Obamacare – Page 9

Conservative and Republican reaction to SCOTUS decision predictable

I have seen a lot of disappointment over the last 36 hours or so, as conservatives lash out at a decision they believe was ill-considered. I get a lot of e-mail from numerous sources, so I’ll have several links for you to follow. But I’m saving room for my reaction, too.

And if you’re wondering, I really don’t give a damn about what Democrats are crowing about, because they’re almost always wrong anyway. I don’t have to be fair and balanced here. So I’ll concentrate on some of the Republicans and Libertarians who we can vote for here in our locality.

For example, Mitt Romney promised to repeal Obamacare on his first day as President. While that may seem like a little bit of a stretch, it’s actually possible because Congress is in session a couple weeks before the new President is sworn in. If H.R. 1 in the 113th Congress is a full-blown repeal of Obamacare and the Senate can get past a Democratic filibuster (which some say isn’t possible anyway) they could present to bill to President Romney on January 21, 2013. But I’m not going to hold my breath.

Onetime Republican Gary Johnson agreed, with the Libertarian pointing out:

There is one thing we know about health care. Government cannot create a system that will reduce costs while increasing access.

Johnson also believed the “uncertainty” of the health care law was contributing to the unemployment problem in America.

Turning to our state of Maryland, U.S. Senate hopeful Dan Bongino called the decision “a serious blow to the freedoms of all Americans.” But he implored his supporters:

We can fix this, we will fix this. Get off the mat, there is one more round to fight…

From now until November 6th be a wolf not a sheep. Commit yourself to changing the country for the better and make today nothing but a bad memory.

Similarly, Congressman Andy Harris dismissed the ruling as

…determin(ing) the law’s constitutionality, not whether the law is good policy. Americans have already made up their mind on that issue. A majority favor repealing the law.

The sentiments were echoed by the Maryland Republican Party, where Chair Alex Mooney called yesterday “a very difficult day for all of us.”

I wanted to add one more from a group called the Job Creators Alliance. I don’t recall hearing from them before but it’s a group of CEOs who banded together to advocate business-friendly policy. And Staples founder Tom Stemberg spoke on behalf of the group when he said:

The Supreme Court of the United States has dealt a critical blow to free enterprise. By upholding the mandate as a tax, the Court and this Administration has ensured that taxes will go up for middle class working families and small businesses everywhere. Legal arguments aside, Obamacare is a disaster for small business owners and entrepreneurs. It will result in thousands of lost jobs, increased health care costs and an increased inability for small businesses to provide coverage to employees.

Today’s decision not only leaves the hurdles to job creation that Obamacare posed untouched, but adds additional uncertainty to the economy which will make it much more difficult for our economy to grow.

My reaction sort of falls along the same lines, but I thought I saw a silver lining when the individual mandate was struck down – Congress can’t necessarily compel us to buy a product. But they sure can set up a punishment for not doing so, and that’s the scary part.

However, this goes back to something which was said during the U.S. Senate campaign by Richard Douglas when he argued repeatedly that SCOTUS should uphold the law. Because this has been kicked back to Congress to resolve, it only takes a determined effort by voters to elect enough conservatives to Washington to overcome the kicking and screaming objections by Democrats to overturning Obama’s namesake program. If they can repeal a Constitutional amendment by enacting another one scant years later, Obamacare can be eliminated as well.

Of course, this all depends on electing the right legislators – unfortunately, if the American people are really the “sheeple” some would lead you to believe we are that may not happen. If the same actors remain in place, come 2014 we’ll be on the road to the government telling us just how and when to wipe our asses.

Odds and ends number 50

Half a hundred now of these items which deserve a paragraph or three, and in this rendition several are of national interest.

I wanted to start out with a rather comprehensive look by Accuracy in Media at voter fraud. In truth, this is less of an expose than a confirmation because we on the Right had been thinking about this for years, and some of these accounts have filtered down to a local level.

Now I’ve heard people claim that voting should be a privilege reserved to property owners or to those who pay taxes rather than receive goodies from the government. I don’t agree with that approach, but I think that perhaps if local election boards are running into a problem with last-minute registrations scant weeks before an election, the simple solution would be to simply move back the deadline. Honestly, if people wish to register to vote they’re going to do it well in advance of the election. This would also do away with the open invitation to fraud known as same-day registration.

But I also agree we should do away with motor voter laws and eliminate early voting. If people are serious enough to vote they already have the right to get an absentee ballot. To me it’s a waste of taxpayer money to spend thousands on multi-day elections when just 2% of voters participate.

And don’t even go there and tell me I want to suppress turnout, because I don’t. I want prospective voters to take their responsibility more seriously. The left always screams “voter suppression” whenever some common-sense idea like photo voter ID or those others above are introduced, but they are all in favor of oppressive campaign finance laws. Isn’t that monetary suppression? Hypocrites.

The report is well worth a read.

Along that same line, writers Peter J. Boyer and Peter Schweizer ask why certain corporate interests can go scot-free under the Obama regime while others are hounded by the Justice Department. That’s not to say that Wall Street is a batch of crooks by any means, but in politics perception is reality and the fact that Wall Street gave far more to Barack Obama than John McCain leads to the thoughts of pay-for-play and cronyism.

Speaking of entities which give Democrats a lot of money, Matt Patterson and Trey Kovacs of the Competitive Enterprise Institute asked in the Washington Times why unions just won’t let go if a bargaining unit doesn’t want to stay with them. Well, the answer seems pretty simple to me – as they write:

There is a reason why unions are fighting to hold workers against their will and challenging laws that bring greater freedom to the workplace. Union leaders need a monopoly on labor in order to bankrupt governments and corporations, and they require unfree markets to maintain their own power and wealth.

That goes in the category of “duh,” workers be damned.

And this is a video worth sharing, even if I don’t necessarily agree with the point.

Personally I would prefer Medicare eventually be phased out or devolved to the states, but I realize that’s a decades-long process. Having said that, though, it’s obvious that Obamacare is the wrong direction to go despite the fact it cuts Medicare. Paul Ryan’s not pushing seniors off the cliff.

Finally, I wanted to bring up the attention being paid to a national issue by our own Congressman, Andy Harris. In a recent release, he decried the abuse of taxpayer dollars by those here illegally:

Illegal aliens are filing false tax returns claiming numerous fake child tax credits. Once our tax dollars are in the hands of illegal aliens, it’s impossible to get the money back. Once I learned about this outrageous loophole that allows billions of dollars per year to be stolen from US taxpayers, I knew I had to act.

In November of 2011, I joined Rep Sam Johnson in introducing H.R. 1956, Refundable Child Tax Credit Eligibility Verification Reform Act, to close this loophole. The bill is necessary because the IRS claims that they are simply following the law. We had hoped that the IRS would act without legislation.

One would think that the White House would instruct the IRS to stop giving away tax dollars to illegal aliens scamming our tax system. This is an urgent and immediate problem, especially as we’ve passed the tax filing deadline of April 15th.

The child care tax credits have grown from $924 million in 2005 to $4.2 billion last year. H.R. 1956 will curb the fraud in this program by requiring the IRS to only allow this tax credit for children with a social security number. H.R. 1956 was assigned to the House Ways and Means Committee and I am waiting for the hearing to be scheduled any time. (Emphasis in original.)

So my question is why there’s been no hurry to move this bill? I guess one would have to ask Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI) because it’s his committee. Perhaps his contributors would like the waiver to stand?

In truth, though, I think this is another in the series of ill-advised cautions by the Republican establishment to not risk alienating the Latino vote. Never mind that they turn off millions of voters who are concerned about the illegal alien problem – I’ll grant it’s less of a concern now that migration by illegals is now a net outflow due to a poor economy, but once conditions improve we may become a magnet once again.

Well, that cleans out my mailbox for the most part. Glad you stopped by for some original monoblogue content – I can’t put all my good stuff on Examiner because in all honesty I’m not sure their format would lend itself to such a post. That’s why I maintain this independent, conservative site!

But by all means you should subscribe to my Examiner page to get notice of when I do post there. I’m having fun juggling all these writing plates! Haven’t broken one yet.

And a happy Mother’s Day to all the moms out there. I wrote this yesterday so I could devote a little time to the moms in my life today, so enjoy.

The McDermott notes: weeks 11 and 12

Yes, I missed last week, but Mike had such a long week I didn’t have a chance to post in a Sunday slot – and I had a lot to write about anyway.

We’re now at the point in session where the hearings have pretty much ended and the House is now taking up a number of bills which have passed through the Senate. But as Mike wrote at the top of his Week 11 notes, “The news I bring you this week from Annapolis is not good.”

Some of the lowlights included the passage of a bill to further hinder Maryland’s opportunity to join in on the Marcellus Shale bonanza. “There was a significant amount of propaganda put forward by Chairman McIntosh citing many ground water contamination concerns”, wrote McDermott. “Although none of these instances has shown to have been caused by hydraulic fracturing in the process described, the chairman is a believer and is not swayed by many known facts.” But as he describes in week 12, there’s no problem with rushing offshore wind.

Continue reading “The McDermott notes: weeks 11 and 12”

‘I can’t lose this…I gave up everything’

On Wednesday evening I was fortunate enough to be invited to participate in a conference call with U.S. Senate candidate Dan Bongino, and I was joined by a handful of other political bloggers around the state. Insofar as I know (and I haven’t checked today, so I may now be incorrect on this assertion) no one else has written about this call, and that’s sort of a shame.

The call itself was timed just before Dan’s “20 on 20” moneybomb, which turned out to be, in his words today, “an incredible success” which “surpassed our one-day goal.” But Dan lauded the support of the Maryland conservative blogosphere, which had been “absolutely invaluable” to his campaign, arguably moreso than the mainstream media’s. I’m not sure I would agree with that totally, but when you stop to consider the interests of our audience (which is more attuned to politics and forms the backbone of donors, volunteers, etc.) I can see his point. The mainstream is more valuable for building up name recognition, though.

Speaking of volunteers, Dan assessed his campaign as “in great shape” as far as that goes; still he conceded “we need a little help” in fundraising – “but we’re doing okay.” Much of the fundraising would go toward media, and it’s no secret that whoever wins the GOP primary will have to contend with Cardin’s massive warchest, $1 million of which he’s purportedly spending on media buys in the runup to the primary. And while Cardin has a contested primary, with the main opponent being State Senator C. Anthony Muse of Prince George’s County, it’s probable that the lone question surrounding the April 3rd contest is the over-under on Cardin’s margin of victory. As others are finding out on a more limited scale, it’s difficult enough to run a campaign during the General Assembly session let alone attempt a statewide one as Muse is attempting. You can also factor in the tacit disapproval of state Democratic party brass as another hindrance to Muse’s upstart bid.

But Dan brought up a good point about Ben’s media buy – why is this necessary after 45 years in public office, particularly when he’s run for election 16 times? Granted, Ben hasn’t been on the ballot since 2006 but he’s obviously a familiar name in one of the state’s two leading media markets, and it’s not like he won’t get the covert backing of the state’s key media outlets either.

I asked a question of Dan regarding the Muse challenge and what it means to the minority vote: what percentage of the vote are you looking for? “All of them,” he replied. But to Dan that sphere of voters presents a “target-rich environment” where several conservative issues can resonate. There’s no doubt that Bongino is basing his campaign on kitchen-table issues – “I know what it’s like to be hungry,” he said, regarding his upbringing in a impoverished family – but there are other “wedge issues” out there like school choice, which “resonates strongly” in many areas, where the incumbent is working against the interests of minority voters. “We can do better” with them, assessed Dan.

Other issue-based questions dealt with the recent CBO re-estimate of Obamacare’s costs, which Dan remarked is “not realistic…not even close” to the true costs and what he felt were key issues: of course the economy and jobs topped the list. “Folks want to hear about putting Cheerios on the table right now,” said Bongino.

He was also pleased to get the endorsement from the Gazette website, which is based in the suburbs of Washington, D.C., along with additional coverage from Newsmax and the G. Gordon Liddy radio program. “Seven million eyeballs” saw the Newsmax piece, beamed Bongino.

All in all, the conference call, which lasted a few ticks short of a half-hour, was a valuable tool in gauging the strength of the Bongino campaign at this point. There’s no doubt he (or any other of the ten GOP aspirants for the nomination) will have an uphill battle this fall, but there are reasons to believe Democrats in general have cracks in their Maryland armor. Will the base turn out for Obama? And what about the two referenda which will most likely be on the ballot – will they drive conservative turnout?

I’m not sure how much Bongino or any of the other Republicans who will survive the primary will tie themselves to these issues, as we have a long way to go to find out whether the gay marriage question will even be on the ballot. Moreover, and quite frankly, gay marriage can be characterized as a side issue in a race for federal office. But these ballot issues will bring conservative voters out and we know Cardin is foursquare behind placing the support of same-sex marriage in the Democratic party’s platform so we don’t necessarily have to be strongly against gay marriage in federal races.

But I appreciated being included in the call, and know that the campaign begins in earnest once nominees are selected April 3.

It’s worth noting that, while Bongino doesn’t have a local event scheduled I’m aware of, two of his opponents will be in the Salisbury area on Monday, March 26th. Richard Douglas is the featured speaker for the Wicomico County Republican Club meeting at the Chamber of Commerce building in downtown Salisbury while fellow GOP officeseeker Robert Broadus will address the Wicomico Society of Patriots meeting at Adam’s Ribs in Fruitland.

A potpourri of political events

In times past I used to do a weekly election calendar. This won’t rise to that level but there are some upcoming items I think the local peeps ought to know about, with many courtesy of the Worcester County TEA Party. I love the smell of activism in the morning…or any time of day for that matter.

That same TEA Party group meets this coming Friday, March 9 at 6:15 p.m. at the Ocean Pines Community Hall. Their speaker will be Worcester County Commissioner Virgil Shockley, who will talk about the possible impact this bill will have on our county and on school funding in general.

The Ocean Pines venue will be used for Election Integrity Maryland’s poll watcher training on Tuesday, March 20 from 1:30 to 3:30 p.m. The same class will be held once again in Salisbury on Saturday, March 24 from 10 a.m. to noon. In both cases, the cost is $25 and you can register at the EIM website. Questions? Contact Cathy Keim at 443-880-5912 or e-mail her: cathy.keim (at) electionintegritymaryland.com – she’ll certainly steer you in the right direction.

Another interesting event held by the Worcester TEA Party will be on Friday, March 23 when they hold a mock GOP Presidential debate. Of course, we won’t have Mitt, Rick, Newt, or Ron there but their proxies will certainly give a good accounting for the candidates just in time for the April 3 Maryland primary (as well as Delaware’s on April 24.) This will be at the Ocean Pines Community Church beginning at 6 p.m.

And of course they’re going to have a bus departing for the Hands Off My Health Care Rally in Washington D.C. on Tuesday, March 27.

Continue reading “A potpourri of political events”

Limbaugh ‘slut’ controversy no Fluke

Fair warning – some language NSFW.

Considering that the story took a couple weeks to play out, there’s no doubt that Sandra Fluke’s biggest career move to date has been to be called a ‘slut’ by none other than Rush Limbaugh. If not for that, it’s doubtful anyone outside the world of far-leftist hyper-pro-choice and LGBTQ politics would have heard of her, and Barack Obama wouldn’t have picked up the phone to give her a ring.

In fact, so few knew who she was that it didn’t originally send up red flags to most when Democrats tried to sign her up to testify at a House hearing, portrayed as a 23-year-old Georgetown Law School student. When her original attempt to testify before a House committee chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa was rebuffed because, in Issa’s judgment, she couldn’t be properly vetted, Fluke became the star witness in a Democratic show hearing put together by Rep. Nancy Pelosi – a star witness because she was the only witness. Nice effort to hear from all sides there, guys – at least the Republicans asked for your input. It was at that hearing she made the claim that contraception had cost her and others she surveyed a total of $3,000 over the three years she had been at Georgetown Law School, which didn’t cover the expense in their health insurance plan.

Later, however, it was revealed that she entered Georgetown Law in part to challenge the rule regarding contraception coverage. It was also learned that nearby pharmacies sell the most commonly available birth-control pill for as little as $9 per month, putting the lie to the $1,000 per year figure.

Continue reading “Limbaugh ‘slut’ controversy no Fluke”

The McDermott notes: week 6

For Delegate Mike McDermott, week 6 of the General Assembly session was a study in contrasts: exciting peaks at both ends with a more humdrum routine in the middle.

In this edition Mike returned to a day-by-day format, with one highlight of his week being chosen by Republican leadership to deliver the Lincoln Day address Monday night – an address he posted here.

It’s intriguing to me that the speech served as a prelude to a week where certain “rights” took up most of the debate in the General Assembly. But look at a piece of what McDermott said:

Lincoln knew that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were unalienable rights given by God and not granted by a government, and for the government to impose itself on that which was granted by God could only produce sorrows and shame.

Those rights given by God don’t include the freedom to make choice without consequence. Yet by passing the same-sex marriage bill we took a step toward the government imposing itself on that which was granted, by saying that certain behavior which many of us feel is counterproductive to a righteous society is now acceptable because a small minority wishes it to be so. I can’t help but feel that other, perhaps even smaller minorities who believe that children should be exploited for the pleasures of adults or that – based on their faith – we should be able to marry more than one person will now feel they’re the ones being shortchanged and whine accordingly. No, it won’t happen tomorrow, this year, or even in the next half-decade or so. But mark my words, it will happen, and we’ll have one less leg to stand on in saying no to them.

Aside from the joint committee hearing and vote on the gay marriage bill which happened Tuesday, much of the midweek was spent by McDermott in hearing twenty other bills which are fairly non-controversial and generally involve small tweaks to existing law. One I found interesting is HB420, which extends a pilot program of GPS monitoring of those on probation already used in Washington County through September, 2015. Big Brother is watching.

And then there is Friday. Mike doesn’t spend a lot of time going over the “blur of activity” on Friday, as he will eventually supplement these notes with his account of “the machinations to bring this vote about, the creation of ‘magic’ Legislative Days which allowed this to occur, and the back room dealings.”

But I wanted to address some of these with my view.

In the last few years that I’ve noticed, it seems like more and more bills are being passed with the approach that the ends justify the means. One prime example is the Obamacare bill, where we had to pass it to know what was in it, according to Nancy Pelosi. Isn’t the idea supposed to be one of understanding its impact beforehand?

In both Maryland and on a national level, there are groups which take key bills and attempts to determine the impact they will have on various elements of the private sector. (As a Maryland example, read the fiscal note on HB438, the same-sex marriage bill.) But while these brief studies adequately define the fiscal impact and certain other parameters of proposed law, they cannot take into account how society is affected. On financial and tax issues, one can predict what impact a bill will have on the state’s treasury, but it’s left to a common sense analysis to determine that if a state makes it more difficult to profit from a business or keep that which is earned through the fruits of one’s labor it will detrimentally affect economic activity; for example a job which would have been created had conditions been maintained may not be because of the new law. It’s impossible to know the intentions of all 5.7 million Marylanders but there are causes and effects for their behavior.

This is even more difficult on social issues. One can debate the sort of impact 40 or 50 million aborted babies would have had if they’d been brought to term and lived – some argue that many would have been subjected to a life of neglect because they were unwanted from the start and deepened the social problems plaguing us today, but others feel the potential of a generation was wasted because some of its great scientists, scholars, and leaders were instead butchered in an abortion clinic. Obviously we will never know the truth, but it’s my contention that we deprived these unborn of their God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness they assumed upon conception. Yet it’s ironic to me that many who would grant the unearned, behaviorally-based choice of same-sex couples to marry as a right are also in favor of denying the unborn a right to life, also in the name of “choice.”

Because we’ve lived for less than a decade with same-sex marriage, it’s not entirely clear to us what we’ve stepped into. Indeed, there’s a chance that proponents could be right and it will strengthen marriage as a whole. But as two of Mike’s fellow Delegates noted, there’s an agenda to legitimize the gay lifestyle as just another choice (there’s that word again) which is no better or no worse than others.

Yet the fact it’s our current government stepping in to address the situation gives me pause, and reminds me that “absolute power corrupts absolutely.” When the ends justify the means and we have to pass the bill to know what’s in it, my inclination is that we’ve reached a point of complete corruption.

Fight the power

It’s late notice to be sure – and that was probably intentional – but Senator Ben Cardin is holding a Medicare and Social Security Forum TONIGHT (Thursday) at 7 p.m. in the Worcester Room of Salisbury University’s Commons.

The reason I say this omission was intentional is that the TEA Party wasn’t exactly welcomed at the last event, nor is this meeting on Ben’s public schedule insofar as I can tell. But in order to get a full hearing and not just something from a relatively pre-selected crowd, it might be a good idea for the younger generation to attend as well – after all, we’re paying for seniors’ health care and Social Security.

While the protest outside may or may not occur, getting the right people inside may open a few eyes.

For President 2012: Entitlements

First of all, let me define the parameters of the discussion: to me, entitlements are Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, and the like. Anytime the government redistributes wealth that wasn’t earned by the recipient, that’s an entitlement – which means Social Security and Medicare do count once the amount originally contributed by the recipient is reached. Thirteen points are at stake this round.

Michele Bachmann has as her “number one priority” to repeal Obamacare, and decries the “entitlement mentality” many Americans have. She advocated “reform” before she got into the Presidential race, and what she said is a pretty good start. I’d like a faster pace myself, but she’s got the right ideas. Seven points.

He starts down the right road, but doesn’t go all the way down it. Moreover, he advocates more tinkering with the tax code and that conflicts with some of his other positions. Nevertheless, Herman Cain has the right ideas about who should be the safety net, though, so I’ll give him nine points.

I have a big problem with some of Newt Gingrich‘s so-called solutions because they begin with the argument that the current Medicare/Medicaid model just needs to be tweaked, with government remaining firmly in control. It’s the replacement of Obamacare he calls for rather than a repeal. I don’t buy it as “fundamental reform.” And this from the guy who got welfare reform passed? His record on Social Security is a start, but doesn’t go far enough. He gets only three points.

Jon Huntsman hints at the idea of using states as laboratories, calls Obamacare ‘top-heavy,’ and likes the Ryan Medicare plan. But I’m troubled that he’s ‘comfortable‘ with a mandate. I’m not sure where he stands on other entitlements, though, so I can only give him five points.

“Responsible entitlement reform” is Gary Johnson‘s mantra. He wants to “revise the terms” of entitlement programs as well. But I thought he’d be more bold than the tinkering around the edges he seems to be advocating – a better step is doing away with Medicare Part D. I’ll give him eight points.

Fred Karger thinks the size of entitlements needs to be on the table. But that’s about all the service he gives to it so I have no idea what else he wants to do. I’ll grant him one point.

There’s a lot to like about the approach that Thad McCotter takes, but he has the same basic flaw Newt Gingrich does – he maintains entitlement programs with some tweaking. If the current systems are “unsustainable” I don’t think making a few fixes (which could be wiped away at any time) is the answer. Only weaning people off dependence is. He’ll get five points.

I like one statement Roy Moore makes: “Churches and charitable organizations should be encouraged to help the needy and poor.” Now, if he has fidelity to the Constitution as he says he does I think he should follow through on eliminating entitlements altogether – please find for me the point in that document where Americans have a right to entitlements. I’m going to give him nine points.

You know, I thought Ron Paul would go farther in health care, But abolishing Social Security – that’s a winner in my book. Let’s hope he hasn’t changed his mind – he gets 12 points.

Tim Pawlenty made some aggressive health care reforms in Minnesota. He also worked to “slow down, limit, or negate Obamacare” while governor. He’s a little more tepid when it comes to Social Security, though, as he favors means testing and perhaps raising the retirement age. While he makes sense at a state level I’m not sure his ideas there will translate nationally. And as for Social Security, that’s not real reform, so I’ll only give him six points.

Like many others, Buddy Roemer will ‘reform’ items within the system rather than change a flawed paradigm. He likes the Ryan Plan, “but it’s not good enough.” I like his idea of the opting out of Medicare option, though, so I’ll bump him up seven points. Maybe we can get Medicare to ‘wither on the vine’ yet.

The problem with Mitt Romney is that this sounds reasonably good but it belies his record as governor of Massachusetts. And I don’t want to reform entitlements, but set ourselves on the path to eliminate them entirely. I’ll give him five points for saying nice things.

Once again, the vision of Rick Santorum is “reform” and not eliminate. He’s absolutely right when he says the entitlement ‘addiction’ is bad for the country, but doesn’t go far enough to end it. We need more like cold turkey for the younger generation – including myself. He gets seven points.

So it’s beginning to look like a two-person race. But notice that Ron Paul has come back into contention, Roy Moore is still hanging close, and Rick Santorum is still a dark horse. The rest are fading farther behind because they don’t have that vision thing about limited government or they wish to limit some of the wrong things.

Michele Bachmann – 53 points
Herman Cain – 50 points
Roy Moore – 46 points
Ron Paul – 42 points
Rick Santorum – 40 points
Thad McCotter – 38 points
Newt Gingrich – 33 points
Tim Pawlenty – 26 points
Buddy Roemer – 26 points
Gary Johnson – 24 points
Mitt Romney – 23 points
Jon Huntsman – 6 points
Fred Karger – (-15) points

There’s one word for Barack Obama: Obamacare. That alone is worth the full thirteen point deduction.

“We will run ads talking about, in honest terms the end of entitlements.” That’s what Randall Terry said in January. “All entitlements should be phased out.” I can’t wait to see them, but for me that message is winner, winner, chicken dinner. He gets 12 points, but only because I haven’t seen the actual plan. It puts him ahead of a couple GOP stalwarts; then again, he’s running as a Democrat only to be in Obama’s primary. I bet he’d be in decent shape if he were more forthcoming.

Randall Terry – 11 points
Barack Obama – (-60) points

We move next to trade and job creation. Most Republicans should score well, but this has some potential to shake up the top contenders – particularly when 14 points are at stake and five players are within that margin (not counting negative totals.)

Friday night videos – episode 56

Coming back at’cha with a lot about Obamacare and the prospects for repeal.

How about beginning with this commercial brought to you by the “Defeat Obama Campaign” – it’s a part of the Our Country Deserves Better PAC umbrella:

I’m all for defeating Obama. Newt Gingrich doesn’t wish to stop there, though. He has his ideas on what else the House should do. This comes from Human Events.

Targeting the 23 Democratic Senators up for re-election in 2012 may be working – at least two (Kent Conrad of North Dakota and former VP candidate Joe Lieberman) have decided to retire rather than run again.

And the Center for Individual Freedom claims this the beginning of the end of Obamacare.But what would replace Obamacare? Rep. Phil Gingrey of Georgia has some ideas, and he spoke to Americans for Limited Government about it recently.

You may need blood pressure medication yourself after watching this video. It’s from last February but represents how Washington watches out for itself – corporatism at its finest.

Nice work if you can get it, right?

Some of you may be familiar with the term “Darwin Award”, facetiously given to someone who offs him- or herself in some bizarre manner before they can damage the gene pool by passing on stupidity. Well, this person may be one to watch as a future recipient.

On the original post I saw this at, people are debating whether he hit 195 mph as he claims. Me, I’m debating whether he’ll take someone out with him or manage to only kill himself when he wraps a car around a tree. I guess it’s a good thing he’s trying to sell the Corvette.

I was in the mood for something I hadn’t heard in awhile, so I picked out something from October 2009. This was one of my first music videos from my friends in Semiblind, and I believe it’s the only one where they’re doing one of their original songs. Yes, the sound is a bit rough.

If you know an agent who specializes in getting bands a place to play, please hook Semiblind up so they can write more originals! Love that guitar lick in the middle of the song.

Well, until next time, enjoy the rest of your Friday night!

Friday night videos – episode 39

Whew! After a week of political developments it’s nice to wind down this one with some good video.

Dan Mitchell of the CATO Institute takes a few minutes to come to an obvious conclusion – government is too large to sustain economic growth.

Another look at the dismal science in a more humorous vein comes from the folks at Bankrupting America.

Oh, take the earmuffs off. It helps to get the sound for the next several videos. Another way to get a message across is to walk the walk, as Matthew Perdie did – for 3,500 miles coast to coast, ending July 4th.

Something tells me this will be a movie, coming soon.

Then again, given the intelligence of some people in this country about our roots they may think the walk was to celebrate our right to watch fireworks. This is a “Jaywalking” segment regarding July 4th.

Obviously, they picked the worst offending answers out for airing, but making this into a 6 1/2 minute segment shouldn’t have even been possible.

Perhaps freedom and liberty can be best achieved at the moment by repealing Obamacare. Renee Giachino explains in this edition of the Freedom Minute.Finally, this comes from a group of Marylanders fed up with our Governor – you can add me in to the “furlough Owe’Malley” crowd too.

There’s no music video this week because my next episode of FNV will be all music videos, so be on the lookout for that!

The first of many, I’m sure

Today Sarah Kliff at Politico reports that a small Virginia-based health insurer will be closing its doors, effective December 31. The reason nHealth is shutting down?

“The uncertainties in the regulatory climate coupled with new demands imposed by national health care reforms have made it challenging to sustain the level of sales required to remain viable over the long run,” according to a letter given to company employees.

Cynics and critics of Obamacare pointed out the regulations would indeed drive private insurance companies out of business and it appears that the Richmond-based company will be the first.

What’s most sad about this particular closing is that the company, “specializes in high-deductible insurance plans, meant to cover larger medical emergencies, that are paired with health savings accounts, the tax-deductible accounts used to pay for medical expenses” – exactly the sort of plan which would be most beneficial to the large percentage of the uninsured who are relatively young and healthy.

Part of the problem with the future outlook of companies which specialize in HSAs is that the regulations (which haven’t been written yet) may leave insurers in limbo.

According to Heritage Foundation blogger Kathryn Nix,

“the worst news for those using HSAs is the provision requiring all policies to cover at least 60 percent of the actuarial value of the benefits offered. What’s the actual value? No one really knows—not until the Health and Human Services Department issues regulations on how to calculate it.”

Obviously if the saved portion is counted toward the value those who are just starting out or have little in their HSA wouldn’t qualify. It will be up to career bureaucrats and lobbyists to make this decision and chances are good Fedzilla will want to exert maximum control over consumers.

It’s areas like this where defunding may not have the desired effect and all-out repeal of Obamacare is the only solution.