Showing posts with label Commentary By Dick Morris. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Commentary By Dick Morris. Show all posts

Thursday, September 06, 2012

Obama's Second Term Agenda - Dick Morris TV: Lunch Alert!


Published on DickMorris.com on September 4, 2012


Dear Friend,

In this video commentary, I discuss what Obama will do if we re-elect him...and he can't talk about it. Tune in!


Click Here to give me your thoughts and continue the discussion.


Click Here to sign up to get all of Dick's videos emailed to you!




Click Here to order a copy of Dick and Eileen's new book, SCREWED!

Please forward this email to any friends or family who may be interested in viewing my video commentary!

Thanks for watching,

Dick


View my most recent videos in case you missed them!


Obama's Burden Of Proof - Dick Morris: TV Lunch Alert!


How Conventions Came To Be - Dick Morris TV: History Video!


Romney Is Reaganesque - Dick Morris TV: Lunch Alert!


What Romney Must Do Tonight - Dick Morris TV: Convention Alert!


Ryan Rising - Dick Morris TV: Lunch Alert!


 
Other Useful Links

DickMorris.com
Follow Dick on FACEBOOK
Follow Dick on TWITTER

See Dick's YouTube Videos

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Obama Taxes Pacemakers, Heart Valves By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN



Published on
DickMorris.com on October 26, 2009

The more fiscal details of the health care bills emerge, the more appalling they seem. The Senate Finance Committee bill includes a broad provision taxing all manner of medical devices.

This tax includes such frivolous luxuries as pacemakers, stents, artificial heart valves, defibrillators, automated wheelchairs, mechanized artificial limbs, replacement hips and knees, surgical gurneys, laparoscopic equipment, and the like.

President Obama is planning to reduce the cost of medical care by taxing it!

The most recent Gallup Poll reflected that 49% of respondents said they believed that the Obamacare plan will increase their health care costs. Only about 20% said it would lower them. It is taxes like these that substantiate this kind of concern.The origins of this new medical device tax are troubling as well.


The medical device industry had its day at the White House as did the insurance industry, the drug makers, the nurses, and the doctors. In turn, each group heard the White House request that they come up with voluntary cuts in their health care costs and support Obama's proposed changes in return for assurances that Congress would not impose deeper cuts (or, in the case of the doctors, that it would actually rescind cuts already scheduled under current statutes).

But, unlike all these other groups, the medical device industry refused the deal. This posture enraged the tyrants in the White House who vowed to punish the industry with cuts imposed by Congress.

The result was a decision by the revenue-hungry Senate Finance Committee to extract billions in funds from the industry.

The legislation does not work like a sales or excise tax. Rather it follows the model of the punitive tobacco settlement imposed on cigarette companies in the 90s. It assesses an industry-wide payment which firms must make in proportion to their market share.

It bars the them from passing along the cost of the assessment by charging more for certain basic products, but allows them to raise the price of others to raise the funds for the fee.

So, the result will be that virtually every piece of advanced surgical equipment will be subject to a price increase to meet the levy from Washington. No matter that these devices often make the difference between life and death and that, in effect, taxing them raises the cost of vital treatments.

The vengeful White House will have its pound of flesh from the medical device industry for daring to be independent and to refuse to knuckle down to Administration pressure!

This tax, imposed in a spirit of haughty arrogance, falls on totally inappropriate objects. Valves, prosthetic limbs, pacemakers, hearing aids, and such are essential therapies that make life longer, better, and less painful. To tax them makes no sense.

Except in the world of sharp elbows and interest group politics that grips this take-no-prisoners and show-no-mercy White House.


Go to
DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!

Saturday, October 24, 2009

WILL OBAMACARE PASS? By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published on DickMorris.com on October 23, 2009


Printer-Friendly Version


Even as Obama's proposals for health care changes attracted two key swing votes in the Senate Finance Committee (Republican Olympia Snowe and Democrat Blanche Lincoln), public opinion is turning ever more hostile to the proposed changes.


Inside the beltway, the plan looks unstoppable. Outside it, the legislation looks DOA.


Which version of reality is the correct one?


Ultimately, it all depends on one key variable: How unpopular does the proposal become?


Democrats will march in lockstep to approve a bill that lags in the public opinion polls by something like the current margin of fifteen points. With roughly 40% approving of the plan and 55% against it, Democrats will likely heed the pleas of their leaders and lend their assent.



But if the current slide in ratings continues and health care's support slips into the mid or low thirties, all bets are off. Even this Congress will not pass a program that meets with a 2:1 disapproval among the voters. They will try to buy off the opposition with compromises, but, failing that, they will just vote no.



And we are within striking distance of driving the ratings down to the point where the bill stalls and dies. We have a new strategy and a new target audience.


Having largely succeeded (due to your donations through dickmorris.com) in informing the elderly of the shortcomings of this bill, we are now aiming at the under 30 voters who are the core of Obama's support. By acquainting them with the taxes, fines, fees, assessments, and requirements that the legislation will impose on them, their families, and the parents, our polling suggests we can trigger a big move against the bill.



We need your help right now, urgently, to fund a new program of Internet outreach and television advertising aimed at the under 30 set. PLEASE CLICK ON THIS LINK TO DONATE.


So far, you have helped us raise $2.5 million, funds that we successfully used to tell the elderly what the bill had in store for them. Now we need the same amount of money before the end of the year to reach our new target with our new message.We have attracted more than 25,000 donors so far, but we need more!


Please give us the ammunition and political gun powder we need to wage this battle! We have virtually no overhead and almost all the funds (net of fund raising costs) go directly into media advertising.


(Disclosure: I serve as the unpaid strategist for the League of American Voters which is sponsoring this campaign. I make no money from their efforts or your donations).


Despite the clutter of advertising on this issue, it is our ads that have been, by far, the most effective. As we shift from an argument based on cuts in care to one based on increases in taxes, fees, and, ultimately, the deficit, we need your help to open this second front.


Please give generously. We are using the same techniques of polling and advertising that I use to win elections. We have been incredibly effective so far, but we are running low on funds and need your help for the giant task ahead of us.


If we can decrease public support for this bill by even seven to eight percentage points, we will likely kill it in Congress.


The recent defection of thirteen moderate Senators from the Administration on the issue of doctor compensation heralds larger defections on the health care package itself.

Give us the tools and we will finish the job!


CLICK HERE TO PROTECT YOUR HEALTH CARE.


Thank you,
Dick Morris


Join Steve Forbes Online for the Emergency Dollar Summit, Click Here


Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!

Friday, October 23, 2009

Iran Cons Hillary On Nukes By DICK MORRIS


Published on TheHill.com on October 20, 2009

Printer-Friendly Version

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has fallen for Iran's line that it is not developing nuclear weapons, but only wants the ability to develop one to achieve its place in the sun among the great nations of the earth.

In an interview on a Sunday show and in a leak in The New York Times that seems to have come from her (since it uses the same language), she notes that "there's a small space for doubt [about Iran's intention to build a bomb] because there are some contrary indicators.

There is no doubt in my mind that they want nuclear energy and nuclear power, which they are entitled to, to be able to use it for peaceful purposes.

The real problem is once you do that and you get what's called a breakout capacity, it's not long before you could do the other [build a bomb]. So that's why this is so important to address now."

Pressed to comment on a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that it was clear Iran was headed toward building a bomb,
Hillary demurred."Well, they -- we -- we are doing this [pushing for sanctions] because we think they're heading there. But whether they want to get what's called the breakout capacity and stop, knowing that they could then move forward, that's where the question
comes."Wow.

The same theme -- that Iran just wants to be able to make a bomb, not to actually make one -- was annunciated in a New York Times story that likely had its origins in Hillary's newfound doubts.


Why the hell would Iran want to develop highly enriched uranium if not to make a bomb? And why would it enrich uranium in the first place if it did not want to enrich it enough to build a weapon? Why would it spend billions and incur all manner of international obloquy and sanctions just to get bragging rights and be able to say that it could build a bomb?

Does the nation with the world's second-largest reserves of oil really need nuclear power to turn on its lights? Or is Iran so green that it can't stand to contribute to global climate change?

That our secretary of State is naïve and inexperienced enough to fall for this line is incredible.

That she might have been president is worse. And that the real president may be falling for it, too, is beyond worse.

Ever since the Cold War started, it has been an article of faith that, in assessing enemy power, we measure his capacity and not his intentions. Intentions can change in the blink of an eye.

Capacity endures forever.

Iran has a huge incentive to try to fool the world for just a few more months.

Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton warns that it has purchased fromRussia -- and already paid for -- a highly advanced anti-aircraft missile system that would be exceedingly effective against every bomber except for stealth aircraft, of which Israel has none.

Has it been delivered? Is it installed?

Are the Iranians trained to use it?

Nobody knows. But Bolton is clear that once it is operational, as he puts it, "the military option is out."

So Iran's game is obviously to stall Israeli action by deceiving the world into believing that it merely wants the capacity to go nuclear -- "breakout" capability -- rather than to build an actual bomb.

Iran even proffers a willingness to lend its stock of somewhat enriched uranium to other nations -- presumably its buddy Russia -- for further enrichment. (Presumably, the Russians would not enrich it all the way to the point where it could be weaponized.)Iran says it wants enriched fuel to power a medical research facility.

The West hopes that if Iran lent out its supply of slightly enriched uranium, it would not have enough in situ to enrich the amount it would need for a bomb. But, obviously, once it gets the uranium back, it can do with it as it pleases. If it agrees to inspection, it can always kick the inspectors out.

While Iran is negotiating "in good faith," there would be hell to pay if Israel attacked "prematurely." So, by enticing the world with this complex scheme, all the while enriching God knows how much uranium in secret, Iran hopes to prolong the negotiations until it has
the air defense system.


Then the military option -- which is Iran's sole motivation for even participating in these talks -- will be closed and Israel will not be able to attack.

That Hillary Clinton would allow herself to be conned into believing that Iran doesn't really, really, really want to build -- much less use -- a big, bad bomb would be laughable if it weren't so dangerous.


How To Spot A Financial Fraud - Click Here To Lean More!

Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

How Much Obamacare Costs The Average Family

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN



Published on DickMorris.com on October 19, 2009



Printer-Friendly Version



Whether or not you now have health insurance, Obama's healthcare bill will cost you dearly. If you don't have insurance, you will be required to buy it. The legislation specifies how much you will have to pay for the coverage before any subsidy kicks in.



All during the campaign, Obama kept speaking about affordable coverage.



Now it appears that his definition of "affordable" might be a bit elastic.



* If your household income is $66,000 a year, slightly above the national average, Obama's healthcare bill will require you to spend 12 percent of your income -- about $8,000 a year or almost $700 a month -- to buy health insurance before you get any federal subsidy.




* Even those making less will have to reach deep into their meager resources to satisfy Obama's statutory requirement. Families scraping by on only $44,000 a year will have to pay 7 percent of their income (about $3,000) on insurance.


* Even those making just $33,000 will have to ante up 4.5 percent of their income (about $1500) for health insurance.




* The required payments reach so far down the scale that those who are living at the federal poverty level of $22,000 will have to shell out 2 percent of their totally inadequate incomes ($440) for insurance. That Obama is charging premiums to those living at or on the border of poverty is absolutely incredible! And this from a candidate who pledged that he would not tax the middle class! If you have insurance, you will get hit by his proposed 40 percent tax on insurance premiums.




* When the tax -- and the legislation -- takes effect in 2013, all families making about $120,000 or more in combined household income (14 percent of all families or one in seven) will have to pay the tax.



* By the next year, 2014, the tax will hit every family making more than $100,000 (about 18 percent of all families or one in six)



* By 2019, 10 years hence, the tax will reach down to effect every family making more than $75,000 a year (31 percent of families or one in three).The tax will take 40 percent of all premiums above $21,000.



So if you don't have insurance, you will be socked with a mandate to buy coverage and pay a hefty proportion of your income to do it and if you have insurance, you will be hit with an excise tax on the coverage.



(In theory, it is the insurance companies that have to pay the tax, but the Senate Finance Committee "assumes" that they will pass the tax along to their policyholders.)


Glenn Beck Actively Recruiting: Find Out Details



Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!

Friday, October 16, 2009

High Price Of Obamacare By DICK MORRIS



Published on
TheHill.com on October 13, 2009

Will a young, healthy, childless individual or couple buy health insurance costing 7.5 percent of their income, as required by Obama's health legislation? Not until they get sick.

Then they can always buy the insurance, and the Obama bill requires the insurance companies to give it to them. And if the premiums come to more than 7.5 percent of their income because they are now sick, no problem. Obama will subsidize it.

Instead, young, healthy, childless people will likely opt to pay the $1,000 fine (aka slap on the wrist) mandated in the bill. After all, even if they make as little as $50,000 a year, the fine is a lot cheaper than 7.5 percent of their income (or $3,500 a year)!

So...these young households will not contribute to the coffers of any health insurance company until they are sick and need the coverage. By then, their costs will come to vastly more than their premiums.


Who will subsidize the difference? We will.

The insurance industry estimates that the bill will drive up premiums for the average family by $1,700 a year. By the time the bill takes effect in 2013, it estimates that the average annual family health insurance premiums (now $12,300) will rise to $17,200 if
the Obama bill is passed, but only to $15,500 if it is defeated.

And who do you think the voters will blame for the hike in their premiums?

The Democrats who passed the bill.


Supporters of the bill are quick to counter that greater efficiency, etc., will hold down premiums. But they have little to answer the argument that, without higher fines, the young and healthy will not consent to pay an arm and a leg for insurance they don't need.

Any lingering motivation to pay the premiums will disappear once the Obama bill requires insurance companies to cover them when they do, finally, limp in the door, desperately in need of insurance. Why pay now when you can always pay later? And, with a government subsidy, you gain nothing by paying for all those years when you don't need insurance.

So Obama's program turns out not to be one to spread insurance and thus spread the risk of costly illness, but one to make people pay 7.5 percent of their incomes once they get sick, with the government picking up their remaining premium and the health insurance customers paying for the medical expenses. Some deal!

So tote up the cost of this bill on the middle class:

• $1,700 more in insurance premiums for the average family

• Medical devices like wheelchairs and hearing aids get taxed

• Those who are sick must pay an average of about $600 more a year in income taxes because the bill raises the threshold for deducting medical expenses from 7.5 percent of income to 10 percent

• A $404 billion cut in Medicare

• Ending the subsidized Medicare Advantage insurance for costs over and above Medicare. Without Medicare Advantage, the elderly can only augment Medicare by buying Medigap coverage, for which no subsidy is available and whose premiums are higher (offered, conveniently enough, by Obama's buddies at the AARP)

• No importation of Canadian medicines and no competitive bidding to hold down prescription drug costs (Obama's deal to get Pharma's support and advertising dollars)

• A shortage of medical personnel and equipment as 30 million new patients are added without any expansion of the population of doctors and nurses. This shortage will make rationing inevitable, even if it shortens life expectancies among the elderly.

And all of this assumes that the House bill, which imposes a 4.5 percent payroll tax (which will discourage new employment), does not pass....And that the cost estimates of this program prove realistic. Despite the Congressional Budget Office's concurrence, one can't help noticing that Massachusetts's program was estimated to cost $200 million in 2005 and now costs $700 million!

This healthcare bill is, indeed, Obama's first tax on the middle class.

Go to
DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Pessimism: Obama's Political Ally By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published on DickMorris.com on October 13, 2009

Printer-Friendly Version

President Obama has won the peace prize, but nobody thinks he deserves the Nobel in economics.

Despite $800 billion of economic stimulus and the accumulation of a $1.4 trillion deficit, he has been unable to lower the unemployment rate below 9.8%.

So why, after nine months of Obama, do voters, in the latest Rasmussen poll, still blame Bush - and not Obama - for the economic situation by 55-37?

How can Obama skate by without having to account for the failure of his economic program?

Liberalism, particularly in economics, is usually protected by a bodyguard of pessimism. When government intervention and spending fails to yield the predicted results, month after month and year after year, the left sells the notion that these are tough times and that we need to lower our expectations.

In the late 70s, for example, the mantra that "less is more" gripped policy makers. America was in late middle age and facing its decline, inevitable (and even healthy), we were told, after its artificial post-World War II dominance.


Then came Reagan who showed us all how unrealistic were these diminished expectations and how they could be put to shame if the private sector were truly unleashed. Margaret Thatcher taught the same lesson to British pessimists, clucking at the decline in their island's fortunes.

In the early and mid nineties, austerity was the order of the day as President Clinton and Speaker Gingrich vied with one another to eliminate the deficit by cutting spending. But when Clinton and Newt slashed the capital gains tax instead the economy soared and the deficit - once ticketed for eradication in seven years - dissolved in eighteen months.


Now Obama is succeeding in convincing us that we are
entering an era of scarcity and that prosperity will remain a distant goal as we wrestle to the high unemployment that is inevitable in these tough times. The more his economic policies doom us to continued high unemployment, which inhibits the consumer spending that could cure it, the more he will peddle the mantra that joblessness is inevitable.


How long will Obama be able to get away with this shell game? For how many more months will succeed in shucking off the blame for his failed policies onto Bush?

Unfortunately, it looks like he can do so for as long as the current economic situation continues!

But the key word here is "current."

He will probably be able to escape the rap for unemployment and slow or no growth. But when the deficits he introduced trigger inflation and then stag-flation, all bets will be off. The collapse of the dollar and the continuation of high deficits and seemingly endless issuance of new money by the Fed, make inflation very likely in the opinion of most economists.

This new disease will clearly not be from the hangover of the Bush Administration, but will be Obama's fault in the eyes of the public. Inflation will be uniquely his and his alone. He won't be able to pretend that it was inherited from Bush. He will get his fair share of the blame, for once.


And it will probably arrive just in time to make itself felt in the Congressional elections of next year.

Want to retire better, faster? Click to double your retirement nest egg fast with low-risk, double-digit returns from this alternative investment secret

Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!

Saturday, October 10, 2009

The Nobel Prize To Obama: Europe's Bid To Re-Colonize America


By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
Published on DickMorris.com on October 9, 2009

Whether it was rewarding Jimmy Carter for criticizing the Iraq War or supporting Al Gore in his crusade against global warming, the Norwegian Parliament - which chooses the winners of the Nobel Peace Prize - has sought to use the award as a political tool to influence American politics.

Its prestige and moral power make the prize a potent weapon with which to help steer the direction of the colossus beyond the seas that controls a quarter of the world's economy and most of its military power.

Now, the Norwegians have weighed in to support Barack Obama in his bid to reshape America so it looks more like, well, Norway, or at least like Europe.


European socialism cannot succeed without conquering the United States. If the European Union has high taxes and the US keeps its levies low, business and brains will flow to America. If the EU's labor standards require long vacations, high benefits, and proscribe layoffs and ours' do not, employers will migrate across the ocean to do their business in the States.

If the Old World curbs ambition by taxation, regulation, and social opprobrium, the ambitious will flock to the New World as they have done for four hundred years.

So, Lenin was right. Socialism cannot exist in just one country - or one continent. It must dominate worldwide or wealth and power will flow to those who remain committed to the free market. Europe realizes this reality and it makes Obama's election as president of the United States all the more welcome.

The Nobel Prize is really Obama's payback for disciplining the unruly United States and taming it to be a member of the European family of nations.

Europe wants to reverse the American Revolution and re-colonize us and it sees in Obama a kindred spirit willing to do its bidding.Does the United States let its entrepreneurs run wild, coming up with fanciful new ideas and making billions from them?

Obama will regulate and subdue business just like they do in Europe. Do U.S. businesses compete by slashing prices, aggressively pursuing markets, and jockeying for market share?

Obama will make them behave themselves and stay in line just like European companies do. Do Americans work hard and push aggressively to make as much money as they can? Obama will raise taxes, emphasize community values, and narcotize their ambition by offering government largesse.

And does the United States still believe in a sloppy, contrarian democracy in which ordinary people can directly affect their government, states have powers, and courts can reel in executive authority? Obama will use his rubber stamp majority in Congress to pass new laws regardless of public opinion and make us obey.

In foreign policy, is the United States still willing to stand up, alone if necessary, to protect human rights in Bosnia, in Iraq, and in Afghanistan? Obama will curb this unruly independence and mold it within the fabric of appeasement that has dominated Europe for the past half a century.

All this heavy lifting, this conversion of America into a European state, deserves a reward. And what is a more fitting one than to give Obama than the Nobel Peace Prize?

He obviously doesn't deserve the award for economics or, given his health care ideas, for medicine. But the Peace Prize expresses Europe's longing: to take back the nation its overly ambitious and uppity children founded.



Go to
DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!

Friday, October 09, 2009

TAX THE SICK: OBAMA'S NEW PLAN By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN



Published on
DickMorris.com on October 8, 2009

Faced with a need to scrounge for revenue to fund his plan for health care, President Barack Obama and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus have come up with a brilliant new idea: Tax the sick!

In a new amendment to the health care bill, they propose to limit the deductibility of medical expenses on income taxes.


Now, taxpayers may deduct any medical expenses that exceed 7.5% of their Adjusted Gross Income. Obama and Baucus want to raise that threshold to 10% as long as the taxpayer is under 65.
Eight million Americans are sick enough and poor enough that they have to pay more than 7.5% of their income in medical expenses. And it is these folks that the liberals Obama and Baucus plan to tax! Six million of them earn less than $75,000 a year!

For a family earning $75,000 a year and facing out-of-pocket medical bills of $7, 500, this proposal would cost them about $600 a year in extra taxes.


And let's remember who it is that they are taxing. This proposal affects people whose incomes are so limited and whose medical costs are so high that they exceed 7.5% of their pre-tax income. Their proposal literally hopes to raise $20 billion over ten years by taxing sick people.

The Democrats defend their proposal by saying that it would discourage health care spending.

But nobody deliberately spends 7.5% of their income on medical costs unless they are pretty sick and needy.

Obama and Baucus have singled out the sickest among the middle class for this heinous tax. (The poor will not have to pay it because they are eligible for Medicaid).

Originally, the Democrats continued their war on the elderly by proposing to tax everyone who spends more than the 7.5% threshold on medical costs. But they retreated when it became clear that six million elderly would be hit with the tax.

Now they just sock it to eight million sick, middle income Americans.

This tax, and their desire to cut Medicare and Medicaid by $500 billion, makes Obama and Baucus unlike any Democrats I have ever known. Democrats, at least when I worked for Clinton, defended the elderly and the sick rather than cut the former and tax the latter.


Go to
DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!

Thursday, October 08, 2009

SNOWE AND LINCOLN WILL DETERMINE EVERYTHING By DICK MORRIS


Published on TheHill.com on October 6, 2009

Watch how Maine Republican Olympia Snowe and Arkansas Democrat Blanche Lincoln vote in the Senate Finance Committee on the Baucus version of the Obama healthcare plan. As Snowe and Lincoln go, so will the Congress.

The Democrats need Snowe's vote desperately, to convince wavering moderate Democrats that they can offer a veneer, however thin, of bipartisanship to the health proposal. If Snowe, their last chance at a Republican vote, opposes the Obama/Baucus proposal, there is no hope of a bipartisan fig leaf for the package.


On the other hand, if Snowe backs the bill, it will send a signal to moderate Democrats that it's OK to join in and the bill will probably attract the 60 votes it needs for Senate passage.

Lincoln's vote becomes critical if Snowe votes no. Lincoln is probably the single most vulnerable Democrat running for reelection in 2010. She is the proverbial canary in the coalmine. If she
makes it, so will all the Democrats. Hailing from a conservative Southern state, her poll numbers suggest that she would be in a heap of trouble with a stiff challenger.


If Lincoln defects and joins the Republicans in voting no (as she has done on a number of amendments), she will do a lot to cement her chances to remain a senator, but will open a wound in the Democratic Party. A domino effect will likely set in.

Her Arkansas colleague, Democrat Mark Pryor, will feel exposed by her defection and will probably consider voting no as well.

It will be very hard for the son of moderate David Pryor to explain why Lincoln jumped ship but he chose to stay on board.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D) of Nebraska, encouraged by Lincoln's vote, will probably vote no as well. These negative votes will bring huge pressure on Mary Landrieu, the Louisiana Democrat.

Nor can the president count on the support of Joe Lieberman (I) of Connecticut, who has warned that, despite his basic support for the concept of the bill, it would be hard for him to back it given the current economic and fiscal crisis.

Once Obama's plan fails to attract 60 votes, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will fall back on reconciliation as a strategy and hope for 50 votes. But if the Democrats pass the bill with 50 votes, it will set a precedent they may come to rue.

It would basically eliminate the filibuster as a parliamentary tactic and would condemn any future minority party (Democrats in 2011?) to the same irrelevance as afflicts their House colleagues. To be in the minority in a chamber run by a bare majority is not a fun task.

However, if Lincoln votes yes, it will send a signal to all moderates that even the most endangered of their species is willing to risk backing the program and will do a great deal to shore up the president's defenses.

All this means that if the elderly citizens of Arkansas and Maine -- and their families -- want to avoid the evisceration of the Medicare program contemplated in the Baucus/Obama bill, they had better get busy. They need to deluge both senators with urgent pleas to vote against the $500 billion cut in the Medicare program.

Neither senator can afford to alienate her elderly constituents, but what do they expect when they vote to take the hatchet to Medicare?

Newt Gingrich found out that cutting Medicare is a ticket to political oblivion. Barack Obama will learn the same lesson. The question is: Will Olympia Snowe and Blanche Lincoln join him?

"Senator _________: Please don't cut my Medicare by $500 billion. I need my Medicare." We need to get these ads on in the key states. We need to focus attention on the cuts in Medicare. It is slashing services to the elderly that is the key point!

Please
click here to donate and give generously. This is the key moment and you can make all the difference in the world. With pressure such as the elderly are bringing to bear, the Senate would not dare pass this benighted plan!


Go to
DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!