Send Congress a Pink Slip: 6 million So Far

Let’s keep those pink slips coming and hope for once they can get the message loud and clear. WE DON’T LIKE WHAT YOUR DOING & IF YOU CONTINUE IT WE WILL REPLACE YOU IN 2010 !

Boxed and ready to go

Pink Slip Tidal Wave Hitting Washington D.C.

The surge of pink slips being sent to Congress to warn members against more spending, taxing and government continued today, with the total number surpassing 6 million – of which 1 million have been dispatched in just the last 48 hours or so.

U.S. Rep. Trent Franks on Tuesday was one of several members of Congress to endorse the “Send Congress a pink slip” campaign, organized by WND columnist Janet Porter and WND Editor and Chief Executive Officer Joseph Farah.

“It’s an amazing feat, to get that many slips to Congress,” Rep. Steven King, R-Iowa, told WND. “If you look through them, you can index each one back to an individual. That’s powerful. There is a person behind each one of the slips.”

For just $29.95 you can send an individualized notice to every member of Congress in the form of a “pink slip.”

King and Franks were joined at the press conference by Reps. Michelle Bachmann, R-Minn., and Louis Gohmert, R-Texas.

In addition, Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., was interviewed about the campaign by Fox News Channel’s Greta Van Susteren.

Capitol switchboard number: 1-202-224-3121

“This is putting everyone on notice,” he said. “And I think this is what the American people have been doing for months now, saying if you keep spending and borrowing, you’re going to get fired.”

Also, for the first time, CNN and other news outlets covered the unprecedented campaign that has generated more than 6 million pink slips to members of the House and Senate.

“Our goal from the beginning was to generate 5 6 million of these notices,” said Farah. “But it now appears we might just be getting started.”

Bachmann cheered the program on, saying she agrees with the campaign and that it is having a major impact on her colleagues. She said she was surprised that so many pink slips were generated even though most Americans had never heard of the program.

She said it’s clear the message – delivered through a stack of “pink slips” now standing more than five feet high in congressional offices – is getting through.

The “pink slips” remind members of Congress they actually work for the taxpayers and list four governmental plans that are unacceptable:

• government health care
• cap and trade
• “hate crimes”
• any more uncontrolled spending

“If you vote for any of these, your real pink slip will be issued in the next election,” it warns.

Read entire article at WorldnetDaily.com

Pelosicare? Reidcare?–The Bait and Switch Game Begins

Boy, if this doesn’t get your blood boiling! When you read this article, you’ll see these liberals will go to no end and try all kinds of hidden deceptions to pass their unconstitutional health care bill. A  cloture vote Saturday Nov.21,  by Senators on whether even to start debating the bill. With Republicans seemingly united against the bill, Reid will need all 60 Democrats to vote against the filibuster.

What Reid wants is for the Senate to vote to proceed on a bill that has not been seen, not read, not studied by the very Senators from whom he wants to force a vote. If this bill is so important, why isn’t it imperative that our Senators actually get to see the thing they are expected to vote on?

And that isn’t the worst of the unconscionable dirty tricks that Reid is playing with this “important” legislation. He’s also planning on a bait and switch tactic once he gets his vote to proceed.

News is that Reid wants to use a Senate procedure where a bill can be swapped out with another on the floor. He wants to bring an unassociated bill to the floor and once it gets there he wants to swap that bill out with the health care bill. In other words, he wants to bring a fake bill to the floor and pull a bait-and-switch act to suddenly plop before the Senate the heretofore unseen health care bill. Then he wants to force a quick vote before Christmas.

Under pressure from the White House, Majority Leader Harry Reid says he plans to bring a health care reform package to the floor of the Senate next week, and his goal is to see it passed by the end of the year.

But he faces an uphill climb in getting the required 60 votes necessary to start debate.

Pelosicare? Reidcare?–The Shell Game Continues

CORRECTION: Amid conflicting reports and information on the timing of the health care bill, HUMAN EVENTS just received clarification on possibilities under the rules for the Senate schedule next week.

This week, Reid began a Rule 14 process on the House health care bill. What that means is the bill is available on the legislative calendar by Tuesday, November 17.  It does not mean the Senate will actually proceed to health care.

Because a tax bill cannot originate in the Senate (the Constitution says tax bills must originate in Congress) , Reid needed a shell to use to proceed to his health care bill.  He is using the House-passed version as a shell to move on the Senate’s health care bill.  Rule 14 was the easiest way to place the House bill on the calendar — the shell that will ultimately be fully substituted by the Harrycare bill. In order to immediately begin consideration of the health care bill, Reid must have a unanimous consent agreement, which is unlikely.

Without unanimous consent, Reid is forced to file for cloture on Tuesday.  The vote on the Motion to Proceed to the health care bill could not occur until Thursday morning at the earliest.

There are also 30 hours of post-cloture debate that, if used, would delay any adoption of a Motion to Proceed until Friday afternoon which would then be the earliest Reid could offer the actual Senate bill as a substitute amendment.  This would be the Friday before the week-long Thanksgiving recess.

Apparently oblivious to the unpopularity of the government takeover of America’s health care system, Democrat leaders in the House and Senate continue to lay the structural groundwork for the final passage of a health care bill this year.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) revised the House calendar yesterday to include Monday, December 21 and Tuesday, December 22 as possible days the House will be in session and voting. The previously-targeted date for Christmas adjournment was Friday, December 18.

The House will be in recess for the Thanksgiving holiday the week of November 23.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Tuesday night filed a Motion to Proceed to bring the House health care bill to the floor for debate by no later than Tuesday, November 16.  Reid needs 60 votes for the motion to pass and floor debate to begin.

But Senate sources tell HUMAN EVENTS that he’s doing this only to comply with the constitutional rule that revenue bills must originate in the House. Reid intends to substitute his own bill (whatever that may be) when the measure comes up in the Senate next week.

Pro-life senators could oppose the motion if the Stupak-Pitts pro-life language is not included in the bill before it comes up for this critical vote.  Once the bill is brought to the floor for debate, it will take 60 votes to make any additions to the bill. It is unlikely a pro-life amendment could reach that threshold.

Republican Senators should oppose the motion en masse.  Republicans have been excluded from the entire bill-writing process, and his bill is certain to be as bad (or in some ways even worse) than the bill Speaker Pelosi slammed through the House late Saturday night.  Reid has not yet released a Senate bill with legislative language for Republican or general public review.  The measure is being written behind closed doors by the White House and Democrat leadership.  The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) cost analysis of the Senate bill has not yet been completed but may be available by week’s end.

There is no reason for Republicans to desire to get a bill to the floor.

If any one of the 58 Democrats or the two independents opposes the motion on Tuesday, combined with a united Republican caucus, the motion fails and Harrycare stalls in the Senate.

The Gallup poll released just yesterday shows independent registered voters now favor any Republican candidate over a Democrat on the generic ballot by a stunning 52 to 30 percent.  Yes, that’s the independents.  The American people appear to be more worried about the current Democrat solutions to our problems than the actual problems themselves.

Americans resent being ignored by arrogant politicians who think they know better how to run our lives than we do.  And mocking efforts to make our voices heard really isn’t a very good way to win votes and influence people.

The attitude on display by Democrat leaders in Congress and the White House these days is exactly what led to the Republican takeover in 1994.

The current Senate health care measure teed up for the Motion to Proceed vote next Tuesday is not a bill designated as a budget reconciliation measure.  Should this motion fail, the scenario offered by the Heritage Foundation’s Brian Darling remains a valid means by which the Senate could facilitate passage of a bill through reconciliation this year.  With no changes, it would go straight from the House to Obama’s desk for signature by the end of the year.

There is another scenario to ponder this year in lieu of the House or Senate reporting bills out of committee with the budget reconciliation designation early next year.

H.R. 3962, the health care bill already passed by the House last week, was not designated as a budget reconciliation bill.  However, all three House committees of jurisdiction took measures to certify that H.R.3200, the bill’s predecessor, met all of the budget reconciliation requirements.

But we’re told H.R. 3200 was not reported out of the Budget Committee to the Rules Committee as a reconciliation measure before it was brought to the floor and passed.

Should the Senate pass a health care bill with whatever it takes to get the votes, the House and Senate bills go to conference to combine the two measures that emerge as a Conference Report which is actually the final compromise bill.  The Conference Report must then pass both the House and the Senate.

A concern raised yesterday was using budget reconciliation as a means to pass the Conference Report through the Senate.  Can the Conference Report emerge as a reconciliation measure?

House Rules currently say no, yet we should all be reminded that House rules are what the majority says they are.

The success of any budget reconciliation attempt in the Senate rests on rulings by the parliamentarian.  We all watched as the White House summoned the “non-partisan” CBO Director Doug Elmendorf for some Chicago-style political repartee.  We’ve also seen the integrity of the subsequent House CBO scores collapsing under scrutiny.

How far are Democrats willing to go to get their ultimate statist power grab across a finish line that’s oh, so close? All the way.

HumanEvents.com

TSA changes procedure after Ron Paul supporter incident

Transportation Security Administration screeners at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport probably wish that the fellow they chose to grill last March about a box of cash wasn’t a Ron Paul devotee who runs a committee devoted to individual rights and constitutional government.

But grill Steven Bierfeldt they did, and eight months later the incident has yielded revised rules requiring TSA agents to stick to matters related to flight security rather than policing airports for other crimes.

Bierfeldt and the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented him in a lawsuit, announced in a news release this week that the TSA had changed its rules in response to the litigation.

“It’s a huge victory for civil liberties that TSA agents no longer have free rein to conduct sweeping, baseless searches and detain passengers who don’t pose a threat to flight safety,” Bierfeldt said in a statement.

A TSA spokeswoman, Lauren Gaches, acknowledged to the Washington Times on Tuesday that the policy with regard to cash had changed but declined to release copies of directives. The newspaper quoted her as saying that the TSA “routinely assesses its policies and screening procedures to ensure the highest levels of security nationwide.”

Last spring, a TSA blog post defended the questioning but concluded that “language used by the TSA employee was inappropriate.”

A later blog post referring to “the St. Louis incident” says that “the tone and language used by the TSA employee was inappropriate, and proper disciplinary action was taken.”

Bierfeldt said he was ushered to a small room and questioned after passing a metal box containing $4,700 through a Lambert screening checkpoint. He said the cash related to his job as director of development for the Campaign for Liberty, a lobbying group that sprouted from the presidential campaign last year of U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, the libertarian Republican from Texas.

Bierfeldt said he was interrogated for a half-hour in an increasingly threatening manner and told he was being placed under arrest. He recorded audio of the episode on his iPhone.

Bierfeldt’s suit contended that the TSA’s pre-flight screening should be aimed at keeping weapons and explosives off airplanes.

Before it was due to be heard in September, the ACLU said the TSA issued a policy directive stating that “screening may not be conducted to detect evidence of crimes unrelated to transportation security.”

The government agency responded in October with a second directive pointing out that transporting large amounts of cash is not illegal, the release said. The ACLU added that it is taking steps to drop the suit on Bierfeldt’s behalf.

StlToday.com

House Call on Washington by Tea Partiers

In the video you can’t see Mark Levin, but you can hear him very good.

Tea partiers descend on Capitol Hill

The Tea Party holds no seat in Congress, but at least 10,000 of the party’s members descended on Capitol Hill Thursday to rally against a Democratic-written health care overhaul.

A plan first hatched and heralded on FOX by iconic conservative Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) grew over the weekend as she e-mailed with a handful of colleagues. By the time activists started arriving at the foot of the Capitol around 8:30 a.m., it was clear no Republican leader could stay away.

Minority Leader John Boehner, Republican Whip Eric Cantor and Conference Chairman Mike Pence all spoke.

Inside, Democrats were working to finalize a trillion-dollar health care bill that they say will deliver insurance to tens of millions of Americans who currently lack it, improve the quality of care and rein in costs both for individuals and the government.

Outside, on the grassy lawn just steps from where Barack Obama took the oath of office, an endless lineup of rank-and-file lawmakers and conservative All Stars – Bachmann, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, actor Jon Voigt and Mark Levin, author of “Liberty and Tyranny” – demanded that the health care bill be torn asunder.

“Madam Speaker, throw out this bill,” bellowed Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.).

“Oh come on, tell them how you really feel,” Bachmann yelled to the crowd from a temporary podium at the foot of the Capitol.

“Kill the bill! Kill the bill! Kill the bill!” the crowd replied.

Pay Czar Kenneth Feinberg’s compensation limits on private companies unconstitutional

I’m glad someone else sees this as well………..

Pay Czar compensation limits unconstitutional

Many Americans think it’s great that somebody in the government is finally doing something about excessive executive pay. The recent forced pay cuts for executives at AIG, Bank of America and other companies that accepted TARP money strummed a populist chord and brought many cheering to their feet. (They are not trying to apply this to companies that didn’t even get TARP money……the government can’t do that!)

In the meantime, Barney Frank and others in Congress have proposed expanding federal oversight to companies that never took any government money. They argue that the feds should exert control over any company that may pose a “systemic risk” to the U.S. economy. (What? ….this is a free market system…..not communist!)

This represents a huge overstep of government power and a threat to basic liberty. Pay regulations place the government between employer and employee, destroying the sanctity of the  private contract.

The founders of the United States understood the threat to liberty posed by a powerful government and devised a system of checks and balances to limit federal power. The Obama administration circumvents these checks by utilizing “Czars” appointed by the President without Senate confirmation or oversight.

Obama is not the first president to utilize “Czars”. The Bush administration had them as well. But the power wielded by these unaccountable appointees continues to grow. Unconstitutional actions by previous administrations do not justify the continuation of those policies and certainly shouldn’t spur us to expand such practices.

Michael W. McConnell, a law professor at Stanford University Law School and a former federal judge, wrote an outstanding piece on the constitutionality of the “Pay Czar.”

“The power to set compensation at large American businesses is especially subject to potential abuse, favoritism, arbitrariness, or political manipulation. It is no reflection on Kenneth Feinberg, who has a sterling reputation and who appears to have approached these sensitive duties with a spirit of commendable integrity, to say that the checks and balances of the Constitution should be scrupulously observed. They were not. Because he is not a properly appointed officer of the United States, Mr. Feinberg’s executive compensation decisions were unconstitutional.”

Examiner.com

How Come Our Press Doesn’t Get It?

Everyone outside of the US is warning the US of the dangers of Socialism that our government is embarking on.  Where is our press?  Where is the outrage from the land of the free?  Why do our warnings keep falling on deaf ears?  Where are the Patriots and why are they not shouting?  Well….they are in Russia!

America Moving from Kingdom of Cash to Socialism Slowly but Surely

19.10.2009

Source: Pravda.Ru

URL: http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/109973-socialism-0

Obama’s decision not to build the Missile Defense System in Poland and the Czech Republic and his Noble Prize have not yet been comprehended from a philosophical viewpoint. It’s time to do it.

Power of Money against Power of Spirit

The last turning point similar to the current one happened approximately 400 years ago. The Western European society discovered a new hierarchy of values. Feudalism that valued service and chivalry was replaced with capitalism. Wealth became the measure of success, and everyone was to care about his own pocket only. The cult of money replaced all other values, including religious.

Capitalism turned everything upside down and made people more excited about stuffing their bank accounts than anything else. This system turned out to be extremely efficient in terms of production of goods, services, and comfort. America benefited from the system the most, and decided that the rest of the world has to adopt it as well. If some underdeveloped countries are unable to appreciate the benefits of capitalism, they should be forced to do it.

Collapse of the Illusion

Meanwhile, philosophers say that capitalism is driven not by hard cash, but rather, striving for hard cash. It’s driven not by the production of goods, but rather, striving for consumption of these goods.

If everyone had these values, the “dog-eat-dog” principal would be the major principal in the world history. But America failed to do it. There are plenty of “underdeveloped” people in the world who continue to cherish spiritual values. There are not that many chances left to force them into worshiping money since these “underdeveloped” people adopt western technology and become stronger. The appeal to adopt American values doesn’t work either. Why would we adopt the system if the system is in crisis? Pragmatic America realized that billions of people are not willing to live in the kingdom of hard cash and decided that it would be better off leaving this kingdom itself. Now the USA is talking about introducing elements of socialism.

What does Obama’s decision not to build the Eastern European Missile Defense System have to do with all of this? Well, it means that it’s not capitalism that’s undergoing the crisis, but the belief in its high efficiency. And this, in turn, means that America, the bulwark of capitalism, is no longer the boss of the world. And if it’s not the boss any more, it has to be friends with everybody, including Russia. And it’s America’s turn to offer Russia to push the reset button. Or maybe it’s just tired of imposing its rules on others and felt that friendship is more valuable than money and power? If this is the case, we will soon witness another turning point in the world history.

Socialist Health Care…in 111 points.

In a nutshell, delivered by a nut…named Pelosi.  Here are talking points of H. R. 3962, being pushed by Pelosi and company to the US Senate. Orin Hatch of Utah is now saying that it’s unconstitutional to tell Americans they HAVE to buy insurance.  What’s next, you have to by a red phone?  Thanks to Marsha Blackburn for sending these 111 federal boards, bureaucracies, committees or rules that it will put into effect.  Thanks also to Carl for sending me the email…

Boards, bureaucracies, commissions, and programs created in H.R. 3962, Speaker Pelosi’s government takeover of health care:

1. Retiree Reserve Trust Fund (Section 111(d), p. 61)

2. Grant program for wellness programs to small employers (Section 112, p. 62)

3. Grant program for State health access programs (Section 114, p. 72)

4. Program of administrative simplification (Section 115, p. 76)

5. Health Benefits Advisory Committee (Section 223, p. 111)

6. Health Choices Administration (Section 241, p. 131)

7. Qualified Health Benefits Plan Ombudsman (Section 244, p. 138)

8. Health Insurance Exchange (Section 201, p. 155)

9. Program for technical assistance to employees of small businesses buying Exchange coverage (Section 305(h), p. 191)

10. Mechanism for insurance risk pooling to be established by Health Choices Commissioner (Section 306(b), p. 194)

11. Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund (Section 307, p. 195)

12. State-based Health Insurance Exchanges (Section 308, p. 197)

13. Grant program for health insurance cooperatives (Section 310, p. 206)

14. “Public Health Insurance Option” (Section 321, p. 211)

15. Ombudsman for “Public Health Insurance Option” (Section 321(d), p. 213)

16. Account for receipts and disbursements for “Public Health Insurance Option” (Section 322(b), p. 215)

17. Telehealth Advisory Committee (Section 1191 (b), p. 589)

18. Demonstration program providing reimbursement for “culturally and linguistically appropriate services” (Section 1222, p. 617)

19. Demonstration program for shared decision making using patient decision aids (Section 1236, p. 648)

20. Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicare (Section 1301, p. 653)

21. Independent patient-centered medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302, p. 672)

22. Community-based medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302(d), p. 681)

23. Independence at home demonstration program (Section 1312, p. 718)

24. Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research (Section 1401(a), p. 734)

25. Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission (Section 1401(a), p. 738)

26. Patient ombudsman for comparative effectiveness research (Section 1401(a), p. 753)

27. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1412(b)(1), p. 784)

28. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for nursing facilities (Section 1412 (b)(2), p. 786)

29. Special focus facility program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1413(a)(3), p. 796)

30. Special focus facility program for nursing facilities (Section 1413(b)(3), p. 804)

31. National independent monitor pilot program for skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities (Section 1422, p. 859)

32. Demonstration program for approved teaching health centers with respect to Medicare GME (Section 1502(d), p. 933)

33. Pilot program to develop anti-fraud compliance systems for Medicare providers (Section 1635, p. 978)

34. Special Inspector General for the Health Insurance Exchange (Section 1647, p. 1000)

35. Medical home pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1722, p. 1058)

36. Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1730A, p. 1073)

37. Nursing facility supplemental payment program (Section 1745, p. 1106)

38. Demonstration program for Medicaid coverage to stabilize emergency medical conditions in institutions for mental diseases (Section 1787, p. 1149)

39. Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund (Section 1802, p. 1162)

40. “Identifiable office or program” within CMS to “provide for improved coordination between Medicare and Medicaid in the case of dual eligibles” (Section 1905, p. 1191)

41. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Section 1907, p. 1198)

42. Public Health Investment Fund (Section 2002, p. 1214)

43. Scholarships for service in health professional needs areas (Section 2211, p. 1224)

44. Program for training medical residents in community-based settings (Section 2214, p. 1236)

45. Grant program for training in dentistry programs (Section 2215, p. 1240)

46. Public Health Workforce Corps (Section 2231, p. 1253)

47. Public health workforce scholarship program (Section 2231, p. 1254)

48. Public health workforce loan forgiveness program (Section 2231, p. 1258)

49. Grant program for innovations in interdisciplinary care (Section 2252, p. 1272)

50. Advisory Committee on Health Workforce Evaluation and Assessment (Section 2261, p. 1275)

51. Prevention and Wellness Trust (Section 2301, p. 1286)

52. Clinical Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1295)

53. Community Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1301)

54. Grant program for community prevention and wellness research (Section 2301, p. 1305)

55. Grant program for research and demonstration projects related to wellness incentives (Section 2301, p. 1305)

56. Grant program for community prevention and wellness services (Section 2301, p. 1308)

57. Grant program for public health infrastructure (Section 2301, p. 1313)

58. Center for Quality Improvement (Section 2401, p. 1322)

59. Assistant Secretary for Health Information (Section 2402, p. 1330)

60. Grant program to support the operation of school-based health clinics (Section 2511, p. 1352)

61. Grant program for nurse-managed health centers (Section 2512, p. 1361)

62. Grants for labor-management programs for nursing training (Section 2521, p. 1372)

63. Grant program for interdisciplinary mental and behavioral health training (Section 2522, p. 1382)

64. “No Child Left Unimmunized Against Influenza” demonstration grant program (Section 2524, p. 1391)

65. Healthy Teen Initiative grant program regarding teen pregnancy (Section 2526, p. 1398)

66. Grant program for interdisciplinary training, education, and services for individuals with autism (Section 2527(a), p. 1402)

67. University centers for excellence in developmental disabilities education (Section 2527(b), p. 1410)

68. Grant program to implement medication therapy management services (Section 2528, p. 1412)

69. Grant program to promote positive health behaviors in underserved communities (Section 2530, p. 1422)

70. Grant program for State alternative medical liability laws (Section 2531, p. 1431)

71. Grant program to develop infant mortality programs (Section 2532, p. 1433)

72. Grant program to prepare secondary school students for careers in health professions (Section 2533, p. 1437)

73. Grant program for community-based collaborative care (Section 2534, p. 1440)

74. Grant program for community-based overweight and obesity prevention (Section 2535, p. 1457)

75. Grant program for reducing the student-to-school nurse ratio in primary and secondary schools (Section 2536, p. 1462)

76. Demonstration project of grants to medical-legal partnerships (Section 2537, p. 1464)

77. Center for Emergency Care under the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (Section 2552, p. 1478)

78. Council for Emergency Care (Section 2552, p 1479)

79. Grant program to support demonstration programs that design and implement regionalized emergency care systems (Section 2553, p. 1480)

80. Grant program to assist veterans who wish to become emergency medical technicians upon discharge (Section 2554, p. 1487)

81. Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee (Section 2562, p. 1494)

82. National Medical Device Registry (Section 2571, p. 1501)

83. CLASS Independence Fund (Section 2581, p. 1597)

84. CLASS Independence Fund Board of Trustees (Section 2581, p. 1598)

85. CLASS Independence Advisory Council (Section 2581, p. 1602)

86. Health and Human Services Coordinating Committee on Women’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1610)

87. National Women’s Health Information Center (Section 2588, p. 1611)

88. Centers for Disease Control Office of Women’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1614)

89. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Women’s Health and Gender-Based Research (Section 2588, p. 1617)

90. Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Women’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1618)

91. Food and Drug Administration Office of Women’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1621)

92. Personal Care Attendant Workforce Advisory Panel (Section 2589(a)(2), p. 1624)

93. Grant program for national health workforce online training (Section 2591, p. 1629)

94. Grant program to disseminate best practices on implementing health workforce investment programs (Section 2591, p. 1632)

95. Demonstration program for chronic shortages of health professionals (Section 3101, p. 1717)

96. Demonstration program for substance abuse counselor educational curricula (Section 3101, p. 1719)

97. Program of Indian community education on mental illness (Section 3101, p. 1722)

98. Intergovernmental Task Force on Indian environmental and nuclear hazards (Section 3101, p. 1754)

99. Office of Indian Men’s Health (Section 3101, p. 1765)

100. Indian Health facilities appropriation advisory board (Section 3101, p. 1774)

101. Indian Health facilities needs assessment workgroup (Section 3101, p. 1775)

102. Indian Health Service tribal facilities joint venture demonstration projects (Section 3101, p. 1809)

103. Urban youth treatment center demonstration project (Section 3101, p. 1873)

104. Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for diabetes prevention (Section 3101, p. 1874)

105. Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for health IT adoption (Section 3101, p. 1877)

106. Mental health technician training program (Section 3101, p. 1898)

107. Indian youth telemental health demonstration project (Section 3101, p. 1909)

108. Program for treatment of child sexual abuse victims and perpetrators (Section 3101, p. 1925)

109. Program for treatment of domestic violence and sexual abuse (Section 3101, p. 1927)

110. Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1966)

111. Committee for the Establishment of the Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1968)

Is National Health Care Constitutional

I’m glad to see this question being asked by a prominent person like Orin Hatch and I think the honest answer to this is NO forced national health care is not Constitutional. But whether a court will have the political guts to rule as such is a different matter.

Sen. Hatch Questions Constitutionality of Obamacare:

If Feds Can Force Us to Buy Health Insurance ‘Then There’s Literally Nothing the Federal Government Can’t Force Us to Do’ ( Maybe Congress should pass a law that everyone has to buy at least $10,000 worth of life insurance or buy a new car this year or buy a new HD television or a computer –where does this stuff stop? I think it stops at the question, Is this Constitutional? In this case I don’t think it is.)

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah) (Congressional photo)

(CNSNews.com) – Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, who has served in the Senate for 33 years and is a longtime member of the Judiciary Committee, told CNSNews.com that he does not believe the Democrats’ health-care reform plan is constitutionally justifiable, noting that if the federal government can force Americans to buy health insurance “then there is literally nothing the federal government can’t force us to do.”

Both the House and Senate versions of the health-care reform plan would force all individuals who are citizens or legal residents of the United States to buy health insurance. President Obama has endorsed this provision.

Hatch said if the federal government starts ordering Americans to purchase specific products without being able to plausibly justify that mandate through the Commerce Clause of the Constitution which empowers Congress to regulate interstate commerce, it will mean “we’ve lost our freedoms, and that means the federal government can do anything it wants to do to us.”

The Commerce Clause, found in Section 8 of Article 1 of the Constitution, says: “The Congress shall have power to … regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”

Hatch said this constitutional language authorizes Congress to regulate some types of commercial “activity,” which is different from authorizing Congress to force an individual American to engage in a commercial activity he or she is not presently engaged in and–as a free person–does not want to engage in. He said that “not one” of his Democratic colleagues has given a coherent constitutional argument to explain where Congress would derive the authority to do the latter.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the federal government has never before mandated that Americans buy any good or service.

In 1994, when Congress was considering a universal health care plan formulated by then-First Lady Hillary Clinton, the Congressional Budget Office studied that plan’s provision that would have forced individuals to buy health insurance and determined it was an unprecedented act.

“A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States,” the CBO concluded.  “An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”

“I think there’s a real constitutional issue there,” Hatch said on the CNSNews.com program “Online with Terry Jeffrey.”

“Well, keep in mind the General Welfare Clause hasn’t been used for years, except through the Commerce Clause–Article I, Section 8,” said Hatch. “And frankly the Commerce Clause affects, quote, ‘activities,’ unquote. And, you know, the government telling you you have to buy health insurance–mandating that you have to buy health insurance–is not an activity. That’s telling you you got to do something you don’t want to do.

“Well, let’s put it this way,” said Hatch. “If that is held constitutional–for them to be able to tell us we have to purchase health insurance–then there is literally nothing that the federal government can’t force us to do. Nothing.”

When CNSNews.com asked Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D.-Vt.) where the Constitution authorizes Congress to force Americans to buy health insurance, Leahy would not directly answer the question, claiming that “nobody” questioned Congress’s authority to do this.

“We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there is no authority?” Leahy told CNSNews.com reporter Matt Cover. ”Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, there’s no question there’s authority. Nobody questions that.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was equally dismissive of the question of where the Constitution authorized Congress to force Americans to buy health insurance. When reporter Matt Cover asked her the question, she said: “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs similarly dismissed the issue without directly saying where the Constitution authorized the federal government to force people to buy health insurance. When CNSNews.com White House Correspondent Fred Lucas asked Gibbs to comment on the fact that some Republicans were questioning the constitutionality of forcing Americans to buy health insurance, Gibbs said: “I won’t be confused as a constitutional scholar, but I don’t believe there’s a lot of–I don’t believe there’s a lot of case law that would demonstrate the veracity of what they’re commentating on.”

Hatch said that if Congress claimed the power to tell Americans what things they must buy there would be “no limit” to the power of the federal government over the lives of Americans.

CNS News.com

Make Mine Freedom

From the cold war era, 1948…eerie….

 

ObamaCare–The Worst Bill Ever

The Wall Street Journal had a great  editorial on Monday about Pelosi’s Healthcare plan and described it as the worse bill EVER.

Epic new spending and taxes, pricier insurance, rationed care, dishonest accounting: The Pelosi health bill has it all.

The Worst Bill Ever

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has reportedly told fellow Democrats that she’s prepared to lose seats in 2010 if that’s what it takes to pass ObamaCare, and little wonder. The health bill she unwrapped last Thursday, which President Obama hailed as a “critical milestone,” may well be the worst piece of post-New Deal legislation ever introduced.

In a rational political world, this 1,990-page runaway train would have been derailed months ago. With spending and debt already at record peacetime levels, the bill creates a new and probably unrepealable middle-class entitlement that is designed to expand over time. Taxes will need to rise precipitously, even as ObamaCare so dramatically expands government control of health care that eventually all medicine will be rationed via politics.

Yet at this point, Democrats have dumped any pretense of genuine bipartisan “reform” and moved into the realm of pure power politics as they race against the unpopularity of their own agenda. The goal is to ram through whatever income-redistribution scheme they can claim to be “universal coverage.” The result will be destructive on every level—for the health-care system, for the country’s fiscal condition, and ultimately for American freedom and prosperity.

•The spending surge. The Congressional Budget Office figures the House program will cost $1.055 trillion over a decade, which while far above the $829 billion net cost that Mrs. Pelosi fed to credulous reporters is still a low-ball estimate. Most of the money goes into government-run “exchanges” where people earning between 150% and 400% of the poverty level—that is, up to about $96,000 for a family of four in 2016—could buy coverage at heavily subsidized rates, tied to income. The government would pay for 93% of insurance costs for a family making $42,000, 72% for another making $78,000, and so forth.

At least at first, these benefits would be offered only to those whose employers don’t provide insurance or work for small businesses with 100 or fewer workers. The taxpayer costs would be far higher if not for this “firewall”—which is sure to cave in when people see the deal their neighbors are getting on “free” health care. Mrs. Pelosi knows this, like everyone else in Washington.

Even so, the House disguises hundreds of billions of dollars in additional costs with budget gimmicks. It “pays for” about six years of program with a decade of revenue, with the heaviest costs concentrated in the second five years. The House also pretends Medicare payments to doctors will be cut by 21.5% next year and deeper after that, “saving” about $250 billion. ObamaCare will be lucky to cost under $2 trillion over 10 years; it will grow more after that.

• Expanding Medicaid, gutting private Medicare. All this is particularly reckless given the unfunded liabilities of Medicare—now north of $37 trillion over 75 years. Mrs. Pelosi wants to steal $426 billion from future Medicare spending to “pay for” universal coverage. While Medicare’s price controls on doctors and hospitals are certain to be tightened, the only cut that is a sure thing in practice is gutting Medicare Advantage to the tune of $170 billion. Democrats loathe this program because it gives one of out five seniors private insurance options.

As for Medicaid, the House will expand eligibility to everyone below 150% of the poverty level, meaning that some 15 million new people will be added to the rolls as private insurance gets crowded out at a cost of $425 billion. A decade from now more than a quarter of the population will be on a program originally intended for poor women, children and the disabled.

Even though the House will assume 91% of the “matching rate” for this joint state-federal program—up from today’s 57%—governors would still be forced to take on $34 billion in new burdens when budgets from Albany to Sacramento are in fiscal collapse. Washington’s budget will collapse too, if anything like the House bill passes.

• European levels of taxation. All told, the House favors $572 billion in new taxes, mostly by imposing a 5.4-percentage-point “surcharge” on joint filers earning over $1 million, $500,000 for singles. This tax will raise the top marginal rate to 45% in 2011 from 39.6% when the Bush tax cuts expire—not counting state income taxes and the phase-out of certain deductions and exemptions. The burden will mostly fall on the small businesses that have organized as Subchapter S or limited liability corporations, since the truly wealthy won’t have any difficulty sheltering their incomes.

This surtax could hit ever more earners because, like the alternative minimum tax, it isn’t indexed for inflation. Yet it still won’t be nearly enough. Even if Congress had confiscated 100% of the taxable income of people earning over $500,000 in the boom year of 2006, it would have only raised $1.3 trillion. When Democrats end up soaking the middle class, perhaps via the European-style value-added tax that Mrs. Pelosi has endorsed, they’ll claim the deficits that they created made them do it.

Under another new tax, businesses would have to surrender 8% of their payroll to government if they don’t offer insurance or pay at least 72.5% of their workers’ premiums, which eat into wages. Such “play or pay” taxes always become “pay or pay” and will rise over time, with severe consequences for hiring, job creation and ultimately growth. While the U.S. already has one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the world, Democrats are on the way to creating a high structural unemployment rate, much as Europe has done by expanding its welfare states.

Meanwhile, a tax equal to 2.5% of adjusted gross income will also be imposed on some 18 million people who CBO expects still won’t buy insurance in 2019. Democrats could make this penalty even higher, but that is politically unacceptable, or they could make the subsidies even higher, but that would expose the (already ludicrous) illusion that ObamaCare will reduce the deficit.

• The insurance takeover. A new “health choices commissioner” will decide what counts as “essential benefits,” which all insurers will have to offer as first-dollar coverage. Private insurers will also be told how much they are allowed to charge even as they will have to offer coverage at virtually the same price to anyone who applies, regardless of health status or medical history. (Anyone that knows anything about insuring people or about actuarial figures  knows this is insane and will run the insurance companies out of business and leave – - – guess what? The GOVERNMENT PLAN of course and a single payer system that Pelosi wants.)

The cost of insurance, naturally, will skyrocket. The insurer WellPoint estimates based on its own market data that some premiums in the individual market will triple under these new burdens. The same is likely to prove true for the employer-sponsored plans that provide private coverage to about 177 million people today. Over time, the new mandates will apply to all contracts, including for the large businesses currently given a safe harbor from bureaucratic tampering under a 1974 law called Erisa.

The political incentive will always be for government to expand benefits and reduce cost-sharing, trampling any chance of giving individuals financial incentives to economize on care. Essentially, all insurers will become government contractors, in the business of fulfilling political demands: There will be no such thing as “private” health insurance.

Wallstreet Journal online