News
American Commitment is launching a nearly $500,000 television ad buy today in the state of Wisconsin exposing Rep. Tammy Baldwin’s record of putting special interests ahead of Wisconsin jobs.
The ad, titled “Cheating,” highlights Rep. Tammy Baldwin’s vote to put thousands of Wisconsin paper jobs in danger. It also emphasizes Rep. Baldwin’s vote for the $831 billion failed stimulus package and $1 trillion Obama health law—which will force America to borrow more money from China, a nation Rep. Baldwin had labeled a cheater.
“Rep. Tammy Baldwin is hurting the very Wisconsin taxpayers she was elected to represent,” said Phil Kerpen, president of American Commitment. “It’s time for Rep. Baldwin to stop putting special interests in Washington, DC ahead of her constituents in Wisconsin.”
To watch the ad and sign a petition to Tammy Baldwin, click here.
The Constitution is a document of specific, enumerated, and therefore limited federal powers that has, unfortunately, been stretched over the years to accommodate an ever larger and more intrusive federal government. Chief Justice John Roberts recently struck another blow against limited government by creating a new, unrestrained power to use taxes to compel activity (even if the proponents of the tax insist vehemently that it is not a tax!).
President Obama no doubt rejoiced, not just because his health care law would stand, but because he has long seen the Constitution’s limits on federal power as a problem to be overcome.
Read the rest at Fox News Opinion and fight back at www.NoMandateTax.com.
On Friday, 73 House and Senate conservatives sent a very important letter to the National Governors Association, urging the states not to adopt state health care exchanges. These exchanges (which are completely optional for the states) are the centerpiece of Obama's new entitlement that provies vast taxpayer-funded subsidies up to 400 percent of the poverty level. They are also the mechanism for imposing a $3000 per employee tax on employers who cannot afford to offer health coverage.
As I wrote last year, the text of the law is crystal clear that the subsidies and penalties only apply in states that adopt exchange laws. However, as I predicted, the IRS has asserted -- contrary to law -- that the subsidies and penalties apply in states that refuse to set up exchanges. The U.S. Senate, however, will likely vote soon on overturning that lawless IRS rule (talk about taxation without representation!), under a procedure called the Congressional Review Act that gives the minority the power to force a vote on overturning new regulations that cannot be filibustered. This will be a very telling vote for senators from states like Florida that have made clear they will not set up exchanges.
Even if the Senate cannot muster the votes to overturn the IRS's lawless rule, it stands a very good chance of being struck down in court. Governors and state legislators who oppose the president's health care law must oppose any creation of a state exchange to keep alive this option of defeating the law.
Below is the letter from congressional conservatives. Republican governors who are still on the fence should listen to them.
Thursday morning's high drama was intense out front on the Supreme Court steps, where I had the honor of standing with my friends from the Tea Party Patriots. The nervous energy before the decision was palpable. The concern about the future of our country that brought so many activists into the tea party movement in the first place had only intensified since, and the contrast between their intelligent, heart-felt speeches and the hypnotic chants of the counter-protesters was stark.
Emotional Roller Coaster on the Supreme Court Steps
By Phil Kerpen
Thursday morning's high drama was intense out front on the Supreme Court steps, where I had the honor of standing with my friends from the Tea Party Patriots. The nervous energy before the decision was palpable. The concern about the future of our country that brought so many activists into the tea party movement in the first place had only intensified since, and the contrast between their intelligent, heart-felt speeches and the hypnotic chants of the counter-protesters was stark.
Then the news broke — I thought. There it was on my Twitter feed, courtesy of CNN: "@cnnbrk Supreme Court strikes down individual mandate portion of health care law." I relayed the information to the crowd, which erupted in applause.
But wait. In the next instant came a text from my wife — who is not only the most wonderful wife and mother in the world, but also a leading employee benefits tax lawyer and expert on the president's health care law. She wrote: "Mandate unconstitutional but surviving as a tax."
So I corrected my earlier announcement. People were confused and disappointed. Activists were prepared for a loss. But not like this. Not with Roberts joining the four liberals — who of course are so political in their decision-making that what they would do was never in doubt.
I explained that this legal sleight-of-hand by John Roberts — transforming the mandate into a tax despite all evidence to the contrary — at least preserved the legacy of the Rehnquist Court, which was to place limits on the Commerce Clause. But if the federal government can compel behavior via "tax penalties" when it can't regulate them as commerce we're left with a distinction but not much of a difference. William Rehnquist was sorely missed on Thursday.
The bottom line is that the John Roberts ignored the entire legislative history of the president's health care law, dozens of public promises from the president himself and supporters in Congress who insisted the mandate was not a tax, and a 20-page explanation in the law itself.
He did that to rule that the mandate at the heart of the president's health care law is actually a tax on the middle class after all. A tax on people who can't afford the expensive health insurance the government wants them to buy, or have ideological or religious reasons they would prefer not to buy...