I guess Harry Reid and Shelley Berkley can’t raise enough money at home – so they’re on a tour throughout the US to plead for funds! Liberal groups in New York, Boston, Chicago and San Francisco are being targeted, and being told that they going to need at least $20 million dollars to defeat Dean Heller!Do you really want those outside of Nevada funding Berkley?
Can you believe that? $20 million dollars from sources outside of Nevada are going to be used to attack, smear and otherwise try to defeat Dean here at home!
In the Weekly Republican Address, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) challenges President Obama to press for Senate action on bipartisan, House-passed energy bills. All of these bills have passed with bipartisan support, and many are backed by the president’s own jobs council. The address caps off a week that saw passage of the GOP’s “Path to Prosperity” budget and a 90-day transportation bill extension that Democrats initially vowed to oppose, as well as the launch of the next phase of the American Energy Initiative.
“One of the biggest challenges facing hardworking taxpayers right now is the pain at the pump. Rising gas prices wreak all kinds of havoc on cash-strapped families, especially in this time when many are still asking ‘where are the jobs?’ Going back to my days running a small business, I’ve heard plenty of politicians say they’ll do something about energy, but never follow up. This has to change.
“The Republican-led House is acting, approving a budget this week that removes government barriers to job creation, including policies that block American energy production and drive up gas prices. This budget now heads to the Democratic-controlled Senate, where it faces an uncertain fate. You see, the Senate hasn’t passed a budget in more than 1,000 days, a failure of leadership that has contributed to Washington’s ‘stimulus’ spending binge.
“The budget, I’m sorry to say, is just the tip of the iceberg. The Senate has stalled dozens of House-passed bills, several of which would implement the Republicans’ ‘all-of-the-above’ energy strategy to address rising gas prices and help create jobs. All of these energy bills passed with bipartisan support. Many are backed by the president’s own jobs council.
“About a month ago, during a meeting at the White House, I asked President Obama to consider working with us on these proposals in light of his newfound support for an ‘all-of-the-above’ energy strategy. The president, who has seen gas prices more than double on his watch, assured leaders in Congress there was room for common ground. It was a new sign of hope, but unfortunately, only a brief one.
“In the weeks since our discussion, President Obama hasn’t spoken up about these bipartisan, House-passed energy bills, and gas prices continue to rise.
“About the only thing the president has pushed the Senate to do is to prevent construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, a job-creating project that the American people strongly support. He personally lobbied Senate Democrats before the vote, and that may have made the difference. He also successfully urged Senate Democrats to take up energy tax legislation that won’t lower the price of gas, and according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, would actually make it more expensive. Clearly the president has some sway over Senate Democrats.
“So today I’m challenging President Obama to make good on his rhetoric and urge the Senate to allow a vote on bipartisan, House-passed energy bills. Let’s seize on our own common ground and move forward on a path to a real ‘all-of-the-above’ energy strategy.
“In the meantime, the House will continue to act. This week, Republicans launched the next phase of our American Energy Initiative focused on addressing rising gas prices. This phase includes proposals, for example, to responsibly increase energy production on federal lands and freeze new refinery regulations that will hurt our economy. The pain at the pump is an urgent issue for hardworking taxpayers and it deserves the same urgency from leaders here in Washington. The House is doing its part, but we can do a whole lot more if President Obama steps up and heeds the will of the American people.
“Thanks for listening.”
Jerry Brown pushes a “Hydrogen Highway” forcing automakers to sell hydrogen powered vehicles even though there’s no consumer demand. Taxpayers and oil companies are being forced to build expensive hydrogen fuel stations all across California.
President Obama vowed to make top income earners and small businesses pay their “fair share.”
What exactly is a “fair share?’
$5 For Foley Fridays
As you may know, I’m running for Congress in the newly redrawn and open congressional seat here in California’s district 47.
Although this is an open seat, my Republican and Democrat career politician opponents will have a significant early advantage in fundraising…
That’s were YOU come in
By reaching out to my online friends, readers and networks we can make huge impact on this campaign.
Five dollars for Foley Friday’s will be rallying cry and every Friday I hope you’ll all consider a $5 donation and encourage all of your friends and networks to do the same!
Together we can send a Consistent Trusted Conservative to Congress not another career political yes man for the leadership to push around.
It’s time to fix the problems that have been thrust upon us by far left liberals and complicit left leaning Republicans.
Please consider contributing $10, $25, $50, $100, $500, $1000 or more to Steve’s campaign today and make the people of CA-47 leaders in the fight to take our country back.
From National Review:
Elizabeth Warren would be a catastrophe in the Senate, but she is hell on wheels when it comes to directing human traffic, which is no small thing at the St. Patrick’s Day breakfast in Boston. She goes bulling her way through a crowd of faces the color of 2 percent milk, sicklied o’er with the pale cast of Southie Irishness, or rendered rosy by the effects of seriously draining down a full bar that opened at eight o’clock on a Sunday morning, plowing through like she’s just graduated from a seminar in Advanced Executive Body Language, all exaggerated masculine gestures and “Yes! I am very seriously paying attention to you!” head bobs and vigorous “This is what Sincerity looks like . . . approximately!” power nods, complemented by “Move along, sir!” shoulder grips followed by quick and vigorous “Back the Hell Off” chest pats when some florid Southie denizen moves in for a hug — she is like Moses parting the kelly green sea. She is a populist in search of a people, and the wall-eyed gang shout-singing “Southie Is My Home Town” and chasing their eggs and rashers with Jameson on the rocks isn’t it. St. Patrick’s Day, as state senator Jack Hart (“Senator Hot,” in the local pronunciation) reminds the crowd, is also celebrated in Boston as Evacuation Day, and Warren looks like she is in dire need of an emergency airlift back to Cambridge.
The breakfast is a political roast, which puts Warren at a disadvantage: As with cancer and feminism, there is nothing funny about Elizabeth Warren. Once she has traversed the beshamrocked riff-raff and been seated on the dais, she fades away — hardly anybody takes notice of her. Whether this is because her fellow Democrats regard her as a fragile little thing or because they can think of nothing to say about her, almost nobody makes an Elizabeth Warren joke. Even her Republican opponent, Senator Scott Brown, barely acknowledges her, merely spitting over his shoulder, “Professor Warren, it’s good to see you. You were a little late, but I’m glad you were able to get out of Cambridge and find your way up here.”
Most of the rest of the morning’s humor isn’t so subdued. Lieutenant Governor Tim Murray, who recently honored Massachusetts’s long tradition of fishy car accidents involving Democratic nabobs by totaling a state vehicle in the very most wee hours of the morning while barreling down icy roads at 108 miles per hour — and then claiming he was just up bright-’n’-early to get a cup of coffee and inspect snowstorm damage — enters in full NASCAR regalia, bearing a tray of Starbucks. Brown made headlines by quipping that Rick Santorum’s new Secret Service detail represents “the first time he’s ever actually used protection,” and now makes a few jokes about himself and his fellow Republicans: “Mine the moon? Newt Gingrich ought to mine whatever planet Ron Paul is from.”
Elizabeth Warren doesn’t do self-deprecating — she just can’t. Her humor is of the self-aggrandizing sort: In mockery of Brown’s famous Cosmopolitan spread, she shows an image of herself as a centerfold in Consumer Reports. She opens with: “I’m the daughter of a maintenance man, who became a professor and fought against big Wall Street Banks. If that doesn’t ring a bell, you might remember me as the elitist professor from Hollywood who’s running against Scott Brown.” And then there are crickets.
The joke goes down like a Soviet airliner in no small part because she told precisely the same joke yesterday at another St. Patrick’s Day event, in front of a lot of the same people. But that isn’t the only problem: The point of the roast is to laugh at politicians, not to be reminded by politicians of how awesome said politicians are. Behind every rolled eye and polite cough that greets Warren’s foundering attempts at humor is the unspoken thought: “Yeah, we know: You grew up in modest circumstances in Muskogee or wherever and think of yourself as a consumer advocate. Super. Say something funny, you insufferable snoot.” But she does put in the work, clapping along unrhythmically like a poorly trained SeaWorld porpoise while the band plays “Whiskey in the Jar” — a song that, like most of the Southie anthems sung this morning, she plainly does not know the words to.
“Shrill.” “Hard.” “Wound-up.” These are the first three adjectives offered by a group of observers asked why Warren is having a tough time against Brown in a state in which Republicans are about as welcome as head lice. The young ladies in question are wearing Elizabeth Warren buttons.
The hard thing about being a populist? The damned people.
Elizabeth Warren is what Thomas Jefferson would have recognized as one of nature’s aristocrats, which is one of the reasons she is so manifestly uncomfortable around hoi polloi, a Democrat who does not want to be so much as downwind from the demos in the flesh. Life can be cruel to natural aristocrats, especially in politics. Also high school. She makes much — too much — of her humble background, particularly of her father’s having worked as a janitor. Brown had it pretty rough as a young man, too: His mother was none too capable a parent, he spent part of his childhood on welfare and a great deal of it surrounded by domestic violence of varying degrees of intensity, and he was sexually abused by a camp counselor when he was a child. Warren’s story is a bit more complicated than she lets on: Her father was employed as a maintenance man, and before that he had held a number of middle-class jobs, including one as a salesman at a department store. At one point, he had saved up enough money to start a promising business — a car dealership — but, as Warren tells the story, he got swindled out of his life’s savings by an unscrupulous business partner. Later, a heart attack cost him another job. Warren’s mother went to work and was bitter about it, and a few missed car payments meant that the family’s Oldsmobile, that sturdy mid-century symbol of middle-class life, was repossessed. Young Elizabeth, wracked with status anxiety, made her father drop her off a few blocks from school so that her fellow students would not see their new, less prestigious car. Her family’s story is not one of hereditary poverty and privation but one of a downwardly mobile middle-class family hit by bad luck and bad decisions.
Happily, that rough spot didn’t last forever. The Oldsmobile was gone, but by the time she was 16 years old, Warren had a car of her own, and there were two more in the family — not too shabby for Oklahoma in 1965. Her family struggled, but they were also able to buy a house in a nice neighborhood, which allowed young Elizabeth to attend an elite public school, a springboard to her later education and smashing professional success. She’s written popular books and served in government, while her endowed chair at Harvard Law pays her more than $350,000 a year. Her husband also occupies an endowed chair at Harvard Law. The two share a multi-million-dollar home in Cambridge, a multi-million-dollar investment portfolio (including a large position in notorious corporate-income-tax minimizer IBM, which recently paid an annual net effective rate of 3.8 percent), and a net worth of up to $14.5 million, according to Warren’s financial-disclosure statements. The Warrens’ net worth dwarfs that of the Browns, which is at most $2.3 million. (Yeah, pity.)
But though she is much wealthier than he, Warren and Brown resemble each other far more than they resemble most of their constituents. Each is a testament to the fact that in the brutal meritocracy that is the United States of America, smart and energetic people rise, almost unstoppably, and the increasingly high returns to individual performance mean that those at the top live lives very different from that of Joe Median. Neither Warren nor Brown attended an Ivy League university, neither had family connections or social standing. Both worked in professions that they would later abandon: Warren taught public school briefly and then quit rather than go through the obligatory, despair-inducing credentialing rigmarole (a fact that speaks better of her than almost anything else you’ll learn), and Brown was, famously, a model. Both gravitated toward the surest shortcut to wealth and security in this litigious republic — law school. Both took an interest in politics in their early years, and both have made ugly concessions to political reality: Warren may rail against Wall Street wagering and the “army of lobbyists” in Washington, but her campaign is run by a particularly grim casino lobbyist.
And therein lies the critical contrast between the two: Brown is a moderate Republican, a member of a party that believes, to the extent that it believes anything, that in a free and competitive economy, talent and drive will in most cases bring success, and Brown is a gold-plated example of the fact that this is true. Warren is a member of a party that believes, to the extent that it believes anything, that the deck is impossibly stacked against the middle class, and she is a gold-plated example of the fact that this is false. Brown’s implicit message is: “I did it, and so can you.” Warren’s implicit message is: “I did it, and you don’t have a prayer.”
Warren’s view is exaggerated to the point of falsity, but there is grain of truth in it, even if it is a truth that Warren cannot understand or will not admit.
The fact is, Warren’s career model is not available to the great majority of the middle class, to say nothing of the poor. She has written a boring little financial self-help book (heavy on phrases such as “the Lifetime of Riches investment strategy”), but her path to prosperity, if she were to document it honestly, would look like this: 1) Get born with an XXL brain; 2) become an endowed professor at Harvard with a salary in the middle six figures and another six-figure payday from speaking and consulting fees; 3) marry same. The secret to a 1 percent lifestyle is, in Warren’s case as in so many others, having a 1 percent brain. Most people are not packing the cerebral heat to do what Warren has done, no matter how much they want it, no matter how hard they work. You can rail against the iniquities of Wall Street, but there is a scarcity of college graduates who have the quantitative skills to fill even grunt-level back-office jobs in financial firms.
Warren wrote an(other) unimpressive little book, The Two-Income Trap, in which she argues that contemporary two-income families are in many ways worse off than single-income families were a generation or so ago, back during the golden years of the post-war boom, with less financial security and less disposable income. That is true: Men’s inflation-adjusted incomes peaked in 1973, and household incomes have risen in real terms since then only because so many women have entered the work force, making single-income families into two-income families. Household incomes per capita have climbed, too, but mostly because the size of households has decreased as Americans have had fewer children. (What else happened in 1973 that might in part explain decreasing household size? Discuss among yourselves.)
She and her co-author (who is also her daughter — because the 99 percent hates nepotism) cite all kinds of financial pressures on the middle class — rising child-care costs, college tuition, health-care expenses — and offer an array of policy prescriptions ranging from the mild (decoupling public-school assignments from geography) to the Swedish (subsidizing stay-at-home parents) to the authoritarian (a government-imposed freeze on college tuitions, drastic credit-market restrictions of the sort that Warren’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was empanelled to dream up some years later), but the two show themselves to be shockingly shallow in their analysis of the underlying economic facts: The post-war era was an extraordinary economic period, for the United States and for the world. Just as Warren’s career path does not represent much of a realistic recommendation to the individual striver, the post-war era does not offer much in the way of policy guidance to the 21st-century politician, unless we are seriously willing to entertain replicating the conditions that obtained in 1950 and thereafter, which would necessitate the rest of the world’s destroying its industrial infrastructure in a war that was pretty much the worst thing to have happened to the human race up until that point, with the United States and Canada practically alone in surviving unscathed. You don’t get the post-war boom without the war, and in any case it doesn’t last forever.
In her ceaseless hunt for a villain and in her refusal to account for the facts of economic history, Warren as an economic thinker very closely resembles another progressive lawyer, Robert Reich, and both of these lawyers seem to believe that our economic difficulties are the result of having put the wrong lawyers in charge of things, as though we could pass a law against scarcity and in favor of productivity. To a lawyer, everything is a question of law, and Warren has made her name by putting Wall Street on trial, at least rhetorically. It is precisely this kind of economic romanticism that has made her the marquee candidate of Occupy Wall Street and its economically illiterate sympathizers, and it is why she is in effect running a national campaign for a statewide office. She may laugh off jokes about her being the professor from Hollywood, but look where she goes when she needs to raise money.
But her appeal is not limited to economic illiterates. Some time back, I wrote an essay for The New Criterion in which I argued that a typical American couple making a modest income would do far better in retirement if they invested most of the money that they would have paid in Social Security taxes, putting aside 10 percent of their income with an expectation of a 7 percent return. Among those who took the time to scoff was Susan Webber (writing under her pseudonym, “Yves Smith,” of the blog Naked Capitalism), a highly regarded analyst of the U.S. financial system and a trenchant critic of Wall Street. She argued that both of my assumptions were nuttier than pecan pie: Nobody is going to invest 10 percent, and nobody is going to make 7 percent back. As late as August of 2011, Webber was arguing that Warren should run for president of these United States — as a challenger to Barack Obama, Wall Street stooge and marionette of the 1 percent. If my assumptions were the financial equivalent of unicorns exflatulating distilled sunshine, I wonder what Webber makes of Warren’s model. For my sins, I have recently digested Warren’s schlocky self-help book All Your Worth, in which she suggests that families of modest means should be saving 20 percent of their income and expecting a 12 percent return, roughly doubling down on my optimism. Webber, quelle surprise, has not addressed that proposition. The appeal of us-and-them stories is powerful.
Warren’s advice in All Your Worth is, for the most part, pretty solid — and pretty banal. It is precisely the sort of thinking you’d hear if you walked into the office of any halfway competent personal financial adviser in Poughkeepsie or Springfield: Invest in low-cost index funds, pay down your credit cards and other debt, keep a cash reserve, don’t buy a house unless you can put at least 10 percent down and preferably 20 percent, shop for better mortgage and insurance rates, don’t take out home-equity loans, etc. She’s Dave Ramsey without the wit or the evangelical fervor.
But if you’d taken her advice in 2006, when the book was published, you’d have missed the opportunity of a lifetime. In fact, you’d have been better off taking precisely the opposite of her advice. The one investment that Warren really warns her readers off from is gold, which has returned about 320 percent since her book was being written in late 2005. If you’d taken that 20 percent down payment and put it into gold, the tripling of that investment and the crash in housing prices would have probably allowed you to pay cash by now for the house you’d been thinking about buying.
Does that mean that Warren gives bad financial advice? No, it simply means that financial life is unpredictable, and that it is easy to make a compelling case for what one obviously should have done in retrospect. Unfortunately, nobody gets to invest in hindsight — not homeowners, not Wall Street, not Warren. But that lesson remains entirely lost on the lady from Cambridge, who apparently still believes that Lehman Bros. and the rest of the Wall Street kingpins filled their own books up with radioactive mortgage-backed securities because they thought they were a bad investment, rather than because they thought — wrongly — that they were a pretty good investment. (She repeated that argument as recently as November 2011 during a Morning Joe interview.) Villains must be identified and crucified, plain facts be damned. And that is really the truth that Elizabeth Warren is speaking when she says of Occupy Wall Street: “I created much of the intellectual foundation for what they do.”
Warren is everything her admirers say she is — smart, tough, principled — and almost everything her critics say — out of touch, ideological, narrow. The one inaccurate barb thrown at her is that she’s homely — “Granny Warren,” Senator Brown’s factota call her. She isn’t. If she were lined up at a party with a representative cross section of 62-year-old American women, Warren would be the one you’d ask to dance. But there is a meanness in her, a nasty little puritanical streak gone left, and her secularized Puritanism is probably the most Massachusetts thing about her. Like Hillary Clinton, she has Methodist roots and cites the Wesleyan approach as key to the development of her political thinking. (How Protestant is she? She was conspicuous in failing to cross herself when the priest at the St. Pat’s event got to the Trinitarian part of his blessing, even though the signum crucis is a common feature of Methodist worship.) It would not be inaccurate to call her political career a crusade.
The question is, Does Massachusetts want a crusader? Senator Brown has been anything but one — he’s a deal-making, favor-trading, ideology-eschewing politico about one degree removed from being the new Olympia Snowe. There is an element in Massachusetts that wants to Occupy the Senate, even though the economy of Boston is heavily reliant upon finance. But Warren isn’t about Boston, or Southie, or even Cambridge, much less Pittsfield or Monson. She is the single most important bridge between the Democratic party and the trans-Democratic Left. She doesn’t represent a place, but a state of mind.
You can take the girl out of Oklahoma and, contrary to the proverb, you can take the Oklahoma out of the girl, too, if you work at it long enough. (A notable fact about Warren is that she has never been to a class reunion.) But a scholarly study of “Charlie on the MTA” isn’t going to gain her admittance to the tribe of Jameson-sipping, milk-faced South Bostonians, either. There’s no whiskey in her jar, and for Warren, no politics is local — it’s Occupy Wall Street, Occupy the Senate, Occupy Everywhere.
From the Las Vegas Sun:
Sen. Dean Heller is opposing Clark County District Court Judge Elissa Cadish for a federal appointment (she was tabbed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid) because she said in 2008 that she does not believe there is a constitutional right to bear arms, sources confirm.
Cadish answered a question from the conservative group, Citizens for Responsible Government, during the 2008 campaign. The actual handwritten answer is posted at right. “I do not believe this is a constitutional right,” Cadish wrote. “Thus, I believe that reasonable restrictions may be imposed on gun ownership in the interest of public safety. Of course, I will enforce the laws as they exist as a judge.”
Not a constitutional right? Nice vetting job Team Reid.
NEW YORK—Natural-gas futures plunged 5.8% to a fresh 10-year low Thursday after the U.S. government reported a larger-than-expected increase in natural-gas inventories, as demand remained weak amid surging production.
In a separate report, the government said natural-gas output rose to an all-time high in January.
Natural gas for May delivery settled 13.3 cents lower, at $2.149 a million British thermal units on the New York Mercantile Exchange. That’s the lowest finish for the commodity since Feb. 6, 2002.
Futures started the day modestly lower, then sold off sharply after the Energy Information Administration reported that natural gas inventories last week rose 57 billion cubic feet. May futures plunged five cents in the first minute alone after the report at 10:30 a.m. Eastern time. The rise was well above the 46-bcf build projected in a Dow Jones Newswires survey of analysts. More
The Google search bar saves you the step of opening a new window or tab to search for something, should you endeavor to copy and paste or type a search term into it. With Search Highlighter, you save another step between you and your Google results, needing only to highlight a word in Chrome and hit return.
The extension adds a menu bar below your bookmarks bar with either a Google or Bing search bar (your choice). Any word you highlight shows up in the search bar; hit return or click the magnifying glass button to initiate a search. More
This week, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of Florida vs. United States Department of Health and Human Services (for an excellent recap, please see this write-up by the Texas Public Policy Foundation), the lawsuit filed by the State of Florida against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka “ObamaCare.”
Florida’s previous Attorney General, Bill McCollum, filed the complaint on March 23, 2010. The litigation was joined by attorneys general in numerous other states, and some states filed separate lawsuits, but Florida’s case has been the linchpin in moving this challenge forward all the way to the Supreme Court.
ObamaCare and its unconstitutional power grab have galvanized conservatives across the country and united them in their opposition to the Obama administration. What many people don’t know is the back story behind how Florida’s lawsuit came to be. I recently came across some interesting information when I was doing some research for one of my last Florida clients before I leave for Massachusetts.
Back in late 2009, conservatives watched with alarm as ObamaCare headed for a vote. Two Florida State Representatives, Scott Plakonand Steve Precourt, were especially concerned about the constitutional infringements of the individual mandate and the disparate impact that the bill’s Medicare changes would have on Florida taxpayers.
Representatives Plakon and Precourt were among the key legislators who consulted with McCollum as his office debated the merits of filing a complaint against ObamaCare and analyzed the potential causes of action that could be alleged. In late December 2009, Plakon and Precourt sent a letter to McCollum’s office urging him to take legal action against ObamaCare:
State Representatives Scott Plakon (R – Longwood) and Steve Precourt (R – Windermere) asked Florida State Attorney General Bill McCollum this afternoon to investigate and to prepare to take appropriate legal action against the federal government in the event the controversial federal healthcare takeover legislation passes into law.
The legislators requested this action in order to pursue relief for Floridians from the unfunded mandates contained in the bill should Florida be forced to comply with the expansion of the federal Medicaid program and to seek relief from the individual mandates proposed which could ultimately result in large fines and/or prison sentences for Floridians based on their good faith healthcare choices.
The Representatives noted that under the bills, Florida would be forced to radically expand the state’s Medicaid program costing the citizens of the state billions of dollars. Floridians would be forced to pay for people permanently exempted from paying the costs, such as in the case of the infamous sweetheart “Cornhusker Kickback” where Nebraska Senator Nelson voted for cloture with the promise that his state could be exempt from Medicaid expansion while Floridians would still pay.
“Such an expansion would place a horrendous burden on the citizens of this state, requiring huge tax increases and/or cuts in critical priorities such as education and public safety,” stated Representative Precourt. “It is also clear by the wording of the legislation that not every state would benefit equally nor face a similar burden. Floridians deserve to be treated fairly under any plan put into law.”
In addition, the Representatives expressed concern over the constitutionality of the unprecedented individual mandates proposed. Under the proposed legislation, the newly created “Health Choices Commissioner” would use the Internal Revenue Service as its enforcement agent to make sure that Floridians purchase an approved policy from a federally approved entity or pay penalties for not doing so. Failure to do so could result in Floridians being subjected in fines of up to $250,000 and/or prison sentences of up to 5 years.
A major issue for all 50 states is that the states are not controlling how these programs are run, but ultimately must find a way to fund them.
“We can’t print money like they do in Washington and it’s important to make sure that our citizens are protected,” stated Precourt.
“Obviously the overwhelming fiscal impact on the states that are already struggling with their budgets is something that the Democrats in control of the levers of power in Washington just don’t seem to care about,” stated Plakon.
Plakon and Precourt noted that since the potential passage of the Senate Bill appears imminent, it’s important that the Attorney General prepare to take immediate action.
“Collectively, we see these actions as a brazen attack by the federal government on our civil rights, our sovereignty, our individual freedom and the Constitution of the United States,” Plakon added.
Plakon and Precourt were among the first in Florida to publicly attach their names to a call for formal action in opposition to ObamaCare, and less than a month after their letter, McCollum sent a letter on January 19, 2010 to the Majority Leader Harry Reid, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and Minority Leader John Boehner, with his analysis of the constitutional issues in the ObamaCare legislation, stating that he was “call[ing] [their] attention to these legal concerns so that constitutional issues may be remedied before a final bill is negotiated.”
McCollum’s January 2010 letter also included a clear warning: “I will continue to work with my Attorney General colleagues to pursue appropriate legal action should these provisions be in a bill that becomes law.”
That is precisely what happened: McCollum prepared a complaint and filed it in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida mere hours after the president signed ObamaCare into law.
I’m not entirely sure who first came up with the idea to file the lawsuit, but it is clear that Plakon and Precourt’s encouragement came at a crucial point in McCollum’s decision making process. I have confirmed that both Plakon and Precourt engaged in frequent discussions with both McCollum and key staff members in his office during this time period.
Everyone who opposes ObamaCare and its unconstitutional intrusion on our private health care decisions owes a debt of gratitude to Bill McCollum, Scott Plakon, and Steve Precourt for taking the lead on this issue, and of course to Florida’s current Attorney General Pam Bondi for continuing the fight all the way to the Supreme Court.
That being said, Plakon and Precourt are both up for reelection this year. They have earned my enthusiastic endorsement for their commitment to constitutional principles and fiscal conservatism, and I would encourage you to consider supporting them as well.
We are coming up on the end of another fundraising quarter. Please consider sending a contribution to Scott Plakon and Steve Precourt to thank them for their efforts in defense of Florida’s taxpayers, as well as taxpayers across the country:
Disclosure: My consulting company has provided political consulting services for Representative Plakon and Representative Precourt, and I have supported them both since the first time they ran for election to the Florida House back in 2008. I am very proud to have supported these two conservative leaders and encourage you to do the same. This blog post is my own work and opinion, and the content should not be construed as being approved of by either Plakon or Precourt. This is not a political advertisement and is not done with the approval of any other political candidate, elected official, political party, or organization or business.
[Cross-posted at Sunshine State Sarah]