Steve Kroft’s explosive 60 Minutes report on rampant ‘legal’ congressional insider trading last Sunday provoked fury and heartache at an elitist political class spiraling out of control. I cannot claim to have romantic notions about any politician, but this latest disclosure is the final nail in the coffin. For politicians to use access to insider information to line their own pockets while sitting on or even trashing legislation that might adversely affect their personal profits is despicable. All the while, Wall Street continues to function like a giant Ponzi scheme. Representatives who claim to have our backs instead put us on the hook for irresponsible business practices and then profit from the same mistakes that cost average Americans their pensions.

We know that the regular rules do not apply to the “1 percenters.” Make no mistake; the 1 percenters refer to politicians as much as any “evil” banker since Congress counts at least 267 millionaires in their ranks. The message to those of us out here on the ground is clear: Take what crumbs we give you. Your voices will not be heard.

CBS’ 60 Minutes reported insider trading activity by four Republicans, including House Speaker Boehner, and only one Democrat, namely former Speaker and current Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Yet Throw Them All Out, Peter Schweizer’s book on which Kroft’s report is based, implicates plenty of Democrats, including Senator John Kerry who made a killing on pharmaceutical stocks in 2003 while on a committee influencing the same. But given the current nature of the fourth estate, with many reporters trading objectivity for access and a seven figure book deal, I am shocked such a story saw the light of day, balanced or not.

In Ms. Pelosi’s case, while House Speaker, she and her husband were offered very favorable terms in a credit card IPO. She likewise made a killing while sitting on legislation for two years that would have reduced her profit margin. For shame. Schweizer was condemned by Ms. Pelosi’s team as a “conservative writer” with an “agenda” even though Kroft stated that Schweizer’s research had been independently confirmed. Republican Rep. Spencer Bachus of Georgia, chair of the House Committee on Financial Services, basically bet against his own county in the financial crisis of 2008 and likewise made a killing in the market. There are now calls for his resignation.

As a result of Schweizer’s book, legislation is being proposed to stop the outrageous practice of legal insider trading by Congress. Let’s see how far it gets. It has been tried before only to die a quick death.

While Tea Partyers and the Occupy Wall Street crowds have gained some traction calling attention to perils of government overspending and greedy bankers, respectively, it is the Tea Party that has a more accurate perspective. Only through an irresponsible legislative body on both sides does other crooked activity flourish. It all rolls downhill.

Unfortunately, the truth of that message is obscured. The bulk of mainstream media helps to muddy the waters with biased coverage.

Most media outlets downplay reports of rapes, assaults, health hazards and filthy conditions at some of the OWS encampments around the country in what I assume is an attempt to glorify the movement. That same media has made a herculean effort to paint the Tea Party as right wing “extremists and racists.” Given the media’s predisposition for running interference for this President, as it did for his predecessor, it is not hard to glean their reasons for unfavorable characterizations of a group that targets government misbehavior rather than just the crooks on Wall Street.

In 2010, the Washington Post featured a story by a young woman who spent a year attending every Tea Party rally imaginable. She found scant evidence of racism, despite what the mainstream media, self-serving political operatives and frankly, anyone with a platform seems to imply. Likewise, there are OWS protesters with honest concerns and good motives who are not violent and do not defecate on cars.

Any grassroots movement is only as good – or bad – as those co-opting it. And it will only be deemed as good or bad as those who purchase ink by the barrel decide it can be.

Sarah Palin offered an op-ed in the Wall St. Journal in which she pointed out the need for “sudden and relentless reform” and bipartisan grassroots efforts to get it:

This call for real reform must transcend political parties. The grass-roots movements of the right and the left should embrace this. The tea party’s mission has always been opposition to waste and crony capitalism, and the Occupy protesters must realize that Washington politicians have been “Occupying Wall Street” long before anyone pitched a tent in Zuccotti Park.

Her suggested solutions:

We need reform that provides real transparency. Congress should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act like everyone else. We need more detailed financial disclosure reports, and members should submit reports much more often than once a year. All stock transactions above $5,000 should be disclosed within five days.

We need equality under the law. From now on, laws that apply to the private sector must apply to Congress, including whistleblower, conflict-of-interest and insider-trading laws. Trading on nonpublic government information should be illegal both for those who pass on the information and those who trade on it. (This should close the loophole of the blind trusts that aren’t really blind because they’re managed by family members or friends.)

No more sweetheart land deals with campaign contributors. No gifts of IPO shares. No trading of stocks related to committee assignments. No earmarks where the congressman receives a direct benefit. No accepting campaign contributions while Congress is in session. No lobbyists as family members, and no transitioning into a lobbying career after leaving office. No more revolving door, ever.

Not bad ideas. Then it is possible that politics may revert to being a public service rather than a path to millionaires’ row. I won’t hold my breath.

Grassroots – and bipartisan – fury is the only thing that may have an effect on our damaged political system, yet we cannot even seem to accomplish that, as demagoguery works to keep left and right busy tearing each other down, rather than seeing the true culprits here.

Self-serving political operatives and their cronies gin up all sorts of distractions to keep us focused on making enemies of one another, which keeps the attention off the more insidious crimes taking place behind closed doors.

As the late George Carlin once said, “You think you have choice in this country? Here is your choice: Leaded or unleaded. Decaf or Regular. Window or Aisle.” We are not encouraged to think critically to affect change, but rather to engage in what writer Robert A. Johnson called shadow projections – ‘I don’t have something because you have it. My life stinks because of you.’ It is a malaise that keeps us looking for bad guys, and gals, in all the wrong places. This generally leads to boxing with shadows, nothing more.

The halls of power offer a seductive siren song promising personal enrichment and influence. The protected political class, along with the irresponsible blokes in our financial sector had best beware the day that both sides let the smoke clear to see past the bread and circus distractions offered by those in charge. If America’s left and right ever figure out who the real criminals are, 60% of Congress will be out of a job. And the cronies they have long protected will likewise get a pink slip.

Good grief.

While the message of these protesters is still a bit muddled, they are clear on their contempt for corporations, bankers, and the 1% who make more than $700,000 a year – you know, like Obama, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Joe Biden, people like that. What? Not them? Huh. Did they get a waiver or something? Ahem.

Anyway, their message is all too clear: they hate those damn corporations, dontcha know. Below is a “Day in the Life of an OWS Participant” to drive home that point (h/t to Gina):

Click here to view the embedded video.

Uh, yeah. Let’s just go grab a table at Starbucks and reflect on that there thing (as Andy Taylor would say to Opie).

Speaking of another classic TV icon, I think Jim Rockford sums up beautifully many of our feelings about people demanding what is not theirs in the clip below (h/t Helenk):

Click here to view the embedded video.

You tell ‘em, Jim!

It’s Friday – time to take a deep breath, and relax a little. Here’s a little something from one of my favorite Broadway (and “Glee”) stars, Kristin Chenoweth (hey Cuzy’n Cindy, she’s an Okie, too!). Love her (and Dolly, too):

Click here to view the embedded video.

Hope you enjoyed it, too. Have a good Friday, everyone!

According to the authors at PJ Media, this list has been checked and verified, and it will be updated as time goes on:

[snip]All entries on this list are real and verified. Below each entry you will find a series of source links documenting the support for OWS. We have striven in almost all cases to reference either first-hand statements by the groups or individuals themselves, hosted on their own Web sites; or videos of the people in question voicing their support for OWS at various Occupations; or news reports from reliable mainstream networks; or articles by publications or organizations sympathetic to the Occupy movement; or indisputable evidence, whatever the source. As a result, it cannot be claimed that these statements of support were made up or distorted by detractors of the Occupy movement.[snip]

Okay, ready? Here we go:

The 99%: Official list of Occupy Wall Street’s supporters, sponsors and sympathizers

	Communist Party USA Sources: Communist Party USA, OWS speech, The Daily Caller
	American Nazi Party Sources: Media Matters, American Nazi Party, White Honor, Sunshine State News
	Ayatollah Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran Sources: The Guardian, Tehran Times, CBS News
	Barack Obama Sources: ABC News, CBS News, ForexTV, NBC New York
	The government of North Korea Sources: Korean Central News Agency (North Korean state-controlled news outlet), The Marxist-Leninist, Wall Street Journal, Times of India
	Louis Farrakhan, Nation of Islam Sources: video statement (starting at 8:28), Black in America, Weasel Zippers, Philadelphia Weekly
	Revolutionary Communist Party Sources: Revolutionary Communist Party, Revolution newspaper, in-person appearance
	Joe Biden Sources: Talking Points Memo, video statement, Mother Jones
	Hugo Chavez Sources: Mother Jones, Reuters, Examiner.com
	Revolutionary Guards of Iran Sources: Associated Press, FARS News Agency, UPI
	Black Panthers (original) Sources: in-person appearance, Occupy Oakland, Oakland Tribune
	Socialist Party USA Sources: Socialist Party USA, IndyMedia, The Daily Caller
	CAIR Sources: in-person appearance, Washington Post, CAIR, CAIR New York
	Nancy Pelosi Sources: Talking Points Memo, video statement, ABC News, The Weekly Standard
	Communist Party of China Sources: People’s Daily (Communist Party organ), Reuters, chinataiwan.org, The Telegraph
	Hezbollah Sources: almoqawama.org, almoqawama.org (2), almoqawama.org (3), wikipedia

Again, this is not the entire list – please do go check out the entire thing from top to bottom. It is really eye-opening.

And now, how about the 1%ers? Well, just one of the 1%ers for the moment. That lucky winner is former NJ governor, Jon Corzine. You may recall Jon Corzine went on to work for a Wall St. firm after his stint as governor until Chris Christie booted him out of the Governor’s Mansion. Seems Governor Corzine’s firm has gone belly-up. Damn economy.

Oh, but don’t cry for Governor Corzine, oh, no. He received a $12.1 million “golden parachute” from his dying firm. Still, good thing Corzine hosted that $38,500 a head fundraiser for another 1%er, Barack Obama, back in April when he was still flush with cash. Ahem. But now you know why Obama refers to him as a “great friend” and “ally,” right?

One little thing about that whole “golden parachute” business. You may also recall that Obama slammed John McCain with an attack ad as a result of McCain’s friendship with Carly Fiorina. See, she, too, received a “golden parachute,” and Obama took umbrage with that. I seriously doubt he’s going to talk smack about his “great friend” – he wants more of his money, I am sure! Check out the article – it’s something, especially the piece with Obama in his own words about Corzine.

It’s an Open Thread – your turn!

The iceberg is finally being exposed:

As failed solar panel manufacturer Solyndra rides through the investigative ringer in Congress, revelations of another politically-connected company that received what appears to be a less-than-virtuous $1.2 billion loan guarantee are surfacing.

The company, SunPower, received its $1.2 billion loan guarantee in September, immediately before the program’s deadline.

SunPower isn’t as financially sound as the public was led to believe when it secured a loan guarantee twice the size of Solyndra’s $535 million loan. Just this week — less than a month after taxpayers landed on the hook for SunPower’s $1.2 billion loan guarantee — company executives announced that they expect to lower their 2011 earnings projections.

The company also carries $820 million in debt, which is $20 million more than its market capitalization.

House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations chairman Rep. Cliff Stearns says the revelations are troubling.

No kidding – yes, it IS “troubling” that we were “misled.” I believe the phrase for which Rep. Stears was searching was this, “they lied to us.” Say it after me, “they lied to us.” You can do it.

Stearns continued:

“There is great cause for alarm over political influence contaminating the DOE loan guarantee program,” Stearns told The Daily Caller. “The documents that the White House dumped last Friday reveal a disturbing prevalence of wealthy donors and bundlers littered throughout the loan guarantee process, with direct access to the President’s West Wing inner circle.”

[...]

“The politicization of the loan guarantee process is quite troubling and is a subject our investigation does not take lightly — we are looking into this and will see where it leads us,” Stearns said. “After failing to respond to our September 20th request, we also have asked Secretary Chu for a second time to provide financial details and DOE communications on every loan guarantee to ensure loans were indeed awarded on the merits and were proper candidates for federal support.” (Click here to read the rest.)

“Troubling,” indeed, and it makes me wonder just how this keeps happening, and how it was allowed to happen.

I cannot help but wonder if Obama has “no regrets” over the news about this company, either, given his complete and utter disregard when asked about dropping half a bil with Solyndra. “No regrets,” he says. But I can tell him this – I care about tossing away this moeny to his freakin’ donors as they go bankrupt. I care a lot, even more now that the total is closer to $2 billion, not counting the 3/4 of a billion the government gave to Nancy Pelosi’s bro-in-law for his solar place in Nevada, of all states. That is not the least bit coincidental, I am sure.

I don’t know about you, but I am sick to death of this man acting like it is no big deal to treat our treasury like it is his own personal ATM to payback those jackwagons who supported this pathetic excuse of a man to be our president. They sure as hell are not too big to fail, and they can start right now by giving us our damn money back. Now.

Heck, I think you could say the Republicans were being just plain hateful toward seniors, especially considering the comments by DNC Chair, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz:

[snip] “This Republican path to poverty passes like a tornado through seniors’ nursing homes.” [snip]

Not to be outdone is Rep. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.):

[snip]“Make no mistake about it, the Ryan budget is a war on seniors,” she said in a press conference organized by the Congressional Task Force on Seniors. “Newt Gingrich has said Medicare should wither on the vine. Well, this Republican budget would chop it down.” The new civility didn’t stop there: “Republicans are literally trying to kill Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Democrats will stand of the way of their war on seniors.” [snip]

Holy shit, grab the dog, Martha, and hide under the bed! Ahem.

Imagine my surprise, then, while reading my daily paper to discover the following article, “Seniors Face Medicare Cost Barrier For Cancer Drugs.” Huh? Wait – how can that be? Isn’t the President a Democrat? And the Senate is headed up by Democrats? How can this possibly be?

Oh, wait – I know – because the “health care” plan shoved down our throats by Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, cut boatloads of money from Medicare. Not that you’d know it from the way the Democrats are screaming and carrying on now.

But I am getting ahead of myself and this AP article:

Chemotherapy is now available in a pill, but if you have Medicare, you may not be able to afford it.

That’s what happened to Rita Moore when she took her prescription for a medication to treat kidney cancer to her local drugstore. She was stunned when the pharmacist told her a month’s supply of the pills would cost $2,400, more than she makes.
Medicare prescription plans that cover seniors like Moore are allowed to charge steep copayments for the latest cancer drugs, which can cost tens of thousands of dollars a year. About 1 in 6 beneficiaries are not filling their prescriptions, according to recent research that suggests a worrisome trend.

Officials at Medicare say they’re not sure what happens to those patients — whether they get less expensive older drugs that sometimes work as well, or they just give up. Traditionally, chemotherapy has been administered intravenously at a clinic or doctor’s office. Pills are a relatively new option that may represent the future of cancer care. [snip]

Good grief, how could this possibly happen? Oh, wait – I know that, too – because Obama met with Big Pharma before doing ANYTHING else on the “Health Care” bill. And it makes this even more aggravating:

[snip] Private insurance companies that deliver the Medicare prescription benefit say the problem is that drug makers charge too much for the medications, some of which were developed from taxpayer-funded research. The pharmaceutical industry faults insurers, saying copayments on drugs are higher than cost-sharing for other medical services, such as hospital care.

Some experts blame the design of the Medicare prescription benefit itself, because it allows insurers to put expensive drugs on a so-called “specialty tier” with copayments equivalent to 25 percent or more of the cost of the medication.
Drugs for multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis and hepatitis C also wind up on specialty tiers, along with the new anti-cancer pills. Medicare supplemental insurance — Medigap — doesn’t cover those copayments.

“This is a benefit design issue,” said Dan Mendelson, president of Avalere Health, a research firm that collaborated in a recent medical journal study on the consequences of high copayments for the new cancer drugs. [snip]

Yep – we helped these companies design these drugs, and now some of the very people who did so cannot afford these drugs to save their lives.

There is more to this article, including the response by Medicare, and how Obama’s Health Care Law factors in, but this is the result for Rita Moore:

[snip] Rita Moore had to try to find her own way out of the dilemma.

She decided to apply to Pfizer’s prescription assistance program for patients who can’t afford Sutent and other drugs the company makes. Pfizer approved a year’s worth of free medication, but it took about two months to collect and review all the medical and financial paperwork.

“They were very helpful, but it wasn’t a fast process,” said Moore, who is still working as the manager of an apartment building for seniors. In the meantime, she wasn’t being treated. The cancer spread and is now close to her spine and her body’s main artery. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Oh, dear – that is just dreadful. I am sure Rita Moore is more the rule than the exception, especially considering this article from The Daily Caller, “Obamacare Doesn’t Stop Medigap Providers, AARP Partners From Discriminating Against Seniors.” Say what? But wait, I thought it was supposed to be REPUBLICANS who hated seniors. Nope, apparently it is Democrats. Oh no they didn’t:

The Daily Caller has learned that Democratic lawmakers omitted a section of Obamacare in the summer of 2009 that would have stopped Medigap plan providers, including American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) partners, from discriminating against seniors with pre-existing conditions.

Democrats removed a section that would have required “guaranteed issue,” or coverage regardless of preexisting conditions, for Medigap plans from an early version of the Obamacare bill.

Medigap plans are supplemental coverage that Medicare recipients may purchase. They insure seniors a step further than the basic Medicare coverage.

TheDC has obtained an early copy of the Obamacare bill, dated June 19, 2009, which shows the bill’s original authors had intended to stop AARP partners and other Medigap providers from discriminating against seniors. But, at some point between then and early fall 2009 when Democrats introduced the bill into the House, that provision was removed.

A House Democratic aide told Kaiser Health News (KHN) earlier this year that the Medigap provision was removed from the bill because it cost too much. [snip]

Oh, yes, they did.

Well, wait – what’s the deal with AARP? Doesn’t their very name imply they are supposed to stand with senior citizens? So one would think:

[snip] The AARP said numerous times throughout the Obamacare debate that it would forgo profits to cover costs of improved health insurance for seniors. “To suggest there is a commercial conspiracy is ludicrous,” AARP’s chief lobbyist David Sloane told the Tacoma News-Tribune in October 2009, referencing charges that the AARP was supporting Obamacare in order to bolster its partners’ Medigap programs and, thereby, making profit. “As we have said, we would gladly forgo every dime of revenue to fix the health care system.”

The AARP generated more than $675 million in 2010 “royalty revenue,” or “kickbacks” as some of its members refer to them as. More than $440 million of that came from AARP’s partnership with United Health Group, a Medigap provider AARP lends its brand to in exchange for royalties.

Jim Martin of 60 Plus, the conservative version of the AARP, told TheDC that this new revelation shows what he thinks the AARP really is: “The Association Against Retired Persons.”

“They’re betraying seniors while going after the almighty dollar,” Martin said. “I don’t mind them making a profit if they use their own dime to do it. But, as you well know, they’ve received well over a billion dollars in tax dollars throughout the years now.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

And the argument can be made that one would be wrong to think AARP has the best interests of its members in mind. (And this is why I deep six every AARP membership card I receive.)

Well, this does thicken the plot, doesn’t it? Seems to me that the Democrats are crying foul lest the focused light is shone on them. Of course, that would mean the MSM would have to actually look at these issues more. As others have said, would that the NY Times and Washington Post spent as much time and energy on the Obama Health Care Plan as they have the Sarah Palin Emails. Then we would not have had to wait for the bill to be passed into law to find out just what the hell was in there.

Hey, better late than never – now that they have all of these volunteers, perhaps they could ask them to take a little look see at the Health Care Law. Just a thought.

Tuesday is Flag Day – Fly it high and proud, friends!

I am sure this will be a shock to you, but fully 20% of Obamacare waivers are in Nancy Pelosi’s district. (Okay, I cannot restrain myself – how much does it look like Obama is telling Nancy, “don’t you worry, sweetie, I will always love you” or something along those lines? Feel free to add your own caption below.)

You are just not going to believe this. Well, maybe you would, but it is just a tad aggravating, as The Daily Caller reports:

Of the 204 new Obamacare waivers President Barack Obama’s administration approved in April, 38 are for fancy eateries, hip nightclubs and decadent hotels in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s Northern California district.

That’s in addition to the 27 new waivers for health care or drug companies and the 31 new union waivers Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services approved.

[...]

Other common waiver recipients were labor union chapters, large corporations, financial firms and local governments. But Pelosi’s district’s waivers are the first major examples of luxurious, gourmet restaurants and hotels getting a year-long pass from Obamacare.

Gee, aren’t you also surprised to learn that union chapters were also getting waivers? Oh, I am so sure.

But allow me to give you a glimpse into the kinds of restaurants these are in Former Speaker Pelosi’s district getting waivers:

For instance, Boboquivari’s restaurant in Pelosi’s district in San Francisco got a waiver from Obamacare. Boboquivari’s advertises $59 porterhouse steaks, $39 filet mignons and $35 crab dinners.

Then, there’s Café des Amis, which describes its eating experience as “a timeless Parisian style brasserie” which is “located on one of San Francisco’s premier shopping and strolling boulevards, Union Street,” according to the restaurant’s Web site.

“Bacchus Management Group, in partnership with Perry Butler, is bringing you that same warm, inviting feeling, with a distinctive San Francisco spin,” the Web site reads. Somehow, though, the San Francisco upper class eatery earned itself a waiver from Obamacare because it apparently cost them too much to meet the law’s first year requirements.

The reason the Obama administration says it has given out waivers is to exempt certain companies or policyholders from “annual limit requirements.” The applications for the waivers are “reviewed on a case by case basis by department officials who look at a series of factors including whether or not a premium increase is large or if a significant number of enrollees would lose access to their current plan because the coverage would not be offered in the absence of a waiver.” The waivers don’t allow a company to permanently refrain from implementing Obamacare’s stipulations, but companies can reapply for waivers annually through 2014. [snip] (Click here to read the rest of this story.)

Not to be too cynical or anything (!), but sure seems like a bit of a payback for Pelosi shoving through this monstrosity of a bill. But that’s just a guess on my part.

And if THESE companies are struggling to pay for Obamacare with their high dollar menu, what does this administration think is going to happen with small business owners who AREN’T charging comparable rates for comparable services? Will they, too, get waivers? I wouldn’t hold my breath on that one, if I were them. Well, unless they happen to be in Nancy’s district, and likely a place she frequents (okay, I made that up, but c’mon, it’s pretty likely, isn’t it, that she patronizes the restaurants mentioned above? I think so.), otherwise,t hey are just SOL.

Just like the rest of us are.

Once again, this is a glaring example of just how much this is less about the people of this country, and more about political payback. All I can say is I hope the courts do the right thing for US and rule this new law un-Constitutional.

Caption time – what is Obama saying to Pelosi? And consider this an Open Thread. Feel free to talk abt the Govinator’s love child, why this IMF chairman, Dominque Strauss-Kahn still has his job after raping someone but Wolfowitz lost his for a consensual relationship, or Trump, Obama’s bin Laden bounce already bouncing away, or whoever/whatever is on your mind…

UPDATE: I advise you to not be drinking anything when you read this. Ready? Okay – so, HHS is claiming that Pelosi had NOTHING to do with the 20% of waivers granted in April going to HER district. Nope, zippo, zilch, nada, the big donut hole. Huh uh, nothing at all. Oh, you believe them, don’t you? After all, they’re the government – they wouldn’t lie to you, would they?! Wow…

But apparently, “Big Pharma” was just the beginning of the companies getting their hands into the Obamacare Pie. And how, as this headline attests, “Upton Expands Investigation Into ’Secret’ Obamacare Meetings.” Indeed, this confirms what many of us suspected to be true – Obamacare was not written with the American people in mind, but as paybacks, if you will, to certain groups. I guarantee you, you will not be surprised by some of the groups mentioned below:

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton is expanding his investigation into the meetings between special interest groups and the Obama White House that set the stage for the passage of Obamacare, sending document requests to 12 industry groups and unions that played a key role in the negotiations.

In April 18 letters to the groups, Upton asks for extensive details and documents about each organization’s interactions with the White House in regards to the health care law.

The requests come as the Obama White House has so far declined to provide its documents about the meetings.

At issue are special deals struck between interest groups and President Obama to either garner the support of major industry sectors or soften their criticism of the health care law.

Oh, what a surprise, huh? Yeah, I know – I was being snarky. But what I particularly love is how the White House is refusing to cooperate with this investigation. Oh, yes, “Mr. Transparency” has proven to be even more secretive than Bush. Oh, but you don’t hear the same hue and cry over that, not by a long shot. Hey, you know the rules, “they apply to thee, not to me…”
In one major instance, the pharmaceutical drug sector agreed to back the legislation as long as the costs to that sector did not exceed $80 billion. The drug sector eventually spent over $100 million on television advertisements touting the law.

Now to the groups involved in this behemoth law affecting the entire country, and not in a good way:

The industry groups and unions subject to Upton’s request are AARP, AFL-CIO, AdvaMed, AFSCME, American Hospital Association, American Medical Association, America’s Health Insurance Plans, Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, Business Roundtable, Federation of American Hospitals, PHRMA, and SEIU.

Wow. That is quite a roll call. Is anyone surprised to see the AFL/CIO and SEIU listed above? I wasn’t either, but I have to wonder just what their medical expertise is that their opinions were even solicited. I guess they were making sure there were sufficient loopholes that they would never have to be a part of this. And they were successful in that regard. Unbelievable.

Now that we have this law, and the funding thereof, looming over our heads, investigating what is in it, and WHO helped craft it, seems a bit overdue, but I guess better late than never, right? Right. The investigation actually began two months ago:

Feb. 18, Upton wrote to Nancy-Ann DeParle, who served as Obama’s health care reform “czar” during the period during which Obamacare was considered in Congress and has since been promoted to the president’s deputy chief of staff, requesting a range of documents relating to meetings and negotiations over the health care law.

The letter requested a list of staff working for the White House Office of Health Reform, a list of their meetings on health care with special interest groups, notes or minutes from those meetings and all written communications between the White House and outside groups on changes to the health care system.

In response, White House counsel Robert Bauer suggested the inquiry was too time consuming to comply with.

The request “would constitute a vast and expensive undertaking,” Bauer wrote in a March 4 letter. Instead, the White House sent Upton a series of public relations materials related to public events related to health care reform and a summary of the publicly available White House visitor logs.

Congressional Republicans say the administration has resisted complying with a series of inquiries such as the request for information on the Obamacare meetings.

This does not seem to be an unreasonable request to me. Isn’t this kind of information supposed to be available anyway? We’re not talking major secrets here, we are talking about how outside corporations and agencies influenced one of the costliest pieces of legislation ever. Show us the damn records already, and stop beating around the bush. Sheesh. That is, in essence, what the Republicans said, too, though a little nicer than that:

In a response to Bauer, Upton said in a March 10 letter Republicans were “concerned and disappointed,” and reiterated their request for the documents. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

I’ll say. I’m “disappointed,” too, that this Administration has made the Bush Administration look like an open book, but they surely have.

The Republicans are trying a different tack, though, to obtain the information they seek, “Faced With Obama ’Slow Walking’ Document Requests, GOP Aims At Outside Groups.”

Well, that’s one way to do it, though it is disturbing that a president, any president, would stonewall those who were elected to do the work of the people, in this case, protecting them from undue influence by certain groups:

[snip] “There is a coordinated effort, I assume being led by the White House, to, I would describe it as slow walking or slow rolling these things,” says an investigator on the Energy and Commerce Committee, “No one’s told us ‘no, we’re not gonna do that.’ They say they’ll do it every time. But they’re doing as much as they can to stall.”

The administration’s resistance to cooperate with requests that could expose damaging information about the president’s health care law and other issues is shaping the latest GOP salvo, aimed, not at the administration, but at a series of industry trade associations and unions. [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

All I can do is just shake my head in disgust – at Obama, Pelosi, and those spineless cowards who passed this horrific, pork-laden, influence peddled, law. If they were capable of shame, they should surely feel it over this, this law that will increase our deficit higher and higher.

We knew this was happening – we knew it, they knew it, and they passed it anyway. Wow.

See, I ask because I remember not too long ago, your party, under your leadership, did a pretty fair job of warring on women, too. You, personally, supported a far, far less qualified, experienced man for the highest office in the land over the far, far more qualified, experienced, smarter woman.

Who could forget this exchange between then-Speaker Pelosi and Greta van Susteren after the Democrats, especially Pelosi, managed to drum Clinton right out of the race? I know I can’t forget it:

[snip] VAN SUSTEREN: Let me first focus for a second on Senator Clinton. She is back on the Hill today, and many people email me and say that she is the victim of sexism–not all, but many. Did sexism play a role in this election for her, number one? And number two, I know this morning you were quoting as saying that you, sometimes, have encountered sexism.

PELOSI: I think every woman who is making progress in gaining power is probably a victim of sexism. I can’t document what happened in the presidential campaign as I am too busy being Speaker of the House and running my own races for Congress to retain and grow our Democratic majority in the House.(Emphasis mine.)

But I do not think that there is any question that there is some evidence that there was sexism in the campaign, but I can’t tell you if that is the reason why Senator Clinton won or lost.

She made a great showing. She advanced to the cause of women enormously. We were thrilled with her candidacy, not just because she is a woman, but because she is a woman with great intellect, great dedication, great stamina, that she proved she could be president of the United States.

But there was an election, and I think that Senator Clinton benefited greatly by the enthusiasm of women, there is no question about that. And I do not know what the impact of the sexism and was. I know it is a sign of insecurity on those who exercise it. I do not know what the political impact of it was. [snip]

Well, former Speaker Pelosi, let me just remind you of the scope of sexism then-Senator Clinton received, and other women, as well:

So, yeah – there was just a bit of a war against women in 2008, one perpetrated by the very ones now decrying a “war against women.” Pelosi herself contributed to it by her very actions toward Hillary Clinton, and her very support for the man who ran a sexist campaign against Hillary Clinton.

Are the Republicans above being sexist? Of course not. But they should also not be singled out for a “war against women.” Democrats share plenty to blame in that regard. Using the whole issue of choice as a constant stick to keep women in line while the top Democrat, Obama, invites members of the then-outlawed, Sharia-law demanding, “Modesty police” directing Muslim Brotherhood, while attacking OTHERS is just a bit of a stretch. At least it is for me.

How about you?

The Washington Examiner had an editorial on this very issue, “Obama’s $5 A Gallon Gas Just Ahead.” The editorial reminded readers of one of Obama’s statements ignored by his supporters, though not by those of us who had our eyes wide open, and our ears, too. And that was this:

Most politicians play word games to cast themselves in the most favorable light, so perhaps it’s understandable that few people took it seriously when President Obama unaccountably said during his 2008 presidential campaign that energy prices would “necessarily skyrocket” under his program.

With gas steadily approaching $4 per gallon and projected by federal Energy Information Administration experts to hit $5 in 2012, it’s time to accept Obama at his word. The costs of heating and cooling our homes and offices, keeping gas in the cars and trucks that get us to work and the grocery store, and generating the electricity that keeps our laptops humming are heading skyward because Obama thinks that’s what is best for us. It’s a classic illustration of liberals using government to do to us what we would never do to ourselves. [snip]

Remember that pithy little statement by Obama? It should have cost him a few states, including Pennsylvania, but for reasons beyond me, it didn’t. Anyway, this is what Obama said about “Cap And Trade” back in the day:

Again, don’t know about where you live, but I can tell you, our electric costs have been on the rise since Obama took office, and I fear it will only get worse.

When prices escalate for products like gas, it necessarily changes how people live, what they can do, and where they drive. We are comfortable financially, but when prices were high not that long ago, it did change where we drove, how often I went to see my horse, Jordan (which is one of the highlights of my week), or up into Charleston, or any number of places. I just spent $38 filling up my tank on Thursday, and I still had between 1/4 – 1/2 of a tank left (I drive a Sienna, which gets decent gas mileage). When gas goes up like this, it means, for some people, the difference between being able to drive to work or not.

So what has Obama done to affect gas prices? This:

[snip] Here are just some of the ways Obama has constricted U.S. energy exploration and development, thereby forcing prices upward and making America more dependent on the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and other costly, unreliable foreign oil sources who bear this country ill will:

»?Reimposed bans on oil and natural gas drilling in America’s outer continental shelf that were previously reversed by a Democratic-led Congress and a Republican president. Experts estimate there are at least 130 billion barrels of oil and trillions of feet of natural gas to be harvested from these areas, but Obama won’t allow it.

»?Even before the cause of the Deepwater Horizon disaster was known, Obama imposed a six-month moratorium on deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico that cost thousands of jobs and effectively ended drilling in both deep and shallow waters there. Although officially lifted, slow-walking federal bureaucrats have yet to approve new permits and are busily issuing costly new requirements that are certain to stifle most, if not all, drilling in the Gulf for years to come. A third of America’s oil production comes from wells in the Gulf.

»?Reversed a Bush administration decision that opened millions of acres of public lands in the western parts of the nation to careful oil and natural gas exploration and development, then invented an entirely new classification that puts those and millions more acres not previously covered off limits.

»?Appointed an energy secretary — Steven Chu — who said in December 2008 that Americans should pay the same prices as Europeans for gas. Gas in Europe then averaged around $8 per gallon.

Maybe now people will believe that Obama meant exactly what he said in 2008 about making us pay much more for energy. If they don’t, they surely will in coming months. (Click HERE to read the rest.)

Maybe. One can only hope, though the blinders and earplugs seem to be in plenty for too many.

So, what are things like where you are? Are gas or other energy prices affecting your daily lives? Feel free to talk about this, or anything else going on (reading the Constitution in the House? Repealing Obamacare? Pelosi claiming that NOW House Democrats will focus on jobs though they did blessed little to address that issue while controlling all three houses? Obama calling the Eagles owner to thank him for giving Michael Vick, the dog torturer, a second chance?).

And TGIF…

But you know Nancy Pelosi did not go quietly into that good night, oh, no. She could not just leave the stage gracefully. Rather, she unloaded this piece of fabrication about the work of the House under her leadership before she left:

Say what? We have gone over the $14 TRILLION dollar mark under the complete and total leadership of the Democratic Party, and she is claiming that “Pay as you go” was their mantra? Maybe “Pay as yourselves and your cronies as you go out the door,” but as this Fox News article highlights, she is full of hooey:

[snip] When the Pelosi Democrats took control of Congress on January 4, 2007, the national debt stood at $8,670,596,242,973.04. The last day of the 111th Congress and Pelosi’s Speakership on December 22, 2010 the national debt was $13,858,529,371,601.09 – a roughly $5.2 trillion increase in just four years. Furthermore, the year over year federal deficit has roughly quadrupled during Pelosi’s four years as speaker, from $342 billion in fiscal year 2007 to an estimated $1.6 trillion at the end of fiscal year 2010.

Uh, yeah. Nice attempt at revisionist history there, Nancy, already trying to blame the Republicans for what you and your party did all by their own selves (as we say down South).

But wait, there’s more revisionist history for you ahead. You know how All Of Obama’s Men are talking about the necessity of raising the debt ceiling, to not do so, in Austan Goolsbee’s words would be “insanity” and “catastrophic”?? See for yourself here:

Yes, it would be “catastrophic,” sheer “insanity,” complete folly!!!

Want to guess who was agin’ raising the debt ceiling before he was for it? One guess and you got it – yes, Senator Barack Obama:

[snip]“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”ii [snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

I couldn’t agree more with then-Senator Barack Obama – America DOES deserve better.

Yes, it’s a big day as power shifts back to a two-party system, without Speaker Pelosi at the helm. Feel free to discuss your observations on this shift, what you hope to see accomplished with the 112th Congress, or anything else that’s on your mind today.

While Obama is be-bopping about (getting out of Dodge after the Mid-term Election), Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been on her own trip. First, she went to New Zealand, where the Prime Minister referred to her as “President Clinton.” Secretary of State Clinton also made a visit to Papua, New Guinea, a ‘filip” for that country. In Cambodia, she was in the midst of a group hug of young women who were human trafficking victims.

And Secretary Clinton visited Australia, where she discussed a number of important issues, highlighting the US-Australia alliance over China. But the highlight has to be this interview with comedians Hamish and Andy:

That is the Hillary we know and love, the Hillary we so needed to take the reins of this country, especially in these difficult times.

Unbelievably, Chris Matthews who shoved Obama down our throats on MSNBC(O), and constantly belittled and demeaned Hillary Clinton throughout the primaries said this about her appearance with Hamish and Andy: “Had you seen this Hillary Clinton in 2008, she might be president.” Spare me, Mr. Matthews. You, personally, did so much to tarnish Hillary Clinton during the primaries that even Media Matters came after you for it. WE knew this is who we would get, but you and your network were hellbent on pushing Obama on us despite his thin resume. Just freakin’ spare me already.

Instead, we got Obama (thanks, Chris), much to the dismay of many of us, including SC State Senator, Robert Ford. Turns out, back in 2007, State Senator Ford, an African American, took some heat for his prophetic (as it turns out) statement that if Obama was elected, he would pull down the entire Democratic Party. Huh. Well, whaddya know. He was right, as the Mid-Terms have made abundantly clear.

And no, Obama, it isn’t your “failure to communicate“:

Um, no, it was your policies.

But Mr. Ford is not done with his projections, no sirree, as this Post and Courier article indicates:

[snip] Ford, a Charleston Democrat, said U.S. House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, a South Carolina Democrat, should step out of a leadership role next year, or the whole party will go down in defeat. Ford said the same goes for U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat.

Clyburn and Pelosi have offered themselves for leadership positions in next year’s Congress, when the Democrats fall back to the minority party. Clyburn will run for House minority whip and Pelosi will run for the role as minority leader.

“If they elect Nancy Pelosi or Jim Clyburn to leadership, the Democratic Party will be taken off life support,” Ford said. “That will be the end of the Democratic Party. They’re bad news right now.” [snip] (Click here to read the rest.)

Holy moley. Tell us how you really feel, Senator Ford! Well, you know, he was right once about Obama, and my bet is he’ll be right again should Pelosi and Clyburn prevail (Clyburn is now in a race with Steny Hoyer as the two battle for the Minority whip position).

Should it come to be that for Pelosi and Clyburn to keep leadership positions does take down the Democratic Party as Senator Ford fears, then Secretary Clinton may feel free to embrace other opportunities. Like a move to Australia, for instance. Hey, if she gets wind that the people of Australia would appreciate and welcome her leadership, she just might take them up on it.

And if that happens, I’m outta here. Australia, here I come, to the land of koala bears, kangaroos, and didgeridoos. Hey, I’m all set. Check it out: “Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, Oi, Oi, Oi!” Here, we can all practice together:

I must say, she does make some good points in this article:

[snip] After enjoying ephemeral highs and spending binges, you suffer crashes that culminate in brief, unsuccessful stints in rehab. This cycle repeats itself every five to 10 years, as the rest of the country looks on with a mixture of horror and amusement. We’d feel sorry for you if you didn’t constantly flip us the bird.

Instead, we’re making bets on how long it will be before your next meltdown. Oh, wait—you’re already melting down.

You’ve racked up nearly $70 billion in general obligation debt, and that doesn’t include your $500 billion unfunded pension liability. Your own analysts predict you’ll face a hole of at least $80 billion over the next four years. [snip]

This reminds me of something a friend of mine who lives in California told me. A family member of hers didn’t understand how a business person like Meg Whitman could possibly govern California. As in, what would she know about running a state?

Huh?

How is it that I know that California has one of the largest economies in the WORLD (8th, down from 6th), but someone who lives there doesn’t get that? Isn’t a business person EXACTLY who you would want to try and pull your state up out of its flirtation with bankruptcy?

To continue with Ms. Finley’s piece:

[snip]It’s not as if you don’t recognize that you’ve got problems. Roughly three-quarters of you say you’re headed in the wrong direction, according to a recent survey by the Public Policy Institute of California. You’re even more depressed than Illinois and New York, and you’ve got sunshine 10 months of the year!

You appropriately give your government low marks—28% approval for outgoing Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, 16% for the legislature—yet you continue to re-elect the politicians who got you into this mess. Not a single incumbent state legislator lost re-election this year, including one Democrat who died a month ago (no joke). What’s scarier is that you’ve just given almost all of the keys to statewide offices to Democrats.

Jerry Brown will be your new (old) governor. This is the man who acted as a gateway drug to your spending addiction three decades ago when he gave public-sector employees collective bargaining rights. Helping enforce your wacky laws will be Lt. Gov-elect Gavin Newsom, the San Francisco mayor who flouted state law by allowing same-sex marriage. On the plus side, he has nice hair and loves you just the way you are…{snip]

Isn’t that the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different outcome? I’m pretty sure it is. And no doubt, that is why Ms. Finley concluded her article with this:

[snip] We’ve tried to help you, California. Some spent millions on campaigns to entice you to change your reckless behavior. And you told them to kick rocks.

So here’s our final warning: When you inevitably crash and burn, don’t count on us to bail you out.(Click HERE to read the rest.)

Amen to that. Whatever happens to you next, California, you brought it squarely on yourself. Time to grow up, and take responsibility for your actions (same goes for Lindsey Lohan).

And while we are talking about insanity, how about Massachusetts re-electing Barney Frank? No, I am not just talking about his post-election rant, but how many of you knew that his partner was busted in 2007 for growing marijuana? Not just was his partner, James Ready busted for it, but Frank was PRESENT at the time of his arrest. Oh, but wait – it gets better. In Jonah Goldberg’s very good piece on Frank, Frank claimed that he “is not a great outdoorsman,” so you know he, um, didn’t recognize that the plants in front of him just happened to be pot ’cause he just doesn’t know about plants and stuff. Riiiiggghhhttttt.

But it gets even better (I tell you, this Goldberg article is a wealth of hilarious information about Barney Frank – that is, if you think an elected official breaking the law repeatedly is funny). Yes, this also has to do with one of Frank’s partners, and it’s a doozy:

[snip] Twenty years earlier, Mr. Frank endured another controversy when his one-time partner, personal aide and roommate was revealed to be running a prostitution service out of Mr. Frank’s home. The Massachusetts congressmen insisted he hadn’t noticed anything amiss until informed by his landlord. [snip]

Are you freaking kidding me?? And this guy is SILL in office? I’m sorry, but what the hell is wrong with the people in Massachusetts that this guy keeps getting elected?

I mean, personal stuff aside (and holy moley), even more than the above is his involvement with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, about which I have written previously. Not for nothing, but helping to send our country down the tubes economically is no small thing:

[snip] And when Mr. Frank helped fuel a housing bubble that nearly crippled the economy for a generation, he again failed to notice anything was awry until it was obvious for all to see. [snip]

But here is the crux of the matter with Mr. Frank (and a few other elected officials, say Rangel, Waters, et al):

[snip] While lesser men, perhaps those not dubbed the “brainiest” man on Capitol Hill by congressional staffers, might worry about accountability, Mr. Frank considers it an affront, given his personal and professional record. In short, Mr. Frank has a very solid record of obliviousness, denial and entitlement.[snip] (Click HERE to read the rest.)

I’ll say. The same can be said for “Call me SENATOR, General” Boxer, and a host of other folks sitting in Congress. I reckon we can add Nancy Pelosi to the “oblivious” team given her desire to run for the Minority Leader position after many Democrats lost their jobs as a result of her heavy-handed, tone-deaf leadership. Yikes. Clearly, she thinks the “shellacking” the Democrats received in the recent election had nothing to do with her.

Oh, wait – she’s from California. Yeah, okay – given the Lindsey Lohan-ness of that state, I guess this makes sense. It’s not her with the problem, it’s everyone else, I guess. Gotcha.

At some point, we have to stop the insanity. We have to stop keeping the same people in office who got us into the big mess in which we find ourselves. Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi both have a great deal to answer for in terms of where we are economically, yet both will be returning to The Hill.

All I can say is, don’t come crying to the rest of us when things continue to go horribly wrong, especially you, California – you had your chance. And you blew it.

Politics is clearly a contact sport. No doubt not all of the punches are above the belt.

I first referenced the Obama White House use of intimidation in the case of Tom Lauria, then lawyer for a group of Chrysler creditors. I wrote in early May 2009, Is Barack Obama Going Tony Soprano? How uncanny that the same reference is utilized today in an article centered on the impact of ObamaCare and the pending sale of three Scranton-area Catholic hospitals. American Spectator writes in regard to ObamaCare:

….the White House is confronted with a rapidly accelerating set of unintended consequences spreading across the country. As listed by theWall Street Journal, those unintended consequences included 2011 premium increases shooting up as high as 9%; “multibillion-dollar corporate writedowns by Verizon, AT&T, Caterpillar and others”; the disruption of insurance markets, a show-down with McDonald’s, the imposition of price controls on premiums, insurers withdrawing from Medicare Advantage.

In what appears to have become a pattern, the response from the Obama Administration has been repeatedly swift and harsh –compared by one critic as an episode straight out of the Sopranos, the famous HBO mobster series.

While the reference to intimidation tactics by the White House in a commentary may grab attention, the simple ‘sense on cents’ embodied in this story has to do with the implication of lessened revenues for hospitals as a result of Obamacare leading to their sale. That reality is absolutely referenced as a primary reason for the sale of three Mercy County, PA hospitals by CEO Kevin Cook.

While the attached story is lengthy, I strongly encourage people to read it because it has major implications for your health care going forward. It also shines a light into the rough and tumble world of national politics. I have no problem with playing hard. I have major problems with those who may look to stifle freedom of speech. This commentary may take ten minutes. Might a version soon be coming to a hospital near you? Read on as American Spectator writes, The President’s Nun: Obamacare Scranton Scandal Explodes:

Can you say “October Surprise”?

A mushrooming political battle over ObamaCare involving the White House, two incumbent Pennsylvania congressmen, three Catholic hospitals and a nun has just exploded in, of all places, Scranton, Pennsylvania. Charges from the Scranton medical community of intimidation by the Obama White House and its allies are filling the air.

All of this just as Vice President Joe Biden arrives in Scranton today to raise money for one of the participants.

There are two issues at the core of the controversy.

1. ObamaCare and the sale of three Scranton-area Catholic hospitals.

2. The re-election prospects of the two House members, Democrats Paul Kanjorski and Chris Carney, both of whom cast key votes to pass ObamaCare.

Here’s the list of players — major and minor — so far.
• The President of the United States.
• The Vice President of the United States.
• Three Scranton-area Catholic hospitals suddenly for sale.
• The CEO of the three Scranton-area Catholic hospitals for sale.
• ObamaCare, otherwise known as “health care reform” or the “Affordable Care Act.”
• A Catholic nun.
• Michigan Congressman Bart Stupak.
• A pen.
• Victoria Reggie Kennedy, widow of the late Senator Ted Kennedy.
• Time magazine.
• The Scranton Times
• The two Scranton-area House members Kanjorski and Carney, both losing in the polls.
• U.S. Senator Bob Casey, Jr., a native and resident of Scranton.
• Congressman Joe Sestak, the Democrats’ nominee for the Pennsylvania U.S. Senate seat.

Where to start? That would be….

March 22, 2010: President Obama signs the Affordable Care Act (aka “ObamaCare”) into law in front of live television cameras and a packed East Room of the White House. According to news accounts, the President uses 21 different pens to sign his name, the highly prized souvenirs of the historic moment given to Vice President Joe Biden, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Victoria Reggie Kennedy, the wife of the late Senator Ted Kennedy along with a very select handful of others.

The President, after being introduced by an exuberant Vice President Biden (who whispers “this is a big f…g deal” into the President’s ear and is picked up by a live microphone) says:

“I heard one of the Republican leaders say this was going to be Armageddon. Well, two months from now, six months from now, you can check it out. We’ll look around and we’ll see.”

Almost immediately — it didn’t take two months much less six — the White House is confronted with a rapidly accelerating set of unintended consequences spreading across the country. As listed by theWall Street Journal, those unintended consequences included 2011 premium increases shooting up as high as 9%; “multibillion-dollar corporate writedowns by Verizon, AT&T, Caterpillar and others”; the disruption of insurance markets, a show-down with McDonald’s, the imposition of price controls on premiums, insurers withdrawing from Medicare Advantage.

In what appears to have become a pattern, the response from the Obama Administration has been repeatedly swift and harsh –compared by one critic as an episode straight out of the Sopranos, the famous HBO mobster series.

The corporate writedowns — done in compliance with federal law — resulted in angry phone calls from then-Obama White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel and colleague Valerie Jarrett to corporate CEO’s and the heads of the Washington corporate offices of those involved. Congressman Henry Waxman threatened a congressional investigation into those companies whose obedience to the law put them at odds with the actual results of ObamaCare. Notification by insurers that rates were being forced up by ObamaCare resulted in a threatening letter from Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to insurers warning that such candor would not be tolerated — at risk of not being allowed to participate in a future government-run health care exchange for insurers.

Then, suddenly, on October 6 — five days ago — the fuse to what is becoming a huge political explosion was lit.

In the unlikely location of Scranton, Pennsylvania.

IN THE MIDDLE OF THESE two hotly contested re-election races for a pair of Pennsylvania Democratic congressmen, the controversy first erupted over the suddenly announced sale of three Catholic Hospitals spread out between Paul Kanjorski’s and Chris Carney’s two adjoining congressional districts.

The initial announcement was made by Mercy Health Partners CEO Kevin Cook.

Cook is based in Scranton, while Mercy Partners and the three hospitals up for sale are in fact a subsidiary of the larger Catholic Healthcare Partners (CHP) based in Cincinnati, Ohio.

The three Catholic hospitals involved are: Mercy Hospital in Scranton; Mercy Special Care Hospital in Nanticoke, both in Kanjorski’s 11th District. And the Mercy Tyler Hospital in Tunkhannock, located in Carney’s adjacent 10th District.

The Cook announcement was big news in Northeastern Pennsylvania. The Sisters of Mercy had opened Mercy Hospital in Scranton, a major facility for the city, in 1917 — 93 years earlier. Inevitably it drew media attention. Which is where the plot thickens.

WNEP TV (Channel 16) reporter Jon Meyer filed a story about the sale at 4:40 pm. that afternoon. WNEP TV anchor Paula Giangiacomo led the story on the air by saying that “one big” reason for the sale “is the health care reform bill signed into law this year.” Mercy Health Partners CEO Cook was interviewed on camera along with Sister Marie Parker. When Meyer asked Cook if ObamaCare had anything at all to do with the sale, the CEO replied:

“Health care reform is absolutely playing a role. Was it the precipitating factor in this decision? No, but was it a factor in our planning over the next five years? Absolutely.”

Notice the use — twice — of the word “absolutely” by Cook, leaving no doubt with viewers that while ObamaCare wasn’t the “precipitating factor” it was “absolutely playing a role…Absolutely” in the decision by Mercy Health Care Partners to put the three hospitals up for sale.

Then, on Friday October 8, only 48 hours after the story hit the local news on WNEP, the executive changed his story. Sort of. A second statement came out over Mr. Cook’s name as CEO. Headlined on the PR Newswire-US Newswire services, the statement was headed: “Mercy Reiterates Rationale for Sale Exploration.”

Gone was any reference to the subject discussed in the WNEP-TV story. ObamaCare playing a role in the sale of the three hospitals? Where would an idea like that ever come from? Not from this second statement. There is not a word of Cook’s videotaped certainty that ObamaCare is responsible in some measure for this proposed sale. Yet curiously, there is no out-and-out retraction of Cook’s comments to WNEP either. The subject of ObamaCare bearing responsibility for this sale in any fashion is disappeared. Completely missing. The second statement just has Mr. Cook saying that sale discussions were being conducted “long before the passage of the Affordable Care Act. The decision was due to many factors.”

But there appears to have been something else at work here behind the scenes that necessitated this second statement from Cook.

Mysteriously, the very same day, came this statement, also released on the PR Newswire services. Out of the blue, suddenly released by Sr. Carol Keehan, DC, president and chief executive officer of the Catholic Health Association (CHA), the headline was sharp and pointed. The headline?

Alarmist News Reports About Catholic Hospitals Are False; CHA Supports Difficult Decision by Mercy Health Partners.

In a fury that fairly leaps from the page, Sister Carol says immediately that “false motives” have been assigned to the proposed sale of the three Mercy hospitals. Says the good Sister: “Reports that health reform is the primary motive behind the sale are completely false, misleading and politically motivated. Deliberations to sell the facilities began well before the Affordable Care Act became law and did not hinge on enactment of the legislation.”

In other words, Mr. Cook — he the CEO of the hospitals who said flatly that ObamaCare was in fact “absolutely” and yet again “absolutely” playing a role in the sale of the three hospitals — was, in the polite language of a Catholic nun, in essence being called a liar.

By Sunday, there was a third Cook statement, this one posted on the website of Mercy Health Partners. Cook statement # 3 was no longer as benign as statement # 2. The third Cook statement used some of the original language from statement #2, but its lead paragraph was now saying something else entirely. I have marked the change in bold print:

Mercy Health Partners recently announced our intention to explore the sale of our facilities in Northeastern Pennsylvania.The rationale for our initiative has been mischaracterized by certain politicized media outlets and severely distorted by some special interest groups.

In other words, Cook statement #3 has picked up a flavor of the statement from Sister Carol. Now saying without saying it that Cook’s original WNEP answer about the role ObamaCare “absolutely…absolutely” played in the decision to sell the hospitals has been “severely distorted.”

Curious, no? Very.

WHY IN THE WORLD would a Catholic nun be so revved up as to denounce in such strong language what Mr. Cook insisted was a fact — that ObamaCare was “absolutely” and yet again “absolutely” playing a role in the hospital sale? Why the hair-trigger fire-breathing response. From a simple Catholic nun named Sister Carol?

And why in the world would Mr. Cook feel compelled to issue not one but two re-statements of the rationale behind the sale of the three Mercy hospitals?

One doctor in Scranton — who was deeply disturbed by the announcement — is certain he knows the answer. That answer? Mr. Cook was absolutely right the very first time he spoke to WNEP on camera. Hospitals, said this doctor — frequently run a debt. “What’s different? Why now?” he said in terms of the rationale for selling the Mercy hospitals. The reason is exactly as CEO Cook originally said it was. ObamaCare cuts in Medicare reimbursement have changed the rules so drastically for hospitals “you [Mercy Health Partners] are in an untenable situation,” said this physician. Most hospitals have accumulating debt because of capital investments, says the doctor. But they can’t deal with that debt if in fact their ability to earn money is cut off or drastically reduced over time.

Alarmingly, the doctor, with a lifetime of practice in hand, says that “hospitals close in clusters where there is decreased income in terms of relatively low Medicare reimbursement…because they are the most vulnerable.” He adds that what is happening in Scranton, Nanticoke, and Tunkhannock with the Mercy hospitals “is just the beginning. It will happen everywhere because reimbursements will be reduced” under ObamaCare. Particularly, he adds, in areas where you have a high elderly population.

If the doctor is right, and he is not alone in saying this, the proposed sale of the three Mercy hospitals becomes a harbinger of what will happen nationally as a result of ObamaCare slowly tightening its government tentacles over the private health care system. Which means the sale of the three Mercy hospitals has added Scranton to what the Wall Street Journal has already called ObamaCare’s “trail of destruction.”

Ahhhh. But who is Sister Carol Keehan? What’s the big deal here with her? Why would a statement from simple Catholic nun appear to cause so much consternation with Mercy Health Partner CEO Kevin Cook in Scranton, Pennsylvania?

LET’S GO BACK to that presidential signing of the health care reform law. There were 21 very powerful people in that little group who received signing pens from the President. As mentioned that included the Vice President, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy’s widow Victoria Reggie Kennedy. And someone else.

That would be Sister Carol Keehan.

Impressive, no? The Catholic News Agency thought so, and prominently noted the story here. It also noted that Sister Carol was receiving her presidential pen from the President himself because she had been “supporting health care despite bishops’ objections.” The story even pictured the pen itself alongside the presidential seal on the box in which it came, with “Barack Obama” clearly visible scrawled along the side. Meaning, Sister Carol had enough clout to take on the Catholic Bishops on the President’s behalf — and win.

Does the name Bart Stupak ring a bell? The much ballyhooed pro-life Democrat Congressman from Michigan? The Catholic Congressman Bart Stupak who was said to be such a sturdy obstacle to passage of ObamaCare because it would allow abortions? In the aftermath of the ObamaCare passage, Slate came forward to note that a letter signed by “representatives” of Catholic nuns finally swayed Stupak to break his staunch anti-abortion pledge and sign on for ObamaCare with a simple promise of an executive order on abortion, executive orders being overturned by successor presidents with the rapidity of rabbits doing the breeding thing. Wait! Stupak was persuaded by Catholic nuns? Isn’t Sister Carol a …nun? How about that? What a coincidence? Yes indeed, the letter in question was signed — solo — by Sister Carol.

In other words, Sister Carol is not just some kindly nun who reminds you of the nun whacking your knuckles in grade school for this or that offense. No, in the world of Washington Sister Carol is a powerhouse lobbyist — make that a liberal social justice lobbyist — with a clear set of political skills and a very, very high-powered set of very elite friends. She is quite decidedly not just the neighborhood nun. Sister Carol is the Washington voice of the Catholic Health Association, once called the Catholic Hospital Association, which means her clout with Catholic hospitals around America — like the Mercy Hospital in Scranton and its siblings in Nanticoke and Tunkhannock, all run by CEO Cook — is considerable. Not to mention her clout with the parent company located in Cincinnati — and not to mention with Congressman Bart Stupak.

Selected as one of Time magazine’s “2010 Time 100″ most influential people, Sister Carol’s social justice passions were written up glowingly for Time by one of the other Obama 21 pen-receivers at the health care signing: Victoria Reggie Kennedy. AKA, Mrs. Ted Kennedy. Sister Carol, as demonstrated by her status as the receiver of a presidential signing pen, is clearly the President’s favorite nun.

Thus her abilities to whack Mercy CEO Kevin Cook’s knuckles for speaking out of turn on what in fact he “absolutely” and “absolutely” saw a mere two days earlier as the impact of ObamaCare on his hospitals were considerable. And when the Cook statement #2 didn’t pass muster, he apparently was whacked again. After reining in a sitting Congressman Stupak and getting him to, in the yes of many pro-lifers, abandon his anti-abortion stance and pass ObamaCare, what’s a mere hospital executive like Kevin Cook to Sister Carol? It is safe to say that there are doctors in Scranton, furious at what they are seeing as happening to the local health care system, who believe Sister Carol — or someone else connected to the Obama White House if not the someone inside the White House itself — was behind the knuckle rapping of Kevin Cook.

With the White House already on record for having senior staff making angry phone calls to CEO’s over corporate writedowns, having the Secretary of HHS send threatening Soprano-style letters to insurers not to blame ObamaCare for premium increases — the question in Scranton is why wouldn’t the same White House enlist the President’s favorite nun to intimidate Mr. Cook and the company he represents?

Protecting ObamaCare turns out to be but one reason — albeit that alone is a big one with national consequences for this White House.

THE OTHER REVOLVES around the struggling campaigns of Representatives Kanjorski and Carney. And the larger political picture in Pennsylvania. U.S. Senator Robert P. Casey Jr. is a Scranton resident. Indeed, one Scranton source pointed out that the Casey home is within walking distance of Mercy Hospital in Scranton. Casey and his father before him have succeeded in part by creating the image of the old-fashioned FDR-JFK working class Democrat whose values are revered in Scranton. This is the city that is the hometown of Vice President Biden. For Scrantonians and their fellow Pennsylvanians in neighboring communities to suddenly see a Catholic hospital that has been a mainstay for 93 years suddenly slip away has caused considerable upset.

And notably, in a town that is heavily Catholic, the realization that three hospitals that did not perform abortions could be sold to owners who would allow the procedure is infuriating.

Both Kanjorski and Carney have been under fire for their ObamaCare votes from GOP opponents Lou Barletta and Tom Marino respectively. The startling news of the Mercy sale was barely 24 hours old when State Republican Chairman Robert P. Gleason picked up on it, issuing statements tying the ObamaCare votes of the pair to the prospective loss of Mercy.

And at that, Sister Carol, presumably not having the comings and goings of Pennsylvania politics on her mind, suddenly launched herself into the Scranton hospital debacle, presumably finally forcing a tougher stance from Mercy’s CEO Cook in statement #3.

The explosion, all recent with its implications of White House pressure and lost Catholic hospitals, is about to bring in media ads from CatholicVote.org. Says Communications Director Joshua Mercer: “Paul Kanjorski and Chris Carney are Catholic and they both voted for ObamaCare.” Citing the sale of the three Mercy hospitals, Mercer says that the pro-ObamaCare votes of the two “has had a real impact on the community.” Mercer added a sentiment voiced as well by the Scranton doctor: “There are a lot of Kevin Cooks across the country…the CEO’s of small Catholic hospitals are all facing the same realities of more [ObamaCare] mandates and regulations.”

Interestingly, a Scranton medical source notes the lack of coverage of the growing Mercy hospital sales controversy in the local Scranton Times. “It’s a Democratic paper,” the source said, mentioning that he listens to talk radio to get a better picture of the news. “I listen to Rush, to Sean, Fox News and local talk radio. But with a Democratic paper you have to listen to national talk radio to get another perspective.”

Today, Vice President Biden arrives in Scranton to campaign for Congressman Carney.

A Capitol Hill aide to a Republican U.S. Senator says of the Scranton controversy the Obama White House is terrified the Mercy Hospital sales story will “get legs” as a national story — further intensifying the anti-Obama vote pollsters are recording in potentially record numbers. And leading to the defeat of not only Kanjorski and Carney but another Pennsylvania Democratic Congressman who voted for ObamaCare: U.S. Senate nominee Joe Sestak. Sestak is trailing his own opponent, conservative anti-ObamaCare GOP nominee Pat Toomey.

With less than a month to go until election day, one thing is certain.

The story of the President’s nun and charges of possible intimidation of a hospital executive over ObamaCare will ensure the Scranton hospital sale isn’t going away anytime soon.

Growing up in an Irish Catholic household and attending a local Catholic school, I am very familiar with getting knuckles rapped. A few of my brothers were even more familiar with that reality than I. That said, we probably deserved it. In fact, we definitely deserved it. Speaking your mind and freedom of speech in America is a prized virtue. That freedom is critically important for the pursuit of real truth, total transparency, and unbridled integrity. I say we absolutely stand up for it. Who’s absolutely with me?

Larry Doyle

Please subscribe to all my work via e-mail, an RSS feed, on Twitter or Facebook.

I have no affiliation or business interest with any entity referenced in this commentary. As President of Greenwich Investment Management, an SEC regulated privately held registered investment adviser, I am merely a proponent of real transparency within our markets so that investor confidence and investor protection can be achieved.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi bashed White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs Tuesday night, even as the president’s top spokesman continued to backpedal from his assertion that Democrats could lose control of the House in the November election.

“How could [Gibbs] know what is going on in our districts?” Pelosi told her members in the caucus meeting in the basement of the Capitol Tuesday night. “Some may weigh his words more than others. We have made our disagreement known to the White House.”

The hostility escalated when Democratic lawmakers accused the White House of losing the messaging wars. Are some Dem lawmakers implying that if President Obama, Gibbs et al had done a better job of “selling” their non-working policies to the American people, House Dems wouldn’t be facing the prospect of such huge losses in November?

This is a wake up call to Ms. Pelosi and those who stand in lock step with her – If you have a good product – it sells itself.

I think we would prefer better crafted legislation to a better sales pitch. Putting the check mark next to the “DONE” box just to parade around with a giant gavel and goofy smile pasted on your face does not substitute for putting Americans back to work, passing health care legislation that won’t bankrupt the country or passing a stimulus bill that actually stimulates something beyond pet pork projects.

Even Arianna Huffington, a big Obama ally, has complained bitterly that the Wall St. reform package doesn’t go far enough or protect us from “too big to fail.” Then again, she is another political opportunist who has lately taken to agreeing with Tea Party protests and even Sarah Palin. She must be seeing the writing on the wall, too.

It is appalling that Congress does not intend to pass a budget this year — something else they wish to sweep under the rug so as not to damage themselves further in advance of the midterm elections, perhaps. Outrageous spending and a lack of responsiveness to constituents’ concerns is a far more reasonable explanation for the poor prospects of Democrats this fall than President Obama losing the “message wars.” How about winning the competence war and going on a few less vacations?

On Meet the Press on Sunday, here is what Press Secretary Gibbs had to say:

“I think there’s no doubt there are enough seats in play that could cause Republicans to gain control. There’s no doubt about that. This will depend on strong campaigns by Democrats,” Gibbs said on Sunday.

By the next morning, Democratic strategists were fuming privately that he had handed Republicans a great fundraising and voter-motivation tool.

Gibbs and other White House officials have been backpedaling, in carefully measured steps, ever since.

Speaker Pelosi also complained that Obama favors the Senate and helps them in their fundraising efforts far more than he helps the House, which has shown great loyalty to him.

The Senate love fest may be coming to an end as well. Embattled Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid went on the record saying that President Obama is not “firm” or “foreceful enough” with his Republican opposition. This prompted the bellicose Ed Schultz of MSNBC to complain Reid just called the President a “wimp.” The “timing is horrible” says Shultz. No kidding:

Looks like Harry doesn’t feel the wind at his back, given that Sharron Angle is besting him in the polls in Nevada at the moment. Other historically “safe” Senate seats are in trouble as well. Fiorina is polling ahead of Boxer in CA for the first time. Even Russ Feingold’s seat is not quite safe.

Apparently, Ms. Pelosi and her cronies missed the memo on how this politics stuff works.

The President is going to do everything he can to save himself. If that means throwing Congress under the bus so he can have a Republican foil to do battle against, making more of his straw man arguments, then he will. If that helps in his re-election bid, that is Job One.

Did Nancy and Harry think when they threw Hillary under the bus, they were going to be rewarded for it?

These two are not the only Presidents-by-Proxy to find out they are dispensable.

…the new health care law will affect almost every American in some way. And, perhaps fittingly if unintentionally, no one may be more affected than members of Congress themselves.

The Congressional Research Service says “the law may have significant unintended consequences for the “personal health insurance coverage” of senators, representatives and their staff members.”

This is too good – “the law may “remove members of Congress and Congressional staff” from their current coverage, in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, before any alternatives are available.”

The law apparently bars members of Congress from the federal employees health program, on the assumption that lawmakers should join many of their constituents in getting coverage through new state-based markets known as insurance exchanges.

But the research service found that this provision was written in an imprecise, confusing way, so it is not clear when it takes effect.

The new exchanges do not have to be in operation until 2014. But because of a possible “drafting error,” the report says, Congress did not specify an effective date for the section excluding lawmakers from the existing program.

Um, yeah. The exchanges don’t exist yet, but Congress is supposed to take part in them now? Well, Nancy and Harry – that’s what happens when you pass something you don’t read first!

Under well-established canons of statutory interpretation, the report said, “a law takes effect on the date of its enactment” unless Congress clearly specifies otherwise. And Congress did not specify any other effective date for this part of the health care law. The law was enacted when President Obama signed it three weeks ago.

Okay, Nancy. No more health care for you!!

But this is the quote of the day – if I could write these words in huge letters across the sky, I would:

The confusion raises the inevitable question: If they did not know exactly what they were doing to themselves, did lawmakers who wrote and passed the bill fully grasp the details of how it would influence the lives of other Americans?

Ding ding ding ding ding ding!! Congratulations, Ms. Nancy and Mr. Harry. You two get the booby prize.

“It is unclear whether members of Congress and Congressional staff who are currently participating in F.E.H.B.P. may be able to retain this coverage,” the research service said in an 8,100-word memorandum.

And even if current members of Congress can stay in the popular program for federal employees, that option will probably not be available to newly elected lawmakers, the report says.

[snip]

These seemingly technical questions will affect 535 members of Congress and thousands of Congressional employees. But the issue also has immense symbolic and political importance. Lawmakers of both parties have repeatedly said their goal is to provide all Americans with access to health insurance as good as what Congress has.

I wonder how fast they’ll move to fix that particular snag in the legislative mess they just rammed through Congress – for ego purposes only.

Moreover, it says, the strictures of the new law will apply to staff members who work in the personal office of a member of Congress. But they may or may not apply to people who work on the staff of Congressional committees and in “leadership offices” like those of the House speaker and the Democratic and Republican leaders and whips in the two chambers.

In addition, the report says, Congress did not designate anyone to resolve these “ambiguities” or to help arrange health insurance for members of Congress in the future.

Oops.

“This omission, whether intentional or inadvertent, raises questions regarding interpretation and implementation that cannot be definitively resolved by the Congressional Research Service,” the report says. “The statute does not appear to be self-executing, but rather seems to require an administrating or implementing authority that is not specifically provided for by the statutory text.”

The White House said last month that Mr. Obama would voluntarily participate in the health insurance exchange, though the law does not require him or other administration officials to do so. His participation as president may depend on his getting re-elected in 2012.

Representative Jason Chaffetz, Republican of Utah, said lawmakers were in the same boat as many Americans, trying to figure out what the new law meant for them.

“If members of Congress cannot explain how it’s going to work for them and their staff, how will they explain it to the rest of America?” Mr. Chaffetz asked in an interview.

The provision governing members of Congress can be traced to the Senate Finance Committee. When the panel was working on the legislation last September, Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, proposed an amendment to require that elected federal officials and all federal employees buy coverage through an exchange, “rather than using the traditional Federal Employees Health Benefits Program.”

A scaled-back version of the amendment, applying to members of Congress and their aides, was accepted in the committee without objection.

Thank you, Senator Grassley – they didn’t even notice what you were doing – they were too busy beating the drum and beating all opposition to a pulp. Do you think the Senator did this deliberately – just to point out how poorly this legislation was being crafted?

And I thought the elites in Congress knew what was best for the rest of us.

The words just desserts come to mind. We’ll keep you posted on new developments.