Tea Party federation expels group over racial writing Tea Party Express refuses to rebuke spokesman Mark Williams

Tea Party federation expels group over racial writing
Tea Party Express refuses to rebuke spokesman Mark Williams

WASHINGTON — The Tea Party political movement saw a major split over the weekend, with the National Tea Party Federation expelling a member group after its spokesman wrote an online post satirizing a fictional letter from what he called “Colored People” to President Abraham Lincoln.

On its website, the federation stated it had given the Tea Party Express, through direct contact with one of its leaders, a deadline to rebuke and remove spokesman Mark Williams.

“That leader’s response was clear: they have no intention of taking the action we required for their group to continue as a member of the National Tea Party Federation,” the federation stated.

Therefore, effective immediately the National Tea Party Federation is expelling Tea Party Express from the ranks of our membership.”

Federation spokesman David Webb, interviewed Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” called the blog post “clearly offensive.”

Williams, who said his letter was satirical, started it like this: “Dear Mr. Lincoln, We Coloreds have taken a vote and decided that we don’t cotton to that whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us Colored People and we demand that it stop!”

“Bailouts are just big money welfare and isn’t that what we want all Coloreds to strive for?” he added. “What kind of racist would want to end big money welfare? What they need to do is start handing the bail outs directly to us Coloreds!”

A conservative talk radio host, Williams later removed the post as criticism grew.

Williams’ post was a reply to a resolution by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) earlier this month that called on Tea Party leaders to “repudiate the racist element and activities” within the political movement.

Immediately after the resolution, Williams said it was unfortunate that the NAACP had chosen to “profiteer off race-baiting and fear mongering” when it could be doing so much to help the black community.

He also questioned the motives of African-American leaders, suggesting they were taking advantage of the publicity the resolution generated.

“I’m not surprised they are jumping into the fray here because the NAACP just tapped a Gulf oil well full of cash contributions that will arrive from this resolution,” Williams said. “And I know Al (Sharpton) and Jesse (Jackson, Jr.) want their piece of it. The slave traders of the 16th century should have been as good at exploiting Africans as these people are, because it’s just disgusting.”

On its website, the Tea Party Express does not say how many supporters it has, but on Facebook it has 600 followers.

The federation says 61 groups are members, and that it has “affiliate relationships” with 21 other groups.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Why the United States won’t bounce back ever.

The United States won’t bounce back because. The President just doesn’t get it.

The Associated Press reported yesterday that “There’s a problem with the bipartisan jobs bill emerging in the Senate: It won’t create many jobs.” Given the President’s track record, that shouldn’t be a surprise.

One feature of the President’s jobs bill is a tax cut for businesses that hire unemployed workers. The AP writes that “even the Obama administration acknowledges [the tax cut] would only work on the margins.” Here’s why, according to the AP:

Tax experts and business leaders said companies are unlikely to hire workers just to receive a tax break. Before businesses start hiring, they need increased demand for their products, more work for their employees and more revenue to pay those workers.

“We’re skeptical that it’s going to be a big job creator,” said Bill Rys, tax counsel for the National Federation of Independent Business. “There’s certainly nothing wrong with giving a tax break to a business that’s hired a new worker, especially in these tough times. But in terms of being an incentive to hire a lot of workers, we’re skeptical.”

There’s good reason to be skeptical.

The Obama administration already has a less-than-stellar reputation for not creating jobs, as evidenced by the fact that despite approving a $862 billion stimulus bill and promising to save or create 3.5 million jobs by the end of 2010; as of this January employment had actually dropped by 3.4 million jobs.

Perhaps that’s why the President’s economic report shows “the economy is projected to add jobs this year at a pace too sluggish to make much of a dent in unemployment,” as the Washington Post reports:

The nation will add an average of 95,000 jobs a month this year, according to the forecast, a bit below the number that economists think needs to be generated just to keep up with population growth. The unemployment rate is projected to come down quite slowly after that, averaging 8.2 percent in 2012, when Obama will be up for reelection.

That report stands in stark contrast to the President’s bold prediction last year.

Heritage Foundation President Dr. Edwin Feulner has some suggestions to get the economy moving again:

You need to give main street businesses and banks—our real job creators—some certainty by eliminating the threat of higher taxes, spiraling debt, and suffocating regulation. Make the tax cuts on the books permanent, to encourage more saving and investment.

Urge Congress to reform the bankruptcy laws so that supposedly “too big to fail” companies can be restructured in an orderly way rather than bailed out or regulated to a slow death. Denationalize General Motors. And please, end the TARP bailout slush fund.

There are bold things the President could do to create jobs, and he could start by reducing the barriers to business and job growth.

U.S. air security system failed, top official says ‘System did not work’ to catch suspected would-be bomber, Napolitano says

WASHINGTON – Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano conceded Monday that the aviation security system failed when a young man on a watch list with a U.S. visa in his pocket and a powerful explosive hidden on his body was allowed to board a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit.

The Obama administration has ordered investigations into the two areas of aviation security — how travelers are placed on watch lists and how passengers are screened — as critics questioned how the 23-year-old Nigerian man charged in the airliner attack was allowed to board the Dec. 25 flight.

A day after saying the system worked, Napolitano backtracked, saying her words had been taken out of context.

Insurers escalate criticism of health overhaul

WASHINGTON — The insurance industry sharply escalated its criticism of the Senate health care bill Sunday, charging that the legislation would shift costs to privately insured people, raising the price of a typical policy by hundreds — if not thousands — of dollars annually.

A spokesman for Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., whose 10-year, $829 billion overhaul plan faces a final committee vote Tuesday, questioned the credibility of the late-innings cost estimate. “It’s a health insurance company hatchet job, plain and simple,” said Scott Mulhauser.

Until recently, the health insurance industry has been working behind the scenes to shape legislation, while publicly endorsing President Barack Obama’s goal of affordable coverage for all Americans. The fragile alliance is growing strained as legislation advances toward floor votes in the House and Senate.

Late Sunday, the industry trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans sent its member companies a new accounting firm study that projects the legislation would add $1,700 a year to the cost of family coverage in 2013, when most of the major provisions in the bill would be in effect.

Premiums for a single person would go up by $600 more than would be the case without the legislation, the PriceWaterhouseCoopers analysis concluded. The study was commissioned by the insurance group.

“Several major provisions in the current legislative proposal will cause health care costs to increase far faster and higher than they would under the current system,” Karen Ignagni, the top industry lobbyist in Washington, wrote in a memo to insurance company CEOs.

The study projected that in 2019, family premiums could be $4,000 higher and individual premiums could be $1,500 higher.

Baucus spokesman Mulhauser said the study is “seriously flawed” because it doesn’t take into account provisions in the legislation that would lower the cost of coverage, such as tax credits to help people buy private insurance, protections for current policies and administrative savings from a revamped marketplace.

White House health care spokeswoman Linda Douglass concurred. “This is an insurance industry analysis that is designed to reach a conclusion which benefits the industry, and does not represent what the bill does,” she said.

The Baucus plan faces a final vote in the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday. It got a boost last week after the Congressional Budget Office estimated it would cover 94 percent of eligible Americans while reducing the federal deficit.

But the PriceWaterhouseCoopers analysis attempted to get at a different issue — costs for privately insured individuals.

It concluded that a combination of factors in the bill — and decisions by lawmakers as they amended it — would raise costs.

The chief reason, said the report, is a decision by lawmakers to weaken proposed penalties for failing to get health insurance. The bill would require insurers to take all applicants, doing away with denials for pre-existing health problems. In return, all Americans would be required to carry coverage, either through an employer or a government program, or by buying it themselves.

But the CBO estimated that even with new federal subsidies, some 17 million Americans would still be unable to afford health insurance. Faced with that affordability problem, senators opted to ease the fines for going without coverage from the levels Baucus originally proposed. The industry says that will only let people postpone getting coverage until they get sick.

Other factors leading to higher costs include a new tax on high-cost health insurance plans, cuts in Medicare payments to hospitals and doctors, and a series of new taxes on insurers and other health care industries, the report said.

“Health reform could have a significant impact on the cost of private health insurance coverage,” it concluded.

Insurers played a major role in defeating then-President Bill Clinton’s health care plan in the 1990s. Sunday, the industry stopped short of signaling all-out opposition. “We will continue to work with policymakers in support of workable bipartisan reform,” Ignagni said in her memo.
On the Net:

* America’s Health Insurance Plans: http://www.ahip.org/

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Related articles

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR (AP)