Know how to prevent sagging?
Just eat till the wrinkles fill out.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
President in 2012
Who do you feel would make a good President in 2012?
Please post the name and why you think they would be good for the country during this time of economic crisis and the on-going, never ending wars.
Please post the name and why you think they would be good for the country during this time of economic crisis and the on-going, never ending wars.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Chuck Norris for President......of Texas........WooHoo !
Chuck Norris for president … of Texas
| CNN's Lauren Kornreich |
If the State of Texas ever left the Union, Chuck Norris is interested in being president of the newly independent country.
(CNN) – Actor Chuck Norris has his eyes on the presidency, but not the White House. Norris wrote that he would be interested in becoming the president of Texas, if the state were ever to secede from the Union.
“I may run for president of Texas,” Norris wrote Monday in a column posted at WorldNetDaily. “That need may be a reality sooner than we think. If not me, someone someday may again be running for president of the Lone Star state, if the state of the union continues to turn into the enemy of the state.”The actor claimed “thousands of cell groups will be united around the country in solidarity over the concerns for our nation” and said that if states decide to secede from the union, that Texas would lead the way.
“Anyone who has been around Texas for any length of time knows exactly what we'd do if the going got rough in America,” Norris wrote.
“Let there be no doubt about that.” Norris was a strong supporter of Mike Huckabee’s presidential bid, and he helped to draw attention to the former Arkansas governor’s campaign.
And the G.O.P. Candidates Are … By DAVID BROOKS AND GAIL COLLINS
From the New York Times
Discussion between Gail Collins and David Brooks regarding G.O.P candidates.
Newt Gingrich is preparing once again to announce the formation of a presidential exploratory committee. I don’t think I’ve been this excited since last week when a guy came to read our gas meter.
Suddenly, we’re knee-deep in Republican presidential hopefuls! So today I thought we could share our opinions of the whole bunch, beginning with Newt. He’s the kind of politician you want around when it’s time to brainstorm and you need an unfettered intellectual id to juice things up. But isn’t an undisciplined bomb-thrower the last thing you want in a president? Even the adultery-multiple-marriages saga is about a guy who gets carried away.
David Brooks: Gail, these guys will make you love them. You may be skeptical of the G.O.P. field now, but they will woo, and you will resist; they will woo, and you will resist; and at last stout ardor will win fair heart; and as the harvest moon rises you will be smitten with Michele Bachmann, gaga over Gingrich or even languid at the thought of that Godfather’s Pizza guy. You’ll see, by the time this is over, you’re going to say nice things about one of the Republicans, at least.
I’m not sure it will be Newt, though. He loves his ideas powerfully but not long. He has 14 world historical ideas per hour, two of which are good and the rest of which are around the bend. Sources of mine who worked in and around the speaker’s office still marvel at his ability to disorganize any operation. When it comes to management he has the power of the Harvard Business School except in reverse, and that will be his undoing.
Darron Cummings/Associated PressGov. Mitch Daniels of IndianaGail Collins: On the total other side of the pack, what about Mitch Daniels, the governor of Indiana? He’s supposed to announce his intentions soon. I find his whole I-don’t-want-to-do-this-but-duty-calls routine off-putting. When I was a kid, the nuns showed us pictures of saints who were summoned by God to go forth and be martyred in a den of lions, and they didn’t look as reluctant as Daniels does.
David Brooks: I just saw Daniels in Indianapolis last week. He had just passed his education reform package, which makes Indiana the leader in the nation when it comes to school reform. I saw him at an event after a signing ceremony and, as charged up as he was, his emotional range still doesn’t go above folksy. He described the bill in a way that was detailed and enthusiastic, but without the soaring sense of purpose that almost all other politicians either master or fake.
The older I get, the more I like self-effacing people, and I’m really curious to see if someone self-effacing can win the presidency in this day and age. I’m also curious to know if someone who is honest about our fiscal predicament can win, even in a G.O.P. primary.
I really hope Daniels runs, because he is managerially impressive, and because I want my curiosity satisfied.
Gail Collins: Mike Huckabee. I used to have a sort of soft spot for Huckabee. He seemed to have a genuinely saintly streak, which caused him to defend illegal immigrants and give pardons to criminals who were perhaps a little less rehabilitated than he had imagined. Now he’s repudiated all of that, and the only difference between him and the pack is that he knows less about foreign policy.
David Brooks: Huckabee is a wonderful guy to be around. I just don’t think he feels in his soul that politics is the most important venue for social change. I think he is more drawn to the word and the prayer than to the bill and the federal agency. I don’t blame him for thinking these things (I think them too) but I don’t think he’s running because he is not passionately committed to governance.
Gail Collins: Do you want to throw a bone to any of the guys who showed up for that Fox debate in South Carolina? The consensus seemed to be that Ron Paul and Herman Cain got the most traction. Paul is a sort of Dennis Kucinich of the right, with an intense but narrow following and an almost painful quotability. (“How many people here would use heroin if it were legal? I bet nobody.”) Cain is the lovable-longshot that shows up in almost every race. But I suspect he’s the first sympathetic also-ran to vow that as president, he would totally discriminate against one religious group (Muslims) when hiring an administration.
David Brooks: Well, there’s Tim Pawlenty. My big question is this: Is there something distinct about the way he sees the world? He has a working-class background, which is good, but so far he has presented himself as an orthodox Republican. That may make him seem a little too eager to please. It may rob him of any flavor and spice.
Gail Collins: Every time a new potential hero shows up in the Republican pack, I see it as another cry of desperation: Please not Mitt Romney. What is it that everybody hates so much about this guy? That he pioneered the Obama health care reform plan in Massachusetts and now denies it? That he’s ardently anti-abortion after having run for governor vowing endlessly to protect abortion rights? That he drove to Canada with the family dog strapped on the roof of his car? Or is it just something about the hair?
David Brooks: I’m going with the hair. It’s true that outside of New Hampshire there is very little love for the guy. A political consultant friend tells me that the anti-Mormon sentiment is deeper than I think.
I wonder if he’s going to be a different candidate this time — if he’s going to go all economy all the time. I sure hope so. That is his authentic self, and if the unemployment rate is about 8 this time next year, then Obama will certainly be vulnerable. Romney may not be the perfect candidate but if the country is in the mood to dump Obama, he certainly would be acceptable.
Philippe Lopez/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesJon HuntsmanGail Collins: The latest save-us-from-Mitt entry seems to be Jon Huntsman, the former governor of Utah who was ambassador to China until a minute or two ago. (And as President Obama keeps saying, one terrific member of his administration.) In his first post-ambassador address, Huntsman said he thought the country needed “a new set of eyeballs” in Washington. There’s something grisly about that image.
David Brooks: I confess Huntsman is probably closer to where I am politically, but I just don’t see how anybody who worked with Obama is well positioned to do anything but get humiliated among primary voters. I could be wrong, but I remain to be convinced.
The final thing to say is this. Candidates don’t make campaigns. Campaigns make candidates. One of these people is going to look a lot stronger in a year than they do today. And at some point through the coming fall and winter, I’m going to get you to love one of these men or women.
Gail Collins: Let’s consider that a challenge. Game on.
Discussion between Gail Collins and David Brooks regarding G.O.P candidates.
Newt Gingrich is preparing once again to announce the formation of a presidential exploratory committee. I don’t think I’ve been this excited since last week when a guy came to read our gas meter.
Suddenly, we’re knee-deep in Republican presidential hopefuls! So today I thought we could share our opinions of the whole bunch, beginning with Newt. He’s the kind of politician you want around when it’s time to brainstorm and you need an unfettered intellectual id to juice things up. But isn’t an undisciplined bomb-thrower the last thing you want in a president? Even the adultery-multiple-marriages saga is about a guy who gets carried away.
David Brooks: Gail, these guys will make you love them. You may be skeptical of the G.O.P. field now, but they will woo, and you will resist; they will woo, and you will resist; and at last stout ardor will win fair heart; and as the harvest moon rises you will be smitten with Michele Bachmann, gaga over Gingrich or even languid at the thought of that Godfather’s Pizza guy. You’ll see, by the time this is over, you’re going to say nice things about one of the Republicans, at least.
Gail, you may be skeptical of the G.O.P. field now, but they will woo you.
Darron Cummings/Associated PressGov. Mitch Daniels of IndianaDavid Brooks: I just saw Daniels in Indianapolis last week. He had just passed his education reform package, which makes Indiana the leader in the nation when it comes to school reform. I saw him at an event after a signing ceremony and, as charged up as he was, his emotional range still doesn’t go above folksy. He described the bill in a way that was detailed and enthusiastic, but without the soaring sense of purpose that almost all other politicians either master or fake.
The older I get, the more I like self-effacing people, and I’m really curious to see if someone self-effacing can win the presidency in this day and age. I’m also curious to know if someone who is honest about our fiscal predicament can win, even in a G.O.P. primary.
I really hope Daniels runs, because he is managerially impressive, and because I want my curiosity satisfied.
Gail Collins: Mike Huckabee. I used to have a sort of soft spot for Huckabee. He seemed to have a genuinely saintly streak, which caused him to defend illegal immigrants and give pardons to criminals who were perhaps a little less rehabilitated than he had imagined. Now he’s repudiated all of that, and the only difference between him and the pack is that he knows less about foreign policy.
David Brooks: Huckabee is a wonderful guy to be around. I just don’t think he feels in his soul that politics is the most important venue for social change. I think he is more drawn to the word and the prayer than to the bill and the federal agency. I don’t blame him for thinking these things (I think them too) but I don’t think he’s running because he is not passionately committed to governance.
Gail Collins: Do you want to throw a bone to any of the guys who showed up for that Fox debate in South Carolina? The consensus seemed to be that Ron Paul and Herman Cain got the most traction. Paul is a sort of Dennis Kucinich of the right, with an intense but narrow following and an almost painful quotability. (“How many people here would use heroin if it were legal? I bet nobody.”) Cain is the lovable-longshot that shows up in almost every race. But I suspect he’s the first sympathetic also-ran to vow that as president, he would totally discriminate against one religious group (Muslims) when hiring an administration.
David Brooks: Well, there’s Tim Pawlenty. My big question is this: Is there something distinct about the way he sees the world? He has a working-class background, which is good, but so far he has presented himself as an orthodox Republican. That may make him seem a little too eager to please. It may rob him of any flavor and spice.
Every time a new G.O.P. hero shows up, I see it as a cry of desperation: Please not Mitt Romney.
David Brooks: I’m going with the hair. It’s true that outside of New Hampshire there is very little love for the guy. A political consultant friend tells me that the anti-Mormon sentiment is deeper than I think.
I wonder if he’s going to be a different candidate this time — if he’s going to go all economy all the time. I sure hope so. That is his authentic self, and if the unemployment rate is about 8 this time next year, then Obama will certainly be vulnerable. Romney may not be the perfect candidate but if the country is in the mood to dump Obama, he certainly would be acceptable.
Philippe Lopez/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesJon HuntsmanDavid Brooks: I confess Huntsman is probably closer to where I am politically, but I just don’t see how anybody who worked with Obama is well positioned to do anything but get humiliated among primary voters. I could be wrong, but I remain to be convinced.
The final thing to say is this. Candidates don’t make campaigns. Campaigns make candidates. One of these people is going to look a lot stronger in a year than they do today. And at some point through the coming fall and winter, I’m going to get you to love one of these men or women.
Gail Collins: Let’s consider that a challenge. Game on.
Third Party
Apparently a recent Gallup poll shows that Republicans by a majority of 52% would like to see a Third Party formed.
The Don Smith Show....Obama then and now re Gas prices
A little reminder on the two-faced words of our President and the Dem's back when he was trying to get elected....back then it was terrible and he understood and now he thinks it's funny....
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=qKdScVerrBU&vg=medium
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=qKdScVerrBU&vg=medium
Now they want to track(Tax) the miles you drive in your car
Conservative economists, commentators, and politicians are blasting a draft Obama administration plan that envisions using Big Brother-like tracking devices on private cars to tax drivers on how many miles they travel.
The new tax scheme, designed to help fund transportation spending, would determine your mileage by installing electronic equipment on your car. This would involve monitoring your location and how far you’ve traveled.
Fox host Lou Dobbs offered this reaction to the trial balloon on his radio show Thursday: “We’ve got an effective unemployment rate of nearly 17 percent in this country, and these idiots want to tax car mileage. It’s nuts, what they want to do,” he said.
Cato economist Chris Edwards tells Newsmax that the proposal, which he considers “a terrible idea,” is part of the reauthorization of U.S. transportation programs that is expected to occur sometime in the next 12 months.
“There is a high degree of risk that there’s going to be all kinds of big government, intrusive stuff in this bill,” he warns.
The administration, stung by rising gas prices and an 8-month high in jobless claims Thursday, is backing away from the draft proposal Thursday.
White House spokesperson Jennifer Psaki called the proposed tax “an early working draft proposal that was never formally circulated within the administration.”
The 498-page draft of the administration’s Transportation Opportunities Act was obtained and published by Transportation Weekly.Psaki told TheHill.com that the draft plan “does not take into account the advice of the president’s senior advisers, economic team or Cabinet officials, and does not represent the views of the president.”
There has been growing momentum in recent months to find a new way to finance transportation spending.
In March, the Congressional Budget Office offered support for taxing drivers based on how many miles they travel. Payment, it suggested, could be collected automatically at service stations.
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., also has voiced support for taxing mileage.
The draft of the transportation proposal, which reportedly has been circulated within the Department of Transportation and the Office of Management and Budget, would create a $300million office within the Federal Highway Administration to be called the “Surface Transportation Revenue Alternatives Office.”
The office would be tasked with defining “the functionality of a mileage based user fee system and other systems,” according to the draft.
One Republican quick to criticize the mileage tax on Thursday: Former GOP Sen. George Allen.
Allen, who is campaigning to represent the Old Dominion in the U.S. Senate, released a statement that: “In our struggling economy, the worst thing Washington can do is raise taxes on middle-class families and small businesses. Yet that is exactly what the latest scheme being floated by Washington Democrats calls for.”
Concerned that increasingly fuel-efficient vehicles will reduce revenue from current gasoline taxes, state officials in Oregon, Iowa, Nevada, and Texas already are considering tax proposals based on mileage driven.
In Minnesota, the state department of transportation is conducting a research project that would use smart phones with a GPS application to monitor mileage. Critics point out, however, that taxing drivers based on miles driven rather than gallons consumed would decrease their incentive to purchase more fuel-efficient vehicles.
Quite apart from the economic issues are the privacy concerns. Allen labeled the tax an “onerous, big brother proposal.”
Edwards, the editor of DownsizingGovernment.org, tells Newsmax: “There’s clearly a potential for privacy abuses with such a system, government tracking American citizens driving aroundin their cars. These government data bases have often been hacked and leaked. So there’s a big privacy concern here.”
The draft proposal calls for field trials to test the feasibility of the mileage tax, but does not specify when or where those trials would occur. See: www.Newsmax,com
The Whitehouse wants to track and tax your mileage
The new tax scheme, designed to help fund transportation spending, would determine your mileage by installing electronic equipment on your car. This would involve monitoring your location and how far you’ve traveled.
Fox host Lou Dobbs offered this reaction to the trial balloon on his radio show Thursday: “We’ve got an effective unemployment rate of nearly 17 percent in this country, and these idiots want to tax car mileage. It’s nuts, what they want to do,” he said.
Cato economist Chris Edwards tells Newsmax that the proposal, which he considers “a terrible idea,” is part of the reauthorization of U.S. transportation programs that is expected to occur sometime in the next 12 months.
“There is a high degree of risk that there’s going to be all kinds of big government, intrusive stuff in this bill,” he warns.
The administration, stung by rising gas prices and an 8-month high in jobless claims Thursday, is backing away from the draft proposal Thursday.
White House spokesperson Jennifer Psaki called the proposed tax “an early working draft proposal that was never formally circulated within the administration.”
The 498-page draft of the administration’s Transportation Opportunities Act was obtained and published by Transportation Weekly.Psaki told TheHill.com that the draft plan “does not take into account the advice of the president’s senior advisers, economic team or Cabinet officials, and does not represent the views of the president.”
There has been growing momentum in recent months to find a new way to finance transportation spending.
In March, the Congressional Budget Office offered support for taxing drivers based on how many miles they travel. Payment, it suggested, could be collected automatically at service stations.
Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D., also has voiced support for taxing mileage.
The draft of the transportation proposal, which reportedly has been circulated within the Department of Transportation and the Office of Management and Budget, would create a $300million office within the Federal Highway Administration to be called the “Surface Transportation Revenue Alternatives Office.”
The office would be tasked with defining “the functionality of a mileage based user fee system and other systems,” according to the draft.
One Republican quick to criticize the mileage tax on Thursday: Former GOP Sen. George Allen.
Allen, who is campaigning to represent the Old Dominion in the U.S. Senate, released a statement that: “In our struggling economy, the worst thing Washington can do is raise taxes on middle-class families and small businesses. Yet that is exactly what the latest scheme being floated by Washington Democrats calls for.”
Concerned that increasingly fuel-efficient vehicles will reduce revenue from current gasoline taxes, state officials in Oregon, Iowa, Nevada, and Texas already are considering tax proposals based on mileage driven.
In Minnesota, the state department of transportation is conducting a research project that would use smart phones with a GPS application to monitor mileage. Critics point out, however, that taxing drivers based on miles driven rather than gallons consumed would decrease their incentive to purchase more fuel-efficient vehicles.
Quite apart from the economic issues are the privacy concerns. Allen labeled the tax an “onerous, big brother proposal.”
Edwards, the editor of DownsizingGovernment.org, tells Newsmax: “There’s clearly a potential for privacy abuses with such a system, government tracking American citizens driving aroundin their cars. These government data bases have often been hacked and leaked. So there’s a big privacy concern here.”
The draft proposal calls for field trials to test the feasibility of the mileage tax, but does not specify when or where those trials would occur. See: www.Newsmax,com
The Whitehouse wants to track and tax your mileage
Michael Reagan about his father, President Ronald Reagan
Republicans need to stop looking back at Ronald Reagan and instead seek out a new leader who can build forward-moving coalitions and be a “cheerleader for America” if they want to win back the White House, says Michael Reagan, the late president's son.
In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV, Reagan didn't hesitate when asked what role he would like for his father's legacy to play in the upcoming election.
“I think it is wrong for us to look for Ronald Reagan,” he said. “We were lucky to have him during our lifetimes. But if there is a role, look at who he truly was. … And you know, he was a man who cared about this country. He was a man who loved this country. It was always 'morning in America' for him. I want to find somebody who starts putting out positive messages about America like Ronald Reagan did. Somebody who is a cheerleader for America. Remember him for who he was. Don't try to redefine him in your image and likeness, define him in what and who he was.
“Remember, he was a man who changed the world and he changed it by building coalitions. Pope John Paul ... Margaret Thatcher, Mikhail Gorbachev, Tip O'Neill. To do these things he had to find areas of agreement and move forward. And you also have to remember, you always don't get everything you want right off the bat. You have to work towards an end. Look at politics as a football field. You have to go a 100 yards to score a touchdown. Ten yards at a time is OK as long as you score. I'm getting tired of hearing people throwing touchdown passes and when nobody catches it, they go home.
“If we don't hang together in the next election, we won't take back the Senate nor the White House. And we'll have four more years of our rights being taken away by this administration. We need to find areas where we work together, not apart.”
Reagan, who spoke at the National Rifle Association’s annual conference in Pittsburgh recently, had harsh words for the hopefuls who are looking to win the nomination to face off against President Barack Obama in next year’s election.
In a brutally frank assessment of the potential Republican candidates, he picked them apart one by one, saying he did not believe either former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee or former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin would run. Of the others, he said former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney needs to “talk to people who are at the water cooler, not the person who owns the water cooler,” and former Sen. Rick Santorum needs more than just the pro-life issue to win the presidency.
He said both Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., and businessman Herman Cain have to reach out beyond their tea party base if they are to be serious candidates.
“It’s like if I’m only doing Fox [News] and I’m a candidate and everybody who watched me on Fox votes for me. I’m only going to lose by 57 million votes.” He said Bachmann could be a viable vice presidential candidate if she expanded her horizons, but was not ready for the presidency.
Reagan, the oldest of Ronald Reagan’s three surviving children, described former House Speaker Newt Gingrich as having “more baggage than bags,” adding: “That’s a problem for Newt.”
He praised Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels for showing leadership by defunding Planned Parenthood in Indiana, but says he “has to learn to command a room a little bit better,” while former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty has “the least baggage of anybody,” but “needs a little shot of charisma.”
“Every one of them has work they could do and things they need to learn,” said Reagan. “First they need to learn to listen and move forward from there.
“If you could take some of these candidates to show the passion of Michelle Bachmann it would upgrade and uplift the males in the race,” he added.
“When my father passed away in 2004, we didn’t lose a former president; I didn’t lose a father; the world lost a cheerleader. Let’s find a cheerleader.”
But Reagan still believes the GOP can win in 2012. “We have a great board of directors,” he said. “But we need to find the chairman of the board. If we find the chairman of the board we’ll win.”
Despite his criticism of the potential candidates, Reagan’s harshest words were for Obama. “Jimmy Carter’s the only one happy with the Obama administration,” he said. “It means he will not go down as the worst president this country’s ever had.
Reagan, who has written a new book, “The New Reagan Revolution,” said most politicians need to take a leaf out of his father’s playbook and listen more. “We have a president now who really doesn’t listen to anybody. He listens to himself and he needs a lot of help and the help he’s put around him has no concept of what to do.
“Look at the world that we live in today. You look at the dollar against the euro, you look what’s going on in the Middle East, there’s no leadership. You can’t say America needs to take a second position to anybody and put somebody else in charge.
“My God, France is in charge of what’s going on in the Middle East? Give me a break. You need to have America strong. Right now America is not strong because the leadership is not strong.”
In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV, Reagan didn't hesitate when asked what role he would like for his father's legacy to play in the upcoming election.
“I think it is wrong for us to look for Ronald Reagan,” he said. “We were lucky to have him during our lifetimes. But if there is a role, look at who he truly was. … And you know, he was a man who cared about this country. He was a man who loved this country. It was always 'morning in America' for him. I want to find somebody who starts putting out positive messages about America like Ronald Reagan did. Somebody who is a cheerleader for America. Remember him for who he was. Don't try to redefine him in your image and likeness, define him in what and who he was.
“Remember, he was a man who changed the world and he changed it by building coalitions. Pope John Paul ... Margaret Thatcher, Mikhail Gorbachev, Tip O'Neill. To do these things he had to find areas of agreement and move forward. And you also have to remember, you always don't get everything you want right off the bat. You have to work towards an end. Look at politics as a football field. You have to go a 100 yards to score a touchdown. Ten yards at a time is OK as long as you score. I'm getting tired of hearing people throwing touchdown passes and when nobody catches it, they go home.
“If we don't hang together in the next election, we won't take back the Senate nor the White House. And we'll have four more years of our rights being taken away by this administration. We need to find areas where we work together, not apart.”
Reagan, who spoke at the National Rifle Association’s annual conference in Pittsburgh recently, had harsh words for the hopefuls who are looking to win the nomination to face off against President Barack Obama in next year’s election.
In a brutally frank assessment of the potential Republican candidates, he picked them apart one by one, saying he did not believe either former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee or former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin would run. Of the others, he said former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney needs to “talk to people who are at the water cooler, not the person who owns the water cooler,” and former Sen. Rick Santorum needs more than just the pro-life issue to win the presidency.
He said both Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., and businessman Herman Cain have to reach out beyond their tea party base if they are to be serious candidates.
“It’s like if I’m only doing Fox [News] and I’m a candidate and everybody who watched me on Fox votes for me. I’m only going to lose by 57 million votes.” He said Bachmann could be a viable vice presidential candidate if she expanded her horizons, but was not ready for the presidency.
Reagan, the oldest of Ronald Reagan’s three surviving children, described former House Speaker Newt Gingrich as having “more baggage than bags,” adding: “That’s a problem for Newt.”
He praised Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels for showing leadership by defunding Planned Parenthood in Indiana, but says he “has to learn to command a room a little bit better,” while former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty has “the least baggage of anybody,” but “needs a little shot of charisma.”
“Every one of them has work they could do and things they need to learn,” said Reagan. “First they need to learn to listen and move forward from there.
“If you could take some of these candidates to show the passion of Michelle Bachmann it would upgrade and uplift the males in the race,” he added.
“When my father passed away in 2004, we didn’t lose a former president; I didn’t lose a father; the world lost a cheerleader. Let’s find a cheerleader.”
But Reagan still believes the GOP can win in 2012. “We have a great board of directors,” he said. “But we need to find the chairman of the board. If we find the chairman of the board we’ll win.”
Despite his criticism of the potential candidates, Reagan’s harshest words were for Obama. “Jimmy Carter’s the only one happy with the Obama administration,” he said. “It means he will not go down as the worst president this country’s ever had.
Reagan, who has written a new book, “The New Reagan Revolution,” said most politicians need to take a leaf out of his father’s playbook and listen more. “We have a president now who really doesn’t listen to anybody. He listens to himself and he needs a lot of help and the help he’s put around him has no concept of what to do.
“Look at the world that we live in today. You look at the dollar against the euro, you look what’s going on in the Middle East, there’s no leadership. You can’t say America needs to take a second position to anybody and put somebody else in charge.
“My God, France is in charge of what’s going on in the Middle East? Give me a break. You need to have America strong. Right now America is not strong because the leadership is not strong.”
Arizona Appeal to US Supreme Court re Immigration
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer wants the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a ruling that put the most controversial parts of the state's immigration enforcement law on hold.
The appeal comes after Brewer lost an initial appeal April 11, when a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to reverse a lower court's order that prevented key parts of the law from being enforced.
The U.S. Justice Department filed a lawsuit in a bid to invalidate the law.
Brewer's lawyers have argued the federal government hasn't effectively enforced immigration law and that the state's intent in passing the law was to assist federal authorities.
The U.S. Justice Department has argued the law intrudes on its exclusive authority to regulate immigration and burdens legal immigrants.
The appeal comes after Brewer lost an initial appeal April 11, when a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused to reverse a lower court's order that prevented key parts of the law from being enforced.
The U.S. Justice Department filed a lawsuit in a bid to invalidate the law.
Brewer's lawyers have argued the federal government hasn't effectively enforced immigration law and that the state's intent in passing the law was to assist federal authorities.
The U.S. Justice Department has argued the law intrudes on its exclusive authority to regulate immigration and burdens legal immigrants.
The IPAB: How Will It Change Medicare?
The >Independent Payment Advisory Board was created by the 2010 health care law. Last month, in releasing his deficit-reduction plan, President Barack Obama called for increasing the panel's authority, saying it was critical to controlling the costs of Medicare, estimated at $524 billion in fiscal 2010. Republicans and some Democrats have denounced IPAB, saying it will be made up of unelected bureaucrats who will wind up rationing care to Medicare beneficiaries. As the spotlight turns back to the deficit, debates about IPAB are moving front and center. Here's a look at the issues:
What will IPAB >do ?
Beginning with fiscal 2015, if Medicare is projected to grow too quickly, IPAB will make binding recommendations to reduce spending. Those recommendations will be sent to Capitol Hill at the beginning of the year, and if Congress doesn't like them, it must pass alternative cuts -- of the same size -- by August. A supermajority of the Senate can also vote to amend the IPAB recommendations. If Congress fails to act, the secretary of health and human services is required to implement the cuts by default.
Who will serve on the panel?
It will have 15 full-time members, and only a minority of them can be health care providers. The president is required to get suggestions from leaders of both parties in Congress in nominating 12 of the 15 appointees. For the other three, he doesn't have to consult Congress. The members have to be confirmed by the Senate. Obama hasn't nominated anyone yet, but said last month that he hopes to fill the slots with "doctors, nurses, medical experts and consumers." Board members, who will serve six-year terms, are to be paid the salary of senior executives in the federal government -- $165,300 this year -- and cannot hold any other jobs.
Why is IPAB so controversial?
Hospitals, doctors, drug companies and some patients' groups are worried IPAB will recommend reductions in Medicare payments -- which they say already are too low -- and that they won't have the time or ability to counter the cuts during accelerated congressional action. Doctors and drug companies are particularly worried that they'll bear a lot of the burden because hospitals and nursing homes aren't subject to IPAB's cost-cutting recommendations until fiscal 2020. Lawmakers -- mostly Republicans but some Democrats as well -- say that IPAB will have too much power and are pressing for repeal of the provision.
Some critics, including House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., charge that IPAB will ration needed care for seniors.
Defenders counter that the law bars it from rationing care, restricting benefits or changing eligibility criteria. And, in response to complaints from the health care industry, Sen. John Rockefeller, D-W.Va., who was one of IPAB's architects, said that the board was specifically designed to reduce the influence of "special interests" on Medicare payment policy. Those interests, he and others say, have kept Congress from making the tough decisions needed to hold down spending and reduce the deficit. ..................
For the rest of the article go to: www.aarp.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)