News

Why won’t Obama sue “sanctuary cities” for breaking immigration laws?

1 Comment

Story here in the Washington Times. (H/T ECM)

Excerpt:

A week after suing Arizona and arguing that the state’s immigration law creates a patchwork of rules, the Obama administration said it will not go after so-called sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with the federal government on immigration enforcement, on the grounds that they are not as bad as a state that “actively interferes.”

[…]”For the Justice Department to suggest that they won’t take action against those who passively violate the law who fail to comply with the law is absurd,” said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee and chief author of the 1996 immigration law. “Will they ignore individuals who fail to pay taxes? Will they ignore banking laws that require disclosure of transactions over $10,000? Of course not.”

[…]Mr. Smith said the administration doesn’t appear to understand his law, which requires localities to share information on illegal immigrants with federal authorities.

“The White House is just plain wrong on the premise since the Arizona law mirrors federal law — it does not ‘interfere’ with it,” he said.

The Arizona law, which goes into effect July 29 unless a court blocks it, requires authorities to inquire about the legal status of any detained person about whom they have reasonable suspicion might be in the country illegally. The law as amended specifically prohibits using race or ethnicity as a reason for suspicion.

[…]On Wednesday, Michigan Attorney General Michael A. Cox [a Republican] filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the federal lawsuit arguing that Arizona’s law is consistent with what Congress intended. He was joined by attorneys general from eight states and one territory.

[…]Arizona officials have said the federal government has failed in its responsibility to police the borders, and the state is experiencing a crime wave spurred by illegal immigration. They have said the new law is meant to fill in the gaps in enforcement.

On Wednesday, two Republican senators — Jim DeMint of South Carolina and David Vitter of Louisiana — announced that they will introduce an amendment to a bill that would halt the Justice Department lawsuit by denying it federal funding.

It’s a double standard. They’re selectively enforcing the law in a way in order to buy votes from those who benefit from illegal immigration.

News

Obama’s health care rationing czar has guaranteed health care for life

Leave a comment

Story here from Byron York. (H/T ECM)

Excerpt:

Donald Berwick, recess-appointed by President Obama to head Medicare and Medicaid, is a well-known advocate of health care rationing and admirer of Britain’s National Health Service. Rising health costs and limited resources “require decisions about who will have access to care and the extent of their coverage,” Berwick wrote in 1999. Last year, he said, “The decision is not whether or not we will ration care — the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.” Of the NHS, Berwick says simply, “I love it,” adding that it is “one of the great human health care endeavors on earth.”

As it turns out, Berwick himself does not have to deal with the anxieties created by limited access to care and the extent of coverage. In a special benefit conferred on him by the board of directors of the Institute for Health Care Improvement, a nonprofit health care charitable organization he created and which he served as chief executive officer, Berwick and his wife will have health coverage “from retirement until death.”

Rationing for thee, but not for me. It’s the leftist way. And similarly, you can bet that Barack Obama is not going to wait in line for his health care. But you will. Just give him your money and trust him, OK?

Related posts

Commentary

Paul Ryan takes on Democrat Brad Sherman on the worsening economy

1 Comment

Video is here – from Larry Kudlow’s show on CNBC. (8 minutes)

The Democrat blames Bush and calls for more government spending.

Here he is in Congress making his stand. (4 minutes)

The Veronique he mentions is Veronique de Rugy, whose work I blog about all the time.

Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard is calling for Republicans to embrace Ryan’s Road Map for America.

Excerpt:

For Republicans, the Road Map authored by congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin is the most important proposal in domestic policy since Ronald Reagan embraced supply side economics in the 1980 presidential campaign. It’s not only the freshest, boldest, and most comprehensive Republican thinking, it’s also the most relevant. If Republicans adopt the Road Map as their basic ideological blueprint, it offers them the prospect of a landslide in the midterm election this year, followed by victory in the presidential election in 2012.

For sure, that’s a lot of weight for a policy statement drafted by a 40-year-old House member to bear. But the Road Map is perfectly timed to deal with the crises of the moment: economic stagnation, uncontrolled spending, the deficit and long-term debt, soaring tax rates, health care, the housing problem, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid.

Yet Republican leaders are wary of endorsing it, and for understandable reasons.

He lays out three reasons why the Republicans should swallow their fears and embrace Ryan’s plan.

Here’s the third reason he lists:

The third reason is the Republican message (or the absence of one). In Pennsylvania, it was “send a message to Nancy Pelosi.” Voters declined. I like the Republican slogan that worked so well in 1946—“Had enough?” But a slogan is not a message. The Road Map is a message. The country is falling apart, we’re going broke, government is on a takeover binge, the economy is wobbling. The Road Map is the solution. That’s a pretty good message.

Those who tremble at the thought of pushing a big idea should remember the campaign of 1980. Reagan, who for years had warned of the evils of government spending and overreach, suddenly became the champion of an across the board, 30 percent cut in tax rates for individuals and business.

That was very risky. The elder George Bush called it “voodoo economics.” Democrats were certain the whopping tax cut would turn the country against Reagan. Quite the opposite occurred. Reagan would have defeated Jimmy Carter without it, but not by the 10 percentage points he actually won by. The tax cut showed Reagan was serious about reviving the economy and not at all a weakling like Carter.

It’s good to be a Republican when we have guys like Paul Ryan. Let’s put him in charge and implement his bold ideas.