Gov. Perry of Texas willing to go toe to toe against Washington.

Perry raises possibility of states' rights showdown with White House over healthcare

BY DAVE MONTGOMERY

dmontgomery@star-telegram.com

RELATED CONTENT

Perry

• House Democrats clearing one health care obstacle
• PoliTex blog: On politics from Fort Worth to D.C.

Related Tags (BETA) mouse over a tag to see related stories White House Media Affairs Office Rick Perry 10th Amendment Brandon Creighton specter Mark Davis of Dallas America health care Perry's Center for Public Policy Priorities R-Conroe U.S. Sen Texans in the House

MOST-READ STORIES

• Perry raises possibility of states' rights showdown with White House over healthcare
• Mansfield mourns after former Superintendent Vernon Newsom dies in motorcycle crash
• Fort Worth officials arrest 11 over animal-related citations
• If at first you don’t secede, Texas Rangers, trade for a pitcher
• School officials try to get the word out about required vaccinations before classes begin

AUSTIN — Gov. Rick Perry, raising the specter of a showdown with the Obama administration, suggested Thursday that he would consider invoking states’ rights protections under the 10th Amendment to resist the president’s healthcare plan, which he said would be "disastrous" for Texas.

Interviewed by conservative talk show host Mark Davis of Dallas’ WBAP/820 AM, Perry said his first hope is that Congress will defeat the plan, which both Perry and Davis described as "Obama Care." But should it pass, Perry predicted that Texas and a "number" of states might resist the federal health mandate.

"I think you’ll hear states and governors standing up and saying 'no’ to this type of encroachment on the states with their healthcare," Perry said. "So my hope is that we never have to have that stand-up. But I’m certainly willing and ready for the fight if this administration continues to try to force their very expansive government philosophy down our collective throats."

Perry, the state’s longest-serving governor, has made defiance of Washington a hallmark of his state administration as well as his emerging re-election campaign against U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison in the 2010 Republican primary. Earlier this year, Perry refused $555 million in federal unemployment stimulus money, saying it would subject Texas to long-term costs after the federal dollars ended.

Interviewed after returning from a trip to Iraq and Afghanistan, Perry spoke out against President Barack Obama’s healthcare package less than 24 hours after the president used a prime-time news conference Wednesday night to try to sell the massive legislative package to Congress and the public.

'Not the solution’

"It really is a state issue, and if there was ever an argument for the 10th Amendment and for letting the states find a solution to their problems, this may be at the top of the class," Perry said. "A government-run healthcare system is financially unstable. It’s not the solution."

Perry heartily backed an unsuccessful resolution in this year’s legislative session that would have affirmed the belief that Texas has sovereignty under the 10th Amendment over all powers not otherwise granted to the federal government.

In expressing "unwavering support" for the 10th Amendment resolution by state Rep. Brandon Creighton, R-Conroe, Perry said "federal government has become oppressive in its size, its intrusion into the lives of our citizens and its interference with the affairs of our state."

Returning to the "letter and spirit" of the 10th Amendment, he said in April, "will free our state from undue regulations and ultimately strengthen our union."

Perry, in his on-air interview Thursday with Davis, did not specify how he might use the 10th Amendment in opposing the Obama health plan. His spokeswoman, Allison Castle, said that the governor’s first goal is to defeat the plan in Congress and that any discussion of options beyond that would be "hypothetical."

"I don’t think it’s surprising that the governor is taking a stand against it," said Anne Dunkelberg, associate director of the Center for Public Policy Priorities, an Austin-based research organization that supports the House version of Obama’s plan. "Unfortunately, the national dialogue on health reform has been extraordinarily partisan and polarized."

The White House Media Affairs Office, asked to comment on Perry’s statements, did not have an immediate response. In his remarks to the nation Wednesday, Obama restated his midsummer deadline for passage of the bill in Congress, saying it is urgently needed to help families "that are being clobbered by healthcare costs."

High stakes in Texas

Texas has a higher percentage of uninsured people than any other state, with 1 in 4 Texans lacking health coverage. Dunkelberg, whose organization supports policies to help low- and modest-income Texans, said the House version would create a "predictable and comprehensive benefits package" for thousands of struggling middle-income Texans.

Former Rep. Arlene Wohlgemuth of Burleson, a senior fellow for healthcare at the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation, echoed Perry’s assertion that the Obama plan is the wrong approach and could have disastrous financial consequences for Texas.

Under the Senate version of the bill, she said, an expansion of the joint federal-state Medicaid program for the poor could cost Texas $4 billion a year.

"There are good solutions" to the country’s healthcare problems, Wohlgemuth said. "This isn’t it."

Perry said the plan is another example of the Obama administration’s "massive takeover of the private-sector economy."

"I hope our leaders will look for solutions that don’t dig our country further into debt," he said.

Perry called on Texans in the House and Senate to oppose the plan. "I can’t imagine that anyone from Texas who cares about this state would vote for Obama Care. I don’t care whether you’re Democrat or Republican," he said.

Of those Texans who might consider supporting the plan, he said: "This may sound a little bit harsh, but they might ought to consider representing some other state because they’re sure not representing Texas."

DAVE MONTGOMERY, 512-476-4294

--------------------------------------------------

I applaud this. The federal government will continue to expand and step past its constitutional bounds, demolishing our personal liberties along the way, unless we stand up and say NO MORE! Like our founding fathers before us, we should do all we can to change the system from within, through the election process. But we must accept that if the government continues to disregard the will of the people, to manipulate them with the media, and then proceed to systematically destroy our economy, our liberty, and our property, thus chaining us to the government teet, then it may become necessary for more drastic action. This action by Perry gives me hope. If the states will stand up and say No to Obama. If they will refuse to allow the federal government to tighten their hold. If they will reject the notion that the federal government is a supreme power and has a blank check with respect to legislation, then maybe Washington will back down.

Write to Perry and your governor and encourage them to take a stand against Washington!

Palin to feds: Alaska is sovereign state
Constitutional rights reasserted in growing resistance to Washington

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin

Gov. Sarah Palin has signed a joint resolution declaring Alaska's sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution – and now 36 other states have introduced similar resolutions as part of a growing resistance to the federal government.

Just weeks before she plans to step down from her position as Alaska governor, Palin signedHouse Joint Resolution 27, sponsored by state Rep. Mike Kelly on July 10, according to aTenth Amendment Center report. The resolution "claims sovereignty for the state under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States."

Alaska's House passed HJR 27 by a vote of 37-0, and the Senate passed it by a vote of 40-0.

According to the report, the joint resolution does not carry with it the force of law, but supporters say it is a significant move toward getting their message out to other lawmakers, the media and grassroots movements.

Alaska's resolution states:

Be it resolved that the Alaska State Legislature hereby claims sovereignty for the state under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.

Be it further resolved that this resolution serves as Notice and Demand to the federal government to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.

While seven states – Tennessee, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Alaska and Louisiana – have had both houses of their legislatures pass similar decrees, Alaska Gov. Palin and Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen are currently the only governors to have signed their states' sovereignty resolutions.

The resolutions all address the Tenth Amendment that says: "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."

The Tenth Amendment Center also reported that Florida State Sen. Carey Baker, R-Eustis, introduced a memorial earlier this month urging "Congress to honor the provisions of the Constitution of the United States and United States Supreme Court case law which limit the scope and exercise of federal power."

"Now more than ever, state governments must exercise their Constitutional right to say no to the expansion of the federal government's reckless deficit spending and abuse of power," Sen. Baker said. "With this resolution, our Legislature can send a message to Washington that our state's rights must be respected."

The full text of Florida's memorial is available on the Tenth Amendment Center website.

As WND reported, South Carolina's proposal, S. 424, is titled: "To affirm South Carolina's sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution over all powers not enumerated and granted to the federal government by the United States Constitution."

Essentially it's a reminder that the United States is made up of individual states; it's not a federal authority broken up into political subdivisions.

In South Carolina, the proposals remains pending in the state Senate, where Sen. Lee Bright said he still hopes that it will be adopted this year.

The proposal there notes specifically that the "federal government was created by the states … to be an agent of the states," and the states currently "are treated as agents of the federal government," many times in violation of the Constitution.

Bright told WND the movement is spreading from state to state as fast as lawmakers discover it.

Michael Boldin, a spokesman for the Tenth Amendment Center, said his organization has created a posting for all such proposals to be tracked.

Among the states where such proposals at least have been considered are Louisiana, Colorado, Wisconsin, Florida, Illinois, West Virginia, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Nevada, Oregon, Alabama, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Idaho, New Mexico, South Dakota, Virginia, Kentucky, Alaska, Indiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, Minnesota, South Carolina, Georgia, Kansas, Texas, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Missouri, Iowa, Montana, Michigan, Arizona, Washington and Oklahoma.

In Louisiana, it passed the Senate in May and the House in June.

In Idaho, it passed the House in March and the Senate in April.

In North Dakota, it passed the House and Senate both in April, with the House a short time later adopting changes made by the Senate.

In South Dakota, it was approved by both houses of the Legislature and under that state's rules does not need the governor's signature.

In May, Rep. M.J. "Manny" Steele, a Republican in South Dakota, wrote that he believes up to $11 trillion is being wasted in the coming years by Washington's efforts "to duplicate and micromanage our states' affairs."

He said states should manage their own affairs and not be dependent on a federal cash cow to make ends meet. Likewise with industries, he said, citing federal cash dumps on the banking, insurance and automobile industries.

Steele told WND his dollar estimate was based on what President Obama himself has allocated in the coming years to spend on stimulus packages, industry bailouts and the like.

"If we would just let the market take care of these things," he said.

His letter noted that Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma and South Carolina legislatures joined South Dakota's in passing some statement on the Tenth Amendment this year. The results vary based on state procedures, however. In Oklahoma, the governor vetoed the plan and it was launched on its second trip through the legislature and has been passed by the House.

"Over the course of decades, there have been increasing federal mandates and acts designed to effectively step in and legislate the affairs of our various states from Washington D.C.," Steele said. "Federal usurpation into state affairs severely limits the ability of state governments to operate according to their citizens' wishes."

--------------------------------

A number of states are doing this and I think it is the right path. The purpose of The Constitution is to limit the power of the federal government. However, it only works if there are people willing to say "NO" when the feds try to step past their bounds.

Obama goes prime-time to pitch healthcare

WASHINGTON, July 22 (UPI) -- U.S. President Barack Obama shifts his effort to convince the American people healthcare reform is the right thing to do right now to prime time Wednesday.

In an evening news conference, Obama is expected to outline the case for healthcare reform as well as provide an update on what has been accomplished since he took office in January.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told The New York Times Obama intends to use the news conference as a "six-month report card," to talk about "how we rescued the economy from the worst recession" and the legislative agenda moving forward, including health care and energy legislation.

Political observers said Obama is at a pivotal moment in his presidency because how he handles the healthcare issue during the next few weeks could help shape the rest of his presidency and his relationship with Congress, among other things.

"He's got to be careful that while he ratchets up the pressure, he doesn't bet his whole presidency on whether this gets done before the August recess," said Kenneth Duberstein, who molded President Ronald Reagan's first-term legislative strategy. "He has a broad, broad agenda that he's in a rush to enact, and if he's not careful he will be viewed as a steamroller who tries to get things fast and not necessarily right."

-------------------------------

This is a classic tactic. When you don't have anything to put on your resume'...lie. The question I have is whether he actually believes that he saved the economy, or if he is just trying to convince himself and everyone else that he did in spite of the fact that unemployment is still bounding for 10% and higher. You know what they say about telling a lie over and over. Sad really.

Jul 17 03:43 PM US/Eastern
By CHARLES BABINGTON
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House is asking Congress to give the executive branch more power to limit Medicare's rising costs.

A White House letter to top lawmakers on Friday said the move would be "a critical step forward" in controlling health care costs and providing better care.

The proposal would allow an independent advisory board to recommend changes in Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors, hospitals and other providers. If the president approved the recommendations, Congress could still vote to reject them altogether. But Congress could not approve some recommendations and reject others.

Currently, Medicare reimbursement rates vary from region to region. Key lawmakers often get involved in setting local rates, a practice the Obama administration plan would end.

This is scary! Obama wants authority to create legislation while leaving congress with a veto? Is anyone going to stand up to this man? He is not even pretending to honor the constitution.

Give it time?

Weeks into the US invasion of Iraq, and the liberals were already calling it a quagmire and a "Vietnam". When Bush and friends started pushing for a troop surge, the left couldn't help but bash the idea and continued to do so until the success of the surge became so utter obvious that anyone who spoke against it was effectively pasting a giant "Moron" sign to his forehead. It is obvious to anyone with an objective view that the Democrats were invested in failure in Iraq. Why shouldn't they be? Bush's legacy would forever be fused with the success or failure in Iraq, of course the democrats would want to push it towards the failure direction, that is just good political strategy (even though it dances on the edge of treason).

Now the role is reversed. Obama has attached his name and his legacy to the pork-laden 700+ billion dollar stimulus bill that was designed with the express purpose of preventing a major recession from occuring. While never as ruthless as the democrats, conservatives and republicans are up in arms calling this stimulus a failure, while the democrats led by Obama, are calling for patience in a very Bush-esqe fashion. So now the question is whether or not this is just politics as usual? Are the republicans calling this a failure because it is, or because they really want it to be?

Lets be honest, if someone like Mitt Romney had been elected as POTUS (one can only dream), and he was implementing a more market-driven recovery program, republicans and conservatives would not be expecting full recovery a mere six months later, and we would probably be crying for patience in the same way. However, we would see some indications that it was working. The US occupation of Iraq lasted five years, but after one month Baghdad had been captured and Saddam had been deposed, another 3 months and Saddams sons had been killed and another 5 months and Saddam himself was captured. Whether you felt the war was justified or not, you can't deny that the military was progressing and making headway, the fact that they underestimated the amount of civil unrest notwithstanding.

It has been 6 months now since Obama signed his stimulus bill into law. Since that time the average unemployment rate has risen 4 percentage points (some parts of the country it is approaching 20%), translating into millions of lost jobs. Despite Obama and friends constant reassurances that the stimulus is "working as intended" what evidence can they show to that effect? GM still went bankrupt despite the billions of taxpayer dollars dumped into it, Banks still aren't lending money, despite their almost forced bailout, and now the state of California, like the Titanic is sinking fast and threatening to pull the whole country down in its wake. Where, Mr. President, is any indication that the stimulus is working? Please show me something...anything that I can look at that indicates that the economy will recover faster because of the near-trillion dollars you and your love-slave congress have dumped into it?

Or...am I to assume that "working as intended" means that the purpose of the stimulus was to sink the American economy even further.

Two Weeks...Zero Hour

I don't usually post twice in one day...heck, I don't usually post twice in one month, but you know what they say about desperate times. The Health Care plan being touted by the Sun God Ra-Obama (thanks Panda) is a serious issue and we as a nation need to get busy. In my last post, I talked about the need for everyone to call their representative and their senator and tell them that you oppose a yes vote for the Cap and Tax bill. Well, if you didn't take me seriously then, you had better do so now because Obama's Health Care for All Americans bill has just been passed by a senate panel and it is on its way to general debate.

The first thing that should raise a flag about this bill is how quickly the Democrats are trying to get it through. I mean, the people of this country have been going without a "public option" for 200+ years, a few more months won't hurt. A prudent leader might want to encourage the Senate to take its time, weigh the costs and benefits, and put together a good healthcare policy that not only makes health care affordable and accessable, but is sustainable over the long term. Their mad dash reminds me of a job I once had as a teenager working for a telemarketing firm selling newspaper subscriptions. The trick was to get the person to agree to the sale before they had any idea what was going on. The only difference is that buying a $10/month newspaper subscription is pretty insignificant while passing Obama's healthcare plan/bastard love child is one of the biggest expansions of the federal government in US history. Its current projected cost sits at 1.5 trillion which, considering how accurate those predictions usually are, will probably skyrocket in 5 or 6 years.

Critics have long been saying that this legislation is nothing more than the first step to the eventual realization of a socialist single-payer system. Despite the fact that this is exactly what Rahm Emanuel and Tom Daschle have said multiple times, this statement still makes Obama chuckle and say; "Socialized? No siree, this ain't no socialized health care! Why, you can still keep the plan you have right now if you want too. All this here bill does is create a public option so's thems who can't afford your fancy care can get it from the gub'ment." That might (miiiight) be well and good if it weren't for a couple of glaring facts that are being all but ignored by the misty eyed and love-smitten drive-by media. Investor's Business Daily reports that on page 16 of the 1000+ page bill, it is expressly stated that you CAN keep your current private health plan, but if you want to change plans or get a new plan for any reason after the bill becomes law (including if you are born after the fact), you have NO CHOICE but to go with the public option. In other words, it will be illegal to have any private plan except the one you had before the bill becomes law. So for those of you who still think that this public option is anything but a mechanism to drive the private sector completely out of business, think again. But thats not all, for those of us who recognize health insurance as the ponzi scheme it is and elect to pay for our care out of pocket, we will be forced to pay an additional 2.5 percent income tax as a penalty. Whether we want this public option or not, you had better believe we are going to pay for it.

Now let's look at how this will affect business owners. Those who make more than $280 thousand a year will be getting a tax increase maxing at 5.4% for those who make 1 million dollars per year or more. Employers who don't provide coverage will have to pay 8% of their total payroll (exemptions for small businesses). The brilliance of this move is that the majority of the country don't fall into this bracket. You may think that this doesn't affect you, but wait until your employer either downsizes your job or reduces your salary in order to meet the mandates put upon him by the federal government, not to mention the investment dollars swallowed up by the governmental black hole in Washington D.C., dollars that could have gone to create jobs (really create jobs, not just fake create them).

Just so you know, those useful idiots who are still cheerleading this plan are going to say; "So you would prefer to pay 10 - 20 grand a year to an evil insurance company that will just deny you coverage because its a preexisting condition? At least with Obama's plan everyone will be covered for everything!" Folks, this is what we call a false dichotomy. It is the logical fallacy that says that a choice exists between only two options, in this case the current system (which we know is bad) and Obama's love child (which might be bad). The answer to this riddle is that we find a solution that allows the price of health care to come down, is sustainable, does not hand control over to the federal government, and relys on the personal responsibility and action of the individual. Believe it or not, such plans exist, but would require (shock and surprise) people to foot more of the bill themselves. In fact, I just happen to have worked out a health care plan that would fill all of these requirements and, in my humble opinion, is exactly what this country needs. I promise to share it with you, but this post is long enough already. Bottom line, don't fall for this "If you don't support Obama's plan, then you must love the current one" junk.

As I said before, Obama's poll numbers are dropping. People are waking up. The democrats in Congress know that their impentitrable majority days are numbered and they know that if they are going to be succesfull in transforming this country into the socialist state that they all fantasize about, they have to do it quick before, like the sap who bought the Los Angeles Times subscription, the American public realize what they've bought. Harry Reid wants debate to start in a week or two. It is up to each of you to contact your Representative and your Senator and tell them, without mincing words, exactly how you feel about this plan. Be sure that they clearly understand that if they do not vote the way you want them to, you will be actively compaigning against them in 2010. Remind them who they work for, remind them who really holds the power in this country. We have two weeks folks, lets get to work!

Fox News Article

Contact your Representatives

Contact your Senators

List of the "Blue Dog Democrats" (Democrats who ran as conservatives and on whom our efforts should be focused).

Cap and Tax

A few weeks ago, the United States House of Representatives barely passed H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, by a mere 7 votes (Interestingly enough, only eight republicans voted for it. Their contact information is provided below). This bill introduces a cap and trade program where the federal government establishes an emissions cap along with credits to the various industries which can be sold to one another. Under such a program, if company "A" needs more credits, and company "B" has more than enough, then B can sell some of its credits to A. Essentially, companies will have to pay for the ability to emit more greenhouse gases over the allowed "cap". The the goal is to reduce nation-wide greenhouse gas emmisions 17% by 2020.

Now my loyal readers (all 4 of you), as a chemist, I have read a good deal of literature on both global warming (GW) and alternative energy (particularly biodiesel). I am by no means an expert in those fields, but I am well read to the point that I can form a solid opinion on the subject. For all of you out there, it is important to understand two essential points:

1. The questions "Is climate change (CC) occuring?" and "Is it human-caused (anthropogenic)?" are scientific questions. They should be, and are, being investigated by scientists across various disciplines. There is no "scientific consensus" (as if scientific consensus equaled truth), and as such the results of such investigations have a minimal role in determining public policy.

2. The only questions that are relevent to making public policy are: "How much will it cost?" and "How much could it help?" A cost benefit analysis is the only pertinant investigation that should be done when making a policy with respect to climate change, and it is the only investigation that is being given little to no weight.

In every single political debate I hear on the issue of GW and CC, the democrats line up and say; "Its happening!" and the republicans line up and say "No it isn't!". As I said before, we don't really know the answer, and if we act, then we must take the cost into serious consideration. If the policy change cripples American industry, thus sending our economy into a free fall and putting us into a precarious situation with other less amiable countries like China and Russia, all for a 0.01% reduction in CO2 which may or may not be causing CC, I am inclined to think that the cost is not worth the benefit. But thats just me.

So now the question is what is the cost benefit analysis for the Cap and Tax act just passed by our esteemed House of Representatives? First, lets pretend that you're a business owner and you are informed that you have to spend millions of dollars to modify your production facilities in order to come under the cap or purchase additional "credits". Now, suppose you have been considering moving production overseas, but up until now, it wasn't cost efficient to do so. What do you do? We can say all we want about the evil businessmen who move jobs overseas, but lets be honest, like everyone else these guys are trying to make a buck, and they can either make it here or anywhere else. If we want jobs, and wealth, and growth, then we should be doing what we can to encourage businesses to come here, not run away screaming. This cap and trade act will do exactly that. Businesses will run, not walk, to the nearest foriegn power that won't care what their emission level is. Which leads us to the question about the benefit. Obama says 17% over 10 years. How important is that 17% going to be if China and South America increase their emmisions because of the influx of production and manufacturing facilities? Isn't that nice. The US managed a 17% reduction, but the rest of the globe increased their emissions by 25%. But hey, at least we drove businesses out of the country, expanded the power of government, destroyed millions of jobs, deepened the recession, and helped China become the economic leader of the world. I mean, we have to do something right?

But lets make this a little more personal. Right now the official unemployment rate is racing towards 10%. In some parts of the country, it is approaching 20%. The costs of basic necessities like food are increasing at a time when the income of the average American family is shrinking. This cap and tax program will only serve to force the providers to pass their increased cost onto you. That means the prices for manufactured goods, food, electricity, etc. are going to go even higher. Change we can believe in right? If this bill passes, not only will your job move overseas, but you will have to pay more for those basic necessities.

The house passed this 1500 page bill after adding an additional 300 pages hours before it was voted on. Nobody read it! Moreover, the public response to this bill was overwhelmingly negative. The apes in congress are ignoring the wishes of their constituents, and voting for bills that they haven't read! This is the government we voted for people! The only way to prevent this from going all the way is for everyone to call or write their senator and inform them that if they vote yes on this bill, come 2010, you will be shopping for a new senator. I am serious people. The goobers in washington think they can get away with this, because they are counting on the apathy of the public. Don't make them right! Contact your senator today!

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

For those of you who want to thank the republican representatives who felt that this was a good idea...hear is their contact information.

Bono Mack (CA) 202-225-5330
Castle (DE) 202-225-4165
Kirk (IL) 202-225-4835
Lance (NJ) 202-225-5361
Lobiondo (NJ) 202-225-6572
McHugh (NY) 202-225-4611
Reichart (WA) 202-225-7761
Chris Smith (NJ) 202-225-3765