This doesn't really say it in plain english, but yes, this is conditioning us to get used to the fact that we shouldn't pay so much to keep our elderly alive. In conjunction with Obamacare....well you get the idea.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/215291
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Absolutely Astounding Eugenics Flyer from early 1900s
http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/image_header.pl?id=488&printable=1&detailed=0
This was a government meeting! I read it really closely and it's sickening the way they wish to "breed" us to get rid of what they decide is the weaker species of man.
This was a government meeting! I read it really closely and it's sickening the way they wish to "breed" us to get rid of what they decide is the weaker species of man.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Quarantine for flu (swine flu)
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dq/nprm/docs/42CFR70_71.pdf
This will lay out the regulations set by government on how they will handle pandemic (WHO declared level 6 pandemic for swine flu earlier this year). Search term "250,000" and it will give you several hits of what the punishment will be should you violate quarantine rules for diseases declared by the President. The declaration of the president is here:
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/pdf/05-6907.pdf
mark my words :)
This will lay out the regulations set by government on how they will handle pandemic (WHO declared level 6 pandemic for swine flu earlier this year). Search term "250,000" and it will give you several hits of what the punishment will be should you violate quarantine rules for diseases declared by the President. The declaration of the president is here:
http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/pdf/05-6907.pdf
mark my words :)
Monday, August 17, 2009
Straight from the horses' mouths
http://www.cnsnews.com/Public/Content/Article.aspx?rsrcid=50895
House Democrats Will Seek Massive $540 Billion Tax Increase—Announcement Came Late Friday Afternoon
Saturday, July 11, 2009
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief
House Ways and Means Chairman Charles B. Rangel (D.-N.Y.) (Congressional photo)
(CNSNews.com) - Despite a still-lagging U.S. economy and rising unemployment rate, House Democrats announced late yesterday that they will seek a massive increase in federal income taxes to help pay for the national health-care reform proposal that President Obama is urging Congress to enact this summer.
House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (D.-N.Y.)revealed late Friday afternoon that House Democrats will seek to increase income taxes by $540 billion.
The move, which had been discussed earlier in the week by House Democrats, broke in an Associated Press story that was published at 4:14 PM Eastern Daylight time on Friday afternoon (or 8:14 PM Greenwich Mean Time).
.
“Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel of New York said the tax would raise $540 billion over 10 years” the initial AP story reported.
Releasing news late on a Friday afternoon is a traditional public relations tactic used by politicians seeking to limit the news coverage of an item they nonetheless need to release.
Subsequent AP stories and a report in the Washington Post cited Democratic sources as saying that the massive new tax increase would come in the form of a “surtax” on people filing taxes in the upper brackets of the income tax code.
The upper tax brackets are already set to increase after next year when the income-tax cuts signed into law by President Bush in 2001 expire. President Obama and the Obama Treasury Department have indicated they intend to let those tax cuts expire for the upper two income brackets—meaning any individual or small business earning more than $200,000.
The “surtax” the House Democrats are planning now would further increase the income tax rate for people and small businesses paying taxes in the top brackets.
“Rangel didn't describe details, but one official said the surtax would apply to individuals with adjusted gross incomes over $280,000 a year, and couples over $350,000,” the AP reported. “A senior House aide said the surtax would be 1 percent for the first group of high earners, those households making $350,000 or more. The levels for the other two groups, those above $500,000 and $1 million in annual income are still being determined, said the aide.”
On Saturday morning, the Washington Post published a report on its Web site about the planned tax increase, under the headline—“Democrats Agree on Tax Hike to Fund Health Care.”
“Beginning in 2011, the plan would target all income over $350,000 a year for families and $280,000 a year for individuals, Democratic sources said,” the Post reported. “The surtax would start at 1 percent, rise to around 1.5 percent for families earning more than $500,000, then step up again, to around 3 percent, for families earning more than $1 million, Democrats said.”
The Post did note that this tax increase would come on top of tax increases that the Democrats were already planning by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire.
“The top federal tax rate currently stands at 35 percent, but Democrats have vowed to raise it to 39.6 percent next year, when cuts enacted during the Bush administration expire,” reported the Post. “Combined with other federal tax adjustments, the surtax could leave most taxpayers with annual incomes more than $350,000 facing top federal rates of at least 45 percent, said Robert Carroll, a senior fellow at the nonprofit Tax Foundation.”
The New York Times also posted a piece on the proposed tax increase on its Web site.
“An aide to the House speaker, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, said she and other leaders were supportive of the idea, which they concluded would be their main way to pay for Mr. Obama’s top policy priority: expanding health insurance coverage to virtually all Americans and curtailing the steep rise in the cost of medical care while improving patient outcomes,” reported the Times.
The Times also observed that the planned tax hike was a sign of the sort of “mandate” Democrats believed they won in last November’s election.
“With the economy still hobbled and Republicans already sharpening their tax-and-spend attack line, the proposal is perhaps the clearest expression yet of the mandate that Democrats believe they won last November, when voters expanded Democratic majorities in Congress and sent Barack Obama to the White House,” said the Times.
In 2001, President Bush signed tax reform legislation that cut income tax rates across the board. People who were then paying a 15% federal income tax rate had their rate cut to 10%. The higher income tax rates of 39.6%, 36%, 31%, and 28% were cut to 35%, 33%, 28% and 25%.
President Obama’s Treasury Department has indicated that the administration will seek to increase the current 33% rate to 36% and the current 35% rate to 39.6%.
Under Obama’s tax-increase plan, individuals making $200,000 or more would be subject to the new 36% rate. The income “surtax” House Democrats now plan would come on top of Obama’s tax increases.
House Democrats Will Seek Massive $540 Billion Tax Increase—Announcement Came Late Friday Afternoon
Saturday, July 11, 2009
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief
House Ways and Means Chairman Charles B. Rangel (D.-N.Y.) (Congressional photo)
(CNSNews.com) - Despite a still-lagging U.S. economy and rising unemployment rate, House Democrats announced late yesterday that they will seek a massive increase in federal income taxes to help pay for the national health-care reform proposal that President Obama is urging Congress to enact this summer.
House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel (D.-N.Y.)revealed late Friday afternoon that House Democrats will seek to increase income taxes by $540 billion.
The move, which had been discussed earlier in the week by House Democrats, broke in an Associated Press story that was published at 4:14 PM Eastern Daylight time on Friday afternoon (or 8:14 PM Greenwich Mean Time).
.
“Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel of New York said the tax would raise $540 billion over 10 years” the initial AP story reported.
Releasing news late on a Friday afternoon is a traditional public relations tactic used by politicians seeking to limit the news coverage of an item they nonetheless need to release.
Subsequent AP stories and a report in the Washington Post cited Democratic sources as saying that the massive new tax increase would come in the form of a “surtax” on people filing taxes in the upper brackets of the income tax code.
The upper tax brackets are already set to increase after next year when the income-tax cuts signed into law by President Bush in 2001 expire. President Obama and the Obama Treasury Department have indicated they intend to let those tax cuts expire for the upper two income brackets—meaning any individual or small business earning more than $200,000.
The “surtax” the House Democrats are planning now would further increase the income tax rate for people and small businesses paying taxes in the top brackets.
“Rangel didn't describe details, but one official said the surtax would apply to individuals with adjusted gross incomes over $280,000 a year, and couples over $350,000,” the AP reported. “A senior House aide said the surtax would be 1 percent for the first group of high earners, those households making $350,000 or more. The levels for the other two groups, those above $500,000 and $1 million in annual income are still being determined, said the aide.”
On Saturday morning, the Washington Post published a report on its Web site about the planned tax increase, under the headline—“Democrats Agree on Tax Hike to Fund Health Care.”
“Beginning in 2011, the plan would target all income over $350,000 a year for families and $280,000 a year for individuals, Democratic sources said,” the Post reported. “The surtax would start at 1 percent, rise to around 1.5 percent for families earning more than $500,000, then step up again, to around 3 percent, for families earning more than $1 million, Democrats said.”
The Post did note that this tax increase would come on top of tax increases that the Democrats were already planning by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire.
“The top federal tax rate currently stands at 35 percent, but Democrats have vowed to raise it to 39.6 percent next year, when cuts enacted during the Bush administration expire,” reported the Post. “Combined with other federal tax adjustments, the surtax could leave most taxpayers with annual incomes more than $350,000 facing top federal rates of at least 45 percent, said Robert Carroll, a senior fellow at the nonprofit Tax Foundation.”
The New York Times also posted a piece on the proposed tax increase on its Web site.
“An aide to the House speaker, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, said she and other leaders were supportive of the idea, which they concluded would be their main way to pay for Mr. Obama’s top policy priority: expanding health insurance coverage to virtually all Americans and curtailing the steep rise in the cost of medical care while improving patient outcomes,” reported the Times.
The Times also observed that the planned tax hike was a sign of the sort of “mandate” Democrats believed they won in last November’s election.
“With the economy still hobbled and Republicans already sharpening their tax-and-spend attack line, the proposal is perhaps the clearest expression yet of the mandate that Democrats believe they won last November, when voters expanded Democratic majorities in Congress and sent Barack Obama to the White House,” said the Times.
In 2001, President Bush signed tax reform legislation that cut income tax rates across the board. People who were then paying a 15% federal income tax rate had their rate cut to 10%. The higher income tax rates of 39.6%, 36%, 31%, and 28% were cut to 35%, 33%, 28% and 25%.
President Obama’s Treasury Department has indicated that the administration will seek to increase the current 33% rate to 36% and the current 35% rate to 39.6%.
Under Obama’s tax-increase plan, individuals making $200,000 or more would be subject to the new 36% rate. The income “surtax” House Democrats now plan would come on top of Obama’s tax increases.
Ah yes, and they are all white men, THAT is why they oppose the bill..not because the thing is nonsense.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124865363472782519.html
President Obama may have to raise taxes to pay for public health care and the growing deficit, an eventuality that administration officials touched lightly on Sunday as they promoted an economy emerging from recession.
With an expected deficit next year of $1.8 trillion, and spending still being planned for a $1 trillion, 10-year health care reform, officials say something will have to be done to prevent further erosion of the economy.
"We will not get this economy back on track, recovery will be not strong and sustained, unless we ... can convince the American people that we're going to have the will to bring these deficits down once recovery is firmly established," Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said on ABC's "This Week."
Asked point blank whether it was right to suggest it is a matter of when, not if, taxes will be raised, Geithner responded, "It is absolutely right."
But the president's team circling the Sunday morning news shows was quick to note that there are signs the recession is easing despite a persistent decline in job losses in the past six months.
Administration officials say they hope to see positive economic growth before the end of the year, and credit the $787 billion Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed in February with preventing recession from going into depression.
The legislation -- opposed by all but three Republicans in the House and Senate -- was intended to help save or create 3 million to 4 million jobs. But since that time, the jobless rate has grown to 9.5 percent, higher than the administration predicted even without a stimulus package.
National Economic Council President Larry Summers said on CBS' "Face the Nation" that jobs are a lagging indicator and once output increases, job growth will start to pick up.
"I think we have a ways to go. I want to emphasize the basic realities. Unemployment is still very high in this country," Summers said.
He added that it's not a good idea to rule out future taxes.
"There is a lot that can happen over time. ... But what the president has been completely clear on is that he is not going to pursue any of his priorities -- not health care, not energy, nothing -- in ways that are primarily burdening middle-class families. That is something that is not going to happen," Summers said.
Rep. Mike Pence, the No. 3 Republican in the House, said the economy is recovering in spite of the stimulus plan, not because of it. He added that Americans don't want to be given an additional burden of costly health care run by the government.
While economists agree spending is required in a recession, Pence said that money would be better spent by the American people, not the federal government.
"Borrowing a trillion dollars from future generations of Americans and spreading it around the economy is going to have some catalytic effect in the economy in the short term, but again, it's no substitute for fiscal discipline in Washington, D.C.," he said. 'This piecemeal approach -- government handouts through a government bureaucracy -- is no substitute for broad-based tax relief and fiscal discipline in Washington, D.C."
As Democratic lawmakers evaluate options to provide government-run health insurance, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said tax cuts will only hit the wealthiest business owners.
"Under our statistics, 96 percent of small businesses would not be hurt by this tax. It's less than 1 percent of the wealthiest people in the United States that would be taxed, and that's at a 1 percent tax," he said.
Rangel added that it's only fair to give Americans a public option since the private insurers have made billions on coverage and then dropped those who had dire illnesses.
The president's advisers and supporters sought to measure intangibles as a way to determine the true cost of health care.
Rangel said to hear Republicans tell it, the cost of government-supplied health insurance all goes down a hole. In fact, he said, savings will be realized from people receiving treatment before their situations become grave, for example.
"They don't take the productivity in having a healthy, educated workforce. And they don't consider that America is the only industrialized country that doesn't have a national health plan," Rangel said.
The president is "insisting that we enact a set of measures that are not the kind that you can really do a bean count on and score precisely, but which we know will have effects over time, things like encouraging cost effectiveness research. So health care is the first sort of ground zero," added Summers.
Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned that even a deficit-neutral plan being touted by Democrats to fund government-run health insurance program won't be enough in the long run.
"We have to attack both the original shortfall and make sure we fund whatever new initiatives that occur in the health care area. It's not adequate to be strictly revenue-neutral, because there's a lot more to be done," he said, noting the large number of baby boomers who currently are signing onto Medicare.
Republicans and Democrats did agree on the need to extend unemployment benefits to those who are about to lose them after 26 weeks of recession.
"We did extend unemployment in a way that was hugely important in the stimulus act, and we're going to work with Congress to make sure that the unemployment insurance benefits that are necessary for the American people are maintained," Summers said.
"We need to take care of those who are unemployed, but we also need to make sure they get jobs," DeMint said
President Obama may have to raise taxes to pay for public health care and the growing deficit, an eventuality that administration officials touched lightly on Sunday as they promoted an economy emerging from recession.
With an expected deficit next year of $1.8 trillion, and spending still being planned for a $1 trillion, 10-year health care reform, officials say something will have to be done to prevent further erosion of the economy.
"We will not get this economy back on track, recovery will be not strong and sustained, unless we ... can convince the American people that we're going to have the will to bring these deficits down once recovery is firmly established," Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner said on ABC's "This Week."
Asked point blank whether it was right to suggest it is a matter of when, not if, taxes will be raised, Geithner responded, "It is absolutely right."
But the president's team circling the Sunday morning news shows was quick to note that there are signs the recession is easing despite a persistent decline in job losses in the past six months.
Administration officials say they hope to see positive economic growth before the end of the year, and credit the $787 billion Recovery and Reinvestment Act passed in February with preventing recession from going into depression.
The legislation -- opposed by all but three Republicans in the House and Senate -- was intended to help save or create 3 million to 4 million jobs. But since that time, the jobless rate has grown to 9.5 percent, higher than the administration predicted even without a stimulus package.
National Economic Council President Larry Summers said on CBS' "Face the Nation" that jobs are a lagging indicator and once output increases, job growth will start to pick up.
"I think we have a ways to go. I want to emphasize the basic realities. Unemployment is still very high in this country," Summers said.
He added that it's not a good idea to rule out future taxes.
"There is a lot that can happen over time. ... But what the president has been completely clear on is that he is not going to pursue any of his priorities -- not health care, not energy, nothing -- in ways that are primarily burdening middle-class families. That is something that is not going to happen," Summers said.
Rep. Mike Pence, the No. 3 Republican in the House, said the economy is recovering in spite of the stimulus plan, not because of it. He added that Americans don't want to be given an additional burden of costly health care run by the government.
While economists agree spending is required in a recession, Pence said that money would be better spent by the American people, not the federal government.
"Borrowing a trillion dollars from future generations of Americans and spreading it around the economy is going to have some catalytic effect in the economy in the short term, but again, it's no substitute for fiscal discipline in Washington, D.C.," he said. 'This piecemeal approach -- government handouts through a government bureaucracy -- is no substitute for broad-based tax relief and fiscal discipline in Washington, D.C."
As Democratic lawmakers evaluate options to provide government-run health insurance, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said tax cuts will only hit the wealthiest business owners.
"Under our statistics, 96 percent of small businesses would not be hurt by this tax. It's less than 1 percent of the wealthiest people in the United States that would be taxed, and that's at a 1 percent tax," he said.
Rangel added that it's only fair to give Americans a public option since the private insurers have made billions on coverage and then dropped those who had dire illnesses.
The president's advisers and supporters sought to measure intangibles as a way to determine the true cost of health care.
Rangel said to hear Republicans tell it, the cost of government-supplied health insurance all goes down a hole. In fact, he said, savings will be realized from people receiving treatment before their situations become grave, for example.
"They don't take the productivity in having a healthy, educated workforce. And they don't consider that America is the only industrialized country that doesn't have a national health plan," Rangel said.
The president is "insisting that we enact a set of measures that are not the kind that you can really do a bean count on and score precisely, but which we know will have effects over time, things like encouraging cost effectiveness research. So health care is the first sort of ground zero," added Summers.
Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan warned that even a deficit-neutral plan being touted by Democrats to fund government-run health insurance program won't be enough in the long run.
"We have to attack both the original shortfall and make sure we fund whatever new initiatives that occur in the health care area. It's not adequate to be strictly revenue-neutral, because there's a lot more to be done," he said, noting the large number of baby boomers who currently are signing onto Medicare.
Republicans and Democrats did agree on the need to extend unemployment benefits to those who are about to lose them after 26 weeks of recession.
"We did extend unemployment in a way that was hugely important in the stimulus act, and we're going to work with Congress to make sure that the unemployment insurance benefits that are necessary for the American people are maintained," Summers said.
"We need to take care of those who are unemployed, but we also need to make sure they get jobs," DeMint said
Get ready for lots of health care reform stuff.
http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/democrats_grassley/2009/08/05/244451.html
Grassley: Democrats' Want to Nationalize Healthcare
Wednesday, August 5, 2009 7:13 PM
By: Jim Meyers Article Font Size
Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley tells Newsmax that the healthcare reform plans Democrats are proposing would be a "backdoor" to a Canadian-style, single-payer plan and the nationalization of healthcare.
In an interview with Newsmax.TV's Kathleen Walter, Grassley indicated he would strenuously oppose Democratic plans advanced in the House and the Senate. The ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, he is one of three Republicans from the Committee involved in talks with Democrats on plans to overhaul the healthcare system.
See Video: Sen. Charles Grassley reveals how much damage the Democrat’s ‘public option’ could do to American medical care - Click Here Now
Though a Republican, Grassley is considered a moderate on the healthcare issue and his view may hold sway over Democratic conservatives or “Blue Dogs” who have been on the fence over whether they’ll embrace health plans that President Obama has backed.
Grassley slammed a key element of Democratic plans – the so-called “public option.” Under these plans, individuals and businesses would be allowed to join the public healthcare insurance system.
But critics contend such a system, offering cheaper health care, would eventually bankrupt private insurers.
About the public option, Grassley said his biggest worry is "the extent to which the federal government runs everything — and that would be the case with the public option."
"And I want to say how that happens. It doesn't happen just because you pass a public option. It's a backdoor to a Canadian-style, single-payer plan. And don't forget, seven out of the 13 Democrats on Senator Kennedy's [Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions] did vote for a Canadian single-payer plan."
Grassley warned that such a system would increase costs and lead to massive new taxes.
President Obama has pledged not to raise taxes on middle-class Americans.
"First of all, a very very important consideration for any tax issue that's coming up right now is, when we're in the middle of a recession, why would you want to raise any taxes?" Grassley asked. He is also a member of the Joint Committee on Taxation.
"[Democrats have] got the feeling you can raise taxes on the top one percent and solve all the problems of government. That's not real. You could confiscate, let alone tax, all the income over $250,000 that people make each year, and you couldn't run the federal government for more than three or four months. So it's idiotic to think that's a solution...
"You get the feeling that [Democrats] not only want to tax at 39.6 percent, but also add 5 percent to it for healthcare, and add on the average of 5 1/2 percent for state income tax. Pretty soon you're above 50 percent, and pretty soon you have a higher level of taxation than Sweden has."
He also rejected demands by the president and some Democrats that Congress should pass healthcare legislation quickly.
"We're not focused on getting done by a certain time. There might be other people that have that in mind. But our goal is, quite frankly, to do it right.
"And when I say do it right, it involves two things that are very essential that we always have to keep in the back of our mind.
"Number one, we're talking about some restructuring of one-sixth of the economy. That's a big thing in and of itself that Congress has never done before.
"And the other one is that when you deal with something called healthcare, you're talking about the life and death of every American. And so for those two reasons, the prime consideration has to be to get it right, as opposed to get it done by a certain time."
Grassley noted that Democrats originally stated that they wanted to pass healthcare reform before the upcoming summer recess. But he said the 4-week recess will provide an opportunity for people to discuss the healthcare proposals and tell their representatives what they think of them.
"Much of this legislation doesn't go into effect until the year 2013 because it takes a long phase-in period, so what's one more week or one more month when our goal is to get it right?" Grassley said.
"Instead, we will work to develop a nonpartisan bill that will not lead to the nationalization of health insurance, which you do through a public option."
Grassley also said he opposes Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court because she is a "judicial activist" who "believes you ought to be able to legislate from the bench," and warned that the cap-and-trade plan being pushed by Democrats would lead to the export of all manufacturing in the U.S. to China.
Grassley: Democrats' Want to Nationalize Healthcare
Wednesday, August 5, 2009 7:13 PM
By: Jim Meyers Article Font Size
Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley tells Newsmax that the healthcare reform plans Democrats are proposing would be a "backdoor" to a Canadian-style, single-payer plan and the nationalization of healthcare.
In an interview with Newsmax.TV's Kathleen Walter, Grassley indicated he would strenuously oppose Democratic plans advanced in the House and the Senate. The ranking Republican on the Finance Committee, he is one of three Republicans from the Committee involved in talks with Democrats on plans to overhaul the healthcare system.
See Video: Sen. Charles Grassley reveals how much damage the Democrat’s ‘public option’ could do to American medical care - Click Here Now
Though a Republican, Grassley is considered a moderate on the healthcare issue and his view may hold sway over Democratic conservatives or “Blue Dogs” who have been on the fence over whether they’ll embrace health plans that President Obama has backed.
Grassley slammed a key element of Democratic plans – the so-called “public option.” Under these plans, individuals and businesses would be allowed to join the public healthcare insurance system.
But critics contend such a system, offering cheaper health care, would eventually bankrupt private insurers.
About the public option, Grassley said his biggest worry is "the extent to which the federal government runs everything — and that would be the case with the public option."
"And I want to say how that happens. It doesn't happen just because you pass a public option. It's a backdoor to a Canadian-style, single-payer plan. And don't forget, seven out of the 13 Democrats on Senator Kennedy's [Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions] did vote for a Canadian single-payer plan."
Grassley warned that such a system would increase costs and lead to massive new taxes.
President Obama has pledged not to raise taxes on middle-class Americans.
"First of all, a very very important consideration for any tax issue that's coming up right now is, when we're in the middle of a recession, why would you want to raise any taxes?" Grassley asked. He is also a member of the Joint Committee on Taxation.
"[Democrats have] got the feeling you can raise taxes on the top one percent and solve all the problems of government. That's not real. You could confiscate, let alone tax, all the income over $250,000 that people make each year, and you couldn't run the federal government for more than three or four months. So it's idiotic to think that's a solution...
"You get the feeling that [Democrats] not only want to tax at 39.6 percent, but also add 5 percent to it for healthcare, and add on the average of 5 1/2 percent for state income tax. Pretty soon you're above 50 percent, and pretty soon you have a higher level of taxation than Sweden has."
He also rejected demands by the president and some Democrats that Congress should pass healthcare legislation quickly.
"We're not focused on getting done by a certain time. There might be other people that have that in mind. But our goal is, quite frankly, to do it right.
"And when I say do it right, it involves two things that are very essential that we always have to keep in the back of our mind.
"Number one, we're talking about some restructuring of one-sixth of the economy. That's a big thing in and of itself that Congress has never done before.
"And the other one is that when you deal with something called healthcare, you're talking about the life and death of every American. And so for those two reasons, the prime consideration has to be to get it right, as opposed to get it done by a certain time."
Grassley noted that Democrats originally stated that they wanted to pass healthcare reform before the upcoming summer recess. But he said the 4-week recess will provide an opportunity for people to discuss the healthcare proposals and tell their representatives what they think of them.
"Much of this legislation doesn't go into effect until the year 2013 because it takes a long phase-in period, so what's one more week or one more month when our goal is to get it right?" Grassley said.
"Instead, we will work to develop a nonpartisan bill that will not lead to the nationalization of health insurance, which you do through a public option."
Grassley also said he opposes Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court because she is a "judicial activist" who "believes you ought to be able to legislate from the bench," and warned that the cap-and-trade plan being pushed by Democrats would lead to the export of all manufacturing in the U.S. to China.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)