CANCER - 'Moon-Shot' to Cure Cancer?

JFK:  "We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win."

Now.... are we ready to cure cancer?

"Can America come together to cure cancer?" PBS NewsHour 1/14/2016

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In his last State of the Union address, President Obama tapped Vice President Joe Biden to lead an effort to boost and streamline national cancer research.  What would such an initiative look like?  Judy Woodruff gets insight from Dr. Francis Collins of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Otis Brawley of the American Cancer Society and Katie Couric of Stand Up To Cancer.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  For a look at what an initiative might look like, and who would be involved, and how it might go forward, we turn to three people with long ties to cancer research.

Dr. Otis Brawley is chief medical officer at the American Cancer Society.  Dr. Francis Collins is the director of the National Institutes of Health.  And Katie Couric, in addition to being the well-known journalist and author, she is also one of the co-founders of Stand Up to Cancer.  It’s a charitable group that supports collaborative research.

And we welcome all three of you to the program.

Dr. Brawley, let me start with you.

Is it realistic for the president to say, let’s cure cancer once and for all?

DR. OTIS BRAWLEY, American Cancer Society:  Well, I think the cure analogy is fine.

What’s really going to happen is some cancers, if we intensify our efforts, will be cured.  Many cancers are going to be stalled out to where they become very chronic diseases, like diabetes.  But the end result is, people are going to be better for it.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Francis Collins, Dr. Collins, do you agree?  I mean, we know there are, what, over 100 — maybe hundreds of types of cancer?  What are people to think about this?

DR. FRANCIS COLLINS, National Institutes of Health:  Well, I hope they will be inspired and excited about this.

Yes, there are hundreds of types of cancer, but we are at an inflection point in terms of things we are learning about what causes this disease, where good cells go bad, and what could we do about it?  And by bring together immunotherapy, the new way of activating the immune system to tackle cancel, genomics, and making sure that everybody is sharing the data they’re developing in those kinds of studies, the Vice President, a man of great passion and principle, is determined that this is not going to be a tweak on the system.

This is going to be a major acceleration of the effort to discover how to treat and cure, in many instances, cancer.  And goodness knows, we can all get excited about that outcome.

AMERICA - President Obama's 2015 State of the Union Address

Full 1:01:31

"Remarks by the President in State of the Union Address - January 20, 2015"

Excerpts

Looking to the future instead of the past.  Making sure we match our power with diplomacy, and use force wisely.   Building coalitions to meet new challenges and opportunities.   Leading -- always -- with the example of our values.  That’s what makes us exceptional.  That’s what keeps us strong.  That’s why we have to keep striving to hold ourselves to the highest of standards -- our own.

You know, just over a decade ago, I gave a speech in Boston where I said there wasn’t a liberal America or a conservative America; a black America or a white America -- but a United States of America.  I said this because I had seen it in my own life, in a nation that gave someone like me a chance; because I grew up in Hawaii, a melting pot of races and customs; because I made Illinois my home -- a state of small towns, rich farmland, one of the world’s great cities; a microcosm of the country where Democrats and Republicans and Independents, good people of every ethnicity and every faith, share certain bedrock values.

Over the past six years, the pundits have pointed out more than once that my presidency hasn’t delivered on this vision.   How ironic, they say, that our politics seems more divided than ever.   It’s held up as proof not just of my own flaws -- of which there are many -- but also as proof that the vision itself is misguided, naïve, that there are too many people in this town who actually benefit from partisanship and gridlock for us to ever do anything about it.

I know how tempting such cynicism may be.  But I still think the cynics are wrong.  I still believe that we are one people.   I still believe that together, we can do great things, even when the odds are long.  (Applause)

I believe this because over and over in my six years in office, I have seen America at its best.   I’ve seen the hopeful faces of young graduates from New York to California, and our newest officers at West Point, Annapolis, Colorado Springs, New London.   I’ve mourned with grieving families in Tucson and Newtown, in Boston, in West Texas, and West Virginia.  I’ve watched Americans beat back adversity from the Gulf Coast to the Great Plains, from Midwest assembly lines to the Mid-Atlantic seaboard.   I’ve seen something like gay marriage go from a wedge issue used to drive us apart to a story of freedom across our country, a civil right now legal in states that seven in 10 Americans call home.   (Applause)

So I know the good, and optimistic, and big-hearted generosity of the American people who every day live the idea that we are our brother’s keeper and our sister’s keeper.  And I know they expect those of us who serve here to set a better example.

So the question for those of us here tonight is how we, all of us, can better reflect America’s hopes.  I’ve served in Congress with many of you.  I know many of you well.  There are a lot of good people here, on both sides of the aisle.   And many of you have told me that this isn’t what you signed up for -- arguing past each other on cable shows, the constant fundraising, always looking over your shoulder at how the base will react to every decision.

Imagine if we broke out of these tired old patterns. Imagine if we did something different.  Understand, a better politics isn’t one where Democrats abandon their agenda or Republicans simply embrace mine.   A better politics is one where we appeal to each other's basic decency instead of our basest fears.   A better politics is one where we debate without demonizing each other; where we talk issues and values, and principles and facts, rather than “gotcha” moments, or trivial gaffes, or fake controversies that have nothing to do with people’s daily lives.  (Applause)

A politics -- a better politics is one where we spend less time drowning in dark money for ads that pull us into the gutter, and spend more time lifting young people up with a sense of purpose and possibility, asking them to join in the great mission of building America.

If we’re going to have arguments, let’s have arguments, but let’s make them debates worthy of this body and worthy of this country.  We still may not agree on a woman’s right to choose, but surely we can agree it’s a good thing that teen pregnancies and abortions are nearing all-time lows, and that every woman should have access to the health care that she needs.  (Applause)

Yes, passions still fly on immigration, but surely we can all see something of ourselves in the striving young student, and agree that no one benefits when a hardworking mom is snatched from her child, and that it’s possible to shape a law that upholds our tradition as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants.  I’ve talked to Republicans and Democrats about that.  That’s something that we can share.
-----
I have no more campaigns to run.   (Applause)  My only agenda -- (laughter) -- I know because I won both of them.   (Applause)  My only agenda for the next two years is the same as the one I’ve had since the day I swore an oath on the steps of this Capitol -- to do what I believe is best for America.   If you share the broad vision I outlined tonight, I ask you to join me in the work at hand.  If you disagree with parts of it, I hope you’ll at least work with me where you do agree.  And I commit to every Republican here tonight that I will not only seek out your ideas, I will seek to work with you to make this country stronger.   (Applause)

Because I want this chamber, I want this city to reflect the truth -- that for all our blind spots and shortcomings, we are a people with the strength and generosity of spirit to bridge divides, to unite in common effort, to help our neighbors, whether down the street or on the other side of the world.

I want our actions to tell every child in every neighborhood, your life matters, and we are committed to improving your life chances as committed as we are to working on behalf of our own kids.   (Applause)  I want future generations to know that we are a people who see our differences as a great gift, that we’re a people who value the dignity and worth of every citizen -- man and woman, young and old, black and white, Latino, Asian, immigrant, Native American, gay, straight, Americans with mental illness or physical disability.   Everybody matters.   I want them to grow up in a country that shows the world what we still know to be true; that we are still more than a collection of red states and blue states, that we are the United States of America.  (Applause)

POLITICS - The State of the Union as Social Media

"How the White House made this year’s SOTU a social media affair" PBS NewsHour 1/22/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The number of television viewers of the State of the Union address has shrinking, but online, there’s a growing interest.  How is the Obama administration tapping into social media to keep the American public engaged?  Judy Woodruff speaks with the Kori Schulman, director of online engagement at the White House, about reaching new audiences and the political benefits of speaking with YouTube stars.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  We have all heard the adage all politics is local.  But, more and more, it’s becoming digital, case in point, this week’s efforts by the White House to promote the president’s State of the Union agenda on social media sites like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.

As part of that push, Mr. Obama was interviewed today by YouTube stars, people with large followings on the video-sharing site.

And he made had some news in this exchange with GloZell Green:

GLOZELL GREEN, YouTube Host:  Do you think that same-sex marriage will be legalized in all of the United States during the time that you’re in office?

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:  The Supreme Court now is going to be taking on a case.  My hope is, is that they go ahead and recognize what I think the majority of people in America now recognize, which is two people who love each other and are treating each other with respect and aren’t bothering anybody else, why would the law treat them differently?

I’m hopeful the Supreme Court comes to the right decision.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  GloZell Green has about three million YouTube subscribers.

One of the issues facing anybody trying to get a message out is how to do so effectively in this rapidly changing media landscape.  The president’s State of the Union address was the least watched in 15 years; 32 million people tuned in to broadcast and cable outlets.  That’s down from a high of 67 million in 1993.

But, online, it was a different story.  Far fewer people watched than on television, but the audience is growing.  In all, 1.2 million people watched the speech on the White House’s Web site; 2.6 million tweeted about it, and another 5.7 million liked, shared, or posted about it on Facebook.

POLITICS - Viewer Reactions to 2014 State of the Union Address

"Viewers respond to the 2014 State of the Union" PBS Newshour 1/29/2014

Viewer Response page

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  What did the American public think of President Obama's 2014 State of the Union?  NewsHour asked viewers to send in video responses.  From thoughts on renewable energy to the minimum wage, health care reform to NSA data collection, we sample a few of your reactions.

GWEN IFILL (Newshour):  We wanted to get reaction to the president's speech from outside Washington.  So we asked viewers like you to submit YouTube videos and our public television stations to gather local opinions.

Here's a sample:

POLITICS - Fact Check of 2014 State of the Union Address

"Facts of the Union" by Brooks Jackson, Lori Robertson, Robert Farley, and Eugene Kiely; FactCheck.org 1/29/2014

Excerpt

Summary

We found a few overstatements and cherry-picked numbers among the applause lines and proposals in President Obama’s State of the Union address.

• He boasted of businesses creating “more than 8 million new jobs” in the last four years.  But that leaves out a loss of government jobs, not to mention the loss of jobs earlier in Obama’s presidency.

• Obama credited the Affordable Care Act with signing up more than 9 million Americans for private insurance or Medicaid.  But Medicaid estimates include renewals, along with new enrollees.

• Obama boasted that the U.S. “reduced our total carbon pollution more than any other nation on Earth.”  Yes, but the U.S. produces a lot of emissions.  Looking at percentage change, dozens of countries did better.

• Federal deficits have been “cut by half,” as he said, but they’re still at historically high levels.

• It’s also true, as Obama said, that for the first time in 20 years, domestic oil production was greater than imports.  But the increase in U.S. production is primarily due to new technology, not government policy.

Analysis

Selective Job Growth Stat

Obama referred to “more than 8 million new jobs our businesses have created over the past four years.”  That’s true as far as it goes, but it’s a highly selective statistic.

It’s true that nearly 8.2 million private sector jobs have been added since February 2010, which was the low point of the great job slump that began a year before Obama took office and continued through his first year.  But total employment has risen less – by 7.6 million – held back by layoffs of state and local government workers.  Obama was technically correct, as he was careful to speak of jobs “our businesses have created.”

His 8 million figure also leaves aside the nearly 4.2 million private sector jobs that were lost between the time he took office and the time the slump bottomed out.  Overall, the net job gain since he took office stood at just over 3.2 million (or nearly 4 million if counting only private sector jobs), as of the most recent Bureau of Labor Statistics figures for December.

Overstating ACA Impact

The president said that “because of the Affordable Care Act … more than 9 million Americans have signed up for private health insurance or Medicaid coverage.”  But that total includes Medicaid renewals, not just new recipients that gained Medicaid coverage because of the health care law.

The 9 million figure includes three groups: 2.1 million Americans who have chosen insurance plans on the federal or state marketplaces, 3.9 million who were determined eligible for Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and an estimated 3.1 million young adults under age 26 who joined their parents’ plans as a result of the Affordable Care Act’s requirements.  Obama specifically referenced that last number:

Obama:  Already, because of the Affordable Care Act, more than 3 million Americans under age 26 have gained coverage under their parents’ plans.  More than 9 million Americans have signed up for private health insurance or Medicaid coverage.

But the Medicaid category includes more than just those signing up “because of the Affordable Care Act.”  As Marilyn Tavenner, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, said in announcing that 3.9 million “learned they’re eligible” for Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program in October and November: “These numbers include new eligibility determinations and some Medicaid and CHIP renewals.”  So not everyone was a new enrollee who gained Medicaid coverage because of the law.  Some of the Medicaid numbers reported by the states included those renewing their already existing coverage.

Also, Obama didn’t claim that all of those signing up for coverage had been uninsured, and, in fact, we know that not all of them were.  For instance, members of Congress and their staffs signed up for exchange plans, as required by the law, instead of continuing to get coverage through the program for federal employees.

Stretching a Boast on Carbon Pollution Reduction

Obama rehashed a boast first made in a major speech on climate change last summer, that “the United States has reduced our total carbon pollution more than any other nation on Earth.”  As we noted then, that’s accurate in terms of the sheer tonnage of emissions reduced.  But dozens of nations have reduced their carbon dioxide emissions by a larger percentage than the U.S., which is second only to China in total emissions.

Obama:  Taken together, our energy policy is creating jobs and leading to a cleaner, safer planet.  Over the past eight years, the United States has reduced our total carbon pollution more than any other nation on Earth.  But we have to act with more urgency – because a changing climate is already harming western communities struggling with drought, and coastal cities dealing with floods.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the U.S. emitted 5,490.63 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2011.  That’s 362.4 metric tons fewer than what was emitted in the U.S. in 2003.  And Obama is correct that no other country saw such a large carbon pollution reduction, by metric tons, over the last eight years.

But some perspective is in order.  The carbon dioxide emissions in the U.S. in 2011 were second only to China, which emitted 8,715.31 million metric tons.

Few other countries even come close to emitting the amount of carbon dioxide that the U.S. does.  The U.S. improvement results are different when the reduction amount is measured by the percentage change.

By that measure, dozens of countries fared better than the U.S., which reduced its emissions by 6.2 percent, including France (8.3 percent reduction), Germany (14.2 percent), Italy (15.1 percent), Spain (8 percent) and the United Kingdom (13.2 percent) — all of which committed to reducing emissions under the Kyoto Protocol that took effect in 2005 and has since been extended through 2020.  The United States did not ratify the treaty.

Also noteworthy, the EIA credited most of the U.S. reduction in carbon pollution to slower economic growth, weather, higher gasoline prices and an increasing shift from coal to natural gas — not necessarily the government’s energy policy, as claimed by Obama.

Still Historically High Deficits

Obama’s claim that federal deficits have been “cut by half” is true, but deficits remain at historically high levels.

When Obama took office in 2009, he inherited a projected deficit of $1.2 trillion.  By the time fiscal year 2009 was finished, the actual deficit turned out to be over $1.4 trillion – the highest in U.S. history.  And deficits remained over $1 trillion for the next three fiscal years.

The deficit for fiscal year 2013 (which ended Sept. 30) fell to $680 billion.  That’s indeed less than half the 2009 figure, but it’s still higher than any full-year deficit for any previous president.  The previous record was $459 billion in fiscal 2008, under President George W. Bush.

The outlook for the current fiscal year is improving rapidly, but it’s still quite high.  The Treasury Department just reported a deficit of $174 billion for the first three months (October through December), which is 28 percent lower than the $239 billion deficit recorded for the comparable three-month period a year earlier.

Domestic Oil Greater Than Imports

The president said that for the first time in nearly 20 years, there is “more oil produced at home than we buy from the rest of the world.”

That’s true.  The latest figures from the nonpartisan experts at the Energy Information Administration show domestic oil production averaged 7.5 million barrels per day last year, while net imports of petroleum averaged 6.2 million barrels.  And that’s the first time since 1992 that domestic production exceeded net imports.

But as we’ve often noted, the remarkable boom in U.S. oil production is chiefly the result of new drilling technology — using horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” — and not of any government policy.

POLITICS - State of the Union 2014

President Obama's State of the Union Address

"State of the Union Reactions" PBS Newshour 1/28/2014

In his State of the Union address Tuesday, President Barack Obama vowed to use his executive action to increase the minimum wage for federal contract workers and make it easier for millions of low-income Americans to save for retirement.  What issue was most important to you?  How well did the president address it?  The best reactions will air on the PBS NewsHour.

You can submit your reactions on this site.

AMERICA - Egypt and the State of the Union

"Shields and Brooks on Obama 'Recalibrating' Stance on Egypt, State of the Union"
PBS Newshour 1/28/2011

Excerpt from transcript

JIM LEHRER (Editor Newshour): Yes, yes, yes.

Speaking of -- back to other issues for a moment here before we go, how does the president's State of the Union address look to you three nights later, sound to you three nights later?

MARK SHIELDS (syndicated columnist): Well, it struck me, thematically, the president was masterful. I mean the American people expect optimism from their leaders. And he projected optimism. He captured the future. Americans want to live in the future. They want a -- they want the country to be forward-looking.

It just strikes me that there are two great problems in this country, I mean jobs and the economy. And we have got an economy where we have got record corporate profits, and we're not producing jobs for our people.

And we have got this incredible fiscal deficit, debt time bomb that is on a very, very short wick right now. And one party, the Democrats, address the first and want to talk about it, at least in terms of the economy, not particularly and specifically jobs but kind of want to go light on the second. And the Republicans only want to talk about the second and basically want to tiptoe around the first.

And it -- we have just got an incomplete dialogue going on.

JIM LEHRER: Do you agree? We have got an incomplete dialogue?

DAVID BROOKS (New York Times columnist): Yes. Well, the country doesn't want to take the tough measures.

And what it takes is a president who not only gives a great thematic speech -- which I agree it was -- but who says, here's the tough measures. I'm going to call for some sacrifice on all of you. I am going to get out in front of you and lead this. And we're going to do some things, not only light-rail -- we're fine -- I'm fine with light-rail -- but maybe a little bigger than that to create real jobs. And I'm going to make some cuts and I'm going to raise some taxes.

That's the only thing that is going to avoid a fiscal crisis, which is imminent. 2019, our debt will be a trillion dollars. Our interest payments on the debt alone will be a trillion dollars. And so that is imminent.

And I think historians will look back on this Congress, both on the Republican side and the Democratic side, and say they gave good speeches, but the fact they weren't grappling with this with both hands at this moment, they will -- they will -- that will strike them as bizarre.

JIM LEHRER: Bizarre?

MARK SHIELDS: Bizarre.

And think about this just in terms of the deficit. I mean, that doesn't -- that doesn't fill a prescription. That doesn't put a book in a child's hand. That doesn't put a plane in the air. It doesn't build a bridge. It's a transfer payment of people of ordinary income paying their taxes to bondholders.

And bondholders are overwhelmingly better off than the people who are paying the taxes. It is a terrible, terrible public policy to run up that kind of deficit. We -- this year, in fiscal year 2011, we will spend 24.7 percent of the gross domestic product of the country, the federal government will, and will collect 14.8. OK?

That's 10-percent difference. I mean, you can't do that. And I agree with David that -- I mean, we have been talking for 10 years about sacrifice. We were talking about George Bush not calling for sacrifice at the time of the war. We haven't had a leader call for sacrifice.

He mentioned it in the speech sort of as an abstract noun, but at no point did he say this is what I am asking of you.

DAVID BROOKS: Bowles-Simpson commission set it up. They put everything on the table. They laid the problem out. And I thought he really could have grasped that.

And we have all sat with interviews with President Obama, and he's always said: Next year, I'm really going to tackle the deficit.

Well, it is Lucy pulling away the football from Charlie Brown at some point. And so I -- I want him to actually say, OK, this is the year we're going to talk about it.

And, so, I guess my reaction to the speech was very positive the first day, but it's gotten a little sour the subsequent days.

JIM LEHRER: Is it the same progression from you? He -- it sounded better the night he said it than he -- than it does now?

MARK SHIELDS: Well, it's -- there is a little bit of the Gary Hart-Fritz Mondale race: Where's the beef?

You know, I mean, the question that Mondale asked of Hart was sort of a, in the future, we have got to get moving. We're a great country. We're this and that. He evoked our great days of the past, gave us a sense of confidence and optimism about the future. But it didn't come down to the action statement. Therefore, this is what I am asking of you, and me, and every American tonight.

And that's what is missing.

POLITICS - Response, State of the Union 2011

"FactChecking the GOP Response" by DAngelo Gore, Lori Robertson and Eugene Kiely; FactCheck.org 1/27/2011

Excerpt

Summary

We fact-checked President Obama’s State of the Union address (opens in new page), but what about the Republican response speeches? We found two new claims that we haven’t covered before:

• In the official response, Rep. Paul Ryan said that "trust in government is at an all-time low now that the size of government is at an all-time high." He’s wrong on both counts. Trust has been lower, and government has been larger, in the past.


• In her own rebuttal to Obama, Rep. Michele Bachmann said that the bailout cost "$700 billion." The net cost actually is estimated to be much less — $25 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

(below links open in new page)
In addition, the two Republicans repeated several false and misleading charges we’ve already written about. Our readers will be familiar with many of them, such as claims that the stimulus didn’t create jobs (it did), that the health care law hurts job growth (experts say the impact will be small), and that "16,500 IRS agents" will enforce that law (that’s based on a flawed, partisan analysis).

Analysis

Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin gave the official Republican response to President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address on Jan. 25. Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota also gave a response speech that night to Tea Party Express activists. We found factual issues with both of their remarks.

Not So ‘All-Time’ After All

Ryan was off the mark with his claims about "all-time" highs and lows in the size and distrust of government:

Ryan, Jan. 25: When government takes on too many tasks, it usually doesn’t do any of them very well. It’s no coincidence that trust in government is at an all-time low now that the size of government is at an all-time high.

Ryan spokesman Kevin Seifert said that the congressman was measuring size of government by spending as a percentage of gross domestic product. In that case, Ryan’s "all-time high" claim is off by more than 60 years.

According to historical tables from the Office of Management and Budget, federal spending as a percent of GDP was 24.7 percent in 2009, and estimated to reach 25.4 percent in 2010. Neither of those figures even comes close to the real "all-time high" figure of 43.6 percent in 1943 and 1944.

Ryan was closer with his claim about public skepticism of government, but still not quite right.

Only 22 percent of those surveyed said they trusted the federal government "almost always or most of the time," according to an April 2010 poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press — the source for Ryan’s claim. That’s indeed "among the lowest measures in half a century," the report noted. But the Pew report highlighted other polls conducted over the years — by other organizations — with slightly lower percentages. Case in point, polls conducted by CBS News and the New York Times in October 2008, and by Gallup in June 1994, found that just 17 percent of respondents said they trusted the government most or all of the time.

Ryan’s suggestion that the level of government trust and size of government are somehow connected was also undercut somewhat by Pew’s research. "The current survey and previous research have found that there is no single factor that drives general public distrust in government," the report said.

Stimulating Falsehoods

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, better known as the stimulus program, was a target for both Ryan and Bachmann. Ryan repeated a claim that we already debunked about the increase in domestic spending under Obama.

Ryan: The facts are clear: Since taking office, President Obama has signed into law spending increases of nearly 25 percent for domestic government agencies — an 84 percent increase when you include the failed stimulus.

It’s true that domestic spending has increased, but not nearly as much as Ryan claims. As we’ve written before, the 84 percent figure is the result of a flawed analysis by the Republican staff of the House Budget Committee.

The partisan Republican report claimed that “domestic discretionary spending” increased 84 percent from 2008 to 2010 when including the stimulus. But the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office issued a report this month that shows (on table E-7) that domestic discretionary spending rose from $485.1 billion in 2008 to $614.2 billion in 2010, an increase of $129.1 billion or 27 percent. The CBO figures include all discretionary spending, including stimulus funds in 2009 and 2010.

Also, Ryan said the stimulus "failed to deliver on its promise to create jobs." As we wrote during the midterm elections, it’s just wrong to say that the stimulus didn’t create jobs. Ryan can say — as Bachmann did — that the program failed to keep unemployment at 8 percent, as projected in a January 2009 report by the administration when it was lobbying for the bill. But the nonpartisan CBO says the stimulus increased employment by between 1.4 million and 3.6 million people in the third quarter of 2010, compared with what would have happened without it.

Exaggerations by the Billions

Bachmann also resorted to exaggeration to make partisan points about spending.

Bachmann, Jan. 25: After the $700 billion bailout, the trillion-dollar stimulus, and the massive budget bill with over 9,000 earmarks, many of you implored Washington to please stop spending money that we don’t have.

Let’s take the most egregious exaggeration: "the $700 billion bailout." That figure is grossly outdated. Bachmann is referring to the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which President Bush signed into law in October 2008. As the CBO explained in a November 2010 report, the "authority for the Troubled Asset Relief Program was originally set at a maximum of $700 billion; however, that total was reduced to $475 billion in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act." But the estimated net cost to taxpayers will be $25 billion after the government sells its stocks and the companies repay the money, as CBO estimated in its report.

As for her figures on earmarks and the stimulus, Bachmann is essentially correct — although she likes to round up. A trillion dollars is a nice round number, but that’s not how much the stimulus will cost. The CBO initially estimated it would cost $787 billion and now says it will cost $814 billion over 10 years. As for the "9,000 earmarks," Bachmann is referring to the 2009 omnibus spending bill signed by Obama in March 2009. That bill had 8,570 earmarks worth $7.7 billion, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense. Close enough.

Bachmann not only exaggerates but is flat-out wrong when she repeats the oft-stated false claim about the need to hire "16,500 IRS agents in charge of policing President Obama’s health care bill." As we reported previously, the figure of 16,500 originated from a House Republican report that relies on false assumptions and outright misrepresentation. The CBO estimated in March 2010 that the health care law would increase IRS administrative costs by $5 billion to $10 billion over 10 years. But that money will not be going for "16,500 IRS agents in charge of policing" health care mandates. The IRS is mostly responsible under the new law for administering tax credit programs, not collecting penalties.

Health Care Misrepresentations

Ryan made several criticisms of the health care law, saying:

Ryan: What we already know about the president’s health care law is this: Costs are going up, premiums are rising, and millions of people will lose the coverage they currently have. Job creation is being stifled by all of its taxes, penalties, mandates and fees.

The long list includes false, misleading and not entirely true statements.

As we’ve written before, rising medical costs are the primary driver of increasing premiums, and that’s according to insurance companies and state insurance commissions. In fact, the CBO has said the law won’t have much of an impact on premium costs for most Americans, compared with what premiums would have been without the law. (Premiums have been rising well before the law, and were expected to rise without it.) Those on the individual market — persons who buy their own insurance — will see an average increase of 10 percent to 13 percent, but more than half of those individuals will get subsidies that reduce their out-of-pocket costs substantially. And the increase in premiums will be due to an increase in benefits in those plans.

Ryan spokesman Seifert pointed us to a Wall Street Journal article about some insurers claiming they were raising premium rates substantially — primarily in the individual market — because of the new benefit requirements in the health care law. But experts told us they would estimate a 1 percent to 3 percent increase attributable to the law, possibly more if the insurer offered stripped-down, minimal plans. Ryan’s office also cites a report from CBO on the impact of the law on Medicare Advantage — that’s the version of Medicare offered by private insurers. Medicare Advantage plans are paid more per beneficiary than traditional Medicare, and the law will slowly change that over time. As a result, Advantage plans won’t offer the extra benefits they now do, such as vision plans or gym memberships. CBO estimates that 4.8 million fewer seniors will choose to be on an Advantage plan by 2019, than CBO projected without the health care law. And the loss of extra benefits is valued at an average $67 per month per person. One could consider this an increase in cost for those seniors who use the extra benefits and then decide to pay for them on their own. At the same time, the change in Advantage plans saves the government $117 billion over 10 years.

Health care spending overall is expected to rise a bit — by less than 1 percent over a decade. That’s because about 34 million more Americans will gain coverage, according to the chief actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

As for "millions" losing their current coverage, there’s truth to that, but context is required. The CBO estimated that 8 million to 9 million people who would normally have employer-sponsored coverage won’t get such an offer from their employers. The reason is that these are mostly low-income workers who will get subsidies to go buy their own insurance in state-based exchanges. (We’d note that it’s not clear that all of these workers have coverage now, but would be expected to have it by 2019.) Also, whether the law had been enacted or not, employers would be free to drop coverage.

Ryan reiterated the GOP claim that the law kills jobs. This time, he said it stifles job creation, but he again pointed to a CBO report that Republicans have badly misrepresented. CBO said the law would have a small impact on the labor supply, and that would be mostly due to workers retiring early or working less because they would have more secure health care options. Other experts have said the law would have a minimal impact on jobs.

Ryan also claimed: "Health care spending is driving the explosive growth of our debt. And the president’s law is accelerating our country toward bankruptcy." That claim was echoed by Bachmann, who said the law "could have a devastating impact on our national debt for even generations to come." But both politicians are wrong to make such claims.

The law is actually expected to reduce the deficit, according to the CBO, over the next two decades and beyond. It remains to be seen whether all of the cost-cutting measures will be fully implemented. But we went through various Republican claims about the supposed flaws in CBO’s analysis and found the GOP assertions to be mostly bogus.

Bachmann also wrongly said this about the law:

Bachmann: "[U]nless we fully repeal Obamacare, a nation that currently enjoys the world’s finest health care might be forced to rely on government-run coverage.

First, as we’ve said many times, the law doesn’t create a government-run system. Instead, it builds on our current system and adds a lot of new business for private insurers. Second, some studies on the quality of care worldwide have not put the U.S. at the top. A 2010 Commonwealth Fund study ranked the U.S. last among seven countries in health system performance. In other health outcome measures, the U.S. ranks 49th in life expectancy, according to the CIA World Factbook, and plenty of other countries have lower rates of infant mortality.

POLITICS - State of The Union Speech From L.A.

"That old familiar SOTU" by Doyle McManu, Los Angeles Times 1/26/2011

Excerpt

If every wish ever uttered by a president in the State of the Union address had been granted, we'd be living in a much different America.

Thanks to Richard Nixon, we wouldn't have to import foreign oil for our energy needs. Thanks to Ronald Reagan, we'd have a smaller federal government and a balanced budget. George W. Bush would have solved the dilemma of illegal immigration years ago. And thanks to Barack Obama, we'd have an economic boom, thriving green industries and an education system that even China would envy.

But State of the Union speeches are just that: wish lists. No president gets everything he asks for, even when his own party controls Congress. Just ask Obama.

Especially when House Republicans will concentrate on making Obama a one-term President rather than actually addressing problems of ordinary citizens.

AMERICA - State of the Union 2011

Rather than post the video, I am only posting the link to the full transcript with excerpts and my analysis.

Note the links in the article to other responses and commentary. Note that I've made links below "Excerpts" open in a new page.

"Full Text of Obama's 2011 State of the Union" PBS Newshour Transcript, 1/25/2011 (includes video of full speech)

Excerpts

View the NewsHour's Annotated State of the Union and Republican response for analysis and background

Watch more State of the Union videos, responses and analysis:

1. Shields and Gerson React to the President's Address


2. Rep. Paul Ryan Delivers GOP Response


3. Shields and Gerson on the GOP Response


4. Rep. Michele Bachmann Delivers Tea Party Response


5. Watch Reactions From Lawmakers on Capitol Hill

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:

We are part of the American family. We believe that in a country where every race and faith and point of view can be found, we are still bound together as one people; that we share common hopes and a common creed; that the dreams of a little girl in Tucson are not so different than those of our own children, and that they all deserve the chance to be fulfilled.

That, too, is what sets us apart as a nation.

Now, by itself, this simple recognition won’t usher in a new era of cooperation. What comes of this moment is up to us. What comes of this moment will be determined not by whether we can sit together tonight, but whether we can work together tomorrow.

So true, but not much if we get stuck on money. There ARE things that are worth being paid for, that we NEED to pay for, NOT cut.

Example...

The future is ours to win. But to get there, we can’t just stand still. As Robert Kennedy told us, “The future is not a gift. It is an achievement.” Sustaining the American Dream has never been about standing pat. It has required each generation to sacrifice, and struggle, and meet the demands of a new age.

Now it’s our turn. We know what it takes to compete for the jobs and industries of our time. We need to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world. We have to make America the best place on Earth to do business. We need to take responsibility for our deficit, and reform our government. That’s how our people will prosper. That’s how we’ll win the future. And tonight, I’d like to talk about how we get there.

The first step in winning the future is encouraging American innovation.

None of us can predict with certainty what the next big industry will be, or where the new jobs will come from. Thirty years ago, we couldn’t know that something called the Internet would lead to an economic revolution. What we can do – what America does better than anyone – is spark the creativity and imagination of our people. We are the nation that put cars in driveways and computers in offices; the nation of Edison and the Wright brothers; of Google and Facebook. In America, innovation doesn’t just change our lives. It’s how we make a living.

Our free enterprise system is what drives innovation. But because it’s not always profitable for companies to invest in basic research, throughout history our government has provided cutting-edge scientists and inventors with the support that they need. That’s what planted the seeds for the Internet. That’s what helped make possible things like computer chips and GPS.

...that means SPENDING.

At the California Institute of Technology, they’re developing a way to turn sunlight and water into fuel for our cars. At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, they’re using supercomputers to get a lot more power out of our nuclear facilities. With more research and incentives, we can break our dependence on oil with biofuels, and become the first country to have 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.

We need to get behind this innovation. And to help pay for it, I’m asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but they’re doing just fine on their own. So instead of subsidizing yesterday’s energy, let’s invest in tomorrow’s.

About time.

Of course, the education race doesn’t end with a high school diploma. To compete, higher education must be within reach of every American. That’s why we’ve ended the unwarranted taxpayer subsidies that went to banks, and used the savings to make college affordable for millions of students. And this year, I ask Congress to go further, and make permanent our tuition tax credit – worth $10,000 for four years of college.

No comment needed.

Over the years, a parade of lobbyists has rigged the tax code to benefit particular companies and industries. Those with accountants or lawyers to work the system can end up paying no taxes at all. But all the rest are hit with one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world. It makes no sense, and it has to change.

So tonight, I’m asking Democrats and Republicans to simplify the system. Get rid of the loopholes. Level the playing field. And use the savings to lower the corporate tax rate for the first time in 25 years – without adding to our deficit.

Nice to propose, but likely? Not as long as big-business can contribute, in secret, to campaigns and party coffers. They like today's tax code with the majority of loop holes that benefit them.

Now, I’ve heard rumors that a few of you have some concerns about the new health care law. So let me be the first to say that anything can be improved. If you have ideas about how to improve this law by making care better or more affordable, I am eager to work with you. We can start right now by correcting a flaw in the legislation that has placed an unnecessary bookkeeping burden on small businesses.

What I’m not willing to do is go back to the days when insurance companies could deny someone coverage because of a pre-existing condition. I’m not willing to tell James Howard, a brain cancer patient from Texas, that his treatment might not be covered. I’m not willing to tell Jim Houser, a small business owner from Oregon, that he has to go back to paying $5,000 more to cover his employees. As we speak, this law is making prescription drugs cheaper for seniors and giving uninsured students a chance to stay on their parents’ coverage. So instead of re-fighting the battles of the last two years, let’s fix what needs fixing and move forward.

This is the healthcare debate. In my opinion the Republicans are totally wrong on this subject. Seeing the Americans can get (afford) healthcare IS one of the things that is worth paying for. I see this as a moral issue.

Going back to what existed before the new law is NOT a good option. Reminder, in the past we had the healthcare system as it was BECAUSE Republicans always said "tomorrow" we cannot do it now, or "lets do this right." Result was NOTHING WAS EVER DONE, until 2008. Note I personally think the new healthcare law is flawed, but it IS a good start, and about time, and should NOT be repealed.

We are living with a legacy of deficit-spending that began almost a decade ago. And in the wake of the financial crisis, some of that was necessary to keep credit flowing, save jobs, and put money in people’s pockets.

But now that the worst of the recession is over, we have to confront the fact that our government spends more than it takes in. That is not sustainable. Every day, families sacrifice to live within their means. They deserve a government that does the same.

So tonight, I am proposing that starting this year, we freeze annual domestic spending for the next five years. This would reduce the deficit by more than $400 billion over the next decade, and will bring discretionary spending to the lowest share of our economy since Dwight Eisenhower was president.

This freeze will require painful cuts. Already, we have frozen the salaries of hardworking federal employees for the next two years. I’ve proposed cuts to things I care deeply about, like community action programs. The Secretary of Defense has also agreed to cut tens of billions of dollars in spending that he and his generals believe our military can do without.

I recognize that some in this Chamber have already proposed deeper cuts, and I’m willing to eliminate whatever we can honestly afford to do without. But let’s make sure that we’re not doing it on the backs of our most vulnerable citizens. And let’s make sure what we’re cutting is really excess weight. Cutting the deficit by gutting our investments in innovation and education is like lightening an overloaded airplane by removing its engine. It may feel like you’re flying high at first, but it won’t take long before you’ll feel the impact.

Good luck on this one. This is a test for Republican thinking, cut with a scalpel or cut with an ax.

Side note: One of the major things I disagree with the Republican in dogma is their definition of "limited government" as I read it, "no or VERY little government." They believe government, at the federal level, never works. Well it does, especially in the realm of regulation and providing protections for ALL the people regardless of what state they live in. It is deregulation (or limiting regulation) that gave us Enron or the recent crash of our economy. No one was properly guarding the hen house while the greedy foxes raided it. Our old healthcare system was, essentially, a sink-or-swim system; if you could afford it you swim, if not you sink and die. We were NOT taking care of our citizens.

To put us on solid ground, we should also find a bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security for future generations. And we must do it without putting at risk current retirees, the most vulnerable, or people with disabilities; without slashing benefits for future generations; and without subjecting Americans’ guaranteed retirement income to the whims of the stock market.

Over the objections of anti Social Security Republicans? I will admit I am prejudice, I am retired and receiving Social Security.

Let me take this one step further. We shouldn’t just give our people a government that’s more affordable. We should give them a government that’s more competent and efficient. We cannot win the future with a government of the past.

We live and do business in the information age, but the last major reorganization of the government happened in the age of black and white TV. There are twelve different agencies that deal with exports. There are at least five different entities that deal with housing policy. Then there’s my favorite example: the Interior Department is in charge of salmon while they’re in fresh water, but the Commerce Department handles them in when they’re in saltwater. And I hear it gets even more complicated once they’re smoked.

Now, we have made great strides over the last two years in using technology and getting rid of waste. Veterans can now download their electronic medical records with a click of the mouse. We’re selling acres of federal office space that hasn’t been used in years, and we will cut through red tape to get rid of more. But we need to think bigger. In the coming months, my administration will develop a proposal to merge, consolidate, and reorganize the federal government in a way that best serves the goal of a more competitive America. I will submit that proposal to Congress for a vote – and we will push to get it passed.

Ah! The bureaucracy. Again, good luck in consolidation. There are people in congress that have a vested interest in keeping the complex bureaucracy as is, because they have control.

My favorites are agencies that are mandated by law to a dual roll, promoting/supporting an industry at the same time as regulating it. Promoting/supporting ANY industry belongs in the Commerce Department, regulatory agencies should NOT be promoting industry. Another example is the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), food + drugs?! Drug regulation belongs in the Health Department.

We saw that same desire to be free in Tunisia, where the will of the people proved more powerful than the writ of a dictator. And tonight, let us be clear: the United States of America stands with the people of Tunisia, and supports the democratic aspirations of all people.

We must never forget that the things we’ve struggled for, and fought for, live in the hearts of people everywhere. And we must always remember that the Americans who have borne the greatest burden in this struggle are the men and women who serve our country.

Tonight, let us speak with one voice in reaffirming that our nation is united in support of our troops and their families. Let us serve them as well as they have served us – by giving them the equipment they need; by providing them with the care and benefits they have earned; and by enlisting our veterans in the great task of building our own nation.

Our troops come from every corner of this country – they are black, white, Latino, Asian and Native American. They are Christian and Hindu, Jewish and Muslim. And, yes, we know that some of them are gay. Starting this year, no American will be forbidden from serving the country they love because of who they love. And with that change, I call on all of our college campuses to open their doors to our military recruiters and the ROTC. It is time to leave behind the divisive battles of the past. It is time to move forward as one nation.

Amen.

And the FINELY...

We should have no illusions about the work ahead of us. Reforming our schools; changing the way we use energy; reducing our deficit – none of this is easy. All of it will take time. And it will be harder because we will argue about everything. The cost. The details. The letter of every law.

Of course, some countries don’t have this problem. If the central government wants a railroad, they get a railroad – no matter how many homes are bulldozed. If they don’t want a bad story in the newspaper, it doesn’t get written.

And yet, as contentious and frustrating and messy as our democracy can sometimes be, I know there isn’t a person here who would trade places with any other nation on Earth.

We may have differences in policy, but we all believe in the rights enshrined in our Constitution. We may have different opinions, but we believe in the same promise that says this is a place where you can make it if you try. We may have different backgrounds, but we believe in the same dream that says this is a country where anything’s possible. No matter who you are. No matter where you come from.

That dream is why I can stand here before you tonight. That dream is why a working class kid from Scranton can stand behind me. That dream is why someone who began by sweeping the floors of his father’s Cincinnati bar can preside as Speaker of the House in the greatest nation on Earth.

That dream – that American Dream – is what drove the Allen Brothers to reinvent their roofing company for a new era. It’s what drove those students at Forsyth Tech to learn a new skill and work towards the future. And that dream is the story of a small business owner named Brandon Fisher.

Brandon started a company in Berlin, Pennsylvania that specializes in a new kind of drilling technology. One day last summer, he saw the news that halfway across the world, 33 men were trapped in a Chilean mine, and no one knew how to save them.

But Brandon thought his company could help. And so he designed a rescue that would come to be known as Plan B. His employees worked around the clock to manufacture the necessary drilling equipment. And Brandon left for Chile.

Along with others, he began drilling a 2,000 foot hole into the ground, working three or four days at a time with no sleep. Thirty-seven days later, Plan B succeeded, and the miners were rescued. But because he didn’t want all of the attention, Brandon wasn’t there when the miners emerged. He had already gone home, back to work on his next project.

Later, one of his employees said of the rescue, “We proved that Center Rock is a little company, but we do big things.”

We do big things.

From the earliest days of our founding, America has been the story of ordinary people who dare to dream. That’s how we win the future.

We are a nation that says, “I might not have a lot of money, but I have this great idea for a new company. I might not come from a family of college graduates, but I will be the first to get my degree. I might not know those people in trouble, but I think I can help them, and I need to try. I’m not sure how we’ll reach that better place beyond the horizon, but I know we’ll get there. I know we will.”

We do big things.

The idea of America endures. Our destiny remains our choice. And tonight, more than two centuries later, it is because of our people that our future is hopeful, our journey goes forward, and the state of our union is strong.

POLITICS - Bush's State of the Delusion

"Bush's State of the Delusion and Jim Webb's True State of our Union" by A. Alexander, Progressive Daily Beacon

What is the true state of George W. Bush's grimly imposed American reality? Indeed, what is the State of the Delusion?

George W. Bush would have been well served if he had packed in his notes and left the chamber immediately following the words, "Madam Speaker." Sadly, however, he did not stop there. But then again, good judgment has never been this President's calling card.

And really, what more needs to be said about the annual ritual that has become George W. Bush's State of the Delusion? Indeed, what more could possibly be said that he hasn't all ready said, in one form or another, on at least 100 previous occasions? In other words, most of what the President had to say wasn't exactly new or newsworthy.

Since the President's last State of the Delusion speech, most of the changes aren't really related to anything he had to say. This past November the Democratic Party swept both Houses of Congress. Apparently though, just like before the election, Mister Bush has been in denial over this new political reality. He continues to behave as though Congress exists simply to rubberstamp whatever decisions he makes. To put it bluntly Mister Bush hasn't figured out yet, that he really isn't 'The Decider' ...........

Enough said. You can read the whole article yourself.

"The World Agrees: Stop Him" by Robert Scheer, Truthdig

Stop him before he kills again. That is the judgment of the American people, and indeed of the entire world, as to the performance of our president, and no State of the Union address can erase that dismal verdict.

President Bush has accomplished what Osama bin Laden only dreamed of by disgracing the model of American democracy in the eyes of the world. According to an exhaustive BBC poll, nearly three-quarters of those polled in 25 countries oppose the Bush policy on Iraq, and more than two-thirds believe the U.S. presence in the Middle East destabilizes the region.

In other words, the almost universal support the United States enjoyed after the 9/11 terrorist attacks has been completely squandered, as a majority of the world’s people now believe that our role in the entire world is negative.

"The State of the Union" New York Times Editorial

The White House spin ahead of George W. Bush’s seventh State of the Union address was that the president would make a bipartisan call to revive his domestic agenda with “bold and innovative concepts.” The problem with that was obvious last night — in six years, Mr. Bush has shown no interest in bipartisanship, and his domestic agenda was set years ago, with huge tax cuts for wealthy Americans and crippling debt for the country.

Only people with no brains or on hallucinogens like what Bush had to say, or believe him.

OPPS, I forgot, the $people$ who pay his party like what he had to say.

POLITICS - State of the Union 2007, Consumer's View

"A Consumer’s Guide to the 2007 State of the Union Address" Public Citizen ORG

The article opens with...

After seven years of State of the Union addresses from the Bush administration, the American public has learned that President Bush’s policy recommendations are often based on misinformation. As such, Public Citizen has prepared the following guide to the 2007 speech so consumers can get complete and accurate information about the issues.

...then has subject sections with What Bush Said vs What Public Citizen Says.

Readers, I suggest you view the full article and judge for yourself.

POLITICS - Heathcare According to Bush

The New York Times - Jan 22, 2007

Gold-Plated Indifference

By Paul Krugman

President Bush's Saturday radio address was devoted to health care, and officials have put out the word that the subject will be a major theme in tomorrow's State of the Union address. Mr. Bush's proposal won't go anywhere. But it's still worth looking at his remarks, because of what they say about him and his advisers.

On the radio, Mr. Bush suggested that we should "treat health insurance more like home ownership." He went on to say that "the current tax code encourages home ownership by allowing you to deduct the interest on your mortgage from your taxes. We can reform the tax code, so that it provides a similar incentive for you to buy health insurance."

Wow. Those are the words of someone with no sense of what it's like to be uninsured.

Going without health insurance isn't like deciding to rent an apartment instead of buying a house. It's a terrifying experience, which most people endure only if they have no alternative. The uninsured don't need an "incentive" to buy insurance; they need something that makes getting insurance possible.

Most people without health insurance have low incomes, and just can't afford the premiums. And making premiums tax-deductible is almost worthless to workers whose income puts them in a low tax bracket.

Of those uninsured who aren't low-income, many can't get coverage because of pre-existing conditions - everything from diabetes to a long-ago case of jock itch. Again, tax deductions won't solve their problem.

The only people the Bush plan might move out of the ranks of the uninsured are the people we're least concerned about - affluent, healthy Americans who choose voluntarily not to be insured. At most, the Bush plan might induce some of those people to buy insurance, while in the process - whaddya know - giving many other high-income individuals yet another tax break.
While proposing this high-end tax break, Mr. Bush is also proposing a tax increase - not on the wealthy, but on workers who, he thinks, have too much health insurance. The tax code, he said, "unwisely encourages workers to choose overly expensive, gold-plated plans. The result is that insurance premiums rise, and many Americans cannot afford the coverage they need."

Again, wow. No economic analysis I'm aware of says that when Peter chooses a good health plan, he raises Paul's premiums. And look at the condescension. Will all those who think they have "gold plated" health coverage please raise their hands?

According to press reports, the actual plan is to penalize workers with relatively generous insurance coverage. Just to be clear, we're not talking about the wealthy; we're talking about ordinary workers who have managed to negotiate better-than-average health plans.

What's driving all this is the theory, popular in conservative circles but utterly at odds with the evidence, that the big problem with U.S. health care is that people have too much insurance - that there would be large cost savings if people were forced to pay more of their medical expenses out of pocket.

The administration also believes, for some reason, that people should be pushed out of employment-based health insurance - admittedly a deeply flawed system - into the individual insurance market, which is a disaster on all fronts. Insurance companies try to avoid selling policies to people who are likely to use them, so a large fraction of premiums in the individual market goes not to paying medical bills but to bureaucracies dedicated to weeding out "high risk" applicants - and keeping them uninsured.

I'm somewhat skeptical about health care plans, like that proposed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, that propose covering gaps in the health insurance market with a series of patches, such as requiring that insurers offer policies to everyone at the same rate. But at least the authors of these plans are trying to help those most in need, and recognize that the market needs fixing.

Mr. Bush, on the other hand, is still peddling the fantasy that the free market, with a little help from tax cuts, solves all problems.

What's really striking about Mr. Bush's remarks, however, is the tone. The stuff about providing "incentives" to buy insurance, the sneering description of good coverage as "gold plated," is right-wing think-tank jargon. In the past Mr. Bush's speechwriters might have found less offensive language; now, they're not even trying to hide his fundamental indifference to the plight of less-fortunate Americans.

I hope the NY Times does not object to quoting the entire article, but I'm not a subscriber to their Select program so I CANNOT link directly.

ON THE LITE SIDE - State of the Union Address 2007

Yap, "Bush" at His Best