Tea Party Patriots Ordinary citizens reclaiming America's founding principles.

Friday, April 24, 2015

Gov. Kasich and Medicaid Expansion

In the wake of the passage by Representatives in Columbus of a two-year state budget that contains funding for Medicaid expansion, here’s part of a column from The Washington Examiner on Gov. Kasich and health care:
John Kasich should be punished for expanding Obamacare
By Philip Klein | April 23, 2015
Ohio Gov. John Kasich has made clear that he's seriously considering running for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. If he formally announces, it will be important for conservative voters to punish him for his expansion of President Obama's healthcare law in his state.
Kasich is currently polling in the low single-digits, has no clear path to the nomination, and the grassroots aren't exactly clamoring for him to run. Yet he is being egged on by a group of Republicans who want to see the party move in a direction that's more comfortable with a larger role for government.
Though on the campaign trail he'll insist that he's a warrior for limited government, in reality not only did Kasich decide to participate in Obamacare's fiscally destructive expansion of Medicaid, in doing so he also displayed a toxic mix of cronyism, dishonesty and executive overreach.
A 2012 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court made it easier for states to reject Obamacare's costly expansion of Medicaid — as many governors prudently chose to do.
But in February 2013, despite campaigning on opposition to Obamacare, Kasich crumbled under pressure from hospital lobbyists who supported the measure, and endorsed the expansion. When his legislature opposed him, Kasich bypassed lawmakers and imposed the expansion through a separate panel — an example of executive overreach worthy of Obama.
Kasich cloaked his cynical move in the language of Christianity, and, just like a liberal demagogue, he portrayed those with principled objections to spending more taxpayer money on a failing program as being heartless.
"Why is that some people don't get it?" Kasich asked rhetorically  at an October 2013 event at the Cleveland Clinic, which lobbied the administration heavily for the expansion so that it could access a stream of money from federal taxpayers. "Is it because they're hard-hearted or cold-hearted? It's probably because they don't understand the problem because they have never walked in somebody's shoes."
Kasich's defenses of his decision to expand Medicaid are built on a mountain of lies, which have been doggedly chronicled by Ohio native Jason Hart (currently with Watchdog.org) for the past two years.
One of Kasich's recurring defenses has been that he was simply making sure that money Ohio taxpayers sent to the federal government got returned to the state. That argument could theoretically pass muster if it were a situation in which money not spent by Ohio were automatically funneled to other states, as with the economic stimulus bill. But that isn't the situation with Medicaid expansion, the funding for which is only spent in states that agree to participate.
It's also worth noting that although the federal government picks up the full tab for the expansion in its first three years, starting in 2017, states will have to start pitching in and by 2020 will have to cover 10 percent of the costs. As it is, Medicaid is crippling state budgets and is everywhere among the largest state expenditures.
Kasich has also emphatically tried to claim that the expansion of Medicaid has nothing to do with Obamacare. This is ridiculous. The Medicaid expansion is one of the central parts of the law, which is why the administration is fighting so bitterly for states to adopt it. According to the latest estimate by the Congressional Budget Office, Obamacare spends $847 billion over the next decade on expanding Medicaid — representing roughly half of the expenditures in the law.
Read the rest here.

# # #

Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Sunday, April 19, 2015

Politically incorrect translations

Just some politically incorrect humor from youngcons.com:

# # #

Wednesday, April 15, 2015

April 15 Tax Day

It's April 15. File your returns before the end of the day.

Monday, April 13, 2015

House Bill 34 - Taking A Stand For Ohioans’ Healthcare

The blog below appeared at the Health Care Compact blog and at the Ohio Representatives' website here:

THE OHIO HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: House Bill 34 - Taking A Stand For Ohioans’ Healthcare

By: Ohio State Representative Ron Maag
As in all General Assemblies, protecting the healthcare of Ohioans is a very important issue to those of us in the state legislature. That is why I decided to co-sponsor a bill, introduced by my colleagues Representative Wes Retherford (R-Hamilton) and Representative Terry Boose (R-Norwalk), that I see as crucial to protecting the healthcare coverage of my constituents and citizens around the state.
House Bill 34 seeks to ratify the Health Care Compact, which allows Ohio to suspend the operation of all federal laws, rules, regulations, and orders regarding healthcare that are inconsistent with Ohio laws adopted pursuant to the Compact. I believe that this issue is better served at the state level, by Ohioans who know what we as a state need in terms of coverage.
Restoring the power to regulate healthcare to the states is crucial. House Bill 34 would require that Ohio secures Congress’s consent to regulate its own healthcare standards, freeing us from unnecessary federal regulations and mandates.
The bill would also require our governor to appoint a member to the Interstate Advisory Health Care Commission, which would collect and evaluate information that is needed for these member states to regulate their own healthcare system. Input from all members and states on this commission will be valuable in making determinations for the future.
By placing a firm focus on how to best serve our residents, I believe we can take a step in the right direction in terms of offering Ohioans exceptional healthcare options while removing hindrances from the federal government. I want our citizens to have access to affordable, reliable care that does not encourage a dependence on government services. I will continue to support regulations made by Ohioans for Ohioans.
Please feel free to contact my office regarding this legislation or any other state government related issue. My door is always open as I continue to serve as your state representative. You can contact me at (614) 644-6023 or Rep62@ohiohouse.gov
# # #
Do you know where your Representative stands?

Sunday, April 5, 2015

Happy Easter

Happy Easter from Cleveland Tea Party Patriots

# # #

Thursday, March 26, 2015

Photo ID law in Wisconsin is upheld

Earlier this week, Cleveland Tea Party Patriots learned about the initiatives to require Photo IDs in order to vote. Chris Long addressed the issue as it concerns voter fraud as opposed to voter integrity. Ohio voters can take a look at a recent development on a voter ID law in Wisconsin, via Hot Air:

Surprise: SCOTUS upholds Wisconsin voter-ID law


Or maybe not such a surprise after all. The path to today’s Supreme Court decision to refuse an appeal by the ACLU against Wisconsin’s voter-ID law has been strewn with appellate decisions that supported its implementation, although a last-minute stay by SCOTUS kept it out of play for the midterms. The law will fully take effect for the 2016 election, which may complicate efforts by Democrats to keep the state blue:
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday left intact a new Republican-backed law in Wisconsin that requires voters to present photo identification when they cast ballots.
The court declined to hear an appeal filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the law. …
A federal judge blocked the state’s voter ID law in March 2012 soon after it took effect and entered a permanent injunction in April, finding the measure would deter or prevent a substantial number of voters who lack photo identification from casting ballots, and place an unnecessary burden on the poor and minorities.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the decision and subsequently ruled in October that the law was constitutional. Wisconsin’s Supreme Court upheld the voter ID law in a separate ruling.
The SCOTUS stay in October had more to do with the timing of the law, thanks to the scheduling of the challenges through the courts. Regardless, the election still went in favor of Scott Walker and the GOP, preventing Democrats from repealing the voter-ID provision before it could come into effect.
This will put a huge dent in the Obama administration’s efforts to squelch voter-ID laws in other states. In order to grant certiorari, the ACLU would have needed four justices to vote to add it to the docket. The fact that they couldn’t even move the liberal wing to unite against a voter-ID law shows that the justices consider the issue settled. Requirements for identification at polling stations are legitimate, in the eyes of the court, as long as enough options for no-cost qualifying ID exist to keep the poor from being disenfranchised.
The dismissal of this challenge to the law will also help boost Walker’s efforts outside of Wisconsin. He’s known for reforming the public-employee unions, balancing the budget, and most recently for signing Right to Work legislation even if he advised the Republican-controlled legislature to move more slowly on the latter. Some forget that Walker backed the voter-ID legislation as part of his reform package that got him elected in 2010, and then reconfirmed in 2012 and re-elected again in 2014. It gives Walker an argument to position himself as the reformer who has a real track record of conservative change in a purple state, change that could turn the state red for good.
However, the Supreme Court decision isn’t keeping the ACLU fromdemanding yet another delay, on the same basis as the last one:
The Wisconsin state elections board says it is awaiting direction from the state Department of Justice about what comes next now that the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear a challenge to the state’s voter identification law.
The American Civil Liberties Union asked a federal appeals court to block implementation of the law for the April 7 election.
If the ACLU gets its waiver, it had better enjoy it — because it will be its last.
Update: It’s more accurate to say that the refusal to grant cert in this case upholds the law rather than approves it, although functionally it’s the same thing. I’ve changed the headline from “approves” to “upholds.”

# # #