Common Core - Dangerous for America!

 Nebraska Taxpayers for Freedom Issue Paper: commoncore1.doc.  4-13.

BACKGROUND.  Conservatives are legitimately alarmed about the Obama Administration Common Core curriculum pressed onto our public schools.  The regime heavily pushes this curricula through its $4.35 billion 2009 Race to the Top education grant competition bribery.  Many states have embraced Common Core to grab these massive grants.  States that accepted its precepts received bonus points in their applications.  This plan awards points to states that adopt this common set of K-12 standards that are mostly identical all over America. Obama’s Education Dept. has awarded over $360 million to 2 liberal groups to create student assessments in Common Core.  Obama herded states into adopting these standards without time to deliberate on their adequacy, requiring adoption approved by state education dept. officials, if states want to obtain federal waivers from the 2002 No Child Left Behind law.  If Obama succeeds, states like NE will lose federal funds by adhering to their own standards, denied access to Race to the Top federal dollars for refusing Common Core.

  

VALID CRITICISM.  Common Core eradicates local school board control over the K-12 math and English curricula, substituting a lone, federally-imposed curricula that applies to public, private, parochial, and home schools.  Proponents advise that national standards will improve academic performance; however, these new standards evidence no proof that they are better than current NE standards.  No district has tested these standards, which use unproved instructional methods. These standards base on unproved ideas and questionable assumptions.  The job of teaching our kids is too important to depend on untested, common methods pushed by companies that have financial interests in selling textbooks, technology, and academic assessment but not accountable to parents or taxpayers. Several private corporations will make huge profits, with less money reaching classrooms.  Our children will become guinea pigs.  In Massachusetts, adopting Common Core meant dumping academic standards regarded as the best in the nation.  In many states, Common Core standards are inferior to state standards.  There exists no evidence that a federal curriculum brings high academic achievement.  France and Denmark boast national curricula that do not reflect high achievement on international testing.  Contrarily, both Canada and Australia use many regional curricula and show better results.[1]  A Brookings Institution study found that common state standards do little to equalize academic achievement among states.[2]   Instruction is confusing.  Common Core requires pupils to explain a math problem before doing the calculation, complicating the teaching of basic math.  Teachers become confused with the unfamiliarity of teaching this product.  Students do not learn traditional math, like multiplication, until a grade or two later. In Common Core math, kids abandon concrete skills for abstract confusing methodology.  Elementary kids who got “A” grades struggle to explain how they find answers after using mental math in Common Core and get lower grades.  These math standards delay development of key concepts and skills, instructions written at a level confusing to teachers, students, parents, and administrators.  Math standards not well-organized at the high school level, several important topics insufficiently covered, and standards not divided into defined courses. To avoid attention, proponents have focused only on math and English, aiming to eventually extend Common Core to all subjects.  Math standards are inferior.  A math professor, the only mathematician on the validation committee, refused to sign off on the math standards, declaring that they would drop many pupils 2 yrs. behind those in many other nations.  One most tragic change for English classes is the requirement that 50% or more of readings in Grades 6-12 come from informational instead of cultural texts.  Such means that curricula will not include many classic works in American and other literature.  Popular treatises like Common Sense, the Gettysburg Address, and To Kill A Mockingbird are not present, only on a list of reading suggestions.  No research tells that college readiness comes from reading informational items in high school classes.[3]  Conservatives around the country are angry about the secretive process by which Common Core standards became adopted, allowing for few or no public hearings, blocked from the legislative process.  The conservative Cato Institute noted that state lawmakers are surprised when academic curricula become snatched from their prerogatives.  Common Core defines contents for all U.S. K-12 math and English texts and defines what our kids will learn and not learn.  No empirical validation of standards or metric to monitor intended or unintended consequences.  No early childhood teachers or child development experts were included in the K-3 standards formulation process, because Common Core shocked these professionals.  Standard writers had no background in child development or early childhood education.  The Joint Statement of Early Childhood Health & Education Professionals statement criticizing Common Core garnered signatures from over 500 prominent early childhood professionals, like educators, pediatricians, developmental psychologists, and researchers.  The statement read that Common Core conflicts with new research in cognitive science, neuroscience, child development, and early childhood education about how young kids learn, what content they should learn, and the best methods to teach them in kiddiegarden and early grades.  Common Core pilots are disappointing.  One principal told of his school piloting the assessment, whereby the failure rate rose dramatically, particularly among slow learners. 

COMMON CORE TESTING.  After adoption of Common Core curricula, its standardized testing is approaching fast.  No national standardized test can effectively measure what teachers teach in each public school system.  Common Core demands a great increase in testing, much more than the already excessive amount required by No Child Left Behind.  NYC will spend over a half billion on technology, so that its students can take electronically federal tests.  Research proves that increasing testing does not increase achievement.  NE school districts suffer funding squeezes, but Common Core costs billions for new textbooks, infrastructure like high speed networks, new software for additional computers, training, consultants, and tests. 

COST TO TAXPAYERS.  Adoption is expensive, and states adopting Common Core jump into an assessment quagmire without estimates on costs.  Local school administrators complain that Obama grants do not cover the requirements, costing much more to implement all the mandates.  The education establishment likewise complained for years about the unexpected costs of No Child Left Behind.  Common Core will repeat this expensive lesson in forcing another underfunded ed mandate on states.  NE probably would not qualify for federal funding now, leaving NE taxpayers to pay the entire bill. 

LEFTIST CURRICULA.  One lesson features a video titled China Rises, that praises the virtues of Chinese communism over capitalism.  The leftist New York Times co-produced this propaganda piece.  Another lesson regrets children inability to vote, as they understand global warming and war better than adults who make world problems worse.  Common Core uses UN programs to institute international curricula. Materials promote “alternative lifestyles,” criticize capitalism, praise labor unions, redistribution of wealth, radical environmentalism, and social justice, and debase of Judeo-Christianity. The liberal progressive school-to-work plan will allow the Obama Regime to put everything in place to plan for future labor markets.  Common Core promotes a model of a command economy and unlimited federal governance.  Proponents want to control our schools, so that our children will become conditioned to accept that the federal government has the right to order them to serve its economic commands.  Government will be the master, not the servant. 

ITS FUNDING.  Common Core has received funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and other leftwing sources. 

PERTINENT VIDEO.  http://raymondpronk.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/stop-obamas-common-core-curriculum-standards-progressive-indoctrination-standardization-and-tracking-of-american-children-into-collectivists-little-boxes-videos/

ITS SUPPORTERS.  The leftwing American Federation of Teachers (AFT) endorses Common Core. Several creators of  Common Core standards have accepted employment with testing companies that will accrue millions of dollars developing tests based on the standards they created.

HOME SCHOOLS UNSAFE.  Saxon Math and Math U See both declared that they will align their curriculum, popular among home schools, with Common Core.

INVASIVENESS.  Conservative parents object to violation of student privacy by data mining through assessment means. Common Core creates a student database including test scores, hobbies, family income, voting status, and health records, a violation of individual rights and limited government. [4]  Data mining includes using cameras to evaluate kid facial expressions, electronic seat that judges postures, a pressure-sensitive computer mouse, and a biometric wrap on wrists.

STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION.  Board members voted 7-1 (John Sieler voted with taxpayers) to pay a consultant company $47,000 to compare NE standards alignment to Common Core, due in October, 2013, a hint that the board majority will embrace the latter curricula.  The State Board of Education must give final approval of state curriculum standards and assessments. School districts should not use Common Core yet, as the state board has not adopted it yet.  We urge taxpayers to contact their state board of education member to pass the following resolution:
 

Notwithstanding any other statute, the state board of education shall not adopt, and the NE Dept. of Education shall not implement, Common Core standards developed by the Common Core Standards Initiative.  Actions pursued to adopt or implement the Common Core State Standards are void.  Common Core State Standards shall not be adopted or implemented without the approval of the NE Legislature.

LEGISLATURE.  Sen. Jim Scheer from Norfolk introduced LB 512, to order the state to accept Common Core national assessments and allow the state board of education to proceed with this curricula. We must lobby our state senators to kill LB 512, then co-sponsor and support legislation to ban NE from adopting and spending money on all activities relating to Common Core, like training teachers or buying materials.  Also, press them to pass a bill to forbid sharing of private student information without parental consent.   

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE.  As awareness of this federal education power grab increases, opposition mounts.  States now realize that accepting Common Core means transferring control of school curriculum to the Obama Regime.  Only Texas, Alaska, Nebraska, and a few other states are steadfastly resisting, and others have withdrawn participation or are considering such.  Common Core violates the U.S. Constitution and several federal statutes that prohibit federal direction, control, or supervision of curricula, instruction, and materials in K-12 schools.  This plan is a serious assault on state sovereignty, a power grab by which the Obama Regime will directly target school districts.  This federal intervention will cripple state, local, and parental authority over curricula and cost states $16 billion in new spending.[5] 

TAKE ACTION NOW.  We still can stop this dangerous scheme to nationalize education and indoctrinate our children.  Do not permit nameless, faceless, unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats to seize control of NE public education.  Contact your state board of education member and state senator today to stop the progress of Common Core in Nebraska.  Email netaxpayers@gmail.com for their contact information. 

Research, analysis, and documentation for this issue paper done by Nebraska Taxpayers for Freedom, with prior permission granted for its use by other groups in the NE Conservative Coalition Network.  4-13.   C

---

[1] Closing the Door on Innovation: Why One National Curriculum is Bad for America. Available at: http://www.k12innovation.com/Manifesto/_V2_Home.html.

[2] “The 2012 Brown Center Report on American Education: HOW WELL ARE AMERICAN STUDENTS LEARNING?

[3] Common Core Standards, Devastating Impact on Literary Study and Analytical Thinking, Sandra Stotsky, Heritage Issue Brief, Heritage Foundation, December 2012.

[4] Joy Pullmann, managing editor of School Reform News and an education research fellow at the Heartland Institute.

[5] Heritage Foundation. 

Medicaid Patients Have Worse Access and Outcomes than the Privately Insured

Abstract: Academic literature has consistently illustrated that Medicaid patients—adults and children—have inferior access to health care, and notably poorer health outcomes, than privately insured patients. Due to the program's low reimbursement rates, more and more doctors are refusing to even accept Medicaid. As a result, it is becoming increasingly difficult for Medicaid patients to find access to primary and specialty care physicians. When Medicaid patients are admitted to hospitals, they are often admitted with more serious conditions than those with private insurance. By further expanding this broken program, Obamacare will only exacerbate the situation, continuing to harm many low-income Americans who have no option other than Medicaid. Policymakers should reform Medicaid to allow Medicaid patients access to private insurance in a consumer-driven market.

Established as a fundamental component of President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, Medicaid is a jointly funded federal and state program that pays for health care for low-income individuals. The academic literature has consistently illustrated that Medicaid patients have poorer access to care, and poorer health outcomes, than privately insured patients. By further expanding this broken program, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - Obamacare - only exacerbates the situation. Policymakers should reform Medicaid to provide consumers with greater access to private insurance in a consumer-driven market.

Medicaid typically pays physicians 56 percent of the amount that private insurers pay.[1] Given these low reimbursement rates, more and more doctors are refusing to accept Medicaid.[2] As a result, it is becoming increasingly difficult for Medicaid patients to find primary care doctors and specialists. When Medicaid patients are admitted to hospitals, they are often admitted with more serious conditions, and in some cases, with a higher level of co-morbidity, than privately insured patients. The peer-reviewed academic literature clearly illustrates Medicaid's problems for children as well as for adults.

Children Suffer Under Medicaid

Medicaid undermines care for millions of children. Consider, for example, children with asthma, one of the most common chronic diseases affecting children in the United States. A 2001 study published in the Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved compares hospital care for children with asthma who are covered by Medicaid to children with asthma who are covered by private insurance in California, Georgia, and Michigan.[3] The authors found slightly longer length of stay and significantly poorer outpatient care for the children on Medicaid. In terms of outpatient care, the authors specifically found that pediatric Medicaid patients were more likely than privately insured patients to be discharged on subpar medication routines. The authors also found that Medicaid patients generally lacked a consistent source of outpatient care, unlike privately insured patients. These issues with outpatient care suggest that these children are more likely to be re-admitted for hospitalization at a subsequent time in the future.

Adequate access to care is also a serious problem for children on Medicaid. A 2004 study published in Pediatrics examined children’s access to specialty surgeons in Southern California.[4] The researchers surveyed specialty surgeons throughout southern California and found that the surgeons are generally less inclined to accept patients enrolled in Medi-Cal (California’s version of the Medicaid program). The surgeons cited difficult paperwork, administrative burdens, and poor reimbursement rates as reasons for not wanting to take on these patients. The authors consequently caution policymakers about expanding this program, noting that coverage through Medi-Cal does not necessarily signify meaningful access to health care. The authors also suggest that expanding Medi-Cal may in fact exacerbate the existing problems of limited access to care.

Another study published in 2005 in Urology found similar problems with boys’ access to urologic care.[5] The authors surveyed a simple random sample of urologic offices located throughout California in order to determine the offices’ attitudes toward Medi-Cal recipients. Of the offices they found that were willing to see pediatric patients, the authors found that 96 percent of these offices would accept privately insured patients. They also found that only 41 percent of these offices would accept Medi-Cal patients. Three-quarters of the offices that refused to accept Medi-Cal patients were unable to even recommend offices that would.

Furthermore, a recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine examined pediatric access to specialty clinics in Cook County, Illinois.[6] Sending out research assistants posing as mothers and making phone calls to a random sample of specialty clinics, the study found a significant disparity between access to specialty care for privately insured children and children on Medicaid as well as the publicly funded Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). Specifically, the researchers noted more denials of appointments as well as longer waiting times for Medicaid and CHIP patients than for privately insured patients.

These studies suggest that children on Medicaid lack access to the kind of care that privately insured patients enjoy. As long as the program in its current form remains in place, these problems will persist.

Adults Suffer Under Medicaid

Children are not the only ones Medicaid is failing. A number of academic studies have also pointed out the disparities in health outcomes between adult Medicaid recipients and those who are privately insured.

A 1993 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that breast cancer patients in New Jersey were often diagnosed with more advanced stages of the disease and had higher risks of death if they received their insurance coverage through Medicaid instead of private insurance.[7] These findings have been corroborated by a number of subsequent studies looking at a variety of serious illnesses:

• A 2000 study published in Cancer examined health outcomes of breast cancer patients in Florida. The study found that, as a result of later diagnoses, Medicaid patients have higher mortality rates than patients who are covered by commercial fee-for-service insurance.[8]
• A 2000 study published in the American Journal of Public Health that examines colorectal cancer treatments and outcomes found that Medicaid patients not only had higher mortality rates, but were also less likely to receive cancer-directed surgery, than patients using commercial fee-for-service insurance.[9]
• A 2001 study published in Cancer compared health outcomes for a variety of cancers for patients in Michigan. The study found that Medicaid patients had significantly higher rates of occurrence as well as higher risks of death for breast, cervix, colon, and lung cancers compared to non-Medicaid patients. The study also found that Medicaid patients had a higher risk of being diagnosed with these cancers at later stages.[10]
• A 2003 study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine that compares health outcomes for colorectal, lung, prostate, and breast cancer in Kentucky for a variety of insurance classifications also found similar results. For all four illnesses, the authors found that survival rates are markedly higher for privately insured patients than for Medicaid patients.[11]

Most recently, a 2010 study in the Journal of Hospital Medicine found similar results for non-cancer-related illness. In this study, the authors examine the relationship between insurance status and health outcomes for myocardial infarction, stroke, and pneumonia patients.[12] The authors statistically analyzed a nationally representative hospital database and noticed, even after adjusting for factors such as age, gender, income, other illnesses, and severity, higher in-hospital mortality rates for Medicaid patients than for privately insured patients. Additionally, even after adjusting for these factors, the study found that Medicaid patients hospitalized for strokes and pneumonia also ran up higher costs than the privately insured, as well as the uninsured.

Medicaid: Hinders Access to Care, Fails to Meet Patients’ Needs

A number of academic studies over the years have illustrated that Medicaid patients have consistently had poor access to care and that Medicaid fails to meet important needs:

• A 1992 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association examined hospitalizations in Massachusetts and Maryland.[13] The study found that Medicaid and uninsured patients were statistically more likely than privately insured patients to be hospitalized for avoidable conditions such as pneumonia and diabetes.
• A 2007 study in Health Affairs examined access to specialty services for patients who receive primary care from community health centers.[14] The study found that Medicaid recipients have significantly more difficulty accessing specialty care than privately insured patients.
• A 2012 study in Health Affairs examined physicians’ willingness to accept new patients. Using survey data from a nationally representative sample, the study found that nearly one-third of physicians nationwide will not accept new Medicaid patients. Doctors in smaller practices, as well as doctors in metropolitan areas, are among the least inclined to accept new Medicaid patients.[15] The authors’ results suggest that this reluctance may largely be a consequence of Medicaid’s poor payment rates to doctors.

Given these findings in the peer-reviewed literature, it is not surprising that Medicaid patients often arrive at emergency rooms in poor, and in many cases, untreatable condition. In fact, research has shown that Medicaid and CHIP patients end up in emergency rooms even more frequently than uninsured patients.[16]

Solutions

As the academic research has consistently suggested, Medicaid’s so-called safety net cripples the very people it is designed to help. To fix the broken safety net, Congress should consider the following.[17]

• Repeal Obamacare and its Medicaid expansion. One of Obamacare’s greatest pretenses is that it improves access to health care. The new law attempts to achieve this goal by dumping millions more patients into the broken Medicaid system. Recent Heritage Foundation research has statistically illustrated the debilitating effect that Medicaid expansion will impose on state governments.[18]

Some proponents will likely argue that Obamacare addresses access issues by providing additional federal funding to increase physician reimbursement to Medicare levels. However, this additional federal reimbursement is only temporary and solely applies to primary care physicians. As a result, it is only a matter of time until state budgets become more burdened and a lack of access to meaningful health care becomes even more of a problem nationwide.[19]

• Maximize access to private health insurance for Medicaid beneficiaries. The best approach to improving access and outcomes would be to integrate the success of private health insurance into the Medicaid system. Some states, such as Florida, have pursued reforms in the past decade by giving Medicaid patients a choice of private managed care plans. A five-county pilot version of the program flattened Medicaid costs and had been saving the state slightly under $120 million annually. Additionally, the program overall noted greater access to care, higher degrees of patient satisfaction, and a marked improvement in health outcomes.[20]

The Heritage Foundation’s Saving the American Dream proposal goes further. It recommends transitioning non-disabled Medicaid beneficiaries out of the failing Medicaid program and into private health insurance and integrating private, patient-centered models into Medicaid to better serve the disabled and frail elderly.[21]

Conclusion

Medicaid is a prime example of government’s inability to outperform—or even keep up with—the private sector. Academic research has consistently illustrated that the program is associated with poorer access to care and poorer health outcomes than private insurance. With the right reforms, however, lawmakers can significantly expand Medicaid patients’ access to private health insurance and put low-cost, high-quality care back in the hands of those truly in need.

—Kevin D. Dayaratna is Graduate Fellow in the Center for Health Care Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/11/studies-show-medicaid-patients-have-worse-access-and-outcomes-than-the-privately-insured

Critics Proved Wrong Again on Voter ID

By Hans A. von Spakovsky - December 19, 2012

Kris Kobach, the secretary of state of Kansas, has released some very interesting statistics that disprove — once again — the fallacious claims made by critics of voter ID. Kansas, whose voter-ID law became effective this year, has 1.8 million registered voters. From January 1 through September 30, only 120 people in the entire state applied for the free ID that Kansas provides to anyone who doesn’t already have a photo ID.

Those 120 constitute only 0.007 percent of all voters registered in Kansas.

On Election Day, only 0.07 percent of the 1,182,771 Kansans turning out at the polls were unable to show a proper form of identification. They were allowed to cast provisional ballots and told to present a valid ID after the election so that their vote would be counted. Almost half of the provisional voters did so, dropping the number of voters without proper ID to just 0.04 percent of all people who tried to cast votes.

These figures give the lie to claims by the Brennan Center and other voter ID opponents that a whopping 11 percent of voting-age Americans have no acceptable form of photo ID, and that voter-ID laws therefore present a hindrance for many.

In an election where turnout across the country generally went down from 2008, Kansas had a turnout of 66.8 percent. That’s virtually the same as the turnout in 2000 (66.7 percent) — the last presidential election year in which Kansas had no U.S. Senate race.  Sorry, Brennan Center. Your claim that voter ID laws reduce turnout goes up in smoke. Again.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/336110/critics-proved-wrong-again-voter-id-hans-von-spakovsky

The Final Strike to Obamacare

March 7, 2013

by: Bryan Baumgart

The death of Obamacare was prolonged Wednesday when Congress approved legislation to fund the government through the 2013 Fiscal Year. By settling for minor cuts to spending, Republican House leadership effectively allowed the opportunity to end Obamacare to slip through their hands.

  

In January, hoping to buy time to shore up Obamacare's Achilles Heel, the Obama administration waived the deadline for states to establish exchanges.

When Rep. Nancy Pelosi stated, "We will have to pass it [Obamacare] to see what is in it", she had no idea the fatal flaw she was ignoring. Obamacare was crafted in such a way, that its funding is completely dependent on the states to establish exchanges. If a state refuses to set up an exchange, and so far 25 have refused, the federal government must step in and create one. However, the law does not authorize tax credits and subsidies to flow through federally created exchanges, only those created by states. Furthermore, there is reason to doubt that the federal government has either the ability or the money to implement the exchanges themselves. To date, congress has not appropriated any funding for this purpose. Unfortunately, today marked a missed opportunity for Republican leadership to take advantage of this flaw.

Fortunately, we have one last opportunity to get it right, before Obamacare takes full and irreversible effect in 2014. Current government funding expires on September 30, 2013. Congress will be under immense pressure to pass a budget or another continuing resolution (CR) to avoid a government shutdown. This will be our one and final chance to take down Obamacare. Conservatives must stick together and refuse to approve any budget or CR that does not completely defund Obamacare (including the exchanges, Medicaid expansion, etc.). It would also be an appropriate time to repeal the attack on religious liberty.

Now is the time to see what kind of political courage our Republican leadership has. We have heard plenty of rhetoric surrounding priorities and promises to take Obamacare down. Will our leaders walk the walk, or just keep talking?

(Note: Any attempt to unilaterally rewrite the law to fix these flaws would certainly end up before the Supreme Court. Perhaps next time they will get it right.)

If you do only ONE thing to help your country this year, I encourage you to contact your reps and demand that they do not pass a CR that does not sufficiently defund Obamacare and all of its provisions.

Congressman Lee Terry:

11717 Burt Street, Suite 106

Omaha, NE 68154 

Phone: (402) 397-9944

Fax: (402) 397-8787

Email: https://forms.house.gov/terry/webforms/issue_subscribe.html 

Congressman Jeff Fortenberry:

301 South 13th Street, Suite 100
Lincoln, NE 68508
p (402) 438-1598
t  (866) 725-5255
f  (402) 438-1604

Email: https://forms.house.gov/fortenberry/webforms/issue_subscribe.html 

Congressman Adrian Smith:

1811 West Second Street, Suite 275
Grand Island, NE 68803
Phone: (308) 384-3900
Fax: (308) 384-3902

Email: https://adriansmith.house.gov/contact-me/email-me 

Senator Deb Fischer:

P.O. Box 83287
Lincoln, NE 68501
Phone: 402-742-0084

Email: info@debfischer2012.com 

Senator Mike Johanns:

9900 Nicholas St., Suite 325
Omaha, NE 68114
Tel: (402) 758-8981
Fax: (402) 758-9165

Email: http://www.johanns.senate.gov/public/?p=EmailSenatorJohanns 

Defunding Obamacare Before It’s Too Late

Katherine Rosario | February 19, 2013

Obamacare has already been a scourge to the American people.  Costs are skyrocketing and the Congressional Budget Office recently reported that it will force 7 million Americans out of their existing health insurance.  Congress passed the bill, and only now are we finding out what is in Obamacare.  This downward spiral can and must be prevented, though.  Although many of Obamacare’s provisions are now the law of the land, many of the law’s most damaging and irreversible provisions do not take effect until 2014.

If lawmakers fail to defund Obamacare, it will cost the American people an estimated $2.6 trillion over ten years, increasing the federal government’s health spending by 15 percent.  The window of opportunity to stop the implementation of these massive new subsidies is closing.  On October 1, 2013, open enrollment begins for the federally backed health care exchanges. On January 1, 2014, new money from Washington will begin flowing to states and individuals, all but ensuring that these new entitlements will become a permanent fixture of life in America.

When Congress returns from the President’s Day recess, they will face immense pressure to pass another continuing resolution (CR) before current government funding expires on March 27.  The CR is the appropriate legislative vehicle by which to reverse course on Obamacare.  It is not rocket science –it is easily done though a series of appropriations riders – but it does require political courage. 

By talking about the sequester, President Obama wants to distract us from Obamacare. Over the next month, we have an opportunity to defund Obamacare – resulting in massive savings for Americans – and stopping the further destruction of America’s health care system.

Conservatives should not approve the forthcoming CR unless it defunds Obamacare; and we’re not talking about a half-hearted effort and fig leaf accomplishment.  Real defunding includes Obamacare’s unworkable exchanges, unsustainable Medicaid expansion, and the myriad of new programs created by the law.  In addition to reversing Obamacare’s financial damages through the series of appropriations riders, there must be an appropriations rider to repeal the HHS mandate that attcks the religious values and principles of countless Americans.

If lawmakers genuinely believe Obamacare is a threat to the very fabric of America, they must fight to defund it on the upcoming CR.  Congress knows conservative opposition to Obamacare is still strong and growing.  Congress must be held accountable.  The Obama administration will of course argue that the CR is not an appropriate legislative vehicle to defund Obamacare.  That’s a foolish political ploy and a means of deferring defunding until all the damage is done.  Now more than ever before, timing is critical and your voices are crucial.

http://heritageaction.com/2013/02/defunding-obamacare-before-its-too-late/?utm_source=heritageaction&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=wwf-defund-obamacare 

RONALD REAGAN… THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPACT OF LEADERSHIP (My Thesis)

RONALD REAGAN… THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPACT OF LEADERSHIP by

A Message for the Republican Party

By Bryan Baumgart

Chairman, Douglas County Republican Party

With the ever increasing numbers of Americans forced to live off of the government dole, the Republican Party needs to confirm a vision for those living in poverty. A vision of empowerment, rather than entitlement. The vision should have nothing to do with any specific language group, ethnicity, country of origin, sexual orientation or gender. It should just be about people, and all people deserve more than they are currently getting from their government.

The message of the Republican Party must have the capacity to be delivered in any community at any time by those who are willing to go and serve every resident of that community.

The GOP was created to battle slavery over 150 years ago. Today, the Republican Party continues to battle slavery; the slavery of dependence. The slavery of creating a majority class of Americans so completely dependent on government for their basic needs, that they are terrified to take a stand against it. The Republican Party continues to stand up as the party of independence and freedom. The GOP remains true to its intent 150 years ago. We believe in the mantra of: “Give a man a fish and he’ll eat for a day; teach him how to fish and he’ll eat forever.”

But if we want a truly appealing message, we can’t let our focus be directed at the former. Our message can’t be: “We oppose giving away fish.”

If we want to truly appeal to people, and more importantly…if we want to truly make a difference, we must instead focus our message on the latter part of that saying. “Teach him how to fish and he’ll eat forever.”  Our message must be one of compassion and hope. It must be one of the freedom and self-reliance we can help Americans achieve; and we must have a plan to help them achieve it.

It’s true that it isn’t the duty of government to provide charity; but it is the moral responsibility of each one of us.  Charity must not be forced, but in everything we say and do; in every issue we debate and every law we introduce…we must ask ourselves…”How can we best help our fellow man.”

We must keep in mind, the virtue of compassion. That message will return American’s faith in the Republican Party. And it will bring back the prosperity that makes this country that “shining city on a hill.”

http://www.politicalinsidersreport.com/2013/02/03/a-message-for-the-republican-party/

Three Myths About Debt Ceiling

January 22, 2013

In order for clarity to emerge on the debt ceiling debate, three false claims must be addressed, say David Rivkin, Jr., and Lee Casey, both former members of the Reagan and Bush senior administrations.

Myth one: If Congress refuses to raise the debt ceiling limit, it will trigger a default.

• Section 4 of the 14th Amendment states that Congress cannot question the validity of public debt.
• Originally intended to guarantee debts incurred by the federal government after the Civil War, the Supreme Court affirmed Section 4's modern meaning in 1935.
• Even if the debt ceiling isn't raised, the government must pay its creditors.
• With more than $200 billion in tax revenue per month, the government can easily cover its bills and should be able to stave off any negative consequences for our credit rating.

Myth two: The debt ceiling must be raised to cover spending on entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security.

• Medicare and Social Security are not considered obligated debts under the 14th Amendment.
• Indeed, the wording of Section 4 was purposefully crafted to include the word "debts" but not "obligations."
• The distinction between the two was recognized by the Supreme Court in Flemming v. Nestor (1960) which ruled that Congress had the ability to modify Social Security benefits.
• Thus, Congress has no legal or constitutional responsibility to cover the bill for entitlements.

Myth three: The president has the power to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling with powers granted to him by Section 4 of the 14th Amendment.

• Congress, not the president, is vested with the authority to raise taxes, borrow money and direct expenses.
• Since the debt ceiling is not mentioned in the Constitution, nor is the president's authority to raise it, only Congress could permit the president to raise the debt ceiling on his own.

With these three facts in mind, Congress failing to raise the debt ceiling would trigger major spending cuts so the government could cover its bills. Dispelling these myths is important if the American public is to get behind the necessary reductions in spending that President Obama opposes.

 
Source: David Rivkin, Jr., and Lee Casey, "The Myth of Government Default," Wall Street Journal, January 14,

After 40 Years, Abortion Activists Losing

From its early beginnings, feminism was a young women’s movement. Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Alice Paul, Charlotte Lozier and so many others began their suffragist work in their 20s. These women — the original feminists — understood that the rights of women cannot be built on the broken backs of unborn children. Anthony called abortion “child murder.” Paul, author of the original 1923 Equal Rights Amendment, said that “abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women.”

 
by Steven Ertelt | LifeNews.com | 1/3/13 12:28 PM

The mainstream media will get around to covering abortion this month as the nation marks 40 years of legalized abortion for any reason throughout pregnancy via Roe v Wade. Time magazine has released its issue, which comes to a shocking conclusion.

The cover article makes the case that the pro-abortion side is losing the abortion debate, saying, “40 Years Ago, Abortion Rights Activists Won an Epic Victory With Roe v. Wade. They’re been losing ever since.”
The article makes the pro-abortion case that, while abortion is still legal, it is increasingly difficult to access thanks to the closing of so many abortion clinics and pro-life laws that help women by giving them additional information and alternatives.

The magazine also contains an article from Emily Buchanan of the pro-life women’s group Susan B. Anthony List that rebuts what has become the modern talking point for Planned Parenthood and other abortion defenders — that abortion is about protecting women’s health, some excerpts of which appear below:

From its early beginnings, feminism was a young women’s movement. Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Alice Paul, Charlotte Lozier and so many others began their suffragist work in their 20s. These women — the original feminists — understood that the rights of women cannot be built on the broken backs of unborn children. Anthony called abortion “child murder.” Paul, author of the original 1923 Equal Rights Amendment, said that “abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women.”

So the pro-life movement hasn’t changed the meaning of feminism, as has been suggested. It was the neo-feminists of the 1960s and ’70s who asked women to prize abortion as the pathway to equality.

Pro-life feminism has captivated a new generation of young women who reject the illusion that to be pro-woman is to be pro-choice. Gallup polling showed that among 18-to-29-year-olds, there was a 5% increase in those labeling themselves “pro-life” between 2007–08 and 2009–10.

The past few years have seen the emergence of young leaders like Kristan Hawkins of Students for Life of America, who is responsible for organizing more than 675 pro-life groups on college campuses across the nation, and Lila Rose of Live Action, whose undercover video work has forced the abortion industry to confront and amend practices it cannot defend, as well as dozens of other future leaders who have assisted our organization as staff members and interns.

Not only does this young generation of pro-life women shun the notion that abortion somehow liberates women; it views abortion as the civil- and human-rights cause of our day. Abortion is an injustice that permeates our society. Forty years after Roe v. Wade, we realize that a third of our peers are not here to share our progress and our hopes. It is our loss as well as theirs.

Our fight transcends elections and legislative battles because our fight is in our hearts. This is why, 40 years after Roe, our movement is still growing. We won’t give up; we can’t give up. Our fight is for life.

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/01/03/shocking-time-magazine-cover-after-40-years-abortion-activists-losing/

Private Charity 150% More Efficient Than Government Welfare

People love to claim that if you don’t support their brand of socialism, then you hate poor people, are racist, are sexist, and are the general embodiment of everything wrong with society. The truth, of course, is the exact opposite. The best thing possible for the poor is for us to shift money from welfare to charity, because the poor get far more through private charity.

When you account for all of the political corruption, the government waste, the over-sized government salaries, the redundancy, the paperwork, the special interests, and other factors, only 30% of government “welfare” spending goes to the needy. Private charity is the opposite, with over 70% going to the needy. So much for “hating the poor”.

That means private charity is 150% more efficient than the welfare state. If you account for all of the government spending that is pure waste with nothing to do with the poor, you begin to see exactly why we hate the massive federal government. The government is making people poorer, not helping them to the middle class.

I honestly have no doubt that many people will claim that we secretly hate the poor, even if the facts prove the opposite. But the facts stand on their own. As Christmas is nearing, the left will likely be screaming louder and louder in favor of more government so that the feds will become a million-man Santa army.

But this wouldn’t be the best for those who need it. The best thing for them are people like you and I taking personal interest, donating our money and time, and making sure the right people get the money. That means responsibility — not forcing someone else to “take care” of the problem.

I think, deep down, most people know this. That’s why people give to private charity during the holiday season, and don’t give extra money to the IRS. We know what’s necessary to help those who need it — we just have to have the guts to stand up for them — and private charity — when it counts. And that means fighting the welfare state.

If you want to learn more about how broken our welfare state is, just read 3 insane facts about welfare in America. It’ll give you heartburn.


http://www.capitalisminstitute.org/private-charity-infographic/ 

http://mises.org/journals/jls/21_2/21_2_1.pdf 

Rural America Becoming Less Relevant

By MARY CLARE JALONICK

- Associated Press - 

December 8, 2012

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has some harsh words for rural America: It's "becoming less and less relevant," he says.

A month after an election that Democrats won even as rural parts of the country voted overwhelmingly Republican, the former Democratic governor of Iowa told farm belt leaders this past week that he's frustrated with their internecine squabbles and says they need to be more strategic in picking their political fights.

"It's time for us to have an adult conversation with folks in rural America," Vilsack said in a speech at a forum sponsored by the Farm Journal. "It's time for a different thought process here, in my view."

He said rural America's biggest assets - the food supply, recreational areas and energy, for example - can be overlooked by people elsewhere as the U.S. population shifts more to cities, their suburbs and exurbs.

"Why is it that we don't have a farm bill?" said Vilsack. "It isn't just the differences of policy. It's the fact that rural America with a shrinking population is becoming less and less relevant to the politics of this country, and we had better recognize that and we better begin to reverse it."

For the first time in recent memory, farm-state lawmakers were not able to push a farm bill through Congress in an election year, evidence of lost clout in farm states.

The Agriculture Department says about 50 percent of rural counties have lost population in the past four years and poverty rates are higher there than in metropolitan areas, despite the booming agricultural economy.

Exit polls conducted for The Associated Press and television networks found that rural voters accounted for just 14 percent of the turnout in last month's election, with 61 percent of them supporting Republican Mitt Romney and 37 percent backing President Barack Obama. Two-thirds of those rural voters said the government is doing too many things better left to businesses and individuals.

Vilsack criticized farmers who have embraced wedge issues such as regulation, citing the uproar over the idea that the Environmental Protection Agency was going to start regulating farm dust after the Obama administration said repeatedly it had no so such intention.

In his Washington speech, he also cited criticism of a proposed Labor Department regulation, later dropped, that was intended to keep younger children away from the most dangerous farm jobs, and criticism of egg producers for dealing with the Humane Society on increasing the space that hens have in their coops. Livestock producers fearing they will be the next target of animal rights advocates have tried to undo that agreement.

"We need a proactive message, not a reactive message," Vilsack said. "How are you going to encourage young people to want to be involved in rural America or farming if you don't have a proactive message? Because you are competing against the world now."

John Weber, a pork producer in Dysart, Iowa, said Friday that farmers have to defend their industries against policies they see as unfair. He said there is great concern among pork producers that animal welfare groups are using unfair tactics and may hurt their business.

"Our role is to defend our producers and our industry in what we feel are issues important to us," he said.

Weber agreed, though, that rural America is declining in influence. He said he is concerned that there are not enough lawmakers from rural areas and complained that Congress doesn't understand farm issues. He added that the farm industry needs to communicate better with consumers.

"There's a huge communication gap" between farmers and the food-eating public, he said.

Vilsack, who has made the revitalization of rural America a priority, encouraged farmers to embrace new kinds of markets, work to promote global exports and replace a "preservation mindset with a growth mindset." He said they also need to embrace diversity because it is an issue important to young people who are leaving rural areas.

"We've got something to market here," he said. "We've got something to be proactive about. Let's spend our time and our resources and our energy doing that and I think if we do we're going to have a lot of young people who want to be part of that future."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_VILSACK_RURAL_AMERICA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-12-08-08-24-10 

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_VILSACK_RURAL_AMERICA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-12-08-08-24-10

Fiscal Cliff Proposals Assault Charitable Giving

by: Bryan Baumgart - 12/7/2012

As I described in my post on "The Role of Government", if we truly wish to take care of America's poor and needy, it must be done through charity. 

Progressive taxation aimed at redistributing wealth to the needy is well intentioned, but eventually succeeds only in destroying wealth and creating poverty.

Economic policies that lead to wealth creation and encouraging charitable giving through tax credits not only result in more effective social assistance, but guarantee the sustainability of that assistance.

Characterized as "loopholes", tax credits for charitable giving now find themselves on the chopping block in the infamous fiscal cliff negotiations.

Because the majority of charitable giving is made by wealthy Americans, the Democrat's tax hike proposal is sure to have a negative affect on charitable giving.  The Republican's counter proposal isn't any brighter for charities. In the past, it was President Obama pushing for reduced tax credits for charitable giving, but now we find the GOP putting forth a plan calling for the same.

Their proposals would not only negatively affect charities, but colleges, universities and hospitals as well. Donations are the primary source of income for most charities and because these donations are encouraged through resulting tax credits, removing this incentive would likely be devastating to charities and non-profits who often receive a third to half of their annual donations in the month of December as people begin to think about income taxes and the need for deductions.

Colleges received just over $30 billion in donations in 2011, and the largest gifts most colleges receive are typically made with awareness of tax benefits.

“There’s just no question that it will hurt charitable giving.” - Charles Phlegar, vice president for alumni affairs and development at Cornell University

The deduction for charitable giving costs about $52 billion in tax revenue per year, but the assistance it provides to America's poor and needy is immeasurable!!!

Tell your representatives to leave the charitable giving tax credit alone!!! 

Two Ways to Increase Revenue

by Bryan Baumgart

December 3, 2012

I’ve always hated the phrase, “increasing revenue”. From a business perspective, increasing revenue is a good thing. From a governmental perspective, “increasing revenue” usually means “increasing taxe rates”, which to the American taxpayers is NEVER a good thing. I will always call it what it is…”increased taxes”.

There is another way to “increase revenue”; however, without increasing tax rates. It involves creating wealth in the private sector which increases the pool of taxpayers. THIS is the type of increased revenue we should be pursuing.

Spending cuts (and tax rate increases) won’t begin to solve the problem. Spending cuts only involve cuts in the amount of increase in spending planned, not actual spending cuts. And asking more from the wealthy is only a drop in the bucket, it get’s us nowhere.

As Warren Buffett admitted, the plan to ask more from the wealthy is nothing more than a morale boost to the poor (aka: a big screw you to the wealthy). This meaningless class warfare gets us nowhere. If we don’t pursue policies of increasing revenue through wealth creation (including slashing corporate and income tax rates) and deregulation…we will never get out from behind the eight-ball.

If the only bill that will be on the table in these "fiscal cliff" talks, is a bill that involves “increased revenue” through increased taxes rates, then I don’t think the Republicans should have any part of it. We currently have guaranteed cuts in spending (through sequestration) coming already. Let the democrats own the tax rate increases just as they own obamacare (which is equating to large middle-class tax increases, premium increases, job loss, price inflation, along with the diminishing of the quality of healthcare in this country).

If Republicans cave and become complicit in these tax increases, the dems will surely (and I hope they do) use those votes against the Republicans when they run for re-election. I will too!!!

We got ourselves into a huge mess here, and just as I would be forced to make some painful sacrifices to get out from under huge credit card debt I wa responsible for running up…Americans will have to make some painful sacrifices to get out of this debt we ran up. We lived beyond our means and now it is time to pay the price. Everyone is pointing to everyone else to make those sacrifices.

“Ask more from the wealthy”

“I don’t want to lose my entitlements”

Bottom line…we are all in this together (both Republicans and Democrats ran up the debt this past decade) and it will take sacrifice from ALL of us to get out!!! EVERYTHING has to be on the table. Defense, entitlements, and even Obamacare (a massive espense). And we need to increase revenue by seeking wealth creation in our private sector.