Category: overnment

Wisconsin Political Speech Victory

A judge blocks subpoenas against conservative allies of Scott Walker.

Jan. 10, 2014 8:58 p.m. ET
Chalk up a big victory for the First Amendment. On Friday a Wisconsin judge struck a major blow for free political speech when he quashed subpoenas to conservative groups and ordered the return of property to the targets of a so-called John Doe campaign-finance probe.John Doe probes operate much like grand juries, allowing prosecutors to issue subpoenas and conduct searches while gag orders require the targets to keep quiet. We wrote about the kitchen-sink subpoenas and morning raids by special prosecutor Francis Schmitz that targeted dozens of conservative groups that participated in the battle to recall Republican Governor Scott Walker (“Wisconsin Political Speech Raid,” Nov. 16, 2013).

Now we learn that Judge Gregory A. Peterson ruled on Friday that at least some of those subpoenas were improper. They “do not show probable cause that the moving parties committed any violations of the campaign finance laws,” he wrote. His opinion remains under seal but we obtained a copy.

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker Reuters

The quashed subpoenas were sent to Friends of Scott Walker, Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce Inc., the Wisconsin Club for Growth, and Citizens for a Strong America, as well as their officers and directors. Judge Peterson’s order doesn’t apply to other subpoena targets, but they can presumably get the same result if they file a motion with the judge and have a similar factual basis.

The order is all the more remarkable because it bluntly rejects the prosecutor’s theory of illegal coordination between the groups and the Walker campaign. Wisconsin’s campaign finance statutes ban coordination between independent groups and candidates for a “political purpose.” But a political purpose “requires express advocacy,” the judge wrote, and express advocacy means directly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate.

“There is no evidence of express advocacy” and therefore “the subpoenas fail to show probable cause that a crime was committed,” Judge Peterson wrote. Even “the State is not claiming that any of the independent organizations expressly advocated” for the election of Mr. Walker or his opponent, he added. Instead they did “issue advocacy,” which focuses on specific political issues.

This means that prosecutors essentially invented without evidence the possibility of criminal behavior to justify the subpoenas and their thuggish tactics. At least three targets had their homes raided at dawn, with police turning over belongings, seizing computers and files, and even barring phone calls.

The judge’s order vindicates our suspicion that the John Doe probe is a political operation intended to shut up Mr. Walker’s allies as he seeks re-election this year. No one has taken public credit for appointing the special prosecutor, but we know the probe began in the office of Milwaukee County Assistant District Attorney Bruce Landgraf.

Mr. Landgraf works for Milwaukee County Democratic D.A. John Chisholm, and this is their second secret probe of Mr. Walker. The first one ended up with small-time violations against Walker aides but didn’t touch the Governor.

The subpoenas asked for all information and data and communications stretching back to 2009, two years before the recall elections that were supposedly the central issue. Because the subpoenas sought both donor identities and internal communications of the targeted groups, they failed to demonstrate the narrow and targeted investigation that the First Amendment demands. Our sources also say that only conservative groups were targeted.

Democrats would love to intimidate and muzzle the local activists who rallied to Mr. Walker’s recall defense. And the subpoenas all but shut down these activists, forcing them to hire lawyers and defend themselves rather than contribute to the political debate in an election year. Beyond 2014, the prosecutors’ goal seems to be raise the cost of participation so the subpoena targets decide to quit politics.

The first John Doe judge, retired Kenosha County Circuit Judge Barbara Kluka, recused herself from the case, though not until she had signed off on the subpoenas. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that, according to information from an open-records request, Judge Kluka made $445.15 for her time on the case, about a day’s work. She must work fast. Judge Peterson replaced her, and the cause of free speech is better for it.

The John Doe probe isn’t over, and no doubt Messrs. Schmitz and Landgraf will appeal the ruling to quash. But that should give the subpoena targets an opening to expand their defense beyond merely stopping this political trolling exercise. They can marshall constitutional arguments that should aim to dismantle the prosecutorial machinery of these illegal campaign-finance investigations.

The John Doe process has become a political weapon intended to serve partisan ends regardless of the law. Kudos to a judge who was brave enough to read the law and stop it, but there’s more free-speech defending to do.


The Extreme ‘Centrist’

What Mike Bloomberg has in common with Guns & Ammo.




January 7, 2014
The New York Times has uncovered a journalistic scandal. It seems that–get ready for it–a gun magazine has an editorial policy that is hostile to gun control.

This merited the Times’s attention because the magazine, Guns & Ammo, made a personnel decision on the basis of its editorial views. Dick Metcalf, described by the Times as “one of the country’s pre-eminent gun journalists,” lost his position as a columnist for the magazine after he wrote a column titled “Let’s Talk Limits”: ” ‘The fact is,’ wrote Mr. Metcalf, who has taught history at Cornell and Yale, ‘all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be.’ ”

That provoked a “backlash” that “was swift, and fierce.” Readers threatened to cancel their subscriptions, and according to Metcalf (in the Times’s paraphrase), “his editor called to tell him that two major gun manufacturers had said ‘in no uncertain terms’ that they could no longer do business with InterMedia Outdoors,” which publishes the magazine. The company axed him from both the column and a TV show it produced.

According to the Times, the story “sheds light on the close-knit world of gun journalism, where editors and reporters say there is little room for nuance in the debate over gun laws”:

Moderate voices that might broaden the discussion from within are silenced. When writers stray from the party line promoting an absolutist view of an unfettered right to bear arms, their publications–often under pressure from advertisers–excommunicate them.

“We are locked in a struggle with powerful forces in this country who will do anything to destroy the Second Amendment,” said Richard Venola, a former editor of Guns & Ammo. “The time for ceding some rational points is gone.”

Well, this column always has plenty of room for nuance, so here goes.

Assuming that the Times’s account is substantially accurate, it seems to us Metcalf was treated awfully shabbily. His editors “approved the column before it went to press,” according to the Times, and it speaks poorly of them that they did not stand behind it in the absence of any new information calling its credibility into question.

That said, the column itself was not exactly a triumph of logic. Here’s how Metcalf fleshed out his central point:

The fact is, all constitutional rights are regulated, always have been, and need to be. Freedom of speech is regulated. You cannot falsely and deliberately shout, “Fire!” in a crowded theater. Freedom of religion is regulated. A church cannot practice human sacrifice. Freedom of assembly is regulated. People who don’t like you can’t gather an “anti-you” demonstration on your front lawn. And it is illegal for convicted felons or the clinically insane to keep and bear arms.

Every sentence of this is problematic. In the first place, his claim that all constitutional rights are regulated is easily falsifiable. Try to come up with an example of a law or regulation that limits the Third Amendment right against the peacetime quartering of soldiers in private homes without the owner’s consent.

More important, the examples he gives of “regulation” of First Amendment rights are not that at all. They are, instead, generally applicable criminal laws. The “freedom of religion” example illustrates the point most clearly. A murderer who raised a free-exercise defense would be laughed out of court. But a Second Amendment defense would be equally frivolous. No gun-rights absolutist claims that the right to keep and bear arms entails the right to use them to murder others in cold blood.

The denial of gun rights to felons and mental patients, by contrast, can be described as a regulation, and the Supreme Court more or less affirmed its constitutionality in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). But imagine an equivalent rule applied to First Amendment rights. A blanket ban on speech, worship or public assembly by felons or mental patients would be plainly unconstitutional. Contrary to Metcalf, the Second Amendment right is unique, not typical, in the degree to which it is subject to regulation.

Further, this column generally agrees with Venola’s give-no-ground position, though on pragmatic grounds rather than principled ones. If we thought the antigun side of the debate were interested in good-faith compromise, we’d be all for it. The dishonesty of their debating tactics, their ghoulish and opportunistic use of horrific crimes like the Newtown massacre to advance their agenda, and the onerous (and likely unconstitutional) regulations that exist in places where they hold political sway–such as New York City, where we live–persuade us otherwise.

Anyway, why should gun magazines give voice to “moderate voices that might broaden the discussion from within”? Has the Times editorial page, a leading voice on the other side, done the same?

As we pondered that question, we realized we’d read recently about an actual scenario that posed a similar question in reverse. Last month Laura Bennett had a feature story in The New Republic on Bloomberg View, Michael Bloomberg’s op-ed operation. Bloomberg, in addition to having just stepped down after 12 years as mayor of New York, is one of America’s most fanatical antigun activists.

Shut up, he explained.Associated Press

Last June, Bennett reports, editor David Shipley “hired the popular blogger Megan McArdle even though, in the wake of the Newtown massacre, she had written a controversial op-ed about the impracticality of gun control. According to one columnist, View editors just hoped [Mike] Bloomberg hadn’t read it.”

The parallel isn’t exact. Whereas Metcalf was fired for deviating from the party line on guns, McArdle was hired in spite of it. Then again, evidently her hiring happened without the boss’s knowledge, and as far as we know, she hasn’t written about the topic for Bloomberg View. (Most of her work is on ObamaCare, and it is generally excellent.)

But it turns out that Bloomberg imposes at least one stricture on his columnists that is very similar to Guns & Ammo’s de facto ban on advocacy of gun regulations. Reports Bennett: “At a dinner for columnists at the Palm, the mayor promised not to censor anyone, assuring them that they could, within limits–one of which was advocating against a woman’s right to choose–write whatever they wanted.” The only difference is that unlike “a woman’s right to choose” (a euphemism for abortion), the right to keep and bear arms is in the text of the Constitution.

Actually, there’s one other difference. Bloomberg’s ban would be analogous to Guns & Ammo’s if he were running a special-interest publication for which freedom of abortion was central to its worldview, say Ms.

By contrast, as indicated by the ex-mayor’s promise that in general columnists could “write whatever they wanted,” Bloomberg View is supposed to be general-interest and heterodox. According to Bennett, it falls short of that not because it has a distinct point of view but because it lacks one: “The output of Bloomberg View has been mostly flat–a particularly bloodless kind of centrism.”

But wait. What kind of “centrism” is it that permits the expression of only one side when it comes to the most polarizing and contentious question in politics? (And are Bloomberg View columnists permitted to dissent from left-liberal orthodoxy on gun control, or for that matter global warmism?)

Bloomberg has as much right to dictate editorial policy as Guns & Ammo’s owners do. But his ban is more objectionable than theirs. Whereas the latter are asserting a specific point of view in response to the demands of their particular market, the former seeks to marginalize half the population and decree his own extreme point of view to be the “centrist” one.


June 25, 2013
 >Supreme Court Invalidates Key Part of Voting Rights Act

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively struck down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, freeing nine states, mostly in the South, to change their election laws without advance federal approval.

The court divided along ideological lines, and the two sides drew sharply different lessons from the history of the civil rights movement and the nation’s progress in rooting out racial discrimination in voting. At the core of the disagreement was whether racial minorities continued to face barriers to voting in states with a history of discrimination.

“Our country has changed,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority. “While any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”

The decision will have immediate practical consequences. Texas announced shortly after the decision that a voter identification law that had been blocked would go into effect immediately, and that redistricting maps there would no longer need federal approval. Changes in voting procedures in the places that had been covered by the law, including ones concerning restrictions on early voting, will now be subject only to after-the-fact litigation.

President Obama, whose election as the nation’s first black president was cited by critics of the law as evidence that it was no longer needed, said he was “deeply disappointed” by the ruling.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg summarized her dissent from the bench, an unusual move and a sign of deep disagreement. She cited the words of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and said his legacy and the nation’s commitment to justice had been “disserved by today’s decision.”

She said the focus of the Voting Rights Act had properly changed from “first-generation barriers to ballot access” to “second-generation barriers” like racial gerrymandering and laws requiring at-large voting in places with a sizable black minority. She said the law had been effective in thwarting such efforts.

The law had applied to nine states — Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia — and to scores of counties and municipalities in other states, including Brooklyn, Manhattan and the Bronx.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote that Congress remained free to try to impose federal oversight on states where voting rights were at risk, but must do so based on contemporary data. But the chances that the current Congress could reach agreement on where federal oversight is required are small, most analysts say.

Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. joined the majority opinion. Justice Ginsburg was joined in dissent by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

The majority held that the coverage formula in Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, originally passed in 1965 and most recently updated by Congress in 1975, was unconstitutional. The section determined which states must receive clearance from the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington before they made minor changes to voting procedures, like moving a polling place, or major ones, like redrawing electoral districts.

Section 5, which sets out the preclearance requirement, was originally scheduled to expire in five years. Congress repeatedly extended it: for five years in 1970, seven years in 1975, and 25 years in 1982. Congress renewed the act in 2006 after holding extensive hearings on the persistence of racial discrimination at the polls, again extending the preclearance requirement for 25 years. But it relied on data from the 1975 reauthorization to decide which states and localities were covered.

The current coverage system, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, is “based on 40-year-old facts having no logical relationship to the present day.”

“Congress — if it is to divide the states — must identify those jurisdictions to be singled out on a basis that makes sense in light of current conditions,” he wrote. “It cannot simply rely on the past.”

The decision did not strike down Section 5, but without Section 4, the later section is without significance — unless Congress passes a new bill for determining which states would be covered.

It was hardly clear, at any rate, that the court’s conservative majority would uphold Section 5 if the question returned to the court in the unlikely event that Congress enacted a new coverage formula. In a concurrence, Justice Thomas called for striking down Section 5 immediately, saying that the majority opinion had provided the reasons and had merely left “the inevitable conclusion unstated.”

The Supreme Court had repeatedly upheld the law in earlier decisions, saying that the preclearance requirement was an effective tool to combat the legacy of lawless conduct by Southern officials bent on denying voting rights to blacks.

Critics of Section 5 say it is a unique federal intrusion on state sovereignty and a badge of shame for the affected jurisdictions that is no longer justified.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was one of the towering legislative achievements of the civil rights movement, and Chief Justice Roberts said its “strong medicine” was the right response to “entrenched racial discrimination.” When it was first enacted, he said, black voter registration stood at 6.4 percent in Mississippi, and the gap between black and white registration rates was more than 60 percentage points.

In the 2004 election, the last before the law was reauthorized, the black registration rate in Mississippi was 76 percent, almost four percentage points higher than the white rate. In the 2012 election, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “African-American voter turnout exceeded white voter turnout in five of the six states originally covered by Section 5.”

The chief justice recalled the Freedom Summer of 1964, when the civil rights workers James Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner were murdered near Philadelphia, Miss., while seeking to register black voters. He mentioned Bloody Sunday in 1965, when police officers beat marchers in Selma, Ala.

“Today,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “both of those towns are governed by African-American mayors. Problems remain in these states and others, but there is no denying that, due to the Voting Rights Act, our nation has made great strides.”

Justice Ginsburg, in her dissent from the bench, drew a different lesson from those events, drawing on the words of Dr. King.

“The great man who led the march from Selma to Montgomery and there called for the passage of the Voting Rights Act foresaw progress, even in Alabama,” she said. “ ‘The arc of the moral universe is long,’ he said, but ‘it bends toward justice,’ if there is a steadfast commitment to see the task through to completion.”

In her written dissent, Justice Ginsburg said that Congress was the right body to decide whether the law was still needed and where. Congress reauthorized the law in 2006 by large majorities; the vote was 390 to 33 in the House and unanimous in the Senate. President George W. Bush, a Republican, signed the bill into law, saying it was “an example of our continued commitment to a united America where every person is valued and treated with dignity and respect.”

The Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of the 2006 extension of the law in a 2009 decision, Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Holder. But it avoided answering the central question, and it seemed to give Congress an opportunity to make adjustments. Congress, Chief Justice Roberts noted on Tuesday, did not respond.

Justice Ginsburg suggested in her dissent that an era had drawn to a close with the court’s decision on the Voting Rights Act, in Shelby County v. Holder, No. 12-96.

“Beyond question, the V.R.A. is no ordinary legislation,” she wrote. “It is extraordinary because Congress embarked on a mission long delayed and of extraordinary importance: to realize the purpose and promise of the Fifteenth Amendment,” the Reconstruction-era amendment that barred racial discrimination in voting and authorized Congress to enforce it.

“For a half century,” she wrote, “a concerted effort has been made to end racial discrimination in voting. Thanks to the Voting Rights Act, progress once the subject of a dream has been achieved and continues to be made.”

“The court errs egregiously,” she concluded, “by overriding Congress’s decision.”


This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: June 25, 2013


An earlier version of this article misstated the name of a civil rights worker murdered in 1964. He was Michael Schwerner, not Schwermer.




House votes to delay bulk ammunition purchase by DHS

By Pete Kasperowicz – 06/05/13 11:01 PM ET

The House late Wednesday voted to stop the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from entering into new contracts to buy millions of rounds of ammunition until the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reports to Congress on the need for the ammo, and its cost.

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) proposed an amendment to the DHS spending bill for 2014 that would require the report to Congress before it can pursue plans to buy 1.1 billion rounds of ammunition. Meadows said the speed bump is a necessary reaction to news of the huge purchase, which alarmed many Americans and prompted conservative groups to suspect that the government was stocking up on the rounds to fight citizens.”Given this large purchase, the American people and members of Congress rightfully had concerns and questions,” Meadows said. “This is a responsible amendment which ensures that Congress and the American people are aware of the necessity and the cost of ammunition prior to entering into new contracts for procurement.”

Rep. John Carter (R-Texas) said the amendment was unnecessary based on his talks with DHS officials. Carter said the department has since admitted that its ammunition needs are not as great as first reported, and said the department is pursuing a bulk purchase to keep the costs down.

Read more:
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook


No. 2801 | May 23, 2013

The Obama Medicare Agenda: Why Seniors Will Fare Worse

Robert E. Moffit, PhD, and Alyene Senger


Today’s seniors are facing higher Medicare costs. Over the next five years, current law, as amended by the Patient Protection and Af- fordable Care Act, already guarantees higher out-of-pocket costs for seniors. Beyond the current law, President Obama’s latest budget proposal would increase seniors’ costs even more. Many seniors will experience a reduction in their Medicare Advantage benefits or even a loss of their existing plan. Medicare “as we know it” is already a thing of the past—the only way to preserve the Medicare benefit for current and future retirees is through structural reform.

Today’s seniors are facing higher Medicare costs. Over the next five years, current law, as amended by the Patient Protec- tion and affordable Care act (PPaCa, also known as Obamacare),

already guarantees higher out-of-pocket costs for today’s seniors. Beyond the current law, the President’s latest budget proposal would increase seniors’ costs even more. So, notwithstanding “pro- gressive” politicians’ rhetorical promise to “keep Medicare as we know it,” the Obama administration is formally committed to increasing seniors’ out-of pocket costs, while the President and his allies in Congress have already enacted major Medicare payment reductions that threaten their access to care. Beyond the payment reductions to hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and home health care agencies, many seniors will also experience a reduction in their Medicare advantage benefits or even a loss of their existing plan.

This paper, in its entirety, can be found at

Produced by the Center for Health Policy Studies

The Heritage Foundation

214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002
(202) 546-4400 |

Nothing written here is to be construed as necessarily reflecting the views of The Heritage Foundation or as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any bill before Congress.page1image25984 page1image26144

Key Points

  • ■■  Through the enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), the Obama Administration and its allies in Congress have already committed to increasing seniors’ out-of-pocket costs, while implementing steps that are sure to significantly reduce their access to care.
  • ■■  The President’s latest budget pro- posal doubles down on this flawed approach. It does not substantially reform the financially desper-

    ate Medicare program; it simply shifts costs to seniors. While these increased costs are substantial to beneficiaries, they are mere tweaks to an enormous and troubled Medicare program.

  • ■■  Medicare “as we know it” has already been drastically changed by the PPACA, and the only way to preserve the Medicare benefit for current and future retirees is through structural reform.


Obamacare Raids Medicare to Pay for Other New Programs

Projected Medicare savings from Obamacare don’t improve the program. Instead, they pay for other new programs created under the law that aren’t even for seniors. By slashing reimbursement rates instead of introducing real reform, the health law jeopardizes seniors’ access to providers.


* Disproportionate Share Hospital, meaning payments that go to hospitals that serve a large number of low-income patients. Sources: Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director, Congressional Budget Office, letter to Speaker John Boehner, U.S. House

of Representatives, July 24, 2012, pp. 13–14, and Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director, Congressional Budget Office, letter to the Honorable Jeff Sessions, U.S. Senate, January 22, 2010, p. 3.

Status Quo Hikes

The 2012 Medicare trustees report says that between 2012 and 2017, seniors’ standard Medicare Part B monthly premiums will jump from $99.90 to $128.20, while their Part B deductibles will rise from $140 to $180.1 Seniors’ Medicare hospital deduct- ible will increase from $1,156 to $1,336, while their daily hospital co-insurance will climb from $289 to $334. For seniors who remain in the hospital beyond 90 days (lifetime reserve days), the per diem co-insurance costs are estimated to reach $668 by 2017.2

Obamacare: Impact on Access to Care.

Obamacare mandates $716 billion in Medicare pay- ment reductions over the next 10 years.3 However, contrary to the way they are often portrayed, these cuts are not aimed at specific instances of “waste, fraud, and abuse.” Rather, they are across-the-board changes in Medicare payment formulas for hospi- tals, nursing homes, home health agencies, hospice agencies, and Medicare advantage plans.

Notwithstanding the tiresome rhetoric that Medicare payment reductions affect only provid- ers and not beneficiaries, funding cuts for Medicare


1. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 2012 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds, April 23, 2012, and-Reports/ReportsTrustFunds/Downloads/TR2012.pdf (accessed April 15, 2013). There is a “hold harmless” provision that applies to
Part B premium increases. As the Trustees’ report explains, “Part B premiums may also vary from standard rate because a ‘hold-harmless’ provision can lower the premium rate for individuals who have their premiums deducted from their Social Security benefits. On an individual basis, this provision limits the dollar increase in the Part B premium to the dollar increase in the individual’s Social Security benefit. As a result, the person affected pays a lower Part B premium, and the net amount of the individual’s Social Security benefit does not decrease despite the greater increase in the premium.”

2. Ibid.

3. Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director, Congressional Budget Office, letter to Speaker John Boehner, U.S. House of Representatives, July 24, 2012, (accessed May 15, 2013).



BACKGROUNDER | NO. 2801 May 23, 2013



Seniors Face Severe Access Problems

Because of Obamacare Cuts

Obamacare makes deep cuts to provider payments to offset the cost of new programs that aren’t for seniors. If these deep cuts go into effect, many providers will operate in the red, making it very difficult for seniors to access their services.

Source: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 2012 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds, April 23, 2012, Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/ ReportsTrustFunds/Downloads/TR2012.pdf (accessed April 15, 2013).page3image10584 page3image11008

services directly affect those who depend on those services. If these major reductions are implemented by Congress over the coming decade, seniors’ abil- ity to access Medicare services will surely be com- promised. In fact, the Medicare Trustees said that

“[a]bsent other changes, the lower Medicare payment rates would result in negative total facility mar- gins for an estimated 15 percent of hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and home health agencies by 2019, and this percentage would reach roughly 25 percent in 2030 and 40 percent by 2050.”4

This means that seniors would have an increas- ingly difficult time accessing care. as the Trustees explain,

Medicare’s payments for health services would fall increasingly below providers’ costs. Providers could not sustain continuing nega- tive margins and would have to withdraw from serving Medicare beneficiaries or (if total facil- ity margins remained positive) shift substantial portions of Medicare costs to their non-Medicare, non-Medicaid payers. Under such circumstances, lawmakers would probably override the produc- tivity adjustments, much as they have done to prevent reductions in physician payment rates.5

Moreover, these “savings” are not even reserved to enhance the solvency of the financially troubled Medicare program. Instead, the “savings” are used to finance new spending for non-Medicare cover- age expansions in Obamacare.6 Despite the simple fact that the same dollar cannot be spent twice, the Obama administration simultaneously claims cred- it for extending the life of the Medicare trust fund, financing expanded health insurance coverage out- side Medicare, and reducing the federal deficit.

Higher Medicare Taxes. The PPaCa will also increase Medicare taxes. The law raises the stan- dard Medicare payroll tax, which funds the hos- pital insurance (HI) trust fund, on high-income earners (individuals with an annual income of $200,000 and couples with an annual income of $250,000) from 2.9 percent to 3.8 percent and also


  1. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 2012 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds, April 23, 2012, p. 217.
  2. Ibid.
  3. Douglas W. Elmendorf, Director, Congressional Budget Office, letter to the Honorable Jeff Sessions (R–AL), U.S. Senate, January 22, 2010. The letter states, “The reductions in projected Part A outlays and increases in projected HI revenues resulting from PPACA would significantly raise balances in the HI trust fund and might suggest that significant additional resources…had been set aside to pay for future Medicare benefits. However, only the additional savings by the government as a whole truly increase the government’s ability to pay for future Medicare benefits or other programs, and those would be a much smaller…. Unified budget accounting shows that the majority of the HI trust fund savings under PPACA would be used to pay for other spending and therefore would not enhance the ability of the government to pay for future Medicare benefits.”



BACKGROUNDER | NO. 2801 May 23, 2013

extends the 3.8 percent Medicare tax to investment income. Together, this is the largest tax increase in Obamacare, costing taxpayers almost $318 billion between 2013 and 2022.7

Once again, however, the new Medicare payroll tax revenue is double-counted: It is paying for new spending, while also extending the life of the trust fund.8 as for the new Medicare tax on investment income, Medicare trustee Charles Blahous explains that “[t]hough termed an ‘Unearned Income Medicare Contribution’ (UIMC) under the law, this revenue would not come from Medicare’s traditional contribution base and it would not be allocated to a Medicare Trust Fund.”9 (Emphasis added.)

Obamacare: Impact on Seniors’ Medicare Advantage Coverage. Currently, 27 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in Medicare advantage (Ma) plans. Ma plans are attractive to beneficiaries because they offer more compre- hensive coverage than traditional Medicare. Most notably, unlike traditional Medicare, Ma plans cap out-of-pocket costs, which eliminates the need for beneficiaries to pay extra and purchase sepa- rate supplemental insurance, and these plans also routinely offer drug coverage. Further, since 2007, between 85 percent and 94 percent of participating seniors have had the option of enrolling in these pri- vate plans while paying no premium other than the standard Medicare Part B premium.10

  1. Elmendorf, letter to Speaker Boehner.
  2. Elmendorf, letter to Senator Sessions.

The PPaCa reduces payments in the Ma pro- gram by $156 billion between 2013 and 2022. When the law was enacted in 2010, the Medicare actu- ary projected the impact of these cuts: “We estimate that in 2017, when the Ma provisions will be fully phased in, enrollment in Ma plans will be lower by about 50 percent (from its projected level of 14.8 mil- lion under the prior law to 7.4 million under the new law).”11

according to the Medicare actuary, then, an estimated 7 million seniors will leave Medicare advantage over the next four years, but that means that they will have to re-enroll in the less generous traditional Medicare program.12 Not only will these seniors face the loss of their existing comprehen- sive health plan, they will somehow have to fill big gaps in their Medicare benefits—which would mean substantial increases in their out-of-pocket costs. To compensate for gaps in traditional Medicare coverage, nearly all seniors enrolled in tradition- al Medicare purchase separate drug coverage and supplemental health insurance coverage, which are projected to cost on average $42 a month and $230 a month, respectively, in 2017.13

an analysis by health care economists Robert Book and James Capretta shows, “By 2017, Medicare beneficiaries who would have enrolled in Medicare advantage under prior law will lose an average of $1,841 due to the Ma changes alone and $3,714 when

page4image26432 page4image26592

  1. Charles Blahous, “The Fiscal Consequences of the Affordable Care Act,” Mercatus Center at George Mason University, April 10, 2012, p. 49, (accessed May 16, 2013).
  2. Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, “A Data Book: Health Care Spending and the Medicare Program,” June 2012, p. 159, http://www. (accessed May 15, 2013).
  3. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, “Estimated Financial Effects of the ‘Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,’” as amended,” April 22, 2010, p. 11, PPACA_2010-04-22.pdf (accessed May 15, 2013).
  4. We should note here that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released a May 2013 Medicare baseline that estimates an increase in Medicare Advantage enrollment over the next decade, a projection directly at odds with the decline the Medicare actuary predicts. The CBO, however, offered no explanation for its latest adjustment to estimated MA enrollment or its revision of previous projections.
  5. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, 2012 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds, April 23, 2012, p. 229, and calculations based on Department of Health and Human Services,

    “Variation and Trends in Medigap Premiums,” December 2011, (accessed May 15, 2013). For Medigap plans, the average annual premium increase from 2001 to 2010 was 3.8 percent, and average premiums in 2010 were $177. If premiums continued to increase at 3.8 percent a year, the average Medigap premium would be $229.80 in 2017.

  6. Robert A. Book and James C. Capretta, “Reductions in Medicare Advantage Payments: The Impact on Seniors by Region,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2464, September 14, 2010, payments-the-impact-on-seniors-by-region.



BACKGROUNDER | NO. 2801 MAY 23, 2013

for-service] cuts, are considered.”14
But those seniors who remain in MA will also face

increased out-of-pocket costs because of other fea- tures of the President’s health care law. Obamacare imposes a special “fee” (a tax) on all health insur- ance plans beginning in 2014, including MA plans. Of course, as with all taxes on firms in any market, the costs of the tax increases are routinely passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices or, in the case of insurance, higher premiums. In this particu- lar case, Oliver Wyman, a leading benefits consult- ing firm, has estimated, “In the Medicare market, the premium tax would increase the expected cost of MA coverage per enrollee by $3,604 over the ten- year period.”15

Obama’s FY 2014 Budget: Higher Seniors’ Premiums. In his fiscal year (FY) 2014 budget pro- posal, President Obama has proposed additional Medicare changes that would also increase costs for seniors.16

For Medicare Parts B and D, the President’s budget plan would expand “means testing” in the Medicare program for upper-income seniors, resulting over time in a total of 25 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries paying an income-adjusted premium. Under current law, there are four income- adjusted brackets; seniors in these income brackets pay progressively higher premiums, ranging from 35 percent to 80 percent of total Medicare pro- gram costs. In his latest budget proposal, President Obama expands the number of brackets from four to nine, requiring seniors to pay from 40 percent to 90 percent of total Medicare premium costs. For the lowest bracket, an individual with an income of $85,000 to $92,333 who is enrolled in Part B and Part D would have a combined premium increase of about $401.76 in 2017, compared to what he would

pay under current law. For an individual with an annual income between $178,000 and $196,000, his combined premium increase would be an esti- mated $1,615 in 2017 (at 85.5 percent of total costs).

Reduction of taxpayer subsidies for high-income Medicare recipients is sound policy. There is indeed a large and growing bipartisan consensus among a variety of analysts on the need to expand the scope of Medicare “means testing.” While it makes sense to gradually reduce taxpayer subsidies for an expanded pool of upper-income seniors, it is not nec- essary to require one out of every four Medicare ben- eficiaries to pay more than the standard Medicare premiums.17

Obama’s Budget: New Fees

President Obama’s FY 2014 budget would also impose new fees on baby boomers joining Medicare beginning in 2017. His 2014 budget proposal intro- duces a $25 increase in the Part B deductible for new beneficiaries in 2017, 2019, and 2021, a $75 total increase by 2021, plus a $100 co-payment for home health services in certain cases.

Traditional Medicare incurs excessive costs resulting from “first-dollar” coverage by Medigap and other supplemental insurance. This first-dollar coverage increases utilization of medical services and drives up Medicare costs for seniors and taxpay- ers alike.

President Obama is right to address the need to curb the first-dollar coverage that drives up Medicare costs. His solution, however, is hardly the best available option. The President proposes a pre- mium surcharge—a kind of “premium tax”—for new beneficiaries who choose a Medigap plan with first- dollar or near-first-dollar coverage. This approach

Medigap.18 The surcharge would be equivalent to 15 page5image32840

  1. Chris Carlson, “Annual Tax on Insurers Allocated by State,” Oliver Wyman, November 2012, p. 7.
  2. Budget of the United States Government: Fiscal Year 2014, omb/budget/fy2014/assets/budget.pdf (accessed May 15, 2013).
  3. Under the Heritage Foundation proposal, for example, the current Medicare policy of reducing taxpayer subsidies for high-income seniors’ Medicare coverage would be continued and expanded. Reductions in taxpayer subsidies would be phased down gradually, and phased out

    Saving the American Dream: The Heritage Plan to Fix the Debt, Cut Spending, and Restore Prosperity, The Heritage Foundation, 2011, p. 20,

  4. Department of Health and Human Services, “Variation and Trends in Medigap Premiums.” Together, Medigap plans C and F enroll 57.7 percent of all Medigap enrollees.

page5image39448 page5image39608 page5image39768 page5image39928


BACKGROUNDER | NO. 2801 May 23, 2013

percent of the average Medigap premium, adding an estimated $413.60 a year to these seniors’ pre- mium costs.19 While there is general agreement that supplemental coverage drives up overall Medicare costs, a much better approach would be to restruc- ture Medicare’s cost-sharing arrangements, instead of imposing yet another federal “tax” on seniors.20

Obamacare and Obama’s Budget: New Prescription Drug Costs

The Obama administration’s proposed new out-of-pocket costs will be coupled with a general increase in premiums for beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare Part D, the Medicare drug program.

The PPaCa designates an estimated $48 billion to reduce out-of-pocket costs for Medicare benefi- ciaries, particularly those who find themselves faced with a gap in coverage for their drug costs, common- ly referred to as the “donut hole.” The President’s policy is to close this Medicare Part D donut hole.21 Under the law, the donut hole is slated to close by 2020.

While out-of-pocket costs for Medicare Part D will be reduced, the changes enacted under the new health law will only come at a higher premium price for seniors. according to the Congressional Budget Office’s 2010 estimate, “enacting those changes would lead to an average increase in premiums for Part D beneficiaries of about 4 percent in 2011, rising to about 9 percent in 2019.”22

These Medicare prescription drug premium increases must be understood in terms of how the

Part D donut hole actually affects today’s seniors. While the average premiums of all Part D benefi- ciaries will increase, of all 48.6 million Medicare enrollees in 2011, only 3.6 million actually fell into the donut hole.23 Moreover, approximately 11 million enrollees receive low-income subsidies for drug cov- erage, including coverage in the donut hole. Today, most private health plans already provide addition- al coverage for beneficiaries who might find them- selves in the donut hole. For 2012, 52 percent of all plans provide generic or some generic and some brand-name drug coverage in the donut hole.24

The President’s Fy 2014 budget proposal would close the Part D coverage gap for brand-name drugs in 2015, five years sooner than under current law. For the small minority of seniors who fall into the donut hole annually, that would be a welcome devel- opment; but most seniors should also realize that while assisting the small number of seniors who fall into it, the President’s proposal makes the drug ben- efit more expensive and thus will result in a general increase in seniors’ Part D premiums.

A Backdoor Tax on Seniors. Today in Medicare Part D, private plans and drug manufacturers nego- tiate a discounted price; it is a market price. The gov- ernment is not involved at all in these negotiations. The result: Market efficiencies have been dramati- cally successful in controlling Medicare drug costs and stabilizing the growth in seniors’ premiums.

The President’s recent budget proposal, however, would require drug companies to pay the govern- ment the difference between the privately negotiated

page6image28488 page6image28648

  1. Calculation based on data from Department of Health and Human Services, “Variation and Trends in Medigap Premiums.” The average annual premium increase from 2001 to 2010 was 3.8 percent and average premiums in 2010 were $177. If premiums continued to increase at 3.8 percent a year, the average Medigap premium would be $229.80 in 2017. Therefore, a 15 percent surcharge would equal $34.47 a month and $413.64 a year in 2017.
  2. For a discussion of this issue, see Robert E. Moffit and Alyene Senger, “Medicare’s Outdated Structure—and the Urgent Need for Reform,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2777, March 22, 2013, p. 3, structureand-the-urgent-need-for-reform; Robert E. Moffit, “The First Stage of Medicare Reform: Fixing the Current Program,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2611, October 17, 2011, reform-fixing-the-current-program; and Robert E. Moffit and Drew Gonshorowski, “Double Coverage: How It Drives Up Medicare Patient and Taxpayer Costs,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder, forthcoming.
  3. The “donut hole” is the congressionally created gap in Medicare drug coverage in which beneficiaries must pay 100 percent of the total costs up to a specific “catastrophic” threshold ($4,750 in 2013). When that dollar threshold is reached, the insurance resumes payment. The oddity of this benefit design has no parallel in the private market.
  4. Congressional Budget Office, “Comparison of Projected Medicare Part D Premiums Under Current Law and Under Reconciliation Legislation Combined with H.R. 3590 as Passed by the Senate,” March 19, 2010, comparison.pdf (accessed October 24, 2012).
  5. Kaiser Family Foundation, “The Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit,” October 2012, p. 1, pdf (accessed November 1, 2012).
  6. Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, “A Data Book: Health Care Spending and the Medicare Program,” p. 163.



BACKGROUNDER | NO. 2801 May 23, 2013

Medicare price and the price (the “rebate”) the gov- ernment sets for the sale of drugs in the Medicaid program for low-income Medicare beneficiaries. These seniors today receive subsidies, and they account for about 30 percent of all Medicare Part D enrollees.

The President’s proposed Medicare “rebate” would act as a tax on the drug companies doing busi- ness with the federal government, but it would also function as a price control on Medicare drugs. In other words, the new rebate policy would distort the Part D market by fixing artificially low prices for one group of beneficiaries, and creating powerful incen- tives for the companies to try to make up the revenue losses by charging higher prices in other sectors of the Medicare market. This means that most seniors would experience increased premiums. analysts with the american action Forum estimate that a Medicaid-style rebate for Part D would increase beneficiary premiums by anywhere between 20 per- cent and 40 percent.25

Out of Options

President Obama’s latest budgetary scheme is not a serious prescription for long-term Medicare reform. While it tweaks Medicare’s administra- tive payment systems, it simply retains the current structure and provides for more cost shifting to seniors.

The President’s budget is another indication that the administration and its allies on Capitol Hill are running out of consequential options. They have already cut Medicare Part a and Medicare advantage provider-reimbursement rates to lev- els that even government actuaries have stated, in

print, to be unrealistic. They have instituted a new Medicare tax on the “unearned” income of upper- income americans (such as investment income) that will not even be exclusively used to enhance the solvency of Medicare. The vaunted Medicare “sav- ings” from Medicare provider payment reductions and other changes enacted through the PPaCa will also finance health insurance coverage mandated by Obamacare.26

america needs a sound Medicare policy. The Obama administration’s agenda for increased costs for Medicare beneficiaries, plus the latest budget tweaks to administrative payments, will not reverse the troubled program’s unsustainable course.27

americans differ on Medicare reform. They may disagree on the right future for Medicare. But one thing is certain: Under the Obama agenda, seniors will pay more—much more—and they will pay this steep price in many different ways, including a loss of access to care resulting from demoralized doc- tors and other medical professionals cutting back on Medicare practice or, in some cases dropping out of Medicare practice altogether. Doctors and other medical professionals are facing a bleak future of continued reimbursement reductions and the high- er administrative costs of complying with an even larger set of increasingly complex rules and report- ing requirements.

The bottom line: Medicare “as we know it” is already a thing of the past and the only way to pre- serve Medicare for current and future retirees is through major, market-based structural reform.28

—Robert E. Moffit, PhD, is Senior Fellow, and Alyene Senger is Research Assistant, in the Center for Health Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

page7image29552 page7image29712

  1. Doug Holtz-Eakin and Michael Ramlet, “Cost Shifting Debt Reduction to America’s Seniors: Medicare Part D Rebates Would Dramatically Increase Drug Premiums,” American Action Forum, July 21, 2011, Financial%20Impact%202%20.pdf (accessed May 15, 2013).
  2. Elmendorf, letter to Speaker Boehner, and Elmendorf, letter to Senator Sessions.
  3. Alyene Senger and John Fleming, “Medicare at Risk: Visualizing the Need for Reform,” Heritage Foundation chart series, March 2013,
  4. For a further discussion on premium support, see Robert E. Moffit, “The Second Stage of Medicare Reform: Moving to a Premium Support Program,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2626, November 28, 2011, stage-of-medicare-reform-moving-to-a-premium-support-program.



By: Devvy
May 26, 2013

There is much speculation whether or not Hillary Rodham Clinton, will run for president in 2016.

The former co-president with her lying, cheating husband, Bill Clinton, received enormous support in 2008, but those who really call the shots decided a bi-racial, constitutionally ineligible candidate, Barry Soetoro aka Barack Hussein Obama, would be the better choice to continue the planned destruction of America. Hillary Rodham Clinton carries a lot of old, dirty baggage. Perhaps wait eight more years to install Comrade Clinton.

Much of Hillary Rodham’s support comes from ignorant women who have no facts other than the carefully polished image built to portray Comrade Clinton as a friend of women. By championing murdering unborn babies using clever propaganda like “protecting women’s reproductive rights”, Comrade Clinton is lauded by women who kill their unborn babies as some sort hero. By championing the filth of sodomy and promoting AIDS/HIV by supporting sexual deviants, Comrade Clinton assured herself a nice fat bankroll for her run for the senate and president. Bushels of money from sexual deviants in Hollywood.

Tens of millions of ignorant women have been played by the one of the most skilled, consummate liars ever to hold public office. And, quite frankly, they don’t care just as long as Comrade Clinton continues to promise them your paycheck to pay for things like their sexual activities. In February 2011, I wrote a column titled, Get My Wallet Out Of Your Vagina. Oh, how the “feminists” squealed on their web sites because they can’t stand the truth:

“How many times have we heard female politicians bleat about “women’s issues” during elections? How many times have we heard the old chant about “empowering women” from female members of Congress? The feminization of Congress and our state legislatures is destroying constitutional government, running America into oceans of unpayable debt and breeding generations of helpless women, whining for mother government to take care of them and their every need…

“The legions of females out there are herded in the desired direction with promises of stealing from the people’s treasury for their wants and needs. All those “independent, strong women” are nothing but whiners demanding the fruits of your labor. Real women take care of the babies they bring into this world. Real women know that family planning means keep your panties on and being a responsible adult. Strong, independent women do not demand mother government steal from taxpayers to fund their personal lives. Strong and independent? Horsecrap. Strong, independent women do not demand someone else pay their way whether it’s health care, day care or “basic family planning.”

Such concepts are alien to millions of women under the age of 50. They have gone through the government’s indoctrination centers called pubic schools. They “look up to” hard core feminists from the Hollywood crowd. Female political figures are their toxic role models. All who tell those “empowered” women it’s their right to steal your paycheck to pay for their bad choices in life. Her success is why Comrade Clinton became so important to the masters of the game who own Washington, DC.

The nauseating accolades bestowed upon Comrade Clinton for her failed and unlawful stint as Secretary of State is simply more propaganda fed to ignorant sycophants who haven’t a clue about world events. I say unlawful because Hillary Rodham Clinton usurped the office of Secretary of State. Prior to her confirmation, members (both parties) of the joke called the Senate Judiciary Committee were told by Judicial Watch a lawsuit would be filed to stop Comrade Clinton from holding that office because it violated the emolument clause of the U.S. Constitution. What is that?

Article I, section 6 of the U.S. Constitution provides: “No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time….This provision, known as the “Emoluments” or “Ineligibility” clause is an absolute prohibition and does not allow for any exceptions. The “Ineligibility Clause” is interpreted by most as designed by our Founding Fathers to protect against corruption and ensure the separation of powers among the three branches of government. On January 29, 2009, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit against newly confirmed Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on the ground that she is constitutionally ineligible to serve as Secretary of State under the Ineligibility Clause. The “emoluments” or salary of the U.S. Secretary of State increased at least three times during Mrs. Clinton’s most recent U.S. Senate term. That term, which began on January 4, 2007, does not expire until January 2013, regardless of Mrs. Clinton’s recent resignation.”


“….there is another lawsuit that has run its course, meaning denied for hearing by the U.S. Supreme Court, you might find of interest: Rodearmel v. Clinton. That lawsuit was filed in January 2009 on behalf of a 19-year veteran of the Foreign Service Officer under the State Department, David Rodearmel, a retired Lt. Col. in the U.S. Army Reserve Judge Advocate General Corp. While I support and respect Judicial Watch in their pursuit of making sure no one is above the law, I simply did not understand why they didn’t use the Quo Warranto for Rodearmel’s case.

“The defendants (mother government) moved to dismiss and in their filing, there is an important footnote; number 6 at the bottom of page 25:

“The D.C. Court of Appeals has observed that a plaintiff who seeks to directly attack the appointment of an official (as opposed to attacking an action of that official) will rarely if ever have standing. See Andrade v. Lauer, 729 F.2d 1475, 1496-97 (D.C. Cir. 1984). In the same case, the court suggested that the only proper way to assert such a direct attack is through an action for a writ of quo warranto. See id. at 1497 (citing cases). A quo warranto action may only be brought by the Attorney General of the United States or the United States Attorney or, if these Executive Branch officials decline a request, by a private party who has obtained leave of court. See D.C. Stat. §§ 16-3502-3503; see also Rae v. Johnson, 1993 WL 544295, at *1″

As I said, to this day I don’t understand why Judicial Watch did not file a Quo Warranto to get Comrade Clinton removed. It was a no brainer as far as standing for Rodearmel; he absolutely qualified under Newman v. United States ex Rel. Frizzell. In the end, the case was dismissed. The gutless cowards (both parties) on the Senate Judiciary Committee thumbed their noses at the U.S. Constitution once again with disastrous results. Benghazi comes to mind with Rodman’s now famous outburst revealing the ugliness that has always been Hillary:

“What Difference Does It Make?” whether or not U.S. Ambassador Stevens and three other Americans were slaughtered because of an act of terrorism or some silly Internet video no know ever heard of? video here. If the U.S. Congress would ever seriously press for the truth, Hillary’s finger prints are all over what happened September 11, 2012. Stop the tap dancing. Obama’s enforcer, Eric Holder, has been jerking around congressional committees for two years over ‘Fast and Furious’. It’s now been nine months since the disaster in Benghazi. The families are still waiting for answers. Get a special counsel appointed and ram this down Clinton and Obama’s throats. We the people are sick and tired of traitors walking free of their crimes.

Make no mistake about it: Hillary Rodman Clinton is a valuable asset to those working to destroy this country. She is a dirty traitor right along with that pathetic piece of work she’s been married to for 38 years. A partnership, not a marriage. Millions who support Comrade Clinton are too young to remember Whitewater, Fostergate and the litany of scandals that plagued the co-presidents and destroyed lives forever.

While insiders and the controlled “mainstream” media know the truth about the Clinton’s, few Americans were interested when the duo ran for the presidency both times. It was all just a “right-wing conspiracy” by Republicans. The Clinton duo played the American people like a fine tuned fiddle. The FBI knows all about the Clinton’s and who they give their money to: The Marxist Influence and the IPS:

1. IPS has firm ties to anti-American terrorists and militant Marxists worldwide; and IPS has firm ties to Bill and Hillary Clinton.

2. IPS is described as a Washington-based ‘Think Factory’ which helped train extremists who incite violence in the United States

3. Clinton’s appointment of Derek Shearer as his top economic advisor was no fluke. Shearer’s sister, Brooke, is Hillary’s traveling companion. As this booklet shall document, Clinton’s close friend Derek Shearer has not only been a member of the subversive IPS, but is also a prolific advocate of Marxist socialism and is ardent in his open praises for life in communist lands. Shearer has long proposed that America’s free enterprise system be dismantled and that businesses be controlled by powerful socialist planners instead.

4. Page 2: FBI Warns of IPS Infiltrating U.S. Government with Subversives.

Millions of her supporters have no idea what happened during the phony impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton. It was a set up orchestrated by prominent Republicans. One only need read David Schippers book, Sellout: The Inside Story of President Clinton’s Impeachment:

“While no one came out of the Monica Lewinsky scandal looking good, David Schippers, the chief investigative counsel for the Clinton impeachment, wants to be sure Americans know just who contributed to the debacle and how. A trial attorney and a Democrat, Schippers was hired by Republican congressman Henry Hyde to lead an oversight investigation of the Justice Department, then was redirected to handle the impeachment. The quintessential honest man, Schippers was shocked, not so much by Clinton’s actions (which he calls a far-reaching conspiracy to obstruct justice with perjury, lies, and witness tampering), but by Republican and Democratic politicians who sold out the impeachment process.

“If you ever want to vote again, you might not want to know what went on behind the scenes in the Capitol Hill meat grinder leading up to and during the impeachment proceedings against William Jefferson Clinton…. Lies, cowardice, hypocrisy, cynicism, amorality, butt-covering–these were the squalid political body parts that, squeezed through the political processor, combined to make a mockery of the impeachment process.

“Of course, Schippers does want you to know what happened, and he also wants you to vote–against those who made the mess. And so he names names–of Republican senators who refused to allow evidence on the floor, of the five Democratic congressmen who never examined the evidence, of the GOP senator who said, “You’re not going to dump this garbage on us,” and also of the politicians who did an honest job, or at least asked reasonable questions (such as Joseph Lieberman). Schippers also reveals the evidence he was building against the Clinton administration regarding illegal INS actions and Chinagate, but that he was forced to drop. He reviews the successful struggle to get a full hearing in the House and the “flat-out rigged ball game” in the Senate. He discusses the president’s pattern of abuse and intimidation of women, including some highly disturbing information regarding Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick, and Dolly Kyle Browning.”

I saw Schippers speak at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center in Washington, DC. I think it was the year 2000. It was an event put on by Judicial Watch; Schippers was the keynote speaker. Instead of going after Bill Clinton for treason (read the Cox Report), the stupid Republicans went after him on a sex charge.

Anyone old enough who has followed the Clinton duo surely knows who has always worn the pants in that “marriage”. What self-respecting woman would get in bed with a husband like Bill Clinton who screws anything over legal age with or without their consent? It was reported that during the impeachment process, Democrats went into “the vault” area and viewed documents not available to you and me. Those reports also said a couple of the Democrats (in the House) came out visibly upset because they now believed Bill Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick. Yet, that didn’t bother Comrade Clinton because her climb to power was not going to get derailed by a serial cheating “husband.”

Comrade Hillary was a Republican until she decided to attach her loyalties to the Democratic/Communist Party USA. It would be her ticket to fortune and fame. Her treachery has been well rewarded. On December 19, 1998, the U.S. House impeached Billy. The gutless U.S. Senate failed to impeach on Feb. 12, 1999. In December 1998, Comrade Hillary visited Switzerland: “On 31 December 1998, Hillary Clinton visited Brunnen. She arrived from the Lake Lucerne and drives with a car to the railway station.”

According to press reports at the time, Comrade Clinton made one unscheduled stop outside Zurich. Funny how you catch a blurb on the radio news that perks up your ears. I filed a Freedom of Information Act request at the time with the Secret Service. They refused to release her full itinerary to me citing national security. Bull. I believe she met with the real money masters and power brokers who are above the Bilderberg group.

I wish I had my old research from back then, but I’ve had two major computer crashes since then and it’s gone. Comrade Hillary moved aside to allow the impostor now squatting in the White House to get the Democratic/Communist Party USA nomination in 2008. How it must have galled her, but make no mistake: Hillary Rodham Clinton is a tough old bird who knows how to play the game of revenge.

One other thing during that time period: September 4, 1998, Bill Clintonspeaking in Ireland: “You know, by the time you become the leader of a country, someone else makes all the decisions – you just sign your name.” The only honest thing he said while in office.

The public persona of Comrade Hillary Clinton, much like that of militant Marxist, Michelle Obama, is nothing but lies and illusions. Hillary Rodham is a very dangerous woman who is willing to do ANYTHING in her climb for power.

Rodham was a complete failure as Secretary of State. While the most traveled (one million miles) and pampered in the history of this nation, the world is more dangerous now than when she unlawfully took over; Benghazi the worst example. One need only read this piece: Secretary Clinton on American Leadership at the Council on Foreign Relations, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Washington, D.C., January 31, 2013:

“I’ve come to think of it like this: Truman and Acheson were building the Parthenon with classical geometry and clear lines. The pillars were a handful of big institutions and alliances dominated by major powers.”

I would again remind people Harry Truman worked for the globalists or he would never have become president: “When Franklin Roosevelt died during the closing days of WWII, it fell to Truman to end the war and formulate policies for the new world order.” The Smithsonian Treasury: The Presidents (1991), pg 72. Truman was instrumental in founding the communist controlled UN. He signed the unconstitutional Marshall Plan, stealing $13 BILLION dollars from we the people for the economic and technical assistance recovery of European countries. No where in the U.S. Constitution does it authorize Congress or a president to steal the fruits of our labor to give to any foreign country for any reason. But, it was just another step in building a one world order.

Comrade Clinton goes on to say this in her CFR speech:

“Now, of course, American military and economic strength will remain the foundation of our global leadership. As we saw from the intervention to stop a massacre in Libya to the raid that brought bin Ladin to justice, there will always be times when it is necessary and just to use force. America’s ability to project power all over the globe remains essential.”

Our global leadership? More endless wars, more sticking our military in where it doesn’t belong, like Libya. It was not our government’s job to assist in murdering a head of state. Necessary and just to just to use force? Bullying the world is what she really meant. Remember what former Secretary of State, the equally vile, Madeleine Albright said?

“Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it? Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price–we think the price is worth it.” –60 Minutes (5/12/96). And, people wonder why we are so hated in the Middle East?

Going back to Comrade Clinton’s speech:

“We’re also working more than ever with invigorated regional organizations. Consider the African Union in Somalia and the Arab League in Libya, even sub-regional groups like the Lower Mekong Initiative that we created to help reintegrate Burma into its neighborhood and try to work across national boundaries on issues like whether dams should or should not be built.”

We created? American troops are in Africa; another mission “creep” that will cost precious American blood. YOUR paychecks are going to fund this global world order. Where is your outrage, America? It would not be possible without the cooperation of the Republican controlled U.S. House of Representatives headed up by John Boehner. All of our money spent has to originate in the house. The Republicans have done NOTHING to stop the funding of a one world government where OUR country will be subordinate to others and just another region. I do encourage you to take the time to read all of Clinton’s speech to the CFR. It is a blueprint of what’s planned; we have no say whatsoever because those in Congress no longer represent we the people, only their global masters.

I believe Hillary has serious health problems she’s trying to hide from the world. I don’t know if she will be chosen by the masters of the game to run in 2016, but I do know, we must never let that happen. The only way to stop her and those working to destroy our beloved republic is to expose their real agenda – AND Hillary’s past. Americans need to have a refresher course on that evil woman. I highly recommend the books below. If Amazon doesn’t have a copy left, use a search engine with the exact title and other vendors should pop up:

Hillary Rodham Clinton: What Every American Should Know by Christian Josi
Big Sister Is Watching You: Hillary Clinton and The White House Feminists Who Now Control America – And Tell The President What To Do

Bill and Hillary Clinton have been tied at the hip for 38 years. What he knows, she knows. I also recommend these books because what he knows and did, she knows and approved:

Bill Clinton: Friend or Foe by Ann Wilson
The Clinton Chronicles Book
The Secret Life of Bill Clinton – The Unreported Stories by Ambrose Evans-Prichard (Among other things: the cover up in the death of Vince Foster and Bill’s connection with the underworld of drugs in Arkansas)

Hillary Rodham Clinton is a blue blood Marxist. Those who go ballistic when they read that either have done zero research on her entire life or they support Marxism. It’s one or the other.

Important Links:

1- The House That Evil Built
2- Treasonous agenda of the Council on Foreign Relations
3- Treasonous agenda of the Trilateral Commission
4- David Schippers: OKC & 9/11
5- Pelosi & her Brassiere Brigade
6- Throw out all female members of Congress
7- Very Important Book: The Venona Secrets, Exposing Soviet Espionage and America’s Traitors

Click here to visit home page.

© 2013 – and Devvy – All Rights Reserved

Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty; 2 million copies sold. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country. She left the Republican Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever since. Devvy isn’t left, right or in the middle; she is a constitutionalist who believes in the supreme law of the land, not some political party.

Devvy’s regularly posted new columns are on her site at: You can also sign up for her free email alerts.

E-mail is:


Ashley Judd Out, A Former Miss America May Challenge Mitch McConnell

by  May 26, 2013 4:45 AM EDT

Heather French Henry, the 2000 pageant winner and wife of the former Kentucky lt. governor, mulls a run for the U.S. Senate. Jonathan Miller reports.

  • Heather French Henry
Heather French Henry speaks at press conference in the Capitol building in Frankfort, Ky on Jan. 5, 2005. (Patti Longmire/AP)

The Kentucky Derby may be the most spectacular event in all of sports, but it’s also where you’re bound to stumble into the grasp of a glassy-eyed local — attired in seersucker and reeking of mint and bourbon, welcoming you to “the Bluegrass State, where the horses are beautiful and the women are fast.” Sadly, our political horse races too, too often still have that early-season Mad Men feel as ambitious women not only need to fend off crude propositions by men in power, but also the default presumption in some circles that their career success is concomitant with how many times they’ve said “yes.”

It’s no wonder that so few Kentucky women jump into the muddy political ring:Women represent less than 20 percent of the state legislature, only four have ever been elected to statewide office, and we’ve never had a female U.S. Senator. Even as both national parties have furiously recruited women to run in the 2014 midterm elections, the Democratic women who have considered challenging Kentucky’s U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell have faced furious gender-based bashing, some of it from members of their own party.

First out of the gate was the actress Ashley Judd, who was pelleted with smarmy critiques of her film nudity, and whose words were continually taken out of context to make her sound like a radical, unpredictable woman. In reality, many in the Democratic Establishment feared a Judd candidacy, because as the very antithesis of the good-ole-boy club — with direct access to energized grassroots activists and unlimited campaign funds — Judd didn’t need them; and they understood the maxim that you cannot control what you did not create.

When Judd bowed out, the race was supposedly cleared for a “safer” female choice, Secretary of State Alison Grimes, the scion of a well-connected political family. But Grimes’ two months of telegraphed hesitancy,  however, have prompted some moneyed interests to pressure her to run instead for Attorney General in 2015.

Should Grimes move down ticket, Miss America stands ready to step in. Heather French Henry, that is, the Northern Kentucky resident who won the famous beauty pageant–ahem, scholarship contest–in 2000, and later married the then-Lt. Governor in a fairy-tale, televised wedding. Henry, who last week announced that she is considering the Senate race, doesn’t fit the beauty-queen stereotype: She is a dynamic, charismatic speaker, boasts Clinton-ian retail politicking skills, and has developed a policy platform that no one dares criticize as a passionate and successful advocate for disabled veterans for more than a decade.

And Henry has a strong historical precedent on her side: The 1979 Kentucky gubernatorial race was turned on its head by another former Miss America: CBS Sports icon Phyllis George. While the ballot listed the name of her husband, John Y. Brown, Jr., George’s media sparkle and hand-to-hand political charm enchanted the state, and ultimately helped to produce a surprise victory for the first-time candidate and his insurgent campaign. Even today, Brown gives his ex-wife generous credit: “There’s no question about it, ” the former governor told me, “I simply would not have won without Phyllis as a partner.”

Of course, Governor Brown was no slouch himself. The multi-millionaire businessman, most famous for franchising Kentucky Fried Chicken and owning the Boston Celtics, articulated a fresh, outsider message – ”Let’s run Kentucky like a business” — to a populace exhausted by political corruption.

The 1979 Kentucky gubernatorial race was turned on its head by another former Miss America: CBS Sports icon Phyllis George.

Alas, Henry’s husband is no Brown. Former Lt. Governor Steve Henry’s political career was continually tarred by scandals: pleading to misdemeanor campaign finance violations, settling federal lawsuits for alleged Medicaid and Medicare fraud, even being forced to reimburse the state for public resources used at his and Heather’s wedding. The McConnell machine has already pounced: Within 24 hours of Henry launching her trial balloon, the state GOP party had started heckling,calling her ”a bottom-of-the-barrel pick…with such egregious political baggage and no applicable qualifications to run in one of the most important Senate races in the country.”

It’s hard to believe that Kentucky voters will hold a wife responsible for the sins of her husband — a different set of facts, indeed, liberated Hillary Clinton as a more vulnerable, and likeable, candidate.  Instead, it is the secondary charge — that Henry has “no applicable qualifications” — that should cause the most concern and, perhaps, spur on the most hope.

It appears that the McConnell campaign is already appealing to the misogynist strain in our state’s body politic, painting Henry as the dim beauty queen companion of a corrupt husband.

The accusation, however, is manifestly absurd: The mother of two, children’s author and small businesswoman — who travelled the nation for years, championing our most cherished, suffering heroes — boasts an ideally unique résumé for the world’s most deliberative body. More significantly, whack-a-moling Henry could backfire, playing into the national Democratic narrative of a Republican “war on women.” If that happens, Kentucky could emerge, ironically, as Ground Zero for a more progressive, women-friendly politics.

Maybe the Bluegrass State isn’t the last, best hope for a revitalized feminism. But it’s comforting to think that some good could come out of this brutal, ugly process of challenging Mitch McConnell. And perhaps by throwing her tiara into the ring, Miss America 2000 could provide the coup de grâce to our state’s sexist political culture

Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.


Jonathan Miller, the former two-term Kentucky state treasurer, is the publisher


For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at