Showing posts with label Wall Street Journal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wall Street Journal. Show all posts

Friday, April 28, 2017

Jindal: Take ObamaCare Repeal in A New Direction

Bobby Jindal was my second choice for President, after Scott Walker.

I wanted a governor, a leader who had taken on tough challenges in a government setting and provided solutions.

Besides, Jindal has medical training, and had presented clear plans for repealing Obamacare and fixing the healthcare costs and issues still plaguing Americans.

Here's the latest eblast that I received from his campaign regarding Obamacare repeal:

I wrote an op-ed for today's Wall Street Journal on how we can move forward to repeal ObamaCare. You can read the full text here on the Wall Street Journal website.

In the op-ed, I argue “the real goal must be something larger, more inspiring and more important than merely getting to a signing ceremony.

The GOP has now tried and failed to replace ObamaCare with its own, less expensive entitlement program. Rather than simply tweaking the previous failure, why not take a completely different approach?”


FYI: they are already working on a better bill, and the Democrats are scared.




The new legislation  includes more market-based reforms to help drive down costs!

I urge Congress to start the path toward repeal by knowing where they're going — starting not with modifications to the existing failed law or concerns over Senate rules, but by defining what they want to accomplish.


Works for me. The Freedom Caucus has clearly announced that they want to drive down premium costs. Currently, the premiums are so high that for many prospective clients, there is not point in purchasing the insurance. In fact, it's cheaper to risk paying the fine!

I argue that should prioritize lowering costs. ObamaCare prioritized increasing coverage, and it resulted in higher costs and lower quality. We've seen dramatic premium increases, and implementing ObamaCare has driven the country further into debt.


How about just repealing the whole thing?

That's not complicated.

As I urged Congress in the WSJ op-ed: “Focusing on lowering costs is the way to increase coverage in a meaningful and sustainable way.”

Thursday, January 26, 2017

Dope GOPe Tillis Still Pushing Amnesty. Why?

Thom Tillis was just elected to the United States Senate in 2014.

It was an epic year for Republicans across the country, even in California, where the epic low turnout worked in our favor, and brought four Republicans into the state assembly.

Thom Tillis had served as the Speaker of the North Carolina State House. He faced a pretty tough battle to win, even though North Carolina has traditionally been a red state, or at least a conservative one. Now the Tar Heel State has appeared more recently as a battleground.

Trump made numerous visits there. The previous governor, Pat McCrory, had served as the mayor of the urban Charlotte. He also tried to stay away from the contentious cultural issues. He voted legislation which would allow judges the freedom of conscience not to officiate a same-sex wedding. The supermajority Republican legislature overrode his veto.



When it came to protecting women and children, and not accommodating the transgender insanity in public bathrooms and restrooms, McCrory chose to sign.

The whole point about bringing this information is to show how North Carolina is turning into the contentious battleground for all issues. Illegal immigration has featured prominently in this state, but at least McCrory signed off on legislation banning sanctuary cities in North Carolina.

It seems like Tillis needs to read that memo.

Check out what he released on his US Senate page today:

A Republican senator is trying to break years of congressional gridlock over immigration with a new plan that would pair changes sought by Democrats with those pushed by his own party.

At a time when President Donald Trump’s promise to build a wall along the southern border is dominating the immigration discussion, Sen. Thom Tillis (R., N.C.) has been talking with a handful of Democrats and Republicans to build support for a broader overhaul. His plan would aim to tighten border security and toughen enforcement of immigration laws—goals often cited by Republicans—while addressing the fate of the roughly 11 million immigrants currently in the U.S. illegally, a Democratic priority.

For Democrats, “this may be one issue where they’re as tired as I am of seeing the parades and not getting to the game,” said Mr. Tillis, who was elected to the Senate in 2014, after the last big Senate immigration debate.

The basic elements of immigration legislation have been known for many years, but the parties haven’t been able to agree on how to enact legislation. Democrats and some Senate Republicans have favored comprehensive legislation that incorporates a wide range of ideas, each appealing to different constituencies. House Republicans have wanted to pass enforcement legislation first and then, at some point in the future, overhaul the legal immigration system and then deal with the people in the U.S. illegally.

What is different about the Tillis approach is that it tackles the issue incrementally—but at every step gives each party something that it wants.

Tillis insists on trying to pass something that will get votes from Democrats.

Don't these people understand that Democratic party leaders and elected officials want amnesty because they want the votes. Even Chris Matthews gets that. Once in a while, the MSNBC screwball speaks some truth, especially about the needs and concerns of working class people in the United States.

Illegal immigration hurts Middle America. Even STEM students and professionals should worry about illegal immigration, since more imported workers--legally or illegally--or cutting into their wages and cutting them out of jobs.

What is going on with this guy and others like him? Why are they so determined to pass some kind of amnesty?

Mr. Tillis is in the early stages of developing his framework, and it isn’t yet clear how much support it would garner from either side of the aisle. It also is unclear whether the White House would go along, as Mr. Trump ran for office with a hard-line message of tougher enforcement and protection for American workers. Previous efforts to enact sweeping immigration changes with bipartisan support have fizzled, most recently in 2013.

The 2013 program fizzled in large part because they were based on false premises. More on that later.

Donald Trump ran on a program, a platform of enforcement. We don't need more misplaced compassion in this country. We had a grand amnesty in 1986. We got shot in the foot, stabbed in the back by the DC two-step. No more.

This "framework" that Tillis is poring over. He might as well scrap the whole program. There are more conservative Republican lawmakers, at least five.

Not only that, but the Democratic Party caucus, which failed to secure the Senate Majority when they had the chance, has now tilted even more to the left. They are not interested in compromise. They want amnesty for 11 million illegal aliens. What will it take for Republicans to develop

Mr. Tillis would enact a comprehensive overhaul of immigration law in increments—but at every step giving each party something it wants. He said his plan is aimed at jump-starting discussions over the order in which to introduce changes to immigration policy so that proponents could secure the 60 votes most bills need to clear the Senate, where Republicans hold a 52-48 majority.

Once again, who cares what the Democratic Party wants? Or even what the Republican Party wants?

We the People are crying out for enforcement. It could not be more simple than that. This country has an enforcement problem, because the previous President has routinely ignored the rule of law and preferred illegal aliens over the needs of the citizens.

For instance, the first steps under Mr. Tillis’s proposal would tighten border security and deport any illegal immigrants engaged in criminal activities, while also providing some temporary legal status for people brought to the country illegally at a young age by their parents.

NO! Nothing about this legal status nonsense. No!

Once those two elements were in place, lawmakers could strengthen the enforcement of immigration laws through programs such as e-Verify, an online system companies use to check whether applicants are in the country legally. At the same time, lawmakers could address how to deal with the adult members of the illegal immigrant population.

At a later stage, lawmakers could focus on preventing people from overstaying their visa limits while overhauling some popular work-visa programs, including those for high-skilled foreign workers and low-skilled seasonal workers.

Why are US Senators obsessed with this incrementalism?

The argument from Republican lawmakers at this time is that they need Democratic votes to pass key legislation. True. But that should not be a carte blanche invitation to capitulate to Democratic demands on key concerns.

How about putting more pressure on the red state Democrats, of which there are at least 5.



Those US Senators are going to have to do everything in their power to stay in the good graces of the conservative base from which they were elected. Let's not forget that in 2012, when they were elected or re-elected, the Democratic turnout overshadowed the Republican turnout in large part because Romney was not a stellar candidate.

Republicans keep wanting to "work with" Democrats by embracing  some of their talking points. Their first point of departure needs to focus on doing what is best for the country.

Tillis and his fellow GOP-Establishment leaning colleagues don't want to fight. They want to go along with the flow and  make nice. They don't seem to understand that on key issues like immigration,, there is no middle ground anymore. We need border security and enforcement, and these issues should not rest on pitiful compromise.

It's time for heated pressure against the very Democrats who claim that they care about everyone. If Democrats continue to be exposed as the obstructions, they can prepare for a very bad 2018, where they lose as many as 10 more US Senate seats.

Contact US Senator Thom Tillis, and tell him:

No amnesty!

Enforce our laws.

Build the wall!

Secure the borders!

Washington, D.C.

185 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-6342
Fax: (202) 228-2563

Charlotte

9300 Harris Corners Pkwy
Suite 170
Charlotte, NC 28269
Phone: 704-509-9087
Fax: 704-509-9162

Greenville

1694 E. Arlington Blvd.
Suite B
Greenville, NC 27858
Phone: (252) 329-0371
Fax: (252) 329-0290

Hendersonville

1 Historic Courthouse Square
Suite 112
Hendersonville, NC 28792
Phone: (828) 693-8750
Fax: (828) 693-9724

High Point

1840 Eastchester Dr.
Suite 200
High Point, NC 27265
Phone: (336) 885-0685
Fax: (336) 885-0692

Raleigh

310 New Bern Avenue
Suite 122
Raleigh, NC 27601
Phone: (919) 856-4630
Fax: (919) 856-4053

Saturday, October 22, 2016

WSJ Features Left-Right Victory, Led by Assemblyman David Hadley (R-Torrance)

The Wall Street Journal featured California Republican Assemblyman David Hadley (R-Torrance).

No one can make this stuff up.

For a Republican in California, who inhabits the minority party barely bouncing back from a record number of failures at the state and local level, to get featured in an internationally respected newspaper like The Wall Street Journal is a true accomplishment!



A rare coalition comes together to limit civil forfeiture.

Americans on the right and left don’t agree on much these days, but they can unite in reining in government abuse of civil forfeiture. An example is California’s new law that closes a loophole that allowed police to seize property without adequate due process.

Gov. Jerry Brown last week signed a bill to require a criminal conviction before forfeiture proceeds can be sent to state law enforcement. Since 1994, California law has required a criminal conviction for forfeitures under $25,000. That’s better than many other states, but local police began to use federal law as a way to dodge the state restrictions. California police would file state charges against a target, but then outsource the forfeiture to the federal government.

This ducked the state criminal conviction requirement and increased the cash haul from forfeiture. The feds have a process known as “equitable sharing” that divides forfeiture proceeds with local police. California cops were getting about 80% of federal forfeiture proceeds, compared with 66.25% if they kept the actions local.

Can you imagine the forum shopping that has been sweeping throughout the United States, specifically in California?

David Hadley defending SB 443
Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform


This is unconscionably. The Fourth Amendment has to mean something!

According to the Institute for Justice, whose reports on “policing for profit” galvanized political reaction against forfeiture abuse, from 2000 to 2013 the Justice Department kicked back some $696 million in forfeiture money to state and local law enforcement. The new California law closes the federal loophole and will protect those who can’t afford to fight unjust forfeiture. The new law also raises the threshold for forfeiture to $40,000 from $25,000. According to the Drug Policy Alliance, 94% of California forfeitures in 1992 were $5,000 or less, and it had barely increased in real dollars by 2013.

I had not learned about the closure of the federal loophole before. So glad that that has been removed.

The reform was the product of a rare left-right coalition led by Democratic state senator Holly Mitchell and Republican assembly member David Hadley. Prosecutors have used civil forfeiture to prop up state and municipal budgets, but it has become a racket that exploits those least able to defend themselves. More states should follow California’s lead.

Wow!

More legislators should follow David Hadley's lead!

Let's clarify a few things, though.

First of all, there was no way that "Black Lives Matter" Holly Mitchell was going to get that bill passed through the state assembly. Her hard-edged opposition to police in particular and authority in general left a bad taste in many assemblymembers' mouths.

In 2015, Mitchell tried to pass a similar bill, and it died. Only four Republicans voted for it, including Hadley.

The Republican assemblyman took a stronger lead to work with lawmakers from both sides of the aisle, and the second time they managed to pass it with overwhelming support.

Mitchell could not cobble together the necessary compromise.

Hadley did!