MY THOUGHTS:

For the First time, in Our Country's History, we has a Representative, stand up and speak the truth.

There is nothing wrong with pointing out when someone is not tellling the truth, especially when you have the proof to back it up. Representative Joe Wilson, R. from South Carolina, should be commended for what he did. Instead, the full of crap Democrats, and dome Republicans have slapped him on the wrist, and then passed a Bill that infringes on the 1st Amendment. It is not the Members of the House of Representatives right to dictate what another member can and cannot say. Freedom of Speech......Is it declared, in The Constitution where and when you are allowed to say something? "NO!" What is happening here is that the Ruling Party, in Congress (DEMOCRATS), see that The People of the Great Nation are standing up, rising up, against the Democrats Agenda. WE THE PEOPLE, has never stood more strong and more vocal, in Our Nations History,than it does today. What we have in Congress, and President is not the Change We Can Believe In, but the Change to Grab Control. 2010 is only next year......that which has been screwed up will soon be corrected, and those who tried to take from us, will see their positions taken by us.

For all those PEOPLE, those GREAT PEOPLE who are standing up, speaking out, showing displeasure......KEEP IT UP!!!!! This is a Country that was created, by our Fore-Fathers, For the People, By the People, and Of the People. Do not let our voices be silenced, do not let the Federal Government take that which Our Fore-Fathers gave us.......Life, Liberty, and the Persuit of Happiness. FREEDOM, let it Ring Far and Loud, Let it be heard from Sea to Shining Sea.......This is Our Country, the Greatest Country, the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave!!!!!

Anti-counterfeiting agreement raises constitutional concerns

By Jack Goldsmith and Lawrence Lessig

Friday, March 26, 2010

The much-criticized cloak of secrecy that has surrounded the Obama administration's negotiation of the multilateral Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement was broken Wednesday. The leaked draft of ACTA belies the U.S. trade representative's assertions that the agreement would not alter U.S. intellectual property law. And it raises the stakes on the constitutionally dubious method by which the administration proposes to make the agreement binding on the United States.

The goal of the trade pact is to tighten enforcement of global intellectual property rules. The leaked draft, though incomplete in many respects, makes clear that negotiators are considering ideas and principles not reflected in U.S. law.

ACTA could, for example, pressure Internet service providers -- such as Comcast and Verizon -- to kick users offline when they (or their children) have been accused of repeated copyright infringement because of content uploaded to sites such as YouTube. It also might oblige the United States to impose criminal liability on those who "incite" copyright violation. The draft more generally addresses "IP infringement" and thus could extend some of its rules to trademark and possibly patent law in ways that, after inevitable international compromises, will depart from U.S. law. It also contemplates creating an international "oversight council" to supervise (and possibly amend) aspects of the agreement.

These proposals might or might not make sense. But they ought at least be subject to public deliberation. Normal constitutional procedures would require the administration to submit the final text of the agreement for Senate approval as a treaty or to Congress as a "congressional-executive" agreement. But the Obama administration has suggested it will adopt the pact as a "sole executive agreement" that requires only the president's approval.

Such an assertion of unilateral executive power is usually reserved for insignificant matters. It has sometimes been employed in more important contexts, such as when Jimmy Carter ended the Iran hostage crisis and when Franklin Roosevelt recognized and settled expropriation claims with the Soviet Union.

The Supreme Court, however, has never clarified the limits on such agreements. Historical practice and constitutional structure suggest that they must be based on one of the president's express constitutional powers (such as the power to recognize foreign governments) or at least have a long historical pedigree (such as the president's claims settlement power, which dates back over a century).

Joining ACTA by sole executive agreement would far exceed these precedents. The president has no independent constitutional authority over intellectual property or communications policy, and there is no long historical practice of making sole executive agreements in this area. To the contrary, the Constitution gives primary authority over these matters to Congress, which is charged with making laws that regulate foreign commerce and intellectual property.

The administration has suggested that a sole executive agreement in this instance would not trample Congress's prerogatives because the pact would not affect U.S. domestic law. Binding the United States to international obligations of this sort without congressional approval would raise serious constitutional questions even if domestic law were not affected. In any event, an anti-counterfeiting agreement made on the president's own authority could affect domestic law in at least three ways:

First, the noncriminal portions of this agreement that contemplate judicial enforcement can override inconsistent state law and possibly federal law. Second, the agreement could invalidate state law that conflicts with its general policies under a doctrine known as obstacle preemption, even if the terms are not otherwise judicially enforceable. Third, a judicial canon requires courts to interpret ambiguous federal laws to avoid violations of international obligations. This means courts will construe the many ambiguities in federal laws on intellectual property, telecom policy and related areas to conform to the agreement.

If the president proceeds unilaterally here, ACTA will be challenged in court. But the best route to constitutional fidelity is for Congress or the Senate to protect its constitutional prerogatives. When the George W. Bush administration suggested it might reach a deal with Russia on nuclear arms reduction by sole executive agreement, then-Sen. Joe Biden wrote to Secretary of State Colin Powell insisting that the Constitution required Senate consent and implicitly threatening inter-branch retaliation if it was not given. The Bush administration complied.

Congress should follow Biden's lead. If the president succeeds in expanding his power of sole executive agreement here, he will have established a precedent to bypass Congress on other international matters related to trade, intellectual property and communications policy.

These mostly secret negotiations have already violated the Obama administration's pledge for greater transparency. Embracing this deal by sole executive agreement would repudiate its pledge to moderate assertions of executive power. Congress should resist this attempt to evade the checks established by our Framers.

Jack Goldsmith and Lawrence Lessig are professors at Harvard Law School. Goldsmith is co-author of "Who Controls the Internet?" Lessig is the author of "Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy."

Socialism an Envy of Excellence

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 11:07 AM

By: Herbert London

Whether it is the socialism espoused by the Nazis or the socialism of the former Soviet Union or the socialism that is emerging in the United States, there is one overarching sentiment, however different socialism in these three societies may be. Socialism everywhere expresses envy of excellence by treating the contributions and wealth of the successful as the wages of sin.

The Nazis saw the sin as a Jewish conspiracy; the Soviets saw sin as the exploitation by the bourgeoisie and what is emerging in the United States is the sin of the wealthy.

In the Obama administration greed is considered the sin that must be opposed. But greed, whatever its deficiencies, is, an Adam Smith pointed out, an incentive for the promotion of capitalism which in the aggregate has a salutary influence on the economy. To combat greed, the socialists emphasize envy. Since equality is the goal, even trivial differences in income are exaggerated and the progressivity in the tax system is employed as blunt instrument to impose equality.

Abraham Lincoln said “you can’t make a poor man rich by making a rich man poor.” But President Barack Obama seems to believe that wealth is invariably related to the wages of sin and must be controlled or, to use his language, “spread around.” To make sure this happens, government must expand and, in so doing, the private sector will inevitably contract. That explains why socialism, which purports to represent the interests of the average person, ends in overwhelming government control or outright tyranny.

Just as greed has its excesses, envy manifests excess in schadenfreude, a desire to destroy rivals or, in this instance, penalize the alleged wages of sin. If you assume wealth is bad, invariably a function of illicit or inappropriate acts, it must be penalized, i.e. a surtax to pay for universal healthcare or a 40 percent income tax. Even though 1 percent of the population pays for close to 40 percent of government revenue, it is still not enough for the masters of egalitarianism. They ask, why should so few, have so much? And they answer by arguing for leveling, i.e. a collision at the income mean through transfer payments.

Of course, what the egalitarians never realize is that at some point the rich will take their assets to a safe harbor or, assuming there are restrictions on moving capital, will simply be less productive. Contrary to the supposition of the enviers, it takes only about 10 percent of the population to be a catalyst for innovation and wealth generation. If there aren’t rewards for this portion of the population, there won’t be the technological breakthroughs that foster economic growth.

That, of course, is the rub for Obama. On one hand, he needs to tax heavily in order to generate the revenue for his ambitious domestic agenda. On the other hand, excessive taxation will most likely result in more disappointing revenue projections than he anticipated since the wealthy will be less productive than they were in a low tax environment.

That socialism cannot work is the inevitable conclusion of Ayn Rand’s “Fountainhead” and the historical experience of the 20th century. If excellence isn’t the goal of personal achievement, conformity or mediocrity reigns. If wealth isn’t a reward for success, poverty reigns. And if success is a sin, failure is a virtue.

Yet, despite this reality, socialism is a persistent idea. My suspicion is that socialism is related to the belief that most people think they can be free-riders; they can get something for nothing by taking from the rich. But this Robin Hood psychology is, in fact, a form of theft. It subtracts from the fruits of one’s labor and, without apologies, contends arbitrarily that some people simply have too much.

Alas, socialism condemns “too much” and ends up giving too little. What it offers is an ideal, an abstraction of equality that is intoxicating. But its destructive influence inexorably becomes apparent. Why be productive, if others produce for you? And why would you oppose high taxes, if these revenues offer “free assistance?” As F.A. Hayek noted in “The Road to Serfdom,” the road is littered with promises of the golden age, a time when the government provides all that you need.

President Gerald Ford put this matter in perspective when he noted “that a government that can give you everything you want will be large enough to take everything you have.” It’s too bad Obama doesn’t read history.

Herbert London is president of Hudson Institute and professor emeritus of New York University. He is the author of “Decade of Denial” (Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books, 2001) and “America's Secular Challenge” (Encounter Books).

Poles, Czechs: US missile defense shift a betrayal

WARSAW, Poland – Poles and Czechs voiced deep concern Friday at President Barack Obama's decision to scrap a Bush-era missile defense shield planned for their countries.

"Betrayal! The U.S. sold us to Russia and stabbed us in the back," the Polish tabloid Fakt declared on its front page.

Polish President Lech Kaczynski said he was concerned that Obama's new strategy leaves Poland in a dangerous "gray zone" between Western Europe and the old Soviet sphere.

Recent events in the region have rattled nerves throughout central and eastern Europe, a region controlled by Moscow during the Cold War, including the war last summer between Russia and Georgia and ongoing efforts by Russia to regain influence in Ukraine. A Russian cutoff of gas to Ukraine last winter left many Europeans without heat.

The Bush administration's plan would have been "a major step in preventing various disturbing trends in our region of the world," Kaczynski said in a guest editorial in the daily Fakt and also carried on his presidential Web site.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said he still sees a chance for Poles and Czechs to participate in the redesigned missile defense system. But that did not appear to calm nerves in Warsaw or Prague.

Kaczynski expressed hopes that the U.S. will now offer Poland other forms of "strategic partnership."

In Prague, Czech Foreign Minister Jan Kohout said he made two concrete proposal to U.S. officials on Thursday in hopes of keeping the U.S.-Czech alliance strong: for the U.S. to establish a branch of West Point for NATO members in Central Europe and to "send a Czech scientist on the U.S. space shuttle to the international space station."

An editorial in Hospodarske Novine, a respected pro-business Czech newspaper, said: "an ally we rely on has betrayed us, and exchanged us for its own, better relations with Russia, of which we are rightly afraid."

The move has raised fears in the two nations they are being marginalized by Washington even as a resurgent Russia leaves them longing for added American protection.

The Bush administration always said that the planned system — with a radar near Prague and interceptors in northern Poland — was meant as defense against Iran. But Poles and Czechs saw it as protection against Russia, and Moscow too considered a military installation in its backyard to be a threat.

"No Radar. Russia won," the largest Czech daily, Mlada Fronta Dnes, declared in a front-page headline.

Obama said the old plan was scrapped in part because the U.S. has concluded that Iran is less focused on developing the kind of long-range missiles for which the system was originally developed, making the building of an expensive new shield unnecessary.

The replacement system is to link smaller radar systems with a network of sensors and missiles that could be deployed at sea or on land. Some of the weaponry and sensors are ready now, and the rest would be developed over the next 10 years.

The Pentagon contemplates a system of perhaps 40 missiles by 2015, at two or three sites across Europe.

_____

Associated Press writer Karel Janicek contributed reporting from Prague.

Russia's Putin urges US to scrap trade barriers

SOCHI, Russia – Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on Friday praised President Barack Obama's decision to scrap plans for a missile defense system in Europe and urged the U.S. to also cancel Cold War-era restrictions on trade with Russia.

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said the Western alliance and Russia should consider linking their defensive missile systems.

He said NATO and Russia have a shared interest in combatting the proliferation of intercontinental ballistic missile technology in East Asia and the Middle East.

"If North Korea stays nuclear and if Iran becomes nuclear, some of their neighbors might feel compelled to follow their example," Fogh Rasmussen said.

Obama's predecessor, George W. Bush, had pushed to base elements of a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic, saying it would help defend against a missile attack from Iran. But the Kremlin strenuously objected, fearing that the system would compromise Russia strategic nuclear capabilities or be used to eavesdrop on Russian military forces.

Russian leaders in the past threatened to deploy short-range missiles to the Baltic exclave of Kaliningrad near Poland if the U.S. moved ahead with the missile defense plan.

On Friday, the Interfax news quoted an unnamed Russian military-diplomatic source as saying that such retaliatory measures would now be frozen and, possibly, fully canceled in response to Obama's decision to scrap the missile defense shield.

Russian president Dmitry Medvedev on Thursday praised the U.S. decision to dump the missile defense plan as a "responsible move."

While praising Obama's decision on missile defense, Putin challenged Washington to also cancel all existing restrictions on trade with Russia and give the go-ahed to World Trade Organization membership for Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan.

"I very much hope that this right and brave decision will be followed up by the full cancellation of all restrictions on cooperation with Russia and high technology transfer to Russia as well as a boost to expand the WTO to embrace Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan," Putin said at an investment forum in the Russian Black Sea resort of Sochi.

Putin stressed that the Cold War-era trade restrictions hurt American business as much as Russia. He lashed out at the U.S. administration for using the so-called "CoCom lists" to discriminate against Russia.

CoCom, or Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls, was established during the Cold War to tightly control technology exports to the Soviet Union and its allies.

"Formally these lists have been thrown out, but in reality a large part of them are in still in place," Putin said, urging American panelists at the Sochi investment forum to push their government to lift the restrictions.

"This hurts Russia's cooperation with its partners, first of all with the United States," he added. "This also hurts American business because it hampers development of their business contacts in Russia."

Russia has spent years trying to get the U.S. to scrap a handful of restrictive laws on bilateral trade, including the Jackson-Vanik amendment, a key Cold War-era legislation that has been a key irritant in relations between Moscow and Washington.

____

Associated Press Writers Nataliya Vasilyeva and Vladimir Isachenkov in Moscow contributed to this report.

Obama's 'Stealth Taxes' Estimated at Over $1.5 Trillion

Thursday, October 1, 2009 6:10 PM

By: David A. Patten

Taxpayers at all income levels could be hit with over $1.5 trillion in new taxes, fees, and other costs over the next 10 years, despite President Obama's repeated promises that he would not raise taxes "one dime" on those earning less than $250,000 a year.

Details of several new tax proposals, including some that would disproportionately affect the middle and lower classes, have emerged following Obama's recent dust-up with host George Stephanopoulos on ABC's “This Week.” The two locked horns over whether the individual mandate in healthcare reform, which requires individuals either to buy healthcare coverage or face considerable fines, amounts to a tax.

Stephanopoulos suggested that fines levied for not complying with the mandate are a tax. Obama's response: "But George, you can't just make up that language and decide that's called a tax increase…. I absolutely reject that notion."

Under the Senate finance version of the healthcare reform bill, individuals could be penalized up to $1,900 a year for not buying insurance. That mandate would generate up to $20 billion in new federal revenue, according to the Congressional Budget Office. But is it a tax?

One strong indicator: The mandate would become part of the Internal Revenue Code. Failing to pay the penalty would result in a misdemeanor crime punishable by a $25,000 fine and/or up to a year in jail. Also, both the House and the Senate versions of the bill refer to the mandate fines as a form of "taxes."

So Stephanopoulos was correct, and Obama was mistaken: The fees assessed as part of the requirement that people purchase insurance coverage are indeed a form of taxes.

Heritage Foundation senior fellow J.D. Foster tells Newsmax that Democrats are searching for "anything to collect revenues" that don't appear to be taxes.

"The stealth taxes masquerading as fees in the various healthcare reform proposals are just another example of this," Foster says, "except that they also violate the president's promise of more transparency in government. And they violate his promise not to raises taxes on the middle class."

Or as a Wall Street Journal editorial recently declared: "His real problem is that the individual mandate really is a tax. But the president doesn't want voters to think of it that way, because taxes are unpopular."

Several other taxes or quasi-taxes are under consideration. Some have been written into proposed legislation, while others are still in the conceptual stage.

So far, Democrats have primarily relied on projected-but-unspecified savings in Medicaid and Medicare to mask the red ink spilling from their proposals. Ultimately, however, balancing the budget will require eliminating government programs or raising taxes. But some de facto taxes hit consumers indirectly.

"If they take your money without your permission, it's either a tax or a mugger," Grover Norquist, founder of the anti-tax Americans for Tax Reform organization, tells Newsmax. "You can call it anything you want, but a fee that you have to pay is a tax."

One tax has already been implemented. In February, Obama signed legislation hiking the federal excise tax on cigarettes by a whopping 156 percent, to $1.01 per pack.

An October 2007 report by Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation estimated the tobacco tax would generate approximately $7.3 billion per year. The tax disproportionately affects the working poor, because one in four smokers lives below the poverty line according to Americans for Tax Reform.

Other new taxes or "fees" that may be on the table:

Health-Insurance Company Fee. The "Baucus bill" passed by the Senate Finance Committee and parallel initiatives in the House would hit health-insurance providers with an annual fee. Robert Zirkelbach, director of communications for the America's Health Insurance Plans trade group, tells Newsmax the industry strongly opposes what he sees as a tax.

“New taxes on healthcare coverage will only make coverage less affordable for families and small businesses," Zirkelbach says. "This is the opposite effect of what health care reform is supposed to accomplish. Unless policymakers focus on the underlying medical cost drivers, healthcare reform will not be sustainable.” Price Tag: Over 10 years, the measure would cost somewhat north of $45 billion, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.

Energy "Tax." A U.S. Treasury Department document obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute following a Freedom of Information Act request reveals that the administration projected revenues of "$100 to $200 billion annually" from auctioning off the right to emit greenhouse gases – the system known as cap and trade. Some of the funds raised by the administration will go to development of alternative forms of energy and conservation, and other government programs. The Treasury report also projected that, "Economic costs will likely be on the order of 1 percent of GDP, making them equal in scale to all existing environmental regulation." But once again, can higher fuel costs and other economic impacts legitimately be called a tax?

The Treasury Department said the difference between cap-and-trade proposals, which auction the right to emit greenhouse gases, and a carbon tax on emissions "have blurred." In April 2008 Peter Orszag, who now serves as Obama's director of the Office of Management and Budget, testified to Congress that: "Under a cap-and-trade program, firms would not ultimately bear most of the costs of the allowances but instead would pass them along to their customers in the form of higher prices … price increases would be essential to the success of a cap-and-trade program." Price Tag: At 1 percent of GDP, cap and trade as currently proposed would cost consumers $140 billion per year. The fact that it's not technically a tax won't be much consolation. The price tag over 10 years: $1.4 trillion.

Medical Device Fee. The Senate Finance Committee's healthcare-reform legislation – the so-called "Baucus bill" – proposes a tax on medical devices. Ironically, the "fee" will increase the cost of medical care, which is the very problem healthcare reform is ostensibly meant to redress. Foster warns employers may react to higher insurance costs by cutting workers' wages. Price Tag: About $30 billion over the next decade, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.

Fee on Brand-Name Drugs. The Baucus bill would raise $1.7 billion annually by imposing a fee on those who manufacture or import "branded," i.e., non-generic, drugs. Again, these fees, although not defined as a tax, will increase the cost of healthcare to consumers and insurance companies. According to Douglas W. Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office, it's a given that consumers will foot the bill for the various fees in healthcare reform. "Those fees would increase costs for the affected firms," Elmendorf wrote in a Sept. 22 letter to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., "which would be passed on to purchasers and would ultimately raise insurance premiums by a corresponding amount." Price Tag: $17.2 billion over 10 years.

The so-called "Bo-Tax." This proposal would slap a 10 percent excise tax on cosmetic procedures, such as cosmetic implants or Botox injections. Price tag: About $11 billion over the next decade, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation. It remains to be seen whether the Bo-Tax will be included in the final version of the legislation to be voted on by the Senate.

Soda Tax. When CNBC's John Harwood asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in May if Congress would consider levying a "soda tax" to raise money for healthcare reform, she replied "Everything [is] on the table." Since then, the idea of a soda tax has gained momentum. In September, several leading health experts endorsed a soda tax, saying it would help curb the nation's growing obesity problem.

Look for the soft-drink companies and the American Beverage Association to fight it. "I have never seen it work where a government tells people what to eat and what to drink," Coca-Cola CEO Muhtar Kent recently told a Rotary Club audience, according to Bloomberg.com. "If it worked, the Soviet Union would still be around."

Any tax on soda would encounter tough resistance from lobbyists on Capitol Hill. Both The New York Times and doctors writing in the New England Journal of Medicine have called for a 1-cent-per-ounce tax on soda. The soda tax isn't in the current versions of the health-care reform legislation, but will probably resurface. In a recent edition of Men's Health magazine, Obama remarked: "I actually think it's an idea that we should be exploring." Price Tag: According to the publisher of the Beverage Digest trade publication, John Sicher, a 1-cent-per-ounce tax would raise $13 billion annually. But any soda tax faces an uphill legislative battle. If it does pass, insiders say, it would almost certainly cost less than a penny an ounce. "I think that a tax by any other name is still a tax," Sicher tells Newsmax. "If money goes from an individual's pocket into the public coffers, it sounds like a tax, and therefore it probably is a tax."

Even without the soda tax, these items add up to a "stealth tax bill" on Americans of over $1.5 trillion over the next 10 years – most of it stemming from the indirect costs of energy cap and trade. Of course, how many of these proposals make their way into law remain to be seen.

There's one group that won't be surprised to learn Uncle Sam is reaching deeper and deeper into its citizens' pockets: Voters. In August, a Gallup poll reported that 68 percent of them believed their federal income taxes would be higher by the time Obama's first term is completed. Of those, 35 percent expected their taxes to be "a lot higher."

Similarly, The New York Times stated in a recent editorial: "The question then is not whether taxes must go up, but when, how, and how much."

By current estimates, the budget deficit will reach $9 trillion in the next 10 years. Most economists consider that level of debt unsustainable.

Norquist says it's no surprise that those making less than $250,000 will feel the pinch of higher taxes and fees.

"There aren't enough rich people to fund his fantasies," Norquist says of Obama. "So he goes to the middle class and loots them. But because he said he wouldn't, he has to play the game of calling it something else."

Brad Schiller, a professor of economics at the University of Nevada, Reno, tells Newsmax it would be a mistake to strictly limit the economic discussion to taxes.

"I would say the cost burden on business and households in whatever form is a reduction on their income," Schiller says. "So we shouldn't focus exclusively on taxes. We should also look at fees and higher costs."

Schiller believes the added taxes, fees, and costs discussed so far will not represent a significant drag on the economic recovery in the next four years. In fact he calls them "barnacles on a boat," pointing out that major programs such as healthcare are phased in over a period of years anyway.

In the longer term, however, he says taking more money from consumers is "worrisome," because higher taxes and other costs inevitably hurt productivity.

Of more immediate concern, he says, are the higher interest rates that will be triggered by government borrowing and the deficit. Those factors "are going to be what really slows the boat down," he says. And he expects those factors to begin to come into play next year.

Other changes in the tax code are probably in store as well, and none of them is likely to help the economy. President Obama has called for raising the capital gains tax from 15 percent to 20 percent. He also wants to kill the Bush tax cuts that benefited those in the higher income brackets, who disproportionately shoulder the nation's tax burden. And Obama wants to eliminate a provision that allows U.S. corporations to defer paying taxes on overseas profits, as long as the money remains offshore. Once those profits return home to the United States, they are subject to the 35 percent U.S. corporate tax rate, one of the highest in the world.

All of those taxes and fees, however, would pale in comparison to a value-added tax (VAT), which would be similar to a national sales tax on consumption.

Value-added taxes are a common feature of the Western European societies that the globalists in the Obama administration appear to admire so much. John Podesta, the co-chairman of Obama's transition team and founder of the Center for American Progress, recently floated a trial balloon by telling Bloomberg Television that a value-added tax is more plausible than ever before due to the high deficit.

Former Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Altman suggests the VAT could raise $400 billion per year from taxpayers. And everyone would pay for the tax, regardless of their income bracket.

Comments Reuters columnist James Pethokoukis: "Obama's campaign promise to not raise taxes on households making less than $250,000 a year was always considered a joke here inside the Beltway…. Maybe it was a joke inside the campaign, too."

OMB director Orszag recently confirmed that he's currently looking for additional ways to narrow the budget deficit in the president's 2011 budget.

Does that mean the administration would consider imposing new taxes on those earning less than $250,000 a year?

The Wall Street Journal asked Orszag that question. He replied: "We're in the midst of putting together the 2011 budget, and we'll have more to say about that later."

Orszag's response led the Journal to advise its readers: "Hide the children."

Dems Move to Weaken Patriot Act

Thursday, October 1, 2009 4:10 PM

WASHINGTON -- The Senate Intelligence Committee chairwoman said Thursday that she no longer had concerns with a proposed modification of the USA Patriot Act, the nation's primary counterintelligence law.

However, liberal Democrats still believe the bill fails to protect Americans' privacy and conservative Republicans want no major changes.

The Senate Judiciary Committee, considering changes to expiring portions of the act, was still too divided at its weekly meeting to send a compromise bill to the full Senate.

Three sections that expire Dec. 31 set the rules the government must follow when conducting electronic surveillance and obtaining documents and other tangible items in national security investigations.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who heads the intelligence committee, told a Judiciary Committee meeting she had overcome concerns that the bill would hinder an ongoing investigation into a suspected train bomb plot in New York City.

She said modifications, added to the bill by Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy and others, "protect both our safety and civil liberties" and would not jeopardize "the biggest (anti-terrorism) investigation since 9/11."

However, Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., said more protection is needed against unwarranted searches of personal and business records and unwarranted electronic surveillance. The government should have to establish a terrorism connection to invade Americans' privacy, he argued. The current law and proposed changes don't always require that standard.

Feingold said there was bipartisan agreement the last time the Patriot Act was reauthorized but added, "I fear this is not how the process is going to play out this year. We need to revisit the entire bill" _ not just the expiring provisions.

"Congress cannot give the government overly broad authority and just keep its fingers crossed."

Republicans, on the other hand, remain wary of any major changes.

"The Patriot Act has been a success," said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. "I hope we wouldn't revert to pre 9/11 attitudes" when law enforcement and intelligence agencies did not share information.

He also opposed Leahy's plan to extend the expiring portions only through Dec. 31, 2013. At that point, Congress would again consider whether changes in the law were needed.

The expiring Patriot Act provisions provide:

_Roving, court-approved wiretaps that allow surveillance on multiple phones. Law enforcement is not required to ascertain that a suspected foreign terrorist is actually using the phones being tapped.

_That businesses produce "any tangible things" at the FBI's request.

_Authority to conduct surveillance against a so-called "lone wolf," a non-U.S. citizen engaged in terrorism who may not be part of a recognized terrorist group. This provision has never been used, the Justice Department said.

The legislation now before the Judiciary Committee would increase court scrutiny of the government's powers to capture information on U.S. citizens. It would increase reviews by Congress of how the government was using the law.

Leahy's proposed changes would modify the government's justification for obtaining business records and other items. Authorities would have to provide a court a detailed statement, to justify that the items were relevant to an authorized foreign intelligence investigation.

Several of the chairman's proposals concern national security letters, which are FBI demands for obtaining tangible items without court warrants.

There would be a Dec. 31, 2013 expiration date for the current standard the government must meet before sending the letters. That standard makes it easier for the government to use the letters, compared with the rules in effect prior to the 2001 Patriot Act.

If the current standard is not reauthorized after the 2013 expiration, the government would have to use the more stringent rules in effect prior to 2001.

Leahy also would make it easier for a recipient to challenge a gag order preventing him or her from disclosing the national security letter.

You Mislead!
Fact-checking Obama.

By Michael F. Cannon and Ramesh Ponnuru

It is a good thing that other congressmen did not follow Rep. Joe Wilson’s lead. If they yelled out every time President Obama said something untrue about health care, they would quickly find themselves growing hoarse.

By our count, the president made more than 20 inaccurate claims in his speech to Congress. We have excluded several comments that are deeply misleading but not outright false. (For example: Obama pledged not to tap the Medicare trust fund to pay for reform. But there is no money in that “trust fund,” anyway, so the pledge is meaningless.) Even so, we may have missed one or more false statements by the president. Our failure to include one of his comments in the following list should not be taken to constitute an endorsement of its accuracy, let alone wisdom.

1. “Buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer.” The Congressional Budget Office writes, “Premiums for policies purchased in the individual insurance market are, on average, much lower — about one-third lower for single coverage and one-half lower for family policies.” It is true that individual insurance policies are generally 30 percent less comprehensive than employer-provided insurance, and comparable individual policies are about twice as expensive. But much of the extra cost is a function of the tax penalty on purchasing such insurance and the stunted market that penalty has yielded.

2. “There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage.”An outright falsehood, whether you use the president’s noncitizen-free estimate or the standard, questionable estimate of 46 million uninsured residents.

A study prepared for the federal government estimates that 9 million people counted as “uninsured” in the standard estimate are in fact enrolled in Medicaid. The left-leaning Urban Institute estimates that 12 million are eligible but not enrolled, meaning they could get coverage at any time. Health economists Mark Pauly of the University of Pennsylvania and Kate Bundorf of Stanford estimate that one quarter to three quarters of the uninsured can afford to purchase coverage, but choose not to do so.

3.“And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage.” The paper that generated this estimate assumed that two months of severe job losses would continue forever. Applying that paper’s methodology to a broader period of rising unemployment (January 2008 through August 2009) produces a figure below 9,000.

It also assumes those coverage losses are permanent. Like many of the 46 million Americans we label “uninsured,” many of those 9,000 will regain coverage after a number of months. (David Freddoso illustrates the absurdity of assuming that all coverage losses are permanent.)

4. “One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy. . . . They delayed his treatment, and he died because of it.” He didn’t die because of it. The originator of this false claim, a writer for Slate named Timothy Noah, has admitted he got it wrong.

5. “Another woman from Texas was about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forgot to declare a case of acne.” Scott Harrington supplied more facts in the Wall Street Journal: “The woman’s testimony at the June 16 hearing confirms that her surgery was delayed several months. It also suggests that the dermatologist’s chart may have described her skin condition as precancerous, that the insurer also took issue with an apparent failure to disclose an earlier problem with an irregular heartbeat, and that she knowingly underreported her weight on the application.” The woman deserves sympathy, but Obama has stretched the truth here.

6. Rising costs are “why so many employers . . . are forcing their employees to pay more for insurance.” Perhaps no other issue generates as much of a consensus among health-care economists as this one: The “employer’s share” of employees’ health-care costs comes out of those employees’ wages, not out of profits. In this comment and in five others in his speech, Obama contradicts that basic truth. Employers aren’t forcing their employees to pick up a larger share of the bill because they can’t. Workers are already paying the entire bill.

7. Rising costs are “why American business that compete internationally . . . are at a huge disadvantage.” False. The rising cost of health benefits does not increase employers’ labor costs because, again, wages adjust downward to compensate. The Congressional Budget Office, under the leadership of Obama’s OMB director, Peter Orszag, confirmed that health-care costs do not hinder competitiveness. Obama economic aide Christina Romer has called this competitiveness argument “schlocky.”

8. “Those of us with health insurance are also paying a hidden and growing tax for those without it — about $1,000 per year that pays for somebody else’s emergency room and charitable care.” That number comes from a left-wing advocacy group. A Kaiser Family Foundation study debunked the group’s analysis, reaching an estimate closer to $200 per year for a family. The CBO report mentioned above reached the same conclusion.

9. At this point, Obama said, “These are the facts. Nobody disputes them.” This comment continues Obama’s already long tradition of trying to curtail debate by denying that anyone disagrees with him.

10. “[Reform] will slow the growth of health-care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government.” In July, CBO director Douglas Elmendorf said, “In the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health-care costs.” The CBO projects that the legislation that Sen. Max Baucus (D., Mont.) has since introduced “would reduce the federal budgetary commitment to health care, relative to that under current law, during the decade following the 10-year budget window,” but hints that the 40 percent cut in Medicare’s reimbursement rates, which helps Baucus achieve that feat, is politically unrealistic. (More on that below.) Health economist Victor Fuchs writes that the proposals before Congress “aim at cost shifting rather than cost reduction.” Obama and his allies have yet to demonstrate anything to the contrary.

11. “Nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: Nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.” Obama’s wording is lawyerly: While not denying that his plan would cause people to lose existing coverage with which they are satisfied, he leads us to believe that he is denying it. But even on its own terms, Obama’s claim is false. The CBO estimates that slashing payments to Medicare Advantage, as Obama advocates, “would reduce the extra benefits that would be made available to beneficiaries through Medicare Advantage plans.” It would also cause some people to lose their coverage.

12. Requiring insurers to cover preventive care “saves money.” Nope. According to a review in the New England Journal of Medicine, “Although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not.”

13. “The [bogus] claim . . . that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens . . . is a lie, plain and simple.” Sarah Palin claimed that Obama’s “death panels” would deny people medical care, not actively kill them. If Palin believes her claim, it is not “a lie, plain and simple.” Most important, the substance of Palin’s claim is, in fact, true. Obama himself proposed a new Independent Medicare Advisory Council with the authority to deny life-extending care to the elderly and disabled.

14. “There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.” For better or worse, the president’s plan would, in his words, insure illegal immigrants. Various federal agencies, immigration critics, and the media all acknowledge that a small number of undocumented aliens obtain Medicaid benefits despite being ineligible. The president seeks to expand Medicaid, which would create greater opportunities for ineligible aliens to enroll.

The House Democrats’ health-insurance exchange, which Obama supports, would “apply to” undocumented aliens. The CRS writes that the House legislation “does not contain any restrictions on noncitizens participating in the Exchange — whether the noncitizens are legally or illegally present.” Nor does it require that the legal status of people receiving subsidies be verified.

Finally, Obama supports granting legal status to millions of illegal immigrants, which would make them eligible for government benefits under his health plan.

15. “Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.” Unless Obama refers to some draft legislation inside his head, this claim is false. The House bill allows the “government option” to pay for abortions directly from the U.S. Treasury. Both the House and Baucus bills would subsidize private insurance that cover abortions. (See Douglas Johnson’s comment on this article.)

16. Critics of the public option would “be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won’t be. I’ve insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects.” How quickly we forget the example of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Like those institutions, the public option would benefit from an implicit subsidy: Everyone would know that Washington would not allow the program to fail, and financial institutions would therefore offer it better rates. (During the Clinton administration, Obama adviser Larry Summers reported that a similar implicit guarantee was worth $6 billion per year to Fannie and Freddie.) The public option would thus be able to undercut its less-subsidized competitors.

17. “And I will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat gets between you and the care that you need.” Unless the president proposes to abolish insurance, or abolish all care management, there will always be tension between patients, doctors, and public/private insurers over what patients “need.” Such tensions are sure to arise under the president’s IMAC proposal.

But even if a new program would be “administered by the government, just like Medicaid or Medicare,” it would interfere in those decisions. As an administrative-law judge wrote to one of us after Obama’s address: “I am a government bureaucrat . . . and I just happen to be reviewing [six] cases, albeit involving Medicare and Medicaid, where the government has inserted itself between the patient and the care prescribed by the physician.”

18. “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future.” “The plan will not add to our deficit.” None of the bills before Congress can credibly claim to keep the deficit from rising. The one that comes closest, the Baucus bill, does so by making the wildly implausible assumption that Congress will allow 40 percent cuts in physician payments under Medicare to take place in 2012. Congress has routinely refused to support much smaller cuts.

19. “Now, add it all up, and the plan I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over ten years.” Even the supposedly parsimonious Baucus bill would cost closer to $2 trillion than $1 trillion once we “add it all up.” The CBO says that bill would spend a mere $774 billion over ten years, in part because the spending begins late in that ten-year window. Republican staffers on the Senate Budget Committee estimate that the Baucus bill would cost $1.7 trillion over the first ten years of full implementation.

Moreover, the preliminary CBO score does not measure the full cost of the bill because it does not include the mandates Baucus would impose on states (about $37 billion) and the private sector (not yet estimated, but 60 percent of total costs in Massachusetts). The other bills would cost even more.

20. “The middle class will realize greater security, not higher taxes.” Obama would make health insurance compulsory for the middle class (and everyone else). If he thinks that isn’t a tax, he should listen to his economic adviser Larry Summers, or his nominee for assistant secretary for planning and evaluation at HHS, Sherry Glied. Both liken the “individual mandate” to a tax, as do other prominent health economists like Uwe Reinhardt (Princeton) and Jonathan Gruber (MIT). The CBO affirms that the penalties for non-compliance “would be equivalent to a tax or fine.”

If Obama thinks the middle class wouldn’t pay the taxes he wants to impose on the “drug and insurance companies,” he should read this CBO report or talk to the junior senator from West Virginia, who accurately describes those levies as a “big, big tax” on middle-class coalminers.

21. “I won’t stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are.” Who are these special interests? In case Obama hadn’t noticed, everyone from the drug-makers to the unions to the insurance companies he demonizes are spending millions to build momentum for his version of reform — in no small part because Obama has promised to buy them off with middle-class tax dollars.

When President Obama makes a factual claim about health-care policy, he does not deserve the benefit of the doubt about its accuracy. We do not know whether he has been badly misinformed or is deliberately trying to mislead. Either way, he cannot be trusted to reform American health care.

— Michael F. Cannon is director of health-policy studies at the Cato Institute. Ramesh Ponnuru is a senior editor at National Review.

French Atomic Pique

Sarkozy unloads on Obama's 'virtual' disarmament reality.

Both countries wanted to confront Iran a day earlier at the United Nations. Mr. Obama was, after all, chairing a Security Council session devoted to nonproliferation. The latest evidence of Iran's illegal moves toward acquiring a nuclear weapon was in hand. With the world's leaders gathered in New York, the timing and venue would be a dramatic way to rally international opinion.

View Full Image

Associated Press

French President Nicolas Sarkozy flanked by President Barack Obama, and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

President Sarkozy in particular pushed hard. He had been "frustrated" for months about Mr. Obama's reluctance to confront Iran, a senior French government official told us, and saw an opportunity to change momentum. But the Administration told the French that it didn't want to "spoil the image of success" for Mr. Obama's debut at the U.N. and his homily calling for a world without nuclear weapons, according to the Paris daily Le Monde. So the Iran bombshell was pushed back a day to Pittsburgh, where the G-20 were meeting to discuss economic policy.

Le Monde's diplomatic correspondent, Natalie Nougayrède, reports that a draft of Mr. Sarkozy's speech to the Security Council Thursday included a section on Iran's latest deception. Forced to scrap that bit, the French President let his frustration show with undiplomatic gusto in his formal remarks, laying into what he called the "dream" of disarmament. The address takes on added meaning now that we know the backroom discussions.

"We are right to talk about the future," Mr. Sarkozy said, referring to the U.S. resolution on strengthening arms control treaties. "But the present comes before the future, and the present includes two major nuclear crises," i.e., Iran and North Korea. "We live in the real world, not in a virtual one." No prize for guessing into which world the Frenchman puts Mr. Obama.

"We say that we must reduce," he went on. "President Obama himself has said that he dreams of a world without nuclear weapons. Before our very eyes, two countries are doing exactly the opposite at this very moment. Since 2005, Iran has violated five Security Council Resolutions . . .

"I support America's 'extended hand.' But what have these proposals for dialogue produced for the international community? Nothing but more enriched uranium and more centrifuges. And last but not least, it has resulted in a statement by Iranian leaders calling for wiping off the map a Member of the United Nations. What are we to do? What conclusions are we to draw? At a certain moment hard facts will force us to make decisions."

We thought we'd never see the day when the President of France shows more resolve than America's Commander in Chief for confronting one of the gravest challenges to global security. But here we are.

From Pravda (Russian Newspaper)

American capitalism gone with a whimper

It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.

True, the situation has been well prepared on and off for the past century, especially the past twenty years. The initial testing grounds was conducted upon our Holy Russia and a bloody test it was. But we Russians would not just roll over and give up our freedoms and our souls, no matter how much money Wall Street poured into the fists of the Marxists.

Those lessons were taken and used to properly prepare the American populace for the surrender of their freedoms and souls, to the whims of their elites and betters.

First, the population was dumbed down through a politicized and substandard education system based on pop culture, rather then the classics. Americans know more about their favorite TV dramas then the drama in DC that directly affects their lives. They care more for their "right" to choke down a McDonalds burger or a BurgerKing burger than for their constitutional rights. Then they turn around and lecture us about our rights and about our "democracy". Pride blind the foolish.

Then their faith in God was destroyed, until their churches, all tens of thousands of different "branches and denominations" were for the most part little more then Sunday circuses and their televangelists and top protestant mega preachers were more then happy to sell out their souls and flocks to be on the "winning" side of one pseudo Marxist politician or another. Their flocks may complain, but when explained that they would be on the "winning" side, their flocks were ever so quick to reject Christ in hopes for earthly power. Even our Holy Orthodox churches are scandalously liberalized in America.

The final collapse has come with the election of Barack Obama. His speed in the past three months has been truly impressive. His spending and money printing has been a record setting, not just in America's short history but in the world. If this keeps up for more then another year, and there is no sign that it will not, America at best will resemble the Wiemar Republic and at worst Zimbabwe.

These past two weeks have been the most breath taking of all. First came the announcement of a planned redesign of the American Byzantine tax system, by the very thieves who used it to bankroll their thefts, loses and swindles of hundreds of billions of dollars. These make our Russian oligarchs look little more then ordinary street thugs, in comparison. Yes, the Americans have beat our own thieves in the shear volumes. Should we congratulate them?

Dems Turn Back GOP Health Bill Tax Amendments

Thursday, October 1, 2009 4:10

WASHINGTON -- Rejecting Republican amendments, Democrats turned back GOP efforts to cast the health care overhaul as a tax hike on the middle class Thursday, as a crucial Senate panel aimed to wrap up debate on the measure by nightfall.

The outcome increasingly appeared inevitable with Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., declaring he had the votes for approval of the bill embracing President Barack Obama's priorities of extending coverage to the uninsured and holding down spiraling medical costs.

The final committee vote probably won't happen until next week so senators and the Congressional Budget Office have time to review the legislation. The full Senate and House are to take it up later this month.

The legislation would dramatically reshape the U.S. heath care system, extending coverage to about 95 percent of Americans, making carrying insurance a requirement for the first time, providing subsidies to help poorer people buy health plans and barring insurance industry practices like dropping coverage for sick people.

A new purchasing exchange, or marketplace, would let people shop for and compare insurance plans that would be required to meet certain standards. Baucus' bill leaves out a new government-run insurance plan _ opposed by Republicans _ to compete with private companies.

Republicans argued on Thursday that taxes the bill proposes on people who don't comply with the new mandate to buy health insurance would break Obama's promise to shield families making under $250,000 a year from tax hikes. The fees could rise as high as $1,900 for households that don't buy coverage.

"There are going to be a lot of people whose taxes are increased by this legislation," said Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho. That would violate "the promise and the pledge the president has made to the American people," he contended.

Democrats replied that the bill actually amounted to a $40 billion tax cut for Americans over 10 years since it provides for credits to help lower income people buy coverage.

"This is a message amendment," said Baucus, contending that offerings by Crapo and Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., were designed to make arguments against the bill, not improve it.

"What you're saying is you want to gut the president's program. More than that, you want to gut health reform," Baucus said.

The Crapo and Ensign amendments would have provided that individuals making less than $200,000 a year and families making less than $250,000 would be exempt from some of the fees in the bill. Both failed 12-11, with moderate Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas joining all 10 committee Republicans to vote "yes."

Another Ensign amendment _ to limit the impact of a new tax on high-value insurance plans that is the bill's main financing mechanism _ also failed on a 12-11 vote. This time Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., joined Republicans in voting "yes." Her state is home to major labor unions that oppose the tax because they fear members' health plans would be affected.

The back-and-forth came after Baucus opened the committee's seventh day of work by announcing he hoped to complete debate by the end of the day, opening the way for Democratic leaders to bring the historic legislation to the floors of both the House and Senate as early as mid-October.

Still, two weeks before the projected start of debate, key decisions are yet to be made.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid must decide, for example, whether to include a government insurance option, a provision sought by liberals who argue it would subject private insurers to much-needed competition.

Legislation that cleared the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee earlier in the year includes the so-called public option, but the Finance Committee twice rejected proposals along those lines this week. The Finance bill has nonprofit cooperatives instead.

"I favor a public option. We're going to do our very best to have a public option. But remember, a public option is a relative term," Reid, D-Nev., said Thursday. Several senators are floating compromises.

There is no uncertainty on the issue in the House, where Pelosi has said a public plan will be included in legislation that goes to the floor.

Democrats in both houses still are struggling to find ways to hold down the cost of the overhaul legislation while assuring quality health coverage for millions of lower-income individuals and families.

In the House, the issue has been the subject of closed-door negotiations in recent days, as Democratic leaders try to reduce the cost of their bill to the $900 billion over 10 years set by Obama.

In the Senate, Finance Committee Democrats worked privately on the same issue.

One proposal under consideration, advanced by Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., would allow subsidies ticketed for lower-income uninsured to flow to the states. The states, in turn, would negotiate with private insurers to provide coverage for the target population.

Olympia Snowe of Maine is the only GOP Finance Committee senator whose vote is in doubt, and she has yet to tip her hand. While she has voted with Democrats on some key tests she has also sided with fellow Republicans on other contentious issues.

On Wednesday, Obama lobbied reluctant Democrats by phone to support the Finance Committee measure.

Obama’s Olympic failure will only add to doubts about his presidency

Tim Reid in Washington Post

There has been a growing narrative taking hold about Barack Obama’s presidency in recent weeks: that he is loved by many, but feared by none; that he is full of lofty vision, but is actually achieving nothing with his grandiloquence.

Chicago’s dismal showing yesterday, after Mr Obama’s personal, impassioned last-minute pitch, is a stunning humiliation for this President. It cannot be emphasised enough how this will feed the perception that on the world stage he looks good — but carries no heft.

It was only the Olympic Games, the White House will argue — not a high-stakes diplomatic gamble with North Korea. It is always worthwhile when Mr Obama sells America to the rest of the world, David Axelrod, his chief political adviser, said today. But that argument will fall on deaf ears in the US. Americans want their presidents to be winners.

Mr Obama was greeted — as usual — like a rock star by the IOC delegates in Copenhagen — then humiliated by them. Perception is reality. A narrow defeat for Chicago would have been acceptable — but the sheer scale of the defeat was a bombshell, and is a major blow for Mr Obama at a time when questions are being asked about his style of governance.

At home, it is difficult to turn on a television and not see Mr Obama giving a press conference, or an interview, or at a town hall rally, in his all-out effort to sell his troubled reform the US health insurance system. After three months of enormous exposure, Mr Obama has achieved this: the growing likelihood of ramming a Bill through Congress with — at most — just one Republican vote.

Abroad, Mr Obama promised in his Inauguration address to engage America’s enemies, and he has done just that. He has very little to show for it. Yes, Iran took part in bilateral talks with the US this week over its nuclear weapons programme — but that is something Tehran has wanted for years. There is still a very good chance that the meetings will prove to be an exercise in futility and a time-wasting ploy by Tehran.

Mr Obama also scrapped a plan for a missile defence shield in the Czech Republic and Poland, hoping to get in return Russian co-operation behind new sanctions against Tehran. There was optimism when President Medvedev said “sanctions are seldom productive, but they are sometimes inevitable”. Yet Vladimir Putin, and the Chinese, remain fiercely opposed to sanctions.

Meanwhile, America and its allies are being forced to witness a very public agonising by Mr Obama and his advisers over his Afghan strategy — six months after he announced that strategy.

This has all added to the perception that Mr Obama’s soaring rhetoric — which captured the imagination during last year’s election — is simply not enough when it comes to confronting the myriad challenges of the presidency. His spectacular Olympic failure will only add to that.

We The People