¡Bienvenido a los Foros de Univision! Participa, intercambia mensajes privados, sube tus fotos y forma parte de nuestra Comunidad. | Ingresa | Regístrate Gratis
Mensajes: 90,641
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009


New Video of Fannie Mae CEO Explains "Family" Relationship Between Crooks and the Congressional Blac...


Obama has been the beneficiary of a carefully engineered financial crisis. OK, maybe you aren't ready to believe that... so check out this video of newly released footage from Fannie Mae CEO Daniel Mudd explaining how the Congressional Black Caucus, Obama, and the Democrat party were like "family" to Fannie Mae and the crooked execs running it.

It's real simple. Either Obama and his buddies put race ahead of our nation and gave cover to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and their criminal execs inadvertently, in order to further their racial and socialist agendas, or they were in on it all along. Malfeasance or incompetence. Take your pick.

Either way... these people are running more and more of our economy every day.

Rahm Emanuel's profitable stint at mortgage giant
Short Freddie Mac stay made him at least $320,000

Freddie Mac was a piggie bank for Democrats who needed lots of money quickly for no work.
Before its portfolio of bad loans helped trigger the current housing crisis, mortgage giant Freddie Mac was the focus of a major accounting scandal that led to a management shake-up, huge fines and scalding condemnation of passive directors by a top federal regulator.

One of those allegedly asleep-at-the-switch board members was Chicago's Rahm Emanuel—now chief of staff to President Barack Obama—who made at least $320,000 for a 14-month stint at Freddie Mac that required little effort.

$320,000 for 14 months to attend 6 board meetings?

The board met no more than six times a year. Unlike most fellow directors, Emanuel was not assigned to any of the board's working committees, according to company proxy statements. Immediately upon joining the board, Emanuel and other new directors qualified for $380,000 in stock and options plus a $20,000 annual fee, records indicate.

And this was during a time Freddie was cooking the books and bribing politicians:
On Emanuel's watch, the board was told by executives of a plan to use accounting tricks to mislead shareholders about outsize profits the government-chartered firm was then reaping from risky investments. The goal was to push earnings onto the books in future years, ensuring that Freddie Mac would appear profitable on paper for years to come and helping maximize annual bonuses for company brass.

The accounting scandal wasn't the only one that brewed during Emanuel's tenure.

During his brief time on the board, the company hatched a plan to enhance its political muscle. That scheme, also reviewed by the board, led to a record $3.8 million fine from the Federal Election Commission for illegally using corporate resources to host fundraisers for politicians. Emanuel was the beneficiary of one of those parties after he left the board and ran in 2002 for a seat in Congress from the North Side of Chicago.

Here's a picture of the perp:

Now chief advisor to Obama. The country is in the very best hands.
Mensajes: 90,641
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009



The Panic In Massachusetts
Posted by Troy Stouffer


The Health Care Reform bill is continuing to plummet in the polls as more and more information is revealed to the public. The Democrats have refused to listen to the American people on virtually every issue that has arisen over the past year. As a result, they have lost the Governor races in Virginia and New Jersey, and now the U.S. Senate seat that was occupied by Teddy Kennedy of Massachusetts is now poised to be won by a Republican.

Republican Scott Brown has closed in the polls against Democrat Martha Coakley. Two weeks ago, Brown trailed in the polls by nine points, but Coakley’s ineptitude and the growing discontent with the horrendous policies of the Democrats in Washington D.C. have turned the tide of public opinion to the point where Brown leads in some polls and is tied in others.

The prospect of losing a “safe” Senate seat in Massachusetts has caused an all out panic within the Democrat party. The Democrat National Committee has had pour money into Massachusetts in hopes of saving the seat and ultimately their plans for destroying our health care system. If Brown wins next week, he will effectively kill the prospect of passing the current bill that is being worked out in conference. I believe that the type of fraud on display in Minnesota last year will be pulled out again if this race remains close after Tuesday’s special election. We will again hear of boxes of ballots “found” in the trunks of election workers cars. The Democrats know what is at stake in this election and they will stop at nothing, legal or illegal, to ensure that Coakley wins that race.

The Massachusetts race is highlighting the discontent with the extreme lack of representation in Washington D.C. The American people have watched Congress spend $1.4 trillion in deficit spending, bailout automotive companies and banks, pass legislation that will destroy our health care system and hamstring our economy, and pass a stimulus bill that has caused our unemployment rate to climb above 10%. The voting public is fed up with our elected representatives ignoring our wishes to blindly follow their party leadership steer our country toward ruin.

2010 will be a remarkable year. The politicians that have played a part to the budgetary idiocy of the past year are in for a very rude awakening in November. I believe there are no safe seats in the midterm elections. Every seat is available to won by a citizen legislator. Voters are tired of career politicians who seek only to extend their power and their careers, instead of actually representing their constituents and following the Constitution. 2008 was the year of “Hope and Change”. 2010 will be the year “We the people” change the Congress.

Mensajes: 90,641
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009



Here is video of President Obama during his State of the Union Address essentially trying to intimidate the Supreme Court by berating their decision to give free speech rights to American Corporations in political campaigns.

After Obama slammed the Supreme Court for their decision, you could see Justice Samuel Alito shake his head and appear to say to himself "not true," as the Democrats stood and applauded all around the Supreme Court members.

I don't know if there is precedent for a President to do something like this or not in a State of the Union Address with the Court sitting in front of him, but it seems to me this was way out of bounds and totally disrespectful.

Mensajes: 40,907
Registrado: ‎07-05-2007


Mensajes: 40,907
Registrado: ‎07-05-2007


Mensajes: 90,641
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009


Obama's born-in-USA mandate
Exclusive: Joseph Farah blows holes in poll on president's birth status

April 19, 2010

By Joseph Farah



The CBS/New York Times Poll last week had some good news in it for Barack Obama.


You had to search deep down in the 40-some pages of responses to find it. It was nowhere to be found in the reporting on the poll.


This was a non-story for the New York Times and CBS and every other news organization that looked at the results.


After more than two years of virtual media blackout on any of the serious unanswered questions about Obama's inability or unwillingness to prove his constitutional eligibility for office, a resounding 58 percent of Americans think he was born in the USA.


I repeat: They think he was born in the USA.


Of course, that 58 percent includes the combined staffs of the New York Times, CBS News, Fox News, CNN (since the departure of Lou Dobbs), MSNBC, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, the Associated Press and all those permitted to attend the White House Correspondents Association Dinner this year. Given the number of times Bill O'Reilly has refuted the possibility that anyone could have any legitimate concern about Obama's eligibility, I'm guessing he voted five or six times in this poll.


After all of the unequivocal denouncements and ridicule of "birthers" and the  refusal even to entertain a serious discussion of this issue, only 58 percent of Americans polled by CBS and the New York Times think he was born in America. I wonder how many would have replied they are certain. I'm pretty sure O'Reilly and Glenn Beck would still be out on that limb along with Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann. But the air of certainty is a lot thinner than thinking he was born in the U.S.


And certainty, of course, is what all Americans should have at this late date when it comes to the constitutional eligibility of their president. It shouldn't be a matter of guessing. It shouldn't be a matter of opinion. It should be a matter determined by a ssecure proof.


By the way, fully 20 percent of Americans polled said they believe Obama was born in another country. Now, I have to tell you, as one of those characterized as a leader of the "birther" movement, I would not have answered that way. I would have answered the way another 23 percent of Americans did – I don't know.  


This is the first time a major U.S. media poll has asked about the eligibility question. But look at the way it was done! It's a shockingly biased question. Can you believe that shoddy question from the so-called "newspaper of record" and the network of Edward R. Murrow? Who cares what people think about where the president was born. The question is whether they are satisfied the president has proven he is constitutionally eligible. Ask the question that way and you will get a much closer poll – as WND learned when first asking this question in a scientific poll last June.


But, I would suggest to you, the goal of the CBS/New York Times Poll was not to get disagreement on this issue. The goal was to get unanimity – to prove that only a few fringe, wacko characters like me believed there were still unanswered questions.


There's one other thing you should notice about this poll. There's an obvious arithmetic problem when you add the totals up and get 101 percent, which leaves the distinct possibility only 57 percent of Americans polled actually think he's born in America.


But there's more to this poll than meets the eye.


It turns out, when you read the responses to the rest of the questions, this is a remarkably Obama-friendly sampling. Obama's positives are much higher than other recent comparable polls. His negatives are much lower. This is a group that gives Obama a 50 percent approval rating. That's not an approval rating he has seen in other polls in recent months.


I've been saying since last summer that half the country has grave doubts about Obama – not just about the birth certificate, but about who he truly is. They are wondering why he is hiding his birth certificate, why he is hiding his school records, why he is hiding his college records, why he is hiding his travel records, why he is hiding his medical records.



And, most of all, I suspect, they are getting very suspicious about why the so-called "watchdogs" in the press show curiosity and concern only about those who ask the president to stop stonewalling and start living up to his pledge to run the most open and transparent administration in history.

Mensajes: 90,641
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009


Poll: Strongest Opinions About U.S. Policies, Most Unhappy With Obama

Published August 31, 2010 |

Americans with the strongest opinions about the country’s most divisive issues are largely unhappy with how President Barack Obama is handling them, an ominous sign for Democrats hoping to retain control of Congress in the November congressional elections.

   In nine of 15 issues examined in an Associated Press-GfK Poll this month, more Americans who expressed intense interest in a problem voiced strong opposition to Obama’s work on it, including the down economy, unemployment, federal deficits and terrorism. They were about evenly split over the president’s efforts on five issues and strongly approved of his direction on just one: U.S. relationships with other countries.

     The findings are troubling for Democrats struggling to protect their House of Representatives and Senate majorities on Election Day. They suggest that many of the most involved voters — those with the deepest feelings about issues high on the nation’s agenda — are furious with the party in power and will take out their wrath at the polls.

      Congressional races often turn on local concerns and the candidates’ character, factors that may yet sway many races this year. But many analysts think the public’s widely sour mood — just 35 percent in the AP-GfK poll said the country is headed in the right direction — means this year’s campaigns could be widely influenced by national issues, especially the economy.

    “The economy is poor, we’re muddling through in Afghanistan, we’re not making much progress in the war on terror,” said Paul Goren, a University of Minnesota political scientist who studies voting behavior. “Every once in a while national issues can intrude. It looks like there’s a good chance this will be one of those elections.”

    To find people with the most intense views, the AP examined poll respondents who called an issue extremely important and compared those who strongly approved of Obama’s handling of that matter to those who strongly disapproved.

     By a 3-to-1 margin, more of these highly opinionated people strongly disapproved of the president’s effort on the economy than strongly approved. More strongly disapproved of Obama’s actions by a 2-to-1 ratio on unemployment, 2-1 on health care, 6-1 on the deficit and 2-1 on terrorism, as well as on Afghanistan, taxes, immigration and gas prices.

    Of the most frequently mentioned issues, the only one where most did not strongly disapprove of Obama’s work was education, on which they were closely divided. They were also split over his handling of energy, Iraq, the environment and the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

     Those with the strongest views represent a minority of the population, ranging from one in nine people to one in three people, depending on the specific issue. Even so, they could be disproportionately crucial because turnout in election years without a presidential race is usually light.

   Predictably, Republicans with the strongest opinions were overwhelmingly critical of Obama on most issues, while the fiercest Democrats were usually solidly supportive.

     Looking at independents who considered an issue extremely or very important, more of them strongly disapproved than strongly approved of Obama’s handling of 12 of the 15 issues. This included mostly negative views of Obama from independents on 10 of the 11 issues most frequently cited by people as important, including the economy, unemployment and health care.

    The poll was conducted by GfK Roper Public Affairs & Corporate Communications from Aug. 11-16, using landline and cell phone interviews with 1,007 randomly chosen adults. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

Mensajes: 90,641
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009


White House vanity makeover won’t help Barack Obama’s decaying presidency

By Nile Gardiner World
The Telegraph U.K.
September 1st, 2010



     While British Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne frets over spending £148 on a fish and chips lunch with the Governor of the Bank of England, Barack Obama has no qualms about requesting an expensive revamp of the Oval Office when the US federal deficit is approaching a staggering $1.3 trillion and unemployment hovers at just under ten percent.

     The Wall Street Journal has outlined some of the chic decorative changes at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue:

    Handmade striped wallpaper manufactured in Amagansett, N.Y., with trim painted in American-made Benjamin Moore. Obama’s decorating team reupholstered in caramel-colored leather the two mahogany arm-chairs that Bush had placed in front of the fireplace. Obama still uses the famous Resolute Desk favored by some of his predecessors, but got a new leather desk chair and a new (American) walnut coffee table. Both were made in New York State, as were two blue ceramic table lamps.

       The new couches were custom-made in New York, but the fabric – light brown cotton with red, white and blue threads running through it – came from Pennsylvania. Maybe it’s coincidence, but New York has 31 electoral votes. Pennsylvania has 21.

      I’ve written previously that the Obama administration increasingly resembles a modern-day Ancien Régime with an extravagance and arrogance on display among the White House elites that rule America as though they had been handed some divine right to govern with impunity.

     The government insists that the renovations will be paid for by the White House Historical Association, with funds from the Presidential Inaugural Committee, rather than taxpayers’ money, though no actual cost amounts are given.

    But the whole lavish and pointless exercise will simply reinforce the image of a declining presidency strikingly out of touch with ordinary Americans at a time of significant economic hardship. It completely sends the wrong signal in the wake of the worst financial crisis since the 1930s, whose ripple effects are still hitting tens of millions of Americans.

   Instead of concentrating on perfecting his golf swing or choosing the right colour pillows for his office couch, President Obama should be focusing his efforts upon reining in the ballooning budget deficit, helping businesses create jobs, spurring economic growth, and advancing US leadership on the world stage.

     It’s not the Oval Office furniture that needs a revamp, but the failing Big Government policies and seemingly endless bailouts that are making the United States one of the most indebted nations on the face of the earth. America needs more free enterprise, lower taxes, less red tape, and massive cuts in government spending to get back on its feet. The last thing it needs is a vanity makeover in the White House.

Mensajes: 137,146
Registrado: ‎12-15-2005


Ruling Class vs. the People

Unemployment is hovering around 9.6%, our national debt is over $13 trillion, one-in-six Americans are receiving some type of government help, and Barack Obama just wrapped his sixth vacation in less than two years as President.

It was a waterfront vacation in Martha’s Vineyard that cost around $50,000 for the rental property alone. (This doesn’t count the cost of staff, of Secret Service protection, or the transport and fuel for the 20-vehicle caravan that traveled with the President all over the island.)

If a sixth vacation of this magnitude seems a bit pretentious to you, you’re not alone. Even David Letterman, the decidedly liberal host of the “Late Night Show,” thought the trip so ostentatious at a time like this that he said: “[Obama will] have plenty of time for vacations after his one term is up."

Letterman is right on the mark here. With AP polls showing that 56% of voters disapprove of the way Obama has handled the economy, he’s courting political disaster by continuing his smug trek from beach house to golf course to beach house again, during a summer when many Americans didn’t even get one vacation. (Nor is Obama’s image helped by the fact that he has played more rounds of golf in less than two years than President George W. Bush did in two whole terms.)

But this is a teachable moment: For we have to understand that “hope and change” was every bit the façade that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin warned us it would be. Obama doesn’t care about the plight of the average Joe anymore than he cared about the plight of the now-famous “Joe the Plumber.”

This is because Obama is part of the ruling class. As such, he is literally against the people. And his wife is right there with him (she may actually be more smug than he).

Who, but the wife of a member of the ruling class, could take a $375,000 European vacation at time when the American people suffer as they now do? Moreover, who but the haughtiest of ruling class members could do so knowing that the American taxpayer was going to be stuck holding tab?

I’m aware that the Obama has tried to lessen the criticism hurled at Mrs. Obama by announcing that she would pay for all “personal expenses” out of pocket, but, as with Martha’s Vineyard, that doesn’t include the cost of staff, Secret Service, etc. In fact, estimates place the cost of simply flying Michelle and her entourage to Spain and back at $178,000, and that’s $178,000 which taxpayers are going to pay.

There’s always been a strong hint of entitlement swirling around Mr. and Mrs. Obama. Now that the media has crammed picture after picture of the first family’s sixth vacation down our throats, the hint is so strong as to become repugnant.

We the people have been duped. There is no hope and change. There is only the growing feeling of a Carter-like malaise that threatens to overtake the American people even as “Obama the most merciful” plans his seventh vacation.

Mensajes: 90,641
Registrado: ‎06-03-2009


Ryan Rides To The Rescue With Realistic Budget Plan





    It's jump ball on the federal budget — and America's future is up for grabs.

Although often cast in numerical terms involving trillions of dollars, the real budget battle is about human dignity, freedom and progress. Can we preserve these and other bedrock characteristics of American civilization? Or will they and we be dragged down by mindless fiscal excesses in Washington?

     The two most immediate protagonists in this historic budget drama are President Obama, the likely villain, and Paul Ryan, the Republican chairman of the House Budget Committee, the emerging hero.

       Obama holds the modern record for the biggest debt and deficits in the shortest time and is sub rosa heading America toward the biggest tax hikes in history.

      In opposition to Obama's road to ruin, Ryan has unveiled a high-minded "Path to Prosperity" by which America can escape the spend-debt-tax trap set by Obama before it's finally and fatally sprung.

     Obama governs on a zero-sum basis, pitting Americans against each other, in the apparent belief that the only way for anyone to be better off is for government to make other people worse off.

     The Republican budget is designed to make everyone better off. Cut taxes, cut spending, induce jobs and income growth, repeal ObamaCare, rescue Medicare, protect seniors and enable young Americans to create a new golden age of freedom and prosperity in the 21st century. And this is just for starters. Wait until 2013 for the best stuff.

     Seniors Protected

   The "win-win" Ryan-Rivlin proposal saves Medicare from financial collapse while at the same time allowing existing senior Americans (those now 55 and older) the option to continue with present Medicare.

    Ryan's budget achieves $6 trillion of outlay savings — including $1 trillion in historic health care entitlement reform — but seniors are protected. Cynical Democrats may have hoped that with the debt crisis already at $14 trillion and Obama pushing it to $21 trillion, they could frighten fiscally responsible Republicans into cutting back on seniors — but Ryan deftly avoids the sucker punch.

      Ryan also avoids the tax trap. Many people — including some well-meaning Republicans — have been lured into thinking that America's financial crises can be solved by combining spending cuts with big tax increases.

       But dollar-for-dollar, tax increases do more harm to the private economy — and, therefore, to GDP growth and jobs — than they add to Treasury revenues for deficit reduction. This is the "dig the hole deeper" approach taken by Obama's Bowles-Simpson Commission. It won't work.

        Ryan does the smart thing. He and Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp plan big cuts in both individual and corporate tax rates.

      Individual tax rates will be 10% and 25% — and the present exorbitantly high tax rates on corporations (their stock is in nearly everyone's retirement plan portfolio) will be reduced to 15% and 25%.

     Even under CBO's old-fashioned static scoring method — which Democrats insist on — the Camp-Ryan tax reforms will induce economic growth. On a correct dynamic scoring basis as performed by the Heritage Foundation, the positive effects of tax reform on both the budget and the lives of millions of Americans are even bigger. Each year, roughly 1.3 million new jobs will be added. Household wealth will average $500 billion more over the 10-year period.

           Fiscal Freeze

    The Republican plan reduces outlays as a percentage of GDP from the current level of 24.1% to 19.9% in 2021. Tax rates are lower — but revenues as a percent of GDP increase from today's 14.8% to 18.2% in 2021. And by 2021, debt as a percent of GDP is 40% less than under Obama's budget.

    The Republican "Path to Prosperity" is the kind of common-sense government downsizing that voters were calling for in the game-changing election last November, when they threw out so many big-spending Democrats and, had Obama himself been up for reelection, would probably have thrown him out as well.

        Ryan's budget resolution freezes and reforms much government spending at or below 2008 levels, thereby saving $4 trillion. It cuts subsidies, corporate welfare, government waste and bloat — and whacks those notorious Washington swingers known as Fannie and Freddie, who helped cause the mortgage crisis.

      It will be a struggle to plug the gigantic hole that Obama has blown in America's finances. But everyone who is called upon to give up a government subsidy or to pay more should look upon the temporary sacrifice as if they were putting money away in a savings account that will pay them dividends as America returns to prosperity.

      Some conservative Republicans have been heard to criticize Ryan's budget plan because it does not completely eliminate the federal deficit within 10 years. Not a good objection. Cutting tax rates, getting the deficit and debt heading downward, and boosting economic growth is much more important than adherence to some arbitrary date.

    Everyone who has America's best interest at heart — including a good many Democrats in both the House and the Senate — ought to stand up and cheer.

• Christian, an attorney, was a deputy assistant secretary of the Treasury in the Ford administration. Robbins, an economist, served at the Treasury Department in the Reagan administration.



Ryan: Budget Fights Moral Decline as ‘Dependency and Passivity’ Weaken the Country

By Bridget Johnson

April 5, 2011, 9:54 am

    House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan will warn at AEI today that the country is at a “tipping point” in its debt crisis that threatens to “curtail free enterprise” and lead to a “gradual moral-political decline as dependency and passivity weaken the nation’s character.”

     The Wisconsin Republican detailed in today’s Wall Street Journal the magic numbers everyone has been waiting for: $6.2 trillion in cuts from President Obama’s budget over the next decade; $4.4 trillion in deficit reduction, as compared to Obama’s promised $1.1 trillion.

    In his noontime AEI address, Ryan will argue that keeping the budget on the beaten path could “weaken our national identity in ways that may not be reversible.”

      “This budget charts a new path,” Ryan will say. “It represents a new federal commitment, assuring this nation’s workers, investors and entrepreneurs that the new House majority recognizes the threat that unlimited government poses to the American way of life.”

   Reining in the size and scope of government, he adds in prepared remarks, “should not be a partisan issue.”

    Ryan will address four main aspects of “The Path to Prosperity” agenda: streamlining government to make it “more efficient, effective and responsible”; welfare reform to “build upon the success” of the bipartisan efforts during the 1990s; focusing on entitlement reform to save Medicare and require the president to submit a plan “for restoring balance” to Social Security; and tax reform that “starts not by asking what is the ‘right mix’ of tax increases and spending cuts to balance the budget, but by asking what is the purpose of government, and then raising only as much revenue as the government needs to fund the things it is supposed to be doing.”

     The chairman, who references both Reagan and FDR in his speech, will introduce a tax reform plan that caps individual and corporate rates at 25 percent.

     “Over time, additional brackets, credits and carve-outs have grown on the tax code like weeds,” Ryan’s prepared remarks state. “As with so many things, such as practicing the politics of optimism, we need to get back to the Reagan model – in this case, by implementing the policies of growth.”

    He chides the current system as leaving America “on the brink of national bankruptcy” and exacerbating a debt crisis that could lead to “an unprecedented economic collapse.”

     “The president, whose budget punted on the drivers of our debt, is not the first public official to have drifted down this perilous path,” Ryan will say, stressing that “both political parties have squandered the public’s trust.”

    “The stakes in this debate are high … They transcend what fraction a government worker in Madison contributes to his benefits package. And they transcend what number between $33 billion and $61 billion we finally settle on as we try to repair this year’s broken budget process.”

     The budget release comes a day after Obama announced his re-election campaign. Watch a livestream of Ryan’s address at noon here.


GOP Budget Proposal: 'Not a Penny' for Obamacare
Tuesday, April 05, 2011


( - The fiscal 2012 budget proposal unveiled today by House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R.-Wis.) offers sweeping reforms in federal spending, including defunding and repealing the health-care law signed last year by President Barack Obama and converting the federal share of the Medicaid program into block grants to state governments.

     The Republican proposal says one of its aims is “making sure that not a penny goes toward implementing the new [health care] law” enacted last year.

    This includes repealing about $800 billion in new taxes that were built into the law.

    The proposed Republican budget resolution lists as one of its “key objectives” that it “Repeals and defunds the President’s health care law, advancing instead common-sense solutions focused on lowering costs, expanding access and protecting the doctor-patient relationship.”

    “There is no way for ‘experts’ in Washington to know more about the health care needs of individual Americans than those individuals and their doctors know,” says the proposal. “The new health-care law, rammed through Congress last year on a partisan vote, has taken the nation one step closer to this fully government-run system.

    “The problems with this approach are already popping up all over the country,” says the proposal. “Health care costs continue to escalate relentlessly. The new law has aggravated the worst aspects of the U.S. health care system, without fixing what was broken. The country needs to move away from this centralized system, not towards it.

     “This budget starts by repealing the costly new government-run health care law, saving roughly $725 billion over ten years by repealing the new exchange subsidies and making sure that not a penny goes toward implementing the new law,” says the resolution. “Then, this budget goes further with reforms that make government health-care programs more responsive to consumer choice.”

    On the health-care tax front, the resolution says: “The health-care law enacted last year contained roughly $800 billion in new taxes and tax increases--the result of dozens of changes to tax law that added complexity and unfairness to the code.” The proposal calls for repealing all of these new taxes and tax increases as part of repealing the entirety of the Obamacare law.

    One of the new health-care reforms proposed by the GOP budget is converting the federal share of Medicaid—the federal-state program that provides health insurance to low-income people—into block grants to state governments.

    The proposal says the GOP budget aims to: ssecure the Medicaid benefit by converting the federal share of Medicaid spending into a block grant tailored to meet each state’s needs, indexed for inflation and population growth. This reform ends the misguided one-size-fits-all approach that has tied the hands of so many state governments. States will no longer be shackled by federally determined program requirements and enrollment criteria. Instead, they will have the freedom and flexibility to tailor a Medicaid program that fits the needs of their unique populations.”

    The GOP budget proposal notes that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, federal Medicaid spending would increase by $627 billion over the next decade under Obamacare, which increases the number of people eligible for the program.