Friday, August 28, 2009

Bill Will Give White House Control Over Internet

From CNET News.

The Leftists are trying to grab control of the Internet. Click on the link ABOVE.

Out Sourcing Your Tax Dollars

From The Heritage Foundation

The Morning Bell

FRIDAY, AUG 28, 2009

Outsourcing Your Tax Dollars

During a July 7th Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on the 1,500 page Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade legislation, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) got Environmental Protection Agency administrator Lisa Jackson to admit that “U.S. action alone will not impact CO2 levels.” This is 100% consistent with all the best science which shows that the carbon reductions under Waxman-Markey will not affect global temperatures in any material way. For example a recent study of cap-and-trade by MIT concluded:
Recent Entries

Fact Checking the White House: Obama’s Health Reform Doesn’t Help Small Business

Video: Chief Diversity Officer Seeks To Stifle Free Speech

Obama Officially Abandons Missile Defense in Europe

Waxman-Markey’s Effect On Gas Prices In Your State

Townhall Downfall: Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI) Refuses To Go On Public Plan If Obamacare Passes

The different U.S. policies have relatively small effects on the CO2 concentration if other regions do not follow the U.S. lead…The Developed Only scenario cuts only about 0.5 °C of the warming from the reference, again illustrating the importance of developing country participation.

As we have asked before, “So how is that ‘developing country participation’ going?” Well, just this week ministers from 10 African countries renewed their intent to demand billions of dollars in aid before they sign any climate agreement and both China and India have also made it crystal clear that they require billions in aid to help finance carbon-reducing projects before they agree to reduce their emissions.

So where are all these billions of dollars going to come from? You, of course. A recently leaked document from the G20 Climate Finance Experts Group refers to “carbon market finance,” as a major source of the “hundreds of billions of dollars per year” delivered to the rest of the world by the U.S. and the other wealthier nations. So what is “carbon market finance?” It’s what Waxman-Markey proponents call cap and trade even though, in reality, all it is a huge new energy tax.

But the story gets even better. Remember all those EPA and CBO estimates purporting to show how little the Waxman-Markey energy tax would hurt consumers? Well, besides the fact that they all ignored the cost of lost GDP from higher energy taxes, the CBO and EPA also assumed that Waxman-Markey would rebate all of its tax proceeds back to consumers. For example, the CBO estimates Waxman-Markey would raise taxes on Americans by $872.8 billion between 2010-2019 but then also assumes that the federal government will immediately turn around and spend $863.8 billion.

In other words, the left in Congress has already spent 100.3% percent of the “carbon market finance” revenues raised. And not a single penny of it has yet been allocated to India, China, and the other developing countries that are demanding cash payments from us before they lift a finger to reduce carbon emissions.

As our economy struggles to recover, our leaders should be working to lower our energy costs and develop our own natural resources, not enacting complex regulatory schemes that will crush our economy and send our hard-earned money overseas.

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Illegal Immigration

From The Heritage Foundation

The Morning Bell

THURSDAY, AUG 27, 2009

How State and Local Governments Can Help Control Illegal Immigration

Meeting with his counterparts from Mexico and Canada earlier this month, President Barack Obama said that he expected the Democratic-controlled Congress, after completing work on health care, energy and financial regulation, to draft comprehensive immigration reform bills this year. This time frame acknowledges that no immigration legislation will be passed until at least 2010. But as Heritage visiting fellow Matt Meyer points out in a new report there is still plenty that states can do, in the meantime, under their own constitutionally-protected traditional police powers to tackle the problem right now.
Recent Entries

Fact Checking the White House: $150 Billion To Be Cut From Medicare Advantage

Cap & Trade Bill: Special Interest Bonanza That Adds to Deficit

The NYT Is Right, Real Choice Should Be Central Goal Of Health Reform

Government Motors and Foreign Political Entanglements

Justice Under Holder: Let Gore Go But Crucify CIA

Illegal immigration is a relatively new public policy problem. In 1980, there were only 3.5 million illegal aliens in the United States, which represented 1.5% of the total U.S. population. That year, 1.5 million illegal aliens lived in California — 6.6% of its population—making the Golden State the only state in the union whose illegal aliens comprised more than 3% of its population. It was only after the 1986 immigration reform bill, which provided amnesty to more than three million illegal aliens, that an ever increasing surge of people began entering the U.S. illegally. There are now an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States representing almost 4% of our population and 18 states have joined California with illegal populations exceeding 3%.

In response to this influx of illegal aliens — which places increasingly greater burdens on state and local budgets, law enforcement, and public infrastructure like hospitals and schools – states began exercising their constitutional powers by engaging in a flurry of activity to curtail illegal immigration. The primary areas of action were: (1) driver’s licenses and identification, (2) public benefits, (3) access to higher education benefits, (4) voting, (5) criminal sanctions, and (6) employment. But states can, and should, do more. Mayer identifies a host of state and local government policy fixes including:

Mandate the use of the Systemic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system to verify entitlement to all state and local government benefits;
Make it a felony to falsely claim legal presence in the United States;
Make it a felony and a predicate racketeering crime to smuggle aliens;
Outlaw sanctuary cities, including day-labor sites;
Institute a withholding tax for all electronic funds wire transfers to foreign parties or on negotiable bank drafts and international money orders without a valid Social Security Number;
Ban the use of foreign identification documents to establish identity or to obtain state identification cards unless accompanied by a U.S. document that demonstrates legal presence in the United States;
Restrict the use of taxpayer identification numbers for purposes not authorized by the Internal Revenue Service, including identification, unless accompanied by a U.S. document that demonstrates legal presence in the United States.

Turning to what the federal government should do, Mayer concludes:

Congress should help [localities], not by passing an amnesty reform package, but by amending the statutory (not constitutional) provisions that limit the actions they can take and by increasing the legal means for foreigners to come to the United States to work. The only way to end or significantly slow illegal immigration in America is to create a mosaic of laws across the country that increase the cost of illegal immigration to a point that the supply dwindles to a trickle as the demand is filled by legal workers.

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

The Passing Of A Liberal Lion

A few words on the passing of Senator Ted Kennedy.

I was born and raised in Lowell Massachusetts. My family die hard Dems except for me.The family thought the Kennedy's were American Royalty.
I look at the Kennedy family in a down to earth way.
The father made his money bootlegging and buying politicians. Buying political favours out in Illinois so that his son could become President. JFK and brother Robert go after the people that got them into office and JFK gets killed. ( Or so the theory goes ). Then Robert dies at the hands of a Palistinian.
Up steps Ted to take the family political helm. He leads the life of a frat boy up until he drove his car into the Chapaquitic killing a young lady in the proccess. He gets 2 months in prison the judge suspends the sentence.
He spends his early years in the Senate insulting American troops fighting and making the ultimate sacrifice in a Southeast Asian mudhole that his late brother had helped escalate into a full blown war all the while womanizing and boozing. He tried to cut a deal with the Russians during the Reagan years. He tried to slander a Supreme Court Nominee accusing the man of being an evil Fascist. He also tried to make good with the Chicago Political Machine for his brothers misteps by using political clout and naming Obama the new Black Kennedy throwing The Clintons under the bus in the process. ( The Clintons spent alot of time on Marthas Vinyard also. )
He had the Massachusetts Legislature change the law on house replacement incase Kerry ( Who served in Veitnam by the way ) became President and just before his passing he had a letter written wanting to have the law reversed, he wanted someone for the vote on Obamacare because he knew his time was short. Over forty years in the Senate, Senator Ted Kennedy had his name on at least three hundred pieces of legislation.( Another solid reason for term limits ) Meals On Wheels,No Child Left Behind,Medicare Seniors Drug Benifits. to name a few.
In my eyes and way of thinking the man was a solid Socialist/ Marxist. I cannot say I will miss him like others will.


A Sobering Wakeup Call

From The Heritage Foundation.

To ensure email delivery directly to your inbox, please add to your address book now.

If you're having trouble viewing this message, please view it online.

The Morning Bell


A Sobering Wake Up Call

Defending mounting job losses despite his administration’s $787 billion stimulus package, Vice President Joe Biden told ABC News George Stephanopoulos last month: “The truth is, we and everyone else misread the economy. The figures we worked off of in January were the consensus figures and most of the blue chip indexes out there.” This is just not true. Yesterday the White House released their Mid-Session Review admitting that President Barack Obama’s policies would force our nation to borrow more than $9 trillion over the next ten years.
Recent Entries

Video: Fact Checking the White House: Medicaid Rations Care

Townhall Stand Tall: Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK)

More Auto Bailout Cash Tucked Inside Obamacare

Solar Swindle

Today’s Calamity: Will Cap and Trade Save the Planet?

Commenting on the gap between the new $9 trillion number and the $7 trillion number the Office of Management and Budget used to sell President Obama’s budget to Congress, the Washington Post reports:

The extra $1.9 trillion in red ink mainly reflects the Office of Management and Budget’s adoption of more realistic — that is, more pessimistic — estimates of economic growth and unemployment. White House officials protest that their original, rosier numbers made sense at the time; actually, plenty of forecasters, including those at the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, made more accurate calls. This situation was foreseeable and should have been acknowledged earlier.

While it is good that the Obama administration is finally admitting that the fundamental assumptions driving their economic policy were wrong, the reality of our current budget deficit, and what President Obama’s policies threaten to do to our national debt over the next decade, are truly sobering. Heritage senior policy analyst Brian Riedl details the carnage:

Since World War II, the largest budget deficit recorded was 6.0 percent of GDP in 1983. The Bush Administration oversaw budget deficits averaging 2.0 percent of GDP. The projected 2009 budget deficit of 11.2 percent of GDP would nearly double the post-war record.
The 2009 budget deficit will be larger than all budget deficits from 2002 through 2007 combined. More than 43 cents of every dollar Washington spends in 2009 will have been borrowed.
While President Obama claims to have inherited the 2009 budget deficit, it is important to note that the estimated 2009 budget deficit has increased by $400 billion since his inauguration, and the whole point of the “stimulus” was to increase deficit spending to nearly $2 trillion based on the unproven notion that would it alleviate the recession.
The 22 percent spending increase projected for 2009 represents the largest government expansion since the 1952 height of the Korean War (adjusted for inflation). Federal spending is up 57 percent since 2001.
In 2009, Washington will spend $30,958 per household–the highest level in American history–and under President Obama’s budget, the figure will rise above $33,000 by 2019.
The White House brags that it will cut the deficit in half by 2013. The President does not mention that the deficit has nearly quadrupled this year. Merely cutting it in half from that bloated level would still leave budget deficits twice as high as under President Bush.
The public national debt–$5.8 trillion as of 2008–is projected to double by 2012 and nearly triple by 2019. Thus, America would accumulate more government debt under President Obama than under every President in American history from George Washington to George W. Bush combined.
And now for the real kicker: none of these numbers include the costs of Obamacare which would create another $1.5 trillion health care entitlement on top of our existing unsustainable entitlement obligations. The OMB’s Mid-Session Review should serve as a wake up call to the American people. President Obama’s policies are leading us down a path of unsustainable spending and borrowing.

There is another choice. Not all future spending is inevitable. In the 1980s and 1990s, Washington consistently spent $21,000 per household (adjusted for inflation). Simply returning to that level would balance the budget by 2012 without any tax hikes. Alternatively, returning to the $25,000 per household level (adjusted for inflation) that Washington spent before the current recession would likely balance the budget by 2019 without any tax hikes. So with very little sacrifice, and no new taxes, the government could get its budget under control and the American economy could get fully back on track in three years. Isn’t that worth considering?

The Lefts War On The CIA

From the Heritage Foundation

The Morning Bell

TUESDAY, AUG 25, 2009

The Left’s War On The CIA

In June of 2008, while campaigning for the election of President Barack Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder promised the leftist American Constitutional Society: “We owe the American people a reckoning.” Yesterday, Holder escalated his “reckoning” campaign by appointing a prosecutor to re-investigate nearly a dozen CIA interrogators and contractors alleged to have abused detainees in 2002 and 2003. This is nothing more than an all out war on the CIA by the left at a time when the President desperately needs to shore up trust with his base in the face of his declining poll numbers.
Recent Entries

Fact Checking the White House: Public Plan Will Result in Loss of Private Coverage

D.C. School Choice Supporters Protest Education Sec. Duncan

Video: Do You Know Your Obama Czars?

How Cash for Clunkers Destroys Wealth

Immigration: In Case You Are Wondering, Nobody Asked

Already the White House is at pains to create the perception of distance between Holder’s announcement and President Obama’s wishes. Deputy press secretary Bill Burton told reporters from Martha’s Vineyard yesterday: “ultimately, the decisions on who is investigated and who is prosecuted are up to the attorney general. . . . The president thinks that Eric Holder, who he appointed as a very independent attorney general, should make those decisions.” But make no mistake. Holder works for Obama. Holder’s priorities are by definition Obama’s priorities. And the facts make it clear that this “new” investigation is nothing more than a political witch hunt:

No New Information: Depending on where you get your news you may hear today that Holder’s decision is based on “new details” about the CIA interrogation program. This is false. While the release of the 2004 CIA inspector general report has exposed some new information to the public, Holder read the report months ago. Both the Department of Justice and the leadership of the Congressional intelligence committees have had the full report since 2004, and the full committees have had the report since 2006. The only thing that has changed since both DOJ and Congress received the full report is the 2008 presidential election.

Career Justice Lawyers Already Investigated: Not only has the Department of Justice been in possession of CIA IG report since 2004, but the DOJ’s career, not political, prosecutors have already examined that document and other incidents from Iraq and Afghanistan for legal accountability. CIA Director, and former President Clinton Chief of Staff, Leon Panetta assured CIA employees yesterday that the DOJ’s career prosecutors “worked carefully and thoroughly, sometimes taking years to decide if prosecution was warranted or not. In one case, the Department obtained a criminal conviction of a CIA contractor. In other instances, after Justice chose not to pursue action in court, the Agency took disciplinary steps of its own.”

Program Worked: From the 2004 CIA IG report: “The detention of terrorists has prevented them from engaging in further terrorist activity, and their interrogation has provided intelligence that has enabled the identification and apprehension of other terrorists, warned of terrorists plots planned for the United States and around the world, and supported articles frequently used in the finished intelligence publications for senior policymakers and war fighters. In this regard, there is no doubt that the Program has been effective.”

A Politically Motivated Re-Investigation Can Only Harm National Security: In yesterday’s Washington Post, CIA General Counsel under the Clinton administration Jeffrey Smith explains how Holder’s reopened investigation harms our national security: “Prosecutions would set the dangerous precedent that criminal law can be used to settle policy differences at the expense of career officers. … Prosecuting CIA officers risks chilling current intelligence operations. … their colleagues will become reluctant to take risks. What confidence will they have when their senior officers say not to worry, “this has been authorized by the president and approved by Justice”? … Prosecutions could deter cooperation with other nations. It is critical that we have the close cooperation of intelligence services around the world. … The key to this cooperation is the ability of the United States to be a reliable partner and keep secrets. Prosecuting CIA officers undermines that essential element of successful intelligence liaison.”

New Interrogation Guidelines Inadequate To Protect Nation: Yesterday the Obama administration also announced that their own new program for future interrogations would be controlled by the Army Field Manual. A senior administration official tells Politico, “The practices and techniques within the Army Field Manual are currently used by law enforcement and provide adequate and effective means of conducting such interrogations.” This is just not true. Across the country law enforcement official are allowed to lie to witnesses all the time in order to extract a confession. Under the Obama administration’s new guidelines we could only tell al Qaeda the truth.

It is no accident that the United States has been free of al Qaeda attack since 9/11. The CIA played a vital role in that accomplishment. President Obama has repeatedly assured the American people he wants to “look forward, not back” on CIA interrogations. It is time he lived up to this promise.


The Obama administration will continue the Bush administration’s practice of sending terrorism suspects to third countries for detention and interrogation.

President Obama will reappoint Ben Bernanke as his Federal Reserve Chief.

According to a new report, homeowners who fall behind on their mortgage payments have become much less likely to catch up again.

Only 17 of the 58 Democratic senators — less than a third — are holding town halls back home, according to an informal POLITICO survey of every Democratic office in Congress.

The Democratic National Committee and its “grassroots” arm, Organizing for America, are planning to hold more than 500 events between Wednesday and September 8th.


From the GOP Leader Alert


August 25, 2009 | House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) | Permalink

Most Americans – about 70 percent, according to a recent Zogby poll – are opposed to allowing taxpayer funds to be used to pay for abortion. But the government takeover of health care proposed by Democratic leaders in Washington runs counter to the views most Americans have on the subject, and despite the claims of some prominent Democrats, the legislation would in fact allow abortions to be subsidized by taxpayer funds. House Democrats claim that an amendment offered by Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) in the Energy & Commerce Committee will prevent taxpayer dollars from going to abortion, but a close reading of the legislation shows that is fiction.

In a letter to members of the House of Representatives, Cardinal Rigali, Chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Committee on Pro-Life Activities, criticized this Capps “compromise” for delegating to the Health & Human Services Secretary “the power to make unlimited abortion a mandated benefit in the ‘public health insurance plan’ the government will manage nationwide.”

In addition, the Associated Press has reported that “Health care legislation before Congress would allow a new government-sponsored insurance plan to cover abortions” and FactCheck.Org has stated that “House bill would allow abortions to be covered by a federal plan and by federally subsidized private plans.” House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) made the following comment on this troubling development:

“When most Americans talk about the need for health care reform, they’re talking about the need to address rising health care costs, not taxpayers subsidizing abortion. The fact that this bill will actually increase the deficit and raise costs for middle-class families and small businesses while allowing their hard-earned money to be used to pay for destroying human life is unconscionable. Health care reform that fails to respect the dignity of all human life is not reform at all.”

A detailed analysis of the Democrats’ government-run plan shows how it allows taxpayer-subsidized abortions:

Page 24; Section 115 – The bill requires that plans that use a provider network for health services must meet the standards set forth by the “Health Choices Commissioner” to assure the adequacy of the network for plan enrollees to receive covered services. If abortion becomes an essential benefit, as Section 122 leaves open as a possibility, provider networks would be required to ensure – including by establishing abortion clinics – that abortion services are available.
Page 26; Section 122 – The bill defines what would be deemed an “essential benefits package,” or in other words what the government sets as benefits or services that must be covered by an insurance plan. This section, however, contains no explicit exclusion or prohibition from abortion being deemed part of an essential benefits package. Without such an exclusion, the bill leaves open the possibility of federally mandated coverage of abortion as an essential benefit.
The bottom line? H.R. 3200 does not contain any limitation on federal funds authorized or appropriated in the bill from being used to pay for elective abortion or to subsidize the purchase of insurance coverage of elective abortion.

When Democrats return to Washington next month, will they be willing to work with Republicans to ensure that taxpayer money isn’t used to end human life? Or will they continue to go it alone, trying to force a partisan government takeover of health care down the throats of the American people?

(202) 225-4000 | GOPLEADER.GOV

Monday, August 24, 2009

Obama Czar

From The National Right To Work

Obama’s Union Car Czar Gets Big Promotion

Ron Bloom, the former United Steelworkers (USW) union bigwig appointed by President Barack Obama as “car czar” earlier this year is now poised to oversee ALL American manufacturing.

That’s right, a union boss whose forced unionism dogma destroys jobs, crushes employee free choice, and cripples the country’s competitiveness will soon be in charge of America’s entire industrial policy.

Bloom’s appointment and pending promotion are just pieces in the pattern of Obama’s shameless payback to the union bosses who got him elected.

What’s so troubling about Bloom’s ascendancy is the obvious connection between forced unionism and the debacle of General Motors and Chrysler in Detroit.

After the United Auto Workers (UAW) union bosses systematically crippled Detroit for decades with asinine and wasteful work rules and stifling union monopoly contracts that made it virtually impossible for America’s automotive industry to compete, the Obama Administration turned around and rewarded these UAW bosses with substantial ownership in the automakers they destroyed.

The appointment of Bloom suggests President Obama wants to impose Detroit’s catastrophic forced unionism model on all American manufacturing workers.

Read more about Bloom’s expected promotion on the National Right to Work Foundation’s blog.

As always, remember to check back regularly at the Foundation's blog for all the latest updates from National Right to Work.

The National Right to Work Foundation provides free legal aid to employees so they can fight back against union coercion and abuse.

The Foundation must rely on the voluntary support of individual Americans who believe in our cause and wish to advance our strategic litigation program. To make a fully tax-deductible donation in whatever amount, please click here.


The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, is assisting thousands of employees in more than 200 cases nationwide. Its web address is

National Healthcare

From The Heritage Foundation

MONDAY, AUG 24, 2009

Myths and Facts about Obamacare

Last week NBC News released a poll showing that while 36% of Americans believed President Barack Obama’s health care plan was a “good idea,” 42% of Americans believed it was a “bad idea.” NBC’s explanation for this inconvenient truth? “[M]isperceptions about the president’s plans for reform … that nonpartisan fact-checkers say are untrue.” Specifically NBC found that 55% of Americans believed Obamacare “will give health insurance coverage to illegal immigrants,” 54% believed it “will lead to a government takeover of the health care system,” 50% believed it “will use taxpayer dollars to pay for women to have abortions,” and 45% believed it “will allow the government to make decisions about when to stop providing medical care to the elderly.”

The President has since copied NBC’s diagnosis, devoting his Saturday Weekly Address to debunking these “phony claims.” The problem for NBC News, and the White House, is that every one of these concerns has rock solid foundation in fact.

Obamacare Will Provide Health Benefits to Illegal Immigrants: The President is correct when he says that the idea to provide illegal immigrants with health insurance “has never been on the table.” The problem is that the American people also know that despite the fact that our immigration laws did not intend it, there are 12 million persons illegally in the United States. The issue is enforcement and the provisions in H.R. 3200 are completely inadequate to ensure that illegal immigrants do not illegally obtain health care through the bill. In the House Ways and Means mark up of H.R. 3200, Rep. Dean Heller (R-NV) introduced an amendment that would use two citizenship status verification systems, the Income and Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) and Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) programs, to establish an individual’s eligibility to obtain the bill’s proposed affordability credits or enroll in the public insurance option.

Both programs are currently used to determine citizenship status and eligibility for other public assistance programs. Safeguards to guarantee that only citizens can access federal health care benefits are necessary, considering that the US Census Bureau currently estimates that 9.6 million of the uninsured are not US citizens. The Heller amendment failed on a straight party-line vote.

Obamacare Will Lead to a Government Takeover of The Health Care System: Whether it’s a “public option”, individual mandate, employer mandate, the expansion and federalization of Medicaid, or the creation of a new health czar, the provisions in the health bills being pushed by the Obama administration call for more government regulation and intrusion in the American health care system. The nonpartisan, independent Lewin Group found that an estimated 56 percent of Americans would lose their current insurance under the House bill.

Obamacare Will Use Taxpayer Dollars to Pay For Women to Have Abortions: In all four mark-ups of health care legislation (three in the House and one in the Senate), Conservatives have offered amendments that would specifically prohibit federal funds from being used to cover abortion. None of them passed. Instead, the House Energy and Commerce Committee passed an amendment by Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) that actually requires at least one insurance plan to cover abortion in every geographical region and requires the newly-created public plan to cover all abortion services. How can the President and NBC News possibly claim that Obamacare will not direct taxpayer money to pay for abortions? They’ve employed a complete accounting fiction, claiming that beneficiary premiums will pay for abortions, not federal subsidies. Since neither the federal government nor any insurance company will be required to create separate “abortion” and “non-abortion” general funds (and since the President explicitly promise Planned Parenthood his health care plan would cover “reproductive services“), Americans have every right to believe that the existing legislation will funnel their tax dollars to abortion.

Obamacare Will Allow Government to Ration Health Care: Both the House and Senate bills call for an increased role for Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) to determine which medical procedures are most effective at treating specific ailments. Although this provision is based on perfectly sound policy, many Americans are concerned that federal officials could use CER to make treatment, coverage, or payment decisions. Three Senators offered amendments that would have prohibited the use of CER to mandate coverage, deny care, or ration. CER, if used as a rationing tool, would obviously interfere with the traditional doctor-patient relationship. All three amendments failed on straight party-line votes.

These are just some of the very real fears Americans have about Obamacare. And as we have decisively demonstrated, all have sound basis in fact. But they do not even touch on another very real fear Americans have about Obamacare: the cost. This Friday, the Obama administration leaked news that they will be forced to raise their 10-year budget deficit forecast to about nine trillion dollars, up about two trillion from the previous forecast. Considering that all best estimates point to at least a $1 trillion price tag for Obamacare, it is a wonder just 42% of Americans believe Obamacare is a “bad idea.”


American military commanders with the NATO mission in Afghanistan told the Obama administration this weekend that they did not have enough troops to do their job.

According to a new study, cap and trade legislation currently being considered by Congress would drastically reduce domestic fuel production, doubling our dependence on foreign oil.

Seven months into his presidency, fewer than half of President Obama’s top appointees are in place.

James Carafano details how the Obama administration is undermining our missile defense.

So far, only 114 senators and House members – none of them Democrats – have signed a pledge not to vote for a health care bill they haven’t read personally in its entirety and is not made available to the public on the Internet at least 72 hours before a vote is held.


comment print forward

Heritage is a proud sponsor of Family Research Council’s Values Voter Summit 2009. Join us September 18-20 at the event in Washington, DC. Click here to register and stop by and see us!


Know anyone who shares your conservative values and principles and may want to receive The Heritage Foundation newsletters? Please refer them to Heritage today!

Facebook Twitter YouTube


The Heritage Foundation - 214 Massachusetts Ave. NE, Washington, DC 20002
Call us at 202-546-4400


From The GOP Leader Alert



August 24, 2009
House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH)

President Obama has repeatedly made promises throughout the health care debate that are broken by the House Democrats’ government takeover of health care bill. Despite what the President says, the bill put together by Speaker Pelosi and House Democratic leaders would force millions of Americans out of their current coverage, undermine Medicare for seniors, and raise taxes on families and small businesses. House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) responded today:

“The President has made a lot of promises to the American people about their health care, but the House Democrats’ bill breaks many of those pledges. It would force millions out of their current coverage, slash Medicare by billions, and increase taxes on the families and small businesses who can least afford it during this recession. Republicans have offered a better solution that makes health care more affordable and accessible for every American without raising taxes. It’s time for Democrats to shelve their government takeover of health care and work with us on a plan that delivers the reforms Americans expect.”

A detailed analysis of the Democrats’ government-run plan makes clear it breaks a number of President Obama’s promises. Here are just a few examples:

Pages 116-128; Sections 221-225 – The House Democrats’ bill establishes a new government-run health plan that, according to nonpartisan actuaries at the Lewin Group, would cause as many as 114 million Americans to lose their existing coverage. Moving these Americans from their current plan into a government-run plan violates the President’s oft-stated promise that “if you like your current coverage, you can keep it.” Both the Associated Press and ABC News have already debunked this pledge, noting that White House officials have acknowledged the President’s rhetoric shouldn’t be taken “literally.”

Pages 331-333; Section 1161 – President Obama has said repeatedly that nobody is talking about cutting Medicare when it comes to health care reform. But the fact is that nearly 11 million seniors who choose Medicare Advantage plans, will lose that coverage as a result of the $160 billion in cuts in the House Democrats’ bill. Moreover, an independent analysis of the House Democrats’ bill shows the legislation makes a total of $361.9 billion in Medicare cuts. That means fewer choices and lower health care quality for our nation’s seniors.

Pages 167-179; Section 401 – President Obama repeatedly promised not to raise taxes on those who make less than $200,000 (singles) or $250,000 (married couples). The tax on Americans without government-approved health insurance in the House Democrats’ bill directly violates that promise.

Pages 167-179; Section 401 – At least four of the President’s specific tax pledges would be broken by the House Democrats’ government takeover of health care. Specifically, the President pledged that (1) “no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase,” and that families making more than $250,000 will (2) “pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s,” (3) be subject to a “new [higher] top capital gains rate of 20 percent” and (4) have a dividends tax rate “set at 20 percent.” Yet, the Democrats’ bill imposes an individual mandate that would raise taxes on some American families earning less than $250,000, imposes a national small business tax (in conjunction with the President’s expiration of lower marginal rates) that will take the top federal tax rate well above where it was in the 1990s, and applies the national small business tax to capital gains and dividends sending those tax rates to 25.4 percent and 45 percent respectively.

Pages 823-835; Section 1802 – The House Democrats’ bill would establish a new tax on every health insurance policy to fund a government board. This new tax will increase the cost of health insurance for every American not on Medicare or Medicaid, regardless of income.

Democrats appear poised to go it alone and pass a government takeover of health care that breaks many of the promises made by the President. Americans don’t want a government takeover of their health care; they want common sense reforms to lower health care costs and increase access for those who don’t currently have health care coverage. Shouldn’t Democrats work with Republicans on common sense solutions to deliver on the reforms the American people expect and deserve?




(202) 225-4000

Sunday, August 23, 2009

Cap And Trade For Massachusetts

After ten years of flatline economic growth and years of one party rule ( Democrats ) The Sons Of Liberty are looking at even more disastrous times.
From The Heritage Foundation

August 21, 2009 By Amanda Reinecker

How will cap-and-tax affect your state?

A new study released by The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis reveals the tremendous costs and energy price spikes that Massachusetts residents will incur should Congress enact the Waxman-Markey climate change legislation.

"Inevitably the bill will affect each state differently," explains Heritage's energy and economic policy team. "Some states are more energy-intensive than others, and some rely a great deal on manufacturing to fuel their economies. Regardless, the costs in every state are significant."

» Find out how the legislation will affect Massachusetts residents

Waxman-Markey's financial burden will eventually trickle down to individual families. Heritage experts predict annual energy costs for a family of four to grow by $1,241 -- $4,609 if you include the new taxes -- forcing families to reduce consumption of goods and services by $3,000 each year as incomes and savings fall. This forced cutback will hurt job growth and ultimately weaken the economy, leaving America approximately $9.4 trillion poorer by 2035.

And all of these costs will get us "no more than a 0.2 degree (Celsius) moderation in world temperature increases by 2100 and no more than a 0.05 degree reduction by 2050." That's certainly not much of an environmental benefit, especially considering the adverse impact the bill imposes on American families.

Left pushes Obamacare 'by any legislative means necessary'
The more Americans learn about the Left's big-government health care takeover, the less they like it. According to the latest NBC News/ Wall Street Journal poll, 42 percent of Americans disapprove of the proposal altogether, and 47 percent reject the creation of a government-run health insurance "option."

» Why the "public option" is bad, no matter what its form

"Facing this cratering of public support, the left in Congress is now considering abandoning moderates and independents to pass their narrow partisan ideal of health reform," Heritage's Conn Carroll writes in Thursday's Morning Bell.

» Sign-up to receive your daily Morning Bell updates.

Why the rush? Andy Stern, a Big Labor ally of President Obama's, warns that the failure to pass this health care reform legislation may hurt the Left in the next congressional election cycle. "I think we're talking losing control of Congress… [The failure of health-care reform] would totally empower Republicans to kill all change."

Since there appears to be little chance of bipartisan support for the liberal proposal, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has promised to pursue "any legislative means necessary" to pass the bill. This could involve the use of reconciliation, a legislative tactic that allows the Senate to pass legislation with a bare majority.

However, the process of reconciliation is designated for budget-related measures, which is why the Democrats now propose splitting the health care bill into two parts: one for new taxes and spending and one for new rules and regulations. And the Left argues that the big-government insurance "option" is a budget item and thus eligible for reconciliation.

This "public option" may be a deal-breaker. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said Thursday that "there's no way I can pass a bill in the House of Representatives without a public option."

In the meantime, "some congressmen and senators will say whatever it takes to calm things down," writes Heritage Distinguished Fellow and former congressman Ernest Istook. "Even if it's misleading."

"Don't believe it," warns Istook. These members need a serious "dose of reality." Get your dose of reality from The Heritage Foundation's

> Other Heritage work of note
As the war in Afghanistan intensifies, President Obama faces many challenges that will test his ability to lead the United States into victory. These "tests" include: how he responds to the recent Afghan elections; whether he deploys the resources and tools needed to win; and whether he can work with national security conservatives who support victory. Heritage Vice President Kim Holmes explains that "Mr. Obama can pass these tests only by devising a workable strategy on Afghanistan and sticking to it…for as long as necessary and no matter the political fallout."
"Washington will spend $33,880 per household in 2009 – the highest level in American history (adjusted for inflation), and nearly $8,000 per household more than last year," writes Heritage budget policy expert Brian Riedl. In his nationally-syndicated article, Riedl details the various government programs the taxpayer is and will be funding, and he tasks "taxpayers – and the next generation that will be paying nearly half of the bill – [to] decide for themselves if they're getting their money's worth."
"It may be time for the State Department to declare Venezuela a terrorist-sponsoring state," argue Heritage experts Ariel Cohen and Owen Graham in The Washington Times. Venezuela is set to purchase Russian weaponry, while strongman president Hugo Chavez is aggressively fueling the trend of anti-Americanism in South America. "The Russian-Venezuelan axis bodes ill for hemispheric security, energy access and for the cause of liberty in the Western Hemisphere."
Join Heritage at the Family Research Council Action's Values Voter Summit 2009 in Washington, DC, from September 18-20. The event will feature prominent conservatives including Bill O'Reilly, former Govs. Mitt Romney (R-MA) and Mike Huckabee (R-AR), Govs. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) and Rick Perry (R-TX), Reps. Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Mike Pence (R-IN), former Attorney general Edwin Meese, a special tribute to conservative leader Phyllis Schlafly, and much more. See the full program and register at
The Obama administration is seeking public input on a proposal that would allow drilling for oil and natural gas off the coast of several U.S. states. This policy would: help decrease our dependence on foreign oil, which often comes from unstable or hostile nations; create jobs; and lower prices for American families filling up their tanks and heating their homes. To express your support for this plan, visit
Writing on National Review Online, Heritage legal scholar Hans von Spakovsky summarizes a new report on the movement to abolish sentences of life without parole for juvenile killers. The Heritage report, authored by Cully Stimson and Andrew Grossman, exposes the anti-incarceration movement's "manufactured statistics" and "duplicitous" information. Stimson and Grossman defend the life-without-parole sentence for juveniles as constitutional and appropriately rare. This "landmark study" comes at a critical time as the Supreme Court prepares to hear two cases on the subject this fall.
> In other news
The Scottish government has ordered release of convicted Lockerbie bomber Abdel Baset al-Megrahi on humanitarian grounds. Al-Megrahi, a former Libyan intelligence officer, took part in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103, which killed 270 people over Scotland. The Obama administration rightly expressed strong disagreement with the decision.
Cash for Clunkers, the misguided government program that pays Americans to buy new cars and turn in their used cars to be destroyed, will end on Monday after spending $3 billion of taxpayer funds.
Home sales surged 7.2 percent in July, signaling a rebound for the ailing real estate market. This is the largest monthly increase in 10 years.
Since the recession began, U.S. state and local governments have expanded their payrolls even while small businesses and private enterprises have had to make drastic personnel cuts. Of course, to pay for these new government jobs, they have to levy taxes on these same private enterprises.
Despite the growing dominance of drug cartels and rampant drug-related violence, Mexico has decided to legalize possession of small amounts of marijuana, cocaine and heroin.
While many proponents of big-government health care look abroad for their model, those who actually live under such systems are coming to America for quality care. Canadians who can afford it, for example, come the U.S. for health care instead of trusting their country's government-run system
> Coming up at Heritage
To attend these or any other events at Heritage please RSVP at Heritage's website. Or you can view these events live online. All times are Eastern.

On Thursday, August 27 at noon, a panel of experts will explore the implications of the Afghan elections.
On Tuesday, September 1 at noon, former Israeli diplomat Dore Gold will discuss his new book on the rise of Iranian nuclear power.
Amanda Reinecker is a writer for—a website for members and supporters of The Heritage Foundation. Nathaniel Ward, the Editor of, contributed to this report.

Donate Heritage on Facebook View as HTML Update Your Profile Unsubscribe

The Heritage Foundation ·
214 Massachusetts Ave, NE · Washington, DC 20002 · 800-546-2843


My thanks to the GOP for sending me these fact sheets.

CONTACT: Michael Steel, Kevin Smith - (202) 225-4000
Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) Delivers Weekly Republican Address

Dr. Price: Americans Need Patient-Centered Reform, Not Democrats’ Costly Government Takeover of Health Care
WASHINGTON, DC - Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) today delivered the weekly Republican address on the need for real health care reform that makes coverage more affordable and accessible for middle-class families and small businesses. In the address, Price – who served Atlanta-area patients as a physician for more than two decades – fact-checks a number of myths about the Democrats’ government takeover of health care and presents the Republicans’ case for reform that keeps patients and doctors – not government bureaucrats – in charge of personal medical decisions. Audio of the address is available here and video of the address will be available here once the embargo is lifted at 6am Saturday.

Following is the text of Rep. Price’s address:

“Hello, I’m Congressman Tom Price. And I have the privilege of representing the Sixth District of Georgia. Before coming to Congress I was a physician, taking care of patients on the north side of Atlanta for more than twenty years.

“Right now, Americans from coast to coast are debating the monumental task of reforming our health system. Folks of every political persuasion understand the imperative of reform. But they want reform that keeps what’s good with our current system – and fixes what’s not working – without destroying our quality of care.

“The status quo in American health care is clearly unacceptable. Rising costs, shrinking access, and third-party decision making are driving patients away from their doctors and the desired care that they seek. The challenge, however, is providing Americans more accessible and affordable care without impairing the quality, innovation, and choices that define American medicine. And this is simply impossible with the one-size-fits-all approach taken by the President and Democrats in charge of Congress.

“Experience tells me that as a doctor, no two patients are exactly alike. While the same diagnosis can be reached for two people, the proper treatment for each may be completely different, based on a countless number of factors that only a patient, their family, and a caring and compassionate physician truly understand. Having navigated federal health care programs for two decades, I can tell you that Washington is incapable of processing the personal and unique circumstances that patients and doctors face each and every day. That is why a positive solution will put power in the hands of patients, not insurance companies or the government.

“Unfortunately, the plan being promoted by the White House would give Washington the power to make highly personal medical decisions on behalf of patients – on behalf of you. Now whether it’s the government choosing what should be in your family’s health care plan, or a bureaucratic board deciding what treatments are appropriate and who should receive them, the President’s plan is a 1,000-page expression supporting the notion that Washington knows best when it comes to your family’s health care. And that’s simply not true.

“As opposition to the Democrats’ government-run health plan is mounting, the President has said he’d like to stamp out some of the disinformation floating around out there. The problem is the President, himself, plays fast and loose with the facts. So as someone who’s taken care of patients, I’d like to take a moment to clear up a couple of the President’s worst offenses.

“On the stump, the President regularly tells Americans that ‘if you like your plan, you can keep your plan.’ But if you read the bill, that just isn’t so. For starters, within five years, every health care plan will have to meet a new federal definition for coverage – one that your current plan might not match, even if you like it.

“What’s more, experts agree that under the House bill, millions of Americans will be forced off their personal, private coverage and shuffled onto the government plan.

“Now the President has also said that he thinks the government should compete with your current health care plan. But we all know that when the government is setting the rules and is backed by tax dollars, it will destroy – not compete – with the private sector. The reality is, whether or not you get to keep your plan, or your doctor, is very much in question under the President’s proposal.

“But perhaps the most striking misinformation the President has put forth is that there are only two options out there for America – that it’s his way or the highway. That it’s either the government running the show – or insurance companies. The truth is there is a third way – a better way, a patient-centered way to reform health care. Rather than allowing insurance companies or the government to call the shots, Republicans want to put patients in charge of their family’s health care. We have plans to increase coverage and lower costs without putting a bureaucrat between you and your doctor. We believe that what’s good for patients is good for American health care.

“If anything has been learned from the debate in August, it’s that the American people think that we can do better. They seek reform, but they reject a government-centered approach. With people on the left, and the right, and everywhere in between dissatisfied with the process, it’s time that we start over to create a truly bipartisan solution that puts patients in charge. Honoring the transparency promised the American people, and the principles of quality care we all hold dear, we can create a patient-centered proposal that all may support. We look forward to working with the President, and on behalf of the American people, to make patient-centered health reform a reality.

“I’m Congressman Tom Price. Thanks so much for listening.”


More Information: RSS YouTube Twitter Flickr Podcast

Click Here to view this email in your browser
Click Here to be removed from this list

National Healthcare

Some of the Founding Fathers of America wrote articles debating what kind of powers the Constitution bestowed on the government. These where called the Federalist Papers.

While some people today insist the government by dint of the "General Welfare" clause in the Constitution can impose National Healthcare other people say that the Constitution does not cover such a system and of course it does not. Please read the excellent article by The Heritage Foundation on Facebook

Today the Democrat Party led by Barack H. Obama is trying to force Nationalized Healthcare on the American People regardless that a majority of the people do not want it.
Driven by Idealogical beliefs and a blatant lust for government control over all aspects of American Society Obama and his minions are trying to seize control of yet another facet of the American economy and by that even more control over the individual American.
The Founding Fathers had lived through the kind of government that did not care about the opinions of the common people and ruled by decree. When you have a President that comes before you and states that. We will have National Healthcare no matter what. All Americans need to raise thier voices in protest against the destruction of individual freedom and rights which the current administration is so intent on taking away.