Politico.com reports that key “White House allies are dramatically shifting their attempts to defend health care legislation, abandoning claims that it will reduce costs and the deficit and instead stressing a promise to ‘improve it.’”  It’s no surprise that Obamacare is not turning out to be what was promised. It seems the more the public gets to know about it, the less they like it.

And while some members of Congress and the President promised us that reform would cut costs, it is becoming increasingly clear that they were wrong. And now, facing the fact that Obamacare is becoming less popular with the public, many are doing what politicians do best, offering to “improve” the bad bill they passed in the first place. This is what happens when 2,500 page bills are passed without being read.

In other fiscal news, the Congressional Budget Office reports that over the last 31 months Congress has added more than $4.4 trillion to the federal budget baseline.  In comparison, in 2005 total federal spending was only $2.47 trillion. Healthcare is a part of that equation, and I’d hate to see what the numbers will look like if we send the same elected officials back to “improve” on the $1 trillion piece of legislation they already passed. In order for the situation to really be improved, we need to send a new crop of legislators to Congress.

It seems not a day goes by that we learn of something new hidden in the healthcare reform bill. We now know, unsurprisingly, that it will cost over $1 trillion, even though we were assured it would save us money.

While the costs and paperwork  associated with the Obamacare are staggering, the greatest amount of opposition is still to the individual mandate to buy health insurance. This has led several states, including ours, to file lawsuits against the federal government. One of those lawsuits was filed by the state of Virginia, and it passed its first major legal hurdle yesterday. The White House has dismissed the lawsuit as frivolous and political since it was filed, and argued that the states didn’t have standing to sue in this case. According to US District Judge Henry Hudson, they were wrong. While this case is a long way from being heard, it is a significant development in potentially challenging aspects of the healthcare bill.
 

As more and more comes out about Obamacare, we are sure to see new challenges to its constitutionality, as well as its practicality. But, while the challenges are good, the best defense against this type of legislation is electing the right people to represent us.

As Nancy Pelosi famously put it, “…we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it…”. They did. Now we’re finding out what’s in it, and the results aren’t pretty.

The budget passed earlier this year in Special Legislative Session, occurring because the legislature failed to pass it in the allotted 60-day regular session, relied on both tax increases and one time monies to continue the unsustainable spending path of our state government. One of the budget gimmicks used was to rely on Congress sending $480 million in Federal Medicaid money to the state.  Well, in case you haven’t noticed yet, the Federal government doesn’t have a whole lot of extra money sitting around right now. And, since it’s an election year and many incumbents are in the middle of a tough campaign, many are not eager to vote for more spending before November. This all adds up to the strong possibility that Washington will not receive the Federal funds it was counting on.

Without those funds the state budget doesn’t pan out, and there are only 2 things for Governor Gregoire to do. She can either make across the board cuts, or call the legislators back to Olympia for a second Special Legislative Session. Gregoire suggested that a good revenue forecast could help, but if Oregon is any indication, we should not expect good news.

This could end up being very painful for the state, but hopefully will teach our legislature a tough lesson that every farmer knows well, “don’t count your chickens until they’re hatched.”

For almost 20 years we have tracked a practice we call “Becoming a member to resign in outrage.”  It is always someone with liberal-left leanings and distressed about a stand taken by Farm Bureau members. Recently such a member objected to my use of the phrase "…the tax-and-spend, high unemployment party of socialized medicine..."  No party was mentioned.   

This “member” also objects to a clip we posted from Glenn Beck’s show where Beck holds up 8 or so pages listing all of the new government programs created by Obamacare. We thought it was a good illustration of government insertion into American lives.

The sign up to resign tactic might make some groups have second thoughts about something they said, but we are confident that we mirror the farm and ranch families we represent. Afterall, real farmers set the policies that drive this organization.

One wonders why someone would object to the terms tax-and-spend, high unemployment and socialized medicine to describe the leanings of many in Congress, unless they are squeamish about the truth. We think they are pretty good descriptors.

For the first time in the history of the Farm Bureau PAC, 100% of the county Farm Bureaus have named PAC committees to make recommendations on which candidates to support. I’d say someone who supports tax-and-spend policies, high unemployment, and socialized medicine is not likely to get a PAC endorsement. And, in our PAC, no endorsement means no contribution.

We encourage all of our members to identify a candidate they support and work for them and make a contribution to their candidate. We feel confident in saying this because we know where our members stand. 

Glenn Beck provides an eye opening look at just what is in store for all of us. Exactly how many new government regulations are headed our way remains to be seen, but if this is any indication, expect A LOT.

Not that long ago the Washington Farm Bureau PAC endorsed Dino Rossi in his run for governor. He had the lead when the polls closed, but as time passed ballots for his opponent seemed to magically appear.

Now Rossi is only two points behind Sen. Patty Murray and he hasn’t announced if he will run. If he does, his could be the race that determines if the tax-and-spend, high unemployment party of socialized medicine runs the Senate.

Read the full story here.

Our purpose for this blog is two-fold. One is to inform and the other is to agitate. Most of the time we try to do both as we are today.

After every legislative session the Washington Farm Bureau government relations team compiles a list of issues important to farm and ranch families. Our experience is these issues are also important to families everywhere.

Then, without regard to person or party, we compile how the members of the Legislature voted on those issues. From that we calculate a percentage to score how well each legislator supported farm families.

There are several Legislators who have 100% vote records with us. I do not recall that any member of the legislature had a zero percentage but there are some who come darn close – too close to think they care about rural issues and what it takes to run a profitable family farm.

Click here to see the issue of Legisletter that lists the issues, the voting records, and score for every member of the Legislature for this past session. We don’t let the governor off the hook either because we report what action the governor took.

The endorsement of political candidates is another process, although the vote record is certainly a key part of that process for incumbents. The endorsement process begins at the county Farm Bureau level and the state PAC trustees accept the county recommendations except in very narrow circumstances. So, if a candidate fails to be endorsed, it is likely because he or she has problems with folks in the district. If they call us to complain we to tell them to talk with the county Farm Bureau. But beware because farmers are not bashful about explaining why the county took their action.

In our view the economy, taxes, spending, nationalized health care and, unemployment are the key issues in this campaign. Unemployment is growing as a key issue with voters. It is, of course, a sub-part of the economy but doesn’t it seem callous to talk about a jobless recovery when unemployment is 10% and higher in some areas? Click here for more information about joblessness.

Armed with this information, it is appropriate for you to write letters to the local newspaper editor and support or disagree with a candidate; ask questions at town hall meetings; and, decide which candidates you will support with your personal contributions and by volunteering to help in the campaign. A key measurement is to remember which candidates are tax and spenders and those who believe in smaller government and lower taxes.

When President Obama sold his healthcare reform bill to the American people, he claimed it would reduce healthcare costs and protect citizens’ pocketbooks. With the passage of time, we have learned that the American people were rightly skeptical about the bill.

President Obama recently received word from the Medicare’s Office of the Actuary that Obamacare does not cut costs and isn’t even neutral. It drives up costs!

In a new report released this week the Congressional Budget Office says Obamacare would push the government’s 10 year costs to more than $1 trillion. As the bill was debated and passed the Administration limited the information that was passed along to the Congressional budget office in order to low ball the estimates.

Read more …

At its April 2010 meeting, the Washington Farm Bureau board of directors approved our own push back campaign. We call it Farm Bureau 911. Think of it this way -– when the fire alarm goes off do we run to the fire or away from it? Historically Farm Bureau members have run to the fire when our way of life is threatened as it is now.

“I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.”
-- Thomas Jefferson

“What’s real in politics is what the voters decide is real.”
-- Ben Wattenberg

Read more …