NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label Catholic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Catholic. Show all posts

21 September 2015

White House's Pope Welcome Is 'Anti-Christian,' Huckabee Says & Conservatives outraged at gays on White House guest list for Pope Francis — Vatican? Not so much 21SEP15

.:
SO much hypocrisy in mike huckabee's "christian" tweets. Let's start with the hateful attitudes towards the President, Muslims and seemingly anyone not a right wing evangelical extremist. It is so very obvious he is using the Pope's visit to stoke the hatred of his flock. But even more glaring is the self righteous rants of thomas williams, ex adulterous catholic priest "Williams is a vulnerable messenger for such a critique: He was a priest of a secretive and influential religious order, the Legionaries of Christ, a longtime favorite of the Catholic right, which the Vatican has been trying to overhaul after revelations of lurid sex and money scandals.
He later left the priesthood to marry a woman — the daughter of Mary Ann Glendon, a conservative Catholic law professor and ambassador to the Holy See under President Bush — with whom he had secretly had a child while he was still a cleric." mike huckabee, thomas williams and all the others offended by the guest list for the arrival ceremony for Pope Francis would do well to remember the kind of people Jesus Christ met and ate with, served and blessed and healed. As Christ representative on earth (for the Catholic Church) I believe the Pope will welcome all who have gathered to greet him just as Christ himself welcomes all who come to Him. From +NPR  and +Religion News Service via  +The Salt Lake Tribune .....

The Flag of Vatican City flies next to American flags outside the West Wing of the White House on Monday ahead of Pope Francis' arrival.
The Flag of Vatican City flies next to American flags outside the West Wing of the White House on Monday ahead of Pope Francis' arrival.
Andrew Harnik/AP
President Obama is taking some heat over who's been invited to attend Pope Francis' large arrival ceremony at the White House this Wednesday. The list includes the first openly gay Episcopal bishop, an activist nun and a transgender activist — guests the Vatican reportedly objected to, according to the Wall Street Journal.
And the Obama administration also has critics on this side of the pond — the latest is presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. Here's what he tweeted Monday:
Classless decision by to transform visit into a politicized cattle call is an insult to millions of Catholics
. show of disrespect for is a new low for an admin that will go down as most anti-Christian in American history
Why is it that goes to extremes to accommodate Muslim terrorists but shows nothing but disdain for Christians?

 
White House spokesman Josh Earnest responded to the criticism Monday, saying "there is no theological test that was administered prior to giving out tickets to stand on the South Lawn Wednesday morning."
An estimated 15,000 invitations have been issued for the event, which will take place on the South Lawn of the White House. The Obama administration issued some invitations itself but also partnered with faith organizations including the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Archdiocese of Washington and Catholic Charities.
Earnest declined to respond directly to Huckabee's "anti-Christian" claim but said more generally that
"The president's approach is to welcome the pope warmly to the United States and to eagerly anticipate and participate in a discussion about their shared values.
"There is so much about what Pope Francis has to say that is inclusive and that reflects the kind of personal commitment that Pope Francis has to a wide range of issues, particularly when it comes to social justice. And his eloquent expression of those values has inspired millions people not just here in the United States but around the world, and that's why he's deserving of such a warm welcome, and the president is looking forward to the opportunity to sit down with Pope Francis for a second time and to talk about some of — many of those values that they have in common. ...
"There's plenty of opportunity for others to inject politics into this situation. It certainly is a protected constitutional right of theirs to do that. But that's not what the president is interested in."
Late last week, Earnest said the diversity of the large crowd "reflects the diversity of people in this country that are moved by the teachings and actions of this pope."
Separate from the welcoming event, the president will sit down with the pope and is expected to discuss a range of issues. Earnest said the meeting will not be about politics or specific policies but "rather about the kinds of values that both men have dedicated their lives to championing." President Obama, he said, has been impressed at Pope Francis' willingness "to take on some tough issues and to lay out his values."

Conservatives outraged at gays on White House guest list for Pope Francis — Vatican? Not so much

First Published      Updated 7 hours ago
Do we have our first full-blown diplomatic incident marring the carefully orchestrated visit of Pope Francis to the U.S.?
Did the Obama White House muff what should have been a slam-dunk in welcoming the pontiff to what is essentially a Washington photo-op?
It sure sounds that way, judging by the conservative outrage over White House invitations to a number of gay Catholics and LGBT advocates, an openly gay Episcopal bishop and a nun who is a prominent social-justice activist.
They are among the nearly 15,000 people taking part in a reception for Francis on the South Lawn on Wednesday before his private meeting with the president.
But these particular guests are "a rogue's gallery" of dissenters and their inclusion is "a stunning show of political indecorum" designed to "test just how far Pope Francis' notorious tolerance will go," Thomas Williams wrote last Wednesday on the right-wing news site Breitbart.com.
In his article, Williams — who left the priesthood to marry a woman he was having an affair with — described Sister Simone Campbell, one of the guests, as the "pro-abortion executive director of the social justice lobby Network."
Campbell, who is known as the organizer of the "Nuns on the Bus" tours, says she is "pro-life, not just pro-birth." She has also said that while her work does not focus on abortion issues per se, she believes that her mission to address economic injustice and promote health care for all Americans helps reduce the number of abortions.
Williams also pointed to the invitation to Aaron Ledesma, a 23-year-old gay Catholic who said he recently returned to Mass because he was inspired by Francis' message of inclusivity, and Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson, the first openly gay bishop in the Anglican Communion, who's now a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a think tank with ties to the Democratic Party.
Williams is a vulnerable messenger for such a critique: He was a priest of a secretive and influential religious order, the Legionaries of Christ, a longtime favorite of the Catholic right, which the Vatican has been trying to overhaul after revelations of lurid sex and money scandals.
He later left the priesthood to marry a woman — the daughter of Mary Ann Glendon, a conservative Catholic law professor and ambassador to the Holy See under President Bush — with whom he had secretly had a child while he was still a cleric.
The Breitbart story was given further momentum when The Wall Street Journal ran an article Thursday saying "the Vatican has taken offense" at the guest list. The story cited an unnamed "senior Vatican official" as the source of the offense.
That really got the ball rolling, and in a cascade of tweets and blog posts, conservative Catholics and their allies voiced outrage at the "childish dig at the pope" and the "juvenile" and "deliberate insult" to American Catholics.
"(T)he White House wants to deliberately embarrass the Pope by sticking a thumb in his eye, and by sticking their noses into Catholic doctrine and teachings," Ed Morrissey wrote at HotAir.com.
Even the editorial page of The Washington Post got into the act on Saturday, writing that the Vatican "has raised objections" (a Vatican spokesman in fact noted that the Holy See does not, as a matter of course, comment on such matters) and criticizing the Obama administration for being willing to offend a kindly soul like Pope Francis while kowtowing to oppressive governments such as China, Saudi Arabia and Cuba.
The president would never invite dissidents to receptions for those countries' leaders, The Post said. (It did not mention that Francis is also being criticized for not meeting political dissidents and speaking out more forcefully on human rights while in Cuba.)
The Post also said inviting Campbell insulted Francis because she criticizes church policies on euthanasia; Campbell said in an email she has never raised the issue or criticized the Vatican over it.
"While I won't have the opportunity to meet Pope Francis directly, I'll be carrying in my heart many of the people that I've met on our Nuns on the Bus tours across this great country," said Campbell, who is currently on a bus tour with other nuns to promote Francis' teachings ahead of his visit.
"These are the people Pope Francis cares about," she wrote, referring to the struggling Americans she has met in various cities on the current trip. "These are the people we care about. Pope Francis knows the type of work we Catholic sisters do as we walk with the people, and we are grateful for his leadership bridging divides and transforming our political and economic systems."
On further review, maybe American conservatives and Obama critics are more upset than the pope they say they are defending.
While the guest list apparently irked the Vatican official who spoke to The Wall Street Journal, several other church officials in the Vatican and the U.S. said privately they didn't consider the issue a problem or worth coverage.
They said there are far more important issues to think about in connection with the pope's Sept. 22-27 trip to Washington, New York and Philadelphia, and they noted that the guests in question represented a handful of people out of many thousands.
Administration officials also said the White House worked with the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Archdiocese of Washington, Catholic Relief Services and Catholic Charities to distribute invitations to guests from around the country.
Leading evangelicals and representatives of other faith groups were also invited, and many guests were told they could bring friends of their choosing.
Jewish representatives will be absent because the event falls on Yom Kippur, the sacred Day of Atonement. That timing was the source of scattered complaints, though most Jewish leaders dismissed such grousing and said they understood scheduling was difficult. Francis is to formally meet with Jewish and interfaith leaders Friday in New York.
It seems unlikely that Francis would have a major problem with Campbell.
He has gone out of his way to praise the work of American nuns, whose social-justice outreach seems to mirror his own priorities, and he ended a Vatican investigation of U.S. sisters launched under his predecessor, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.
Moreover, Francis last week named Sister Maureen Kelleher, a founding member of Campbell's group Network, as a special delegate
The pope has also welcomed gay people to the Vatican and invited a transgender man from Spain to meet with him at his private residence. He has met with advocates for LGBT Catholics and appointed a German bishop to next month's Vatican synod who has suggested that the church bless gay couples.
Just last week, a New York priest who ministers to gay and lesbian Catholics revealed that after celebrating Mass with Francis at the pontiff's chapel in the Vatican, he gave the pope a DVD that tells stories about LGBT Catholics and their relationship to the church.
"This is from the gays and lesbians of the United States," the Rev. Gil Martinez, pastor at the Church of St. Paul the Apostle, told Francis, according to Martinez's interview with The Huffington Post.
In chatting in the pope's native Spanish about his upcoming U.S. visit, Francis told Martinez: "I would love to visit and talk to gay and lesbian people. And please tell the gays to pray for me, and I shall pray for them."
On Wednesday at the White House, the pope may be able to deliver that message in person — if he can find them in the crowd.
— Editor's note: David Gibson assisted Sister Simone Campbell in writing her 2014 memoir, "A Nun on the Bus: How All of Us Can Create Hope, Change, and Community."

30 August 2012

Rick Santorum says that when his grandfather arrived in the U.S., “there were no government benefits for immigrants" 29AUG12

MORE lies and propaganda from the gop / tea-bagger convention in Tampa, this time spewing from the mouth of that consummate liar rick santorum. He, like rep paul ryan, is a Catholic, and so I have to ask the same question; that is, when rick santorum goes to confession will he list these lies among his sins?
The Truth-O-Meter Says:
Santorum

When his grandfather arrived in the United States, "there were no government benefits for immigrants."

Rick Santorum on Tuesday, August 28th, 2012 in a speech at the Republican National Convention in Tampa

Rick Santorum says that when his grandfather arrived in the U.S., “there were no government benefits for immigrants"

During a speech to the Republican National Convention in Tampa, former presidential candidate Rick Santorum evoked the America his father found when he arrived on these shores as an immigrant in the 1920s.

"In 1923, there were no government benefits for immigrants, except one: Freedom!" Santorum said.

This is close to a claim by Santorum that made in a Feb. 29, 2012, speech near Knoxville, Tenn., he said that during that era "there were no government benefits," which earned a False on the Truth-O-Meter.

So we will re-evaluate it here, though we won’t consider the issue of "freedom," which we believe is too vague to be fact-checked.

When we first looked at this question, we found there were two major sources of payments to individuals prior to 1925 -- veterans benefits and workers' compensation.

Veterans benefits. The federal government began funding benefits for Civil War veterans in 1862, initially for those who had been injured and then, progressively, to wider and wider groups of those who had served. In 1904 President Theodore Roosevelt signed an order defining "disability" to include old age, as long as the beneficiary had at least 90 days of service and an honorable discharge.

University of Arizona economist Price V. Fishback wrote that "roughly 40 to 48 percent of the elderly in the North and Midwest in the early 1900s were receiving pensions" through the system. Peter Blanck and Chen Song wrote in a 2003 paper in the William and Mary Law Review that "at its height in the 1890s, the (Union veteran) pension scheme consumed almost half of the federal budget and was intimately linked to the Republican Party's strategy to maintain the soldier vote and hold the White House."

Worker compensation. A federal worker-compensation law to help civilian government workers injured or made sick on the job was adopted in 1908, according to a history on the Social Security Administration website. Starting in 1911, states began passing such laws, and by 1929, laws were in effect in all but four states.

While these are the clearest examples that run counter to Santorum’s claim, there are a few other efforts worth noting.

Local government aid to the poor. During the period Santorum is talking about, local governments were responsible for providing benefits to the poor, Fishback told PolitiFact. These payments tended to be modest. Fishback cited a study by Brendan Livingston of Rowan University that looked at welfare policies in Massachusetts -- generally considered the most generous state in the first decades of the 20th century -- and found that local governments were spending an amount equivalent to about 0.5 percent to 1 percent of all income earned by state residents on relief for the poor. Private charities were spending at about twice that rate.

By 1925, most states also had "mothers' pensions" on the books, which allowed widows to raise their children without having to put them in orphanages, according to Fishback’s paper. By then, a handful of states also had means-tested pensions for the elderly, and a sizable number had pensions for the blind. And states or municipalities often operated mental hospitals, old-age homes, orphanages and general hospitals, all for the public benefit.

Schools and universities. While education isn’t a direct payment to individuals, it’s worth pointing out that they represented a government-provided benefit in kind. "Primary and secondary education were already overwhelmingly paid for by taxes from the late 1800s on," said Peter Lindert, an economist at the University of California at Davis.

Meanwhile, higher education had land-grant subsidies -- federally backed institutions dating back to the Morrill Land-Grant Acts of 1862 and 1890. "Because they were public institutions, tuition was cheaper on account of public subsidies," said Gary Gerstle, a historian and political scientist at Vanderbilt University. "This was clearly a government benefit."

Health funding for mothers and newborns. In 1921, President Warren G. Harding signed the Sheppard-Towner Maternity and Infancy Protection Act, which gave states matching federal funds to build and operate prenatal and child health care centers.

All told, by 1922, various expenditures for public benefits amounted to 6.8 percent of expenditures by the three levels of government combined. Santorum does have a point that social welfare spending by 1925 was relatively small compared to what it would ultimately become, because two major programs, Social Security and Medicare, didn't start until later.

It’s worth noting that the specific individual Santorum cited -- his newly arrived immigrant grandfather -- wouldn’t have directly benefited from military pensions or a land-grant college upon his arrival on these shores, though other immigrants, such as those who arrived in time to serve in previous wars, could have. Experts contacted for this story said they were not aware that the benefits provided were restricted only to the native-born.

In the meantime, his ability to collect worker compensation would have depended on what state he lived in upon his arrival. Similarly, the local aid to the poor he would have qualified for would have varied significantly depending on what city or county he lived in, and it would have been small by the standards of later decades. Still, it was not zero, as Santorum said.

Our ruling

Contrary to Santorum’s claim, millions of Americans in the 1920s would have either qualified for benefits directly, such as payments to veterans, or have been protected by work
ers' compensation laws that provided benefits to those who became disabled by their jobs. And state and local governments had the longstanding role of paying support to people who were disabled or indigent. This provides a much more complex picture than Santorum is painting. We rate his statement False.
About this statement:
Published: Wednesday, August 29th, 2012 at 7:30 p.m.
Subjects: Welfare
Sources:
Rick Santorum, speech at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Aug. 28, 2012

Knoxville News Sentinel, Rick Santorum speech at Temple Baptist Church in Powell, Tenn., Feb. 29, 2012 (26.8 MB audio file)

Statistical Abstract of the United States, Federal, State and Local Expenditures by Function, 1902-1970

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, Table 2.1. Personal Income and Its Disposition, accessed Mar. 5, 2012

Social Security Administration, "Historical Development," accessed Mar. 5, 2012

Price V. Fishback, "Social Expenditures in the United States and the Nordic Countries: 1900-2003," August 2009

Peter Blanck and Chen Song, "’Never Forget What They Did Here’: Civil War Pensions for Gettysburg Union Army Veterans and Disability in Nineteenth-Century America," William & Mary Law Review, 2003

Gregory P. Guyton, "A Brief History of Workers' Compensation" (article in Iowa Orthopedic Journal), 1999

University of Virginia Miller Center, "Harding Signs Sheppard-Towner Act–November 23, 1921," accessed Mar. 6, 2012

PolitiFact, "Rick Santorum charts explosion of federal entitlement spending since 1958," Feb. 23, 2012

PolitiFact, "Santorum says when his grandfather came to the U.S. in 1925, 'there were no government benefits,'" March 6, 2012

Email interview with Eugene Steuerle, fellow with the Urban Institute, Mar. 5, 2012

Email interview with Caleb Quackenbush, research assistant with the Urban Institute, Mar. 5, 2012

Email interview with Michael B. Katz, historian at the University of Pennsylvania, Mar. 5, 2012

Email interview with Peter Lindert, economist at the University of California at Davis, Mar. 5, 2012

Email interview with Price V. Fishback, economist with the University of Arizona, Mar. 5, 2012

Email interview with Henry Aaron, economist at the Brookings Institution, Mar. 5, 2012

Email interview with Gary Burtless, economist at the Brookings Institution, Mar. 5, 2012

Email interview with Dean Baker, economist with the Center for Economic and Policy Research, Mar. 5, 2012

Email interview with Arloc Sherman, economist at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Mar. 5, 2012

Email interview with Gary Gerstle, professor of history and political science at Vanderbilt University, Mar. 6, 2012

Email interview with Douglas J. Besharov, public policy professor at the University of Maryland, Mar. 5, 2012 and Aug. 29, 2012

Email interview with Timothy M. Smeeding, director of the Institute for Research on Poverty at the Robert M. La Follette School of Public Affairs at the University of Wisconsin, Mar. 5, 2012 and Aug. 29, 2012

Written by: Louis Jacobson
Researched by: Louis Jacobson
Edited by: Bridget Hall Grumet
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/29/rick-santorum/rick-santorum-says-when-his-grandfather-arrived-us/

Fact Checkers Say Some Of Ryan's Claims Don't Add Up 30AUG12 &Paul Ryan said President Obama “funneled” $716 billion out of Medicare “at the expense of the elderly.” 29AUG12

paul ryan's speech at the gop / tea-bagger convention is full of lies, not a big surprise, but one has to wonder if, as a Catholic, he will list these lies as a some of his sins when he goes to confession......
Rep. Paul Ryan stretched some truths Wednesday night when he accepted the Republican Party's 2012 vice presidential nomination, according to the fact checkers who parse politicians' words for news outlets and independent watchdogs:
FactCheck.org found several problems with what Ryan said. Among them: Ryan "accused President Obama's health care law of funneling money away from Medicare 'at the expense of the elderly.' In fact, Medicare's chief actuary says the law 'substantially improves' the system's finances, and Ryan himself has embraced the same savings."
FactCheck also notes that Ryan "accused Obama of doing "exactly nothing" about recommendations of a bipartisan deficit commission — which Ryan himself helped scuttle."
— The Wisconsin congressman earned a "false" rating from PolitiFact.com on one statement. He got it for noting that then-candidate Barack Obama told the people of Janesville, Wis. (Ryan's home town) that the GM plant there would be open another 100 years if the government gave it the right support. "That plant didn't last another year," Ryan said, implying that Obama broke a promise. Ryan didn't say that the plant actually closed in 2008, before Obama took office.
— Ryan "took some factual shortcuts," The Associated Press says. For instance, Ryan said the economic stimulus package passed in the early days of the Obama administration "was a case of political patronage, corporate welfare and cronyism at their worst. You, the working men and women of this country, were cut out of the deal."
The AP says that: "Ryan himself asked for stimulus funds shortly after Congress approved the $800 billion plan, known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Ryan's pleas to federal agencies included letters to Energy Secretary Steven Chu and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis seeking stimulus grant money for two Wisconsin energy conservation companies."
— And as for the recurring "we built it" theme of the convention and Republicans' insistence that Obama doesn't think business people deserve credit for their successes — a line of attack Ryan returned to — The Washington Post's Fact Checker has now given the GOP "four Pinocchios" on that one.
When the president said "you didn't build that," the Post has concluded, he appeared "to be making the unremarkable point that companies and entrepreneurs often benefit in some way from taxpayer support for roads, education and so forth. In other words, he [was] trying to make the case for higher taxes, and for why he believes the rich should pay more, which as we noted is part of a long Democratic tradition. He just did not put it very eloquently."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/08/30/160301854/fact-checkers-say-some-of-ryans-claims-dont-add-up?ft=1&f=139482413
The Truth-O-Meter Says:
Ryan

President Obama "funneled" $716 billion out of Medicare "at the expense of the elderly."

Paul Ryan on Wednesday, August 29th, 2012 in a speech at the Republican National Convention

Paul Ryan said President Obama “funneled” $716 billion out of Medicare “at the expense of the elderly.”

Vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan has made some of his sharpest attacks yet on Barack Obama’s health care law, calling the law "the greatest threat to Medicare."

Ryan himself advocates a plan to give voucher-like credits to seniors, so they can shop for a private plan or choose a traditional Medicare option. That plan has come under withering attack from Democrats.

Ryan fired back Aug. 29 during his acceptance speech at the at the Republican National Convention in Tampa.

"The biggest, coldest power play of all in Obamacare came at the expense of the elderly," Ryan said. "You see, even with all the hidden taxes to pay for the health care takeover, even with a new law and new taxes on nearly a million small businesses, the planners in Washington still didn’t have enough money. They needed more. They needed hundreds of billions more.

"So, they just took it all away from Medicare, $716 billion, funneled out of Medicare by President Obama. An obligation we have to our parents and grandparents is being sacrificed, all to pay for a new entitlement we didn’t even ask for. The greatest threat to Medicare is Obamacare, and we’re going to stop it."

Ryan’s comments are highly misleading. Neither Obama nor his health care law literally cut funding from the Medicare program’s budget. Still, the number has a slight basis in fact.

The health care law instituted a number of changes to try to bring down future health care costs in the program. The total anticipated savings comes to $716 billion over the next 10 years, as determined by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

We should note that both parties agree Medicare spending is increasing too fast as baby boomers retire and medical costs increase. The government needs to find savings so those costs don’t overwhelm the federal budget in the future.

So, yes, Obama’s law did find $716 billion in spending reductions. They were mainly aimed at insurance companies and hospitals, not beneficiaries. The law made significant reductions to Medicare Advantage, a subset of Medicare plans run by private insurers. Medicare Advantage was started under President George W. Bush, and the idea was that competition among the private insurers would reduce costs. But the plans have actually cost the government more than traditional Medicare. The health care law scales back the payments to private insurers.
  
Hospitals, too, will be paid less if they have too many re-admissions, or if they fail to meet other new benchmarks for patient care.
  
Obama and fellow Democrats say the intention is to protect beneficiaries' coverage while forcing health care providers to become more efficient. Even with the health care law’s cost-saving measures, the overall Medicare budget is still projected to go up for the foreseeable future.

There is a connection between the Medicare cost savings and the health care law. At the time the health care law was being finalized, Democrats said it was important to them that the new law not add to the deficit. So the reductions in Medicare spending were counted against the health care law’s new spending.

We should point out that some new spending is within the Medicare program, such as increasing coverage for prescription drugs and offering preventive care with no out-of-pocket costs.
  
More significantly, though, the law moves to cover the uninsured, by giving them tax credits to buy private insurance. It also expands Medicaid, the state insurance program for the poor. The savings from Medicare offset that spending.
  
The health law also imposes new taxes, primarily on the wealthy and on the health care industry. That, too, offsets the new spending.

Our ruling

Ryan said Obama "funneled" $716 billion out of Medicare "at the expense of the elderly." This gives a very misleading impression.

In fact, the law limits payments to health care providers and insurers to try to reduce the rapid growth of future Medicare spending. Lawmakers said they hoped the measures would improve care and efficiency. Those savings, spread out over the next 10 years, are then used to offset costs created by the law (especially coverage for the uninsured) so that the overall law doesn't add to the deficit. Ryan’s statement is exaggerated and we rate it Mostly False.
About this statement:
Published: Wednesday, August 29th, 2012 at 11:27 p.m.
Subjects: Federal Budget, Medicare
Sources:
Republican National Convention, remarks by Paul Ryan, Aug. 29, 2012

PolitiFact, Romney says Obama 'cuts' $716B from Medicare to pay for Obamacare, Aug. 20, 2012

Congressional Budget Office, Letter to the Honorable John Boehner providing an estimate for H.R. 6079, the Repeal of Obamacare Act, July 24, 2012
          
Congressional Budget Office, CBO's Analysis of the Major Health Care Legislation Enacted in March 2010, March 30, 2011
          
Congressional Budget Office, H.R. 2, Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act, February 18, 2011
          
Congressional Budget Office, The Long-Term Budgetary Impact of Paths for Federal Revenues and Spending Specified by Chairman Ryan, March 20, 2012
          
PolitiFact, "Medicare 'cuts' in the health care law will hurt seniors, says 60 Plus Association," Sept. 20, 2010
  
The Kaiser Family Foundation, Health Reform and Medicare: Overview of Key Provisions, July 2010

PolitiFact, "$500 billion from Medicare for Obamacare, Mitt Romney says," June 16, 2011


Written by: Angie Drobnic Holan
Researched by: Angie Drobnic Holan
Edited by: Bridget Hall Grumethttp://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/29/paul-ryan/paul-ryan-said-president-obama-funneled-716-billio/