Sunday, January 12, 2014

Why Obamacare is a Fantastic Success

rootforamerica.comk ^ | 10/21/13 | Wayne Allen Root 

There are 2 major political parties in America. I’m a member of the naïve, stupid, and cowardly one. I’m a Republican. How stupid is the GOP? They still don’t get it. I told them 5 years ago, 2 books ago, a national bestseller ago (“The Ultimate Obama Survival Guide”), and in hundreds of articles and commentaries, that Obamacare was never meant to help America, or heal the sick, or lower healthcare costs, or lower the debt, or expand the economy.
The GOP needs to stop calling Obamacare a “trainwreck.” That means it’s a mistake, or accident. That means it’s a gigantic flop, or failure. It’s NOT. This is a brilliant, cynical, and purposeful attempt to damage the U.S. economy, kill jobs, and bring down capitalism. It’s not a failure, it’s Obama’s grand success. It’s not a “trainwreck,” Obamacare is a suicide attack. He wants to hurt us, to bring us to our knees, to capitulate- so we agree under duress to accept big government.
Obama’s hero and mentor was Saul Alinsky- a radical Marxist intent on destroying capitalism. Alinksky’s stated advice was to call the other guy “a terrorist” to hide your own intensions. To scream that the other guy is “ruining America,” while you are the one actually plotting the destruction of America. To claim again and again…in every sentence of every speech…that you are “saving the middle class,” while you are busy wiping out the middle class.
The GOP is so stupid they can’t see it. There are no mistakes here. This is a planned purposeful attack. The tell-tale sign isn’t the disastrous start to Obamacare. Or the devastating effect the new taxes are having on the economy. Or the death of full-time jobs. Or the overwhelming debt. Or the dramatic increases in health insurance rates. Or the 70% of doctors now thinking of retiring- bringing on a healthcare crisis of unimaginable proportions. Forget all that.
The real sign that this is a purposeful attack upon capitalism is how many Obama administration members and Democratic Congressmen are openly calling Tea Party Republicans and anyone who wants to stop Obamacare “terrorists.” There’s the clue. Even the clueless GOP should be able to see that. They are calling the reasonable people…the patriots…the people who believe in the Constitution…the people who believe exactly what the Founding Fathers believed…the people who want to take power away from corrupt politicians who have put America $17 trillion in debt…terrorists?
That’s because they are Saul Alinsky-ing the GOP. The people trying to purposely hurt America, capitalism and the middle class…are calling the patriots by a terrible name to fool, confuse and distract the public.
Obamacare is a raving, rollicking, fantastic success. Stop calling it a failure. Here is what it was created to do. It is succeeding on all counts.
#1) Obamacare was intended to bring about the Marxist dream- redistribution of wealth. Rich people, small business owners, and the middle class are being robbed, so that the money can be redistributed to poor people (who vote Democrat). Think about it. If you’re rich or middle class, you now have to pay for your own healthcare costs (at much higher rates) AND 40 million other people’s costs too (through massive tax increases). So you’re stuck paying for both bills. You are left broke. Brilliant.
#2) Obamacare was intended to wipe out the middle class and make them dependent on government. Think about it. Even Obama’s IRS predicts that health insurance for a typical American family by 2016 will be $20,000 per year. But how would middle class Americans pay that bill and have anything left for food or housing or living? People that make $40K, or $50K, or $60K can’t possibly hope to spend $20K on health insurance without becoming homeless. Bingo. That’s how you make middle class people dependent on government. That’s how you make everyone addicted to government checks. Brilliant.
#3) As a bonus, Obamacare is intended to kill every decent paying job in the economy, creating only crummy, crappy part-time jobs. Why? Just to make sure the middle class is trapped, with no way out. Just to make sure no one has the $20,000 per year to pay for health insurance, thereby guaranteeing they become wards of the state. Brilliant.
#4) Obamacare is intended to bankrupt small business, and therefore starve donations to the GOP. Think about it. Do you know a small business owner? I know hundreds of them. Their rates are being doubled, tripled and quadrupled by Obamacare. Guess who writes 75% of the checks to Republican candidates and conservative causes? Small business. Even if a small business owner manages to survive, he or she certainly can’t write a big check to the GOP anymore. Money is the “mother’s milk” of politics. Without donations, a political party ceases to exist. Bingo. That’s the point of Obamacare. Obama is bankrupting his political opposition and drying up donations to the GOP. Brilliant.
#5) Obamacare is intended to make the IRS all-powerful. It adds thousands of new IRS agents. It puts the IRS in charge of overseeing 15% of the U.S. economy. The IRS has the right because of Obamacare to snoop into every aspect of your life, to go into your bank accounts, to fine you, to frighten you, to intimidate you. And Obama and his socialist cabal have access to your deepest medical secrets. By law your doctor has to ask your sexual history. That information is now in the hands of Obama and the IRS to blackmail GOP candidates into either not running, or supporting bigger government, or leaking the info and ruining your campaign. Or have you forgotten the IRS harassed, intimidated and persecuted critics of Obama and conservative groups? Now Obama hands the IRS even more power. Big Brother rules our lives. Brilliant.
#6) Obamacare is intended to unionize 15 million healthcare workers. That produces $15 billion in new union dues. That money goes to fund Democratic candidates and socialist causes- thereby guaranteeing Obama’s friends never lose another election, and Obama’s policies keep ruining capitalism and bankrupting business owners long after he’s out of office.
Message to the GOP: This isn’t a game. This isn’t tiddly-winks. This is a serious, purposeful attempt to highjack America and destroy capitalism. This isn’t a trainwreck. It’s purposeful suicide. It’s not failing, it’s working exactly according to plan. Obama knows what he’s doing. Stop apologizing and start fighting.
Oh and one more thing…Conservatives aren’t “terrorists.” We are patriots and saviors. We represent the Constitution and the Founding Fathers. We are the heroes and good guys. Unless you get all this through your thick skulls, America is lost…forever.

The Wars of Robert Gates

The Wall Street Journal ^ | January 10, 2014 | ROBERT M. GATES 

For the first several months, it took a lot of discipline to sit quietly at the table as everyone from President Obama on down took shots at President Bush and his team. Sitting there, I would often think to myself, Am I invisible?
During these excoriations, there was never any acknowledgment that I had been an integral part of that earlier team. Discussions in the Situation Room allowed no room for discriminating analysis: Everything was awful, and Obama and his team had arrived just in time to save the day.
Our discussions soon turned to the war in Afghanistan. My years in the Bush administration had convinced me that creating a strong, democratic, and more or less honest and competent central government in Afghanistan was a fantasy. Our goal, I thought, should be limited to hammering the Taliban and other extremists and to building up the Afghan security forces so they could control the extremists and deny al Qaeda another safe haven in Afghanistan.
This pressure for an early decision on a troop increase had the unfortunate and lasting effect of creating suspicion in the White House that Obama was getting the "bum's rush" from senior military officers—especially the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Michael Mullen, and Gen. David Petraeus, who was then running the U.S. Central Command—to make a big decision prematurely. I believed then—and now—that this distrust was stoked by Vice President Joe Biden, with Deputy National Security Adviser Thomas Donilon, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and some of Obama's other White House advisers joining the chorus.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...

UK to Keep New Medicines from the Elderly?

National Right to Life News ^ | January 10, 2014 | Wesley J. Smith 

The UK may soon tighten its health care rationing to prevent new medicines from getting to the elderly. From the Telegraph story:

“New drugs would only be licensed for the NHS [National Health Service] if they help those judged to be a benefit to wider society under proposals from the health watchdog. Pharmaceutical firms on Thursday night warned that the move could lead to new medicines being denied to the elderly.
“A senior professor also said that the plans could threaten the well-being of older people and were ‘deeply suspect’, while charities questioned the ethics of the policy. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice), which decides whether new medicines should be approved, is due to change its criteria on how funding should be allocated. Under an appraisal system,
“Nice will have to take into account ‘wider societal benefits’ alongside the cost of medication and its life-enhancing properties. Health experts have warned that vulnerable groups, such as the elderly, may lose out because they do not contribute as much to society as younger people.”
I don’t think the restrictions would be limited to the elderly. In the crassly utilitarian world of health care rationing, a whole host of “non productive” people could be targeted for denial of medicines.
This kind of thinking is coming here if the Obamacarians get their way. Indeed, the UK’s rationing system was extolled as a model for the USA by some of Obamacare’s architects, the ACA’s regulators, and among the Medical Intelligentsia.
Editor’s note. This appeared on Wesley’s fine blog.

Surprise! Walmart health plan is cheaper, offers more coverage than Obamacare!

Washington Examiner ^ | 07 January 2014 | Richard Pollack 

New Obamacare health insurance enrollees may feel a pang of envy when they eye the coverage plans offered by Walmart to its employees.

For many years, the giant discount retailer has been the target of unions and liberal activists who have harshly criticized the company's health care plans, calling them “notorious for failing to provide health benefits” and "substandard.”

But a Washington Examiner comparison of the two health insurance programs found that Walmart's plan is more affordable and provides significantly better access to high-quality medical care than Obamacare.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...

Blue Cross Blue Shield: If Republicans kill a bailout for insurers, it’ll lead to single-payer! ( as planned)

Hotair ^ | 01/11/2014 | AllahPundit 

They’re nervous.
“We are becoming increasingly concerned about momentum that is quickly building among some leading conservatives for elimination of the risk corridor and reinsurance programs,” [Blue Cross Blue Shield Association CEO Scott] Serota wrote…
“Their efforts, along with growing support for repealing the risk corridor and reinsurance programs, could combine to create a perfect storm to, at a minimum, dissuade the Administration from modifying risk corridor program rules to provide increased funding in light of the recent ‘transitional policy’ allowing insurers to offer consumers the option to renew their 2013 health plans for 2014,” Serota wrote.
In attached talking points, seemingly directed at Republican lawmakers opposed to risk corridors and reinsurance, BCBSA is asking members to argue that eliminating the risk corridors will lead to the eventual downfall of Obamacare and lead to a single-payer system: “It jeopardizes the entire private health insurance market and will ultimately lead to a single-payer system. Furthermore, it will close the door to pro-competitive health care reform alternatives.”
One bolded talking point, “use with appropriate audiences only,” charges that “eliminating these programs will result in massive premium increases and could cause private insurers to become insolvent.” In Serota’s email, however, this point is intended for Democrats only.
You remember the “risk corridor” provisions, right? If a new ObamaCare plan comes in under budget, the insurer pays the difference between the actual cost and projected cost to HHS. If it comes in over budget, HHS pays the difference to the insurance. It’s a way for insurers to spread risk among the industry with HHS as middleman. (The bit in the excerpt about the White House modifying the rules for its new “transitional policy” is a reference to this.) Problem is, there’s no cap on how much HHS might need to pay out if lots and lots of plans come in over budget — a plausible scenario given the whispers from Humana about what it’s seeing among the demographic mix of ObamaCare enrollees so far. If too many plans have lopsided numbers of sick enrollees who need expensive treatments and few healthy ones to supply the revenue needed to offset that expense, HHS could be on the hook for the shortfall via a de facto bailout — unless Congress repeals the risk corridor provisions, in which case the insurers will be stuck with the bill. How many of them will be able to cover it and how many will go belly up? Of the ones who stay in business, how many will have to charge exorbitant premiums next year to make up for their losses? And if premiums soar, some portion of their consumers are bound to cancel their plans, which means even less revenue for the insurers and the need for even higher premiums, etc. That’s the “death spiral,” and in theory that’s where single-payer comes in. If the insurance industry melts down because Congress cut its financial lifeline, what replaces it?
What’s fascinating about the BCBS talking points is that, in light of the rumblings on the left lately about single-payer, they may actually hurt the industry at this point more than they help. The “single-payer” talk won’t scare Republicans; they know they’re likely to have more control of Congress next year, not less, and they’re eager to find a weak spot in the Jenga tower that is ObamaCare that might bring the whole thing down. Killing the risk corridor could do it. Meanwhile, the “single-payer” talk might entice Democrats. Plenty of them, like Michael Moore and Noam Scheiber, defend ObamaCare not out of love but out of dutiful partisan obligation. They hate insurance companies and would leap at the chance to replace them with a government alternative but they’re stuck with the O-Care model for the time being. If the industry implodes, though, they’ll have a fully-formed alternative ready to go in the form of “Medicare for all.” And of course, as a matter of basic retail politics, Democrats want to be seen as anti-bailout as much as Republicans do, especially before a midterm election. Even assuming that Obama would veto a bailout repeal in the name of protecting his new partners in the industry, there’ll be intense political pressure on Democrats to cross the aisle and vote with the GOP to override it. I don’t think they’d get to 67 votes — the wound to ObamaCare, on which they’ve already spent so much political capital, would be too grave to inflict it so soon — but the politics of it would be attractive and we already know that they’re not averse to short-sighted political “fixes” to the law that actually make the industry’s adverse-selection problems worse. Between nervous red-state centrists like Mark Pryor who want to signal their unhappiness with O-Care and ideological leftists like Bernie Sanders who want to smash the insurance industry, how many Democratic votes might they get? Enough to get to 60 and force an Obama veto at least, right?
Exit question via Bob Laszewski: What happens when the “risk corridor” expires in 2017? Exit answer: Maybe nothing. By that point, U.S. health insurance will be so dominated by the exchanges and the penalty for not complying with the mandate will be so steep that you’ll have no choice but to sign up and pay what they want.

Can a Blind Person Be a Racist?

Scintific American ^ | Osagie Obasogie 

In this adapted excerpt from a new book, a legal scholar and social critic documents that racist attitudes are not rooted in the ability to actually "see" the color of someone’s skin
Adapted from Blinded by Sight: Seeing Race through the Eyes of the Blind, by Osagie K. Obasogie.

Do blind people understand race? Given the vast and sprawling writings on race over the past several decades, it is surprising that scholars have not explored this question in any real depth. Race has played a profound and central role to human relationships. Yet how is it possible that this basic question has escaped deeper contemplation?
This gap in the scholarly literature and public discourse points to a fundamental assumption that we almost all make about race, its significance, and its salience. Race has been central to human relationships. Yet, there seems to be at least one thing that most people can agree upon: that race is, to a large extent, simply what is seen. There are surely many variables that inform individuals’ racial consciousness, such as religion, language, food, and culture. But race is primarily thought to be self-evidently known, in terms of reflecting the wide variation in humans’ outward appearance tied to ancestry and geographic origin such as skin color, hair texture, facial shapes, and other observable physical features. Thus, race is thought to be visually obvious; it is what you see, in terms of slotting visual engagements with human bodies into predefined categories of human difference, such as Black, White, and Asian. Given the dominant role these visual cues play in giving coherence to social categories of race, it is widely thought that race can be no more salient or significant to someone who has never been able to see than the musical genius of Mozart or Jay-Z can be salient to someone who has never been able to hear. Therefore, one plausible explanation for why questions concerning blind people’s understanding of race have not been explored is that, from a sighted person’s perspective, the answer seems painfully obvious: blind people simply cannot appreciate racial distinctions and therefore do not have any real racial consciousness.
This pervasive yet rarely articulated idea that race is visually obvious—a notion that I call “race” ipsa loquitur, or that race “speaks for itself”—has at least three components: (1) race is largely known by physical cues that inhere in bodies such as skin color or facial features, (2) these cues are thought to be self-evident, meaning that their perceptibility and salience exist apart from any mediating social or political influence, and (3) individuals without the ability to see are thought, at a fundamental level, to be unable to participate in or fully understand what is assumed to be a quintessentially ocular experience. Through this “race” ipsa loquitur trope, talking about race outside of visual references to bodily differences seems absurd, lest we all become “colorblind” in the most literal sense. Much of the ideological value in the emerging colorblindness discourse works from the idea that race and racism are problems of visual recognition, not social or political practices.
But, how much does the salience of race—in terms of it being experienced as a prominent and striking human characteristic that affects a remarkable range of human outcomes—depend upon what is visually perceived? To play upon the biblical reference to 2 Corinthians 5:7, do we simply “walk by sight” in that the racial differences are self-evident boundaries that are impressionable on their own terms? Or, is there a secular “faith” about race that produces the ability to “see” the very racial distinctions experienced as visually obvious? And if we take this idea seriously, that the visual salience of race is produced rather than merely observed, precisely what is at stake—socially, politically, and legally—when we misunderstand the process of “seeing race” as a distinctly visual rather than sociological phenomenon?
In my work, I have pushed the boundaries of the “race” ipsa loquitur trope by investigating the significance of race outside of vision. I critique the notion that race is visually obvious and suggest that the salience of race, in terms of its visually striking nature and attendant social significance, functions more by social rather than ocular mechanisms. Though perhaps counterintuitive, I begin with the hypothesis that our ability to perceive race and subsequently attach social meanings to different types of human bodies depends little on what we see; taking vision as a medium of racial truth may very well obscure a deeper understanding of precisely how race is both apprehended and comprehended, and thus how it informs our collective imaginations and personal behaviors as well as how it plays out in everyday life.
I have explored this issue through a series of interviews with people who have been totally blind since birth. Since race is strongly connected to visual cues, it is largely assumed that race must be of diminished significance to blind people’s daily lives. But this may not necessarily be the case. All things being equal, race may very well be as significant—even visually significant—to the blind community as it is to sighted persons. Moreover, it is likely that the social, cognitive, and other nonvisual interactions shaping blind people’s racial experiences are not unique to them. A comparative approach that analyzes the racial experiences of blind and sighted people can offer important insights into the ways in which fixing race as a visual experience may limit a deeper understanding of the extent to which race shapes everyday life, and everyday life shapes our ability to see race. Therefore, exploring blind people’s racial experiences and understandings may provide a rich grounding from which to appreciate how race is not simply what we see. Rather, there may be social practices that produce our very ability to see race.
The findings from this research are quite surprising. After conducting over a hundred interviews with blind individuals—people who have never seen anything, let alone the physical traits that typically serve as visual markers for racial difference—one consistent theme resonates throughout the data. Blind people understand and experience race like everyone else: visually. That is, when asked what race is, blind respondents largely define race by visually salient physical cues such as skin color, facial features, and other visual characteristics. But what stands out in particular is not only blind people’s visual understanding of race, but that this visual understanding shapes how they live their lives; daily choices, experiences, and interactions such as where to live and whom to date are meditated by visual understandings of race in the blind community as much as they are among those who are sighted. Despite their physical inability to engage with race on the very visual terms that are thought to define its salience and social significance, blind people’s understanding and experience with race is not unlike that of sighted individuals.
These data present a tremendous challenge for existing lay and scholarly conceptions of race. How can it be that individuals who cannot see have a visual understanding of race? And how is it possible that this visual understanding is so significant that it fundamentally shapes their everyday lives just as it does for anyone else? How can someone not have vision, but be able to, for all intents and purposes, “see” race? Blinded by Sight unravels this mystery so as to understand this phenomenon as an empirical matter. Through qualitative research methods, I capture these experiences and unearth the broader sociological patterns that give rise to blind people’s ability to “see” race. These empirical findings can have wide-ranging implications for rethinking the relationship between race, legal doctrine, public policy, and social relations. This research ventures into an area that many assumed did not exist in any meaningful sense—the racial lives of blind people and, moreover, the visual acuity with which they experience race—and uses the empirical data to discuss this discovery’s implications for reconceptualizing the ways that race plays out in law and society.
I have leveraged these empirical findings to intervene in scholarly conversations relevant to race, law, and society. At the broadest level, this book offers a fresh intervention into a concept that is so prominent and unthinkingly accepted across almost all areas of race scholarship that it is rarely subject to any meaningful critique: the social construction of race. The idea that race is a social construction is often meant to convey that the meanings placed upon particular racialized bodies are not caused by nature or driven by inherent biological differences. Rather, these meanings and their attachment to specific groups are a product of social, economic, and political forces. Social constructionists have paid painstaking attention to this meaning-making process and how specific concepts come to attach to certain groups, whether it is eastern European immigrants “becoming” White or the racialization of Mexican Americans. However, this emphasis on meanings attaching to bodies has obscured a more fundamental question: how does race itself become visually salient? More so than meanings adhering to bodies, there seems to be an underlying social process that produces the visibility of group difference. It is largely assumed that racial differences become salient merely because they are self-evident and visually obvious, but my work challenges this idea and contributes to broader constructionist debates by developing a constitutive theory of race that highlights the way in which social practices produce the ability to see and experience race in particular ways.
I have used the data collected on blind people’s visual understanding of race to discover critical new insights and interventions into law—specifically Equal Protection jurisprudence. Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection jurisprudence has offered the most robust legal mechanism from which to advocate racial equality for disadvantaged minorities. Equal protection has been at the heart of the United States’ most heated and divisive debates on race, from school desegregation to affirmative action. However, what is uncovered is that despite shifting understandings and applications of the Equal Protection Clause, a basic assumption about race has been enmeshed throughout the jurisprudence: that it is visually obvious and its salience stems from self-evident visual cues. This understanding of race drives the legal and moral basis for the Court’s ability to review and strike down laws that impermissibly categorize individuals by race. I would argue that this limited understanding of how and why race becomes salient warps Equal Protection jurisprudence by treating race as a visually obvious and self-evidently knowable trait, which fails to take account of the sociological factors that produce our very ability to see racial differences.

How Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel Steals From His Soldiers!

Military Watchdog ^ | 2 Jan 14 | Military Watchdog 
Posted on 1/11/2014 8:03:49 PM by SkyPilot


How Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel Steals from His Soldiers

That is a tough charge, not made lightly. The Secretary of Defense is stealing earned but deferred income from his soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines. It is especially troubling because Hagel is a former Vietnam combat soldier and noncommissioned officer. He served in the infantry with valor and gallantry. He just stole $6 billion from his retiring or retired soldiers.

No need to detail here the massive debt the nation has created and much of that from fighting mostly unfunded wars. No need to repeat the abundant and perpetual instances of fraud, waste, and abuse in the federal budgets and especially including the Pentagon and defense budgets. No argument either that massive spending reform is needed throughout the federal government. All that is compounded by an Administration and Congress that lacks fiduciary competence, moral courage, and a determination to do what is best for the nation rather than for political party and agenda or congressional duchy. If only they emulated the fidelity provided by the nation’s soldiers. Alas, no. The Congress, stupefied as they are, collectively and individually, recently passed the Bipartisan Budget Act which the President signed. To avoid another government shutdown the law’s architects, Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), ended long-term unemployment benefits in exchange for a pension reduction for military retirees under age 62, including 100,000 retired for disability. It is widely reported that Rep. Ryan says that the Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel volunteered and proposed the pension reduction; Hagel stepped forward with the idea. The idea did not originate in the Congressional committee. Hagel sacrificed the retirees to ease defense spending cuts involving, programs, material, and consultants all raging out of control and mostly unaudited. It is an idea long recommended by the Defense Business Board and other beltway consulting firms including retired senior officers (most over age 62). The proposal if not endorsed, was certainly not publicly objected to, by senior Pentagon generals including the Joints Chiefs of Staff. Rather, this is the first and long waited opportunity to convert military pensions into federal employ pensions. (The December 2013 Bipartisan Budget Act is explained here:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/26/us-usa-obama-idUSBRE9BP0HK20131226

http://www.military.com/benefits/2013/12/26/hagel-ryan-defend-retiree-cola-caps.html

Navy Lt. Cmdr. Nathan Christensen, a Pentagon Defense Department spokesman says an Army private with fewer than two years of service and no dependents earns on average about $40,400 annually, What? 2014 Pay Table, Army Private 2, $1,717 a month X 12 = $20,604 year. Army PFC, $1,805 month X 12 = $21,660; SP4 $2,000 X 12 = $24,000. These soldiers without dependents live in barracks and eat in a DFAC. No wonder the SECDEF thinks the military are paid too much. Pentagon staff are ripe with officer incompetence who cannot do 5th grade math. This article with its misinformation is being repeated in civilian newspapers and news broadcasts across the nation without correction.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/12/23/fight-over-military-pension-cuts-to-continue.html?ESRC=army-a.nl#disqus_thread

Hagel, Ryan, and Murray now attempt to weasel out of the public outrage over this idiocy by agreeing it was a mistake not to have shielded more than 100,000 service members retired on medical disability from the pension cuts. Message to Hagel, Ryan, Murray, and the rest of the numbnuts (worthless or neutered) in Congress. It is a gross mistake to steal from retired and retiring military regardless of age, disability, or rank or grade their long and hard-earned deferred income.
If you want to do this to military members not yet on active duty, then do it. However, those now on active duty entered military service under a contract at enlistment or commissioning that clearly explains retirement obligations by both parties – the soldier and the government. The soldiers met their obligation. Congress fails. Below are Congressional Budget Office examples of the money stolen from members of the Armed Forces by their Commander in Chief, the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the United States Congress: An E-6 who retires at age 32, after 12 years of service, due to injury or illness would lose more than $45,000 in retired pay by age 62 if inflation were to average three percent. An O-3 officer medically retired at 34 after 12 years would lose more than $63,000 in retired pay by age 62. An enlisted member in pay grade E-7 retirees at age 40 with an annual pension of $23,000, would lose $83,000 off the total value of E-7 retired pay. An officer who retirees as an O-5 at age 42, with a pension of $43,000, will lose more than $124,000 by age 62 How does the government have the audacity and heartlessness to do this after so many of these soldiers served for so long with so much loyalty, sacrifice, valor, and gallantry, on multiple combat tours, often wounded and sick, with incalculable casualty to families. If the government thinks these payments excessive, then change the inducements before the war not afterward. This theft of earned albeit deferred compensation demands restitution for ALL retired military and immediately. It doesn’t help that the same nest of elected and appointed bureaucrats were responsible for the screw-up involving death benefits for families of military killed in action a few months ago when the government was dysfunctional. If some readers object to Watchdogs sarcasm, disrespect, and hyperbole, kindly understand that it is mild compared to comments posted on http://www.military.com and in American Legion, VFW, all ranks clubs, mess halls and mess decks about this betrayal. It is also a public outrage.

Democrats - Party of Scandals and Murders

Political Realities ^ | 01/11/14 | Marcia Wood 

Obama-Biden So for the Liberals, Democrats and left-wingers how does it feel to realize that your Commander In Chief spent five years attempting to destroy the greatest Nation in the World.   Enjoy the few minutes of glory, because before 2014 comes to an end – your reputation will go down the tubes just like Barack Obama’s.
Do you really think that you will a free “get out of jail card” after Americans have suffered through the Fast and Furious gun runner, Benghazi, IRS, NSA and ObamaCare scandals?  Like any other crime in our USA, you may not be the one who committed the crime, but you’re darn sure an accomplice and Americans will not forget the suffering (mental and physical) that them through the last five years.
The Fast and Furious cover up is on the verge of boiling over – Obama and Holder’s request to dismiss a lawsuit for the hidden documents that Holder and the DOJ refused to share during Issa’s investigation and Obama’s Executive Order.  To Obama, Liberals, Democrats and Liberal News media this merely proves the old saying, “You can run, but you can’t hide.”
By the way, the DOJ website confirms that Obama funded the Fast and Furious project with our stimulus money, Holder and Napolitano choreographed it. Back in April of 2009 Holder & Napolitano packed their jammies and suitcases and headed down to Mexico to share information about the gun runner operation.
In fact, four of your principal players toddled down to Mexico in April and March of 2009 to talk about the Fast and Furious gun runner operation.  All four knew about the operation and all four lied – in fact Holder and Napolitano committed perjury as they lied under oath denying any knowledge of the operation. So much for a transparent, honest Government – shame on you two of our agents murdered and hundreds of innocent Mexican men, women and children were murdered by our guns walking across the border.
Next is the Benghazi terrorist attack – we lost four very brave Americans in Benghazi due to your nonchalance and refusal to take care of business. You should have supported America and Americans, but you opted to lie, cheat and hide instead of prosecuting those responsible for the Benghazi massacre.  You've stonewalled us much too long!
Obama lied, Clinton lied, Panetta lied, Carney lied and the Liberal News Media joined the Obama team as usual and tried to cover up the ugly truth that the Commander-in-Chief was too busy getting some shut-eye so he could campaign in Las Vegas the next day to save our American's lives.
What a motley sick bunch of people you’ve turned out to be – you are all snuggled up and comfy in our White House hoping Americans will forget that we’ve lost four of our brave sons due to your blatant lies and negligence.  America won’t forget and someday soon the truth will out…
Let’s talk a bit about the IRS and NSA – your Obama God is involved in these scandals up to his armpits and above.  Both of these scandals are still on the front burner and as said earlier you’re all accomplices to both of these scandals that have and are affecting our Nation and all Americans.  Democrats, you’re not a party anymore you’re nothing more than a political mafia.
Now it’s time to discuss the other scandal (Obama care) that very likely will be the reason more Americans will lose their lives.  Remember many of those with life threatening or terminal illnesses lost their insurer, the doctors, specialists and medical teams.  Some of these fellow Americans can’t even get insurance due to the glitches of the Obamacare website on the back-end.
Obamacare is the 2014 albatross that has harmed many Americans already and many more during this year will either be laid off or placed in part-time positions.  So much for caring about your Country!
How’s that for a dirty laundry list – do really think Americans trust you or believe anything you say?  The only ones that do are the ones that depend on a Government paycheck monthly, food stamps and a free ride better known as the “have nots.”
Your lousy strategy for 2014 stinks – you’re platform of income equality and poverty-stricken communities doesn't hold water.  It’s only diversions that Obama and you have created trying to distract us and divide us.  But the scandals remain the worst in the history of our Country and no, you didn't get a free "get out of jail" card. You've made the hit list of America's Most Wanted.
You legacy to this Nation will be remembered as the party of scandals and murders – we won’t forget Fast and Furious gun runner operation, the Benghazi murders, IRS, NSA or Obamacare.
As Always,
Little Tboca

Polar Vortex

Hey Hillary

Trapped!

Democrats