No, Obama, it’s not the TEA Party’s fault – it’s your fault

No, Obama, it’s not the TEA Party’s fault – it’s your fault.

That’s right. You want to point some fingers? Did you ever hear the old saying that, “When you point a finger at someone else, several fingers are pointing back at you?” Well, it sure as heck applies here.

“Bush drove the economy into a ditch(?)” No, the age of entitlement drove the economy into the ditch. And you sir, Obama, are a product of the age of entitlement – a product of the soft-underbelly of American success. You’re a pampered academic elitist with wild theories about society and governments, theories that were safe as long as they remained in the classroom.

Unfortunately for US, too many members of the media were inculcated with the same academic disease. They missed the basic point that academic theory and reality are distinctly different things. Academic theory is safe but annoying as long as it is treated as backseat driving.

Well, if Bush drove the car into the ditch, the solution wasn’t to allow the two-year old in the backseat to take the wheel. “I know how to solve hunger in the world, mommy. We tell farmers to grow more food.”

So, you thought that was a ditch in 2008? If that was a ditch you’ve about driven the car off the cliff. If we’re not plunging into jagged rocks below, we’re hanging off the twisted guardrail by a hair’s breath. “Everybody hold real still until help arrives.”

But is the help coming? If you’ve called for a dump truck full of cash with orders to dump more green over our frightened and agonizing heads, I assure you a few bills will get caught on the window wipers and the added weight will pull us over.

But, you haven’t learned your lesson yet, have you? You’re going to stick to your guns through thick and thin. Of course, the thick is what your friends, like Soros, get. The thin is for the rest of us.

About a year ago, I met someone I’d spoken to casually on several occasions. A television was playing and your smiley face came on the screen. I winced and commented that I felt you were leading us to ruin. At that moment, I discovered my acquaintance was an ardent Obama supporter.

Offended by my attitude, over the course of the last year, every time he’s seen me, he’s moved to the other side of the road, sidewalk or dining establishment and given me a dirty look. But, today, at McDonald’s, I overheard him speaking with some people at another table. I didn’t catch the entire conversation but I can tell you that, based on the words I did hear, the bloom is most assuredly off the rose.

You know, it took a majority of those in the media several years of thumping on George W. Bush’s reputation day and night to thoroughly vilify the man to the extent that someone I once considered reasonably stable would engage in wild fits of calling him “Hitler” and other disreputable names. You’ve got the media working in the opposite direction, carrying your water for everything they’re worth, and, I assure you, as things are going, if Bush’s name is mud, one day yours will be the primordial ooze that resides several layers further down.

As I see it, your reputation, along with the hopes and dreams of all Americans, has a limited number of options. In either case, it takes a big man to pull this off and I have little confidence you’ll even try.

The one option is for Barrack Hussein Obama to admit his theories and ideology were based on pasteurized cow pies and to recognize that fiscal conservatism is more than theoretically sound, it’s the only reasonable course to follow. Of course, for you to make this kind of a quantum shift in your perspective, you’d probably have to hold a news conference where you actually had something to say:

“After deep and careful consideration, I’ve realized I’ve been taking America down the wrong path and, today, I am switching my political allegiance to, not only the Republican Party but as a TEA Party member, as well.”

No, I’m not holding my breath.

The other solution is to pretend we have a system in the U.S. akin to Britain’s policy of removing prime ministers on votes of No Confidence. You can pretend that we have this system as you realize that, from those who are awake, No Confidence is the only plausible outcome of such a vote.

In other words, it’s not just that Geithner needs to go; it’s that he needs to go and he needs to take you with him.

In the meantime, how long do you think your media will continue to stick its neck out for you when even those in its ranks who are the most symbiotic to your dung-based theories realize that the last of their credibility is dissolving into wet and moldy shreds of newsprint?

TEA Party 'downgraded' or is it just liberal wishful thinking?

Maybe Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass) is correct; maybe the DebtCeiling Battle will downgrade the effectiveness of the TEA Party in the future. If so, that’s only because the mischaracterizations of liberal politicians and their lap-dog media will win the Public Relations Battle that has ensued following last week’s settlement of the debt ceiling crisis.

For me, nothing will change. I believe in the mission I share with the TEA Party and I’ll give up on that battle when the blood runs cold in my veins and my heart beats its last.

TEA Party people tend to be more conservative and, hence, are often more closely aligned with the Republican Party. This isn’t the case for all TEA Party members, but it works well here as I point out that the symbol of the Republican Party is the elephant, a creature renowned for its long, long memory. TEA Party members certainly seem to have that in common with the symbol of the Grand Old Party.

We remember the meaning of liberty and the lessons our Fore Fathers shared about the importance of limiting the power of government. We remember that it was both Republicans and Democrats who spent us into this current hole. We also remember that Democrats are more aptly considered the greater spendocrats of the bunch.

We remember how, contrary to Nancy ‘Ole Plastic Puss’ Pelosio’s railings about the need to focus on jobs, that the first two years of Obama’s presidency, when his party controlled both houses of Congress, jobs took a back seat to a nationalized health care program that treats the constitution like nothing more than a political inconvenience.

It’s funny, for the first two years of his term, Obama and his cronies (inside and outside of the media) have sought to put all the blame for our financial plight on the shoulders of George W. Bush. Now, I’m not to happy with some of the latter decisions Bush made. But, I couldn’t help but notice that most of the dramatic increase in government spending during his administration took place after the Democrats took control of Congress.

Now that our nation’s credit rating has been downgraded for what I believe is the first time in our history, suddenly the man in the White House is just an innocent victim of TEA Party vitriol. In fact, rather than shift the blame to Congress, or even to the opposing party, these miscreants are actually putting the blame on a small segment of the opposing party and their supporters.

The truth is, the problem wasn’t that freshman TEA Party representatives refused to support the increase in the national debt. The problem was that all the other people in Congress, all of those who voted for the bill, apparently refused to admit that a financial crisis was afoot that required a change in fiscal course; it required a change in the way Congress and the president conducted business.

The TEA Party members saw this. They also saw that the debt ceiling crisis was one of the few occasions when they would have the ability to influence how the country handles its books, at least until 2012. There was no way that they could have forced their fellow leaders to honestly consider our debt crisis unless the TEA Party faction took a stand at a critical moment.

It’s true that I don’t like the deal that was worked out. It’s also true that, unlike many of my fellow TEA Party members, I urged my TEA Party congressman to vote for the deal.  I know, that’s a bit like what the entrenched politicians do – compromising on principal for political reasons.

For me, I view the situation tactically and strategically. From a tactical perspective, standing their ground was the only choice. From a strategic perspective, I worried in advance about the illicit war Kerry, his political ilk and their lap-dog media would wage. I knew then, as I know now, that an Obama victory in 2012 represents virtually the end of America as we know it.

That’s quite a statement and not one I throw around lightly. It’s also a statement I deeply believe.

At the same time, I also realize that the Kerrys of this country have sought to destroy the TEA Party from its inception. There is nothing they would like more than to see it ‘downgraded.’ So, like I said, Kerry might be right, or it might just be another case of liberal wishful thinking.

Liberal Flashcards

Conservatives must keep 2012 insight while fighting Battle of the Debt Ceiling

By and large, I've remained somewhat silent, until now, about the ongoing 'deficit' battle in our nation's capital. Frankly, it's a complicated matter and it would be naive of me to think that there is a simple solution, hence my silence as I've mulled this over. I must admit, however, that I did meet Illinois Republican Joe Walsh and encouraged him to stand strong on this issue. But, the question is, what does standing strong really mean and what is the right thing to do?

For those unfamiliar with this blog or its author, I proudly consider myself a TEA Party member. I believe the 2006 and 2008 elections were disastrous for the continued viability of this country and, Nancy "save the world from republicans" Pelosi should consider this, will lead to a diminished America with far-reaching negative effects for the world as a whole.We must reverse course and get this country back on track. That's why I created this blog and why I'm sitting here this morning, with other things to do, taking time to write this piece.

To find the correct solution to a problem first starts with an accurate assessment of the situation and ones goals. The situation is this, the loggerhead in Washington, D.C., is a result of the 2010 election. In other words, without the influx of constitutionally minded TEA Party conservatives, there would be no debate. Obama and the spendocrats would have long ago passed a debt ceiling increase and republicans warning of America's debt would have been ignored by the spendocrats and the lamestream media that supports them.

We, the TEA Party, have largely framed the debate. We've forced them to consider their spending habits. That was certainly part of our goal, as I see it, in 2010. It was also our goal to change the way things are done in Washington, D.C. Many within the TEA Party have expressed outrage over the propensity of our elected officials to conduct our business behind closed doors where it's easier for them to operate based on their personal agendas rather than the nation's best interests. Clearly, and in spite of the hollow words of candidate Obama, there is less transparency in D.C. than ever.

It is also our goal, once again, as I see it, for our elected officials to operate within the limits of the constitution. Rumors that Obama may abuse the 14th Amendment to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling certainly puts that issue at risk. Of course, it's redundant to point out that Obama the "constitutional professor" has shown a marked lack of reverence for the constitution.

Still, there are many in the public who, with far less concern over the value of limited government, would applaud Obama for stepping out from the shadows to 'save the day' by solving the current crisis. Pundits who point out Obama's negative position on this issue should be a little more wary of that possibility.

While Obama has otherwise faded into the weeds during this crisis, the republican-controlled House is at odds with the democrat-controlled senate, constitutional republicans are at odds with their wishy-washy brothers and sisters and Ole' Plastic Puss Pelosi is espousing her customary baseless and insane nonsense from the wings. This all leaves the rest of us wondering: 1) do we stand firm against a debt ceiling increase at any cost or; 2) do we support Senate Leader John Boehner's plan?

For me, this is where I went back to take another look at our goals. Changing Washington, D.C., spending habits is certainly a major goal, and we've certainly made ground in that respect, at least in terms of the course of the debate. Of course, as some have pointed out, even with an agreement, what guarantee do we have that our elected officials will abide by it?

That is some duly deserved cynicism. Yet, an agreement that begins turning this ship away from a policy of dramatic overspending is still a good thing.

The other goal is to continue bringing America back to a constitutional footing in 2012. Consider what will happen after 2012 if Obama is re-elected, if the Senate remains under democrat control and if the House returns to the liberal fold.

The first effect of such an electoral outcome we can anticipate is the abandonment of fiscal conservatism. Whatever deal is reached now, in terms of the debt ceiling crisis, will mean nothing post-liberal-electoral victory in 2012. Any, albeit limited, restraint Obama and the liberals have demonstrated since 2009 would vanish like a wisp of smoke in a wind storm.

To put it succinctly, the debate today hinges on the outcome of an election tomorrow (November 2012). It, likewise, will probably play a significant role in the outcome of that election. Therefore, and though it may pain us to consider the situation this way, we cannot ignore the long-term political ramifications of the current debate. If we win this battle and it costs us the war in 2012, this situation will make the elections of 2006 and 2008 look like conservative landslides.

Therefore, to state our goals, as I see them, in the current Battle of the Debt Ceiling: 1) Avoid causing any harm to the nation's credit rating; 2) shift America away from fiscal irresponsibility and onto a course of fiscal conservatism; 3) maintain a strong conservative position from which to assail Obama and the liberals in the 2012 election.

As I see it, this probably means supporting the Speaker of the House and his plan. Let the democrats, who already voted against a balanced budget, now vote against a 'reasonable' plan to get us out of this crisis. Let Obama veto such a plan, if he dares, or even continue to stand publicly against it if it never reaches his desk.

This battle will probably not be our opponent's Waterloo but it could very well be ours if we don't play it right.

NPR exec claims intelligence while exhibiting none

It really didn't bother me when I was taking a class at Northern Illinois University and the professor suggested that, "One day, computer programmers may be able to take all of your brainwaves and create a program of your mind and thoughts so that you would live inside the Internet." Flaky? Sure. A little bit moronic? Absolutely. Does that kind of thinking have a place in the 'real world?' Come on? But, at least he didn't ask me to watch a performance of two people having sex or something.

On the other hand, I was bothered today when I saw the video of NPR executives Ron Schiller and Betsy Liley speaking to what they thought were two men with $5 million to give from the Muslim Brotherhood in America.

There was a lot said by these two NPR geniuses that bothered me, like the laughable statement that TEA Party people are fanatically involved in people's lives, but there was one other thing that prompted me to write here today. I was bothered by their comments that fit with the knuckle-dragging Neanderthal brush the Left has consistently tried to use to paint conservatives and, in particular, members of the TEA Party.

Schiller spoke of how 'his' country has disturbed and disappointed him. He said that the "educated, so-called elite is too small a percentage of the population (but, apparently, a couple members smaller than he was counting)."

He added that "you have this very large uneducated" group that is more "about anti-intellectualism."

I used to talk to people about how the things they taught in college didn't exactly fit well in the real world - like making a computer program out of your brainwaves. But, it really goes much deeper than that. Many of the ideas better left in academia are not as obviously idiotic as abandoning our bodies to exist as programs in the Internet.

If you want an example of what happens when someone takes naively wild ideas out of the classroom and tries them out in the real world, you need look no further than the White House. Barack Obama is the epitome of someone better placed in the figurative world of ideas than operating where the rubber meets the road. It's like giving the keys to someone who once read a book about driving a car instead of someone who has actually been down the road a time or two.

Above all, what Schiller exhibited is the kind of arrogance I love about 'the elite' - it makes them such easy targets. And, in the process, it reminds us 'little people' that all those letters beyond their names don't necessarily make them any wiser than the rest of us.

I don't have a Phd after my name. I do have a dozen credits towards a masters degree, however. During the time I've spent in academia, I've met some very intelligent people. Some of them have less common sense than a lab rat but they can still provide the solutions to complex mathematical equations.

We have a need, in the real world, for people who can solve such problems. However, when I checkout of the grocery store, in spite of the rise in food prices, I still don't need a scientific calculator to do the math. We also have a need in this world for intellectuals, people who will explore and consider those things we don't otherwise have time to consider. But, thankfully, engineers building aircraft for Boeing don't apply theoretical equations to the process. They like to test out the theoretical before launching airplanes filled with hundreds of living, breathing, non-theoretical bodies.

The truth is, after numerous years in academia, where I've met some very intelligent people, I can honestly say that, some of the smartest people I've ever met never went to college. Some of them never even finished high school. I had a friend who couldn't read or write but could do things with a tool-and-die machine that were out of this world.

One of the most important things I've learned about intelligence is that it's value is dramatically diminished when accompanied by arrogance. Arrogance, after all, is the exhibition of absolute confidence that one is correct. Once we reach that point, there's no reason to search any further for answers. And if Schiller is disturbed and disappointed, I suggest that he look within first before casting stones where he obviously hasn't really looked.

Oh My Gosh - government spending is wasteful (gasp)

Did you hear - there's governmental waste in Washington, D.C, as reported in the Wall Street Journal. Oh my!

Of course, it's entirely reasonable that the WSJ would cover this story. It deserves to be covered. Any reasonable/ethical publication has a responsibility to cover this story (that's why it's in the Wall Street Journal). But, it's not news.

Raise your hands. How many of you actually thought the government wasn't wasting our tax dollars? How many of you thought the government did a moderately good job of using our money? No hands? How many of you thought the government was doing a poor job of handling our money. There's a few hands - mostly those who didn't anticipate a final option in this informal poll. Now, how many of you think the government is doing an abysmal, horrible, horrendous, stupefying, negligent, criminally inefficient, wasteful and disgraceful job of handling the nation's purse strings?

There they are - all the hands are in the air.

We all know government wastes our finances like someone trying to bail out a sinking ship with a pasta strainer. If we heard that, for every dollar well spent by the government, another $10 are utterly wasted, no one is going to express any serious surprise.

And, with that level of faith in the government, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, the other Democrats in Congress, the Liberal Progressives from universities to soup kitchens, from union halls to abortion clinics, from East Coast to West - all believe in bigger government. If you'll pardon the mixed metaphors, it's like asking your teenage daughter to hold onto the family credit cards in order to stick to your budget.

This is why, beyond the unConstitutional nature of Obamacare, it's a moronic idea to give the government a bigger say in health care. Less ... less of a say, that's the solution.

Obama claims Bush drove the economy into the ditch. Of course, that makes as much sense as blaming the last lemming over the cliff for the bloody mess on the rocks below. But, regardless, the point is that the government has a function and the people in the Beltway seldom seem to recognize the limitations of their roles.

Big government translates to a more powerful government. And a more powerful government translates to a less empowered populace. A more powerful government also translates to a more wasteful government.

Let's assume the government is not as bad as the example I used in the fifth paragraph of this story - wasting $10 for every dollar well spent. Let's suppose that the government only wastes $1 for every two dollars it spends. That's still 50 percent wasted.

Based on this scenario, if the government has access to $1 trillion of our money, that means they're wasting $500 billion. If the government has access to $14 trillion, that means they're wasting $7 trillion. I choose a number closer to the prior than the latter. For your final question in this unscientific poll, which do you choose? And, no, you can't raise your hands for both answers. That kind of logic is only accepted in places like Detroit and Washington, D.C.

Right to Bear Arms - clearly stated (a must see video)

I just received this in an e-mail from the Schaumburg TEA Party. It's definitely worth a few minutes of your time: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675#

Walsh looks even better by a Dold light

Someone made a pretty good point yesterday after I posted my comments about Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) and the exemplary manner in which he has not forgotten the promises he made during the campaign. He is well deserving of the praise, particularly since, when people in public office screw up, I'm among the first to jump on that.

However, as was pointed out, I failed to mention Rep. Robert Dold (R-IL). During the campaign, Dold had a clever little campaign ditty that played off the similarity between his name and former Presidential Candidate Robert Dole. Otherwise, Dold was very similar to Walsh in terms of the promises given. As was pointed out, that's apparently where the similarity ends.

Where Walsh has demonstrated limited-government, fiscal-conservative backbone, Dold has apparently sold out on virtually all of his campaign promises. The way it's been explained to me, it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility to find out that Dold was a liberal progressive plant from the start only masquerading as a conservative. I understand he has a voting record that would make Nancy Pelosi proud.

In a sense, I regret highlighting Dold's 'accomplishments' since arriving in Washington, D.C. My intention was that I felt Joe deserved the limelight unencumbered by the likes of a charlatan spewing patriotic rhetoric as though he means it. I regret the decision because, in reality, Dold's behavior makes Joe's all the more noteworthy.

Just a couple days ago, a conservative I know complained that, Republican or Democrat, they were essentially all alike - out for themselves and screw the nation. With people like Joe Walsh in Washington, D.C., I was able to respond, "Well, not quite all of them. Sure, we've got our Dolds but we also have our Walsh's, and thank God for that."

Fear and Panic - Obama's greatest allies

I have an old friend I chat with from time to time on Facebook. I've found that our discussions help to clarify my thoughts. Such was this case when I was speaking about Obama, Rahm Emanuel and FDR. Suddenly, the pieces all fit together.

Emanuel is well known for his statement, "A good crisis is a terrible thing to waste." Of course, he was referring to the economic crisis of the Great Recession. But, as I realized while chatting with my friend, it was more than the economy; it was the panic that economic fear engendered.

In a crisis, those who keep their heads are usually the winners. If you've ever seen the movie "The Unforgiven" with Clint Eastwood and Gene Hackman, you'll probably recall they speak about this. It's not the best shot or the one who is fastest with a gun that wins in a gun fight. It's the one who keeps his head - assesses the situation coolly and aims carefully, the one who doesn't shoot himself in the foot.

Without fear and panic, Obama probably would not have been elected, Obamacare would have been DOA, Congress would have reacted appropriately from the start to all these czars and agencies setting up a shadow government. We wouldn't have sat back while our president went around the world back-seat apologizing for our history.


I'm clearly not a big fan of FDR's but, he was right when he told America, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." He was telling people not to panic. FDR believed he could achieve his aims through the American system. Oh, he intended to circumvent the Constitution from time to time, but he was still an American at heart.

Obama hasn't truly tried to calm the waters, has he? Why not? Panic and fear are Obama's greatest allies. Panic and fear is what convinced people to buy into his "Hope and Change" in 2008, even though people didn't really realize what they were buying. All they knew was the economy was in the toilet and that Bush, utterly demonized by the lamestream media, was to blame.

Our job, between now and November of 2012, is to clear away the fog of fear and panic. People need to see clearly even if they're afraid. They need to realize, if they aim carefully in the ballot booth they won't shoot themselves in the foot again. FDR was right. Fear is the one thing we must fear the most.

Patriots United Obamacare forum puts radical nature of legislation in perspective

http://patriotsunited.com/I attended a Townhall forum this evening put on by Patriots United with a panel including two physicians and a CEO from the area health care system. The event was inspiring and frightening. It was inspiring to see people at that level who have calmly and coolly consider the implications of Obamacare and have rationally found it, not just wanting, but destructive to an extreme.

How about this for a highlight: Did you know that 90 percent of medical costs are determined by a panel of 29 members of the American Medical Association. The process, and the pricing documents the AMA creates, have a value of $100 million, according to one of the physicians. And yet, somewhat less than 17 percent of all "living" physicians actually belong to the AMA.

Why does the government allow this partisan agency such influence?

Anyhow, it's late, at least in terms of how early I have to get up tomorrow. I don't think they've posted the video of the event yet, but it should be up at the following soon: http://patriotsunited.com/


I'll try to come back with more tidbits and pearls from the event in the next few days. In the meantime, if you're looking for a way to maximize your effort to help put this country back on a Constitutional footing, you might want to check out the Patriots United site now, even if the video isn't up yet (there's a video of another event posted to the site as I write this).

Townhall meeting to discuss Obamacare tonight at MCC

From 7 to 9 p.m., tonight, Wednesday, Feb. 16, Patriots United will host a Townhall Meeting in the auditorium of McHenry County College, 8900 US Highway 14, Crystal Lake, IL, to discuss the preservation of the doctor/patient relationship in the age of Obama. The forum discussion will be led by members of Docs4PatientCare, a national organization committed to maintaining that vital relationship. They will update attendees on the current state of health care issues, recent related events in Washington, D.C., and will make recommendations to continue the struggle to defend patient's rights.

Patriots United, a group in based from McHenry County, IL, is made up of concerned citizens who feel the country has gotten away from its Constitutional path. The group focuses on five 'pillars' or areas of government that need redress. They include: National Defense, Pro-Family, Free Market Economy, Limited Government, and Choice in Education. People interested in learning more about the experts at tonight's event should visit: docs4patientcare.org. For more information about Patriots United, how to join the group or start a chapter in your area, visit: patriotsunited.com.

This article submitted by Rich1776Patriot.

My new Patriotic blog and facebook page.

Along with this, my new and improved blog site in defense of the Constitution, I have created a new fan page for the cause. I welcome patriots everywhere to visit both and welcome your feedback, both in regards to the format of these pages and to the current and future content. To visit the new facebook page, please click here.

Thank you

Responding to Durbin’s voice from the sewer

Responding to Durbin’s voice from the sewer
No. Obamacare was a step back for the American people. It’s unaffordable and un-Constitutional. It’s a disgrace that it was passed into law and a dark mark on the credibility of those in office who take their oaths to uphold the Constitution so frivolously. You should be ashamed for forcing this disaster upon the American people and the people of your state. The fact that you seem unwilling or unable to recognize that casts your personal credibility into the sewer.

Americans need, first and foremost, representatives who will uphold the Constitution. The economy will ebb and flow. Our liberties should not ebb and flow as well.

From: “correspondence_reply@durbin.senate.gov”
To: r…
Sent: Wed, February 9, 2011 5:48:22 PM
Subject: Message from Senator Durbin
February 9, 2011
Mr. R….
Dear Mr. R….:
Thank you for contacting me in support of H.R. 2, a bill to repeal health reform. I appreciate knowing your thoughts on this issue.
Health reform is making a difference in the lives of people in Illinois and across our nation. For the first time in our history, insurance companies are accountable for providing quality coverage to Americans. Insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to children with pre-existing conditions, cancel coverage when people get sick, or place limits on the amount of care people can get, especially when they need it.
The new health reform law gives working families and the middle class a greater assurance that they can find and keep affordable coverage. Tax credits are provided to small businesses to help them cover employees, and when fully implemented, the law will give tax credits to working class Americans who cannot afford their insurance policies. The law will cut the federal budget deficit by $143 billion in the first 10 years and $1.3 trillion in the second 10 years. It will also protect Americans from arbitrary rate hikes and denials of insurance coverage as broad insurance reforms are implemented.
A repeal of the health reform law would be a step backwards for our nation. H.R. 2 would remove consumer protections that prevent insurance industry abuse and would cause millions of Americans to lose health care coverage. Significantly, H.R. 2 would increase the federal deficit by $230 billion dollars over the next decade – a task both Republicans and Democrats have promised not to do.
In addition to the burden on our nation’s deficit, repeal of the law would have other adverse effects. Small businesses across Illinois would lose insurance, for example, because they would no longer have access to a small business tax credit to make insurance affordable. If the law were repealed, the necessary steps to close the donut hole in the Medicare Part D prescription drug program would be reversed. Additionally, hundreds of thousands of seniors would lose a 50 percent discount on brand name drugs and 47,200 young adults under age 26 in Illinois would lose their insurance coverage on their parents’ insurance plans if the law were repealed.
The new law is not perfect; however, the law makes great strides in providing quality coverage to Americans and reducing the federal deficit. I stand by my support for health reform and will continue to work towards its implementation.
I recognize that we disagree on this issue, but I appreciate knowing your thoughts on it and I hope you continue to contact me on matters of importance to you.
Sincerely,
Richard J. Durbin
United States Senator
RJD/kg