Two quotes start off this TRACKSIDE, one from an early American statesman and one from a noted geopolitical analyst:

“The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions.” –Senator Daniel Webster (1782-1852)

“Morally, committing the lives of citizens to waging war requires meticulous attention to the law and proprieties. … I am making the argument that the suspension of Section 8 of Article I as if it is possible to amend the Constitution with a wink and nod represents a mortal threat to the republic. If this can be done, what can’t be done?” – - George Friedman, STRATFOR

The failure of Congress to hold the President accountable for plunging us into war without a formal declaration by Congress does represent a mortal threat to our country. Congress whistles past the graveyard while the President shreds the Constitution. What Congressional authority will he usurp next? Maybe the budget. He could declare a national fiscal emergency that demands unilateral action, that a Congressional budget debate would take too long to keep the dollars flowing to his favored constituencies. Or will he just dismiss Congress as irrelevant? That in effect is what he has done by his actions.

The President has said that he wants Gadhafi to be ousted, but our mission is just to enforce the no-fly zone – he would not put “boots on the ground.” We now find that we do have boots on the ground – it was a hard swallow from Day One to accept “no boots on the ground” – somebody had to be providing time-sensitive targeting data, laser pointing for laser-guided weaponry, and battle space coordination with the rebels. To compound the folly, the Administration is talking about arming the rebels, who they admit, they do not know much about. Just what we need, more printing-press dollars being used to put weapons in the hands of al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood and to put our country deeper in debt. (But then, the Administration has experience with giving weapons to bad guys with its Operation Gunrunner on the Mexican border.)

And speaking of enforcing the no-fly zone, it would certainly be appropriate for NATO (or whomever is pulling the strings), to enunciate the enforcement rules of engagement. It appears that the no-fly zone was endangered by Libyan small craft in the harbor of Misratah. To take out this danger to our aircraft, a U.S. P-3 patrol aircraft launched one or more Maverick missiles at a 40-foot coast guard cutter that had to be beached, and an A-10 Warthog made splinters of one small boat with its 30mm Gatling gun. All in all, in the words of one commentator, it is silly to call it a no-fly zone when it is obvious that the target list goes well beyond just enforcing a no-fly zone.

The Patriot Post raised another question about the no-fly zone and the “humanitarian” basis for our undeclared war on Libya in the April 1st edition:

”Reasonable people have asked how Libya qualifies for a NATO-imposed no-fly zone and air strikes to neuter the Libyan military, but Syria is somehow different. Don’t the Syrians want exactly the same relief from a murderous, tyrannical government that the Libyans want? Isn’t the regime using deadly force against civilians? What happened to the “interests and values” about which Obama so sanctimoniously opined?”

And it is not just Syria that belies the veracity of the President’s stated rationale for taking us to war against Libya. Scan the news and you can find repressive regimes slaughtering people: Ivory Coast, Bahrain, and Yemen to name a few. Why just pick Libya? An easy target to build 2012 election campaign points? Doing the will of Europe for oil? Or something more devious? The President has said that the mission is not regime change, but it has been reported that a European diplomat admitted that the no-fly zone was but a diplomatic smokescreen designed to get Arab states on board with a military operation that had regime change as the real goal. I do not doubt it in the least. An author on the American Thinker website, in the same vein, ends his article asking:

“How do voters feel about Congress being sidelined to serve the interests of the Arab League?”

The President lies to the American people and gives Congress the mushroom treatment. Articulated or not, we are in a Constitutional crisis. When is Congress going to stand up and be counted? When is Congress going to act to protect the supremacy of our Constitution, the bulwark of our freedom?

See you Trackside.

It seems the Democrats in Sedgwick County are so desperate to get interest in their events they have to resort to using popular Republicans! (story here)

I guess we can’t blame them, even their own elected folks in the Kansas Senate voted for Kris Kobach’s Voter ID bill – and perhaps they’ve got a great idea, it’s time for a party to celebrate!

With that in mind I’ve started a Happy Birthday Kris Kobach campaign! You can help kick this party off – just go to to the KRA Facebook page (like it while you are there!) and click the Share button under the Happy Birthday post to pass it on to your Facebook friends. Lets see if we can get this birthday party shared nationwide!

(if you don’t see the Kris Kobach photo on the KRA Facebook page, try this link )

Not on Facebook or want other ways to invite friends to join the party? You can share this blog post link or this twitter link.

Pass it on – everyone is welcome to join the party!

KRA Stays Neutral in Senate, 2nd and 3rd Congressional District Primaries
Calls on Tiahrt, Anderson to Refuse Endorsement from Fake Group

Comments Attributed to Charlotte Esau, Executive Director, Kansas Republican Assembly

“We have received several questions regarding our endorsement votes taken during Saturday’s endorsement convention that were released late last night. The primary questions center around KRA’s actions in the contested primaries for the U.S. Senate, 2nd Congressional District and 3rd Congressional District. Just as clarification, votes were taken in all three of those races and no candidate received the 2/3 vote necessary to achieve an endorsement. The official Kansas Republican Assembly position on those races is neutral. This indicates a very a mixed feeling among conservative Republican activists in these races.

It has come to our attention that a rogue organization portraying themselves as the Kansas Republican Assembly is stating today that the organization endorsed Todd Tiahrt in the U.S. Senate primary. This organization also tried to lead people to believe the Kansas Republican Assembly had endorsed Jim Anderson in the 4th District Congressional race. This is a group whose own release states they have fewer than twenty members. The official Kansas Republican Assembly has not endorsed Todd Tiahrt in the U.S. Senate primary or Jim Anderson in his race for Congress and we respectfully call on the Tiahrt and Anderson campaigns to refuse the endorsement of this rogue group so that individuals are not confused by this group’s actions.

Congressional District Candidate Mike Pompeo called the Kansas Republican Assembly, ‘THE leading traditional Republican grassroots organization all across Kansas.’ We appreciate Mike’s kind words and look forward to helping elect him as the new Congressman from Kansas 4th Congressional District”

US House 1 Tim Huelskamp
US House 4 Mike Pompeo
Governor / Lt. Governor  Sam Brownback / Jeff Colyer
Secretary of State Kris Kobach
Insurance Commissioner David J. Powell
State Treasurer Ron Estes
KS Senate 7 David Harvey
SBOE 3 John W. Bacon
SBOE 7 Kenneth R. Willard
KS House 2 Jeffrey G. “Jeff” Locke
KS House 3 Terry Calloway
KS House 4 Caryn Tyson
KS House 6 Jene Vickrey
KS House 9 Raymond ‘Bud’ Sifers
KS House 10 Terri Lois Gregory
KS House 11 Virgil Peck
KS House 13 Forrest Knox
KS House 14 Lance Kinzer
KS House 15 Arlen H. Siegfreid
KS House 16 Amanda Grosserode
KS House 17 Kelly Meigs
KS House 18 John Rubin
KS House 19 Jim Denning
KS House 22 Greg A. Smith
KS House 23 Brett Hildabrand
KS House 26 Rob Olson
KS House 27 Ray Merrick
KS House 29 Richard Downing
KS House 31 Eric Hite
KS House 35 Chiquita C. Coggs
KS House 38 Anthony R. Brown
KS House 39 Owen Donohoe
KS House 40 Sandra Bohne
KS House 41 Jana Taylor Goodman
KS House 42 Connie O’Brien
KS House 43 S. Mike Kiegerl
KS House 47 Lee Tafanelli
KS House 49 Scott Schwab
KS House 50 Rocky Fund
KS House 51 Mike Burgess
KS House 52 Lana Gordon
KS House 53 L.W. Abney
KS House 54 Joe Patton
KS House 55 Bruce G Williamson
KS House 56 Becky Nioce
KS House 60 Daniel Buller
KS House 61 Richard Carlson
KS House 64 Michael Musselman
KS House 65 Ernest F. Honas
KS House 66 Lee Modesitt
KS House 67 Susan Mosier
KS House 68 Calvin Seadeek Jr.
KS House 69 Tom Arpke
KS House 70 Cheryl Green
KS House 72 Marc Rhoades
KS House 73 Clark Shultz
KS House 74 Don Schroeder
KS House 76 Peggy Mast
KS House 77 J. David Crum
KS House 79 Kasha Kelley
KS House 80 Ellen Janoski
KS House 81 Pete DeGraaf
KS House 82 Jim Howell
KS House 83 Kyle Amos
KS House 84 Dan Heflin
KS House 85 Steven Brunk
KS House 87 Joseph Scapa
KS House 90 Steve Huebert
KS House 91 Brenda Landwehr
KS House 92 James A. Woomack
KS House 93 Daniel J. Kerschen
KS House 94 Joe McLeland
KS House 95 Benny L. Boman
KS House 96 Phil Hermanson
KS House 98 James Clendenin
KS House 99 Aaron Jack
KS House 100 Mario Goico
KS House 101 Joe Seiwert
KS House 104 Michael R. “Mike” O’Neal
KS House 105 Gene Suellentrop
KS House 106 Sharon Schwartz
KS House 107 Elaine S. Bowers
KS House 110 Dan L. Collins
KS House 112 Bill Wolf
KS House 114 Mitch Holmes
KS House 116 Kyle D. Hoffman
KS House 117 Larry R Powell
KS House 120 John M. Faber
KS House 121 Jim Morrison
KS House 122 Gary K. Hayzlett
KS House 124 Dan Widder
KS House 125 Carl D. Holmes

They are going to debate this on the Senate floor as early as Monday next week. I don’t have a bill number handy but they all know what you talking about if you refer to the budget and proposed taxes.

This has not been a good week for conservatives in the Senate. On Wednesday the Senate defeated a motion to pull a proposed constitutional amendment out of committee – one that would have let you vote on federal health care this fall – and voted down a community of defense act. That last one is an example of how some Senators tell you one thing in person (of course I’m for lower taxes or health care freedom) but then when their vote matters, they vote differently. The Senators had known for weeks the CDA would be voted on when they returned as it was debated the last day of the regular session, then delayed until a date certain, that date being April 28. And still we have one Senator who voted yes, until it was passing, then switched to no. And as aggravating as that is to watch, what’s even more appalling is when I hear Senators voting no on this because it would cost some jobs – yet those same people want to raise your taxes. I suppose that makes sense in their minds, people can’t pay taxes if they don’t have a job, so who are we to say it’s a job that’s not good for society. Decency and morals apparently don’t factor in, whether it’s in how we make money or how we tax the people.

I think most of you would like to know how your Senator voted on the above measure. Our friends at the National Coalition for the Protection of Children & Families created a spreadsheet (linked here) showing you their votes and their contact info. Please feel free to use this information to let your elected Senators know your thoughts this weekend. I also encourage you to share your thoughts here on this blog as well!

That’s why a statement like this is so disingenuous:

Representative Melody McCray-Miller reminded the audience that it is Republicans who have been in the majority of both the House of Representatives and the Senate during this time.

Not so fast Rep. McCray-Miller, you seem to forget that the fiscal conservatives have been out-maneuvered time after time when Democrats team up with folks like Reps Quigley, Hineman, Swanson, Pottorff, Moxley, Hill, Craft, or their counterparts like Senators Vratil, Morris, Brungardt or Rep/now Sen. Huntington. (for brevity I’m not listing them all today)

When conservatives hold at least 21 Senate seats and 63 House seats you can start blaming them for not getting fiscally sound policies passed. Until then, the real blame goes to the Republicans who vote like Democrats and the Democrats who join them. It was those folks who set up the current fiscal train wreck.

INTRODUCTION OF ORIGINAL MOTIONS
Having voted on the prevailing side, Rep. Peck moved, pursuant to House Rule 2303, that the House reconsider its adverse action on HCR 5032 in not adopting the resolution under that order of business, Final Action on Bills and Concurrent Resolutions (see HJ, page 1226). Roll call was demanded.

On roll call, the vote was: Yeas 75; Nays 47; Present but not voting: 0; Absent or not voting: 3.

Yeas: Aurand, Bethell, Bowers, Brookens, A. Brown, Brunk, Burgess, Carlson, Craft, Crum, DeGraaf, Donohoe, Faber, D. Gatewood, George, Goico, Gordon, Grange, Hayzlett, Hermanson, Hineman, C. Holmes, M. Holmes, Horst, Huebert, Jack, Kelley, Kerschen, Kiegerl, King, Kinzer, Kleeb, Knox, Landwehr, Light, Lukert, Maloney, Mast, McLeland, Meier, Merrick, Morrison, Moxley, Myers, O’Brien, O’Neal, Olson, Otto, Palmer, Patton, Pauls, Peck, Pottorff, Powell, Prescott, Proehl, Rhoades, Schroeder, Schwab, Schwartz, Seiwert, Shultz, Siegfreid, Spalding, Suellentrop, Swanson, Tafanelli, Vickrey, Wetta, Whitham, Williams, B. Wolf, K. Wolf, Worley, Yoder.

Nays: Ballard, Barnes, Benlon, Bollier, T. Brown, Burroughs, Carlin, Colloton, Crow, Davis, Dillmore, Feuerborn, Finney, Flaharty, Frownfelter, Furtado, Garcia, S. Gatewood, Goyle, Grant, Hawk, Henderson, Henry, Hill, Kuether, Lane, Loganbill, Long, Mah, McCray-Miller, Menghini, Neighbor, Peterson, Phelps, Quigley, Rardin, Roth, Ruiz, Slattery, Sloan, D. Svaty, Swenson, Talia, Tietze, Trimmer, Ward, Winn.

Present but not voting: None.

Absent or not voting: Fund, Johnson, Neufeld.

The motion of Rep. Peck to reconsider action did not prevail.

note:
Reps. Fund and Johnson were excused on verified illness.
Rep. Neufeld was excused on legislative business.

All votes on this issue in the last week (House votes & Senate Judiciary Committee) can be found on this Kansas Liberty webpage.

Listed below are those who voted against letting the people’s voice be heard. If you know a good candidate running in one of these districts, post their website link in the comments section. If you live in one of these districts and don’t know of or see someone good running, help us find the right candidates so we can change the Kansas House in 2010!

Republican YEAS: Aurand, Bethell, Bowers, Brookens, Brown A, Brunk, Burgess, Carlson, Colloton, Craft, Crum, DeGraaf, Donohoe, Faber, George, Goico, Gordon, Grange, Hayzlett, Hermanson, Hineman, Holmes C, Holmes M, Horst, Huebert, Jack, Kelley, Kerschen, Kiegerl, King, Kinzer, Kleeb, Knox, Landwehr, Light, Mast, McLeland, Merrick, Morrison, Moxley, Myers, O’Brien, O’Neal, Olson, Otto, Patton, Pottorff, Powell, Prescott, Proehl, Rhoades, Schroeder, Schwab, Schwartz, Seiwert, Shultz, Siegfreid, Spalding, Suellentrop, Swanson, Tafanelli, Vickrey, Whitham, Wolf B, Wolf K, Worley, Yoder.

Republicans voting no – and links to their contact info so you can ask them to reconsider their vote and vote yes.

Republican NAYS: Bollier, Hill, Quigley, Roth, Sloan (all were no votes on Monday as well). Also voting no today was Peck, a co-sponsor of the bill, so he would be on the prevailing side (in this case, the nays) and could ask for a vote to reconsider on Wednesday.

Contact the Democrats below and ask them to once again vote yea. They will be under pressure to change their vote.

Democrat YEAS: Gatewood D, Lukert, Maloney, Meier, Palmer, Pauls, Wetta, Williams.

Contact the Democrats below and ask them why they voted nay and ask them to change their vote.

Democrat NAYS: Ballard, Barnes, Benlon, Brown T, Burroughs, Carlin, Crow, Davis, Dillmore, Feuerborn, Finney, Flaharty, Frownfelter, Furtado, Garcia, Gatewood S, Goyle, Grant, Hawk, Henderson, Henry, Kuether, Lane, Loganbill, Long, Mah, McCray-Miller, Menghini, Neighbor, Peterson, Phelps, Rardin, Ruiz, Svaty (voted yes on Monday), Slattery, Swenson, Talia, Tietze, Trimmer, Ward, Winn.

These Representatives didn’t vote. Keep in mind that they may have not been able to vote due to illness. Contact the Representatives below and ask them to make an effort to vote for the Healthcare Freedom Amendment.

Didn’t Vote: Fund (most likely would have been a yea, is currently hospitalized according to fellow House members), Johnson, Neufeld (voted yes on Monday).

Complete House Roster is found here.

In response to all the misinformation this resolution was getting some RNC members proposed a couple of alternative resolutions. One of them is based on what the Republican Party Platform says which seems very logical to us. We’ve posted this one below. What do you think? Share your thoughts here as I’m sure our RNC members will drop by to see what you think.

Proposed RNC Resolution on Accountability of Candidates To the Voters

WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan believed that the Republican Party should support and espouse conservative principles and public policies; and

WHEREAS, President Ronald Reagan also believed the Republican Party should welcome those with diverse views; and

WHEREAS, the Republican National Committee shares President Ronald Reagan’s belief that the Republican Party should espouse conservative principles and public policies and should welcome persons of diverse views; and

WHEREAS, Republican faithfulness to its conservative principles and public policies and Republican solidarity in opposition to Obama’s socialist agenda is necessary to preserve the security of our country, our economic and political freedoms, and our way of life; and

WHEREAS, Republican faithfulness to its conservative principles and public policies is also necessary to restore the trust of the American people in the Republican Party, to prevent the emergence of a third party movement, and to lead to Republican electoral victories; and

WHEREAS, in addition to supporting candidates, the Republican National Committee provides financial support for Republican state and local parties for party building and federal election activities, which benefits all candidates and is not affected by this resolution; and

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Chairman of the Republican National Committee is empowered to take into account a candidate’s faithfulness to the Republican Party’s conservative principles and public policies, as established in the Republican Party’s national platform and resolutions by the RNC, in making the decision, in the best interests of the Republican Party and its principles and consistent with the Rules of the Republican National Committee, that a candidate shall receive financial support from the Republican National Committee; and

RESOLVED, that the Chairman of the Republican National Committee shall require that, as a condition to a candidate’s receipt of a contribution or coordinated expenditure from the Republican National Committee, the candidate agrees to refund such funds if the candidate endorses a Democrat candidate in that race during that election cycle or endorses a Democrat candidate for President in the next Presidential election; and

RESOLVED, that upon the approval of this resolution the Republican National Committee shall deliver a copy of this resolution to each of Republican members of Congress, all Republican candidates for Congress, as they become known, and to each Republican state and territorial party office.

Chief Sponsor:
James Bopp, Jr. NCM IN

Co-Sponsors:
Avie Axdahl NCW MN
Donna Cain NCW OR
Cindy Costa NCW SC
Debbie Joslin NCW AK
Peggy Lambert NCW TN
Carolyn McLarty NCW OK
Pete Rickets NCM NE
Steve Scheffler NCM IA
Helen Van Etten NCW KS
Solomon Yue NCM OR

President Obama issued a “presidential determination” on Sept. 29 that delegated authority for determining whether missile and space exports should be approved for China to Commerce Secretary Gary Locke.

The presidential notice alters a key provision of the 1999 Defense Authorization Act that required that the president notify Congress whether a transfer of missile and space technology to China would harm the U.S. space-launch industry or help China’s missile programs.

Section 1512 of the 1999 law requires the president to certify to Congress in advance of any missile equipment or technology exports to China that the export will not harm the U.S. space-launch industry and that “missile equipment or technology, including any indirect technical benefit that could be derived from such export, will not measurably improve the missile or space launch capabilities of China.”

Why was this law necessary? Because Clinton-Gore Administration was very willing to sell missile technology to China in the 1990s. As a result, sensitive technology was passed along to China which may be used to vaporize American cities. But laws don’t seem to apply to President Obama, who governs by his own will while his media cheerleaders look the other way.

It was foolish for us to do this in the 1990s and is even more dangerous for us to do it now.

The chief sponsor of this resolution is Kansas National Committeewoman Helen Van Etten. Talking with her today she said,

“I feel the Republican National Committee needs to call on President Obama to restore strict limits on the transfer of missile and space technology to China and call on Congress to exercise its oversight authority to ensure that the Obama administration does not undermine United States security and sovereignty by selling valuable missile and space technology to China. “

If you agree, let your RNC representatives know as they’ll likely be voting on this later this month when they meet in Hawaii. You can find the Kansas RNC member info here and the other states’ RNC member info here.

Proposed Resolution to Keep U.S. Missile Technology from China

WHEREAS, President Obama’s socialist policies are advanced through unprecedented and colossal deficit spending involving trillions of dollars with this deficit spending being financed in significant part by Chinese purchase of U.S. treasury bonds; and

WHEREAS, China is the largest creditor of the United States, holding more than $750 billion dollars in U.S. government debt yet the Obama administration continues to try to persuade China to buy more U.S. treasury bonds and fails to address China’s concern about the devalued dollar due to Obama’s deficit spending; and

WHEREAS, on September 29th 2009, Obama shifted authority for approving sales of missile and space technology to China from the White House to the Commerce Department; a shift that loosens export controls and benefits Chinese missile development, and increases the possibility for “mishandled” missile technology transfers to China; and

WHEREAS, in the Clinton administration such a transfer of technology improved China’s long-range nuclear missile accuracy and reliability and also enabled the Chinese military to demonstrate an anti-satellite missile capability, which has become a major threat to U.S. military’s heavy reliance on satellites for command, control, and communication; and

WHEREAS, the Annual Report to Congress: Military Power of the People’s Republic of China, 2009 states that China continues to develop and field disruptive military technologies, including those nuclear, space, and cyber warfare, that are changing regional military balances and that have implications beyond the Asia-Pacific region; and

WHEREAS, China has already begun to initiate hostile activities such as waging cyber warfare by attacking the Pentagon and White House computer networks; and

WHEREAS, the American people have good reason to be concerned about the demonstrated hostile actions and intentions of China directed toward the United States, Taiwan, and the rest of the world; and

WHEREAS, the American people have good reason to be concerned about the foreign policy implications of huge deficits that create a dependence on hostile foreign nations for financing; and

WHEREAS, the American people have good reason to be gravely concerned that President Obama is willing to trade missile technology to China in order to finance the huge deficits needed to fund his socialist policies;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED

THAT the Republican National Committee calls on President Obama to restore strict limits on the transfer of missile and space technology to China and calls on Congress to exercise its oversight authority to ensure that the Obama administration does not undermine United States security and sovereignty by selling valuable missile and space technology to China

AND FURTHER THAT upon the approval of this resolution the Republican National Committee shall deliver a copy of this resolution to each of Republican members of Congress, all Republican candidates for Congress, as they become known, and to each Republican state and territorial party office.

Chief Sponsor:
Helen Van Etten, National Committeewoman for Kansas
Co-Sponsors:
Cathie Adams, State Chairman for Texas
Bruce Ash, National Committeeman for Arizona
Evie Axdahl, National Committeewoman for Minnesota
James Bopp, Jr. National Committeeman for Indiana
Donna Cain, National Committeewoman for Oregon
Cindy Costa, National Committeewoman for South Carolina
Demetra DeMonte, National Committeewoman for Illinois
Peggy Lambert, National Committeewoman for Tennessee
Carolyn McLarty, National Committeewoman for Oklahoma
Randall Pullen, State Chairman for Arizona
Pete Ricketts, National Committeeman for Nebraska
Steve Scheffler, National Committeeman for Iowa
Ruth Ulrich, National Committeewoman for Louisiana
Solomon Yue, National Committeeman for Oregon

By 1913, 36 States had ratified the 16th Amendment to the Constitution. In October, Congress passed a new income tax law with rates beginning at 1 percent and rising to 7 percent for taxpayers with income in excess of $500,000. Less than 1 percent of the population paid income tax at the time.

Today:

In 2009, roughly 47% of households, or 71 million, will not owe any federal income tax, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
…
Of course, income taxes don’t tell the whole story. Workers are also subject to payroll taxes, which support Social Security and Medicare.

When considering federal income taxes in combination with payroll taxes, the percent of households with a net liability of zero or less is estimated to be 24% this year, according to the Tax Policy Center’s estimates.

See the answer by clicking on this link (video is just under 6 minutes long after a short ad plays).

That’s just a taste, you can check out more of JD Johannes’ work here.

Politico reports:

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) received a handwritten note Thursday from Joint Committee on Taxation Chief of Staff Tom Barthold confirming the penalty for failing to pay the up to $1,900 fee for not buying health insurance.

Violators could be charged with a misdemeanor and could face up to a year in jail or a $25,000 penalty, Barthold wrote on JCT letterhead. He signed it “Sincerely, Thomas A. Barthold.”

note to Senator Ensign

Politico goes on to say the note was a followup to a question during markup. Ah, yes, the question as to whether or not the IRS would come after you if you didn’t buy health insurance. Here’s what he was told about that:

Under questioning from Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), Barthold said the IRS would “take you to court and undertake normal collection proceedings.”

Ensign pursued the line of questioning because he said a lot of Americans don’t believe the Constitution allows the government to mandate the purchase of insurance.

“We could be subjecting those very people who conscientiously, because they believe in the U.S. Constitution, we could be subjecting them to fines or the interpretation of a judge, all the way up to imprisonment,” Ensign said. “That seems to me to be a problem.”

If it looks like a tax increase and talks like a tax increase and walks like a tax increase…

Unfortunately an amendment from Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) to eliminate the individual mandate was rejected.

Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) was the only Republican to vote with Democrats to preserve the mandate.

State Representatives Peggy Mast (R-Emporia) and David Crum (R-Augusta) sent a letter this week to Attorney General Steve Six, requesting that his Medicaid Fraud and Abuse Unit conduct a formal investigation to determine whether SRS violated Medicaid funding rules when it directly awarded $712,000 in extraordinary funding to Community Living Opportunities (CLO) in November, 2008.

Rep. Mast chairs the House Social Service Budget Committee and serves on the House Health and Human Services Committee as well as the Joint Committee on Home and Community-Based Services Committee.

Rep. Crum is Vice-Chairman of the House Health and Human Services Committee and serves on the House Social Service Budget Committee.

Rep. Brenda Landwehr (R-Wichita), who chairs the House Health and Human Services Committee, said she was pleased Reps. Mast and Crum requested the investigation.

“Kansans deserve a determination whether SRS has again violated Medicaid funding rules through its funding decisions.  If the Attorney General’s investigation does find SRS at fault, those responsible for and involved with the additional funding decision should be held accountable for their actions,” Chairman Landwehr said.

Kansas Liberty is also covering this story and has additional background information. AG Six has said he’ll look into it but won’t comment during the investigation.

George Stepanopoulos looks up the definition of tax

STEPHANOPOULOS: I — I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”

And he’s told using the dictionary is stretching

OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition.

Mr. President, I submit it’s not George who’s stretching things.

See it for yourself here (short ad plays first).

Is a forced expenditure just as much a government requirement as a tax?

The President tried to play word games this morning. He claimed it’s not a tax to require you to buy something. Let me see, you’ll require me to buy it just for being alive. I don’t have a choice, unless you have some exception for those who can’t afford it (and who decides who can’t afford it? the government, in which case they’ll make someone else pay for my coverage). It’s worse than a tax, it’s a required payment just for living. I think someone stepped in something in the back lot before they walked inside the studio to test that line on us.

1998: Steve Rose endorsed Democrat Dennis Moore over Republican Vince Snowbarger
2000: Steve Rose endorsed Democrat Dennis Moore over Republican Phill Kline
2002: Steve Rose endorsed Democrat Dennis Moore over Republican Adam Taff
2004: Steve Rose endorsed Democrat Dennis Moore over Republican Kris Kobach
2006: Steve Rose endorsed Democrat Dennis Moore over Republican Maynard Ahner
2008: Steve Rose endorsed Democrat Dennis Moore over Republican Nick Jordan

And now Steve Rose, who claims he’s “center-right” when all the evidence points to him just being a good ‘ol boys club liberal, wants Republicans to pick him as their nominee to defeat Dennis Moore?

No thanks, Steve. You can go back to Arizona or wherever it is you live these days when it’s too cold for you in Mission Hills. It’s nice to see you’ve finally woken up to who Dennis Moore really is, but Kansas 3rd District Republicans will choose a true Republican to elect in 2010.

Candidate Obama on Feb 13, 2008

… the main difference between my plan and Senator Clinton’s plan is that she’d require the government to force you to buy health insurance and she said she’d ‘go after’ your wages if you don’t.

President Obama on Sept 9, 2009

That’s why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance — just as most states require you to carry auto insurance.

h/t to AFP’s Policy Director Phil Kerpen via his comments found here at 8:36 pm.

President Barack Obama used only-in-Washington accounting Wednesday when he promised to overhaul the nation’s health care system without adding “one dime” to the deficit. By conventional arithmetic, Democratic plans would drive up the deficit by billions of dollars.

The president’s speech to Congress contained a variety of oversimplifications and omissions in laying out what he wants to do about health insurance.

A look at some of Obama’s claims and how they square with the facts or the fuller story:

OBAMA: “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future. Period.”

THE FACTS: Though there’s no final plan yet, the White House and congressional Democrats already have shown they’re ready to skirt the no-new-deficits pledge.

…

OBAMA: “Nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have.”

THE FACTS: … The Congressional Budget Office analyzed the health care bill written by House Democrats and said that by 2016 some 3 million people who now have employer-based care would lose it because their employers would decide to stop offering it.

…

OBAMA: “Don’t pay attention to those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut. … That will never happen on my watch. I will protect Medicare.”

THE FACTS: Obama and congressional Democrats want to pay for their health care plans in part by reducing Medicare payments to providers by more than $500 billion over 10 years. The cuts would largely hit hospitals and Medicare Advantage, the part of the Medicare program operated through private insurance companies.
Although wasteful spending in Medicare is widely acknowledged, many experts believe some seniors almost certainly would see reduced benefits from the cuts. That’s particularly true for the 25 percent of Medicare users covered through Medicare Advantage.
Supporters contend that providers could absorb the cuts by improving how they operate and wouldn’t have to reduce benefits or pass along costs. But there’s certainly no guarantee they wouldn’t.

…

Now, he [President Obama] says, “individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance — just as most states require you to carry auto insurance.”

JD Johannes reported in this evening:

There are actually three or four elections today, depending on the region and province. Some places went smooth. Others…well. (editor’s note: go to his blog to follow a link to a site with more specifics)
…
I spent the day filming in Kabul. I heard one rocket–a small one–impact near where I was drinking a Coke Light (Diet Coke) and taking some notes.

Traffic light, turnout was low, apathy was high in Kabul.

He has pictures on his blog that tell more of the story.