Tag Archives: mandate

House Republicans Have More Than Two Options

fiscal-cliff-boehnerThere were a few anxious moments in the White House last night and early Thursday morning. For a brief moment it looked liked John Boehner’s re–election as Speaker might be in trouble. This would have been a disaster for the Obama administration — equivalent to the French hiring Gen. George S. Patton as their commander–in–chief in the fall of 1938.

It’s quite possible that Boehner is the favorite Republican of Oval Office denizens. He’s never won a showdown with Obama. He huffs and he puffs and he blows his own House down. Cong. Boehner is the Ambrose Burnside of GOP strategists. He’s always a pontoon or two short of victory.

Which is why his three–vote margin was uncomfortably close for the Obama administration.

Speaker Boehner — and admittedly much of the Republican brain trust both in and out of elective office — is trapped in a binary, tactical battle with the White House. A battle he manages to re–fight and re–lose on a regular basis. The fiscal cliff confrontation was simply not a choice between passing Obama’s tax and spending increases or plunging headlong off the cliff.

A truly strategic thinker would have seen there was a third option. An option that was difficult in the short run, but promised a lasting victory in the long run.

I outlined that strategy here in mid–December. I contend that Obama has a legitimate mandate to raise taxes, so let him raise taxes to his heart’s content. Instead of fighting and losing, House Republicans step aside and let the Democrats pass a bill that gives the public a mandate right upside their head.

Only the Democrats do it without a single Republican vote.

Instead, Boehner states very plainly the GOP believes this bill is wrong and raising taxes will damage the economy. Unfortunately, the people have spoken, so the GOP will abstain on this vote. Making the 2014 off–year election a referendum on the Obama plan.

A referendum Republicans will win in a landslide, if we are correct. If we are wrong, and the voters actually want big, bigger and biggest government, then it doesn’t matter anyway.

Using a political rope–a–dope strategy means Republicans can’t be blamed for pushing the country over the fiscal cliff, nor can they be blamed for the recession redux that follows passage of Obama’s Christmas list.

Instead, binary, short–term, tactical thinking has saddled the nation with a terrible deal: $41 in new spending for every $1 in elusive spending cuts. And what’s worse, because the House GOP leadership helped pass the bill, Republicans now have part ownership of the blame for Obama’s failure!

Ss long as Boehner is speaker, this willing participation in mutually assured economic destruction undercuts responsible conservatives in the future.

On the other hand, Republican governors, when presented with an almost identical situation, made just the type of choice I’m advocating.

GOP governors loathe Obamacare. They believe it to be bad policy, bad medicine and bad government. Now Obamacare is the law of the land and the next step is implementation on a state–by–state basis. In any potentially chancy political situation Democrats can be certain to monopolize all the credit and outsource the blame if things go wrong.

Acting on this principle, Democrats established a system where each state is supposed to create a health insurance exchange, which insulates national Democrats from blame. When Obamacare goes horribly wrong, state governors will be in the line of fire, since they created the exchange.

If Boehner had been governor of say Virginia, he would have fallen right into the trap and worked to create an exchange that implemented Obamacare and dispensed blame to Republicans.

Fortunately Bob McDonnell is governor and he — along with other wise Republicans at the state level — refused to create an exchange. Leaving Obamacare a Democrat sole proprietorship, since the exchange will be run by the feds. Obama owns the law and he owns the outcome, because Republicans refused to participate.

Looking ahead, our next defeat will be the vote on increasing the debt limit. Sure Boehner has pledged that he won’t negotiate with Obama in the future, but I fail to see where being buffaloed by Harry Reid is an improvement.

Unfortunately for conservatives, Boehner is an excellent strategist when it comes to protecting his career. As Virginia Del. Rich Anderson (R–VA) points out, back in 2009 Boehner was a strong supporter of a secret ballot for union elections.

Boehner declared that a public vote with union organizers watching would “actually would strip workers of free choice in union organizing elections…. Instead, it would leave them open to coercion and intimidation — from either union officials or company management — to sign or not sign a card expressing their desire to join a union.”

Which makes the 12 Republican members of the House who voted against Boehner on Thursday all the more noble. Since he was watching teamster–like as each one of them voted against him.

Voting as a conservative in the Boehner House is not conducive to career advancement. As the four freshmen Congressmen who lost their committee assignments last month, in retaliation for failing to toe the company line, will be happy to tell you.

Obamacare: Bad for business and your health

One of the main reasons the economy is not recovering is because of the healthcare law. The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare is not what the doctor ordered or what the people wanted. Every single poll ever conducted since its inception has shown more Americans in favor of its repeal than against it. The bill is a staggering 2,074 pages of hidden fees, oppressive taxes, and job killing regulations. To give you an idea of just how large this bill is keep in mind that Leo Tolstoy’s classic novel War and Peace is only 1,440 pages.

According to a recent study from the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Obamacare will make it harder to recruit and pay highly qualified workers. Businesses will have to weigh the risk/reward ratio on whether or not they can afford to expand their businesses past 49 employees. Imagine that. A government law that actually punishes a business from growing? Once a business has 50 or more total employees the Obamacare mandate provisions kick in. Many small businesses will be forced to make critical decisions. Should they continue to offer health insurance for their employees or should they pay the fine instead?

The businesses that decide not to expand and remain under 49 employees do not have to offer health insurance. Dropping the insurance for their employees won’t change the fact that those employees will still get fined for not having insurance. Obamacare has already been proven to be bad for business and will continue to cost small businesses more in production, labor, and manufacturing expenditures. Roughly74% of small businesses have said the main reason they are not hiring is because of the law. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the healthcare law will lead to 800,000 fewer jobs by the end of this decade alone.

In a cruel and ironic twist, Obamacare will also disproportionately affect the people it was designed to help the most; the poor. According to a recent joint study by Harvard and the University of Chicago, the workers most affected by Obamacare will be younger workers, minorities, and entry level or labor heavy workers. This is the exact group of people who can least afford to pay anymore for their health insurance. Instead of hiring and training new cashiers, receptionists, and customer service representatives small businesses will be forced to cut costs. They will develop new techniques such as automated kiosks and scanning machines instead of live workers. The end result will be fewer jobs for the people that need them the most. So when the poor get sick and suffer health problems from the added stress of not being able to find a job they can take comfort in the fact that they will be taken care of with government run healthcare.

Here are a few examples of what type of decisions job creators are now asking themselves.

John Schnatter, CEO of Papa Johns Pizza said Obamacare will force him to raise his prices between 11 and 14 cents per slice. Under the law, the company which is the third largest pizza chain in the United States will have to offer healthcare coverage to its more than 16,500 total employees or be subjected to a fine. In order to offset the additional costs associated with the law many businesses like Papa Johns are passing the costs on to their customers by increasing their prices.

Here is a quote from Judy Nichols, a small business owner, “I have two options. The cost for providing health insurance per-worker per-year is approximately $4,000. I can stop offering coverage and pay the $2,000 fine, or I could not expand my business and keep my number of employees under 50 so the mandate does not apply. It unfortunately is a no win situation for me. Obamacare will cost me between 20,000 and 30,000 dollars per year in new taxes. Many businesses owners, including myself are leaning towards dropping the coverage and paying the fine.”

Even a committed liberal like Jim Cramer of CNBC admitted that Obamacare will hurt most businesses. On his Mad Money show he said this, “What I’m telling you is that most of the business leaders that I have spoken with have a real fear of Obamacare. They don’t want to hire, this is part of the underground economy that is going to develop, because nobody wants to put people on the books. People have to recognize that this issue is front and center to every CEO I speak to. They tell me it is less expensive and less burdensome to hire and place workers in other countries. As a result of the law a lot more businesses will set up operations in China, India, or even Mexico.”

On July 16th, 2009 at a rally in Holmdel, New Jersey President Obama said something that we now know is not entirely true. In an attempt to solidify more support for his healthcare bill the President said this. “Let me be clear. If you have health insurance that you like, a doctor that you trust, you can keep your current plan.”

First off, we have learned these last four years that when the President starts a sentence with let me be clear it usually means he is not. His proclamation that you can keep the insurance you have is in many ways the political equivalent of former President Bill Clinton’s ambiguous statement ‘it depends on what the definition of is is.”

The Affordable Care Act, which is the epitome of an oxymoron, was never intended to be anything but a single payer system. The President and the Democrats knew if they could just get their foot through the healthcare door that over time it would become a single payer system through attrition. The law was purposely designed to be so cumbersome, so complicated, and so expensive for businesses that they would get frustrated and just stop offering insurance and pay the fine. Most independent studies have concluded that nearly 70% of privately insured carriers will eventually end up on the government plan.

Another potentionally dangerous stipulation included in Obamacare is known as the Independent Panel Advisory Board. This controversial provision of the bill creates a 15 member panel of unelected bureaucrats in charge of controlling costs. These officials are appointed by the President, the Senate Majority Leader, the Senate Minority Leader, the Speaker of the House, and the House Minority Leader.

Once the board members have been chosen they must be confirmed by the Senate and are appointed for a term of six years. Perhaps what is most chilling about these appointees is the fact that they do not even have to have a medical background! And if this wasn’t enough, they will also be paid a salary of $165,300 per year.

The President and the Democrats insist this panel is not allowed to ration care. There is language in the bill that specifically forbids it. But lets be honest here, they are paid to control costs.

Suppose you have two equally infirm patients. One patient is 25 years younger than the other. Both patients need a life saving operation that would immediately improve their long term health and quality of life. The board realizes that if they authorize both operations it will put them over their proposed budget. Do you really think they’re going to authorize the older patient for the operation? Not a chance. They would instead more likely try to justify their decision by saying to patient A that he/she has had a longer life than patient B. It is time to discuss other means of treatment such as end of life practices and pain management for patient A instead of authorizing a budget busting life saving operation.

Since when is it ever acceptable for the government to play the role of God? What if that was your mother or father? How would you feel?

This is the insidious part of Obamacare that many Americans have a major problem with. Healthcare decisions should only be between the patient, the family, and the doctor. Healthcare decisions should never be between the patient, the family, the doctor, and some unqualified, unelected, government bean counter.

If Obamacare is fully implemented in America our country and our healthcare will never be the same. If you think healthcare is expensive now just wait until it is free and run by the government. Our premiums will sky rocket because there will be less competition. The overall quality of the healthcare we come to expect will also diminish over time. There will also be a shortage of good doctors and specialists as many will leave the profession. What is the best way to ruin the greatest healthcare system in the world? Hand it over to the government to run.
..

Suggested by the author:
Why John Roberts betrayed America and changed his vote
Warning: Barack Obama may be intentionally destroying our economy
The battle between traditional conservatism and secular liberalism in America

Hypocrite Dems Say Obama Has A Mandate



Hypocrite Dems Say Obama Has A Mandate

George W. Bush defeated John Kerry in 2004 with a popular vote percentage of 51.244%, 62,040,606 votes to 59,029,808 votes. Democrats’ rallying cry after the 2004 election was “51 percent isn’t a mandate.” Democrats fought Bush and Republicans – hard.

Barack Hussein Obama defeated Mitt Romney on Tuesday, November 6, 2012, with a popular vote percentage of 51.385%, 62,156,980 votes to 58,805,060 votes. Now Obama, Axelrod, and the Democrats say Obama has a “mandate.” I guess it’s that 0.141% greater election margin Obama enjoys over Bush that causes Democrats to say Obama has a “mandate.”

To illustrate what hypocrites Democrats are, consider the following:

  • David Axelrod, on November 8, said that any talk of a mandate was “foolish” and “generally untrue.” Then, on November 11, Axelrod said that Obama did receive a mandate with regard to taxes.
  • Regarding ObamaCare, Jonathan Cohn wrote an article entitled, “Yes, Obama Won a Mandate” on November 7 for The New Republic. In the article, Cohn wrote: “The Affordable Care Act is here to stay.” Cohn says this despite the fact that voters who listed ObamaCare as a major factor were evenly split between Romney, 47%, and Obama, 46%. And today, November 13, 2012, 43% of Americans view the law favorably, while 39% view it unfavorably. Some mandate.
  • Regarding the environment, Richard Schiffman wrote an article entitled, “Obama’s Mandate to Tackle Climate Change” on November 12 for The Huffington Post: Blog. In the article, Schiffman says: “They [environmental activists] argue that voters have sent a clear signal that they want more aggressive action on the environment during the president’s second term.” Does 51.385% of the vote send a “clear signal” or a mandate?
  • In a World Net Daily article entitled, “Obama’s mandate,” Bill Press, on November 9, wrote: “Who says you need to win by 15 points to have a mandate?” He then continued, in the same paragraph, to list reasons why Obama received a mandate.
  • Regarding the US, Joan Walsh wrote an article entitled, “Obama’s Mandate” on November 6 for AlterNet. In the article, Walsh says: “President Obama’s reelection represents a victory for the Democratic ideal of activist government and a mandate for more of it.”
  • Regarding taxes, Vice President Joe Biden said: “On the tax issue there was a clear, a clear sort of mandate about people coming much closer to our view about how to deal with tax policy.” He actually said that. VP Biden, please explain what a “clear sort of mandate” is. Or is it just another of his gaffs?

It seems that Democrats see a mandate when their candidate wins, but don’t seem to see one when an opponent wins. In fact, Democrats say, “51 percent isn’t a mandate.” But somehow that 51% transmorgrifies into a mandate when a Democrat wins! Hypocrisy at its best.

But that’s just my opinion.

Please visit RWNO, my personal web site.

Students Mock Michelle Antoinette Obama: ‘We Are Hungry’

The Blaze has the story behind this video that’s gone viral, which mocks Michelle Obama’s new school lunch mandate.

This story is personal for my family.

In previous years, I would give my children a snack when they came in from school, but this year, from the very first day they came in starving! At first I thought it may be due to earlier lunch schedules than previously, or something of that nature. However, as we talked to the kids about their lunch, it hit me that Michelle Antoinette Obama’s mandates are now in effect. I now have to give my kids lunch when they get home. They still eat their dinner, with no problem at all. It’s obvious they are not being fed enough at school. However, there are those that do not think Michelle has gone far enough in her mandates, and have petitioned the USDA to ban  milk from school lunches.

Now that I know my kids are not the only ones who are hungry, I think it’s time I start sending them to school with a lunch box… loaded with LOTS of cookies on the side!

 

Supreme Court Strikes Blow for Tyranny

The Supreme Court’s Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the progressive wing of the court to effectively uphold the individual mandate of the Obamacare law. In an unusually direct example of legislating from the bench, Justice Roberts argued that although the mandate to cover health insurance was unconstitutional as a penalty, it was constitutionally permissible under the Congress’ taxing powers.

This is an absurd argument that contradicts even President Obama’s own reasoning that the individual mandate is “not a tax.” Nowhere in the healthcare law itself was the individual mandate ever labeled as a tax, and for a member of a court to imply that the law is feasible under such an arrangement, boggles the mind.

But here we are America, on the cusp of seeing the biggest tax on the middle class in the nation’s history. All in the midst of an economy the Vice President recently called “a depression for millions.” And the market will continue to tank. The jobless rate will continue to rise. And insurance premiums will continue to soar. That has been the plan all along; to force us into the single payer system that Obama supports by hook or by crook.

It is inconceivable that the Congress has the authority to “tax” individuals into buying private health insurance or else be forced to enroll in the so-called “public option.”

What America is experiencing is a complete breakdown of our system of laws, devolving into a government ruled by a unified cohort of self-interested men. The law is being deformed to suit predetermined political ends, which are directed towards dissolving individual liberty and strengthening centralized power.

Thomas Jefferson was prescient when he declared of the argument that the judiciary is the final recourse against tyranny:

If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our constitution a complete felo de se [suicide pact]. […] The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted no where but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law.

And indeed, nine men in robes had their say in court today. But we concerned citizens will have our final say in the court of public opinion via the ballot box come November. For today’s ruling should not be taken as a demoralizing rejection of the Constitution’s principles, which live so long as they survive in our hearts.

But it is a sad day that one of the institutions of our government has so debased itself as to become a trivial appendage of tyrannical men. The Supreme Court has lowered itself to the same standard as politicized courts around the world, making the United States that much less exceptional.

It is not the first time the Supreme Court has sided with the abusive power of government over the freedom of the citizens, and it will not be the last, so long as the unvarnished progressive Justice Roberts presides in the court.

But this is a rallying cry to raise the American flag, and to reassert with all force that can be mustered to oppose growing tyranny in our once great country. Whether by the ballot box, or by state nullification, or by civil revolt, tyranny will be opposed in this nation. And a Supreme Court ruling is not going to change that political reality.

Obamacare – Where Are We?




We are all aware that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly called Obamacare, is being debated this week at the US Supreme Court. While I am not a lawyer (or even played one on TV), I want to bring two points to your attention.

Justice Elana Kagan

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan was present to hear arguments about Obamacare. She gave no indication she would recuse herself from judging Obamacare, even though she had cheered its enactment, is an Obama political appointee, and personally assigned her top deputy in the Obama Justice Department to defend the law in federal court. Federal law 28 USC 455 says a Supreme Court justice must recuse from “any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned” or anytime he has “expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy” while he “served in governmental employment.”    [emphasis mine]

During her confirmation process in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Kagan assured the committee in written responses to its questionnaire that she would follow the “letter and spirit” of 28 U.S.C. 455. And here is some information that Kagan supplied during her Senate confirmation hearing after being nominated for the Supreme Court. She was given a 13 question questionnaire, and she responded in writing: Had she ever been asked her opinion about the merits or underlying legal issues in Florida’s lawsuit against Obamacare, and: Had she ever been asked her opinion regarding any other legal issues that may arise from Pub. L. No. 111-148? To both questions she responded “no.” But evidence suggests otherwise.

So the question is, “What part of 28 USC 455 does she not understand?” She qualifies for recusal under at least three provisions of 28 USC 455. Further, she said that she would follow the letter and spirit of the law. Further, when asked if she had been asked about Obamacare, she said no. Yet her responses were demonstrably false.

When questioning attorney Paul D. Clement (who was presenting an oral argument on behalf of 26 states seeking to have the federal health care law declared unconstitutional) Kagan said, “The exact same argument so, so that really reduces to the question of: why is a big gift from the federal government a matter of coercion? In other words, the federal government is here saying: we’re giving you a boatload of money. There are no, is no matching funds requirement. There are no extraneous conditions attached to it. It’s just a boatload of federal money for you to take and spend on poor people’s healthcare. It doesn’t sound coercive to me, I have to tell you.” She actually said that!

The Individual Mandate

Yesterday (March 28, 2012) Justice Antonin Scalia asked Obama’s solicitor general a fundamental question about the Obamacare mandate: “What is left? If the government can do this, what else can it not do?” Scalia asked the question of Solicitor General Donald Verrilli on the administration’s claim that forcing people to buy health insurance is justified by the clause in Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution, specifically the third clause, which states: “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” In the “stretch” department, Verrilli argued that by not purchasing health insurance Americans are really participating in health-care commerce because by not buying insurance they are having an “effect” on interstate commerce in health care. Verrilli’s unstated assumption is that not buying health insurance is an “economic activity.” Scalia pointed out to Verrilli that the administration’s argument seemed to take no cognizance of the Tenth Amendment.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said that “…you don’t have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in the very fundamental way.”

So, following Kennedy’s reasoning, an ambitious and aggressive government, would literally be able to require anything, as long as it was for the “common good.” Where would this power end? Justice Sam Alito asked Verrilli if Congress could force young people to buy burial insurance because everyone is going to die someday. Chief Justice John Roberts asked Verrilli if Congress could force people to buy cell phones because it would facilitate contacting emergency services in the event of an accident. And Justice Kennedy asked Verrilli: “Can you create commerce in order to regulate it.”

Justice Scalia wondered if the mandate was confirmed, could destroy the very concept of limited government.

Where are we? With Kagan not recusing herself, who knows. We know that Kagan, Sotomayor, and Ginsberg are political hacks. All we can do is hope that at least five Justices view the mandate as unconstitutional, and therefore illegal.

But that’s just my opinion.

U.S. Supreme Court to Decide on Obamacare Mandate

The Supreme Court announced that it would decide whether or not President Obama’s health care law would stand as it was passed by Congress.

For months, many legal experts have been expecting the decision to hear the case brought against the law by 26 states Attorneys General and a separate suit filed by a business group – what was not know is when.

The most contentious part of the suit is whether the health insurance mandate is an infringement on individual liberties. The mandate would force all Americans to buy certain kinds of government-approved health insurance or pay a penalty. This would set a dangerous precedent that would allow Congress to force citizens to buy any product it sees fit as long as the legislators in Washington D.C. believe it is “for the common good” or interest of interstate commerce.

The legislation also does not allow the purchase of some health plans to meet the requirement. Plans like High-Deductible Health Plans (HDHP) accompanied by Health Savings Accounts (HSA) may not meet the government’s measurements. These plans are largely sought by the self-employed, small business owners and those that choose to manage their health care dollars more-closely – more than 10 million Americans in 2010[1].

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) released this statement about the court’s decision:

It is not the business of government, at either the state or federal level, to tell individual Americans to purchase any product or service. That’s why, as president, I will not rest until the bill is completely repealed.

The highest court in America will hear more than 5 hours of oral arguments in March and render their decision in July – just a few short months before the 2012 elections.

The court could decide to invalidate the entire law, just the insurance mandate, uphold the whole law or hold their decision until after the law is mandated. Considering the massive impact to businesses that would have to wrestle with the cumbersome legislation, a decision to uphold the mandate or not is expected in the July ruling.


[1] – America’s Health Insurance Plan – http://www.ahip.org/content/pressrelease.aspx?bc=174|30516