Posted at Disrupt the Narrative –

The RTD has a reader comment feature called Two Cents, where citizens can give brief opinions on a variety of topics.  Today’s RTD on Dead Tree had a great one from C. E. Herndon from Chester, VA.  I’d link it but my brief attempt at finding it on line proved fruitless. Democratic Party Chairman Tim Kaine claims the Tea Party movement will set this nation back 10 years.  Ten years ago, gas was $1.59 a gallon.I was getting 3 to 5 percent raises, my health insurance was $10 a week, and my 401(k) grew by hundreds.  And, there was no 9/11–we all felt safer then.  We didn’t have a president who went around the world bowing and apologizing because we are the greatest nation on Earth.  Thank you, Tim Kaine, for helping me to me make up my mind to join the Tea Party movement.

Read more:
Richmond Times Dispatch: Two Cents

- U.S. District Court Rejects Federal Government’s Motion to Dismiss Virginia’s Challenge of Constitutionality of Health Care Act –

RICHMOND – Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling issued the following statement in response to today’s ruling by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to deny the federal government’s motion to dismiss Virginia’s challenge to the constitutionality of a mandatory health insurance purchase requirement:

“I am delighted that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia rejected the Obama Administration’s motion to dismiss the health care suit filed by Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli on behalf of the people of Virginia. We continue to believe that the federal health care legislation is unconstitutional in a number of critical areas and this decision will allow those issues to be further litigated before the court.”

We learned last week  that a solar eclipse is a rare but beautiful convergence of heavenly bodies.  When we have here is a rare but ugly convergence of past and future that has deep implications for the 2012 election.

The Boston Globe is reporting that:

The relentlessly rising cost of health insurance is prompting some small Massachusetts companies to drop coverage for their workers and encourage them to sign up for state-subsidized care instead, a trend that, some analysts say, could eventually weigh heavily on the state’s already-stressed budget.

The trend is admittedly not clear and government officials say in effect don’t worry about it:

New Law Prompts Restaurants To Consider Laying Off Employees Or Dropping Their Health Coverage, Some Of “Which Began Offering Health Insurance To Workers In 1924”

“The White Castle Hamburger Chain Fears That A Health Insurance Reform Law Adopted Earlier This Year Will Put Its Profits On A Downward Slide.” (“Ohio Hamburger Chain Says Insurance Reform Will Bite Into Profits,” The [Cleveland] Plain Dealer, 7/4/2010)

“White Castle, Which Began Offering Health Insurance To Workers In 1924, Is Also Examining Whether It Would Make Financial Sense For The Company To Eliminate Health Insurance Coverage Altogether And Have All Its Employees Buy Insurance On The Federal Exchange, Says Richardson.” (“Ohio Hamburger Chain Says Insurance Reform Will Bite Into Profits,” The [Cleveland] Plain Dealer, 7/4/2010)

• “White Castle recognizes it won’t continue paying health insurance bills for workers who buy insurance on the federal exchange, but Richardson says the company predicts its insurance costs would still rise because its healthiest young employees, who make the least money, would be most likely to transfer to the federal program. An exodus of healthy workers from the company’s insurance plan would drive up costs for those who remain, the company forecasts.” (“Ohio Hamburger Chain Says Insurance Reform Will Bite Into Profits,” The [Cleveland] Plain Dealer, 7/4/2010)

“[National Council Of Chain Restaurants] Vice President Scott Vinson Says The Entire Restaurant Industry Will Have Trouble Dealing With Costs The Bill Imposes In 2014, including a $2,000-per-worker penalty that companies with more than 50 employees must pay if their workers end up purchasing federally subsidized insurance rather than getting insurance from their employers.” (“Ohio Hamburger Chain Says Insurance Reform Will Bite Into Profits,” The [Cleveland] Plain Dealer, 7/4/2010)

“George Ebinger Of New Jersey, Who Owns Several International House Of Pancakes Restaurants, Says The Penalties For Not Insuring His 140 Workers Will Cost Roughly Half As Much As Insuring Them. He Figures He Will Have To Raise Prices And Possibly Lay Off Workers To Come Up With The $220,000 He Anticipates The Penalties Will Cost.” (“Ohio Hamburger Chain Says Insurance Reform Will Bite Into Profits,” The [Cleveland] Plain Dealer, 7/4/2010)

• Owner Of Several IHOP Restaurants In New Jersey: “We Are Still Figuring Out How To Deal With This. . . . Ultimately, Either Businesses Will Close Or Consumers Will Pay More.” (“Ohio Hamburger Chain Says Insurance Reform Will Bite Into Profits,” The [Cleveland] Plain Dealer, 7/4/2010)

SENATE REPUBLICAN COMMUNICATIONS CENTER

Apparently, not even a weekend goes by without another story revealing yet another broken promise from President Obama on his massive, unpopular health care law.

During the year-long health care debate, Obama repeatedly emphasized, “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.” At one town hall meeting in North Carolina last summer, Obama said, “I have been as clear as I can be. Under the reform I’ve proposed, if you like your doctor, you keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you keep your health care plan. These folks need to stop scaring everybody. You know? … Nobody — nobody is talking about you forcing to have to change your plans. … And if you’ve got health insurance, we’re not going to ask you to change it.”

By now, the pattern is familiar: Friday evening the AP reported, “[A]n early draft of an administration regulation estimates that many employers will be forced to make changes to their health plans under the new law. In just three years, a majority of workers—51 percent—will be in plans subject to new federal requirements, according to the draft.” The New York Times went into a little more detail on Sunday, writing, “[I]n some respects, the rules appear to fall short of the sweeping commitments President Obama made while trying to reassure the public in the fight over health legislation. In issuing the rules, the administration said this was just one goal of the legislation, allowing people to ‘keep their current coverage if they like it.’ It acknowledged that some people, especially those who work at smaller businesses, might face significant changes in the terms of their coverage, and it said they should be able to ‘reap the benefits of additional consumer protections.’”

Of course, this comes on top of other recent reports on how the health care law is expected to fall far short of the president’s pledges. Last week, Politico reported that low-cost health care plans relied on by many part-time workers and retail and restaurant employees use could be outlawed under the bill, which “could strip more than 1 million people of their insurance coverage.” And in May, it Fortune Magazine reported, “[M]any large companies are examining a course that was heretofore unthinkable, dumping the health care coverage they provide to their workers in exchange for paying penalty fees to the government.”

As Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell told the AP, “Since its passage, Republican arguments against the [health care] bill have been repeatedly vindicated, even as the administration’s many promises about the bill have been called into question again and again.”

Americans opposed this bill before it was passed and the steady flow of stories not only confirming all of the GOP’s critiques but highlighting its failure to live up to the administration’s promises almost assures the public will continue to dislike the legislation. Certainly, recent polls show little change in Americans’ attitudes toward the law. It should be repealed and replaced with real, responsible reforms that don’t pile more debt on the $13 trillion the country already owes.

Source: Senate Communications Center

The Centerpiece Of The Obama Health Care Sales Job Is Proven False After Months Of Promises That “If You Like Your Plan, You Can Keep Your Plan”

RHETORIC: “Nobody Is Talking About You Forcing To Have To Change Your Plans”

PRESIDENT OBAMA: “If You Like Your Plan, You Can Keep Your Plan.” (President Obama, Remarks On Health Care, 3/3/10)

PRESIDENT OBAMA: “I Have Been As Clear As I Can Be. Under The Reform I’ve Proposed, If You Like Your Doctor, You Keep Your Doctor. If You Like Your Health Care Plan, You Keep Your Health Care Plan. These Folks Need To Stop Scaring Everybody. You Know? … Nobody — Nobody Is Talking About You Forcing To Have To Change Your Plans. … And If You’ve Got Health Insurance, We’re Not Going To Ask You To Change It.” (President Obama, Town Hall Meeting, Raleigh, NC, 7/29/09)

REALITY: “Majority Of Workers … Will Be Forced To Make Changes To Their Health Plans Under The New Law”

AP: “Over And Over In The Health Care Debate, President Barack Obama Said People Who Like Their Current Coverage Would Be Able To Keep It. But An Early Draft Of An Administration Regulation Estimates That Many Employers Will Be Forced To Make Changes To Their Health Plans Under The New Law. In Just Three Years, A Majority Of Workers—51 Percent—Will Be In Plans Subject To New Federal Requirements, According To The Draft.” (“Health Overhaul To Force Changes In Employer Plans,” AP, 6/11/10)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Federal government responds to Virginia’s lawsuit over health care law

NOTE: AUDIO and VIDEO clips from the attorney general’s announcement will be available online Tuesday at 8:30 am EDT for download at http://www.vaag.com/PRESS_RELEASES/index.html.  You can find a copy of the federal government’s response there, as well.

RICHMOND, VA (May 24, 2010) – The federal government responded today to Virginia’s lawsuit over the recently enacted federal health care law with a motion to dismiss the suit.

“We are still looking through the motion and 39-page brief that we received late Monday, but at initial glance, this is pretty close to what we expected,” said Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.

In the motion to dismiss the suit, the federal government argues:

• that as of matter of jurisdiction and procedure, Virginia has no right to bring this case now
• that Congress has the authority under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause to order Americans to buy health insurance
• that the health insurance mandate is lawful under the taxing power of Congress.

Cuccinelli and his team look forward to responding to the motion to dismiss by June 7.  The government then has until June 22 to reply to Virginia’s response.

“The federal government is forcing citizens to buy health insurance, claiming it has the authority to do so because of its power to regulate interstate commerce via the Constitution’s Commerce Clause.  We contend that if a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person – by definition – is not engaging in commerce, and should not be subject to a federal mandate,” said Cuccinelli.

Cuccinelli argued, “Just being alive is not interstate commerce.  If it were, there would be no limit to the Commerce Clause and to Congress’s authority to regulate everything we do.  If Congress has the power to force Americans to buy health insurance, then there’s nothing to stop Congress from forcing us to buy any product.”

In March, Virginia enacted the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act, which provides that the government cannot require Virginians to buy health insurance.   It was passed by an overwhelming bipartisan majority in the General Assembly (90 to 3 in the House and 25 to 15 in the Senate), and had the support of Governor Bob McDonnell.

The federal health care law, with its insurance mandate, creates a conflict of laws between the federal government and Virginia.  Since the attorney general of Virginia has a duty to defend validly enacted Virginia laws from any challenge, he filed suit in federal court seeking a declaration that the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act is constitutional and that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority by imposing the individual mandate.

The U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause usually allows federal law to trump state law.  But if a federal law is found unconstitutional while a conflicting state law is found constitutional, the state law will prevail.

The attorney general has offered support in the form of shared research to the other 19 states suing over the health care bill in Florida, but Virginia has not joined that case because of the direct conflict between Virginia’s law and the federal law.  Virginia has chosen to defend a Virginia statute in a federal court in Virginia.

The other duties of the attorney general’s office will continue as normal during this case.  No attorneys have been taken off any other sections, such as public safety, consumer protection, or Medicaid fraud, to work on this lawsuit.

The case is the Commonwealth of Virginia v. Kathleen Sebelius.  It is in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in Richmond.

Previous news releases on the case, as well as the text of Virginia’s lawsuit, can be found at http://www.vaag.com/PRESS_RELEASES/index.html

In another must-read fact check piece on the health care bill today, the AP writes, “Zach Hoffman was confident his small business would qualify for a new tax cut in President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul law. But when he ran the numbers, Hoffman discovered that his office furniture company wouldn’t get any assistance with the $79,200 it pays annually in premiums for its 24 employees. ‘It leaves you with this feeling of a bait-and-switch,’ he said.”

In a speech touting the his $2.6 trillion health care takeover at the beginning of April, President Obama said, “Starting Now, small business owners that provide health care for their workers can sit down at the end of the week, they can look at their expenses, and they can begin calculating how much money they’re going to save.” But when Zack Hoffman did just that, the AP points out, Hoffman found that “to get the most out of the new federal credit… he’d have to cut his work force to 10 employees and slash their wages.”

The AP explains, “Lost in the fine print: The credit drops off sharply once a company gets above 10 workers and $25,000 average annual wages. It’s an example of how the early provisions of the health care law can create winners and losers among groups lawmakers intended to help—people with health problems, families with young adult children and small businesses. Because of the law’s complexity, not everyone in a broadly similar situation will benefit.”

So we’ve now added yet another news story explaining that what Republicans warned would be the consequences of the Democrats’ massive, unpopular health care law are coming to pass. Last week, we learned from the CBO that the bill will cost $115 billion more than the original projections and from the Health and Human Services Department that “[l]etting young adults stay on their parents’ health insurance until they turn 26 will nudge premiums nearly 1 percent higher for employer plans,” according to another AP story. Earlier this month, CNNMoney reported, “An all-but-overlooked provision of the health reform law is threatening to swamp U.S. businesses with a flood of new tax paperwork.” And Fortune Magazine reported that thanks to the law, major companies are considering dumping their health care plans. A month after the bill was signed, it was reported 4 million Americans will be paying higher taxes and 2,500 people would lose their jobs because of the new law. And on and on.

All of these things were true before the bill was passed and signed into law. Republicans warned about all these consequences. But where was the press coverage of all of these problems when it could have made a difference? Maybe this was what Democrats were afraid of in their rush to pass these bills. Over and over, Democrats would unveil a new version of their expensive bill and then rush it to a vote on a weekend or at night or during a snowstorm without adequate time for many to read the bill, let alone for studies of it. But that doesn’t excuse the lack of reporting, since almost all of these new reports contradict repeated claims by Democrats and the Obama administration about that bill.

As Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said today, “Speaker Pelosi told Americans we had to pass the health care bill so we could know what was in it. Now that Americans are learning what was buried in the fine print, they’re rightly upset. They see that small businesses are denied the help they were promised, while facing new job-killing taxes and government mandates. And they’ve learned that health care costs will go up, not down, as the administration and Democrats in Congress promised. Mr. President, Americans want this bill repealed and replaced with something that will work for people like Zach Hoffman and all of our nation’s job creators and small businesses.”

HHS: Health Spending Law Will Result In Higher Premiums

PRESIDENT OBAMA: “We [Senate Democrats And The Administration] Agree On Reforms That Will Finally Reduce The Costs Of Health Care. Families Will Save On Their Premiums.” (President Obama, Remarks After Meeting With Senate Democrats, 12/15/09)

DESPITE PRESIDENT’S PLEDGE, HEALTH BILL WILL INCREASE FAMILIES’ PREMIUMS

“Letting Young Adults Stay On Their Parents’ Health Insurance Until They Turn 26 Will Nudge Premiums Nearly 1 Percent Higher For Employer Plans, The Government Said In An Estimate Released Monday.” (“New Coverage For Young Adults Will Raise Premiums,” The Associated Press, 5/10/10)

• “The Health And Human Services Department Released Estimates Of The Costs And Benefits Of The Requirement As Part Of A Regulation Directing Employers And Insurers How To Carry It Out.” (“New Coverage For Young Adults Will Raise Premiums,” The Associated Press, 5/10/10)

“The New Benefit Will Cost $3,380 For Each Dependent, Raising Premiums By 0.7 Percent In 2011 For Employer Plans, according to the department’s mid-range estimate. Some 1.2 million young adults are expected to sign up, more than half of whom would have been uninsured.” (“New Coverage For Young Adults Will Raise Premiums,” The Associated Press, 5/10/10)

Once again this week, Americans have seen how poorly the rhetoric of President Obama and Democrats in Congress matches up with reality. On unemployment and health care, Democrats’ promises have rung hollow and it’s apparent to anyone who read the news this week.

Today, the AP reports that 290,000 jobs were added over the last month, but that the unemployment rate also rose to 9.9% as many Americans continue to struggle to find work. It’s now been about 15 months since Democrats passed their $862 billion stimulus bill and unemployment continues to hover near 10%, even though key White House economic advisors predicted that the “unemployment rate with … the recovery plan [stimulus],” would not exceed 8%. In fact, according to the graph that accompanied the Obama administration’s predictions about a stimulus bill, the unemployment rate is almost 1% higher than White House estimates of where unemployment would be if Congress had done nothing.

Obama and congressional Democrats also made assurances that their $2.6 trillion takeover of health care would not affect the insurance coverage most Americans currently have and like. The president said for months that “if you like your [health insurance] plan, you can keep your plan,” ignoring the fact that CBO and others predicted otherwise. But yesterday, Fortune Magazine reported, “Internal documents recently reviewed by Fortune, originally requested by Congress, show what the [health care] bill’s critics predicted, and what its champions dreaded: many large companies are examining a course that was heretofore unthinkable, dumping the health care coverage they provide to their workers in exchange for paying penalty fees to the government.” And of course, as Fortune pointed out, “It would also seem to contradict President Obama’s statements that Americans who like their current plans could keep them.”

Now we’re hearing from Democrats that their financial regulation legislation poses no danger of regulatory overreach to Main Street businesses that had nothing to do with the financial collapse. In fact, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-CT) said on the floor yesterday, “This bill covers only financial products and financial services. That dentists and butchers and retailers on the street are going to be affected by this is a complete myth, totally so, and the provisions of the bill couldn’t be more clear about it. There are no new regulations.” Yet letters from business groups across the country representing a wide variety of employers and business owners said they opposed the Dodd language in the bill and supported a Republican amendment that Democrats voted down, which would have, in the words of the National Federation for Independent Business, “turn[ed] the focus of the creation of a new regulator toward financial services companies and away from small businesses.”

So given what Americans have seen over the last year, and just in the last few days of the track record of Democrat promises and assurances about the impact of their ill-conceived legislation, is there good evidence that what they’re claiming about their financial regulation bill is more accurate?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: “It’s Also Important To Note That The New Health Reform Law Includes The Largest Middle Class Tax Cut For Health Care In History, and once it’s implemented; millions of Americans will finally be able to purchase quality, affordable care and the security and peace of mind that comes with it.” (President Obama, Weekly Radio Address, 4/10/10)

IRS: “The Health Care Subsidies Will Go Directly To Insurers, Not Taxpayers” “The IRS does a poor job of managing social programs. … In tax year 2006, the latest year available, IRS made $10 billion to $12 billion in erroneous EITC [Earned Income Tax Credit] payments, according to a study by the Treasury Department’s inspector general. IRS officials argue that the two programs are vastly different. The health care subsidies will go directly to insurers, not taxpayers, giving individuals little incentive to cheat, says IRS spokesman Frank Keith.” (“IRS Lacks Clout To Enforce Mandatory Health Insurance,” USA Today, 4/29/10)

Dems Accuse Republicans Of Spreading “Lies” But The Facts Revealed Since Passage Of The Health Bill Tell A Different Story

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): “Bottom Line, On The Health Care Bill, We Allowed Too Many Lies To Get Out There Without Rebuttal, Because We Thought They Were So Obviously Untrue. But We’ve Learned Our Lesson.” (Sen. Schumer, Press Conference, 4/22/10)

THE CLAIM

PRESIDENT OBAMA: “The Plan I’m Announcing Tonight … Will Slow The Growth Of Health Care Costs For Our Families, Our Businesses, And Our Government.” (President Obama, Remarks To Joint Session Of Congress, 9/9/09)

REALITY

“But The [HHS] Analysis Also Found That The Law Falls Short Of The President’s Twin Goal Of Controlling Runaway Costs, Raising Projected Spending By About 1 Percent Over 10 Years. That Increase Could Get Bigger, Since Medicare Cuts In The Law May Be Unrealistic And Unsustainable, The Report Warned.” (“Report Says Health Care Will Cover More, Cost More,” The Associated Press, 4/23/10)

• “The Overhaul Will Increase National Health Care Spending By $311 Billion From 2010-2019.” “The report found that the president’s law missed the mark, although not by much. The overhaul will increase national health care spending by $311 billion from 2010-2019, or nine-tenths of 1 percent.” (“Report Says Health Care Will Cover More, Cost More,” The Associated Press, 4/23/10)

MEDICARE CHIEF ACTUARY RICK FOSTER: “During 2010-2019, However, These [Cost Control] Effects Would Be Outweighed By The Increased Costs Associated With The Expansions Of Health Insurance Coverage.” (“Report Says Health Care Will Cover More, Cost More,” The Associated Press, 4/23/10)

THE CLAIM

PRESIDENT OBAMA: “This Plan Will Strengthen Medicare And Extend The Life Of That Program.” (President Obama, Remarks, 12/15/09)

REALITY

“In Particular, Concerns About Medicare Could Become A Major Political Liability In The Midterm Elections. The [HHS] Report Projected That Medicare Cuts Could Drive About 15 Percent Of Hospitals And Other Institutional Providers Into The Red, ‘Possibly Jeopardizing Access’ To Care For Seniors.” (“Report Says Health Care Will Cover More, Cost More,” The Associated Press, 4/23/10)

THE CLAIM

SEN. MAX BAUCUS (D-MT): “In Addition, As The President Promised, This Bill Does Not Raise Taxes On The Middle Class.” (Sen. Baucus, Floor Remarks, 12/9/09)

REALITY

“Taxpayers Earning Less Than $200,000 A Year Will Pay Roughly $3.9 Billion More In Taxes — In 2019 Alone — Because Of Healthcare Reform, According To The Joint Committee On Taxation, Congress’ Official Scorekeeper For Legislation.” (“Healthcare Law Socks Middle Class With A $3.9 Billion Tax Increase,” The Hill, 4/12/10)

• “Once The Law Is Fully Implemented In 2019, The JCT Estimates The Deduction Limitation Will Affect 14.8 Million Taxpayers — 14.7 Million Of Them Will Earn Less Than $200,000 A Year.” (“Healthcare Law Socks Middle Class With A $3.9 Billion Tax Increase,” The Hill, 4/12/10)

“Nearly 4 Million Americans – The Vast Majority Of Them Middle Class – Will Have To Pay The New Penalty For Not Getting Health Insurance When President Barack Obama’s Health Care Overhaul Law Kicks In, according to congressional estimates released Thursday. The penalties will average a little more than $1,000 apiece in 2016, the Congressional Budget Office said in a report. Most of the people paying the fine will be middle class.” (“Nearly 4M To Pay Health Insurance Penalty By 2016,” The Associated Press, 4/22/10)

THE CLAIM

PRESIDENT OBAMA: “Your Employer, It’s Estimated, Would See Premiums Fall By As Much As 3,000 Percent … Which Means They Could Give You A Raise.” (“Will Health Care Bill Lower Premiums?” The Associated Press, 3/17/10)

REALITY

“Premiums Are Likely To Keep Going Up Even If The Health Care Bill Passes, Experts Say.” (“Will Health Care Bill Lower Premiums?” The Associated Press, 3/17/10)

“Fearing That Health Insurance Premiums May Shoot Up In The Next Few Years, Senate Democrats Laid A Foundation On Tuesday For Federal Regulation Of Rates, Four Weeks After President Obama Signed A Law Intended To Rein In Soaring Health Costs.” (“Senate Bill Sets A Plan To Regulate Premiums,” The New York Times, 4/21/10)

“New York’s Insurance Sysem Has Been A Working Laboratory For The Core Provision Of The New Federal Health Care Law … Premiums For Individual And Small Group Policies Have Risen So High That State Officials And Patients’ Advocates Say That New York’s Extensive Insurance Safety Net … Is Falling Apart.” “New York’s insurance system has been a working laboratory for the core provision of the new federal health care law — insurance even for those who are already sick and facing huge medical bills — and an expensive lesson in unplanned consequences. Premiums for individual and small group policies have risen so high that state officials and patients’ advocates say that New York’s extensive insurance safety net for people like Ms. Welles is falling apart.” (“New York Offers Costly Lessons On Insurance,” The New York Times, 4/18/10)

THE CLAIM

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): “So This Bill Is Not Only About The Health Security Of America.  It’s About Jobs.  In Its Life It Will Create 4 Million Jobs — 400,000 Jobs Almost Immediately; Jobs, Again, In The Health Care Industry, But In The Entrepreneurial World As Well.” (Health Care Summit, The White House, 2/25/10)

REALITY

“A New Law That Cuts Banks Out Of The Federal Student Loan Business Is Costing 2,500 Workers At Sallie Mae Their Jobs. The nation’s largest student lender has told 1,200 staffers in service centers in Killeen, Texas, and Panama City, Fla., they will lose their jobs by year-end. The remaining cuts will follow in 2011, resulting in nearly a third of the company’s total work force of 8,000 losing their jobs.” (“Sallie Mae Job CUTS: 2,500 Jobs Slashed After New Student Loan Law,” AP, 4/22/10)

“A Dire Warning From Bay State Medical-Device Companies That A New Sales Tax In The Federal Health-Care Law Could Force Their Plants – And Thousands Of Jobs – Out Of The Country Has Rattled Gov. Deval Patrick, a staunch backer of the law and pal President Obama.” (“Beware The ‘Jobs Killer’,” Boston Herald, 3/25/10)

“AT&T Inc. Will Take A $1 Billion Non-Cash Charge In The First Quarter Because Of The Health Care Overhaul And May Cut Benefits It Offers To Current And Retired Workers.” (“AT&T Will Take $1B Non-Cash Charge For Health Care,” The Associated Press, 3/26/10)

“Salon Owners Predict Tanners Will Cut Back On Services. As A Result Salons Fear They Will Be Forced To Lay Off Employees.” (“Tanning Salons Feel Burn By Tanning Tax,” WNDU-NBC [South Bend, IN], 3/26/10)

Attorney General Cuccinelli has a great Op=Ed published in the National Review Online:

There are very good reasons that the federal government has never, in the last 221 years, used the Commerce Clause of the Constitution as a vehicle for requiring citizens to purchase goods or services from other citizens.

The first is textual. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution provides that “the Congress shall have Power . . . To regulate Commerce with Foreign Nations, and among the several States.” Although there have been disputes about just how far this should reach into commerce that is entirely intrastate, until now, it has been recognized that this constitutional provision deals with regulation of commerce — that is, with the use of law to impose reason and order on the voluntary commercial actions of citizens, as well as on activities that substantially affect commerce. An individual mandate to purchase health insurance is not regulation in that sense.

And if you want to watch and listen to America’s brightest young Attorney General who is working hard for Virginia, here is a Video:

Listen up Detroit!!!

The enlightened one you helped elect is now going to put you out of business. Don’t you feel used right about now?

The liar in chief now sets his sights on motorized transportation. (Hint: For the union bosses – this means cars.)

Sure, it starts small, but don’t they all?

When Obama said “If you like your Health Insurance company, you can keep it”, he failed to mention that the Health Bill is designed to put your insurance company out of business so the government can usher in single payer.

Now, Obama Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood (is that short for LaHoodlum?) wants to move money away from roads and into bike paths.

If there are no Insurance Companies, you will be forced to use Government Care.

If there are no roads, you will be forced to ride bicycles or walk. Which also fits in with their plans to centralize population into City Centers and end Suburbia.

You union thugs have been such useful idiots. Thanks for presiding over your own demise.

From the New York Times:

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has announced a “major policy revision” that aims to give bicycling and walking the same policy and economic consideration as driving.

“Today I want to announce a sea change,” he wrote on his blog last week. “This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of nonmotorized.”

The new policy, which was introduced a few days after Mr. LaHood gave a well-received speech from atop a table at the National Bike Summit, is said to reflect the Transportation Department’s support for the development of fully integrated transportation networks.

Mark J. Fitzgibbons is an attorney which state regulators have described as “very litigious, “contemptuous,” and “a royal pain.” And if you consider the source, there is no higher praise a Conservative could want. Mr. Fitzgibbons is also a frequent contributor to numerous news sources. He has written a spot on article that points out the (well known) hypocrisy of the left when it comes to fiscal responsibility. This is a unique take on the Democrats issue with Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli spending $350 to defend Virginia’s Laws.

OPED CONTRIBUTOR — Virginia’s Democratic Party has had a sudden but selective concern about spending taxpayer dollars. Democrats filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request about the costs of constitutional litigation initiated by Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, supported by recently enacted bipartisan state legislation, against the mandate in Obamacare that all Americans purchase health insurance.

This may not be wise politics in light of a March 16 report by the Associated Press that the Obama administration is denying more FOIA requests than its predecessor, the Bush administration.

The left wing ObamaCare supporters have no problem requiring citizens to purchase health insurance from an “approved” company with “approved” plans.

What could the Republicans mandate when they regain power, seeing that federal mandates to purchase items from private companies is acceptable?

Should everyone be required to purchase a weapon from an approved government list? And approved ammo? After all, if you are unable to protect yourself and are shot and killed as a result, you cannot purchase items made in other states, which is harmful to interstate commerce.

Perhaps we should all be forced to buy SUV’s because they are far safer than the little mini cars. The extra fuel burned will increase federal revenue on all your driving, including trips out of state on vacation. And the larger vehicles will cut down on injuries, having a positive effect on Health Insurance premiums. And that is all interstate commerce, right?

And Bibles? King James only on the approved list? Religion makes people less likely to hijack trucks on interstate missions of delivery.

And shouldn’t people in Virginia be forced to buy wine from states with the highest number of electoral votes, like California and New York, instead of from local wineries? Buying local harms interstate commerce.

Of course Republicans already know the slippery slope the Health Care bill puts us on. If the individual mandates to buy health insurance are allowed to stand, there is nothing the Federal Government cannot mandate that we purchase.

Tax breaks and credits are one thing. Encouraging behavior with tax credits is something we have done for a long time (to the detriment of our liberty).

Encouraging a behavior is one thing, but forcing us to purchase a product from a private company or face a heavy fine is quite another.

We already have tax credits in place for the self-employed. You are allowed to deduct 100% of the premium and it is not subject to the 7.5% floor.

Those who are offered health insurance at work, but decline, do so because they know they will be treated in the event of a serious accident or illness, and it is often the lack of financial consequences that encourages this behavior. But a punitive tax should not replace a failure to act responsibly. A tax deduction for individuals in an income bracket where they are forced to decide between Health Insurance or food or rent would see more people covered voluntarily. But when we see people who are making the “hard” choice between Health Insurance and a new BMW, they should be put on notice that the BMW will be sold to pay Health Care bills. And the condo at the beach.

But the financial incentive to buy Health Insurance must come from the private sector, not the government. Government needs to get out of the way and let the private sector take care of deadbeats.

And if the government wanted to help, they would look at true health care reform that addresses the problem – the high cost of care – and not the symptom – the high cost of insurance.

Liberals may love this idea now, but there will come a day when they regret this mandate.

Demotopia - Obama's Vision for America

These are not your parent’s poor, mind you. With heavy government subsidies already available in the form of welfare and unemployment, the Freeloading Democrats removed the last vestiges separating the working class from the mooching class.

Moochers now get Fringe Benefits!

Health Insurance, Retirement plan, walking around money, life is good. All this and only one requirement: Vote Democrat!

If I could get dental and vision and some sort of government assisted 401K, I might consider becoming a Democrat.

Naa. On second thought, I like to look in the mirror and not despise what I see.

From the Washington Post:

A spokesman for Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II (R) said this afternoon that Virginia will file suit against the federal government if the Democratic health care reform bill is approved by the U.S. Congress.

Cuccinelli has long said he was examining the legal issues and suggested he would likely file suit. Brian Gottstein, a spokesman for the office, said this afternoon that a lawsuit is now a definite. Gottstein would provide no details of the legal rationale for such a suit, indicating the process is “still being worked out.”

Virginia last week became the first state in the country to pass a state bill declaring it illegal for the government to require individuals to purchase health insurance, a key part of bills under consideration on Capitol Hill.

We are also expecting to receive a letter shortly that Cuccinelli is sending to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) warning her that using the so-called “deem and pass” procedure to pass the Senate health reform bill in the House would open the measure to additional constitutional challenges from the states.

UPDATE: We’ve received a copy of Cuccinelli’s letter to Pelosi. In it, he writes: “Should you employ the deem and pass tactic, you expose any act which may pass to yet another constitutional challenge.”

The full letter is included after the jump.

Please read the remainder of this announcement here.

I just thought I would get a jump on this headline. Medicare and Medicaid are broke. Social Security is broke. In fact the whole federal government in broke and we are now paying out more in government assistance than we are taking in in taxes.

As the Democrats prepare to assault Americans with yet another entitlement in the form of forced Health Insurance reform, we get word that the Post Office, another quasi government entity, is bleeding so much red ink that they must now halt services on Saturdays.

Exactly how long will it be until the Death Panels and medical rationing aren’t enough and the government must start shutting down vital medical facilities to save money. Two years? Five? Ten?

Obama, Pelosi and Reid are already robbing Medicare of $500 Billion to expand Medical coverage to young people that intentionally decline to obtain coverage because they would rather have a new car. And they are robbing Social Security to give tax breaks to wealth businesses as a bribe to create jobs.

My guess is that only people under a certain age will be allowed to get sick or receive treatment on weekends in the not too distant future.