Are John Boehner and the GOP Leadership Ready to Commit [Political] Suicide?

By Gary P Jackson

I have to admit being a tad bit skeptical here, as this story comes from Politico not exactly the best source for truthyness, but somehow it’s sounds exactly what the weak Republican “good old boy” establishment would do.

According to Politico, Speaker of the House John Boehner and his band of merry men are preparing for life after the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of ObamaCare. It appears that either way, whether the legislation stands or is stricken down in total, the GOP is looking to keep the “good parts” of the legislation intact.

Let me help these gentlemen out. There are no “good parts” of ObamaCare. None.

House Republican leaders are quietly hatching a plan of attack as they await a historic Supreme Court ruling on President Barack Obama’s health care law.

If the law is upheld, Republicans will take to the floor to tear out its most controversial pieces, such as the individual mandate and requirements that employers provide insurance or face fines.

If the law is partially or fully overturned they’ll draw up bills to keep the popular, consumer-friendly portions in place — like allowing adult children to remain on parents’ health care plans until age 26, and forcing insurance companies to provide coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. Ripping these provisions from law is too politically risky, Republicans say.

The post-Supreme Court plan — a ruling should come in June — has long been whispered about inside House leadership circles and among the House’s elected physicians but is now being discussed with a larger groups of lawmakers, showing that Republicans are aggressively preparing for a big-time health care debate in the heat of an election-year summer.

On Tuesday, the major options were discussed during a small closed meeting of House Republican leaders, according to several sources present.

Then on Wednesday, Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) gave the entire House Republican Conference a preview of where the party is heading. His message: “When the court rules, we’ll be ready.”

But Boehner warned that they’ll relegislate the issue in smaller, bite sizes, rather than putting together an unwieldy new health care bill.

“If all or part of the law is struck down, we are not going to repeat the Democrats’ mistakes,” Boehner said, according to several sources present. “We have better ideas on health care — lots of them. We have solutions, of course, for patients with pre-existing conditions and other challenges.”

The plan represents an aggressive posture from House Republicans. It seeks to shelter them from criticism from the left that they’re leaving uninsured Americans out to dry. Aides caution the plans could still be changed — but this outline, confirmed by several sources with direct knowledge of the planning, represents the broad sketch of what’s likely to come this summer.

[ …. ]

That’s why Republicans would try to replace some of the consumer-friendly parts of the plan — they don’t want it to seem like they’re leaving millions of Americans out to dry. They’ll look to protect some of the law’s most popular provisions, such as allowing people to stay on their parents’ insurance until 26 and forcing insurance companies to provide coverage to those with pre-existing conditions. They also want to keep the Medicare “donut hole” closed — essentially they don’t want seniors paying sky-high costs for prescription drugs.

Pushing these small bills helps them avoid the “angst of the electorate that ‘you followed Obamacare with some other bill no one has read,’” said Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.), one of the House’s elected physicians.

But even with those insurance industry reforms — which poll well with the public — Republicans could run into resistance from conservatives, who want to repeal the entire health care law and leave nothing in its place.

“I don’t want any vestige of Obamacare left in law,” Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said. “Not one particle of DNA.”

Before they even put together a bunch of piecemeal health care bills, Republicans would have to overcome their own differences.

For example, Georgia Rep. Tom Price’s health care legislation — perhaps the most comprehensive plan — does not require insurance companies to accept everyone regardless of their expensive medical conditions. But that provision is one of the health reform law’s most popular pieces — and has been embraced by a broad swath of other Republicans.

The other challenge for Republicans is purely political — they’d have to coordinate their health care message with Mitt Romney, the party’s presidential nominee, and want to avoid an intraparty brawl over health care as the party heads into its summer convention.

So far, Romney’s health plans have tracked closely with what House Republicans have pursued. The former Massachusetts governor’s Medicare reform plans is similar to the latest Medicare plan proposed by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.).

Again, Politico is using it’s time honored trick of quoting unnamed sources, but there is also some truth here.

If these Republicans are indeed looking to keep any part of ObamaCare, they are risking everything. Not just the presidency, but control of Congress as well.

Let’s face it, the base of the Republican Party does not trust Mitt Romney. They know full well that Romney, not some random democrat, was the father of socialized medicine in America. They also know that Romney advisers played a part in the creation of ObamaCare.

Romney has repeatedly promised to repeal ObamaCare, if it’s not thrown out by the Court, but he has yet to apologize for the RomneyCare disaster he created in Massachusetts. Many don’t believe Romney’s promise.

With talk of somehow allowing parts of ObamaCare to survive, just how do you think the American people, who overwhelmingly want ObamaCare dead and buried, are going to react?

The distrust of Romney is only going to grow, as well as the anger that already exists toward the less than effective Republican leadership.

There are some Conservatives, like Iowa’s Steve King who get it. Nothing should be left of ObamaCare. It should be scrubbed from all memory. But it seems he may be in the minority. Let’s not forget the last time the GOP establishment had complete control of Washington, Congress and the White House, we got Medicare Part D, and yet another unfunded mandate.

There are already risk pools for those with preexisting conditions. Yeah, the coverage is expensive, but it’s there. There is always the option of buying, and keeping health insurance before you need it, and thus being covered, if one doesn’t want to pay extremely high insurance rates.

It makes no business sense whatsoever to allow a person who has decided to remain uninsured, to then purchase insurance AFTER they need it. It’s like buying car insurance AFTER you wrap it around a tree and expecting to have repairs made under the coverage. Ain’t gonna happen, nor should it.

As for keeping “children” under the age of 26 on their parents insurance. Seriously?

If you are 26 years old, you are an adult. You can legally drive a car, join the Army, and drink booze. At 26 you should also have gainful employment and be on your way toward making your own life. You can pay for your own damned insurance!

I know tens of millions of people are out of work [including those under 26 years of age] thanks to Obamanomics, but presumably Mitt Romney and a Republican Congress will help create conditions that change the current situation.

If these so-called Republican “leaders” want to know how it’s done, how about they look towards the Lone Star State.

We got it right here in Texas. Our health care reform started with tort reform. Texas used to be the lawsuit capital of the country. Every ambulance chaser out there set up shop here. That is no longer the case.

In Texas doctors can concentrate on patient care rather than running multitudes of unnecessary tests for the purpose of covering their butts. Unnecessary tests that make health care more expensive.

The results speak for themselves. Texas has great health care, and nearly 10,000 doctors have relocated to the state, because of the patient centric, rather than lawyer centric, environment.

The Trial Attorney lobby is strong in Washington. Worse, many lawmakers are themselves, attorneys, and sympathetic to their brethren. [and the cash donations they make]

This situation has created an atmosphere that is favorable to attorneys, and makes it highly unlikely Congress will ever do much to stop these bloodsuckers who have caused much of the rise in cost of health care over the years.

The bottom line is this: The Federal Government has no authority to create health care plans such as ObamaCare. Government’s only role is to protect the citizens from unfair practices. In this it has failed.

We all know the real answers. Aggressive and comprehensive tort reform, and allowing health insurance to be sold across state lines, will do more to make health care affordable and more available to a broader group of people. Not micromanaging it from Washington.

Texas proves the free market works, as long as the free market is allowed to operate without outside interferences like overly litigious patients and the ambulance chasing attorneys they hire.

If the Politico report is even remotely true, the Republican Party is about to commit political suicide. They are about to lose the whole thing.

Instead of cow-towing to the biased media, and democrat troublemakers, Speaker Boehner and the rest of the GOP better grow a set and start listening to the American people, or it’s all over for them.

We, The People, are fed up.

Maybe, instead of replacing ObamaCare with the GOP version, it’s time to replace the GOP leadership!

So RomneyCare was all Bush’s Fault? The Galen Institute on What Went Wrong

By Gary P Jackson

I ran across this bit of information from the “Galen Institute,” a tax and health care policy think tank. The author is trying hard to make the case that RomneyCare, thanks to factors like a democrat legislature and pressure from the Bush administration, is not much like the original proposal Romney sought to have put into law.

I think we can argue all day long over the merits of this. And yeah, chances are, the Bay State was going to have some form of government run health care no matter who was in office, and maybe Mitt did stop it from being a lot worse than it is. Still, you’d think anyone with a lick of common sense would know you never let a democrat get it’s nose under the tent. Once they are in, it’s all over.

Romney has owned this screw-up from the start. And by owning it, I mean he’s never distanced himself from it, or admitted it was a mistake. Now this may be spin, with Romney figuring it’s better to own it than admit defeat, but who knows.

The article is worth reading because it does set some things straight, and it also reminds us that some of the things Romney [and other candidates ] have promised to do, regarding ObamaCare, simply cannot be done. This leaves us with two solutions: Hope the Supreme Court finds it unconstitutional, and repeal it. It will probably take a combination of both.

Romney’s Best Defense: The Truth About Romneycare

Even though Mitt Romney has had a string of primary wins, support for his presidential bid still is tepid among Republican voters nervous about Romneycare. He could calm them if he were to more fully explain the difference between his vision for reform and the law that ultimately was enacted in Massachusetts.

Gov. Romney gets big applause when he pledges to repeal Obamacare, but he faces silence when he tries to defend Romneycare. He insists, for example, that his individual mandate only impacted the 8 percent of residents who were uninsured (the mandate covers everyone), that he didn’t cut Medicare (states have no authority over Medicare), and that he would issue a waiver to the states to implement Obamacare their way (a president can’t undo an Act of Congress with a waiver).

The voters are not reassured. Gov. Romney can get off the defensive and change the subject by explaining that the Massachusetts law which was passed by the overwhelmingly Democratic legislature diverged significantly from his vision for reform, and then describe what his reform plan would be as president.

During the presidential debate in Jacksonville, Florida, in late January, Romney took a small step in this direction when he acknowledged that his successor, Gov. Deval Patrick, has taken a much more liberal track in implementing Romneycare. “If I were governor,” Romney said, “it would work a heck of a lot better.” Indeed, when it passed the law, the legislature was counting on a Democrat governor to succeed Romney to put the real regulatory thumb screws in place.

The Massachusetts law is different in important ways from the plan that Romney pushed as governor. Few voters know, for example, that Romney strongly opposed the employer mandate and wanted an escape from the individual mandate — allowing people to instead be able to post a bond if they were uninsured and had big medical bills. When Romney signed the law, he believed it contained the escape hatch, but legislators removed it before final passage.

Romney vetoed eight provisions of the Massachusetts bill, and every one of his vetoes was overridden by the legislature. Should Romney have known this was likely? Yes. Should he have known exactly what he was signing? Absolutely. But voters may be more forgiving if he tells them he wanted to give citizens and employers a way out.

Why did he push Romneycare? The state was at risk of losing $385 million in federal Medicaid money, and the Bush administration insisted Massachusetts make changes to get more residents covered and keep the money flowing.

Romney also wanted to find a way to make it easier for small businesses and individuals to get insurance that would be portable from job to job. To get around federal tax law restrictions and to make health insurance portable, he adopted the Heritage Foundation’s proposal to create exchanges that would allow individuals to have portable insurance and pay premiums with pre-tax dollars.
 
TODAY ROMNEY SAYS, “The market can work to solve our health care needs.” The policy recommendations on his campaign website back up his perspective on patient-centered reform. But primary voters aren’t. He needs to get off the defensive and take charge of this issue.

Here’s a three-step plan:

Step 1: Focus on Repeal of Obamacare.

Gov. Romney needs to get his message straight, or he will be hammered in the general election over false promises. He calls for repeal of Obamacare while saying he would immediately issue an executive order to give flexibility to the states to implement the law their way. That sets the stage to massively confuse the political agenda: He would be sending the states off to begin to implement Obamacare while Congress works in Washington to repeal it.

Further, the Congressional Research Service issued a report that said Obamacare’s major provisions are Acts of Congress, and they simply cannot be changed through an executive order.

His focus should be on repeal. Waivers to the states from Obamacare are not a solution and, in fact, might well detract from the ultimate goal of repealing the law and replacing it with a genuine free market alternative. If Gov. Romney is serious about repealing Obamacare, he will have to devote all of his energies to doing that as soon as possible.

The House of Representatives passed a repeal bill a few weeks after Republicans took control last year. In the Senate, many parts of Obamacare could be repealed through reconciliation with only 51 votes should Republicans take control there, allowing them to enact legislation repealing the spending provisions that are the biggest threat to the economy and to the federal deficit.

He also could calm voters by emphasizing that a federal mandate to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional and detail more reasons why Obamacare’s government-centric approach is wrong.

Step 2: Explain what really happened with passage of Romneycare.

Gov. Romney’s support for states’ rights is important, saying the law worked for Massachusetts but that other states need their own solutions in our diverse and complex country. But conservatives would feel better knowing what he initially proposed in the Bay State. For example:

• Mandate escape. Few voters know that Romney wanted an escape from the individual mandate. Voters may be more forgiving if he were to tell them he wanted to give citizens a way out and that he strongly opposed the employer mandate.

• Real insurance. Romney wanted people to be able to purchase real health insurance that would have covered catastrophic events. Instead, the legislature insisted on including all of the 50-plus health insurance mandates already on the books. The legislature allowed the high-deductible plans only for some young people aged 18-26.

After the Massachusetts law was passed by the legislature, Romney continued to try to reshape it with his line-item veto. For example:

• Employer mandate: Vetoed. The bill called for a mandate on employers with 11 or more workers to provide health coverage or pay an annual fee of $295 per worker. Overridden.

• Covering certain immigrants: Vetoed. The bill included a provision that would allow some non-citizens to qualify for coverage under the new health plan. Overridden.

• New bureaucracy: Vetoed. The bill created a powerful new bureaucracy, called the Public Health Council. Overridden.

• Limiting improvements to Medicaid: Vetoed. The bill restricted changes to Medicaid to make the program more efficient. Overridden.

Gov. Romney must clarify that in working with a Republican Congress on a new health reform agenda, he would start with a very different vision than Romneycare and work much harder to make sure the consumer-friendly structure is what becomes law.

Step 3: Emphasize his vision for market-based health reform, with a much clearer description of what a President Romney’s plan would look like.

He needs to talk about what he would do so he can stop having to defend Romneycare. A handful of specifics would do, many of which are included on his campaign website:

Help states set up functional pools so people with pre-existing conditions are protected.

Provide new subsidies for the uninsured to purchase the coverage of their choice.

Encourage the states to set up marketplaces for people to buy insurance and allow policies to be purchased across state lines.

Boost insurance rules to guarantee that if people have coverage, they can keep it and their premiums won’t skyrocket if they get sick, etc.

Move toward a system of tax credits and deductions to allow individuals to buy and own portable health insurance.

And regarding the “free-rider” problem Romney says that the Massachusetts law was designed to stop: This can be addressed without a mandate and in a way that is likely to be much more effective. For example, if people don’t buy coverage with the credit, then the credit could be used to automatically enroll them in a private plan that would cover their major medical bills. Properly structured incentives would be more effective than a mandate in expanding coverage.

The health reform plan Gov. Romney pushed in Massachusetts was different in key respects from the model that became Obamacare but few people know the truth about Romneycare.

Unless Gov. Romney takes steps to clarify and remedy his position, he will continue to have trouble convincing Republican voters he is serious about repeal and will have an even harder time mapping a clear plan on health reform should he be elected president.

I read all of this and see some good points, but it still comes down to leadership. We see that, as Governor, Romney tried to veto some really bad elements of the health care law, but what exactly did he do in the run up to this monstrosity? No where do I find an effort on Romney’s part to sell his ideas to the people of Massachusetts. No where do I see an effort to get the people on his side of the battle against the legislature. If there were town halls and citizen workshops, I’m not finding them.

Now look, as a Texan, I can’t fathom the sort of Big Government intrusion RomneyCare caused. I can’t understand a people who would allow their state government to take away their Liberty and Freedom, not to mention make their health care far more costly, with fewer services. But then again, this is a state whose voters keep sending radicals to their state house and to Washington. It’s a socialist state, so losing Liberty and Freedom might not concern them.

It might be, as portrayed, that Romney wanted to do the “right thing” but was unable to stop his runaway democrat legislature. But one has to ask, knowing who and what democrats are, why allow the situation that led to RomneyCare’s final product in the first place?

I understand that pressure from both inside the state and the federal government played a huge roll in RomneyCare’s birth, but wasn’t there a far better, market based solution? Wasn’t there a way to reform the process and keep government involvement to a minimum? Wouldn’t a real leader have done more to get his plan enacted over one that is now in place? Wouldn’t a real leader side stepped the legislature and the media, and gone directly to the people?

It’s obvious that Romney isn’t totally to blame for the huge mess in Massachusetts, but it’s just as obvious that he didn’t put forth nearly the effort he should have to get his own vision put in place over the one that now exists.

So here’s the deal. Has Romney learned his lesson? Does he now understand that you can’t give the left an inch, that there really is no dealing in good faith with them? Has he come to realize what a huge mistake he made?

Those are questions that must be answered.

Flashback: Newt’s Passionate Support of Mandated Health Care Insurance, RomneyCare

By Gary P Jackson

I’ve noticed something about Newt Gingrich’s supporters. I’ve noticed a lot of things really. Like Ron Paul supporters they believe Newt can do no wrong, and every fact about his Big Government socialist ways is a lie.

Of course, like most Conservatives, they also think Mitt Romney is the Great Satan™!

This is frustrating to me, and I don’t support Mitt Romney in the slightest. Most people’s biggest problem with Mitt is RomneyCare. Sadly, Newt’s supporters are so mesmerized by his nonsense, they fail to realize NewtCare is just RomneyCare with a twist.

When you break both NewtCare and RomneyCare down to their core, what they really are is government mandated health care. The government telling you that you must have health insurance, or else.

One of the few differences in Newt prattles on about posting a bond of say $100,000 to $150,000.

Newt has been pushing government mandated health care as long, if not longer than Mitt Romney. The only reason it hasn’t much mattered [until now] is Newt was just a well paid shill [$37 million from Big Pharma and Big Insurance] rather than a poor, corrupt, government official.

You can bet your ass if Newt had been in office, we’d have NewtCare, just as surely as we have ObamaCare now.

Remember, Newt was the front man for President George W Bush’s Medicare Part D bill.

There’s tons of video of Newt pushing mandates. Heck, he was shilling for government mandated health care insurance in May of 2011!

Here’s vintage Newt, circa 2008, telling you it’s “immoral” for you not to have insurance.

How many times do you have to hear Newt, in his own words, tell you he supports MANDATED HEALTH CARE INSURANCE for it to sink in?

I think it’s immoral for a government to force you to buy anything, just because you exist.

Health insurance isn’t like automobile insurance. You aren’t forced to own an automobile. In fact, driving is not even a right. It’s a privilege. You earn the privilege to drive by passing proficiency tests, and obtaining a license.

Besides, mandated car insurance is only liability, not full coverage. You are only mandated to maintain liability insurance to protect other drivers and property owners for damages you may cause them. You are not required by law to protect yourself. Though lenders do make having full coverage insurance a requirement for getting a loan.But again, that is to protect them, not you.

Driving is a voluntary act. The government doesn’t force you to drive.

On the other hand, government mandated health care forces you to buy a product, simply because you exist, and the only alternative is to die.

What’s really pathetic, is now that Newt is running for president, he has been attacking Mitt Romney over RomneyCare. Back in 2006, Newt praised RomneyCare. And why not, it’s what Newt had been pushing for years, and still pushes!

From the Wall Street Journal: [emphasis mine]

Newt Gingrich voiced enthusiasm for Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts health-care law when it was passed five years ago, the same plan he has been denouncing over the past few months as he campaigned for the Republican presidential nomination.

“The health bill that Governor Romney signed into law this month has tremendous potential to effect major change in the American health system,” said an April 2006 newsletter published by Mr. Gingrich’s former consulting company, the Center for Health Transformation.

The two-page “Newt Notes” analysis, found online by The Wall Street Journal even though it no longer appears on the center’s website, continued: “We agree entirely with Governor Romney and Massachusetts legislators that our goal should be 100% insurance coverage for all Americans.“

The earlier bullish comments about the Romney health-care plan are another potential embarrassment for Mr. Gingrich, who is leading Mr. Romney in most national polls for the GOP nomination. But with a week to go before the first-in-the-nation Iowa caucuses,

Mr. Gingrich has slipped to third place in that state behind Texas Rep. Ron Paul and Mr. Romney. On other issues including climate change and mortgage giant Freddie Mac, Mr. Gingrich has struggled to reconcile his stance as a conservative with his long history of policy positions that sometimes run counter to that.

Oh, and how does Team Gingrich respond? They go for the “Ron Paul defense,” claiming Newt didn’t actually write the newsletter. How pathetic.

Mr. Hammond said the Newt Notes essay wasn’t written by Mr. Gingrich himself. The Journal was able to view a copy using a web search engine that archives old and even deleted versions of Web pages.

You can read Newt’s entire newsletter heaping mountains of praise in RomneyCare here.

Don’t ever let anyone tell you Newt isn’t a sleazy opportunist, who just tells his followers what they want to hear. Ever.

Newt is just as much for RomneyCare as any lefty would be. He’s patently dishonest when he attacks Mitt Romney, and so are his supporters.

I wrote a while back that even though I’m not a Romney supporter, and have many problems with him, I find myself wanting to defend him more and more. Anything Romney can be accused of, and I do mean anything, Newt supports the same thing, and has likely had more influence getting it done.

In other words, no matter how many people tell you different, Newt is worse than Mitt Romney in every single way.

While I think RomneyCare was stupid, it was also constitutional, as things like this are, and should be, left to the states. Of course, just because you CAN do something, it doesn’t mean you SHOULD.

NewtCare, FEDERALLY mandated health care insurance, would NOT be constitutional, and is a direct assault on Liberty and Freedom. If the federal government can force you to buy health care insurance, they can literally force you to buy anything. I think most of our readers understand the concept of a slippery slope, of the camel’s nose under the tent.

Oh, and for the record, I think RomneyCare is a direct assault on Liberty and Freedom too, but at least you can pack up and move to another state that won’t destroy your Freedoms. Under NewtCare, just like ObamaCare, you must leave the country to escape it.

Somehow Conservatives have become convinced Mitt is the Great Satan™ and must be vanquished at all costs, even if they sit the election out and hand it to Obama.

Friends, there are far worse outcomes than a President Romney. A President Gingrich would top that list, a list that includes a second term for President Obama.

Newt Gingrich is a corrupt, lying Big Government “progressive” who can never be trusted.

You might want to check out Government Mandates: Newt Gingrich and the Art of the Con Explained for more information on how you are being conned by Newt. This includes video of Newt from 2005 strongly pushing, you guessed it, government mandated health care insurance.

There’s also a stern warning from Ronald Reagan about guys like Newt Gingrich.

Fundraising: Mitt Romney-Barack Obama Lead All In Money From Health Insurance Lobby

By Gary P Jackson

Not a surprise. Mitt Romney and Barack Obama both created situations that can potentially be incredibly profitable to insurance providers. Forcing people to buy insurance, with the government picking up the tab for those who can’t afford it, means big bucks for the providers.

The campaign cash will flow to candidates who the insurance lobby knows won’t upset the apple cart.

Crony capitalism.

From Open Secrets:

As of June 30, the date of the most recent campaign finance reports, Romney edges out Obama in terms of money raised, $43,750 versus $42,675, the Center’s analysis indicates.

Both men have favored health care policies that include an individual mandate for people to purchase private insurance plans. Romney did so as governor of Massachusetts, and Obama did so as part of the health care reform package he signed into law last year — a package that did not include a public insurance option to compete against private plans, as many liberals hoped it would.

Such mandates are supported by the insurance industry, which stand to benefit from increased customers as well as from government subsidies that help enroll people who could not otherwise afford insurance.

According to the report, Rick Perry’s team hasn’t filed their campaign finance reports yet, but there are strong ties between Perry and the Texas health care lobby.

Read more here.

Palin, Perry, Romney, and Pleading the Tenth

by Whitney Pitcher

Federalism is a constitutional principle based in the 10^th amendment that notes  powers not given to the United States nor denied to the individual states are given to the states and their people. It seems, though, some governors in the presidential race use this as a justification for implementing bad, government expanding policy in their individual states. Of course, states do have the right to implement their own laws and policies, but just as Governor Palin has said in response to President Obama’s policies, “just because you can, doesn’t mean you should”.

Governor Romney often uses the federalism justification to defend his government mandated healthcare reform, arguing that states are supposed to be “laboratories of democracy”, while at the same time, criticizing President Obama’s federal mandate.  It should be noted  that while he now defends hi s policies on the basis of federalism, he did not have a problem receiving massive amounts of federal dollars to pay for his plan. A report published in June by Suffolk University in Massachusetts notes:

The federal government continues to absorb a significant cost of health care reform through enhanced Medicaid payments and the Medicare program.   Health care reform has also increased the rate for Medicare Advantage plans in Massachusetts, which has contributed to an increase in Medicare health care expenditures through prices for medical service delivery.

The study also noted that federal government spent an additional $2.418 billion in Medicaid payments and nearly $1.5 billion in Medicare expenditures, which account for 45% of the costs in its first five years of implementation. Why was someone who defends their policies on the basis of federalism so dependent upon federal funding (and the attached federal requirements) to implement their policies?

Governor Perry is another governor who defends his government expanding state policies, but wouldn’t support a similar federal law. Governor Perry passed a law which allow illegal immigrants to receive in state tuition at Texas universities if they lived in Texas for 3 years, graduated from a Texas high school, an were on a path to citizen ship.  On the Mark Levin show on Thursday, Perry said that he is “absolutely against the DREAM act”. The DREAM Act, which Governor Palin also opposes, is a federal program that grants eventually citizenship to illegal immigrants who complete some level of post-secondary education or military service. After a certain length of time, such students would be eligible for Pell grants and student loans.  Perry also goes on to say that children “shouldn’t be punished for a decision their parents made” and that such decisions should be a “state by state issue”.  Perry says that no one should be punished for someone else’s mistake, but that same principle should be applied to legal immigrants who are abiding by the rules (and paying out-of-state tuition). Are not legal immigrants, who are abiding by the rules, being “punished” when illegal immigrants are receiving preferable treatment? Is it fair to Texas taxpayers who are essentially subsidizing education for illegal immigrants to the tune of more than $30 million in financial aid between 2004 and 2008? Legal immigration is one of the most beautiful things about America. Our melting pot of cultures is what makes America the greatest country in the world, but so does the fact that we are a nation of laws.

Governor Palin, on the other hand, used her gubernatorial tenure to reduce the state’s dependency on federal dollars, rather than increase dependency under the pretzel logic federalism justification like Governor Romney. She reduced federal earmarks by 86% during her tenure by also drastically reducing the number of projects that were federally funded. In addition to this, she used federalism properly. Rather than use it as an argument to defend bad state policy, she used it to protect her state from bad federal policy. Governor Palin twice sued the federal government of their use of the Endangered Species Act to protect areas against oil development. In 2008, Governor Palin sued the federal government over the listing of the polar bear as “threatened” which would require a more stringent review process before resource development would be allowed. In 2009, she sued again—this time over the endangered status of beluga whales in Cook Inlet, which also stood as a road block to development. Governor Palin also used federalism to defend Alaska’s right to establish education standards that were best for Alaska, rather than accept the “one-size-fits-all” federal standards of the Obama administration. Governor Palin noted in a March 2009 press release:

“Alaska’s decision not to participate until after we monitor this is based on our desire to spend our time and public resources to improve instruction in the classroom and to form productive relationships between schools and the communities they serve,” Governor Palin said. “If this initiative produces useful results, Alaska will remain free to incorporate them in our own standards.”

[…]

“The State of Alaska fully believes that schools must have high expectations of students,” Governor Palin said. “But high expectations are not always created by new, mandated federal standards written on paper. They are created in the home, the community and the classroom.”

To his credit, Governor Perry also rejected the federal education standards as well as Race to the Top funding, as Governor Palin did. However, some other federally funded and mandatory coursework in Texas has been questioned.

When it comes to be people seeking to serve in an office which requires you to swear an oath to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States”, it would behoove such individuals to understand the proper application of the principles of the Constitution and its amendments. The Constitution should not be used for a defense of bad policy; it should be used as a blueprint for proper governance and the implementation of good policy. 

Mitt Romney, The Father Of Gay Marriage In America, By Illegal Executive Fiat

By Gary P Jackson

This isn’t about gay marriage, it’s about Mitt Romney’s complete and total lack of respect for the Rule of Law.

We all know Mitt Romney is the father of socialized medicine in America, and one of two people in the Republic with a socialist plan named after them, the other being Barack Obama.

Well, it seems that’s not the only usurpation this Big Government extremist has visited on the people of Massachusetts, and the nation as a whole. You see Romney illegally FORCED gay marriage on the people of the Bay State, even after the state’s Supreme Court banned the practice.

Ann Barnhardt discusses this illegal situation as well as more despicable acts by Romney here.

Bryan Fischer has written this:

Former Massachusetts’ governor Mitt Romney announced his official intention to run for the presidency this week.

His candidacy has one potentially insurmountable problem: America has same-sex marriage because of Mitt Romney.

This is just one of several huge vulnerabilities Mitt Romney has as he tries to convince the members of his own party that he is conservative enough to claim the Republican mantle for 2012. His flip-flops on abortion, RomneyCare in Massachusetts.

But same-sex marriage is the biggie. The first domino to fall in the crusade to give marital recognition to same sex unions fell in Massachusetts, and it fell because then-governor Romney pushed it over.

While the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declared that Massachusetts’ marriage law was unconstitutional in the summer of 2003, the Court explicitly declared that the original law, which does not authorize same-sex marriage, was left intact. “Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief.”

The court acknowledged that the original law, left intact by its ruling, banned homosexual marriages and gave the legislature 180 days to “take such action as it may deem appropriate.” The legislature did precisely nothing.

Gov. Romney, acting on his own, ordered town clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples on May 17, 2004, in contravention of Massachusetts state law and under threat of termination.

Gov. Romney in essence told these town clerks that if they did not break the law, he would fire them.

Town clerks meekly complied, and became lawbreakers in the process. Massachusetts state marriage law is quite explicit: “Whoever, not being duly authorized by the laws of the commonwealth undertakes to join persons in marriage therein shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.”

Re-read that carefully. Town clerks must be “authorized by the laws of the commonwealth” to issue marriage licenses. They are not allowed to do so under the authorization of the Supreme Judicial Court or the governor. The “laws of the commonwealth” to this day do not authorize the granting of same-sex marriage licenses.

Massachusetts state marriage law has never been changed. Same-sex marriage is still illegal in the Bay State.

So the bottom line here is that Gov. Romney broke state law and ordered his town clerks to do the same.

After Gov. Romney legalized same-sex marriage by fiat in a burst of executive branch activism, Connecticut’s Supreme Court followed suit in 2008 and Iowa’s Supreme Court in 2009. Same-sex marriage was not legalized through the legislative process anywhere in the United States until Vermont’s legislature overrode a gubernatorial veto in April of 2009.

There are just two states now, New Hampshire being the other, where the elected representatives of the people have solemnized same-sex partnerships. In every other case, same-sex marriage has been forced down the throats of residents by an activist judiciary or, in the case of Massachusetts, by an activist governor imposing an activist ruling on his own citizens.

For time and eternity, Mitt Romney will go down in history as the man who abused the power of his office to give the United States homosexual matrimony.

For most social conservatives, this will simply be a breach too far.

For the record, I think marriage should be between one man and one woman. With that said, I also believe in States Rights. If a state, through LEGAL legislative process, wants to have gay marriage, then fine. This doesn’t effect me, as I don’t live in such a state. As long as it’s done legally, then no one has any ground to stand on.

Here’s the problem though. Mitt Romney didn’t do it legally. In fact, he defied his state’s Supreme Court and shoved this unwanted law down the people of Massachusetts throat’s. This puts Mitt Romney in the same box with Marxist radical Barack Obama, who thinks the Rule of Law doesn’t apply to him either. This makes Mitt Romney, like Obama, an incredibly dangerous man who has no respect for the Constitution, or Separation of Powers.

As reported above, thanks to Mitt Romney’s radical activism, extremists in other states have been emboldened to by-pass the legislative process, and through judicial fiat, created  a process that allows gay marriage. Had Romney not acted illegally, and gotten away with it, would these other states have been so bold?

Gay marriage is the first issue visited on the Republic by Mitt Romney, the second being RomneyCare, a TOTAL usurpation of individual Liberty and Freedom. In fact, one of the most egregious acts of tyranny visited on mankind in the past century. Worse, RomneyCare embolden the Marxist democrats in the Obama regime to go for their own version. RomneyCare was the blueprint for ObamaCare.

With Romney, one quickly sees a pattern of a dictator, not a public servant. Romney had absolutely NO PROBLEM stripping away Liberty and Freedom from every single Massachusetts resident “for the greater good.” Forcing every Massachusetts resident to buy something, just because they are alive and living there. This goes against absolutely EVERYTHING this nation was founded on.

Romney also had no problem forcing gay marriage on the people of the Bay State for support from activist groups. The man sold out his people for a few pieces of silver. 

Mitt Romney is just as dangerous as Barack Obama and can never be allowed to have the power of elected office again. The man has no respect for the Rule of Law or the First Principles our nation was founded on.

This nation must reject Mitt Romney, and all those like him. There is no place for men like him in our political system.

If we continue to elect men like Mitt Romney, our Republic will not survive.

Ann Barnhardt Not All That Happy With Mitt Romney

For the love of all that is right and good, don’t give this jerk Romney any money. ~ Ann Barnhardt

Brutal

Video: Sarah Palin On Mitt Romney’s Challenges

The Best Reason NOT To Elect Mitt Romney I’ve Seen

Perhaps you and I have lived with this miracle too long to be properly appreciative. Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again.

Knowing this, it is hard to explain those who even today would question the people’s capacity for self rule. Will they answer this: If no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?Using the temporary authority granted by the people, an increasing number lately have sought to control the means of production as if this could be done without eventually controlling those who produce. Always this is explained as necessary to the people’s welfare. But, “The deterioration of every government begins with the decay of the principle upon which it was founded.” This is true today as it was when it was written in 1748.

~ Ronald Reagan

By Gary P Jackson

If one was to take time to list all of the reasons not to vote for liberal Republican Mitt Romney it would be a daunting, time consuming task. One could go on for days about RomneyCare and how it’s basically destroyed the state Mitt governed. Then there is the totally unprincipled Mitt Romney, a human windsock, whose positions, much like current President Barack Obama, all have expiration dates. [except for his undying love of his socialized medicine scheme]

In fact, it’s in RomneyCare that we find Mitt’s real problem, and why he can never be allowed in elected office. One of Romney’s constant refrains, now that his socialized medicine debacle has festered into a big liability, is to blame it all on those rascally democrats. It was the democrats, you see, who messed up his magnificently magnificent creation. Only HE, Mitt Romney is capable of maintaining such a brilliant plan!

During the run up to Romney’s big “health care address” and after, myself and others pointed to the fact that Mitt, rather than being a strong leader, a CEO type, who chooses the right people and lets them work, is the middle manager type that must be hands on, in every project, whether he should be or not.

Romney is a technocrat. A Big Government progressive that doesn’t have the slightest concept of our Founding Principles, personal Liberty, or personal Freedom. He’s the type who never saw a good idea without thinking a government program would’t make it better.

Paul Rahe captures this perfectly in the first two sentences below. The rest is just expanding on the subject: [emphasis mine]

The reason why I oppose Mitt Romney is simple. He was born to destroy everything that we have accomplished since the Tea-Party Movement emerged in the Spring of 2009. Romney is the very model of a managerial progressive. He has one great virtue. He knows how to run things; he knows how to organize things. He would make a good Secretary of Commerce. He has no understanding of the principles that underpin our government. And, in fact, like most businessmen, he is a man almost devoid of political principles. Give him a problem, and he will make a highly intelligent attempt to solve it. Ask him to identify which problems should be left to ordinary people and what are the proper limits to government’s reach, and he would not understand the question. He is what you might call a social engineer; and, in his estimation, we are little more than the cogs and wheels that need to be engineered. …

Romney’s political instincts are disastrous. He will betray the friends of liberty and limited government at the first opportunity. If he is nominated, the people who joined the Tea Party and turned out in 2010 to give the Republicans an historic victory are likely to stay home. If, by some miracle, the progenitor of Romneycare actually defeats the progenitor of Obamacare, he will quickly embrace the entitlement state and present himself as the man who can make it hum, as he did in Massachusetts. He is not better than Hoover, Eisenhower, Nixon, Bush père, and Bush fils. He is cut from the same cloth, and in practice he is apt to be far, far worse. The consequence will be the death in American life or at least the decay of the impulse embodied within the Tea-Party Movement.

At the start of this I cited a timeless quote by Ronald Reagan: “If no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?” This was part of Governor Ronald Reagan’s first inaugural address in 1967, and would be part of President Ronald Reagan’s first inaugural address in 1981. It’s simple, yet profound. It’s also a concept I highly doubt Mitt Romney understands.

Mitt Romney is the “little intellectual elite” that Ronald Reagan warned the nation about in his iconic 1964 speech, A Time For Choosing.

Reagan also reminded the nation often:

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.

Mitt Romney, and those like him, are the sort of men Ronald Reagan feared would someday come to power. The sort who, “for our own good” would take away our Freedom and Liberty, in order to “make the trains run on time”

Mitt Romney Turns Failure Into Performance Art

Seppuku: noun \se-pü kü, se-pə-kü\.

A highly ritualized political performance, as complicated as chado (tea ceremony). The principle difference is that at the end of chado, one is merely nauseated from too much green tea, whilst at the end of seppuku, one is politically dead.

By Gary P Jackson

Last Thursday Mitt Romney gave his speech on health care. It was quite a performance.

He was getting hammered before the speech, and it was suggested Romney’s best bet was to quit the Republican Party and then convince Obama to dump Joe Biden and join that ticket. That was mild compared to what was to come after his speech.

In fact, Romney was hammered so hard, that I actually started feeling sorry for the guy, but I’m much better now.

First, the speech, if you can stand all of it:

Breath taking, huh? The guy is using the 10th Amendment as cover. Now Romney is right as far as it goes. The states are sovereign entities and ARE supposed to be laboratories. States SHOULD be free to try things out without interference of the federal government. Sarah Palin has been saying this for years, and Texas Governor Rick Perry wrote an entire book about it!

What’s troubling about Romney is the fact his default position was to take Freedom and Liberty AWAY from Massachusetts residents. To propose a Big Government, rather than a market based solution.This is the way a liberal always does things.

We’ve written extensively about the failures of RomneyCare, from bankrupting the state, to longer waiting periods, it’s been the canary in the coal mine for those concerned about Obama’s identical legislation. Massachusetts is experiencing a terrible problem with freeloaders coming in from other states and ever foreign counties getting free healthcare courtesy of the already overburdened Bay State taxpayer. It’s the very definition of failure.

Romney, for his part, has stated many times that if he had a chance at a do-over, he’d still do the exact same thing. That’s pretty incredible when you come to think of it.

Reactions were swift and strong. Democrat pundit Kirstin Powers tweeted:

Has #Romney ever met a Republican primary voter? This speech is tone deaf.

Mollie Hemingway added:

I think Romney took the WSJ suggestion to run as Obama’s mate a BIT too seriously.

This tweet from Philip Klein really says it all:

Romney making passionate case for why it’s okay to violate personal freedom at state level

Questionable grammar aside, Jonah Goldberg captured the essence of the entire spectacle:

Gosh, I hope he doesn’t end this by taking out a can of gasoline and then pours it over his head.

Jennifer Rubin wrote:

This morning the Wall Street Journal editorial board accused Mitt Romney of being a technocrat and not a conservative. In his speech in Ann Arbor, Mich., today, Romney proved the editorial board correct. You could tell it wasn’t going to be a good outing when it became clear that a tiny room of about 100 invited guests was the setting. Message: Only handpicked friends could be counted on not to boo or laugh.

Avik Roy over at NRO [National RINO Online] went after Romney HARD:

Mitt Romney just gave a more articulate defense of Obamacare than President Obama ever has. He continues to believe that the individual mandate is a good idea. His effort to make a distinction between Romneycare and Obamacare was not persuasive: If anything, he convincingly made the opposite case, that Romneycare and Obamacare are based on the same fundamental concept.

In recent months, Romney has claimed that Romneycare was a specific solution for the specific needs of Massachusetts. But in his remarks, he did not name one specific aspect of the Massachusetts health-care environment that is unique to that state. If there are no important differences between the Massachusetts health-care system and that of other states, why shouldn’t he believe that Romneycare should be the model for every other state?

Indeed, here is what Romney wrote in the Wall Street Journal on April 11, 2006, the day before he signed his signature health-care legislation:

“How much of our health-care plan applies to other states? A lot. Instead of thinking that the best way to cover the uninsured is by expanding Medicaid, they can instead reform insurance.”

The final straw, for me, was when Romney said that “there’s not a lot that I want to borrow from France and Switzerland.” I’m with him on France, but Switzerland (despite its own individual-mandate issues) has the most market-oriented health-care system in the developed world. I would love to borrow Switzerland’s exceptionally low levels of state-health spending, which they manage to achieve while providing universal coverage and high-quality care. Their tax rates aren’t shabby either.

The Wall Street Journal compared Romney’s speech with Evil Knievel’s failed attempt to jump the Snake River Canyon!

Mr. Romney also tried to draw a contrast between his new campaign plan and Mr. Obama’s reform, saying, for instance, that it would create no new health-care bureaucracies. He neglected to mention that his state plan did precisely that. Mr. Romney’s political appointees converted the architecture of the “connector” that was supposed to support individual and small-business insurance choice into a regulatory body dedicated to stamping it out.

The political tragedy is that Mr. Romney could have emerged as one of ObamaCare’s most potent critics had he made different choices two years ago amid one of the country’s most consequential debates in generations. He might have said that as Governor he made a good-faith effort to resolve some of health care’s long-running dysfunctions, but that it hadn’t worked out and that’s why state experiments are valuable.

Mr. Romney also sold his plan using the same theories and language as Mr. Obama, and he might have rebutted the President from experience and evidence. Instead, he has lashed himself to the contradiction of attacking Mr. Obama’s plan while claiming his own is different.

Many people have tried to talk Mr. Romney down from this daredevil campaign act, but Mr. Romney privately says he doesn’t want to reinforce the rap he had in 2008 that he had reinvented himself too often. As a political matter, however, we think it’s better to change positions than to try to defend the intellectually indefensible.

Mr. Romney is not taking our advice, as his nearby letter shows. He even said yesterday that he would do it all over again in Massachusetts, which means he is in for a year in which Republicans attack him on policy while Democrats defend him on policy but attack him as a hypocrite. Who knows what GOP voters will make of all this, but we won’t be surprised if Mr. Romney’s campaign suffers as many broken bones (433) as Knievel.

Ouch!

Michael F. Cannon from the CATO Institute was also brutal:

In his much-heralded health care address in Michigan today, former Massachusetts governor (and Republican presidential hopeful) Mitt Romney made news by offering… absolutely nothing new.

Rather than admit that RomneyCare was a mistake, Romney once again defended the individual mandate he imposed in Massachusetts, calling it “what I believe is right for Massachusetts.” Why? Because Massachusetts had a free-rider problem. Never mind that all states have a free-rider problem. (So why is it not the solution for other states, too?) Never mind the indications that Massachusetts’s free-rider problem is getting worse, not better, under RomneyCare. His defense of his individual mandate was indistinguishable from those delivered by countless ObamaCare zombies.

It’s almost as if Mandate Mitt is keeping the hypocrisy alive because he’s afraid no one will pay attention to him once it’s gone.

The only novelty I saw was when he admitted that RomneyCare has become a political liability. Not enough of one, evidently.

Everyone is saying the same thing: As “smart” as Mitt Romney is, he seems to lack basic intelligence and common sense. One of the continuing themes over the past few years, as RomneyCare’s full destructive power has become more understandable, is Romney and his fans blaming those “rascally democrats” for messing with Mitt’s brilliant plan. This really calls into question whether or not Romney understands how government actually works.

If Romney didn’t get that allowing the camel’s nose under the tent, the liberal’s foot in the door, by creating RomneyCare, would lead to nothing but disaster, then why is anyone considering him a serious candidate for anything but retirement from the political world?

Romney has now taken to saying that HE, and evidently only HE, is capable of running such a magnificent plan.

If only us rubes would understand.

The speech itself was arrogant and very combative. That’s understandable. Here’s a cat trying to defend the indefensible, while at the same time trying to keep an inviable candidacy alive.

Now it would be easy to continue to shake one’s head in disbelief, wondering how Romney got this far in life, but that’s honestly the wrong message here.

Jennifer Rubin got it right. Romney is a technocrat. A central planner in the very best tradition of any Big Government Statist, be they socialist or communist.

This is the entire democrat party philosophy in a nut shell. A centrally planned government, where a handful of people in Washington control every single aspect of one’s lives. They tell you what to eat, what to drink, what to drive, what kind of light bulbs you can have, and even the kind of toilet you must use. I suspect at some point they’ll tell you WHEN you can use it, as well.

The bottom line is Mitt Romney is the “little intellectual elite” that Ronald Reagan warned the nation about in his iconic 1964 speech. BTW, so are guys like Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, and Mitch Daniels, all of whom have embraced something similar to RomneyCare at one point or another.

Daniels has a mini RomneyCare in place. Pawlenty lusted after one until it became political suicide. [Sort of like his cap and tax legislation that Minnesota is trying to repeal] Gingrich is still in the process of “nuancing” his love for the individual mandate.

Let me leave readers, especially those who even remotely think Mitt Romney, or the other candidates mentioned above, are worthy of consideration, with this from Ronald Reagan. I suggest you listen to the entire speech, every second of it.

Though he was talking about democrats [and it still applies to them today] he’s describing modern day establishment Republicans perfectly: