/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Former presidential candidate Gary Bauer Tuesday night said that the early election results were a "referendum on Obama, and the voters have rejected his agenda."
The chairman of the Campaign for Working Families, Bauer made the following statement:
"The night is young and the votes are still being counted. But judging from early indications it is clear that the American people have repudiated the leftwing agenda of higher taxes, more spending and bigger government. Democrats promised the country hope and change. Instead, we got a re-run of Jimmy Carter's "malaise days" - rising unemployment, out-of-control spending and ever-expanding regulations.
"There is no spinning the results: The 2010 election is a referendum on Obama and the voters have rejected his agenda of failed stimulus bills, cap and trade energy taxes, government takeovers, union bailouts and socialized medicine.
"The voters also sent a clear message about what they expect from Washington. By voting for conservative candidates, they are demanding fiscal responsibility, smaller government and more respect for traditional values.
"Tonight's results cannot come as a surprise to anyone. The signs have been there all along - from the Tea Party and town hall protests, to polls showing overwhelming opposition to ObamaCare, to the 2009 victories of Bob McDonnell and Chris Christie to Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts. Yet, Obama and congressional Democrats ignored them all. Today, the American people sent an unmistakable message: ENOUGH!
"With yet another and even larger rebuke at the ballot box, it is incumbent upon Barack Obama and congressional Democrats to stop pandering to left-wing special interest groups, abandon their ideological agenda and deliver on their promise of transparency and post-partisanship.
"This year the American people again voted for change in Washington. Now Republicans must regain their trust and work hard to restore their hope."
For more information on a conservative agenda, go to www.cwfpac.com.
-----
Community News You Can Use
Click to read MORE news:
www.GeorgiaFrontPage.com
Twitter: @gafrontpage & @TheGATable @HookedonHistory
www.ArtsAcrossGeorgia.com
Twitter: @artsacrossga, @softnblue, @RimbomboAAG
www.FayetteFrontPage.com
Twitter: @FayetteFP
Showing posts with label reject. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reject. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Statement by Governor Jan Brewer: ObamaCare is Wrong for Arizona and Wrong for America - Federal Hearing Tuesday
/Standard Newswire/ -- "Arizona has a long and proud history of fighting the Washington, D.C. elite's insatiable appetite for bigger government at the cost of States' rights. The battle over the Affordable Care Act better known as "ObamaCare" is the latest round. Once again, the feds have gone too far.
"The cost of ObamaCare places unsustainable burdens on our federal government, our state government, and on American families. Further, the scheme is based on the unconstitutional mandate that every American buy health insurance. For these reasons, the State of Arizona, at my direction, has joined nineteen other states in challenging ObamaCare in federal court in the Northern District of Florida.
"Shortly after the states filed their suit, President Obama directed his counsel at the Department of Justice to file a motion to dismiss the case. The federal district court in Florida will hear arguments this Tuesday, September 14, on whether the states' challenge to ObamaCare may move forward. I have no doubt that Arizona and the other states will ultimately prevail in striking down the most oppressive provisions of ObamaCare. The Act is simply unreasonable, unsustainable and unconstitutional.
"The costs of ObamaCare are indefensibly high and unsustainable. The current federal budget deficit will exceed $1.3 trillion. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the ten year deficit is another $6.2 trillion. This is not the time for America to be expanding entitlement programs, and thereby shackling our country to ever expanding debt obligations. Instead, the federal government should follow Arizona's example and cut spending. America needs a long-term plan that will balance our federal budget and bring stability to our economy.
"In addition to burdening the federal budget, the Act unconstitutionally imposes staggering new costs and obligations on the states. It transforms Medicaid from a federal-state partnership to reimburse needy persons' medical costs into a vast federally-mandated program to benefit millions of persons with incomes above the poverty line. While the states previously had discretion to manage their programs consistent with the needs of their citizens - indeed, Arizona's own Medicaid program, AHCCCS, is a model nationwide - the Act now limits state flexibility and turns the states into an administrative arm of the federal government. It also compels the states to assume responsibility not only for cost reimbursement but for the provision of the healthcare services. These changes will add more than $1 billion per year in costs to an already overstrained state budget.
"ObamaCare also forces private insurance plans to expand coverage. While some of these changes may seem fair on the surface, ultimately the costs of these changes are borne by families. According to the Wall Street Journal, coverage changes demanded by ObamaCare could increase some premiums as much as 9 percent. Many Arizonans have already been told by their employers to expect high increases in their insurance premiums that will dramatically impact their household budgets.
"Ultimately, the law is unconstitutional. It represents an unprecedented intrusion on the sovereignty of the states and the freedom of their citizens. Congress is using its authority under the Commerce Clause to require citizens to purchase health insurance or face a stiff penalty. This overreaching application of the Commerce Clause cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny.
"Congress's commerce power extends to regulation of activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce, but it may not be used to compel individuals to enter a marketplace. Likewise, Congress's power to tax does not authorize it to compel persons to buy specific insurance products. By enacting ObamaCare, Congress has seized powers denied it under the Tenth Amendment, in violation of the Constitution's federalist structure and individual rights under the Fifth and Ninth Amendments.
"ObamaCare is a key point upon which Attorney General Goddard and I differ. I asked the Attorney General as the Arizona chief legal officer to join his colleagues in the other states in reviewing the constitutionality of the proposed law as it was making its way through Congress last year. He said no. Once it passed, I asked him to join the other states in challenging the law. He said no. In fact, Mr. Goddard recently argued that Arizona is "better off" with ObamaCare. Realizing that Congress has crossed the constitutional line and Attorney General Goddard was going to do nothing to protect Arizona's citizens, I called the Arizona Legislature into special session to remove his authority to speak for the state on this matter. The Legislature, without pause, authorized me to join the multistate suit on behalf of the citizens of Arizona.
"In addition to ObamaCare's constitutional deficiencies, citizens simply do not support the law's mandate that they purchase insurance or incur federal penalties. Just weeks ago Missouri voters rejected any federal mandate to purchase health insurance with the measure passing with more than 70 percent of the vote. On November 2, 2010, Arizona citizens will vote on Proposition 106, which is similar to Missouri's new law. I support Proposition 106 and have every reason to believe that Arizona voters will overwhelmingly pass this measure and, when they do, a clear message will be sent to the president and Congress that this type of overreaching by the federal government will no longer be tolerated.
"When these cases are ultimately decided in favor of the states on the merits, it will be a great day for the citizens who have the right to set their own health care policies and the states who have constitutionally guaranteed sovereignty to establish their own policies in the area of health care."
-----
Community News You Can Use
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
"The cost of ObamaCare places unsustainable burdens on our federal government, our state government, and on American families. Further, the scheme is based on the unconstitutional mandate that every American buy health insurance. For these reasons, the State of Arizona, at my direction, has joined nineteen other states in challenging ObamaCare in federal court in the Northern District of Florida.
"Shortly after the states filed their suit, President Obama directed his counsel at the Department of Justice to file a motion to dismiss the case. The federal district court in Florida will hear arguments this Tuesday, September 14, on whether the states' challenge to ObamaCare may move forward. I have no doubt that Arizona and the other states will ultimately prevail in striking down the most oppressive provisions of ObamaCare. The Act is simply unreasonable, unsustainable and unconstitutional.
"The costs of ObamaCare are indefensibly high and unsustainable. The current federal budget deficit will exceed $1.3 trillion. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the ten year deficit is another $6.2 trillion. This is not the time for America to be expanding entitlement programs, and thereby shackling our country to ever expanding debt obligations. Instead, the federal government should follow Arizona's example and cut spending. America needs a long-term plan that will balance our federal budget and bring stability to our economy.
"In addition to burdening the federal budget, the Act unconstitutionally imposes staggering new costs and obligations on the states. It transforms Medicaid from a federal-state partnership to reimburse needy persons' medical costs into a vast federally-mandated program to benefit millions of persons with incomes above the poverty line. While the states previously had discretion to manage their programs consistent with the needs of their citizens - indeed, Arizona's own Medicaid program, AHCCCS, is a model nationwide - the Act now limits state flexibility and turns the states into an administrative arm of the federal government. It also compels the states to assume responsibility not only for cost reimbursement but for the provision of the healthcare services. These changes will add more than $1 billion per year in costs to an already overstrained state budget.
"ObamaCare also forces private insurance plans to expand coverage. While some of these changes may seem fair on the surface, ultimately the costs of these changes are borne by families. According to the Wall Street Journal, coverage changes demanded by ObamaCare could increase some premiums as much as 9 percent. Many Arizonans have already been told by their employers to expect high increases in their insurance premiums that will dramatically impact their household budgets.
"Ultimately, the law is unconstitutional. It represents an unprecedented intrusion on the sovereignty of the states and the freedom of their citizens. Congress is using its authority under the Commerce Clause to require citizens to purchase health insurance or face a stiff penalty. This overreaching application of the Commerce Clause cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny.
"Congress's commerce power extends to regulation of activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce, but it may not be used to compel individuals to enter a marketplace. Likewise, Congress's power to tax does not authorize it to compel persons to buy specific insurance products. By enacting ObamaCare, Congress has seized powers denied it under the Tenth Amendment, in violation of the Constitution's federalist structure and individual rights under the Fifth and Ninth Amendments.
"ObamaCare is a key point upon which Attorney General Goddard and I differ. I asked the Attorney General as the Arizona chief legal officer to join his colleagues in the other states in reviewing the constitutionality of the proposed law as it was making its way through Congress last year. He said no. Once it passed, I asked him to join the other states in challenging the law. He said no. In fact, Mr. Goddard recently argued that Arizona is "better off" with ObamaCare. Realizing that Congress has crossed the constitutional line and Attorney General Goddard was going to do nothing to protect Arizona's citizens, I called the Arizona Legislature into special session to remove his authority to speak for the state on this matter. The Legislature, without pause, authorized me to join the multistate suit on behalf of the citizens of Arizona.
"In addition to ObamaCare's constitutional deficiencies, citizens simply do not support the law's mandate that they purchase insurance or incur federal penalties. Just weeks ago Missouri voters rejected any federal mandate to purchase health insurance with the measure passing with more than 70 percent of the vote. On November 2, 2010, Arizona citizens will vote on Proposition 106, which is similar to Missouri's new law. I support Proposition 106 and have every reason to believe that Arizona voters will overwhelmingly pass this measure and, when they do, a clear message will be sent to the president and Congress that this type of overreaching by the federal government will no longer be tolerated.
"When these cases are ultimately decided in favor of the states on the merits, it will be a great day for the citizens who have the right to set their own health care policies and the states who have constitutionally guaranteed sovereignty to establish their own policies in the area of health care."
-----
Community News You Can Use
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Follow us on Twitter: @GAFrontPage
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
U.S. Mayors React to Governors' Rejection of Stimulus Funding
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following is a letter sent by the U.S. Conference of Mayors:
February 23, 2009
The Honorable Barack Obama
President of The United States
The White House
Dear President Obama:
RE: GOVERNORS' REJECTION OF ARRA FUNDS
On behalf of The United States Conference of Mayors, we want to thank you for hosting our delegation in the White House on February 20 to discuss implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). America's mayors strongly endorsed passage of this critical legislation, and we are 100 percent committed to helping create or save 3.5 million jobs over the next two years. We agree with you that this massive federal investment must be transparent, maximize innovation, and provide lasting environmental and infrastructure benefits.
Mayors know, better than anyone, that there are families suffering because of the recession in every State of this great Nation. And we know that every city has short-term and longer-term needs that can be addressed by the programs funded under ARRA. That is why we are so concerned to hear that some Governors and some States may choose to reject selected funding provided under the new law.
As a Nation, we cannot allow our citizens and communities to needlessly suffer when assistance is available to help them survive and rebuild in these troubling times. That is why we ask you and your Administration to devise a mechanism that will allow cities and our residents to have full access to all programs funded under ARRA in the event that any State chooses to reject such funding. It is not clear to us that Section 1607 of ARRA - which provides a mechanism for state legislatures to accept federal funding if Governors reject provisions under ARRA - will fully protect our cities if those state legislatures also fail to act quickly or attempt to alter the purpose of the federal statute.
For our Nation to recover from this recession, we need to invest in every child, in every family, and in every city. We cannot allow politics as usual in some State capitals to prevent us from accomplishing the mission you have charged us with.
Please contact CEO and Executive Director Tom Cochran or Chief of Staff Ed Somers to further discuss this matter.
Sincerely,
Manuel A. (Manny) Diaz
Mayor of Miami
President
Tom Cochran
CEO and Executive Director
Cc: The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House
The Honorable Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
February 23, 2009
The Honorable Barack Obama
President of The United States
The White House
Dear President Obama:
RE: GOVERNORS' REJECTION OF ARRA FUNDS
On behalf of The United States Conference of Mayors, we want to thank you for hosting our delegation in the White House on February 20 to discuss implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). America's mayors strongly endorsed passage of this critical legislation, and we are 100 percent committed to helping create or save 3.5 million jobs over the next two years. We agree with you that this massive federal investment must be transparent, maximize innovation, and provide lasting environmental and infrastructure benefits.
Mayors know, better than anyone, that there are families suffering because of the recession in every State of this great Nation. And we know that every city has short-term and longer-term needs that can be addressed by the programs funded under ARRA. That is why we are so concerned to hear that some Governors and some States may choose to reject selected funding provided under the new law.
As a Nation, we cannot allow our citizens and communities to needlessly suffer when assistance is available to help them survive and rebuild in these troubling times. That is why we ask you and your Administration to devise a mechanism that will allow cities and our residents to have full access to all programs funded under ARRA in the event that any State chooses to reject such funding. It is not clear to us that Section 1607 of ARRA - which provides a mechanism for state legislatures to accept federal funding if Governors reject provisions under ARRA - will fully protect our cities if those state legislatures also fail to act quickly or attempt to alter the purpose of the federal statute.
For our Nation to recover from this recession, we need to invest in every child, in every family, and in every city. We cannot allow politics as usual in some State capitals to prevent us from accomplishing the mission you have charged us with.
Please contact CEO and Executive Director Tom Cochran or Chief of Staff Ed Somers to further discuss this matter.
Sincerely,
Manuel A. (Manny) Diaz
Mayor of Miami
President
Tom Cochran
CEO and Executive Director
Cc: The Honorable Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House
The Honorable Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Libertarian Party Urges 'No' Vote on Holder
America’s third-largest political party urged the Senate Wednesday to reject the nomination of Eric Holder to be Attorney General, citing his record of hostility to Second Amendment rights.
“The Attorney General is expected to defend our Constitutional rights, not infringe them,” said Libertarian Party spokesman Donny Ferguson. “Gun owners value the precious rights protected by the Second Amendment, and they demand the Senate reject this nomination.”
Nominated by President Barack Obama to lead the Justice Department, Holder earned the ire of gun rights groups while Deputy Attorney General under then-President Bill Clinton, from 1997 to 2000.
Holder supported mandatory licensing and registration of gun owners, banning certain types of legal ammunition, waiting periods for handgun purchases, restricting law-abiding gun owners to purchase only one gun a month and regulations intended to drive gun shows out of existence.
Holder was also a key figure in a 2000 attempt by the Clinton administration to sue several firearms manufacturers who did not agree to restrict certain lawful sales, despite the fact Congress earlier rejected such proposed rules.
The companies were told the government lawsuits would be dropped if they agreed to restrict certain sales to lawful purchasers and stop manufacturing certain types of legal firearms. Only one, Smith & Wesson, agreed.
Holder also sided against gun rights in the Supreme Court’s 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller case seeking to overturn Washington, D.C.’s gun control laws. In a brief, Holder argued the Second Amendment confers collective rights on the government and does not protect individual rights of Americans. The Court ruled otherwise, declaring gun ownership to be an individual right.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
“The Attorney General is expected to defend our Constitutional rights, not infringe them,” said Libertarian Party spokesman Donny Ferguson. “Gun owners value the precious rights protected by the Second Amendment, and they demand the Senate reject this nomination.”
Nominated by President Barack Obama to lead the Justice Department, Holder earned the ire of gun rights groups while Deputy Attorney General under then-President Bill Clinton, from 1997 to 2000.
Holder supported mandatory licensing and registration of gun owners, banning certain types of legal ammunition, waiting periods for handgun purchases, restricting law-abiding gun owners to purchase only one gun a month and regulations intended to drive gun shows out of existence.
Holder was also a key figure in a 2000 attempt by the Clinton administration to sue several firearms manufacturers who did not agree to restrict certain lawful sales, despite the fact Congress earlier rejected such proposed rules.
The companies were told the government lawsuits would be dropped if they agreed to restrict certain sales to lawful purchasers and stop manufacturing certain types of legal firearms. Only one, Smith & Wesson, agreed.
Holder also sided against gun rights in the Supreme Court’s 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller case seeking to overturn Washington, D.C.’s gun control laws. In a brief, Holder argued the Second Amendment confers collective rights on the government and does not protect individual rights of Americans. The Court ruled otherwise, declaring gun ownership to be an individual right.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)