Garden State Patriot

The current debate over health care is, along with the economy, one of the two most important domestic issues facing Americans right now.

While Obamacare hangs in the balance, the potential exists that the fight over government-run healthcare may turn to the states. And as we’ve seen on many other issues, New Jersey tends to be a laboratory for radical, liberal experimentation. If Obamacare fails, our state certainly will become a battleground for future health care debates.

As such, it’s important that Governor Christie appoints the right people to departments like Health & Senior Services, Human Services and Children and Families.

Americans for Prosperity, of course, has led the fight against the Democrats’ health care legislation. Aside from the Tea Party groups, in my opinion there is no other organization that has done more to fight back against the prospect of government-run health care.

In anticipation of the health care fight coming to the states, Americans for Prosperity decided to reach out to Governor Christie’s appointments to the aforementioned departments and find out their views on health care policy. These nominees include:

• Jennifer Velez, Human Services (Corzine holdover)
• Poonam Alaigh, Health & Senior Services
• Janet Rosenzweig, Children & Families

AFP developed a thorough 13-question survey addressing a range of critical health care issues. The survey was delivered to each nominee with a request to be returned within a reasonable amount of time before their hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Disappointingly, after several weeks and multiple requests, including reaching out to the governor’s office, none of these nominees has responded to our survey.

The governor, who has promised an open and transparent administration, has three potential cabinet members who have failed to live up to these principles.

New Jersey citizens now have to wonder if these Christie appointments favor the Democrats’ legislation that would move us toward more government control and less health care choice and freedom. We are left to wonder if they are Obamcare supporters or not.

Two of these nominees, Velez and Rosenzweig, will have confirmation hearings on Monday morning. If you believe like I do that these nominees owe it to us to answer these 13 simple questions and be open with the public about their views, then call the governor’s office and the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and tell them you want these questions posed to each nominee so the people of New Jersey know where they stand on one of the most critical and personal issues of the day.

Governor’s office: 609-292-6000

Senate Judiciary Members

Scutari, Nicholas P. - Chair    908-587-0404
Girgenti, John A. - Vice-Chair    (973) 427-1229 
Bateman, Christopher     (908) 526-3600 
Beck, Jennifer     (732) 933-1591
Cardinale, Gerald   (201) 567-2324
Gill, Nia H.    (973) 509-0388
Kyrillos, Joseph M.    (732) 671-3206
Lesniak, Raymond J.   (908) 624-0880
O’Toole, Kevin J.    (973) 237-1360
Sarlo, Paul A.    (201) 804-8118
Smith, Bob    (732) 752-0770
Stack, Brian P.   (201) 861-5091 or (201) 558-7926
Weinberg, Loretta   (201) 928-0100

Mike Proto is the Communications Director for Americans for Prosperity, NJ

While Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts was huge, I think it’s important for those of us in the conservative movement not to misread it or to allow it to make us complacent.

Brown’s election was, no doubt, an outright repudiation of everything going on in Washington right now. Certainly, Martha Coakley’s missteps helped, but if you listened to Massachusetts voters they were disgusted by the conduct of the Democrats in DC, opposed to one-party rule, and mostly against the healthcare bill.

For conservatives, this is heartening. But we shouldn’t overstate the meaning of Brown’s victory when it comes to winning on issues.

There are a number of other issues the Democrats are focusing on that are also very destructive. Cap & Trade is foremost in my mind. So are the banking regulations Obama is now pushing. Both of these, if enacted, will do untold damage to our nation’s economy. And then there’s the potential for an amnesty bill as well.

If, by chance, health care finds its way back to the Senate and another 60 vote margin is needed, Republicans can count on Scott Brown’s vote to filibuster the bill.

But the same can’t be said for Cap & Trade, bills that *reform* Wall Street or any other crazy piece of legislation the Democrats try.

Why?

Because there are still at least a few Republican senators that we cannot trust. You know their names: Collins, Snowe and, yes, McCain and Graham. Heck, it wasn’t that long ago that “Goober” Graham partnered up with John Kerry on gloabal warming in a New York Times piece.

As for health care, the Democrats are hardly giving up on it. According to Dick Morris, Reid and Pelosi are scheming to pass the bill.

Here’s what I learned top Democrats are planning to implement.

Senate Democrats will go to the House with a two-part deal.

First, the House will pass the Senate’s Obamacare bill that passed the Senate in December. The House leadership will vote on the Senate bill, and Pelosi will allow no amendments or modifications to the Senate bill.

How will Pelosi’s deal fly with rambunctious liberal members of her majority who don’t like the Senate bill, especially its failure to include a public option, put heavy fines on those who don’t get insurance, and offering no income tax surcharge on the “rich”?

That’s where the second part of the Pelosi-deal comes in.

Behind closed doors, Reid and Pelosi have agreed in principle that changes to the Senate bill will be made to satisfy liberal House members — but only after the Senate bill is passed and signed into law by Obama.

This deal will be secured by a pledge from Reid and the Senate’s Democratic caucus that they will make “fixes” to the Senate bill after it becomes law with Obama’s John Hancock

You can read Morris’ piece in its entirety here. And he tells you which Congressmen.women to target here.

If this doesn’t make it clear, though, nothing will. The far left radicals in Congress, led by Reid and Pelosi, aren’t just going to give up now. We still have work to do to defeat health care. And we must continue to put the pressure on Republican lawmakers when these other bad bills come up.

Again, this is no time for complacency. We must continue to fight hard all the way until November – just as hard if not more so than we have up til this point.

Cross-posted at CMNJ.

According to GOP lawyers, no matter what happens on Tuesday, Massachusetts interim senator Paul Kirk can’t vote after Tuesday’s special election. Here is the story from The Weekly Standard. (h/t Gateway Pundit)

Appointed Senator Paul Kirk will lose his vote in the Senate after Tuesday’s election in Massachusetts of a new senator and cannot be the 60th vote for Democratic health care legislation, according to Republican attorneys.

Kirk has vowed to vote for the Democratic bill even if Republican Scott Brown is elected but not yet certified by state officials and officially seated in the Senate.  Kirk’s vote is crucial because without the 60 votes necessary to stop a Republican filibuster, the bill will be defeated.

This would be a devastating loss for President Obama and congressional Democrats.  The bill, dubbed ObamaCare, is the centerpiece of the president’s agenda.  Brown has campaigned on becoming the 41st vote against ObamaCare.

But in the days after the election, it is Kirk’s status that matters, not Brown’s.  Massachusetts law says that an appointed senator remains in office “until election and qualification of the person duly elected to fill the vacancy.”  The vacancy occurred when Senator Edward Kennedy died in August.  Kirk was picked as interim senator by Governor Deval Patrick.

Democrats in Massachusetts have talked about delaying Brown’s “certification,” should he defeat Democrat Martha Coakley on Tuesday.  Their aim would be to allow Kirk to remain in the Senate and vote the health care bill.

But based on Massachusetts law, Senate precedent, and the U.S. Constitution, Republican attorneys said Kirk will no longer be a senator after election day, period.  Brown meets the age, citizenship, and residency requirements in the Constitution to qualify for the Senate.  “Qualification” does not require state “certification,” the lawyers said.

An appointed senator’s right to vote is not dependent on whether his successor has been certified, the lawyers said.  In Massachusetts, the election of a senator must be certified by the governor, the governor’s council, and the secretary of state – all of them Democrats.

If Brown wins narrowly and a recount is being conducted, Democratic lawyers might claim that he hasn’t been “duly elected.”  Republican attorneys believe, however, that a candidate has actually been elected, though it won’t be clear who that is until the recount is completed. In Massachusetts, a recount can occur if the margin of victory is less than half a percent of the total vote.

Republican lawyers have examined Massachusetts particularly to find the rules governing a recount.  They also studied the law passed after Kennedy’s death on a Senate successor.

Since it would take months before an election of a successor could be held — possibly causing Democrats to lose earlier health care votes — Massachusetts Democrats changed the law to allow the governor to appoint an interim senator before an election is held.

I had been wondering about this so it’s great to see some information about the legalities at issue. What I find interesting is that even if a recount is triggered the Democrats lose the 60th vote until it is decided. So, imagine if you would another scenario along the lines of Coleman-Franken. It took 8 months for that race to be decided. If such a battle ensued after this election, a final vote on Obamacare might have to wait until the summer or fall, presumably when it would become even more politically suicidal for Democrats.

The bottom line is the only way Obamcare passes soon is for Coakley to be the clear winner on Tuesday night.  

Cross-posted at CMNJ.

Winning the special election in Massachusetts might turn out to be the easy part. As I pointed out last night, Scott Brown is in a dogfight against Martha Coakley with Public Policy Polling showing him with the narrowest of leads. But even if Brown wins, the question of when he is seated becomes the issue. And, to no surprise, the Democrats are conspiring to stall his certification well into February; after a final healthcare bill reaches the Senate.

It looks like the fix is in on national health-care reform – and it all may unfold on Beacon Hill.

At a business forum in Boston Friday, interim Sen. Paul Kirk predicted that Congress would pass a health-care reform bill this month.

“We want to get this resolved before President Obama’s State of the Union address in early to mid-February,” Kirk told reporters at a Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce breakfast.

The longtime aide and confidant of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, who was handpicked by Gov. Deval Patrick after a controversial legal change to hold Kennedy’s seat, vowed to vote for the bill even if Republican state Sen. Scott Brown, who opposes the health-care reform legislation, prevails in a Jan. 19 special election.

“Absolutely,” Kirk said, when asked if he’d vote for the bill, even if Brown captures the seat. “It would be my responsibility as United States senator, representing the people and understanding Senator Kennedy’s agenda. . . . I think you’re asking me a hypothetical question but I’d be pleased to vote for the bill.”

Few have considered the Jan. 19 election as key to the fate of national health-care reform because both Kirk and front-runner state Attorney General Martha Coakley, the Democratic nominee, have vowed to uphold Kennedy’s legacy and support health-care reform.

But if Brown wins, the entire national health-care reform debate may hinge on when he takes over as senator. Brown has vowed to be the crucial 41st vote in the Senate that would block the bill.

The U.S. Senate ultimately will schedule the swearing-in of Kirk’s successor, but not until the state certifies the election.

Friday, a spokesman for Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin, who is overseeing the election but did not respond to a call seeking comment, said certification of the Jan. 19 election by the Governor’s Council would take a while.

“Because it’s a federal election,” spokesman Brian McNiff said. “We’d have to wait 10 days for absentee and military ballots to come in.”

Another source told the Herald that Galvin’s office has said the election won’t be certified until Feb. 20 – well after the president’s address.

 Of course, in another recent special election, no such lag time was needed:

In contrast, Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Lowell) was sworn in at the U.S. House of Representatives on Oct. 18, 2007, just two days after winning a special election to replace Martin Meehan. In that case, Tsongas made it to Capitol Hill in time to override a presidential veto of the expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

And in the NY-23 race, Bill Owens was sworn in immediately after his victory even though the race hadn’t been certified (not to mention it was later in doubt). Nancy Pelosi made sure that was the case so she could secure his vote for the healthcare bill.

Now, with Obamcare hanging in the balance, the Democrats are ready to pull one more dirty trick from their playbook. They plan to stall Brown’s certification and ignore the will of the people of Massachusetts. Heck, I wouldn’t be surprised if they try to make this into another Franken-Coleman or Bush-Gore. Winning at all costs is all that matters. Everything else be damned.

For more coverage on this, check out Michelle Malkin’s blog as well.

A major upset could be in the making in Massachusetts. While earlier this week a Rasmussen poll showed Republican Scott Brown down 9 points to his liberal Democrat opponent Martha Coakley, a poll by Public Policy Polling released today shows Brown up one point. If Brown were to win, Obamcare could be dead.

Republicans have a very real chance at orchestrating a Massachusetts miracle in this month’s special Senate election to determine Ted Kennedy’s successor, at least according to a new Democratic poll out tonight.

The shocking poll from Public Policy Polling shows Republican state senator Scott Brown leading Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley by one point, 48 to 47 percent, which would mean the race is effectively tied.

Among independents, who make up 51 percent of the electorate in the Bay State, Brown leads Coakley 63 percent to 31 percent.

Just 50 percent of voters view Coakley favorably, while 42 percent viewing her unfavorably.

Brown, who began an advertising blitz this month, sports a strong 57 percent favorability rating, with just 25 percent viewing him unfavorably – very strong numbers for a Republican in the heavily Democratic state.

On the issue of health care, which Brown has emphasized that he would be the deciding vote against, 47 percent said they opposed the plan in Congress while 41 percent supported it.

A Rasmussen Reports survey from earlier this week had showed Coakley’s lead down to 9 points, and in last night’s debate she had questioned the accuracy of those numbers, suggesting her margin of victory would in fact be larger.

The survey of 744 likely voters was conducted January 7-9 and had a margin of error of 3.6 percent.

In his analysis, pollster Tom Jensen noted that Coakley is suffering from a less-than excited Democratic electorate, a dynamic similar to the gubernatorial contests in New Jersey and Virginia that Democrats lost last year .

“The Massachusetts Senate race is shaping up as a potential disaster for Democrats,” said PPP pollster Dean Debnam.. “Martha Coakley’s complacent campaign has put Scott Brown in a surprisingly strong position and she will need to step it up in the final week to win a victory once thought inevitable.”

If you missed it, here is the post I wrote two and half weeks ago about this race: Is The GOP Going To Just Write Off The Massachusetts Senate Race?

Sooner or later, Congressman Joe Wilson is going to be acknowledged as a vindicated man. One might argue that he has been right all along and that the healthcare bill will not exclude illegals. Regardless, if Obama and the Democrats get their way, it will not matter what the healthcare destruction bill says for the only thing that stands in the way is granting amnesty to illegals. And that is exactly what they are planning to do this year.

The Heritage Foundation explains:

So why don’t President Barack Obama and Speaker Nancy Pelosi want to allow CSPAN to televise the final health care negotiations? What deals are being made to secure the votes necessary to pass a plan that vast majorities of the American public are against?

TPM reports that Democratic lawmakers who were upset that illegal immigrants would not be allowed to participate in the new health care system may vote for final passage of a merged bill, “so long as the White House offers a substantive promise to start pushing comprehensive immigration legislation this year.”

“Those familiar with the talks say any immigration legislation will include various amnesty provisions to allow for health care coverage,” TPM notes.

Not only would there be a “substantive promise” from the Obama administration to take up sweeping immigration reform this year, but there also could be a promise from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to include an amendment in the final health care bill that would eliminate a five-year waiting period that currently is imposed on legal, naturalized immigrants before they can receive Medicaid benefits, according to The New Republic.

This potential deal follows a long list of other sweetheart arrangements that Reid and other members have worked out to keep on-the-fence Democrats in-step with passing Obamacare.

While part of me thinks this will only further outrage an already outraged public, I am not so sure. The Democrats used this issue to their political advantage leading up to the 2006 elections. Conservative Republicans were subject to typical leftist name-calling and falsely labeled as anti-immigrant and anti-Hispanic. Hispanics hitherto turned on Republicans in 2006 and 2008.

As such, it is going to be problematic for Republicans dealing with this issue in a year that is shaping up to be a very ‘red’ one. The illegal immigration issue could easily, I fear, disrupt this momentum. Of course, I could be wrong. Perhaps the political climate this year is just completely different than 4 years ago and it maybe it will backfire on Democrats.

In either case, it will behoove the GOP leadership to tread cautiously this time around and adopt a different tact. Foremost in this strategy should be telling the American people the truth. Telling them that this has nothing at all to do with healthcare – and everything to do with ruthless Democrats trying to establish for themselves a large bloc of voters in order to secure their own power.

Cross-posted at CMNJ.

The first legit polling in the Massachusetts Senate Race was released today by Rasmussen. The race still remains a bit of a long shot with just 2 weeks to go, with State Senator Scott Brown training AG Martha Coakley by 9 points (50%-41%).

State Attorney General Martha Coakley holds a nine-point lead over her Republican rival, state Senator Scott Brown, in Massachusetts’ special U.S. Senate election to fill the seat of the late Edward M. Kennedy.

A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in the state finds Coakley ahead of Brown 50% to 41%. One percent (1%) prefer some other candidate, and seven percent (7%) are undecided.

The special Senate election will be held on January 19 and special elections typically feature low turnout. That’s one reason the race appears to be a bit closer than might typically be expected for a Senate race in Massachusetts. Kennedy carried 69% of the vote when he was reelected in 2006.

Coakley, who was elected attorney general in 2006, defeated several other candidates to win her party’s nomination in a December 8 Primary. Brown, who has served in the State Senate since 2004, won the GOP Primary the same day.

The health care issue is expected to play a big role in the debate and Massachusetts voters hold modestly favorable attitudes about the proposed legislation. In the Bay State, 53% favor the plan working its way through Congress and 45% oppose it.

However, as is the case nationally, those who feel strongly about the bill are more likely to be opposed. The overall figures include 36% who Strongly Oppose the plan while 27% Strongly Favor it.

Brown trailed by as many as 30 points just a few weeks ago, so it is possible the race could close further.

It should also be noted that the independent candidate in this race, Joe Kennedy, was not specifically included in the Rasmussen poll (’Other’ received 1% of the vote). Kennedy, it turns out, is actually being propped up by tea party activists. While I agree with the convictions held by many tea party people, I do not believe this is the time to seek ideological purity in a candidate.

Although, a long shot (both to win the race and ultimately stop the healthcare bill in the Senate), it makes no sense to run a third candidate who might cost Brown the election. Brown will need every vote possible and is committed to stopping much of Obama’s agenda. In fact, you can hear Brown here in an interview today with Sean Hannity, in which he discussed his views on all of the key issues in this race.

With no time to lose in this race, I believe the tea party activists in Massachusetts should ask Kennedy to step aside and they should throw their support to Brown.

Also, one last note regarding the healthcare bill: currently it is unclear to me if another vote that requires 60 votes for passage will be needed in the Senate. The Democrats are clearly doing everything in their power to avoid it, including bypassing a conference report which would indeed necessitate another 60-vote margin on at least one more vote (and perhaps more). Further, Democrats have generally used conferences and issued conference reports after reconciling bills between each chamber of Congress since taking over in 2006. But as we have seen, the Democrats have shown a complete disrespect for rules and procedures in their quest to pass this bill. There’s no reason to expect that to change now. For now, I am keeping my eye on this and will do my best to keep you posted.

Cross-posted at CMNJ.

Last week, CNS News posed a simple question to our ancient Senator, Frank Lousenberg: where in the Constitution is it legal to mandate that people by health insurance? Here’s how that went down.

At the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday, Dec. 22, CNSNews.com asked Senator Lautenberg, “Specifically where in the Constitution does Congress get the authority to mandate that individuals have health insurance?” 
 
Lautenberg said, “I am not going to answer that,” and then walked away.

Yes, just a minor detail. Nothing to see here, right, Senator? Did you forget, sir, what is was you swore to uphold when you became a U.S. Senator?

Sorry, dumb question. We know the answer to that already, don’t we?

To hear the audio, click for the CNS News story here.

Cross-posted at Red County and CMNJ.

This is heartening. A number of GOP Attorneys General are preparing to challenge the constitutionality of the ‘Cornhusker Kickback’ – aka the bribe to Senator Ben Nelson for his Obamacare vote. The deal Democrats gave to Nelson would ensure that his home state would never have to pay for increased Medicaid costs mandated by the bill.

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) — Republican attorneys general in 13 states say congressional leaders must remove Nebraska’s political deal from the federal health care overhaul bill or face legal action, according to a letter provided to The Associated Press Wednesday.”We believe this provision is constitutionally flawed,” South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster and the 12 other attorneys general wrote in the letter to be sent Wednesday night to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. 

“As chief legal officers of our states we are contemplating a legal challenge to this provision and we ask you to take action to render this challenge unnecessary by striking that provision,” they wrote. 

Something tells me this won’t be the last component of Obamacare that is challenged.

You can read the entire story here.

Cross-posted at CMNJ.

If the healthcare debate has shown us nothing else, it is just how utterly ruthless the Democrats have become in pursuit of power and getting their fascist agenda passed.

Harry Reid, in leading his party in the Senate, epitomizes this and has shown himself to be nothing short of a despot. The other day, when Republicans forced the reading of Bernie Sanders’ amendment, Reid allowed the Senate rules to be broken by letting Sanders rescind it. Republicans objected but, in my view, not nearly as strenuously enough.

Now, it gets worse. After scouring Reid’s ‘Manager’s Amendment’, GOP Senators found that Reid was once again violating Senate rules by forcing a super-majority vote to overrule the ‘Death Panels’ being created by this legislation. Erick Erickson of Red State explains in detail what Reid is attempting to do: 

If ever the people of the United States rise up and fight over passage of Obamacare, Harry Reid must be remembered as the man who sacrificed the dignity of his office for a few pieces of silver. The rules of fair play that have kept the basic integrity of the Republic alive have died with Harry Reid. Reid has slipped in a provision into the health care legislation prohibiting future Congresses from changing any regulations imposed on Americans by the Independent Medicare [note: originally referred to as "medical"] Advisory Boards, which are commonly called the “Death Panels.”

It was Reid leading the Democrats who ignored 200 years of Senate precedents to rule that Senator Sanders could withdraw his amendment while it was being read.

It was Reid leading the Democrats who has determined again and again over the past few days that hundreds of years of accumulated Senate parliamentary rulings have no bearing on the health care vote.

On December 21, 2009, however, Harry Reid sold out the Republic in toto.

Upon examination of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment to the health care legislation, Senators discovered section 3403. That section changes the rules of the United States Senate.

To change the rules of the United States Senate, there must be sixty-seven votes.

Section 3403 of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment requires that “it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.” The good news is that this only applies to one section of the Obamacare legislation. The bad news is that it applies to regulations imposed on doctors and patients by the Independent Medicare Advisory Boards a/k/a the Death Panels.

Section 3403 of Senator Reid’s legislation also states, “Notwithstanding rule XV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, a committee amendment described in subparagraph (A) may include matter not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Finance if that matter is relevant to a proposal contained in the bill submitted under subsection (c)(3).” In short, it sets up a rule to ignore another Senate rule.

Senator Jim DeMint confronted the Democrats over Reid’s language. In the past, the Senate Parliamentarian has repeatedly determined that any legislation that also changes the internal standing rules of the Senate must have a two-thirds vote to pass because to change Senate rules, a two-thirds vote is required. Today, the Senate President, acting on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian, ruled that these rules changes are actually just procedural changes and, despite what the actual words of the legislation say, are not rules changes. Therefore, a two-thirds vote is not needed in contravention to longstanding Senate precedent.

How is that constitutional? It is just like the filibuster. Only 51 votes are needed to pass the amendments, but internally, the Senate is deciding that it will not consider certain business. The Supreme Court is quite clear that it won’t meddle with the internal operations of the House and Senate. To get around the prohibition on considering amendments to that particular subsection of the health care legislation, the Senate must get two-thirds of the Senate to agree to waive the rule. In other words, it will take a super-majority of the people the citizens of our Republican elected to overrule a regulation imposed by a group of faceless bureaucrats and bean counters.

The list of outrages the American people have been subject to by this 111th Congress is already endless, but this one may well take the cake. Harry Reid’s legislation represents a direct assault on the Senate and our republican form of government. Reid is nothing short of a disgrace. I can only hope that the good people of Nevada have enough sense to never again send him back to Washington.

Here is the video of Jim DeMint on the floor making parliamentary inquiries into this matter.

Cross-posted at CMNJ.