A Window into the Future of Health Care

For those looking for a preview of what US health care will look like under Obamacare, look no further than to the recent changes to cancer screening guidelines. A couple of weeks after changing the recommendations for PSA (prostate) screenings, the US Preventive Task Force (a government agency) "updated" their recommendations for breast cancer screening. Why the sudden shift, after years of encouraging early screening?

For years, women have been told to have annual mammograms and do breast self-exams starting at 40 and, in some cases, earlier. The logic was that the earlier the cancer could be found, the higher the likelihood of cure. Moreover, 40 was when the risk was supposed to increase. Now, the Task Force is recommending 50 as the starting point, saying that earlier screening doesn't save many more lives and only increases cancer scares. The recommendation also discounts the need for annual exams and calls for an end to breast self-exams. The Task Force utilized the same data set that led to its 2002 recommendation of the current screening practices. What changed, then, in the last 7 years? ObamaCare.

A look at the population data will tell why. There are approximately 153 million women in the US, 54% of which are 35 and over (approximately 83 million) and 47% (approximately 72 million). The average cost of a mammogram nationally is $125. If you annually screen every woman 35 and up, it would cost $10.375 billion, while annual screening for women 40 and over would cost approximately $9 billion. However, if you limit it to 50 and over, the number of women decreases to just over 49 million, bringing the tab to just over $6 billion. Combine that with the change on annual exams, and the cost drops even further. There is a cost savings of $3-6 billion on annual exams alone, more when you factor in the shift to an exam every 2-3 years.

So, what does this have to do with ObamaCare? One of the major problems that Obama and Congress have been having with their sweeping health care legislation is the cost. The Congressional Budget Office has not been kind to the various bills that the House and Senate have sent them, with the cost of most proposals costing over $1 trillion. Both chambers have been desperately looking for ways to lower the price tags on their plans, and that is where the Task Force comes in. If you reduce the number of screenings covered, you can reduce the overall cost. This guideline change (for the record, the American Cancer Society, as well as a number of their patient advocacy groups as well as physician groups have not changed their treatment guidelines) allows Congress and the President to reduce the cost of their bills, since you're now cutting both the cost of the exams as well as any attendant treatment resulting from the exam, while also professing to be following best practices/standards of care. This will also insulate them from any legal repercussions (i.e. malpractice accusations), as they can claim to be following established standards of care- standards that the government set. Imagine if the Bush administration had one of its agencies call for a reduction in the frequency of mammograms, as well as delayed the age of initial exam? Can you hear the accusations by women's groups about the anti-women bias? Or the calls from liberals calling him uncaring? Or that he was politicizing science? Or that he was trying to save money at the cost of our mothers, grandmothers, sisters, wives, and daughters?

This is reminiscent of the ALLHAT trial done several years ago. Conducted at VA centers, it was a comparative trial of various anti-hypertensive therapies. The trial authors claimed that the best treatment for hypertensive patients was a diuretic- not coincidentally, the least expensive (see a pattern?). When the trial was more closely examined, it turned out that the recommendation was only good for the uncomplicated, mild-to-moderate hypertensive- someone without any co-morbidities, family history of cardiovascular disease, etc. A diabetic with high blood pressure should not be treated with a diuretic. However, the government used this as its basis to treat all government-covered hypertensives with diuretics first, irrespective of other factors. It is a study that still can raise the blood pressure of cardiologists and internists, given its "findings". we now have another example where the federal government places dollars before patients- consider the outcry by these same people if an insurer were to apply the same practices and rationales.

This will be the future of American health care- one size fits all care, lowest possible cost. A government unwilling to cover routine exams, uninterested in considering other factors. It doesn't matter that Obama has made preventive care one of the main rationales for his plan. The guidelines for such care will be remade to fit into the budget. The Wall Street Journal (link here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703792304574504020025055040.html) shows how this is already happening in Washington state. The battle over health care isn't about the best way insure all Americans, or how to care for all citizens. It's about the government taking control of American society. The next time some liberal tells you it's a matter of compassion, or of caring for/covering everyone, ask them how they plan to continue delivering high quality care without skyrocketing costs. You can care for everyone, if you're willing to drive taxes and fees up. Or you can do it by cutting costs and rationing care. You can't have both. We now see how Obama and the Democrats plan to accomplish this.

A National Mistake

The Obama Justice Department made the announcement today that the first of the terror suspects at Gitmo, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, will be tried in federal court in New York City. At what point can we say that this President is not only in over his head, he's clueless?

Never mind the timing of this decision- a week after the terror attack at Ft Hood. The wisdom (or complete lack thereof) is what troubles me. We have seen this movie- back in 1993. Back then, the 1993 World Trade Center bombers were tried in federal court, making their trial a matter of public record. It was there that we learned that the World Trade Centers could withstand a hit from a 747 jet. So, what did the terrorists learn? Use a 757 or 767 (neither of which were in existence when the towers were constructed). Eight years later, two of those jets were used to take down the WTC in what can only be called an act of war. Now, we are going to give the perpetrators of this act full Constitutional rights? We're going to re-create the mistake we made in 1993? Also, what of the victims' families? An open trial will only provide a forum for the terrorists to openly mock the families as well as the city they attacked. It will re-open old wounds for the families and the city. Giving them access to the federal systems, complete with its rights, will allow their attorneys to utilize every legal option to draw out their cases and delay any penalties they may face, only adding years to the effort for families to gain closure. And, what happens if they walk?

The sad part is, this is in keeping with Obama's "See no evil" approach to terrorism. Obama was quick to condemn the act of a Cambridge, MA police officer for arresting his friend (justified, it turned out), yet could not bring himself to call last week's act at Ft Hood a terror attack, despite the flood of evidence that pointed to Hasan being committed to Islamic terror (how many people do you know who have SOA- "Son of Allah" on their business cards, and are not Islamic fanatics?). I believe it is because Obama does not take terrorism seriously. He's dithered on an Afghanistan decision. He's sent the 4 options presented to him back for revision. Recall that he had a summit on Afghanistan back in May. Six months later, he still has no idea about how to secure victory there? During the campaign, he chastised former President Bush for ignoring the "necessary war" in Afghanistan and instead pursuing the "war of choice" in Iraq. Given the supposed importance he placed on Afghanistan, and the fact that he's been talking about it since the campaign, is it too much to ask that he have a plan by now? Can't wait for that jobs summit in December- maybe he'll have some options to finally begin pondering by next June, just in time to maybe head off 11% unemployment.

When coupling all of these together, we're left to draw the conclusion that this President does not consider Islamic terrorism a serious problem. When this President fails to understand the consequences of his profligate spending, it means more taxes for citizens. Detrimental to the economy, but not necessarily life-threatening. When he treats terror in such a manner, people die. Will we have to witness another 9/11 because of this President's lack of focus? Will another President have to clean up this one's mess? And, at what point can we now call Obama a mistake? He is unable to call terror what it is. He is either unable or unwilling to treat terror as an act of war. It is not a crime in the same vein as a bank robbery, assault, etc. These were acts comparable to acts of war, and need to be handled as such. By placing these suspects in federal court, Obama only increases the risk that we'll see another 9/11. By then, he will have vacated the White House, leaving another President to have to comfort the families, address the nation, and make the tough decisions. Unlike Clinton, he can't plead ignorance of the threat. He can only plead ignorance.

Amatuer Hour at the White House

With the Wizards of Washington now back in session, I was prepared to look at the mess being made of the health care debate- how Joe Wilson's impromptu "You lie!" comment draws an admonishment from the House (right on substance, wrong venue) while Obama's prepared remarks accusing his opponents of lying garners plaudits from the media peanut gallery- a particularly distasteful move, since he was a guest of Congress and should have displayed more tact. No one would react well to having someone enter their home and then level accusations at them. However, Obama's move to reverse a Bush-era decision to employ missile defense shields in Poland and the Czech Republic took precedence. It's an amateurish move, one that only makes the world more dangerous, all the more so because after nine months on the job, Obama hasn't learned that there are some people who just can't be charmed.

In April of 1961, President Kennedy met with Soviet Premier Nikita Kruschchev, believing he could charm the man into some agreement. Kruschchev left the meeting thinking that the US leader was naive and the US weak. 18 months later, Kennedy had to deal with the Cuban Missile Crisis, a direct result of his naivete. At least Kennedy had learned his lesson from the ordeal. Obama has not. To date, the man who promised to enhance our standing around the world has offered a hand to autocrats and thugs while giving the back of his hand to our allies. On his first day in office, he returned a bust of Churchill to the Brits, a gift that was given after 9/11 as a reminder to be resolute. He then gave British Prime Minister Gordon Brown a set of 25 DVDs as a gift after their first meeting, compounded by the fact that they were formatted for North America and did not play when Brown returned home. For his first trip the the UK, he gave the Queen of England an iPod with video of his speeches loaded on to it (could one be more narcissistic?). However, these are merely tactless moves. It's the policy decisions that are most worrisome.

Since taking office, Obama posed for a photo with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and accepted an anti-American book as a gift. In June, former Honduran President Manuel Zelaya attempted a coup similar to the one Chavez pulled off in Venezeula. Both the Honduran courts and Congress rejected Zelaya's attempts to change the laws unconstitutional. Zelaya tried to forge ahead, using ballots from Venezuela (see a pattern here?). The military then ousted him on June 28th, and the Honduran Congress named Roberto Micheletti as his successor until elections could be held this fall. So, in recognition of its adherence to the rule of law and upholding its democracy, what reward did Obama have? Obama called for the restoration of Zelaya, and he had the State Departement revoke the US visas of Honduran officials and cut off all non-humanitarian aid to the Latin American democracy. And, in an unprecedented move, Mr. Micheletti will be barred from attending the upcoming opening session of the UN. So, while autocrats and dictators like the Castros, Iran's Ahmadinejad (a man who has called for the elimination of Jews and called the Holocaust a fraud and a lie), Hugo Chavez, and others with a history of human rights abuses and anti-democratic actions, a nation who stood up for democracy and defended the law is punished. All this while Obama has delayed trade treaties with both Columbia and South Korea, picked trade battles with Canada and Mexico, imposed tariffs on China, hounded Israel over West Bank settlements, and shut out Japan on dealings with North Korea. Meanwhile, he has tried cozying up to the likes of Burma, North Korea, Venezuela, and Russia, a nation backsliding away from democracy. It's this attitude that has led to his most egregious sin yet.

Yesterday, the Obama administration announced that it will not be employing missile defense shields in Poland and the Czech Republic, no doubt signaling to Russian Premier Putin and President Medvedev the same weakness Kruschchev saw in 1961. Meanwhile, the reversal has upset the two former Eastern Bloc nations and signaled to US allies that we can't be counted on for defense and support. Doubt this? Read Czech legislator and a supporter of the defense agreement Jan Vadim's quote: "If the Administration approaches us in the future with any request, I would be strongly against it." . Sounds like we're making friends. The decision leaves both Prague and Warsaw in a vulnerable position to both Russia and to Iran's missiles, which already have the capability to reach Poland. The IAEA recently found that the Iranians have sufficient information to build an atomic bomb and that they will overcome their shortcomings in delivery systems. Obama claims that the move was made due to recent findings that Iran lacks the capabilities needed for long-range missiles. However, Obama signaled as early as February that he intended to scrap the Bush-era agreement, before he knew what Iran's capabilities were. Russia has benefited from having Iran pursue its nuclear ambitions, as it has given them a market to sell such technologies. Further, any instability created by Iran has a tendency to spike the oil markets, increasing the prices for Russian oil. Russia has a financial interest in having a nuclear Iran. Iran has been recalcitrant in ending its ambitions, and the Russians have obstructed tougher UN sanctions. So the reward for these two rogues is to leave our allies defenseless in the hopes one resistant government will get tough with another resistant regime. How this ends well, I don't know. The rationale for Bush's nuclear defense agreements was to offer protection from nuclear weapons so that other nations didn't feel the need to develop their own warheads. Now, Poland and the Czechs may have a sense of urgency to arm themselves. American credibility has taken a severe hit. American interests are at increased risk. All because we have a President who has yet again demonstrated he's not up to the job.

Critics of Obama have stated that he's more comfortable with dictators, anti-democrats, and socialists than he is with democrats and capitalists. His defenders have consistently rejected such thoughts. When looking at his first nine months, he's moved dramatically to the left on his domestic policy. The US government now owns two auto manufacturers. He's in the process of an attempt to socialize the health care industry. He hasn't given up on card check legislation, which would eliminate the secret ballot in union elections. And most troublesome, he has found himself more at ease with those who oppose America while shunning traditional allies. The claim that he is a capitalist and that he supports democracy is becoming a harder claim to make. His poll numbers have plummeted and it seems that more the American public is coming to this realization. The question is, do we fix the problem before it's too late?

The Gift That Keeps on Giving

For Republicans, the silver lining in last November's elections was having Joe Biden move into the #2 slot in the administration and in national politics. The walking gaffe machine has been hard at work giving the GOP seemingly endless footage for election ads for 2010 and 2012. Whether it was his admission that he would advise his family against using public transportation to avoid H1N1 flu to the administration's "misread" of the nation's economic situation, the VP has had no shortage of headache-inducing situations for the Democrats. His latest, however, is a real head-slapper: that without the deficit-creating stimulus package, the nation would be bankrupt, a comment that should be met with a collective "What?" by the American public. Biden's latest, uttered at a public appearance in Richmond, VA deserves all of the ridicule it's sure to receive.

Let's review- the Obama administration came into office with a struggling economy. They handed over the construction of a $787 billion unstimulating "stimulus" bill that was supposed to stem the tide of unemployment and create or save 4 million jobs. Since there is no measurable way to track saved jobs, it was already greeted with some degree of skepticism. Administration projections were that the passage of the bill would cap unemployment at 8%, and without it unemployment would rise to 9%. We are currently at 9.5% unemployment and rising. The package was sold as being timely, with Obama touting "shovel-ready" projects. To date, only 7.7% of the money has been spent. Further, much of what has been spent has been used for extension of unemployment benefits and to help states close budget deficits- not exactly stimulating behavior. Meanwhile, deficit projections are fast approaching $2 trillion. How exactly could the situation be worse without the bill?

Meanwhile, the Democrats continue to pile on the deficits, passing a $3.6 trillion federal budget and are in the process of attempting a radical overhaul of health care that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects will only pile on more debt while having a marginal effect on insuring the uninsured. Concurrently, the Federal Reserve continues to print money around the clock, potentially creating an inflationary situation when- or if- the economy turns around.

Biden further contended that the stimulus has spurred banks to resume issuing loans- the same banks that have been routinely criticized for using stimulus funds to improve ledger sheets instead of creating loans (for that matter, he repeated the false claim that this is the worst economy since the Great Depression. It's not. It is the worst since Jimmy Carter, and Obama and company seem intent on re-making Carter's mistakes).

Biden continues to show an absolute lack of a grasp of reality. Americans are seeing a mountain of red ink with little to nothing to show for it. Try selling the effectiveness of the bill in places like Ohio or Michigan, where unemployment has soared into double digits- lots of jobs created there. Or wait to see what happens in coal-producing states, if the abominable cap-and-trade bill becomes law. Poll after poll shows that the most important issue for citizens is deficits- it could be why Obama's disapproval numbers have gone from an average of 15% in January to 38% in July, matched with a decline in approval numbers to 57%. However, he's proving to be a boon to the GOP. House Democrats- particularly those in toss-up and Republican-leaning districts- won't be pleased with being associated with Biden's remarks or the attendant policies. How a marked increase in spending avoided bankruptcy defies any measure of logic. In the meantime, Biden has created another problem that White House spinmeisters will have to deal with. It might be time for another trip abroad for old Joe.

How Low Can You Go?

So it's come to this- a gang of 7 Democrats are now willing to accuse the CIA of violating federal law in an effort to cover for Nancy Pelosi's lie. To review, earlier this year Pelosi was caught up in the question of when she may have known of the CIA's us of waterboarding, and she accused the CIA of misleading her. Now, she has succeeded in arm-twisting the Democrat members of the House Intelligence Committee to try and give her cover when they released the contents of a letter to CIA Director Leon Panetta to "clarify" comments he supposedly made on June 24th in a closed door meeting with the committee.

Where to begin?

First, it's a violation of federal law for the CIA to willfully mislead or lie to members of Congress or to the Executive branch. So, the first issue here is that we're being told that someone or a few people decided to commit a federal crime, punishable by jail time. Second, according to the accusations, the lying began in 2001 and ended this year- how convenient, since that would make the time span cover the Bush administration. So, someone who was ethical and honest decided not to be, and then just opted to revert back to form?

Second, the letter references remarks supposedly made in a closed-door meeting. No corroboration has been offered. No meeting notes, no other witnesses to the remarks have verified them, and Panetta has not confirmed making them. No offense, but I can say whatever I want about the contents of a closed-door meeting. Unless they have some proof of the remarks, or until Panetta confirms saying them, they are nothing more than an empty accusation. A call to committee chair Rep. Reyes' office came up empty on any sort of proof. Pelosi's office was also unable to offer proof of a CIA lie (By the way, have to love the "better than you" philosophy of Congress. When challenged for proof of a federal crime, a representative of Pelosi's office accused me of yelling and hung up. I'll remember that the next time the government tries calling me).

Third, if someone was guilty of lying to you, and was also guilty of a crime in the process, why wait two weeks before saying anything? Why not call for an immediate investigation? If the charge is true, then this is a major scandal for the CIA, and heads should roll. Note that the Democrats' letter did not call for an investigation, merely for Panetta to clarify the remarks (although Pelosi did say that she expects the committee to investigate, which I guess is going to mean more arm-twisting). If what Panetta said was true, then we should know exactly what the CIA said to whom and when. I would not wager on such an investigation, as it may end up confirming Pelosi's lie in the process.

Some thoughts here- first, it is a grievous charge to accuse the CIA of intentionally lying. Such a letter should not have been made public without some factual support. The fact that Reyes' office can't do so is extremely troubling. Until someone can definitively answer this, we have no choice but to view the letter as an attempt to grant Nancy Pelosi cover for her issues. The second issue here is with the absolute lack of ethics and integrity on the part of Democrats, from Pelosi on down. Nancy Pelosi needed help making her potential lies go away, so the 7 committee members did that. What type of person is wiling to make a so-far baseless charge and accuse someone of committing a crime in an effort to help out a fellow politician? And they wonder why the public has more trust in used car salesmen that in politicians? There are now some serious doubts and questions here- not about the CIA, but about the Democrats' House leadership. Finally, I save my worst for Pelosi herself. How low is she willing to go to save her own backside? This is a desperate action undertaken by someone morally, ethically, and intellectually bankrupt. I've never thought much of her intellect, but now I can say the same for her character. The fact that she's willing to level accusation at those tasked with keeping our national security in a lame attempt to retain power is about as low as I've ever seen a person go. Quite frankly, it's shameless. I would hope that rank-and-file Democrats would not support such an action (a long sot, I know). This woman isn't fit to run a yard sale, let alone the House of Representatives. The House GOP should call her bluff- by all means, let's have a full investigation into what was said by whom and to whom, and when. And when the charges are disproven, all eight of these stooges should then be brought up on ethics charges for lying and for false accusation of a crime. It's against the law for a private citizen to file a false police report. Members of the US military are charged with conduct unbecoming and given a dishonorable discharge for such behavior. It's time that these cretins are held to the same standard, and summarily dismissed. Next time, try not to live down to my expectations.

Asleep At the Wheel

What do Gerald Walpin and Dick Durbin have in common?

At first glance, not too much. Durbin has made a career of being a US Senator, representing the state of Illinois. Walpin, a career attorney, has had a couple of stints in public service. He started as an employee of the US attorney's in New York's southern district and returned to become the Inspector General for the Corporation for National and Community Service in 2007. At first blush, the two would seem to have nothing in common.

However, they have two rather glaring similarities: one, both have been at the center of scandal. Two, neither scandal has received much media attention.

Dick Durbin left a meeting with then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chair Ben Bernanke on September 18th where the two officials implored Congress to create legislation to aid banks that were potentially failing. On September 19th, Durbin sold almost $43,000 in mutual fund holdings and invested it in Berkshire Hathaway stock. By the end of the month, he shifted over $116,000 from mutual funds and placed most of it in Berkshire Hathaway stock. Either Durbin is an astute trader, or he utilized information not available to the general public to avoid investment losses.

Meanwhile, Walpin investigated the actions of St HOPE, a community organization in Sacramento, CA that had received funds from AmeriCorps. His investigation found that Kevin Johnson, an Obama supporter and now mayor of Sacramento, had misused funds for political and personal uses. Walpin referred the matter to the US Attorney's office for prosecution. The legal counsel for the city of Sacramento became concerned about the case, as it could potentially make the city ineligible to receive stimulus funds. The case was eventually handled by Lawrence Brown, another Obama appointee, where the case was settled in an unusual manner. Johnson was to repay approximately half of the $850,000 from AmeriCorps, and no suspension would be implemented, meaning that Johnson could apply for federal funds in the stimulus bill. When Walpin referred the case, he made a recommendation that Johnson be permanently barred from ever receiving federal money. Not only was Brown's settlement highly unusual, but Walpin was not involved in the discussions, another unusual occurrence. Since St HOPE was broke, the money would never be repaid. Further, by not barring Johnson from eligibility for funds, it set a bad precedent for future cases. Walpin was displeased with both outcomes. What was his reward for his stewardship of tax dollars? Obama attempted firing him with an hour's notice. This would violate a federal law requiring that the termination of an IG receive 30 days notice and a reason for termination. Better yet, the law was passed in 2008 and co-sponsored by... Barack Obama. Obama was now breaking the law he helped pass.

Both these cases are interesting for a couple of reasons. First, they are abuses of office on the part of Obama and Durbin (is anyone surprised that both are Illinois politicians? Apparently the Chicago way has traveled to Washington). Second, the cesspool that was supposedly going to be drained by the Democrats is alive and well. Third, the mainstream media has been conspicuously silent on both matters. When Martha Stewart engaged in insider trading (in a situation nowhere as blatant as Durbin's), we were treated to nonstop coverage. When Bush terminated eight US Attorneys (who, unlike IG's, do serve at the pleasure of the President), we got constant updates. There was talk of scandal. However, when Obama actually breaks a law- his own law, no less- we get crickets. When Durbin engages in an instance of insider trading that dwarfs Stewart's, it is summarily ignored.

I've talked before about how poor a job the MSM has done covering this White House. Frankly, it has gone beyond embarrassing. Outside of Byron York, who has done yeoman's work on the Walpin issue, the rest of the media can't stop slobbering enough to ask Obama a serious question. They're apparently more interested in Obama swatting a fly (something that occurs at picnics across the country on a regular basis) than asking why he thought it was OK to break a law he sponsored. Additionally, they can't muster the interest to ask Dick Durbin how he gained such foresight that prompted him to liquidate his mutual fund holdings right before the market collapse, or why he neglected to share such knowledge with millions of voters who subsequently lost their investments.

I find two disturbing issues here. First is the absolute disregard for the rule of law shown by two individuals charged with enforcing the law. In fact, I seem to recall that both took oaths where they promised to protect and defend the Constitution and laws of this nation. I fail to see how these actions do that. Firing a taxpayer watchdog to protect a political friend, and flouting the law in the process, is not upholding the laws you promised to defend, let alone are charged with enforcing. Similarly, using knowledge of a pending bank collapse to not fix the problem but hurrying first to protect your own money is not my definition of public service. Making the matter worse is Durbin's proclivity for chastising those on Wall Street and elsewhere for... making a profit. If you work in private industry, profit and wealth are bad. If you roam the halls of Congress, personal wealth is OK. Nice double standard. Durbin might want to keep his mouth closed the next time he feels compelled to rail about wealth.

The second major issue here is the media complicity. Journalists fancy themselves the defenders of the common man via inquisition of those in power. They see themselves as the check on those who would abuse their power. Yet, when faced with an opportunity to actually fulfill that role, they chose instead to engage in hero warship and ignore such abuses. They no longer care about the damage to their credibility, whatever is left of it. When people like Rush Limbaugh refer to them as part of the "state-run media", how do they argue? One can quickly point to these two examples as Exhibits A and B. Or, how about the abuses by William Jefferson and Alan Mollohan? No one thought to ask how two Congressmen arrive in Washington with little and become wealthy? One man had bribe money in his freezer and no one seemed overly interested in where the money came from. I've almost grown tired of discussing the media's failure to do its collective job. One does not need to worry about ethics or the appearance of hypocrisy if you wish to become a journalist. You just have to know who to kiss up to, and how much to kiss up. Everything will be forgotten when the invitations to the D.C. cocktail parties are mailed. Just don't ask some politicians why they circumvented the law.

The Downward Spiral of the Media Continues

The media coverage of the President has thus far been largely embarrassing. Few media members have bothered to move beyond the fawning and slobbering long enough to ask serious questions of either Obama or White House spokesman Robert Gibbs. Whether it's been on issues of transparency (or lack thereof), hidden costs in spending bills, or lack of efficacy of government programs (i.e. the "stimulus" bill being anything but). ABC News, however, has decided to take the love affair to a new level- they're offering Obama an hour to discuss his health care "reform". I don't recall George Bush being offered an hour to discuss his positions on anything.

ABC News assures us that there will be a balanced offering of questions, there is clear cause for concern. ABC News President David Westin hasn't exactly established a reputation for being fair or balanced during his tenure. This is the man who said that the Pentagon attack on 9/11 may have been a legitimate target (he couldn't bring himself to have an opinion) and also created a list of 480 minority figures that ABC was to use when seeking sound bites as a way of increasing diversity (funny, but he couldn't find time to do the same when it came to diversity of opinion). He ran out and hired George Stephanopoulos when Stephanopolos was fresh off his turn in the Clinton White House- the same man who now has daily conference calls to advise Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel, something that Westin should have put a stop to if he hoped to retain any sense of objectivity at the news network. ABC News hasn't been the bastion of even-handedness and we're now supposed to believe that they'll exercise fairness when it comes to the selection of questions for Obama?

Given its track record, the special is likely to end up being an infomercial for Obama's socialized medicine plan. I have a few questions if it does end up going on as such: first, will ABC then give a critic of the plan equal time to air his/her views, in a sense of balance? Or, if not, will ABC note this as an in-kind contribution to Obama, subject to FEC requirements? Every president has sought to utilize the bully pulpit as a way to advance his agenda, and I wouldn't expect Obama to differ on that. However, I also wouldn't expect a news network to be such a willing dupe in the process. This is the type of media broadcast that exists in countries like Iran, Venezuela, and the former Soviet Union, where the "supreme leader" takes to the airwaves to preach about how wonderful the government is and what a great job it is doing. I might be reassured that ABC would keep the program balanced if I thought that other media types would hold them up for criticism in the event that it became slanted, or if Obama was subjected to nothing more than softball questions. However, since the rest of the media has engaged in similar boot-licking, I am going to venture a guess that they'll see it as a solid performance as well as a good argument for nationalizing health care- a sad state of the current media. It is such blatant bias that should keep any discussion of a federal shield law off the table. No more privilege until you learn to properly manage your responsibility. They may be winning the battle, but when one looks at the declining readership of newspapers and the decline in viewership for the three major network newscasts, one has to wonder how much longer they think that they can get away with such naked partisanship. Those numbers should prompt them to work for better balance, not giving away airtime for continued fawning of Obama. It's pathetic that some lessons are never learned.