As the suicidal Democratic congressmen proceed to rubber-stamp the Obama health care reform despite the drubbing their party took in the '09 elections, the president trotted out the endorsements of the AMA and the AARP to stimulate support. But these -- and the other endorsements -- his package has received are all bought and paid for. Here are the deals:

The American Medical Association (AMA) was facing a 21 percent cut in physicians reimbursements under the current law. Obama promised to kill the cut if they backed his bill. The cuts are the fruit of a law requiring annual 5 percent to 6 percent reductions in doctor reimbursements for treating Medicare patients. Bravely, each year Congress has rolled the cuts over, suspending them but not repealing them. So each year, the accumulated cuts threaten doctors. By now, they have risen to 21 percent. With this blackmail leverage, Obama compelled the AMA to support his bill ... or else!

The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) got a financial windfall in return for its support of the health care bill. Over the past decade, the AARP has morphed from an advocacy group to an insurance company (through its subsidiary company). It is one of the main suppliers of Medi-gap insurance, a high-cost privately purchased coverage that picks up where Medicare leaves off. But President Bush-43 passed the Medicare Advantage program, which offered a subsidized, lower-cost alternative to Medi-gap. Under Medicare Advantage, the elderly get all the extra coverage they need plus coordinated, well-managed care, usually by the same physician. So more than 10 million seniors went with Medicare Advantage, cutting into AARP Medi-gap revenues.

Presto! Obama solved their problem. He eliminates subsidies for Medicare Advantage. The elderly will have to pay more for coverage under Medigap, but the AARP -- which supposedly represents them -- will make more money. (If this galls you, join the American Seniors Association, the alternative group. Contact sbarton@americanseniors.org.

The drug industry backed Obamacare and, in return, got a 10-year limit of $80 billion on cuts in prescription drug costs. (A drop in the bucket of their almost $3 trillion projected cost over the next decade). They also got administration assurances that it will continue to bar lower-cost Canadian drugs from coming into the U.S. All it had to do was to put its formidable advertising budget at the disposal of the administration.

Insurance companies got access to 40 million new potential customers. But when the Senate Finance Committee lowered the fine that would be imposed on those who don't buy insurance from $3,500 to $1,500, the insurance companies jumped ship and now oppose the bill, albeit for the worst of motives.

The only industry that refused to knuckle under was the medical-device makers. They stood for principle and wouldn't go along with Obama's blackmail. So the Senate Finance Committee retaliated by imposing a tax on medical devices such as automated wheelchairs, pacemakers, arterial stents, prosthetic limbs, artificial knees and hips, and other necessary accoutrements of health care.

So these endorsements are not freely given, but bought and paid for by an administration that is intent on passing its program at any cost.

The White House announced last week that the $787 billion stimulus package has "saved or created" more than 1 million jobs.

Yet on Friday we learned that unemployment increased to 10.2%, and the number of unemployed Americans rose by 558,000 in October. If you factor in workers who gave up looking or settled for a part-time job, the real unemployment rate--what's known as U6--is an astounding 17.5%.

Look out now for even more claims about "saved or created" jobs from the Obama administration.

As numerous economists have explained, there is no academic or empirical basis for the category of "jobs saved."
 
Veronique de Rugy of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University says, "no agency--not the Labor Department, not the Treasury, not the Bureau of Labor Statistics--actually calculates 'jobs saved.' "

Dr. Allan Meltzer of Carnegie Mellon University adds, "One can search economic textbooks forever without finding a concept called 'jobs saved.' It doesn't exist for good reason: How can anyone know that his or her job has been saved?"

The fact is, there is no guarantee that the government actually creates a job when it spends stimulus money. There is no way of knowing whether a worker or firm that is engaged in a stimulus-related activity would have been idle or engaged in some alternative activity. But we do know that as the recovery picks up, individuals engaged in government activity will be unavailable for more productive private activity.

That means that the recovery will have trouble truly lifting off if many of our workers have been committed to questionable make-work projects concocted by Speaker Pelosi and President Obama. A Keynesian might be happy to have government workers digging holes and filling them in, but workers occupied in that manner cannot, at the same time, return to the factory floor. The higher the number of such dislocated workers, the higher the policy challenge going forward.

So if the Obama administration is just going to make up formulations like "saved or created" that have no basis in economics, let us offer our own formulation that is a far more accurate characterization of our economic challenges since the enactment of President Obama's $787 billion stimulus package, even if economists currently don't use this measure.

And that is, we have seen more than 4 million jobs "lost and dislocated" since President Obama and the Democratic Congress enacted the stimulus package in February.

This is a much easier formulation to understand.

You begin with the increase in the number of unemployed Americans since the stimulus was passed in February as reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That number is 3.2 million, which represents the jobs that have actually been lost since the stimulus package was enacted.

Then, to have a clear sense of the liabilities created by Obama's misguided policies, we should add to our "jobs lost" number an estimate of private workers who have been "dislocated" by the government. Since stimulus actions are meant to be temporary, knowing how many workers have been "dislocated" is essential to forming a realistic long-run economic outlook. The more dislocated workers that Obama creates today, the higher the number of workers that will have to eventually be reabsorbed by the private sector tomorrow when the stimulus winds down.

So what figure should we use for the number of "dislocated" jobs since the stimulus program was enacted?

Thankfully, the White House has, perhaps inadvertently, provided us with an estimate. When the White House says that jobs have been "saved or created" by the stimulus program, then we should say that this is the number of jobs "dislocated" by the stimulus program.

So, using current figures, adding the number of actual jobs lost since February (3.2 million) to the number of jobs that the Obama administration says that they have "saved or created" since February (1 million) means that the economy has "lost and dislocated" more than 4 million jobs since President Obama signed his $787 billion stimulus package.

This "lost and dislocated" formulation is a much more honest assessment of where we are as a country when it comes to understanding job creation, unemployment and the economic challenges ahead under the so-called stimulus package.
 
If it's not, then the White House should at least explain how "saved or created" is more accurate.

It's a long-time member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, it has been pushing hard to join the European Union, it has been viewed as a model for secularism in the Muslim world, and it's .... planning to host an indicted war criminal next week.  It's Turkey.  This morning, the Wall Street Journal reported that Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, wanted for war crimes over the genocide in Darfur, will visit Turkey ("Turkey Set to Host President of Sudan").  I can assure you Turkey won't be pressuring Bashir to stop the killing in Darfur.   

Turkey and Sudan say their relationship is all about their economies.  And trade has quadrupled over the past three years.  But deeper currents are connecting.  Next week's visit is the latest sign of Turkey's shift away from the West and towards political Islam.  Radical Islam is integral to the ruling party in Khartoum, Sudan.  Last month, Turkey pulled the plug on a routine military exercise with NATO and Israel's air force.  Exercises with Syria are planned though.  Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whose Islamist AKP party came to power in 2003, recently called Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "our friend."  Ahmadinejad will be in Istanbul too, by the way, as part of the one day Organization of the Islamic Conference meeting.  As Darfur will be ignored, so too will Iran's nuclear drive.    

This isn't just my hunch.  One Middle East analyst recently noted, "the AKP's foreign policy has not promoted sympathy toward all Muslim states.  Rather, the party has promoted solidarity with Islamist, anti-Western regimes (Qatar and Sudan, for example) while dismissing secular, pro-Western Muslim governments (Egypt, Jordan and Tunisia)." (WSJ editorial: "The Turkish Temptation").  Present-day Turkey's embrace of rogues abroad shouldn't surprise, given that Ankara has moved to "tax" domestic independent media and jail political opponents.  Readers of this space know that aggressive attitudes abroad and bad behavior at home closely track (see North Korea, Iran).

This isn't some two-bit country with a growing radical population.  This is Turkey: a country of 77 million strategically sitting between east and west.  This is a NATO ally, with the accompanying security commitments and access to military technology.  We don't need any more foreign policy headaches, but Turkey's political and social trends are quite troubling indeed.  

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA,) the Vice-Chair of the House Republican Conference just told me in a blogger conference call that not one single Republican is expected to vote for the proposed Democratic healthcare reform legislation expected to be voted on by Congress this weekend.  Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) related that one of his colleagues in the House characterized the current debate on healthcare as being between only "the left and the far left," and that you could take it to the bank that the GOP would present a solid front.

McMorris Rodger's comments echoed those of House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA,) who told the protesters attending yesterday's "House Call" in Washington, DC that "Be assured not one Republican will vote for this bill."

Speaking of the "House Call," Rep. McMorris Rodgers said that it created quite a buzz on Capitol Hill yesterday and that it was vitally important for such efforts to continue.  The issue is far from settled yet.  Rep. Hastings said that Speaker Pelosi was pushing the vote more because of legislative deadlines than the fact that the Democrats has the 218 votes necessary to pass the legislation.  The vote count is fluid, and changes from hour to hour.  So fluid in fact, that House Democrats rushed newly elected Bill Owens from New York's 23rd District down to be sworn in.  When the count reaches 218, the Democrats will have the vote.

McMorris Rodgers stated that House Democrats are trying to put a "happy face" on the recent elections in New Jersey and Virginia which have made the Democratics very nervous, particularly more the more conservative "blue dog" Democrats.  The issues of federal funding of abortions and public option for illegal immigrants are still very much in play.  54 Democrats signed a letter opposing abortion in the healthcare reform bill, and many of those are not the same as the 34 who oppose the public option.  But, as this a top priority for the Obama administration, arms are being twisted, and Speker Pelosi wants it to be appear to be on track.  According to McMorris Rodgers, Pelosi is negotiating with pro-life Dems to find what language they would consider acceptable without having to remove the abortion provisions.

Unfortunately, according to Rep. Hastings, what isn't in play is the $730 billion tax increase that this legislation creates with a 5.4% surcharge on those grossing over $500,000 a year.  This surcharge is not indexed, meaning it will go up over time, as well as the employer mandate.

House Republicans have proposed a plan that would reduce health insurance premiums by $5,000 per family by adding more coverage and more choices.  Democrats, however, have chosen to centralize healthcare and thereby reduce choices.

THIS ISN'T OVER YET.  CALL YOUR CONGRESSMAN OR CONGRESSWOMAN TODAY!!!!

Dear Republican Candidate for Office (incumbent or otherwise) –

We hope and trust that you are celebrating with us the results of the election Tuesday night. There may be a lot of work to do, but we have to celebrate baby steps these days, and seeing Republicans overwhelmingly elected in states that voted so dramatically the other way just one year ago can only be taken as a huge positive.  Well, it is a huge positive if one’s agenda is reversing the trend into “socialism lite” that has been in full effect this last year.

We are not just happy with Bob McDonnell and Chris Christie’s victories; we are happy with the unmistakable message behind the victories.  Exit poll after exit poll reinforces this basic fact: voters are fed up with the direction of the country into Euro-style socialism, where no government program is big enough, and no deficit projection is large enough to cause any sort of concern.  We celebrate these victories, and hope against hope that they represent a new paradigm for the conservative center-right country that is the United States of America

And that brings us to the point of this letter.  

As we prepare to launch this weekend a significant enhancement to this Red County website--and the two of us ready the launch of a blog within it dedicated to correcting the recent narrative that capitalism failed--we thought it important to help you understand the ideological imprint which will always lie behind this website: we are going to support you if you act like a conservative Republican, and we will actively oppose you if you do not.

How can this be any simpler a message?  When you stick to the principles that define conservatism, you will win elections; when you abandon those principles, you will lose.  And we feel that we owe it to you to warn you in advance that we intend to do everything in our power to reinforce this commitment with firm actions.  The mood of our website, the persuasive efforts of our writings, the direction of our financial contributions, and every ounce of influence we can muster with the resources we have are going to be firmly devoted to candidates that support these principles, and on the flipside of this, we are going to devote equal energy and resources to opposing candidates that do not support these principles.

This applies to incumbent Republicans.  It applies to candidates in “liberal” districts.  It applies to candidates who have often voted conservatively in the past, but have lately decided to test the waters of “moderation”.  We care for this country so much, and believe so passionately in reversing the path down which the Left is taking us, that we cannot afford to compromise certani core values.  If we lose a couple primaries here, or even general election races there, we will live.

But we will not lose any more because we backed a RINO, only to find out that the voters preferred their liberalism of the authentic variety.  We believe that as tax-paying citizens of this great country, we have a right to expect honesty and principle from our elected officials.  Don’t get us wrong – we understand that in some issues there exists room for honest disagreement. But when it comes to the core foundational issues that define us as conservatives, and define us as Republicans, there is no room for compromise.  The stakes are too high.  And 2010 is going to be the year that leaves in the ash heap of history the political idiocy that says Republicans can only win if they back off of their Republicanism.  Now is the time to accelerate your commitment to personal responsibility, to limited government, to fiscal discipline, and to liberty.  We want to support you, but what we want more than that is for you to be worthy of our support.

So to assist in this process, we are asking every single Republican candidate for office in any Congressional or Senatorial race in the 2010 mid-term elections to understand our position on the following five topics which are so critically important today:

     (1)   You will not support any version of “cap and trade” whatsoever

(2)   You will not support any version of nationalized health care, socialized health care, or a so-called “public option”

(3)   You will not support any attempt to weaken the U.S. dollar in any long-term or meaningful way, or to see it replaced as the world’s reserve currency

(4)   You will not support any increase in marginal income tax rates, corporate tax rates, or capital gain/dividend tax rates, and in fact, will fight for reductions where appropriate

(5)   You will not support any additional so-called “stimulus” spending, or obnoxious government programs that are indebting our children and their children with deficits that cannot possibly be sustained

You will note that we did not bring up issues of national defense, and we did not bring up any of the “social” issues.  This is not to suggest that we do not find grave importance in much of these realms as well, but it is to say that right here, right now, the basic ideas we are focused on are of a singular theme and focus: the economic liberty of our people.

We cannot hope for any meaningful change in government without a dramatic re-discovery of these elementary principles.  The present administration, led by an ideological President and an extremist Speaker of the House, is looking to re-define the relationship between the citizen and the state forever.  

We do not believe that RINO’s can help us stave off their efforts.  We need people to run for office that are “all-in." We believe that your voting constituency is on our side here, and we are prepared to go the distance with you.  Affirm these principles, and let’s get down to the nitty-gritty work of protecting the Republic.  God help us all if we do not.

With regards,

Chip Hanlon and David L. Bahnsen

President Obama likes to preen himself on his supposed moral superiority to his predecessor. He announced the closing of Guantanamo in his first week on the job (though 10 months on, it remains open) to advertise the new administration's disdain for George Bush's war-fighting tactics. And at every opportunity since, he has stressed that his policies -- on taxes, on the Middle East, on health care, on "man-caused disasters," and on "climate change" -- reflect a more refined and elevated morality than has ever before held sway in Washington, DC.
So you have to wonder how the president slept last Wednesday night.

He has known that critics in the United States regarded his posture toward the Iranian regime as weak. But on Wednesday, he heard this critique from a different quarter -- one that will be more difficult to dismiss.

Every year, on Nov. 4, the anniversary of the day in 1979 when Iranian thugs took American diplomats hostage in Tehran, the government has organized a street demonstration outside the former American embassy. In the early days, the rallies may have engaged a certain number of spontaneous participants, but they have long since become utterly stage-managed government shows. The only people the regime could muster this year to chant "Death to America! Death to Israel!" were non-Iranian members of Hezbollah and students bused in from the provinces for the purpose.

But that wasn't the only demonstration in Tehran that day. Displaying awe-inspiring courage in light of the brutal tactics (including murder) the regime has used to quell opposition, tens of thousands of Iranians took to the streets again. Instead of "Death to America," they shouted "Death to the Dictator" referring to Ahmadinejad. And they trampled on photos of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini. Michael Ledeen, of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, reports that demonstrations also erupted in Shiraz, Isfahan, Kermanshah, Zahedan, Arak, Mazandaran, Tabriz, and Rasht. As before, the regime used paramilitary goons on motorcycles to beat, teargas, and bludgeon protestors. And again the regime disrupted cell phone service, text messaging, and the Internet to prevent demonstrators from coordinating their activities.

But this is what should awaken Obama's conscience: The protestors chanted something new this time. As they dodged the blows of the militia, they chorused: "Obama! Obama! Either you're with them or you're with us." This exquisitely moral White House was unmoved. Incredibly, President Obama released a statement that very day commemorating (!) the 30-year anniversary of the kidnapping of America's diplomats, taking the opportunity once again to abase himself and us. "Thirty years ago today," the president recalled, "the American embassy was seized" -- he did not say by whom. But because some anonymous agent seized the embassy, it "set the United States and Iran on a path of sustained suspicion, mistrust, and confrontation" that Obama is determined to reverse. He wants to move beyond the past and seek "a relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran based upon mutual interests and mutual respect."

By ostentatiously using the term "Islamic Republic" Obama tips his hand. He could have expressed his hopes for good relations with the people of Iran. That would have left the door open to a new Iranian regime that might not be politically Islamic. Instead he has signaled his eagerness to placate and yes, appease, the current malevolent Iranian leaders. "We do not interfere in Iran's internal affairs" he assured them. Asked about the demonstrations flaring around Iran, the president's spokesman Robert Gibbs hoped that "the violence will not spread," which sounds like something you'd say about rioters. In Iran, the violence is coming exclusively from the government, which is firing upon unarmed demonstrators.

Though the Obama administration has tripled the deficit in just 10 months in office, it has found one program to cut -- the $3 million to support the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center. The tiny research organization, which kept records of the disappearances, murders, and other human rights abuses in Iran, was abruptly defunded last month, sending a clear message of contempt to the Iranians who are putting their lives on the line to resist this vicious regime.

A successful overthrow of the nearly nuclear mullahs in Iran would be the greatest boon to world peace and stability since the fall of the Berlin Wall. After this week's events, it can no longer be said that the Obama administration isn't doing enough to support the opposition. The people on Tehran's streets know the truth -- he's effectively supporting the regime.