States to Feds: Step Off

By Ashby Jones

We had no idea: states across the land are assembling their legislatures and passing these resolutions asserting their sovereignty. It’s all part of this push, it seems, to remind whomever — citizens, the federal government — that the 9th and 10th amendments to the Constitution imbue the states with certain powers.
The number of states deciding that these resolutions are worth doing are growing. South Carolina passed one this week. A Kansas resolution affirming the state’s 10th amendment rights was on Thursday sent to the state Senate for a full vote. Late last month, the Alabama legislature sent up a resolution essentially reaffirming the 10th amendment. For a full list of what states have done on this front, click here, for information from the Tenth Amendment center; click here for
By way of quick refresher, the 10th Amendment reads:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

On its face, it certainly sounds like an amendment that’s worth being mindful of (which one isn’t?). Thing is, however, that any new application or enforcement of the 10th amendment is going to require some new, perhaps forward-thinking litigation, and a Supreme Court that decides it’s high time to breathe new life into the largely moribund amendment.
Last fall, we cited Radley Balko, writing in Reason, who cited this passage from Ken at Popehat:
“The Tenth Amendment is close to a dead letter in American jurisprudence; the unrestrained growth of the federal government reflects that modern courts have refused to find that it acts as any sort of brake on federal power.”
As we wrote, it would take an enormously courageous (or ill-advised, depending on your perspective) federal judge to strike down federal legislation on Tenth amendment grounds. But this is a court that decided to pick up the Second amendment and give it another look. So who knows?

America's Ten questions about Health Care reform

Taxing Health Insurance

Oct 6, 2009

by John Goodman

Under the Senate Finance Committee’s modified chairman’s mark, beginning in 2013, all plans (with a few exceptions) that cost more than $8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for families would be subject to a tax of 40% on the excess. Although the tax would be imposed on insurance providers and employers, the burden would be passed on to consumers. This is from the Joint Economic Committee Minority:

If companies seek to maintain absolute profit levels by increasing premiums, the high cost tax of 40% will not only add $1,600 to the cost of a $25,000 plan, but the added $1,600 to the cost of the plan will then be subject to the high cost tax, which will add another $640 to the plan’s cost. This cycle of tax increases followed by premium increases will result in a total increase of $2,667 to a $25,000 plan. Under this scenario, the result is that the stated tax rate of 40% would translate into an effective tax rate of 67%.

John Goodmans health policy blog

Quote of the Day

Oct 5, 2009

by John Goodman

There’s a public option; there’s a public option, and there’s a public option. And we’re gonna look at each of them.

                                                                             — Sen. Harry Reid

Police use acoustic warfare to disperse crowds

Oct 1, 7:10 AM (ET)

By JOE MANDAK

PITTSBURGH (AP) - Police ordered protesters to disperse at the Group of 20 summit last week with a device that can beam earsplitting alarm tones and verbal instructions that the manufacturer likens to a "spotlight of sound," but that legal groups called potentially dangerous.

The device, called a Long Range Acoustic Device, concentrates voice commands and a car alarm-like sound in a 30- or 60-degree cone that can be heard nearly two miles away. It is about two feet square and mounted on a swivel such that one person can point it where it's needed. The volume measures 140-150 decibels three feet away - louder than a jet engine - but dissipates with distance.

Robert Putnam, spokesman for the manufacturer, San Diego-based American Technology Corp., said it's "like a big spotlight of sound that you can shine on people."

"It's not a sonic cannon. It's not the death ray or anything like that," Putnam said. "It's about long-range communications being heard intelligibly."

During the Pittsburgh protests, police used the device to order demonstrators to disperse and to play a high-pitched "deterrent tone" designed to drive people away. It was the first time the device was used in a riot-control situation on U.S. soil, according to American Technology and police.

Those who heard it said authorities' voice commands were clear and sounded as if they were coming from everywhere all at once. They described the "deterrent tone" as unbearable.

Joel Kupferman, who was at Thursday's march as a legal observer for the National Lawyer's Guild, said he was overwhelmed by the tone and called it "overkill."

"When people were moving and they still continued to use it, it was an excessive use of weaponry," Kupferman said.

Witold "Vic" Walczak, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union in Pennsylvania, said the device is a military weapon capable of producing permanent hearing loss, something he called "an invitation to an excessive-force lawsuit."

The operator of the device is usually behind it and not in the path of the focused beam of sound.

Catherine Palmer, director of audiology at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, said 140 decibels can cause immediate hearing loss. But there's no way to know if anyone was exposed to sounds that loud without knowing how far away they were, she said.

Putnam and public safety officials said the complaints prove the device worked as designed.

"You have to put your hands over your ears and cover them, and it's difficult to throw stuff," said Ray DeMichiei, deputy director of the city's emergency management agency.

Police said they used the device last Thursday to issue prerecorded warnings to disperse when hundreds of demonstrators, including self-described anarchists, without a protest permit held a march that threatened to turn violent.

Aware of concerns about the volume, police were careful to use it about 12 feet off the ground mounted on a tactical vehicle, so no individual would be directly in its path or too close to it, Assistant Chief William Bochter said.

"The only way anybody gets hurt is if the deterrent is on full blast and they stand directly in front of it," Putnam said.

A regional counterterror task force bought four of the devices from American Technology using $101,000 in federal Homeland Security funds, DeMichiei said. Because the amplified message was prerecorded, police could be sure the protesters heard exactly the instructions police desired and have confidence those in the back of the crowd could hear, Bochter said.

Such devices also have military and commercial applications. Putnam said the primary purpose is to transmit specific orders loudly and clearly.

They have been used against protesters overseas, and police in New York threatened to use one during demonstrations near the Republican National Convention in 2004.

He said the city of San Diego uses them to instruct people to leave large sections of beach after festivals. It has also been used in SWAT operations.

In military applications, it allows ships to hail approaching vessels and determine their intent, the company says. Cargo ships use them to tell pirates that they had been spotted. When the pirates know they have lost the element of surprise, they will not attack, Putnam said.

Putnam said those complaining about the device have probably exposed themselves to sounds nearly as loud at rock concerts, and for longer periods of time. Walczak, the ACLU attorney, isn't buying the analogy.

"People don't flee the front row of a rock concert. Why would they be fleeing here?" Walczak asked. "Because it's loud, it's painfully loud."

TEN FOR '10: WINNING WASHINGTON BY EMPOWERING AMERICANS

From Laura Ingraham TEN FOR '10: WINNING WASHINGTON BY EMPOWERING AMERICANS

1) Taxpayers' Bill of Rights (TABOR). Limit federal spending growth to the percentage in population growth plus the rate of inflation; provide taxpayers the option of filing a post-card sized return using a low, flat tax rate of 15% 2) End Tax-funded abortions. Stop federal payments to Planned Parenthood and prohibit any taxpayer-subsidized health insurance plan from covering abortion 3) Defend American Borders. Complete America's border-protection initiatives using remaining funds from the so-called stimulus bill 4) King Dollar. Preserve a strong dollar so that Americans' savings aren't wiped out by inflation and the U.S. dollar remains the world's reserve currency 5) Empower American Business. Immediately slash corporate tax rates to 15% and scrap the capital-gains tax altogether 6) Defend America. Strengthen America to defend our homeland and fully fund an operational, layered missile-defense system 7) Statism Exit Plan. De-fund czars; immediately cease bailout payments to failed companies; ban future bailouts 8) End Generational Theft. As few believe America's entitlement programs will be able to pay benefits to future generations, provide younger workers the choice of diverting payroll/Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts 9) Restore America's System of Justice. Introduce penalties for frivolous lawsuits, where those who launch unsuccessful lawsuits are liable for the defendants' legal bills 10) American Energy Independence. All-of-the-Above strategy that embraces alternatives, expands and accelerates exploration and production of oil and natural gas, and jumpstarts dramatic increases in nuclear power Backers/Signatories - Tom Price (R-Ga.), chairman of the Republican Study Committee - Michael Williams, Texas Railroad Commissioner & Republican candidate for Senate - Rep. Jep Hensarling (R-Texas), member of the Republican Study Committee - Rick Crawford, Republican congressional candidate, Arkansas first district - Marco Rubio, Florida Republican senatorial candidate

Audit the Federal Reserve

One of the pressing issues on Bernie's mind: That the Senate will pass S 604, their version of Ron Paul's bill to audit the Federal Reserve.

Sponsor: Sen Sanders, Bernard [VT] (introduced 3/16/2009)      Cosponsors (28)
Related Bills: H.R.1207

Sponsor: Rep Paul, Ron [TX-14] (introduced 2/26/2009)      Cosponsors (294)
Related Bills: S.604

Who better to bundle

Regulations intended to shed light on bundling by lobbyists are coming up short. According to an Associated Press review published last week, which compared invitations to fund-raisers hosted by lobbyists and campaign finance reports filed with the Federal Election Commission from March 19 through June, lawmakers have yet to disclose funds they raised at 195 events.
Although the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act requiring lawmakers to report cash “bundled” by lobbyists went into effect in March of this year, Oonly about two-dozen lawmakers between then and June have reported funds raised by lobbyists, the AP found, even though the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act requiring lawmakers to report cash “bundled” by lobbyists went into effect in March of this year. What can a lobbyist do to escape disclosure? Don’t touch the money, don’t take credit, raise less than $16,000 (the threshold for reporting, which does not include contributions from the lobbyist and his/her spouse) or work as an in-house lobbyist for a business, union or trade association and have your employer officially sponsor the event. HLOGA was passed in 2007 in response to the Jack Abramoff scandal, but the AP concludes that “the circumstances under which a member of Congress is legally bound to disclose a lobbyist’s fund-raising are so narrow that, had the law been in effect during Abramoff’s lobbying days, it wouldn’t have exposed much, if any, of his congressional fundraising money trail.” The Hill reported a similar story this week.
From The Capital Eye Blog

Dems lied, transparency died

Senate Finance Committee Democrats have rejected a GOP amendment that would have required a health overhaul bill to be available online for 72 hours before the committee votes.
Republicans argued that transparency is an Obama administration goal. They also noted that their constituents are demanding that they read bills before voting.
The Democrats noted that unlike other committees, the Finance Committee works off conceptual language that describes policies — instead of legislative language that ultimately becomes law, and which the GOP amendment would have required.
Democrats accepted an alternate amendment to make conceptual language available online before a vote.
Currently, the only version of Chairman Max Baucus’s proposal we have is a 223-page draft (PDF) that is written in plain English and explains the bill in conceptual terms. Republicans argued that until the bill is written in legislative language it will be impossible for the CBO to provide an accurate cost estimate.
The Bunning ammendment would have required the committee to have the legislative language of the bill, along with the CBO cost estimate, posted on the internet for 72 hours before a vote.
Democrats argued that waiting for the legislative languange to be written, and for the CBO to evaluate it, would needlessly delay the process by weeks.
“Let’s be honest about it, most people don’t read the legislative language,” Sen. John Kerry said.
The Bunning amendment was defeated by a 12 to 11 vote,
with Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln the only Democrat voting in favor.

Are you crazy? It is broke!!

The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775 - you have had 234 years to get it right; it is broke.
Social Security was established in 1935 - you have had 74 years to get it right; it is broke.
Fannie Mae was established in 1938 - you have had 71 years to get it right; it is broke.
The "War on Poverty" started in 1964 - you have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor"; it hasn't worked and our entire country is broke.
Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965 - you've had 44 years to get it right; they are broke.
Freddie Mac was established in 1970 - you have had 39 years to get it right; it is broke.
Trillions of dollars were spent in the massive political payoffs called TARP, the "Stimulus", the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009... none show any signs of working, although ACORN appears to have found a new victim: the American taxpayer.
And finally, to set a new record:
"Cash for Clunkers" was established in 2009 and went broke in 2009! It took good dependable cars (that were the best some people could afford) and replaced them with high-priced and less-affordable cars, mostly Japanese. A good percentage of the profits went out of the country. And the American taxpayers take the hit for Congress' generosity in burning three billion more of our dollars on failed experiments.
So with a perfect 100% failure! rate and a record that proves that "services" you shove down our throats are failing faster and faster, you want Americans to believe you can be trusted with a government-run health care system?

20% of our entire economy?

With all due respect,

Are you crazy?

Ted Kennedy

The passing of a legend. I guess everyone should mention something about him.

Lack of bipartisanship

Steele and the RNC should be continuously pounding the media with commentary about the total lack of bipartisanship as a deliberate tactic by the Democrats, particularly by Reid in the Senate and Pelosi in the House. The Dems have done everything possible to lock the Republicans out of any debate regarding legislation and most people are unaware of this.

It is a totally cynical attempt at capitalizing on their takeover of government by completely excluding opposing viewpoints.
From RedState

Star Parker - Syndicated Columnist

Six years ago I wrote a book called Uncle Sam's Plantation. I wrote the book to tell my own story of what I saw living inside the welfare state and my own transformation out of it.

I said in that book that indeed there are two Americas -- a poor America on socialism and a wealthy America on capitalism..

I talked about government programs like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS), Emergency Assistance to Needy Families with Children (EANF), Section 8 Housing, and Food Stamps.

A vast sea of perhaps well-intentioned government programs, all initially set into motion in the 1960s, that were going to lift the nation's poor out of poverty.

A benevolent Uncle Sam welcomed mostly poor black Americans onto the government plantation. Those who accepted the invitation switched mindsets from "How do I take care of myself?" to "What do I have to do to stay on the plantation?"

Instead of solving economic problems, government welfare socialism created monstrous moral and spiritual problems -- the kind of problems that are inevitable when individuals turn responsibility for their lives over to others.

The legacy of American socialism is our blighted inner cities, dysfunctional inner city schools, and broken black families.

Through God's grace, I found my way out. It was then that I understood what freedom meant and how great this country is.

I had the privilege of working on welfare reform in 1996, passed by a Republican Congress and signed 50 percent.

I thought we were on the road to moving socialism out of our poor black communities and replacing it with wealth-producing American capitalism.

But, incredibly, we are going in the opposite direction.

Instead of poor America on socialism becoming more like rich American on capitalism, rich America on capitalism is becoming like poor America on socialism.

Uncle Sam has welcomed our banks onto the plantation and they have said, "Thank you, Suh."

Now, instead of thinking about what creative things need to be done to serve customers, they are thinking about what they have to tell Massah in order to get their cash.

There is some kind of irony that this is all happening under our first black president on the 200th anniversary of the birthday of Abraham Lincoln.

Worse, socialism seems to be the element of our new young president. And maybe even more troubling, our corporate executives seem happy to move onto the plantation.

In an op-ed on the opinion page of the Washington Post, Mr. Obama is clear that the goal of his trillion dollar spending plan is much more than short term economic stimulus.

"This plan is more than a prescription for short-term spending -- it's a strategy for America 's long-term growth and opportunity in areas such as renewable energy, healthcare, and education."

Perhaps more incredibly, Obama seems to think that government taking over an economy is a new idea. Or that massive growth in government can take place "with unprecedented transparency and accountability."

Yes, sir, we heard it from Jimmy Carter when he created the Department of Energy, the SynfuelsCorporation, and the Department of Education.

Or how about the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 -- The War on Poverty -- which President Johnson said "...does not merely expand old programs or improve what is already being done. It charts a new course. It strikes at the causes, not just the consequences of poverty."

Trillions of dollars later, black poverty is the same. But black families are not, with triple the incidence of single-parent homes and out-of-wedlock births.

It's not complicated. Americans can accept Barack Obama's invitation to move onto the plantation.. Or they can choose personal responsibility and freedom.

Does anyone really need to think about what the choice should be?

"The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."

John Stossel Talks About Obama's 'Health Care' Plan

Socialized health care reform

Government Health care?? I don't think it would be a good idea for many reasons.
One of the arguments for it is that the cost of our health care is high and keeps going higher. Well yeah!!!
Now let's look at the reasons for that.
First of all is big government intervention, like all the freakin' paper work that's required to remain in practice. A form for this and verification for that, A doctor has to add a few extra people on staff just to complete the paper work properly. Secondly is the insurance, my god, in this sue happy culture we live in a doctor has to have millions of dollars in insurance.
Thirdly the HMO's became the middle man between the insurance companies and the doctors, you know their going to get their share.

Now that's three main reasons for increased cost of medical coverage.
Do you think the doctors are going to absorb those costs???
Hell no, that cost is being past on either to the insurance companies or the government (in the case of our failing medicare and medicaid programs).

These programs were put in place by the Democrat led Congress and Senate.
Now they want to put more of the same expensive, failing policies into effect and into play.
Do I believe they'll succeed? NO!!
But unfortunately they will gain a bit more of a foothold and move their progressive agenda further towards attaining that goal.
Just a little bit at a time till it's accomplished. Patients will win out.

Judge Sotomayor’s Appellate Opinions in Civil Cases

My opinion is that since she has had a few decisions overturned by the Supremes. As a matter of fact, all of her decisions that have been heard by the Supremes, have been overturned. It makes me wonder really how qualified she is.

These opinions are brought to you by The Supreme Court of the United States official BLOG at: Scotusblog

CIVIL LITIGATION

Since joining the Second Circuit in 1998, Sotomayor has authored over 150 opinions, addressing a wide range of issues, in civil cases. To date, two of these decisions have been overturned by the Supreme Court; a third is under review and likely to be reversed. In those two cases (and likely the third), Sotomayor’s opinion was rejected by the Supreme Court’s more conservative majority and adopted by its more liberal dissenters (including Justice Souter). Those outcomes suggest that Sotomayor’s views would in many respects be similar to those of Justice Souter.

Fine you for not buying health coverage

Am I readin' this right. The Senate Democrats unveiled a bill that says that Americans who refuse to buy affordable medical coverage could be hit with fines of more than $1,000.
The fines could raise an estimated $36 billion over ten years.
Are You freekin' kiddin' me. Talk about your big brother state run government.
Who do these people think they are. OMG

Government entitlements are the problem

I'm a big believer that entitlements are one of the main problems with our economy. Government granted entitlements. Everyone deserves some. A little here a little there till everyone has their hand in the pie. That is why Democracy will fail and we will no longer be a Republic. Medicaid is failing, Social Security is failing, medicare is too. how can we expect the government to operate the biggest entitlement of all, in a nationalized health care plan? More and more entitlements. I can't help but think about perhaps some of my own entitlements. Like a decent road, a close fire station, cops all around, infrastructure, like sewer, water and electricity. Are those Entitlements? I suppose not cause I help pay for them with taxes and I don't have my hand out expecting them for free. What about all the retired and disabled military? They deserve it don't they? I'm thinkin' perhaps the military, active and former are the only ones deserving of entitlements. The rest of you with your hands out expecting the government to fill it with my tax dollars, forget it, go the church pantry.

Federalized Health Care

Do you believe that under a federalized heath care plan the Gov. would actually pay for a second opinion from another doctor? How about a third opinion? If you had a catastrophic health issue, wouldn't you want at least a second opinion?
It's my belief that the reason health care is so expensive now is because of government interference into the free market. Requiring so much insurance and paperwork that it basically can drive a practitioner out of business.
Government has been so efficient at running medicare , medicaid and social security so now rather than put money into fixing their mistakes in those agencies, you'd allow them to put all of us into debt of a Trillion dollars to start a new agency? WTF, are you crazy? Stupid ass Obamama cool aid drinkers.