We're About to Get the Government the People of Florida, Pennsylvania and Ohio Deserve

"Every country has the government it deserves (Toute nation a le gouvernement qu’elle mérite") - Joseph de Maistre

Well, Ohio, you're about to get the government you deserve. Don't come crying to the Federal Government when you're facing 20% unemployment because Obama closed all your coal mines and won't let you exploit your Natural Gas resource that you're sitting on top of. Cuyahoga and Franklin Counties, when the next set of riots comes because your African American population can't find jobs and are starving due to a 30+% unemployment rate (because it IS coming), you're on your own.

Pennsylvania, you're in the same boat. Montgomery, Delaware, Allegheny and Philadelphia counties, you had the opportunity to defeat a president which is costing your state TENS of THOUSANDS of jobs due to the energy resources that you are literally standing upon. President "I'm going to bankrupt coal" has destroyed your economy. When rioting comes to Philadelphia, don't look to us to save you. We're going to let the "City of Brotherly Love" burn to the ground so that you understand exactly the cost of what you voted for. Additionally, the fraud in the Philadelphia area and the uncontested voter suppression by Leftist, Marxist, and Black Power groups such as the Black Panthers show that Philadelphia deserves to become the war zone it will become when the Federal Government can no longer provide the steady drug of "safety net" payments and your people start to starve because they have no skills other than to suckle upon the government teat.

Florida, I honestly thought better of you. You would think that your Jewish population ALONE would have been sufficient to carry the state against someone who is proposing policies to make Israel so indefensible that, if implemented, it would be destroyed by the forces of darkness at its door. Fortunately currently Israel has a government sufficiently strong as to withstand those "suggestions" by the Obama Administration. You people of Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties, when the next hurricane comes, and there is looting and death and destruction on the streets, do not cry out to the National Guard and Federal Government to save you. Nay, since Obama has spent us into oblivion on foolish adventures in economic tinkering both large and small, we have no funds to help you. You're on your own. Similarly you Social Security retirees, when that day comes when Obama holds out his pockets and says "we have no more money to pay you for living," do not cry out for the people to support you in your infirmity, for we shall say "you had the opportunity to elect someone who would have fixed the problem, you voted against your interest and now you have to suffer the consequences."

Finally, to all you members of the 47% who voted to continue your free ride upon the few individuals of the United States who are doing the hard work to pay for the nation, know that your time is almost up. You can only take and take and take from those who are actually producing wealth for so long before they say "I'm not going to produce any more." Greece is what our future looks like, complete with riots in the streets and promises broken. You had this ONE chance, this ONE opportunity to forestall and divert us from that path. You chose to continue to eat like pigs at the trough of government largess. Those you call "the rich" will not much longer tolerate your free-ridership. They will take their wealth and instead of investing it into the creation of wealth and a better life for themselves and their children, will merely consume it themselves and say "to hell with everything, rather than have my hard work and personal property confiscated, I'm going to enjoy it myself."

So, people of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida (and Virginia too), we as a nation are all about to suffer under the government you deserve. Perhaps the pain of the next four years to come will teach you the object lesson that you so richly deserve.

CNN abandons all pretense of objectivity, blatantly campaigns for Obama

We all know that MSLSD (MSNBC) has been in the tank for Obama for over a year. Anyone who thinks MSLSD's change of slogan to "Lean Forward" was a mere coincidence with Obama's "Forward" slogan needs to have their head examined.

CNN though has been at least nominally pretending to be objective. If you know how to read between the lines, up to this point you could see an Obama tilt to their coverage; a thumb on the scale, as it were.

Apparently not anymore. CNN has abandoned all pretense of objectivity and has decided to go for broke in campaigning and fear-mongering for Obama.

Today's stories include such titles as:

• Second Obama term would confront fiscal crisis before inauguration. This story runs with a nice looking picture of the Obama Family walking to Church smiling and happy, dressed nicely in fashionable good church clothes, and goes on to give a glowing description of Obama's plans to cover immigration reform and that Obama will take a "stand his ground" approach to negotiations with Congressional Republicans.


• A Romney presidency: 'Bringing people together' faces reality check. This story runs with an undated photo which must easily be from the 1970s, with Romney in jean pants and a polo shirt sitting on a couch with his family and in which all the sons look to be between 10 and infant in age. The story itself goes on to discuss Romney's problems in Massachusetts coming from a business background into government, the fact that the TEA Party objects to "revenue enhancers" (aka tax increases) and makes reference to Romney's comments on the "47%" and contains a link to CNN's story "What a Mormon White House would look like."


• If it's close, watch out This story, by the liberal Julian Zelizer from Princeton, tries to set the stage for the Democrat Party to call a Romney win illegitimate should it even be close and to give the Democrat Senate cover to try to block a Romney-Ryan agenda, He says "In today's political era, every president -- even those who enjoy landslide victories -- faces immense challenges working in the current congressional environment. Partisan polarization, interest-group politics and the 24-hour media make legislating difficult." Shortly later, saying he could be wrong and, however unlikely, we could be heading into a Dewey-Truman moment, he continues "we'll be heading toward some rough times on Capitol Hill in the years ahead."


• Romney and America's biggest tax break CNN uses this hit piece to bring up something that they've been completely silent about in regard to the Affordable Care Act, that Romney might change the tax code to treat the self-employed the same as those employed by others: that health insurance premiums might either be taxed as income or treated as a tax credit. I have not ONCE heard CNN do a reporting piece on the fact that Obamacare taxes "premium healthcare plans" as income. And yet, they pull out this 'hit-piece' the day before the election on ROMNEY.


• Election 2012: What about the poor? Ahh, the ever-popular poor. This 'hit-piece' starts with this wonderful gem: "One wants to strengthen the nation's existing safety net. The other wants to overhaul it." We all know which way this one is going to go. At least the author does manage to list the Obama Administration's many, many failures in regard to there being many more poor, but it hints that it is not Obama's fault, but the fault of the "Great Recession" he inherited. Again, CNN brings up Romney's recorded comment about the 47% (although nowhere does it mention that the recording was DOCTORED by the recorder, losing at least 2 minutes of IMPORTANT CONTEXT to the comment. CNN also makes the "Block Grant" fear mongering argument on behalf of the Liberals.

But here's the final nail in CNN's coffin. They ran their most recent poll of how they think people are going to vote, and found that the race was tied at 49%, conducted Nov. 2 through Nov. 4. It's a small poll, and it's margin of error is +/-3.5% That seems reasonable, if a slightly large error rate, until you look at the fundamentals of that poll. Among those 693 likely voters 41% describe themselves as Democrats, 29% describe themselves as Independent and 30% describe themselves as Republican. In short, this means that CNN/ORC OVERSAMPLED Democrats by 11% just to get to a TIE. In the 2008 election, which was considered "historic" because of Democrat turnout, the differential was only D+7%.

CNN does get one story right though. Still 'paranoid' after all these years. That story starts off with this paragraph: "Ever have the feeling you're being lied to by the news media, the authorities, the corporate world?"

Well CNN, we might not have that feeling quite so much if you and your cronies in the Main Stream Moron Press actually went back to the providing of the news in the noble tradition of journalist newsmen where they reported the facts in an unbiased manner. It's too bad the Liberal ideology of the owners and 'newsmen' and 'newswomen' of today won't let them do that, because it has been the death of the once proud profession of journalism.

Specialized Training and Certificates

I've been absent from my own blog these past several months. Largely that's been due to having a lot of little things going on. What I have been doing though has given me a whole bunch of skills and certificates which will be very valuable to me in the future.

The most recent new skill that I have picked up was the Texas 40 hour Basic Mediation Course. With that now in my portfolio, I figured it was time that I post some of my recently acquired certificates and talk a bit about what each of them means and is used for.

Basic Mediation

Better Business Bureau Arbitration

Texas has been a leader in the Alternative Dispute Resolution movement. In 1987, the Texas Legislature passed the Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures Act, which prescribes the minimum requirements for persons qualifying for appointments as impartial third parties under the act. The forty hour mediator training requirement of the Texas Mediation Centers was adopted by the legislature as the standard training qualification. It allows for a person to be appointed by a court as a neutral if the court bases its appointment on legal or other professional training or experience in particular dispute resolution processes, which is what I have been using to perform Arbitrations up to this point through the Better Business Bureau for the El Paso County Attorney.

Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA) for Children

CASA volunteers are individuals that are assigned to advocate for abused and neglected children. There are several parties to a child abuse/neglect case: the parent(s), the County Attorney (or his designated staff lawyer), Child Protective Services a.k.a CPS (Texas Dept. of Family and Protective Services), the child's attorney (the child is the victim), and whenever possible a Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA).

I often get asked "What's the difference between the child's attorney and the CASA. The short answer is that the child's attorney is a lawyer with the child as his client, and as such the lawyer has a duty to advocate for the outcome that the child wants. The CASA, on the other hand, does not have to be a lawyer, and is appointed as a Guardian ad Litem to advocate for what is in the child's best interest regardless of what the child wants.

The CASA training is also a 40 hour training course (35 hours of classroom training and 5 hours of courtroom observation). Once that is completed, the CASA is sworn in, and is available to be assigned to a CPS case. There is a permanent CASA staff which manages the overall system, but largely the CASA is allowed to manage their own case, visit with the child, follow up with medical professionals, teachers, the CPS worker and other individuals involved with the case.

Some of the cases are tough and not all of them have a happy ending. However if you're mentally and emotionally strong enough this is one of the ways where people without a legal or therapy background can make some of the biggest differences in a abused or neglected child's life.

Crime Victims Compensation Fund Presumptive Eligibility Forms

The Office of the Attorney General of Texas says "Crime doesn't pay, but in Texas, criminals do." In Texas, if you are a victim of violent crime, you may be eligible for benefits. The primary purpose of the Crime Victim's Compensation Fund is encouraging greater victim participation in the apprehension and prosecution of criminals and reimbursing innocent victims for certain out-of-pocket expenses incurred as a result of violent crime.

Claims may be approved for benefits up to a total of $50,000. Individuals who suffer total and permanent disability as a result of the crime may qualify for an additional $75,000, which may be used for specific and limited expenses, such as lost wages, prosthetics, rehabilitation or making a home accessible, depending upon the law in effect on the crime date. Interestingly, you don't have to be a citizen of the United States in order to qualify, you only need to be a resident of the State of Texas, which requires that you have made Texas your home for more than 30 days.

The program is a "payer of last resort," meaning that you have to exhaust all other potential payers first (insurance, workers comp, Medicaid, auto insurance, etc...). CVC program staff assists applicants in coordinating the use of all available resources.

For some reason, few people know about or take advantage of the compensation fund. Once you have been trained in the process, you have the ability to interface with the Attorney General's system in order to follow up on the eligibility forms, and to know if they have already been completed so that victims don't "double apply" by accident because they can't remember what forms they've completed after a violent crime.

So it's been a productive couple of months. I'm hoping that the next couple of months allow me to continue to work on expanding my business with some of these new skills, and hopefully get back to writing more often.

A Note About Joint Representation Of Parties In Transactional Practice

You know, a LOT of lawyers don't understand basic transactional rules of representing multiple parties jointly. This post arises out of a transactional occurrence in my business life.

I sit on the Board of Trustees of a Creditor's Trust for a business that went bankrupt, filed for Chapter 11 protection, sold off it's assets to a new entity and left it's debts behind, as well as some cash to be divided amongst the creditors. That cash is currently tied up in a holding vehicle (an escrow) with several other non-creditor shareholders funded from the sale of an asset sold several years ago by the Bankrupt company and the other Shareholders.

The holding vehicle is currently in litigation by frivolous plaintiffs attempting to seek a payday. I call them frivolous because they've ALREADY had their suit dismissed 3 times for lack of being able to prove ANY damages (twice by the Supreme Court of Kansas on summary judgement) before finding a judge willing to give them an injunction.

The problem is that one of the other parties (another shareholder), for some reason that has not been disclosed to the rest of the parties, does not want to agree to release some of the funds, even though we are already 1 YEAR past the date when the funds were to be disbursed as detailed in the original agreement.

I asked the attorney for the Creditor's Trust (a shareholder) what the problem was, and got back a response that he didn't know, it was subject to attorney-client privilege. The privilege that he was being claimed was between the Shareholder's Representative's attorney and the reluctant Shareholder.

Privilege, in this instance, doesn't exist.

Model Rule 1.7, Comment [30] of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct (2011) notes the following (in part):

With regard to the attorney-client privilege, the prevailing rule is that, as between commonly represented clients, the privilege does not attach. Hence, it must be assumed that if litigation eventuates between the clients, the privilege will not protect any such communications, and the clients should be so advised.

In Texas, the relevant portion of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct is Rule 1.7 Comment 6, which states (in part):

In a common representation, the lawyer is still required both to keep each client adequately informed and to maintain confidentiality of information relating to the representation, except as to such clients. See Rules 1.03 and 1.05. Complying with both requirements while acting as intermediary requires a delicate balance. If the balance cannot be maintained, the common representation is improper. With regard to the attorney-client privilege, the general rule is that as between commonly represented clients the privilege does not attach. Hence, it must be assumed that if litigation eventuates between the clients, the privilege will not protect any such communications, and the clients should be so advised.

And, in Kansas, (where the Shareholder Representation is occurring) the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 226 (1.7) Comment 30 and 31 state the following even MORE clearly (emphasis mine):

[30] A particularly important factor in determining the appropriateness of common representation is the effect on client-lawyer confidentiality and the attorney-client privilege. With regard to the attorney-client privilege, the prevailing rule is that, as between commonly represented clients, the privilege does not attach. Hence, it must be assumed that if litigation eventuates between the clients, the privilege will not protect any such communications, and the clients should be so advised.

[31] As to the duty of confidentiality, continued common representation will almost certainly be inadequate if one client asks the lawyer not to disclose to the other client information relevant to the common representation. This is so because the lawyer has an equal duty of loyalty to each client, and each client has the right to be informed of anything bearing on the representation that might affect that client's interests and the right to expect that the lawyer will use that information to that client's benefit. See Rule 1.4. The lawyer should, at the outset of the common representation and as part of the process of obtaining each client's informed consent, advise each client that information will be shared and that the lawyer will have to withdraw if one client decides that some matter material to the representation should be kept from the other. In limited circumstances, it may be appropriate for the lawyer to proceed with the representation when the clients have agreed, after being properly informed, that the lawyer will keep certain information confidential. For example, the lawyer may reasonably conclude that failure to disclose one client's trade secrets to another client will not adversely affect representation involving a joint venture between the clients and agree to keep that information confidential with the informed consent of both clients.

So, right now I'm cranky that our attorney (the Creditor's Trust counsel) either doesn't know that the joint shareholder's representative's attorney is blowing smoke at him, or isn't willing to call him out on it.

The False Charge of Racism Against Republicans and TEA Partiers

In response to a post at the Liberal Blog Balloon Juice calling the Republicans and TEA Partiers "modern Negrophobists" because of our nearly universal collective yawn at President Obama's proposals of more of the same failed economic stimulus policies, and his new "Give'em Hell, Barry" Demeanor (a la President Truman), Professor Jacobson at Legal Insurrection put up a post in his "Saturday Night Card Game" series about the use of the race card for political gain that "The Negrophobia Card is played"

Ironghost, one of the commentators posted the following comment:

Until Republicans get out of the country clubs and into Black Communities and educate them about how Republicans really are, the race card will continue to work. All thoughts otherwise are cute dreams, but hopeless in the face of reality.

I posted most of the following commentary at Legal Insurrection, but it's important enough that I discuss it here as well:

Many of us are working in the Black and Low Income Communities, and that is why in large part this consistent race baiting on the part of Liberals and Main Stream Media Commentators against everything "anti-Obama" is failing to stick to those it is hurled against. Almost every week, I end up with someone different saying to me “I always thought Republicans only supported the wealthy and powerful. I didn’t think that a Republican would act the way you do; would support the ‘little guy;’ would nurture personal freedom, liberty and individual rights; etc....”

Now, I don’t correct them that I’m actually a Conservative, but the point is still the same.

Many of us are making inroads into the Communities that for years have been the bastions of Statism, in large part because Republicans abandoned them as part of the “welfare state” and everyone assumed that the votes of these communities could simply be “bought” by modern Liberal-Statist pandering.

Some examples from my family:

• My father sits on the board of the Rescue Mission of Syracuse, New York, and that organization has been making significant inroads into the homeless communities and low income populations, helping them to learn skills necessary to get jobs and lift themselves from hunger, homelessness and poverty.
• My mother picks up and delivers food for Caz Cares (the local food bank), in the town where my parents live.
• I volunteer teaching life skills to the Black Community, especially youth, in El Paso through a program run by a Black Church for at risk youth. Because I have backgrounds in Manufacturing & Finance as well as a Law Degree, I am able to teach about financial planning, budgeting, debt reduction, job interviewing, technical skills, and a whole host of other topics which are crucial to 15 to 21 year-old individuals to try to get them a chance at becoming financially self-sufficient.

It’s these sort of inroads to the Black and Low Income Communities which are rapidly eroding support for modern Liberalism (Statism). More and more, those communities recognize that the Liberals and the Democrat party have utterly failed them by simply throwing money at them, thereby creating dependence, without actually teaching the people of these communities how to lift themselves up.

When Republicans and Conservatives show up to help, while it is harder and we challenge the people we’re helping, at the end of the day the people find that they’re self sufficient, and no longer need help (or need a vastly reduced amount of it for only a limited period).

The minute you empower someone to break the chains of dependency (either upon the government or someone else) and further empower them with the abilities to support themselves they will flee from that dependency as far and as fast as they can. Somewhere deep down, there is an inherent pride that all individuals cherish in being able to say “I AM able to support myself; I CAN earn things on my own.”

A Brief Comment On The Language Of The Illegal Immigration Debate

The language of the debate over Illegal Immigration has been continuously evolving with each side attempting to frame the debate to sway the populace to their point of view.

The pro-open borders side is attempting to frame the debate as one encompassing all immigrants by saying that "the border has always been open" and calling those illegally in the United States simply as "undocumented immigrants." It's dishonest at best, but the pro-open borders supporters are hoping that those who went through legal means won't pay attention or will stay silent to assist their "undocumented" brethren. Further, they are now claiming that open borders immigration is a "natural right" which cannot be infringed by a government. This shows a staggering ignorance of history, as well as a level of hypocrisy that borders upon the obscene when you examine it in context with most of the other positions that individuals with these beliefs usually hold which would qualify as "natural rights."

The legal immigration only side of the debate has correctly attempted to limit the frame of the debate about those who are in the country illegally, and has properly praised those immigrants who followed the rules and immigrated through legal means.

On Recent Lies About Taxes, The "Afordable Care Act," and Other Entitlements.

For the most part, I don't want this blog to become about current events for a long, long time. Unfortunately every so often though a politician will say something that I find to be SO outrageous that it deserves at least a little bit of analysis because of the way it lies to or misleads the public. President Obama's recent demagoguery has finally risen to the level where my good conscience can no longer ignore it.

Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin has put forth a budget proposal which structurally reforms entitlement programs which are in their current form unsustainable. These reforms are necessary to debt reduction, for without structural reform, these programs will eat up an ever increasing portion of the budget, until there is NOTHING left for ANY other program. The reductions amount to approximately $4 TRILLION in debt reduction in under 10 years, while lowering the top marginal tax rates to approximately 25%, which will lead to an explosion of consumer purchasing and small business formation and expansion. The reforms are fairly simple in concept, if complex in implementation, and most assuredly desperately needed.

The first is to change Medicaid for the poor into a block-grant system to the individual states, allowing them to structure changes as necessary to their individual circumstances. There is an example and precedent for this, being the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity act (aka Welfare Reform) of 1996. Welfare rolls decreased, costs were streamlined and yet, there were no excess lines at soup kitchens nor were there the sensationalized massive lines at homeless shelters. The Statists screamed bloody murder that it would throw women and children into the street. It was a sensationalistic LIE by the Liberal-Statists then, just like it is a sensationalistic LIE now. Will there be some individuals who will be cut off from Medicaid. Most assuredly. In all likelihood, those individuals should not be receiving Medicaid in the first place.

The Second change is to Medicare for the elderly, turning it into a system of subsidized medical care rather than a direct payment provider. This will mean that the seniors will be given a certain dollar amount in subsidy and can then purchase their OWN health care through whatever provider they choose. It changes from an open-ended commitment, which is a DIRECT CAUSE of medical cost inflation to a defined commitment which will then cause seniors to evaluate what services they want and need in a health care plan. That evaluation will, in and of itself, reduce medical insurance inflation costs, because it will restore market forces which have been sorely absent.

The Statists in the government object to the reforms proposed because they realize that once people have control over their own destiny, choices and spending habits, that the Statist loses power to control the life of the individual. They once again make sensationalistic claims that the poor will be denied medical coverage and the plug will get pulled on grandma because she can't pay.

IT - IS - A - LIE - MEANT - TO - KEEP - YOU - IN - FEAR.

In the written word, I can't say it any more deliberately than that. The Statists want the populace in fear and dependent upon the government in order to better control the populace. They believe this is part of the structure necessary to build Utopia, that everyone act in a structured manner and that liberty of self-choice be banished in the interest of "the collective good."

President Obama has stepped into the fray by condemning Rep. Ryan's budget proposal, and claiming that if the wealthiest amongst us, those who can afford to pay, are taxed just a little bit more, that everything will be fine, and no changes need to be made to the entitlement programs. It is IMMORAL to ask those top 1%, who are ALREADY shouldering a Total Income Tax Share of 38.02% to carry MORE regardless of if they can afford it. In fact, the top 5% of earners ALREADY pay for almost 60% of federal income tax revenues (58.72%). If anyone wants to be fool-hardy enough to argue that the top 1% have an Adjusted Gross Income higher as a percentage of wealth you need to be aware that the top 1% make 20% of wealth but, as stated above, pay almost 40% of federal tax revenue. This does not include FICA payments, where the top 10% pay almost 25% of that total burden as well.

Obama's argument is NOT about getting the fortunate few to pay "just a little bit more" but is entirely about redistributing wealth in the form of services and outright payments from those who have EARNED wealth to those who he feels have been denied wealth. If Obama wanted to be serious about funding, he would ask those in the bottom 50% of earners, who currently pay 2.70% of Total Income Tax Share and less than 30% of the FICA share to shoulder the burden they put on the government and pony up to pay for the services that they use. Anything less is simply theft from one group to give to another. The fact that Obama has gone into "campaign mode" by going and demonizing reforms that would shift a small portion of the burden of payment to those who make use of the services shows that he not only understands that this is base theft, but that he knows that if the narrative is anything other that "everything will be fine if we soak the rich" that he will lose BADLY in his reelection efforts.

Also, here we need to address another LIE of Obama, regarding the Affordable Care Act (aka Health Care Reform). During the debate, much fanfare was made by Obama that "If you like your plan, you can keep it." The implication was that the Act would not change the rules so radically that plans would end. In the time since the act was signed, literally THOUSANDS of companies have either ended their coverage, substantially raised their premiums or have threatened to do so and received "waivers" from the requirements in order to continue to provide coverage. The plans in question, called "mini-med" plans were high-deductible, low coverage plans, usually designed specifically to provide coverage to part-time workers. Some of the largest companies receiving waivers I'm sure you've heard of, including McDonalds, WageWorks, Inc., American Heritage Life Insurance, Local 25 SEIU, BCS Insurance, Cracker Barrel, Aetna and the NY United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund. Had these "waivers" not been granted, over 2 MILLION people would have already LOST their health care coverage from the implementation of the Act. So much for the LIE that implementing the act would increase coverage and help keep premium costs down.

The final LIE that is important to address here is one of slight of hand that is also a part of the Affordable Care Act. The Act itself cut $145 Billion from Medicare Advantage over a period of 10 years. The Act on paper shows savings by "double counting" Medicare "savings" (read: reduction in payments) and moving them over to other health programs to fund health insurance for the currently uninsured. This year, when the first reductions were just about to come due to plans that were rated "average," (as opposed to highly-rated) Medicare got a very nasty letter from some of its providers stating that Medicare Advantage (the part that Seniors PAY out of pocket) were going to have to be increased SUBSTANTIALLY or services SEVERELY cut in order to not lose money. The Obama Administration acted quickly and lo-and-behold, decided to change the criteria for grading by grading on a curve and came up with a payment of $6.7 BILLION dollars (no one knows where from other than to say "the Medicare Trust Fund") to make "bonus" payments to the Medicare Advantage providers in order to prevent the increased premiums or service cuts from taking effect.

There is ONLY one reason for this to have occurred, and that is that Obama knows he would face a public rebellion from senior citizens against his plan if, after being assured that "costs will be kept down," that a massive premium increase suddenly followed just as those opposing the Affordable Care Act warned. What it means though is that Obama was not serious when he said that cuts to other programs would be used to fund the Affordable Care Act expansion of health care to the uninsured. Quoting the AP (which I am ALWAYS loath to do):

Still, the episode could be an early sign that Medicare cuts used to finance much of Obama's coverage expansion for the uninsured will turn out to be politically unsustainable, as have other efforts to impose austerity. For example, Congress has routinely waived cuts in Medicare payments to doctors.

If Obama manages to bamboozle the public into reelecting him in 2012 without electing a REALLY strong Conservative House and Senate (and I mean Veto-Proof), expect for all of this financial slight of hand to come to a nasty, quick end and, with no more political stake in the outcome, for brutal cuts, losses of insurance and premium increases to become the new normal.

The statistics and stories cited above can be found at the following addresses:
The Tax Foundation, Fiscal Facts No. 249:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html

The Department of Health & Human Services:
http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/approved_applications_for_waiver.html

The Mother Lode
http://www.mymotherlode.com/news/health/753518/Obama-administration-eases-pain-of-Medicare-cuts.html