The Imperial President: Obama Wages War on SCOTUS, Congress

The Imperial President: Obama Wages War on SCOTUS, Congress

President Obama’s latest attack on the Supreme Court is just the latest evidence of his deep-rooted disdain not just for the Constitution, but for the system of checks and balances it represents. Prior to his election, Obama told Americans that we were just days away from “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” He didn’t mean that simply in terms of policy, although he certainly wanted redistributionist policy to take center stage. He meant it in terms of governmental structure.

Obama doesn’t like that “big, messy, tough democracy.” He wants what Arthur Schlesinger Jr. once called The Imperial Presidency. He wants the Supreme Court to do his bidding, or shut up. He wants Congress to get out of the way. He wants power, in its purest, most unbridled form. Should he win re-election, he will undoubtedly pursue that vital goal. After all, how are you going to get “fundamental change” without fundamentally undermining the Constitutional structure?

Define The Philosophy That Makes Someone Think This

"It's better to have government provided healthcare and no job, than it is to have a job and no healthcare."

This person is so far detached from reality its a wonder they can dress themselves without assistance. Maybe they can't. The person who uttered that remarkably stupid statement has a job in the government. We do not know who it is.

They are in serious need of a head-slap. Not that it would help. When you have achieved what passes for adulthood and you think that way, you're beyond help.

Health Care Bill vs Health Care Law

Understanding of Health Care Law same as when it was a Health Care Bill --

USA Today reports what everybody already knew about the year-old health care law: not a damn thing. “Although opinions are plentiful about the requirement that most Americans buy health insurance and about the costs of expanding Medicaid — both provisions that take effect in 2014 — apparently few people know about provisions that are already in place, unless those provisions have directly affected them. And that seems to play a big role in public opinion.” Thank goodness for The Daily Caller’s Jonathan Strong and Matthew Boyle. Get a breakdown of the provisions already in place from Boyle. For a long-term prognosis, read Strong’s wrap-up of the Shermanesque march toward the impending legal battles. The piece includes the most frightening phrase in the English language: “Armies of lawyers.”

Effects of BambiCare On Jobs

House Majority Releases Report Documenting ObamaCare’s Devastating Impact on American Jobs
New Report Finds ObamaCare Will “Eliminate Jobs” & “Exacerbate the Nation’s Dire Fiscal Condition”

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) today joined Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) and several House committee chairmen in releasing a report entitled ObamaCare: A Budget-Busting, Job-Killing Health Care Law.

The report, which can be found online here, provides a compelling case for taking immediate action to repeal ObamaCare and replace it with reforms that will lower costs and protect jobs. Boehner released the following statement:

“The evidence is clear: by raising taxes, imposing new mandates, and increasing uncertainty for employers and entrepreneurs, ObamaCare is already destroying jobs in this country. And it will continue to destroy jobs unless we do something about it.

The report released today shows how the health care law is making it harder to end the job-killing spending binge that threatens our children’s future. When you look at it dollar by dollar, the numbers just don’t add up. This report presents a very sobering picture, and every lawmaker and taxpayer – no matter where you stand on this critical issue – should take a look at it.

“With nearly 10 percent unemployment and massive debt, the American people want us to focus on cutting spending and growing our economy. That’s why tomorrow the House will take the first steps towards repealing this job-killing health care law and replacing it with reforms that will bring down costs and protect jobs.”

NOTE: Joining Boehner and Cantor on the report are Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI), Chairman of the Committee on Ways & Means; Rep. John Kline (R-MN), Chairman of the Committee on Education & the Workforce; Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), Chairman of the Committee on the Budget; and Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), Chairman of the Committee on Energy & Commerce.

Maybe He Really Does FINALLY Get It

Virginia Republican Eric Cantor’s official announcement of his run for House majority leader came with a twist: a 22-page game plan on how to change Congress.

Cantor, currently the GOP whip, began calling colleagues to shore up his support and wrote a letter promising to change Congress – saying he wants to “drain the swamp rather than learning to swim with the alligators.”

The document is entitled “Delivering on Our Commitment” and promises a broad range of sweeping initiatives ranging from spending cuts to to bringing each item of the Pledge to America to the floor for a vote. It’s a bold plan that shows Cantor wants to be taken as a serious House reformer and policy leader as he ascends to the no. 2 slot in the new GOP hierarchy.

Cantor is not expected to face serious challenge from fellow Republicans for majority leader.

One major reform he’s facing is scheduling the House floor, which POLITICO reported last week. Cantor is proposing committee hearings be uninterrupted by votes, and is also urging committee reports to be brought to the floor for debate.

Cantor says he wants to do away with legislation recognizing “individuals, groups, events and institutions.” In the past, Congresses in the past have passed legislation that honors entities such as baseball teams and universities. Republicans, the Virginian thinks, should only name post offices once a month.

He’s also taking aim at oversight, urging individual members to conduct oversight on their own, asking committees to write quarterly oversight reports and boosting field hearings.

Spending, a major priority of Republicans’, also gets top billing from Cantor. He says he will try to ensure that all new spending has “explicitly” listed how it will be paid for and how the legislation fits into the Constitution. He’s likely going to upset some appropriators, because Cantor re-iterated his plan to end earmarking, promising to “not consider House legislation that includes” the member directed spending.

He is also vowing to defund piece by piece Democratic health care overhaul.

(Emphasis mine)

On jobs, Cantor is planning to “conduct an immediate and comprehensive review of existing and proposed government rules and regulations” – echoing a major complaint of Republicans over the last year.

In a throwback to the past, Cantor is aiming to bring rescission bills to the floor under an open rule so members could cut federal spending they deem as wasteful. In addition, he plans to continue the YouCut program – a plan much maligned by Democrats which put spending cuts in the hands of online users. In the beginning of the last Republican majority in 1995, the GOP had internal clashes over spending cuts, especially when members sought to slash items in other Republicans’ districts.

Entitlement reform is also in the crosshairs of the Virginia Republican. President Barack Obama, Cantor says, wont work with Republicans to “enact real entitlement reform unless it includes major tax increases.” But Republicans, he said, should lay out their plan and encourage Democrats to do the same.

Read more:

From the "Oh Really? Ya THINK!!!??" Dept

Turns Out ObamaCare Really Might Undermine Employer Health Coverage

WASHINGTON (AP) — The new health care law wasn’t supposed to undercut employer plans that have provided most people in the U.S. with coverage for generations.

But last week a leading manufacturer told workers their costs will jump partly because of the law. Also, a Democratic governor laid out a scheme for employers to get out of health care by shifting workers into taxpayer-subsidized insurance markets that open in 2014.

While it’s too early to proclaim the demise of job-based coverage, corporate number crunchers are looking at options that could lead to major changes.

“The economics of dropping existing coverage is about to become very attractive to many employers, both public and private,” said Gov. Phil Bredesen, D-Tenn.

That’s just not going to happen, White House officials say.

“The absolute certainty about the Affordable Care Act is that for many, many employers who cover millions of people, it increases the incentives for them to offer coverage,” said Jason Furman, an economic adviser to President Barack Obama.

But at least one major employer has shifted a greater share of plan costs to workers, and others are weighing the pros and cons of eventually forcing employees to strike out on their own.

“I don‘t think you are going to hear anybody publicly say ’We’ve made a decision to drop insurance,’ ” said Paul Keckley, executive director of the Deloitte Center for Health Solutions. “What we are hearing in our meetings is, ‘We don’t want to be the first one to drop benefits, but we would be the fast second.’ We are hearing that a lot.” Deloitte is a major accounting and consulting firm.

Employer health benefits have been a middle-class mainstay since World War II, when companies were encouraged to offer health insurance instead of pay raises. About 150 million workers and family members are now covered.

When lawmakers debated the legislation, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projected it would only have minimal impact on employer plans.

If You Like It (and Can Afford It) You Can Keep It

You like it, you can’t keep it

Throughout the debate over healthcare reform, President Obama insisted that individuals would be able to maintain their current healthcare plan: “If you like it, you can keep it.” It was a refrain that was used as Congress was writing the bill, as the bill struggled to pass, and now the president continues to claim that the law will allow individuals to keep their coverage.

The talking point may be consistent, but talking points aren’t law. Right now, the Department of Health and Human Services, administered by Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, is implementing the law in ways that radically transform the coverage of many Americans.

Over the next few years, millions of American families, individuals and retired seniors will see their health coverage transformed by new regulations and decisions made by the Secretary and her successors. The bill uses the phrase, “The Secretary shall,” or one of its variants, more than 1,000 times. This means that Congress has left many of the important decisions regarding implementation up to the Secretary and the bureaucracy.

If you like it, you can keep it; but only if the Secretary agrees.

And you can afford the 50% increase in your premium and the $3,000 yearly deductible.

Read more:

Your Tax Dollars At Work

HHS Giving States Millions of Taxpayer Dollars to ‘Help Consumers File Complaints’ Against Their Health Plans

Its a Dessert Topping, Its a Floor Wax, Its A Fine, Its NOT a Tax

"Legal arguments for Obamacare's individual mandate fail the 'Alice in Wonderland' test and the duck test. In two court challenges to the law in the past 11 days and a court hearing today on a third, the Obama administration's legal position is fading faster than the Cheshire Cat.

'The provisions of the Health Care Reform Act at issue here, for the most part, have nothing to do with the assessment or collection of taxes,' Judge Steeh ruled.

This is so important that the federal district judge in Florida, in Thursday's preliminary ruling in the second case, spent 22 pages analyzing it. If the fine is a penalty rather than a tax, Congress' power is far less extensive.

Judge Roger Vinson noted Congress repeatedly called the fine a 'penalty,' explicitly changing its description from a 'tax' that earlier versions of the bill assessed by name. Citing Alice's admonition to Humpty Dumpty that words can't 'mean so many different things' as Humpty intended, Judge Vinson concluded, 'Congress should not be permitted to secure and cast politically difficult votes on controversial legislation by deliberately calling something one thing ... [only to] argue in court that Congress really meant something else entirely.'

Judge Vinson explained that no matter what Congress called it, the assessment was designed to act as a punishment, not a revenue measure. Hence, it's not a tax.

His 22-page analysis is an exposition of the logic that if something is called a duck, acts like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck -- and the same goes for a penalty. The tax issue is vital because it's the Obama administration's fallback position if it loses on the first and biggest dispute, which is whether Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause not only to regulate commerce, but to force individuals to engage in specific commerce."

--The Washington Times

AG Cuccinelli Says Bambi Is Worse Than George III

Virginia attorney general compares Obama to King George III

Virginia’s fiery attorney general Ken Cuccinelli, who argued against the constitutionality of the health care law in federal court this week, has a new line: President Obama is worse than King George III, the English king in power when Americans declared independence in 1776.

Cuccinelli said Monday that at no other time in American history had a government forced citizens to purchase a product and gotten away with it, even the British King that sparked the American Revolution.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed in April contains a provision that requires citizens to buy health insurance. Virginia’s lawsuit argues that the mandate is beyond the powers of the federal government, as defined in the Constitution. (A Massachusetts state measure, championed by former governor and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, requires everyone in the state to have insurance.)

Well Informed Is Well Prepared

Kiplinger Spells It Out
(H/T to my buddy Boats down in NC)

(Ed Note:My advice is stockpile cash and ammo.)

Time to spell it out for those who are not paying attention…Vote Republican in November…or just continue to enjoy some of the “benefits” of Obama below. And for those that think taxing businesses is the answer…”caca rolls down hill”…we consumers will all pay for it with inflationary costs…get some people in Congress that know how to run a business, make a payroll, keep costs down, increase productivity and decrease unemployment.

Now, your insurance will be INCOME on your W2's!
(Ed. Note: We just had a quick meeting with HR at my firm, and we have been assured this information is just for record-keeping. IOW, this is how they know if you have insurance or not; and they have your employer info so they can snatch the fine, er I mean tax,, no wait..its a floor wax--its a dessert topping...out of your paycheck)
In just six months, on January 1, 2011, the largest tax hikes in the history of America will take effect. They will hit families and small businesses in three great waves.
On January 1, 2011, here’s what happens... (read it to the end, so you see all three waves)...

First Wave:
Expiration of 2001 and 2003 Tax Relief
In 2001 and 2003, the GOP Congress enacted several tax cuts for investors, small business owners, and families. These will all expire on January 1, 2011.

Personal income tax rates will rise.
The top income tax rate will rise from 35 to 39.6 percent (this is also the rate at which two-thirds of small business profits are taxed). The lowest rate will rise from 10 to 15 percent. All the rates in between will also rise. Itemized deductions and personal exemptions will again phase out, which has the same mathematical effect as higher marginal tax rates.

The full list of marginal rate hikes is below:
The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15%
The 25% bracket rises to 28%
The 28% bracket rises to 31%
The 33% bracket rises to 36%
The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%

Higher taxes on marriage and family.
The "marriage penalty" (narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of income. The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child. The standard deduction will no longer be doubled for married couples relative to the single level. The dependent care and adoption tax credits will be cut.

The return of the Death Tax.
This year only, there is no death tax. (It’s a quirk!) For those dying on or after January 1, 2011, there is a 55 percent top death tax rate on estates over $1 million. A person leaving behind two homes, a business, a retirement account, could easily pass along a death tax bill to their loved ones. Think of the farmers who don’t make much money, but their land, which they purchased years ago with after-tax dollars, is now worth a lot of money. Their children will have to sell the farm, which may be their livelihood, just to pay the estate tax if they don’t have the cash sitting around to pay the tax. Think about your own family’s assets. Maybe your family owns real estate, or a business that doesn't make much money, but the building and equipment are worth $1 million. Upon their death, you can inherit the $1 million business tax free, but if they own a home, stock, cash worth $500K on top of the $1 million business, then you will owe the government $275,000 cash! That’s 55% of the value of the assets over $1 million! Do you have that kind of cash sitting around waiting to pay the estate tax?

Higher tax rates on savers and investors.
The capital gains tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 20 percent in 2011.
The dividends tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 39.6 percent in 2011.
These rates will rise another 3.8 percent in 2013.

Second Wave:
Obamacare
There are over twenty new or higher taxes in Obamacare. Several will first go into effect on January 1, 2011. They include:

The "Medicine Cabinet Tax"
Thanks to Obamacare, Americans will no longer be able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin).

The "Special Needs Kids Tax"
This provision of Obamacare imposes a cap on flexible spending accounts (FSAs) of $2500 (Currently, there is no federal government limit). There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children.
There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States , and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education.
Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington , D.C. ( National Child Research Center ) can easily exceed $14,000 per year.
Under tax rules, FSA dollars can not be used to pay for this type of special needs education.
The HSA (Health Savings Account) Withdrawal Tax Hike.
This provision of Obamacare increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAsand other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.

Third Wave:
The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) and Employer Tax Hikes
When Americans prepare to file their tax returns in January of 2011, they'll be in for a nasty surprise-the AMT won't be held harmless, and many tax relief provisions will have expired.
The major items include:
The AMT will ensnare over 28 million families, up from 4 million last year.
According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center , Congress' failure to index the AMT will lead to an explosion of AMT taxpaying families-rising from 4 million last year to 28.5 million. These families will have to calculate their tax burdens twice, and pay taxes at the higher level. The AMT was created in 1969 to ensnare a handful of taxpayers.
Small business expensing will be slashed and 50% expensing will disappear.
Small businesses can normally expense (rather than slowly-deduct, or "depreciate") equipment purchases up to $250,000.
This will be cut all the way down to $25,000. Larger businesses can currently expense half of their purchases of equipment.
In January of 2011, all of it will have to be "depreciated."
Taxes will be raised on all types of businesses.
There are literally scores of tax hikes on business that will take place. The biggest is the loss of the "research and experimentation tax credit," but there are many, many others. Combining high marginal tax rates with the loss of this tax relief will cost jobs.
Tax Benefits for Education and Teaching Reduced.
The deduction for tuition and fees will not be available.
Tax credits for education will be limited.
Teachers will no longer be able to deduct classroom expenses.
Coverdell Education Savings Accounts will be cut.
Employer-provided educational assistance is curtailed.
The student loan interest deduction will be disallowed for hundreds of thousands of families.
Charitable Contributions from IRAs no longer allowed.
Under current law, a retired person with an IRA can contribute up to $100,000 per year directly to a charity from their IRA.
This contribution also counts toward an annual "required minimum distribution." This ability will no longer be there.

PDF Version Read more: http://www.atr.org/six-months-untilbr-largest-tax-hikes-a5171##ixzz0sY8waPq1
And worse yet?
Now, your insurance will be INCOME on your W2's!
One of the surprises we'll find come next year, is what follows - - a little "surprise" that 99% of us had no idea was included in the "new and improved" healthcare legislation . . . the dupes, er, dopes, who backed this administration will be astonished!

Starting in 2011, (next year folks), your W-2 tax form sent by your employer will be increased to show the value of whatever health insurance you are given by the company. It does not matter if that's a private concern or governmental body of some sort.

If you're retired? So what... your gross will go up by the amount of insurance you get.
You will be required to pay taxes on a large sum of money that you have never seen. Take your tax form you just finished and see what $15,000 or $20,000 additional gross does to your tax debt. That's what you'll pay next year.

For many, it also puts you into a new higher bracket so it's even worse.

This is how the government is going to buy insurance for the 15% that don't have insurance and it's only part of the tax increases.
Not believing this??? Here is a research of the summaries.....
On page 25 of 29: TITLE IX REVENUE PROVISIONS- SUBTITLE A: REVENUE OFFSET PROVISIONS-(sec. 9001,as modified by sec. 10901) Sec.9002 "requires employers to include in the W-2 form of each employee the aggregate cost of applicable employer sponsored group health coverage that is excludable from the employees gross income."

- Joan Pryde is the senior tax editor for the Kiplinger letters.- Go to Kiplingers and read about 13 tax changes that could affect you. Number 3 is what is above.

Morning Reads

IN THE NEWS:

ObamaCare Already Causing 47% Increase in Health Care Plans

What was Written on the Miners' Shirts?

Social Security: An "Innocent" Baby That Grew Up To Be a Monster?

Obama: Blacks Probably Don't Watch "Meet The Press"

Illinois Elections Officials Caught Lying About Military Ballots

The Democratic 'D' Now Stands for Demagoguery and Desperation

Obamanomics Paints Ohio Red

Reid Lost the Debate to Angle

Sunday Morning Reading

Pelosi Wasn't Kidding About Health Care Law

The Marine Who Has Barney Frank Worried

What Would Ronald Reagan say about Muslim Jihad?

Obama and Dems Need Some Scarce 'Hopium'

New Book Calls for Violent Overthrow of the Government

In House race, Rob Steele leads John Dingell by 4 points

Count on Dem Recounts after Election

MSNBC Bleeps Out the Word 'Whore' From Jerry Brown Story

Modern Hollywood’s Love Affair With Satanism

The Daily Grind

The Daily Grind

BY Mary Katharine Ham

Third party candidate can't even save Reid, says new poll.

Reid advisers relying on the "none of the above vote."

SNL appears to have simply taken a Palin-bashing brainstorming session and turned it into a skit without editing. What will they have left for next year?

New York's hipsters too cool for the census. Apparently, right-wing paranoia's reach wider than ever expected.

A progressive light astutely pegs the reason for the pro-Israel stance of most southern Republicans: "They’re infatuated with the Israeli army. Why? Because the Israeli army kills Muslims."

Palin to Rubio: "Call me!"

Courage to acknowledge the entitlement crisis: Synthetic indignation being the first refuge of political featherweights, Crist's campaign announced that he believes Rubio's suggestions are "cruel, unusual and unfair to seniors living on a fixed income." They are indeed unusual, because flinching from the facts of the coming entitlements crisis is the default position of all but a responsible few, such as Wisconsin's Rep. Paul Ryan, who has endorsed Rubio.

The 'stache is back, and John Stossel was just ahead of his time.

Romney wins SRLC straw poll?

The health-care fight in Massachusetts heats up. Get excited for our own version.

Most transparent administration ever: President Barack Obama was overheard Sunday telling Pakistan's Prime Minister about the kerfuffle he caused a day earlier when he breached protocol and left the White House without members of the press in tow."Apparently I caused quite a problem," Obama told Yusuf Raza Gilani, noting that the media was unhappy about missing the trip to one of his daughter's soccer games.

Morning Emails from DCExaminer

Byron York - GOP Obamacare strategy: Try repeal, then cut
There's an ongoing debate among Republicans about what it means to repeal Obamacare. Does it mean abolishing the whole thing? Does it mean nullifying just the most troublesome parts? Repealing and simultaneously enacting a new set of reforms? Or repealing and then starting a new debate on what reforms to make?
"House Republicans will not rest until we repeal Obamacare lock, stock and barrel," Rep. Mike Pence, head of the House Republican Conference, told me from Arizona, where he had gone to campaign for GOP candidates. "I believe that's the uniform position of the Republican leadership."

Susan Ferrechio - Obama nuke treaty has a tough path ahead in Senate
It will take 67 senators to ratify the new treaty, a successor to the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), which means at least eight Republicans must endorse it, assuming it wins the support of all 57 Democrats and two independents.

David Freddoso - McDonnell’s first serious gaffe
Yesterday, McDonnell added a section on slavery, with an apology for the omission. Good for him.

Gallup: Independents worried about economy, deficit
The economy is the No. 1 concern for a majority of voters heading into 2010’s midterm elections, but the deficit comes in close behind, particularly with all-important independent voters, according to a new Gallup poll.
The economy tops a list of concerns, unsurprisingly, for 57 percent of voters, with health care (49%) and unemployment (46%) rounding out the top three. But when you examine the numbers among just independent voters, the federal budget deficit becomes the second-most important issue at 52 percent.

DCExaminer Editorial Highlights

WASHINGTON EXAMINER EDITORIAL HIGHLIGHTS

Independents rally to the Tea Party
Examiner Editorial
"But now comes hard facts from multiple sources that put the lie to the liberal stereotype about Tea Partiers. For one thing, the Tea Partiers are almost certainly more in tune with the views of the average American voter than is Obama."

America is losing the war on its 'Third Front'
Barbara Hollingsworth, Examiner Columnist
"What cameras have captured, however, is unmistakable evidence that Mexican military helicopters are entering U.S. airspace with impunity. American sheriffs have given Poe evidence of two such incursions during the last three weeks."

Five things we've learned about Obamacare since it became law
David Freddoso, Examiner Columnist
"Those are just five things we've learned, out of more than 2,000 pages. You can bet we'll learn a lot more in the seven months leading up to Election Day."

Public schools should experiment like charter schools
Marcus A. Winters, Manhattan Moment
"When you walk into a charter school that adheres to these standards, you see learning taking place. These schools have proven that demography is not destiny. All kids learn regardless of their race, class, or the income bracket of their parents."

Mixing race and politics can be poisonous
Thomas Sowell, Examiner OpEd Contributor
"Yet playing the race card has become an increasingly common response to growing public anger at the policies of the Obama administration and the way those policies have been imposed."

Words - Just Words

Defensive much? Obama gives rambling, incoherrent 17 minute response to concern about being ‘overtaxed’
By: Mark Hemingway

We constantly hear about the President’s supposedly cool demeanor and unflappability, regardless of evidence to the contrary. Keep that in mind as you read this Washington Post account:

Toward the end of a question-and-answer session with workers at an advanced battery technology manufacturer, a woman named Doris stood to ask the president whether it was a “wise decision to add more taxes to us with the health care” package.

“We are over-taxed as it is,” Doris said bluntly.

Obama started out feisty. “Well, let’s talk about that, because this is an area where there’s been just a whole lot of misinformation, and I’m going to have to work hard over the next several months to clean up a lot of the misapprehensions that people have,” the president said.

He then spent the next 17 minutes and 12 seconds lulling the crowd into a daze. His discursive answer – more than 2,500 words long — wandered from topic to topic, including commentary on the deficit, pay-as-you-go rules passed by Congress, Congressional Budget Office reports on Medicare waste, COBRA coverage, the Recovery Act and Federal Medical Assistance Percentages (he referred to this last item by its inside-the-Beltway name, “F-Map”). He talked about the notion of eliminating foreign aid (not worth it, he said). He invoked Warren Buffett, earmarks and the payroll tax that funds Medicare (referring to it, in fluent Washington lingo, as “FICA”).

But wait, there’s more!

Sign WND's Petition

The petition reads:

"Whereas, the House of Representatives and Senate of the United States of America reached a new low watermark in 2009 and 2010 in approving legislation in direct contravention of the U.S. Constitution, I, an American citizen eligible to vote in my state, do solemnly pledge the following:

• "Refuse to vote for any congressional candidate, House or Senate, who supported the so-called "health-care reform package" approved in Congress;
• "I will only consider voting for congressional candidates who pledge to overturn the unconstitutional health-care legislation;
• "I will only consider voting for congressional candidates who vow to apply the strict test of constitutionality to all future legislation;
• "I will enthusiastically support with my vote and financial support those congressional candidates who offer an aggressive legislative program for taking America back to its constitutional moorings in self-government and the rule of law."

Do You Support the Healthcare Plan?

NewsMax is asking for our input on healthcare.
They're running a poll we need to answer.

Do You Support Obama's Health Care Plan?
Vote in This Urgent Poll

Link is here.

Justice

Supreme Court may weigh coverage mandate

Health care reform now in court's hands

The same Supreme Court justices whom President Obama blasted during his State of the Union address this year may ultimately decide the fate of his crowning achievement as more than a dozen states have called on the courts to strike down the health insurance mandate of Democrats' health care overhaul - a move that would threaten the entire law.

Two major constitutional challenges have been levied against the new law, one by the state of Virginia, which enacted a law exempting its citizens from the federal health insurance mandate, and another by Florida and 12 other states. Legal scholars are divided on the merits of the cases, and even Congress - through its research service and its budget scorekeeper - has said it's an open question whether the provision could pass constitutional muster.

At issue is the scope of the federal government's power over states and individuals. Critics of the law say the requirement that all Americans buy insurance or pay a fine, if allowed, would mean that Congress has virtually boundless authority to compel actions. Proponents argue that legal precedents support an expansive reading of the legislative branch's license to regulate such activity.

"This is one of the most consequential lawsuits in our generation," said Baker Hostetler lawyer David B. Rivkin Jr., who is serving as outside counsel to the 13 states that have filed suit. "The fact you have so many different state attorneys general, Republicans and Democrats, from a variety of states coming together to do this just underscores how strongly they feel that the act infringes core constitutional interests of their respective states."

The mandate, which doesn't take effect until 2014, is central to Democrats' goal of insuring about 32 million more Americans. The law would offer tax credits to low-income individuals and allow young adults to remain on their parents' policies longer.

Both of the state lawsuits challenge the federal government's authority under the Commerce Clause, which grants Congress the power to regulate commerce among the states. The Florida case also cites a violation of the 10th Amendment, which reserves those powers not spelled out under the federal government in the Constitution to the state governments, and argues that the health care law's expansion of state Medicaid programs threatens state sovereignty.

Among the arguments against the law is that because it does not allow for purchasing insurance across state lines - the insurance exchanges are state-based - the buying of health insurance does not constitute interstate commerce. In addition, the plaintiffs say, not purchasing health insurance does not constitute an economic activity.

"Thus far in our history, it has never been held that the Commerce Clause, even when aided by the Necessary and Proper Clause, can be used to require citizens to buy goods or services," Virginia Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II argues in his state's lawsuit. "To depart from that history to permit the national government to require the purchase of goods or services would ... create powers indistinguishable from a general police power in total derogation of our constitutional scheme of enumerated powers."

While a requirement to buy health insurance might be new, some legal analysts say, Congress can in fact define an economic activity as something that results from not taking an action.

"The 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits hotels and restaurants from discriminating based on race and thus prohibits inactivity," said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Irvine School of Law, noting that law relied upon the Commerce Clause. "The Supreme Court has said that Congress can regulate economic activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Buying or refusing to buy insurance is economic activity. The effect on the economy is enormous."

More here.