Does the FEDERAL Government Have the ACTUAL Authority to Implement a National Minimum Wage?

–

Time for some civic ejumication…

———————————————————————————————

Feds Have No Constitutional Authority to Impose Wage Controls
by Mike Maharrey , Tenth Amendment Center (read this in your browser here)

Talk of hiking the minimum wage at the national level has ramped up in recent weeks. With the Democrats controlling the House and the Senate, and Joe Biden in the White House, it seems increasingly likely that we’ll soon see a federal $15 per hour minimum.

In other words, it may soon be illegal to take a job that pays less than $15 an hour.

Food Stamps for Lap Dances?!?

THIS is a perfect example of exactly why food stamps, EBT cards, and all forms of DIRECT PAYMENT welfare at the FEDERAL level MUST END.  These forms of welfare have been abused from the moment they were implemented, they are a HUGE waste of money, and a serious slap in the face to those of us who pay the bill.  

First of all, there is nothing in our Constitution that authorizes the confiscation of wealth from one individual for the direct benefit of another individual.  If a state, county, or municipality wishes to tax its residents for such purposes, they are free to do so unless their state constitutions prohibit such things.  

Second, the federal government, being so far away from where the funds are distributed, can’t possibly provide sufficient oversight to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse.  The bigger the government, and the farther removed it is from those being governed, the more inefficient and oppressive it is.  State and local governments aren’t immune from corruption and inefficiency, but they are closer to, and more accountable to those they govern.  

If government is to be involved in providing welfare, it should ONLY provide the BASIC necessities such as food staples.  Back in the days before internet and EBTs, there were government food stores where eligible recipients could get such things as cheese, bread, and sugar.  When you’re eating on someone ELSE’S dime, you don’t get to order the lobster, plus Champagne, and THEN get to go to the strip club.  Sorry, I’m not paying for that.

And DON’T give me the crap about having to go to the gubmint sto’ hurting someone’s self-esteem.  If being a lazy bum sponging off of your neighbors doesn’t hurt your self-esteem, nothing else will.  Government programs aren’t supposed to make you feel good about being dependent on them.  They are supposed to help you GET OFF OF THEM.

---

---

 

Strip Club Forced To Shut Down For Allowing FOOD STAMPS For Lap Dances

By

K. Walker

 –

September 24, 2018

The government says that we give out food stamps to help people afford the basic necessities of life. Is a lap dance a necessity of life?

No.

No, it isn’t.

If it is for you, then:

Trending: Watch: Beto Gets Booed During Debate – Cruz Takes Him To TruthCity

1) You have some pretty serious issues.
2) Pay for it your damned self.

It wasn’t just lap dances, though.

Sharkey’s Lounge in Dayton, Ohio was running quite the operation that was beyond the realm of strip club and bar — it was also a philanthropic organization.

Their gentlemen’s establishment seemed to be committed to caring for the underprivileged. For example, there was no cover charge to enter, and patrons could also use food stamps to pay for lap dances as well as illicit drugs such as heroin, fentanyl, carfentanil, cocaine, and methamphetamines.

How progressive of them!

They understood that some folks just didn’t have the cash on hand when they need their fix of whatever vice.

Unfortunately for Sharkey’s, that’s illegal, and they lost their liquor license. Of course, being unable to serve alcohol is just the beginning of their troubles.

Agents began investigating the Twenty Two Fifty, Inc., also known as Sharkey’s, in May of 2017. Officials say during the investigation at Sharkey’s, agents were able to purchase drugs and lap dances using food stamp benefits.

Throughout the five-month investigation, agents exchanged $2,404.87 in food stamps to purchase heroin, fentanyl, carfentanil, cocaine, methamphetamines and lap dances. In all, criminal charges were filed against employees and patrons for drug trafficking, food stamp trafficking, aggravated shipment and distribution of heroin, engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity, and illegal sexual activity.

Agents also filed 44 administrative charges that were heard by the Liquor Control Commission that included drug possession, drug sales, engaging in sexual activity, food stamp trafficking and solicitation.
Source: WDTN 2 News

Another strip club down the road, The Harem, had its liquor license revoked in May due to a similar investigation into food stamp and drug trafficking.

That’s just lovely, Dayton.

This is precisely the reason that conservatives don’t like government benefit programs.

Yes, there are people who are in legitimate need, but then there are people that abuse the programs.

There are also people that are willing to allow desperate people to destroy themselves in order to profit from the government program.

How is it compassionate to allow food stamps to be used for illegal drugs and lap dances?

Could it be the reliance on drugs is what is causing the vicious cycle of poverty?

It’s time to get tough on those that are abusing the food stamp program.

We know just the guy that’s badass enough to do it.

The Trumpinator: every time his rivals think they’ve got him down and out, he stands back up and keeps on coming.

They laughed when he announced his candidacy. They thought he was going to some circus act.

They couldn’t have been more wrong.

He survived the primaries and got the nomination. He knocked out Crooked Hillary.

He beat CNN at their own game, and their ratings are now circling the toilet.

Mueller and the Dossier aren’t just coming up empty, they’re exposing the misdeeds of Brennan, Comey, McCabe, Strzok and all the rest.

And Trump is still keeping promises, and getting things done.

The economy is doing exactly what he promised it would. #PromisesKept

And in 2020, The Trumpinator is gonna do it again.

He’ll be back.

Link to article: https://clashdaily.com/2018/09/strip-club-forced-to-shut-down-for-allowing-food-stamps-for-lap-dances/

Trump signs order calling for work requirements in welfare programs

It doesn’t take a genius to see that paying people NOT to work is not a strategy for success.  This action by President Trump is just one step down a long road toward getting government out of the welfare business, where it has no business being in the first place.

WINNING!

---

---

BY BRETT SAMUELS – 04/10/18 06:20 PM EDT

President Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order calling for federal agencies to establish or strengthen existing work requirements for certain individuals who benefit from federal welfare programs.

The White House issued a memo that argued those who rely on welfare would have an easier time achieving economic mobility through strengthened work requirements where they already exist, and the creation of new ones where applicable.

“The Federal Government should do everything within its authority to empower individuals by providing opportunities for work, including by investing in Federal programs that are effective at moving people into the workforce and out of poverty,” the executive order states.

The new requirements would apply to those who are able to work, according to the memo.

The order does not detail which specific programs will be subject to such requirements.

Instead, Trump’s executive order calls on the heads of the departments of Treasury, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation and Education to review public assistance programs within their agencies.

Those department heads are expected to submit a report within 90 days with a list of recommended changes to achieve Trump’s goals, according to the executive order.

The order also says the federal government will streamline services, review existing services and consolidate or eliminate programs that are ineffective or overlap in services.

The Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families embraced the executive order and said it will allow the agency to take “aggressive action” toward enforcing work requirements.

“Strengthening work requirements for welfare recipients is a critical element of moving welfare recipients from dependency to self-sufficiency,” Steven Wagner, the acting assistant secretary for the organization, said in a statement.

Some GOP lawmakers have advocated for stronger work requirements to eliminate a perceived dependence on welfare.

The Trump administration last month approved Arkansas’s request to impose work requirements on certain Medicaid beneficiaries.

Link to article:  http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/382557-trump-signs-order-calling-for-work-requirements-in-welfare-programs#.Ws4kf35EaMA.twitter

BLM Claims 90,000 Acres Does Not Belong To Texas, Attempts To Seize Ranch

Here comes ANOTHER government land grab. The guy has held the deed to the land, and BEEN PAYING TAXES ON IT, for years. Yet they suddenly decide that the land belongs to the government. Not no, but HELL NO. Texans and Oklahomans need to unite, as well as ALL freedom loving Americans who value state’s rights and property rights, to stand and REPEL, by force if necessary, any government forces who attempt to take this land.

http://www.inquisitr.com/1211766/blm-claims-90000-acres-does-not-belong-to-texas-attempts-to-seize-ranch/

---

Is the Bundy Ranch the ‘Lexington Common’ of the 2nd American Revolution?

The federal government has strayed so far from its Constitutional reservation that it doesn’t remember what it was founded for, and what its limits are. They are taxing away over half of our income, taking our land, and dictating not only what we can’t buy, but what we MUST buy. It is out of control, and likely beyond repair. To add insult to injury, you have some in local and state government who either don’t see, or actually support the overreaches of the federal government.

For example, you have this county commissioner from Clark County, NV who said that protesters or people coming to support Bundy “better have funeral plans” if they come to Clark County.

Americans have been pushed deep into a corner from which there is likely only one avenue of escape. We need to steel ourselves, and be armed, ready, and willing to fight if necessary. We should not fire the first shot, but we d*** sure better fire the last one.

https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/water-environment/collins-manages-insult-offend-utahns-comments-bundy-roundup

Civil war battle lines being drawn as Magpul, Colt, Beretta and other gun manufacturers relocate to pro-Constitution states

Red states, SECEDE.  The only thing that will change the minds of the liberals in America is the pain of reality that comes from their poor decisions.  If we allow ourselves to continue to be forced to subsidize those poor decisions, they will never learn.  If forced to fend for themselves without conservatives to leech from, their ideology will collapse under its own weight.  The country is now so thoroughly and clearly ideologically divided, there is no saving it in it’s current form.  There will either be oppression, secession, or revolution.  We are too far gone for anything else.
+

---

Saturday, April 13, 2013
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com
+

(NaturalNews) A civil war looks likely to break out in America, and it will pit gun rights advocates (people who love liberty) against gun control zealots (people who hate freedom and love tyranny). The battle lines are being drawn right now as gun manufacturers are leaving anti-Constitution states like Connecticut and Colorado and relocating to pro-Constitution states like Texas and Arizona.

Why does this matter? Because in effect, the anti-Constitution states are disarming themselves by expatriating weapons manufacturers. Thus, they are eliminating their own weapons infrastructure and leaving themselves relatively defenseless should a civil war occur.

States like Texas and Wyoming, where gun manufacturers are increasingly moving and setting up shop, are simultaneously building up a massive arms infrastructure that may ultimately spell the difference between victory and defeat in a civil war.

This is the tragic truth of the current anti-America, anti-Constitution, criminal government takeover happening in multiple states across our Republic right now: those who hate liberty are disarming themselves.

Colt moving to Texas, others likely to follow

If the majority of people in states like New York, Connecticut and Colorado wish to be disarmed slaves living as subjects to a tyrannical government, then they are also going to see more gun owners leaving those states and seeking new lives in gun-friendly states like Texas, Montana, Arizona and Idaho. I can tell you firsthand that here in Texas, we shoot big, heavy firearms on the weekend (.50 BMG), and if the local sheriff shows up, it’s only because they want some trigger time, too! (You gotta pick the right county, though. Stay away from Travis County at all costs…)

Because Texas is a state that upholds the Second Amendment rights of its citizens, Texas is already attracting both gun manufacturers and gun-friendly citizens who are relocating there. For example, firearms maker Colt is leaving Connecticut and moving to Texas, bringing valuable skills, hardware, manufacturing equipment and jobs to Texas.

Magpul industries, makers of 30-round rifle magazines, also says it’s leaving Colorado and looking for a destination more aligned with the Constitutional rights of American citizens.

Such moves are not only valuable for the Texas economy; it also means that once the Civil War is unleashed in America and the collectivist anti-American, anti-Constitution leftist gun grabbers try to force national disarmament at gunpoint, states like Texas will be cranking out Colt rifles and putting them into the hands of freedom fighters who will send as much lead down range as is necessary to reinforce the point that the Bill of Rights is not negotiable.

Texas also controls much of the national energy supply

If leftists living in treasonous states try to push their criminal agenda onto the entire nation, let ’em figure out how to live without energy, too. Texas not only has the guns, you see… it’s also got the energy. Over one-third of America’s oil and natural gas flows through Texas-based refineries and ports. Any attempt to mess with Texas means the rest of the country won’t get its energy needs met.

Texas can defend its resources with — guess what? — citizens armed with rifles made in Texas, loaded with high-capacity magazines made in Texas, shooting bullets loaded in Texas in full alignment with the Bill of Rights that’s defended in Texas.

That’s why every time another criminal state government (like that of Connecticut) passes another unconstitutional law stripping its own citizens of the right to own firearms, I cheer when the gun manufacturers in that state announce they’re moving out. If Boulder, Colorado wants to fulfill its socialist dreams of total government tyranny, then we all welcome MagPul exiting Boulder and setting up shop in a pro-Constitution zone where the company’s many talents will be fully appreciated.

Traitorous states are disarming themselves

I love the idea that all these companies are moving out of wannabe communist cities like Boulder, or traitorous anti-Constitution states like Connecticut. Because in truth, we want the anti-Constitution states to have no weapons manufacturing infrastructure. It will make them easier to defeat in a military campaign designed to free the enslaved citizens living in those states from tyranny rule.

This fact is multiplied even further by the fact that many U.S. gun and ammo manufacturers are REFUSING to sell equipment to anti-Constitution governments, including the state government of Connecticut. The full list is posted at The Police Loophole.

It’s a huge list of weapons manufacturers and retailers, including Barrett, Midway USA, Cheaper Than Dirt, Larue Tactical, Rock River Arms, Bravo Company USA and more.

What this means is that if the traitorous, criminal federal government attempts to overrun the People with the 2 billion rounds of ammo DHS has been stockpiling, they’re going to find themselves outgunned and out-supplied by the private gun and ammo manufacturing and distribution industry which will absolutely NOT sell any equipment to the federal government.

By the way, private individuals are buying up hundreds of millions of rounds of ammo each week, vastly out-pacing DHS stockpiling. On top of that, there’s also the fact that brain-dead DHS employees are too stupid to know how to use firearms effectively in the first place. If DHS hands all their stockpiled guns to TSA agents, for example, they’re far more likely to shoot off their own toes than wage anything resembling a tactical war. They would be almost instantly out-maneuvered and out-gunned by veterans, hunters, sheriff’s deputies and privately-trained citizens.

It is important to bring all collaborators to justice

It’s going to be hilarious seeing all the governors and state representatives of the traitorous anti-gun states trying to defend themselves against armed arrest squads when they have no weapons.

I’m just curious how all these traitorous lawmakers think they’re going to defend themselves against real justice once the shooting begins. Are they so delusional that they think nobody is recording their names and votes? To be on the record voting to destroy the Second Amendment is nothing less than treason. To cast such a vote in a nation founded on armed resistance to tyranny is nothing less than suicide.

Because the anti-Constitution criminals have disarmed themselves, the pro-Constitution justice teams will be able to march right in, arrest these traitors for sedition and round them up for a mass trial where they can join their fellow traitors from Colorado, New York and California (among other states).

For the purposes of law and justice, it will be very important to make sure that all those who have actively violated the Bill of Rights be arrested, charged and brought to trial for their crimes. Historically, the typical punishment for those found guilty of acts of treason against their own nation has been the death penalty (i.e. firing squad). Even further, those who have actively conspired to destroy America’s Constitution and Bill of Rights are, by the government’s own definition, “enemy combatants,” meaning they may be held and imprisoned under the rules of war.

It’s time we all began to understand that lawmakers who vote for unconstitutional gun control measures in America are, by definition, “enemy combatants” who are engaged in actual warfare against America. They have moved the nation far past the era of polite debate. These traitors now have put guns to all our heads, demanding we comply or be arrested. In New York and elsewhere, many innocent citizens have already been thrown in jail for the “crime” of exercising their constitutional rights. The war against liberty has begun, and the battle lines are being drawn as gun and ammo manufacturers relocate to states that choose to side with the Constitution rather than outright tyranny.

You would be wise to make a similar choice. If you are a person who believe in anything resembling liberty — owning a gun, growing your own food, homeschooling your children — you will be arrested and imprisoned during the civil war if you stay in the criminal anti-Constitution states.

On the other hand, those very same activities will be openly welcomed in pro-Constitution states that actually abide by the law of the land. And it is those states that will have the hardware advantage once the fighting starts.

For your convenience, here’s a list of criminal, traitorous anti-Constitution states vs. relatively pro-Constitution states: (some states are not listed because they do not neatly fit into either category)

List of criminally run, anti-Constitution states

Get OUT of these states if you value liberty!

California
New York
New Jersey
Connecticut
Massachusetts
Maryland
Rhode Island
Pennsylvania
Illinois
Michigan
Colorado
Hawaii
Alabama

List of (relatively) pro-Constitution states

MOVE to these states if you value liberty!

Texas
Wyoming
Montana
Utah
Idaho
Arizona
Nevada
New Mexico
Alaska
North Dakota
South Dakota
Nebraska
Kansas
Oklahoma
Wisconsin
Missouri
Arkansas
Louisiana
Indiana
Ohio
Kentucky
Tennessee
Mississippi
Georgia
South Carolina
Florida
West Virginia
Vermont
New Hampshire
+

---

The Soverign State of Oklahoma

This makes Oklahoma look even better as a place to settle down.  Way to go Okies!
+

---

Oklahoma is the only state that Obama did not carry one county in the last election…

While everyone is focusing on Arizona ‘s new law, look what Oklahoma has been doing!!!! CITIZEN WOODMAN

 

 

An update from Oklahoma :
Oklahoma law passed, 37 to 9, had a few liberals in the mix, an amendment to place the Ten Commandments on the front entrance to the state capitol. The feds in D.C., along with the ACLU, said it would be a mistake. Hey this is a conservative state, based on Christian values…! HB 1330

Guess what………. Oklahoma did it anyway.

Oklahoma recently passed a law in the state to incarcerate all illegal immigrants, and ship them back to where they came from unless they want to get a green card and become an American citizen. They all scattered. HB 1804. Hope we didn’t send any of them to your state. This was against the advice of the Federal Government, and the ACLU, they said it would be a mistake.

Guess what………. Oklahoma did it anyway.

Recently we passed a law to include DNA samples from any and all illegal’s to the Oklahoma database, for criminal investigative purposes. Pelosi said it was unconstitutional SB 1102

Guess what……… Oklahoma did it anyway.

Several weeks ago, we passed a law, declaring Oklahoma as a Sovereign state, not under the Federal Government directives. Joining Texas , Montana , and Utah as the only states to do so.
More states are likely to follow: Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, the Carolina’s, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, West Virginia, Mississippi and Florida. Save your confederate money, it appears the South is about to rise up once again. HJR 1003

The federal Government has made bold steps to take away our guns. Oklahoma, a week ago, passed a law confirming people in this state have the right to bear arms and transport them in their vehicles. I’m sure that was a set back for the criminals. The Liberals didn’t like it — But ….
Guess what……….. Oklahoma did it anyway.

Just this month, the state has voted and passed a law that ALL driver’s license exams will be printed in English, and only English, and no other language. They have been called racist for doing this, but the fact is that ALL of the road signs are in English only. If you want to drive in Oklahoma , you must read and write English. Really simple.

By the way, the Liberals don’t like any of this either.

Guess what…who cares… Oklahoma is doing it anyway.

---

Socialism’s Trajectory: Obama’s HHS Is Bigger Than LBJ’s ENTIRE Government

Yes, you read that right. Adjusted for inflation, JUST the Dept of Health and Human Services under Obama will spend more in 2011 than LBJ’s ENTIRE FREAKING GOVERNMENT.

---

Jeffrey on Socialism’s Trajectory: Obama’s HHS Is Bigger Than LBJ’s Government

Wednesday, February 16, 2011
By Terence P. Jeffrey

Anyone who doubts that the trend toward socialism is pushing America toward ruin should examine the historical tables President Obama published Monday along with his $3.7 trillion budget.

In fiscal 2011, according to these tables, the Department of Health and Human Services will spend $909.7 billion. In fiscal 1965, the entire federal government spent $118.228 billion.

What about inflation? According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ inflation calculator, $118.228 billion in 1965 dollars equals $822.6 billion in 2010 dollars. In real terms, the $909.7 billion HHS is spending this year is about $87.1 billion more than the entire federal government spent in 1965.

1965 was a key year in the advancement of socialism in the United States.

From 1776 until 1965, Americans generally did not rely on the federal government for health care unless they served in the military or worked in some other capacity for the federal government.

But in 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson and a Democratic Congress enacted two massive federal entitlement programs — Medicare and Medicaid — that fundamentally altered the relationship between Americans and the federal government by making tens of millions dependent on the government for health care.

Prior to 1937, the Supreme Court correctly understood the Constitution to deny the federal government any power to create and operate social-welfare programs. The Constitution held no such enumerated power, and the 10th Amendment left powers not enumerated to the states and the people.

From George Washington’s administration to Franklin Roosevelt’s, Americans took care of themselves and their own communities without resorting to federal handouts.

FDR sought to change what he believed was an unrealistic reliance on families in American life.

He used the crisis of the Great Depression to pass the Social Security Act of 1935, compelling Americans to pay a payroll tax in return for the promise of a federal old-age pension. This was blatantly unconstitutional. That same year, in Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton, the Supreme Court had justly slapped down a law mandating what amounted to a Social Security program for the railroad industry alone.

FDR attempted to defend the railroad pension law as a legitimate regulation of interstate commerce, justifiable under the Commerce Clause — the same argument the Obama administration has used to defend the individual mandate in Obamacare.

The Court scoffed, suggesting that if the federal government could mandate a federal pension for railroad workers, the next thing it would do would be to mandate health care.

“The question at once presents itself whether the fostering of a contented mind on the part of an employee by legislation of this type is, in any just sense, a regulation of interstate transportation,” the Court said answering FDR’s argument. “If that question be answered in the affirmative, obviously there is no limit to the field of so-called regulation. The catalogue of means and actions which might be imposed upon an employer in any business, tending to the satisfaction and comfort of his employees, seems endless. Provision for free medical attention and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry.”

When Social Security went to the Court in 1937, FDR used a different strategy. He argued that Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution, which gave Congress the power to levy taxes to “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States,” meant the federal government could do virtually anything it deemed in the “general welfare” of Americans even if it was otherwise outside the scope of the Constitution’s other enumerated powers.

FDR’s interpretation of the General Welfare Clause effectively rendered the rest of the Constitution meaningless.

To persuade the same court that ruled against him in the railroad case to rule for him in the Social Security case, FDR proposed the Judicial Reorganization Act. This would allow him to pack the court by appointing an additional justice for each sitting justice who had reached age 70 and six months and not retired.

Faced with a potential Democratic takeover of the court, and thus a federal government controlled entirely by FDR’s allies, Republican Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes and Associate Justice Owen J. Roberts flip-flopped from their position in the railroad case. They quietly voted in favor of Social Security and took the steam off FDR’s court-packing plan.

That year, federal spending was 8.6 percent of gross domestic product, according to President Obama’s historical tables.

When LBJ enacted Medicare and Medicaid — and began fulfilling the court’s prophecy in the 1935 railroad-pension case — federal spending was 17.2 percent of GDP.

When George W. Bush expanded Medicare with a prescription drug benefit in 2003, federal spending was 19.7 percent of GDP. This year, federal spending will be 25.3 percent of GDP.

In 2014, when Obamacare is scheduled to be fully implemented, HHS will become the first $1-trillion-per year federal agency. That year, Medicare and Medicaid will cost $557 billion and $352.1 billion respectively, or a combined $909.1 billion — about what all of HHS costs this year.

In other words, when Obamacare is just getting started, Medicare and Medicaid will cost more than the $822.6 billion in 2010 dollars than the entire federal government cost in 1965 when LBJ signed Medicare and Medicaid into law.

---

Liberal/Progressives Weiner and Waxman Plan to Punish Gold Investment (and YOU)

There’s a reason people are buying gold instead of federal treasury paper. They have no confidence in the government, they see the value and return of federal paper declining, and they want to protect the value of what they have EARNED from the destruction being wrought by government.

Now these numb skulls want to further punish investment in the one remaining asset that offered some financial stability and protection.

Democrats, you really don’t understand why America hates you and is revolting against your rule and policies, do you?

---

http://seekingalpha.com/article/225579-congressmen-weiner-and-waxman-set-gold-hearing

Congressmen Weiner and Waxman Set Gold Hearing

Just as the government is trying to prevent people from investing in anything other than T-Bills by raising taxes on taxable interest and dividends to confiscatory levels, it’s also trying to prevent you from parking your wealth in assets, like gold, that compete with the paper dollars issued by the Federal Reserve and the Treasury. A press release from Rep. Anthony Weiner, Democrat of New York, not yet (as of this instant) posted on Mr. Weiner’s Web site, announces that a September 23 hearing of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection (a subcommittee of Rep. Henry Waxman’s Commerce Committee) will focus on “legislation that would regulate gold-selling companies, an industry who’s [sic] relentless advertising is now staple of cable television.”

From the press release: “Under Rep. Weiner’s bill, companies like Goldline would be required to disclose the reasonable resale value of items being sold.” That’s great. Are Mr. Weiner and Chairman Bernanke also going to agree to print on every dollar the reasonable expectation that its value will be eroded by inflation?

Gold investors (or speculators) are already punished by the federal government by having their investment, even in a gold exchange-traded-fund, taxed at the higher rates that apply to collectibles rather than long term capital gains.

Not to mention the fact that Mr. Weiner’s regulatory push seems as much aimed at conservative journalists as at the gold-dealers. The press release says, “Goldline employs several conservative pundits to act as shills for its’ [sic] precious metal business, including Glenn Beck, Mike Huckabee, Laura Ingraham, and Fred Thompson. By drumming up public fears during financially uncertain times, conservative pundits are able to drive a false narrative. Glenn Beck for example has dedicated entire segments of his program to explaining why the U.S. money supply is destined for hyperinflation with Barack Obama as president.”

Imagine the uproar if a Republican-majority Congress started investigating and having a regulatory crackdown on big advertisers in liberal outlets such as the New York Times. The First Amendment freedom-of-the-press crowd would be marching in the streets.

The whole situation is amazing. If Mr. Weiner really wants to calm fears about hyperinflation, the last way to do it is to have a government hearing cracking down on the people warning of it.

The press release reports that “invitations to the hearing have been sent to the representatives of Goldline International, the Federal Trade Commission, the Consumers Union and other potential witnesses, including former Goldline employees.” Mr. Weiner might also consider calling John Paulson and George Soros, who have also reportedly been buying gold lately, though Mr. Soros was also quoted as calling it a bubble. But Mr. Paulson saw the housing bubble coming so he might be right about the inflation risks, and Mr. Soros is a big funder of left-wing causes, so neither of them would fit with the objective of the hearing.

Anyway, we are looking forward to the hearing, which should be quite a show.

---

You Might as Well Laugh About It…

Arizona Takes a Stand for American Sovereignty

Praise God for what is happening with the people and government in the state of Arizona.  As more and more citizens and states come to the realization that an overbearing federal government is not going to protect them and provide for them, they will stand on their own two feet and restore this country to its constitutional foundation.

Commentary below in crimson.

---

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/23/AR2010042301250_pf.html

Ariz. governor signs immigration enforcement bill

By PAUL DAVENPORT and JONATHAN J. COOPER
The Associated Press
Friday, April 23, 2010; 7:22 PM

PHOENIX — Gov. Jan Brewer ignored criticism from President Barack Obama on Friday and signed into law a bill supporters said would take handcuffs off police in dealing with illegal immigration in Arizona, the nation’s busiest gateway for human and drug smuggling from Mexico.

With hundreds of protesters outside the state Capitol shouting that the bill would lead to civil rights abuses, Brewer said critics were “overreacting” and that she wouldn’t tolerate racial profiling.

“We in Arizona have been more than patient waiting for Washington to act,” Brewer said after signing the law. “But decades of inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation.”

Earlier Friday, Obama called the Arizona bill “misguided” and instructed the Justice Department to examine it to see if it’s legal. He also said the federal government must enact immigration reform at the national level – or leave the door open to “irresponsibility by others.”  (Of course Obama thinks this is misguided.  It stands in the way of his progressive Marxist agenda, part of which is to flood this country with illegal aliens whom the democrats/progressives can turn into loyal voters.  The only “irresponsibility” being displayed here is on the part of the federal government, Obama, and his administration who REFUSE to protect this country.  The only other “irresponsibility” on display here is that of the idiots who elected such treasonous scum.)

“That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe,” Obama said.  (Obama, you are an undocumented, lying sack of manure.  Undermine fairness?  Trust between police and communities?  Who is keeping us safe RIGHT NOW?  There is nothing fair about allowing those who have no right to be in America to enter and then to plunder the wealth of American citizens.  There is no trust between police and communities when the “law enforcement” does nothing to protect us. (DISCLAIMER: There are many law enforcement men and women who want nothing more than to protect American citizens, but they are being impeded by the federal government.)  There is NOTHING keeping us safe in our own homes and communities right now except us.  This law is the first step toward the American people retaking responsibility for our own destiny.)

The legislation, sent to the Republican governor by the GOP-led Legislature, makes it a crime under state law to be in the country illegally. It also requires local police officers to question people about their immigration status if there is reason to suspect they are illegal immigrants; allows lawsuits against government agencies that hinder enforcement of immigration laws; and makes it illegal to hire illegal immigrants for day labor or knowingly transport them.

The law sends “a clear message that Arizona is unfriendly to undocumented aliens,” said Peter Spiro, a Temple University law professor and author of the book “Beyond Citizenship: American Identity After Globalization.”

Brewer signed the bill in a state auditorium about a mile from the Capitol complex where some 2,000 demonstrators booed county Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox when she announced that “the governor did not listen to our prayers.”  (She thankfully ignored your prayers for the destruction of America.)

“It’s going to change our lives,” said Emilio Almodovar, a 13-year-old American citizen from Phoenix. “We can’t walk to school any more. We can’t be in the streets anymore without the pigs thinking we’re illegal immigrants.”  (If you think people upholding the law of this land and protecting her citizens are “pigs,” then perhaps you don’t belong here anyway.  If you are indeed an America citizen, you would understand that unfortunately there are millions of people who happen to look like you who are breaking the law.  If you want the best for AMERICA, then you would stop when asked, politely provide the identification asked for, then go on about your business.  When the ILLEGAL immigration problem is under control, these inconveniences will go away.)

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund said it plans a legal challenge to the law, arguing it “launches Arizona into a spiral of pervasive fear, community distrust, increased crime and costly litigation, with nationwide repercussions.”  (No, what it does is begin to stem the tide of illegals who are draining this nation of her wealth and resources.)

Mexico has warned the proposal could affect cross-border relations. On Thursday, Mexico’s Senate unanimously passed a resolution urging Brewer to veto the law.  (If Mexico is blackmailing us by saying they won’t be our friends anymore if we don’t let them keep sending all their wretched refuse over here to both relieve the corrupt Mexican government of the responsibility of taking care of its own citizens, and to have most of those illegal invaders send most of the wealth they plunder back to Mexico, the Muck Fexico!  Our purpose on this earth is not to provide a welfare state for Mexico.)

“Police in Arizona already treat migrants worse than animals,” said Francisco Loureiro, an activist who runs a migrant shelter in the border town of Nogales, Mexico. “There is already a hunt for migrants, and now it will be open season under the cover of a law.”  (Typical liberal drivel and mudslinging.  Police are prevented from mistreating illegal immigrants unless they are specifically posing a danger to the officers.  Catching law breakers and deporting them is NOT treating them like animals.)

The bill will take effect in late July or early August, and Brewer ordered the state’s law enforcement licensing agency to develop a training course on how to implement it without violating civil rights.

“We must enforce the law evenly, and without regard to skin color, accent, or social status,” she said. “We must prove the alarmists and the cynics wrong.”

Brewer, who faces a tough election battle and growing anger in the state over illegal immigrants, said the law “protects every Arizona citizen.”

Anti-immigrant anger has swelled in the past month, after rancher Rob Krentz was found dead on his land north of Douglas, near the Mexico border. Authorities believe he was fatally shot by an illegal immigrant possibly connected to a drug smuggling cartel.

Arizona has an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants, and its harsh, remote desert serves as the corridor for the majority of illegal immigrants and drugs moving north into the U.S. from Mexico.

U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva, a Democrat, said he closed his Arizona offices at noon Friday after his staff in Yuma and Tucson were flooded with calls this week, some from people threatening violent acts and shouting racial slurs. He called on businesses and groups looking for convention and meeting locations to boycott Arizona.  (As always, the ones REALLY threatening the violence and being anarchists are the LIBERALS.  Not ONE of the claims of violence, slurs, or threats made by liberals has proven to be real.  They are just using the Alinsky tactics of trying to smear and discredit those who oppose them.  Notice that liberals have pretty much given up on trying to win on the merits of their arguments.  When asked “Where does the constitution give you the right to mandate that citizens purchase government health care?” liberals respond with “You’re a racist.”  When asked to explain how legalizing 30 million illegal aliens can possibly be beneficial to America, liberals/progressives/democrats respond with “You just hate Mexicans.”  When disagreeing with Obama’s policies because they raise our taxes and take away our freedom and liberty, liberals say “you hate him because he’s black.”  THE LIBERALS/PROGRESSIVES/DEMOCRATS CAN’T WIN ON THE WEIGHT OF THEIR ARGUMENTS.)

The bill’s Republican sponsor, state Rep. Russell Pearce of Mesa, said Obama and other critics of the bill were “against law enforcement, our citizens and the rule of law.”

Pearce said the legislation would remove “political handcuffs” from police and help drive illegal immigrants from the state.

“Illegal is illegal,” said Pearce, a driving force on the issue in Arizona. “We’ll have less crime. We’ll have lower taxes. We’ll have safer neighborhoods. We’ll have shorter lines in the emergency rooms. We’ll have smaller classrooms.”

—

Associated Press Writer Julie Pace in Washington contributed to this report.

+

---

Health Care Bill from House Creates 111 New Bureaucracies

Here is the “hope and change” from the enemy that was mistakenly elected (with the help of ACORN stuffing ballot boxes).  Obama and his henchmen have broken every promise they campaigned on.  Wake up, America!  Stop this abortion now, or it will be too late.

---

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/02/house-republicans-new-bureaucracies-health-care/

FOXNews.com
– November 02, 2009

House Republicans Find 111 New ‘Bureaucracies’ in Health Care Bill

In its latest attempt to portray Democrats’ reform package as an unwieldy expansion of federal government in the health care sector, the House Republican Conference circulated what it called a list of “new boards, bureaucracies, commissions and programs” created in the House health care bill.

House Republicans claimed Monday that the health care reform bill pushed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi would create a whopping 111 new “federal bureaucracies.”

In its latest attempt to portray the Democrats’ reform package as an unwieldy expansion of federal government in the health care sector, the House Republican Conference circulated what it called a list of “new boards, bureaucracies, commissions and programs” created in the House health care bill.

Among some off the new agencies, the list cites a Health Insurance Exchange; the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation; the Public Health Investment Fund; the Public Health Workforce Corps; an Assistant Secretary for Health Information; the Food and Drug Administration Office of Women’s Health; grant programs for alternative medical liability laws, infant mortality programs and other issues; and about 100 other government-sponsored creations.

“That ought to tell you all that we need to know, that we’re going to have 1,990 pages of legislation,” House Minority Leader John Boehner said in an interview Sunday. “The word ‘shall’ exists in this bill 3,345 times.” (That means “not optional,” or “mandatory.”)

The list underscores the GOP complaint that the health care reform bill over-burdens taxpayers and the government itself. Republicans said Monday they plan to read aloud the massive bill — in the space of four hours — on the House floor Tuesday.

A Democratic source dismissed the list of “bureaucracies” as an exaggeration, calling them “demonstration projects” instead.  (Democrats also call “fat” “gravitationally challenged,” they call “short” “vertically impaired,” and they call “liberal” about 10 different things like “progressive” just to hide the fact that they are liberals.  Make no mistake, this bill will EXPLODE the size of government.)

“The programs and demonstration projects they list aren’t new agencies but rather new projects,” the source told Fox News. “And they’re sensible ways to test new policies before more broadly implementing them. … Many of the programs and demonstration projects are things that Republicans themselves have called for and supported.”  (Just because the republicans who supported these programs are just as WRONG as you are, does that make it OK?)

Republicans, for instance, have called for medical malpractice reform, which is referenced in the list of new government agencies. The Democratic source said offices like “ombudsman” and “inspector general” are just individual offices in “existing agencies” and not new bureaucracies.  (Riiiiiggggghhhhhtttt!)

House Democrats unveiled their unified bill last week, which was estimated to cost $1.055 trillion over 10 years. House lawmakers are expected to begin debate this week, but Republicans — vastly outnumbered in the House — continue to push back hard.  (The media still will not report the FACT that Pelosi LOCKED REPUBLICANS OUT of all the meetings.  She complains that republicans aren’t offering any solutions when the FACT is that SHE REFUSES TO LISTEN TO ANY OF THEM.)

Boehner said Sunday that Republicans are preparing an alternative health care reform plan. However, pressed by FoxNews.com on Monday, Boehner’s office and the House Republican Conference committee provided few details of that plan.

“Rather than a trillion dollar government takeover, it’s going to be a step-by-step reform of the current system,” said Boehner spokesman Michael Steel, adding only that there will be no so-called public option in the GOP plan.

---

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/02/raw-data-gop-list-new-bureaucracies-house-health-care/

FOXNews.com
– November 02, 2009

RAW DATA: GOP List of New ‘Bureaucracies’ in House Health Care Bill

The following is a list of the “new federal bureaucracies” that the House Republican Conference claims are created in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s health care reform bill.

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)

---

10 Fundamental Truths About Obama-Care

Bigger government (IRS and other new bureaucracies), less freedom, much higher taxes, less availability of doctors and healthcare, rationing of what’s left, and elimination of the middle class.  Sounds like a communist dream.  Well, Obama is a communist, so that only makes sense.

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=MGVmMjNjNmExMzUyMGZiY2ZiNDgzM2RjMGMxNDgzNmI=

Obamacare Dissected

Ten things that probably will be in the health-care bill (but shouldn’t be).

By Stephen Spruiell

Rummaging through the stacks here at National Review world headquarters, I discovered in our Dec. 13, 1993, special supplement on Hillarycare a curious little ad that read “Just say NO to socialized health care.” The ad implored me to call 1-800-5RESIST, so just for fun, I dialed the number, hoping that maybe, just maybe, the brave soul who set up this hotline back in the ’90s was still manning the post, dispensing advice on the best way to oppose Obamacare.

Wrong. A male voice offered me an invitation to “talk to ladies all over the country,” and I don’t think he meant Blanche Lincoln and Olympia Snowe. I hung up and returned to the health-care debate, 2009. The Republicans are in disarray. The Democrats are cutting deals. The Congressional Budget Office is acting like Burger King, telling Max Baucus, “Have it your way.” Of course 1-800-5RESIST is now a phone-sex line: We’re screwed.

Or are we? After all, back in 1993, conservatives were able to stop a health-care-reform plan that looked just as ominous and unstoppable. The Democrats had the White House, 56 senators, and an 80-vote margin in the House. They had James Carville, Hillary Clinton, and a secretive task force (though these might have turned out to be liabilities). They faced a Republican party coming off a historic defeat. R. Emmett Tyrrell had just published The Conservative Crack-Up about infighting among conservatives following the end of the Cold War. Then as now, the Right lacked an identifiable leader, save for Rush Limbaugh.

But we did have one thing going for us: Hillarycare was awful. It was loaded with mandates, government control, empty promises, and taxes. Obamacare differs in the particulars, but it is built on the same rotten foundation: a belief that dumb consumers and greedy insurance companies are to blame for the health-care mess, and therefore bureaucrats need to step in and tell them what to do while the rich pay for it.

Has this diagnosis ever been right? Has this prescription ever cured a single patient? Of course not. In fact, government interference initially created and has since greatly exacerbated the third-party-payer problem that has saddled the system with runaway costs. Wage and price controls during World War II prompted companies to compete for workers by offering generous medical benefits, and changes in the tax code entrenched this practice to the point where we now use insurance to pay for routine health care. For the poor and the elderly, the government created a system of entitlements whose bad design led to cost-shifting in the private sector and looming budgetary shortfalls in the public sector that the political class has no idea how to finance.

Instead of reintroducing concepts like competition and personal responsibility as a way to bring down costs and make coverage more affordable, Obamacare relies on coercion and taxation to pursue these same goals less efficiently. Here are ten reasons why no proposal built on this foundation deserves to pass:

1) Removal of the Ability of Insurers to Deny Coverage. The first thing Obama and his backers want to do — the main thing they all agree on — is take away insurers’ ability to deny people coverage or charge them different rates based on pre-existing conditions. The question of what to do for people whose health status has rendered them uninsurable is a thorny one, but the heavy hand of regulation is not the answer. States have conducted successful experiments with “high-risk pools,” and “health-status insurance” offers another promising idea. The problem with what the Democrats want — mandatory coverage at low rates for sick people (also known as “guaranteed issue” and “community rating”) — is that it gives people an incentive to postpone buying insurance until they need expensive care. Theoretically, guaranteed issue and community rating work only if the government requires everyone to have insurance. The Democrats know this; insurance mandates are integral to Obamacare.

2) Coverage Mandates on Individuals and Employers. Once upon a time, Obama was against insurance mandates. In the run-up to the Iowa caucuses, his campaign ran an ad attacking Hillary Clinton on the grounds that the mandates in her plan “would force people to buy insurance even if they can’t afford it.” Realizing that his health-care plan would be unworkable without a mandate, Obama has flip-flopped and rebranded required coverage as “shared responsibility.” Clinton fired back at the time, and Obamacare supporters argue now, that the mandate would come with subsidies to help lower-income people afford the coverage they would be forced to buy. A look at the fine print on that offer reveals that many Americans would be forced to buy pricey policies without any help from the government. Workers offered coverage by their employers (who would be required to offer it) would not be eligible for subsidies and would have to take what they’re given — which, under Obamacare, would be some minimum package of benefits designed by bureaucrats in Washington. That sounds like something that could quickly exceed what a lot of people consider affordable.

3) Government-Designed Insurance Plans. We don’t have to guess about whether government-designed insurance plans cause costs to spiral upward. We can look to Massachusetts, where in 2006 the Brahmins of Beacon Hill enacted a health-care-reform bill similar to what the Solons of Capitol Hill are pushing today. Commonwealth Care, as the Bay State’s version is called, also requires individuals to purchase a government-designed “minimum” level of coverage. As Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute has pointed out, lobbyists in Massachusetts have successfully pushed for that “minimum” to include prescription drugs, preventive care, drug-abuse treatment, hospice services, fertility treatments, prosthetics, telemedicine, and numerous other mandates. No wonder the average premium in Massachusetts has gone up significantly faster than has the national average. Even if you have insurance you’re happy with, Obamacare would eventually force you to upgrade to one of these more “comprehensive” plans. So much for his promise that you can keep the simple, affordable plan that you like.

4) Threats to Medicare Advantage. Obama’s promise to let you keep your current insurance plan must look even emptier to the approximately 9 million seniors currently enrolled in Medicare Advantage (MA) plans. MA gives seniors the option of getting their coverage from a private insurer rather than from the traditional, government-run Medicare. The government then reimburses the private insurer for the cost of that coverage. The program has proven popular: Enrollment has nearly doubled in the last five years, because the private insurers offer better benefits than Medicare. But these benefits come at a cost: Instead of requiring the private insurers to compete to provide better coverage for less, the government reimburses insurers using a Byzantine rate formula. On average, it costs the government 12 to 14 percent more to cover the average MA enrollee than the average Medicare recipient. To fix this problem — which is an artifact of Medicare’s own artificially low price-setting — the Baucus bill proposes to reimburse private insurers only for what it would have cost Medicare to cover the same enrollee. But remember, Medicare has unfair advantages in the marketplace — it can dictate prices to doctors and hospitals. Because private insurers can’t use the same strong-arm tactics to get their prices down, many would instead cut benefits, raise premiums, or drop out of MA altogether. In other words: No, not everyone can keep the plan she likes.

5) New Taxes. According to the CBO, the Senate Finance Committee’s version of Obamacare would achieve “deficit neutrality” by increasing taxes by more than $300 billion over the next ten years. Who pays? Starting in 2013, the tax would be assessed on all insurance plans that cost more than $8,000 per year for single coverage or $21,000 for family coverage. That sounds like a lot, until you consider that those thresholds are pegged to inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index. The cost of health care generally increases much faster than that. As James C. Capretta has noted, “by 2019 and beyond, this tax would hit pretty much the entire middle class of America very hard.” Obamacare would also use tax penalties to punish those who fail to comply with its insurance mandates. The 25-year-old men who calculate that paying the penalty is a better deal than buying the pricey government-designed plan with fertility treatments are expected to be good for $1 billion or so in tax revenue over the next ten years. Taxing the young at the beginning of their careers and using the money to pay for middle-aged men at the peak of their earning power: That’s Obamacare!

6) A Stronger IRS. Over 30 new federal programs, agencies, and commissions would be required to administer the massive new health-care entitlement. Obamacare would establish a “Health Choices Administration” to dictate what your insurance plan can and cannot cover and a “Health Benefits Advisory Committee” to guide these “choices.” And if the government decides your choices are not acceptable, Obamacare gives the Internal Revenue Service the power to levy substantial fines against you. An overlooked ramification is that the IRS would have to coordinate with the Health Choices Commissioner and whatever other officials are deemed necessary to decide whether your coverage meets the government’s minimum standard. That means the IRS will be sharing your tax records with Obama’s health czars, who could use them in new and intrusive ways. As Byron York has reported, one version of Obamacare (there are five or six floating around Capitol Hill) envisions the use of tax records to “find qualifying seniors who can then be encouraged to enroll in the [Medicare] prescription drug program.” By filing your tax return, you could be signing up for government junk mail — or worse.

7) “Managed Competition” (a.k.a. “Government Control”). In the early 1990s, the buzzword was “managed competition,” which in the context of Hillarycare meant “government control.” Today, the buzzword is back, and guess what? It means the same thing. “One of the best ways to bring down costs, provide more choices, and assure quality,” Obama says, “is a public option that will force the insurance companies to compete and keep them honest.” But whether this public option takes the form of a federal-government-run insurance plan or state-sponsored, public-private co-ops, its true purpose would be to serve as a stalking horse for a fully nationalized single-payer system. We are watching this happen right now with student loans and to a lesser extent with Medicare Advantage: The government cooks the books to make it look as if cutting out the private sector would yield tremendous savings. In fact, real savings would come only from cutting out the government.

8) Reckless Expansion of Medicaid. Obamacare would make federal Medicaid dollars available to childless adults for the first time in the program’s history. Not only would this change the nature of the program from one that is primarily designed to protect children living in poverty, it would also impose new burdens on already-strapped state governments, which would be forced to come up with matching dollars to pay for the newly eligible. Not that this matters as much as it should: Many states, especially those where Democrats dominate, have expanded Medicaid eligibility even further than Obamacare envisions; whenever they run out of money, they simply ask Washington for a bailout, and responsible states end up subsidizing the reckless ones. Obamacare does nothing to change this perverse incentive structure. To the contrary: It adds to the perversity.

9) Welfare for the Middle Class. Mark Steyn has called government-run health care the “game changer” that forever alters the relationship between the citizen and the state. Nowhere is this more clear than in the way the bill means-tests for subsidy eligibility. Households with incomes between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty level — that’s north of $80,000 for a family of four — can have their premiums fixed as a percentage of their income, making mandatory employer-provided care even more of a raw deal (see No. 2 above).

10) Government Rationing. This is where Obamacare ends. We know this because we’ve seen what happened to health-care systems in Canada and Britain. Wherever government fiat replaces private contracting as a method for setting prices, basic problems of supply and demand crop up, and with health care, the problem is almost always too little supply. When third parties pay the bill, consumers lose the incentive to consume rationally and providers lose the incentive to provide efficiently. Supporters of Obamacare have identified the problem as one of greed and stupidity, but their solution would entrench the third-party-payer system that rewards greed and stupidity. To swim against this tide of incentives will require coercion on a massive scale and — yes — rationing.

— Stephen Spruiell is an NRO staff reporter.

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Government: Do as I say, not as I do.

Not only did the liberals in congress omit wording that would make healthcare reform apply to them, THEY SPECIFICALLY REJECTED AMENDMENTS that would have made the new bill apply equally to them.  The same has been true of almost all of their legislation in recent years.

If congressmen and senators saying that their healthcare reform ISN’T GOOD ENOUGH FOR THEM doesn’t tell you it should be rejected, you must be a masochist who loves being abused by all comers.

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Labor/bg2326.cfm

October 13, 2009

Time for Congress to Work Under the Same Rules as the Private Sector

by James Sherk and Ryan O’Donnell

Backgrounder #2326

Abstract: All too often, Congress imposes restrictive and burdensome regulations on employers in the private sec­tor–while conveniently exempting itself from these same rules. Many Members of Congress are currently urging passage of the misnamed Employee Free Choice Act and RESPECT Act, which, again, would leave Congress untouched. This paper demonstrates the hypocrisy of such an approach, and urges Congress to either swallow its own medicine or to extend the same rights to the private sector that it claims for itself. …

(click HERE for complete article)

Baucus “Bill” Passes Senate Finance Committee

The next step towards the socialization of America has been taken.  In a 14-9 vote, all of the freedom hating, anti-American democrats, and one  democrat in republican clothing on the Senate Finance Committee voted for the Baucus notes.  You can’t call it a bill yet, because it hasn’t been finalized and contains none of the language associated with a “bill.”  This vote further proves that our government is out of control.  They have ignored the voices of the constituents for whom they are supposed to work.

Remember these people, as well as the other senators and congressmen who are seeking to advance the cause of socialism and Barack Obama’s agenda.  Join me in doing everything possible to ensure that these socialists don’t get re-elected.

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

Below are the members of the Senate Finance Committee who voted FOR socialism, government control of healthcare, and the destruction of America, among other things.

DEMOCRATS
MAX BAUCUS, MT
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, WV
KENT CONRAD, ND
JEFF BINGAMAN, NM
JOHN F. KERRY, MA
BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, AR
RON WYDEN, OR
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, NY
DEBBIE STABENOW, MI
MARIA CANTWELL, WA
BILL NELSON, FL
ROBERT MENENDEZ, NJ
THOMAS CARPER, DE

REPUBLICAN (singular, as in THE ONLY ONE)
OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, ME