Judicial Watch Details Ambitious Investigative Agenda for 112th Congress

/PRNewswire/ -- Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released its list of investigative priorities for the new 112th Congress. The list, in alphabetical order, includes:

ACORN Corruption: Including, but not limited to, ACORN restructuring and rebranding; unethical activities by ACORN affiliates; incidents of voter registration fraud (Project Vote); and new Obama administration grants and funding for ACORN-linked groups.

Climategate: Including, but not limited to, the U.S. federal government's involvement in the international scheme to exaggerate the rise in world temperature readings, the Environmental Protection Agency's hyper-aggressive campaign to expand control over the economy through carbon restrictions and various controversies involving taxpayer-supported "green energy" programs.

Financial Solvency: Including, but not limited to, the impact nationally if individual States should begin to default on their debt.

Government Bailouts: Including, but not limited to, the government's legal and constitutional justification for authorizing the bailouts of private financial institutions; government deliberations regarding which institutions received grants from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP); the decision by the Federal Housing Finance Authority (FHFA) to place Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under "conservatorship;" and the government takeover of the American automotive industry.

Illegal Immigration: Including, but not limited to, the President's attempts to enact stealth amnesty for illegal aliens without approval by Congress; deteriorating security on the nation's southern border with Mexico; and the Obama administration's unwillingness to enforce federal immigration laws.

National Security: Including, but not limited to, the Obama administration's mishandling of Guantanamo Bay and the decision to prosecute 9/11 terrorists including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other terrorists in civilian courts on U.S. soil.

Obama Administration Czars: Including, but not limited to, the President's decision to bypass Senate confirmation and appoint "czars" to hold positions of power within the Obama administration as well as various corruption scandals involving individual "czars."

Obamacare: Including, but not limited to, the criteria used by the Obama administration to provide "waivers" to companies and unions exempting them from provisions of Obamacare; the Obama administration's decision to evaluate medical treatments based solely on cost; and the regulation and funding of Obamacare in general.

Pension Fraud: Including, but not limited to, the funding and management of public pension plans for municipal, state and unionized government workers.

Politicization at the Department of Justice: Including, but not limited to racially and politically motivated decision-making in federal civil and voting rights enforcement (such as the decision to largely abandon a voter intimidation lawsuit against the Black Panthers); Justice's decision to attack states that attempt to address illegal immigration through enhanced law enforcement measures; and the duties and responsibilities of lawyers inside Justice who previously represented terrorists.

White House Bribery: Including, but not limited to, an effort by the Obama administration to allegedly interfere with Senate elections in Pennsylvania and Colorado by offering federal appointments to candidates Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA) and Andrew Romanoff in exchange for abandoning their campaigns.

"The American people spoke clearly on Election Day: No more backroom deals, no more influence peddling and no more corruption. This new Congress has an obligation to honor the intense desire by the American people to clean up corruption in Washington," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "The federal government has grown by trillions of dollars, yet much of this historic new government activity (and control) has escaped effective congressional oversight. It is well past time for Congress to help pry loose information from the Obama administration, which is the most secretive in recent American history."

Libertarians oppose Republican plans to hang onto Obamacare

Incoming Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor has said that Republicans now want to keep two significant parts of Obamacare: forcing insurance companies to offer coverage for people up to age 26 under their parents' policies, and forcing insurance companies to issue coverage for pre-existing conditions.

Libertarian Party (LP) Chair Mark Hinkle commented, "This switch is predictable. Republicans love to say the words 'less government,' but they always vote for more government. It's a shame that the big-government Republican Party succeeded in fooling Americans again on November 2. We tried to warn the tea partiers."

Hinkle continued, "Repealing one bill and replacing it with much of the same thing doesn't count as a repeal.

"Issuing coverage for a pre-existing medical condition is like issuing coverage for a house with a pre-existing fire. It doesn't make any sense, and no insurance company would do it in a free market.

"By the same token, forcing insurance companies to cover adults up to age 26 under their parents' policy is absurd. Republicans and Democrats both love to treat adults like children.

"If Republicans succeed in keeping these Obamacare policies, it will mean significantly higher insurance premiums for everyone, in order to subsidize the huge new expenses that insurance companies will be forced to pay."

The LP platform plank on health care states, "We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions. People should be free to purchase health insurance across state lines."

Geithner is Wrong: The Obama-Pelosi-Reid Tax Hike is Not a 'Return to the 1990s'

/PRNewswire/ -- In advance of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's major economic address today Americans for Tax Reform released the following:

In a speech today at the Center for American Progress, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner will say that the largest tax hike in American history (coming this January) is a return to the "pro-growth" fiscal policies of the 1990s. This is patently absurd. Here is why:

1. The tax rates scheduled under current law and the Obama budget are higher than those of the Clinton years. Everyone forgets that Obamacare imposes a new 3.8 percent surtax on investment income and raises the top Medicare payroll tax rate to 3.8 percent in 2013. That means that the top tax rates on the table are higher than they were in the 1990s:

Obama     Current
               Clinton/     Budget       Law
                  GOP
               Congress
  Capital
   Gains              20%      23.8%       23.8%
  Dividends         39.6%      23.8%       43.4%
  Majority
   of Small
   Business
   Profits          42.5%      43.4%       43.4%

2. We can't afford to raise tax rates while other countries have been cutting them. The United States has the highest corporate income tax rate in the developed world (39 percent when states are factored in). The average in the developed world is 26 percent. Back in 1995, the developed world's average was nearly 37 percent, and the U.S. level was the same as today. So the corporate tax rate around the world has been slashed, and the United States has stayed the same. We can't afford to raise taxes at the same time as other countries have been cutting them.

3. The capital gains tax rate in the 1990s was going down, but the Obama budget calls for the rate to go up. The GOP Congress and President Clinton signed a capital gains tax cut in 1997, lowering the top rate from 28 to 20 percent. However, the combination of the January 2011 tax hike and Obamacare means that today's capital gains tax rate will rise from 15 to nearly 24 percent.

4. Spending was going down in the 1990s, but it is at record-high levels today. That's why the 1990s had surpluses, and this decade has record deficits. Between 1990 and 2000, federal spending fell from 22 percent of the economy to 18 percent of the economy. Meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office projects that federal spending this decade will hover around 23 percent of the economy--each and every year, and far above the historical average of 21 percent. Record-high spending is causing deficits this decade, just as spending restraint caused surpluses in the 1990s. Taxes should not be hiked to pay for massive, deficit-causing spending.

63% of Likely Voters Want ObamaCare Repealed; Revere America's National Petition Drive at www.revereamerica.org Gives Them a Powerful Way to Make Their Voices Heard

/PRNewswire/ -- With a new poll by Rasmussen showing that 63% of likely voters want to repeal ObamaCare, the American people have an unparalleled opportunity to make their voices heard by signing Revere America's national petition to repeal and replace the government takeover of healthcare. The petition is available at www.revereamerica.org as part of Revere America's national petition drive to collect the names and signatures of at least one million Americans who want to repeal and replace ObamaCare.

Revere America Chairman Governor George Pataki said:

"Rasmussen's new poll shows beyond any doubt the depth of opposition to the government takeover of healthcare. But it's not enough to just tell a pollster that you oppose ObamaCare and hope that out of touch politicians in Washington will pay attention.

"That's why I urge everyone who opposes this dangerously liberal law to sign Revere America's national petition to repeal and replace ObamaCare at www.revereamerica.org. Together, we can deliver a powerful message that Washington won't soon forget and won't be able to ignore."

Obamacare's nasty surprise

Fewer insured, higher costs might be the result
Obamacare could have the unintended consequence of raising health insurance premiums and causing a decline in the number of people with insurance.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/05/AR2009110504327.html

Note: This one is a must read!
---
Community News You Can Use
Follow us on Twitter: @gafrontpage
www.FayetteFrontPage.com
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
www.PoliticalPotluck.com
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
---

Guess who’s funding ObamaCare advocates?

Facebook finding:

Greg Sargent notes that a familiar face will start showering cash on organizations trying to build support for ObamaCare. George Soros, who once pledged his entire fortune in an unsuccessful effort to unseat George Bush, has pledged another $5 million to overcome popular opposition to the government takeover of the health-care industry. Sargent rightly notes that this will become a flashpoint for both sides of the divide:

In another sign of the urgency gripping the pro-health care reform camp, billionaire George Soros has pledged to sink $5 million into the fight, the group getting the money confirmed.

Soros — whose operation carefully guards the privacy of such donations — made the pledge to Health Care For America Now, the leading coalition of pro-reform groups, unions and providers, HCAN chief Richard Kirsch confirmed in an email that was forwarded to me. …

The Soros pledge is noteworthy, because both sides will seize on it. The right will say it shows the real astroturfing is coming from the pro-reform side — billionaire bogeyman Soros is bankrolling this fight!

The left will cite the donation to demand that HCAN show real results. Some on the left, such as blogger Jane Hamsher, have been asking why heavily-bankrolled HCAN hasn’t been able to secure more commitments from Dem members of Congress to stand firm behind a public option.
However, that group may run afoul of Rahm Emanuel and the White House. Emanuel has demanded that HCAN and other advocacy groups focus their sights on Republicans and stop attacking vulnerable Democrats — which, in this case, would be those who have shown great reluctance to get on board with ObamaCare. If HCAN takes Emanuel’s advice, it’s hard to see what they’ll use the money to do, other than buy advertising that strictly focuses on the issue. That issue hasn’t played well thus far, and $5 million of advertising won’t make a dent in the opposition.

That’s where the pharmaceutical industry’s cash will come in handy:

The drug industry has authorized its lobbyists to spend as much as $150 million on television commercials supporting President Obama’s health care overhaul, beginning over the August Congressional recess, people briefed on the plans said Saturday.

The unusually large scale of the industry’s commitment to the cause helps explain some of a contentious back-and-forth playing out in recent days between the odd-couple allies over a deal that the White House struck with the industry in June to secure its support. The terms of the deal were not fully disclosed. Both sides had announced that the drug industry would contribute $80 billion over 10 years to the cost of the health care overhaul without spelling out the details.

With House Democrats moving to extract more than that just as the drug makers finalized their advertising plans, the industry lobbyists pressed the Obama administration for public reassurances that it had agreed to cap the industry’s additional costs at $80 billion. The White House, meanwhile, has struggled to mollify its most pivotal health industry ally without alienating Congressional Democrats who want to demand far more of the drug makers. White House officials could not immediately be reached for comment.

To give this some perspective, it helps to recall that John McCain spent $126 million on advertising for the entire general election campaign in 2008. Why have the pharmaceuticals gone for ObamaCare in a big way? Obama promised not to use Medicare’s market advantage to drive down prices any more than the $80 billion already pledged by the industry. That’s basically price-fixing of a kind that the Federal Trade Commission would investigate if it involved a private-sector insurance giant.

Remind me again which side is Astroturfing and getting big, powerful firms funding their operation, and which one represents the actual sense of Americans on government-controlled health care.

From:
from http://www.facebook.com/l/;Hotair.com
via Facebook group: Expose Soros & Other Far-Left Financiers