October 2016 | Page 11 of 34 | Restoring Liberty

Lisa Murkowski and Her SuperPAC’s PFD Grab Election Scam

October 22, 2016/0 Comments/in Uncategorized /by Matt Johnson

Long before Alaska’s current fiscal crisis, Lisa Murkowski was an advocate of raiding the Permanent Fund for State expenditures. Even after 83% of Alaskans voted to stop the PFD Grab, Murkowski either sponsored or voted for three separate raids on the PFD.

When Lisa Murkowski decided to mount a 2010 general election challenge to the Republican nominee she promised to support, a SuperPAC called Alaskans Standing Together was formed.

The group was led by numerous Alaska-based corporations, including GCI, Unicom, Jim Jansen (owner of Lynden Transport), and other Alaska corporations. These corporations poured more than $1.8 million into the six-week effort to stop Republican nominee Joe Miller and assassinate his character.

No less than $575,000 of those funds came directly from leadership and corporate sponsors of the Alaska’s Future campaign that spent millions to convince State leaders to steal $666 million of your Permanent Fund earnings, costing every Alaskan more than $1,000 of their 2016 PFD.

Also playing along with the scam was the entire leadership structure of the Republican-controlled Alaska State Legislature, including Senate President Gary Stevens and Speaker of the House Mike Chenault.

Here’s one of the lying ads from 2010:

In retrospect, that effort was even more extraordinary than it appeared at the time. The case made by Murkowski and her supporters in 2010 was that Joe Miller’s economic plan would collapse Alaska’s economy and precipitate a state financial crisis that would end in the imposition of a State income tax and a PFD Grab. This was done with exactly zero evidence for such a claim. It was a lie, flat-out.

What made the campaign scam even more incredible was Speaker Chenault’s top staffer, Tom Wright, appearing in a Lisa Murkowski campaign ad claiming that Joe Miller was “so off the wall that the direction he wants to take us will bankrupt Alaska.”

Here’s that lying ad:

Yet Speaker Mike Chenault and Tom Wright, with a direct hand in every State budget since 2005, have actually presided over the bankrupting of Alaska, resulting in the theft of half of every Alaskan’s PFD and proposals for a whole array of new taxes and tax increases, including the imposition of a State income tax. It could rightly be said that Mike Chenault, with more influence over the state fiscal situation than any other Alaskan, is the architect of the State’s fiscal crisis.

Make no mistake about it, the Murkowski’s Alaskans Standing Together effort to discredit Joe Miller was no accident. It was a scam. It was executed with willful intent to cover Lisa Murkowski’s long history of support for stealing the PFD to fund big government.

Earlier this year, when Lisa Murkowski affirmed her support for the current PFD grab, the scam had come full circle. Like her father before her, who appointed her to the United States Senate, Murkowski has always been supportive of stealing your PFD to fund big government and special interests.

But she’s not alone. Many of the same players who supported her election scam in 2010 are now both funding Alaska’s Future campaign to steal the PFD, and Senator Murkowski’s current campaign for re-election.

It’s time to send this den of thieves packing, and it starts on November the 8th with rejecting Lisa Murkowski.

Cardinal Dolan: Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Prayed Together Before Al Smith Dinner

October 22, 2016/0 Comments/in Featured, Kathleen's Korner /by Nancy Flory

With all of the political barbs thrown in each other’s direction lately, one would think it would take miracle for someone to convince Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton to take a quiet moment and pray together. Thursday night before the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Dinner the miraculous happened. Cardinal Timothy Dolan, who suggested the prayer and sat between the two presidential nominees during the evening, recounted the “touching” moment Friday on NBC’s Today show.

“When we were going in, I said ‘Could we pray together?’ as we were waiting to be announced,” said Cardinal Dolan, “and after the little prayer, Mr. Trump turned to Secretary Clinton and said ‘You know, you are one tough and talented woman. This has been a good experience in this whole campaign as tough as it’s been.’ And she said to him, ‘And Donald, whatever happens, we need to work together afterwards.’” Cardinal Dolan said he thought that was the evening at its best.

According to Cardinal Dolan, the Al Smith Dinner is traditionally an evening of “unity and friendship and joy.” However, this time around, he said, it was like a family dinner “where you’re just hoping that everything goes well … and in general, alleluia, the evening went very well!” Cardinal Dolan was touched by the obvious attempt by both Clinton and Trump to be courteous and get along. “I was very moved by that.”

Although there was clearly some awkwardness and iciness between Clinton and Trump, Cardinal Dolan said that’s nothing new, describing the chill four years ago between Obama and Romney. Breaking some of that ice is a goal of the dinner, Cardinal Dolan explained, and “thanks be to God it worked!”

The private amity between Trump and Clinton wasn’t as present during the prepared speeches. Cardinal Dolan acknowledged that there were some tense moments and some boos from the audience. He attributes that to the break in the Al Smith Dinner tradition of self-deprecating humor.

John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan “brought the house down,” Cardinal Dolan said, because they were the butt of their own jokes. Last night, Trump and Clinton made each other the butt of their jokes. “The characteristic of the evening is self-deprecating, humble humor,”said Cardinal Dolan, but that goal is tougher to achieve nowadays, as evidenced by Thursday night’s dinner.

But for one moment they played nice, and they prayed. (For more from the author of “Why Is Every Political Party and Independents, Terrified of Clinton and the People Around Her?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why Is Every Political Party and Independents, Terrified of Clinton and the People Around Her?

October 22, 2016/1 Comment/in Featured, Opinion /by David Malekar

Never in the history of our country, have we seen a general collaboration of the Republican, Green, Libertarian, and Constitution Parties against the War Machine that is Hillary Clinton.

You can be a supporter of any of these four parties and still unanimously agree that Clinton is a criminal and the Democratic Party is rigging this election.

The fact that all four of these major parties are in complete agreement should scream “WARNING” to those who are even remotely considering voting for Clinton.

I can’t comprehend it.

Then again, we can’t comprehend it. We don’t understand Clinton voters because we have actually read at least one article that shows the amount of war and body trail that Clinton administrations have left behind. The lies that have been told. The fraud that has been committed.

Hillary’s voters have not read one article about her that exposes who they are, without dismissing it immediately to being “just bad guys talking about a nice old woman.”

I’ve spoken to Clinton supporters. They are very unaware to what she really is. Look at Clinton’s Facebook. It’s nothing but stories of a nice old woman that’s “fighting for women and kids.” This is all they know about Clinton because this is all they see. Their environment is safe from the truth because they don’t read online news. They see what’s on TV once in a while, painting the Third-Parties as “never having a chance” and “a wasted vote.” The only talk about Trump being “racist,” a “sexist,” this, that, and whatever. These people have a closed world view that everyone other than Hillary is “the bad guy” and we will be destroying the country for women and children.

This is crunch time. This is the final showdown. The Globalist Bankers want to usher in Clinton to allow them to continue to rob the American people of their money and rights in broad daylight. You have to be gentle as they already view you as “the enemy.” While frustrating, be patient with a Clinton supporter and explain that they should take a look at why every political party in America is terrified of a Clinton Presidency. Ask them to just think about that. When Jill Stein and Donald Trump are agreeing that Clinton is a threat to all of our safety and the world, maybe it will be enough for the idea to hit them to look at all the things that are being said.

We can’t afford another 4 to 8 years of what has felt like one giant Presidential term since Bill Clinton. War since him through Bush to Obama. Poverty and recession. Big banks getting bailed out and avoiding criminal justice. American citizens being killed by the militarized police state and the massive incarceration by the prison industrial complex. We can’t as a nation afford this.

Please, Clinton voters. We are asking that you simply ask the simple question, “Why is every political party and independents, terrified of Clinton and the people around her?” If she’s truly the nice woman that wants to take care of women and children, why are we so scared of this? Just, please, think about it. Then start reading the articles we are sharing, listen to the things we are saying. All we ask is that you look and see what we are talking about and why we do. (For more from the author of “Why Is Every Political Party and Independents, Terrified of Clinton and the People Around Her?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Will Republicans Help Fix Obamacare?

October 22, 2016/0 Comments/in Featured, Opinion /by Joshua Withrow

After years of denial and outright lies (“If you like your plan, you can keep it!”), President Obama has recently been forced to acknowledge that his signature law has some big issues — and he’s asking Republicans to join him in fixing it. Only half-joking, Obama quipped at a Hillary Clinton campaign event:

They can change the name of the law to “Reagancare,” or they can call it “Paul Ryancare.” I don’t care about credit. I just want it to work!

And regardless of who controls the White House or Congress in 2017, Republicans may well oblige him. Fixing Obamacare, that is, not calling it “Reagancare.”

Many Republican politicians continue to insist they support repealing and replacing Obamacare. Repeal and a fresh start is what ought to happen in a sane world, given that even Democrats who helped pass the law acknowledge it’s a “trainwreck”.

But given that many Republican leaders never truly supported repeal in the first place, when the effort to merely patch up Obamacare begins, a great many of the GOP will assuredly (feigning reluctance) go with the flow.

The shift from “repeal” to “fix” came early, with Republican leaders warning even before the law came into full effect that Obamacare was “the law of the land” and that we can only hope to work around it. Even the one bold stand Republicans took against Obamacare, resulting in a protracted government shutdown in 2013, was undercut by GOP leadership from the start and accomplished nothing.

What many Republicans and conservatives appear to fear even more than Obamacare is disruption in the health insurance markets. Indeed, they might be said to agree in large part with a very salient observation Hillary made in the second presidential debate:

Look, we are in a situation in our country where if we were to start all over again, we might come up with a different system. But we have an employer-based system. That’s where the vast majority of people get their health care.

The entire health insurance market is organized around a government-altered structure, caused by the massive disadvantage in the cost of individual health insurance versus employer-provided benefits, which are tax-exempt.

Insurers sell the majority of their policies via employers and groups, and middle-class Americans in particular, have become accustomed to getting their benefits this way over several generations. Thus politically, there is a massive incentive to fill the gap in coverage for individuals by just finding the least painful way to give government subsidies in the individual market.

Trying alternative solutions — like letting market forces actually work in health care — would bring a torrent of angry insurance lobbyists to Congress, worried that new policies might endanger their market share.

And, of course, voters are nervous about change as well. For the majority of folks, the current screwed-up system works just tolerably well enough that the prospect of moving away from it in a fundamental way is daunting.

Never mind that just getting everybody on an insurance plan does next to nothing in terms of actually making health care more affordable. In fact, the better and lower deductible that insurance coverage gets, the more it encourages people to overconsume health care services and to ignore the costs because they don’t pay them out of pocket anyways. The price of health care then becomes a struggle between insurers and hospitals and doctors, all deciding how much services will cost in a process patients never see.

But attaining “insurance for all” is easier for politicians to sell than removing government shackles from the health care industry and letting market forces do their work.

Instead of focusing on lowering actual health care costs and improving patient outcomes, even most conservative solutions are more focused on just increasing Americans’ dependence on the third-party payment structure — whether by the government or by insurance carriers. It’s not their intention, perhaps, but if your goal is merely “universal coverage,” that’s the inevitable result.

Moving forward, I’ll be writing about alternatives to the third-party payment model and about how conservatives should focus on allowing patient choice and innovation in the health care marketplace.

The only way out of this broken health care mess is though choice and competition — not just competition within government-managed insurance markets, but competition with the entire insurance model itself. (For more from the author of “Will Republicans Help Fix Obamacare?” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Brat: 5 Ways the Next Congress Can Protect Gun Rights

October 22, 2016/0 Comments/in Featured, Opinion /by Dave Brat

President Obama’s famous words on executive actions, “I’ve got a pen and I’ve got a phone” was not reflective of a temporary mindset. No, this is how all future liberal presidents plan to govern. Hillary Clinton, if elected president, will need to be checked by a Republican Congress in every issue area. She will especially need to be checked on the issue of firearms.

Hillary Clinton sadly misunderstands our fundamental right to keep and bear arms. Earlier this year, Mrs. Clinton remarked, “I do support comprehensive background checks, and to close the gun show loophole, and the online loophole, and what’s call the Charleston loophole, and to prevent people on the no-fly list from getting guns.” Americans are rightfully concerned that if Congress continues to miss opportunities to pass pro-gun related policy, one president can forever change our Second Amendment.

The president’s increasingly large share of power, through agencies and departments, threatens our very republic. In order to safeguard our liberties against not only future presidents, but against the rulemaking process, Republicans in Congress need to have an agenda.

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is one of the many great ideas our country was founded upon. Our founders envisioned the right for we the people to privately keep and bear arms.

Most on the Left, and some on the Right, hold contempt for the Second Amendment and would love to see it further restricted. The Left finds it inconceivable that citizens should be able to own firearms.

I hold the view that the individual right to own a firearm is protected by our Second Amendment. The founders were specific in their language when the words “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

As the Left continues to beat the drum of gun control, few on the Right have laid out an agenda to further protect and advance gun rights. If the Republican-controlled House wants to continue to fight for gun rights and prohibit the next presidential administration from over stepping their Constitutional restraints, the House should move forward on a plan to do so. Here are just some of the ways Congress can take back their Constitutional obligation of legislating.

First, the House should take up and pass Concealed Carry Reciprocity. There were two such bills in the House this Congress, H.R. 923 the “Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act” sponsored by retiring Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind. (B, 80%) and H.R. 986 the “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act” sponsored by Rep. Richard Hudson, R-N.C. (D, 61%). Both bills, of which I am a cosponsor, would dramatically expand the right of concealed carry permit holders. Gun owners should not have to seek permission to exercise their constitutionally protected rights.

Second, the House should take up and pass H.R. 2001, the “Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act” sponsored by Jeff Miller, R-Fla. (C, 73%), similar legislation that provides Veterans due process protections, or restrict federal funds from being used by the Veterans Administration (VA) to categorize individuals as “mentally defective”. The VA has been using legal definitions to disarm lawful veteran firearm owners. Under current law, when a veteran has a fiduciary appointed to manage their benefits, the VA deems those to be “mentally defective.” The VA has been reporting to the National Criminal Background Check System (NICS) this list of veterans which makes it illegal for them to own a firearm. The practice of stripping veterans from owning firearms is inconceivable and should be stopped.

Third, Congress should reel in the administrative state by passing H.R. 2710 the “Lawful Purpose and Self Defense Act” sponsored by Rob Bishop, R-Utah (D, 65%). According to the sponsor, “This bill will reign in the Obama Administration and the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives]. The ATF has attempted to ban ammunition used in the popular AR-15 rifle. The bill will eliminate the ATF’s illegitimate authority to prohibit this .223 caliber ammunition. This legislation will also eliminate ambiguity in current code that could allow the ATF and the Administration to restrict certain types of shotgun shells that are used for self-defense.” Any presidential administration should not be using executive orders or directives from agencies to circumvent Congress. Passing legislation to reign in Article 1 powers and protect the Second Amendment should be a no brainer.

Fourth, block any and all attempts to pass legislation that could jeopardize individual’s due process through secret government watch lists. There has been a substantial push from some in Congress to ban the ownership of firearms for those on terrorist watch lists. Terrorists should not be allowed to purchase or possess firearms. Terrorists caught trying to purchase a firearm should be immediately taken to court, the transfer of the firearm should be blocked, and the terrorist arrested — end of story. At the same time, wrongfully listed Americans, like Representative Tom McClintock, R-Calif. (B, 85%) should not be denied their right to purchase a firearm. Banning people who are on secret government watch lists from owning firearms is not the solution. American’s right to due process needs to be protected.

Fifth, the Office of the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Justice just recently released a report titled, “Audit of the Handling of Firearms Purchases Denials Through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.” As the title suggests, the report identifies just how the DOJ handles occurrences where a firearm transfer has been delayed or denied. The report brings to light something pro-gun supporters have been saying for a while: the DOJ has the tools to prosecute criminals, it’s just not interested in using them. If, according to anti-gun politicians and organizations, everyone who is denied the transfer of a firearm as a result of a NICS denial is a dangerous person, why is the DOJ not interested in enforcing current law? Anti-gun politicians and presidential administrations can’t call for the expansion of the NICS system, but then neglect their duty to enforce current law. Anti-gun politicians simply want to make it harder for lawful citizens to own firearms. The House should be encouraging the administration and the Attorney General to faithfully execute the laws on the books.

It’s long past time for Republicans in Congress to advance an agenda that is not dictated by K-Street and wealthy elites. Americans are hungry for Republicans to stand up and fight on issues that they care about. It is without question that our fundamental Second Amendment right is one of those issues. (For more from the author of “Brat: 5 Ways the Next Congress Can Protect Gun Rights” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Refugee and Asylum Crisis: ‘Vetted’ Iraqi Refugee Pleads Guilty to Supporting ISIS

October 22, 2016/0 Comments/in Featured, News /by Daniel Horowitz

Last month, Francis Taylor, the DHS Under Secretary of the Office of Intelligence and Analysis, told the House Committee on Homeland Security that “refugees are subject to the highest level of security checks of any category of traveler to the United States.” Well, earlier this week, an Iraqi refugee plead guilty in federal court on charges of attempting to give material support to the Islamic State. If one man can evade the “highest level of security checks,” time will only tell how many others pose a security risk.

In January, Omar Faraj Saeed Al Hardan, 24, who was brought here as a refugee in 2009, was arrested in Houston on charges of attempting to provide material support to ISIS. According to the plea agreement in court this week, Al Hardan wanted to blow up two malls in the Houston area. “I want to blow myself up. I want to travel with the Mujahidin. I want to travel to be with those who are against America. I am against America,” said Al Hardan, according to the local CBS affiliate. According to the FBI special agent involved in the case, Al Hardan was working with another Iraqi refugee, Aws Mohammed Younis Al-Jayab, 23, who was brought in as a refugee in October 2012 and just 13 months later allegedly flew to Syria to fight for terror groups in the warn-torn country. Al-Jayab is in jail in Chicago awaiting trial.

That is some vetting system we have in place. Al-Jayab allegedly wrote to a friend last year that “America will not isolate me from my Islamic duty.” But rest easy, we are promised that the over 150,000 Muslim immigrants we will bring in this year alone will easily assimilate into American culture.

According to the State Department’s refugee database, America has admitted roughly 135,000 Iraqi refugees since FY 2008 — with no sign of the pace abating. Ever since Congress gave Obama a blank check for his refugee increase last month, Obama has already accelerated the pace of Syrian refugees on top of the existing flow of Iraqi refugees. The reality is that even if the administration had a solid vetting system in place — which they don’t — there is no way to vet a mentality within Sharia law. How many more of these individuals subscribe to the mindset of “America will not isolate me from my Islamic duty?” And this is not even a belief the administration cares to weed out through social media.

What is evidenced from this case in Houston is that it doesn’t take many bad apples to wreak havoc on our homeland. Al Hardan taught himself how to make bombs and use automatic weapons, all for the purpose of large-scale attacks .

In addition to the gaping security hole in our refugee program, Obama’s other legacy has been the destruction of the even more perilous asylum process. While refugees are processed overseas, asylum seekers are able to show up on our shores and declare a credible fear of persecution even when their claim is specious. A new report from the Center for Immigration Studies shows that applications for asylum seekers have increased ten-fold since 2009! According to Jessica Vaughn, 90 percent of these applications have been approved, even though many of them have traditionally been rejected due to fraud. Yet, thanks to Obama’s illegal executive action granting asylum-seekers parole pending the outcome of their application (which is usually approved), instead of keeping them in custody as the law dictates, our country has become a magnate for asylum seekers. Although most of the asylum seekers are from Central America, there are concerns about Middle Easterners travelling to Central American countries via Greece and applying for asylum there. The U.S. Southern Command admitted to at least 30,000 “from countries of terrorist concern” crossing over our southern border in 2016. (For more from the author of “The Refugee and Asylum Crisis: ‘Vetted’ Iraqi Refugee Pleads Guilty to Supporting ISIS ” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What the US Needs to Do About Russia’s Cyberattacks

October 22, 2016/0 Comments/in Featured, International /by Joe Miller

The U.S. finally is ramping up its response to Russian cyberattacks. Good.

The bad news is our response shows how ill thought-out both our strategy toward Russia and our policies for retaliating against malicious cyber operations are.

Russia has been linked to many cyber incidents, most notably the hack of the Democratic National Committee and subsequent email leak that led to the resignation of Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., as party chairman.

Vice President Joe Biden, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, and other parts of the U.S. intelligence community now publicly blame Russia for these breaches.

Russia’s cyber aggression recently has been aimed at the U.S. presidential election, making many Americans concerned about Russian interference in our political system. Indeed, that’s the point: Russia long has used information and psychological warfare to attack and undermine those who oppose it.

In an interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd recorded Oct. 13, Biden said an upcoming retaliatory strike “will be at the time of our choosing, and under the circumstances that will have the greatest impact.”

The vice president said he hoped it would go unnoticed by the American public. Openly hinting that a covert action soon may be underway probably wasn’t the best decision, though.

The United States has indicted hackers from China and Iran in the recent past.

In 2014, the Justice Department filed charges against five Chinese military hackers for computer hacking and economic espionage. It was the first time in American history that the government charged a state actor for that type of hacking.

In March 2016, the government charged seven Iranian hackers for conducting a coordinated campaign of cyberattacks against the U.S. financial sector.

But while indicting hackers is a step in the right direction, these limited responses from the U.S. are not effectively deterring countries such as Russia.

So it’s good to see the Obama administration seriously contemplating how to retaliate for Russian aggression in cyberspace. However, it already should have had a strategy in place for how it would respond. The U.S. has faced ever-increasing cyberespionage, breaches, and attacks over the past decade, but does not yet know what it will do.

The response from the U.S. should have been as swift as possible, using one of many tools at our disposal: cyber action of our own, legal action, sanctions, increased support to nations threatened by Russia, and so on. But better late than never.

And this should not be a one-time deal. The U.S. should make this type of retaliation a more regular occurrence.

While retaliation and providing evidence to justify it must be balanced with keeping intelligence secrets, the U.S. has done little to publicly push back against bad actors. More must be done.

Nor should the U.S. be alone in this effort. The U.S. should coordinate with allies and other partners affected by malicious cyber operations in pushing back against the nations behind that aggression. More effective responses will help deter these nations from acting so aggressively in the first place.

When foreign governments compromise our nation’s cybersecurity, the United States cannot rely on words or speeches as deterrence. A firm response sends a clear message and conveys American resolve. (For more from the author of “What the US Needs to Do About Russia’s Cyberattacks” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Voters to Decide Legality of Physician-Assisted Suicide in Colorado

October 22, 2016/0 Comments/in Featured, Kathleen's Korner /by Rachel del Guidice

Colorado could become the sixth state to make physician-assisted suicide legal when voters go the polls next month.

Called Proposition 106, the ballot question in Colorado would allow a “terminally ill individual” to request and self-administer “aid-in-dying medication” as a way to end his or her life voluntarily. Whoever seeks assisted suicide would have to have a prognosis to live six months or less.

Jeff Hunt, director of the Centennial Institute, a conservative think tank affiliated with Colorado Christian University, is leading the fight against the ballot initiative.

A Colorado-based group called Compassion & Choices “has been trying to push this measure through for the past two years,” Hunt said in a phone interview with The Daily Signal. “This measure has failed because it has faced opposition from both Democrats and Republicans who realize that it is bad for the state of Colorado.”

Compassion & Choices describes itself as an organization that campaigns for expanding “end-of-life options,” including what some call the right to die.

“For most people with a terminal illness, hospice and palliative care are the right fit,” Holly Armstrong, spokeswoman for the campaign in Colorado, said in a statement to The Daily Signal, adding:

But sometimes even the best care cannot relieve pain and suffering. People in that situation should have a range of options for treatment.

Physician-assisted suicide is legal in California, Oregon, Vermont, Washington, and Montana.

While many see it as a way to end suffering, Hunt told The Daily Signal, the implications of the practice go much further.

“Doctor-assisted suicide is sold as a personal decision to end suffering at the end of a person’s life,” he said. “Those pushing for its legalization say that it allows a terminally ill patient in his or her very last days to part with loved ones in peace.”

If passed, the initiative would amend Colorado law to allow physician-assisted suicide.

What supporters of Proposition 106 are not saying, Hunt said, is that, if passed, the measure would affect many more people than those who request the procedure. He said:

In Oregon and Washington state, where physician-assisted suicide is already legal, individuals with terminal illnesses are getting letters from their insurance companies that are saying, ‘Your medication is too expensive for us to continue your coverage. However, we will pay the $100 for you to terminate your life through doctor-assisted suicide.’

In the states where physician-assisted suicide is already legal, Hunt said, the medical and insurance communities are restricting the choice to live. This should not be the case at all, he said, due to the advanced nature of hospice care today.

“The hospice community has come a long way in providing great hospice care for those who are in their very last stages in life. Walking down this path of legalization of doctor-assisted suicide is dangerous for Colorado,” he said.

Hunt said Proposition 106 also singles out the disabled.

“Organizations who advocate for the disabled are especially against the measure because the disabled community is especially targeted by this measure,” he said.

Hunt also noted a lack of oversight, saying:

With doctor-assisted suicide, there is no oversight or review from an outside party. The only oversight or review that occurs is from the doctor who is administering the death.

Hunt cited a 2005 statement from Dr. Katrina Hedberg, state epidemiologist and health officer in the Oregon Public Health Division, saying his concerns echo hers: “We are not given the resources to investigate [assisted-suicide cases] and not only do we not have the resources to do it, but we do not have any legal authority to insert ourselves.”

Melody Wood, a research assistant in the DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation, said legalization is ripe for abuse.

“Physician-assisted suicide is bad policy that corrupts the practice of medicine,” Wood said. “Assisted suicide laws lead to the marginalization of the weak and persons with disabilities, and can easily be abused. Those nearing the end of their lives should be treated with true compassion and appropriate care, not told that they would be better off dead.”

Hunt said Colorado’s younger population tends to be more favorable toward legalizing physician-assisted suicide, while older residents increasingly are against it.

“If young people are already pro-life, they are very much opposed to this bill,” he said. “General polling shows that the younger population is more supportive of it. However, the older they get, the more people oppose it, because they see the implications it will have on the state of Colorado.”

Hunt said the state’s churches and other religious organizations are sharing their positions on Proposition 106.

“The faith community is working together to educate their respective churches on this issue,” he said. “The Catholic Church is aggressively doing outreach against the measure. The Denver Archdiocese has released three sermons on this proposition for pastors to use in educating their congregations about doctor-assisted suicide. The Mormon community and Eastern Orthodox community are also working against it.” (For more from the author of “Voters to Decide Legality of Physician-Assisted Suicide in Colorado” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Student Loan Forgiveness Won’t Solve the $1.3 Trillion Problem

October 22, 2016/0 Comments/in Featured, News /by Mary Clare Reim

With outstanding student loan debt now exceeding $1.3 trillion, it is no wonder that the sticker price of college tuition has gotten a lot of attention in 2016. Yet few proposals have gotten to the root of the college cost problem.

Despite overwhelming evidence that more federal subsidies for higher education increase tuition prices, policies such as “tuition-free” or “debt-free” public college are attracting attention. But such plans do nothing to address price increases and shift more of the financial burden onto taxpayers.

Unfortunately, discussions of higher education policy have increasingly fixated on proposals that would fail to address college costs, and would instead exacerbate prices by creating the wrong incentives for both universities and students.

Income-based repayment, which caps loan repayments at a percentage of a student’s discretionary income, became more generous under the Obama administration.

When the program was instituted in 2007, repayments were capped at 15 percent of discretionary income. That amount fell to just 10 percent of discretionary income under President Barack Obama, and, as George Leef, of the John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy, notes, included “zero measures intended to prevent students from binging on foolhardy borrowing.” The Pope Center is a nonprofit that advocates improving higher education.

In addition to more generous income-based repayment terms, loans are now forgiven after 20 years of payments—or just 10 years if a graduate takes a public sector job. The George W. Bush administration had previously set loan forgiveness at 25 years. Some have suggested even shortening those terms further.

Encouraging more students to borrow to attend college with the knowledge that their loans will eventually be forgiven will worsen current higher education costs.

Removing the bulk of a student’s financial responsibility from repaying a loan he or she has agreed to take out will encourage more students to borrow to attend college regardless of whether or not this is a smart financial decision for them.

Meanwhile, colleges and universities will continue to take advantage of ever-increasing federal subsidies and—if history is any guide—continue to raise their tuition prices. Furthermore, American taxpayers, many of whom do not hold bachelor’s degrees themselves, will then be asked to pick up the tab for loan forgiveness.

As more students take out federal loans to finance college, and as federal subsidies continue to crowd out the private loan market, policymakers must begin to address the actual drivers of college costs. In order to reduce college costs, federal subsidies should be limited to make way for a restoration of private lending in the marketplace.

The federal government, as an originator and servicer of student loans, is not and should not be in the position of determining loan terms based on the perceived value of the education students are getting. By contrast, private lenders are in a better position to set loan terms based on student factors such as likelihood to repay, co-signer credit worthiness, school type, and major.

In a paper written by Andrew Kelly and Kevin James, the authors explain that private lenders can take into account “backward-looking” measures, such as a parent’s FICO mortgage score, or “forward-looking” factors such as the likelihood of completing a program and average starting salaries.

They note that “by including factors beyond traditional credit measures, these lenders can identify prospects who may lack a credit history but would likely be able to repay a loan after school.”

Unfortunately, as Leef notes, “the deck is stacked against private lenders growing very much.” He said:

One reason the authors point out is that federal law requires financial aid officers to encourage students to exhaust their government borrowing before they go into the private market. There is an obstacle to sensible higher ed financing that ought to be eliminated.

But even if we could get rid of that rule, the problem remains that federal loans are so easy and attractive (low interest rates and the prospect of partial forgiveness of the debt) that few students will even think about going into the private market.

Loan forgiveness, much like proposals for “free” public college, is misguided policy that ignores the $1.3 trillion problem. More big government solutions are not the answer. A better option is to bring down college costs competitively so that students can finance their education in a reasonable manner.

To do this, policymakers should reform the existing accreditation system so that the market can offer new innovative higher education models, restructure federal aid to better direct it to those who need it, and limit federal subsidies to make way for a restoration of private lending models. (For more from the author of “Student Loan Forgiveness Won’t Solve the $1.3 Trillion Problem” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.