RUTHFULLY YOURS

By 2024 there will be more than 40 million uninsured, roughly 10% more than today.

President Obama claims the debate over the Affordable Care Act is “over,” but in coming weeks and months expect it to intensify. Health-insurance companies will soon begin releasing preliminary rate estimates for next year’s plans. Industry experts say consumers should once again brace for significantly higher premiums.

Fearing the political fallout before November’s elections, the administration last month quietly increased by billions of dollars the “risk corridor” funds that insurance companies can use to staunch their losses.

Yet since premium growth has averaged at least 5% over the past five years, it is unlikely the law’s federal subsidies will increase enough to make up the difference in out-of-pocket premium costs. As this happens, lower- and even middle-income consumers will be forced out of the private insurance market. As my colleague at the Medical Industry Leadership Institute, Michael Ramlet, and I show in a paper published last month, the law’s structural problems will take years to fully manifest.

Using the 2014 health-insurance exchange enrollment data and a micro-simulation model funded in part by the Department of Health and Human Services, we estimate the national and state impact of the Affordable Care Act on insurance prices and enrollment from 2015-24. The average premium for an individual exchange health plan (Silver) will increase by $1,375 by 2019 while the average family premium for the same plan will increase by $4,198—outpacing the average increases from 2008 to 2013. Consumers who saw spikes in their health premiums last year will experience the same trauma this year. But the steepest price increases will not occur until 2017 and after, when three things happen.

Hillary Clinton is making the rounds promoting her new book, or, as our colleague Bret Stephens describes it, her “artifact containing printed words.” In an interview that aired last night, ABC’s Diane Sawyer “wondered if Americans would understand why [Mrs.] Clinton needs a speaking fee of $200,000, ‘five times the median income in this country for one speech,’ ” as the Washington Free Beacon reports.

Mrs. Clinton’s reply: “I thought making speeches for money was a much better thing than getting connected with any one group or company as so many people who leave public life do.”

The former first lady pleaded poverty: “We came out of the White House not only dead broke but in debt. . . . We struggled to, you know, piece together the resources for mortgages for houses, for Chelsea’s education, you know, it was not easy. . . . We had to make double the money, because of, obviously, taxes, and then pay off the debts and get us houses and take care of family members.”

There is some truth to this: According to the Associated Press: “[Mrs.] Clinton’s Senate financial disclosure forms, filed for 2000, show assets between $781,000 and almost $1.8 million. . . . The same form, however, showed that the Clintons owed between $2.3 million and $10.6 million in legal bills.”

In response, Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus tells the AP: “Whether she was flat broke or not is not the issue. It’s tone deaf to average people.”

Yet there are some factual problems with Mrs. Clinton’s assertions. National Review’s Andrew Johnson notes a New York Times report from December 2000, more than a month before the end of Mr. Clinton’s term, that Mrs. Clinton had just inked a book contract with an $8 million advance.

That’s before agent fees and taxes, and even the gross amount is less than the upper estimate of the Clintons’ legal debt, so you can see why she might have felt it necessary to accept some speaking fees too. Only she couldn’t. By the time Mr. Clinton left office, Mrs. Clinton was already a U.S. senator, and Senate rules prohibit members from accepting honoraria (book fees are an exception). She didn’t start speaking for money until she left the secretary of state’s office. By that point the Clinton’s financial security was no longer in question.

Then again, who says the average American can’t relate to this sort of thing? Think of it this way: If somebody offered you $200,000 to give a speech, wouldn’t you take it? You may not be the average American, but we’ll bet she would too.

For nearly six years, Obama and his supporters have managed to fend off allegations that his foreign policy is even more ideological – and far more radical – than Bush’s by channeling the public’s aversion to pie-in-the-sky rhetoric and obfuscating facts.

US President Barack Obama is an artist of political propaganda. Both his greatest admirers and his most vociferous opponents agree that his ability to manipulate public opinion has no peer in American politics today.

So how can we explain the fiasco that is his decision not only to swap five senior Taliban terror masters for US Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, but to take ownership over the decision by presenting it to the American people in a ceremony with Bergdahl’s parents at the White House Rose Garden? Clearly Obama overreached. He misread the public’s disposition.

This much is made clear by the immediate criticism his actions received from the liberal media. It wasn’t just Fox News and National Review that said Obama broke the law when he failed to notify Congress of the swap 30 days prior to its implementation.

It was CNN and NBC News.

MSNBC commentators criticized the swap. And CNN interviewed Bergdahl’s platoon mates who to a man accused him of desertion, with many alleging as well that he collaborated with the enemy. It was CNN that gave the names of the six American soldiers who died trying to rescue Bergdahl from the Taliban.

What was it about the Bergdahl trade tipped the scales? Why is this decision different from Obama’s other foreign policy decisions? For instance, why is the public outraged now when it wasn’t outraged in the aftermath of the jihadist assault on US installations in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, in which US Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were murdered? Politically, Obama emerged unscathed from failures in every area he has engaged. From Iraq to Iran to Syria to Libya to Russia and beyond, he has never experienced the sort of across the board condemnation he is now suffering. His political allies and media supporters always rallied to his side. They always explained away his failures.

So what explains the outcry? Why are people like Senator Dianne Feinstein, who have been supportive of Obama’s nuclear appeasement of Iran, up in arms over the Bergdahl swap? There are three aspects of the Bergdahl deal that distinguish it from the rest of Obama’s foreign policy blunders.

First, the Bergdahl deal was conducted in an unlawful manner and the White House readily acknowledged that it knowingly broke the law by not informing Congress 30 days in advance of the swap. This brazen lawbreaking angered Obama’s loyal allies in Congress who, like Feinstein, were insulted by his behavior.

Second, Obama initiated the story and made himself the sole owner of the swap.

Drowned out by diplo-speak
The 14th annual Herzliya Conference kicked off on Sunday, with esteemed members of the local and foreign political, military and business communities in attendance. This year’s three-day gathering, titled “Israel and the Future of the Middle East,” happened to take place on the heels of the formation of a Palestinian unity government that includes Hamas.

Within hours of the swearing in of the new government last Monday, the United States, the European Union and the United Nations welcomed the move with open arms. While quietly mumbling the need to make ongoing financial aid to the Palestinians conditional on a renouncement of terrorism, the international community shouted platitudes about the new opportunities for peace that internal Palestinian reconciliation has opened up.

Indeed, as the Herzliya Conference entered its first round of morning sessions, Rober Serry, the U.N.’s special coordinator for the Middle East peace process, was off in Gaza, pledging his organization’s ongoing support for the nascent Palestinian government. During his jaunt, he met with the freshly appointed ministers of women’s affairs, labor, public works, and housing and justice.

After warmly congratulating the four Hamas officials, Serry assured them that the U.N. was prepared to increase its cooperation and assistance in the “many practical challenges ahead.”

That evening, European Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso delivered the keynote address at the Herzliya Conference. Comparing current strife in the Middle East to that of Europe in the past, he explained why it was necessary for everyone to endorse the new Palestinian government, and for Israel to make painful concessions.

“If we received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2012, it was because the nations of Europe finally succeeded in breaking the vicious circle of military offensives and retaliation that was the driving force behind Europe’s history for ages,” he said.

Coming from a woman who would not condemn Boko Haram, who called Bashar Assad a “reformer”, who thinks of herself as a “feminist” but never uttered a single word about the child brides and the systemic oppression of women in the Moslem world, who would be surprised at her hard lies…..rsk

New book takes aim at Israel, angers pro-Israel community

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton accuses Israel of being an occupying force in her new memoir Hard Choices and claims that the Jewish state denies “dignity and self determination” to Palestinians in the West Bank.

Clinton recalls being surprised by what she termed “life under occupation for the Palestinians,” according to the book.

Pro-Israel officials and insiders on Capitol Hill have called Clinton’s comments tone deaf and said that her claim that Israel is an occupying force reveals a bias against the Jewish state.

“When we left the city and visited Jericho, in the West Bank, I got my first glimpse of life under occupation for Palestinians, who were denied the dignity and self-determination that Americans take for granted,” Clinton writes.

Clinton’s comments demonstrate that she supports the Obama administration’s efforts to pressure and marginalize Israel, which current Secretary of State John Kerry recently accused of becoming an “apartheid state,” said one senior GOP Senate aide, who worked with Clinton when she was at the State Department.

“What we see here is the true Hillary Clinton, no longer muzzling herself for fear of reelection in New York or Senate confirmation fights—the woman who embraced Suha Arafat after smiling through anti-Semitic tirades,” said the former senior GOP Senate aide who for years battled Clinton’s State Department.

My friend George had a sarcastic question he used to conjure up when someone said something completely out of sync with reality. “What color is the sky in your world?” This is the only thought that crossed my mind in hearing Hillary Clinton’s thoughts about the “most important thing” she has accomplished during her time jet-setting around the globe on the taxpayers dime, building-up her international diplomacy bona fides (something she lacked as a presidential candidate; a vulnerability in 2008) as US Secretary of State.

CNS News reports:

“In an interview on National Public Radio’s Morning Edition…NPR’s Renee Montagne asked, ‘Is there a single issue that in your time as secretary of state you feel you owned, just owned it?’

“Clinton said, ‘Oh absolutely, but the most important thing I did was to help restore America’s leadership around the world.’

“‘I think that was a very important accomplishment,’ Clinton said. ‘We were flat on our back when I walked in there the first time. We were viewed as being untrustworthy, as violating our moral rules and values….’”

She went on to resurrect the Obama talking-point tactic of blaming Bush.

To borrow a phrase from Mrs. Clinton herself, accepting her words as truth “requires a willing suspension of disbelief.”

During the Bush years, two coalitions of countries banded together to face-off with Islamic jihadists in Afghanistan and Iraq – not to mention the feeder countries in the region, Israel knew the United States had its back, and Vladimir Putin and the ChiComs were effectively held in check. The United States was revered by friends and allies (ask any Eastern Bloc country or the people with purple stained fingers in Iraq) and feared and respected by our enemies.

Today, as we reap the benefits from Mrs. Clinton’s unaccomplished and ineffective tenure as Secretary of State, we have an emboldened Vladimir Putin who sees nothing of ignoring State sovereignty to “acquire” mineral rich lands, China is bulking up its military to unprecedented levels, the Taliban is issuing victory statements, Socialism is on the march in South America and Europe’s people are using their influences at the ballot box to run – not walk – from the Progressive ideology of which both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton emanate.

PA President Mahmoud Abbas’ engagement with Kerry during the past nine months of diplomatic talks cost the Palestinian leader points with the Palestinian public.

The word “reconciliation” rings of hope and optimism to the Western ear. Reconciliation means leaving past grievances behind, letting bygones be bygones. Optimism over reconciliation may help us understand why the United States is prepared to support and fund a new Hamas-Fatah interim government.

But do Hamas and Fatah understand the newly formed consensus government as the West does? For students of Islam and the Near East, the meaning of the freshly-minted reconciliation government is more aptly expressed as “sulh” which means that both sides are “licking their wounds” or “taking a breather” until one side regains the ability to impose its will on the other.

Palestinian reconciliation is not a case of the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority moderating Hamas. The opposite is true. In fact, Hamas and Fatah are competing for Palestinian public support. That’s why both organizations rejected US Secretary of State John Kerry’s peace plan. And that’s why both organizations call for “resistance” against Israel. Hamas still calls openly for jihad, while the Fatah leadership calls for an “armed popular revolution” to liberate “Palestine,” meaning Israel and the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria – the former West Bank of Jordan.

PA President Mahmoud Abbas’ engagement with Kerry during the past nine months of diplomatic talks cost the Palestinian leader points with the Palestinian public. Abbas would have faced the Palestinian guillotine for selling out the Palestinian cause in a compromise deal with Israel.

Sky News reported on June 3 that senior leaders at three schools in Birmingham alerted the government more than two decades ago about the rising influence of Muslim extremists in the school system, but that their concerns were dismissed because of political correctness.

Separately, the BBC reported on May 28 and June 2 that [there were similar warnings] in 2010 and 2008. But no action was taken in either case.

“Some staff told Her Majesty’s Inspectors that thy feel afraid to speak out against recent changes in the academy for fear of losing their jobs.” — Inspection report, Oldknow Academy.

British regulators have placed five Muslim-dominated public schools in the city of Birmingham under “special measures” after inspectors found that pupils there were being systematically exposed to radical Islamic propaganda.

Ofsted, the agency that regulates British schools, carried out emergency inspections of 21 primary and secondary public schools in Birmingham after a document surfaced in March 2014 that purported to outline a plot—dubbed Operation Trojan Horse—by Muslim fundamentalists to Islamize public schools in England and Wales.

The inspection reports, which Ofsted made public on June 9, show that Muslim hardliners are indeed seeking to run at least five public schools in Birmingham according to a “conservative Islamic perspective.” But the report does not cite evidence of an organized plot by extremists.

Ofsted inspectors found that one school was playing the Muslim call to prayer over loudspeakers in the playground, while another was found with books promoting stoning, lashing and execution. Yet another school had invited a Muslim hate preacher known for his support of militant Islam to speak to students.

In some schools, girls are actively being dissuaded from speaking to boys and from taking part in extra-curricular visits and activities. Boys and girls are also taught separately in religious education and personal development lessons.

The inspection report for the Nansen Primary School reveals that when teachers wanted pupils to take part in a nativity play, Muslim administrators “insisted on vetting a copy of the script for its suitability and told staff they must not use a doll as the baby Jesus.” The report also says:

“Pupils do not get a broad education. Subjects such as art and music have been removed for some year groups at the insistence of the governing body.

As readers of this blog know I am engaged at Family Security Matters in a one of a kind election survey of candidates- incumbents and challengers in every single state. It continues to amaze me that the strongest support for Israel, with very few exceptions is coming from Republican contenders. I alluded to this in a column for Mideast Outpost the monthly publication of Americans for a Safe Israel. There is more, much more on this subject on the way. Stay tuned. rsk

http://www.mideastoutpost.com/archives/looking-for-love-in-all-the-wrong-places-ruth-king.html

I know that “profiling” is considered taboo in politically correct circles. However, it is often an accurate way of predicting behavior–both good and bad. So here is my profile of reliably pro-Israel legislators.

I don’t mean the milk and honey type that twist themselves into pretzels defending Israel and repeating the requisite “democracy which needs to live in peace within secure borders compatible with a two states solution…yabadabadaba…..” I also don’t mean the ones that go into a self-righteous snit about the BDH (Boycott, Divest and Hate) movement but hint, ever so gingerly, that some of it is brought about by Israel’s “occupation” of the West Bank. I certainly don’t mean those who wring their hands and whine that Israel is turning into a “theocracy” with obdurate insistence on terms that the “moderate” wings of Hamas and Hezbollah cannot accept. They are neither friends, nor reliable.

I mean those legislators who crop up in almost every single state, (excluding Connecticut and Massachusetts), who will aver proudly that their support for Israel is based on its strategic partnership with the United States, its history and its religious rights within historic Palestine.
Here are some random examples:

In California a Congressman states:
“The United States must make it clear that a nuclear Iran is not an option. I fully support aggressive diplomacy and crippling sanctions in dealing with this dangerous regime that continues to make belligerent threats against Israel. Israel is more than just the only stable democracy in the region, a nation that shares our values, and a source of critical intelligence. Israel is one of our closest allies and I will never waver in my commitment to providing them with American support and funding to protect their people who continue to be a beacon of peace and liberty in the most dangerous part of the world.”

A challenger in a different district in the same state says:
“There is no more important issue of foreign policy than the principled support of Israel, not only for reasons of trade, strategic interests and goodwill, but because Israel is our friend and one true ally in the Middle East. Israel has for many years preserved concepts such as democracy and individual liberty in an area of the world where it is surrounded by people who view this as a threat. No effort or level of support should ever be spared when it comes to the defense of Israel and its people against their adversaries in the Middle East and as a Congressman, I promise to never waiver in the fight against anyone who threatens Israel’s right to exist and live as a free people. We should always stand with Israel.”

In Colorado a Congressman declares:
“My efforts in the area of foreign affairs are focused on supporting Israel and protecting our national sovereignty. As the co-chair of two Israel caucuses, I am one of Israel’s strongest supporters in Congress. Israel is a key ally in the global war against terrorism and has been a model of democracy and a pillar of humanity in the Middle East. President Ahmadinejad of Iran has claimed that the existence of Israel is ‘an insult to all humanity.’ Rather than dwell on the mendacity of that lie, it is far more beneficial to declare the truth. The existence of Israel is a blessing to all humanity.”

And, in a different district of Colorado:
“Israel is the strongest ally that the United States has in the Middle East and shares our strategic interest in the region. Israel wants peace and is better able to resolve their differences with the Palestinians without the interference of the United States.”

In February 2014 two Congressmen, one from Ohio and one from West Virginia, went to Israel. They visited Judea and Samaria and addressed students at Ariel University in Samaria on February 24. Both evoked their faith (Christian) that makes them love the Jewish people and their state.

In Florida a Hispanic challenger in a district with no Jewish voters states this:
“I firmly support Israel’s right to exist and chart its own path to peace with its neighbors, as well as our government acknowledging that Jerusalem is the true capital of Israel. Israel must be allowed to govern its own affairs, and we can no longer dictate to Israel where it can build its settlements as it safeguards its security and pursues peace in the region.”

In Georgia, and not from districts like Savannah, Atlanta and Augusta which have a significant Jewish population, here is what a Congressman says:
“As your Representative of Congress, a top priority of mine will always be ensuring the safety and security of our great nation. Central to this belief is the recognition that the national security of the United States is directly tied to the strength and security of the State of Israel. My commitment to the security of Israel has been unwavering. In recent months, we have witnessed a succession of mass protests and turmoil in many Middle East nations. This regional upheaval clearly underscores the importance of Israel as the preeminent, stable democracy in the Middle East and America’s strongest democratic ally in the region.”

From a Missouri legislator:
“I have expressed my support for Israel publicly on the floor of the House of Representatives in order to express disappointment with President Obama’s proposal for Israel to return to its pre-1967 borders….The borders that were established in 1967 followed three wars launched against Israel. For Israel, acceptance of the 1967 borders would mean that Israeli sacrifices were for nothing. We all want to see peace in the Middle East. However, it is unrealistic and naive to think that peace will come as a result of Israel – the only democratic state in the region – making more concessions. Restoring the pre-1967 borders would be a victory for Hamas, a terrorist group committed to Israel’s demise….Peace can only come about through the Palestinians and other Middle Eastern countries accepting Israel’s right to exist. We must stand strong for Israel.”

I could list dozens more, but here comes the “profiling.” What do these legislators–men and women–have in common?

They are all faithful and observant Christian Conservatives. They are pro-life and pro-Second Amendment, and resist the perverse coercive regulations of the faux environmentalists. Their support of Israel draws on their love of their biblical heritage.

In the meanwhile Jewish voters continue to look for love from liberals, fund their campaigns and enthusiastically support issues that offend conservatives.
For their affection and commitment to Israel those who have been “profiled” here get dismal ratings from the American Arab Institute, James Zogby’s political group, and disinterest from liberal Jews who curry favor among people who take them for granted–except when it comes to fund-raising.

That Europe depends on Mario Draghi and the European Central Bank (ECB) to combat deflation and to drag the EU into more rapid economic growth is a manifestation of political dysfunction – an inability to implement fiscal reform has meant dependency on monetary policy. On Thursday, Mr. Draghi said he hopes the measures he has taken will give time for the “structural reforms” he has advocated in the past. Europe’s political leaders, however and like ours, are caught in the web of unrealistic promises regarding healthcare and pensions. Like politicians going back several decades, they have chosen to leave the hard choices for future generations.

Typically, sharp and deep recessions have been followed by complementary sharp and steep recoveries. Stephen Moore wrote in the June issue of The American Spectator: “…if our economy had grown as fast under Obama as it did during the first five years of the Reagan recovery, American GDP would be more than $2 trillion larger today.” But not this time. In part that was because the fiscal crisis necessitated consumer and financial institution deleveraging. But, slow growth has also been a consequence of a failure to enact tax and regulatory reform. In fact, in the U.S. taxes have risen and regulation has become more severe. According to the Americans for Tax Reform, there have been 21 federal tax hikes since Mr. Obama took office. The Federal Register of Regulations shows 13,000 final rules that were published between 2009 and 2013.

In the U.S., fear of rising deficits obscured the necessity for tax reform. Lobbying by special interests, along with ObamaCare and a more aggressive EPA, killed any possibility of regulatory reform. Because central bankers were willing to attempt innovative and creative means of addressing the financial crisis, politicians were able to duck behind the skirts of their non-elected, central banker brethren. The failure, in 2010, of the Simpson-Bowles Commission is exhibit A.

The Federal Reserve (and the Treasury) took drastic measures at the height of the crisis in the fall of 2008. TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program), a Treasury plan, was initially aimed at removing low-quality, non-performing loans from the balance sheets of banks. Besides lowering rates to near zero on December 16th of that year, the Federal Reserve began engaging in quantitative easing – the direct purchasing of Treasuries and mortgage securities, the purpose being to keep longer term rates down. Last Friday Mario Draghi had the ECB cut its main refinancing rate from 0.25% to 0.15%. He also said the bank would charge banks 10 basis points for parking cash at the Central Bank. The ECB also announced a “funding for lending” program (TLTRO) – a tool designed to encourage bank lending. Finally, they announced a plan to buy asset-backed securities, an asset category not widely used in Europe.