BluntPolitics.com

We have finally reached a point where humanitarian assistance, from us and others, can have an impact.

Washington Post

By Angelina Jolie
Thursday, February 28, 2008; 1:15 PM

The request is familiar to American ears: “Bring them home.”

But in Iraq, where I’ve just met with American and Iraqi leaders, the phrase carries a different meaning. It does not refer to the departure of U.S. troops, but to the return of the millions of innocent Iraqis who have been driven out of their homes and, in many cases, out of the country.

In the six months since my previous visit to Iraq with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, this humanitarian crisis has not improved. However, during the last week, the United States, UNHCR and the Iraqi government have begun to work together in new and important ways.

We still don’t know exactly how many Iraqis have fled their homes, where they’ve all gone, or how they’re managing to survive. Here is what we do know: More than 2 million people are refugees inside their own country — without homes, jobs and, to a terrible degree, without medicine, food or clean water. Ethnic cleansing and other acts of unspeakable violence have driven them into a vast and very dangerous no-man’s land. Many of the survivors huddle in mosques, in abandoned buildings with no electricity, in tents or in one-room huts made of straw and mud. Fifty-eight percent of these internally displaced people are younger than 12 years old.

An additional 2.5 million Iraqis have sought refuge outside Iraq, mainly in Syria and Jordan. But those host countries have reached their limits. Overwhelmed by the refugees they already have, these countries have essentially closed their borders until the international community provides support.

I’m not a security expert, but it doesn’t take one to see that Syria and Jordan are carrying an unsustainable burden. They have been excellent hosts, but we can’t expect them to care for millions of poor Iraqis indefinitely and without assistance from the U.S. or others. One-sixth of Jordan’s population today is Iraqi refugees. The large burden is already causing tension internally.

The Iraqi families I’ve met on my trips to the region are proud and resilient. They don’t want anything from us other than the chance to return to their homes — or, where those homes have been bombed to the ground or occupied by squatters, to build new ones and get back to their lives. One thing is certain: It will be quite a while before Iraq is ready to absorb more than 4 million refugees and displaced people. But it is not too early to start working on solutions. And last week, there were signs of progress.

In Baghdad, I spoke with Army Gen. David Petraeus about UNHCR’s need for security information and protection for its staff as they re-enter Iraq, and I am pleased that he has offered that support. General Petraeus also told me he would support new efforts to address the humanitarian crisis “to the maximum extent possible” — which leaves me hopeful that more progress can be made.

UNHCR is certainly committed to that. Last week while in Iraq, High Commissioner António Guterres pledged to increase UNHCR’s presence there and to work closely with the Iraqi government, both in assessing the conditions required for return and in providing humanitarian relief.

During my trip I also met with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has announced the creation of a new committee to oversee issues related to internally displaced people, and a pledge of $40 million to support the effort.

My visit left me even more deeply convinced that we not only have a moral obligation to help displaced Iraqi families, but also a serious, long-term, national security interest in ending this crisis.

Today’s humanitarian crisis in Iraq — and the potential consequences for our national security — are great. Can the United States afford to gamble that 4 million or more poor and displaced people, in the heart of Middle East, won’t explode in violent desperation, sending the whole region into further disorder?

What we cannot afford, in my view, is to squander the progress that has been made. In fact, we should step up our financial and material assistance. UNHCR has appealed for $261 million this year to provide for refugees and internally displaced persons. That is not a small amount of money — but it is less than the U.S. spends each day to fight the war in Iraq. I would like to call on each of the presidential candidates and congressional leaders to announce a comprehensive refugee plan with a specific timeline and budget as part of their Iraq strategy.

As for the question of whether the surge is working, I can only state what I witnessed: U.N. staff and those of non-governmental organizations seem to feel they have the right set of circumstances to attempt to scale up their programs. And when I asked the troops if they wanted to go home as soon as possible, they said that they miss home but feel invested in Iraq. They have lost many friends and want to be a part of the humanitarian progress they now feel is possible.

It seems to me that now is the moment to address the humanitarian side of this situation. Without the right support, we could miss an opportunity to do some of the good we always stated we intended to do.

Angelina Jolie, an actor, is a UNHCR goodwill ambassador.

Investors Business Daily

IBD:2008 Feb 15

BENJAMIN ZYCHER

   Sen. Hillary Clinton’s proposal for reform of the health care system makes a promise: “If you are happy with your current health care coverage, keep your existing coverage.”
   That coverage usually is provided by private insurance companies, which retain a prominent role also in Sen. Barack Obama’s reform plan.
   Ostensibly, the Democratic candidates recognize the importance of private insurance options, and the proposals add a Medicare-like government insurance option to provide enhanced competition driven by supposedly lower administrative costs.
   The larger reality is very different: The government option would crush competition and render meaningless the Democratic promise to preserve choice.
   That is because the proposals would lead inexorably to a singlepayer (government) system of health insurance in which private coverage would become extinct.
   The proposals would implement a requirement (“individual mandate”) that some or all individuals obtain insurance coverage, and that most employers offer coverage or pay a tax (“pay or play”).
   Small employers and lower-income individuals would get a tax subsidy. Coverage would be guaranteed for all (“guaranteed issue”) and premiums would be set largely without regard to health status (“community rating”).
   Each plan, whether issued by private insurers or the government, would have to offer benefits as comprehensive as those offered by the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP).
   Why would private options evaporate under such a system?
   Consider first small businesses, which arrange coverage for many fewer policyholders than is the case for large companies.
   Small groups thus cannot spread their risks as widely, and for other reasons as well are more costly to serve. As a result, their plans tend to offer benefit packages worth around 30% less than those offered by large groups.
   Because Democratic plans would require small groups to offer benefit packages similar to those in the FEHBP program, the insurance costs of small businesses that continue to offer coverage to their employees could be expected to rise by at least 30%. Few small businesses would make that choice.
   First, the subsidies directed to small employers are unlikely to reduce their cost of providing FEHBP-equivalent private coverage below the pay-or-play tax, which almost certainly would be determined by the cost of the government option supposedly enjoying lower administrative costs.
   Accordingly, most small businesses would elect to pay the tax and set their employees loose on the insurance market. To compensate employees for their lost coverage, businesses would likely give them salary increases equal to the insurance premiums the businesses had been paying for private coverage.
   That salary increase wouldn’t be enough to cover the cost of private coverage as comprehensive as that of the FEHBP, as required by the proposals. And so the employees would be induced to choose the supposedly more-efficient government option.
   If, however, the subsidies for small employers were large enough to induce them to offer the more comprehensive coverage, then the cost estimates for the Democratic proposals would turn out to be too low.
   Moreover, costs will increase substantially as expanded subsidies for one group induce others to demand bigger slices of an expanding federal health-insurance pie.
   After all, FEHBP benefits are 15% or so richer than those of Medicare; why should Medicare beneficiaries accept packages worth less than those offered everyone else?
   For large groups, the benefits of existing plans are about the same as those in the FEHBP. Accordingly, employers’ decisions on whether to assume the cost of private insurance or to incur the pay-or-play tax would hinge on a simple cost comparison.
   Again, given the claim that the government option offers substantial administrative savings, it would be politically difficult for Congress to impose a pay-or-play tax that exceeds the purported cost of the government coverage.
   Moreover, a Democratic Congress favoring government-provided insurance would be tempted to hide its actual costs. As such, just as with small employers, it makes economic sense for large businesses to shift employees onto the government plan.
   And so the Democratic promise that those who prefer private coverage will be able to keep it, and that the health-insurance market would continue to enjoy the broader economic advantages offered by a private system, borders on the naive or the cynical.
   Why does this outcome matter?
   Because governments have interest groups, not patients, and thus face powerful political pressures to squeeze both providers and patients in response to the budget demands of others.
   The inevitable result is waiting lists, denial of coverage, under-investment in medical technologies and the long-run degradation of health care quality observed under all single-payer systems.
   The more “universal” the coverage, the greater the budget pressures, and so the more powerful the forces yielding reduced healthcare quality.
   That’s why single-payer “universal” coverage is the enemy of health care, and it’s the inevitable outcome of the Democratic proposals.

Zycher

is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. 

Does anyone think the government can do a better job with health care? If you do where is your common sense? Remember Katrina? Ric Joyner

In Houston during Obama’s WI victory speech he made an incredible promise:

“We are going to lead by example, by maintaining the highest standards of civil liberties and human rights, which is why I will close Guantanamo and restore habeas corpus and say no to torture.”

Are  you kidding? This comment is right out liberal feel good, and is based on “America is bad” philosophy. Where is the greatest generation (WW2), and FDR when you need them? The Greatest Generation would never tolerate giving Nazi’s (ideologues that wanted to conquer the world, and kill those who were the undesirables) access to American courts… the same liberties as Americans! Insane! We are in a war. A war to destroy, and enslave America to the will of radical Islam. This proves Obama’s inexperience, and he is not fit to be Commander in Chief.

Some of the terrorists have been released, and been caught attacking our troops in IRAQ!!! 

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/12/29/2007-12-29_freed_to_kill_again.html

Voting for Obama seems to embrace the craziness of liberal “appease our enemies”. I am appalled at this statement by Obama, and he should be taken to task. I hope McCain challenges him on giving aid, and comfort to the enemy.

Where is the common sense? Giving terrorists the same rights as Americans…the same folks who are attempting to kill us!

By Ric Joyner 

The survellience of incoming emails and phone calls from known terrorists is on hold. The House Democrats recessed for vacation(!) (remember Bush and their complaints on his vacations?) leaving a hole in the ability to spy on terrorists! Do the democrats understand they are putting us at risk? Or do they honestly believe some of the liberal left which believe there is no terror war?

This is honestly a tragedy! Read on from CNN.com

No Time For Recess

February 15, 2008: 08:05 PM EST

Feb. 19, 2008 (Investor’s Business Daily delivered by Newstex)

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/newstex/IBD-0001-23068825.htm

BTW (by the way) the hold up is that they want to give the ability to trial lawyers to sue telecom companies and ISPs (internet service providers) for cooperating with the government spying agencies!!! If you were an ISP would you cooperate without protection from trial lawyers? This is the equivelant of giving the terrorists the ability to sue telecoms! Is this aiding the enemy?  Call the house and tell them how you feel.  http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.shtml

This is the democrats paying back the trial lawyers for their help during the 04 elections. Can someone please use some common sense!?

By Ric Joyner 

Picture a balloon with its air sputtering around the room. Fun to watch, but the end result is anti-climactic with a balloon on the floor and garbage to pick up.

I am now tired of the democratic debates. I felt drained afterward. How many debates, and how much can we learn after 20 plus?

Tedium is what I came away with last night. And boy can they sign autographs.

Here is what I learned. 

Both candidates are naive. The jobs lost under NAFTA, that the Unions are ticked about, are manufacturing jobs. Are these the best jobs? John Stossel did research on these jobs outsourced overseas, and discovered that most people ousted by outsourcing found higher paying jobs that were easier on the body. Here is the web link for the articl from ABC’s 20/20.

No. 4 — MYTH: Outsourcing Is Bad for American Workers

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=448934&page=3

Naive and bordering on socialism are their programs. Do these two candidates have degrees in economics? They both have law degrees so that may explain it!

Creating programs that take money away from the “rich” to give to everyone else.

John Stossel did another piece on Sharing is not Caring.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=3957544&page=1

I was surprised that Hillary was angry at Obama over the weekend, but showed none of her ire last night. The issue on health care differences is so minute that it created tedium when watching. In fact, all their programs are similar thus what are the real differences between them? I think the voters are answering that question.

I also realized Obama’s incredible inexperience is translating into policies or programs that will be difficult to get through Congress.  Even the universal health care plan is convoluted.

And they both didn’t answer the questions straight forward. Tim Russert had to bring Hillary back several times to answer the question.

Even writing this makes me tired!

Ric Joyner 

I enjoy the debates when the field is narrow. I have watched all the democratic debates between Hillary and Obama. The debates prior to the last three were filled with fireworks, and heated rehetoric. We got the idea there were differences. Because Hillary is a poll watcher, as is her husband, the pundits were saying that she, and Obama should play nice…for the unity of the party. She did, and the down turn began. But why? My sense is that she is the candidate with baggage (AKA Bill Clinton), and no experience either. So do the Democrats elect someone with baggage or a fresh face with no experience?

She was nice again in the debate last week, and her numbers are still dropping. Saturday she came out swinging on his flyers distributed in Ohio, and now with rehetoric that is hard nose. 

Finally, she is waking up from her slumber, and going after his credibility.  She has a lead in Ohio, but losing in Texas. She is also having a tough time paying her bills with a report that she is behind $2.5 million.

I watched the debates last week, and have a few observations. First, I was stunned by the amount of special programs they want to create. A few that were touted in the debates, and speeches leading up to the debates.

Universal Health Care

Mortgage help for people who purchased homes that couldn’t afford them (where is personal responsibility?)

School tuition–$4,000 for college

Infrastructure–roads, bridges etc

These programs will increase the size of government, and create billions of dollars in new spending.

Ahhh but, they do have an answer. Get out of IRAQ. We spend 9 billion each month, and instead of putting that back into the government they want to spend it!

Please cut…don’t spend!

Does your wallet feel lighter? It will feel much lighter when the price tags for these spending programs hit your piggy bank…if you still have a piggy bank!

By Ric Joyner

Obama smoked her! 17-point lead is huge. She also is floundering in her message. Both Obama and Hillary have appeared on debates to unify the party, and assuage fears of the faithful. The result…they have similar messages. This is a problem. In addition, if the candidates have the same message, and one has baggage, and the other is popular…oops. This strategy is drowning out the voice of Hillary because Obama does not have the history she has, and he is an eloquent speaker.  I believe the two debates that attempted to show unity, lost the election for Hillary.

The fact that he has no experience, a hollow message, but great speeches, is the definition of the “cult of personality”…the proof of his cult status is that young people are flocking…anyone want MTV? Thus, Hillary is less popular than Obama. Should this be what the election is about…personality?

The issue of the loss for Hillary in WI, represented the type of state demographics she does well in attracting, and Obama stole those demographics. The states coming up, which are MUST wins for Hillary, are Texas and Ohio. These states hold the same type of demographics as WI. In addition, the WI loss is a bad omen. Obviously, she has a lot at stake. She will need to define the race on issues versus personality, but it may be too late for her, because in the previous debates they wanted to show unity, and a common message…but this was when Hillary still had a commanding overall nationwide lead which has evaporated, a few polls put Obama ahead.

Obama’s fund raising is outstripping Hillary’s. Money wins. In his case, money and personality wins. To be fair to Obama, he has excitement behind him as well as people fainting around him…and a great organization on the ground, which are winning combinations.

BTW, did you know the candidates spend roughly $10,000,000 per week to be elected? Somehow that is ironic to the message they both have of helping the poor, giving everyone health care at taxpayer expense, and increasing taxes… I do not get liberal politics <shrug>.

The truth is they have vast differences in approach and policy. Obama is left wing liberal, his programs are going to cost the American people billions, and Hillary is more conservative…as liberals can be. I still cannot picture Hillary and Mr. Hillary in the Whitehouse. My prediction is she will lose Texas, but scratch a win in Ohio.

This race may still come down to the Super Delegates (party leaders that have pledged allegiance , and owe favors to the Clintons) which could devastate the Democratic Party at the convention. The cause of the riots in 1968 was hauntingly similar because Humphrey won the nomination, but had not won any delegates! Backroom politics gave him the win, and this was against the will of the party faithful. Violence in Denver? Will this happen again? Is the nomination stacked against Obama with inside politics and favors owed? http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/conventions/chicago/facts/chicago68/index.shtml

Watch the debate tomorrow night between these two, and Hillary will go on the attack to define her differences with Obama. Should be deliciously fun for a conservative like me.

Subject: Re: Blunt Politics
Hi Ric,You should probably take me off your mailing list. I would MUCH rather have a Clinton in the White House– sexual scandal rather than a president who has LIED to us to go to war,

Jane name one lie that Pres Bush told? The intelligence he had was the same one that Congress had and what motive did he have to go to war? No one said he lied over Afghanistan but he lied over IRAQ? Doesn’t make sense or logic? And people who say he lied can’t point to any specific lie. They feel good saying that because they are ticked off that we went to war. I agree this war shouldn’t have been prosecuted but we are there and pulling out quick like both Obama and Clinton want to do could cost millions of lives just like it did in Vietnam. Besides those that want to pull out must not care for the plight of woman under Sharia law? So we need to be smart about it. A comprehensive dissection of the topic on Bush lies is at this link…if you want facts versus hyperbole

and then cuts taxes to leave the bill to our kids

So your idea is to raise taxes not cut government spending? That doesn’t make economic sense. The government’s original role was to stay out of our lives not be more involved and taxes take money out of the pocket of every day Americans that could use it for the extra fuel costs so the argument is invalid and without economic merit.

– actually not even– we’ll be paying for it sooner rather than later with the state that our economy is in. This administration is completely corrupt and irresponsible.

No proof of that at all. That is like saying Clinton or Obama are crooked politicians which again is just an attack without merit. If we look hard enough we will find anything on anyone especially those we hate or dislike. And that is the problem with the Bush haters is that they attack like the one that you said with no factual proof that it is corrupt but it is the same attacks the right wingers had on Clinton. We need to stop the partisan bickering and find common ground and stop attacking people without merit. McCain tries to find common ground and has the experience. I can say that Clinton lied because he was convicted of it. I can say that he left semen on a dress because they have the DNA proof. I can’t say that Bush lied because he didn’t and there are no facts to back that up. If he did then the entire congress including democrats were liars. I can’t say he is corrupt because there is no proof of it and he wasn’t convicted of anything. Be careful you are not drinking Kool-Aid.

I think that the US (and obviously the rest of the work) is ready for a change of party in the white house.

I think the US people are sick of politics in general and the bickering. The democratically controlled congress just recessed without giving the president authority to continue the spying on terrorist calls and gathering intelligence. What does that say about the democratic commitment to this country and protecting it? That is a fact and a legitimate question.

Having said that I am not a huge fan of either Clinton or Obama. There are (as usual) no good choices out there on either side. However, I don’t think that perpetuating the lies of the Bush admin is going to help us reach world peace or financial security any time soon.

I think that you are perpetuating the lies that there are lies he told. As I said that is convenient for the Bush haters but not factually accurate. So we have to say they all lied and the comments about lying are close to the kooky 911 conspiracy theorist. We have to deal in facts not supposition. I think there is a great choice and that is McCain. He is in the middle and will stick to principles versus polls that the Clintons did. (That is fact because they said they did that…reference Lanny Davis, White House Aid) They used focus groups to figure out the best way to say things and the best approach to a particular problem. That is called running the government as a fan club.As a conservative I believe that people can best make their own choices about their money…they can best make their own decisions about financial security and they can and should vote conservative versus liberal.

Bush lied, the dinos died…. So did the Democratic Congress! That is about how idiotic it is that Bush lied to get us into war with IRAQ. Did he lie about the Taliban?

By Ric Joyner

Clinton inherited a great economy from Reagan. Notice when the economy started its slide was when the Clinton taxes engaged in 1999. This caused a sharp drop in the stocks, and put us in a mini recession, which the Bush tax cuts got us moving again. Now democrats want to raise taxes versus cut spending! Raising taxes will slow the economy…just exactly the strategy you don’t want! Give tax cuts to business, and individuals AND cut spending. That will keep the economy moving, and force the government to be fiscally responsible. Just like we all do with our own personal finances. McCain was against the Bush tax cuts which irked the Republicans. That was a super strategy because McCain knew the republicans would go on a spending spree just like the democrats.

As I have repeated prior I see no reason to have taxes except those that are necessary services for the government to protect us.

Here are the taxes comparatively under Bush and Clinton.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html

Taxes under Clinton 1999 Taxes under Bush 2008

Single making 30K – tax $8,400 Single making 30K – tax $4,500

Single making 50K – tax $14,000 Single making 50K – tax $12,500

Single making 75K – tax $23,250 Single making 75K – tax $18,750

Married making 60K – tax $16,800 Married making 60K – tax $9,000

Married making 75K – tax $21,000 Married making 75K – tax $18,750

Married making 125K – tax $38,750 Married making 125K – tax $31,250

A good friend said “democrats are TAX and SPEND”. “Republicans are NO TAX and SPEND”

So are you prepared to pay double taxes with either Clinton or Obama?