President Obama releases his birth certificate

If you were a doubter, here you go. Although, I doubt very much this will silence those who align themselves with the "birther" movement. But here's hoping this forestalls months and months of pointless debate during the actual 2012 presidential campaign among the serious candidates.

If any of our Mod-Blog readers were among the doubters, what is your reaction to this development. And do you agree with Donald Trump that it is all due to him?

What if?

One of the differentiating marks of a Moderate over either a Liberal or a Conservative, these days, is the ability to see and the honesty to acknowledge the strengths of both sides. So in that vein, let me ask a question.

Barack Obama ran on a platform of "hope and change," where his core promise was to "change Washington". He noted that the political culture was broken, and pledged to fix it. The last year and a half seems like a bust on that score. Partisanship is worse than ever. Now that it looks like the Democrats may lose the House, Republicans are already talking about returning to the old practice of White House probes and hinting at special prosecutors. This is the new rhythm that has existed since Reagan, where the wrongs of the last majority are used to justify those same wrongs by the new majority over and over.

What if Barack Obama's real legacy of "change" is turning the other cheek? What if he manages to break the cycle by making such tit-for-tat politics unsavory, by letting his enemies destroy themselves as they overplay their hands? In theory, it could work and could lead to a new era free of the hardball politics that have characterized the USA since at least the Clinton era.

Honestly, I remain skeptical. The President has shown himself to be, if anything, an old-school Chicago politician. But if this were his only legacy, it might be one of great service to the American system.

President Obama doubles-down on Health Care Reform

Congress put forth two unpopular Health Care Reform plans - one by the House and one from the Senate. Both were pushed with considerable urgency by the White House. And these plans and the sense of reckless pace of passage was extremely unpopular with voters, and lead to the lowest ratings in recorded history of Congress. And, of course, the election of Republican Scott Brown to the Senate seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy. So, what do you do if you are President Obama? Apparently, more of the same stuff that ruined Democratic chances for 2010.

President Barack Obama is putting forward a nearly $1 trillion, 10-year health care plan that would allow the government to deny or roll back egregious insurance premium increases that infuriated consumers....
It conspicuously omits a government insurance plan sought by liberals.

They say "insanity" is defined as "doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.". I realize the president is trying to pass something before his Democratic majority is either reduced, or eliminated altogether in the 2010 elections. But one has to wonder if this would be easier to sell if the various measures were passed separately and the overall scope reduced.

The Cure is just as bad as the Disease?

From Townhall.Com

State of the Union - Read/Watch it for Yourself

I missed the State of the Union address in favor of a little thing I like to call "real life." If you were like me, I figured you might like to read the transcript today to catch up on what the president has planned for the remainder of 2010. The video of the event is up on the White House Blog. And of course, you can always read the Republican response, too.

Some allusions are inevitable

Republican Scott Brown wins Mass. Senate Seat

It seems like so much of the politics surrounding Barack Obama is driven inexorably by history, defying expectations and stereotypes. His own rise to power dumbfounded critics - a relatively obscure junior Senator became president over a Hillary Clinton (the assumed nominee from the day she announced). Now, the Obama agenda is threatened by another wave of history as Republican Scott Brown has defeated Democrat Martha Coakley to win the senate seat vacated by Ted Kennedy. This seat has been held by a Democrat for for decades, and Massachusetts has not sent any Republican to the Senate since 1972 - two year before I was born.

Brown's victory was so sweeping, he even won in the Cape Cod community where Sen. Edward Kennedy, the longtime liberal icon, died of brain cancer last August.
"While the honor is mine, this Senate seat belongs to no one person, no one political party," Brown told his supporters Tuesday night. "This is the people's seat," he added to chants of "People's seat!"
Brown will become the 41st Republican in the 100-member Senate, which could allow the GOP to block the health care bill. Democrats needed Coakley to win for a 60th vote to thwart Republican filibusters.

Seriously

Obama Plan would outlaw "New" Private Insurance?!

Thanks to @AaronKlein for pointing out this article. This is outrageous and unmasks the true intend of the Obama plan. Hopefully, this will kill it as dead as HillaryCare.

It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of "Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage," the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section of the bill clearly states:

"Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers...

What wasn't known until now is that the bill itself will kill the market for private individual coverage by not letting any new policies be written after the public option becomes law.

The legislation is also likely to finish off health savings accounts, a goal that Democrats have had for years. They want to crush that alternative because nothing gives individuals more control over their medical care, and the government less, than HSAs.

Communities who need it most, getting least Stimulus money

I guess we file this under "paving the road with good intentions". Anyone else wondering if rushing that bill through Congress may have caused a few "bugs" to slip though unnoticed?

Altogether, the government is set to spend 50 percent more per person in areas with the lowest unemployment than it will in communities with the highest.
The AP reviewed $18.9 billion in projects, the most complete picture available of where states plan to spend the first wave of highway money. The projects account for about half of the $38 billion set aside for states and local governments to spend on roads, bridges and infrastructure in the stimulus plan.
The very promise that Obama made, to spend money quickly and create jobs, is locking out many struggling communities needing those jobs.
The money goes to projects ready to start. But many struggling communities don't have projects waiting on a shelf. They couldn't afford the millions of dollars for preparation and plans that often is required.

Obama skips National Day of Prayer

I had been struggling with this story, as I am not sure what to say about it. On the one hand, I am saddened to see the National Day of Prayer effectively abandoned by our president. On the other hand, presidents before George W. Bush gave it far less attention, too, and President Obama has never worn his religion on his sleeve.

I guess this post is as much a place for discussion as anything else. What do Mod-Bloggers think? Is this a travesty? Is it restoring the symbolic day to its previous station? Or is it a proper separation of church and state. I look forward to reading your comments.

The Anti-Bush: Trying to do it all

There was one characteristic of President George W. Bush that his opponents never figured a way to effectively combat - his ability to focus all of his attention and power on one issue at a time. While his Democratic opponents were all trying to pull him into battles on health care, defense, immigration, stem cells, abortion, etc., he would pick just one issue and make it his administration's top priority. Every major speech, every major TV appearance, every major article produced would focus on that one issue, until either the president has his way or it became clear that the American people wee not behind him.

President Obama seems obsessed with the idea of being the Anti-Bush, not only undoing moves that the public was never comfortable with (i.e. Gitmo) but also taking opposite stances on nearly everything. One of those moves is trying to attack every issue and every constituency at the same time. Now, in the midst of an economic crisis, not only is trying to tackle military transformation, health care reform, and tax reform, but now also Immigration Reform (which incidentally is one of the few issues that President George W Bush focussed on but had to abandon without having his way).

Perhaps this is a "divide and conquer" strategy to force the opposition to thin themselves out by opposing every Obama priority. But it looks like a desperate man trying to make hay because he knows his time is short. And desperation is never attractive in a leader.

Obama breaks pledge by taxing tobacco?

I am not fan of smoking, but I have always wondered about sin taxes like the tobacco taxes. If you are taxing something, hoping it will make folks stop buying it, shouldn't you plan for that revenue stream to go away? Anyway, it seems a number of people are furious about the president's plan to increase taxes on cigarettes because it breaks a campaign promise that was prominent.

The largest increase in tobacco taxes took effect despite Obama's promise not to raise taxes of any kind on families earning under $250,000 or individuals under $200,000.

This is one tax that disproportionately affects the poor, who are more likely to smoke than the rich.

"I can make a firm pledge," he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

I don't see this as being a major point that can be scored by Conservatives against Obama, but I do see it as potentially undermining him among his Liberal supporters.

The USA's first CIO is suspended

Well, it was an awfully short honeymoon. Vivek Kundra has been placed on indefinite leave after a raid on his former offices in Washington D.C. Apparently, the FBI is investigating some of his business partners on bribery charges. The president says the action is merely because of an "abundance of caution".

Is it really so hard to find qualified, competent people without a skeleton in their closet? Or this merely a sign of the level of scrutiny that the new president is under? Either way, it would be good to see the cabinet forming up without so much turmoil

Even Chuck Norris has no right to secede!

Yes, I know looking at Chuck Norris as an intellectual leader of the GOP is like looking at Jean Claude Van Damme as the intellectual leader of Europe. But talk like this of secession over the economy and the policies of Barack Obama needs to be called what it is - stupid, inflammatory rhetoric. And by EVERYONE who is a Republican needs to condemn it as unworthy of the party of Lincoln.

The Union survived John Adams's alien and sedition acts, we survived a Civil War, we survived FDR's alphabet soup programs, we survived LBJ's Great Society, and we survived George W. Bush's War-On-Terror-To-The-Exclusion-Of-Everything-Else. We will survive Barack Obama's policies. We may even thrive under some of them.

Stop talking secession - even in jest - and start talking about how to rebuild a party that represents YOUR ideas. Or else stop talking entirely.

Obama to limit spending/compensation of bailed out companies

We have all been sickened by the hubris-filled spending choices of several bailed-out companies, where taxpayer money has apparently been used to buy private jets, pay for huge parties, or been paid out in bonuses to failed executives. Now, the Obama administration is planning to reveal new rules governing how bailed out companies can act.

"Tomorrow I'm going to be talking about executive compensation and changes we're going to be making there," he said. "We've now learned that people are still getting huge bonuses despite the fact that they're getting taxpayer money, which I think infuriates the public."

Under the president's plan, companies that want to pay their executives more than $500,000 will have to do so through stocks that cannot be sold until the companies pay back the money they borrow from the government.

The restrictions will most affect large companies that receive "exceptional assistance," such as Citigroup.

The struggling banking giant has taken about $45 billion from the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program....

The new rules also will mandate that shareholders of banks have a greater say about the salaries paid to company heads. The measures will put in place greater transparency for costs such as holiday parties and office renovations.

While at first blush this seems like a wise and prudent move, I have to wonder about the unintended consequences here. Let's say you are one of the CEOs from the "Age of Irresponsibility" whose company has two choices: take government bailout money or go bankrupt and put hundreds of thousands out on the street without jobs. If you are an irresponsible executive, won't you take your money and run, leaving the company to collapse? In which case, the general economy is worse than beforehand. I hope I am wrong about this, but I have to wonder.

Updated 11:25 AM EST with the right link. Sorry folks, sick-brain was in full effect this morning.

Blagojevich booted

Illinois Governor Blagojevich has been impeached after a 4-day-trial in the Illinois Senate. This is a first for any Illinois governor, and was followed up with another vote banning him from holding any elected office in Illinois for life.

Mr Blagojevich has now been replaced as governor by Patrick Quinn, a fellow Democrat and the state's lieutenant governor.
Senators voted 59-0 against him after an impeachment hearing, despite his claim that he had "done nothing wrong" and there was no evidence of a crime.
After being sworn in, Mr Quinn told the senate "the ordeal is over".
He said the elected representatives had "reflected the will of the people".

All of this came out of FBI recordings in which the former governor attempted to sell President Barack Obama's vacated senate seat. Ah, the joys of innocent Chicago politics.

Hope is not for everyone

From here. I wonder how long until people begin to understand the potential impact of this.

What adventures will be seen?

From here. I can't help wondering how long Obama's honeymoon really will be.

Video of the Inaugural Speech

Again, in case you missed it. A well-crafted speech, I thought.