years.
The press has created a perception that the Bush policies of deferring talks to the EU were an utter failure. Yet, history does not lie and prior to the election of Ahmadinejad the U.S. and its allies were twice able to temporarily stop the production of enriched uranium. Although Iran's total shut-down only lasted months in each case, when combined the more than 1 year of shut-down may have bought just enough time to allow President Obama to hold more fruitless talks.
President Theodore Roosevelt developed the United States' first comprehensive foreign policy and was popularly coined for the phrase, "Speak softly and carry a big stick". Those very words could easily have been attributed to the later President Roosevelt, President Kennedy or President Reagan. Yet, President Obama's approach has become the equivalent of speak loudly and carry a Hello Kitty purse. The President abstained for the entirety of his Presidency from releasing photos of yet another Iranian nuclear site; opting instead to wait for an economic summit of the G20 to release the information. The president has failed to counter Iranian rhetoric, nor challenge the nation at any point during his presidency; including the utter failure to mention the belligerent nation in either his UN General Assembly speech, nor his initial security council meeting. Furthermore, the President has failed, unlike European leaders, to mention the reality that Iran has violated the NPT, the additional protocol of 2003, or 2004 & 2005 international agreements. While the President has been apologizing for the past actions of the US, he has utterly failed to demonstrate international leadership.
Iran has no intention of dismantling its nuclear ambitions, let alone allowing full and transparent inspections of their five nuclear sites (disclosed so far). The actions of this administration and the international community resemble those of the 1930's whereas the League of Nations laid the foundation of their own failure. Just as in the 1930's this administration's first act in dealing with a belligerent state was to allow Iran to dictate the terms from which they would manipulate international law to further their illegal nuclear program.
The Bush Administration spent years developing clandestine and public efforts to promote the idea of a popular uprising to remove the fundamentalist regime in Iran. Yet, when the Iranian people took to the streets this past spring, President Obama passed on a golden opportunity to demonstrate international leadership and apply powerful pressures to the Iranian government. The President was the last leader of the free world to speak up in support of the people of Iran and did so with a whisper. Furthermore, the uprising in Iran presented the ideal time to release satellite imagery of a fifth nuclear installation and apply never-before seen pressure upon a belligerent state dealing with internal unrest. The President passed on this opportunity, the uprising was crushed and years of effort to promote an internal overthrow of the regime were discarded. As a result, Iran's leadership has recognized the utter weakness of US leadership built upon likability and has every intention of utilizing that weakness to further stall enforcement of international law. The meeting with Iran in past weeks was the farthest thing from unprecedented success that much of media has made it out to be. Nothing more was achieved in that meeting than has been achieved in the past seven years. Ultimately, Iran will break their limited pledge and continue the same process of utilizing international weakness to further their belligerency.
|
Blog Directory ID: 2490
Blog URL: http://politicallydrunk.blogspot.com
Report Blog: Report Blog Listing – This is a free listing which requires a link back!
Google Pagerank: 3
Blog Description: Politically Drunk On Power is a site dedicated to bringing common sense and historical perspective back to today's polarized and poplulist political environment.
Blog Category: Political Blogs
Blog Owner: Jarid Brown
Blog Added: May 06, 2008 03:40:45 PM
Audience Rating: General Audience
Blog Platform Not Selected
Blog Country: 
United States
My Yahoo! 
Refer Blog Listing - 
Print Listing
Total Visits: 255
Blog Rating: 3.07
Rate Blog: 
