South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford has agreed to pay $74,000 in fines to resolve dozens of charges that he violated state ethics laws with his campaign spending and travel, including a taxpayer-funded rendezvous with his Argentine mistress, the State Ethics Commission said Thursday.
The commission brought the 37 civil charges against the Republican last year. Sanford, who is term-limited and will leave office in January, still could face criminal charges.
Sanford said in a statement he thinks he would have been vindicated if the commission had heard the case, but didn't want to continue what he called "an endless media circus."
Posted by: Fred ||
03/19/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Does the US have an extradition treaty with Argentina?
The CBO's most recent analysis is out, and it's not likely to convince wavering House Democrats to jump to the Obamacare side of the fence. Even the Democrats are granting that the latest version of their proposed health care overhaul would cost $69 billion more than the previous version. According to the CBO, this version would siphon even more money out of Medicare, make even further cuts to Medicare Advantage, and levy even higher taxes and fines on the American people.
President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and their allies, are cheerfully citing "ten year" costs of $940,000,000,000.00 -- apparently believing this to be far more palatable figure than $1 trillion. But even this colossal tally is like the introductory price quoted by a cell phone provider. It's the price before you pay for minutes, fees, and overcharges -- and before the price balloons after the introductory offer expires.
For a variety of reasons, this tally doesn't remotely reflect the bill's real ten-year costs. First, it includes 2010 as the initial year. As most people are well aware, 2010 has now been underway for some time. Therefore, the CBO would normally count 2011 as the first year of its analysis, just as it counted 2010 as the first year when analyzing the initial House health bill in the middle of 2009. But under strict instructions from Democratic leaders, and over strong objections from Republicans, the CBO dutifully scored 2010 as the first year of the latest version of Obamacare. If the clock were started in 2011, the first full year that the bill could possibly be in effect, the CBO says that the bill's ten-year costs would be $1.2 trillion.
But even that wouldn't come close to reflecting the bill's true costs. The CBO projects that over the next four years, less than two percent of the bill's alleged "ten year" costs would hit: just $17 billion of the $940 billion in costs that the Democrats are claiming. In fact, the costs through President Obama's entire presidency, should he be reelected, would be $336 billion. What would the president leave behind for his successor? According to the CBO, he would leave behind costs of $837 billion during his successor's first term alone. If his successor were to serve a second term, he or she would inherit a cool $2.0 trillion in Obamacare costs -- about six times its costs during Obama's own tenure. This legislation is a ticking time-bomb.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/19/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If I understood Obamao's interview on Fox correctly, there are still some outstanding insurance issues that have not been addressed by this "comprehensive" healthcare takeover. One of the issues was for about $300B. I suppose this means they will tack that on later and blame a lot of the initial cost overruns on this and hope that people get tired of following it after a while. I'm sure that there are several other shoes that will drop along these lines too.
This morning, there were ads complaing there was a steath student-loan government-takeover issue buried in the morass. I wonder what else is hidden in there?
Posted by: Bobby ||
03/19/2010 6:07 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Medicare was supposed to cost only $9 B/year when costed out back in the 1960s. It now costs around $70 B/year. Social Security was robbed and is now broke when Johnson put the funds into the general operating fund. Can anyone think of any social programs conducted by the Federal government that have cost what was said they would cost? The Democrats are working on the assumption that everyone should have health care. These are the same geniuses that said everyone should own their own home and came up with subprime loans--you know buy a house with no job, no income, and no money down.
1 - its government, so ya got to multiply by a factor of at least 2.5
2 - this is a "snapshot of today" guestimate and has no 4th dimension to it. As people will have less money to spend, business will suffer and people will not be able to pay off property. So the three main ways government garnishes peoples' money: sales tax, payroll withholding, and property tax will all decline. Then there is the possibility of the dollar tanking with a loss of reliability rating.
*nevermind the rules the CBO must follow. What this number is, is the absolute bullshit minimum cost which will occur.
**and that is the fundamental flaw in communist/socialist theory. It assumes a snapshot of time where committees jaw around about how to do this and that to equalize everything. Meanwhile the world continues on and has changed even before what even an idealized plan would be formed. Then you get into the psychology of the people who form said plan and realize that no two people have the exact same opinion of justice or equality then take that factor to the total number of policy makers and you get madness with the only common denomenator being: power. Collectivist leaders are innately cowards relying on the deeds of others for their own benifits, having more in common with the bitter emo kid suddenly class president than those depicted by famous statues.
In the chessgame of life you are not a pawn, you are a prawn. The real pawns are your reps in government, heads of unions, community organizers. To them you are bottom feeders to them, and that water you haul is used water. Consol yourselves though, if you work together you may all only have to drink one mouthful of it and if you are lucky you do not get into an arguement over who took the biggist gulp and can split that one coin of blood money at the bottom of the bucket evenly. You will feel warm inside as you tell your kids you did your part as you throw another piles of benjamins into the pyre so that they too will feel the warmth.
Or you can do your part to put this down, realizing that if this is how dissinters are treated then you too can be instantly recategorized as a dissenter in the whif of a press conference televised from a secure location far, far away. They will give you up in an instant to bear the brunt of their consequence of action, history shows that, if they even had the trust to teach you that history in the first place. Meanwhile they will sun on an island beach, occasionally fishing in their private reserve moat for sport and game food illegal for the polis to even be allowed upon.
#5
Has the CBO costed out the unemployment insurance it is going to have to pay out because of layoffs and businesses closing or relocation to some other country? See Drudge's posting on Catepillar--health care will cost them $100 million (or job killion) per year in added costs. Donald Trump said this morning that a friend of his who is a manufacturer said it will cost his company $200 million/year. What does Barry and his fellow travelers think that is going to do to busness. I guess they don't care. They are more concerned about Barry's presidency/legacy and about the "collective ideal" (translate how you want to). Personally, I translate that into the destruction of capitalism, government control of everything, destruction of individualism, and redistribution of wealth. I believe you are going to see unemployment rise rapidly if this turkey passes. We will rapidly go into a downgrading by Moody's, China will call in the money we owe them or increase the interest on the money we owe them; a down spiral will ensue. These viral economics and politics will be the ruination of America.
#6
Ibelieve you are going to see unemployment rise rapidly if this turkey passes.
With perpetual jobless benefits and no health insurance benefit for getting a job, congratulations I think you've broken the code.
Posted by: regular joe ||
03/19/2010 16:43 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Obama's plan mandates dozens of new entitlement programs and creates scores of new government offices, bureaus, commissions, and programs, all of which will have to be funded, staffed and managed at taxpayer cost.
Have all these been added into the cost by CBO? What about the effects of inflation?
Tony Blair waged an extraordinary two-year battle to keep secret a lucrative deal with a multinational oil giant which has extensive interests in Iraq.
The former Prime Minister tried to keep the public in the dark over his dealings with South Korean oil firm UI Energy Corporation. Mr Blair - who has made at least ÂŁ20million since leaving Downing Street in June 2007 - also went to great efforts to keep hidden a ÂŁ1million deal advising the ruling royal family in Iraq's neighbour Kuwait.
In an unprecedented move, he persuaded the committee which vets the jobs of former ministers to keep details of both deals from the public for 20 months, claiming it was commercially sensitive. The deals emerged yesterday when the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments finally lost patience with Mr Blair and decided to ignore his objections and publish the details.
News of the secret deals fuelled fresh accusations that Mr Blair is 'cashing in on his contacts' from the controversial Iraq war in what one MP called 'revolving door politics at its worst'. They will increase concerns that Mr Blair is using his role as the West's Middle East envoy for personal gain.
The revelations also shed fresh light on his astonishing earnings, which include lucrative after-dinner speaking, consultancies with banks and foreign governments, a generous advance for his forthcoming memoirs, as well as the pension and other perks he enjoys as a former Prime Minister.
The full extent of his income is cloaked in secrecy because he has constructed a complex web of shadowy companies and partnerships which let him avoid publishing full accounts detailing all the money from his commercial ventures.
Critics also point out that a large proportion of his earnings comes from patrons in America and the Middle East - a clear benefit from forging a close alliance with George Bush during his invasion of Iraq.
Last night Tory MP Douglas Carswell said of Mr Blair's links to UI Energy Corporation: 'This doesn't just look bad, it stinks. It seems that the former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has been in the pay of a very big foreign oil corporation and we have been kept in the dark about it.
'Even now we do not know what he was paid or what the company got out of it. We need that information now. This is revolving door politics at its worst. It's not as if Mr Blair has even stepped back from politics, because he is still politically active in the Middle East.
'I'm afraid I have no confidence at all in the committee that vets these appointments. It's no good telling us these deals may be commercially sensitive - we are talking about the appointment of our former Prime Minister and the public interest, rather than any commercial interests, must come first.'
Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker said: 'These revelations show that our former Prime Minister is for sale - he is driven by making as much money as possible. I think many people will find it deeply insensitive that he is apparently cashing in on his contacts from the Iraq war to make money for himself.'
The committee said yesterday that Mr Blair had taken a paid job advising a consortium of investors led by UI Energy in August 2008. The exact nature of the deal is unknown, but UI Energy is one of the biggest investors in Iraq's oil-rich Kurdistan region, which became semi-autonomous in the wake of the Iraq war. Mr Blair's fee has not been disclosed but is likely to have run into hundreds of thousands of pounds.
The secrecy is particularly odd because UI Energy is fond of boasting of its foreign political advisers, who include the former Australian prime minister Bob Hawke and several prominent American politicians.
Mr Blair successfully persuaded the committee that the appointment was 'market sensitive' and could not be made public. The committee agreed to suspend its normal practice and keep the deals secret for three months. Mr Blair then asked for a further extension.
When this ran out last year the committee repeatedly 'chased' Mr Blair about the issue without hearing anything. Eventually the committee's chairman, former Tory Cabinet minister Lord Lang, reviewed the papers and ordered the deal to be made public, along with a separate deal with Kuwait which had been kept secret at the request of the Kuwaiti government.
The decision to keep the deals secret will fuel concerns about the effectiveness of the committee, which has been repeatedly criticised for its failure to halt the revolving door between politics and industry.
The committee is supposed to ease public concerns about former public servants using their contacts for private gain. Ministers have to have all jobs vetted within two years of leaving office. But the committee is packed with former politicians and Whitehall grandees and is thought never to have banned a former minister or senior civil servant from taking up a lucrative job in the private sector.
Earlier this month the Government quietly rejected calls for the committee to be beefed up with more figures from outside the world of politics.
Gordon Brown has so far refused to answer questions about whether Mr Blair's arrangements breach his responsibilities under the ministerial code.
A spokesman for Mr Blair said last night: 'Mr Blair gave a one-off piece of advice in respect of a project for UI Energy in August 2008. He sought, and received, approval from the Committee on Business Appointments before undertaking this project.
'It was UI Energy who requested of the committee that they delay public announcement, for reasons of market sensitivity.'
#1
Arsehole. His post-office behavior is calling into question his support for the war.
God, how I wish we could get over this money curse, the one that eliminated ordinary citizen- and warrior-pols like Truman and Eisenhower (and even LBJ) and gave us politico-whores like Bush Sr., Clinton and Blair.
Former Rep. Tom Campbell has a six-point lead over his closest challenger in the three-way Republican primary to face Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, whose popularity has significantly eroded in the past two months, according to a Field Poll released today.
The survey found Campbell leading former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina 28 percent to 22 percent among likely Republican voters in the June 8 primary, while Assemblyman Chuck DeVore had support from 9 percent. But most prospective GOP voters, roughly 40 percent, were undecided.
While Boxer's races have historically been sleepy affairs, the poll indicates that Californians could be in for a barnburner this year. Boxer is in a statistical tie in trial matchups with both Campbell and Fiorina. In January, she had substantial double-digit percentage-point leads over all three GOP challengers.
"Formerly, I would have said this is in the Democratic column, but I would say now it's got to be moved into the tossup column," said Mark DiCamillo, the director of the poll. "There just seems to be a turning of voter opinions. I think a lot of it has to do with the Congress."
DiCamillo said it's clear the "tenor of political discourse" has changed in California since Republican Scott Brown pulled off an upset victory in the Massachusetts Senate race in January. He said the public's low regard for Congress is affecting Boxer and all incumbents, especially Democrats.
"Voters are starting to be looking for alternatives to the status quo," he said. "And I think that is a political head wind building."
Like most analysts, he's predicting a loss of Democratic seats in Congress in November: "It's not whether they will lose. It's how many."
John Stater, 62, a Republican from Meadow Vista who was polled by Field in the latest survey, said he's backing Campbell because he's a fiscal conservative, and he wants Boxer voted out of office. He said he was impressed with Campbell when he saw him interviewed by Glenn Beck on the Fox News Channel.
"I've followed politics ever since I was in high school, and I'm at the point in my life where I've never been more disgusted and more angry at the politicians in this country," Stater said. "And as far as Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein and Arnold Schwarzenegger, I'm just totally appalled. ... What I see with the politicians nowadays is it's a selfish situation that all of them are in."
Campbell is running strongest among men, voters over 65, moderate conservatives and Southern Californians.
Fiorina leads Campbell among voters between 50 and 64 and is close behind among women, Northern California voters and those who consider themselves "strong conservatives."
Since getting elected to the Senate in 1992, Boxer has won her two re-election bids by double-digit percentage margins. In 1998, she defeated Republican Matt Fong by 10 points, and she beat Republican Bill Jones by a 20-point margin in 2004.
But Boxer's image has declined rapidly this year. In January, she was viewed more favorably than unfavorably by 48 percent to 39 percent. Now more voters view her unfavorably than favorably, 51 percent to 38 percent.
In hypothetical matchups for the Nov. 2 general election, the poll found Campbell leads Boxer 44 percent to 43 percent, Boxer leads Fiorina 45 percent to 44 percent, and she leads DeVore 45 percent to 41 percent. The general election matchups have a margin of error of plus or minus 3.7 percentage points.
"We're obviously in a very tough political environment where voters are understandably frustrated with the economy and we're facing an (off-year) electorate that's naturally more conservative," said Rose Kapolczynski, Boxer's campaign manager. "We always thought this was going to be a challenging race, and now it's clear this is going to be the toughest Boxer campaign yet."
While the poll is good news for Republicans in a state dominated by Democrats, the three Senate GOP contenders are largely unknown to most Californians. Fifty-nine percent said they had no opinion of Campbell, compared to 58 percent for Fiorina and 78 percent for DeVore.
As a result, DiCamillo said, the close race has more to do with Boxer's unpopularity than with the popularity of the GOP challengers.
"I could have put your name against Boxer, and you'd have gotten half the votes," DiCamillo said. "It's really not about the candidates themselves."
Eric Louchis, 60, an unemployed credit manager from Lockeford, said he'll be supporting one of the Republicans, but he's undecided which one it will be, mainly because he doesn't know much about them. But he wants Boxer defeated.
"Here's the deal," Louchis said. "If they're running against Barbara Boxer, I'd probably tend to vote Republican against her. It'd be more a vote against her at this point rather than a vote for any of the people running against her. Her and (House Speaker Nancy) Pelosi and Feinstein, they've all been invisible."
#2
The key is whether the losers in the Pub primary get behind the winner. If they do, Pubs beat Boxer. If they don't, Boxer ekes out another term. Simple as that.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/19/2010 8:40 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I guess people support demon sheep.
Posted by: Eric Jablow ||
03/19/2010 8:55 Comments ||
Top||
#4
IMHO Babs could be beaten soundly if the Campbell and Fiorina don't beat up each other too much. Campbell may yet pull this on off but I would place my money on Fiorina.
#6
Californians can only hope that Campbell puts that intellectual midget out to pasture.
She is so bad I think she embarrasses the Iranians
Posted by: James Carville ||
03/19/2010 10:47 Comments ||
Top||
#7
GOOD! If "Call me Senator, General" Boxer goes, that is one of the best things that could happen to Kaliforniastan. The only better thing would be if they dumped Pelosi also. They could dump her for Mickey Mouse and that would benefit California as well as America. Mickey Mouse would have better sense. She is just awful. Please, please, please, please people of California; think of your state and think of America.
Arizona Sen. John McCain and former Rep. J.D. Hayworth are locked in a heated Republican primary, and a new Rasmussen poll finds the two are indeed in a tight race (March 16, 541 GOP LV, MoE +/- 4%).
#2
So, we are getting ever closer to Chairman Obamao.
I wonder if Obamistas would "deem" Nov. elections already won and thus unnecessary. Why not, if they "deem" this, they can also "deem" that.
#7
If some sort of international or domestic calamity takes place, elections be damned and Barry will suspend the US Constitution. I would wager the EO has already been written.
"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."
- Rahm Emanuel
#8
Besoeker, that happens and its open season, no bag limit, on politicians who do that dirty work. There will be a lot of dead Congressmen, and if the President becomes Dictator, then he should avoid being within rifle range of the population.
Moderators: This is not a threat, nor is it a call to violence (which is a violation of policy here). It is a statement of the likely reaction to the US becoming a dictatorship in that manner.
#10
Barry doesn't have either the stones or the brains to enact the scenario Besoeker outlined.
Really, the man is small potatoes. Remember, he's a community organizer, not a caudillo. If not for his publisher's skill at packaging his most dazzling lifestory, the man would be an adjunct lecturer somewhere, living off of his wife's income.
I have received no warning, that I know about, about anything no less 3 warnings. How are these warnings delivered and why was my post objectionable?
Having participated in Rantburg for many a year I certainly don't want Fred or anyone else to get in trouble. And I thought that an opinion that the current administration seems to be on a path that would precipitate violence was neither unique or particularly inflamatory.
#14
There is no authority for the President to "suspend" the Constitution. His own bodyguards would shoot him if he tried. I'm sure both Old Spook and I, plus Fred and most of the regulars here understand that without the Constitution, all rules are out the window. There are enough "oath-keepers" in the US to make such a decision the worst ever made by a US politician. Most of us are also the ones with the military training and the ability to use a weapon. Barry may be that stupid, but Rahm isn't. Axelrod may find himself in deep kimchee if he even MENTIONS it.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/19/2010 17:28 Comments ||
Top||
#15
AlanC, AoS inserted a gentle warning into your comment yesterday here, and when another commenter took issue with AoS I followed up shortly afterwards in the thread.
Bottom line up front: avoid any wording that even hints you are calling for armed revolution or direct violence against American officials. If you are regretfully concerned that we may be heading in that direction, clearly distinguish such concern from advocacy.
This site is read from time to time by people at certain military, law enforcement and national security sites, among others.
Please word your comments very carefully. I'm afraid we will find more than one on which occasion to practice that discipline over the next few weeks and months.
#17
As OS and OP point out, many of us ex-military types have sworn to defend the constitution of the United States against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. The dhimocrats can try their hardest to do minor end a rounds, but not be against the constitution. Until the day they completely tear it up and refuse to step aside after an election, I will do my best to protect them from harm from anyone.
I hate the dhimocrats, I hate Obama and I hate the RINOs, but they are our elected government and I will give my life to protect them. End. Of. Story. I want to see these people discredited, mocked and thrown out of office via the election box. I want their ideology to be so reviled that no one will mention socialism again for 20 years at least.
#18
Until the day they completely tear it up and refuse to step aside after an election, I will do my best to protect them from harm from anyone. DarthVader
I hope I never see that day, but watching Democrat pols march mindlessly to the November precipice gives me pause.
Democratic Rep. Betsy Markey intends to vote for a compromise health reform bill, a move that bolsters the hopes of party leaders looking to pass President Barack Obama's key domestic policy initiative.
Markey, D-Fort Collins, is one of 39 House members who voted against a health reform bill that passed in November. That group has been courted intensely in recent weeks as Democrats look for 216 votes in support of a compromise measure, which scraps the so-called 'public option,' among other changes, from the House bill they earlier opposed.
"I have come to the conclusion that I am going to support this bill," Markey said in a conference call with reporters.
Two weeks ago, Markey said she was still uncertain about how she would vote: "We don't yet know what the House may be asked to vote on in the coming weeks, but when we do I'll look at that bill like I look at every bill that comes up in the House -- through the eyes of a Colorado small businesswoman," she said in a release.
CBO numbers released today likely swayed her vote, as Democrats are now pushing the measure as the biggest deficit reduction bill any member could ever vote for.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/19/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
i am revolted to have once lived in the city that elected this sack of mindless protoplasm.
Posted by: abu do you love ||
03/19/2010 1:48 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"I have come to the conclusion that I am going to support this bill,"
A conclusion reached after examining the pay scale and perks of the Senior Executive Directorship of one of those 65 new government agencies.
#3
I'm headed to her office here in Colorado in a little while. I will let the entire staff know Markey just put them out of a job in 6 months, because we are going to throw her disloyal ass OUT for failing to represent We The People in this district.
Did you hear that Staffers? GET YOUR RESUMES READY - because You Will Be Fired.
#4
FYI, this district is massively opposed to the bill - it was GOP for decades until the GOP kept putting crappy "its my turn" cranks in office and we ended up with Markey, who lied liek Obama abotu being a moderat.
Markey just signed her own death warrant (for her political career). And there are a number of us who are going to reminder her and her staff of that today.
#7
Old Spook, it's not that far from Colorado Springs to Fort Collins. I also have a niece and her family that live there. I'm not sure if my SIL is in her district or not. I'll try to find out.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/19/2010 21:26 Comments ||
Top||
President Obama claimed his first convert on health-care reform Wednesday, as senior Democrats, labor unions and an array of interest groups intensified their efforts to sway wavering lawmakers before a climactic vote in the House this weekend.
House leaders expressed increasing optimism about pushing Obama's top domestic initiative to final passage, even as they continued to tinker with the last element of the package and their day for a vote appeared to slip to Sunday. Taking a break from his face-to-face efforts to win support for the measure, Obama made a rare appearance on Fox News Channel to declare that, after a year-long battle, Congress is finally poised to deliver the far-reaching overhaul to his desk.
"I'm confident it will pass. And the reason I'm confident that it's going to pass is because it's the right thing to do," the president said in a sometimes testy interview with reporter Bret Baier, who repeatedly prodded him about special deals in the package that were used to win over recalcitrant lawmakers, as well as a much-criticized parliamentary maneuver that the House may employ.
The interview interrupted a presidential schedule packed with calls to Capitol Hill, where House leaders said Obama has focused on the 37 House Democrats who voted against health-care legislation in November but may be open to supporting the latest package. Over the past few days, Obama has met privately with at least half a dozen dissenting Democrats in the Oval Office, and lobbied others by phone.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/19/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"And the reason I'm confident that it's going to pass is because it's the right thing to do unlike 1994, they've got ME!"
#3
Barry's 2010 quasi legislative gift to the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations in America (N‘COBRA) and the Provisional Government Republic of New Afrika (RNA).
#4
#2 Because 52nd through 57th states totally support it?
What I want to know: Did ACORN and SEIU help with registering voters such as Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Pluto, and others several times over in our 53rd, 54th, 55th, 56th, and 57th states to get Barry elected?"
#5
If he's so confident it's going to pass, why doesn't he just go ahead and sign it? I know that the Constitution says a bill must be passed by both houses before the president signs it, but to O the Constitution is more of a guideline than a rule.
Of course, since nobody knows what is in the bill (and according to Pelosi, we won't until it becomes law), Obama might as well sign a blank piece of paper and let Pelosi and Reid fill in the blanks anyway they want to.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
03/19/2010 16:55 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/19/2010 19:15 Comments ||
Top||
#7
For a guy who is against torture and waterboarding, Obama sure does torture the truth. Where have I heard "The means justifies the ends?" Oh yes, I recall, that was a Marxist maxim. Not telling the truth will catch up with Barry; the American people don't tolerate that very long.
Idaho is leading the charge in a states-rights push to defeat a proposal in Congress that would require people to buy health insurance, a key piece of reforms being pushed by President Barack Obama.
Republican Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter used a ceremony Wednesday afternoon to become the first governor to sign into law a measure requiring the state attorney general to sue the federal government over any such insurance mandates.
There's similar legislation pending in 37 other states, a point Otter stressed when asked if the bill he signed can succeed, given constitutional law experts are already saying federal laws would supersede those of states in a U.S. District Court fight.
"The ivory tower folks will tell you, 'No, they're not going anywhere,'" he told reporters. "But I'll tell you what, you get 36 states, that's a critical mass. That's a constitutional mass."
The state measures working their ways through statehouses from Missouri to South Carolina reflect a growing frustration with President Obama's health care overhaul, especially in Republican-dominated regions.
The Democratic president's proposal would cover some 30 million uninsured people, end insurance practices such as denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, require almost all Americans to get coverage by law, and try to slow the cost of medical care nationwide.
Democratic leaders hope to vote on it this weekend.
With Washington closing in on a deal in the monthslong battle over health care overhaul, Republican state lawmakers are stepping up opposition.
Last week, Virginia legislators passed a measure similar to Idaho's new law, but Otter was the first state chief executive to sign such a bill, according to the American Legislative Exchange Council, which created model legislation for Idaho and other states. The Washington, D.C.,-based nonprofit group promotes limited government.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/19/2010 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I don't see how you can force people to buy health care insurance at risk of penalty, loss of property or even jail time. The IRS will monitor and enforce this requirement. I see a lot of lawsuits in the courts, civil disobedience, and/or insurrection in the streets. Martin Luther King made a pretty fair argument for resisting laws which were unjust. It seems to me that forcing someone to buy something deprives them of their civil rights. If the government can force you to buy insurance, they can force you to buy anything. This is not the same as buying homeowner's insurance or car insurance.
#2
"...require almost all Americans to get coverage by law..."
That's BS right there. Only about half of us will be subsidizing the 400 lb. smoker I saw standing in line at McD's, not to mention the 20 million illegals.
Link is to a memo (leaked to Politico) showing Dems are ready to work on a new increase in allowable physicians reimbursement (aka Doc fix) but are asking their herd to hide the fact. The key stuff is about 80% down the file.
Posted by: lord garth ||
03/19/2010 15:11 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
reports are coming in that this was either a fake or a draft of a memo that was never sent
sorry
Posted by: lord garth ||
03/19/2010 17:53 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
