Archives for November 2012

Utah Sen. Mike Lee is taking a leading role on two critical issues before the lame duck Congress, as he successfully passed an amendment he says will protect the legal rights of Americans.

Lee is also spearheading opposition to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities, which he says erodes American sovereignty and diminishes the rights of parents.

On Thursday, Lee teamed with California Democrat Dianne Feinstein to amend the new version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).  Lee says they were very concerned that previous language in the law could result in the loss of some of the most cherished rights in the U.S. legal system.

“We were concerned that language in last year’s National Defense Authorization Act could be read to suggest that the government has the power to detain U.S. citizens indefinitely, without trial, without charge, based solely on the nature of the allegations against them,” said Lee.  “This is dangerous.  It violates the fifth and sixth amendments to the Constitution.  It’s not something that we as Americans should tolerate.”

The Lee-Feinstein amendment, known as the Due Process Guarantee Act, was easily approved on Thursday evening by a vote of 67-29.

“That says basically the opposite of what we read the NDAA last year to say,” he said.  “It says that if you’re a U.S. citizen and you’re detained in the United States, you’re entitled to charge and trial and nothing in existing law can be read to suggest otherwise.”

Lee says 20 of the 67 votes in favor of the amendment came from Republicans.

The Senate is also expected to vote on the proposed UN treaty on the disabled in December.  Lee is taking a leading role in trying to sink the plan.  He says all lawmakers want to champion the rights of the disabled and the U.S. is easily the gold standard in this arena.  However, he says this treaty is fatally flawed in multiple ways.

“It undermines U.S. sovereignty and it tries to internationalize domestic policy.  I’m uncomfortable with that,” said Lee.

But just as troublesome to the senator is what he sees as a threat to parents’ rights.

“A number of groups consisting of parents of children with disabilities, particularly those who choose to home school their children with disabilities are especially concerned about this because it contains language suggesting that in deciding what is the proper standard of care and educational treatment for a disabled child.  The ‘Best Interest of the Child’ standard shall be a significant factor,” said Lee.  “The problem with that is that it takes away rights that belong to parents, and it threatens to potentially put the government in charge of decisions that ought to be made by the family and not by the government.”

Sen. Lee also elaborated on why he believes the treaty compromises U.S. sovereignty.

“It contains language embracing what are known as economic, social and cultural rights.  This is language that the U.S. has for decades refused to incorporate into any treaty ratified by the United States,” said Lee.  “It was developed by Soviet bloc countries during the Cold War as an indicator  of a willingness to embrace forms of socialism.”

Sixty-seven votes are needed to ratify a treaty, meaning opponents need just 34 to stop it.  Lee says he has 36 votes ready to reject it and supporters would need 67 votes regardless of how many senators are present.

Lawmakers have exactly one month to avert the onslaught of tax hikes and spending sequestration known as the “fiscal cliff”.  Thus far, Democrats claim anything that doesn’t include a tax increase on the wealthy is a non-starter and Republicans assert that they will reject any plan that raises anyone’s marginal tax rates.

Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says he is fed up with Republicans killing Democratic legislation through the filibuster.  As a result, Reid is vowing to change filibuster rules for the next Congress in order to limit Republican disruption of his agenda.

Utah Sen. Mike Lee is closely involved in both debates and is appalled by Democratic tactics across the board.  When it comes to the filibuster, Lee says the GOP resorts to the filibuster because of the heavy-handed rules Harry Reid already employs.

“He’s abusing rules of the Senate by repeatedly denying the Republicans in the Senate the opportunity to present their own amendments,” said Lee.  “To the extent the filibuster rule has been utilized more by Republicans, it’s been largely in response to that abuse.”

Lee says Reid uses one tactic in particular that shuts down free and open debate.

“He has utilized a procedure known as ‘filling the tree,’ whereby the majority leader may in some circumstances restrict the ability of other members to file amendments, to propose legislation,” said Lee.  “This is a critical part of the debate process.  This is part of what makes the Senate – and has historically made it – the world’s greatest deliberative legislative body.  So he’s got to stop filling the tree and denying our right to file amendments.  That’s really the problem.”

Lee says Reid’s strategy may be to eliminate the procedure requiring 60 votes to open debate, which would then remove the need to find 60 votes to cut off debate and move to a final vote.

Both sides point to the fight in the middle of last decade when Republicans tried to kill the filibuster on President Bush’s judicial nominations.  Democrats cried foul at the time, saying the move was a blatant violation of their rights as the minority party.  Lee says what Reid wants to do is far more egregious than what the GOP was mulling several years ago.

“In that circumstance it dealt with the confirmation of presidential appointees,” said Lee.  “This deals with the legislative power and in this context it’s even more important that we maintain our filibuster rights.  That’s why I hope and I expect that cooler heads will prevail and at the end of the day Harry Reid will not eliminate the filibuster rule, at least in the context of motions to proceed.”

The senator is also a key voice for conservative interests on taxes, spending and debt as Republicans and Democrats remain far apart in avoiding the fiscal cliff.  Lee says there are very important reasons that the GOP can’t go along with tax hikes –  even if they’re only on “the rich”.

“The reason that we as Republicans don’t want anyone’s taxes going up is that we understand if you raise taxes on the poor, it hurts the poor.  If you raise taxes on the rich, that too hurts to the poor,” said Lee.  “Ernst & Young has predicted that even if you raise income taxes on the top two rate brackets we will lose 700,000 jobs.  And those are not 700,000 CEO jobs.  They’re not 700,000 top one-percenter jobs.  Those are Americans who are by and large working paycheck to paycheck and who are least able to absorb the loss of their job and the income associated with it.”

So what is the right way to avoid the cliff?  Lee says the same principles he fought for during the debt ceiling debate , when he bucked GOP leaders and opposed the deal that led to the cliff and sequestration, will work for America now.

“I’m going to continue to be a champion of the ‘Cut, Cap & Balance’ approach,” said Lee.  ” I was the sponsor of the ‘Cut, Cap & Balance Act’ the last time around.  I’ve introduced a new, update version of it this time around.  The basic gist of the ‘Cut, Cap & Balance’ approach is to say that, ‘We may need to raise the debt limit, but we’re not going to do it.  We shouldn’t do it.  We won’t do it until Congress adopts permanent, structural spending reform.  That would include some kind of a budget plan that will bring us to balance within a few years and would also require Congress to pass a balanced budget amendment and submit it to the states for ratification.”

There’s just one month remaining before American heads over the “fiscal cliff” – unless Congress and President Obama can agree on a way to avoid it.  Thus far, both parties have spent most of their time accusing the other of not being willing to compromise.

In that spirit, the Capitol Steps take us inside the Congressional impasse with their parody, “We Need Someone to Blame.”  Our guest is Steps Co-Founder Elaina Newport.

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are pleased to learn of President Obama’s stunningly horrible tax and spend solution for the fiscal cliff so America can see how unserious the Democrats are on this issue.  They grimace as the United Nations votes to upgrade the Palestinians to observer status.  And they slam New York Rep. Chris Gibson for saying his recent pledge not to raise taxes is now void because the number and boundaries of his congressional district have changed since he first made the promise.

Headlines have been flying out the Middle East in recent weeks –  from the Israel-Hamas fighting and cease-fire to Mohammed Morsi’s attempted power grab in Egypt to special elections being called in Israel to the Palestinians trying to move towards statehood through a key vote at the United Nations.

But much of what we’re hearing on these stories barely scratches the surface and almost always misses the heart of the story, according to Dr. Mike Evans, founder of the Evans Institute for Middle East Studies and a longtime personal friend of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Many observers, for example, were stunned to see a key Muslim Brotherhood figure like Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi play a pivotal role in the cease-fire that ended several days of fighting between Israel and Hamas.  While the conventional wisdom suggests Morsi could not possibly be an objective broker given his stated hatred for Israel, Evans says there’s something that concerns Morsi even more.

“What’s happened here is a Sunni caliphate coming out of Egypt, coming out of Turkey, coming out of Qatar is challenging a Shia caliphate,” says Evans.  “The support that Gaza has got through missiles was Shia.  Now the Sunnis have moved in to try to take control of Gaza.  So these are two different crosswinds for caliphates that are very important to understand.  You have a president in Turkey who wants to become the head of the caliphate for the whole Middle East.  You have (Iranian) President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad…who wants to be the head of the caliphate for the Middle East for the Shia.  These are apocalyptic winds that are blowing.”

Why are the two branches of Islam at such odds when it comes to their efforts to control the region?

“The Sunnis are afraid of an atomic Persia, a non-Arab state,” said Evans.  “The Shia are terrified of the Sunnis because they hate each other more than they hate the Jews.”

The recent attempt by President Morsi to accumulate almost unlimited power is not a major concern to Evans.  He says Morsi is simply frustrated that people loyal to ousted president Hosni Mubarak still hold key positions in the legislative and judicial branches of government.  Evans says there are too many hurdles in the way for Morsi to actually succeed in amassing as much power as he would like.

The recent fighting in Gaza was a rousing success for Israel, according to Evans.  He says in addition to retaliation for the incessant rocket strikes, Israel accomplished a larger goal.

“What has happened just recently with the Gaza short war was in preparation for the Iran attack,” he said.  “In order for Israel to prepare themselves for the attack, they needed to shut down Iran’s infrastructure in Gaza.  They did.”

About three months ago. Dr. Evans told us he had word from very high levels in the Israeli government that an attack on Iran’s nuclear program would most likely take place between September 15 and October 15 of this year.  So why didn’t those strikes take place?

“Israel was forced to call new elections,” said Evans.  “You can’t go to war against Iran without a government and Israel’s government was coming apart.  A lot of this was because of the U.S.  The U.S. was meeting with the opposition parties, trying to take the government down.”

Evans believes Netanyahu will win re-election in January despite the best efforts of the Obama administration to defeat him.  If Netanyahu prevails, Evans expects an attack on Iran by the end of the spring.

Another issue Evans says is being wrongly reported is Thursday’s vote in the United Nations on whether to grant observer status to the Palestinians – which most see as a key step to statehood.  Evans sees this as something far less noble.

“Lawsuits.  This entire move is to try to legitimize their ability to sue Israel for war crimes,” said Evans.  “They’ve already tried it in the past and it didn’t stick.  With this new recognition status, it would give them the ability to file thousands of lawsuits against Israelis, including foreign ministers.  That’s more fundamentally what it’s about than anything else.  It’s not good.”

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review debate whether Republicans should stand and fight for what they believe on the fiscal cliff and risk blame if no deal is reached or whether they should give Obama what he wants and let the public see what a mistake it was to re-elect him.  They’re also stunned that 53 percent of Democrats and 23 percent of Republicans have a positive impression of socialism.  And they comment on President Obama planning to spend 20 days in Hawaii just as the nation heads for the fiscal cliff.

Barring legal or legislative interference, the Obama health care laws are scheduled to be fully implemented by 2014.

In the past few weeks, we’ve seen a growing number of states refuse to set up health insurance exchanges and some are balking at an expanded state role for Medicaid as well.

But while states avoid getting entangled in the bureaucracy, does that mean much for individual Americans?

Former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey is author of “Decoding the Obama Health Law.”  She says the states forcing the federal government to create the exchanges will have two major impacts.  The first is an almost certain delay in the creation of the exchanges.

“Implementation, predictably, will be delayed because the federal government undoubtedly won’t be able to set up federal exchanges in all those states by next October when the exchanges are supposed to be up and running,” said McCaughey.

The exchanges are intended to be a third option for consumers to obtain coverage, along with the more traditional avenues of obtaining employer-based coverage or purchasing it directly.  However, the biggest result of these states refusing to set up the exchange could be less taxpayer assistance for those getting insurance through an exchange.

“It’s going to make a very big difference and here’s why,” said McCaughey.  “The law says that if you go to a state health insurance exchange to buy your health insurance, you are entitled – and I use that word because that’s exactly what I mean – entitled to a tax credit.  In other words, taxpayer help paying for your health insurance.  If your household earns up to $92,300 you’re entitled to that help.  That’s means that the full cost of that health plan won;t be on you.  But the law only allows to get that tax credit if you’re in a state health insurance exchange.”

McCaughey says those credits are not promised if the coverage comes through a federal exchange, and the difference could be significant given how quickly premiums are expected to rise.

“Those health plans are going to be very expensive,” she said.  “Even the federal government anticipates that the premium is going to go up seven percent next year – maybe $14,000 or $15,000 for a family plan.  That’s a lot of money.”

The confusion over exchanges is just one headache on the horizon.  McCaughey says another nightmare is Obama’s intention to expand coverage mostly through Medicaid – which is already in dire straits.

“That’s a program where the cost traditionally has traditionally been split between the state governments and the federal government,” said McCaughey.  “The federal government says we’re going to pay for the entire cost of expanding this enrollment.  But states are worried.  The federal government can change its mind, break it’s promise any time.  Since when haven’t politicians broken their promises.  So the states are very reluctant to enroll a lot of new people in Medicaid and then get socked with the bill when the federal government reneges on its promise to pay the full cost.”

Even in its pre-Obamacare form, Medicaid is incapable of adequately reimbursing hospitals and physicians.  Many doctors refuse to see Medicaid patients as a result.  McCaughey says that will only get worse and life will not be any better for those going from no coverage to being enrolled in Medicaid.  In fact, she says a Medicaid patient’s health is in more danger by the time they find a doctor willing to treat them.

“It’s kind of broken promise medicine,” said McCaughey.  “There are quite a few studies that show that a patient on Medicare who has surgery has a substantially higher risk of dying during that surgery than someone who has private health insurance – and in fact a worse risk of dying even than someone who has no insurance at all.”

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are encouraged that a strong majority of Americans don’t think the government should be responsible for health insurance.  They also wonder why the CIA still can’t the facts straight on Benghazi.  And they question the wisdom of naked protesting in congressional offices.

Opponents of the Obama health laws believed hopes of the Supreme Court striking down the key provisions of the plan were dashed when the individual mandate was upheld in June.

But on Monday, the justices ordered the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider a suit filed by Liberty University that alleges the individual and employer mandates are unconstitutional because they infringe on the free exercise of religion.

That argument was not part of the arguments in the cases decided in June.  Liberty contends the mandates require business owners and individuals to fund abortions even though millions consider abortion in gross violation of their religious beliefs.

Mathew Staver is chairman of Liberty Counsel and represents Liberty University in this case.  He says Monday’s ruling doesn’t guarantee anything in terms of a final verdict, but it’s still very significant.

“This is huge.  It revives our challenge to Obamacare,” said Staver.  “I believe it sends a good sign and a good message and I’m very encouraged by the Supreme Court’s decision.”

The appeals court will likely hear arguments in the next few months, with a decision expected in late Spring.  Staver previewed the university’s case.

“We will argue several things, including whether the employer mandate is constitutional,” said Staver.  “We believe that it exceeds Congressional authority under the Constitution.  But even if the Supreme Court were to uphold the employer mandate, we believe that it collides with the free exercise of religion, because Liberty University like other religiously affiliated employers will have to fund abortion.  It also requires funding contraception and sterilization which certainly collides with many other Roman Catholic beliefs.”

Staver says the university will clearly state that all abortions, whether chemically induced by drugs shortly after conception or performed in an abortion clinic are equally reprehensible to many people of faith.

“God created human life.  Its sanctity and dignity are protected by God,” said Staver.  “We have no right to take innocent human lives and certainly we cannot be forced to fund the taking of innocent life – basically forced to fund murder.  We can’t do that.  That’s a line that we simply cannot cross.”

There is no middle ground in this fight according to Staver.  He says if this law is upheld, people will have to choose between obeying the law and adhering to their faith.

“Either you follow your conscience and your free exercise of religious convictions and you disobey the law, or you obey the law and you disobey your conscience and your free exercise of religion.  There’s no in-between.  This is a direct collision with the free exercise of religion that’s unprecedented in the scope of our history.”

Staver notes that the case will inevitably end up back at the Supreme Court, with a final verdict probably coming in the first half of 2014.

Greg Corombos of Radio America and Jim Geraghty of National Review are pleased that the Obama administration is nervous enough about the likely Susan Rice nomination to replace Hillary Clinton to send Rice to soothe GOP concerns.  They are even more pleased to learn the charm offensive failed miserably.  They also debate whether the Club for Growth is right or wrong to launch an early criticism of West Virginia congresswoman and U.S. Senate hopeful Shelley Moore Capito because of her record on bailouts and other fiscal issues.  And they unload as Harry Reid pushes to restrict filibuster rules in the next Congress.