March 16th, 2010, Fairfax, VA—New Mexico Congressman Harry Teague was denounced today for what was termed, “his total disrespect and disdain for New Mexico citizens” by Bill Wilson, President of Americans for Limited Government.

“For any elected official to blatantly lie in a futile attempt to keep from stating a position on an issue as controversial and important as the upcoming health care vote is the height of disrespect,” said Wilson. “Harry Teague owes everyone in the State of New Mexico an apology at the very least.”

On Tuesday (March 16, 2010) the Albuquerque Journal reported that Teague was claiming to be undecided on the impending health care vote. Teague was quoted as saying, “I don’t want to say for sure until we see exactly what the Senate sends over, but we’re going to look at it.”

“The problem is the Senate sent the government takeover of healthcare on Christmas Eve, over three months ago. What has Harry Teague been doing? Using this kind of dodge to a crucial question is obscene,” said Wilson.

“Harry Teague is treating the citizens like fools, acting like nobody would notice that the bill under discussion has been on the table for more than 100 days,” continued Wilson.

In the article, Teague spokesman Sara Schreiber claimed Teague “isn’t thrilled with the prospect of using reconciliation to get health care overhaul.” Reconciliation is normally reserved for budget fixes and not used for major policy changes. The Obama Administration and its allies are planning on using a distorted version of this process in an attempt to slip the measure into law with the least amount of accountability possible.

“If Ms. Schreiber and Congressman Teague have any integrity left at all they will oppose this gross distortion of the process and rules by opposing the reconciliation scam,” said Wilson. “We will have to wait and see if Congressman Teague is an independent representative of the People or just another zombie in the Obama-Pelosi circus that is now Washington, D.C.,” concluded Wilson.

###

Dawn Johnsen is Barack Obama’s nominee for Assistant Attorney General to the Office of Legal Counsel.

“ALG thanks Congressman King for acting on this urgent matter. The U.S. Senate, and the American people, have a right to know whether Johnsen circumvented the constitutional process of ‘advice and consent,’” Wilson said.

ALG filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Justice Department’s (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) 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, filed on October 26th, 2009, has gone unheeded in spite of a 20-day statutory requirement.

According Congressman King’s letter, “In order to confirm or dismiss allegations regarding Ms. Johnsen’s violation of pre-confirmation etiquette and potential disregard for the Constitution’s clearly defined Senate confirmation process, I respectfully request that you provide my office with copies of all records of communications between any Office of Legal Counsel officials and Dawn Johnsen regarding personnel decisions that involve hiring, firing, promotion, discipline or any other personnel actions for career and non-career Office of Legal Counsel officials.

“These are the same materials that have been requested under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by Nathan Paul Mehrens, Counsel for Americans for Limited Government.

“Under the FOIA, all federal agencies are required to receive any response to the request that was filed on October 26, 2009. The processing time for this request has far exceeded the period allowed under the FOIA. I am, therefore, making my own request to you for this information and also enclosing a copy of Mr. Mehrens’ original request. I look forward to your response and to both requests being fulfilled in a timely manner.”

King recently outlined some of his further objections to the nominee in an exclusive interview with the Washington News Observer.

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.”

Since the request was filed, over 90 business days has elapsed. Now, Mehrens has sent a follow-up letter to the DOJ, and Wilson urged the Senate Judiciary Committee to postpone consideration of Johnsen.

Despite the unfulfilled FOIA request, however, the committee voted to approve Johnsen 12 to 7 on March 4th, as reported by FOX News.

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.”

“Clearly, Harry Reid wants to railroad this nomination through without any confirmation of these very serious allegations,” Wilson said, concluding, “It’s up to individual members of the Senate to keep their holds on Johnsen and to at least demand a recorded vote so that Senate members may be held accountable for their support.”
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.

###

“Senator Jay Rockefeller has watched as the EPA is moving at lightning speed to issue regulation by fiat to cap carbon emissions, a cap that will devastate the U.S. economy, and is acting quickly to put the brakes on,” said Wilson.

“Given a choice between representing his constituents, many of whom work in the coal industry, and the radical bureaucracy of the EPA, who cater to a cult of ‘man-made’ global warming, Senator Rockefeller has chosen his constituents and the American people at large who oppose carbon caps,” Wilson added.

Wilson called for bipartisan support for Rockefeller’s bill, potentially merging it with Senator Lisa Murkowski’s (R-AK) legislation that would overturn the EPA’s finding that greenhouse gases pose a danger to public health and welfare.

According to the Washington Post, Democratic Senators Blanche Lincoln (AR), Mary Landrieu (LA) and Ben Nelson (NE) are co-sponsoring Murkowksi’s resolution. And according to Rockefeller’s release, Congressmen Alan Mollohan (D-WV) and Rick Boucher (D-VA) are introducing companion legislation.

“The real threat to the U.S. is the EPA enacting by dictate regulations that, in effect, puts the agency in charge of the entire nation’s economy. Members of both political parties must stand together before it is too late to stand up to this tyranny by the EPA,” Wilson declared.

“The economy, every facet of which runs on energy, mustn’t be in the hands of the radical EPA bureaucracy who place primacy on appeasing the false science of radical environmentalism over the rights and best interests of all Americans,” Wilson concluded.

###

“Any administration would celebrate positive economic numbers as vindication for their policies. But not every president has The New York Times as a cheerleader and an apologist,” Mooney explained, adding, “Over the past few weeks The Gray Lady has reported with alacrity on robust Gross Domestic Product (GDP) numbers. But it has largely overlooked other key indicators that show the recovery to be weak, shallow and jobless.”

Mooney noted that both Presidents George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan experienced strong periods of economic growth during their terms in office that coincided with low inflation and low unemployment, “But, apparently, this did not qualify as news,” Mooney said.

“Whereas The Times went to great lengths to explain away good economic news under Republican Administrations, the approach now is to bury the reality of a jobless recover under rosy GNP numbers,” Mooney explained.

Mooney said what he dubbed “the agenda-based journalism” at The Times “often operates by way of omission. But thanks to the powerful research tools that are the bane of liberals, it is possible to compare and contrast the congenial coverage afforded to President Obama with that of his immediate predecessors.”

Mooney noted that the double standard extends beyond coverage of the economy. “Although The Times was vociferously opposed to the troop surge into Iraq under President Bush and continually questioned the reality of political progress, it is now largely silent. The newspaper was certain to question and criticize the wisdom of Bush’s post 9/11 counter-terrorism policies. But now that the current administration has come around closer to the Bush position on Guantanamo Bay, interrogation techniques and overseas operations shouldn’t this at least be acknowledged.”

Mooney said that progress was being made, though. “It’s getting hard for The Times and other liberal media organs to continue with these gymnastics,” he said, noting that the Times covered the “Climategate” story on page A11 today by John M. Broder.

“It’s getting a lot more fun for TimesCheck.com,” Mooney added.

“Despite an influx of scientific research that questions the premise of man-made global warming The Times had, until today, continued to crusade in favor of burdensome and expensive regulatory schemes modeled after the Kyoto Protocol. Scientists who have been vindicated are dismissed as mere skeptics, while alarmists are celebrated as ‘mainstream’ thinkers,” Mooney noted.

Mooney said, however, that there was still more work to do. “The overall presumption in favor of the man-made global warming still pervades,” he said, adding, “Recently, we asked that the newspaper focus some time and attention on comments made by Phil Jones, the director of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) in the United Kingdom. In the aftermath of ‘Climategate,’ Jones has conceded key points skeptics have making for the past several years. Is the Times willing to backpeddle on previous reports that advanced alarmist positions that are not supported by the latest science? Today’s article did not do that. We’ll be watching to see if there’s any follow-up.”

Mooney promised to keep up his efforts “to hold The Times accountable when they’re wrong, and to point out when they’re right.”

“The New York Times has a problem in that most Americans do not operate as they do with a `blame America first’ mindset,” said Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson, concluding, “An active and informed citizenry is the great enemy of a biased, duplicitous press that deliberately shades and slants the news. Our goal is to serve as a conduit for members of the public who resent cultural elitists and leftists who are hostile toward American interests.”

###

“The simple reality is that the money to pay for extending unemployment benefits by $10 billion indefinitely does not exist on budget. Senator Bunning deserves credit for offering a proposal that does pay for it without steeping the nation further into debt,” Wilson said.

Yesterday, on the floor of the Senate, Bunning explained his stand, “If we can’t find $10 billion to pay for it, we’re not going to pay for anything. We will not pay for anything fully on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Now, [Senator Dick Durbin] said I only offered one way to pay for this. That’s untrue. I offered more than one way. I negotiated with the Leader — the Leader’s staff, rather, and we had worked out two-week extension to $5 billion with a different pay-for.”

Bunning continued, attempting to proceed on the bill, H.R. 4961, with his amendment attached, “So I’m going to make one more shot, and as long as we continue to have the extenders being brought forth and paid for, I’m going to make it. I ask Unanimous Consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4691, that the amendment at the desk which offers a full offset be agreed to, the bill be amended — as amended be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.”

Senator Dick Durbin, however, objected, leaving the Senate at an impasse.

“Senate Democrats could simply invoke cloture on the unemployment benefits extension. They do not need unanimous consent at all,” Wilson said.

If a Senator does not agree to unanimous consent, cloture can be filed, requiring 60 votes, which Wilson noted “the Democrats would easily get. Perhaps they do not want to go on the record for expanding the debt by another $10 billion. Cloture votes get recorded so that constituents can hold their senators accountable for how they vote.”

Bunning noted on the Senate floor that Senate Democrats had not filed for a motion of cloture on the issue: “Everybody knows that a member of this body that anybody, 100 of us, can object to anything that is brought to the floor of the U.S. Senate, whether it be a nominee, whether it be a judge, whether it be somebody that is appointed to the Treasury. Anybody can object. And there is a procedure that takes place that you can overcome that objection. Why doesn’t the Democratic majority use that procedure?”

Wilson said, “The reason is because Senate Democrats do not want to pay for the unemployment benefits extension, and they’d rather pretend that Senator Bunning is against extending said benefits. He’s not. He merely wants the Senate to pay for it and not borrow the money from Japan, China, Saudi Arabia and others.”

The U.S., according to the Office of Management and Budget, faces a $1.556 trillion budget deficit for 2010, money that will have to be borrowed.

“Bunning’s point is that if the Senate cannot bring itself to cut even $10 billion out of the budget to pay for additional unemployment insurance, that will not bring itself to make the even tougher decisions required to balance a budget that is $1.556 trillion in deficit,” Wilson explained.

On Friday, on the floor of the Senate, Bunning said, “There are going to be other bills brought to this floor that are not going to be paid for, and I’m going to object every time they do it.”

Wilson concluded, “Senator Bunning’s courageous stand, against the Senate majority, and against even members of his own party, is the sort of principled leadership that it will take to balance the budget and pay off the gargantuan $12.4 trillion national debt. It’s time to start making tough decisions.”

###

“Yesterday, Barack Obama flat out lied to the American people, claiming that his plan would, according to CBO, lower the cost of insurance premiums,” Wilson said.

Wilson pointed to the relevant Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report, which 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 Obama’s claim, responding to Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), stating, “Lamar, when you mentioned earlier that you said premiums go up, that’s just not the case, according to the Congressional Budget Office.”

Wilson said Obama was “misleading the American people. This is not a case where Obama and Alexander were ‘both right.’ Obama was wrong.”

Wilson explained, “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, Obama wants to claim that individuals would be paying less for premiums, and that therefore the cost of health coverage is somehow being reduced,” Wilson said, adding, “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,” Wilson explained.

“These sorts of blatant lies explain exactly why the American people are completely opposed to this bill. For example, Harry Reid claimed yesterday that ‘no one’ was considering the use of reconciliation when he himself was speaking of it publicly. Or, Obama claiming 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 20 years, costing over $2.5 trillion from 2014 to 2023,” Wilson added.

“It just goes on and on. The American people have had enough of Barack Obama and Congress’ lies. It’s time to scrap this bill once and for all,” Wilson concluded.

###

The committee is set to begin mark-up on the nominee today at 10AM.

ALG filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the Justice Department’s (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) attempting to confirm allegations that Dawn Johnsen, Barack Obama’s nominee for Assistant Attorney General to the Office of Legal Counsel, has been performing duties pursuant to that office without being confirmed by the Senate, including making hiring decisions.

“Because the Justice Dept has refused to comply with the [Freedom of Information] law and the real possibility exists that Ms. Johnson has violated the law in acting prior to confirmation, I call upon you to delay or defeat this nomination,” Wilson wrote.

According to National Review Online, 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.”

The ALG FOIA request, filed on October 26th, 2009, has gone unheeded in spite of a 20-day statutory requirement.

“That was over 120 days ago, and flies in the face of the Freedom of Information Act,” Wilson wrote in his letter.

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.”

According to a letter to the Justice Department from ALG Counsel Nathan Mehrens, the organization has made repeated attempts to contact the Freedom of Information office within the Office of Legal Counsel, and received no response until the morning of Feb. 12th.

“After numerous failed attempts to obtain a response, i.e., unreturned voicemails, etc., from your office regarding the FOIA request referenced above I finally was able to get you on the phone on Friday, February 12, 2009. As you will recall in that call you stated that the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) has not even started to work on the FOIA request. You also declined to provide an estimated date of completion for the FOIA request,” wrote Mehrens.

Wilson said in a statement the committee was “duty-bound” not to act until the Justice Department completed the FOIA request, and in his letter wrote, “The information we have requested is critical to your committee’s decision on whether or not to confirm Ms. Johnsen.”

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.

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

###

According to the poll, as reported by HotAir.com, “Favorable views of labor unions have plummeted since 2007, amid growing public skepticism about unions’ purpose and power. Currently, 41% say they have a favorable opinion of labor unions while about as many (42%) express an unfavorable opinion. In January 2007, a clear majority (58%) had a favorable view of unions while just 31% had an unfavorable impression.”

“The American people are sick and tired of the class warfare engaged through public policy by government unions and their willing accomplices in federal and state legislatures,” said Wilson.

“Public opinion of these government unions in particular is souring as they demonstrate no willingness whatsoever to embrace common-sense solutions like moving to defined-contribution pension systems that would help the solvency of states. Instead, the public sector unions have been so greedy in states like California, New York, and New Jersey with benefits packages that the states are in fiscal deficits as far as the eye can see,” Wilson explained.

Last week, the Pew Center on the States reported that “at the end of fiscal year 2008, there was a $1 trillion gap between the $2.35 trillion states and participating localities had set aside to pay for employees’ retirement benefits and the $3.35 trillion price tag of those promises.”

Wilson blamed the problem on defined-benefit pension plans that 90 percent of public employees are currently enrolled in, as reported by the Huffington Post. Those plans promise to pay a certain amount of benefits for every year of retirement based on factors like salary and duration of employment.

In an op-ed published this week by ALG News, Wilson outlined his proposal for states to switch to defined-contribution plans: “If today states just stopped adding new employees to their defined-benefit plans, as has been done in Alaska and Michigan, and switched to portable, IRA-like defined-contribution plans (as corporate America has already done with much success) while simultaneously offering younger workers an option to switch into the IRA, they could immediately takes steps to address the inherent cause of the crisis by limiting the universe of unfunded liabilities.”

Today, state public pensions’ unfunded liabilities stands at $1 trillion, and Wilson wrote that “If this proposal were adopted in every state, the unfunded liabilities would not grow that much more, and the states over time could bring the pension funds to fully-funded levels from their general funds.”

According to Pew, public sector unions are “vigorously opposed” to this reform: “Because unions and other employee representatives often have vigorously opposed defined contribution plans, it is unclear whether any state will find such a switch viable, or if such plans are primarily being proposed as a starting point for hybrid plans or other compromises.”

The public relations pitfalls for unions do not stop there, according to Wilson. “Unions have compounded their public image problems through aggressive lobbying on the federal stage for more ObamaCare handouts,” he said.

“For example, the special, sweetheart union exemption deal to the so-called Cadillac tax on health benefits that was worked out behind closed doors probably cost Democrats the Massachusetts Senate seat,” Wilson explained. “After that deal was reached, many rank-and-file union members went against the grain in Massachusetts, apparently not favoring the special treatment Congress sought to bribe them with.”

Wilson also cited a recent study by the Bureau of Labor Statistics for 2007 which found that public sector pay was outpacing the private sector, as ALG News has previously reported.

In California, which still faces annual deficits totaling tens of billions of dollars, average annual income for state employees was $56,777 versus $49,935 for the private sector, a 12.1 percent gap. In Illinois, the numbers are similar: $53,925 for state workers, and $48,006 for the private sector, an 11 percent split. New Jersey: $57,845 average state salary, $53,590 for private sector workers, at a 7.4 percent difference.

Nationally, the same pattern holds: Federal workers in 2007 made on average $64,871, with private sector workers making $44,362, representing a 31.6 percent gap in between.

Wilson said “the favors to unions do not stop there,” citing how Department of Labor prosecutions of union corruption and financial disclosure requirements have been halted by Obama Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, as previously reported by ALG News, and by BigGovernment.com.

Wilson also noted that “One of Barack Obama’s first acts in office was to enact several pro-union executive orders.”

“To top it all off, despite overwhelming opposition, the unions are still pushing for card-check, which would remove the right of workers to have a secret ballot when unions are organized,” Wilson added, citing the so-called “Employee Free Choice Act” that Congress has proposed once again in its 111th session.

Wilson concluded, “Politically, all of these union kickbacks have backfired, and are fueling public dissent against government unions being treated as a favored political class over taxpayers. The American people favor a system where everybody is treated equally, and the more union bosses demand special treatment, the worse their public image will become.”

###

February 23rd, 2010, Fairfax, VA—Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson today defended Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams’ decision earlier this month to receive heart surgery in America rather than in Canada, saying “Canada’s socialized, government-run system is of such low quality not even the Premier of one of Canada’s provinces wants to risk his own health there.”

Williams yesterday said that “I did not sign away my right to get the best possible health care for myself when I entered politics,” describing the decision as “my heart, my choice and my health.”

Wilson said the episode was proof that “America’s system has generated a quality of medical treatment that is unparalleled in the entire world.”

“Now, Barack Obama wants us to suffer the same type of low-quality care Premier Danny Williams was able to avoid by coming to the U.S.,” Wilson added, renewing his call for members of Congress to reject the Administration’s latest proposal.

“Premier Williams has a right to the best quality of health care in the world, and so do the American people, who are being force-fed a government-run system that will ration care, reduce quality, and increase costs,” Wilson said.

Yesterday, Wilson condemned Obama’s proposal as “more of the same: a government takeover of the nation’s entire health system,” calling it a “mishmash” of the House and Senate versions “with the same $2.5 trillion price tag.”

“This is pretty much the same government-run health care proposal that the American people have already rejected. It’s just like the House and Senate versions that have already passed that will cost some $2.5 trillion over ten years once fully implemented,” Wilson said.

As reported by the New York Times, the Obama proposal “sticks largely to the version passed by the Senate in December.”

According to Rasmussen Reports, 61 percent of voters say they want Congress to start over on any health care legislation. 58 percent oppose the bill in its current form, which only 39 percent support.

###

As reported by the New York Times, the Obama proposal “sticks largely to the version passed by the Senate in December.”

“This is pretty much the same government-run health care proposal that the American people have already rejected. It’s just like the House and Senate versions that have already passed that will cost some $2.5 trillion over ten years once fully implemented,” Wilson said.

According to Rasmussen Reports, 61 percent of voters say they want Congress to start over on any health care legislation. 58 percent oppose the bill in its current form, which only 39 percent support.

“Obama’s plan 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,” Wilson explained.

Wilson added that the Administration plan “proves that Barack Obama has no intention of negotiating with Congressional Republicans in good faith, since his proposal does not address the continued, legitimate concerns of the American people.”

Today, the White House released its latest proposal on WhiteHouse.gov. According to the website, “Millions of families will receive hundreds of billions of dollars in tax credits to help them pay for insurance in the new exchanges… The Act also provides financial assistance to reduce out-of-pocket costs for moderate and low-income eligible Americans.”

“In other words,” Wilson said, “Barack Obama’s program will directly subsidize health coverage to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars in new spending — which is exactly what the House and Senate versions do. It says it right there on the White House website.”

“The American people are not stupid,” Wilson added. “They know that the nation’s unsustainable entitlement programs are already risking a sovereign debt default, and they know adding hundreds of billions of dollars to the debt by expanding the health care entitlement will only increase those risks to taxpayers.”

Wilson noted that the mandate for the American people to obtain insurance is still included. According to the White House, “all Americans who can afford insurance will have the responsibility to purchase it.” Wilson said it was unconstitutional.

“Congress has no constitutional authority to pass a law to force individuals to purchase anything, let alone health insurance coverage,” Wilson explained.

Wilson described the upcoming meeting February 25th meeting as “nothing more than pure political theater to create the illusion of bipartisan approval of his proposal, which is just more of the same: a government takeover of the nation’s entire health system.”

Wilson pointed to comments by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s legislative director Wendell Primus stating that the reconciliation process was “the only way” for Congressional Democrats to pass their bill as evidence “Pelosi and Reid are not starting over; they already have a plan to pass the legislation in its current form.

In a recent oped published by ALG News, Wilson wrote the parliamentary maneuver would eliminate the Senatorial filibuster and weaken the nation’s two-party system. Wilson warned that if Congressional leaders were successful in implementing the legislation via reconciliation, that the process could be used to enact other controversial bills that cannot garner 60 votes in the Senate.

Speaking at the Academy Health National Health Policy Conference, Primus said, “The House would have to take up [the reconciliation bill] first because it would involve revenue changes and then the Senate would pass it and then I think hopefully with the passing of that legislation, the House, only then would take up the Senate bill and pass it… The trick in all of this is that the President would have to sign the Senate bill first and then the reconciliation bill would be signed second and the parts of the reconciliation bill that trump the relevant portions of the first signed bill.”

Instead, Wilson called for the process to end, concluding, “The debate on ObamaCare is over. The American people have spoken. They have repeatedly rejected the government takeover of the nation’s health system, and they are growing weary of Barack Obama’s insistence that he knows better than they about what is good for the health of their families.”

###