Breaking: Arizona and Nevada governors initiate lawsuits against ObamaCare

Greta Van Susteren  featured the governors of Nevada and Arizona on her show Tuesday evening.  Both are committed to filing legal challenges to the new Democratic health care law.  The Washington Examiner reports:

The governors of Arizona and Nevada say their states will join 14 others suing the federal government over health care reform.

Gov. Jan Brewer announced Arizona was joining the suit Tuesday night. She signed a bill April 1 that gave her the authority to skirt the state's Democratic attorney general, Terry Goddard, who declined to sue on the state's behalf.

Republicans say the bill signed by President Obama is unconstitutional in part because it requires people to buy private health insurance. Goddard and other Democrats say a suit would be unlikely to succeed and thus a waste of taxpayer money.

Also Tuesday, Gov. Jim Gibbons signed an executive order for Nevada to join the multistate challenge to the federal legislation.

Nevada Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, a Democrat, refused an earlier directive from Gibbons to join the suit.

Drip.  Drip.  Drip.  Remember

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Oh, and about the the commerce clause?  Commerce is about activity.  The newly enacted health care bill regulates inactivity.  If the federal government can mandate that you get off the couch and buy health insurance just because you draw breath in the U.S., what will stop it from requiring you to buy compact fluorescent light bulbs (that take forever to warm up and have an unacceptable failure rate), pasteurized oysters (that taste like rubber), shares in a government-owned bank, and a GM automobile (that you may or may not want)?

A New Birth of Freedom

On this Easter and Passover weekend, I will be spending less time blogging and more time with my family, but I wanted to direct you to an important and hopeful treatise from Professor Paul Rahe at Big Government.  Here's an excerpt:

Never, in the history of the United States, has a political party dared, in the face of public opinion fully formed and fiercely adverse, to carry so ambitious a bill without a modicum of cover from the opposition. What the Democrats have done is a breathtaking expression of contempt not just for public sentiment as revealed in the polling data but also for the verdict handed down by the people of Massachusetts at the polls in January. What they have done would never have been attempted by Franklin Delano Roosevelt or Lyndon Baines Johnson, who had a healthy respect for public opinion. What Barack Obama calls the audacity of hope is reckless in the extreme.

As I have argued in a recent post, Abraham Lincoln was right when he wrote, “Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed.” What this means in the present circumstances cannot be overestimated. The Republicans, if they seize the occasion, will have the rapt attention of their compatriots. If they expose fully the tyrannical ambition at the heart of the healthcare bill, they not only can, they will prevail. All that they then have to do is to restate in contemporary terms what FDR said with an eye to Herbert Hoover and the business progressives of the 1920s and the early 1930s: that “a small group” of his fellow Americans was intent on concentrating “into their own hands an almost complete control over other people’s property, other people’s money, other people’s labor – other people’s lives,” for, as is perfectly obvious, that is precisely what Barack Obama and his minions are attempting to do.

This is, as Mark Steyn insists, a very dangerous time. In my judgment, however, it is also a time of almost unprecedented opportunity. We have options that have not been vouchsafed to the friends of liberty for more than sixty years. For, if the Republicans manage to articulate, on the basis of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the rationale for limited government as that rationale is pertinent to the healthcare bill, they will at the same time have articulated the grounds for doing away with the administrative state, and everyone will recognize the consequences.

Read the whole thing.

Have a blessed Easter weekend.

GOP going wobbly on repealing Obamacare

Ace of Spades, Ed Morrissey and Michelle Malkin are warning that GOP resolve to repeal Obamacare appears to be waning.  Fox News documents the apparent collapse:

Top Republicans are increasingly worried that GOP candidates this fall might be burned by a fire that's roaring through the conservative base: demand for the repeal of President Barack Obama's new health care law.

It's fine to criticize the health law and the way Democrats pushed it through Congress without a single GOP vote, these party leaders say. But focusing on its outright repeal carries two big risks.

Repeal is politically and legally unlikely, and grass-roots activists may feel disillusioned by a failed crusade. More important, say strategists from both parties, a fiercely repeal-the-bill stance might prove far less popular in a general election than in a conservative-dominated GOP primary, especially in states such as Illinois and California.

Democrats are counting on that scenario. They say more Americans will learn of the new law's benefits over time and anger over its messy legislative pedigree will fade. For months, Democrats have eagerly catalogued Republican congressional candidates who pledge to repeal the health care law, vowing to make them pay in November.

Republican leaders are stepping cautiously, wary of angering staunchly conservative voters bent on repealing the new law. In recent public comments, they have quietly played down the notion of repealing the law while emphasizing claims that it will hurt jobs, the economy and the deficit.

It will be up to conservative and moderate voters to step up and keep up the pressure on their elected representatives between now and November to get this destructive piece of legislation repealed. There will be other issues that will drive individual elections throughout the country, but it is imperative not to lose sight of the necessity of pulling this one back.  DrewM. at Ace of Spades says it well:

That's not to say every Republican campaign this fall should be one word long, to the exclusion of every other issue. As I said last week, talk about whatever you want but always bring it back to the fact that health care and its impact on the economy are the issues that frame everything else. And at the bottom of that issue is one word, repeal. Sure the GOP will put something else in place (I wish we didn't have to, unfortunately that's not in the cards) but first and foremost we will repeal this nation killing health care law.

It might not be a winning formula for every election. That's ok, we don't need to win every election. We need to win enough on a clear mandate to start taking steps in 2011-2012 to repeal this law and build moment going into 2012 for the final push.

Repeal is going to be hard and it's going to be a long process. Look how long it took to get the damn thing in place. We have 3-4 years, not 100 so we need focus and determination because if we don't succeed, nothing else matters.

Man up GOP.

If you still have any doubt about just how rotten this bill is, just try to read a few pages of it.  The Senate bill is here.  The House reconciliation bill is here.

The Club for Growth has a Repeal It website where your lawmakers and candidates can pledge "to sponsor and support legislation to repeal any federal health care takeover passed in 2010, and replace it with real reforms that lower health care costs without growing government.”  See if your candidate has signed it and if they haven't, ask them why.

Companies push for repeal of health law provision

The American Benefits Council, an association representing 300 large corporations, urged the President and the Congress on Monday to repeal the part of the new health care law which reduces tax deductions for companies that provide prescription coverage for their retirees  From The New York Times:

James A. Klein, the president of the American Benefits Council, called the provision “a serious mistake that is having negative and unintended consequences.”

White House officials defended the provision, saying it was a deliberate effort to eliminate what they said was an unusually generous tax loophole.

They said the overall health care overhaul would save businesses more than $150 billion over the next decade by reducing health care inflation.

“We’re confident that the benefits are going to accrue and strengthen business’s bottom line,” said Linda Douglass, the communications director for the White House Health Reform Office.

When Congress and President George W. Bush enacted a prescription drug plan for seniors in 2003, the legislation encouraged companies to continue providing prescription coverage to retirees, instead of shifting retirees to Medicare Part D, by having the government give those companies large subsidies for each retiree — and also allowing them to deduct those subsidies from their income taxes.

Under the health care overhaul, the federal government will continue providing those subsidies — amounting to 28 percent of a drug plan’s costs — but companies will lose the tax break.

In a telephone news conference on Monday, Mr. Klein cited a study by Towers Watson, a consulting firm, saying the loss of the deduction would cost companies $14 billion in future years.

“Particularly in this economic environment, it makes no sense to impose this type of a hit on companies’ financial statements,” Mr. Klein said. The provision takes effect in 2013, but accounting rules require companies to take immediate charges equal to the current value of any known hit to future profits.

Defending the provision, White House officials said it was rare for companies to obtain a tax-free federal subsidy and be able to deduct it as well.

Ezra Klein at The Washington Post defends the elimination of the corporate tax deduction, and suggests that critics of this provision of ObamaCare are defending corporate welfare, not free markets.  Mr. Klein misses the point entirely.

This monstrous health care bill was sold (not very successfully) to the American people based on financial projections that did not account for market realities.  Whether the Medicare prescription plan and its attendant incentives to corporations was "a bit nuts" at the time is entirely irrelevant.  What is relevant is that when those incentives are reduced, or in the case of the subsidy deductibilty, removed altogether, it alters the financial landscape for corporations providing prescription drug coverage to their retirees.  It may come as a shock to the White House, but the executives of these large companies answer to their boards of directors, that in turn, answer to shareholders.  Shareholders, like it or not, are looking for profits, appreciation of their equity, dividends.  Evil stuff like that.

The inevitable result will be the eventual elimination of these private prescription plans, and the wholesale entry of these people into Medicare D.  While I am quite certain this outcome fits nicely into the left's ultimate vision of single-payer health care, I am equally sure the CBO wasn't permitted to include the costs of this increased Medicare enrollment in its carefully manipulated, fictional  financial projections.

Pennsylvania Appropriations Chair threatens to cut off funds to AG's office

The chairman of the Appropriations Committee of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has challenged Attorney General Tom Corbett's decision to join the multi-state lawsuit to block the new health care law, and threatened to cut off all state funding to the AG's office.  From Nathan A. Benefield at Big Government:

In a response to Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett’s decision to join 13 other states in filing a lawsuit against the federal health care legislation, PA House Appropriations Chairman Dwight Evans threatened to “do whatever it takes” to thwart the AG’s efforts. Incensed, Evans even went so far as to say he would be willing to cut off all state appropriations to the Office of the Attorney General to prevent Corbett from fighting this legislation. Here is the key quote from Evans:

We are accountable to the voters of this state. He [Corbett] cannot think that he can do whatever he wants with taxpayer money. No one can protect him from being accountable.

For starters, Evans should think about following his own advice, as he is one of the most notorious proponents of “WAMs” in the Pennsylvania Legislature, using taxpayer dollars going to fund his own community group and a failed nightclub venture.

Second, President Obama, Gov. Rendell, and others used far more taxpayer funding – with no objection from Evans – on their public relations campaign on health care reform than any lawsuit by the AG would cost. Tax dollars were used for everything from rallies to newsletters to press conferences.

Furthermore, Evans’ threat seems a clear violation of the separation of powers, and threatens the independence of the Attorney General. Indeed, it seems particularly curious, coming a mere two days after Corbett secured a conviction against Evans’ former House Democrat colleague Mike Veon, and is continuing his investigation and prosecution of House Democrats.

If you haven't heard of it, WAM is an acronym for "walking around money." 

Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell followed up a verbal appeal with a written one telling Corbett, whom he himself described as the favorite to be the next governor, to drop the health care lawsuit:

Mr. Rendell made a verbal appeal to Mr. Corbett on Monday not to join a lawsuit filed by attorneys general of 12 others states, all but one of them Republican. But on Tuesday Mr. Corbett said he is indeed going to be a plaintiff, arguing that the new federal law could cost Pennsylvania taxpayers to pay more than $1 billion in extra Medicaid costs for lower-income people without health insurance.

Mr. Corbett also argued that the federal government is "overreaching" its powers and violating the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which reserves many rights for states. Mr. Corbett charged the Obama administration is improperly inserting itself into matters of interstate commerce where it doesn't belong and, basically, telling people to buy a product -- health insurance -- whether they want to or not.

The lawsuit by Mr. Corbett and the others "is focused on the principle of defending the Constitution," said Corbett aide Kevin Harley.

But that didn't stop Mr. Rendell, who leaves office in January, from changing his protest from verbal to written on Thursday. He sent a letter to Mr. Corbett, one of two Republicans who is running for governor in the May primary, asking him to withdraw from the suit. He said the federal affordable health care act "will have an enormous positive impact on the lives of every single Pennsylvanian."

Georgia governor will file suit over health care without state's AG

Yesterday Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker told Governor Sonny Perdue that he would not pursue a lawsuit on behalf of the state to block the health care legislation signed into law this week.  Today Sonny Perdue announced that the suit will go forward without the state's lead attorney:

Gov. Sonny Perdue said Thursday he will appoint a “special attorney general” to challenge federal health care legislation signed into law this week by President Obama.

Perdue made the announcement a day after state Attorney General Thurbert Baker, a Democrat running for governor, told Perdue, a Republican, he would not pursue a lawsuit.

“He’s refusing to do that and I can’t force him to do that,” Perdue said of Baker.

Meanwhile, Georgia Democratic Party chairwoman Jane Kidd this morning sent Perdue a lengthy Open Records Act request, demanding copies of correspondence between his office and Republican organizations around the country.

The governor said the state constitution gives him the leeway to appoint a special attorney general if the elected attorney general fails to carry out the wishes of the governor.

Perdue said several groups of attorneys have volunteered to handle the state’s lawsuit for free. He said he expects to make a decision on a team as soon as possible, but did not set a deadline. Perdue has the support of Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle and the Senate Republican Caucus, all of whom said late Wednesday the support the governor’s efforts.

The governor said the state will probably go it alone on the suit to avoid any costs. If Georgia joined with the other 14 state challenging the health legislation, it would incur some legal costs, Perdue said. One of Baker’s objections to filing a suit was its possible financial impact on the state during a time of withering revenues.

There's a mild buzz about impeaching the Attorney General for his insubordination.  Section IV Paragraph IV of the Georgia Constitution states:

Attorney General; duties. The Attorney General shall act as the legal advisor of the executive department, shall represent the state in the Supreme Court in all capital felonies and in all civil and criminal cases in any court when required by the Governor, and shall perform such other duties as shall be required by law. (emphasis mine)

In a perfect world, I would say such an impeachment effort would be a slam dunk.  However, economic times are difficult and most citizens of Georgia want their elected officials focused on jobs and repealing the health care bill.  Baker will be replaced in a November election anyway. (He's actually running for governor).

Take the pledge: Repeal ObamaCare

I estimate that I have signed a thousand online petitions this year, and wonder, "to what effect?"  Perhaps you feel the same way.  Take heart.  It is always darkest before the dawn.

Here's one more you may want to consider (via Powerline):

Repeal ObamaCare Petition

After months of backroom deals, political payoffs, and strong-arm tactics, President Obama and the Democrats forced an unpopular health care takeover through the United States Congress. Americans lost this battle with their elected leaders in Washington but the war is not over! If we're willing to fight to save freedom, we can settle the score in November by electing true conservatives who will repeal this unconstitutional and dangerous bill. The simple truth is the bill cannot be fixed. It must be repealed.

The Senate Conservatives Fund, chaired by U.S. Senator Jim DeMint, has launched this national "Repeal ObamaCare Pledge" to rally support for conservative candidates who vow to repeal President Obama's health care takeover. America is teetering toward tyranny and we must work together to reverse the radical agenda in Washington.

Electing just any Republican is not the answer. We've seen what happens when we send Republicans to Washington who don't truly believe in the principles of freedom. They abandon their principles, lose the trust of the American people, and leave us with Democrats controlling Congress and the White House.

Instead, we must support true conservatives who love the Constitution and who will fight for limited government, a strong national defense, and traditional family values. And we must only help those candidates who vow to repeal ObamaCare.

Click here if you want to sign up.  I did.

Just undo it

From Mitt Romney at the Corner (logo from Pekoe Joe):

America has just witnessed an unconscionable abuse of power. President Obama has betrayed his oath to the nation — rather than bringing us together, ushering in a new kind of politics, and rising above raw partisanship, he has succumbed to the lowest denominator of incumbent power: justifying the means by extolling the ends. He promised better; we deserved better.

He calls his accomplishment “historic” — in this he is correct, although not for the reason he intends. Rather, it is an historic usurpation of the legislative process — he unleashed the nuclear option, enlisted not a single Republican vote in either chamber, bribed reluctant members of his own party, paid-off his union backers, scapegoated insurers, and justified his act with patently fraudulent accounting. What Barack Obama has ushered into the American political landscape is not good for our country; in the words of an ancient maxim, “what starts twisted, ends twisted.”

His health-care bill is unhealthy for America. It raises taxes, slashes the more private side of Medicare, installs price controls, and puts a new federal bureaucracy in charge of health care. It will create a new entitlement even as the ones we already have are bankrupt. For these reasons and more, the act should be repealed. That campaign begins today.