Idaho Signs Law to Sue Fed for Health Care Mandates: 37 States to Follow

Idaho Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter signed a law today requiring the state attorney general to sue the Federal government if Idaho residents are forced to buy federally mandated and qualified health insurance. Thirty-seven other states have similar legislation pending, but according to this, constitutional law experts say federal laws supersede those of the states.

I'm thinking those "constitutional law experts" are Democrats. The Heritage Foundation did an exhaustive review of this issue and the bottom line came down to the necessity for the Supreme Court to create a new constitutional doctrine, in order for Congress to have the power to enforce the mandate. Read the arguments for the unconstitutionality of mandated health care here.

Obama Medicare Tax Hike: Why you should care about Medicare Tax Hikes

So you are years away from enrolling in Medicare. So, you make less than $250,000 a year - so...you think hiking the tax rate for Medicare on those earning more than you is a good idea. Wrong.

Medicare Tax Hike

The Heritage Foundation says a new proposal to raise the current Medicare tax on those making $250,000 or more, is under consideration. At the moment, employees and employers each share the Medicare tax burden of 2.9 percent - each paying 1.45 percent. When you retire, Medicare covers your hospitalization.

The Medicare program is already paying out more than it is taking in. So, how will this higher tax on those making $250,000 or more, benefit you? It won't. Here's the scoop from the Heritage Foundation:

Raising the tax and using the revenue to fund a new entitlement does nothing to fix this shortcoming.

Using new revenue from the Medicare tax to fund health care reform would be as illogical as raising the federal gas tax, which sensibly funds highway construction and maintenance, to pay for a new welfare entitlement.

there is little doubt the tax hike would legally fall on those earning more than $250,000 a year so it remains in accordance with President Obama’s campaign pledge.


Nevertheless, those earning much less than $250,000 a year will feel the negative impact of the tax. Higher taxes on high earners will cause them to take fewer risks and cut back on investment. This will lower wages and reduce the number of jobs created. And much of the tax increase is likely to fall on small businesses, which will cause them to create fewer jobs and pay lower wages. Workers earning much less than $250,000 a year will bear the full brunt of these jobs lost and lower wages.

Thank you to OlBroad for graphic

Pete Hoekstra Dems said there is "no threat" of Terrorism

Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) at the Heritage Foundation over a year ago, spoke on the importance of recognizing the threat of terrorism, but Democrat leadership told him "the threat is not real."

In the short video below, Hoekstra is speaking in February 2008 about the importance of renewing FISA, which we did in July 2008. Nevertheless, just 1-1/2 years ago, Democrats believed there is no real threat of terrorism.

Today, Hoekstra, who is the ranking Republican on the House intelligence committee, says the White House is withholding investigative documents relating to the Fort Hood assassinations.

 Pete Hoekstra - Democrats said "no threat" of terrorism (video)

Related and Background:

Obama tags Congressional Ft. Hood investigations "political theater" and "political stagecraft."

Congress Defends CIA on Ft. Hood Murders: Hoekstra Accuses Obama of Withholding Info 

Stop The EPA! Sign the Petition

Hat tip to Churchill's Parrot President-elect Barack Obama has proposed many ideas on how to fix our energy and environmental problems. With economic ruin looming in front of us, an auto industry ready to collapse, banks failing, and a falling stock market, the last thing we need is to put strict limits on our economic growth. Obama's plan asks for a reduction in greenhouse gasses by 80% by the year 2050. Asking the EPA to "implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."

The Heritage Foundation reports: “This intrusive regulation will cost the American economy nearly $7 trillion dollars in lost GDP in just 20 years, and result in massive job losses. Heritage’s respected Center for Data Analysis estimates non-farm employment losses will exceed 800,000 in some years, and manufacturing jobs will plummet. Some industries would lose over half of their jobs. Government permits would be needed to expand small businesses and build homes, hospitals and schools. To add insult to injury, foreign competitors will not have to abide by these regulations, leaving American businesses at a disadvantage."

Not only does the West and specifically the United States have to bear the brunt of this problem, but the greenhouse gas savings would do nothing to alleviate the problem since China and India produce more greenhouse gasses each day than we do in a month. You can help. You can start by signing this petition. Stop the EPA! And get others to sign it too. Then get involved. Call or write your Representative or Senator. But don't sit idly by. Cross posted from Monkey in the Middle