Tag Archives: Jan Schakowsky

Democrat explains why you don’t deserve to keep all the money you earn

(H/T Reason to Stand)

Here’s an article that my good friend Tom found.

Excerpt:

A lot of reaction Wednesday morning to Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky’s interview with Don Wade and Roma.

Schakowsky said that Americans don’t deserve to keep all of their money because we need taxes to support our society.

“I’ll put it this way. You don’t deserve to keep all of it and it’s not a question of deserving because what government is, is those things that we decide to do together. And there are many things that we decide to do together like have our national security. Like have police and fire. What about the people that work at the National Institute of Health who are looking for a cure for cancer,” Schakowsky said.

Schakowsky also says one reason the 2009 stimulus bill did not succeed was because it was not large enough.

Schakowsky also admitted there are questions about the Obama administration’s connection to the now bankrupt Solyndra solar panel company.

The administration approved nearly $528 million in federal loans to the company, before Solyndra filed for bankruptcy.

Let’s find out more about what Democrats like Jan believe.

She’s a socialist

Here is Illinois socialist Jan Schakowsky at a town hall meeting.

Ed Morrissey explains what’s in the clip:

At least Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) gives it a few tries.  First she argued “If we can build national highways,” but Adam Sharp noted that the Constitution does include the authority to build interstate “post roads.”  Next, Schakowsky says enacting civil-rights legislation creates some sort of odd precedent, even though those acts existed to enforce the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments of the Constitution.  Schakowsky gives it one last try on Medicare and Social Security, even though the former is voluntary and the latter is an explicit government program (albeit also of dubious Constitutional authority).  There exists no Constitutional reference to force Americans to buy a private product, and Schakowsky winds up walking away…

You’ll remember that this is the same woman who thinks that Obama’s public option would lead to single-payer health care.

If she loves communism so much, why doesn’t she just move to North Korea right now where she can personally imprison, torture and execute people who want to keep the money they earn? Just jump to the end game, Jan – don’t beat around the bush. Isn’t abortion enough for you?

Is there a Constitutional basis for ObamaCare?

From Founding Bloggers, clips of Illinois socialist Jan Schakowsky at a town hall meeting.

Ed Morrissey explains what’s in the clip:

At least Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) gives it a few tries.  First she argued “If we can build national highways,” but Adam Sharp noted that the Constitution does include the authority to build interstate “post roads.”  Next, Schakowsky says enacting civil-rights legislation creates some sort of odd precedent, even though those acts existed to enforce the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments of the Constitution.  Schakowsky gives it one last try on Medicare and Social Security, even though the former is voluntary and the latter is an explicit government program (albeit also of dubious Constitutional authority).  There exists no Constitutional reference to force Americans to buy a private product, and Schakowsky winds up walking away…

You’ll remember that this is the same woman who thinks that Obama’s public option would lead to single-payer health care.

So it looks like the Illinois guy from last week was not an anomaly at all. Democrats don’t like explaining where in the Constitution they get the authority for their big spending.

How do Democrats plan to improve health care?

I think it’s important to be clear about what their goal is for their seizing control of reforming health care.

The Heritage Foundation says this:

Earlier this month in Chicago, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) told a rally of government-run health care supporters: “I know many of you here today are single payer advocates and so am I … and those of us who are pushing for a public health insurance don’t disagree with this goal. This is not a principled fight. This is a fight about strategy for getting there and I believe we will.”

And let’s be clear about how they mean to do it:

Recent SCHIP expansion and additional Medicaid funding in the stimulus package made a substantial down payment on major expansion of government run health programs. Established research shows that a public health plan will ”crowd out” private insurance, forcing millions of Americans off their current plans, and away from their family doctors. A public health plan, coupled with Comparative Effectiveness Research, would engineer artificially lower prices for medical services through the imposition of Medicare-style price controls. Such Medicare-style payment levels would undercut the market share of existing private health plans, and, combined with a mandate on employers, stack the incentives against workers in private employer-based health insurance by encouraging their employers to dump them into a new government-run health plan. Watch the video of Rep. Schakowksy’s statements on The Foundry. She clearly admits that the purpose of the government run option is to kill private insurance so everyone eventually is forced into government-run health care.

And the result is also known:

Moving all Americans into a government-run health care system will not only bankrupt our country, but will lead to less innovation in the health care sector and lower quality care for all Americans.

This is what people who vote for Democrats will get. It’s not what they expected, but it’s what they’ll get.