Here are the conservative headlines: “Millions of Americans are Losing Their Health Plans,” “100 Million Could Lose Insurance Under ObamaCare.” And from right-wing pundit Laura Ingraham on ABC last Sunday: “Six point, what, five million people lost their policies. We think probably the majority of people who signed up of the 7.5 are people who lost their policies because of Obamacare.”

And ABC gave this woman a contract?

[See a collection of political cartoons on Obamacare.]

I get that facts and figures are flying around like so many birds in the spring, but these are resembling flying saucers from the Obama-haters. Earth calling Ingraham.

Plenty of independent observers have been looking at these charges for months. The Washington Post’s Fact Checker gave Speaker John Boehner four Pinocchios when he tried to contend that under Obamacare there was a “net loss” of those covered. PolitiFact also said it was “false.”

Here is how the Wall Street Journal reports the latest: “The Congressional Budget Office expects the law to have reduced the number of uninsured people in the U.S. by 26 million, a slight increase on previous impact projections that put it at 25 million.” That is about a 50 percent reduction. What is scaring those who are saying the last rites for the Affordable Care Act is that it is alive and thriving.

A few months ago they were going bonkers on the cost – it was going to bankrupt America. Oops. That same CBO report now says that lower premiums will drive down the cost over 10 years by a whopping $104 billion less than projected. Yes, that’s billion with a b. As for people who got those notices last year of canceled plans, practically all of them were steered to other plans, got an extension until 2016 or were provided catastrophic coverage.
[See a collection of political cartoons on the economy.]

Despite their best efforts to undercut and destroy the Affordable Care Act, despite states that are denying Medicaid for the poor, despite tens of millions of dollars spent on TV ads, the real numbers are telling the story.
With every new report on signups, the constant harping by the Laura Ingraham’s of the world looks more and more out of touch.

It is time for them to try the Common Core – and learn a little math.

By a vote of 219-205 yesterday the Republicans rammed through their “reverse-Robin Hood” budget authored by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis.

For the next decade, the Republicans basically propose taking from the middle class and the poor and giving to the wealthy. This is a crass and clear class warfare tactic coming from the Republicans in the House. By cutting $5.1 trillion in education, health care, help for seniors, food assistance for the poor and proposing huge tax breaks for the super wealthy, the Ryan budget upends not only our economy, but our society and our values.

It basically holds that we are over-spending on our kids, our elderly, our families. It is what many would call the ultimate selfish budget plan. According to Brookings, if you are in the top 1 percent of wage earners (over $633,000) the Ryan plan would cut taxes in half. If you are among the 75 percent of Americans making between $20,000 and $200,000 you likely would be facing a tax increase.

[Read blogger Leslie Marshall on how Ryan’s budget fails to plan for infrastructure.]

Instead of creating a tax system that is fair and strives to close loopholes, the Ryan plan actually makes the current system worse. So, there is only one way the Republicans work towards a balanced budget: more cuts in essential programs for people.

Money for nutrition programs for poor people would be cut by $125 billion over five years; funds for education would be cut by $145 billion over 10 years; $90 billion would be cut from Pell Grants for college students; interest would be charged on student loans during school that would cost students $40 billion. The Affordable Care Act, which now is helping insure 7.5 million new sign-ups as well as 3 million on their parents plans and 5 million on Medicaid, would be scrapped. Medicare would be a voucher program and privatized.

This budget is an effort to take America away from investing in education, infrastructure, growth and prosperity. Instead, it is a document out of the usual Republican playbook of “it’s your money, you can keep it” which ignores our responsibilities as a society to one another and to a flourishing economy. No one denies that living within our means is critical; the key is a balance between revenue and expenditures. To many Republicans, there is no give on the revenue side, except to lower the taxes for the wealthy.

[Read blogger Carrie Wofford on how Ryan’s budget guts domestic spending.]

It is bad policy, but I believe it is also bad politics.

The Democrats should not hesitate to debate this budget, these priorities, not just on the basis of fairness, but because they won’t work and are harmful to the country. This is not only a reverse-Robin Hood budget but it is also anticompetitive and upends a society that needs more focus on education, not less, a society that needs more job training, not less, a society that needs more money devoted to infrastructure and mass transit, not less. The list goes on and on.

If the goal is more homeless on the streets, more families in poverty, greater numbers incarcerated, more people in emergency rooms causing health care costs to skyrocket, the Ryan budget could be called a success. But that is not the outcome anyone wants.

[See a collection of political cartoons on the Republican Party.]

Democrats should argue that this is an extreme budget, not a balanced one, that it will harm the middle class and working families. It is time for Democrats to engage in a debate that will match the old Republican rhetoric with realistic policies: leave no child behind, clear the skies, protect Social Security and Medicare. Were these just words for the Republicans or were they accompanied with plans that are truly pragmatic?

Sadly, the Ryan budget does nothing to encourage me that they are committed to Head Start and preschool education, affordable college for our kids, creating good paying jobs, attacking the serious problems from climate change, keeping a true safety net or improving our health care system.

This is a backward budget not a forward-looking budget and Democrats should take it on with full force.

It is time for some straight talk from our intelligence agencies. The Senate Intelligence Committee voted overwhelmingly, 11-3, to release the executive summary of its report that has been the subject of repeated controversy.

The CIA needs to come clean with the American people on its “enhanced interrogation techniques” (read: torture) and the fact that it gave us nearly zip in terms of actionable intelligence. The National Security Agency needs to admit not only the extent of its collection of metadata and stop it, but also the back-door collection of American’s emails and stop that, too, unless it gets warrants for both.

[See a collection of editorial cartoons on the NSA.]

There is ample precedent for a clean-up of America’s intelligence operations. Former CIA Director James Schlesinger, who died this past week, courageously commissioned an initial examination of past misdeeds in the wake of the Watergate scandal. On May 7, 1973, Schlesinger ordered the agency to look at incidents of wrongdoing that were illegal or fell outside the CIA’s charter. Two CIA veterans, Howard Hunt and James McCord, were part of the Watergate break-in team.

Schlesinger’s successor, William Colby, added to the internal review of CIA actions. A thorough examination of assassination plots against foreign leaders, coups, illegal wiretapping, spying on Americans and other questionable activities was done and the report became known as the “Family Jewels.” This formed the basis of much of the investigation in 1975-76, undertaken by the Church Committee, that led to the reforms and the creation of permanent oversight committees.

[Read more from Peter Fenn on how the CIA is abusing its power.]

Thus, there is ample precedent for the intelligence agencies to come clean, not cover up.

President Obama should make sure that the efforts of the Senate Intelligence Committee and some within the CIA to get to the bottom of torture activities is made public and serious reforms are put in place. We should also have a thorough investigation of NSA spying on Americans and ensure that reforms are put in place there as well.

After 9/11, few seemed to focus on the actions undertaken and supported by the intelligence agencies. Nor was there oversight of the actions that leaders (in particular Vice President Dick Cheney) undertook with flimsy legal justification. It is time to put a stop to the philosophy that Cheney and others espoused: that they were above the law. It is time we had leaders with the courage of a James Schlesinger and Bill Colby to look seriously at the past so they don’t repeat it.

Which is it: “The Imperial President,” who consolidates power like some sort of dictator or the feckless, weak “Lead From Behind” president?

It seems like quite a daily struggle for the Republicans to figure out how to attack President Barack Obama. Is he too strong or too weak? Is he too aggressive or not aggressive enough? Is he trying to do too much or too little? In any case, many seem to want President Obama impeached. That worked out real well during the Clinton era didn’t it?

[Check out our editorial cartoons on President Obama.]

Of course, it would be one thing if Congress were perceived as the go-to body, the get-things-done gang, the paragon of policies that are destined to make America great. Oops, how is that 9 percent popularity rating working out for ya?

Is the Republican Party the schizophrenic party that it appears to be? Or, as some articles have discussed lately, are they just the shoot from the lip party intent on winning in November?

The difficulty with this strategy may be that it is not just contradictory but that it is so over the top. It may work with the red-meat crowd and the radical right conspiracy theorists in the party but it doesn’t resonate with regular folks who don’t pay much attention to politics.

[See a collection of political cartoons on the Republican Party.]

They want results. They want action. They want to see people in Washington who deliver. And so far, the one person who seems to deliver in the swamp that is Washington is Obama.

Bringing the troops home? Check. Reducing the unemployment rate substantially? Check. Bringing the deficits down? Check. Saving the auto industry? Check. Passing the Violence Against Women Act and equal pay for equal work? Check. And the Affordable Care Act – no more pre-conditions, limits on treatments, three million kids on their parents’ health care, 7.1 million sign ups? Check.

So if the Republicans want to now criticize Obama for doing too much, let them at it.

[See a collection of political cartoons on Congress.]

Voters are ready for more strong leadership, not less. The more Obama delivers, the better.

The phrase “Imperial Presidency” was coined by the late historian Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. in response to Richard Nixon, not because of his actions on the critical issues of the day but because of Watergate and over reaching into the lives of those who disagreed with him. The fact is, that the phrase does not even come close to describing President Obama.

But the more the Republicans go over the top with their attacks, the more Obama and the Democrats will benefit.