Based on the bogus information and assumptions the administration and Congress fed the CBO in order to make Obamacare appear budget-neutral at the outset, the anomalies that have been brought to light since, and the negative consequences the law is already producing, Nancy Pelosi's statement that repealing Obamacare would do violence to the debt and deficit is delusional at best and an outright lie at worst.
The mainstream media will continue to carry the administration's water on this monumental ruse, as ABC's George Stephanopoulos seemed to do in questioning House Majority Leader Eric Cantor recently, but their version must not be allowed to stand. Republicans must be aggressive in countering these lies and hammering home the truth that repealing Obamacare, in addition to striking a blow on behalf of liberty, would reverse, not increase, the government's budgetary imbalances.
David Limbaugh exposes the lies that Pelosi and Obama used to to make ObamaCare sound it like would be budget-neutral. Maybe the starkest truth in the column, David comments that Donald Berwick's appointment to run the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is just "more evidence Obamacare was never about reducing budgetary pressures."
Pelosi's final whopper as speaker
 |
| DAVID LIMBAUGH |
By David Limbaugh
January 07, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern
© 2011
Can you imagine the sheer audacity of outgoing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sermonizing that repealing Obamacare would do "very serious violence to the national debt and deficit"? This is the woman whose four-year tenure as speaker saw the national debt explode from $8.67 trillion to $14.01 trillion.
She's the lady who boasted, "Deficit reduction has been a high priority for us. It is our mantra, pay-as-you-go." Such is the state of Pelosi's credibility that even 19 of her Democratic colleagues voted against her for speaker.
When it comes to a wide spectrum of issues, I'm not sure which planet Pelosi and her ilk of liberals inhabit, but the Obamacare fiasco takes their other-worldliness to another level altogether – and that's being charitable because it assumes they're innocently unaware of how wrong they are.
Everyone knows that with Obamacare's government-mandated increases in demand and in government control over prices, shortages and rationing are inevitable. (That's either why they've established their little bureaucratic boards or their excuse for establishing them; the boards will ultimately dictate decisions concerning choice of care – including, dare I say it, end-of-life care.) Obama promised universal coverage, which won't happen, but what he didn't tell us is that his socialized plan could only increase coverage, if at all, by reducing access to, choice of and quality of care.
Obama also forgot to tell us when stumping for the bill that he would appoint Donald Berwick to run the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, whose role will be greatly expanded under Obamacare to define the quality of care for every insurance plan and set Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates based on the CMS' assessment about the value in various medical treatments. If you doubted before that Obama's motive in socializing medicine was, well, socialistic, then that doubt should have been removed with the Berwick appointment. For Berwick is the man who loves Britain's socialized medicine and who said proudly, "Excellent health care is by definition redistributional." Just more evidence Obamacare was never about reducing budgetary pressures.
READ FULL STORY at WorldNetDaily.com
Commentary from WorldNetDaily
By Erik Rush
Posted: January 28, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern
© 2010
The pressing question Americans and some members of the press have been asking over the last week or so, even prior to President Barack Obama 's State of the Union address last night, is one that has given rise to some frustration and a sense of futility on my part. That question would be: Will the Democratic leadership in Washington now heed the message of Scott Brown's election and "get with the program" as far as what Americans really want?
Some regular readers of this column (and, I would surmise, some who are not) will have already recognized that this question assumes a flawed premise – this being, that the Democratic leadership in Washington is concerned with what Americans want to any degree at all.
At the risk of appearing condescending: In order to appreciate the dynamic at hand, those who are currently inclined to make the above query will have to execute the intellectual leap to the realization that the Obama administration and congressional leaders are wholly unconcerned with our wants, needs and general well-being. Their agenda is to effectively supplant our system of government with a radically dissimilar one; as such, it is diametrically opposed to the existing paradigm, which includes deference to the will of the people.
It's pretty simple when you think about it.
This is the reason they have prioritized such things as health care and climate change, issues only around 40 percent and 18 percent of Americans (respectively) count as high-priority concerns (Gallup, Jan. 20). Our leaders' road map toward ostensibly ameliorating deficiencies in these areas would, however, convey upon them unprecedented political power and economic control.
Within hours of Republican Scott Brown's dramatic victory (in capturing the Massachusetts Senate seat previously held by Ted Kennedy), President Obama was on the air with Democrat hack (as well as former Clinton White House communications director and current ABC News correspondent) George Stephanopoulos, executing some truly Orwellian damage control. Claiming that "the same thing [voter anger] that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office," the president immediately lapsed once again into "Blame Bush" mode: "People are angry and they are frustrated," said he. "Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years." His practice of transferring culpability is reportedly wearing thin even among Democrats.
READ FULL STORY >
By P.J. Gladnick
Susan Estrich is worried. Very worried. She believes that the current coordinated Democrat strategy of attacking Rush Limbaugh is completely counterproductive. And she's right:
He talks for hours every day. He gets paid to talk. Just talk. Doing it well is no small thing; witness the number of people who have tried to be him, or be the NOT-him, and failed. But he doesn't have to build a coalition. He doesn't need the votes of the other side to earn his check. He doesn't have to write the legislation, convince Olympia Snowe, raise money to keep the lights on, put his name on the ballot. All the things he doesn't have to do give him the freedom to be as effective as he is at what he does.
Trying to beat him at his own game when your own game is played by a different set of rules is a losing proposition. He knows that. [Continue reading at NewsBusters]
Echoing Estrich's views is Peter Daou, a Democrat political strategist who worked on the campaigns of John Kerry and Hillary Clinton. Daou posted his worries about the attack Rush strategy on his Huffington Post blog nervously titled, "Why on Earth Are Democrats Legitimizing and Empowering Rush Limbaugh?"
I don't buy into this 'brilliant' strategy of elevating Rush Limbaugh in the hopes that it will tarnish Republicans.
...There's precious little benefit in making Limbaugh more of a central player, in engaging him directly from the White House podium, in raising his stature, in stamping, sealing and approving the years he's spent bashing his political opponents.
[Continue reading at NewsBusters]
digg story, submitted by Pepper1024
Posts
