Tuesday, March 16, 2010
On the Slaughter Solution, A Few More Thoughts
Over at the Washington Examiner, Mark Tapscott has
blogged about the constitutional issues
I raised Sunday with regard to the so-called "Slaughter Solution."
The Slaughter Solution is a proposed rule to allow the House to (ostensibly) pass the Senate's version of ObamaCare by passing a rule saying, in effect, that it had passed without actually voting for it.
Although it is not yet clear if the Democratic leadership will decide to use the Slaughter Rule tactic, the left is pre-emptively defending the measure, claiming the Republicans used "self-executing rules" on numerous occasions when in the majority.
To that, a few thoughts of my own:
1) While the Republicans may have done so, they (insofar as I can determine) limited the use of the tactic to measures insufficiently controversial to inspire anyone to challenge the constitutionality of the tactic in court. According to a 2006 Congressional Research Service report (pdf), for instance, the GOP used the rule for the following purposes: a) consider a law prohibiting smoking on airline flights under two hours;
b) place a voluntary employment verification program (vis-a-vis immigration status) into an amendment under consideration in the House;
c) incorporate into legislation a ban on the use of statistical sampling in the 2000 Census until a court ruled on its constitutionality;
d) incorporate four bipartisan amendments into an IRS reform bill;
e) drop from an intelligence authorization bill a provision allowing the CIA to offer a particular early retirement program;
f) to adopt a manager's amendment, H.Res. 75, to an immigration bill in 2005.
Do these strike anyone as roughly equivalent to the significance of the ObamaCare vote?
2) So what if the Republicans did it? Does that make it right? Or constitutional? The GOP leadership also broke the House rules by holding a three-hour roll-call vote on its prescription drug bill back in 2003 (which conservatives screamed about at the time; see here for example). Does that mean conservatives and others who believe in free markets (or free choice in health care) have to sit by let the Democrats break that rule in the same fashion, too? When do we start playing by the rules?
3) If I were a Democratic politician interested in future electoral success, even if I supported ObamaCare, I would be very wary of voting for it this way. What if the legislation passes via a Slaughter Solution tactic, and the federal courts rule the tactic unconstitutional? ObamaCare would be tossed out, making supportive politicians look both impotent and vaguely corrupt, and on a judicial timetable, which could be right before an election. If I were in that situation, I'd think it better to hold an up-or-down vote and live with the consequences.
E-mail comments to
info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to
feed. |
Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. |
Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care, Media
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:50 AM
Monday, March 15, 2010
National Center's David Almasi to Speak at U.S. Capitol Tea Party Rally, Will Deliver Tens of Thousands of Petitions Against Socialized Health Care
David Almasi with a box of the petitions
National Center Executive Director David Almasi will speak at the Tea Party Express "Code Red" rally against Obamacare on Tuesday, March 16. The rally will be on the U.S. Capitol grounds at Taft Park (on the Senate side) at 10:00 AM. David is scheduled to speak at 10:35 AM.
David also will present Representative Michele Bachman (R-MN) with tens of thousands of petitions collected by the National Center for Public Policy Research. The petitions oppose socialized medicine and President Obama's plan to eliminate the popular Medicare Advantage option for Medicare recipients.
Here are two (unsigned) samples of the tens of thousands of petitions David will present on Tuesday (open in a new window to enlarge):
E-mail comments to
info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to
feed. |
Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. |
Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.Labels: Congress, Conservatives, Government Health Care, Health Care, Protests, White House
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 9:44 PM
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Slaughter Solution Unconstitutional
Justice Stevens' majority opinion in Clinton v. New York signals the Supreme Court's likely view of the Slaughter Solution
Frustrated by their inability to get President Obama's health care plan through Congress, the House leadership is now considering a mad new scheme, dubbed the "Slaughter Solution," to get the Senate version of the bill through a reluctant House.
As
described by Mark Tapscott of the Washington Examiner, the Slaughter Solution would "pass [the] legislation by 'deeming' it approved under a House rule instead of following the process required by the U.S. Constitution in which they actually vote on the proposal itself... Slaughter's approach would bring to the House floor a reconcilliation bill to resolve differences between the House and Senate versions of health care reform with the rule deeming the House to have approved the Senate version."
Mark goes on to say a senior House of Representatives GOP staffer has told him the Republicans can find no evidence such a ploy has ever been tried before in the history of the House.
In my view, there's a good reason why not: the legislation would stand a very good chance of being tossed out by the U.S. Supreme Court.
A dozen years ago, in a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the line item veto unconstitutional in
Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998).
Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens laid a likely roadmap for how the Court might rule on a challenge to the constitutionality of the Slaughter Solution:
...our decision rests on the narrow ground that the procedures authorized by the Line Item Veto Act are not authorized by the Constitution. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 is a 500-page document that became 'Public Law 105--33' after three procedural steps were taken: (1) a bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate approved precisely the same text; and (3) that text was signed into law by the President. The Constitution explicitly requires that each of those three steps be taken before a bill may 'become a law.' Art. I, §7. If one paragraph of that text had been omitted at any one of those three stages, Public Law 105--33 would not have been validly enacted. [Emphasis added] If the Line Item Veto Act were valid, it would authorize the President to create a different law - one whose text was not voted on by either House of Congress or presented to the President for signature. Something that might be known as 'Public Law 105--33 as modified by the President' may or may not be desirable, but it is surely not a document that may 'become a law' pursuant to the procedures designed by the Framers of Article I, §7, of the Constitution.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Court in the line item veto case, one cannot deny that the majority decision here is a powerful sign that the Slaughter Solution would not be ruled constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.
E-mail comments to
info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to
feed. |
Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. |
Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.Labels: Congress, Constitutional Law, Government Health Care, Health Care, White House
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:40 PM
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
Treat All Car Companies the Same
Thomas Lifson at American Thinker
asks: "Will GM execs be dragged before Congress?" as the Toyota executives were?
Ordinarily I oppose Congressional show trials of corporate CEOs, finding it repulsive that people responsible for the insolvent Medicare and Social Security systems pretend to be morally qualified to sit in judgment of the business acumen of others, but now that the U.S. government is in the car business, Congress must bend over backwards to be neutral.
While the GM executives are testifying, I hope someone asks them to account for their membership in the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, which lobbies for cap-and-trade legislation. Tax money should not be used for lobbying.
P.S. My opinion in this situation is unrelated to my past ownership of a Chevrolet Cavalier with a so-called "sticky accelerator." Very scary situation to be in. I was able to get out of it by braking as hard as possible while switching the car out of drive and coasting to a stop. I took it to a Chevy dealership for repair, but the dealership said it could not replicate the problem, so I was left to take my chances. I sold the car instead (with full and emphatic disclosure) to a car dealer, and bought my first foreign car of my life to replace it. These days, ironically, I own a Toyota. 83,000 miles on it so far, and no problems.
E-mail comments to
info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to
feed. |
Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. |
Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.Labels: Business, Climate, Congress
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:38 PM
Monday, March 01, 2010
Did Charles Rangel Vote for Sarbanes-Oxley?
Yes, on July 25, 2002, Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) voted to agree to the conference report for the Corporate and Auditing Accountability and Responsibility Act, better known as Sarbanes-Oxley.
If you just came back from a deserted island, Rep. Rangel has been admonished by the House Ethics Committee for breaking House rules regarding corporate sponsorship of Congressional travel; Rep. Rangel's defense is that he didn't know corporations paid for his travel, his staff did, and he shouldn't be held responsible for the actions of his Congressional staff.
Under Sarbanes-Oxley, corporate CEOs can be held criminally responsible for signing false reports, including reports prepared by staff (as most are).
Regardless of the double-standard Rangel seeks to hide behind, Peter Flaherty of the National Legal and Policy Center -- which broke the Rangel scandal in the first place and is still the best source of information on it -- says it simply is not credible that Rangel didn't know he was violating House rules by accepting direct corporate support for his travel.
Go
here to visit the National Legal and Policy Center's website, which shows pictures of Charlie Rangel at the Caribbean conference, facing a sign listing the conference's many corporate sponsors.
Perhaps next the Congressman will claim he cannot read?
In related Charlie Rangel-scandal news, House Democrats are
increasingly pressuring House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to ask Rangel to step down from his post as chairman of the uber-powerful House Ways and Means Committee.
E-mail comments to
info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to
feed. |
Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. |
Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.Labels: Congress, Conservatives, Corruption, Scandals
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:57 PM
Friday, February 26, 2010
One Man's "Talking Points" Might be Another Man's Point
At yesterday's "Health Care Summit," President Obama frequently expressed opposition to the use of talking points during the conversation.
In our biz, that is to say, the non-political public policy arena of the think-tank world, "talking points" are simply a succinct version of one's remarks, distilled in such a way as to present information in an orderly an efficient manner. I assume the same goes for the use of the term in business settings.
As it is likely President Obama is not opposed to succinct presentations, his definition of "talking point" must be something else.
Might that "something else" be "speech uttered for political gain"?
My sense in watching the summit was that that President continuously assumed speakers who disagreed with him were engaging in political rather than policy-oriented speech. He could not, or would not, not see that disagreement with his proposed methods could be based on principle.
This says something, I think, about the insular world he inhabits.
E-mail comments to
info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to
feed. |
Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. |
Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care, White House
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:26 PM
"We Don't Think the Government Should Be in Control of All This"
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) on the differences between conservatives and the White House on the way to improve our health care system:
Hat tip: RealClearPolitics.
E-mail comments to
info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to
feed. |
Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. |
Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Government Spending, Health Care, White House
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:25 PM
No Climate Bill In 2010
In
an article by Ed Carson that includes embedded video of our Tom Borelli, Investors Business Daily's "Capital Hill" Politics and markets blog is reporting that President Obama will fail to get his climate legislation adopted by the Senate this year.
This failure could turn out to be the best thing the Obama Administration ever does to reduce unemployment.
E-mail comments to
info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to
feed. |
Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. |
Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, FreeEnterpriseProject, Jobs, White House
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 4:30 PM
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Bloomberg Covers National Center Questions for John Deere Management
Bloomberg News is covering Tom and Deneen Borelli's
appearance at the John Deere stockholder meeting today:
...[John Deere CEO Samuel] Allen defended Deere's membership in the U.S. Climate Action Partnership amid questions from Tom and Deneen Borelli, with the conservative think tank National Center for Public Policy Research, who say proposed cap-and-trade legislation will push up fuel prices and hurt job growth. U.S. CAP is a coalition of companies and environmental groups seeking legislation to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions.
Cap and Trade
Allen said Deere wants to be part of the debate and is evaluating all proposals, and that cap and trade can succeed if done the right way.
'The best opportunity to help is to be at the table,' Allen said in response to public questions at the meeting.
Tom Borelli said cap and trade will be a tax on fossil fuels and hurt customers ability to buy Deere products. He noted the decision by Caterpillar Inc. not to renew its membership.
'Sitting at the table is not good enough,' Tom Borelli said.
Allen said he would evaluate cap-and-trade policy with the interests of Deere, its customers and shareholders in mind...
Read Bloomberg's entire article
here.
Tom and Deneen attended the meeting as representatives of the National Center, which is a John Deere stockholder. Tom directs our Free Enterprise Project, and Deneen is a full-time fellow with the African-American leadership group we sponsor, Project 21.
E-mail comments to
info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to
feed. |
Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. |
Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Environment, FreeEnterpriseProject, Project 21, Race, Regulation
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:02 PM
Why is John Deere Lobbying for Cap-and-Trade?
Tom Borelli, director of the National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterprise Project, and his wife Deneen Borelli, Project 21's full-time fellow, are spending the day at the John Deere headquarters, attending the stockholder meeting and asking company executives: Why are you members of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership? Why are you part of an organization that exists to lobby for cap-and-trade, which will hurt your customers and the American people?
In an article published today by FoxNews.com, Tom sets out the issues in more detail:
Big business support of President Obama's health care and energy policy has put CEOs on the front lines of the nation's biggest political battles. Big PhRMA - the drug industry trade group - is credited with bringing Obama's health care plan to the precipice of passage and the United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) - a coalition of business and environmental special interest groups - played a key role in passing the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill in the House of Representatives last year.
Clearly, CEOs see big bucks in big government.
Beyond dreams of fortune, chief executives also proved to be a national risk when their mismanagement drove our nation into greater debt through taxpayer-funded bailouts.
While liberty-minded citizens can seek to elect politicians that support limited government, big government CEOs (or, perhaps, progressive CEOs) remain largely beyond our reach.
Because CEOs can represent as much of a risk to liberty as elected officials, limited government advocates need a voice in the boardroom.
For this reason, my wife Deneen and I are attending the John Deere annual shareholder meeting today in Moline, Illinois on behalf of the National Center for Public Policy Research, a free-market think-tank that owns shares in John Deere.
Our goal is to press management to justify why John Deere remains a member of USCAP and why these executives believe a cap-and-trade scheme is in the company's best interest. These questions are especially timely, as BP, Caterpillar and ConocoPhillips made national news this month, after they abandoned USCAP...
You can read the rest of the FoxNews.com article
here.
We'll have more updates later.
E-mail comments to
info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to
feed. |
Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. |
Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, FreeEnterpriseProject, Project 21, Race, Regulation
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:41 PM
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Harry Reid Proves Deficit Commission is a Joke
What a joke President Obama's "deficit commission" (deficit of leadership, I'd say) is. Majority Leader Harry Reid has announced that one of the three big-spending liberals* he's appointing to a commission intended to convince us the left isn't spending us into perdition is Montana Senator Max Baucus.
Baucus has since 2007 held the chairmanship of the Senate Finance Committee, which has oversight over the fiscal fortunes of Social Security and Medicare, both of which are insolvent. Does Baucus do anything about this? Does he even hold hearings to seriously discuss what to do?
No, except for spending much of the last couple of years working to expand the burden under which these systems operate (when he wasn't taking his girlfriend, who was on his taxpayer-financed staff payroll, on taxpayer-financed tours of exotic locales), Baucus has been doing nothing about the insolvent Social Security and Medicare systems.
And now we're supposed to believe he cares enough about the federal deficit to help make the hard decisions that can get the country out of this mess? Ha!
P.S. I hope the GOP gives one of its slots to Texas Rep. Ron Paul, who is likely to sit at all the meetings -- these meetings all will be on C-SPAN, right Mrs. President? -- and say "where in the Constitution does it give us the authority to spend this? Where in the Constitution does it give us the authority to spend that?" The leftists will ignore him but the public would love the fact that they can't give him an answer.
* The other two are Senators Dick Durbin and Kent Conrad, whose big-spending ways are legendary.
E-mail comments to
info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to
feed. |
Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. |
Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.Labels: Congress, Government Spending, Liberals, White House
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:01 PM
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Deneen Borelli Debates Al Sharpton on Jobs
In case you missed it -- video of Project 21's Deneen Borelli debating Al Sharpton about the President Obama/Majority Leader Harry Reid jobs bill.
The debate was on the Fox News Channel's Fox and Friends on February 12, 2010.
E-mail comments to
info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to
feed. |
Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. |
Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.Labels: Congress, Economics, Jobs, Project 21, Race, White House
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:18 AM
Monday, February 01, 2010
More on James O'Keefe Case
As I
mentioned the other day, James O'Keefe has been charged under Title 18, Section 1036 of the U.S. Code, which prohibits persons from entering "any real property belonging in whole or in part to, or leased by, the United States... by any fraud or false pretense."
A thing that strikes me about the James O'Keefe case is that people enter Congressional offices all the time under false pretenses. They say they want to talk to the staff or the Congressman in the District office, but once there, they stage a sit-in to stop logging, to demand climate change action, to demand an end to the Iraq War, or to demand sanctions against one country or another.
Yet, the media greets them as heroes and O'Keefe as a criminal.
ACORN, by the way, has a long history of orchestrating sit-ins. I'm sure its members don't always come in and say, "Hi, I'm Jane Doe, I represent ACORN and I'm here to stage a sit-in. Would you mind terribly if I brought a few hundred of my friends in, too?" Obviously, Code-Pink has done it, too.
If at the end of the day the charges against O'Keefe are merely that he entered a federal office under false pretenses and all these lefties have denounced him for doing so, they'll have denounced him for doing essentially the same thing they do all the time.
Written by David A. Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research. Write the author at info@nationalcenter.org. As we occasionally reprint letters on the blog, please note if you prefer that your correspondence be kept private, or only published anonymously.
Labels: Congress, Conservatives, Courts, Crime, Liberals
Posted by David A. Ridenour at 9:09 PM
Friday, January 29, 2010
Tom Borelli to Appear on Varney & Co on Fox Business Channel Friday
Tom Borelli, senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research and director of our Free Enterprise Project, will appear on Stuart Varney's "Varney and Co." show on the Fox Business Network Friday morning at
10 AM 10:30 AM Eastern.
Tom will discuss new guidelines issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission that may have an interesting impact on the
climate change debate.
E-mail comments to
info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to
feed. |
Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. |
Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Environment, FreeEnterpriseProject, Jobs, Regulation
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:23 AM
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Note to Project 21 Fans: Glenn Beck Rebroadcast of Most Recent Show Featuring Project 21 Members
The Fox News Channel is rebroadcasting, right this minute, the second of two Beck shows featuring a discussion with black conservatives (including Project 21 members).
If you can't catch it on the Fox News Channel for whatever reason, Booker Rising (a website I often visit, but don't mention as much as I should)
has made available the video of the entire show, which is entitled "A Time To Be Heard."
We also posted on this blog the segments of the show featuring Project 21 members. Go
here to watch Lisa Fritsch; go
here to watch full-time Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli on the "A Time To Be Heard" Glenn Beck broadcast.
E-mail comments to
info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to
feed. |
Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. |
Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.Labels: Climate, Congress, Culture, Economics, Energy, Environment, Environmental Justice, Government Power, Government Spending, Jobs, Media, Project 21, Race, Social Welfare
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 3:01 PM
Friday, January 22, 2010
Alan Grayson Inadvertently Reminds Us of the Limits of Stare Decisis on Roe Anniversary
Dred Scott
Some members of the Project 21 black leadership group were offended by Rep. Alan Grayson's comments comparing yesterday's Supreme Court decision in
Citizens United v. FEC to the Dred Scott case, believing Grayson's comparison tends to trivialize Dred Scott. In Dred Scott the Supreme Court, after all, "decided" that black Americans who were, had been, or were descended from slaves could not be U.S. citizens (among other noxious things).
It is breathtaking that a majority of the Supreme Court could take away the citizenship of a huge group of people
just like that.
The fact that the Dred Scott decision could ever take place certainly reminds us of the limits of
stare decisis, something worth remembering on this anniversary of the infamous
Roe v. Wade decision.
The Project 21 press release can be read
here.
E-mail comments to
info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to
feed. |
Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. |
Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.Labels: Congress, Constitutional Law, Courts, History, Project 21, Race
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:17 AM
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Union Deal Latest ObamaCare Outrage
Question: In what kind of country are laws applied differently for politically favored constituents?
If you said "constitutional republic" you are half right; just replace "constitutional" with "banana" and you have a fairly accurate description of what Barack Obama's America is shaping up to be.
Consider the "deal" struck between The White House and union leaders on Thursday. According to the Washington Post:
The agreement, forged in a marathon negotiating session that included White House officials and seven prominent labor leaders...
And not, it might be added, captured for posterity by C-SPAN cameras, in spite of the President's oft repeated, oft mocked promise that he would allow Brian Lamb's crew in to broadcast health care negotiations. The Post reports that the agreement:
...would exempt union members from a proposed surtax on expensive insurance plans until 2018, five years after the legislation would take effect.
And what surtax would union members be "exempt" from, exactly? The 40 percent surtax on high-end, or "Cadillac" insurance plans which the Senate, and the President, seem to think necessary to finance their heath care overhaul legislation.
The problem is that many unions have negotiated such sweet insurance plans for their members in collective bargaining; by some estimates, as many as one in four union households are "Cadillac" insurance owners. Those households, if the deal holds, would now be exempt from a tax to be levied on other holders of the same kinds of policies (the vast majority of such policy holders make under $250,000 a year) until 2018, "giving labor leaders time to negotiate new contracts."
Well, how nice for them. And how unlucky for the average, non-union, middle or blue class worker who has accepted such insurance in lieu of higher wages, who is not considered a valuable member of the Obama coalition. Put simply; unions are now promised exemption from an onerous new tax by the Democratic president whom they spent tens of million to help elect.
This is only the latest in a long line of deals made behind closed doors to keep the health care train moving along, deals which have promised exemption for one group or state from fiscal and legal burdens to be born by others. This is basket-case democracy, a troubling sign that power is consolidating in Washington in the manner usually seen in only nominally free, or nakedly unfree, states.
When a nation no longer applies its laws equally, it ceases to be a nation of laws and becomes a nation of men, where faction is pitted against faction, citizen against citizen, and the whims of a few govern the lives of the multitude.
In other words, exactly what our Founders were trying to avoid when they established this great republic.
Written by Matt Patterson, policy analyst at the National Center for Public Policy Research. Write the author at info@nationalcenter.org. As we occasionally reprint letters on the blog, please note if you prefer that your correspondence be kept private, or only published anonymously.
Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement, White House
Posted by Matt Patterson at 12:02 AM
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Project 21's Lisa Fritsch Discusses Reid's Racial Comments on Glenn Beck Show
Project 21's Lisa Fritsch discussed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's racial comments about President Barack Obama and related issues on the January 14, 2010 (Thursday edition of the Glenn Beck program on the Fox News Channel. Other guests on this segment included Charles Payne of the Fox Business Network, Bruce Gilbert, a Northampton County (PA)Councilman, and Lettee Eaton-White, a commentator for Hip Hop magazine.
E-mail comments to
info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to
feed. |
Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. |
Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.Labels: Congress, Project 21, Race, White House
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:23 AM
Friday, January 15, 2010
What Health Negotiators Are Arguing Over Now
No happiness in the House
Writing for the Hill, Jared Allen and Jeffrey Young
are reporting on a growing problem in the health care negotiations:
Some House Democrats believe their states would get shortchanged in the overhaul of the nation's healthcare system and the funding issue is fast becoming a major hurdle to getting a bill signed into law.
How much of a burden states would have to shoulder for a proposed Medicaid expansion is the latest friction point between the House and the Senate, and is threatening to blow a hole in the measure's price tag.
"There's a lot of angst right now from members from states like New York and California over this," a senior Democratic aide said. "And there's a growing concern that these states are getting the short end of the stick. And that's particularly frustrating because it was members from these states that carried this bill to the point we're at now."
Lawmakers from these states and others are disgruntled because states that already offer more generous Medicaid coverage would be offered less additional assistance than states with relatively smaller programs...
...Democrats are working feverously to reach agreements on the parameters of the bill's insurance expansion structure so they can send language ’Äì along with the tax portion ’Äì to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) as early as Saturday for analysis.
It was unclear, though, whether CBO would be able to provide a thorough enough of an assessment of the bill's cost, and its impact on the deficit and healthcare spending, without a number of critical components that are still the subject of intense negotiations.
I left out most of the article for copyright reasons, but the entire article is available
here.
E-mail comments to
info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to
feed. |
Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. |
Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:22 PM
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
If Carbon Dioxide is Expended by Nancy Pelosi, Does It Still Cause Global Warming?
CBS's Sharyl Attkisson revealed Monday (
see a post by Noel Sheppard on Newsbusters for video) that "101 Congress-related" people flew to the Copenhagen climate summit last month, at tremendous cost to taxpayers.
But although Attkisson ended the piece with a brief nod to the environmental impact of the huge Nancy Pelosi-approved delegation, her otherwise excellent report told only part of the story. That is, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi approved a Congressional delegation to Copenhagen almost a quarter of the size of the entire Congress, she approved an enormous carbon footprint -- and she did it just a few months after twisting arms (brutally) to get Congress to pass the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill.
Using a calculator and some information available to anyone with internet access, my husband David worked out some quick facts regarding the carbon footprint of Nancy Pelosi's delegation.
According to David:
- Pelosi's delegation expended the same amount of carbon as 1,300 people combined in Bangladesh expend in an entire year;
- the Pelosi delegation expended at least 378 metric tons of CO2 and probably considerably more;
- Americans presently expend nearly 20 tons of carbon per capita, per year. Each member of the Pelosi delegation, on average, expended 19 percent of that annual amount -- but in just two days.
It is important to cover the way politicians misspend our money. But much of the mainstream press professes concern about CO2 emissions leading to dangerous global warming, so I have just one question: Why aren't reporters covering this part of the story?
E-mail comments to
info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to
feed. |
Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. |
Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.Labels: Climate, Congress, Environment, Liberals, Media
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:50 AM
Monday, January 11, 2010
Two Out of Two Majority Leaders Agree: The Public Can Shove Off
While taking a look, for remembrance sake, at some of the calls this organization made for then-Majority Leader Trent Lott to resign during the Strom Thurmond controversy, I ran into an old blog post that
highlights another way (besides putting his foot in his mouth) that Lott, in his day, was like Majority Leader Harry Reid today.
Referring to people outside the Senate who had opinions on a then-pending Supreme Court confirmation, the Washington Post reported the following in 2005:
Lott cautioned that outside groups have a limited ability to influence senators of either party. 'I'll call them when I need to hear from them,' he said. 'As far as I'm concerned, they can all shove off, left and right.'
Doesn't that sound like something Senator Reid could say on health care legislation? And, most likely, is what he really thinks?
E-mail comments to
info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to
feed. |
Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. |
Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.Labels: Congress, Conservatives, Health Care, Liberals, Retirement
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:19 PM
Project 21 Members Continue to React to Reid's Racial Remarks
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid - Image by Getty Images via Daylife
This afternoon, Harry Reid met with reporters in Apex, Nevada. The reporters, like members of the Project 21 black leadership network, wanted to hear if Reid was truly sorry about his comments about Barack Obama as reported in a new book, if he still believes that a not-so-articulate and dark-skinned black man has inherent liabilities in running for president and if he would resign his leadership post as Trent Lott was forced to do under similar circumstances in 2002.
Reid did not address any of these concerns. He did claim he was one of the most formidable civil rights champions in Nevada history. He also dropped names of high-profile people - including NAACP chairman Julian Bond, Attorney General Eric Holder, Interior Secretary Kenneth Salazar and unnamed black leaders in Nevada - who called him to tell him he was being given a pass because he's such a swell guy.
Obviously, as he and they imply, the Reid record proves he couldn't possibly hold racist feelings. But this generalization still leaves grave concerns that Reid's implied senior moment may have actually been a Freudian slip revealing his true feelings.
To follow are comments from Project 21 members still looking for answers from the leader of the Senate:
Mychal Massie (chairman of Project 21): "It's obvious that Harry Reid has been declared too big to fail. We all know this 'some of my best friends are black' defense would never fly if it was a conservative. It hasn't, and there's a good reason why it shouldn't for any politician. Yet Reid's phone is ringing off the hook with the likes of Julian Bond telling him everything is alright. It proves that keeping a liberal in power is more important than moral propriety."
Deneen Borelli: "President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder and other prominent black politicians have accepted Reid's apology. Even Al Sharpton seemed to have fallen in line rather quickly and is reciting the liberal talking points to protect Reid. Clearly, with health care hanging in the balance, Obama cannot afford a prolonged controversy involving Reid."
Geoffrey Moore: "It is funny how Reid only apologized when caught, and still is not addressing the content of his comments. What is even funnier is how so many of the people who would be assailing a conservative in the same situation are rushing to defend him. This is about more than some racist comments - it brings up the issue of how a white, male senior citizen member of the political elite can be the judge of what is authentically black. Or Negro, to use Reid's own words. I'm still waiting for an explanation on what a Negro accent is."
Jimmie A. Hollis: "Unless one has been living on Mars for the past 50 years, most - if not all - people know of there is a double-standard. Conservatives and fair-minded independents are rightly expressing outrage, but liberal outrage - and liberal black outrage, in particular - is selective. There's too much at stake. I need to get some emails out to Senator Reid. I could use a high position in Washington, and I am a light-skinned man who has been said to speak 'white.' If Reid had told me this a few decades ago, maybe I could have been president!"
Kevin A. Martin: "Harry Reid isn't sorry for what he said. Harry Reid is sorry he got caught. What Reid has done is provided us with a window of how I feel liberal truly feel about blacks - that they should be seen only at the polls and protests. And the civil rights industry is flocking to his side as leverage for future political favors."
A Project 21 press release about Reid's comments can be found
here.
This post was written by David Almasi, executive director of the National Center for Public Policy Research. Write the author at info@nationalcenter.org. As we occasionally reprint letters on the blog, please note if you prefer that your correspondence be kept private, or only published anonymously.
Labels: Congress, Culture, Project 21, Race
Posted by David W. Almasi at 5:07 PM
Quote of Note: Secret Deals Are No Way to Plan a Ski Trip, Let Alone a Health Care System
"Under wraps. Behind closed doors. Backroom deals. These phrases crop up again and again in reports of the Democrats' health care legislation.
Would you go along with any plan that had these sinister signs swirling 'round it? Would you even go on a weekend ski trip if the details were kept under wraps, negotiated with backroom deals behind closed doors?
Of course not. And yet we are going to allow the government to take control of one-sixth of the economy and our health care?"
Matt Patterson, Policy Analyst, National Center for Public Policy Research, "
Accountability, Transparency are Casualties of Health Care Debate," Washington Examiner, January 11, 2010
E-mail comments to
info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to
feed. |
Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. |
Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care, Quotes
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:11 PM
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Well, It Was 8 Years Ago
Evidently,
as recently as eight years ago, Barack Obama did not know the difference between being majority leader versus being president of the U.S. Senate.
Not that I ever thought he was a wonk. Or is one now. But
David Brooks notwithstanding, I bet most of the people who attend tea parties know the difference.
E-mail comments to
info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to
feed. |
Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. |
Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.Labels: Congress, White House
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 9:41 PM
Project 21 Members Comment on Harry Reid "Game Change" Remarks
Members of the Project 21 black leadership network released a
press statement tonight regarding Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's 2008 comments about then-Senator Barack Obama, as reported in Mark Halpern and John Heilemann's new book,
Game Change:
Black Activists Respond to Reid's Racial Remarks
Washington, DC: Black conservatives with the Project 21 leadership network are speaking out about the recently-revealed racial comments about Barack Obama that were made by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) in 2008:
Mychal Massie (chairman of Project 21): "Harry Reid is a loathsome individual whose apology was based on exposure not repentance. Reid's comments are proof positive that the racial animus of the past is alive and prevalent among liberals today, notwithstanding the fact that their standard-bearer is a black man."
Robert A. George: "How nice to see that, when it comes to race in America, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has such, ahem, 'enlightenment' (pun intended). Thank goodness no jive-talkin' darky ever thought about running for president! No way Reid could have supported him!!" (This quote comes from Robert's "Ragged Thots" blog. The entire post can be seen at http://raggedthots.blogspot.com.)
Bob Parks: "The hazard of being an apologist is having your own words thrown back in your face. Obama demanded the Republicans drum Senator Trent Lott out of their party in 2002 when Lott gave inappropriate praise to centenarian and reformed segregationist senator Strom Thurmond on his birthday. The underlying problem here is that boneheaded racist statements by politicians are all too common, and only conservatives seem to get called on them and punished. Republicans did strip Lott of his leadership post. Obama is absolving the Democrats of acting against Reid. This is a dangerous trend." (More can be found on Bob's "Black and Right" web site at http://www.black-and-right.com.)
Lisa Fritsch: "Why would Harry Reid apologize now when it seems clear he felt it and meant it at the time? It was less likely 'a poor choice of words' than an honest reflection of Reid's character."
R. Dozier Gray: "Black people historically have a lot of forgiveness in their hearts for people who make statements like the one Reid made. I might have forgiven him long ago had he sought to be accountable when he realized that what he said was stupid instead of when he realized that a book featuring it was coming out. But the black 'leadership' will likely let this slide. Power is usually more important to them than this sort of soft racism from a political ally. Truth be told, some of the policies advocated by Reid and his allies are more damaging than a few of his random racial comments."
Darryn "Dutch" Martin: "In the grand scheme of things, what Reid said, his apology and Obama's acceptance of it is irrelevant. What is striking is that Reid said it in 2008, a Time magazine reporter knew it and didn't make it public until 2010! Why wasn't it reported as soon as it became known? Would the mainstream media exercise such restraint and bury a newsworthy quote if a conservative public figure made a similar linguistic faux pas? I think not."
In the book Game Change, set to be released Monday, authors Mark Halpern and John Heilemann write that Reid privately analyzed the electoral appeal of then-Senator Barack Obama, referring to Obama as "light-skinned" with "no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."
When the comments were posted on Marc Ambinder's Atlantic magazine website, Reid expressed "deep regret [for] using such a poor choice of words." President Obama issued a rare immediate public statement saying he "accepted Harry's apology without question."
Reid is no stranger to using the race card for political gain. In December 2009, for example, Reid compared those who opposed a government takeover of health care to lawmakers who opposed abolishing slavery and civil rights legislation.
Project 21, established in 1992, is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research (http://www.nationalcenter.org).
- 30 -
E-mail comments to
info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to
feed. |
Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. |
Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.Labels: Congress, Culture, Project 21, Race, White House
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:59 PM
Friday, January 08, 2010
Three Questions for the Congressional Leadership
Are you "open," "honest," and ethical"? These are three questions National Center for Public Policy Research Policy Analyst Matt Patterson asks the Congressional leadership in a new paper just out today.
The paper, "
Bad Faith & Broken Promises: Accountability and Transparency Casualties of Health Care Debate," asks:
* Is it "honest" to hide the true cost of your legislation with budgetary gimmicks in which three years of new taxes precede the bulk of the spending, making your program seem more affordable than it really is in an artificial budgetary window?
* Is it "open" for the Congressional leadership to "secretly craft the final bill behind closed doors," far from the prying eyes of the press, the public, and the rest of Congress, or to have important procedural votes in the middle of the night, or pass critical legislation on Christmas Eve, when most sane people are blissfully distracted from the machinations on Capitol Hill?
* Is it "ethical" to buy the votes of recalcitrant members of your caucus with hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars in backroom deals, such as "the inclusion of $100-$300 million in added federal aid for Medicaid recipients in Louisiana, the home state of Sen. Mary Landrieu," in return for her vote, or the offer to Senator Ben Nelson of "a permanent exemption from the state share of Medicaid expansion" for his home state of Nebraska, in exchange for his vote?
"Despite promises made by Congressional leaders, they have shepherded health care legislation through Congress in a manner that is demonstrably secretive, unethical and dishonest," Matt says. "Promise after promise made by the Congressional leadership to conduct an open, bi-partisan process to reform health care has been shamelessly broken. It's really quite astounding; Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama, don't even try to pretend to hold to their many and frequent promises to conduct open and fair negotiations to reform American health care."
Matt concludes: "The question we have to ask ourselves is: Why have they done this in secret? What is it about this process that they don't want the public, the press, or even fellow members of Congress to see?"
E-mail comments to
info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to
feed. |
Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. |
Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.Labels: Congress, Corruption, Government Health Care, Government Spending, Health Care, Liberals, Taxes
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:19 AM
Thursday, January 07, 2010
Bob Parks Dares MSNBC Personnel to Read Urban Dictionary Definition of "Teabagger" on the Air
Still annoyed at Chris Matthews for lying about the tea parties being all-white?
If so, click
here and listen to Bob Parks on the G. Gordon Liddy Show today dare Chris Matthews and David Shuster to read the urban dictionary definition of "teabaggers" live on the air.
Bob bets they won't.
E-mail comments to
info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to
feed. |
Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. |
Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.Labels: Congress, Conservatives, Media, Project 21, Protests, Race, White House
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:29 PM
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Tape of Tom Borelli on Glenn Beck
For any of you who missed it, here is a tape of Tom Borelli's appearance on the Glenn Beck Show Tuesday, with guest host Charles Payne.
The quality of the tape is not great, for which I apologize, but the substance of the interview comes through fine.
Addendum, 1/6/10: I changed the video link to a better copy, posted on YouTube by
GlennBeckClips. The original video I had posted here is still available on YouTube at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XS31VFLabWE.
E-mail comments to
info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to
feed. |
Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. |
Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Environment, Government Spending, Media, White House
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 11:26 AM
Monday, December 21, 2009
Senator Whitehouse's Hysteria
Project 21's Bob Parks is not at all thrilled with Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), for saying this about people who don't want to cripple our health system, bring forth the date of Medicare's bankruptcy and spend ourselves into perdition:
They are desperate to break this president. They have ardent supporters who are nearly hysterical at the very election of President Barack Obama. The birthers, the fanatics, the people running around in right-wing militia and Aryan support groups, it is unbearable to them that President Barack Obama should exist. That is one powerful reason. It is not the only one.
To this, Bob replies:
President Obama's almost-constant apologies to the world for the our nation's actions and his socialist economic policies at home have energized a normally lethargic American people into gathering in American cities and storming the steps of the Capitol in protest. Senator Whitehouse would have us all just shut up and give Obama his political victories unchallenged. Not doing so makes us all guilty of unprecedented rudeness and - dare I say it - racism.
Despite liberals' historically dismal and revisionist civil rights history, when things with this President fall apart, they are all too willing to resort to playing the race card. The problem is - whether it's the Black Panthers in Philadelphia or Professor Gates in Cambridge - Barack Obama and his administration have conducted themselves so poorly in office that the race label really doesn't bruise the skin anymore.
If President Obama had not entered the presidency with his signature arrogance, the American people may have had more patience, but he and his liberal allies have talked down to the American people like we were stepchildren they were forced to tolerate. Statements like those of Senator Whitehouse only further harden the opposition's resolve.
For myself, I believe Senator Whitehouse has perceptions that are no more reliable than those of a gnat. Too bad this gnat has power and spending ability.
P.S.
Here's what Mark Tapscott had to say about it.
E-mail comments to
info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to
feed. |
Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. |
Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Government Spending, Health Care, Liberals, Project 21, Race
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 9:12 AM
Sunday, December 06, 2009
Max Baucus
Interesting
news has broken about Senator Max Baucus (D-MT). Apparently he has committed a severe conflict of interest in the performance of his senatorial duties and what a future investigation could determine to be honest services fraud, a felony.
Baucus has successfully cultivated a reasonable, moderate and even thoughtful reputation. In fact, he runs an unprofessional staff and is extremely partisan. He has managed not to develop the reputation of a Charles Schumer (D-NY), Chris Dodd (D-CT) or Dick Durbin (D-IL) in part by maintaining reasonably cordial relationships with some key Republican Senate enablers and in part because he crafts his public statements with the sensitivities of his constituents his very red state in mind.
No doubt the mainstream media will drop the Baucus story as soon as possible, though I suppose we should be grateful it has covered it as much as it has. The story deserves continued scrutiny and, in my view, an investigation into whether criminal activity has occurred.
Mr. Baucus is somewhat between a rock and a hard place in terms of the excuse he gives for nominating a woman with whom he was and is in an intimate relationship for the very significant post of U.S. Attorney.
The Senator has more or less announced that the two are now cohabitating, aka, a near-marriage relationship. Yet had the Senator nominated his own wife for the post of U.S. attorney, the conflict of interest would have been obvious.
But if the relationship was not so serious, that raises the Elizabeth Ray question, for the lady in question was a member of his taxpayer-financed staff. It was said of Elizabeth Ray that she could not type, but it wasn't her lack of typing skills that made her employment a scandal. Public officials are not supposed to use tax monies to pay people with whom one is sleeping.
Blogger and former Colorado Springs Gazette editorial page editor Sean Paige and the website
GovExec.com recently reported the felony conviction of a climate scientist at the
avowedly pro-alarmist NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. It seems the climatologist directed government business to his wife.
Prosecuting U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein said of the case,
according to Gov.Exec.com, "It is illegal for any federal employee to make an official decision that directly affects their financial interest, unless they disclose that conflict of interest and get approval from the government."
Did Congress exempt itself from the conflict of interest laws that applied to this climatologist?
Or might Senator Baucus get off the hook here because he hasn't married his lady? Because he hasn't made an honest woman of her, does that make him an honest man?
Conflict of interest guidelines, however, are not the only cause Baucus has for concern. "In 1988," reported the Wall Street Journal before the revelations in the Baucus case, "Congress criminalized 'a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services... Conviction carries a maximum sentence of 20 years.'" The Journal continued, "In the public sector, cases typically involve bribery or some other personal gain by a public official, such as a failure to disclose a conflict of interest that benefited the official."
Does a man benefit when the woman with whom he is living gets a position more prestigious than any she has ever held before? Some might say no, but...
E-mail comments to
info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to
feed. |
Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. |
Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.Labels: Congress, Scandals
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:45 AM
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
David Obey's War Tax
Here's a Rush Limbaugh partial transcript from today on the subject of House Appropriations Chairman David Obey's call for a "war tax" to fund, as this stirring Congressional leader put it, "whatever we're doing in Afghanistan if we decide to go ahead" (that sound you don't hear is Osama bin Laden quaking in his boots):
RUSH: David Obey wants to raise taxes on everybody to pay for the Afghanistan war. Last night ABC's World News Tonight Jonathan Karl had an interview with him.
OBEY: If we don't pay for it, then the cost of the Afghan war will wipe out every other initiative that we have to try to rebuild our own economy whether it's the president's; whether it's the Democrats in Congress, whether it's the Republicans. Ain't going to be no money for nothing if we pour it all into Afghanistan.
RUSH: That's just not true. It's another fraudulent lie from one of the Four Corners of Deceit: Government. "Ain't gonna be no money for nothing if we pour it all into Afghanistan"? We don't have any money now, you locoweed! We're $1.4 trillion in debt. I'll tell you what we should do, given what he said here. "If we don't pay for it, then the cost of the Afghan war will wipe out every other initiative..." Let's pay for the Afghan war then and wipe out every damned one of these stupid, destructive initiatives. There was more. Karl said, "Talk us through exactly what you're proposing here."
OBEY: We've been told for the last year that we have to pay for every dime that the new health care reform bill will cost, and that's estimated to be about $900 billion over two years.
RUSH: Not true. It's $2 trillion!
OBEY: At the same time we're being told by people who support General McChrystal's approach to expanding the war in Afghanistan that we need to be prepared to hunker down and accept what could be a decade-long commitment in Afghanistan. If we do what has been in the papers about the size of that package, that also is about $900 billion. Except that's not being paid for. So what we're suggesting is that if we're going to pay for health care, we also ought to pay for whatever we're doing in Afghanistan if we decide to go ahead.
RUSH: We're not "paying for" anything. How can you say we're paying for it when we're $1.4 trillion in debt? It's not $900 billion, it's $2.5 trillion. The whole thing is rigged. The tax increases start three years before the payouts. That's how it's made to look like it doesn't cost anything. Deficit neutral? When's the last time anything government did did not cost more than what they projected? When's the last time a government program came in below cost? Well, Medicare Part D did, but that was Bush. And finally, "Let me ask you about your motives. Two years ago you proposed a similar tax on the war in Iraq. It was a nonstarter then. What makes you think your colleagues are going to support it now?"
OBEY: I don't know if they will, but two years ago the economy had not yet collapsed. Two years ago we didn't have a runaway deficit which we have now thanks to the collapse of that economy. And two years ago, we weren't being asked to expand another effort in Afghanistan that we're told might last ten years. We saw the progressive movement in this country back before the twenties wiped out by World War I. We saw Harry Truman's Fair Deal wiped out by Korea. We saw Lyndon Johnson's Great Society wiped out by Vietnam. I don't want to see the restructuring and reforming of our own economy wiped out because we get stuck in a ten-year war, a war that isn't paid for.
RUSH: What in the name of Sam Hill is he talking about? Lyndon Johnson's Great Society wiped out by Vietnam? It was no such thing. That's insane! Spending on the Fair Deal, the New Deal, the Rotten Deal, the Raw Deal, and the Great Society, never stopped. We're still spending on it! It's an entitlement. The Vietnam War didn't wipe out anything except the United States. It didn't wipe out any of these programs. This is what I mean, folks. They live in The Universe of Lies and Fraud. The Four Corners of Deceit are government (who you just heard from) academia, science, and media.
Rush is right (as usual! -- I'm happy to admit I've been a dittohead since being introduced to Rush -- at least, his non-KQV persona -- at the famed Howell Heflin "offshore drilling" CNP meeting circa, I think, 1988 [Rush
says it was '92 or '93, but I think he's off by a few years. I believe I went home after that speech and found Rush on the dial for the first time, and had to listen to a Baltimore station if I wanted to catch all three hours of the show, because WMAL in DC only ran two hours.]).
On the war tax itself: National defense is one of the few things the federal government should be paying for, so go ahead, Rep. Obey, make us pay one -- but we'll expect you to drop most of the other taxes.
E-mail comments to
info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to
feed. |
Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. |
Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.Labels: Congress, Conservatives, Defense, Government Spending, Limbaugh, Media, Taxes, Terrorism
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:30 PM
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Hear the Borellis Speak on Cap-and-Trade at Harrisburg Tea Party Event This Saturday
Free Enterprise Project Director Tom Borelli and Project 21 Fellow Deneen Borelli are both featured speakers at a rally to be held in conjunction with the "March on Harrisburg, PA" on Saturday, November 14. The march and rally is sponsored by the Philadelphia Tea Party Patriots.
The rally will be held on the steps of the Pennsylvania State Capitol and is scheduled to begin at 2:30 PM eastern. Prior to the rally, people will gather in the parking lot of nearby City Island for a march across the Susquehanna River that is scheduled to begin at 2:00 PM eastern.
Tom and Deneen will both speak on the economic consequences of the "cap-and-trade" energy tax proposal supported by the Obama Administration and the liberal leadership of the House and Senate in Washington. The keynote speaker will be former House Majority Leader Dick Armey.
For more information about the event, click
here.
This post was written by David Almasi, executive director of the National Center for Public Policy Research. Write the author at info@nationalcenter.org. As we occasionally reprint letters on the blog, please note if you prefer that your correspondence be kept private, or only published anonymously.
Labels: Climate, Congress, Conservatives, Environment, Environmental Justice, Project 21, Protests, Race, Taxes
Posted by David W. Almasi at 5:21 PM
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
A Bush By Any Other Name
President Barack Obama is often likened - and clearly sees himself as spiritual successor - to presidential luminaries like Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. But he is fast on track to following the footsteps of a less celebrated predecessor - George H.W. Bush.
Candidate Bush accepted his party's nomination at the 1988 Republican National Convention with the immortal, Peggy Noonan-penned promise "
Read my lips: no new taxes." When President Bush later agreed to raise taxes as part of the 1990 budget negotiations, he
wrecked his re-election chances and became a one-termer.
In September, 2008, candidate Obama
promised, "I can make this firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making $250,000 will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."
Oops. The health care bill the House
passed on Saturday, for which Obama
personally lobbied members of Congress, contains - new taxes.
Lots of them. New taxes that will effect earners of all income levels, but which will especially hurt small-business owners.
Of course this bill, like all of the health care proposals recently debated by Congress, was instigated by, and created at the behest of, Barack Obama, who
promised in his February joint address to Congress, "quality, affordable health care for every American." That he could promise such a bauble while simultaneously vowing not to raise our taxes "one dime" betrays either a stunning economic ignorance - or deep mendacity.
Obama has clearly studied the greats, Lincoln and F.D.R. But he should also have made an examination of the less successful presidents, like George H. W. Bush, lest he repeat their mistakes and suffer their fate in political purgatory.
Written by Matt Patterson, policy analyst at the National Center for Public Policy Research. Write the author at info@nationalcenter.org. As we occasionally reprint letters on the blog, please note if you prefer that your correspondence be kept private, or only published anonymously.
Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Government Spending, Health Care, Retirement, Taxes, White House
Posted by Matt Patterson at 1:15 AM
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Health Care Rally Photos
Max Pappas of
FreedomWorks sent over some pictures of today's rally at the Capitol in opposition to liberal efforts to have the federal government take over our health care system.
I'm posting the pictures because this is a tremendous turnout (especially in mid-week, with little notice, on a dank and intermittently-rainy day), and I have no faith whatsoever that the mainstream media will accurately report the full size of the crowd.
E-mail comments to
info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to
feed. |
Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. |
Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care, Retirement
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 5:11 PM
Thursday, October 29, 2009
"California's Going to Make Out Like a Bandit With This Legislation"
...so says Ohio Senator George Voinovich (R-OH) regarding the Kerry-Boxer cap-and-trade bill, referring to $385 billion in transfers the bill requires some states (including Ohio) send to others (such as California).
Senator Voinovich's presentation includes a map comparing the states slated to receive funds with the votes cast in the House in favor of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill. (Let's just say he finds some similarities.)
During his presentation, Senator Voinovich asks Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara "Don't Call Me Ma'am" Boxer (D-CA), "Does your definition of bipartisan mean someone who agrees with you?"
The video clip above includes Senator (please note,
Senator) Boxer's response.
Hat tip: Senator Jim Inhofe's Press Office's YouTube Channel.
E-mail comments to
info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to
feed. |
Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. |
Download Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.Labels: Climate, Congress, Environment, Regulation
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 2:46 PM
Monday, October 19, 2009
Medicare Confusion
I'm a little confused. Maybe you can help me out. Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus wants to cut $500 billion from Medicare to cover about 30 million uninsured. That's over 10 years. Handing the entire amount out to the uninsured would work out to about $6,666 annually for each family of four.
That should be sufficient for a health care plan of some kind. Presumably the resultant reduction in cost shifting would lower costs, too. So why does he plan to spend an additional 330 billion?
Hmm... Couldn't be about control, could it?
Written by David A. Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy Research. Write the author at info@nationalcenter.org. As we occasionally reprint letters on the blog, please note if you prefer that your correspondence be kept private, or only published anonymously.
Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Government Spending, Health Care, Retirement
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:10 PM
Thursday, October 08, 2009
What's Happening Now
There
is no Baucus bill.
Study: Generous unemployment benefits create moral hazard.
Tasteful
chimp statuary?
Anne Bayefsky: "The Obama administration has marked its first foray into the UN human rights establishment by backing calls for limits on freedom of expression."
ObamaCare
has been tried -- at the state level.
E-mail comments to
info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's
feed. |
Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. |
Download our book
Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care, White House
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 6:36 AM
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
Radio Day!
I'm having another of what I call "radio days."
If you live in one of the following cities and are so inclined, you can hear me talking about health care reform and our new book
Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Medicine on the following stations between now and 11 AM Eastern today:
WTAG Worcester, MA
0706 AM ET
KTRH Houston, TX
0733 AM ET
WOWO Fort Wayne, IN
0738 AM ET
WSYR Syracuse, NY
0820 AM ET
KVI Seattle, WA
0834AM ET
WOAI San Antonio, TX
0840 AM ET
KOGO San Diego, CA
0907AM ET
WHLO Akron, OH
0915 AM ET
WTAM Cleveland, OH
1030AM ET
E-mail comments to
info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's
feed. |
Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. |
Download our book
Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care, Media, White House
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 7:00 AM
Friday, October 02, 2009
Boxer-Kerry Cap-and Trade Bill Puts Corporate Interests Over National Interest
Free Enterprise Project Director Tom Borelli has been closely monitoring the corporations who lobby for cap-and-trade.
Tom
issued a statement Friday on the ways the new Boxer-Kerry cap-and-trade bill (or perhaps I should say, bill framework, because it appears to be out of fashion these days for legislators to actually finish drafting their proposed bills before introducing them):
Senate Cap-and-Trade Bill Favors Corporate interests Over National Interest
The "Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act" introduced by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and John Kerry (D-MA) favors corporate interests over our national interest, says the Free Enterprise Project of the National Center for Public Policy Research. The bill calls for a 20% reduction in emissions, exceeding the 17% target in the House Waxman-Markey legislation passed in May.
Boxer-Kerry lacks many important details, including a disclosure of which industries will benefit from free emissions credits.
"In the rush to legislate, the Boxer-Kerry bill is silent on key elements, such as how the government will hand out free emissions allowances that are worth billions of dollars. With that amount of money left on the table it opens the door for a behind-the-scenes lobbying fest that will reward well connected companies while looting taxpayers," said Tom Borelli, PhD, director of the Free Enterprise Project.
Waxman-Markey awards most of the estimated $777.6 billion of free allowances to industry between 2012-2020. Utilities were the biggest winner in the "House bill lottery," receiving 35% of allowances.
President Obama originally wanted to auction all the emission credits with the revenue going to reduce the budget deficit.
In addition to the allowance windfall, a few select companies will benefit from specific provisions. Caterpillar would gain from sales of its newly-developed hybrid bulldozer, because the bill empowers the EPA to issue new emissions standards for "new heavy-duty vehicles and engines and for nonroad vehicles and engines."
The Caterpillar hybrid bulldozer is priced about $100,000 more than conventional bulldozers ’Äì an added cost that will be passed on to construction projects.
The Boxer gift to Caterpillar may be a reward for CEO Jim Owens. Under Owens, Caterpillar is a member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) ’Äì a coalition of corporate and environmental special interest groups lobbying for cap-and-trade. Owens is a member of President Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board.
"Owens is putting his personal short-term interest over our national interest. He has previously acknowledged that cap-and-trade can harm the competitiveness of our manufacturing industries, yet he remains a member of USCAP," added Borelli. "Owens' thirty pieces of silver is a hybrid bulldozer."
"It's clear the only winners with cap-and-trade will be the lobbyists, CEOs and their environmental allies. The bill represents a huge transfer of wealth in the amount of hundreds of billions of dollars to industry. While the Washington elite benefit, the rest of America will end up paying the cost through higher energy prices, slower economic growth and sending jobs overseas," said Borelli.
Visit the Free Enterprise Project online at http://www.freeenterpriser.com.
###
E-mail comments to
info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's
feed. |
Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. |
Download our book
Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.Labels: Business, Climate, Congress, Economics, Environment
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 10:35 PM
What's Happening Now
Senator Kerry
blocks Senate fact-finding trip to Honduras.
Woman who "essentially starved" her toddler to death served a mere six months and is now accused of grotesquely
abusing her son.
Six months?State of Michigan
threatens woman for babysitting.
A
population map.
In the none-of-its-business department: Major U.S. corporation
spends $290,000 telling Irish voters to vote to join EU.
John Goodman asks: Why is AARP
selling out seniors?
E-mail comments to
info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's
feed. |
Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. |
Download our book
Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.Labels: Congress, Courts, Crime, Europe, Foreign Policy, Government Health Care, Health Care, Liberals, Regulation
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 12:11 AM
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Project 21's Bob Parks Discusses Health Care Policy on BET Special This Sunday
Project 21 member Bob Parks has taped a panel discussion on health care policy that is scheduled to air on Black Entertainment Television this Sunday, September 27, at 9:00 PM eastern.
Bob participated in BET's "Critical Condition: What's at Stake in Health Care Reform" with White House Domestic Policy Advisor Melody Barnes and Representatives James Clyburn (D-SC) and Maxine Waters (D-CA).
You can read Bob's comments about the taping of the show by clicking
here.
Check your local listings for BET on cable. BET is available on channel 230 on Fios, channel 124 on Dish Network and channel 329 on DirecTV.
Editor's note: BlackNews.com has published a story about the broadcast, which can be accessed here.Written by David Almasi, executive director of the National Center for Public Policy Research. Write the author at info@nationalcenter.org. As we occasionally reprint letters on the blog, please note if you prefer that your correspondence be kept private, or only published anonymously.
Labels: Congress, Government Health Care, Health Care, Media, Project 21, Race
Posted by David W. Almasi at 12:53 AM
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
David Ridenour Appearing on WBAL Baltimore
If you are in the Baltimore/DC area or on your computer now, you you can tune in to WBAL 1090 AM to hear David Ridenour discussing his latest paper, which is on how 820,000 people a year will lose health insurance if the Obama-supported Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill goes through.
E-mail comments to
info@nationalcenter.org. | Subscribe to this blog's
feed. |
Follow the National Center for Public Policy Research on Twitter. |
Download our book
Shattered Lives: 100 Victims of Government Health Care.Labels: Climate, Congress, Energy, Environment, Health Care, White House
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 3:39 PM
Monday, September 21, 2009
A Vision of Health Care Reform that Works
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has a must-read op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today on health care, "
A Growth Vision for Health Reform."
It begins:
A 3-year-old boy was recently diagnosed with a rare, aggressive, soft-tissue cancer in his bladder. Radiation treatment would have stunted the growth of his pelvic bones, hips and bladder and left him disabled. Radical surgery could remove his bladder, prostate and portions of his rectum. That would have left him impotent, using a colostomy bag, and urinating through another bag in his abdomen.
His parents chose a third option - a new "unproven" therapy where a proton beam precisely targeted the radiation dose so that it didn't cripple their son for life. The boy is now cancer-free and his body functions normally.
This story would seem to be an example of our health-care system at its best. But it is incompatible with the left's vision for overhauling the health-care industry...
Read the rest
here.
Posted by Amy Ridenour. E-mail any comments to the National Center for Public Policy Research at
info@nationalcenter.org.
Subscribe to this blog's
feed.
Labels: Congress, Conservatives, Government Health Care, Health Care
Posted by Amy Ridenour at 1:06 AM
Copyright 2003-2010 National Center for Public Policy Research
