This is an article about Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill that I wrote for another website last January during the height of the debate over ObamaCare. After hearing Sen. McCaskill’s response to the overwhelming victory of Proposition C in last week’s election, it’s apparent that she remains dedicated to ignoring the will of her constituents and dismissing their concerns as the result of ignorance. Unfortunately, she is not up for reelection in November so we will have to wait until 2012 to toss her out along with President Obama. However, we must factor her behavior into our decisions at the ballot box this coming November as we decide who will join McCaskill in the US Senate to represent Missouri’s interests. Do we want to add another like-minded shill for the White House?

Be sure to check back soon for full coverage of McCaskill’s response to Proposition C. It’s enough to make your blood boil and serves as a stark reminder why 2012 can’t get here soon enough.

(Article first published January 12, 2010.)

Last September, as the health care debate was heating up, Senator Claire McCaskill assured us that any bill she supported would have to “give people choices, bring health care costs down, and not add to the national deficit.” That same month, she sent a letter to Senator Max Baucus about the importance of bending the health care cost curve down and lowing overall health care spending. She explained, “If we don’t do that, we will have failed.” Throughout the year, she also positioned herself as a guardian of Medicare, promising numerous times that no cuts would affect seniors’ access to care whatsoever. On December 14, McCaskill gave another crystal clear statement about what a bill would have to achieve in order to gain her support. Appearing on “FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace”, she explained, “My statement all along is [a health care reform bill] has to slow down the increase of health care costs over time, and that is bending the cost curve, and secondly, that it has to be deficit neutral… And if it’s not saving more money for our government than we’re spending, then not only will I not support it, the president said he won’t support it.” Ten days later, Senator McCaskill joined with every other Senate Democrat to pass the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (PPACA) in a strictly party-line vote. Somewhere between her appearance with Chris Wallace and her vote in favor of the bill, she must have altered her requirements because, as Richard Foster, the White House’s Chief Actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS,) confirmed in his report released last Friday, the bill Senator McCaskill voted in favor of fails to keep any of the promises she frequently made during most of last year. By tossing aside her values, Senator McCaskill failed in her fiduciary duty to the taxpayers and betrayed the seniors who trusted her assurances about the security of their health care.

Foster’s report shows that the bill passed by the Senate fails to meet McCaskill’s fiscal requirements. It is not deficit neutral. Instead, it will add $280 billion to the national deficit from 2010 to 2019. However, even that figure is hopeful. The Wall Street Journal points out, “Even that estimate exists only on paper, as Mr. Foster has the honesty to admit. Because ‘most of the coverage provisions would be in effect for only six of the 10 years of the budget period, the cost estimates shown in this memorandum do not represent a full 10-year cost for the proposed legislation.’” The Senate’s bill does not meet McCaskill’s other basic requirement of “bending the cost curve.” Rather, it will increase costs. Foster writes, “The national health expenditure share of GDP is projected to be 20.9 percent in 2019, compared to 20.8 percent under current law…Numerous studies have demonstrated that individuals and families with health insurance use more health services than otherwise – similar persons without insurance. Under the health reform legislation, an estimated 34 million currently uninsured people would gain comprehensive coverage …We estimate that the net effect of the utilization increases and price reductions arising from the coverage provisions of the PPACA would increase national health expenditures in 2019 by about 3.4 percent.”

Perhaps, though, the most egregious betrayal of her supposed values is illustrated by her frequent claims that Democrat plans would save Medicare. The senator’s website currently features a column she wrote on November 4 titled, “Strengthening Medicare Through Health Reform.” In this piece, McCaskill laments that “without adequate reforms, Medicare is on track to cut payments to physicians by as much as 21 percent starting next year which may cause some doctors to drop Medicare patients.” McCaskill claims, “By rooting out more than $400 billion in identified waste, fraud, and inefficiencies, we can make sure Medicare remains solvent for years to come, ensure doctors are paid fairly so that seniors can keep their doctors, and not cut benefits for seniors.” She goes on to plainly state, “Ultimately the assertion that reforms to Medicare would result in cuts is simply not true.” Perhaps Senator McCaskill should meet with the Richard Foster. After all, he is the White House’s authority on the Medicare and Medicaid programs. If any aspect of his report can be trusted it would be his analysis of the effects of the legislation on these programs.

Unfortunately for any of the seniors that found comfort in McCaskill’s reassurances, Foster doesn’t reach her conclusions. According to the CMS, nearly half of the cost-savings in the Senate bill that Senator McCaskill voted in favor of come from reduced payment levels for Medicare Part A and Part B. In plain words, the Senate bill relies on cutting payments for Medicare services as its primary source of funding.

McCaskill also makes the claim in her column that the Democrat’s proposed Medicare cuts will ensure that “seniors can enjoy improved benefits and continue seeing the doctors of their choice.” This statement flies directly in contradiction to the Chief Actuary of Medicare’s findings. As Foster says, the proposed payment reductions are “unreasonable” and will cause large problems for Medicare patients. Foster shows that the reduced payment rates mandated by the Senate bill will not keep up with service providers’ costs, “Thus providers for whom Medicare constitutes a substantive portion of their business could find it difficult to remain profitable and, absent legislative intervention, might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries). Simulations by the Office of Actuary suggest that roughly 20 percent of Part A providers would become unprofitable within the 10-year projection period as a result of the productivity adjustments.” Yet, somehow, Senator McCaskill apparently believes that a 20 percent reduction in Medicare service providers will “ensure doctors are paid fairly so that seniors can keep their doctors.”  

The infeasible Medicare cuts are no small issue. If Congress merely decides to ignore them, the bill will explode the deficits. However, if the cuts remain, Medicare and Medicaid patients will find themselves increasingly unable to find service providers only compounding the issue of inadequate access to health care. To quote Senator McCaskill’s September letter to Max Baucus, if any version of the House or Senate bill becomes law, “[They] will have failed.”

Senator McCaskill either cast her vote in support of the Senate health care bill out of ignorance of the bill’s true effects, or with no intention of ever keeping the pledges she made to her constituents. In December, she appeared to have taken a bold stance by joining only two other Democrats who voted against the $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill that increased discretionary spending across the board. After she had supported the failed $787 billion economic “stimulus” package and approved President Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget, her stance against the omnibus bill was encouraging. However, the bill was never really in jeopardy of failing to pass. If it were, would McCaskill still have voted against it? Considering how quickly she threw aside every value she promoted during the health care debate in order to push a disastrous, highly partisan bill over the threshold, Senator McCaskill has a large hill to climb to prove that she actually stands for anything other than toeing the Democrat Party line.

As Democrats prepare to let the Bush tax cuts expire, the budgetary ramifications of those cuts will be a topic I will return to as the debate continues. This is an article I wrote back in February for another website. However, it’s still very valid and I will continue to hammer the main points made in this piece over the next few months as elections approach.

Originally written February 2, 2010

After spending the last few weeks trying to bolster his reputation as a deficit hawk, President Obama destroyed any hope of fiscal sanity by releasing his $3.8 trillion 2010 budget proposal that will result in a $1.6 trillion deficit while also implementing a slew of tax hikes. Last week’s announcement that the economy grew by 5.7% last quarter coupled with the previous miniscule drop in the unemployment rate has increased the White House’s confidence that their excessive spending is restoring economic growth. Echoing the administration’s intentions to throw taxpayer dollars into the economy until it recovers, House minority whip James Clyburn told Fox News that “We’ve got to spend our way out of this recession, and I think economists know that.” However, economist Arthur Laffer, Ph.D. recently told his clients in his latest economic outlook that the economy is heading for a “train wreck” in 2011 that will make the last downturn look mild. According to his projections, the economy will experience a “false recovery” where GDP will grow around 4% in 2010 and unemployment could drop as low as 7%. But President Obama’s planned tax increases and unprecedented deficits will quickly reclaim any economic progress made this year. After 2010, Laffer predicts, “All the factors that will make 2010 (and have already made the last half of 2009) look so good will reverse direction, and 2011 will be a train wreck.” Chief cause for concern is Obama’s plan to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire while also implementing other new tax increases for businesses and wealthy individuals. From reading the president’s “Budget Message”, it’s clear that this administration either doesn’t understand the true effects of the 2003 Bush tax cuts or (what’s probably much more likely) is so ideologically blinded by social-engineering-wealth-redistribution schemes that they willfully misrepresent the true record. Whatever the reason, the president and his lackeys in Congress are laying the foundation for a monumental economic catastrophe. 

We are already witnessing the beginnings of a false recovery like Laffer described. The administration was rewarded last week with the news that US GDP grew at a rate of 5.7% last quarter. However, Investor’s Business Daily explained that “most of the gain – nearly two-thirds, in fact – was a result of an end to the panicked inventory liquidation that took place at US firms last year. Remove that, and a different picture emerges – a 2.2% rise in GDP.” The same article points out that “most economists agree that GDP growth of 3% or so is needed to boost employment. That may in part explain why GDP could grow 2.2% in the third quarter and 5.7% in the fourth quarter, while businesses slashed 735,000 jobs over the same six months.” When GDP growth is looked at year-over-year, a whole new picture is drawn. IDB said, “By that measure, we barely grew – real GDP rose just 0.1% in the fourth quarter from last year, virtually flat. Worse, real nonresidential fixed investment – a proxy for business investment in future output – plunged 14.6% from last year. That’s a shocking vote of “no confidence” in Obamanomics by America’s entrepreneurs and businesses.” Even the recent drop in the unemployment rate from 10.2% to 10% wasn’t the positive event it was made out to be. Writing in American Spectator, financial journalist James Srodes said, “The recent headlined dip in the jobless rate turns out to have been caused by more than 50,000 already jobless people simply giving up and dropping out of the workforce. This has the statistically absurd result that the percentage of people deemed to be unsuccessfully seeking work is judged to have improved.” Obviously, there is plenty of reason to be wary, not celebratory, about the economy’s condition. The president’s budget proposal will only make a bad situation worse.

Seeing how the current “good news” isn’t all it’s being cracked up to be, Laffer’s concerns become more clear. As businesses and individuals react to looming tax increases, Laffer predicts “GDP growth in 2010 will be some 3 to 4% higher than it otherwise should be, thus green shoots. The transfer of income from 2011 to 2010 will not only make 2010 [economic growth] higher than it otherwise would be, it will also make 2011 growth 3 and 4% lower than it otherwise should be because people have shifted income out of 2011 into 2010.” What tax increases are expected to cause this disaster? “In 2010 the US will have a payroll tax rate increase, an estate tax increase, and income tax increases. There’s also a tax increase coming in 2010 on carried interest. This rate will rise from its current level of 15% to 35%, and then it will rise again in 2011.” Stanford economist John Cogan concurred with Laffer’s assessment of looming danger in Obama’s planned tax increases, especially in light of the unprecedented peace-time deficits this administration is proposing. “The primary sources of [deficit] risk come from uncertainty about US government economic policy. In the area of taxation, personal income taxes, especially those on savings and capital formation are set to rise substantially in a year,” Corgan told Human Events.

President Obama’s plans to raise taxes are not only ill-advised because the economy has not fully entered a recovery, but also because his analysis of the Bush tax cuts’ effects on the deficit are wildly false. In his “Budget Message”, Obama asserts that a large portion of the national debt is the “result of the failure to pay for two large tax cuts, primarily for the wealthiest Americans.” This claim willfully misrepresents both the true “costs” of the 2003 Bush tax cuts and their true effects on both the wealthy and middle class.

In their book, “The End of Prosperity”, authors Arthur Laffer, Stephen Moore, and Peter Tanous found, “From 2004 to 2007 federal tax revenue increased by an enormous $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in revenue in American history.” After the Bush tax cuts spurred economic growth that led to more jobs and increased corporate profits, personal and corporate income tax receipts rose 40% in the following three years. The largest gains in tax receipts from the Bush tax cuts came from the cuts in dividend and capital gains tax rates. When “The End of Prosperity” went to press in 2008, the latest data from the Congressional Budget Office reported a “70% increase in capital gains receipts and a 31% hike in dividend tax payments since 2003.” How could the Bush tax cuts have increased federal tax receipts by nearly $1 trillion and still increased the budget deficit?

President Obama’s assertion that the wealthy received disproportionate benefits from the Bush tax cuts is as implausible as his claims that they increased the deficit. When the amount of taxes collected under the Bush plan were compared to those paid under the previous system, it was evident that the Bush tax cuts shifted more of the federal income tax burden onto the wealthiest tax filers. The number of tax filers claiming over $1 million in taxable income rose from 181,000 to 354,000 from 2003 to 2005. Over that period, the total taxes paid by millionaire households “rose 107% in two years, to $273 billion from $132 billion.” The Bush tax cuts led to a thriving economy that almost doubled the number of millionaires in the nation while doubling the revenue collected from these filers. While the wealthiest were paying more, the lowest tax rate was lowered and child credits increased. The resulting tax rates made the tax system more progressive under the Bush cuts. The top 1% of earners paid more income taxes than the bottom 90% combined even though the bottom 90% earned three times the income of the top 1%.

However, as successful as the Bush tax cuts were in fostering economic growth and increasing revenue, they were not enough to offset the effects of the real deficit culprit –  “drunken sailor spending.” Out-of-control spending out-paced federal revenues each year of the Bush administration. This trend increased further after 2006 when Democrats assumed control of Congress and the nation’s purse strings. (If you recall, President Obama was a senator in 2006 and he voted for every spending increase George W. Bush signed into law.) Excessive spending seems to be the only aspect of the Bush economic program that President B. Hussein Obama is not only dedicated to continuing but is taking to a whole new level. Unfortunately, as they continue their failed efforts to spend the nation back to prosperity, the administration is only laying the foundation for an even deeper economic downturn.

Anyone remember all of those rosy promises of the stimulus package President Obama signed into law within weeks of taking office? Sure we were laying out over $878 billion in government spending (over $1 trillion after interest is taken into account) but desperate times called for desperate measures. Without the massive stimulus, we were destined for an economic depression and unemployment over 9%. However, if we allowed the Democrats to borrow and spend as they wished, unemployment wouldn’t rise above 8% and we would “create or save” millions of new jobs within the first year after it went into effect. Even though basic economics dictates this scheme would never work because government money has to be confiscated from the productive private sector in order to spend it elsewhere, the White House clung to their promises and led congressional Democrats to pass the stimulus package.

Now, over a year after the passage, unemployment is stuck at 9.5% and the only reason it isn’t higher is because chronic unemployment is so bad that each month more and more of the unemployed have become so discouraged with the bleak job environment that they have completely given up and withdrawn from the official workforce. Thus, the total number of unemployed actually decreases because the discouraged unemployed are no longer included as part of the job pool. If we were to add discouraged workers back into the workforce, unemployment would currently stand near 17%.

Last night, news hit that Obama’s chief economic advisor, Christina Romer, who was responsible for making the extravagant promises about the stimulus package announced that she will be resigning. There are reports that she has not been happy for quite some time from feeling as if she doesn’t have enough direct access to President Obama. Either way, she is out and now we have to wonder what genius will step into her place.

After watching President Obama spin the jobless numbers released today, it’s a safe bet that Romer isn’t being forced out for making outrageous promises. Nothing new is going to come out of this White House until the voters make a change in November 2012. All we can do in the meanwhile is work to take Obama’s congressional rubber stamp away this coming November by replacing his Democrat “yes men” currently leading both chambers.

The first version I heard today of the new economic numbers came from President Obama. Speaking before a small business, the president praised the jobs number that came out today as yet another signal that the economy has turned the corner and is back to growing. Obama told the crowd that the nation’s private sector actually added jobs for the third straight month and the increased job losses largely stem from the census work winding down and shedding those temporary workers. With any speech Obama delivers, there are two stories – one that the president says and the truth. As the president gets further into what we can only hope will be his only term in office, the Obama version of a story diverts wider and wider from the truth. Today’s summary of the economic numbers is just another example. (It’s funny how the president doesn’t mention census jobs when they artificially inflate job creation totals but he’s eager to point to them out when they negatively skew the numbers.)

Despite President Obama’s claims that the recovery is underway, the actual numbers paint a much bleaker picture. Last month, the economy shed 131,000 jobs. The president was correct that many jobs are disappearing because the census is winding down and the jobs report gives the appearance that the private sector added 71,000. The government also revised June’s numbers to show that 221,000 jobs were lost instead of the 125,000 previously reported. However, taking a closer look at the numbers erases any hint of a steadily improving job market.

Even if the 71,000 private sector jobs added was the whole story, the situation would be bad enough because it’s not even enough to make a dent in the unemployment rate. However, there’s another disturbing trend that President Obama conveniently left out which is the only reason unemployment didn’t rise above the 9.5% where it has hovered for several months. As the months continue to pass, the chronically unemployed have become so hopeless in their job search that they have resigned themselves to actually drop out of the job search which shrinks the official workforce which is used to calculate unemployment. The true unemployment rate actually rises near 15% once the number of discouraged workers who are no longer looking for jobs is factored in.

Today’s numbers only highlight the Obama administration’s ineptness on handling the economy. A “stimulus” package carrying an over $1 trillion price tag once interest is factored in was supposed to keep unemployment under 8% and add over a million jobs within a year of its enactment has only stimulated the economic decline.

It’s one thing to waste tax payer money. However, it’s completely insulting when the president tells us that the economic sun is starting to shine when the true numbers show that the American economy is still on life support.

On Thursday, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs was asked about the significance of Tuesday’s vote where 71% of Missouri voters approved a state law that would exempt them from ObamaCare’s mandate requiring every American to purchase federally-approved health insurance. In true elitist fashion, Gibbs, the mouthpiece of the banana republic administration currently occupying the federal government gave a simple one-word answer; “Nothing.” 

Unfortunately, this can’t really be too surprising since this administration has proven time and time again that it doesn’t regard anyone’s opinion other than their own as legitimate.

There has never been an administration this content to rule against the will of the people. Neither the president nor the Democrat leaders in Congress believe that we are smart enough to make our own decisions and they won’t hesitate for a second to use every bit of their legitimate and self-created power to thrust their radical agenda on the nation. November can’t come soon enough.

Yesterday, Missouri voters sent a shockwave through the White House. Since passing ObamaCare against the will of the American people, public opinion polls have showed a continued drop in public support for the Democrats’ government takeover of the nation’s health care. President Obama has initiated a nationwide public relations campaign to improve national opinion of ObamaCare through the sheer force of his charisma but to no avail. The more the president speaks of the bill, the larger the majority of Americans opposed to it grows. Just days ago, a federal judge delivered another blow to ObamaCare by allowing a Virginia-based lawsuit that is challenging the constitutionality of the bill to proceed despite the White House’s effort to have the case dismissed. As if things were not going bad enough for ObamaCare, the voters of Missouri met at the polls and approved Proposition C, a bill to exempt Missouri residents from one of the basic aspects of ObamaCare which is forcing Americans to purchase insurance plans approved by the federal government. Missouri’s ballot initiative was the first chance voters have had to explicitly state their opposition to ObamaCare at the ballot box. An overwhelming 71% of Missouri voters did just that by voting in favor of Proposition C. Sure, Republican Scott Brown’s victory in the race to fill Senator Ted Kennedy’s seat spelled danger for ObamaCare, especially since Brown campaigned as the 41^st vote against it but Democrats were able to tell themselves that there were many other issues besides health care that contributed to Brown’s victory. However, the Missouri vote leaves no question to the voters’ opinion of ObamaCare.

There is already an effort to explain away yesterday’s election results. The reasoning has seemed to follow these main themes:  It was just a primary election in a cycle that conservatives were most energized in a state that McCain won in 2008. Besides, primaries always have lower voter turnout and if it had been on the November ballot the results would have been different.

Had Proposition C had passed by a margin of 10% or even 15%, any of these excuses may carry water. However, the vote was 71% in favor of Proposition C and 29% against. This was a complete landslide. Approximately 577,600 Republicans voted in the primary and there were approximately 316,000 votes cast for Democrat candidates. Another roughly 5,500 ballots were cast with no party affiliation. The Proposition C results show that Republicans weren’t solely responsible for the bill’s passage. Instead, about one-sixth of the Democrats voted in favor of Prop C. Had the issue been on the November ballot as its supporters originally wanted only to be blocked by Democrats who demanded it appear in the primary election, there is no doubt it would have easily passed.

Then, of course, there will also be the usual, desperate charges from Obama and his Democrat minions that the lopsided election result was the product of a severe and intensive “disinformation campaign” from Republicans and the evil special interests who want to deny most Americans access to health care. Who knows, we may even hear Missouri described as a state of racists. Unfortunately for the White House and Democrats, the more Americans learn about the specifics of ObamaCare, the less they approve of it.

The Show Me State came through huge yesterday and, hopefully, showed other states the path to resist the Democrat attempts to inject themselves into every aspect of Americans’ lives.

Charlie Rangel needs to resign to save his party's credibility.

The Washington Post (not known for being right-of-center) called for Democrat Congressman Charlie Rangel to step down today as chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee amid the discovery that Rangel failed to report almost half of his assets. Rangel is currently facing an ethics investigation since it has been discovered that he did not disclose significant portions of his assets including a checking account at the Federal Credit Union worth somewhere between $250,000 and $500,000 and another checking account of similar size at Merrill Lynch. He also did not disclose tens of thousands of dollars of income from dividends and other investments along with money made from the sale of a Harlem townhouse.

Even as Rangel’s dishonesty has been widely reported, Rangel recently announced that he is calling for increased enforcement of tax evaders. The chairman of the committee that oversees writing the nation’s tax code sought to end leniency for errors on tax returns, even when the IRS fully believes they were honest mistakes, made in good faith. Curiously, Rangel didn’t mention whether there would be a specific exception to the harsher enforcement for both himself and Treasury Secretary, Tim “Chronic Tax Cheat” Geithner.

Democrats need to act quickly to remove Rangel from his post if they seek to retain any image of credibility. They cannot impose drastically higher tax rates and penalties for mistakes while allowing their own members to play as fast and loose with the tax code as they wish, especially when the member is the person in charge of writing the tax codes. Rangel has been under investigation for quite awhile now and there is no word from Speaker Nancy Pelosi whether any action will be taken. Voters need to keep Rangel in mind when they head to the polls in November 2010. It would seem that Pelosi’s promise to run “the most ethical Congress in history” has fallen well short of its stated goal.

Opponents of ObamaCare witnessed another brutal attack by one of B. Hussein Obama’s supporters. The Los Angeles Times reported today that a 65-year-old man had his pinky finger bitten off by a member of a group supporting ObamaCare at an event organized by MoveOn.org. (Apparently, George Soros-funded groups don’t qualify as “Astroturf.”)

Last night, at a rally called the “We Can’t Afford to Wait Vigil” organized by the ultra-liberal MoveOn.org, an unidentified man took issue with an elderly counter-demonstrator. A fight ensued at which point the MoveOn.org protestor bit the little finger off of the 65-year-old opponent to ObamaCare.

The injured man was taken to a hospital and the assailant is still at large after fleeing the scene.

Yes, every day it becomes more obvious that we must watch out for the “rightwing domestic terrorists,” as a memo emailed from Obama’s Organizing for America website described opponents to the president’s health care proposals. “Rightwing terrorist” Kenneth Gladney was hospitalized after a brutal beating issued by members of the pro-Obama SEIU labor union outside of a town hall meeting hosted by Democrat Russ Carnahan. Gladney’s offense? According to eyewitnesses, the SEIU members took issue with the fact that Gladney was a black conservative. Now, Obama’s henchmen bit the little finger off of another “rightwing domestic terrorist.” Thank goodness, the Department of Homeland Security issued that report warning about “rightwing extremists.” Those evil rightwingers seem to be bleeding all over everyone after being assaulted by the president’s followers.

On Thursday night, Democrat representative Diane Watson held a town hall meeting for her district in Los Angeles. While speaking about the harsh criticism President Obama has met since taking office, Watson couldn’t resist pulling out a race card to play. Watson, who happens to be black, told the crowd, “They are spreading fear and they’re trying to see that the first president who looks like me — fails.”

Here are her racially-motivated remarks from Breitbart.com:

During the same meeting, Watson also praised Cuba’s health care system and fondly recalled meeting Fidel Castro. This doesn’t help the Democrats’ insistence that there are no socialist ideas behind their agenda. Breitbart.com also posted these comments today.

Although it shouldn’t come as a surprise, it does continue to shed light on the extremely favorable media coverage President Obama receives from his lap-dogs in the press. This week, the nonprofit group League of American Voters submitted a commercial to run on all of the major networks. The ad’s message focuses on the fact that the current health care proposals before Congress will lead to rationing of health care and will disproportionately “decimate the quality of health care for seniors.” Bob Adams, executive director of League of American Voters, said that the advertisement is already running on local network affiliates in several states. CBS has agreed to air the commercial during national network programming and talks are currently underway with FOX. However, both ABC and NBC are refusing to run the commercial. NBC is reportedly questioning some of the facts and ABC rejects it for being too “partisan.”

ABC and NBC won't dare offend the president by running anti-ObamaCare commercial.

None of this should surprise anyone. ABC was the network that turned over a whole day’s programming to the White House for B. Hussein Obama to push his health care proposals. The network refused to give any time to any of the president’s opponents to counter the numerous false claims the president made throughout the day. The other network, NBC, might as well be run from the White House every day. Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of GE, NBC’s parent company, has advised the president on an array of topics including “renewable energy.” GE happens to be the largest manufacturer of wind turbines and has developed products to be used in national carbon trading schemes. Without Obama’s cap-and-trade plan, these products would be worthless. Immelt has also been appointed by the Obama administration to sit on the New York Federal Reserve Board. On any given night, MSNBC can be found singing the praises of B. Hussein Obama and getting thrills up their legs at the sound of the president’s voice while simultaneously demonizing anyone who dares question him.

It’s obvious that journalism is officially dead, especially at ABC and NBC. They’re partisan motives are completely transparent and it shouldn’t surprise anyone that they are refusing to run an ad critical of Obama’s health care plans. These two networks shouldn’t be surprised that as Obama’s public approval ratings tank, so do their ratings.