My thoughts on Obama and the political landscape and the State of the Union. My views are conservative and will not please all readers, but that's not the point. I bring you news articles that I find interesting and deserving of more attention from various news and information sources on the Internet that you might otherwise miss because the MSM probably will not report them. If you would like to contact me to suggest a news item or for any reason,email: wolfieusa@inbox.com
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Nearly two-thirds of U.S. doctors surveyed fear healthcare reform could worsen care for patients, by flooding their offices and hurting income, according to a Thomson Reuters survey released on Tuesday.
The survey of more than 2,900 doctors found many predict the legislation will force them to work harder for less money.
"When asked about the quality of healthcare in the U.S. over the next five years, 65 percent of the doctors believed it would deteriorate with only 18 percent predicting it would improve," Thomson Reuters, parent company of Reuters, said in a statement.
WASHINGTON -- The ledger did not appear to be adding up Tuesday night when President Barack Obama urged more spending on one hand and a spending freeze on the other.
Obama spoke ambitiously of putting money into roads, research, education, efficient cars, high-speed rail and other initiatives in his State of the Union speech. He pointed to the transportation and construction projects of the last two years and proposed "we redouble these efforts." He coupled this with a call to "freeze annual domestic spending for the next five years."
But Obama offered far more examples of where he would spend than where he would cut, and some of the areas he identified for savings are not certain to yield much if anything.
For example, he said he wants to eliminate "billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies." Yet he made a similar proposal last year that went nowhere. He sought $36.5 billion in tax increases on oil and gas companies over the next decade, but Congress largely ignored the request, even though Democrats were then in charge of both houses of Congress.
A look at some of Obama's statements Tuesday night and how they compare with the facts:
OBAMA: Tackling the deficit "means further reducing health care costs, including programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which are the single biggest contributor to our long-term deficit. Health insurance reform will slow these rising costs, which is part of why nonpartisan economists have said that repealing the health care law would add a quarter of a trillion dollars to our deficit."
THE FACTS: The idea that Obama's health care law saves money for the government is based on some arguable assumptions.
To be sure, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated the law will slightly reduce red ink over 10 years. But the office's analysis assumes that steep cuts in Medicare spending, as called for in the law, will actually take place. Others in the government have concluded it is unrealistic to expect such savings from Medicare.
In recent years, for example, Congress has repeatedly overridden a law that would save the treasury billions by cutting deeply into Medicare pay for doctors. Just last month, the government once again put off the scheduled cuts for another year, at a cost of $19 billion. That money is being taken out of the health care overhaul. Congress has shown itself sensitive to pressure from seniors and their doctors, and there's little reason to think that will change.
------
OBAMA: Vowed to veto any bills sent to him that include "earmarks," pet spending provisions pushed by individual lawmakers. "Both parties in Congress should know this: If a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it."
THE FACTS: House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, has promised that no bill with earmarks will be sent to Obama in the first place. Republicans have taken the lead in battling earmarks while Obama signed plenty of earmark-laden spending bills when Democrats controlled both houses. As recently as last month, Obama was prepared to sign a catchall spending measure stuffed with earmarks, before it collapsed in the Senate after an outcry from conservatives over the bill's $8 billion-plus in home-state pet projects.
It's a turnabout for the president; in early 2009, Obama sounded like an apologist for the practice: "Done right, earmarks have given legislators the opportunity to direct federal money to worthy projects that benefit people in their districts, and that's why I've opposed their outright elimination," he said then.
------
OBAMA: "I'm willing to look at other ideas to bring down costs, including one that Republicans suggested last year: medical malpractice reform to rein in frivolous lawsuits."
THE FACTS: Republicans may be forgiven if this offer makes them feel like Charlie Brown running up to kick the football, only to have it pulled away, again.
Obama has expressed openness before to this prominent Republican proposal, but it has not come to much. It was one of several GOP ideas that were dropped or diminished in the health care law after Obama endorsed them in a televised bipartisan meeting at the height of the debate.
Republicans want federal action to limit jury awards in medical malpractice cases; what Obama appears to be offering, by supporting state efforts, falls short of that. The president has said he agrees that fear of being sued leads to unnecessary tests and procedures that drive up health care costs. So far the administration has provided grants to test ideas aimed at reducing medical mistakes and resolving malpractice cases by negotiation, but has recommended no change in federal law.
Trial lawyers, major political donors to Democratic candidates, are strongly opposed to caps on jury awards. But the administration has been reluctant to support other approaches, such as the creation of specialized courts where expert judges, not juries, would decide malpractice cases. In October 2009 the Congressional Budget Office estimated that government health care programs could save $41 billion over 10 years if nationwide limits on jury awards for pain and suffering and other similar curbs were enacted.
------
OBAMA: "The bipartisan Fiscal Commission I created last year made this crystal clear. I don't agree with all their proposals, but they made important progress. And their conclusion is that the only way to tackle our deficit is to cut excessive spending wherever we find it -- in domestic spending, defense spending, health care spending, and spending through tax breaks and loopholes."
THE FACTS: Obama's fiscal commission did not simply recommend cutting excessive spending; it proposed that the deficit could only be tamed by cutting $3 for every $1 of new revenue raised -- in other words, a painful mix of spending cuts and tax increases. Instead, Obama proposed an overhaul of the corporate tax system that would eliminate loopholes and tax breaks but also reduce tax rates. The net effect would be neutral; it would not reduce or raise any revenue. Obama has yet to sign on to any of the ideas, even though he promised when creating the panel that it would not be "one of those Washington gimmicks."
------
OBAMA: "To put us on solid ground, we should also find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations."
THE FACTS: With that comment, Obama missed another chance to embrace the tough medicine proposed by the commission for bringing down the deficit. For example, he ruled out slashing benefits or partially privatizing the program, and made no reference to raising the retirement age. That left listeners to guess how he plans to do anything to salvage the popular retirement program whose trust funds are expected to run out of money in 2037 without changes.
------
OBAMA: As testament to the fruits of his administration's diplomatic efforts to control the spread of nuclear weapons, he said the Iranian government "faces tougher and tighter sanctions than ever before."
THE FACTS: That is true, and it reflects Obama's promise one year ago that Iran would face "growing consequences" if it failed to heed international demands to constrain its nuclear program. But what Obama didn't say was that U.S. diplomacy has failed to persuade Tehran to negotiate over U.N. demands that it take steps to prove it is not on the path toward a bomb. Preliminary talks with Iran earlier this month broke off after the Iranians demanded U.S. sanctions be lifted.
------
Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, giving the GOP response: "Whether sold as 'stimulus' or repackaged as 'investment,' their actions show they want a federal government that controls too much, taxes too much and spends too much in order to do too much."
THE FACTS: The economic stimulus package passed by the Democratic-controlled Congress in February 2009 didn't raise taxes. Instead, about a third of the package -- nearly $300 billion -- was made up of temporary tax cuts. The biggest was Obama's Making Work Pay credit, which provided up $400 to individuals and $800 to married couples. There were dozens of other tax cuts, including a more generous child tax credit, a tax credit for buying a home and a sales tax deduction for buying a car. Many, but not all, of the tax cuts have since expired.
Obama's health care law imposed new taxes, including a penalty for some people who don't get qualified health insurance, starting in 2014. But Obama extended Bush-era tax cuts that were due to expire at the beginning of the year. He also enacted a new one-year cut in the payroll tax for 2011 for just about every wage earner.
Print Close
The full text of the official Republican response to President Obama's State of the Union address from Rep. Paul Ryan, as prepared for delivery.
Good evening. I'm Congressman Paul Ryan from Janesville, Wisconsin - and Chairman here at the House Budget Committee.
President Obama just addressed a Congressional chamber filled with many new faces. One face we did not see tonight was that of our friend and colleague, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona. We all miss Gabby and her cheerful spirit; and we are praying for her return to the House Chamber.
Earlier this month, President Obama spoke movingly at a memorial event for the six people who died on that violent morning in Tucson. Still, there are no words that can lift the sorrow that now engulfs the families and friends of the fallen.
What we can do is assure them that the nation is praying for them; that, in the words of the Psalmist, the Lord heals the broken-hearted and binds up their wounds; and that over time grace will replace grief.
As Gabby continues to make encouraging progress, we must keep her and the others in our thoughts as we attend to the work now before us.
Tonight, the President focused a lot of attention on our economy in general - and on our deficit and debt in particular.
He was right to do so, and some of his words were reassuring. As chairman of the House Budget Committee, I assure you that we want to work with the President to restrain federal spending.
In one of our first acts in the new majority, House Republicans voted to cut Congress's own budget. And just today, the House voted to restore the spending discipline that Washington sorely needs.
The reason is simple.
A few years ago, reducing spending was important. Today, it's imperative. Here's why.
We face a crushing burden of debt. The debt will soon eclipse our entire economy, and grow to catastrophic levels in the years ahead.
On this current path, when my three children - who are now 6, 7, and 8 years old - are raising their own children, the federal government will double in size, and so will the taxes they pay.
No economy can sustain such high levels of debt and taxation. The next generation will inherit a stagnant economy and a diminished country.
Frankly, it's one of my greatest concerns as a parent - and I know many of you feel the same way.
Our debt is the product of acts by many presidents and many Congresses over many years. No one person or party is responsible for it.
There is no doubt the President came into office facing a severe fiscal and economic situation.
Unfortunately, instead of restoring the fundamentals of economic growth, he engaged in a stimulus spending spree that not only failed to deliver on its promise to create jobs, but also plunged us even deeper into debt.
The facts are clear: Since taking office, President Obama has signed into law spending increases of nearly 25 percent for domestic government agencies - an 84 percent increase when you include the failed stimulus.
All of this new government spending was sold as "investment." Yet after two years, the unemployment rate remains above 9% and government has added over $3 trillion to our debt.
Then the President and his party made matters even worse, by creating a new open-ended health care entitlement.
What we already know about the President's health care law is this: Costs are going up, premiums are rising, and millions of people will lose the coverage they currently have. Job creation is being stifled by all of its taxes, penalties, mandates and fees.
Businesses and unions from around the country are asking the Obama Administration for waivers from the mandates. Washington should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. The President mentioned the need for regulatory reform to ease the burden on American businesses. We agree - and we think his health care law would be a great place to start.
Last week, House Republicans voted for a full repeal of this law, as we pledged to do, and we will work to replace it with fiscally responsible, patient-centered reforms that actually reduce costs and expand coverage.
Health care spending is driving the explosive growth of our debt. And the President's law is accelerating our country toward bankruptcy.
Our debt is out of control. What was a fiscal challenge is now a fiscal crisis.
We cannot deny it; instead we must, as Americans, confront it responsibly.
And that is exactly what Republicans pledge to do.
Americans are skeptical of both political parties, and that skepticism is justified - especially when it comes to spending. So hold all of us accountable.
In this very room, the House will produce, debate, and advance a budget. Last year - in an unprecedented failure - Congress chose not to pass, or even propose a budget. The spending spree continued unchecked.
We owe you a better choice and a different vision.
Our forthcoming budget is our obligation to you - to show you how we intend to do things differently ... how we will cut spending to get the debt down... help create jobs and prosperity ... and reform government programs. If we act soon, and if we act responsibly, people in and near retirement will be protected.
These budget debates are not just about the programs of government; they're also about the purpose of government.
So I'd like to share with you the principles that guide us. They are anchored in the wisdom of the founders; in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence; and in the words of the American Constitution.
They have to do with the importance of limited government; and with the blessing of self-government.
We believe government's role is both vital and limited - to defend the nation from attack and provide for the common defense ... to secure our borders ... to protect innocent life ... to uphold our laws and Constitutional rights ... to ensure domestic tranquility and equal opportunity ... and to help provide a safety net for those who cannot provide for themselves.
We believe that the government has an important role to create the conditions that promote entrepreneurship, upward mobility, and individual responsibility.
We believe, as our founders did, that "the pursuit of happiness" depends upon individual liberty; and individual liberty requires limited government.
Limited government also means effective government. When government takes on too many tasks, it usually doesn't do any of them very well. It's no coincidence that trust in government is at an all-time low now that the size of government is at an all-time high.
The President and the Democratic Leadership have shown, by their actions, that they believe government needs to increase its size and its reach, its price tag and its power.
Whether sold as "stimulus" or repackaged as "investment," their actions show they want a federal government that controls too much; taxes too much; and spends too much in order to do too much.
And during the last two years, that is exactly what we have gotten - along with record deficits and debt - to the point where the President is now urging Congress to increase the debt limit.
We believe the days of business as usual must come to an end. We hold to a couple of simple convictions: Endless borrowing is not a strategy; spending cuts have to come first.
Our nation is approaching a tipping point.
We are at a moment, where if government's growth is left unchecked and unchallenged, America's best century will be considered our past century. This is a future in which we will transform our social safety net into a hammock, which lulls able-bodied people into lives of complacency and dependency.
Depending on bureaucracy to foster innovation, competitiveness, and wise consumer choices has never worked - and it won't work now.
We need to chart a new course.
Speaking candidly, as one citizen to another: We still have time ... but not much time. If we continue down our current path, we know what our future will be.
Just take a look at what's happening to Greece, Ireland, the United Kingdom and other nations in Europe. They didn't act soon enough; and now their governments have been forced to impose painful austerity measures: large benefit cuts to seniors and huge tax increases on everybody.
Their day of reckoning has arrived. Ours is around the corner. That is why we must act now.
Some people will back away from this challenge. But I see this challenge as an opportunity to rebuild what Lincoln called the "central ideas" of the Republic.
We believe a renewed commitment to limited government will unshackle our economy and create millions of new jobs and opportunities for all people, of every background, to succeed and prosper. Under this approach, the spirit of initiative - not political clout - determines who succeeds.
Millions of families have fallen on hard times not because of our ideals of free enterprise - but because our leaders failed to live up to those ideals; because of poor decisions made in Washington and Wall Street that caused a financial crisis, squandered our savings, broke our trust, and crippled our economy.
Today, a similar kind of irresponsibility threatens not only our livelihoods but our way of life.
We need to reclaim our American system of limited government, low taxes, reasonable regulations, and sound money, which has blessed us with unprecedented prosperity. And it has done more to help the poor than any other economic system ever designed. That's the real secret to job creation - not borrowing and spending more money in Washington.
Limited government and free enterprise have helped make America the greatest nation on earth.
These are not easy times, but America is an exceptional nation. In all the chapters of human history, there has never been anything quite like America. The American story has been cherished, advanced, and defended over the centuries.
And it now falls to this generation to pass on to our children a nation that is stronger, more vibrant, more decent, and better than the one we inherited.
The full text Rep. Michele Bachmann's response to Obama's State of the Union Address, delivered on behalf of the Tea Party.
As prepared for delivery:
Good evening, my name is Congresswoman Michele Bachmann from Minnesota's 6th District.
Two years ago, when Barack Obama became our President, unemployment was 7.8 percent and our national debt stood at what seemed like a staggering $10.6 trillion dollars.
We wondered whether the President would cut spending, reduce the deficit and implement real job-creating policies.
Unfortunately, the President's strategy for recovery was to spend a trillion dollars on a failed stimulus program, fueled by borrowed money.
The White House promised us that all the spending would keep unemployment under 8 percent.
Not only did that plan fail to deliver, but within three months the national jobless rate spiked to 9.4 percent. And sadly, it hasn't been lower for 20 straight months. While the government grew, we lost more than 2 million jobs.
Let me show you a chart. [CHART]
Here are unemployment rates over the past ten years. In October 2001, our national unemployment rate was at 5.3 percent. In 2008 it was at 6.6 percent. But, just eight months after President Obama promised lower unemployment, that rate spiked to a staggering 10.1 percent.
Today, unemployment is at 9.4 percent with about 400,000 new claims every week.
After the $700 billion bailout, the trillion-dollar stimulus, and the $410 billion spending bill with over 9,000 earmarks, many of you implored Washington to please stop spending money we don't have.
But, instead of cutting, we saw an unprecedented explosion of government spending and debt, unlike anything we have seen in the history of our country.
[CHART]
Deficits were unacceptably high under President Bush, but they exploded under President Obama's direction, growing the national debt by an astounding $3.1 trillion-dollars.
What did we buy?
Instead of a leaner, smarter government, we bought a bureaucracy that tells us which light bulbs to buy, and which will put 16,500 IRS agents in charge of policing President Obama's healthcare bill.
ObamaCare mandates and penalties will force many job creators to stop offering health insurance altogether, unless yours is one of the more-than-222 privileged companies or unions that has received a government waiver.
In the end, unless we fully repeal ObamaCare, a nation that currently enjoys the world's best healthcare may be forced to rely on government-run coverage that will have a devastating impact on our national debt for generations to come.
For two years President Obama made promises just like the ones we heard him make tonight. Yet still we have high unemployment, devalued housing prices and the cost of gasoline is skyrocketing.
Here are a few suggestions for fixing our economy:
The President could stop the EPA from imposing a job-destroying cap-and-trade system.
The President could support a Balanced Budget Amendment.
The President could agree to an energy policy that increases American energy production and reduces our dependence on foreign oil.
The President could also turn back some of the 132 regulations put in place in the last two years, many of which will cost our economy $100 million or more.
And, the President should repeal ObamaCare and support free market solutions like medical malpractice reform and allow all Americans to buy any healthcare policy they like anywhere in the United States.
We need to start making things again in this country, and we can do that by reducing the tax and regulatory burdens on job creators.
America will have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. Look no further to see why jobs are moving overseas.
But, thanks to you, there's reason to hope that real spending cuts are coming. Last November you went to the polls and voted out big-spending politicians and you put in their place men and women with a commitment to follow the Constitution and cut the size of government.
I believe that we are in the early days of a history-making turn.
Please know how important your calls, visits, and letters are to the maintenance of our liberties. Because of you, Congress responded and we are starting to undo the damage that's been done.
We believe in lower taxes, a limited view of government and the exceptionalism of America. And I believe America is the indispensible nation.
Just the creation of this nation was a miracle. Who's to say that we can't see a miracle again?
The perilous battle that was fought in the pacific, at Iwo Jima, was a battle against all odds, and yet the image of the young G.I.s in the incursion against the Japanese immortalizes their victory. These six young men raising the flag came to symbolize all of America coming together to beat back a totalitarian aggressor.
Our current debt crisis we face today is different, but we still need all of us to pull together. We can do this.
And that's the hope we hold tonight as Americans. We will push forward to reclaim the greatness of our country and to proclaim the liberty upon which we were founded.
And we will do so because we the people will never give up on this great nation.
Experts say Christian communities in Middle East will ‘die out’ unless urgent action taken.
With attacks against Christians on the rise in majority-Muslim nations in the Middle East, experts say the future of Christianity in the region is gravely threatened.
From the most restrictive countries to the more open ones, Christians are facing an uphill battle for survival in a majority of Middle Eastern countries. In the last ten years and especially in recent months, attacks against churches and Christian populations in Muslim lands have reached crisis proportions.
In almost every majority-Muslim nation in the Middle East the situation of Christians is worsening, according to Paul Marshall, senior fellow at the Center for Religious Freedom at the Hudson Institute.
“You are seeing more of this violence across the board….You get governments which may be relatively secular, like Egypt. But the opposition is Islamist,” Marshall told The Daily Caller. “[Governments] want to look like they are defending Islam too. So [countries like] Egypt do not effectively protect its Christian communities.”
More substantial Christian communities, such as the Copts in Egypt, will likely have more of a chance for survival, Marshall said. Those countries in which Christians are already significantly out-numbered will likely see their Christian population vanish unless the violence against them is brought to an end.
“In a lot of the other countries [besides Egypt and Lebanon] where you have smaller [Christian] communities — Morocco, Nigeria, Turkey, Iran — at the moment, the fear is those communities will continue to diminish. It is parallel to Jews about fifty years ago,” said Marshall. “These communities are beginning to go and in a couple of decades, unless the situation changes, you’ll just have remnants of communities. They will die out.”
While avoiding Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” thesis, David Brog, executive director of Christians United for Israel, said he believes Islamists see the fight against the West as also an opportunity to purify their lands of religious minorities — namely Jews and Christians.
“It’s not just about Jews or Israel. What’s unfolding is a struggle between the West — Israel and the United States, Jews and Christians — against this strand of militant Islam. We’re all in this together,” he said.
Marshall noted that the Islamists are not only trying to purify the region of Jews and Christians but all of the various religious minorities.
“We use these monolithic terms like Muslim and Arab and so we miss the minorities even though that part of the world has as many minorities as else where,” he said.
While Marshall said the decrease in tolerance for Christians and other religious minorities is not directly linked to American actions in the Middle East, he does believe that American actions are used as an excuse for attacking Christians who they identify as an appendage of the “Great Satan.”
“In terms of the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, those are used by radical groups, terrorist groups, as justification for attacking Christians — eventhough the local Christians did not invade Iraq, they have been their for 2,000 years,” he said.
Brog told TheDC that unless governments step in there is little doubt that the presence of Christians in the region will dramatically taper off, leaving behind a negligible population.
“For every Christian killed, you’re going to see multiples fleeing for their lives. Thus I fear unless governments step up — particularly the governments of Iraq and Egypt — the violence will continue and the exodus will continue and we will see some of the oldest Christian communities on earth disappear,” Brog said.
Nina Shea, an international human-rights lawyer, concurrs.
“Unless something happens fast there is not going to be a future for Christianity in the Middle East,” she told TheDC.
But while governments may have a humanitarian obligation to step in, Daniel Pipes, founder and director of the Middle East Forum, told TheDC that Christian institutions that have shied away from the conflict in the past, such as the Vatican, would do well to step in.
“I think it is more a matter for Christian institutions, in particular the Vatican, which is always concerned that if it makes noise things will get even worse,” he said.
Pope Benedict XVI briefly touched on the issue in his yearly “State of the World” address last week. Benedict spoke about the intolerance toward Christians throughout the Middle East and the world — calling on those in power to act to help Christians fighting for survival.
”Looking to the east, the attacks which brought death, grief and dismay among the Christians of Iraq, even to the point of inducing them to leave the land where their families have lived for centuries, has troubled us deeply. To the authorities of that country and to the Muslim religious leaders, I renew my heartfelt appeal that their Christian fellow-citizens be able to live in security, continuing to contribute to the society in which they are fully members,” he said.
The fact that Christians are being forced out of Muslim lands at this moment in history is “particularly ironic,” according to Pipes.
“I think the future is bleak,” said Pipes, “and it comes at a particularly ironic moment when the Muslim populations, in the traditional Christian world, are burgeoning. It is not just in terms of numbers, but they are demanding rights [in the West] and so it is almost a mirror reflection of what is going on in traditional Muslim countries.”
James Eric Fuller, 63, who was shot in the knee, had told The Post on Friday, the day before his arrest, that top Republican figures should be tortured -- and their ears severed.
"There would be torture and then an ear necklace, with [Minnesota US Rep.] Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin's ears toward the end, because they're small, female ears, and then Limbaugh, Hannity and the biggest ears of all, Cheney's, in the center," Fuller said.
Also on Friday, Fuller stopped by the home of gunman Jared Lee Loughner and told a neighbor he was going to forgive the shooter, The Associated Press said.
On Saturday, Fuller was carted away for a psychiatric exam after disrupting the town hall meeting by taking a photo of Tucson Tea Party co-founder Trent Humphries and shouting, "You're dead!"
WASHINGTON -- The new Republican-controlled House of Representatives is certain to vote Wednesday to repeal President Barack Obama's health care reform. The Democratic-controlled Senate is just as certain to let the measure die.
Republicans and Democrats adopted a more civil tone without angry shouts as they debated the repeal legislation on the House floor Tuesday just 10 days after the shooting rampage in Arizona that left a Democratic congresswoman wounded and lawmakers of both parties stunned.
Rep. Steny Hoyer, the second-ranking Democrat, said he expected that "members will heed their own advice and will address the issues in a way that will deal with them on the merits." In the past, he added, too much of the public debate was "about incitement rather than informing, about making people angry, disrespecting the ... point of view of the other side."
The House vote had been slated for last week as the Republicans' first order of business -- a campaign promise that helped them regain the majority in the lower chamber. But action was put off after the attack on Arizona Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot through the head. She is hospitalized in serious condition but six others who attended her meeting with constituents in Tucson, Arizona, were killed. They include a federal judge and a 9-year-old girl.
Now, the House vote is back on after more than a week of national soul-searching and questions about whether the brutal tone of the political dialogue helped fuel the deadly attack in Arizona.
While most politicians agree that the heated rhetoric had gotten out of hand, little has changed in narrowing the deep partisan divide on such key issues as the health care reform legislation.
The measure that Obama signed into law last March extended health care coverage over a period of four years to 32 million Americans who now lack it, and reshaped the way most Americans receive and pay for medical treatment. The signing followed a year of intense political battles and marked a victory that eluded presidents stretching back almost half a century.
Obama said Tuesday that he is willing to work with Democrats and Republicans to improve the health care law but warned that lawmakers shouldn't "go backward" and repeal the measure.
In a statement, Obama said Americans deserve the freedom and security of knowing insurance companies can't deny, cap or drop their health care coverage when they need it most.
The House action to repeal the law is merely symbolic given that the Senate will not even take up the measure and that Obama is certain to veto it should it somehow pass through Congress. But it does signal the beginning of the Republican effort to chisel away at the law through attempts to deny funding for parts of the legislation as they go into effect in the coming years.
An Associated Press-GfK poll taken earlier this month finds Americans almost evenly divided on the law. The poll found that 40 percent of those surveyed said they support the law, while 41 percent oppose it. Strong opposition to the law stands at 30 percent, close to the lowest levels registered in AP-GfK surveys dating to September 2009.
As for repeal, only about one in four said they want to do away with the law completely. Among Republicans support for repeal has dropped sharply, from 61 percent after the elections to 49 percent now.
Dissatisfaction with the law stems in part from a powerful campaign by Republicans and the conservative tea party movement to portray it as further intrusion into citizens' private lives by the federal government. Some insisted the new legislation amounted to socialized medicine, even though parts of the law were lifted from a Republican plan drawn up in the 1990s.
In some extreme cases, opponents falsely claimed that the legislation would set up so-called government "death panels" to decide when to end treatment for elderly patients.
Others object to it on the basis that it's too expensive, especially given the spiraling U.S. deficit.
Now, Republicans are warning the health care reform law will cost 650,000 U.S. jobs if it is not repealed. Experts debunk that claim as a creative use of statistics from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
What the CBO actually said is that the impact of the health care law on supply and demand for labor would be small. Most of it would come from people who no longer have to work, or can move to less demanding employment, because insurance will be available outside the job. Under the previous system, most Americans got their health insurance through work.
The Obama administration released a study Tuesday saying repeal of the existing law could threaten between 50 million and 129 million nonelderly men, women and children with denial of affordable health insurance because they have pre-existing medical conditions. The administration built its estimate on changes in the law that already have taken effect or might take effect by 2014.
House Republicans issued a point-by-point rebuttal that said the administration's claim was vastly overstated and accused Democrats of "scare tactics."
A 2011-2012 school calendar published by the European Union has omitted Christian holidays, while continuing to note important Jewish and Muslim celebrations.
The European Union has printed three million copies of the calendar which will be distributed free-of-charge to students who request them.
Former French politician and government minister, Christine Boutin, wrote in her blog Jan. 11 that the calendar leaves out Christianity, “the religion practiced or recognized as forming the cultural assembly of our ‘old’ continent.”
Boutin is a consultant for the Pontifical Council for the Family, as well as president of the Christian Democratic Party in France. She went on to lament that Christianity has “fallen into the limbo of collective ignorance.”
While Christian holidays such as Christmas and Easter are missing from the calendar's pages, days commemorating “Sikh Baisakhi-Day, the Jewish Yom Kippur holiday, the Muslim holiday Aid-el-Kebir,” remain in place,” Boutin continued.
The Christian Democratic Party in France called the omissions “unacceptable” and has filed a petition asking that the calendars not be distributed as printed, but that students be given versions that include Christian holidays.
“The role of the Christian religion in the shaping of Europe is an undeniable historical fact” that the European Union cannot omit. To do so would be to “instruct students while denying that a particular religion has greatly contributed to the foundation and unity of Europe,” the organization said.
The petition states that the Christian religion is “the first of all religions in Europe. It is therefore unthinkable that it be denied, as it has great importance for the lives of all.”
