Tea Party to new Congress: Obamacare must go

By Kevin Price

The 111th Congress has spent more than any of the Congresses in US history. In fact, it has spent more than all the Congresses combined. The Obama administration is passionate about its spending programs and has every intention to pursue its far reaching and radical agenda, regardless of the partisan make up of the Congress, the American people made it clear last November that it better not continue with "business as usual."

The Associated Press reports that "showdowns on spending and debt will signal whether the new Congress can find common ground despite its partisan divisions or whether it's destined for gridlock and brinkmanship that could threaten the nation's economic health." The reality is, "gridlock"

is exactly what the "nation's economic health needs." News stories are calling the 112th Congress the least productive in history, I call that, refreshing.

Unlike most policy makers and members of Congress, I work in the real world of business. Furthermore, I sit across the table in my studio from business owners and entrepreneurs and the message is clear — jobs are not getting created and businesses are not being developed because of a Congress and President that has been bent on doing "too much." Too much spending, regulation, and taxes.

The 2010 elections were largely a referendum on spending and centerpiece among the voters concerns was the President's far reaching health care "reform." In addition to making health care more expensive, its cost are enormous to America's families.

Dick Morris reports:

* "If your household income is $66,000 a year, slightly above the national average, Obama's health care bill will require you to spend 12 percent of your income — about $8,000 a year or almost $700 a month — to buy health insurance before you get any federal subsidy."

* "Even those making less will have to reach deep into their meager resources to satisfy Obama's statutory requirement. Families scraping by on only $44,000 a year will have to pay 7 percent of their income (about $3,000) on insurance."

* "Even those making just $33,000 will have to ante up 4.5 percent of their income (about $1500) for health insurance."

* "The required payments reach so far down the scale that those who are living at the federal poverty level of $22,000 will have to shell out 2 percent of their totally inadequate incomes ($440) for insurance. That Obama is charging premiums to those living at or on the border of poverty is absolutely incredible! And this from a candidate who pledged that he would not tax the middle class. If you have insurance, you will get hit by his proposed 40 percent tax on insurance premiums."

Bottom line, this program is simply too expensive and is demanding be reformed or, better, repealed. The federalism system our country was founded on was predicated on the simple idea that the federal government would have very specific and limited powers (17 to be exact) and the state governments and individuals would have broad powers. According to federalism, the states would find the best solution to health care and other states would copy the programs that worked best. To date, none of the states attempts have worked well. California's approach has limped along for decades, Hawaii's system went bankrupt in six months, and Massachusetts is seeing the development of death panels. Instead of making failure more expensive and profound by concentrating power in the federal government; federalism had the risks and costs distributed throughout the states. The feds need to return reform back to the states.

Some are wondering whether Obamacare had anything to do with the electoral earthquake we witnessed in November. Members of Congress who are confused about this will find themselves unemployed after 2012. These elections had everything to do with Obamacare and the voters are saying it must go.

© Kevin Price