Tag Archive for Obamacare

Forget Recusal, Elena Kagan Should Be Impeached

December 11, 2011 Government, Media No comments

Elena KaganCNS News, through its parent company the Media Research Center, is doing a job the State-Controlled Media ought to be doing: vigorously investigating Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan’s involvement in Obamacare. Their journalistic investigations (something the media would know nothing about) are producing evidence that suggests, at the very least, Kagan should recuse herself (something I called for immediately following the Court’s decision to hear the case here and here), and makes a compelling case for impeach as far as I’m concerned.

Here is the latest:

As solicitor general, Kagan’s job at that time was to defend the administration’s position on constitutional issues raised in federal courts. Was she aware of this serious national debate arising from an underlying constitutional issue confronting President Obama’s health-care legislation just days before the House was set to take it up?

On March 16, 2010, the day after McConnell’s op-ed ran in the Wall Street Journal, Kagan sent an email to David Barron, her former colleague at Harvard Law School, who was then the acting director of DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel. The Office of Legal Counsel, according to DOJ’s website, provides “authoritative legal advice to the President and all Executive Branch agencies.”

Solicitor General Elena Kagan’s email to acting Office of Legal Counsel Chief David Barron carried this subject line: “Health care q”

The text said: “Did you seee [sic] michael mcConnell piece in the wsj?”

Barron emailed back to Kagan: ‘YES—HE IS GETTING IT GOING.”

On March 17, 2010, the day after Kagan sent her email to OLC chief Barron alerting him to McConnell’s piece in the Wall Street Journal, her top deputy in the Office of Solicitor General, Neal Katyal, sent an email to Associate Attorney General Tom Perelli.

The subject line on Katyal’s email was: “Health Care.”

“Tom, I recall you were going to set up a group to deal with the inevitable challenges to this legislation,” Katyal wrote. “Now that this may be coming back, I wanted to circle back and see if you still are developing such a litigation group.”

Eight minutes later, Perrelli responded to Katyal: “Neal—I tabled it when things looked bleak, but we should do it. I’ll get something together in the next week.”

The next day, March 18, 2010, Katyal extended the email chain by responding to Perrelli and carbon copying the messages to his own boss, Elena Kagan. This new email was all about the Levin-Landmark Legal Foundation draft complaint against the prospective health-care law. It noted some of Katyal’s initial analysis of the anticipated constitutional challenge.

The subject line was now: “RE: Health Care.”

“Tom, I was just looking at the draft complaint by Landmark Legal Foundation,” Katyal wrote to Perrelli and Kagan. “It is clearly written to be filed when the House approves the reconciliation bill and before the President signs it. See paras 15-17.”

The email then includes a link to the text of the complaint posted on the website of the Landmark Legal Foundation.

“Also para 27 says the action is being brought before it is signed by President so that no expectations of regularity can be asserted, etc.” wrote Katyal.

“As such we could be in court very soon,” he wrote.

“In light of this, for what its worth,” Katyal continued to Perrelli and Kagan, “my advice (I haven’t discussed this with Elena, but I am cc’ing her here) would be that we start assembling a response, [here about three-quarters of a line of text is redacted] so that we have it ready to go. They obviously have their piece ready to go, and I think it’d be great if we are ahead of the ball game here.”

Now let’s go back to Kagan’s confirmation process:

Then, during Kagan’s Supreme Court confirmation process four months later, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee asked her in writing if she had “ever been asked about your opinion” or “offered any view or comments” on the “the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to any proposed health care legislation, including but not limited to Pub. L. No. 111-148 [PPACA], or the underlying legal or constitutional issues related to potential litigation resulting from such legislation?”

Kagan answered both questions: “No.”

How is that not perjury?

She should be impeached immediately in my opinion. Of course, she won’t be impeached and she probably won’t be forced to recuse herself. After all, she even has former Republican officials supporting her. Read what former Bush Attorney General Michael Mukasey wrote about Kagan last week in the Wall Street Journal:

But upon even a cursory examination of the facts it is clear that neither justice should step aside. The court we have should decide the case.

Justice Kagan served as solicitor general in the Obama Justice Department before she was nominated to the bench. The solicitor general heads the small team of lawyers who represent the federal government before the Supreme Court, and coordinates and controls the government’s litigation positions in the various federal courts of appeal and occasionally even in district courts.

Although critics have portrayed Justice Kagan during her tenure as a “cheerleader” for the health-care bill, and although she did send an email to a former faculty colleague that applauded the legislation, the solicitor general ordinarily is not called on to advise on issues of constitutionality of proposed legislation; that task usually falls to the Office of Legal Counsel. There has been no evidence that she acted personally in her official capacity as solicitor general in connection with any issue in the case.

A Beltway Republican at his finest!

Rest assured, I will not relent on my insisting Kagan recuse herself, and I will continue to call for her impeachment.

Sen. Sessions “Deeply Disturbed” Over Kagan’s Role in Obamacare

November 16, 2011 Government, Policy No comments

Jeff SessionsI wrote earlier this week about the emails evidencing Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan’s role in and support for Obamacare. I immediately called for her to recuse herself from a decision on the constitutionality of Obamacare.

Senator Jeff Sessions is also questioning Justice Kagan’s impartiality in light of the emails:

“I am deeply disturbed by these developments and believe that the Justice Department should have provided these documents to the Senate Judiciary Committee during Justice Kagan’s confirmation hearing,” Sessions wrote to Holder in a series of questions for the record. “The Department’s failure to provide this information to Congress and to comply with FOIA requests, as well as your apparent inattention to these matters, is unacceptable.”

Specifically, Sessions questioned Holder about:

• Any instances of Kagan being present in any meeting or conversation in which the health law and/or litigation related to it was discussed;

• Any instances when she was asked for her opinion or otherwise consulted regarding the law and its litigation;

• Any instances in which she offered any views or comments regarding the law and its litigation;

• Any instances when she reviewed any documents relating to the law or its litigation;

• Any instances in which information related to the law and its litigation was relayed or provided to Kagan;

• When his staff began ‘removing’ Kagan from health law-related meetings, on what basis that action was taken and in what other matters it was taken; and

• If he was aware of any conversation or meeting in which Kagan approved the involvement of the solicitor general’s office in healthcare reform litigation.

It is unbelievably obvious that Kagan should recuse herself, so obvious, in fact, I would assert that she should have announced it immediately following the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case.

Liberals and supporters of Obamacare know this as well, which is why they are countering that Justice Clarence Thomas should recuse himself due to his wife’s lobbying work against Obamacare. The situations are different, however.

Justice Thomas has no direct involvement with Obamacare. In fact, neither does his wife. She has simply opposed it.

Just Kagan on the other hand was directly involved with Obamacare and now has a vote in its ultimate fate.

She must recuse herself.

Obamacare Headed to Supreme Court

November 14, 2011 Business and Economy, Government, Policy 2 comments

Surpeme CourtAs I predicted last spring, the constitutionality of President Obama’s socialist take over of the healthcare industry will be decided decided by the highest court of the land — the Supreme Court.

The justices voted to hear the case and allotted 5.5 hours of oral argument, which will probably take place in the spring paving the way for a decision just moves before next Novembers election.

Now that the case has finally arrived to the SCOTUS, the push will begin in earnest to get Justice Elena Kagan to recuse herself. Kagan was Solicitor General during Obamacare’s passage. She was an ardent supporter of it. In fact, there was an email exchange that took place between Lawrence Tribe and Kagan in which she express excitement over Obamacare’s passage:

I hear they have the votes, Larry!! Simply amazing.

Sounds very impartial, doesn’t she?

I’ll now refer you to 28 USC 455:

(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States
shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his
impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following
circumstances:
(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a
party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts
concerning the proceeding;
(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter
in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law
served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter,
or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness
concerning it;
(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such
capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness
concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the
merits of the particular case in controversy;

If Justice Kagan has any integrity she will recuse herself from this case.

Doctors: Obamacare Hurts Medical Care

November 5, 2011 Business and Economy No comments

stethoscopeThis will come as no surprise to those of us who studied the content of Obamacare and continue to fight for its repeal. According to a recently released poll by the Doctor Patient Medical Association, physicians are increasingly convinced that Obama’s attempted to socialist takeover of the medical industry is, in fact, bad for medical care.

Physicians are increasingly pessimistic about the future of medicine, and are now reluctant to advise their own children or grandchildren to pursue a career in the field.

Those are just two of the alarming findings in the new poll of physicians conducted by the Doctor Patient Medical Association (DPMA) by fax from October 13/11 through 10/20/11 to gauge their attitudes toward the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act (PPACA) and medical freedom issues.

“We expected some frustration, but the numbers are stunning,” said Kathryn Serkes, President of DPMA. “Doctors are clear that they are reluctant to accept many aspects of the PPACA, and the net result will be fewer doctors at a time that we need more.”

One of most telling results is that less than 20% of doctors polled would advise their child or grandchild to go to medical school. “For many doctors, medicine has been a long-time family tradition. This could be the first generation that breaks that pattern,” said Serkes. “It’s a clear red-flag that we’re in trouble when the people on the frontlines don’t want their own family going into medicine.”

Physicians are also clear that they believe that the PPACA will reduce the quality of care for their patients (78.7%) and that it is the single factor that has made them more pessimistic about the future of medicine (74.8%).

White House issues 111 Obamacare waivers, mostly to unions

November 14, 2010 Government One comment

Obamacare to increase prescription drug prices

November 8, 2010 Business and Economy, Government, Policy No comments

(Fox Business) Remember this promise made by President Barack Obama, back in October 2008, while campaigning in Newport News, VA?

Then the presidential contender, President Obama promised cheaper prescription drugs:

“First, we’ll take on them on, hold them accountable for the prices they charge..and then we’ll tell the pharmaceutical companies drug and insurance companies a, ‘thanks, but no thanks for overpriced drugs.’ Drugs that cost twice as much here as they do in Europe and Canada and Mexico. We’ll let Medicare negotiate for lower prices. We’ll stop drug companies from blocking generic drugs that are just as effective and far less expensive. We’ll allow the safe reimportation of low-cost drugs from countries like Canada.”

Course, that didn’t happen. And now a new analysis from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office shows that health reform will actually let drug companies increase their prices for drugs that are purchased through Medicare.

All of this is yet another example of the confusion that will reign once health-care reform takes hold.

Click here to read the CBO’s letter, entitled “The Effect of the March Health Legislation on Prescription Drug Prices” addressed to Rep. Paul Ryan, the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee.

Ryan had asked the CBO to analyze the possible effects of some provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) .

The health reform bill forces drug companies to pay billions of dollars annually in new fees beginning in 2012. But companies typically pass those fees and/or taxes onto consumers through higher prices. CBO director Elmendorf makes note of that in the new report:

“The legislation also imposes an annual fee on manufacturers and importers of brand-name drugs CBO expects that the fee will probably increase the prices of drugs purchased through Medicare and the prices of newly introduced drugs purchased through Medicaid and other federal programs.”

For drugs covered by Medicare, the Affordable Care Act could raise prices purchased through Medicare and other programs by about 1%, Elmendorf estimates. For new drugs bought through Medicaid, the changes could increase prices paid by pharmacies by 4%, he says.

“That increase in prices would make,” the CBO says, “the costs faced by some beneficiaries slightly higher than they would be in the absence of those provisions.”

House Republicans strategy: Block Obamacare funding and personnel

November 7, 2010 Government, Policy No comments

(NY Times) Republicans, who will control the House starting in January but will remain in the minority in the Senate, acknowledge that they do not have the votes for their ultimate goal of repealing the health law, the most polarizing of Mr. Obama’s signature initiatives.

But they said they hoped to use the power of the purse to challenge main elements of the law, forcing Democrats — especially those in the Senate who will be up for re-election in 2012 — into a series of votes to defend it.

Republican lawmakers said, for example, that they would propose limiting the money and personnel available to the Internal Revenue Service, so the agency could not aggressively enforce provisions that require people to obtain health insurance and employers to help pay for it. Under the law, individuals and employers who flout the requirements will face tax penalties.

Moreover, Republican leaders said, they plan to use spending bills to block federal insurance regulations to which they object. And they will try to limit access to government-subsidized private health plans that include coverage of abortion — one of the most contentious issues in Congressional debate over the legislation.

Obamacare causes AARP to raise premiums

November 6, 2010 Government, Policy No comments

(AP) AARP’s endorsement helped secure passage of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul. Now the seniors’ lobby is telling its employees their insurance costs will rise partly as a result of the law.

In an e-mail to employees, AARP says health care premiums will increase by 8 percent to 13 percent next year because of rapidly rising medical costs.

And AARP adds that it’s changing copayments and deductibles to avoid a 40 percent tax on high-cost health plans that takes effect in 2018 under the law. Aerospace giant Boeing also has cited the tax in asking its workers to pay more. Shifting costs to employees lowers the value of a health care plan and acts like an escape hatch from the tax.

“Most plan co-pays and deductibles have been modified,” Jennifer Hodges, AARP’s director of compensation and benefits, wrote employees in an Oct. 25 e-mail. “Plan value changes were necessary not only from a cost management standpoint but also to ensure that AARP’s plans fall below the threshold for high-cost group plans under health care reform.” (My emphasis)

Few Democrats survive vote for Obamacare

November 3, 2010 Elections, Government No comments

(The Hill) Democrats who voted for their party’s signature domestic achievement dropped like flies throughout the evening, adding credence to Republicans’ claim that the American public wants them to repeal healthcare reform.

Within hours, a dozen members had lost reelection, including four freshmen elected in the 2008 Democratic wave: Reps. Tom Perriello and Glenn Nye of Virgina and Suzanne Kosmas and Alan Grayson of Florida.

They weren’t alone: Democratic Reps. Baron Hill (Ind.), Carol Shea-Porter (N.H.) and Allen Boyd (Fla.) quickly joined them. So did Pennsylvania Reps. Kathy Dahlkemper, Chris Carney and Paul Kanjorski, all of whom were main targets of the anti-abortion-rights group the Susan B. Anthony List.

Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), who voted for the bill when her vote was crucial but later voted no on reconciliation, was also defeated.

The trend is even worse when factoring in yes votes who weren’t running for reelection.

Retiring Rep. Bart Gordon (Tenn.) left Democratic candidate Brett Carter to get pulverized by Republican Diane Black, 29.3 percent to 67.5.

Dems find careers threatened by Obamacare votes

October 18, 2010 Elections, Government No comments

From Michael Barone:

Seven months ago Speaker Nancy Pelosi spent a busy week rounding up votes to pass the Senate version of the Democrats’ health care legislation.

It wasn’t easy. She had to get Democrats who had voted no in November to switch to yes in March. And she had to get Democrats who had refused to vote for the bill in November without an anti-abortion amendment to vote for a bill in March that lacked that language.

She took the unusual step of scheduling the roll call for Saturday — so members wouldn’t go back to their districts and be besieged by Obamacare opponents.

Those opponents, according to polls at that time, included most American voters. But Pelosi, Barack Obama and Bill Clinton predicted the bill would become more popular after it was passed (and, Pelosi said, after people had a chance to read it).

National polls indicate that hasn’t happened yet. But what about the districts of the House Democrats who cast the key votes that made Obamacare law? Those Democrats have an interest in persuading constituents of the law’s merits. So how are they doing?

In general, not very well.

Take Betsy Markey of Colorado’s 4th Congressional District, who in 2008 beat a Republican who seemed fixated on the same-sex marriage issue. Markey cast a late-in-the-roll-call no in November, then publicly switched to yes in the week before the March 21 roll call. She’s currently trailing Republican Cory Gardiner by an average of 44 to 39 percent in three polls. Her Web site links to a video she cut the week after the vote saying she had “the honor” to vote for the bill. But otherwise it seems to be silent on the issue.

Or consider John Boccieri of Ohio’s 16th District, who switched from no to yes in a TV press conference in which he said the bill would do great things for his constituents. Boccieri’s district was represented by Republicans for 58 years until he was elected in 2008.

It looks like it will be again next year. In three polls Republican Jim Renacci leads Boccieri by an average of 46 to 36 percent. Boccieri’s Web site links to a recent interview in which he defends Obamacare and challenges opponents to say which provisions they’d give up.

Then there is Suzanne Kosmas, a longtime real estate agent who beat a Republican with an ethics issue in 2008 for Florida’s 24th District seat. She announced her switch from no to yes late in the week before the roll call. She’s now running behind Republican Sandy Adams by an average of 47 to 40 percent in three recent polls.

To put these numbers in perspective, it’s highly unusual for an incumbent House member to trail a challenger in any poll or to run significantly below 50 percent. But these three Democrats are running 5 to 10 points behind Republican challengers and none tops 40 percent.

At least they’re running, which is more than can be said for Bart Stupak of Michigan’s 1st District, the chief sponsor of the anti-abortion amendment that he forced onto the House bill in November. Just hours before the March roll call he was persuaded that an executive order, which he was assured Obama would sign, would have the same effect.

Legal experts and strong abortion opponents disagreed. But Stupak cast a critical vote for the bill, as did five other Democrats widely referred to as “the Stupak five” who flanked him at his press conference. If these six votes had gone the other way, Obama would have been defeated.

Stupak promptly announced he was retiring after 18 years. Republican Dan Benishek is currently leading there by an average of 44 to 27 percent in five polls.

Two of the Stupak five, freshmen Steve Driehaus of Ohio 1 and Kathy Dahlkemper of Pennsylvania 3, are in dreadful shape. Driehaus trails by an average 51 to 41 percent in his Cincinnati area district; Dahlkemper trails by an average of 45 to 37 percent in her Erie area seat.

Another two are from West Virginia. Alan Mollohan, first elected in 1982, lost in the May primary; Nick Joe Rahall, first elected in 1976, won his primary and seems well ahead for November.

« Older Entries