Romney A Viable GOP Candidate

Many conservatives believe that former Governor Mitt Romney (R-Massachusetts) is not a viable Republican candidate for the 2012 Presidential Election. They cite Romneycare, a 2006 set of healthcare reform programs signed into law by Romney in Massachusetts which forced many residents to buy insurance, forced college students to drop out of school, and actually lead to increased healthcare costs in the state.

Despite the mistake of Romneycare, Mitt Romney is still a viable candidate for the Republican nomination. Romney recently came out well ahead of other potential Republican candidates in a New Hampshire poll. Regarded as a more moderate Republican, Romney has potential to secure independent votes and even the votes of Democrats. Additionally, he is able to present a stronger family values image than other candidates, such as Newt Gingrich and Donald Trump, who have had multiple divorces and even affairs. When it comes to healthcare, Romney has advocated keeping the federal government out, using free markets to keep costs down, and giving people more choice in healthcare. Romney has learned from his mistakes, and in a speech today and an op-ed in the USA Today, Romney outlined how he would handle Obamacare if elected President in 2012:

If I am elected president, I will issue on my first day in office an executive order paving the way for waivers from ObamaCare for all 50 states. Subsequently, I will call on Congress to fully repeal ObamaCare.

While repealing all of Obamacare may not be necessary, as some portions of the bill such as the new young adult coverage provisions and the disallowance of "pre-existing condition" denials are good for the American people, one path to proper healthcare reform in the United States would be be to fully repeal Obamacare and start over from scratch ensuring that new reform doesn't include the higher taxes, unconstitutional individual mandates, and increased costs that Obamacare had.

Paul Ryan Has A Better Idea for Healthcare

With many states, individuals, businesses, and politicians opposing the "individual mandate" to buy health insurance included in Obamacare, you would think someone would propose a better solution. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) has. The Republican behind A Roadmap for America's Future has proposed that the American people be given a tax credit of up to $2,300 if they buy their own insurance. That means that Americans can pay less tax by buying insurance, and if they choose not to buy insurance, their taxes would not go up/down nor would they be fined.

Rep. Ryan's plan encourages Americans to buy their own health insurance, while allowing people to make their own financial and health decisions instead of having the government force insurance on them that they might not want or use. Further, Rep. Ryan's plan is likely a legal plan, whereas Obamacare's "individual mandate" provision was already ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge.

The War On Obesity

First Lady Michelle Obama's efforts to reduce obesity in America have come under fire by many. While a good initiative for the purposes of national security and health, the problem is that the efforts have become connected to left-wing ideas such as taxing foods with high fat or sugar content or restricting access to certain foods. Further, Ms. Obama's proclamation that the American people don't have a right to eat desert didn't help her cause as it presented a position that the government wanted to take control of what you could and could not eat.

The best way to fight "the war on obesity" is not through greater government intervention in the average American's life or new taxes. Rather, the government should incentivize healthy eating through tax breaks. There are two ways to do this:

Method #1: Allow Americans to deduct the cost of all food they purchase within certain dietary guidelines from their taxes each year. No cap on the deduction or income level should phase the deduction out. In practice, this means if a family spends $9,000 a year on food, with $500 spent on "unhealthy" food that don't meet the guidelines, they would be able to deduct $8,500 from their taxes. It would provide an incentive to eat healthy.

Method #2: Similar to a healthcare flexible spending account (FSA), a food savings account should be available for Americans to set aside pre-tax income for food purchases. As with the tax deduction idea, only food items meeting certain dietary guidelines would be eligible for the account, providing an incentive to purchase healthy food.

If the government incentives eating healthy with tax breaks, the result will be that food suppliers will make changes to create healthier food options as customers will demand items that are eligible for the tax deduction or to be purchased out of their food savings account. The government should additionally allow a deduction or a tax credit for the cost of gym membership or exercise equipment made in the United States. This will spur an uptick in purchasing, which will help businesses that make or sell exercise equipment. The result will be that the government, without invasive intervention into the lives of Americans or expensive programs like Obamacare, can encourage healthier eating and reduce obesity while also helping the economy.

National Referendum Needed

The ability to elect legislative and executive leadership is one of the most important parts of democracy. Unfortunately, it is not enough. As shown by Obamacare, it is possible for a house of Congress or the President to act in a manner inconsistent with the will of the American people. The American people have little recourse but to wait until the next election and hope that leadership change can bring in politicians who will follow the will of the people rather than the party line. 

To fix this problem, a national referendum process should exist, where every year the American people have the ability to vote directly on an issue or legislation. If a majority of the people vote for something, then it should be enacted with no ability for Congress or the President to override the vote. The judicial branch, of course, could overturn something if it were inconsistent with the United States Constitution. 

Such a simple solution would require an amendment to the United States Constitution. The far-left would likely oppose this amendment, for a number of reasons, including their elitist attitude that the American people are not capable of making their own decisions and need people in government to do it for them. The truth, however, is that a national referendum system would be good for the country. Such a system would enable greater freedom and democracy by empowering the American people. 

Pathetic

The single word that can best describe Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) this week is "pathetic." Pathetic because Senator Reid doesn't care about ensuring that the Senate adheres to the will of the American people.

In the House of Representatives, the House and held a straight yea/nea vote on the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act." The House passed the bill with a vote of 245 YEA to 189 NEA. A majority of the American people supported the repeal of healthcare reform (also known as Obamacare), so it made sense that the House would take up the issue, hold a direct vote on it, and voted with the will of the people.

In the Senate, however, Senator Reid says that he won't allow a straight yea/nea vote on the bill, effectively killing it. Given that the Democrats have majority control of the Senate (51 votes) and the two independents in the Senate to lean left, many would wonder why Senator Reid is afraid to allow a straight yea/nea vote. It's because Senator Reid is a weak leader, and many moderate Democrats will follow the will of their constituents instead of that of Senator Reid and President Obama. If all Republicans in the Senate voted in favor of repealing Obamacare, only four Democrats or independents would need to join them to pass the repeal. With some Democrats having campaigned on promises to support the elimination of some parts of Obamacare, and other looking at 2012 races in districts with a large number of independents and/or conservatives, it is very likely that Obamacare repeal could actually pass in the Senate.  Senator Reid doesn't want that to happen, so he simply will use procedural tactics to stop a legitimate vote on the issue and prevent the will of the American people from being followed in the Senate.

Senator Reid is even more pathetic because he is playing a role as President Obama's protector. If the American people, the House, and the Senate all supported Obamacare repeal, President Obama would be forced to either sign the bill or veto it. If he vetoed the bill, which is the most likely outcome, then the President would be in a very bad position going into the next election, having blatantly and directly ignored the will of the American people and disregarded the votes of both houses of Congress. By preventing a bill from reaching President Obama's desk, Senator Reid is protecting the President at the expense of the American people who deserve the opportunity to have the Senators they sent to Washington actually vote on legislation that matters to them.

Democrat Accuses GOP of Blood Libel

When Sarah Palin referred to attacks against her as "blood libel," it set off a firestorm of criticism. While criticism was primarily from the left, it also came from the center and even some on the right. Oddly, the same level of criticism isn't happening following Representative Steve Cohen (D-Tennessee) using the term "blood libel" to refer to the Republican efforts to pass House Resolution #2, a bill aimed at repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare. Here's what Rep. Cohen said:

They say it's a government takeover of health care, a big lie just like Goebbels. You say it enough, you repeat the lie, you repeat the lie, and eventually, people believe it. Like blood libel. That's the same kind of thing, blood libel. That's the same kind of thing. The Germans said enough about the Jews and people believed it -- believed it and you have the Holocaust.

It appears that accusing your opposition of blood libel isn't allowed when you're a conservative under attack, but that when you're a Democrat trying to defend legislation that has been ruled partially unconstitutional and is has its repeal supported by a majority of the country, then it's fine. Does anyone else see the problem with this?

Barack Hussein Obama - Not Approved

A majority of Americans do not approve of Barack Hussein Obama's performance as President of the United States. Recently, four different polls confirm that President Obama has an approval rating below 50%:

• Gallup - 48%
  
• Rasmussen Reports - 46%
  
• Quinnipiac University - 48%
  
• Marist College - 48%
  

Interestingly, the American people support repealing the job killing, tax hiking health care reform legislation more than they do President Obama. 55% of Americans support Obamacare repeal. President Obama, however, defies the American people and has insisted that he will veto a repeal if it ever reaches his desk. Additionally, Senate Democrats have vowed to disallow a straight yea/nea vote on the matter in the Senate should it pass the House of Representatives, which is taking up the issue tomorrow and will vote on Wednesday. Several Democrats are expected to back the Republican-led Obamacare repeal effort, coming from districts where their constituents oppose the bill and put them in office under the impression that they would not support Obamacare.

If President Obama does not want former Vice President Cheney's prediction that he will be a one-term President to be true, then he must learn how to listen to the will of the American people. President Obama would be wise to follow the model of House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), and the White House should also be "the People's House." 

John Boehner Keeps His Promise

Last year at CPAC, the man who will become Speaker of the House of Representatives tomorrow, Representative John Boehner (R-Ohio), pledged that if the Republicans took back control of the House, all bills would be posted online for the American people to read and provide their feedback to members of Congress. Mr. Boehner even promised to provide the bills 72 hours in advance, to eliminate the potential for shenanigans such as posting a bill at 2:00 PM EST only to have the vote take place at 2:01 PM EST.

Mr. Boehner has kept his promise. The first bill the House is set to vote on is a rules package. The vote will take place on Wednesday, and the bill was made available last week. On Thursday, the House will consider a bill that will cut the budget of Congress. In fact, Mr. Boehner has gone above and beyond his promise to the American people. On January 12, the House will vote on a bill "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law," that has become known as Obamacare -- an act that has been challenged by several states and even ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge as The Report previously discussed. While this bill will likely not make it past the Senate, and would almost certainly be vetoed by President Obama were it to pass Congress, the bill is posted online for the American people to read over seven days before a vote will take place! That is double the time promised by Mr. Boehner.

Mr. Boehner has the opportunity ahead of him to be one of the greatest Speakers in the history of the House of Representatives. Tomorrow, the American people will be able to watch the start of a era in the House of Representatives... literally, as for the first time, Congress will broadcast a live stream on Facebook in addition to normal broadcasts on C-SPAN and other outlets. By adhering to the will of the American people and committing to transparency, Mr. Boehner is the type of leader leader that can help make the United States an even greater country than it is today. It is a shame that during the last four years soon-to-be former Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not embrace the principles that Mr. Boehner does.

Note: The website that bills are currently being posted on is http://rules-republicans.house.gov/

Rejection of Individual Mandate Protects Our Freedom

When Henry Hudson, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, ruled this week that the "individual mandate" provision of the Affordable Care Act (otherwise known as Obamacare) mandating that individuals purchase health insurance coverage or be fined was unconstitutional, he made a ruling that protects the American people from the government overstepping its bounds and removing freedoms. That freedom, of course, is the right to NOT buy something you don't want. Under Obamacare, individuals who didn't want to buy health insurance would be forced to either buy it or pay up a fine. Luckily, Judge Hudson properly interpreted the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, and ruled that Congress does not have the power to force someone to enter into interstate commerce.

Could you imagine the United States government telling you that you had to buy an orange, a television, a bag of rice, lost luggage insurance, or a six pack of beer? Of course not. Substitute health insurance for one of the aforementioned items, and it is just as ridiculous a proposition. Imagine if a law was passed that every American must own a gun. The same liberals who support all of Obamacare, or believe it didn't go far enough, would be outraged. Yet, the Obama administration has decided to appeal Judge Hudson's ruling. The administration of President Obama continues to not get it. They fail to understand that the American people do not want to be forced into buying a product. The decision to buy health insurance is something that each American should be able to make for themselves and their families. Remember, a majority of those who purchase health insurance will pay more in premiums than they'll receive as a benefit. This is how the health insurance companies cover their costs and earn profits. Rather than pay premiums, some choose to save that money and pay directly for the cost of healthcare that they want or need. The freedom to make the decision as an individual is a fundamental American right.

While portions of Obamacare are beneficial to the American people, the individual mandate provision is not. Common sense would be for the Obama administration to accept that the individual mandate overstepped what is constitutional, and to try to continue forward with the good provisions of health care reform, such as improved coverage for dependents.

In the long-run, the Supreme Court will likely hear the case on whether or not Obamacare's individual mandate is constitutional or not. The Court would be wise to uphold the decision of Judge Hudson, rejecting the individual mandate provision of Obamacare, and setting a precedent that the American people are free to decide whether they will buy a product or not.