Conservatives Skeptical of White House’s Proposed Changes to Obamacare Replacement Bill

/0 Comments/in , /by

Less than two weeks since the collapse of Republicans’ plan to repeal and replace Obamacare, lawmakers and White House officials have revived talks aimed at crafting a health care bill that can make it through Congress.

But a new pitch from the White House designed to get conservative lawmakers on board, though in its early stages, already has left some conservatives skeptical.

“The goal for the Freedom Caucus has always been we want to see a reduction in [health insurance] prices. That’s still the bottom line,” Rep. Dave Brat, R-Va., told The Daily Signal. “We’re open to any package of ideas that gets us to that goal of lower premiums.”

“We’re still not quite there yet,” he said. “It’s not a heavy lift, and we always say we’re for free markets. Well, now we have to walk the walk here and get some free markets and drive the price down for the kids.”

The potential deal, on which details are beginning to trickle out, attempts to address conservatives’ most significant concern—they won’t support a health care bill that doesn’t result in lower premiums.

Vice President Mike Pence, joined by White House budget director Mick Mulvaney and President Donald Trump’s chief of staff, Reince Priebus, outlined the plan to woo conservatives Monday night during a Freedom Caucus meeting.

The potential agreement would allow states to apply for a waiver from the federal government to exempt them from some of Obamacare’s regulations, including the community rating provision, which prohibits insurers from charging sicker customers more through higher premiums.

The Trump administration is also looking at allowing states to opt out of the “essential health benefits” requirements implemented by Obamacare, a list of 10 services that plans are required to cover, and narrowing use of a $115 billion “stability fund” to be spent on high-risk insurance pools.

The approach again could open Republican lawmakers to the charge that, despite their campaign pledges, this particular bill would not repeal Obamacare in full.

“What we all need to acknowledge is that you either are going to keep the framework of Obamacare in place or say we’re going to not have the framework of Obamacare in place,” Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., told The Daily Signal.

“Right now, people are saying you Republicans promised to repeal Obamacare, and if you’re going to keep the framework in place so that states have to opt out, or if you have to rely on a bureaucrat, [then] Price is our bureaucrat,” Biggs said, referring to Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price. He added:

After this administration is over, we don’t know who the next bureaucrat will be. While Tom Price is going to go through and switch off all the light switches as he possibly can on the regulations, there’s no guarantee that the next person if they come from the other party won’t try to come in and put those switches back up. That’s really what people understand, and why I think they’re kind of skeptical about what the proposals are right now in Washington.

The initial pitch from the White House has piqued the interest of Biggs and other members of the Freedom Caucus, who have maintained that they’re open to negotiating. The group of conservative House members are set on unraveling Obamacare regulations that they say increased the price of premiums for Americans.

Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., the group’s chairman, told reporters Monday that the White House presented a “solid idea.” However, he said, the Freedom Caucus wants to see legislative text, which was expected by late Tuesday.

Biggs said he so far is “agnostic” about the proposal, but found the White House’s attempts to target Obamacare’s regulations “a little bit alluring.”

“There’s some interesting aspects of what was presented, and I think for me, I want to see the language of the bill and analyze the language of the proposal that we have,” he said.

Still, conservative lawmakers are wary of continued control by the federal government over the insurance market, since state governments would need Washington’s approval to opt out of the regulations.

“In one instance, the one I favor, [it’s totally] within the control of the state government to decide what insurance policy provisions best meet the needs of its citizens,” Rep. Mo Brooks, a Freedom Caucus member from Alabama, told The Daily Signal. “In the other instance, the state has to go hat in hand on bended knee, begging the federal government to allow the state to have influence over the insurance policy provisions that are best for that state’s residents.”

Brooks said the agreement presented Monday night to Freedom Caucus members was not one he would support. He said he wants to see Trump and Republican leaders make “larger strides in the direction of what America needs.”

The House GOP leadership’s negotiations over the original bill they said would begin to repeal and replace Obamacare came to a grinding halt March 24 after House Speaker Paul Ryan attempted to bring the legislation, called the American Health Care Act, to a vote.

Ryan withdrew the bill after opposition from conservatives and centrists indicated the votes weren’t there for it to pass.

After some conciliatory statements from Trump, though, came a flurry of criticism from the president. Trump took to his Twitter account to chastise members of the Freedom Caucus, and vowed instead to work with Democrats to reform the health care system.

Republicans are preparing to head home to their districts for a two-week recess, where they’re sure to face questions from constituents on their failed attempts to repeal and replace Obamacare.

But it’s unlikely the Republican conference will be able to send a health care bill to Trump’s desk before the lawmakers leave for home.

In a press conference Tuesday morning, Ryan told reporters that House Republicans were in the “conceptual stage.”

“It’s important that we don’t just win the votes of one caucus or one group, but that we get the votes and the consensus of 216 of our members,” Ryan, R-Wis., said.

Brat, too, dismissed the notion that the White House’s pitch was a “deal,” but instead said the proposal, alongside other provisions floated by Republican lawmakers, was a “good assembly of ideas.”

“We’re all just waiting to see a combination of policies that bring prices down,” Brat said. “We can all get to yes. We’re just all waiting for various policies and ways of putting it together. You’re managing one-fifth of the economy, so that’s not a small little bill.” (For more from the author of “Conservatives Skeptical of White House’s Proposed Changes to Obamacare Replacement Bill” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Border Buildup

/0 Comments/in , /by

The battles over how to pay for President Donald Trump’s proposed border wall are just getting started, but the administration is already calling for proposals from companies who would build it.

The wall is just one part of the White House plan to stop illegal immigrants crossing the southern border. There’s also going to be a hiring spree, with thousands of new Border Patrol agents and immigration officers added to the federal workforce. It’s not the first time this has been tried. I recently heard a cautionary tale from James Tomsheck, former head of internal affairs at Customs and Border Protection.

The following is from my interview with Tomsheck:

Attkisson: What is the potential downside of doing mass hirings all at once?

Tomsheck: I very much hope that those going forward with the initiative look at what we’ve learned when we executed the Border Patrol search of 2006-2008.

Attkisson: How many were hired in that surge?

Tomsheck: More than 10,000 in that period of time. It was done without many of the security protocols that are in place today.

Attkisson narration:

As we reported last year on “Full Measure,” the Border Patrol is a key target for Mexican drug cartels looking to infiltrate the force by getting their own operatives hired and or corrupting agents. The rewards of corruption can be enormous and it’s such a concern, the FBI has about two dozen border corruption task forces dedicated solely to rooting out officers on the take. Officer Michael Gilliland was caught on FBI surveillance video allegedly carrying a cash payoff in a bag. He pleaded guilty to letting in hundreds of illegal immigrants for $120,000 in bribes. Officer Margarita Crispin is serving 10 years for taking bribes to let marijuana through.

Attkisson: Is it accurate to say that drug dealers and drug cartel members were hired as part of the surge inadvertently?

Tomsheck: We certainly believe that to be the case. We do know that in the thousands of polygraph exams that we administered after the background investigation, more than half of those persons that cleared that background investigation failed the polygraph exam and provided detailed admissions as to why it was they failed the exam …

Included in that study group of more than 1,000 were persons who admitted that they were infiltrators, that they actually worked for a drug-trafficking organization, either on the U.S. side of the border or the Mexican side of the border, who had been directed to infiltrate CBP [Customs and Border Protection] and compromise what they do there.

Attkisson narration:

For most of the hiring spree of 2006 to 2008, polygraph exams weren’t required, which alarmed Tomsheck, who previously served in the U.S. Secret Service. He was instrumental in making lie detector tests mandatory for new Border Patrol agents.

Tomsheck: What we found in those first 100-plus exams that we did was genuinely shocking. They had included many persons who were actively involved in smuggling activity. Persons who very frequently used drugs were currently using controlled substances, and included persons involved in significant serious felony crimes.

Attkisson: As a man looking at corruption inside the agency, do you assume in retrospect that the agents were hired despite, perhaps, cartel contacts and other corruption issues?

Tomsheck: Unfortunately, I think it’s a virtual certainty that at least 5 percent of the workforce that was hired during that period of time are likely persons who have engaged in criminal misconduct and likely engaged in acts of corruption. And may have done so before they entered on duty with CBP.

Attkisson: In a sentence or a phrase, your best advice to the Trump administration on this?

Tomsheck: Move very cautiously. If there is a reduction in the security protocols to screen and vet applicants, I believe we will reduce and compromise the agency’s future integrity. (For more from the author of “The Border Buildup” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Coffee Shop’s Reward Card Makes It Look Like Trump, Conservatives Shot in Head

/0 Comments/in , , /by

A Pittsburgh coffee shop is offering incentives for its customers with a satirical punch card with images of President Donald Trump and conservative leaders.

The front of the rewards card is relatively benign, with 10 of the Black Forge Coffee House logos to punch, reports Fox News. But the back features 10 people management does not care for: Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, former Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, former Republican Gov. Mike Huckabee, infamous hedge fund founder Martin Shkreli, media mogul Pat Robertson, and three political pundits: Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh.

When staff perforate the card to keep track of the perk, a hole appears on the picture of the figure. Some say the punctures in the card, which can eventually be redeemed for a free cup of coffee, make it look like the conservative icons are being shot in the head.

“We are definitely not advocating violence,” said Nick Miller, co-owner of the Black Forge Coffee House, according to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. “This is purely political satire statement and an expression of frustration with the system” . . .

“It’s definitely been a rough couple of days. It escalated quickly and not to the intent that we wanted,” Ashley Corts, co-owner of the heavy metal themed shop, said in reference to the amount of adverse reactions they have received. According to Corts, several people called and made threatening statements, such as the suggestion that “someone should put bullets in our heads.”

(Read more from “Coffee Shop’s Reward Card Makes It Look Like Trump, Conservatives Shot in Head” HERE)

Ex-Navy SEAL Creates Veterans Organization to Expose Pedophiles and Rescue Trafficked Children

/0 Comments/in , /by

To those paying attention, they are able to see the world has a horrifying problem with pedophilia and child trafficking. They are also able to see that the corporate media and the ruling class do very little to expose it — and, in fact, are often exposed for participating in it. However, an ex-Navy SEAL and several other veterans are attempting to stop this.

Veterans For Child Rescue (V4CR), as they note on their new website, “was formed specifically to EXPOSE that which has been covered up and suppressed – the dark and disgusting world of pedophile trafficking rings. These rings include members from every level of our society and involve unthinkable trauma inflicted upon innocent babies and children – the soul of our nation.”

The group, which is in the process of forming a 501c3 non-profit, was started by Former Navy SEAL Craig Sawyer and their aim is simple — expose child trafficking across the nation and save children from torture.

“Until now, pedophiles have enjoyed a counter-productive level of privacy from the media. That puts more children at risk,” a crowd-funding page for the organization states.

Together, we can work with federal and local law enforcement to help arrest these predators and liberate the child victims.

According to Veterans for Child Rescue, the members of the group make ups a VIPR Team (Veterans Investigating Pedophile Rings), and come from the highest levels of Military Special Operations, Federal Law Enforcement, International Counter-Poaching Operations, The Intelligence Community, The Diplomatic Community and Film & Television.

“This abuse must first be brought to light before it can be cleaned up. V4CR was created to shine that light! We will expose this crisis through joint operations with law enforcement and sharing the truth in an unflinching television documentary-series for the world to see. Through this, we hope to force stronger punitive legislation and create a non-permissive public environment to help reverse this life-shattering trend of abuse,” a statement on the group’s website reads.

As the Free Thought Project has consistently reported, these sickos dominate positions of authority and high-level government roles — worldwide. And when people come forward to expose them, they are met by the Praetorian guard who quickly labels such talk as conspiracy theory and pushes it to the fringe.

The YouCaring page that was set up to raise money for V4CR was pulled without notice on Friday and they were not given a reason, except that it was in “violation of our terms of service.”

While there is definitely no shortage of conspiracy theories on the matter, the facts we do know are horrific enough to cause grave concern.

As the Free Thought Project has pointed out, pedophilia among the elite is rampant. The problem has gotten so bad in England that officials issued an order last month to stop naming streets and landmarks after local heroes and politicians because they could later be exposed as pedophiles.

In February, the Free Thought Project reported on the fact that the police chief recently came forward and confirmed that the former Prime Minister of England, Sir Edward Heath, had raped dozens of children. The department also noted how those within the government helped cover up these crimes.

In December, we reported on the massive child sex ring that was blown apart in Norway. That investigation quickly led to arrests of “51 people, all men, (who) are so far involved in the case. 24 of them come from Hordaland and Sogn og Fjordane. 26 come from other areas of Norway, from Southeast to Finnmark in the north. Among the accused offenders, there is also one Swedish national. Two politicians, one Labor politician from Oslo and a former national Progress Party (FrP) politician from Eastern Norway are involved in the case.” One is also a kindergarten teacher, and four of the 51 arrested were perpetrators in the video evidence collected.

Domestically, however, these higher level arrests are few and far between as anytime ‘the elite’ are mentioned alongside the term ‘pedophile,’ the corporate media, shout down all those who dare pose any questions.

Case in point, former speaker of the house, Dennis Hastert.

In January, admitted child rapist and former speaker of the house who is currently in jail, Dennis Hastert came across our radar after he demanded one of the children he raped pay back the hush money given to him by Hastert — because he broke his silence about the rape.

Hastert admitted to raping little boys, yet he’s in jail for fraud, not pedophilia.

The good news is that because people are refusing to be silenced, the coverage of human trafficking even hit the mainstream last month in a horrifying episode of Dr. Phil. A former victim, who was born into the sex trafficking trade, came forward to implicate high-level government officials as well as police and civilians in their role in the trade.

According to the anti-Human Trafficking group, Polaris, located in D.C., the number of trafficked humans in the US is startling.

Since 2007, the National Human Trafficking Hotline, operated by Polaris, has received reports of 22,191 sex trafficking cases inside the United States.

In 2016, the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children estimated that 1 in 6 endangered runaways reported to them were likely sex trafficking victims.

The International Labor Organization estimates that there are 4.5 million people trapped in forced sexual exploitation globally.

In a 2014 report, the Urban Institute estimated that the underground sex economy ranged from $39.9 million in Denver, Colorado, to $290 million in Atlanta, Georgia.

It is time to do something about this madness — and V4CR is doing just that. In spite of YouCaring pulling down their fundraiser, the group has started another at GoFundMe. As of Monday, they’ve already raised close to ten percent of their $500,000 goal.

(For more from the author of “Ex-Navy SEAL Creates Veterans Organization to Expose Pedophiles and Rescue Trafficked Children” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

What the Death of the Penny Means for Our Money

/0 Comments/in , /by

The dollar’s reign as the world reserve currency will come to an end some day. But before that happens, the penny will likely go into the dustbin of monetary history.

U.S. pennies have already been debased – going from 95% copper before 1982 to just 2.5% copper (and 97.5% zinc) since. Now there’s a push afoot in the Senate to junk the penny entirely.

All the sound and fury Republican leaders made about repealing Obamacare signified nothing. They aren’t eager to betray the healthcare lobby, insurance providers, and pharmaceutical companies who worked with Congress to write the law and who paid so handsomely into campaign funds. They would rather betray voters.

Supporters of eliminating the penny note that it no longer makes any economic sense to produce them.

They argue that few people would care if their purchases were rounded to the nearest $0.05, as is now done in Canada.

That’s pretty much true. You cannot buy anything for one cent anymore. The days of penny arcades are long gone.

The decline of the value of the penny toward functional obsolescence is a sad statement about our monetary system. But rather than address the underlying problem of inflation and exploding national debt, politicians like John McCain want to just eliminate the evidence of the financial establishment’s misdeeds.

According the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ own historical inflation data, a penny in 1913 (the year the Federal Reserve was created) had the same buying power as a quarter does today. But decades of steady currency devaluation through inflation have taken their toll on our once valuable circulating coins.

Even though pennies are no longer made of copper and may soon be on their way out of circulation entirely, copper pennies haven’t disappeared.

There is still a market for them based on their intrinsic copper value.

Money Metals Exchange sells pre-1983 copper pennies by the pound. While far less valuable by weight than silver, copper pennies could come in handy in barter situations. They also provide diversification into an alternative industrial metal that could become scarcer and pricier in the years ahead.

And even though dimes and quarters are no longer made of silver (as of 1965), today there is a thriving retail market for pre-1965 U.S. silver coins. They typically sell based on their silver melt value plus a small bullion-like premium.

Sometimes premiums for these historic coins surge when retail supplies become tight. But today you can obtain 90% silver dimes, quarters, and half-dollars at historically low premiums – making this category of retail silver product the best overall value currently available in our opinion. You get a low-premium entry point plus the potential for a “doubly play” profit if buy-back premiums rise down the road. (For more from the author of “What the Death of the Penny Means for Our Money” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Terror in St. Petersburg: What You Need to Know

/0 Comments/in , /by

Russia’s St. Petersburg subway train system was hit with major explosions Monday afternoon, resulting in the deaths of at least 12 people and dozens of casualties, Russian media said.

Here’s what you need to know about the underground chaos caused from a suspected terror attack.

1. What happened?

At least one explosive device, reportedly resembling a nail bomb, detonated at a main junction in the St. Petersburg metro system. The metro has been completely shut down so that police can investigate the matter and prevent further potential attacks.

The incident occurred at about 2:40 p.m. local time. Russian strongman Vladimir Putin has indicated that the explosion is being investigated as a possible act of terrorism. Putin expressed his condolences, as he was in St. Petersburg for a forum with the president of Belarus, a close ally of Russia.

Police have found and deactivated an additional unexploded bomb in a separate station, according to reports.

Social media users posted photos and video of the carnage that unfolded after the explosion.

2. Who is responsible?

At least one witness told the media that a man threw a backpack onto the train just prior to the explosion. The backpack reportedly contained a nail bomb, which is similar to the explosives used by the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing terrorists.

Russia faces an increasingly radicalizing Islamic population. Many Russian nationals from Chechnya have gone off to the Middle East to fight for ISIS and other terror groups. At least 2,400 Russians have gone to fight for ISIS since 2014, according to studies.

Russian news agency Interfax reports that surveillance footage may have captured an image of the attack’s suspect.

3. What’s next?

The attack may be taken especially personally for Russian President Putin, who was born in and long served as a government official in St. Petersburg, a city of over 5 million. The Russian autocrat has a track record of dealing with Islamic terror threats with a heavy hand.

From his early military campaigns in Dagestan to the current civil war in Syria, Putin has utilized indiscriminate bombing campaigns to clamp down on insurgencies and protect his interests.

The state-controlled RT is providing live coverage of the incident’s aftermath.

(For more from the author of “Terror in St. Petersburg: What You Need to Know” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

And Then You Can Kill the Baby … Provided You Read the Right Font First

/0 Comments/in , /by

Down through the annals of time, there have been some memorable quotes to inspire humanity to do away with grave injustices.

Recall this recognizable abolitionist battle cry: “You can’t own another human being unless his papers are properly notarized!”

Riveting.

Or maybe you’ll remember how the women’s suffrage movement was spurred to action by Susan B. Anthony’s “if you like it, then you should’ve put a ring on it.”
Spine tingling.

I could go on citing others, but they would all pale in comparison to this ultimate mic drop courtesy of the Kansas state legislature: “you can’t kill that baby until you read our 12-point, Times New Roman font first!”

That’s right. The latest “pro-life” bill from one of the reddest states in the Union says it’s okay to kill a kid, provided you read some disclaimer information first. Which the state demands be written in 12-point, Times New Roman font. Apparently we’re now more concerned about layout uniformity than we are when life begins, or the One we’re responsible to for not protecting it.

Move over Braveheart, Knute Rockne, and Winston Churchill — for you now have company in the fiery quote department. C.S. Lewis, J.R.R Tolkien, or Maya Angelou, couldn’t have coined a phrase any better. In fact, it might just be time to go ahead and retire the English language altogether after this. For I can’t imagine anyone commanding our native tongue with more panache.

I kid, though, because I care.

For several reasons, the pro-life cause is my top priority. To wit:

It’s more than a litmus test, it’s a window to the soul. If I’ve learned one thing during my decade-plus in politics, it’s that I can tell you exactly how principled and trusted an elected official will be based solely on their stance on life.

It’s the gateway unalienable right. As Reagan once said, “All of your other God-given rights are sort of a moot point if you don’t have the right to life.”

The most precious natural resource for any civilization is its children. They represent future existence itself, let alone a culture’s hopes for the next generation, and the sustaining of its way of life. For example, who knows what precious talent has been wasted among the 56 million American babies we’ve killed the past 44 years. Could one of them have discovered the cure for cancer, pioneered a new clean and renewable energy source, or made some other transformative contribution to society?

My 15-year old mother had a choice to make once Roe v. Wade was declared. Thankfully, for me, she chose life when so many others in her situation did not. Nothing drives home the point of what we’re really talking about here than realizing you were one decision away from being unjustifiably executed.

Finally, if those reasons aren’t good enough for you try this one. The maker of Heaven and Earth, not exactly a being you want to be on the wrong side of, says He “hates hands that shed innocent blood.”

More Americans have perished via the abortion holocaust than all the wars this country has fought in combined. If the amount of persons we’ve killed via abortion were their own country, they’d be the 24th most populous nation on Earth. With more people than Spain, South Africa, Iraq, Australia, and Canada.

Needless to say, the abortion holocaust is the moral crisis of the age. And yet, when staring into the mouth of madness, the best we can muster against such evil is this bureaucratic drivel. But before you get on your high horse, consider this is actually an upgrade compared to what some pro-lifers were advocating in Montana in 2015. Where they wanted a bill that said it was perfectly fine to kill a kid provided he/she was anesthetized first.

At least what Kansas is pulling here is just another lame attempt to earn some pro-life Webelos badge for politicians, so they can claim they did something by doing nothing. I mean, could you imagine the homosexual lobby being satisfied with “you can still get your ‘marriage’ license, provided you read Romans 1 in the original King James first?” Yeah, me neither. But they actually are trying to win, so they don’t pull nor are satisfied with cheap political parlor tricks like this.

Sadly, what was being advocated in Montana wasn’t lame but wrong. Imagine if we said a child murderer could escape prosecution provided he anesthetized the young boy first? Check it, that’s exactly what we said. Unless now we, pro-lifers, also don’t believe life begins at conception? If that’s the case, we’re really no different substantively from our opponents. We just find abortion-on-demand icky.

There’s a difference between being pro-life and anti-abortion. One seeks to eradicate this blight on our supposedly enlightened society. The other merely seeks to regulate it down to “acceptable” levels and practices.

It is a testimony to how much God values life, and the righteous nobleness of our cause, that we pro-lifers have made the strides we have given how confusing our messaging and tactics seem to be. We consistently try to win our argument by granting our opponents’ premise.

Like we often have quality of life arguments (as in when does a child feel pain) and not sanctity of life arguments (as in when is a child a child). The former is the same utilitarian basis for the child-killing industry we’re trying to stop. The latter is the actual humanitarian basis for our mission.

This is one of the reasons why we often tout a bittersweet achievement — the largest annual march on our nation’s capital. Yes, we should note the courage of conviction it takes for thousands upon thousands of activists to make the wintry trek to chilly Washington, D.C. each January. However, does any noble cause really want to celebrate its 44th annual march? Shouldn’t our goal be to not need a 45th annual march, or a 55th annual march, or a 65th annual march?

We say so in our hearts, but not always in our minds as a movement.

Not when we waste precious political capital on just drug the kid first, or read the fine print ahead of time. Or bills that prohibit killing prior to a certain stage of prenatal development, which the likes of Gosnell just ignore anyway because they know states won’t enforce them (and Pennsylvania didn’t in his case). Let’s face it, if your conscience is seared to the point you don’t think twice about murdering innocent humans for a living, simply lying about the particulars of what you’re doing isn’t a bridge too far in the integrity department.

The killing won’t stop until we make it stop. And we won’t make it stop until we actually concoct a strategy with that goal in mind. Just make sure that strategy is in 12-point, Times New Roman font. (For more from the author of “And Then You Can Kill the Baby … Provided You Read the Right Font First” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Texas Tea Party Groups Send a Clear Message to President Trump: ‘The Freedom Caucus Is Not the Problem’

/0 Comments/in , , /by

The Texas Tea Party will not be silent.

Last week, Republicans scrambled to form a circular firing squad in the wake of the American Health Care Acts’ failure to launch. Conservatives’ opposition to the legislation drew the ire of President Trump and members of the Republican Establishment, who (unfairly) attacked the Freedom Caucus for killing the bill.

But in a letter made available to Conservative Review, Lone Star state Tea Party organizations make clear that the Republican Party base in the highly consequential state of Texas stands with the Freedom Caucus in opposition to RINOcare. The letter was signed by over 90 conservative grassroots leaders and state GOP officials, and will be sent to President Trump Monday.

“To our dismay, the ‘repeal and replace’ plan put forward by U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) did nothing to address the core regulatory infrastructure of Obamacare, which means that American families would still see health care costs continue to rise until at least 2026,” the letter reads. “This is unacceptable.”

Public support for the American Health Care Act placed around 17 percent, per Quinnipiac polls. The Freedom Caucus members argue their push for more conservative amendments saved the Republican Party from political disaster. According to the leader of the organization that put the letter together, those members are exactly right.

“The Freedom Caucus is doing exactly what their supporters and their constituents sent them to Washington to do,” JoAnn Fleming told Conservative Review. “The Ryancare bill did not do what the Republicans promised they would do.”

Fleming is the Executive Director of Grassroots America – We the People, a political action committee that is “the largest constitutional conservative citizen organization in East Texas and one of the largest in Texas.” A volunteer conservative activist in Texas for over 25 years, Fleming also serves as the three-term chairman of the Texas Legislature’s TEA Party Caucus Advisory Committee, Chairman of Lt. Governor Dan Patrick’s Grassroots Advisory Board, and an adviser to the newly formed Freedom Caucus of the Texas state legislature.

“Frankly, the people that I work with in Texas, all these grassroots leaders on this letter – they worked their tails off to send Republicans to Washington and to offices at every level of government — to stand strong behind conservative, limited government, constitutional conservative principles,” Fleming said.

In the eyes of these activists, Fleming explained, the GOP plan was a betrayal.

If you go back and look at the 60 times there was a bill that fully repealed Obamacare, why now is that not the right kind of bill? What this does is it just peels back the façade. What this says to grassroots conservatives in Texas is, “You really didn’t mean it to begin with. You knew President Obama would veto any repeal that you sent to him, and so it was all political theater.”

Opposition to RINOcare was exactly what voters wanted from their elected representatives. The letter takes pains to drive that point home to the president.

With a bad “take it or leave it” bill on the table, the Freedom Caucus rightly believed they had a responsibility to protect both the GOP and the Trump Administration from the political fallout that would surely come in 2018 and 2020 when angry voters realized their healthcare costs did not go down and health care access did not improve. The Freedom Caucus had the promises they made back home and the long-term good of the American people on their minds and in their hearts when they opposed the AHCA.

President Trump’s pledge to “fight” the Freedom Caucus is baffling for these Tea Party activists.

Trump had long positioned himself as an ally of the Tea Party. And so, according to JoAnn Fleming, this letter intends to make clear exactly where one of the Republican Party’s most organized and enthusiastic voter base stands.

The point of this is we’re trying to say, “We don’t agree with you, Mr. President, on the approach you’re taking toward the Freedom Caucus and toward the promises we intend to hold the GOP to. They made a promise that they were going to repeal Obamacare, and that means take out all of the big government structure that was there, the mandates, and to get us back to a patient-centered, free-market based approach to health care. This bill did not do any of that and what we believe is that it would have driven up costs, premiums.”

The Tea Party groups of Texas urge Trump to work with the HFC to actually “drain the swamp.”

“We believe that he’s not going to be able to drain any Washington, D.C., swamp without the support and help of conservatives,” Fleming told CR. “That’s just a given.”

All signs point toward another attempt at Obamacare repeal happening sooner rather than later. Over the weekend, President Trump tweeted an attack on the “Fake News media” for suggesting that attempts at repeal were “dead.”

Some liberal Republicans have signaled they’d rather work with Democrats than join with the Freedom Caucus to come up with a conservative plan. The Texan Tea Party is not willing to follow President Trump down that path.

“Unfortunately, the president will be on the opposite side of many conservative grassroots leaders on the ground, in the trenches every single day,” should he continue to oppose the Freedom Caucus, Fleming said.

“This is what we do. We try to advance liberty through conservative principles. It’s not about the person. It’s not about a political icon. It is about principle for us.”

The dedicated hard work of the Tea Party base here in Texas, as well as all across the nation, has bestowed Republicans with historic majorities in Congress and placed the presidency in their hands. If the GOP believes Tea Party activists will go away or blindly trust the Republicans in control, they are mistaken.

“I have given up the best part of my life to do this, and I’m not about to change. I don’t do this because I don’t have anything else that I could do. I gave up a career in business to do this, and I do it because it’s the right thing to do,” said Fleming.

“Anything that makes it harder for my grassroots colleagues to do what they do in their own communities just kind of sets my teeth on edge,” Fleming said. “That’s where this letter came from.” (For more from the author of “Texas Tea Party Groups Send a Clear Message to President Trump: ‘The Freedom Caucus Is Not the Problem'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Big Nanny Republicans? West Virginia Proposes GOP-Backed Soda Tax

/0 Comments/in , /by

There are basically two schools of thought on the purpose of the tax code. One is to raise revenue to fund the essential functions of government, whatever those may be. The other is to use taxes as a carrot and a stick, rewarding behaviors the government finds desirable and punishing those that it doesn’t. America’s founders, the architects of the original tax code, would have found this second function, in which taxes are used for social engineering, unthinkable and against the very nature of the limited-government power structure they proposed. And yet controlling people’s behavior has become an increasingly important function of tax policy, despite its implications for individual freedom and independence.

This is the rationale behind the soda tax. It is asserted that America is undergoing an obesity “epidemic,” an insulting use of the term that falsely analogizes personal lifestyle choice to disease. It is therefore assumed that it is the responsibility of the government to “cure” the disease of people consuming too much sugar and fat.

This used to be an idea that was only proposed by meddling Democrats who think their mission in life is to tell other people what to do. Sadly, that appears to be the case no longer, as a soda tax proposal taking hold in West Virginia is being pushed by Republican lawmakers.

The proposed tax would charge five cents for every 16.9 fluid ounces of soda sold, a tax that would be split between consumers and retailers depending on how strong the demand. Five cents may not sound like much extra to pay, but consider that it represents a 400 percent increase on the rate at which soda is currently taxed. Additionally, two other bills have been introduced in the West Virginia legislature that would increase soda taxes a further one and two cents respectively.

One could argue that these incremental increases in price won’t actually have an effect on consumer choices, but both logic and empirical evidence contradict that claim. At any price, there are presumably some people who are already paying as much as they are willing to pay for soda. Increase that price, even a little bit, and they will substitute a more affordable beverage. It is these marginal consumers who account for the changes in the quantity of goods demanded when prices change. Evidence in cities where soda taxes have been specifically levied has shown us that higher prices do result in less soda sold.

For example, in Philadelphia, where the government imposed a 1.5 cent-per-ounce tax on sodas, distributors reported a drop in sales of between 30 and 50 percent that would potentially force layoffs. If this sales shock seems disproportionate to the amount of tax levied, it’s important to remember that there is a psychological component to consumer behavior as well as a financial one. Where I live, in Washington, D.C., the government levies a five-cent tax on plastic bags used at grocery stores. Almost everyone can afford an extra nickel added to their grocery bill, but many people have changed their behavior anyway, not because of the money, but because they don’t like the idea of being taxed any more than they already are. The same phenomenon is no doubt in effect in Philadelphia and would be evident in West Virginia as well.

There are lots of reasons to oppose a soda tax. Personally, I object to a central authority trying to modify citizen behavior, as if we are rats in a laboratory cage. But for those more pragmatic than I, another objection is the cost to the economy of making consumption — or, to be more accurate, the production that drives consumption — more difficult. Even without changes in consumption, the proposed tax would suck $75 million out of the economy each year, according to the Tax Foundation. Combine that with the layoffs and general decline in economic activity, and you’re looking at some serious harm to West Virginia, a state that already struggles economically.

Finally, there’s the fairness argument. Soda taxes have repeatedly been found to be regressive, meaning that they fall hardest on those Americans with the lowest incomes. “Tax the rich” may be a persuasive populist sentiment, but since when is “tax the poor” an equally good substitute? How about instead, we live within our means and don’t try to use the tax code for social engineering? Republicans in West Virginia need to get back to their roots and remember that conservatism is all about personal autonomy, limited government, and a nation in which individuals are free to choose. (For more from the author of “Big Nanny Republicans? West Virginia Proposes GOP-Backed Soda Tax” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

The Greatest Engine for Good: The Local Church

/0 Comments/in , /by

This is one of those times of year where people who don’t usually attend church may find themselves attending services. Maybe it’s part of a family visit. Maybe it’s tradition. Maybe it’s an itch in need of scratching. Or maybe it’s a desire. Whatever the cause, it could be fuel for civic renewal.

While the country seems obsessed with what’s happening in Washington, D.C. — with emotions and reactions ranging from encouragement, concern, dread, outrage and just about every other feeling in between — we’re missing something that should be more fundamental to the everyday life of our country.

California businessman William E. Simon Jr. aims to remedy that with a group he’s founded, Parish Catalyst, and a book he’s written, Great Catholic Parishes: How Four Essential Practices Make Them Thrive. Having surveyed 244 parishes, he’s in the business now of sharing what works.

This was one of the most important things I’ve ever done,” Simon tells me. “It was (megachurch pastor) Rick Warren who pointed this out to me, and he’s right: The local church is the greatest engine for good in history. It’s got the biggest distribution system. It’s got the longest track record. It’s got the most committed people. It’s better than any government and bureaucracy, any agency. And it’s been around for 2,000 years, and there’s no sign that it’s not going to be around for another 2,000 years. You can’t say that about any other entity.”

Focusing on the Catholic piece of the engine, Simon points out that there are roughly 80 million Catholics in the United States, about 80 percent of them affiliated with a parish. “About 64 million Catholics are affiliated somehow or another with a parish. So, if only 10 percent of them are paying attention, that’s 6.4 million. If you could double that number, that’d be another 6.4 million. That’s a h*** of an opportunity.” (Read more from “The Greatest Engine for Good: The Local Church” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.