Just What Does Valerie Jarrett Do?

The following is provided in its entirety from a recent issue of the “Weekly Standard” and written by contributing editor Matthew Continetti. Admittedly it is a bit long but you have to ask yourself the question, “Just what does Valerie Jarrett do?”

“If for nothing else, Jodi Kantor’s The Obamas will be remembered for an anecdote from 2010. After he spent hours disputing an allegation in the French media that Michelle Obama thought life in the White House was “hell,” press secretary Robert Gibbs encountered senior adviser Valerie Jarrett. She told him the first lady was unhappy with his work. Gibbs exploded in a rage, informing Jarrett that she didn’t “know what the f— you’re talking about” and that if Mrs. Obama was displeased, well, “f— her too.” Subsequent relations between the senior adviser and press secretary were strained. Gibbs told Kantor he stopped taking Jarrett seriously “as an adviser to the president of the United States.”

It’s about time. Many have wondered—and the Washington Post asked last year—“What, exactly, does Valerie Jarrett do?” No one has a clear answer. Whatever she does, the U.S. taxpayer pays her $172,200 a year to do it. A confidante of the Obamas for more than two decades, variously described as the president’s “closest adviser” and a member of the “innermost ring” of influence, Jarrett clearly has the first couple’s ears. She seems to function as a sort of third party to the Obama marriage, guarding the president and his wife from bad news and outside influence while meeting with Lady Gaga. Her lack of any national political experience whatsoever—she had never been to Iowa before Obama competed there three years ago—has not prevented her from shaping the White House’s political strategy and influencing economic and foreign policies. One might liken her to Don Corleone’s consigliere Tom Hagen, bedecked in a designer shawl, except Hagen gave better advice.

What Valerie Jarrett does best is represent the Obama administration in microcosm. She embodies its insularity, its cronyism, its cluelessness. Born in Iran to a prominent African-American family from Chicago, she took degrees at Stanford and Michigan Law. She worked briefly as a corporate lawyer but hated every moment. So she decided to “give back,” which is Chicago code for cashing in. She campaigned for Harold Washington, Chicago’s first black mayor, and worked for him in the corporation counsel’s office. Washington died in 1987, but Jarrett remained in government, working for his successor, Mayor Richard M. “Richie” Daley, son of legendary boss Richard J. Daley. It was all upward from there. Before long Jarrett stood at the intersection of private interest and public power. She became Daley’s deputy chief of staff and was later appointed to various boards and quasi-governmental agencies that award lucrative contracts—the Chicago Transit Board, the Commission for Planning and Development for the City of Chicago, the University of Chicago Medical Center, and so on. Her social standing, combined with her positions in government and her well-compensated seats on the boards of many companies, magnified Jarrett’s power. She knew everybody. Everybody wanted to know her. In 1991, another disillusioned attorney, Michelle Robinson, applied for a job in Mayor Daley’s office. Jarrett interviewed her. The two women were instant friends. Before accepting the position, however, Robinson made an unusual request: Would Jarrett mind having dinner with her and her fiancé, Barack Obama? Jarrett accepted, and she has never been far from the couple since. President Obama, who grew up partly in Indonesia, seems to be drawn to Americans who have spent considerable time abroad, who feel askew in their native land. Jarrett told author David Remnick that the reason she bonded with Barack Obama was that “he and I shared a view of where the United States fit in the world, which is often different from the view people have who have not traveled outside the United States as young children.” Remnick goes on to write that Jarrett viewed America “as one country among many, rather than as the center of all wisdom and experience.” Sounds like the president, all right. Jarrett was an early supporter of Obama’s political career. From her post at the nexus of Chicago business and politics, she was helpful in introducing the ambitious state senator to rich and well-connected figures. The association was not without embarrassment, however. Jarrett was an occasional collaborator with the developer Antoin Rezko, whose 2006 arrest for public corruption became a shallow pothole in Obama’s road to the White House. And Jarrett herself provided some bad headlines: In addition to her public burdens, she ran Habitat Co., which received taxpayer subsidies to manage low-income housing projects seemingly into the ground. The feds seized one complex in 2006; another, Grove Parc Plaza, was exposed as a decrepit slum by the Boston Globe in 2008. Page 1 of 2 The Chicago method was on full display after Obama defeated John McCain, when functionaries from across the state of Illinois lobbied for the president-elect’s now vacant Senate seat. Evidence released at the trial of former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich reveals that Jarrett, who has never been elected to anything, wanted to replace her protégé in the Senate. This was something incoming chief of staff Rahm Emanuel was only too happy to make happen, since he had no desire for Jarrett to join the Obamas at the White House. But the president-elect overruled both advisers. He wanted Jarrett by his side. Later she became mistrustful of Emanuel when she learned that he had tried to sideline her. The feeling was mutual. One of Obama’s more flowery hagiographers, journalist Richard Wolffe, divides the administration into “revivalists,” who want the president to be true to the spirit of hope and change, and “survivalists,” who believe compromise is necessary in a divided country. Jarrett is the leader of the revivalists, and her fingerprints are on every blunder and boo-boo the White House has ever made. She bragged to a conference of leftwing bloggers that she had hired noted environmentalist and 9/11 Truther Van Jones, later forced to resign. She campaigned extensively for Obama to travel to Copenhagen and make the case for holding the 2016 summer games in Chicago before the International Olympic Committee. Obama took the trip; the IOC chose Rio. During this time Jarrett met with George Kaiser, the Obama bundler and investor whose solar-panel manufacturer Solyndra was up for a huge loan guarantee. Jarrett, according to government documents, was warned about Solyndra’s shaky finances on the eve of the president’s visit to the company’s facility in Fremont, California. Obama went anyway.

One could be forgiven for thinking that the president tends to side with the revivalists because they feed his ego. Jarrett’s descriptions of Obama are adoring. “I knew the unique combination of leadership qualities that Barack has would push him to greatness,” she told Richard Wolffe. “They always have. Barack has this kind of a—what’s the way to describe it?—restless spirit.” Obama, she told Remnick, has “been bored to death his whole life. He’s just too talented to do what ordinary people do. He would never be satisfied with what other people do.” Fed a constant diet of words like these, is it any wonder Obama decided to press on with his health care overhaul after Scott Brown won in Massachusetts, refused any meaningful compromise with Republicans during last summer’s debt ceiling fight, and insisted on giving one “major” address after another even though they have done nothing to advance his agenda or salvage his underwater approval rating? The House is lost, Obama’s reelection looks dicey, but Jarrett is flying high. In one sense she is the most successful Obama courtier of them all: She has outlasted her rivals. Gibbs is gone. Internal clashes led to Emanuel’s sudden discovery that he had always wanted to be mayor of Chicago. Emanuel’s replacement, fellow Chicagoan Bill Daley (brother of Richie), was muscled out last week; word is he fought with Jarrett too. Her persistence is matched only by her tone-deafness. Wolffe describes the president’s first visit to Chicago after his inauguration. From the window of his helicopter Obama could see that his arrival had caused a major traffic jam. “We shouldn’t have come here in rush hour,” he reflected. This was too much for Jarrett. “You know what, Mr. President?” she said. “You may not be enjoying your new life, but I am.” Better enjoy it while it lasts—which won’t be for long if Obama continues to listen to his inept political fixer.

 

Obama Rejects Canadian Pipeline- But Does He Really?

Is anyone surprised by this calamitous decision by the anointed one? This decision was made by the king himself when a deadline was put on him by congress. For those of you living under rocks or have your TVs stuck on MSNBC, congress gave the president an ultimatum for their acceptance of the tax package. Written into the bill was a provision that said Obama had to make a decision on the pipeline by February 21st.

What surprises me is he made his call on January 18th a full month before he had to. This is the same man who spent four months trying to figure out how to answer the military’s request for 30,000 more troops in Afghanistan.

Ah, but there was method to his madness here. By rejecting the Canadian pipeline deal he could say with a straight face that he was not forced into any decision by congress. At least that’s what his handlers and George Soros would want you to believe. But without a teleprompter to tell him what say, he blew it big time and came right out and said  the decision was not on the merits of the pipeline, but rather on the “arbitrary nature” of the Feb. 21 deadline set by a Republicans as part of tax measure he signed.

So the man who would have you believe the economy is on the rise and he is creating jobs all over the place has just put the kibosh on thousands of jobs and made us even more dependent on Saudi Arabian oil.

The Canadians want this pipeline as much as we do but now will sell the oil to ….guess who? CHINA. — Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper said Wednesday he told Barack Obama he was profoundly disappointed after the U.S. president called to tell him the administration rejected a plan to build  the oil pipeline.

So let’s look at the entire scenario. Canada has the thrid largest oil sand reserves in the world. Right behind the Saudis and Hugo Chavez. We import half of our oil, much from Mexico and Canada as well as the Saudis. We have 8.5% unemplyment (more like 12% when you count those who quit looking and have run out of benefits). So why, in an election year, would Obama deny the permit to build the pipeline when he could garner many votes by approving it?

He has cleverly left the door open saying he did not have enough time to review the entire plan. Of course he only used half the time alotted to make that absurd statement. So what is he up to? Let’s call it the “spring surprise”. In mid spring he will announce that he approves the project in an attempt to garner all the union votes back that he has lost. And, as good little socialists that they are, the unions will think him a hero for adding all those jobs to the economy. They will conveniently forget that he could have done that in January.

Granted, politicians have no conscience but to play with the lives of the American working public is criminal.

 

The Iowa Caucus- A Waste of Your Time and Candidates Money

For the past six months we have heard nothing on the TV and Newsprint  except the never ending prattle over the Iowa Caucus. But who among us really know what the caucus is and how it is run. But, let’s not forget, Obama knew how they worked in 2007 and that’s why he won it.

The caucus are a gathering of folks who sit around and talk about the candidates running for office. There is very little, if any, oversight and if memory serves me right, you don’t even have to be a registered voter to participate.

Numerically, of all the voters in Iowa, less than five percent with participate. That figure alone should tell you what a poor barometer of political preference they really are. The process is very basic, people show up at designated places, talk and then take a vote. The votes of all the caucuses are then tabulated and a “winner” is declared. All caucus rooms are open in the morning and stay open all day until the vote is taken in the evening. It is not uncommon to see buses with out of state plates show up and disgorge so called voters who have been paid to attend and told who to vote for.

This practice is very common and was employed by our now president in his campaign to defeat Hillary Clinton.

When real Iowans show up at the caucus they find very often, the room packed with strangers and no seats available so the inevitable happens- they leave. It is a wonder to me that this practice still survives and the media takes such an interest in it. It is a sham on democracy and totally without meaning.

It is because of the way the caucus is operated, that I can say that Ron Paul will come in first or second in the overall vote and declare himself a viable presidential candidate when most thinking folks know him for the crackpot he really is.

Mitt Romney will finish near the top, perhaps win, because he spent over $2 million on this farce and God only knows how much was spent on busing!

So when you read your paper on Wednesday morning, do so with tongue in cheek. It means nothing.

Obama’s Henchmen Screw Boeing

Those of you who have been following my musings might recall the piece I did about Boeing Aircraft and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB had brought suit against Boeing because Boeing was spending over one billion dollars to build an aircraft assembly plant in South Carolina. Now SC just happens to be a right to work state where unions have a very difficult time getting any traction and complained that Boeing was doing this as a retaliation against the union for striking. If true, this would be clearly be a violation of the Taft-Hartley Act and NLRB rules and regulations. Hence, the NLRB action against Boeing.

The fact of the matter is that not one single job would be lost in Washington State and the new plant would create thousands of needed jobs in SC. But this fell on the deaf ears of the Obama stacked NLRB (Google NLRB members and see their political affiliation and back grounds) and the legal action proceeded.

Last week Boeing announced t had reached an agreement with the unions and suddenly, the NLRB dropped its lawsuit. This past weekend’s WSJ labeled this action “The NLRB’s Boeing Sham” and it certainly is. Let’s look at who got what.

The Union: The new B-737-MAX would be built exclusively in Washington. Actually, this makes sense as all 737’s have built there and the technology and skill base is immense. Union members would receive a guaranteed 2% raise each year for a number of years plus performance incentives. All union members would receive a $5000 “sigining bonus”. Signing for what? Not to quit their lucrative positions? Plus other not made public concessions on the part of Boeing.

Boeing: The NLRB drops their suit and saves Boeing millions in legal fees and the possibility of being told where they had to do business.

By dropping the case so quickly after the agreement was reached shows how politically motivated the Boeing suit was. The NLRB is supposed to a fair minded referee in labor disputes, making sure neither side breaks the law. But the board put its foot squarely on Boeings neck to make Boeing pay a price for moving one of its assembly lines to a right to work state and insure Boeing, or any other major employer, never did that again.

Has there ever been a more blatant case of a supposedly independent agency siding with a union over management in collective bargaining? Do a little research and see how much the International Association of Machinists gave to the Obama over the past 3+ years.

The damage here goes well beyond Boeing, which presumably understands the tradeoffs. The NLRB is exposed as still another federal agency that can’t be trusted to make honest decisions. The ability of the 21 right-to-work states, which passed such laws under the 1947 Taft-Hartley Act, to attract businesses from pro-union states will also be eroded. The AFL-CIO may cheer that message, but in practice the result is likely to be that more companies simply send jobs overseas where there’s no NLRB. Congratulations Mr. Obama, still think you’re going get unemployment down to 8% by election day?

Marine Medal of Honor Recipient Denied Job

Cpl. Meyer Receiving MOH from Obama

 

There are only three recipients living today that have received our nations highest military honor for gallantry performed in military service in the current War on Terror. They are Salvator Giunta, Leroy Petry and Dakota Meyer, pictured above. The following is a narrative of Cpl. Meyer’s latest battle. As you read it I hope you become disgusted as I was with the state of affairs that has infected our country due to the lack of leadership exemplified by the current Obama administration. Actions like you will see below have never occurred before and I hope and pray, shall never see the light of day again. Semper Fi!

“A U.S. Marine given the nation’s highest award for valor is suing a defense contractor that he says ridiculed his Medal of Honor, called him mentally unstable and suggested he had a drinking problem, thereby costing him a job.   Dakota Meyer received the Medal of Honor in September, two years after the young corporal saved 36 lives during a six-hour ambush in Afghanistan. He the third living recipient of the award for actions in Iraq or Afghanistan. After the medal was approved, President Barack Obama waited to call until Meyer’s lunch break because the 23-year-old worried about taking a call on the job.

 

In a defamation lawsuit filed in Texas, Meyer alleges that his former employer, BAE Systems OASYS Inc., ruined his chances at landing a new job by telling a prospective employer that he was a poor worker during a three-month stint earlier this year.   A BAE Systems manager said Meyer “was mentally unstable, that Sgt. Meyer was not performing BAE tasks assigned and that Sgt. Meyer had a problem related to drinking in a social setting,” according to the lawsuit.   The lawsuit, first reported by The Wall Street Journal, seeks unspecified damages.   BAE Systems spokesman Brian Roehrkasse told The Associated Press on Tuesday that the company was grateful to Meyer for his bravery but strongly disagreed with his claims. He called Meyer’s actions in Afghanistan “heroic” and wished him success.   Attorneys for Meyer did not return a phone message Tuesday.   Meyer was working construction in his home state of Kentucky when he was awarded the Medal of Honor. In September 2009, Meyer was just 21 when, defying orders from his commanders, he charged five times in a Humvee into heavy gunfire and provided cover for his team, allowing many to escape likely death. He killed at least eight Taliban insurgents.   According to the lawsuit filed Monday, BAE hired Meyer in March but the relationship quickly soured. Meyer said he became dismayed in April upon learning that BAE had pursued sales of weapons systems to Pakistan, and sent an email to his supervisor expressing his disapproval.   Meyer wrote that it was “disturbing” how U.S. troops were being issued outdated equipment when better, advanced thermal optic scopes were being offered to Pakistan.   “We are simply taking the best gear, the best technology on the market to date and giving to guys that are known to stab us in the back,” Meyer wrote in the email, according to the lawsuit.   Roehrkasse, the BAE spokesman, said it is the State Department and not BAE that makes the decision on which defense-related products can be exported.”

The preceding was supplemented from wire stories from the AP and Fox News.

9-9-9 Part 3- The Sales Tax

The third and final part of the 9-9-9 plan is the most controversial. This is so from several standpoints. It is, a national sales tax, or as Mr. Cain likes to call it, a consumption tax. But isn’t that the type of tax that permeates all of socialist Europe? Yes, is the answer. But that is called a VAT, or value added tax. There is one major difference. The 9-9-9 sales tax is levied at the point of sale. A VAT is levied in increments at various stages of production so the price at the point of sale includes all aforementioned levies. It averages about 20% or higher throughout Europe and other countries that employ it. One of the major untruths about the 9 tax is that congress will increase it the first chance they get. This may be true but it will take a 2/3 majority in both houses to do this and this is very unlikely in the foreseeable future.

There is another important difference between VAT and 9. Since the VAT is built into the price of the item, a second or a third buyer of the item continues to pay the tax but this not revenue collected by the government, but by the seller! In 9, there is no consumption tax on any second or third hand sale.

The primary argument against 9 is that it imposes a new tax and is regressive and onerous on the poor. This is a particularly strong argument in states where there is no current sales tax. It is also a problem for those states that do have a sales tax as this effectively doubles it. This would be significant were it not for the 9-9-9 plan taken as a whole. When you combine the reduced corporate tax and its benefits as stated earlier, the net cost to the consumer is a wash or in many cases will be significant less. But this is hard to envision until everything falls into place and the economy  recovers.

If Mr. Cain is elected he will have to come up with some temporary measure to assist the poor if his plan is to succeed. One thought would be to permit a deduction of the sales tax at a specified level until the GDP reaches a certain point.

 

9-9-9 The Nine Percent Corporate Tax

Let’s take a look at the second “9” of 9-9-9. This is a reduction of the corporate income tax from the current 39% levy to 9%. Yes, I said 39% because one must include state along with Federal to come up with the true number. This make the United States the highest tax climate for business in the world. Japan used to have that honor but recently lowered its rate so is now number two. There are some who will argue that there are higher but this rate is reserved for developed countries in the world and monitored by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Now lets not forget the many corporations that pay NO tax such as General Electric as they funnel their profts offshore to banks in Switzerland and the Cayman islands. Plus we know who the CEO of GE is, Jeffrey Imelt, Obama’s czar of Job Creation! Ironic, is it not? Oh forgive me, he’s not officially a czar but a “special advisor” to the president. He advises him on how to tell his other huge corporate donors how to avoid paying taxes so they can give more to the DNC. Or am I being somewhat cynical?

9-9-9 reduces the corporate tax rate (federal) to 9%. The states still grab their share but that is dwindling as many corporations are deserting the environs of NYC, Chicago and the like and seeking the tax free havens of Texas and Florida. What this means to you the consumer is lower prices and higher profits for the corporations. Higher profits  mean more money for expansion, hiring, and new product development. It is also revenue neutral and probably revenue positive with more money going to the government, as Imelt and GE can’t funnel their wealth offshore anymore.

Everyone wins, right? Wrong. The lawyers, accountants and tax advisors lose, big time. But since their contribution to the GDP of America is zero, so what? The whole purpose behind 9-9-9 is to get America back to work. We all know there are already too many lawyers and frivolous lawsuits filed, accountants playing tricks with balance sheets and tax advisors who sole goal in life is to cheat the IRS. So in your humble correspondents opinion, WE WIN!

Admittedly, the above is an oversimplification, but it is meant to be. 9-9-9 is meant to be simple and understandable. The IRS Tax Code is 24 megabytes long, give or take. That’s 24 million words or so. It is so complex that even tax lawyers have teams of lawyers that specialize in just a part and NO ONE knows it all.

9-9-9 will change all that and that is a good thing.

Don’t Trust The Media When It Comes To Herman Cain

Herman Cain

Don’t be fooled by the liberal media. They would lead you to believe that Herman Cain is bowing to pressure and changing 9-9-9. The truth is, he is not. The drive bys would have you believe that Cain has changed the plan to give a better break to the poor. The fact is anyone under the poverty line has ALWAYS been exempt as I wrote in my last post.

He has made one change and that is a semantic one. In my previous post I spoke about “empowerment zones” and how they would get special tax credits or other advantages to encourage hiring and expansion. This word has now been changed to “opportunity zones” but the concept and principals are still the same. Companies participating (and their employees) would receive special exemptions to give them an economic jolt, if you will, so they will continue, or begin to, operate in rundown neighborhoods such as Detroit (apologies to my Michigan readers).

Be vigilant my friends, the media will do anything they can to spin and twist the Republican message to keep the anointed one in office and further the destruction of the American way of life.

9-9-9 For Real or Another Tax Wannabe?

Over the years almost every politician running for president or just about any elected office has said that the internal revenue income tax had to be changed. The 16th amendment was passed by the states back in 1913 as a temporary measure to help defray the cost of government as the states were beginning to balk at the levies being laid upon them. It was touted as a temporary measure but there is no language whatsoever that mentions anything about “temporary” in the amendment langrage. It has grown into a Hydra creeping into every facet of American life and amounts to over ten million words that really no one comprehends completely.

Herman Cain is offering a solution to the IRS mess that makes sense. Yes, there are many who say it won’t work, hurts the poor, will increase over the years to make us just like Europe. I have one word to say to that, BUNK! Oh, there are other schemes out there but not one single politician has ever staked his campaign on any of them as Mr. Cain has done. Let’s take an unjaundiced look at 9-9-9.

First, it ELIMINATES the income tax. Notice I didn’t say IRS as we will still need an organization to manage and run this program. But, it will be a fraction of its current size and not a police force. It imposes a flat tax of nine percent on every wage earner except those that are below the poverty level. Yes, that means that many of those millions of wage earners that pay NO taxes now will have to begin paying. It does provide for some exemptions such as charity and those working for companies in empowerment zones but everything else is eliminated including the sacred cow of mortgage interest deductions.

That last line has the housing industry screaming bloody murder as they insist it will hurt home sales. That argument is similar to when the Feds took away all the interest deductions except for mortgages if you can remember back that far. The auto manufacturers said they would go broke, the credit card companies ditto. Guess what? Never happened. The democrats say it will be a crippling tax hike for the poor. Let’s examine that.

If you define poor as below or at the poverty line you still pay no tax. So no one gets hurt there. If you are above the poverty line, you pay nine percent just like every other American. This is exactly what Obama wants, everyone pays their fair share. If you make $50,000 you pay $4500. If you make $50 million, you pay $4.5 million, no exceptions, no excuses. The effects of this are quite dramatic as you might imagine. What will the tax lawyers do? The accountants? H&R Block? TurboTax? They will fight Herman Cain tooth and nail, all the way to the white house, if he wins.

In subsequent writings I will examine the corporate and sales tax aspects of and tie them all together.

Yes Virginia, There IS A Death Panel…………………

The following is a summary of testimony given by the Goldwater Institute’s senior counsel, Ms. Diane Cohen. I had the privilege of hearing Ms. Cohen’s first hand report of the testimony she gave in congress against the establishment of the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), a by product of Obamacare which by another name can be easily called the “Death Panel”. You will recall Sarah Palin first used this expression and has been excoriated by the left wing media ever since. But this writing will prove that the Death Panel does, in fact, exist and will soon begin operation unless Obamacare is struck down by the USSC once and for all.

My thanks to Ms. Cohen for her permission to let me share this important information with you. You may distribute this data freely as it is public record and the more the electorate knows about it, the greater the chance of Obama being a one term president.

Before the summary, a little background is in order. This suit is being brought on the behalf of The Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation which is representing private individuals and U.S. congressmen who have suffered or will suffer directly from the loss of freedom driven by Obamacare:

• Nick Coons of Tempe, Ariz., owns his own computer sales and repair business and pays for health care out of his pocket. However, he will face heavy fines from the IRS if he doesn’t buy a government-approved health insurance plan by 2014.

• Dr. Eric Novack is an orthopedic surgeon in Glendale, Ariz. Many of his patients are on Medicare. The health care law empowers the Independent Payment Advisory Board to cut Medicare reimbursements, as a death panel would do, to physicians like Dr. Novack in order to cut Medicare spending. Cutting reimbursement rates when they are already low will result in forcing doctors to cut the number of Medicare patients they see and reduced care for Medicare recipients. IPAB is not reform – it is Congress’s way of abdicating its duties to a centralized, unelected, unaccountable board.

Whom exactly is being sued (and this is a little surprising):

• President Barack Obama in his official capacity as head of the executive branch.

• Timothy Geithner as secretary of the Department of Treasury, who oversees the IRS and its task of punishing individuals who don’t buy health insurance by 2014.

• Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, whose department would implement the health care law.

• Attorney General Eric Holder, who oversees the Justice Department and other law enforcement agencies set to enforce other provisions of the federal health care law.

And now, the congressional summary of Ms. Cohen’s argument.

“I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the unprecedented constitutional issues raised by Congress’s establishment of the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) and the real world consequences that this unprecedented independent agency will have on the lives of citizens and particularly seniors.

The Goldwater Institute’s legal challenge to the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” is unique among the lawsuits challenging the Act because ours is the only one that challenges the constitutionality of IPAB. We believe the creation of IPAB represents the most sweeping delegation of congressional authority in history, a delegation that is anathema to our constitutional system of Separation of Powers and to responsible, accountable, democratic lawmaking.

IPAB is insulated from congressional, presidential and judicial accountability to a degree never before seen. It is the totality of the factors insulating IPAB from our nation’s system of checks and balances that renders it constitutionally objectionable. Specifically, IPAB is an unelected board of bureaucrats, whose proposals can become law without approval of Congress and the President, and are insulated from rulemaking, administrative and judicial review, and any meaningful congressional oversight. Far from representing Medicare reform, IPAB is abdication of what historically has been a congressional responsibility. Indeed, it is an unconstitutional delegation of Congress’s legislative duties and responsibilities to an agency that is unaccountable to the electorate and immune from checks or balances. Editor’s Note. This means that NO ONE can overrule an IPAB decision.

IPAB is “independent” in the worst sense of the word: it is independent of Congress, independent of the President, independent of the judiciary and independent of the will of the people.”

It can’t be  stated any more plain that that. IPAB is above the law and the constitution and is the product of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Obama. Remember, we had to pass the bill before we could read it. Well, we are reading it now and it is time to rise up America, DEFEAT OBAMA  and his Marxist dream. If you care to read all of Ms. Cohen’s testimony, contact me at spugskennedy@gmail.com and I will forward the full PDF file (18 pages) to you.