Archive | Redistribution of Wealth RSS feed for this section

Sheila Jackson Lee: Healthcare, Education a Constitutional Right

8 May


From Real Clear Politics:

REP. SHEILA JACKSON LEE (D-TEXAS): I was very pleased to stand with my fellow Democrats and support the Affordable Care Act. I could go through the journey of 2009 and 2010, when many of us spread out across the country and confronted misinformation through town hall meetings, controversy and conflictedness.

And what should be emphasized as the president’s leadership on one single point that although health care was not listed, per se, in the constitution, it should be a constitutional right. And if you read the words or quote the words of the Declaration of Independence, ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that we have certain inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’ One might argue that education and health care fall into those provisions of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. (House Floor, May 6, 2013)

Funny how Democrats see things that are not in our Constitution, while at the same time ignoring other things that are clearly written, like the 2nd Amendment, for example.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

—Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution



“Obama’s War on Successful Americans Hits 401(K)s”

2 May


From The Fiscal Times:

Critics charge that President Obama’s budget and tax policies target wealth redistribution – social engineering – rather than boosting the economy. His proposal to limit contributions to tax-deferred savings accounts strengthens their case.

In his budget released earlier this month, Obama proposed capping lifetime contributions to 401(k)s or Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) at “about $3 million for someone retiring in 2013,” in order to prevent “wealthy individuals” from accumulating “substantially more than is needed to fund reasonable levels of retirement savings.”…

…What is the point? The proposal is expected to save the government only $9 billion over the next 10 years – a drop in the budget bucket. This suggestion is not aimed at balancing our books, but at preventing the industrious from getting ahead.

Truly amazing.


Gay Infertility

30 Apr


A bill (AB 460) filed by California assemblyman Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) would require that health insurers be legally required to offer infertility treatment for gay couples.  It would also make refusing to do so a crime.

Current California law requires group health plans to offer coverage for infertility treatments with the exception of in vitro fertilization (IVF). If such coverage is purchased, benefits must be paid whenever “a demonstrated condition recognized by a licensed physician and surgeon as a cause for infertility” has been diagnosed—or upon “the inability to conceive a pregnancy or to carry a pregnancy to a live birth after a year of regular sexual relations without contraception.” Thus, under current law, diagnosis of a physical reason for the inability to conceive or sire a child is not required. It is enough that a couple tried to get pregnant for a year and failed.

Currently, it has to be proved by a licensed physician that there is a condition causing the infertility.  Also, if there is an “inability to conceive a pregnancy or to carry a pregnancy to a live birth,” that would be covered as well.  Pretty straight forward stuff: two people engaging in an activity that at least has a chance of ending in the female becoming pregnant, but for some reason it does not happen.

What AB 460 states is that even though it is not possible for sex between homosexuals to ever lead to a person becoming pregnant, they should still get health coverage.  Even if there are no fertility problems.

This raises a cogent question: Could AB 460 be construed to require insurance companies to pay for infertility treatments for gay couples simply because their sexual unions cannot produce children? For example, might the law require that insurance pay for an insured lesbian’s artificial insemination, even if she is fecund, based solely on her choice not to have heterosexual intercourse?

It would seem so. There is no requirement that actual infertility be diagnosed. Nor is there a requirement that the gay “infertile” patient seeking coverage for treatment have tried and failed to conceive or sire a child through any heterosexual means, whether natural or artificial. Moreover, the bill would still define infertility as engaging in sexual intimacy without conceiving for one year, regardless of whether the relations were heterosexual or homosexual. Indeed, the bill has been filed precisely because the one-year definition purportedly has been applied in a discriminatory fashion by insurance companies to the detriment of gay individuals and couples who want to have children.

Then to the politics of it:

Nor is the bill really about equality. If it merely provided coverage for gays and lesbians with physiological fertility problems, that would guarantee equal access to medical treatment. But AB 460 would create a special right, since heterosexual individuals or couples would still have to demonstrate biological infertility—through either diagnosis or failed attempts—while gays and lesbians would be deemed legally infertile solely by reason of their sexual orientation. Needless to say, this would push health costs higher…

..In this country, the Affordable Care Act already requires religious organizations and private business owners to provide free contraception, sterilization, and abortifacient coverage for employees even when doing so violates the organization’s or employer’s religious beliefs. That mandate is being challenged in court, and according to legal briefs filed in support of it by the Obama Department of Justice, one of its primary purposes is to promote “gender equality.”


“I Wasn’t Born With a Silver Spoon in My Mouth”

19 Apr

At a campaign appearance in Ohio yesterday, Obama continued his usual class warfare tactics:

Obama:  “I wasn’t born with a silver spoon in my mouth”…(And?? I’d love to know how Mitt Romney being rich has anything to do with his ability to be an effective President)

“Why would we want to cut this program to give folks like me a tax cut that we don’t need and that the country can’t afford?” Obama asked. “What’s the better way to make the economy stronger?”

Romney responded:

“One of the things that’s most disappointing to me in our president has been that over the past three and a half years, he has engaged in constant efforts to divide America…And each day if there is a problem of some kind, he points to some group of Americans that must be responsible, never saying he’s responsible for the mistakes he’s made.”

A little background on Romney’s wealth:

“Romney is sensitive to perceptions that he grew up wealthy, so Obama’s “silver spoon” remark could strike a nerve. On the campaign trail, the former Massachusetts governor sometimes talks about his father, George, growing up poor and driving across the American West looking for work. When Mitt was born, the family was middle class, moving from Detroit to the tony suburb of Bloomfield Hills only after Mitt was a teenager, when his father took over American Motors. Although Mitt’s parents helped fund his college and graduate education, and helped him and his wife, Anne, buy their first home, he did not inherit his parents’ wealth; he amassed a multimillion-dollar fortune on his own, working at Bain Capital.”

So, Mitt Romney did not inherit his parents’ wealth; he became a multi-millionaire on his own.  Isn’t that exactly what is great about America?  But, let Obama tell it and people like Romney are the problem.  Millionaires are not something to strive to be, they are suspect.  What’s great to Obama is letting the government provide everything for you.

Ever notice how it’s always someone else’s fault other than Obama?  What leadership!  You’d think that Obama would know the first rule of leadership by now…even children’s movies know this:


HotAir has more on this.




“The Case for Polarized Politics”

29 Feb


An excellent piece here from the Wall Street Journal.  It details a new book out by Jeff Bell called The Case for Polarized Politics: Why America Needs Social Conservatism.  In it he focuses on “the roots of American social conservatism – and why the movement is crucial to building a Republican majority.”

Some key points (emphasis mine):

…social conservatism is both relatively new and uniquely American, and it is a response to aggression, not an initiation of it. The left has had “its center of gravity in social issues” since the French Revolution, he says. “Yes, the left at that time, with people like Robespierre, was interested in overthrowing the monarchy and the French aristocracy. But they were even more vehemently in favor of bringing down institutions like the family and organized religion. In that regard, the left has never changed. . . . I think we’ve had a good illustration of it in the last month or so…”

…The roots of social conservatism, he maintains, lie in the American Revolution. “Nature’s God is the only authority cited in the Declaration of Independence. . . . The usual [assumption] is, the U.S. has social conservatism because it’s more religious. . . . My feeling is that the very founding of the country is the natural law, which is God-given, but it isn’t particular to any one religion. . . . If you believe that rights are unalienable and that they come from God, the odds are that you’re a social conservative…”

..The populist nature of social conservatism perplexes liberals, who think less-affluent Americans ought to side with the party of statist economics…

…social conservatism is “aspirational” and “driven by a sense in Middle America that the kind of cultural atmosphere we have, the kind of incentives, the example set by government, is something that has to be pushed back against…”

…But what about voters who don’t make a high priority of social issues, who aren’t unwilling to vote for a social conservative but might be put off by a candidate who is—or is made to appear—a moralistic busybody? “The key thing along that line is the issue of coercion,” Mr. Bell says. “Who is guilty of coercion? I happen to think it’s the left.” Mr. Obama and his supporters are “going to imply that Santorum wants to impose all the tenets of traditional morality on the American population. He doesn’t. He just doesn’t want the opposite imposed on Middle America.”

Geithner: Rich Need To Pay More Taxes For “Privilege Of Being An American”

24 Feb


So, only the “rich” should have to show their thanks for the “privilege of being an American” by paying more in taxes?  No one else should help out?  How about the nearly 50% that pay NO federal income taxes?  What are they doing to help?

Furthermore, who do these people think that they are?  Who are they to decide what is “fair”?



Obama’s New Energy Solution: Algae

24 Feb


Bad video quality, but the content is worth listening to.  Charles Krauthammer is spot on in his analysis: