James Glassman has a very useful column today examining the deficits run by recent presidents. He puts the Obama deficits in a perspective that is much more accurate than what the President’s apologists would have us believe.
Please call your Representative TODAY urging them to sign the letter to Speaker Boehner to take action to DEFUND ObamaCare.
The letter must be signed before the end of the day on this Friday, the 13th.
Please pass the word, we don’t have much time!
US Capitol: 202-224-3121
The Conservative Caucus Chairman Peter J. Thomas today applauded Congress for listening to Americans and voting to repeal ObamaCare.
Speaking today from his home state of New Hampshire, he said “Today’s vote in the House of Representatives shows Congress has the votes and is serious about fully repealing ObamaCare in January; it is truly a citizens’ victory against a dangerous socialized medicine scheme.”
Thomas warned, “However Americans must be alert that beyond today’s symbolic vote, in January the special interests and liberal media will be on the attack, and heavy pressure will be targeted at moderate and liberal Republicans to sell out their voters and vote to save President Obama’s radical legislative agenda.”
The latest Rasmussen poll shows Americans want the law repealed by a wide margin; 53-41.
Thomas continued, “Today’s vote sends the bill to the Senate where it will be buried by the left-wing-controlled leadership; simply, we won’t be able to repeal it until we have a Senate more responsive to the American people.
Thomas concluded his statement, urging that “Americans should call their Senators and demand they repeal this socialized medicine law and enact true reforms.”
Mr. Thomas is available for interviews, and can provide details of possible conservative health reform bills. Bio: http://conservativeusa.org/peter-thomas-bio.htm
The Conservative Caucus (TCC) is a grass roots public policy action organization, formed in 1974. It was active in opposing the passage of ObamaCare, defeating the SALT II Treaty, repealing the Catastrophic Coverage Act, blocking the Clinton health-care takeover, and having the U.S. House of Representatives impeach President Clinton.
Although you would have to read the Washington Post story carefully to know it, social mobility in America is alive and well.
The Post story, by Annie Gowen, tells us gloomily that 43% of those who are born into lower class families stay in the lower class, and that 40% of upper class children remain in the upper class.
Another way of looking at that is that a majority — 57% — of lower class children rise to at least middle class status. An even larger majority — 60% — of the wealthy will not remain wealthy, proving that merely inheriting money is no guarantee against dropping into the middle class or lower.
The liberal argument that the Death Tax is needed to prevent the wealthy from making their descendents a permanently wealthy dynasty turns out to be groundless.
President Obama announced yesterday that he wants to extend the Bush tax cuts for many Americans – but only for one year. There was no mention of his previous policy of making the tax cuts permanent for those making less than $200,000.
Looking carefully at Obama’s exact words, he carefully hedged his support for extending the middle-class and lower-class tax cuts – ” not when so many folks are just trying to get by” and “Not when so many folks are still digging themselves out of the hole”.
If Obama really believes that the deficit should be reduced by tax increases, while spending programs are protected, he has no choice but to raise taxes on the middle class. Taxes on the wealthy are already so high that the Federal government cannot squeeze much more from them.
A few years ago, liberal pundit E. J. Dionne said that the reason for increasing taxes on the wealthy was to make it possible to then raise taxes on the middle class – i.e. only after sticking it to the wealthy might the middle class be reconciled to accepting a tax increase. Democratic Minority Whip Steny Hoyer has suggested that the middle class might have to give up the Bush tax cuts, and former OMB Director Peter Orszag has openly called for full repeal. Obama seems to be nearly ready to join them – but only when the election is over.
H.R. 6079, the bill to repeal ObamaCare, is being debated today, and a vote is expected in the House tomorrow.
If RINO Republicans join Democrats and vote against it, it will be more difficult to actually repeal it in January.
Some conservative Democrats may also vote for repeal if they hear from many constituents, so don’t just call Republicans.
Please call your Representative NOW at 202-224-3121 in support of this bill.
In the wake of increasing evidence that Roberts initially cast his vote to overturn ObamaCare but then switched it, it would be valuable to know who ‘got to him.’ Who persuaded or threatened him to completely reverse his original and more Constitutionally-correct judgment?
One answer might be the President himself, but we may never know the facts of why Roberts switched his vote and handed the Obama administration a near-complete victory; one certain to spawn a myriad of similar mandates and punitive taxes over coming years and decades.
Some have speculated he is looking to his ‘legacy,’ that he doesn’t want to be seen as a partisan leader of the court. That he might be more concerned with his image in the liberal media than upholding the original intent of the Constitution.
What we do know is that the Court is less independent than we imagined, and that decisions may be based more on the prevailing winds of the liberal establishment and media reactions than the language and intent of the Constitution.
If Robert’s vote could be switched, why should we not expect it to happen again? Indeed, was the Arizona illegal immigration decision similarly influenced by pressure on Roberts?
Sadly, influencing the decisions of the Supreme Court is not unthinkable. President Buchanan is known to have influenced Justice Robert Grier to make the Dred Scott decision even more expansive. (http://www.history.com/topics/dred-scott-case). We must demand the Court be off limits for those who wish to pervert justice.
It is true that parts of the decision may be of benefit in limiting Commerce Clause abuses, and Justice Roberts does in his opinion call for voters and Congress to change bad legislation, so the decision is not a complete loss for conservatives; and the election instantly has become a referendum on repealing ObamaCare. Perhaps this was Roberts’ intent. Either way, the troubling evidence of influence is disturbing and must never happen again.
How should Americans who cherish the Constitution respond?
Should we ask Roberts to resign? Certainly not during the Obama administration where he would be replaced by a hard core leftist. It may be that the firestorm of protest following his switch may help pull him back towards original intent in future cases.
Should we call for Robert’s impeachment? For many reasons, no. It would be virtually impossible to get a GOP House interested in even opposing a GOP-nominated Justice in an election year, the Senate would take no action; and again, a replacement would be nominated by President Obama.
Should citizens express their outrage at this apparently influenced decision on blogs, social media, letters to the editor and radio shows? Most certainly, and publicly call for him to never trade his vote for any reason.
You could also send Roberts news clippings of how liberals are gloating about how they got Roberts to cave in and hand them their victory.
Public outrage may help counter some of the pressure Roberts receives from the White House and other sources, and show him that his image is not entirely shaped and reflected in the headlines of the liberal media.
Justice Ginsburg’s concurring opinion attacks the only part of the court’s ruling that had broad support (seven justices, excluding only Ginsburg and Sotomayor). This is the finding that the expansion of Medicaid provides an unconstitutional penalty insofar as the Federal government withholds funding for existing Medicaid programs as a punishment for a state’s refusal to adopt the expansion of Medicaid to those who are not poor.
Ginsburg points out that “prior to today’s decision . . . the Court has never ruled that the terms of any grant crossed the indistinct line between temptation and coercion.” Previous decisions had recognized, in theory, that Congress might pass a law providing grants whose terms would make it impossible for the states to refuse, but the Court always found a reason to accept the law being challenged.
The Washington Post predicts that this portion of the Roberts decision will produce “challenges to federal conditions across a wide spectrum of programs, including but not limited to the environment, education, and transportation.” There can be little doubt that many attorneys general will consider the possibility of removing onerous conditions to Federal funding by challenging them in court under this precedent.
Perhaps these challenges will amount to little, with the Supreme Court refusing to rule that Federal mandates go too far. Nevertheless, this could make it difficult for Congress to impose its will on the states through grants, and might even make such grant programs less attractive to members of Congress.
Too little attention has been paid to a passage on page 6 of Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion on ObamaCare. In explaining the Supreme Court’s role in American government, Roberts said “Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them.”
I would not have been so surprised if Roberts had used language more neutral and scholarly (e.g. “Political disputes must be settled in the political arena, at the ballot box.”) To talk so bluntly about throwing people out of office is more unusual. Given the consistent showing in the polls that a majority of Americans want to get rid of ObamaCare, Roberts has included in his opinion a virtual endorsement of Mitt Romney over Barack Obama. He has said to the voters, “ if you want to get rid of ObamaCare, throw out the President”.
Justice Roberts’ decision upholding the individual mandate of ObamaCare relied on the Congressional power to levy taxes. There can be no question that the taxing power exists, and it is quite broad. However, to say that it is unlimited in scope is wrong.
Roberts phrases it this way. “The Government does not claim that the taxing power allows Congress to issue such a command. Instead, the Government asks us to read the mandate not as order¬ing individuals to buy insurance, but rather as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product.” This was the argument that persuaded Roberts.
If Roberts is correct, then Congress (before the ratification of the First Amendment in 1791) had the power to tax people for failing to join a church, or to tax churches for failing to participate in a government-proclaimed day of prayer. (Thomas Jefferson, as a state legislator, introduced a bill to do exactly that to Virginia churches.) Congress could amend ObamaCare to impose a tax on people who fail to join health clubs. It could tax people who fail to buy new cars at certain intervals (as yet a further payoff to the auto unions).
Amazingly, the New York Times has published a column by Richard Epstein describing the danger of this broad interpretation, and why it is not constitutional. This is must reading for every conservative.
Roberts did include one valuable concession in his opinion. He found that the penalty was actually a tax because it did not compel people to act in a certain way. Choosing to pay the tax is a genuine alternative, and he pointed to estimates that four million people will choose to go without insurance. Had the penalty/tax been so high that rejecting insurance would have been unthinkable, Roberts’ own logic would have required him to reach a different conclusion. He allows the taxing power to influence decisions, not to compel them. That is a weak limit, but at least it sets a boundary.