Posted by Jim Bobier on 03/29/10 Last updated 03/29/10
As Will Rogers used to quip, "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble; it's what you know that ain't so."
How true this rings for the infamous health care bill that was just rammed through Congress one week ago. Before breaking for a 2 week recess, Speaker Nancy Pelosi instructed her returning house representatives to go home and promote how wonderful this new health care bill is.
It won't take much effort by voters to see through this misleading promotion. One key item that absolutely can not be claimed is that Obama Care does not promote abortion. Although, Representative Bart Stupak put up false illusions for weeks that he would hold out for legal language prohibiting government funding for abortions, a video clip from last fall shows him explaining that while he would put forth an effort, in the end would support Obama Care anyway. http://tinyurl.com/stupak-ok
It is also significant that the National Right to Life Committee sent a letter to all House Representatives on March 19th clarifying that "there is nothing in the Senate bill remotely resembling the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, added to H.R. 3962 by the House of Representatives on November 7, 2009 http://tinyurl.com/MCCL-Letter
Instead Representative Stupak capitulated and lead his alleged pro-life group to vote for, what the MCCL describes as "the most expansively pro-abortion legislation ever to come before the House of Representatives, since Roe v. Wade".
Can Ms. Pelosi explain why we should trust President Obama's claim that his Executive order, for Mr. Stupak, on March 24th will prevent abortions or restore much-needed conscience protections for pro-life medical workers? Consider that, court cases such as Commerce of U.S. v Reich and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld have made it pretty clear that such an executive order is not likely to survive a legal challenge, as many pro-life groups have warned. Remember also, that this same President issued an earlier Executive order, within days of assuming office on 1/23/2009 that overturned the 'Mexico City Policy' that was first implemented by Reagan. This policy prohibited funding to international family planning groups that provides abortion services. As a taxpayer, I am absolutely against taking my tax proceeds and using them for a purpose so diametrically opposed to my Christian values. http://tinyurl.com/mexico-order
I completely agree that the US health care system needs significant improvement. However, I vehemently reject tying any health care changes to a major pro-abortion initiative such as the Obama Care bill passed last weekend. I ask my fellow citizens to join me in confronting our returning senators and representatives about this underhanded approach and further perpetuating these misleading claims about this bill. Representative Jim Oberstar should be especially called to task for his supporting vote and participation in the private signing ceremony for the Executive order last week.
Throwing our unborn under the buss, with taxpayer funding, is no way to begin the restructuring of our health care system.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and the Free Enterprise Fund have challenged the constitutionality of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), created by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Last week, the Surpreme Court agreed to hear the case.
According to Christine Hall at CEI:
The Appointments Clause of the Constitution requires that "officers of the United States" be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. But the officers serving on the PCAOB, with tremendous power to impose criminal and civil penalties on people and companies accused of violating accounting regulations, were not appointed that way.
"The Founding Fathers wanted powerful government officials to be vetted by the President and the Senate, to help ensure agencies remain accountable to elected officials and ultimately the American people," said Sam Kazman, CEI General Counsel....
"The PCAOB has been very bad for the economy," said Hans Bader, a CEI attorney. "The biggest beneficiaries of the law have been the big accounting firms that failed to warn the public about Enron and similar scandals, which are charging record fees to help businesses comply with the mountain of red tape created by the PCAOB."
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 created the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, giving it authority to set accounting standards, impose its own set of taxes, and open investigations of accounting firms big and small. Yet unlike counterparts wielding similar authority, such as the IRS commissioner and Federal Reserve governors, PCAOB members are never vetted by the President or by the Senate, as neither of these bodies have a say in who will be appointed.
The PCAOB's interpretation of Sarbanes-Oxley's section 404 has cost public companies more than $35 billion a year, has proved especially burdensome to smaller public companies, and has cost the economy as a whole over a trillion dollars, according to a Brookings-AEI study....
In the following video, John Berlau, Director of the Center for Investors & Entrepreneurs, explains Sarbanes-Oxley and discusses its horrible effect on businesses.
From Archie Woodworth Hutchinson OK. I know I’m not the brightest bulb in the crayon box, so can someone help me out here?
Where’s the change? President Obama campaigned on the promises of “hope and change.” I’m starting to think those slogans went out the door just like Bush 41’s no-new-taxes promise.
I’m trying to keep an open mind, but so far all I’m seeing is an administration made up of the same old Washington insiders, Clinton era retreads and now, as we’re finding out, tax cheats who get special treatment from the IRS with no penalties or interest. So tell me if the “best and brightest” of Washington can’t even figure out how to pay their taxes, how are we mere mortals supposed to get it right?
And what about the “new deal”? To me it’s looking more and more like a “raw deal” (at least for those of us who actually pay taxes) and nothing more than a continuation of the Bush administration’s out of control spending and failed economic policies. Honestly, does any one other than the people in Washington really believe the fairy tale that we can actually spend our way both into oblivion and out of an economic crisis at the same time?
I don’t know what kind of Kool-Aid they’re on, but I’d sure like some. Because unlike our exalted leaders, I honestly don’t believe the economy, the country, or even “We the People,” will be able to withstand another four years of trazillion dollar deficit spending. I say trazillion because I can’t even begin to comprehend how much a trillion dollars actually is, not even after I Googled it. Yet our politicians throw that number around like it was toilet paper.
Yup, I can’t believe I’d ever hear myself say this, but I’m actually starting to look back fondly upon the Clinton era as the good old days. You know, the last great golden age of fiscal responsibility. Does anyone in Washington even know what that means anymore?
While former President Clinton may have had problems with his personal life, at least he managed to reign in government spending and he did a pretty good job of staying out of the way of the economy. Well, OK, maybe his reign wasn’t all that great, but compared to the out-of-control spending we’ve seen since then with the Bush and Obama administrations, maybe it actually was.
Posted by Jim Bobier on 03/04/09 Last updated 03/04/09
A conservative delegate from Pelican Lakes introduced me to this great 10-minute video about the 5 basic forms of government. I found this very enlightening and I hope you appreciate this explaination as much as I did.
My son's Scoutmaster really appreciated this so much that he is now incorporating this into his instructions for the Citizenship in the Nation merit badge.
Is there a "States' Rights" bill in your capital? It's about time that the states assert their rights and powers. Or, as I overheard it last week, 'to tell the feds to go pound sand.' I think that is more direct and easily understood, but probably doesn't qualify as standard statute jargon.
As long as the C4L is excited about this issue, maybe they could have a map on the home page to update these efforts. Different colors whether a states' rights bill has been introduced, and voted up or down in either chamber. I guess making a suggestion on a blog entry is one way to learn if they really read these.
Make sure Minnesota is colored brightly!
https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H0997.0.html&session=ls86
Campaign for Liberty is a 501(c)4 lobbying organization which neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office and claims no responsibility for the actions of individuals or groups of individuals who use the Campaign for Liberty logo or name or who may claim to act as representatives of the Campaign for Liberty without prior written consent of the Campaign for Liberty. [?]
Minnesota Region 7's RSS Feed
Regional Coordinator
Local Coordinator
