Dear Patients: Vote to Repeal ObamaCare

Don’t believe Democrats who promise to fix the bill once they’re re-elected.

By HAL SCHERZ

Facing a nationwide backlash, Democratic congressional candidates have a new message for voters: We know you don’t like ObamaCare, so we’ll fix it.

This was the line offered by Democrat Mark Critz, who won a special election in Pennsylvania’s 12th congressional district after expressing opposition to the law and promising to mend it—but not to repeal it. As a doctor I know something about unexpected recoveries, and this latest attempt to rescue ObamaCare from repeal needs to be taken seriously.

For Democrats who voted for ObamaCare, this tactic is an escape route, a chance to distance themselves from the president with a vague promise to fix health-care reform in the next Congress. 

To counter this election-year ruse, my colleagues and I at Docs4PatientCare are enlisting thousands of doctors in an unorthodox and unprecedented action. Our patients have always expected a certain standard of care from their doctors, which includes providing them with pertinent information that may affect their quality of life. Because the issue this election is so stark—literally life and death for millions of Americans in the years ahead—we are this week posting a “Dear Patient” letter in our waiting rooms.

The letter states in unambiguous language what the new law means:

“Dear Patient: Section 1311 of the new health care legislation gives the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services and her appointees the power to establish care guidelines that your doctor must abide by or face penalties and fines. In making doctors answerable in the federal bureaucracy this bill effectively makes them government employees and means that you and your doctor are no longer in charge of your health care decisions. This new law politicizes medicine and in my opinion destroys the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship that makes the American health care system the best in the world.”

Our doctor’s letter points out that, in addition to “badly exacerbating the current doctor shortage,” ObamaCare will bring “major cost increases, rising insurance premiums, higher taxes, a decline in new medical techniques, a fall-off in the development of miracle drugs as well as rationing by government panels and by bureaucrats like passionate rationing advocate Donald Berwick that will force delays of months or sometimes years for hospitalization or surgery.”

We cite the brute facts of ObamaCare’s passage:

“Despite countless protests by doctors and overwhelming public opposition—up to 60% of Americans opposed this bill—the current party in control of Congress pushed this bill through with legal bribes and Chicago style threats and is determined now to resist any ‘repeal and replace’ efforts. This doctor’s office is non-partisan—always has been, always will be. But the fact is that every Republican voted against this bad bill while the Democratic Party leadership and the White House completely dismissed the will of the people in ruthlessly pushing through this legislation.”

Then we address the Democrats’ evasive campaign maneuver:

“In the face of voter anger some Democratic candidates are now trying to make a cosmetic retreat, calling for minor modifications or pretending they are opposed to government-run medicine. Once the election is over, however, they will vote with their party bosses against repealing this bill.”

The letter’s final lines are the most important:

“Please remember when you vote this November that unless the Democratic Party receives a strong negative message about this power grab our health care system will never be fixed and the doctor patient relationship will be ruined forever.”

This message is going out to an electorate that is already frustrated over what they see happening to health care. Missouri voters rejected ObamaCare overwhelmingly in August, voting by a margin of 71%-29% to reject the federal requirement that all individuals purchase health insurance. Democratic pollster Douglas Schoen has assessed that ObamaCare is “a disaster” for Democrats. And around the country many little-noticed primaries have reflected voter rage—including the Republican primary victory of surgeon, political newcomer, and advocate of repeal Daniel Benishek in Michigan’s first district.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration’s damage-control efforts have fallen flat. The latest round of pro-ObamaCare television spots targeting the elderly and starring veteran actor Andy Griffith have not only failed to move the polling numbers. They have caused five U.S. Senators to ask for an investigation of the ads as a violation of federal laws barring the use of tax dollars ($750,000) for campaign purposes.

America’s doctors have millions of personal interactions each week with patients. We have political power. And we intend to use it by working to defeat those who have disrupted and gravely endangered the best health-care system in the world.

Dr. Scherz, a pediatric urological surgeon at Georgia Urology and Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, serves on the faculty of Emory University Medical School and is president and cofounder of Docs4PatientCare.

• AUGUST 31, 2010

Social Security Bait and Switch

‘Harry, am I making this up?’ Yes, Mr. President, you are.

Democrats are trying to keep control of Congress by scaring the wig off grandma with a phantom GOP plot against Social Security. That is not news. Social Security scare tactics have been regular campaign themes since FDR. President Obama’s unique contribution is to do this even as he’s begging Republicans to help him reduce the deficit and reform entitlement spending.

On the one hand, Mr. Obama has charged his deficit commission with crafting a bipartisan plan to restrain entitlements. “Everything’s on the table. That’s how this thing’s going to work,” he said when he created the commission in February. “We now have to, in a gradual way, reduce spending, particularly on those big ticket items” like Social Security, he later added in Racine, Wisconsin. “That’s going to be our project for the next couple years.”

Yet even as Mr. Obama beseeches Republicans, he and his political allies are playing the Social Security card for all it’s worth in this campaign season. This has all the earmarks of a political bait and switch designed to ambush Republicans if they’re gullible enough to believe his bipartisan pleas. 

Mr. Obama personally teed up the campaign theme earlier this month when he celebrated Social Security’s 75th anniversary by claiming that “privatizing Social Security” is “a key part” of the Republican “legislative agenda if they win a majority in Congress this fall.” He went on to say that this plan, which does not in fact exist, is “wrong for America” and “I’ll fight with everything I’ve got to stop those who would gamble your Social Security on Wall Street. Because you shouldn’t be worried that a sudden downturn in the stock market will put all you’ve worked so hard for—all you’ve earned—at risk.”

The President’s speechwriters missed an opportunity to invoke boll weevils and Tom Joad, though they did find room for a paean to partisan comity. In an echt-Obama touch, he added that “I’m committed to working with anyone, Democrat or Republican, who wants to strengthen Social Security.”

Democratic House campaign chief Chris Van Hollen did it again last week at the National Press Club, discovering “a plan that would steer, by the way, billions and billions of dollars of American Social Security retirement savings to Wall Street.” Also by the way, this plan would “abolish Medicare in its current form” and “throw seniors to the whims of the uncontrolled costs of the private-insurance market.”

This Obama-Van Hollen line of attack is figuring in races across the country, and union groups are spending heavily to give it a political impact, the facts notwithstanding. Earlier this summer the Strengthen Social Security Coalition magically emerged, its backers a roll-call of the progressive left: the AFL-CIO, SEIU, American Federation of Teachers, MoveOn.org, Campaign for America’s Future, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees.

In Nevada, Harry Reid & Co. are inundating the airwaves with claims that Republican challenger Sharon Angle favors cutting off Social Security checks. Mr. Obama showed up at a Las Vegas fund-raiser to chime in that “she wants to phase out and privatize Social Security and Medicare. Phase out and privatize them. . . . I’m not making this up. Harry, am I making this up?”

Cognitive dissonance evidently does not afflict this President. Not long after this Socratic dialogue with Harry, at a recent event in Columbus, Ohio, Mr. Obama explained that “what we’ve done is we’ve created a fiscal commission of Democrats and Republicans to come up with what would be the best combination to help stabilize Social Security for not just this generation, but the next generation. I’m absolutely convinced it can be done.”

This campaign strategy won’t stop huge Democratic losses in a year when the economy is the dominant issue, but it surely will reinforce Republican fears that the deficit commission is nothing but a political trap. Mr. Obama wants the GOP to support entitlement reforms in exchange for tax increases, but when they do he’ll pocket the revenue and slam the GOP for the entitlement “cuts.”

The irony is that the fiscal condition of Social Security could be substantially improved simply by readjusting its actuarial formulas to slow the growth rate of benefits. But Republicans are unlikely to sign on even to that if they’re going to be demonized for such a modest “cut” anyway, much less endorse a reform like raising the future retirement age. Mr. Obama says he wants to cut a deal, but encouraging Democrats this year to box themselves in against any change will make serious reforms that much harder next year.

***

The President’s bad faith is all the more notable because Social Security is less a GOP reform priority than it should be. Republicans never even brought President Bush’s private account plan to the floor in 2005. To the extent these attacks have any basis in reality, they’re targeting Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan’s “roadmap”—even as Mr. Obama praises him for being serious about the fiscal crisis and knows he’s a member of the deficit commission.

This Social Security ploy perfectly illustrates the Obama political method: Bipolar rhetoric that lurches between partisan distortion and bipartisan entreaties—all the while governing hard to the left with Democrats in Congress running the show.

By Jay Cost

 August 25, 2010

The Blame Bush Strategy Won’t Work

Polls reveal voters are receptive to GOP ideas.

By KARL ROVE

To save themselves in the midterm elections, Democrats are counting on selling two themes: The state of the economy is all George W. Bush’s fault, and Republican policies will take us backwards. President Obama relished going to Texas this week to blame his predecessor for the current bad economy.

Nice try, but it won’t work. Don’t take my word. This is what Mr. Obama’s pollster, Joel Benenson, has found. The Benenson Strategy Group wasn’t exactly quite this blunt in its report for the “Third Way,” a centrist Democratic organization. But its data was. 

In its poll released in July, Benenson asked, “Generally speaking, who is more responsible for the recent economic recession—President Barack Obama or President George W. Bush?” The answer was Mr. Bush 53%, Mr. Obama 26%, and “Don’t know” 21%.

But answers to important issues like who’s responsible for the recession are rarely binary. Buried in the “Third Way” data was a different answer that went unmentioned in its covering memo. The question of who’s responsible for the recession was asked a second way, with more possible culprits.

Here the biggest blame for the recession went to “big banks and Wall Street” (34%), followed by “American consumers who lived beyond their means” (24%). Thirteen percent blamed Mr. Obama, 20% blamed Mr. Bush, and 9% were still in the “don’t know category.” Put another way, at least 80% didn’t blame Mr. Bush, as Mr. Obama obsessively does.

More importantly, Americans simply won’t fall for Mr. Obama’s claim that if empowered, congressional Republicans would only return to “policies that crashed the economy . . . undercut the middle class . . . [and] mortgaged our future.”

Here Mr. Obama’s polling firm is more direct, warning “two-thirds of Americans now see congressional Republicans and their economic ideas as new.” It’s hard to argue with widely held impressions like this, especially with 81 days left until Election Day.

In this fall’s contest, the GOP has a strong hold on the banner of change. Republican candidates can strengthen that claim by emphasizing a positive agenda of reform, fiscal restraint and economic growth while beating up Democrats for their miserable two-years of economic stewardship.

Mr. Obama and the Democrats are in a pickle because Americans don’t like what they’ve done. This was brought into sharp relief this week in a poll of likely voters in 13 states with hot U.S. Senate races.

The poll was sponsored by American Crossroads, a political group involved in the midterm election that I support. Democrats now hold eight of these Senate seats while Republicans hold five. (The poll can be found at the website of American Crossroads.)

By a 61%-33% margin, voters in these battlegrounds believe America is on the wrong track. Republicans lead on the generic ballot in these Senate races by 47% to the Democrats’ 39%.

The poll also tested each side’s arguments, offering a choice between what Democrats and Republicans are saying about the economy, health care, financial regulation and the country’s future. Republicans win all four arguments by margins of five to eight points.

If this holds up (as I believe it will) and if GOP candidates have adequate resources to make their arguments (this remains unclear), Republicans have an outside chance of taking control of the Senate. They need 10 more seats; since World War II, the average number of Senate seats the out-party has gained in an administration’s first midterm election is three.

For Mr. Obama and his party, all the escape hatches are shutting at the same time. Blaming Bush and harping on the GOP’s driving abilities is not a good strategy, but it may be the best Mr. Obama and his beleaguered party have.

Democrats can’t sell themselves as “the results party,” as Democratic National Chairman Tim Kaine proclaimed in April. Nor do they have an attractive or popular policy agenda moving forward. Mr. Obama’s fixation with blaming his predecessor has badly weakened him. Constantly engaging in the blame game makes the president look enfeebled and whiny rather than sturdy and confident. One of any president’s most important possessions is his reputation for strong leadership.

Democrats are likely to lurch from one approach to another. Candidates on the ropes often do. At this stage, though, it doesn’t much matter what they decide on. The narrative for this election is firmly in place.

Mr. Rove, the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush, is the author of “Courage and Consequence” (Threshold Editions, 2010).

Speaking last Wednesday in Columbus, Ohio, President Obama asked, “How do we, over the long term, get control of our deficit?” Good question.

Here’s the answer suggested by last Thursday’s semi-annual budget summary from the Congressional Budget Office: Stop spending so much.  

CBO’s mid-year review largely reinforces the bad news we already knew—to wit, that spending has exploded since Democrats took over Congress in 2007, first with the acquiescence of George W. Bush and then into hyperdrive after Mr. Obama entered the White House.

To appreciate the magnitude of this spending blowout, compare CBO’s budget “baseline” estimate in January 2008 with the baseline it released Thursday. The baseline predicts future spending based on the law at the time.

As the nearby chart shows, in a mere 31 months Congress has added more than $4.4 trillion to the 10-year spending baseline. The 2008 and 2009 numbers are actual spending, the others are estimates. As recently as 2005, total federal spending was only $2.47 trillion.

Keep that $4.4 trillion in mind the next time you hear Mr. Obama or Speaker Nancy Pelosi say they “inherited” this budget mess. Let’s assume the recession that Mr. Obama inherited—Mrs. Pelosi was already in power—was responsible for causing $1 trillion or so in deficit spending. That still doesn’t explain why the annual deficit of roughly $1.4 trillion will be nearly as high in fiscal 2010, after a year of economic growth, as it was in 2009. Or why CBO says the deficit will still be nearly $1.1 trillion in 2011 even if all of the Bush-era tax cuts are repealed.

The deficit is barely declining because of the lackluster economic recovery, which continues to yield too little revenue, and especially because of the record levels of spending passed by the Democratic Congress and eagerly signed by Mr. Obama

To pick one illustration: The annual average increase in domestic, nondefense discretionary spending—on the likes of education, food stamps, and things other than Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security—was 6.4% from 1999-2008. Yet in 2009, nondefense discretionary spending rose by 11.2%, and in 2010 it will grow by another 14.7%. Much of this increase has been added directly to the CBO baseline, compounding future spending levels as far as the green-eyeshade can see.

After all of this, CBO nonetheless predicts that nondefense discretionary spending will grow by only 2.3% in 2011. If you believe that, you probably believe that someone other than Mrs. Pelosi will be Speaker of the House.

Posted on August 20th, 2010 in Colorado Politics, Fiscal Policy, Journalism, National Politics, PPC, clean government, liberty | Written by Ben | No Comments »

Update, 8/21: Lynn Bartels’ story in today’s edition of the Post fills out a little bit more detail and gives more attention to both the major party candidates… including a lede that identifies Perlmutter’s Bush-bashing blameshifting (which makes the headline above obsolete). Guess the blog focus on the Libertarian candidate was supposed to be the teaser for today’s story (?). I also was promised some video footage from the Frazier campaign, and will post that here when it arrives.

This morning featured the first showdown of Colorado 7th Congressional candidates at a chamber of commerce-sponsored debate. It was practically in my backyard, but who has $20 or more to swing for such luxuries? 

The only coverage of the debate I’ve found is from the Denver Post‘s Lynn Bartels. With her former fave Lang Sias out of the 7th CD race, guess whom Bartels ended up showering the most attention on? Not rising Republican star Ryan Frazier. Not incumbent Pelosi Democrat Ed Perlmutter. Who then?

If you guessed Libertarian Buck Bailey (without reading the blog post), you win tonight’s star prize: a self-congratulatory pat on the back and a warm heaping helping of self-esteem. Taking nothing else into account, one is left to infer from the Post‘s coverage that the exchange between the two major party candidates was somewhat less than interesting. (I mean, I’m sure Mr. Bailey is a nice guy and everything….)

But the Ryan Frazier campaign had a different take. Full press release from his campaign below the fold:

Instead of taking responsibility for his job-killing votes in the U.S. House of Representatives, Rep. Ed Perlmutter (D-Golden) used the same tired rhetoric of the Democratic Party by blaming former President George W. Bush for our prolonged economic recession at this morning’s Arvada Chamber of Commerce debate. Perlmutter’s Bush blame-game was met with jeers from the crowd.

“The Pelosi-Perlmutter agenda has done nothing to help get Americans back to work,” Ryan Frazier, Republican nominee for the 7th Congressional District, said. “Ed needs to stop making excuses and take responsibility for the failed policies of this Congress.”

Perlmutter also falsely claimed President Bush left a $1.3 trillion budget deficit when he left office. The budget deficit in 2008, Bush’s last year, was an unacceptable $438 billion. Despite criticizing Bush for his spending habits in 2007, Perlmutter has since voted to more than triple the budget deficit, to $1.4 trillion, in just two years.

“Since Ed took office in January of 2007, Colorado’s unemployment rate has doubled,” Frazier continued. “Americans want new solutions, not more of the same.”

In 2006, Perlmutter said he would NOT mandate businesses to provide healthcare to their employees. Yet, this year, Perlmutter flip-flopped and voted for the most intrusive and expansive healthcare mandate in history.

“Ed went to Washington to change it. Instead, Washington changed Ed.” Frazier concluded. “It’s time for a new way forward.”

 It’s no coincidence that during my phoned-in appearance this morning on the local Jim Pfaff Show with guest host Kelly Maher, I explained the desperation behind Congressional Democrats’ escalating strategy to blame President Bush for the nation’s woes. If the theme is left out of any other coverage of today’s debate, maybe we can expect some attention next time around.

Which candidate is looking for and talking about solutions? Which candidate is stuck in the blame game of the past?

Drifting further Leftward during his time inside the Beltway, Ed Perlmutter shows why holding on to his seat will require a bitter fight to the finish this fall. The real untold political story is what impact this first debate will have on a race that has implications for which party will control the lower house of Congress in 2011.

August 12, 2010 

About half the nation was aware of the concern over the absence of public documentation of Barack Obama’s eligibility to be president a year ago, a few months ago the dispute got top billing on CNN, and just a few days ago a new poll revealed six of 10 Americans are uncertain the president was born in the U.S. 

Billboard near Navarre, Fla.

Now the dispute has been given top billing by the Associated Press, which has described itself as the world’s oldest and largest new-gathering organization and of late boasts of being the “essential” news service.

The billing came in a story today by Melissa Nelson and Jennifer Kay about plans by the president and his family for their next vacation, in the Florida Panhandle.

 But, the AP notes, “conservatives in this Republican stronghold haven’t exactly rolled out the welcome mat.”

 The report continues by revealing that a billboard just outside of Panama City Beach “funded by the conservative media organization WorldNetDaily.com says ‘Show us the birth certification.’”

 Actually, the sign says “Where’s the birth certificate?”

 It’s part of a campaign launched by WND founder and CEO Joseph Farah.

Billboard near Navarre, Fla.

It was in the same location that Obama earlier had a close encounter with the question about his eligibility, during a trip to the Gulf.

 As an electronic sign, the billboard was able to go up on short notice.

 The billboard campaign has posted signs in more than 50 cities since it was launched in 2009.

 Farah attributes widespread interest in the great “birth-certificate controversy” to the billboard campaign that, he believes, rekindled the debate about Obama’s constitutional eligibility for office. The campaign asks the simple but unanswered question, “Where’s the birth certificate?”

 The campaign has been sustained by contributions from WND visitors and others who have discovered it from simply driving past a billboard.

 ”It has certainly changed my life,” explains Farah. “A year ago I was still getting regular invitations to be on cable TV shows and talk about the issues of the day. The minute I was labeled a ‘birther,’ I became radioactive – just like Lou Dobbs.”

 He’s also convinced that it’s working.

 ”No matter how hard my colleagues try to make the public forget about this issue, no matter how hard they attempt to ridicule anyone who wants to see the proof, no matter how much they demean even decorated military officers who take their own oaths seriously, this issue will not go away. It’s going to be around in 2012. It may even be the defining issue in 2012,” he said.

 Farah says he could not have pulled off the campaign without the support of WND’s visitors. The cost of the billboards has been offset by donations – and Farah says he wants to step up the campaign because it’s winning.

 The AP report noted the area has “voted overwhelming[ly] for Republican presidential candidates in [the] last 30 years.”

 The latest CBS–New York Times poll showed only 58 percent of Americans even think Obama was born in the USA. Another later poll by CNN indicated six in 10 hold doubts about Obama’s birth and, therefore, eligibility.

Billboard near Talledega, Ala.

“I’m quite sure based on our own polls that if those people were asked whether they would like to see Obama release his birth certificate, more than half the country would say ‘yes’ – and all the other personal papers he has refused to disclose,” Farah said.

 Farah says the billboards have had a lot to do with changing popular opinion – even if the media don’t get it.

 ”People simply shouldn’t have to conjecture about where they think their president was born,” he says. “It ought to be a matter of public record – and it clearly is not.”

 Aside from the billboard campaign, WND has devoted more investigative reporting to the issue of eligibility than “all other media outlets combined,” says Farah.

 In addition, the billboard campaign was rejected by three major billboard companies, all owned by major media outlets – CBS, Clear Channel and Lamar.

Billboard near Bethel, Pa.

“What I need Americans to understand is that this billboard campaign is working,” said Farah. “There is no shortage of billboards available to us. The only thing there’s a shortage of is the money to erect them. We need to raise tens of thousands of dollars a month just to keep them in place.”

 ”The impact of the billboards is magnified by local television and talk-radio shows in every market they enter,” explains Farah. “It’s not just the billboard. It’s the earned media that comes along with it. It’s astounding. We have turned millions of people around on this issue with the billboards. It’s just that simple.”

•  In addition to the billboard campaign, Farah has: 
   produced a video-documentary primer on the issue called “A Question of Eligibility”;
• produced a 40-page special report on the subject;
• manufactured yard and rally signs to bring attention to the topic;
• pledged to donate at least $15,000 to any hospital in Hawaii or anywhere else that provides proof Obama was born there and given you an opportunity to raise the amount;
• created a line of T-shirts you can wear to appearances by the president to raise visibility of the issue;
• created a fund to which you can donate to further the kind of investigative reporting into this matter only this company has performed over the last two years;
• launched a line of postcards you can use to keep the issue alive;
• distributed thousands of bumper stickers asking, “Where’s the birth certificate?”;
• perhaps most notably, gathered more than 500,000 names on a petition demanding any and all controlling legal authorities in this matter take appropriate action to see the requirements of the Constitution of the United States are followed;
• gathered another 25,000 names on a second petition attempting to rally state officials to make presidential candidates prove their eligibility before getting on ballots.

“There are all kinds of things we need to do right now to get our country back on track, but I can think of nothing more important than for us to see that our Constitution is observed, followed, adhered to and honored, especially when it comes to such simple, straightforward matters as the eligibility of the president of the United States,” says Farah. “Please help me bring this matter to a head right now.”

 See birth-certificate signs around the country.

 Have you contributed to the “Where’s the birth certificate?” billboard campaign yet? If you haven’t contributed this month, please do so now.

 http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=190781

Click  here  to read the newsletter.

 Do you want a government that has respect for the sanctity and dignity of life, family, and marriage as the foundations of a free society?

 Do you want a fiscally responsible and limited government that protects the God-given freedoms of its citizens, and promotes free markets and opportunity for all?

 Do you want to have a hand in preserving and promoting these values in Colorado, but need practical training on how to make your efforts count?

 The Faith & Freedom Coalition of Colorado has designed a Grassroots political training school with you in mind. Our course teaches proven organizational and communication techniques on how to build and mobilize a grassroots army and become an effective activist for any cause or campaign. The course is ideal for conservative activists, campaign staff, or anyone interested in shaping public policy. For more information about the Faith & Freedom Coalition of Colorado visit our website: www.coloradofaithandfreedom.com

 Jim Pfaff, State Director for the Faith and Freedom Coalition of Colorado, is a main speaker. Jim is a noted leader in the conservative grassroots movement. For nearly 20 years, Jim has led public policy and campaign efforts in the Southwest and Mountain states and in the Midwest. As a political consultant, he has worked with candidates and issue efforts with messaging and grassroots strategy for the pro-life/pro-family movement. He worked for Focus on the Family on their Family Policy Council and led a successful effort to pass Colorado’s Marriage Amendment in 2006 as well as defeating Referendum I, Domestic Partnerships referenda.  He currently hosts the Jim Pfaff Show every weekday at 11 a.m. on 560 AM KLZ. 

 Citizen Action Seminar topics covered include:

  Developing a Persuasive Message

•  Recruiting and Motivating Volunteers
•  Building Coalitions
•  Campaign Strategy 
•  Voter Contact: Door-to-Door and Phones 
•  Basics of Precinct Organizing
•  Voter Contact: Voter Targeting and ID
•  Social and New Media
•  Earned Media and Public Relations 

 Location: Tri-City Baptist Church, 6953 W. 92^nd Ln., Westminster, CO

 Date & Time: Monday, Aug. 23rd & Tuesday Aug. 24th from 6:00 – 9:30 p.m.

 Cost: $25 per person. RSVP by Sun., August 22^nd to gregcoffc@gmail.com

 Contact: Greg Burt, FFC Regional Director (303) 590-4849

 Democracy is breaking out all over the country, and some in Washington don’t like it one little bit.

The latest example occurred in Missouri Tuesday, where more than 70% of voters rejected ObamaCare. Actually what they did was pass Proposition C, which declares that the federal government cannot tell Missourians they must have health insurance or pay a fine if they don’t. That mandate to have health insurance is one of the most controversial provisions in ObamaCare. 

When President Obama and the Democratic leadership pushed through the health care reform bill last March, a number of Democrats–along with virtually every Republican–questioned the wisdom of passing a bill so widely unpopular with the public, as evidenced by the unprecedented number of angry voters protesting the legislation at town hall meetings last August.

But Obama ignored those protests and the polls and reassured wavering Democrats that once the bill passed, it would drop off the front pages and the voters’ radar screen. Well the health care reform pot continues to boil, with stories–often negative–appearing almost daily.

The Rasmussen polling company has tracked the public’s opposition to ObamaCare since the bill passed, and has consistently found 55% to 60% want it repealed. But the public has been ignored, even dismissed, so it’s turning that opposition into political action.

The Associated Press said the Missouri vote on Tuesday amounted to “the largest-ever public opinion poll on the nation’s new health care law.” State Sen. Jane Cunningham, who sponsored the bill, says, “Citizens in our bellwether ‘Show-Me’ state are energized not only because they’re working to preserve their own rights, but they feel they are fighting for Americans all over the country whose voices have been ignored by Congress and Obama.”

Currently there are two different efforts afoot for overthrowing ObamaCare, one on constitutional grounds and the other a state rejection of the law.

First, some 20 states, led by Florida Attorney Gen. Bill McCollum–and recently joined by the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), representing some 350,000 small businesses–have filed suit against ObamaCare, claiming that the legislation is unconstitutional. They say the federal government has no authority to require people to buy health coverage, plus the law imposes numerous financial hardships on the states.

In addition, Virginia Attorney Gen. Ken Cuccinelli has filed a separate lawsuit, as has Missouri Lieutenant Gov. Peter Kinder. On Monday a federal judge denied the Obama administration’s request to dismiss the Virginia lawsuit, declaring, “Unquestionably, this regulation radically changes the landscape of health insurance coverage in America.”

Two more states, Oklahoma and Florida, passed the Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act, but it was vetoed by their (Democratic and Independent, respectively) governors. Missouri’s Tuesday vote was different in that the public, not members of the state legislature, voted for the legislation.

This may be just the beginning. Many state legislatures didn’t meet this year, so 38 states have filed, prefiled or announced their intent to file similar legislation, meaning 2011 may be dominated by states challenging ObamaCare.

Constitutional law professors I’ve talked to doubt that the Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act can withstand a Supreme Court challenge. The Supremacy Clause in the Constitution gives federal law precedent over state law–when the feds are acting constitutionally. And that’s why the attorneys’ general Tenth Amendment challenge on ObamaCare’s constitutionality is so important.

Even so, the Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act demonstrates the popular will. If the majority of states are fighting ObamaCare, that says the public doesn’t want what Obama is selling.

Politicians may ignore some of the voters some of the time, but they can’t ignore most of the voters all of the time. And that’s exactly what the Obama administration and the Democratic leadership have been doing.

The good news is that their actions have ignited an explosion of interest in the Constitution, the limits of federal power and the political process. That’s good for the democratic process, but it can be very bad for those who refuse to listen to the voters.

Merrill Matthews is a resident scholar with the Institute for Policy Innovation in Dallas.