Sunday, August 2, 2009
The Importance of Voting and Christian Involvement in the Political Arena
01/2000
John Adams
We electors have an important constitutional power placed in our
hands: we have a check upon two branches of the legislature, as each
branch has upon the other two; the power I mean of electing at stated
periods, one branch, which branch has the power of electing another.
It becomes necessary to every subject then, to be in some degree a
statesman: and to examine and judge for himself of the tendencies of
political principles and measures.
[John Adams, The Papers of John Adams, Robert J. Taylor, ed.
(Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1977), Vol. 1, p. 81, from "'U' to the
Boston Gazette" written on August 29, 1763.]
Samuel Adams
Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote
that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an
individual - or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is
executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for
which he is accountable to God and his country.
[Samuel Adams, The Writings of Samuel Adams, Harry Alonzo
Cushing, editor (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1907), Vol. IV,
. 256, in the Boston Gazette on April 16, 1781.]
Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a
State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust
be men of unexceptionable characters. The public cannot be too
curious concerning the character of public men.
[Samuel Adams, The Writings of Samuel Adams, Harry Alonzo
Cushing, editor (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1907), Vol. III,
p. 236-237, to James Warren on November 4, 1775.]
Matthias Burnett
Consider well the important trust . . . which God . . . [has] put into
your hands. . . . To God and posterity you are accountable for
[your rights and your rulers]. . . . Let not your children have reason
to curse you for giving up those rights and prostrating those
institutions which your fathers delivered to you. . . . [L]ook well to
the characters and qualifications of those you elect and raise to office
and places of trust. . . . Think not that your interests will be safe in
the hands of the weak and ignorant; or faithfully managed by the
impious, the dissolute and the immoral. Think not that men who
acknowledge not the providence of God nor regard His laws will be
uncorrupt in office, firm in defense of the righteous cause against
the oppressor, or resolutly oppose the torrent of iniquity. . . . Watch
over your liberties and privileges - civil and religious - with a
careful eye.
[Matthias Burnett, Pastor of the First Baptist Church in Norwalk,
An Election Sermon, Preached at Hartford, on the Day of the
Anniversary Election, May 12, 1803 (Hartford: Printed by Hudson
& Goodwin, 1803), pp. 27-28.]
Frederick Douglass
I have one great political idea. . . . That idea is an old one. It is widely
and generally assented to; nevertheless, it is very generally trampled
upon and disregarded. The best expression of it, I have found in the
Bible. It is in substance, "Righteousness exalteth a nation; sin is a
reproach to any people" [Proverbs 14:34]. This constitutes my
politics - the negative and positive of my politics, and the whole of my
politics. . . . I feel it my duty to do all in my power to infuse this idea
into the public mind, that it may speedily be recognized and practiced
upon by our people.
[Frederick Douglass, The Frederick Douglass Papers, John
Blassingame, editor (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982),
Vol. 2, p. 397, from a speech delivered at Ithaca, New York,
October 14th, 1852.]
Charles Finney
[T]he time has come that Christians must vote for honest men and
take consistent ground in politics or the Lord will curse them. . . .
Christians have been exceedingly guilty in this matter. But the time
has come when they must act differently. . . . Christians seem to act
as if they thought God did not see what they do in politics. But I tell
you He does see it - and He will bless or curse this nation according
to the course they [Christians] take [in politics].
[Charles G. Finney, Lectures on Revivals of Religion (New York:
Fleming H. Revell Company, 1868), Lecture XV, pp. 281-282.]
James Garfield
Now more than ever the people are responsible for the character
of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt,
it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption.
If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand
these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature. . . .
[I]f the next centennial does not find us a great nation . . . it will be
because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the
morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.
[James A. Garfield, The Works of James Abram Garfield, Burke
Hinsdale, editor (Boston: James R. Osgood and Company, 1883),
Vol. II, pp. 486, 489, "A Century of Congress," July, 1877.]
Francis Grimke
If the time ever comes when we shall go to pieces, it will . . . be . . .
from inward corruption - from the disregard of right principles . . .
from losing sight of the fact that "Righteousness exalteth a nation, but
that sin is a reproach to any people" [Proverbs 14:34]. . . .[T]he
secession of the Southern States in 1860 was a small matter with the
secession of the Union itself from the great principles enunciated in
the Declaration of Independence, in the Golden Rule, in the Ten
Commandments, in the Sermon on the Mount. Unless we hold, and
hold firmly to these great fundamental principles of righteousness, . . .
our Union . . . will be "only a covenant with death and an agreement
with hell."
[Rev. Francis J. Grimke, from "Equality of Right for All Citizens, Black
and White, Alike," March 7, 1909, published in Masterpieces of Negro
Eloquence, Alice Moore Dunbar, editor (New York: Dover Publications,
Inc., 2000), pp. 246-247.]
Alexander Hamilton
A share in the sovereignty of the state, which is exercised by the
citizens at large, in voting at elections is one of the most important
rights of the subject, and in a republic ought to stand foremost in the
estimation of the law.
[Alexander Hamilton, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, Harold C.
Syrett, ed. (New York, Columbia University Press, 1962), Vol III,
pp. 544-545.]
John Jay
Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is
the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation,
to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.
[John Jay, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry
P. Johnston, ed. (New York: G.P. Putnams Sons, 1890), Vol. IV, p. 365.]
The Americans are the first people whom Heaven has favored with an
opportunity of deliberating upon and choosing the forms of government
under which they should live.
[John Jay, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry
P. Johnston, ed. (New York: G.P. Putnams Sons, 1890), Vol. I, p. 161.]
Thomas Jefferson
The elective franchise, if guarded as the ark of our safety, will peaceably
dissipate all combinations to subvert a Constitution, dictated by the
wisdom, and resting on the will of the people.
[Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh,
ed. (Washington: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903),nt [lack] good
men and be abolished or invaded by ill men; but good men will never
want good laws nor suffer [allow] ill ones.
[William Penn quoted from: Thomas Clarkson, Memoirs of the Private
and Public Life of William Penn (London: Richard Taylor and Co., 1813)
Vol. I, p.303.]
Daniel Webster
Impress upon children the truth that the exercise of the elective
franchise is a social duty of as solemn a nature as man can be called to
perform; that a man may not innocently trifle with his vote; that every
elector is a trustee as well for others as himself and that every measure
he supports has an important bearing on the interests of others as well
as on his own.
[Daniel Webster, The Works of Daniel Webster (Boston: Little, Brown,
and Company, 1853), Vol. II, p. 108, from remarks made at a public
reception by the ladies of Richmond, Virginia, on October 5, 1840.]
Noah Webster
In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the
particular sect or denomination of the candidate - look to his character. . . .
When a citizen gives his suffrage to a man of known immorality he
abuses his trust; he sacrifices not only his own interest, but that of his
neighbor, he betrays the interest of his country.
[Noah Webster, Letters to a Young Gentleman Commencing His
Education to which is subjoined a Brief History of the United States
(New Haven: S. Converse, 1823), pp. 18, 19.]
When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public
officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you
to choose for rulers, "just men who will rule in the fear of God." The
preservation of government depends on the faithful discharge of this
duty; if the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in
office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not
for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or
incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public
revenues will be sqandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the
citizens will be violated or disregarded. If a republican government
fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the
citizens neglect the divine commands, and elect bad men to make and
administer the laws.
[Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie &
Peck, 1832), pp. 336-337, �49.]
John Witherspoon
Those who wish well to the State ought to choose to places of trust
men of inward principle, justified by exemplary conversation. . . .
[And t]he people in general ought to have regard to the moral
character of those whom they invest with authority either in the
legislative, executive, or judicial branches.
[John Witherspoon, The Works of John Witherspoon Edinburgh: J.
Ogle, 1815), Vol. IV, pp. 266, 277.]
This site belongs to WallBuilders, LLC, a Texas Limited Liability
Corporation PO Box 397 Aledo, Texas 76008 Contact Us Site
designed and powered by Blepo.
Website for Wallbuilders http://www.wallbuilders.com/ Check it out!
John Adams
We electors have an important constitutional power placed in our
hands: we have a check upon two branches of the legislature, as each
branch has upon the other two; the power I mean of electing at stated
periods, one branch, which branch has the power of electing another.
It becomes necessary to every subject then, to be in some degree a
statesman: and to examine and judge for himself of the tendencies of
political principles and measures.
[John Adams, The Papers of John Adams, Robert J. Taylor, ed.
(Cambridge: Belknap Press, 1977), Vol. 1, p. 81, from "'U' to the
Boston Gazette" written on August 29, 1763.]
Samuel Adams
Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote
that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an
individual - or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is
executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for
which he is accountable to God and his country.
[Samuel Adams, The Writings of Samuel Adams, Harry Alonzo
Cushing, editor (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1907), Vol. IV,
. 256, in the Boston Gazette on April 16, 1781.]
Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a
State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust
be men of unexceptionable characters. The public cannot be too
curious concerning the character of public men.
[Samuel Adams, The Writings of Samuel Adams, Harry Alonzo
Cushing, editor (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1907), Vol. III,
p. 236-237, to James Warren on November 4, 1775.]
Matthias Burnett
Consider well the important trust . . . which God . . . [has] put into
your hands. . . . To God and posterity you are accountable for
[your rights and your rulers]. . . . Let not your children have reason
to curse you for giving up those rights and prostrating those
institutions which your fathers delivered to you. . . . [L]ook well to
the characters and qualifications of those you elect and raise to office
and places of trust. . . . Think not that your interests will be safe in
the hands of the weak and ignorant; or faithfully managed by the
impious, the dissolute and the immoral. Think not that men who
acknowledge not the providence of God nor regard His laws will be
uncorrupt in office, firm in defense of the righteous cause against
the oppressor, or resolutly oppose the torrent of iniquity. . . . Watch
over your liberties and privileges - civil and religious - with a
careful eye.
[Matthias Burnett, Pastor of the First Baptist Church in Norwalk,
An Election Sermon, Preached at Hartford, on the Day of the
Anniversary Election, May 12, 1803 (Hartford: Printed by Hudson
& Goodwin, 1803), pp. 27-28.]
Frederick Douglass
I have one great political idea. . . . That idea is an old one. It is widely
and generally assented to; nevertheless, it is very generally trampled
upon and disregarded. The best expression of it, I have found in the
Bible. It is in substance, "Righteousness exalteth a nation; sin is a
reproach to any people" [Proverbs 14:34]. This constitutes my
politics - the negative and positive of my politics, and the whole of my
politics. . . . I feel it my duty to do all in my power to infuse this idea
into the public mind, that it may speedily be recognized and practiced
upon by our people.
[Frederick Douglass, The Frederick Douglass Papers, John
Blassingame, editor (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982),
Vol. 2, p. 397, from a speech delivered at Ithaca, New York,
October 14th, 1852.]
Charles Finney
[T]he time has come that Christians must vote for honest men and
take consistent ground in politics or the Lord will curse them. . . .
Christians have been exceedingly guilty in this matter. But the time
has come when they must act differently. . . . Christians seem to act
as if they thought God did not see what they do in politics. But I tell
you He does see it - and He will bless or curse this nation according
to the course they [Christians] take [in politics].
[Charles G. Finney, Lectures on Revivals of Religion (New York:
Fleming H. Revell Company, 1868), Lecture XV, pp. 281-282.]
James Garfield
Now more than ever the people are responsible for the character
of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt,
it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption.
If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand
these high qualities to represent them in the national legislature. . . .
[I]f the next centennial does not find us a great nation . . . it will be
because those who represent the enterprise, the culture, and the
morality of the nation do not aid in controlling the political forces.
[James A. Garfield, The Works of James Abram Garfield, Burke
Hinsdale, editor (Boston: James R. Osgood and Company, 1883),
Vol. II, pp. 486, 489, "A Century of Congress," July, 1877.]
Francis Grimke
If the time ever comes when we shall go to pieces, it will . . . be . . .
from inward corruption - from the disregard of right principles . . .
from losing sight of the fact that "Righteousness exalteth a nation, but
that sin is a reproach to any people" [Proverbs 14:34]. . . .[T]he
secession of the Southern States in 1860 was a small matter with the
secession of the Union itself from the great principles enunciated in
the Declaration of Independence, in the Golden Rule, in the Ten
Commandments, in the Sermon on the Mount. Unless we hold, and
hold firmly to these great fundamental principles of righteousness, . . .
our Union . . . will be "only a covenant with death and an agreement
with hell."
[Rev. Francis J. Grimke, from "Equality of Right for All Citizens, Black
and White, Alike," March 7, 1909, published in Masterpieces of Negro
Eloquence, Alice Moore Dunbar, editor (New York: Dover Publications,
Inc., 2000), pp. 246-247.]
Alexander Hamilton
A share in the sovereignty of the state, which is exercised by the
citizens at large, in voting at elections is one of the most important
rights of the subject, and in a republic ought to stand foremost in the
estimation of the law.
[Alexander Hamilton, The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, Harold C.
Syrett, ed. (New York, Columbia University Press, 1962), Vol III,
pp. 544-545.]
John Jay
Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is
the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation,
to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.
[John Jay, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry
P. Johnston, ed. (New York: G.P. Putnams Sons, 1890), Vol. IV, p. 365.]
The Americans are the first people whom Heaven has favored with an
opportunity of deliberating upon and choosing the forms of government
under which they should live.
[John Jay, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry
P. Johnston, ed. (New York: G.P. Putnams Sons, 1890), Vol. I, p. 161.]
Thomas Jefferson
The elective franchise, if guarded as the ark of our safety, will peaceably
dissipate all combinations to subvert a Constitution, dictated by the
wisdom, and resting on the will of the people.
[Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh,
ed. (Washington: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1903),nt [lack] good
men and be abolished or invaded by ill men; but good men will never
want good laws nor suffer [allow] ill ones.
[William Penn quoted from: Thomas Clarkson, Memoirs of the Private
and Public Life of William Penn (London: Richard Taylor and Co., 1813)
Vol. I, p.303.]
Daniel Webster
Impress upon children the truth that the exercise of the elective
franchise is a social duty of as solemn a nature as man can be called to
perform; that a man may not innocently trifle with his vote; that every
elector is a trustee as well for others as himself and that every measure
he supports has an important bearing on the interests of others as well
as on his own.
[Daniel Webster, The Works of Daniel Webster (Boston: Little, Brown,
and Company, 1853), Vol. II, p. 108, from remarks made at a public
reception by the ladies of Richmond, Virginia, on October 5, 1840.]
Noah Webster
In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the
particular sect or denomination of the candidate - look to his character. . . .
When a citizen gives his suffrage to a man of known immorality he
abuses his trust; he sacrifices not only his own interest, but that of his
neighbor, he betrays the interest of his country.
[Noah Webster, Letters to a Young Gentleman Commencing His
Education to which is subjoined a Brief History of the United States
(New Haven: S. Converse, 1823), pp. 18, 19.]
When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public
officers, let it be impressed on your mind that God commands you
to choose for rulers, "just men who will rule in the fear of God." The
preservation of government depends on the faithful discharge of this
duty; if the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in
office, the government will soon be corrupted; laws will be made, not
for the public good so much as for selfish or local purposes; corrupt or
incompetent men will be appointed to execute the laws; the public
revenues will be sqandered on unworthy men; and the rights of the
citizens will be violated or disregarded. If a republican government
fails to secure public prosperity and happiness, it must be because the
citizens neglect the divine commands, and elect bad men to make and
administer the laws.
[Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie &
Peck, 1832), pp. 336-337, �49.]
John Witherspoon
Those who wish well to the State ought to choose to places of trust
men of inward principle, justified by exemplary conversation. . . .
[And t]he people in general ought to have regard to the moral
character of those whom they invest with authority either in the
legislative, executive, or judicial branches.
[John Witherspoon, The Works of John Witherspoon Edinburgh: J.
Ogle, 1815), Vol. IV, pp. 266, 277.]
This site belongs to WallBuilders, LLC, a Texas Limited Liability
Corporation PO Box 397 Aledo, Texas 76008 Contact Us Site
designed and powered by Blepo.
Website for Wallbuilders http://www.wallbuilders.com/ Check it out!
Fox: Rep. Maxine Waters has a socialist freudian slip
“And guess what this liberal will be all about? This liberal will
be all about socializing, uh, uh… would be about basically about
taking over the government running all of your companies.”
Obama courts world's worst human rights abusers in fight against Taliban
A dangerous game. Those who subscribe to the foolish notion that
"the enemy of my enemy is my friend" have often found that the new
friend does not consider the friendship mutual. "Barack Obama courts
human rights abusers in Taliban fight," by Richard Spencer in the
Telegraph, July 31 (thanks to Alan of England):
President Barack Obama is resurrecting relations with some of the
world's worst human rights abusers in Central Asia as he attempts
to secure new allies in the fight against the Taliban.
In a repeat of the 19th Century "Great Game", when the Russians
and British competed for relations with Muslim leaders on the out-
posts of their empires, Mr Obama's envoys are scuttling between the
palaces of Central Asia's post-Soviet dictators.
In the last three months, Mr Obama has cut deals with Presidents
Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan and Kurmanbek Bakiyev of Kyrgyzs-
tan. Mr Karimov has been accused by a former British ambassador
of ordering two opponents boiled alive. One of Mr Bakiyev's critics
was recently stabbed 26 times in the buttocks by unknown assailants.
US diplomats have also paid calls on Ashgabad, the capital of Turk-
menistan, a country still reeling from the personality cult of "Turk-
menbashi", as the late President Sapurmurat Niyazov styled himself
during his eccentric 19-year rule.
"The United States is fixated by Afghan issues and does not care if it
supports dictators," Tashbulat Yuldashev, a former Uzbek government
official turned dissident told The Telegraph.
He fled Uzbekistan last year under threat from gangs of heavies after
criticising Mr Karimov, president since the fall of the Soviet Union
eighteen years ago.
Mr Obama has brought a new pragmatism to foreign policy, disappoint-
ing those who expected his liberal idealism to dominate all aspects of his
administration.
That pragmatism is now being employed on one of the great diplomatic
battlegrounds of history: the Silk Road through Central Asia, for decades
closed off as part of the Soviet Union but now once again open to the ex-
change of goods, people – and unrest.
In the Fergana Valley, which straddles Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan and
is close to Afghanistan, Islamic militants have found ready recruiting
grounds in the hundreds of thousands of migrant workers who have lost
their jobs in the financial crisis.
Nine jihadists were killed in gun-battles near the city of Osh, on the
Kyrgyz side of the border in June alone, while Uzbek identity cards
have been found on dead Taliban fighters in Pakistan....
Posted by Robert at August 1, 2009 5:33 AM
"the enemy of my enemy is my friend" have often found that the new
friend does not consider the friendship mutual. "Barack Obama courts
human rights abusers in Taliban fight," by Richard Spencer in the
Telegraph, July 31 (thanks to Alan of England):
President Barack Obama is resurrecting relations with some of the
world's worst human rights abusers in Central Asia as he attempts
to secure new allies in the fight against the Taliban.
In a repeat of the 19th Century "Great Game", when the Russians
and British competed for relations with Muslim leaders on the out-
posts of their empires, Mr Obama's envoys are scuttling between the
palaces of Central Asia's post-Soviet dictators.
In the last three months, Mr Obama has cut deals with Presidents
Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan and Kurmanbek Bakiyev of Kyrgyzs-
tan. Mr Karimov has been accused by a former British ambassador
of ordering two opponents boiled alive. One of Mr Bakiyev's critics
was recently stabbed 26 times in the buttocks by unknown assailants.
US diplomats have also paid calls on Ashgabad, the capital of Turk-
menistan, a country still reeling from the personality cult of "Turk-
menbashi", as the late President Sapurmurat Niyazov styled himself
during his eccentric 19-year rule.
"The United States is fixated by Afghan issues and does not care if it
supports dictators," Tashbulat Yuldashev, a former Uzbek government
official turned dissident told The Telegraph.
He fled Uzbekistan last year under threat from gangs of heavies after
criticising Mr Karimov, president since the fall of the Soviet Union
eighteen years ago.
Mr Obama has brought a new pragmatism to foreign policy, disappoint-
ing those who expected his liberal idealism to dominate all aspects of his
administration.
That pragmatism is now being employed on one of the great diplomatic
battlegrounds of history: the Silk Road through Central Asia, for decades
closed off as part of the Soviet Union but now once again open to the ex-
change of goods, people – and unrest.
In the Fergana Valley, which straddles Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan and
is close to Afghanistan, Islamic militants have found ready recruiting
grounds in the hundreds of thousands of migrant workers who have lost
their jobs in the financial crisis.
Nine jihadists were killed in gun-battles near the city of Osh, on the
Kyrgyz side of the border in June alone, while Uzbek identity cards
have been found on dead Taliban fighters in Pakistan....
Posted by Robert at August 1, 2009 5:33 AM
4% FOR FREEDOM
Protect America, Stop OBAMA’s Defense Cuts
Our country still needs Defense protection during these trying days. Sign up for America!
As They Say On Twitter: SEIU FAIL
The Foundry
Posted July 29th, 2009 at 6.39pm in Health Care.
As the old saying in Washington goes: if you can’t attack the message,
attack the messenger. Nobody knows this strategy better than the
Service Employees International Union (SEIU), a big labor union
known for bullying anyone it disagrees with into submission. And that
is why they are turning their “activists” against the Lewin Group, a
nonpartisan, independent health care research firm.
In the past couple weeks, thousands of conservatives have taken to
Twitter to say #handsoff and push for health care reform that leaves
medical decisions in their hands and not the government’s. Now SEIU
leaders are urging their members to tweet “Lewin Group FAIL” to
Members of Congress on Twitter, FAIL being the ultimate dig on the
social networking site. And by doing this they are showing that with-
out a coherent health care message, they have shamefully resorted
to attacking those who crunch economical models for a living.
In fact, the Lewin Group is an independent and well-respected
national health care and human services policy research and consult-
ing firm with expertise in modeling, statistics, and actuarial analysis
and more than 35 years of experience. They regularly analyze pro-
posals from Democrats and Republicans, non-profit foundations,
associations and for-profit corporations, across the ideological spect-
rum. While their estimates may differ from the Congressional Budget
Office, they are not alone in projecting that millions of Americans will
lose their private coverage if there is a government-run health plan.
In 2007, Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Senator Bob Bennett
(R-UT) said in a joint op/ed in the Wall Street Journal: “The Lewin
Group [is] the gold standard of independent, health-care analysis.”
SEIU stands to gain handsomely from President Obama’s health care
reform, as it currently represents 17% of hospital employees across
the nation. Its end goal is to unionize 100% of those employees, and
how better to do that than to help President Obama ”reform” the
industry in its favor? Our children’s public schools are gripped into
submission and substandard care by teacher’s unions, and now SEIU
hopes to duplicate this money and power in the health care industry.
SEIU President Andy Stern will tell you that he wants to “build a
health care system that works for everybody.” Hmm, that seems
genuine. But SEIU’s history shows greater care for union dues than
your health.
In October 2005, the SEIU and their sister organization ACORN ruth-
lessly bussed in vanloads of sick supporters to two Chicago emergency
rooms to teach them a lesson for not unionizing by overloading the ER
and harassing the doctors and nurses on duty. The result was a very
long day and insufficient care for all.
Even former Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala
called out SEIU for endangering their members during a hunger
strike in Florida saying: “We are devastated that the union is risking
the health and well-being of our students and the Unicco employees
by sanctioning an activity as drastic as a hunger strike.” Apparently,
five demonstrators were taken to the hospital, one with a mild stroke.
So when the SEIU attacks an independent organization revered by
people on all sides of the political spectrum in the name of improving
American health care, it stands to reason you should be skeptical of
their motives. Resorting to these “Chicago style” tactics won’t bring
about reform, and it won’t elevate this debate. What it will do is
distract America from the facts: millions stand to lose their private
insurance coverage if the President’s plan for health reform is enact-
ed. Period.
http://twitter.com/Heritage for the latest news, research, and
analysis on health care reform.
Posted July 29th, 2009 at 6.39pm in Health Care.
As the old saying in Washington goes: if you can’t attack the message,
attack the messenger. Nobody knows this strategy better than the
Service Employees International Union (SEIU), a big labor union
known for bullying anyone it disagrees with into submission. And that
is why they are turning their “activists” against the Lewin Group, a
nonpartisan, independent health care research firm.
In the past couple weeks, thousands of conservatives have taken to
Twitter to say #handsoff and push for health care reform that leaves
medical decisions in their hands and not the government’s. Now SEIU
leaders are urging their members to tweet “Lewin Group FAIL” to
Members of Congress on Twitter, FAIL being the ultimate dig on the
social networking site. And by doing this they are showing that with-
out a coherent health care message, they have shamefully resorted
to attacking those who crunch economical models for a living.
In fact, the Lewin Group is an independent and well-respected
national health care and human services policy research and consult-
ing firm with expertise in modeling, statistics, and actuarial analysis
and more than 35 years of experience. They regularly analyze pro-
posals from Democrats and Republicans, non-profit foundations,
associations and for-profit corporations, across the ideological spect-
rum. While their estimates may differ from the Congressional Budget
Office, they are not alone in projecting that millions of Americans will
lose their private coverage if there is a government-run health plan.
In 2007, Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Senator Bob Bennett
(R-UT) said in a joint op/ed in the Wall Street Journal: “The Lewin
Group [is] the gold standard of independent, health-care analysis.”
SEIU stands to gain handsomely from President Obama’s health care
reform, as it currently represents 17% of hospital employees across
the nation. Its end goal is to unionize 100% of those employees, and
how better to do that than to help President Obama ”reform” the
industry in its favor? Our children’s public schools are gripped into
submission and substandard care by teacher’s unions, and now SEIU
hopes to duplicate this money and power in the health care industry.
SEIU President Andy Stern will tell you that he wants to “build a
health care system that works for everybody.” Hmm, that seems
genuine. But SEIU’s history shows greater care for union dues than
your health.
In October 2005, the SEIU and their sister organization ACORN ruth-
lessly bussed in vanloads of sick supporters to two Chicago emergency
rooms to teach them a lesson for not unionizing by overloading the ER
and harassing the doctors and nurses on duty. The result was a very
long day and insufficient care for all.
Even former Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala
called out SEIU for endangering their members during a hunger
strike in Florida saying: “We are devastated that the union is risking
the health and well-being of our students and the Unicco employees
by sanctioning an activity as drastic as a hunger strike.” Apparently,
five demonstrators were taken to the hospital, one with a mild stroke.
So when the SEIU attacks an independent organization revered by
people on all sides of the political spectrum in the name of improving
American health care, it stands to reason you should be skeptical of
their motives. Resorting to these “Chicago style” tactics won’t bring
about reform, and it won’t elevate this debate. What it will do is
distract America from the facts: millions stand to lose their private
insurance coverage if the President’s plan for health reform is enact-
ed. Period.
http://twitter.com/Heritage for the latest news, research, and
analysis on health care reform.
ACORN’s “Muscle for Money” does the bidding of SEIU
Corporate and political officials who defy workplace and community
organizers risk being made objects of scorn by bright red-clad
protestors in public and private, courtesy of an activist union and its
close allies in the nation’s most controversial liberal non-profit
advocacy group.
It’s officially called the “Muscle for Money” program within the
Service Employees International Union (SEIU) where it was started,
and unofficially by the same name among activists of Association of
Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN).
ACORN is under investigation in at least 14 states over voter registra-
tion fraud allegations stemming from the 2008 presidential campaign.
The group endorsed President Barack Obama, despite federal laws
barring partisan political activities by tax-exempt groups.
THE EMPLOYEE FREE(FORCED) CHOICE ACT: BAD FOR
WORKERS, GOOD FOR UNION BOSSES.
New Poll: 82% of Americans Don’t Want to Join a Union
The Center for Union Facts (CUF) released a unique new poll which
found that 82% of non-unionized American workers would not like
their jobs to be unionized. The poll, which was conducted by the
Opinion Research Corporation of Princeton, New Jersey, clearly
demonstrates that an overwhelming number of Americans have no
interest in joining a union.
organizers risk being made objects of scorn by bright red-clad
protestors in public and private, courtesy of an activist union and its
close allies in the nation’s most controversial liberal non-profit
advocacy group.
It’s officially called the “Muscle for Money” program within the
Service Employees International Union (SEIU) where it was started,
and unofficially by the same name among activists of Association of
Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN).
ACORN is under investigation in at least 14 states over voter registra-
tion fraud allegations stemming from the 2008 presidential campaign.
The group endorsed President Barack Obama, despite federal laws
barring partisan political activities by tax-exempt groups.
THE EMPLOYEE FREE(FORCED) CHOICE ACT: BAD FOR
WORKERS, GOOD FOR UNION BOSSES.
New Poll: 82% of Americans Don’t Want to Join a Union
The Center for Union Facts (CUF) released a unique new poll which
found that 82% of non-unionized American workers would not like
their jobs to be unionized. The poll, which was conducted by the
Opinion Research Corporation of Princeton, New Jersey, clearly
demonstrates that an overwhelming number of Americans have no
interest in joining a union.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
From the Obama Irony File
By Harrison, on July 29th, 2009
From a 2004 interview with then-Senator Barack Obama:
BARACK OBAMA: …When you rush these budgets that are a foot high
and nobody has any idea what’s in them and nobody has read them.
RANDI RHODES: 14 pounds it was!
BARACK OBAMA: Yeah. And it gets rushed through without any clear
deliberation or debate then these kinds of things happen. And I think
that this is in some ways what happened to the Patriot Act. I mean you
remember that there was no real debate about that. It was so quick
after 9/11 that it was introduced that people felt very intimidated by
the administration.
Of course, when you’re a Democrat and you rush things like the
stimulus, Cap and Trade, or Obamakare these “little details” don’t apply.
From a 2004 interview with then-Senator Barack Obama:
BARACK OBAMA: …When you rush these budgets that are a foot high
and nobody has any idea what’s in them and nobody has read them.
RANDI RHODES: 14 pounds it was!
BARACK OBAMA: Yeah. And it gets rushed through without any clear
deliberation or debate then these kinds of things happen. And I think
that this is in some ways what happened to the Patriot Act. I mean you
remember that there was no real debate about that. It was so quick
after 9/11 that it was introduced that people felt very intimidated by
the administration.
Of course, when you’re a Democrat and you rush things like the
stimulus, Cap and Trade, or Obamakare these “little details” don’t apply.
5 Freedoms You'd Lose in Health Care Reform
by Shawn TullyMonday, July 27, 2009
Fortune on CNN Money.com
If you read the fine print in the Congressional plans, you'll find that
a lot of cherished aspects of the current system would disappear.
In promoting his health-care agenda, President Obama has repeat-
edly reassured Americans that they can keep their existing health
plans -- and that the benefits and access they prize will be enhanced
through reform.
A close reading of the two main bills, one backed by Democrats in
the House and the other issued by Sen. Edward Kennedy's Health
committee, contradict the President's assurances. To be sure, it isn't
easy to comb through their 2,000 pages of tortured legal language.
But page by page, the bills reveal a web of restrictions, fines, and
mandates that would radically change your health-care coverage.
If you prize choosing your own cardiologist or urologist under your
company's Preferred Provider Organization plan (PPO), if your
employer rewards your non-smoking, healthy lifestyle with reduced
premiums, if you love the bargain Health Savings Account (HSA) that
insures you just for the essentials, or if you simply take comfort in the
freedom to spend your own money for a policy that covers the newest
drugs and diagnostic tests -- you may be shocked to learn that you
could lose all of those good things under the rules proposed in the two
bills that herald a health-care revolution.
In short, the Obama platform would mandate extremely full, expen-
sive, and highly subsidized coverage -- including a lot of benefits people
would never pay for with their own money -- but deliver it through a
highly restrictive, HMO-style plan that will determine what care and
tests you can and can't have. It's a revolution, all right, but in the
wrong direction.
Let's explore the five freedoms that Americans would lose under
Obamacare:
1. Freedom to choose what's in your plan
The bills in both houses require that Americans purchase insurance
through "qualified" plans offered by health-care "exchanges" that
would be set up in each state. The rub is that the plans can't really
compete based on what they offer. The reason: The federal
government will impose a minimum list of benefits that each plan
is required to offer.
Today, many states require these "standard benefits packages" --
and they're a major cause for the rise in health-care costs. Every
group, from chiropractors to alcohol-abuse counselors, do lobbying
to get included. Connecticut, for example, requires reimbursement
for hair transplants, hearing aids, and in vitro fertilization.
The Senate bill would require coverage for prescription drugs,
mental-health benefits, and substance-abuse services. It also
requires policies to insure "children" until the age of 26. That's just
the starting list. The bills would allow the Department of Health and
Human Services to add to the list of required benefits, based on
recommendations from a committee of experts. Americans, there-
fore, wouldn't even know what's in their plans and what they're
required to pay for, directly or indirectly, until after the bills
become law.
2. Freedom to be rewarded for healthy living, or pay your real costs
As with the previous example, the Obama plan enshrines into federal
law one of the worst features of state legislation: community rating.
Eleven states, ranging from New York to Oregon, have some form of
community rating. In its purest form, community rating requires that
all patients pay the same rates for their level of coverage regardless
of their age or medical condition.
Americans with pre-existing conditions need subsidies under any plan,
but community rating is a dubious way to bring fairness to health care.
The reason is twofold: First, it forces young people, who typically have
lower incomes than older workers, to pay far more than their actual
cost, and gives older workers, who can afford to pay more, a big
discount. The state laws gouging the young are a major reason so
many of them have joined the ranks of uninsured.
Under the Senate plan, insurers would be barred from charging any
more than twice as much for one patient vs. any other patient with
the same coverage. So if a 20-year-old who costs just $800 a year to
insure is forced to pay $2,500, a 62-year-old who costs $7,500 would
pay no more than $5,000.
Second, the bills would ban insurers from charging differing premiums
based on the health of their customers. Again, that's understandable
for folks with diabetes or cancer. But the bills would bar rewarding
people who pursue a healthy lifestyle of exercise or a cholesterol-
conscious diet. That's hardly a formula for lower costs. It's as if car
insurers had to charge the same rates to safe drivers as to chronic
speeders with a history of accidents.
3. Freedom to choose high-deductible coverage
The bills threaten to eliminate the one part of the market truly driven
by consumers spending their own money. That's what makes a market,
and health care needs more of it, not less.
Hundreds of companies now offer Health Savings Accounts to about 5
million employees. Those workers deposit tax-free money in the
accounts and get a matching contribution from their employer. They
can use the funds to buy a high-deductible plan -- say for major
medical costs over $12,000. Preventive care is reimbursed, but
patients pay all other routine doctor visits and tests with their own
money from the HSA account. As a result, HSA users are far more
cost-conscious than customers who are reimbursed for the majority
of their care.
The bills seriously endanger the trend toward consumer-driven care
in general. By requiring minimum packages, they would prevent
patients from choosing stripped-down plans that cover only major
medical expenses. "The government could set extremely low deduct-
ibles that would eliminate HSAs," says John Goodman of the National
Center for Policy Analysis, a free-market research group. "And they
could do it after the bills are passed."
4. Freedom to keep your existing plan
This is the freedom that the President keeps emphasizing. Yet the bills
appear to say otherwise. It's worth diving into the weeds -- the terri-
tory where most pundits and politicians don't seem to have ventured.
The legislation divides the insured into two main groups, and those two
groups are treated differently with respect to their current plans. The
first are employees covered by the Employee Retirement Security Act
of 1974. ERISA regulates companies that are self-insured, meaning
they pay claims out of their cash flow, and don't have real insurance.
Those are the GEs and Time Warners and most other big companies.
The House bill states that employees covered by ERISA plans are
"grandfathered." Under ERISA, the plans can do pretty much what
they want -- they're exempt from standard packages and community
rating and can reward employees for healthy lifestyles even in re-
strictive states. But read on.
The bill gives ERISA employers a five-year grace period when they
can keep offering plans free from the restrictions of the "qualified"
policies offered on the exchanges. But after five years, they would
have to offer only approved plans, with the myriad rules we've already
discussed. So for Americans in large corporations, "keeping your own
plan" has a strict deadline. In five years, like it or not, you'll get dump-
ed into the exchange. As we'll see, it could happen a lot earlier.
The outlook is worse for the second group. It encompasses employees
who aren't under ERISA but get actual insurance either on their own
or through small businesses. After the legislation passes, all insurers
that offer a wide range of plans to these employees will be forced to
offer only "qualified" plans to new customers, via the exchanges.
The employees who got their coverage before the law goes into effect
can keep their plans, but once again, there's a catch. If the plan changes
in any way -- by altering co-pays, deductibles, or even switching
coverage for this or that drug -- the employee must drop out and shop
through the exchange. Since these plans generally change their policies
every year, it's likely that millions of employees will lose their plans
in 12 months.
5. Freedom to choose your doctors
The Senate bill requires that Americans buying through the exchanges
-- and as we've seen, that will soon be most Americans -- must get
their care through something called "medical home." Medical home
is similar to an HMO. You're assigned a primary care doctor, and the
doctor controls your access to specialists. The primary care physicians
will decide which services, like MRIs and other diagnostic scans, are
best for you, and will decide when you really need to see a cardiologists
or orthopedists.
Under the proposals, the gatekeepers would theoretically guide patients
to tests and treatments that have proved most cost-effective. The
danger is that doctors will be financially rewarded for denying care, as
were HMO physicians more than a decade ago. It was consumer outrage
over despotic gatekeepers that made the HMOs so unpopular, and killed
what was billed as the solution to America's health-care cost explosion.
The bills do not specifically rule out fee-for-service plans as options to
be offered through the exchanges. But remember, those plans -- if they
exist -- would be barred from charging sick or elderly patients more
than young and healthy ones. So patients would be inclined to game the
system, staying in the HMO while they're healthy and switching to fee-
for-service when they become seriously ill. "That would kill fee-for-ser-
vice in a hurry," says Goodman.
In reality, the flexible, employer-based plans that now dominate the
landscape, and that Americans so cherish, could disappear far faster
than the 5 year "grace period" that's barely being discussed.
Companies would have the option of paying an 8% payroll tax into a
fund that pays for coverage for Americans who aren't covered by their
employers. It won't happen right away -- large companies must wait
a couple of years before they opt out. But it will happen, since it's likely
that the tax will rise a lot more slowly than corporate health-care costs,
especially since they'll be lobbying Washington to keep the tax under
control in the righteous name of job creation.
The best solution is to move to a let-freedom-ring regime of high de-
ductibles, no community rating, no standard benefits, and cross-state
shopping for bargains (another market-based reform that's strictly
taboo in the bills). I'll propose my own solution in another piece soon
on Fortune.com. For now, we suffer with a flawed health-care system,
but we still have our Five Freedoms. Call them the Five Endangered
Freedoms.
Fortune on CNN Money.com
If you read the fine print in the Congressional plans, you'll find that
a lot of cherished aspects of the current system would disappear.
In promoting his health-care agenda, President Obama has repeat-
edly reassured Americans that they can keep their existing health
plans -- and that the benefits and access they prize will be enhanced
through reform.
A close reading of the two main bills, one backed by Democrats in
the House and the other issued by Sen. Edward Kennedy's Health
committee, contradict the President's assurances. To be sure, it isn't
easy to comb through their 2,000 pages of tortured legal language.
But page by page, the bills reveal a web of restrictions, fines, and
mandates that would radically change your health-care coverage.
If you prize choosing your own cardiologist or urologist under your
company's Preferred Provider Organization plan (PPO), if your
employer rewards your non-smoking, healthy lifestyle with reduced
premiums, if you love the bargain Health Savings Account (HSA) that
insures you just for the essentials, or if you simply take comfort in the
freedom to spend your own money for a policy that covers the newest
drugs and diagnostic tests -- you may be shocked to learn that you
could lose all of those good things under the rules proposed in the two
bills that herald a health-care revolution.
In short, the Obama platform would mandate extremely full, expen-
sive, and highly subsidized coverage -- including a lot of benefits people
would never pay for with their own money -- but deliver it through a
highly restrictive, HMO-style plan that will determine what care and
tests you can and can't have. It's a revolution, all right, but in the
wrong direction.
Let's explore the five freedoms that Americans would lose under
Obamacare:
1. Freedom to choose what's in your plan
The bills in both houses require that Americans purchase insurance
through "qualified" plans offered by health-care "exchanges" that
would be set up in each state. The rub is that the plans can't really
compete based on what they offer. The reason: The federal
government will impose a minimum list of benefits that each plan
is required to offer.
Today, many states require these "standard benefits packages" --
and they're a major cause for the rise in health-care costs. Every
group, from chiropractors to alcohol-abuse counselors, do lobbying
to get included. Connecticut, for example, requires reimbursement
for hair transplants, hearing aids, and in vitro fertilization.
The Senate bill would require coverage for prescription drugs,
mental-health benefits, and substance-abuse services. It also
requires policies to insure "children" until the age of 26. That's just
the starting list. The bills would allow the Department of Health and
Human Services to add to the list of required benefits, based on
recommendations from a committee of experts. Americans, there-
fore, wouldn't even know what's in their plans and what they're
required to pay for, directly or indirectly, until after the bills
become law.
2. Freedom to be rewarded for healthy living, or pay your real costs
As with the previous example, the Obama plan enshrines into federal
law one of the worst features of state legislation: community rating.
Eleven states, ranging from New York to Oregon, have some form of
community rating. In its purest form, community rating requires that
all patients pay the same rates for their level of coverage regardless
of their age or medical condition.
Americans with pre-existing conditions need subsidies under any plan,
but community rating is a dubious way to bring fairness to health care.
The reason is twofold: First, it forces young people, who typically have
lower incomes than older workers, to pay far more than their actual
cost, and gives older workers, who can afford to pay more, a big
discount. The state laws gouging the young are a major reason so
many of them have joined the ranks of uninsured.
Under the Senate plan, insurers would be barred from charging any
more than twice as much for one patient vs. any other patient with
the same coverage. So if a 20-year-old who costs just $800 a year to
insure is forced to pay $2,500, a 62-year-old who costs $7,500 would
pay no more than $5,000.
Second, the bills would ban insurers from charging differing premiums
based on the health of their customers. Again, that's understandable
for folks with diabetes or cancer. But the bills would bar rewarding
people who pursue a healthy lifestyle of exercise or a cholesterol-
conscious diet. That's hardly a formula for lower costs. It's as if car
insurers had to charge the same rates to safe drivers as to chronic
speeders with a history of accidents.
3. Freedom to choose high-deductible coverage
The bills threaten to eliminate the one part of the market truly driven
by consumers spending their own money. That's what makes a market,
and health care needs more of it, not less.
Hundreds of companies now offer Health Savings Accounts to about 5
million employees. Those workers deposit tax-free money in the
accounts and get a matching contribution from their employer. They
can use the funds to buy a high-deductible plan -- say for major
medical costs over $12,000. Preventive care is reimbursed, but
patients pay all other routine doctor visits and tests with their own
money from the HSA account. As a result, HSA users are far more
cost-conscious than customers who are reimbursed for the majority
of their care.
The bills seriously endanger the trend toward consumer-driven care
in general. By requiring minimum packages, they would prevent
patients from choosing stripped-down plans that cover only major
medical expenses. "The government could set extremely low deduct-
ibles that would eliminate HSAs," says John Goodman of the National
Center for Policy Analysis, a free-market research group. "And they
could do it after the bills are passed."
4. Freedom to keep your existing plan
This is the freedom that the President keeps emphasizing. Yet the bills
appear to say otherwise. It's worth diving into the weeds -- the terri-
tory where most pundits and politicians don't seem to have ventured.
The legislation divides the insured into two main groups, and those two
groups are treated differently with respect to their current plans. The
first are employees covered by the Employee Retirement Security Act
of 1974. ERISA regulates companies that are self-insured, meaning
they pay claims out of their cash flow, and don't have real insurance.
Those are the GEs and Time Warners and most other big companies.
The House bill states that employees covered by ERISA plans are
"grandfathered." Under ERISA, the plans can do pretty much what
they want -- they're exempt from standard packages and community
rating and can reward employees for healthy lifestyles even in re-
strictive states. But read on.
The bill gives ERISA employers a five-year grace period when they
can keep offering plans free from the restrictions of the "qualified"
policies offered on the exchanges. But after five years, they would
have to offer only approved plans, with the myriad rules we've already
discussed. So for Americans in large corporations, "keeping your own
plan" has a strict deadline. In five years, like it or not, you'll get dump-
ed into the exchange. As we'll see, it could happen a lot earlier.
The outlook is worse for the second group. It encompasses employees
who aren't under ERISA but get actual insurance either on their own
or through small businesses. After the legislation passes, all insurers
that offer a wide range of plans to these employees will be forced to
offer only "qualified" plans to new customers, via the exchanges.
The employees who got their coverage before the law goes into effect
can keep their plans, but once again, there's a catch. If the plan changes
in any way -- by altering co-pays, deductibles, or even switching
coverage for this or that drug -- the employee must drop out and shop
through the exchange. Since these plans generally change their policies
every year, it's likely that millions of employees will lose their plans
in 12 months.
5. Freedom to choose your doctors
The Senate bill requires that Americans buying through the exchanges
-- and as we've seen, that will soon be most Americans -- must get
their care through something called "medical home." Medical home
is similar to an HMO. You're assigned a primary care doctor, and the
doctor controls your access to specialists. The primary care physicians
will decide which services, like MRIs and other diagnostic scans, are
best for you, and will decide when you really need to see a cardiologists
or orthopedists.
Under the proposals, the gatekeepers would theoretically guide patients
to tests and treatments that have proved most cost-effective. The
danger is that doctors will be financially rewarded for denying care, as
were HMO physicians more than a decade ago. It was consumer outrage
over despotic gatekeepers that made the HMOs so unpopular, and killed
what was billed as the solution to America's health-care cost explosion.
The bills do not specifically rule out fee-for-service plans as options to
be offered through the exchanges. But remember, those plans -- if they
exist -- would be barred from charging sick or elderly patients more
than young and healthy ones. So patients would be inclined to game the
system, staying in the HMO while they're healthy and switching to fee-
for-service when they become seriously ill. "That would kill fee-for-ser-
vice in a hurry," says Goodman.
In reality, the flexible, employer-based plans that now dominate the
landscape, and that Americans so cherish, could disappear far faster
than the 5 year "grace period" that's barely being discussed.
Companies would have the option of paying an 8% payroll tax into a
fund that pays for coverage for Americans who aren't covered by their
employers. It won't happen right away -- large companies must wait
a couple of years before they opt out. But it will happen, since it's likely
that the tax will rise a lot more slowly than corporate health-care costs,
especially since they'll be lobbying Washington to keep the tax under
control in the righteous name of job creation.
The best solution is to move to a let-freedom-ring regime of high de-
ductibles, no community rating, no standard benefits, and cross-state
shopping for bargains (another market-based reform that's strictly
taboo in the bills). I'll propose my own solution in another piece soon
on Fortune.com. For now, we suffer with a flawed health-care system,
but we still have our Five Freedoms. Call them the Five Endangered
Freedoms.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
