 |
July 20th, 2009Dear Liberty Activist, The more one learns about the new, government-run health care proposal the worse it gets. Not only will it crowd out private health options by design, it will require all individuals to carry health insurance whether they want to or not or face fines. One way or another, you will pay. And by simultaneously forcing employers to carry coverage for their employees, several businesses could face bankruptcy, employee layoffs, or pay cuts to pay for it. Increasing the cost of doing business in the middle of a steep recession is a recipe for higher unemployment, lower wages, and a less productive private sector, not to mention lower quality care for those who currently receive health care. One way or another, you will pay What's worse is the proposed legislation substantially increases the eligibility for government-run health care, whether through the so-called public "option," Medicaid, or otherwise. First, according to the NY Times, "In the House bill, Medicaid would be expanded to cover all nonelderly people with incomes at or below 133 percent of the poverty level, or $29,300 for a family of four. The federal government would pay all the costs for those who were newly eligible… The Congressional Budget Office projects that 11 million more people would receive coverage through Medicaid under the House bill, and that it would increase federal Medicaid spending by $438 billion over 10 years." Next, as ALG News reported last week, the House bill would make eligible individuals up to 400 percent of the poverty level, or making approximately $43,320 or less annually, for some level of health coverage under the plan. As of 2006, there were approximately 91.5 million people aged 25-65 who fell into that income bracket, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Factor in the nearly 35 million who were 65 and older at that time, and the total figure comes to over 125.8 million who will be eligible for government-administered health care. And with the average premium for single coverage is $4,700, according to the National Coalition on Health Care. If all 125.8 million of those eligible received fully-funded "average" health plans, the total burden to taxpayers would rise to a staggering $591.26 billion annually. And that's just for the premiums! As reported by the NCHC, in 2007, the U.S. spent $2.4 trillion in total health care spending, with the price tag rising to $3.1 trillion by 2012, and $4.3 trillion by 2016. One way or another, you as taxpayers will pay a greater percentage of overall health care spending through an inefficient and costly bureaucracy as private options are incrementally reduced over the coming decades. By increasing the eligibility for government-run health care for years on end, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and company propose creating an unsustainable entitlement that will only add to the nation's $11.4 trillion debt burden. Had enough? You know what to do. Please call your representatives in the House and in the Senate before it's too late. Email them, too. Do not believe naysayers who say your voice does not count. They are dead wrong. The switchboard number is (202) 224-3121. Also, several of you have asked for an updated list of Blue Dogs that signed the anti-ObamaCare letter with their Congressional Districts and Capitol Hill phone numbers included. I apologize for the delayed delivery of today's LAR so we could expedite this list to you, and make your jobs as activists that much easier. Here is the list of 40 Blue Dogs that signed the letter stating they would not support a health plan that was not "deficit neutral." In today's Liberty Action Report, it's time for the Blue Dogs to put their money where their mouths are and vote no on ObamaCare, Capitol South returns with the Senator issuing strong questions to Sonia Sotomayor, and David Bozeman issues his verdict on Sarah Palin. Plus, the Westfield Leader picks up ALG's recent condemnation on Rep. Leonard Lance (NJ-CD7). Please send your letters to the editor at Robert@getliberty.org. We publish all points of view! Today, Chris Nader in Massachusetts writes, "I need your advice as a Massachusetts resident whose votes against Obama's policies don't get very far. With Kennedy, Kerry and Congressman McGovern as my representatives, nothing I do or say to fight Obama has any impact. It's extremely frustrating. Is there a way that I can influence representatives in other "battleground" states where there is a chance that their votes will have an impact on stopping the insanity? I think that in the past you have published lists of representatives who are on the fence, or who may have a significant impact on the outcome of a vote. Will my contacting these reps help? Is there anything special that I need to say when I call or write them. Back to ObamaCare, who can I contact today who might have an impact on the vote? What democrats are open to be influenced through my calls or letters (assuming that all the Republicans are voting no already). Any advice or recommedations will be greatly appreciated." Again, here is the list of 40 House Democrats that signed a letter in opposition to ObamaCare if it was not "deficit-neutral." It's for them to put up or shut up! For Liberty, Robert Romano Open Source & Copyright Free Time
for Blue Dogs to Put their Money Where their Mouths Are Capital
South Sarah
Palin: Why Analysis From the Left -- And the Right -- Is Wrong ALG
in the News: The Westfield Leader Time for Blue Dogs to Put their Money Where their Mouths AreBy Robert Romano Last week, the director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Douglas Elmendorf, delivered devastating testimony that the ObamaCare government-run socialized medicine now being proposed will not include "the fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount." "On the contrary," he said, "the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health-care." Mr. Elmendorf says the cost curve is being raised instead of cut. Previously, Barack Obama and Democrat leaders had promised to cut the growth in spending of health care programs with a "deficit-neutral" government-run proposal. So much for that. Mr. Elmendorf's testimony means that the so-called public "option" will only add to the unsustainable, unfunded entitlements burdening taxpayers over the next century, as ALG News also reported last week in "The Hidden Cost of ObamaCare." The stark warning from the CBO of the skyrocketing costs taxpayers will face under the legislation now puts the burden on the 40 Blue Dog Democrats who promised in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to oppose any legislation that was not deficit-neutral to make good on their promise. In other words, it's time for the Blue Dogs to put up—or as usual—roll over and play dead. The letter was sent to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. Here is the list of 40 members. Congressman Mike Ross (AR-CD4), who is leading the apparent Blue Dog rebellion, suggested to the Washington Post that Mr. Elmendorf's testimony would strengthen his coalition's hand and galvanize their efforts. According to Congressman Ross, "There's no way they can pass this bill on the House floor. Not even close." According to The Hill, the Chairman of the Blue Dog Health Care Task Force claims to have 10 House members on the committee considering the legislation that will block the bill if his group's draft amendments are not accepted. "Last time I checked, it took seven Democrats to stop a bill in Energy and Commerce," he said. Mr. Ross needs to go even further than he has. For now, he appears to be merely attempting the equivalent of fixing the propeller on a plane without wings. It still will not fly with the American people, who are in no mood to accept a mealy-mouth compromise that hands the American people a bill that cannot be paid. This year alone, taxpayers face a $1.8 trillion CBO-projected budget deficit that will be poured atop the $11.4 trillion national debt that threatens the nation with insolvency. If the Blue Dogs now support this proposal with cosmetic "cost-cutting" measures, they will lose what credibility they have left. As ALG News reported last week in "Blue Dogs Draw Straws," the coalition, despite its 52-large membership—more than enough to stop legislation in the House—has not been able to stop a single gargantuan measure from the $787 billion "stimulus" to the Waxman-Markey energy tax grab. According to the group's website, the Blue Dog Democrats claim to be a "fiscal conservative" coalition in the House of Representatives, dedicated to "balancing the budget and ridding taxpayers of the burden the national debt places on them." It's time for the Blue Dogs to put up their money where their mouths are. If they forge together a grand compromise—they will hand the American people the largest entitlement program in human history. And, it will be their last betrayal ensuring them not only a trip to the doghouse, but a one-way ticket to political oblivion, as well. Robert Romano is the ALG Senior News Editor. http://blog.getliberty.org/default.asp?Display=1384 Capital South
ALG Editor's Note: William Warren's award-winning cartoons published at GetLiberty.org are a free service of ALG News Bureau. They may be reused and redistributed free of charge. http://blog.getliberty.org/default.asp?Display=1383 Sarah Palin: Why Analysis From the Left -- And the Right -- Is WrongBy David Bozeman After Michael Jackson, a major topic of national discussion was Sarah Palin's resignation. Supporters and detractors, all assuming she harbors presidential aspirations, have offered their verdicts, with Dick Morris and Karl Rove leading the pack of pundits proclaiming that she has "blown it." But therein lies the problem with political speculation -- the 'experts' view every human action through the prism of politics. Sarah Palin may well not want to run for higher office. She may well believe that her celebrity status hinders and not helps in her governorship of Alaska and deciding to step aside makes her not a quitter but a faithful public servant who puts her fellow citizens ahead of her own political expediency. Something about Sarah Palin -- maybe her unpredictability -- ignites speculation in all who watch her. We've all heard the pundits advise that she should strengthen her resume, especially by adding foreign policy experience, before launching a presidential run. Oh, you mean like Barack Obama did? In Human Events, even Ann Coulter, praising the governor as Conservative of the Year, wrote that Palin should sit out 2012, giving the same reasons as the rest of the chattering classes. As they say, with friends like these. . . Whatever the case, Sarah Palin, with her trademark guts and fortitude will chart her own course. If she had listened to the 'experts' she never would have become governor in the first place. To ponder any further, however, misses the point: no one knows what she is going to do. She may not even know. Furthermore, it doesn't' matter! Her spot in the pantheon of conservative greats is secure. The first woman president or vice-president will have to thank Geraldine Ferraro, Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin for making her path somewhat less treacherous (though no one can rule out Clinton or Palin later). Conservatives and liberals alike have penned millions of words analyzing public reaction to Governor Palin. A single sentence from her July 3 announcement, however, not only crystallizes the true Sarah Palin, but also reveals a strain of snobbery not exclusive to the left. Palin said that she wanted to speak out for issues and individuals and, "you don't need a title to do that." The punditry, of course, considered that heresy. The New York-Washington-Ivy League corridor is peopled with a fair amount of those who want to do important things. But, it is dominated by those who simply want to be important people. Liberals, in particular, who have little faith in everyday Americans, glom onto charismatic politicians and career bureaucrats. And they quite simply abhor those who somehow "rather live by the side of the road/and try to point souls to the blest abode." Sarah Palin is a native of a world where title and status carry less currency than character and commitment. The notion that she, with a mere four-year degree from Podunk State, was nominated for the second highest office in the land still enrages members of the Georgetown cocktail circuit who think their academic breeding trumps individual initiative. She is a living, breathing embodiment of the American ideal that citizens can not only run their own lives, they can also serve in the nation's highest offices, and then go back to being citizens. In short, they "can walk with kings, nor lose the common touch" – without having "blown it." David Bozeman is a contributing writer for Americans for Limited Government http://blog.getliberty.org/default.asp?Display=1382
ALG Editor's Note: In the following news story from the Westfield Leader, Americans for Limited Government's President Bill Wilson was quoted in a story about citizens who protested their Congressman on Cap-and-Trade.
|
