Entry 39                                     Submitted by: Mark Musselman

Current Event
From FOXNews.com April 02, 2010
Confronted by an angry Tea Partier with a camera Thursday, an Illinois congressman said in front of several constituents at a town hall that he doesn’t care whether the new health care law violates the Constitution, as some critics have claimed.
In a video posted on You Tube, Adam Sharp of the St. Louis Tea Party asked Rep. Phil Hare which part of the Constitution authorizes the government to mandate that all Americans buy a private product such as health insurance. The Illinois Democrat replied, “I don’t worry about the Constitution on this.”
“Jackpot, brother,” Sharp said.
Hare cringed in disgust and said, “Oh please. What I care more about, I care more about the people dying every day who don’t have health care.”
“You care more about that than the U.S. Constitution that you swore to uphold?” Sharp shouted back.
“I believe it says we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” Hare countered.
When an observer pointed out that those words come from the Declaration of Independence, Hare said, “Doesn’t matter to me. Either one.”
When Sharp pressed Hare to answer where in the Constitution government is granted the authority to mandate the purchase of health insurance, Hare said he didn’t know.
“But at the end of the day, I want to bring insurance to every person that lives in this country,” Hare said.
Sharp said the law won’t do that.
The confrontation was the latest example of Democrats going off message in their sales pitch to Americans of the virtues of the controversial health care law.
Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, said the health care law would address the “maldistribution of income in America.”
“Too often, much of late, the last couple three years, the maldistribution of income in America is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy and the middle income class is left behind,” Baucus said after the Senate passed a “fix it” bill to make changes to the health care law.
“Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America,” he said. “This legislation will have the effect of addressing that maldistribution of income in America.”
VS

A congressman’s oath of office vs the US Constitution

Founding Document
US Constitution; Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

We the People:

We must sternly teach any Congressman or Congresswoman who displays such ignorance and disregard for the Constitution.

April 26, 2010

Dear Tea Partier,

Thank you.

I think it is important for those of us who have been engaged in conservative public policy battles for decades to thank you and give credit where credit is due.

While your opponents try to belittle you…smear you…ridicule or ignore you, it is evident to anyone who is paying attention that your efforts are already being felt all across the state.

Despite the story line your detractors are attempting to forward through the mainstream media, it is clear that your interest in politics and policy is informed, deep and goes far beyond attending public rallies every few months.

Because of your continued engagement, legislators in Madison are receiving record levels of contacts from their constituents. Because of your continued engagement, legislative and Congressional town hall meetings across Wisconsin are packed to the brim.

Finally, let me make the following point as clearly as I can.

Because of your continued engagement, three awful pieces of legislation were derailed last week during the waning hours of the final regular floor period of the Wisconsin Legislature.

As I wrote in the current installment of ‘That’s Debatable,’ exchange on WisOpinion.com:

Scot, for months the left, you and the Alinsky Brigade over at OWN have been trumpeting the virtues of efforts to address global warming, the election deform bill and the creation of regional taxing authorities for transit. The governor and both houses of the Legislature are controlled by Democrats. These bills should have been a slam dunk for passage. But, thankfully, like those who attempted to foist New Coke on us a quarter century ago, your side failed. “Epic Fail,” as the kids say these days. Let me save your side the cost of conducting post-implosion focus groups. I have a two-word answer for why the Democrats caved this week: Tea Parties. You see, the growing number of people who keep showing up at events across Wisconsin are smarter, more determined and more active than you give them credit for being. They also called their legislators and encouraged others to call when the left fringe of the Democratic Party tried to choke off the remaining manufacturing jobs in the state, attempted to facilitate greater election fraud, and tried to push a pro-tax, pro-train agenda down their throats. So, thank you, tea partiers. Keep it up. It helps Wisconsin on her road to recovery and it drives Scot and his buddies crazy! Cheers to sweet TEA.

There is no doubt that the defenders of job providers like WMC were diligent in their efforts and helped focus the public debate in opposition to the global warming bill. Similarly, local election officials and established anti-tax groups helped derail the election fraud and RTA bills. But your engagement provided the extra effort that was required to win those battles. You have become the ultimate variable in the poltical equation in Wisconsin.

The pundits who wondered if the Tea Party movement would amount to anything more than occaisional pep rallies do not have to wait until November. They got their answer last week, right here in Wisconsin.

I’ve said it before and will say it again and again: Despite the left’s attempt to paint you as a bunch of toothless, Fox News-brainwashed, GED-correspondence school dropouts who dance to the tune of your Big-Oil and GOP puppet masters, I’ve found you to be informed, skeptical and frustrated at the ever-expanding cost and reach of government. You are not going away, and you are growing in numbers everyday.

I know you don’t do this for adulation or publicity. But again, thanks, and keep up the fantastic work.

Lord knows, there is a lot more to do!

Sincerely,

Brian

By Brian Fraley
A MacIver Institute Perspective

By Philip Klein from the April 2010 issue

The American Spectator

In late January, President Obama dazzled political reporters when he addressed a gathering of House Republicans in Baltimore. The press marveled at Obama’s intelligence, command of the facts, and ability to swat down GOP arguments effortlessly during the 90-minute exchange. But at one point, Obama took a question from Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, the Republicans’ resident policy whiz, and clearly met his match.

In his State of the Union address just two days earlier, Obama had vowed to “freeze” non-security-related discretionary spending as part of a new White House campaign to create the appearance that the administration was doing something to address ballooning deficits. Unlike mandatory spending on entitlement programs, such as Medicare and Social Security, that grow without any explicit action by Congress, new discretionary spending must be passed by Congress and signed into law by the president.

“I serve as a ranking member of the budget committee, so I’m going to talk a little budget if you don’t mind,” Ryan said to Obama. “The spending bills that you’ve signed into law, the domestic discretionary spending has been increased by 84 percent. You now want to freeze spending at this elevated level beginning next year. This means that total spending in your budget would grow at 3/100ths of 1 percent less than otherwise. I would simply submit that we could do more and start now.”

In his response, Obama said he wanted to “just push back a little bit on the underlying premise about us increasing spending by 84 percent.” He insisted, “The fact of the matter is, is that most of the increases in this year’s budget, this past year’s budget, were not as a consequence of policies that we initiated but instead were built in as a consequence of the automatic stabilizers that kick in because of this enormous recession.” (The term “automatic stabilizers” refers to government payments such as welfare and unemployment benefits that tend to increase during an economic downturn.)

But Ryan shot back by noting a basic flaw in Obama’s analysis. “I would simply say that automatic stabilizer spending is mandatory spending,” he explained. “The discretionary spending, the bills that Congress signs that you sign into law, that has increased 84 percent.”

In a tacit acknowledgement that he had been bested, Obama replied, “We’ll have a longer debate on the budget numbers, all right?” and then proceeded to the next question.

A BIT LATER IN THE SESSION, however, Obama moved back to Ryan on a different topic. After a year of arguing that Republicans had presented no ideas on how to address the nation’s fiscal crisis, Obama mentioned that Ryan had produced a “serious proposal” to do just that — before offering his critique.

The proposal in question was Ryan’s “Roadmap for America’s Future,” a sweeping plan to stave off the nation’s looming economic and fiscal collapse by changing the tax code, overhauling the health care system, and reforming the nation’s major entitlement programs. Its debt-reducing claims aren’t based on mere fantasy — the Congressional Budget Office has determined that the plan would boost economic growth while making Medicare and Social Security solvent. And it accomplishes these aims without raising taxes or affecting the benefits of current retirees.

If the Baltimore event accomplished anything beyond giving the media a new reason to swoon over Obama, it drew attention to the “Roadmap,” which had largely been confined to the conservative policy ghetto since an earlier version was introduced in 2008. In the days and weeks following the summit, Ryan won praise from pundits on the right and left for at least having the courage to present serious solutions to the nation’s fiscal crisis. But at the same time, it became clear why most other politicians were unwilling to do the same.

“The entire Democratic political machine, right through the DNC, launched into a very organized attack mode,” Ryan recalled in a phone interview with TAS.

The praise Obama offered for the plan soon looked like a trap intended to elevate the plan just so Democrats would have something to knock down. It became a way for their party to go on offense after being clobbered for a year on the economic stimulus package, as well as the cap and trade and health care bills.

Peter Orszag, director of the Office of Management and Budget, tore into the Ryan plan. Democrats distributed “fact sheets” and held a media conference call to rip into the proposal further. “[I]t’s a roadmap right into the economic ditch that we got ourselves to begin with,” Rep. Chris Van Hollen, who serves as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told the influential liberal website Talking Points Memo. “Put it this way. For seniors on Medicare, it’s a dead end.”

In the wake of the uproar, Republican leaders tried to distance themselves from the proposal, emphasizing that while it contained good ideas, Ryan’s plan wasn’t the official Republican budget. In an election year during which the GOP is poised to make big gains, Republicans don’t want to give Democrats an easy opportunity to paint them as the party keen on destroying Social Security and Medicare. But if Republicans are to regain any credibility as a party that wants actually to limit government (as opposed to just talk about it when in the minority), then they can’t shy away from this debate. The looming fiscal crisis is too severe, it’s approaching too soon, and it’s far too big of a threat to the American way of life.

LAST OCTOBER, a new government took power in Greece and revealed that the nation’s annual budget deficit would be more than twice what had previously been forecast. In the ensuing months, the country’s creditors fled, its debt was downgraded, and its cost of borrowing surged — just when the country desperately needed money. In response, the government scrambled to roll out proposals to get its deficits under control by slashing social spending, dramatically hiking taxes, and freezing public sector wages– triggering nationwide strikes. Before long, Greece was pleading with other reluctant European Union member states for a bailout.

One of the major obstacles to addressing the looming entitlement crisis in the United States is that it’s very difficult to communicate the urgency and magnitude of the problem. Screeds about the long-term Medicare deficit of $38 trillion, or America’s combined unfunded liabilities of $107 trillion in current dollars, often fall on deaf ears because the numbers involved are inconceivable. And even when people accept the vague idea that we’re on an unsustainable fiscal path, hearing projections about where we’ll be decades from now makes them think that we have plenty of time to figure things out, somehow, at some point, down the road. While there are always caveats involved in drawing economic parallels among countries, the Greek collapse demonstrates what a fiscal crisis means in human terms. It also serves as a warning that the day of reckoning could come a lot sooner than we imagine.

Investors look at the ratio between debt and gross domestic product as a key indicator of a nation’s solvency, because it gives them an idea of how much tax revenue a country could conceivably raise to pay off its debt. In 2009, Greece’s debt-to-GDP ratio stood at 113.4 percent. According to CBO projections, the U.S. is on a trajectory to eclipse that mark in 2026, just 16 years from now. In the decades that follow, that ratio is expected to rocket to 223 percent by 2040, 433 percent by 2060, and 716 percent by 2080. But just as a reckless spender with a $40,000 salary would max out his credit cards long before running up $300,000 in credit card bills, the U.S. financial crisis would occur a lot sooner.

“You don’t get there,” explains John Cochrane, a professor of finance at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business. “Long before you reach debt that’s hundreds of percent of GDP…bond markets say, ‘No, we’re not doing that, we’re not lending you anymore,’ and then you have a huge crisis on your hands. Witness Greece.”

As Cochrane describes it, “You should really think of 30-year debt as stock in the U.S. government.” Investors who buy Treasury bonds are making a judgment about the government’s ability to pay them back over a 30-year time frame. For now, the U.S. still enjoys low borrowing costs because investors still believe that American leaders will eventually figure out a way to deal with the fiscal crisis. But all it would take would be for a major investor, such as China, to lose faith in the American government, and the crisis can ensue quite suddenly. There’s no “magic number” of debt-to-GDP ratio at which point investors lose confidence, Cochrane emphasizes. In 1945, for instance, the U.S. government’s ratio peaked at 121.7 percent.

“The U.S. can raise enormous amounts of money if people are convinced that there’s a plan for paying it off,” Cochrane says. “At the end of World War II, we had huge debt. Why was that okay? Well, people understood the war was temporary. They understood when the war was over we would stop spending money like crazy and there was a sense that there was a way for the U.S. to pay off that debt.”

A key difference between the U.S. and Greece, Cochrane notes, is that the U.S. can print dollars and Greece can’t print euros. What this means is that America would likely attempt to inflate its way out of a debt crisis by manufacturing money and using it to pay off the outstanding bonds. The problem is that this would produce a massive inflation that could occur on top of a stagnant economy. Furthermore, paying off lenders with devalued currency would effectively be the same as default.

“Really bad inflation actually happens when the economy is not booming, and that certainly happened in the late 1970s,” Cochrane says. “And the kind of inflation to worry about is the inflation that springs up seemingly on its own while the economy is still in trouble because people are running away from U.S. government debt.”

The only way to avert such awful alternatives is to act preemptively to reassure investors. “The important thing is convincing the markets that you have a plan, and you’re going to figure this out sooner or later,” Cochrane says.

A NATIVE OF JANESVILLE, Wisconsin, Paul Ryan developed his political philosophy reading the works of free market authors including Milton Friedman, F. A. Hayek, and Ayn Rand. After graduating with a degree in economics and political science from Miami University in Ohio, Ryan worked as a speechwriter for Jack Kemp and William Bennett at the think tank Empower America (a predecessor to FreedomWorks) and served as a legislative aide to Sen. Sam Brownback. Since winning his congressional seat in 1998, Ryan has pushed for tax reform and garnered attention as one of the leaders of the fight for Social Security personal accounts, which he tirelessly campaigned for during President Bush’s failed reform effort in 2005.

On several occasions, Ryan has drawn fire from limited-government advocates, most notably when he voted for President Bush’s Medicare prescription drug plan and for the $700 billion financial bailout. In both cases, he helped provide cover for other Republicans to vote for massive expansions of government, and opened himself up to charges of hypocrisy. But Ryan insists that viewed in context of the alternatives with which he was presented, his “reasoning at the time was sound.”

“You don’t get to take the vote you want in Congress,” Ryan laments. “Sometimes you have to take votes that you don’t want to take, but they’re the best of the two choices.”

In the case of the Medicare expansion, which by some measures added $15.6 trillion to the long-term entitlement deficit, Ryan recalled that “President (Bush) was really clear to me at the time, and I talked to his chief of staff and others as well, that he was either going to sign the House-passed bill, which had my health savings accounts amendment and real free market choice and competition like Medicare Advantage in it, or the Senate bill, which was just a big government-run program.” In the end, he voted for the bill with some free market elements. “That was the choice he gave us,” he says. “It was not a choice I liked.”

As for the Wall Street bailout, Ryan said he was convinced that it was necessary to avert a complete economic collapse, and argues that if a full-fledged depression ensued, it would have made it a lot easier for Democrats to pass their agenda and thus more devastating to the free market in the long run. “I think, more people, if we were in a depression, would be susceptible to their worldview just like much of the New Deal programs came in,” he said.

After Republicans lost control of Congress in 2006, Ryan emerged as the ranking minority member of the House Budget Committee, a position that gave him more staff to work with and the ability to ask the CBO to evaluate his proposals on a higher-priority basis.

“I had all along in my career in Congress been watching our fiscal and economic situation steadily deteriorate, and I noticed that nobody was proposing solutions for fear of political demagoguery,” Ryan says. “If that continues, it’s very clear to me that we are sleepwalking toward a fiscal crisis in which the alternatives would be ugly and we would become more of a social welfare state.”

Taking advantage of his new position, Ryan set out to find a comprehensive approach to the looming fiscal crisis. After a year of writing and running the numbers, he introduced his first version of the “Roadmap” in May of 2008, which formed the basis for his updated proposal released this year. In the intervening time period, the task became even more daunting.

“In 2008, when I introduced this thing, I thought we’d have 10 years before it was too late to turn back, and maintain what I call the American idea-limited government premised on freedom and liberty, free enterprise, and entrepreneurial society,” he said. “Now, I think we have about half that time, because of the economic crisis that we had, and because of the agenda that’s moving through Washington right now.”

THE “ROADMAP” is a rare type of congressional proposal that delves into political philosophy (with references to the likes of Thomas Jefferson, John Locke, and Émile Durkheim) and also makes a moral case that the expansion of the welfare state leads to the erosion of the “American character” of freedom and personal responsibility. Yet at the same time, it presents a pragmatic policy vision for averting fiscal disaster while causing the least possible disruption in everybody’s lives. The plan is premised on the idea that the problems facing America are interrelated. You can’t get a handle on our national debt without reining in Medicare; you can’t restrain the growth of Medicare without reforming the health care system; you can’t change the health care system without touching the tax code; and fundamental tax reform is necessary to spur economic growth, which in turn will make it easier to pay off our debt.

Taken together, the plan earned an impressive grade from Congress’s official scorekeeper. By 2080, according to CBO’s “alternative fiscal scenario” that assumes the continuation of current policies, the U.S. would be dedicating a staggering 34.4 percent of its GDP to government spending, running an annual deficit of 42.8 percent, and carrying debt at 716 percent of GDP — which as discussed above, is a point that we’d never actually reach. By contrast, under the “Roadmap,” the CBO estimates that in the same year, government spending would be just 13.8 percent of the GDP, the government would be running a massive surplus of 5 percent, and it wouldn’t be holding any debt.

Yet these numbers are conservative estimates, because they don’t even take into account how much better off the economy would be under the “Roadmap” as a result of getting our debt under control. According to the CBO, the nation’s economic output per person would be 70 percent higher in 2058 under the Ryan plan than it would be if current trends continue. After that year, the CBO’s model of current trends actually breaks down “because deficits become so large and unsustainable that the model cannot calculate their effects.” But as a result of putting the nation’s finances on a sustainable path, the Ryan plan is projected to foster strong economic growth in the ensuing decades. And again, while these dates seem way off into the future, if the nation were put on the right course, it would provide a lot of reassurance to credit markets, and keep our borrowing costs lower in the near term.

Ryan’s proposal for health care, which was developed along with Rep. Devin Nunes and Sens. Tom Coburn and Richard Burr, is aimed at moving the U.S. toward a system in which consumers have more control over their health care dollars. The idea is to take the same principles that have driven down costs and improved quality in every other sector of the economy, and apply them to health care, which is currently immune from market signals because of a lack of price transparency as well as the fact that most people get their insurance through government or their employers.

“I got Lasik surgery 10 years ago, it cost me $4,000, and the laser they use to do it since then has been revolutionized three times,” Ryan said. “It’s much better, much safer, and it costs $1,600 now. That’s 800 bucks an eye instead of two grand an eye. So this sector has proven that it can both bring down cost and improve quality just like the computer sector, just like many other high-tech sectors throughout the country. ”

To help create a consumer market for health care, Ryan would start by ending the discrimination in the tax code that subsidizes the purchase of insurance through one’s employer, and use the savings to provide an optional refundable tax credit of $2,300 for individuals and $5,700 for families toward the purchase of health coverage. Any individuals who choose to purchase cheaper, catastrophic health care plans could keep any leftover money and put it in health savings accounts. The proposal would allow people to purchase insurance across state lines and it would create a Healthcare Services Commission that would make price and quality data available to consumers so that they could shop around for the best doctors and hospitals. It would also cap non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases.

FROM A FREE MARKET PERSPECTIVE, there are some potentially worrisome aspects of the proposal. Like the Senate Democrats’ health care bill, the Ryan approach would have the federal government partner with states to create insurance exchanges. Ryan’s exchanges wouldn’t impose the onerous mandates and regulations envisioned by Democrats. But however well intentioned, as long as the government-run exchange architecture is created, there’s a danger that future lawmakers would simply add regulations and expand the exchanges beyond their original purpose, as often happens with government programs. Why not just change the tax treatment, allow interstate purchasing, improve price transparency, and let the free market work the rest out?

Ryan argues that if we find a way to cover those with preexisting conditions by removing them from the risk pool, it creates a cheaper and better functioning market for the remaining 96 percent of Americans who do not have such conditions, according to estimates.

“There’s a role for government to play to help this market work,” Ryan insists. “If you’re going to address the issue of the uninsurable, you’ve got to find some kind of method, or a mechanism, to target those subsidies to people with preexisting conditions….Pull the uninsurable people out of the pools effectively, and you allow the market to work much, much better for health insurance.” Ryan said he is confident that there were enough “stopgaps” in the proposal — including allowing for the purchase of insurance across state lines and permitting people to move in and out of exchanges at will — to ensure a functioning free market.

His proposal also calls for adding a consumer-based element to existing government programs Medicare and Medicaid. For Medicare, Ryan would maintain the existing program as is for those over 55 who have already built their lives around traditional Medicare. But for those under 55, the program would transition into one where individuals would be given a voucher toward the purchase of private health insurance. The voucher would be worth $11,000 per beneficiary on average, but it would vary based on income and health status, so that the wealthiest and healthiest enrollees would receive the lowest-value vouchers and the poorest and sickest would receive the highest-value ones. In addition, the lowest-income beneficiaries would be given money to put in a medical savings accounts to help pay for out-of-pocket expenses. Ryan does something similar with Medicaid, whose beneficiaries would receive $11,000 on top of the refundable tax credit for health insurance.

During the past year’s health care debate, Republicans attacked the Medicare cuts in the Democratic bills, often employing liberal rhetoric that reinforced the untouchable status of the program. While it provided short-term political benefits, it also made the environment a lot harder for Republicans, such as Ryan, who propose reforming the system. In fact, in his critique of the Ryan plan, Obama noted that Republicans had lambasted the Democratic bills for “slashing Medicare” and said their attacks “scared the dickens out of a lot of seniors.”

Ryan acknowledges that “we have to be careful about how we use our rhetoric so we don’t dig ourselves into an unsustainable fiscal path.” But he says that there was a legitimate criticism that the Democratic health care plans cut Medicare benefits to finance a new entitlement and that they gut Medicare Advantage, the one free market element of the program. Ryan says that as his plan shows, it isn’t necessary to change Medicare for current retirees

The White House charged that Ryan’s plan would significantly reduce Medicare benefits over time because the vouchers wouldn’t grow at the same level as medical inflation (they would be set to grow at a rate that blends health care inflation with overall inflation). This is backed up by the CBO, which estimated that although the “Roadmap” would bring down health care spending, because of the lower spending, “it is likely that fewer services would be provided and treatments would be less technologically advanced…”

Ryan counters that once the changes are made to the overall health care market to make it more consumer-oriented, that in turn will drive down prices and improve quality, such as the case with his Lasik surgery.

“What I’m trying to do is bring free market principles into the health care sector to go at the root cause of inflation itself, so that that voucher, that health care dollar, goes a lot farther, because it’s going through the individual and not coming from government,” he says.

When it comes to retirement planning, there’s wide agreement on the fact that if we do nothing, Social Security will not be available for future generations. Just keeping this one program afloat by 2037 would require either slashing benefits by 24 percent, hiking payroll taxes by 31 percent, or some combination of the two. Under the Ryan proposal, the program would stay the same for those older than 55, but would allow younger individuals the choice of shifting a portion of their payroll taxes into personal investment accounts. At the same time, it would add an element of means testing by making benefits outside of the accounts grow slower for wealthier individuals. The plan would also slowly increase the retirement age.

TO PROVIDE A SENSE of the severity of the nation’s coming fiscal crunch, the CBO estimated the marginal tax rates that would be necessary to balance the long-term budget strictly through higher income taxes. It found that the rate for the lowest bracket would have to rise from 10 percent to 25 percent; those in the 25-percent bracket would have to pay 63 percent; and the top rate would need to be increased from 35 percent to a staggering 88 percent. But these numbers are only theoretical. In reality, the CBO tells us, “Such tax rates would significantly reduce economic activity and would create serious problems with tax avoidance and tax evasion. Revenues would probably fall significantly short of the amount needed to finance the growth of spending; therefore, tax rates at such levels would not be feasible.”

The problem with raising taxes to pay down the debt is that the kinds of taxes that would be raised — on marginal income, savings, investment, and capital gains — would cripple the economy, which in turn would make it harder to pay off the debt.

“The crucial thing about long-term budgets is not really the tax rate, it’s the growth rate of the economy, and we can pay off the debt even with low taxes, if we had enough economic growth,” Cochrane says. “When the growth stops, at that point your ability to pay off the debt in the long run is really in danger.”

Cochrane considers the current tax system “chaotic” and “a fiesta for lawyers, lobbyists, and accountants.”

Ryan’s proposal is intended to change the tax code in a direction that would promote more economic growth, by creating an optional, flatter tax system with just two rates (10 percent and 25 percent) and without any deductions other than the tax credit for health insurance. The plan gets rid of double taxation on interest, capital gains, and dividends. He also would eliminate the corporate income tax to make American businesses more competitive, and replace it with an 8.5 per-cent “business consumption tax.” The consumption tax could be “border adjustable” so that it’s paid when imports enter the country, but not on exports.

“I fundamentally believe this is the part of the plan that is the pro-growth part of the plan,” Ryan says. “This is the growth engine that reignites an entrepreneurial, risk taking economy, which finishes the job of fixing our fiscal problems.”

He notes that the CBO estimates about his plan’s budget balancing potential are conservative because they assume a standard rate of growth. “Imagine what this would look like with respect to jobs and prosperity and reaching a balanced budget and paying off the debt, if we actually in-jected the growth assumptions that I think would realistically come from this kind of tax reform,” he says.

Chris Edwards, the director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute, says that Ryan’s re-forms of the individual tax code are “generally excellent” but fears that the business consumption tax could lead to bigger government.

“The base of such a tax is about five times wider the base of a corporate income tax, so while economists may say that’s more efficient, if you have an extremely broad-based tax, it’s very easy for politicians to raise money in the future just by raising the rate,” Edwards says.

Instead, Edwards suggests just slashing the current rate. “If you had a 15 percent rate, nobody would care if it’s border adjustable or not,” he says.

RYAN HIMSELF EMPHASIZES that the plan is designed to be flexible, and that he welcomes alternative ideas. “This isn’t a take it or leave it plan,” he says. “It isn’t meant to be. It’s a vision, which in my opinion reclaims the American idea while keeping promises to current generations who built their lives around these programs.” His primary intention, he says, was to trigger “an adult conversation” about the nation’s fiscal crisis.

The politics of passing a plan as sweeping as the “Roadmap” are challenging, even if Republicans manage to retake control of Washington and prove serious about reining in government. The Founders intentionally designed a system of government that makes it difficult to enact major changes. While that has been to the benefit of limited-government advocates when it comes to preventing the creation of new programs (witness the difficulty Democrats have encountered trying to pass a health care bill despite huge majorities in Congress), it also makes it hard to reform those programs once they do get passed. Ronald Reagan did not undo Medicare or Social Security, and George W. Bush only succeeded in passing the largest expansion of entitlements since the Great Society.

Many of the ideas promoted by Ryan have surfaced before and failed to gain traction. President Bush couldn’t even get a vote on Social Security personal accounts when Republicans controlled both the House and Senate. Though Bush created a commission on tax reform, its recommendations, which were much less ambitious than Ryan’s proposals, fizzled upon introduction. And when John McCain proposed ending the tax code’s discrimination against individuals who purchase health insurance on their own during the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama successfully portrayed him as a tax hiker.

Furthermore, the most impressive aspect of the Ryan plan is how it elegantly weaves together policies that interact with one another to solve multiple problems. For instance, one of the ways his plan is able to make Social Security solvent, according to the CBO, is that by removing the tax subsidy for employer-based insurance, the government is able to capture additional pay-roll tax revenue. Yet during the past year’s health care debate, Republicans argued for incrementalism.

“Rep. Ryan’s plan is the mirror image of Obama’s agenda,” Ramesh Ponnuru wrote on National Review’s blog. “It attempts to move America in a freemarket rather than social-democratic direction, and I support that goal; but it is just as transformational, just as ambitious, just as immodest. I don’t think that the public, or the political system, can bear this type of comprehensive change.”

Asked whether he thought that Congress had the ability to pass something as ambitious as his proposal, Ryan responded, “I think the answer is yes, if you win the debate. But you’ve got to get on with the debate in order to win it.” If necessary, he says, the plan could be broken into parts, but that would require more short-term borrowing.

The key challenge to reforming entitlements is that those who are currently benefiting from the status quo are older and more politically active than younger Americans who have the most to lose. While Medicare and Social Security are of primary importance to older voters, younger voters aren’t thinking about their retirement. Ryan says he tries his best to engage younger audiences through the use of social media such as Facebook and Twitter. “I’m one guy from Wisconsin with a plan to try and get this conversation rolling and I’m doing everything I know how,” he says.

IN HER GROUNDBREAKING HISTORY of the Great Depression, The Forgotten Man, Amity Shlaes argues that not only did Franklin D. Roosevelt’s policies prolong the economic downturn, but in the name of helping some Americans, he imposed hardships on others. She sees a parallel to today, when politicians in both parties perpetuate the third-rail status of entitlement programs with reckless disregard for future generations.

“The Forgotten Man in the 1930s wasn’t only FDR’s poor man, it was also the man who would shoulder the burden of the progressive experiment,” she says. “Today, the man who shoulders the burden of the progressive experiment most seriously is not older Americans from 40 up, but rather those under 40 who will have to pay higher taxes and get fewer benefits. No generation has been more forgotten than that generation that is now children.”

Without changes, Ryan says, younger Americans are guaranteed to grow up in a nation in which “the best century will be the last and not the current one.” He says, “That’s the path we’re on right now. The sooner we can help Americans see that, the sooner we can get the kind of changes we need to prevent it.”

There are arguments in favor of gradualism, and those on the right certainly shouldn’t live in a fantasy world detached from what is politically feasible. But the looming fiscal crisis is so severe and approaching so rapidly that conservatives can’t afford to postpone making the case for something on the scale of what Ryan is proposing, if not his specific plan. During this year’s congressional races and the next presidential primaries, any candidate who attacks Obama’s reckless spending should be put to the Ryan test. That is, anybody who expects to be taken seriously as a limited government conservative should endorse specific solutions to tackle the debt. To avoid discussing these issues during an election year means preemptively surrendering to the reality of a leviathan state. To walk away from this fight guarantees that future generations will be forced to live in the wreckage of a collapsed United States. If the conservative movement was built for any reason and exists for any purpose, it is to fight this battle.

Philip Klein is The American Spectator’s Washington correspondent.

To learn more: http://www.americanroadmap.org

Entry 29S                     Submitted by: Mark Musselman

Current Event

According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, March 25, 2010 (full article available on line)

Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen sought approval Thursday to sue the federal government over new health care legislation, but Democrats who control most of state government quickly shot him down.

“This is an issue of the federal government overreaching beyond what constitutional powers they have, which is an assault on (the Legislature’s) powers,” Van Hollen said.

More than a dozen attorneys general have filed lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of vast changes to the health care system approved by Congress, but Van Hollen can’t join them without authorization from Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle or one of the houses of the Legislature, both of which are controlled by Democrats. Doyle and legislative leaders said they would not grant permission.

“The lawsuit you suggest is a frivolous and political attempt to thwart the actions of Congress and the law of the country,” Doyle wrote in a letter to Van Hollen. “The State of Wisconsin will not enter into litigation intended to deny health care for tens of thousands of residents.”

………………………
VS

State vs. Federal Authority

Founding Document

The US Constitution: Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

We the People:

Van Hollen is on rock-solid ground according the US Constitution. The lawsuit was “shot down” because of party partisanship. Obviously Governor Doyle and some Democratic State party leaders are more inclined to succumb to the national mandate than to enforce our state’s constitutional power and sovereignty. However others may be looking for a political lifesaver for this year’s elections. Some may be more loyal to their oaths of office and the Wisconsin people than the Democratic National Committee. But the people must support them. As someone once said; The constitution is only words if the people do not help enforce the limits it places on elected officials.

We only need a three more in the State Senate to support this lawsuit in order for Van Hollen to proceed. If you have relatives or friends in the districts of the following State Senators, please urge them to contact them in support of our Attorney General’s constitutional challenge.

Tim Carpenter (D); Milwaukee, WI 53215

Spencer Coggs (D); Milwaukee 53222

Russell Decker (D); Wausau, WI 54401

Jon Erpenbach; Waunekee 53597

Dave Hansen (D); Green Bay 54303

Jim Holperin (D); Conover 54516

Robert Jauch (D); Poplar, WI 54864

Pat Kreitlow (D);Chippewa Falls, WI 54729

Julie Lassa (D); Stevens Point 54481

John Lehman (D);Racine, WI 53405

Mark Miller (D); Monona 53716

Jeffrey Plale (D); South Milwaukee, WI 53172

Fred Risser (D); Madison. 53703

Judy Robson (D); Beloit 53511

Jim Sullivan (D); Wauwatosa, WI 53213

Lena Taylor (D); Milwaukee 53206

Kathleen Vinehout (D); Eau Claire, WI 54702

Robert Wirch (D); Pleasant Prairie 63158

Last week it was the false advertising around the childhood preexisting condition ban, today it’s more on the politicization of private sector health care decisions.

In 2003, when President Bush expanded federal coverage for elderly Americans’ prescription drugs, he also included a subsidy so businesses would keep retirees in their private drug benefit plans. The payout was about $665 per employee each year they were kept on private coverage. The goal was to keep employers from dumping retirees into the newly expanded government plan.

Last week, Obama and the Democrats in Congress removed the subsidy’s tax-free status. Because of how the Securities and Exchange Commission regulates large companies, this change in the long-term tax outlook for the businesses is sending shockwaves through their ledgers. Here’s what a few companies are saying:

AT&T announced the change would cost them $1 billion.
Caterpillar said it would cost them $100 million.
AK Steel put the loss at $31 million in the first quarter alone.
Verizon warned its employees ObamaCare “may have significant implications for both retirees and employers.”
All told, companies are reporting a new $14 billion tax liability under ObamaCare, and we’re only a week out from the signing ceremony.
Never one to let a political opportunity slip by, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) is summoning the afflicted companies to a hearing on Capitol Hill. Apparently, Waxman is shocked that the health care takeover bill he just voted for is having real-life implications for businesses. Waxman is demanding internal company documents on how the companies arrived at their figures. It should provide uproarious political theater as the Beverly Hills politician tries to blame the private sector for the impacts of bad policy he just implemented.
Of course the companies could always avoid the new tax by kicking retirees off the private drug plan; I’m sure ObamaCare would be all too happy to take them in. The Employee Benefit Research Institute projects this would save employers $2,800 in future costs per beneficiary. Who could blame them for trying to avoid the huge hit to their books?

AFP and our activists across the country fought valiantly to warn citizens and politicians that ObamaCare would come between you and your doctor, that it would have tangible effects on your medical coverage. Obama promised the country that if you liked your coverage, you could keep it. Looks like he was wrong again, and this is only week one.

Welcome to ObamaCare.

Entry 18S3                                    Submitted by: Mark Musselman

Current Event

(CBS/AP) on March 19, 2010
The widely-reviled “Cornhusker Kickback” is out. A little special treatment for Tennessee is in. A special deal for a North Dakota bank almost made it in.
…..
But the 153 pages of changes to the massive health care package do include extra money for hospitals in Tennessee that serve large numbers of low-income patients. Democrats say the money simply brings Tennessee up to par with the rest of the country.
…
Still alive is special spending for Louisiana, Connecticut, Montana and other states that was included in the health care bill that the Senate approved in December. The House may give it final approval this weekend.
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

From ABC News.com WASHINGTON, March 9, 2010
The White House today dismissed comments from a retiring Democratic congressman who claimed his own party had hounded him out of office because he had planned to vote against President Obama’s health care bill.

Rep. Eric Massa, D-N.Y., announced his resignation last week amid allegations that he sexually harassed two male aides. The congressman first said he was stepping down because his cancer had returned, but then shifted his story, suggesting in a radio interview that he was being forced out of Congress as part of a “setup” involving the White House.

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - — – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

According to a Rasmussen poll on March 19, 2010
“Democratic congressional leaders have scheduled a House vote on their national health care plan this Sunday, but 59% of U.S. voters say most members of Congress will not understand what is in the plan before they vote on it. “

VS

The People and the Constitution vs. Their elected officials

Founding Document

US Constitution: 10th Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

We the People:

The House bill is 2700 pages long and creates 110 new agencies. The Senate bill is 2074 pages long.

I doubt that House Speaker Pelosi would have allowed the Massa story to lead to his resignation had he supported healthcare bill. This was a signal to other Democratic Congressmen not to dare break ranks. And some Wisconsin Representatives support this perversion of democracy. What are they hiding?

Quoting Edmund Burke (British Statesman and philosopher from the 18th century); “Nobody makes a greater mistake than he who does nothing because he could only do a little.”

Blackmail, abusive reconciliation procedural violations, special deals, transferring Medicaid burden to us from other states, complex regulation, cushy jobs for officials’ relatives, and Congress exceeding its authority do not comprise government of the people. And while we have been arguing about which major party violates more, both have abused our federal government. Government of the people requires participation by the people. Are you ready to help get it back?

NUMBERS TO KNOW:
· $569.2 billion in tax increases
· $523.5 billion in Medicare cuts
· $48 billion more for Medicaid

1. A Job-Killing Government Takeover of Health Care. No amount of changes or legislative tricks can hide the true destructive nature of this bill: $17 billion in new taxes on Americans who do not comply with the individual mandate, $52 billion in new taxes on employers that do not provide health coverage deemed “acceptable” or “affordable” by government bureaucrats, and new taxes on capital gains, dividends and interest that will further stifle economic growth and job creation.
2. New Tax on Capital Formation and Job Creation. The Medicare tax on capital gains, dividends, and other investment income gets bigger, magnifying the destructive power of this new tax. The bill increases the tax from 2.9 percent to 3.8 percent, pushing the top capital gains rate to 23.8 percent and the top rate for dividends to 43.4 percent in conjunction with tax relief expiring at the end of this year. As The Wall Street Journal editorialized this week, this tax will “permanently skew the incentives to work, save and create jobs.”

3. Democrats Continue to Say ‘I Do’ To Marriage Penalty. The bill leaves in place a massive marriage penalty, which will mean higher premiums for those that tie the knot. As highlighted in January by The Wall Street Journal, “the disparity comes about in part because subsidies for purchasing health insurance … are pegged to federal poverty guidelines.” The final bill leaves this unfair penalty on married couples in place.

4. Lower Wages and More Unemployment. The final bill imposes $52 billion in new taxes on employers, including small businesses, that cannot afford to provide health coverage or that don’t offer coverage. The effect of this type of tax, similar to a payroll tax increase, would ultimately fall squarely on workers in the form of lower wages or reduced employment. In fact, the Tax Policy Center concluded that “economists generally believe that the burden of payroll taxes is borne by workers in the form of lower wages, regardless of whether the tax is levied on the employer or the employee.” The tax proposed in this bill will likely have the same effect.

5. Employers Targeted By Even Higher Taxes to Enforce Employer Mandate. The final bill incorporated President Obama’s suggestion to rake in a little more cash to pay for a massive government-takeover of health care by nearly tripling the job-killing mandate tax on employers who do not offer health coverage to $2,000 per employee. Sure enough, the President’s suggestion raises an additional $25 billion on the backs of American employers, according to CBO.

6. Individual Mandate Tax Reduced? No, Not Really. Democrats are highlighting their generosity by lowering the amount of the tax for not complying with the mandate. But just how generous are they? Not very. Democrats propose to reduce the individual mandate tax flat payment amount by a scant 14¢ a day. And, while Democrats “reduce” the individual mandate tax flat payment amount, they actually raise $2 billion more by making other alterations to the individual mandate, according to CBO.

7. The Power to Tax Our Health Care. The Democrats’ final bill doesn’t just tax individuals and employers if they don’t comply with the complex mandates in the bill. The bill sends the IRS out to tax the very products Americans use to maintain and restore their own health. New taxes on medical devices, on prescription drugs, and on health insurance itself are all targets of the bill. And, with $10 billion in new enforcement resources, you can bet the IRS will be taking its full share out of the pockets of every American who uses any of these products or services.

8. Even More Subsidies, Even Greater Threat to the Economy. The bill increases the subsidies provided under the bill from those provided in the Senate bill by $65 billion, a significant and unsustainable increase. In fact, the Associated Press reported a warning from Massachusetts’ state treasurer, who stated that Congress will “threaten to wipe out the American economy within four years” if it adopts a health care overhaul modeled after the Bay State’s.

9. Taxpayer-Funded Abortion Coverage. The final bill does not include the Stupak amendment language that would prohibit federal funds from being used to fund elective abortions. Instead, states are given the option to opt-out of providing insurance coverage of abortions. Still, taxpayers in a state that opts-out would still see their federal tax dollars fund elective abortions in other states. Additionally, each state through the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) can provide access to two multi-state plans, and only one of them will exclude abortions. OPM’s current health care program – the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) – does not include any plans that cover elective abortion. For the first time, a federally funded and managed health care plan will cover elective abortions.

10. Medicaid Rolls And Waiting Lines to Swell Even More. CBO estimates that as a result of the Democrats’ bill, one million more Americans will get their coverage from Medcaid, which is plagued with financial woes and wreaks all kinds of budgetary havoc on cash-strapped states. The Democrats’ bill, as the New York Times highlighted, will push even more Americans into a program where they will have trouble finding doctors and have to wait for potentially months to receive care. That’s not meaningful reform by any measure.

BONUS: Republicans have proposed a health care bill based on common-sense reforms that, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, would reduce premiums for families and small businesses by up to 10 percent. It is not too late to start over.

Entry 18S               Submitted by: Mark Musselman

Current Event

- As reported by FOXNews.com on December 22, 2009( full article available on line)

Organizations and lawmakers opposed to the health care reform package are getting their legal briefs in a bunch, threatening to challenge the constitutionality of the sweeping overhaul should it make its way to President Obama’s desk.
…….

On the first issue, Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., on Tuesday renewed the call to examine the constitutionality of whether the federal government can require Americans to purchase a product.
…………………

The Constitution allows Congress to tax, borrow, spend, declare war, raise an army and regulate commerce, among other things. Proponents of the insurance mandate point to the Commerce Clause in arguing that Congress is within its rights to require health insurance and dismiss such potential legal challenges.
……………
Even though Obama argues that the mandate is similar to laws requiring drivers to obtain auto insurance, opponents cite several key differences. First, the auto insurance mandate is avoidable, since anyone who doesn’t want to pay doesn’t have to drive. Second, auto insurance is mandated in large part so that drivers carry liability insurance to cover damages to other people and cars — not themselves. Third, auto insurance regulation occurs at the state level.

When the Congressional Budget Office considered the idea of a health insurance mandate back in 1994 under the Clinton administration, it concluded that the mandate would be “an unprecedented form of federal action.” The only congressional mandate close to that was the draft, the CBO concluded.
…….

“It is clear by the wording of the legislation itself that not every state would face a similar and equal burden,” they wrote. “We see this as a violation of equal protection of the law, an affront to our sovereignty, and a breach of the U.S. Constitution.”
………………
The 10th Amendment declares that powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are “reserved” for the states or “the people.”

Still another challenge is coming from Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., who on the Senate floor raised concerns about a section in the health care bill that appears to say that the Senate cannot make changes to it in the future.

…………………………….

“We will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a Senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law,” DeMint said. “I’m not even sure that it’s constitutional.”

VS

Congressional authority vs. the US Constitution

Founding Document

The Constitution, Article 6

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

The present Congressional oath is:

“I, (name of Member), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

We the People:

Senator Feingold recently said he leaves constitutional considerations decision to the Supreme Court. Is he violating his oath when he votes for a bill with so many apparent violations? How does that reinforce the balance of power between the three branches of government? It doesn’t.

I recently asked Representative Sensenbrenner to hold a press conference on the constitutional violations of this bill. He replied that doing so would make him a target of the press. This week is crucial. Now is the time to call your US Representative (Jim Sensenbrenner’s number is 262-784-1111) and to let them know that despite the press, you support drawing attention to unconstitutional provisions of this bill.

By Greg Bump
WisPolitics.com

WISCONSIN DELLS — Speakers at the third annual “Defending the American Dream Summit,” hosted by the Wisconsin chapter of Americans for Prosperity, railed against health care reform, cap and trade and energy policy reform, the federal stimulus, and what they perceive as a general erosion of personal freedoms suffered under Democratic majority rule.

“We rightly recognize the American idea is under attack and we have to come to its defense,” said U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Janesville, who sent a video message to attendees at the Wisconsin Dells conference.

Keynote speaker Michael Reagan told the estimated 2,000 activists in attendance that “it is indeed time for another revolution,” noting it has been 30 years since his father’s “Reagan Revolution.”

Reagan, a conservative radio host, said without activism like the kind embodied in the Tea Party movement, his father Ronald Reagan may never have been elected president.

“It is time for another noisy rebellion,” he said.

He urged vigilance, saying “liberals, those people who are against our freedoms” never rest.

“The side that wants to take away our freedoms is working 24 hours a day, seven days a week,” he said.

Reagan, whose image was prominently featured on the event’s Web page, said despite what his brother, liberal talk radio host Ron, says, his father would have supported groups like Americans for Prosperity.

“It was organizations like this that elected Ronald Reagan to the presidency in 1980. So thank you,” Reagan said.

AFP Wisconsin state director Mark Block said the organization started out three years ago with 250 members. It’s now grown to more than 54,000 in the last year, “thanks to the Tea Party movement,” Block said. Block said a Tea Party rally is scheduled for April 15 in Madison.

Block said AFP is now the second largest grassroots group in Wisconsin. But they’re not settling for second place, especially with the state teacher’s union, WEAC, with 92,000 members sitting at the top of the list.

Block’s goal is for AFP to reach 100,000 members by this July 4.

Tim Nerenz, executive vice president of the Oldenburg Group Inc., a Milwaukee-based defense, mining and engineering firm, said American people have to return to a system where, “We own the mansion and government is the cabana boy.”

“And what does a good master do when a cabana boy doesn’t know his place?” Nerenz, a Llibertarian running against Dem U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin of Madison, asked the crowd. “That’s right. He fires him. … We should sack the whole mess of them and start over.”

There was a general feeling of anger and frustration running through the speakers. Nerenz declared, “We are not the party of no. We are the party of hell no.”

Though the rally didn’t promote formal partisan ties, Republican candidates were prominently featured.

Republican Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, who is facing re-election this fall, highlighted efforts to “protect liberties” in his first term, enforcing “the rule of law not just against individuals, but against the government itself.”

Van Hollen ripped President Obama for criticizing the U.S. Supreme Court, saying that Obama is not providing “the sort of leadership we need in this country.”

“The sort of leadership we need is the sort of leadership that we are providing to make sure we will take unprecedented steps to protect your Second Amendment constitutional rights,” Van Hollen said.

He also highlighted his work to defend “traditional marriage,” prosecuting voter fraud, and enforcing immigration laws.

“We have taken over 360 criminal illegal aliens off the street and deported them to their countries of origin,” Van Hollen said.

“We need to preserve America for Americans,” Van Hollen said.

Among the Republicans politicking at the rally were U.S. Senate candidate Terrence Wall and congressional candidate Sean Duffy, who introduced speakers. Other Republicans in attendance included David Westlake and Dan Mielke, Wall’s and Duffy’s respective primary opponents, gubernatorial candidate Scott Walker and lieutenant governor candidate Rebecca Kleefisch. About a dozen GOP candidates had information booths set up outside the meeting hall.

Conservative state Supreme Court Justices Michael Gableman and David Prosser, a former GOP state lawmaker, also attended.

Prosser, who’s up for re-election next year, said the judiciary is under attack in the state from outside influences “spearheaded by ideologues who like activist judges who legislate from the bench.”

Referring to the two most recent state Supreme Court contests, which were won by Gableman and another conservative, Annette Ziegler, Prosser said those interests “are attempting to nullify two recent (Supreme Court) elections by harassing, defaming and intimidating the winners and trying to force their withdrawal from key cases.”

Further, he said, “They’re attempting to gum up future elections with requirements and restrictions that will make it impossible for a candidate to control his or her own campaign.”

Liberal group One Wisconsin Now mocked the proceedings, with OWN executive director Scot Ross saying in a statement that Wisconsin families are surely “waiting breathlessly to hear a group of Republicans offer more failed Republican policies which already collapsed our economy and cost millions their piece of the American Dream.

“Look for these partisans to call for more calls for tax cuts for the rich, more corporate deregulation, more money for the bankers and more health insurance company profits — and all of it paid for by middle class families,” Ross said.

State GOP chairman Reince Priebus made a pitch to the crowd, saying the party is “rebuilding credibility” with near unanimous votes against “PelosiCare and ObamaCare.”

He said Ryan and U.S. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner are the kind of candidates conservatives can stand behind.

“The answer is we need people of their word,” Priebus said. “We need to start governing like we campaign.”

Sensenbrenner, R-Menomonee Falls, blasted the “cap and tax” proposal and thanked the crowd for helping halt the proposal. But he said Obama “and liberals in Congress are still looking for ways to tax our energy.

“If Congress won’t act, then the EPA is threatening to enforce the tax through its bureaucracy. By expanding the definition of the Clean Air Act from its simple goal of keeping dangerous toxins out of the air, the EPA recently found the air we all exhale – carbon dioxide – is so dangerous that you must be taxed for it,” Sensenbrenner said. “So I guess the answer from Al Gore and Barack Obama is hold your nose.”

Grover Norquist, a leading national conservative voice and the head of Americans for Tax Reform, said citizens whose political leanings are to the right of center “simply want government to leave us alone.”

Norquist said his plan has a two-step process: stop any and all tax increases, and stop excessive government spending.

He didn’t let Republicans who vote for tax increases off the hook either, though he said they are a rarer breed than Democrats. He likened Republicans who raise taxes to the experience of finding the head of a rat in a nearly finished soft drink.

“Those few Republicans who do raise taxes, they’re the ratheads in a Coke bottle,” he said.

Joe Wurzelbacher, who gained fame during the 2008 presidential campaign as “Joe the Plumber,” was presented with a “Defender of the American Dream” award.

“I demand less taxes. I demand less involvement in my personal life,” Wurzelbacher said, drawing applause.

Hosted by Americans for Prosperity Foundation
Wisconsin Chapter

Co- Sponsored by the Wisconsin Prosperity Network

Friday, March 12, 2010 – Saturday, March 13, 2010
Chula Vista Resort, 2501 River Road, Wisconsin Dells, WI 53965

Hotel Reservations for Chula Vista and surrounding hotels 1-800-388-4782
Additional Hotels Rates Can Be found At www.fightbackwisconsin.com

This agenda, all events, speakers, and times subject to change
Registration at www.fightbackwisconsin.com
Member Registration $ 39.99 – Student Registration $ 24.99
Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa, Indiana and Michigan
Sponsorship Opportunities Available

Friday, March 12th
10:00 am
Pre-Registration – AFP & WPN Summit Headquarters Room
Chula Vista Resort – Laguna Vista Room – 2nd Floor
Pre-Registration Pick-Up Location
AFP & WPN Staff Office
Chula Vista Resort – Aztec Room – 2nd Floor

4:00 pm
Chula Vista Dome Opens For Vendors

5:00 – 6:30 pm
Candidate and Coalition Receptions
Note: Candidate & Coalition Receptions are NOT sponsored or funded by Americans for Prosperity Foundation, Americans for Prosperity, or Wisconsin Prosperity Network. They are sponsored by totally separate organizations or individual campaigns. Contact candidates for specific information.

7:30 – 9:00 pm
AFPF – AFP Welcoming Reception
Sponsored by Wisconsin Prosperity Network
Chula Vista Resort – Conference Center Ballroom

Mix and mingle with speakers, leaders, and staff members.

Saturday, March 13th

8:00 am
Shuttle Service Available Between Resort and Chula Vista Dome
* Chula Vista Parking and Shuttle Fees Apply

8:00-9:30 am
REGISTRATION
Chula Vista Dome

9:30 am
OPENING CEREMONY – FREEDOM TEAM

9:40 am
SPEAKERS
Mark Block – AFPF & AFP Wisconsin State Director
Tim Phillips – President Americans for Prosperity
Tim Nerenz – The Oldenburg Group
Lord Christopher Monckton – Former Adviser to Margaret Thatcher
J.B. Van Hollen – Wisconsin Attorney General
Grover Norquist – Americans for Tax Reform
Phil Kerpen – National Policy Director, Americans for Prosperity
Paul Driessen, APR, Esq.
Eric O’Keefe – CEO, Sam Adams Alliance
Linda Hansen – Wisconsin Prosperity Network and Prosperity 101™
Steve Moore – Wall Street Journal Debra Waller – Chairman of the Board & CEO, Jockey International
James Sensenbrenner, Member of Congress
Niger Innis, Congress of Racial Equality (CORE)
John Fund, Wall Street Journal
Bucky to the Rescue – Dr. Chris Magiera Dr. David Gratzer – Author, The Cure
David Prosser – WI Supreme Court Justice
Herman Cain – Author, Radio Talk Show Host

11:30 am
Defender of the American Dream Awards
Presented by State Representative Leah Vukmir & Pat Synder, WSAU Radio
National Award: Joe the Plumber (Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher)
State Award: State Representative Bill Kramer
Media Award: Patrick McIlheran, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
AFP-WI Volunteer of the Year: Jim Zeiler

12:00 Noon
Lunch Served in the Chula Vista Dome – Tickets Required Note: All pre-registered attendees will be guaranteed lunch. Lunch tickets are not guaranteed to same-day registrants but will be provided on a first-come, first serve basis.

12:30-1:15pm
Lunch Program
Vicki McKenna, WISN Radio, WIBA Radio
Keynote Speaker, Michael Reagan

Shuttle Service Provided to Chula Vista Resort for Afternoon Sessions

1:45 – 3:00 pm
Session 1

Break Out 1-A
RightOnLine – New Media
Chula Vista Dome

Learn how to maximize your effectiveness by harnessing the power of the internet. Study best-practices, learn new tools and techniques, understand social media networking, and learn to use technology safely and effectively.

Erik Telford, Executive Director, RightOnline
J.J. Blonien, Editor, AFP-Weekly Reader
Curt Mercadante, Merc Strategy Group

Break Out 1-B
Global Warming – Climate Change – Economic Suicide
Chula Vista Club House

Learn facts about climate change, global warming, “green jobs”, and corresponding legislative proposals. Study the economic impact of proposed federal and state legislation and how it would affect you and your family.

Phil Kerpen, AFP National Policy Director
James Sensenbrenner, Member of Congress
Lord Christopher Monckton
Paul Driessen, APR, Esq.
Niger Innis, Congress of Racial Equality (CORE)
State Representative Jim Ott

Break Out 1-C
Hands Off My Health Care!

Hear from medical experts about the effects of proposed health care legislation. Find out what you can do to maintain your health care freedoms.

Dr. David Gratzer
Dr. Pam Galloway
Dr. Chris Magiera
Dr. Joshua Block

Break Out 1-D
It’s Your Vote …Protect It!

Voter Fraud. It is real. It is rampant. It is a problem in Wisconsin. Study the facts and learn how to protect your vote and safeguard our democracy.

Ardis Cerny, Co-Chair, The We’re Watching Committee
Mary Ann Hanson, Co-Chair, The We’re Watching Committee
Ginny Graham, Annette Kuglitsch, Debbie Moran
John Fund, Wall Street Journal, Author of Stealing Elections, How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy

Break Out 1-E
Prosperity 101™ – Voter Education

Prosperity 101™ Job Security through Business Prosperity, is an innovative new approach to voter education and mobilization. Learn how to impact your workplace and your schools with foundational truths about our economy. Become informed, involved, and impactful to protect YOUR prosperity.

Linda Hansen, Wisconsin Prosperity Network and Prosperity 101™
Steve Moore, Wall Street Journal
Herman Cain, The New Voice
Panel of Business Leaders

Break Out 1-F
Media Relations 101

Learn best practices for dealing with the press and how to maximize your effectiveness in various media markets.
Panelists with share the Do’s and Don’ts of Media Relations to help your voice have impact.

Mary Ellen Burke, AFP, National State Communications Manager
Vicki McKenna, WISN Radio, WIBA Radio
Patrick McIlheran, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Pat Synder, WSAU Radio
Bob Delaporte, Wildwood Communications

Break Out 1-G
Property Rights and Coordination

Our Founding Fathers guaranteed our right to own property, but the right is in jeopardy. Hear from experts in the field, study proposals regarding land use, and learn to protect your right to private property.

Fred Kelly Grant, Stewards of the Range
Don Parmeter, American Environmental Institute
Jay Verhulst, Foundation for Common Sense

Break Out 1-H
Legal Implications for Organizations

What are legal rules for activists and organizations seeking to impact public policy? Learn how to protect yourself and your organization by attending this important session.

John Flynn, Americans for Prosperity, Legal Counsel
Mike Dean, First Freedoms Foundation, Legal Counsel
James Troupis, Attorney, Michael Best & Friedrich

Break Out 1-I
Dude -Who Stole My Wallet?

Specifically designed for College and High School students, this session will cover basic economic principles in a unique way. If you are a 15-25 year old, or if you work with young people, this session is for you.

Walter Nocito

3:45 – 5:00 pm

Session 2

Break Out 2-A
Net Neutrality

Government take-over of the internet? Learn the stark realities of such proposals and how you can protect your First Amendment rights and the right to freely access information and technology.

Phil Kerpen, Americans for Prosperity, Vice-President & Policy Analyst

Break Out 2-B
Taxpayer Tea Parties – Health Care Constitutional Amendment

Who are Tea Party activists and how are they impacting our state and our nation? Meet the “people-next- door” who have helped to revolutionize the political debate in Wisconsin. Learn how to be involved to protect YOUR freedoms!

Jim Zeiler, AFP Wisconsin
Oriannah Paul, Sheboygan Tea Party
Tim Dake, Grandsons of Liberty
Meg Ellefson, Wausau Tea Party
Scott Sidney, AFP Wisconsin

Break Out 2-C
Countering Alinsky’s Rules

Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals hit the nation and began a tidal wave of liberal activism. Study the impact and reach of the center-left movement and learn how you can counteract it by becoming aware and involved to create a tidal wave of conservative activism.

Vicki McKenna, WISN Radio, WIBA Radio
Brian Schimming, WIBA Radio
Maggie Delaporte, Women Patriots of Wisconsin
Jolene Churchill, Women Patriots of Wisconsin

Break Out 2-D
Fair Taxation for States
Understand fair and unfair taxation for states and how it affects you every day.M. Kevin McLaughlin, Iowans for Discounted Taxes
Brett Healy, President, The John K. MacIver Institute for Public Policy

Break Out 2-E
Transparency & Government Accountability

Transparency in government is not unattainable. Voter watchfulness, voter education, and voter involvement will stem the tide of government waste and corruption. Learn how you can promote transparency in government.

Sheila Weinberg, The Institute for Truth in Accounting
Dan Burton, Community Organizer
State Representative Bill Kramer

Break Out 2-F
Activist and Candidate Training

Are you a fiscal conservative considering a run for School Board, City Council, County Board or even the State Assembly or Senate? Attend this session to learn valuable first steps and critical information about legal issues, campaign organization, and more. This is a must for potential candidates!

Lonny Leitner, American Majority

Break Out 2-G
Executive Briefing – Wisconsin Prosperity Network and Prosperity 101™
Chula Vista Resort – Upper Dells Ballroom

Open to Prosperity Warriors and Prosperity Club Members

Linda Hansen, Wisconsin Prosperity Network & Prosperity 101™
Steve Moore, Wall Street Journal
Herman Cain, The New Voice
John Fund, The Wall Street Journal
Grover Norquist, Americans for Tax Reform
Michael Reagan, RadioTalk Show Host and son of President Ronald Reagan
Wisconsin Business Leaders:
Tom Schuette, Wausua Homes
Steve Loehr, Kwik Trip
Dr. Tim Nerenz, Oldenburg Group, Inc.
Steven Fettig, Tankcraft & Plasticraft Corp.
Gerardo (Jerry) Gonzalez , Gonzalez Saggio & Harlan, LLP

5:00 pm
Official Summit Activities Conclude
Shuttle Service Will Be Provided to Chula Vista Dome Closing Session

5:30 – 7:00 pm
Reception – Sponsored and Hosted by Wisconsin Center for Economic Prosperity
Chula Vista Dome

Meet and mingle with candidates from across the state. Reception is fully sponsored and hosted by Wisconsin Center for Economic Prosperity.

Co-Hosts: Rob Kieckhefer and Jason Kohout
For Information visit: www.wcep.org

Notice of this reception is provided for information only. The reception and corresponding activities are not sponsored or hosted by Americans for Prosperity Foundation, Americans for Prosperity, or the Wisconsin Prosperity Network.

7:00 – 9:00 pm
Dinner On Your Own

9:00 pm – 1:00 pm
Mark (Block) & Mike (Kaminski) After the Tea Party – Party
Chula Vista Convention Center

Live Music – Cash Bar. Mix and mingle with others and relax in the beauty of the Chula Vista Resort.

Note:
Summit attendees are invited to join Lord Monckton and the Republican Party of Sauk County (RPSC) for dinner (cocktails at 6; dinner at 7) at the Kalahari Resort. AFP attendees will receive the special membership rate of $35. Pre-register by emailing chair@saukgop.org with your names and tickets requested. Pick them up at the RPSC booth.
This invitation is provided for information only. The RPSC Dinner and corresponding activities are not sponsored or hosted by Americans for Prosperity Foundation, Americans for Prosperity, or the Wisconsin Prosperity Network.