NEA homepage:

Closer look:

Select “Health Insurance” and you’re sent directly here:

Closer look:

The “Artists Unite” link takes you here, to yet another plea to…

…improve our quality of life by demanding affordable, comprehensive guaranteed-issue insurance.

AHIRC was created by The Actors Fund with a grant from the NEA. The Actors Fund is a 501(c)(3), which means, according to the IRS:

…it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

Well, the front page of the AHIRC site calls for “demanding affordable guarantee-issue insurance.” and that you “contact your Congress representatives directly.”

I’m no lawyer, but that sounds an awful lot like “influencing legislation” to me.

Laughably, this AHIRC page reads:

Our website is completely unbiased. We do not accept advertising or commercial endorsements. The only thing we promote is the healthy artists with full access to health care.

Are we to believe that mobilizing artists to contact Congress and demand “affordable guarantee-issue insurance” is “unbiased” and not an attempt to “influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities”?

And why is the NEA funneling artists ONLY to this single “resource?” Where are the links to sites calling for tort reform? Why not a link to the cheapest private carriers of health insurance or information on affordable catastrophic plans that are perfect for young, healthy artists?

The NEA is essentially saying to those looking for help regarding health insurance: Lobby!

The lawyers can decide how ethical or legal that is, but it doesn’t take a law degree to understand that the NEA couldn’t be any less helpful if it tried.

Obama won in 2008 with 53% of the vote. The President felt he had a mandate to enact his legislative programs. But a lot of those independents and moderates who voted for him are having buyer’s remorse. It is clear that the President is far to the left of the average American. The Van Jones episode should make that obvious. It is not that Van Jones slipped through the vetting process and no one knew his true views. Van Jones represents the views of the administration. Van Jones is Obama. They just didn’t want the average American voter to find out about it.

The President also tried to hide his real agenda in health care-the government single payer system. But it didn’t work. According to Rasmussen, ObamaCare, is opposed by 53% of the people. Only 43% support it.  However with old fashioned arm twisting, an unpopular bill like ObamaCare can still pass a Democrat Congress. According to Rasmussen, 57% of the people would like to replace this Congress! But that doesn’t matter to ideologues on the Left. They want their agenda passed even if the public is against it. Once a bill is enacted, it is difficult to dismantle the structure. There must be a remedy for this. 

We elect a President every four years but we pay taxes every year. I propose that we create a Check-Off on our Federal Tax Form like the Presidential Campaign Fund. Every year all the bills signed by the President would be listed and we could check off if we want our tax money to go towards it. If our IRS Form listed ObamaCare, Cap and Trade, Stimulus, Auto Bailouts, TARP, how much money do you think these programs would be able to spend if we had a say in it?

It took Congressional legislation to create the Presidential Campaign Fund Check-Off. There is precedent. States use this type of check off on their tax returns to raise money for a many charitable and social causes. Some states have programs to fund the Olympics, veterans, disease research, prevention of child abuse and senior programs. California, of course, has a check off for sea otters. Many people don’t care about sea otters and don’t want their money spent on them. But those who care, can check it off. That’s fair!

States have many ways to differentiate between political and charitable check offs and how it affects the taxpayer’s liability or refund. But in the end it is all political since even charities have to lobby the legislature to be included on the tax form.

There will be constitutional issues involved. We are a republic not a democracy. Congress has the right to appropriate money. However it has already been adapted for the purpose of the Presidential Campaign Fund by legislation. Maybe it could be triggered by the gap between what a President won by and support for a bill. If there is a 10% gap in support for a bill like ObamaCare then we have the right to the Check Off on our next tax return. There must be a way of doing this.

This would give us a yearly “vote of confidence or no-confidence” in Presidential leadership.

Of course the Democratic Congress will never enact this. They don’t want to give all of those angry people power. But Republicans can make it an issue in the 2010 campaign. “Do you support the Check Off?” could be the question to everyone who is running for Congress. Considering the inversion of the poll numbers we could call it the 53% solution!