A Message To WalMart Workers Preparing To Protest Increase In Healthcare Premiumns

I heard ya'll are going to picket/protest/march/gather/assemble/act stupid in front of your employers' stores on Black Friday to protest/whine/bitch about/blame corporate greed for the increase in ya'lls healthcare premiums.

Aint America a great place? You are actually free, by virtue of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, to perform the aforementioned actions without fear of being arrested/detained/renditioned/shot or otherwise deprived of your liberty/freedom/livelihood.

Now I have a piece of advice for all of you who will be performing the aforementiond actions and  I truly have your best interests in mind and this is for the sake of your own health and safety:

DO NOT BLOCK THE WALMART SHOPPERS!!!
THEY WILL RUN YOUR ASS DOWN and never miss a beat.

Now I have an observation regarding the increase in the cost of your healthcare premiums:
IT REALLY SUCKS TO BE YOU!!!!

Here's why:
90% of you whining, bitchy little girls voted to keep the poser in office who is responsible for the increase.
90% of you also voted for the low-life scum sucking dhimmicrat politicians who voted to force the healthcare legislation on the rest of us. The rest of you didn't vote. Neither group has the right to bitch about the increase.

YOU VOTED TO RAISE THE COST OF YOUR OWN PREMIUMS!!!

Did you get that? Its YOUR fault. You did it to yourself. You also did it to the remainder of the Americans who have employer-furnished healthcare. I know this because my premiums have been going up about 20% every year since this montrosity was shoved down our throats.

I have one more piece of advice for you idiots, morons, and whing bitchy little girls:
SUCK IT UP!!!!

Go to work and help your employer turn a profit. You might be surprised at the outcome.

The Elephant In the Port-a-Potty

He Was Lying Then, He's Lying Now

Government & Politics
If By 'Transparent' You Mean 'Secret'...

In spite of Democrats' best efforts at "transparency," there are many extra-special things that we actually do know about the bill. For example, on page 1,020, the Senate bill states: "It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection." In other words, the bill creates an eternal law by prohibiting future elected Congresses from making changes to this subsection.

What's in the subsection in question? The infamous "death panel" -- the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (IMAB), whose objective will be to "reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending" (read: to ration health care).

Meanwhile, the bill contains what amounts to a marriage penalty worth $2,000 or more in insurance premiums each year. The Wall Street Journal explains, "The disparity comes about in part because subsidies for purchasing health insurance under the plan from congressional Democrats are pegged to federal poverty guidelines. That has the effect of limiting subsidies for married couples with a combined income, compared to if the individuals are single."

Finally, Obama signaled this week that he's willing to break another campaign promise: The "no tax increases on the middle class" pledge. He threw his support behind the Senate's tax on higher end "Cadillac" insurance plans, something unions and House Democrats oppose.

The more the public learns about this continuing saga, the more vigorously opposed they become to "reform." No wonder Democrats want the process to remain secret.

Obama Bin Lyin since 1981.
This is the change you twits voted for. How's that working, by the way?

"We will have a public, uh, process for forming this plan. It'll be televised on C-SPAN.... It will be transparent and accountable to the American people." --Barack Obama, November 2007

"That's what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are, because part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process." --Barack Obama, January 2008

"[T]hese negotiations will be on C-SPAN..." --Barack Obama, January 2008

"We're gonna do all these negotiations on C-SPAN so the American people will be able to watch these negotiations." --Barack Obama, March 2008

"All this will be done on C-SPAN in front of the public." --Barack Obama, April 2008

"I want the negotiations to be taking place on C-SPAN." --Barack Obama, May 2008

"[W]e'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who is, who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies." --Barack Obama, August 2008

"We will work on this process publicly. It'll be on C-SPAN. It will be streaming over the Net." --Barack Obama, November 2008

Morning Must Reads from DCExaminer

New York Times -- Afghan Suicide Bomber Killed C.I.A. Operatives
The deadliest day ever for the CIA comes as a suicide bomber detonated his explosive vest inside a forward base where drone attacks and covert operations in the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan are staged.
The rapidly deteriorating security situation in Pakistan (another suicide bombing has sent the U.N. packing) and the renewed fervor of jihadis around the globe seem to suggest that the second Obama surge in Central Asia will be met with not just the quasi-military maneuvers of the Taliban, but the rank terrorism used by Islamists around the world.
Writers Alissa Rubin and Mark Mazzetti explain:
“A NATO official said the bomber managed to elude security and reach an area near the base’s gym. It was not clear whether the bomber, who apparently died in the blast, entered the gym. Among other questions raised was whether the bomber worked at the base and had clearance, or if a security slip allowed him to gain entry, and whether other operatives had access to the base.”

New York Times -- Spy Agencies Failed to Collate Clues on Terror

The emphasis in the story from Mark Mazzetti and Eric Lipton – as with many other stories today fueled by leaks from the Obama administration – was how the security apparatus failed to pull together strands of intelligence to stop Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and his explosive underwear from getting aboard a Detroit-bound flight.

Times writer Scott Shane even lays the failure at the feet of the National Counterterrorism Center for failing to put together the clues to stop Abdulmutallab.

But this wasn’t about a lack of intelligence sharing, this was about a lack of intellect.

The bomber’s father pleaded with the State Department and CIA to stop his son, showing them damning text messages Abdulmutallab had written. Then, the lad showed up with cash and no luggage to buy a ticket on a U.S.-bound flight having already been placed on double-secret airline probation and still got a seat.

The idea that this was a systemic failure that has to be addressed with another overhaul of the bureaucracy dilutes the culpability of those individuals who failed to act correctly and prudently when presented with clear evidence. Sacking those responsible (and prosecuting them if the dereliction is severe enough) would do more to snap the bureaucracy to attention than calling for a big, hazy, Obamian overhaul.

But with the administration in another political firefight with Dick Cheney after the former vice president blasted the administration for treating Abdulmutallab like other criminal defendants, expect the problems President Obama finds when he receives his security evaluation today to point to major problems with the system he inherited, not boneheaded moves by individuals.
“The father, a wealthy Nigerian businessman named Alhaji Umaru Mutallab, had urgently sought help from American and Nigerian security officials when cellphone text messages from his son revealed that he was in Yemen and had become a fervent radical.

A family cousin quoted the father as warning officials from the State Department and the Central Intelligence Agency in Nigeria: ‘Look at the texts he’s sending. He’s a security threat.’
The cousin said: ‘They promised to look into it. They didn’t take him seriously.’”

Wall Street Journal -- U.S. Probes Cleric's Tie to Jetliner Bomb Plot

The American-born Yemeni cleric who provided online tech support for Maj. Nidal Hasan’s radicalization may have also been coaching up Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab while the Nigerian banker’s son was taking foreign-language training in Sana’a.

Writers Evan Perez, Margaret Coker and Siobhan Gorman look at the ties between the most recent terrorist attacks and Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.

They paint the picture of a propagandist for jihad whose American ties make him well-suited to preach a murderous doctrine to western Muslims like Hasan or those who have lived lives of privilege because of access to the western system, like Abdulmutallab.

“Mr. Awlaki, 38 years old, followed a familiar path of privileged young man to radical. Born in New Mexico to an affluent father -- a former Yemeni minister of agriculture who is currently an adviser to Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh -- Mr. Awlaki was educated in the U.S.

After coming under the scrutiny of U.S. and U.K. authorities following 9/11, Mr. Awlaki returned to Yemen, where he continued his religious teaching and lectured at Imam University, the head of which has been designated by the U.S. and the United Nations as a terrorist financier.”

The Hill -- State AGs request Reid, Pelosi drop Nebraska Medicaid funds from health bill

What a crafty bunch these attorneys general are. Rather than threatening a suit over the whole health bill or even the part that, for the first time in American history, requires every American to purchase a private product as a condition of citizenship, a group of 13 AGs says that Ben Nelson’s $100 million “Cornhusker Kickback” is illegal because it treats the states differently.
Nelson, who has lost 30 points in the polls at home, felt the need to pay for a pricey ad during the Cornhusker’s 33-0 beatdown of the Arizona Wildcats in the Holiday Bowl last night to explain to his constituents why paying to play is the Senate way.
By singling out Nelson, the AGs apply pressure on him at home, but also make the focus on the corrupt bargain angle in the Senate. That leaves other, bigger, legal gambits for later, when the legislation is passed.

“The fundamental unfairness of H.R. 3590 may also give rise to claims under the due process, equal protection, privileges and immunities clauses and other provisions of the Constitution. As a practical matter, the deal struck by the United States Senate on the “Nebraska Compromise” is a disadvantage to the citizens of 49 states. Every state’s tax dollars, except Nebraska’s, will be devoted to cost-sharing required by the bill, and will be therefore unavailable for other essential state programs.”

Washington Post -- Support grows for tackling nation's debt

Writers Elaine S. Povich and Eric Pianin look at what is expected to be the central piece of the Obama administration towards fiscal restraint – a commission to take the responsibility for spending away from Congress and put it in more responsible hands.
The idea, like the one Obama had about health care in Illinois and suggests for Medicare now, is that a group of experts makes budget (i.e. tax) proposals to Congress which then votes the packages up or down as a whole.

It would be a rather stunning admission of failure by Congress -- sort of like a brethalyzer lock on the car of a multi-DUI offender – to abrogate their central constitutional authority of budgetary control.

“The most vocal advocates of the idea are Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), who this month jointly unveiled legislation to create an 18-member task force consisting of 16 members of Congress and two administration officials. Under the proposal, if at least 14 of the panel members reached agreement on how to rein in skyrocketing spending on Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security and reform the tax code, Congress would have to consider it immediately and give it an up or down vote, without amendment.”

The Senate Healthcare Bill Is Unconstitutional

In effect, the onerous obligations under the Reid Bill would convert private health insurance companies into virtual public utilities. This action is not only a source of real anxiety but also a decision of constitutional proportions, for it systematically strips the regulated health-insurance issuers of their constitutional entitlement to earn a reasonable rate of return on the massive amounts of capital that they have already invested in building out their businesses.

Excerpt) Read more at pointoflaw.com ...

Healthcare Poll

The Washington Times is running a poll on the healthcare legislation.
Lets make sure they know how we feel about socialist engineering.

H/T FreeRepublic

Dingy Harry Has His 60 Pieces of Silver

What to Do Now??

Contact Senator Webb and ask him to vote NO on cloture. This vote will take place 1 AM Monday morning. So call Saturday or Sunday.

Higher Taxes for Virginia: Nebraska's medicaid exemption means that other states, like Virginia, will have to pick up the tab for Nebraska. Our state budget cannot afford expanisions like this.

Read The Bill! This is a 2200+ page bill. In addition, there is a 400-page amendment. No one has seen either document yet.. Senator Webb promised that he wouldn't vote for a bill unless there would be a 72-hour public review period for legislation. The scheduled Monday 1 AM vote for cloture will not allow this! Hold him to his promise.

Plausible Deniability: Some Senators may play the "plausible deniability game" -- vote "yes" for cloture and then vote "no" for the bill so that when it's time to run for re-election they can claim that they voted "no" for the bill. Truth be known, if he help pushs the bill forward by voting "yes" for cloture, he's helping to get the bill passed. Don't let Senator Webb get away with this! Carrying the ball down the field helps the rest of the team get the ball over the goal line.

Foot-In-The-Door: Many Progressive Senators are disappointed in the bill --- they want federal funding for abortion, they want the public open and they want the medicaid buy-in. A Senator today said that these Progressives need to realize that while this bill doesn't build a "mansion" it is building a "starter house." READ: If they get this passed, it's a foot-in-the-door. They can address their wish list afterwards.

How to Contact Senator Webb
Calling the Senator: They are asking folks to visit Tell Webb No! (www.tellwebbno.com). You can find contact information for Senator Webb on the website or you can email him right from the website. You can also provide feedback about how your call goes.

Problems Getting Through? If you have any problems getting through to Senator Webb visit the Tell Webb No! (www.tellwebbno.com) website to report the issue. They will make sure that Senator Webb and the media know.

What If The Vote for Cloture Passes?
Should the Vote for Cloture (which requires 60 votes) they will move on to vote on the bill for passage. This will only require a simple majority (how many votes are required is determined by how many people actually vote; some may not show up to vote).

Should it pass, they will then need to go into conference with the House of Representatives. Many members of the House only voted for the bill after the abortion amendment was added. Several other changes in the Senate version of the bill may cause problems in the House.This may be another opportunity to stop this legislation.Remember -- please call Senator Webb prior to the Monday 1 AM Vote for Cloture.

Email Senator Webb at http://webb.senate.gov/contact.cfm
Call Senator Webb at any of the following numbers:
Washington, D.C.: 202-224-4024 or 1-866-507-1570
Danville: 434-792-0976
Hampton Roads: 757-518-1674
Northern Virginia: 703-807-0581
Norton: 276-679-4925
Richmond: 804-771-2221
Roanoke: 540-772-4236

Grabbing Stuff from the Inbox

DCExaminer
Chris Stirewalt
Good Stuff

New York Times -- Between the Lines, an Expansion in Pakistan
The president went to great pains to explain to the cadets at West Point and a skeptical American public how Afghanistan is not like Vietnam. He might have also explained what Pakistan isn’t like.It may seem surprising since he threw in most everything else – his domestic agenda, his avoidance of past American failures, his wish for a world without war, etc. But Pakistan – the world’s largest Islamic republic – is hard for President Obama to discuss.He has been escalating the clandestine American war in Pakistan for months, even as the nation’s 181 million residents become more suspicious of American involvement and of the American-backed government in Islamabad. As writers David Sanger and Eric Schmitt point out that while Obama did not say much about Pakistan Tuesday night, the thrust of his efforts in the region are focused there.“In recent months, in addition to providing White House officials with classified assessments about Afghanistan, the C.I.A. delivered a plan for widening the campaign of strikes against militants by drone aircraft in Pakistan, sending additional spies there and securing a White House commitment to bulk up the C.I.A.’s budget for operations inside the country. The expanded operations could include drone strikes in the southern province of Baluchistan, where senior Afghan Taliban leaders are believed to be hiding, officials said. It is from there that they direct many of the attacks on American troops, attacks that are likely to increase as more Americans pour into Afghanistan.‘The president endorsed an intensification of the campaign against Al Qaeda and its violent allies, including even more operations targeting terrorism safe havens,’ said one American official. ‘More people, more places, more operations.’”

Washington Post -- The puzzle for Congress: How to pay for plan
President Obama was very frank in saying that one of the reasons he had to end his Afghan surge in 18 months is that otherwise the cost will interfere with his domestic agenda.“The nation I’m most interested in building is our own,” Obama said. But even a short surge in Afghanistan might cost as much as another $45 billion on top of the $55 billion a year we’re already spending there.On the subject of how to get that money and press forward with the most expensive domestic agenda in generations, Obama was less frank.Writer Paul Kane looks at how war opposition, crippling debt, and a massive entitlement expansion will complicate Obama’s request for more funds.Conservatives want to divert domestic spending to the war, liberals want new taxes, and the president won’t say where he thinks the money should come from.As Examiner colleague Susan Ferrechio points out, opposition to the plan is spreading on the Right, further complicating the politics of paying for the president’s second surge.“Obama's proposal would place more than 200,000 troops altogether in Afghanistan and Iraq. If the troop level across both nations averages 75,000 through the next decade, the operations will cost an additional $867 billion -- more than the $848 billion health-care legislation the Senate is considering.”

New York Times -- Senators Pitch to Women and Elderly on Health Bill
The first proposed Democratic amendment to the Senate health bill would add almost $1 billion in taxpayer costs and outlaw low cost, bare-bones health insurance for women. The addition is intended to allay fears among women that government health care means fewer mammograms, etc.The first Republican amendment would eliminate cuts to popular government insurance programs for senior citizens. It was pandering too, but actually designed to kill the whole bill by eliminating half the source of its funding.Writers Robert Pear and David Herszenhorn show us what a long, dreadful process finishing this Senate bill will be.“Another centrist Democrat, Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, said he would propose three amendments. One would impose tougher restrictions on the use of federal money for insurance covering abortions. Another would give states more control over any new government-run health plan. A third would eliminate a proposed new federal program providing insurance for the costs of long-term care.”

Wall Street Journal -- Climate Scientist Steps Down
The scandal surrounding the suppression of scientific doubts about man-made global warming by top climate researchers continues to roll along, now with resignation of Phil Jones, head of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit.With the president eight days away from his remarks at the international carbon summit in Denmark, it seems a bad time for a meltdown in the climate control sector.“On Wednesday, President Barack Obama's top science adviser -- John Holdren, a climate scientist who sent one email among those hacked and posted -- is due to testify on Capitol Hill. The House committee holding the hearing has billed it as a way to explore ‘the urgent, consensus view...that global warming is real, and the science indicates that it is getting worse.’ Dr. Holdren's office declined to comment. Dr. Holdren has long spoken of the ‘overwhelming’ evidence of man-made global warming.”

Wall Street Journal -- ObamaCare at Any Cost
The latest swoon on Capitol Hill is over a Congressional Budget Office report that shows only 20 percent of Americans would see big increases in their health insurance premiums while taxpayer-funded subsidies will hold down increases for most consumers.The Journal editorial page does a thorough job of debunking the notion that higher premiums for some and subsidized premiums for others is a good value. “We have now reached the stage of the health-care debate when all that matters is getting a bill passed, so all news is good news, more subsidies mean lower deficits, and more expensive insurance is really cheaper insurance. The nonpolitical mind reels.Consider how Washington received the Congressional Budget Office's study Monday of how Harry Reid's Senate bill will affect insurance costs, which by any rational measure ought to have been a disaster for the bill. CBO found that premiums in the individual market will rise by 10% to 13% more than if Congress did nothing. Family policies under the status quo are projected to cost $13,100 on average, but under ObamaCare will jump to $15,200.

Baghdad Bob Gibbs Minister of Propaganda

Patriot Post on Liberty

"Can Washington Make You Buy Health Insurance?"

Yes, yes, says White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.

Congress has the power to make everyone buy health insurance.

'I don't believe there's a lot of case law that would demonstrate the veracity' of comments to the contrary.

Thank you, Mr. Justice Gibbs. We'll see about all that when -- if -- the matter of Congress' power over private commercial judgments of this nature gets to the U.S. Supreme Court. Meanwhile the knock-down, drag-out over health insurance 'reform' shouldn't be allowed to fuzz up another immensely vital question; to wit, how in James Madison's name have we reached the point that Congress can so much as contemplate telling you, and you, and you, and all of us that we'll buy health insurance, like it or not, Buster?

Why do we have to? Because the government says so, isn't that reason enough? For Mr. Justice Gibbs, and the people who employ him, it is. Just about anything Congress decides to do in the name of uplift seems to be constitutional: In other words, in accord with written stipulations as to what the national government may and may not do.

Several problems arise concerning this fine theory:

-- It's nonsense. It contravenes the whole constitutional concept of divided powers: particular functions reserved to particular branches of government. And other powers divided between states and the national government.

-- It threatens liberty. A government that knows no limits to its power can be counted on to step more and more heavily on citizens' rights and privileges. All for the 'general good' naturally!

-- It divides the citizens. On the one hand, those who want particular favors from government; on the other hand, those who deny that government has the right to dispense such favors.

The Obama administration, which desperately wants health care to pass, brushes off such concerns as cranky and relevant mainly to wild-eyed Limbaugh and Palin fans, when in fact concerns about the rightful exercise of government power should inform every legislative debate. Those it doesn't inform are likely to end badly. Majority support of this or that initiative doesn't legitimize the initiative."

--William Murchison, senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation

Heritage Foundation and Prince Harry's Healthcare

MyHeritage.org
If you don't get MyHeritage, you are under-informed, my friend.

October 28, 2009 By Amanda Reinecker

'Gigantic, unintelligible, unaffordable, over-regulatory, federal legislation'

After 13 days of secret, closed-door negotiations on health care legislation, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced Monday that he had reached an agreement with Senators Chris Dodd (D-MT) and Max Baucus (D-CT), and three top administration officials. Unfortunately, Senator Reid did not tell the American people much else.

Even many lawmakers remain in the dark regarding the outcome of this "secret deal that Senator Reid wants to get passed and signed into law 'this year,'" writes
Heritage Senate Relations expert Brian Darling.

Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, summed it up: "It will be a thousand-page, trillion-dollar bill that raises premiums, raises taxes and slashes Medicare for our seniors to create new government spending programs. That's not reform."

Even as some of the final details of the bill do go public, it is likely that lawmakers won't know in advance entirely what it is they are voting on. This is because the legislation the Senate Finance Committee "agreed" to -- all 1,502 pages of it -- is the most massive piece of legislation ever introduced by Congress.

But length isn't the only record the "America's Healthy Future Act of 2009" claims, as Heritage health policy analyst Ed Haislmaier notes. "For the first time in fifteen years, [Congress] has set a new all-time division record for gigantic, unintelligible, unaffordable, over-regulatory, federal legislation."

What we do know about Reid's 'secret deal'

Although Senator Reid did not go into great detail about the health care "reform" legislation, he did mention that bill includes a government-run health insurance "option" that would "compete" against private health plans.

In an attempt to gain much-needed support from skeptical moderates in both parties, liberals have added a new twist to the "public option": a provision allowing states to opt out of the program. This would require states to pass legislation by 2014 rejecting participation in the federal government run plan.

But this new wrinkle is really more of the same, warns Heritage health policy analyst Nina Owcharenko. "This latest Senate ploy creates the illusion of an 'option' rather than making any fundamental changes to the controversial proposal."

Owcharenko explains why this "opt-out" model is just another government-run plan that is guaranteed to fail:

States can only opt-out of the government-run plan, not the entire bill. But the rest of the bill contains hundreds of provisions, such as the expansion of Medicaid, which will place major financial burdens on the states.

It is still a government-run plan because the government will require non-participating states to meet federal conditions. These government-determined conditions could include the creation of state-level public options that mirror the federal plan.

States will likely select the public "option" because of the bureaucracy and enormous administrative complexity required for a state opt-out. Federal conditions will limit states' ability to create alternatives.

State innovation will suffer under the massive health care proposal's employer and individual mandates, and government micromanagement of an industry that represents one-sixth of our economy.

So even though the states would be able to "opt out" of the government-run health insurance program, the federal government will make it very difficult to do so. And for the few states that do succeed in withdrawing, the government will still dominate their health care systems.

A true state "opt-out" provision would allow states to opt out of the bill in its entirety, argues Owcharenko. "Any other opt-out is just another shell game that is intended to appear as a concession but in reality provides for greater federal control and blocks much needed structural changes."

The Hammer-Weekly Standard Blog

Lieberman Public-Option Push-Back Brings Out Snowe and Lincoln

Lieberman:

Mr. Lieberman, a Connecticut independent who caucuses with the Democrats, told reporters Tuesday that he would vote in favor of a procedural motion allowing debate of the bill. But he said that, unless the bill changes substantially, he would vote with Senate Republicans against a motion to allow a vote on final passage of the bill.

"I think that a lot of people may think that the public option is free. It's not," Mr. Lieberman said. "It's going to cost the taxpayers and people that have health insurance now, and if it doesn't, it's going to add terribly to our national debt."

Then, moderate Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe, whose vote Democrats on Senate Finance worked so hard to earn on the committee vote for an earlier version of the bill:

Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe says she would vote with fellow Republicans to block the Democratic health care overhaul if changes are not made to the version Majority Leader Harry Reid outlined this week.

Another moderate Republican Sen. Susan Collins:

Meanwhile, Maine Republican Susan Collins, who had earlier indicated interest in trying to pass a bipartisan bill this year, issued a statement underscoring her opposition to "a taxpayer-subsidized, government-run health insurance company."

And, moderate Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln:

U.S. Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark., said Tuesday she still can't support a government-funded insurance option, a day after legislation was unveiled that would give states the choice of whether to participate in the program.

"Creating another government-funded option is not where we're going. We don't need to go there," Lincoln told members of the Arkansas Farm Bureau during a video conference. "A government-funded option is something that I think is not the way to go."

Phil Klein on the defections:

The problem Reid faces is that if he pulls back support for the government plan now, it will enrage liberals who will believe he's sold them out to win the support of a few moderates. But if he charges ahead with the government plan proposal, he risks derailing the entire health care effort.

I Know How To Fix It

1. Allow all medical expenses to be deducted from your income on Schedule A. Eliminate the 7.2% rule. Full deduction.
2. De-regulate the health insurance industry; allow insurance companies to operate wherever they choose; let the free market and capitalism direct the course of commerce.
3. A tax-credit for employers who provide full coverage for employees.
4. Put the Social Security Trust Fund back where it belongs and get it out of the General Fund.
5. Allow employees to opt-out of the SS system with the corresponding employer match eliminated as well.
6. Institute a fair tax or flat tax.
7. Tort reform. Set limits on pay-outs.

Spin City with Baghdad Bob Gibbs

It's official. The Obama Administration and proponents of government-run health care must think the American people are total and complete idiots.

On Sunday, the Obama Administration released a trial balloon that Obama was willing to "compromise" on health care reform by dropping the government-run "public option" from ObamaCare and replacing it with a so-called "health care co-op."

On Monday, the Obama Administration started backing away, ever so slightly, from that trial balloon.

Linda Douglass, communications director for the White House Office of Health Reform, said Obama still "believes the public option is the best way" to achieve his goals.

And White House Press Secretary Robert "Baghdad Bob" Gibbs emphatically stated that previous comments regarding the health care co-ops "were misinterpreted" but hedged the statement by saying that "Obama is happy to look at them [alternatives to the public-option]."

If your head is spinning, don't be confused. The trial balloon is nothing more than an indication of what is to come in this battle over ObamaCare.

Simply put, after having failed to pass ObamaCare in the dark of night... after having failed to ram ObamaCare down the throats of the American people... the Obama Administration is moving to "Plan C."

In short, they'll try to put lipstick on this pig of a health care plan... they'll change the terminology and announce so-called "compromises" until you believe that they are backing down from their statist plan to impose government-run health care on every man, woman and child in the United States.

So don't be deceived. As with the Amnesty debate two years ago, every so-called "compromise" will be more of the same... every so-called "compromise" will essentially give the proponents of ObamaCare everything they want.

And that's why we must take the bull by the horns and make our voices heard. Now is the time to tell our elected officials, in no uncertain terms, that we want "no compromises."

Now is the time to tell our elected officials that we want ObamaCare buried... that we will not accept ObamaCare, no matter how it is packaged... that we will not accept ObamaCare in any way, shape or form.

Changing the Numbers Again

Looks like the numbers are changing again. I just heard the spokesman for Healthcare Reform Now tell everyone listening that no one earning over $350,000 a year will see their taxes go up. He referred to the premiums we pay for health insurance as a tax on the middle class. He says only the rich will be taxed.

The democrats and their usful idiots pushing this insidious attack on America's future are in spin mode. They will say anything that is useful for the moment to try to convince people to accept this monstrous tax increase on American citizens.

How's that whole hopey changey thing working for ya? Convinced yet?

The Left Is Deliberately Undermining Capitalism

Left Is Attacking Free Enterprise, Not Just Health Insurance
Posted August 4th, 2009 at 10.05am in Health Care.

It’s becoming clearer by the day that the “public option” for health care is just rhetorical cover for kicking out free enterprise.
The latest evidence is the strategy to attack and condemn private insurance. Speaker Nancy Pelosi calls the industry “immoral villains.” President Obama told the press, “If you take some of the profit motive out . . . you can get an even better deal.” He also told NBC, “People are having bad experiences because they know that recommendations are coming from people who have a profit motive.”
The head of the House’s ultra-liberal 80-member Progressive Caucus, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), told reporters that the number of uninsured is a symptom that private insurance is a failure and must be replaced with a single-payer government system.
How absurd. Why blame companies because not everybody has bought their product? Why not blame government for passing the laws and the over-regulation that designed our current flawed system?
Pelosi and friends also claim insurance companies are out of control because they’re too big. Their answer? Something even bigger and less accountable—a government-run plan.
The new strategy of the left is actually an echo of what then-First Lady Hillary Clinton told an audience when pushing HillaryCare. She proclaimed that it’s wrong for anyone to make a profit by treating or insuring the sick.
So is it also evil to make money by providing necessities like food, clothing, and a place to live? Is it only acceptable to make a profit if you’re selling whatever government deems is okay?
And if health insurance is immoral, what about life insurance, auto insurance, property insurance, etc.? Will government also “help us” by taking them over to drive out the evil profit motive?
The Left has launched a dangerous debate on health care, but it’s actually an extension of their attacks on Wall Street, banking, mortgage brokers, and others. They believe the bad mistakes made by business are an opportunity for more government control, which means more power for the political elite.
Yes, we have problems in health care and in other areas, too. But the proposed cures are worse than the disease. Besides, free enterprise has created an American standard of living that’s still the envy of the world. Fixing its problems is no excuse to tarnish its successes.

The Second 500 Pages of the Healthcare Bill

The Second 500 Pages of the Healthcare Bill

**Note**My real job, the one that actually pays the bills, requires me to read Regulese. For those of you not familiar with that language, it's used primarily in government documents; i.e. ASTM Standards, building codes, and procedures for testing and documenting any number of things. Its a pain in the ass to read, sometimes even harder to understand. The person reading this bill and reporting his findings to us, is doing what I do for a living, only I do it for engineers and building officials.

My point is this, we all have to rely on someone to provide us with enough information to make an informed decision. The person reading this bill is telling us what the government is trying to do to us.

HIGLIGHTS OF SECOND 500 PAGES OF HEALTH CARE BILL
PG 502 Sec 1181 Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research Established. - Hello Big Brother - Literally.
Pg 503 Lines 13-19 Gov't will build registries and data networks from YOUR electronic med records.
Pg 503 lines 21-25 Gov't may secure data directly from any depart or agency of the US including your data.
Pg 504 Lines 6-10 The "Center" will collect data both published & unpublished (that means public & your private info)
PG 506 Lines 19-21 The Center will recommend policies that would allow for public access of data.
PG 518 Lines 21-25 The Commission will have input from HC consumer reps - Can you say unions & ACORN?
PG 524 18-22 Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund set up. More taxes for ALL.
PG 621 Lines 20-25 Gov't will define what Quality means in HC. Since when does Gov't know about quality?
Pg 622 Lines 2-9 To pay for the Quality Standards, Govt will transfer $$ from to other Govt Trust Funds. More Taxes.
PG 624 "Quality" measures shall be designed to assess outcomes & functional status of patients. PG 624 "Quality" measures shall be designed to profile you including race, age, gender, place of residence, etc
Pg 628 Sec 1443 Gov't will give "Multi-Stake Holders" Pre-Rule Making input into Selection of "Quality" Measures.
Pg 630 9-24/631 1-9 Those Multi-stake holder groups incl. Unions & groups like ACORN deciding HC quality.
Pg 632 Lines 14-25 The Gov't may implement any "Quality measure" of HC Services as they see fit.
PG 633 14-25/ 634 1-9 The Secretary may issue non-endorsed "QualityMeasures" for Physician Services & Dialysis Services.
Pg 635 to 653 Physicians Payments Sunshine Provision - Gov't wants to shine sunlight on Docs but not Govt.
Pg 654-659 Public Reporting on Health Care-Associated Infections - Looks okay.
PG 660-671 Doctors in Residency - Gov't will tell you where your residency will be, thus where you'll live.
Pg 676-686 Gov't will regulate hospitals in EVERY aspect of residency programs, incl. teaching hospitals.
Pg 686-700 Increased Funding to Fight Waste, Fraud, and Abuse. You mean like the Gov't with an $18 million website?
PGs 701-704 Sec 1619 If your part of HC plan isn't in Gov't HC Exchange but you qualify for Fed aid, no payment.
PG 705-709 SEC. 1128 If Secr gets 20 complaints (ACORN) on HC provider or supplier, Gov't can do background check.
PG 711 Lines 8-14 The Secretary has broad powers to deny HC providers/suppliers admittance into HC Exchange. Your doctor could be thrown out of business.
Pg 719-720 Sec 1637 ANY Doctor who orders durable med equip or home med services MUST be enrolled in Medicare.
PG 722 Sec 1639 Gov't MANDATES Doctors must have face to face with patient to certify patient for Home Health Svcs.
PG 724 23-25 PG 725 1-5 The same Gov't certifications will apply to Medicaid & CHIP (your kids)
PG 724 Lines 16-22 Gov't reserves rt to apply face to face certification for patient to ANY other HC service.
Pg 735 lines 16-25 For law enforce. proposes the Secretary-HHS will give Atty General access to ALL data.
PG 740-757 Gov't sets guidelines for subsidizing the uninsured (Thatsyour tax dollars people)
Pg 757-762 Fed gov't will shift burden of payments to Disproportionate Share Hospitals (DSH) to States. (Taxes)
Pg 763 1-8 No DS/EA hospitals will be paid unless they provide services without regard to national origin
Pg 765 Sec 1711 Gov't will require Preventative Services includingvaccines. (Choice?)
Pg 768 Sec 1713 Gov't - Nurse Home Visitation Svcs (Hello union paybacks)
Pg 769 11-14 Nurse Home Visit Svcs include-economic self-sufficiency, employ adv, school-readiness.
Pg 769 3-5 Nurse Home Visit Services - "increasing birth intervals between pregnancies." Govt ABORTIONS anyone
Pg 770 SEC 1714 Fed Gov't mandates eligibility for State Family Planning Services. Abortion & State Sovereignty
Pg 789-797 Gov't will set, mandate drug prices, controlling which drugs brought to market. Bye innovation.
Pgs 797-800 SEC. 1744 PAYMENTS for graduate medical education. The government will now control Drs' education.
PG 801 Sec 1751 The Govt will decide which Health care conditions will be paid. Say RATION! Pg 810 SEC. 1759. Billing Agents, clearinghouses, etc req. toregister. Gov't takes over private payment sys.
Pg 820-824 Sec 1801 Govt will identify individuals. ineligible for subsidies. Will access all personal financial information.
Pg 824-829 SEC. 1802. Govt Sets up Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund. Another tax black hole.
PG 829-833 Gov't will impose a fee on ALL private health ins. plans incl. self insured to pay for Trust Fund!
PG 835 11-13 fees imposed by Gov't for Trust Fund shall be treated as if they were taxes.
Pg 838-840 Gov't will design & implement Home Visitation Program for families with young kids & families expect kids.
PG 844-845 This Home Visitation Prog. includes Gov't coming into your house & telling you how to parent!!!
Pg 859 Gov't will establish a Public Health Fund at a cost of$88,800,000,000. Yes that's Billion. Pg 865 The Gov't will MANDATE the establishment of a National HealthService Corps.
PG 865 to 876 The NHS Corps is a program where Drs. perform mandatory HC for 2 yrs for part loan repayment.
PG 876-892 The govt takes over the education of our Med students and Drs.
PG 898 The Govt will establish a Public Health Workforce Corps to ensure supply of public health prof.
PG 898 The Public health workforce corps shall consist of civilian employees of the U.S. as Secretary deems.
PG 898 The Public health workforce corps shall consist of officers of Regular & Reserve Corps of Service.
PG 900 The Public Health Workforce Corps includes veterinarians.
PG 901 The Public Health Workforce Corps WILL include commissioned Regular & Reserve Officers. HC Draft?
PG 910 The Govt will develop, build & run Public Health Training Centers.
PG 913-914 Govt starts a HC affirmative action program thru guise of diversity scholarships.
PG 915 SEC. 2251. Govt MANDDATES Cultural & linguistic competency training for HC professionals.
Pg 932 The Govt will estab Preventative & Wellness Trust fund-initial cost of 30,800,000,000-Billion.
PG 935 21-22 Govt will identify specific goals & objectives for prevention & wellness activities. Control YOU!!
PG 936 Govt will develop "Healthy People & National Public Health Perform. Standards" Tell me what to eat?
PG 942 Lines 22-25 More Gov't? Offices of Surgeon General -Public Health Svc, Minority Health, Women's Health
PG 950- 980 BIG GOV'T core pub health infrastructure including work force capacity, lab systems; health info sys, etc
PG 993 Gov't will establish school based health clinics. Your kids won't have a chance.
PG 994 School Based Health Clinic will be integrated into the school environment. Say GOVT Brainwash!
PG 1001 The Govt will establish a National Medical Device Registry. Will you be tracked?

Heritage Morning Bell

Obamacare’s Effect on Seniors
Today at 1:30 PM, President Barack Obama will participate in a health care “tele-town hall” at AARP headquarters in Washington, DC. The President is scheduled to answer questions about his health care plan from AARP members via phone, email, and even a live audience of about 40 AARP members and volunteers. We hope the event’s moderators will allow for a lively and honest debate because our nation’s seniors stand to be huge losers under Obamacare:

Losing Your Doctor:
Under the current system, more and more seniors are discovering that it is becoming harder and harder to find and keep doctors who will accept Medicare patients. A 2008 survey found that 29% of the Medicare beneficiaries it surveyed who were looking for a primary care doctor had a problem finding one to treat them, up from 24% the year before. This problem is compounded by the fact that our nation is facing a growing shortage of doctors. Obamacare promises to only make these problems worse. First, Obama plans to pay for up to a third of his plan by cutting $313 billion in Medicare reimbursements to health care providers over the next 10 years. This will only force more doctors to stop seeing Medicare patients. Second, Obama’s public “option” could decrease the annual net income of hospitals by $36 billion while the annual net income of physicians could drop by $33.1 billion.
Facing a sharp reduction in their pay, more doctors will retire early and more bright students will elect to pursue other careers, thereby reducing access and ensuring lower quality health care for future generations as well.

Losing Your Coverage:
22% of all Medicare patients, which translates to 10.5 million seniors, are currently enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans. These health plans cover all of the traditional Medicare benefits and much more, including coor­dinated care and care-management programs for enrollees with chronic conditions as well as additional hospitalization and skilled nursing facility stays. President Obama has proposed killing this program entirely. A new study for the Florida Association of Health Plans found that because Medicare Advantage plans have richer benefits and lower deductibles and copayments than traditional Medicare, seniors in that state would face dramatically higher payments if forced to give up their Medicare Advantage plans. Cost increases would range from $2,214 a year in Jacksonville to $3,714 a year in Miami.

Rationing Your Care:
Another centerpiece to Obamacare is the creation of a federal health board that will ration your health care. Obama supporter and infanticide advocate Peter Singer made the case for rationing health care recently in the New York Times, writing: “The task of health care bureaucrats is then to get the best value for the resources they have been allocated.” Conservatives in Congress have given Obamacare supporters every opportunity to disavow government rationed health care, but Obamacare supporters have voted down every anti-rationing amendment proposed.

Make no mistake, Obama plans to pay for expanded coverage for the young and healthy by denying treatments to the old and sick. Americans can do better.

There is no question that America’s $2.4 trillion health care system needs to be reformed. But it should not be done on the backs of America’s seniors. Conservatives have a better vision for health care reform that cuts health care costs by reforming the tax system, enabling true health care competition, and giving families control of their health care dollars.

Heritage Morning Bell

Obama Admits He’s “Not Familiar” With House Bill
With the public’s trust in his handling of health care tanking (50%-44% of Americans disapprove), the White House has launched a new phase of its strategy designed to pass Obamacare: all Obama, all the time. As part of that effort, Obama hosted a conference call with leftist bloggers urging them to pressure Congress to pass his health plan as soon as possible.

During the call, a blogger from Maine said he kept running into an Investors Business Daily article that claimed Section 102 of the House health legislation would outlaw private insurance. He asked: “Is this true? Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed?” President Obama replied: “You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about.” (quote begins at 17:10)

This is a truly disturbing admission by the President especially considering that later in the call, Obama promises yet again: “If you have health insurance, and you like it, and you have a doctor that you like, then you can keep it. Period.” How can Obama keep making this promise if he is not familiar with the health legislation that is being written in Congress? Details matter.

We are familiar with the passage IBD sites, and as we wrote last week, the House bill does not outright outlaw private individual health insurance, but it does effectively regulate it out of existence. The House bill does allow private insurance to be sold, but only “Exchange-participating health benefits plans.” In order to qualify as an “Exchange-participating health benefits plan,” all health insurance plans must conform to a slew of new regulations, including community rating and guaranteed issue. These will all send the cost of private individual health insurance skyrocketing. Furthermore, all these new regulations would not apply just to individual insurance plans, but to all insurance plans. So the House bill will also drive up the cost of your existing employer coverage as well. Until, of course, it becomes so expensive that your company makes the perfectly economical decision to dump you into the government plan.

President Obama may not care to study how many people will lose their current health insurance if his plan becomes law, but like most Americans, we do. That is why we partnered with the Lewin Group to study how many Americans would be forced into the government “option” under the House health plan. Here is what we found:

1. Approximately 103 million people would be covered under the new public plan and as a consequence about 83.4 million people would lose their private insurance. This would represent a 48.4 percent reduction in the number of people with private coverage.

2. About 88.1 million workers would see their current private, employer-sponsored health plan go away and would be shifted to the public plan.

3. Yearly premiums for the typical American with private coverage could go up by as much as $460 per privately insured person, as a result of increased cost-shifting stemming from a public plan modeled on Medicare.

It is truly frightening that the President of the United States is pressuring Congress in an all out media blitz to pass legislation that he flatly admits he has not read and is not familiar with. President Obama owes it to the Americans people to stop making promises about what his health plan will and will not do until he has read it, and can properly defend it in public, to his own supporters.

News on Rep Cantor

It was also a busy week in the House of Representatives with some health care hearings going into the wee hours of the morning.
In the Ways and Means Committee, Reps. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Sam Johnson (R-Texas) offered life-related amendments to the Democrats' massive health care bill. Rep. Johnson's would have explicitly excluded abortion from the minimum benefits and mandates provided for in the bill, and Rep. Cantor's would have prevented taxpayers from being forced to subsidize abortions. Both amendments failed, further solidifying the Democrats' health care overhaul as one big abortion industry bailout.
In addition, a special order was called on the House floor last night where a number of Members spoke on abortion concerns in the health care proposals. Life was dealt another heartbreaking blow when the Financial Services legislation passed, allowing the nation's capital to use taxpayer monies to pay for abortions.
The last time the District of Columbia was allowed to do this they took the money away from crucial AIDS services and put it towards abortion. History reveals the consequences of abortion coverage not being explicitly excluded from federal programs.
The Medicaid program from 1973-1976 funded as many as 300,000 abortions per year until the Hyde amendment was enacted. Even Planned Parenthood's Guttmacher Institute recently stated that if abortion is taxpayer funded, abortions would rise by at least 30 percent. With all this mounting evidence, does anyone still believe this President's talk of reducing "the need for abortion" means reducing the number of abortions?
Lastly, Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kans.) offered a motion that would have amended the bill to reinstate the abortion funding ban. However, this effort was rebuffed in a procedural vote of 225 - 195. The news was mostly bad, but I want you to know that there are some true leaders on Capitol Hill working with us to protect the unborn, and defend faith, family and freedom. It is not time to retreat!

They'll Make Us All Criminals

Because THIS citizen will NOT play their game.

REALITY CHECK: THREE DEMOCRATIC CLAIMS THAT NO LONGER PASS THE STRAIGHT FACE TEST

THE FACTS ON REDUCING COSTS, KEEPING YOUR HEALTH PLAN, AND HOLDING TAXES AT 1990s LEVELS
July 17, 2009 House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) Permalink

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Douglas Elmendorf’s announcement yesterday that the Democrats’ government takeover of health care would increase costs – not lower them – is the third strike against the Democrats’ claims about their health care bills. But as Democratic leaders in the House move full speed ahead, there are three arguments they repeatedly use that NO LONGER ring true:

CLAIM: HEALTH CARE PLAN WILL REDUCE COSTS
“Let me repeat - if you like your health care, the only thing reform will mean is your health care will cost less. If anyone says otherwise, they are either trying to mislead you or don't have their facts straight.” (President Obama, “Remarks at the Annual Conference of the American Medical Association,” 6/15/09)

“It will bring down cost, improve quality, and make America healthier.” (House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Transcript of Press Conference, 6/25/09)

“We need to bring costs down. We need to bring costs down for government. We need to bring costs down for families. And we need to bring costs down for individuals.” (House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, Transcript Fox News Sunday, 7/5/09)

FACT: THE PROPOSALS WILL INCREASE COSTS
“Here’s a blow to President Obama and Democrats pressing health care reform. One of the main arguments made by the President and others for investing in health reform now is that it will save the federal government money in the long run by containing costs. Turns out that may not be the case, according to Doug Elmendorf, director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office… Elmendorf said CBO does not see health care cost savings in either of the partisan Democratic bills currently in Congress.” (ABC News, “CBO Sees No Federal Cost Savings in Dem Health Plans,” 7/16/09)

“Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf warned lawmakers the legislation that he has seen so far would raise costs, not lower them. Elmendorf was asked by Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.S., if the bills Congress is considering would ‘bend the cost curve.’ The budget director responded: ‘The curve is being raised.’” (Associated Press, “House Democrats Set to Vote on Health Care Bill,” 7/16/09)

CLAIM: IF YOU LIKE YOUR HEALTH PLAN, YOU CAN KEEP IT
“If you like your health care plan, you can keep that too.” (President Obama, Remarks in the Rose Garden, July 15, 2009)

“I say all the time, with respect to their health insurance program that they now have: if you've got it, you like it, you keep it.” (House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, Press Conference, 7/13/09)
FACT: DEMOCRATS’ PLAN WOULD FORCE MILLIONS OUT OF THEIR CURRENT PLAN
"The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported that 23 million Americans would lose their current plans if a Senate Democratic health care 'reform' bill was enacted." (Congressional Budget Office, Letter to Sen. Kennedy, 6/15/09)

"When I say if you have your plan and you like it,…or you have a doctor and you like your doctor, that you don't have to change plans, what I'm saying is the government is not going to make you change plans under health reform,’ the President said.” (ABC News, “What Does the President’s Promise , ‘You'll Be Able to Keep Your Health Care Plan, Period,’ Really Mean?,” 6/23/09)

“White House officials suggest the president's rhetoric shouldn't be taken literally: What Obama really means is that government isn't about to barge in and force people to change insurance.” (Associated Press, “Promises, Promises: Obama's health plan guarantee,” 6/19/09)

CLAIM: NO FAMILY WILL PAY HIGHER TAXES THAN IN THE 1990s
“The pledge, as listed on Obama's campaign Web site, was: ‘No family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s.’” (Associated Press, “House plan boosts taxes on rich to 20-year high,” 7/15/09)

FACT: HOUSE DEMOCRATS’ BILL WOULD RAISE TAXES TO 25-YEAR HIGH
“The bill unveiled by House Democratic leaders Tuesday would create three new tax brackets for high earners, with a top rate of 45 percent for families making more than $1 million. That would be the highest income tax rate since 1986, when the top rate was 50 percent.” (Associated Press, “House plan boosts taxes on rich to 20-year high,” 7/15/09)

“For New York state taxpayers, the top [tax] rate would hit 56.92 percent, third-highest in the nation. And in the five boroughs, the top rate would be 58.68 per cent -- highest in the nation. Having abandoned any notion of lightening the load with spending cuts, House Democrats have put forward a 1,000-plus-page proposal dripping with new taxes, surcharges and fees. The biggest losers? Small businesses -- companies with as few as five employees, who'll have to pay a penalty of up to 8 percent of income unless they provide their workers with health insurance.” (New York Post, “Here Comes ObamaCare,” 7/16/09)

“Another implication of the Rangel plan is that America's successful small businesses would pay higher tax rates than the Fortune 500, and for that matter than most companies around the world. The corporate federal-state tax rate applied to General Electric and Google is about 39% in the U.S., and the business tax rate is about 25% in the OECD countries. So the U.S. would have close to the most punitive taxes on small business income anywhere on the globe.” (Wall Street Journal, “The Small Business Surtax,” 7/15/09)