There is nothing more moral than eliminating government ‘charity’

As conservative Republicans work to eliminate or reduce the amount of money New Hampshire spends on government programs, critics on the political left have emerged from time to time with the idea that these policies are immoral—or as one outspoken critic said, “morally repugnant.”

This criticism is predicated on a belief that only government can provide for the basic needs of people who can’t provide for themselves. We agree that people need to take care of one another. It is our moral obligation. But it’s not government’s job to do it. In fact, one of the best things about American history is how well we have taken care of one another, even before the federal government launched its “War on Poverty” or created programs such as Medicaid or Obamacare.

Alexis de Tocqueville, a French political thinker and historian who traveled to America in the 1830s, wrote that one of the strengths of 19th Century America was its “robust civil society,” which he defined as the institutions, such as the family, the church and other secular civic organizations, that operated between the individual and the government. He praised these institutions, explaining how they tempered the isolating tendencies of individualism and the “despotic proclivities of centralized [government] administration.”

Read more

So WHY is our Second District Congressman, Charlie Bass, not signed up to defund Obamacare?

Bass No Sign Defund ObamacareCharlie Bass promised to vote against Obamacare – did.  That should have signaled the intention to kill it anyway possible or needed – so why didn’t he sign the Letter?  Would he actually vote to defund Obamacare?

241 US Congressmen are Republicans.  127 of them have signed a Letter saying it was time to use THE power of the US House of Representatives – the Power of the Purse.  They have voted to repeal Obamacare multiple times (33, by some counts) but given the Democrat leadership in the Senate, it died.  And no one would ever think that a sober Obama would kill off his legacy namesake for the ages and sign a bill that would do exactly that.  Thus, defund it.  And then have the stones to stick with it.  And that scenario would come up with the bills to run the Government – the Doomsday setup. The House vs the Senate, I think, in this case.  Here’s the Letter:

Dear Speaker Boehner and Leader Cantor,

We are outraged by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to rewrite and largely uphold the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ObamaCare”), as we know you are as well. And we know that our sentiments are in line with the vast majority of Americans who believe that healthcare should be controlled by patients and doctors, not by the government.

We appreciate your willingness to schedule a vote on the full repeal of ObamaCare. We should continue efforts to repeal the law in its entirety this year, next year, and until we are successful. However, in the meantime, there is more we can do in Congress.

Read more

As Morally Repugnant as The Healthcare Plantation or How About Economic Collapse?

Statton Rice of Wolfboro finds it morally repugnant that someone might object to legal plunder to advance the Democrat Health care agenda.  In a  recent editorial (Concord Monitor) Rice wheels out the moral outrage in an attack on RLCNH chairman Carolyn McKinney.   Here is the closing paragraph.

Apparently, McKinney does not realize that there are citizens in this state who can’t eat, heat their home, drive to work, pay for child care and also buy a “free market” health insurance policy. There is something morally repugnant in her plan to deny health insurance to these citizens in order to express her dislike for the Affordable Care Act and the man who signed it into law. At least, she shouldn’t brag about it.

Note to Statton Rice.  The only way they would not be able to eat is if they tried to sign up for food stamps from NH HHS without the required picture ID.

Read more

Another Fanciful Editorial in The Citizen of Laconia

One marvels at the audacity of the falsehoods in The Citizen of Laconia’s July 12 editorial.  Seeing a claim that Republicans refused to engage in the healthcare debate and that is why Obamacare is “flawed” makes one wonder if The Citizen is an arm of the Obama campaign.   

Republicans promoted things which are popular and have demonstrated success in reducing costs: tort reform, Health Savings Accounts, more competition, fewer mandates and bureaucratic regulations, full deductibility of health insurance premiums, returning health care “insurance” to the purpose of insurance, providing for unexpected events, and more personal responsibility especially by people who can afford, but don’t buy, insurance.     

Read more

I’d Like to Know What New Hampshire Democrats Think About This?

I’d like to know what New Hampshire Democrats think about this? Under President Obama’s healthcare law, the HHS can levy $100 per employee, per day against institutions that won’t comply with the (contraceptive) mandate. Therefore, religious employers with hundreds of employees could be fined millions of dollars each year. A 50-employee institution, for example, would … Read more

GrokTV Event – Rumney home event for Ovide Lamontagne (Candidate, NH Governor) – Question 2 – How protect NH against Obamacare?

Continuing from the last post (Ovide’s speech and the first question), there is another question asked of Ovide.  Sure, Obamacare has now been judged Constitutional but a lot of small business owners are fully concerned of the danger it poses to their viability.  This one was asked by someone, fully cognizant that Obamacare was supposed … Read more

GrokTV Event-Granite State Institute of Politics Republican Gov. Debate – Questions 9 – 12

And now for the third set of four questions (list of previous questions and their links after the jump) from the Granite State Institute of Politics Republican Gov. Debate that was hosted by John Burt, questions asked by Speaker Bill O’Brien and  Alex Talcott , and answered by the Candidates for the Republican nomination for NH Governor, Ovide Lamontagne and Kevin Smith.

Question 9:

One of the least known aspects of Obamacare is how it seeks to hijack State finances in order to expand insurance coverage particularly in the area of Medicaid. One area it does this in is doubling income elegibility.  That’s the aspect to bring forward the decision. That’s the aspect and the reason for the Supreme Court decision that it is optional to the States.  Can you tell us whether or not NH should take up that option and expand its population?  As part of your answer, can you tell us where Medicaid is going in NH and how NH is going to finally be able to protect its sovereignty from the Federal Government trying to push us to overspending here in NH?

Question 10:

Read more

Bill Whittle on Obamacare: “One For The Team”

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”  —Thomas Jefferson Bill Whittle give us his perspective on the recent Supreme Court decision on Obamacare. In the wake of the decision, it serves us well to listen to a true American Patriot Like Bill…enjoy. H/T billwhittle.net

Healthcare Mandate Ruling: IS The Dust Settling?

“Who needs enemies when you’ve got Republican Surrenderists for Obamacare waiting in the wings?” Michelle Malkin

Eleven days have passed since the Supreme Court Healthcare mandate ruling. And with breakneck lightening speed pundits on both sides took to the airwaves, spinning, expounding, pontificating, analyzing and finger-wagging. What was shocking to many in the pregnant pause of waiting for the decision was that it was Justice Roberts who was the swing vote to uphold the law.

For months, we heard a regular smorgasbord of talking heads on television, radio and in blogs predicting the mandate would fall and be declared “unconstitutional” by the nation’s highest court. The court’s upholding of the mandate drew a shockwave throughout the land. “Surprise, Surprise…”

Read more

Obamacare – Unleash the IRS – Now it gets personal

Conservatives have often said that Obamacare will fundamentally change the relationship between citizens and their Government.  With it being now declared as Constitutional, we may well no longer be citizens that have a Federal Government; we are now subjects as the Feds with the new regulations decreed by the Progressives and the IRS deemed to be the cop (as I posted here).

And it just bit me in the butt.  And it will change not just the relationship between the Govt and me, but also between me and my son.  And you all had better read this – it may well affect you as well.  In that previous post there were a number of things that individuals will have to cough up and “share”.

Sidenote: yeah, “share”.  Brings up the insinuation that you get to decide to share or not – you know, voluntary.  Just like when Democrats talk about the rich and “asking” them to pay their fair share.  They already are, and there is no “asking” – asking means the willingness to take “no” for an answer.  For the naive, there is no way that Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are “asking” – they are demanding.

I left out some really important information from that post concerning how the IRS would determine if YOU had to pay a penalty, as I thought it really needed it’s own post and an extremely personal touch on my life that it will now place.  From the Fox Biz post (reformatted and emphasis mine):

And it’s the intrusiveness of the health reform law that has raised eyebrows. What does the IRS base your mandate penalty on? This is where it gets nutty.

… that the “IRS will need to determine a taxpayer’s compliance with the individual [insurance] mandate and assess a penalty if coverage is inadequate.”  However, the penalty isn’t based on just your personal net income. The penalty will be based on an entirely different number that is more than just your paycheck earnings — your ‘household income.’  “This determination is based on a concept of ‘household income,’” TAO has said, adding, “this may differ from the income reported on the taxpayer’s return, because it is a composite of all of the income reported by members of a taxpayer’s household — information that may not be readily accessible to the IRS.”

Or me.  Again, the concept of “household income” absolutely turns the former relationship between me and the IRS.  My info was the IRS’s info – they’d look at it, see if I did all the right things, if I paid the right amount of tax,and would let me know if they had decided if I was right or if they were right.  But it was just me and just them – a singly based relationship.

No more:

Read more

Obamacare – Unleash the IRS!

(H/T: cartoon from Lucianne)

Well, does Nancy P. remind you of the Wicked Witch?  Well, now that Obamacare has been judged constitutional, we all are going to be meeting up real closer now with our friendly neighborhood IRS dudes (reformatted and emphasis mine):

  •  The IRS now gets to know about a small business’s:
  • entire payroll
  • the level of their insurance coverage
  • Whether small businesses provide “affordable” coverage to workers as determined by Big Govt.
  • A “shared responsibility requirement” fines up to $2,000 per worker after the 50th person if insurance is deemed inadequate (which means you may have to tell your employer a lot of  personal / family info you never had to before
  • It gets to know information about you and your family:
  • the income of the primary breadwinner in your house
  • and your entire family’s income
  • Determining whether individuals buy “adequate” health coverage
  • Insurance plan information, including who is covered under the plan and the dates of coverage
  • The costs of your family’s health insurance plans
  • Whether a taxpayer had an offer of employer-sponsored health insurance;
  • The cost of employer-sponsored insurance
  • Whether you have received a premium tax credit
  • Whether you have an exemption from the individual responsibility requirement.
  • Whether or not you are subject to the Mandate / Tax penalty is based not on your income, but your household income.

Did Chief Justice Roberts “pull a Souter”?

Chief Justice John Roberts

Someone over on the wholly excellent and extraordinary RLCNH email list has just opined that in ruling as he did on Obamacare, Chief Justice John Roberts “pulled a Souter.” That is, the feeling is that Roberts—like so many “conservative” judges nominated and confirmed to the Supreme Court in the past, has “matured” and gained “strange new respect” as the political classes worked on them—has once again betrayed the values and ideas that lead him to be put on the Supreme Court.

Wrong. So wrong, in fact, that I need to Explain All, once again, to those who doubt. Here’s the way it is….

Read more

Obamacare was upheld by the Supreme Court. It is also doomed.

This from Holman Jenkins, Jr. in The Wall Street Journal recently: “The mandate’s survival could actually be a convenience to those who remain seriously interested in fixing health care….Reality could not have instructed President Obama more plainly: The last thing we needed, in a country staggering under deficits and debt, a sluggish economy and an unaffordable … Read more

I just couldn’t stop coming back to this headline:

Over at Fox:

Supreme Court upholds ObamaCare and Americans have lost the right to be left alone

Regardless of what I wrote here concerning the Commerce Clause (it is now longer unlimited) and that Federalism has been strengthened (roping in Federal coercion of the States by  ransoming monies that came from the States in exchange for meeting certain mandates), the above hit home – hard.  When I heard that inactivity cannot be regulated via the Commerce Clause, I went YES!  When I heard no more coercion by the Feds, I went YES!  And then what Roberts said about taxation and individual choice, my heart dropped.  The headline had it right – they just won’t leave me alone.

One of my regular Internet Doodlings come from TreeHugger.  It’s a great site for a Conservative to visit (as loyal ‘Grok commenter C. dog e. dog now frequents those haunts, howling at the entrenched denizens, has learned).  They now combine an absolute faith that there is a future of  “no future” for any of us unless their Green vision is realized in how we all should live in their Utopia of a pre-modern civilization / Gaia dystopia of a low energy world (and a low level of life to boot).  There is that loud stream of “all in for one vision” and we all should have no choice in it. “You cannot live your life your way because if we let you, the planet will die.”  Thus, they will do and support anything that will force the rest of us to change our behavior – for them, keeping the planet alive trumps the Rights and philosophy of the Constitution.  They will not stop until we live the way they want and as you have seen with some of my recent posts (here and here), they are on the march to make that happen, forcibly if necessary.

From the political side, Obama and his fellow Progressives are also convinced they can create a Utopia here on Earth – and as Obama has said:

“my individual salvation is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country.”

Translation:

Read more

A new name for Obamacare? And other Obamacare random thoughts

A little thing, perhaps, but this caught my eye over at Betsy’s Page:

Now that Obamacare has become Obamatax

After all, the Supremes (a la Chief Justice Roberts made it so) have made it simply a taxing offense (“According to the CBO, the Obamatax may amount to $1.7 trillion over a decade.”)…

*******

A friend of mine asked:

Now that Obamacare has been ruled valid, are Republicans ready for Tenth Amendment solutions like the Health Care Compact?

My response :

Wrong first question.

First Question: are Republicans willing to man up sufficiently to grow TWO pair each first???

*******

Read more

The emergence of Chief Justice John Roberts….

Chief Justice John Roberts...and Chief Justice John Marshall

The Obamacare decision crafted by Chief Justice Roberts…may be the best of all possible outcomes, including striking the whole thing down as unconstitutional. I’ve been mulling the decision over since it was announced yesterday, and have had the persistent feeling that…something is going on here that is not clear. It’s been a nagging suspicion I’ve had since the decision was announced. Skip blogged yesterday about it, saying, that “I’m no lawyer, but….” Even so, Skip came very close to seeing entirely through the noise and chaff, and discerning what actually may be going on. At one point he said “has Roberts actually laid in a hidden ambush (albeit, long term) by creating a virtual dead-end canyon into which Lib Big Govt-ers are going to get led into?” 

I believe the answer to that question is…

Read more

Mandate Struck, But Not So Fast.

The much anticipated Supreme Court decision on the poorly named Patient Affordable Care Act has arrived.  Poorly written, poorly defended, and now poorly decided. Obamacare cannot be constitutional under the commerce clause.  This strikes the mandate.   But….if it is re-written as a tax, it could pass muster.  So Congress can tax business for its law, … Read more

Share to...