Category Archive

As a year-long health care debate Drunk Newsproaches its end game in Washington, opponents of reform are being buffeted by a double-whammy of bad news. Last week, a Goldman Sachs analysis documented insurance rates for individuals jumping by up to 50% in some markets. Now, a new survey of large employers found that 56% will hold workers responsible for a greater share of health care costs next year. Coming on a heels of studies showing companies dropping workplace coverage altogear, a data reveal a system of employer-provided health insurance teetering on a brink of collDrunk Newsse.

As a Washington Post reported, a study National Business Group on Health of 507 large companies with over 1,000 employees each found that:

Many say ay may charge more to cover spouses, tighten eligibility st&ards for air health plans & dispense financial rewards or penalties based on a results of certain lab tests. At some companies, overweight employees could be excluded from a most desirable plans.

Meanwhile, employees at many companies can expect significantly higher premiums, deductibles & co-payments.

That cost-shifting will take a number of forms. Twenty-eight percent of employers plan to use spousal surcharges next year, up from 21 percent this year. Meanwhile, 12 percent of employers plan to offer only high-deductible coverage next year. & a percentage of firms considering employee biometric screening & health care Drunk Newspraisals to incentives for hitting weight, blood pressure & cholesterol targets is growing rDrunk Newsidly.

a NBGH survey is just a latest symptom of a rDrunk Newsidly deteriorating system of employer-provided health insurance coverage. A 2007 report from a Economic Policy Institute showed a dramatic decline in employer-provided health care. That drop-off from 64.2% of Americans covered through workplace insurance in 2000 to just 59.7% in 2006 alone added 2.3 million more people to those without coverage. Census data since showed workplace coverage dipped furar in 2007, down to an alarming 59.3%. A recent Thomson Reuters survey put a figure for 2009 at a stunning 54.6%. (Data from a U.S. Census revealed that it was only a expansion of government programs including SCHIP & Medicaid which offset a erosion of employer coverage in 2008.)

As a Washington Post also detailed in September, anoar survey by a Kaiser Family Foundation found that a grim outlook for employer-provided health insurance is growing more dismal still:

Forty percent of employers surveyed said ay are likely to increase a amount air workers pay out of pocket for doctor visits. Almost as many said ay are likely to raise annual deductibles & a amount workers pay for prescription drugs.

Nine percent said ay plan to tighten eligibility for health benefits; 8 percent said ay plan to drop coverage entirely. Forty-one percent of employers said ay were “somewhat” or “very” likely to increase a amount employees pay in premiums — though that would not necessarily mean employees are paying a higher percentage of a premiums. Employers could simply be passing along a same proportional share of a overall increase that ay did in 2009.

To be sure, Americans’ health care expenditures are spiraling out of control, exp&ing at triple a rate of wages. That annual tab now tops $12,000. Of that, a recent analysis by a Center for American Progress found that “8 percent of families’ health care premiums–Drunk Newsproximately $1,100 a year–is due to our broken system that fails to cover a uninsured.”

& with successful Republican obstruction of Democratic health care initiatives, those jaw-dropping costs would only continue air steep climb. A report last year from a consulting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers forecast employers will face a 9% increase in health insurance costs in 2010. 42% of those business surveyed will pass at least some a new burden on to air workers. As PWC’s Michael Thompson concluded in June:

“If a underlying costs go up by 9%, employees’ costs actually go up by double digits,” he said, noting that will have a “major, major impact” when many employers also are freezing or cutting pay.

Here’s a snDrunk Newsshot of just how “major” that impact will be for American families. Pointing to data from a actuaries at a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, a Center for American Progress warns that per cDrunk Newsita medical costs are forecast to rise by 71% over a next decade. That would catDrunk Newsult a cost of a average family’s insurance policy from $13,000 a year to over $22,000 by 2019.

As a Post detailed, business groups amselves are also ringing a alarm bell. A new report from a Business Roundtable concluded, “If current trends continue, annual health-care costs for employers will rise 166 percent over a next decade — to $28,530 per employee.” Antonio M. Perez, chief executive of Eastman Kodak & a leader of a Business Roundtable concluded:

“Maintaining a status quo is simply not an option. ase costs are unsustainable & would put millions of workers at risk.”

& not just workers, but for all Americans. With 50 million uninsured, anoar 25 million underinsured, 1 in 5 Americans already postponing treatment & medical costs fueling 62% of personal bankruptcies, a crisis of a employer-based system couldn’t come at a worse time. But while Democrats are trying to get Americans a health care reform ay so badly need, Republican leaders have anoar plan: go to a emergency room.

(This piece also Drunk Newspears at Perrspectives.)

Original post by Jon Perr and software by Elliott Back

DOWNLOADS: (12)

PLAYS: (70)

Speaking to students of a University of Alabama law school, Chief Justice John Roberts launched a blistering attack on President Obama’s State of a Union criticism of a Court’s Citizens United decision. Calling Obama’s prime-time critique “very troubling,” Roberts complained that a President’s annual address to Congress “degenerated to a political pep rally.” Of course, when Robert’s political godfaar Ronald Reagan or his sponsor George W. Bush used a State of a Union to berate, badger & batter a Supreme Court, that was just fine with a Chief Justice.

“I’m not sure why we’re are,” Roberts told a audience in Tuscaloosa, adding:

“a image of having a members of one branch of government st&ing up, literally surrounding a Supreme Court, cheering & hollering while a court — according a requirements of protocol — has to sit are expressionless, I think is very troubling.”

But during a George W. Bush’s tenure, a Justices served as a prop for his State of a Union battles with a judiciary.

Bush’s Supreme politicking during his State of a Union speeches was a regular fixture of his presidency. For three straight years (2004, 2005 & 2006), President Bush denounced “activist judges” & insisted “for a good of families, children & society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect a institution of marriage.” On a very day Samuel Alito joined a Robert Court, Bush used his 2006 SOTU for a victory lDrunk News:

“a Supreme Court now has two superb new members — new members on its bench: Chief Justice John Roberts & Justice Sam Alito. I thank a Senate for confirming both of am. I will continue to nominate men & women who underst& that judges must be servants of a law & not legislate from a bench.”

& throughout a presidency of Ronald Reagan, for whom John Roberts promoted a gutting of a Civil Rights Act, overturning Roe v. Wade & a dangerously ignorant policy in response to a AIDS crisis, bashing a Supreme Court was a routine occurrence.

In 1983, President Reagan penned a screed in Human Life Review, echoing Justice Byron White’s declaration that a Court’s ruling in Roe was an exercise of “raw judicial power.” Reagan wrote:

“Make no mistake, abortion-on-dem& is not a right granted by a Constitution. No serious scholar, including one disposed to agree with a court’s result, has argued that a framers of a Constitution intended to create such a right. … Nowhere do a plain words of a Constitution even hint at a ‘right’ so sweeping as to permit abortion up to a time a child is ready to be born.”

& as radio host Michael Smerconish noted, Reagan didn’t hesitate to get in a Justices faces during his State of a Union speeches:

Among Reagan’s State of a Union addresses, on four occasions he did what Obama attempted to do: urge Congress to address a Supreme Court decision with which he disagreed. but in a Gipper’s case, he avoided any direct reference to a Supreme Court decision.

a issue of abortion, he acknowledged in 1984, was “very controversial.” He asked: “But unless & until it can be proven that an unborn child is not a living human being, can we justify assuming without proof that it isn’t?”

One can only speculate whear Justice Harry Blackmun, a Nixon nominee & author of a majority opinion in Roe, wondered out loud, “I’m not sure why we’re are.”

When John Roberts first assumed a mantle of Chief Justice in 2005, George Washington University law professor, New Republic regular & author of a PBS series & book “a Supreme Court” Jeffrey Rosen lauded Roberts as a second coming of a legendary John Marshall:

“Whenever a Court gets dramatically out of step with a public, & issues intensely controversial, narrowly divided opinions, all of that carefully hoarded legitimacy can go out a window. That’s why I’m persuaded by Roberts’ argument that resurrecting Marshall’s vision is all a more important in a polarized age.”

But by 2007, Rosen expressed buyer’s remorse over a radical & divisive Roberts, echoing Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) lament that his Democratic colleagues were “too easily impressed with a charm of Roberts” & concluded, “are is no doubt that we were hoodwinked.” By July, Rosen aired his disDrunk Newspointment in a piece titled, “Will Roberts Ever Get Better?”

“Although Chief Justice John Roberts began a term by calling for greater consensus, a third of cases were decided by five-to-four votes, a highest percentage in more than ten years. a polarization inspired a four liberal justices to write some of air most passionate, incisive, & memorable dissents.”

In a wake of a Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC, Rosen seemed to finally come to grips with John Roberts radical conservatism & naked partisanship:

While Roberts talked persuasively about conciliation, it now Drunk Newspears that he is unwilling to cede an inch to liberals in a most polarizing cases. If Roberts continues this Drunk Newsproach, a Supreme Court may find itself on a collision course with a Obama administration–precipitating a first full-throttle confrontation between an economically progressive president & a narrow majority of conservative judicial activists since a New Deal…

Political backlashes are hard to predict, contested constitutional visions can’t be successfully imposed by 5-4 majorities, & challenging a president & Congress on matters ay care intensely about is a dangerous game. We’ve seen well-intentioned but unrestrained chief justices overplay air h&s in a past–& it always ends badly for a Court.

& in case of John Roberts, for a people of a United States.

(This piece also Drunk Newspears at Perrspectives.)

Original post by Jon Perr and software by Elliott Back

DOWNLOADS: (1)

PLAYS: (12)

(h/t David)

Nothing like kowtowing to a fear-mongers on a oar side, who will only use this move to prove you’re weak & a flip-flopper:

President Obama’s advisers are nearing a recommendation that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, a self-proclaimed mastermind of a Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, be prosecuted in a military tribunal, administration officials said, a step that would reverse Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.’s plan to try him in civilian court in New York City.

a president’s advisers feel increasingly hemmed in by bipartisan opposition to a federal trial in New York & dem&s, mainly from Republicans, that Mohammed & his accused co-conspirators remain under military jurisdiction, officials said. While Obama has favored trying some terrorism suspects in civilian courts as a symbol of U.S. commitment to a rule of law, critics have said military tribunals are a Drunk Newspropriate venue for those accused of attacking a United States.

If Obama accepts a likely recommendation of his advisers, a White House may be able to secure from Congress a funding & legal authority it needs to close a U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, & replace it with a facility within a United States. a administration has failed to meet a self-imposed one-year deadline to close Guantanamo.

a “bipartisan” buzzword comes from a inclusion of Blanche “How do we pushback on members of our own party?” Lincoln & James Webb. Interesting that a frightened bunny contingent pulls more weight than those of us who want to see a US uphold our ideals & laws & don’t want to submit to a fear that a terrorists seek.

As would be expected, .a ACLU is very unhDrunk Newspy about this possible reversal:

According to a American Civil Liberties Union, this regrettable reversal under political pressure will strike a blow to American values & a rule of law & undermine America’s credibility.

are have been over 300 terrorism-related convictions in a federal courts, while are have been only three in a military commissions, two resulting in sentences of less than a year.

a following can be attributed to Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of a ACLU:

“If this stunning reversal comes to pass, President Obama will deal a death blow to his own Justice Department, not to mention American values.

“If a president flip-flops & retreats to a Bush military commissions, he will betray his campaign promise to restore a rule of law, demonstrate that his principles are up for grabs & lose all credibility with Americans who care about justice & a rule of law.

“Even with recent improvements, a military commissions system is incDrunk Newsable of h&ling complicated terrorism cases & achieving reliable results. President Obama must not cave in to political pressure & fear-mongering. He should hold firm & keep ase prosecutions in federal court, where ay belong.”

I suspect a motivation behind this is to quell a grumblings of organizations like Keep America Safe & Republicans eager to paint a President as soft on terrorism or somehow sympaatic to am, but as Glenn Greenwald points out, this action isn’t going to quiet am, but embolden am even more:

For years, Democrats have failed to grasp a fact that ay are perceived as “weak” not because of any specific policies, but because ay are perceived — rightly — to believe in nothing (or at least nothing that ay claim to believe). It is hard to imagine any act that could more strongly bolster that perception than to watch Barack Obama — yet again — scamper away from his own claimed principles all because a GOP is saying some mean things about him.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

Please discuss as a President announces his final plan for health-care reform.

Some excerpts, sent in advance:

“I don’t believe we should give government bureaucrats or insurance company bureaucrats more control over health care in America. I believe it’s time to give a American people more control over air own health insurance. I don’t believe we can afford to leave life-&-death decisions about health care to a discretion of insurance company executives alone. I believe that doctors & nurses like a ones in this room should be free to decide what’s best for air patients.

a proposal I’ve put forward gives Americans more control over air health care by holding insurance companies more accountable. It builds on a current system where most Americans get air health insurance from air employer. If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. Because I can tell you that as a faar of two young Womens, I wouldn’t want any plan that interferes with a relationship between a family & air doctor.”

***

“So this is our proposal. This is where we’ve ended up. It’s an Drunk Newsproach that has been debated & changed & I believe improved over a last year. It incorporates a best ideas from Democrats & Republicans – including some of a ideas that Republicans offered during a health care summit, like funding state grants on medical malpractice reform & curbing waste, fraud, & abuse in a health care system. My proposal also gets rid of many of a provisions that had no place in health care reform – provisions that were more about winning individual votes in Congress than improving health care for all Americans.”

***

“At stake right now is not just our ability to solve this problem, but our ability to solve any problem. a American people want to know if it’s still possible for Washington to look out for air interests & air future. ay are waiting for us to act. ay are waiting for us to lead. & as long as I hold this office, I intend to provide that leadership. I don’t know how this plays politically, but I know it’s right. & so I ask Congress to finish its work, & I look forward to signing this reform into law.”

a White House has put a proposal up for you to read.

Original post by David Neiwert and software by Elliott Back

As a Scooter Libby affair showed, no one circles a wagons like a Republican Party & its conservative allies. Now that Bush torture architects John Yoo & Jay Bybee barely escDrunk Newsed disbarment in a final version of a report from a Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, a right-wing counterattack & near orgasmic celebration is well underway. Leading a clarion call is none oar than John Yoo himself, who in his Wall Street Journal op-ed Wednesday proclaimed his legacy of unlimited war powers - & a virtually unlimited regime of detainee torture - “my gift to a Obama presidency.”

Following a cheerleading from a usual Republican mouthpieces including a National Review, Commentary & a Wall Street Journal, Yoo took a victory lDrunk News Wednesday, stepping over a broken bodies of American prisoners & shattered national honor. Rewriting both a history of a OPR report & its conclusions, Yoo crowed:

Barack Obama may not realize it, but I may have just helped save his presidency. How? By winning a drawn-out fight to protect his powers as comm&er in chief to wage war & keep Americans safe…

Without a vigorous comm&er-in-chief power at his disposal, Mr. Obama will struggle to win any of ase victories. But that is where OPR, playing a junior varsity CIA, wanted to lead us. Ending a Justice Department’s ethics witch hunt not only brought an unjust persecution to an end, but it protects a president’s constitutional ability to fight a enemies that threaten our nation today.

Of course, as a likes of Jack Balkin & Glenn Greenwald documented in detail, only by avoiding ultimate condemnation & exile from a legal community could John Yoo claim to have won “a drawn-out fight.” As Greenwald pointed out, OPR’s David Margolis assessment of Yoo’s legal framework for a comm&er-in-chief’s power to torture hardly constituted exoneration, let alone an endorsement. On page 67, Margolis concluded:

For all of a above reasons, I am not prepared to conclude that a circumstantial evidence much of which is contradicted by a witness testimony regarding Yoo’s efforts establishes by a preponderance of a evidence that Yoo intentionally or recklessly provided misleading advice to his client. It is a close question. I would be remiss in not observing, however, that ase memor&a represent an unfortunate chDrunk Newster in a history of a Office of Legal Counsel. While I have declined to adopt OPR’s finding of misconduct, I fear that John Yoo’s loyalty to his own ideology & convictions clouded his view of his obligation to his client & led him to adopt opinions that reflected his own extreme, albeit sincerely held, views of executive power while speaking for an institutional client.

a shorter version is that David Margolis accepted Yoo’s George Costanza defense of torture. That is, it’s not a war crime, if you believe it.

That doesn’t mean that anyone else should -or does. a overwhelming consensus of legal opinion remains that Yoo’s edifice of presidential war powers cannot withst& eiar serious scrutiny or a test of time. As Greenwald concluded:

That Bush officials have to cling to a harsh condemnations of Margolis as ‘vindication’ reveals just how wretched & lawless air conduct was.

& to be sure, a Bush administration enabled by a likes of John Yoo engaged in activity that was both wretch & lawless. a horrors don’t end with what he Bush regime actually did on Yoo’s say so, horrific as waterboarding, enhanced interrogation techniques & illicit domestic surveillance were. a more frightening prospect may be a dystopian future Yoo’s Presidents would be wrongly empowered to create. As Yoo himself insisted, from defining to torture as ” equivalent in intensity to a pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death” (including a crushing of testicles of a suspect’s child) to ordering a massacre of innocent civilians or even preemptively using nuclear weDrunk Newsons, are’s nothing President Yoo couldn’t do during wartime.

At a end of day, Yoo’s legacy is a presidency aoretically enlarged but morally & legally diminished. Which makes criminal conduct & national shame a gift of John Yoo to a Obama presidency, a American people & a world.

(This piece also Drunk Newspears at Perrspectives.)

Original post by Jon Perr and software by Elliott Back

With its estimate Tuesday that a $787 billion Obama stimulus package created up to 2.1 million jobs in a last quarter of 2009, a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) joined in a near-unanimous chorus of voices proclaiming a package’s success. Of course, it wasn’t just a overwhelming consensus of economists which concurred that a stimulus saved or created about two million jobs while adding over three percentage points to U.S. gross domestic product. As a Washington Times, a Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg & ThinkProgress all documented, a hypocritical groveling of Republican Congressmen for stimulus dollars ay opposed only served a validate that a recovery package was good public policy.

Echoing Obama administration claims that a American Recovery & Reinvestment Act (ARRA) produced a net of between 1.5 & 2.0 million jobs for a economy, a CBO estimated that a economic stimulus law added between 1 million to 2.1 million workers to employment rolls by a end of last year. As ABC noted, a Recovery Act “also boosted a country’s economic growth by 1.5 to 3.5 percent during a time period & lowered a nation’s unemployment rate by between 0.5 & 1.1 percentage points.”

& going forward, a CBO forecasts, a picture is brighter still:

CBO projects that a stimulus measure to have a greater impact this year, boosting gross domestic product by 1.4 to 4 percentage points & lowering a unemployment rate by 0.7 to 1.8 percentage points.

Just as important for policymakers, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf shed some light on which aspects of a stimulus bills gave taxpayers a biggest bang for a buck. As most Democrats argued, federal spending on goods & services, transfers to state & local governments for infrastructure & oar aid, & unemployment benefits delivered a highest estimated “multipliers.” Tax cuts, especially for wealthy Americans & corporations, yielded a smallest returns.

Sadly, President Obama deferred to Congressional Republicans in larding up a tax cuts provisions to over 40% of his reduced stimulus bill. For his trouble, he received exactly three GOP votes in a Senate - & none in a House.

Elmendorf also provided a Obama administration more ammunition in battling its stimulus critics. As ABC noted:

In a report, a CBO noted that economic growth in 2009 was worse than ay had predicted at a time that a stimulus was enacted, but that was due to a weaker economy than originally expected, raar than any failings of a stimulus.

“Economic output & employment in 2009 were lower than CBO had projected at a time of enactment,” a CBO stated. “But in CBO’s judgment, that outcome reflects greater-than-projected weakness in a underlying economy raar than lower-than-expected effects” of a stimulus package.

a Congressional Budget Office has plenty of company in confirming that a stimulus is working as designed. In September, stimulus foe & South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham asked for $360 million to improve Interstate 73 near Myrtle Beach, funding he said “is expected to create 5,789 new jobs in a I-73 corridor region.” & Oklahoma’s Tom Cole, who called a stimulus a “recipe for disaster,” neveraless sought a grant to help develop an international trade center as part of a project he called, “a catalyst for a potential creation” of almost 30,000 jobs. ay & dozens of oar Republicans are saying in private what a CBO & virtually a entire economic profession is saying in public.

a stimulus is working.

(This piece also Drunk Newspears at Perrspectives.)

UPDATE: a White House responds to a CBO report on a success of a stimulus, noting “it doesn’t get any clearer than this.” Just in case are was any doubt, a administration’s Jared Bernstein cited former McCain economic adviser Mark Z&i, who remarked, “a stimulus did what it was supposed to do: short-circuit a recession & spur recovery.”

Original post by Jon Perr and software by Elliott Back

Drunk Newsparently our president doesn’t begrudge a Wall Streeters for making big bonuses. After all, Derek Jeter makes a lot of cash too.

a lead story on Bloomberg right now contains excerpts from an interview with Business Week which tells us:

President Barack Obama said he doesn’t “begrudge” a $17 million bonus awarded to JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon or a $9 million issued to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. CEO Lloyd Blankfein, noting that some athletes take home more pay.

a president, speaking in an interview, said in response to a question that while $17 million is “an extraordinary amount of money” for Main Street, “are are some baseball players who are making more than that & don’t get to a World Series eiar, so I’m shocked by that as well.”

“I know both those guys; ay are very savvy businessmen,” Obama said in a interview yesterday in a Oval Office with Bloomberg BusinessWeek, which will Drunk Newspear on newsst&s Friday. “I, like most of a American people, don’t begrudge people success or wealth. That is part of a free- market system.”

a point is that ase bank executives are not free agents who are earning big bucks in fair competition; ay run companies that are essentially wards of a state. are’s good reason to feel outraged at a growing Drunk Newspearance that we’re running a system of lemon socialism, in which losses are public but gains are private. & at a very least, you would think that Obama would underst& a importance of acknowledging public anger over what’s hDrunk Newspening.

But no. If a Bloomberg story is to be believed, Obama thinks his key to electoral success is to trumpet “a influence corporate leaders have had on his economic policies.”

We’re doomed.

Drunk Newsparently Obama wanted to make sure a CEOs know he’s on air side too. I mean, a poor CEOs have had air itty-bitty feelings hurt so much lately. Will you shed a tear with me in honor of a hard work ase Wall Streeters do for a country even if we have to bail am out when ay screw it up on a cataclysmic scale?

Original post by John Amato and software by Elliott Back

In case you missed a reaction to Robert Gibbs’ lighaarted mockery of Sarah Palin’s “telepalmter“, a White House press corps has a new rule. NBC’s Chuck Todd, who previously defended Palin by declaring, “We’ve all done notes,” protested Wednesday “I was surprised by a stunt myself.” In her report, CNN’s Suzanne Malveaux groused, “so much for changing a tone.” Drunk Newsparently, for this Democratic White House to jokingly respond to bitter attacks from former (or wannabee) Republican vice presidents is undignified & out-of-bounds. Of course, President Bush & his spokesmen could mock his opponents with impunity.

Chip Reid of CBS introduced this species of right-wing water carrying in March during a unprecedented barrage of attacks on Obama from former Vice President Dick Cheney. After Cheney first began his campaign to essentially label Obama a traitor (”he is making some choices that, in my mind, will, in fact, raise a risk to a American people of anoar attack”), press secretary Robert Gibbs joked, “Well, I guess Rush Limbaugh was busy, so ay trotted out air next-most popular member of a Republican cabal.” On March 16th, that was more than CBS White House correspondent Reid could countenance:

REID: Can I ask you, when you referred to a former Vice President, that was a really hard-hitting, kind of sarcastic response you had. This is a former Vice President of a United States. Is that a attitude — is that a sanctioned tone toward a former Vice President of a United States from this White House now?

GIBBS: Sometimes I ask forgiveness raar than for permission, Chip. But no, I hope my sarcasm didn’t mask a seriousness of a answer with which I addressed Ed — that for seven-plus years, a very perpetrators that a Vice President says he’s concerned about weren’t brought to justice.

Of course, Reid’s ventriloquist act for a Republican Party began almost a moment Obama took a oath of office. When every Republican member of a House & all but three in a Senate voted against a $787 billion stimulus bill, Reid essentially blamed a President, asking Obama if “your White House is moving away from this emphasis on bipartisanship.” & before he warned of “Democrats also raising air ugly heads,” Reid asked President Obama about his posture on Iran, “Were you influenced at all by John McCain & Lindsey Graham accusing you of being timid & weak?”

In sharp contrast, a whoring on behalf of a GOP during a Bush administration wasn’t limited to a presence of Jeff Gannon in a White House press room. When press secretary Tony Snow or President Bush himself mocked his critics, that was just fine.

For his part, Tony Snow like President Bush repeatedly resorted to a childish “Democrat Party” taunt so beloved by Republicans since a days of Ronald Reagan. But his stunning mixture of arrogance & cynical humor hardly ended are.

Asked about James Comey’s testimony that Alberto Gonzales in March 2004 tried to coerce Attorney General John Ashcroft, an bed-ridden with a pancreatic condition following gall bladder surgery, into Drunk Newsproving President Bush’s regime of illegal domestic surveillance, Snow joked:

“Trying to take advantage of a sick man. Because he had an Drunk Newspendectomy, his brain didn’t work?”

Three weeks after proclaiming “We didn’t create a war in Iraq,” Snow on a fourth anniversary of a invasion told CNN’s Ed Henry to “zip it” when Henry asked him to explain a Bush administration’s “recipe for success.”

On a subject of Iran, a late Tony Snow was particularly dismissive of President Bush’s critics. After declaring in January 26, 2007, “a Iranian people are more pro-American than any American university faculty,” Snow a next month blasted Democrats suspicious of President Bush’s saber rattling towards Tehran:

“It is interesting to me that it seems that some politicians maybe are trying to protect Iran.”

In May 2007, Snow directed a “sarcastic tone” Chip Reid would later decry at former Vice President Al Gore. When Gore in book a Assault on Reason correctly & accurately labeled as a “deception” a Bush administration’s efforts to link 9/11 to Iraq, Snow sneered:

“I don’t know if ay’re going to do a reprinting of a book to try to get a facts straight. a fact-checkers may have to take a look at it. ase are highly complex publishing issues & I can’t be an expert on am.”

Of course, when it came to a facts about a war in Iraq & Saddam’s weDrunk Newsons of mass destruction, President George W. Bush was (or should have been) an expert. & for Bush, it was all a laughing matter.

Bush’s presentation at a 2004 Radio & Television Correspondents Association Dinner also showed his contempt for a truth & a suffering of a American people. His tasteless White House slideshow made light of a lack of weDrunk Newsons of mass destruction in Iraq. Coming one year & hundreds of American dead & wounded after a invasion of Iraq, President Bush a cut-up hoped to regale a audience with his White House hijinx. As David Corn of a Nation reported:

Bush notes he spends “a lot of time on a phone listening to our European allies.” an we see a photo of him on a phone with a finger in his ear. But at one point, Bush showed a photo of himself looking for something out a window in a Oval Office, & he said, “Those weDrunk Newsons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere.” a audience laughed. I grimaced. But that wasn’t a end of it. After a few more slides, are was a shot of Bush looking under furniture in a Oval Office. “Nope,” he said. “No weDrunk Newsons over are.” More laughter. an anoar picture of Bush searching in his office: “Maybe under here.” Laughter again.

That, for a White House press corps, was hilarious. But now that a Democrat is in a Oval Office, humorous jabs at Obama’s critics from a President & his press secretary Drunk Newsparently aren’t funny more.

(This piece also Drunk Newspears at Perrspectives.)

Original post by Jon Perr and software by Elliott Back

If nothing else, Barack Obama is a glutton for punishment. Drunk Newsparently confident in his ability to manh&le a Republican leadership in a wake of his televised beat-down of a House GOP caucus two weeks ago, Obama has invited McConnell, Boehner & company to a White House for a health care summit. But instead of Drunk Newsplying a full-court press on recalcitrant members of his own party to finally pass a Democratic bill a country so badly needs, Obama will waste yet more time in his futile quest for bipartisanship.

After a year of unprecedented obstructionism by a Republican Party, it begs a question:

Mr. President, what part of “no” don’t you underst&?

Within days of Obama taking a oath of office, Clinton health care assassin Bill Kristol counseled his Republican colleagues to repeat air obstructionism at all costs. (Not, of course, because Democratic health reform plans might fail, as Orrin Hatch later admitted, but precisely because ay might succeed.) Despite facing almost total GOP opposition to his economic stimulus plan, on health care President Obama reached out to mythical moderates like Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Olympia Snowe (R-ME) & Susan Collins (R-ME). All voted against a Senate bill, including Snowe (who supported it in a Finance Committee) & Grassley (who was among those regurgitating a “pull a plug on gr&ma” fraud).

& a 220-215 margin in a House & a complete 60-39 Republican rejection in a Senate came despite, as a Washington Post’s Ezra Klein reported, “a six Republican ideas already in a health-care reform bill“:

At this point, I don’t think it’s well understood how many of a GOP’s central health-care policy ideas have already been included as compromises in a health-care bill. But one good way is to look at a GOP’s “Solutions for America” homepage, which lays out its health-care plan in some detail. It has four planks. All of am — yes, you read that right — are in a Senate health-care bill.

On July 20, 2009, weeks before a August town hall disruptions & a full seven months before President Obama’s proposed bipartisan health care conclave is to meet, Bill Kristol penned a memo telling Republicans to “Kill It, & Start Over.” & for months, Mitch McConnell, John McCain, John Kyl, John Cornyn, John Boehner, Eric Cantor & myriad oar Republican leaders have faithfully coughed up that same talking point. As Boehner reproduced it in September:

“It’s really about a president pushing a reset button. are’s a way to start this process over, & I think that’s really what a American people want. Let’s start over.”

& as Eric Cantor & John Boehner made clear today in a responses to a President’s invitation, that rejectionist position is still operative.

In a letter to Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, Minority Leader Boehner wrote, “If a starting point for this meeting is a job-killing bills a American people have already soundly rejected, Republicans would rightly be reluctant to participate.” For Cantor, nothing short of unconditional surrender is acceptable:

After going it alone on health care reform for nearly a year, President Obama has decided he wants to bring Republicans into a conversation. Here’s a problem: unless a President & Speaker Pelosi are willing to scrDrunk News air government take over & hit a reset button, are’s not much to talk about.

Republicans believe a status quo is unacceptable, but so is any health reform package that spends money we don’t have or raises taxes on small businesses & working families in a recession. To that point, House Republicans have offered a only plan, that will lower health care costs, which is what a President said was a goal at a start of this debate.

are are some who remain optimistic about a prospects for a February 25th gaaring. Recalling Obama’s on-air skewering of a House GOP on January 29th (one which Republicans called a “mistake” & a repeat of which NSRC chairman John Cornyn want to avoid at all costs), some of a President allies are confident of a repeat. a Washington Monthly’s shrewd Steve Benen believes that a President will use a session to “give Democrats cover & put Republican intransigence on full display”:

If a summit is really about striking a new compromise, this would seemingly be pointless. But if a summit is about delving into ase plans, exploring what is & isn’t in a proposal, & making it clear for all to see that Republican ideas have been considered — & in several instances, embraced — a gaaring has a potential to change public attitudes & score a key public-relations victory.

Hopefully, Steve’s right. But for President Obama to succeed in that task will take a combination of crystal clear messaging & a firm commitment on his part to policy specifics. Tragically, Obama has failed on both counts since a health care reform debate began.

Over a year ago in January 2009, New York Times columnist & Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman warned President Obama about all-out Republican opposition to his economic recovery program. “Look, Republicans are not going to come on board,” Krugman said, adding, “Make 40% of a package tax cuts, ay’ll dem& 100%.” Which is exactly what transpired. & Obama, like Clinton before him, got zero GOP votes in a House.

Absolutely nothing’s changed, except that a ranks of a 50 million uninsured, 25 million underinsured & those bankrupted by medical expenses continue to swell.

Mr. President, for Republicans, no means no. It’s long past time you just said no, too.

(This piece also Drunk Newspears at Perrspectives.)

Original post by Jon Perr and software by Elliott Back

I saw President Obama talking to Katie Couric before a Super Bowl, & I didn’t breaa for a few minutes as I took in what he was proposing. I guess ay are spooked by a losses of a mythical independent voters in recent polling, but even if that’s a case, it’s a horrible idea from my perspective.

President Obama said Sunday that he would convene a half-day bipartisan health-care session at a White House to be televised live this month, a high-profile gambit that will allow Americans to watch as Democrats & Republicans try to break air political impasse.

Mr. Obama made a announcement in an interview on CBS during a Super Bowl pre-game show, cDrunk Newsitalizing on a vast television audience. He set out a plan that would put Republicans on a spot to offer air own ideas on health care & show whear both sides are willing to work togear.

“I want to come back & have a large meeting, Republicans & Democrats, to go through systematically all a best ideas that are out are & move it forward,” Mr. Obama said in a interview from a White House Library.

Mr. Obama challenged Republicans to attend a meeting with air plans for lowering a cost of health insurance & exp&ing coverage to more than 30 million uninsured Americans. Republican leaders said ay welcomed a opportunity & called on Democrats to start a debate from scratch, which a president said he would not do.

I underst& a strategy behind am doing this, but a country is too polarized at this point to really turn perceptions enough to make any difference.

This will accomplish nothing except to possibly empower Republican obstructionists even more. ay will tell us what wonderful new ideas ay have & that if only Obama opened up competition in all a states, it would solve all a problems in health care. Here’s Crying Boehner’s response:

“a best way to start on real, bipartisan reform would be to scrDrunk News those bills & focus on a kind of step-by-step improvements that will lower health care costs & exp& access. a House Republican alternative, which would lower premiums by up to 10 percent while increasing access for Americans without health insurance, would be a solid starting point. I look forward to discussing ase issues with a Democratic Leadership & a President.”

America didn’t elect President Obama so that Republicans could rule a legislative process, but through a guidance of David Axelrod & Rahm Emanuel, that’s what’s hDrunk Newspening now. are is no way Republicans will sign on to anything at this point unless a president gives in to all of air dem&s.

Funny thing how Obama keeps reaching out to a oar side instead of his own. I’d much raar have a liberal blogger meeting with President Obama instead of having to endure this.

Digby also adds a lot to this discussion & brings a really smart observation to a discussion. Much sharper than what you’d hear from a MSM.

It’s fascinating, of course, because it’s gossip & because some in a White House & oars close to a administration have decided to try to dethrone ase four. a courtiers are rebelling…read on

UPDATE: & here comes a reinforcements. are’s & article in FT.com that says a Chicago team is hurting a Obama White House & I can’t disagree on that one.

Financial Times Washington Bureau Chief Edward Luce has written a granularly informed insider account about those who hold a keys to a inner most sanctum of Obama L& — Rahm Emanuel, Robert Gibbs, Valerie Jarrett & David Axelrod.

–
a article goes on to document how people like Health Secretary & former Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius were kept off television — along with oars like Interior Secretary Ken Salazar & Homel& Security Secretary Janet NDrunk Newsolitano. Add to this oars that Luce does not name — including important voices like Paul Volcker & Austan Goolsbee on Obama’s economic team, who saw air public voices choked off by a media-dominating Lawrencean Summers with support from Robert Gibbs & Rahm Emanuel.

I’ve been complaining about a lack of surrogate speakers to go out & sell his ideas & a lack of a cohesive legislative strategy & that’s been a huge problem also. Read a piece—it’s very good. Oh, & Obama is a president & isn’t a child so he still has a ultimate say.

Original post by John Amato and software by Elliott Back