Archive for September, 2010

ANSWER TO OBAMA’S CALL: Ways to Cut Spending

Friday, September 24th, 2010

By Elois Zeanah

President Obama’s rhetoric on the campaign trail to 2010 elections is heated.  He chastizes Tea Party groups and Republicans who rail against his historic spending and deficits, challenging them to put up suggestions to cut spending if they have them — then claiming they don’t!

Let me suggest to the President that he read some of those bills in Congress.  Many bills have been introduced this year to temper his appetite for spending and growing government.  Mr. President, read the bills! 

In addition, I suggest that the President and his advisors take a break from raising voices in partisan bickering and blame games and use their heads for thinking for a change.   A few common sense ways to trim spending follow. 

   What are some ways to cut spending and deficits?

  • Curb illegal immigration ($113 billion/year – more if amnesty is approved)
  • End earmarks (hundreds of billions/year)
  • Repeal the new healthcare bill
  • Combat fraud in healthcare ($110-$150 billion/year)
  • Reform welfare so that the “safety net” is no longer a permanent lifestyle for current and future generations (billions/year)
  • Cancel unspent TARP funds (up to $396 billion)[1]
  • Cancel unspent Stimulus funds ($266 billion)[2]
  • Reduce government employment by hiring one person for every two who leaves civilian government service until workforce is reduced to pre-Obama levels ($35 billion)[3]
  • Cut and cap Discretionary spending ($925 billion)[4]
  • Freeze government civilian pay for one year ($30 billion)[5]
  • Enact a constitutional line-item veto law ($23 billion in one year)[6]
  • Reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ($30 billion)[7]
  • Create a Sunset Commission to conduct systematic reviews of federal programs and agencies and make recommendations for those that should be terminated; and automatically sunset programs unless expressly reauthorized by Congress (billions)[8]

 These examples are just a few ways of how government can reduce spending and cut deficits.  There are many, many others.   

Importantly, these suggestions alone would save over $2 trillion.

[1] H.R. 3140 introduced by Rep. Tom Price of Georgia

[2] H.R.3140 introduced by Rep. Tom Price of Georgia

[3] H.R. 5348 introduced by Rep. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming

[4] H.R. 3964 introduced by Reps. Ryan and Hensarling & H.R. 3298 introduced by Rep. Jim Jordan

[5] Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin

[6] H.R. 1294 introduced by Paul Ryan of Wisconsin

[7] H.R. 4889 introduced by Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas; H.R. 4653 introduced by Rep. Scott Garrett of New Jersey

[8] H.R. 393 introduced by Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas


Friday, September 24th, 2010

By Elois Zeanah

Introduction:  Obama and Democrats are working to convince churches to preach global warming and green issues.  If you don’t want your church to become the latest takeover by the federal government, alert your pastor and congregation so they won’t be blindsided by Obama’s strategy to invade our churches through the lure of tax dollars for “faith-based” programs. In addition, Obama is leaning on churches to preach the “merits” of ObamaCare. Unable to personally persuade the public that government takeover of health care is a good thing, Obama is now leaning on churches to convince those he couldn’t, using the cloak of religion.  BEWARE! 

Will federally funded faith based programs attach strings to churches?

  • Despite the separation of church and state doctrine, the Obama administration is using tax dollars to persuade churches to preach Leftist propaganda of environmentalism.
  • Federal money can’t be used to” proselytize” for religious conversion – only to “proselytize” green ideas.
  • “Obama is using his faith-based program to push global warming, climate change, and green initiatives on America’s churches and he’s doing so by brazenly coupling his faith-based council with the Environmental Protection Agency.”[1]
  • Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships “envisions the ‘partnership’ between government and religious institutions as a means of spreading the administration’s environmental warnings, rather than just a way to help churches feed the hungry and clothe the poor.”[2]
  • The Advisory Council’s final report of recommendations (March 2010) includes “Bringing the power of 370,000 houses of worship across the country to the fight of climate change by greening buildings and promoting environmental stewardship in their congregations.”[3]

Will Christians maintain the wall of separation between church and state?

  • Environmentalism is the religion of secularists.  They are quick to call for a wall between church and state.  Unsuccessful at converting voters from Christianity to secularism, far-left environmentalists are now invading and converting churches by stealth – using tax dollars.  Wi
  • In addition, Obama is calling pastors to preach on “ObamaCare” to convince their members to accept what he’s been unable to “sell”.

ll we stand for our churches to become servants of the government?

[1] Weekly Standard: Meghan Clyne per Canada Free Press/Warner Todd Huston, May 12,2010

[2] Ibid.

[3] “A New Era of Partnerships: Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships Presents Final Report of Recommendations,” by Mara Vanderslice, March 11, 2010 (Vanderslice is the Deputy Director of the White Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships and the Coordinator of the President’s Advisory Council)

Is ObamaCare A “Free Gift” Trinket for the Masquerade Party?

Thursday, September 23rd, 2010

By Elois Zeanah

Like a masked Mardi Gras reveler on a lavishly decorated, dream-like float, President Obama takes his show to the streets this week to whoop up ObamaCare – again!  The public didn’t line the streets to catch free trinkets he was throwing the first time around. This time will be different, Obama says.  People just didn’t understand what prizes they would receive from this extravaganza that will cost nearly $1 trillion.   Obama feels certain he can drum up a crowd to join the uproarious party he and fellow congress members have ordered for their pleasure – this time! 

Remember when House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi screamed in delight about the surprises citizens would find inside the 2,000-plus page health care law – but they had to pass it before they could find out the wonderful gifts in store for them?   Well, the law passed and the public was finally able to break apart this piñata “gift package.”  But alas instead of gifts gushing forth that spur squeals of delight, IOUs rushed like a flood over heads of taxpayers, washing away all pretense of the faux show.

Who are these jesters that joke so?  Some are the hired actors by Obama and his Party leaders  to masquerade as fans.  Remember the buy-offs of congressmen?  Only with cash for votes in their pockets would these legislators put on disguises to join the Carnival as puppet performers.  Others are media members who “invested” in Obama and continue to prop him up to protect their “investment” in his ideology.

Will Obama succeed this time, six months after ObamaCare passed?   According to Rasmussen Reports, Gallup and CNN, between 56% and 61% of voters reject the set design and props of the Masquerade.  But Obama believes that once the public fully understand what free trinkets he’s throwing, the public will rally and line the streets, unlike last time, with trumpets of praise and merrymaking and forget that his health care reform threatens the best health care system in the world and whacks away at capitalism.  

 All it takes, Obama believes, is for voters to get the sweet taste of freebies that roll out this week and voters won’t care that ObamaCare raises not lowers health care costs as he promised; that punitive employer mandates, exploding spending estimates, fewer doctors, fewer jobs, and burdensome regulatory compliance will thwart the nation’s economic recovery not throttle it as he promised.[1]

Careful to remove all price tags from these so-called “free gifts”, Obama and his media clowns are as strangely silent as mimes about who pays for his $1 trillion takeover of the health care industry.  His health care trinkets aren’t free.  Many insurance holders will pay $5,000 to $9,000 a year more to make up for lost benefits.[2]   The very people ObamaCare was supposed to help – predominantly low-income households and minorities – will have trouble paying their medical bills.  This includes seniors and the disabled.  And according to a report published in April by the White House Medicare Office of the Actuary, “about 7.4 million people who would have been enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans in 2017 will lose their coverage completely.  Those who are able to retain their coverage will lose significant benefits.”[3]

Most masquerades are humorous.  The only stand up comedy in the ObamaCare masquerade is that the very actors they hired took their money, then peeled off their disguises and departed the false show as quick as a thief to put distance between ObamaCare and their congressional races.   Now desperate to keep his congressional majority from whittling beyond control, Obama is now reaching out to churches to preach the deception of ObamaCare that he can’t sell.  Now that’s scary and it’s not funny!

[1] The Heritage Foundation:  “Six Months Closer to Repeal,” by Conn Carroll, September 23, 2010

[2][2] Wall Street Journal Editorial “How Seniors Will Pay for ObamaCare” by John C. Goodman,

[3] Ibid.

ObamaCare: Its Costs and Consequences

Monday, September 20th, 2010

By Elois Zeanah

Did you know that individuals will have to pay taxes on the value of their insurance starting in 2011?

  • Yes – Democrats have forced this new tax on us through ObamaCare!
  • The gross income of senior citizens will go up by the amount of insurance they have.
  • Also, W-2 tax forms sent by employers will be increased to show the value of whatever insurance they provide workers.
  • Think what $15,000 or $20,000 additional gross does to your tax debt for 2011.
  • Many Americans will move to a higher tax bracket.

How will ObamaCare hurt seniors and impact medical decisions?

  • Democrats will cut over $500 billion from Medicare to pay for ObamaCare.
  • Democrats will interject government between patients and their doctors.
  • Government boards will decide what treatments would or would not be funded and a so-called “comparative effectiveness research commission” has the power to base health care on age.
  • Rationing of health care will occur:
  • Obama’s regulatory czar Cass Sustein believes the age of a person should determine the level of care one receives.  He does not consider newborns to 40 and those 65 and older as productive citizens and believes these groups should be denied priority care.
  • Obama’s health adviser Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel believes age and productivity should guide medical decisions and that allocation of medical service based on age is not discrimination.
  • Obama’s science czar John Holdren believes in compulsory abortion and sterilization.

 Do doctors/medical organizations support ObamaCare?[1]

Various physicians and medical organizations have publicly opposed this dangerous health care experiment. These include:

  •  Former presidents of the American Medical Association Dr. Donald Palmisano, MD, HC, FACS, and Dr. William G. Plested, III, MD, FACS to the Mayo Clinic,
  • The American Association of Neurological Surgeons and Congress of Neurological Surgeons
  • The Medical Society of Delaware
  • The Medical Association of Georgia

If Republicans achieve a Congressional majority, what will they do?[2]

  • Republicans will repeal ObamaCare and its costs!  Republicans have a Senior Health Care Bill of Rights.  This includes:
  • Protect Medicare and not cut it as Democrats propose to do! 
  • Prohibit government from getting between seniors and their doctors. 
  • Outlaw any government effort to ration health care based on age.
  • Prevent government from interfering with end-of-life care discussions.
  • Ensure that seniors can keep their current coverage.
  • Protect veterans by preserving TRICARE For Life and other benefit                                    programs for military families.



  • Reduce fraud in Medicare and Medicaid
  • Amend EMTLA to give free health care to indigent Citizens only
  • Pass TORT reform

Ø $800B/yr. wasted on fraud, defensive medicine, paperwork[3]

Ø These three MUST be done if costs are to be controlled 


  • Allow interstate competition among insurance carriers
  • Eliminate government mandates of what insurance companies must cover
  • Find ways to make policies portable


  • Electronic information-sharing (records, wikis, etc.)
  • Collaborative Care (e.g.:  Theda Care in Appleton, Wisconsin)
  • Incentivize good behavior (e.g.: Safeway:  obesity, exercise, smoking)

Ø   ALL can be accomplished WITHOUT government takeover 

Summary:  ObamaCare will hurt America’s seniors.  The Democrats’ health care plan, according to the CBO, will cost at least $1 trillion and still leave 36 million Americans uninsured. ObamaCare will add $239 billion to the federal deficit and raise taxes at least $800 billion.  ObamaCare is a massive intrusion into privates.

[1] Republican National Committee
[2] Republican National Committee
[3] Senator Tom Coburn, MD

Cap and Trade Climate Bill: How Will It Impact You?

Saturday, September 18th, 2010

By Elois Zeanah

Summary:  Cap-and-trade rations CO2 and will significantly increase energy costs, raise taxes and do considerably more economic harm than environmental good. The hoped-for-green-job gain is a mirage.[1] Job losses, however, are real.   In addition, global warming legislation will give bureaucrats more control over our lives; they can regulate the size of our homes, tax the mileage we drive every year, tell us how much heat and air conditioning we can use, etc.  

It will significantly roll back the quality of our lives at great cost yet without significantly lowering the world’s temperature.  Cap-and-trade is just one more way to take more of our freedoms, more of our money, and to exert more control over our daily lives. Cap and trade is a massive intrusion into the U.S. economy.

 What is cap-and-trade?

  • Regulations to limit (cap) carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels.
  • Companies could sell (trade) CO2 emissions allowed by the government but not used.
  • Over time, the cap would be ratcheted down, requiring more rationing and more sacrifices.

What’s the purpose?

  • To ration coal, oil, and natural gas on the American economy.
  • To increase energy costs by cutting back energy use by residents, businesses, industries

What would be the impact?

  • Costs will increase for electricity, gasoline, heating oil, natural gas and coal – as well as for food, furniture, clothing and other items we use everyday.  This includes almost everything!
  • Household energy prices will rise “29% above the business as usual prices, even though consumers will have switched to smaller cars, moved into more energy efficient houses, and made greater use of public transit.”[2]
  • In many cases, cap and trade will impact residents’ ability to put fuel in their vehicles and food on the table; and place at-risk children in even greater peril.  

Who will bear the brunt?

  • Poor and working families.  “Households would face an annual burden of roughly $144.8 billion per year with costs disproportionately borne by low-income households, those under 25 and 75 years, those in Southern states, and single parents with dependent children.”[3]  On the campaign trail, President Obama admitted that if cap and trade were to pass, utility bills would necessarily skyrocket.  
  • Workers.  Jobs will be lost and the economy will be hurt since cap-and-trade will force manufacturing jobs to China and India, where power and labor will be cheaper. 

Is new legislation necessary to curtail CO2 emissions?

  • Current laws already mandate cuts in CO2 emissions (renewable mandates, CAFE standards for fuel economy, and subsidies for ethanol production).

Will these costs and consequences result in Green Stimulus?

  • No!  Production drops despite firms being forced to adopt more energy efficient technologies and processes – despite trillions of dollars in lost income – and despite hundreds of thousands in lost jobs.
  • An EPA analysis shows that a 60% reduction in CO2 emissions will reduce world temperatures only 0.1 to 0.2 degrees – virtually no difference.  Yet cap and trade will have devastating impacts on taxes and loss of jobs.[4]

Will cap and trade raise taxes?

  • Yes! Cutting CO2 emissions by 70% creates a transfer equivalent to taxes of up to $300 billion per year, and $5 trillion in just the first 20 years.
  • This would be one of the largest taxes in the economy – almost twice as large as the highway use taxes.”[5] 

Will cap and trade impact national security?

  • Absolutely!  Less oil and gas exploration in the U.S. forces the U.S. to buy foreign sources and sets up the U.S. for potential blackmail.  The U.S. has capacity to produce enough gas to equal 50 years of imports, enough natural gas to supply all America’s households for 46 years,[6] and 200 years of available coal reserves.[7]

Why would Government ration CO2 since costs will be severe but gains negligible?

  • Ideologues refuse to face facts and persistently hold onto global warming theories that economists have repeatedly proven false.

Some states will lose more than 50% of manufacturing jobs. 

Republicans have a better plan, The American Energy Act, to provide energy independence, a cleaner environment, and more jobs at home – without tax hikes, loss of freedoms and job losses!

[1] The Heritage Foundation: “Beware of Cap and Trade Climate Bills” by Ben Lieberman, 12/6/2007

[2] The Heritage Foundation: Testimony by David Kreutzer, Ph.D. before the Energy and Commerce Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, April 22, 2009

[3] The Tax Foundation, “Who Pays for Climate Policy?” by Andrew Chamberlain, March 16, 2009

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6]  (Dept. of Interior estimates) The Heritage Foundation:  “Tying Our Hands on Energy,” by Ben Lieberman, 6/18/2010

[7] Our Future of Clean Coal, America’

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: Why is U.S. Birthright Citizenship for Sale?

Wednesday, September 15th, 2010

By  Elois Zeanah
September 15, 2010

The expose that Asian businesses are “selling” U.S. birthright citizenship packages for tourists hit national news recently.  The practice is not new, however.   Foreigners worldwide have known about the cheap sale of U.S. citizenship for many years .

 Foreigners can buy U.S. citizenship for their children (and eventually get it for themselves) for the price of a ticket to the U.S. or get it free by stealing over the border.  Some foreigners come to the U.S. to get dual citizenship for their children; others birth their babies in the U.S. to get on the U.S. taxpayer dole and stay for life.   What is new is that U.S. citizens are just learning that:

 America bestows automatic birthright citizenship on babies born on U.S. soil regardless of whether their parents are tourists, terrorists, in the U.S. for one hour or one year, or in the U.S. illegally, and taxpayers pay billions of dollars a year for these anchor babies.  The exposure of this practice  has spurred outrage and national debate over birthright citizenship.  For sure, the President and Members of Congress have known about this travesty for a long, long time, but plan to do nothing about it unless Americans catch on to what’s happening and demand that Congress and the President fix this huge problem that cost taxpayers over $100 billion every year. 

Why do politicians not want to fix the problem?  Just as Esau sold his birthright to Jacob for a momentary fleshly gratification, politicians are trading Americans’ most precious birthright, citizenship, for votes for momentary power.   RINOs (Republicans in name only) cater to outlaw business contributors who break the law to get cheap labor.   Democrats dangle free services to illegal aliens to buy votes. 

This is why U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder won’t enforce federal immigration laws.  This is why U.S. Homeland Security Director Janet Napolitano won’t seal the border.  And this is why the Obama Administration sues states like Arizona who will enforce federal immigration laws that government won’t.  And as unreal as it sounds, this is why the Obama Administration complained to the United Nations Human Rights Council and asked this international organization to trump U.S. Constitutional law and accuse Arizona of trampling human rights and being a rogue state.

Is a constitutional amendment needed?  There is a movement underfoot to mislead voters that a constitutional amendment is necessary to define what “citizen” means.  This is wrong!  Beware of politicians who try to fool voters as Esau deceived his father by dressing in the hairy skins of baby goats to steal his brother’s blessing from his father Issac.   American citizenship is a blessing from our Founding Fathers and should be treasured and safeguarded .

The same politicians who advocate a constitutional amendment are the same politicians who supported amnesty in the past and will in the future.  Politicians who make an impassioned case against birthright citizenship, then turn around and try to tie up the issue in a long drawn out and unnecessary constitutional amendment are either misinformed or purposefully trying to deceive citizens to avoid accountability. 

How can we stop automatic birthright citizenship for children of non-citizens?   First, we must inform all Members of Congress how birthright citizenship is tied directly to government spending, taxes, deficits and the national debt.  Most don’t know the taxpayers pay $113 billion in taxes for illegal immigrants every year and that illegal immigration is a major contributor to spending, deficits and debt that plague both federal and state governments. 

Second, we must educate our individual Members of Congress that Section 5 of the 14th Amendment gives Congress the power to reinstate the original intent of the Citizenship Clause.  The 1868 intent of the Citizenship Clause was to ensure that newly freed slaves could not be denied U.S. citizenship, and the jurisdictional clause was added so that the 14th Amendment could not be interpreted as a blanket grant of birthright citizenship to any person who by accident of birth was born on U.S. soil to parents of “foreigners or aliens”, but bureaucrats have expanded this definition.

And third, we must request that our states’ House of Representatives join other cosponsors of H.R. 140 which clarifies and reinstates the intent of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, and ask our Senators to introduce a companion bill in the Senate.   

The only way to end the explosive problem of illegal immigration and unfair taxation is to ban automatic birthright citizenship.  Every developed nation except Canada and the United Stated did so years ago to protect their national security, economy and taxpayers.   The definition of “citizen” can be done through legislation; a constitutional amendment is not needed.

Banning birthright citizenship will immediately reduce spending, taxes, deficits and debt.  How often is it that Legislators can solve so many problems with just one vote?   Spread the word to your family and friends and contact your Members of Congress.