Liberals excel at slaying strawmen, creating false dichotomies, and generally misrepresenting the views of conservatives. They also like to create absurd, unrealistic scenarios that would make it seem unconscionable to hold conservative views. I see this phenomenon often in the comments sections on Pajamas Media and National Review Online. One common argument of Internet-dwelling liberals is that conservatives want a libertarian paradise like war-torn Liberia or Somalia. And of course, who can forget the frequent and passionate pleas on behalf of all those women who are pregnant after being raped and want to have an abortion? (Proponents of abortion don't talk as often about the remainder of abortions, most of which are performed just because somebody doesn't want to have a baby. See "Why women have abortions".)
Now, I wish to present Exhibit C. Check out this totally unbiased article on Yahoo about a Republican debate, titled "Audience at tea party debate cheers leaving uninsured to die". During the debate, CNN's Wolf Blitzer asked Ron Paul about a hypothetical, uninsured, comatose man and whether he should be left to die. Immediately after this, a few people in the audience shouted, "Yeah!" Personally, I think this outburst was a sarcastic response to a stupid question. The unspoken false dichotomy is that you either have to support Obamacare in its entirety or you want poor people to die. (And you probably hate puppies, too, you bastard.) For all I hear about how nuanced, sophisticated, and intelligent liberals are, they sure aren't very good at making distinctions.
I sincerely doubt that the good and generous people of the United States (and by "people", I mean conservatives) would let our hypothetical man die. Blitzer's silly false dichotomy is nothing but an attempt to make conservative views of limited government and personal freedom seem unconscionable and ridiculous. Harrumph! Harrumph, I say! End rant.
Showing posts with label health care. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health care. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Socialist Watch
Here is a summary of some of the recent mischief that Obama and his administration have been up to:
1. Suing Arizona. The Department of Justice claims that Arizona's new illegal immigration law "preempts" the federal government's enforcement of immigration laws. Hmmm. That argument might be a bit more compelling if the federal government actually WERE enforcing immigration laws. As a matter of fact, interior federal enforcement of immigration laws is down 75% since 2008. It's also a fact that the Arizona law was carefully written to be consistent with federal immigration law. States assist the federal government all the time in enforcing federal laws; this is nothing unusual and certainly nothing unconstitutional. I note that Obama made a big deal about how the AZ law amounted to racial profiling, yet there is nothing in the lawsuit about that. He knows that false claim would not stand up in court. This lawsuit is all about playing racial politics to get his base fired up in an election year. If he cared about the immigration problem, he would fulfill his constitutional obligation to secure the border and enforce existing immigration law, as well as working with Congress to come up with an acceptable bi-partisan immigration reform law.
2. Appointing Donald Berwick to Head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. It is disgraceful that Berwick was snuck in under the public's radar through a recess appointment, which enabled him to avoid being confirmed by the Senate. Of course, previous presidents have used recess appointments too, including Bush, but this is the first time that a top Cabinet-level official has been confirmed without even a hearing! No hearings had even been scheduled in the Senate, and 11 weeks after his nomination his Senate paperwork still had not been completed. In other words, he has had no public vetting whatsoever, yet he is going to have power over a portion of the government that is 4% of GDP (and has a bigger budget than the Dept. of Defense)! Obama would make a great third world dictator.
Of course there's a reason why Obama didn't want this guy to face confirmation hearings, even in a very Obama-friendly Senate. Berwick's views would not be very well received by the public. Here are some very revealing quotes about his views:
1. Suing Arizona. The Department of Justice claims that Arizona's new illegal immigration law "preempts" the federal government's enforcement of immigration laws. Hmmm. That argument might be a bit more compelling if the federal government actually WERE enforcing immigration laws. As a matter of fact, interior federal enforcement of immigration laws is down 75% since 2008. It's also a fact that the Arizona law was carefully written to be consistent with federal immigration law. States assist the federal government all the time in enforcing federal laws; this is nothing unusual and certainly nothing unconstitutional. I note that Obama made a big deal about how the AZ law amounted to racial profiling, yet there is nothing in the lawsuit about that. He knows that false claim would not stand up in court. This lawsuit is all about playing racial politics to get his base fired up in an election year. If he cared about the immigration problem, he would fulfill his constitutional obligation to secure the border and enforce existing immigration law, as well as working with Congress to come up with an acceptable bi-partisan immigration reform law.
2. Appointing Donald Berwick to Head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. It is disgraceful that Berwick was snuck in under the public's radar through a recess appointment, which enabled him to avoid being confirmed by the Senate. Of course, previous presidents have used recess appointments too, including Bush, but this is the first time that a top Cabinet-level official has been confirmed without even a hearing! No hearings had even been scheduled in the Senate, and 11 weeks after his nomination his Senate paperwork still had not been completed. In other words, he has had no public vetting whatsoever, yet he is going to have power over a portion of the government that is 4% of GDP (and has a bigger budget than the Dept. of Defense)! Obama would make a great third world dictator.
Of course there's a reason why Obama didn't want this guy to face confirmation hearings, even in a very Obama-friendly Senate. Berwick's views would not be very well received by the public. Here are some very revealing quotes about his views:
"[I am] romantic about the National Health Service" [the government agency
that controls the government-run health care system in Britain]. It is
a "seductress" and a "global treasure."
"The decision is not whether or not we will ration care—the decision is whether
we will ration with our eyes open."
One of the "primary functions" of government health care laws is "to
constrain decentralized, individual decision making" and "to weigh public
welfare against the choices of private consumers."
"Any healthcare funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized and humane
must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and
the less fortunate. Excellent healthcare is by definition redistributional."“As many as 80% of hysterectomies are scientifically unnecessary, so are more
than a quarter of the drugs used for ear infections, most of the ultrasounds
done in normal pregnancies, and half of cesarean sections in the United States.
Isn’t this, with all due respect, some form of assault and battery, however
unintended?”“Don't trust market forces." Trust "leaders with plans."
“One over-demanding service [to be cut] is prevention; annual physicals,
screening tests, and other measures that supposedly help catch disease
early.“Only a minority of patients, families, and clinicians support prolonged use
of life-sustaining procedures and dramatic interventions in the terminal states
of illness, yet substantial use of these procedures continue.”
This all sounds great -- if you want unelected bureaucrats making your health care decisions for you.
3. Politicizing NASA. NASA Administrator Charles Bolden gave an interview with Al-Jazeera. In this interview, Bolden said that Obama himself had instructed Bolden that his "perhaps foremost" requirement was “to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science . . . and math and engineering.” (!) Wow. And all this time I thought NASA was about space exploration. Is there anything that this president touches that he doesn't turn into a vehicle for his radical ideology?
4. Politicizing the Justice Department. Christian Adams, a voting-rights lawyer who recently resigned from the Justice Department, recently testified before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission about the New Black Panther voter intimidation case in Philadelphia on Election Day 2008. That case, which was filed by the Justice Department in January 2009, said that two members of the New Black Panther party stood in front of a polling station, wearing military garb and brandishing a nightstick. The two men hurled "racial threats and racial insults at both black and white individuals" and "made menacing and intimidating gestures, statements, and movements directed at individuals who were present to aid voters." No defense was offered by the two individuals or by the New Black Panther party, which means that the case was a guaranteed win for the Justice Department. Yet, the Obama Administration suddenly dropped the case in May 2009, claiming insufficient evidence.
Adams stated in a Washington Times article that "if the actions in Philadelphia do not constitute voter intimidation, it is hard to imagine what would, short of an actual outbreak of violence at the polls." He went on to say that the case was dropped because there is an "open and pervasive hostility within the Justice Department to bringing civil rights cases against nonwhite defendants on behalf of white victims. Equal enforcement of justice is not a priority of this administration. Open contempt is voiced for these types of cases.... Some of my coworkers argued that the law should not be used against black wrongdoers because of the long history of slavery and segregation.... Incredibly, after the case was dismissed, instructions were given that no more cases against racial minorities like the Black Panther case would be brought by the [Justice Department's] Voting Section." Not surprisingly, the Justice Department is stonewalling and has refused to allow attorneys involved in the case to respond even to subpoenas.
When Obama's done with our country, there won't be much left.
Friday, June 4, 2010
The True Cost of ObamaCare
When The New York Times is publishing articles critical of ObamaCare, you know it must be bad. This summary in The Weekly Standard points out that the Dartmouth study that the White House is relying on for its health care facts and figures does not even take into account quality of patient care or the survival rate of patients when determining what constitutes wasteful health spending. In another words, under the Dartmouth formula good health care equals cheap health care, regardless of results. This is obviously counter-intuitive -- it makes no sense that spending less on health care would result in better health care. Now Obama has nominated Donald Berwick, a champion of the Dartmouth health care model and of the disastrous British medical system, to run Medicare and Medicaid. Our country's top-quality health care system is about to vanish before our eyes.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Twenty-five year olds "allowed" to stay on parent's health insurance plans
By now, this is old news. One consequence of the recently-passed health care "reform" bill is that the compassionate and benevolent people in the federal government are going to "allow" "children" to stay on their parents' health insurance plans until the age of 26. Think about this for just a minute.
It is not necessary to have a law to allow you to do something! To the best of my knowledge, there is no reason why insurance companies could not have sold policies which would cover the little basement-dwellers. (I suppose there could be some government regulation to prohibit this. The insurance industry is highly regulated, and I am no expert.) What doubletalkers like Obama really mean when they say that 25-year-olds are "allowed" to remain on their parents' insurance plans is that insurance companies are forced to sell insurance plans which cover "adult children" up to the age of 26. Once again, our politicians have inserted themselves into our private matters in the name of "compassion". (And no doubt, they will take credit for it, even though they have done nothing other than tell somebody else what to do.)
It is not necessary to have a law to allow you to do something! To the best of my knowledge, there is no reason why insurance companies could not have sold policies which would cover the little basement-dwellers. (I suppose there could be some government regulation to prohibit this. The insurance industry is highly regulated, and I am no expert.) What doubletalkers like Obama really mean when they say that 25-year-olds are "allowed" to remain on their parents' insurance plans is that insurance companies are forced to sell insurance plans which cover "adult children" up to the age of 26. Once again, our politicians have inserted themselves into our private matters in the name of "compassion". (And no doubt, they will take credit for it, even though they have done nothing other than tell somebody else what to do.)
Thursday, March 25, 2010
You Tell Me
If the new health care bill passed by the Democrats is such a great bill, then why has the U.S. Congress exempted themselves from being covered by it? Why did the Capitol Hill staffers who wrote the bill write an exemption for themselves into the bill as well? If it's good enough for us, why is it not good enough for them?
You tell me.
If, as the Democrats tell us repeatedly, the need for health care reform is urgent because many people are dying without access to health care -- well then, why do the major provisions of this bill not begin to take effect until 2013 (conveniently after the 2012 presidential elections). We know people have an urgent need for access to immediate life-saving health care, so we have passed a bill that will cover them in 3 or 4 years, after they're already dead. Apparently the only thing urgent about the health care bill for the Democrats was claiming immediate political victory by passing some bill. Is this really even about helping the uninsured at all?
You tell me.
When asked about the lawsuit that a number of state attorneys general are bringing against ObamaCare for being unconstitutional, the White House domestic policy chief responded by saying, "If you want to look in the face of a parent whose child now has health care insurance and say we're repealing that . . . go right ahead." Hmmm. The only problem with that is that every child in the U.S. is already covered by a government insurance plan called SCHIP, provided that child's family income is under a certain level. That income level is $55,125 or more for a family of four in every state except for five very low-cost-of-living Western states. It is $88,200 in New York and New Hampshire. So is Obama's administration just lying, claiming it's about the children when really the bill does nothing for them? Or does he believe that our tax dollars should pay for children's health insurance when their parents make more than $88,200 per year?
You tell me.
In an interview with ABC News, Vice-President Joe Biden said regarding the health care bill, "You know we're going to control the insurance companies." Democratic Congressman John Dingell said in a radio interview, "The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re going to pass legislation that will cover 300 [million] American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people." Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said, "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." Democratic Congressman Alcee Hastings said, ""There ain't no rules here, we're trying to accomplish something. . . .All this talk about rules. . . .When the deal goes down . . . we make 'em up as we go along." And then there was the President's elaborate signing ceremony for ObamaCare on Tuesday. After receiving a rock star welcome from the partisan crowd and being introduced by Joe Biden with the words "This is a big f***ing deal," Obama crowed about how he had finally succeeded where his predecessors (he listed them out from Theodore Roosevelt to the Clintons) had failed. Again, is this really about helping the uninsured? Or is this about politicians expanding government power and therefore their own power? Is this about doing what's best for the country? Or is this about using whatever means necessary to pass some bill that will enable them to take credit for "making history" and winning a big political victory?
You tell me.
You tell me.
If, as the Democrats tell us repeatedly, the need for health care reform is urgent because many people are dying without access to health care -- well then, why do the major provisions of this bill not begin to take effect until 2013 (conveniently after the 2012 presidential elections). We know people have an urgent need for access to immediate life-saving health care, so we have passed a bill that will cover them in 3 or 4 years, after they're already dead. Apparently the only thing urgent about the health care bill for the Democrats was claiming immediate political victory by passing some bill. Is this really even about helping the uninsured at all?
You tell me.
When asked about the lawsuit that a number of state attorneys general are bringing against ObamaCare for being unconstitutional, the White House domestic policy chief responded by saying, "If you want to look in the face of a parent whose child now has health care insurance and say we're repealing that . . . go right ahead." Hmmm. The only problem with that is that every child in the U.S. is already covered by a government insurance plan called SCHIP, provided that child's family income is under a certain level. That income level is $55,125 or more for a family of four in every state except for five very low-cost-of-living Western states. It is $88,200 in New York and New Hampshire. So is Obama's administration just lying, claiming it's about the children when really the bill does nothing for them? Or does he believe that our tax dollars should pay for children's health insurance when their parents make more than $88,200 per year?
You tell me.
In an interview with ABC News, Vice-President Joe Biden said regarding the health care bill, "You know we're going to control the insurance companies." Democratic Congressman John Dingell said in a radio interview, "The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re going to pass legislation that will cover 300 [million] American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people." Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said, "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." Democratic Congressman Alcee Hastings said, ""There ain't no rules here, we're trying to accomplish something. . . .All this talk about rules. . . .When the deal goes down . . . we make 'em up as we go along." And then there was the President's elaborate signing ceremony for ObamaCare on Tuesday. After receiving a rock star welcome from the partisan crowd and being introduced by Joe Biden with the words "This is a big f***ing deal," Obama crowed about how he had finally succeeded where his predecessors (he listed them out from Theodore Roosevelt to the Clintons) had failed. Again, is this really about helping the uninsured? Or is this about politicians expanding government power and therefore their own power? Is this about doing what's best for the country? Or is this about using whatever means necessary to pass some bill that will enable them to take credit for "making history" and winning a big political victory?
You tell me.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Time to Go
Here are the names of at least some of the Democratic congressmen running for re-election who voted "yes" on this monstrosity of a health care bill in flagrant violation of the will of their constituents. Every one of these districts is a Republican-leaning district that either supported Bush in 2004, McCain in 2008, or both Bush and McCain. Since Obama's approval rating is running far below his 2008 election performance, we can be virtually certain that ObamaCare is very unpopular in all of these districts. We the American voters MUST make sure that the overwhelming majority of these congressmen are added to the swelling ranks of the unemployed in this country as a result of the November election. Voters must send a message to all politicians everywhere that we will not tolerate what the Democrats have done on health care. If even some of these congressmen get away with their vote, we can expect even more callous disregard for public opinion in future decisions of Congress. To ensure that government in this country remains "by the people and for the people," it is extremely urgent that most or all of these members lose in November:
1. Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-1)
2. Harry Mitchell (AZ-5)
3. Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-8)
4. Jerry McNerney (CA-11)
5. Dennis Cardoza (CA-18)
6. Loretta Sanchez (CA-47)
7. John Salazar (CO-3)
8. Betsy Markey (CO-4)
9. Allen Boyd (FL-2)
10. Alan Grayson (FL-8)
11. Ron Klein (FL-22)
12. Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24)
13. Melissa Bean (IL-8)
14. Deborah Halvorson (IL-11)
15. Bill Foster (IL-14)
16. Joe Donnelly (IN-2)
17. Brad Ellsworth (IN-8) - actually running for Senate instead of for re-election
18. Baron Hill (IN-9)
19. Leonard Boswell (IA-3)
20. Bart Stupak (MI-1)
21. Mark Schauer (MI-7)
22. Gary Peters (MI-9)
23. Tim Walz (MN-1)
24. Dina Titus (NV-3)
25. Carol Shea-Porter (NH-2)
26. Tim Bishop (NY-1)
27. John Hall (NY-19)
28. Scott Murphy (NY-20)
29. Bill Owens (NY-23)
30. Bob Etheridge (NC-2)
31. Earl Pomeroy (ND-AL)
32. Steve Driehaus (OH-1)
33. Charlie Wilson (OH-6)
34. Mary Jo Kilroy (OH-15)
35. John Boccieri (OH-16)
36. Kurt Schrader (OR-5)
37. Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-3)
38. Chris Carney (PA-10)
39. John Spratt (SC-5)
40. Ciro Rodriguez (TX-23)
41. Solomon Ortiz (TX-27)
42. Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
43. Tom Perriello (VA-5)
44. Gerry Connolly (VA-11)
45. Alan Mollohan (WV-1)
46. Nick Rahall (WV-3)
47. Steve Kagen (WI-8)
Don't get me wrong -- there are probably a lot more Democrats who voted for the health care bill that can be defeated as well. But here are the ones that voted most flagrantly against their constituents. They must go.
1. Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-1)
2. Harry Mitchell (AZ-5)
3. Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-8)
4. Jerry McNerney (CA-11)
5. Dennis Cardoza (CA-18)
6. Loretta Sanchez (CA-47)
7. John Salazar (CO-3)
8. Betsy Markey (CO-4)
9. Allen Boyd (FL-2)
10. Alan Grayson (FL-8)
11. Ron Klein (FL-22)
12. Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24)
13. Melissa Bean (IL-8)
14. Deborah Halvorson (IL-11)
15. Bill Foster (IL-14)
16. Joe Donnelly (IN-2)
17. Brad Ellsworth (IN-8) - actually running for Senate instead of for re-election
18. Baron Hill (IN-9)
19. Leonard Boswell (IA-3)
20. Bart Stupak (MI-1)
21. Mark Schauer (MI-7)
22. Gary Peters (MI-9)
23. Tim Walz (MN-1)
24. Dina Titus (NV-3)
25. Carol Shea-Porter (NH-2)
26. Tim Bishop (NY-1)
27. John Hall (NY-19)
28. Scott Murphy (NY-20)
29. Bill Owens (NY-23)
30. Bob Etheridge (NC-2)
31. Earl Pomeroy (ND-AL)
32. Steve Driehaus (OH-1)
33. Charlie Wilson (OH-6)
34. Mary Jo Kilroy (OH-15)
35. John Boccieri (OH-16)
36. Kurt Schrader (OR-5)
37. Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-3)
38. Chris Carney (PA-10)
39. John Spratt (SC-5)
40. Ciro Rodriguez (TX-23)
41. Solomon Ortiz (TX-27)
42. Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
43. Tom Perriello (VA-5)
44. Gerry Connolly (VA-11)
45. Alan Mollohan (WV-1)
46. Nick Rahall (WV-3)
47. Steve Kagen (WI-8)
Don't get me wrong -- there are probably a lot more Democrats who voted for the health care bill that can be defeated as well. But here are the ones that voted most flagrantly against their constituents. They must go.
The Stupak Disappointment
I have to say a few words about the Stupak "compromise." I believed that the House Democratic leadership had the votes without bothering with Stupak, but apparently I was wrong. The Hill reported that the Democrats were two votes short of passing the Senate bill early in the day on Sunday. They were able to get Stupak and the votes of 3 or 4 other "pro-life" Democrats by agreeing to get Obama to sign an executive order reaffirming his commitment to current law banning taxpayer-funding of abortion.
Let's be clear about this. I have said some very nice things about Stupak on this blog, and I still believe he is a principled man, as politicians go. But this is a cave, pure and simple, and a cave at the 11th hour when he had all the leverage on his side and when it was most important for him to stand firm. The only way to ensure that government-run health care will not cover abortions is for there to be a specific provision against taxpayer abortion funding in the bill itself. An executive order is meaningless, not even worth the paper it's written on. When there is a conflict between an executive order and a piece of legislation, the piece of legislation always takes priority. If the bill requires taxpayer funding of abortion (which it does), then an executive order cannot nullify that. And of course, this executive order is doubly meaningless because it, unlike the bill passed by Congress, is not permanent. A president can rescind an executive order at any time for any reason. Given this president's extreme pro-abortion record, what reason do we have to trust that he will make any effort to enforce this executive order? He could rescind it next week, next month, or next year. Make no mistake about it, if this executive order were truly binding, pro-choice activists in the House would be up in arms about it. They are not, because they know it is meaningless. As Congressman Joe Pitts put it, “I find absolutely no comfort in this executive order. This puts the fate of the unborn in the hands of the most pro-abortion president in history.”
I am truly saddened by the decision of Bart Stupak and a few other pro-life Democrats to compromise and vote for this bill. Congressman Stupak had shown so much principled leadership on this issue for so long, and then threw it all away on a non-binding executive order in the bottom of the ninth inning. He had nothing to lose and everything to gain by continuing to insist on pro-life language in the actual bill. I know he was under tremendous pressure from his party's leadership. His wife disconnected their home phone because they were getting threatening phone calls. He was facing the prospect of no help from the Democratic party whatsoever in his re-election bid in a swing district -- and possibly being threatened with much worse. In the end, I think he really wanted to vote "yes" (as a big supporter of government health care) and he found a way to justify his vote. The pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List had chosen Stupak to receive their "Defender of Life" award at their annual gala in Washington on Wednesday. They have now rescinded that award, and rightly so.
Let's be clear about this. I have said some very nice things about Stupak on this blog, and I still believe he is a principled man, as politicians go. But this is a cave, pure and simple, and a cave at the 11th hour when he had all the leverage on his side and when it was most important for him to stand firm. The only way to ensure that government-run health care will not cover abortions is for there to be a specific provision against taxpayer abortion funding in the bill itself. An executive order is meaningless, not even worth the paper it's written on. When there is a conflict between an executive order and a piece of legislation, the piece of legislation always takes priority. If the bill requires taxpayer funding of abortion (which it does), then an executive order cannot nullify that. And of course, this executive order is doubly meaningless because it, unlike the bill passed by Congress, is not permanent. A president can rescind an executive order at any time for any reason. Given this president's extreme pro-abortion record, what reason do we have to trust that he will make any effort to enforce this executive order? He could rescind it next week, next month, or next year. Make no mistake about it, if this executive order were truly binding, pro-choice activists in the House would be up in arms about it. They are not, because they know it is meaningless. As Congressman Joe Pitts put it, “I find absolutely no comfort in this executive order. This puts the fate of the unborn in the hands of the most pro-abortion president in history.”
I am truly saddened by the decision of Bart Stupak and a few other pro-life Democrats to compromise and vote for this bill. Congressman Stupak had shown so much principled leadership on this issue for so long, and then threw it all away on a non-binding executive order in the bottom of the ninth inning. He had nothing to lose and everything to gain by continuing to insist on pro-life language in the actual bill. I know he was under tremendous pressure from his party's leadership. His wife disconnected their home phone because they were getting threatening phone calls. He was facing the prospect of no help from the Democratic party whatsoever in his re-election bid in a swing district -- and possibly being threatened with much worse. In the end, I think he really wanted to vote "yes" (as a big supporter of government health care) and he found a way to justify his vote. The pro-life group Susan B. Anthony List had chosen Stupak to receive their "Defender of Life" award at their annual gala in Washington on Wednesday. They have now rescinded that award, and rightly so.
Back in the U.S.S.A.
The U.S. House of Representatives officially put our country on the fast track to nationalized health care last night, passing the Senate health care bill by a vote of 219-212.
House Minority Leader John Boehner, who has fought this legislation tooth-and-nail, gave an impassioned speech on the House floor right before the vote. Here are some excerpts:
Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I rise tonight with a sad and heavy heart. Today, we should be standing together, reflecting on a year of bipartisanship, and working to answer our country’s call and their challenge to address the rising costs of health insurance in our country. Today, this body, this institution, enshrined in the first article of the Constitution by our Founding Fathers as a sign of the importance they placed on this House, should be looking with pride on this legislation and our work. But it is not so. No, today we’re standing here looking at a health care bill that no one in this body believes is satisfactory. Today we stand here amidst the wreckage of what was once the respect and honor that this House was held in by our fellow citizens. And we all know why it is so. We have failed to listen to America. And we have failed to reflect the will of our constituents. And when we fail to reflect that will – we fail ourselves and we fail our country. Look at this bill. Ask yourself: do you really believe that if you like the health plan that you have, that you can keep it? No, you can’t. In this economy, with this unemployment, with our desperate need for jobs and economic growth, is this really the time to raise taxes, to create bureaucracies, and burden every job creator in our land? The answer is no. Can you go home and tell your senior citizens that these cuts in Medicare will not limit their access to doctors or further weaken the program instead of strengthening it? No, you cannot. Can you go home and tell your constituents with confidence that this bill respects the sanctity of all human life, and that it won’t allow for taxpayer funding of abortion for the first time in 30 years? No, you cannot. And look at how this bill was written.
Can you say it was done openly, with transparency and accountability? Without backroom deals, and struck behind closed doors, hidden from the people? Hell no, you can’t! Have you read the bill? Have you read the reconciliation bill? Have you read the manager’s amendment? Hell no, you haven’t!
House Minority Leader John Boehner, who has fought this legislation tooth-and-nail, gave an impassioned speech on the House floor right before the vote. Here are some excerpts:
Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I rise tonight with a sad and heavy heart. Today, we should be standing together, reflecting on a year of bipartisanship, and working to answer our country’s call and their challenge to address the rising costs of health insurance in our country. Today, this body, this institution, enshrined in the first article of the Constitution by our Founding Fathers as a sign of the importance they placed on this House, should be looking with pride on this legislation and our work. But it is not so. No, today we’re standing here looking at a health care bill that no one in this body believes is satisfactory. Today we stand here amidst the wreckage of what was once the respect and honor that this House was held in by our fellow citizens. And we all know why it is so. We have failed to listen to America. And we have failed to reflect the will of our constituents. And when we fail to reflect that will – we fail ourselves and we fail our country. Look at this bill. Ask yourself: do you really believe that if you like the health plan that you have, that you can keep it? No, you can’t. In this economy, with this unemployment, with our desperate need for jobs and economic growth, is this really the time to raise taxes, to create bureaucracies, and burden every job creator in our land? The answer is no. Can you go home and tell your senior citizens that these cuts in Medicare will not limit their access to doctors or further weaken the program instead of strengthening it? No, you cannot. Can you go home and tell your constituents with confidence that this bill respects the sanctity of all human life, and that it won’t allow for taxpayer funding of abortion for the first time in 30 years? No, you cannot. And look at how this bill was written.
Can you say it was done openly, with transparency and accountability? Without backroom deals, and struck behind closed doors, hidden from the people? Hell no, you can’t! Have you read the bill? Have you read the reconciliation bill? Have you read the manager’s amendment? Hell no, you haven’t!
Friday, March 19, 2010
On the Precipice
So we are now on the "precipice" of health care reform, to quote the Anointed One. Yesterday, the House of Representatives voted to enact a "deem-and-pass" rule with regard to the Senate health care legislation. This means that the Democrats on Sunday plan to pass the Senate bill without voting on it. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this is how things work in Obama & Pelosi's wonderful new world of transparency and accountability. You don't actually have to bother voting on legislation anymore. You just "deem" it passed, and voila! It's passed.
Democrats point out that the "deem-and-pass" rule has been used in the past by Republicans. It's true -- but always to make minor, non-controversial legislative changes. It has never been used as a way to bypass a floor vote on a major, stand-alone, controversial piece of legislation. But regardless of who has used it in the past, it is clearly unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly specifies that a bill cannot become law until it is passed by an up-or-down vote by both houses of Congress. (Why would they let the Constitution stand in the way of their agenda? Remember, if the gate is closed they can pole-vault in!) Furthermore, this shows the Democrats' utter contempt for the public's intelligence. Do they really think that voters will be fooled if they vote for a rule to deem the Senate bill passed without actually voting to pass the Senate bill? Do they really think we're that stupid?
I have already specified in previous posts why both the content of the legislation and the process the Democrats are using to ram it through are corrupt and harmful to our country. The bill is full of budget gimmicks that enable it to score as "deficit reducing" according to the CBO. It's "deficit reducing" because it steals $500 billion from Medicare, reduces Medicare physician reimbursements by 22%, and offsets 10 years of revenues by 6 years of costs. Anyone who thinks creating a new (nearly) trillion dollar entitlement program is going to reduce the deficit is clearly not running mentally on all cylinders.
One of the saddest things for me is to see how unprincipled and spineless most of the Democrats in Congress are. Many congressmen who have had strong pro-life voting records for decades are giving in and voting for this (James Oberstar, Dale Kildee). Many, many congressmen have expressed their strong dislike for many elements in the Senate bill; yet almost all of them are voting for it anyway. Congressman Dennis Kucinich announced he was voting against the bill on principle; President Obama took him for a little ride on Air Force One and now his principles have mysteriously changed. Congressman Jim Matheson used to be against the health care bill. President Obama just happened to nominate Matheson's brother for a judicial appointment, and suddenly Matheson is a "yes" on the "deem-and-pass" rule ("undecided" on the final bill). Rumors are surfacing of a special sweetheart deal for Congressman Earl Pomeroy. If this were a good bill, they wouldn't have to be buying off their own members like this. Several congressmen, such as Stephen Lynch and Jason Altmire, spoke harshly about the "deem-and-pass" rule as a bad idea. Yet both of them voted "yes" on the vote to allow the "deem-and-pass" rule to be enacted. It's a bad idea, but we're voting for it anyway, because we do whatever Pelosi tells us to. Not one of these "undecided" Democrats can be relied on. They rightly point out all the flaws in the bill, but they don't have the balls to stand up to their party's leadership. I am now convinced that the final bill will pass on Sunday, because Pelosi's lapdogs will come when she calls. It's a very sad week for our country.
One of the few bright spots in Congress is Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, one of the most principled politicians in this country. He issued this ultimatum to wavering House Democrats:
I want to send a couple of messages to my colleagues in the House. If you voted no and you vote yes, and you lose your election, and you think any nomination to a federal position isn't going to be held in the Senate, I've got news for you. It's going to be held. Number two is, if you get a deal, a parochial deal for you or your district, I've already instructed my staff and the staff of seven other senators that we will look at every appropriations bill, at every level, at every instance, and we will outline it by district, and we will associate that with the buying of your vote. So, if you think you can cut a deal now, and it not come out until after the election, I want to tell you that isn't going to happen. And be prepared to defend selling your vote in the House.
I don't have much hope this will change the outcome of the vote. But it's good to know that Senator Coburn is trying to expose the incredible corruption going on beneath the surface of the health care "debate."
Democrats point out that the "deem-and-pass" rule has been used in the past by Republicans. It's true -- but always to make minor, non-controversial legislative changes. It has never been used as a way to bypass a floor vote on a major, stand-alone, controversial piece of legislation. But regardless of who has used it in the past, it is clearly unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly specifies that a bill cannot become law until it is passed by an up-or-down vote by both houses of Congress. (Why would they let the Constitution stand in the way of their agenda? Remember, if the gate is closed they can pole-vault in!) Furthermore, this shows the Democrats' utter contempt for the public's intelligence. Do they really think that voters will be fooled if they vote for a rule to deem the Senate bill passed without actually voting to pass the Senate bill? Do they really think we're that stupid?
I have already specified in previous posts why both the content of the legislation and the process the Democrats are using to ram it through are corrupt and harmful to our country. The bill is full of budget gimmicks that enable it to score as "deficit reducing" according to the CBO. It's "deficit reducing" because it steals $500 billion from Medicare, reduces Medicare physician reimbursements by 22%, and offsets 10 years of revenues by 6 years of costs. Anyone who thinks creating a new (nearly) trillion dollar entitlement program is going to reduce the deficit is clearly not running mentally on all cylinders.
One of the saddest things for me is to see how unprincipled and spineless most of the Democrats in Congress are. Many congressmen who have had strong pro-life voting records for decades are giving in and voting for this (James Oberstar, Dale Kildee). Many, many congressmen have expressed their strong dislike for many elements in the Senate bill; yet almost all of them are voting for it anyway. Congressman Dennis Kucinich announced he was voting against the bill on principle; President Obama took him for a little ride on Air Force One and now his principles have mysteriously changed. Congressman Jim Matheson used to be against the health care bill. President Obama just happened to nominate Matheson's brother for a judicial appointment, and suddenly Matheson is a "yes" on the "deem-and-pass" rule ("undecided" on the final bill). Rumors are surfacing of a special sweetheart deal for Congressman Earl Pomeroy. If this were a good bill, they wouldn't have to be buying off their own members like this. Several congressmen, such as Stephen Lynch and Jason Altmire, spoke harshly about the "deem-and-pass" rule as a bad idea. Yet both of them voted "yes" on the vote to allow the "deem-and-pass" rule to be enacted. It's a bad idea, but we're voting for it anyway, because we do whatever Pelosi tells us to. Not one of these "undecided" Democrats can be relied on. They rightly point out all the flaws in the bill, but they don't have the balls to stand up to their party's leadership. I am now convinced that the final bill will pass on Sunday, because Pelosi's lapdogs will come when she calls. It's a very sad week for our country.
One of the few bright spots in Congress is Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, one of the most principled politicians in this country. He issued this ultimatum to wavering House Democrats:
I want to send a couple of messages to my colleagues in the House. If you voted no and you vote yes, and you lose your election, and you think any nomination to a federal position isn't going to be held in the Senate, I've got news for you. It's going to be held. Number two is, if you get a deal, a parochial deal for you or your district, I've already instructed my staff and the staff of seven other senators that we will look at every appropriations bill, at every level, at every instance, and we will outline it by district, and we will associate that with the buying of your vote. So, if you think you can cut a deal now, and it not come out until after the election, I want to tell you that isn't going to happen. And be prepared to defend selling your vote in the House.
I don't have much hope this will change the outcome of the vote. But it's good to know that Senator Coburn is trying to expose the incredible corruption going on beneath the surface of the health care "debate."
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Medical care is not a right
In a 2008 presidential debate, Barack Obama declared that medical care is a right which every American deserves.
Well, I think it should be a right for every American. In a country as wealthy as ours, for us to have people who are going bankrupt because they can't pay their medical bills -- for my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they're saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don't have to pay her treatment, there's something fundamentally wrong about that.
In this article, Walter Williams exposes this notion for the nonsense that it is. Rights are traditionally understood to be things which one person is entitled to do which do not impose any obligation on another person, other than non-interference. In other words, my right to free speech does not diminish your rights. My right to assemble with other like-minded people does not diminish your right to do so or impose any other obligations on you.
Now, consider the "right" to medical care. In order to extend this "right" to people who cannot afford it, the federal government must pay the doctors and hospitals for their services. Contrary to popular belief, the government has no money of its own. Therefore, the government must coerce citizens -- through threats of imprisonment -- into paying for the medical care of everyone else through taxes.
Like Obama and other proponents of this bill, I wish that everyone could afford medical care. I wish that everyone could have a Corvette. I wish that everyone's every desire could be fulfilled. However, a wish is not the same as a right. We must deal with reality. People like Obama who insist that health care is a right which everyone deserves sound like insolent little brats who just want a PONY and want it NOW!!!
Now, I will address some other nonsense which politicians (including President Obama) casually toss around with impunity. Many people (including Obama in the above quote) seem to think that there is something wrong with insurance companies denying coverage for or refusing to pay for preexisting conditions. Maybe in Obama's wonderful world of free lunches and unicorns that poop Skittles, insurance companies could pay for this. However, we live in reality.
Insurance companies exist to make a profit. They are paid insurance premiums by their customers, and in exchange, they assume the risk that the customer will need medical care. Sick people are obviously a greater risk to the insurance company than healthy people, and if they are allowed to purchase a policy, they will probably pay higher insurance rates. This is no different from people with a poor driving record paying higher rates for auto insurance. Buying a health insurance policy after you are sick or injured would be like buying an auto insurance policy after you get into an accident. Insurance companies are not charities.
Interview With Bart Stupak
A few months ago, I wrote a post about Bart Stupak, the pro-life Democrat in Congress who has been leading the fight against taxpayer funding of abortion in the health care bill for months. National Review Online recently did an interview with Congressman Stupak which is well worth reading. Check out Stupak's thoughts on the health care bill, the value of human life, and the current state of the Democratic Party here.
Let me say again how much I respect this Congressman Stupak. Unlike most pro-life members of Congress, he is not particularly conservative, supports Democratic health care reform, and does not come from a heavily Republican district. Yet this congressman has been a stalwart on the issue of protecting human life from the beginning of the health care debate. Stupak was almost single-handedly responsible for forcing a House floor vote on taxpayer funding of abortion in November which the Democratic leadership did not want, thus ensuring that the House version of the health care bill would not fund abortions. When the Senate passed a health care bill that included taxpayer funding of abortion, Stupak made his voice heard loud and clear during compromise negotiations between the House and the Senate that he and his bloc of pro-life Democrats would not support the Senate version. Now Pelosi is putting huge pressure on House members to vote for the Senate bill verbatim, and Stupak still refuses to cave -- and continues to speak out.
It is not easy being pro-life and a Democrat. Many, many Democratic politicians started out their careers being pro-life, but quickly compromised or abandoned their principles once they realized that standing for the protection of human life would interfere with their popularity in the party or their ambitions for higher office. A list of Democratic politicians who were once pro-life includes Al Gore, Jesse Jackson, Harry Reid, Dennis Kucinich, Jimmy Carter, Richard Durbin, Sam Nunn, and many many others. During the health care debate, many "pro-life" Democrats were exposed for what they really are -- big-league phonies. Bob Casey, Jr., senator from PA who claimed the mantle of his pro-life father when he was elected in 2006, not only caved to the pro-abortion faction in the Senate but wrote a "compromise" amendment which specifically allows taxpayer-funding of abortion. Ben Nelson, "pro-life" senator from NE, announced he had drawn a line in the sand and would not vote for taxpayer funding of abortion, and then reversed his position 24 hours later after securing a sweetheart deal for his home state in the bill. Even now, Stupak says that several of the dozen Democratic House members who had pledged they were standing with him against abortion funding are caving under intense pressure from the Democratic leadership. My guess is that in the end, Stupak's coalition of pro-life Democrats will disappear and he will be left standing nearly alone.
Don't think Stupak hasn't paid a price for his principles either. We know how intense the pressure has been on congressional Democrats to support the bill, and who knows how many threats and promises he has had to shake off. He is facing a Democratic primary challenger this year because of his abortion position. His reported ambitions to run for governor are certainly dead. He is being threatened with ethics investigations and is pounded nightly by left-wing pundits who claim he is a traitor. He has been in Congress for nearly 20 years, but do you think he's going to be getting any plum chairmanships or committee assignments from the Democratic leadership? Yet he tells National Review in no uncertain terms, "I am a definite 'no' vote." That takes courage -- and also a deep-seated commitment to justice.
We hear a lot about politicians "being a voice for the voiceless" and "standing up to defend the powerless against powerful special interests." John Edwards, sleazeball and top Democratic politician, mastered this rhetorical device to perfection. But there is only one group in this country that is truly without voice. There is only one group in this country that is literally incapable of providing any precious political support to politicians in exchange for votes. There is only one group in this country that is genuinely powerless, utterly defenseless against a multi-million dollar industry with a vested interest in its destruction. That group is unborn children. Bart Stupak will never enjoy the press adulation and the electoral success of lesser Democratic politicians. He has chosen a higher reward.
Let me say again how much I respect this Congressman Stupak. Unlike most pro-life members of Congress, he is not particularly conservative, supports Democratic health care reform, and does not come from a heavily Republican district. Yet this congressman has been a stalwart on the issue of protecting human life from the beginning of the health care debate. Stupak was almost single-handedly responsible for forcing a House floor vote on taxpayer funding of abortion in November which the Democratic leadership did not want, thus ensuring that the House version of the health care bill would not fund abortions. When the Senate passed a health care bill that included taxpayer funding of abortion, Stupak made his voice heard loud and clear during compromise negotiations between the House and the Senate that he and his bloc of pro-life Democrats would not support the Senate version. Now Pelosi is putting huge pressure on House members to vote for the Senate bill verbatim, and Stupak still refuses to cave -- and continues to speak out.
It is not easy being pro-life and a Democrat. Many, many Democratic politicians started out their careers being pro-life, but quickly compromised or abandoned their principles once they realized that standing for the protection of human life would interfere with their popularity in the party or their ambitions for higher office. A list of Democratic politicians who were once pro-life includes Al Gore, Jesse Jackson, Harry Reid, Dennis Kucinich, Jimmy Carter, Richard Durbin, Sam Nunn, and many many others. During the health care debate, many "pro-life" Democrats were exposed for what they really are -- big-league phonies. Bob Casey, Jr., senator from PA who claimed the mantle of his pro-life father when he was elected in 2006, not only caved to the pro-abortion faction in the Senate but wrote a "compromise" amendment which specifically allows taxpayer-funding of abortion. Ben Nelson, "pro-life" senator from NE, announced he had drawn a line in the sand and would not vote for taxpayer funding of abortion, and then reversed his position 24 hours later after securing a sweetheart deal for his home state in the bill. Even now, Stupak says that several of the dozen Democratic House members who had pledged they were standing with him against abortion funding are caving under intense pressure from the Democratic leadership. My guess is that in the end, Stupak's coalition of pro-life Democrats will disappear and he will be left standing nearly alone.
Don't think Stupak hasn't paid a price for his principles either. We know how intense the pressure has been on congressional Democrats to support the bill, and who knows how many threats and promises he has had to shake off. He is facing a Democratic primary challenger this year because of his abortion position. His reported ambitions to run for governor are certainly dead. He is being threatened with ethics investigations and is pounded nightly by left-wing pundits who claim he is a traitor. He has been in Congress for nearly 20 years, but do you think he's going to be getting any plum chairmanships or committee assignments from the Democratic leadership? Yet he tells National Review in no uncertain terms, "I am a definite 'no' vote." That takes courage -- and also a deep-seated commitment to justice.
We hear a lot about politicians "being a voice for the voiceless" and "standing up to defend the powerless against powerful special interests." John Edwards, sleazeball and top Democratic politician, mastered this rhetorical device to perfection. But there is only one group in this country that is truly without voice. There is only one group in this country that is literally incapable of providing any precious political support to politicians in exchange for votes. There is only one group in this country that is genuinely powerless, utterly defenseless against a multi-million dollar industry with a vested interest in its destruction. That group is unborn children. Bart Stupak will never enjoy the press adulation and the electoral success of lesser Democratic politicians. He has chosen a higher reward.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Latest Health Care Gem From Nancy Pelosi
From a speech yesterday at the Legislative Conference for National Association of Counties: "But we have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."
Monday, March 8, 2010
Are We On the Path to Permanent European-Style Socialism?
Mark Steyn answers a resounding "Yes" to that question in a chilling article about the likely consequences to our system of government if ObamaCare passes. If the Democrats succeed in ramming this health care bill through, they have won a huge and probably permanent victory for their big government ideology, regardless of the outcome of the 2010 elections. The upcoming House vote on ObamaCare is one of the most important votes in our lifetime. Please call your congressman and register your strong opposition to this government takeover of 1/6 of our economy!
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Pole-Vaulting to Oblivion
Health care reform is back in the news! Obama has unveiled his new health care reform plan -- which is just a recycled version of the old Senate bill, tweaked a little bit to satisfy liberal House Democrats. The White House and the Democratic leadership in Congress have made it clear they are willing to move forward without Republican support and are trying to push it through using a budget tool called reconciliation which enables the bill to pass the Senate without requiring 60 votes. Obama is also holding a sham health care summit with Republicans to try to hoodwink the dumbest voters into thinking he is "bipartisan."
I don't know whether this legislative effort will succeed or not. I'm sure the Democrats can get 51 votes in the Senate for the bill, but I'm not sure they can get the required 218 votes in the House. The House health care bill passed back in November with 220 votes, two votes to spare. Since then, one of those 220 congressmen has died, one has resigned, and one has changed his vote. In addition, Bart Stupak and at least a couple other pro-life Democrats who previously voted for the House bill will not vote for the bill that Obama has presented because it provides taxpayer funding for abortion. This means the Democrats must persuade at least four of the forty or so Democrats that previously voted against the bill to vote for it, without losing any other votes of Democrats who previously voted for it. This is no easy task, since the health care reform bill is even more politically toxic today than it was back in November.
So maybe the Democrats will succeed, maybe they won't. I pray for the sake of our country's future that they don't. But whether they succeed or not, this move is political suicide for them. Obama and the Democrats in Congress have not deviated even the slightest bit from their intention to pass a trillion dollar comprehensive, government-run health care reform bill from the day they first unveiled this legislation back in June 2009. Since then, we have had spontaneous Tea Party demonstrations and a march on Washington with close to half a million people showing up. We have had hundreds of town hall meetings around the country, with large numbers of people showing up in Democrat and Republican states and districts to voice their anger over the health care bill. We have had poll after poll after poll showing sizable and consistent majorities of Americans oppose the Democrats' approach to health care reform. We had devastating Democratic losses in three states that previously voted for Obama -- Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. The Massachusetts result was most compelling, as one of the most Democratic electorates in the country voted for a Republican who explicitly promised to be the 41st vote against the health care bill. And the Democrats act as though nothing has happened. Nothing. From their behavior, it might as well be June 2009. Despite the intense opposition and anger of the American people, the defeats at the ballot box, the necessity of bypassing normal Senate rules, and the peril many of their incumbents face in this year's election, Obama, Reid, and Pelosi will get their precious comprehensive health care reform passed. In the immortal words of Nancy Pelosi, "You go through the gate. If the gate’s closed, you go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we’ll pole-vault in. If that doesn’t work, we’ll parachute in. But we’re going to get health care reform passed for the American people.” She forgot to add the words "whether they want it or not."
As I said before, this is political suicide for the Democrats. You cannot pass a bill which nearly half of all Americans "strongly" oppose and only 20% of all Americans "strongly" support and not expect to pay a price for it, especially when the bill in question is this large, important, and high-profile. By my count, at least 50 to 60 Democratic House seats are vulnerable in the 2010 election, and that list could grow as more GOP challengers jump into the fray. The Republicans only have 5 or 6 vulnerable seats to defend. Most of the vulnerable Democratic House seats are in districts that John McCain won in 2008 (a time in which Obama was far more popular with the public than he is now) and almost all of them are in districts that George W. Bush won in 2004. Many of these Democrats are going to have to defend their vote in favor of health care reform or cap-and-trade or both, and both of those pieces of legislation are intensely unpopular back home. Unemployment is in double digits in most of their districts, with little hope of improvement in the near future. Political prognosticator Charlie Cook said recently that if current trends continue, it's hard for him to see how the Democrats will keep control of the House. And remember, most gubernatorial and state legislature seats are up for grabs this election cycle as well. If the GOP wipes out at the ballot box in these races, they will control House redistricting that could put them in a strong position for the next decade. But Obama and Pelosi and Reid are purposely sticking their finger in the public's eye in an election year, just to pass their agenda. I'm just left shaking my head. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind seeing the Democrats self-destruct like this. But I just can't believe they are being this stupid and defiant toward the will of the American people. I can't believe I ever thought Obama was a smart politician.
I don't know whether this legislative effort will succeed or not. I'm sure the Democrats can get 51 votes in the Senate for the bill, but I'm not sure they can get the required 218 votes in the House. The House health care bill passed back in November with 220 votes, two votes to spare. Since then, one of those 220 congressmen has died, one has resigned, and one has changed his vote. In addition, Bart Stupak and at least a couple other pro-life Democrats who previously voted for the House bill will not vote for the bill that Obama has presented because it provides taxpayer funding for abortion. This means the Democrats must persuade at least four of the forty or so Democrats that previously voted against the bill to vote for it, without losing any other votes of Democrats who previously voted for it. This is no easy task, since the health care reform bill is even more politically toxic today than it was back in November.
So maybe the Democrats will succeed, maybe they won't. I pray for the sake of our country's future that they don't. But whether they succeed or not, this move is political suicide for them. Obama and the Democrats in Congress have not deviated even the slightest bit from their intention to pass a trillion dollar comprehensive, government-run health care reform bill from the day they first unveiled this legislation back in June 2009. Since then, we have had spontaneous Tea Party demonstrations and a march on Washington with close to half a million people showing up. We have had hundreds of town hall meetings around the country, with large numbers of people showing up in Democrat and Republican states and districts to voice their anger over the health care bill. We have had poll after poll after poll showing sizable and consistent majorities of Americans oppose the Democrats' approach to health care reform. We had devastating Democratic losses in three states that previously voted for Obama -- Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. The Massachusetts result was most compelling, as one of the most Democratic electorates in the country voted for a Republican who explicitly promised to be the 41st vote against the health care bill. And the Democrats act as though nothing has happened. Nothing. From their behavior, it might as well be June 2009. Despite the intense opposition and anger of the American people, the defeats at the ballot box, the necessity of bypassing normal Senate rules, and the peril many of their incumbents face in this year's election, Obama, Reid, and Pelosi will get their precious comprehensive health care reform passed. In the immortal words of Nancy Pelosi, "You go through the gate. If the gate’s closed, you go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we’ll pole-vault in. If that doesn’t work, we’ll parachute in. But we’re going to get health care reform passed for the American people.” She forgot to add the words "whether they want it or not."
As I said before, this is political suicide for the Democrats. You cannot pass a bill which nearly half of all Americans "strongly" oppose and only 20% of all Americans "strongly" support and not expect to pay a price for it, especially when the bill in question is this large, important, and high-profile. By my count, at least 50 to 60 Democratic House seats are vulnerable in the 2010 election, and that list could grow as more GOP challengers jump into the fray. The Republicans only have 5 or 6 vulnerable seats to defend. Most of the vulnerable Democratic House seats are in districts that John McCain won in 2008 (a time in which Obama was far more popular with the public than he is now) and almost all of them are in districts that George W. Bush won in 2004. Many of these Democrats are going to have to defend their vote in favor of health care reform or cap-and-trade or both, and both of those pieces of legislation are intensely unpopular back home. Unemployment is in double digits in most of their districts, with little hope of improvement in the near future. Political prognosticator Charlie Cook said recently that if current trends continue, it's hard for him to see how the Democrats will keep control of the House. And remember, most gubernatorial and state legislature seats are up for grabs this election cycle as well. If the GOP wipes out at the ballot box in these races, they will control House redistricting that could put them in a strong position for the next decade. But Obama and Pelosi and Reid are purposely sticking their finger in the public's eye in an election year, just to pass their agenda. I'm just left shaking my head. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind seeing the Democrats self-destruct like this. But I just can't believe they are being this stupid and defiant toward the will of the American people. I can't believe I ever thought Obama was a smart politician.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Liar
Obama is a liar. It's as simple as that. He promised eight times -- EIGHT times -- during and after his campaign that he would let C-Span cameras into the room to televise all health care negotiations. You can watch him lie through his teeth to the American people over and over again here. Now he and his left-wing cronies in Congress are going back on their word and refusing to allow C-Span or any other television networks in to televise the Democratic health care negotiations. Think they might have something to hide? So much for Nancy Pelosi's pledge to preside over the most "transparent" Congress in history.
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
ObamaCare, Part II
Since my last post, the "logjam" in the Senate has been broken and ObamaCare appears well on its way to passage in the Senate. Ben Nelson, the last Democratic holdout against the bill, caved under intense pressure from his Democratic colleagues and agreed to vote for cloture. At 1:19 in the morning, the U.S. Senate voted 60-40 to end debate on Harry Reid's manager's amendment, which essentially re-writes the health care bill (the amendment is almost 500 pages I believe). Not a single Republican voted for this amendment, not even liberal Republicans like Olympia Snowe & Susan Collins of Maine. The final bill will probably be rammed through on Christmas Eve, with little or no debate and no Republican votes. This is health care reform, Democrat-style: votes in the middle of the night, secret amendments, back-door deals, stifled debate, and hyper-partisanship.
Let's talk about Ben Nelson for a moment. Senator Nelson represents one of the most conservative states in the country, Nebraska, a state in which large majorities of voters are pro-life and oppose ObamaCare. Senator Nelson has been elected twice by Nebraska voters by claiming to be pro-life and fiscally conservative. If there were ever a significant test of Nelson's principles, it would be this bill. The Senate bill will use taxpayer money to fund abortions, and it creates a huge new government entitlement that significantly increases taxes and is certain to dramatically expand the deficit as well. Nelson knew both of these things about the bill. He knew that the bill would use taxpayer funds to pay for abortions, and spoke out against it. He also knew the bill was too costly and fiscally irresponsible, and he spoke out against that as well. But in the end, he caved on his principles and disregarded the will of his constituents. And what did he get out of the deal? In exchange for his vote, Harry Reid added language to the bill that binds the federal government to pay the state of Nebraska's share of Medicaid premiums for Nebraska residents in perpetuity, which is worth about $100 million. Awww...isn't that nice? Nelson sells out his principles for $100 million, the public gets Nelson's key 60th vote on a health care bill they don't want, and all federal taxpayers are on the hook to pay the price of Harry Reid's little backroom deal!
Let's be clear: the bill that is about to pass in the U.S. Senate will use taxpayer money to fund abortion. The so-called "abortion compromise" in the bill that managed to secure the support of so-called pro-life Democrats like Bob Casey and Ben Nelson is not a compromise at all. The bill clearly states that federal tax dollars will be used to subsidize private plans that cover abortion on demand. A bookkeeping gimmick in the bill states that abortion charges will be separated from regular premiums, but this is meaningless because the abortion charge is not optional. So any distinction between abortion premiums and regular health coverage premiums is purely a paper distinction and not a real one. (And even this paper distinction only exists as long as the Hyde Amendment exists -- and there is a real danger that the Hyde Amendment will not be renewed by this president and this Congress in the near future.) Further, this bill provides that the federal government will administer a program of multi-state plans that also cover abortion on demand. This is a sharp break from current law, which prohibits any private plans from covering elective abortion if they are part of the Federal Employees Health Benefits program administered by the federal government. Finally, the Senate bill provides authority for the Department of Health and Human Services to require all private health plans to cover all abortions as a "preventive" service. All of these provisions explain why, unlike the House bill, the Senate bill does not prevent taxpayer funds from being used to provide and promote abortion. A conscience protection provision for health providers, which is in the House bill, is also not in the Senate bill. In light of these facts, I don't see how any member of Congress could vote for the Senate bill and legitimately claim to be pro-life. Congressman Stupak, the Democrat who fought courageously to ensure that the House bill did not use taxpayer funds to cover abortion, is angry about this "compromise" and has expressed his strong opposition to the Senate language.
I watched The O'Reilly Factor last night, and I was amazed at some of the claims made about ObamaCare by Mary Ann Marsh, a Democratic strategist. The most amazing thing to me was the fact that this seemingly intelligent woman could appear on TV and say with a straight face that ObamaCare would reduce the deficit. That is laughable. How stupid do you have to be to think that you can create a huge new federal entitlement that is already projected to cost over $1 trillion (and is certain to cost far, far more than that in the long run) and think that it will not significantly increase the deficit? The bill pretends to reduce the deficit because it projects almost $500 billion of cuts to Medicare that will not happen and about $275 billion in reductions in reimbursements to doctors that will not happen. Further, Congress has deceptively made the bill appear much less costly than it really is by arranging to have taxes, and fees, and costs begin to be collected in 2010 while most benefits do not take effect until 2014. Thus, the 10-year $1.1 trillion dollar price tag factors in 10 years of taxes, fees, and costs but only 6 years of benefits. The real, hidden 10-year cost is closer to $2 trillion. You don't reduce the deficit by creating huge new government programs.
Mary Ann Marsh also claims that this bill will reduce taxes for individuals and businesses and promote growth for small businesses. Again, this is a foolish claim. The bill includes more than $500 billion in taxes, and the burden of paying them will fall on both individuals and businesses. Businesses are going down to be weighed down by all the additional taxes, fees, regulations, and burdensome requirements in the bill. This bill is a job-killer and will stifle, not promote, economic growth. There's a reason why the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has expressed such strong opposition to this bill.
The House and Senate bills will now go to conference to iron out the differences, and so there will still need to be another vote in both houses of Congress on the final conference version of the bill. If the Senate abortion language is adopted by the conference committee (which I think is likely), are there any Democrats in the House other than Bart Stupak who will stand their ground and vote "no" on a bill that funds abortion with taxpayer money? Or will they all cave like Ben Nelson? We will soon find out.
Let's talk about Ben Nelson for a moment. Senator Nelson represents one of the most conservative states in the country, Nebraska, a state in which large majorities of voters are pro-life and oppose ObamaCare. Senator Nelson has been elected twice by Nebraska voters by claiming to be pro-life and fiscally conservative. If there were ever a significant test of Nelson's principles, it would be this bill. The Senate bill will use taxpayer money to fund abortions, and it creates a huge new government entitlement that significantly increases taxes and is certain to dramatically expand the deficit as well. Nelson knew both of these things about the bill. He knew that the bill would use taxpayer funds to pay for abortions, and spoke out against it. He also knew the bill was too costly and fiscally irresponsible, and he spoke out against that as well. But in the end, he caved on his principles and disregarded the will of his constituents. And what did he get out of the deal? In exchange for his vote, Harry Reid added language to the bill that binds the federal government to pay the state of Nebraska's share of Medicaid premiums for Nebraska residents in perpetuity, which is worth about $100 million. Awww...isn't that nice? Nelson sells out his principles for $100 million, the public gets Nelson's key 60th vote on a health care bill they don't want, and all federal taxpayers are on the hook to pay the price of Harry Reid's little backroom deal!
Let's be clear: the bill that is about to pass in the U.S. Senate will use taxpayer money to fund abortion. The so-called "abortion compromise" in the bill that managed to secure the support of so-called pro-life Democrats like Bob Casey and Ben Nelson is not a compromise at all. The bill clearly states that federal tax dollars will be used to subsidize private plans that cover abortion on demand. A bookkeeping gimmick in the bill states that abortion charges will be separated from regular premiums, but this is meaningless because the abortion charge is not optional. So any distinction between abortion premiums and regular health coverage premiums is purely a paper distinction and not a real one. (And even this paper distinction only exists as long as the Hyde Amendment exists -- and there is a real danger that the Hyde Amendment will not be renewed by this president and this Congress in the near future.) Further, this bill provides that the federal government will administer a program of multi-state plans that also cover abortion on demand. This is a sharp break from current law, which prohibits any private plans from covering elective abortion if they are part of the Federal Employees Health Benefits program administered by the federal government. Finally, the Senate bill provides authority for the Department of Health and Human Services to require all private health plans to cover all abortions as a "preventive" service. All of these provisions explain why, unlike the House bill, the Senate bill does not prevent taxpayer funds from being used to provide and promote abortion. A conscience protection provision for health providers, which is in the House bill, is also not in the Senate bill. In light of these facts, I don't see how any member of Congress could vote for the Senate bill and legitimately claim to be pro-life. Congressman Stupak, the Democrat who fought courageously to ensure that the House bill did not use taxpayer funds to cover abortion, is angry about this "compromise" and has expressed his strong opposition to the Senate language.
I watched The O'Reilly Factor last night, and I was amazed at some of the claims made about ObamaCare by Mary Ann Marsh, a Democratic strategist. The most amazing thing to me was the fact that this seemingly intelligent woman could appear on TV and say with a straight face that ObamaCare would reduce the deficit. That is laughable. How stupid do you have to be to think that you can create a huge new federal entitlement that is already projected to cost over $1 trillion (and is certain to cost far, far more than that in the long run) and think that it will not significantly increase the deficit? The bill pretends to reduce the deficit because it projects almost $500 billion of cuts to Medicare that will not happen and about $275 billion in reductions in reimbursements to doctors that will not happen. Further, Congress has deceptively made the bill appear much less costly than it really is by arranging to have taxes, and fees, and costs begin to be collected in 2010 while most benefits do not take effect until 2014. Thus, the 10-year $1.1 trillion dollar price tag factors in 10 years of taxes, fees, and costs but only 6 years of benefits. The real, hidden 10-year cost is closer to $2 trillion. You don't reduce the deficit by creating huge new government programs.
Mary Ann Marsh also claims that this bill will reduce taxes for individuals and businesses and promote growth for small businesses. Again, this is a foolish claim. The bill includes more than $500 billion in taxes, and the burden of paying them will fall on both individuals and businesses. Businesses are going down to be weighed down by all the additional taxes, fees, regulations, and burdensome requirements in the bill. This bill is a job-killer and will stifle, not promote, economic growth. There's a reason why the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has expressed such strong opposition to this bill.
The House and Senate bills will now go to conference to iron out the differences, and so there will still need to be another vote in both houses of Congress on the final conference version of the bill. If the Senate abortion language is adopted by the conference committee (which I think is likely), are there any Democrats in the House other than Bart Stupak who will stand their ground and vote "no" on a bill that funds abortion with taxpayer money? Or will they all cave like Ben Nelson? We will soon find out.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Change Nobody Believes In
Check out this great article in the Wall Street Journal. This article does an excellent job of explaining both the the terrible content of the Senate health care bill and also the disgraceful tactics of the Democratic majority in ramming it through.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598130440164954.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598130440164954.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion
Friday, December 18, 2009
The Short But Happy History of ObamaCare
I'm sorry I haven't posted in awhile...life has been busy and I've found that listening to Christmas music is much more soothing than talk radio!
If you look at the polls, you find a steady erosion of President Obama's job approval rating. Back when Obama took office, his popularity was among the highest of any modern-era president and the country's hopes were soaring. Now, recent Gallup & NBC/Wall St. Jrnl polls both have him at 47% approval, the lowest ever recorded for a modern-era president at this point in their presidency (less than one year in office). Polls also show clear majorities of American oppose Obama's signature issues & decisions -- Democratic health care reform, cap-and-trade legislation, bringing terrorist detainees to the U.S., etc. Independents have turned decisively against the President's agenda, which is an ominous sign for the Democrats in next year's mid-term election. Don't even get me started on the Democratic Congress, which has a job approval rating in the 20%'s. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's national job approval rating is 15% (and 38% in his home state of Nevada). Voters are developing a bad case of buyer's remorse as they find out what happens when liberals control the country.
The health care "reform" debacle illustrates clearly how radical, inept, & out-of-touch Democrats are. As I watch the "debate" (back-room maneuvering would be a better word) unfold, I sometimes get the urge to laugh. If the consequences for our country weren't so severe, I would. How can the Democrats manage to botch this legislation so badly when they have such huge majorities in both houses of Congress? How can they be so oblivious to the wishes of their constituents?
Here's everything you need to know about the status of health care reform over the past few months. President Obama announced way back in the summer that reforming health care was urgent (never mind the benefits in these bills don't take effect for four or five years) and that his "drop-dead deadline" for passing the legislation was the end of July, before the congressional August recess. (Because we all know that the most effective way to pass sweeping legislation that overhauls 17% of the U.S. economy is to do it as fast as humanly possible!) Never mind that there WAS no legislation, because the President did not present a plan. Hmmm...well the Democrats didn't quite make their little August 1st deadline, and so they got to go home and hear from their constituents. The townhall meetings were truly democracy in action -- individual Americans getting involved in the political process and letting their representatives and senators know how they felt about an important issue. For this unforgivable sin of exercising their rights as citizens, the Democrats showed their common touch by smearing participants in townhall meetings as "people carrying swastikas" and "brownshirts" (Nancy Pelosi) and "evilmongers" (Harry Reid). Ahh...insulting voters. It works every time. Polls showed that a majority of Americans were increasingly sympathetic with the townhall protestors.
So, having heard the thunderous voice of the American people, Democrats returned to Washington, chastened and ready to modify their bill to address the concerns of their constituents about government control over health care. OK, I made that up. Democrats returned to Washington, more determined than ever to defy their constituents' wishes and push through a massive government-run health care bill by spending nearly a trillion dollars of taxpayer money that isn't there. (That's what deficits are for!) Multiple bills were proposed by multiple House & Senate committees, conveniently enabling the Donkey Party to avoid being pinned down on any specific unpopular provision by saying that some particular version of the bill didn't have that particular provision. Meanwhile, President Obama floated above the fray, appearing around the country at staged venues packed with supporters and giving vague speeches with no specifics but lots of pablum about the "moral imperative" of passing whatever version of the bill the Democrats might eventually decide to settle on.
Finally Nancy Pelosi (a very wise woman) realized that there is only one thing to do when you are contemplating passing a bill against the public's wishes that will establish one of the largest entitlement programs in America's history and will bring 1/3 of its economy under heavy government control. The answer should be obvious. You jam it through with minimal debate and with no bipartisan support whatsoever! And that's exactly what Pelosi did. She unveiled, with much fanfare, a left-wing 2,000-page bill filled with new taxes and mandates and a "robust" public option. She drastically limited debate, allowed only one amendment under protest, and forced a vote at 11:00 pm on a Saturday night. The Democrats have an 83 vote majority in the House of Representatives, and they passed the bill by only 5 votes, with 39 Democrats voting "no" (and only one Republican voting "yes"). Pelosi was visibly joyful as she banged the gavel and announced the vote results. Oh boy, we sneaked one past the American people while they were watching their family night movie!
Then things got really interesting in the Senate. Listening to Harry Reid & Barack Obama discuss whether or not the public option would be included in the bill was somewhat analogous to reading the daily weather report. One day it's in, the next day it's out. One day a Senate committee voted down the public option, and a few days later Harry Reid completely circumvented the committee process and presented a new bill once more containing the public option. Problems started early, as Reid was having a hard time getting even members of his own party to vote to bring this masterpiece to the Senate floor for debate (much less Republicans). However, he solved that problem nicely by offering fence-sitting Senator Mary Landrieu $100 million in financial aid to her state of Louisiana. Landrieu proudly informed her constituents that she really wasn't that cheap and that she had actually secured $300 million in exchange for her vote.
Once the bill arrived on the Senate floor, Senator Harry Reid, the statesman leader of that august deliberative body, set the tone for bipartisanship by comparing Republican opposition to senators who had historically supported slavery and opposed the rights of women and blacks to vote. Debate progressed and amendments were offered, but it was an open secret among Senate insiders that the whole process was all for show. In reality, Democrats were scrambling to get a backroom deal that would secure all 60 Democratic caucus votes so they could invoke cloture and shut down any further debate. Joe Lieberman was a pesky holdout, refusing to support any bill with a public option.
Then, just when you thought it couldn't get any more exciting, Harry Reid made news once again! He breathlessly held a press conference announcing that a deal had been reached on a completely rewritten bill that all Democrats could support, but he couldn't release the details to the Senate or the public. Trust me, it's really good, and no, nobody can read it, why would you ask? What do you think this is, a democracy? He did condescend to mention that the public option was now gone and to be replaced with a drastically expanded Medicare to include people age 55 and up. Within a day or two of Reid's "breakthrough," Lieberman criticized the new bill and announced his opposition to the Medicare buy-in proposal. Oops...we have our whole caucus on board, except for all the members that weren't on board before. If there were any justice in this world, Reid would be gainfully employed with a traveling circus.
Back to the drawing board again. We have to get some bill, any bill, that can barely pass, and who cares what's in it. The content is irrelevant. The main thing is to pass the longest, most expensive bill possible before Christmas. We'll give any Democrat anything they want, just vote for the darn thing! In the meantime, the Left unleashed their big guns on Lieberman. What the heck is this, a Democrat who thinks for himself? Let's attack his wife. Let's demonize him and accuse him of mass murder. And that's exactly what happened to Lieberman.
Finally, Reid backed down and took out both the Medicare buy-in and the public option provisions. Lieberman was back on board -- but now another Democrat, Ben Nelson, was backing out because of the provisions to fund abortion. And here we are, one week before Christmas, with a huge blizzard about to hit Washington, DC, and Reid is still insisting on a vote before Christmas. On a bill that no one in the Senate has even seen yet -- a bill that hasn't even been fully written yet. On a bill that will take eight hours just to read on the Senate floor. On a bill that will cost almost a trillion dollars and dramatically alter 1/3 of our economy. But everyone has to vote "yes" because it's a moral imperative and Obama says so! Don't worry about what's actually in the bill -- we'll get to read it once it's safely passed.
This is not liberty. This is not how representative government is supposed to work. This is tyranny and socialism. This is an audacious power grab by an out-of-control government that is well on its way to bankrupting our country -- right in the teeth of huge popular opposition. The Democrats may well get their way in the end, but they will pay a heavy price for this. Our whole country will pay a heavy price for this.
If you look at the polls, you find a steady erosion of President Obama's job approval rating. Back when Obama took office, his popularity was among the highest of any modern-era president and the country's hopes were soaring. Now, recent Gallup & NBC/Wall St. Jrnl polls both have him at 47% approval, the lowest ever recorded for a modern-era president at this point in their presidency (less than one year in office). Polls also show clear majorities of American oppose Obama's signature issues & decisions -- Democratic health care reform, cap-and-trade legislation, bringing terrorist detainees to the U.S., etc. Independents have turned decisively against the President's agenda, which is an ominous sign for the Democrats in next year's mid-term election. Don't even get me started on the Democratic Congress, which has a job approval rating in the 20%'s. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's national job approval rating is 15% (and 38% in his home state of Nevada). Voters are developing a bad case of buyer's remorse as they find out what happens when liberals control the country.
The health care "reform" debacle illustrates clearly how radical, inept, & out-of-touch Democrats are. As I watch the "debate" (back-room maneuvering would be a better word) unfold, I sometimes get the urge to laugh. If the consequences for our country weren't so severe, I would. How can the Democrats manage to botch this legislation so badly when they have such huge majorities in both houses of Congress? How can they be so oblivious to the wishes of their constituents?
Here's everything you need to know about the status of health care reform over the past few months. President Obama announced way back in the summer that reforming health care was urgent (never mind the benefits in these bills don't take effect for four or five years) and that his "drop-dead deadline" for passing the legislation was the end of July, before the congressional August recess. (Because we all know that the most effective way to pass sweeping legislation that overhauls 17% of the U.S. economy is to do it as fast as humanly possible!) Never mind that there WAS no legislation, because the President did not present a plan. Hmmm...well the Democrats didn't quite make their little August 1st deadline, and so they got to go home and hear from their constituents. The townhall meetings were truly democracy in action -- individual Americans getting involved in the political process and letting their representatives and senators know how they felt about an important issue. For this unforgivable sin of exercising their rights as citizens, the Democrats showed their common touch by smearing participants in townhall meetings as "people carrying swastikas" and "brownshirts" (Nancy Pelosi) and "evilmongers" (Harry Reid). Ahh...insulting voters. It works every time. Polls showed that a majority of Americans were increasingly sympathetic with the townhall protestors.
So, having heard the thunderous voice of the American people, Democrats returned to Washington, chastened and ready to modify their bill to address the concerns of their constituents about government control over health care. OK, I made that up. Democrats returned to Washington, more determined than ever to defy their constituents' wishes and push through a massive government-run health care bill by spending nearly a trillion dollars of taxpayer money that isn't there. (That's what deficits are for!) Multiple bills were proposed by multiple House & Senate committees, conveniently enabling the Donkey Party to avoid being pinned down on any specific unpopular provision by saying that some particular version of the bill didn't have that particular provision. Meanwhile, President Obama floated above the fray, appearing around the country at staged venues packed with supporters and giving vague speeches with no specifics but lots of pablum about the "moral imperative" of passing whatever version of the bill the Democrats might eventually decide to settle on.
Finally Nancy Pelosi (a very wise woman) realized that there is only one thing to do when you are contemplating passing a bill against the public's wishes that will establish one of the largest entitlement programs in America's history and will bring 1/3 of its economy under heavy government control. The answer should be obvious. You jam it through with minimal debate and with no bipartisan support whatsoever! And that's exactly what Pelosi did. She unveiled, with much fanfare, a left-wing 2,000-page bill filled with new taxes and mandates and a "robust" public option. She drastically limited debate, allowed only one amendment under protest, and forced a vote at 11:00 pm on a Saturday night. The Democrats have an 83 vote majority in the House of Representatives, and they passed the bill by only 5 votes, with 39 Democrats voting "no" (and only one Republican voting "yes"). Pelosi was visibly joyful as she banged the gavel and announced the vote results. Oh boy, we sneaked one past the American people while they were watching their family night movie!
Then things got really interesting in the Senate. Listening to Harry Reid & Barack Obama discuss whether or not the public option would be included in the bill was somewhat analogous to reading the daily weather report. One day it's in, the next day it's out. One day a Senate committee voted down the public option, and a few days later Harry Reid completely circumvented the committee process and presented a new bill once more containing the public option. Problems started early, as Reid was having a hard time getting even members of his own party to vote to bring this masterpiece to the Senate floor for debate (much less Republicans). However, he solved that problem nicely by offering fence-sitting Senator Mary Landrieu $100 million in financial aid to her state of Louisiana. Landrieu proudly informed her constituents that she really wasn't that cheap and that she had actually secured $300 million in exchange for her vote.
Once the bill arrived on the Senate floor, Senator Harry Reid, the statesman leader of that august deliberative body, set the tone for bipartisanship by comparing Republican opposition to senators who had historically supported slavery and opposed the rights of women and blacks to vote. Debate progressed and amendments were offered, but it was an open secret among Senate insiders that the whole process was all for show. In reality, Democrats were scrambling to get a backroom deal that would secure all 60 Democratic caucus votes so they could invoke cloture and shut down any further debate. Joe Lieberman was a pesky holdout, refusing to support any bill with a public option.
Then, just when you thought it couldn't get any more exciting, Harry Reid made news once again! He breathlessly held a press conference announcing that a deal had been reached on a completely rewritten bill that all Democrats could support, but he couldn't release the details to the Senate or the public. Trust me, it's really good, and no, nobody can read it, why would you ask? What do you think this is, a democracy? He did condescend to mention that the public option was now gone and to be replaced with a drastically expanded Medicare to include people age 55 and up. Within a day or two of Reid's "breakthrough," Lieberman criticized the new bill and announced his opposition to the Medicare buy-in proposal. Oops...we have our whole caucus on board, except for all the members that weren't on board before. If there were any justice in this world, Reid would be gainfully employed with a traveling circus.
Back to the drawing board again. We have to get some bill, any bill, that can barely pass, and who cares what's in it. The content is irrelevant. The main thing is to pass the longest, most expensive bill possible before Christmas. We'll give any Democrat anything they want, just vote for the darn thing! In the meantime, the Left unleashed their big guns on Lieberman. What the heck is this, a Democrat who thinks for himself? Let's attack his wife. Let's demonize him and accuse him of mass murder. And that's exactly what happened to Lieberman.
Finally, Reid backed down and took out both the Medicare buy-in and the public option provisions. Lieberman was back on board -- but now another Democrat, Ben Nelson, was backing out because of the provisions to fund abortion. And here we are, one week before Christmas, with a huge blizzard about to hit Washington, DC, and Reid is still insisting on a vote before Christmas. On a bill that no one in the Senate has even seen yet -- a bill that hasn't even been fully written yet. On a bill that will take eight hours just to read on the Senate floor. On a bill that will cost almost a trillion dollars and dramatically alter 1/3 of our economy. But everyone has to vote "yes" because it's a moral imperative and Obama says so! Don't worry about what's actually in the bill -- we'll get to read it once it's safely passed.
This is not liberty. This is not how representative government is supposed to work. This is tyranny and socialism. This is an audacious power grab by an out-of-control government that is well on its way to bankrupting our country -- right in the teeth of huge popular opposition. The Democrats may well get their way in the end, but they will pay a heavy price for this. Our whole country will pay a heavy price for this.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Statesman Harry
Yesterday, on the Senate floor, the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, gave a speech on health care in which he said the following:
"Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let's start over.' If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right. When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough.' When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn't quite right. When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today."
Reid is the most powerful member of the U.S. Senate, and the person picked by the Democrats in the Senate to be their leader. Forget about the fact that he's a liberal and a generally unhappy person (and struggles to put together coherent sentences in speeches). He's not even an adult. He's not even capable of behaving in a civilized way on the Senate floor. I thought it was pretty bad a few months ago when he said that angry citizens (not politicians or pundits) speaking at townhall meetings were "evilmongers." Now Reid has shattered his own record for partisan rancor by comparing senators who oppose his health care bill to people who support slavery and oppose the right of blacks and women to vote. If you don't support government-run health care, you're pro-slavery, anti-woman, and racist. This kind of demagoguery has no place inside the walls of the Capitol Hill, but is especially disgraceful coming from the purported leader of the U.S. Senate. No wonder our country is so politically divided. We are represented at the highest levels of government by petty, uncivilized children. Harry Reid is an embarrassment to his party and to his country.
"Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let's start over.' If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right. When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough.' When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn't quite right. When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today."
Reid is the most powerful member of the U.S. Senate, and the person picked by the Democrats in the Senate to be their leader. Forget about the fact that he's a liberal and a generally unhappy person (and struggles to put together coherent sentences in speeches). He's not even an adult. He's not even capable of behaving in a civilized way on the Senate floor. I thought it was pretty bad a few months ago when he said that angry citizens (not politicians or pundits) speaking at townhall meetings were "evilmongers." Now Reid has shattered his own record for partisan rancor by comparing senators who oppose his health care bill to people who support slavery and oppose the right of blacks and women to vote. If you don't support government-run health care, you're pro-slavery, anti-woman, and racist. This kind of demagoguery has no place inside the walls of the Capitol Hill, but is especially disgraceful coming from the purported leader of the U.S. Senate. No wonder our country is so politically divided. We are represented at the highest levels of government by petty, uncivilized children. Harry Reid is an embarrassment to his party and to his country.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Dishonesty in the abortion debate
I found this video from CNN on Reasoned Audacity. The video, which includes statements by Charmaine Yoest of Americans United for Life and Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood regarding the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, is a good example of the confusion and dishonesty surrounding the abortion debate.
Here's a link to the text of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment so you can see for yourself what it does and does not say.
Now here are a couple quotes by Cecile Richards about the amendment.
Anyone who has read the amendment should know that these are complete lies. The Stupak-Pitts amendment (which passed the House and is now a part of the medical care bill in the Senate) does nothing except to maintain the status quo with regard to federal funding for abortions. Federal funding for abortions under most federal programs is prohibited by the Hyde Amendment. The Stupak-Pitts Amendment only applies these same restrictions to the 1990-page monstrosity under debate right now.
Besides prohibiting federal funding for abortions, this amendment specifically says that nothing in the amendment prohibits private insurance companies from covering abortion procedures. It is nothing short of dishonesty for Cecile Richards to say that this amendment would "fundamentally change women's access to getting health insurance that covers all of their reproductive health care".
[Am I the only one who finds it a little odd that somebody would need insurance for abortions? People usually buy insurance for unexpected situations, like a car accident or brain cancer (not that I would ever equate a pregnancy with those things). I would think that most people know where babies come from and could take the appropriate measures ahead of time if they do not want to have a baby. ("I'm pregnant? How on EARTH did that happen?")]
In addition to the dishonest statements by Cecile Richards, the CNN video contains misleading graphics. As correspondent Dana Bash discusses the restrictions on federal funding for abortion under the proposed bill, the following graphic appears:
While this graphic is on the screen, Dana Bash says, "Private insurance in a new government-regulated exchange would also be prohibited from offering abortion coverage to anyone getting taxpayer money for health care." This is basically true, but the graphic suggests that it would be illegal for private insurance companies to pay for abortions at all. (At the beginning of the video, she also refers to the Stupak-Pitts Amendment as "an amendment that restricts abortion".)
Here's a link to the text of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment so you can see for yourself what it does and does not say.
Now here are a couple quotes by Cecile Richards about the amendment.
The intent of this amendment was to ensure that no one under health care reform could purchase a plan that included abortion coverage.
...
It's a very far-reaching amendment that would fundamentally change women's access to getting health insurance that covers all of their reproductive health care.
Anyone who has read the amendment should know that these are complete lies. The Stupak-Pitts amendment (which passed the House and is now a part of the medical care bill in the Senate) does nothing except to maintain the status quo with regard to federal funding for abortions. Federal funding for abortions under most federal programs is prohibited by the Hyde Amendment. The Stupak-Pitts Amendment only applies these same restrictions to the 1990-page monstrosity under debate right now.
Besides prohibiting federal funding for abortions, this amendment specifically says that nothing in the amendment prohibits private insurance companies from covering abortion procedures. It is nothing short of dishonesty for Cecile Richards to say that this amendment would "fundamentally change women's access to getting health insurance that covers all of their reproductive health care".
[Am I the only one who finds it a little odd that somebody would need insurance for abortions? People usually buy insurance for unexpected situations, like a car accident or brain cancer (not that I would ever equate a pregnancy with those things). I would think that most people know where babies come from and could take the appropriate measures ahead of time if they do not want to have a baby. ("I'm pregnant? How on EARTH did that happen?")]
In addition to the dishonest statements by Cecile Richards, the CNN video contains misleading graphics. As correspondent Dana Bash discusses the restrictions on federal funding for abortion under the proposed bill, the following graphic appears:
While this graphic is on the screen, Dana Bash says, "Private insurance in a new government-regulated exchange would also be prohibited from offering abortion coverage to anyone getting taxpayer money for health care." This is basically true, but the graphic suggests that it would be illegal for private insurance companies to pay for abortions at all. (At the beginning of the video, she also refers to the Stupak-Pitts Amendment as "an amendment that restricts abortion".)
During the debate on the House floor, Mike Pence (R-IN) had the following insight:
Ending an innocent human life is morally wrong, but it’s also morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of Americans and use them to provide for a procedure that they find morally offensive.
Advocates of abortion rights are quite narrow in their support for "choice", at least as it concerns the "choice" of taxpayers in how their money is used. To Cecile Richards and other pro-abortion advocates, the only choice which is sacred is the choice of a woman to kill her child in the womb.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)