Visit Counter

Monday, February 28, 2011

A nation of sheep breeds a govt. of wolves!

On a tip from my brother Gary

This past July, we had the pleasure of sharing a summer barbecue with a
refugee from Cuba . Our dinner conversation was starkly different than most.
This refugee came to the United States as a young boy in the early 1960s.
His family was more fortunate than most as they were able to bring a
suitcase and $100 when they fled Castro's newly formed revolutionary

Our dinner consisted of all-American fare: hamburgers,
potato salad, watermelon and fresh ears of sweet corn. This is a menu
shared with family and friends nationwide, while celebrating the birth
of our beloved America on the Fourth of July.

We began with a simple discussion about our country and the direction
it has taken since Barack Obama came to power. We shared the usual
complaints about the sour economy and liberal social engineering emanating
from the rulers in Washington .

But then he said it. The sentence came naturally. I assume it was
unplanned. But it carried the weight of a freight train.
"You know when Castro took power, none of us knew he was a Communist."

We sat stunned. He continued, "Yes, we all thought he was a patriot, a
nationalist. Before the revolution he didn't sound like a radical."

The comparison at this point was easy, and I interjected,
"You mean just like Barack Obama?" He responded, "Yes, just like Barack Obama."

He continued, "We were all shocked as the government just continued to
grab more power. First they said the revolution is over, so please turn
in your guns. We all complied."

"I remember my uncle saying after it started, 'Castro will only nationalize
some of the big industries, he will never come and take our family hardware
store. 'But that is exactly what happened, Castro started with the sugar
mills and the large industries, but they eventually came and knocked on the
door of our family hardware store. My family had run this store for
generations. They said we now own the hardware store, you work for us.
And that nice, large four-bedroom home you own, it is now our
property also, and you can move yourself and five children into two rooms of
the house because others are moving in with you."

The lesson learned from this discussion is a lesson most
Americans refuse to hear. Political leaders can lie about their
agenda and once in office they can take totally unexpected turns.

If you had asked us three years ago if we thought General
Motors would be nationalized, we would have never believed it. We could
never contemplate a country where the rule of law, the most fundamental building
block of a justice society would be evaporating just like it
did in Castro's Cuba in the early 1960s.

But the news of injustice keeps increasing. Black Panthers are not
charged with wrongdoing by the U.S. Department of Justice
because their crimes are against whites. The bondholders of GM are
stripped of their assets without due process by the government. Governmental
leaders are bribed in full daylight only to have all investigation of
the crimes stifled by the Attorney General. The U.S. borders are
overrun with crime and illegal activity and the leaders in D.C. act as if it is
important to protect the lawbreakers while the innocent are killed and
overrun. When local communities attempt to enforce the law, they are
ridiculed and threatened as racists and bigots. They are sued by the very
administration entrusted with enforcing the law.

Without the rule of law the U.S. Constitution is a sham. Without the
rule of law our beloved America is swiftly becoming a country where only
the well connected and politically powerful will be safe.
As Michelle Malkin has so eloquently explained in her recent book, a
culture of corruption has replaced honest government.
The only way this problem will be fixed is by massive citizen action.
All honest citizens that want to be treated equally must come together
and demand that the favoritism, the bribes, the uneven
enforcement of law end now. And yes, it can happen here.


Friday, February 25, 2011

Wisconsin Democrat Legislators Definitively Located

 Can't wait to see the Republican campaign ads when these scum bags try to get reelected.


Thursday, February 24, 2011

Sometimes a olive pit comes in handy

And all these years I've been throwing them out

Yes Loretta Olive pits are good for your teeth

 Suddenly... after almost 4 years the money has been found!

Rep. Dennis Kucinich's presidential campaign must repay $52,443 to taxpayers

Courage personified: 
Ride in Air Force One = Yes vote
Charles Dharapak, Associated PressRep. Dennis Kucinich of Cleveland flew on Air Force One last year as a guest of President Obama.

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Federal Election Commission on Thursday ordered Rep. Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign to give taxpayers a $52,443 refund, ending a dispute that's lasted nearly four years.

Kucinich's 2004 campaign got $3.3 million in matching funds from the U.S. Treasury, but wasn't supposed to use any of it after March 4, 2004, when his eligibility for matching funds expired because he failed to receive 10 percent of the vote in two consecutive primary elections.

Despite that, the FEC found the Cleveland Democratic congressman used at least $175,696 that contained some matching funds to keep campaigning until July 29, when the Democratic party officially picked John Kerry as its nominee.

Although Kucinich contended he campaigned only with privately raised cash after the ineligibility date, FEC found the $1.9 million Kucinich spent after his eligibility expired exceeded the $1.7 million he collected in that time.

Because the campaign "did not receive sufficient private contributions to cover the total amount that it spent on continuing to campaign expenses, it had to use matching funds to pay for some of those expenses instead," the FEC ruling said.

The FEC sought more than $130,000 from Kucinich after its initial 2007 audit, but reduced the amount after years of appeals from Kucinich.

Kucinich campaign treasurer Donald J. McTigue filed a letter with FEC on Wednesday that said the campaign is "willing to raise additional contributions" to make the repayment and will not exercise its right to appeal although it "respectfully disagrees with the basis for the repayment determination."

"We are pleased with the way it turned out," (he means the olive pit) McTigue said in an interview.


Wednesday, February 23, 2011

How does this work?

This is another BS story from... who else... CBS!  I seem to remember the Dems ramming Obamacare down our throats without one Republican vote. I don't recall any Republicans leaving town.

Now that the shoe is on the other foot in Wisconsin 14 Dems left the state to block the vote. I wonder if they produced a note from the doctor like the protesters did? Speaking of protesters, I hope Walker pulls a Reagan and fires them all. As far as the 14 Democrats are concerned, they were elected to vote, for or against, legislation. If they are unwilling to perform their elected duty, terminate them.


14 Cowardly Wisconsin Dems Hiding At Best Western in Rockford, ILL 

The Wisconsin senate democrats fled the state today rather than vote on a budget repair bill. If you are in the Rockford area please go to the Best Western and record video, take pictures and protest these irresponsible liberal politicians. BTW who's paying the tab for the motel room?

Wis. Democrats speak out

February 22, 2011

As 19 GOP senators returned to work, 14 Democrats remain absent (ran away) to prevent vote on collective bargaining rights legislation(CBSNews)

As the blaring protests continued just outside their chambers, 19 Republican senators returned to work today in Madison, reports CBS News correspondent Cynthia Bowers.

Noticeably absent - the 14 democrats who fled the state six days ago to prevent a vote on legislation that would effectively strip public employees' collective bargaining rights.

Late Monday night, we sat down with seven of them just across the border in Illinois in a location they asked us not to disclose. 
(Not to worry CBS is pulling for you) 

"I don't think we've gone AWOL, I think the governor's gone haywire," said Tim Carpenter, D-Milwaukee.

"We felt that it was imperative to use the only constitutional provision available to us which was to deny a quorum so that bill did not get railroaded through the legislature," said Senator Mark Miller D-minority leader.

When asked what Senator Frank Risser would say to people who say he lost the election that's the facts, he said:

"I was present in 1959 when the state of Wisconsin became the first state in the union to authorize collective bargaining by its state employees. To have it wiped out in less than five days without any previous explanation just isn't right."

Even so, Republican leaders say they have the votes and they vow to pass this legislation. Tuesday night Governor Scott Walker will give a televised fire side chat hoping he can bypass the ongoing protests.


Tuesday, February 22, 2011

The Super Bowl National Anthem

On a tip from Ed Kilbane

So, with all the kindness I can muster, I give this one piece of advice to the next pop star who is asked to sing the national anthem at a sporting event: save the vocal gymnastics and the physical gyrations for your concerts. Just sing this song the way you were taught to sing it in kindergarten — straight up, no styling. Sing it with the constant awareness that there are soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines watching you from bases and outposts all over the world. Don’t make them cringe with your self-centered ego gratification. Sing it as if you are standing before a row of 86-year-old WWII vets wearing their Purple Hearts, Silver Stars and flag pins on their cardigans and you want them to be proud of you for honoring them and the country they love — not because you want them to think you are a superstar musician. They could see that from the costumes, the makeup and the entourages. Sing “The Star Spangled Banner” with the courtesy and humility that tells the audience that it is about America , not you.


Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Man convicted of killing DC intern to be sentenced

The title alone suggests a run of the mill murder. You would never know they were talking about Chandra Levy. Remember all the hoopla this story garnered. I'm not a Gary Condit fan he got what he deserved as far as his career in politics goes. But he wasn't a murderer. The real story here is once the MSM discovered he was here illegally (just like the story below) they dropped it like a hot potato. It never occurred to them if this piece of crap was stopped at the border, or deported, she would still be alive. Ironically he was charged for her murder while serving time in prison for attacking female joggers in the park in the same time frame Levy disappeared.

WASHINGTON -- The man convicted of killing D.C. intern Chandra Levy nearly a decade ago is scheduled to be sentenced.

Ingmar Guandique faces a minimum 30 years in prison and a maximum sentence of life when he's sentenced Friday.

FILE - In this April 22, 2009 file photo, Ingmar Guandique, 27, is escorted from the Violent Crimes Unit by police in Washington. Sentencing is scheduled Friday Feb. 11, 2011 in D.C. Superior Court for Guandique, who was convicted of first-degree murder for Chandra Levy's May 2001 disappearance and death. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File) (Jacquelyn Martin - AP)

In November, a jury convicted Guandique of first-degree murder in Levy's 2001 disappearance and death, despite a lack of witnesses and no DNA evidence linking him to the crime.

Levy's disappearance became a national sensation after she was romantically linked to then California Rep. Gary Condit. Police initially focused on Condit as a suspect. But after Levy's remains were found in Rock Creek Park, police shifted their focus to Guandique, who was already serving a prison sentence for attacking female joggers in the park in the same time frame Levy disappeared.


Monday, February 14, 2011

Hypocrisy times 10

The deceit going on in Iran is beyond belief. What an about-face! This is what the piece of shit (Ahmadinejad) said only a few days ago.

Iran's president said Friday that Egypt's popular uprising shows a new Islamic Middle East is emerging, one that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claims will have no signs of Israel and U.S. "interference."

He also urged Egyptian protesters to persevere until there is a regime change. "It's your right to be free. It's your right to exercise your will and sovereignty ... and choose the type of government and the rulers."

Iranian authorities say they fear a repeat of protests that broke out in 2009 following a disputed election [EPA]

(Click for larger image)

Iranian lawmakers condemn protests; call for execution of leaders

Tens of thousands of protesters marched through the Iranian capital, Tehran, on Monday in defiance of the government.

Tens of thousands of protesters marched through the Iranian capital, Tehran, on Monday in defiance of the government.

Iranian lawmakers denounced Monday's protests in Tehran and called for the execution of two opposition leaders for inciting the demonstrations, Iran's state-run Press TV reported Tuesday.
Members of the Iranian parliament issued fiery chants against opposition leaders and former presidential candidates Mehdi Karrubi and Mir Hossein MoussavPress TV aired video Tuesday of lawmakers chanting "Moussavi, Karroubi ... execute them."

Lawmakers also named former President Mohammad Khatami in some of the death chants.

Iranian leaders have praised Egypt's revolution, but Monday when protesters in Iran took to the streets the government cracked down hard.

Last week, the Iranian government rounded up activists after Karrubi and Moussavi called for supporters to gather at Azadi Square -- the site of mass protests by Iran's opposition movement after the disputed 2009 presidential elections.

Despite the security crackdown, tens of thousands of demonstrators marched in Tehran Monday.

Patrolling security forces battled protesters with batons and tear gas for much of the day.

The large crowd was largely cleared from the city's streets by nightfall and the main squares near Tehran University remained free of police, security forces or protesters

Dozens of demonstrators were detained during Monday's protests while internet videos showed others had been chased and beaten.

One person was shot and killed during the protests, according to Iran's semiofficial Fars news agency. Several others were injured and listed in serious condition as a result of the shooting, which the Iranian government blamed on "agitators and seditionists."

Video uploaded to YouTube showed throngs of demonstrators marching, burning posters of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and in one instance beating a man who appeared to try to remove a poster from the hands of protesters.

Other YouTube video showed police in riot gear pursuing dozens of people running away from the baton-wielding officers.

Other videos show similar protests going on in other cities in Iran such as Shiraz and Isfahan.

CNN cannot independently verify the authenticity of the videos and witnesses declined to be named for fear of retribution.

Reporting from Iran proved extremely difficult Monday -- foreign journalists were denied visas, accredited journalists living in the country were restricted from covering the demonstrations and internet speeds slowed to a crawl in an apparent attempt to both limit protest organizing and restrict information from being transmitted out of the country.

Catherine Ashton, the European Union foreign policy chief, released a statement Tuesday urging Iranian officials to "fully respect and protect the rights of their citizens, including freedom of expression and the right to assemble peacefully."

CNN's Reza Sayah and Mitra Mobasherat contributed to this report


Friday, February 11, 2011

The Messiah is getting worried

On a tip from Keith.


First it was high speed trains

Now this.

President Obama pitches $18 billion wireless broadband plan

By Cecilia Kang

MARQUETTE, Mich. — In this remote snow-swept college town rejuvenated in parts by Internet commerce, President Obama on Thursday outlined a plan to create similar economic stories through the expansion of super-fast wireless Internet connections.

Speaking at Northern Michigan University, Obama unveiled an ambitious blueprint to use $18 billion in federal funds to get 98 percent of the nation connected to the Internet on smartphones and tablet computers in five years.

To get there, the federal government will try to bring more radiowaves into the hands of wireless carriers to bolster the nation's networks and prevent a jam of Internet traffic. He said he hoped to auction airwaves currently in the hands of television stations and government agencies to raise about $27.8 billion.

And with the money raised, the government would fund new rural 4G wireless networks and a mobile communications system for fire, policy and emergency responders. The remaining funds raised — about $10 billion — would go toward lowering the federal deficit over the next decade.

First outlined in his State of the Union speech, the plan is part of a push to reshape the nation's infrastructure of deteriorating roadways and manufacturing plants into one with high-speed railways and high-speed Internet networks the president said are essential to compete globally in years ahead.

"To attract the best jobs and newest industries, we've got to out-innovate, out-educate, out-build and out-hustle the rest of the world," Obama said in his speech.

The plan is ambitious and complicated and relies heavily on the participation of cautious television broadcasters who are loath to easily give up their greatest asset — spectrum, experts say.

Specifically, $10.7 billion would go toward building an interoperable public safety network so first responders can communicate, send video files and e-mails during disasters and national security threats.

The administration also plans a one-time allotment of $5 billion from a federal phone subsidy to be used for wireless broadband expansion in rural areas. About $3 billion would go to a government research and development program for ways to use mobile Internet access for emerging technologies and applications in health, education and energy.

Its estimates don't include how much money it would return to broadcasters who give up airwaves in voluntary "incentive auctions." Those television broadcasters will get a cut of the proceeds, the administration has promised though it hasn't offered more details.

But broadcasters want more guarantees auctions will be voluntary and they are searching for details on how much they would receive from the auctions.

Those details, however, are crucial for broadcasters, said Gordon Smith, president of the National Association of Broadcasters.

"We aren't against the plan but want to make sure this is truly voluntary, and we want to hold harmless those who don't want to participate," Smith said.

They are sitting on what is considered beachfront spectrum that is ideal for powerful Internet connections from a flood of Droids, iPhones and Xoom tablets hitting the market.

"It is not at all clear that incentive auctions will take place," Gigi Sohn, president of the public interest group Public Knowledge, said in a statement. She praised the federal attention to mobile broadband technology but said, "even under circumstances of familiar auction procedures, estimates of revenue can vary greatly from what is actually achieved."

Some lawmakers point to a questionable track record for federal programs to expand broadband connections.

As Obama toured Marquette's Getz's Clothiers, a retailer that has expanded its business on the Web thanks to broadband Internet for Marquette's population of 20,000, the House Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing on oversight of recent funding for broadband programs.

More than $7 billion in stimulus funds have been distributed to broadband grants in rural areas and lawmakers grilled recipients and government officials over economic gains from those grants.

"Before we target any more of our scarce taxpayer dollars for broadband, it is critical to examine whether the money already being spent is having an impact, as well as how we can minimize waste, fraud and abuse," said Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), chairman of the energy and commerce committee.

Because the funds for new mobile broadband networks would come from auctions and not from the U.S. Treasury, it "has a better-than-even chance of happening," Paul Gallant, an analyst at investment firm MF Global said.

The White House said the funds won't come out of taxpayer pockets, pointing to its expectations of auction proceeds.

Obama chose to visit Marquette because of the town's success in attracting commercial partners such as Intel to build a mobile broadband network based on WiMax technology on the university campus. Northern Michigan University partnered with towns nearby to expand cell towers so that elementary schools, police and residents could also access wireless networks fast enough to access streaming videos without a wireline connection.

"If you can do this in the snowy wilderness of the Upper Peninsula, we can do this all across America," Obama said.


Thursday, February 10, 2011

King chides Napolitano for belated embrace of the term "terrorist"

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said "terrorist" and "terrorism" more than 60 times in her opening statement Wednesday before the House Homeland Security Committee. At least that was the count of committee chairman, Rep. Peter King of New York. He pointed out that she, rarely if ever, used the words last year and asked if the administration had backed away from the phrase "war on terror." 

Napolitano said her use of the word evolved from working with law enforcement and intelligence agencies and had nothing to do with any policy changes. (Just exactly what does that mean…they had to explain to her what a terrorist was?) Later, Rep. Paul Broun, Republican of Georgia, criticized the administration for working to eliminate the words "jihadist" and "Islamic extremist" in reference to terrorist acts. Broun said that political correctness has led to more grandmothers and children being patted down at airports than potential terrorists. "I have yet to see a grandma with chemicals in her bloomers," he said.


Thursday, February 3, 2011

No simple solutions

Egypt today

This latest episode in Egypt smells like the Iran of 1979.

 They couldn't wait to get rid of the Shah. Overjoyed they were with the prospects of Khomeini who promptly pursued the Iran-Iraq war. What they accomplished .... essentially trading one dictator for another who was even more ruthless. The country's been run by Mullah's who rule with and iron fist ever since. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is only a "puppet president" but is nonetheless dangerous, not to mention insane.

Sooner or later push will come to shove and Iran will be bombed. Either by us or Israel. Thousands of Iranians will most likely be killed.

Egypt should take another cold hard look at the situation before going off half cocked. 

Mubarak is no prize package but then again he certainly is no Saddam Hussein either. If the Muslim Brotherhood fills the vacuum all bets are off. 

A prelude of things to come

Muslim Brotherhood blames Israel for Egyptian unrest

No it ain't the Klu Klux Klan 

Mohammed Ghanem one of the Muslim Brotherhood leaders in Egypt called on his country to stop pumping gas to Israel and prepare the Egyptian army to wage war against Israel.

In an interview on the Iranian television station al-Alam, Ghanem blamed Israel for supporting President Hosni Mubarak's regime but warned that neither the Egyptian police or army will be able to stop the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Muslim Brotherhood is the largest opposition group in the country and criticized Mubarak in the latest parliamentary elections of rigging the votes. While they have not come out vocally in the recent wave of anti-government protests, many believe they are purposely maintain a low profile until the time is right to attempt to take over the government.

Bottom line.

A Muslim could step on a nail and swear to Allah an Israeli put it there.


Tuesday, February 1, 2011

Judge Rules Health Care Law Is Unconstitutional

A U.S. district judge on Monday threw out the nation's health care law, declaring it unconstitutional because it violates the Commerce Clause and surely reviving a feud among competing philosophies about the role of government.

Judge Roger Vinson, in Pensacola, Fla., ruled that as a result of the unconstitutionality of the "individual mandate" that requires people to buy insurance, the entire law must be declared void.

"I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one-sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute
has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here," Vinson wrote.

"While the individual mandate was clearly 'necessary and essential' to the act as drafted, it is not 'necessary and essential' to health care reform in general," he continued. "Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void."

Department of Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said the department plans to appeal Vinson's ruling to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

“We strongly disagree with the court’s ruling today and continue to believe – as other federal courts have found – that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional," she said. "There is clear and well-established legal precedent that Congress acted within its constitutional authority in passing this law and we are confident that we will ultimately prevail on appeal.

"We are analyzing this opinion to determine what steps, if any -- including seeking a stay -- are necessary while the appeal is pending to continue our progress toward ensuring that Americans do not lose out on the important protections this law provides, that the millions of children and adults who depend on Medicaid programs receive the care the law requires, and that the millions of seniors on Medicare receive the benefits they need," she added.

The case is undoubtedly headed to the Supreme Court. But for now, opponents of President Obama's signature domestic legislation exalted while supporters denounced the decision.

"I applaud the ruling today by Judge Vinson," said Florida Gov. Rick Scott, who, prior to getting elected in November, helped lead the charge against the law. "In making his ruling, the judge has confirmed what many of us knew from the start -- ObamaCare is an unprecedented and unconstitutional infringement on the liberty of the American people. ... Patients should have more control over health care decisions than a federal government that is spending money faster than it can be printed."

"Judge Vinson's decision is radical judicial activism run amok, and it will undoubtedly be reversed on appeal. The decision flies in the face of three other decisions, contradicts decades of legal precedent, and could jeopardize families' health care security," said Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA. "If this decision were allowed to stand, it would have devastating consequences for America's families."

Vinson's decision, while surprising, was not unforeseen. In October, the judge dismissed four of the six counts in the suit led by then-Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum and joined by 25 other states. But he allowed two counts, including one challenging the law's controversial requirement that Americans buy health insurance, to proceed. Arguments were heard in December.

In his earlier ruling, Vinson said that a government report called the requirement to buy insurance legally unprecedented and worth examining in court.

"The individual mandate applies across the board. People have no choice and there is no way to avoid it. Those who fall under the individual mandate either comply with it, or they are penalized. It is not based on an activity that they make the choice to undertake. Rather, it is based solely on citizenship and on being alive," he wrote.

Nearly two dozen suits have been filed in federal courts, but Monday's ruling is the biggest judicial decision to come down the pike since Congress last March passed the bill aimed at covering 30 million uninsured Americans whether they want insurance or not.

In other cases, a federal district judge in Richmond, Va., ruled the individual mandate is unconstitutional but left standing other parts of the law. In Michigan, the argument concerning the "individual mandate" -- the central tenet that requires Americans to start buying health insurance in 2014 or pay a penalty -- was thrown out by another federal judge.

"That judge, under his mindset, said basically if someone thought that I were overweight, if they rule this way, the federal government would be able to mandate that I go down to the Gold's Gym and fill out an application and contract with Gold's Gym to lose weight and lower my cholesterol," said South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, whose state is among the parties filing the multi-state suit. "That is the kind of logic that we're going to right now where you're actually telling people that they have to engage in an activity and that is simply too broad a policy for the federal government."

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a repeal of the 10-year, $1 trillion plan that critics say will cost closer to $2.6 trillion. But the repeal bill will likely die in the Senate, meaning Vinson's ruling is the newest grounds on which supporters and opponents proceed.

Defenders of the law say that Americans need to be covered from ruthless insurance companies that either refuse to insure children with illnesses and adults with pre-existing conditions or charge exorbitant amounts for individual coverage. The law aims to provide a federal umbrella under which Americans can purchase and keep insurance regardless of their health, career changes or ability to pay.

But Vinson said that is not the U.S. government's job.

"Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution. Again, this case is not about whether the act is wise or unwise legislation. It is about the constitutional role of the federal government," he wrote.

Supporters of the law also note that Congressional Budget Office figures that show if repealed, government deficits will climb by $230 billion over the next 10 years.

Critics counter with a "junk in, junk out" description of the CBO's estimates, claiming the numbers used to reach the conclusions are bogus and based on best-case scenarios that don't realize additional spending and unlikely savings, particularly as the law, in the first decade, collects taxes for 10 years though it only pays for six years of coverage and relies on money to be collected for a separate health program -- Medicare.

In his State of the Union address, Obama said he was willing to open his mind to changes in the law if they made dollars and sense and didn't prevent patients with pre-existing conditions or other barriers to insurance companies from gaining coverage.

He pointed to the near-universally hated 1099 provision that orders businesses to report to the Internal Revenue Service all purchases exceeding $600 as the first provision to be scrapped.

Obama Chief of Staff Bill Daley repeated the president's position on Sunday, adding that the law was intended to help employers as much as patients.

"The president has said he's open to changes to this. He is not open to re-fighting the entire fight of health care," Daley told CBS' "Face the Nation."

"I absolutely believe, having been in business and hearing from business people, the importance of a need for the reform of health care. It was the business community that was really saying to the politicians, this is costing us too much, it's too much of a wet blanket on the economy," he said.