Putting Military Pay on the Table

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

Published: November 30, 2013 205 Comments

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Google+
• Save
• Email
• Share
• Print
• Reprints
• 

Big-ticket weapons like aircraft carriers and the F-35 fighter jet have to be part of any conversation about cutting Pentagon spending to satisfy the mandatory budget reductions known as the sequester. But compensation for military personnel has to be on the table, too — even though no other defense issue is more politically volatile or emotionally fraught.

Today's Editorials

• Editorial: Voter ID Gets Another Day in Court (December 1, 2013)

• Editorial: Congress Takes on Abusive Patent Suits (December 1, 2013)

• Editorial | Sunday Observer: Years of Mourning the Losses in Mumbai (December 1, 2013)

Readers’ Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

• Read All Comments (205) »

After a decade of war, the very idea of cutting benefits to soldiers, sailors and Marines who put their lives on the line seems ungrateful. But America’s involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is over or winding down, and the Pentagon is obliged to find nearly $1 trillion in savings over 10 years. Tough choices will be required in all parts of the budget. Compensation includes pay, retirement benefits, health care and housing allowances. It consumes about half the military budget, and it is increasing.

In a speech last month, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel warned that without serious savings in this area, “we risk becoming an unbalanced force, one that is well compensated but poorly trained and equipped, with limited readiness and capability.” Meanwhile, Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army chief of staff, told a hearing: “The cost of a soldier has doubled since 2001; it’s going to almost double again by 2025. We can’t go on like this, so we have to come up with [new] compensation packages.”

The Wall Street Journal reported recently that military commanders have agreed to a plan that would curb the growth of pay and benefits for housing, education and health. But it must still be approved by Mr. Hagel and President Obama. In past years, Congress has approved pay raises and benefit improvements and resisted rollbacks. It is possible that politically savvy Pentagon leaders may be hitting the personnel issue hard right now to force lawmakers to end the sequester or to otherwise soften its blow to the overall military budget. Personnel costs are not the only ones rising. Weapons procurement has risen 88 percent from 2001 to 2012.

But many Washington-based think tanks, spanning all ideologies, are also pushing reform. In June, a group of them — including the conservative American Enterprise Institute and the liberal Center for American Progress — called for a comprehensive review and modernization of the military compensation system, which has been largely unchanged for 40 years.

One problem is that unrestrained compensation costs will edge out funds for training, readiness and weapons. A recent Congressional Budget Office study said that between 2001 and 2012, when private-sector wages were effectively flat, basic military pay rose by 28 percent in inflation-adjusted dollars. The study also said that cash compensation for enlisted personnel, including food and housing allowances, is greater than the wages and salaries of 90 percent of their civilian counterparts. And health care costs are projected to rise from $51 billion in 2013 to $77 billion by 2022.

Where, then, to cut? Reducing the size of the armed forces would have the quickest effect. The budget office suggests giving smaller pay raises; replacing the current retirement system, under which active-duty members qualify for immediate benefits after 20 years of service, with a defined benefit system that partially vests earlier in a service member’s career; and increasing health care enrollment fees, deductibles or co-payments. Military retirees pay only a fraction of what civilians pay for health care premiums, and those with second careers often choose to stay on the government plan. It makes sense that they be asked to assume a greater share. To the extent possible, any changes should affect future recruits rather than current enlistees.

Soldiers must be adequately compensated. But when programs across the government are being slashed, including those affecting the most vulnerable Americans, no budget account can be immune from reductions and reforms. It is a difficult balance to get right.

Meet The New York Times’s Editorial Board »

Airlines Urged by U.S. to Give Notice to China this is a dircet treat to norerad

Airlines Urged by U.S. to Give Notice to China

By PETER BAKER and JANE PERLEZ

Published: November 29, 2013 314 Comments

WASHINGTON — Even as China scrambled fighter jets to enforce its newly declared air defense zone, the Obama administration said on Friday that it was advising American commercial airlines to comply with China’s demands to be notified in advance of flights through the area.

The New York Times

Multimedia

Graphic

Territorial Disputes Involving Japan

Graphic

Overlapping Airspace Claims in the East China Sea

Related

• China Patrols Air Zone Over Disputed Islands (November 29, 2013)

• After Challenges, China Appears to Backpedal on Air Zone (November 28, 2013)

• China’s Move Puts Airspace in Spotlight (November 28, 2013)

Connect With Us on Twitter

Follow @nytimesworld for international breaking news and headlines.

Twitter List: Reporters and Editors

Readers’ Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

• Read All Comments (314) »

While the United States continued to defy China by sending military planes into the zone unannounced, administration officials said they had made the decision to urge civilian planes to adhere to Beijing’s new rules in part because they worried about an unintended confrontation.

Although the officials made clear that the administration rejects China’s unilateral declaration of control of the airspace over a large area of the East China Sea, the guidance to the airlines could be interpreted in the region as a concession in the battle of wills with China.

“The U.S. government generally expects that U.S. carriers operating internationally will operate consistent with” notice requirements “issued by foreign countries,” the State Department said in a statement, adding that that “does not indicate U.S. government acceptance of China’s requirements.”

The decision contrasted with that of Japan’s government this week, when it asked several Japanese airlines, which were voluntarily following China’s rules, to stop, apparently out of fear that complying with the rules would add legitimacy to Chinese claims to islands that sit below the now contested airspace. China’s newly declared zone, experts say, is intended mainly to whittle away at Japan’s hold on the islands, which it has long administered.

On Saturday, a Japanese Foreign Ministry official said, “We will not comment on what other countries are doing with regard to filing flight plans.” It was not immediately clear if the Obama administration had notified Japan, a close ally, of its decision.

An official at Japan’s Transport Ministry said it had no immediate change to its advice to Japanese airlines.

The American decision drew criticism from some quarters. Stephen Yates, a former Asia adviser to Dick Cheney when he was vice president, said it was “a bad move” that would undercut allies in the region that take a different stance.

But Strobe Talbott, a former deputy secretary of state under Bill Clinton and now president of the Brookings Institution, said it was important to avoid an accident while drawing a firm line. “The principal option is to be extremely clear that disputes” over territory “must be resolved through diplomacy and not unilateral action,” he said.

American officials said they began having talks with airlines on Wednesday and characterized the guidance Friday as simply following established international air protocols independent of any political deliberations. The American announcement came on the same day that Chinese state news media said that China sent jets aloft and that they identified two American surveillance planes and 10 Japanese aircraft in the air defense zone the country declared last weekend.

Although there was no indication that China’s air force showed any hostile intent, the move raised tensions. The Chinese had also sent jets on patrol into the contested airspace the day before, but Xinhua, the state-run news agency, indicated that the planes on Friday were scrambled specifically to respond to foreign jets in the area.

Earlier in the week, the United States sent unarmed B-52s into the area, and they proceeded unimpeded. China then appeared to back down somewhat from its initial declaration that planes must file advance flight plans or face possible military action.

The administration’s decision on Friday underscored the delicate position President Obama finds himself in, drawn into a geopolitical dispute that will test how far he is willing to go to contain China’s rising regional ambitions.

China’s move thrust the United States into the middle of the already prickly territorial clash between Beijing and Tokyo, a position the administration had avoided for months even while reiterating that the mutual defense treaty with Japan covers the islands. After the Chinese declaration last weekend, American officials feared that, if left unchallenged, the Chinese action would lead to ever greater claims elsewhere in the Pacific region.

• 1
• 2

Next Pag

Airlines Urged by U.S. to Give Notice to China

Published: November 29, 2013 314 Comments

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Google+
• Save
• Email
• Share
• Print
• Single Page
• Reprints
• 

(Page 2 of 2)

But with planes flying so fast and in such proximity, the administration’s worries grew that an accident or an unintended confrontation could spiral out of control. A midair collision between a Chinese fighter jet and an American spy plane off the coast of China in 2001 killed the fighter pilot and forced the spy plane to make an emergency landing on Hainan Island, setting off a diplomatic episode until Beijing released the American crew and sent the plane back, broken into parts.

Multimedia

Graphic

Territorial Disputes Involving Japan

Graphic

Overlapping Airspace Claims in the East China Sea

Related

• China Patrols Air Zone Over Disputed Islands (November 29, 2013)

• After Challenges, China Appears to Backpedal on Air Zone (November 28, 2013)

• China’s Move Puts Airspace in Spotlight (November 28, 2013)

Connect With Us on Twitter

Follow @nytimesworld for international breaking news and headlines.

Twitter List: Reporters and Editors

Readers’ Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

• Read All Comments (314) »

“The challenge here, as with April 2001, is when you have an unexpected crisis, things escalate very, very quickly without any plans for de-escalation,” said Jon M. Huntsman Jr., Mr. Obama’s first ambassador to China. “That’s one of the big challenges we have in the U.S.-China relationship.”

One of the biggest challenges for Mr. Obama will be navigating the complicated personalities of leaders in Tokyo and Beijing. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan, a strong nationalist, has vowed to stand firm against any Chinese encroachments, while President Xi Jinping of China has recently taken over as leader and has promised to advance a strong foreign policy meant to win his country more recognition as an international power.

The two countries have been at odds for years over the uninhabited islands known as Diaoyu by the Chinese and Senkaku by the Japanese. The United States does not take a position on the dispute.

Although administration officials believe China’s actions are mainly meant to give it an advantage in its struggle with Japan over the islands, experts on Asia say they also fit China’s larger goal of establishing itself as the dominant power in the region, displacing the United States.

Administration officials said they decided to proceed with routine military training and surveillance flights so as not to legitimize China’s assertion of control over the airspace or encourage it to establish a similar air zone over the South China Sea, where it has other territorial disputes. China had said it expected to set up other air defense zones, and experts said they expected one to cover that sea.

“We don’t want this to be the first in what would be a series of assertive moves,” said an administration official, who insisted on anonymity to discuss a delicate diplomatic matter. “The whole area’s fraught.”

Mr. Obama is sending Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to the region next week, when he will meet with Mr. Xi and Mr. Abe as well as South Korea’s leader. Although the trip was previously scheduled, it will put Mr. Biden in the center of the dispute, and aides said he would deliver a message of caution to both sides to avoid escalation.

Many countries, including the United States and Japan, have air defense zones, but the coordinates of the Chinese zone overlap those of Japan, South Korea and Taiwan.

Peter Dutton, the director of the China Maritime Studies Institute at the United States Naval War College, said the new air zone also gives China a legal structure to intercept American surveillance flights in international airspace, which have long irritated Beijing. “It is clear that the Chinese do not seek regional stability on any level,” he said. “They intend to be disruptive in order to remake the Asian regional system in accordance with their preferences.”

Obama Backs Down to China

by Keith Koffler on November 30, 2013, 10:40 am

This is the difference between strong leaders and weak leaders. And it will have consequences for the United States
I was about to write a post – and would have before if I wasn’t trying to get in a little break for Thanksgiving – about how President Obama had finally made a bold move in the international arena and immediately reaped a reward. He stood up to Chinese aggression by saying Thanks but no thanks to China’s unilateral expansion of its “air defense” zone, sending a couple of B-52s right through the area without notifying the Chinese, as had been demanded.
The Chinese then sputtered that they didn’t mean to hurt anyone and generally seemed to be backing off, though they started sending up some jets to “escort” those in the area.
And then I read this in the New York Times:

Even as China scrambled fighter jets to enforce its newly declared air defense zone, the Obama administration said on Friday that it was advising American commercial airlines to comply with China’s demands to be notified in advance of flights through the area.

While the United States continued to defy China by sending military planes into the zone unannounced, administration officials said they had made the decision to urge civilian planes to adhere to Beijing’s new rules in part because they worried about an unintended confrontation.

The decision contrasted with that of Japan’s government this week, when it asked several Japanese airlines, which were voluntarily following China’s rules, to stop, apparently out of fear that complying with the rules would add legitimacy to Chinese claims to islands that sit below the now contested airspace.

Although the officials made clear that the administration rejects China’s unilateral declaration of control of the airspace over a large area of the East China Sea, the guidance to the airlines could be interpreted in the region as a concession in the battle of wills with China.

Well, your damn right this will be interpreted as a concession. Because it is a concession, and a dangerous one that will encourage more Chinese aggression in the region. And not only those we’re supposed to be protecting in the region will notice our weakness. It will be duly noted in Tehran and Jerusalem as well.

The concern with the safety of civilian flights is understandable but must not be determinative. We live in a dangerous world. We must accept some dangers in the interest of our national security, lest the world become even more dangerous.

It’s just the latest attempt by the the Obama administration to put the world on notice that the United States IS to be messed with and must not be counted on.

This is a striking contrast to Ronald Reagan’s handling of the illegal air traffic controllers’ strike in 1981. He fired them all, and there was plenty of consternation in the nation and even within the White House about the chance of an accident. But some of the strikers caved, new ones were hired and trained, and nothing happened.

What’s more, the Soviet politburo realized it was no longer dealing with a feckless America, and the knowledge that they were up against a serious and determined adversary helped lead to the end of the Cold War.

A serious and determined adversary is not what our enemies face today.

Subject: The Quran Proves that the Land of Israel Belongs to the Jewish People

Subject: The Quran Proves that the Land of Israel Belongs to the Jewish People swhitebull    6/3/2004 9:01:27 AM

From an interview with a Muslim Scholar teaching Religious Studies at San Diego State University: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13587 The Koran and the Jews By Jamie Glazov FrontPageMagazine.com | June 3, 2004 Frontpage Interview's guest today is Prof. Khaleel Mohammed, Assistant Professor at the Department of Religious Studies at San Diego State University. FP: Prof. Mohammed welcome to Frontpage Interview. Mohammed: You do me a great honor. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to introduce my views to your readers. As you know, I am interested in a moderate Islam, one that is inclusive and is concerned about all human rights. My mission is to help reclaim the beauty that once was practiced in Islam, a message not currently in fashion amongst more traditional or fundamentalist Muslims. FP: You are yourself a Muslim and yet, quite unconventionally amongst Islamic clerics and scholars, you teach that the Koran says Israel belongs to the Jews. Can you educate us on this Islamic teaching? Mohammed: The Qur'an adumbrates several principles that hover around a common theme: God does not love injustice and will assist those who are wrongly treated. And it focuses so much on this that the person most mentioned in the Qur'an is Moses -- who is presented as God's revolutionary, and who leads a people despised and tormented for no other reason than that they worshipped God, out of the land of bondage to the Promised Holy Land. The Qur'an in Chapter 5: 20-21 states quite clearly: Moses said to his people: O my people! Remember the bounty of God upon you when He bestowed prophets upon you , and made you kings and gave you that which had not been given to anyone before you amongst the nations. O my people! Enter the Holy Land which God has written for you, and do not turn tail, otherwise you will be losers." The Quran goes on to say why the Israelites were not allowed to enter the land for forty years...but the thrust of my analysis is where Moses says that the Holy Land is that which God has "written" for the Israelites. In both Jewish and Islamic understandings of the term "written", there is the meaning of finality, decisiveness and immutability. And so we have the Written Torah (unchangeable) and the Oral Torah (which represents change to suit times). And in the Qur'an we have "Written upon you is the fast"--to show that this is something that is decreed, and which none can change. So the simple fact is then, from a faith-based point of view: If God has "written" Israel for the people of Moses, who can change this? The Qur'an refers to the exiles, but leaves it open for return...saying to the Jews that if they keep their promise to God, then God will keep the divine promise to them. WE may argue that the present state of Israel was not created in the most peaceful means, and that many were displaced--for me, this is not the issue. The issue is that when the Muslims entered that land in the seventh century, they were well aware of its rightful owners, and when they failed to act according to divine mandate (at least as perceived by followers of all Abrahamic faiths), they aided and abetted in a crime. And the present situation shows the fruits of that action--wherein innocent Palestinians and Israelis are being killed on a daily basis. I also draw your attention to the fact that the medieval exegetes of Qur'an--without any exception known to me--recognized Israel as belonging to the Jews, their birthright given to them. Indeed, two of Islam's most famous exegetes explained "written" from Quran 5:21 thus: Ibn Kathir (d. 774/1373) said: ?That which God has written for you? i.e. That which God has promised to you by the words of your father Israel that it is the inheritance of those among you who believe? . Muhammad al-Shawkani (d. 1250/1834) interprets Kataba to mean ?that which God has allotted and predestined for you in His primordial knowledge, deeming it as a place of residence for you? (1992, 2:41). The idea that Israel does not belong to the Jews is a modern one, probably based on the Mideast rejection of European colonialism etc, but certainly not having anything to do with the Qur'an. The unfortunate fact is that most Muslims do NOT read the Qur?an and interpret it on the basis of its own words; rather they let imams and preachers do that for them. FP: You say that when the Muslims entered the sacred land in the seventh century, ?they aided and abetted in a crime.? Can you expand on this a bit? How honest is contemporary Islam with this fact? Mohammed: How did the Jews lose their right to live in the Holy Land? All reliable reports show that it was by the looting and burning that followed from 70-135 C.E. When the Muslims entered the place in 638, liberating it from the Byzantines, they knew full well to whom it rightfully belonged

Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

ilpars    Israel Belongs to the Jewish People not because of religion but because they earned the right.   6/3/2004 10:24:31 AM Israel belongs to Jews not because of religious issues. Israel belongs to them because they have fought, died and won the land they saw as their homeland by their blood. We Turks call this the right of blood. And there is another reason why land of Israel belonged to Jews. Because every nation in the world recognised it so by international agrements. The first time Arab nations signed a treaty with Israel, they had recognised this fact. And this is the right of recognition.   Quote    Reply tank    RE The Quran proves that the land of Israel Belongs to the jewish People   6/3/2004 1:21:42 PM WELL after reading the interview.I have no doubt anymore ,Well not that I ever did.ISREAL LIVE ON FOREVER AND EVER..   Quote    Reply orna    thank you   12/30/2008 12:39:57 PM   Quote    Reply orna     am a Jewish Israeli, and have lived in kashmir on and off for the past few years. The pain that I feel when I see the hatred of Muslims for Israel is   12/30/2008 12:42:13 PM I am a Jewish Israeli, and have lived in kashmir on and off for the past few years. The pain that I feel when I see the hatred of Muslims for Israel is hard to bear. I know what it says in the Torah and Quran and I wish that the Muslims will read their Quran understand the importence of Israel, the right of Israel to the land of Israel & love and respect Israel insted of hating. I say to them just think, the Israel you hate is the holy name given to Yaakov (a prophet whom you love and bless his name) by almighty, so how can you hate this name or this nation??? The list of Israels prophets and their contribution to Islam and the world is long , there is so much..... Most of my pleads go on deaf ears. But I believe in the G-D of Israel The G-d of Abraham, Ischac, Yaakov, Moses and so many more (peace be upon them) and I know the truth will prevail and Almighty will protect his people and I thank you for spreading this truth straight out of your own holy Quran, May Almighty bless you for this and may truth, peace, and justice prevail in this world, Amen.I am a Jewish Israeli, and have lived in kashmir on and off for the past few years. The pain that I feel when I see the hatred of Muslims for Israel is hard to bear. I know what it says in the Torah and Quran and I wish that the Muslims will read their Quran understand the importence of Israel, the right of Israel to the land of Israel & love and respect Israel insted of hating. I say to them just think, the Israel you hate is the holy name given to Yaakov (a prophet whom you love and bless his name) by almighty, so how can you hate this name or this nation??? The list of Israels prophets and their contribution to Islam and the world is long , there is so much..... Most of my pleads go on deaf ears. But I believe in the G-D of Israel The G-d of Abraham, Ischac, Yaakov, Moses and so many more (peace be upon them) and I know the truth will prevail and Almighty will protect his people and I thank you for spreading this truth straight out of your own holy Quran, May Almighty bless you for this and may truth, peace, and justice prevail in this world, Amen. From an interview with a Muslim Scholar teaching Religious Studies at San Diego State University: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13587" target="_blank">link The Koran and the Jews By Jamie Glazov FrontPageMagazine.com | June 3, 2004 Frontpage Interview's guest today is Prof. Khaleel Mohammed, Assistant Professor at the Department of Religious Studies at San Diego State University. FP: Prof. Mohammed welcome to Frontpage Interview. Mohammed: You do me a great honor. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to introduce my views to your readers. As you know, I am interested in a moderate Islam, one that is inclusive and is concerned about all human rights. My mission is to help reclaim the beauty that once was practiced in Islam, a message not currently in fashion amongst more traditional or fundamentalist Muslims.

The Scheme behind the Obamacare Fraud

The Scheme behind the Obamacare Fraud
Lies smooth the transition to a fundamental transformation of our health-care system.

By Andrew C. McCarthy

• Archive
• Latest
• RSS
• Send

inShare28

Print

Text  

Comments

1307

Andrew C. McCarthy

Fraud can be so brazen it takes people’s breath away. But for a prosecutor tasked with proving a swindle — or what federal law describes as a “scheme to defraud” — the crucial thing is not so much the fraud. It is the scheme.
To be sure, it is the fraud — the individual false statements, sneaky omissions, and deceptive practices — that grabs our attention. As I’ve recounted in this space, President Obama repeatedly and emphatically vowed, “If you like your health-insurance plan, you can keep your health-insurance plan, period.” The incontrovertible record — disclosures by the Obama administration in the Federal Register, representations by the Obama Justice Department in federal court — proves that Obama’s promises were systematically deceitful. The president’s audacity is bracing, and not just because he lies so casually while looking us in the eye. Obama also insults our intelligence. It is one thing to tuck evidence of falsehood into a few paragraphs on page 34,552 of a dusty governmental journal no one may ever look at. It is quite something else to announce it in a legal brief publicly filed in a case of intense interest to millions of Americans aggrieved by Obamacare’s religious-liberty violations. To be so bold is to say, in effect, “The public is too ignorant and disengaged to catch me, and the press is too deep in my pocket to raise alarms.”

Advertisement

Still, to show that politicians lie is like pointing out that it gets dark at night. The lie, the fraud, does not tell us why they lied in this instance. The fraud does not tell us what the stakes are. To know that, we must understand the scheme — the design.
The point of showing that Obama is carrying out a massive scheme to defraud — one that certainly would be prosecuted if committed in the private sector — is not to agitate for a prosecution that is never going to happen. It is to demonstrate that there is logic to the lies. There is an objective that the fraud aims to achieve. The scheme is the framework within which the myriad deceptions are peddled. Once you understand the scheme, once you can put the lies in a rational context, you understand why fraud was the president’s only option — and why “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan” barely scratches the surface of Obamacare’s deceit.
In 2003, when he was an ambitious Illinois state senator from a hyper-statist district, Obama declared:

I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health-care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. . . . Everybody in, nobody out. A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. That’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. 

That is the Obamacare scheme.
It is a Fabian plan to move an unwilling nation, rooted in free enterprise, into Washington-controlled, fully socialized medicine. As its tentacles spread over time, the scheme (a) pushes all Americans into government markets (a metastasizing blend of Medicare, Medicaid, and “exchanges” run by state and federal agencies); (b) dictates the content of the “private” insurance product; (c) sets the price; (d) micromanages the patient access, business practices, and fees of doctors; and (e) rations medical care. Concurrently, the scheme purposely sows a financing crisis into the system, designed to explode after Leviathan has so enveloped health care, and so decimated the private medical sector, that a British- or Canadian-style “free” system — formerly unthinkable for the United States — becomes the inexorable solution.
Once you grasp that this is the scheme, the imperative to lull the public with lies makes sense. Like all swindles, Obamacare cannot work if its targeted victims figure out the endgame before it is a fait accompli.
The president is a community organizer in the Saul Alinsky tradition. He is trained to adopt the language and co-opt the sensibilities of the masses in order to become politically viable; then, once raw power is acquired, the Alinskyite uses every component of it to thwart opposition in patient but remorseless pursuit of the given “social justice” goal. Consequently, in pursuit of health-care statism, Obama moderated his rhetoric over the years, but not his ideological goals. He stressed pragmatism: a gradual campaign that kept the ultimate prize in sight. “I don’t think we’re going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately,” he told his hard-Left base at a 2007 SEIU health-care forum. “There’s going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade out or 15 years or 20 years out.”
There’s that word: transition. It’s the route “change” takes to reach its final destination: “fundamental transformation.” If you’re paying attention, you’ll hear the word transition a lot in Obama’s health-care speeches. You’ll also find it in that Justice Department brief the administration no doubt wishes Eric Holder’s minions had edited more furtively:

The [Affordable Care Act’s] grandfathering provision’s incremental transition does not undermine the government’s interests in a significant way. Even under the grandfathering provision, it is projected that more group health plans will transition to the requirements under the regulations as time goes on. [Officials of the Department of Health and Human Services] have estimated that a majority of group health plans will have lost their grandfather status by the end of 2013 [emphasis added].

Understand what this studiously unthreatening, gradualist gobbledygook means. A “group health plan” is employer-provided insurance; the phrase thus blithely refers to the “transition” of 156 million Americans who get health insurance for themselves and their families through work. It does not mention the so-called individual market, consumers who buy health insurance on their own. That’s because the administration assumes the “transition” of those 25 million Americans from their preferred plans to Obamacare will already have progressed well toward completion. And indeed it has, as we have seen in the millions of cancellation notices reported in the last six weeks.

no he will end up in a jail cell

Guess Where Barack Obama Plans to Live Once He's No Longer President

By Sara Sollors  6 hours ago

• 5 Comments

• 4

Guess Where Barack Obama Plans to Live Once He's No Longer President

Image Credit: AP

The news: In a recent interview with ABC News' Barbara Walters, President Barack Obama and the first lady discussed post-presidency plans and suggested that the family might break with tradition and remain in Washington, D.C.
President Obama explained that remaining in the capital might be in their younger daughter Sasha’s interest, as she will be a sophomore in high school in 2016: “Sasha will have a big say in where we are […] ‘cause she’s, you know, obviously they — and Michelle — have made a lot of sacrifices on behalf of my cockamamie ideas, the running for office and thing.”
While Obama denied any interest in running for public office again, the mere possibility of his continued stay in Washington, D.C., enraged many, from CNN pundits to average Twitter-wielding citizens. CNN Political Analyst Roland Martin tweeted:

Atlantic journalist Philip Bump expressed straight-up discontent:

But why on Earth is a former president remaining near the White House a big deal?
The background: In the history of presidents, only one has remained in Washington, D.C., after the end of his last term: Woodrow Wilson.
President Wilson was partially paralyzed at the time, following a stroke. He died shortly thereafter. Generally speaking, Americans expect retired presidents to rise above the fray, becoming canonical figures in U.S. history instead of partisan figureheads — taking up new hobbies, such as painting, like George W. Bush, or capitalizing on their presidential past to engage in worldwide activism, like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
The takeaway: While the Obamas’ attempt to make the right choices for the stability of their daughter’s life certainly makes them relatable to other working parents nationwide, the day-to-day life of a former president in Washington, D.C., will never be that of a normal parent. Obama, the fifth-youngest president in U.S. history, will be 55 when he leaves office: He will have many years to establish his legacy, write his memoirs, and pursue whatever new calling he desires.

It will, however, be almost impossible to do so while living so close to his successor, whether they be Democratic or Republican. Blaming previous presidents for current problems is a necessary part of any presidency. If those called into question have moved to ranches far away, the press has fewer incentives to haunt them, and they become more of a bogeyman than a real, active, present politician to engage with. The Obamas’ intention to honor their daughter’s wishes and place her happiness at the center of any decision-making process, as a “reward” for putting up with the difficulties of being a First Daughter, is more than noble. It may, however, be a choice contemplated without considering the realities of post-presidential life. Makes you wonder how many disconcerted tweets about Washington, D.C.,-based Obama sightings we will be reading in 2017.

	Hitler and The Spear of Destiny
If you've found this site useful, we'd really appreciate a small donation to help with the hosting costs. Thanks!	Both Guernica and the 1934 drawing conceal references to a mystical battle between Picasso and Hitler in connection with the Spear of Destiny. This hidden pictorial narrative, set in the context of Wagner's opera Parsifal, reveals some uncanny associations with events in Hitler's life and with his quest to dominate Europe. Vienna 1909-1913 According to the account of Dr Walter Stein, the young Hitler whilst living as a down and out in Vienna undertook a penetrating study of the Occult meanings underlying Wolfram Von Eschenbach's Thirteenth Century Grail Romance, 'Parsival'. Stein through various contacts with Hitler became convinced that he was deeply involved with the Occult and had an experienced spiritual mentor, possibly linked to the infamous 'Blood Lodge of Guido Von Liszt. Hitler later claimed in Mein Kampf, that these had been the most vital years of his life in which he learned all he needed to know to lead the Nazi Party. Stein got to know Hitler because of their mutual interest in the Spear of Destiny - a relic on display in the Hapsburg's treasury at the Hofmuseum in Vienna. The relic was said to have phenomenal talismanic power having once been used at the Crucifixion to wound the side of Christ. According to legend, possession of the Spear would bring its owner the power to conquer the world, but losing it would bring immediate death. The relic had been owned by a succession of powerful European rulers down through the centuries and eventually came to be in the possession of the Hapsberg Dynasty. Hitler confided to Stein that the first time he saw the Spear he had witnessed extraordinary visions of his own destiny unfolding before him. In 1923, on his deathbed, Hitler's mentor Dietrich Eckart, a dedicated Satanist and central figure in the Occult Thule Society and a founder member of the Nazi party, said: 'Follow Hitler ! He will dance, but it is I who have called the tune !' 'I have initiated him into the 'Secret Doctrine', opened his centres in vision and given him the means to communicate with the Powers.' 'Do not mourn for me: I shall have influenced history more than any other German.' On 12th March 1938, the day Hitler annexed Austria, he arrived in Vienna a conquering hero. He first port of call was to the Hofmuseum where he took possession of the Spear which he immediately sent to Nuremberg, the spiritual capital of Nazi Germany. At 2.10 on 30th April, 1945, during the final days of the war, after considerable bombing of Nuremberg, the Spear fell into the hands of the American 7th Army under General Patton. Later that day, in fulfilment of the legend, Hitler committed suicide. © Mark Harris 1996 Further Reading: The Spear of Destiny, by Trevor Ravenscroft, Published by Neville Spearman, London, 1974. Symbolism in the 1934 Drawing Picasso's Harlequin Oedipus Wagner and Picasso Hitler and The Spear of Destiny Parsifal Frankenstein A Hidden Picasso Bestiary Next Section: Alchemical Contexts
	© Mark Harris 1996 (content), Simon Banton 1996 (design)In general copyright of works by Pablo Picasso are the property of the heirs to the Pablo Picasso estate