Following a somewhat vague initial response to President Obama’s “accommodation” to Catholic and other religious leaders’ objections to the ObamaCare mandate requiring religiously-affiliated charities, hospitals, and organizations to provide free contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs to their employees, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has issued a much stronger statement regarding the “accommodation:”

…we note at the outset that the lack of clear protection for key stakeholders—for self-insured religious employers; for religious and secular for-profit employers; for secular non-profit employers; for religious insurers; and for individuals—is unacceptable and must be corrected. And in the case where the employee and insurer agree to add the objectionable coverage, that coverage is still provided as a part of the objecting employer’s plan, financed in the same way as the rest of the coverage offered by the objecting employer. This, too, raises serious moral concerns.

We just received information about this proposal for the first time this morning; we were not consulted in advance. Some information we have is in writing and some is oral. We will, of course, continue to press for the greatest conscience protection we can secure from the Executive Branch. But stepping away from the particulars, we note that today’s proposal continues to involve needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religious institutions, and to threaten government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deeply held convictions. In a nation dedicated to religious liberty as its first and founding principle, we should not be limited to negotiating within these parameters. The only complete solution to this religious liberty problem is for HHS to rescind the mandate of these objectionable services.

We will therefore continue—with no less vigor, no less sense of urgency—our efforts to correct this problem through the other two branches of government. For example, we renew our call on Congress to pass, and the Administration to sign, the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. And we renew our call to the Catholic faithful, and to all our fellow Americans, to join together in this effort to protect religious liberty and freedom of conscience for all.

Indeed, the Wall Street Journal confirms that President Obama’s “accommodation” has simply made matters worse for him. An editorial sums up the lameness of his attempt at making his edict more politically tolerable:

(more…)

If one was looking for fiery, crowd pleasing, political rhetoric from former Speaker Newt Gingrich as he addressed CPAC today, they were likely disappointed. What Gingrich did do was run through a litany of policy solutions he claimed he has committed to implement immediately upon taking office in January of 2013.

Contrasting an America that can versus an America that can’t, Gingrich compared America’s speed and might in winning WWII versus her current inability to seal its own border. In a lighter moment, the former Speaker contrasted the efficiency of package tracking by Federal Express with the government’s inability to track illegal immigrants, suggesting sending each one a package may be the best way to apprehend the latter.

He also mentioned repealing Obamacare, Dodd Frank, and Sarbanes Oxley on his first day in office. He stated his desire to be a “paycheck president” versus a “food stamp president,” a term he used to denigrate Barack Obama.

Calling for a Fall campaign focused on substance, Gingrich also mentioned eliminating the Capital Gains tax and implementing 100% expensing for all new equipment written off in one year to help get the economy growing. Additionally, he called for a modernization of the workforce, proposing that unemployment compensation be linked to business training programs to avoid paying people for 99 weeks “for doing nothing.” (more…)

WASHINGTON (AP) – Rushing to end a political uproar, President BarackObama on Friday will announce that religious employers will not have to coverbirth control for their employees after all, The Associated Press has learned. The administration instead will demand that insurance companies will be the ones directly responsible for providing free contraception.

Obama’s abrupt shift is an attempt to satisfy both sides of a deeply sensitive debate, and most urgently, to end a mounting election-year nightmare for theWhite House. The leader of a Catholic organization and a prominent women’s group both expressed initial support for the changes.

(more…)

Both of my Senators have spoken out forcefully on the Obama administration’s new mandate requiring religious institutions to provide health insurance that covers abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization and contraception in violation our First Amendment right to religious liberty. Their remarks present a stark contrast in their levels of sincerity, intellectual honesty and respect for their constituents.

Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) was the first female U.S. Senator to speak out against the administration’s rule from the floor of the Senate. “This mandate places religious institutions in this impossible position of violating their core beliefs in order to comply with the mandate or dropping employee insurance coverage altogether. We should not be putting these organizations that do great work throughout this country in this position,” Ayotte argued.

She has also soundly denounced the politics of gender identity by stating plainly, “this is not a women’s rights issue. This is a religious liberty issue.”

(more…)

Robert Creamer–Democrat strategist, Obama 2008 campaign aide, and political architect of ObamaCare–argues that the new contraceptive mandate for Catholic institutions isn’t really about equality for women, or religious liberty.

Rather, it is about population control.

Creamer–like his wife, the pro-abortion Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL)–embraces the left-wing fallacy that children are a burden on the planet, which the state should encourage the church–and everyone else–to limit.

At 6:16-7:03 in the video below, by CNS News, Schakowsky describes abortion as “most often” a “responsible decision” to control the size of their families:

Writing in the Huffington Post yesterday, Creamer declared:

…[T]here is a worldwide consensus that the use of birth control is one of society’s most important moral priorities. Far from being something that should be discouraged, or is controversial, the use of birth control is critical to the survival and success of humanity….It is simply not possible for this small planet to sustain that kind of exponential human population growth. If we do, the result will be poverty, war, the depletion of our natural resources and famine. Fundamentally, the Reverend [Thomas] Malthus was right–except that the result is not inevitable….That’s why it is our moral imperative to act responsibly and encourage each other to use birth control.

Malthus’s late eighteenth and early nineteenth-century views, which still inspire much of today’s environmental movement, have been repeatedly disproved over the course of two centuries. Economic freedom, growth and innovation have made human society vastly more productive and efficient. (more…)

Members of the Obama administration do not care whether Catholics and those of other faiths are angry about the ObamaCare mandate regarding contraception, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs. It’s quite possible that, like exhibitionists, the White House enjoys the shock value that accompanies all their edicts and executive orders to people of main-street America. Waiting for average Americans to recover from the shock gives them a window of time to amuse themselves at the reaction as they also develop their talking points and spin. But, this year, they have an election to win.

To appease those they view as rigid, conservative Catholics, the administration’s talking points are that they’ll “work it out” with them, give them a year to “adapt” their consciences to engaging in behavior that is against their values, and, perhaps, the favorite means of the White House to ensure a minimum of voter loss: hand out a waiver.

But, exactly what should be “worked out?” “Adapt” to what? A “waiver” from what? All of this talk of flexibility is helping the White House to muddy up the real issue.

The spin by the White House, in the midst of this constitutional crisis, is simply a variant on its age- old theme that healthcare is an unalienable right that the government must give to people. Remember that, in liberalism, unalienable rights come from the government, not from the Creator. With the contraception, etc. mandate, the administration just tweaked the message a bit- made it a bit “pinker,” dare we say: that all women deserve access to free contraception- including Catholic women. How could we leave Catholic women out? After all, that would be discriminatory, right? Wrong.

(more…)

In the wake of the news that Obamacare will mandate all employers to provide for birth control, including Catholic employers, many have wondered whether President Obama will damage his standing with the Catholic vote. In 2008, the Catholic vote split for Obama by a large margin, 54-45. Much of this was driven by Obama’s support in the Latino community; white Catholics actually voted McCain by a similarly broad margin, 52-47.

But now, even Hispanics are having second thoughts about Obama. According to a December Ipsos-Telemundo poll, Obama’s approval rating among Latinos is now down to 56%, as opposed to 86% in April 2009. Although Obama’s unfavorables have risen among Latinos, however, only 14% strongly dislike Obama’s presidential approach. That means there’s room for Obama to move the needle up once again.

He’ll have to do it soon. Obama threatens to match John Kerry’s negative Catholic electoral record – Kerry lost the Catholic vote 52-47 in 2004, and he lost white Catholics 43-56. He still won Pennsylvania, a heavily Catholic state (53%), but he lost Florida (26% Catholic) and Ohio (24% Catholic). The most heavily Catholic battleground states other than those three are New Hampshire (35%), Arizona (31%), Louisiana (30%), and Wisconsin (29%). Obama’s anti-Catholic moves may hurt him there.

We’ve actually already seen some movement in terms of the Catholic vote.

(more…)

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech are joined by Congressman Dennis Ross to discuss Obamacare, Eric Holder’s involvement in Fast and Furious and the end to insider trading in Congress.

We’re brought to you as always by BigGovernment and Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

Ross to Eric H. Holder: You Can Delegate Authority, But You Cannot Delegate Responsibility
GOP blames ‘Obama economy’ in call to extend federal pay freeze
Congressman Dennis Ross

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Ben on Twitter
Follow Congressman Ross on Twitter

Subscribe to The Transom

The hosts and guests of Coffee and Markets speak only for ourselves, not any clients or employers.

Borrowing a page from Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer’s investigation of how elected officials funnel taxpayer dollars to projects that increase the value of properties they own, the Washington Post has conducted a study revealing that 33 members of Congress earmarked more than $300 million for projects within two miles of land they own.

After analyzing the holdings of all 535 members of Congress and comparing them to their earmarks for pet projects since 2008, the Washington Post found numerous eye-opening instances of potential self-enrichment at taxpayers’ expense, including:

• Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS): obtained a $900,000 earmark to resurface roads where he and his daughter own two homes.  “I didn’t say, ‘Do the street that I live on,” Rep. Thompson protested when the Washington Post confronted him.  “The earmark went to the county.  It had no designation on it whatsoever, and that was it.”
• Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett (R-MD): secured approximately $4.5 million for an interstate interchange that leads to Rep. Bartlett’s home, his 104-acre farm, and rental properties that earn him $150,000 annually.  “He was being an advocate for what was presented to him as the highest priority,” the congressman’s press secretary Lisa Wright said.  “Coincidentally, this was around two miles from his farm.”
• Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX): bagged $665,000 in taxpayer funds to expand a road 600 feet away from his family’s food processing plant, H&H Foods.  “It helps everybody,” Rep. Hinojosa told the Washington Post.  “The only way it made sense to handle this tremendous population growth and avoid problems for the school buses that go through that intersection was to widen it.”
• Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA): scored $750,000 for a new bridge three blocks away from a 7,000-square-foot building he and his wife own as well as Columbia Basin Paper & Supply, a janitorial supply company he previously owned that is now run by his brother.  “It never crossed my mind,” Rep. Hastings told the Washington Post.  “Every business in Pasco will benefit by that.”
• Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MA): landed a $187,000 earmark to replenish a shoreline 90 miles away from his home district near a beach that, coincidentally, he and his wife own two condominiums by that generate $15,000 in rental income.  Rep. Ruppersberger said questioning the proximity of his properties to the project was “ridiculous.”  “That’s a stretch to say that thing’s going to benefit me.”
• Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA): secured $6.3 million to replenish a beach 900 feet away from a $142,900 cottage he owns.  “It’s absurd to suggest that this benefits me,” Kingston protested to the reporters.  “The beach doesn’t improve the real estate of a house, unless it’s on the beach.  The only thing that changes in value is the beachfront property.”
• Rep. John W. Olver (D-MA): obtained $5.1 million in earmarks to restructure a road 209 feet from Rep. Olver’s 15-acre home and several adjoining properties he and his wife own.  “I had no monetary interest whatsoever in this project,” Rep. Olver said.  “I had nothing to with the design.  I was never notified of any of the hearings.  I had no involvement whatsoever.”
• Rep. Candice S. Miller (R-MI): obtained a $486,000 earmark that helped add a 14-foot bike lane within walking distance of her house.  “People earmark for all kinds of things,” Rep. Miller said when asked about the project.  “I’m pretty proud of this; I think I did what my people wanted.  Should I have told them, ‘We can never have this bike path complete because I happen to live by one section of it’?  They would have thrown me out of office.”
• Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY): secured $7 million in earmarks, a portion of which went to overhaul streets around the corner from a bank where he is director emeritus and owns a $1-$5 million stake in the bank’s holding company and also narrowed the street he lives on to slow traffic.  “Congressman Rogers sees no conflict of interest in helping local community leaders achieve their goals for growth,” the congressman’s chief of staff Michael R. Higdon told the Washington Post.

The Washington Post report also concluded that 16 members of Congress directed taxpayer dollars to “companies, colleges, or community programs where their spouses, children or parents work as salaried employees or serve on boards.”

The practice of earmarks continues to be a source of angst for conservatives and citizens concerned with out-of-control federal spending.  In 2010, a record high 11,230 earmarks accounted for $32 billion in federal spending.

Obamacare opponents have been raising red flags around this issue for some time, but today the IRS has finally issued preliminary guidelines for the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. The legislation is expected to cost America tens of thousands of jobs, while also sending some high-end industries overseas. There’s more from the IRS available at the links in text below. That it’s being released on a Friday afternoon is no coincidence.

On February 3, 2012, the IRS and the Treasury Department issued proposed regulations on the new 2.3-percent medical device excise tax (IRC §4191) that manufacturers and importers will pay on their sales of taxable medical devices starting in 2013. Additional information is available in the Medical Device Excise Tax FAQs.

The IRS and Treasury Department request comments on the proposed regulations by May 7, 2012. Comments may be submitted electronically, by mail or hand delivered to the IRS. The preamble to the proposed regulations provides instructions on how to submit comments.

Industry sources have already begun weighing in through press releases of their own. There’s also a detailed analysis of the implications of the proposed guidelines here. (more…)

True constitutional conservatives don’t ask, “Does the Constitution keep me from doing X?”.  Instead, they examine whether the Constitution explicitly lays out that X is permitted.

On a recent Uncommon Knowledge, constitutional scholars Richard Epstein and John Yoo have a feisty conversation with Peter Robinson on the likelihood of the Supreme Court striking down Obamacare, its political implications, and the general rule of law in our country.

They ask whether an individual mandate is constitutional – can the government force citizens to purchase health insurance?   In other words, can the government compel people into the marketplace?  If so, what’s the stopping point?  Pretty soon they’ll be telling us what we can eat, what car we have to buy and that we need to exercise a certain number of minutes per week.  Where is the individual liberty in that?

Yoo and Epstein discuss the potential fallout from the decision, whether Romneycare is constitutional, and whether the Federal Government has the right to coerce states using grant money.  Outside of health care, they speculate on the 2012 court, censorship and the FCC.

Check out the full episode, here:

(more…)

The idea that America needs transforming, and that he is the man to do it, did not start with Barack Obama. The grandiosely named Center for Health Transformation (CHT) was started by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich.

In 2003, Newt Gingrich wrote Saving Lives & Saving Money: Transforming Health and Healthcare. It does offer some “free market” solutions. But doctors are apparently free only as long as they do what Newt thinks they should.

The backup plan is: “When all else fails, mandate.” Specifically, physicians who “insist on doing it the old way…should simply not be allowed to practice medicine.” As far as I know, even Obama doesn’t go this far.

In developing his plans and strategies, the CHT boasts a lot of allies: along with top leaders in federal and state governments, it includes “key corporations, top hospitals, disease advocacy groups, professional and industry associations, and leading research institutions.” Many if not all of them probably endorsed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ObamaCare”).

Newt has embraced the key fallacy that “the number of uninsured in America is a threat to our civilization.” He thinks that medical errors are “morally unacceptable,” and that they could somehow be prevented by forcing everybody to use the health information technology that his supporters, just coincidentally, happen to sell. He speaks favorably of outgoing CMS director Donald Berwick, an avowed admirer of the British National Health Service’s rationing system. He is convinced that “disease management programs” can” dramatically improve outcomes.”

(more…)

In response to an order, by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, that all healthcare insurance plans in the United States must cover sterilizations, contraceptives, and FDA-approved abortion-inducing drugs, without fees or copays, the head of the Roman Catholic diocese of Pittsburgh has said, “The Obama administration has just told the Catholics of the United States, ‘To Hell with you!’”

Bishop David A. Zubik said, “Let’s be blunt. This whole process of mandating these guidelines undermines the democratic process itself.”

Though the regulation announced by Secretary Sebelius includes an exemption for “religious employers,” those employers wishing to qualify for this exemption must primarily: serve members of its own faith, employ members of its own faith, and focus on the teaching of the doctrines of that faith. As a result of this rule, Catholic hospitals, universities, and charitable organizations would not qualify for the exemption.

In addition, there is no exemption for individual citizens or private businesses. Thus, any individual who is a pro-life small business owner and employer is not exempt from the law. He or she must provide health insurance that offers full coverage for sterilization, contraception, and abortion-inducing drugs.

(more…)

Leftists want higher tax rates and they want greater tax compliance. But they have a hard time understanding that those goals are inconsistent.

Simply stated, people respond to incentives. When tax rates are punitive, folks earn and report less taxable income, and vice-versa.

• When tax rates increase, sometimes they engage in tax avoidance, lowering their tax liabilities legally.
• When tax rates change, sometimes they choose to alter their levels of work, saving, and investment.
• And when tax rates go up, sometimes they resort to illegal steps to protect themselves from the tax authority.

In a previous post, I quoted an article from the International Monetary Fund, which unambiguously concluded that high tax burdens are the main reason people don’t fully comply with tax regimes:
(more…)

Mitt Romney at Staples

Tom Stemberg, the co-founder and former CEO of Staples, has been on the stump for Mitt Romney, telling Fox News last week that “[Romney] was the inspirational leader and while Staples may have existed without him, I doubt it would have been nearly as big or successful without him.”

But without Stemberg, it’s doubtful RomneyCare (and therefore ObamaCare) would have happened at all, a new book reveals. According to The Real Romney, released earlier this month, Stemberg is credited with coming up with the idea:

… Stemberg decided to challenge his comrade to think big. “We were talking about a bunch of stuff,” Stemberg recalled. “I said, ‘Mitt, if you really want to do a service to the people of Massachusetts, you should find a way of getting health care coverage to them.’” (263)

Romney was initially doubtful of the feasibility of what would become RomneyCare, but Stemberg was persistent, telling him, “You can find a way.” “The next thing I know, [Romney's] hard at work, actually trying to do it,” Stemberg later recalled. “He called to tell me I gave him the idea.” (264)

(more…)

House Republicans will be prepared with a plan to replace ObamaCare with free-market alternatives after the Supreme Court delivers its decision in June. The High Court is planning to hold oral arguments on the healthcare law in March.

Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pennsylvania), who serves on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and chairs its Subcommittee on Health, said that Republicans will be ready for the open window provided by a Supreme Court ruling regardless of the nature of that decision.

Congressman Pitts said he expects the High Court to strike down the individual mandate, but not the entire law. He added that it is also possible the Court could say that federal tax law precludes its decision on the mandate’s constitutionality until after 2015. “We’ll have a window of opportunity with everyone looking to explain that the Affordable Care Act is not fully implemented yet…We’ll use that opportunity and that window to discuss the full ramifications of the Affordable Care Act,” Rep. Pitts said.

Rep. Pitts, who has a Heritage Action for America score of 79%, indicated that the Republican plan will include long-standing GOP priorities, such as limits on medical malpractice suits, the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines, and expansion of the use of health savings accounts. In addition, his committee plans the following:

(more…)

Following Thursday night’s Republican debate-turned-brawl in Florida, Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren read a tweet from President Obama’s right-hand-man, David Axelrod:

Daniel Horowitz, in RedState, has gotten this issue exactly right.

About Rick Santorum’s intense confrontation of Mitt Romney on the subject of Romneycare in Massachusetts, Horowitz says:

He [Romney] has the nerve to feign outrage over Obamacare, even while he touts Romneycare – a carbon copy of Obamacare – as a virtuous success, supported by 90% of Massachusetts residents.  Santorum did his homework, and called him out on the hypocrisy.  Romney was never able to answer why the same market intervention and distortions – mandates, subsidies, and Medicaid – which form the bedrock of Obamacare , supposedly worked so well in Massachusetts.  The reason he couldn’t answer the question is because Romneycare was a complete failure.  It is the canary in the coal mine for Obamacare.

Gov. Romney’s statement that most Massachusetts citizens are happy with Romneycare is ludicrous. In 2010, Massachusetts and Vermont delivered the highest average individual market health insurance premiums–over $400 per person per month, approximately twice the national average. Those in the state who cannot afford these outrageous costs are forced into Medicaid which, in turn, encourages people not to work so that they can meet the eligibility requirements for the federally funded plan. (more…)

Democrats already know one issue upon which they have potential GOP nominee, Mitt Romney at a severe disadvantage, as Paul Begala points out: RomneyCare versus ObamaCare.

After 19 debates Mitt still doesn’t have a straight answer. Rick Santorum skillfully dissected Romney on the topic. If Romney is the GOP nominee, you can be sure Barack Obama will do the same.

Appearing to have been stuck in, you’re angry mode, a tactic Romney is deploying to target Newt Gingrich, it was all he seemed to have as a fall back when very effectively pressed on the subject by Rick Santorum in last night’s debate.

“We cannot give the issue of healthcare away in this election,” Santorum declared, striking a resonance with conservatives everywhere.

Based upon various Twitter accounts, conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh picked up on the topic this morning, stressing the importance of the exchange between Santorum and Romney. Liberal blogs and outlets such as Talking Points Memo and the Huffington Post are picking up on it with video, as is The Hill, among others.

(more…)

Earlier today the Mitt Romney campaign released a video of the 1994 debate he had with Ted Kennedy where a younger Mitt Romney argues against a government takeover of health care.

But in April 12, 2006 at a Faneuil Hall singing ceremony, Mitt Romney actually saluted Ted Kennedy, the very man he debated at Faneuil Hall in 1994 as a “parent” of healthcare. Then Romney celebrated Kennedy’s ability to get a federal monies for their signature health care bill. Now Romney makes a states’ rights appeal and says that the Massachusetts plan was for Massachusetts and didn’t involve the other states.

According to NBC News’ Michael Isikoff, White House visitors logs reveal that Romney’s health care advisers and experts repeatedly met with senior Obama administration officials in 2009, while Obama’s health care plan was being drafted.  Indeed when Mitt Romney argued that Barack Obama ought to have called him and asked him what worked and what didn’t, Romney neglected to mention that three of his own advisers decamped to Washington so Obama had little need to phone him.

(more…)

The Supreme Court is back in session with major decisions coming on the legality of Obamacare, Arizona’s anti-immigration law, and the right of property owners to due process.

How’s the court expected rule in these cases and what are the likely implications of its decisions?

(more…)