On Monday I was gladly cheering on statements made by Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell. He put up some fighting words about the Senate Democrats. They are still cutting, in my view. Albeit, the blade has been dulled thanks to Senator McConnell’s wimpy attitude to stop the filibustering and concede to Reid. This is the political equivalent of bending over and grabbing one’s ankles. If it’s going to happen, why fight it? That’s at least the attitude McConnell gave to Senator Reid the other day.

Tack on Senator McCain’s statements on FOX News Sunday and it seems as if the Senate Republicans are fighting for nothing.

WALLACE: Is there anything that Republican senators can do to stop the Senate from passing health care reform by Christmas eve?

MCCAIN: Probably not. But what we can do is continue winning the battle of American public opinion.

As though all of this is just an effort to save their skins in the next election cycles to prove to their constituents that they tried. They are hoping to get that tea party campaign money, after all. So the fight’s over, right? If they’re not really trying, then why bother? It’s important to note that McCain has been failing the party for years. He still believes there is a reach across the aisle policy; though he’s growing tired of being stabbed by both parties for reaching first.

As these two knuckleheads ready the trumpets of defeat, Senators Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) and John Ensign (R-Nevada) rip it from their purple lips with this very important document… called the Constitution!

Today, U.S. Senators Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) and John Ensign (R-Nevada), raised a Constitutional Point of Order on the Senate floor against the Democrat health care takeover bill on behalf of the Steering Committee, a caucus of conservative senators. The Senate will vote tomorrow on the bill’s constitutionality.

Thanks to the good folks at the Heritage Foundation, DeMint and Ensign will be armed on the Senate floor with things called the law on their side. It may be easy to snicker and sneer that Congress has trampled on and shredded the US Constitution ever since the New Deal or maybe even well before Lincoln. One can hardly blame anyone for thinking that. But I can’t hold to that sentiment. I can hardly abide it. So long as that defeatist thought is in a person’s head Congress might as well fulfill the idea.

At the Tea Parties I saw and heard hundreds and thousands of people who believed and thought the Constitution meant something. Some folks all too familiar with the political world continue to fill their heads with, “pft, they do this all the time.” Not any more! A rhetorical question for those politico’s: when was the last time a member of Congress raised a Constitutional question that wasn’t about our rights in the Bill of Rights? This isn’t a question about a flag burning, a religious symbol, owning guns, habeas corpus, wire tapping, or affirmative action.

The challenge DeMint and Ensign are issuing against the Senate Democrats is that their bill absolutely contrasts the foundation of this nation. They are standing up for a document that the President would like to declare a mutating, if not outdated document. Where do you think this backbone move came from? It certainly didn’t arrive from the lackluster Republican Party. For once, they are doing something that all people at the Tea Parties have been exclaiming this year. It’s the Constitution!

Harry Reid and his fellow Democrats are going to have a wake up call from this move. Could it kill the bill? I would love to believe that’s the possibility. That would be the best Christmas gift any Republican has ever given to the people in years! I won’t count that possibility out, but I won’t be holding my breath, either. Everyone who opposes these health care plans have been hoping for a fight. They have been hoping for a fight to the end. Where McConnell and McCain failed for the tea parties is where DeMint and Ensign will succeed.

NEWS

Senate health bill creates new insurance program
Reporting by Donna Smith; Editing by Bill Trott

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A new government insurance program that would help the elderly and disabled stay in their homes is headed for passage in the U.S. Senate’s sweeping healthcare revamp despite doubts about its viability and cost.

Barack Obama |  Healthcare Reform

The measure has not received the intense scrutiny focused on a proposed government-run medical coverage plan, which has been jettisoned from the Senate’s healthcare bill and is unlikely to be restored in final legislation.

But the Community Living Assistance Services and Supports (CLASS) Act, which was championed by the late Senator Edward Kennedy, is a significant program that supporters say is long overdue and critics say could add to the federal treasury’s long-term debt problems.

“If the CLASS Act becomes law, the federal taxpayer is at very serious risk of paying the price to clean up the fiscal disaster when the CLASS Act fails,” Republican Senator Charles Grassley said in a Senate speech on Tuesday.

Backers said the bill would allow disabled people to stay in their homes and out of institutional care.

It also could save states billions of dollars in the Medicaid health insurance program for the poor, which provides long-term institutional care for the disabled poor typically at much higher cost than supporting them to stay in their homes.

“We think CLASS is one of the real transformational items in the (healthcare reform) bill,” said Larry Minnix, chief executive at the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging. He said the cost to states to provide long-term care for their elderly and disabled through Medicaid will skyrocket during the next 10 to 15 years without the new program.

The insurance is voluntary and would provide a cash benefit to participants if they become unable to perform at least two activities of daily life, such as dressing and bathing.

Under the Senate proposal, workers pay a monthly premium to buy coverage, probably through their employer. They would have to pay into the program for at least five years before qualifying for benefits.

PART-TIME HELP

The benefit would be at least $50 a day and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which estimates the cost of pending legislation, assumed it would provide about $75 a day.

Senator Tom Harkin, a Democrat who chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, says that would be enough to hire a nurse for a few hours to help a disabled person get ready for work or to give a break to someone who is caring for an elderly parent or disabled family member.

Harkin said it was Kennedy’s wish that the measure be included in the sweeping healthcare overhaul that the Senate is expected to pass on Christmas Eve.

The measure is supported by dozens of healthcare groups and stands a good chance of being part of a final healthcare bill that goes to President Barack Obama for his signature. But a number of analysts have voiced concern about whether the program would be financially sound over the long run.

“I think there is a significant risk it won’t work,” said Allen Schmitz, an actuary with Milliman Inc, a global consulting firm. With an initial monthly premium that one estimate said could be as high as $240, few healthy people would choose to purchase the insurance and that could undermine the financial stability of the program, he said.

“They are creating a new government program that everyone concedes is clearly unsustainable,” said Dennis Smith, a healthcare reform analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank.

The insurance program would not screen people the way private insurers do. For that reason the program is likely to attract mostly those who will need some sort of long-term care, eventually undermining its financial health, he said.

The CBO said in its analyses that the program initially would raise enough money to reduce the federal deficit by $72 billion in the first 10 years, with about $2 billion of that attributed to savings in Medicaid, which provides long-term institutional care for the disabled poor.

Premium income would continue to help reduce federal deficits in the second decade. But after that it would begin to add to deficits as benefit payments exceeded premium income and any savings to the Medicaid program, CBO said without providing specific numbers.

A similar provision was included in the healthcare overhaul passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in November. The House calls for a more expansive program than the Senate. The Senate would make the program available to active workers while the House would allow non-working spouses to join as well.

The two chambers would have to work out their differences before a final bill can be delivered to Obama.

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
December 19, 2009

Democrats deceptively argue that health care is legal under the commerce clause of the Constitution. The commerce clause relates to business, not individuals, but the Democrats have skewed the original purpose and intent of the Constitution.

When asked to point out where in the Constitution authority is granted to force an individual — ultimately at gunpoint — to buy government health care, Speaker of the House Pelosi said: “Are you serious?”

It is said Obama was a constitutional professor at the University of Chicago Law School (even this is a lie — he was in fact “a senior lecturer,” not a professor), so we should assume he has at least some knowledge of the principles of the Constitution. Obama likely knows that the Constitution does not mandate Americans be forced into a contractual agreement with a private party for health insurance.

Apparently, like his predecessor, Obama regards the Constitution as little more than a goddamn piece of paper.

“Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress given the power to mandate that an individual enter into a contract with a private party or purchase a good or service,” explains the Heritage Foundation. No decision or present doctrine of the Supreme Court justifies such a claim of power.

Is it possible Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have not read Article I of the Constitution? It states that the government’s rights are limited. Article 1, Section 8 reads, “The Congress shall have Power … To regulate Commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes.” It does not say a word about health care. The federal government only has the power to regulate trade between itself, foreign governments, and the states. Period.

But then the government — including the Supreme Court — has chipped away at the Constitution for decades. Many of the most serious violations of the Constitution came under the reign of a supposed conservative Republican, George W. Bush.

The Democrat health care bill is merely the most recent and most egregious of those constitutional violations. Both parties – essentially the same party – excel at destroying our constitutional rights.

As recently as last week, there was hope this monstrosity in the Senate would die a natural death and hand a defeat to Obama and his big government statists in the House and Senate.

Now that senator Ben Nelson has sold his consent — for Medicaid money to Nebraska — it appears this bill will soon be a done deal.

In a few weeks, the federal government may be making your most important and private medical decisions. Get ready for health care on par with Cash for Clunkers.

Get ready to take the next step on the road toward government tyranny and slavery.

Nelson Accused of Selling Vote on Health Bill for Nebraska Pay-Off

FOXNews.com

What started as Sen. Ben Nelson’s personal stand against covering abortion with taxpayer money translated, somehow, into millions of dollars in federal aid for his home state — drawing criticism that his vote was bought.

What started as Sen. Ben Nelson’s personal stand against covering abortion with taxpayer money translated, somehow, into millions of dollars in federal aid for his home state.

The Nebraska Democrat, following weeks of negotiations with his caucus, finally agreed to back the Senate’s health care reform bill this weekend after Democratic leaders made a series of concessions. Nelson’s support gives Democrats the 60 votes they need to overcome a filibuster, barring any last-minute defections.
Critics were calling it the “cornhusker kickback” and the “Nebraska windfall,” lobbing accusations of political deal-making at Nelson.

“It’s pretty obvious votes have been bought,” Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., said.

CtPatriot…. This is the End of America As we know it… Our Children will live in squalor, with no motivation to achieve anything… the STATE will do it all for them… Control every aspect of all of our lives… America is going to be one of those 3rd world countries, that our Dictator in the making Obama is so fond of …

Over the last few weeks, I have been following the recent developments regarding global warming and the so-called “climate-gate” with somewhat bemused interest. On the eve of the Copenhagen conference, which is being billed by global warming advocates as the greatest climate change summit of all time and the last best hope for our planet, an unknown hacker manages to steal a hundred megabytes worth of emails from a climate research unit which appears to show climate researchers cooking the books to “hide the decline” and squelch skeptics. Now honestly, I don’t know what to think of these particular emails. I’m sure if I really wanted to, I could hack into someone’s email and find a few out-of-context quotes to make them look suspicious too. Whatever these emails ultimately mean, I highly doubt they actually prove the existence of some vast scientific conspiracy to hoodwink the world into believing climate change is real. If their is any fraud in climate research, a more likely explanation is simple bias caused by politically motivated funding of research, rather than a deliberate conspiracy.

The real problem here is the politicization of science in the first place. After the climate-gate incident, I read numerous news articles talking about how poll numbers of people who believe climate change is real showed substantial drops, primarily among Republicans. In these articles, there were many quotes from scientists lamenting the fact that the existence of human-caused climate change is a political issue, subject to the latest opinion polls and the whims of the uneducated populace. I lament this too, but for a different reason. The reason global warming has become a political issue (besides the aforementioned funding issues) is because it long ago ceased to be about science and is now primarily a policy debate. Instead of sticking with what they do best, making observations, crunching numbers, and concocting theories, scientists have strayed far out of their usual realm and have directly entered the world of policy debate.

It’s one thing for scientists to tell us that climate change is occurring; it’s quite another for them to attempt to dictate the exact ways in which to solve this alleged “problem.” When scientists stop being scientists and start proposing policies like politicians, is it any wonder that science becomes politicized? It would be one thing if they just laid out the facts and gave a few possible solutions, then stepped back and let governments debate the best course of action in a rational manner that takes into account all the pros and cons. But they have not done this. Instead, scientists and global warming advocates have put all their eggs in one basket, dogmatically clinging to drastic global carbon emission cuts as the one and only way to solve the problem. Then they come up with doomsday scenarios of rising sea levels, flooded cities, famines, plagues, wars etc. in an attempt to claim that unless the world takes immediate action to reduce carbon emissions to pre-industrial levels, it’s the end of the world as we know it. Such scare tactics are nothing more than the clear tactics of petty demagogues to incite fear and motivate action out of a false sense of urgency.

Never mind the fact that such reductions in carbon emissions will come at the cost of trillions of dollars and millions of lost jobs. Never mind the fact that they would require nearly a complete reordering of the global economy to accomplish. Never mind the fact that even if these reductions are possible, they would only reduce global temperatures by a few fractions of a degree at most. To the global warming evangelists, it has become a cardinal sin to engage in even the most basic types of cost-benefit analysis when it comes to taking steps to mitigate global warming. Instead, they expect unquestioning allegiance to whatever plans they propose, no matter what the cost, because we owe it to “the planet.”

Many people over the last few weeks have remarked the climate change has become almost a sort of religion. Indeed the similarities are striking. You have a large movement of people motivated by a pseudo-religious fervor, passionately accepting whatever their leaders tell them through blind faith, while speaking in vagaries about “taking action” and bringing hope and salvation to mankind. They are on a crusade to “save the planet” motivated by some sort of quasi-pantheistic love of “nature,” which they are devoted to at all costs in an endless quest to atone for the “sins” of mankind in polluting the Earth with our very presence. For such people, their entire lives have become bound up in this cause, and there is no price too great to pay to achieve it.

What is ultimately needed in the climate change debate is to cut through the extremist rhetoric on both sides and make an honest evaluation of our options. Let’s say for the sake of argument that climate change really is occurring, and that it is in fact caused by humans. Ultimately yes, in the long term we will probably want to reduce carbon emissions to prevent the problem from increasing. But is the threat really so bad as to mandate such drastic actions as are currently being proposed in the Copenhagen treaty and in President Obama’s cap-and-trade bill? What is the threat exactly? Probably the worst effect most commonly cited is rising sea levels, but according to the Heritage Foundation, “Even the United Nation’s 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report (putting aside for a moment the Climategate-fueled concerns that this study is overly alarmist) projects 7 to 23 inches of sea level rise by century’s end.”

Okay, so the oceans might rise two feet in the next 100 years. Is that really worth spending trillions of dollars of government funds, millions of jobs lost, massively higher energy costs, and a greatly decreased standard of living for every person on Earth, or at least the developed world? I’ve got another idea. Why don’t we just adapt to climate change instead? Surely 100 years is enough time to build sea walls or dikes protecting low lying cities that could be threatened with flooding. Sure there are other problems posed by climate change as well, but if we see the problem coming this far in advance, we should be able to come up with some way to simply adapt to the immediate problems posed by global warming while waiting for technologies to be developed that offer a more permanent solution, without bankrupting every country on Earth and effecting a total restructuring of the global economy to get there. Climate change policies should not be immune to cost-benefit analysis, and if the costs of a proposed policy far outweigh the potential benefits it should be rejected. This is something that climate change advocates have so far refused to even consider.

Rather than carrying on with end-of-world predictions and dogmatic insistence that their way is the only way to solve this problem, global warming advocates need to be open to alternate solutions, including ones which leave carbon emissions untouched for the present and focus on adapting to a changed climate instead. Perhaps if we acknowledged that it simply is not feasible to reduce carbon emissions to pre-industrial levels *right now* (at least without reverting to a pre-industrial society), and focused on a more practical solution that doesn’t demand such great sacrifices in the name of a problem we are still not sure even exists, we could actually get somewhere. But until climate change advocates are willing to compromise and stop insisting that the entire world bow to their every demand, that is not going to happen, and the only result they’ll ever produce is a string of failed treaties like Kyoto and a swath of economic devastation in their wake. Is that really worth it?

by Jessica Bryan

Focus linked to two articles with opposing viewpoints about the inevitability of gay marriage, discussed an analysis from the Heritage Foundation about “why the bill’s mandate that all must purchase a health insurance policy is unconstitutional and entirely unprecedented,” and encouraged the purchase of Dockers pants and praised the “pro-manhood” message of the company’s ad which is a “quasi-humerous narrative describes a ‘genderless’ world where men no longer take charge and lead.”

An email from the group argued that “Higher premiums may discourage people from getting married.”

A second email from Focus included an interview with Dinesh D’Souza about life after death.

BILLIONAIRE BASTARDS:

Meet the Billionaire Brothers Funding the Right-Wing War on Obama, Think Progress. by Faiz Shakir, et al.

They’re the 9th richest people in America and they’re pushing hard to upend President Obama’s progressive agenda.

Billionaire brothers David and Charles Koch are the wealthiest, and perhaps most effective, opponents of President Obama’s progressive agenda. They loom in the background of every major domestic policy dispute this year. Ranked as the 9th richest men in America, the Koch brothers sit at the helm of Koch Industries, a massive privately owned conglomerate of manufacturing, oil, gas, and timber interests. David and Charles are also responsible for a vicious attack campaign aimed directly at obstructing and killing progressive reform. Over the years, millions of dollars in Koch money has flowed to various right-wing think tanks, front groups, and publications. At the dawn of the Obama presidency, Koch groups launched television and radio ads deriding the recovery stimulus package as simply “pork” spending. The Cato Institute — founded by Charles — as well as other Koch-funded think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, produced a blizzard of reports distorting the stimulus and calling for a return to Bush-style tax cuts to combat the recession. David’s Americans for Prosperity (AFP) placed calls and helped organize the very first “tea party” protests. AFP, founded in 1984 by David and managed by astroturf lobbyist Tim Phillips, mobilized “tea party” opposition to health reform, clean energy legislation, and financial regulations.

STOPPING CLEAN ENERGY: David Koch presents himself as a champion of science. Nevertheless, Koch has done more to undermine the public’s understanding of climate change science than any other person in America. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, funded by Koch, wages an underhanded campaign to falsely charge that a set of hacked e-mails unravels the scientific consensus that global warming is real. Despite the brothers’ extravagant wealth, Koch’s Americans for Prosperity has run populist ads mocking environmentalists as spoiled brats. Koch Industries has spent nearly $9 million dollars so far to misinform the public on climate change legislation. Koch-funded operatives attempted to crash the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen this week, and may succeed in scuttling any prospect for addressing climate change.

STOPPING HEALTH REFORM: Much of the fierce opposition to health reform can be credited to the Kochs. Their Patients United has blanketed the country with ads distorting provisions of the health reform legislation, particularly the public option. Koch groups foster extremism. A speaker with the Patients United bus tour compared health reform to the Holocaust while an eight-by-five foot banner at AFP health care rallies read, “National Socialist Health Care: Dachau, Germany” superimposed over corpses from a concentration camp. AFP channeled anger into Democratic healthcare town halls in August. It wasn’t the first time Koch groups helped hijack the health reform debate. In 1994, Americans for Prosperity, then known as Citizens for a Sound Economy, worked closely with then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich to bring mobs of angry men to health reform rallies [to intimidate] then-First Lady Hillary Clinton.

A LONG HISTORY OF STOPPING PROGRESS: The Koch brothers clearly have a financial stake in blocking reform. Koch Industry oil refineries are major carbon dioxide polluters, and Georgia-Pacific, a Koch Industries timber subsidiary, is one of the largest contributors to the loss of carbon-sink capacity. According to the EPA, Koch Industries is responsible for over 300 oil spills in the U.S. and has leaked three million gallons of crude oil into fisheries and drinking waters. Their opposition is a long family tradition of trying to shift the country to the far right. Fred Koch, father of Charles and David helped to found the John Birch Society in the late 1950s. The John Birch Society harnessed Cold War fears into hate against progressives, warning that President Kennedy, Civil Rights activists, and organized labor were in league with communists. His sons continue to galvanize hundreds of thousands of middle class people into supporting the Kochs’ narrow agenda of cutting corporate taxes and avoiding consumer regulations [to the ruin of our equality and democracy]. READ MORE:

http://www.alternet.org/politics/144455/meet_the_billionaire_brothers_funding_the_right-wing_war_on_obama

Obama Far Outdoes Bush in Escalating War — The Numbers Will Surprise You By David DeGraw, Amped Status.

Increasing numbers of deployed soldiers, mercenaries and drones all add up to Obama being more of a war president than Bush, in terms of hard numbers. READ MORE:

http://www.alternet.org/world/144449/obama_far_outdoes_bush_in_escalating_war_–_the_numbers_will_surprise_you

Copenhagen Won’t Be Enough — Only a ‘Human Movement’ Can Save Civilization from the Climate Crisis By Fred Branfman, Sacramento News & Review.

A strange cloud envelops human civilization as its leaders fail to take the measures to protect it in Copenhagen that they themselves endorsed just five months ago.

To be or not to be, that is the question.–William Shakespeare, Hamlet. READ MORE:

http://www.alternet.org/environment/144451/copenhagen_won%27t_be_enough_–_only_a_%27human_movement%27_can_save_civilization_from_the_climate_crisis

The Public Option That Isn’t Public At All By James Ridgeway, Mother Jones Online.

As the Senate negotiates its health-care reform bill, liberals appear ready to throw in the towel on a real public option. READ MORE:

http://www.alternet.org/politics/144446/the_public_option_that_isn%27t_public_at_all

As I predicted some time ago, the interminable smoke and mirrors game going on in Congress will most likely end with the adoption a “public option” that isn’t public at all. In fact, it resembles the plan first proposed by the Heritage Foundation, premier architects of conservative policy, back in the 1980s under Reagan. Then, as now, the scheme essentially imitates the Federal Employees Health Benefits program, which gives people a choice of various private insurance company plans, sanctioned by an independent authorizing board. There is nothing really public about this program. In fact, it keeps access to health care firmly within the grip of the private insurance industry. And it isn’t cheap either: Some federal employees have opted out because they can’t afford their share of the costs.

This is the Democrats’ idea of a “compromise”–not with the Republicans, but with the so-called moderates within their own party. A group of ten Democratic senators (ten liberal, ten not) huddled over the weekend to work out plan that could get through the Senate, and President Obama paid a “rare Sunday trip” to Capitol Hill to drum up party unity. What came out of all this is a public option so weak that it seems more like a last-ditch piece of political face-saving than a genuine effort to improve access to health care. Here is how the Washington Post on Tuesday described the deal:

Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., said the idea is on the table as part of an emerging compromise under which liberals would back away from their demand for a new government health insurance plan to compete with private carriers. Instead of a so-called public plan, the compromise envisions private insurers operating under the auspices of the government agency that now manages the federal employee health plan–the same one that covers members of Congress.

There is a possible secondary piece to this compromise, also described by the Post, that involves opening Medicare to middle-aged people–say from 55-65, at which point they could formally join Medicare. But it’s not much of a threat to private insurers, either; in fact, it would probably attract the older, sicker people who presently can’t get private insurance at all. This option, too, would be far from cheap, as the Post reports: “A current buy-in available to those 65 and older who don’t qualify because of work history costs about $550 a month.” And it’s unlikely to stick anyway, since Olympia Snowe doesn’t seem to like it.

Some media accounts are depicting this FEHB model as a last-ditch, last resort position from an administration and Congress whose more liberal efforts have all been thwarted. But as I’ve noted in the past, Obama has been talking about the Federal Employee Health Benefits program since his campaign days, and it’s possible that this has been the White House’s back-burner strategy for a “public” option all along. Back in mid-March, Government Executive reported that  ”the Obama administration is looking closely at the federal government’s health insurance program as it undertakes nationwide health care reform, a senior adviser to the president said.” In the same month, Senate Finance chair Max Baucus also hinted that the FEHB might provide the “compromise” that would allow bipartisan support, as consumer watchdog.org reported. 

So we’ve ended up pretty much just where we should have expected: Liberals are set to back off their demands, showing them to be just so much hot air. Republicans, with a high level of gall even for them, are accusing the Democrats of abandoing bipartisanship. And any genuine, government run public option, which so many saw as the key to true health care reform, is nothing more than a corpse being dragged through the streets.

The Heritage Foundation has published a fact sheet on the death tax.

Tax Increase Likely

Current Policy: Congressional policy on the death tax has been to phase it out and then abolish it for close to a decade now.The 2001 tax cut began an eight-year phase out of the death tax. It lowered the rate from 55% in 2000 to 45% this year and increased the untaxed portion of estates from $1 million to $3.5 million. In 2010, it completely abolishes the death tax.

Back to Life: The death tax only expires for one year, however. It comes back to life in 2011 at a 55% rate and $1 million exemption.

Policy Change: Some in Congress do not want to see the death tax go away. They are offering bills that would extend the death tax at its current rate and exemption level either for next year or permanently. Other approaches extend the tax permanently at 35% with a $5 million exemption.

Tax Increase: Extending the death tax for one year or permanently at either 35% or 45% is a steep tax increase, since current policy is to abolish it completely.

Economic Drag

Punishes Hard Work : The death tax discourages saving and investing, undermines job creation, suppresses productivity and wage growth, contradicts the central promise of American life–wealth creation–and hurts those who have their savings tied up in land and other hard-to-sell assets.

Jobs Destroyer: The death tax is a drag to the economy because it is a tax on capital, the fuel of economic growth. Recent estimates show that full repeal of the tax would create 1.5 million jobs.

Slams Family-owned Businesses: Family-owned businesses are often asset-rich but cash-poor. They have equipment, real estate, and inventory that makes them appear valuable on paper. But they have comparatively little cash on hand. When a family member dies, the death tax is an enormous burden on them. Many have to sell their assets, or in some cases the entire business, to pay the tax. Or they must divert the precious cash flow they need to grow the business over many years to pay the tab.

Little Protection: Often the only protection family-owned businesses have from the death tax are expensive life insurance policies. The premiums they pay for them are a boon to insurance companies but siphon off the cash these businesses need to grow and create jobs.

Time to Kill the Death Tax

High Cost: The death tax is a drag on the economy and raises only 1% of all federal revenue. Estimates show it costs the economy more in lost growth than it raises in revenue.

Permanent Repeal: Congress should stick with current policy and permanently repeal the death tax once and for all. Abolition of this harmful tax will help spur economic recovery, put unemployed Americans back to work, and increase the long-term growth potential of the economy.

Restore the American Dream: Most importantly, repeal of the death tax would restore the American Dream that if you work hard and live a virtuous life, you can pass the fruits of your labor to succeeding generations of your family without fear that the government will take it away from them.

With its damaging effects on economic growth and its gross abrogations of individual rights, the death tax is probably one of the more insidious elements of the tax code – which is saying quite a lot.

Everybody has heard stories of companies and bookkeepers with two sets of books. Our Congress has put totally new meaning to the words prevarication and fraud. The House and Senate, controlled by hardcore leftist ideologues, have lost all connection with the American people.

We keep telling them WE DON’T WANT THIS..the polls keep telling them. Our visits to their offices keep telling them. Our emails, letters and phone calls keep telling them. And so far, with the exception of a few Democrats and all but one Republican, they have not listened. Or they pretend to listen, babble some garbage about Americans “WANTING” health care, and go right on with stealing our freedoms, enslaving our children and condemning us all to horribly substandard care such as KILLS THOUSANDS of people every year in the UK and Canada.
What we don’t WANT is THEIR health care. We don’t want their socialist mandated tyranny. It’s that simple.

When time allows I listen to Mark Levin in the afternoons here. Mark is a constitutional scholar and an unabashed Patriot. If you don’t have his book, “LIBERTY and TYRANNY”, get it. It is simply THE blueprint for the Conservative revolution. Once again, no, I’m not being paid for the endorsement.
I learn by hanging around with, and listening to, people who know more than I do. Mark was referring to a CATO Institute report by Senior Fellow Michael D. Tanner on the true cost of the health care fiasco in the Senate now. It’s IMMENSE!! You can link to it on Mark’s web site or Google it. But long story short, they’re not just cooking the books in Washville…they are cooking, baking and barbecuing them.

We are TWELVE TRILLION Dollars in the hole right now..and the debt goes up by FOUR BILLION dollars every day! To this staggering debt, the DeMarxists want us to think the proposed Unhealthy for America bill will ‘ONLY’ cost 849 BILLION dollars. The Heritage Foundation figured it at TWO POINT FOUR PLUS TRILLION DOLLARS. Now the CATO Institute’s studies, investigating much farther into the smoke and mirrors and creative bookkeeping practices employed by Congress and their cabal of criminal cronies, puts the tab at much closer to SIX POINT FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS!!

Meanwhile, the Obama administration and the Congress continue to spend like alcoholics on a binge.
Any Republican who says he wants to reach ‘accommodation’ on this bill or ‘FIX’ it, or any part of it, should be run out of office. And we need to tell them just that.
It’s time to take off the gloves and go bare knuckles on this Congress and this Administration.

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2009

While walking the Freedom Trail in downtown Boston this week, Kerri and I stumbled across a memorial to Irish immigrants who struggled during the potato famine. Photo by Christopher.

The other day, I asked Kerri if she thought it was too late to have our publisher change something in our upcoming book. I was prompted to ask because of a recent report released by the USDA which stated that 49 million Americans (1 in 7 households) are currently in need of some type of food assistance; a number that in August hovered around 36 million. In the second part of our book we talk in depth about SNAP (supplemental nutrition assistance program), formerly known as food stamps, and as it stands now, when our book is released we will have drastically understated the scope of the problems people are facing.

Then yesterday, a shocking projection was revealed across the newswires: nearly half of all children in the United States will eat on food stamps during some part of their childhood.

The study was published earlier this month in Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, and was conducted by sociologists from Cornell University and Washington University in St. Louis. They based their projection on 30 years of national data, and said their results, “show U.S. kids face a substantial risk for experiencing poverty, which poses a serious threat to their health and well-being.”

The article by Lindsey Tanner of the Associated Press goes on to do a fairly good job of embracing the nuances of food security issues, but what was most surprising (and predictable?) was the comment from Robert Rector at the conservative Heritage Foundation. Apparently, Rector sees no need to sound the alarm about this issue as he explains that many in this situation, “have comforts like televisions and air conditioning receive food stamps for short periods of time when a parent is laid off.”

I cannot eat my television when I’m hungry, or get enough nutrition from cold air, and I’m assuming that the people he’s talking about can’t do so either. (The callousness of this response prompted today’s accompanying photo)

Rector’s comments seem to stem from the same place that many libertarian economic philosophers do, one of “every man for himself” and “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” rhetoric that does little to account for the contexts or the individual situations that people face. When your research is aimed from a certain philosophical gun, it’s pretty easy to hit the target you’re aiming for. The Heritage Foundation has such an arsenal, and uses it frequently on issues of social spending.

Meanwhile, local food pantries and charities keep plugging away while the need for services climbs, and resources diminish. While the work of these groups is essential, it is not enough, and on its own will never come close to getting at the roots of these problems. That being said, we would like to ask you once again to do what you can to help others, either through donating to those in extreme poverty abroad, or to those facing food insecurity in your community (or both).

While we were in Boston this past week, Kerri and I were humbled by the depth of our nation’s history, and by the efforts of those working to help others. While on the red line train we saw an ad for a Catholic charity, that asks people to throw a party where the entrance to the event is a bag of boxed and canned foods for donation. We thought it quite clever, and will most likely use this idea for our own efforts in San Diego. Thankful for your continued help of others…

- Christopher

SOBERING,,,,,,

From The Heritage Foundation

There is much talk these days of how conservatives need “new ideas” in these troubled economic times. And as we look at our nation’s troubled landscape, there is much work that needs to be done if we are going to return economic prosperity to the country. But as we sit down to celebrate Thanksgiving with our friends and family, recalling the true story of the Pilgrims should remind us all that the core principles that have made this nation great are unchanging, and that we risk ruin if we abandon them.

Most children learn that the Pilgrims’ salvation at Plymouth Colony stemmed from the generosity of local Indians. And while there is no doubt that the American natives did help the immigrants through some early tough times, it was not until the Pilgrims rediscovered the importance of private property that the colony began to thrive and was able to give thanks for their own blessings. When the Pilgrims first arrived, they attempted a form of, in Gov. William Bradford’s words, “community” or “commonwealth.” In other words, they attempted to “spread the wealth around” by destroying private property and replacing it with a communally owned property system.

The result was disastrous. According to Bradford, this system bred “confusion and discontent” and “retarded much employment that would have been to [the settlers'] benefit and comfort.” Unable to produce their own food, some settlers “became servants to the Indians,” cutting wood and fetching water in exchange for “a capful of corn.” It was not until the colony changed course and allowed the private ownership of farmland that prosperity returned. Bradford reported, “This had very good success for it made all hands very industrious. … [M]uch more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. … Women went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn.”

A profoundly religious man, Bradford saw the hand of God in the Pilgrims’ economic recovery. Their success, he observed, “may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato’s and other ancients and applauded by some of later times … that the taking away of property … would make [men] happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God.” Bradford surmised, “God in his wisdom saw another course fitter for them.”

Amen to that.

SERIOUS,,,,,,

The Heritage Foundation has compiled a list of proposed taxes to pay for health care reform. The list includes taxes in the bill already passed by the House of Representatives, the bill currently being debated in the Senate, and other taxes mentioned as a possible way to finance health care reform. I’m sure more will come our way, don’t worry.

The decision, announced in a statement released by the U.S. State Department, overturns the position of former President George W. Bush’s administration, which had opposed such a treaty on the grounds that national controls were better.

The proposed treaty is opposed by think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, which said last month that it would not restrict the access of “dictators and terrorists” to arms but would be used to reduce the ability of democracies such as Israel to defend their people.

The National Rifle Association has also opposed the treaty.

See our previous post The OAS Treaty—Bluepriint For Dismantling The Second Amendment

While perusing through the Heritage Foundations website, I noticed the clip to their documentary on missile defense. Missile defense has always been something that has absolutely fascinated me. It is my belief that the missile defense is key to the continuing safety of the United States. As countries such as Iran and North Korea continue to develop WMDs it is important that the U.S. continue to fund our missile programs. Cutting funding will eventually lead to the United States not having the capabilities to defend itself. Below is the Heritage Foundations video, 33 Minutes.

A friend recently returned from a visit to one of China’s technology clusters, disappointed with the disparity that he saw between their monumental progress and our comparative stagnation.  He remarked that this particular cluster had mushroomed to over 10 million in population, and that the technology enterprises he visited there were every bit as advanced as anything he had seen in the U.S.  He further lamented that these companies’ pricing models for high-tech products far outstripped many in the U.S.

In light of our own President’s visit this week to China, a country that has transformed itself through the engine of capitalism into to a technological and industrial giant, I am left wondering if the global tables of economic freedom are turning.  Might the Chinese business climate in the near future become more free than our own?  My underlying train of thought began by recalling a case study that examined a pair of Chinese state owned enterprises.  These were essentially organs of a communist dictatorship that understands and harnesses the power of capitalism to sustain its political system and its people.  Some other case studies that were swept into my stream of thoughts chronicled the paths of individuals who were educated in the U.S. in engineering and business, and returned home to the People’s Republic of China to form successful enterprises.  To an increasing degree, it seems that the PRC is rewarding innovation and investment.  At the same time, American tax policies are comparatively hostile to manufacturing, and regulatory burdens increase on what often seems a daily basis.

Now, down to some hard data.  The current Index of Economic Freedom for the U.S. is 80.7 (world rank of #6), versus 53.2 for the PRC (world rank of 132).  However, the devil may yet be in the details.  Of the ten factors within this analysis, four in China had improved since 2008 and three had diminished.  In contrast, five of the factors for the U.S. had diminished and only one had improved.

Personal income tax rates in China range from 5% to 40% – more or less similar to the U.S.  However, Chinese corporate income taxes range between 15% and 25% – significantly lower than combined federal and state business income taxes in this country, which average approximately 40%.

Perhaps the most telling factor is that of government size.  The U.S. index was 59.6 versus 88.9 for China (a larger index indicates greater freedom).  Chinese government spending in this analysis was approximately 30% of their GDP, whereas this figure for the U.S. approached 40% – before considering any of the recent stimulus or bailout spending.

While the data still show that the U.S. is well ahead of China in overall economic freedom, a steady march of government takeovers and extraconstitutional decrees by unelected czars could precipitously tip the balance.  What then?  Will the PRC offer a bailout for the bankrupt, but “too-big-to-fail” U.S. government?  True liberty must be economic at its core.  The fruits of people’s labor and investments proceed from free individuals’ choices about how to spend their own time and treasure.  This liberty was won with the blood, tears, toil and sweat of many generations.  It is too precious a thing to sacrifice on the altars of political experimentation and what Thomas Paine described as “power by assumption.”

As many of you know, I am currently living in the Johnson Building, a dormitory owned and adjacent to the Heritage Foundation, the nation’s premier conservative think tank. Most of the residents here work at Heritage itself , which means they can get to work each morning without evening walking outside, but through the passage connecting the two buildings. There are also several that intern at various Republican congressmen’s offices or other conservative organizations. For example, my roommate Grant is an intern at the National Republic Senatorial Committee, which is dedicated to electing Republicans in Senate races across the country.

The Johnson Building and Heritage Foundation

Before I came to D.C., I recall Ty telling me that I would probably grow sick of being around so many conservatives. I don’t think that’s happened- although I still vehemently disagree with much of Heritage’s policies, I’ve come to at least understand their positions on social issues like gay marriage (although I still prefer my own stance that marriage should not be recognized or regulated by the government, period). And to some extent, the libertarian movement is allied with conservatives. Working in the Tax and Budget division of Cato, our work mirrors much of the work at Heritage and the American Enterprise Institute, another conservative think tank (that might not have held during the W Administration, when the GOP spent like drunken sailors). I’m sure the foreign policy interns disagree.

In fact, just be a libertarian living in the Johnson puts me in the minority. But everyone gets along,  and I find myself hanging out with the Heritage interns more than Cato’s. Several of us had dinner at Gordon Biersch, a Hops-style brewery restaurant in Chinatown yesterday evening to celebrate my birthday. We also frequently watch Family Guy or the Simpsons in the dorm common room.

One of my favorite things about living in the Capitol Hill neighborhood of Washington is the remarkable sights I cross running about 4 or 5 times a week. On weekdays, I usually run at night after work, because I’m too lazy to get up early enough in the morning. But on weekends, I can sleep in and run during the day. My path takes me past, in this order: the Supreme Court, Capitol Hill, the Mall, the Washington Monument, the White House, K-Street, and Union Station, for a total of about 5.5 miles.

My typical running route around Washington D.C.

Our living accommodation here are modest, but comfortable. My roommate and I share a bunk bed, and our room has a bathroom, walk-in closet, mini kitchen, and two desks. Heritage even bought each room a 24-inch HD TV this semester! Internet is a little bit spotty, but nothing serious. One thing I’ve noticed is that everything here is named after someone- the bedrooms, lobby, study, auditoriums. Probably influential conservatives and big donors.

Anyhow, I hope all is well in Gainesville and India! If you have any questions, I can answer in the comments.

It always astounds me why people so quickly discredit decades of research, and seem to simply want to ignore the status of our current society. Examine the info below for yourself and see if you can figure out why our so-called President and his cronies don’t want to preserve marriage, or help people really get out of poverty.

I mean, he doesn’t want to preserve any of our other rights and liberties, so it’s not surprising that he doesn’t care about preserving marriage either. Marriage and all it stands for and does for society is so contrary to what Obamination is trying to accomplish. If you haven’t noticed yet, then you should start to look around at the insane policies he’s trying to pass. Obama and his cohorts want American’s currently in poverty to remain there, and those who aren’t, well, he’s certainly helping us on our way. Poverty = reliance on the government, and a loss of freedom. The more people the government has to take care of, the larger it needs to be; theoretically speaking. Obama’s administration is trying very hard to make sure that marriages don’t succeed and that people “need” the government. Everyone’s probably heard the statistic that says that the number one reason for divorce is money. Well, forcing economic hardship and stress on to practically every American family is certainly a way to destroy them. Very clever Obama…..

The Heritage Foundation examined the relationship between poverty and marriage and has drafted up a little memo to our President. Here are some highlights from their Memo:

The decline of marriage is a major cause of child poverty. Roughly two-thirds of poor children live in single-parent homes. Marital collapse is also a major contributor to welfare dependence: Each year, government spends over $250 billion for means-tested welfare benefits for single parents.

When compared to similar children raised by two married biological parents, children raised in single-parent homes are more likely to fail in school, abuse drugs or alcohol, commit crimes, become pregnant as teens, and suffer from emotional and behavioral problems. Such children are also more likely to end up on welfare or in jails when they become adults.

So, the President’s goal, being that he is a communist dictator and at the very least, a progressive, who thinks that social programs are a must-have in this country, doesn’t this make perfect sense for why he doesn’t support marriage? Divorce can = poverty, and a greater dependence on the government for everything. Look at that quote above – 1) Failing school = children who are uneducated and reliant on the system because they can’t qualify for or advance in a job, 2). drug and alcohol abuse = people who again can’t get or keep a job, people who have children that they can’t take care of, so the government again, comes in to rescue these people, 3). criminals = crowded jails and more people the government gets to take care of (and if you’ve heard of Obama’s latest idea, he wants to let the jailed criminals work for ACORN doing social projects and whatever, just want we don’t need running our streets), 4). pregnant teens = more abortions, more unwed mothers, more girls who don’t finish school, more people who can’t get or keep a good paying job, more people who can’t take care of their own children, more dependence on the government, 5). emotional and behavioral problems = children who have a hard time in school, children who don’t finish school so they either can’t get or keep a job, or they are reliant on more government programs….. So, of course these children are more likely to end up on welfare or in jails….right where the current administration wants them!

Think about it folks!!!Marriage and healthy families and children are the backbone of society, and a threat to Obama’s plan for “change.” That is exactly what the government doesn’t want, a strong society. Strong educated people who can stand up and revolt against them,  and people who understand the rights written into the Constitution… why they’d all be out of a job.

Revitalized marriage can have a powerful impact in reducing poverty in low-income communities. For example, if poor women who have children out of wedlock were married to the actual fathers of their children, nearly two-thirds would be lifted out of poverty immediately.[2] Because the decline in marriage is linked to many other social problems, an increase in healthy marriage would to lead to a long-term drop in those problems as well.

The Memo goes on to talk about how certain policies could help strengthen marriage and reduce out-of-wedlock pregnancies. But these policies must be effective, and in order to be, they must be based on facts. Here are a few tidbits from the Memo’s Facts:

Fact: Half of the women who have children out of wedlock are cohabiting with the father at the time of birth; 75 percent are in a romantic relationship with the father.[3] Policymakers seeking to reduce out-of-wedlock births must look far beyond teen pregnancy.

Fact: To a significant degree, the decision to have a child outside of marriage is a deliberate choice for these women.

Fact: Lack of access to birth control is not a significant factor contributing to “unintended pregnancy” or non-marital births. A recent survey of low-income women who had had a non-marital pregnancy found that only 1 percent reported that lack of access to birth control played a role in the pregnancy.[4]

Doesn’t the Obamination Administration want us to believe that we need more planned parenthood services, we need more access to birth control and more sex education in our public schools?

Fact: Out-of-wedlock childbearing is concentrated among low-income, less educated men and women. In general, the women most likely to have a child without being married are those who have the least ability to support a family by themselves.

And that’s exactly the way our current government wants it to be. They are focusing their “birth control” campaign to the women who aren’t really the bulk of the problem, thus allowing the real problem, unwed women (in their 20’s) ,to perpetuate even further, which keeps the welfare-recipient/reliance-on-the-government total growing.

If the government really has to have social policies, most of which are total crap and ineffective, why not try something like this:

Government should help low-income couples to move toward more prosperous lives by providing such men and women with education that increases their understanding of the strong link between marriage and better life outcomes and that equips them to make critical life decisions concerning childbearing and family formation more wisely.

In the “Audacity of Hope,” Obama writes:

“most people agree that neither federal welfare programs nor the tax code should penalize married couples.”

Again, you are right. Given the private and social benefits of marriage, it is absurd for the welfare industry to penalize marriage. Yet that is exactly what welfare does.

Obama’s policies on taxes, health care, and stimulus money are also detrimental to marriage and our freedoms. But the welfare state is just as much so:

Specifically, welfare programs create disincentives to marriage because benefits are reduced as a family’s income rises. A mother will receive far more from welfare if she is single than if she has an employed husband in the home. For many low-income couples, marriage means a reduction in government assistance and an overall decline in the couple’s joint income. Marriage penalties occur in many means-tested programs such as food stamps, public housing, Medicaid, day care, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. The welfare system should be overhauled to reduce such counterproductive incentives.

If the President was to really support marriage, and the policies and issues that would strengthen and promote marriage, then perhaps society would see a great change. However, that’s not his plan. Marriage is contrary to what Obama’s administration is trying to accomplish, which is the destruction of marriage, family, the Constitution and eliminating all of our freedoms.

I would love to hear what you think. Leave a comment below. Thanks for reading.

The Heritage Foundation