Ironic that yesterday, NY Times columnist Charles Blow, certainly an Obama cheerleader from way back, penned a column entitled Obama’s to Fix, in which he cautions the President to stop blaming George Bush for the “mess” he inherited. Clearly, our President, far from undoing such a mess, is daily making a bigger one of his own. Mr. Blow begins with this ominous phrase:

What a difference a year makes.

In October 2008, the candidate Barack Obama delivered a major economic speech in Toledo, Ohio. In it he said: “Right now, we face an immediate economic emergency, and that requires urgent action. We can’t wait to help workers and families and communities who are struggling right now — who don’t know if their job or their retirement will be there tomorrow; who don’t know if next week’s paycheck will cover this month’s bills. … We need to pass an economic rescue plan for the middle-class, and we need to do it not five years from now, not next year, we need to do it right now.

“So today I’m proposing a number of steps that we should take immediately to stabilize our financial system, provide relief to families and communities and help struggling homeowners. It’s a plan that begins with one word that’s on everybody’s mind, and it’s easy to spell: J-O-B-S.”

“Right now,” “immediate economic emergency,” “requires urgent action,” “can’t wait.” Wow! He gave the impression that job creation would be his top priority, that action would be swift and effective, that his solutions would not only stanch the hemorrhaging, but reverse the trend.

He has not made jobs his top priority. This health care debacle, bailing out Wall Street, getting into the car business and generally putting money into the pockets of everyone except those who need it have all taken priority over putting Americans back to work. And, no, putting an extra $13 a week into people’s paychecks is not going to do the trick when as Mr. Blow points out the new official labor statistics have us at 10.2 unemployment, which is an increase of “more than 50 percent from the time Obama gave that speech.”

“(By the way, the underemployment rate, which includes part-time workers who want to work full time and those who’ve given up searching, is a staggering 17.5 percent.)”

I am still at a loss to understand why there was such a great urgency to pass health care legislation that is not supposed to go into effect for more than three years. Someone on another blog made the observation that Obama and Pelosi et al are using the economic crisis and joblessness as a weapon to pass their agenda. As people are panicked at losing their jobs and their healthcare, they are more likely to look to government to bail them out – and more amenable. As Rahm Emanuel said, “never waste a good crisis.” What better time to ram this through. Mr. Blow continues:

Job creation has dropped from top priority to one of many, and President Obama has been remanded to pandering for patience and offering excuses. On the one hand, he argues the tortured rationale that there is good news in the awful numbers: Things are still getting worse but at a slower pace. On the other, he incessantly reminds us that he inherited the crisis. The implication: Don’t blame me, blame Bush.

But this president can’t keep deflecting to the last one. Pain is presently felt. The crisis that took form on Bush’s watch is being experienced on Obama’s. Fair or not, finger-pointing is not effective policy.

This is now Obama’s crisis, and it carries political consequences. During Tuesday’s gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia, nearly 9 in 10 voters said that they were worried about the direction of the nation’s economy in the next year. And the majority of those who held that view voted for the Republican candidates. This could portend a flashback to 1994.

It isn’t President Obama’s fault that he inherited this mess, but it is his to fix, and he must make haste. To paraphrase his Toledo prelection: you need to do it not five years from now, not next year, you need to do it right now. J-O-B-S.

There were many options to put people back to work this year if that was really the priority. Clearly it was not. This President spent almost a billion dollars to get his job. I don’t want to hear complaints now. Obviously, he inherited a mess, which he has made worse with reckless spending. No one expects him to fix everything in the space of a year, but I thought his “good judgment” meant he knew how to prioritize. We need leadership and part of that involves sacrificing one’s ego to help those who need it most. That is far more important than pushing legislation just for the purpose of putting a check mark next to one’s name. You don’t not spend billions, even trillions, you don’t have at a time like this. Since this bunch so miscalculated on their $787 billion stimulus package, I am not inclined to trust them now by handing over 1/6 of the economy to their stewardship.

It is interesting that Mr. Blow, who played the race card on Mr. Obama’s behalf last year, is now joining the ever increasing number of his pundit supporters who are having problems with his endless campaigning, blaming and wrongheaded focus.

As to the health care debate, I called my Congressman’s office Friday morning to complain about the bill and his assistant debated the merits with me. At least she took the time to do so. It was a shame she was wrong on the facts. I told her to go back and read the thing. Now we have a 2,000 page beast that the Senate must contend with and we are told it will never pass in its current form. So why the rush? Why wouldn’t this Administration be in the same kind of rush to help get people back to work?

There are 237 millionaires in Congress. Perhaps that explains why they have difficulty relating to the urgent need to put millions of Americans back of work, instead manufacturing an urgent need to pass labrynthian legislation for the mere purpose of saying “Mission Accomplished.”

Hmm. Where have we heard that phrase before?

But wait, it gets worse. The White House, through Health and Human Services, isn’t just telling them to STF up, they are THREATENING Humana and these insurance companies in general:

The government might take enforcement action against insurers that have tried to mobilize opposition to the legislation by sending their enrollees “misleading and confusing” messages, a senior official of the Department of Health and Human Services said in a memo Monday.

The mailings in question urge enrollees to contact their congressional representatives and protest the legislation, the memo said.

A spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, the industry’s main lobbying group, issued a statement Tuesday criticizing what he described as the government’s “gag order.”

“Seniors have a right to know how the current reform proposals will affect the coverage they currently like and rely on,” AHIP spokesman Robert Zirkelbach said.

Now, all of us who said that Obama was simply going to take Chicago Politics national, raise your hand. Yep - we were all right. Honestly, though, I’d rather be wrong on this, but that ship has sailed. In essence, the White House is saying, “If we don’t like what you’re saying, we’ll come after you.” Nice. Really nice. And we thought Bush was bad. (Remember that? When we were so upset about his “propaganda” through the media? At least he wasn’t threatening private companies who didn’t agree with his proposed policies. Never thought I’d be defending Bush. See what Obama has done to me?!?!)

But I digress.

Remember when all of Obama’s supporters kept touting his legal expertise particularly in terms of the Constitution during the campaign? And I kept saying, “the better to tear it to shreds.” Sure seems to me that’s exactly what he is trying to do with the First Amendment:

Proposed health reform legislation would sharply reduce funding for Medicare Advantage plans, and the insurance industry has been battling to prevent that from happening. The bill unveiled last week by Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, would directly cut payments to Medicare Advantage plans by an estimated $123 billion over 10 years, and it would indirectly reduce funding for those plans by another $15.6 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The big insurer Humana triggered the HHS crackdown with a letter to Medicare enrollees claiming that health reform proposals could hurt “millions of seniors and disabled individuals” who “could lose many of the important benefits and services that make Medicare Advantage plans so valuable.” The letter was sent in envelopes marked “important information about your Medicare Advantage plan — open today!”

HHS wrote to Humana last week instructing it to stop the mailings, and it wrote to all Medicare Advantage plans Monday, saying “such communications are potentially contrary to . . . federal law.” The government regulates communications between the health plans and their members.

Baucus had urged HHS to crack down on the mailings. (Emphasis mine.)

“It is wholly unacceptable for insurance companies to mislead seniors,” he said in a Monday news release. “The health care reform bill we released last week strengthens Medicare and does not cut benefits under the Medicare program — and seniors need to know that,” he said.

The AHIP spokesman countered that if the proposed cuts are enacted, “seniors will face premium increases, reduced benefits, and, in some parts of the country, will lose access to their Medicare Advantage plan altogether.”

Humana spokesman Tom Noland said beneficiaries “deserve to know the impact that funding cuts of the magnitude being discussed would have on benefits and premiums.”

Peter Johnson provided a VERY good overview of the issue in the video below:

Here’s the question this just begs to be asked: If this plan is so great, why is it unable to withstand any real scrutiny without threats of retaliation for stating what is in it? That, to me, is a big, huge red flag that someone is lying here, and it does not seem to be Humana.

Oh, and since I’m on the topic of the Health Care Bill, here is a HUGE issue that may be facing us if this plan, as it is, goes through:

Holy toledo. So, a gag order to insurance companies for telling the truth, and another possible truth we’re not hearing enough about - there likely will not be enough doctors to care for us under this new plan. Yep, no more First Amendment, and not enough doctors willing to provide care under this plan.

Well,that’s just jake.

Um, aren’t these EXACTLY the same things OBAMA is planning on doing? Let’s see - he attacked Hillary Clinton during the Primaries by claiming she would fine people who didn’t have insurance. She never said that, but now Obama is. Obama claimed in the campaign that McCain was going to cut money from Medicare and tax people on their insurance, and now Obama is planning on doing both! WTF???

Oh, wait - Obama was emphatic with George Stephanopoulos that it is NOT a tax on insurance. Heck, no, no way, could this exchange make anyone think this is a tax:

OBAMA: What — what — if I — if I say that right now your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10 percent next year and you say well, that’s not a tax increase; but, on the other hand, if I say that I don’t want to have to pay for you not carrying coverage even after I give you tax credits that make it affordable, then…

STEPHANOPOULOS: I — I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”

You can watch the exchange here to get the fuller picture, and new definition:

No disrespect or anything, President Obama, but you make shit up all the time! Jeezum crow! And you’re going to get all testy with George? I reckon you forgot that you are trying to WOO people over to your plan, not antagonize them. Oh, wait, I forgot - this is upside down world. A world in which people who have the audacity to actually question you are rude, but one in which you can flat out lie about people who disagree with you. I got it. New definition of rude - check!

Well, that was the whole tax issue. How about cutting Medicare? Uh huh:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let’s go to Medicare then…

OBAMA: Good.

STEPHANOPOULOS: …because you also said that no one will lose what they have. And Senator Bill Nelson, a Democrat, says that the cuts you’re looking at in Medi — the Medicare Advantage program…

OBAMA: Right.

STEPHANOPOULOS: …are going to force people to lose coverage they now have.

OBAMA: No. Here — here’s what’s going to happen. These are essentially private HMOs who are getting, on average — and this is not my estimate, this is Democrats and Republicans, experts have said — they’re getting, on average, about 14 percent more over payments, basically subsidies from taxpayers for a program that ordinary Medicare does just as good, if not better, at keeping people healthy.

Now, they package these things in ways that, in some cases, may make it more convenient for some consumers, but they’re overcharging massively for it. There’s no competitive bidding under the process.

And so what we’ve said is instead of spending $17 billion, $18 billion a year, $177 billion over 10 years on that, why wouldn’t we use that to close the donut hole so the people are actually getting better prescription drugs…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But Senator Nelson says it’s going to…

OBAMA: …Why don’t we make sure that we’re using some of that money to actually make people healthier?

STEPHANOPOULOS: But he said it’s going to cause beneficiaries right now to lose what they have.

OBAMA: Look, I understand that change is hard. If what you’re saying is that people who are currently signed up for Medicare advantage are going to have Medicare and the same level of benefits, but they may not be having their insurer get a 14 percent premium, that’s absolutely true and will the insurers squawk? You bet.

STEPHANOPOULOS: They may drop the coverage.

OBAMA: No, these folks are going to be able to get Medicare that is just as good, provides the same benefits, but we’re not subsidizing them for $18 billion a year.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So Senator Nelson, he wants to pass an amendment that shields anyone currently on Medicare advantage from any cuts. Do you support that?

OBAMA: George, I’m not going to be negotiating a particular provision of the bill, sitting (ph) down with you here right now. What I am going to say is this: the basic principle that is indisputable is that we are wasting hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicare that is not making people healthier. I want to make sure that we’re using that money to actually make people healthier.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But if people lose their Medicare advantage?

OBAMA: What I have said is we’re not going to take a dollar out of the Medicare trust fund. We’re going to make sure that benefits are just as strong if not stronger. We’re not going to subsidize insurance companies in ways that end up creating a situation that Medicare is actually weaker and has a less financial foundation, because right now, we’ve got eight years from now potentially Medicare going into the red.

If you get a chance, go watch the video. It seems to me that Obama gets JUST a tad testy…

One itsy, bitsy problem. The Health Care bill does say tax. Page 29 of the bill:

Excise Tax. The consequence for not maintaining insurance would be an excise tax. If a taxpayer‘s MAGI is between 100-300 percent of FPL, the excise tax for failing to obtain coverage for an individual in a taxpayer unit (either as a taxpayer or an individual claimed as a dependent) is $750 per year. However, the maximum penalty for the taxpayer unit is $1,500. If a taxpayer‘s MAGI is above 300 percent of FPL the penalty for failing to obtain coverage for an individual in a taxpayer unit (either as a taxpayer or as an individual claimed as a dependent) is $950 year. However, the maximum penalty amount a family above 300 percent of FPL would pay is $3,800.

And here’s a little bit of advice for President Obama, if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, it’s a safe bet that it’s a duck. But when the duck is clearly labeled as a duck (or in your case, a tax, or a cut in services, or a lie) it is a duck. So stop pretending a tax is not a tax, especially when it is labeled a tax. Just as folks understood that fellatio was a sex act they also are able to figure out that having to give the Government more money out of their pockets is a tax no matter what it is called. You may not understand what an “excise tax” is but some of us are actually able to tell the difference. But thanks for playing.

It used to be, not so very long ago, that the first numbers assigned to each newborn were date and time of birth, weight, and Apgar test scores (ratings on muscle tone, respiration, reflex irritability, pulse, and skin color).

Now, the instant babies pop out their sweet heads (or butts, out of respect for those of us born breech), they are slapped with a bill. A really big bill.

Actually, $186,000 is what each and every one of us owe right now (add an extra 10 grand if you wait a year before paying) according to a new report out by Peter G. Peterson Foundation. The PGPF figures our debt a little differently by including projected governmental commitments, believing the actual total to be a mind-blowing $56.4 trillion.

We know that the federal government carries both publicly held debt and debt for money it has borrowed from itself. Together, these sums are closing in on $11 trillion. This is the figure most commonly cited as our “national debt,” but actually, that’s only the start of the REAL national debt.

How exactly does this $56.4 trillion bill add up? First, there are the federal government’s known liabilities that it is legally obliged to fulfill. These include publicly held debt, military and civilian pensions and retiree health benefits. As of September 30, 2008, these liabilities added up to $13.5 trillion.

Then there are various commitments and contingencies – i.e., contractual requirements that the government is expected to fulfill when, and if specified conditions are met. These include federal insurance payouts, loan guarantees, and leases. As of September 30, 2008, they added up to $1.4 trillion.

So where does the remaining $43 trillion or so come from? That’s what the government has promised to pay in Social Security and Medicare benefits in excess of related revenues. As of January 1, 2008, current and promised future Social Security benefits amounted to $6.6 trillion. And between Medicare’s three programs (hospital insurance, outpatient, and prescription drug), current and future promised Medicare benefits amounted to $36.3 trillion.

Unless we make major reforms soon, the PGPF reaches a sobering conclusion.

Making extraordinary commitments for the future before that future has arrived goes against the very nature of democracy. Each generation must have the flexibility to set their own priorities according to the opportunities and needs of their time.

What will this little baby’s life be like when she is my age? And yet how do we soften the future blow in a way that doesn’t starve us now or weaken our global position to the point where we will have little to offer our children and grandchildren?

Or is the Peterson Foundation messing unfairly with the numbers to further scare old people (or make them feel guilty)? For example, people will continually be paying into Social Security. And, Medicare is not free to its recipients. I’m not sure about the figures the foundation used, but I am pretty sure we are in a lot of trouble.

I am stunned that the Obama administration has the nerve to refuse to give senior and disabled citizens a cost-of-living increase for the first time in a generation.

This, coupled with the $500 billion cut to Medicare to finance Obama’s proposed health care plan, confirms my suspicions that Obama is creating his debt-riddled programs by squeezing the pittances given to seniors and disabled people.

I am a die-hard Democrat who votes a near-straight Democratic ticket, but I will not vote for Democrats any more if they do not stand up to Obama’s destructive measures to steal from those of us who’ve worked the longest and hardest to support this nation.

WHY — WHY??? — ISN’T THIS THE TOP STORY IN THE NEWS?

The woman who answered the phone at my friend’s representative’s office told him that they’d been inundated all day by calls from seniors who are frantic about the cancellation of the COLA (Cost of Living Allowance) that every Social Security check recipient depends on, every January, in order to keep up with increasing costs for groceries, drugs, insurance, and more.

By the time he’s done paying his rent, utilities, and car repairs/insurance, my friend can’t afford to buy anything else but groceries and laundry soap. Forget about buying new clothes! Forget about subscribing to magazines or buying books! Forget about going to the movies or even renting a movie! Forget about doing anything the least bit unconnected with his survival, literally. Every spare penny has to be used to buy items like Benadryl, which is one of many, many drugs not covered by Medicare Part D.

Then there are drugs like Nexium, which Roger must have because he has GERD (Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease) due to his hiatal hernia, and Roger “upchucks” for hours after every meal, no matter how small the meal. The cheaper drugs for GERD, like Prilosec, do not work for Roger. Nexium is the one drug that works perfectly, but Nexium’s co-pay cost is nearly $70 per month.

Roger also has severe anxiety attacks and not one single Plan D insurance plan — Roger checked every plan available — covers the medicines he must take to treat his anxiety. There’s not even a co-pay. Roger has to pay the full price for the two anxiety drugs, which cost him $40-65 per month, depending on the dosage and number prescribed.

Because of the costs of his anxiety medications and the many other medication co-pays for additional conditions which include high blood pressure and arthritis — plus his $45 monthly premium to the Plan D insurance company — Roger cannot afford to take Nexium at all. So Roger endures constant “upchucking” and heartburn all day, every day, and he faces the danger that his GERD will lead to esophageal cancer.

Then there’s what Roger pays for Medicare. He pays $95+ for Part B. He pays $149/month for Part C. He pays $140-200 for Part D (drugs), which includes the monthly premium and co-pays and the drugs that not one drug insurance plan covers.

Let’s be clear about one thing for all of the folks who keep equating Medicare with Universal Health Care: Medicare is NOT free. Roger pays at least $400 per month for the supplemental policies, procedures and drugs to make up for everything that basic Medicare does not cover. It is not the perfect coverage everyone is now depicting it to be. There are many problems with it, not the least of which is the issue that spurred Roger’s calls and emails.

My friend remembers his younger years, when he used to dread the month of January since it’s one of the coldest months of the year and it’s a time of post-holiday letdown.

But the last few years, he has waited with great excitement for January to arrive because it meant that his check from Social Security would arrive with a small increase that would let him buy 4 apples per month instead of 2 apples per month. And January’s check meant that he could buy a chicken breast once a month instead of just chicken backs and wings.

But January 2010 will be the most depressing month he’s suffered. He won’t buy those 2 extra apples, and he will buy beans instead of chicken.

Those precious treats — those 2 apples and that piece of chicken — won’t brighten his meals.

He’ll add more water to the bean soup to make it last longer — he’d like to add a can of broth but that’s too expensive, so the extra water will have to do.

And he’ll wonder why there’s any point in going on when he won’t even be able to afford the most modest treats.

It is hard to fathom having to watch one’s pennies so closely - not in a metaphorical sense, but in an honest-to-goodness reality of not being able to buy but the barest necessities.

My friend used to joke with me about the “death panels” and he suspected that Sarah Palin was exaggerating the problem. He doesn’t laugh anymore. He is certain that Barack Obama does not care about people his age and that Obama wishes that people as old as he would just die sooner because keeping them alive costs too much.

I wish you could see his face like I can. His mouth is tight, his lips fixed in a grim downturn. His cheeks are pale and drawn. His eyes have lost their sparkle. His forehead is wrinkled more than ever before. He is too young to look like that.

Worst of all, his spirit is broken. He knows that Obama’s plan to cut $500 billion from Medicare means that everyone who depends on Medicare will get less care and will wait much longer for appointments and tests.

He expects that his Medicare supplemental insurance premiums will go up, even though he will get no more money from his Social Security check. And he has no idea how he will pay for those necessary supplemental premiums, so he has plans to cancel them all. Which means that he is gambling that he will not need hospitalization, let alone blood tests, for the next year. A dangerous game of roulette, to be sure.

And he knows that January 2011 will be just as bad since the Obama administration has announced that there will be no cost-of-living increase in 2011 either.

He’ll have to add more and more water to his bean soup. It won’t nourish him but he hopes it will make him feel full and that the hunger pangs won’t be too painful. He has no choice.

I don’t know what to say to him. When going to the food bank is mentioned, he has his pride, but even more than that, he knows the food banks in his area have less food to give out now and are all overwhelmed by mothers with children to feed. Those children, he believes, have more right to that dwindling amount of food than he does. And he believes that Obama feels that way too.

Roger confessed to me that he hopes that the “Death Panels” are indeed part of Obama’s health care legislation because he expects that death will be a welcome relief from a life that doesn’t permit him the simplest joys like an apple or a piece of meat.

He knows that his president considers him the unworthy, and he wonders if the president is right, this president whose stepfather was an oil man, who went to the most exclusive private school in all of Hawaii, and who went to an Ivy League university. Is that man right? If so, he hopes that the least the president can do is to provide him with an “exit plan.”

I still don’t know what to say to him. But I do know that this president promised him hope. Instead, he has given him despair…

Postscript: I bet some of you think that Roger should swallow his pride and apply for Medicaid. He can’t. He gets $50 too much per month from Social Security to qualify for Medicaid. Fifty dollars. Even though his medical costs make quick work of that additional money, it doesn’t matter. Once again, this is not a perfect system, no matter how much the new party line wants to push that it is. Reading the fine print — reading the print at ALL — exposes a lot of those lines to be just that, lines.

H/T to Hot Air for this video. It is very short, so please stay with it.

Obama attempts to reassure “folks” at a town hall that health care reform does not mean long lines, nor does it mean the private insurers will be run out of business. How does he do it? He states that Fed Ex and UPS are still doing fine – it’s the post office that’s having problems.

Um. Isn’t the post office government run?

Does his “example” reassure you? Inquiring minds want to know.

Chat away.

My recent toon, Are Grandma and Grandpa the Target? presented the full text of what will be in store for those over 65 years of age. You won’t hear much about this in the MSM, of course.

HARP made a quick comment to that toon: The reaper is cheaper. An image sprang into my mind, and I wanted to create it and share it. (Thanks, HARP, for the inspiration.)

Before you suggest that I am a scare-mongering right-wingnut plant, please read the full text for yourself. (That will be more than many members of the House are apparently willing to do.) If you can’t fully understand it, you are not alone. It reads as ominous and intrusive in a muddled, sneaky sort of way, and it scares the shit out of me!

Quick Update: I am listening to Obama’s virtual Town Hall meeting as I write, and he is assuring everyone that Medicare benefits will not be cut (even though he has said that billions will be cut over the next 10 years). But the question I am asking did come up. His answer was vague–he THINKS that the death counseling is meant to be available only for those who ask for it (the current House draft says no such thing) and adds that if people are worried, it could be changed. Time to write your congressional rep, and at least ask that this section be clarified. It is incomprehensible as it stands.

Reporting from Washington — Invoking an argument used by President George W. Bush, the Obama administration has turned down a request from a watchdog group for a list of health industry executives who have visited the White House to discuss the massive healthcare overhaul.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington sent a letter to the Secret Service asking about visits from 18 executives representing health insurers, drug makers, doctors and other players in the debate. The group wants the material in order to gauge the influence of those executives in crafting a new healthcare policy.

The Secret Service sent a reply stating that documents revealing the frequency of such visits were considered presidential records exempt from public disclosure laws. The agency also said it was advised by the Justice Department that the Secret Service was within its rights to withhold the information because of the “presidential communications privilege.”

Mr. Nicholas tells us the “Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics said it would file suit against the Obama administration as early as today.”

As a candidate, President Obama vowed that in devising a healthcare bill he would invite in TV cameras — specifically C-SPAN — so that Americans could have a window into negotiations that normally play out behind closed doors.

Having promised transparency, the administration should be willing to disclose who it is consulting in shaping healthcare policy, said an attorney for the citizens’ group. …

I guess President Bush’s policies and conduct in the White House are looking more and more inviting to our current President, since he is employing so much of the same behavior. It is fascinating to me that his supporters, who were so virulently opposed to George Bush see nothing wrong with this when their guy does it.

In its letter requesting the records, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics asked about visits from Billy Tauzin, president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America; Karen Ignagni, president of America’s Health Insurance Plans; William Weldon, chairman and CEO of Johnson & Johnson; and J. James Rohack, president of the American Medical Assn., among others.

“It’s extremely disappointing,” said Anne Weismann, the group’s chief counsel. Obama is relying on a legal argument that “continues one of the bad, anti-transparency, pro-secrecy approaches that the Bush administration had taken. And it seems completely at odds with the president’s commitment . . . to bring a new level of transparency to his government.”

Well, yeah. What is also disappointing is that as usual the inside the beltway folk are formulating policy by giving face time to the big moneymakers on health care. Somehow I doubt that will result in a win-win for those most in need of assistance.

PhRMA, which represents the nation’s drug companies, said it had taken part in two meetings with senior White House officials in the Roosevelt Room. Participants, according to Tauzin, included White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, along with the CEOs of some major drug companies. Both meetings were closed to the public.

Closed to the public? Transparency all the way. What would be the problem with our knowing what is being discussed? There is certainly widespread agreement that health care reform is needed. But that is where the agreement ends. The current legislation is over 1,000 pages – a labyrinth-like tome that is so confusing, those voting on it neither know how it works or how to explain it.

Distinguished newsman Sam Donaldson penned an article in the Daily Beast today, Obama’s Misguided Media Blitz, which reminds us that while Obama intends to stage another press conference tonight to sell his health care plans to the American people, his time would be better spent actually working on the proposals that are in massive need of a fix before they go to the floor in either the House or the Senate.

Unfortunately, the salesman-in-chief is far too invested selling the sizzle, while masking the deadly details of his proposals. Since he is also supposed to be the chief executive, if he manages health care reform the same way he “managed” the stimulus package — by outsourcing it to the likes of Pelosi et al — we may be in for a world of hurt.

President Obama’s ‘media blitz’ is yet another way to distract from the very information the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington are trying to determine – who wields the influence here and what will that mean for the American taxpayer.

The pharmaceutical industry is having a half-off sale! President Obama just couldn’t gush over it enough.

Soon, seniors trapped in the so-called Medicare drug coverage donut hole will be able to purchase their medications for 50% off the usual outrageous rate. As of now, Medicare helps pay for seniors’ medications (75%) up to $2,700 and picks up again after $6,100. In between—that pesky $3,400– seniors are on their own. While jammed in that hole, some seniors on tight incomes probably cost the government more in the long run because they get really sick from taking only a fraction of their prescribed meds.

But, is this really a generous deal or a sneaky PR campaign with an intent to lull seniors into believing that the Obama administration and Big Pharma give a damn about them? (Hint: That my donut looks a little like a salty pretzel is no accident.)

First off, the pharmaceutical industry is not sacrificing here. Because we pay dollars for each little pill, we tend to forget that they cost only pennies to produce. So despite the fact that medications will be somewhat more affordable during the donut hole period, at 50% the profits will still be coming in. Known for their aggressive marketing techniques, the pharmaceuticals will also get more PR mileage from this half-off sale than any TV advertising featuring animated bees promising allergy relief, a butterfly in your face while you are trying to go to sleep, or a couple in individual bathtubs up on a cliff who are somehow going to now have sex.

Seniors may be so grateful to drug companies that they could become momentarily distracted from the real problems that are coming down the pike. Medicare does help those with a covered diagnosis (Alzheimer’s and dementia are not among them), but too many learn way too late that if they need assisted living or require skilled nursing for an extended period of time, Medicare does not help. Coming up with an average $4,000 a month for basic assisted living expenses or the $6,000 plus for nursing home care is not something most seniors can manage, even with Social Security benefits. Long term care insurance would be helpful, but it is very expensive.

Seniors should also be worrying far more about what else is in the health news that affects them directly. In 2008 President Bush proposed slowing down Medicare spending, and that notion was quickly shot down. President Obama, in yet another Bush II move, is now asking for the same thing and it’s still flying. Obama’s proposals:

Spending on Medicare prescription drugs would fall by $75 billion over a decade. And slowing projected increases in Medicare payments to hospitals and other providers - but not doctors - would save $110 billion over 10 years, the president said.

Obama called them “commonsense changes,” although he acknowledged that many details must be resolved. Some powerful industry groups called the proposals unwise and unfair.

So, in the larger context, donut hole relief looks more like a pinhole. The government saves nothing because it was spending nothing. And this fire sale fails to address the much larger problem of skyrocketing medication costs to all of us.

Sometimes I wonder if we could be headed towards becoming a “duty to die” society. Short of that might be the admonition that old people will just have to live with whatever ails them while younger people will have access to treatments for the same problems. There won’t be enough primary care treatment to go around if everyone who is not currently insured comes on board, so some form of rationing is looming.

Bottom line: Tough times ahead for Mom, Dad, Grandma, and Grandpa.

In the first post on our nation’s Social Security system I tried to give a brief history of how the program came about and the immediate needs of people suffering from the Depression that caused FDR to propose and the Congress to enact the 1935 Social Security Act.

In this the second installment of the series I want to deal with two things. One, what were the provisions of the 1935 Social Security Act, and two, how has the 1935 Social Security Act program been changed or altered over the years.

The Social Security Act of 1935 created several different, wide-ranging, and separate programs. The Act created unemployment insurance, old-age assistance (essentially welfare), old-age benefits (we now call this Social Security), aid to dependent children, and grants to the states to provide various forms of medical care.

Below is a description of all of those programs, or Titles, the 1935 Social Security Act created with a brief description of each program.

Title I – Grants to States for Old-Age Assistance was designed to provide “financial assistance” to “aged needy individuals” immediately. In other words, this program was a welfare program for the aged and was to be administered by the individual states following federal guidelines and paid for out of the General Fund.

Title II - Federal Old Age Benefits.” Title II of the 1935 Social Security Act created a social insurance program designed to pay retired workers age 65 or older a continuing income after retirement beginning in 1942. (First contributions had to be collected and a fund built up before being able to pay benefits.)

The Title II program would be paid for by contributions from both the individual and the employer and put into a Trust Fund (created in 1939) separate from the General Fund and for the express purpose of funding old age benefits. This is the program most of us mean when we say, “Social Security.”

Title III - This was also a grant program that provided financial assistance to the states for Unemployment Compensation and Administration and paid for out of the General Fund.

Title IV – Grants to States for Aid to Dependent Children paid for through the General Fund. In effect this was another welfare program.

Title V - Grants to the States for Maternal and Child Welfare, again paid for through the General Fund.

Title VI – Public Health Work, again paid for through the General Fund.

Title X – Grants to States for Aid to the Blind again paid for through the general Fund.

Titles VII, VIII, IX, and XI are administrative in nature and set up the Social Security Board and detailed how contributions/taxes would be collected especially for Title II.

As you can see, The 1935 Social Security Act was a very broad and all-encompassing program extending a social safety net far and wide for those suffering during the Depression and beyond. And except for Title II, all of these programs would be paid for through the General Fund.

[I can’t help but make a snarky remark here. Look at the specifics of this program and how it is targeted to help people in need and compare it to the Christmas tree approach of the current stimulus package.]

Over the years each of these programs has been referred to as “Social Security” since they were all created by the 1935 Social Security Act. But as you see, they are really separate and distinct programs funded in different ways. I tell you this now because I want you to know this and keep this in mind because the unscrupulous among us have sometimes deliberately misled people regarding some of these programs to try and achieve their own selfish agendas, especially as regards wanting to change the old age insurance benefits, or Title II of the Social Security program.

The Title II program is funded by FICA taxes. In short, the individual contributes into the system and the employer is taxed an equal amount. The self-employed must make both contributions. All of this money goes into a separate account, or Trust Fund, to be used expressly for and exclusively for those who contribute into Title II. None of this money ever goes into the General Fund. NOT EVER. Furthermore, no one can receive benefits under Title II unless they paid into the system for at least 40 quarters. If you did not pay into the system you are not eligible to receive any benefits. Therefore, no illegal alien can, and more importantly does not receive any monies from Title II, the Social Security old age insurance program – not one dime! (This is true even if they paid into the system under a phony or even stolen Social Security number, as some do.)

It is a different matter with the other programs that the 1935 Social Security Act created, as you will read a bit later.

Changes Made to 1935 Social Security Act
Now let’s look at how The 1935 Social Security Act has changed over the years. As I researched this I was amazed at how stable the program has been since its inception. It has occasionally been slightly tinkered with here and there, but by and large it is remarkable how few changes there have been. The main changes have tended to be in one of two categories. The first category increases benefits going to recipients, and the second is continually making the program more financially sound.

I am not going to list each and every minute change to this act. If you are interested in minutia you can go to Social Security History and the Social Security Administration has listed them all. I will only hit the highlights.

1935-1939

The original Social Security Act was mostly a white male program. According to Wikipedia most women and minorities were excluded from receiving benefits from all of the various programs through how employment was defined and through specific listing of the job categories that were or were not covered. Certain jobs were just plain and explicitly excluded from the program. For example, most agricultural workers were excluded, as well as nurses, teachers, hospital workers, librarians, and domestic workers to name just a few.

Since many of the programs were also administered by the states, even more discrimination crept into the programs at that level. Fortunately, the practice of discrimination began to change in the late 1930’s as shifting gender roles and positions of minorities in society began to change. By the 1950’s the debate changed from which occupations should be covered by Social Security to achieving universal coverage.

1939

Before Title II even paid out any benefits retirees there were changes made to the program in 1939. Originally benefits were to be paid only to the worker. The 1939 Amendments added two new categories of benefits. Payments could now be made to the spouse and minor children of a retired worker, and second, in the event of a premature death a survivor’s benefit was added.

The 1939 Amendments also increased Title II benefit amounts and moved up the start of the program from 1942 to 1940.

The taxing provisions of Title VIII [see above] were also removed in 1939 (would not have been constitutional) and authority to tax was placed with the IRS (constitutional) and renamed Federal Insurance Contributions Act, or as we affectionately know it today, FICA.

However, the most significant change in 1939 was the creation of a Trust Fund managed by the Secretary of the Treasury for any surplus monies collected. These excess funds could be invested in both marketable and non-marketable securities. I could do an entire post on the Trust Fund and how it operates; it is that all-encompassing. There is not enough room in this post to detail its inner workings.

1940-1950

For ten years between 1940 and 1950 only one significant change was made to any of the programs. The Social Security Board was abolished in 1946 and replaced by the Social Security Administration (SSA) headed by a single Commissioner. The SSA still exists today.

Benefit levels however, remained very low. According to the official Social Security History web pages, “……. until 1951, the average value of the welfare benefits received under the old-age assistance provisions of the Act [Title I] were higher than the retirement benefits received under Social Security [Title II] provision. And there were more elderly Americans receiving old-age assistance than were receiving Social Security.”

So several amendments to the Act were made in 1950. Again, from the official history page of the Social Security website, “These amendments increased benefits for existing beneficiaries for the first time …….and they dramatically increased the value of the program to future beneficiaries. By February 1951 there were more Social Security retirees than welfare pensioners, and by August of that year, the average Social Security retirement benefit exceeded the average old-age welfare assistance grant for the first time.”

Today most people know that the Title II program has an annual cost-of-living (COLA) clause. This was not always the case. The first retirees received the same monthly benefit for the remainder of their life. But that also changed in 1950 when a COLA was enacted by Congress. At that time these increases were not automatic and were enacted by Congress periodically as necessary. It was not until 1972 that Congress enacted legislation providing for an annual automatic COLA based on the average increase in consumer prices.

Also in the 1950’sthe disability provisions were strengthened.

1960’s and 1970’s

The decade of the 60’s brought several significant and major changes to the Social Security Act. Retirees were given a choice of early retirement with a reduced annual benefit.

But by far the biggest change in the decade of the 1960’s was signed into law by President Lyndon Johnson on July 30, 1965. The Medicare program extended health coverage to retirees by helping them pay for hospital and medical expenses.

Like Title II of the 1935 Act, Medicare is a social insurance plan for people aged 65 or older. It operates as a single-payer heath care plan. This program consists of two parts. Part A is for hospital insurance, and Part B is for medical insurance. The 1965 amendment did not provide for prescriptions in most instances. It would be 30 more years before prescription drugs would be added to the program. Medicare is paid for by additional FICA taxes and is administered by The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). [Snarky comment #2, for those keeping count- which thankfully Tom Daschle will not be heading.]

Above is video of President Johnson signing the Medicare Bill and Former President Harry Truman signing up for Medicare.

As mentioned earlier, another major change in the 1970’s was the introduction of the permanent COLA.

There were a series of Amendments made in 1977 to deal with projected shortfalls due to the bad economy of the 70’s. And for the first time the issue of a projected shortfall due to the baby boom is mentioned and a slight FICA increase was made.

Supplemental Security Income
If you remember, The 1935 Social Security Act created several different programs. Except for title II, the other programs were administered by the states with partial funding from the federal government.

Over the years the programs varied tremendously from state to state with payments to recipients varying by as much as 300% between the states. There were also over 1000 agencies administering these programs. It was a bureaucratic nightmare rife with confusion and inequalities.

In 1969 President Richard Nixon changed that. He initiated reforms that would “bring reason, order, and purpose into a tangle of overlapping programs.” At Nixon’s instance Congress federalized Title I, Title X, and the disabled category (created in the fifties) by creating the Supplemental Security Income program (SSI) in the Social Security Amendments of 1972.

The Social Security Administration, created in 1946 to administer Title II, was chosen to administer this new SSI program because of its reputation for successful administration of the Title II program and because of its nationwide field offices and data-processing and record keeping skills.

However, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a Federal income supplement program funded by general tax revenues, not with Social Security or FICA taxes.

In keeping with the original Titles and the disability amendment SSI is designed to help the aged, blind, and disabled people, who have little or no income, and provides cash to meet basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter.

I am going to include this next part here, even though it is out of chronological order because it deals with SSI benefits to illegal aliens. This is often the source of the misunderstanding, urban legends, myths, or downright lies about illegals getting Social Security Title II benefits.

During President Clinton’s administration a balanced budget bill was passed and a Welfare Reform bill was passed. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 among other provisions restored SSI eligibility to some non-citizens whose eligibility would have been terminated under the Welfare Reform Act.

Now here is where it can sometimes get dicey. Some politicians and some activist who do not like Social Security (Title II) and want to totally get rid of it, and/or who would like to make some money off of the pool of money in the Title II Trust Fund sometimes play fast and loose with the truth.

When people sometimes will say that immigrants and/or illegals are receiving Social Security what is most likely happening is that eligible aliens are receiving SSI monies. Some folks do not distinguish between Title II monies and SSI monies. And because many people do not know the difference between the two programs, and because both programs are run by the same Social Security Administration, many people believe that illegals are dipping into their retirement pot and that they will bankrupt the Title II system. They are not. They are getting SSI monies.

Beware and ask questions when someone tells you illegals are raiding the Social Security system. Ask those who are telling you these things if the immigrants or illegals are getting Title II monies or SSI monies. Now you know the difference between the two and hopefully you won’t be fooled by the games some folks like to play with your emotions.

The 1980’s

Major changes were made to Title II by President Ronald Reagan upon the recommendations of the Greenspan Commission in the 1983 Amendments. These changes were in response to both short term and long term projected shortfalls in the system.

Contributions amounts went up for both individuals and employers, retirement age went up, some benefits were lowered, more federal employees were added into the system, taxed Social Security benefits, among many other provisions.

The original Title II program was a pay-as-you-go program. In other words, current workers paid for benefits for current retirees. This was great for the WW II retirees as 78.2 million baby boom workers could afford to pay to fund increased benefits for many years. The 1983 Amendments changed this formula. For the first time in Social Security’s Title II history the baby boom generation was funding a part of their own retirement simply because there were not enough citizens behind them to afford to continue the same benefit level for them unless they helped to pay for it up front.

1990’s and 2000’s

In addition to the changes already mentioned under SSI President Bill Clinton also made some changes to the disability portions of the act.

However it was left to President George W. Bush to make the biggest and most controversial change to the Medicare portion of Title II in 38 years. The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act was enacted in 2003. During hearings on the bill the projected cost of the Prescription Bill was estimated to be $400 billion.

I will let Wikipedia take up the story from here: “The MMA was signed by President George W. Bush on December 8, 2003, after passing in Congress by a close margin.

“One month later, the ten-year cost estimate was boosted to $534 billion, up more than $100 billion over the figure presented by the Bush administration during
Congressional debate. The inaccurate figure helped secure support from fiscally conservative Republicans who had promised to vote against the bill if it cost more than $400 billion. It was reported that an administration official, Thomas A. Scully, had concealed the higher estimate and threatened to fire Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster if he revealed it. By early 2005, the White House Budget had increased the 10-year estimate to $1.2 trillion.

“Former US Comptroller General David M. Walker has called this “…probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s… because we promise way more than we can afford to keep.”

One of the strongest organizations lobbying for the bill was AARP. It was during the Prescription drug debacle that I first learned, realized, or finally understood that AARP is not an advocate organization. It is an insurance company first and foremost. It will look out for its corporate interests first. And making money was clearly more important than helping poor people afford life-saving prescription drugs. To this day I refuse to join AARP for that reason alone.

President George W. Bush also attempted to privatize Social Security, but that did not fly. I think W learned an important lesson. Don’t rile up the senior set. One, they are vocal. And two, they vote!!! However, that issue is not dead and there are still many individuals and organizations who would like to privatize Title II.

We will deal with the issue of privatization in the next installment in this series entitled, “Is Social Security Really Broke?”

CAPTION: On January 31, 1940, the first monthly retirement check was issued to Ida May Fuller of Ludlow, Vermont, in the amount of $22.54.

Miss Fuller, a Legal Secretary, retired in November 1939. She started collecting benefits in January 1940 at age 65 and lived to be 100 years old, dying in 1975.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Until my next installment, please keep these figures in mind:

In 1940 when the first benefits were paid 222,488 people received benefits totaling $35,000,000.

By 2006 there were 7,235,565 people receiving benefits totaling $41,312,000,000.

Since 1935 – for 74 years -The Social Security Act has literally kept millions of retired and disabled Americans from the poor house during the ups and downs, good and bad times, and the recessions and depressions our country has faced. Not bad for a government program!!!!

UPDATED: Hold onto your hats. I can’t wait till AARP takes a bite out of this guy’s butt. They will be standing in front of the White House with pitch forks and torches.

In mentioning ‘automated’ medical records which will make things “more efficient,” they didn’t explain exactly “How” that will happen. Well not to the public anyhow.

As you read on, you will thank Jesus (even if you don’t believe!) that Tom Daschle got his smarmy thieving butt thrown out of that HHS slot before he even sat his ethanol-scamming ass in his plushy chair. But that doesn’t mean he won’t be consulting. What scares me is Barack Obama was so adamant that he was Just What The Doctor Ordered.

Let’s take a look at what Tom Daschle and Barack Obama have planned for you in the ’stimulus” bill.

Senators should read these provisions and vote against them because they are dangerous to your health. (Page numbers refer to H.R. 1 EH, pdf version).

The bill’s health rules will affect “every individual in the United States” (445, 454, 479). Your medical treatments will be tracked electronically by a federal system. Having electronic medical records at your fingertips, easily transferred to a hospital, is beneficial. It will help avoid duplicate tests and errors.

But the bill goes further. One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health Care Crises.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”

Yes you read that right.

Treatments will be “monitored” to make sure you don’t cost the government too much money if you are sick, Comrade.

Especially if you are kind of old. You know how old and disabled people are just such a drain on communist societies. Some leaders even eliminated them in the past. What was that guy’s name again?

Let’s face it, you can’t work for the Glorious Cause if you are old or sick.

So to recap, your government is going to make medical costs more efficient by deciding whether or not you deserve treatment. After all, sometimes you just have to deal with what life brings you. It’s all for the Glorious Cause you know. And just think: There will be nowhere you can go to “appeal” the decision. It will be final, Comrade.

Oh, and one more thing. Doctors who do not obey are not “meaningful users” will face stiff penalties. In other words, they can all stick their Hippocratic Oaths up their collective asses.

Hospitals and doctors that are not “meaningful users” of the new system will face penalties. “Meaningful user” isn’t defined in the bill. That will be left to the HHS secretary, who will be empowered to impose “more stringent measures of meaningful use over time” (511, 518, 540-541)

What penalties will deter your doctor from going beyond the electronically delivered protocols when your condition is atypical or you need an experimental treatment? The vagueness is intentional. In his book, Daschle proposed an appointed body with vast powers to make the “tough” decisions elected politicians won’t make.

And just in case you have any doubts that you are no longer going to be allowed to grow old in Our Brave New World of Hopeless Change:

Elderly Hardest Hit

Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.

Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost- effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council (464).

Well I suppose this is one way to “reform” social security. They can kill you first before you collect any of the money you put into it. But I can guarantee you one thing for sure: Your Dear Leaders won’t have any problem getting any treatment they need in a timely way. At your expense.

Hidden Provisions

If the Obama administration’s economic stimulus bill passes the Senate in its current form, seniors in the U.S. will face similar rationing. Defenders of the system say that individuals benefit in younger years and sacrifice later.

These people are disgusting. The lowest form of scum.I suggest that to this bunch Change really means Hopelessness.

As for Tom Daschle and his “plans” for us: I wish him everything he deserves so long as it’s not good. And to use his own words, I hope it’s not “Pain Free” either.

This shit is downright evil. Congress and the White House: You are all animals. Why don’t you toss in Assisted Suicide too? Think of how “efficient” that would be! Say, I have an idea. Why don’t you go first when you get sick–and we’ll be right behind you!

Hope and Change. Indeed.

Oh, and one more thing: When can we expect Ted Kennedy to be “more accepting” of his condition and stop burdening the system with cost?

UPDATE #3 (uh, did Obama know this when he decided on Gregg?): “Gregg Voted to Kill Commerce Before He Agreed to Lead It”, CQ Politics, February 2, 2009:

President Obama’s new candidate to run the Commerce Department voted in favor of abolishing the agency as a member of the Budget Committee and on the Senate floor in 1995.

Sen. Judd Gregg , R-N.H., whose nomination was expected to be announced Tuesday, also worked in the Senate to trim the department’s budget as head of the Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations Subcommittee.

Gregg’s 1995 votes were cast for the fiscal 1996 budget resolution, a nonbinding blueprint that outlined the GOP’s fiscal priorities after Republicans won full control of Congress for the first time in 40 years.

The Senate version of the controversial measure envisioned spending cuts of more than $960 billion, almost half of it from Medicare and Medicaid. [MORE INDICATIONS that health care will not be reformed, but may be cut back? Just asking! - Susan] Democratic efforts to amend it were uniformly rebuked by a united GOP majority on the Budget Committee.

Ultimately, the Commerce Department survived, and Gregg has since shown more interest than most of his Republican colleagues in funding some of its agencies, particularly the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Gregg also fought President Bill Clinton’s efforts to increase funding for the Commerce Department to administer the 2000 census. Indeed, Gregg’s commitment to basic functions of the department has been questioned at times.

“He was generally pretty harsh on them and not really interested in their programs, especially the commerce side of things,” said a Democratic appropriations aide. … Read all.

Update #1: Social Security and Medicare do require some adjustments, but aren’t we all grateful that the Republicans never managed to turn over Social Security monies to private account investments in the stock markets and mutual funds?!?!?! Social Security especially offers some future protection for the many people in our country who are stuck in dead-end, minimum-wage jobs and who will never be able to save enough to be able to provide income in their old age. And many of these minimum wage workers do the most physically taxing kinds of jobs, which are very hard on the body, and age them sooner than those who get white-collar jobs. As one Democratic senator said on an old West Wing I watched the other night, “What do we do about sheet metal workers whose knees and backs are shot by the time they’re 55?” We can’t bump up the age much more.

If we do anything at all, I’d advise we exclude those who are wealthy and have enough annual income in retirement that that SS monthly check is not a loss. And Medicare? It is so efficiently managed that its administrative costs run around 1.5-3% annually — amazing for a huge government-run enterprise. But it is far from free. The necessary supplementals can cost seniors at least $350 per month. And god help those who hit the “donut holes” in the Plan D prescription drug plans — they’re left with hundreds of dollars of expenses until the end of the year.

What scares me most is that President Obama doesn’t give a damn about any of this. During the campaigns, we TRIED to tell people this Obama’s economic advisers are in favor of privatizing Social Security but those who dared, like RonK Seattle, were summarily kicked out of true-believer blogs like Daily Kos. And what also frightens me is that we’ve lost Senator Daschle over a tax problem when he was one of the best-informed people anywhere on health care plans. It’s a tragic loss that may ruin our chance to improve health care in this nation. Yes, he screwed up. Damn, he wasn’t perfect, and yes he’d taken advantage of his Senate experience to make big bucks.

BUT, think about this? Who among any of us hasn’t got “skeletons” in OUR closets that would prevent us from confirmation, if the requirement is nothing short of sainthood? This is getting ridiculous. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone …. (Probably not accurate, but we heathens can’t quote the Bible perfectly.) But god we needed Daschle’s expertise. Obama should have FOUGHT for Daschle, but instead he did the easiest thing politically — he threw Daschle under the bus, just like he does most everyone who causes him any problems. [Update 2: The adage about "throwing the first stone" works if we consider the totality of what a man or woman has done, but Obama is the one who falls WAY too far for me. Not only has he never accomplished anything substantive that truly helped citizens, he's rarely if ever tried, and has only busted his ass when he wanted to win a campaign.]

The PREVAILING VIEW is that Daschle still had the votes to win confirmation, so what happened? I’ll bet you anything that Obama chickened out, and forced him to withdraw because he CAN’T TAKE THE HEAT of standing up for the best nominee! Daschle will never say that, but I’m nearly sure of it.

NOW back to the original story I wrote late last night: I recall being impressed with Senator Gregg’s coherent, detailed explanations of negotiations last fall at the height of the presidential election race to forge a negotiated agreement for Bush’s economic rescue plan. And I’ve heard that he’s a “budget wonk,” which is an asset. But I just ran across this article, and am bringing it to your attention solely because you have to ask yourselves what kind of a real Democrat is Barack Obama? Or is he one? Or does he care?

Is he a fool? Or a callous deal-maker, the kind who consorted for years with Tony Rezko who stole millions of dollars of the hard-earned money of taxpayers and failed to keep his bond with the people, to improve heretofore public housing and left it to rot, to be foreclosed, to be uninhabitable while his friend, the ever-ambitious Barack Obama glanced away?

Is Barack Obama a fool, I ask again? Who else would appoint a man to be Secretary of Commerce who was planning to vote against Obama’s stimulus package, as was Gregg?

Or is Obama — as I feared throughout the contests because what little of a record the man does have suggests it strongly — a callous deal-maker who is manifestly untouched by the real lives of real American citizens and who only looks for the adulation and the next campaign dollar?

Would he really appoint a Secretary of Commerce in a Democratic party administration whose idea of improving the economy is to create “a commission of center-right insiders operating in secret and circumventing Congress in order to destroy Social Security and Medicare”?

Say what you want about the Democratic party but, at its finest, it has been about creating a harbor to protect our nation’s citizens.

Good men and women of the Democratic party fought the toughest battles against both giants of industry and hard-right conservatives to give Americans the safety nets of Social Security and Medicare.

I am reading a book about one such man, who served in the House from 1936 to 1944 and in the Senate from 1944 to 1981. Warren Magnuson, my representative and senator from the State of Washington, long before I was even born, looked out for me and you. He not only helped Franklin D. Roosevelt pass his great bills but he went on to create and pass bills that forever have changed all of our lives for the better, from the Consumer Protection Act to numerous environmental protection measures. Here are some of his words, in 1936, when he first ran for the House, and through a lingering Depression:

“Roosevelt has brought order from chaos,” he said. “The Democratic policy is water power without profit, schools for all children, programs to cure unemployment. … (page 56, “New Deal, New World,” from the book, “Warren G. Magnuson and The Shaping of Twentieth Century America.”)

Water power without profit? Yes, that had to be fought for. Schools for all children? Yes, that too had to be fought for.

The Washington state Democratic party platform, at its convention over which he presided, called for:

a social security program, unemployment compensation, aid to dependent children, public health programs, collective bargaining and labor arbitration, and federal aid for dams and irrigation.

Unemployment compensation? Yes that too had to be fought for. Public health programs? That too. Federal aid for dams and irrigation (which has made possible the great farming lands of the west)? Yes, those too had to be fought for.

And then there is social security. The “third rail” of politics, as it is sometimes called.

We know that Obama is a novice who skimmed the surface of the U.S. Senate fleetingly, never bothered even to learn all the rules, and who used his office solely as a springboard to the presidency. We know that such a man, with the ego to run with so little to show for his life, save a couple political victories and a best-selling biography, had to have the most exceptional nerve to run for the most powerful office in the world.

Obama touts his “bipartisan” approach to politics as if it makes him fly with the angels, above the blood sport that is really politics. There’s something naive about his approach. He played his “bipartisan” hand so overtly that the House Republicans were only too eager to show him how that works in their town, with nary a “bipartisan” vote from their side of the aisle.

It was almost as if he thought he could win over the Republicans the same way he had made women faint at his rallies and once-sensible people fall for his promises as if he were the next messiah.

Only those grizzled, cynical GOP veterans know the system in D.C., and they are not that easily won over, nor will they ever be won over by his supposed charm and charisma.

And now he’s bringing in another Republican, whose true allegiances are to his party and his GOP comrades in the Senate and House to oversee the nation’s commerce. But he’s doing so without the requisite experience and knowledge, himself, to see if Judd Gregg is on the up-and-up with him, or will be leading him down a path to the destruction of all that those courageous men and women fought for back in the 1930s and 1940s.

And Franklin Roosevelt was so much more than Barack Obama. Roosevelt truly did “change” Washington, D.C. From the book again (Magnuson’s nickname was “Maggie”), in 1936:

Maggie would sit alongside another freshman, Texas Lyndon B. Johnson. Johnson was twenty-eight; Magnuson, thirty-two. …

This was Franklin Roosevelt’s Washington, not Herbert Hoover’s — a city in fundamental change from the center of a laissez-faire capitalist federation to a seat of government suddenly concerned about every aspect of American society from Wall Street to Main Street. It was more the Washington, D.C. we know today, a strong central government–…

This was the Neal Deal government, a consequence of its rescue of capitalism. …

Years later, when asked to explain his and Johnson’s devotion to the New Deal, Magnuson said, “All of us are creatures of our times. We needed to do something [in the 1930s] no matter what it was called. It was a modest approach.

A modest approach. What an understatement. He and Lyndon Johnson and Franklin Roosevelt changed our nation forever, and for the better.

Nowhere in the Obama “stimulus package” do we see any great programs such as we saw in what Magnuson mentioned.

And nowhere in Obama’s haphazard piling on of experts do we see even a glimmer of a coherent plan that will not only lift the recession/depression but will also reinvigorate this nation and the rest of the world.

It’s late. I’m done writing. There’s more to say. Another time.