Conservative Principles Now

America stands on the precipice of sweeping liberal health care reform that will radically reshape one-sixth of the U.S. economy, and a 153-page House bill is all that stands between us and a fundamentally changed America.

What will that change look like? Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said, “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,” and President Barack Obama said, “By the time the vote has taken place, not only will I know what’s in it, you’ll know what’s in it.”

In other words, here’s a ticket to ride, get on board, we can’t tell you where it’s going, but you’ll like it once you get there. We promise.

A picture of America’s future under Obamacare can be revealed, though, after peeling away the pages and digging through the dirt. Here’s 10 things you can expect:

1. A Massively Engorged Government, to the tune of $2.5 trillion in new entitlement spending. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), new entitlement spending in the plan would cost $216 billion by 2019, then increase by 8 percent every year thereafter.
2. A Cornhusker Kickback for All. No, special deals aren’t removed from Obamacare this time around. Instead, the House bill extends new federal funding for Medicaid to all states. Incidentally, you’re paying for it.
3. A Freight train of taxes, slamming the American people in 2018. You’ve heard of the “Cadillac” tax on high-cost insurance plans? It will be pushed back to 2018, and given the way “high-cost” plans will be defined, a large segment of the middle class would get hit with the tax over time.
4. Beware the shape-shifting tax monster. New taxes will take many forms, including taxes on prescription drugs, medical devices (like wheel chairs), and health insurance.
5. Unconstitutional mandates, courtesy of Congress. Don’t want to buy health insurance? Congress will penalize you if you don’t, regardless of income.
6. Lock your back door. Higher health care costs will be sneaking in. The plan gives subsidies to low-to-moderate wage families, but the subsidies will increase at a lower rate than the rate at which premiums increase. In other words, those families will pay more every year.
7. Lights out for small businesses? Companies that hire certain low-income Americans will have to pay $3,000 per employee, per year, even if the company offers insurance.Oh, and if a company employs 50 or more workers, they’ll face higher tax penalties to the tune of $2,000 per full-time employee.
   
8. Abortions. You will pay for them, like it or not. The House bill includes major funding for community health centers with no restrictions on federal taxpayer funding of abortions.
9. Want to play the stock market? Maybe not, after you hear this. The House bill slaps a 3.8% tax on investment income.
10. It’s not a federal system, after all. States will have less power. They’ll no longer have authority to regulate health care premiums. Instead, the federal government will take on the job. States and local governments won’t be able to control their own employee health plans; they’ll have to abide by new federal regulations.

Yesterday FOX News Special Report interviewed President Barack Obama about the process for passing the President’s controversial and unpopular health care proposal.  Fox’s Bret Baier asked some pointed questions to see if the President supported or would even talk about the controversial “Slaughter Rule” being considered by the House to pass Obamacare. The President would not directly answer repeated questions about a potentially unconstitutional Deem and Pass rule, but he seemed to tacitly support the idea.

There is no precedent for legislation of this scale to be jammed through Congress by using a deeming resolution in concert with a reconciliation measure. Liberal leaders in the House argue that because Republicans used this potentially unconstitutional procedure in the past, they should be allowed to do so now on a much larger scale. Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution states, “Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States.” This procedure, on it’s face, seems to violate the letter of the constitution.

The President was asked by Bret Baier about the Slaughter Rule:

FOX News Reporter Bret Baier: So you support the Deem and Pass Rule?

President Barack Obama: What I am saying is whatever they end up voting on, and I hope it is going to be sometime this week, it is going to be a vote for or against my health care proposal. And that’s what matters. And that’s what people are going to judge this on.

The President seemed to abide by Congressman Chris Van Hollen’s (D-MD) advice to avoid talking about the process. Obama would not directly answer this question, but seemed to tacitly endorse the potentially unconstitutional strategy with his statement that he hoped for a vote “sometime this week.” The President does not seem troubled by the constitutional concerns of the Slaughter Rule strategy. The Wall Street Journal Op Ed agrees with the argument that this controversial procedure is unprecedented because never before has Congress passed a comprehensive reform bill using this tactic. Baier pressed the President:

Baier: Monday in Ohio, you called for courage in this health care debate. At the same time, Pelosi was saying this to reporters about the Deem and Pass rule, “I like it, this scenario, because people don’t have to vote on the Senate bill.” Is that the type of courage you are talking about?

Obama: Well, here is what’s taking place. We both know what is going on. You have got a Senate bill that was passed that had provisions that needed to be changed. Right. People were concerned about the fix that only fixed Nebraska and didn’t fix the rest of the States. Now a lot of the members of the House legitimately say, we want to vote on a package as the President has proposed that has those fixes embedded in them. Now that may mean that they have to sequence the votes, but the ultimate vote they are taking is whether they believe in the proposal that I have put forward.

Baier seemed to be trying to get the President to condemn Members of Congress for dodging a direct vote and showing no courage in structuring a vote that would allow members to claim that they never voted directly for the Senate passed version of Obamacare while that same legislation would be deemed passed by the House and sent to the President for his signature. Pelosi’s intent is to avoid a direct vote on the Senate bill seems to be a violation of the spirit if not the clear language of the Constitution. The President has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution, as have members of Congress, they need to put more thought into upholding that oath during this contentious and divisive process.