Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
follow
1,000 Followers
follow
0 Followers
follow
People's Pundit Locals Community
Saturday, January 17, 2026
SECTIONS
logo
mobile-logo
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 1036)
Policy, Video

If you haven’t seen this Heritage ObamaCare parody video, depicting a pro-Obamacare commercial with a twist, then you are missing out.

The video producers were quite witty in their production, including a “slightly different (and quite funny)” audio track. From last week when it was released to now, Americans have made it the Heritage organizations’ most-watched YouTube video ever produced.

However, Heritage is right about something, ObamaCare is no joke — especially for the families that are facing large cost increases on their insurance premiums. Still, for many in the fight, it’s worth taking a break from the serious debates in Washington to instead make Washington the center of the joke.

Heritage has asked that all please consider sharing it with your friends and family and, yes, even if they are liberals. I would argue that it should especially be shared with liberals.

In other fact-checking ObamaCare reports, Ppoponents of the president’s “signature” law went ballistic when widespread reports claimed the HealthCare.gov site costs $634 million. Opponents of the law went ballistic, as well, but obviously for different reasons. You can read People’s Pundit Daily’s fact-check on the cost of HealthCare.gov by clicking here.

Also, People’s Pundit Daily previously reported on the ObamaCare sign up acting as a Democratic voter registration drive, and now the disgraced radical ACORN founder is back. Wade Rathke, the infamous ACORN founder and Obama foot soldier, recently blogged about attending a meeting where the group discussed and planned outreach efforts under the Navigator program, which you can read about by clicking here.

If you haven't seen this Heritage ObamaCare

Family & Marriage, US

The NJ Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage after Gov. Chris Christie and a lower New Jersey court blocked imposing the unions.

New Jersey is the latest state to have a court either impose same-sex marriage or overturn bans that passed by popular referendum. Most notable was California’s Prop 8, which was heard by the Supreme Court last session. The court deferred to the ruling of the California Supreme Court, which dismantled the ban on same-sex marriage that twice passed on referendum.

A State Superior Court judge had ruled last month that the state had to allow same-sex marriage to comply with two decisions: the United States Supreme Court ruling in June that same-sex married couples have the same rights to federal benefits as heterosexual married couples, and a 2006 ruling by the New Jersey Supreme Court that same-sex couples were entitled to all of the rights and benefits of marriage.

The Superior Court judge, Mary C. Jacobson, ruled that the marriages could begin as early as this Monday.

Governor Christie quickly appealed the decision, and the state’s Supreme Court has agreed to hear their appeal, with oral arguments scheduled for early January. But on Friday, the court unanimously denied the Christie administration’s request for a stay on marriages until the appeal was settled.

The decision to hear Gov. Christie’s appeal is a charade, because the justices already telegraphed their predetermined bias by stating that they did not think the appeal had a “reasonable” chance of success.

“The state has advanced a number of arguments, but none of them overcome this reality: same-sex couples who cannot marry are not treated equally under the law today,” the Chief Justice Stuart Rabner wrote in his opinion. “The harm to them is real, not abstract or speculative.”

Mayors in Jersey City, Newark — consequently, the new Senator-elect — and Asbury Park, had said they wanted to be the first to marry same-sex couples, and gay rights groups had already been aiding couples who wish to file for marriage licenses. They have also planned ceremonies that will begin as soon as the clock strikes 12:01 a.m. on Monday.

Gay rights groups are also pushing the State Legislature to overturn Mr. Christie’s veto of a 2012 bill that would have allowed gay marriage. Mr. Christie has said he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman, and he has suggested that the issue should be put before voters in a referendum, but as usual, activist liberal justices will write the law for us.

The NJ Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage

Policy

 

July 7, 2010: An Environmental Protection Agency worker looks at oil from the Deepwater Horizon spill which seeped into a marsh in Waveland, Mississippi. (CREDIT: REUTERS)

According to two Republican lawmakers on the House Science Committee, an EPA power grab will grant ‘unprecedented power over private property across the nation.” The Environmental Protection Agency is pushing through a rule that would increase the agency’s regulatory authority over streams, wetlands and other bodies under the Clean Water Act.

Reps. Lamar Smith, R-TX, and Chris Stewart, R-UT, on Friday sent a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy voicing their concern over the proposed draft rule, which aims to solidify the agency’s regulatory jurisdiction over different types of water bodies. The letter was sent to the Office of Management and Budget in September to be reviewed. The EPA said the scope of the proposal is limited to clearing up confusion caused by Supreme Court decisions involving the Clean Water Act.

The lawmakers say the agency is engaging in a “rushed, politicized regulatory process” and have called on the EPA to defer to the independent science advisory board to review the science underlying the proposal.

“In light of the significant implications this action would have on the economy, property rights and state sovereignty, this process must be given more thought and deliberation to allow for important, statutorily-required, weighing of the scientific and technical underpinnings of the proposed regulatory changes,” the congressman wrote.

In September, the agency released a report from its science advisory board analyzing the relationships between smaller, isolated bodies of water and larger ones. The report, which served as justification for this power grab, concluded that streams and wetlands have important effects on downstream waters.

The EPA plans to accept public comments on the draft rule before finalizing it, but the agency has not indicated whether it will comply with the lawmakers’ request to allow for an independent review of the science underpinning the rule.

“Any attempt to issue a proposed rule before completing an independent examination by the agency’s own science advisors would be to put the cart before the horse,” Smith and Stewart wrote.

In January, EPA critics and officials in Virginia scored a key victory in their legal battle with the agency over its attempt to regulate storm water runoff that some described as a land takeover.

In the case of Virginia, a federal judge ruled against the EPA and in favor of the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, which challenged EPA’s restrictions on the flow of storm water into a Fairfax County creek system.

U.S. District Judge Liam O’Grady in Alexandria agreed with Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli — now-Republican candidate for Virginia governor — who argued that the EPA was trying to regulate water itself as a pollutant. In his ruling, O’Grady said: “Storm water runoff is not a pollutant, so EPA is not authorized to regulate it.”

The EPA held that water, itself, can be regulated as a pollutant if there’s too much of it. The agency says heavy runoff is having a negative impact on Accotink Creek and that it has the regulatory authority to remedy the situation.

According to two Republican lawmakers on the

News, Politics

The longest serving Republican lawmaker FL Rep. C.W. Bill Young has dies at age 82. Yesterday, there were several false reports that he had passed away, but the family has just confirmed today he has, in fact, pass away.

He had been hospitalized at Walter Reed for a back injury, where Bill Young received a call earlier this week from former President George W. Bush, thanking him for backing the military.

Rep. Bill Young was first elected in 1970, and became the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee’s panel on defense in 1995, where he continued to serve until his death. He was a champion of the military and a proponent of military spending. He also served on the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs subcommittee and was one of the most influential lawmakers responsible for building the country’s unrivaled defense budget.

Bill Young entered into politics in 1960 at the age of 29, when he was elected as the only Republican in the Florida Senate. He would eventually rise to minority leader within just 5 years, and years later he ran for Congress representing Florida’s tenth district. Young handily won reelection throughout his tenure as a lawmaker.

Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren, who has known the congressman and his family for years stated that the family was mourning the man whom they “cared for deeply.” Susteren said that Bill Young “would want to be known for his devotion to the military.”

As a young man, Young joined the National Guard when at age 18, serving from 1948 to 1957. He spent 6 years as a reservist, as well. He dropped out of high school and never attended college, instead working his way up as an insurance executive following his military service.

During President George W. Bush’s State of the Union address on January 31, 2006, the Capitol Police escorted Young’s wife, Beverly Young, out of the chamber’s Visitors Gallery. Beverly Young was wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with the words, “Support the Troops – Defending Our Freedom,” when then0-Senator Barack Obama and other liberals were voting to defund appropriations to supply our troops already in combat theaters.

Not surprisingly, Young was not too happy by the treatment of his wife. “Because she had on a shirt that someone didn’t like that said support out troops, she was kicked out of this gallery,” Young said in a chamber floor speech the next day as he held up the shirt for all in attendance.

“Shame, shame,” he said with disgust.

His family had concerns for his health, and Young recently announced that he would not seek another term to represent the all-important Florida district, encompassing Clearwater and Jacksonville.

With the death of C.W. “Bill Young” the nation learned today that they lost two lawmakers — the other, former House Speaker Tom Foley D-WA — who represent a throwback to a bygone era when civility, shared national identity, and the importance of leadership example took priority over radical ideology.

The longest serving Republican lawmaker FL Rep.

Opinion

WASHINGTON — In the matter of the (Washington) Redskins.

I don’t like being lectured by sportscasters about ethnic sensitivity. Or advised by the president of the United States about changing team names. Or blackmailed by tribal leaders playing the race card.

I don’t like the language police ensuring that no one anywhere gives offense to anyone about anything. And I fully credit the claim of Redskins owner Dan Snyder and many passionate fans that they intend no malice or prejudice and that “Redskins” has a proud 80-year history they wish to maintain.

The fact is, however, that words don’t stand still. They evolve.

Fifty years ago the preferred, most respectful term for African-Americans was Negro. The word appears 15 times in Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech. Negro replaced a long list of insulting words in common use during decades of public and legal discrimination.

And then, for complicated historical reasons (having to do with the black power and “black is beautiful” movements), usage changed. The preferred term is now black or African-American. With a rare few legacy exceptions, Negro carries an unmistakably patronizing and demeaning tone.

If you were detailing the ethnic composition of Congress, you wouldn’t say: “Well, to start with, there are 44 Negroes.” If you’d been asleep for 50 years, you might. But upon being informed how the word had changed in nuance, you would stop using it and choose another.

And here’s the key point: You would stop not because of the language police. Not because you might incur a Bob Costas harangue. Not because the president would wag a finger. But simply because the word was tainted, freighted with negative connotations with which you would not want to be associated.

Proof? You wouldn’t even use the word in private, where being harassed for political incorrectness is not an issue.

Similarly, regarding the further ethnic breakdown of Congress, you wouldn’t say: “And by my count, there are two redskins.” It’s inconceivable, because no matter how the word was used 80 years ago, it carries invidious connotations today.

I know there are surveys that say that most Native Americans aren’t bothered by the word. But that’s not the point. My objection is not rooted in pressure from various minorities or fear of public polls or public scolds.

Growing up, I thought “gyp” was simply a synonym for “cheat,” and used it accordingly. It was only when I was an adult that I learned that gyp was short for gypsy. At which point, I stopped using it.

Not because I took a poll of Roma to find out if they were offended. If some mysterious disease had carried away every gypsy on the planet, and there were none left to offend, I still wouldn’t use it.

Why? Simple decency. I wouldn’t want to use a word that defines a people — living or dead, offended or not — in a most demeaning way. It’s not a question of who or how many had their feelings hurt, but whether you want to associate yourself with a word that, for whatever historical reason having nothing to do with you, carries inherently derogatory connotations.

Years ago, the word “retarded” emerged as the enlightened substitute for such cruel terms as “feeble-minded” or “mongoloid.” Today, however, it is considered a form of denigration, having been replaced by the clumsy but now conventional “developmentally disabled.” There is no particular logic to this evolution. But it’s a social fact. Unless you’re looking to give gratuitous offense, you don’t call someone “retarded.”

Let’s recognize that there are many people of good will for whom “Washington Redskins” contains sentimental and historical attachment — and not an ounce of intended animus. So let’s turn down the temperature. What’s at issue is not high principle but adaptation to a change in linguistic nuance. A close call, though I personally would err on the side of not using the word if others are available.

How about Skins, a contraction already applied to the Washington football team? And that carries a sports connotation, as in skins vs. shirts in pickup basketball.

Choose whatever name you like. But let’s go easy on the other side. We’re not talking Brown v. Board of Education here. There’s no demand that Native Americans man the team’s offensive line. This is a matter of usage — and usage changes. If you shot a remake of 1934’s “The Gay Divorcee,” you’d have to change that title too.

Not because the lady changed, but because the word did.

Hail Skins.

Charles Krauthammer’s email address is [email protected].

Charles Krauthammer -- "In the matter of

US

Forget Law & Order, actor Chris Noth is lawless and in disorder. It seems “Mr. Big” — well, he’s a big something — has joined the long list of intellectually deficient liberals who accuse the Tea Party of racism, because they cannot defend there failed ideology. Then, they end up here, as the People’s Pundit Daily Dunce.

In an interview with Huffington Post on Wednesday, Noth called members of the Tea Party “Confederates” and accused them of being “un-American” racists for opposing Obama. Chris Noth gave the interview after  he tweeted a message saying that everyone in the Tea Party should “be horsewhipped.”

I am from the North, and northern white liberals are the weakest people on the planet. I would love to see him attempt to “horsewhip” a Tea Party member. If he didn’t have the whip taken and used against him in the first 30 seconds, then he would probably ask for a timeout, because he had a hand cramp for holding something other than a latte.

And that comment, unfortunately, was not the only example of his stupidity, either.

Chris Noth gave his interpretation — gain, via Twitter — of the government shutdown.

I guess this dunce is short on work, because it seems all loser actors throw out some ridiculous comment when they are looking for a pity position. For someone who pretends to be someone that he is not for a living, he didn’t pull off acting as if he knew what he was talking about very well, at all.

This was actually a close call between Chris Noth and Professor Marc Lamont Hill, the person who interviewed him, because even though Hill is an admitted socialist supporter of President Obama, at least he is intelligent. Stick with Bill O’Reilly Lamont, because you degrade your own credibility in the political sphere when you sit with a “useful idiot” like Chris Noth.

We at People’s Pundit Daily understand that for Hill and the Left, their position of collectivism is getting more and more difficult to defend intellectually. But please, for his sake, he should avoid this Daily Dunce in the future.

Forget Law & Order, actor Chris Noth

News, Politics

Former House Speaker Tom Foley D-WA, known for civility-based leadership style throughout his 3 decades in Congress from 1965 to 1995, is dead at the age of 84.

The eastern Washington Democrat was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1964 with his party’s historic gains under President Lyndon Johnson, unseating a ten-term Republican incumbent, Walter Horan, by a 7-point margin. However, 30-years later, Foley was thrown out of office alongside the majority of Democrats during the 1994 midterm elections, becoming the first Speaker since 1860 to lose reelection.

To be sure, Thomas Foley was respected by members of both parties for his style of governing fairness and emphasis on building consensus, a characteristic sorely lacking under President Obama and a far-left Democratic Party. Foley’s speakership was a reversal of the “rule with an iron-fist” way of his predecessors Jim Wright, D-TX, Thomas “Tip” O’Neill, D-MA., and Sam Rayburn, D-TX. Nancy Pelosi quickly returned to that speaker-dictator role filled by so many prior.

“There is a degree to which you can sort of push, encourage, support, direct,” Foley said. “But the speakership isn’t a dictatorship.”

Instance after instance, Thomas Foley’s decision to compromise rather than make confrontation had frustrated his Democratic peers, who became frustrated that he would refuse to exclude the other party.

“Tom Foley can argue three sides of every issue,” frequently complained Tip O’Neill, who owed his leadership to Foley.

Foley rose through the leadership ranks first as chairman of the House Agriculture Committee in 1975, then as majority whip in 1981 and majority leader in 1987. After the resignation of then-Speaker Jim Wright amid an ethics scandal in 1989, Foley was elected to the speakership unopposed by his Democratic colleagues.

The hyper partisanship stemming from the 1989 ethics scandals, which forced the resignations of Wright and Tony Coelho, D-CA., the majority whip, had members of both parties praying that Foley’s speakership would usher in a new era of civility. In his inaugural speech, Foley championed for “a spirit of cooperation and increased consultation.”

While Foley was widely respected on Capitol Hill for his open-mindedness, at the same time, many statist liberals thought it made him a weak leader. Foley believed that his efforts at bipartisanship were in the interest of better public policy. He did, however, recognize how such tactics sometimes embolden the opposition’s position.

“I think I am a little cursed with seeing the other point of view and trying to understand it,” Foley said.

Under nearly four decades of Democratic despotism, Republicans become used to the common Democratic steamroll tactics in House. So, both parties were shocked and confused one summer day in 1989 when, during a voice vote in the chamber intended simply to showcase the Republican opposition to a bill, Foley ruled in favor of allowing them a recorded vote on the measure.

“[T]he Democrats just sat there because they didn’t know what to do. I don’t think they knew to ask for a recorded vote because they never had to,” then-Rep. Mickey Edwards, R-OK., chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, told the New York Times. “And at that point, every Republican on the floor rose spontaneously and gave Tom Foley a standing ovation.”

Foley was headed down the same path taken in life by his father, who was a longtime federal judge, as Foley served as a deputy prosecutor for Spokane County and later as the state’s assistant attorney general. His aspirations on Capitol Hill came as he was serving as a special counsel to the Senate Committee of Interior and Insular Affairs.

Then-chairman of the Senate committee, Sen. Henry Jackson, D-WA, pushed Foley to run for Congress. As for Foley, who characterized himself as having a “Type-B”-personality, he spent a long time marinating over his final decision, which came literally at the last minute. Foley was filing the papers to run only minutes before the state deadline.

Foley’s constituents sent him back to Washington after 15 general elections, but as later it would become very difficult for him to hold on to his congressional seat. The first instance of pushback occurred in the 1992 elections, when he won a healthy 55 percent of the vote. But that was down from the 69 percent he garnered just 2 years earlier.

His leadership position, as is still the case, provided the incumbent an advantage. Ironically, in an anti-establishment wave election, it would actually lead to his defeat in the Republican Revolution of 1994.

The Washington state legislature was debating whether or not to enact term limits for both state and congressional representatives, holding them to 6 years in office. Foley, an almost permanent fixture in D.C., was vehemently opposed. He considered his record as an experienced legislator as advantageous, compared to his Republican challenger, George Nethercutt, who had no political experience.

Nethercutt, on the other hand, was a staunch proponent of killing unending tenure, and argued it contributed to the structural problems of the federal government, which is still being debated today.

“Three terms is long enough,” Nethercutt wrote in a campaign brochure. “If you serve longer than that, you’ll become part of the problem.”

Despicably, Nethercutt reneged on his signature campaign promise only 6 years later, when he announced plans to run for reelection a fourth time. Even with significant blowback from supporters of term limits, he stayed in Congress until 2005.

Foley refused to air negative campaign advertisements against Nethercutt, even as the political climate turned increasingly sour. On Election Day, despite national sentiment, the margin was still close, as Foley lost by less than 4,000 votes out of the more than 200,000 cast.

“I’ve had a very long and satisfying political career,” he said. “I am not in any sense bitter. I lost one election in my life; unfortunately, it was the last one.”

The defeat of a sitting speaker of the House for the first time in 134 years underscored the power of the Republican movement. The Republican Revolution ushered in a significant change of leadership styles, as Foley’s successor, Newt Gingrich, R-GA, made significant structural changes to House rules and committees, which enabled him to pass sweeping reform. These very rules were pivotal to Nancy Pelosi, in her quest to  swing an iron gavel.

Despite his high-profile defeat, one of Foley’s final acts as Speaker was to stress the spirit of cooperation and fairness.  In 1989, when he allowed the Republicans to have their vote, he gave the Republicans a feeling of what it was like to be in the majority. And it was not forgotten. Furthermore, neither was another act we just don’t witness today.

It was the lame-duck session in 1994, just a month after the Republican Party had retaken the House for the first time in four decades with 52 new seats. While the GOP was measuring the curtains for its new majority, one key member of the conference would not be returning — Bob Michel, who was the House Republican leader. He was retiring after a whopping 38 years in Congress, and all of them were spent in the House minority. Michel, as a party leader, would have presided in a majority, but he never had the opportunity to preside over the House. Although Foley would soon be handing the gavel over to a new era of Republican dominance, he allowed Michel to preside over a session.

After leaving Congress, Foley returned to public life only a few years later when President Bill Clinton appointed him as the ambassador to Japan in 1997. In addition to the frequent international travel from his time in Congress, Foley had served on the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, and as a member of the American-Japan Society, the U.S. China Council, the American Council for Germany, and the Foreign Affairs Council of Washington. He served as ambassador until 2001.

Former House Speaker Tom Foley represents a throw-back to a bygone era, when civility, shared national identity, and the importance of leadership example took priority over radical ideology. Looking back, it was truly only Foley and a few others who restrained the radical left-wing socialist elements that now govern the Democratic Party and the country, with uncompromising, unfair, and uncivil disdain unworthy to sit in the same seat of power as Tom Foley.

Former House Speaker Tom Foley D-WA, known

Culture, Politics, Religion

Dianne Reidy, who is the House stenographer who yelled about God and Free Masons on the floor of the House, said in an email message that the Holy Spirit was acting upon her.

Fox News’ GretaWire put out the email last night, “For the past 2 and ½ weeks, the Holy Spirit has been waking me up in the middle of the night and preparing me (through my reluctance and doubt) to deliver a message in the House Chamber. That is what I did.”

Dianne Reidy — remarked on the House floor, as seen is the video below — during the government shutdown vote, “The greatest deception here is this is not one nation under God. It never was. Had it been, it would not have been. No. It would not have been. The Constitution would not have been written by Free Masons. They go against God. You cannot serve two masters. You cannot serve two masters. Praise be to God, the Lord Jesus Christ. Praise forever.”

Except, Free Masons do not serve two masters, which is a common misnomer surrounding the secretive organization. It is a requirement to believe in God in order to be considered for membership, and recognizes that reason and morality are not creations of men, but God.

Mrs. Reidy’s husband, Dan Reidy, is standing by her side, unconcerned about any mental health issue, whatsoever. He said to Fox News that “my wife is a sweet, level-headed wonderful woman of God. I am proud of her.”

He also said to The Daily Beast that he didn’t know about her Holy Spirit encounter until after she had been removed from the House floor by Capitol Police. Afterward, she was sent to a local hospital for psychiatric observation and testing.

Mr. Reidy called what she had done was “so out of character,” and that “she so respects the Capitol and the traditions of the House of Representatives,” The Daily Beast also reported. However, he also characterized her as possessing deep religious faith — and said that she was adamant the Holy Spirit was the force that acting upon her.

“Waking several times a night feeling that God’s just been pressing on her to open a Bible and get into his word,” Mr. Reidy said. “Reading a Bible is not foreign to us, but getting up in the middle of the night definitely is. It’s just not a part of our life. … If that’s not God’s spirit …”

He trailed off, but then picked up, The Daily Beast reported: “What she was finding out was that God was impressing on her heart that He had a message He wanted her to share with the House of Representatives.”

Mr. Reidy said she kept resisting the command, but in the end, we know she eventually gave in.

“The reason it took four weeks [of sleepless nights] was because of her reluctance and her doubt,” Mr. Reidy said, in The Daily Beast. “She didn’t want to do it.”

[ooyala code=”dzeHJ4Zjp9c0rnPEPS8ao7H_XRqNjU2o” player_id=”undefined”]

Dianne Reidy, who is the House stenographer

US, Video

Host of “Hardball” on MSNBC Chris Matthews, really must like being called a Dunce, because he just cannot keep out of our Daily Dunce spot.

Following another moron — Rep. Charlie Rangel — who, recently called the Tea Party “confederates,” Chris Matthews asked, “does the tea party still count blacks as three-fifths?”

The saddest part about all of this, is that no statement over the past few weeks during the government shutdown and debate over the debt ceiling increase, was made regarding race. Except, of course, when Democrats couldn’t defend the substance of their argument or position.

Whether you agree with the Tea Party or the Democrats, any reasonable person must recognize that consistent opposition to any proposal put forth to address seriously concerning issues with ObamaCare, the outstanding amount of debt, etc., is deeply disturbing. But even more so, is the incessant throwbacks to racism, victimhood, and politics of division, because you cannot support your position.

Chris Matthews represents the worst of the worst in American political discourse. He is a paid instigator, who is tasked with keeping Americans divided and distracted long enough to prevent any gainful reduction of ignorance within the Democratic coalition.

Well, Chris Matthews, this cannot last forever, whether you are smart enough to see that or not. I can guarantee one aspect to your future that you can count on. People — black and white — will remember your role in causing the coming crisis that is soon to cause them severe pain and reduction in the quality of their lives.

You won’t have such a tingle running up your leg when that day comes, so you better hope that day comes later, rather than sooner.

Host of "Hardball" on MSNBC Chris Matthews,

News, Politics

A House committee is investigating the widespread technical problems with the launch of the ObamaCare website, including the crony contractors that were paid hundreds of millions of dollars to fail at their creation.

People’s Pundit Daily previously reported on the cronyism involved with failed ObamaCare website, as well as the cost involved to the taxpayers, but now the House Energy and Commerce Committee is involved. Amid the dispute over the now-lifted partial government shutdown, lawmakers have been steadily firing off letters over the past week probing for answers to why the HealthCare.gov site was not fully operational when it launched on Oct. 1.

The House committee announced that they have scheduled a hearing on the issue for Oct. 24, asking Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to be present.

“Despite the widespread belief that the administration was not ready for the health law’s October 1 launch, top officials and lead IT contractors looked us in the eye and assured us all systems were a go,” Chairman Fred Upton, R-MI., said in a written statement.

The Michigan Republican lawmaker said the technical problems are now at “epidemic proportions” and that the American people “deserve to know what caused this mess.”

Criticism has focused on the company that received the bulk of the taxpayer money to help create the website — CGI Federal, a Maryland-based U.S. subsidiary of the Canadian firm CGI Group. According to the company’s own announcement, it secured a contract in late 2011 worth a total of $93.7 million, with the base value at $55.7 million.

Reports have ranged widely over how much money has ultimately been spent on the flawed site, via CGI and other contractors. Reuters reported on Thursday that the potential total value for CGI’s work has tripled, to nearly $292 million. People’s Pundit Daily has our own anaysis on the cost, which can be read here.

Upton and other Republican lawmakers on the committee recently wrote to CGI President Michael Roach questioning the company’s prior statements to the House committee, which claimed the implementation of the ObamaCare website exchanges achieved “all” its key milestones.

“As you are aware, the rollout process … has been problematic,” they wrote, raising concerns that the problems may be due to poor architecture. They asked for information on how the system was tested prior to the failed launch, an analysis of the current problems, and what they are planning to do now to fix it.

They also wrote to the head of Quality Software Services, Inc., which is another contractor who received money for the launch.

According to a Government Accountability Office report in June, Qualify Software Services received approximately $55 million for “related activities” on the ObamaCare website exchanges. In total, the GAO reported that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services pumped out $394 million from fiscal 2010 to March of this year to dozens of contractors in order to set up the so-called ObamaCare “exchanges” and perform other supposedly relevant projects.

Reuters reported Thursday that the CGI deal in 2011 grew out of a 2007 contract. A string of additional multi-million-dollar payments were approved this year; the company reportedly has been paid nearly $200 million to date, with the potential value of the contract reaching $292 million.

The additional work reportedly was agreed to in response to new requirements on the site.

From the start of the launch of the ObamaCare website, technical problems have prevented many Americans from even having the ability to enroll. Officials in the Obama administration say the operators are working “24/7” to correct the issues.

“Health care reform is more than a website,” White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Wednesday.

He said that while the site glitches are “unacceptable,” as is leaving millions without health insurance.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee is also seeking enrollment figures from the Department of Health and Human Services. The administration so far has not released those figures.

A representative with CGI Group did not return a request for comment.

A House committee is investigating the widespread

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial

Subscribe