The Morning Bell
FRIDAY, SEP 11, 2009
Don’t Let 9/11 Become Just Another Earth Day
Three years ago, Norwell High School social studies teacher Julie Fox commemorated 9/11 by asking her students to write journal entries recounting where they were when the planes hit and how they felt at that moment. But now, Fox tells the Boston Globe, too few students remember the day. So Fox spends class time explaining the basics of what happened on 9/11 and why. “It’s almost like teaching the Civil War,” she said.
Recent Entries
Obama Speech Fact Check
Video: Obama’s White House Doesn’t Know What Competition Looks Like
Video: Which Obama Do You Believe?
POLITICO Webchat With Heritage VP Stuart Butler
Obama Taps Ex-Trial Lawyer Lobbyist To Lead Tort Reform
High School students are not the only ones for whom 9/11 is becoming a distant memory. According to the Washington Post, 70% of Democrats say the war in Afghanistan has not been worth its costs (compared to 70% of Republicans who say the war is still worth fighting). Council on Foreign Relations Fellow Stephen Biddle explains: “Surely a big piece of the declining poll numbers for support for Afghanistan is that the public does not yet see the connection between Afghanistan and al-Qaida today.”
Responding to their leftist base, opposition to the effort in Afghanistan is growing. among liberals in Congress. Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), co-chair of the 82-member Congressional Progressive Caucus, said her group is unified in wanting to withdraw troops from Afghanistan. And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told reporters yesterday: “I don’t think there’s a great deal of support for sending more troops to Afghanistan in the country or the Congress.”
One would think that President Obama would take the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks as an opportunity to educate Americans about the link between the fight in Afghanistan and the still very real threat posed by al-Qaida today. No such luck. Instead, President Obama has chosen to use 9/11 to promote his own domestic policy agenda. In a letter celebrating 9/11 as a “National Day of Service and Rememberance” President Obama writes:
We are building a new foundation for growth and prosperity, but we cannot succeed without your help. We can rebuild out schools, but we need mentors and tutors to guide our students. We can modernize our health system, but we need volunteers to care for the sick and assist others in leading healthier lives. We can invest in clean energy, but we need people to maintain energy efficiency in their homes and help create a green economy.
School construction? Health care reform? Green jobs? These are all important areas of public policy debate, but what do they have to do with keeping us safe from those who wish to inflict a second 9/11 on the American people? Debra Burlingame, whose brother was the pilot of the American Airlines jet that crashed into the Pentagon told the Associated Press: “When I first heard about it, I was concerned. I fear, I greatly fear, at some point we’ll transition to turning it into Earth Day where we go and plant trees and the remembrance part will become smaller and smaller and smaller.”
Thanks to President Obama’s www.serve.gov, that is exactly what is happening. In Oklahoma students will pull weeds, plant flowers, paint benches, and plant a tree. In Minnesota, 100 volunteers will assemble Energy Efficiency Outreach Bags. And in South Carolina AmeriCorps members will serve in a variety of projects, including garden beautification, food and clothing collections, and working with homeless and hungry people.
True volunteerism strengthens our civil society. But federal government involvement undermines, not strengthens, true public service. Instead of coordinating garden beautifications, the federal governemnt should honor the memory of the tragedy of 9/11 by focusing on policies that will make sure it never happens again.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Thursday, September 10, 2009
The Heritage Foundation
First Cash for Clunkers, Now Cash for Homes?
Waxman-Markey proposes a new national tax of historic proportions
Related Links
Waxman-Markey's Other Problematic Provisions
$67 Billion a Year to Africa Because We Emit Carbon Dioxide
Heritage's Research on the Cap and Trade Global Warming Bill
Despite being extremely wasteful and creating questionable environmental benefits, the government labeled the cash for clunkers auto program a successful program that exceeded expectations. It worked so well – why not subsidize (again) the housing industry while we’re at it?
Detailed in Section 203 of the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill is a program that subsidizes the purchase of new Energy Star qualified “manufactured homes” (homes built in a factory, such as mobile homes) for people currently living in manufactured homes built before 1976 (Sec. 203, b).
Qualified recipients are eligible to receive up to $7500, and the old home must be either recycled or rendered “unusable;” furthermore, all members of the owner’s household must not exceed 200 percent of the applicable federal poverty level for income.
Essentially the government is encouraging consumers to purchase homes they might not be able to afford and potentially incur more debt. How was the home mortgage crisis caused again? Such market distortions send the wrong signals to buyers, especially when the program focuses on low-income families that may not be able to afford a mortgage payment. And what will classify a home as unusable? Although there’s mention of recycling the home, are we going to see something similarly as wasteful as when the government forced auto dealerships to destroy car engines that were perfectly usable?
Also included in the bill (Section 304) are arbitrary new building energy efficiency targets, requiring homes and commercial buildings to cut energy use by 30 percent immediately and by 50 percent by 2014 and 2015 respectively. The bill also gives the energy secretary the power to raise the standards any time he wants. New standards will add thousands of dollars in additional costs to real estate, and you could face a tax when trying to sell your home if your home doesn’t meet energy code requirements.
For the most part, consumers know a good deal when they see one. They’ll make the switch to more energy efficient products and homes if the benefits outweigh the costs. If it saves them money, consumers will invest in energy efficient buildings, appliances, etc.—it’s not something Washington should tell them to do.
Waxman-Markey requires the establishment of national energy efficiency building codes to meet the targets outlined, with one year to achieve compliance, (Sec. 304, b1A) and it requires states to implement and enforce these codes (Sec. 304, e1). The bill authorizes the federal government to conduct inspections where the state fails and to charge fees to cover the costs of inspections (Sec. 304, f) and creates an arbitrary formula for allowance allocations to ensure state compliance.
Waxman-Markey also includes a program called the Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance (REEP), which is charged with implementing standards for a national energy and environmental building retrofit policy affecting both residential and nonresidential buildings. It requires that retrofits done in accordance with the REEP program increase the reflectiveness, of those buildings’ roofs (Sec. 202, f7) —this often entails painting roofs white.
Again, energy efficiency is a good thing. It helps people save money and help the environment. And after the past few decades, homes have become dramatically more energy efficient. But it’s rarely good when but the government tries to mandate energy efficiency with arbitrary requirements. The result is higher sticker prices, reduced choice for efficient products and, if a product is rushed into the market, reduced quality.
Next week, we’ll detail some of the other efficiency regulations in the cap and trade bill
Waxman-Markey proposes a new national tax of historic proportions
Related Links
Waxman-Markey's Other Problematic Provisions
$67 Billion a Year to Africa Because We Emit Carbon Dioxide
Heritage's Research on the Cap and Trade Global Warming Bill
Despite being extremely wasteful and creating questionable environmental benefits, the government labeled the cash for clunkers auto program a successful program that exceeded expectations. It worked so well – why not subsidize (again) the housing industry while we’re at it?
Detailed in Section 203 of the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill is a program that subsidizes the purchase of new Energy Star qualified “manufactured homes” (homes built in a factory, such as mobile homes) for people currently living in manufactured homes built before 1976 (Sec. 203, b).
Qualified recipients are eligible to receive up to $7500, and the old home must be either recycled or rendered “unusable;” furthermore, all members of the owner’s household must not exceed 200 percent of the applicable federal poverty level for income.
Essentially the government is encouraging consumers to purchase homes they might not be able to afford and potentially incur more debt. How was the home mortgage crisis caused again? Such market distortions send the wrong signals to buyers, especially when the program focuses on low-income families that may not be able to afford a mortgage payment. And what will classify a home as unusable? Although there’s mention of recycling the home, are we going to see something similarly as wasteful as when the government forced auto dealerships to destroy car engines that were perfectly usable?
Also included in the bill (Section 304) are arbitrary new building energy efficiency targets, requiring homes and commercial buildings to cut energy use by 30 percent immediately and by 50 percent by 2014 and 2015 respectively. The bill also gives the energy secretary the power to raise the standards any time he wants. New standards will add thousands of dollars in additional costs to real estate, and you could face a tax when trying to sell your home if your home doesn’t meet energy code requirements.
For the most part, consumers know a good deal when they see one. They’ll make the switch to more energy efficient products and homes if the benefits outweigh the costs. If it saves them money, consumers will invest in energy efficient buildings, appliances, etc.—it’s not something Washington should tell them to do.
Waxman-Markey requires the establishment of national energy efficiency building codes to meet the targets outlined, with one year to achieve compliance, (Sec. 304, b1A) and it requires states to implement and enforce these codes (Sec. 304, e1). The bill authorizes the federal government to conduct inspections where the state fails and to charge fees to cover the costs of inspections (Sec. 304, f) and creates an arbitrary formula for allowance allocations to ensure state compliance.
Waxman-Markey also includes a program called the Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance (REEP), which is charged with implementing standards for a national energy and environmental building retrofit policy affecting both residential and nonresidential buildings. It requires that retrofits done in accordance with the REEP program increase the reflectiveness, of those buildings’ roofs (Sec. 202, f7) —this often entails painting roofs white.
Again, energy efficiency is a good thing. It helps people save money and help the environment. And after the past few decades, homes have become dramatically more energy efficient. But it’s rarely good when but the government tries to mandate energy efficiency with arbitrary requirements. The result is higher sticker prices, reduced choice for efficient products and, if a product is rushed into the market, reduced quality.
Next week, we’ll detail some of the other efficiency regulations in the cap and trade bill
GOP LEADER ALERT 9-10-09
FACT CHECK: PRESIDENT OBAMA REPEATS FALSEHOODS IN JOINT SESSION SPEECH
September 10, 2009 | House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) | Permalink
Last night during his address to a joint session of Congress on the topic of health care, President Obama again repeated many claims that simply aren’t true. But despite the President’s rhetoric, the Democrats’ health care bills will force millions of Americans out of their current health care plans, add to the federal deficit, and increase Americans’ health care costs. Following are some of the discredited claims the President repeated last night:
CLAIM: “…[N]othing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.”
FACT: This marked an important change in the President’s language last night. He used to say, “If you like your health-care plan, you keep your health-care plan.” By now using the word “require,” the President’s admitting that they can’t guarantee Americans will keep their health plan. After both the Associated Press, ABC News and others have thoroughly debunked this claim, it’s not surprising the White House has made this shift. But the point is that no one knows for sure how many employers will drop their coverage altogether if their plan goes into effect. Experts at the Lewin Group estimate the number could be more than 100 million Americans. And $500 billion in Medicare cuts will obviously reduce the quality of care America’s seniors receive.
CLAIM: “The plan will not add to our deficit…I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future. Period.”
FACT: According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the House Democrats’ bill would increase the deficit by $239 billion over 10 years. And a recent study by the Lewin Group found that “[i]n the second 10 years…the proposal would add an estimated $1 trillion to the federal deficit.”
CLAIM: “(I)t will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government.”
FACT: As the Associated Press has reported, the Democrats’ plan will increase costs, rather than lower them: “Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf warned lawmakers the legislation that he has seen so far would raise costs, not lower them.”
CLAIM: “If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen. My door is always open.”
FACT: The Hill reported yesterday, that the President has not met with House Republicans since April, and when Republican Leaders asked for a meeting to discuss health care in a May 14 letter, the President ignored the request. The Politico reported on the President’s response on June 5, saying, “he makes no mention of the request to meet in the letter, which he signs off by stating, “Thank you again for sharing your thoughts with me and I look forward to further discussions on this critically important issue.” But those “further discussions” simply didn’t happen. The facts are clear: blame for the lack of bipartisanship in the current health care debate lies squarely at the feet of Washington Democrats.
CLAIM: “I will not stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are.”
FACT: This is an interesting assertion considering the President also said last night: “Our overall efforts have been supported by an unprecedented coalition of doctors and nurses; hospitals, seniors’ groups and even drug companies.” So what special interests is he talking about when the White House seems to have struck back room deals with so many of them?
CLAIM: “We’ve estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system – a system that is currently full of waste and abuse.”
FACT: The massive $1.6 trillion House bill’s cost is NOT mostly “paid for” through savings in the existing health care system – not by a long shot. In fact, the House bill includes more than $800 billion in new tax increases during a severe economic downturn on families and employers to “pay for” most of the massive price tag. And, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that even with these tax increases, coupled with other “pay fors” in the bill such as cuts to Medicare, the House bill still has a revenue shortfall that will add $239 billion to the federal deficit over a ten year period. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce wrote in an open letter to Congress raising concerns about a $534 billion small business tax in July: “Even with some exemptions, this provision will kill many jobs. Market forces and employer autonomy should determine what benefits employers provide, rather than Congress.”
CLAIM: “And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up -- under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.”
FACT: During his quest for the presidency, now-President Obama declared that everyone deserves access to reproductive health care that includes abortion, and vowed that this “right” would be at the heart of his health care reform plan if elected president. President Obama has never retracted this vow, and the health care reform bill moving through the House would help him make good on it if enacted into law. As written, it would allow the U.S. Secretary of Health & Human Services (HHS) to include abortion as a benefit in the government-run health care option. Many Democrats dispute this, pointing to the recent adoption of an amendment sponsored by Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) that would prohibit federal dollars from being used to fund abortion. But under this amendment, the HHS Secretary is explicitly authorized to pay for elective abortions under the government-run insurance plan.
Some have also suggested that the government-run plan would not result in government-funded abortions because it will be subject to the “Hyde Amendment,” but this argument is misleading as well. The Hyde Amendment is not a government-wide applied law, but a rather provision included in the annual HHS Appropriations bill, which bans federal funding of elective abortions. According to a memo produced by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the government-option will not be funded through the appropriations process. For this reason, it will not be subject to the Hyde Amendment. The truth of the matter is that the HHS Secretary will be allowed to include abortion as a benefit in the government-run health care plan under the legislation currently moving through the House. Moreover, FactCheck.Org has stated that “House bill would allow abortions to be covered by a federal plan and by federally subsidized private plans.”
CLAIM: “Now, there are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms I am proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.”
FACT: The non-partisan Congressional Research Service confirms in a report that there is no mechanism included in the bill to verify that individuals are U.S. citizens or legal immigrants before they receive government benefits. Furthermore, Republicans offered two amendments in the Ways and Means, and Energy and Commerce Committees that were rejected by Democrats. The first would have prevented illegal immigrants from being automatically enrolled into Medicaid and the second would have required better screening for applicants for federally-subsidized health care to ensure they are actually citizens or legal immigrants.
September 10, 2009 | House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) | Permalink
Last night during his address to a joint session of Congress on the topic of health care, President Obama again repeated many claims that simply aren’t true. But despite the President’s rhetoric, the Democrats’ health care bills will force millions of Americans out of their current health care plans, add to the federal deficit, and increase Americans’ health care costs. Following are some of the discredited claims the President repeated last night:
CLAIM: “…[N]othing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. Let me repeat this: nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have.”
FACT: This marked an important change in the President’s language last night. He used to say, “If you like your health-care plan, you keep your health-care plan.” By now using the word “require,” the President’s admitting that they can’t guarantee Americans will keep their health plan. After both the Associated Press, ABC News and others have thoroughly debunked this claim, it’s not surprising the White House has made this shift. But the point is that no one knows for sure how many employers will drop their coverage altogether if their plan goes into effect. Experts at the Lewin Group estimate the number could be more than 100 million Americans. And $500 billion in Medicare cuts will obviously reduce the quality of care America’s seniors receive.
CLAIM: “The plan will not add to our deficit…I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits – either now or in the future. Period.”
FACT: According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the House Democrats’ bill would increase the deficit by $239 billion over 10 years. And a recent study by the Lewin Group found that “[i]n the second 10 years…the proposal would add an estimated $1 trillion to the federal deficit.”
CLAIM: “(I)t will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government.”
FACT: As the Associated Press has reported, the Democrats’ plan will increase costs, rather than lower them: “Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf warned lawmakers the legislation that he has seen so far would raise costs, not lower them.”
CLAIM: “If you come to me with a serious set of proposals, I will be there to listen. My door is always open.”
FACT: The Hill reported yesterday, that the President has not met with House Republicans since April, and when Republican Leaders asked for a meeting to discuss health care in a May 14 letter, the President ignored the request. The Politico reported on the President’s response on June 5, saying, “he makes no mention of the request to meet in the letter, which he signs off by stating, “Thank you again for sharing your thoughts with me and I look forward to further discussions on this critically important issue.” But those “further discussions” simply didn’t happen. The facts are clear: blame for the lack of bipartisanship in the current health care debate lies squarely at the feet of Washington Democrats.
CLAIM: “I will not stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are.”
FACT: This is an interesting assertion considering the President also said last night: “Our overall efforts have been supported by an unprecedented coalition of doctors and nurses; hospitals, seniors’ groups and even drug companies.” So what special interests is he talking about when the White House seems to have struck back room deals with so many of them?
CLAIM: “We’ve estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system – a system that is currently full of waste and abuse.”
FACT: The massive $1.6 trillion House bill’s cost is NOT mostly “paid for” through savings in the existing health care system – not by a long shot. In fact, the House bill includes more than $800 billion in new tax increases during a severe economic downturn on families and employers to “pay for” most of the massive price tag. And, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that even with these tax increases, coupled with other “pay fors” in the bill such as cuts to Medicare, the House bill still has a revenue shortfall that will add $239 billion to the federal deficit over a ten year period. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce wrote in an open letter to Congress raising concerns about a $534 billion small business tax in July: “Even with some exemptions, this provision will kill many jobs. Market forces and employer autonomy should determine what benefits employers provide, rather than Congress.”
CLAIM: “And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up -- under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.”
FACT: During his quest for the presidency, now-President Obama declared that everyone deserves access to reproductive health care that includes abortion, and vowed that this “right” would be at the heart of his health care reform plan if elected president. President Obama has never retracted this vow, and the health care reform bill moving through the House would help him make good on it if enacted into law. As written, it would allow the U.S. Secretary of Health & Human Services (HHS) to include abortion as a benefit in the government-run health care option. Many Democrats dispute this, pointing to the recent adoption of an amendment sponsored by Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) that would prohibit federal dollars from being used to fund abortion. But under this amendment, the HHS Secretary is explicitly authorized to pay for elective abortions under the government-run insurance plan.
Some have also suggested that the government-run plan would not result in government-funded abortions because it will be subject to the “Hyde Amendment,” but this argument is misleading as well. The Hyde Amendment is not a government-wide applied law, but a rather provision included in the annual HHS Appropriations bill, which bans federal funding of elective abortions. According to a memo produced by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the government-option will not be funded through the appropriations process. For this reason, it will not be subject to the Hyde Amendment. The truth of the matter is that the HHS Secretary will be allowed to include abortion as a benefit in the government-run health care plan under the legislation currently moving through the House. Moreover, FactCheck.Org has stated that “House bill would allow abortions to be covered by a federal plan and by federally subsidized private plans.”
CLAIM: “Now, there are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms I am proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.”
FACT: The non-partisan Congressional Research Service confirms in a report that there is no mechanism included in the bill to verify that individuals are U.S. citizens or legal immigrants before they receive government benefits. Furthermore, Republicans offered two amendments in the Ways and Means, and Energy and Commerce Committees that were rejected by Democrats. The first would have prevented illegal immigrants from being automatically enrolled into Medicaid and the second would have required better screening for applicants for federally-subsidized health care to ensure they are actually citizens or legal immigrants.
the Heritage Foundation
The Morning Bell
THURSDAY, SEP 10, 2009
The President Learned Nothing From August
“There remain some significant details to iron out.” Thus spoke the President of the United States last night, in an address in which, with a straight face, he told an awaiting nation that he was finally delivering not lofty rhetoric, but his grand plan on health care.
Recent Entries
The House Health Bill’s Higher Costs For Seniors
Tom Friedman: Eco-Communist Wannabe
$67 Billion a Year to Africa Because We Emit Carbon Dioxide
The Baucus Plan: The Status Quo on Steroids
The Mickey Mouse Bailout Act
On that score President Obama was right. It may have been, however, a bit of an understatement. Absent, of course, was how exactly all the savings he confidently predicted would materialize, how exactly the government would prevent employers from dumping all their employees into a government plan and how czars and boards would operate without bureaucrats coming between Americans and their doctors. Ah, details, details.
In fact, while he kept referring to “our plan” he never explained whose plan he meant. One of the two House plans? The one Senate plan that exists or the Finance one that’s under construction? What’s he actually for? What’s the President against?
To the question that all of America wanted an answer, to wit, is the President abandoning his stubborn attachment to a public plan, the President had no clear response. Or maybe he did. He appeared to draw a line on the sand at one point by saying, “I will not back down from the idea that, if Americans cannot find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice.” Maybe that was the clearest indication of the night that Barack Obama is still sticking to the public plan, to be introduced by whatever means. But a minute later he said he was open to other ideas!
As for the rest on this subject in a 45-minute speech, his 29th devoted to health care in nine months in office, Mr. Obama ducked behind the English language—or, more charitable observers would say, used it to its fullest extent. There was his promise, for example that “nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have.” [italics added] This is a change, even an improvement on past exertions.
Previously, the President had insisted that nobody would be forced to abandon the insurance plan they have. Last night he said nobody will be required. See the change? Of course, all he seems to mean is that the government won’t require you – he said nothing about what the consequences of the plan may prod your employer to do.
To critics, including analysts at The Heritage Foundation, who charge that many employers would gladly dump all their employees into his proposed exchange, leaving millions of American with no real choice but the public plan, President Obama mysteriously said that the government plan “would only be available to those who don’t have insurance.” But the congressional plans are open to smaller firms with insured workers. So what proposal is he referring to?
One could praise the President for showing moxie, as when he evoked America’s “self-reliance, our rugged individualism and our fierce defense of freedom” as he tried, yet again, to sell sweeping controls over one sixth of our economy. Less of a surprise was the decision to close the speech with an ode to the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. Just about everyone was waiting for the Camelot Moment.
And the President did stump for civility. Yes, the man who weeks ago told his opponents “I don’t want the folks who created the mess doing a lot of talking. I want them to just get out of the way,” said with hope in his eyes “I still believe we can replace acrimony with civility.”
He also threw Republicans a bone, or at least hoped that the nation would see it that way. He offered to look at a proposal near and dear to conservatives’ heart—tort reform. That is, reforming the legal system so that bad people will not game the medical malpractice system. Or, rather, Mr. Obama offered to send the proposal to the states and let them experiment with a few demonstrations of ideas — approved by his Health Secretary, of course.
But why not get serious with state experiment, not just for tort reform but for a range of reforms? In fact, that has been proposed in true bipartisan legislation the President seems to have overlooked. The 50 states are the proper laboratories to try out different proposals. But the states need Washington to give them the power to do so.
What we did not see, alas, was a willingness to start over and set aside those issues where the American people can’t agree – most importantly the public plan, the individual and employer mandates, a maze of new federal regulations that pre-empt existing laws, and a massive Medicaid expansion. There are ideas that really do have broad support. The key ones:
Empower the states to explore ways of achieving the goals of affordable and accessible coverage for their citizens. Bi-partisan proposals to do this have been introduced in both the House and Senate. As welfare reform showed us, states are laboratories for change and can learn what works and what doesn’t.
Extend tax relief for those who need help. Offering tax credit to middle class families in need by reforming the way the tax code treats health insurance. And instead of expanding Medicaid, providing lower-income families will assistance offset by other spending.
At the very least, Mr. Obama and the Democrats should stop trying to ignore reality; they should stop pretending that August didn’t happen, that there hasn’t been a national revolt against a government takeover of health care. They keep telling themselves—and thus keep hearing—that the Town Hall meetings of summer were concocted by FOX News and abetted by the Internet. Reality may need to set in before we can get real reform.
THURSDAY, SEP 10, 2009
The President Learned Nothing From August
“There remain some significant details to iron out.” Thus spoke the President of the United States last night, in an address in which, with a straight face, he told an awaiting nation that he was finally delivering not lofty rhetoric, but his grand plan on health care.
Recent Entries
The House Health Bill’s Higher Costs For Seniors
Tom Friedman: Eco-Communist Wannabe
$67 Billion a Year to Africa Because We Emit Carbon Dioxide
The Baucus Plan: The Status Quo on Steroids
The Mickey Mouse Bailout Act
On that score President Obama was right. It may have been, however, a bit of an understatement. Absent, of course, was how exactly all the savings he confidently predicted would materialize, how exactly the government would prevent employers from dumping all their employees into a government plan and how czars and boards would operate without bureaucrats coming between Americans and their doctors. Ah, details, details.
In fact, while he kept referring to “our plan” he never explained whose plan he meant. One of the two House plans? The one Senate plan that exists or the Finance one that’s under construction? What’s he actually for? What’s the President against?
To the question that all of America wanted an answer, to wit, is the President abandoning his stubborn attachment to a public plan, the President had no clear response. Or maybe he did. He appeared to draw a line on the sand at one point by saying, “I will not back down from the idea that, if Americans cannot find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice.” Maybe that was the clearest indication of the night that Barack Obama is still sticking to the public plan, to be introduced by whatever means. But a minute later he said he was open to other ideas!
As for the rest on this subject in a 45-minute speech, his 29th devoted to health care in nine months in office, Mr. Obama ducked behind the English language—or, more charitable observers would say, used it to its fullest extent. There was his promise, for example that “nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have.” [italics added] This is a change, even an improvement on past exertions.
Previously, the President had insisted that nobody would be forced to abandon the insurance plan they have. Last night he said nobody will be required. See the change? Of course, all he seems to mean is that the government won’t require you – he said nothing about what the consequences of the plan may prod your employer to do.
To critics, including analysts at The Heritage Foundation, who charge that many employers would gladly dump all their employees into his proposed exchange, leaving millions of American with no real choice but the public plan, President Obama mysteriously said that the government plan “would only be available to those who don’t have insurance.” But the congressional plans are open to smaller firms with insured workers. So what proposal is he referring to?
One could praise the President for showing moxie, as when he evoked America’s “self-reliance, our rugged individualism and our fierce defense of freedom” as he tried, yet again, to sell sweeping controls over one sixth of our economy. Less of a surprise was the decision to close the speech with an ode to the late Sen. Ted Kennedy. Just about everyone was waiting for the Camelot Moment.
And the President did stump for civility. Yes, the man who weeks ago told his opponents “I don’t want the folks who created the mess doing a lot of talking. I want them to just get out of the way,” said with hope in his eyes “I still believe we can replace acrimony with civility.”
He also threw Republicans a bone, or at least hoped that the nation would see it that way. He offered to look at a proposal near and dear to conservatives’ heart—tort reform. That is, reforming the legal system so that bad people will not game the medical malpractice system. Or, rather, Mr. Obama offered to send the proposal to the states and let them experiment with a few demonstrations of ideas — approved by his Health Secretary, of course.
But why not get serious with state experiment, not just for tort reform but for a range of reforms? In fact, that has been proposed in true bipartisan legislation the President seems to have overlooked. The 50 states are the proper laboratories to try out different proposals. But the states need Washington to give them the power to do so.
What we did not see, alas, was a willingness to start over and set aside those issues where the American people can’t agree – most importantly the public plan, the individual and employer mandates, a maze of new federal regulations that pre-empt existing laws, and a massive Medicaid expansion. There are ideas that really do have broad support. The key ones:
Empower the states to explore ways of achieving the goals of affordable and accessible coverage for their citizens. Bi-partisan proposals to do this have been introduced in both the House and Senate. As welfare reform showed us, states are laboratories for change and can learn what works and what doesn’t.
Extend tax relief for those who need help. Offering tax credit to middle class families in need by reforming the way the tax code treats health insurance. And instead of expanding Medicaid, providing lower-income families will assistance offset by other spending.
At the very least, Mr. Obama and the Democrats should stop trying to ignore reality; they should stop pretending that August didn’t happen, that there hasn’t been a national revolt against a government takeover of health care. They keep telling themselves—and thus keep hearing—that the Town Hall meetings of summer were concocted by FOX News and abetted by the Internet. Reality may need to set in before we can get real reform.
The Heritage Foundation
September 10, 2009 | By Amanda Reinecker
Obama’s health care speech
Last night, President Obama welcomed legislators back to Washington by addressing a joint session of Congress on his grand plan to remake American health care.
The speech came in the wake of what was undoubtedly the most difficult month for proponents of the Left's health care plan, as the American people made their views on this "reform" clear at heated town hall meetings across the country.
In his speech, the President acknowledged that "there remain some significant details to be ironed out" -- an understatement that drew chuckles from members of both parties. But while the speech was heralded by the Left, Heritage Vice President Mike Gonzalez points out that the President only grazed the surface, skirting substantive answers to the tough questions about his plan. Gonzales writes:
Absent, of course, was how exactly all the savings he confidently predicted would materialize, how exactly the government would prevent employers from dumping all their employees into a government plan and how czars and boards would operate without bureaucrats coming between Americans and their doctors.
Even the President's math was a bit fuzzy. Heritage's J.D. Foster suggests lawmakers take a very close look at the budget projections before deciding that the health care plan is really "deficit neutral."
Most notable, perhaps, was the President's failure to dispose of, once and for all, the "public option" -- the contentious proposal for the government to offer a health insurance plan to "compete" with private insurers. Heritage Vice President Stuart Butler wonders how liberals remain committed to this big-government option even after "town hall protesters by the thousands jeered the concept… poll numbers reflected a small minority of support… [and] study after study showed that millions of Americans would be forced out of their private plans, that it wasn't paid for, and that it would lead to bureaucratic rationing."
» Stuart Butler participated in a live web chat on health care today. Read the transcript.
President Obama did express a willingness to work with both parties to address "any legitimate concerns." For example, last night was the first time the President opened the door to medical malpractice reform. Conservatives, including Heritage experts, have long advocated reforming the legal system to prevent abuses of this system, albeit at the state level. But tort reform is just one of many "legitimate concerns" opponents have.
Heritage's Conn Carroll urges Congress to "step back and start over on health care" reform. This would require tossing out the public option, rejecting individual and employer mandates and ditching the tangled maze of new federal regulations and Medicaid expansion. Lawmakers should pursue ideas that hold to traditional American principles and offer real results. Such ideas include: empowering states to experiment with their own reforms; allowing Americans to purchase health insurance across state lines; and implementing tax reforms that would allow individuals to purchase the coverage that best suits them and their families.
Unfortunately, the President failed to put any of these ideas on the table during his speech, indicating that the toughest battles remain ahead. Now is the time for "more conservatives to talk boldly and plainly about what we're for," Butler writes in a separate article, and "what we're dead set against."
> Other Heritage work of note
The Obama administration is seeking public input on a proposal that would open energy exploration within the United States. Join more than 34,000 people who have made their voices heard by submitting your comments to the Department of the Interior via Heritage's FreeOurEnergy.com.
Former United Nations ambassador John Bolton spoke yesterday at The Heritage Foundation during the launch of ConUNdrum, a new book on the United Nations edited by Heritage's Brett Schaefer. You can order your copy of the book from the Heritage bookstore.
Last week, The Heritage Foundation hosted a round-table discussion on the next steps in Afghanistan with policymakers from across the political spectrum. Heritage continues to lead the debate on the war on terror; you can keep up with the latest on Heritage.org.
The Census Bureau has released its annual poverty data, and Heritage's Robert Rector warns us to be skeptical. If we assume poverty means significant physical hardship, he argues on National Review Online, "very few of the 30 million plus individuals defined as 'living in poverty' by the government are actually poor. Real hardship does occur, but it is limited in scope and severity." In fact, by several measures, many households counted as "poor" are better off materially than middle-class American households just a few decades ago or the average European today.
Immigrant activists are suggesting that illegal immigrants boycott the 2010 census to protest the lack of amnesty legislation. If that's their stance, Heritage legal scholar Hans von Spakovsky argues, "bring it on." States with large illegal populations are unfairly overrepresented in Congress, he says, and a boycott could reverse that. In addition, he says these over-counted states would lose the federal funding incentives that encourage illegal immigration.
Obama’s health care speech
Last night, President Obama welcomed legislators back to Washington by addressing a joint session of Congress on his grand plan to remake American health care.
The speech came in the wake of what was undoubtedly the most difficult month for proponents of the Left's health care plan, as the American people made their views on this "reform" clear at heated town hall meetings across the country.
In his speech, the President acknowledged that "there remain some significant details to be ironed out" -- an understatement that drew chuckles from members of both parties. But while the speech was heralded by the Left, Heritage Vice President Mike Gonzalez points out that the President only grazed the surface, skirting substantive answers to the tough questions about his plan. Gonzales writes:
Absent, of course, was how exactly all the savings he confidently predicted would materialize, how exactly the government would prevent employers from dumping all their employees into a government plan and how czars and boards would operate without bureaucrats coming between Americans and their doctors.
Even the President's math was a bit fuzzy. Heritage's J.D. Foster suggests lawmakers take a very close look at the budget projections before deciding that the health care plan is really "deficit neutral."
Most notable, perhaps, was the President's failure to dispose of, once and for all, the "public option" -- the contentious proposal for the government to offer a health insurance plan to "compete" with private insurers. Heritage Vice President Stuart Butler wonders how liberals remain committed to this big-government option even after "town hall protesters by the thousands jeered the concept… poll numbers reflected a small minority of support… [and] study after study showed that millions of Americans would be forced out of their private plans, that it wasn't paid for, and that it would lead to bureaucratic rationing."
» Stuart Butler participated in a live web chat on health care today. Read the transcript.
President Obama did express a willingness to work with both parties to address "any legitimate concerns." For example, last night was the first time the President opened the door to medical malpractice reform. Conservatives, including Heritage experts, have long advocated reforming the legal system to prevent abuses of this system, albeit at the state level. But tort reform is just one of many "legitimate concerns" opponents have.
Heritage's Conn Carroll urges Congress to "step back and start over on health care" reform. This would require tossing out the public option, rejecting individual and employer mandates and ditching the tangled maze of new federal regulations and Medicaid expansion. Lawmakers should pursue ideas that hold to traditional American principles and offer real results. Such ideas include: empowering states to experiment with their own reforms; allowing Americans to purchase health insurance across state lines; and implementing tax reforms that would allow individuals to purchase the coverage that best suits them and their families.
Unfortunately, the President failed to put any of these ideas on the table during his speech, indicating that the toughest battles remain ahead. Now is the time for "more conservatives to talk boldly and plainly about what we're for," Butler writes in a separate article, and "what we're dead set against."
> Other Heritage work of note
The Obama administration is seeking public input on a proposal that would open energy exploration within the United States. Join more than 34,000 people who have made their voices heard by submitting your comments to the Department of the Interior via Heritage's FreeOurEnergy.com.
Former United Nations ambassador John Bolton spoke yesterday at The Heritage Foundation during the launch of ConUNdrum, a new book on the United Nations edited by Heritage's Brett Schaefer. You can order your copy of the book from the Heritage bookstore.
Last week, The Heritage Foundation hosted a round-table discussion on the next steps in Afghanistan with policymakers from across the political spectrum. Heritage continues to lead the debate on the war on terror; you can keep up with the latest on Heritage.org.
The Census Bureau has released its annual poverty data, and Heritage's Robert Rector warns us to be skeptical. If we assume poverty means significant physical hardship, he argues on National Review Online, "very few of the 30 million plus individuals defined as 'living in poverty' by the government are actually poor. Real hardship does occur, but it is limited in scope and severity." In fact, by several measures, many households counted as "poor" are better off materially than middle-class American households just a few decades ago or the average European today.
Immigrant activists are suggesting that illegal immigrants boycott the 2010 census to protest the lack of amnesty legislation. If that's their stance, Heritage legal scholar Hans von Spakovsky argues, "bring it on." States with large illegal populations are unfairly overrepresented in Congress, he says, and a boycott could reverse that. In addition, he says these over-counted states would lose the federal funding incentives that encourage illegal immigration.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
That Pissed Off The Messiah
I really don't remember when a member of Congress actually heckled a President
The Heritage Foundation
The Morning Bell
WEDNESDAY, SEP 9, 2009
Step Back and Start Over on Health Care
Just in case you hadn’t already heard, President Barack Obama will deliver what the media is describing as a “make or break” health care speech tonight. But don’t feel bad if you have to miss it. According to the Wall Street Journal, President Obama has already given 27 speeches entirely devoted to health care and he has mentioned the issue prominently in another 92. The American people already know what Obamacare looks like: more power to Washington, less choice for patients and doctors, trillions in new deficit spending, job killing employer mandates, and unprecedented government intrusion into every American’s private life.
Recent Entries
Heritage’s Health Care Solutions: Real Choice, Real Freedom
Fact Checking the White House Video: Why Millions of Americans Will Lose Their Private Coverage
Cap and Trade is About Status – Not the Environment
Hugo Chavez & Fooling the American People
Half a Million Heritage Members Can’t Be Wrong
No wonder 44% of independents tell Gallup they would direct their Representative to vote against Obamacare (compared to only 29% of independents who would vote for it).
No matter how much the President and his liberal allies try to deny it, the American public signaled in hundreds of town hall meetings last month that they believe health care reform is headed in the wrong direction. The Obama administration may believe that the election of liberal majorities to the White House, Senate, and House meant that the American people wanted Washington to control more of our lives, but that is simply not the case.
Pew’s annual survey of Political Values and Core Attitudes found that “Independents Take Center Stage in Obama Era” and that “independents are more conservative on several key issues than in the past.” Specifically, in 2009 only 43% of independents say government should help more needy people even if it means going deeper into debt. That is down from 57% just two years ago.
Congress needs to take a fresh sheet of paper (rather than 1,000+ pages that some congressional members won’t even read) and start again to craft a reform bill with conservative principles that have proven wide support with independents. 13 years ago, President Bill Clinton cemented his standing with independents by working with conservatives to reform our nation’s welfare system. President Obama still has the chance to work with conservatives and enact meaningful health care reform. Here are just two steps the President and Congress could take to win support from both sides of the aisle:
Start with giving states more freedom to experiment with health care reform. Give the states incentives to figure out ways to make coverage more affordable and accessible and experiment with ideas like allowing people to buy coverage from partnering states and medical malpractice reform. We’ll see what works and what doesn’t on a smaller scale and build from that.
Level the playing field for people who can’t afford coverage by making the tax treatment of health insurance fairer for them. By giving tax breaks for health insurance similar to those enjoyed at the place of work, Americans will be able to buy and own affordable coverage. In addition, instead of expanding Medicaid, offer assistance to lower-income families with subsidies offset by existing spending.
According to The Hill, at least 23 House Democrats already have told constituents or hometown media that they oppose Obamacare as currently composed. That means Speaker Nancy Pelosi can only lose 15 more members of her caucus if she wants health reform to pass. Rather than add another $1 trillion to the national debt or create even more czars, commissioners or advisory boards to make our health care decisions, let’s demand that Congress take a step back and start over
WEDNESDAY, SEP 9, 2009
Step Back and Start Over on Health Care
Just in case you hadn’t already heard, President Barack Obama will deliver what the media is describing as a “make or break” health care speech tonight. But don’t feel bad if you have to miss it. According to the Wall Street Journal, President Obama has already given 27 speeches entirely devoted to health care and he has mentioned the issue prominently in another 92. The American people already know what Obamacare looks like: more power to Washington, less choice for patients and doctors, trillions in new deficit spending, job killing employer mandates, and unprecedented government intrusion into every American’s private life.
Recent Entries
Heritage’s Health Care Solutions: Real Choice, Real Freedom
Fact Checking the White House Video: Why Millions of Americans Will Lose Their Private Coverage
Cap and Trade is About Status – Not the Environment
Hugo Chavez & Fooling the American People
Half a Million Heritage Members Can’t Be Wrong
No wonder 44% of independents tell Gallup they would direct their Representative to vote against Obamacare (compared to only 29% of independents who would vote for it).
No matter how much the President and his liberal allies try to deny it, the American public signaled in hundreds of town hall meetings last month that they believe health care reform is headed in the wrong direction. The Obama administration may believe that the election of liberal majorities to the White House, Senate, and House meant that the American people wanted Washington to control more of our lives, but that is simply not the case.
Pew’s annual survey of Political Values and Core Attitudes found that “Independents Take Center Stage in Obama Era” and that “independents are more conservative on several key issues than in the past.” Specifically, in 2009 only 43% of independents say government should help more needy people even if it means going deeper into debt. That is down from 57% just two years ago.
Congress needs to take a fresh sheet of paper (rather than 1,000+ pages that some congressional members won’t even read) and start again to craft a reform bill with conservative principles that have proven wide support with independents. 13 years ago, President Bill Clinton cemented his standing with independents by working with conservatives to reform our nation’s welfare system. President Obama still has the chance to work with conservatives and enact meaningful health care reform. Here are just two steps the President and Congress could take to win support from both sides of the aisle:
Start with giving states more freedom to experiment with health care reform. Give the states incentives to figure out ways to make coverage more affordable and accessible and experiment with ideas like allowing people to buy coverage from partnering states and medical malpractice reform. We’ll see what works and what doesn’t on a smaller scale and build from that.
Level the playing field for people who can’t afford coverage by making the tax treatment of health insurance fairer for them. By giving tax breaks for health insurance similar to those enjoyed at the place of work, Americans will be able to buy and own affordable coverage. In addition, instead of expanding Medicaid, offer assistance to lower-income families with subsidies offset by existing spending.
According to The Hill, at least 23 House Democrats already have told constituents or hometown media that they oppose Obamacare as currently composed. That means Speaker Nancy Pelosi can only lose 15 more members of her caucus if she wants health reform to pass. Rather than add another $1 trillion to the national debt or create even more czars, commissioners or advisory boards to make our health care decisions, let’s demand that Congress take a step back and start over
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
The Heritage Foundation
The Morning Bell
MONDAY, SEP 8, 2009
Is Obamacare Consistent With Our First Principles?
Late this Saturday night President Barack Obama’s Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Van Jones, resigned amid what the Washington Post calls another “lapse in the administration’s vetting procedures.” That’s putting it mildly. Jones is an admitted former communist and black nationalist. His Ella Baker Center for Human Rights produced a rap record in 2005 “hosted by” cop killer Mumia Abu Jamal, in which Jones links the Palestinian fight against Israel as part of the “global struggle against the U.S. led security apparatus” that “we need to see linked” to “our problems here.”
Recent Entries
Fact Checking the White House: Congressmen Did Opt Out of Public Option
Al-Arabiya Television Network Deserves Praise for Anti-terrorism Program
Why the “Trigger” is a Bad Idea
Honduras, Zelaya and the Obama Administration: Why Hugo Chavez is Smiling
The Obama Jobs Gap: 5 Million
His more recent advocacy for green jobs fits perfectly into Jones’ racial/Marxist worldview. In a 2008 interview Jones said: “The white polluters and the white environmentalists are essentially steering poison into the people of color’s communities because they don’t have a racial justice frame.”
So how did someone with views as radical and inflammatory as Jones’ get into a position where he would control one of the “five pillars” of President Obama’s plan to rebuild the entire economy? The short answer is that Jones was never vetted. Jones was never asked to fill out the exhaustive 7 page 63 question form White House officials require of every Cabinet-level secretary and deputy-secretary position. And why did he not fill out the questionnaire? He did not have to. His official “czar” job, Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, does not require Senate confirmation. To be fair, President Obama did not create the first Executive branch czar, but his administration has authored of them. In fact, President Obama just appointed another czar, former steelworkers union official Ron Bloom, to oversee his manufacturing and automotive policy yesterday.
According to Politico there are, not counting Jones or Bloom, 30 other Obama administration officials with czar-like duties and powers, including: Afghanistan Czar Richard Holbrooke, AIDS Czar Jeffrey Crowley, Auto recovery Czar Ed Montgomery, Border Czar Alan Bersin, California Water Czar David Hayes, Central Region Czar Dennis Ross, Domestic Violence Czar Lynn Rosenthal, Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske, Economic Czar Paul Volcker, Energy and Environment Czar Carol Brower, Faith-Based Czar Joshua DuBois, Great Lakes Czar Cameron Davis, Guantanamo Closure Czar Daniel Fried, Health Czar Nancy-Ann DeParle, Information Czar Vivek Kundra, International Climate Czar Todd Stern, Intelligence Czar Dennis Blair, Mideast Peace Czar George Mitchell, Pay Czar Kenneth Feinberg, Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein, Science Czar John Holdren, Stimulus Accountability Czar Earl Devaney, Sudan Czar J. Scott Gration, TARP Czar Herb Allison, Terrorism Czar John Brennan, Technology Czar Aneesh Chopra, Urban Affairs Czar Adolfo Carrion Jr., Weapons Czar Ashton Carter, and WMD Policy Czar Gary Samore.
The proliferation of czars is a direct consequence of both the ever expanding power of the federal government and Congress’ willingness to cede ever more legislative and judicial functions to the Executive branch. Our Founding Fathers specifically created a Constitution dividing the legislative, executive, and judicial functions of government into three branches so that the separation of these powers would limit the size and scope of the federal government.
Since the dawning of the Progressive Movement, the left has correctly identified the Constitution’s separation of powers framework as an obstacle to their remaking of American society. If our republic is to survive in the 21st century, our Congress must begin to reassert itself and rein in Obama’s czar state.
MONDAY, SEP 8, 2009
Is Obamacare Consistent With Our First Principles?
Late this Saturday night President Barack Obama’s Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Van Jones, resigned amid what the Washington Post calls another “lapse in the administration’s vetting procedures.” That’s putting it mildly. Jones is an admitted former communist and black nationalist. His Ella Baker Center for Human Rights produced a rap record in 2005 “hosted by” cop killer Mumia Abu Jamal, in which Jones links the Palestinian fight against Israel as part of the “global struggle against the U.S. led security apparatus” that “we need to see linked” to “our problems here.”
Recent Entries
Fact Checking the White House: Congressmen Did Opt Out of Public Option
Al-Arabiya Television Network Deserves Praise for Anti-terrorism Program
Why the “Trigger” is a Bad Idea
Honduras, Zelaya and the Obama Administration: Why Hugo Chavez is Smiling
The Obama Jobs Gap: 5 Million
His more recent advocacy for green jobs fits perfectly into Jones’ racial/Marxist worldview. In a 2008 interview Jones said: “The white polluters and the white environmentalists are essentially steering poison into the people of color’s communities because they don’t have a racial justice frame.”
So how did someone with views as radical and inflammatory as Jones’ get into a position where he would control one of the “five pillars” of President Obama’s plan to rebuild the entire economy? The short answer is that Jones was never vetted. Jones was never asked to fill out the exhaustive 7 page 63 question form White House officials require of every Cabinet-level secretary and deputy-secretary position. And why did he not fill out the questionnaire? He did not have to. His official “czar” job, Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, does not require Senate confirmation. To be fair, President Obama did not create the first Executive branch czar, but his administration has authored of them. In fact, President Obama just appointed another czar, former steelworkers union official Ron Bloom, to oversee his manufacturing and automotive policy yesterday.
According to Politico there are, not counting Jones or Bloom, 30 other Obama administration officials with czar-like duties and powers, including: Afghanistan Czar Richard Holbrooke, AIDS Czar Jeffrey Crowley, Auto recovery Czar Ed Montgomery, Border Czar Alan Bersin, California Water Czar David Hayes, Central Region Czar Dennis Ross, Domestic Violence Czar Lynn Rosenthal, Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske, Economic Czar Paul Volcker, Energy and Environment Czar Carol Brower, Faith-Based Czar Joshua DuBois, Great Lakes Czar Cameron Davis, Guantanamo Closure Czar Daniel Fried, Health Czar Nancy-Ann DeParle, Information Czar Vivek Kundra, International Climate Czar Todd Stern, Intelligence Czar Dennis Blair, Mideast Peace Czar George Mitchell, Pay Czar Kenneth Feinberg, Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein, Science Czar John Holdren, Stimulus Accountability Czar Earl Devaney, Sudan Czar J. Scott Gration, TARP Czar Herb Allison, Terrorism Czar John Brennan, Technology Czar Aneesh Chopra, Urban Affairs Czar Adolfo Carrion Jr., Weapons Czar Ashton Carter, and WMD Policy Czar Gary Samore.
The proliferation of czars is a direct consequence of both the ever expanding power of the federal government and Congress’ willingness to cede ever more legislative and judicial functions to the Executive branch. Our Founding Fathers specifically created a Constitution dividing the legislative, executive, and judicial functions of government into three branches so that the separation of these powers would limit the size and scope of the federal government.
Since the dawning of the Progressive Movement, the left has correctly identified the Constitution’s separation of powers framework as an obstacle to their remaking of American society. If our republic is to survive in the 21st century, our Congress must begin to reassert itself and rein in Obama’s czar state.
GOP LEADER ALERT 9-8-09
WILL DEMS LISTEN TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, WORK WITH GOP ON COMMON-SENSE HEALTH CARE SOLUTIONS?
SERIOUS FLAWS IN DEMS’ GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF HEALTH CARE NOT LIMITED TO GOVERNMENT-RUN “PUBLIC OPTION”
September 8, 2009 | House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) | Permalink
As Democrats and Republicans alike return to Capitol Hill this week to hear the President’s speech and – hopefully – begin work on real, bipartisan health care reform, it is important that the views and concerns the American people expressed over August are heard. While much of the news coverage has focused on the debate among Democrats over the government-run plan, there are other serious problems with the House Democrats’ bill (H.R. 3200). Below is a compilation of those issues, based on a detailed analysis of H.R. 3200 highlighted by the Republican Leader’s office throughout the month of August:
House Democrats’ Bill Raises Costs Through a Government Takeover of Health Care
House Democrats’ Bill Will Lead to Rationing of Health Care
House Democrats’ Bill Raises Taxes on Families and Small Businesses
House Democrats’ “Cost Control” Measures Won’t Control Health Care Costs
House Democrats’ Government Takeover of Health Care Destroys Small Business Jobs
House Democrats’ Government-Run Health Care Plan Limits Choices for Patients
House Democrats’ Government-Run Health Care Plan Breaks President Obama’s Promises by Forcing Millions out of Their Current Health Care Coverage
House Democrats’ Government-Run Health Care Plan Allows Taxpayer-Funded Abortions
House Democrats’ Government-Run Health Care Plan Loaded Up With Special-Interest Giveaways
House Democrats’ Government Takeover Gives Unchecked Power to New “Health Care Czar"
Americans’ Current Health Coverage Undermined by Democrats’ Government Takeover
House Democrats’ Government Takeover Creates 53 New Government Programs, Offices, & Bureaucracies
The American people support real health care reform – a common-sense plan that reduces costs and improve access to quality care in a manner our nation can afford. House Republicans believe we don’t need a government takeover of health care to accomplish that goal, and have offered a better solution that addresses Americans’ concerns about out-of-control health care costs. The House GOP plan would make quality health care coverage more affordable and accessible for every American, regardless of pre-existing health conditions.
As Democrats return to Washington after a long, hot summer, are they going to hit the reset button and work with Republicans for better solutions on health care or will they continue to go it alone, trying to ram through a partisan government takeover of health care that the American people don’t want?
SERIOUS FLAWS IN DEMS’ GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF HEALTH CARE NOT LIMITED TO GOVERNMENT-RUN “PUBLIC OPTION”
September 8, 2009 | House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) | Permalink
As Democrats and Republicans alike return to Capitol Hill this week to hear the President’s speech and – hopefully – begin work on real, bipartisan health care reform, it is important that the views and concerns the American people expressed over August are heard. While much of the news coverage has focused on the debate among Democrats over the government-run plan, there are other serious problems with the House Democrats’ bill (H.R. 3200). Below is a compilation of those issues, based on a detailed analysis of H.R. 3200 highlighted by the Republican Leader’s office throughout the month of August:
House Democrats’ Bill Raises Costs Through a Government Takeover of Health Care
House Democrats’ Bill Will Lead to Rationing of Health Care
House Democrats’ Bill Raises Taxes on Families and Small Businesses
House Democrats’ “Cost Control” Measures Won’t Control Health Care Costs
House Democrats’ Government Takeover of Health Care Destroys Small Business Jobs
House Democrats’ Government-Run Health Care Plan Limits Choices for Patients
House Democrats’ Government-Run Health Care Plan Breaks President Obama’s Promises by Forcing Millions out of Their Current Health Care Coverage
House Democrats’ Government-Run Health Care Plan Allows Taxpayer-Funded Abortions
House Democrats’ Government-Run Health Care Plan Loaded Up With Special-Interest Giveaways
House Democrats’ Government Takeover Gives Unchecked Power to New “Health Care Czar"
Americans’ Current Health Coverage Undermined by Democrats’ Government Takeover
House Democrats’ Government Takeover Creates 53 New Government Programs, Offices, & Bureaucracies
The American people support real health care reform – a common-sense plan that reduces costs and improve access to quality care in a manner our nation can afford. House Republicans believe we don’t need a government takeover of health care to accomplish that goal, and have offered a better solution that addresses Americans’ concerns about out-of-control health care costs. The House GOP plan would make quality health care coverage more affordable and accessible for every American, regardless of pre-existing health conditions.
As Democrats return to Washington after a long, hot summer, are they going to hit the reset button and work with Republicans for better solutions on health care or will they continue to go it alone, trying to ram through a partisan government takeover of health care that the American people don’t want?
Obamas School Speech
Today the Bamster gave his speech to America's school children. It was different from The Dear Leader speech he had hoped to give, after all the complaints over the long weekend. It's good that the American people are starting to let this Marxist Ideologue know that they are on to him.
Of course he being the person he is tried to make himself sound almost conservative but if you listened and understood what he was saying it turns out he lied. Another trait he has and uses.
Obama does not beleive in taking personal responsability,that's obvious.
Nor does he want all the children to grow up and be responsable citizens. This goes against everything he and his ilk stand for and beleive. He wants an omnipresent nanny state with as many people dependent on it as possible.
I think we all remember what The Rev. Jessie Jackson said when Barry stated as much during the elections. Jackson wanted to neuter him. Yup Old Jessie Jackson must of come close to a coronary. The Bamster sounded like he wanted to kill Jessie's cash cow. Tell people they can make it through life without help from the left...Imagine...
So in the end this little speech got watered down and he didn't get to ask what the children could do for The Dear Leader. A pity really. I would of enjoyed hearing the American people call for his impeachment...maybe next time.
MGC
Of course he being the person he is tried to make himself sound almost conservative but if you listened and understood what he was saying it turns out he lied. Another trait he has and uses.
Obama does not beleive in taking personal responsability,that's obvious.
Nor does he want all the children to grow up and be responsable citizens. This goes against everything he and his ilk stand for and beleive. He wants an omnipresent nanny state with as many people dependent on it as possible.
I think we all remember what The Rev. Jessie Jackson said when Barry stated as much during the elections. Jackson wanted to neuter him. Yup Old Jessie Jackson must of come close to a coronary. The Bamster sounded like he wanted to kill Jessie's cash cow. Tell people they can make it through life without help from the left...Imagine...
So in the end this little speech got watered down and he didn't get to ask what the children could do for The Dear Leader. A pity really. I would of enjoyed hearing the American people call for his impeachment...maybe next time.
MGC
Monday, September 7, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
