The IUSB Vision Weblog

The way to crush the middle class is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation. – Vladimir Lenin

Archive for January 4th, 2011

Democrat Leader Pelosi: If All Americans had affordable health care, we would still pass ObamaCare

Posted by iusbvision on January 4, 2011


It is amazing to normal people how these politicians will just sit there and lie or repeat a manufactured lie/halftruth.

ObamaCare will create jobs: It sure will, tens of thousands of new government bureaucrat jobs.

The “non partisan Congressional Budget Office said that it would reduce the deficit”:

They said that because the Democrats made the CBO score it according to a set of assumptions that are not going to happen. Such as doctor reimbursements dropping and staying so low that Doctors could not afford to take Medicare patients and other such tricks to hide expenses or count money twice.

Even when the CBO is given realistic scoring instructions they still get it way off. The cost of every program is underestimated, the impact of tax cuts and tax increases is usually wrong. This is because the CBO uses near static Keynesian models to forecast.

I will slightly exaggerate the following example to make the point. McDonald’s sells one million hamburgers a year. Congress tells the CBO that we will place a $100 tax on each burger. How much money will the government take in?

CBO – 100 million dollars.

OK CBO, those nasty Republicans want to cut the tax from $100 to $1. Based on the previous model how much will the Republicans increase the deficit?

CBO – 99 million dollars.

Of course the truth is that no one is going to buy the burger with a $100 tax on each one, but lots of people will buy them if there is only a $1 tax. The reality is that the government will collect more money with the reduced tax rate, but that is not how the CBO would score it under these instructions.

Now you know why the CBO first 20 year outlay estimate for Medicare looked so affordable to Congress, they only underestimated the cost by nearly a factor of 10.

But when asked to give their own opinion when they are not being played or tied to obsolete models the CBO says things like THIS:

Under current law, the federal budget is on an unsustainable path, because federal debt will continue to grow much faster than the economy over the long run. Although great uncertainty surrounds long-term fiscal projections, rising costs for health care and the aging of the population will cause federal spending to increase rapidly under any plausible scenario for current law. Unless revenues increase just as rapidly, the rise in spending will produce growing budget deficits. Large budget deficits would reduce national saving, leading to more borrowing from abroad and less domestic investment, which in turn would depress economic growth in the United States. Over time, accumulating debt would cause substantial harm to the economy.

Even Obama’s own Medicare Actuary says that ObamaCare will make healthcare costs go up on the states, on private insurance and as a percentage of GDP which makes it even less sustainable than it is now; also consider that these are from his Administration’s own rose colored scenario.

Politically the repeal effort, while unlikely to succeed until 2013, when there is a new president, is smart for Republicans, because the Democrats will have to defend the tax increases, the adverse selection spirals and all of the other problems with this bill all over again.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Economics 101, Health Law, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration, True Talking Points | Leave a Comment »

Girls defeat US Border fence in under 18 seconds. Napolitano: Obama Administration’s Security of Border is Unprecedented

Posted by iusbvision on January 4, 2011

We have heard Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano say it many times that the resources put into border enforcement is unprecedented. The reality is the border is a joke, they know its a joke, so they hire a few more border agents and say “See we have unprecedented effort” when in reality the enforcement is not even close to being serious.

In the mean time while anyone can cross our borders with ease, you have to face breast, crotch and underwear checks, nude scanners and God help you if you are an amputee or use a colostomy bag and retaliation from the government if you complain.

Feel safe?

Via The Blaze:

Remember Homeland Security Secretary Jane Napalitano’s mantra from last year the border is “as secure now as it has ever been”? (See here and here.) No one better show her the following video, which claims to show two young girls tackling, and conquering, the U.S./Mexico immigration fence in under 18 seconds — by hand:

The video comes from the creator of a film called “The Other Side of Immigration.” Interestingly, the goal of that film and the above video is not meant as a statement on the necessity of increased border security. Rather, the film bills itself as a documentary purporting to show the plight of Mexicans, why they are flocking to the U.S., and an alternative theory on how to stop illegal immigration.

Posted in Chuck Norton, Culture War, Government Gone Wild, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Allen West: Liberal Progressive Agenda is Antithesis of Who We Are as a Republic

Posted by iusbvision on January 4, 2011

Now some of you will watch this and think he is being over the top. But is he?

Allen West he defines tyranny as the Founders did. Think about the situation, what would the Founders think of the following:

All three branches of government are now legislating on their own and against the will of the people. We have a breakdown of separation of powers. Federalism is all but eliminated. Government is infringing on private property rights more and more, government owns most of the land west of the Mississippi to prevent us from using our own resources, Congress banned the Thomas Edison light bulb, government uses the tax code and other regulations to pick winners and losers and funnel money to their allies, judges and other office holders do not respect the limits of their office or the Constitution. The government is becoming so big that it is becoming ungovernable.

Congress spent almost $4 trillion last year with $2.08 trillion of that being new deficit spending which is 10 times higher than the yearly deficit the last year the Republicans had budgetary control.

Does anyone doubt for a minute that George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, James Madison, Jon Jay, Ben Rush, George Mason, Gouverneur Morris, Sam Adams, or Alexander Hamilton would say otherwise? Would Abe Lincoln, Frederick Douglass or Joseph Story?

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Energy & Taxes, Government Gone Wild, Post 2010 | Leave a Comment »

DNC Chair Tim Kaine: Obama too busy with ObamaCare to worry about jobs and the economy

Posted by iusbvision on January 4, 2011

ObamaCare, bank take overs, car company micromanaging, power grabs in the Food Bill and the new Financial Regulation Bill etc etc etc…. all while trillions are spent and only a few people are helped…


Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Corporatism, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Press Grilled Bush When Gas Hit $3.00 – Nada for Obama… UPDATED!

Posted by iusbvision on January 4, 2011

Paying attention journalism students?

Via the Media Research Center:

Gas prices are “soaring” again, crossing the $3-a-gallon threshold on Dec. 23 for the first time since Oct. 17, 2008. Back then the benchmark was a relief as prices plunged from the highest price ever of $4.11.

Pump prices have been climbing all month, yet network reports downplayed the pain and suffering of consumers. Jim Axelrod of CBS called it “bad news” after reporting some positive economic news on Dec. 28, but concluded “The economy’s not great, says economist Dan Greenhaus, but not terrible either.”

Compare that to past media exaggeration of gas prices. NBC’s Anne Thompson said that “no matter what kind of gas is sold, today it’s now unbelievably expensive” on Aug. 31, 2005. That day the national average for gasoline was $2.62 – but the gas price signs shown in Thompson’s report were much higher at $3.49.

That same night, ABC’s Charles Gibson claimed that gas was approaching $4-a-gallon.

Conversely, as prices fell throughout the summer of 2007, the network news media ignored gas price declines emphasizing “skyrocketing,” “soaring,” and “painfully high” prices over the drop.

What’s the difference between then and now? The president has changed from Bush to Obama, and with it the media’s attitude toward gas prices has shifted.

The Heritage Foundation noted on Dec. 29 that the press pestered Bush about gas costs and the political consequences of high pump prices, but have yet to ask Obama the question. CBS suggested on April 26, 2006, that President Bush needed to “do something” about gas prices.

A few months later, on Aug. 21, 2006, Bush was asked at a press conference: “What do you say to people who are losing patience with gas prices at $3 a gallon? And how much of a political price do you think you’re paying for that, right now?”

Heritage cited further examples of Democrats pressing the White House to “ease” prices (when prices were below $2-a-gallon), and Speaker Nancy Pelosi attacking the president for rising gas prices.

Under Obama, the networks haven’t breathlessly exaggerated gasoline prices as they did under Bush or demanded to know what the president will do to “ease” prices.

More Bad News:

Yet according to Heritage Obama’s policies will continue to make gasoline more expensive.

Heritage wrote: “Now this week, analysts including former president of Shell Oil, John Hofmeister, say Americans could be paying $5/gallon of gasoline by 2012. Investment banks are predicting a return to $100/barrel oil, andOPEC is refusing to raise production. All of this news would be less frightening if the White House were focusing on potential ways to lower energy prices. Instead, President Obama is admittedly fixated with raising them.”

How does Obama plan to raise prices? With further EPA regulations of power plants and oil refineries, and more rules for natural resources on government properties and the ‘de facto moratorium’ on oil drilling.



Posted in Alarmism, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Energy & Taxes, Journalism Is Dead | Leave a Comment »

Washington Post Refuses to Publish Own Poll Showing ObamaCare’s Lowest Popularity Ever

Posted by iusbvision on January 4, 2011

Gotta love the elite media. After all they decide what they think you need to know and leave out what they don’t.

File this one under desperate…

Via Newsbusters:

A new ABC-Washington Post poll found ObamaCare sunk to its lowest popularity yet: 52 percent opposed, and only 43 percent in favor. ABC mentioned the poll without fanfare at the end of a Jake Tapper report on Monday’s World News, and Tapper added this was the health law’s “lowest level of popularity ever.” But Tuesday’s Washington Post reported not one sentence on the poll in the paper – even as they reported in the paper that the same survey found Obama’s tax-and-unemployment-compensation deal has “broad bipartisan support.”

This is the same Post that highlighted the news on Page One on October 20, 2009, when they found a “clear majority” in favor of a socialist “public option” — amid charges they oversampled Democrats.

The numbers weren’t excluded because they arrived late. The Post poll numbers went up on the website yesterday at about 1 pm, under the headline “Health care opponents divided on repeal.” That obscured the numbers a bit, as Cohen found a “slim majority” (not a “clear majority”?) currently oppose ObamaCare:

Overall, 52 percent of those polled oppose the overhaul to the health care system, 43 percent are supportive of it. Fully 86 percent of Republicans are against the legislation; 67 percent of Democrats support it. Independents divide down the middle, with 47 percent in favor and the same number opposed.

Cohen made no mention of that phrase “lowest level of popularity ever.” He did try to suggest that the individual mandate was wildly unpopular — implying other parts of ObamaCare are still worth keeping:

Among the general public, the Kaiser poll showed 68 percent supportive of a repeal of the individual mandate. Of four core components of the health care law tested in the poll, the individual mandate was the one with the highest negatives, by far. Seventy percent of all those polled said they held an unfavorable view of the requirement that everyone carry insurance, including 52 percent who had “strongly unfavorable” opinions.


But wait! There’s more! Speaking of oversampling Democrats….

The WashPo poll was posted online December 13th showing 52% opposing ObamaCare, BUT a Rasmussen Reports poll published December 12th shows that 60% favored ObamaCare’s repeal, with 55% favoring repeal the following week and 60% favoring the repeal last week and this week.

Posted in 2012, Chuck Norton, Health Law, Journalism Is Dead, Obama and Congress Post Inaugration | Leave a Comment »

Lesson for Journalism Students: Leftist Media Attack Fox News for Memo Reminding Reporters to Always be Skeptical

Posted by iusbvision on January 4, 2011

There are two predominant philosophies of journalism taught in this country. The “Walter Lippmann (so called) ‘objective’ model” and what one of  my J-School profs called the “Looking out for the folks” model. The former is usually presented as the preferred model at most universities (especially the Ivy’s)

The Lippmann Objective Model is anything but objective. The Lippmann model says that journalists should associate themselves with an elite technical class of people so that these experts via/with the journalists can give the “proper” information to the public so that they can “vote the right way”.

At first, the Orwellian nature of the Lippmann Model  is not so pointedly explained, but as time goes on reporters get it and the coverage of the elite media shows it. [If you doubt me I challenge you to follow this LINK and scroll down to the quote from Dr. Rahe and the excerpt from Lippmann’s book – Editor]

For example, the reporter and/or editor has a point of view he wishes to present. So he opens his rolodex and contacts an “expert” he knows will give him the sound-bite he wants and presents him as just an objective expert who they found at random. Or said reporter will have a man on the street section, but the reporter will call a few people he knows to be on that street, complete with the narrative that the reporter knows will present.

Oh? You think I’m kidding? OK just a few examples:

CNN Debates: Unbiased and Undecided Voters Turn Out to be Democrat Operatives (most of whom had appeared on CNN before)

Of course this is a trick commonly used by PR operatives:

Washington Post: Obama Town Hall Questioners Were Campaign Ringers

Obama’s Photo Op with Cheering Troops Staged

BUSTED: Democrats putting campaign ringers in town halls falsely claiming to be doctors!

Of course the Associated Press knows this goes on, but only appreciates it when leftists do it:

AP praises Obama for using military for public relations. FLASHBACK: AP condemned Bush accusing him of using the military for public relations.

The “looking out for the folks” model is often quoted by Bill O’Reilly, but Bill, as he will tell you, is more of a commentator than a straight news man. The spirit of the kind of journalism O’Reilly did when he was a straight news man is closer to this model. The “looking out for the folks” model certainly resembles more of the ethical ideal in what people expect from journalism and is what “Lippmann Objective Model” media outlets claim to be on their face.

Enough with the preliminary goodies and on to the meat.

Washington Examiner:

Oh the horror! Fox bureau chief told reporters to be ‘skeptical’

By Mark Tapscott

You think the most essential purpose of journalism and the reason the Founders included freedom of the press in the First Amendment was to insure independent reporting about government, politicians, and public policy issues, right?

Well, you must be wrong because Fox News Washington Bureau Chief Bill Sammon is getting a raft of garbage from liberal activists masquerading as journalists at Media Matters, some liberal bloggers and a scattering of real journalists who ought to know better.

Why? Politico’s headline captures the controversy perfectly: “Fox editor urged climate skepticism.”

A journalist being skeptical? Who would ever have thought such a thing could be. I don’t know, maybe anybody who has heard this (attributed long ago to a crusty desk editor at the illustrious City News Bureau in Chicago): “If your mother tells you she loves you, check it out.”

In other words, we journalists are paid to BE SKEPTICAL.

For the record, here’s what Sammon said in a Dec. 8, 2009, memo to his reporting staff shortly after the Climategate global warming email scandal erupted:

“Given the controversy over the veracity of climate change data, we should refrain from asserting that the planet has warmed (or cooled) in any given period without IMMEDIATELY pointing out that such theories are based upon data that critics have called into question. It is not our place as journalists to assert such notions as facts, especially as this debate intensifies.”

Now I am from out of town and all, but Sammon’s injuction sounds to me exactly like what editors are supposed to tell their charges – report what A claims and what B says about what A claims, but keep your personal views about both A and B out of it.

Note that Sammon includes both those who say the planet has warmed – i.e. global warming advocates – and those who claim the opposite, that the planet has cooled – global warming critics. How much more even-handed – dare I say it, fair and balanced? – can the guy be?

There is also the factual nature of Sammon’s statement that critics question data. Critics DO question the data for a warming planet. He doesn’t demand that his reporters agree with the critics about the data or tell viewers that the critics are right and the global warming advocates are wrong.

Yet, Salon’s headline claims the Fox news executive was “again caught demanding conservative spin.” And the lead that follows makes another false statement, claiming Sammon directed his “anchors and reporters to adopt right-wing spin when discussing the news.”

Are these people so arrogant as to think the rest of us are too stupid to see that Salon totally and completely misrepresented Sammon’s comment?

The back story here, of course, is that Media Matters is doing exactly what billionaire radical liberal financier George Soros paid it $1 million to do, which is to trash Fox News at every opportunity no matter what the facts might be in any given situation.

Watching this campaign unfold, it becomes clear that Fox News drives today’s extremist liberals into the same sort of eye-bulging, irrational, spittle-flying, blind rage that we saw back in the 1950s from the far right whack-jobs in the John Birch Society who claimed Ike was either a fool or a card-carrying commie.

Now, just so everybody reading this knows: Sammon is a former White House reporter for The Examiner. I count him as a friend, a respected colleague and a solid journalist. And Fox News puts me in front of a camera as a talking head once in a while.

So how long you think it will be before Sammon’s critics claim my comments here aren’t credible as a result? The reality is that the left-leaning MSNBC folks sit me down in front of their cameras to bloviate far more frequently than Fox does. Go figure.

So here’s something to ponder when the paid Fox detractors at Media Matters tell you Sammon and I are both former Washington Timesmen and are thus Republican mouthpieces:

I was inducted into the First Amendment Center’s Freedom of Information Hall of Fame a few years ago. I mention this not to boast, but because I was among a bunch of very smart people for whom I have great respect – even though they came predominantly from the liberal side of things.

But I don’t recall seeing anybody from Media Matters among the inductees.

Posted in Alarmism, Campus Freedom, Indoctrination & Censorship, Chuck Norton, Journalism Is Dead, Leftist Hate in Action | 1 Comment »