Goldman Sach Overheard!
Archive for January, 2011
January 26, 2011
Reaction SOTU 2011
SOTU
SOTU
Dear Friends,
Last night President Obama delivered his second State of the Union address. Not too long ago, few would have believed that Mr. Obama would be giving this speech from a position of such relative weakness.
What exactly did Mr. Obama say? Where is the country doing? Where are we headed? How do we win the future?
For starters, over 4,000 + words before he mentioned the “d” word. It’s call “DEBT” Mr. President.
In his speech, no specifics – no pain!
Mr. Obama’s road map is as uncertain as Mount Washington at the confluence of major storm tracks. Just look at Obamacare, the Stimulous, Shovel Ready Jobs, etc, etc, etc.
It was a night of hot air with promises from Mr. Obama that have been made and broken and made and broken. Bottom line: Once again, Mother was right - we married the wrong guy!
Our sincere Thank You to The Heritage Foundation for their continuing permission to share important information with the AskMrsFiggins.com audience.
Heritage members and fans began immediately discussing President Barack Obama’s State of the Unions address on Twitter and Facebook. And below this note, are just some of the immediate reactions to parts of the speech.
But first please allow me to tell you a little bit about the important work and contribution of The Heritage Foundation.
Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institution—a think tank—whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.
The Heritage Foundation believes the principles and ideas of the American Founding are worth conserving and renewing. As policy entrepreneurs, we believe the most effective solutions are consistent with those ideas and principles. Our vision is to build an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity, and civil society flourish.
Heritage’s staff pursues this mission by performing timely, accurate research on key policy issues and effectively marketing these findings to our primary audiences: members of Congress, key congressional staff members, policymakers in the executive branch, the nation’s news media, and the academic and policy communities.
Governed by an independent Board of Trustees, The Heritage Foundation is an independent, tax-exempt institution. Heritage relies on the private financial support of the general public—individuals, foundations, and corporations—for its income, and accepts no government funds and performs no contract work. Heritage is one of the nation’s largest public policy research organizations. More than 710,000 individual members make it the most broadly supported think tank in America.
Your support of the Heritage Foundation is very important.
Mrs. Figgins
Leadership
Leadership
More Change and Progress
What does the committed progressive do when the direction of history turns against them? That’s what seems to have happened between 2008 and 2010–between an election thought to be the next great leap forward in the movement of liberalism and another which seems to signal a popular rejection of just that claim. The Left had long maintained that big government is inevitable, permanent, and ever-expanding – the final form of “democratic” governance. But now the progressive transformation seems to have bogged down. Indeed, the Left’s beloved modern state seems at issue. The American people just haven’t bought in to the whole new New Deal. Now what?
Consolidate. For progressives, politics has always been seen as an ebb and flow between periods of “progress” and “change” and brief interregnums to defend and consolidate the status quo as we wait for the bursting forth of the next great era of reformism. “It is time to leave behind the divisive battles of the past,” he said at one point, referring to the fight over open homosexuality in the military. “It is time to move forward as one nation.” Look at what he said about “the new health care law”: he is eager to improve it, but “what I’m not willing to do is go back.” “So instead of re-fighting the battles of the last two years, let’s fix what needs fixing and move forward.” Lock in progressive achievements and let’s move on.
Next, redefine what change means. Rather than transformative change (as in the old notion of ‘we are the change we have been waiting for’) it now turns out that “the world has changed,” driven by technology and competition. The new challenge is not to bring about change but to respond to change and “meet the demands of a new age.” What we can’t do is stand pat–a cut against conservatives using the phrase early progressives coined against their critics who wanted to “stand pat” rather than join the liberal surge. Today we must change to keep up with change.
President Obama said several times that we must “win the future.” Fine. Does anyone want to lose the future? But–and here he betrays his progressive principles and reconfirms that liberalism is the philosophy of government–it turns out that the key is more government “investment” in innovation, education and infrastructure. And more progressive government: “We cannot win the future with a government of the past.” We know what that means.
So: consolidate, meet the demands for change and win the future. There’s still hope: “We are poised for progress.”
- Matt Spalding
Still No Choice in Education
We agree with the president: No Child Left Behind is broken. Unfortunately, the similarities end there. although both sides of the aisle agree that No Child Left Behind is broken, the Obama administration does not believe the federal role in education is fundamentally flawed. They’re still holding onto the hope that after 40 years of failed federal interventions, this time, Washington will get it right.
In his address tonight, President Obama lauded his Race to the Top Program and continued to promote national standards. He also talked extensively about “investing” more in education, a clear indication that he plans to continue Washington’s education spending spree.
But conservatives have a better plan for improving education: The Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success (A-PLUS) plan. A-PLUS would allow states to opt out of onerous federal programs such as those found within NCLB, and would allow state and local leaders to have more control over education dollars and decision-making.
The president’s speech also lacked any serious discussion of school choice, despite the fact that the highly effective D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program is on life support in his back yard. By contrast, Speaker John Boehner had parents and children from the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program as guests in the Speaker’s Box during the SOTU tonight – a sure sign that he plans to make school choice in the District a priority.
- Lindsey Burke
Obamacare is Still Unconstitutional
Tonight, the President, defending his health care plan, stated “If you have ideas about how to improve this law by making care better or more affordable, I am eager to work with you.” Unfortunately, he did not express any concern regarding the constitutionality of the bill. As Heritage has described here, the health care mandate is both unprecedented, and unconstitutional. A federal court in Virginia has already agreed, declaring the mandate unconstitutional, and a majority of states are challenging the mandate in court in Florida.
The mandate’s constitutional defect is a major problem for Obama’s offer to just modify the existing, ill-conceived bill, because as President Obama’s own Justice Department has argued in court, the mandate is so essential given the other requirements in the law that its elimination would “inexorably drive [the health insurance] market into extinction.” Tinkering around the edges will not fix the problems with this bill. A due respect for the Constitution and public opinion requires that the unprecedented overreaching of the mandate be corrected–and this will require complete repeal.
- Robert Alt
Social Security
The good news was that the speech included a reference to fixing Social Security. Unfortunately, President Obama’s laudable goal of finding a “bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations” was either empty rhetoric or showed a serious misunderstanding of what causes that program’s underfunding. His next sentence exempted everything that might improve future generations’ retirement security except raising taxes.
Not only does that make a bipartisan solution almost impossible, but the tax increases that he has discussed in the past don’t fix the problem. For instance, Social Security’s nonpartisan actuaries say that making every dollar or earnings subject to the payroll tax only delays the start of permanent deficits by 8 years from 2016 until 2024. Future retirees can still expect a more than 20 percent cut in their benefits. And those who would pay those higher taxes will see the huge increase in their marginal tax rates drain away dollars that could otherwise have been used to start small businesses.
The President’s approach ignores the recommendations of his own bipartisan commission. It also fails to recognize that Americans are living longer than ever, and that over 80 percent of those who reach retirement age are healthy enough to work a little longer if it means that they can avoid the 20 percent benefit cuts that will come otherwise. If he really wants a bipartisan solution to Social Security’s problems, this speech didn’t show it.
- David John
Repeal
Throughout the health care debate, the Heritage Foundation offered numerous ideas for how to improve the health care system, including for those who are most in need.
Americans want health care reform, but not the kind enacted under the new health care law. They do not want to turn more power over their health care dollars or personal health care decisions to Washington bureaucrats. And, Congress cannot fix a health care law that is founded on a fundamentally flawed foundation.
Real health reform is based on consumer-focused, market-based reforms that empower individuals by fixing the tax treatment of health insurance, transforming health care entitlement programs, and letting the states develop reforms that best meet the unique needs of their citizens through portability, choice and competition.
If the President is serious about American’s fiscal future, he would begin by repealing a health care law that adds a trillion dollars in new health care spending, stifles economic growth through a half a trillion in new taxes, burdens future generations with unknown costs, and undermines individual freedom through government mandates and regulations.
- Nina Owcharenko
Subsidies Don’t Create Jobs
In his state of the union address, President Obama dragged out a 50 year-old, cold-war poster child to paper over his proposal for a tried-and-failed energy/jobs policy. The rhetoric for his policy alludes to the Sputnik space race. Unfortunately, the reality promises a sputtering economy. Government bureaucrats and federal mandates are not the motivating force for innovation and job creation.
Last year’s poster children for clean-energy jobs, Solyndra and Evergreen Solar, are this year’s object lessons in the futility of trying to subsidize our way to good, permanent job creation.
Mere months after receiving a $535 million government loan (and after a well-publicized presidential photo op), Solyndra withdrew its initial public offering because it got a sub-par review from an independent auditor. And a year after getting their half-billion dollars, Solyndra closed a factory and got rid of nearly 200 jobs.
After much hyped state subsidies of up to $76 million and after millions of dollars of federal subsidies Evergreen Solar is now shutting its factory in Massachusetts, laying off 700 workers, and moving production to China.
If a company needs a subsidy to hire a worker, that worker will be out on the street when the subsidy expires. Private enterprise provides energy, creates jobs, and develops innovative technology. It does so because private enterprise only succeeds when the energy, jobs, and technology provide value that exceeds the cost. That’s how we get good, durable jobs.
- David Kreutzer
The State of the Family
This evening’s State of the Union address was notably devoid of discussion of one of the issues that could be fairly characterized as “decades in the making,” the phrase President Obama used to introduce a litany of problems facing the country. Evidence continues to accumulate that the persistence of problems like poverty and welfare dependency is strongly associated with the rise in the number of children born out of wedlock.
To a striking degree, the challenges of the federal budget are linked to and aggravated by the fracturing in family budgets brought on by the failure of families to form and government policies that neglect the best adhesive to repair that fracturing – the bonds of marriage. The state of American families went unmentioned tonight but it is vital that this conversation, and its implications for the State of the Union, happen with a new urgency at the national level.
- Chuck Donovan
Preserving Peace
The President said tonight that the nation must always remember that the Americans who have borne the greatest burden in this struggle to be free are the men and women in uniform. President Obama was right to say that the country is united in support of those who serve and their families. As a result, he also rightly said that we must provide them the equipment that they need, care and benefits they’ve earned, and more.
The challenge in meeting this task of providing our all-volunteer force all the tools they need to succeed now and for the next 20 years is that the U.S. is slipping in this area, as well. The traditional margins of U.S. technological military superiority are declining across the board. These long-held “margins” are ingredients in U.S. military supremacy that have ensured that our forces are never in a fair fight. Indeed, during a recent trip to China, the Secretary of Defense said that the Chinese “clearly have potential to put some of our capabilities at risk.”
Let us truly recall the lessons of history in reversing the trend of trying to seek a peace dividend when none exists. A decade of conflict and two decades of underinvestment have left the U.S. military too small and inadequately equipped to do everything being asked of these men and women. In July 2010, a bipartisan commission warned of a coming “train wreck” if Congress does not act quickly to rebuild and modernize the U.S. military. There is no quick or easy fix. Meeting the military’s full modernization requirements.
American Founders understood that “the surest means of avoiding war is to be prepared for it in peace.” As Thomas Paine warned, it would not be enough to “expect to reap the blessings of freedom.” Americans would have to “undergo the fatigues of supporting it.” Supporting freedom and defending the nation still requires public spending on the nation’s defense forces in both times of war and peace. As President George Washington asserted in his First Annual Message, delivered in 1790, the “most effectual means of preserving peace” is “to be prepared for war.” Congress and the President should recommit tonight to rebuilding America’s military and giving the best to those who serve.
- Mackenzie Eaglen
Tax Agenda Falls Short
President Obama acknowledged the two biggest tax issues holding back the economy and hampering our competitiveness: our inefficient individual income tax code and our high corporate tax rate. His desired remedies, however, fall short of what is needed.
The individual income tax code needs fundamental reform. It has become cluttered with too many credits, deductions, and exemptions that slow economic growth. The president did not lay out his vision for tax reform. For tax reform to become a reality leadership at the presidential level is vital. President Obama’s lack of thorough attention to the issue does not bold well for success in the near future.
The president revisited his old hobby horse: eliminating tax cuts for the top 2 percent of income earners. This was an odd inclusion in the speech since just a few weeks ago he signed a 2 year extension of those very tax cuts. And if tax reform does become a reality, the 2001/2003 tax cuts would be a non-issue.
On the corporate tax front the president was better but far from perfect. He rightly called for the rate to come down but only if Congress closes “loopholes” to offset the cost. Many of the provisions that are commonly referred to as loopholes are in fact justifiable deductions that help lessen the blow of the corporate tax systems’ other shortcomings like the taxation of income earned in foreign countries and the lack of ability for companies to immediately deduct the cost of capital investment. Getting rid of them will temper any benefit derived from a lower rate. The few loopholes that do exist would fall well short of making up the revenue from a rate cut. Spending should be cut to make sure the rate reduction does not add to the deficit.
The best tax recommendation the president made was the elimination of 1099 reporting requirements that are part of the healthcare law. These requirements will cripple small businesses should they ever go into effect.
The worst tax idea was the elimination of so-called subsidies for oil companies. These tax breaks allow oil companies to expense a portion of the huge upfront costs they incur for developing new oil sources. The specific provisions would not be necessary if the tax code rightly allowed all businesses to expense their capital investments. Taking them away from oil companies will increase the cost of oil for all Americans and be a step in the wrong direction for the tax code.
-Curtis Dubay
Denial on Deficits
On one vital point the nation has almost without exception reached a consensus when it comes to entitlement spending — current policy is unaffordable and unsustainable. President Obama acknowledged this clearly when he announced the creation of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform and again when he received the Commission’s final report. The preamble to the report concluded:
After all the talk about debt and deficits, it is long past time for America’s leaders to put up or shut up. The era of debt denial is over, and there can be no turning back.
To the existing consensus regarding the need to act, the need for “America’s leaders to put up or shut up,” as the Commission put it, can now be added a second point of broad agreement – the President’s policies as outlined in his State of the Union Address regarding Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, the programs that have the nation on course to a “crushing debt burden”, continue the era of debt denial unabated, unabashedly, even proudly.
The President in short has turned his back on his own Commission, on his vows of leadership, and on future generations. On these issues it will now be up to the Congress to take up the mantle of leadership the President has found too heavy to bear.
-JD Foster
American Leadership
In the opening section of his address, the President referred to the need to “sustain the leadership that has made America not just a place on a map, but a light to the world.” Those are certainly words that conservatives can endorse and respect, just as they will agree with his statement that America is “the first nation that was founded for the sake of an idea.” As Matthew Spalding has stated, the American creed “is set forth most clearly in the Declaration of Independence, … a timeless statement of inherent rights, the proper purposes of government, and the limits on political authority.”
Unfortunately, this was not the creed that the President proclaimed in his speech. Instead of recognizing that the Founders wanted to limit the role of the federal government, the President continued on in the vein that has marked American politics for too many years: arguing that the needs of tomorrow demand more spending — the President now calls them “investments” — on programs that have already failed.
Laudably, the President called on Congress to pass the free trade area with South Korea; regrettably, he accompanied it with a reiteration of his promise to “only sign deals that keep faith with American workers, and promote American jobs,” a pledge that, in the case of the agreement with South Korea, meant months of delay and special favors to organized labor in the U.S. automatic sector.
Laudably, the President twice noted the need for American leadership in the world. He even went so far as to claim that “American leadership has been renewed and America’s standing has been restored.”
The source of this restoration, though, remained mysterious. In Iraq, the President noted, the war is ending — thanks to the surge strategy that the President opposed. America continues to disrupt Islamist plots — made by an enemy the President was unwilling even to name, in a war that, as the still-open Guantanamo prison testifies, has required him to rethink his presumptions.
In Afghanistan, the President reiterated the U.S. determination to win — and coupled it with a promise that “we will begin to bring our troops home” in July 2011. The New START treaty and the “reset” with Russia made predictable appearances — but nothing was heard about the fact that Russia is an autocracy that attacks, threatens, and subverts its neighbors, while at the same time it murders and imprisons opponents at home.
In the realm of foreign affairs, the only surprises came at the end of the President’s remarks, when he expressed solidarity with Southern Sudan, and explicitly said that “the United States of America stands with the people of Tunisia, and supports the democratic aspirations of all people.” Where is that support in Russia? In Iran? In China?
As Marion Smith wrote in his essay on American leadership, “George Washington recommended a foreign policy of independence and strength, a policy that would allow America to ‘choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.’ ” What was missing from
the President’s address was any sense that both U.S. interests and our sense of justice ought not to be engaged only in the Tunisias of the world. The President’s emphasis on the value of American’s alliances was welcome. Too bad it was not balanced by a recognition that the U.S. also faces hostile regimes.
In an echo of President George W. Bush’s call in 2002 for “a balance of power that favors freedom” — a phrase much mocked at the time — President Obama called for “a world that favors peace and prosperity.”
Until the President accepts that prosperity flows from freedom, and that we will not advance the cause of peace by speaking only in abstractions about oppression in “some countries” and ignoring the flaws in the world’s multilateral institutions, all of us are not likely to move closer to that goal.
- Ted Bromund
President’s Budget Proposals Don’t Match the Rhetoric
President Obama asserted that “a critical step in winning the future is to make sure we aren’t buried under a mountain of debt.” Yet he failed to offer any proposals that would significantly rein in escalating spending and deficits.
The President’s proposed freeze of non-security discretionary spending would essentially lock in the 25 percent expansion these programs have received since 2007. Yet paring back deficits requires actually reducing runaway spending, starting with the House Republican plan to cut this spending back to 2008 or even 2006 levels.
Furthermore, only 12 percent of the federal budget would be affected by the President’s freeze proposal. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid costs are truly driving long-term deficits upward. Yet the President ignored nearly all entitlement reforms proposed by his own commission, , and even stated opposition to any change in future Social Security benefits. Additionally, the President again defended his budget-busting trillion-dollar health care program.
Finally, President Obama sought to rehabilitate the reputation of runaway spending by renaming it “investment.” While investment indeed drives economic growth, politicians have proven to be poor investors. Federal K-12 education spending has grown 219 percent faster than inflation over the past decade, yet student test scores have stagnated. Thirty years of federal energy spending has failed to significantly improve the alternative energy market. And massive increases in federal transportation spending have been diverted into earmarks, bike paths, and museums, or allocated to budget-busting transit programs that governors do not want. If President Obama truly wants to encourage investment, he should focus on reducing the budget deficit – which is crowding out private investment – and should reduce barriers to productive private sector investments.
-Brian Riedl
1 Million Electric Cars Should Reach the Market When They’re Ready
In his address President Obama emphasized that “With more research and incentives, we can break our dependence on oil with biofuels, and become the first country to have 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.”
How much more research and incentives do electric cards need? We taxpayers have handed out billions for advanced battery vehicle manufacturing. We taxpayers foot the bill (from $2,500–$7,500, depending on the battery capacity) for every electric vehicle purchase. And we taxpayers help pay for the tens of millions of dollars the Department of Energy spends to study increased battery storage. Even so, the demand for electric vehicles is low because electric cars are prohibitively costly even with the lavish handouts.
One survey found that the number of consumers interested in buying a hybrid vehicle dropped from 61 percent to 30 percent when they learned they would pay an additional $5,000 compared to a comparable vehicle with a traditional internal combustion engine (ICE) Only 17 percent of those surveyed showed interest in buying a battery electric vehicle (BEV), and that number decreased to 5 percent when told a BEV would cost an additional $15,000 compared to the closest ICE-powered vehicle. Even after counting the gasoline savings you would reap from buying an electric vehicle, electric cars are still a bad investment. A good sign for the viability of electric vehicles is when they won’t need the handouts from taxpayers.
President Obama also said in his address, “None of us can predict with certainty what the next big industry will be, or where the new jobs will come from. Thirty years ago, we couldn’t know that something called the Internet would lead to an economic revolution.”
The same is true with our vehicle fleet in the U.S. No one will know what it will look like 30 years from now, or even 4 years from now. So why is the government trying to dictate that market when it knows it can’t?
-Nick Loris
Free Enterprise vs Big Government
President Obama, in his speech tonight, rightfully identified the issue of competitiveness as a key for reviving the economy, and innovation as a vital ingredient in achieving that competitiveness. America can, as he said, out innovate the rest of the world. But his prescription for sparking that innovation and making America again a world leader is badly off-target. His model is Sputnik, and he prescribes economic NASAs as the solution. Washington would set the rules, define the parameters of the challenge. This is not the way the today’s economy works.
American entrepreneurs do not need grants from Washington in order to compete, they don’t need incentives from bureaucrats in order to compete. The Steve Jobs’ of the future are not applying for federal grants, or federal “challenges.” What they need is for Washington to get out of their way — to tax them less, regulate them less, and leave them alone. Yet, there was nothing in his remarks that provided hope that these burdens would be lifted anytime soon, save for a short reference to regulatory reform, and even that was hedged with defense of regulation. Until the need to free enterprise — rather than guide it — is addressed — the entrepreneurial spirit of Americans will remain leashed, and all the NASAs in the world will not improve our competitiveness
-James Gattuso
Energy “Investment”
In his State of the Union speech, President Obama pointed to the government investments that led to such commercial successes as the Internet, computer chips, and GPS (interestingly, he left out Tang). The implication is that more tax payer support would bring the same sort of innovation to the energy sector. This supposition is misleading.
The government programs that led to the Internet, computer chips, and GPS were not programs to develop technologies to meet a commercial demand. They were each the result of defense-related programs that were created to meet national security requirements. People like former Secretary of Energy and Defense, Dr. James Schlesinger argued tirelessly for investment in GPS not because it would help him to find the nearest burrito bar but because he (and not many others at the time) understood the national security value of such a system. It was not until after the first Gulf War (when Americans witnessed the accuracy with which GPS could guide a vehicle to its destination) that entrepreneurs gained access to GPS signals. It was they that that commercialized that technology, not the federal government. In essence, the federal government invested to develop capabilities that did not exist and were needed for specific government activities. Entrepreneurs gained access to that basic work and commercialized it.
This is an entirely different model from what the President is suggesting the United States take to develop new energy technologies. Not only does he want the federal government to choose which energy sources Americans can access, but he believes that the government is best prepared to oversee the entire business development process. He does not want to support research and development, but he wants to drive commercialization, and to define the market.
That is not the right approach for the United States. We are a country abundant with natural resources and as the President correctly pointed out, “Our free enterprise system is what drives innovations.” Mr. President, you had me at “innovation.” Too bad you lost me after that.
-Jack Spencer
Obama’a Sputnik Moment
“This is our generation’s Sputnik moment,” declared President Obama in the State of the Union address. If he believes that, he probably should have studied his history and how President Eisenhower responded to Russia’s satellite launch—because Ike would not have endorsed anything like Obama’s prescription. In the wake of sputnik hysteria the Gaither commission argued for an astronomical increase in spending to “catch-up” with the Soviets. Eisenhower knew that writing checks that the nation can’t cash are no way to make America more innovative. Ike declared you do not win a competition by “by bankrupting yourself…”
President Eisenhower’s reluctance to throw government and money at every problem was rooted in his distrust of Big Government. “Eisenhower was deeply concerned about the growth of the federal government and the systematic loss of state and local autonomy,” writes Martin Medhurst, an expert on Ike’s rhetoric. “He was concerned about a government that spent more than it took in. …”
Eisenhower also understood that getting spending under control was about getting Washington’s priorities right. Ike did not want to needlessly throw money at anything, even defense (“Good management dictates that we resist overspending as resolutely as we oppose under-spending, Ike declared), but he clearly understood that soundly funding defense had to be his first priority. Obama’s call of simply calling for not-cutting security spending is not enough – defense modernization is already underfunded and defense spending too inefficient – Obama needs to buck up defense even as he needs to do much, much more to reign in other government spending.
We did not hear that kind of commitment during the State of the Union address. Nor did we hear a president who is willing to get tough with all of America’s competitors in the same way Ike would. Instead, the Obama Doctrine is still alive and well.
The State of the Union address was a pale shadow of what the nation should expect from presidents who are responsible for providing for the common defense.
-James Carafano
www.askmrsfiggins.com
Advice & opinion on everyday issues by Mrs Figgins with common sense & good old-fashioned-values!
January 24, 2011
Child In The Middle
Children In The Middle
Children In The Middle
Dear Mrs Figgins:
My husband and I marrie after an affair. His kids totally blame me. They have told me that our child and dad are part of the family but I never will be.
My husband thinks it is ok to take our son ( Will, 2 1/2) to family events but I am not allowed to go. Also most often the ex is there. I have never met her. She refused to allow me to be around,. It has been 13 years.
We have been married 4. Am I right to not have Will go?
To me it is like my husband is accepting this behavior and secondly with mom not allowed it is like saying mommy is bad( see what she did).
Child caught in middle
Dear Caught In The Middle:
You as well and each of your children is your family now. However, this does not mean the extended family from a former marriage unless you are “all” included.
As for the “blame” your husband is a grown man, and he needs to explain to his children that divorce was a decision that their mom and he made together. He should not play the victim.
He needs to set the example and the boundaries.
Mrs. Figgins
www.askmrsfiggins.com
Advice & opinion on everyday issues by Mrs Figgins with common sense & good old-fashioned-values!
Civil Rights =’s Equal Justice
- Michael Meyers
Dear Friends,
I would like to give our support and call attention to The New York Civil Rights Coalition, and Mr. Michael Meyers, the organizations Executive Director.
Mrs. Figgins
“The New York Civil Rights Coalition (NYCRC) is an organization of people concerned with kindling in Americans a spirit of unity and commitment in achieving a truly open and just society, where the individual enjoys the blessings of liberty free of racial prejudice, stigma, caste or discrimination. In this regard, NYCRC works purposefully to encourage people and institutions to take affirmative steps to achieve an integrated society—inclusive neighborhoods; strong, diverse, and interracial educational systems, both public and private; equal opportunity in employment and voting rights; and unfettered participation in the civic affairs of our democracy.
The organization is committed to integration as a strategy as well as a philosophy for accomplishing equal opportunities and believes that in the field of race “separate is inherently unequal.” There is much evidence that a racially-fractionalized society perpetuates inequalities and imperils the unity of the nation. Moreover, a racially-polarized society reinforces stereotypes, and fosters intergroup suspicion, hostility and rivalry. NYCRC, therefore objects to all forms of segregation and schemes that in purpose or effect separate people on the flimsy basis of their skin color. Thus, NYCRC works to promote and strengthen racial harmony and understanding through the realization of the uniqueness of the individual, and by convincing “tomorrow’s people” that there is only one race to which we all belong, and that our humanity is the bond of our diversity and commonality.
The New York Civil Rights Coalition (NYCRC) exists to speak out knowledgeably and intelligently about racial incidents and to protest acts of hatred. NYCRC mobilizes organizations and individuals to purposeful, non-violent action, to respond to all forms and outbreaks of bigotry, including anti-black behavior, anti-Asian violence, xenophobia, and anti-Semitism. NYCRC, Inc. analyzes historic and current events related to racial prejudice and problems of discrimination, and seeks, through research, fact-finding, and publication to counteract myths and reckless rumors. NYCRC, Inc. also serves as a watchdog of government, assessing the equitable delivery of essential governmental services related to human resource development and human relations concerns. NYCRC, Inc. prepares youth to assume and to demonstrate their civic and leadership responsibilities, through internships and volunteerism in school programs and through community service. NYCRC involves youth and adults of all colors, ethnic backgrounds, nationalities and religions.
NYCRC operates in accordance with a philosophy that enforced racial segregation is an unwarranted restriction on human liberty. Thus, pressures to separate people on the flimsy basis of their skin color are to be combatted, because such pressures stifle individuality, lock people out of places, and deprive them of meaningful social intercourse and contacts that are essential to the eradication of the conventions of racial prejudice.
No other civil rights organization like NYCRC exists in New York or the nation. NYCRC has a central office of core staff, headed by an expert in civil rights who was trained by the venerable Roy Wilkins (the NAACP’s Executive Director for 22 years) and the eminent scholar and psychologist, Dr. Kenneth B. Clark. The grassroots structure of NYCRC consists of over thirty city-wide and community-based organizations, each of which reserves the right of self-governance while agreeing to work cooperatively on specific campaigns to advance public education and understanding about the crisis in race relations. And unlike single-purpose rights and “ethnic” organizations, NYCRC allies itself with all victims and targets of discrimination and hate. For example, NYCRC stood with Jews and Italians against the racist rhetoric of Professor Leonard Jeffries. And NYCRC stood with Asians against those chanting such vicious epithets as “yellow dogs” on Church Avenue in Flatbush, Brooklyn. NYCRC co-sponsored a memorial service on Staten Island for a man who fell victim to anti-gay violence. And NYCRC sponsored marches through Canarsie and Bensonhurst in response to anti-black violence. Unfashionable, and sometimes unpopular, NYCRC is always principled and attentive to its mandate to oppose all acts of bias and incitements to racial discrimination and divisiveness. Moreover, NYCRC has provided quality analysis of current events and developments in the field of human relations, upon which the public at large, constituent groups, and the media rely for an honest perspective and rigorous assessment.
NYCRC is an organizational success, notwithstanding its controversial stances. NYCRC’s refusal to be intimidated into silence, its steadfast commitment to principle, its tireless work on behalf of a truly open society, and to equal opportunity and fair play for poor and powerless people in an increasingly competitive and racially-divided society, has won support from individuals, public interest organizations and foundations. Since 1986, when NYCRC was founded, the Coalition has been funded by public donations, corporate and foundation grants. As a matter of policy, it does not accept governmental funding.
Mr. Meyers is President and Executive Director of the New York Civil Rights Coalition (NYCRC), which he co-founded in 1986.
Meyers assumed the post of NYCRC Executive Director in 1991 from his senior staff position in the New Jersey Department of Higher Education, where he had served as Special Assistant to the Chancellor of Higher Education, T. Edward Hollander. Meyers took his B.A. from Antioch College in Yellow Springs, OH and his J.D. from Rutgers University School of Law. He has spent his entire professional career working in the fields of civil rights, civil liberties, law and education, and urban affairs, and, as such, is regarded as an expert on civil rights matters and race relations. Born in Harlem, Michael Meyers knows first-hand the ghetto experience which, as he puts it, “contributes to the defeat of the human spirit; the only way to end the ghetto is to get out of it.”
A long-time associate and protégé of the noted educator and psychologist Dr. Kenneth B. Clark, Michael Meyers was from high school through law school Dr. Clark’s intern, fellow and principal assistant while Dr. Clark headed the Metropolitan Applied Research Center (MARC), from 1967 to 1975. In 1975, Meyers joined the national staff of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) as Assistant Director. For more than nine years he was on the staff of the NAACP as aide to another of his mentors, the venerable Roy Wilkins, the NAACP’s long-time Executive Director, and to Wilkins’ successor, Benjamin L. Hooks. Meyers shares Dr. Kenneth Clark’s and Roy Wilkins’ philosophical outlook on civil rights and equal justice. Indeed, Michael Meyers has emerged in the New York and national dialogue about race as a strong advocate of civil rights, racial integration, and racial reconciliation.
Michael Meyers, as a columnist for THE NEW YORK POST, has published extensively on issues of race relations, urban affairs, education, housing, police abuse, civil liberties and civil rights. His articles have also appeared in law reviews, scholarly journals, periodicals and newspapers, including PARTISAN REVIEW, ACADEMIC QUESTIONS, YOUTH AND SOCIETY JOURNAL, CRISIS, CHANGE, INTEGRATED EDUCATION, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, THE WASHINGTON TIMES, CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, NEW YORK DAILY NEWS, NEWSDAY and NEW YORK NEWSDAY, and CIVIL LIBERTIES. He helped research and assisted with the editorial preparation and writing of the explosive book SEARCH AND DESTROY, by Roy Wilkins and Ramsey Clark, and with Morris Milgram’s book, GOOD NEIGHBORHOOD.
A frequently invited speaker, Michael Meyers has addressed many forums and conferences and keynoted several conventions; he has spoken at many colleges, universities, and law schools, including Bryn Mawr, Brown, Case Western Reserve University Law School, City College, City University of New York, Columbia College, and Teachers College at Columbia University, Lehman College, City University of New York, Stanford, U.S. Army War College, Westpoint Military Academy, Wilberforce University, Williams College, and Villanova Law School. He has also been a guest panelist on numerous radio and television programs, including, “Good Morning America,” “David Susskind,” “Positively Black,” “Like It Is,” “Oprah Winfrey,” “McLaughlin,” “Sunday Edition,” “News Forum,” “Live Wire,” “Currents,” “Caucus: New Jersey,” “Charlie Rose,” “MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour,” and “America’s Black Forum.”
Meyers’ past committee and board memberships include the American Bar Association’s Special Committee on Housing and Urban Development; executive committee/board of directors of Sponsors of Open Housing Investment, Inc.; and National Child Labor Committee, Inc.; board member of National Alliance for Safer Cities; Center for the Advancement of Integrated Education; and the New York Association of Scholars. Michael Meyers served on the Board of Directors of the New York Civil Liberties Union (with perfect attendance) for a quarter of a century (between 1976 and 2001), and on the National Board of Directors of the American Civil Liberties (also with perfect attendance) for 24 years (between 1981 and 2005). He was a longtime member of the ACLU’s Executive Committee and served on many other ACLU committees, including its Affirmative Action Committee; Academic Freedom Committee; Free Speech and Association Committee; Equality Committee; and several Biennial Conference Committees. In 1999, he Chaired the ACLU’s Biennial Conference Committee and its Convention in San Diego, CA.
His other board service has included membership on the Advisory Board of the then Washington, D.C.-based Center for Equal Opportunity; the Philadelphia, PA-based Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE); and The City Club of New York. In addition, Michael Meyers has also served on the Board of Directors of the America-Israel Friendship League, and on several of its committees, including its board’s executive committee.”
www.askmrsfiggins.com
Advice & opinion on everyday issues by Mrs Figgins with common sense & good old-fashioned-values!
January 18, 2011
What is “blood libel”?
- Sarah Palin
Dear Mrs. Figgins,
What is a blood libel?
Jessie, Westlake California
Dear Jessie, ,
Although it has been days since Sara Palin’s much talked about video, you and many others have written regarding the term “blood libel”. The term came under much scrutiny after Governor Sara Palin’s use of the words.
In a statement to biggovernment.com on 12 January, Alan Dershowitz defended Mrs. Palin’s use of the term “Blood Libel”
“The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People, its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term.”
You can see Mrs. Palin’s video “America’s Enduring Strength” http://vimeo.com/18698532
Here’s the text:
“Like millions of Americans I learned of the tragic events in Arizona on Saturday, and my heart broke for the innocent victims. No words can fill the hole left by the death of an innocent, but we do mourn for the victims’ families as we express our sympathy.
I agree with the sentiments shared yesterday at the beautiful Catholic mass held in honor of the victims. The mass will hopefully help begin a healing process for the families touched by this tragedy and for our country.
Our exceptional nation, so vibrant with ideas and the passionate exchange and debate of ideas, is a light to the rest of the world. Congresswoman Giffords and her constituents were exercising their right to exchange ideas that day, to celebrate our Republic’s core values and peacefully assemble to petition our government. It’s inexcusable and incomprehensible why a single evil man took the lives of peaceful citizens that day.
There is a bittersweet irony that the strength of the American spirit shines brightest in times of tragedy. We saw that in Arizona. We saw the tenacity of those clinging to life, the compassion of those who kept the victims alive, and the heroism of those who overpowered a deranged gunman.
Like many, I’ve spent the past few days reflecting on what happened and praying for guidance. After this shocking tragedy, I listened at first puzzled, then with concern, and now with sadness, to the irresponsible statements from people attempting to apportion blame for this terrible event.
President Reagan said, “We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.” Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.
The last election was all about taking responsibility for our country’s future. President Obama and I may not agree on everything, but I know he would join me in affirming the health of our democratic process. Two years ago his party was victorious. Last November, the other party won. In both elections the will of the American people was heard, and the peaceful transition of power proved yet again the enduring strength of our Republic.
Vigorous and spirited public debates during elections are among our most cherished traditions. And after the election, we shake hands and get back to work, and often both sides find common ground back in D.C. and elsewhere. If you don’t like a person’s vision for the country, you’re free to debate that vision. If you don’t like their ideas, you’re free to propose better ideas. But, especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible.
There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those “calm days” when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols? In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren’t designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government. Our Founders’ genius was to design a system that helped settle the inevitable conflicts caused by our imperfect passions in civil ways. So, we must condemn violence if our Republic is to endure.
As I said while campaigning for others last March in Arizona during a very heated primary race, “We know violence isn’t the answer. When we ‘take up our arms’, we’re talking about our vote.” Yes, our debates are full of passion, but we settle our political differences respectfully at the ballot box – as we did just two months ago, and as our Republic enables us to do again in the next election, and the next. That’s who we are as Americans and how we were meant to be. Public discourse and debate isn’t a sign of crisis, but of our enduring strength. It is part of why America is exceptional.
No one should be deterred from speaking up and speaking out in peaceful dissent, and we certainly must not be deterred by those who embrace evil and call it good. And we will not be stopped from celebrating the greatness of our country and our foundational freedoms by those who mock its greatness by being intolerant of differing opinion and seeking to muzzle dissent with shrill cries of imagined insults.
Just days before she was shot, Congresswoman Giffords read the First Amendment on the floor of the House. It was a beautiful moment and more than simply “symbolic,” as some claim, to have the Constitution read by our Congress. I am confident she knew that reading our sacred charter of liberty was more than just “symbolic.” But less than a week after Congresswoman Giffords reaffirmed our protected freedoms, another member of Congress announced that he would propose a law that would criminalize speech he found offensive.
It is in the hour when our values are challenged that we must remain resolved to protect those values. Recall how the events of 9-11 challenged our values and we had to fight the tendency to trade our freedoms for perceived security. And so it is today.
Let us honor those precious lives cut short in Tucson by praying for them and their families and by cherishing their memories. Let us pray for the full recovery of the wounded. And let us pray for our country. In times like this we need God’s guidance and the peace He provides. We need strength to not let the random acts of a criminal turn us against ourselves, or weaken our solid foundation, or provide a pretext to stifle debate.
America must be stronger than the evil we saw displayed last week. We are better than the mindless finger-pointing we endured in the wake of the tragedy. We will come out of this stronger and more united in our desire to peacefully engage in the great debates of our time, to respectfully embrace our differences in a positive manner, and to unite in the knowledge that, though our ideas may be different, we must all strive for a better future for our country. May God bless America.”
Mrs. Figgins
www.askmrsfiggins.com
Advice & opinion on everyday issues by Mrs Figgins with common sense & good old-fashioned-values!
January 16, 2011
Overworked employee feels unappreciated
-
So much to do!
So much to do!
Dear Mrs. Figgins:
Recently I started a job which I like very much. I’m lucky to have the job in this economy, but I think that I’m underpaid for all the things I’m responsible for!
A couple of my co-workers who have been there for a few years do very little by comparison to the load I have.
As a matter of fact I think one of them is playing hanky-panky with the boss. I don’t’ if there’s an affair going on, but I’m getting darn sick and tired working twice as hard with no benefits.
Should I say something?
Unappreciated
Dear Unappreciated:
Be careful or you might find yourself with benefits soon—from the unemployment department.
If you’re good at your job, your boss will recognize your worth, and he or she won’t want to lose you. There’s a saying, “the crème rises to the top”.
If you remain unhappy then you might want to begin looking elsewhere.
If there’s any hanky-panky going on, it’s not your business. Stay focused on your work, so that the benefits you do get you can take to the bank.
Mrs. Figgins
January 13, 2011
Out of the closet and trusting.
- Out.
- Out.
Dear Mrs. Figgins:
I’m a successful man, who has just come out of the closet. I’m blessed to have a great family. Everyone has been extremely supportive of my decision as well as of my relationship.
Recently I went to a school reunion and told a few of my old friends. Some of where shocked, and had questions. I’ve since received invitations from friends to get together with them at their families for the holidays.
The problem I’m having is that I don’t know if the invitation is about friendship or curiosity about being a token gay friend.
Don’t know if I should trust?
Dear Not Sure:
You obviously felt that the old friends you did come out to were worth your trust.
Life doesn’t have any guarantee for any of us, under any circumstance, and there will be “friends” that turn out to be a disappointment. But you need to believe that you have friends that truly care about you and worth you friendship.
Your apprehension is understandable. And yes, unfortunately it is still uncomfortable for most gay people to take that step out of the closet. However, distrusting people because you think they will judge you for being gay is an old concept, and crippling.
Who we are as human beings is what are ultimately judged on.
Trust that if we face life with integrity, it will be a wonderful ride full of priceless memories.
Mrs. Figgins
January 7, 2011
Pelosi’s Debt
Pelosi & Reid
Pelosi & Reid
Dear Friends,
My goodness, talk about hutzpah!
At her final press conference as House Speaker, Nancy Polosi said, “Deficit reduction has been a high priority for us. It is our mantra, pay-as-you-go.”
Take a look at the CNSNews.com article below by Terence P. Jeffrey.
It is an eye opener on the freewheeling spending during Mrs. Pelosi’s reign.
Mrs. Figgins
Final Tab for Pelosi’s Speakership: $5.34 Trillion in New Debt—Or $3.66 Billion Per Day
“ In the 1,461 days that Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) served as speaker of the House, the national debt increased by a total of $5.343 trillion ($5,343,452,800,321.37) or $3.66 billion per day ($3.657,394,113.84), according to official debt numbers published by the U.S. Treasury.
Pelosi was the 52nd speaker of the House. During her tenure, she amassed more debt than the first 49 speakers combined.
The total national debt did not climb above $5.343 trillion (the amount amassed during Pelosi’s four years as speaker) until Feb. 26, 1997, when Rep. Newt Gingrich (R.-Ga.) was serving as the nation’s 50th House speaker.
When Pelosi was sworn in on Jan. 4, 2007, the national debt stood at $8,670,596,242,973.04. At the close of business on Jan. 4, 2011, her last full day in the speakership, it stood at 14,014,049,043,294.41–an increase of $5,343,452,800,321.37.
Pelosi served as speaker for four full years, including one leap year, making her time in that office 1,461 days. On average, the federal government added $3.66 billion ($3,657,394,113.84) in new debt for each of those days.
Pelosi not only outstripped her predecessors in the total volume of debt added to the national debt during her tenure as speaker, but also in the rate at which new debt was added. In fact, Pelosi added debt at a rate more than three times faster than her nearest competitor.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R.-Ill.), who served from Jan. 6, 1999 to Jan. 3, 2007, saw $3.06 trillion ($3,061,785,703,851.74) in new debt added during his tenure, which is more than during any other speakership other than Pelosi’s. But Hastert’s tenure lasted 2,920 days, with the national debt increasing by an average of $1.05 billion ($1,048,556,747.89) for each of those days.
House Speaker Newt Gingrich added $812.4 billion ($812,423,595,162.98) in new debt during a speakership of 1,461 days. The national debt accumulated during Gingrich’s tenure at an average rate of $556 million per day ($556,073,644.88).
When Pelosi became speaker in January 2007 she was emphatic that there would be no new deficit spending.
“After years of historic deficits, this 110th Congress will commit itself to a higher standard: Pay as you go, no new deficit spending,” she said in her inaugural address from the speaker’s podium. “Our new America will provide unlimited opportunity for future generations, not burden them with mountains of debt.”
Here are the national debt figures for the speakership terms of Rep. Nancy Pelosi and her two immediate predecessors:
Speaker Nancy Pelosi
Jan. 4, 2007 $8,670,596,242,973.04
Jan. 4, 2011 $14,014,049,043,294.41
New debt added: $5,343,452,800,321.37
Total days served: 1,461 days
Debt added per day: $3,657,394,113.84
Speaker Dennis Hastert
Jan. 6, 1999 5,615,428,551,461.33
Jan. 3, 2007 8,677,214,255,313.07
New debt added: 3,061,785,703,851.74
Total days served: 2,920
Debt added per day: 1,048,556,747.89
Speaker Newt Gingrich
Jan. 4, 1995 4,801,793,426,032.89
Jan. 3, 1999 5,614,217,021,195.87
New debt added: 812,423,595,162.98
Total days served: 1,461
Debt added per day: 556,073,644.88
www.askmrsfiggins.com
Advice & opinion on everyday issues by Mrs Figgins with common sense & good old-fashioned-values!
January 6, 2011
The Repeal of Obamacare
Dear Friends,
Now that the 112th Congress has been sworn in, the big question is will Obamacare be repealed? The American people are demanding its collapse.
It is possible that in the near future close to half the number of states in the nation will join Florida saying that a requirement that all individuals buy medical insurance oversteps constitutional limits on federal authority.
“Never before has the federal government required an individual to either buy government-approved insurance or pay a penalty. And nowhere does the Constitution authorize Congress to regulate in this manner,” said Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen in a statement about joining the lawsuit.
It’s the beginning of a long, yearlong process and the conservatives can win! A sincere Thanks You to the Heritage Foundation for the following article on the possibility of repealing Obamacare!
Mrs Figgins
REPEAL!
Is Repeal Possible?
“The unchecked expansion of congressional power to the limits suggested by the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers. At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage it’s about an individual’s right to choose to participate. So wrote Judge Henry Hudson of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia yesterday in striking down Obamacares individual mandate. Specifically, Judge Hudson found that Section 1501 of the act, which forces all Americans to buy government approved health insurance policies, exceeds the Commerce Clause powers vested in Congress under Article 1.
The White House and their leftist allies were quick to try and minimize this body blow to Obamacare, arguing that 14 previous court challenges have been dismissed by the courts. This desperate spin doesn’t even pass the laugh test. The 42-page decision is the first by a federal court this far along the litigation process and the first brought by a state (the case was filed by Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli). And soon Judge Roger Vinson of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida is expected to rule on an even larger challenge to Obamacare brought by 16 state attorneys general, four governors, two private citizens, and the National Federation of Independent Business.
In an early stage of that litigation, Judge Vinson wrote: The individual mandate applies across the board. People have no choice and there is no way to avoid it. Those who fall under the individual mandate either comply with it, or they are penalized. It is not based on an activity that they make the choice to undertake. Rather, it is based solely on citizenship and on being alive.
Judge Hudson used very similar reasoning in rejecting the Obama Administrations claim that since every individual in the United States will require health care at some point in their lifetime the federal government has the power to force Americans to buy health insurance now. Hudson writes: Of course, the same reasoning could apply to transportation, housing, or nutritional decisions. This broad definition of the economic activity subject to congressional regulation lacks logical limitation and is unsupported by Commerce Clause jurisprudence.
Judge Hudson then moved on to the Obama Administrations claim that the individual mandate was actually a tax that would therefore make it constitutional under the General Welfare Clause. Hudson wrote: This Courts analysis begins with the unequivocal denials by the Executive and Legislative branches that the [individual mandate] was a tax. It was only when the Administration found itself before a judge, not in front of voters, that the White House conveniently shifted its rationale. Judge Hudson saw through this deception, identified the individual mandate as the penalty it is, and rejected the Obama Administrations mandate-as-tax claim.
It was not a total victory for Cuccinelli, however. Judge Hudson rejected Virginias request to strike down the entire law. Despite claims by the President himself, and authors of the legislation like Senator Max Baucus (DMT), Judge Hudson found that the Section 1501 was severable from the rest of the law and voided only that section and directly-dependent provisions which make specific reference to 1501. Judge Vinson, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court will all be free to revisit this issue.
But whether or not courts will invalidate just Obamacares individual mandate is rapidly becoming irrelevant. Obamacare simply may not survive that long. It is already collapsing under its own financial and bureaucratic weight. Just last week, Congress voted to stop reductions in Medicare payments to doctors by raiding future revenues from Obamacares insurance subsidy program. Administration has to grant from Obamacares unworkable regulations grows each day. Doctors are telling pollsters they will leave the medical profession in droves if Obamacare is implemented as planned by 2014.
And according to the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll Obamacare is now more unpopular than ever, with only 43 percent approving the law and 52 percent opposed.
Obamacare will be repealed. It is only a question of when.”
www.askmrsfiggins.com
Advice & opinion on everyday issues by Mrs Figgins with common sense & good old-fashioned-values!
January 5, 2011
Obama’s Famous Oration…
Barack Obama
Barack Obama
Dear Friends,
I was reading through some of the articles in the Weekly Standard and came across a most interesting piece I would like to share with you.
The article is written by Jonathan V. Last, senior writer at The Weekly Standard. Mr. Last covered the Obama campaign in 2008.
Mrs. Figgins
