Obama's White House budget director Peter Orszag said taxing employer benefits was among several ideas that "most firmly should remain on the table," and some congressional Democrats told the Washington Post that White House officials said Obama would accept such a tax "as long as he didn't have to propose it himself."
Obama took his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, to the mat for suggesting that it might be better to remove the existing health care tax break that individuals get on their employer-sponsored coverage, but return the vast bulk-if not all-of the resulting revenues in the form of health care tax credits. This would theoretically have made coverage both more affordable and portable for everyone. Obama, however, would have none of it, portraying this idea simply as the removal of a tax break. "For the first time in history, he wants to tax your health benefits," he thundered. "Apparently, Sen. McCain doesn't think it's enough that your health premiums have doubled. He thinks you should have to pay taxes on them too."
Yet now Obama is signaling his willingness to go along with a far worse scheme to tax employer-sponsored benefits to fund the $1.6 trillion or so it will cost to provide universal coverage. Contrary to Obama's allegations, McCain's plan did not ultimately entail a net tax increase because he intended to return to individuals whatever money was raised by scrapping the tax deduction. Not so with Obama. He apparently told Sen. Baucus that he would consider the senator's plan for rolling back the tax exclusion that expensive, Cadillac-style employer-sponsored plans enjoy, in order to pay for universal coverage. But, unlike McCain, he has said nothing about putting offsetting deductions or credits in the hands of individuals.
In other words, Obama might well end up doing what McCain never set out to do: Impose a net tax increase on health benefits for the first time in history
No Difference - that was the slogan of the astroturfed movement of 2000, with their poster of the morphed heads of Gore and Bush. One-hit wonder Ralph Nader was the darling of the Rich and Fickle (think Michael Moore & Susan Sarandon), and those who chanted "No Difference" in 2000 were the same ones clamoring for "Change We Can Believe In" eight years later.
Yet now that we have the Maker of Change, I can see no difference. No Difference between Barry and McCain on: Gay marriage Iraq timetable
No Difference between Barry and Bush on: Closing Gitmo Military tribunals Rendition Release of war crimes photos Stealing elections Lying through his teeth
And the list of no differences goes on.
I'll admit that I'd been secretly keeping another list-one of actions taken by Barry that I could be happy with. I (think) I can add the recent credit card legislation. In olden times, the scandalous usury of the credit card lenders would have gotten their appendages fed to wild animals. But the 'happy' list was short to start, and is quickly getting shorter, as most of it (see above) has been scratched. Two remaining plus-points still on my list are also surely in jeopardy:
-Health Care-sure we'll get something called "health care," but it'll be a watered-down, anemic bill that carefully avoids perturbing the big boys;
-Supreme Court appointments-because heaven forbid pro-lifers get that sixth judge they need to overturn Roe...never mind. You can bet on this mischievous little shit of a pretend president poking his finger in the eye of his ardent leftist base, and nominating some controversial (pro-life? anti-gay?) judge. And the Senate will bleat "bahh bahh," just like they did for the original Caligula.
Where's Barry's glitterati brigade to defend him now? When will George Clooney clarify his main man's apparent perfidy? Why won't Leo give an interview in Parade on how keeping Gitmo open helps him find closure to his grandparents' racism? Could Scarlett Johanssen please text the president immediately and insist he support gay marriage!
I had Barry pegged as an empty suit years ago, after hearing his vapid, mellifluous speech (he only has the one speech) followed by an interview composed of "uhhs", and "errrs." Watching him closely in 2008, I detected uncanny personality similarities between him and another upstart political phenom, Hitler. (Though hopefully Barry is too big a stoner to share Hitler's feverish world vision.)
So for me, all of Barry's seemingly inconsistent moves make perfect sense when you realize he's a sociopathic narcissist- lazy, self-absorbed, emotionally dead, and infantile.
Still I wonder, is BO's Bush III act in any way eroding Obot Nation's devotion? Since it requires extensive mental lacunae to fall for the "no difference" and "change we an believe in" mantras, I doubt very many of the ninnies on the left will ever recognize they've been had. That their Messiah is false, that Barry Soetoro merely a charlatan, stealing hearts at a traveling show. That the party on the left is now the party on the right, and the list of lies has grown longer overnight. Or, as Gunter Grass' Oskar icily notes in Tin Drum, "we thought we were getting Santa Claus...but we were really getting the Gas Man."
The release of the torture memos is proving to be a fine example in narcissistic personality disorder causing havoc. I repeat myself AGAIN on this point: There were two choices before Obama last week. Both had merit.
1. Do not release the memos. State without equivocation that they will remain classified and he will fight any attempts to declassify. Further state that the U.S. abides by international standards and laws now with all its prisoners. Move on.
2. Release the memos. Take responsibility for the uproar that would follow. State without equivocation that America must comes to terms with terrorists, and how to deal with them, and he would follow the law wherever it lead, including holding people responsible if they broke it.
Obama did neither.
I have no doubt that he felt he needed to be "loved" by his base and therefore released the documents to prove something. But he knew he did not have the stomach to man up and let things play out legally. The Justice Department - or at least some in it - think otherwise.
From the Daily Beast: that senior Justice Department lawyers were "incensed" at the Emanuel and Gibbs statements, as one put it-not because they disagreed with Obama's apparent opposition to an investigation and prosecution, but because the statements violated well-established rules separating political figures in the White House from decisions about active criminal cases.
Punting is the Obama way. This unfortunate habit is in evidence through out his first 100 days. He seems unable to retain clarity of vision on anything of importance. He, in effect, punted on the memos, trying to please everyone and pleasing no one. The banking plan refuses to nationalize rotten banks but, in effect, does so by making the taxpayer the owners - though, since he won't nationalize, we have little say in what the banks do with our money. He most certainly punted on the stimulus bill, the result being a hodge podge mess.
"Punting" plays out differently in the foreign sphere. He punts by apologizing at every turn. Again - this is an indicator that he thinks being personally liked is more important than a coherent policy. "We're sorry about W, please like me" does not make for a foreign policy anyone can respect.
It is interesting how thoroughly his aura has been shredded in 100 days. Congress appears to be the lead branch of government now - a few short months after his "historic" election to head the executive branch. No doubt Congress will be the captain of the torture memo ship going forward. He has caused resentments galore with the CIA, and now, his Justice Department.
People need to understand that this comes from a fundamental lack of Executive skill. And this lack of skill comes from having things handed to him through out his life and having others do the heavy lifting. The gravity and the blowback potential of releasing the memos seems not to have occurred to him. I have no doubt that he convinced himself of the righteousness of his muddled stance and assumed everyone else would go along.
It is hard to imagine a President McCain or Hillary Clinton misunderestimating the potential problems. The reason? One word: experience.
As I sit down tonight it looks as if the Tea Parties were a success. Especially when compared to the lame A New Way Forward events, which fizzled out like stale Coke. Again, let me repeat: the issue with the Condescension Class on the Left is an ongoing refusal to see the central fact- Obama stands opposed to the goals of A New Way Forward. Until they understand that Obama is "working for the man" the Right will be able to seize the high ground. Like it or not. By ignoring the truth about Obama for going on years now the "left" has boxed itself in. The White House was "locked down" briefly. A p.r. win - if nothing else. Most rallies where directed at Obama, though they were to be "non- partisan." It is hard to asses the ongoing effectiveness of the Tea Party movement. What is worth stating - and quite clear now - is that the energy surrounding Obama just 90 days ago has faded abruptly. BHO, by tentatively staking out the alleged middle - betraying his promise of real change - and by coddling the bankers has blown yet another chance at change. Had he taken major steps to reign in the worst banks early on the Left who believed the worst banks should have been nationalized - myself included - would have a true rallying point. Obama demurred and now the Maddow/Huffington Left has been reduced to obnoxious snarking just 2 months after peaking.
Important points:
1. The anger today was focused on Obama.
(I interject my rewrite here: I should have said - "Obama stands to lose the most. Naturally anger will be directed at the man in power now." Also - BHO has promoted an agenda of spending that even made some of the most cynical Americans blanch. In other words - blow back against government spending has been given a large target in the last 2 months. Both Zombie and Jeannie pointed out in comments that I was off in the rather blunt #1 assessment. Tea Parties are clearly not a solely an anti-Obama phenomenon. They are, however, in many ways fueled by Obama's bailout plans and startlingly large budget blueprint. )
This can't be stated enough: with breathtaking speed a chunk of the population has galvanized against the person who is now in the White House. This may not be fair - but it will continue. 2. The GOP stands to benefit here, especially if the economy continues to creak. 3. Those of us who are anti-Obama liberals (I borrow Cannonfire's term - and suggest a read of this post.) must take care to avoid association with the loopiest elements of the Tea Party folks. I have great sympathy for what occurred today because I see it as blow back against both Obama and Bush.
The simplest way to stay clear headed and not allow the worst elements of the Right to re-emerge, while at the same time standing against Obama's fecklessness in the face of bankster criminality is to remember: Obama, like Bush, is a working for the elite class doing the looting.
Obama, unlike McCain, was the natural inheritor of George W Bush's mantle. Both men personify the problem.
I am out tonight- but there is a spring in my step after today. There is so much to look forward to. How much fun is in store for the next 1,460 odd days??? Pull up a chair. Grab the popcorn - awaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay we goooooooo!
It's hard to fathom the depths of "journalism's" amoral ass licking in 2008 but try we must. They forced fed us Obama and there was a reason. Not at all sure what the reason was. ...3 cheers for Joe Scarborough - who leaves 2 other obamapod commentators mumbling excuses and, in essence, confirming their pathological proObama bias. Plus he mocks them gleefully in the end...it is important to remember that "journalists" like these should no longer be treated with anything but wary suspicion. We cannot and should not trust them. This is beyond doubt after 2008. They are selling something at all times - but rarely have the courage to tell us what they are selling...a war...a candidate...a bailout...
What bullshit Obama's "broad coalition" is turning out to be. It apparently means Clinton Administration folks - oh and Chuck Hagel the Republican who put the INO in RINO.
Thank God there is a decent Democratic administration in living memory for Obama to raid. Otherwise we'd be stuck with him placing Arianna Huffington and Tony Rezko in the cabinet.
I repeat: I would rather have Clintonites populating the Obama administration than Chicago Machine types and far lefty wash ups. Conflicting reports are out about whether Hillary will accept the Secretary of State job. Though, as a Clinton loyalist I am of two minds on this issue - mostly I hope she does take the job. The danger is real that Obama will blame her for anything that goes wrong in foreign policy under his watch. However, I don't put much stock in the idea that it would ruin her. She is too smart. The Clintons make mistakes but they are far out weighed by their successes in the political realm. The Obama Administration policies are going to be Obama's in the end. Hillary will not lie for Obama as Powell did for Bush 2, and she is more astute than Ms. Rice. If Obama tanks no one will be unscathed. However, a review of the history of Bill and Hillary proves one thing - they are survivors. Clinton will be a good or great SOS. No one with a brain (this excludes morons on the far Left and the asinine media) will question her work ethic or skill. Obama's presidency is going to be Obama's for better or worse. However, Clinton's successes at state will be chocked up to HER.
Added bonus: The freaks at Kos and Huffington have to deal with Hillary. They have to make room in their Clinton hating reptilian brains for the fact that THE ONE chose a Clinton for a high profile job. At some point the cognitive dissonance will cause at least a few cases of spontaneous human combustion. Please God, let it show up on youtube.
Hillary supporters have no reason to fear Obama scapegoating anymore. We never did actually. What we know about Hillary after 2008 is that she is the best candidate for nearly any job out there. She fights for what is right - and can get through any right wing or Obamamedia deluge intact and with grace.
I don't like this terror among the Hillary loyalists, like me, that the SOS job is a trap for her. She's better than that. If she wants it, she should take it. If Obama tries to wiggle out of responsibility in the future - plenty of people are primed and ready to point it out. If Clinton really does screw up at State - she'll take the heat. Let's not give Obama mystical power over all. Let's not feed the corrupt Obamamedia machine with MORE magical thinking about Obama. He is not the infallible wizard behind the curtain - Time and Newsweek's asskissing not withstanding. He's flawed - just like everyone else. More than most, in fact.
As for Team Obama making insulting inquiries into Bill Clinton's income - well - Obama is an asshole. President Clinton knows this. Hillary Clinton knows this. We all know this. Not news. We're stuck for now. If the Clinton's don't like the vetting they can stop it. If they aren't bothered I see no reason to be.
Fear no job, Hillary! And for us PUMAs I say: Fear No Obama Duplicity!
Hillary remember: Country First. I trust your judgement. If it means the Senate - remain and kick ass. If it means the State Department - then give it your all.
The end.
And now a visit from Bill S. My not so humble wish for everyone is not world peace or solving global warming (which does exist!) it is that we all start reading Shakespeare. Stick your toe in the water. 5 minutes a day. Comprehension is not the top priority. The WORDS are. Followed, eventually, by the PEOPLE. Comprehension will come in time. Shakespeare is not nearly as difficult as it seems at first.
I started on my Shakespeare trip with the Folger's paperback editions. One scene a day. Shower, shave, Shakepeare. A synopsis is presented before each scene. This way the action of the play is not lost and one is free to indulge the words. This seems pretentious of me I know, and maybe it is, I don't care much. I am not a humble scholar. I am not a scholar at all. I just know that where ever I am - we are - Shakespeare has been there before - and many other places as well.
In this culture if you want to know why we are the way we are in relation to God - believer or not - like it or not - then you should read the King James Bible.
If you want to know why we are the way we are in relation to each other and ourselves you must read Shakespeare. He invented us, as Harold Bloom put it.
From Henry the Fourth part 2 And him..oh wondrous him...miracle of men...second to none
When we say something is "second to none" we are plagerizing this speech.
Clinton coming in at State. McCain being vetted for Defense. The entire Obama transition team is populated by Clinton staffers - what does this mean? Is it that Obama is a great bipartisan leader?
I do not think so. A friend put it succinctly today: It's because he knows he's not qualified.
Obama is surrounding himself with people - 2 in particular - that ARE.
Some music for tonight: Sakamoto Ryuichi - Merry Christmas Mr. Lawrence
Clinton at State and McCain at Defense? What next - George W Bush as National Security Adviser? Looks to me as if Obama is ensuring that he will never get the blame for anything. Or he is playing both his opponents so he can publicly reject them in short order. Once an assho**e, always an assh**e. Also by choosing a GOP for the cabinet Obama is getting glowing press - as if appointing a member of the opposing party is exceptional or ground breaking. It is not. Going by memory only here...other presidents who put members of the opposing party in their cabinets: Lincoln, FDR, Ike, JFK, Nixon, Clinton...I am sure there are many others. Seriously, when will the delusional Obama press come to? 3 months? 6 months? Never? In fact... A few weeks ago I posted Zeffirelli's version of the Romeo and Juliet balcony scene. Here is Bernstein/Sondheim version:
Update: A pic that a proud puma sent in to L.R. after voting is at the bottom of this post.
For fun, a poll- it is a day for voting, after all:
Turns out I must spend much of the work day away from my office (which is also my dining room, fyi.) in the glamorous fleshpot the entertainment elders call "Old Hollywood" - I will be unable to get online ( a situation that, oddly, causes me to feel naked). I say unto you, fabulous Liberal Rapturites, GO FORTH AND VOTE! I will no doubt attempt to avoid watching returns when I get back - but fail - and tune in - and post something... I am so glad the campaign part of this adventure is finally ending... For a while now I've wanted to move on to the "blogging about McCain from the Left" part of the story- or the "watching the country turn on Obama" part of the story.
UPDATE: Just got back from voting. I did not vote 4 BHO. I actually feel CLEAN. I will happily vote for him in 4 years if he wins today and proves himself. Until then I still believe merit should matter.
5 people I know have voted already - all have voted DEM before. Here is the breakdown: McKinney - 1 McCain - 2 Nader- 1 Write in - Hillary Clinton -1
Senator John McCain graciously sent Barack Obama a letter congratulating him on his nomination and its historic significance. His message includes this revealing line: "How perfect that your nomination would come on this historic day." Yes, of course, it was perfect, if you believe the convention serendipitously included the anniversary date of DR King's iconic American Dream speech.
It's more likely, it's too perfect and that McCain, the seasoned politician who survived the Bush campaigns, sees it for what it is: the "perfect" piece of an orchestrated, ethically corrupt, marketing campaign. The fact that the convention dates included the anniversary of DR King's speech only gives further credence to the idea that the DNC picked its candidate early on and that much of what transpired during the primary and the convention was a sham.
Mourn the end of Roosevelt's Democratic Party. Its lamp was extinguished from within by once-trusted keepers of the flame, who plotted its demise. FDR's Party, the party of the people, is gone; it was the victim of a Chicago hit carried out brazenly on cable news for the entire nation to view. The neo-Dem mob used the lethal weapons of misogyny, ageism, race-baiting, and classism for the slaughter. The evil cabal of suspects include Dean, Brazile, Axelrod, Pelosi, and every other elitist party official who thumbed his/her nose at the people's vote. There are forces within this country that want to dilute or even dissipate our collective power, and unfortunately they stretch within the neo-Democratic Party.
The sadness that many of us have experienced this election is about much more than Hillary Clinton; it is about country, principles and beliefs. It is about the role of our leaders and their responsibility to citizens in a democracy. It is about the sanctity of our vote in a democratic society. Eighteen million Americans have been cheated of their presidential candidate's vision, knowledge and experience, and neo-Dem Party elitists have allowed their personal thirst for power to take precedence over the needs of the people they were elected to serve.
The neo-Dems have played Chicago-style politics, and therefore, we must react in kind. It must be this for that, tit for tat, or we will never reestablish our power as voters within that party. They must be reminded that actions have consequences.
Any child, who has ever gone toe to toe with a bully in a playground and won, understands the undeniable truth about the way Chicago politics is played. We have been civil. We have called, emailed, and written letters. We have politely protested. Civility has not worked. We must fight, or we are vanquished. They must feel our pain, or we have relinquished our place in the sun.
Obama hopes that the likable Biden will win him working class voters who he offended early on with his elitist San Francisco comments. It must not happen; the disenfranchisement must be remembered. I know I will remember in November.
Like the neo-Con Republicans, the neo-Dems cannot be trusted. We must elect a President who will ensure the checks and balances of power that are founders valued. A Democratic Congress with a Republican President will keep them all on their toes, because with that vote we will have nullified the elitists of both parties. We've done enough of the heavy lifting; let us put our national elected leaders on notice in a very public way.
I will remember, but who else will remember in November that it is time to take our country back? I will vote McCain, because there is no other viable option for our country. With McCain as POTUS and a Democratic Congress, the two branches can spend the next two years repeatedly checking each other if they cannot work together for the good of the country.
As a result of losing what was to be a "sure thing" this year, the neo-Dems will be cast off (especially, Brazile, Dean, Axelrod, Pelosi, and their sycophants). Thus, the Clintons should be able to seize the leadership during the next Congressional election and reestablish FDR party principles with Hillary running in 2012.
Personally, I will have no problem voting for Senator John McCain; because I believe him to be an honorable man, and I yearn to respect my President again. McCain knows the pangs of war; he will be a good commander in chief. Kerry wanted McCain for his Vice-President in 2004, but McCain refused. Despite neo-Dem comments to the contrary, if Johnny Mac was good enough to lead then; he is good enough now. In addition, McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as VP will make a Republican win in November even sweeter revenge, since it will be a one-two punch and force some reflective "we should have/could have" moments on Democrats.
For me, Senator John McCain has proven that he is the best candidate by his VP choice, because actions do speak louder than words. As others have pointed out, he put his dream of the presidency on the line, and he put his faith in a woman. The actions of the neo-Dems, on the other hand, prove that they are not progressive when it comes to women, since we have witnessed a huge disconnect between what they do and what they say.
For the sake of our country, for its children, and its children's children, remind the neo-Dems that the people's democratic vote must be respected. Many have fought to safeguard these voting rights for us. As I write there are soldiers in Iraq defending the right of that country's people to live in a democratic society, it is indefensible that a national political party has used fascist tactics to deny fellow citizens these rights in our own land, and it is disgraceful that party leaders who have acted as watch guards of democracy elsewhere ignored what happened here. Yet, the Democratic Party has done just that in joining with Obama’s ethically corrupt campaign to guarantee him victory.
I will remember in November, but will I be the only one? Will American voters, especially Clinton Democrats and Independents, remember? Or will some of us stay home or vote Obama out of some misplaced loyalty to the past?
Any Chicagoan knows the adage "you gotta do what you gotta do." In that mind frame, McCain’s mother gave sage advice for this election to those who are on the fence: "Hold your nose, and vote McCain."
Actions speak louder than words; I will remember in November. Will you?
BHO's trip to Afghanistan is a joke. Why? He has done nothing in the U.S. Senate regarding Afghanistan - check it out.
This is were your donations are going, Pods - gigantic photo ops.
Jetsam:
Do the clowns at the network news organizations, Newsweek and Time metaphorically masturbate while thinking about how they will fluff Obama next- or do they - in reality - pleasure themselves?
Covering all bases the new force composed of lunatic college kids and unemployable Berkeley hippies will wear brown shirts and carry a little red book.
