This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
(Democrats in roman; Republicans in italic; Independents underlined) H R 3590 RECORDED VOTE 21-Mar-2010 10:49 PM QUESTION: On Motion to Concur in Senate Amendments BILL TITLE: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Ayes Democratic Republican Independent TOTALS 219 Noes 34 178 212 PRES NV
Ackerman Andrews Baca Baird Baldwin Bean Becerra Berkley Berman Bishop (GA) Bishop (NY) Blumenauer Boccieri Boswell Boyd Brady (PA) Braley (IA) Brown, Corrine Butterfield Capps Capuano Cardoza Carnahan Carney Carson (IN) Castor (FL) Chu Clarke Clay Cleaver Clyburn Cohen Connolly (VA) Conyers Cooper Costa Costello Courtney Crowley Cuellar Cummings Dahlkemper Davis (CA) Davis (IL) DeFazio
Grijalva Gutierrez Hall (NY) Halvorson Hare Harman Hastings (FL) Heinrich Higgins Hill Himes Hinchey Hinojosa Hirono Hodes Holt Honda Hoyer Inslee Israel Jackson (IL) Jackson Lee (TX) Johnson (GA) Johnson, E. B. Kagen Kanjorski Kaptur Kennedy Kildee Kilpatrick (MI) Kilroy Kind Kirkpatrick (AZ) Klein (FL) Kosmas Kucinich Langevin Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Lee (CA) Levin Lewis (GA) Loebsack Lofgren, Zoe Lowey
Obey Olver Ortiz Owens Pallone Pascrell Pastor (AZ) Payne Pelosi Perlmutter Perriello Peters Pingree (ME) Polis (CO) Pomeroy Price (NC) Quigley Rahall Rangel Reyes Richardson Rodriguez Rothman (NJ) Roybal-Allard Ruppersberger Rush Ryan (OH) Salazar Sánchez, Linda T. Sanchez, Loretta Sarbanes Schakowsky Schauer Schiff Schrader Schwartz Scott (GA) Scott (VA) Serrano Sestak Shea-Porter Sherman Sires Slaughter Smith (WA)
DeGette Delahunt DeLauro Dicks Dingell Doggett Donnelly (IN) Doyle Driehaus Edwards (MD) Ellison Ellsworth Engel Eshoo Etheridge Farr Fattah Filner Foster Frank (MA) Fudge Garamendi Giffords Gonzalez Gordon (TN) Grayson Green, Al Green, Gene
Luján Maffei Maloney Markey (CO) Markey (MA) Matsui McCarthy (NY) McCollum McDermott McGovern McNerney Meek (FL) Meeks (NY) Michaud Miller (NC) Miller, George Mitchell Mollohan Moore (KS) Moore (WI) Moran (VA) Murphy (CT) Murphy (NY) Murphy, Patrick Nadler (NY) Napolitano Neal (MA) Oberstar
Snyder Speier Spratt Stark Stupak Sutton Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Tierney Titus Tonko Towns Tsongas Van Hollen Velázquez Visclosky Walz Wasserman Schultz Waters Watson Watt Waxman Weiner Welch Wilson (OH) Woolsey Wu Yarmuth
THROW ALL THESE SCUMBAGS OUT IN NOVEMBER 2010, AND THE COMING ELECTIONS !!!!
WE WILL NOT FORGET WHO YOU ARE AND WHAT YOU DID TO AMERICA & THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA !!!
Aderholt Adler (NJ) Akin Alexander Altmire Arcuri Austria Bachmann Bachus Barrett (SC) Barrow Bartlett Barton (TX) Berry Biggert Bilbray Bilirakis Bishop (UT) Blackburn Blunt Boehner Bonner Bono Mack Boozman Boren Boucher Boustany Brady (TX) Bright Broun (GA) Brown (SC) Brown-Waite, Ginny Buchanan Burgess Burton (IN) Buyer Calvert Camp Campbell Cantor Cao Capito Carter Cassidy Castle
Foxx Franks (AZ) Frelinghuysen Gallegly Garrett (NJ) Gerlach Gingrey (GA) Gohmert Goodlatte Granger Graves Griffith Guthrie Hall (TX) Harper Hastings (WA) Heller Hensarling Herger Herseth Sandlin Hoekstra Holden Hunter Inglis Issa Jenkins Johnson (IL) Johnson, Sam Jones Jordan (OH) King (IA) King (NY) Kingston Kirk Kissell Kline (MN) Kratovil Lamborn Lance Latham LaTourette Latta Lee (NY) Lewis (CA) Linder
Minnick Moran (KS) Murphy, Tim Myrick Neugebauer Nunes Nye Olson Paul Paulsen Pence Peterson Petri Pitts Platts Poe (TX) Posey Price (GA) Putnam Radanovich Rehberg Reichert Roe (TN) Rogers (AL) Rogers (KY) Rogers (MI) Rohrabacher Rooney Ros-Lehtinen Roskam Ross Royce Ryan (WI) Scalise Schmidt Schock Sensenbrenner Sessions Shadegg Shimkus Shuler Shuster Simpson Skelton Smith (NE)
Chaffetz Chandler Childers Coble Coffman (CO) Cole Conaway Crenshaw Culberson Davis (AL) Davis (KY) Davis (TN) Deal (GA) Dent Diaz-Balart, L. Diaz-Balart, M. Dreier Duncan Edwards (TX) Ehlers Emerson Fallin Flake Fleming Forbes Fortenberry
Lipinski LoBiondo Lucas Luetkemeyer Lummis Lungren, Daniel E. Lynch Mack Manzullo Marchant Marshall Matheson McCarthy (CA) McCaul McClintock McCotter McHenry McIntyre McKeon McMahon McMorris Rodgers Melancon Mica Miller (FL) Miller (MI) Miller, Gary
Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Souder Space Stearns Sullivan Tanner Taylor Teague Terry Thompson (PA) Thornberry Tiahrt Tiberi Turner Upton Walden Wamp Westmoreland Whitfield Wilson (SC) Wittman Wolf Young (AK) Young (FL)
REWARD THESE PEOPLE WHO PLACED PEOPLE’ BUSINESS FIRST AS THEY REMEMBERED WHO THEY REPRESENT AND WHY THEY ARE IN DC. THANK YOU FOR DOING WHATS RIGHT FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. American Citizens.
BART STUPAK THE TRAITOR AND HIS GANG OF (WHORES) SELLOUTS THAT DID THE TRICK FOR THE O’PIMP & MADAME PELOSI….and for sure THEY WILL PAY FOR THEIR BETRAYL TO AMERICA & THE AMERICAN PEOPLE !
Traitor in chief ‘BENEDICT ARNORLD’ STUPID Stupak
Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-Ohio), Reps. Jim Cooper (Tenn.), Paul Kanjorski (Pa.), Marcy Kaptur (Ohio), Nick Rahall (W.Va.), Alan Mollohan (W.Va.) , Kathy Dahlkemper (Pa), Rep. Joe Donnelly (Ind), Reps. Bobby Rush (Ill.) and Loretta Sanchez (Calif.), James Clyburn (D-S.C), Rep. Jan Schakowsy (D-Ill.), Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif).
Fellow SCUMBAGS :
Stupak, Dems reach abortion deal
By Jared Allen and Jeffrey Young - 03/21/10 03:33 PM ET
Democrats have reached a deal on an executive order on abortion that could hand them a victory on healthcare.
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) announced a deal at a press
conference. He said the deal means Democrats will have the 216 votes they need to win a healthcare reform vote on the floor. "We're well past 216," he said at the press conference. "Eight or nine" Democrats, including Stupak, will support the healthcare bill because of the deal, according to an antiabortion rights Democrat. "We've changed [our votes]," said Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-Ohio), who appeared at the press conference with Stupak.
Driehaus said he's seen the executive order and can now vote for the healthcare bill. He said Stupak has signed off, as well. Driehaus spoke minutes before the press conference in the Speaker's Lobby.
Separately, two other undecided Democrats said they would vote for healthcare reform: Reps. Jim Cooper (Tenn.) and Paul Kanjorski (Pa.). Besides Driehaus and Stupak, other Democrats attending the press conference, who will now support the bill, were Reps.
Marcy Kaptur (Ohio), Nick Rahall (W.Va.), Alan Mollohan (W.Va.) and Kathy Dahlkemper (Pa.). All
said they would vote for the healthcare bill. Stupak said Rep. Joe Donnelly (Ind.), who was unable to attend the press conference, will also vote yes. That puts Democrats ever so close to the 216 votes they need to win a series of floor votes, according to The Hill's whip count. By The Hill's count, 35 Democrats are no votes or likely no votes. Democrats can afford to lose 37 members. Two other Democrats are undecided: Reps. (Ill.) and Loretta Sanchez (Calif.). Majority Whip James Rush to vote yes.
Clyburn (D-S.C.) said he expects
Stupak said on Fox News afterward that the executive order was a "very strong statement" that wouldn't replace statutory language -- his preference -- but acknowledged that he couldn't get such language through the Senate. "All the safeguards we were looking for, the principle we fought for all these months, will be enforced through this exeuctive order," Stupak said. "It's a good agreement."
Stupak also stressed that fixes to the bill could be enacted between now and 2014. Pro-abortion-rights Democrats lined up behind the deal, signaling that healthcare reform's biggest and last hurdle had been overcome. "It looks like it's a go," Rep. Jan Schakowsy (DIll.) said after exiting Pelosi's office. "Assuming that there's no final, final, final, final shenanigans that go on with the Stupak people, I think we're OK."
Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.), the author of the abortion
language initially approved in the House Energy and Commerce Committee that Stupak's November floor amendment replaced, was also satisfied. "I'm pleased that we seem to be getting to the end," said Capps. "I'm thankful that we're to the point where now we can concentrate on healthcare reform and we're ready to take a vote." House Republicans responded, saying the executive order would not have the authority to implement its own abortion language.
"The law of the land trumps any Executive Order, which can be reversed or altered at the stroke of a pen by this or any subsequent President without any congressional approval or notice," House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said in a statement. "Moreover, while an Executive Order
can direct members of the executive branch, it cannot direct the private sector."
Outside groups on both sides of the abortion divide do not appear poised to support an agreement between the two Democratic camps. The National Right to Life Committee and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops each issued statements rejecting the notion of using an executive order as a bulwark against taxpayer dollars being used to fund abortion services. Meanwhile, abortion rights advocates like the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and NARAL already opposed the Senate language Obama's order would ostensibly affirm. As the Democrats reached their agreement, Republicans enter House floor in single file, each asking for unanimous consent to revise and extend their remarks in opposition to "this flawed" healthcare bill. The Republicans can still throw their biggest roadblock later tonight with their motion to recommit.
This story was updated at 5:37 p.m. Molly K. Hooper and Walter Alarkon contributed to this story. http://thehill.com/homenews/house/88143-stupak-dems-reach-abortion-deal-eight-ornine-will-vote-yes
20 WAYS OBAMACARE WILL TAKE AWAY OUR FREEDOMS With House Democrats poised to pass the Senate health care bill with some reconciliation changes later today, it is worthwhile to take a comprehensive look at the freedoms we will lose. Of course, the overhaul is supposed to provide us with security. But it will result in skyrocketing insurance costs and physicians leaving the field in droves, making it harder to afford and find medical care. We may be about to live Benjamin Franklin’s adage, “People willing to trade their
freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” The sections described below are taken from HR 3590 as agreed to by the Senate and from the reconciliation bill as displayed by the Rules Committee. 1. You are young and don’t want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the “privilege.” (Section 1501) 2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You’ll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That’s because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person’s health status. (Section 2701). 3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).
4. Think you’d like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn’t cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that’s what the customer wants. (Section 2712). 5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn’t allow your employers’ slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714). 6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care. You’re a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You’re a woman who can’t have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You’re a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover
substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302). 7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost-sharing and low premiums? Well, the best you can do is a “Bronze plan,” which has benefits that provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60% of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan. Anything lower than that, tough. (Section 1302 (d) (1) (A)) 8. You are an employer in the small-group insurance market and you’d like to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families? Tough. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A). 9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 101 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under the reconciliation changes). Think you know how to better spend that money? Tough. (Section 1513). 10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending arrangements and your employees want
to deduct more than $2,500 from their salaries for it? Sorry, can’t do that. (Section 9005 (i)). 11. If you are a physician and you don’t want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational purposes. It’s not like the government will ever use it to intervene in your practice and patients’ care. Of course not. (Section 3003 (i)) 12. If you are a physician and you want to own your own hospital, you must be an owner and have a “Medicare provider agreement” by Feb. 1, 2010. (Dec. 31, 2010 in the reconciliation changes.) If you didn’t have those by then, you are out of luck. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A)) 13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can’t (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a country where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot
increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)). 14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed “unreasonable” by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003) 15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000. (Under reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in 2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)). 16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will pay depends
on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough. (Section 9009 (b)). The reconciliation package turns that into a 2.9% excise tax for medical device makers. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 1405). 17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from insurance companies. If you are an insurer, what you will pay depends on your share of net premiums plus 200% of your administrative costs. So, if your net premiums and administrative costs are equal to 10% of the total, you will pay 10% of $6.7 billion, or $670,000,000. In the reconciliation bill, the fee will start at $8 billion in 2014, $11.3 billion in 2015, $1.9 billion in 2017, and $14.3 billion in 2018 (Section 1406).Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B).) 18. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO is worth more than
$500,000 in deferred compensation? Tough. (Section 9014). 19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015). That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Like you need to ask. (Section 1402). 20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9017).
By David Hogberg, March 22, 2010.
Just Do the Math and See What You Are on the Hook for :
The fifth column in power is taking over 1/6th of the economy and bankrupting the greatest nation in the history of man. They reamed Bush for money spent going to war to protect this nation against jihad -- and then these moochers and destroyers rout the nation.
Healthcare by the Numbers
$1.2 trillion: The total cost of the bill between 2010 and 2020 (though the real costs do not start until 2014), including $940 billion in coverage subsidies, $144.2 billion in additional mandatory spending, $70 billion in
discretionary spending in the Senate bill, and $41.6 billion in unrelated education spending. $208 billion: The cost of a ten year patch for the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) to prevent reduction in Medicare physician payments. This cost is hidden because it was included in the earlier Democrat bill, but was dropped to provide a better cost estimate. It is expected to move separately and would bring the true cost of the takeover to $1.4 trillion. $569.2 billion: Tax increases in the legislation, including $48.9 billion in new tax increases in the reconciliation bill alone. $52 billion: The amount of new taxes on employers who cannot afford to pay their employees health care, imposed at a time when unemployment is 9.7 percent. 12: The number of new tax increases in the bill that violate President Obama’s pledge that, “Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.” 46%: The percentage of families making less than $66,150 who will be forced to pay the individual mandate tax. 16,500: The estimated number of IRS auditors, agents and other employees that may be needed to collect the hundreds of billions in new taxes levied on the
American people. $20 billion: The estimated amount of money that the IRS and HHS will need for the cost of additional regulations, bureaucracy, and red tape over the next ten years. This spending is not included in CBO’s cost estimate of H.R. 4872. $53 billion: The amount of revenue this bill raids from Social Security to appear as if it actually reduces the deficit. $202.3 billion: The amount of money cut from the Medicare Advantage program for seniors to help offset the costs of a new entitlement. $436 billion: The amount of federal subsidies in the bill that will go directly to insurance companies to provide health care in the exchange. 1 out of 22: The number of times the Senate has not somehow amended a reconciliation bill passed by the House, and thus required further House action. 63%: The percentage of physicians surveyed who feel that health reform is needed, but are opposed to this sweeping overhaul legislation. $9 billion: The amount that the Ways and Means Committee estimated Medicare would spend annually after 25 years when it was passed in 1965. In reality,
Medicare spent $67 billion in 1990, or seven times the initial cost estimate. $1.55 trillion: The projected FY 2010 deficit—11 times the ten year “savings” Democrats claim the bill will produce by spending more than $1 trillion for this government takeover of health care.
Posted by Pamela Geller on Saturday, March 20, 2010 at 12:20 PM http://www.gop.gov/blog/10/03/20/important-health-care-takeover-by
Price: Obamacare Means 159 New Gov't Agencies
Saturday, 20 Mar 2010 12:06 PM
The new government agencies that will be created as the result of Obamacare will worsen the quality of American medical care by restricting physicians and hospitals to use their best judgment, according to Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., a physician and chairman of the Republican Study Committee. In fact, he says, the bill would create 159 new governemnt agencies to regulate insurance and medical care for Americans. Writing for AOL News, Price says in an op-ed that the healthcare overhaul being contemplated by House Democrats will sacrifice “the quality of health care that has made this nation's practice of medicine the envy of the world.” “Quality remains one of the six principles of patientcentered health care that Republicans have advocated,” Price writes. “Yet, all Americans find in the Democrats' government-centered vision are various boards of bureaucrats -- not practicing physicians -- determining what is considered quality care.” The plan will take away the right of individuals to make the best decisions about their healthcare in consultation with their physician.
“An individual patient is far better served when health care decisions are informed by the advice of their doctor, not the dictates of Washington,” Price writes. “So when one reads the details of the legislation pending before Congress and finds the creation of 159 new government offices and programs, there is little else to feel but fear and concern for what will happen to the level of quality care in this country.” The GOP has pushed a series of common-sense measures, Price says, that include tort reform and efforts to reduce waste and mismanagement in government programs like Medicare. “Republicans are championing reform with no new bureaucratic boards making medical decisions, no $500 billion cuts to Medicare, no new mandates, and no one standing between you and your doctor,” Price writes. “We can fix what ails our current system without destroying it if we abide by the principle that quality in health care must not be sacrificed.”
The President Health Proposal: Taxing Investment Income
Posted February 25th, 2010 at 5:00pm in Health Care with 8 comments
In preparation for today’s bipartisan Health Care Summit, President Obama released his own version of health care reform earlier this week. The President’s proposal includes several high-ticket provisions for expanding coverage. Since he has promised time and again not to raise taxes on the middle-class in order to pay for health care reform, the President’s bill imposes a Medicare tax on the investment income of highindividuals to off-set some of the cost of expanding
Medicaid and financing other provisions of his health agenda. But, as Heritage analysts Karen Campbell and Guinevere Nell explain in a recent paper, these new taxes would have widespread adverse effects for all Americans, not just the wealthy that they target. This is partially due to the very nature of a tax: “A well-established economic regularity is that if you tax something, you get less of it. For example, policymakers in the Senate recently proposed a tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans. The justification was that it would not only generate revenue to help pay for subsidized insurance but also reduce demand for highpriced premiums, putting downward pressure on all health insurance premiums.” The Cadillac health insurance plan tax is intended to reduce the usage of high-cost insurance plans. Similarly, the President’s proposal’s tax on tanning beds discourages their use; the same is the case with cigarette taxes. In several instances, taxes are imposed as punitive measures. So why on earth would the President impose a tax that would discourage investment, delaying recovery from the current economic downturn? Moreover, Campbell and Nell lay out several ways in which this tax would hit average American households hard. First, the tax would reduce overall household wealth of American families by $274 billion per year.
“The value of the investment portfolios of many households–not just the high-income households that directly pay the tax–are reduced by the tax on investment income.” Second, reducing investment would decrease capital in the U.S. economy, which would reduce potential for economical growth. This affects not only the rate of job creation and wage increase: it would have a dramatic effect on the ability of the federal government to borrow money. According to Campbell and Nell, “A lower U.S. economic potential also harms the ability of the government to borrow, because investors lend to the U.S. based on the expected potential of the U.S. economy. Thus a lower potential economy puts upward pressure on government interest rates in order to attract financing for the nation’s deficit.” Raising government interest rates will add further to the financial burden on taxpayers. “Because investment is what drives productivity and economic growth, less investment–even if only slightly less–leads to lower productivity, slower economic growth, weaker wages and salaries, and lower household wealth. How much less depends on the underlying supply and demand for investment.” President Obama’s health care proposal would expand health coverage—but is the detriment to the U.S. economy and the burden on the taxpayer worth the cost?
Obama’s Health Plan Has Dangerous New Taxes
Posted February 23rd, 2010 at 6:35pm in Entitlements, Health Care with 20 comments
The health care plan President Obama recently released is mostly a combination of the different plans passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate. But in one major way it breaks with long-standing precedent, proposing a fundamental wrong-headed change to both entitlement policy and tax policy. He proposes for the first time to tax capital income to support entitlement programs. Payroll taxes have always applied just to wages and salaries and the revenue those taxes raise has gone solely to pay for entitlements like Social Security and Medicare. The deal has always been that we pay payroll taxes during our working years and receive the benefits they fund after we retire. President Obama’s health care plan would shatter this compact forever. The Hospital Insurance (HI) portion of the payroll tax is 2.9 percent on all wages and salary that is paid half (1.45 percent) by workers and half (the remaining 1.45 percent) by employers. It is supposed to pay only for the hospital insurance portion of Medicare benefits that retirees receive. President Obama’s plan adopts this break with long-held policy and doubles down by further severing the link between HI and Medicare benefits. Obama’s plan not only increases the HI tax on wages and salaries for high-income earners similar to the Senate bill, it also applies the HI tax to investment income for the first time. Obama’s unprecedented plan would levy the current 2.9 percent HI tax on what the
administration obnoxiously refers to as “unearned” income, which includes capital gains, interest, dividends, annuities, royalties and rents for families earning more than $250,000 a year ($200,000 for single filers). Applying the HI tax to investment income would also continue to transform entitlements and how they are paid for. Using the revenue raised by levying the HI tax on investment income would open the floodgates for future rate increases to pay for other new spending programs. Adding a new revenue stream for Congress to tap when it needs more money is always dangerous and should be resisted at all costs, otherwise expanding government will be too easy for Congress. Yet this is likely the reason President Obama wants to levy the HI tax on investment. Applying the HI tax separately to investment income will forever give Congress yet another tax to hike whenever it wants to fund a new program. If Congress can raise payroll taxes easily to pay for any spending it desires, payroll taxes will no longer be used to pay for entitlements, but as an ATM for Congress to go back each time it needs more cash.
Obama’s Health Plan – Taxes, Taxes Everywhere
Posted February 24th, 2010 at 12:59pm in Entitlements, Health Care with 3 comments
The White House recently released President Obama’s health care reform proposal. The plan incorporates a mixture of the many tax increases passed by the House and Senate, hiking taxes by almost $750 billion over ten
years. This is on top of $1.3 trillion in other tax increases the President recently proposed in his 2011 budget. Not that there is ever a good time to raise taxes, but doing so as the economy is still emerging from a deep recession is particularly ill-advised and will likely prolong full recovery. Moreover, the President’s proposal deviates from his stated goal to address the soaring spending and debt problem the nation faces by piling on massive new spending and taxes. Payroll tax hikes: Obama accepted the Senate’s plan to break long-held policy by raising the Hospital Insurance (HI) portion of the payroll tax on highincome earners to pay for a new and unrelated health care entitlement. He then doubled-down on this dangerous new precedent by separately applying the HI tax to investment income for the first time. The tax code already taxes investment too much. Higher taxes still on dividends, interest and business income increases the cost of capital which will further depress investment and thus job creation. Ironic to propose this at the very time the President wants employers to create jobs. Medicare payroll tax would hit seniors: His proposed tax hike on investment will hammer seniors particularly hard because their investment income is a major supplement to their pension and Social Security checks. Seniors also sell assets to raise income, so raising the tax on capital gains further reduces their resources. Lastly, raising the taxes on capital income and capital gains will lower asset values. Nearly 30 percent of all stocks are
held in retirement savings plans. Most of the seniors that rely on the income from these plans for their livelihood are not “fat cat” investors that have been the target of other populist tax hikes. They are people that spent their working years saving money for their own retirement in mutual funds, 401(k)s, IRAs, and other savings vehicles. This would just punish them for a lifetime of careful planning and saving. Cadillac tax: The President also adopted an excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans similar to that in the Senate plan. Obama’s proposal would levy a 40% tax on plans that cost over $10,200 a year for individuals and $27,500 for families, but wouldn’t be effective until 2018. The delay will no doubt give unions and other favored groups time to negotiate their way out of the tax through collective bargaining or gain a complete legislative exemption at some point in the future before the tax kicks in. It also means delaying political pain. All the same criticisms of the excise tax apply as before. For example, insurers will embed the tax in the price of their plans. This will hide its cost from their customers. The tax will also fall heavily on middle and low-income workers whose taxes President Obama pledged not to increase. The President would have been better off capping the value of health insurance employers can provide their employees tax free. This is something that has wide support among policy experts on the right and the left and would be a real show towards openness to the bipartisan ideas he is purporting.
Still more taxes: Just like the Senate and the House, his plan incorporates a multitude of other tax hikes and fees that will go towards paying for the monstrously expensive bill. Some will raise taxes on people making less than $250,000 a year, breaking a key campaign pledge. Prime examples include: • Excise tax on medical device manufacturers; • Fee on brand name pharmaceuticals; • 10 percent tax on tanning services; • Reduce the amount families can place in Flexible Spending Accounts (FSA) and increase the penalties for non-medical deductions from Health Savings Accounts (HSA); and • Higher taxes on health insurance companies and producers of medicine. Each of these taxes will fall explicitly on those making less than $250,000 or will be passed down to them. And this is just a sample of the taxes that will hit those making less than $250,000 in the President’s plan. There are many more. In fact, the mandate on all individuals to purchase health insurance could also be considered another steep tax hike on those making less than $250,000. Bottom Line: There is never a good time to raise taxes, but even the talk of doing so now continues to cause uncertainty in the economy. Sadly, the President’s plan is no better than those of the House or Senate: massive new benefits paid for by a myriad of harmful new taxes.
Better to drop this plan and start over. Without crushing new taxes.
Dems Stiff Soldiers: Health Care Will NOT Protect Military Health Plans
Trillions for his goons, the unions, the ACORNS, the AmericCorps that suck the lifeblood out of the hard-working American, the soul of America -- the ones who play by the rules .... and now the military.
Democrats' Plan Will NOT Protect Military Health Plans
From House Republican Policy:
9.2 million military personnel, families and retirees don't deserve a back room deal? "Although the health care legislation passed by the House explicitly exempted TRICARE from being affected, the Senate bill did not. Unfortunately, the parliamentary rules of tof the reconciliation process did not allow for the inclusion of language that specficially protects these programs." -- Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO)
Background: On March 18, 2010, just days before the House votes on the Democrats’ government takeover of health care, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton (D-MO) announced he would introduce legislation to preemptively state that TRICARE and the Department of Defense non-appropriated fund (NAF) health plans meet all of the health care requirements currently under consideration by Congress for individual health insurance. TRICARE and the NAF health plans programs provide health coverage to members of the military and their families, military retirees and their families, and employees of U.S. military post/base exchanges. Chairman Skelton even stated he would also insert this legislative language into the national defense authorization bill, reiterating the threat the health care bill currently poses to military health plans. This is an explicit admission that the final Democrat health care bill does not protect these plans. Military Protections Scrapped: The Senate-passed health care bill, which the House is expected to “deem” passed on March 21, 2010, omitted protections for military health plans that were included in the House bill. Specifically, the Senate language does not appear to give the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA) health care system specific protection from interference by other government agencies administering the various authorities contained in the massive bill, as it pertains to “minimum essential coverage.” The minimum essential coverage language in the Senate bill does cover “the veterans health care program under chapter 17 of title 38, United States Code,” but it is unclear whether that covers veterans’ survivors and dependents. The final bill would leave it up to a bureaucrat at the Department of the Treasury to determine whether TRICARE meets the minimum standards under the Democrats’ individual health insurance mandate. If that bureaucrat decides against TRICARE, service members and their families would have to buy some other health coverage or pay a penalty.
In an effort to bolster support for the House health care takeover back in August 2009, the White House advertised that bill’s exemption for 9.2 million military personnel, families, and retirees covered under TRICARE and the military health plan. In August, the White House website stated that: Health reform legislation that is being considered would enable those who are covered by TRICARE to meet the shared responsibility requirement for individuals to have insurance, thereby exempting such members of the uniformed services and dependants from being assessed penalties. If enacted, the President will ensure that this exemption is implemented aggressively. Of course, the final health care bill does not include this promised exemption for military plans. According to Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Buck McKeon (R-CA), “We need to fix this problem immediately—before Congress passes and the President signs the legislation. By forgoing the traditional legislative process, Democrat leaders in Congress—and the President who is pushing for immediate passage of the bill— have reneged on assurances that the Senate legislation would be fixed in a conference committee. Our military personnel deserve to know they will continue to receive the same level of care they so rightly deserve.” Veterans groups would seem to agree. Thomas Tradewell Sr., the national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars stated that, “I remain worried because a free press and an even freer Internet continue to fuel speculation that both systems could be lost and/or absorbed into a larger national healthcare plan.” Perverse Priorities: The Democrats’ government takeover of health care is chockfull of backroom deals for favored constituencies such as Louisiana, Connecticut, Nebraska and insurance companies. In their desperate headlong rush to pass a bill, however, Democrats have neglected to protect the integrity and independence of the DoD and VA health care systems and protect all of their health care beneficiaries. U.S. service members and veterans deserve better.
Obama's New Health Care Army - The IRS
New tax mandates and penalties included in Obamacare will cause the greatest expansion of the Internal Revenue Service since World War II, according to a release from Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas. A new analysis by the Joint Economic Committee and the House Ways & Means Committee minority staff estimates up to 16,500 new IRS personnel will be needed to collect, examine and audit new tax information mandated on families and small businesses in the ‘reconciliation’ bill being taken up by the U.S. House of Representatives this weekend. (more)
The new fascism, same as the old fascism. Obamacare Grants IRS Perilous Power, GOP Says The Internal Revenue Service would gain sweeping new powers under President Obama's healthcare reform proposals, in what Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee are calling a "dangerous expansion" of IRS powers. That's according to a nine-page Republican report from the Committee on Ways and Means on Thursday. It's titled "The Wrong Prescription" Democrats' Health Overhaul Dangerously Expands IRS Authority." Among the new powers the IRS would assume, the report says: The authority to confiscate tax refunds, to impose fines of over $2,200 per taxpayer, and to verify whether taxpayers' health insurance coverage is "acceptable." One measure of the scope of the IRS' new responsibilities under the healthcare overhaul: The agency might have to hire as many as 16,500 additional auditors, agents, and other employees in order to administer the program, according to Rep. Dave Camp, R-Mich., the ranking Republican on the Ways and Means Committee. "It is a very dangerous expansion of the IRS' power and reach into the lives of virtually every American," Camp
said in a statement released Thursday afternoon. The Ways and Means report portrays healthcare reform as having a wide-ranging impact on how the IRS operates, including: IRS agents would be tasked with determining whether Americans had obtained the insurance coverage required under the individual mandate. Individuals could be fined $2,250 or 2 percent of income, whichever is greater, if you are unable to prove you have "minimum essential coverage." The IRS would be empowered to confiscate tax refunds if necessary. Audits probably would increase as a result of the legislation's new requirements. The budget for IRS operations will balloon by $10 billion in the next decade in order to administrate the new program. Nearly half of the new individual mandate taxes will be paid "by Americans earning less than 300 percent of poverty, $66150 for a family of four. A statement that Democrats are sure to dispute, the report, which Camp and fellow GOP Rep. Charles Boustany of Louisiana prepared, sayshealthcare reform would "fundamentally alter the relationship between the IRS and taxpayers." Essentially, the Republicans state, the reform bill makes the IRS responsible for "tracking the monthly health insurance status of roughly 300 million Americans."
H.R. 4872, THE HEALTH CARE & EDUCATION AFFORDABILITY RECONCILIATION ACT of 2010 SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Title I – Coverage, Medicare, Medicaid and Revenues Subtitle A – Coverage Sec. 1001. Affordability. Improves the financing for premiums and cost sharing for individuals with incomes up to 400% of the
federal poverty level. Subsection (a) improves tax credits to make premiums more affordable as a percent of income; and subsection (b) improves support for cost sharing, focusing on those with incomes below 250% of the federal poverty level. Starting in 2019, constrains the growth in tax credits if premiums are growing faster than the consumer price index, unless spending is more than 10% below current CBO projections. Sec. 1002. Individual responsibility. Modifies the assessment that individuals who choose to remain uninsured pay in three ways: (a) exempts the income below the filing threshold, (b) lowers the flat payment from $495 to $325 in 2015 and from $750 to $695 in 2016 and (c) raises the percent of income that is an alternative payment amount from 0.5 to 1.0% in 2014, 1.0 to 2.0% in 2015, and 2.0 to 2.5% for 2016 and subsequent years to make the assessment more progressive. Sec. 1003. Employer responsibility. Improves the transition to the employer
responsibility policy for employers with 50 or more full-time equivalent workers (FTE) by subtracting the first 30 full time employees from the payment calculation (e.g., a firm with 51 workers that does not offer coverage will pay an amount equal to 51 minus 30, or 21 times the applicable per employee payment amount). The provision also changes the applicable payment amount for firms with more than 50 FTEs that do not offer coverage to $2,000 per full-time employee. It also eliminates the assessment for workers in a waiting period, while maintaining the 90day limit on the length of any waiting period beginning in 2014. Sec. 1004. Income definitions. Modifies the definition of income that is used for purposes of subsidy eligibility and the individual responsibility requirement. The modifications conform the income definition to information that is currently reported on the Form 1040 and to the present law income tax return filing thresholds. The provision also extends the exclusion from gross income
for employer provided health coverage for adult children up to age 26. Sec. 1005. Implementation funding. Provides $1 billion to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to finance the administrative costs of implementing health insurance reform. Subtitle B – Medicare Sec. 1101. Closing the Medicare prescription drug “donut hole”. Provides a $250 rebate for all Medicare Part D enrollees who enter the donut hole in 2010. Builds on pharmaceutical manufacturers' 50% discount on brand-name drugs beginning in 2011 to completely close the donut hole with 75% discounts on brand-name and generic drugs by 2020. Sec. 1102. Medicare Advantage payments. Freezes Medicare Advantage payments in 2011. Beginning in 2012, the provision reduces Medicare Advantage benchmarks
relative to current levels. Benchmarks will vary from 95% of Medicare spending in highcost areas to 115% of Medicare spending in low-cost areas. The changes will be phased-in over 3, 5 or 7 years, depending on the level of payment reductions. The provision creates an incentive system to increase payments to high‐quality plans by at least 5%. It also extends CMS authority to adjust risk scores in Medicare Advantage for observed differences in coding patterns relative to fee-for‐service. Sec. 1103. Savings from limits on MA plan administrative costs. Ensures Medicare Advantage plans spend at least 85% of revenue on medical costs or activities that improve quality of care, rather than profit and overhead. Sec. 1104. Disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments. Advances Medicare disproportionate share hospital cuts to begin in fiscal year 2014 but lowers the ten-year reduction by $3 billion.
Sec. 1105. Market basket updates. Revises the hospital market basket reduction that is in addition to the productivity adjustment as follows: -0.3 in FY14 and -0.75 in FY17, FY18 and FY19. Removes Senate provision that eliminates the additional market basket for hospitals based on coverage levels. Providers affected are inpatient hospitals, long-term care hospitals, inpatient rehabilitation facilities, psychiatric hospitals and outpatient hospitals. Sec. 1106. Physician ownership-referral. Changes to December 31, 2010 the date after which physician ownership of hospitals to which they self refer is prohibited and provides a limited exception to the growth restrictions for grandfathered physician owned hospitals that treat the highest percentage of Medicaid patients in their county (and are not the sole hospital in a county). Sec. 1107. Payment for Imaging Services. Sets the assumed utilization rate at 75 percent
for the practice expense portion of advanced diagnostic imaging services. Subtitle C – Medicaid Sec. 1201. Federal funding for States. Strikes the provision for a permanent 100% federal matching rate for Nebraska for the Medicaid costs of expansion populations. Provides federal Medicaid matching payments for the costs of services to expansion populations at the following rates in all states: 100% in 2014, 2015, and 2016; 95% in 2017; 94% in 2018; 93% in 2019; and 90% thereafter. In the case of expansion states, reduces the state share of the costs of covering nonpregnant childless adults by 50% in 2014, 60% in 2015, 70% in 2016, 80% in 2017, 90% in 2018. In 2019 and thereafter, expansion states would bear the same state share of the costs of covering nonpregnant childless adults as nonexpansion states (e.g., 7% in 2019, 10% thereafter). Sec. 1202. Payments to primary care physicians. Requires that Medicaid payment
rates to primary care physicians for furnishing primary care services be no less than 100% of Medicare payment rates in 2013 and 2014 (the first year of the Senate bill’s Medicaid coverage expansion to all individuals with incomes under 133% of poverty). Provides 100% federal funding for the incremental costs to States of meeting this requirement. Sec. 1203. Disproportionate share hospital payments. Lowers the reduction in federal Medicaid DSH payments from $18.1 billion to $14.1 billion and advances the reductions to begin in fiscal year 2014. Directs the Secretary to develop a methodology for reducing federal DSH allotments to all states in order to achieve the mandated reductions. Extends through FY 2013 the federal DSH allotment for a state that has a $0 allotment after FY 2011. Sec. 1204. Funding for the territories. Increases federal funding in the Senate bill for Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern
Marianas Islands by $2 billion. Raises the caps on federal Medicaid funding for each of the territories. Allows each territory to elect to operate a Health Benefits Exchange. Sec. 1205. Delay in Community First Choice Option. Postpones from October 1, 2010 until October 1, 2011 the effective date of the option established for State Medicaid programs to cover attendant care services and supports for individuals who require an institutional level of care Sec. 1206. Drug rebates for new formulations of existing drugs. For purposes of applying the additional rebate, narrows the definition of a new formulation of a drug to a line extension of a single source or innovator multiple source drug that is an oral solid dosage form of the drug. Subtitle D – Reducing Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Sec. 1301. Community Mental Health Centers. Establishes new requirements for community mental health centers that
provide Medicare partial hospitalization services in order to prevent fraud and abuse. Sec. 1302. Medicare prepayment medical review limitations. Streamlines procedures to conduct Medicare prepayment reviews to facilitate additional reviews designed to reduce fraud and abuse. Sec. 1303. CMS-IRS data match to identify fraudulent providers. Allows the Secretary of Treasury to share IRS data with HHS employees to help screen and identify fraudulent providers or providers with tax debts, and to help recover such debts. Provides strict controls on the use of such information to protect taxpayer privacy. Sec. 1304. Funding to fight fraud, waste and abuse. Increases funding for the Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Fund by $250 million over the next decade. Indexes funds to fight Medicaid fraud based on the increase in the Consumer Price Index. Sec. 1305. 90-day period of enhanced oversight for initial claims of DME suppliers.
Requires a 90-day period to withhold payment and conduct enhanced oversight in cases where the HHS Secretary identifies a significant risk of fraud among DME suppliers. Subtitle E – Revenues Sec. 1401. High-cost plan excise tax. Reduces the revenue collected by the tax by 80 percent. This is achieved by: delaying the application of the tax until 2018, which gives the plans time to implement and realize the cost savings of reform; increasing the dollar thresholds to $10,200 for single coverage and $27,500 for family coverage ($11,850 and $30,950 for retirees and employees in high risk professions); excluding stand-alone dental and vision plans from the tax; and permitting an employer to reduce the cost of the coverage when applying the tax if the employer’s age and gender demographics are not representative of the age and gender demographics of a national risk pool. Under the modified provision, the dollar thresholds are indexed to inflation and the dollar
thresholds are automatically increased in 2018 if CBO is wrong in its forecast of the premium inflation rate between now and 2018. Sec. 1402. Medicare tax. Modifies the tax to include net investment income in the taxable base. Currently, the Medicare tax does not apply to net investment income. The Medicare tax on net investment income does not apply if modified adjusted gross income is less than $250,000 in the case of a joint return, or $200,000 in the case of a single return. Net investment income is interest, dividends, royalties, rents, gross income from a trade or business involving passive activities, and net gain from disposition of property (other than property held in a trade or business). Net investment income is reduced by properly allocable deductions to such income. Sec. 1403. Delay of the annual limitation on contributions to a health FSA. Delays the provision by two years until 2013.
Sec. 1404. Brand name pharmaceuticals. Delays the industry fee on sales of brand name pharmaceuticals for use in government health programs by one year to 2011, and increases revenue raised by the fee by $4.8 billion. Sec. 1405. Excise tax on medical device manufacturers. Delays the tax by two years to 2013 and converts the industry fee to an excise tax on the first sale for use of medical devices at a rate of 2.9 percent. Exempts from the tax Class I medical devices, eyeglasses, contact lenses, hearing aids, and any device of a type that is generally purchased by the public at retail for individual use. Sec. 1406. Health insurance providers. Delays the industry fee by 3 years to 2014 and modifies the annual industry fee for revenue neutrality. In the case of tax-exempt insurance providers, provides that only 50 percent of their net premiums that relate to their tax-exempt status are taken into account in calculating the fee. Provides exemptions
for voluntary employee benefit associations (VEBAs) and nonprofit providers more than 80 percent of whose revenues is received from Social Security Act programs that target low income, elderly, or disabled populations. Sec. 1407. Delay of elimination of deduction for expenses allocable to Medicare part D subsidy. Delays the provision by two years to 2013. Sec. 1408. Elimination of unintended application of cellulosic biofuel producer credit. Adds an additional revenue provision. In 2008, Congress enacted a $1.01 per gallon tax credit for the production of biofuel from cellulosic feedstocks in order to encourage the development of new production capacity for biofuels that are not derived from food source materials. Congress is aware that some taxpayers are seeking to claim the cellulosic biofuel tax credit for unprocessed fuels, such as black liquor. The provision would limit eligibility for the tax credit to processed fuels (i.e., fuels that could be used in a car engine or in a home heating application).
Sec. 1409. Codification of economic substance doctrine and penalties. Adds an additional revenue provision. The economic substance doctrine is a judicial doctrine that has been used by the courts to deny tax benefits when the transaction generating these tax benefits lacks economic substance. The courts have not applied the economic substance doctrine uniformly. The provision would clarify the manner in which the economic substance doctrine should be applied by the courts and would impose a penalty on understatements attributable to a transaction lacking economic substance. Sec. 1410. Time for payment of corporate estimated taxes. Provides for a one-time adjustment to corporate estimated taxes for payments made during calendar year 2014. Sec. 1411. No impact on Social Security trust funds. Provides that Title II of the Social Security Act (the old age, survivor, and disability benefits program (OASDI)) is not amended or modified by the bill.
Subtitle F – Other Provisions Sec. 1501. TAA for communities. Appropriates $500 Million a year for fiscal years 2010 through 2014 in the Community College and Career Training Grant program for community colleges to develop and improve educational or career training programs. Ensures that each state receives at least 0.5 percent of the total funds appropriated. Title II – Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Subtitle A – Education Section 2001. Short Title; References. Provides that this subtitle may be cited as the “SAFRA Act,” and that, except as otherwise provided, whenever an amendment to, or repeal of, a section or other provision, the reference shall be considered to be made to a section or other provision of the Higher Education Act of 1965.
Part I—Investing in Students and Families Section 2101. Federal Pell Grants. Amends the Higher Education Act to include mandatory funding for the Pell Grant. This provides additional mandatory funding to augment funds appropriated to increase the federal maximum Pell Grant award by the change in the Consumer Price Index. The mandatory component of the funding is determined by inflating the previous year’s total and subtracting the maximum award provided for in the appropriations act for the previous year or $4860, whichever is greater. Beginning in the 2018-2019 academic year, the maximum Pell award will be at the 20172018 level. Section 2102. Student Financial Assistance. This section provides $13.5 billion in mandatory appropriations to the Federal Pell Grant program. Section 2103. College Access Challenge Grant Program. This section amends section 786 of the Higher Education Act by authorizing and
appropriating $150 million for fiscal years 2010 through 2014 for the College Access Challenge Grant program created under the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007. Provides that the allotment for each State under this section for a fiscal year shall not be an amount that is less than 1.0 percent of the total amount appropriated for a fiscal year. Section 2104. Investment in Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Serving Institutions. This section amends section 371(b) of the Higher Education Act by extending funding for programs under this section created under the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 for programs at Historically Black Colleges and Universities and minority-serving institutions through 2019, including programs that help low-income students attain degrees in the fields of science, technology, engineering or mathematics by the following annual amounts: $100 million to Hispanic Serving Institutions, $85 million to Historically Black Colleges and Universities, $15 million to
Predominantly Black Institutions, $30 million to Tribal Colleges and Universities, $15 million to Alaska, Hawaiian Native Institutions, $5 million to Asian American and Pacific Islander Institutions, and $5 million to Native American non-tribal serving institutions. Part II—Student Loan Reform Section 2201. Termination of Federal Family Education Loan Appropriations. This section terminates the authority to make or insure any additional loans in the Federal Family Education Loan program after June 30, 2010. Section 2202. Termination of Federal loan Insurance Program. This section is a conforming amendment with regard to the termination of the FFEL program, limiting Federal insurance to those loans in the Federal Family Education Loan program for loans first disbursed prior to July 1, 2010. Section 2203. Termination of Applicable Interest Rates. This section makes a conforming amendment with regard to the
termination of the FFEL program limiting interest rate applicability to Stafford, Consolidation, and PLUS loans to those loans made before July 1, 2010. Section 2204. Termination of Federal payments to Reduce Student Interest Costs. This section makes a conforming amendment with regard to the termination of the FFEL program by limiting subsidy payments to lenders for those loans for which the first disbursement is made before July 1, 2010. Section 2205. Termination of FFEL PLUS Loans. This section makes a conforming change with regard to the termination of the FFEL program for federal PLUS loans by prohibiting further FFEL origination of loans after July 1, 2010. Section 2206. Federal Consolidation Loans. This section makes conforming changes with regard to the termination of the FFEL program for federal consolidation loans. This section also provides that, for a 1 year period, borrowers who have loans under both the
Direct Lending program and the FFEL program, or who have loans under either program as well as loans that have been sold to the Secretary, may consolidate such loans under the Direct Lending program regardless of whether such borrowers have entered repayment on such loans. Section 2207. Termination of Unsubsidized Stafford loans for Middle-Income Borrowers. This section makes conforming changes with regard to the termination of the FFEL program for Unsubsidized Stafford loans by prohibiting further FFEL origination of loans after July 1, 2010. Section 2208. Termination of Special Allowances. This section makes conforming changes with regard to the termination of the FFEL program by limiting special allowance payments to lenders under the FFEL program to loans first disbursed before July 1, 2010. Section 2209. Origination of Direct Loans at Institutions Outside the United States. This
section provides for the origination of federal Direct Loans at institutions located outside of the United States, through a financial institution designated by the Secretary. Section 2210. Conforming amendments. This section makes conforming technical changes with regard to the termination of the FFEL program for Department of Education agreements with Direct Lending institutions. Section 2211. Terms and Conditions of Loans. This section makes conforming technical changes with regard to the termination of the FFEL program to clarify the terms and conditions of Direct Loans. Section 2212. Contracts. This section directs the Secretary to award contracts for servicing federal Direct Loans to eligible non-profit servicers. In addition, this section provides that for the first 100,000 borrower loan accounts, the Secretary shall establish a separate pricing tier. Specifies that the Secretary is to allocate the loan accounts of 100,000 borrowers to each eligible non-profit
servicer. The section also permits the Secretary to reallocate, increase, reduce or terminate an eligible non-profit servicer’s allocation based on the performance of such servicer. In addition, this section appropriates mandatory funds to the Secretary to be obligated for administrative costs of servicing contracts with eligible nonprofit servicers. This section also requires the Secretary to provide technical assistance to institutions of higher education participating or seeking to participate in the Direct Lending program. This section appropriates $50 million for fiscal year 2010 to pay for this technical assistance. Additionally, this section authorizes the Secretary to provide payments to loan servicers for retaining jobs at location in the United States where such servicers were operating on January 1, 2010. This section appropriates $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2010 and 2011 for such purpose. Section 2213. Agreements with State-Owned Banks. This section amends Part D of Title IV to direct the Secretary to enter into an agreement with an eligible lender for the
purpose of providing Federal loan insurance on student loans made by state-owned banks. Section 2214. Income-Based Repayment. The section amends the Income-Based Repayment program to cap student loan payments for new borrowers after July 1, 2014 to 10% of adjusted income, from 15% percent, and to forgive remaining balances after 20 years of repayment, from 25 years. Subtitle B – Health Sec. 2301. Insurance Reforms. Extends the prohibition of lifetime limits, prohibition on rescissions, and a requirement to provide coverage for non-dependent children up to age 26 to all existing health insurance plans starting six months after enactment. Starting in 2014, extends the prohibition on excessive waiting periods to existing health plans. For group health plans, prohibits pre-existing condition exclusions in 2014 (for children, they are prohibited starting six months after enactment), restricts annual limits beginning six months after enactment, and prohibits
them starting in 2014. For coverage of nondependent children prior to 2014, the requirement on group health plans is limited to those adult children without an employer offer of coverage. Sec. 2302. Drugs Purchased by Covered Entities. Repeals the underlying 340B expansion to inpatient drugs and exemptions to GPO exclusion. Exempts orphan drugs from required discounts for new 340B entities. Sec. 2303. Community Health Centers. Increases mandatory funding for community health centers to $11 billion over five years (FY 2011 – FY 2015).
Prepared by Committees on Ways & Means, Energy & Commerce, and Education & Labor, March 18, 2010
Published October 5, 2009
Its time for the Speaker of the House to resign, as she neither speaks for nor represents the People’s House. After months of calling Americans racists, Nazis, astroturfers, and radical right wing extremists, and accusing Tea Party patriots of inciting violence, how can Nancy Pelosi even dare to call herself the ‘Speaker of the House’? Of whose house? This must be The Audacity of Botox, puffed up beyond all belief. Her promises, like her inflated self, are empty, full of hot, stale, air–look at what she promised in 2006. “the most open and most ethical Congress in history. “ Heh. This woman from the smallest district in the nation, representing a tiny slice of America, is as far away from America as she can be. In fact, she is another one of the ’stealth’ ‘democratic socialists’ in the Congress, with known ties to and reverence of communist organizers in the United States. This post is intended to lend weight to the effort to first, remove Nancy Pelosi as the speaker of the house, and second, to ensure her election defeat in 2010. Thankfully, the Patriotic Resistance has
developed a resource page for ‘politicians to watch in 2010′ and one of them delves into Nancy Pelosi. In my view, the work on Pelosi relates entirely to the Constitution and the protection of our Republic: we now have avowed communists in the White House, the Senate and House, and in the shadow czar government that Obama has assembled and that Congress is enabling. Spotlight on the Speaker (a) Extraordinary & Unnecessary Bias and Partisanship One of the key architects of Obama’s ‘victory’ in 2008 was Nancy Pelosi. She, like many other socalled “democrats” as super delegates, chastised people to vote for ‘the people’s choice’ and then changed her mind and chastised people the other way when Clinton won the popular vote. As Chair of the Democratic National Convention, she manipulated the vote on the convention floor in favor of Obama. Most crucially, Nancy Pelosi signed the documents allowing Obama to be on the state ballots as the Democratic Presidential nominee, the subject of the must read post by jbjd, The End Game. On January 8th, 2009, she presided over the joint session of Congress to
certify the electoral vote despite the petitions of hundreds, if not thousands, of citizens to certify Obama’s eligibility before concluding the vote. Nancy Pelosi has exercised no leadership during tenure. She has misrepresented legislation, imposed silly partisan rules that allow her to prevent legislation from even being presented on the floor or in committee by any opponent, and openly calls her constituents racists, bigots, and frauds. This is conduct unbecoming of a “Speaker of the House”… acting like a Chicago thug transplanted to San Francisco. (b) “You Lie!” When Joe Wilson rightly called out ‘you lie!’ to Obama, Nancy Pelosi looked in disbelief, and of course, ‘made him’ apologize…for telling the truth of course. She is a petty tyrant as a Speaker, for sure. But when a fellow democrat Alan Grayson accused the republican health care plan of ‘wanting seniors to die quickly’–precisely the democrats plan–she refused to have him apologize. She refused to have him apologize for telling a lie, but demanded that Wilson apologize for telling the truth. Hmmm.
And I don’t believe for a minute it had anything to do with a Presidential address (Wilson) vs. a statement on the House floor (Grayson). “No Protocol Pelosi” has not a leg to stand on. (c) The Speaker of the House is Calling us Idiots, and Worse So Pelosi represents a tiny district in California, composed of a small, tiny, segment of the population, and she calls the rest of America thugs?
(As of march 23, 2010, Pelosi’ approval rating is 11%.)
IMPEACHMENT of OBAMA & PELOSI IS IN ORDER
Impeach Obama & Pelosi
By Jeffrey T Kuhner Washington Times March 19, 2010
The Democrats are assaulting the very pillars of our democracy. As the debate on Obamacare reaches the long, painful end, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is confronting a
political nightmare. She may not have the 216 votes necessary to pass the Senate's health care bill in the House. Hence, Mrs. Pelosi and her congressional Democratic allies are seriously considering using a procedural ruse to circumvent the traditional constitutional process. Led by Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, New York Democrat and chairman of the House Rules Committee, the new plan - called the "Slaughter Solution" - is not to pass the Senate version on an up-or-down vote. Rather, it is to have the House "deem" that the legislation was passed and then have members vote directly on a series of "sidecar" amendments to fix the things it does not like. This would enable House Democrats to avoid going on the record voting for provisions in the Senate bill - the "Cornhusker Kickback," the "Louisiana Purchase," the tax on high-cost so-called "Cadillac" insurance plans - that are reviled by the public or labor-union bosses. If the reconciliation fixes pass, the House can send the Senate bill to President Obama for his signature without ever having had a formal up-or-down vote on the underlying legislation. Many Democrats could claim they opposed the Senate bill while allowing it to pass. This would be an unprecedented violation of our democratic norms and procedures, established since the inception of the republic. Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution stipulates that for any bill to become a law, it must pass both the House of Representatives and the Senate. That is, not be "deemed" to have passed, but actually be voted on with the support of the required majority. The bill must contain the exact same language in both chambers - and in the version signed by the president - to be a legitimate law. This is why the House and Senate have a conference committee to iron out differences of competing versions. This is Civics 101.
The Slaughter Solution is a dagger aimed at the heart of our system of checks and balances. It would enable the Democrats to establish an ominous precedent: The lawmaking process can be rigged to ensure the passage of any legislation without democratic accountability or even a congressional majority. It is the road to a soft tyranny. James Madison must be turning in his grave. Mr. Obama is imposing a leftist revolution. Since coming to office, he has behaved without any constitutional restraints. The power of the federal government has exploded. He has de facto nationalized key sectors of American life - the big banks, financial institutions, the automakers, large tracts of energyrich land from Montana to New Mexico. His cap-and-trade proposal, along with a newly empowered Environmental Protection Agency, seeks to impose massive new taxes and regulations upon industry. It is a form of green socialism: Much of the economy would fall under a command-andcontrol bureaucratic corporatist state. Mr. Obama even wants the government to take over student loans. Yet his primary goal has always been to gobble up the health care system. The most troubling aspect of the Obamacare debate, however, is not the measure's sweeping and radical aims - the transformation of one-sixth of the U.S. economy, crippling tax increases, higher premiums, state-sanctioned rationing, longer waiting lines, the erosion of the quality of medical care and the creation of a huge, permanent administrative bureaucracy. Rather, the most alarming aspect is the lengths to which the Democrats are willing to go to achieve their progressive, anti-capitalist agenda. Obamacare is opposed by nearly two-thirds of the public, more than 60 percent of independents and almost all Republicans and conservatives. It has badly fractured the country,
dangerously polarizing it along ideological and racial lines. Even a majority of Democrats in the House are deeply reluctant to support it. Numerous states - from Idaho to Virginia to Texas - have said they will sue the federal government should Obamacare become law. They will declare themselves exempt from its provisions, tying up the legislation in the courts for years to come. Mr. Obama is willing to devour his presidency, his party's congressional majority and - most disturbing - our democratic institutional safeguards to enact it. He is a reckless ideologue who is willing to sacrifice the country's stability in pursuit of a socialist utopia. The Slaughter Solution is a poisoned chalice. By drinking from it, the Democrats would not only commit political suicide. They would guarantee that any bill signed by Mr. Obama is illegitimate, illegal and blatantly unconstitutional. It would be worse than a strategic blunder; it would be a crime - a moral crime against the American people and a direct abrogation of the Constitution and our very democracy. It would open Mr. Obama, as well as key congressional leaders such as Mrs. Pelosi, to impeachment. The Slaughter Solution would replace the rule of law with arbitrary one-party rule. It violates the entire basis of our constitutional government meeting the threshold of "high crimes and misdemeanors." If it's enacted, Republicans should campaign for the November elections not only on repealing Obamacare, but on removing Mr. Obama and his gang of leftist thugs from office. It is time Americans drew a line in the sand. Mr. Obama crosses it at his peril.
Jeffrey T. Kuhner is a columnist at The Washington Times and president of the Edmund Burke Institute, a Washington think tank. He is the daily host of "The Kuhner Show" on WTNT 570-AM (www.talk570.com) from noon until 3 p.m.
Barack Obama: Super Hero Falls to Earth
Posted by admin on March 4, 2010 · Comments (30)
Barack Obama was feted by many as a messiah. His supporters compared him to Jesus. He even equated himself to Superman, saying at a dinner that he had been “born on Krypton and sent
here … to save the planet Earth.” The remark was presented as a joke, but the effect of Obama’s ego is no laughing matter. Now, just over a year into his term, his legislative agenda lies in ruins. Despite poll after poll showing that Americans’ main priority is jobs, the president has focused on taking over the U.S. healthcare system. Observing the wreckage, noted political pundit Charlie Cook candidly told Politico, “I think choosing to take a Captain Ahab-like approach to healthcare — I’m going to push for this even in the worst downturn since the Great Depression — is roughly comparable to Bush’s decision to go to war [in Iraq], It basically destroyed the first year of a presidency.” What a fall, from “Super Hero” to obsessed Captain Ahab chasing his great white whale. To save his whale, Obama and his legislative allies Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are resorting to bare knuckled politics. The aptly named “nuclear option,” a classic piece of legislative trickery involving the reconciliation fast-track, which he denounced while campaigning, has become his final option. Rather than a white whale, we should call ObamaCare his white elephant. Even if it passes, most knowledgeable legal scholars believe it will be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
Matt Patterson, in an analysis prepared for the National Center for Public Policy Research, says the bill is unconstitutional for multiple reasons: “Both the House and Senate versions of ObamaCare contain penalty taxes on Americans who do not have governmentapproved health insurance, the so-called ‘individual mandate.’ Such a tax would function as a direct, or capitation, tax, as opposed to a tax on activity, such as excise or income taxes, and would therefore fall outside Congress’ authority to tax income granted by the 16th Amendment to the Constitution.” The Constitution places strict restrictions on Congress’ power to lay capitation taxes under Article I, Sec. 9, which reads “No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” Exemptions for some people built into the Senate bill’s individual mandate tax would make it impossible for ObamaCare to meet this constitutional standard. Patterson summarizes this way, “Some of the finest legal minds in the country have concluded that the enforcement provisions of ObamaCare’s individual mandate would violate the both spirit and the letter of the U.S. Constitution. Apparently, President Obama and members of Congress think they are smarter than these scholars — and smarter than the authors of the Constitution.”
The penalties for following Obama on his search for Moby Dick will be brutal for Democrats in Congress. With over 60 percent of Americans opposed to Obamacare the fall campaign could turn into a referendum on this unwise scheme. Senior citizens are understandably upset by the massive $400 Billion-plus cuts in Medicare mandated in the plan. Democrats are predicted to lose dozens of congressional seats, and they could even lose their Senate or House majorities. Even if the Democrats don’t lose their majorities, and the new Congress doesn’t have the votes to repeal ObamaCare, the Supreme Court is likely to do the job. And they should; the bill isn’t just unconstitutional, full of new taxes, too big and unmanageable — it is unAmerican.
Questions about Impeaching Obama
Posted by admin on January 5, 2010 · Comments (197)
We receive hundreds of questions a day here at impeachobamacampaign.com. Between me and the dedicated and talented Inga O’Connor, we try to answer them all. Because these questions are often times similar, I would like use today’s blog posting to answer some of these questions. Cindy S writes: “I would like to make a video to post on YouTube in order to let people know what to do to get Obama impeached if they so desire. My question is: Will you give me permission to use
some of your written material in my video? I believe this would be very successful in getting this accomplished.” Dear Cindy, You are always welcome to use any material you find on any of the websites I publish. I publish for the purpose of informing people, and by forwarding, quoting and otherwise spreading the message, you are helping the cause. The other websites that I publish are Westernjournalism.com, exposeobama.com, exposeharry.com, richguysclub.com, soundmoneyinstitute.com, thewhitehousewatch.com and floydbrown.com. I also post lots of photos at my flckr.com photo stream that you can use. I would only request that you attribute the material to the original source. Some of the material I publish is owned by others and I always attribute the material to the original source and would appreciate you doing likewise. Cajun writes: So how many signatures are needed to impeach this sucker? There doesn’t seem to be any type of register showing the number of signatures already in place. What about impeaching Pelosi & Reid and whoever else isn’t for Americans? Dear Cajun, Presidents are not impeached by signatures. The purpose of gathering the signatures is to demonstrate public support so we can make the case to Members of Congress to introduce Articles of Impeachment. I am currently working hard to find a Congressman or woman who will have the courage to file the articles that have been drafted by our legal team. None have agreed to do it yet.
Also, a successful campaign for impeachment will take at least a year because the makeup of Congress must change if we are going to have the necessary votes to impeach. Right now, we are building toward impeachment in 2011 after we elect a proimpeachment majority in Congress. As for the number of signatures collected, currently we have collected 150,000 validated signatures. We collect signatures both online and directly through the mail. 105,000 petitions have been collected online and 45,000 have been directly signed. As for Pelosi and Reid, if we change Congress, they will be of greatly diminished importance. A bigger problem is Joseph Biden. He will become President if he is not impeached along with Barack Hussein Obama. But if we have commanding majorities in both houses of Congress, we can impeach them both and appoint a caretaker President like Gerald Ford was, until the next general elections. Ruth M writes “I have to say that “Warm Regards”, is certainly a strange concluding salutation for some of the frightening information you have recently emailed to us. I thank you immensely for all your work, but we are getting very scared. Something needs to be done. Very Soon. If you want it done by us, let us know what to do. Some will start going off the deep end very soon, I fear.” Dear Ruth, My salutation is not a reflection of my feeling about the material I present; it is a reflection of how I feel about the Patriots who have stood with us, calling for impeachment. I believe the people that I communicate with are the most
informed, dedicated and American loving people on earth. I deeply respect and appreciate everyone who takes the time to sign our petition, pass a petition on to others, or even listens to our arguments in favor of impeachment. We are making progress. I am very pleased that we are ahead of all the goals we set for the collection of petitions. I am traveling to Washington DC this month to meet with Members of Congress to request their support in person. We also have the impeachment truck preparing to tour the country. With almost every passing day we have new reasons to remove this inexperienced, bumbling, leftist radical from the presidency. Barack Hussein Obama has become a collective embarrassment and the best way to handle this problem is using the tool given to us by the Founding Fathers. That tool is impeachment. Let me leave you with a quote from America’s first president, George Washington: The Power under the Constitution will always be in the People. It is entrusted for certain defined purposes, and for a certain limited period , to representatives of their own chusing; and whenever it is executed contrary to their Interest, or not agreeable to their wishes, their Servants can, and undoubtedly will be recalled. (To Bushrod Washington, November 10, 1787)
Obamacare and the end of freedom
Posted by admin on November 8, 2009 · Comments (2)
On Saturday Barack Obama held a pep rally with members of the Democratic caucus. They heeded his commands and late that night, under the cover of darkness, the US House of Representatives struck a blow against freedom. They voted to pass Obamacare, an unconstitutional, 1900 page monstrosity of a bill that will kill jobs and disrupt private healthcare for citizens who currently have health insurance. But I think most insidiously it forces everyone to buy a healthcare plan designed by these same
politicians. A bill they had the arrogance and hypocrisy to exempt themselves from participating in. Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and everyone else who voted for this bill should be ashamed. Instead they are triumphant. James Simpson writing in the American Thinker captured the cost we will all pay for their arrogance when he wrote Saturday: “The Congressional Budget Office has estimated the 10 year (2010-2019) cost of the House Democrats’ bill at $1.055 trillion. As usual, there is so much budget gimmickry in these estimates as to make them virtually meaningless. The Democrats are dishonest on so many levels about this healthcare "reform" it is almost impossible to untangle all their lies. Let’s start by clarifying some basic truths. First, who pays for healthcare right now? That’s right, the taxpayers who foot the bill not only for their own healthcare, but for illegal immigrants, the poor and seniors as well. (Some seniors continue to pay a premium for Medicare but it still doesn’t cover all the costs).
Who is feeling the pain of the rapid annual growth in healthcare costs that the Democrats claim so desperately to want to fix? Right, these same taxpayers. Some will argue that employers pick up most of the tab. That is true when employers offer healthcare policies to their employees, but it is an illusion. Businesses must make a profit to remain alive, so every cost they pick up is passed on to the consumer in higher prices. So, in reality, we pay.” It is disheartening to see so many have been hoodwinked by the propaganda machine supporting government controlled healthcare. Supporters of this scheme are jubilant. Obama himself writing to his loyal army of activists said: “So this is a night to celebrate — but not to rest. Those who voted for reform deserve our thanks, and the next phase of this fight has already begun.” And Obama was right about a fight, within minutes of the vote his political machine called "Organizing for America" was sending millions of deceptive emails lambasting Republicans as tools of greedy insurance firms. According to ABC News the emails were sent only into Republican Members districts and read like this:
"Unfortunately, your representative," which then names the Member of Congress, "caved to intense pressure from insurance industry lobbyists and voted against health reform." The emails are deceptive ABC reports because, “A Democratic official says the email is not being sent to constituents of the 39 Democratic Members of Congress who voted against the measure Saturday night.” Obama’s political hacks only attack Republicans. No surprise there. One group that is truly joyful is the homosexual/transgender lobby. They get everything from Obama and friends that they wanted in the Obamacare bill. They now have special early access to Medicaid for HIV positive people. You only get the early Medicaid benefit if you have HIV not if you have cancer, heart disease, diabetes or a raft of other diseases that attack the less sexually promiscuous. The only good news from the weekend was the announcement that the House bill is DOA in the US Senate. NEWSMAX reported: “The glow from a health care triumph faded quickly for President Barack Obama on Sunday as Democrats realized the bill they fought so hard
to pass in the House has nowhere to go in the Senate. Speaking from the Rose Garden about 14 hours after the late Saturday vote, Obama urged senators to be like runners on a relay team and "take the baton and bring this effort to the finish line on behalf of the American people." The problem is that the Senate won’t run with it. The government health insurance plan included in the House bill is unacceptable to a few Democratic moderates who hold the balance of power in the Senate. If a government plan is part of the deal, "as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote," said Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut independent whose vote Democrats need to overcome GOP filibusters. "The House bill is dead on arrival in the Senate," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said dismissively. Democrats did not line up to challenge him. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has yet to schedule floor debate and hinted last week that senators may not be able to finish health care this year.”
As you can see, we have our work cut out for us as we continue to battle the Obama socialist agenda as we gear up for the 2010 elections and the campaign for impeachment.
Obama and Pelosi Deaf to Voters
Posted by admin on November 5, 2009 · Comments (1) I am still feeling good about Tuesday. We have heard so much bad news out of Washington DC this year, it is important to savor the good news. It is clearer today that Obama and Pelosi are not listening. The only leader that even feigns concern is the corrupt leader of the Democrats in the US Senate, Harry Reid. Reid who is up for reelection this fall in Nevada went so far as to say he wouldn’t be “bound by timelines” concerning Obamacare. That’s a far cry from what president Obama said just last week. Specifically, that he was “absolutely confident” it would pass by the end of the year. If there was any doubt that Obamacare is in trouble, the results of Tuesday’s election should have provided the knockout blow. Below is my nationally syndicated column about Tuesday’s results.
The Conservative Resurgence Begins The American people have spoken, and a wave of change has begun. After last Tuesday’s election, Speaker of the House, Democrat Nancy Pelosi tried to claim victory. The leftwing media tried portraying the Republicans as a party at war. But the American people, specifically moderates and Independents, swung towards the Republicans in significant numbers. The electoral tides have shifted and if the Republican Party doesn’t waste this opportunity, they will ride the wave of economic discontent to major victories in 2010. Specifically, the Republicans swept the two governorships up for election in 2010. Although the GOP lost a competitive House seat in NY, the loss was a result of a corrupt nominating process, not conservative ideas. As C. Edmund Wright puts it “The Democrats did not lose a 2-1 squeaker last night. They lost two huge races, saw an overall evaporation of 25 basis points of support — and lost by nearly 500,000 cumulative votes in the three high-profile elections.” The best news of the day came from Virginia. Conservative candidate Bob McDonnell, an outspoken fiscal and social conservative, trounced Democrat Creigh Deeds by nearly 20%. The Republicans also defeated at least six incumbent democrats in the House of Delegates and won the important Lieutenant Governor and Attorney General’s races by comfortable margins. All three of the statewide candidates in Virginia, Bob McDonnell, Bill Bolling for Lt. Governor, and Ken Cuccinelli for Attorney General, were outspoken conservatives. The leftwing media tried downplaying Obama’s involvement in the Virginia rout, but Obama had personally campaigned for Deeds, and over the weekend Obama signed a personal letter urging 300,000 of his supporters to support the Democrat.
Evidently his calls fell on deaf ears as Independents broke two to one in favor of the Republican candidate. The news out of New Jersey was equally dismal for Democrats. Goldman Sachs millionaire John Corzine who had purchased his previous elections and outspent his opponent Chris Christie, by a three to one ratio, was rejected by the usually reliably Democratic electorate of New Jersey. This was a major setback for Obama as he had campaigned for Corzine multiple times including just a day before voters went to the polls. Just as in Virginia, voters in New Jersey threw out the incumbent and voted for a believer in limited government. Of the three closely watched elections, the only loss for conservatives came in upstate New York. Doug Hoffman, a hero of the conservative tea party movement was defeated 49% to 45%. This race was a boondoggle for Republicans, as the party bosses nominated a liberal who ended up dropping out of the race and endorsing the Democrat. If Hoffman had been able to run as a Republican he probably would have won the election. If the party bosses had nominated a real Republican – rather than a Democrat in disguise – the Republican candidate would have been in a good position to winl. The message from these results to the Republican Party and conservatives is that they need to stick together. The only way they lose in 2010 is if they sabotage themselves. Conservative candidates should compete in the primary system, and avoid launching third party bids for office. Senator John Cornyn states that the NRSC won’t interfere in competitive primaries, which is exactly what the party needs. If conservatives and moderates are both able to have a fair opportunity in the primary, and the loser agrees to support the winner, Republicans will emerge united and victorious. The message to Democrats is crystal clear. Voters are sick and tired of what is happening in Washington. The White House announced that Barack Obama didn’t bother watching the election returns. Maybe this is because Rahm Emanuel and the sycophants that surround Obama don’t have the courage to tell him his leftist agenda is unpopular. Government run Health care is unpopular. Huge new energy taxes are unpopular. His dithering in Afghanistan is unpopular. His bailouts and America’s rampant joblessness is unpopular. Barack Obama should be watching the election returns. If he was listening he would learn from Tuesday and take America down a less radical path. *
Obama vs. Bush: The Red Ink Showdown
Posted by admin on February 1, 2010 · Comments (55) “By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade,” Obama said in his State of the Union speech. “The Bush administration’s swing from surpluses to deficits added more debt in its eight years than all the previous administrations in the history of our republic combined,” David Axelrod, a senior strategist for Obama, wrote in The Washington Post.
The theme is clear. According to the Obama Administration deficits as far as the eye can see are the fault of one man: George W. Bush. They relentlessly push this message from the Obama White House. Let’s do a little fact checking. First it is important to understand that an Administration only suggests a budget. Under our form of government, Congress is actually in charge of appropriating money. Hence, you have a mad scramble every two years, when committee assignments are passed out with Members of Congress elbowing each other to get a seat on the aptly named “Committee on Appropriations”. So when Obama uses speeches to whine about the “fiscal disaster” he inherited from Bush, he should actually be complaining about the Democratic Congress run by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid that appropriated and adopted the budget during the later years of the Bush term. As the party that controlled Congress since January 2007, it is the Democrats that have held all the cards in the budget debate. They essentially wrote the budgets for FY 2008, FY 2009, as well as FY 2010 and FY 2011. Oh, and if we need to remind him, Barack Obama served in these Democratic majorities, so he cannot feign ignorance of the process.
George W. Bush’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) during those years were constantly in conflict with the appropriators over spending too much money. In FY 2009, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid actually bypassed Bush entirely, passing only continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. Then once Obama was safely in office they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the FY 2009 budgets. So what did the deficits look like during the time period Congress was controlled by the Democrats? In the FY 2007 budget, the last of the budgets written by Republicans the deficit was the lowest in the last five years, and it was the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. Once Democrats in Congress took control, the budgets and deficits exploded. The budget just unveiled by Obama’s team is so large and so out of control, he should be embarrassed to compare it to any of the Bush budgets. In a nutshell, the deficit will surge to a record-breaking $1.56 trillion. This tops the last shocking $1.41 trillion in red ink. And as Karl Rove pointed out in the Wall Street Journal, when measured against economic output, Obama looks even worse. “Mr. Bush’s deficits ran an average of 3.2 percent of GDP, slightly above the post-World War Two average of 2.7 percent. Mr. Obama’s plan calls for deficits that will average 4.2 percent over the next decade,” Rove wrote. The deficit will remain above $1 trillion, even in 2011 when Obama’s so-called “budget freeze” begins. This is because in an Obama freeze spending in a multitude of programs actually goes up.
So the next time you hear the Whiner-in-Chief complain about his predecessor, remember the Congress that appropriated the funds were the Congresses in which he served in the majority. So who inherited what?
Thomas Jefferson: “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.”
And here we sit today, with just such a government. A few votes on cap-and-trade and health care and we are there, with a distant uncaring government in Washington running roughshod over every individual in middle America. When I was a young boy, my parents took me and escaped a communist country under threat of arrest and who knows what else to come to the land of opportunity. They had the opportunity for freedom and self-determination. I had the opportunity for freedom and self-determination. Will my children? Will their children? I saw this interesting post over at The Minority report by David Heinz: Have We Become The People Our Founding Fathers Warned Us About? Our founding fathers were distrustful, and rightly so, of a strong centralized government, far from the control of the citizens, running roughshod over the rights of the individual. “Taxation without Representation” was more than just revolutionary rhetoric, but a founding principle on which local control of government was based. The original Boston Tea Party was more than a protest against taxes; it was a statement of independence and liberty against tyranny. They had experience with, and had just fought a war to gain independence from a tyrannical government that ruled with an iron fist, imposing the will of a distant monarch on an unwilling citizenry. Our founding fathers understood much about tyranny – they had a long world history of tyranny from which to observe and to learn. But what those patriarchs most feared was the “soft bigotry of low expectations” that would become the federal government today. Thomas Jefferson warned about a government with too much power. “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.”
Benjamin Franklin contrasted the difference between individual freedom and the security of government thus; “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” They warned about the emergence of the concept of a nanny state that would do for all its citizens what they rightly should be willing to do for themselves. Again, a cautionary statement from Thomas Jefferson, “The democracy will cease to exist when you
take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”
A cradle to grave dependency upon government to fulfill the simple wants and needs best left to the individual to either achieve or to fail was the greatest fear of those great men who had literally risked everything to obtain freedom for the people of this nation. "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor." Little could our founding fathers fathom the idea that “sacred Honor” would become an outdated concept, sneered upon by leaders in Washington, DC itself, who would find it necessary to apologize for American Exceptionalism to a world desperately in need of that very quality. Benjamin Franklin might have summed it up best when he said, "None but a virtuous people are capable of liberty, all others are in need of a master; revolutions cannot take place without danger when the people have not sufficient virtue." The question today must become – do WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES still retain sufficient virtue to retain our
freedoms – to deserve the blessings of liberty that our founding fathers shed their blood to obtain for all of their progeny? Many, yes. A majority maybe. Probably. But there is an entire segment of our population that is either already addicted to government dependency, or are well on their way to being so. Many in the government wait in hiding with a simple proposition: "hey pal. First hit's free." There's also this lesson from EFF posted by Steven Foley also at The Minority Report:
Have We Become The People Our Founding Fathers Warned Us About?
By David Hinz - Posted on July 4th, 2009 Tagged: Op-Ed
Our founding fathers were distrustful, and rightly so, of a strong centralized government, far from the control of the citizens, running roughshod over the rights of the individual. “Taxation without Representation” was more than just revolutionary rhetoric, but a founding principle on which local control of government was based. The original Boston Tea Party was more than a protest against taxes; it was a statement of independence and liberty against tyranny.
They had experience with, and had just fought a war to gain independence from a tyrannical government that ruled with an iron fist, imposing the will of a distant monarch on an unwilling citizenry. Our founding fathers understood much about tyranny – they had a long world history of tyranny from which to observe and to learn. But what those patriarchs most feared was the “soft bigotry of low expectations” that would become the federal government today. Thomas Jefferson warned about a government with too much power. “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.” Benjamin Franklin contrasted the difference between individual freedom and the security of government thus; “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” They warned about the emergence of the concept of a nanny state that would do for all its citizens what they rightly should be willing to do for themselves. Again, a cautionary statement from Thomas Jefferson, “The democracy will cease to exist
when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” A cradle to grave dependency upon government to fulfill the simple wants and needs best left to the individual to either achieve or to fail was the greatest fear of those great men who had literally risked everything to obtain freedom for the people of this nation. "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor." Little could our founding fathers fathom the idea that “sacred Honor” would become an outdated concept, sneered upon by leaders in Washington, DC itself, who would find it necessary to apologize for American Exceptionalism to a world desperately in need of that very quality. Benjamin Franklin might have summed it up best when he said, "None but a virtuous people are capable of liberty, all others are in need of a master; revolutions cannot take place without danger when the people have not sufficient virtue." The question today must become – do WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES still retain sufficient virtue to retain our freedoms – to deserve the blessings of liberty that our founding fathers shed their blood to obtain for all of their progeny?
When Policy Favors Equality Above All Else. InequalityLeft-wingers are obsessed with economic inequality. Far too many of them believe that America is a brutal land where the rich only get rich at the expense of the poor, as if wealth is a zero sum game. Far too many imagine an America that is unfair and mean. Far too many fail to recognize the fact that America remains the land of opportunity, with unparalleled upward mobility. Far too many resent or ignore the fact that Americans can take great risks and achieve fantastic dream-like success. Far too many believe that socialist confiscation and redistribution of wealth will solve America's inequality "problem." They even sometimes offer unsolicited and random comments like this on blogs: Huh--may be the the fact that a lot of working-class Americans are not seeing the benefits of the economy's strength. We're pretty much leading the world in terms of income inequality, if you didn't know, because of our currently regressive tax policies. Sigh. No. To the extent that Americans actually believe that nonsense, it's due to an unconscionable and unethical media
failure. In recent years, Americans have consistently rated their own current and future economic situations as rosy, all while telling pollsters how bad they believe the overall economy to be doing. There's no way, with the widely enjoyed economic success America has experienced over the past few years, that these numbers should be so low. No way, other than a media dominated by liberals, disseminating consistently liberal viewpoints, to an unwitting audience No matter how awesome things are going, there will be Marxists who want to go and ruin it with-- among other things-- "a heavy progressive or graduated income tax." For example, The Economic Policy Institute, an ultraliberal think tank owned by big labor, produced the following graph, tweaked slightly by yours truly (.pdf):
So... that's the inequality we're supposed to work toward eliminating. Tim Worstall notes: All those punitive tax rates, all that redistribution, that blessed egalitarianism, the flatter distribution of income, leads to a change in the living standards of the poor of precisely ... nothing. Apparently it has not yet dawned on the socialists that American inequality coincides with, contributes to, and is a result of American greatness. We've always been a society predicated on inequality. As Don King might say, "only in America" can almost anyone with a good idea or some talent, simply willing to take calculated risks, get rich beyond their wildest dreams. This goes for entertainers, athletes, and entrepreneurs, alike.
But America is about more than chasing fabulous riches. The regular old middle class American dream is eminently attainable. Indeed, Rich Lowry explains that, in an economy with 4.5% unemployment, simply working (rather than not working) is the key to avoiding poverty: The key difference between the richest and poorest households, Reynolds finds, is simply work: “Most income in the top fifth of households is from two or more people working full time. Most income in the bottom fifth is from government transfer payments.” According to the Census Bureau, there are almost six times as many full-time workers in the top households as in the bottom, and 56.4 percent of the bottom households didn’t have anyone working at all in 2004. The "working poor" theorem just doesn't hold up. And with 7 million net new jobs since the 2003 tax cuts, the nonworking poor theorem also doesn't hold up. More from Lowry: “The vanishing middle class” is another claim Reynolds doesn’t buy. If the middle class is perpetually defined as those earning between $35,000 and $50,000, it will constantly be vanishing as people get richer. In this vein, one liberal study complained that 31.3 percent of families earned more than $75,000 in 2002, whereas only 11.1 percent earned that much in 1969. “By this measure,” it concluded, “America’s broad middle class has been
shrinking.” No, members of the middle class were getting richer. Our middle class is doing so well that, statisticallyspeaking, many liberals find it difficult to continue using the "middle class" nomenclature. To the extent that the American middle class is disappearing, it's that it is on the move-- upward. America has lower unemployment and a faster growing economy (on top of an already-larger economy) than any other industrialized country in the world. And after a few years of lagging wage growth, the case for raising the minimum wage has taken a major blow, with a brisk rise in American wages over the past year:
Indeed, the picture looks far better if you account for aftertax income. The tax relief every American has seen under this administration has led to after-tax, after-inflation income growth of 9.4% per person. When left-wingers complain about inequality, they are really just complaining about success. When they want the United States to be more like Europe (with its wonderful
equality), they really just hate precisely what makes America great. Their policy remedies for inequality amount to the worst sort of punitive socialism, and we should reject them outright.
Speech Accepting the Republican Presidential Nomination
delivered 16 July 1964, San Francisco
Presidential Nomination Acceptance Address
[AUTHENTICITY CERTIFIED: Text version below transcribed directly from audio] My good friend and great Republican, Dick Nixon, and your charming wife, Pat; my running mate, that wonderful Republican who has served us so well for so long, Bill Miller and his wife, Stephanie; to Thurston Morton who's done such a commendable job in chairmaning this Convention; to Mr. Herbert Hoover, who I hope is watching; and to that -- that great American and his wife, General and Mrs. Eisenhower; to my own wife, my family, and to all of my fellow Republicans here assembled, and Americans across this great Nation. From this moment, united and determined, we will go forward together, dedicated to the ultimate and undeniable greatness of the whole man. Together -- Together we will win. I accept your nomination with a deep sense of humility. I accept, too, the responsibility that goes with it, and I seek your continued help and your continued guidance. My fellow Republicans, our cause is too great for any man to feel worthy of it. Our task would be too great for any man, did he not have with him the hearts and the hands of this great Republican Party, and I promise you tonight that every fiber of my being is consecrated to
our cause; that nothing shall be lacking from the struggle that can be brought to it by enthusiasm, by devotion, and plain hard work. In this world no person, no Party can guarantee anything, but what we can do and what we shall do is to deserve victory, and victory will be ours. The good Lord raised this mighty Republic to be a home for the brave and to flourish as the land of the free -- not to stagnate in the swampland of collectivism, not to cringe before the bullying of communism. Now, my fellow Americans, the tide has been running against freedom. Our people have followed false prophets. We must, and we shall, return to proven ways -- not because they are old, but because they are true. We must, and we shall, set the tides running again in the cause of freedom. And this party, with its every action, every word, every breath, and every heartbeat, has but a single resolve, and that is freedom -- freedom made orderly for this Nation by our constitutional government; freedom under a government limited by the laws of nature and of nature's God; freedom balanced so that order lacking liberty [sic] will not become the slavery of the prison shell
[cell]; balanced so that liberty lacking order will not become the license of the mob and of the jungle. Now, we Americans understand freedom. We have earned it; we have lived for it, and we have died for it. This Nation and its people are freedom's model in a searching world. We can be freedom's missionaries in a doubting world. But, ladies and gentlemen, first we must renew freedom's mission in our own hearts and in our own homes. During four futile years, the administration which we shall replace has -- has distorted and lost that vision. It has talked and talked and talked and talked the words of freedom, but it has failed and failed and failed in the works of freedom. Now, failures cement the wall of shame in Berlin. Failures blot the sands of shame at the Bay of Pigs. Failures mark the slow death of freedom in Laos. Failures infest the jungles of Vietnam. And failures haunt the houses of our once great alliances and undermine the greatest bulwark ever erected by free nations -- the NATO community. Failures proclaim lost leadership, obscure purpose, weakening will,
and the risk of inciting our sworn enemies to new aggressions and to new excesses. And because of this administration we are tonight a world divided; we are a Nation becalmed. We have lost the brisk pace of diversity and the genius of individual creativity. We are plodding along at a pace set by centralized planning, red tape, rules without responsibility, and regimentation without recourse. Rather than useful jobs in our country, our people have been offered bureaucratic "make work"; rather than moral leadership, they have been given bread and circuses. They have been given spectacles, and, yes, they've even been given scandals. Tonight, there is violence in our streets, corruption in our highest offices, aimlessness amongst our youth, anxiety among our elders, and there's a virtual despair among the many who look beyond material success for the inner meaning of their lives. And where examples of morality should be set, the opposite is seen. Small men, seeking great wealth or power, have too often and too long turned even the highest levels of public service into mere personal opportunity.
Now, certainly, simple honesty is not too much to demand of men in government. We find it in most. Republicans demand it from everyone. They demand it from everyone no matter how exalted or protected his position might be. Now the -- the growing menace in our country tonight, to personal safety, to life, to limb and property, in homes, in churches, on the playgrounds, and places of business, particularly in our great cities, is the mounting concern, or should be, of every thoughtful citizen in the United States. Security from domestic violence, no less than from foreign aggression, is the most elementary and fundamental purpose of any government, and a government that cannot fulfill this purpose is one that cannot long command the loyalty of its citizens. History shows us -- it demonstrates that nothing, nothing prepares the way for tyranny more than the failure of public officials to keep the streets safe from bullies and marauders. Now, we Republicans see all this as more, much more, than the result of mere political differences or mere political mistakes. We see this as the result of a fundamentally and absolutely wrong view of man, his nature, and
his destiny. Those who seek to live your lives for you, to take your liberties in return for relieving you of yours, those who elevate the state and downgrade the citizen must see ultimately a world in which earthly power can be substituted for Divine Will, and this Nation was founded upon the rejection of that notion and upon the acceptance of God as the author of freedom. Now those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. They -- and let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed. Their mistaken course stems from false notions, ladies and gentlemen, of equality. Equality, rightly understood, as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences. Wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism. Fellow Republicans, it is the cause of Republicanism to resist concentrations of power, private or public, which -- which
enforce such conformity and inflict such despotism. It is the cause of Republicanism to ensure that power remains in the hands of the people. And, so help us God, that is exactly what a Republican President will do with the help of a Republican Congress. It is further the cause of Republicanism to restore a clear understanding of the tyranny of man over man in the world at large. It is our cause to dispel the foggy thinking which avoids hard decisions in the delusion that a world of conflict will somehow mysteriously resolve itself into a world of harmony, if we just don't rock the boat or irritate the forces of aggression -- and this is hogwash. It is further the cause of Republicanism to remind ourselves, and the world, that only the strong can remain free, that only the strong can keep the peace. Now, I needn't remind you, or my fellow Americans regardless of party, that Republicans have shouldered this hard responsibility and marched in this cause before. It was Republican leadership under Dwight Eisenhower that kept the peace, and passed along to this administration the mightiest arsenal for defense the world has
ever known. And I needn't remind you that it was the strength and the [un]believable will of the Eisenhower years that kept the peace by using our strength, by using it in the Formosa Straits and in Lebanon and by showing it courageously at all times. It was during those Republican years that the thrust of Communist imperialism was blunted. It was during those years of Republican leadership that this world moved closer, not to war, but closer to peace, than at any other time in the last three decades. And I needn't remind you -- but I will -- that it's been during Democratic years that our strength to deter war has stood still, and even gone into a planned decline. It has been during Democratic years that we have weakly stumbled into conflict, timidly refusing to draw our own lines against aggression, deceitfully refusing to tell even our people of our full participation, and tragically, letting our finest men die on battlefields, unmarked by purpose, unmarked by pride or the prospect of victory. Yesterday, it was Korea. Tonight, it is Vietnam. Make no bones of this. Don't try to sweep this under the rug. We are at war in Vietnam. And yet the President, who is the Commander-in-
Chief of our forces, refuses to say -- refuses to say, mind you, whether or not the objective over there is victory. And his Secretary of Defense continues to mislead and misinform the American people, and enough of it has gone by. And I needn't remind you -- but I will -- it has been during Democratic years that a billion persons were cast into Communist captivity and their fate cynically sealed. Today -- Today in our beloved country we have an administration which seems eager to deal with communism in every coin known -- from gold to wheat, from consulates to confidences, and even human freedom itself. Now the Republican cause demands that we brand communism as the principal disturber of peace in the world today. Indeed, we should brand it as the only significant disturber of the peace, and we must make clear that until its goals of conquest are absolutely renounced and its relations with all nations tempered, communism and the governments it now controls are enemies of every man on earth who is or wants to be free. Now, we here in America can keep the peace only if we remain vigilant and only if we remain
strong. Only if we keep our eyes open and keep our guard up can we prevent war. And I want to make this abundantly clear: I don't intend to let peace or freedom be torn from our grasp because of lack of strength or lack of will -- and that I promise you, Americans. I believe that we must look beyond the defense of freedom today to its extension tomorrow. I believe that the communism which boasts it will bury us will, instead, give way to the forces of freedom. And I can see in the distant and yet recognizable future the outlines of a world worthy of our dedication, our every risk, our every effort, our every sacrifice along the way. Yes, a world that will redeem the suffering of those who will be liberated from tyranny. I can see -- and I suggest that all thoughtful men must contemplate -- the flowering of an Atlantic civilization, the whole of Europe reunified and freed, trading openly across its borders, communicating openly across the world. Now, this is a goal far, far more meaningful than a moon shot. It's a -- It's a truly inspiring goal for all free men to set for themselves during the latter half of the twentieth century.
I can also see -- and all free men must thrill to -- the events of this Atlantic civilization joined by its great ocean highway to the United States. What a destiny! What a destiny can be ours to stand as a great central pillar linking Europe, the Americas, and the venerable and vital peoples and cultures of the Pacific. I can see a day when all the Americas, North and South, will be linked in a mighty system, a system in which the errors and misunderstandings of the past will be submerged one by one in a rising tide of prosperity and interdependence. We know that the misunderstandings of centuries are not to be wiped away in a day or wiped away in an hour. But we pledge, we pledge that human sympathy -- what our neighbors to the South call an attitude of "simpatico" -- no less than enlightened self'-interest will be our guide. And I can see this Atlantic civilization galvanizing and guiding emergent nations everywhere. Now I know this freedom is not the fruit of every soil. I know that our own freedom was achieved through centuries, by unremitting efforts of brave and wise men. And I know that the road to freedom is a long and a challenging road. And I know also that some men may
walk away from it, that some men resist challenge, accepting the false security of governmental paternalism. And I -- And I pledge that the America I envision in the years ahead will extend its hand in health, in teaching and in cultivation, so that all new nations will be at least encouraged -- encouraged! -- to go our way, so that they will not wander down the dark alleys of tyranny or the dead-end streets of collectivism. My fellow Republicans, we do no man a service by hiding freedom's light under a bushel of mistaken humility. I seek an America proud of its past, proud of its ways, proud of its dreams, and determined actively to proclaim them. But our example to the world must, like charity, begin at home. In our vision of a good and decent future, free and peaceful, there must be room, room for deliberation of the energy and the talent of the individual; otherwise our vision is blind at the outset. We must assure a society here which, while never abandoning the needy or forsaking the helpless, nurtures incentives and opportunities
for the creative and the productive. We must know the whole good is the product of many single contributions. And I cherish a day when our children once again will restore as heroes the sort of men and women who, unafraid and undaunted, pursue the truth, strive to cure disease, subdue and make fruitful our natural environment and produce the inventive engines of production, science, and technology. This Nation, whose creative people have enhanced this entire span of history, should again thrive upon the greatness of all those things which we, we as individual citizens, can and should do. And during Republican years, this again will be a nation of men and women, of families proud of their role, jealous of their responsibilities, unlimited in their aspirations -a Nation where all who can will be self-reliant. We Republicans see in our constitutional form of government the great framework which assures the orderly but dynamic fulfillment of the whole man, and we see the whole man as the great reason for instituting orderly government in the first place.
We see -- We see in private property and in economy based upon and fostering private property, the one way to make government a durable ally of the whole man, rather than his determined enemy. We see in the sanctity of private property the only durable foundation for constitutional government in a free society. And -- And beyond that, we see, in cherished diversity of ways, diversity of thoughts, of motives and accomplishments. We don't seek to lead anyone's life for him. We only seek -only seek to secure his rights, guarantee him opportunity -- guarantee him opportunity to strive, with government performing only those needed and constitutionally sanctioned tasks which cannot otherwise be performed. We Republicans seek a government that attends to its inherent responsibilities of maintaining a stable monetary and fiscal climate, encouraging a free and a competitive economy and enforcing law and order. Thus, do we seek inventiveness, diversity, and creative difference within a stable order, for we Republicans define government's role where needed at many, many levels -- preferably, though, the one closest to the people involved. Our towns and our cities, then our counties, then our states, then our regional compacts --
and only then, the national government. That, let me remind you, is the ladder of liberty, built by decentralized power. On it also we must have balance between the branches of government at every level. Balance, diversity, creative difference: These are the elements of the Republican equation. Republicans agree -- Republicans agree heartily to disagree on many, many of their applications, but we have never disagreed on the basic fundamental issues of why you and I are Republicans. This is a Party. This Republican Party is a Party for free men, not for blind followers, and not for conformists. In fact, in 1858 Abraham Lincoln said this of the Republican party -- and I quote him, because he probably could have said it during the last week or so: "It was composed of strange, discordant, and even hostile elements" -- end of the quote -- in 1858. Yet -Yet all of these elements agreed on one paramount objective: To arrest the progress of slavery, and place it in the course of ultimate extinction. Today, as then, but more urgently and more broadly than then, the task of preserving and
enlarging freedom at home and of safeguarding it from the forces of tyranny abroad is great enough to challenge all our resources and to require all our strength. Anyone who joins us in all sincerity, we welcome. Those who do not care for our cause, we don't expect to enter our ranks in any case. And -- And let our Republicanism, so focused and so dedicated, not be made fuzzy and futile by unthinking and stupid labels.
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Why the beauty of the very system we Republicans are pledged to restore and revitalize, the beauty of this Federal system of ours is in its reconciliation of diversity with unity. We must not see malice in honest differences of opinion, and no matter how great, so long as they are not inconsistent with the pledges we have given to each other in and through our Constitution.
Our Republican cause is not to level out the world or make its people conform in computer regimented sameness. Our Republican cause is to free our people and light the way for liberty throughout the world. Ours is a very human cause for very humane goals. This Party, its good people, and its unquenchable devotion to freedom, will not fulfill the purposes of this campaign, which we launch here and now, until our cause has won the day, inspired the world, and shown the way to a tomorrow worthy of all our yesteryears. I repeat, I accept your nomination with humbleness, with pride, and you and I are going to fight for the goodness of our land. Thank you.
A Time for Choosing (aka "The Speech")
Air date 27 October 1964, Los Angeles, CA
Audio mp3 of Address
click for pdf
[AUTHENTICITY CERTIFIED: Text version below transcribed directly from audio (2)]
Program Announcer: Ladies and gentlemen, we take pride in presenting a thoughtful address by Ronald Reagan. Mr. Reagan: Reagan: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn't been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own words and discuss my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks. I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used, "We've never had it so good." But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn't something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that
reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector's share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. We haven't balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We've raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world. We have 15 billion dollars in gold in our treasury; we don't own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are 27.3 billion dollars. And we've just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value. As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We're at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it's
been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think it's time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers. Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, "We don't know how lucky we are." And the Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to." And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there's no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth. And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a
far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves. You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down: [up] man's old -- old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course. In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the "Great Society," or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. But they've been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say, "The cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism." Another voice says, "The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state." Or, "Our traditional system of individual freedom is
incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century." Senator Fulbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as "our moral teacher and our leader," and he says he is "hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document." He must "be freed," so that he "can do for us" what he knows "is best." And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as "meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government." Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as "the masses." This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government" -- this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that
outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy. Now, we have no better example of this than government's involvement in the farm economy over the last 30 years. Since 1955, the cost of this program has nearly doubled. One-fourth of farming in America is responsible for 85% of the farm surplus. Three-fourths of farming is out on the free market and has known a 21% increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce. You see, that one-fourth of farming -- that's regulated and controlled by the federal government. In the last three years we've spent 43 dollars in the feed grain program for every dollar bushel of corn we don't grow. Senator Humphrey last week charged that Barry Goldwater, as President, would seek to eliminate farmers. He should do his homework a little better, because he'll find out that we've had a decline of 5 million in the farm population under these government programs. He'll also find that the Democratic administration has sought to get from Congress [an] extension of the farm program to include that three-fourths that is now free. He'll find that they've also asked for the right
to imprison farmers who wouldn't keep books as prescribed by the federal government. The Secretary of Agriculture asked for the right to seize farms through condemnation and resell them to other individuals. And contained in that same program was a provision that would have allowed the federal government to remove 2 million farmers from the soil. At the same time, there's been an increase in the Department of Agriculture employees. There's now one for every 30 farms in the United States, and still they can't tell us how 66 shiploads of grain headed for Austria disappeared without a trace and Billie Sol Estes never left shore. Every responsible farmer and farm organization has repeatedly asked the government to free the farm economy, but how -- who are farmers to know what's best for them? The wheat farmers voted against a wheat program. The government passed it anyway. Now the price of bread goes up; the price of wheat to the farmer goes down. Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal the assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights [are] so diluted that public interest is almost anything a few
government planners decide it should be. In a program that takes from the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio, a million-and-a-half-dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a "more compatible use of the land." The President tells us he's now going to start building public housing units in the thousands, where heretofore we've only built them in the hundreds. But FHA [Federal Housing Authority] and the Veterans Administration tell us they have 120,000 housing units they've taken back through mortgage foreclosure. For three decades, we've sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan. The latest is the Area Redevelopment Agency. They've just declared Rice County, Kansas, a depressed area. Rice County, Kansas, has two hundred oil wells, and the 14,000 people there have over 30 million dollars on deposit in personal savings in their banks. And when the government tells you you're depressed, lie down and be depressed.
We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they're going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer -- and they've had almost 30 years of it -- shouldn't we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing? But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater; the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now we're told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than 3,000 dollars a year. Welfare spending [is] 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We're spending 45 billion dollars on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you'll find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among those 9 million poor families, we'd be able to give each
family 4,600 dollars a year. And this added to their present income should eliminate poverty. Direct aid to the poor, however, is only running only about 600 dollars per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead. Now -- so now we declare "war on poverty," or "You, too, can be a Bobby Baker." Now do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add 1 billion dollars to the 45 billion we're spending, one more program to the 30-odd we have -and remember, this new program doesn't replace any, it just duplicates existing programs -- do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic? Well, in all fairness I should explain there is one part of the new program that isn't duplicated. This is the youth feature. We're now going to solve the dropout problem, juvenile delinquency, by reinstituting something like the old CCC camps [Civilian Conservation Corps], and we're going to put our young people in these camps. But again we do some arithmetic, and we find that we're going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person we help 4,700 dollars a year. We can send them to Harvard for 2,700! Course, don't get me
wrong. I'm not suggesting Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency. But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help? Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young woman who'd come before him for a divorce. She had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning 250 dollars a month. She wanted a divorce to get an 80 dollar raise. She's eligible for 330 dollars a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who'd already done that very thing. Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we're denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we're always "against" things -- we're never "for" anything. Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so. Now -- we're for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we've accepted Social
Security as a step toward meeting the problem. But we're against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. They've called it "insurance" to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term "insurance" to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is 298 billion dollars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they're doing just that. A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary -- his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy
him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he's 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can't put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they're due -- that the cupboard isn't bare? Barry Goldwater thinks we can. At the same time, can't we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision for the non-earning years? Should we not allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn't you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under this program, which we cannot do? I think we're for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think we're against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as was announced last week,
when France admitted that their Medicare program is now bankrupt. They've come to the end of the road. In addition, was Barry Goldwater so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate, planned inflation, so that when you do get your Social Security pension, a dollar will buy a dollar's worth, and not 45 cents worth? I think we're for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we're against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world's population. I think we're against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of people enslaved in the Soviet colonies in the satellite nations. I think we're for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but we're against doling out money government to
government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. We're helping 107. We've spent 146 billion dollars. With that money, we bought a 2 million dollar yacht for Haile Selassie. We bought dress suits for Greek undertakers, extra wives for Kenya[n] government officials. We bought a thousand TV sets for a place where they have no electricity. In the last six years, 52 nations have bought 7 billion dollars worth of our gold, and all 52 are receiving foreign aid from this country. No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So, governments' programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth. Federal employees -- federal employees number two and a half million; and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation's work force employed by government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man's property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let
alone a trial by jury? And they can seize and sell his property at auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chico County, Arkansas, James Wier over-planted his rice allotment. The government obtained a 17,000 dollar judgment. And a U.S. marshal sold his 960-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a warning to others to make the system work. Last February 19th at the University of Minnesota, Norman Thomas, six-times candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said, "If Barry Goldwater became President, he would stop the advance of socialism in the United States." I think that's exactly what he will do. But as a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn't the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration, because back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his Party was taking the Party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his Party, and he never returned til the day he died -- because to this day, the
leadership of that Party has been taking that Party, that honorable Party, down the road in the image of the labor Socialist Party of England. Now it doesn't require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the -- or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment. Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I believe that this is a contest between two men -- that we're to choose just between two personalities. Well what of this man that they would destroy -- and in destroying, they would destroy that
which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear? Is he the brash and shallow and trigger-happy man they say he is? Well I've been privileged to know him "when." I knew him long before he ever dreamed of trying for high office, and I can tell you personally I've never known a man in my life I believed so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing. This is a man who, in his own business before he entered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a pension plan for all his employees. He sent monthly checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldn't work. He provides nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores. When Mexico was ravaged by the floods in the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew medicine and supplies down there. An ex-GI told me how he met him. It was the week before Christmas during the Korean War, and he was at the Los Angeles airport trying to get a ride home to Arizona for Christmas. And he said that [there were] a lot of servicemen
there and no seats available on the planes. And then a voice came over the loudspeaker and said, "Any men in uniform wanting a ride to Arizona, go to runway such-and-such," and they went down there, and there was a fellow named Barry Goldwater sitting in his plane. Every day in those weeks before Christmas, all day long, he'd load up the plane, fly it to Arizona, fly them to their homes, fly back over to get another load. During the hectic split-second timing of a campaign, this is a man who took time out to sit beside an old friend who was dying of cancer. His campaign managers were understandably impatient, but he said, "There aren't many left who care what happens to her. I'd like her to know I care." This is a man who said to his 19-year-old son, "There is no foundation like the rock of honesty and fairness, and when you begin to build your life on that rock, with the cement of the faith in God that you have, then you have a real start." This is not a man who could carelessly send other people's sons to war. And that is the issue of this campaign that makes all the other problems I've discussed academic, unless we realize we're in a war that must be won.
Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accommodation." And they say if we'll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he'll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer -- not an easy answer -- but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right. We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we're willing to make a deal with your slave masters."
Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Now let's set the record straight. There's no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there's only one guaranteed way you can have peace -- and you can have it in the next second -surrender. Admittedly, there's a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our wellmeaning liberal friends refuse to face -- that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand -the ultimatum. And what then -- when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we're retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he's heard voices
pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he'd rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us. You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin -just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it's a simple answer after all. You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." "There is a point beyond which they must not advance." And this -- this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's "peace through strength." Winston Churchill said, "The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the
move in the world, we learn we're spirits -- not animals." And he said, "There's something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty." You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We'll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we'll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness. We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.
Thank you very much.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.