From: The Fiscal Times
onservative groups are less than amused with Republicans who are considering raising revenue in exchange for entitlement cuts in fiscal cliff negotiations.
Brent Bozell, chairman of For America, a conservative action group, wrote an angry letter to Republican leaders Tuesday, blasting the lawmakers for putting tax increases on the table.
“You led the Republican Party for two years claiming emphatically that the tax increase on “the wealthy” … is really a devastating tax hike on small business owners that would kill jobs and decimate any kind of economic recovery,” the letter said. “Now conservatives see daily stories asserting that the GOP agrees with the President that “revenues are on the table” and GOP elite are all over the airwaves asking if the Tea Party will care if “a few multi-millionaires pay more in taxes.”
The group said that by agreeing to raise revenue, Republicans are only emboldening Democrats to demand higher taxes.
When the Supreme Court upheld ObamaCare as a tax last summer, President Obama may have thought he could breathe a little easier. But now with the implementation of the law, Obama is just beginning his war with the states that refuse to implement ObamaCare exchanges needed for the legislation to work properly or at least, quickly.
The Obama administration faces major logistical and financial challenges in creating health insurance exchanges for states that have declined to set up their own systems.
The exchanges were designed as the centerpiece of President Obama’s signature law, and are intended to make buying health insurance comparable to booking a flight or finding a compatible partner on Match.com.
Sixteen states — most of them governed by Republicans — have said they will not set up their own systems, forcing the federal government to come up with one instead.
Another five states said they want a federal-state partnership, while four others are considering partnerships.
It’s a situation no one anticipated when the Affordable Care Act was written. The law assumed states would create and operate their own exchanges, and set aside billions in grants for that purpose.
Essentially, states denying the exchanges forces the feds to do the work, as they should considering it is a federal law that balloons state budgets.
From: Washignton Examiner
The GOP push to compare President Obama to former President Jimmy Carter moved into high gear Monday when a conservative group released a new online ad that shows Obama in his Democratic Convention speech using language greatly similar to Carter in his re-nomination address 32 years ago.
“In President Obama’s campaign, we hear echoes of failure and futility,” said the new ad from the group For America, headed by conservative media watchdog Brent Bozell. “Tell President Obama we don’t need echoes of failure and futility from the past,” concludes the ad.
Republicans have been trying to portray Obama’s handling of foreign policy and the economy as Carteresque. Under Carter, the U.S. embassy in Iran was seized and the economy suffered high inflation and joblessness.
The Obama-Carter ad is part of a $1.4 million social media campaign fro the group that claims over 3 million social media supporters – over 2.7 million fans on Facebook and an organic email list of half a million.
From: Town Hall
President Barack Obama has such ill-advised contempt for the intelligence of American taxpayers that he has become an habitual liar when talking about his plans to deal with a national debt that will imminently top $16 trillion.
For example, on Aug. 14, he told a crowd in Waterloo, Iowa: “I’ll make sure government still does its part to reduce our debt and our deficits. We’ve cut out already a trillion dollars’ worth of spending we don’t need.”
On June 22, in Tampa, Fla., he said: “We’re going to reduce our deficit by $4 trillion. I have a detailed plan. We’ll cut spending we can’t afford.”
On June 12, in Philadelphia, he said: “And I’ve already signed $2 trillion of cuts into law already and have proposed $2 trillion in additional deficit reduction.”
So, which is it?
Did Obama already cut spending by a trillion, or does he plan to cut the deficit by $4 trillion, or did he already sign legislation to cut it by $2 trillion and plans to cut it by $2 trillion more?
Is he making sure government “does its part to reduce our debt”?
The truth is: none of the above. Obama has not cut federal spending, and the fiscal 2013 budget plan he presented to Congress would dramatically increase deficit spending.
From: Fox News
In its otherwise glorious history, the Oval Office has suffered its share of scoundrels. Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon, to name just two, certainly left distinctive stains.
Yet Barack Obama’s conduct puts him in a class of one. Day in, day out, he diminishes the traditions of an office that, starting with George Washington, were created to keep the presidency above the soiling scrum of partisan politics.
No. 44 specializes in a small-mindedness fueled by arrogance and contempt. So much so that, if he loses this election, he’ll already have earned the title for his next book: “Honey, I Shrunk the Presidency.” Let us count the ways.
He has attended more fund-raisers than any president in history, turning Air Force One into a collection shuttle.
From: Fox News
As I wrote in the Wall Street Journal last week, Republicans can win the Medicare debate if they have courage to make the case that reforms are necessary to keep Medicare from going broke in 2024.
President Obama provided the opening for Republicans to win this debate when he reduced future Medicare spending by $716 billion to pay for ObamaCare.
The Romney-Ryan ticket would repeal ObamaCare and thereby restore the $716 billion to stabilize Medicare’s finances. Mitt Romney has also offered a reform package to protect all the promises made to today’s seniors, while making Medicare sustainable for future generations.
Of course, Mr. Obama and his team are attacking Romney-Ryan for offering these reforms. What’s more interesting is that the president is obligated by law to offer his proposals to save Medicare, but has shirked this statutory responsibility four years.
Despite promises that the president’s health reforms would lower health care costs, “Obamacare” is saddled with new taxes, mandates and regulations that will increase the cost of care for families and job creators.
New requirements force Americans to purchase a health plan deemed “essential” by Congress and bureaucrats at the Department of Health and Human Services. Price controls are to be imposed nationally — despite the fact that identical requirements enacted in several states dramatically increased premiums and eliminated consumer choice. Despite President Barack Obama’s recent insistence that “Obamacare” punishes only those who can afford coverage but refuse to buy it, the health care law contains a hidden tax on Americans and small businesses that do purchase coverage.
Here’s how it works: “Obamacare” can impose a new tax on Americans through a “fee” on health care premiums, including Medicare Advantage, Part D and private Medicaid plans — making insurance companies the de facto tax collector. The law imposes this new tax on all commercially purchased health plans, with the exception of some nonprofits that earn 80 percent or more of their revenue from certain government programs.
It will hit 50 million Americans every year. The ripple effects will very likely increase premiums by billions of dollars a year for families and small businesses across the country.
“In picking Ryan, Governor Romney is demonstrating that he is serious about ending the Obama era of massive government intervention, historic debt, and depressing economic growth.
“Ryan is a man of great character and strong conviction and, unlike President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, is not afraid to lead. He is serious about addressing the deficit and is a pro-growth conservative who believes government is part of the problem and not the solution. Unlike Obama, Reid and Pelosi, Ryan is a staunch ally of individual freedom and a defender of the constitution.”
The HHS mandate should make every American shudder in fear. This new ad is acknowledgement of how powerful the issue is. If the mandate is not stopped here and now there is no telling what sacred right will be taken away next; if one of our rights can fall, all of them can fall. ForAmerica and its 2.8 million members continue to fight on the front lines in this battle against the most direct and egregious assault on religious freedom in our country’s history. Any government action that would force people of faith to violate their religious convictions and rights of conscience under penalty of the heavy hand of government is an action that all people should fiercely resist. We welcome Mitt Romney to our stand against this unprecedented and unmitigated government power grab, and we reaffirm our commitment in our stand against the assault on religious freedom.
From: Fox News
The Obama campaign has decided to use a rather strange slogan, “Forward” as their logo. This replaces “Hope and Change,” the terms of 2008. Certainly after nearly 4 years in office there is little “hope” left that the president’s policies are going to turn things around. The “change” that had taken place is all for the worst.
Unemployment is higher, test scores in schools are lower, the housing situation is unresolved, and the federal shortfall between spending and tax revenues is out of control. Runaway trillion dollar deficits are estimated far into the future. Forward is a direction, not a policy. ”Forward” may sound better than “leading from behind” but both slogans mean nothing.
In 1980, then-Governor Ronald Reagan posed a question to the American public in his debate with President Carter, a week before the election: “Are you better off now than you were four years ago? Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was four years ago? Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was four years ago? Is America as respected throughout the world as it was? Do you feel that our security is as safe, that we’re as strong as we were four years ago? And if you answer all of those questions ‘yes’, why then, I think your choice is very obvious as to whom you will vote for. If you don’t agree, if you don’t think that this course that we’ve been on for the last four years is what you would like to see us follow for the next four, then I could suggest another choice that you have.”