Move-On-Up.org held a successful reception in Washington D.C. last week at the prestigious Heritage Foundation. Called “An Evening with Artur Davis” the former Democratic congressman, who announced in May that he was switching parties, spoke to a full room of 80 Black Conservatives. Also speaking that night was Florida Congressman Allen West.
“I am so excited that Congressmen Davis and West, joined our reception in Washington. I highly admire these great men and am honored they have chosen to support Move-On-Up.org’s important mission,” said Move-On-Up.org co-founder Christopher Arps.
Host Committee:
Hon. Jack Buechner (Ret. MO 2nd District Rep)
Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R – MO 8th District)
Rep. Sam Graves (R – MO 6th District)
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R – TX 1st District)
Rep. Allen West (R – FL 22nd District)
Niger Innis, National Spokesperson for the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE)
USA Today reports, “Even as the new health care law adds millions of insured customers to the paying pool, medical device manufacturers say a tax on their product could cost them billions. The tax came as the government looked for ways to fund the new law. . . . [T]he government looked to higher-earning citizens — those who make more than $200,000 a year — to also contribute. In industry, the government focused on the $130 billion-a-year medical device manufacturing industry.”
“But,” USA Today writes, “the manufacturers say the tax will force money away from research, send jobs overseas and stop them from expanding in the U.S. . . . Medical device manufacturing includes everything from tongue depressors to hip replacements to heart stents. . . . Steve Ubl, CEO of AdvaMed, the trade organization that represents the industry, said the tax would force companies to cut 43,000 jobs and will cost the industry $30 billion in the next 10 years. ‘It’s very concerning to us,’ he said. ‘It’s a tax on revenue, and it translates to a very deep cut in the bottom line.’ Ubl said the companies won’t look for more efficient products, contrary to what advocates of the law say. Instead, they’ll cut jobs and reduce investment in research and development. Or, he said, they’ll pass the tax on to their customers.
“Steve Ferguson, chairman of Cook Group, said the tax has caused the company to stop plans on a $15 million factory that would employ 300 people — and that four more planned after that have also been stopped. The company would be paying more than 50% in taxes, he said, and it would push innovation to ‘foreign shores.’”
Today’s new warning about one of the taxes in the health care law comes on the heels of a report last week about another one aimed squarely at the middle class. As the AP put it, “Nearly 6 million Americans – significantly more than first estimated- will face a tax penalty under President Barack Obama’s health overhaul for not getting insurance, congressional analysts said Wednesday. Most would be in the middle class.”
The taxes in Obamacare, some of which could cost tens of thousands of jobs and others that will fall on middle class Americans, are just more reasons for this bad legislation to be repealed and replaced.
Writing at Townhall.com, Guy Benson notes Obama adviser David Axelrod calling the fact that President Obama’s health care law cuts over half a trillion dollars from Medicare “a lie” by Republicans.
As Benson points out, even President Obama acknowledged this back in 2009 in an interview with Jake Tapper of ABC News. Tapper said to Obama, “One of the concerns about health care and how you pay for it — one third of the funding comes from cuts to Medicare.” Obama responds, “Right.”
Benson writes, “He wasn’t slashing $700 Billion out of (current, not future) Medicare to help that program remain solvent, mind you; he was, er, ‘re-allocating’ that money to help construct a brand new entitlement scheme. The purpose of this eye-popping transfer of dollars, he says, was to ensure that Obamacare would not add a dime to the deficit.”
Republicans have pointed out that Obama and Democrats raided Medicare to pay for part of their new entitlement since before the law passed. Early in 2010, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said Republicans want “the administration to consider a new approach to reform, one that doesn’t cut Medicare to fund a trillion dollar takeover of the health care system or impose job-killing taxes in the middle of a recession . . . .”
As Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), one of the few doctors in the Senate, said in the Weekly Republican Address following the Supreme Court’s ruling on the health care law, “The President said he would protect Medicare—but instead he raided [over] $500 billion from our seniors on Medicare—not to strengthen Medicare—but to start a whole new government program for someone else. . . . Each broken promise proves that the Supreme Court’s ruling did absolutely nothing to improve the President’s failed health care law. It remains unworkable, unaffordable, and very unpopular. Americans deserve better. . . . There should be no doubt: Republicans in Congress will fight to repeal the President’s failed health care law.”
Yesterday, The New York Times reported, “The new health care law is known as the Affordable Care Act. But Democrats in Congress and advocates for low-income people say coverage may be unaffordable for millions of Americans because of a cramped reading of the law by the administration and by the Internal Revenue Service in particular. Under rules proposed by the service, some working-class families would be unable to afford family coverage offered by their employers, and yet they would not qualify for subsidies provided by the law. The fight revolves around how to define ‘affordable’ under provisions of the law that are ambiguous. The definition could have huge practical consequences, affecting who gets help from the government in buying health insurance. . . . The debate over the meaning of affordable pits the Obama administration against its usual allies. Many people who support the new law said the proposed rules could leave millions of people in the lower middle class uninsured and frustrate the intent of Congress, which was to expand coverage. ‘The effect of this wrong interpretation of the law will be that many families remain or potentially become uninsured,’ said a letter to the administration from Democrats who pushed the bill through the House in 2009-10. The lawmakers include Representatives Henry A. Waxman of California and Sander M. Levin of Michigan. Bruce Lesley, the president of First Focus, a child advocacy group, said: ‘This is a serious glitch. Under the proposal, millions of children and families would be unable to obtain affordable coverage in the workplace, but ineligible for subsidies to buy private insurance in the exchanges’ to be established in each state.”
So once again, the Democrats are finding that their hastily written 2,700 page health care law has serious flaws and are seeing that a law sold as making health care more affordable, will do no such thing.
The Times notes, “The administration is trying to strike a balance. If the rules allow more people to qualify for subsidies, it would increase costs to the federal government. If the rules require employers to provide affordable coverage to dependents as well as workers, it would increase costs for many employers.” Of course, that’s one of the dilemmas introduced when the government inserts itself into the health care market, as President Obama and Democrats designed their law to do.
This is just one more reason this flawed, unaffordable, unpopular law needs to be repealed an replaced with step-by-step reforms that put patients, not government, in charge, and actually lowers costs.
“It kind of defies all logic where the most highly-funded, most well-organized candidate loses.”~Martin Casas
Martin Casas, who was trounced by young upstart Michael Butler last Tuesday in the 79th district, is the epitome of a sore loser. The arrogance of saying something this stupid after losing so badly defies all logic! More arrogance from a Casas post mortem campaign email:
Friends,
We didn’t win the election, but we won the campaign. We had more volunteers. We had more donations. We had more energy and experience. We had the power of the city behind us. But in the end, some things just aren’t meant to be. We got caught in a perfect storm where all those things didn’t matter.
No Mr. Casas, as the above video clearly illustrates, you were just outworked.
CNN wrote on Saturday, “Republicans are calling on President Obama and the Democratic-controlled Senate to act before sequestration takes place at the beginning of next year, saying cuts to the military are ‘not the way to address America’s fiscal challenges.’ . . . The president signed the Sequestration Transparency Act earlier this week, which will require his administration to detail within 30 days of signing the bill the required $1.2 trillion in cuts to domestic and defense programs if Congress doesn’t agree to a deficit-reduction plan by January 2 of next year. This timeframe means Obama will need to report the effects to Congress by Labor Day weekend, also the beginning of the Democratic National Convention.”
In the Weekly Republican Address, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) discussed the consequences of potentially crippling defense cuts: “Unless the current law is changed, sequestration will force another half a trillion in cuts to defense programs over the next 10 years. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has described the effect on our national security as devastating, and I agree.
“Although the full impact of these cuts remains unknown, some very startling projections have emerged. Under sequestration: Army units would receive less training before they deploy to the Middle East. Marine Corps troop levels would be cut by 10 percent, leaving our Marines without sufficient manpower to meet even one major overseas operation. The Navy fleet would drop to 230 ships, the lowest number since World War I. And the Air Force would lose vital maintenance funds required to keep our fighters, bombers, and remotely-piloted aircraft flying around the world.
“The stakes are unmistakably high. Crippling defense cuts are just around the corner, and we have an obligation to make tough decisions on how to avoid sequestration and balance the budget long-term. Some defense manufacturers have already begun the process of issuing legally required layoff warning notices to shareholders and employees. According to multiple forecasts, up to 1 million jobs are at risk. One report estimates that my home state of Mississippi alone could lose more than 11,000 jobs. . . . Severe and indiscriminate cuts that harm our security are not the way to address America’s fiscal challenges.”
As Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said last month, “Just as the next President will take the oath on inauguration day, we too take an oath as Senators. We have the responsibility to raise and support Armies and provide and maintain a Navy. If we let sequestration as currently written go forward and do not act we will have failed. And that’s why I am so disappointed with the President’s failure of leadership on this issue, and that of Senate Democrats.
“Both House and Senate Republicans have offered proposals to replace the savings from sequestration with more thoughtful and targeted spending cuts. . . . [Recently,] Speaker Boehner, Majority Leader Cantor, Senator Kyl, and I sent a letter to the President asking him to work with us to find a bipartisan solution before the end of the fiscal year. With a $3.6 trillion annual budget, clearly there is a smarter, more thoughtful way to achieve at least $110 billion in savings. It is simply outrageous that this President and Senate Democrats are missing in action on this issue. We are committed to finding a solution on this before we recess for the election. Are they? Or are they committed to jeopardizing our national security? When will they sit down and work with us to find a solution?”
“We’re going to make a prediction here. If Dave Spence is the Republican nominee for governor, his race against Nixon in the fall will make Nixon’s race against Kenny Hulshof in 2008 look like a nail biter.” (8/2/12)
KSDK.com:
If the race for U.S. Senate were held today in Missouri, Todd Akin would win over Claire McCaskill 51 to 40-percent. Jonathan Dine captured 4-percent of the vote. Akin is doing considerably better in female voters 35 and older. Women prefer Akin 53 to 39. He’s also within five points of McCaskill in the Democratic stronghold of St. Louis.
Missouri Governor Jay Nixon has a large lead over Republican challenger Dave Spence 51 to 37-percent. As a sign of Nixon’s appeal, 21-percent of those who plan to vote for Romney say they will cross over and vote for the Democrat Nixon in November.Read more..
The Karl Rove led Crossroads GPS super PAC has a new ad out against Claire McCaskill. The ad buy started yesterday and will run through August 14 on broadcast and cable networks in Missouri.
“Claire McCaskill has a long history of voting for tax hikes on Missouri small businesses and families which is not a solution to help our struggling economy,” said Nate Hodson, Crossroads GPS Director of State and Regional Media Relations. “We’re keeping the pressure on Claire McCaskill to stop raising taxes and to push for the practical solutions found in the New Majority Agenda.”
We believe this sentence from the Riverfront Times sums up the misguided and shortsided campaign of soon to be former Rep. Russ Carnahan – “Rep. Russ Carnahan showed up to his election results watch party last night with a concession speech written on some campaign flyers, folded up in his back pocket.”
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi had a statement out even before the political body was cold:
“Congressman Russ Carnahan has served the people of St. Louis and Missouri with dignity, dedication, and a clear commitment to creating jobs, helping small businesses, investing in innovation, and strengthening our national security.
“Throughout his time in the House, Congressman Carnahan has advanced his top priority – putting people to work – by advocating investments in transportation and infrastructure, and by working to keep good-paying jobs at home. As a leader on foreign affairs, he promoted a vision of American leadership founded in active engagement on the global stage. As a powerful voice for the members of our Armed Forces, he acted to ensure that we serve our veterans as well as they have served us.
“Russ Carnahan hails from a long tradition of public service, and he has upheld the best values of his family and his state in Congress: hard work, fairness, and equality for all. It has been an honor to work with him. We thank him for his service and wish him and his family well in their future endeavors.”
The Wall Street Journal reports, “About one in three doctors across the country doesn’t accept new patients who are covered by Medicaid, the federal-state insurance program that is supposed to enroll millions more low-income Americans as part of the Obama administration’s health overhaul, according to a new government study. Some 31% of physicians in a sample of 4,326 said they wouldn’t accept Medicaid beneficiaries, economist Sandra Decker of the National Center for Health Statistics reported in an article in the journal Health Affairs published Monday. Most of the doctors cited the low reimbursement from Medicaid.”
The Journal points out, “The health law passed by Democrats in March 2010 was supposed to expand coverage to around 16 million low-income people by signing them up for Medicaid. The Supreme Court decision in June effectively gave states the chance to opt out of the expansion. It isn’t yet clear how many will do so, although it’s likely to be a hot political issue. Either way, the coverage gained by low-income Americans could be less useful if they are unable to find a doctor to see them. Researchers in the new study found a wide variation among states. In New Jersey, nearly 60% of doctors said they wouldn’t accept new patients with Medicaid coverage. In other states, such as Wyoming, almost all doctors did accept Medicaid patients. Smaller practices and doctors in metropolitan areas were less likely than other doctors to take new Medicaid patients.”
Not only is it likely that people pushed into the Medicaid system by Obamacare won’t be able to find a doctor accepting new patients, states aren’t sure they can even pay for expanding the program. Democrat Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear said back in March, “I have no idea how we’re going to pay for it.” Democrat Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer fretted, “I’m going to have to double my patient load and run the risk of bankrupting Montana…” And even Democrat California Gov. Jerry Brown wrote to President Obama last year, “We will be further disadvantaged under the Medicaid expansions mandated under the Affordable Care Act … proposals to shift several billion dollars in Medicaid costs to California would be devastating and would clearly move us in the wrong direction.”
As Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), a doctor, told reporters at a press conference last week, “[W]e saw . . . in a front page story in The New York Times on Sunday, a report that said under this health care law it’s going to be harder to obtain medical care. And even in the first paragraph of the article it says what I’ve been saying for the last two years, there is a difference between coverage and care. . . . [With] this huge expansion of Medicaid, what they’re finding is that now over half of the family physicians, primary care physicians in this country are not taking new Medicaid patients. . . . Across the board, when they poll people about the health care law, as recently as two weeks ago the poll numbers continue to show that people believe that this health care law is, number one, bad for the economy and number two, it is bad for them personally. We need to repeal and replace this health care law.
