DDR: March 2010

55% Favor Repeal of Health Care Bill

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Just before the House of Representatives passed sweeping health care legislation last Sunday, 41% of voters nationwide favored the legislation while 54% were opposed. Now that President Obama has signed the legislation into law, most voters want to see it repealed.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, conducted on the first two nights after the president signed the bill, shows that 55% favor repealing the legislation. Forty-two percent (42%) oppose repeal. Those figures include 46% who Strongly Favor repeal and 35% who Strongly Oppose it.

In terms of Election 2010, 52% say they’d vote for a candidate who favors repeal over one who does not. Forty-one percent (41%) would cast their vote for someone who opposes repeal.

Not surprisingly, Republicans overwhelmingly favor repeal while most Democrats are opposed. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 59% favor repeal, and 35% are against it.

Most senior citizens (59%) also favor repeal. Earlier, voters over 65 had been more opposed to the health care plan than younger adults. Seniors use the health care system more than anyone else.

A number of states are already challenging the constitutionality of that requirement in court, and polling data released earlier shows that 49% of voters nationwide would like their state to sue the federal government over the health care bill.

Rasmussen Reports will track support for the repeal effort on a weekly basis for as long as it remains a significant issue. The next update will be released Monday morning.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

Sixty percent (60%) of likely voters believe the new law will increase the federal budget deficit. Only 19% disagree and say it will not. Twelve percent (12%) think it will have no impact on the deficit.

Throughout the legislative debate, advocates of the reform expressed frustration about the fact that voters believe it will increase the deficit. Many, including the president, pointed to Congressional Budget Office projections to argue that the plan will actually reduce the deficit. However, voters are skeptical of the official government projection, and 81% believe the actual cost of the program will be higher than projected.

Voters have consistently said that reducing the federal budget deficit is a higher priority than health care reform. They also believe that deficit reduction is the goal Obama is least likely to achieve as president.

Overall, 41% of voters believe the new health care legislation will be good for the country, while 49% believe it will be bad for the country.

While 64% of Mainstream voters think the health care plan will be bad for the country, 90% of the Political Class see its passage as a good thing.

Twenty-six percent (26%) of voters nationwide say the legislation will have a positive impact on them personally, while 43% expect a negative impact. Twenty-five percent (25%) say the massive overhaul of the health care system will have no impact on them personally.

A total of 24% believe it will be good for the country and good for them personally. Forty percent (40%) believe it will be bad for the country and bad for them personally.

Generally speaking, the partisan and demographic breakdowns have shifted little since passage of the health care bill. Those groups who opposed the bill tend to support repeal and those who supported the bill oppose repeal.

The president has enjoyed a bounce in his Job Approval ratings in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll following passage of the legislation. However, the bounce has come from increased enthusiasm among Democrats rather than increased support from Republicans and unaffiliated voters.

While some aspects of the new health care law are popular, most voters oppose the measures required to cover the nearly one trillion dollars in additional spending called for over the next decade. Fifty-six percent (56%) oppose the reductions in Medicare spending, a figure that includes 70% of those over 65.

Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) or follow us on Twitter or Facebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.

See survey questions and toplines. Crosstabs are available to Premium Members only.

Dingell: Obamacare will 'control the people'

Healthy tax increases, not only on wealthy

Originally published 04:00 a.m., March 24, 2010, updated 04:11 a.m., March 24, 2010

Healthy tax increases, not only on wealthy

David M. Dickson

When it comes to the taxes associated with the new health care bill, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr.'s assessment stands: It's a big — very big — deal.

The historic overhaul of the nation's health care system that President Obama signed Tuesday, when combined with the fixes making their way through Congress, will raise taxes over the next 10 years by more than a half-trillion dollars.

The tax increases range from hundreds of billions of dollars in new Medicare levies, including one that taxes investment income such as capital gains and dividends for the first time, to a 10 percent excise tax on indoor tanning services that will raise less than $3 billion over the next decade.

Imposing a Medicare tax on investment income "would reduce demand for investment, which is the last thing that the economy needs right now. It would slow [economic] recovery, reduce employment opportunities and hinder wage growth," said Karen Campbell of the conservative Heritage Foundation. "Less investment, lower investment values and lower wages hinder the ability of households to build wealth."

Under a procedure that doesn't require a 60-vote majority for approval, the Senate is considering a package of changes to the new health care law to placate House members' concerns about the Senate bill, which the lower chamber approved Sunday with no Republican support. Among other things, the Senate must approve the numerous tax-law changes that the House passed in a second bill Sunday to fix the upper chamber's December proposal.

By far the biggest tax increase — more than $210 billion from 2012 through 2019 —. involves Medicare, the $500 billion federal health care program for the elderly and disabled. Medicare taxes would be raised in two ways.

First, the new law increases the Medicare payroll tax on employee wages and salaries from 1.45 percent to 2.35 percent on earnings above a certain amount — $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples who file jointly. The employer's share would remain at 1.45 percent for all wages and salaries — creating an effective 3.8 percent tax rate for income in those higher brackets.

Second, for the first time ever, the bill would apply Medicare taxes to several forms of "unearned income" — capital gains, dividends, interest, royalties and other sources besides wages and salaries — above the $200,000 and $250,000 thresholds. The individual or couple must pay the whole 3.8 percent Medicare tax because there is no employer with whom to split the bill on "unearned income."

Consider a married couple who earn $300,000, divided evenly between salaries and capital gains. Their total salary income of $150,000 would be subject to the combined 2.9 percent Medicare tax — split evenly between employee and employer. The first $100,000 in capital gains would not be subject to any Medicare tax, but the couple would have to pay a 3.8 percent Medicare tax on the last $50,000 in capital gains.

The two Medicare provisions "would improve both tax equity and economic efficiency," said Chuck Marr of the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, who notes that the two taxes would affect "only the 2.6 percent of U.S. households with the highest incomes." Mr. Marr reports that 91 percent of the increase in Medicare taxes would be paid by people earning more than $500,000.

Broadening the base of the Medicare tax for high-income households by extending it to capital gains, dividends and other unearned income would be "sound economically," Mr. Marr said, because it would "modestly reduce incentives for economically unproductive tax sheltering."

Today's top income-tax rate for wage-and-salary income (35 percent) is more than twice as high as the top rate for capital gains and dividends (15 percent). This big difference encourages high-income earners to pursue unproductive tax sheltering by converting salary income to capital gains, Mr. Marr said.

Although only high-income households will pay the new Medicare levies, Republicans say, billions of dollars in other new taxes will be paid by individuals earning less than $200,000 per year and married couples earning less than $250,000. That would violate a 2008 campaign pledge by President Obama, Republicans say.

Portions of a multitude of new taxes totaling nearly $250 billion over 10 years would be paid, either directly or indirectly, by workers with incomes below those levels, Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee said.

For example, both the law signed by Mr. Obama and the reconciliation bill raise money by taxing generous health-insurance policies, though the numbers differ.

But even the proposal sitting before the Senate, which taxes these "Cadillac plans" less than the bill signed into law, expects to raise $32 billion during the 2018-19 period. The "fix" heavily penalizes health-insurance plans costing more than $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families — imposing a 40 percent excise tax on the value above those amounts.

Many of these "Cadillac plans" are held by union workers in the private sector and by state and local government workers. Most families of both groups earn well below $250,000.

While the excise tax will be directly paid by the insurance company, economists of all persuasions expect the costs to be passed along to policyholders.

Middle- and working-class Americans, Republicans say, also can expect to pay a big portion of the numerous fees that the health care bill will impose on the pharmaceutical industry ($27 billion from 2011 through 2019), on medical-device manufacturers ($20 billion from 2013 through 2019) and on health insurance providers ($60.1 billion from 2014 through 2019), and on indoor tanning services (a 10 percent excise tax).

The new law also limits deductions for medical care, requiring people, including middle-income households and seniors, to have spent more of their own money on health care expenses before they become tax-deductible. Currently, expenses above 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income can be deducted for tax purposes; the bill Mr. Obama signed raises that threshold to 10 percent of income.

The legislation imposes mandates on employers with more than 50 workers to provide health insurance to their workers and on individuals and families to carry health insurance. The bill would impose penalties on those employers ($52 billion from 2014 through 2019) and households ($17 billion from 2014 through 2019) who do not comply with the mandates.

In part because these penalties would be administered and enforced by the Internal Revenue Service, Republicans consider them taxes and violations of Mr. Obama's campaign pledge.

The White House declined to respond to a request for comment on the charge that the president broke his promise not to raise taxes on middle-income households.

Oops! Kids with pre-existing conditions not covered

Gap in health care law's protection for children

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR (AP) – 1 day ago

WASHINGTON — Hours after President Barack Obama signed historic health care legislation, a potential problem emerged. Administration officials are now scrambling to fix a gap in highly touted benefits for children.

Obama made better coverage for children a centerpiece of his health care remake, but it turns out the letter of the law provided a less-than-complete guarantee that kids with health problems would not be shut out of coverage.

Under the new law, insurance companies still would be able to refuse new coverage to children because of a pre-existing medical problem, said Karen Lightfoot, spokeswoman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the main congressional panels that wrote the bill Obama signed into law Tuesday.

However, if a child is accepted for coverage, or is already covered, the insurer cannot exclude payment for treating a particular illness, as sometimes happens now. For example, if a child has asthma, the insurance company cannot write a policy that excludes that condition from coverage. The new safeguard will be in place later this year.

Full protection for children would not come until 2014, said Kate Cyrul, a spokeswoman for the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, another panel that authored the legislation. That's the same year when insurance companies could no longer deny coverage to any person on account of health problems.

Obama's public statements have conveyed the impression that the new protections for kids were more sweeping and straightforward.

"This is a patient's bill of rights on steroids," the president said Friday at George Mason University in Virginia. "Starting this year, thousands of uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions will be able to purchase health insurance, some for the very first time. Starting this year, insurance companies will be banned forever from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions."

And Saturday, addressing House Democrats as they approached a make-or-break vote on the bill, Obama said, "This year ... parents who are worried about getting coverage for their children with pre-existing conditions now are assured that insurance companies have to give them coverage — this year."

Late Tuesday, the administration said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius would try to resolve the situation by issuing new regulations. The Obama administration interprets the law to mean that kids can't be denied coverage, as the president has said repeatedly.

"To ensure that there is no ambiguity on this point, the secretary of HHS is preparing to issue regulations next month making it clear that the term 'pre-existing exclusion' applies to both a child's access to a plan and his or her benefits once he or she is in the plan for all plans newly sold in this country six months from today," HHS spokesman Nick Papas said.

The coverage problem could mainly affect parents who purchase their own coverage for the family, as many self-employed people have to do. Families covered through employer plans typically do not have to worry about being denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

Parents whose kids are turned down by an insurer would still have a fallback under the law, even without Sebelius' fix. They could seek coverage through state high-risk insurance pools slated for a major infusion of federal funds.

The high-risk pools are intended to serve as a backstop until 2014, when insurers no longer would be able to deny coverage to those in frail health. That same year, new insurance markets would open for business, and the government would begin to provide tax credits to help millions of Americans pay premiums.

An insurance industry group says the language in the law that pertains to consumer protections for kids is difficult to parse.

"We're taking a closer look at it to see what exactly the requirement will be," said Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for America's Health Insurance Plans, the main industry lobby.

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

'USE RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS TO CHALLENGE OBAMACARE'

MARCH 5, 2010: SAVAGE SAID:'USE RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS TO CHALLENGE OBAMACARE'

USE RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS TO CHALLENGE OBAMA CARE

By MICHAEL SAVAGE

(MichaelSavage.com) OBAMA IS PREPARING TO SHOVE SOCIALIZED MEDICINE DOWN OUR THROATS. AND IN ORDER TO DO SO, HE’S DECIDED TO BLOW UP THE U.S. SENATE. HE ANNOUNCED THAT RATHER THAN FOLLOW THE RULES OF THE U.S. SENATE, WHICH REQUIRE 60 VOTES TO END DEBATE ON ANY ISSUE, THE DEMONCATS WILL USE A METHOD CALLED "RECONCILIATION" TO PASS THE BILL WITH ONLY 51 SENATE VOTES. OBAMA HAS DECIDED TO USE THE NUCLEAR OPTION TO FORCE HIS WILL ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. NOW YOU KNOW THAT THE DEMONCATS ATTACKED THIS SAME METHOD WHEN THEY THOUGHT THE REPUBLICANS WERE GOING TO USE IT IN 2005. BUT THAT DOESN’T MATTER TO THEM BECAUSE THEY’RE IN POWER NOW.

ON TOP OF THAT HE’S GOING TO MAKE YOUNG PEOPLE WHO DON’T NEED HEALTH INSURANCE PAY TO SUPPORT ILLEGAL ALIENS WHO DON’T PAY FOR HEALTHCARE AT ALL. MAYBE YOU DON’T KNOW THIS, BUT MAKING INDIVIDUAL AMERICANS BUY HEALTH INSURANCE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. IT’S TRUE THAT ARTICLE I, SECTION 8 OF THE CONSITUTION GIVES CONGRESS THE POWER TO REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE. BUT IN ORDER FOR THIS TO APPLY, CONGRESS MUST BE REGULATING SOME KIND OF ECONOMIC ACTIVITY. BUT A HEALTHCARE MANDATE DOESN’T REGULATE ANY SORT OF "ACTIVITY.” JUST BEING AN AMERICAN WOULD TRIGGER IT.

THIS ISN’T THE FIRST TIME THAT BIG GOVERNMENT HAS TRIED TO FORCE NONSENSICAL AND DRACONIAN REGULATION ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. THIS WAS FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT’S APPROACH IN THE 1930s UNDER HIS SOCIALIST “NEW DEAL” PROGRAM. BUT HIS DICTATORIAL SCHEMES CAME INTO CONFLICT WITH FOUR JEWISH BROTHERS IN NEW YORK, THE SCHECHTER BROTHERS WHO RAN TWO KOSHER BUTCHER SHOPS IN BROOKLYN.

ROOSEVELT CREATED THE NATIONAL RECOVERY ADMINISTRATION (NRA) DURING THE DEPRESSION TO SOCIALIZE AMERICA. IT DREW UP ALL KINDS OF DETAILED CODES FOR INDIVIDUAL INDUSTRIES, TELLING HOW FIRMS HAD TO DO THEIR BUSINESS. THE SCHECHTER BROTHERS, THE KOSHER BUTCHERS FROM BROOKLYN, FELL UNDER RULES WHICH SAID CUSTOMERS COULD BUY A WHOLE OR HALF COOP OF CHICKENS, BUT COULDN’T MAKE A SELECTION OF PARTICULAR BIRDS. THIS WAS IN CONFLICT WITH JEWISH KOSHER LAWS, WHICH REQUIRED THE REMOVAL OF UNHEALTHY ANIMALS FROM THE STOCK. IT WAS A VIOLATION OF THEIR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. BUT THE COURTS FOUND THE SCHECHTER BROTHERS GUILTY OF ALLOWING THEIR CUSTOMERS TO BUY INDIVIDUAL CHICKENS INSTEAD OF WHOLE COOPS AND THEY ALL SERVED JAIL TIME.

BUT ON APPEAL, THE CASE MADE IT TO THE SUPREME COURT, WHERE THEY FOUND IN FAVOR OF THE SCHECHTER BROTHERS BY A UNANIMOUS DECSION. THE COURT HELD THAT FDR’S REGULATIONS WERE IN EXCESS OF CONGRESSIONAL POWER UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND INVALIDATED THEM. SPEAKING TO AIDES OF ROOSEVELT, JUSTICE LOUIS BRANDEIS REMARKED THAT, “THIS IS THE END OF THIS BUSINESS OF CENTRALIZATION, AND I WANT YOU TO GO BACK AND TELL THE PRESIDENT THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO LET THIS GOVERNMENT CENTRALIZE EVERYTHING.” THE SAME MESSAGE SHOULD BE SENT TO OBAMA.

IT’S INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT IN THE CASE OF THE SCHECHTER BROTHERS, GOVERNMENT REGULATION CAME INTO CONFLICT WITH JEWISH DIETARY LAWS. IF THEIR LAWYERS HAD TAKEN ANOTHER TACK, THEY PROBABLY COULD HAVE WON ON THE BASIS THAT THEIR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM WAS BEING VIOLATED. BUT THIS TIME AROUND, OBAMA THE DICTATOR HAS MADE RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS FOR HEALTHCARE INSURANCE. THE AMISH WON’T BE REQUIRED TO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE. CHRISTIAN SCIENTISTS WON’T BE REQUIRED TO BUY IT, AS MODERN MEDICAL CARE VIOLATES THEIR RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS.

SO HERE’S MY SUGGESTION: IF THEY CAN MAKE EXCEPTIONS FOR THESE RELIGIOUS GROUPS, LET’S FIND OTHER RELIGIOUS GROUPS THAT THEY’LL HAVE TO FIND EXCEPTIONS FOR UNTIL THERE ARE SO MANY PEOPLE EXEMPTED FROM THE SYSTEM, THAT THEY WON’T POSSIBLY BE ABLE TO PAY FOR IT. LET’S THINK ABOUT THE POSSIBILITIES:

WILL RELIGIOUS JEWS BE FORCED TO PAY FOR MEDICAL CARE ON SATURDAY, THE JEWISH SABBATH, ON WHICH THEY’RE NOT ALLOWED TO RECEIVE MEDICAL CARE?

WILL OBAMA CARE PAY FOR RELIGIOUS CIRCUMCISION IN JEWISH FAMILIES?

DEVOUT MUSLIMS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE IN THE PRESENCE OF ALCOHOL? DOES THIS MEAN THEY WON’T BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN AN OBAMA CARE PROGRAM WHICH COVERS ALCOHOL SWABS?

THE POSSIBILITIES ARE ENDLESS. WHAT OTHER RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS DO YOU THINK YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO USE TO AVOID OBAMA’S SOCIALIZED MEDICINE PLAN?

AMERICA MUST ACT QUICKLY ON THIS, BECAUSE OBAMA IS SHOVING THIS THROUGH THE SENATE AS WE SPEAK. OBAMA’S NUCLEAR OPTION FLIES IN THE FACE OF OVER 200 YEARS OF SENATE TRADITION. REQUIRING ONLY 51 VOTES INSTEAD OF 60 FLIES IN THE FACE OF THE INTENT OF THE CONSTITUTION. WHEN THE FOUNDERS DESIGNED THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH OF THE GOVERNMENT, THEY MADE THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES THE BODY THAT WAS MEANT TO BE DIRECTLY AND IMMEDIATELY RESPONSIVE TO THE VOTERS. THAT’S WHY THEY HAVE SHORT, TWO-YEAR TERMS. THAT’S WHY THEY REPRESENT SMALL DISTRICTS AND HAVE A MORE DIRECT RELATIONSHIP TO THE VOTERS.

THE SENATE, ON THE OTHER HAND, WAS DESIGNED TO BE A MODERATING INFLUENCE ON THE PASSIONS OF THE ELECTORATE. THAT’S WHY THEY HAVE SIX-YEAR TERMS, LONGER THAN THAT OF THE PRESIDENT, SO THEY COULD WEATHER THE STORMS OF A POPULACE STIRRED UP BY A POTENTIAL DICTATOR. THAT’S WHY THEY REPRESENT ENTIRE STATES INSTEAD OF JUST DISTRICTS. UNTIL THE EARLY 20TH CENTURY, SENATORS WEREN’T EVEN ELECTED DIRECTLY BY THE VOTERS.

EVEN GEORGE WASHINGTON UNDERSTOOD THAT THE SENATE WAS MEANT TO ACT AS A BULWARK AGAINST THE ACTIONS OF THOSE WHO WOULD TRY TO QUICKLY IMPOSE THEIR WILL ON THE NATION. IN A LEGENDARY CONVERSATION, THOMAS JEFFERSON HAD RETURNED FROM FRANCE AND WAS BREAKFASTING WITH WASHINGTON AS THE CONSTITUTION WAS BEING CREATED. JEFFERSON ASKED WASHINGTON WHY HE AGREED TO HAVE A SENATE. “WHY,” SAID WASHINGTON, “DID YOU JUST NOW POUR THAT COFFEE INTO YOUR CUP BEFORE DRINKING IT?” “TO COOL IT,” SAID JEFFERSON; “MY THROAT IS NOT MADE OF BRASS.” “EVEN SO,” SAID WASHINGTON, “WE POUR OUR LEGISLATION INTO THE SENATORIAL CUP TO COOL IT.”

THAT IS WHAT THE U.S. SENATE WAS DESIGNED TO DO – STOP BABY DICTATORS LIKE OBAMA FROM RUNNING TOO HOT AND PUSHING THROUGH THEIR RADICAL AGENDAS BEFORE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES HAD A CHANCE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS GOING ON. BUT OBAMA HAS DECIDED TO BLOW UP OVER 200 YEARS OF SENATE TRADITION, BLOW UP THE INTENT OF GEORGE WASHINGTON AND THOMAS JEFFERSON, AND BLOW UP THE ESSENCE OF THE CONSTITUTION IN ORDER TO PASS SOCIALIZED MEDICINE WITH THE NUCLEAR OPTION.

YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS COULD BE MORE THAN JUST A DEFEAT FOR CONSERVATIVES OR REPUBLICANS. IF OBAMA SUCCEEDS IN DROPPING HIS BOMB, IT WILL DESTROY THE VERY CORE OF THE CONSTITUTION. IT’S AN ATTACK AGAINST EVERYTHING GUARANTEED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS, EVEN THOSE CHERISHED BY LIBERALS. BECAUSE IF OBAMA CAN DESTROY ONE PART OF THE CONSTITUTION, HE CAN DESTROY ANY PART OF IT. AND DON’T THINK FOR A MINUTE THAT SOCIALIZED MEDICINE WILL BE THE LAST STOP ON THE TRAIN BOUND FOR PERDITION. © 2010 SPI

20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms

20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms

By David Hogberg

Sun., March 21, '10 3:24 PM ET

Tags: Health Care - ObamaCare - Freedom

With House Democrats poised to pass the Senate health care bill with some reconciliation changes later today, it is worthwhile to take a comprehensive look at the freedoms we will lose.

Of course, the overhaul is supposed to provide us with security. But it will result in skyrocketing insurance costs and physicians leaving the field in droves, making it harder to afford and find medical care. We may be about to live Benjamin Franklin’s adage, “People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.”

The sections described below are taken from HR 3590 as agreed to by the Senate and from the reconciliation bill as displayed by the Rules Committee.

1. You are young and don’t want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the “privilege.” (Section 1501)

2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You’ll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That’s because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person’s health status. (Section 2701).

3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).

4. Think you’d like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn’t cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that’s what the customer wants. (Section 2712).

5. You are an employer and you would like to offer coverage that doesn’t allow your employers’ slacker children to stay on the policy until age 26? Tough. (Section 2714).

6. You must buy a policy that covers ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; prescription drugs; rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; laboratory services; preventive and wellness services; chronic disease management; and pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

You’re a single guy without children? Tough, your policy must cover pediatric services. You’re a woman who can’t have children? Tough, your policy must cover maternity services. You’re a teetotaler? Tough, your policy must cover substance abuse treatment. (Add your own violation of personal freedom here.) (Section 1302).

7. Do you want a plan with lots of cost-sharing and low premiums? Well, the best you can do is a “Bronze plan,” which has benefits that provide benefits that are actuarially equivalent to 60% of the full actuarial value of the benefits provided under the plan. Anything lower than that, tough. (Section 1302 (d) (1) (A))

8. You are an employer in the small-group insurance market and you’d like to offer policies with deductibles higher than $2,000 for individuals and $4,000 for families? Tough. (Section 1302 (c) (2) (A).

9. If you are a large employer (defined as at least 101 employees) and you do not want to provide health insurance to your employee, then you will pay a $750 fine per employee (It could be $2,000 to $3,000 under the reconciliation changes). Think you know how to better spend that money? Tough. (Section 1513).

10. You are an employer who offers health flexible spending arrangements and your employees want to deduct more than $2,500 from their salaries for it? Sorry, can’t do that. (Section 9005 (i)).

11. If you are a physician and you don’t want the government looking over your shoulder? Tough. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized to use your claims data to issue you reports that measure the resources you use, provide information on the quality of care you provide, and compare the resources you use to those used by other physicians. Of course, this will all be just for informational purposes. It’s not like the government will ever use it to intervene in your practice and patients’ care. Of course not. (Section 3003 (i))

12. If you are a physician and you want to own your own hospital, you must be an owner and have a “Medicare provider agreement” by Feb. 1, 2010. (Dec. 31, 2010 in the reconciliation changes.) If you didn’t have those by then, you are out of luck. (Section 6001 (i) (1) (A))

13. If you are a physician owner and you want to expand your hospital? Well, you can’t (Section 6001 (i) (1) (B). Unless, it is located in a country where, over the last five years, population growth has been 150% of what it has been in the state (Section 6601 (i) (3) ( E)). And then you cannot increase your capacity by more than 200% (Section 6001 (i) (3) (C)).

14. You are a health insurer and you want to raise premiums to meet costs? Well, if that increase is deemed “unreasonable” by the Secretary of Health and Human Services it will be subject to review and can be denied. (Section 1003)

15. The government will extract a fee of $2.3 billion annually from the pharmaceutical industry. If you are a pharmaceutical company what you will pay depends on the ratio of the number of brand-name drugs you sell to the total number of brand-name drugs sold in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the brand-name drugs in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2.3 billion, or $230,000,000. (Under reconciliation, it starts at $2.55 billion, jumps to $3 billion in 2012, then to $3.5 billion in 2017 and $4.2 billion in 2018, before settling at $2.8 billion in 2019 (Section 1404)). Think you, as a pharmaceutical executive, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 9008 (b)).

16. The government will extract a fee of $2 billion annually from medical device makers. If you are a medical device maker what you will pay depends on your share of medical device sales in the U.S. So, if you sell 10% of the medical devices in the U.S., what you pay will be 10% multiplied by $2 billion, or $200,000,000. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for R&D? Tough. (Section 9009 (b)).

The reconciliation package turns that into a 2.9% excise tax for medical device makers. Think you, as a medical device maker, know how to better use that money, say for research and development? Tough. (Section 1405).

17. The government will extract a fee of $6.7 billion annually from insurance companies. If you are an insurer, what you will pay depends on your share of net premiums plus 200% of your administrative costs. So, if your net premiums and administrative costs are equal to 10% of the total, you will pay 10% of $6.7 billion, or $670,000,000. In the reconciliation bill, the fee will start at $8 billion in 2014, $11.3 billion in 2015, $1.9 billion in 2017, and $14.3 billion in 2018 (Section 1406).Think you, as an insurance executive, know how to better spend that money? Tough.(Section 9010 (b) (1) (A and B).)

18. If an insurance company board or its stockholders think the CEO is worth more than $500,000 in deferred compensation? Tough.(Section 9014).

19. You will have to pay an additional 0.5% payroll tax on any dollar you make over $250,000 if you file a joint return and $200,000 if you file an individual return. What? You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9015).

That amount will rise to a 3.8% tax if reconciliation passes. It will also apply to investment income, estates, and trusts. You think you know how to spend the money you earned better than the government? Like you need to ask. (Section 1402).

20. If you go for cosmetic surgery, you will pay an additional 5% tax on the cost of the procedure. Think you know how to spend that money you earned better than the government? Tough. (Section 9017).

Thursday, March 18, 2010

Nancy Pelosi is a 'coward, a bully and a hypocrite'

Updated: Wed., Mar. 17, 2010, 2:34 AM

Dems' 'deem' scheme

Last Updated: 2:34 AM, March 17, 2010

Posted: 2:12 AM, March 17, 2010

Nancy Pelosi is a coward, a bully and a hypocrite -- and Barack Obama is hiding behind her skirts.

So what does that make him?

Pelosi obviously can't find enough votes in her own party for ObamaCare, so the House speaker is preparing to approve the president's health-care bill by legislative legerdemain -- that is, by not voting on it.

And to hell with the Constitution.

Not to mention President Obama's long-abandoned vow that the health-care-reform process would be "completely open and transparent."

Indeed, Pelosi has just the opposite in mind: She intends to employ an arcane bit of backroom alchemy known as "deem and pass," in which the House would vote on a few less-controversial fixes to the Senate's health-care bill.

Then, under terms of a special rule, such passage would automatically mean that the House "deems" that the entire bill has been approved.

Say what?

Well, Pelosi says, "no one wants to vote for the Senate bill."

No kidding.

If they did, it would have become law long ago -- and now midterm congressional elections are rapidly approaching.

This would seem to be a pretty good argument for scrapping the bill and starting all over again.

Au contraire.

Instead, Pelosi plans to stand the Constitution on its head and ram through legislation that the American people overwhelmingly oppose -- and that even members of the president's own party in Congress don't want.

But what makes this even more outrageous is that Pelosi and New York Rep. Louise Slaughter, who proposed the idea, know full well just how wrong it is.

Because five years ago, they and a number of Democratic colleagues joined in a lawsuit charging that the use of "deem and pass" by the Republicans was unconstitutional.

True, they lost that case, but on procedural grounds -- the courts never ruled on the constitutionality of "deem and pass." And the Supreme Court ruled in 1998 that each house must pass the exact same text of a bill before it becomes law.

Anyway, "deem and pass" has been used in the past only for routine, non-controversial issues.

Using it to radically overhaul the nation's entire health-care system -- one-sixth of the economy -- would be a thumb in the eye to the fundamental principles governing the United States of America.

In practical terms, it most certainly would lead directly to years of litigation over its legality. How that would reduce health-care costs and help the uninsured is a mystery.

Moreover, if the ploy is successful, it won't be the last time it's employed. Not by a long shot.

Stumping for ObamaCare in Ohio on Monday, the president declared: "I don't know about the politics, but I know what's the right thing to do."

Tearing a hole in the Constitution is the "right thing to do"?

No, it's not.

Everyday terror at 'Intifada' HS

Everyday terror at 'Intifada' HS

Last Updated: 9:52 AM, March 18, 2010

Posted: 3:41 AM, March 18, 2010

The Muslim principal who cried "bomb!" in a crowded school has left chaos and violence in the classrooms she created. And now, she's moved a step closer to returning.

It is against this tumultuous backdrop that we learn Brooklyn's Khalil Gibran International Academy -- founded in 2007 by firebrand ex-Principal Debbie Almontaser as the city's first public Arabic-themed school -- this year has suspended more than one-third of its student body for infractions ranging from hitting to weapons.

"Every day, they're fighting," said Voneeda Black, who nervously sends her 6-year-old to the elementary school with which Gibran shares a building.

"You don't see parents," she said. "Three or four times a week, there are cops here, if not more."

It may be the worst record in the city. So how did this happen?

Two and a half years ago, the hijab-wearing Almontaser invented the academy as a way to foster peace and understanding. But she was promptly removed, stuck elsewhere in the school system. She cried "unfair!"

Then, last week, Almontaser won a crucial ruling that could help bring her back. The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said the school system discriminated against Almontaser's race and religion. Fired, for being an Arab.

Rubbish.

Almontaser was tossed after she proclaimed, in a detailed interview with this newspaper, that the term "intifada" -- which has led to mass murder, both downtown and in the Middle East -- does not equal bloody uprising. She defined the hot-button word as a benign "shaking off" of oppression. Particularly against girls. As if American girls are worse off than those in, say, her native Yemen.

Even accepting Almontaser's word that she's no radical, her comments suggest a tolerant, morally relativistic view of violence, for which there is no place in our schools. The commission didn't see it that way.

Almontaser has expressed utter joy to have -- finally! -- scored a victory in her claim to have been oppressed. The ruling, at the very least, will cost the city hundreds of thousands of dollars in settlement and legal fees, as it breathes life into Almontaser's lawsuit. At worst, she'll be back.

So I think it appropriate to take a hard look at Gibran -- a school founded on the flawed notion that segregating Arabists will lead to harmony.

Since it opened, the tiny school on the edge of DUMBO has had one of the city's highest rates of violence. A teacher was taunted by kids as a "terrorist" in 2008. It's gotten steadily worse.

More than a third -- one in three! -- of Gibran's 114 students, grades six through eight, have been suspended this year, according to the Department of Education.

Twenty-two were yanked from school for five days. Eight kids were considered so rowdy or dangerous, they were banned from class six to 10 days.

Nineteen fights led to student injuries or intimidation. In two other cases, weapons were used. This number has climbed from last year's 17 violent incidents and 26 suspensions.

And the school year isn't over yet.

"There's a lot of name-calling and walking around the hallways," said parent Deborah Rivers, whose sons, 11 and 13, are Gibran students.

It's scarier than parents suspect. Bedlam is a reason Gibran's latest revolving-door principal, Holly Reichert, resigned this week, leading the school to engage its fourth leader in less than three years, said a Department of Ed source.

"Those numbers [of violent incidents] are higher than they need to be," said the source. "Frankly, that is more than I want to see in a school of that size. They need to do better."

I reached out to the school, but was told the new Arab-American principal, Beshir Abdellatif, and other staff members were not available.

A bad idea has morphed into an abysmal failure. You don't get peace by segregating kids. You get weapons, pandemonium. And expensive lawsuits.

Almontaser should be grateful she was canned from her self-created disaster.

New Jersey mom has huge ambition

Chubby chasers, you have your own Cindy Crawford.

Donna Simpson is another kind of Jersey housewife. She doesn't leave the house, which provides warmth in the winter, shade in the summer. Donna says she enjoys eating sushi -- by the truckload -- and, at 600 pounds and growing, she doesn't move around much. Already the world's fattest mommy, her life's goal is to become the world's heftiest woman. She's training to reach 1,000 pounds in two years. Orca, meet your match.

Why have I devoted precious inches to this freak with feet? Donna is a living, wheezing cautionary tale for women who think fat is sexy, and a poor role model for, well, anyone. Try a new hobby, preferably one that doesn't involve pork rinds, Ding Dongs and a premature demise.

Taxi discredit where it's due

It's 2 a.m., and I'm at the mercy of a kamikaze cabdriver who gets me safely, if white-knuckled, to my home. But one glance at the meter reveals a charge that resembles a ZIP Code-plus 4. Grumbling, I fish out the fare, plus a generous tip.

As it turns out, cabbies have been tampering with meters like Prius gas pedals, overcharging customers by $8 million, and probably more. But the only hope riders have of getting refunds is if they've paid by credit card. Ha!

I've had cabbies tell me their machines were broken. When once I used a card, I was charged four times. Cash seemed the most sensible way to get around. Until now.

Thank goodness walking weather is nigh.

An Aman-poor correspondent

With Christiane Amanpour, what you see is what you get.

ABC has reportedly offered its "This Week" program to the CNN foreign correspondent, who has shown, time and again, her teeth-baring hostility to the state of Israel.

Amanpour topped even herself with her three-part "God's Warriors" series in 2007, in which she equated Israel's defense against neighbors who'd like to see the country wiped from the map with Arab attempts to wipe Israel from the map. That is wicked moral relativism -- a kindergartner can see that the rare Israeli terrorist is prosecuted and condemned by his own people. But Arab suicide bombers are celebrated and martyred, and have soccer tournaments held in their honor.

Amanpour may play well to viewers of attention-deprived CNN. But there is no place for these willful distortions on network TV.

The trampy truth

Rielle Hunter needs a nap. John Edwards' baby mama is royally steamed that whorish photos for which she posed in GQ -- without the benefit of pants or a working brain -- are too trampy. Rielle!

Repeat after me: Sleeping with a married guy on the day you meet him = trampy. Keeping your pants on during a date or photo shoot = not trampy. Try it!

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/everyday_terror_at_intifada_hs_6h6fcMyTmifBsefM1A9GpM/2#ixzz0iY3MrB71

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Pelosi to 'trick' health scam into law without vote!

March 16, 2010

Democrats Consider New Moves for Health Bill

By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN and ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON — As lawmakers clashed fiercely over major health care legislation on the House floor, Democrats struggled Tuesday to defend procedural shortcuts they might use to win approval for their proposals in the next few days.

House Democrats are so skittish about the piece of legislation that is now the vehicle for overhauling the health care system — the bill passed by the Senate in December — that they are considering a maneuver that would allow them to pass it without explicitly voting for it.

Under that approach, House Democrats would approve a package of changes to the Senate bill in a budget reconciliation bill. The Senate bill would be “deemed passed” if and when the House adopts rules for debate on the reconciliation bill — or perhaps when the House passes that reconciliation bill.

The idea is to package the changes and the underlying bill together in a way that amounts to an amended bill in a single vote. Many House Democrats dislike some provisions of the Senate bill, including special treatment for a handful of states, like Medicaid money for Nebraska, and therefore want to avoid a direct vote on it.

Republicans paraded to the House floor on Tuesday to denounce the maneuver as a parliamentary trick. Representative Ted Poe, Republican of Texas, said Democrats were using “a sneaky snake oil gimmick” to pass their bill. “Let’s have an up-or-down vote on this bill and not hide behind some procedural mumbo jumbo,” Mr. Poe said.

At the White House on Tuesday, the debate over procedural tactics proved uncomfortable for President Obama’s press secretary, Robert Gibbs. He sidestepped numerous questions about whether Mr. Obama wanted an explicit, separate vote on the Senate bill and deferred to Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California.

“The final decision is the speaker’s,” Mr. Gibbs said.

Representative Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland and assistant to the speaker, said Republicans were trying to deceive the public about the legislation that Democrats were working on.

“They want to send a signal to the American people that the product that is going to come out of the House is the Senate bill, but the fact of the matter is we are amending the Senate bill,” Mr. Van Hollen said. “We are going to get rid of the Nebraska deal. We are going to get rid of other provisions in the Senate bill that shouldn’t have been there.”

The House Democratic leader, Representative Steny H. Hoyer, also defended the maneuver on Tuesday. “It is consistent with the rules,” Mr. Hoyer said. “It is consistent with former practice.”

An analysis of the procedural device prepared by Ms. Pelosi’s office says, “Some opponents of reform are objecting to the process in an attempt to kill the bill.”

But some Democrats who support the bill have expressed reservations about the maneuver and said House leaders might rethink their plans if the chorus of criticism continued to grow.

House Democratic leaders said they still expected the full House to vote on health care by this weekend, even though they are still tinkering with the text of the legislation and do not have a final cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office.

Democrats are trying to hold the cost of the new insurance coverage provisions in the bill to roughly $950 billion over 10 years, in keeping with a limit suggested by the president. Also, under budget reconciliation rules, they must meet goals for reducing future deficits.

To make the numbers come out right, Democrats said, they are considering bigger cuts in payments to private Medicare Advantage plans, which cover about one-fourth of the 45 million Medicare beneficiaries. And they may ask pharmaceutical companies to pay more to help close a gap in Medicare coverage of prescription drugs.

Ms. Pelosi said she had “a massive whip operation” trying to round up votes for the bill.

The ferocious floor fight on Tuesday was the opening clash in what is shaping up to be the decisive week in the yearlong battle over health care legislation.

Democrats are aiming for a vote by the weekend that would approve both the bill that the Senate adopted on Dec. 24 and a package of changes in an expedited budget reconciliation bill.

In a fusillade of one-minute speeches, the two sides argued over both substance and procedural issues.

Republicans on Tuesday accused Democrats of resorting to legislative sleight of hand by planning to approve the Senate-passed health care bill tucked into the rule that sets the parameters of debate rather than holding a stand-alone vote on the Senate measure and a separate vote on a package of revisions to be included in an expedited budget bill.

The Democrats, in turn, said the Republicans were arguing about arcane rules and procedures because they could not make a cogent, substantive case against the legislation.

Democrats said the procedures they wanted to focus on were insurance industry practices that the legislation would ban, including denying coverage based on pre-existing medical conditions, imposing annual and lifetime limits on benefits, and revoking coverage on technical grounds even when premiums have been paid in full.

“Either you want to stand up for the American people, or you want to stand up for the insurance companies,” said Representative Ben Ray Luján, Democrat of New Mexico.

Democratic leaders said they were confident that they could muster the 216 votes needed to pass the legislation, though they stopped short of claiming to have firm commitments in hand.

“I believe that we have the votes, and I am confident about our victory,” said Representative John B. Larson of Connecticut, the Democratic conference chairman.

If Mr. Larson is right, however the House approves the Senate bill — either deeming it approved as part of the rules of debate, or with a stand-alone roll call vote — President Obama would be able to declare victory on his top domestic priority.

House Republicans said Tuesday that they were intent on never letting that happen.

“The American people are appalled by what they have seen in this health care debate, but the worst is still ahead,” the Republican leader, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, thundered in his speech.

Mr. Boehner added: “The majority plans to force the toxic Senate bill through the House under some controversial trick. There is no way to hide from this vote. It will be the biggest vote most members ever cast.”

His comments made clear that Republicans would hold Democrats responsible for the health care legislation regardless of the procedures used to advance it.

The campaign committee for House Republicans, the National Republican Congressional Committee, unveiled a television advertisement on Tuesday that warns wavering Democrats they will be held accountable if they vote for the health care bill.

The ad describes the legislation as “a corrupt bill” filled with pork-barrel spending and special deals for Florida, Louisiana and Nebraska.

Republicans on Tuesday also attacked a plan by Democrats to overhaul federal student loan programs that will be included in the budget reconciliation bill along with the health care revisions.

Democrats say the existing program is a giveaway to private banks, which are paid fees to make risk-free loans using taxpayer money.

5 Americans charged with planning terror attacks

REUTERS

Pakistani policemen escort hand-cuffed men identified as Umar Farooq, (3rd L), Aman Hassan Yemer, (C front) Ramy Zamzam, (C rear) and Waqar Hussain Khan on Jan. 18 in Punjab province, Pakistan.

- AP

March 17, 2010

Pakistani Court Charges Five Americans With Planning Terror Attacks, Lawyers Says

A defense lawyer says a Pakistani court has charged five young Americans with planning terrorist attacks in the South Asian country.

ISLAMABAD -- A Pakistani court charged five young Americans on Wednesday with planning terrorist attacks in the South Asian country and conspiring to wage war against nations allied with Pakistan, their defense lawyer said.

The men -- all Muslims from the Washington, D.C., area -- pleaded not guilty to a total of five charges, the most severe of which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison, defense lawyer Hasan Dastagir told The Associated Press.

"My clients were in good shape and high spirits," said Dastagir.

The men were charged by an anti-terrorism court inside a prison in Sargodha, the city in Punjab province where they were arrested in December. They were reported missing by their families in November after one left behind a farewell video showing scenes of war and casualties and saying Muslims must be defended.

Their lawyer has said they were heading to Afghanistan and had no plans to stage attacks inside Pakistan.

The court also charged the men with planning attacks on Afghan and U.S. territory, said Dastagir. The charges did not specify what was meant by U.S. territory but could be a reference to American bases or diplomatic outposts in Afghanistan.

The men were also charged with contributing cash to banned organizations to be used for terrorism and with directing each other to commit terrorist acts.

"This last charge carries life in prison while the rest of the charges have lesser punishments," said Dastagir.

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Pelosi: 'Once we kick through this door,' more reform will follow

Pelosi: 'Once we kick through this door,' more reform will follow

By: Byron York

Chief Political Correspondent

03/16/10 1:56 AM EDT

If you have any doubt that the Democratic leadership of the House views passing the current health care reform bill as the beginning, not the end, of the process of creating a national government health care system, just note what Speaker Nancy Pelosi told a group of bloggers on Monday. "My biggest fight has been between those who wanted to do something incremental and those who wanted to do something comprehensive," Pelosi said, according to an account by Washington Post reform advocate Ezra Klein. "We won that fight, and once we kick through this door, there'll be more legislation to follow."

But since the current bill is unpopular, and Pelosi at the moment does not have enough Democratic, much less Republican, votes to pass it, the door she will be kicking through is the back door. Pelosi told the bloggers she favors using the "self-executing rule" strategy in which the House would pass the Senate health care bill without going on the record as specifically voting for it. "I like it," Pelosi said of the scheme, "because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill." The strategy of passing the Senate bill while avoiding a direct vote, writes Klein, "is all about plausible deniability for House members who don't want to vote for the Senate bill."

In a particularly Alice-in-Wonderland moment, Pelosi argued that the debate over health care reform can begin after the bill is passed. "Pelosi said passing the bill would allow Dems to undertake a 'debate' with Republicans over 'what is the balanced role that government should have,'" writes another pro-reform blogger at the Post, Greg Sargent. According to Sargent, Pelosi explained, "We have to take it to the American people, to say, this is the choice that you have. This is the vision that they have for your health and well being, and this is the vision that we have." Again, in Pelosi's scenario, that debate would occur after the bill is passed.

Finally, Pelosi downplayed statements from her own team that she does not yet have the votes to pass the national health care measure. On "Meet the Press" Sunday, Democratic Whip Rep. James Clyburn said, "No, we don't have them as of this morning." Meeting with the bloggers, Pelosi said, "The reason [Clyburn] said that is we don’t have

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Pelosi-Once-we-kick-through-this-door-more-reform-will-follow-87741467.html#ixzz0iMJNtXUi

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Socialist N.Y. 'judge' says ACORN must be funded

Mar 10, 8:38 PM EST

NYC judge: Govt must stop blocking money to ACORN

By LARRY NEUMEISTER

Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK (AP) -- A federal judge who found it unconstitutional that Congress tried to cut funding to the activist group ACORN has rejected a government request to change her mind and has ordered government agencies to make it clear the funding isn't blocked.

In a written ruling Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Nina Gershon made permanent her conclusion last year that the cutoff of funding was unconstitutional. She ordered all federal agencies to put the word out about it.

The Brooklyn judge said ACORN was punished by Congress without the enactment of administrative processes to decide if money had been handled inappropriately. She said the harm to ACORN's reputation continues because the government never rescinded its advice to withhold funding after it was distributed to "hundreds, if not thousands, of recipients."

ACORN, or the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, describes itself as an advocate for low-income and minority home buyers and residents.

Critics of the group say it has engaged in voter registration fraud and embezzlement and has violated the tax-exempt status of some of its affiliates by engaging in partisan political activities.

Last year, a series of videos filmed at ACORN offices around the country sparked a national scandal and helped drive the organization to near ruin. In one video, ACORN employees were shown apparently advising a couple posing as a prostitute and her boyfriend to lie about her profession and launder her earnings; Brooklyn prosecutors said they did not commit a crime.

In asking the judge to reconsider her December ruling, the government cited a Dec. 7 report written by Scott Harshbarger, former attorney general for Massachusetts. It said the report "reinforces Congress' purpose in preventing fraud, waste and abuse" by describing ACORN's long-standing management problems.

The report concluded that ACORN leadership at every level was thin, the government noted.

The judge, however, wrote that it was "unmistakable that Congress determined ACORN's guilt before defunding it." She said Congress is entitled to investigate ACORN but cannot "rely on the negative results of a congressional or executive report as a rationale to impose a broad, punitive funding ban on a specific, named organization."

She said the Code of Federal Regulations establishes a formal process for deciding when federal contractors can be suspended or debarred. She added that "the existence of these regulations militates against the need for draconian, emergency action by Congress."

The government planned to review the judge's ruling and consider whether to appeal, spokesman Robert Nardoza said.

The legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, which says it's dedicated to protecting the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, welcomed Wednesday's decision.

"The judge's ruling is a complete rebuke to the right wing's smear tactics that unfortunately Congress fell for," legal director Bill Quigley said. "This is why we have a system of checks and balances."

La Raza (Hispanic caucus) insists illegal aliens get health coverage

Is this the reform you all want... Yea sure this will bring the cost down for everyone... Give me a break.

La Raza (Hispanic caucus) insists illegal aliens get health coverage