Archive for the ‘Issues’ Category
Our Dangerous Dependence on Foreign Chocolate
April 5th, 2012 | 
Author: A majority of us consume chocolate each day. Although the U.S. produces only 6% of the world’s cocoa, we consume more than 20%.
The threat is obvious. It’s time for government to step in and promote alternatives.
Any day, President Obama will be barnstorming the country to tell us, “If we really want chocolate security and chocolate independence, we’ve got to start looking at how we use less cocoa and use sources that we can renew and that we can control, so we are not subject to the whims of what’s happening in other countries.”
Today, we are at the mercy of Africa, which produces over 75% of the world’s cocoa. That’s an unstable source, which means our chocolate dependency undermines national security. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in 
The Man Who Knew Too Little
President Obama’s stunning ignorance of constitutional law.
We were half-joking yesterday when we asked if Barack Obama slept through his Harvard Law class on Marbury v. Madison, the 1803 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court first asserted its power to strike down unconstitutional laws. It turns out it’s no joke: The president is stunningly ignorant about constitutional law.
At an appearance this afternoon, a reporter asked Obama a question following up on yesterday’s comments: “Mr. President, you said yesterday that it would be ‘unprecedented’ for a Supreme Court to overturn laws passed by an elected Congress. But that is exactly what the court’s done during its entire existence. If the court were to overturn the individual mandate, what would you do, or propose to do, for the 30 million people who wouldn’t have health care after that ruling?”
Obama’s answer to the question was that he expects to win in court, and “as a consequence, we’re not spending a whole bunch of time planning for contingencies.” He went on to talk at some length about the “human element”–that is, people who would supposedly suffer in the absence of ObamaCare. Message: Obama cares, though not enough to spend “a whole bunch of time planning for contingencies.”
But the most interesting part of his answer was the beginning, Read the rest of this entry »
Carroll: How school boards are skirting the law
Colorado law forbids school boards from bankrolling campaigns urging voters to pass ballot measures. So how do some boards skirt the spirit of the law? They do what Mapleton School District in Adams County did in 2010 — choose a bond underwriter before the election so the firm will happily shower money on the campaign. And then overpay the firm if the measure passes. Rarely has the scheme been as casually acknowledged, however, or the underwriter’s reward been so extravagant, as in the Mapleton case, which was outlined in an article in last Sunday’s Denver Post. As reporters David Olinger and Eric Gorski pointed out, bond underwriter George K. Baum & Co. brags on its website how it “assisted the political issue committee with poll-driven issue framing, messaging and branding, developing direct mail, yard signs, walking maps for canvassing, call lists for phone banking, print ads, fundraising strategies, get-out-the-vote efforts and more.” Once voters approved the school-bond campaign, Baum sold $9.67 million in bonds for a fee of $416,173.59 — a price the Mapleton superintendent told The Post was related to Baum’s manifold pre-election efforts. As Olinger and Gorski noted, that payment works out to $43 per $1,000 of bonds. Read the rest of this entry »
What Conservative Legal Revolution?
A 5-4 ruling against ObamaCare is the least Republicans should expect given the number of justices they’ve been able to appoint.
By JOHN YOO
This week’s Supreme Court arguments over ObamaCare have left opponents of the law quietly crossing their fingers. Questions from the bench hint that the court’s conservative wing may hold together to strike down the individual mandate, which requires all American adults to purchase health insurance. But this week’s arguments also reveal the risky gamble of placing all hopes of stopping ObamaCare in the courts, and they underscore the pivotal importance of this year’s elections to restoring limited government.
Overturning ObamaCare by a mere 5-4 margin would show the tenuousness of the 40-year conservative campaign to alter the Supreme Court. In the four decades since Richard Nixon first made the Supreme Court a campaign issue, Republicans have controlled the White House for seven presidential terms and Democrats for only four. Yet conservatives and liberals can claim four seats each on the court, with Anthony Kennedy happily floating about in the middle.
Republican presidents nominated justices such as Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens and David Souter, who became dependable liberal votes. Democrats have yet to make a similar mistake. Read the rest of this entry »
Colorado Democrats want Secretary of State Scott Gessler removed from office
Colorado Democrats unleashed some of their strongest criticism yet of Secretary of State Scott Gessler Wednesday, saying he should be removed from office afterhe opposed an election-related bill that was later killed by fellow Republicans.
“(Gessler) has once again prioritized his partisan agenda above the rights of Coloradans to vote,” Democratic Party Chairman Rick Palacio said. “If (he) is unwilling to fulfill his duties as a non-partisan election officer, the people of Colorado should consider all avenues necessary to remove him as Secretary of State.”
Asked if the Democratic party was referring to a recall election, spokesman Matt Inzeo replied: “I wouldn’t rule it out.”
The Democratic assault came after Gessler testified against a bill he said equated to “radical surgery on elections administration” just months before a presidential election. While the bill had bipartisan support among county clerks and lawmakers, Gessler noted there was not consensus among all clerks. He named four — all Republicans — who opposed the legislation, and he refuted claims that the bill would save money. Read the rest of this entry »
ObamaCare and the 2012 Election
Whatever the Supreme Court says, how the president handles health policy will deeply affect his chances in November.
By KARL ROVE
This week’s historic Supreme Court hearings on President Obama’s health-care overhaul will have huge political ramifications.
The heart of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is the requirement that every American purchase health insurance or pay a penalty. Justice Anthony Kennedy—widely considered the “swing vote” on cases that divide the Supreme Court evenly along ideological lines—raised concerns on Tuesday that this individual mandate “changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in the very fundamental way.” This might mean the president’s signature domestic achievement will be declared unconstitutional. If so, he would face a critical decision.
Mr. Obama could announce he respects the court’s decision and pledge to fashion a bipartisan solution to provide access to affordable health-care insurance for all Americans. This would help his re-election by repositioning him back in the political center, as he was in 2008 when he ran television ads that said “both extremes”—”government-run health care [and] higher taxes”—”are wrong.” Read the rest of this entry »
Paul Ryan Reminds Debbie Wasserman-Schultz What She’s Already Done to Medicare
House Budget Commitee Chairman Paul Ryan corrected Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz’s incorrect speech on Medicare during House Floor debate of the Path to Prosperity Budget.
DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz: As a member of Congress representing a large number seniors in south Florida, I can tell you that the House Republican Budget would be devastating for seniors and older Americans. This Republican path to poverty would pass like a tornado through America’s nursing homes, where millions of Americans seniors receive long-term and end-of-life care.
HBC Chairman Paul Ryan: The growth rate of Medicare under this budget is the same one the President proposes in his budget. Here’s the difference: President Obama in his law — the one being debated over in the Supreme Court — says 15 unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats will be in charge of putting price controls and cuts to Medicare to accommodate that growth rate. Our plan puts 50 million seniors in charge of choosing what health care plan is best for them — more for the poor, more for the sick, less for the wealthy, and it makes Medicare solvent.
And here’s the catch: we don’t change the benefit for current seniors. This just applies to younger people – unlike the current law that the President passed — that my friend voted for – 15 bureaucrats are in charge of putting price controls on current seniors’ medical care which leads to denied care for them. So if we’re talking about who’s “saving and strengthening Medicare” it is this budget as opposed to the status quo, which raids it, rations it and still allows the program to go bankrupt.
Conservative Justices Challenge Government Over Health Law
WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court’s five conservative justices on Tuesday sharply challenged the Obama administration’s arguments for the health-care law, with Justice Anthony Kennedy saying the government has a “very heavy burden of justification” for the measure’s requirement that people carry health insurance or pay a penalty.
But Justice Kennedy, a perennial swing vote on the court, also asked some skeptical questions of the law’s challengers, leaving the fate of President Barack Obama’s signature legislation in doubt.
Tuesday was the centerpiece of the high court’s three days of argument on the Obama health law, and the justices showed they were ready for the big day with a barrage of questions for both sides about the health-insurance mandate.
Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, representing the government, struggled to outline a workable principle that would limit the ability of Congress to require people to make other kinds of purchases in the future. Chief Justice John Roberts said that if the court approved the mandate, it might be hard to set limits.
“All bets are off,” Chief Justice Roberts said.
Justice Kennedy said the mandate would change the relationship between the government and individuals in a “fundamental way,” showing skepticism toward Mr. Verrilli’s argument that the mandate follows Congress’s well-established authority to regulate interstate commerce under the Constitution.
However, both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy also directed some skepticism at the law’s challengers. Read the rest of this entry »
6 POTENTIAL OUTCOMES IN SUPREME COURT REVIEW OF OBAMACARE
(AP) High court has options on health care law
By MARK SHERMAN and RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR
Associated Press
WASHINGTON
The Supreme Court has several options in ruling on President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, from upholding the law to striking it down in its entirety. The court also could avoid deciding the law’s constitutionality at all, if it finds the lawsuits challenging the law are premature.
Here is a look at six potential outcomes, from the simplest to the most complicated possible rulings:
___
Q. What if the Supreme Court upholds the law and finds Congress was within its authority to require most people to have health insurance or pay a penalty?
A. A decision in favor of the law would end the legal fight and allow the administration to push forward with implementing its provisions over the next few years, including the insurance requirement, an expansion of Medicaid and a ban on private insurers’ denying coverage to people with pre-existing health problems.
The political wrangling, however, probably would continue as Republican candidates for president and lesser offices are calling for repeal of the law. Read the rest of this entry »
