The Save Jersey Blog: Search Results for "obamacare"

Articles Matching Your Search

VIDEO: Glading Announces Candidacy in New Jersey's CD-1

| February 3, 2010

There's hope for the First Congressional District, Save Jerseyans.

Conservative leader Dale Glading is running against Rob Andrews in New Jersey's CD-1. He announced his candidacy earlier today in a web video on the campaign web site.

Glading has the unique potential to build on Governor Chris Christie's recent successes. Despite a hostile political climate for Republican 2008, Glading managed to win more votes than any CD-1 Republican candidate since John Hunt's campaigns in the 1970s. On Election Day 2009, Christie garnered 43% of the vote in the 1st Congressional District. Corzine came in at only 51% -- a very poor showing for a Democrat in a district that includes Camden City. As a vocal conservative and ally of the Tea Party Movement, Glading is well positioned to capitalize on voter unrest and frustration with the Obama-Pelosi agenda in Washington.

The 20-year incumbent Andrews, for his part, has been a leader only in forcing Obamacare down the throats of taxpayers. That's a tremendous political liability in 2010 no matter where the Dem in question is on the ballot. Glading is pledging to fight this massive government takeover of our health care system from the time his feet hit the ground on Capitol Hill.

Glading also announced the 10 in '10 Challenge, asking his South Jersey supporters to donate $10, forward his web site to 10 friends and knock on 10 doors over the first 10 days of the campaign.

Stay tuned to see whether Glading can make history in a year that holds historic potential for Republicans in formerly "blue" parts of the world. Scott Brown just carried Barney Frank's home district in Massachusetts. Dramatic changes are coming to a congressional district near you very, very soon, Save Jerseyans!

DISCLAIMER: Dale Glading is a client of my political consulting firm, Exit 3 Strategies, L.L.C.

Posted by Matt Rooney at Wednesday, February 03, 2010 9:00 AM | View Comments (2) | Add Comment

UPDATE: Sipprelle Unveils "Pro-Job Agenda" & Halfacre Fires Back with 'Schumer Donation' Retort

| February 1, 2010

UPDATE -- 3:40 PM

CD-12 GOP hopeful Scott Sipprelle opened his wallet to put the following video advertisement on PolitickerNj's website:

Not to be outdone, Mike Halfacre's rival campaign fired back moments ago by resurrecting a story you first heard about right here @ Save Jersey: Scott Sipprelle's donations to Congressional Democrats.

Halfacre's point is that these donations were counter-productive towards accomplishing the goals Sipprelle espouses in the aforementioned video. Take it for what you will, Save Jerseyans. What I want to know is when these guys are going to start paying me for opposition research?

The release:

Tom Fitzsimmons, campaign manager for 12^th District Republican Congressional candidate Mike Halfacre, today questioned self proclaimed Wall Street insider Scott Sipprelle’s release of a jobs agenda, pointing out that only months ago he was giving money Democrat House members who supported the Pelosi/Reid/Holt tax, borrow and spend agenda which has led to record unemployment.

“I find it interesting that today Scott Sipprelle wants to talk about jobs, when months ago, he was bankrolling Democrats who supported job-killing legislation like cap and trade, government-run healthcare, and a stimulus bill that didn’t stimulate anything,” said Fitzsimmons. “Congress borrowed so much money to pay for all the Democrat spending that they had to raise the federal debt limit, which we know is going to lead to tax increases in the not so distant future. That’s going to kill jobs, not create them, and Mr. Sipprelle was supporting that only months ago. The question still remains: why?”

Fitzsimmons continued “It sounds like when the wind was blowing one way last summer, Mr. Sipprelle was blowing with it, now that the winds are blowing in favor of Republicans, Mr. Sipprelle has changed course.

Sipprelle gave money to five House Democrats in June of 2009 Of the five- Allen Boyd Jr., FL-2; Charles Melancon, LA-3; Heath Shuler, NC-11; Barron Hill, IN-9; Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, SD-1:

- three voted for cap and trade

- three voted for the bloated stimulus package

- four voted to increase national debt limit

- one voted for the healthcare bill and called people who showed up at townhall meetings to oppose Obamacare “political terrorists”

In addition, Sipprelle donated in the past to Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York, and Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman, former Democrat Vice-Presidential candidate and lead sponsor of the Senate cap and trade legislation.

Fitzsimmons concluded, “There are plenty of free market, Reagan Republicans who were fighting against cap and trade and arguing for tax cuts and more targeted, fiscally responsible ways to stimulate the economy. Mr. Sipprelle could’ve given money to any one of them. But he gave money to five Democrats who oppose the very things that Mr. Sipprelle now claims to support. He hasn’t told us why, and until he does, anything he says now has to be viewed with suspicion by Republicans.”

Posted by Matt Rooney at Monday, February 01, 2010 2:30 PM | View Comments (7) | Add Comment

Another Pallone Challenger Emerges in NJ-6?

| January 29, 2010

The battle for Congress takes yet another turn in North Central Jersey, Save Jerseyans. A reliable source reports to Save Jersey that a fourth GOP candidate is weighing a challenge to Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ6). I'm told that the potential candidate is a woman who met with key Republican decision makers throughout New Jersey's Sixth Congressional District on Wednesday.

Former Monmouth Freeholder Bill Barham, Monmouth County GOP Vice Chair Diane Gooch, and Assemblywoman Pat Angelini are all supposedly considering challenges to Pallone as well.

No vacation for Obamacare Frank this fall!

Posted by Matt Rooney at Friday, January 29, 2010 8:00 AM | View Comments (3) | Add Comment

Jersey's Justice Alito Channels Joe Wilson as the President Scolds SCOTUS

Brian McGovern | January 28, 2010

During last night's State of the Union Address, President Obama thought it proper to take a moment of his gruelingly long oration to berate the members of the Supreme Court of the United States for their recent opinion that overturned a portion of the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform law.

Usually, when a president delivers these speeches, members of the judiciary and the military remain silent, composed, and neutral on the issues addressed. However, when the President turned to this issue and began lecturing about his discontent with the Supreme Court serving its function and protecting the liberties afforded to citizens of the United States by the Constitution, Justice Alito, a New Jersey native, let his true feelings slip just a bit.

In the video below, you will see the Justice mouth the words "Not true" as he shakes his head, probably in disbelief of what he was hearing. This is not the first time that President Obama has been shown a response to his less than truthful rhetoric during these addresses. Save Jerseyans will, of course, remember Joe Wilson's cry of "You Lie!" when the President claimed that illegal immigrants would not receive coverage under ObamaCare.

For the President to call out the Supreme Court in this way was unnecessary, distasteful, and disrespectful. In fact, the only thing worse than President Obama's decision to make these comments was the fact that the Democrat legislators' and liberal appointees' decision to stand an applaud the tactless attack.

President Obama and the Democrat Party members in attendance should be ashamed of themselves, and should apologize immediately.

Posted by Brian McGovern at Thursday, January 28, 2010 4:00 AM | View Comments (2) | Add Comment

Halfacre to Sipprelle: "Are Holt Protesters Political Terrorists?"

| January 26, 2010

Save Jersey was the first to report that CD-12 primary contender Scott Sipprelle (R-Princeton) donated thousands of dollars to Democrat federal candidates over the last decade.

The Halfacre campaign team has relentlessly pursued this story ever since.

Their latest angle is a little convoluted. Incumbent Rush Holt held a CD-12 town hall meeting last night and was met by throngs of angry tea party people demanding his head. Since one of Sipprelle's Democrat donees was Rep. Baron Hill (D-IN), a Democrat who referred to Obamacare protestors as "political terrorists" back in the Summer of '09, Halfacre's campaign manager is now demanding to know whether Sipprelle shares Hill's views on the topic.

The release:

Tom Fitzsimmons, campaign manager for 12^th District Republican congressional candidate Fair Haven Mayor Mike Halfacre, asked today whether Wall Street insider Scott Sipprelle considered the attendees asking Rush Holt pointed questions at his townhall meeting in Marlboro Monday night “political terrorists”.

“Last June, Scott Sipprelle inexplicably gave $2,500 to five House Democrats. One of the five, Baron Hill of Indiana, twice referred to the people who showed up at townhall meetings all over the United States to protest the government takeover of healthcare as “political terrorists”. (link: http://hoosierpundit.blogspot.com/2009/08/baron-hill-repeats-political-terrorists.html) Considering Mr. Sipprelle’s support of Congressman Hill, I think it’s fair to ask if he agrees with Mr. Baron that the people who take time out of their day to meet with their Congressional representative and express their opinions are “terrorists”.

Baron also voted for the controversial healthcare bill.

Fitzsimmons noted that last summer, while Mr. Sipprelle was supporting Democrats and Congressman Hill was insulting constituents, Halfacre hosted his own townhall meeting in Middletown.

“In August, when Rush Holt held his townhall meeting in a 240 seat venue, Mayor Halfacre held a “Townhall for All” right outside Holt’s meeting for all the people who couldn’t get in,” said Fitzsimmons. “There were nearly 400 people there and Mike allowed everyone to speak, regardless of their point of view. That’s what a true representative would do, and that’s why Mayor Halfacre will be a great representative of the 12^thDistrict when he’s elected in November”

Posted by Matt Rooney at Tuesday, January 26, 2010 3:14 PM | View Comments (2) | Add Comment

OPEN THREAD FRIDAY: Who Will Challenge Frank Pallone?

| January 22, 2010

It's no secret -- I've openly lamented the lack of a GOP challenger in CD-6. There's no excuse for leaving a major ObamaCare proponent unchallenged in 2010, particularly since Pallone's district voted for Governor Chris Christie back in November 2009. Even The Star-Ledger noted my discontent with this anti-freedom, anti-prosperity, Obama sycophant back in late December.

Time is running out. Will someone credible please step forward!?!?

Maybe you've thought of something I haven't, Save Jerseyans? Put on your thinking caps and leave an insightful comment below. We want thoughts, suggestions, ideas, theories, rumors, whatever, regarding a possible candidate to take on and defeat Frank Pallone in just under ten month's time. Finding a credible challenger is vitally important to our cause. An opportunity like this comes along but once in a generation...

Posted by Matt Rooney at Friday, January 22, 2010 11:00 AM | View Comments (7) | Add Comment

REPORT: H.R. 3962 Would Create 111 New Bureaucracies

| January 21, 2010

Here's another good reason to hope that the ascension of Senator-elect Scott Brown (R-MA) is really capable of retarding ObamaCare's progress towards becoming law.

Kudos to a regular Save Jersey reader for bringing this to my attention. The House Republican Conference recently assembled a massive list of new governmental units that would come into being under H.R. 3962 (not to be confused with the equally terrible Senate version). A staggering 111 new boards, commissions or programs would swell the federal bureaucracy if this bill ever reaches President Obama's desk. 111! It seems as if this massive government takeover legislation gets worse every time a fresh set of eyes endeavors to read it!

Count'em:

1. Retiree Reserve Trust Fund (Section 111(d), p. 61)
2. Grant program for wellness programs to small employers (Section 112, p. 62)
3. Grant program for State health access programs (Section 114, p. 72)
4. Program of administrative simplification (Section 115, p. 76)
5. Health Benefits Advisory Committee (Section 223, p. 111)
6. Health Choices Administration (Section 241, p. 131)
7. Qualified Health Benefits Plan Ombudsman (Section 244, p. 138)
8. Health Insurance Exchange (Section 201, p. 155)
9. Program for technical assistance to employees of small businesses buying Exchange coverage (Section 305(h), p. 191)
10. Mechanism for insurance risk pooling to be established by Health Choices Commissioner (Section 306(b), p. 194)
11. Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund (Section 307, p. 195)
12. State-based Health Insurance Exchanges (Section 308, p. 197)
13. Grant program for health insurance cooperatives (Section 310, p. 206)
14. Public Health Insurance Option (Section 321, p. 211)
15. Ombudsman for Public Health Insurance Option (Section 321(d), p. 213)
16. Account for receipts and disbursements for Public Health Insurance Option (Section 322(b), p. 215)
17. Telehealth Advisory Committee (Section 1191 (b), p. 589)
18. Demonstration program providing reimbursement for culturally and linguistically appropriate services (Section 1222, p. 617)
19. Demonstration program for shared decision making using patient decision aids (Section 1236, p. 648)
20. Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicare (Section 1301, p. 653)
21. Independent patient-centered medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302, p. 672)
22. Community-based medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302(d), p. 681)
23. Independence at home demonstration program (Sect Health Insurance Option (Section 322(b), p. 215)
17. Telehealth Advisory Committee (Section 1191 (b), p. 589)
18. Demonstration program providing reimbursement for culturally and linguistically appropriate services (Section 1222, p. 617)
19. Demonstration program for shared decision making using patient decision aids (Section 1236, p. 648)
20. Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicare (Section 1301, p. 653)
21. Independent patient-centered medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302, p. 672)
22. Community-based medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302(d), p. 681)
23. Independence at home demonstration program (Section 1312, p. 718)
24. Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research (Section 1401(a), p. 734)
25. Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission (Section 1401(a), p. 738)
26. Patient ombudsman for comparative effectiveness research (Section 1401(a), p. 753)
27. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1412(b)(1), p. 784)
28. Quality assurance and performance improvement program for nursing facilities (Section 1412 (b)(2), p. 786)
29. Special focus facility program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1413(a)(3), p. 796)
30. Special focus facility program for nursing facilities (Section 1413(b)(3), p. 804)
31. National independent monitor pilot program for skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities (Section 1422, p. 859)
32. Demonstration program for approved teaching health centers with respect to Medicare GME (Section 1502(d), p. 933)
33. Pilot program to develop anti-fraud compliance systems for Medicare providers (Section 1635, p. 978)
34. Special Inspector General for the Health Insurance Exchange (Section 1647, p. 1000)
35. Medical home pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1722, p. 1058)
36. Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1730A, p. 1073)
37. Nursing facility supplemental payment program (Section 1745, p. 1106)
38. Demonstration program for Medicaid coverage to stabilize emergency medical conditions in institutions for mental diseases (Section 1787, p. 1149)
39. Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund (Section 1802, p. 1162)
40. Identifiable office or program within CMS to provide for improved coordination between Medicare and Medicaid in the case of dual eligible (Section 1905, p. 1191)
41. Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Section 1907, p. 1198)
42. Public Health Investment Fund (Section 2002, p. 1214)
43. Scholarships for service in health professional needs areas (Section 2211, p. 1224)
44. Program for training medical residents in community-based settings (Section 2214, p. 1236)
45. Grant program for training in dentistry programs (Section 2215, p. 1240)
46. Public Health Workforce Corps (Section 2231, p. 1253)
47. Public health workforce scholarship program (Section 2231, p. 1254)
48. Public health workforce loan forgiveness program (Section 2231, p. 1258)
49. Grant program for innovations in interdisciplinary care (Section 2252, p. 1272)
50. Advisory Committee on Health Workforce Evaluation and Assessment (Section 2261, p. 1275)
51. Prevention and Wellness Trust (Section 2301, p. 1286)
52. Clinical Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1295)
53. Community Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p.. 1301)
54. Grant program for community prevention and wellness research (Section 2301, p. 1305)
55. Grant program for research and demonstration projects related to wellness incentives (Section 2301, p. 1305)
56. Grant program for community prevention and wellness services (Section 2301, p. 1308)
57. Grant program for public health infrastructure (Section 2301, p. 1313)
58. Center for Quality Improvement (Section 2401, p. 1322)
59. Assistant Secretary for Health Information (Section 2402, p. 1330)
60. Grant program to support the operation of school-based health clinics (Section 2511, p. 1352)
61. Grant program for nurse-managed health centers (Section 2512, p. 1361)
62. Grants for labor-management programs for nursing training (Section 2521, p. 1372)
63. Grant program for interdisciplinary mental and behavioral health training (Section 2522, p. 1382)
64. No Child Left Unimmunized Against Influenza demonstration grant program (Section 2524, p. 1391)
65. Healthy Teen Initiative grant program regarding teen pregnancy (Section 2526, p. 1398)
66. Grant program for interdisciplinary training, education, and services for individuals with autism (Section 2527(a), p. 1402)
67. University centers for excellence in developmental disabilities education (Section 2527(b), p. 1410)
68. Grant program to implement medication therapy management services (Section 2528, p. 1412)
69. Grant program to promote positive health behaviors in underserved communities (Section 2530, p. 1422)
70. Grant program for State alternative medical liability laws (Section 2531, p. 1431)
71. Grant program to develop infant mortality programs (Section 2532, p. 1433)
72. Grant program to prepare secondary school students for careers in health professions (Section 2533, p. 1437)
73. Grant program for community-based collaborative care (Section 2534, p. 1440)
74.. Grant program for community-based overweight and obesity prevention (Section 2535, p. 1457)
75. Grant program for reducing the student-to-school nurse ratio in primary and secondary schools (Section 2536, p. 1462)
76. Demonstration project of grants to medical-legal partnerships (Section 2537, p. 1464)
77. Center for Emergency Care under the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (Section 2552, p. 1478)
78. Council for Emergency Care (Section 2552, p 1479)
79. Grant program to support demonstration programs that design and implement regionalized emergency care systems (Section 2553, p. 1480)
80. Grant program to assist veterans who wish to become emergency medical technicians upon discharge (Section 2554, p. 1487)
81. Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee (Section 2562, p. 1494)
82. National Medical Device Registry (Section 2571, p. 1501)
83. CLASS Independence Fund (Section 2581, p. 1597)
84. CLASS Independence Fund Board of Trustees (Section 2581, p. 1598)
85. CLASS Independence Advisory Council (Section 2581, p. 1602)
86. Health and Human Services Coordinating Committee on Women’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1610)
87. National Women’s Health Information Center (Section 2588, p. 1611)
88. Centers for Disease Control Office of Women’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1614)
89. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Women’s Health and Gender-Based Research (Section 2588, p. 1617)
90. Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Women’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1618)
91. Food and Drug Administration Office of Women’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1621)
92. Personal Care Attendant Workforce Advisory Panel (Section 2589(a)(2), p. 1624)
93. Grant program for national health workforce online training (Section 2591, p. 1629)
94. Grant program to disseminate best practices on implementing health workforce investment programs (Section 2591, p. 1632)
95. Demonstration program for chronic shortages of health professionals (Section 3101, p. 1717)
96. Demonstration program for substance abuse counselor educational curricula (Section 3101, p. 1719)
97. Program of Indian community education on mental illness (Section 3101, p. 1722)
98. Intergovernmental Task Force on Indian environmental and nuclear hazards (Section 3101, p. 1754)
99. Office of Indian Men’s Health (Section 3101, p. 1765)
100. Indian Health facilities appropriation advisory board (Section 3101, p. 1774)
101. Indian Health facilities needs assessment workgroup (Section 3101, p. 1775)
102. Indian Health Service tribal facilities joint venture demonstration projects (Section 3101, p. 1809)
103. Urban youth treatment center demonstration project (Section 3101, p. 1873)
104. Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for diabetes prevention (Section 3101, p. 1874)
105. Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for health IT adoption Section 3101, p. 1877)
106. Mental health technician training program (Section 3101, p. 1898)
107. Indian youth telemental health demonstration project (Section 3101, p. 1909)
108. Program for treatment of child sexual abuse victims and perpetrators (Section 3101, p. 1925)
109. Program for treatment of domestic violence and sexual abuse (Section 3101, p. 1927)
110. Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1966)
111. Committee for the Establishment of the Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1968)

Imagine how many NEW government employees will be required to staff 111 newly-created offices. Hundreds? Thousands? It's simply mind-boggling! Then add up the total cost to taxpayers when taxes are levied to sustain the growth in payroll expenditures, organizational fees and, dare I say healthcare premiums? Don't even contemplate the incredible volume of anti-business regulations and red tape that 111 government entities could cook up overnight. It's enough to depress anyone with an income.

God save us all, Save Jerseyans... and our bank accounts!

Posted by Matt Rooney at Thursday, January 21, 2010 8:00 AM | Add Comment

Republican Sipprelle Donated to Schumer, House Democrats Over Past Decade

| January 21, 2010

Mercer Republican Scott Sipprelle is running for Congress as a fiscal conservative. One question he'll have to answer for primary voters is exactly why he donated to arch-liberal Chuck Schumer's Senate campaign.

According to FEC records (see below), Sipprelle gave thousands of dollars to Democrats over the last decade including Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY), a notoriously pro-big government politician who recently used the derisive phrase "tea-bagger" in an anti-Scott Brown fundraising email solicitation. Most of the other Democrat recipients of Sipprelle's cash are moderate "Blue Dogs." However, the CD-12 hopeful did donate to Baron Hill's Indiana house campaign. Two months after Sipprelle's donation, Rep. Hill referred to ObamaCare opponents as "political terrorists." What a charmer! I've been to Indiana and can report that Baron Hill is a poor reflection on his otherwise great state.

It's not all bad. To be fair, Sipprelle has also donated substantial sums to Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), and the free market-friendly Club for Growth. I also highly doubt that Sipprelle is really a closet liberal; unfortunately, a lot of wealthy donors entertain pols from both sides of the isle. That's not an comforting excuse, of course. Discovering issues like a long history of financially supporting Democrat Congressional candidates is the kind of thing for which primaries exist, Save Jerseyans. Base voters are called on to weigh these considerations against a candidate's overall message. We won't know for sure how it all shakes out until June.

For now, we'll continue to watch this anything but boring race as it develops...

Posted by Matt Rooney at Thursday, January 21, 2010 5:00 AM | View Comments (6) | Add Comment

Lost Opportunities to Flip Jersey House Seats?

| January 20, 2010

So Scott Brown won. Republican pessimists can no longer argue that any area of the country is "off-limits" for GOP candidates willing to run aggressive, principled, and disciplined campaigns. The Northeast GOP is back in business and 2010 offers a once-in-a-generation chance for sustainable gains. But will New Jersey Republicans take advantage of this historic opportunity?

It's a real concern, Save Jerseyans.

Earlier today, I read CD-12 GOP Congressional candidate Scott Sipprelle's press release congratulating Scott Brown. Mr. Sipprelle argues that “after more than a decade inside the beltway, Rush Holt has become a creature of Washington who routinely puts his loyalty to Nancy Pelosi ahead of his sworn duty to serve the constituents he represents. I congratulate Senator-elect Brown and the people of Massachusetts on their shared victory tonight, and look forward to adding another ‘Scott’ to Congress this November.”

I sure hope he's right.

Scott might be able to get away with a late start because he enjoys substantial personal resources. At the same time, it seems like New Jersey Republicans are wasting a significant opportunity to capture long-held Democrat house seats in the Garden State. You need only look at the chess board to appreciate how unprepared the NJGOP is to capitalize on the anti-Obama national mood.

In CD-6, Frank Pallone is a major ObamaCare supporter and, as it turns out, a major recipient of cash from health industry-related special interests (click here)! Chris Christie also carried Pallone's district in November '09. But where is Pallone's challenger? Nowhere to be seen, Save Jerseyans. He doesn't have one. This nasty, anti-liberty, anti-prosperity, anti-Christie liberal will win again in November because the GOP simply forfeited the opportunity.

More promising is CD-12. It's another district that Chris Christie carried over Corzine. I was among the first to argue that the district is infinitely winnable for a good campaign (click here). That was over two months ago. Two potentially-formidable challengers to Rush Holt's liberal record have stepped forward. Nevertheless, Mayor Mike Halfacre's campaign wants for cash and millionaire Scott Sipprelle lacks a strong grassroots profile. Certainly Halfacre could win in a good year with less money and Sipprelle can build a profile with his ample ability to self-fund. Granted. But you can't overlook the fact that these campaigns are just getting started in January. Most "targeted" house race have had Republican challengers with developing campaign infrastructures for more than a year. It makes a difference.

Then turn to CD-3. John Adler is inarguably vulnerable after winning this traditionally GOP seat by under 4-points in an ideal Democrat cycle. It's mathematics! Former Eagles great Jon Runyan now appears to be the nearly inevitable nominee. We're told he will be at least a partial self-funder yet, once again, Adler's been fundraising for over a year whereas Runyan has yet to make a formal announcement. I'm confident that this race will be competitive; my concern is whether the GOP will be prepared to pounce.

I won't even talk about Andrews, Pascrell, Rothman or Sires. You get the idea and it would be needlessly repetitive (and depressing) to go any futher.

There is one overarching reason for our current predicament -- money. Sadly, there just isn't much of an immediate financial incentive for county organizations to care about federal campaigns. Blame New Jersey's institutionally corrupt system of government. With the enormous amount of contracts, grants, patronage and other taxpayer-financed goodies to be won in Trenton, party chairman place a much higher value on freeholder and legislative seats than races to determine who goes to Washington. Welcome to the machine, Save Jerseyans. Given the low-profit incentive associated with supporting a federal campaign, chairmen often neglect to expend much energy encouraging/recruiting potential candidates. It's that simple.

Of course, I'm still cautiously optimistic about the 2010 midterm cycle. The simple act of fielding credible candidates in districts like CD-3 and -12 might be enough if the anti-Obama wave grows large enough. "Cautiously," however, is still the operative word. The NJGOP's Congressional pick-up chances should (and, to a limited extent, still could) be much, much stronger. We'll work with what we have, but we should be working with a lot more.

Posted by Matt Rooney at Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:26 AM | View Comments (7) | Add Comment

Nazism, Name Calling and National Socialism in 5 Minutes

| January 18, 2010

I'm always amused by Democrat double standards, Save Jerseyans. What's even more amusing (or scary, if we're being honest) is how little they understand about history.

For eight long years, President Bush endured some of the most vile, ugly attacks directed at a president since perhaps the Election of 1800! That one is heard to top, with Federalist Hamilton and candidate Jefferson throwing bombs at each other while Adams stubbornly refused to return fire. 200 years later, Bush was called an idiot, a racist, a war criminal and, worst of all, a Nazi. I'm sure you've seen the giant poster board images at rallies depicting the Republican President with a Hitler mustache and swastika in the background. It's a form of expression for lesser minds, I suppose!

Speaker Nancy Pelosi even labeled ObamaCare protesters as Nazis back in August '09 during the media frenzy surrounding healthcare town hall revolts:

But remember -- only Democrats are allowed to exercise free speech rights!

I just came across this fresh YouTube video of (presumably) a Coakley supporter trying to extract uncomplimentary commentary from someone who is (allegedly) a Brown booster up in Massachusetts. You can never say for sure with some of these amateur-produced clips.

Now, clearly this woman clearly isn't a professional speaker. Few people preform well with a nasty, petulant lib shoving a camcorder in his or her face! However, this anonymous conservative actually ends up making an objectively valid academic point that goes well over the video guy's head. No surprise there!

Watch:

Is Barack Obama a "Nazi" party member? No. That's not what she's saying. Does he support genocide or mass murder or institutionalized racism? Of course not. This woman NEVER calls Barack or Coakley a "Nazi." The camera guy is the only one who utters that incendiary label. She invokes "national socialism" which was the philosophy of government underlying the Nazi movement.

In American popular culture, it's a reflex to associate Nazism solely with the twin evils that were the Holocaust and anti-Semitism in Germany. Understandably! Yet there's a second sinister layer to the Nazi legacy that encompasses economic theory, too. Your high school history teacher probably skipped this part of the text book. "National socialists" believed in a governmental system of centralized power and decision maing characterized by, among other features, industrial profit-sharing, the nationalization of trusts and banks, the creation of a massive welfare system, and the public exultation of the state over the individual.

Sound familiar?

Obama isn't a "national" socialist, folks, but he's definitely an economic socialist who wants to extend government control over every aspect of our lives. I raise this point mainly because liberal academics usually try to assign totalitarian leaders to the political "right" end of the ideological spectrum. I reject that classification outright. Every evil political philosophy begins with citizens forfeiting their liberty and capital to a central authority -- elected or otherwise. The worth of every individual can never be fully actualized under a regime that disregards individual rights! We've seen it before in the 20th Century and again in the 21st. So why would we allow a similar economic system to take root right here in the United States of America?

Never thought about it like that, did you? That's why I'm here.

Posted by Matt Rooney at Monday, January 18, 2010 12:34 PM | Add Comment

Here We Go Again

| January 17, 2010

Here we go again, Save Jerseyans. Coming on the heels of a massive security breach at Newark Liberty International Airport earlier this month, we now have a SECOND dangerous security incident -- this time at JFK International!

From the AP:

"A busy terminal at John F. Kennedy International Airport was evacuated after a man opened a restricted door and set off an alarm, authorities said, making it the second known security breach at a New York-area airport this month.

The breach delayed dozens of flights and caused headaches for hundreds of travelers who had to exit the terminal and wait for hours as police swept through the building. The passengers at JFK were then shepherded through additional screening."

I have that sickening feeling in my stomach that another terrorist attack is imminent on American soil. God forbid. I am, however, afraid of having my worst fears confirmed unless the President starts taking terrorism much more seriously. It's time to prioritize. ObamaCare's passage should be a secondary concern for the White House. What good are x-rays and flu shots if we're all dead from a dirty bomb detonation?

New Jersey's Senator Lautenberg, for his part, is angrier at the Newark Airport trespasser than he is at the government officials, agents and program failures that allowed it to happen! That's a dangerously wrongheaded approach. Instead of serving as a rubber stamp for President Obama, Senator Lautenberg and Senator Menendez should demand significant changes at the TSA and the White House. Security breaches at Newark and JFK place New Jersey directly at risk. Photo ops and empty rhetoric won't make the Garden State any safer!

Posted by Matt Rooney at Sunday, January 17, 2010 4:20 PM | Add Comment

Coakley-Corzine Polling Parallels

| January 15, 2010

Check out RealClearPolitics' polling data, Save Jerseyans. Martha "Keep Your Religious Convictions to Yourself" Coakley is in deep trouble. Possible Corzine-sized trouble!

Right before the 2009 election, Jon Corzine's polling numbers collapsed as Governor-elct Chris Christie began to go toe-to-toe with the unpopular incumbent on television. Similarly, Coakley's once-commanding lead has evaporated now that Republican Scott Brown is wall-to-wall on every channel. The MA momentum has clearly shifted.

Furthermore, both races generated conflicting polling data down the home stretch. That's not unusual, since off-year and special elections usually come down to predicting the correct turnout model and responding accordingly. Different pollsters are betting on different turnout models, but given the national mood and everything I'm hearing from friends on the ground in the Bay State, I would put money on the polls showing Brown building a lead. What incentive do Democrats have to show up at the polls? Protecting ObamaCare isn't a sufficient impetus, or at least as compelling a motivator as stopping ObamaCare on the Republican side.

I'm starting to think Brown is really going to pull this off!

Massachusetts polls:

Massachusetts 2010 Polling Data
Poll Date Sample Brown (R) Coakley (D) Spread
PJM/CrossTarget (R) 1/14 - 1/14 946 LV 54 39 Brown +15
Blue Mass Group/R2000 (D) 1/12 - 1/13 500 LV 41 49 Coakley +8
Suffolk/7News 1/11 - 1/13 500 LV 50 46 Brown +4
Rasmussen Reports 1/11 - 1/11 1000 LV 47 49 Coakley +2
PPP (D) 1/7 - 1/9 744 LV 48 47 Brown +1
Rasmussen Reports 1/4 - 1/4 500 LV 41 50 Coakley +9
Boston Globe 1/2 - 1/6 554 LV 36 53 Coakley +17

Poll	Date	Sample	Brown (R)	Coakley (D)	Spread
PJM/CrossTarget (R)	1/14 - 1/14	946 LV	54	39	Brown +15
Blue Mass Group/R2000 (D)	1/12 - 1/13	500 LV	41	49	Coakley +8
Suffolk/7News	1/11 - 1/13	500 LV	50	46	Brown +4
Rasmussen Reports	1/11 - 1/11	1000 LV	47	49	Coakley +2
PPP (D)	1/7 - 1/9	744 LV	48	47	Brown +1
Rasmussen Reports	1/4 - 1/4	500 LV	41	50	Coakley +9
Boston Globe	1/2 - 1/6	554 LV	36	53	Coakley +17

Jersey polls:

New Jersey 2009 Polling Data

Poll	Date	Sample	Christie (R)	Corzine (D)	Daggett (I)	Spread
Monmouth/Gannett	10/31 - 11/1	722 LV	41	43	8	Corzine +2
SurveyUSA	10/30 - 11/1	582 LV	45	42	10	Christie +3
Quinnipiac	10/27 - 11/1	1533 LV	42	40	12	Christie +2
Rasmussen Reports	10/29 - 10/29	1000 LV	46	43	8	Christie +3
Stockton/Zogby	10/27 - 10/29	1093 LV	39	40	14	Corzine +1

Posted by Matt Rooney at Friday, January 15, 2010 1:05 PM | View Comments (1) | Add Comment

Our Last Chance to Kill ObamaCare?

| January 14, 2010

An important prediction from the always brilliant Charles Krauthammer:

Don't let this opportunity pass us by, Save Jerseyans. Click here to learn about how YOU can help Scott Brown end ObamaCare from the comfort of your Garden State home!

Posted by Matt Rooney at Thursday, January 14, 2010 5:49 PM | Add Comment

Rush is Back Today with a Valuable Lesson

| January 6, 2010

I'm beyond glad to know that Rush Limbaugh will be back on the air today, Save Jerseyans.

As with any crisis, Rush walked away with a very valuable lesson to convey to his 30 million listener weekly audience: American healthcare is STILL the best in the world!

Undoubtedly, there are problems with our healthcare system. We discussed this topic at great length throughout our state's 2009 gubernatorial election. But what ObamaCare's proponents won't tell you is that these challenges almost entirely are government-created problems! We need to roll back expensive regulations that stymie the free market's ability to encourage competition and, in the process, provide affordable and customizable options for all American citizens. Our elected officials also need to start taking tort reform seriously, especially since medical malpractice insurance is a huge contributing factor to rising healthcare costs.

So how is a government takeover of healthcare going to improve the situation? It won't, and Rush is using this opportunity to make that all-important point. The King of Conservative Talk might've perished had he really suffered a heart attack in a country with socialized medicine and all that comes with it (rationed care, long waits for treatment, antiquated services and technologies, etc). That grisly outcome might make some of Rush's far-left detractors happy, but it's a real fear for those of us who believe all human life is intrinsically sacred.

In case you missed it, listen to El Rushbo's January 1st press conference. He did a predictably awesome job defending American healthcare:

Posted by Matt Rooney at Wednesday, January 06, 2010 6:00 AM | View Comments (2) | Add Comment

Obama's "Flaccid" Foreign Policy

| December 29, 2009

President Obama suffers from a personal problem that ObamaCare just can't fix.... =)

Posted by Matt Rooney at Tuesday, December 29, 2009 8:52 PM | View Comments (1) | Add Comment

Save Jersey's 10 Predictions for 2010

| December 29, 2009

What will 2010 bring, Save Jerseyans?

Some ideas worth thinking about from your Blogger-in-Chief:

More House Democrats will retire in January 2010, leaving 12+ competitive Democrat-controlled districts without well-funded incumbents to defend them.

There will be a heated Republican primary in New Jersey's Third Congressional District, but John Adler will still manage to lose his seat in November. John Runyan may be the beneficiary of Adler's political demise unless the San Diego Chargers vanquish the Philadelphia Eagles in Super Bowl XLIV.

Loretta Weinberg's gay marriage bill will die unceremoniously. The Assembly Dems, faced with an obstinate upper chamber and a tight legislative calendar, are very likely to decide that it's just not worth setting themselves up for a major public relations failure on the eve of Chris Christie's inauguration.

Governor-elect Christie will focus on spending reductions, ethics reforms and school choice during his first year (in that order). Despite media-driven commentary to the contrary, Chris's approval ratings will improve after he lays off thousands of state workers and enrages the teachers' union by allowing vouchers in certain low-performing school districts.

ObamaCare will pass, as will a somewhat watered-down energy bill containing controversial cap-and-trade taxes designed to like something other than cap-and-trade taxes.

Republicans respond by capturing over 50 House seats and claiming a slim majority in the U.S. House of Representatives next fall. While the U.S. Senate remains under Democrat control, Harry Reid will lose his reelection bid and so will Chris Dodd.

Glenn Beck's August 28th rally on the National Mall will make the 'Million Man March' look like a kiddie picnic.

Bill Baroni will leave the State Senate and join Phil Haines on the bench, allowing Linda Greenstein to soundly defeat Baroni's Republican replacement.

The U.S. economy will continue to suffer. Our job market will temporarily improve but the root causes of the original downturn -- poor access to credit, excessive government spending and taxation, a weak dollar, etc -- will ultimately engender a double dip recession. Cap-and-Trade's passage is the nail in our collective national coffin.

Doctors will reveal that Michael Illions suffers from the same disease Robin Williams had in the movie 'Jack,' partially explaining his bizarre, middle-aged man fascination with potty language, professional wrestling and Kate Whitman.

Am I wrong? Did I miss something? Do you have predictions of your own?

Leave a comment below...

Posted by Matt Rooney at Tuesday, December 29, 2009 5:00 AM | View Comments (11) | Add Comment

VIDEO: Baucus Channels Kennedy Drunk On the Senate Floor?

| December 28, 2009

Throughout this entire gut-wrenching health care debate, Senate Democrats frequently invoked the name of the late Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA). We were told that Ted would've wanted it to pass so, therefore, the voters should want it to become law, too. I guarantee you that "Ted" passed more lips than "God bless you" on Capitol Hill this year, Save Jerseyans. Sick stuff!

Well, Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) may have tried just a little too hard to channel Teddy's spirit.

Shadowing the footsteps of the Democrat Party's most infamous alcoholic, Baucus took to the floor and delivered the following seemingly intoxicated rant aimed at ObamaCare's critics:

Ironically, the surname "Baucus" is derived from that of the ancient Roman god Bacchus (or originally 'Dionysus' in Greece). Bacchus was, of course, the popular mythological figure closely associated with getting drunk at parties.

You couldn't make this stuff up if you tried!

Posted by Matt Rooney at Monday, December 28, 2009 8:00 AM | View Comments (3) | Add Comment

Merry Christmas from Save Jersey

| December 24, 2009

Christmas 2009 is upon us with ObamaCare's passage as its backdrop.

Throughout the past year, Americans nervously watched their economic freedoms erode under President Obama's stewardship. Furthermore, this ongoing healthcare debate has raised profound questions as to whether our government will protect the weakest among us or allow public departments to assign -- or eliminate -- an individual's worth under the law. Ours are dark times indeed...

So what can the Christmas story tell us about these disturbing national developments?

Our annual Christmas plea from me to you, Save Jerseyans:

We all love Christmas carols, but do you ever take the time to stop, listen and appreciate what these beautiful songs are telling you? Consider one of my favorites: "Oh Holy Night"

The most significant line is "Long lay the world in sin and error pining: 'Til He appear'd and the soul felt its worth." It's a lyric packed with philosophical and theological significance, to be sure. But for our purposes, we need only recognize that this sentence encapsulates the entire message of Christmas.

Jesus was born into a nasty and brutish world. The Roman Empire used oppressive tactics to realize an uneasy peace in the rebellious Judaean province. Staggering poverty was endemic and political freedoms were suppressed. Worse still, the leaders of the oppressed Jewish people couldn't unite around a strategy, leading to fractious divisions between zealots, pharisees, Roman sympathizers and a variety of social cleavages.

Why would God choose to enter the world as the child of a poor, young couple in the middle of a festering socio-political disaster? God became incarnate, as a poor child, to affirm the worth of every human being. Everyone has worth in the eyes of their Creator, and everyone deserves the right to fully actualize their humanity as a free individual. After all, human life must have value if God chose to participate in it!

So this Christmas, please spend some time contemplating the true meaning of Christmas. Think about whether your words, actions, and votes honor the child born in Bethlehem. Are you contributing to a freer and more prosperous world? Or are you tacitly allowing corruption, oppression and sin, both institutional and anecdotal, to rob your fellow man of his humanity?

Posted by Matt Rooney at Thursday, December 24, 2009 5:00 AM | View Comments (6) | Add Comment

An "Accounting Measure" Translates to Mass Murder

| December 23, 2009

What a ghoulish woman!

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is trying to obscure the fact that your tax dollars will pay for abortions after ObamaCare clears the U.S. Senate.

Listen:

"The Senate language, which was negotiated by Senators Barbara Boxer and Patty Murray, who are very strong defenders of women's health services and choices for women, take a big step forward from where the House left it with the Stupak amendment. Everybody in the exchange would do the same thing, whether you're male or female, whether you're 75 or 25, you would all set aside a portion of your premium that would go into a fund, and it will not be earmarked for anything, it would be a separate account that everyone in the exchange would pay. It's really an accounting measure that would apply across the board and not just to women and certainly not just to women who want to choose abortion coverage."

She's employing a sinister accounting trick to hide the truth from you, America! While ObamaCare won't directly fund abortions, a substantial portion of your regular healthcare premium would go into the "fund" described by Secretary Sebelius in the clip above and therefore would, in turn, be drawn on to finance elective abortions.

Her Orwellian obtuseness is absolutely shameful behavior coming from a government official. Doesn't it tell you something that she senses the acute need to mask this bill's true effect, Save Jerseyans? And as if Sebelius's sleight of hand wasn't bad enough, word is out that the Obama White House is strong-arming Congressman Bart Stupak (D-MI) for his outspoken criticism of the Senate version's weak anti-abortion provision:

“They think I shouldn’t be expressing my views on this bill until they get a chance to try to sell me the language,” Stupak told CNSNews.com in aninterview on Tuesday. “Well, I don’t need anyone to sell me the language. I can read it. I’ve seen it. I’ve worked with it. I know what it says. I don’t need to have a conference with the White House. I have the legislation in front of me here.”

Radical liberals labor day and night to deceive the voters. Ronald Reagan often quoted the socialist Norman Thomas, who once reflected that “The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But under the name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without knowing how it happened." (click here) Make no mistake that these people desperately want to conceal what ObamaCare will do to this country and the most vulnerable among us.

This latest attempt to repackage public abortion funding as an "accounting measure," however, goes well beyond routine untruthfulness. Her words are downright barbaric. It's inhuman to sanitize tax dollars paying for infanticide in such a cold, unfeeling, and technical fashion!

Let's get real. How are publicly financed abortions -- where the government decides to financially-back the murder of a certain class of citizens with public funds -- substantively any different from state-run "ethnic cleansing" or any other government-directed program of mass murder in world history, folks? If this was 1945 instead of 2009, and Kathleen Sebelius was a German cabinet secretary instead of a liberal yuppie from Kansas, the world's talking heads would be castigating her as a war criminal! Instead, she's celebrated by her peers as an enlightened woman?

It's time to wake up, America. Regardless of your position on the life issue, do you really want government to routinely use your money in deciding who lives and who dies? Which baby with a handicap is born and which goes into the hospital dumpster? Whose grandparent receives life-saving surgery and whose is simply prescribed a painkiller?

We need to tame big government before it conquers us. KILL THE BILL!

Posted by Matt Rooney at Wednesday, December 23, 2009 5:00 AM | View Comments (3) | Add Comment

GOP Senator: ObamaCare Passage is a 'Sleezy' Process

| December 22, 2009

Kudos to Lindsey Graham for highlighting the central hypocrisy of Obama's legislative strategy:

Posted by Matt Rooney at Tuesday, December 22, 2009 3:00 PM | Add Comment

REPORT: Democrat Congressman Switches Parties

| December 22, 2009

Rep. Parker Griffith (D-AL) will soon have an 'R' after his name, Save Jerseyans.

He's announced plans to switch parties and run as a Republican in 2010, following a formal announcement in his home district later this afternoon. Clearly, Griffith's decision won't significantly impact the balance of power in Congress (see the chart and graphic below). His decision to change parties, however, is yet another tangible and ominous sign that House Democrats are in deep, deep electoral trouble next year.

We knew ObamaCare would kill Americans. I didn't know that prognosis included the Democrat majority!

Prediction: watch for more Democrat retirements in January '10...

Affiliation		Members	Delegates / Resident Commissioner (non-voting)	States with majority of Members
	Democratic Party	258	6^*	33
	Republican Party	177	0	16
	Vacant	0	0
Total		435	6
Majority		81

Posted by Matt Rooney at Tuesday, December 22, 2009 11:31 AM | View Comments (4) | Add Comment

Senator Menendez – A Portrait of Ineffectiveness

Eric Pasternack | December 21, 2009

This post is not about health care reform. No, it is about something much more basic than that. You might remember that lastweek, Senator Menendez claimed that Governor-elect Chris Christie “showed a ‘lack of understanding’ when he criticized New Jersey’s congressional delegation for failing to get enough federal money. . . .”

Senator Menendez’s audacity here is truly quite amazing. According to the Tax Foundation, New Jersey ranks last among the States in terms of federal spending received per dollar paid, with New Jersey receiving ONLY $0.61 in federal spending forevery dollar paid by its citizens in federal taxes. From this, it certainly seems as though Senator Menendez is the one who has showed a lack of understanding.

However, it gets worse. Although I said that this wouldn’t be a post about health care reform, I would like to draw your attention to Obamacare for a moment to further elucidate Senator Menendez’s ineffectiveness as New Jersey’s junior Senator. Obamacare will generate substantial unfunded mandates for the states. This is why the deal made between Senate Democrats and Senator Ben Nelson to secure Nelson’s vote to pass Obamacare is so interesting yet reprehensible. Because of this deal, “the federal government will pay for Nebraska’s new Medicaid recipients,” which is “worth about $45 million over the first decade."

New Jersey already faces an $8 billion budget deficit for next year, and Obamacare will only add to this. So here is my question for Senator Menendez: Why didn’t you fight for a similar deal?

Governor-elect Christie was correct. Senators Menendez and Lautenberg have been ineffective, and the debate of Obamacare demonstrates how willing they are to let ideology triumph in spite of the needs of the citizens that they claim to represent.

Posted by Eric Pasternack at Monday, December 21, 2009 2:57 PM | View Comments (1) | Add Comment

Deck the Hall with Boughs of Pork

| December 21, 2009

ObamaCare could quickly become the largest federal entitlement in U.S. history. Ironically, big government isn't just trying to buy the voters of average Americans. It's worse than that. Our institutionally corrupt system allowed for several senators to be purchased. Of course this is nothing new. It's the size and scope of these bribes that defies prior precedent. For example, stimulus spending is heading to Democrat-controlled congressional districts instead of Republican districts at a 2-to-1 rate (click here).

And which is worse, Save Jerseyans? The time when various regional trusts controlled senators back in the early 20th Century, or the current legislative dynamic where big government uses your tax dollars to perpetuate its own expansion?

From Fox News:

-- Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., won between $100 million and $300 million in additional federal aid for her state's Medicaid population. The deal, secured before she cast her critical vote in favor of bringing the health bill to the floor, was immediately dubbed the "Louisiana Purchase," though the actual Louisiana Purchase was considerably cheaper.
-- Vermont and Massachusetts got $1.2 billion in Medicaid money -- a change that was described as a correction to the current system which exempts those two states because they have robust health care systems. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders also boasted Saturday that he requested and won an investment worth between $10 and $14 billion for community health centers.
-- Western states secured higher federal reimbursement rates for doctors and hospitals that serve Medicare patients. The provision covers the low-population "frontier" states and applies to Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming -- the latter two states are both represented by two Republicans, but ended up as beneficiaries anyway since they qualify. The legislative language defines frontier states as states where at least 50 percent of the counties have fewer than six people per square mile. Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, defended the "special deal," telling "Fox News Sunday" that those five states were getting an increase in reimbursements because they get the lowest amount in the country. "That doesn't offend me at all," he said. "It's in fact, fair."
-- Florida, New York and Pennsylvania -- where five of six senators are Democrats -- will have their seniors' Medicare Advantage benefits protected, even as the program sees massive cuts elsewhere.
-- Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., reportedly secured expanded Medicare coverage for victims of asbestos exposure in a mine in Libby, Mont.
-- One unknown state is receiving $100 million for a "health care facility" affiliated with an academic health center at a university that contains the state's only "public academic medical and dental school." It's unclear for which state that language was written.
-- Nebraska's Nelson won permanent federal aid for his state's expanded Medicaid population, a benefit worth up to $100 million over 10 years. Other states get the federal aid for three years, but Nebraska's benefit is indefinite. His state also got an exemption for nonprofit insurance companies from a health insurance company tax. Many believe this was targeted at Mutual of Omaha, but senior Democratic aides would not confirm that.

Posted by Matt Rooney at Monday, December 21, 2009 12:00 PM | Add Comment

'Rock the Vote' Asks Kids to Withhold Sex from ObamaCare Opponents

| December 21, 2009

Hat tip to Noel Sheppard at NewsBusters for covering this story (and for one of our loyal Save Jerseyans who dutifully sent me the link). Apparently, the social degenerates over at 'Rock the Vote' have really outdone themselves this time, Save Jerseyans.

They're actually imploring young Americans to withhold sex from anyone who won't support ObamaCare. There's a pledge to that effect posted on their website:

"We pledge ourselves to the health and liberty of young Americans. We pledge to educate ourselves and to stand with those who fight for us and against those who do not. We demand health care, and we are willing to hold out for it."

RTV's exceptionally crude and perverted pledge, accompanied by an email sign-up box, sits to the right of the following video. You won't believe your eyes (or ears):

'Rock the Vote' is clearly trying to dumb down the vote!

Do you think the actors in this video have any idea that they're legally required to buy health care for themselves, even if their employer doesn't provide it, under the ObamaCare legislation? Or if they're unemployed, too? And that if they don't purchase a plan, that they'll be fined or sent to jail? Don't even get me started on the hypocrisy exhibited by the so-called liberal "feminists" associated with this video's production, either...

Pray for your country this Christmas, Save Jerseyans. Our culture -- and the political culture that arises from it -- is in worse shape than ever before.

Posted by Matt Rooney at Monday, December 21, 2009 9:00 AM | View Comments (8) | Add Comment

ALERT: ObamaCare Clears Manager's Amendment Vote, 60-40

| December 21, 2009

Done By Christmas:

BREITBART -- WASHINGTON (AP) - Landmark health carelegislation backed by President Barack Obama passed its sternest Senate test in the pre-dawn hours early Monday, overcoming Republican delaying tactics on a 60-40 vote that all but assures its passage by Christmas.

"Let's make history," said Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, shortly before the bill's supporters demonstrated their command of the Senate floor in an extraordinary holiday season showdown.

History indeed, Senator Harkin. The ObamaCare bill will kill people. At least one senator had the courage to stand up and say it during last night's marathon floor debate:

VIDEO: From the Senate Floor, 1:37 AM on 12/21

Posted by Matt Rooney at Monday, December 21, 2009 4:00 AM | View Comments (1) | Add Comment

Hoping for a Pre-Christmas Miracle

Brian McGovern | December 19, 2009

In case you haven't heard, ObamaCare is set to be voted on, and passed, at 1:00AM Monday morning. With the Democrats' 60 member majority, and with every last vocal hold out either bribed or coerced into submission by the administration and Harry Reid, there is not much the Senate Republicans can do to stop this awful piece of legislation.

But you still can.

Below is a video from the Senate Republican caucus, and a link to the contact information for every member of the US Senate. If we can apply enough pressure, we can stop this vote and bring the Senators home for Christmas to face their constituents on the issue. Let's make one last push and kill this bill!

US Senate Contact List

Posted by Brian McGovern at Saturday, December 19, 2009 1:32 PM | Add Comment

'Jersey Care' Goes National

| December 19, 2009

In case you've been busy shoveling snow and haven't yet checked the Drudge Report this morning, it falls on me to tell you that ObamaCare is now officially poised to pass the United States Senate on Monday (click here to read about Ben Nelson's surrender).

I don't like it anymore than you do, Save Jerseyans, but elections have consequences. At this point, I'd recommend focusing your rage by helping your local Republican Congressional candidate organize a viable campaign. We need to defeat over 40 Democrat Congressmen in 2010 to recapture the House and put the brakes on Obama's forced march to national socialism. That work needs to begin in districts where it hasn't already.

Be prepared for the post-vote misinformation, too. Following Monday's historic vote, the media will harp on the massive "concessions" that were necessary to achieve ObamaCare's passage.

Concessions? Read this passage and tell me what comes to mind:

"Instead of a public option, the final product would allow private firms for the first time to offer national insurance policies to all Americans, outside the jurisdiction of state regulations. Those plans would be negotiated through the Office of Personnel Management, the same agency that handles health coverage for federal workers and members of Congress.

Starting immediately, insurers would be prohibited from denying children coverage for pre-existing conditions. A complete ban on the practice would take effect in 2014, when the legislation seeks to create a network of state-based insurance exchanges, or marketplaces, where people who lack access to affordable coverage through an insurer can purchase policies."

We already have this system, Save Jerseyans.... in New Jersey! We discussed New Jersey's over-regulated, mandate-drenched health care system at-length throughout Election 2009 (click here).

The final version of ObamaCare was the real plan all along. Democrat leaders knew a "public option" would never fly, and I've told you time and again that the Democrats don't need a "public option" to eliminate private insurance. Expensive mandates and regulations can be just as effective if your ultimate goal is a government takeover of the health care industry. Just look at New Jersey!

I'm reminded of a quote that Ronald Reagan enjoyed referencing when speaking out against Democrat policies:

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But under the name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without knowing how it happened.”

- Norman Thomas
Socialist Party presidential candidate in 1940, 1944 and 1948.

FLASHBACK: Obama Tries to Hide His True Goal...

Posted by Matt Rooney at Saturday, December 19, 2009 10:46 AM | View Comments (4) | Add Comment

ALERT: "Do Or Die" ObamaCare Vote Scheduled for Monday

| December 18, 2009

Breaking News from MSNBC:

"At about 1:00 am ET, the Senate will take it's most important health-care vote. This will be the vote to break the filibuster on the 'managers' amendment." Reid will need 60 votes. At this point in time, he does not have 60."

Tellingly, the Senate Democrats have (finally) posted the bill's full text on their public website: (Click for PDF). That means we're only 72 hours away from a floor vote on ObamaCare!

Neil Cavuto really captured the moment on his afternoon television show:

Posted by Matt Rooney at Friday, December 18, 2009 7:40 PM | View Comments (1) | Add Comment

MONDAY: Pallone Hosts ObamaCare 'Twitter Town Hall'

| December 18, 2009

Congressman, liberal radical and all-around nasty guy Frank Pallone (D-NJ) will host a 'Twitter Town Hall' meeting on Monday, December 21st at 1 PM.

I'm not surprised to hear that he's hiding behind a staffer with a laptop, Save Jerseyans! Pallone has a lot to answer for. Chris Christie carried his district back in November. A credible Republican challenger could give him a run for his money.

Posted by Matt Rooney at Friday, December 18, 2009 3:29 PM | Add Comment

"The Secretary Shall Determine..."

| December 18, 2009

Thank God for the new media! Otherwise, the contents of President Obama's expensive, lengthy healthcare legislation would remain a complete mystery until it was already in effect (remember the stimulus?).

But maybe -- just maybe -- ignorance was bliss in this instance.

Duke Professor John David Lewis recently took the time to examine some key provision of the ObamaCare bill. To his horror, he discovered a variety of sinister ways by which our Congress will shift power away from American consumers and towards the federal government. The changes to our healthcare system will be sweeping, costly and fundamentally undemocratic should this bill achieve passage.

Let's study Section 102 for a moment:

SEC. 102. ENSURING VALUE AND LOWER PREMIUMS (pp. 26-28).

(a) GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE.—Title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act is amended by inserting after section 2713 the following new section:

SEC. 2714. ENSURING VALUE AND LOWER PREMIUMS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Each health insurance issuer that offers health insurance coverage in the small or large group market shall provide that for any plan year in which the coverage has a medical loss ratio below a level specified by the Secretary (but not less than 85 percent), the issuer shall provide in a manner specified by the Secretaryfor rebates to enrollees of the amount by which the issuer’s medical loss ratio is less than the level so specified.

(b) IMPLEMENTATION.—The Secretary shall establish a uniform definition of medical loss ratio and methodology for determining how to calculate it based on the average medical loss ratio in a health insurance issuer’s book of business for the small and large group market. Such methodology shall be designed to take into account the special circumstances of smaller plans, different types of plans, and newer plans. In determining the medical loss ratio, the Secretary shall exclude State taxes and licensing or regulatory fees. Such methodology shall be designed and exceptions shall be established to ensure adequate participation by health insurance issuers, competition in the health insurance market, and value for consumers so that their premiums are used for services. . . .

(b) INDIVIDUAL HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE.—Such title is further amended by inserting after section 2753 the following new section:

SEC. 2754. ENSURING VALUE AND LOWER PREMIUMS.

The provisions of section 2714 shall apply to health insurance coverage offered in the individual market in the same manner as such provisions apply to health insurance coverage offered in the small or large group market except to the extent the Secretary determines that the application of such section may destabilize the existing individual market.

Not good, Save Jerseyans. The entire body of this legislation is terrifying, but the particular section posted above will completely transform the insurance marketplace by concentrating extraordinary powers in the Secretary of Health and Human Services. You are being overthrown by your own government, America!

The Professor explains:

"The bill amends the Public Health Service Act by granting new powers to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Federal bureaucrats will determine how insurance companies keep their books, how they calculate their revenues and claims, what constitutes acceptable competition in insurance markets, and what makes such markets “stable.” The bill empowers bureaucrats to wield power over companies and individuals in terms decided by the bureaucrats. This is arbitrary power, granted by Congress to the “Secretary,” meaning to thousands of bureaucrats. Every American will be subject to their decisions, on local, state and national levels.

A text search of the bill reveals more than one hundred instances of language such as 'the Secretary shall determine.'”

And the Secretary will decide. She'll decide who lives, who dies, and how much it costs to accomplish either.

Anyone else feel like a character in an Orwell novel?

Posted by Matt Rooney at Friday, December 18, 2009 6:30 AM | View Comments (2) | Add Comment

'Abortion Bob' Wages War On Taxpayers

| December 17, 2009

With only eight days left before Christmas, ObamaCare's fate may very well hinge on the most unlikely of all insurance-related issues. Not the "public option" or budget deficit concerns, Save Jerseyans....

... but federally-funded abortion:

"The abortion issue is likely to be among the most contentious in House-Senate negotiations on a final compromise bill. The House bill imposes strict limits intended to bar any federal funds from being used to pay for the procedure. The Senate bill, at least for now, would impose limits on coverage but still allow women who get government subsidies to enroll in a plan that covers abortion."

You'd think that liberal ObamaCare-backers would be satisfied without a publicly-financed abortion option. I guess we should've known better!

Just listen to "Abortion Bob" Menendez as he drones on (and on) about the constitutional right to brutally end a child's life... paid for with YOUR tax dollars! What in God's name does that have to do with expanding health coverage, Senator?

More likely, it's just another example of how ObamaCare really has nothing to do with making America healthier. This legislation's true aim is to force a far-left (and incredibly expensive) worldview on the American people. Government wants more control over your money and your lives, folks. This bill doesn't help Grandma afford her heart medicine or your college-age brother purchase health insurance; it lines the pockets of federal bureaucrats and abortion doctors!

I resent the condescending behavior captured in the video posted below, and I think New Jersey's voters deserve to be reminded of Senator Bob's warped priorities in 2012:

Posted by Matt Rooney at Thursday, December 17, 2009 9:00 AM | Add Comment

Will the Left Kill ObamaCare?

| December 16, 2009

I find it hard to believe that many Senate Democrats will ultimately vote against ObamaCare. They really want to show their base something tangible by Christmas. And if you really support a "public option," then you eventually realize that the same effect can be achieved indirectly through many of the mandates, taxes and regulations embedded in both versions of the healthcare overhaul legislation. The taxpayers lose either way, Save Jerseyans!

That being said, some Democrat senators are still refusing to commit as of this writing:

Posted by Matt Rooney at Wednesday, December 16, 2009 10:46 AM | Add Comment

Rushed ObamaCare Bill Doesn't Make Any Sense

Matt Rooney | December 10, 2009

Thousands of pages. Numerous contradictory provisions. Budget funding holes.

Congressional Democrats are frantically trying to pass this ObamaCare bill before collapsing public opinion drags into an election year AND IT SHOWS, Save Jerseyans.

Take it away, Mr. Krauthammer:

Posted by Matt Rooney at Thursday, December 10, 2009 2:48 PM | Add Comment

What Do Gay Marriage and ObamaCare Have in Common?

| December 10, 2009

Answer: the voters don't want them!

Here's the latest polls:

Poll Date Sample For/Favor Against/Oppose Spread
RCP Average 11/13 - 12/6 -- 39.7 49.0 Against/Oppose +9.3
Quinnipiac 12/1 - 12/6 2313 RV 38 52 Against/Oppose +14
Rasmussen Reports 12/4 - 12/5 1000 LV 41 51 Against/Oppose +10
Gallup 11/20 - 11/22 1017 A 44 49 Against/Oppose +5
Ipsos/McClatchy 11/19 - 11/22 1176 A 34 46 Against/Oppose +12
FOX News 11/17 - 11/18 900 RV 35 51 Against/Oppose +16
CNN/Opinion Research 11/13 - 11/15 1014 A 46 49 Against/Oppose +3
CBS News 11/13 - 11/15 873 A 40 45 Against/Oppose +5

Poll	Date	Sample	For/Favor	Against/Oppose	Spread
RCP Average	11/13 - 12/6	--	39.7	49.0	Against/Oppose +9.3
Quinnipiac	12/1 - 12/6	2313 RV	38	52	Against/Oppose +14
Rasmussen Reports	12/4 - 12/5	1000 LV	41	51	Against/Oppose +10
Gallup	11/20 - 11/22	1017 A	44	49	Against/Oppose +5
Ipsos/McClatchy	11/19 - 11/22	1176 A	34	46	Against/Oppose +12
FOX News	11/17 - 11/18	900 RV	35	51	Against/Oppose +16
CNN/Opinion Research	11/13 - 11/15	1014 A	46	49	Against/Oppose +3
CBS News	11/13 - 11/15	873 A	40	45	Against/Oppose +5

Posted by Matt Rooney at Thursday, December 10, 2009 6:00 AM | Add Comment

James Inhofe is a Great Man

| December 10, 2009

Modern America is desperate for great men and principled leaders, Save Jerseyans.

U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) is one such exception:

"Inhofe is going to Copenhagen as the leader of a three-man "truth squad" to spread the message that the Senate will not pass a cap-and-trade bill to curb carbon emissions. Inhofe told National Review Online in September that he intends "to make sure that those attending the Copenhagen conference know what is really happening in the United States Senate." Sens. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., and Roger Wicker, R-Miss., will round out the group."

More so than ObamaCare or stimulus packages, this global warming hoax has the potential to socialize our economy and impoverish untold millions. Inhofe deserves to be commended for taking the fight to these frauds when few others were willing to do so.

God bless you, Senator!

Posted by Matt Rooney at Thursday, December 10, 2009 4:00 AM | Add Comment

BREAKING: Senate REJECTS Nelson-Hatch Amendment for ObamaCare

Brian McGovern | December 8, 2009

In a bipartisan effort to ban any use of federal dollars from funding abortion, Senators Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) put forth an amendment that mirrored the Stupak Amendment in the House.

The Senate voted this evening on the Amendment, and rejected it in a 54 to 45 vote.

Senator Nelson and a few other Pro-Choice Democrats in the Senate may rethink their votes on cloture and final passage if provisions to keep public money out of abortions is not included in the bill. The current provision to separate private and public money for abortions has been called "an accounting gimmick." The absence of this amendment from the Senate version also diminishes the likelihood that the provision will last through conference if it ever leave the Senate floor.

Senator Reid still claims that he is attempting to pass the bill by Christmas, but it seems that he may be short on time.

Posted by Brian McGovern at Tuesday, December 08, 2009 6:12 PM | View Comments (1) | Add Comment

Harry Reid Compares ObamaCare Opponents to Slaveholders

| December 8, 2009

Is Harry Reid trying to lose his senate seat in 2010? This short clip is a gift to whoever does GOP opposition research in Nevada!

Posted by Matt Rooney at Tuesday, December 08, 2009 8:14 AM | Add Comment

Public Employees Unions Complaining About Tax Hikes?

Matt Rooney | December 7, 2009

Welcome to the Bizarro World, Save Jerseyans!

The NJEA is joining other unions in opposition to the excise tax embedded in Harry Reid's version of the ObamaCare legislation. Here's their complete press release for your review.

And what's their beef with Reid's bill?

"The excise tax would be levied against insurance companies on premiums exceeding a certain threshold, which begins as low as $8,500 for single coverage and is slated to rise much more slowly than the average increase in the cost of insurance. In effect, it means that while initially it may affect only a small number of middle-income families, within just a year or two, it will begin to capture many more insurance policies.

One projection, based on the average cost of family insurance coverage provided through the School Employees’ Health Benefits Program, shows that the excise tax is likely to kick in by year two. By year ten, based on projected growth in the cost of insurance, the tax could well exceed $10,000 on a family premium. That cost will certainly pass from the insurance company to the employer who pays the premium. Employers will attempt to shift the burden to employees. The end result: higher costs for middle class families.

Even worse, the quality of insurance coverage will almost certainly decline. To minimize or avoid the impact of the excise tax, employers and employees will be forced to consider reduced benefits, again leaving families more vulnerable to unexpected – and potentially uncovered – medical costs. Ultimately, the excise tax would trigger a race to the bottom, raising costs, lowering quality and putting a greater burden on middle-class families who can ill afford it."

In short, they're trying to protect expensive public employee health plans from qualifying their members for substantially higher taxes. It's really hard to ignore the irony here! For years, New Jersey taxpayers have handed-over enormous percentages of their hard-earned paychecks to support a bloated state government. Even when New Jersey was still creating private sector jobs, Trenton politicians offset any revenue gains by taking on large numbers of new public sector employees (click here). Our sizable tax bill continues to grow largely because state workers have been appeased by elected officials seeking their votes with increasingly generous (and fiscally ruinous) compensation packages. It's an untenable situation for a shrinking pool of taxpayers.

Now, with our state in the red, the one tax the unions decide to oppose is an excise tax on their cushy health plans??? Newsflash, ladies and gentlemen of the NJEA and other unions: ObamaCare is going to drive virtually everyone's taxes sky-high! Reid's excise tax is just the beginning, because in case you haven't noticed by watching or reading the news over the last several months, Trenton's house of cards is currently crashing down all around us! Somebody has to pay for all this stuff and the private sector is (finally) too overtaxed and beaten-down to shoulder the burden alone. I'm against any and all tax increases but, if anyone is going to pay higher taxes, why shouldn't the unions who benefited most from decades of reckless public spending with our tax dollars?

Posted by Matt Rooney at Monday, December 07, 2009 11:59 AM | View Comments (3) | Add Comment

Republicans Box Baucus's Ears

Matt Rooney | December 3, 2009

Max Baucus (D-Montana) finally admitted what the rest of us already knew, Save Jerseyans: ObamaCare will break the back of the American taxpayer.

Republicans are pouncing:

Posted by Matt Rooney at Thursday, December 03, 2009 6:00 AM | Add Comment

Max Baucus Admits that ObamaCare Will Cost $2.5 Trillion Over Ten Years

Brian McGovern | December 2, 2009

Senator Max Baucus (D - MT) today has admitted what we haveall known to be true for a while now. Since the ObamaCare bill begins to tax usnow, and doesn't actually take effect on the health care industry until theforth year, the bill will cost far more than the CBO originally projected forits first ten years.

“Just for a second—health care reform, whether you use aten-year number or when you start in 2010 or start in 2014, wherever you startat, so it is still either $1 trillion or it’s $2.5 trillion, depending on where you start…”

It is nice to see a Senator from that side of the isle beinghonest on the true costs (which are likely still underestimated) of thisbehemoth bill. See the chart below for the enormous spike in costs in 2014 andthe continuous increases year over year. Just imagine how high those red barsmight be in 2024...or 2030...or...well, you get the point.

Posted by Brian McGovern at Wednesday, December 02, 2009 3:57 PM | Add Comment

The ObamaCare Air War

Matt Rooney | December 1, 2009

Thank God for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Save Jerseyans.

Were it not for their anti-ObamaCare advertisements on the airwaves, the current health care debate would be hopelessly lopsided in favor of Speaker Pelosi's socialist solution. Overall, spending on healthcare ads has been a recession time boon for network television. Groups on both side of the ideological divide have unloaded a grand total of over $6 million in Arkansas alone. Specifically, the Chamber of Commerce spent $35 million on lobbying in the 3rd quarter of 2009!

What can that kind of money buy? Here's the Chamber's latest ad:

Posted by Matt Rooney at Tuesday, December 01, 2009 3:00 AM | Add Comment

ObamaCare Will End the Elderly

Matt Rooney | November 24, 2009

Yesterday we introduced you to Dr. Ari Byock, a real life monster who wants government to decide when it's time to "pull the plug" on patients. A disturbing and scary man, Save Jerseyans! Sadly, his views are shared by the current occupant of the White House...

We need to keep informing Americans of what's at stake here. For starters, the American Life League produced this web video to elaborate on exactly how ObamaCare will encourage an early end to grandma and grandpa's lives on God's green earth.

Watch and learn:

Posted by Matt Rooney at Tuesday, November 24, 2009 5:00 AM | View Comments (1) | Add Comment

VIDEO: An ObamaCare Preview

Matt Rooney | November 23, 2009

Here's an exclusive look at what ObamaCare will look like, Save Jersey.

Dr. Byock would be proud!

Posted by Matt Rooney at Monday, November 23, 2009 2:10 PM | Add Comment

Meet Dr. Byock: Obama's Angel of Death

Matt Rooney | November 23, 2009

Please keep Dr. Ira Byock far, far away from me if I'm ever hospitalized, Save Jerseyans.

Sarah Palin's "death panel" fears are fully realized in this guy's sick imagination. Take a moment to digest just one segment from Sunday night's CBS News special entitled "The Cost of Dying" starring Dr. Byock. Throughout the interview, he openly shares his disturbing belief that GOVERNMENT, not individuals and their families, should decide when it's time to pull the plug on a human life in distress.

I'm not exaggerating -- Byock's views on life and death are directly out of a fascist-era German medical textbook! It's incredible to me that a doctor would disregard his Hippocratic oath and act like an accountant charged with saving money instead of a medical professional entrusted with human lives. But I'm glad this CBS interview happened, so that Americans inclined to support ObamaCare can finally see the error of their ways before it's too late for grandma and grandpa:

"Charlie Haggart is 68 years old and suffering from liver and kidney failure. He wants a double transplant, which would cost about $450,000. But doctors have told him he's currently too weak to be a candidate for the procedure.

At a meeting with Haggart's family and his doctors, Dr. Byock raised the awkward question of what should be done if he got worse and his heart or lungs were to give out.

He said that all of the available data showed that CPR very rarely works on someone in Haggart's condition, and that it could lead to a drawn out death in the ICU.

"Either way you decide, we will honor your choice, and that's the truth," Byock reassured Haggart. "Should we do CPR if your heart were to suddenly stop?"

"Yes," he replied.

"You'd be okay with being in the ICU again?" Byock asked.

"Yes," Haggart said.

"I know it's an awkward conversation," Byock said.

"It beats second place," Haggart joked, laughing.

"You don't think it makes any sense?" Kroft asked the doctor.

"It wouldn't be my choice. It's not what I advise people. At the present time, it's their right to request it. And Medicare pays for it," Byock said.

When it comes to expensive, hi-tech treatments with some potential to extend life, there are few limitations.

By law, Medicare cannot reject any treatment based upon cost. It will pay $55,000 for patients with advanced breast cancer to receive the chemotherapy drug Avastin, even though it extends life only an average of a month and a half; it will pay $40,000 for a 93-year-old man with terminal cancer to get a surgically implanted defibrillator if he happens to have heart problems too.

"I think you cannot make these decisions on a case-by-case basis," Byock said. "It would be much easier for us to say 'We simply do not put defibrillators into people in this condition.' Meaning your age, your functional status, the ability to make full benefit of the defibrillator. Now that's going to outrage a lot of people."

"But you think that should happen?" Kroft asked.

"I think at some point it has to happen," Byock said.

"Well, this is a version then of pulling Grandma off the machine?" Kroft asked.

"You know, I have to say, I think that's offensive. I spend my life in the service of affirming life. I really do. To say we're gonna pull Grandma off the machine by not offering her liver transplant or her fourth cardiac bypass surgery or something is really just scurrilous. And it's certainly scurrilous when we have 46 million Americans who are uninsured," Byock said."

CBS News

"Open to Hope" TV

Posted by Matt Rooney at Monday, November 23, 2009 12:01 PM | View Comments (9) | Add Comment

The Fallacy of Using History to Predict the Future

Anonymous NJ | November 22, 2009

Nicholas Kristof wrote an article in the New York Times last week depicting conservatives as being “on the wrong side of history.” To support this conclusion, Kristof relies on predictions made by conservatives during the debates over Medicare and Social Security to demonstrate the supposed fallacy of conservative thought. More specifically, Kristof writes:

The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page predicts that the legislation will lead to “deteriorating service.” Business groups warn that Washington bureaucrats will invade “the privacy of the examination room,” that we are on the road to rationed care and that patients will lose the “freedom to choose their own doctor.”
All dire — but also wrong. Those forecasts date not from this year, but from the battle over Medicare in the early 1960s. I pulled them from newspaper archives and other accounts.
Yet this year those same accusations are being recycled in an attempt to discredit the health reform proposals now before Congress. The heirs of those who opposed Medicare are conjuring the same bogymen — only this time they claim to be protecting Medicare.
Indeed, these same arguments we hear today against health reform were used even earlier, to attack President Franklin Roosevelt’s call for Social Security. It was denounced as a socialist program that would compete with private insurers and add to Americans’ tax burden so as to kill jobs.

According to Kristof, the conclusion that we should draw from this is that because those arguments were “wrong,” the arguments made today in opposition to Obamacare are similarly wrong. This argument however assumes a lot.
With respect to the fear that “patients will lose the ‘freedom to choose their own doctor,” the New York Times published an article last May which confirms that this fear has become a reality. Doctors are increasingly opting out of Medicare because Medicare’s “reimbursement rates are too low and [its] paperwork [is] too much of a hassle,” thereby limiting the ability of patients to choose their own doctors. Furthermore, this article published by the Heritage Foundation confirms what many of us have known all along, that government intervention precludes patient choice. Tellingly, the authors of this article write:

Last August, under a veto threat from President Clinton, Members of Congress quietly enacted a new provision of law as part of the voluminous Balanced Budget Act of 1997. It is unprecedented in American law.
Under Section 4507 of the Balanced Budget Act, any doctor is free to contract privately with a patient enrolled in the Medicare program, treat that patient on an independent basis outside of the rules and regulations of the Medicare program, and refrain from submitting any claims to the taxpayer for Medicare reimbursement.
However, Section 4507 contains a catch. A doctor who wishes to contract privately with a patient enrolled in Medicare Part B must first sign an affidavit to that effect, submit that affidavit to the Secretary of Health and Human Services within ten days, and agree to remove himself from the Medicare program and refrain from submitting any claims to Medicare for reimbursement for a period two full years.
In other words, a doctor could not even treat his mother in exchange for an apple pie without dropping out of Medicare for two years. The new law has been the subject of extensive and heated debate in Congress. It also is becoming a subject of debate around the country.

Maybe it’s just me, but it certainly seems as though those predictions made long ago about Medicare have come true.
Kristof’s argument regarding social security is just as tenuous. Kristof argues that because social security has not yet bankrupted our country, the predictions made during the debate over it suggesting that social security would bankrupt our country were wrong. What Kristof fails to consider is that social security is going bankrupt. By disregarding this, Kristof turns a blind eye to facts suggesting that those naysayers were correct.
More importantly though, Kristof’s argument relies on the assumption that Obamacare would somehow be distinct from past government interventions. What he doesn’t realize is that those predictions made long ago about Social Security and Medicare still apply today. If a personal trainer tells you that you shouldn’t lift a 100 lb. barbell and you do so without problem, does that mean you should ignore his advice when he warns you against lifting the 200 lb. barbell? The answer is no. It does not logically follow that because the trainer was wrong about the 100 lb. barbell, that he will consequently be wrong about your ability to lift the 200 lb. barbell.
When it comes to government intervention, Medicare and Social Security represent the 100 lb. barbell, and Obamacare represents the 200 lb. one. There is simply no guarantee that because we have so far managed to survive the existing government intrusions into the market place that we will be able to do so indefinitely, and thus, Kristoff’s use of history to predict the future is misguided.

Posted by AnonymousNJ at Sunday, November 22, 2009 7:00 AM | View Comments (3) | Add Comment

FIGHT BACK: Call Senators Before Tonight's Healthcare Vote

Matt Rooney | November 21, 2009

Fight back, Save Jerseyans! The Senate is debating health care on the floor RIGHT NOW. A crucial vote will be held later tonight...

Watch streaming coverage here, and please call/email the swing vote senators below.... we're running out of time.

_____

Senator Joseph I Lieberman, Ind, CT
202-224-4041
lieberman.senate.gov/contact

Senator Blanche Lincoln, D AR
202-224-4843
lincoln.senate.gov/contact

Senator Mark Pryor D AR
202-224-2353
pryor.senate.gov/contact

Senator Mary Landrieu D LA
202-224-5824
landrieu.senate.gov/contact

Senator Jim Webb D VA
202-224-4024
webb.senate.gov/contact

Senator Mark Warner, D VA
202-224-2023
warner.senate.gov

Senator Jon Tester D MT
202-224-2644
tester.senate.gov/contact

Senator Ben Nelson D NE
202-224-6551
bennelson.senate.gov/contact-me

Senator Evan Bayh D IN
202-224-5623
bayh.senate.gov/contact

Senator Kent Conrad D ND
202-224-2043
conrad.senate.gov/contact

Senator Byron Dorgan D ND
202-224-2551
dorgan.senate.gov/contact

Senator Thomas Carper D DE
202-224-2441
carper.senate.gov/contact

Senator Olympia Snowe R ME
202-224-5344
snowe.senate.gov

VIDEO: Senator Vitter (R-LA) Discusses the Many Problems with ObamaCare on Eve of Vote

Posted by Matt Rooney at Saturday, November 21, 2009 12:04 PM | Add Comment

Beyond Radioactive

Matt Rooney | November 21, 2009

Hat tip to Jim Geraghty for picking up on this interesting piece of midterm analysis. The venerable political poll watcher Charlie Cook foresees big trouble for House Democrats in 2010. Cook traces these problems directly back to President Obama's public opinion implosion:

"Many watchers of House politics are tempted to downplay the potential for real races in these districts after taking one look at immediate past election history. How could Republicans possibly threaten the likes of Skelton or Spratt, both of whom won more than 62 percent of the vote in 2008? Or Gordon, Tanner, or Boucher, all of whom were unopposed last year? But that was before they were saddled with a sitting Democratic president who is beyond radioactive in their districts. History is history.

Less than a year out from Election Day, it's time to rethink who the vulnerable Democrats are. And if President Obama is the dominant issue of the 2010 midterms (and rarely has a midterm not been a referendum on the incumbent president), Democrats ought to be seriously concerned about districts where reliable surveys suggest voters are in open revolt against him. Democrats would rather not draw attention to their problems in these districts, but both parties recognize the sea change underway."

Radioactive, huh? Obama is now below the critical 50% mark in a few major polls. That's undeniably ominous news for the dozens of Democrat congressmen occupying seats in districts that John McCain carried in 2008. A lot is riding on the economy, ObamaCare and, specifically, the job market heading into Fall 2010.

Posted by Matt Rooney at Saturday, November 21, 2009 4:00 AM | Add Comment

"Welcome to the Future"

Matt Rooney | November 20, 2009

Tempted to support ObamaCare? We've already seen the Obama Administration attempt to push back the age of eligibility for breast and colon screenings this week. The Democrat Party is going to fundamentally change American healthcare, Save Jerseyans. It's no longer about the health of your family. This government is going to make decisions based on the "common good."

Welcome to our Orwellian future. People will die if this bill passes.

Jon Kyl gets it:

Posted by Matt Rooney at Friday, November 20, 2009 11:32 AM | Add Comment

Call Your Senator Over Lunch Today

Matt Rooney | November 20, 2009

In case you live under a rock, the U.S. Senate is expected to at least begin debate on the ObamaCare package this weekend by voting for cloture.

Take a few minutes over lunch today to call one or more of the following (alleged) swing-vote senators and DEMAND that they vote against this tyrannical legislation. The stakes couldn't be higher this time around, Save Jerseyans. ObamaCare will change our way of life forever and concentrate an unprecedented level of decision making authority in the hands of the Washington power elite. We've spent months focusing on the abortion mandates, mammogram taxes, stiff criminal penalties, and all of the other ghastly components in this legislation. Don't let it become law -- it's within your power to help stop this.

Kill the bill!

The Honorable Mark Begich 144 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510-0201 Phone: (202) 224-3004 Fax: (202) 228-3205

The Honorable Michael Bennet 702 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510-0606 Phone: (202) 224-5852 Fax: (202) 228-5036

The Honorable Robert C. Byrd 311 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510-4801 Phone: (202) 224-3954 Fax: (202) 228-0002

The Honorable Mary Landrieu 328 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510-1803 Phone: (202) 224-5824 Fax: (202) 224-9735

The Honorable Joe Lieberman 706 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510-0703 Phone: (202) 224-4041 Fax: (202) 224-9750

The Honorable Blanche Lincoln 355 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510-0404 Phone: (202) 224-4843 Fax: (202) 228-1371

The Honorable Claire McCaskill 717 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510-2504 Phone: (202) 224-6154 Fax: (202) 228-6326

The Honorable Ben Nelson 720 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510-2705 Phone: (202) 224-6551 Fax: (202) 228-0012

The Honorable Mark Pryor 255 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510-0403 Phone: (202) 224-2353 Fax: (202) 228-0908

The Honorable Mark R. Warner 459A Russell Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510-4601 Phone: (202) 224-2023 Fax: (202) 224-6295

The Honorable Jim Webb 248 Russell Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510-4603 Phone: (202) 224-4024 Fax: (202) 228-6363

Posted by Matt Rooney at Friday, November 20, 2009 9:32 AM | View Comments (3) | Add Comment

Adler's Inquirer Op-Ed Designed to Fool Voters

Matt Rooney | November 17, 2009

A whole new John Alder? Hardly!

I absolutely love when machine Democrats rail against "fraud, waste and abuse" in government, Save Jerseyans. That's a lot like a cigarette manufacturer complaining about cancer.

For those of you endowed with a good sense of humor, here's John Adler's healthcare op-ed in today's Philadelphia Inquirer. The Cherry Hill Democrat is trying very, very hard to explain his "no" vote against Nancy Pelosi's version of ObamaCare. There's definitely a ton of angry liberals in his political base right now, but those of us who have tracked Adler over the years know full-well that the essay you're about to read is the product of situational motivations... not instinctual values. Some of Adler's big government votes in the N.J. Legislature would've made Ted Kennedy look like Barry Goldwater!

I'm also not sure how Adler can masquerade as a budget hawk to appease conservatives while simultaneously supporting a public option to placate liberals. You're either for or against a form of government that uses taxpayer dollars to buy votes, Mr. Adler. A "public" option, by definition, couldn't be anything but budget-busting! This op-ed is a transparent attempt by Adler to have his electoral cake and eat it, too. He's hoping voters will gloss over the giant contradiction underlying his position and see exactly what they want to see depending on their particular ideological persuasion.

Nice try, but the good people of our 3rd Congressional District aren't going to buy it...

Philadelphia Inquirer Op-Ed, 11/17/09

"Why one Democrat voted no on health bill"

By John Adler

After months of debate over reforming the health-care system, I decided to vote against the bill that the House of Representatives passed a little more than a week ago.

I did not come to this decision lightly. Like many Americans, I spent the last few months talking with family members, friends, and neighbors about how to improve the health-care system. I hosted nearly 60 community meetings across South Jersey to share my thoughts and listen to the ideas and concerns of local residents.

Throughout this process, I have said that I strongly believe we need health-care reform in this country, and that any comprehensive plan needs to fulfill two goals: first, it has to provide access to quality health care for all Americans; and second, it must ensure that health care is more affordable in the long term.

While I support many elements of the House health-care bill, it moves us closer to meeting only the first goal.

I am pleased that the legislation makes great strides toward offering all Americans access to affordable health care; includes a public option; and cracks down on many of the insurance industry abuses that add to the high price of health care.

But the bill does not do enough to "bend the cost curve" or make health care more affordable for middle-class families and small businesses in the future. The United States spends more per capita on health care than any other country, and the House bill will not reverse that trend. While it is important to reform the system, we have to make sure we do it right.

Making health care affordable is one of my top priorities. More than 30 years ago, my father had his first heart attack. At the time, he owned a dry-cleaning business in Haddonfield and could not afford health insurance. The medical bills were unaffordable for my family, and my father was forced to leave the hospital and get back to work before he was ready. After three more heart attacks and expensive hospital stays, my father lost his business and died at the age of 47.

Three decades later, American families are still being priced out of the system. Every year, health-care costs rise faster than wages and inflation, and the burden ultimately falls on working families and small businesses.

The bill I voted against does not do enough to rein in costs or ensure that working Americans will be able to afford health care five or 10 years from now. We cannot reform the system by passing on the tough decisions to our children and grandchildren.

Congress should not be passing a plan that costs more than $1 trillion. We need to consider additional reforms that will improve the quality of care while also lowering costs.

We can squeeze more money out of the system by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse, and without having to raise taxes on working families or small businesses. We can change the philosophy of care by rewarding quality rather than quantity.

In addition, Congress should grant authority to an independent commission to review Medicare reimbursement rates. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that such a provision, which is in the Senate proposal but not in the House bill, would save $22 billion over five years.

Congress also should facilitate information coordination among health-care providers. We should allow small businesses to join together to get better health insurance rates. And we should allow health insurance plans to be sold across state lines.

We should also give people incentives to live healthier lives. I am a sponsor of a bill that would reduce premiums for Americans who exhibit healthy behaviors or make efforts to achieve normal blood pressure, normal weight, and low cholesterol.

We have a chance to solve this country's monumental health-care problems. We need to make the hard choices and produce a sustainable, long-term plan. I will continue my efforts to find reforms that benefit American families, seniors, taxpayers, and small businesses, and I hope to see an improved bill sent to the president later this year.

U.S. Rep. John Adler is a Democrat representing parts of Burlington, Camden, and Ocean Counties. He is a member of the House Financial Services and Veterans Affairs Committees. For more information, see http://adler.house.gov.

Posted by Matt Rooney at Tuesday, November 17, 2009 11:53 AM | View Comments (6) | Add Comment

Big Government Always Protects Itself

Matt Rooney | November 17, 2009

20% of all Americans (and 14.1% of New Jersey residents) will soon be on welfare... whether they like it or not!

From the Heritage Foundation:

Posted by Matt Rooney at Tuesday, November 17, 2009 9:15 AM | Add Comment

Why Gay Marriage Legislation is Really Bad Politics

Matt Rooney | November 17, 2009

You keep asking for my opinion of the pending "gay marriage" vote, Save Jerseyans. My readers are a persistent bunch! Yes, I've purposely refused to indulge these inquiries simply because your beloved Blogger-in-Chief firmly believes that there are infinitely more important issues on the table right now. In case you haven't heard, our state's finances are headed off the cliff, Barack Obama is about to lose a war in Afghanistan and Congress is poised to destroy private health insurance in the United States.

Forgive me for appearing distracted!

Yet alas, New Jersey's governing body is forcing the gay marriage issue so, at the risk of neglecting more pressing concerns, I'll suffer this debate for a moment and spill a little digital ink on the topic.

Legislatively-enacted gay marriage is an objectively terrible idea. Hold up -- don't jump to any conclusions here. I generally don't care what two consenting adults do with their free time. It's a free country. As an ideological conservative, I'm very proud to live in an age where individuals are (usually) judged on merit and not superficial qualities like age, gender, race, sexual orientation, whatever. I only wish my race/gender-obsessed liberal friends felt the same way.

With all of that in mind, anyone who genuinely thinks that social change can be affected through crude legislation is exhibiting a gross ignorance of American history. To the contrary, social legislation's effect is usually limited to publicly acknowledging social changes which are already well-underway at the time of passage. And isn't that really what our homosexual brother and sisters are truly after?

Consider also how government inevitably screws up everything it touches. Examples? American public schools are sadly more racially segregated after decades of big government social engineering than in the 1950s. The 19th Century's racist Scott v. Sandford decision denied liberty to millions and initiated a civil war, while the 20th Century's pro-abortion Roe v. Wade decision inaugurated decades of bitter and divisive cultural warfare. We've observed time and again how government intervention often exacerbates problems by treating individuals like numbers and, in the the process, inadvertently institutionalizing inequality. Now flash forward to modern day, where "civil unions" don't seem to restrict the civil liberties of gay couples. According to state records, 4,170 same-sex couples live created civil unions since February 2007, yet only eight complaints have been filed with the New Jersey Division of Civil Rights as of this writing. 21st Century gay Americans vote, own businesses, acquire property, advance professionally and live without the constant fear of physical harm.

So does anyone really expect gay marriage to substantively change anything? Of course not, Save Jerseyans: this gay marriage push is championed by gay activists intent on forcing society to recognize and sanction their lifestyle.

A sympathy-inducing rationale? Sure. Reason enough for legislative action in a lieu of a public referendum? Not at all! Legislatures shouldn't be in the business of passing symbolic legislation; humans first formed governments primarily to protect their rights and institutions from the transgressions of tyrants. How would this situation be any different? Right or wrong, marriage has meant the same thing since Adam and Eve went apple picking in Mesopotamia. So why in God's name should a lame duck cabal of corrupt, wasteful, incompetent and unpopular Trenton-dwelling hacks get to decide such a monumentally important issue as the fundamental redefining of marriage itself??? Jon Corzine, Paul Sarlo, Reed Gusciora and the rest of their State House allies are an arrogant bunch, indeed!

The alternative solution in this debate is clear: put gay marriage on the ballot! But they won't do it, Save Jerseyans. Your elected officials don't trust you to do "the right thing." If that infuriatingly elitist attitude doesn't convince you that government shouldn't be in the business of social engineering, then perhaps this country needs to spend more time debating the education system's failings and cease trying to force a vision of society on voters who have yet to independently ratify it. Just a thought.

So can we now please get back to the business of saving this state's economy? All of these ugly New Jersey social policy debates will be rendered utterly meaningless if no one can afford to live here!

Posted by Matt Rooney at Tuesday, November 17, 2009 7:00 AM | View Comments (3) | Add Comment

SEE, I TOLD YOU SO: Obama Admin Contradicts Corzine Mammogram Smears

Matt Rooney | November 17, 2009

How convenient to see this particular healthcare story cropping up a full TWO WEEKS after a contentious New Jersey gubernatorial election, in which the administration backed candidate based his campaign largely on the malicious and false charge that his challenger endeavored to deny mammogram coverage to young women.

Are you ready for this, Save Jerseyans? The Obama Administration's "U.S. Preventative Services Task Force" is rejecting decades of conventional wisdom by discounting the value of mammograms for women under 50.

From Fox News:

"Most women don't need a mammogram in their 40s and should get one every two years starting at 50, a government task force said Monday. It's a major reversal that conflicts with the American Cancer Society's long-standing position.
Also, the task force said breast self-exams do no good and women shouldn't be taught to do them.
For most of the past two decades, the cancer society has been recommending annual mammograms beginning at 40.
But the government panel of doctors and scientists concluded that getting screened for breast cancer so early and so often leads to too many false alarms and unneeded biopsies without substantially improving women's odds of survival.
"The benefits are less and the harms are greater when screening starts in the 40s," said Dr. Diana Petitti, vice chair of the panel."

Will this new ruling affect the ability of women to obtain mammograms?

Maybe... or maybe not:

"The new guidelines were issued by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, whose stance influences coverage of screening tests by Medicare and many insurance companies.
But Susan Pisano, a spokeswoman for America's Health Insurance Plans, an industry group, said insurance coverage isn't likely to change because of the new guidelines. No changes are planned in Medicare coverage either, said Dori Salcido, spokeswoman for the Health and Human Services department."

Wow! Based on this new analysis, it'd be really great to have a healthcare system where young women could customize their insurance plans without the added burden of costly mandates. Oh wait - Chris Christie proposed such a plan and the White House's endorsed candidate grilled him for it!

Hypocrisy, thy name is "Obama." It gets worse, too. Remember our "mammogram tax" story from October 8th? We were among the first to inform you that ObamaCare would actually TAX mammograms!

Here's the original story from the Hot Air blog:

"The Senate proposal for ObamaCare at first included a tax on all “medical devices,” a broad categorization that would have imposed fees on such staples as tongue depressors and tampons, according to Amanda Carpenter at the Washington Times. Only after a backlash from critics did Sen. Max Baucus amend his plan to only tax Class II devices starting at a retail price of $100, and all Class III and above devices."

...
"Has anyone taken a look at the devices to which this new tax will apply? There are more than 2900 of them, according to the FDA’s listing, which I took the time to download and sort today. Included in this list are items both ubiquitous and arcane, but they all will cost us more to fund Obamacare. Some examples:

Dentures, both partial and full (Class VI)
Fetal cell-screening kit (Class IV)
Female condoms, single use (Class III)
Treponemal syphilis test (Class IV)
HIV saliva test kit (Class IV)
Patient data storage and transmission software (Class VI)
Stair-climbing wheelchair (Class III)
Inflatable penis prosthetic (Class III)
Hip, knee, ankle, breast prosthetics (Class III)
Soft contact lenses, extended wear (Class III)
IUDs (Class III)
Dialysis catheters (Class III)
Dental X-rays (Class II)
Sickle-cell anemia tests (Class II)
Mammograms (Class II)

And so on. Those Class II items are presumably costlier than $100, although the FDA does not have pricing lists for them."

So there you have it, women of New Jersey. Barack Obama wants to deny women under 50 the right to mammogram coverage and tax mammogram screenings for everyone who still qualifies. I'm not a medical doctor, but it sure seems like Barack Obama -- and not Chris Christie -- stands as the real obstacle towards obtaining your mammogram!

Posted by Matt Rooney at Tuesday, November 17, 2009 5:00 AM | View Comments (1) | Add Comment

Has Holt Lost His Mind?

Matt Rooney | November 16, 2009

Has Rush Holt lost his already flimsy liberal mind, Save Jerseyans? A growing majority of American's vehemently oppose Speaker Pelosi's version of ObamaCare and a conservative Republican gubernatorial candidate just carried his congressional district by a handsome margin. Any sane leftist Democrat (is that an oxymoron?) would be terrified right now.

But not Rush Holt! Ignorance is bliss, so Rush spent this stormy Jersey weekend touring a hospital and holding a fundraiser with none other than Nancy Pelosi. And as if that wasn't enough material for Mayor Mike Halfacre's opposition research file, Holt belted-out the following verbal gem:

"She's come to my district many times. We're friends, and I'm her ally in Congress. I believe in Nancy's tremendous leadership."

- Rush Holt

Oh boy. I think he's going to regret uttering those words soon enough. But just don't stand there waiting around for change! Proactively help turn my prediction into reality by bolstering Mayor Halfacre's campaign, Save Jerseyans: click here to donate.

Posted by Matt Rooney at Monday, November 16, 2009 5:00 AM | Add Comment

REPORT: Pascrell, Payne Allowed Lobbyists to Ghostwrite ObamaCare Floor Speeches

Matt Rooney | November 15, 2009

I don't want to hear New Jersey Congressmen Bill Pascrell or Donald Payne rail against "special interest" groups EVER AGAIN.

From the New York Times:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/adaptiveblue_img/topics/p/bill_pascrell

Statements by more than a dozen lawmakers were ghostwritten, inwhole or in part, by Washington lobbyists working for Genentech, one ofthe world’s largest biotechnology companies.
E-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that the lobbyists drafted one statement for Democrats and another for Republicans.
The lobbyists, employed by Genentech and by two Washington law firms, were remarkably successful in getting the statements printed in the Congressional Record under the names of different members of Congress.
Genentech, a subsidiary of the Swiss drug giant Roche, estimates that 42 House members picked up some of its talking points — 22 Republicans and 20Democrats, an unusual bipartisan coup for lobbyists.
In an interview, Representative Bill Pascrell Jr.,Democrat of New Jersey, said: “I regret that the language was the same.I did not know it was.” He said he got his statement from his staff and“did not know where they got the information from.”

Payne's turn:

http://www.nazret.com/blog/media/blogs/new/donald_payne_med.jpg

"Representative Donald M. Payne, Democrat of New Jersey, used thesame words, but said the bill would improve the lives of “ALLAmericans.”
Mr. Payne and Mr. Brady said the bill would “create new opportunities and markets for our brightest technology minds.” Mr. Pascrell said the bill would “create new opportunities and markets for our brightest minds in technology.”

Posted by Matt Rooney at Sunday, November 15, 2009 11:50 AM | Add Comment

Rush Holt Sides with ACORN (Again)

Matt Rooney | November 13, 2009

Rush Holt really wants to lose in 2010, Save Jerseyans. With Jon Corzine heading into political retirement, perhaps Rush is worried about being the only wire-framed glasses wearing, oxford sweater vest flaunting pseudo inte

Main Navigation

Welcome!

Connect with Save Jersey

Other Top Stories

Follow Save Jersey on Twitter

Need a Dynamic Online Presence?

Save Jersey Presents "The Governor" Saga

Save Jersey's ObamaCare Archives

Reagan Slams ObamaCare

Say NO to Corzine in 2009

Join the Movement

Tips?

The Save Jersey Archives

Contact Us

Save Jersey Widget

Advertise with Save Jersey!

Advertisement

Recent Comments

Subscribe to The Save Jersey Blog RSS Feed

The Save Jersey Blogroll

Spread the Word

Search SaveJersey.com

"Towards a Free and Prosperous NJ"

Monthly Archives

© 2009 Save Jersey

Articles Matching Your Search

Massachusetts 2010 Polling Data

New Jersey 2009 Polling Data

"Why one Democrat voted no on health bill"