Fundraising and Spending: Management in Microcosm

The latest news of the campaigns’ cash on hand is telling: Mitt Romney is not only very good at raising money, he’s very frugal in spending it.

Reports indicate that despite President Obama holding a record number of fundraisers while in office (nearly twice that of the next president on the list), the Romney campaign and the Republican National Committee are significantly financially better off than their Democratic counterparts. From Reuters:

Romney, the Republican National Committee and the Victory Fund they use jointly said they had $186 million left in cash on hand at the end of July. Disclosures filed on Monday showed Obama, the Democratic National Committee and their own joint funds having a total of $127 million left in cash on hand.

That money is an important gauge of firepower saved up for future advertising or investments in hiring, offices and events.

Why the discrepancy? It’s true that some funds are inaccessible to Mitt until he’s the official GOP nominee. But still, why such a difference when there wasn’t even a primary battle on the Democrat side? First, Jane Mayer in the New Yorker suggests President Obama doesn’t seem to relish fundraising, particularly from wealthy donors.

Ms. Mayer suggests an altruism on the part of Democrats holds them back from doing the same sort of fundraising the GOP does, particularly from, in a youthful Obama’s words, “the enemy” (big business / Wall Street). It’s clear the Obama camp and the left views money and those that possess it with some level of disdain. And as Mitt says, if you vilify something you may very well end up with less of it. Lest you be fooled, however, into believing Ms. Mayer’s suggestion that all the left’s motives are pure, and therefore the right’s are not, Matthew Continetti in the Free Beacon deconstructs Ms. Mayer’s thesis, calling it the “biggest myth of 2012” that Democrat donors don’t expect or receive some form of payback from their politicians. Mr. Continetti’s piece is worth a read. Perhaps it’s not progressive altruism that keeps the Obama campaign from raising funds as much as it’s that Obama’s track record is now a limiting factor.

Click here to continue reading

Romney’s NEW OP-ED: What I Learned at Bain Capital

Romney Economics! Investing in Companies and Creating Jobs.

The original may be found on yesterday’s Wall Street Journal editorial page.

The back-to-school season is here, and as parents take their children to shop for school supplies, I suspect that many of them will be visiting a Staples store. I’m very familiar with those stores because Staples is one of many businesses we helped create and expand at Bain Capital, a firm that my colleagues and I built. The firm succeeded by growing and fixing companies.

The lessons I learned over my 15 years at Bain Capital were valuable in helping me turn around the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. They also helped me as governor of Massachusetts to turn a budget deficit into a surplus and reduce our unemployment rate to 4.7%. The lessons from that time would help me as president to fix our economy, create jobs and get things done in Washington.

A broad message emerges from my Bain Capital days: A good idea is not enough for a business to succeed. It requires a talented team, a good business plan and capital to execute it. That was true of companies we helped start, like Staples and the Bright Horizons child-care provider, and several of the struggling companies we helped turn around, like the Brookstone retailer and the contact-lens maker Wesley Jessen.

My presidency would make it easier for entrepreneurs and small businesses to get the investment dollars they need to grow, by reducing and simplifying taxes; replacing Obamacare with real health-care reform that contains costs and improves care; and by stemming the flood of new regulations that are tying small businesses in knots.

My business experience confirmed my belief in empowering people. For example, at Bain Capital we bought Accuride, a company that made truck rims and wheels, because we saw untapped potential there. We instituted performance bonuses for the management team, which had a dramatic impact. The managers made the plants more productive, and the company started growing, adding 300 jobs while Bain was involved. My faith in people, not government, is at the foundation of my plan to strengthen America’s middle class.

I also saw firsthand through these investments how energy costs impact the ability of a business to grow. Today, energy costs are weighing on job creators across America because President Obama has limited energy exploration and restricted development in ways that sap economic performance, curtail growth, and kill jobs. I will take a sensible approach to tapping our energy resources, which will both create jobs and make energy more affordable for every sector of our economy.

In the 1990s, when the “old-technology” steel industry in the U.S. was failing, Bain Capital helped build a new steel company, Steel Dynamics, which has grown into one of the largest steel producers in America today, holding its own against Chinese producers. The key to its success? State-of-the-art new technology.

Here are two lessons from the Steel Dynamics story: First, innovation is essential to the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing. We are the most innovative, entrepreneurial nation in the world. To maintain that lead, we must give people the skills to succeed. My plan for a stronger middle class includes policies to give every family access to great schools and quality teachers, to improve access to higher education, and to attract and retain the best talent from around the world.

The second lesson is that we must have a level playing field in international trade. As president, I will challenge unfair trade practices that are harming American workers.

Running a business also brings lessons in tackling challenges. I was on the board of a medical diagnostic-laboratory company, Damon, when a competitor announced that it had settled with the government over a charge of fraudulent Medicare billing. I and fellow Damon outside board members joined together and immediately hired an independent law firm to examine Damon’s own practices.

The investigation revealed a need to make some changes, which we did. The company, along with several other clinical-laboratory companies, ended up being fined for billing practices. And a Damon manager who was responsible for the fraud went to jail. The experience taught me that when you see a problem, run toward it or it will only get worse.

That will be my approach to our federal budget problem. I am committed to capping federal spending below 20% of GDP and reducing nondefense discretionary spending by 5%. This will surely result in much wailing and gnashing of teeth in Washington. But a failure of leadership has created our debt crisis, and ducking responsibility will only cripple the economy and smother opportunity for our children and grandchildren.

I’m not sure Bain Capital could have grown or turned around some of the companies we invested in had we faced today’s anti-business environment. Andy Puzder, the chief executive of CKE Restaurants Inc., which employs about 21,000 people at Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s restaurants, has said that the “current unfriendly economic environment perhaps best explains why American companies are sitting on over $2 trillion which they could invest.”

President Obama has piled on excessive regulations, proposed massive tax increases, added more than $5 trillion in federal debt, and failed to address the coming fiscal cliff—all of which is miring our nation in sluggish growth and high unemployment.

I know what it takes to turn around difficult situations. And I will put that experience to work, to get our economy back on track, create jobs, strengthen the middle class and lay the groundwork for America’s increased competitiveness in the world.

A few comments from Paul Johnson, if you’ll indulge, about why what Mitt says is so important:

1. Mitt’s succeeded before. We have some serious problems, but Mitt has displayed an unusual ability to solve difficult issues. From his tenure at Bain, to establishing and turning around other companies, to turning around the Olympics, Mitt Romney knows success and how to replicate it. Click here to continue reading

Lie of the Year - Democrats Omit Key Components of Ryan and Romney’s Medicare Plan

Last year, an unbiased fact-checking organization named Politifact awarded Democrats the honor of telling the “Lie of the Year” about Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan. Democrats were given the award for saying that Paul Ryan wanted to “end Medicare as we know it.” 

For the first time in Politifact’s history, it seems that Democrats are eager to repeat the award for the same lie again this year. 

Now that Paul Ryan has been nominated as Romney’s V.P., the Democrats are hoping to scare senior citizens away from Ryan and Romney by endlessly repeating that Ryan and Romney want to “end Medicare as we know it.” Even president Obama has been repeating this falsehood.

So why is this a lie? First, Romney and Ryan both have said that they will not eliminate traditional Medicare at all. There will be no changes for seniors who are currently on Medicare. In fact, everyone age 55 and over will not have the option of choosing anything else besides traditional Medicare. 

For those Americans who are younger than 55, they will have the choice between traditional Medicare or obtaining private insurance where the government pays for the cost of purchasing private insurance as long as private insurance covers the same benefits and features as traditional Medicare. 

That’s it. No one is proposing “ending Medicare as we know it.” No one is proposing eliminating traditional Medicare for anyone. 

So during the next few months, you will hear a lot of Democrats saying that Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney want to end Medicare. It is simply not true no matter how many times they say it. 

From the sound of the presidential campaign these days, we can anticipate the Democrats earning back-to-back trophies for “The Lie of the Year.”


In conclusion, Gingrich did a great job discussing this very issue last Sunday during his interview on Face the Nation. I encourage you to watch the whole interview, but he starts talking about health care at 1:26 of the clip below.

If you are interesting in finding out greater detail about the Romney/Ryan plan for health care, click here.

Romney-Ryan Go on Offense With New Ad That Exposes Obama For Cutting Medicare to Fund ObamaCare

Team Romney released a new television advertisement today, titled “Paid In.”

With every paycheck, Americans paid more and more into Medicare. Now, when you need it most, President Obama cut Medicare to pay for Obamacare. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan will strengthen Medicare and protect the commitments made to current seniors.

View the ad below, then share this post to every senior citizen you know to get the truth out about Medicare.

Key Differences Between RomneyCare and ObamaCare

*Got questions about RomneyCare and ObamaCare? Visit our newly updated page on RomneyCare - The Truth about Massachusetts Health Care to find articles like this and other questions you may be wondering.

It is often asserted that RomneyCare is the same thing as ObamaCare, but this is simply not true. It is important to note that Massachusetts, the state where Romneycare was founded, opposed Obamacare. In fact, Massachusetts opposed Obamacare so much that they elected Senator Scott Brown (R) in 2010 to be the deciding vote against Obamacare after Senator Ted Kennedy’s death. Why would the state where Romneycare was founded be opposed to Obamacare if the two laws were really the same? The answer is, of course, that they are not the same. While there are similarities between the two laws, there are also key differences. Below is a table of differences between the Romney plan and the Obama plan.


RomneyCare
ObamaCare
Overall Size and Scope
-Whole bill was 70 pages
-Romney vetoed significant sections of the bill including the employer penalty for not providing health insurance
-Romney favored an “opt out” provision from the mandate
-Romney favored no mandated benefits for health care coverage, catastrophic only
-No federal gov. insurance option
-Intended as a market driven solution to healthcare
-Whole bill was 2,074 pages
-Very broad regulation of the insurance industry including an employer penalty for not providing health insurance and no “opt out” provision
-Establishes a 15 member board of unelected bureaucrats with great control over health care benefits and risks rationing health care
-Leaves open the option of creating single-payer gov. insurance in the future
-Intended as a step toward gov. run insurance
Costs
-No new taxes!
-Romney balanced the state’s budget first, then passed healthcare law
-No cuts to Medicare benefits
-Modest cost to state (only added 1% to state budget)
-Increased taxes by $500 billion and taxes people who don’t buy insurance
-Despite massive federal gov. debt, Obama still passed Obamacare
-Cuts Medicare by $500 billion
-Overall costs unknown!
Popularity
-Very strong bipartisan support
-Strong special interest support
-Very popular among the public in Massachusetts
-Strong consensus of approval was built in the state to support the law
-Consensus was built to support an individual mandate
-Absolutely no bipartisan support
-Very controversial and divided special interest groups
-Unpopular in nation overall
-No consensus was built to support a mandate
Does Constitution Define it as a “Tax” or “Penalty/Fee”?
-Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts ruled state mandates are “penalties” because states have different authority and powers than the fed. gov.
-Mass. constitution never considered this a tax
-Supreme Court ruled that federal gov. only has the authority to enact this law by its ability “tax,” and does not meet the required standards to be considered a “penalty.”
-This tax breaks Obama’s promise that he would not raise taxes on the middle class
Federalism
-A state solution to a state problem
-Through collaboration and discussion, Massachusetts created a consensus among stake holders to support the new law
-Federal gov. “one-size-fits-all” plan
-Doesn’t take into account that each state is unique in important ways such as:
1)Vastly different debt levels between states (some states can’t afford new spending on health care)
2)Some states have three times the percentage of uninsured citizens (Much greater costs will be imposed on states with a larger percentage of uninusured citizens)
3)Conservative states will reject implementation of federal gov. plan.


As the above table illustrates, the plan Romney proposed was a much more conservative, business friendly law than what the Democrats passed under President Obama.

The Boston Globe editorial board recently published an article defending RomneyCare on conservative grounds. The editorial board states “the role Romney played on the state level was skillful, creative, and business friendly. Romney was a governor sensitive to business concerns and worried about the state’s business climate.”

A crucial difference between RomneyCare and ObamaCare is that the two healthcare plans, while similar in some ways, present vast differences in the essential origins and motives that separate Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. One author summarized it this way:
 

We know what Romney’s goal was when he passed his health care plan. His goal was to involve the private sector of Massachusetts in insuring a small percentage of the Massachusetts’ residents [who didn’t have health insurance and who were receiving free health care from the government.]

Obama’s goal prior to signing Obamacare into law was much, much bigger.
In 2003, he said, “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care plan.”

The fact is, Obamacare was originally going to be single payer. It was going to be European — as close to it as Congress would allow. But that was curbed. What they got, instead — what we got, instead — was the first step. Obamacare. The first step toward single-payer, universal healthcare coverage.

And that is the crucial difference. Romney never said, never touted, never promised that “we may not get [single-payer] immediately” or even a little later than immediately. Romneycare is not Obamacare because Obamacare is just getting started. One was an end in and of itself. The other is (still) a means to an end.

In 2006 when RomneyCare was passed, most conservatives praised Romney’s plan. The Bush administration sent a letter praising the passage of the new law. An often overlooked fact is that without the support of the Bush administration, Romney’s health care law never would have become a reality.

One of Romney’s main goals in passing healthcare legislation was to counter many much more liberal attempts within Massachusetts to take over the healthcare system. The Boston Globe newspaper discusses in detail one plan that Romney feared would become law if action was not taken. That plan was the imposition of a payroll tax of up to $1,700 per employee on all businesses that did not offer health insurance to their employees. It was a serious threat. The plan had been voted on in the year 2000 and the law barely failed by 3%. In 2006 the employer mandate coupled with a heavy payroll tax was to be voted on again.

In regard to ObamaCare, Romney firmly believes that each state should have the right to craft its own health care program. Health care has traditionally been a state issue, not a federal issue, and Romney wants to keep it that way. In his book, No Apology, Romney states:

“My own preference is to let each state fashion its own program to meet the distinct needs of its citizens. States could follow the Massachusetts model if they choose, or they could develop plans of their own. These plans, tested in the state ‘laboratories of democracy,’ could be evaluated, compared, improved upon, and adopted by others.”

In keeping with the belief that states should be able to craft their own programs, Romney has said that on his first day as president, he would issue a waiver to all 50 states allowing them to opt out of ObamaCare. This waiver would allow states to postpone the implementation of ObamaCare while Romney works with congress to formally repeal the bill.

In conclusion, a recent article in The New Yorker magazine states that “Romney had accomplished a longstanding Democratic goal - universal health insurance - by combining three conservative policies.” In other words, Romney had beaten Democrats at their own goal of providing universal health insurance - but Romney’s novel approach accomplished this goal not with a government takeover, but with conservative principles. The success of Romney’s healthcare law led many Democrats to consider adopting a similar approach to achieving universal health insurance. However, the end result from the Democrats under President Obama was a plan with a much larger government, much greater spending, increased taxes, and less power to the states and individuals to determine their own health care goals.

Romney Says Obama’s Health Care Mandate is a Tax

In an interview today, Mitt Romney clarified his view on whether or not Obama’s individual health care mandate is a tax.

In that interview, Romney states:

“While I agreed with the dissent, that’s taken over by the fact that the majority of the court said it’s a tax, and therefore it is a tax. They have spoken.”

“They concluded it was a tax. That’s what it is, and the American people know that President Obama has broken the pledge he made,” he added. “He said he wouldn’t raise taxes on middle-income Americans. Not only did he raise the $500 billion that was already in the bill, it’s now clear that his mandate as described by the Supreme Court is a tax.”

In the run up to the Supreme Court decision on Obamacare, Republicans, including Romney, had hoped that the mandate would be found unconstitutional as both a penalty and a tax. Republicans also argued that the mandate could not legitimately be classified as a tax. It should not be a surprise then that Romney, as well as other Republicans, originally disagreed with the majority ruling that found Obamacare constitutional as a tax.

But now that the Supreme Court has ruled, their ruling becomes the law of the land and the reality America must accept. As Romney said in his interview today, “If the Supreme Court says its a tax, it’s a tax.”

Romney believes that since we are stuck with the ruling and definition of the Supreme Court, Obama needs to be held accountable to the American people for that ruling. Obama needs to be held accountable to the American people that he raised their taxes after promising many times that he would not raise taxes on the middle class.

The Supreme Court ruling then represents a major problem for President Obama because he can now be accurately described as a “tax raiser,” and a politician who can’t (whether intentionally or unintentionally) keep his campaign promises. And Romney fully intends to exploit that weakness in the coming campaign.

Obamacare & Romney’s July 4th: “Agree with Supreme Court DISSENT, but it’s a TAX”

After participating today in the annual Fourth of July parade in Wolfeboro, New Hampshire, Governor Mitt Romnney offered his assessment of the Supreme Court’s ruling on Obamacare: “It’s a tax.

Romney spoke with CBS News’ chief political correspondent Jan Crawford:

The Supreme Court has spoken, and while I agreed with the dissent, that’s taken over by the fact that the majority of the court said it’s a tax, and therefore it is a tax. They have spoken. There’s no way around that. “I said that I agreed with the dissent, and the dissent made it very clear that they felt it was unconstitutional, but the dissent lost - it’s in the minority.” - Mitt Romney

Romney’s senior adviser Eric Fehrnstrom earlier this week claimed Romney viewed the Obamacare matter as a penalty, or fine.

The L.A. Times offered more on Romney’s parade appearance:

The presumptive Republican nominee, accompanied by what he called “a bevy of Romneys,” marched near the end of the parade, which filled Wolfeboro’s Main Street for more than two hours and showcased a mind-bending vision of small-town Americana.

There was the American Legion and the Rotary, the Daughters of the American Revolution and virtually every local elected official. There also was a Toro lawnmower brigade, a truck from Big Moose RV

Sales, a rolling wood-fired pizza oven and enough military and farm vehicles to move and feed an army. There also was a parade favorite, the Wolfeboro Offshore Ad-Lib Precision Lawn Chair Drill Team — basically, a bunch of senior citizens who march in formation throwing lawn chairs around with abandon, except when they are taking a break by sitting in them.

Shaking hands and greeting the crowd along the route, Romney was flanked by family members and supporters. When the parade finished, he spoke to a large gathering, where a smallish group of Obama supporters were present to chant support for their guy.

NECN’s Lauren Collins posted the following parade report (Look at the long stream of Romney supporters who marched in the parade with him!):

Ms. Collins finished her report wondering if The Gov’s remarks would have a highly charged political tone… Here’s her answer:

Romney went so far as to celebrate the presence of President Obama’s supporters in the parade and quickly silenced his own backers who booed at their mention.

“You know what?” Romney told them, as he spoke from the back of a pickup truck overlooking a blue-green vista of the lake and distant mountains. “They were courteous and respectful and said, ‘Good luck to you,’ and ‘Happy Fourth of July.'”

Continuing, he said. “This is a time for us to come together as a people. We have differing views on political issues, but with regards to our conviction that this nation is unique and exceptional, we must come together and show respect for what it is that makes us such a great nation.”

To read Romney’s July 4th statement, see Team Romney’s new video, and view photos click here.



Follow Jayde Wyatt on Twitter @YayforSummer

Reagan’s Warning of Socialism Pierces the Fog of Obama’s Deceptions

Have you ever thought to yourself in today’s world, what would President Reagan have done? I have thought that many times over the last 44 months. I’m certain some will disagree with me, but I view Ronald Reagan as the “patriarch” of modern conservatism, though I state this knowing there are those who do not think he was conservative enough. I will tell you what — Looking back to the leadership of President Reagan through the fog of Mr. Barack Obama’s control of the executive branch, President Reagan’s conservative principles standout as the steadfast truth of a giant lighthouse sending its steady beam of light and piercing fog horn.

Do you recall Mr. Obama adamantly demanding that ObamaCare was not socialist and that his policies were not redistribution of wealth? I remember at the time his sounding like the driver pleading with the police officer, “I was only going 35 miles per hour officer!”

What do you think? With the events of this week, do you think we need a course correction in order to avoid slamming into that giant land mass of socialism? Take a listen to Ronald Reagan back in 1961, 51 years ago. Does this sound like truth today? Do you see the beam of light and hear the piercing fog horn? Or are we all just being lulled to sleep through the fog about to hit the reef somewhere in a Greek island?

Ronald Reagan tells us exactly where we are right now. Yes, this clip is 10 minutes long, but the first two minutes drive home the message that we are headed right to that craggy point of socialism while President Obama and all of his lemmings will be telling us all for the next four months how we should like it and be glad for it. Listen carefully to Reagan’s words like “liberalism,” “statism,” “personal liberty,” “socialism,” “encroachment,” etc. I think the entire 10 minute audio is absolutely powerful and essential listening for every American who cares about their future and the health of our nation.


Values, distinctly American: “Liberty” — “In God We Trust” — “E Pluribus Unum”

Twitter Follow: @VicLundquist

Barack Obama and his Dancing Ducks — The “ObamaTax”

ObamaCare — Here are the facts by phase as supported by the liberals:

First: Mr. Obama and surrogates vehemently argued for months that the bill (and then law) was not a tax and that those earning below $250,000 would not see taxes go up.

Second: Mr. Obama’s lawyers argue to the Supreme Court that the ObamaCare mandate is supported as a “tax.” They come right out and call it a “tax.”

Third: The Supreme Court this week agrees with Mr. Obama’s lawyers that ObamaCare’s mandate is supported as a tax.

Fourth: Mr. Obama’s surrogates are now stating ObamaCare’s mandate is really not a tax; that it is really a “penalty” or a “fee.” What is their next phase?

The Wall Street Journal published a short piece yesterday titled, “The Tax Duck”:

Editor’s note: The duck test—if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck.
[…]
Herewith, from President Obama on down, is a sampling of Democratic denials that the individual mandate is a tax:

President Barack Obama, talking to George Stephanopoulos on ABC News, September 2009:

Stephanopoulos: Your critics say it [the mandate] is a tax increase.

Obama: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but—

Stephanopoulos; But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

Obama: I absolutely reject that notion.

***
From the White House website, December 2009, under the headline, “The Truth on Health Care Reform and Taxes”:

As we move into the final stage of the historic push for health reform, opponents of reform are testing the age old adage that if you only say something enough times you can somehow make it true. Yesterday, we heard a new version of the old, tired refrain that the health reform bills in Congress would raise taxes on the middle class. So let’s set the record straight: First, the health insurance reform bill being considered in the Senate does not raise taxes on families making less than $250,000.

***
Then-House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland, July 2010: “I don’t see this as a tax.”

***
Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius appearing before the House Ways and Means Committee, February 2012: “It [the mandate] operates the same way a tax would operate, but it’s not per se a tax.”

***
Office of Management and Budget Director Jeffrey Zients appearing before House Budget Committee, February 2012:

Rep. Scott Garrett (R., N.J.): If I make under $250,000 and I do not buy health insurance as I’m required to under the Affordable Care Act, is that a tax on me or is that not a tax on me? A moment ago you said there are no tax increases.

Zients: There aren’t.

Garrett: So that’s not a tax?

Zients: No.

***
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi commenting Thursday on the Roberts decision: “Call it what you will.”

Watch this short video of Axelrod doing the dance with Matt Lauer yesterday. Is Axelrod sly or what? I find it absolutely fascinating how Democrats are throwing the potato around to one another as they dance around truth!

Matt Lauer, NBC “TODAY” show host: “The good news [for you] is the Supreme Court said that the mandate is constitutional. The bad news is they said they are a tax. Back in 2009, the President adamantly denied that health care reform was going to be a tax on the American people. Does he now agree that this legislation, this law is a tax?”

David Axelrod, Obama campaign: “Whatever you call it, Matt, whether you call it a mandate or a tax, what it is, is a penalty on the very few Americans who don’t — who can afford health care, don’t pay for it, end up in our emergency rooms getting free care and then we all pay for it in the form of higher premiums.”

In the opening segment of The O’Reilly Factor yesterday, Democrat “strategist” Julie Roginsky continues the dance (moon walk) as she completely dodges Laura Ingraham’s very simple, straightforward inquiries. As with Mr. Obama, Roginsky blames others including Governor Romney as she so artfully pivots, evades, and dodges each question all the while with a smile!

Remember those old westerns where a gunslinger is shooting the ground at the feet of another cowboy as he is dancing all over the place to avoid being hit by the bullets? For the next 128+ days, we will watch Governor Romney firing away at Mr. Obama and his lemmings as they toss the “ObamaTax” (coined by Hannity yesterday) potato from one person to the next.

“Elections should be held on April 16th- the day after we pay our income taxes. That is one of the few things that might discourage politicians from being big spenders.” ~ Thomas Sowell


Values, distinctly American: “Liberty” — “In God We Trust” — “E Pluribus Unum”

Twitter Follow: @VicLundquist

Got Broccoli?

If not, the government can apparently tax you into buying some.

Of course if you’ve been following the news, or even just the posts on this site, you know the Supreme Court today upheld the individual mandate of Obamacare under Congress’ power to tax, but not under the Constitution’s commerce clause.

While the news is welcome that the commerce clause has its limits, it’s very disturbing to find out that Justice Roberts believes the government can tax you into buying a product it wants you to. Never mind Obama’s promise that the Affordable Care Act’s mandate was not a tax.

While there’s lots more analysis to come, and please read Jayde’s post below for more detail and Mitt’s statement, I’m simultaneously discouraged at the Court’s ruling the government can force me to buy a product, yet encouraged to know that we can still fix the immediate problem of the Affordable Care Act’s mandate by electing Mitt and a GOP majority in the Senate. If it wasn’t your goal before, get on board, donate to the campaign and get yourself involved. See Nate’s post above this one. If you don’t, after 2012, if you can’t answer the question correctly, it may cost you.

Got broccoli?