Top Five Health Care Reform Lies

Lie #1: President Obama wants to euthanize your grandma!!!

The truth: These accusations—of "death panels" and forced euthanasia—are, of course, flatly untrue. As an article from the Associated Press puts it: "No 'death panel' in health care bill."1 What's the real deal? Reform legislation includes a provision, supported by the AARP, to offer senior citizens access to a professional medical counselor who will provide them with information on preparing a living will and other issues facing older Americans.2

Lie #2: Democrats are going to outlaw private insurance and force you into a government plan!!!

The truth: With reform, choices will increase, not decrease. Obama's reform plans will create a health insurance exchange, a one-stop shopping marketplace for affordable, high-quality insurance options.3 Included in the exchange is the public health insurance option—a nationwide plan with a broad network of providers—that will operate alongside private insurance companies, injecting competition into the market to drive quality up and costs down.4 If you're happy with your coverage and doctors, you can keep them.5 But the new public plan will expand choices to millions of businesses or individuals who choose to opt into it, including many who simply can't afford health care now.

Lie #3: President Obama wants to implement Soviet-style rationing!!!

The truth: Health care reform will expand access to high-quality health insurance, and give individuals, families, and businesses more choices for coverage. Right now, big corporations decide whether to give you coverage, what doctors you get to see, and whether a particular procedure or medicine is covered—that is rationed care. And a big part of reform is to stop that.

Health care reform will do away with some of the most nefarious aspects of this rationing: discrimination for pre-existing conditions, insurers that cancel coverage when you get sick, gender discrimination, and lifetime and yearly limits on coverage.6 And outside of that, as noted above, reform will increase insurance options, not force anyone into a rationed situation.

Lie #4: Obama is secretly plotting to cut senior citizens' Medicare benefits!!!

The truth: Health care reform plans will not reduce Medicare benefits.7 Reform includes savings from Medicare that are unrelated to patient care—in fact, the savings comes from cutting billions of dollars in overpayments to insurance companies and eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse.8

Lie #5: Obama's health care plan will bankrupt America!!!

The truth: We need health care reform now in order to prevent bankruptcy—to control spiraling costs that affect individuals, families, small businesses, and the American economy. Right now, we spend more than $2 trillion dollars a year on health care.9 The average family premium is projected to rise to over $22,000 in the next decade10—and each year, nearly a million people face bankruptcy because of medical expenses.11 Reform, with an affordable, high-quality public option that can spur competition, is necessary to bring down skyrocketing costs. Also, President Obama's reform plans would be fully paid for over 10 years and not add a penny to the deficit.12

P.S. Want more? Check out this great new White House "Reality Check" website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/

Now some of the most outrageous lies: http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51729

Sources:
1. "No 'death panel' in health care bill," Associated Press, August 10, 2009.

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51747

2. "Stop Distorting the Truth about End of Life Care," Huffington Post, July 24, 2009.

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51730

3. "Reality Check FAQs," WhiteHouse.gov, accessed August 11, 2009.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/faq#i1

4. "Why We Need a Public Health-Care Plan," Wall Street Journal, June 24, 2009.

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51737

5. "Obama: 'If You Like Your Doctor, You Can Keep Your Doctor,'" Wall Street Journal, 15, 2009.

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51736

6. "Reality Check FAQs," WhiteHouse.gov, accessed August 10, 2009.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/faq#r1

7. "Obama: No reduced Medicare benefits in health care reform," CNN, July 28, 2009.

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51748

8. "Reality Check FAQs," WhiteHouse.gov, accessed August 10, 2009.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/faq#s1

9. "Reality Check FAQs," WhiteHouse.gov, accessed August 10, 2009.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/faq#c1

10. "Premiums Run Amok," Center for American Progress, July 24, 2009.

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51667

11. "Medical bills prompt more than 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies," CNN, June 5, 2009.

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51735

12. "Reality Check FAQs," WhiteHouse.gov, accessed August 10, 2009.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/faq#c1

Sources for the Five Lies:
#1: "A euthanasia mandate," The Washington Times, July 29, 2009.

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51732

#2: "It's Not An Option," Investor's Business Daily, July 15, 2009.

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51743

#3: "Rationing Health Care," The Washington Times, April 21, 2009.

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51742

#4: "60 Plus Ad Is Chock Full Of Misinformation," Media Matters for America, August 8, 2009.

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51734

#5: "Obama's 'Public' Health Plan Will Bankrupt the Nation," The National Review, May 13,

2009. http://www.moveon.org/r?r=51744

Nationwide Tax Protests

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	M - Th 11p / 10c
Nationwide Tax Protests
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Economic Crisis Political Humor

Rick Sanchez on Gun Control Hysteria

My Exchange with David Vitters Office on Marijuana

Here is an exchange between myself and the office of Senator Vitter. He is our local rep and a hypocrite who takes money from private corporations. He has taken thousands from tele com companies for the privatization of the Internet.....

From: Senator_Vitter@vitter.senate.gov
Subject: Responding to your message
To: dantheman@504productions.com
Date: Friday, March 27, 2009, 9:45 AM

Dear Mr. Carrone,

Thank you for contacting me in support of legalizing personal marijuana use. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.

As you know, legislation has been introduced in Congress that would remove federal criminal penalties for personal marijuana use. The Act to Remove Federal Penalties for the Personal Use of Marijuana by Responsible Adults would prohibit any federal criminal penalties for the possession of 100 grams or less of marijuana for personal use.

While marijuana use may not cause the same destructive addictiveness of "hard" drugs like cocaine or heroin, I do not support legalizing the personal use of marijuana. I am concerned that legalizing the personal use of marijuana would send the wrong message to young people and could lead to increased use of other drugs and more drug addiction.

Though we disagree on this issue, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about any issue important to you.

Sincerely,
Senator David Vitter
United States Senator

My Reply:

Like cigarettes and alcohol is not the wrong message to young people? More deaths occur from those two substances than any illegal drug.

I also feel that recent violence on the border is proof that the war on drugs is a complete failure. Legalizing for personal use for adults would cut down some of that border violence.

For one, the cartels will not be sending marijuana because the best marijuana is grown domestically.

For two, some adults who use "harder" drugs may not and just smoke marijuana. Which would cut the demand for harder drugs.

America is the biggest consumer of drugs in the world. It is 40 billion dollars a year that goes to Mexico that could be in our economy. How are you planning to cut the demand for drugs from Americans? Build more prisons? That says the people are at fault for wanting to get high. If you go after the cartels, it will most prob be a war as big as Iraq.

All I am saying is that as an intelligent human being, you must set aside your personal "moral values" and see the bigger picture. Your morals is not helping this nation. Plus you have no right to mention morals since you were committing adultery. What kind of "message" is that to send our children? It is ok to hire a prostitute to cheat on your wife then accept no responsibility for such an act?

Create, Experience and Love,
Dan the Man

Porn in the USA: Conservatives are Biggest Consumers

Americans may paint themselves in increasingly bright shades of red and blue, but new research finds one thing that varies little across the nation: the liking for online pornography.

A new nationwide study (pdf) of anonymised credit-card receipts from a major online adult entertainment provider finds little variation in consumption between states.

"When it comes to adult entertainment, it seems people are more the same than different," says Benjamin Edelman at Harvard Business School.

However, there are some trends to be seen in the data. Those states that do consume the most porn tend to be more conservative and religious than states with lower levels of consumption, the study finds.

"Some of the people who are most outraged turn out to be consumers of the very things they claimed to be outraged by," Edelman says.

Political divide
Edelman spends part of his time helping companies such as Microsoft and AOL detect advertising fraud. Another consulting client runs dozens of adult websites, though he says he is not at liberty to identify the firm.

That company did, however, provide Edelman with roughly two years of credit card data from 2006 to 2008 that included a purchase date and each customer's postal code.

After controlling for differences in broadband internet access between states – online porn tends to be a bandwidth hog – and adjusting for population, he found a relatively small difference between states with the most adult purchases and those with the fewest.

The biggest consumer, Utah, averaged 5.47 adult content subscriptions per 1000 home broadband users; Montana bought the least with 1.92 per 1000. "The differences here are not so stark," Edelman says.

Number 10 on the list was West Virginia at 2.94 subscriptions per 1000, while number 41, Michigan, averaged 2.32.

Eight of the top 10 pornography consuming states gave their electoral votes to John McCain in last year's presidential election – Florida and Hawaii were the exceptions. While six out of the lowest 10 favoured Barack Obama.

Old-fashioned values
Church-goers bought less online porn on Sundays – a 1% increase in a postal code's religious attendance was associated with a 0.1% drop in subscriptions that day. However, expenditures on other days of the week brought them in line with the rest of the country, Edelman finds.

Residents of 27 states that passed laws banning gay marriages boasted 11% more porn subscribers than states that don't explicitly restrict gay marriage.

To get a better handle on other associations between social attitudes and pornography consumption, Edelman melded his data with a previous study on public attitudes toward religion.

States where a majority of residents agreed with the statement "I have old-fashioned values about family and marriage," bought 3.6 more subscriptions per thousand people than states where a majority disagreed. A similar difference emerged for the statement "AIDS might be God's punishment for immoral sexual behaviour."

"One natural hypothesis is something like repression: if you're told you can't have this, then you want it more," Edelman says.

Socialism or Morons?

Republicans are screaming that we are headed to become a socialist nation...

Well maybe if you were not making the majority of citizens poor, maybe there would not be such a push for government to pay and do everything.

You are creating socialism by creating more poor people. The more poor, the more you have to take care of. So how does giving your rich friends the goodies and then telling poor people to pull them selves up by their boot straps, (if they even have straps to do that. If you don't, then it sux to be you!) is gonna get this economy moving?

I am no business major. I quit school in the 8th grade, but I know this much. Without the middle class buying you rich peoples shiny material shit, you have no fuckin' economy.

Morons...............

Spending in Washington

Write your Repuglican (yes i spelled with a G on purpose) and ask them where were they when Bush was giving the tax payers trillions of dollars of debt from out of control spending?

Easy enough question!

Why when it was for another country (Iraq), they sent BILLIONS there! But for the homeland, nothing.......

The same ones to claim to be so patriotic that they had to take your civil rights to protect this nation are the same ones refusing to spend money at home on it's own people.

Republicans disgust me with their double talk hypocritical selves......

Watch Repugs Flip Flop

Republicans had no problem with out of control spending when they gave trillions to Bush and when they gave some of the richest people in this country thousands of dollars in tax cuts. Fuck the right! Your way for 8 years has put this nation in the position it is in. Your way does not work!

Fox & Republicans are Morons!

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Fox News Fear Imbalance

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

Hypocrites...I cannot stand most Republicans just for this reason...believing you are the only ones with the "right way" is a very ignorant and narrow way to think.

Obama's Trillion Dollar Tax Cut

Many are complaining this is too much money. Those same people did not have a problem putting a trillion dollars on the backs of our children for a war that had nothing to do with 911.

Or the 700 billion that is just shy of a trillion to the richest banks in the country.

Just a thought.............

More Spying on YOU from the Patriot Act

The Bush administration has been planning since last spring to issue a final burst of federal regulations just before leaving office. It was recently announced that over 90 new regulations would be finalized before November 22 -- 60 days prior to the end of Bush's term -- making them difficult, though not impossible, for President Obama to reverse.

Although many of the regulations have to do with energy and the environment, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow noted on Tuesday that there's also "one that'll kick opponents of the Patriot Act right in the teeth."

The proposed regulation "would allow state and local law enforcement agencies to collect intelligence on individuals and organizations even if the information is unrelated to any criminal matter," Maddow explained. She added, "Even if they weren't already watching you -- they soon could be."

Maddow was joined by the Nation's sports correspondent, Dave Zirin, who began by complaining about Bush, "Hemorrhoids are more popular than this man. Why is he making laws?"

Zirin described how he had been involved in an episode where "the Maryland State Police sent people to infiltrate meetings I was in -- a very seditious organization called the Campaign to End the Death Penalty, where we planned such horrifying acts like tabling at the local farmer's market or planning rallies."

"Why were they spying on us?" Zirin continued. "Because the governor at the time, Bob Ehrlich -- a right-wing Republican who makes Sarah Palin look like Emma Goldman -- I mean, he's somebody who saw us as political opponents. He was for the death penalty, we were against the death penalty, therefore in his mind we deserved to be spied upon."

"We were entered into a database the heading of which was 'Terrorists/Anti-Government,'" Zirin noted angrily. "The person who organized all of this, the head of the Maryland State Police ... called us 'fringe people' in the hearings. He said we deserved it because we were fringe people.'"

Zirin pointed out that the final report which exposed the state's anti-constitutional behavior recommended future safeguards but held no one accountable. "We either have a Constitution or we don't," he stated. "Either our rights were violated or they weren't."

"They're talking about expanding this nationwide," Maddow commented, "and what they will say in order to argue for it is, 'Oh, what's the harm done?'"

"Here's the harm," Zirin replied. "It has a chilling effect on the Constitution. It has a chilling effect on our ability to assemble. ... We need to be welcoming new people into community activism, welcoming new people into struggle. And what you have instead is people looking at each other in Maryland as if, 'Is that person an enemy? Is this person a plant?'"

"And it has a horrible effect," concluded Zirin, "right at a time where in the wake of the Obama victory we should be talking about solidarity, we should be talking about expanding our forces, we should be talking about fighting for the change that we all waited on line to vote for."

Texas Official: Obama Sides with Terrorists

State Board of Education member Cynthia Dunbar isn't backing down from her claim that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is plotting with terrorists to attack the U.S.

The Texas Freedom Network, a watchdog group that monitors the board, released a public statement on Monday asking Dunbar to retract the statement.

"I don't have anything in there that would be retractable," said Dunbar, R-Richmond. "Those are my personal opinions and I don't think the language is questionable."

In a column posted on the Christian Worldview Network Web site, Dunbar wrote that a terrorist attack on America during the first six months of an Obama administration "will be a planned effort by those with whom Obama truly sympathizes to take down the America that is threat to tyranny."

She also suggests Obama would seek to expand his power by declaring martial law throughout the country.

"No matter who you support for president, we should all be able to agree that Ms. Dunbar's disgusting attack is a shocking example of the extremism that has infected the state board," TFN President Kathy Miller said.

"It's stunning that a board member who helps decide what Texas children learn in their public schools would say something so disgusting and reprehensible. She should be taking refresher courses in civics and good citizenship, not deciding what Texas kids learn."

The State Board of Education will begin revising public school social studies curriculum standards after adopting rules for science next year. Those standards will determine the content in new public school textbooks.

"Right now, we're still in America and we still have freedom of speech," Dunbar said. "And unless that's changed, I'm not aware of it."

Georgia Congressman Calls Obama Marxist

Is Obama the Anti Christ?

Below you will find an email that was circulating around about this hideous claim. I wanted to clear this up and use the bible to prove this claim is just bullshit.

According to the Book of Revelations the anti-christ is: The anti-christ will be a man, in his 40s, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal.... the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything. Is it OBAMA??

Revelation (the final book of the New Testament) and Nostradamus' Prophecies are two all-purpose befuddling works. If you want to sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt (or simply yank people's chains), simply claim that some prominent person or recent event corresponds to descriptions that presage the end of the world, as elaborated by Revelation or Nostradamus. After all, comparatively few people have read either of those works; most people just have some vague idea that they describe, in detail, a coming apocalypse and the signs that will herald its imminent arrival. So pick your target, make up a list of reasons to explain how it supposedly matches up with end-of-the-world predictions, and watch the process of bewilderment begin. (We saw this happen in spades with bogus Nostradamus prophecies immediately after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.)

The item quoted above, linking presidential candidate Barack Obama with the figure of the anti-Christ, is more of the same type of denigrative fiction. Contrary to popular belief, the New Testament book of Revelation (not "Revelations," as it is commonly rendered) does not provide a laundry list of signs for identifying the appearance of an anti-Christ. In fact, it neither uses the term "anti-Christ" nor describes such a figure — Chapter 13 of that book merely recounts the appearance of "beasts," who are depicted in animalistic terms (as rendered in the King James version of the Bible):

And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.

And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? Who is able to make war with him?

And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.

And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.

And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

If any man have an ear, let him hear.

He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.

And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.

And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,

And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.

And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

The term "anti-Christ" is mentioned several times in the first and second letters of John, but none of those passages specifically describes or identifies the anti-Christ figure (other than as a denier of the divinity of Jesus):

Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Nothing in the Bible — in Revelation or elsewhere — describes the anti-Christ as being "a man, in his 40s, of Muslim descent." In fact, since the book of Revelation was complete by the end of the second century, but the religion of Islam wasn't founded until about four hundred years later, the notion that Revelation would have mentioned a "Muslim" at all is rather far-fetched. (And even if it did, it couldn't be construed as a reference to Barack Obama, since Senator Obama isn't a Muslim.)

The Biblical citation most relevant to this issue might not be one from Revelation, but rather this passage from the Gospel of Matthew:

Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves.

And even this is such a broad statement. My mother is a christian and told me, if Obama is the anti Christ, there is nothing anyone can do about it. According to the teachings in the religion, he will come and no one, repeat key words, no one will know who it is because he will be so convincing other wise. Everyone will fall for it. There will be no one claiming they know who this person is.

To just show you how crazy this is, in my research I found an article about how the president of France, Sarkozy is the anti Christ. This proves that it is just rumors from paranoid people who think they know it all.

What I find amazing is how actual self proclaimed Christians do not know their bible. Even though they cling to it, they misquote it constantly. How is that even possible? It is because most religious people are sheep and follow. They do not research the information for themselves. They accept it from their pastor as truth.

I hope this opened someones eyes. Read your bible if you really believe that book was written by God. Study it and stop misquoting it!

Bush Leaves U.S. Battered & Bruised

In his two terms in the White House, US President George W. Bush has presided over a precipitous fall in America's reputation around the world. History is likely to judge him a failure. Now, his successor will have to dig the US out of a deep hole.

The Chinese astronaut Zhai Zhigang was filled with pride as he reported to Chinese mission control from his space capsule. It was Saturday, Sept. 27 and Zhigang was about embark on his first space walk, marking a breakthrough for the space program of this rising power in the Far East. President Hu Jintao looked jubilant in the live television broadcast. With its successful excursion outside the space capsule, the People's Republic, as a nation in space, drew level with the United States and Russia in one important respect. Indeed, Beijing is already discussing a manned expedition to the moon. Once exclusively American, the Earth's biggest satellite may soon become Chinese as well.

Almost at the same time, at a point halfway around the earth, a finance minister was doing something highly unusual: falling to his knees in a gesture of desperation. The Republican Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson was kneeling before the Democratic Speaker of the US House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi, begging her to do everything in her power to make sure that the $700-billion bailout package for the US economy was passed. Paulson's unmistakable message was that the United States was on the brink of an abyss.

Meanwhile, the White House, the center of power in this superpower, seemed oddly abandoned, as if no one were at home. As if 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C., were temporarily closed for renovations. It wasn't, of course, but amazingly enough, had it been, hardly anyone would have noticed. The master of the house, certainly, would be missed by only a few. Bush did address his fellow Americans to talk about the financial crisis, but he seemed oddly disinterested. And even in these dramatic times, hardly anyone was listening. He may still be the president, but is he no longer shaping policy.

"The fundamentals of our economy are strong," the president said in August. But what could be more disconcerting than to be told by George W. Bush that everyone is going to be alright?

Click the title of the Blog to Read More

More Deregulation?

White House Makes Final Push To Deregulate

The White House is working to enact a wide array of federal regulations, many of which would weaken government rules aimed at protecting consumers and the environment, before President Bush leaves office in January.

The new rules would be among the most controversial deregulatory steps of the Bush era and could be difficult for his successor to undo. Some would ease or lift constraints on private industry, including power plants, mines and farms.

Those and other regulations would help clear obstacles to some commercial ocean-fishing activities, ease controls on emissions of pollutants that contribute to global warming, relax drinking-water standards and lift a key restriction on mountaintop coal mining.

Once such rules take effect, they typically can be undone only through a laborious new regulatory proceeding, including lengthy periods of public comment, drafting and mandated reanalysis.

"They want these rules to continue to have an impact long after they leave office," said Matthew Madia, a regulatory expert at OMB Watch, a nonprofit group critical of what it calls the Bush administration's penchant for deregulating in areas where industry wants more freedom. He called the coming deluge "a last-minute assault on the public . . . happening on multiple fronts."

White House spokesman Tony Fratto said: "This administration has taken extraordinary measures to avoid rushing regulations at the end of the term. And yes, we'd prefer our regulations stand for a very long time -- they're well reasoned and are being considered with the best interests of the nation in mind."

As many as 90 new regulations are in the works, and at least nine of them are considered "economically significant" because they impose costs or promote societal benefits that exceed $100 million annually. They include new rules governing employees who take family- and medical-related leaves, new standards for preventing or containing oil spills, and a simplified process for settling real estate transactions.

While it remains unclear how much the administration will be able to accomplish in the coming weeks, the last-minute rush appears to involve fewer regulations than Bush's predecessor, Bill Clinton, approved at the end of his tenure.

In some cases, Bush's regulations reflect new interpretations of language in federal laws. In other cases, such as several new counterterrorism initiatives, they reflect new executive branch decisions in areas where Congress -- now out of session and focused on the elections -- left the president considerable discretion.

The burst of activity has made this a busy period for lobbyists who fear that industry views will hold less sway after the elections. The doors at the New Executive Office Building have been whirling with corporate officials and advisers pleading for relief or, in many cases, for hastened decision making.

According to the Office of Management and Budget's regulatory calendar, the commercial scallop-fishing industry came in two weeks ago to urge that proposed catch limits be eased, nearly bumping into National Mining Association officials making the case for easing rules meant to keep coal slurry waste out of Appalachian streams. A few days earlier, lawyers for kidney dialysis and biotechnology companies registered their complaints at the OMB about new Medicare reimbursement rules. Lobbyists for customs brokers complained about proposed counterterrorism rules that require the advance reporting of shipping data.

Bush's aides are acutely aware of the political risks of completing their regulatory work too late. On the afternoon of Bush's inauguration, Jan. 20, 2001, his chief of staff issued a government-wide memo that blocked the completion or implementation of regulations drafted in the waning days of the Clinton administration that had not yet taken legal effect.

"Through the end of the Clinton administration, we were working like crazy to get as many regulations out as possible," said Donald R. Arbuckle, who retired in 2006 after 25 years as an OMB official. "Then on Sunday, the day after the inauguration, OMB Director Mitch Daniels called me in and said, 'Let's pull back as many of these as we can.'"

Wag the Blog: Is Drudge Still Relevant?

No Fix post in recent memory has provoked the sort of reaction -- some of it good, but mostly bad -- generated by the two pieces we did on the influence of Matt Drudge (and his eponymous Drudge Report).

The first -- entitled "How Matt Drudge Rules the (Political) World" -- detailed Drudge's influence over the campaign narrative during the Democratic primary season; the second -- "Drudgeology 101" -- sought to explain why Drudge's coverage, which at one time has been so favorable to Barack Obama, had begun to turn against the Illinois senator.

In the former post, we led with this idea: "There's little debate that Matt Drudge and his eponymous website sit at the junction of politics and journalism in the modern media age."

But, over the last few weeks, some members of the political chattering class have begun to question whether Matt Drudge is as powerful as he once was.

To wit:

• On Monday, Drudge posted a link to this You Tube clip featuring an Obama radio interview from 2001 with a headline that blared: "2001 OBAMA: TRAGEDY THAT 'REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH' NOT PURSUED BY SUPREME COURT."
  
• Early on Tuesday, Drudge used a comic book picture of Obama over a headline that read: "ABCCBSNBCNYTLATWSJCNNMSNBCAPREUTERSAFPPOLITICOFTTIMEWASHPOSTNEWSWEEK: CAN THEY ALL BE WRONG?" It linked to this column on media bias by technology writer Michael Malone.
  
• Later in the day, Drudge led his site for hours with a picture of a smiling Obama giving the "thumbs up" over a banner headline reading: "OBAMA SAYS 'DAY OFF' WORK FOR ELECTION."
  
• Then on Wednesday, Drudge featured an image of one of Gallup's likely voter models that showed Obama at 49 percent and McCain at 47 percent with the headline: "TRICK OR TREAT: GALLUP SAYS OBAMA +2."

It's clear from this series of posts that Drudge believes the media is missing a John McCain comeback, and he is bound and determined to push the idea that Obama is far from a sure thing.

Mark Halperin, a veteran Drudgeologist and the editor of the indispensable Page at Time.com, recently took note of the content shift by Drudge arguing: "Follows recent pattern of posting things that seem not to help Obama -- including Biden's Orlando TV interview, the closer sets of polling data and more."

At issue is whether Drudge who, inarguably did more to frame Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry as an out-of-touch elitist than any other major player in the 2004 election (Don't believe us? Go read "The Way To Win"), has lost some of his ability to influence the message of the campaign.

Phil Singer, former deputy communications director for Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential bid, believes he has.

In a post headlined "Is Drudge Losing His Mojo," Singer cites the same examples we have above and concludes:

"Lately it seems that the 'Roger Ailes of the Internet' isn't packing the kind of heat that made him famous. I'm not on the trail but it seems like reporters aren't chasing every item on Drudge as hard as they once did."

For today's Wag the Blog question, we want to know whether you agree or disagree with Singer's contention. Is Drudge less able to influence the daily dialogue of the campaign than he was even a few months ago? Or is he still the most potent news driver going? Why?

The most thoughtful/insightful comments will be featured in a Fix post of their own later this week. To qualify, all thoughts must be made in the comments section below not emailed directly to The Fix.

Spreading the Wealth: The Politics of Class Warfare

John McCain said in the last debate, “The whole premise behind Sen. Obama’s plans are class warfare – let’s spread the wealth around.”

Unfortunately not only does he share George Bush’s economic philosophy, he even shares Bush’s tortured syntax. What McCain and the whole right wing leadership refuse to acknowledge are the facts pointed out by Warren Buffett, one of the richest men in the world. “There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

Democracy is a philosophy of government, one in which the will of the majority is meant to determine policy. By its nature it is meant to serve the common good. Capitalism and socialism are economic systems, neither of which is specified by the constitution. The right has continually tried to equate democracy with capitalism – an assertion both historically and, by definition, inaccurate. Whenever this is pointed out, the right hollers “class war” and “socialism,” categorizing people who suffer from the right’s excesses as malcontents and wild-eyed radicals whose ideas are not worthy of discussion.

The Will of the Few
Beginning with the election of Ronald Reagan we have been in a period in which the goals of those on the right have been unleashed on the rest of us. Did they create a free market? No, they created a market that redistributed wealth to the rich.

This historic battle in politics is about which economic system achieves our common good and protects individual rights. Capitalism is an economic system that benefits those with individual power and influence. The nature of those who succeed in such a system pushes them to seek even more. The result is a neutered government and undue influence of the rich and powerful. The common good has been relegated to the back seat, looking out the window, while the hyper-capitalist globalizers have taken sole control of the wheel.

We can’t come to the end of the Bush administration’s ride soon enough. If we are not to descend into the dark ages their ridiculous supply-side economics, neo-con foreign policy and insane willingness to destroy the planet’s viability in the interest of oil companies must come to an end. The cavalier attitude towards the constitution and its amendments, criminal politicization of regulatory agencies and the justice department, and creation of the biggest internal security department since those of Stalinist Russia and Mao’s China must end. People tend to forget civilization once went backwards for almost 1000 years. It can again.

The full Republican “trickle-down economy” was put into process, and they turned a surplus into a deficit, destroyed the effectiveness of agencies meant to protect citizens, and bled working people and small businesses of capital. They suppressed unions, gave all kinds of government advantages to corporations over locally owned family businesses and, in return, offered them unlimited debt with cheap interest come-ons. At the same time, the administration’s policy of increasing the money supply, along with huge tax breaks to the rich, fueled the massive speculation responsible for this bust.

Not-So-Bright Future
The challenge for the next president will be monumental. He will be faced with getting out of Iraq and somehow returning some stability to the region that we destabilized. There is a war in Afghanistan that no foreign power has ever been able to win, an unstable, nuclear-armed Pakistan and a China that is facing environmental catastrophe and potential instability as a result of the economic crises. China’s stock market has declined 60 percent in value. Much of China’s middle class has bought stock in the soaring market on credit.

The challenges to global climate catastrophe must be faced now. The current world economic model requires an ever-increasing consumerism of an ever-increasing number of people, from ever-decreasing resources. It is an unsustainable model. How unsustainable? At current levels of greenhouse gas emissions alone – theirs is never a discussion of decrease –the planet will be largely uninhabitable by the end of the century. In the interim, that means an increase in the intensity and number of large hurricanes and dramatic shifts in rainfall and other normal weather variances. This, along with higher sea levels, has huge implications for coastal areas. A look up the coast makes that clear.

Global climate change also is expected to expand migration, legal and illegal, around the world. We already see how overpopulation and globalization have created instability on our own southern border. This poverty, along with the war on drugs, has created an unstable government right next door.

Curbing Consumption
Steve Pearlstein writes that economic conditions have halted expanded consumerism for the foreseeable future. He says in an Oct. 15 Washington Post article, “We are at the beginning of a transition period in which our collective spending as a nation will go from roughly 6-7 percent more than what we produce to closer to 2-3 percent less than we produce. We’re going to have to consume less, which means a temporary reduction in our standard of living.”

The economic structure must be corrected to put us on a path of a sustainable, less-consuming economy. The government has committed $2.6 trillion already to stem the blood-letting caused by the masters of the universe, and there are still bubbles left to break. The auto bubble is collapsing. The credit card business will be next. The rest of the dominoes to fall include hedge funds, commercial real estate and, of course, the leveraged-buyout junk bonds. While many believe the Dow will eventually level out at 8000-8200, a figure that is the historic projection of where we should be, it may well reach much lower before coming back to that point. Meanwhile, the great trail of buried debt publicly unwinds savaging investor confidence.

In addition to the millions who already have, millions more will lose their jobs, homes, health insurance and future opportunities for education and economic advancement. While those on the right scream class warfare, socialism and wealth redistribution, they embrace socialism for the richest among us. So that their problems won’t rain down on us, they say. Trickle down has already rained on us at the middle and the bottom of the food chain, and is bound to even more.

The government’s bailout plan does not give us a guaranteed return on our investment. We instead receive warrants, somewhat like stock options, that can be cashed in later. When we bailed out Chrysler, they were able to get a favorable administration to dismiss our warrants on their stock when it recovered, after taxpayers’ help.

In discussing the initial $2.6 trillion bailout plans, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, who fought against restrictions on executives of bailed-out companies, said, “Government owning a stake in any private U.S. company is objectionable to most Americans — me included.” Paulson wants you to invest tax money in banks, thrifts and companies, but the government will have no involvement in the decision making of those banks. That will be left to those who got us in this mess to start with. Unlike Roosevelt, who sent federal bank examiners into institutions to determine their true worth and viability, the administration of the bailout will be contracted out. To whom you ask? Again, the same companies that created this mess.

Secretary Paulson, the former Goldman Sachs C.E.O. and one of the leaders in creating this bust, has, instead of bringing direct government intervention to straighten out this mess, made public the debt and privatized government economic policy. This is to avoid socialism? Not one of the barons of capitalism would invest billions in a business and not have a voice in its management.

Politics is All About Where the Money Goes
The real dilemma is not socialism vs. capitalism but the top down neo-liberal capitalist economics of Milton Friedman vs. the bottom up capitalist economics of John Maynard Keynes. The top down or “trickle down” economics of Friedman and other right wing economists theory is that if you give more money to the rich through tax breaks and subsidies while cutting social programs, they will invest it creating jobs and wealth growth.

Keynesian economics says that in downturns you create deficit spending that goes into infrastructure and types of development that puts money into workers pockets who will then spend it boosting economic activity and wealth creation. This was what Franklin Roosevelt did in the New Deal.

While many will say that it was WWII that ended the depression, it was still Keynesian economics as the government gave contracts to produce war materials that directly employed people and funneled money to them to fuel the economic recovery. That philosophy guided public policy up until Ronald Reagan, the greatest period of economic growth in the history of the country.

It boils down to examining history. Twice in recent history we have shifted the playing field to the advantage of the rich and powerful (Friedman style) and the results were the great depression and our current situation. So let’s stop talking about capitalism vs. socialism and talk about the historical results of the implementation of these approaches.

It’s pretty straightforward. We have trillions of dollars of infrastructure, education and other needs. Set government policy that will produce energy efficient and other products we need to sustain our future and put money back in workers pockets where it has been disappearing since the 1970’s.

The Barons of Wall Street have had their chance and it didn’t work any better the second time. It’s time to move back towards the Keynesian economic policies that Barack Obama wants to implement that have been successful in the past and for the Republicans to get off the socialism soap box.

Palin: 'I Don't Know' If Abortion Clinic Bombers Are Terrorists

So when it is in the name of lives for those at war and our rights, it is domestic terrorism. But when you bomb a "baby killing clinic", then you are not a domestic terrorist...is that what she said?

Terrorism - The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

This woman needs an education and then that may not even help.

What is an American?

Recently the idea has come about that those who do not believe in certain values are not Americans.

Palin said at a campaign rally that "she enjoys visiting pro-American cities" in America. I did not realize there was places that are not American enough in America....

There is a congressman who is saying that all of congress should be investigated to see who is anti-American.

When did being an American become a certain lifestyle? Is not being an American about our unity even though we are a diverse nation?

I believe that our core rights allows each one of us to interpret how we see the American dream and how we each choose to live it. Some get married. Some smoke pot all day. Some work and some lay around and play video games. But is this not what America is about? Being able to be an individual and do what you want, when you want as long as it hurts no one else?

I am tired of these power hungry politicians trying to create a sense of nationalism in this country. It is the same path as Nazi Germany pursued and a very dangerous line of thinking. By creating a false idea of what a real American is, you are creating fake boundaries. You are isolating people. That is not what America is about....

I am an American and my beliefs and how I see the world have no implications on that fact.....I question the patriotism of those who wish to divide us with fear when our country is about unity.

Remember, the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself.