Health Care a Right?, Two Sotomayors, Taxing the "Wealthy", Obama: Unemployment will rise

1) House rolls out plan to make health care a right WASHINGTON – House Democrats on Tuesday rolled out a far-reaching $1.5 trillion plan that for the first time would make health care a right and a responsibility for all Americans, with medical providers, employers and the wealthiest (translation - you and me. Who do you think buys the goods and services the “wealthiest“ produce?) picking up most of the tab. The federal government would be responsible for ensuring that every person, regardless of income or the state of their health, has access to an affordable insurance plan. Individuals and employers would have new obligations to get coverage, or face hefty penalties. THIS is what people want? Individuals FORCED to get coverage? See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090715/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul 2) Will Republicans expose the two Sotomayors? Sonia Sotomayor's opening statement at her Supreme Court confirmation hearing was, to many ears, brief and boilerplate. But to Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans listening intently just a few feet away, Sotomayor drew a map for the questioning they hope will expose the fundamental flaws in her judicial views. The theme Republicans will stress is this: Which is the real Sonia Sotomayor? The one testifying before the committee or the one who's been giving speeches and writing legal opinions for nearly two decades? "If you look at her opening statement, there are places where she is attempting, on the eve of her confirmation, to do a 180 on things she has said over the years," says one senior Republican aide. "Should we believe what she's said repeatedly in the past -- long before she was nominated to the court -- or should we believe what she said on the opening day of her confirmation hearing?" See: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Will-Republicans-expose-the-real-Sotomayor_-7967152-50676872.html 3) The Small Business Surtax  The Obama Democrats pick income redistribution over job creation and economic growth. Jason Furman owes an apology to Michael Boskin, the Stanford economist who wrote a year ago on these pages that Barack Obama would raise American income tax rates nearly to 60%. Mr. Furman, then in the Obama campaign and now at the White House, claimed this was wrong and that Democrats would merely raise taxes back to their Clinton-era level. House Democrats are now proving that Mr. Boskin had it right, and before it's over even he may have underestimated how high taxes will go. In the middle of a recession and with rising unemployment, Democrats have been letting it leak that they want to raise U.S. tax rates higher than they've been in nearly 30 years in order to finance government health care. Every detail isn't known, but late last week Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel disclosed that his draft bill would impose a "surtax" on individuals with adjusted gross income of more than $280,000 a year. This would hit job creators especially hard because more than six of every 10 who earn that much are small business owners, operators or investors, according to a 2007 Treasury study. That study also found that almost half of the income taxed at this highest rate is small business income from the more than 500,000 sole proprietorships and subchapter S corporations whose owners pay the individual rate. In addition, many more smaller business owners with lower profits would be hit by the Rangel plan's payroll tax surcharge. That surcharge would apply to all firms with 25 or more workers that don't offer health insurance to their employees, and it would amount to an astonishing eight percentage point fee above the current 15% payroll levy. …Democrats claim these tax increases on the rich won't do any economic harm. They should read the work of Christina Romer before she became chief White House economist. Ms. Romer and her husband, David Romer, a Berkeley economist, have published multiple studies on the impact of tax policy changes over the past 100 years. One of their findings is that "tax increases appear to have a very large, sustained and highly significant negative impact on output." In other words, tax hikes are an ant stimulus (emphasis mine). Duh! Why is that not inherently OBVIOUS?!?!?!? You don’t need a study to prove it! See: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124753106668435899.html 3a) Obama: Unemployment likely to keep ticking up WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama on Tuesday declined to predict how high unemployment will climb but made clear he expects it to keep worsening for a while as hiring lags behind other signs of economic recovery. "How employment numbers are going to respond is not year clear," the president said on a day when he was headed to Michigan, home of a particularly battered economy. "My expectation is that we will probably continue to see unemployment tick up for several months." The unemployment rate stands at 9.5 percent, the highest in 26 years. See: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090714/D99EACA81.html 3b) Some economists warn Barack Obama's economic predictions too optimistic President Barack Obama’s economic forecasts for long-term growth are too optimistic, many economists warn, a miscalculation that would mean budget deficits will be much higher than the administration is now acknowledging.  The White House will be forced to confront the disconnect between its original, upbeat predictions and the mainstream consensus about how the economy is likely to perform in a new budget forecast to be unveiled next month. …Alternately, if Obama clings to current optimistic forecasts for long-term growth, he risks accusations that he is basing his fiscal plans on fictitious assumptions — precisely the sort of charge he once leveled against the Bush administration. See: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/24899.html 4) Momentum builds to possible end of this U.S. entity Rep. Ron Paul: Congress can revoke central bank's charter 'at any time' A movement to audit the Federal Reserve – the private institution that virtually controls U.S. interest rates, money supply and other economic influences – is gaining momentum in the House and Senate while the Fed ramps up its efforts to thwart scrutiny of its books.  House Resolution 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, now has 260 co-sponsors with many members of the House Financial Services Committee – where the bill currently resides – signed on already.  Likewise, Senate Bill 604, Federal Reserve Sunshine Act, orders a complete audit of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Federal Reserve Banks before the end of 2010. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., has eight co-sponsors and remains in the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. As WND reported, members of the Senate recently blocked efforts by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., to vote on his amendment to a spending bill that provides money for Congress' own budget. DeMint's plan was to add an amendment to the spending bill that would have provided for an audit of the Fed to include information about its funding facilities, market operations and any agreements with foreign banks and governments, DeMint told senators, according to Reuters. …"To understand how unwise it is to have the Federal Reserve, one must first understand the magnitude of the privileges they have," Paul said. "They have been given the power to create money, by the trillions, and to give it to their friends, under any terms they wish, with little or no meaningful oversight or accountability."  Paul has even said Congress should "reassert its constitutional authority over monetary policy."  "The only accountability the Federal Reserve has is ultimately to Congress, which granted its charter and can revoke it at any time," he wrote. "It is Congress' constitutional duty to protect the value of the money, and they have abdicated this responsibility for far too long. … It is very encouraging to finally see the issue getting some needed exposure and traction. It is regrettable that it took a crisis of this magnitude to get a serious debate on this issue." See: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103852 5) Fox News Notes Communist Past of the 'Green Jobs' Czar The administration’s “Green Jobs” czar, Van Jones, has a “very checkered past” deep-rooted in radical politics, including black nationalism, anarchism, and communism. The broadcast network newscasts have mostly failed to report on Mr. Jones’s past political affiliations which are lock-step with the network’s downplay of coverage regarding President Obama’s associations with the former radical and terrorist William Ayers during the election.  At 6:47 a.m. EDT on the July 10 edition of “Fox and Friends,” Americans for Prosperity Policy Director Phil Kerpen, told interviewer Brian Kilmeade that Jones is “somebody who was involved in radical politics in San Francisco, “who was self-admittedly “radicalized in jail” and found “Communism and anarchism.” Kerpen compares Van Jones’s Communist past with his new quest for environmentalism and the creation of green jobs: “I think it’s pretty instructive what his past is...it’s the same sort of philosophy, the idea that government ought to be reordering society in accordance with some utopian vision that failed with communism and socialism, and will fail with this green jobs idea.” …Because the administration’s “czars” do not go through congressional confirmation, and are therefore not scrutinized or vetted, many Americans have no idea who they are or where they come from. See: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/sam-theodosopoulos/2009/07/10/fox-news-notes-communist-past-green-jobs-czar 6) Palin's PAC Raises $700,000+ Sarah PAC, the political action committee formed by Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin earlier this year to maintain her national profile, raised $733,000 in the first six months of the year, according to reports filed with the Federal Election Commission today. During that same time period, Palin spent $276,000 --largely on fundraising appeals and consultants -- and ended June with $457,000 in the bank. None of Palin's contributions came from political action committees, an attempt -- seemingly -- to preserve her outsider and reform credentials. See: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/eye-on-2012/palins-pac-raises-700000.html?hpid=news-col-blog 7) Homosexclamation! Christian student fights prof, wins big Judge rules college can't censor religious speech for being 'offensive' A California court has ruled in favor of a student who was insulted for defending traditional marriage and has ordered the college to strike from its website a sexual harassment policy that censors speech deemed "offensive" to homosexual people.  As WND reported, Jonathan Lopez, a student at Los Angeles City College, was delivering a speech on his Christian faith in speech class when Professor John Matteson interrupted him, called him a "fascist b----rd" for mentioning a moral conviction against homosexual marriage and later told him to "ask God what your grade is." …"During the November, 24, 2008 class, Mr. Lopez delivered an informative speech on God and the ways in which Mr. Lopez has seen God act both in his life and in the lives of others through miracles," ADF explained in a statement. "In the middle of the speech, he addressed the issues of God and morality; thus, he referred to the dictionary definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman and also read a passage from the Bible discussing marriage." Good for you, Jonathan Lopez! See: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103998