jarasan's Blog

Happy Halloween!

 

I am impressed by the openess, dismayed by the repeat visitors.  Check it out,  it is a bit slow,  but it renders after a couple of seconds,  I got to the end,  interesting to say the least.

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/disclosures/visitor-records

The word "shall" appears over 3400 times in this grab for control over EVERYBODY'S lives!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nanzi Pelosi is going to run your life if this pile of crap gets signed by GANGSTAPUPPETOTUSPOS.

10 Facts Every American Should Know About Speaker Pelosi’s 1,990-Page Gov’t Takeover of Health Care

Posted on October 29, 2009

 

-By Representative John Boehner (R-OH), Washington, Oct 29

Members of Congress and the American people are just beginning tolook at Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) 1,990-page government takeover ofhealth care, but it’s already becoming clear just how costly andunsustainable this proposal is. From higher taxes on middle-classfamilies to job-killing mandates on small businesses to cuts in Medicare benefits for seniors, here are 10 facts every American should know about Speaker Pelosi’s 1,990-page government takeover of health care:

1. RAISES TAXES ON MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES. Speaker Pelosi’shealth care bill imposes a range of tax increases on families withincome below $250,000, breaking a promise made by President Obama. Taxincreases on middle class families include: an individual mandate taxof up to 2.5 percent of income for taxpayers earning as little as$9,350; repeal of a tax break on medicine purchased with funds from anHSA (health savings account); limits to tax relief through FSAs(flexible spending accounts); taxes on medical devices that willinevitably be passed on to consumers; and a new tax on all insurancepolicies.

2. MASSIVE CUTS TO MEDICARE BENEFITS FOR SENIORS. Despitegrave warnings from CBO, FactCheck.org, and the independent Lewin Groupthat cuts to Medicare of the magnitude included in Speaker Pelosi’sbill would have a negative impact on seniors’ benefits and choices,Speaker Pelosi’s health care bill stays the course and cuts Medicare byhundreds of billions of dollars.
 
3. NO PROTECTIONS FOR SMALL BUSINESSES. Speaker Pelosi’s healthcare bill claims to exempt small businesses from the steep eightpercent ‘pay or play’ employer mandate. The facts tell a differentstory. Using Census data compiled by the Small BusinessAdministration, this so-called ‘exemption’ hammers small employers withonly, on average, 17 or more employees to new taxes and mandates. Theoutfits affected employ 70 percent of allsmall business employees, or 42.3 million workers. Adding to the assault on small businesses, the bill does not index the small business “exemption” amounts, meaning more and more small businesses will be ensnared by this job-killing employer mandate each year.

4. INCREASES THE COST OF HEALTH INSURANCE. Imposing a new $2 billion tax on insurance policies will be passed on to patients in the form of higher premiums. Changes to the Medicare Part D prescription drug benefit will, according to estimates by CBO, will raise Medicare Part Bpremiums by $25 billion and Part D premiums by 20 percent. And imposingan unfunded mandate on the states to pay for the bill’s Medicaidexpansion will shift the burden of this expansion on state taxpayerswho may experience tax increases to cover the cost.

5. USES GIMMICKS TO HIDE BUDGET-BUSTING COST, PILES UP DEBT ON FUTURE GENERATIONS.Speaker Pelosi’s health care bill claims to be deficit neutral, butuses budget gimmickry to hide its massive total cost. Working familiesacross America know they cannot simply decide that a bill they get inthe mail doesn’t exist, butthat’s exactly what congressional Democrats are doing. In order to meetthe President’s ‘target’ spending total of $900 billion, Democrats havesimply swept costly provisions under the rug, including the $245billion ‘doc fix.’

6. IMPOSES JOB-KILLING EMPLOYER MANDATES. Additional taxes onemployers and new government mandates that dictate acceptable insurancewill place new and crushing burdens on employers. These are burdensthat will ultimately fall squarely on the backs of workers in the formof reduced wages, fewer hours or lost employment. CBO agrees that“[e]mployees largely bear the cost of… play-or-pay fees in the form oflower wages.” According to the National Federation of IndependentBusiness (NFIB), the nation’s largestsmall business association, anemployer mandate of this magnitude will disproportionately impact smallbusinesses, triggering up to 1.6 million lost jobs. Two-thirds of thosejobs would be shed by small businesses.

7. TILTS THE PLAYING FIELD IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT-RUN INSURANCE COMPANY.Speaker Pelosi’s health care bill promises not to give thegovernment-run plan advantages over private insurers in the market, butthe opposite is true. The bill provides billions in start-upfunding for the government-run plan, and while it requires the plan torepay the money over time it does not require the plan to pay intereston this “loan.” This interest-free, taxpayer-subsidized loan ispotentially worth millions of dollars and tilts the playing field infavor of the government-run plan.

8. THREATENS CASH-STRAPPED STATES WITH UNFUNDED MANDATES.Speaker Pelosi’s health care bill swells the number of Americans on thegovernment rolls by expanding Medicaid eligibility. Medicaid isfinanced through a federal-state partnership, but the bill dumps nearlyten percent of the mandated expansion included in the bill onto thestates. States, already struggling with fiscal constraints, would beleft on the hook for billions of dollars due to this unfunded mandate.

9. CREATES A NEW MONSTROSITY IN THE TAX CODE. Starting in2011, Speaker Pelosi’s health care bill imposes a 5.4 percent tax onadjusted gross income above $500,000 for individuals and $1 million formarried couples. Yet, the dollar amounts for which the tax kicks in arenot indexed for inflation. We’ve seen this horror film before: theAlternative Minimum Tax, another Frankenstein’s monster of the taxcode, also wasn’t indexed for inflation and now affects millions ofmiddle class families with incomes below the Democrat’s surtax.

10. MISSES AN OPPORTUNITY TO CURTAIL JUNK LAWSUITS. SpeakerPelosi’s health care bill misses a critical opportunity to rein in junklawsuits and costly defensive medicine. The bill includes only avoluntary grant program to deal with the medical liability crisisinstead of including real reform, which would produce tens of billionsof dollars in savings, improve efficiency in our health care system and reduce costs for patients and providers.

BONUS: Republicans have offered better solutions to lower healthcare costs and expand access to quality, affordable coverage at a priceour nation can afford. Learn more by visiting healthcare.gop.gov.

Here it is a nice leisurely read, enjoy.  Notice there is no HR #

 

http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf

 

Unfortunately, I don't have to check this out because all of us have heard or read about it. Just remember that those bloated SOBs in congress take very good care of themselves and crow about all the good they are doing for the 'people', and that's from both sides of the House and Senate. Use your power to vote them out. For your friends who voted for the 'messiah', Idon't think that this is the "Hope & Change" they thought it was going to be.

2010 COLA

For the first time in history, Congress will not allow an increase in the social security COLA (cost of living adjustment). In fact, The Henry J.Kaiser Family Foundation predicts there may not be any social security COLA for the next three years.

However, the per person monthly Medicare Insurance premium for some people will be increased from the 2009 premium of $96.40 to $104.20 in 2010and to $120.20 for the year 2011.

Send this to all the seniors that you know and remind them not to vote for the incumbent senators and congressmen in the 2010 and the 2012 Elections.

And don't forget - CONGRESS GAVE THEMSELVES A PAY RAISE IN THIS YEAR OF LITTLE TO NO INFLATION... WHAT KIND OF CRAP IS THAT?? They take good care of themselves - screw the people!

Part B Premiums in 2010: Frozen for Many, Higher for Some

No Social Security cost-of-living increase next year means higher costs for some beneficiaries and states

Forthe first time in 35 years, older Americans will receive nocost-of-living increases (COLA) in their Social Security checks in 2010 according to Congressional Budget Office estimates.The forecast is based on expected low inflation, in contrast to 2009when the COLA added 5.8 percent to Social Security benefits.

Next year's zero COLA is bad news enough for many retirees living on fixed incomes during a recession. But millions of them also face much higher Medicare Part B premiums next year.

Under an obscure"hold-harmless" provision of federal law, basic Part B premiums in any year cannot rise higher than that year's COLA. So a zero COLA means that the basic premium (currently $96.40 a month) must stay the same."The intent of the policy is to protect the amount of the Social Security payment from being reduced by an increase in premium costs,"says Peter Ashkenaz, spokesman for the Centers for Medicare &Medicaid Services (CMS).

The hold-harmless policy gives this protection to the majority of people enrolled in Medicare Part B who also receive Social Security, Railroad Retirement or Civil Serviceretiree benefits.

But it does not apply to one in four (or about 11 million) beneficiaries who:

do not have their Part B premiums withheld from their Social Security checks, or

pay a higher Part B premium based on higher income, or

are newly enrolled in Part B.

Premium amounts are normally set so that beneficiaries actually pay for only about 25 percent of the costs of Part B benefits, which cover doctors'visits and other outpatient services. The remainder is paid out of federal funds. Next year, if the premium is frozen for most beneficiaries but costs rise, the shortfall in revenue for that 25 percent falls on the wallets of the one in four beneficiaries not protected by the hold-harmless provision.

"In the absence of aSocial Security COLA, unless Part B premiums are increased substantially on those who are not held harmless, the Supplemental Medical Insurance trust fund, which finances Part B, is at risk of exhaustion," according to an analysis by the Congressional Research Service.

For these beneficiaries, the basic Part B premium couldrise to $119 a month in 2010, according to Congressional Budget Office projections. And if zero Social Security COLAs continue in later years,as CBO expects, it could rise to $128 by 2012. For people with incomes over $85,000 a year who already pay higher premiums—surcharges of between $38.50 and $211.90 a month in 2009—these amounts would be far more.

The result would be two levels of charges even for basic Part B premiums—the lower amount paid by three-fourths of enrollees,and the higher amount borne by the remaining fourth.

"Congress never anticipated a year when there would not be a Social Security COLA," says John Rother, AARP's director of policy. "This new situationraises issues of fairness unless Congress makes some changes before theend of the year."

"To address this problem, one action theCongress might consider is to grant a flat Social Security COLAincrease each year, during times of low inflation, to offset the impactof rising Medicare costs," Rother adds, "This would avoid the fullburden of cost increases falling on a minority of beneficiaries and help keep Part B solvent in the long run."

About 7.5 million Medicare beneficiaries who don't have their Part B premiums deducted from their Social Security checks are those whose premiums are paid for by their state Medicaid program. These low-income people are not affected—they still won't pay the premiums themselves. But the states would have to pick up the tab for the higher premiums. This could affect the number of people covered by Medicaid if state governments,already strapped by falling revenue, cut back on services, consumer advocates say.

Everybody else who pays Part B premiums directly to Medicare by check will be affected by the higher amounts. These include people who, though enrolled in Medicare, have deferred collecting their Social Security benefits.

Also affected are many people newly enrolled in Part B who therefore did not have premiums deducted from their retirement checks the previous year. The hold-harmless calculation is made in November each year, CMS says. So anyone joining Part B in 2010 would have to pay the higher Part B premiums until November 2010 when they would become eligible for hold-harmless protection.

The hold-harmless provision applies only to Part B premiums and not to premiums for Part D drug coverage,which are also often withheld from enrollees' Social Security checks."If Part D premiums rise in 2010, the result would be that beneficiaries with Medicare drug coverage will still receive less moneyin their Social Security checks even if their Part B premiums don't increase," says Rother.

A US Marine calls like it is, before Barack Obama.   What is different now? 

THE AXIS OF IDIOTS

by J. D. Pendry

Jimmy Carter, you are the father of the Islamic Nazi movement. You threw the Shah under the bus, welcomed the Ayatollah home, and then lacked the spine to confront the terrorists when they took our embassy and our people hostage. You're the runner-in-chief.

Bill Clinton, you played ring around the Lewinsky while the terrorists were at war withus. You got us into a fight with them in Somalia and then you ran from it. Your weak-willed responses to the U.S.S. Cole and the First TradeCenter Bombing and Our Embassy Bombings emboldened the killers. Each time you failed to respond adequately, they grew bolder, until 9/11/2001.

John Kerry, dishonesty is your most prominent attribute. You lied about American Soldiers in Vietnam . Your military service, like your life, is more fiction than fact. You've accused our military of terrorizing women and children in Iraq . You called Iraq the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, the same words you used to describe Vietnam . You're a fake. You want to run from Iraq and abandon the Iraqis to murderers just as you did to the Vietnamese. Iraq, like Vietnam, is another war that you were for, before you were against it.

John Murtha, you said our military was broken. You said we can't win militarily in Iraq . You accused United States Marines of cold-blooded murder without proof and said we should redeploy to Okinawa . Okinawa John? And the Democrats call you their military expert! Are you sure you didn't suffer a traumatic brain injury while you were off building your war hero resume? You're a sad, pitiable, corrupt and washed up politician. You're not a Marine, sir. .... You're a phony and a disgrace. Run away, John.

Dick Durbin, you accused our Soldiers at Guantanamo of being Nazis, tenders of Soviet style gulags and as bad as the regime of Pol Pot , who murdered two million of his own people after your party abandoned Southeast Asia to the Communists. Now youwant to abandon the Iraqis to the same fate. History was not a good teacher for you, was it? Lord help us! See Dick run.

Ted Kennedy, for days on end you held poster-sized pictures from Abu Ghraibin front of any available television camera. Al Jazeera quoted you saying that Iraqi's torture chambers were open under new management.Did you see the news, Teddy? The Islamic Nazis demonstrated another beheading for you. If you truly supported our troops, you'd show the world poster-sized pictures of that atrocity and demand the annihilation of it. Your legislation stripping support from the SouthVietnamese led to a communist victory there. You're a .... fool bent onrepeating the same historical blunder that turned freedom-seeking people over to homicidal, genocidal maniacs. To paraphrase John Murtha,all while sitting on your .....rear-end in Washington .

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Carl Levine, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, RussFeingold, Hillary Clinton, Pat Leahy, Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer, the Hollywood Leftist morons, et al, ad nauseam: Every time you stand in front of television cameras and broadcast to the Islamic Nazis that we went to war because our President lied, that the war is wrong and our Soldiers are torturers, that we should leave Iraq, you give the Islamic butchers - the same ones that tortured and mutilated American Soldiers- cause to think that we'll run away again, and all they have to do is hang on a little longer. It is inevitable that we, the infidels, will have to defeat the Islamic jihadists. Better to do it now on their turf, than later on ours after they have gained both strength and momentum.

American news media, the New York Times particularly:Each time you publish stories about national defense secrets and our intelligence gathering methods, you become one united with thesub-human(s).... that torture and mutilate the bodies of AmericanSoldiers. You can't strike up the courage to publish cartoons, but you can help Al Qaeda destroy my country. Actually, you are more dangerous to us than Al Qaeda is. Think about that each time you face Mecca to admire your Pulitzer.

You are America 's 'AXIS OF IDIOTS.' Your Collective Stupidity will destroy us. Self-serving politics and terrorist-abetting news scoops are more important to you than our national security or the lives of innocent civilians and Soldiers. It bothers you that defending ourselves gets in the way of your elitist sport of politics and your ignorant editorializing. There is as much blood on your hands as is on the hands of murdering terrorists. Don' tever doubt that. Your frolics will only serve to extend this war as they extended Vietnam . If you want our Soldiers home as you claim,.... try supporting your country ahead of supporting your silly political aims and aiding our enemies.

Yes, I'm questioning your patriotism. Your loyalty ends with self. I'm also questioning why you're stealing air that decent Americans could be breathing. You don't deserve the protection of our men and women in uniform. You need to run away from this war, this country. Leave the war to the people who havethe will to see it through and the country to people who are willing to defend it.

No, Mr. President, you don't get off the hook,either. Our country has two enemies:Those who want to destroy us from the outside and those who attempt it from within. Your Soldiers are dealing with the outside force. It's your obligation to support them by confronting the AXIS OF IDIOTS.

America must hear it from you that these self-centered people are harming our country, abetting the enemy and endangering our safety. Well up a little anger, please, and channel it toward the appropriate target. You must prosecute those who leak national security secrets to the media. You must prosecute those in the media who knowingly publish those secrets.

Our Soldiers need you to confront the enemy that they cannot. They need you to do it now.

Semper Fi,

J. D. Pendry - Sergeant Major, USMC, Retired

In a nutshell.Good, bad, or wrong? WDYT?

I told ya.  This  GANGSTAPUPPETOTUSPOS goes to Copenhagen to push for the olympics in Chicago?  WITF?  If Bush had done something like this for Dallas or Houston..........  This is beyond belief,  we don't have a POTUS we have the mayor of Chicago going to get payback for his gang back in the windy city.   This act is beneath the office of the POTUS,  Jimmy Carter is starting to look better every day.  There are kids killing each other in Chicago with 6X6's he should go there and do something about that if anything.

Michele is saying they are making a sacrifice to go to Copenhagen,  gimme a break.   The cost of their mini vacation is on the order of millions! at our expense and sacrifice.  They are shameless. I call for impeachment proceedings for misappropriation of taxpayer monies immediately.

Now this almost looks staged,  but I suggest to the police if they keep this up,  they are going to get the wrong people PO'd big time.

MMMMM, MMMMM, MMMMMM.....................................

Yeah I was there,  it was incredible,  and it was a sea of people.  The number of people in attendance was well in excess of what they expected by orders of magnitude!  The PA system was totally inadequate you had to be at a minimum of 200yds. near to hear,  otherwise the message was clear,  enough of an inflating government and "remaking America".   Everyone was clearly concerned for the state of our union.  There were people from every state and I believe there were at least a half million in attendance. Here is couple of pics.

There were so many people at the start (Freedom Plaza)they had to start the march early it was solid people for 12 city blocks for four hours!

This as close as I could get to hear the speakers!  One message was clear less govt. no socialism.

Peaceful protestors all as far as the eye could see,  you have talking heads talking down the numbers of this silent awakened giant.

This gentleman wanted to know why he had to go thru extensive bakground checks for his federal job, yet the Obama and his czars have no checks into their past.

Future Serfs!

Watching GANGSTAPUPPETOTUSPOS give his speech to the afl-cio picnic is interesting.  He is as if in campaign mode and blatantly class baiting and lying.  He is an angry, egotist, marxist beyond belief.

Here's what happens if you eat bacon after the swine flu immunization,  remember read the warnings!

This is from the foxnation.com blogosphere a poster by the name of Girtholicious commenting on Jon Voight.   He/she really nails it. 

"

 7 Never-to-be-Forgotten Principles of Government

It's easy to think sometimes that a new government program, law, or regulation could cure a pressing social problem.
Whether it's a desire to end abortions, keep the wrong people out of the country, make your city drug-free, stop corporate frauds, crack down on criminals, or make health care more accessible and less expensive, you can imagine how the right new law could make everything okay.
But when you get that kind of thought, I hope you'll remember the seven principles that apply to all government programs — not just the ones you oppose.
The Principles
1. Government is force. Every government program, law, or regulation is a demand that someone do what he doesn't want to do, refrain from doing what he does want to do, or pay for something he doesn't want to pay for. And those demands are backed up by police with guns.
You expect that force to be used only against the guilty. But we can see how the Drug War, the foreign wars, asset forfeiture, the Patriot Act, and other government activities have used force just as often against the innocent — people who have not intruded on anyone else's person or property.
In fact, government force is used more often against the innocent than the guilty, because the guilty make it their business to understand the laws that apply to them and stay clear of them. Meanwhile, the innocent, thinking they've nothing to fear, suddenly find that they've innocently violated laws they never heard of.
2. Government is politics. Whenever you turn over to the government a financial, social, medical, military, or commercial matter, it's automatically transformed into a political issue — to be decided by those with the most political influence. And that will never be you or I.
Politicians don't weigh their votes on the basis of ideology or social good. They think in terms of political power.
3. You don't control government. It's easy to think of the perfect law that will stop the bad guys while leaving the good guys unhindered. But no law will be written the way you have in mind, it won't be administered the way you have in mind, and it won't be adjudicated the way you have in mind.
Your ideal law will be written by politicians for political purposes, administered by bureaucrats for political purposes, and adjudicated by judges appointed for political purposes. So don't be surprised if the new law turns out to do exactly the opposite of what you thought you were supporting.
4. Every government program will be more expensive and more expansive than anything you had in mind when you proposed it. It will be applied in all sorts of ways you never dreamed of.
When Medicare was initially passed in 1965, the politicians projected its cost in 1992 to be $3 billion — which is equivalent to $12 billion when adjusted for inflation to 1992 dollars. The actual cost in 1992 was $110 billion — nine times as much.
And when Medicare was enacted, Section 1801 of the original law specifically prohibited any bureaucratic interference with the practice of medicine. Today not one word of that protection still applies. The federal government owns the health-care industry lock, stock, and barrel.
The new program you support will eventually include all sorts of powers and privileges you can't even imagine right now.
5. Power will always be misused. Give good people the power to do good and that power eventually will be in the hands of bad people to do bad.
As Michael Cloud has pointed out, "The problem isn't the abuse of power; it's the power to abuse." Give politicians power and it certainly will be abused eventually — if not by today's politicians, then by their successors.
As P.J. O'Rourke said, "Giving money and power to politicians is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."
6. Government doesn't work. Because government is force, because government programs are designed to enrich the politically powerful, because you can't control government and make it do what's right, because every new government program soon wanders from its original purpose, and because politicians eventually misuse the power you give them, it is inevitable that no government program will deliver on the promises the politicians make for it.
For years, I've asked listeners during radio interviews to name a government program that has actually delivered on its promises, and no one has been able to do so.
If you think there's a successful government program, you probably don't know how much it actually costs, aren't aware of all its destructive side-effects, have no idea how easily and inexpensively such a thing could be done outside of government, and/or are basing your view of its success on political propaganda.
It doesn't matter whether a program is supposed to do something you want or something you don't want, whether the program is something you consider a proper function of government or something beyond its limits. It won't work. Government programs always wind up disappointing you.
7. Government must be subject to absolute limits. Because politicians have every incentive to expand government, and with it their power, there must be absolute limits on government.
The Constitution provides the obvious limits we must reimpose upon the federal government. Until the Constitution is enforced, we have no hope of containing the federal government.
The present system of unlimited power is like giving a drunken stranger a set of signed, blank checks on your bank account. You are reduced to relying on the honesty and integrity of people you don't even know — and they abuse that trust again and again.
Whether you think government should be bigger or smaller than the limits specified in the Constitution, the first step is to restore absolute limits, and then — if you like — work to change those limits to ones that would be more to your liking.
Questions
So the next time you're tempted to think that some government program is just what this country needs, ask yourself these questions:
Do I really want to use force to make this happen? Do I have any idea how many families may be destroyed by giving the government another tool to be enforced with fines and prison terms?
Do I really believe that Omama , Teddy Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, will have my best interests at heart when they fashion this new program or law?
Why should I believe supporting this program will lead to exactly the solution I believe is right — when I have no way to control the outcome?
Do I really think the politicians won't expand the scope and cost of this program far beyond what they're talking about today?
Do I really want to give politicians this kind of power — knowing that some day the politicians and party I don't like will have it at their disposal?
Why in the world should I think this government program will work any better than any government program of the past?
How can I hope to bring about small, limited government when I'm suggesting a new government program that will take us further away from the Constitution?
Conclusion
If you really want to cure a pressing social problem, take steps outside the realm of government. If you don't see how you can convince people to help you succeed in a non-governmental endeavor, how can you expect to control politicians who care nothing for your desires?
And if you really want to make a noticeable difference, if you really want to improve life, do something for yourself or your family today. That's where you have real control, that's where you don't need to rely on politicians — or anyone else — and you can make sure the results are as you intend."

What is this? Are we heading, step by step to control and censorship,
JUST LIKE IN CHINA??????

This is bad!  Another POS done behind closed doors!   These  fascists are commited to destroying everything.   This POS bill pales in comparison to any thing the Patriot Act did, wise up you BO lovers,  GANGSTAPUPPETOTUSPOS is going after you too!  All done in the name of protecting us! Liars!  Grounding aircraft on 9-11 is one thing but this is ridiculous! 

Cnet News

Politics and Law

August 28, 2009 12:34 AM PDT

Bill would give president emergency control of Internet

by Declan McCullagh

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.

They're not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.

The new version would allow the president to "declare a cybersecurity emergency" relating to "non-governmental" computer networks and do what's necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for "cybersecurity professionals," and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.

"I think the redraft, while improved, remains troubling due to its vagueness," said Larry Clinton, president of the Internet Security Alliance, which counts representatives of Verizon, Verisign, Nortel, and Carnegie Mellon University on its board. "It is unclear what authority Sen. Rockefeller thinks is necessary over the private sector. Unless this is clarified, we cannot properly analyze, let alone support the bill."

Representatives of other large Internet and telecommunications companies expressed concerns about the bill in a teleconference with Rockefeller's aides this week, but were not immediately available for interviews on Thursday.

A spokesman for Rockefeller also declined to comment on the record Thursday, saying that many people were unavailable because of the summer recess. A Senate source familiar with the bill compared the president's power to take control of portions of the Internet to what President Bush did when grounding all aircraft on Sept. 11, 2001. The source said that one primary concern was the electrical grid, and what would happen if it were attacked from a broadband connection.

When Rockefeller, the chairman of the Senate Commerce committee, and Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) introduced the original bill in April, they claimed it was vital to protect national cybersecurity. "We must protect our critical infrastructure at all costs--from our water to our electricity, to banking, traffic lights and electronic health records," Rockefeller said.

The Rockefeller proposal plays out against a broader concern in Washington, D.C., about the government's role in cybersecurity. In May, President Obama acknowledged that the government is "not as prepared" as it should be to respond to disruptions and announced that a new cybersecurity coordinator position would be created inside the White House staff. Three months later, that post remains empty, one top cybersecurity aide has quit, and some wags have begun to wonder why a government that receives failing marks on cybersecurity should be trusted to instruct the private sector what to do.

Rockefeller's revised legislation seeks to reshuffle the way the federal government addresses the topic. It requires a "cybersecurity workforce plan" from every federal agency, a "dashboard" pilot project, measurements of hiring effectiveness, and the implementation of a "comprehensive national cybersecurity strategy" in six months--even though its mandatory legal review will take a year to complete.

The privacy implications of sweeping changes implemented before the legal review is finished worry Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. "As soon as you're saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, it's going to be a really big issue," he says.

Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to "direct the national response to the cyber threat" if necessary for "the national defense and security." The White House is supposed to engage in "periodic mapping" of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies "shall share" requested information with the federal government. ("Cyber" is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)

"The language has changed but it doesn't contain any real additional limits," EFF's Tien says. "It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)...The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There's no provision for any administrative process or review. That's where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it."

Translation: If your company is deemed "critical," a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.

The Internet Security Alliance's Clinton adds that his group is "supportive of increased federal involvement to enhance cyber security, but we believe that the wrong approach, as embodied in this bill as introduced, will be counterproductive both from an national economic and national secuity perspective."

Update at 3:14 p.m. PDT: I just talked to Jena Longo, deputy communications director for the Senate Commerce committee, on the phone. She sent me e-mail with this statement:

The president of the United States has always had the constitutional authority, and duty, to protect the American people and direct the national response to any emergency that threatens the security and safety of the United States. The Rockefeller-Snowe Cybersecurity bill makes it clear that the president's authority includes securing our national cyber infrastructure from attack. The section of the bill that addresses this issue, applies specifically to the national response to a severe attack or natural disaster. This particular legislative language is based on longstanding statutory authorities for wartime use of communications networks. To be very clear, the Rockefeller-Snowe bill will not empower a "government shutdown or takeover of the Internet" and any suggestion otherwise is misleading and false. The purpose of this language is to clarify how the president directs the public-private response to a crisis, secure our economy and safeguard our financial networks, protect the American people, their privacy and civil liberties, and coordinate the government's response.

Unfortunately, I'm still waiting for an on-the-record answer to these four questions that I asked her colleague on Wednesday. I'll let you know if and when I get a response.

Declan McCullagh is a contributor to CNET News and a correspondent for CBSNews.com who has covered the intersection of politics and technology for over a decade. Declan writes a regular feature called Taking Liberties, focused on individual and economic rights; you can bookmark his CBS News Taking Liberties site, or subscribe to the RSS feed.