After compiling three decades-worth of responses to health insurance questions, the U.S. Census Bureau…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Suspicious Timing of Census Bureau’s New Health Insurance Questions Helps ObamaCare

After compiling three decades-worth of responses to health insurance questions, the U.S. Census Bureau is about to implement a new version that will make it impossible to compare insurance coverage data before and after ObamaCare.

Coincidence?

It gets better.

“An internal Census Bureau document said that the new questionnaire included a ‘total revision to health insurance questions,’ and, in a test last year, produced lower estimates of the uninsured,” reports the New York Times.

In practical terms this means “it will be difficult to say how much of any change is attributable to the Affordable Care Act and how much to the use of a new survey instrument.”

According to the Times, the new survey has been in the works for awhile. But there is no explanation given for…[more]

April 15, 2014 • 06:31 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Home Press Room CFIF Endorses "Right to Refuse" Constitutional Amendment
CFIF Endorses "Right to Refuse" Constitutional Amendment Print
Thursday, February 28 2013

The Center for Individual Freedom today sent the following letter to Congressman Steven Palazzo (R-MS) in support of H.J. Res. 28, his proposed Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would effectively overturn the Supreme Court’s decision upholding ObamaCare’s mandate tax and permanently prevent Congress from ever again forcing Americans to choose between the purchase of goods and services or tax penalties.


February 28, 2013

The Honorable Steven Palazzo
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Palazzo:

On behalf of the Center for Individual Freedom (“CFIF”) and its more than 300,000 supporters and activists nationwide, I write in full support of H.J. Res. 28, your proposed Amendment to the United States Constitution that, if passed and ratified, will prevent Congress from taxing individuals and businesses as punishment simply for failing to purchase goods and services.

Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court took the extraordinary step of upholding ObamaCare’s mandate forcing virtually all Americans to buy health insurance or pay a penalty to the federal government as a valid exercise of Congress’ taxing power outlined in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.  In other words, a Supreme Court majority, for the first time, put its stamp of approval on the novel idea that Congress has the power to punitively tax inactivity. 

Experts predict that as many as 11 million mostly middle-class Americans will be slapped with ObamaCare’s mandate tax once it takes effect in January 2014.  In fact, the Congressional Budget Office (“CBO”) estimates that 7 in 10 Americans making less than $94,000 per year and who are without health insurance will be hit with the mandate tax. 
 
H.J. Res. 28, also known as the “Right to Refuse” Amendment, is simple and to the point.  It states clearly that, “Congress shall make no law that imposes a tax on a failure to purchase goods or services.”

This commonsense Amendment will effectively overturn the Supreme Court’s decision upholding ObamaCare’s mandate tax and permanently prevent Congress from ever again forcing Americans to choose between the purchase of goods and services or tax penalties. 

For those reasons and more, CFIF wholeheartedly endorses H.J. Res. 28 – the “Right to Refuse” Amendment – and urges every Member of Congress to co-sponsor and pass it without delay.

Sincerely,
/s/       
Jeffrey Mazzella
President

Question of the Week   
The annual White House Easter Egg Roll was reinstituted following a 12-year hiatus by which one of the following Presidents?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"Strangely, many of the same people who insist that Mr. Bundy must be made an example of for the sake of the rule of law protest at the same time that it is not only impossible but positively undesirable for the federal government to deploy federal resources to rectify the federal crime of jumping the federal border. ...  The relevant facts are these: 1) Very powerful political interests in Washington…[more]
 
 
—Kevin D. Williamson, National Review
— Kevin D. Williamson, National Review
 
Liberty Poll   

If the U.S. House of Representatives finds former IRS administrator Lois Lerner in contempt, what should the House then do?