NH INSIDER

By Chris Slavens

The first half of March was marked by a renewed Democratic effort to ram some kind—any kind—of health-care reform down the throats of we, the people, as the ruling party worked to meet President Obama's meaningless March 18 deadline, the most recent in a string of health-care deadlines that began last year. Artificial deadlines come and go, while the debate goes on.

The voters aren't buying it. New Rasmussen polls indicate that 57% predict the current plan will "hurt the U.S. economy," while 55% think Congress should scrap it and start from scratch. This is one of two reasons why House Democrats are considering pushing ahead with the unpopular legislation by resorting to the aptly-named "Slaughter Solution," which would allow them to "pass" the Senate's health-care bill without actually voting on it. This option appeals to Democrats who are worried about the November election; they would be able to tell constituents that they did not, in fact, vote for (or against) the legislation.

Whether voters are stupid enough to fall for this tactic remains to be seen.

The second reason why Democrats would like to pass the bill without, well, passing it is because it is quite possible that they will be defeated if an honest up-or-down vote is held. Never mind the unbending Republican opposition; even fellow Democrats are nervous about following Comrade Pelosi and her radical cohorts off a legislative cliff, by attaching their names to a 2,000-page political suicide note.

Their misgivings are justified, but it might be too late; the Democratic Party now owns ObamaCare, and even semi-conservative Blue Dogs will have a difficult time distancing themselves from its taint during campaign season.

Democratic proponents can sidestep both Republicans and moderate members of their own party. Dirty dealing and icy pragmatism of this sort would impress even Machiavelli, who literally wrote the book on getting things done at any cost.

There are a number of problems with this approach. Passing controversial legislation without a vote is sneaky at best, and might be unconstitutional, as well. It is ironically antidemocratic and disturbingly un-American to force a federal health-care takeover upon millions of citizens without giving their elected representatives an opportunity to vote for or against it. That doesn't seem to matter to proponents, whose collective argument is, essentially: "Screw the rules. Screw the Constitution. Just pass the bill, no matter what!" Or, as Pelosi threatened on March 16, "We will do what is necessary to pass a health care bill."

This anything-goes approach is a dangerous way to govern (a term which must be used loosely in reference to the current administration). It reflects an elitist disdain for the well-being and wishes of the American people, as well as a callous disregard for the Constitution and the basic principles that the House of Representatives is based upon.

There is a way out for moderate Democrats caught in the middle of an ideological tug-of-war. Just stop. Refuse to cave in to pressure from Obama (who does not have to worry about reelection this year), and refuse to accept the antidemocratic Slaughter Solution, and there is a chance that you will manage to hang onto a few seats in November. Ram the bill through without a vote, and you will have invited the inevitable political fallout.

Chris Slavens, former contributor to the Wilmington News Journal, is a Liberty Features Syndicated writer for Americans for Limited Government.

http://blog.getliberty.org/default.asp?Display=2124

ALG Editor's Note: As noted in the following featured commentary by the San Francisco Examiner's David Freddoso, the DOJ has yet to fulfill a Freedom of Information Act request that Americans for Limited Government filed months ago:

 By: David Freddoso

Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, has written Attorney General Eric Holder regarding Dawn Johnsen, President Obama's nominee to run the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice.

Johnsen, who once took part in a legal action to punish the Catholic Church for its pro-life stance, and who once compared pregnancy to slavery in a legal argument, has watched her nomination languish due to various senators' concerns. Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted along party lines to send Johnsen's nomination to the Senate floor, but some believe that could be as far as her nomination goes.

King is seeking documents that would show Johnsen has been effectively doing the job at OLC anyway, despite the Senate's failure to confirm her so far:

It is alarming that news reports have indicated that Ms. Johnsen has been performing duties prescribed to the Office of Legal Counsel, despite the fact that the Senate has not confirmed her nomination….In order to confirm or dismiss allegations regarding Ms. Johnsen's violation of pre-confirmation etiquette and potential disregard for the Constitution's clearly defined Senate confirmation process, I respectfully request that you provide my office with copies of all records of communications between any Office of Legal Counsel officials and Dawn Johnsen regarding personnel decisions that involve hiring, firing, promotion, discipline or any other personnel actions for career and non-career Office of Legal Counsel officials.

The group Americans for Limited Government requested the same documents in an October FOIA request, which has gone unanswered. Whether Johnsen was doing the job without confirmation is unproven, but the Obama administration's months-long failure to comply with the Freedom of Information Act is undisputed.

http://blog.getliberty.org/default.asp?Display=2122



By Robert Romano

On March 2^nd, in response to the escalating sovereign debt crisis spreading globally, House Blue Dog Democrats introduced a "Balanced Budget Amendment." A day later, the House Republican Caucus introduced their own "Spending Limit Amendment."

So, which is better?

A balanced budget sounds good, but if not coupled with limits on either taxation or spending, would become the means for annual automatic tax increases to "pay" for unbridled, ever-escalating spending. 

Which, even without any amendments may be the plan Democrats have in mind anyway.

House Democrats, after all, have just presented another "deficit-neutral" version of ObamaCare.  So, how do they balance their budget? In large part, with cuts in physician pay and Medicare, and by raising taxes by some $438 billion, including a new "3.8 percent tax would be imposed on interest, dividends, capital gains and other investment income for individuals making more than $200,000 a year and couples making more than $250,000," as reported by FOXNews.com.

In short, to provide government-run health care to over 30 million new people, House Democrats plan to reduce quality, ration senior care, and put heavy burdens on an already fragile economy.  All of which tells us a little bit about what a life might be like under the Democrats' Balanced Budget Amendment.

In contrast, under the Spending Limit Amendment, federal spending would always be limited to 20 percent of the Gross Domestic Product except by declaration of war or two-thirds votes in both houses of Congress. 

That would inherently limit taxation and spending to what the economy could afford to pay for.

Not so under the Balanced Budget Amendment.   For example, if Congress votes to spend $4 trillion in a year, it has to find $4 trillion in revenue unless the declaration of war provision is invoked, or there is a three-fifths vote in Congress to deficit-spend.

Curiously, for the first time ever in the history of the Federal Constitution, the "Balanced Budget Amendment" includes entitlements: disbursements to the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Federal Disability Insurance Trust Fund can never be cut.  Although, there appears to be no provision prohibiting the Congress from borrowing money out of those funds to pay for other items.

In short, a balanced budget can be good, but only if it includes a spending limit.  Otherwise, raising taxes annually will become Congress' preferred means to pay for so-called "mandatory" spending on entitlements. 

The hour grows late, and a spending limit is exactly the right prescription.  As ALG News has previously reported, the U.S. could have its credit downgraded as soon as 2014, which would result in much higher interest rates, higher taxes, an even weaker dollar, and a devastated economy.  As soon as possible, the U.S. needs to reduce interest payments on its debt. That number must stay below 14 percent.  If it doesn't, the U.S. Triple-A debt rating will be downgraded.

The nation has to decide how it will restrain itself.  Congress needs to be constitutionally constrained in how much it can spend, not constitutionally permitted to tax as much as it wants to maintain the entitlement state.  The Spending Limit Amendment fits the bill.

Robert Romano is the Senior Editor of ALG News Bureau.

http://blog.getliberty.org/default.asp?Display=2123

By William Warren

Despite the mainstream media's attempts to downplay the national backlash against government-run health care, the word is out and the American people are clearly fed up with Barack Obama's endless attempts to force "ObamaCare" down their throats.

The polling speaks for itself.  The latest Rasmussen Reports survey indicates that a significant majority of Americans oppose the healthcare plan that the Democrat hegemony in Washington has proposed.  This sentiment is clearly echoed in the latest Obama job approval poll from Gallup as well, in which the President finds himself firmly in hostile territory (47% disapprove, 46% approve).

Most interesting of all, however, is how this public opinion is playing out on a local level in places such as Benson, Arizona; Butler, Pennsylvania; or Southhaven, Mississippi.  While the Democrats might be busy making a big splash in Washington, D.C., the ripples are being felt in places like these and many others across the nation.  And the "ripples" are quite significant.

A recent batch of polling data regarding individual House Democrats in crucial swing districts indicates just how outraged their constituents are—and it all hinges on ObamaCare. 

The polls, conducted by Pulse Opinion Research and commissioned by Americans for Limited Government, asked a sample of 400 voters in each district some very simple questions.  The survey gauged voters' overall views on health care reform, whether they would likely support a candidate who votes for health care reform, and whether they would likely support their specific Congressman should he or she vote for health care reform.

The results were overwhelmingly conclusive.  In nearly every congressional district surveyed, voters made it clear that they do not support ObamaCare and will not vote for the incumbent Democrat should he or she vote in favor of ObamaCare.  It's almost insultingly obvious. 

Simply put, never before has a single national issue played such an influential local role in district after district. 

First of all, consider Earl Pomeroy of North Dakota.  Ever since he took office in 1993, this Democrat has handedly been reelected again and again, even getting 61.97 percent of the vote in 2008.  Although a Republican hasn't held the congressional seat since 1980, everything may be about to change.

Representative Pomeroy, who voted "yes" on ObamaCare, is in big trouble according to the ALG poll.  50 percent of his voters say they will be less likely to vote for him if he continues to support the bill, whereas only 42 percent would support him.  Likewise, 59 percent of independents would likely vote against their candidate should he vote for ObamaCare.  Also of note is that voters in his distinct decisively oppose the bill by about a 2.5 to 1 margin.

Another "yes" vote for ObamaCare is Congressman Harry Mitchell of Arizona's 5^th District—and his numbers are even worse than Pomeroy's.  According to the poll, 60 percent of voters said they would be less likely to vote for Representative Mitchell in November if he continues to vote in favor of Obamacare.  As with Pomeroy's, voters in his district oppose the health care bill by a 2.76 to 1 margin.

A third one worth mentioning is Bill Owens, the newly elected Democrat in New York's 23^rd district.  Although slightly safer than the two aforementioned congressmen, Representative Owens is hurting his already slim reelection chances by supporting ObamaCare.  He may have been able to eke out a win last November by winning over the independents, but according to the ALG poll, a majority of Independent, unaffiliated voters will likely vote against Rep. Owens if he votes for ObamaCare this week, or next.  Also, his district opposes the legislation by a nearly 2 to 1 margin.   

Even Democrats who have already voted against ObamaCare are in trouble…simply by having a "D" next to their names and not taking a harder stand on the issue.  58 percent of Betsy Markey's (D-CO4) constituents said they would vote against her if she votes in favor of ObamaCare.  This includes a stunning 71 percent of independents.

Similarly, 66 percent independent voters in Representative John Boccierri's OH16 district said they would not support him should he vote in favor of ObamaCare.   

The full results of all 15 polls can be viewed here, including the crosstabs for each poll.

The lesson from these polls is rather simple:  if any of these vulnerable Democrats want to survive politically, they must vote against ObamaCare.  And they must do it proudly and decisively.  It's the only chance they've got. 

Taking a halfhearted stand against the legislation won't be enough.  Voters are sick and tired and won't accept any more excuses.  Bold and decisive leadership—the kind of leadership that enthusiastically shouts "No!" to Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid and "Yes!" to the people—is what they want.

One very immediate way these Democrats can begin to make amends today is by thwarting the so-called "Slaughter Solution", a maneuver that would "deem" ObamaCare legislation into law and circumvent a traditional up or down vote.  As ALG News has previously reported, such a maneuver is blatantly unconstitutional and is a desecration of the American system of representative government.

Rep. Parker Griffith (a former Democrat, ironically enough) has sponsored a resolution to stop the "Slaughter Solution" in its tracks and every vulnerable Democrat would be wise to join alongside him.

Voters are not merely outraged with ObamaCare in and of itself, but outraged with the process that Democrats have gone about in this legislative escapade.  From this new "Slaughter Solution", backroom bribes, secret deals, changing the rules or ignoring the rules, the process is equally as corrupt as the product itself.

For these vulnerable Democrats in these crucial swing districts, the choice they make this week will have career-altering ramifications come November.  The dilemma is as simple as it is seismic: kill the bill or kill their careers.

Even a Congressman should have enough common sense to make the right choice. 

William Warren is the Creative Director of Americans for Limited Government.

http://blog.getliberty.org/default.asp?Display=2121

By Kevin J. Mooney

Even as the public remains understandably preoccupied with President Obama's proposed government takeover of healthcare, it is imperative for free market activists to remain vigilant against environmental extremism.

In the past few months, the credibility of the "science" underpinning catastrophic claims of global warming have been sullied and discredited thanks to the growing "Climategate" scandal and updated research. However "inconvenient" these revelations may be from the perspective of centralized planners within the Obama Administration, it has not slowed their statist ambitions.

Consider for a moment the President's remarks from his State of the Union address:

"I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy," he said.  "I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change.  But here's the thing -- even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy-efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future -- because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy.  And America must be that nation."

Come again?! Regardless of what the evidence says, we are pressing ahead with "incentives" — make that regulations — that stymie fossil fuels in deference to so-called green technology. Meanwhile Russia and China are moving forward with oil and gas development that could leave the U.S. in the dust as it tinkers with unproven, unreliable "alternative" energy sources.

A new Gallup poll shows that a growing number of Americans now see fit to dismiss global warming alarmism. Emails leaked to the Internet from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) with the University of East Anglia in Great Britain that show researchers willingly manipulating and fudging data to show their desired result could be partially responsible here for the public shift.

However, free market groups like The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) should also be credited for raising awareness about the higher energy prices that would be attached to Kyoto-type regulatory schemes favored by President Obama. Small wonder, that in the teeth of a tough economy the Waxman-Markey "cap and trade" bill has died in the Senate.

Unfortunately, in 2007 the U.S. Supreme Court, in Massachusetts v. EPA, ruled that the agency needed to bring its practices more in line with the requirements of the Clean Air Act. There was no strict regulatory requirement outlined in the decision but the EPA finally responded with an endangerment finding last December that declared greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare and therefore must be subjected to regulation and government control. This is where the danger comes in because within the framework of environmentalism, there is no sure way to check the grand designs of government schemers.

"Our health care system is only part of the economy and it's already half socialized," Myron Ebell, CEI's director of global warming policy, observed at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). "The energy sector is still virtually a free market. If we allow government to take over the energy sector, they will be in your house telling you how much air conditioning you can use or how much heating."

That's no joke.

In California, government agents are ambitious to gain control over thermostats. The plan is outlined in a 236-page state document called "Title 24."

There is an antidote now in circulation that deserves the full support of free market forces. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) has introduced a bipartisan resolution that would block the EPA under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), an unheralded, but highly valuable provision included as part of The Contract With America. Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) was a principle sponsor of the CRA, which was signed into law by President Clinton… ahem.

Tea Party activists and other concerned Americans who have joined together in an effective campaign against ObamaCare must also join forces here with Sen. Murkowski to blunt the big government plans brewing inside the EPA.

Kevin J. Mooney is a contributing editor to ALG News Bureau and the Executive Editor of TimesCheck.com.

http://blog.getliberty.org/default.asp?Display=2120