57% Predict Health Care Plan Will Hurt The Economy
66% believe the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats is likely to increase the federal deficit.
81% believe it is at least somewhat likely that the health care reform plan will cost more than official estimates.
78% believe it is at least somewhat likely that taxes will have to be raised on the middle class to cover the cost of health care reform.
65% who say middle-class tax hikes are very likely to cover the cost of health care reform.
54% believe passage of the proposed health care legislation will lead to higher health care costs.
22% of voters say lack of universal health coverage is biggest problem with health care.
9% say the quality of care is the worst problem with health care.
76% of those with insurance now rate their own coverage as good or excellent.
58% of Democrats say that the plan is likely to require a hike in middle-class taxes.
60% of voters believe Democrats should change the bill to win support from a reasonable number of Republicans.

Honestly, my 4 year old understands the meaning of “NO!” better than our President does!

PRESIDENT OBAMA: By the time I took office, we had a one year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. All this was before I walked in the door.

Well, how about a slice of Facts now, Mr. Obama:

• On March 14, 2008, then Sen. Obama voted in favor of the 2009 budget which authorized $3.1 trillion in federal outlays along with a projected $400 billion deficit
• The vote, 51-44, was strongly along party lines with only two Republicans saying “Yes.”
• When the final conference report was presented to the House on June 5, not one Republican voted for it.

And who did  vote for the 2008 Budget? Among the Democrats that voted “Yes” were:

• Then Senator Obama
• Then Senator Joe Biden
• Then Rep. Rahm Emanuel
• Then Senator Hillary Clinton

And what about the 700 Billion “TARP” program signed into by Bush? Again, Obama and his fellow Democrats voted “Yes” as well with that program.

Add this together with the 787 Billion Stimulus, the 410 Billion Omnibus bill and you have Obama approval on every spending bill either as a Senator or currently as President.

So please, Mr. President, next time you whine about what you “inherited” could you please spare us the crocodile tears?

Jan. 12 a group of protesters organized by Tom Jenney from Americans for Prosperity displayed huge signs at a busy freeway intersection during rush hour in Scottsdale Arizona. Watch the video and see what happens!

WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House has abandoned its controversial method of counting jobs under President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus, making it impossible to track the number of jobs saved or created with the $787 billion in recovery money.

Despite mounting a vigorous defense of its earlier count of more than 640,000 jobs credited to the stimulus, even after numerous errors were identified, the Obama administration now is making it easier to give the stimulus credit for hiring. It’s no longer about counting a job as saved or created; now it’s a matter of counting jobs funded by the stimulus.

That means that any stimulus money used to cover payroll will be included in the jobs credited to the program, including pay raises for existing employees and pay for people who never were in jeopardy of losing their positions.

The new rules, quietly published last month in a memorandum to federal agencies, mark the White House’s latest response to criticism about the way it counts jobs credited to the stimulus. When The Associated Press first reported flaws in the job counts in October, the White House said errors were being corrected and future counts would provide a full and correct accounting of just how many stimulus jobs were saved or created.

Numbers published last month identified more than 640,000 jobs linked to stimulus projects around the country. The White House said the public could have confidence in those new numbers, which officials argued proved the administration was on track to keep Obama’s promise that the stimulus would save or create 3.5 million jobs by the end of this year.

But more errors were found, with tens of thousands of problems documented in corrected counts, from the substantive to the clerical. Republicans have used those flaws to attack what so far is the signature domestic policy approved during Obama’s presidency.

The new rules are intended to streamline the process, said Tom Gavin, spokesman for the White House’s Office of Management and Budget. They came in response to grant recipients who complained the reporting was too complicated, from lawmakers who complained the job counts were inconsistent and from watchdog groups who complained the information was unreliable, Gavin said.

“We’re trying to make this as consistent and as uniform as we possibly can,” he said.

The new stimulus job reports will continue to offer details about jobs and projects. But they were never expected to be the public accounting of Obama’s goal to save or create 3.5 million jobs, Gavin said.

The quarterly job reports posted on the Web site for the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board reflect only a fraction of the jobs created under the program and can’t account for job creation stemming from other stimulus programs such as tax rebates and other federal aid, the spokesman said.

But the result of the new rules will be that future claims of job creation from the stimulus will be even more misleading, said Rep. Darrell Issa, the ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

“It is troubling that the administration is changing the rules and further inflating the Recovery Act’s impact and masking the failure of the stimulus to produce sustainable economic growth or real job creation,” Issa said in a letter sent last week to the government board monitoring stimulus spending.

Recipients of recovery money no longer have to show that a job would have been lost without the stimulus help, and they no longer are required to keep an ongoing tally of jobs saved or created. The new rules allow stimulus recipients to limit the job tally to quarterly reports, making it impossible to avoid double-counting a job that was created in one quarter and continued into the next.

Issa wants the Recovery Board, the government’s independent oversight panel, to change how it identifies the count of stimulus jobs and to add a note on its Recovery.gov Web site explaining that there is now a different definition for what constitutes a job under the stimulus.

A large group of  protesters showed up in opposition, from 8:00 to 11:00 a.m. at the Scottsdale Road entrance to the  Scottsdale Hotel Resort, where Edison Electric Institute’s annual board of directors met with the EPA administrator Lisa Jackson , and Senator Lindsey Graham (Rino-South Carolina).

The Crooks inside the resort discussed the EPA’s implementation of the proposed new rules that are solely based on junk science, and the dirty back door deals insuring the support of the Corporate CEOs.

Outside the resort, Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen, and AFP National Policy Director, Phil Kerpen addressed the Protestors
discussing the economic effects of the cap-and-trade Legislation moving through the Congress.

“The cap-and-tax bill would do serious damage to America’s economy and standard of living, said Kerpen. “The electric utility industry should be fighting the legislation with all its resources, but instead, it’s lobbying in favor of cap-and-tax in the vain hope of cutting a deal with the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress.”

Great Video of the Protesters welcoming the Carbon Crooks !

A must watch video below, of Phil Kerpen speaking to the protesters, explaining the dangers of the EPA and Congress using bad science to control our every day lives.

Angry voters in Congressman Harry Mitchell’s district erect an enormous sign opposing the government takeover of healthcare over the 101 freeway in Scottsdale Arizona on January 5, 2010 during morning rush hour traffic. The handmade banner read “HONK to STOP Washington DC’s corrupt takeover of our health care!”

The American public overwhelmingly is against the healthcare takeover bill that passed through the Congress and Senate, yet Pelosi and Reid will try to ram the merged bills down the throats of the American people. Congressman Harry Mitchell voted yes on the bill the first time around, will Harry listen to his voters? Please Harry vote NO on the final bill or face “End of Congress Counseling” in November 2010

.

It appears that emails and other documents were ‘hacked’ at one of the leading climate research centers. Here is a quote from this research center:

The Global Carbon Project study concludes that unless emissions are substantially reduced, the result would be a rise in average global temperature by nearly 10 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. That is on par with previous worst-case scenarios outlined by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Scientists have estimated that temperature spikes above 2 degrees could have disastrous consequences, including large rises in sea level, droughts and stronger storms.

One of the authors of the study, Professor Corinne Le Quere of the University of East Anglia, says the conclusions raise the stakes for delegates to the Copenhagen gathering, who will try to hammer out a successor to the Kyoto Accords that committed signatory governments to emission reduction goals.

Al Gore, international ‘global warming’ treaties, Cap and Trade legislation, are all based off the work of climatoligists that have now been discovered to have conspired to manilupate the data, and to make the data fit a particualr theary – namely, Man Made Global Warming.

An few excerpts from some of the emails:

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

And yet, in light of this, what does President Obama do? Call for hearings? Thoroughly investigate? Take his time to come up with a strategy? Nope. President Obama flies to Copenhagen in December to hold climate talks – talks based on scientific research that has now been clearly shown to be tainted and falsified data.

Can we all now say “An Inconvenient Truth?”