Archive for the ‘Obamacare’ Category

Posted on April 19, 2012 by Conservative Byte

Yesterday was tax day, serving as a special reminder of how big the federal government has become. As Heritage has warned before, Obamacare is on track to makes things a lot worse.

The President’s health law will be partially paid for by tax increases and the creation of new taxes. When Obamacare first passed, the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that its tax hikes would total $502 billion over the next 10 years. But most of the new, higher taxes don’t kick in until later in the decade, which means that once all of the law is fully implemented, the taxpayers’ tab will be much bigger than originally estimated.

A new study by the Joint Economic Committee (JEC) revealed today that Obamacare will impose higher taxes totaling $4 trillion between now and 2035, with substantial hits on working Americans. That works out to more than $1.7 trillion over a decade—more than triple the original 10-year score.

Below is a list of 10 of Obamacare’s most costly taxes and fees, drawn from research by Heritage tax policy expert Curtis Dubay:
1. Hospital Insurance Tax. Beginning in 2013, Obamacare increases the Hospital Insurance (HI) portion of the payroll tax from 2.9 percent to 3.8 percent for families earning more than $250,000 a year and for single filers earning more than $200,000 annually. The increased HI tax is also applied to investment income for the first time. The 3.8 percent surtax on investment income is the most economically damaging tax in Obamacare. And these tax increases won’t remain just on families making more than $250,000 a year for long. As the JEC explains, this tax is not indexed to inflation: “This means that in just 10 years from now, the so-called ‘high-income’ thresholds will have effectively ratcheted down to $152,000 and $190,000 in today’s dollars.” This tax increase amounts to $210 billion between 2013 and 2019.
2. Mandate Penalties. In 2014, Obamacare’s individual and employer mandates go into effect, forcing individuals to purchase coverage and employers to offer coverage to their workers. The penalties paid in association with these mandates are an estimated $65 billion between 2014 and 2019.
3. Health Insurance Provider Fee. Starting in 2014, Obamacare imposes an annual fee on health insurance providers based on each company’s share of the total market. This totals a $60 billion tax hike between 2014 and 2019.
4. “Cadillac” Tax. In 2018, Obamacare puts a new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health plans, meaning plans that cost more than $10,200 for an individual and $27,500 for families. However, this tax is not indexed to medical inflation, causing it to eventually tax “Honda” plans at this rate as well. The JEC points out that “[t]he bulk of revenues from the ‘Cadillac’ tax would not be paid by platinum health insurance plans, but rather by employees who are forced to exchange tax-free health insurance benefits for taxable wages after employers reduce or eliminate health insurance.” This tax amounts to $32 billion in higher taxes in the first two years of its implementation.
5. Prescription Drug Fees. Since 2011, Obamacare has put an annual fee on manufacturers and importers of branded drugs based on each individual company’s share of the total market. Between 2011 and 2019, this will amount to a $27 billion tax increase.
6. Ethanol Tax. In 2010, Obamacare excluded ethanol from the existing cellulosic biofuel producer tax credit. This will hike taxes $24 billion from 2010–2019.
7. Medical Device Tax. Beginning in 2013, Obamacare imposes a 2.3 percent excise tax on medical device manufacturers. This will raise taxes on patients needing medical devices, who will ultimately pay the tax through higher prices, by $20 billion from 2013 to 2019.
8. Business Regulation Costs. Beginning in 2012, Obamacare raises corporate taxes through stricter enforcement, because businesses will be required to report more information on their business activities. This will raise taxes $17 billion from 2012 to 2019.
9. Reducing Medical Deductions. In 2013, Obamacare raises the floor on itemized medical deductions from 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income to 10 percent, meaning Americans must spend 2.5 percent more of their income before they get a medical deduction, costing $15 billion from 2013 to 2019.
10. FSA Limits. Starting in 2014, Obamacare limits the amount of pre-tax dollars that taxpayers can deposit in flexible savings accounts (FSAs) to $2,500 a year. This results in an extra $13 billion in taxes from 2014 to 2019.
These are only 10 of Obamacare’s 18 tax increases. The economic damage from these tax hikes is one of many reasons Congress needs to repeal Obamacare and start from scratch to properly reform the health care system.

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., said he advised President Obama against taking up health care reform following a special election in 2010 that changed Democrats’ fortunes in the Senate, saying that he should have instead turned his focus to financial reform.
From National Journal:

Frank referenced former President Bill Clinton and his failed health care plan from the 1990s. “Obama made the same mistake Clinton made,” Frank said in a wide-ranging interview with New York magazine. “When you try to extend health care to people who don’t have it, people who have it and are on the whole satisfied with it get nervous.”
The outgoing representative from Massachusetts added that after Republican Scott Brown won former Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s seat, breaking Democrats’ filibuster-proof majority, Obama should have backed down: “I think we paid a terrible price for health care. I would not have pushed it as hard. As a matter of fact, after Scott Brown won, I suggested going back. I would have started with financial reform but certainly not health care,” Frank said.
He said that if the president had followed his advice, “you could have gotten some pieces of it.”
Republicans seized on the comments, with the National Republican Congressional Committee issuing a release to several Democratic-held districts on Monday: “Even Barney Frank admits that ObamaCare has been a disaster,” the statement read. On Tuesday, Frank pushed back against the growing storm, saying that the GOP is “twisting my words,” and arguing that he was making a comment on the politics of the bill, not its “subject matter.”
“I have no issue with the subject matter or the bill itself,” Frank said in an interview with Talking Points Memo. “I was just commenting on the politics. And I was saying it was a mistake to have done it first.”
He further argued that he believes the bill will become more popular as time goes by. “I think, for instance, as the health care bill goes forward, it will be less and less plausible that it was doing any damage to anybody, and more and more people will be seeing the benefits of it,” Frank said.

Richard Salsman in a new piece in Forbes.com makes an illuminating point about the efforts to defend ObamaCare:

Defenders of ObamaCare before the Supreme Court last week argued from precedent, reminding the justices that there were already scores of mandates embedded throughout America’s semi-socialized health care system – including the mandate that you pay Medicare/Medicaid taxes out of your paycheck, and EMTALA, which (as discussed above) requires hospitals to admit and treat non-payers who show up at emergency rooms. True enough; such injustices certainly do exist. But why should they persist? These existing mandates also violate rights, and violate the Constitution too, and all the while are contributing to the very problems complained of in the current medical system. So why retain them, let alone praise them?

How brazen are these statist lawyers, these alleged defenders of “justice” who unabashedly cite existing injustices in current medical legislation as a valid pretext for intensifying and spreading still further instances of injustice. The Supreme Court, instead of interpreting existing medical mandates (injustices) as a legal “justification” for condoning still more mandates (injustices), should be asking the defenders of ObamaCare for a detailed list of those mandates currently embedded in scores of existing U.S. laws, and then strike them all down at once, as a violation of the 13th Amendment’s prohibition against slavery and involuntary servitude.

In other words, that there are already myriad statist and unconstitutional policies in place does not justify a new slew of rights-violating policies. It does not justify ObamaCare.

By Howard J. Warner
In 2009, as the health care reform legislation made its way through the Congress, many on both sides argued for their respective positions. (I wrote an article discussing some of the issues which appeared in the American Thinker in November 2009.) The legislation eventually was passed and signed by President Obama in March 2010. As of this writing, the Supreme Court is reviewing the constitutionality of this legislation. Again, both sides are arguing the eventual outcome. But what does this fight say about the American society and Constitution established over 200 years ago?
Proponents of the federal law feel that the health care system is broken because it does not guarantee equal care to all residents. They see this legislation as helping to ensure a more equitable distribution of health care, an extension of fairness in the greater society. This is the daily cry of the president and his supporters. Whether one agrees with this aim or not, it is commendable. The question for the Court is whether the legislation meets the requirements under the Constitution. Clearly, the opposition feel that it does not; they also oppose the remedy that emerged on philosophical grounds.
The media continues to point to the question of a mandate underlying the legislation. Some point to the mandate embedded within the health care reform passed in Massachusetts while Mitt Romney was governor. This issue underlies the argument about his worthiness to become the Republican nominee for president. The president promised the American people better-quality health care for more residents at a lower cost when he was a candidate in 2008. Unfortunately, the result has not materialized. Premiums are rising faster because of the cost to provide coverage for previously uninsured people. The Congressional Budget Office has recently announced that its estimates for the federal cost have doubled from over $900 billion over ten years to $1.7 trillion. Undoubtedly, the costs will continue to rise. But will we be able to maintain the level of care that our privately financed system has provided?
Clearly, it is important to understand the issues related to the Court case. However, there are other issues not mentioned publicly. Did the process used to pass the legislation violate the Constitution or congressional procedures? The Constitution requires bills of revenue to arise in the House before they can proceed. The procedure of reconciliation, which does not allow for filibusters in the Senate, is used to pass budget bills. This legislation may have had budget impact, but it was beyond this in scope. In the end, the Senate bill was used as the basis for the final bill without any conference compromise. Final approval required some slight corrections through the reconciliation process. This is troubling, as was the often repeated quotation by Speaker Pelosi that we would know what is in the bill after it was passed. So much for openness and transparency so often promised to the American people by the president.
The issue mentioned by opponents of Mitt Romney concerns another constitutional question. We may disagree on whether a mandate is acceptable. However, we should not confuse the federal government imposing this mandate with a state under the Tenth Amendment exercising this right. The so-called “RomneyCare,” which is only 70 pages long, should not be equated with the 2,500-page “ObamaCare,” which imposes many other requirements over the entire populace. Massachusetts as a liberal state desired this legislation. Clearly, the costs have soared, and one can question the value of the law, but the issues are not identical. At the time, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative organization, had supported an individual mandate as way to cover more uninsured people. They have since changed their position. At the time, liberals did not like this approach, favoring a single-federal-payer approach. Of course, now liberals have accepted this method; it may get the country to a single-payer eventually.
In 1936, the Court was given the issue of Social Security to rule on its constitutionality. They decided that it did not violate the Constitution, as the legislation was structured as a tax following the authority under the 16th Amendment. Although the public thought they were getting a pension plan, the Court did not rule in this manner. President Obama spoke of a penalty for not having insurance to avoid the impression that he was raising taxes during a severe recession in 2009 and 2010. However, it is hard to avoid the fact that the penalty occurs only if one has not purchased insurance — a fact which Justice Breyer tried to elucidate during Monday’s oral arguments. Finally on the issue of mandates, how does the commerce clause allow regulation of a product or service if it has not been purchased? Where is commerce without a purchase? Or to put it a different way, does the Constitution allow the Congress to force anyone to buy anything? (Will the government tell me which toothpaste to buy?) Would the Founders recognize this requirement or ever support it under limited government?
Health care throughout the world is subject to scarcity. In countries with socialized care, services may be limited by government panels, the cost of delivery, and availability of equipment and services, with age restrictions on certain procedures, and increasing use of private health insurance, as a solution to this scarcity. Health care in the USA is highly specialized, uses high technology, and is plentiful. This is expensive, results in shorter waiting times for services, and has resulted in higher costs than in other industrialized nations. Already, some are questioning whether former Vice President Cheney should have received a heart transplant since he is 71 years old. Scarcity in America is more often related to cost for the individual. Some argue that that it is not fair, but should all care be equal? Do persons living in smaller communities have fewer choices?
There is some concern about financing the health care system. In the reform legislation, changes are made to Medicare reimbursement rates to save money. As more cost pressure upon the system mounts, further cuts in services will be required. As the federal requirements increase through regulatory decree from the Health and Human Services secretary, as part of the bill, more private employers will choose to eliminate their plans and pay the penalty. This will put pressure on private insurance companies to increase rates, further eroding participant numbers. The recent decision to force religiously affiliated institution to offer contraceptive services is a clear example that threatens private-sector participation. This issue also threatens the privileges under the First Amendment.
The Court will also have to decide whether the mandate or the entire bill must be eliminated. In their zeal to pass the legislation when the Democrats had a filibuster-proof Senate, they did not bother to insert a severability clause. However, the death of Senator Kennedy resulted in the election of Senator Brown (R) in Massachusetts, who campaigned against the reform bill. This was the cause of the procedural gimmicks employed as previously mentioned. Severability clauses allow the remaining legislation to survive if any portion is found unconstitutional.
This case is quite unusual. The Court has allowed five and a half hours for oral arguments. They expedited the review process — a rare occurrence. They heard arguments concerning the standing of the case since the penalty (tax) has not kicked in yet (which is an issue due to previous legislation). In the end, this may be a seminal decision affecting the growth of governmental power or its restriction. Stay tuned for the results.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/03/health_care_reform_legislation_revisited.html#ixzz1qnFyyOox

Justices Ponder Striking Down Entire Obamacare Package
By Newsmax Wires

The Supreme Court’s conservative justices are hinting that they might have to strike down Obamacare entirely because declaring the individual mandate unconstitutional would require nullifying the entire law.

“The court’s conservatives said the law was passed as a package and must fall as a package,” the Los Angeles Times reported.

Although the court is expected to rule by late June on the fate of the President Obama’s signature legislation, Justice Antonin Scalia hinted that the decision might be a fait accompli even at this point.

“One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto,” the Times quoted Scalia as saying.

Similarly, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an “extreme proposition” to permit the varied insurance regulations to remain if the mandate were struck down.

On the other hand, the court’s liberal justices urged caution. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court should do a “salvage job,” not undertake a “wrecking operation.”

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. echoed Scalia and Kennedy’s view that the law should stand or fall in total. They and Justice Clarence Thomas would have a majority to quash the entire law.

An Obama administration lawyer countered that it would be “extraordinary” for the court to throw out the entire law.

The law, which constitutes the U.S. healthcare system’s biggest overhaul in nearly 50 years, seeks to provide health insurance to more than 30 million previously uninsured Americans and to slow down soaring medical costs.

The 26 of the 50 U.S. states challenging the law say the rest of Obama’s healthcare overhaul must go if the court strikes the insurance requirement. Paul Clement, their advocate before the Supreme Court, told the justices that the so-called individual mandate to obtain insurance or face a penalty is “essential to the entire scheme.”

The first of the day’s two sessions was unusual in that it assumed an answer to the central question in the historic health care case: that the requirement that Americans carry health insurance or pay a penalty will be struck down.

In their questions, the liberal justices took issue with Paul Clement, the lawyer for 26 states seeking to have the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act tossed out in its entirety.

“What’s wrong with leaving this in the hands of those who should be fixing this?” asked Justice Sandra Sotomayor, referring to Congress.

Roberts also spoke about parts of the law that “have nothing to do with any of the things we are” talking about.

For example, Ginsburg observed that the act deals with issues such as black lung disease.

“Why make Congress redo those?” she asked. “There are many things” that have “nothing to do with affordable health care.”

But Clement said the court would be leaving “a hollow shell” if it decided to excise the several key provisions. “The rest of the law cannot stand,” he contended.

Roberts and Kennedy also asked hard questions of Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler that indicated they are at least considering Clement’s arguments. Kneedler said that the only other provisions the court should kill in the event the mandate is stricken are revisions that require insurers to cover people regardless of existing medical problems and limit how much companies can charge in premiums based on a person’s age or health.

Scalia suggested many members of Congress might not have voted for the bill without the central provisions, and he said the court should not go through each and every page to sort out what stays and what goes.

“What happened to the Eighth Amendment?” Scalia asked, referring to the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. “You really expect us to go through 2,700 pages?”

As the arguments resumed Wednesday morning, a smaller group of demonstrators than on previous days gathered outside.

Supporters of the law held a morning news conference where speakers talked about the importance of Medicaid. And, marching on the sidewalk outside the court, supporters repeated chants they’ve used the past two days including “Ho, ho, hey, hey, Obamacare is here to stay.” Most of their group departed not long after arguments began inside.

Opponents of the law, including Susan Clark of Santa Monica, Calif., also stood outside the court. Clark, who was wearing a three-cornered colonial-style hat, carried a sign that read “Obamacare a disaster in every way!”

“Freedom, yes. Obamacare, no,” other opponents chanted.

The first two days of fast-paced and extended arguments have shown that the conservative justices have serious questions about Congress’ authority to require virtually every American to carry insurance or pay a penalty.

The outcome of the case will affect nearly all Americans and the ruling, expected in June, also could play a role in the presidential election campaign. Obama and congressional Democrats pushed for the law’s passage two years ago, while Republicans, including all the GOP presidential candidates, are strongly opposed.

But the topic the justices took up Wednesday only comes into play if they first find that the insurance mandate violates the Constitution.

The states and the small business group opposing the law say the insurance requirement is central to the whole undertaking and should take the rest of the law down with it.

The federal appeals court in Atlanta that struck down the insurance requirement said the rest of the law can remain in place, a position that will be argued by a private lawyer appointed by the justices, H. Bartow Farr III.

On Tuesday, the conservative justices sharply and repeatedly questioned the validity of the insurance mandate.

If the government can force people to buy health insurance, justices wanted to know, can it require people to buy burial insurance? Cellphones? Broccoli?

Audio for Tuesday’s court argument can be found at: http://apne.ws/Hft6z3.

The court focused on whether the mandate for Americans to have insurance “is a step beyond what our cases allow,” in the words of Justice Kennedy.

“Purchase insurance in this case, something else in the next case,” Chief Justice Roberts said.

But Kennedy, who is often the swing vote on cases that divide the justices along ideological lines, also said he recognized the magnitude of the nation’s health care problems and seemed to suggest they would require a comprehensive solution.

And Roberts also spoke about the uniqueness of health care, which almost everyone uses at some point.

“Everybody is in this market, so that makes it very different than the market for cars or the other hypotheticals that you came up with, and all they’re regulating is how you pay for it,” Roberts said, paraphrasing the government’s argument.

Kennedy and Roberts emerged as the apparent pivotal votes in the court’s decision.

The Associated Press contributed to this story.

© 2012 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Justices Ponder Striking Down Entire Obamacare Package
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama’s Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

By Jim Meyers and Kathleen WalterFormer Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee tells Newsmax that Democratic commentator James Carville is “dreaming” when he says a Supreme Court decision to strike down Obamacare would be beneficial to Democrats and help President Obama win re-election.

The Arkansas Republican, who sought the GOP presidential nomination in 2008, likens Obamacare to a stew with tainted meat — the individual mandate requiring Americans to purchase healthcare insurance — and says the entire stew should be discarded and made over from scratch.

Story continues below video.

Huckabee also says the contentious GOP primary race has been a disaster for Republicans, warns that a brokered GOP convention would be a “train wreck,” calls potential vice presidential selection Marco Rubio the future of the Republican Party, and asserts that Obama’s overheard comments to Russia’s president are “unforgiveable.”

Huckabee, a best-selling author, currently offers three daily commentaries on more than 500 Cumulus Media Network radio stations and is a host and contributor on Fox News Channel. His new radio program “The Mike Huckabee Show,” a daily three-hour talk show, will begin airing on April 2 on Cumulus, which has more than 4,000 affiliate stations reaching 121 million listeners.

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV, Huckabee was asked how Republicans would react if the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare’s individual mandate but allows portions of the healthcare reform bill to stand.

“I think they’re going to want to repeal it all and start over with a clean slate,” Huckabee declares.

“This whole healthcare bill was shoved down the throats of both Congress and the country. The smart thing to do if the Supreme Court strikes down the heart of it, which is the individual mandate, is to say let’s go back, we can take the things from it that we might think are good. Let’s put those on a piece of paper, let’s build around it and let’s put a real healthcare reform bill in place that makes sense. But let’s take it incrementally and don’t try to put everything in there.

“I look at this healthcare bill as a big bowl of stew, and at this point the Supreme Court may say there’s some tainted meat in that stew that we’re going to take out. I don’t know, if you take the tainted meat out, if anybody would still want to eat it.

“Let’s start with a clean pot, some fresh meat, and let’s make this stew all over again. That’s what we need to do with the healthcare bill.”

Referring to Carville’s prediction that a Supreme Court rejection of Obamacare would be the best thing for Democrats and the president, Huckabee says: “James is dreaming. He needs to wake up and face reality. Nobody likes Obamacare for the most part. Nearly 70 percent of the American population believes that it’s unconstitutional and ought to be repealed.

“So it’s not just an issue where Republicans don’t like it and Democrats do. Independents and a lot of Democrats don’t like it either. The best thing Democrats can do is to have it stricken by the Supreme Court and let Congress start over, because if I were a Democrat the last thing I’d want is to have Obamacare hung around my neck going into the autumn elections.”

In an earlier Newsmax interview Huckabee predicted that the GOP primary would be a demolition derby, and he now says that is “definitely” what it has proven to be.

“It’s been vicious,” he says. “It’s one thing for the candidates to contrast with each other on the views and issues, but what’s happened in this primary is these guys have gone after each other on a personal level.

“They’ve attacked each other’s integrity, each other’s honor. Those are the scars that they’re going to have to carry into the fall and it’s not healthy.

“I feel it’s been a real disaster for the Republicans and that whoever emerges as the nominee is going to have a lot of commercials run against him by the Democrats with material that was provided by other Republicans, and that’s simply not a good thing.”

Asked if he would be happy if Mitt Romney wins the Republican nomination, Huckabee responds: “I’ll be happy with the GOP nominee whoever it is, including Mitt Romney, and I’m going to campaign for whoever our nominee is. At this point it’s certainly looking like Mitt Romney is going to be that person. It’s not over, but he’s on track to get there.

“I will support him vigorously because my interest is making sure that we don’t have another disastrous four years of Barack Obama.”

Some observers say the GOP primary battle could result in a brokered convention. Would Huckabee accept the nomination if he was called upon? Newsmax asked.

“That would never happen, but even if it were to happen, it would be a disaster. A brokered convention is a broken convention,” he responds.

“It’s a train wreck and no one would celebrate that except Democrats, who then would know that we have in fact re-elected Barack Obama.

“If someone is just picked out of the blue and walks up on stage and becomes the nominee, that is going to be highly offensive not just to the candidates who are not selected but to all those hundreds of thousands of volunteers who have helped these candidates who are now being dismissed. It is a recipe for a complete breakdown.”

As to whether he would join the Republican ticket as the vice presidential candidate, Huckabee says simply: “Nobody’s asked, and until they do I’ve found it’s always better not to buy a corsage to a prom to which you’ve not been invited.”

He adds: “I think there are a lot of people who would be exceptionally qualified” to be vice president. “One of the names I have put forth is Marco Rubio, my campaign chairman in Florida four years ago. I think he’s certainly the future of the party and I would be delighted if he were selected.”

During President Obama’s recent trip to South Korea he was overheard by a hot microphone telling Russian President Dmitri Medvedev that issues such as missile defense would be best handled after the election when he would “have more flexibility,” implying he is ready to do something the Russians will like but the American people won’t.

Huckabee comments: “It tells me something about his arrogance, the fact that he’s so confident that he’s going to be re-elected. I found that very offensive.

“The fact that he would say something to a Russian that he would not say to the American people is unforgiveable. It’s inexcusable. No president should be making side deals with the Russians without telling us what he’s thinking of doing.

“The idea that he could do something after the election because the pressure is off — I’d like for him to think that every day the pressure is on for him to work for the American people’s benefit, not to work for his own political benefit. If something is right in December it’s right now.

“I highly resent the idea that he’s going to pull something over on us once he gets the election behind him. I think if Americans had no other reason to vote for someone else and get Barack Obama out where he can buy that Chevy Volt he said he’s going to buy when he leaves office, this is it.

“I’m hoping that his purchase of the Volt comes this November, not November four years from now.”

Read more on Newsmax.com: Huckabee: Obamacare Defeat Will Doom Obama’s Re-election
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama’s Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius told a House panel Thursday that a reduction in the number of human beings born in the United States will compensate employers and insurers for the cost of complying with the new HHS mandate that will require all health-care plans to cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives, including those that cause abortions.

“The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for the cost of contraception,” Sebelius said. She went on to say the estimated cost is “down not up.”

Sebelius took questions from the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health about President Barack Obama’s fiscal year 2013 budget proposal.Because the Catholic church teaches that sterilization, contraception or abortion are wrong and that Catholics must not be inolved in them, the regulation forces Catholics–and members of other religious denominations that share those views–to act against the teachings of their faith. Numerous lawsuits have already been asserting that the rule violates the First Amendment’s guarantee to the free exercise of religion. Many of the nation’s Catholic bishops have published letters saying: “We cannot–we will not–comply with this unjust law.”

Sebelius, however, insisted that the mandate “upholds religious liberty.”
“The rule which we intend to promulgate in the near future around implementation will require insurance companies, not a religious employer, but the insurance company to provide coverage for contraceptives,” Sebelius told the subcommittee.

The Catholic bishops have called for the regulation to be rescinded in its entirety, so that no employer, insurer or individual is forced to act against his or her conscience.

During the subcommittee hearing, Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.) said that contraception provided by insurance companies to people employed by religious organizations under the future form of the rule Sebelius described would not be was not free.

“Who pays for it? There’s no such thing as a free service,” Murphy asked.

Sebelius responded that that is not the case with insurance.

“The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for cost of contraception,” Sebelius answered.

Murphy expressed surprise by the answer.

“So you are saying, by not having babies born, we are going to save money on health care?” Murphy asked.

Sebelius replied, “Providing contraception is a critical preventive health benefit for women and for their children.”

Murphy again sought clarification.

“Not having babies born is a critical benefit. This is absolutely amazing to me. I yield back,” he said.

Sebelius responded, “Family planning is a critical health benefit in this country, according to the Institute of Medicine.”

Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.), a member of the subcommittee, said after the hearing that if mandating contraception saves money there shouldn’t be a need for a mandate.

“Their argument is this: Health insurance companies will offer it for free because they make money. You reduce the number of people getting pregnant therefore you reduce the cost of pregnancy, or low birth weight pregnancies or other kind of pregnancies,” Guthrie told CNSNews.com.

“If you think about it, why don’t health insurance companies provide it now if the argument is health insurance companies are going to make a lot of money? If the health insurance companies were really acting in their own best interest, they would be giving these pills out for free, if it really saved money,” Guthrie added.

Despite the controversy over whether the mandate is constitutional, Sebelius told Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) during the hearing that the administration never sought a legal opinion about the regulation from the Department of Justice.

By Amie Parnes – 03/01/12 05:25 PM ET
Vice President Biden acknowledged the administration “screwed up” the first iteration of the contraception mandate, which eventually was changed in an atempt to please angry Catholic leaders.

Speaking at Iowa State University on Thursday, Biden, who is Catholic, said the second version of the rule is “where it should have been in the first place.”"The conscience clause is being honored in its literal sense,” Biden said. “What is happening now is that we have been able to provide what was hard to set up — it got screwed up in the first iteration — in that any hospital, no matter where it is, no matter who runs it, profit or non-profit, religious-based or otherwise, has to provide insurance to their employees like everybody else does,” Biden said.
His comments come the same day the Senate voted 51-48 Thursday to kill a controversial amendment that would weaken the administration’s mandate.

Sen. Roy Blunt’s (R-Mo.) amendment was introduced after the White House’s shift and would have let any employers opt out of healthcare coverage mandates that violate their religious or moral beliefs.

At the time of the controversy, news outlets reported that Biden, along with former White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley, warned Obama about the contraception backlash.

“The fact of the matter is, the ultimate resolution to this problem is where it should have been in the first place,” the vice president said. “I was the one that was tasked to meet with the National Conference of Bishops, and others and Cardinal [Tim] Dolan, to talk about this.”

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishop was furious with the administration’s original mandate, which required religious-affiliated organizations to provide birth control coverage to employees.

After the furor, the administration changed its rule, allowing employees who work for religious organizations that object to the use of birth control, to obtain contraception from the employer’s insurer.

The White House’s change did not appease the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

“While there may be an openness to respond to some of our concerns, we reserve judgment on the details until we have them,” said Dolan, the president of the group.

President Obama is doubling down on one of the most dangerous provisions in his 2010 health overhaul law. In his proposed budget, he plans to give even greater powers to the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), a panel created by the new health law to contain Medicare spending.

The IPAB is one of the most egregious parts of ObamaCare because it puts rationing of care on auto pilot. A House subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA), is expected to vote today on a bill that would repeal the IPAB entirely. The Ways and Means Committee also will vote, and then it will go to the full House of Representatives for a vote, likely next month. After that, the legislation faces an uncertain fate in the Senate, where Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) just introduced an IPAB repeal bill.

Opposition to the IPAB crosses party lines. Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ), the top Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee that will consider the bill today, has said he has no interest in defending the board: “I’ve never supported it, and I would certainly be in favor of abolishing it.”

The IPAB is to be composed of 15 appointed officials who will have the authority to make cuts in Medicare payments if per capita spending exceeds defined targeted rates. The U.S. Constitution gives the power of the purse to Congress so that elected representatives can be accountable to the voters for their decisions. The IPAB would turn this principle upside down.

In creating the IPAB, the president and Democrats in Congress wanted to take difficult decisions about cutting spending on Medicare out of the legislative process. In so doing, they gave unprecedented authority to unelected experts to make Medicare payment policy involving hundreds of billions of dollars and impacting tens of millions of seniors.

The power is unprecedented because there is to be no judicial, administrative, or realistically, congressional review over its decisions. IPAB is supposed to take decisions outside the political arena so they are made by people less likely to feel the tug of popular opinion.

Ironically, the tools available to the IPAB members are limited. The board cannot make structural recommendations to improve how Medicare operates. It is barred from making changes that would modernize the program’s outdated fee-for-service structure or change beneficiary incentives.

While the law says the IPAB can try innovative approaches to modernize care, the Congressional Budget Office does not count these programs as achieving any meaningful cost savings. Because the IPAB will be required to make changes that demonstrate actual savings in a one-year time frame, the only tool the board will realistically have will be to cut Medicare payment rates for those providing services and medicines to beneficiaries.

And the IPAB is even limited in the kind of spending it can cut. Between 2013 and 2020, the health law directs the IPAB to achieve its targets through payment reductions primarily in the Part D prescription drug program, Medicare Advantage, and skilled nursing facility services. Since the board is forced to reduce overall Medicare spending by focusing only on these relatively smaller segments of Medicare spending, the cuts would have to be very deep to achieve overall per capita spending reductions. Access to care inevitably will be impacted.

President Obama’s 2013 budget describes the IPAB as “a key contributor to Medicare’s long-term solvency.” Specifically, the White House wants to lower the preset annual spending limit that Medicare has to hit before IPAB can kick in. And the administration calls for the creation of more cost-cutting “tools” for IPAB, including alterations to design benefits.

IPAB is the wrong approach. Far from being strengthened, IPAB needs to be repealed. It should be replaced with market-oriented reforms that actually address the pernicious incentives now driving Medicare off a fiscal cliff.

A smarter approach would be to make changes to Medicare on the model of the program’s Part D prescription drug program that cultivates individual choice, forces providers to compete to offer seniors the best value in health care, and provides a path to sustainability for Medicare.Serious reform proposals that would give seniors more choice and control over their health coverage have recently been offered by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC).

Instead of one-size-fits-all government plans, individual seniors could purchase of a health plan of their choosing from among competing plans. All of the programs would be structured to protect seniors who are older, poorer, and sicker. Seniors would be empowered to shop for coverage that best fits their particular medical needs. And Medicare would harness the same competitive market forces that have brought down prices and driven up quality in virtually every other sector of the American economy.

The President’s budget goes in completely the opposite direction by strengthening its centralized government command-and-control approach. Instead of instituting reforms that would address the real cost problems in Medicare, he is funneling power to a select group of unelected experts who would surely make changes that could seriously compromise access to care and innovation.

Repeal of IPAB is the first step to clear the path for the modern reforms that put doctors and patients, not government bureaucrats, in charge of decisions.

Ms. Turner is president of the Galen Institute and a co-author of “Why ObamaCare Is Wrong for America” (Broadside/HarperCollins, 2011).

Update: Members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Health voted on Wednesday, February 29, to approve legislation repealing the IPAB (H.R. 452, the “Medicare Decisions Accountability Act of 2011”). The vote was 17-5 in favor of the measure, with two Democrats joining all the Republicans present in sending the measure to the full committee for consideration.

By Charles Krauthammer,

Give him points for cleverness. President Obama’s birth control “accommodation” was as politically successful as it was morally meaningless. It was nothing but an accounting trick that still forces Catholic (and other religious) institutions to provide medical insurance that guarantees free birth control, tubal ligation and morning-after abortifacients — all of which violate church doctrine on the sanctity of life.

The trick is that these birth control/abortion services will supposedly be provided independently and free of charge by the religious institution’s insurance company. But this changes none of the moral calculus. Holy Cross Hospital, for example, is still required by law to engage an insurance company that is required by law to provide these doctrinally proscribed services to all Holy Cross employees.

Before, Obama’s coalition had been split. His birth control mandate was fiercely opposed by such stalwart friends as former Virginia governor Tim Kaine and pastor Rick Warren (Obama’s choice to give the invocation at his inauguration), who declared he would rather go to jail than abide by the regulation. After the “accommodation,” it was the (mostly) Catholic opposition that fractured. The mainstream media then bought the compromise as substantive, and the issue was defused.

A brilliant sleight of hand. But let’s for a moment accept the president on his own terms. Let’s accept his contention that this “accommodation” is a real shift of responsibility to the insurer. Has anyone considered the import of this new mandate? The president of the United States has just ordered private companies to give away for free a service that his own health and human services secretary has repeatedly called a major financial burden.

On what authority? Where does it say that the president can unilaterally order a private company to provide an allegedly free-standing service at no cost to certain select beneficiaries?

This is government by presidential fiat. In Venezuela, that’s done all the time. Perhaps we should call Obama’s “accommodation” Presidential Decree No. 1.

Consider the constitutional wreckage left by Obamacare:

First, the assault on the free exercise of religion. Only churches themselves are left alone. Beyond the churchyard gate, religious autonomy disappears. Every other religious institution must bow to the state because, by this administration’s regulatory definition, church schools, hospitals and charities are not “religious” and thus have no right to the free exercise of religion — no protection from being forced into doctrinal violations commanded by the state.

Second, the assault on free enterprise. To solve his own political problem, the president presumes to order a private company to enter into a contract for the provision of certain services — all of which must be without charge. And yet, this breathtaking arrogation of power is simply the logical extension of Washington’s takeover of the private system of medical care — a system Obama farcically pretends to be maintaining.

Under Obamacare, the state treats private insurers the way it does government-regulated monopolies and utilities. It determines everything of importance. Insurers, by definition, set premiums according to risk. Not anymore. The risk ratios (for age, gender, smoking, etc.) are decreed by Washington. This is nationalization in all but name. The insurer is turned into a middleman, subject to state control — and presidential whim.

Third, the assault on individual autonomy. Every citizen without insurance is ordered to buy it, again under penalty of law. This so-called individual mandate is now before the Supreme Court — because never before has the already hypertrophied Commerce Clause been used to compel a citizen to enter into a private contract with a private company by mere fact of his existence.

This constitutional trifecta — the state invading the autonomy of religious institutions, private companies and the individual citizen — should not surprise. It is what happens when the state takes over one-sixth of the economy.

In 2010, when all this lay hazily in the future, the sheer arrogance of Obamacare energized a popular resistance powerful enough to deliver an electoral shellacking to Obama. Yet two years later, as the consequences of that overreach materialize before our eyes, the issue is fading. This constitutes a huge failing of the opposition party whose responsibility it is to make the opposition argument.

Every presidential challenger says that he will repeal Obamacare on Day One. Well, yes. But is any of them making the case for why?

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

From the Desk of: Penny Young Nance, Chief Executive Officer and President
Concerned Women for America

We are engaged in a spiritual battle for our nation, our freedom and our families.

Only days ago the Obama administration spat in the face of believers across the land when Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius finalized a regulation forcing people of faith to pay for and promote birth-control, sterilization and early-term “Morning After” abortions through ObamaCare. With his Abortion Mandate ruling, the Obama administration has declared war on religious liberty.

So aside from this aggressive governmental intrusion into our lives, and undermining our religious liberty and freedom by forcing us to act against our faith, Obama’s mandate now classifies pregnancy as a disease!

There should be no doubt that we are in the fight of our lives — a fight that goes far beyond flesh and blood.

This is a darkly spiritual battle of epic proportions that demands people of faith be on their knees — praying for the very soul of our nation!

From earliest beginnings of our nation, prayer has played a vital role. A trip to the Rotunda of our Capitol confirms this. There one comes face-to-face with massive oil paintings depicting key events in our nation’s history. The very first in this series is called the “embarkation of the Pilgrims,” ant it feature a scene from the deck of the Speedwell as the pilgrims cried out to God at the start of their voyage.

These aggressive government attacks on our religious freedom, should serve as a reminder to us that we need to be on our faces before the Lord — lifting up our leaders, our nation, and asking for His intervention.

Of course I know many people who feel uncomfortable in a “prayer warrior” role. I understand that a relatively small remnant of believers will stand in the gap for our nation during this time, and that’s okay.

The Bible is filled with stories of regular people, and small groups doing amazing things with God’s anointing.

The Old Testament story of Gideon immediately comes to mind. You may recall that God chose Gideon to lead the Israelites into battle. Gideon was terrified, but he made himself available to the greatness of God, and with an underwhelming army of just 300, Gideon defeated the formidable and frightening Midianites!

That’s precisely why I’m writing to you today …

I want to give you a free prayer guide featuring seven cornerstone prayer principles to guide you in your prayers for our nation.

If you make yourself available to the Lord by praying for our nation I will rush you CWA’s If My People: 7 Principles for Prayer in 2012 resource to help guide you in your prayer efforts. Just click here now to join with me and receive your free prayer guide.

Thank you in advance for answering my call.

May God Bless America.

Penny Young Nance
Chief Executive Officer and President
Concerned Women for America

SPECIAL REPORT: FIVE CRUCIAL ACTION ITEMS BELOW ON THE OBAMACARE ABORTION, CONTRACEPTION MANDATE

From the Desk Of:

Steve Elliott

Friday afternoon, Obama announced a false “compromise” on the growing controversy over the HHS edict that requires nearly all health insurance plans to cover birth control, the “Morning After” abortion pill and even sterilization.

If the public accepts his “compromise,” Obama will gain the upper hand with a key voting constituency in November and win on the main point.

The reason Obama wins on the main point is that this “compromise” only expands the exemption to cover more religious organizations while technically shifting the burden of providing such services to the insurance companies.

First of all, shifting the burden to the insurance companies is just a political trick. Not requiring a “co-pay” for these services just means the insurance companies will push those costs back to the companies through higher premiums.

Plus, Obama is still only making an exception for “religious” entities. But the fact is, only about 5% of Americans work for a religious charity. So the “compromise” will give us the sense of “winning” for 5% of the population, while Obama laughs because he wins on principle and 95% of Americans are forced to fund contraceptives, abortion and sterilization.

As Rush said Friday, Obama doesn’t have the power in the first place “to interfere with religious liberty.” In addition, the entire ObamaCare issue with Catholic voters could be effectively diffused. This could be a huge win for Obama politically if Catholics think the issue is “taken care of.”

+ + How We’re Being “Stupaked”

This is precisely what happened at the deciding moment of the House ObamaCare debate two years ago. Perhaps you remember Congressman Bart Stupak. He is the allegedly pro-life Democrat who briefly held out during the key 2010 House ObamaCare vote. At the end of the day, Obama and Stupak struck a deal which saved face and really didn’t protect the unborn or the liberties of those who oppose abortion. And ObamaCare passed.

It’s happening again.

+ + Help Sound The Alarm

Here’s what I need you to do. I need your help to Sound The Alarm that “WE ARE GETTING STUPAKED!” In order to stop this, we need Rush, Sean, Drudge and others to expose this Obama trickery — and the best way to do that is to give it a name… WE’RE BEING STUPAKED!

Action #1 — CALL TALK RADIO

Call national and local talk radio shows today and say, “WE ARE BEING STUPAKED.” When asked to explain, say:

“Obama’s “contraceptive” compromise is the same trickery the regime pulled with Bart Stupak to pass ObamaCare in 2010. This compromise only applies to “religious” organizations while hiding the real costs by shifting the burden to the insurance companies — thus trampling on the constitutional liberties of every American. This is not an issue only for religious organizations — I HAVE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS, TOO!”

Sean Hanity: 800-941-7326

Michael Savage: 800-449-TALK

Mark Levin: (877) 381-3811

Action #2 — Sign This Petition Opposing Obama’s Attack On Religious Liberties

Our friends at Liberty Counsel have launched a petition opposing this attack on our constitutional rights.

I urge you to sign this petition and join thousands of citizens in making a statement that you oppose this HHS rule, the Obama “compromise,” and even the idea that the government can violate our liberties in this way:

http://www.grassrootsaction.com/260/petition.asp

Action #3 — Use the Twitter hash tag “#stupak”

If you are logged in to Twitter, click on this link and a tweet will be automatically generated:

http://bit.ly/yMaJex

Or, Tweet this:

Don’t let Obama #stupak us on the Contraception fight! @michellemalkin @edmorrissey @tinakorbe http://bit.ly/AvmYrA #tcot #teaparty

Action #4 — Share with your friends on Facebook

Simply click here to share on Facebook.

Action #5 — Forward this message to your friends

+ + Here’s How We Lose If We Get “Stupaked”

If we fight this HHS battle on the “religious organizations” front, Obama wins on three very important points:
1. Since less than 10% of Americans work in the non-profit sector and only a portion of those work for a “religious” non-profit, an Obama “compromise” on religious organizations would still leave the unconstitutional abortion/birth control mandate in effect for the vast majority of Americans.

2. Even fighting the battle on the “religious” argument concedes that the ObamaCare mandate has some grounds of legitimacy for ‘non-religious” companies. It doesn’t. The mandate is unconstitutional and should be opposed not in the narrow theatre of “religious” organizations but on the broad foundation of the Constitution.

3. If we get “Stupaked”, Obama could succeed in diffusing the issue of ObamaCare among Catholic voters. In 2008, Catholics represented 27% of the vote and went for Obama 54-45%. In 2010, Catholics supported Republicans by 54-44%. Catholics could decide who wins the White House and the Senate.

Steve Elliott, Grassfire

No one can sum it up better than Trump

Let me get this straight . . .
We’re going to be “gifted” with a health care
plan we are forced to purchase and
fined if we don’t,
Which purportedly covers at least
ten million more people,
without adding a single new doctor,
but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents,
written by a committee whose chairman
says he doesn’t understand it,
passed by a Congress that didn’t read it but
exempted themselves from it,
and signed by a Dumbo President who smokes,
with funding administered by a treasury chief who
didn’t pay his taxes,
for which we’ll be taxed for four years before any
benefits take effect,
by a government which has
already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare,
all to be overseen by a surgeon general
who is obese,
and financed by a country that’s broke!!!!!
‘What the hell could possibly go wrong?

Filmmaker Michael Moore glorified the United Kingdom’s National Health Service in his 2007 documentary ”Sicko,” making a cult film argument that socialized medicine works. But Prime Minister David Cameron, the Tory MP who heads a coalition government in England, is apparently not a Moore fan: He is working to partially privatize the NHS, beginning a massive outsourcing of medical services to private health care providers throughout the U.K.
Britain’s media, in particular the Washington Post–Huffington Post hybrid The Guardian, is publishing near-panic-attacks alerts daily about the conservative plan, which comes as the British government scales back on entitlement spending, hoping to avoid a Greek-style financial meltdown.
But in the United States, left-wing enthusiasts of socialized medicine don’t seem bothered at the loss of a role model. Many won’t even acknowledge it.
“I handle media and public relations for the Catholic Health Association,” Fred Caesar told The Daily Caller. “We will pass on commenting.” Caesar is special assistant to the president of the CHA, a vocal advocate of President Obama’s health care overhaul.
Major U.S. media are also ignoring the story. As Cameron’s own health reform bill gathers momentum and heads for a vote in Parliament, online searches show no coverage at all of Britain’s move in The Washington Post or The New York Times.
‘Taken out and shot’
Contrast this with U.K. media, which is pressuring Cameron to drop his plans. Major medical societies — including the Royal College of General Practitioners — and the rest of Britain’s medical establishment is shouting for Cameron to cease and desist.
The British public has a fear of privatization founded on the idea that doctors “might become dependent on advice from powerful private health companies,” and that the free-market competition laws could replace “public service principles” as the NHS’s central operating principle, The Guardian reported this week. (RELATED: Full coverage of the US Affordable Care Act)
Even the Times of London, a liberal broadsheet that is still normally restrained in its commentary, opined that Cameron’s health secretary Andrew Lansley should be “taken out and shot” for moving the bill through the House of Commons.
Sally Pipes, an American health policy expert who leads the Pacific Research Institute in San Francisco, told TheDC that President Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi will likely ignore any changes in U.K. health policy. Their allies in the U.S. media and public policy establishment, she said, would follow suit.
“They are ideologues,” Pipes said. “They don’t care whether the system really works or not. They have an ideological goal in mind.”
Pipes notes that the system of socialized medicine in the U.K., and a similar one in Canada, is viable only for routine visits to the doctor, but not for chronic illnesses like cancer or kidney disease. A few years ago in Canada, she said, her own mother could not get a simple colonoscopy scheduled for several months, despite searing abdominal pain.
When Pipes’ mother started bleeding, she was rushed to the emergency room and finally given the colonoscopy — which indicated that she had colorectal cancer. It was too late for treatment at that point, though, and she died shortly thereafter.
“They keep down costs by rationing medicine and medical services,” Pipes explained.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/17/as-obama-pushes-new-regulations-uk-eyes-privatizing-its-health-care/#ixzz1mieSAWIa

In 114 BC, Rome was a democratic Republic.  Representatives elected by popular vote filled the Senate, and the Senate ran Rome.  The Empire was conquered in the name of the Senate and the People of Rome, symbolized by the ever present SPQR seen on every Roman standard in every gladiator movie you have ever watched.

At the beginning of the first century BC sovereignty in Rome resided in the People, which may have inspired the most famous attribution of sovereignty in American History, “We the People” as the proclaimed authors of the Constitution.  The power in republicanRomeresided in the people.  In a revolution that was by then legendary, they had banished their kings and established themselves as a free republic where the people assembled together to elect the Senators, the magistrates, and made all major decisions such as whether or not to go to war.  And far beyond mere words much of what was earlyRomewas the target the Founding Fathers shot at when they established our later day republic.

And yet, by 14 AD, when Augustus died, popular elections were but a memory.  Power was no longer located in the people, or in their assemblies, or their representatives in the Senate, instead power was concentrated in anImperialPalace which was guarded, unapproachable, and foreboding.

How did this revolution occur? What led the freedom loving Romans to lay down their liberty and put on the yoke of oppression?  Later Romans who longed for the freedom their ancestors had discarded pointed to 133 BC when a rich young man named Tiberius Gracchus bought his way into the office of Tribune, an executive position one step below magistrate that was meant to protect the interests of the poor.  Gracchus used his office to curry personal power by giving bread and circuses to the people paid for by the public treasury.  Eventually he hit on a very popular plan.  He proposed to seize the lands of the rich and give them to the poor and he imposed this under his own authority, an authority he lacked under the Roman constitution.  Later when he put himself forward for a second term in opposition to custom and law he was assassinated by a group of Senators.

Several generations of corrupt politicians using the same formula sought to buy personal power and popular adoration by looting the public treasury to give the people ever increasing benefits.  Finally another rich young ruler arose by the name of Julius Caesar.  He rose through various public offices eventually gaining the office of Proconsul or Governor of Gaul (France).  He knew that to be a true Roman hero and paramount leader he needed to be a successful conqueror, so that is what he spent the next nine years doing.  He conquered not only all of Gaul but much of central Europe even leading the first Roman expedition to Britain.  While he accomplishing this he sent back well written dispatches toRome which were published and widely distributed recounting his bravery and skill as a general.

All of this was too much for his political rivals in Rome.  They gained enough votes to have him branded a traitor which meant little in Gaulwhere he had absolute power thanks to his well trained and veteran army.  His rivals promised his arrest and conviction if and when he returned to the capitol.  However Caesar was not to be denied so he compounded the accusations of his treason with a treasonable act leading his army across the Rubicon River toRome. 

With his troops behind him Caesar secured all power and after many adventures to suppress the forces loyal to the old order he had a compliant Senate elect him dictator for life.  As his grasp of power solidified it became clear his rule would be the end of the republic.  Breaking completely with tradition he began to wear purple, the color of royalty in public.   Finally when his chief Lieutenant, Anthony, publicly offered him a crown it was too much and just as with Gracchus one hundred years before, Caesar was assassinated by a group of senators.

Caesar was followed by Augustus, the first Emperor of Rome who was never called Emperor.  He was instead known by the republican sounding title of princeps, or first citizen.  Kings were hated in Rome.  The traditions of the Republic ran deep.  Both Gracchus and Caesar had been killed because people thought they would make themselves king.  The genius of Caesar’s nephew and successor was that Augustus made himself king in all but name while keeping the outward forms of the Republic.  The elections were rigged, the Senate only did what they were told, and the people were kept happy by giveaways from the public treasury and kept in line by a smothering blanket of laws and regulations.

Fast forward to the 20^th century and two other would be kings include Mussolini who decreed that calendars in Italy should begin again with October 29, 1922 the date he assumed power as the first day of year one.  He proclaimed the Fascist Era was the dawn of a new age.  And Hitler who said his National Socialist Nazis would reign for a thousand years.

In Americatoday we have a leader who campaigned on a platform of cutting taxes and regulations.  A man who when the economy melted down said if he didn’t solve the problem in three years he wasn’t worthy of a second term.  In a classic example of bait and switch he walked over his promises to restore American greatness and suddenly announced five days before the election that he would instead transform America.

Presidents are elected to preserve, protect and defend the constitution.  Nowhere in the job description does it mention anything about transforming America.  He was elected to do one job and decided instead to do another.  TARP was passed to clear the toxic assets out of the banks and restart the system but instead was used to seize controlling interests in AIG, GM and Chrysler and in general assert government ownership over a significant portion of the American economy.  The stimulus was passed to re-energize the economy but instead it became a gift bag for the President’s supporters and a slush fund for his re-election. 

Mr. Obama, with the corporations once known as the major media clearing his way and covering his tracks, compares himself to Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Reagan and God, ridicules those who cling to the old ways, and decrees that he can rule without Congress because he can’t wait.  His spending has impoverished future generations and will eventually sink the ship of state.  His foreign policy ignores our allies and empowers our enemies.  Instead of uniting our country to get out of the hole dug by generations of failed Progressive boondoggles and giveaways he incites class warfare while the welfare rolls expand daily.

Whether we are dealing with one man devoted to personal aggrandizement or merely a teleprompter reading front man for a well-oiled CABAL we are face to face with someone who has been positioned by the generosity of American voters to do irreparable damage to our nation.  We have one last chance to save the republic as we have known it.  The Republicans who operate as the other half of the party of power seek to nominate another big government operator who promises little more than driving us to the poor house a little slower with new wars along the way.

What we need is a man who will work as president to re-impose the limits of the constitution. We need a man who will educate Americans as to what a constitutional government is and what it should do and not do.  We need a leader who will reverse course and take us back to the days of individual liberty, personal freedom, and economic liberty. We need a leader who isn’t afraid to jettison the empire to save the republic.  Now is the time for such a leader. If only enough Americans will recognize the signs of the times and rally round the flag they will still call itAmerica. 

Just as the Rome of Caligula and Nero still called itself a republic so too in the coming era of Progressive centralization and control will our beloved country still be America.  The Constitution will remain on display in Washington.  However, in the world turned upside down liberty will be circumscribed by political correctness and freedom will be defined by government regulations.  Our schools and media will assure us that we are the most free and prosperous nation on earth while other countries that have gained their freedom pass us by.  History as it is taught in America today tries to tell us that socialism works.  It doesn’t.  It leads to a stunted, shabby future where everyone sinks to the level of the lowest common denominator.  What we need is a rebirth of republicanism with a small “r” and a big dream.

Keep the faith.  Keep the peace.  We shall overcome.

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for Southside Virginia Community College.  He is the Historian of the Future and the author of the History of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2012 Robert R. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com  Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens