House Leaders Hold Firm 

After a contentious two-hour meeting yesterday on immigration reform, the House GOP leadership, along with two key committee chairmen, released a joint statement outlining how the House plans to proceed. Here are excerpts of that statement: 
 

• "Today House Republicans affirmed that rather than take up the flawed legislation rushed through the Senate, House committees will continue their work on a step-by-step, common-sense approach… The American people want our border secured, our laws enforced, and the problems in our immigration system fixed to strengthen our economy. 

  "But they don't trust a Democratic-controlled Washington, and they're alarmed by the president's ongoing insistence on enacting a single, massive, Obamacare-like bill… The president has also demonstrated he is willing to unilaterally delay or ignore significant portions of laws he himself has signed, raising concerns among Americans that this administration cannot be trusted to deliver on its promises to secure the border and enforce laws…"

House leaders are right to take this approach. The more the public learns about the Senate's bill, the less they like it. As we recently reported, the Congressional Budget Office examined the Senate's so-called "border surge" amendment and determined that it would reduce illegal immigration only "between one-third and one-half." 

Pollster Scott Rasmussen asked likely voters whether they favored or opposed the "immigration reform plan passed by the Senate [that] would give legal status to those who have entered the country illegally and reduce future illegal immigration by 50%." Only 39% of likely voters said they supported the Senate bill. 

Is It Even Constitutional? 

It may seem quaint to many in Washington to ask such a question, but some members of the House are raising constitutional objections to the Senate's quasi-amnesty bill. Rep. Dave Camp, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, tweeted yesterday, "Chairman Camp: Senate immigration bill a revenue bill; unconstitutional and cannot be taken up by the House." 

What Rep. Camp is referring to is the "Origination Clause" found in Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution. It states in part: "All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives…" A joint analysis found that the Senate's immigration bill raises revenues by more than $450 billion over a ten year period. 

Rep. Steve Stockman (R-TX) is urging Speaker John Boehner to "blue slip" the Senate bill. That is the process by which the Speaker of the House formally rejects Senate legislation on constitutional grounds, effectively killing a bill. Interestingly, Rep. Stockman notes that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has yet to send the Senate's quasi-amnesty bill over to the House, perhaps because he fears this very option. 

Obamacare Strikes Again 

The regional supermarket chain Wegmans, which employs more than 40,000 people, is dropping health insurance benefits previously offered to its part-time employees. According to one local news report, "the decision was related to changes brought about by the Affordable Care Act." This news comes in spite of Obama's decision to suspend enforcement of the employer mandate for one year. 

Today Speaker John Boehner announced that the House of Representatives will vote next week on legislation to suspend Obamacare's individual mandate too. Speaker Boehner blasted the bill for giving breaks to big businesses while leaving hard-working individuals and families on the hook. Boehner said: 
 

• "If you're a software company making billions in profits, you're exempt from Obamacare next year. But if you're a 28 year-old struggling to pay off your student loans, you're not. If you're a big bank or financial company, you don't have to comply with Obamacare. But if you're a single parent trying to make ends meet, there's no exemption for you."

How Loony Is The Left? 

I asked that question a few weeks ago, but I could probably make it a regular item! Here are two more examples to consider. 

When I first heard about this report, I thought it was a "Saturday Night Live" skit or a joke from a satire site, but it's real: "House Democrats Propose National Park On The Moon." 

Let me get this straight -- the Middle East is in chaos, the unemployment rate remains unacceptably high, the economy is flailing, yet the priority for some left-wing members of Congress are national parks on the moon? Talk about misplaced priorities! Also, remember that under Obama our space shuttle fleet has been put in mothballs. 

Proving once again that liberals just don't understand fundamental economics, the D.C. City Council approved an ordinance yesterday requiring large employers to pay a so-called "living wage" that is 50% higher than Washington, D.C.'s, minimum wage. A "living wage" might sound nice, but the economic result is lost jobs and more unemployment. 

The bill clearly targeted Wal-Mart, and Wal-Mart is firing back. The mega-retailer announced that it will abandon plans for three new stores and will stop construction on three existing store sites. That's six stores supporting as many as 1,800 jobs, not to mention the tax revenue to the city, that these liberal politicians are willing to sacrifice for their bad ideas. 

There is also considerable irony here. While they wax eloquent about "living wages," I have no doubt that the liberals on the D.C. City Council would bend over backwards to accommodate a new abortion clinic in the city, which by its very nature would guarantee that hundreds, if not thousands, of babies would never get a chance to earn a living.