ALG Calls On Administration to Dismiss Science Panel Members With Conflicts

March 31, 2010

FDA Scientific Advisory Panel Rife with Conflict

March 31st, 2010, Fairfax, VA—Americans for Limited Government (ALG) President Bill Wilson today released the following statement regarding what Wilson termed are “blatant conflicts of interest on one of the Food and Drug Administration’s key outside panels.”

“An important panel set up by the FDA has a near majority of its voting members getting paid by special interests who have billions of dollars riding on the outcome of the committee’s ultimate decision. This is ludicrous.

“The Obama administration continues its rhetoric about a balanced, objective approach to science – an approach that sets aside agendas and emphasizes science – but we keep finding that special interests trump scientific findings.

“On this advisory panel, ironically called the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee, the heavy influence of big pharmaceutical companies is overwhelming. Pharmaceutical companies stand to make huge profits if the committee takes certain actions like banning menthol.

“We strongly recommend that the Obama Administration reconsider the make up of this committee, dismiss the members or require them to abstain from issues affecting their own financial interests.”

• Jack Henningfeld a voting member of the committee is a consultant to GlaxoSmithKline the maker of Nicorette gum who would stand to benefit financially from further restrictions on tobacco products

• Neil L. Benowitz was Pfizer consultant which makes the drug Chantix that aids people who want to quit smoking. Benowitz has also worked for GlaxoSmithKline and Nabi Pharmaceuticals

• Dorothy Hatsukami received grant support <http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=100445&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1048442&highlight> from Nabi Pharmaceuticals to study their nicotine vaccine

• The head TPSAC, Jonathan Samet, also received grants from GlaxoSmithKline and the organization he headed was funded by two different pharmaceutical companies

The law establishing the committee specifically states that the “membership of the advisory committee to be fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed by the advisory committee;” and that the committee “contain appropriate provisions to assure that the advice and recommendations of the advisory committee will not be inappropriately influenced by the appointing authority or by any special interest, but will instead be the result of the advisory committee’s independent judgment.”

ALG is not alone in having concerns about the financial conflicts of interest on the TPSAC panel. A recent report by the financial giant UBS cited unease by noted Professor Michael Siegel that the panel “is loaded with people who have a very strong pharmaceutical industry ties. Four of the panelists, actually, are either funded by pharmaceutical companies or actual consultants for pharmaceutical companies that manufacture smoking cessation products.”

Just today, two major anti-smoking researchers called for the head of the committee to step down due to conflicts.

###

Filed Under: Press Releases

ALG Condemns Congressional Efforts to “Discredit and Marginalize the American People”

March 30, 2010

March 30th, 2010, Fairfax, VA—Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson today condemned members of Congress who he said “are attempting to discredit and marginalize the American people who vehemently opposed the government takeover of the nation’s health care system.”

Wilson said the attacks were “contrived” and designed to intimidate the political opposition. “The allegations members of Congress are using now are simply a part of a pre-conceived narrative to criminalize dissent against the expansion of government. Members of Congress will stop at nothing to politically marginalize the primary threat to them holding onto power, and that’s the American people.”

“This is right out of the Hugo Chavez-Fidel Castro playbook to take normal political dissent and to delegitimize it,” Wilson declared. “Congressional Democrats, having failed to persuade the American people to support the health care takeover, have dusted off that playbook and are once again attempting to portray their own constituents in the most extreme and provocative terms.”

“I really hope that the DNC will stop using these Marxist tactics, and accord individuals the right to legitimate dissent,” Wilson added.

Wilson pointed to Congressman James Clyburn’s claim that tea parties were a “kind of terrorism.” Others have alleged that activists shouted racial epithets at members of Congress on March 20th at a protest against the health care bill, as reported by the American Thinker. Others have attested that acts of vandalism were linked to the tea parties.

“This is not the first time they’ve done this,” Wilson added, pointing to portrayals of demonstrators at tea parties and town halls throughout 2009 by Congressional Democrats.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer wrote an oped in USA Today calling opponents “un-American”. Congressman Steve Kagen called opponents “uncivilized,” and Congressman Baron Hill called them “political terrorists.”

Congressman Brian Baird called opponents of the legislation “Brown Shirts” and compared them to domestic terrorists, “Some of the rhetoric that we’re hearing is… eerily reminiscent of the kind of things that drove Tim McVeigh to bomb the federal building in Oklahoma.”

Wilson said the allegations being made against the tea party movement as a whole were “absurd.”

“Members of tea parties are just regular Americans who are fed up with the unprecedented expansion of government they have witnessed over the past three years,” Wilson said. “They are concerned mothers and fathers, young people and the elderly, who simply do not want to see their nation bankrupted and don’t want government in charge of health care.”

Wilson pointed to the bailouts of delinquent borrowers, Bear Stearns, AIG, GM, and Chrysler; the nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program; the Federal Reserve more than doubling the money supply; the $787 billion “stimulus”; and the $2.5 trillion health care bill all as “primary motivators for the movement that seeks to restore government to its primary, limited functions under the Constitution by eliminating the entitlement state.”

Wilson suggested that the political aim of Congressional Democrats “was to keep their political base in line,” and he said the allegations were designed “to deflect attention from their votes in favor of ObamaCare and to play the role of victim.”

“That will not prevent their constituents from holding them politically accountable for how they voted,” Wilson added. “The American people are not stupid. No matter how much Congressional Democrats play the role of a victim, if this is their reelection strategy, it’s shameless, and it won’t work.”

“What Congressional Democrats are doing now is executing a pre-conceived, contrived narrative against the tea parties. But this is no way to portray constituents who have legitimately opposed the position their Congressman have taken on the health care takeover,” Wilson said, concluding, “There will be a political price to pay for attempting to marginalize the American people for expressing their First Amendment rights to dissent against government policies.”

###

Filed Under: Press Releases

Holder Admits Johnsen Fulfilling Duties at DOJ Prior to Appointment; ALG Calls for Nominee to be Defeated

March 29, 2010

March 29th, 2010, Fairfax, VA—Attorney General Eric Holder has admitted that Barack Obama’s nominee for Assistant Attorney General to the Office of Legal Counsel, Dawn Johnsen, was fulfilling key duties related to that post even though she has not been confirmed by the Senate.

According to Holder’s written testimony, when asked of allegations that Johnsen had been making hiring decisions at the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), he wrote that while the acting Assistant Attorney General has made all personnel decisions, “Professor Johnsen’s participation in this process has been appropriate and consistent with the past practice of presidential nominees of both parties. Like such other nominees, she was involved in the consideration of candidates for political appointments, such as those persons who would serve as her deputies should she be confirmed.”

The testimony continued, “By contrast, with respect to applicants for civil service positions, Professor Johnsen simply forwarded some resumes for attorney positions to the Acting Assistant Attorney General for OLC and occasionally offered her views as to some candidates for those positions who came to her attention and on general attorney staffing issues.”

Holder denied that Johnsen participated “in the interviews of any candidates for career positions, nor was she part of the final selection process.”

Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson today renewed his call for the nominee to be defeated by the Senate. “Based upon Attorney General Holder’s own testimony, Dawn Johnsen has already had input into the makeup of the Office of Legal Counsel despite the fact that she has not been confirmed to the position of Assistant Attorney General.”

Wilson called Holder’s testimony “a smoking gun,” and said “raises a rather serious constitutional concern that Johnsen has averted the Advice and Consent Clause of the Constitution.”

ALG had filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on October 26th, 2009 to the Justice Department’s (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel attempting to confirm allegations that Johnsen has been performing duties pursuant to that office without being confirmed by the Senate, including making hiring decisions.

The ALG FOIA request has gone unheeded in spite of a 20-day statutory requirement. It has been 155 days since the request was filed, and over 100 business days.

The story was broken by the National Review Online, where according to the report, Johnsen may have been “involving herself in OLC’s decisions on hiring junior lawyers. If those reports are accurate, Johnsen’s actions would seem a serious violation of the Senate’s understanding of pre-confirmation etiquette—an etiquette that is especially punctilious for nominees who have generated controversy—and would give senators additional reason to oppose her nomination.”

ALG Counsel Nathan Mehrens said “it was even more urgent now that the Justice Department fulfill the FOIA request. Holder’s testimony on the extent of Johnsen’s involvement can now be confirmed or refuted be the release of the FOIA documents.”

Mehrens added, “The Senate has a duty to verify Holder’s testimony on this count before passing final judgment on Johnsen’s nomination.”

Wilson said that the Senate needed to delay consideration of Johnsen until the FOIA request had been fulfilled. “It’s the right thing to do,” he said, adding, “there are some serious issues of fact that must be resolved, and all Senate deliberation on the nominee should be delayed until the Justice Department stops stonewalling our request.”

Wilson pointed to a DOJ memorandum recommitting the Department of Justice to Barack Obama’s promise for his Administration “to be the most open and transparent ever” as “pathetic.”

“In an apparent preparation for April Fool’s Day, the DOJ issued its memo reaffirming the Obama Administration’s ‘commitment’ to transparency. What a joke,” Wilson said.

Since filing the request, Mehrens has sent a follow-up letter to the DOJ, and Wilson urged the Senate Judiciary Committee to postpone consideration of Johnsen.

According to the law, “Each agency, upon any request for records… shall… determine within 20 days (excepting Saturdays, Sundays, and legal public holidays) after the receipt of any such request whether to comply with such request and shall immediately notify the person making such request of such determination and the reasons therefor, and of the right of such person to appeal to the head of the agency any adverse determination.”

“Eric Holder can try to make Dawn Johnsen’s acting out duties appear ‘normal,’ but the fact is Johnsen acting is in clear contradiction of the constitutional Advice and Consent Clause and should be enough to torpedo her nomination,” Wilson concluded.

Attachments:

Freedom of Information Act Request, October 26th, 2009.

Letter to Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel, February 24th, 2010.

Letter to Senate Judiciary Committee, February 25th, 2010.

Letter from Congressman Steve King to DOJ Office of Legal Counsel, March 1st, 2010.

ALG Backgrounder on Dawn Johnson, December 10th, 2009.

###

Filed Under: Press Releases Tagged With:

ALG Joins Senate Republicans in Urging Obama to Rule Out Recess Appointment of Becker

March 25, 2010

March 25th, 2010—Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson today joined with the Senate Republican caucus in urging Barack Obama to rule out a recess appointment of Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

According to the letter signed by all 41 Republican members of the Senate, “We urge you not to ignore the bipartisan Senate vote by giving Mr. Becker a recess appointment to the NLRB. Taking this action would place a rejected nominee in an appointed term to the NLRB, setting an unfortunate precedent for all future nominations and future administrations.”

Becker’s nomination was blocked in the Senate on February 9th, with Democrat Senators Blanche Lincoln and Ben Nelson joining 31 other Republicans against the nominee.

“Craig Becker is a radical of the first order, and the Senate was more than justified in blocking his appointment,” Wilson said, citing Becker’s advocacy of making substantial changes to the National Labor Relations Act via the National Labor Relation Board without any Congressional approval.

According to a report published by Americans for Limited Government, “Militant on a Mission,” Becker wrote that “The [National Labor Relations] Board should return to the principle that a union election is not a contest between the employer and the union… Unlike the other proposals, however, it could be achieved with almost no alteration to the statutory framework.”

According to the ALG report, “This unilateral imposition of his views regardless of Congressional approval may apply to Card Check legislation as well.”

Under current law, the National Labor Relations Act, workers have a right to a secret ballot when unions are organized. Unions have lobbied the Obama administration and Congress for a “card check” system in the EFCA that would eliminate the employer’s right to request a secret ballot election, allowing unions to be organized without any ballot.

Becker’s highly controversial views resulted in Senate Republicans’ opposition against the nomination, and in their letter write, “Mr. Becker’s writings clearly indicate that he would use his position on the NLRB to institute far-reaching changes in labor law far exceeding the Board’s authority and bypassing the role of Congress.”

The letter continues, “His rejection of traditional notions of democracy in union elections and of an employer’s status as a party to labor representation proceedings has garnered bi-partisan opposition to his nomination. His extensive, highly controversial writings, as well as his legal and scholarly career indicate that he could not be viewed as impartial or objective in deciding cases before this quasi-judicial agency.”

In 1993, according to the ALG report, Becker also wrote that “employers should have no right to raise questions concerning voter eligibility or campaign conduct” and “employers should have no right to be heard in either a representation case or an unfair labor practice case.” Both views conflict with longstanding interpretations of national labor relations laws.

Becker’s appointment has been described by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) as ‘the highest priority for organized labor’ according to an email released by Jeri Thompson. The letter was from an SEIU lobbyist to Democratic members of the U.S. Senate.

“That email showed the SEIU setting the Senate’s schedule for the Becker confirmation,” Wilson explained. “And now, undeterred by the Senate’s rejection of Becker, Barack Obama is prepared to achieve Big Labor’s ‘highest priority’ with a recess appointment.”

The AFL-CIO has already called for such an appointment, as reported by the American Spectator. The Spectator also reports Obama saying, “If the Senate does not act to confirm these nominees, I will consider making several recess appointments during the upcoming recess.”

Becker could be recess-appointed during the upcoming Easter recess that will begin on March 29th.

Becker has served as counsel for both the SEIU and the AFL-CIO. According to the Wall Street Journal, Becker was also responsible for the drafting of several pro-union executive orders while serving simultaneously on the Barack Obama’s presidential transition team and on the SEIU payroll. One of the orders repealed required federal contractors to post notice that workers do not have to pay for the political expenditures of their unions.

Testifying about the orders, Becker said, “I was asked to provide advice and information concerning a possible executive order of the sort described. I was involved in researching, analyzing, preliminary drafting, and consulting with other members of the Transition team.”

Wilson has said that the executive orders “show that Becker’s agenda is to achieve via executive regulation what cannot be achieved via the legislative process.”

In addition, the ALG report charges that Becker “instituted new policies to force political contributions from union locals in potential violation of the law; was implicated in the scandal surrounding disgraced former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich; endured major financial scandals; engaged in alleged intimidation of its members; pursued union contracts that would have prevented unionized nursing home workers from reporting elder abuse; gave millions of dollars to the scandal-plagued group ACORN; and hired private detectives to spy on union members.”

Wilson concluded, “Craig Becker’s legacy will be to achieve via executive fiat what cannot be achieved legislatively, and Barack Obama’s recess appointment of him is more than symbolic of that defiance.”

Attachments:
“Militant on a Mission: Report on Craig Becker, Nominee to the National Labor Relations Board,” Americans for Limited Government, January 2010.
ALG Nominee Alert, Craig Becker, August 2009.

###

Filed Under: Press Releases Tagged With:

ALG’s TimesCheck.com Blasts Times ‘ObamaCare’ Coverage

March 24, 2010

March 24th, 2010, Fairfax, VA—Americans for Limited Government’s TimesCheck.com has released an analysis of the coverage The New York Times has given to the healthcare legislation that has now been signed into law.

“White House spinsters have understandably focused on hard luck insurance cases that readers can empathize with as a way of selling an unpopular proposal,” said Kevin Mooney, editor of TimesCheck.com. “But, it is not the job of news media to simply repeat and parrot back emotional appeals that do not cut into the substance of ObamaCare.”

Mooney said recent articles have focused more on anecdotal stories that involve individual instances of financial hardship, while avoiding any discussion of the bill’s merits.

Although the reports call attention to insurance issues and financial challenges that are relevant to healthcare consumers, Mooney said “they omit key facts that would provide readers with greater perspective and context.”

Mooney continued, “For example, it is not accurate to suggest that without insurance there is no access to healthcare. In fact, it is already possible to offer direct payments, which doctors and hospitals gladly accept without the attending bureaucracy of insurance procedures. Moreover, existing law also makes it a requirement for anyone entering an emergency room to be treated regardless of their ability to pay.”

Mooney said that the Times “pretty much parroted the Democrat talking point equating health care access with civil rights.”

“Just one day after ObamaCare passed, The Times sought to equate the measure with the civil rights movement. Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) figured prominently in this narrative given his prominent role as an advocate for equal rights in the past,” Mooney explained.

ALG President Bill Wilson called the Times comparison of the health care takeover to civil rights “disgraceful,” saying, “If editors want to make this argument, it belongs on the editorial page because it is highly debatable and questionable,” said Wilson. “The bill includes costly, coercive measures that in the eyes of many Americans actually subtract from individual liberty.”

Mooney also took a look at Times coverage of the court challenges now being filed against the individual mandate to purchase insurance imposed by the legislation. “The Gray Lady has fired an opening salvo against state officials who have announced that they will challenge the bill on a constitutional basis,” Mooney said.

Mooney added that “This is an important story worthy of coverage and its fine to quote scholars who are philosophically opposed to the state action. However, readers deserve greater exposure to legal arguments on the other side that show ObamaCare could in fact be derailed for violating accepted interpretations of the ‘Commerce Clause’ of the Constitution.”

Mooney concluded, “If the legal challenges lack merit, why is The New York Times so concerned?”

Attachments:

(http://timescheck.com/2010/03/16/anecdotes-replace-hard-facts-in-front-page-report-selling-obamacare/)

(http://timescheck.com/2010/03/22/government-takeover-of-healthcare-equated-with-civil-rights/)

(http://timescheck.com/2010/03/23/nyt-fires-opening-salvo-against-constitutional-challenges-to-obamacare/)

###

Filed Under: Press Releases

ALG Letter to Members of the Senate Against “ObamaCare” Reconciliation

March 24, 2010

March 24th, 2010

United States Senate
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510

To the Members of the United States Senate:

As you are well aware, tonight begins an expected series of votes on reconciliation for the final step in President Barack Obama’s government takeover of the nation’s health care system. Americans for Limited Government would like to remind you of your duty as elected representatives of your states.

An overwhelming majority of Americans remain opposed to the government takeover of health care. They still oppose the unconstitutional individual mandate that will eventually force them on to government-run plans. They continue to be against the rationing of care away from seniors to pay for coverage for the unoccupied. They understand that the cost of premiums will rise even faster now that ObamaCare is the law of the land, and for the few who do not, they soon will witness it firsthand. Millions of Americans are rightly fearful of the implications of $2.5 trillion in insurance provisions costs from 2014 to 2023 once the program is fully implemented.

Reconciliation also remains an improper vehicle for enacting such far-reaching changes to the nation’s economy. The sole goal in utilizing the tactic is to block repeated attempts by the minority to work in a bipartisan fashion in crafting meaningful healthcare reform under the normal rules, and instead to ram the remaining “fixes” down the throats of an unwilling American public.

The problems with process notwithstanding, the troubles posed by the legislation itself are legion. For example, subsidizing premiums will not lower the cost of health care, as reported by the Congressional Budget Office. Instead, it will simply shift the burden of the price of health coverage increasingly to taxpayers. At the same time, the minimum requirements for insurance coverage are increased, and the price of premiums is artificially pushed up.

The CBO report states, “the average insurance policy in this market would cover a substantially larger share of enrollees’ costs for health care (on average) and a slightly wider range of benefits. Those expansions would reflect both the minimum level of coverage (and related requirements) specified in the proposal and people’s decisions to purchase more extensive coverage in response to the structure of subsidies.”

It is well understood that government subsidies have become a primary vehicle for artificially-inflated demand for goods and services, which leads to inflation. This has been the case with housing inflation, education inflation, and other asset bubbles.

Overall, such a tremendous escalation in spending by the federal government, when the nation’s Triple-A credit rating is already threatened and the costs of borrowing are about to go through the roof, will assuredly break the backs of taxpayers. Nonetheless, Mr. Obama has erroneously claimed that his bill would reduce the deficit when the entire entitlement will be operating in the red within less than 15 years, costing over $2.5 trillion from 2014 to 2023.

You know it’s false, the American people know it’s false, and even Congressional leadership acknowledges it to be false. In the lead-up to last Sunday’s vote, House Democrat leadership has internally acknowledged that ObamaCare is not deficit-neutral, as reported by Politico.

Finally, the corrupt process that you have undertaken pass this bill has been unprecedented. Following through on the use of reconciliation to make good on deals made with House Democrats who were reluctant to vote for your legislation is the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

Instead of upholding the will of the American people, you have instead chosen to abuse Senate rules to achieve the radical, ideological goal of taking over the nation’s health care system. I urge you to reject these shameless tactics, reverse course, and side with the American people by voting against the reconciliation bill.

Sincerely,

William Wilson
President
Americans for Limited Government

Filed Under: Press Releases

15 State Attorneys General Pursuing Litigation Against “ObamaCare”

March 23, 2010

Ken Cuccinelli – Attorney General – Virginia

http://www.oag.state.va.us/PRESS_RELEASES/Cuccinelli/32210_Health_Care_Bill.html

Troy King – Attorney General – Alabama
http://www.ago.state.al.us/news/12312009.pdf

Bill McCollum –Attorney General – Florida
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2215987420100322
http://www.examiner.com/x-37583-Hillsborough-County-Elections-2010-Examiner~y2010m3d22-Florida-Attorney-General-Bill-McCollum-says-health-care-bill-is-unconstitutional–will-sue-video

Jon Bruning – Attorney General – Nebraska
http://www.ago.state.ne.us/news/pressreleases/032210_Health_Care_statement_MR_2.pdf

Tom Corbutt – Attorney General – Pennsylvania
http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/press.aspx?id=5151

Greg Abbot – Attorney General – Texas
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagNews/release.php?id=3269
http://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagNews/release.php?id=3271

Henry McMaster – Attorney General – South Carolina
No press release

Robert McKenna – Attorney General – Washington
http://www.atg.wa.gov/pressrelease.aspx?&id=25402

Mark L. Shurtleff – Attorney General – Utah
http://www.attorneygeneral.utah.gov/PR_032210.html

Wayne Stenehjem – Attorney General – North Dakota
http://www.ag.state.nd.us/NewsReleases/2010/03-22-10.pdf

Marty J. Jackley – Attorney General – South Dakota
No press release

Michael Cox – Attorney General — Michigan
http://www.michigan.gov/ag/0,1607,7-164–233880–,00.html

Lawrence Wasden – Attorney General – Idaho
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/17/idaho-state-sign-law-health-care-reform/

John W. Suthers – Attorney General – Colorado
http://www.coloradoattorneygeneral.gov/press/news/2010/03/22/attorney_general_joins_federal_lawsuit_challenging_health_care_mandate_0

James D. “Buddy” Caldwell – Attorney General – Louisiana
http://www.nola.com/health/index.ssf/2010/03/13_states_sue_federal_governme.html

Filed Under: Press Releases

ALG Urges Senate Judiciary Committee to Reject Goodwin Liu for Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals  

March 23, 2010

March 23rd, 2010, Fairfax, VA—Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson today urged the Senate Judiciary Committee to reject Barack Obama’s nominee for Judge to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Goodwin Liu, on account of what Wilson termed “Liu’s radical views on law and wealth redistribution that leave him far outside the mainstream of American jurisprudence.”

Goodwin Liu, a Berkeley Law professor, will begin confirmation hearings at the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow.

“For Americans wondering ‘how this happened’ in terms of Barack Obama’s massive takeovers of the nation’s health care and other industries, one need look no further than Goodwin Liu to see what Obama really thinks about what a ‘right’ is,” Wilson said.

“Goodwin Liu’s judicial philosophy that judges should render decisions based on societal consensus at a given moment rather than foundational principles is incredibly dangerous. He shouldn’t be on any court, especially not a court of appeals,” said Wilson.

As reported by National Review Online, in promoting his book, Keeping Faith with the Constitution for the American Constitution Society, Liu suggested in a podcast that “What we mean by fidelity is that the Constitution should be interpreted in ways that adapt its principles and its text to the challenges and conditions of our society in every succeeding generation.”

Wilson said that while Liu was “a smooth talker,” that Senators “must not excuse his views on ‘distributive justice.’ Beneath the ‘nice guy’ exterior, Goodwin Liu, like Obama, is a radical redistributionist of the first order.”

In a 2008 Stanford Law Review article, “Rethinking Constitutional Welfare Rights,” Liu discusses at length the concept of judicially-imposed welfare rights. In this context welfare rights mean a societal consensus that persons possess a right to certain goods and services, a consensus of “how a society understands its obligations of mutual provision.”

“The 2008 law review article is quite revealing,” Wilson said, “Goodwin Liu’s view of a welfare ‘right’ is that if the federal government offers a subsidy, a benefit or some other type of welfare, everyone is entitled to it, regardless if the ‘right’ has any place at all in the Constitution.”

According to the article, Liu wrote that, “judicial recognition of welfare rights is best conceived as an act of interpreting the shared understandings of particular welfare goods as they are manifested in our institutions, laws, and evolving social practices.”

Liu explained what this would look like in context of his actual decision-making as a judge, “Some day yet, the Court may be presented with an opportunity to recognize a fundamental right to education or housing or medical care. But the recognition, if it comes, will not come as a moral or philosophical epiphany but as an interpretation and consolidation of the values we have gradually internalized as a society.”

Wilson said Liu’s views would be used to “justify everything from Obama’s new national health care regime to the government takeovers of the mortgage, energy, and financial industries. Anything that government has sunk its claws into even partially could then become the justification for redistribution since, in Liu’s eyes, if it is offered to some, should be offered to all.”

Liu stated that his goal was to attempt “a small step toward ‘reformation of thought’ on how welfare rights may be recognized through constitutional adjudication in a democratic society.”

“In Goodwin Liu’s world, the courts could require that the legislative branch allocate taxpayer funds to whatever the courts say the people are entitled to as a matter of right,” Wilson explained. “This not only breaches the separation of powers, it would grant as a matter of constitutional law powers to the Congress to redistribute wealth that are far beyond the scope of what the Constitution provides for.”

Wilson called it “an incredibly dangerous proposition,” concluding, “Every Senator on the Judiciary Committee must hold Goodwin Liu to account for his radical views on redistributing wealth, place holds, and do whatever it takes to make sure he never sits on the bench.”

Attachments:

Goodwin Liu, Americans for Limited Government Nominee Alert, March 2010.

###

 

Filed Under: Press Releases

ALG Condemns House for Enacting $2.5 Trillion “ObamaCare”; Encourages States to Attack Individual Mandate

March 22, 2010

March 22nd, 2010, Fairfax, VA—Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson today condemned the House of Representatives for enacting what he termed “the government takeover of health care that will ration treatment, increase the cost of premiums, and force Americans onto government-run insurance.”

Last night, the House passed the Senate version of “ObamaCare” 219 to 212. Wilson encouraged states, like Virginia, to pursue their plans to sue against the constitutionality of the federal mandate that individuals purchase health insurance.

Wilson said that the “Constitution does not permit Congress to enact any mandate for individuals to purchase anything, let alone health insurance.”

According to the Roanoke Times, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli will file his suit against the individual mandates tomorrow. “With this law, the federal government will force citizens to buy health insurance, claiming it has the authority to do so because of its power to regulate interstate commerce,” Cuccinelli said. “We contend that if a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person – by definition – is not engaging in commerce, and therefore, is not subject to a federal mandate.”

“The individual mandate is the mechanism that will force the American people on to government-run health care,” Wilson said.

“By design, ObamaCare makes insurance premiums more expensive and more unaffordable by mandating minimum levels of coverage. Now, as individuals are forced to purchase plans that they cannot afford, they will have no choice but to opt into a government plan, like Medicaid,” Wilson explained.

The relevant Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report stated, “CBO and JCT estimate that the average premium per person covered (including dependents) for new nongroup policies would be about 10 percent to 13 percent higher in 2016 than the average premium for nongroup coverage in that same year under current law… Average premiums per policy in the nongroup market in 2016 would be roughly $5,800 for single policies and $15,200 for family policies under the proposal, compared with roughly $5,500 for single policies and $13,100 for family policies under current law.”
The Senate version of the bill that the House adopted expands Medicaid eligibility to 133 percent of the poverty level. Wilson predicted that would be expanded further “as Congress conspires to make privately-bought insurance completely unaffordable.”

Wilson said that without the individual mandate, “ObamaCare will lose much of its teeth. The American people owe Attorney General Cuccinelli a debt of gratitude for taking the initiative to overturn to most egregious assault on individual liberty in a generation.”

###

 

Filed Under: Press Releases

ALG Letter to House Members against “ObamaCare”   

March 19, 2010

March 19th, 2010

 

To the Members of House of Representatives:

 

Sunday’s expected vote on the government takeover of our nation’s health care system promises to be the most important vote of your political career.  As you are already well aware, the American people do not support this takeover.  In Congressional District after Congressional District, the American people express strong majority opposition to the plan.

 

The only thing that remains is for you to do the right thing.  ObamaCare must be defeated.

 

Nothing has changed in this bill.  President Barack Obama’s plan – despite its numerous incarnations – will still ration care away from seniors, drive Americans off of their private health options and onto a government-run system, reduce quality, increase premiums, and saddle taxpayers with runaway costs, more spending, confiscatory taxes, and a debt that can never be paid.

 

That, of course, has not prevented Mr. Obama from intentionally misrepresenting the increased cost of insurance premiums as reported by the Congressional Budget Office at his fraudulent ‘bipartisan’ health takeover summit.

 

The relevant Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report stated, “CBO and JCT estimate that the average premium per person covered (including dependents) for new nongroup policies would be about 10 percent to 13 percent higher in 2016 than the average premium for nongroup coverage in that same year under current law… Average premiums per policy in the nongroup market in 2016 would be roughly $5,800 for single policies and $15,200 for family policies under the proposal, compared with roughly $5,500 for single policies and $13,100 for family policies under current law.”

 

The CBO also reported, “About half of those enrollees would receive government subsidies that would reduce their costs well below the premiums that would be charged for such policies under current law,” which formed the basis of Mr. Obama’s claim, responding to Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) at the “bipartisan” health care summit, stating, “Lamar, when you mentioned earlier that you said premiums go up, that’s just not the case, according to the Congressional Budget Office.”

 

Mr. Obama is misleading the American people.  This is not a case where Mr. Obama and Senator Alexander were “both right.” Mr. Obama was wrong.

 

Subsidizing premiums does not lower the cost of health care, it shifts the burden of the price of health coverage increasingly to taxpayers.  At the same time, ObamaCare increases the minimum requirements for insurance coverage, which forces premiums up, as noted by the CBO.

 

The CBO report also stated, “the average insurance policy in this market would cover a substantially larger share of enrollees’ costs for health care (on average) and a slightly wider range of benefits. Those expansions would reflect both the minimum level of coverage (and related requirements) specified in the proposal and people’s decisions to purchase more extensive coverage in response to the structure of subsidies.”

 

Because of the subsidy, Mr. Obama wants to claim that individuals would be paying less for premiums, and that therefore the cost of health coverage is somehow being reduced.  This is like claiming that subsidized housing and mortgage loans are causing the price of housing to go down, or that subsidized student loans are causing the price of education to go down, which of course is absurd.

 

In fact, subsidies across the economic spectrum have been directly linked to housing inflation, education inflation, and other asset bubbles, because the subsidies inflate demand artificially, which directly causes prices to increase.

 

These sorts of blatant lies explain exactly why the American people are completely opposed to this bill.  For example, Harry Reid claimed at the summit that “no one” was considering the use of reconciliation when he himself was speaking of it publicly.  And now, of course, we know that it is being considered on the floor of the House on Sunday.

 

But, the lies do not stop there.  Mr. Obama claimed in his address to the joint-session of Congress that his bill would reduce the deficit when the entire entitlement will be operating in the red within less than 15 years, costing over $2.5 trillion from 2014 to 2023.

 

Now it’s been revealed that House Democrat leadership are internally acknowledging that ObamaCare is not deficit-neutral, as reported by Politico.  Stop pretending that it is.  You know that adding 30 million individuals to government-run health care cannot be done in a deficit-neutral manner.  In fact, hardly anybody believes that it can.  When polled, only 11 percent say ObamaCare would reduce the deficit, compared to a full 68 percent of likely voters who say that it will.

 

Moreover, the corrupt process that has been undertaken to take over the nation’s health care system has been reprehensible, unconstitutional, and is undermining the public’s faith in our Republic. Once modified in the House, a bill, before it can become law, must proceed to the upper chamber under normal rules. The House cannot on one hand, say that it has voted “deem as passed” the Senate bill, and on the other, say it has only voted to modify the Senate bill.

 

House members cannot have it both ways.  Either they can vote on the Senate bill up-or-down, or they can modify it and send it back to the Senate under normal rules.  They cannot do both in accords with the Constitution.

 

The lies just go on and on.  The American people have had enough of Barack Obama and this Congress.  It’s time to scrap this bill once and for all, and to uphold the overwhelming will of the American people.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

William Wilson

President

Americans for Limited Government

 

Filed Under: Press Releases
« Previous Page
Next Page »