Virginia Right!

Despite President Obama’s Repeated Promises That His Health ‘Law Will Lower Premiums,’ Families And Employers Are Paying More

President Obama’s Promise: ‘This Law Will Lower Premiums’

PRESIDENT OBAMA: “Families will save on their premiums.” (President Obama, Remarks After Meeting With Senate Democrats, 12/15/09)

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)

• OBAMA: “All this is going to lower premiums. It’s going to make healthcare more affordable.” (President Obama, Remarks, 9/22/10)

• OBAMA: “This law will lower premiums.” (President Obama, Remarks To ‘Families USA,’ 1/28/11)

SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL): “Bringing down costs of health insurance and making it more affordable is job one for this health care reform.” (Sen. Dick Durbin, Floor Remarks, 12/18/09)

Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli sent out his opinion and view on the ruling that the 3 liberal judges on the 4th Circuit Court sent down. In short, they said Virginia did not have standing to file the suit. Cuccinelli has offered his take on this in his “Cuccinelli Compass” email newsletter. (Hint – sign up for his letter. The info is at the end of this post.)

Sept 16, 2011

Dear Fellow Virginians and Americans,

As you all probably know, we heard from the Fourth Circuit last week in Virginia’s healthcare lawsuit.

The court decided unanimously to throw the case out on standing and not address the merits of our constitutional arguments.

However, the story is far more complicated than that.  You may recall that Liberty University’s suit was heard at the very same time as Virginia’s.  The court threw that case out as well; however, two of the judges stated what they would have done on the merits, and that has interesting implications as we press on to the Supreme Court.

Here are the things I’m going to address today:

-The court’s ruling that Virginia lacks standing to bring the lawsuit;

-The implications of the court’s standing ruling for state sovereignty; and

-The extraordinary position of the court as compared with Federalist 51 (you know, written by that radical guy by the name of James Madison…).

Then I’ll do a quick walk-through of the Liberty ruling, and I’ll explain how it relates to Virginia’s case.  Finally, I’ll note the three unique aspects of what this court did last Thursday that make the decisions true outliers that need to be corrected.

The Court’s Ruling

Before the federal health care bill became law, Virginia passed the Virginia Health Care Freedom Act (VHCFA).  The VHCFA applies to employers and governments in Virginia and anyone else who might seek to force a Virginian to buy health insurance. With limited exceptions, it provides that no one can mandate that a Virginian buy health insurance.

Along came the federal government and passed the federal health care bill.  In that bill was the individual mandate requiring most all citizens to buy federal government-approved health insurance.  The individual mandate conflicted with the VHCFA, and under the supremacy clause the federal law would trump; however, the supremacy clause does not apply if the federal law is unconstitutional.

Thus was born Virginia’s lawsuit.

We sued the day the President signed the bill – May 23, 2010 – the 235th anniversary of Patrick Henry’s ‘give me liberty, or give me death’ speech.  So began our fight for liberty against the unconstitutional federal mandate.

To bring any lawsuit, a plaintiff must have what is called “standing.”  Standing is the right to sue.

To have standing, a plaintiff has to be able to show three things: 1) an injury; 2) that is currently occurring or is certain to occur; and 3) the court must be able to remedy the injury if the plaintiff wins.

Virginia’s injury is that the federal government’s health care law stops Virginia from exercising its legal authority to regulate health insurance mandates using the VHCFA.

This is an injury unique to a state.  You and I don’t have a code of laws.  States do.  And States have the right to protect their code of laws.  In fact, as attorney general, I have an obligation to protect Virginia’s laws (the district court judge in our case explicitly noted that responsibility).

Our suit was premised on redressing this sovereign injury.  However, the Fourth Circuit rejected our position, stating that, to allow Virginia to bring this suit would allow States to act as “roving constitutional watchdogs” over the federal government.  And yes, that quote comes straight from the opinion!

We now know what caused the earthquake in Virginia – James Madison obviously saw a draft version of the final order and rolled over in his grave!

This ruling is an extraordinary assault on state sovereignty and the role for States envisioned by the Founders in our constitutional system.

If you read Federalist 51 – written by that constitutional radical from Virginia, James Madison – you will find that States are supposed to check federal power when the federal government gets outside its constitutional authority!!!

From Federalist 51:

“In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments [federalism], and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments [separation of powers].  Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people.  The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself.”

How do you suppose the “different governments” are supposed to “control each other?”  Contests of authority are carried out in the federal courts – exactly what we are doing, and directly contrary to the Fourth Circuit’s opinion! In fact, as the United States Supreme Court noted in 1992 in New York v. United States,

“In 1788, in the course of explaining to the citizens of New York why the recently drafted Constitution provided for federal courts, Alexander Hamilton observed: ‘The erection of a new government, whatever care or wisdom may distinguish the work, cannot fail to originate questions of intricacy and nicety; and these may, in a particular manner, be expected to flow from the establishment of a constitution founded upon the total or partial incorporation of a number of distinct sovereignties.’ Hamilton’s prediction has proved quite accurate. . . . While no one disputes the proposition that the Constitution created a Federal Government of limited powers, the task of ascertaining the constitutional line between federal and state power has given rise to many of the Court’s most difficult and celebrated cases. At least as far back as Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304, 324, 4 L. Ed. 97 (1816), the Court has resolved questions ‘of great importance and delicacy’ in determining whether particular sovereign powers have been granted by the Constitution to the Federal Government or have been retained by the States.”

The Liberty Ruling

Liberty lost its case in the district court in the Western District of Virginia (we were in the Eastern District of Virginia), and so they appealed to the Fourth Circuit.  Their oral argument was the same day and before the same three-judge panel as Virginia’s.

The Liberty plaintiffs were found not to have standing in their case under what is known as the Anti-Injunction Act or “AIA”.  I won’t go into this, but suffice it to say that other judges around the country considered the AIA in other cases and not one judge anywhere in America found this statute to apply. In fact, even President Obama’s Justice Department conceded in the Fourth Circuit that the AIA did not bar Liberty’s suit.

So, in addition to being the only appeals court to deny a State the authority to defend its own law, they are also the only court in any of the health care cases to find that the AIA applies.  That’s two “unique” conclusions.

The vote to dismiss the case based on the AIA was 2-1.

Normally, when a case is kicked out under the AIA (or on standing), the judges do not comment on the merits of the case.  To do so would violate the long held principle that the federal courts do not issue merely “advisory” opinions.  However, in Liberty’s case, two judges did comment on the merits.

Judge Davis was the one judge that voted against kicking the case out under the AIA.  He said that he agreed with all of the other judges around the country who had concluded that the AIA did not apply. He then explained how he would have ruled on the merits, indicating he would have found Congress had the power to implement the mandate and penalty under the commerce clause.

It was not unusual for Judge Davis to issue an opinion that discussed the merits. Because he voted not to kick the case out under the AIA, all he was doing was saying how he thought the case should have been resolved.

Despite finding that the case was not properly before the court because of the AIA, Judge Wynn wrote an opinion that also addressed the merits of Liberty’s challenge. This opinion provided the THIRD “unique” aspect of the Fourth Circuit’s health care opinions.  Judge Wynn said that he would have upheld the federal health care law under the taxing power of the constitution.

So far, 16 different judges have addressed this subject and he is the ONLY judge in America to say he would uphold the federal health care law under the taxing power.

This is truly an extraordinary position.  What it means is that Congress can pass a law to tell you to do anything (as long as it doesn’t violate some other part of the constitution like the free speech or double jeopardy clauses), and as long as they fine you ($$$) if you disobey their command, that fine is an exercise of Congress’ constitutional taxing power and that makes the underlying statutory command constitutional!

Congress could pass a law ordering us all to wear purple on Mondays, pink on Tuesdays, etc. and fine you $50 if you disobey.  And Judge Wynn’s reasoning would say that the $50 fine is an exercise of the taxing power and therefore such a statute was constitutional.

Conclusion

So, we lost in the Fourth Circuit; however, we are working on our appeal right now and will file it as soon as practicable.  And the fact that the Fourth Circuit is utterly alone in three extraordinary aspects of its rulings leads me to be cautiously confident that the Supreme Court will take a different course regarding all three of those aspects of the Fourth Circuit’s decisions.

I am still cautiously optimistic that the individual mandate will be found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and I am hopeful that we will have such a ruling by the end of June of 2012. Whether that happens in our case or in another does not matter so long as the correct constitutional answer is reached.

The federal government will likely try to slow the case down by asking for more time to file its brief in our case and by asking to drag out the appeal in the 11th circuit (where the Florida case with 26 other states was decided).  So it is still possible that this will not be decided before Election Day 2012; however, if you were President Obama, do you really want this being argued in the Supreme Court in October of 2012?  I would think he’d want it disposed of in June 2012 rather than watching a maelstrom of news coverage related to the case on the verge of the election.

Nonetheless, they keep doing everything they can to drag it out.

I will keep you informed!

Sincerely,

Ken Cuccinelli, II

Attorney General of Virginia

Tell others to sign up for The Cuccinelli Compass at Attorney General Cuccinelli’s Website:

Update: This post has a link to the X-rated Weiner Photo taken on the Opie and Anthony show.

Congressman Anthony Weiner is a serial liar.

During his weepy press conference today, he denied using government resources to do his dirties.

According to 40 year old Las Vegas Blackjack Dealer Lisa Weiss, Weiner used his government office phone for phone sex, then went off to vote on the ObamaCare bill:

From Radar Online:

What’s more, the blonde woman has revealed details that show the liberal congressman lied during his tear-jerking confession Monday at a press conference in New York and that he DID use government resources for his extra-marital activities.

Rep. Weiner said he was “deeply ashamed” and repeated 21 times that he accepted responsibility for his actions.

But he also denied he used government resources during his online sexcapades.

Not so, according to Weiss.

Speaking exclusively to RadarOnline.com, Weiss said she shared 220 messages with Rep. Weiner beginning on August 13, last year — and they were often exchanged during work hours.

In an explicit exchange on March 3 — the same day he voted on a health care bill in the U.S. House of Representatives — Weiner bemoaned that he had to end their conversation because he was “off to class.”

The casino worker, who said she once worked as a Democratic campaign worker, also claimed she had steamy phone sex with Rep. Weiner — using a Government telephone.

Said Weiss: “After a while I said to Anthony, ‘Why are writing these messages when we can just speak?’

“I gave him my number and he called me from his office and we proceeded to talk dirty for at least 30 minutes.

It seems that Anthony Weiner simply can’t keep his lies straight.

And after lying about Andrew Breitbart, who broke this story, perhaps Breitbart should file a fat lawsuit against the Liberal Weiner. And maybe other liberals will think twice about blaming the messenger.

More From Virginia Right!

• Wiener Week in New York – Oscar and Anthony Expose Their Packages
• More Anthony Weiner Pictures and X-Rated Messages Exposed!
• New Acronym for SEC – How About SEX?

Virginia Right! Recommends

• Obama’s Socialist Government Coming For Your Pension  (WesternFront America)
• It’s 3AM And The Guy In The White House Is Voting Present (Again)  (LogisticsMonster)

Ask Virginia Right! To Recommend Your Posts

Andy Griffith Smiles a bit wider with Taxpayer Money!

The Wall Street Journal editors write today, “We don’t work for the government, but here’s our ‘save’ suggestion: How about not spending some $3.5 million to deceptively promote ObamaCare? It turns out it cost the Health and Human Services Department $2.78 million to buy airtime for three cable TV ads last year, featuring Andy Griffith praising the new entitlement. The ‘Matlock’ eminence rendered his services pro bono, but Porter Novelli didn’t. The media consulting firm racked up 668 billable hours and earned $404,384.40 producing the spots, according to documents released by the outside GOP advocacy group Crossroads GPS through the Freedom of Information Act.”

In other words, the Obama administration spent $3.5 million of taxpayer money trying to sell Americans on a health care bill they still dislike by a margin of 59% to 37%, according to a CNN poll this week.

Aside from the problem of the expense of these ads, the WSJ editors also note the claims made in them don’t measure up. “At least Porter Novelli didn’t charge taxpayers for fact-checking. Among Mr. Griffith’s many deceptive claims, he tells his fellow seniors that their Medicare benefits won’t change (they will, most immediately in Medicare Advantage) and that ObamaCare strengthens the program’s finances (it doesn’t, according to the chief Medicare actuary). Lovable ol’ Andy of Mayberry then says ‘that new health-care law sure sounds good’ to him, in a transparent bid to win over senior voters in advance of the 2010 election.”

Recall that contrary to the claims in the taxpayer-funded ads, the Democrats’ health care bill cuts over $500 billion from Medicare to pay for new entitlement programs. The ads claim Medicare benefits won’t change, but the chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) wrote last year, “The new provisions will generally reduce [Medicare Advantage] rebates to plans and thereby result in less generous benefit packages.” On top of that, some providers have announced they are going to be dropping Medicare Advantage plans altogether, such as Harvard Pilgrim in Massachusetts.

The Journal editors conclude with another idea for saving some money: “How about we go one better and save several trillion dollars by repealing a health-care bill that Americans still hate despite Sheriff Andy’s endorsement?”

More From Virginia Right!

• Eric Cantor Statement on Obama Budget
• Another Broken Health Care Promise: Admin Rules Could Force Changes in Health Plans
• Tim Kaine Spent $3.1 Million on Inauguration – McDonnell Only $1.5 Million

Virginia Right! Recommends

• Obama NOT Born in Hawaii (UPDATED)  (LogisticsMonster)
• Columbia Obama Treason Trial – Day 5 – BARRY SOETORO GUILTY! | Logistics Monster  (LogisticsMonster)

Ask Virginia Right! To Recommend Your Posts

It’s been interesting that in the course of this week, the one year anniversary of Democrats’ unpopular and expensive health care bill becoming law, we’ve seen supporters of the bill acknowledge some of its serious flaws.

According to Politico, “Rep. Anthony Weiner [D-NY] said Wednesday he was looking into how a health law waiver might work for New York City. Weiner, who is likely to run for mayor of New York, said that because of the city’s special health care infrastructure, his office was looking into alternatives that might make more sense.” Weiner said, “The president said, ‘If you have better ideas that can accomplish the same thing, go for it.’. . . I’m in the process now of trying to see if we can take [President Barack Obama] up on it in the city of New York, … and I’m taking a look at all of the money we spend in Medicaid and Medicare and maybe New York City can come up with a better plan.”

While it’s possible Weiner may want a waiver so he can impose even more controls on health care in New York, his discussion of a waiver is an implicit admission of the burdensome mandates on states and individuals in the Democrats’ health care bill.

As Sen. Orrin Hatch, ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, explained in an op-ed for The Salt Lake Tribune yesterday, “[G]overnors of both political parties were clear when Congress debated the $2.6 trillion health law that they could not afford a massive expansion in Medicaid. Washington didn’t listen and plowed forward instead by putting 16 million Americans onto this already broken entitlement. States are already facing a collective $175 billion budget shortfall – the highest since the Great Depression. . . . Furthermore, for all of the talk about state flexibility, this federal one-size-fits-all law leaves Washington calling the shots. . . . In a nod to states balking at the federal requirements being imposed on them, the president recently announced that states could apply for waivers from the health law in 2014 – three years earlier than was in the health law. Sounds good – but the hitch is that states will still have to meet all of the ObamaCare requirements. That’s why this proposal landed with a thud with governors.”

On Tuesday, Politico reported, “Starbucks chief executive Howard Schultz says the health overhaul law’s employer requirements will impose ‘too great’ a pressure on small businesses. Schultz supported the law as he watched his company’s health insurance tab — $250 million as of last year — surmount its coffee bill. But he told The Seattle Times in an interview published Tuesday that he’s now worried about what happens when it takes full effect in 2014: . . . ‘I think as the bill is currently written and if it was going to land in 2014 under the current guidelines, the pressure on small businesses, because of the mandate, is too great.’”

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), one of only three doctors in the Senate, elaborated on this problem for National Review Online this week. “Under the guise of ‘responsibility,’ the [Democrats’ health care bill] fines most employers who do not offer employees health coverage. According to a range of nonpartisan experts, this type of de facto mandate has been shown to lower wages and reduce jobs,” Sen. Coburn wrote. “In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill reduces the number of workers in the labor force by 800,000 over a decade.”
As John Thune, chair of the Senate Republican Policy Committee, wrote in an op-ed for Politico yesterday, “After a year of learning what is in the law — and seeing its effect on families, small businesses and our economy — it is now clear that Obamacare is a failed experiment. Sadly, this failure was predictable and very expensive.”

When even supporters of the Democrats’ bill are seeking exemptions from it, it’s clear the whole thing should be repealed and replaced. As Sen. Thune put it, “Rather than fighting reality by trying to persuade the people to love a law that does not live up to its hype, Congress should scrap this failed program and replace it with common-sense reforms that can truly lower costs.”

Senate News Briefing 3.24.11

Senate News Briefing:

President Obama spoke at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce today where he urged cooperation and asked business leaders to support his economic agenda. The Wall Street Journal noted the Chamber includes “some of his toughest business critics” and points out, “Chamber and White House officials clashed during Mr. Obama’s first two years in office over the president’s health-care and financial-markets regulatory overhauls, as well as environmental rules and tax policies.”

Yet the president’s outreach to the business community seems to once again be more rhetoric than reality. According to the AP, “White House officials say Obama’s speech will not break new policy ground, nor will he offer an olive branch.”

Indeed, today’s speech appears to be part of a pattern where President Obama will double down on policies harmful to business and job creation like his unpopular health care bill, the complicated Dodd-Frank financial reform bill, or EPA regulation of greenhouse gases, but then the White House will declare a new outreach to the business community to smooth things over.

One year ago, The Washington Post reported, “Declaring himself an ‘ardent believer in the free market,’ President Obama tried to rally business leaders Wednesday to support the administration’s goals of health-care reform, climate legislation and financial regulation.” In July of last year, after Democrats in Congress pushed through the health care and financial regulation bills, Politico wrote, “The White House has launched a coordinated campaign to push back against the perception taking hold in corporate America and on Wall Street that President Barack Obama is promoting an anti-business agenda.” In November, The Washington Post wrote, “President Obama is moving to cool down his war with the United States Chamber of Commerce, one of the most bitter political feuds of the last two years.” And a month later The Post reported, “The Republicans in Congress aren’t the only people the White House is trying to make peace with. President Obama will meet Wednesday with a group of 20 chief executives, including the heads of American Express, Google and UBS, as he continues a persistent but at times unsuccessful effort to win the business community’s trust.”

And yet little has changed in the way of policy. As the WSJ reported last month, “President Barack Obama’s government-wide review of federal regulations will have little effect on two of the president’s major regulatory victories: an overhaul of Wall Street and the health-care market, according to a White House budget official.” And according to a report in today’s Journal, “The Environmental Protection Agency, which enforces rules that affect the U.S. economy from factories to farms, is the No. 1 target of complaints from business groups collected by House Republican leaders. EPA rules were cited more than those from any other agency in more than 100 letters sent by trade associations, businesses and some conservative groups to House oversight committee chairman Darrell Issa (R., Calif.) in response to his call for businesses to identify regulations they deemed burdensome, according to documents reviewed by the Wall Street Journal.”

The Washington Post adds, “The Post reviewed more than 200 letters and reports that businesses sent to Issa targeting regulations across the federal government. The rules under scrutiny include familiar issues such as greenhouse gas emissions, health-care reform and the landmark Wall Street overhaul. . . . In their letters, business leaders express alarm about the slow pace of the economic recovery and what they characterize as the growing role government is playing in the private sector. ‘Business owners remain on edge regarding the tidal wave of federal government regulation that has been advanced or proposed over the past two years. . . .The pain of the harsh recession was intensified and lengthened by this hyper-regulatory environment,’ Karen Kerrigan, president of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, wrote in a Jan. 12 letter to Issa.”

With only 36,000 jobs added last month, it’s clear that more needs to be done to foster an environment where businesses can create new jobs. Unfortunately, the White House seems more focused on presenting the image of reaching out to business, instead of changing its policies that are stifling job creation.

“Independence is about Actions, not Words, Senator Webb”

Webb’s comments on Health Care bill conflict with his votes

U.S. Senate candidate Jamie Radtke today questioned Senator Jim Webb’s explanation of his support for Obama-care.

“Senator Webb said this week the Obama administration ‘did a really terrible job handling health care reform’ – that it made a mistake relying on Congress to draft the plan,” said Radtke.  “Yet Senator Webb voted for this job-killing shamble of a health care bill.”

US SENATE NEWS BRIEFING:

As the new House Republican majority moves to respond to the message of the American people to repeal and replace President Obama’s massive, unpopular health care law, Americans are once again being reminded of the many broken promises from Democrats about that law. According to the Los Angeles Times, “Another big California health insurer has stunned individual policyholders with huge rate increases — this time it’s Blue Shield of California seeking cumulative hikes of as much as 59% for tens of thousands of customers March 1. . . . San Francisco-based Blue Shield said the increases were the result of fast-rising healthcare costs and other expenses resulting from new healthcare laws.”

Alone, this report shows yet another of the unfortunate consequences of Democrats’ fatally flawed bill. But it’s worth recalling what Democrats said about their health care bill as they were advocating for its passage. In March of last year, President Obama said that if the Democrats’ bill passed, “No longer would [insurance companies] be able to arbitrarily and massively raise premiums like Anthem Blue Cross recently tried to do in California — up to 39 percent increases in one year in the individual market.  Those practices would end.” Speaking on the Senate floor, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) said, “With this new law, American families and businesses can have hope that their premiums will not rise as fast as they have been in the past.  The days of 39 percent premium increases, as we have seen in California, will be over once this law is fully implemented.” And Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius went even further last February, claiming, “What will happen with health reform, premiums will go down between 14 percent and 20 percent just by passing the bills.”

Yet just the opposite has happened. Last September, The Wall Street Journal reported, “Health insurers … have asked for premium increases of between 1% and 9% to pay for extra benefits required under the [Democrat health care] law.” In state after state, insurance companies and state insurance regulators have warned of premium increases coming thanks in part to the Democrats’ health care bill.

Politico reports today that House Republicans are beginning the process to repeal and replace this flawed bill. “Republicans reopened their battle against President Barack Obama’s health care law, using the first committee meeting of the new Congress Thursday to eviscerate the overhaul as a ‘job killer’ and a ‘malignant tumor.’ . . . The Rules Committee meeting marked the starting round in the GOP’s bid to repeal the law, a central pillar of the party’s governing manifesto.”

As Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell told Politico, “The American people were unambiguous in their call for lower health care costs and smaller government. . . . Yet instead of taking commonsense steps to lower costs, Democrats in Washington jammed through a massive government expansion that their own experts acknowledge will increase health costs. We need to repeal this massive bill and replace it with commonsense, step-by-step reforms that actually lower costs and encourage job growth. The House will take the first step in that process next week, and I hope the Senate will soon follow suit with a vote of its own.”

On The Floor

The Senate is in recess until January 24^th.

Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) put the Senate in recess for two and a half weeks in order to hold open the first legislative day while Democrats attempt to negotiate among themselves support for partisan changes some want to make to filibuster rules.

Democrats claim that rules can be changed with a simple majority vote on the first legislative day, even though Senate rules require a 2/3rds vote to change them.

From the Communications Center

Sen. McConnell: The 112th Congress: A New Beginning

Around the Hill

Politico: Dems’ filibuster plan in jeopardy

Los Angeles Times: Blue Shield of California seeks rate hikes of as much as 59% for individuals

Politico: GOP restarts anti-health law agenda

The Washington Post: House Republicans adopt new rules for tax and spending legislation

Politico: Recession ballooned Medicaid rolls

A bit of a victory lap for the GOP. Senator Cornyn delivers the weekly Republican message concerning the week’s events in Washington.

Best line from the video:

Last year, on Christmas Eve, Senate Democrats passed a divisive 2.6 trillion dollar health care bill strictly along party lines. This year, God willing, Washington will give the American people a far better gift: a silent night.

The video is at the bottom, here is the text of the message:

“Hello, I’m Texas Senator John Cornyn.

“On November 2, voters elected 13 new Republican Senators and sent 63 more Republicans to serve in the House of Representatives. This week, even before these new reinforcements have taken their seats, Republicans showed the American people that we got the message. And everyone can see how your choices have already changed the terms of the debate here in Washington.

“First, Republicans prevented a massive, job-killing ‘New Year’s Day tax increase.’ Before Congress acted, every American taxpayer was looking at a much higher tax bill in just a few weeks. Those higher taxes would have been devastating to millions of American families and small businesses and could have increased the risk of a ‘double-dip’ recession.

“But our bipartisan agreement with the White House changed all that.  Our agreement keeps marginal income tax rates low, preserves the one-thousand-dollar per child tax credit, extends relief from the marriage penalty, blocks higher taxes on capital gains and dividends, protects at least 21 million additional families from the Alternative Minimum Tax and reduces the sting of the ‘death tax’ on families and small businesses.

“This bipartisan agreement was made possible because voters gave Republicans much more leverage at the negotiating table. Our leverage forced the White House to abandon its ‘class-warfare’ rhetoric; stop pandering to the President’s left-wing base; and do the right thing for American taxpayers and job creators.

“Republicans delivered even more ‘tidings of comfort and joy’ this week by holding the line on reckless federal spending. Despite their willingness to work with Republicans on taxes, Senate Democrats went their own way on spending by proposing a nearly $1.3 trillion omnibus bill on the American people and by insisting we’d have to vote on it before anyone had the time to figure out what was in it.

“This ‘spending snowstorm’ was nearly 2,000 pages long. It combined 12 separate appropriations bills that were never debated or amended on the Senate floor. And it included more than one billion dollars to feed the beast of ObamaCare, part of which was ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge just a few short days ago.

“Senate Republicans stood together but we did not stand alone. Millions of Americans made their voices heard on Facebook, Twitter and other social media. You lit up the phone lines across the Capitol and across the Nation. Thank you for doing that. You helped strengthened the resolve of the Republican Caucus and rattled the nerves of the big spenders on the other side of the aisle.

“As we approach the Christmas Season and the New Year, it’s easy to see how much you have changed our Nation’s Capital. Last year, on Christmas Eve, Senate Democrats passed a divisive 2.6 trillion dollar health care bill strictly along party lines. This year, God willing, Washington will give the American people a far better gift: a silent night.

“Have a joyous holiday season, keep our troops in your prayers, and remember that the best days for our country lie ahead.

“Thank you.”

Reuters reports, “Senate Democrats on Tuesday unveiled an earmark-laden spending bill that would fund the entire U.S. government, and Republicans who have renounced the pet spending projects quickly vowed to oppose it. The 2,000-page spending bill, months overdue, would enable President Barack Obama to tighten financial oversight, subsidize college tuition bills and move forward with other priorities that have essentially been on hold since the fiscal year began in October.” The Wall Street Journal points out the omnibus bill “would lay down $1.1 trillion to fund the various arms of the departments and agencies of the federal government through September 2011, when the government’s current fiscal year will end.” The WSJ also notes, “The spending bill is necessary because lawmakers failed to pass any of the 12 budget bills required each year to fund the various arms of the federal government.”

Senate Republicans swiftly announced their opposition to the bloated bill last night. The WSJ writes, “Most Republicans in the Senate are expected to be united in opposition to the bill, preferring instead another short-term measure to fund the government through the early months of next year. ‘The attempt by Democrat leadership to rush through a nearly 2,000 page spending bill in the final days of the lame-duck session ignores the clear will expressed by the voters this past election,’ said Sen. John Thune (R., S.D.), a member of the Senate Republican leadership.”

Speaking on the Senate floor today, Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the case against the Democrats’ omnibus bill: “Americans told Democrats last month to stop what they’ve been doing: bigger government, 2,000-page bills jammed through on Christmas Eve, wasteful spending. This bill is a monument to all three.” He added, “It includes more than $1 billion to fund the Democrat health care bill. For those of us who’ve vowed to repeal it, this alone is reason to oppose to Omnibus.”

Jennifer Rubin has details on the funding for the unpopular health care bill at her Washington Post blog. The $1 billion includes $3 million for one of the many boards, bureaucracies, and programs created by the law, $175 million to implement the Medicaid expansion and cuts to Medicare Advantage, and over $80 million for the Department of Health and Human Services’ Departmental Management account, to enforce the new insurance mandates and regulations created in the law.”

Sen. McConnell said today, “The voters made an unambiguous statement last month: they don’t like the wasteful spending, they don’t want the Democrat health care bill, and they don’t want lawmakers rushing staggeringly complex, staggeringly expensive bills through Congress without any time for people to study what’s buried in the details. This bill is a legislative slap in the face to all those voters who rejected these things.”

And sure enough, Gallup has a new poll today finding, “Americans’ assessment of Congress has hit a new low, with 13% saying they approve of the way Congress is handling its job. The 83% disapproval rating is also the worst Gallup has measured in more than 30 years of tracking congressional job performance.”

Clearly, Americans are sick of the way Democrats are doing things and fed up with their lame duck agenda of putting off things like preventing tax hikes for a liberal wish list. As Sen. McConnell explained, “For the first time in the modern era, Congress hasn’t passed a single appropriations bill. Democrats have been too focused on their own left-wing wing wish to take care of the basics. And now, at the end of the session, they want to roll all those bills together, along with anything else they haven’t gotten over the past two years, and rush it past the American people just the way they jammed the health care bill through Congress last Christmas.”

Democrats in Congress should drop this bloated spending bill and instead join with Republicans to pass as short-term continuing resolution to keep the lights on until early next year “when the new Congress will have the opportunity to make a determination on how to best spend taxpayers’ money,” in Sen. McConnell’s words.

On The Floor

The Senate reconvened at 9:30 AM today and began a period of morning business.

At 11 AM, the Senate resumed consideration of the motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 4853 with the Reid-McConnell amendment, which contains the tax deal language.

At noon, the Senate began a series of roll call votes on the tax package. The first 3 will be motions to suspend the rule for amendments, which require 67 votes to succeed. The last vote will be on the motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 4853 with the Reid-McConnell amendment. If the motion is agreed to, the tax deal will be sent to the House for approval.

The motions to suspend the rules are being offered by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) for an amendment to offset the unemployment insurance extension in the tax deal with spending cuts, by Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) for an amendment to replace the deal with permanent tax relief, and by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) for an amendment that replaces the deal with President Obama’s original proposal to raise taxes and includes additional transportation spending.

Following the votes, the Senate will return to morning business until 2:15 PM. At that time, senators will vote on a motion to proceed to executive session (which requires a simple majority) to begin consideration of the New START treaty, Treaty Doc. 111-5.

Senate News Briefing 12.15.10

Just after Democrats passed their unpopular health care bill, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) declared on Meet the Press, “As people learn about the bill, it’s going to be more and more popular. By November, those who voted for health care will find it an asset, those who voted against it will find it a liability.” But that simply doesn’t appear to be the case. According to a New York Times headline today, “Health Care Vote Puts Democrats on Defensive”

The Times writes, “While clearly secondary to economic concerns, the continuing debate over health care has remained prominent in numerous races for the House and Senate. . . . Strikingly, just after Labor Day, the only House Democrats with television ads on the health care law were among the 34 who broke with the party to vote against it. Some of those incumbents have used their votes to demonstrate independence from, and even antagonism toward, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi . . . . ‘I voted against Nancy Pelosi’s trillion-dollar health care bill, because we can’t afford it,’ says Representative Jim Marshall, a Democrat, in an ad broadcast in his middle Georgia district. ‘That’s just one reason why I won’t support her for speaker.’”

It’s little wonder Democrats are running away from their flawed health care bill. It’s been unpopular for over a year. As far back as December 2009 most Americans wanted their member of Congress to vote against the bill. The bill was unpopular when it was signed into law in March, and over six months later majorities still disapprove of the legislation. Just yesterday, National Journal reported, “Just over half of Americans likely to vote in next week’s midterms want the next Congress to repeal this year’s health care overhaul if Republicans gain power on Capitol Hill . . . . Fifty-one percent of voters most likely to vote support taking the new health care law off the books . . . while 41 percent oppose repeal, according to the latest Society for Human Resource Management/National Journal Congressional Connection Poll, conducted with the Pew Research Center.”

And given what Americans have seen in the months since President Obama signed the Democrat health care bill, one can easily understand why Americans would like to see it repealed and replaced. Contrary to all the promises from Democrats last year, news reports have shown the bill resulting in higher premiums, higher taxes, growing health care costs, cuts to Medicare Advantage programs, current insurance plans being forced to change and the prospect of people even losing their current plans.

In the wake of Democrats’ sweeping promises about their health care bill and the stark contrast reality has shown over the last several months, Americans have simply seen their concerns about the bill come true. It’s easy to understand why Democrats would want to run away from it. Voters will finally have the opportunity to have their say on the health care bill next week.

According to Politico’s Playbook today, “President Obama has taped an appearance for Discovery Channel’s ‘MythBusters’.” Certainly, it’s nice for the President to show support for the science-focused education and entertainment that the show is known for, but it often feels like President Obama needs to be examined by a political version of such a show. Obama’s various declarations about the health care bill alone seem to have all been “busted” in the nearly seven months since the bill passed.

During the debate over Democrats’ health care bill, President Obama said that their “reforms” will “finally reduce the costs of health care” and “families will save on their premiums.” But throughout just the past month, multiple news reports have shown massive rate increases coming down the pike for many Americans, thanks in part to the health care bill. Early in September, The Wall Street Journal reported, “Health insurers say they plan to raise premiums for some Americans as a direct result of the health overhaul in coming weeks, complicating Democrats’ efforts to trumpet their signature achievement before the midterm elections.” And sure enough, in subsequent weeks there were reports of insurers raising premiums in states like California, Connecticut, New York, and Washington. As The Seattle Times put it, “Whopping rate increases are coming soon for many people with individual health-insurance policies.”

Another declaration by the President was that his health care plan “will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government.” But according to a report from the Los Angeles Times on a study by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, “Pushed by a dramatic increase in the number of Americans who will get insurance under the new healthcare law, total U.S. medical spending will continue to gallop upward, consuming nearly 20% of the economy by 2019 . . . .” And earlier this year, Congressional Budget Office director Doug Elmendorf wrote, “[F]ederal spending on major mandatory health care programs will grow from roughly 5 percent of GDP today to about 10 percent in 2035 and will continue to increase thereafter.”

President Obama also promised that he would “protect Medicare” in his health care bill. Yet the bill contained over $520 billion in cuts to Medicare, with more than $200 billion in Medicare Advantage cuts alone. And sure enough, thanks to these cuts and changes, The Boston Globe reported, “Harvard Pilgrim Health Care has notified customers that it will drop its Medicare Advantage health insurance program at the end of the year, forcing 22,000 senior citizens in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Maine to seek alternative supplemental coverage.” According to The Globe report, “‘We became concerned by the long-term viability of Medicare Advantage programs in general,’’ said Lynn Bowman, vice president of customer service at Harvard Pilgrim’s office in Quincy. ‘We know that cuts in Medicare are being used to fund national health care reform.’” And then there was The Wall Street Journal story in June warning. “Dozens of Medicare Advantage providers plan to cut back vision, dental and prescription benefits.”

Of course, the most prominent pledge to Americans from Obama and other Democrats about their massive health care takeover was that “if you like your current [health care] plan, you will be able to keep it.” But in the months since Democrats rammed through their bill, numerous reports have shown many people won’t be able to continue on their current plans. Just two weeks ago, The Wall Street Journal reported, “3M Co. confirmed it would eventually stop offering its health-insurance plan to retirees, citing the federal health overhaul as a factor.” And The New York Times reported earlier this month, “The Principal Financial Group announced on Thursday that it planned to stop selling health insurance, another sign of upheaval emerging among insurers as the new federal health law starts to take effect. The company, based in Iowa, provides coverage to about 840,000 people who receive their insurance through an employer.” And then there was the AP story in August that “A plan by Medicare to try to make it simpler for consumers to pick drug coverage could force 3 million seniors to switch plans next year whether they like it or not, says an independent analysis.” And in July, there were reports that restaurant employees could lose health care coverage because of new costs imposed by the bill.

The assurances from President Obama and Democrats that their health care law would reduce premiums, lower government spending, protect Medicare, and allow Americans to keep their current plans, have all been clearly “busted.” Sadly, Americans could see most of this coming, and polls showed they consistently disapproved of Democrats’ scheme. Yet the President and Democrats forced the bill through Congress anyway.

Still, though, Americans oppose this law. Almost seven months after Democrats gathered to congratulate each other for passing a bill only they wanted, Politico reports, “According to the Kaiser Family Foundation October Tracking Poll out Monday morning, overall support for the [health care] law has dropped to 42 percent – down seven points in a month. The percentage of those saying they have an unfavorable view of the bill rose four points to 44 percent.” Interestingly, Politico notes, “Opposition to the reform bill was stronger among likely voters: 39 percent have favorable opinions, 49 percent unfavorable opinions and 12 percent have no opinion.” Incidentally, the Kaiser poll has been the one poll consistently showing more favorable views of the health care bill among the public than other polls.

Seven months later, Democrats’ claims about their health care law have been “busted,” and Americans still oppose the bill. It still needs to be repealed and replaced. And Republicans aim to do just that.

After Democrats rammed through their unpopular health care takeover through Congress over the objections of a majority of Americans in March, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) predicted, “By November, those who voted for health care will find it an asset, those who voted against it will find it a liability. . . . As people learn what’s actually in the bill, six months from now at election time this will be a plus because the parade of horribles — particularly the worry that the average middle-class has that this will affect them negatively — will have vanished and they’ll see that this will affect them positively.”

With the election less than a month away, though, Americans still don’t like Democrats’ monstrosity of a health care bill and Democrat candidates all across the country are having their eyes opened. The Hill reports today, “Healthcare reform is hurting the reelection chances of freshman Democrats in the House, according to The Hill/ANGA poll. A majority of voters in key battleground districts favor repeal of the legislative overhaul Congress passed this year. President Obama predicted in the spring that the new law would become popular as people learned more about it. But the poll shows Republicans strongly oppose it, independents are wary of it and a surprising number of Democrats also want it overturned.” In fact, 56% of those surveyed favored repeal of the health care law, and nearly 1-in-4 Democrats (23%) agreed. Democrat pollster Mark Penn notes, “Undecided voters wanted the healthcare law repealed by 49 percent to 27 percent.”

And Politico reports that ostensibly pro-life Democrats who voted for a health care bill with inadequate protections against government funding of abortions are finding that their vote is “haunt[ing]” them. “[Pennsylvania Rep. Kathy] Dahlkemper and other anti-abortion Democrats are at risk of becoming an endangered species in the House. She and others eventually signed on to the health reform law, endorsing an executive order that barred federal funding of abortions. But SBA List and other anti-abortion groups opposed the executive order, contending it was too weak. Now, SBA List is engaged in a multimillion-dollar attack on its former allies, replete with bus tours and billboards alleging that members ‘voted for taxpayer-funded abortion.’”

In a CNN piece analyzing how Democrats got to this point, Gloria Borger writes, “‘Health care seemed like a totally inside-the-beltway deal,’ says a Democratic pollster. ‘That went against [President Obama’s] own brand.’ And that’s a dangerous thing for any leader, especially one whose persona was tied to a different way of doing business. After spending nine months debating health care, the Democrats had no choice but to try and pass something. Yet instead of going for a scaled-back version — as then-Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had counseled — they went for the whole thing. They won. But if there are any Democrats campaigning on the wonders of reform this cycle, they can all fit in one VW.”

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell blasted Democrats for their arrogant approach to health care and many other issues in the Weekly Republican Address Saturday. “Over the past 19 months, we’ve witnessed something truly remarkable in Washington. We’ve seen a governing party basically tune out the American people who elected them and aggressively advance an agenda that most Americans vehemently opposed. In fact, the more Americans spoke out against government takeovers, government-run health care, wasteful spending, and debt, the more Democratic lawmakers seemed to dig in.”

And Democrats are now seeing the results of their stubborn push for a health care takeover that Americans opposed and which has so far resulted in higher health care costs, higher taxes, lost jobs, and cuts to Medicare. And in just the last couple of weeks, there has been a series of stories showing companies are likely to change or drop health care coverage because of the law, while insurers are telling consumers to brace for “whopping rate increases” thanks to the new mandates. This isn’t what Americans had in mind when they said they wanted health care reform. No wonder majorities in swing districts would like to see the Democrats’ law repealed.

It hasn’t even been a week since President Obama assured a group of Iowans in a backyard discussion that under Democrats’ unpopular health care bill, “[I]f you’ve got health care through your employer, that’s not going to change, except to make it a little bit safer and more secure.” But today, there’s yet another story that Obama’s health care law won’t live up to his promise that “If you like your current plan, you will be able to keep it.”

The Wall Street Journal reports today, “3M Co. confirmed it would eventually stop offering its health-insurance plan to retirees, citing the federal health overhaul as a factor. . . . The St. Paul, Minn., manufacturing conglomerate notified employees on Friday that it would change retiree benefits both for those who are too young to qualify for Medicare and for those who qualify for the Medicare program. Both groups will get an unspecified health reimbursement instead of having access to a company-sponsored health plan.”

Today’s news follows a report in The New York Times on Friday that the Principal Financial Group will stop selling health insurance, which could affect “about 840,000 people who receive their insurance through an employer.” The NYT noted, “Principal’s decision closely tracks moves by other insurers that have indicated in recent weeks that they plan to drop out of certain segments of the market, like the business of selling child-only policies. State regulators say some insurance companies are already threatening to leave particular markets because of the new law.”

And last Thursday, the WSJ reported, “McDonald’s Corp. has warned federal regulators that it could drop its health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 hourly restaurant workers unless regulators waive a new requirement of the U.S. health overhaul.”

Speaking to The Journal, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) said, “[F]or all the employees who were promised they’d be able to keep their current benefits after the health-care law passed, I’m worried that the recent changes we’ve heard about…are just the beginning.”

Indeed, throughout the health care debate, Republicans warned of the consequences of Democrats’ plans to massively expand government in health care. Yet Democrats continued to insist that “[i]f you have health insurance and you like it, and you have a doctor that you like, then you can keep it. Period,” in the words of President Obama. And “[f]olks who are satisfied with their current health insurance coverage could keep it. People would not be required to change health plans,” in the words of Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), one of the key authors of the health care bill.

Americans didn’t want this health care bill in the first place and every week a new story emerges showing that they were right in their skepticism of Democrats’ absurd promises. Just last week yet another poll found a majority of Americans still opposed to Democrats’ health care law. A Politico/George Washington University poll found 54% have an unfavorable view of that legislation. As it becomes clearer and clearer that this flawed health care overhaul cannot live up to Democrats’ promises, it becomes ever more obvious that the bill should be repealed and replaced.

On Wednesday, President Obama was in Iowa to again attempt to sell his policies, particularly his unpopular health care law. In a backyard discussion, a woman expressed her concerns to the President about his health care bill. Obama assured her, “[T]here’s nothing in the bill that says you have to change the health insurance that you’ve got right now.” He went on to say, “[I]f you’ve got health care through your employer, that’s not going to change, except to make it a little bit safer and more secure.”

But The New York Times reports today, “The Principal Financial Group announced on Thursday that it planned to stop selling health insurance, another sign of upheaval emerging among insurers as the new federal health law starts to take effect. The company, based in Iowa, provides coverage to about 840,000 people who receive their insurance through an employer.” So in the very same state the President assured an audience that if they get their health insurance through their employer, “that’s not going to change,” two days later, the NYT is reporting that 840,000 people in that state will no longer be able to get the exact same plan they had.

The NYT adds, “Principal’s decision closely tracks moves by other insurers that have indicated in recent weeks that they plan to drop out of certain segments of the market, like the business of selling child-only policies. State regulators say some insurance companies are already threatening to leave particular markets because of the new law.”

Indeed, the NYT notes that just yesterday, “McDonald’s recently asked federal officials for an exemption to rules that would ban the kind of health plans many of its restaurant workers have, because the existing policies sharply limit coverage.” The Wall Street Journal broke the story, pointing out, “The move is one of the clearest indications that new rules may disrupt workers’ health plans as the law ripples through the real world.” According to the WSJ, McDonald’s dropping its insurance plans could affect “nearly 30,000 hourly restaurant workers.”

Just last week, The Washington Post reported, “Some of the country’s most prominent health insurance companies have decided to stop offering new child-only plans, rather than comply with rules in the new health-care law that will require such plans to start accepting children with preexisting medical conditions after Sept. 23.” As The Post noted, “Three insurers – WellPoint, Cigna and CoventryOne – all cited uncertainty in the health insurance market for their decisions. That incertitude and the resulting decision of other insurers to drop their child-only plans, according to WellPoint spokeswoman Kristin Binns, ‘has created an unlevel competitive environment.’”

Today’s New York Times story adds, “At the Principal Financial Group, the company’s decision reflected its assessment of its ability to compete in the environment created by the new law. . . . More insurers are likely to follow Principal’s lead, especially as they try to meet the new rules that require plans to spend at least 80 cents of every dollar they collect in premiums on the welfare of their customers. . . . “It’s just going to drive the little guys out,” said Robert Laszewski, a health policy consultant in Alexandria, Va. . . . Mr. Laszewski is worried that the ensuing concentration is likely to lead to higher prices because large players will no longer face the competition from the smaller plans.”

Of course, this isn’t what Democrats promised when they were trying to sell their health care bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said last year, “In fact, one of our core principles is that if you like the health care you have, you can keep it.” Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), the Finance Committee chairman who had a hand in writing the bill, said, “Folks who are satisfied with their current health insurance coverage could keep it. People would not be required to change health plans.” And another senator heavily involved in crafting the health care law, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), said, “I say at the outset, if you like what you have, you get to keep it, choose your doctor, hospital, choose the insurance program you have.”

But Americans were rightly skeptical of these unrealistic promises, and they were very clear that this wasn’t the kind of health care reform they were looking for. Yet Democrats arrogantly rushed the bill to passage. The bill was so poorly thought out that companies are already asking for waivers from some of the innumerable mandates in the bill so that tens of thousands of their employees won’t lose their health coverage.

As Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said in May, “Along with most Americans, the entire Republican conference opposed this legislation. We listened to the public and argued strenuously against its passage at every opportunity. . . . And since its passage, our arguments against this bill have been repeatedly vindicated, even as the Administration’s many promises about the bill have been called into question again and again.” Today’s news is just one more broken promise capping six months of stories showing the American people and Republicans in Congress were right all along in opposing Democrats’ health care law.

Honestly, you Democrats MUST be tired of defending this guy.

The mathematician in chief was in Richmond yesterday and made (yet again) some remarks that try to demonize and belittle Republican plans. Just wondering how smaller government and lower taxes stacks up against a powerful message like hope and change.

Americans for Prosperity – as usual – are on top of this!

RICHMOND – The Virginia chapter of Americans for Prosperity welcomed President Barack Obama to Richmond yesterday by setting up signs along the motorcade route with a simple message that read “Cut Spending.” The President mentioned these signs during his speech at the Southampton Recreation Association, noting that he was “amused” to see them.

Ben Marchi, Virginia State Director of Americans for Prosperity, released the following statement today regarding President Barack Obama’s remarks:

“We’re disappointed that President Obama thinks our message of cutting government spending is amusing.  I doubt that Virginians are amused by his wasteful stimulus spending, absurd health care bill and job-killing cap-and-trade legislation. AFP remains committed to cutting wasteful spending. We don’t think the country’s economy is a laughing matter.

I can only hope that the President will one day learn that we cannot spend our way to prosperity and that spending away our future and the future of our children is not a joke.”

Everybody practically is saying the GOP needs 51 votes to control the Senate with former Delaware Senator Joe Biden as VP. Here’s Dick Morris and Elieen McGann for example:

Nationally, Republicans need 10 pickups to win the Senate.

But I have a different theory:  The GOP needs only 50 seats to win control and might even win control with 49.  How?

It’s as simple as another of my political heroes, Senator Joe Lieberman.  Lieberman has been the key vote before for the Dems to control the Senate.  He endorsed and spoke for Senator McCain at the ’08 GOP Convention.  (Lieberman was believed to be on the short list for McCain’s VP – I wonder what would have happened.  Would the conservatives have walked out or would McCain have won?  I never had a problem with Lieberman as VP even if he is a superhawk.)  Lieberman was reported by The Hill to be considering a GOP run for Senate in 2012.  The Republicans seem to be returning the favor. Liberals sought his ouster as Homeland Security Committee chair for helping McCain but the deal was made and Lieberman stayed in the chair.  Lieberman would be keen on keeping that spot.  So, he may very well caucus with the GOP this next election.  (I think that the Tea Party would be cool to Lieberman and he may be primaryied if he ran as a Republican.)

Suppose the GOP got 50 votes or even 49?  There is a potential new wrinkle:  Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska.  While he stated some time ago that he would not switch to GOP or even independent and that he was happy with the Democrats, Nelson’s polling numbers took a dive after the health-care bill.  A political makeover could revive his fortunes; Nelson is a chair of two subcommittees (Legislative Branch of Appropriations and Strategic Forces of Armed Services) and might want to protect that status.  Becoming an independent and caucusing with the GOP might also be the prescription Senator Nelson needs to get re-elected in 2012.  Nelson is reported to have opposed the EPA carbon regulations and also financial services legislation.

I would say, if we get 51 that’s great.  But if the Republicans get 50 or 49, control is still possible.  (Keep in mind that the Dems could and would filibuster important bills and measures.  But we would control the committees and the calendar of legislation.)

Hidden away in the Obamacare bill is a little noticed section that vastly expands the requirements businesses will have for tracking and filing 1099′s. Most businesses, large and small are familiar with 1099′s. When someone works for you that is not on the payroll, it is routine to report the payments to both the individual and the IRS on form 1099. And while this can be a bit of a pain, it is not such a burden that it causes massive time and expense on the part of the business.

Until now, that is.

When Nancy Pelosi said we will have to pass the bill to find out what is in it, she was not kidding. This legislation is jammed with hidden burdens and government takeovers as well as laws that will massively expand the size of the Federal Government. And much of this has nothing to do with Health Care.

Most are aware of the provisions to take over student loans, which has already happened.

Many businesses are shocked to learn that starting in 2012, any payment of $600 or more to one individual or business, including churches and charities will require the filing of a 1099.

The current law requires the frderal form only to individuals, but has been expanded exponentially by the Health Care bill.

According to CNN:

The stealth change radically alters the nature of 1099s and means businesses will have to issue millions of new tax documents each year.

Right now, the IRS Form 1099 is used to document income for individual workers other than wages and salaries. Freelancers receive them each year from their clients, and businesses issue them to the independent contractors they hire.

But under the new rules, if a freelance designer buys a new iMac from the Apple Store, they’ll have to send Apple a 1099. A laundromat that buys soap each week from a local distributor will have to send the supplier a 1099 at the end of the year tallying up their purchases.

This also means that if you drive a truck across country, you will have to issue a 1099 to every gas station from which you purchases more than a combined $600 in fuel. This unbelievable burden will require businesses to track and obtain Federal Tax Numbers for service stations, hotels, restaurants, or any place you spent $600 or more during the tax year.

Nebraska Republican Senator Mike Johanns is introducing legislation to repeal this onerous requirement. Yesterday, Virginia Right! attended a conference call where the Senator explained the provisions of the bill as well as his efforts to help small businesses from being burdened with this bad legislation by repealing the section. The audio of that call is in the YouTube video below.

There is a Democratic proposal to “fix” the requirement, but as Senator Johanns explains, this will actually make things worse. And, of course, the Obama Administration is against repeal of this totally unrelated section, as placing additional burden and expense on the sector that creates jobs is of no concern to him.

More From Virginia Right!

• Another Broken Health Care Promise: Admin Rules Could Force Changes in Health Plans
• Time to Reform Health Care Reform
• Obama Replacement Roland Burris Says No to Health Bill

Virginia Right! Recommends

• Obama to Acquire Control of the Internet?  (WesternFront America)
• Rep. Tom McClintock’s Response to Pres. Calderon  (LogisticsMonster)

Ask Virginia Right! To Recommend Your Posts

It must be awfully tempting:  get an incumbent Senator for the first time on your ballot.  But the Alaska Libertarian Party should do a paraphrase of Lloyd Bentsen and proclaim:  “I know libertarianism, some libertarians are friends of mine, and you are no libertarian, Senator Murkowski.”  Here’s a story on the situation.

Here’s a precis of Murkowski’s positions:

She’s for cap and trade but not Obama’s version:

Murkowski opposes cap-and-trade legislation proposed by President Obama, but has previously voiced support for a cap and trade plan that she believes would do less damage to the economy.

Murkowski is for a border fence:

Murkowski said she believes the first thing that needs to be done to stop the flow of illegal immigrants in the country is to secure the border.

This can be accomplished by utilizing a fence, the National Guard and technologies such as video cameras in more remote areas, she said.

The senator is also for a form of health care reform:

“In my version of health care reform, we reduce not only the cost of care, but the cost of providing for coverage and we increase access,” she said. “The health care bill the president signed in March does not do that.”

The senator believes a better health care package would include medical malpractice reform, curtail defensive medicine and increase competition by allowing people to buy insurance across state lines.

“When it comes to insurance, we’re not a very attractive market here in Alaska, because we’re a small market.” she said. “… When you don’t have competition, you’re not going to see your costs reduced.”

Senator Murkowski does not speak to Federal lands in Alaska or other ways to reduce government.  Why would the libertarians endorse her?  She won’t stop unnecessary wars either.

Here’s the libertarian candidate’s positions.  They are basically local control of schools, ending the war on drugs, and muddled positions on global warming and the “war on terror”.

No, the Alaska Libertarian Party must say no to the temptation for power at the expense of principle.  It’s like the Third Temptation of Christ:  “Again, the devil took him [Jesus Christ] to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and the glory of them; and he said to him,’All these will I give you, if you will fall down and worship me.”"  (Matthew 4:8-9 [RSV])  Jesus said no and insisted His loyalty was to God the Father.  Don’t do it!