Home / brokenpromisesobama
Showing posts with label brokenpromisesobama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label brokenpromisesobama. Show all posts
Unbelievably, Obama still claiming that everyone can keep their current health insurance if they are happy with it

Unbelievably, Obama still claiming that everyone can keep their current health insurance if they are happy with it

From Obama's remarks after the Supreme Court decision upholding Obamacare:
"First, if you're one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance. This law will only make it more secure and more affordable." . . .
I only care about this because it shows that Obama simply won't admit the obvious to voters.  To believe that Obamacare will lower the costs of insurance means that Obama really doesn't think that profits motivate firms.  
Insurance companies can no longer impose lifetime limits on the amount of care you receive.  . . .  Because of the Affordable Care Act, young adults under the age of 26 are able to stay on their parent's health care plans -- a provision that's already helped 6 million young Americans.  And because of the Affordable Care Act, seniors receive a discount on their prescription drugs -- a discount that's already saved more than 5 million seniors on Medicare about $600 each. . . .
If these changes really lowered costs, firms would have offered all these benefits on their own.  More misinformation on how insurance has actually worked.
They can no longer discriminate against children with preexisting conditions. . . .
More adventures of the most open and transparent administration in history: Confiscating donor cell phones before fundraising dinner

More adventures of the most open and transparent administration in history: Confiscating donor cell phones before fundraising dinner

Even former Hillary Clinton staffers are calling this policy "absurd." It just goes to show you how hard it is to campaign when you are constantly saying something in public that tries to hide how incredibly leftwing a person really is. Reason.com has this:
Pool reporter David Nakamura of the Washington Post reported that at a $35,800 a head fundraiser at the home of Blackstone COO Hamilton “Tony” James in New York City Monday night, the 60 attendees were asked to place their phones in plastic bags by the door. An Obama aide called the move it "standard operating procedure," but veterans of a range of other campaigns said they'd never heard of the practice, which is common in secure White House spaces where there are concerns of espionage, but unknown in contexts in which only political secrets are discussed. The new prevalence of sophisticated audio and recording capacities in mobile devices owned by virtually anyone wealthy enough to write a check to a political campaign, however, has put a new pressure on campaigns concerned with staying on a public message. Former aides to presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Rick Perry, and Jon Huntsman all expressed surprise at the practice, and they've never seen an instance where a campaign asked donors to surrender their cell phones. The former Clinton aide called the Obama policy "absurd," suggesting that the Obama policy is almost certainly a response to the infamous 2008 fundraiser where Obama described voters in rural Pennsylvania as "bitter."
From the Associated Press: "Around world, Obama's presidency a disappointment"

From the Associated Press: "Around world, Obama's presidency a disappointment"

Obama promised so much for improving our international relations. "Obama advocates forging a dialogue with foreign publics to create a joint narrative about a shared future. . . .  Obama has suggested by example that cross-cultural knowledge can be used to understand and address societies where extremism has taken hold."  200,000 people flocked to Obama's 2008 speech in Berlin.   The AP reports that a lot of people around the world don't believe that Obama has delivered on his promises:

In Europe, where more than 200,000 people thronged a Berlin rally in 2008 to hear Barack Obama speak, there's disappointment that he hasn't kept his promise to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, and perceptions that he's shunting blame for the financial crisis across the Atlantic.
In Mogadishu, a former teacher wishes he had sent more economic assistance and fewer armed drones to fix Somalia's problems. And many in the Middle East wonder what became of Obama's vow, in a landmark 2009 speech at the University of Cairo, to forge a closer relationship with the Muslim world.
In a world weary of war and economic crises, and concerned about global climate change, the consensus is that Obama has not lived up to the lofty expectations that surrounded his 2008 election and Nobel Peace Prize a year later. Many in Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America were also taken aback by his support for gay marriage, a taboo subject among religious conservatives.
But the Democrat still enjoys broad international support. In large part, it's because of unfavorable memories of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, and many people would still prefer Obama over his presumptive Republican challenger Mitt Romney. . . . 
Obama continues hiding his second term agenda

Obama continues hiding his second term agenda

Remember Obama telling the Russian president to wait until after the election before he could take a position more sympathetic to the Russians?  Well, after the 2008 election where Obama promised to cut government spending, is anyone surprised by this.  From the Washington Post:
Whatever Obama’s public position, there was little doubt in the briefing room Monday that the president supports gay marriage and that he would go public with this position after Election Day, when he no longer need fear losing independent voters. Carney, who had the unenviable position of trying to convince the press corps otherwise, arrived 35 minutes late for the job and found a feisty audience. . . .
Another piece in the Washington Post:
Same-sex marriage is turning into a test of character and leadership for President Obama. Does he favor it, or doesn’t he?
In the wake of Vice President Biden’s remarks supportive of marriage equality, the continued presidential equivocation makes Obama look weak and evasive.Weak because he — and his unfortunate spokesman — keep fudging as Democratic official after official, from governors to his own Cabinet secretaries, expresses clear support for marriage equality.
Evasive because he seems to be hiding the ball from voters. Aren’t they entitled to know what he thinksbefore they decide on a second term?
The longer Obama waits, the worse he looks.
The president’s first stall tactic, that he is “evolving” on the issue, doesn’t cut it anymore. Even Darwin would have lost patience by now.
His second approach, the not-gonna-make-news-for-you-today cop-out, has also worn thin. . . .


"Gay rights groups say White House ‘broke promise’ on discrimination issue"

"Gay rights groups say White House ‘broke promise’ on discrimination issue"

From the Washington Post:
Gay rights activists vowed Thursday to step up political pressure on the White House over President Obama’s refusal to sign a nondiscrimination executive order, with some decrying the decision as an attempt to avoid controversy before the November election. One prominent liberal donor said he would spend $100,000 to fund a “We Can’t Wait” campaign targeting Obama, a takeoff on the president’s own slogan for his efforts to use administrative actions as end runs around what he has termed an obstructionist Congress. The donor’s money will be used to fly victims of discrimination at federal contractors to Washington to confront Obama and his aides and gin up public attention. . . . “This isn’t a broken promise President Obama can blame on Congress,” said Jonathan Lewis, son of billionaire Democratic benefactor Peter Lewis and the funder of the new effort to pressure the White House on the executive order. . . .
New National Review piece: Defending Fiscal Insanity “Demagoguery” is not too strong of a word to describe Obama’s speech

New National Review piece: Defending Fiscal Insanity “Demagoguery” is not too strong of a word to describe Obama’s speech

My National Review piece starts this way:
In President Obama’s address to the Associated Press Luncheon on Wednesday, he claimed that he is preventing disaster. Republican congressman Paul Ryan’s proposed budget cuts would still allow publicly held debt to increase by $5.5 trillion over the next ten years, but to Obama, they mean Americans will be dying from starvation and defenseless from hurricanes and other natural disasters. “Demagoguery” is not too strong of a word to describe Obama’s speech. Two million mothers and young children will be left without “access to healthy food.” Violent crime will soar and illegal aliens will flood across our borders because of cuts in law enforcement. “Hundreds of national parks” will close. We won’t be able to “protect the air we breathe, the water we drink, or the food that we eat.” Airline flights will be cancelled or delayed, and safety will be threatened in parts of the country. “Weather forecasts would become less accurate.” Governors and mayors will “wait longer to order evacuations in the event of a hurricane.” The list went on and on. . . .
So much for Obama trying to reduce the deficit

So much for Obama trying to reduce the deficit

Obama's actions again don't match his rhetoric. From The Hill newspaper:

President Obama’s 2013 budget would add $3.5 trillion to annual deficits through 2022, according to a new estimate from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

It also would raise the deficit next year by $365 billion, according to the nonpartisan office.

The CBO estimate is in sharp contrast to White House claims last month that the Obama budget would reduce deficits by $3.2 trillion over the next decade.
 . . .


The CBO report is available here.
Obama's broken promises on transparency

Obama's broken promises on transparency

From Politico:

. . . A minute after he took office, the White House website declared his administration would become “the most open and transparent in history.” By the end of his first full day on the job, Obama had issued high-profile orders pledging “a new era” and “an unprecedented level of openness” across the massive federal government.
But three years into his presidency, critics say Obama’s administration has failed to deliver the refreshing blast of transparency that the president promised.
“Obama is the sixth administration that’s been in office since I’ve been doing Freedom of Information Act work. … It’s kind of shocking to me to say this, but of the six, this administration is the worst on FOIA issues. The worst. There’s just no question about it,” said Katherine Meyer, a Washington lawyer who’s been filing FOIA cases since 1978. “This administration is raising one barrier after another. … It’s gotten to the point where I’m stunned — I’m really stunned.”
David Sobel, senior counsel at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said that “despite the positive rhetoric that has come from the White House and the attorney general, that guidance has not been translated into real world results in actual cases. … Basically, the reviews are terrible.”
Open-government advocates say some administration practices are actually undercutting Obama’s goal. Among their complaints:
• Administration lawyers are aggressively fighting FOIA requests at the agency level and in court — sometimes on Obama’s direct orders. They’ve also wielded anti-transparency arguments even bolder than those asserted by the Bush administration.
• The administration has embarked on an unprecedented wave of prosecutions of whistleblowers and alleged leakers — an effort many journalists believe is aimed at blocking national security-related stories. “There just seems to be a disconnect here. You want aggressive journalism abroad; you just don’t want it in the United States,” ABC News correspondent Jake Tapper told White House press secretary Jay Carney at a recent briefing for reporters. . . .

A longer list is available at the original article.
Obama broke promise on START Treaty

Obama broke promise on START Treaty

Obama probably thinks that this is a cute idea. Save money by cutting back on things that he promised but never wanted to do. Another broken Obama promise:

During the ratification debate on the New Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty (New START), President Obama promised to modernize the U.S. nuclear infrastructure, claiming that such investment is “essential to facilitating reductions while sustaining deterrence under New START and beyond.” However, the Administration failed to include in its budget the additional $4.1 billion that was promised for the nuclear weapons modernization program over the next five years. On top on this, the Administration did not even bother to submit a budget request that is consistent with its nuclear modernization pledge to the Senate for the next fiscal year. The actual request is $372 million bellow what the Administration agreed to, writes Heinrichs. . . .
Surprise increase in the cost of Obamacare for next fiscal year

Surprise increase in the cost of Obamacare for next fiscal year

Some technicalities apparently have some real consequences. So much for Obama's promises about how much Obamacare would cost.From the AP:

Cost estimates for a key part of President Obama's health care overhaul law have ballooned by $111 billion from last year's budget, and a senior Republican lawmaker on Friday demanded an explanation.
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp, R-Mich., wants to know by Monday why the estimated ten-year cost of helping millions of middle-class Americans buy health insurance has jumped by about 30 percent.
Administration officials say the explanation lies in budget technicalities and that there are no significant changes in the program.
The revised numbers, buried deep in the president's budget, stumped lawmakers and some administration officials for most of the week. At a congressional hearing Tuesday, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who is in charge of carrying out the health care law, indicated she was unaware of the changes.
At issue are subsidies that will be provided under the health care law to help middle class people buy private coverage in new state insurance markets that will open for business in 2014.
Last year's budget estimated the cost of the aid to be $367 billion from 2014-2011. This year's budget puts it at $478 billion over the same time period. . . .
Ezra Levant nails Obama on Keystone Decision

Ezra Levant nails Obama on Keystone Decision


Ezra does a good job skewering Obama and his broken campaign promises. The one critique that I have is that we live in a world energy market so the price of gas isn't really dependent noticeably depending on who it is sold to.
White House ignores House subpoena's on Solyndra

White House ignores House subpoena's on Solyndra

So much for the most open administration every. Remember also the Obama administration claims that only nonpolitical officials dealt with this loan? From the Washington Examiner:

President Obama and his West Wing aides ignored a subpoena of documents pertaining to the Solyndra loan guarantee even after congressional investigators met with White House officials to negotiate the scope of the subpoena, according to the House Energy and Commerce Committee. . . .

House investigators requested 12 categories of documents designed to explore a range of issues, such as Obama donor and Solyndra investor George Kaiser's role in the solar company receiving a loan gaurantee.

White House counsel disputed the initial subpoena in November, calling it "a significant intrusion on Executive branch interests." Committee officials met with Obama's attorneys to negotiate the subpoena, but the White House failed to produce the documents by the February 21 deadline.

"Despite an all star cast of presidential aides that have their fingerprints on Solyndra," Upton and Stearns observed, "Larry Summers, Carol Browner, Ron Klain, Valerie Jarrett, David Axelrod, Jim Messina, Dan Pfeiffer, Jay Carney, Cecilia Munoz, -- the White House is having great difficult turning over relevant internal documents."

The investigators said that Obama's aides have not answered questions about the White House role in restructuring the Solyndra loan, who told Solyndra officials to delay announcing layoffs until after the 2010 midterms, and why the company received so much attention from senior advisers to the president. . . .
Justice Department attempts to lose Homosexual marriage cases by default

Justice Department attempts to lose Homosexual marriage cases by default

So much for Obama's 2008 campaign promise. From Politico:

The Obama Administration said Friday it is declining to defend the government in yet another lawsuit challenging federal laws limiting recognition of same-sex marriage.

Attorney General Eric Holder sent Congressional leaders a letter formally notifying them that the Justice Department will not defend a case challenging the constitutionality of a federal law preventing same-sex spouses of military personnel from receiving veterans' benefits. . . . .

"Super PAC" Failed Promise



Some of the press have called Obama on this change in position. As president, Obama has raised large amounts of money and not have to spend it against challengers in his primary. This video at Real Clear Politics is worth watching:

"With the President reversing course on this, does he look hypocritical?" O'Donnell asked.

"The President firmly believes that the affects of the Citizens United decision were as he described or predicted. And were are seeing that play out in many ways, like the Republican primary process which you all have covered or many of your colleagues have covered," Carney said.

O'Donnell pressed Carney, again asking if the President's past statements on Super PACs raised the issue of hypocrisy.

"The President spent much of 2010 on the road ridiculing these groups. I mean, he joked about the name, they can call themselves anything like 'Moms For Motherhood.' He really decried their influence on the elections. Now, he has signaled to his campaign he would like his donors to contribute (to the PAC) as well. You indicated, when asked about when the President made his decision, you said you could 'divine' that and clearly since he made that in February 2012. Has the President been putting off this decision or are you indicating that he left it to so late in the game because he didn't want to do this but since he's watched the Republican primary he's finally relented and said, 'the Republicans have so much money, I'm willing to give up on my principles?'" O'Donnell asked. . . .
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)