The Republican Debate in South Carolina

What’s new Today

Our #1 story looks at the Newsweek issue with the feature story of “Why Are Obama’s Critics so Dumb.”  #2 looks at the Monday night Republican debate and finds Newt to be the overwhelming winner.  #3 gives you the exchange between Juan Williams and Newt Gingrich at the debate that got Newt a standing ovation.  #4 is Congressman West’s appeal to President Obama and his reelection campaign not to try and use the race card.  #5 and #6 are current polls that don’t bode well for the Democrats.  #7 is Nancy Pelosi’s prediction that the democrats will take back the House while #8 is her prediction in 2010 that the Democrats would hold on to control of the house.  #9 shows how Climate Science isn’t the same as real Science. 

1.   Newsweek’s “Why Are Obama’s Critics So Dumb?”

First, the photo. Why that photo? Some people think he looks awful — old, squinty, puffy — but I think it's an effort to evoke the old "HOPE" poster. Actually, it looks more like "hope" than the original Shaperd Fairey image,  which looks a little hunched-up and blank by comparison. The new image shows Obama, burdened and beleaguered, having sacrificed his youth for us, peering into the future... and yes, there is still hope.

Second, the article, by Andrew Sullivan. Based on the cover headline — "Why Are Obama's Critics So Dumb?" — I don't even want to read it. It just seems like red meat for Obama fans. And what a cliché! Republicans are stupid. That's what they always say. It's not just red meat, it's the same old red meat they always serve…

Then one of the comments…

“That's what they always say. It's not just red meat, it's the same old red meat they always serve”.

Yes, just like Republicans want dirty air, water, starving children & grandmothers, and are beholden to Wall Street Fat Cats.

Nobody believes them anymore.

The Internet is the worst thing to happen to the left since Ronald Reagan.

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2012/01/newsweeks-why-are-obamas-critics-so.html?showComment=1326732921856#c8212027905401978796

These kinds of stories are a sign of desperation, kind of like Hitler at the end of World War II telling the German people he had secret weapons that would turn the war around.  It’s self-delusional  nonsense.

2.   Monday Night Republican Debate

Endgame Analysis: I don’t think Romney was mortally wounded, but he did stammer through some key issues such as the release of his tax returns. Clearly Newt had almost all of and the biggest moments. Probably Rick Perry’s best debate, Santorum was uneven. Probably Ron Paul’s worst debate.

If Newt’s goal was to knock Romney down, it probably didn’t work. If Newt’s goal was to establish himself as the leader of the Newt-Santorum-Perry grouping, it probably worked. To the extent a debate can make a difference, this should help separate Newt from Santorum, the question is if it was enough.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/01/republican-south-carolina-debate/

 

Newt was as tough as nails, and deserved extra praise for not taking Juan Williams’s race-baiting. “No, I don’t see that.” Every person who believes in a color-blind society, especially tonight, ought to thank Newt for that. He then went on to show (again) he will be able to challenge President Barack Obama on nearly every fact and anecdote that could come up should they ever debate. The standing ovation he received was more than well deserved. To paraphrase a little: When he is right, he is great. The ongoing problem is when he is wrong. But tonight he was right — about a lot, and said it better than anyone.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/288283/newts-night-seth-leibsohn

Newt Gingrich apparently won Monday night’s debate on Fox News. He was the political legend scoring one more time, but likely this is a case of a last-second touchdown when you are down by two touchdowns.  Seth Leibsohn of NRO gave the night to Newt:  “When he is right, he is great. The ongoing problem is when he is wrong. But tonight he was right — about a lot, and said it better than anyone.”

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/49939

It seems most people think Newt won the debate.  This issue is whether or not it is too late.  If Newt ends up winning South Carolina, it will change everything.  If Romney does, it pretty much over. 

3.   Gingrich and Juan Williams Food Stamp Exchange Brings Debate Crowd to Its Feet

….JUAN WILLIAMS: The suggestion that he made was about a lack of work ethic. And I’ve got to tell you, my e-mail account, my Twitter account has been inundated with people of all races who are asking if your comments are not intended to belittle the poor and racial minorities.
You saw some of this reaction during your visit…
(BOOING)
… to a black church in South Carolina. You saw some of this during your visit to a black church in South Carolina, where a woman asked you why you refer to President Obama as “the food stamp president.” It sounds as if you are seeking to belittle people.
(BOOING)
NEWT GINGRICH: Well, first of all, Juan, the fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history.
(APPLAUSE)…

http://nation.foxnews.com/2012-presidential-race/2012/01/16/gingrich-and-juan-williams-food-stamp-exchange-brings-debate-crowd-its-feet

There is a video of this exchange.  If you haven’t seen it I suggest you watch.

4.  Mr. President, please don’t play the race card in 2012...

by Congressman Allen West

….As we proceed into this general election cycle, it would be a disgrace if Mr. Holder’s comment is the first salvo in the upcoming campaign to deflect honest assessment of the President’s performance in office. This campaign must be about ideas, policy and the direction of this country, and the President must not hide behind a curtain of so-called racial bias.

All Americans, black or white – and every shade in between – must be allowed to voice their opinions, level their criticisms and engage in candid discussion without fear of being labeled “racist” simply because of the color of their skin. This is precisely what Dr. Martin Luther King spoke of so eloquently, and what we celebrate today.

My message to President Obama is this: “Mr. President, your very presence in office demonstrates Dr. King’s dream has indeed come true. But how devastated would Dr. King be to know the Americans who are still fomenting racism at the highest levels are the very people for whom he fought for and died?”

http://www.facebook.com/notes/congressman-allen-west/mr-president-please-dont-play-the-race-card-in-2012/279802162072818

Does anyone think for a moment that the Obama campaign will not use the race card?  Of course he will.

5.  Latest Poll from Rasmussen

For the second week in a row, Republicans hold a six-point lead over Democrats on the Generic Congressional Ballot, this time for the week ending Sunday, Jan. 15.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 44% of Likely U.S. Voters would vote for the Republican in their district’s congressional race if the election were held today, while 38% would choose the Democrat instead.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot

If you want to see the history of this poll, click the link.  But this is not good news for the Democrats. 

6.  Bad News for Democrats

There are plenty of Democrats and even some Republicans who view the Republican primary as a gift to President Obama. Sixteen debates, web videos and “you can’t even make this up” candidate behavior, have provided plenty of fodder for late night comedians and opposition researchers. Meanwhile, frontrunner Mitt Romney has solidified his place on top thanks mostly to the fact that his opponents have imploded.

Even so, three new national polls should give Democrats some serious pause. They show a very vulnerable president who is serious danger of losing re-election.

ABC/Washington Post polling shows Obama’s approval rating at 48 percent. Pollster Gary Langer writes: “In polling since 1940, just four previous presidents have started their re-election year with less than 50 percent approval. Only one of them won, Richard Nixon in 1972.”

Gallup’s Lydia Saad writes: ” Obama’s job approval rating has averaged 44 percent in Gallup Daily tracking the start of January. That is below the approval rating of seven out of eight previous incumbents at a comparable point in their presidencies.”

CNN/ORC poll asked voters who they saw as best able to “get the economy moving.” Just 40 percent chose Obama, while 53 percent picked Romney.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/new-polls-show-signs-of-serious-vulnerability-for-president-obama/

I guess the Klown Kar is looking better than the ONE is these days.

7.  Pelosi says Democrats aim to win 35 House seats in 2012 elections

Vowing that Democrats will win back the House this year, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Tuesday said the party is gunning to pick up 35 seats.

Democrats would need to steal 25 seats from Republicans in November to take control of the lower chamber after two years in the minority, but Pelosi said party leaders are eyeing a 10-seat cushion. Expected gains in a handful of key states — including California, Illinois, Texas, New York and Florida — make that goal attainable, Pelosi argued….

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/204511-pelosi-says-dems-aim-to-win-majority-35-house-seats

Looking back in history we have this.

8.   Pelosi to Boehner: You're Not Taking My Gavel

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Cali.) said last Friday that she fully expects to hold on to her gavel even as Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) finishes every campaign-related speech by predicting he will be the next Speaker.

"Of course that's what he says," said Pelosi, in an exclusive interview with the Huffington Post. "Of course he does. But we are very confident we will [remain in power] because we don't take anything for granted. We run every race one race at a time, and I make it really clear to my colleagues that my responsibility is to reelect our incumbents, to win our Democratic open seats and then to go after some of their seats."

In a quick detour into the world of electoral politics, Pelosi predicted with gusto that Democrats will retain control of the House even during the likely tumultuous midterm elections. Part of the reason, she said, is that the slate of House Democrats in close races has already "fought the fight" with respect to health care reform, and has the time and confidence to win over their constituents before the election. The main factor, however, is that the GOP has yet to present itself as a threat…

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/30/pelosi-to-boehner-youre-n_n_631024.html

I’m reminded of the old joke, “how can you tell when a politician is lying?  Their lips are moving.” 

9.  Science vs Climate Science

…So too the Large Hadron Collider was turned on, beams of protons collided with each other and the world did not end.

What is more we were led to the putative discovery of the Higgs. The physicists now making preliminary claims are very cautious. They quote the significance of their discovery at two and a half standard deviations above background. That is a chance of 1 in 100 of the discovery being a random fluctuation of the background. This is making some assumptions about the probability distribution. So they are properly cautious as people have been misled before, claiming results that were not confirmed by more accurate work.

This story makes an interesting contrast to the claims of impending doom from climate change.

There is, as for the Large Hadron Collider, the doomsday predictions of the end of the planet as we know it. But scientists started the Collider and we are all still here. With climate change, fossil fuels are blamed for the increasing temperatures that will ultimately damage the planet. Yet while we are using more fossil fuels the temperature does not appear to be rising as projected. We have survived so far.

Turning to the discovery of the Higgs, the estimated certainty for the discovery is 99%. This level of probability would qualify for “virtually certain” for the IPCC yet this is judged not to be sufficient proof for physicists.

Look at the claim that the use of fossil fuels explains the earth’s temperature rise since industrialization. The certainty is “estimated” (and this estimate includes expert opinions) to be 90% and styled “very likely” by the IPCC. Governments are taking action to protect the environment based on this level of certainty, urged on by climate scientists. But the same governments will not accept this level of certainty for the introduction of new drugs.

So we have two putative world ending actions. One has not occurred and may have enabled a remarkable discovery while the jury is still out on the other. But the contrast in the actions of the physicists compared to the climate scientists is remarkable.

The claims of climate scientists will take them into the realm of some astrophysicists who are judged “often wrong but never in doubt”.

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2012/01/a-tale-of-two-disciplines

Climate Science is not real science.  It is political science at least as it applies to AGW.

Big cuts proposed by Obama and other laugh lines

Chamber claps twice for Obama

THE GOOD NEWS FOR PRESIDENT OBAMA: THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BROKE INTO APPLAUSE TWICE DURING HIS SPEECH MONDAY MORNING TO WELCOME HIS IDEAS.


The bad news: THEY CLAPPED JUST TWICE, IN A 35-MINUTE ADDRESS.


Obama himself acknowledged early on that he doesn’t have the best relationship with the Chamber. (“Maybe if we had brought over a fruit cake when we first moved in, we would have got off to a better start,” he joked.)

The first applause line came halfway through Obama’s remarks, as HE SPOKE OF OPENING UP NEW MARKETS AND SELLING MORE AMERICAN GOODS IN OTHER COUNTRIES.


“I’ll go anywhere to be a booster for American businesses, American workers and American products,” Obama said, to which the audience broke into applause. Then, in an ad-libbed moment, Obama remarked, “And I don’t charge a commission.”


The only other applause for Obama came at the end, when Obama once again hit the right note in CALLING FOR BRINGING JOBS BACK THE UNITED STATES.


“That’s good for everybody,” he said. “So if I’ve got a message, that message is: ‘Now’s the time to invest in America.’ ” As the audience applauded, Obama repeated, “Now’s the time to invest in America ……

http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0211/two_for_the_show_8135b507-60a3-4d2c-8a07-4a7f384328c8.html


Obama is not coming to the center and this demonstrates that while the MSM may be saying that, the Chamber isn’t fooled.



Obama Offers to Cut Federal Budget by .02 Percent

President Obama's budget director Jack Lew in a Sunday opinion piece OUTLINED SOME OFF THE “TOUGH CHOICES” Obama is willing to make to cut spending in his 2012 budget request due out on Feb. 14.

The piece details cuts that affect initiatives dear to the president: programs to help the poor and to clean up the Great Lakes near the president's home state of Illinois.

The cuts are relatively small, however, in the larger scheme of things. In total, THE $775 MILLION IN DETAILED CUTS FALL FAR SHORT OF DEMANDS BY CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS and will do little toward tackling the deficit, which is estimated to be $1.5 trillion this year by the Congressional Budget Office.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/142335-lew-previews-cuts-in-obama-2012-budget?


I always like to put this in terms the average person can understand. Let’s say you are spending $4000 per month, but your spouse lost their job and you are only bringing in $2500. You realize you must make significant cuts in spending. So you come up with a difficult cut of 80 cents per month. Not only are you not serious, you are in a lot of trouble.




Obama’s Keynesian failures must never be repeated

President Barack Obama’s $814bn economic expansion has WOEFULLY FAILED TO REACH EACH OF ITS SELF-IMPOSED TARGETS. The president’s stimulus package promised (after adjusting for inflation) that gross domestic product in the fourth quarter of 2010 would be roughly $15,200bn. YET THE LATEST FIGURES, RELEASED THIS MONTH, FELL SHORT BY SOME $400BN. Instead of being an important milestone for the global recovery, the data are just one further example of the failure of Mr Obama’s Keynesian misadventure.

The fourth quarter target was set in a now-infamous January 2009 report, written by Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein, then economic advisers to Mr Obama and vice-president Joe Biden. Their analysis also concluded that US UNEMPLOYMENT WOULD NEVER SURPASS 8 PER CENT, AND BY NOW WOULD BE IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD OF 7 PER CENT. Payroll employment was also projected to be 137.6m. In fact, unemployment has stayed stubbornly above 9 per cent for 20 consecutive months, while employment is currently 6.8m below the target – and that is without even counting those who have given up looking for work…..


…The truth is that real GDP IS JUST 3 PERCENT LARGER THAN IT WAS IN THE QUARTER JUST BEFORE THE STIMULUS WAS PASSED, while the current employment situation is little short of dire….


…Some 47 OUT OF 50 US STATES, FOR INSTANCE, HAVE LOST JOBS SINCE THE STIMULUS WAS PASSED…

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d949c6c8-32fc-11e0-9a61-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1DNOnwlE5

A failed policy in a fail presidency.



Police sex files on WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange are leaked online

Swedish police documents on the Julian Assange sex cases have been leaked online.

More than one hundred pages of interview transcripts, photographs and other evidence relating to sexual assault claims made by two Swedish women appeared on the internet this week.

The documents raise key questions for both sides about the allegations including whether one of the WikiLeaks founder's Swedish lovers was asleep during intercourse. Those answers will determine whether rape was committed under Swedish law.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1353989/WikiLeaks-Police-sex-files-Julian-Assange-leaked-online.html#ixzz1DN39j0Zy


What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.


Can Mubarak survive?

After thirty unbroken years as President of Egypt, it had seemed as if Hosni Mubarak's charmed career was finally coming to an end

BUT YESTERDAY, CAIRO'S FAMOUS TRAFFIC JAMS WERE BACK. BUSINESSES, SHOPS, AND BANKS WERE OPEN ACROSS THE CAPITAL. Barack Obama spoke of the "progress" the Egyptian government was making towards reform. And though still in tens of thousands, the numbers at Tahrir Square were probably down on the previous day.

Meanwhile, Mr Mubarak, the great survivor, was using all the guile that has kept him in power for so long to PRODUCE A SERIES OF SWEETENERS – INCLUDING A 15 PER CENT PAY RISE FOR STATE EMPLOYEES – TO WIDEN HIS PUBLIC SUPPORT. He even held the first meeting of his new cabinet: the group he had hastily cobbled together as another means of staving off the end. His regime was doing everything in its power to suggest that things were calm once more. In another symbolically conciliatory move, the regime released Wael Ghonim, a local marketing manager for Google, who is a prominent youth activist involved in the protests and was detained three days after they began.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/egypts-revolution-can-it-stay-the-distance-2207427.html


You have to remember there are 80 million Egyptians and only a small percentage have demonstrated against the government. In Luxor over the weekend there was one demonstration and it was in favor of the government.



New Rasmussen Poll on Obamacare

One week after a federal district judge ruled in favor of 26 states and declared Obamacare to be unconstitutional, RASMUSSEN'S POLL OF LIKELY VOTERS SHOWS THAT AMERICANS SUPPORT ITS REPEAL BY A MARGIN OF 21 PERCENTAGE POINTS (58 TO 37 PERCENT). Among independents, the margin in support of repeal is even higher: 27 points (63 to 36 percent).

BY A MARGIN OF 40 POINTS (58 TO 18 PERCENT), VOTERS THINK OBAMACARE WOULD INCREASE, RATHER THAN REDUCE, DEFICITS. BY A MARGIN OF 31 POINTS (52 TO 21 PERCENT), THEY THINK IT WOULD REDUCE, NOT IMPROVE, THE QUALITY OF CARE. And by a margin of 36 points (56 to 20 percent), they think it would raise, rather than lower, health costs. Among independents, these margins are even greater: 68 to 13 percent on deficits, 60 to 16 percent on quality, and 63 to 16 percent on costs.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/new-rasmussen-poll-obamacare_541512.html


Obamacare has been passed and it appears the American public is now seeing what’s in it.

Tribe on the mandate

Since the New Deal, THE COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT CONGRESS HAS BROAD CONSTITUTIONAL POWER TO REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE. This includes authority over not just goods moving across state lines, but also the economic choices of individuals within states that have significant effects on interstate markets. BY THAT STANDARD, THIS LAW’S CONSTITUTIONALITY IS OPEN AND SHUT. DOES ANYONE DOUBT THAT THE MULTITRILLION-DOLLAR HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY IS AN INTERSTATE MARKET THAT CONGRESS HAS THE POWER TO REGULATE?

Many new provisions in the law, like the ban on discrimination based on pre-existing conditions, are also undeniably permissible. But they would be undermined if healthy or risk-prone individuals could opt out of insurance, which could lead to unacceptably high premiums for those remaining in the pool. FOR THE SYSTEM TO WORK, ALL INDIVIDUALS — HEALTHY AND SICK, RISK-PRONE AND RISK-AVERSE — MUST PARTICIPATE TO THE EXTENT OF THEIR ECONOMIC ABILITY. .

…The justices aren’t likely to be misled by the reasoning that prompted two of the four federal courts that have ruled on this legislation to invalidate it on the theory that Congress is entitled to regulate only economic “activity,” not “inactivity,” like the decision not to purchase insurance. This distinction is illusory. INDIVIDUALS WHO DON’T PURCHASE INSURANCE THEY CAN AFFORD HAVE MADE A CHOICE TO TAKE A FREE RIDE ON THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM…..

…Even if the interstate commerce clause did not suffice to uphold mandatory insurance, the even broader power of Congress to impose taxes would surely do so….

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/opinion/08tribe.html?ref=opinion


I’m surprised Tribe wrote this. Tribe is a committed leftist, but his argument about regulating interstate commerce shows the weakness of his argument since we are not talking about regulating commerce, but in requiring commerce. And his fall back positions (the power to tax and the free ride argument) are not germane to the issue. The issue is whether the Constitution lets congress order people to partake in the interstate commerce the congress is allowed to regulate. This is a open and shut case, but Tribe is simply wrong on which side is the open and shut part.



And here is Ann Althouse’take on the tribe column.

Oh, come on. TRIBE’S RHETORICAL MOVE HAS BECOME COMICAL AT THIS POINT. It reminds me of an old-fashioned mother exerting moral pressure on a child by telling him how sure she is that he is such a good little boy that he could never do whatever it is she doesn’t want him to do. Put more directly, it’s an assertion of authority: I’m telling you what’s right and if you don’t do it, you’ll be wrong. COULD THE JUSTICES POSSIBLY YIELD TO PRESSURE LIKE THAT? IT’S CRUDE TO THINK THAT THEY WOULD, ISN’T IT? IT’S AN INSULT BOTH THEIR INTELLECT AND THEIR INTEGRITY.

And yet, Larry Tribe does think it, right? That’s what’s behind his rhetoric. I believe. Crudely.

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/02/professor-tribe-would-like-you-to-know.html


Basically she sees Tribe as trying the old Emperor’s New Clothes scam. Only smart people can see the fine fabric there. Another issue not brought up by either of these posts is whether or not Kagan will recluse herself. She should since she was part of the team justifying the Constitutionality of the mandate.

Discrimination within

DISCRIMINATION IS ALWAYS HIGH ON THE AGENDA AT THE SOCIETY FOR PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY’S CONFERENCE, where psychologists discuss their research on racial prejudice, homophobia, sexism, stereotype threat and unconscious bias against minorities. But the most talked-about speech at this year’s meeting, which ended Jan. 30, involved A NEW “OUTGROUP.”

It was identified by Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia who studies the intuitive foundations of morality and ideology. He polled his audience at the San Antonio Convention Center, starting by asking HOW MANY CONSIDERED THEMSELVES POLITICALLY LIBERAL. A SEA OF HANDS APPEARED, AND DR. HAIDT ESTIMATED THAT LIBERALS MADE UP 80 PERCENT OF THE 1,000 PSYCHOLOGISTS IN THE BALLROOM. When he asked for centrists and libertarians, he spotted fewer than three dozen hands. And then, when HE ASKED FOR CONSERVATIVES, HE COUNTED A GRAND TOTAL OF THREE.

“THIS IS A STATISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE LACK OF DIVERSITY,” Dr. Haidt concluded, noting polls showing that 40 percent of Americans are conservative and 20 percent are liberal. In his speech and in an interview, Dr. Haidt argued that SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGISTS ARE A “TRIBAL-MORAL COMMUNITY” UNITED BY “SACRED VALUES” THAT HINDER RESEARCH AND DAMAGE THEIR CREDIBILITY — and blind them to the hostile climate they’ve created for non-liberals.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html?_r=3&ref=science

Not much of a surprise here. Conservatives will go into business. Liberals go into teaching, reporting and evidently the social sciences.

Discrimination in the enforcement of the law

….THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES HAS GRANTED 733 WAIVERS FROM ONE OF THE STATUTE’S KEY REQUIREMENTS. The recipients of the waivers include insurers such as Oxford Health Insurance, labor organizations such as the Service Employees International Union, and employers such as PepsiCo. This is disturbing for many reasons. At the very least, it suggests the impracticability of the health-care law; HHS GAVE THE WAIVERS BECAUSE IT FEARS THE LAW WILL COST MANY AMERICANS THEIR JOBS AND INSURANCE.

More seriously, IT RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER WE LIVE UNDER A GOVERNMENT OF LAWS. CONGRESS CAN PASS STATUTES THAT APPLY TO SOME BUSINESSES AND NOT OTHERS, BUT ONCE A LAW HAS PASSED — AND THEREFORE IS BINDING — HOW CAN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH RELIEVE SOME AMERICANS OF THEIR OBLIGATION TO OBEY IT?

THE DANGERS OF INEQUITY ARE OBVIOUS. Will only corporations and unions get waivers, or can individuals also get them? For example, if a family physician feels financial pressure under the health-care law to fire one of his employees, will he get a waiver to avoid adding to unemployment?

Indeed, can even a small corporation get a waiver? Small businesses provide most new jobs, but the answer is obvious: Waivers are mostly, if not entirely, for politically significant businesses and unions that get the special attention of HHS or the White House. The rest of us must obey the laws.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259101/are-health-care-waivers-unconstitutional-philip-hamburger


Another Constitutional issue, but I suspect the law also gave the executive branch the right to grant these waivers.

Five regulations businesses hate the most

From more than 100 different new regulations either proposed or finalized by the Obama administration, THESE ARE THE FIVE BUSINESS GROUPS HATE THE MOST, based on the number of separate organizations that wrote Issa to recommend he look into them:

1. EPA CLIMATE CHANGE REGULATIONS

Though cap and trade was defeated in Congress, the EPA is sprinting to finalize its own regulations that would mandate reduced carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gasses” scientists think are warming the planet….

2. OSHA’S “OCCUPATIONAL NOISE” REGULATION

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration proposed a new regulation in October that would have put strict new regulations on the volume of noise experienced by workers on the job.

But the outcry over the cost and feasibility of the new regulations was so great the agency abandoned the regulation on Jan. 19, promising to start over after consulting with key members of Congress including Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut Independent….

3. EPA’S NEW RESTRICTIONS ON OZONE POLLUTION

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson backed off the agency’s plans to more strictly regulate ozone pollution shortly after the midterm election “shellacking,” asking for more research on the issue in December….

4. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DODD-FRANK FINANCIAL REFORM BILL

Industry groups raised concerns about 20 separate provisions in the Dodd-Frank regulation that the Obama administration is currently implementing.

5. EPA’S NEW TRAINING REQUIREMENTS FOR RENOVATION PROJECTS

Lead-based paint, used for decades in homes and on buildings, is still found in many older buildings. Since lead is hazardous, especially to children, renovation projects that disturb lead-based paint can lead to the danger of inhaling lead dust

http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/08/the-top-five-obama-regulations-that-american-businesses-hate-most/#ixzz1DNwLvbvM


I find these kinds of article interesting. I hope you do too.


The steep price of crossing Nancy Pelosi

Officially, Jane Harman's career in Congress will come to a close in the next few weeks, when the California Democrat steps down in the middle of her ninth term to become the new president of the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington. In reality, though, IT'S BEEN OVER FOR YEARS NOW -- EVER SINCE HARMAN CROSSED NANCY PELOSI AND PELOSI RESPONDED BY SHUTTING DOWN HARMAN'S POWER CENTER IN THE HOUSE (and her vehicle for national television exposure).

The break had its roots in the Iraq war, and Harman's role as the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee when it was launched, and as the occupation turned sour. A "select" panel, Intelligence is unique from other House committees in that it's composed of an equal number of Democrats and Republicans; members are privy to sensitive documents and top-level security briefings, and the idea is that their work on the committee is above partisan politics

The problem, from Pelosi's standpoint, is that Harman's status as the No. 1 Democrat on Intelligence essentially made her the highest-profile House Democrat in the middle of the last decade. At the time, don't forget, Republicans had been running the House for a decade, and they also controlled the White House and Senate. TO THE NATIONAL MEDIA, PELOSI, WHO WAS ELECTED THE DEMOCRATS' HOUSE LEADER IN 2002, WAS A BIT PLAYER, especially on matters of national security and foreign policy. Her caucus had little clout, and the press mostly tuned her out.

http://www.salon.com/news/nancy_pelosi/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/02/07/harman_pelosi_congress


Politics can be ugly and it appears it is especially ugly when women play it against one another.