Cartoon: Planned Parenthood and Taxpayer Funding

Heritage Foundation President Jim DeMint wrote this week about why Planned Parenthood needs to stop receiving taxpayer dollars:

A video released last week by the Center for Medical Progress shocked the nation by showing an executive of Planned Parenthood sipping wine and casually talking about the going rate for the organs of aborted infants.

Yesterday morning, another undercover video compounded outrage toward Planned Parenthood’s activities. It once again raises the question of whether Planned Parenthood could be profiting off the sale of fetal tissue, as well as altering abortion procedures to preserve organs for sale.

Toward the end of the video, a Planned Parenthood executive jokes: “It’s been years since I talked about compensation, so let me just figure out what others are getting, and if this is in the ballpark, it’s fine, and if it’s still low, then we can bump it up. I want a Lamborghini.”

This should demonstrate to all Americans—even if they consider themselves “pro-choice”—that taxpayers should have nothing to do with this grim business.

Only yesterday, however, when asked whether the Obama administration would consider ending federal funding to Planned Parenthood, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest gave a one-second answer: “No.” As noted by The Washington Free Beacon, Earnest thought Donald Trump’s latest activities were worth several minutes of discussion, evidently a far more important topic to the administration than whether an organization supported by taxpayers and applauded by President Obama has been trafficking baby organs.

Just as the killer Kermit Gosnell’s “house of horrors” abortion clinic was carefully ignored by the media until public outrage compelled news coverage, we’ve seen only the barest attention paid to the Planned Parenthood revelations. The headlines that do get published are carefully sanitized to reflect Planned Parenthood’s talking points—and to gloss over the children being dehumanized into mere livers, hearts and lungs.

But blaming news outlets and press secretaries for being hostage to their own ideologies will get us only so far. A story of this enormity couldn’t remain under wraps despite their best efforts (and worst journalism). Ultimately, it is our elected leaders who must answer for the continued activities of Planned Parenthood—and the support they receive from our tax dollars every year.

And answer they should: Planned Parenthood received over $528 millionfrom taxpayers during their last reporting year.

One day all Americans will look back on the charnel industry of abortion with the same disgust and shame as we do other historical atrocities. Until then, Congress has an obligation to eliminate federal taxpayer funding for this industry’s largest representative, Planned Parenthood, an organization that performs 1 out of every 3 abortions in the United States.

Speaker of the House John Boehner has promised an investigation of Planned Parenthood’s alleged organ harvesting practices, and Sen. Rand Paul—a doctor himself—has vowed to fight federal funding for the institution. These are steps in the right direction.

For over two thousand years, since the Greek physician Hippocrates founded the science of Western medicine, doctors took an oath never to administer poison to destroy an unborn child. The least Congress can do is to keep our money from those who make such tragedy a business: defund Planned Parenthood now.

Via: The Daily Signal

Continue Reading.... 

[OPINION] HEALTH CARE Let the subsidies die

In the five years since Obamacare became law, millions of Americans have seen their insurance premiums rise and their deductibles skyrocket. Millions more have been pushed out of their plans and onto Medicaid — a notoriously ineffective health program. And all the while, Washington has tried to paper over these problems with subsidies.

Soon the Supreme Court will rule on the legality of the federal subsidies given to people who have purchased health coverage from Healthcare.gov, the federally-operated insurance exchange. In the case of King v. Burwell, the nine justices on the Supreme Court are given yet another opportunity to either apply the plain meaning of federal law, or to give the green light to the Obama administration's lawless and politically convenient handouts.

If the Supreme Court upholds the rule of law and blocks the Obama administration, attention will quickly turn to Congress. The big question: Will lawmakers try to save Obamacare from crumbling, or will lawmakers finally begin the process of removing Obamacare's obstacles to quality care and begin to start over with real reform?

This should be an easy choice for opponents of Obamacare. The end of federally subsidized exchanges will be the first step in freeing patients, doctors, and insurers from government control. Unbelievably, however, some are considering legislation to extend the subsidies, should the Supreme Court block them.

It would be uncaring and unfair for Congress to force taxpayers to continue funding Obamacare's subsidies that do nothing to lower the real cost of coverage nor increase healthcare choices for most Americans. Extending the subsidies would be political malpractice, not just a mere Band-Aid upon an infected wound. Rather than diagnosing the underlying disease — a broken, unsustainable system — such a patch would allow Congress and the president to avoid making the tough decisions about cost and quality of care.

It would be far better for far more people if Congress simply repealed Obamacare, removed barriers to competition, and started fresh. Fortunately, many in Congress realize this. For example, Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., recently proposed the Premium Reduction and Insurance Market Reform Act of 2015, which would get rid of harmful regulations and end the benefit mandates that are driving Obamacare costs through the roof.

A significant number of insurers have already requested double-digit rate increases for 2016. Why drive the nation further into debt by subsidizing unaffordable coverage, when Congress can just as easily make coverage more affordable? Gosar's bill takes the latter approach, as do several other proposals.

No one bill can fully "fix" Obamacare. The ultimate cure for Obamacare's sickness will have to be an all-of-the-above initiative — a panoply of health reforms that can be pursued piece by piece with full public understanding and transparency. Sweeping bills with thousands of pages are what got us into this mess; we shouldn't look for another grand top-down scheme to get us out of it.

Via: Washington Examiner

Continue Reading....

Senate Conservatives Fund Ramps Up Earmarking Effort

Using a special method of fundraising that permits moving large amounts of funds to a candidate, a federal PAC has collected and forwarded more than $500,000 in earmarked contributions for five conservative Senate and House candidates.

The Senate Conservatives Fund, a federal PAC that already gives contributions and makes independent expenditures for federal candidates, has reported collecting and forwarding $541,565 in earmarked contributions since May. During November they reported forwarding $201,460 to candidates.

The PAC was founded by former Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., and seeks to elect conservative candidates, but does not support liberal Republicans, and is not affiliated with the Republican Party or its campaign committees.

Individuals may earmark their original contribution for a specific candidate, and pass it through a PAC, who then forwards the contribution to that specific candidate. The contribution is considered from the original donor and does not count toward the PAC’s contribution limit. The individual gets the credit for the contribution, and the PAC gets the credit for the soliciting, collecting and forwarding of the funds.

Matt Bevin, R-Ky., who is running against Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., received $304,132 in earmarked contributions from individuals that were collected through the PAC. This includes $173,579 in October and $130,552 in November.

Rep. Jim Bridenstine, R-Okla., who is running for re-election, received $70,008 in earmarked from the PAC.

Col. Rob Maness, R-La., who is running against Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., has received $63,983 in earmarked funds collected by the PAC. This includes $40,979 in October and $23,004 in November.

Conservative commentator and State Senator Chris McDaniel, R-Miss., who is running against Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss., has received $58,750 in earmarked contributions from the PAC. This includes $33,954 in October and $24,796 in November.

Midland University president Ben Sasse, R-Neb., who is running for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb., has received $44,692 in earmarked contributions for the PAC. This includes $30,439 in October and $14,253 in November.

In 2012, former Sen. Jim DeMint cut his formal ties with the Senate Conservatives Fund, and started a separate Super PAC, Senate Conservatives Action, that makes only independent expenditures and is not bound by limits on contributions or spending.

Via: Roll Call

Continue Reading....

How President Obama Is Killing Jobs

Five years on and President Obama still refuses to assume responsibility for his woeful economic record. The buck stops with Republicans, other countries, changes in the weather, etc.—anywhere but the Oval Office. Of course, it’s not new having a chief executive who refuses to admit failure. What is rare is having a news media that does not hold the President accountable.

So let’s establish the record. At 2.2 percent annual growth, we are now witnessing the slowest economic recovery in generations. Even the Council on Foreign Relations says “the economic expansion following the 2008 recession has been the weakest of the post-World War II era.” This is true across a number of fronts: economic growth, housing prices, industrial production and capacity, etc.

Liberals cry that what we need is more government overspending, which without a trace of irony they call “stimulus.” In other words, they want us to ignore the fact that this Administration and the Federal Reserve have spent more on government-based economic “stimulus” than any other in America’s history, and with little to show.

Via: The Foundry

Continue Reading.....

[VIDEO] DeMint on Obamacare: “We Have to Stop It While There’s Still Time”

Unfair. Unworkable. Unaffordable.

Those are the words Heritage President Jim DeMint used to describe Obamacare during a conversation with Andrew Wilkow on The Blaze this week.

“We have to stop it while there’s still time,” DeMint said. “If there has ever been something to take a political risk for, this is it.”

DeMint appeared on Wilkow! to discuss why Heritage bought a billboard in Times Square with the message: “Warning: Obamacare may be hazardous to your health.” He also discussed his letter to Russian leader Vladimir Putin.

Via: The Foundry

Continue Reading....

Leaders, Followers, Fence-Sitters, and Obamacare

When conservatives look for elected Republicans to stand for our values, we are not just looking for someone who might vote with conservatives when convenient; we are looking for someone who will give voice to conservatives.  Hence, we are looking for leaders – people who will articulate the message, fight the conservative battles, and move the polls.  We have no need for more followers, fence-sitters, and finger lickers.  The recent developments in the fight to defund Obamacare serve as a quintessential example of this divide between the leaders and the fence-sitters.

After several months of hard work from Jim DeMint, Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Tom Graves, Mark Meadows, and some of the outside groups, there is tremendous momentum behind using the budget bills to force the issue on Obamacare once and for all.  Obamacare is now more unpopular than ever.  It is so unpopular that Republicans are viewed as more favorable on healthcare than Democrats.  This has never happened in years.  As Erick noted earlier today, when the leadership void is filled, the polling begins to move.

Naturally, all of the establishment followers and fence-sitters are joining the bandwagon of fighting Obamacare on the budget bill (or “the next fight” – the debt ceiling).  However, they want us to believe that they have a “smarter” plan to accomplish it.  They will push to delay the law for one year or focus on some other aspect of Obamacare.

Let me submit that without the efforts of the conservative leaders, the GOP establishment followers would never be talking about fighting Obamacare in any form.  They are terrified of brinkmanship – be it over defund or delay – and had no intention of ever picking this fight, even as Obamacare goes into effect next month.  Their call for delaying the law is just the latest subterfuge to undermine the fight and capitulate to Democrats while concurrently co-opting the fight against Obamacare – as if they were supportive of the effort all along, albeit with a craftier strategy.

Via: Red State

Continue Reading...

Heritage Foundation gets tough: Think tank puts punch behind its conservative ideas

The Heritage Foundation has decided it is better to be feared than loved.

The conservative think tank conducted private market research on Capitol Hill between 2008 and 2009, asking respondents whether they were ever worried about being on the wrong side of Heritage’s position.

“Overwhelmingly, nobody cared,” said Tim Chapman, now the chief operating officer of Heritage Action, the organization’s three-year-old advocacy arm.

To combat this, the think tank created Heritage Action to knock some skulls around. But by doing so, Heritage upset the traditionally cozy relationship the Heritage Foundation had with congressional Republicans.

It was along this strategic arc – a conscious decision to be more combative – that the think tank chose Sen. Jim DeMint, 62, a polarizing, conservative firebrand, to lead it.

But DeMint wasn’t the board’s original choice for the post of president.

Heritage’s Board of Trustees initially had doubts about whether choosing a politician would be the right move for a think tank that had for decades been led by a former Hill staffer with a Ph.D., outgoing president Ed Feulner.

“There was a great debate over whether Jim DeMint was the right guy, because he was political. The Heritage Foundation is not political,” one board member told the Washington Examiner.

In the first half of 2012, Heritage offered the presidency to Larry Arnn, the president of conservative Hillsdale College and a member of the board. After considering it, Arnn declined the job, deciding instead to remain in academia.

Arnn did not respond to requests for comment.

The search to replace Feulner took the better part of three years, during which 18 candidates were interviewed. Academics, “two or three” politicians, staff from other think tanks, and even media figures were considered for the position, Heritage Executive Vice President Philip Truluck said.

Via: Washington Examiner

Continue Reading....

Wasserman Schultz Takes Parting Shot at Jim DeMint, Tea Party

DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz appeared on Current TV and took a parting shot at Sen. Jim DeMint, saying he gave up in the Senate because he was alone with his Tea Party "extremism."

I think Senator DeMint clearly sees that the Tea Party is not a growth industry. I mean, he had an election that just passed that did not see the ranks of Tea Party members expand the Senate candidates that he expected to be very likery to join him in the Senate were rejected in red states by the voters who simply know that extremism is just not the way that we need to go forward in getting our economy turned around, in reducing our deficit, in creating jobs. 

So I think, when Jim DeMint looked around, he looked and saw a future where he would be standing by himself very often, and likely facing dwindling, even greater dwindling number of Tea Party advocates and allies. I think he headed for the doors, because he thinks that probably, as he said, the only way he's significant impact is through a think tank. 

Sen. DeMint announced he will be leaving the Senate to become President of the Heritage Foundation.

DeMint joins national effort to keep feds from bailing out state pension systems

Illinois Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn is getting hit with a nationwide backlash over his suggestion that the federal government bail out the state employees’ pension program

.

Critics have in the past several days pounced on the suggestion, made last year when Quinn, in announcing the state’s fiscal 2012, said part of Illinois' long-term effort to reduce the estimate $167 billion in under-funded liabilities would be to seek “a federal guarantee of the debt.”

Among those leading the charge is Republican Sen. Jim DeMint. The South Carolina senator has joined the Illinois Policy Institute’s national “No Pension Bailout” campaign -- an effort to stop Congress from attempting to rescue failing state and municipal pension plans.

“Our greatest concern is states will assume they can run their pension systems into bankruptcy and then turn to the federal government for bailout,” DeMint said Thursday.

He also suggested the problem is the result of state legislators trying for decades to win over voters through pension promises based “on accounting methods that would put any business in jail.”

The conservative policy group estimates the total amount of under-funded pension liabilities in states is at least $2.5 trillion, with Illinois leading the nation.

The basic plan floated by Quinn would be for the federal government to rescue the pension program through buying the state’s bonds, which critics say are too financially risky to attract investors.  

Quinn said after announcing the budget that seeking the federal guarantee was only a precaution, then later called the related wording a “drafting error,” according the non-partisan Citizens Against Government Waste, which nevertheless gave the governor its September 2012 “Porker of the Month” award.

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading...

160! – We have 160 Federal Programs That Deal With Housing

Sen. Jim DeMint’s (R-SC) senior communications advisor and speechwriter, Amanda Carpenter, who was recently a columnist for The Washington Times, penned an interesting post on the senator’s page, the Pickpocket, concerning how many federal programs deal with housing.  A whopping 160 federal programs is “how many the Government Accountability Office tallied in a recent report that noted, ‘fiscal realities raise questions about the efficiency of multiple housing programs and activities across federal agencies with similar goals, products, and sometimes parallel delivery systems.”

The post, which Carpenter wrote on September 20, also reported that:

…HUD runs the majority of the programs, 91. The United States Department of Agriculture, which also administers farming aid and the nation’s food stamp program, offers 18 different types of housing assistance as well. The Internal Revenue Service has 14 programs. The Department of Treasury offers 8 programs; the Department of Veterans Affairs 7; the Department of Labor 2; Federal Home Loan Banks 3.

The rest of the activities are run through a number of organizations, such as the Department of Interior,  the Federal Reserve System, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Ginnie Mae, Farmer Mac, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, to name a few.

Here’s GAO’s complete inventory of programs, available in the “Table of Contents” on this page.

If President Obama had truly wanted to consolidate wasteful government programs, he sure had the chance. Especially when it comes to housing. He just never took it.

GAO recommended that the government begin taking action to consolidate programs at HUD, USDA, and Treasury, a goal completely compatible the Single Family Housing Task Force that the Obama Administration announced in February 2011.

Carpenter noted that this finding has amounted to little more than a press release.  However, it’s another episode in the annals of government inefficiency.  For a minute – I thought that this could be the foundation for a good movie, but I forgot that it’s already been made.

Via: Green Room

Continue Reading...