Nov. 3, 2009, Fairfax, VA – Conservative bloggers nationwide have begun turning their attention to top Obama aide Valerie Jarrett in recent days in what one top blogging expert says, “could send shock waves through the entire Obama Administration.”

According to Adam Bitely, Executive Director of NetRightNation.com, which tracks blogging trends in its daily publication, The Overnights, “I have rarely seen the kind of fire building in the hinterlands that I am now seeing over Valerie Jarrett. I’m not sure what set it off – though I know Michelle Malkin has hit the issue several times – but I do know that the rumblings in the blogosphere tell me that Valerie Jarrett is fast becoming a liability.”

“She could soon be the next Van Jones,” adds Bitely.

Bitely says he first started noticing the “rumblings” in late October, when bloggers began asking probing questions about the Obama confident the President has described as being “like a sibling to me.” Since then, the number of blogs – and the disclosures about what bloggers consider Jarrett’s questionable background and tactics – have begun to multiply.

Jarrett’s title is the bureaucratic sounding “Senior Advisor and Assistant to the President for Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Liaison.” But, long-time political observers contend that there is little bureaucratic about the White House insider’s ability to cut through the red tape and quickly get what she and the President want.

According to Obama’s top South Carolina political director in the 2008 campaign, “If you want something done, there are two people he’s not going to say no to: Valerie Jarrett and Michelle Obama.”

While this may have escaped some in the mainstream media, Bitely says it is becoming abundantly apparent to conservative bloggers nationwide, who have carefully amassed a wide range of controversial material about the top advisor. And they are sounding the alarm over what they consider Jarrett’s wheeling-dealing and radical mindset.

“Oddly enough, what seems to have triggered the onslaught is a Boston Globe video from way back in June of 2008,” Bitely says. “That most recently resurfaced in the blogosphere about a week or so ago, and since then, what started as a trickle has become a torrent.”

The Globe video, entitled “Presidential Hopeful. Residents’ Complaints,” depicted squalid conditions at Chicago’s Grove Parc Plaza low-income housing development, including: collapsed roofs and fire damage, mice scampering through the halls and apartments, broken windows and doors, and sewage backing up into kitchen sinks. According to the video, Jarrett was the CEO of the government-funded private company, The Habitat Company, which received millions of dollars to manage the development.

“The video is stark,” explained Bitely, “and it apparently opened a lot of bloggers’ eyes to the type of activities in which Ms. Jarrett has long been involved. Then, as they started putting the pieces together, an even more sordid image emerged. Those pieces, according to Bitely, included:

• According to American Spectator author, The Prowler, Jarrett was the driving force behind many of the more radical Obama Administration appointments, including Van Jones, Cass Sunstein, and FCC Czar Mark Lloyd.

• According to FrontPage.com’s American Daughter blog, Jarrett recently orchestrated an August 10 White House conference call in order to use the federally funded National Endowment of the Arts artists to recruit artists to promote the Administration’s political agenda.

• According to Michelle Malkin’s blog, Jarrett used her position at the White House to promote the ill-fated Chicago Olympics bid in order to use the Olympics to pay off Chicago political cronies who had donated to Democrat causes.

All of this, says Bitely, is just the tip of the iceberg in what he describes as a “growing crescendo of blogosphere revelations.” He says that the conservative blogosphere is now pulling material from a wide variety of sources, like Glenn Beck, the New York Times, and other lesser known media, that in the past have touched on one aspect of the Jarrett saga and then moved on.

“This is bad news for Obama, Jarrett, and the Democrats,” says Bitely. “Bloggers are now bringing all the material together. The picture that is emerging could trigger a major scandal in the Oval Office. We’re collecting it all at StopJarrett.com, and it is growing at a rapid pace every single day.”

###

“Members of Congress are now faced with the ultimate moral dilemma,” said Wilson. “Do they represent the people of their districts, who do not want their health care taken over by government, rationed, and watered-down, nor their taxes raised, the budget broken, and Medicare cut to pay for it? Or do they represent Nancy Pelosi, who does want all of those things?”

Today, on the steps of the Capitol, Pelosi and Hoyer presented the consolidated version of the “public option” to the nation, as reported by Politico. Debate is slated to begin next week on the House floor.

The entitlement is reported to extend to 36 million people at a cost of $894 billion over ten years. Politico reported that according to the Congressional Budget Office, “the legislation is projected to create deficits over the second five years.”

“An entitlement is not ‘deficit-neutral’ if it will only allegedly operate in the black for 5 years and then leaves taxpayers in the red every year thereafter. This is just one more unsustainable entitlement that Congress is creating. It will raises taxes by hundreds of billions of dollars, cut Medicare by hundreds of billions more, and in the end, will still generate deficits that will ultimately bankrupt the public treasury,” Wilson noted.

“All for a non-emergency—over 280 million Americans already have health insurance. The U.S. spends more on health care than any other nation,” Wilson added.

In 2007, the U.S. spent $2.4 trillion in total health care spending, and the price tag for health care expenditures, NCHC projects, will rise to $3.1 trillion by 2012, and $4.3 trillion by 2016. As of 2006, the Census Bureau estimates that some 201.7 million, or 71.5 percent of Americans with health insurance, get their insurance privately. 28.5 percent of those with insurance, or 80.3 million, get it from the government.

“Another big problem for Congress is that it intends to only spend on average $2,483 per individual. Only, that’s more than $2,000 less than what an average premium actually costs—some $4,700,” Wilson said.

“That means this will be below-average, watered-down health care that will only diminish in quality over the years as more private insurers are driven out of business and more people forced onto the government-run plan,” Wilson added.

Americans for Limited Government estimates that “public option” legislation will cost more than $2.1 trillion over ten years once fully implemented.

“Members of the House have some soul-searching to do. Nancy Pelosi has completely gone insane if she thinks the American people will support this ‘public option’ any more than the other six ‘public options’ that have already been presented,” Wilson said.

According to Rasmussen Reports, 57 percent of voters nationwide believe it will raise the cost of health care, and 53 percent believe the quality of care will get worse. And 63 percent “are strongly opposed to a public option if they think it could lead employers to drop the existing coverage they provide employees.”

A full 51 percent are opposed to the plan. And according to a recent FOX News poll, Independents, a critical voting bloc in swing congressional districts, oppose ObamaCare by 62 percent to 23 percent.

Wilson concluded by asking representatives, “Where do you stand? Who do you represent? Washington, or your constituents?”

Interview Availability: Please contact Alex Rosenwald at (703)383-0880 or at arosenwald@getliberty.org to arrange an interview with ALG President Bill Wilson.

###

At the same time, Wilson applauded Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) for promising to join Republicans in filibustering the “public option.” “Senator Lieberman is a hero in this frightful debate over the government takeover of the entire health care system. We need more heroes who are willing to buck Harry Reid.”

Lieberman said he would vote against the bill “”even with an opt-out because it still creates a whole new government entitlement program for which taxpayers will be on the line.”

“This public option ‘opt-out’ is nothing more than a scam,” said Wilson. “The federal government will still hold all of the cards, and use subsidy ‘incentives’ to essentially force states onto government-run healthcare. In the end, states will be punished one way or another for not participating.”

“For example, the government could make additional federal funding for Medicaid contingent upon participation in ObamaCare,” Wilson explained. “The fact is, the government has managed to achieve 100 percent state participation in receiving tax dollars in everything from education to ‘No Child Left Behind’ to transportation. They’ll get what they want, one way or another through the most draconian thumb-screw thuggery.”

“To make matters worse,” Wilson added, “even if states decide they do not want to participate, individual taxpayers will still be forced to foot the federal tax bill—just like parents who are forced to pay for public schools even though they send their kids to private school,” Wilson said.

“The fact is, this will not pay for itself—it will top $2 trillion over ten years once fully implemented—which is why everyone will be forced to chip in whether or not they directly receive services. It’s just another unsustainable welfare entitlement—and one that will surely bankrupt the entire health system and the public treasury,” Wilson explained.

Yesterday, Reid held a press conference to announce his proposal. He stated, “Under this concept, states will be able to determine whether the public option works well for them and will have the ability to opt out if they so choose.”

According to Reid, states would only have until 2014 to make their decision.

“There are a lot of outstanding questions on the ‘Reid Opt-Out.’ Namely, why is this an ‘opt-out’ instead of an ‘opt-in?’ No business in America could get away with an ‘opt-out’ when selling a product. In Harry Reid’s world, taxpayers will get the bill for trillions of dollars for ObamaCare before they even get to decide that they do not want it,” Wilson added.

“And even if states say no, taxpayers will still have to pay,” Wilson concluded.

Interview Availability: Please contact Alex Rosenwald at (703)383-0880 or at arosenwald@getliberty.org to arrange an interview with ALG President Bill Wilson.

###

“These 30 senators have clearly lost track of even the most rudimentary accounting procedures,” said Wilson, adding that, “The so-called ‘public option’ would take one-sixth of the nation’s economy and put it in the hands of an already bankrupt government. In the process, the quality of everyone’s health care would be watered down, Medicare would be severely cut, and they would further bankrupt the public treasury.”

The letter from Senate Democrats to Reid stated, “[W]e are asking for your leadership on ensuring that the merged health reform bill contains a public insurance option.”

Wilson pointed to Senator Mary Landrieu’s (D-LA) opposition to the “public option,” who said it would likely face the same problems as Medicare and Medicaid. “Why don’t we fix the two public options we have now instead of creating a third one… I think if you asked, do you want a public option but it would force the government to go bankrupt, people would say no.”

“The Senate should be listening to Senator Landrieu’s voice of moderation on this issue,” said Wilson.

According to the Associated Press, Reid intends to include the “public “option” in the final bill before the Senate.

“Senators must reconsider and reject this radical approach that will add trillions of dollars to the national debt over the coming years, does not pay for itself, and will destroy private health options by making them unaffordable. They must not follow Reid’s lead into financial oblivion,” Wilson said.

Wilson disagreed with the letter which stated, “Without a not-for-profit public insurance alternative that competes with… insurers based on premium rates and quality, insurers will have free rein to increase insurance premiums and drive up the cost of federal subsidies tied to those premiums.”

“Simply, increased government involvement in health care will increase the costs associated with delivering health care. What these senators are really arguing for is a practical, government-run monopoly over delivering care,” Wilson said.

Wilson pointed to a recent Price Waterhouse Cooper report commissioned by America’s Health Insurance Plans that stated, “by 2019 the cost of single coverage is expected to increase by $1,500 more than it would under the current system and the cost of family coverage is expected to increase by $4,000 more than it would under the current system.”

The report continues, “This amounts to an additional 18 percent increase in premiums by 2019.” The report states that this average increase is a “composite of increases by market segment”: a 49 percent increase for the individual market, a 28 percent increase for employers with fewer than 50 employees, an 11 percent increase for larger employers, and a 9 percent increase for self-insured employers.

According to Rasmussen Reports, 57 percent of voters nationwide believe it will raise the cost of health care, and 53 percent believe the quality of care will get worse. A full 51 percent are opposed to the plan. And 63 percent “are strongly opposed to a public option if they think it could lead employers to drop the existing coverage they provide employees.”

Americans for Limited Government estimates that the “public option” will cost taxpayers some $2.1 trillion over ten years, and “leave the nation in a downward spiral of declining quality while costs skyrocket and taxpayers are broken.”

According to analysis by the Congressional Budget Office, the Senate Finance Committee bill will cut Medicare and Medicaid by approximately $404 billion, and include tax increases of $406 billion over ten years.

“The nation does not need a ‘public option.’ As Senator Landrieu points out, the unsustainable public options we have are already rapidly driving the nation into bankruptcy. What Congress ought to be focused on is entitlement reform, not entitlement expansion,” Wilson concluded.

Interview Availability: Please contact Alex Rosenwald at (703)383-0880 or at arosenwald@getliberty.org to arrange an interview with ALG President Bill Wilson.

###

Wilson pointed to a recent report by America’s Health Insurance Plans that stated, “by 2019 the cost of single coverage is expected to increase by $1,500 more than it would under the current system and the cost of family coverage is expected to increase by $4,000 more than it would under the current system.”

The report continues, “This amounts to an additional 18 percent increase in premiums by 2019.” The report states that this average increase is a “composite of increases by market segment”: a 49 percent increase for the individual market, a 28 percent increase for employers with fewer than 50 employees, an 11 percent increase for larger employers, and a 9 percent increase for self-insured employers.

“The whole point of so-called health care ‘reform’ was to reduce the costs of health care,” said Wilson. “Now, we learn that the Baucus bill does precisely the opposite—increasing the cost of private premiums at an even faster pace than they would have.”

“Which,” Wilson added, “is the point. The idea is to push Americans off of private health options onto the government-run scheme.”

The Committee voted 14-9 in favor of the Baucus-led bill, which ALG estimates could extend to as many as 45 million at a cost of $2.1 trillion over ten years. Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine was the only Republican voting in favor.

“The Senate Finance Committee has accepted the doctrine of quantity over quality—that every American must have health care, no matter how much government’s mandate that it be so reduces quality over time,” said Wilson.

Wilson pointed to the average cost per individual covered under the Baucus plan, which is $2,858. “The Baucus plan puts the basic price per individual at about $2,000 less than what it actually costs today for a health premium. Which means that the plan will provide below-average medical care to participants, millions of whom will be forced on to the plan,” Wilson explained.

Last week, Wilson blasted the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) for “understating” the cost estimates of the Senate Finance Committee bill, which according to ALG estimates was $1.271 trillion off the mark.

Wilson also took issue with the amount of individuals that estimated to be covered under the Senate plan by the CBO. “The CBO estimates that a government program in which 91.5 million people under the age of 65 are technically eligible for will only result in 29 million new enrollees,” Wilson said. “That just does not pass the smell test.”

According to the CBO letter to Senator Max Baucus, taxpayers would subsidize care for those making 400 percent above the poverty level, or individuals who make $43,320 a year or less. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, that includes 91.5 million people under the age of 65, or 125.8 million in total. Currently, 80.5 million now receive their health care from the government.

Wilson said that means at least 45 million will be eligible, “and eventually, will be forced on to, by government mandate, on to these government-run plans.”

According to the CBO analysis, the Senate bill will cut Medicare and Medicaid by approximately $404 billion, and include tax increases of $406 billion over ten years.

“Rather than put this bill in the trash where it belongs, the Senate Finance Committee is consigning the American people to a future of health care rationing without their own private options at a cost that will break the public treasury once and for all,” Wilson concluded.

Interview Availability: Please contact Alex Rosenwald at (703)383-0880 or at arosenwald@getliberty.org to arrange an interview with ALG President Bill Wilson.

###