Tea Party Patriots Ordinary citizens reclaiming America's founding principles.

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

-- Ohio Health Care Compact Web Site Launched -- Help Secure Health Care Freedom in Ohio

Introduced into the Ohio Senate earlier this year, efforts by Tea Party Patriot groups in Ohio to enact a Health Care Compact were put on hold so as not to confuse or undermine efforts to pass Issue 3, the Ohio Health Care Freedom Amendment.

Now that Issue 3 has passed with a mandate in all 88 counties, and the voters of our state have clearly stated their support for health care freedom in Ohio, it is time to take the second step in securing true health care freedom for Ohio -- with the Ohio Health Care Compact.

As part of a 50 state initiative between the Health Care Compact Alliance and the Tea Party Patriots, Health Care Compacts have already been passed in 4 states (TX, MO, GA & OK ) and have been introduced in 11 other states, including the Ohio Health Care Compact.

To learn more about the Ohio Health Care Compact and how you can help fight to secure a true health care freedom in Ohio go to www.ohiohealthcarecompact.com.  

Health Care Policy is about who & what is covered.
The Health Care Compact is about who decides.
And Ohio should decide what is best for Ohio!

Thursday, November 24, 2011

The Politically Incorrect Story of Thanksgiving

At this special time of year when we give thanks, it is important that we recognize the true origins of Thanksgiving.

With Happy Thanksgiving wishes to you, your family and your loved ones from the Cleveland Tea Party Patriots, the below story gives a politically incorrect but accurate history of Thanksgiving...

By Richard J. Maybury

Each year at this time school children all over America are taught the official Thanksgiving story, and newspapers, radio, TV, and magazines devote vast amounts of time and space to it. It is all very colorful and fascinating.

It is also very deceiving. This official story is nothing like what really happened. It is a fairy tale, a whitewashed and sanitized collection of half-truths which divert attent ion away from Thanksgiving's real meaning.

The official story has the pilgrims boarding the Mayflower, coming to America and establishing the Plymouth colony in the winter of 1620-21. This first winter is hard, and half the colonists die. But the survivors are hard working and tenacious, and they learn new farming techniques from the Indians. The harvest of 1621 is bountiful. The Pilgrims hold a celebration, and give thanks to God. They are grateful for the wonderful new abundant land He has given them.

The official story then has the Pilgrims living more or less happily ever after, each year repeating the first Thanksgiving. Other early colonies also have hard times at first, but they soon prosper and adopt the annual tradition of giving thanks for this prosperous new land called America.

The problem with this official story is that the harvest of 1621 was not bountiful, nor were the colonists hardworking or tenacious. 1621 was a famine year and many of the colonists were lazy thieves.

In his 'History of Plymouth Plantation,' the governor of the colony, William Bradford, reported that the colonists went hungry for years, because they refused to work in the fields. They preferred instead to steal food. He says the colony was riddled with "corruption," and with "confusion and discontent."    [Socialism always has corruption to gain power, confusion to deceive and discontent because it is so harmful, causing the people to suffer] The crops were small because "much was stolen both by night and day, before it became scarce eatable."

In the harvest feasts of 1621 and 1622, "all had their hungry bellies filled," but only briefly. The prevailing condition during those years was not the abundance the official story claims, it was famine and death. The first "Thanksgiving" was not so much a celebration as it was the last meal of condemned men.

But in subsequent years something changes. The harvest of 1623 was different. Suddenly, "instead of famine now God gave them plenty," Bradford wrote, & quot andthe face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many, for which they blessed God." Thereafter, he wrote, "any general want or famine hath not been amongst them since to this day." In fact, in 1624, so much food was produced that the colonists were able to begin exporting corn.
What happened?

After the poor harvest of 1622, writes Bradford, "they began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could, and obtain a better crop." They began to question their form of economic organization.

This had required that "all profits & benefits that are got by trade, working, fishing, or any other means" were to be placed in the common stock of the colony, and that, "all such persons as are of this colony, are to have their meat, drink, apparel, and all provisions out of the common stock." A person was to put into the common stock all he could, and take out only what he needed.

This "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" was an early form of socialism, and it is why the Pilgrims were starving. Bradford writes that "young men that are most able and fit for labor and service" complained about being forced to "spend their time and strength to work for other men's wives and children." Also, "the strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes, than he that was weak." So the young and strong refused to work and the total amount of food produced was never adequate.

To rectify this situation, in 1623 Bradford abolished socialism. He gave each household a parcel of land and told them they could keep what they produced, or trade it away as they saw fit. In other words, he replaced socialism with a free market, and that was the end of famines.

Many early groups of colonists set up socialist states, all with the same terrible results. At Jamestown, esta blished in 1607, out of every shipload of settlers that arrived, less than half would survive their first twelve months in America. Most of the work was being done by only one-fifth of the men, the other four-fifths choosing to be parasites. In the winter of 1609-10, called "The Starving Time," the population fell from five-hundred to sixty.

Then the Jamestown colony was converted to a free market, and the results were every bit as dramatic as those at Plymouth. In 1614, Colony Secretary Ralph Hamor wrote that after the switch there was "plenty of food, which every man by his own industry may easily and doth procure." He said that when the socialist system had prevailed, "we reaped not so much corn from the labors of thirty men as three men have done for themselves now."

Before these free markets were established, the colonists had nothing for which to be thankful. They were in the same situation as Ethiopians are today, and for th e same reasons. But after free markets were established, the resulting abundance was so dramatic that the annual Thanksgiving celebrations became common throughout the colonies, and in 1863, Thanksgiving became a national holiday.

Thus the real reason for Thanksgiving, deleted from the official story, is: Socialism does not work; the one and only source of abundance is free markets, and we thank God we live in a country where we can have them.
Happy Thanksgiving

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Is Sen. Rob Portman making backroom deals with Sen Sherrod Brown over new Consumer Czar?

According to a recent article on Big Government, Senator Rob Portman may be breaking ranks with his party by voting to confirm the former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray as the first director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), or in more accurate terms -- Consumer Financial Protection Czar.

The director of the CFPB is empowered to regulate almost any industry for any reason and cannot be removed for any reason other than malfeasance. The position is a five-year term, so the next president will have to deal with Cordray regulating our economy, despite the president’s wishes.

Many Conservatives are wondering why Portman would join Senate liberals in supporting Cordray, who has shown himself to be an extremely liberal Progressive. The below article indicates Portman may also be facing pressure and making backroom deals with Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) to confirm Cordray, which is why it is imperative that we let Senator Portman know that we will not stand for this outrageous betrayal of conservative values.

Please contact Senator Portman and demand that he vote against the appointment of Richard Cordray for director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Senator Rob Portman
D.C. Office Phone: 202-224-3353
Local Office Phone: 513-684-3265
Twitter: @robportman

From Big Government --

In the pitched battle over whether government should take over our health care system, a group of pro-life Democrat congressmen held the line to oppose the legislation because they knew the bill authorized funding for abortion.  Under intense pressure from the president and their pro-choice comrades in the Congress, the group, led by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) flip-flopped when they received a letter from the president ensuring that government would not spend money for abortion.  They were had.
Now Sen. Rob Portman appears ready to “pull a Stupak.”  Under pressure from Democrat Sen. Sherrod  Brown, Portman appears ready to cut a deal to confirm former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to a five-year term to head the super-regulatory agency known as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

Word on Capitol Hill is that Portman has assured Cordray he has no problems with his nomination and is asking for assurances that his concerns about the Bureau will be address – not in legislation, but in a letter.  Has Portman learned anything from the Stupak incident?  Apparently not.

Unlike Portman, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) is taking a principled stand against the creation of a new super regulatory agency and is not shaking in his boots.  Shelby has organized his colleagues who have pledged to oppose the nomination of Cordray or any other nominee unless the Bureau is reformed.  Unlike Portman, apparently, Shelby is smart enough to demand real statutory changes as opposed to “promised” changes.

The CFPB was structured in a way to give huge, and perhaps unconstitutional, power to its Director.  Alan Raul, who served as general counsel of the Office of Management and Budget and associate counsel to President Ronald Reagan, described the CFPB’s power as “an independent agency on steroids because Congress essentially exempted the director from any meaningful accountability or strong presidential oversight.”

As structured, the Director is empowered to regulate almost any industry for any reason and if Cordray is confirmed by the full Senate, would be given a five-year term and be removable only by malfeasance.  So if a Republican wins the presidential election, they would enjoy four years of Mr. Cordray regulating the economy, no matter what the president did or said.

Not only should the CFPB be reformed, it should be eliminated.  If Mr. Portman gets weak knees, he will ensure that another government regulatory agency – one with more power than most – will be around for a long time.
Please call Senator Portman and remind him he was not elected to make back room deals with Senator Sherrod Brown but to act with conservative conviction and integrity like Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL).

Senator Rob Portman
D.C. Office Phone: 202-224-3353
Local Office Phone: 513-684-3265
Twitter: @robportman

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

The Ohio Health Care Compact: The Second Step for Health Care Freedom in Ohio

Finally bringing the Constitutionality of Obamacare to an end the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear the lawsuits brought by 26 states and the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) sometime this spring.

Taking the first step towards healthcare freedom in Ohio and sending the U.S. Supreme Court a booming message against Obamacare, voters across the state -- Democrat, Republican and Independents alike -- passed the Ohio Healthcare Freedom Amendment with a mandate vote in all 88 counties.

Now it is time to take the second and most meaningful step in securing our Healthcare Freedom in Ohio! 

Regardless of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare, be it ruled Constitutional or Unconstitutional, the old healthcare system in our country was sorely lacking and clearly not working. 

An exciting & fast-growing 50 state initiative of the Tea Party Patriots & The Health Care Compact Alliance to enact Interstate Health Care Compacts, is the second step in securing true Healthcare freedom in Ohio. 

Health Care Compacts are quickly becoming a big hit for states looking to take back control of their health care and move the decision making process away from federal bureaucrats and closer to the people. These Constitutional Interstate Compacts (Article 1 Section 10) for Healthcare shift the responsibility of health care decisions closer to the people will give the states more flexibility in combating the rising costs of medicaid/medicare and health care in general.

The Health Care Compact has been introduced in 14 states and has passed the State House of Representatives in Montana and Colorado.  In more than 36 states, citizen groups and state legislators are actively considering the Health Care Compact.  In addition, the Governors for the states of Georgia, Oklahoma, Missouri & Texas have already signed the Health Care Compact into law.

Ready to take the second step in securing Health Care Freedom in Ohio, the Ohio Health Care Compact (SB 189) has already been introduced in the Ohio Senate (Click to read the full text).

To learn more about the Tea Party Patriots Ohio Health Care Compact efforts and how you can help, please click here
*Note - For more information or to set up an interview with the board of the Health Care Compact Alliance or a local Ohio supporter of the Compact please contact Marianne Gasiecki or Gary Young at Ohiohcc@gmail.com.

Sunday, November 13, 2011

Real Cuts vs Fake Cuts

With the deadline for the Super Committee fast approaching Tea Party Patriots have put together this little clip to explain real cuts vs fake cuts.  As witnessed in the fights over the Debt Ceiling increase and Continuing Resolutions, the definition of "spending cuts" is much different in D.C. than it is in the real world in which we live.

In D.C. a spending cut is defined as spending less than they were GOING to spend, in the real world a spending cut is defined as spending less than you ARE spending....

It’s as simple as that. So when the Super Committee (or any politician) comes out with a plan, look at the summary tables at the back of the plan, after it’s published. Look at the level of spending at the start of the timeline, and look at the level of spending at the end of the timeline (the timeline is usually ten years).  If the number they end up with is smaller than the number they started with, that’s a REAL CUT. If the number they end up with is bigger than the number they started with, that’s a fake cut, a.k.a. business as usual.  
Don’t allow the politicians to use gimmicks to lie to you. When you hear the inevitable outcry about Drastic Cuts® destroying the country, you first must look at the numbers and check to see if they increase or decrease.

Click Here for contact info on members of the Super Committee and tell them you want REAL cuts!

Contact the "Super Committee"

The “Super Committee” was formed as a condition to the “Debt Ceiling” debate, this past late-summer’s effort to increase federal spending authority for the president without really saying so. We believe it is an unconstitutional construct, but it is there and we have to deal with it.

This Super Committee, comprised of twelve Congressmen (six from each party; half from the House and half from the Senate) was tasked to reduce the deficit. If the Super Committee does not come to bi-partisan terms, and Congress fails to pass the recommendations they propose, automatic “cuts” kick in.

Democrats are looking to pass $1.3 trillion in tax increases, with a similar amount in cuts, over the next 10 years. As usual, especially with the likes of Sen. John Kerry and Sen. Patty Murray sitting on this Super Committee, the Democrats are pushing for more spending on top of the tax increases. The same game plan they have been preaching for the last 3 years.

For a good analysis on the Super Committee, see this from The Heritage Foundation.
It appears that those involved are NOT attempting to look for real cuts. And any cuts to Medicare/Medicaid will be overturned as soon as the next Congress convenes.

Republicans offer to cut deficits by about $2.2 trillion over a decade; about one-third of that coming from increases in items such as Medicare premiums, the sale of public lands and airport fees -- measures that increase government revenue without raising taxes. The GOP plan also assumes that tax reform would generate economic growth that would also lift revenues.

The GOP plan would also cut about $500 billion from Medicare over the next decade and $185 billion from Medicaid, officials said.

Democrats say that elsewhere in the budget they plan to reduce deficits by more than $3 trillion over the coming decade, while financing a $450 billion jobs bill along the lines that President Barack Obama is recommending. The same worthless “jobs bill” that was defeated in the Senate.

Tea Party Patriots has railed over the last 2 ½ years - Reduce the size of government; Slash spending and Repeal Obamacare - for trillions in savings!

Credit rating agencies, yet again, have stated emphatically that nothing less than $4 to $5 trillion in spending cuts will stem another downgrade in the U.S. credit rating... but, apparently, members of the Super Committee believe their half-baked ideas (that they know will be rejected) will lead to some sort of consensus (and maybe political gain) in 2012?

Write to the Super Committee - but don’t just stop there; e-mail, phone, fax, and tweet!

Whatever you can do - create a presence, from Tea Party Patriots groups all across the country!

The lobbyists are all there, waiting to add more dollars to Super Committee members’ campaign coffers! We have millions of members, enthusiastic Patriots who stand for their Country, NOT Party! Put pressure on them for: NO increase in ANY taxes, and CUT spending, PERIOD!

“Super Committee” Members

Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) Committee Co-Chair
Twitter: @RepHensarling
Phone: 202-225-3484
Fax: 202-226-4888

Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) Committee Co-Chair
Twitter: @PattyMurray
Phone: 202-224-2621
Fax: 202-224-0238
Toll Free: 866-481-9186

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD)
Twitter: @ChrisVanHollen
Phone: 202-225-5341
Fax: 202-225-0375

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
Twitter: @SenJonKyl
Phone: 202-224-4521
Fax: 202-224-2207

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA)
Twitter: @JohnKerry
Phone: 202-224-2742

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA)
Twitter: @SenToomey
Phone: 202-224-4254
Fax: 202-228-0284

Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT)
Phone: 202-224-2651
Fax: 202-224-9412

Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH)
Twitter: @robportman
Phone: 202-224-3353
Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA)
Twitter: @RepBecerra
Phone: 202-225-6235

Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI)
Phone: 202-225-3561
Fax: 202-225-9679

Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC)
Twitter: @Clyburn
Phone: 202-225-3315
Fax: 202-225-2313

Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI)
Twitter: @RepFredUpton
Phone: 202-225-3761
Fax: 202-225-4986

Tweeting to the Super Committee, should have a # setup... Example below-
@RepHensarling #SuperCommittee – NO tax inc., CUT spending #tpp
@RepHensarling #SuperCommittee - Repeal Obamacare, Save $2T #tpp

Friday, November 4, 2011

Call Your Senator; Repeal the CLASS Act


A few weeks ago the bipartisan majority on the Democrat led Senate Appropriations Committee voted to defund part of the ObamCare law, the CLASS Act. The head of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, and other Administrative wonks finally realized that the unsustainable program would be an albatross around their necks if they didn’t shelve it now.

However, it is not gone, just merely waiting in the background for some new infusion of taxpayer cash, to once again forge creative financing for the current Administration. This is where the “savings” in the ObamaCare bill came from and now it is finally out and for the whole nation to see the enormous failure of this program.

Polls are continuing to show that the law is going out of favor with most people as the following Reuters article highlighted...

(Reuters) - Americans' opinion of President Barack Obama's healthcare reform in October reached its lowest point since the law passed in March 2010, according to a monthly poll by the non-profit, non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation.

The view of the law has been roughly evenly split since its passage, but in October 51 percent said they had an unfavorable opinion, while 34 percent said their opinion was favorable, poll results released on Friday showed.

Although Democrats were still much likelier to view the law favorably than Republicans or independents, the percentage of Democrats who said they and their families were better off under the healthcare law dropped significantly to 27 percent in October from 43 percent in September.
Yesterday on the Senate floor Senators Barrasso (WY), Thune (SD) and Sessions (AL) were discussing the need to repeal this program altogether and they  are right. Now is the time to get rid of another failed government program that would have only been yet another taxpayer subsidized program for years to come. Richard Foster the long time actuary for the government said this was a “recipe for disaster” and as such the Administration finally cried “uncle” and defunded it, so why would we keep it around in any form?

 Let’s see government shrink by at least one failed program and find out who the real heroes are in Congress by asking all of our Senators to Repeal the CLASS ACT now!
Call Senator Brown & Senator Portman and ask them to support S720 to
Repeal the CLASS Act.

Senator Sherrod Brown

Cleveland Office PH: (216) 522-7272
Cleveland Office Fax: (216) 522-2239

D.C. Office PH: (202) 224-2315
D.C. Office Fax: (202)228-6321
Email: http://brown.senate.gov/contact/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/sensherrodbrown

Senator Rob Portman

Will the U.S. become a Medicaid Nation?

From NewsMax --

America is in danger of becoming a Medicaid nation. It will bankrupt our government, make private health plans unaffordable, and rob the elderly of the care they've been counting on.

The Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction — the supercommittee — should repeal the vast expansion of Medicaid enacted just 18 months ago as part of President Barack Obama's health law. That brand new entitlement, not in effect yet, threatens the nation’s future solvency.

The Obama health law converted Medicaid from a safety net to a permanent health entitlement in place of private insurance. A decade from now, when the temporary surge in Medicare demand caused by the baby boom generation subsides, Medicaid will cost more than Medicare and continue to grow.

According to actuaries from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (Health Affairs, July 28), Medicaid spending will increase faster than Medicare spending even in the coming decade, and the two programs will cost about the same by 2020. That’s amazing, considering the wave of baby boomers entering Medicare.

Medicaid spending will top $900 billion in 2020 (state and federal funds) up from $343 billion in the last year of the George W. Bush administration. The Obama health law makes more people eligible and increases benefits.

The president promised to reduce the number of uninsured by making health plans more affordable. But twice as many of the uninsured will gain coverage by enrolling in Medicaid as in private health plans. The actuaries estimate that Medicaid enrollment will reach 75 million people in 2014.

In addition, the actuaries cautioned that some workers and their families will be forced into Medicaid, when large employers drop coverage and choose to pay the $2,000 penalty, a mere pittance compared with the expense of providing what the Obama health law deems “essential” coverage.

McKinsey & Co., management consultants, found that 30 to 50 percent of employers polled were considering dropping coverage in 2014; Towers Watson, another consulting firm, found 9 percent and Lockton Benefit Group reported 19 percent of its middle-market clients likely to drop coverage.

When employers stop providing insurance, workers with household incomes below 138 percent of poverty ($30,500 for a household of four) will qualify for Medicaid. The Medicaid rolls could swell beyond the actuaries’ already alarming predictions.

The more Medicaid is expanded, the more the costs are shifted onto private health plan premiums. Medicaid shortchanges hospitals and doctors, paying only about 86 cents for every dollar of care delivered. Doctors and hospitals make do by shifting the cost onto patients with private coverage, pushing up their premiums.

The 9 percent premium hike employers experienced this year is partly due to the increase in Medicaid rolls during the downturn. The cost shifting will get much worse in 2014.

To avert these unintended consequences, the Medicaid expansion should be repealed. The Supercommittee should target Medicaid, not Medicare.

Keep in mind that the Obama health law reduced future Medicare funding by over $500 billion, largely by slashing what hospitals and doctors will be paid to care for seniors. At that time, CMS Chief Actuary Richard Foster cautioned Congress that these cuts are so severe that some hospitals may be forced to stop accepting Medicare. Then the debt hike deal signed this Aug. 2 cut another 2 percent from payment rates to care for seniors.

Now the president’s deficit reduction proposal calls for a third round of reductions, this time by $248 billion, including even further reductions in what doctors and hospitals are paid to care for seniors.

The more Medicare reimbursement rates are cut, the less likely it is that doctors and hospitals can afford to provide hip replacements, bypass surgeries, cataract operations, and the other procedures that have transformed the experience of aging.

The president’s rhetoric makes him sound like a defender of the elderly. He threatened to “veto any bill that takes one dime from Medicare benefits seniors rely on without asking the wealthiest Americans and biggest corporations to pay their fair share.”

But numbers tell the truth. The president is robbing Grandma to spread the wealth by radically expanding the Medicaid entitlement.

Democrats Backdoor Elderly to provide Healthcare for Illegal Immigrants

Just like they did in the Debt Ceiling fight, the Democrats in D.C. are stooping to their usual low and are again using scare tactics on the elderly. While ignoring the truth is something they do well, the calls for no cuts in Medicaid/Medicare spending by the Democrats in D.C. -- are NOT because of their concern over the elderly.

With the Supercommittee deadline fast approaching the Democrats in D.C. are playing both sides and coyly hiding behind their calls for no cuts in Medicare/Medicaid, or any other social services for the matter. 

In fact, and truth be told -- they do not want any cuts in Medicaid/Medicare not because it will hurt the elderly, but because these cuts may negatively impact their plans for Community Health Centers that will serve illegal immigrants...

From NewsMax --

Again we see the left pulling the emotional heartstrings and victimizing the elderly by using scare  tactics to

The culture war is moving from when life begins to how it should end. Like a drum beat, supporters of the Obama agenda are protesting that the elderly are consuming too many health resources, and their care needs to be cut back.

The current target of this unrelenting campaign against the elderly is the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, which is charged with devising a plan to reduce federal deficit spending by Nov. 23.

Among those calling for less care for seniors is H. Gilbert Welch of Dartmouth Medical College.

“If you were hoping to play the ‘death panel’ card, now’s your chance,” Welch says to his critics. “But don’t play it and then pretend you care about the budget.”

That brazen statement — pitting grandma's well-being against the nation's fiscal health — is a false choice. Future federal healthcare spending can be significantly reduced by repealing the expansion of Medicaid and the billions poured into medical and interpreter services for illegal immigrants under the Obama health law before these provisions go into effect.

The Obama health law, enacted 18 months ago, raided Medicare to fund new entitlements for low-income groups — in essence, robbing grandma to spread the wealth.

The law reduces future funding for Medicare by $575 billion over 10 years, and applies most of it ($410 billion) to increase Medicaid enrollment and benefits. The Obama health law transforms Medicaid from a temporary safety net to a permanent alternative to private health insurance.

Medicaid spending will top $900 billion in 2020 (state and federal funds), costing about the same as Medicare. That’s amazing considering the wave of baby boomers entering Medicare in this decade.

In addition to expanding Medicaid, and contrary to the president's promise, the new law allocates billions of dollars to expand services largely for illegal immigrants, including $11 billion for community health centers serving those ineligible for Medicaid. Why should grandma's care be cut to free up resources for lawbreakers?

This year the Department of Health and Human Services announced an Action Plan to increase spending on “promotores” or “trusted local people to serve as community health workers” and software for people with limited English to enroll in government programs.

Cuts to Medicare are not about reducing federal spending. They are about redistributing healthcare.

You ask what are these Community Health Centers? The Department of Health & Human Services at the future expense of Medicaid/Medicare for the elderly just funded 67 of them for an initial cost of $28.8 million...

From CNSNews -- (Emphasis Added)

Even if (when) the U.S. Supreme Court rules Obamacare to be Unconstitutional, the ruling will have a hard time defunding programs such as these. The elected elite in D.C.will just look for other ways to continue funding for these Obamacare-born Community Health Centers at the expense of the elderly in this country for the benefit of illegal immigrants.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced on Tuesday that it has awarded $28.8 million to 67 community health centers with funds from the Obamacare health reform law.

Of that $28.8 million, "approximately $8.5 million will be used by 25 New Access Point awardees to target services to migrant and seasonal farm workers," Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Spokeswoman Judy Andrews told CNSNews.com. HRSA is a part of HHS.

Andrews said that grant recipients will not check the immigration status of people seeking services.

“Health centers do not, as a matter of routine practice, ask about or collect data on citizenship or other matters not related to the treatment needs of the patients seeking health services at the center,” Andrews said.

Further, the grant recipients are required to serve "all residents" who walk through their doors.

“The Program’s authorizing statute does not affirmatively address immigration status,” said Andrews. “Rather, it simply states that health centers are required to provide primary health care to all residents of the health center's service area without regard for ability to pay.”

These Obamacare disbursements seem to contradict a claim President Obama famously made in a nationally televised speech to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 9, 2009.

“The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally,” Obama said then. More...

Thursday, November 3, 2011

Take Action: Balanced Budget Amendment

Speaker Boehner is considering which Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) to bring to the floor for a vote. There are two versions. Read about them below.

The “Clean” Version
  • Does not cap spending as a percentage of GDP
  • Does not require a super majority to raise taxes
  • Will undoubtedly lead to tax increases & bigger & bigger government
The Strong Versions
  • Cap spending as a percentage of GDP
  • Some require a super majority to raise taxes, some do not
  • Due to the cap, will prioritize cutting spending before ever raising taxes
More details about the variations of the BBA are below this call to action.

The bottom line is this: The clean version will get more votes, making it more “bipartisan.” The strong version will get fewer votes because it takes a more principled, fiscally responsible stand, but we are talking about amending our Constitution! We should never amend our Constitution out of expediency!

There has been some serious concern expressed about amending our Constitution in our discussions of a BBA, but you have overwhelmingly said that that if there is a vote on a BBA, you want Congress to vote for something that is meaningful and is not just a tactical move leading into an election year to get votes.

Congressman Paul Ryan told some of our National Support Team yesterday that he is committed to a strong version; he is on record as only supporting a strong Balanced Budget Amendment. The top 3 in GOP Leadership are not so committed to a strong version.

With all this in mind, here is what you need to do today:
  1. If you can only make one call, call Congressman Paul Ryan and thank him for his commitment to principle on the seriousness of amending the Constitution and sticking to a "strong" Balanced Budget Amendment. We must support people who stand strong!
    Paul Ryan: (202) 225-3031
  2. Call Speaker Boehner, Congressmen Cantor and McCarthy and tell them that if they are bringing a BBA to the floor for a vote, it needs to be the “strong” version with spending caps.
    Speaker Boehner: (202) 225-6205
    Eric Cantor: (202) 225-2815
    Kevin McCarthy: (202) 225-2915 ashington DC Web Development Company for WordPress, Drupal.
Site by Govtrends

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Support Transparency in Government

From Open Secrets --

Transparency lovers, take note: now you can fight to make the campaign finance system more  open and publicly accessible right from OpenSecrets.org.

The Center for Responsive Politics has integrated a new, user-friendly tool that allows constituents to write and urge their members of Congress to support the issues and legislation that matter most to them. The tool, called POPVOX, is now available in the Action Center on OpenSecrets.org.

With this feature, you can write to lawmakers in support of three pieces of transparency-oriented legislation:
  • S. 219, the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act: This bill would require all U.S. senators and candidates for the Upper Chamber to electronically file their fund-raising reports. The Center supports this measure because it would expedite public disclosure of senators' fund-raising records. (Senators are currently the only lawmakers not required by law to file their reports electronically.)
  • H.R. 1974, the Access to Congressionally Mandated Reports Act: This legislation would collect all congressionally mandated reports and make them available to the public online. The bill would make available all fact-seeking reports Congress requires federal agencies to produce by putting them all on one publicly accessible website.
  • H.R. 2571, the Transparency in Government Act: This broad legislative effort is intended to make the work of Congress and the executive branch more transparent through laws and regulations that would bring information online in a timely manner. H.R. 2571 is an amalgamation of different bills, and it would create historic changes in the way the two of our branches of government provide information to the public.
In the OpenSecrets.org Action Center, you will now be prompted with this feature, which allows you to write to your elected representatives.