So this is what change looks like. If he were here, Mr. Speaker, in this time of momentous national distress, I would remind the President of the United States that he is not the leader of a party or an ideology; he is the leader of our country—one founded, not to emulate others, but to inspire the world.

As families lose their jobs, their homes, and their dreams for their children; as our troops fight and sacrifice in foreign fields for our liberty and security, President Obama’s obsessive-compulsive pursuit of an abominable government takeover of health care has defied the public’s objections, despoiled this, “The People’s House,” and further alienated Americans from their representative government.

As President Obama’s campaign mantra of “hope and change” has degenerated into “tax and hate,” reputable surveys prior to this vote report: the public overwhelmingly thinks that the U.S. Government is broken. Only 21 percent of the public thinks it is being governed with its consent. Only 26 percent of the public trusts the Federal Government most of the time or always; 56 percent of Americans think the Federal Government has become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedom of ordinary citizens; 70 percent believe the government and big business typically work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors; and 71 percent of Americans think the Federal Government is a special interest.

In the wake of this health care debate’s despicable, dysfunctional process and product, it is clear: The most dangerous special interest is Big Government and President Obama is its lobbyist.

(more…)

One of the main selling points of health care reform was that it would cut the federal deficit by a supposed $143 billion over the next decade and a trillion-plus dollars in the one after that.

But not only will the legislation not cut one thin dime from the deficit, it will also certainly cost far more than the $940 billion in new spending already on the table for at least three reasons.

These include:

1. Legislative Trickery. Congressional Democrats have pledged support for “the doc fix,” a permanent upward adjustment to the rates at which Medicare providers are reimbursed. As Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said, “We have made a commitment to do this. This is very important.” The cost of the “doc fix”? Some $247 billion over the next 10 years, wiping out any deficit reduction from health care reform.

2. Higher Premiums. In 2006, Massachusetts passed health care reform very similar to what President Obama just signed. The result? The Bay State now has the highest premiums in the country and cost about 33 percent more than expected.

(more…)

Yesterday, President Obama signed into law the Democrats’ trillion-dollar health care takeover, meaning that one-sixth of the United States economy has now come under the purview of the federal government.

Keep in mind Arizona State economics professor William Boyes has estimated that the government already owns or controls about one-third of U.S. economic activity through the takeover of General Motors, the partial ownership of two of the country’s largest banks in Bank of America and Citigroup, and the seizure of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as AIG. Combine those two numbers, and we’re looking at roughly half of the U.S. economy.

This is not the direction we want to be heading.

(more…)

Former Bush Senior Aide Karl Rove deserves credit for vindicating President Bush in his new auto-biography, “Courage and Consequence: My Life as a Conservative in the Fight.”

As one of the few liberals in America who has supported the war in Iraq (See www.honorfreedom.com) I found deep historical value in Rove’s account of what actually happened in the White House during the months leading up to the war, and I was inspired by his willingness to call out those Democratic senators who voted for the war, but later abandoned the president once it became unpopular.

On January 5, 2007 ABC News reported that 28 of the 77 senators who originally voted for the war said they would have voted differently. Not surprisingly, Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, John Edwards, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton, all of whom challenged Bush for the presidency eventually turned against the war.

Of course, Bush’s post-9/11 popularity was 90 percent, the highest of any president in American history, and Democrats knew the only hope they had of winning was to undermine the morality of the war. Undermining the morality of the war meant that it didn’t matter if America achieved victory in Iraq.

(more…)

As the Greek Debt Crisis continues, President Obama needs to stand firm: American tax dollars should not be used to bail out Greece – or any country – that engages in reckless government spending and deficits.  And yet, a bailout paid for by U.S. taxpayers remains a real possibility.

This week, leaders of the European Union will be meeting to consider aid for Greece. But instead of using their own money to bail out Greece, it’s more likely the EU will adopt Germany’s proposal to use money from the International Monetary Fund. That way U.S. taxpayers – not just the European Union – will be on the hook for an international bailout.

U.S. tax dollars already pay for 17% of the IMF’s liquidity. And any bailout by the IMF would have to be approved by the U.S. government. According to the IMF’s rules, major decisions require an 85% supermajority. And the U.S. is the only country with the power to block a supermajority on its own.

Therefore, President Obama has the power to either approve or reject a bailout of Greece. So far, he has been quiet. But instead of waiting while storms gather, the President should be vocal that U.S. taxpayers will not bail out Greece. The European Union may be tempted to pass the buck to the U.S. by requesting IMF “help.” If the Presidents tells them ahead of time that such “help” will not be forthcoming, he will make it more likely that the E.U. will meet its responsibilities.

(more…)

Founding Bloggers’ Michael Kadela hit the streets of Chicago yesterday to document people’s reaction to the passage of socialized medicine in the USA.

He spoke with people young and old alike, and the reactions were both varied and interesting.

At :35  seconds, an older immigrant from Sweden says: “I left the old country because I didn’t like the system over there. The Parliamentary system with the government running your life, you know. So I came here a few years ago. And now they are trying to implement the same system over here, which aggravates the devil out of me. I can’t understand where America is going. The spirit, they are trying to wipe out the American spirit.

2:43 “I think a minor increase in our income taxes won’t be such a big deal.”

3:06 “Let’s face the facts for gods sakes. If you can count money you know this isn’t going to work out.”

4:00 “People wanted change, this is change. So they need to shut up. They voted for it.”

You’ve got to give Enforcement Czar and SEIU boss Andy Stern credit: he’s got a major set of cojones.

Fresh off his health care reform victory, he’s renewing his attack on Bank of America, one of the banks SEIU and ACORN targeted during the foreclosure crisis and bank bailouts.  Bank employees reportedly received a memo saying “that SEIU is ramping up a big attack on the banks again about derivatives,” according to sources.

What makes Stern’s attack particularly audacious is that, according to SEIU’s latest LM-2 financial report filed with the federal Department of Labor, the union currently has an outstanding loan of $94,578,779 from Bank of America.  It has repaid a paltry $1,740,250.

In true SEIU (and ACORN) fashion, we’re willing to bet the union will be use its public besmirching of Bank of America to attempt renegotiate the terms of its loan, or better yet, have a bit of the massive debt waived.

(more…)

If only we had a real press corps in this country, then Alan Grayson (D-FL) and the other 219 Democrats in the House of Representatives who voted for HR 3952 would’ve been asked this question:

Please explain to me why you voted for a health-care bill that allocates money to fund the rehabilitation of Native American child molesters?

No joke, people: If Grayson and company had their way, the House bill that passed back in November would’ve mandated that our taxes go toward treating “perpetrators of child sexual abuse who are Indian or members of an Indian household.” (It’s on page 1950, section 713. See for yourself)

That’s one of the main reasons why there were so many drone-like youth out there who get suckered by Team Obama’s and the Democrats’ hope-a-dope mantra, as I explain in my brand-new book: Obama Zombies: How the Liberal Machine Brainwashed My Generation.

So Alan Grayson got off the hook, eh? Not exactly. I caught up with the Congressman. Hey — somebody had to do it:

(more…)

Today, in 1882, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow died. He chronicled the early American experience in a way that still resonates today.

When I came to town in the early seventies “transparency” was a photographic rather than a political term. Legislation was written in back rooms by Congressional grandees, votes were traded for bridges, highways and no one outside Washington was much the wiser.

In those days, more than a few Congressional and Senate offices had three basic “robotyped” letters to send to constituents concerning pending legislation. The first went to those who supported it and assured the writer that the Congressman or Senator shared their views and supported them. The second said virtually the same thing to those who opposed the bill except that it assured them that the signer shared their objections and was opposed as well. The third sympathized with those who had questions and were undecided on the wisdom of the pending legislation and assured them that their elected representative too was agonizing over how to best represent them when the legislation came up for a vote.

Since there were multiple votes before final passage, these letters often cited votes reflecting the member’s basic agreement with the constituent and allowed him to vote pretty much as he wanted without fear that anyone would skewer him for the hypocrisy that allowed him to be for or against pending legislation before he finally voted the other way on final passage.

Those letters don’t work any more.

(more…)

An unlikely power figure has emerged in the Obama Administration. He’s not a great orator, nor trendy, nor well-known.  But, if the ability to influence national leaders, shape a national agenda and influence public opinion are indicators, then, Peter Orszag, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), is, arguably, the most powerful and,  potentially, most dangerous, man in Washington, DC.

As Director of OMB, Peter Orszag is the arbiter of all financial information shared with Congress.  A series of little-known, OMB “circulars”, such as A-11, have established the rules, and repercussions if violated, by which Executive branch agencies communicate with Congress, especially regarding budgets, funding and agency priorities.

OMB, the President’s gatekeeper for budget matters, executes a complicated juggling act, balancing Obama Administration priorities and budgetary spin, against agency needs.   Frequently, to secure a critical vote, an elected member may be rewarded with a pork project for the folks back home, and, often, it’s the OMB director that has to figure out how to avoid the appearance of a bald-faced bribe, while manipulating CBO scoring on infrastructure projects.  Orszag, as the former head of CBO, understands exactly how this game is played.  Thus, most of the project and budget information that Congress reviews have been shaped by OMB’s preferences.

Peter Orszag controls much of the content and quantity of the data flow to Congress, to the President and to American citizens.  Orszag has oversight over most of the federal government’s critical data reporting structures.  Apart from the ineffective and error-prone Stimulus reporting sites (data.gov, recovery.gov),, OMB oversees federal contract opportunities and federal grants.

(more…)

My friends,

I am proud to introduce a bill today, that would repeal the monstrosity that passed yesterday. The bill that barely passed, can only be described as a killer bill.

It kills jobs, it kills opportunity, it kills promises that taxes wont rise, and we all know it will be a killer to the unborn. Sadly, the only bipartisan aspect of yesterday’s voting was the opposition to the legislation. Dozens of brave Democrats, stood up and voted against Pelosi’s wishes.

However, the fight is far from over.

(more…)

Has the Democratic Party ever enacted a law as atrocious as its government takeover of the American people’s healthcare?  Has the Democratic Party ever enacted a law so unpopular?  Yes and Yes.

In 1854, Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency.  Their top priority was to repeal the Missouri Compromise prohibition of slavery in the northern territories.  The author of this infamous legislation, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, was Stephen Douglas, a Democrat Senator from Illinois and owner of a slave plantation in Mississippi.

Senator Douglas claimed the law would be a final solution to the slavery question, so that Congress could move on to other issues.  In fact, the Kansas-Nebraska Act sparked a political firestorm.  Opponents of slavery – and the police state and economic stagnation that went with it – understood that, if unchecked, the slave system would expand throughout the territories and then the entire nation.

As the Democrat-controlled Supreme Court would soon prove with its 7-2 Dred Scott decision (both Republicans dissenting), pro-freedom Americans feared that the judiciary would uphold the expansion of slavery.  Many Democrats were already touting slavery (not for themselves, of course) for poor whites, too.  “Free Society!” declared a prominent Democrat newspaper, “We sicken at the name!”

Every American was forced to choose sides.  One was either for the free market system or against it; there was no middle ground.

(more…)

This week, I received my 2010 US Census form.  It’s the second mailing I’ve received. The first was a helpful notification that the actual form would be coming soon.

With the intent to help the process along by completing the form right then, I did a quick search of the Census.gov site to find the online version of the form, only to discover this shocking revelation:

Can I fill the form out online?

No, not this time. We are experimenting with Internet response options for the future

In 2000, with the Internets still relatively new, lack of an online option was tolerable. In 2010 however, this lapse makes for a perfect example of how our Federal government is missing opportunities to create knowledge worker jobs, cut costs and leverage technology to improve efficiency.

The rationale for an online census survey are obvious: save on printing and postage, cut down on paper, save fuel for distribution, provide nearly-instantaneous results, make it easier for citizens to complete, and increase the completion rate. So obvious in fact, that since 2006 Canada, Australia and New Zealand have all had an online option.

(more…)

What a tragedy. After standing firm for so long against such pressure, Michigan Congressman Bart Stupak (D) betrayed his fellow pro-lifers and bought in to a worthless promise from the Abortion President. The Stupak Amendment banning abortion funding in health care garnered 240 votes in the House. The final vote on this unconstitutional and unwise health care takeover – which includes federal funding of abortion – was 219.

There is probably no other measure connected with health care that could command such strong bi-partisan support as last fall’s Stupak Amendment. All the cries for civility and comity, for “reaching across the aisle,” for bringing the American people together were realized in that Stupak Amendment. Bart Stupak got 64 Democrats and every Republican to vote for his amendment last November. And then, he threw it all away.

Henry Hyde’s name will forever be associated with opposition to federal funding of abortion. As a freshman Congressman in 1976, in a House of Representatives dominated by Democrats, big, bluff, friendly Hank Hyde was truly willing to extend his hand across the aisle. He worked with deeply committed pro-life Democrats gladly. Protecting Hyde’s back then was the Hon. William Natcher (D-Ky.), one of the great legislators of the twentieth century. Mr. Natcher’s wisdom, integrity, and deeply held faith were respected by all who knew him. From his post as Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Natcher made sure that Freshman Hyde’s amendment would not be gutted by pro-abortion lawmakers operating behind closed doors in the Democratic caucus.

The Hyde Amendment has been voted up time after time, for the past thirty-three years. Henry Hyde has gone to his reward. So has Mr. Natcher. But those who remember this great pro-life Republican and this great pro-life Democrat cherish their memories.

What will we remember about poor Bart Stupak?

(more…)

Sunday, the House passed Speaker Pelosi’s vision of healthcare in America. Here is why I voted “no” and why the American people should re-examine the Democratic leadership of our nation.

First, I do not accept the premise that it is necessary to upend the health coverage currently available to all Americans for the sake of covering those who are uninsured. Expanding access to insurance is far less complex and far less costly than Democrats would have you believe. It does not involve a government takeover of 1/6th of the American economy. It involves insurance market reform but it also and more significantly involves providing choice and competition. The bill I support, the Patients’ Choice Act, provides the framework for such an effort. However, my views were not considered nor were the views of other lawmakers who sought to improve the system we have today. That’s because Nancy Pelosi and her liberal associates intend to destroy private healthcare with the ultimate goal of a Washington centered government healthcare monopoly.

Even before this monopoly takes its final form, the Democratic bill will speed our nation into financial crisis. Simply put, we can’t afford a new government healthcare program—a fact acknowledged by the President and Congressional Democrats. This is why they claim their reforms cost nothing; that it will actually reduce the debt. In truth, the bill conservatively spends a trillion dollars and the final toll on our budget will be many times greater than the initial cost. In their urgency to enact their plan, Democratic leaders papered over the financial problems we face with new government agencies and creative accounting gimmicks. Ultimately, the mechanisms created by this new law will force federal bureaucrats to ration benefits to control spending—a practice that is already common in government programs such as Medicaid.

Unchecked federal spending and the new entitlement just created should concern every American.

(more…)

The vote is done and we have awakened to a new era. Under the guise of  coverage for pre-existing conditions and the security of knowing that you can’t be kicked off your insurance when you really need it, the democrats have pushed through a bill which will lead to the end of health care as we know it.

Besides taxing us from everything from our unearned income, to payroll taxes to medical devices we can look forward to paying into a pot for the next four years. I only hope the money will be available for health care.  As it stands now, it will be used to set up yet another government bureaucracy run by various task forces and yet another Czar to oversee the entire mess. If we’re lucky they will actually use the money for the intended purpose, but I have visions of the social security lock box. It is hard to believe that this will end up any better than Medicare, The Post Office or Social Security – big, bloated and bankrupt.

The bill sets up committees to study ways to deliver care.  A committee to study what another committee is supposed to do? Sounds like bureaucracy at its finest. It is hard to believe that that money used to ‘study’ things will be used for patient care. By the time 2014 rolls around what money will be left to implement medical care?

The government sold health care reform with 5 basic talking points:

1.  You won’t be able to be kicked off of your insurance when you really need it

• Turns out that the insurance companies CAN kick you off if they pay a fine. It is not hard to imagine that an insurance company will figure out pretty quickly that it would be cheaper to pay the fine than to pay for coverage of a long term chronic illness.

2.  You won’t be denied medical care for pre-existing conditions.

• If the insurance company deems that you have lied on the application you will be denied coverage.
• Sick children are no longer considered to have pre-existing conditions, but what about women who are pregnant?

(more…)

Today, in 1775, Patrick Henry delivered his famous “Give Me Liberty, Or Give Me Death Speech.” An excerpt:

If we wish to be free–if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending–if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained–we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight!

Well, the Democrats finally found an enemy they were willing to commit whatever it takes to defeat. Unfortunately for them this enemy was the American people. While I agree with those who assert that this bill will be difficult to reverse, this nation achieved its greatness only through the steadfast refusal of patriots to surrender to the forces of tyranny and oppression throughout our history. Let there be no mistake, in enacting this legislation the President and his allies have chosen the path of tyranny. By resorting to back-room dealmaking, the blatant payoff of special interests, and every legislative contravention imaginable, Democrats have set in motion the largest seizure of power by the federal government since the New Deal, if not our history. All at the expense of personal liberty and free enterprise, and against the clearly expressed will of the vast majority of Americans.

But this bill will not stand.

Not if freedom-loving Americans have anything to say about it, and they will starting this November. It may not happen in one fell swoop, but this assault against liberty can and will be reversed.

For everyone who has stood so passionately against this legislation for the past year, this is our main solace. But we should also take pride in the success of our opposition to this point. Clearly Democrats were ultimately willing to do anything and everything necessary to pass this bill. This outcome was predetermined when the President and Democratic leadership retained the right to use reconciliation from the very beginning of the legislative process.

Given the popularity of the President coming into office, and the overwhelming majorities his party enjoyed in Congress, no one could have anticipated the immense difficulty they would have in reaching this point. We drove them to the very brink of defeat, and in doing so we exposed the raw corruption and insatiable desire for power which will prove to be their undoing.

(more…)