LIBRE: Survey: Employer-Provided Health Care Getting More Expensive

Libre Initiative

73 Percent Shifting to High-Deductible Plans

(Washington, D.C.) – A survey of employers who offer health care to their workers finds that moderate increases in premiums are expected next year, with a large majority planning to shift to less expensive plans that offer less coverage in the years ahead. The survey of 1,700 employers was conducted by Mercer, and it indicates that employers expect a 3.9 percent increase in premiums for their workers in 2015. Many say that they will hold premium increases down by managing worker schedules to keep them below 30 hours worked each week. Furthermore, 73 percent say that within 3 years they will offer a “Consumer directed health plan” which features lower premiums for the employee, but also has high deductibles. One-fifth say this will be the only plan they offer. Mercer concludes that “health reform is clearly accelerating” the trend toward these high-deductible plans.

Daniel Garza , Executive Director of The LIBRE Initiative released the following statement:

“There have been a lot of promises made by supporters of the new health care law: lower premiums, lower deficits, better choices, and a guarantee that people could keep coverage that they liked. None of this has come to pass and now in 2015, Americans will face a heftier Obamacare penalty if they cannot afford health care.

After the disastrous rollout of the new law, supporters promised to fix it. But a year later, there are no fixes and the problems are growing worse. Now it’s becoming clear that more and more workers will be forced out of plans they may like and left with few options. All the while, their out-of-pocket costs continue to rise, either on premiums or deductibles. And all we have are more broken promises from the people entrusted with fixing it.”

###

The LIBRE Initiative is a non-partisan, non-profit, national grassroots organization dedicated to informing the U.S. Hispanic community about the benefits of a constitutionally limited government, property rights, rule of law, sound money supply and free enterprise through a variety of community events, research and policy initiatives. Latinos have been disproportionately hurt by the economic downturn suffering from higher levels of unemployment and poverty. Our aim is to equip the Hispanic community with the tools they need to be prosperous. Connect with us on Facebook at The LIBRE Initiative and @LIBREInitiative on Twitter. Visit: www.thelibreinitiative.com

Obamacare’s Effect on the Middle Class: Insult to Injury

A brief rant to complain about the Democrat’s Obamacare.

My middle class family cannot afford health insurance. Simply put, the premiums are too high, the deductibles have exploded and the coverage and access to doctors has gone down.

Obamacare2When President Obama said health insurance would improve, he lied. His biggest advocate here in Arizona, Kyrsten Sinema, lied.

Now my family has no coverage. We make too much money to qualify for the Medicaid expansion and we make too little money to pay the high monthly premiums – even with the subsidies!

Not only that, the new healthcare system requires individuals to give access to your bank account as a monthly debit – something I refuse to do.

I imagine there are millions of Americans who also signed up for the automatic monthly debits. When that monthly payment takes place, they better have the money in the bank or they’ll probably get hit with bank fees.

Next year when I do my taxes, I’m going to be penalized for not being able to afford health insurance. The IRS will penalize me for not signing up by reducing my tax refund (if I get one) – insult to injury!

America’s health insurance market has been made worse, far worse. Like public education, health care has been dumbed down. Middle class Americans are worse off now thanks to Democrats and President Obama.

If you’re like me, you know that elections have consequences. If you’re like me, you’ll focus your anger on the ballot box this November.

===============================

 

 

Andy Tobin “Blows The Whistle” on Kirkpatrick and Pelosi

January 16, 2014
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Andy Tobin “Blows The Whistle” on Kirkpatrick and Pelosi

Pro-Kirkpatrick ad and her vote against Obamacare transparency couldn’t be more ironic

On the same day that Nancy Pelosi’s Super PAC, House Majority PAC, launched an ad claiming Arizona Democrat Ann Kirkpatrick “blew the whistle” on the ObamaCare website, Kirkpatrick voted against bipartisan legislation today calling for more transparency with that very website. Even Arizona Democrats Ron Barber and Kyrsten Sinema were among the 33 House Democrats who voted in favor of this bipartisan fix, illustrating just how strong Kirkpatrick is in her support of ObamaCare despite the claims in this false ad.

Now, Arizona House Speaker Andy Tobin is pointing out Kirkpatrick’s hypocrisy and calling on Pelosi’s PAC to remove the false ad from the airwaves.

“This is proof that Ann Kirkpatrick’s Washington allies cannot fool Arizonans,” Tobin said. “It doesn’t matter how much money Kirkpatrick and Washington Democrats spend on ads, the facts are the facts. Kirkpatrick voted for ObamaCare, and today she voted to do the exact opposite of what this ad claims. It’s time to blow the whistle on this false ad.”

The bipartisan bill Kirkpatrick voted against, HR 3362, would require the Health and Human Services Department to report any and all problems that occur with the website and associated with the health care exchanges. Additionally, the department would need to report weekly on health insurance enrollment through HealthCare.gov.

ABOUT ANDY TOBIN:

Andy Tobin and his wife of 27 years, Jennifer, are the proud parents of five children- three daughters and two sons. Tobin is a small business owner who has devoted his life to positively affecting his community through job creation, public service and advocating for conservative principles. Tobin’s focus has been on creating sustainable jobs, helping small businesses succeed, building a stronger middle class and putting Arizona back on track. While serving as Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives, Tobin drastically cut government by 25 percent, balanced Arizona’s budget and presided over the largest tax cuts in Arizona’s history, saving Arizona taxpayers millions of dollars.

Tobin has fought for your family’s freedoms, your prosperity and your community for the past six years while serving in the Arizona Legislature. He continues to lead the fight to stop the implementation of the disastrous ObamaCare. As your Representative in Congress, Andy Tobin will represent your voice, and lead the charge in fighting for you against the wasteful spending, government intrusion, and out-of-touch insiders that are taking away your freedoms.

Join Andy Tobin today!

###
For more information, please contact Tobin for Congress Campaign Manager Craig Handzlik at press@andytobin.com or 928-275-1417.

 

Update on Obamacare-Medicaid Expansion in Arizona

Here’s a brief update on the push to expand Medicaid in the Arizona Legislature.

Rumors are circulating that Senator John McComish is attempting to orchestrate a coup d’état on Senate President Andy Biggs as former Senate President Steve Pierce looks on with plausible deniability. Why a coup? Because Senate President Andy Biggs is the one individual holding firm against a vote on Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion in the State Senate. Both McComish and Pierce are supporting Governor Brewer and trying to pave the way for her Medicaid plan. But you should also know that McComish and especially Pierce took thousands of dollars from higher-ups in the healthcare industrial complex during the last election cycle. (Biggs did not.) We are compiling the names and amounts of all the donations received by Medicaid proponents with the goal of connecting the dots. Just another example of the corporate-political incest (yes, it happens on both sides.)

Meanwhile in the State House, Governor Brewer does NOT have the votes to pass her Medicaid expansion. Proponents of Medicaid expansion are short the votes needed to require both a simple majority and two-thirds vote (Prop 108 requirement). House Speaker Andy Tobin is also holding back a vote on the legislation so you can imagine he is under tremendous pressure to let the legislation move for a vote.

At the same time all this is taking place, Democrats are getting very irritated with an effort to amend any legislation to prohibit our tax dollars from going to Planned Parenthood. (We all know that giving money to Planned Parenthood is an accounting game that allows them to free up other funds for abortions.) Democrats want the Medicaid bill to remain silent on tax dollars to abortion providers because they know Planned Parenthood would be feasting off the same steady stream of tax dollars “returning” from the federal government. In fact, House minority leader and likely Democrat gubernatorial candidate Chad Campbell sent an email out today expressing frustration, covering for abortion providers and urging individuals to call their legislators. His rhetoric has heated up calling social and religious conservatives “extremists,” “right-wing” and “special interests” all because they oppose using tax dollars to fund Planned Parenthood.

Keep your eyes on the players in this whole exercise of corporate cronyism and who stands to gain the most “free” tax dollars.

Arizona Stands for Health Care Freedom!

AZAgainstObamacare

Please visit and like our Facebook page!

Hugh Hewitt: Memo to the States’ Governors and AGs on The Decision On Obamacare’s Exchanges: Go Churchill Or Go Home

By Hugh Hewitt
So brilliant needed to be reposted from Townhall.com.

With the president mobilizing for a barnstorming tour in support of massive tax hikes and to, in effect, overturn last week’s vote to keep the House in GOP hands and the gavel in John Boehner’s —details here on the president’s plan— the GOP is getting organized in the House and laying down markers.

The media is focused on speculation about the “big deal” and the various scandals, but a huge story is brewing that few are watching.

The deadline for the most important political and legal decisions of the near term is being made in every state: Whether or not to establish a state health insurance exchange pursuant to Obamacare. The original deadline for each governor to decide was this Friday, but HHS has graciously given the states another month to decide which poison to pick: Subservience via establishment of a puppet exchange or takeover of the state’s insurance business via a big foot federal health exchange. The rules the feds have dictated the states must follow in making their choice are here.

Yesterday, Governor Robert Bentley of Alabama announced that Alabama would not be establishing the exchange or expanding Medicaid. The latter is not surprising, as the expansion will quickly eat away at state budgets.

But Bentley’s position on the exchange –he joins at least Alaska, Florida and Texas in just saying no– is very welcome and hopefully a model for other Republican governors who must by law indicate their decisions on the exchange set-up by mid-December. Other states ought also to study the example set by Oklahoma, and sue to overturn the Hobbesian choice on exchanges being forced on them.

Only one state lawsuit against the forced choice on health exchanges has been filed —by the Sooners’ AG, and the amended complaint is here— and the national opposition to Obamacare should be looking for other governors to say no and other attorneys general to file similar challenges to the health exchange jam down.

The amended complaint of the State of Oklahoma argues in crucial part:

 

II. The New Claims 

8. In addition to that claim, Plaintiff raises new claims seeking declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to final federal regulations (the “Final Rule”) that were issued under Internal Revenue Code Section 36B, as added by Section 1401 of the Act, while proceedings in this action were stayed. The Final Rule was issued in contravention of the procedural and substantive requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (“the APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 702; has no basis in any law of the United States; and directly conflicts with the unambiguous language of the very provision of the Internal Revenue Code it purports to interpret.

9. More specifically, Sections 1311 and 1321(c) of the Act allows States to choose to establish an “American Health Benefit Exchange” to operate in the State to facilitate execution of the Act’s key provisions. If a State elects not to establish an Exchange under Section 1311, Section 1321(b) authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to create an Exchange to operate in that state.

10. Under the Act, this choice has important consequences for the State’s people and the State’s economy, because health insurance premium tax credits for low-income employed individuals and employer obligations under the Act both depend on which alternative the State chooses. If the State elects to establish its own Exchange, the Federal Government will make “advance payments” of premium tax credits to insurance companies on behalf of some of the State’s residents to subsidize health insurance enrollment through the State-created Exchange, but the payment of the subsidy for even one employee triggers costly obligations on the part of the employer that would not be triggered in a non-electing State, placing the electing State at a competitive disadvantage for jobs and job growth.

11. The Act leaves this policy judgment to each State and provides a mechanism for each State to choose the alternative it thinks is better for its people. The Final Rule upsets this balance by providing, contrary to the Act, that qualifying taxpayers are eligible for premium tax credits and “advance payments” if they enroll for health insurance through the Exchange where they live, regardless of whether it is a State-established Exchange or an HHS-established Exchange. Thus, if the Final Rule is permitted to stand, federal subsidies will be paid under circumstances not authorized by the Congress; employers will be subjected to liabilities and obligations under circumstances not authorized by Congress; and States will be deprived of the opportunity created by the Act to choose for itself whether creating a competitive environment to promote economic and job growth is better for its people than access to federal subsidies.

12. Oklahoma has not established or elected to establish an Exchange, and does not expect to do so. As a result, under the plain terms of the Act, employers in Oklahoma should not be subject to the Employer Mandate because of a determination that an Oklahoma resident employed by the employer in Oklahoma is entitled to advance payment of a premium tax credit because of enrolling for coverage through an Exchange established by HHS to operate in Oklahoma. However, the Final Rule purports to make such an individual eligible for a premium tax credit based on enrolling for coverage through an Exchange established by HHS to operate in Oklahoma, with the result that an Oklahoma employer employing such an individual will be exposed to liability under the Employer Mandate under circumstances not provided for under the Act. Thus, Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief declaring the Final Rule invalid.

 

This is a narrow argument aimed at a specific rule, but there are other arguments to make, including the damage done to federalism when, upon saying no, the enormous supertanker of Obamacare sails into a state’s legal harbor via the federal exchange and smashes all the docks and other ships, displacing not merely the opportunity to run an exchange but destroying countless other state-administered relationships and regulatory balances.

States have to defend themselves against the giant takeover of states’ powers and duties by Obamacare. The decision to “just say no” so has to be taken by mid-December. Encourage your governor to say no and to sue alongside of Oklahoma, perhaps engaging one of the country’s leading experts on structural federalism like Georgetown’s Randy Barnett or my own colleague at Chapman John Eastman to make the arguments to preserve the state’s legislative integrity and their independence from D.C. Not only is this the right way to proceed for a state intent on protecting its citizens from an ever-expanding federal government, it may also present the Supreme Court with a second bite at the Obamacare apple via a different set of issues not dependent on the “is the penalty a tax” debate.

Some states are tired of the fight and their law departments not eager to spend another year battling the DOJ.

But that isn’t their choice. That choice belongs to their governor and their attorney general. Those who don’t choose to fight now cannot expect conservatives to fight for them in the future. Go Churchill or go home.

The status of states’ decision-making on the exchanges is reviewed on a state-by-state basis here.

The left is attempting to declare the Obamacare fight over. It isn’t. It is a 15 round fight. Conservatives won rounds when they elected Chris Christie, Bob McDonnell and then Scott Brown after the debate was begun. The left won a round when the law passed was passed, and it won a round when the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate, but conservatives won in that opinion as well, on Medicaid and on the reach of the Commerce Clause.

The left scored a knock-down with the president’s re-election, but the fight isn’t over if the conservatives opposed to the law get up off the canvas and fight on. Oklahoma has, and some states have joined them, though not yet in the courts. They should, and soon. Obamacare was nightmare before the election, and it is a nightmare still. The president’s re-election was manifestly not about Obamacare, and the decision is not final and won’t be until every good argument is made and every opportunity given the Supreme Court to review the law in full.

Even if the legal fight should fail, it is important for federalism that many states pass on becoming puppets of the feds via the state exchanges. The fiasco-in-waiting of the federal exchange should be on the president’s head, with blame not easily shifted to bungling governors. The president broke it, so he should buy and operate it.

But only after every argument has been made, and the Supreme Court offered the opportunity to rule on the law as a whole.

A Responsible Doctor Confirms: Obamacare Won’t Work — It’s Just Too Complicated

A few days ago, I posted an article titled “Obamacare’s Fatal Flaws: Complexity and Central Control.”  I argued that the whole Obamacare system was too complex to deliver on its promises, especially when operated by political appointees from a Washington-based central control bureaucracy.

I know virtually nothing about the practice of medicine.  I based my argument on four decades in the engineering business, where complex systems designed from scratch never work, especially when they are pressed into service under full load, with high expectations, much too soon.

And now from the US House of Representatives Oversight Committee comes the testimony of Richard A. Armstrong, MD, Chief Operating Officer of Docs4PatientCare.  His clear and compelling testimony, at this link, is worth reading in its entirety, but the key paragraphs for this brief post are (my emphasis added):

Although the ACA attempts to address many of the perceived problems with our health care system, it ignores the fact that enormously complex systems cannot be successfully centrally designed or controlled. We have been attempting that with Medicare and Medicaid for almost five decades. Any honest and objective appraisal would conclude that we are failing with those programs. The ACA will fail as well, for the same reasons.

[Some ACA supporters have claimed] that the ACA will remove the burdens of bureaucracy and overhead that currently plague our nation’s practicing physicians. How can we possibly take this seriously? It creates an estimated 159 new agencies, boards and committees governing in detail how physicians are to care for their patients and run their practices. In a time of decreasing reimbursement and the lack of an alternative for the Sustainable Growth Rate formula in Medicare, these claims of bureaucratic simplification ring hollow with experienced physicians.

Shifting to electronic medical records has been touted as a means to improve patient care. Even though the HITECH portion of the Stimulus Bill provides financial support for the adoption of electronic medical records and the ACA provides incentives for those who meet federally defined meaningful use, only a minority of physician practices have adopted EMR systems. A majority of those who have attempted have been met with major frustrations and financial burdens. This is because the existing systems are not designed to enhance patient care. They are business systems designed for medical coding and billing. They are cumbersome in design, difficult to use and detract from the already limited time most physicians have to spend with patients.

Quite apart from all the politics, the fatal flaw of the Affordable Care Act (ACA, Obamacare) is that it simply won’t work.  How many people will suffer and how many lives will be lost as Washington feeds our life savings into this bottomless sink hole, this mother of all white elephants?

Picture yourself pleading for a loved-one’s life with an uncaring bureaucracy of blame-shifters and formerly fine doctors who must now slavishly follow rules issued from Washington.  From those bureaucrats and hapless doctors, you can almost hear the responses now:

The voice mailbox for this department is full.  Please call back later.

I don’t make these rules, ma’am — I just follow them.

You’ll have to get in line like everyone else.  We’ll call you back when it’s your turn.

If I made an exception for you, I’d have to do it for everyone.  It’s illegal.  I could lose my job.

I’m sorry, I can’t help you … I could lose my license to practice medicine

I’m sorry, the doctor is not accepting new patients.

You’re yelling at the wrong person … try yelling at your Congressman!

In the meantime, you can be sure that Washington politicians will enjoy first-rate medical care with no waiting.

In the engineering business, when a system can no longer be patched or tuned, it has to be scrapped.  That’s where we are now with the whole gang in Washington that brought us to the edge of this national health care nightmare.

The Supreme Court has abdicated, and now there’s only We-the-People who can change things this November.  Surely America’s voters can be forgiven for being fooled once.  But to be blunt about it —

Anyone who votes again for Barack Obama or for any politician who has supported Obamacare should understand one thing:  the pending national disaster in healthcare is on YOU !

A Progressive Declaration of Self-Evident Truths

As Conservatives, we all know and revere the preamble to the Founders’ Declaration of Independence, perhaps the greatest political statement in the history of mankind, attributed to Thomas Jefferson:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed —

These self-evident truths lie at the core of our Constitution and Conservatism.  They are what mathematicians and philosophers call axiomatic.  In other words, they are acknowledged to be unprovable, but they are presumed and accepted as true (hence “self-evident”), and they are the starting point for whatever follows — in this case, the remainder of the Declaration and later the Constitution itself.

So …

If these are the self-evident truths of Conservatism, what are the self-evident truths of Progressivism?  I’ve never seen them offered up or written down in concise Jeffersonian style.  Perhaps there are bits and pieces available in the writings of Karl Marx.  Perhaps from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs is an example of a Progressive* self-evident truth.  Perhaps some of our Progressive readers can enlighten us(?).

In the absence of guidance from Progressives themselves, we are left to infer the self-evident truths of Progressivism by working backwards from observations of their statements and behaviors.  That’s what I try to do in this article.

Of course, we’re not entirely without clues. For example, Progressives like Barack Obama have told us that the Constitution is fundamentally flawed because it focuses too much on what the government cannot do to us and not enough about what the government must do for us.  As Obama has put it:

… the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

This is a helpful clarification.  For over 100 years, Progressives in America have been marching to the same drummer’s beat that Obama hears.  From Obama’s statement and my amateur observations of Progressive behaviors for several decades, I offer up the following to Progressives and Conservatives alike for their comment:

Progressive Declaration
of Self-Evident Truths

We hold these Truths to be self-evident:

  1. That all people are created equal,
  2. That they are endowed by The State with certain inalienable rights,
  3. That among these are Liberty, Equality, and Social Justice,
  4. That Equality includes life-long human rights to food, shelter, clothing, education, and health care,
  5. That to pursue Equality, The State may confiscate wealth from those who have it and redistribute it among those who don’t,
  6. That to pursue Social Justice, The State may constrain Liberty and Equality for some groups as reparations for past injustices suffered by other groups.

 

What follows are my notes on how I chose these six explicit clauses to represent the self-evident truths of Progressivism:

Clause 1:
In this clause, “all people are created equal” is used to avoid the allegedly sexist “all men are created equal” in the Founders’ Declaration.  A lesser point perhaps, but I’m trying to think as a Progressive would, right from the get-go, and then stay “in character” for the discussion of the remaining five clauses.

Clause 2:
In this clause, the phrase The Statetakes the place of the wordCreatorin the Founders’ Declaration.  All mention of God or a Creator is expunged in the Progressive Declaration, thereby avoiding any dual loyalties or competition with The State.  Religion is not explicitly forbidden, but neither is it mentioned or encouraged.  It may be tolerated so long as The State feels unthreatened by it, but The State is always the final arbiter in these matters.

In a Progressive’s world, Clause 2 has significant advantages.  For example, the current conflict over Government-mandated contraceptive coverage in employer-provided health care would be instantly resolved in favor of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and the aggrieved party named Sandra Fluke.  Similarly, all the long-running controversies over religious displays on government-owned property would be resolved quite simply — The State’s word would be final.

Most importantly, since all fundamental rights are endowed by The State, they can be limited or withdrawn by The State.  This becomes important in Clause 6.

Clause 3:
The Founders’ Declaration lists Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness as inalienable rights.  In the Progressive Declaration, “Life” does not appear at all.  This is another convenience for The State since abortion rights would be much easier to declare and maintain if Life were not an unalienable right.  Thus, it would no longer matter whether a fetus does or does not constitute “life”.  The State decides. Simple, no? In fact, if The State were to allow it, abortion rights might even extend to infanticide in the first 30 days of baby’s life, as proposed by some, or up to 2 years as proposed by another.  End-of-life decisions or euthanasia for the elderly or handicapped would also be much easier for The State to control.  Do you see the pattern?

Similarly, “pursuit of Happiness” in the Founders’ Declaration is replaced by “Social Justice”.  By including this phrase in the Progressive Declaration, the grand utopian Social Justice vision of Progressive luminaries like the self-avowed communist Van Jones is explicitly elevated to an unalienable right.  And what could be “happier” than that?

Clause 4:
When I wrote this clause, I was motivated in part by an email I received a few months ago from a self-declared Democrat/Socialist.  In it, he asked: “What is the purpose of government if not to ensure that everyone has a decent standard of living?” I’ve seldom heard the Progressive cause put so plainly and clearly.

Of course the constitutions of the European Union and South Africa already explicitly list “human rights” similar to those in Clause 4.  So by including that clause in the Progressive Declaration, the path is paved for modernization or outright replacement of our own Constitution, as implied by Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg during her recent interview in Egypt.

Of course, there is one big problem with Clause 4 — how do we achieve it?   Enter Clause 5.

Clause 5:
Clause 5 explicitly lists a principle that Progressives have implicitly followed since the beginning of the movement — that is, to achieve Clause 4, confiscate wealth from the makers and give it to the takers.

By following this principle, ostensibly out of “compassion” and “fairness”, Progressives can win the support of the takers until there are so many of them that they can out-vote, out-shout, or out-threaten the makers.  As the takers demand more and more, the makers produce less and less as they lose incentive to create new wealth only to see it confiscated.  Eventually some of them go on a de facto “strike” as the industrialists did in Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged.  Soon thereafter, Progressives run out of other people’s money and resources.

There follows some combination of civil unrest, rationing, martial law, starvation, tyranny, and virtual slavery to The State. It has happened many times in many places.  WesternFreePress.com recently interviewed three direct eye witnesses (here, here, and here). Yet Progressives keep trying despite all evidence that their beloved principles simply don’t work.

In particular, in our own time, no doubt borne of compassion and fairness, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on US debt now consume all of our federal tax revenue, and our government is frantically borrowing over $4.7 billion per day to make up the shortfall for those expenses plus everything else.

Our plight is getting worse faster and faster as over 10,000 baby boomers retire every day.  And there is no way to tax or confiscate enough wealth to resolve the situation for long. This brutal truth  is shown clearly by Bill Whittle, with his usual wry humor, at this link.  Nonetheless, Progressives keep plodding along, demonizing “the rich” as the source of, as well as the solution to, our gargantuan economic woes.

Clause 5 appeals so much to base human emotions that Progressive politicians like Barack Obama exploit it to their political advantage through class-envy initiatives like the “Buffett Rule“, and “Fair Share“.  Unlike a precious few stalwarts in Congress, Obama simply refuses to confront the accounting arithmetic that is staring him in the face. He and his party perpetuate the myth that taxing the rich “just a little more” will solve the problem.  And the media never call him on it.  And the beat goes on.

Clause 6:
Clause 6 explicitly permits violation of Clauses 1 and 3 in some politically motivated circumstances in order to achieve a State-controlled version of EqualitySome current examples of Clause 6 in operation are Democrat tolerance for voter fraud, government-mandated purchase of health insurance, and Eric Holder’s infamous race-based pursuit of justice.

So …

There it is then, a Progressive Declaration of Self-Evident Truths.  But this is just a first draft.  What do you think?  Have I got it wrong?  Have I left something out?  You can enter your comments below.

Even though Progressivism has failed dismally from its very earliest days in America, it is now making a comeback thanks to the Democrat Party, hijacked by the Left after John F. Kennedy died.  It will soon swamp all of us — unless, that is, we can stop them on November 6 and begin a restoration and renewal of the principles in our original Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

In the words of Shane F. Krauser, JD,

The Constitution is the not the problem.
It is emphatically the answer.

———————————————————————————————————————-

* Footnote: I use the term “Progressive” in this article to represent the broad mass of political thought that has variously been called Progressive / Liberal / Leftist / Socialist / Collectivist / Statist / Redistributionist / Communist or some other name.  These are not all synonymous I know, and as usual, some readers will prefer to pick at the definitions of these terms rather than address the main point of this article. Suffice it to say I use “Progressive” because “Liberal” has fallen out of favor with the Left, and “Progressive” now seems to be the most broadly accepted term for those on the Left side of the political spectrum.

VICTORY FOR ARIZONA’S WOMEN: PLANNED PARENTHOOD ENDS ABORTION SERVICES AT SEVEN ARIZONA LOCATIONS

Victory for Arizona’s Women: Planned Parenthood Ends Abortion Services at Seven Arizona Locations

Statement from Center for Arizona Policy President Cathi Herrod

PHOENIX – “Planned Parenthood has chosen to end their services rather than raise the standard of care they provide women to be at the same level as all other medical care in the state. For years, life advocates at the legislature have been saying that Arizona women deserve better than the substandard care Planned Parenthood provides.

The fact that Planned Parenthood can’t find doctors to work at their clinics is telling. Caring healthcare professionals, particularly doctors, don’t want to be a part of an industry that harms women and takes the lives of preborn children.

Thanks to the many pregnancy care centers throughout our state, women in rural Arizona will be able to find the support they need from loving individuals.”

For more information, visit www.azpolicy.org or contact Aaron Baer, 602.424.2525.

 

Center for Arizona Policy promotes and defends the foundational values of life,

marriage and family, and religious liberty.

###

Return to Diversity Lane … where facts aren’t necessary

cartoon