Category Archives: Legislation

Debunking 5 Paul Ryan Myths

When Mitt Romney chose Rep. Paul Ryan to be his running mate nine days ago, he forced Democrats to engage in serious intellectual debate in the coming weeks and months, rather than demagoguing which has been the main practice of the Obama/Biden campaign as of yet.

Paul Ryan holds his Plan, The Path to American Prosperity

Well, that’s what one would have thought, because, well, conventional wisdom says so. However, in the latter, Democrats and the left have tried to demonize Paul Ryan in every way absolutely imaginable. The day after the announcement of Paul Ryan to be the running-mate of Mitt Romney, the attacks started. From Ryan’s budget, to a ‘war on women’, to Ryan ‘pushing grandma off of the cliff’, let’s debunk five myths about Paul Ryan.

1. The Ryan Plan Destroys Medicare.

The Liberal New York Congressman, Rep. Steve Israel has recently claimed that the Romney/Ryan ticket is a “nightmare for seniors who’ve earned their Medicare benefits. For the last 18 months, we’ve said Republicans will have to defend the indefensible—their vote to end Medicare.” The Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman Schultz has been running around spewing lies claiming that the Ryan Plan would end Medicare as we know it. This wouldn’t be the first time that Schultz has lied, or probably the last. Look at what she said regarding presidential tax returns and Mitt Romney.

The Wyden-Ryan Medicare Plan – yes that is Democratic Senator Ron Wyden from Oregon – says that the plan will not affect anyone over 55. Anyone over 55 wouldn’t see a change in their plans or their benefits. Anyone under 55 wouldn’t either, unless they voluntarily chose to take part in the Plan. Washington would still be paying the premiums for the healthcare choices you made, and if you believed in the basic principles of free-market capitalism, this would improve the services while driving down the cost.

Furthermore, the liberal leaning Urban Institute recently found that the average citizen will pay $149,000 in Medicare taxes, while only taking out $351,000 in medical services during retirement. In reality, the party that doesn’t want to reform Medicare, and who doesn’t want to ‘change Medicare as we know it’, is single-handedly destroying the system from the inside out.

2. Paul Ryan is a Constitutional Obstructionist

According to a recent Gallup Poll, the 112th Congress’ approval rating has hit an all-time low. Of course, Obama, his administration, and his campaign blame the GOP for the gridlock in Congress, which may we not forget; Paul Ryan is a part of. It’s not necessarily fair, considering the House has passed massive amount of bills that focus on economic recovery that have been killed by Harry Reid in the Senate. May we also not forget that, a) Obama’s ‘serious’ budget was rejected by everyone in both the House and the Senate, and b) Ryan’s Budget passed the House by a vote of  228-191.

Contrary to what the President said yesterday during his surprise visit to the press room of the White House, he is stepping across the preverbal line ‘in the sand’. “So, if you happen to see Congressman Ryan, tell him how important this farm bill is to Iowa and our rural communities. It’s time to put politics aside and pass it right away,” the President said last week in Iowa. But in fact, the House has already passed a measure that helps farmers that have been struck financially by the drought.

3. The Ryan Budget is Extreme

President Obama’s Campaign Manager, Jim Messina, someone who probably actually hasn’t sat down and read the Ryan Plan, is calling the plan ‘radical’.

New York Times Columnist, Paul Krugman, is spewing the common lies about the Ryan Plan. He said the plan, “would kill people, no question,” while the Plan would “cut discretionary spending to levels not seen since Calvin Coolidge.” In defense of Coolidge, life wasn’t that bad under his leadership – low taxation, high economic growth and relative peace. But, to anyone’s surprise, this isn’t true. The Ryan Plan only brings back non-military discretionary spending to the 2008 levels. The plan also cuts the federal bureaucracy and it’s subsidies by 10% and it reforms the compensation plans of federal employees.

But when we talk about discretionary spending as a percentage of the entire budget, you don’t have to be an economic genius to know that Krugman does have a point, but a very misleading one at that. Because mandatory spending has grown at about six times that of discretionary spending over the past 20 years, it’s really easy to argue that President Obama will keep discretionary spending at levels not seen since Calvin Coolidge – anyone could.

However, there are a lot of Conservatives that aren’t exactly in love with the Ryan Budget. For one, it balances the budget over ten years versus the Connie-Mac Penny Plan which balances the budget over eight years. Don’t we know that anything a president implements that expands past his time in office, usually never completely comes to fruition? Meaning, I seriously doubt that the Ryan Budget would make it all ten years.

Moreover, the Ryan Plan only reduces spending from current levels of 24% down to 19.8% of the GDP. Several leading economists have pointed out that this would only bring down federal expenditures to post-WWII levels. Furthermore, in the Ryan Budget federal spending increases over the next ten years, and revenue each year after. The budget would expand from $3.6 trillion in 2013 to $4.9 trillion in 2022.

4. Ryan is at ‘War with Women’

Didn’t we all see this one coming? It’s a classic ‘hail mary’ out of the playbook of the left against anyone on the right. Democratic Pennsylvania Congressman Patrick Murphy said that Ryan “believes we should ban all birth control as well. He voted for that.” The President of NARAL Pro-Choice America, Nancy Keenan, said that Ryan “supported the ‘Let Women Die Bill,’ which would allow hospitals to refuse to provide a woman emergency, lifesaving abortion care, even if she could die without it.”

Gosh, Ryan really does hate woman, right? Wrong. Ryan has never voted or said any of these things that he is being accused of. However, he did vote for the “Protect Life Act,” which would have, if it passed, rewritten provisions in Obamacare that allowed for federal subsidies to be provided for abortions. Ironic, because liberals and the left already claim that the government doesn’t fund abortions. “Protect Life Act,” also had a provision that exempted Catholic hospitals from having to pay for contraception or abortions. He also supported a bill that would have dulled the HHS Mandate that Catholic hospitals provide free condoms.

5. Ryan’s Plan Favors the Rich

Another classic play from the playbook of those on the left – class warfare. A day on the campaign trail just wouldn’t be right with a little class warfare. Many on the left have claimed that Romney “chose a leader of the House Republicans who shares his commitment” of a “new budget-busting tax cuts for the wealthy…”

Regardless of what you will hear from Chris Matthews, Al Sharpton or an Obama SuperPAC add, there are absolutely zero special tax cuts in the Ryan Budget ‘for the wealthy’. Common sense tells you that when Washington enacts across-the-board tax reform, the rich (who already pay the vast majority of the taxes) are likely to benefit. Ryan’s Plan however, only supports keeping the current tax rates that we’ve had for the last decade – one’s that a lot on the left have also supported.

What the Ryan plan does do is simplify our tax system. We currently have a six-bracket tax system. Under the Ryan Plan, this would be simplified to two tax brackets – the lower bracket being a 10% bracket, and the upper bracket being a 25% bracket. This plan fixes the Alternative Minimum Tax, and cuts corporate tax rates to reflect those of other competitive nations to the U.S. Ryan and Romney both also support closing loopholes that wealthy Americans disproportionally use.

 

Follow me on Twitter: @chrisenloe

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer Signs Executive Order Denying Public Funded Benefits to Young Illegal Immigrants

On Wednesday, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer ordered her state government agencies to deny drivers licenses and other public benefits to young illegal immigrants who obtain work permits under the new Obama Administration policy.

In the executive order, she was reaffirming the current Arizona law that denies taxpayer-funded public benefits and state identification to illegal immigrants.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer issues an executive order denying public-funded benefits to young illegal immigrants

Young illegal immigrants around the country between the ages of 16-30 around the nation began applying for work permits on Wednesday under the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

The new federal ‘policy’ defers deportation of certain young illegal immigrants who have a high school diploma, a GED, or who have served or are currently serving in the United States Armed Services, and all applicants must not have committed certain crimes.

Jan Brewer labeled the new federal policy by Barack Obama as “backdoor amnesty” back in June when the policy was announced.

Arizona has been a leading state in fighting for the right to protect their citizens from illegal immigrants, most recently making the news with the Arizona v. United States Supreme Court decision.

The U.S. Supreme Court in June overturned parts of the Arizona enforcement law known as SB1070 but ruled that a key provision on requiring police to ask people about their immigration status under certain circumstances can be implemented.

The Obama Administration and Eric Holder challenged the law in 2010, claiming that Arizona doesn’t constitutionally have the right to pass the law, since Immigration powers are enumerated to the federal government.

Gov. Brewer went on the Mike Broomhead show on 550 KFYI radio to discuss the executive order, listen here:

Follow me on Twitter: @chrisenloe

The Least Productive Congress…Why?

The institutionalized “progressive” left is at it again.  Consider this headline published by Yahoo News on behalf of Susan Davis, USA Today and ABC OTUS News:

“Congress could be least productive since 1947”

Three of the first four paragraphs of this “headline news” story focus on attacking the Republican majority in the House of Representatives for the recent lack of legislative success.  This is obviously typical of the “progressive” Party Pravda, which never misses an opportunity to parrot messages being dictated by the George Soros funded Media Matters via Valerie Jarrett and the White House.

Statistics are being manipulated and misrepresented by partisan hacks posing as journalists: “Just 61 bills have become law to date in 2012 out of 3,914 bills that have been introduced by lawmakers, or less than 2 percent of all proposed laws,” or “In 2011, after Republicans took control of the U.S. House, Congress passed just 90 bills into law.

http://news.yahoo.com/congress-could-least-productive-since-1947-011137011.html?_esi=0&

It might be statistically true that “Congress is on pace to make history with the least productive legislative year in the post-World War II era,” but to so strongly insinuate that this is the fault of the House Republican majority, as Davis, USA Today, ABC News and Yahoo News do is a lie.  Utter fabrication…pure unadulterated fiction.

Where the article fails completely (that is if you are seeking factual information rather than “progressive” propaganda) is in the “reporting” of why those numbers are so abysmal.

The United States Senate, under the extreme, partisan, rigidly ideological, failed “leadership” of “progressive” Democrat Harry Reid, has blocked, obstructed, ignored or refused to allow a majority of House passed bills to even come to a vote in the U.S. Senate.

How is any bill passed by the House ever to become law if it is completely blocked from discussion or vote in the Senate?

The reason so many people believe the House is to blame for this situation is the lies spread by institutionalized “progressive” shills like Yahoo News, Susan Davis, USA Today, ABC OTUS News and their ilk.

Should the 112th Congress come to be “defined by partisan divisions and legislative failures”, the blame will rest squarely at the slumping, rounded shoulders of Reid and his “progressive” co-conspirator currently occupying the Oval Office.  The “progressive” Democratic Senate majority has not even passed a budget in three years.  They even voted down the one that came from the Oval Office 97-0.

This is a clear dereliction of duty by the “progressive” Democratic Party.  Thanks to the utter failure of their “progressive” policies, the one and only card left for them to play is using Saul Alinsky style smear tactics against the right attempting to blame the right for problems caused by the left.  This has been the modus operandi of “progressives” since they seized control of the Democratic Party.

The most egregious of lies propagated by the institutionalized “progressive” left is the one put forth by Nancy Pelosi during the TARP debate.  On September 28, 2008 Pelosi placed the blame for the economic collapse entirely on George W. Bush and failed Republican economic policies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnyyAKn-I9o

The 2008 financial collapse was a direct result of failed “progressive” social engineering in the U.S. housing market.  For decades the U.S. has had nothing remotely resembling a free market in residential real estate.  Instead, “progressive” big government created monstrosities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac controlled over half of all U.S. mortgages.  For twenty years, Conservatives warned about the systemic risk Fannie and Freddie posed to the financial system but they were constantly thwarted by the left.  To this very day, the institutionalized “progressive” left denies the essential part Fannie and Freddie played in creating the housing bubble and causing the financial crisis.

Even at the height of the housing bubble, as the extent of the damage was being revealed, Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were still seeking to increase Fannie and Freddie’s role in a market already fettered by “progressive” big government interference.   On behalf of a well-heeled constituency in her congressional district, the liar Nancy Pelosi continued insisting Fannie and Freddie keep the housing bubble going, pushing for their insurance limits to be increased from $417,000 to $700,000 per loan.

Whether in the area of journalism or politics, once the facts are in members of the institutionalized “progressive” left prove themselves to be nothing more than bold faced, willfully deceitful psychopaths unfit to serve in the public arena.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/08/15/the-least-productive-congresswhy/

Olympic Medal Winners Face a Tax Hit

In his third Olympic Performance, Michael Phelps won a total of six medals: four gold and two silver. His performances in the thirtieth Olympiad is sure to bring big financial awards, but his performances are also going to cost him.

Every American who won a medal in the London Olympics will receive cash rewards from the U.S Olympic Committee. Each gold medal winner will receive $25,000, each silver medal winner will receive $15,000 and each bronze medal winner will receive $10,000 respectively. This means when Michael Phelps returns to the states, he will be collecting a healthy $130,000 from the USOC.

Phelps with his record breaking 19th Olympic Medal

However, Phelps will also be taxed for each medal he received. For each gold medal, Phelps will have to pay the IRS approximately $9,000, for each gold, $5,400 for each silver, and if he would have earned a bronze, $3,500.

Soon after stories surfaced about U.S. Olympic athletes facing deep financial hardship, some Washington politicians have offered and supported a bill that would offer the athletes a reprieve.

Republican law makers led by Florida Senator Marco Rubio, and Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown introduced a bill named Olympic Tax Exemption Act last week. The bill has already gained the support of President Barack Obama.

“Our young athletes endure years of grueling training and make enormous sacrifices so they can represent our country on the national stage and make us proud. Our thanks should not come in the form of a giant tax bill from the IRS.” Brown said when asked about the bill.

Follow Me on Twitter @chrisenloe.

Gun Control Laws Only Control the Law Abiding

Just like the majority of police officers who never have to fire their gun during the course of a career, most civilians will never be shot at while watching a movie, browsing in a shopping mall or attending school. But for those few that do have the misfortune to be an unwilling participant in an ambush here are a few rules of thumb you may find useful.

The police can’t protect you. The Aurora, CO police force is a fine, highly motivated department — I know because the police association was formerly my client. There were officers already at the theatre for the midnight showing of Batman to deal with the anticipated crowd. Only 90 seconds elapsed between the first 911 call and officer’s arrival on scene. This is a spectacular response time. Yet 12 people were already dead and 58 wounded. Which is why they are called “first responders” and not “first preventers.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D–Disarmed) won’t protect you. Feinstein wants Congress to renew her “assault weapons” ban. “Assault weapons” or “assault rifles” are no different from regular rifles, they only look scary. For example: the bayonet lug on the muzzle. (Yet, when is the last time you read of bayonet wounds during one of these attacks?)

“Assault weapon” is simply a propaganda term designed to alarm the public. Federal law already bans machine guns, which are authentic military assault weapons. The Washington Times points out FBI figures “show just 358 of the 8,775 murders by firearm in 2010 involved rifles of any type. By comparison, 745 people were beaten to death…but no one has called for outlawing fists.”

Cinemark won’t protect you. Colorado citizens with a permit are allowed to carry a concealed weapon. Cinemark corporate minions know themselves to be much wiser than a mere legislator, so they banned weapons inside the theatre. Sure enough not one of the law–abiding citizens had a gun, but the law–breaker had plenty. Cinemark is already being sued, but it’s the wrong lawsuit. What we need is for Cinemark know–it–alls to be sued by a permit holder left defenseless by their asinine policy.

Gun–Free Zones = Sitting–Duck Zones. When is it going to dawn on liberal gun–grabbers that gun–free zones only notify the shooter he won’t be subject to return fire? One gun owner in the audience could have made all the difference. At Columbine the police officer assigned to the school engaged those two shooters before they went inside.

During the brief gunfight, the shooters were so rattled they couldn’t even hit the cruiser the officer was crouched behind! These cowards don’t want to die, they want you to die. If the Aurora gunman had heard a round whizz past his ear it could have changed the entire complexion of the evening.

Unless you’ve been shot and can’t get away, avoid talking to the media. “Father of the Year” nominee Jamie Rohrs is a perfect example. During an interview with CNN, Rohrs described his reaction when the shooting started. “My son’s on the floor, as I turned to, like, find Ethan in the dark of the theater, with the gas, like, I’m so disoriented and I lose him, I just lose him. Then he opens fire again. So I jump, and I run.”

During the time three other men are dying while they shield their girlfriends from the bullets — and are consequently unavailable for interview— Jamie thinks, like, “feets, don’t fail me now” and leaves his 4–month–old rolling around on the floor, like, during a stampede. Safely outside he generously hopes his son and his girlfriend get out alive. Fortunately, his girlfriend only had a “small bullet wound” so Rohrs subsequently proposed to her in the hospital. I’m sure the ceremony will be fine unless when Jamie says, “until fear of death do us part” brings back bad memories for his girlfriend.

Only you can save you. I urge conservatives reading this to apply for a concealed carry permit and take the training necessary to use a gun to defend yourself and your family. Liberals, who believe merely being in the same room with a gun — let alone owning one — is sign of serious mental illness, are more difficult to advise. Progressives might try shopping at pawn brokers. Employees are usually armed, which deters shooters. Or stay at home and use Amazon. Always sit near the exit in theatres. Wear a bullet–proof vest. Avoid hip–hop concerts or events that attract hip–hop performers. Marry a police officer. Stay hydrated. (Whoops, wrong column.)

H.R. 6079 Repeal of Obamacare Act [Full Text]

HR 6079 PCS

 

Calendar No. 451

 

112th CONGRESS

 

2d Session

 

H. R. 6079

 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

 

July 12, 2012

Received; read the first time

 

July 16, 2012

Read the second time and placed on the calendar


 

AN ACT

To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Repeal of Obamacare Act’.

 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following with respect to the impact of Public Law 111-148 and related provisions of Public Law 111-152 (collectively referred to in this section as ‘the law’):

(1) President Obama promised the American people that if they liked their current health coverage, they could keep it. But even the Obama Administration admits that tens of millions of Americans are at risk of losing their health care coverage, including as many as 8 in 10 plans offered by small businesses.

(2) Despite projected spending of more than two trillion dollars over the next 10 years, cutting Medicare by more than one-half trillion dollars over that period, and increasing taxes by over $800 billion dollars over that period, the law does not lower health care costs. In fact, the law actually makes coverage more expensive for millions of Americans. The average American family already paid a premium increase of approximately $1,200 in the year following passage of the law. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicts that health insurance premiums for individuals buying private health coverage on their own will increase by $2,100 in 2016 compared to what the premiums would have been in 2016 if the law had not passed.

(3) The law cuts more than one-half trillion dollars in Medicare and uses the funds to create a new entitlement program rather than to protect and strengthen the Medicare program. Actuaries at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) warn that the Medicare cuts contained in the law are so drastic that ‘providers might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries)’. CBO cautioned that the Medicare cuts ‘might be difficult to sustain over a long period of time’. According to the CMS actuaries, 7.4 million Medicare beneficiaries who would have been enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan in 2017 will lose access to their plan because the law cuts $206 billion in payments to Medicare Advantage plans. The Trustees of the Medicare Trust Funds predict that the law will result in a substantial decline in employer-sponsored retiree drug coverage, and 90 percent of seniors will no longer have access to retiree drug coverage by 2016 as a result of the law.

(4) The law creates a 15-member, unelected Independent Payment Advisory Board that is empowered to make binding decisions regarding what treatments Medicare will cover and how much Medicare will pay for treatments solely to cut spending, restricting access to health care for seniors.

(5) The law and the more than 13,000 pages of related regulations issued before July 11, 2012, are causing great uncertainty, slowing economic growth, and limiting hiring opportunities for the approximately 13 million Americans searching for work. Imposing higher costs on businesses will lead to lower wages, fewer workers, or both.

(6) The law imposes 21 new or higher taxes on American families and businesses, including 12 taxes on families making less than $250,000 a year.

(7) While President Obama promised that nothing in the law would fund elective abortion, the law expands the role of the Federal Government in funding and facilitating abortion and plans that cover abortion. The law appropriates billions of dollars in new funding without explicitly prohibiting the use of these funds for abortion, and it provides Federal subsidies for health plans covering elective abortions. Moreover, the law effectively forces millions of individuals to personally pay a separate abortion premium in violation of their sincerely held religious, ethical, or moral beliefs.

(8) Until enactment of the law, the Federal Government has not sought to impose specific coverage or care requirements that infringe on the rights of conscience of insurers, purchasers of insurance, plan sponsors, beneficiaries, and other stakeholders, such as individual or institutional health care providers. The law creates a new nationwide requirement for health plans to cover ‘essential health benefits’ and ‘preventive services’, but does not allow stakeholders to opt out of covering items or services to which they have a religious or moral objection, in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (Public Law 103-141). By creating new barriers to health insurance and causing the loss of existing insurance arrangements, these inflexible mandates jeopardize the ability of institutions and individuals to exercise their rights of conscience and their ability to freely participate in the health insurance and health care marketplace.

(9) The law expands Government control over health care, adds trillions of dollars to existing liabilities, drives costs up even further, and too often puts Federal bureaucrats, instead of doctors and patients, in charge of health care decisionmaking.

(10) The path to patient-centered care and lower costs for all Americans must begin with a full repeal of the law.

 

SEC. 3. REPEAL OF OBAMACARE.

(a) PPACA- Effective as of the enactment of Public Law 111-148, such Act (other than subsection (d) of section 1899A of the Social Security Act, as added and amended by sections 3403 and 10320 of such Public Law) is repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act (other than such subsection (d)) are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.

(b) Health Care-Related Provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010- Effective as of the enactment of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-152), title I and subtitle B of title II of such Act are repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such title or subtitle, respectively, are restored or revived as if such title and subtitle had not been enacted.

 

SEC. 4. BUDGETARY EFFECTS OF THIS ACT.

The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, shall be determined by reference to the latest statement titled ‘Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation’ for this Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional Record by the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the House of Representatives, as long as such statement has been submitted prior to the vote on passage of this Act.

Passed the House of Representatives July 11, 2012.

Attest:

KAREN L. HAAS,

Clerk.

Calendar No. 451

 

112th CONGRESS

 

2d Session

 

H. R. 6079

 

AN ACT

To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.


 

July 16, 2012

 

Read the second time and placed on the calendar

A Simple Replacement for ObamaCare

The obvious solution to the health care problem is self-insurance. The Obama Tax is designed to effect those who are young, healthy, and can afford insurance. Who makes the decision about what someone else can afford? But that is beside the point. The point is that if one is young and healthy and can afford insurance, then one can probably afford to pay their medical bills, and in fact they probably DO pay their medical bills. Under the Affordable Care Act they will be punished for being responsible.

The folks running up the tab at emergency rooms are people who are young, healthy and CAN’T afford health insurance, but don’t yet qualify for medicaid.

If we really want what we say we want, patient centered affordable health care, driven by market forces there is a very simple solution; self-insurance.

Average lifetime medical cost per person was roughly $360,000 in 2004 according to a report by Health Services Research. If one were contribute $266.00 per month into a modified Health Savings Account, even at a modest 3% return, they would have enough money to cover their lifetime medical expenses. That is less than the cost of an average insurance plan these days.

Certain areas of the health care arena are already driven by market forces. Those areas are for elective procedures that most insurance doesn’t cover.

A good example is Lasik eye surgery. This is a technique for correcting vision via laser surgery. Lasik is not covered by most insurance, since it is an elective surgery. When it first became available, it cost on average between $2,000.00 and $3,000.00 per eye. Today the cost is about half.

Why the price drop on a highly skilled high tech procedure? Market forces. Most insurance companies don’t cover this procedure, so the customer must pay for for it out of their own pocket. As more physicians have become proficient in the operation (increase in supply) the price has gone down (to meet demand).

A study of any elective procedure which is in demand, but not covered by insurance, will show similar cost reductions.

The easiest way to reduce medical costs is to get rid of insurance altogether. The insurance companies won’t like it, and government fiat may not be the way to go here, but if everyone was invested in a medical savings account that they had control of, was tax free, and could be used for any health related expenses, not only would everyone have coverage, but they would put downward pressure on the cost of entire health care sector. The account would accumulate year after year, so that when the money was really needed later in life, it would be there. There should also be a provision that whatever is left in the account after the owner expires becomes part of the decedent’s estate, thereby providing incentive to leave some money in the account. It could also be used to defray burial expenses. Since everyone is paying for their own healthcare out of their own pocket as it were, they would tend to take better care of themselves. Everyone would have skin in the game. Therefore this type of system provides an inherent incentive toward better health.

A program could be structured so that one savings account could cover a family, in the same way insurance does now. This eliminates the removal of children under 26 argument. It also eliminates the pre-existing condition argument, since the money from one’s health savings account could be used for any health-related costs, including prescription drugs and other medical devices.

For the truly incapable, some system for funding their Health Savings Account could be worked with a refundable tax credit. Those who are at or below the current income level for medicaid insurance could have an amount equal to the requisite contribution credited directly into their health savings account, with a sliding scale up to 150% of that income level. As for employers who currently pay for some or all of their employee’s health insurance premiums, they could use pre-tax dollars to contribute to the employee’s account.

Medicare would need to be left in place for anyone at or above the age of fifty-five, but for those younger, a refund of the amount they paid into the medicare system could be credited to their savings account.

As for catastrophic occurrences, the insurance companies could offer low cost, very high deductible plans, those formerly referred to as major medical plans, to cover high cost, unexpected illnesses. More importantly, though, it should be possible to make a charitable contribution to someone else’s health savings account to help them defray the cost of an expensive unexpected illness. If we are our brother’s keeper, we should be able to be so without government intervention.

The question is one of belief. Do we believe as the founders of this nation did, that the individual is wise enough to make his or her own decisions and provide for his or her own needs, or do we believe that the citizens of this great nation need the government to make all their decisions for them, that they do not have the intelligence or wherewithal to care for themselves? If we believe the latter, then the Affordable Care Act is perfect. If, however we believe the former, that liberty is worth having and that the fruits of our labor should be our own to decide what to do with, then perhaps a health care program such as the one laid out above is the way to go.

No Smoking. . .In Your Home

Are you a smoker and a renter? If so, you might want to skip moving to Santa Monica. The town wants to make renters healthier and has enacted a No Smoking ordinance for all new apartment renters.

You don’t need to be a smoker to be concerned about an individual’s rights inside his home.

Affordable Health Care Act—What Are States Doing?

The country remains divided on whether the Affordable Health Care Act is good for states; whether it will cost more (or less); and whether the states will implement the Medicaid provisions as ruled by the Supreme Court.

Interestingly, some think states that are most against the Act will benefit the most. “Red states have, in general, done less than blue states to cover their residents, so they’re going to get a sweeter deal under the terms of the Affordable Care Act,” said Ezra Klein, a blogger for The Washington Post.

The federal government currently pays 57 percent of Medicaid costs, meaning the Affordable Care Act offer [100% for the first few years, then reduced to 90% federal payment] is “an incredibly, astonishingly, unbelievably good deal” for those states, Klein said.

So what are states doing? Many are still reviewing the law, the Supreme Court ruling, and their options. Here is a quick review of nine states across the country who made the news this week:

California

Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proclaimed: “I have always supported the need for comprehensive health reform. However, for healthcare reform to succeed, states must either have the flexibility to live within the revenues that are available to them or the federal resources to fully fund its mandates.”

The big cost to the state will be for a generous expansion of Medi-Cal, California’s version of Medicaid.

Because California can’t even afford its current Medi-Cal program, it has been cutting back on poor people’s care in recent years. The 2012 state budget passed last month included more than $1 billion in cuts to Medi-Cal and other health programs.

Still, the Brown administration is moving toward the act’s implementation. In fact, it already has begun covering 280,000 people. “This is a very great day,” state Health and Human Services Secretary Diana Dooley declared. “We are in the full-go mode here.”

As George Skelton of the Capitol Journal writes, “But it’s another state cost that no one is considering how to pay for — not nearly as extravagant as the mostly unfunded bullet train, but the same basic idea: meritorious, but moneyless.”

Texas

Gov. Perry: Texas Will Not Expand Medicaid or Implement Health Benefit Exchange.

“If anyone was in doubt, we in Texas have no intention to implement so-called state exchanges or to expand Medicaid under Obamacare,” Gov. Perry said. “I will not be party to socializing healthcare and bankrupting my state in direct contradiction to our Constitution and our founding principles of limited government.

From Governor Perry’s Webpage: “Gov. Perry has frequently called for the allocation of Medicaid funding in block grants so each state can tailor the program to specifically serve the needs of its unique challenges. As a common sense alternative, Gov. Perry has conveyed a vision to transform Medicaid into a system that reinforces individual responsibility, eliminates fragmentation and duplication, controls costs and focuses on quality health outcomes. This would include establishing reasonable benefits, personal accountability, and limits on services in Medicaid. It would also allow co-pays or cost sharing that apply to all Medicaid eligible groups – not just optional Medicaid populations – and tailor benefits to needs of the individual rather than a blanket entitlement.

Gov. Perry has consistently rejected federal funding when strings are attached that impose long-term financial burdens on Texans, or cede state control of state issues to the federal government. In 2009, Texas rejected Washington funding for the state’s Unemployment Insurance program because it would have required the state to vastly expand the number of workers entitled to draw unemployment benefits, leading to higher UI taxes later.”

Florida

In an editorial to the Washington Times Florida Governor Rick Scott writes:

“I think everyone agrees there are far too many who want health insurance and can’t get it. But the truth is, the real problem isn’t with health insurance. The underlying cause is the rapidly increasing cost of health care.

After the U.S. Supreme Court’s stunning pronouncement on Obamacare, all 50 governors face two big decisions:

1. Do we let the federal government impose a massive Medicaid expansion on us?
2. Do we establish a state insurance exchange or let the federal government come in and run it?

My answer is simple. No. We just can’t afford it.

Medicaid is the fastest-growing part of our state budget. And unlike the federal government, which isn’t required to balance its budget, we could only pay for expanding Medicaid by increasing taxes or cutting from other parts of the budget. Expanding Medicaid puts other vital government functions, such as education, public safety and infrastructure, at risk. That is not something I am willing to do.”

Wisconsin

Governor Scott Walker released a statement last week, “Wisconsin will not take any action to implement ObamaCare I am hopeful that political changes in Washington D.C. later this year ultimately end the implementation of this law at the federal level.”

Walker indicated over the weekend that he will wait until after the November election before announcing whether Wisconsin will participate in the health care exchange program. Walker has shown no signs that he is interested in implementing the Affordable Care Act and has returned a grant from the federal government intended to help get the exchanges off the ground.

Louisiana & Virginia

“We’re not going to start implementing Obamacare,” Jindal said during a conference call with Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell. “We’re committed to working to elect Governor Romney to repeal Obamacare.”

“Here in Louisiana we have not applied for the grants, we have not accepted many of these dollars, we’re not implementing the exchanges. We don’t think it makes any sense to implement Obamacare in Louisiana. We’re going to do what we can to fight it.”

On the same conference call on Friday, McDonnell, said he would evaluate the options for Virginia. “We don’t even know exactly what that federal exchange would look like so there’s still some uncertainty at this point as to what the right course is, and in the next days and weeks we’re going to be evaluating the case as well as the options for Virginia,” McDonnell said.

Maine

Gov. Paul LePage used his weekly radio address Saturday to further his long-running criticisms of the federal Affordable Care Act and explain why he is delaying its implementation in Maine.

LePage said his administration would resist implementing the Affordable Care Act, particularly an expansion of Medicaid, because of debt Maine already has on the books — including $500 million due to the state’s hospitals — and what he characterized as a welfare program that is already too generous.

“Our welfare costs are among the highest in the nation as a result of some of the lowest eligibility requirements. Maine has increased its spending by more than a billion dollars during the last decade because of expanded welfare programs,” said LePage “We cannot afford our current programs, so to require Maine to expand coverage even more is fiscally irresponsible.”

Illinois

Gov. Pat Quinn signed into law HB5007, which allows the Cook County Health and Hospitals System to immediately increase Medicaid eligibility for 100,000 county patients and pay for it through increased federal funding. The money will allow the counties to continue treating needy people  who have not been on the Medicaid roles but now to be reimbursed through a direct federal waiver.

Oklahoma

“In light of the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold most of the (act), Governor Fallin believes it is her responsibility to thoroughly and thoughtfully review the state of Oklahoma’s options regarding the future of both Medicaid and the creation of a health insurance exchange,” Fallin spokesman Alex Weintz said. “Her priority is not to make a decision soon; it is to make the right decision. The governor will continue to review how the state of Oklahoma can best meet the health care needs of its citizens.”

It appears many states’ budgets will dictate their actions and many will wait until the November election before making any further commitments.

CNN Accuses Republicans of Stirring Up ‘Uncertainty’ About ObamaCare

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)

CNN’s Christine Romans played Obama spokesperson on Monday’s Starting Point and accused Republicans of creating “uncertainty” about ObamaCare in trying to repeal it. That fits what has seemingly become a CNN line of “stop fighting this law and get in line.”

“I’m wondering, should Congresspeople be spending more time helping their constituents comply with the law rather than continuing all this uncertainty about it?” Romans challenged Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.). Ironically, CNN’s own poll shows a majority in favor of Congress repealing the law.

CNN has scoffed at Republican attempts the repeal the law before. Hours after the Supreme Court upheld the law, anchor Brooke Baldwin asked Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) if he wasn’t being a “sore loser” for continuing to fight ObamaCare.

Romans continued to grill Blackburn about helping her constituents comply with ObamaCare. “I mean, I hear more from Republicans saying ‘we’re going to make this not come true,’ not ‘here’s how we’re going to help you get your business to comply’,” she lamented.

Romans also revealed she counsels small business owners with less than 50 employees that the law won’t crush them, but Blackburn fought back. “[W]hen they talk to their insurance provider, the insurance provider says because of the new regulations that are going to be contained in Obamacare, this is what is happening to your insurance cost,” she insisted.

Refresh My Memory; Is Justice Kennedy the Wobbly One?

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts prefers to dress casually in his off hours.

Last Thursday dawned bright and clear. It was shaping up to be a great day for conservatives. More than one observer — waiting for the Obamacare decision outside the Supreme Court — noticed aircraft coming in low on the horizon. Everyone assumed it was ICE drones searching for illegal aliens deserving of amnesty and a college scholarship.

But as the aircraft passed overhead the full weight of our mistake hit home. That wasn’t the Army Air Corps insignia on the underside of the wing. That circular logo was the Obama meatball and it was Pearl Harbor all over again! Obamacare was legal and conservatives were caught completely unprepared as plans to roll back Big Government exploded in their face.

Make no mistake. Chief Justice John Robert’s decision is a total, crushing and potentially unrecoverable defeat. Roberts joins with Chief Justice Roger Taney of Dred Scott fame as another Maryland chief justice responsible for a Supreme Court decision that will live in infamy.

“I always say…that if my fellow citizens want to go to Hell I will help them. It’s my job.

Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

“It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

Chief Justice John Roberts

Justice Holmes, a crusty veteran wounded three times during the Civil War, was being cheerfully cynical. Justice Roberts, who appears to be suffering from PTSD induced by State of the Union criticism following the Citizens United decision and potential criticism prior to the Obamacare decision, is merely being pathetic.

Berkeley law professor John Yoo contends Robert’s doesn’t agree with his own ruling but intended to “pull the court out of political fight.”

Unfortunately, Robert’s job is to uphold the Constitution regardless of Democrat political pressure. His failure to do so removes one of the few remaining limits on the growth and expansion of federal power.

This type of judicial temporizing in the face of political pressure is the same thing that happened during the 1930’s. A gutless Supreme Court stood idly by while FDR and the Democrats twisted the Constitution and began the long, legislative march toward intrusive, domineering Big Government.

If conservatives had not been lulled into a false sense of security, much like radar observers at Pearl Harbor, the Robert’s decision earlier in the week to overturn most of Arizona’s illegal alien law would have served to warn us of impending problems.

Deluded optimists claim the decision was a clever rope–a–dope and now Obama has to run for re–election with Obamacare and its hidden tax hung around his neck for all the voters to see.

I don’t know what election these optimists have been watching, but the failure of Obamacare was already part of his campaign. Now, thanks to Roberts, he can run on the success of Obamacare, which serves to solidify a base that was becoming increasingly disillusioned. Protecting the fruit of this Supreme Court decision becomes a strong motivator to get out the Obama vote.

If this is a victory for conservatives, God save us from defeat.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–KY) is already whining that it’s going to be difficult to repeal the entire law because it’s so complicated. But it doesn’t require a 2,400–page bill to repeal a 2,400–page bill. You could do it with a bill no longer than a single page. What it does require is a certain strength of will and Sen. McConnell is telling us he and the majority of Republicans in the Senate lack that will.

They would rather file a lawsuit and let the Supreme Court do the heavy lifting, an option that after last Thursday no longer exists. This, in fact, will increasingly complicate life for Congressional Republicans as an imperial presidency continues to trample the Constitution. The legislative branch can no longer delegate Constitutional protection to the Judiciary.

The second rationalization for our famous victory is that Roberts ended the abuse and misuse of the Commerce clause. But that’s wrong, too. As Rick Richman notes in the Commentary blog: “Part III-A of the Roberts opinion – concluding the Obamacare mandate was not valid under the Commerce Clause – was not in the portion of his opinion that represents the opinion of the Court.” Which means the Commerce portion does not set or overturn precedent.

What a difference a week makes. Last Thursday a powerful conservative fleet was ready to weigh anchor. Eager to catch the high tide of the Obamacare decision and sail to victory in the fall. Today we’re tapping on the barnacle–encrusted hulls of capsized battleships trying to find survivors.

Some are using hammers. Me? I’m using my head.

Even Former Clinton Operative Stephanopoulos Doesn’t Buy Jack Lew’s Spin

Jack Lew

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision that upheld the Affordable Care Act as constitutional under the taxing powers of Congress, the Obama administration can’t seem to call it a tax.  Instead, they’re trying to peddle the “tax” as a penalty. White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew did his run through the Sunday morning talk shows with this entertaining spin. Even former Clinton operative George Stephanopoulos was unconvinced: “As you know, President Obama denied all along that this was a tax. Is he now prepared to defend it?”

Mr. Lew stuck to the “not a tax” spin:  “I think we have to take a step back. What is in the law is a penalty. It starts by saying all Americans have a right to health insurance. For Americans who buy health insurance or who can’t afford it and get it through a government program, there is no penalty.”

However, Stephanopolous pressed on with “you keep wanting to use the word penalty…they [The Supreme Court] found it constitutional because it is a tax, not a penalty. Here is the Chief Justice. Right here, he said, “The shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax, not a penalty.”  Lew denied it again and indirectly called the American people stupid, stating:

LEW: The Supreme Court looked at what the structure of the law was, and they saw that 1 percent of the people would be paying this charge if they chose not to avail themselves of health insurance. But more middle-class people are going to get a tax cut in this law. There’s a tax cut of $4,000 for people who need help paying for health insurance.

For the very, very few who choose to go uninsured, and who can afford it, and who are saying that if I need health care, it’s going to be someone else’s burden, it says they have to pay a charge.

You know, if you look at the past, since President Obama’s been in office, middle-class families have gotten a $3,600 tax cut. In this law, there’s a $4,000 tax cut for people who need help paying for health insurance. For that 1 percent who have chosen not to buy health insurance and just to pass the burden onto others, there’s this penalty.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you do concede — and you keep wanting to use the word penalty — you do concede that the law survived only because Justice Roberts found this to be a tax?

LEW: You know, I think, if you look at the decision, which is a very complicated one, you know, there are arguments that support different theories. There was…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But the argument of Chief Justice Roberts is that it’s a tax.

LEW: He — he went through the different powers that Congress has and he found that there is a power, whatever you call it, to assess a penalty like this.

STEPHANOPOULOS: He called it a tax. So you’re conceding that?

LEW: I’m saying that it was set up as a penalty for people who choose not to buy insurance, even though they can afford it, and for that 1 percent, we call it fair.

Lew’s assertion of the opinion being complicated, even though the part we’re discussing is explicitly clear in the written opinion, highlights the progressive left’s inherent condescension.  I guess the vast majority of Americans, who aren’t members of educational elite with learned diction, can’t possibly understand the difference between a tax and a penalty.  How progressive of them?  Mr. Lew’s shameless spinning and distortion of the facts even has liberals in the media saying he’s wrong.

Student Loans-In Need of a Fix or a Change?

Part 1

Every day we hear more tales of woe from college students who are inundated in debt due to their huge student loans.  Paying off student loans is a factor affecting lifestyle choices for many. More recently, the loans have become a larger influence on graduates, impacting decisions about home buying and even marriage.

Some believe that the sudden jump in college tuition is directly related to the government taking over the student loan program and advertising easier options for students to attend college. Is this so? There does seem to be precedence. Look at the sudden, sharp increase in house prices when so many were able to get non-principle loans through government sponsored programs. Or, the drastic rise in prescription drug costs since the implementation of Medicare Part D. There may be something to this argument. Others will point to the severe financial situation of states which forced them to cut college funding.

No matter the cause, what can be done to fix the problem?

Lower interest rates, which may help in the long run, still leave students with loans and long term repayment plans. (Interest rates for undergraduate loans were approved to remain at 3.4% for one more year in the recently passed Highway Bill effectively kicking the can down the road until after the election.)

In 2007, Public Service and Public Service Loan Forgiveness was enacted. This program allows graduates who work in the public service sector full-time for ten years and make qualifying payments during those years to have the rest of their loan forgiven.

A new House bill The Student Loan Forgiveness Act, introduced by Rep. Hansen Clarke (D-MI) offers a unique solution. The Income Based Repayment plan offers: Students pay 10% of their ‘discretionary’  salary for 10 years at which time the remainder of the loan is forgiven. As expected, this bill is wildly popular with college students, especially when so many graduates are competing with experienced unemployed workers resulting in lower pay jobs. In its current form, this bill is retroactive for those who have made qualifying payments; only available for federal loans; and places caps only on future loans.

With many government programs a fairness question causes discord among those who find themselves just outside the benefits of the potential bill. If the bill passes this year students who graduated ten years ago and paid their 10% will find their loans forgiven. Qualified students who graduated over ten years ago will also find their loans forgiven but will have paid a much larger portion of their personal debt. Students who received private loans are not eligible. And students who consolidated their loans may find their repayment plan starts over from the consolidation point.

These forgiveness programs aside, one might ask why the government is responsible for both offering student loans and for offering forgiveness? Wouldn’t it make sense just to offer college at a lesser cost? Some theorize that this is further evidence of the government wanting direct involvement in one’s life choices; including employment and housing options. Some are concerned that the commitment to work ‘for the government’ is part of a hidden socialist agenda; that the more ties one has to the government the more dependent he will be on its benefits.

Fiscal conservatives and those who want smaller government look at these forgiveness programs and ask why taxpayers are again having to foot the bill? Older generations look at today’s young graduates with disbelief. Student loans are not new but were often looked at as a hold on personal growth and something that should be paid back as quickly as possible, even if necessitating working more than one job. Many believe this generation has had high expectations give them; that they should not have to start at a beginning wage for a job. They mistakenly believe they should immediately on graduation be able to afford a new car, a new home and all the good things they grew up with but without having to wait and save as their parents did.

Tuesday, Part 2 of this article will look at some options for the new high school grad: How can a student become qualified for quality employment without wallowing in school debt and how to make common sense decisions.

Americans For Prosperity Virginia’s Real Facts Tour Exposes Tim Kaine’s Dereliction of Duty

Tim Kaine

As the Virginia U.S. Senate race heats up, Americans for Prosperity’s Virginia Chapter has some interesting facts about Democratic candidate and former Governor Tim Kaine.  Last Saturday, AFP Virginia’s State Director Audrey Jackson, writer and Fox News contributor Dick Morris, political analyst Kate Obenshain, conservative activist Stephen Kruiser, and radio talk show host and Townhall.com contributor Tony Katz embarked on a week long bus tour throughout the state exposing Tim Kaine’s leftist policies that have hurt Virginia.  They were also joined by AFP President Tim Phillips and other local activists leading the the fight for economic liberty and limited government.

The focus of the Real Facts, Real Solutions bus was clear. AFP VA is dedicated to pushing a narrative based on the governor’s record stating “Virginians deserve better than the debt and higher taxes he left us with when he [Kaine] left the Governor’s Office. Leading the efforts in Virginia, Kaine supported government run health care, he supported a billion dollars in tax increases.  When Governor in 2005 he inherited $1.2 billion surplus, yet he left Virginians with a $4.2 billion dollar budget shortfall when he left office.  In addition, he increased Virginia’s debt by nearly 50% and he continues to stand by President Obama’s failed policies.  Virginia can’t afford more of Tim Kaine’s policies.”

Tito Munoz

The event, held in Woodbridge this past Friday, was greeted by a few misguided Kaine supporters protesting outside the L&B Pizzeria, but concluded without  incident.  Local activist Tito Munoz gave passionate remarks concerning how this fight is about the future of our country and not about political allegiances. He stated how economic strife proliferated throughout the state under the Kaine administration and how we need  people to continue to fight the left’s agenda.   Munoz continued by showing how socialism is a failed economic philosophy that destroyed the Soviet Union and is ruining nations like Venezuela and Cuba.  As an immigrant from Latin America, he stated how he came to this country with nothing and knew no English at the time.  However, he worked hard and has achieved success as a businessman.  Living proof that the American Dream is still alive, but endangered under the policies of Barack Obama and Tim Kaine.  He concluded on how the Democratic Party has moved far to the left and the Kennedy Democrats of the past are long gone.  Hence, why we must deny Tim Kaine a seat in the U.S. Senate because America deserves better and Virginians need a representative who has the taxpayers’ interests at heart.

AFP Tim Phillips reiterated those points concerning the huge fight ahead of us.  However, he did mention how conservatives may have become a bit complacent about the outcome of the recent Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare.  Although he did state how could we not become lulled into that false sense of security because “hey it’s unconstitutional.”  However, Mr. Phillips was adamant that it’s up to us to push for full repeal with this takeover of health care.  It’s not impossible.  The grassroots of the conservative movement came out in full force in 2010 and took away the president’s credit card.  Then-Speaker (what a nice phrase…) Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership in Congress blew a 50 vote majority in the House and a 60 vote majority in the Senate to pass this takeover and members of the mainstream media forget that this bill started with a 64% approval rating. Mr. Phillips appropriately bashed the former governor for leaving Virginia behind to become Obama’s biggest cheerleader for his policies before completing his term as Governor.

Dick Morris

However, Dick Morris engaged the crowd by asking them if they were willing to sacrifice a week’s salary to pay the fine for not buying health insurance.  This should be the next poll about Obamacare.  Mr. Morris gave perspicacious examples on how this new law will indelibly change how you make your health care decisions with your doctor. For example, a thirty year old illegal immigrant could get a hip replacement, but an eighty-year old war veteran could be denied since his “quality years are limited.”   It could lead to more deaths amongst women since mammograms will not be covered annually, but bi-annually.  We all know that detection is critical in the fight against cancer and this change will put 13,000 women at risk.  Talk about the war on women. Mr. Morris also detailed how Avastin, an effective cancer fighting drug, is banned from Canada due to restrictions imposed by its health care bureaucracy. Welcome to the world of rationed care.

Mr. Morris reminded the audience that Tim Kaine was on the frontlines promoting Obamacare and how the Supreme Court is not a reliable institution when it comes to protecting our rights.  That responsibility rests with us on the political battlefield.  He stated why unemployment has remained above 8% over the past forty months.  It’s not because the disease is stubborn, it’s because the prescriptions Obama has been writing to cure the illness aren’t working.  As a result, this creates a volatile business climate, which is why corporations and banks are holding, cumulatively, $3 trillion in cash and aren’t lending or investing to create jobs and grow the economy.  Obama’s remedy to this problem is borrow more and spend more to a point where, as Morris indicated, we’re entering a debt implosion cycle. An event this nation has experienced in the 1840s, 1890s, and 1930s.  Morris stated that if Kaine were in the audience, he would give frivolous excuses, like striking at the right time when they had the majorities in congress, because they were afraid that their opportunity of passing government-run healthcare legislation would slip away again.  Hence, the progressive mind in action, which centers on sacrificing what is economically responsible for the sake of scoring political points.

Tony Katz

Concerning bad policy, the inimitable Tony Katz gave his experiences coming from a state fraught with bad policy.  As a California resident, Mr. Katz has seen his fair share of bad government.  He cites the city of Stockton filing for bankruptcy and twenty other cities waiting in the wings destined to suffer the same fate.  He was concise and to the point.  It’s a battle between bad policy and good policy.  Tim Kaine inherited a $1.2 billion dollar surplus and left the Governor’s mansion saddling Virginia with $4.2 billion dollars in debt.  He stated that people aren’t stupid and know the difference, which is why a convict in West Virginia was able to win 40% of the vote in the Democratic primary last spring.  This is a result of the Obama administration’s war on coal.  He concluded with California’s pending referendum this November that would raise taxes, yet again, on its residents because Gov. Jerry Brown has increased the deficit from $9 billion to $16 billion.  He stated “Don’t be like California” and this November the fight is about policy, not politics.

 

Kate Obenshain

Political analyst Kate Obenshain dove deeper into the policy aspect concerning Mr. Kaine.  She shattered the false narrative that he was a political “moderate.”  You’re not a moderate when you become the DNC chair between Howard Dean and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.  Ms. Obenshain stated under the Kaine administration, there wasn’t a single entitlement program he didn’t want to expand.  Mr. Kaine pushed the Democratic Party’s dependency agenda and more Virginians were enslaved in the various poverty programs as a result.  A travesty considering that Virginia was the model for welfare reform in the 1990s.   Mr. Kaine’s moderate disposition looks very shoddy when as governor, his budget proposal contained the largest tax increase in Virginia state history.  Not one member of the Virginia state legislature voted for it, similar to Obama’s budget, which resulted with the closure of 19 of 42 rests stops to save money.  In actual fact, Virginia Department of Transportation was sitting on $1.4 billion dollars and the closure was wholly unnecessary.  Mr. Kaine chose to ignore this information.

Kaine pushed cap and tax and refused to pursue offshore drilling permits.  When the permits were up for bidding again, he petitioned the Department of the Interior to delay the sale. As governor, Mr. Kaine was more concerned about pushing the Obama agenda than looking after the interests of Virginians, which constitutes a dereliction of duty on his part.  A lack of vigilance that cost Virginia up to 100,000 new jobs.

Stephen Kruiser

As the pizza and wings began to dwindle, comedian and conservative activist Stephen Kruiser, another resident of commie -California, gave a rousing rallying cry stating that we should never take the left’s criticism that we are powerless.  Power is in everyone who cares, who knocks on doors, and makes phone calls.  If you think that’s wrong, just look at Wisconsin or ask former Sen. Dick Lugar.  He stated how gatherings, like the one held in Woodbridge, from grassroots organizations like AFP scares politicians, especially the those who advocate bad policy.  What’s so great about this country, as Kruiser stated, is that “it’s a nation where you can witness a failed policy and work your butt off to throw that politician out on the street.”  Americans for Prosperity is doing a great job exposing politicians peddling bad policy.  Don’t reward them. Throw them out and deny them another term as a reward for pushing policies that harm American freedom.  Mr. Kaine is one of those politicians.

 

 

 

 

Americans For Prosperity Responds to the ObamaTax

The Taxman

Tim Phillips, President of Americans for Prosperity, held an emergency conference call this morning detailing the new ad in response to the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Obamacare as constitutional.  However, it is constitutional only if Congress taxes the uninsured at a higher rate.  Given that this law fundamentally changes the dynamics of our government, AFP went into rapid response mode.  The new ad, appropriately named “Not a Tax Increase,” will be shown in Colorado, Florida, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin.  This is part of a concerted social media effort to pressure the administration on the merits of government run health care.  Facebook and Twitter will be heavily utilized and grassroots operations and rallies are being coordinated and executed throughout the country.

Yesterday, rallies in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania,  Waukesha, Wisconsin, Montana, and Nevada were held in the hopes that the bill would be declared unconstitutional and for free market supporters to lend their voice in the ongoing effort to stop the Obama agenda.  Mr. Phillips reiterated the polls showing that a majority of Americans are dissatisfied with the law and how independent voters find it politically unpalatable.  Hence, the reason why the president wants to move on and refuse to talk further on the legality of the takeover.

Mr. Phillips and the rest of the pro-free marketers at AFP will not back down.  They plan to work with other like-minded organizations to change narrative, fight for full repeal, and expose this bill as one of the largest tax increases in our history.  A direct contradiction to Obama’s campaign pledge to not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 a year.  Furthermore, the president has gone on record to say that this takeover is not a tax increase.  This provides AFP with an opportunity to expose this broken promise in the Obama campaign and continue their efforts in educating and informing the public about economic freedom and  limited government.  We simply lost this round, but public opinion is shiftable sand and tomorrow is a new day.  We’re not down. We’ve  just entered the next phase in our war with the institutional left.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

« Older Entries Recent Entries »