"For Obamacare to work, we would have to trust ourselves to be monastically prudent in what we demand of the government agencies running health care, and trust our elected leaders to be more cost-effective, efficient, and honorable than any governing body has in human history.
As of the writing of this column, we’re still just courting the idea of handing over so much control of our lives to the federal government. No legislative vows have been exchanged. We still have time to walk away, and walk towards real solutions to the rising costs of health care."
From Voice in the Wilderness.
RJ Moeller
Battered Citizen Syndrome
My father has been a pastor and marriage counselor for nearly three decades and through the years has heard countless stories that go something like this:
Woman marries (or shacks up with) Man. Things are great for a while. Eventually Woman comes to learn that Man has a proclivity to abuse those closest to him. Whether we’re talking physically, verbally, emotionally – it’s all abuse. Woman’s friends and relatives tell her to split for her safety and/or sanity. Instead, Woman lashes out at concerned friends and relatives and insists on staying in abusive relationship. Woman fears being alone, fears being financially independent, and fears the abuse is deserved.
We all know people trapped in varying degrees of unhealthy relationships that refuse to acknowledge that the jig is up and a change is needed. There are always excuses that someone trapped in scenarios such as this can make to justify staying in it longer than they should. Some of those excuses are legitimate, and some – not so much.
But the guy can be really nice…He pays for everything…Where would I find a job to support myself?...He wasn’t always like this…I can be too demanding and unappreciative of what he does for me…Other couples have problems like this too…I can make this work…We just need a fresh start.
Human beings are able to convince themselves of anything.
When you are dating someone who turns out to be abusive, you can walk away. But after certain points in a relationship, namely marriage and having children, the ability to leave, the simplicity of just cutting all ties, becomes understandably (and appropriately) more complicated. Divorce and custody battles are the familial revolutions a spouse escaping abuse must be willing to pursue if they (and their kids) are to have any chance at real freedom, peace, and prosperity.
But divorce and custody battles are the last option anyone wants to pursue. Those things may in fact be necessary, but they are not desirable. They are devastating and painful, and require a great deal of courage and emotional fortitude. They are points of “No Return.”
If such traumatic events could have been avoided, anyone who has lived through them would have done anything to do so.
America: we have that chance right now.
The relationship between the citizen and the type of government envisioned by President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid is an abusive one. It is an unhealthy one. It is a disastrous one. It is soul-destroying and economy-crippling. Continue reading
Showing posts with label Obamacare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obamacare. Show all posts
Through the backdoor: Obamacare and a National Energy tax. Say what?
Labels:
Cap and Trade,
Health Care Plan,
Obamacare,
U.S. House,
U.S.Senate.
Reconciliation, the nuclear option, whatever you want to call this asshat move by Obama and the Democrats, it shows how desperate they are to 'rahm' this horrible health care bill through. It makse no difference to these demosocialistacrats that so many Americans in poll after poll, do not want this health care bill. When Nancy Pelosi demands that her constituents vote for this bill even at the risk of ruining their political careers, damaging the party of social re-engineering for 2010 and possibly 2012 elections, something smells really foul
Today in Washington, D.C. - Mar 2, 2010 - Dems Promote Obamacare; Backdoor National Energy
In the House, besides the below topic of Obamacare, currently 84 House Republicans the EPA’s Backdoor National Energy Tax and are on a resolution of disapproval that would prevent the EPA from implementing these job-killing regulations. You may recall that late last year, Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) head Lisa Jackson signed an “endangerment finding” stating that greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, “threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations.” These findings pave the way for EPA regulation of emissions even though the EPA has admitted that it has not evaluated possible job losses or shifts in employment that may occur due to its rules and regulation.
it is clear that the Obama Administration is moving ahead on another front using the EPA regulations to pressure Congress into passing cap-and-tax legislation—if the Democrat Congress does not force a job-killing cap-and-tax scheme on the American people, the EPA will. The EPA endangerment finding and resulting regulation is just another massive intrusion of government into the U.S. economy. This action will stifle economic growth and kill jobs, especially in the manufacturing and agricultural sectors. The EPA regulation is simply a national energy tax that will raise costs for consumers and ship jobs overseas during a recession. If implemented, the new EPA permitting processes and rules will cost billions of dollars to implement and could potentially affect millions of small emitters such as hotels, hospitals, churches, farms, and various small businesses. The rules will inject uncertainty into the economy, delay or halt new construction, and deter investment.
Several States’ governors, attorneys general, environmental agencies, and agricultural agencies have weighed in to oppose the EPA finding, citing negative impacts for their State. In addition to House Republicans opposing efforts to implement the EPA’s job-killing regulations, they have offered a better plan to clean up the environment without a backdoor national energy tax. The American Energy Act is an all-of-the-above plan that would provide energy independence, more jobs here at home and a cleaner environment at the same time.
On the continuing saga of ramming through nationalized heath care (Obamacare), both CNN and New York Times identify that President Obama is preparing to give "a speech on Wednesday to outline ‘the way forward’ and to flesh out the substance of his proposed compromise based on the bills passed by the House and Senate . . . .” There’s been some speculation that Obama will put forward a new, smaller health care bill tomorrow, mostly based on a comment from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday.
But House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer clarified for The Hill today what Democrats are actually planning on doing: “Hoyer affirmed that Democratic leaders intend to press ahead with their plan for the House to take up the Senate bill and for both chambers to consider a package based on Obama’s proposal via budget reconciliation rules that would allow the smaller bill to pass the Senate on a simple majority vote.”
In other words, in order to provide political cover for House Democrats to vote for the 2,700 page $2.5 trillion monstrosity of a Senate health care bill, Democrats want to pass another bill and jam it through the Senate on a partisan basis. Why do House Democrats feel they need political cover? The Senate bill still features such gems as the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, a new tax on “Cadillac” health care plans, and other troublesome provisions. Continue reading
Hat tip: arranewsservice
Today in Washington, D.C. - Mar 2, 2010 - Dems Promote Obamacare; Backdoor National Energy
it is clear that the Obama Administration is moving ahead on another front using the EPA regulations to pressure Congress into passing cap-and-tax legislation—if the Democrat Congress does not force a job-killing cap-and-tax scheme on the American people, the EPA will. The EPA endangerment finding and resulting regulation is just another massive intrusion of government into the U.S. economy. This action will stifle economic growth and kill jobs, especially in the manufacturing and agricultural sectors. The EPA regulation is simply a national energy tax that will raise costs for consumers and ship jobs overseas during a recession. If implemented, the new EPA permitting processes and rules will cost billions of dollars to implement and could potentially affect millions of small emitters such as hotels, hospitals, churches, farms, and various small businesses. The rules will inject uncertainty into the economy, delay or halt new construction, and deter investment.
Several States’ governors, attorneys general, environmental agencies, and agricultural agencies have weighed in to oppose the EPA finding, citing negative impacts for their State. In addition to House Republicans opposing efforts to implement the EPA’s job-killing regulations, they have offered a better plan to clean up the environment without a backdoor national energy tax. The American Energy Act is an all-of-the-above plan that would provide energy independence, more jobs here at home and a cleaner environment at the same time.
On the continuing saga of ramming through nationalized heath care (Obamacare), both CNN and New York Times identify that President Obama is preparing to give "a speech on Wednesday to outline ‘the way forward’ and to flesh out the substance of his proposed compromise based on the bills passed by the House and Senate . . . .” There’s been some speculation that Obama will put forward a new, smaller health care bill tomorrow, mostly based on a comment from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi yesterday.
But House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer clarified for The Hill today what Democrats are actually planning on doing: “Hoyer affirmed that Democratic leaders intend to press ahead with their plan for the House to take up the Senate bill and for both chambers to consider a package based on Obama’s proposal via budget reconciliation rules that would allow the smaller bill to pass the Senate on a simple majority vote.”
In other words, in order to provide political cover for House Democrats to vote for the 2,700 page $2.5 trillion monstrosity of a Senate health care bill, Democrats want to pass another bill and jam it through the Senate on a partisan basis. Why do House Democrats feel they need political cover? The Senate bill still features such gems as the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, a new tax on “Cadillac” health care plans, and other troublesome provisions. Continue reading
Hat tip: arranewsservice
Pelosi claims Obamacare will create 400,000 jobs right away.
Labels:
Democratic arrogance,
Nancy Pelosi.,
Obamacare
I purposely do not post much on Obamacare as that is on issue that is covered extremely well by so many others. But when something like comes along as Nancy Pelosi stated, then I cannot resist to post such a ludicrous statement such as this one. Obama claims he and the Democrats are using a 'lighter touch' on the healthcare issue. More lies and deception. Just like the 2 million jobs created by the stimulus bill. Where are they? Not in home state of Oregon!
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A perfect example of what the Democrats do not get, why the American people do not want this healthcare bill or what Obama and the Democrats have been peddling since the one's election. I look for them to use reconciliation to 'rahm' Obamacare through.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
A perfect example of what the Democrats do not get, why the American people do not want this healthcare bill or what Obama and the Democrats have been peddling since the one's election. I look for them to use reconciliation to 'rahm' Obamacare through.
From Bosch Fawstin
Pelosi and Reid have a secret plan to ram Obamacare through.
Labels:
Dirty Democrats,
Left wing subversion.,
Obamacare
The troika of Obama, Pelosi and Reid are refusing to abandon
cramming Obamacare down our throats. The election of Scott
Brown has completely flipped the liberal trollage out. So far flipped
out that they may stoop to what is outlined in this article. I will not
put any scam or sham past these people. They are willing to do
whatever it takes to force their socialist ways upon the American people.
By: Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
Highly informed sources on Capitol Hill have revealed to me details of the Democratic plan to sneak through Congress Obamacare, despite collapsing public approval for healthcare "reform" and disintegrating Congressional support in the wake of Republican Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts.
President Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have all agreed to the basic framework of the plan.
Their plan is clever but can be stopped if opponents of radical healthcare reform act quickly and focus on a core group of 23 Democratic Congressman. If just a few of these 23 Democrats are "flipped" and decide to oppose the bill, the whole Obama-Pelosi-Reid stratagem falls apart.
Here's what I learned top Democrats are planning to implement.
Senate Democrats will go to the House with a two-part deal.
First, the House will pass the Senate's Obamacare bill that passed the Senate in December. The House leadership will vote on the Senate bill, and Pelosi will allow no amendments or modifications to the Senate bill.
How will Pelosi's deal fly with rambunctious liberal members of her majority that don't like the Senate bill, especially its failure to include a public option, put heavy fines on those who don't get insurance and offering no income tax surcharge on the "rich"?
That's where the second part of the Pelosi-deal comes in.
Behind closed doors Reid and Pelosi have agreed in principle that changes to the Senate bill will be made to satisfy liberal House members -- but only after the Senate bill is passed and signed into law by Obama.
This deal will be secured by a pledge from Reid and the Senate's Democratic caucus that they will make "fixes" to the Senate bill after it becomes law with Obama's John Hancock.
Continue reading
Hat tip: Weasel Zippers
cramming Obamacare down our throats. The election of Scott
Brown has completely flipped the liberal trollage out. So far flipped
out that they may stoop to what is outlined in this article. I will not
put any scam or sham past these people. They are willing to do
whatever it takes to force their socialist ways upon the American people.
Obamacare will get you
By: Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
Highly informed sources on Capitol Hill have revealed to me details of the Democratic plan to sneak through Congress Obamacare, despite collapsing public approval for healthcare "reform" and disintegrating Congressional support in the wake of Republican Scott Brown's victory in Massachusetts.
President Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have all agreed to the basic framework of the plan.
Their plan is clever but can be stopped if opponents of radical healthcare reform act quickly and focus on a core group of 23 Democratic Congressman. If just a few of these 23 Democrats are "flipped" and decide to oppose the bill, the whole Obama-Pelosi-Reid stratagem falls apart.
Here's what I learned top Democrats are planning to implement.
Senate Democrats will go to the House with a two-part deal.
First, the House will pass the Senate's Obamacare bill that passed the Senate in December. The House leadership will vote on the Senate bill, and Pelosi will allow no amendments or modifications to the Senate bill.
How will Pelosi's deal fly with rambunctious liberal members of her majority that don't like the Senate bill, especially its failure to include a public option, put heavy fines on those who don't get insurance and offering no income tax surcharge on the "rich"?
That's where the second part of the Pelosi-deal comes in.
Behind closed doors Reid and Pelosi have agreed in principle that changes to the Senate bill will be made to satisfy liberal House members -- but only after the Senate bill is passed and signed into law by Obama.
This deal will be secured by a pledge from Reid and the Senate's Democratic caucus that they will make "fixes" to the Senate bill after it becomes law with Obama's John Hancock.
Continue reading
Hat tip: Weasel Zippers
Lawmakers in Missouri pass resolution against Obamacare.
I placed the entire article here as it is not very long. At least Missouri is taking a stand.
JEFFERSON CITY — The state House voted Tuesday evening to urge Missouri’s congressional delegation to oppose efforts to change the federal health care system.
Rep. John Diehl, R-Town and Country, sponsored the resolution, which passed on a vote of 111-46. He said the federal proposal was “too big, it’s too expensive, it’s too dense, it’s too corrupt.”
Diehl said the health care bills currently being considered could cost the state of Missouri more than $315 million a year. Those figures vary, however, depending on who’s counting. Estimates by Missouri’s Department of Social Services peg the state’s cost at $100 million by 2017.
While many Republican lawmakers viewed approval of the resolution as a key stance against the federal health care overhaul, some Democrats dismissed it as partisan posturing.
Minority Leader Paul LeVota, D-Independence, called the debate “political theater” and criticized House Speaker Ron Richard for failing to make the autism insurance the first bill on the House floor. Richard, a Republican, had said the autism bill would be the first priority for debate.
As Missouri lawmakers debated the nonbinding resolution, Massachusetts voters cast ballots in an election that could influence the national health care efforts. The state’s voters turned out to choose a new senator to fill the seat left vacant when Sen. Edward Kennedy died.
Republican Scott Brown, now a state senator, has publicly said he’d oppose the health care bills. His opposition would give Senate Republicans enough votes to block the legislation. Brown’s opponent, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, campaigned in favor of the overhaul efforts.
Link to original article
JEFFERSON CITY — The state House voted Tuesday evening to urge Missouri’s congressional delegation to oppose efforts to change the federal health care system.
Rep. John Diehl, R-Town and Country, sponsored the resolution, which passed on a vote of 111-46. He said the federal proposal was “too big, it’s too expensive, it’s too dense, it’s too corrupt.”
Diehl said the health care bills currently being considered could cost the state of Missouri more than $315 million a year. Those figures vary, however, depending on who’s counting. Estimates by Missouri’s Department of Social Services peg the state’s cost at $100 million by 2017.
While many Republican lawmakers viewed approval of the resolution as a key stance against the federal health care overhaul, some Democrats dismissed it as partisan posturing.
Minority Leader Paul LeVota, D-Independence, called the debate “political theater” and criticized House Speaker Ron Richard for failing to make the autism insurance the first bill on the House floor. Richard, a Republican, had said the autism bill would be the first priority for debate.
As Missouri lawmakers debated the nonbinding resolution, Massachusetts voters cast ballots in an election that could influence the national health care efforts. The state’s voters turned out to choose a new senator to fill the seat left vacant when Sen. Edward Kennedy died.
Republican Scott Brown, now a state senator, has publicly said he’d oppose the health care bills. His opposition would give Senate Republicans enough votes to block the legislation. Brown’s opponent, Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley, campaigned in favor of the overhaul efforts.
Link to original article
How hard are the Republicans actually fighting to stop Obamacare?
Labels:
Health Care Plan.,
Obamacare,
Republicans
Erick from redstate knows alot more than many of our
'conservative' elected politicians. This is worth your
time, and yes, it will take a bit of your time. I have sent
this to our one Republican representative who really cares
from my home state. Now is not the time to roll over, make
deals and capitulate to the demosocialistacrat moonbats who
are out to ruin our country.
FIGHT
by Erick Erickson
“If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
— Winston Churchill
“If the Republicans want the news media to cover what they are doing to educate the American people even further about the atrociousness of this bill, they have to create drama on the floor of the Senate.”The Founding Fathers created a Republic, but 60 Senators are poised to take it away. With the pending disaster of the passage in the Senate of a bill nationalizing one sixth of the U.S. economy and our entire healthcare system at a cost of over $2.5 trillion, we are faced with a crucial question: are the Republican senators using every means at their disposal to stop this looming, tyrannical abuse of power? Unfortunately, the answer appears to be “no.”
The Senate, unlike the House of Representatives, has parliamentary rules and procedures that give the minority the ability to stall legislation. In fact, unlike the House, the minority have the ability to virtually paralyze the Senate. Doing so is not something we would want or expect for every bad bill that comes through Congress, but the proposed healthcare legislation is probably the worst piece of legislation ever considered by the United States Congress. It is the most intrusive, most damaging, most costly, most dangerous bill to the economic and personal freedom and liberty of individual Americans that Congress has ever considered. If there is any bill that deserves being stopped by shutting down the Senate, it is this one.
There are a whole series of parliamentary maneuvers that could be used by Republican senators to stop this bill. There is a hard backstop to the current process (Christmas). The Republicans’ goal should be to prevent Reid from passing the bill before that time. If he goes past Christmas and is forced to adjourn or recess, the momentum will shift in favor of those opposing the bill.
How could this be done?
To start with, they should stop constantly agreeing to “unanimous consent” requests from the Democrats. Senate Republicans, to date, have allowed Democrats, by unanimous consent, to process 10 amendments. The amendments that have been accepted – Democrat amendments – did not make the over 2000-page atrocity any better. The Republican strategy of trying to pass their own “message” amendments carries no message unless you consider “no strategy to kill the bill” a message. There are no amendments that could possibly make this bill a palatable piece of legislation – and any amendments the Republicans get passed that supposedly make the bill “better” may just make it easier for the Democrats to get final passage. If the Republicans want the news media to cover what they are doing to educate the American people even further about the atrociousness of this bill, they have to create drama on the floor of the Senate. And the only way to do that is through an all-out fight with no holds barred. They need to look like Braveheart, fighting to the end to save freedom. Because, in fact, it is our very freedom and liberty that is at stake.
The most powerful words in the Senate are “I object.” Senate Republicans should have been shouting those two words on the Senate floor early and often from the moment this bill was considered, instead of the complete silence we have heard – other than to constantly agree to conduct business through unanimous consent. Here are just a few ways those words can (and should) be used in a very effective way:
The rules of the Senate require that a quorum be present to transact business. A quorum is 51 Senators. In most instances, outside of roll call votes, there are no more than 4 Senators on the Senate floor. If a Republican Senator suggested the absence of a quorum, Democrats could not transact business on the bill. It is a common courtesy to allow the quorum call to be dispensed with, without requiring 51 members to show up on the Senate floor (to get 51 Senators to appear without a roll call vote is very time consuming). When the Democrats ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with, the Republican should immediately shout “I object.”
In 1988, when the Democrats were attempting to pass campaign finance reform, and Republicans refused to help them make a quorum, it took 53 hours for the quorum call to be dispensed with. If at any moment at least 50 Democrats are not on the floor, a Republican Senator could again suggest the absence of a quorum and start the process over again, causing huge delays in the legislative process being able to move forward.
No amendment can automatically or without substantial delay receive a roll call vote without every member of the Senate agreeing. Again, the Senate generally operates on collegial courtesy, but a $2.5 trillion courtesy is too much. Once an amendment is pending, it only takes one Senator to step in front of this freight train. If a Senator objects to ending debate on the amendment or having the amendment set aside, the majority must file cloture on the amendment. First cloture has to ripen and it cannot ripen until the next day’s session of the Senate, so that kills a day of the majority’s time. Assuming 60 Senators vote in favor of ending debate, the Senate is then required to spend 30 hours of its session time before voting on final passage for the amendment. Suffice it to say, if the Republicans had continuously objected from the start, the ten amendments they allowed the majority to process would have taken more days than Harry Reid has on the Senate calendar.
Senators have an obligation to protect the Constitution and the budget and points of order can be raised on both. Many constitutional scholars have pointed out that numerous bill provisions, particularly the individual mandate, are unconstitutional. Under the Senate’s rules, constitutional points of order are debatable. The Republicans should be constantly bringing up constitutional points of order, one after another, on every questionable provision. Reid would presumably be forced to file cloture on the points of order and another three days could be burned up on each one.
The healthcare bill violates § 425(a)(2) of the Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of any legislation that contains an unfunded intergovernmental mandate in excess of $69 million per year. If the point of order is raised and sustained, a simple majority may vote to waive the point of order. But the waiver is debatable and thus would presumably require 60 votes to cloture the motion to waive. This would require them to produce 60 votes at a time when they do not have their deal wrapped up yet, once again burning up three days.
On every vote, including on constantly raised points of order, the Republicans should be objecting that the vote total is incomplete – the Democratic Chair will rule that it is complete and the Republicans then appeal and once again force a vote, delaying the process again and again.
The Republicans should be offering one amendment after another on all of their favorite issues such as guns, abortion, elimination of the death tax, ending the TARP program, and gay marriage in the District of Columbia. Nothing connotes trench warfare like non-germane amendments on hot-button social issues. When you look back at all of the great filibusters of past decades, they almost always involved non-germane, explosive amendments on contentious social and other issues. Republicans should be offering hundreds of such amendments on every topic and using the rules to force votes on every single one. And the Republicans should be forcing the reading of the bill and every single amendment, not consenting to waiving that requirement.
Some might argue that Republicans should not look “obstructionist.” But they are wrong – the vast majority of Americans don’t like this bill and don’t want it to pass. The Tea Party movement was the upheaval of millions of ordinary Americans who are scared and angry about the out-of-control growth of the federal government, federal spending, and the national debt. They want to see the Republicans obstructing passage of this bill and if they think the Republicans are not fighting with every tool they have at their disposal, then any advantage that the Republicans think they will get in next year’s elections from such a bill being passed will evaporate. Conservatives will mount challenges to what they see as weak Republicans, just like what happened in New York’s special congressional race, helping Democrats eek out wins. And other conservative will stay home (like they did in 2008) rather than support GOP incumbents who did not fight.
The view coming out of the Senate of the Republicans has the appearance of business-as-usual – colloquies, speeches, and unanimous consent agreements. It does not convey the sense of urgency that should come with an issue of this magnitude and it does not provide any assurance to the public, including most especially the conservative base that is the heart of the Republican Party, that Republican Senators are willing to do everything it takes to stop this bill. If they don’t starting acting forcefully quickly and immediately, not only will they allow the country’s future to be unalterably damaged, they will be hastening the end to their own careers in the elections coming down the road faster than they can imagine.
Finally, I often hear that Senators express frustration when we dare to tell them how to fight, and that their frequent refrain is “you just don’t understand how the Senate works.” Actually some of us understand better than they do how it should work (whether they agree with every particular parliamentary tactic described or not), and the current frustration they feel with us will be nothing like what they may feel if they don’t stop this bill at all costs and act to preserve our Republic.
“A Republic, if you can keep it.”
— Benjamin Franklin
RedState
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/12/12/fight/
'conservative' elected politicians. This is worth your
time, and yes, it will take a bit of your time. I have sent
this to our one Republican representative who really cares
from my home state. Now is not the time to roll over, make
deals and capitulate to the demosocialistacrat moonbats who
are out to ruin our country.
FIGHT
by Erick Erickson
“If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
— Winston Churchill
“If the Republicans want the news media to cover what they are doing to educate the American people even further about the atrociousness of this bill, they have to create drama on the floor of the Senate.”The Founding Fathers created a Republic, but 60 Senators are poised to take it away. With the pending disaster of the passage in the Senate of a bill nationalizing one sixth of the U.S. economy and our entire healthcare system at a cost of over $2.5 trillion, we are faced with a crucial question: are the Republican senators using every means at their disposal to stop this looming, tyrannical abuse of power? Unfortunately, the answer appears to be “no.”
The Senate, unlike the House of Representatives, has parliamentary rules and procedures that give the minority the ability to stall legislation. In fact, unlike the House, the minority have the ability to virtually paralyze the Senate. Doing so is not something we would want or expect for every bad bill that comes through Congress, but the proposed healthcare legislation is probably the worst piece of legislation ever considered by the United States Congress. It is the most intrusive, most damaging, most costly, most dangerous bill to the economic and personal freedom and liberty of individual Americans that Congress has ever considered. If there is any bill that deserves being stopped by shutting down the Senate, it is this one.
There are a whole series of parliamentary maneuvers that could be used by Republican senators to stop this bill. There is a hard backstop to the current process (Christmas). The Republicans’ goal should be to prevent Reid from passing the bill before that time. If he goes past Christmas and is forced to adjourn or recess, the momentum will shift in favor of those opposing the bill.
How could this be done?
To start with, they should stop constantly agreeing to “unanimous consent” requests from the Democrats. Senate Republicans, to date, have allowed Democrats, by unanimous consent, to process 10 amendments. The amendments that have been accepted – Democrat amendments – did not make the over 2000-page atrocity any better. The Republican strategy of trying to pass their own “message” amendments carries no message unless you consider “no strategy to kill the bill” a message. There are no amendments that could possibly make this bill a palatable piece of legislation – and any amendments the Republicans get passed that supposedly make the bill “better” may just make it easier for the Democrats to get final passage. If the Republicans want the news media to cover what they are doing to educate the American people even further about the atrociousness of this bill, they have to create drama on the floor of the Senate. And the only way to do that is through an all-out fight with no holds barred. They need to look like Braveheart, fighting to the end to save freedom. Because, in fact, it is our very freedom and liberty that is at stake.
The most powerful words in the Senate are “I object.” Senate Republicans should have been shouting those two words on the Senate floor early and often from the moment this bill was considered, instead of the complete silence we have heard – other than to constantly agree to conduct business through unanimous consent. Here are just a few ways those words can (and should) be used in a very effective way:
The rules of the Senate require that a quorum be present to transact business. A quorum is 51 Senators. In most instances, outside of roll call votes, there are no more than 4 Senators on the Senate floor. If a Republican Senator suggested the absence of a quorum, Democrats could not transact business on the bill. It is a common courtesy to allow the quorum call to be dispensed with, without requiring 51 members to show up on the Senate floor (to get 51 Senators to appear without a roll call vote is very time consuming). When the Democrats ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be dispensed with, the Republican should immediately shout “I object.”
In 1988, when the Democrats were attempting to pass campaign finance reform, and Republicans refused to help them make a quorum, it took 53 hours for the quorum call to be dispensed with. If at any moment at least 50 Democrats are not on the floor, a Republican Senator could again suggest the absence of a quorum and start the process over again, causing huge delays in the legislative process being able to move forward.
No amendment can automatically or without substantial delay receive a roll call vote without every member of the Senate agreeing. Again, the Senate generally operates on collegial courtesy, but a $2.5 trillion courtesy is too much. Once an amendment is pending, it only takes one Senator to step in front of this freight train. If a Senator objects to ending debate on the amendment or having the amendment set aside, the majority must file cloture on the amendment. First cloture has to ripen and it cannot ripen until the next day’s session of the Senate, so that kills a day of the majority’s time. Assuming 60 Senators vote in favor of ending debate, the Senate is then required to spend 30 hours of its session time before voting on final passage for the amendment. Suffice it to say, if the Republicans had continuously objected from the start, the ten amendments they allowed the majority to process would have taken more days than Harry Reid has on the Senate calendar.
Senators have an obligation to protect the Constitution and the budget and points of order can be raised on both. Many constitutional scholars have pointed out that numerous bill provisions, particularly the individual mandate, are unconstitutional. Under the Senate’s rules, constitutional points of order are debatable. The Republicans should be constantly bringing up constitutional points of order, one after another, on every questionable provision. Reid would presumably be forced to file cloture on the points of order and another three days could be burned up on each one.
The healthcare bill violates § 425(a)(2) of the Budget Act, which prohibits consideration of any legislation that contains an unfunded intergovernmental mandate in excess of $69 million per year. If the point of order is raised and sustained, a simple majority may vote to waive the point of order. But the waiver is debatable and thus would presumably require 60 votes to cloture the motion to waive. This would require them to produce 60 votes at a time when they do not have their deal wrapped up yet, once again burning up three days.
On every vote, including on constantly raised points of order, the Republicans should be objecting that the vote total is incomplete – the Democratic Chair will rule that it is complete and the Republicans then appeal and once again force a vote, delaying the process again and again.
The Republicans should be offering one amendment after another on all of their favorite issues such as guns, abortion, elimination of the death tax, ending the TARP program, and gay marriage in the District of Columbia. Nothing connotes trench warfare like non-germane amendments on hot-button social issues. When you look back at all of the great filibusters of past decades, they almost always involved non-germane, explosive amendments on contentious social and other issues. Republicans should be offering hundreds of such amendments on every topic and using the rules to force votes on every single one. And the Republicans should be forcing the reading of the bill and every single amendment, not consenting to waiving that requirement.
Some might argue that Republicans should not look “obstructionist.” But they are wrong – the vast majority of Americans don’t like this bill and don’t want it to pass. The Tea Party movement was the upheaval of millions of ordinary Americans who are scared and angry about the out-of-control growth of the federal government, federal spending, and the national debt. They want to see the Republicans obstructing passage of this bill and if they think the Republicans are not fighting with every tool they have at their disposal, then any advantage that the Republicans think they will get in next year’s elections from such a bill being passed will evaporate. Conservatives will mount challenges to what they see as weak Republicans, just like what happened in New York’s special congressional race, helping Democrats eek out wins. And other conservative will stay home (like they did in 2008) rather than support GOP incumbents who did not fight.
The view coming out of the Senate of the Republicans has the appearance of business-as-usual – colloquies, speeches, and unanimous consent agreements. It does not convey the sense of urgency that should come with an issue of this magnitude and it does not provide any assurance to the public, including most especially the conservative base that is the heart of the Republican Party, that Republican Senators are willing to do everything it takes to stop this bill. If they don’t starting acting forcefully quickly and immediately, not only will they allow the country’s future to be unalterably damaged, they will be hastening the end to their own careers in the elections coming down the road faster than they can imagine.
Finally, I often hear that Senators express frustration when we dare to tell them how to fight, and that their frequent refrain is “you just don’t understand how the Senate works.” Actually some of us understand better than they do how it should work (whether they agree with every particular parliamentary tactic described or not), and the current frustration they feel with us will be nothing like what they may feel if they don’t stop this bill at all costs and act to preserve our Republic.
“A Republic, if you can keep it.”
— Benjamin Franklin
New symbol for the democratic party?
RedState
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/12/12/fight/
Senate votes to gut Home health care. How are your parents aging?
Labels:
Democrats.,
Health Care Plan,
Home Health Care,
Obamacare
Senate Votes for Cuts in Medicare Home Health Payments - NYTimes.com
I am so relieved that my Mom is no
longer around to witness this travesity.
She would not have lived as long a life
as she did without the Home Health Care
she received from Medicare.
Senate Clears Way for Home Health Care Cuts Sign in to Recommend
Published: December 5, 2009
WASHINGTON — Snowflakes swirled around the Capitol on Saturday, whipped by wintry winds, but on the Senate floor inside, a heated debate raged as Democrats and Republicans traded jabs over legislation to achieve President Obama’s goal of near-universal health insurance coverage.
Jose Luis Magana/Associated Press
By a vote of 53 to 41, the Senate on Saturday rejected a Republican effort to block cutbacks in payments to home health agencies that provide nursing care and therapy to homebound Medicare beneficiaries.
Republicans voted against the cuts, saying they would hurt some of the nation’s most vulnerable citizens. Most Democrats supported the cutbacks, saying they would eliminate waste and inefficiency in home care.
The Democrats’ health care bill would reduce projected Medicare spending on home care by $43 billion, or 13 percent, over the next 10 years. The savings would help offset the cost of subsidizing coverage for the uninsured.
Mr. Obama planned to visit Capitol Hill on Sunday to attend a meeting of the Senate Democratic caucus. The caucus is split over several major provisions of the bill, including one that would create a government health plan to compete with private insurers.
A handful of Democrats and Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine, met Saturday to explore ideas for a possible compromise on the public plan.
In the past, weekend sessions of Congress have dealt with momentous issues like impeachment or fiscal emergencies. But the Saturday session — the sixth day of Senate debate on the giant health care bill — felt, in some ways, like an ordinary workday, as senators debated the health care bill in public and tried to thrash out differences in private.
The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, said the Senate had to meet Saturday so it could finish work on the bill before the end of the year.
“Fourteen thousand people lose their health insurance every day in America,” Mr. Reid said. “The American people don’t get weekends off from this injustice. Bankruptcy does not keep bankers’ hours. The bills don’t go away just because it’s Sunday or Saturday. The pain is still there. And so our work continues this weekend.”
Senator Bob Casey, Democrat of Pennsylvania, said: “We gather on a Saturday, which is rare. But it is entirely appropriate and, I think, essential that we spend the time on a weekend to debate this bill and get it passed.”
The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said his party would not bow to pressure from Mr. Reid.
“The majority leader believes that somehow if we stay in on weekends, Republicans are going to blink,” Mr. McConnell said. “I can assure him we are not going to blink. The longer we discuss this with the American people, the more unpopular it becomes.”
Indeed, Republicans appeared to relish the debate.
“A fight not joined is a fight not enjoyed,” said Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona.
Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, said, “I would not want to be any other place than on the floor today talking about the most important piece of legislation we probably will deal with in our tenure here.”
Much of the debate Saturday focused on what Mr. McCain had said as the Republican presidential candidate in 2008. Democrats said it was odd to see Mr. McCain styling himself as a defender of Medicare because, in the past, he had favored deep cuts.
Mr. McCain denied that he had tried to cut Medicare benefits.
Democrats said Republicans were stalling. Republicans tried to put Democrats on the defensive.
“I don’t understand what it is that would cause my friends on the left, on the other side of the aisle, to throw seniors under the bus,” Mr. Corker said.
Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana and chairman of the Finance Committee, said, “Nobody here is trying to throw seniors under the bus.”
Mr. Baucus, a principal author of the health care bill, noted that his mother was receiving home health care and said he would not do anything to hurt beneficiaries.
“We are reducing overpayments,” Mr. Baucus said. “We are rooting out fraud. We are getting the waste out. The savings go back in Medicare and extend the solvency of the trust fund.”
But Senator Mike Johanns, Republican of Nebraska, said, “The cuts will hurt real people.”
And Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, said: “The Medicare home health benefit is under attack. The impact of these cuts will ultimately fall on seniors. Home health agencies will simply not be able to afford to serve seniors living in smaller communities off rural roads.”
Four Democratic senators joined 37 Republicans in voting to block the home health cuts. The four were Evan Bayh of Indiana, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Jim Webb of Virginia.
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/health/policy/06health.html?_r=2
I am so relieved that my Mom is no
longer around to witness this travesity.
She would not have lived as long a life
as she did without the Home Health Care
she received from Medicare.
Senate Clears Way for Home Health Care Cuts Sign in to Recommend
Published: December 5, 2009
WASHINGTON — Snowflakes swirled around the Capitol on Saturday, whipped by wintry winds, but on the Senate floor inside, a heated debate raged as Democrats and Republicans traded jabs over legislation to achieve President Obama’s goal of near-universal health insurance coverage.
Jose Luis Magana/Associated Press
By a vote of 53 to 41, the Senate on Saturday rejected a Republican effort to block cutbacks in payments to home health agencies that provide nursing care and therapy to homebound Medicare beneficiaries.
Republicans voted against the cuts, saying they would hurt some of the nation’s most vulnerable citizens. Most Democrats supported the cutbacks, saying they would eliminate waste and inefficiency in home care.
The Democrats’ health care bill would reduce projected Medicare spending on home care by $43 billion, or 13 percent, over the next 10 years. The savings would help offset the cost of subsidizing coverage for the uninsured.
Mr. Obama planned to visit Capitol Hill on Sunday to attend a meeting of the Senate Democratic caucus. The caucus is split over several major provisions of the bill, including one that would create a government health plan to compete with private insurers.
A handful of Democrats and Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine, met Saturday to explore ideas for a possible compromise on the public plan.
In the past, weekend sessions of Congress have dealt with momentous issues like impeachment or fiscal emergencies. But the Saturday session — the sixth day of Senate debate on the giant health care bill — felt, in some ways, like an ordinary workday, as senators debated the health care bill in public and tried to thrash out differences in private.
The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, said the Senate had to meet Saturday so it could finish work on the bill before the end of the year.
“Fourteen thousand people lose their health insurance every day in America,” Mr. Reid said. “The American people don’t get weekends off from this injustice. Bankruptcy does not keep bankers’ hours. The bills don’t go away just because it’s Sunday or Saturday. The pain is still there. And so our work continues this weekend.”
Senator Bob Casey, Democrat of Pennsylvania, said: “We gather on a Saturday, which is rare. But it is entirely appropriate and, I think, essential that we spend the time on a weekend to debate this bill and get it passed.”
The Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said his party would not bow to pressure from Mr. Reid.
“The majority leader believes that somehow if we stay in on weekends, Republicans are going to blink,” Mr. McConnell said. “I can assure him we are not going to blink. The longer we discuss this with the American people, the more unpopular it becomes.”
Indeed, Republicans appeared to relish the debate.
“A fight not joined is a fight not enjoyed,” said Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona.
Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, said, “I would not want to be any other place than on the floor today talking about the most important piece of legislation we probably will deal with in our tenure here.”
Much of the debate Saturday focused on what Mr. McCain had said as the Republican presidential candidate in 2008. Democrats said it was odd to see Mr. McCain styling himself as a defender of Medicare because, in the past, he had favored deep cuts.
Mr. McCain denied that he had tried to cut Medicare benefits.
Democrats said Republicans were stalling. Republicans tried to put Democrats on the defensive.
“I don’t understand what it is that would cause my friends on the left, on the other side of the aisle, to throw seniors under the bus,” Mr. Corker said.
Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana and chairman of the Finance Committee, said, “Nobody here is trying to throw seniors under the bus.”
Mr. Baucus, a principal author of the health care bill, noted that his mother was receiving home health care and said he would not do anything to hurt beneficiaries.
“We are reducing overpayments,” Mr. Baucus said. “We are rooting out fraud. We are getting the waste out. The savings go back in Medicare and extend the solvency of the trust fund.”
But Senator Mike Johanns, Republican of Nebraska, said, “The cuts will hurt real people.”
And Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, said: “The Medicare home health benefit is under attack. The impact of these cuts will ultimately fall on seniors. Home health agencies will simply not be able to afford to serve seniors living in smaller communities off rural roads.”
Four Democratic senators joined 37 Republicans in voting to block the home health cuts. The four were Evan Bayh of Indiana, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Jim Webb of Virginia.
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/health/policy/06health.html?_r=2
American Thinker Blog: Reconciliation fandango on ObamaCare
Labels:
Harry Reid,
Nancy Pelosi.,
Obamacare,
Reconciliation Bill
American Thinker Blog: Reconciliation fandango on ObamaCare
Clarice Feldman for American Thinker
There is a little item called reconciliation
that Harry Reid can use to pass Obamacare
with just 50 votes. Would Reid and Pelosi
stoop to such an underhanded move? You bet
they would to please the mullah in the White
House, Obama. Read on to see how this just
might 'happen'. If the Democrats are stupid
enough to resort to this, then watch out for
very angry voters in 2010. Those angry voters
will not be voting to keep the likes of Pelosi
and Reid in the swamp for another term.
Now here is Ms. Feldman's article.
December 01, 2009
Reconciliation fandango on ObamaCare
Clarice Feldman
Connie Hair of Human Events reports that Senator Harry Reid is setting the stage for getting ObamaCare passed on only 50 votes as a reconciliation bill.
He moved an unrelated House-passed tax bill (which provides for first time homebuyers' credit) so he can use it as a vehicle for his Senate health care bill. This leaves the House-passed health care bill on the Senate calendar undisturbed as a vehicle for reconciliation (passing the Senate with 50 +Veep as a tie breaker).
Connie indicates there is no valid reason for him to use this other than saving the House bill for Plan B, especially if he thinks this current bill will fail to reach 60 votes to end a filibuster. The House bill survives unscathed, still sitting on the Senate calendar.
More Red Flags from Senate Healthcare Reform
Just days ago, Reid was quoted as opposing the use of the reconciliation process to ram through the health care bill and Democrat aides were outlining all the problems -- including whether the parliamentarian would even permit it--involved in such an end run.
There are other complications, added the aide. The House of Representatives, for instance, would have to go back to the drawing board after passing a full health care bill several weeks ago. And the concern on the Senate side of the aisle is that Speaker Nancy Pelosi could lose votes if she has to split up the legislation (though, if it meant ultimate passage, this seems unlikely).
The calendar presents another challenge. The White House has been pushing to get a bill to the president's desk before the new year. But reconciliation would likely push that time line back weeks, if not months, interfering with efforts to take up climate change and regulatory reform, running into the start of the 2010 campaign. "Where is the Senate floor time?" the aide asked.
Finally, the aide says, there is a question of votes. While leadership would have the flexibility to let ten Democratic senators vote against health care reform considered via reconciliation, there is enough parliamentary purism within the party to put its passage in doubt. [snip]
Most important of all, Reid himself has said rather definitively that he is "not using reconciliation." And an aide says that leadership has not had conversations with the Senate parliamentarian "in a while" to discuss what it can and can't do through reconciliation.
Update:
A friend takes issue with the Huffington Post report indicating that Reid will do anything to get this passed. She says:" if the Senate passes a reconciliation bill there is no way this thing is going to conference. The House won’t risk amending and sending it back. So whatever that bill will be will be preconferenced and that will [anger] a lot of people as they lose their provisions as extraneous non revenue matters.
In other words, the huff post is not correct—he will use reconciliation even if it is the worst of all possibilities so he can get this done."
American Thinker
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/12/reconciliation_fandango_on_oba.html
Clarice Feldman for American Thinker
There is a little item called reconciliation
that Harry Reid can use to pass Obamacare
with just 50 votes. Would Reid and Pelosi
stoop to such an underhanded move? You bet
they would to please the mullah in the White
House, Obama. Read on to see how this just
might 'happen'. If the Democrats are stupid
enough to resort to this, then watch out for
very angry voters in 2010. Those angry voters
will not be voting to keep the likes of Pelosi
I love the American people.
Here I am waving at all of you.
Now here is Ms. Feldman's article.
December 01, 2009
Reconciliation fandango on ObamaCare
Clarice Feldman
Connie Hair of Human Events reports that Senator Harry Reid is setting the stage for getting ObamaCare passed on only 50 votes as a reconciliation bill.
He moved an unrelated House-passed tax bill (which provides for first time homebuyers' credit) so he can use it as a vehicle for his Senate health care bill. This leaves the House-passed health care bill on the Senate calendar undisturbed as a vehicle for reconciliation (passing the Senate with 50 +Veep as a tie breaker).
Connie indicates there is no valid reason for him to use this other than saving the House bill for Plan B, especially if he thinks this current bill will fail to reach 60 votes to end a filibuster. The House bill survives unscathed, still sitting on the Senate calendar.
More Red Flags from Senate Healthcare Reform
Just days ago, Reid was quoted as opposing the use of the reconciliation process to ram through the health care bill and Democrat aides were outlining all the problems -- including whether the parliamentarian would even permit it--involved in such an end run.
There are other complications, added the aide. The House of Representatives, for instance, would have to go back to the drawing board after passing a full health care bill several weeks ago. And the concern on the Senate side of the aisle is that Speaker Nancy Pelosi could lose votes if she has to split up the legislation (though, if it meant ultimate passage, this seems unlikely).
Babies, small businesses mean nothing to the
leftist trolls who are out to push Obamacare
through, no matter what the cost.
The calendar presents another challenge. The White House has been pushing to get a bill to the president's desk before the new year. But reconciliation would likely push that time line back weeks, if not months, interfering with efforts to take up climate change and regulatory reform, running into the start of the 2010 campaign. "Where is the Senate floor time?" the aide asked.
Finally, the aide says, there is a question of votes. While leadership would have the flexibility to let ten Democratic senators vote against health care reform considered via reconciliation, there is enough parliamentary purism within the party to put its passage in doubt. [snip]
Most important of all, Reid himself has said rather definitively that he is "not using reconciliation." And an aide says that leadership has not had conversations with the Senate parliamentarian "in a while" to discuss what it can and can't do through reconciliation.
Update:
A friend takes issue with the Huffington Post report indicating that Reid will do anything to get this passed. She says:" if the Senate passes a reconciliation bill there is no way this thing is going to conference. The House won’t risk amending and sending it back. So whatever that bill will be will be preconferenced and that will [anger] a lot of people as they lose their provisions as extraneous non revenue matters.
In other words, the huff post is not correct—he will use reconciliation even if it is the worst of all possibilities so he can get this done."
American Thinker
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/12/reconciliation_fandango_on_oba.html
Democrats pass Obamacare to 'open' debate. Yeah, sure they will.
Labels:
Democrats,
Obamacare,
Traitors in America.
American Thinker Blog: Healthcare disaster looms
The trolls in D.C. passed
Obamacare yesterday. We
should be weeping with
anger at our elected officials
who will continue to be hooked
into voting for such a horrendous
bill as this health care bill.
November 21, 2009
Healthcare disaster looms
James Simpson
This Congress is beneath contempt. What they are poised to pass today -- yes I know this is just a procedural vote, but everything turns on it -- is an abomination. Since Lincoln and Landrieu have been bought off it is now sure to pass. Landrieu's vote will cost the taxpayers $100 million. I wonder what we paid Lincoln to betray us? This bill will not merely ruin our healthcare system; it will impose economy-crushing taxes, pushing our already tottering economy ever closer to the abyss.
No surprise there. Candidate Obama said that since we are only 4 percent of the world population, we couldn't go on consuming 25 percent of the world's resources. It's not fair. In his worldview we should only be consuming, what, 4 percent? In his mind we are confiscating resources and need to give them back.
How stupid can a person be? It is not a zero sum game! We don't consume 25 percent of the world's resources; we trade 25 percent of the world's resources, (if that figure is even correct. I suspect it is high. But some on the left claim 40, 50, even 75 percent - they are delusional.) In any event, the world should be glad we are here, for we are the world's consumer market. We support the world economy. Without that support the world will plunge into a depression that will make 1933 look like a walk in the park! A good, brief explanation of why that is, here.
As it is, taxes proposed to pay for this bill will be onerous, but at $849 billion over ten years, the bill radically underestimates cost. The Senate Budget Committee estimated the true cost at $2.5 trillion. But even this is a vast underestimate because they implicitly assume the legislation will remain unchanged. This will not happen. It has never, ever happened! After the bill passes, Congress will add all kinds of bells and whistles, and will add more "fixes" as the problems created by the new programs begin to manifest themselves. So think of the Senate Budget Committee's $2.5 trillion 10 year cost as a bare bones, no further changes, minimum.
Medicare provides a good example. From a modest $16 billion spending in its first year, Medicare increased 231% over the next nine years, an average annual program growth of 12.72%. This is after correcting for inflation! I do not believe this new bill even factors in inflation over the 10-year period. If you look at Medicare from its first year to the tenth w/o correcting for inflation, it grew 434% or 18.24% per year! These data are derived from program outlay figures provided by the White House Office of Management and Budget - unassailable.
Here is another way to look at it. Medicare and Medicaid together cost $656 billion in 2008, the last year for which actual data are available. The total number of people enrolled in these two programs is about 88 million people -- yes that's right folks we are paying medical bills for approximately thirty percent of the population already! This comes out to about $7,500 per enrollee per year.
This bill is going to generously allow us to pay for 47 million more. Forget about denying illegals, they will be covered in this legislation. Don't believe a word about "cost savings." It is not going to happen, even if they do start euthanizing granny. Medicare and Medicaid currently squeeze everything they can out of the medical profession and their cost cutting measures are already creating supply shortages. So consider $7,500 a reasonable estimate of per capita cost. Assuming this same average cost for all these new folks gets us an annual price tag of about $350 billion, ($7,500 x 47 million) or a ten year cost of $3.5 trillion.
Now, Congress has never in the history of major legislation, ever left it alone once passed. It will explode just like Medicare and Medicaid have throughout their entire existence - and Congress gave us the exact same phony promises back when these programs were first proposed. So take the $3.5 trillion and multiply it by a factor of 3, i.e. $10 trillion, or an average annual cost of $1 trillion, and you are probably closer to a realistic minimum cost figure.
This bill is a five-alarm fire that will consume our nation if it passes
There are two traitors: Landriue
and Lincoln. This paves the way to
debate the bill. We have seen how the
demosocialistacrats debate bills. They
lock out those who disagree or dissent
against such highway robbery as this
bill is, and will be.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/healthcare_disaster_looms.html
The trolls in D.C. passed
Obamacare yesterday. We
should be weeping with
anger at our elected officials
who will continue to be hooked
into voting for such a horrendous
bill as this health care bill.
Dear Leader of the the back stabbers from
the left.
November 21, 2009
Healthcare disaster looms
James Simpson
This Congress is beneath contempt. What they are poised to pass today -- yes I know this is just a procedural vote, but everything turns on it -- is an abomination. Since Lincoln and Landrieu have been bought off it is now sure to pass. Landrieu's vote will cost the taxpayers $100 million. I wonder what we paid Lincoln to betray us? This bill will not merely ruin our healthcare system; it will impose economy-crushing taxes, pushing our already tottering economy ever closer to the abyss.
No surprise there. Candidate Obama said that since we are only 4 percent of the world population, we couldn't go on consuming 25 percent of the world's resources. It's not fair. In his worldview we should only be consuming, what, 4 percent? In his mind we are confiscating resources and need to give them back.
How stupid can a person be? It is not a zero sum game! We don't consume 25 percent of the world's resources; we trade 25 percent of the world's resources, (if that figure is even correct. I suspect it is high. But some on the left claim 40, 50, even 75 percent - they are delusional.) In any event, the world should be glad we are here, for we are the world's consumer market. We support the world economy. Without that support the world will plunge into a depression that will make 1933 look like a walk in the park! A good, brief explanation of why that is, here.
As it is, taxes proposed to pay for this bill will be onerous, but at $849 billion over ten years, the bill radically underestimates cost. The Senate Budget Committee estimated the true cost at $2.5 trillion. But even this is a vast underestimate because they implicitly assume the legislation will remain unchanged. This will not happen. It has never, ever happened! After the bill passes, Congress will add all kinds of bells and whistles, and will add more "fixes" as the problems created by the new programs begin to manifest themselves. So think of the Senate Budget Committee's $2.5 trillion 10 year cost as a bare bones, no further changes, minimum.
Medicare provides a good example. From a modest $16 billion spending in its first year, Medicare increased 231% over the next nine years, an average annual program growth of 12.72%. This is after correcting for inflation! I do not believe this new bill even factors in inflation over the 10-year period. If you look at Medicare from its first year to the tenth w/o correcting for inflation, it grew 434% or 18.24% per year! These data are derived from program outlay figures provided by the White House Office of Management and Budget - unassailable.
Here is another way to look at it. Medicare and Medicaid together cost $656 billion in 2008, the last year for which actual data are available. The total number of people enrolled in these two programs is about 88 million people -- yes that's right folks we are paying medical bills for approximately thirty percent of the population already! This comes out to about $7,500 per enrollee per year.
This bill is going to generously allow us to pay for 47 million more. Forget about denying illegals, they will be covered in this legislation. Don't believe a word about "cost savings." It is not going to happen, even if they do start euthanizing granny. Medicare and Medicaid currently squeeze everything they can out of the medical profession and their cost cutting measures are already creating supply shortages. So consider $7,500 a reasonable estimate of per capita cost. Assuming this same average cost for all these new folks gets us an annual price tag of about $350 billion, ($7,500 x 47 million) or a ten year cost of $3.5 trillion.
Now, Congress has never in the history of major legislation, ever left it alone once passed. It will explode just like Medicare and Medicaid have throughout their entire existence - and Congress gave us the exact same phony promises back when these programs were first proposed. So take the $3.5 trillion and multiply it by a factor of 3, i.e. $10 trillion, or an average annual cost of $1 trillion, and you are probably closer to a realistic minimum cost figure.
This bill is a five-alarm fire that will consume our nation if it passes
There are two traitors: Landriue
and Lincoln. This paves the way to
debate the bill. We have seen how the
demosocialistacrats debate bills. They
lock out those who disagree or dissent
against such highway robbery as this
bill is, and will be.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/11/healthcare_disaster_looms.html
No, this will hurt the American people
alot. But how would this asshat
pinko understand
Obamacare: Bought and paid for?
The $100 Million Health Care Vote? - The Note
From ABC News.
How many States will qualify for
this? As mentioned, just one, and
that is Louisiana. Is this Senator's
vote bought and paid for? We will
see later today. The article is here
with the legalese from the health
care bill.
ABC News' Jonathan Karl reports:
What does it take to get a wavering senator to vote for health care reform?
Here’s a case study.
On page 432 of the Reid bill, there is a section increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster.”
The section spends two pages defining which “states” would qualify, saying, among other things, that it would be states that “during the preceding 7 fiscal years” have been declared a “major disaster area.”
I am told the section applies to exactly one state: Louisiana, the home of moderate Democrat Mary Landrieu, who has been playing hard to get on the health care bill.
In other words, the bill spends two pages describing would could be written with a single world: Louisiana. (This may also help explain why the bill is long.)
Senator Harry Reid, who drafted the bill, cannot pass it without the support of Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu.
How much does it cost? According to the Congressional Budget Office: $100 million.
Here’s the incredibly complicated language:
SEC. 2006. SPECIAL ADJUSTMENT TO FMAP DETERMINATION FOR CERTAIN STATES RECOVERING FROM A MAJOR DISASTER.
Section 1905 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d), as amended by sections 2001(a)(3) and
2001(b)(2), is amended— (1) in subsection (b), in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘subsection (y)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsections (y) and (aa)’’; and (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
‘‘(aa)(1) Notwithstanding subsection (b), beginning January 1, 2011, the Federal medical assistance percentage for a fiscal year for a disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State shall be equal to the following:
‘(A) In the case of the first fiscal year (or part of a fiscal year) for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), increased by 50 percent of the number of percentage points by which the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year after the application of only subsection (a) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5 (if applicable to the preceding fiscal year) and without regard to this subsection, subsection (y), and subsections (b) and (c) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5.
‘‘(B) In the case of the second or any succeeding fiscal year for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection for the State, increased by 25 percent of the number of percentage points by which the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection.
‘‘(2) In this subsection, the term ‘disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State’ means a State that is one of
the 50 States or the District of Columbia, for which, at any time during the preceding 7 fiscal years, the President has declared a major disaster under section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act and determined as a result of such disaster that every county or parish in the State warrant individual and public assistance or public assistance from the Federal Government under such Act and for which— ‘‘(A) in the case of the first fiscal year (or part of a fiscal year) for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year after the application of only subsection (a) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5 (if applicable to the preceding fiscal year) and without regard to this subsection, subsection (y), and subsections (b) and (c) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5, by at least 3 percentage points; and ‘‘(B) in the case of the second or any succeeding fiscal year for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection by at least 3 percentage points.
‘‘(3) The Federal medical assistance percentage determined for a disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State under paragraph (1) shall apply for purposes of this title (other than with respect to disproportionate share hospital payments described in section 1923 and payments under this title that are based on the enhanced FMAP described in 2105(b)) and shall not apply with respect to payments under title IV (other than under part E of title IV) or payments under title XXI.’’.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/11/the-100-million-health-care-vote.html
From ABC News.
How many States will qualify for
this? As mentioned, just one, and
that is Louisiana. Is this Senator's
vote bought and paid for? We will
see later today. The article is here
with the legalese from the health
care bill.
ABC News' Jonathan Karl reports:
What does it take to get a wavering senator to vote for health care reform?
Here’s a case study.
On page 432 of the Reid bill, there is a section increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster.”
The section spends two pages defining which “states” would qualify, saying, among other things, that it would be states that “during the preceding 7 fiscal years” have been declared a “major disaster area.”
I am told the section applies to exactly one state: Louisiana, the home of moderate Democrat Mary Landrieu, who has been playing hard to get on the health care bill.
Bought and paid for??
In other words, the bill spends two pages describing would could be written with a single world: Louisiana. (This may also help explain why the bill is long.)
Senator Harry Reid, who drafted the bill, cannot pass it without the support of Louisiana’s Mary Landrieu.
How much does it cost? According to the Congressional Budget Office: $100 million.
Here’s the incredibly complicated language:
SEC. 2006. SPECIAL ADJUSTMENT TO FMAP DETERMINATION FOR CERTAIN STATES RECOVERING FROM A MAJOR DISASTER.
Section 1905 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d), as amended by sections 2001(a)(3) and
2001(b)(2), is amended— (1) in subsection (b), in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘subsection (y)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsections (y) and (aa)’’; and (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
‘‘(aa)(1) Notwithstanding subsection (b), beginning January 1, 2011, the Federal medical assistance percentage for a fiscal year for a disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State shall be equal to the following:
‘(A) In the case of the first fiscal year (or part of a fiscal year) for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), increased by 50 percent of the number of percentage points by which the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year after the application of only subsection (a) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5 (if applicable to the preceding fiscal year) and without regard to this subsection, subsection (y), and subsections (b) and (c) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5.
‘‘(B) In the case of the second or any succeeding fiscal year for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection for the State, increased by 25 percent of the number of percentage points by which the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection.
‘‘(2) In this subsection, the term ‘disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State’ means a State that is one of
the 50 States or the District of Columbia, for which, at any time during the preceding 7 fiscal years, the President has declared a major disaster under section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act and determined as a result of such disaster that every county or parish in the State warrant individual and public assistance or public assistance from the Federal Government under such Act and for which— ‘‘(A) in the case of the first fiscal year (or part of a fiscal year) for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year after the application of only subsection (a) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5 (if applicable to the preceding fiscal year) and without regard to this subsection, subsection (y), and subsections (b) and (c) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5, by at least 3 percentage points; and ‘‘(B) in the case of the second or any succeeding fiscal year for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection by at least 3 percentage points.
‘‘(3) The Federal medical assistance percentage determined for a disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State under paragraph (1) shall apply for purposes of this title (other than with respect to disproportionate share hospital payments described in section 1923 and payments under this title that are based on the enhanced FMAP described in 2105(b)) and shall not apply with respect to payments under title IV (other than under part E of title IV) or payments under title XXI.’’.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/11/the-100-million-health-care-vote.html
Patriot Post: Alexander's Essay. On Obama's BIGGEST LIE. The liar and thief in the White House just keeps on getting better and better.
Labels:
Lies and Deception,
National debt.,
Obama,
Obamacare
What an excellent read! Obama
has the nerve to insult the
American people, again about
increasing our national debt.
Who is really responsible for this
massive increase in debt? You know
the answer and if you do not, then
please, read on. Debt, bankrolled by
massive loans from the Chinese. No
wonder they were laughing at Obama
on his visit to China. Maybe Obama
should look here for better luck before
http://patriotpost.us/
Alexander's Essay – November 19, 2009
The BIGGEST LIE Yet
"It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth -- and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. ... For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it." --Patrick Henry
Sometimes the biggest lies come under cover of a truth.
Such was the case this week, when Barack Hussein Obama proffered this observation about deficits: "I think it is important, though, to recognize if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point, people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession."
"Keep on adding to the debt"? From this, one might conclude that Obama has never suggested such a thing, and is truly concerned about deficits.
His revelation came amid discussion of tax reductions engineered to increase employment, as if our Constitution has a provision for that, anymore than for Obama's other proposals.
Obama is feigning concern about deficits now that there is discussion of tax cuts, which he concludes would increase deficits.
"At some point, people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy"? Like the Red Chinese, who hold more U.S. government debt than any other nation ($800 billion), and upon whom we are depending to fund more of our debt. No coincidence that Obama's remarks were made while on his most recent appeasement tour in Beijing.
"Even in the midst of this recovery"? What recovery?
Oh, the one that his $787 billion "hope-n-change" big-government payout package was supposed to ensure?
At the time of that proposal, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office offered this summary: "In the longer run, the [Obama] legislation would result in a slight decrease in gross domestic product compared with CBO's baseline economic forecast." Put another way, the CBO static scoring projected that Obama's big government pork giveaway would hinder economic recovery. Dynamic scoring by economists shows a much worse destiny.
But Obama warned, "If nothing is done, this recession might linger for years. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse."
Now, after a quick assessment of the Obama Recovery through October, one is stuck with the conclusion that his spending spree has resulted in 10.2 percent unemployment -- except, of course, in such places as Washington, DC, where government jobs are immune to recession.
That would be double-digit unemployment -- so now you know why Obama cleverly framed his recovery program in terms of jobs "created or saved." His administration announced that through October, the American Recovery Act had "created" or "saved" 640,329 jobs. However, a growing number of skeptics, even among his once-adoring media, found some very questionable accounting methods used to come up with that figure.
Asked about some of the discrepancies, Obama's Recovery Czar, Ed Pound, responded, "Who knows, man, who really knows?"
Recovery reality check: Remember when Obama claimed, "This is our moment, this is our time to turn the page on the policies of the past, to offer a new direction"?
That is a reference to Obama's v Reagan's policies, big government solutions v. free enterprise solutions.
Ronald Reagan's economic policies unleashed an unprecedented period of growth, which continued right up until the financial sector collapse in '08, a calamity resulting from policies implemented during the Clinton years, which undermined the values of derivatives used as collateral due. Those policies, as we now know, gave license for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to back high-risk loans to unqualified buyers, thereby setting the stage for the subprime mortgage meltdown and the crash of 2008.
Recall that in 2005, Sen. John McCain sponsored the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act, saying, "For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ... and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. ... If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole."
McCain noted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regulators concluded that profits were "illusions deliberately and systematically created by the company's senior management."
McCain was right, but Democrats, including Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, ensured that nothing would be done to alter current practices at Fannie and Freddie. "These two entities ... are not facing any kind of financial crisis," Frank said at the time.
The net result of the derivative dilution was a crisis of confidence in the U.S. economy, second only to that which led to the Great Depression.
Remember when Obama claimed, "We are fundamentally transforming the United States of America"? Well, we're in mid-transformation, and how are things looking now?
Obama also said, "Generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was our time."
Indeed, his time to saddle them and their children with unprecedented debt, not only from his "stimulus" folly, but next up, ObamaCare, and then his job-killing cap-and-tax scheme.
If you think you can count on the administration's estimates of the true cost of ObamaCare, think again. The Washington Times recently reminded us of the estimated cost of Medicare shortly after Democrats implemented it in 1965. Then, it was predicted to cost $12 billion by 1990. In actuality, it cost $98 billion, which is to say the original estimate was short by more than a factor of seven.
In my home state of Tennessee, we've already been there and done that. Our state's version of ObamaCare, known as TennCare, implemented by Democrats in 1994 ostensibly to contain healthcare expenses, has quickly grown to consume more than a third of state revenues.
The CBO now says that the $1 trillion estimated cost of ObamaCare is "subject to substantial uncertainty." How's that for qualifying understatement?
As for the big picture, U.S. National Debt topped the $12 trillion mark this week, or approximately $39,000 for every man, woman and child in America, and the federal deficit that Obama now pretends to be concerned about hit a record high $1.42 trillion for fiscal year 2009.
Obama's administration projects that the national debt will top $14 trillion by this time next year, and my sense is that they're being modest. At the current pace, within 10 years our national debt will exceed our Gross Domestic Product.
Of these staggering debt figures, Obama now claims, "I intend to take serious steps to reduce America's long-term deficit because debt-driven growth cannot fuel America's long-term prosperity."
But, what's his real endgame?
We can be certain that Obama's solution to deficits will not be less government. Instead, it will be unprecedented tax increases, a.k.a., socialist redistribution of wealth, a.k.a., "the fundamental transformation of America."
The Tax Foundation now estimates that to offset deficits, "Federal income tax rates would have to be nearly tripled across the income spectrum," with the lowest bracket at 27 percent and the highest at 95. Even the CBO estimates that rates would have to exceed 80 percent, and that's before state and local taxes.
Do you get the picture, folks?
Obama will succeed in his effort to socialize the U.S. economy, using the tax code as his hammer and sickle, unless growing ranks of Americans object to the fact that he has no constitutional authority to do so.
In the meantime, Patriots, keep your powder dry.
http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2009/11/19/the-biggest-lie-yet/
has the nerve to insult the
American people, again about
increasing our national debt.
Who is really responsible for this
massive increase in debt? You know
the answer and if you do not, then
please, read on. Debt, bankrolled by
massive loans from the Chinese. No
wonder they were laughing at Obama
on his visit to China. Maybe Obama
should look here for better luck before
his next visit abroad.
http://patriotpost.us/
Alexander's Essay – November 19, 2009
The BIGGEST LIE Yet
"It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth -- and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. ... For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it." --Patrick Henry
Sometimes the biggest lies come under cover of a truth.
What Obama does best!
Such was the case this week, when Barack Hussein Obama proffered this observation about deficits: "I think it is important, though, to recognize if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point, people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession."
"Keep on adding to the debt"? From this, one might conclude that Obama has never suggested such a thing, and is truly concerned about deficits.
His revelation came amid discussion of tax reductions engineered to increase employment, as if our Constitution has a provision for that, anymore than for Obama's other proposals.
Obama is feigning concern about deficits now that there is discussion of tax cuts, which he concludes would increase deficits.
"At some point, people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy"? Like the Red Chinese, who hold more U.S. government debt than any other nation ($800 billion), and upon whom we are depending to fund more of our debt. No coincidence that Obama's remarks were made while on his most recent appeasement tour in Beijing.
"Even in the midst of this recovery"? What recovery?
Do we want freedom as laid down
by the Founding Fathers and the Constitution
OR socialism, led by Obama and the
demosocialistacrats?
Oh, the one that his $787 billion "hope-n-change" big-government payout package was supposed to ensure?
At the time of that proposal, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office offered this summary: "In the longer run, the [Obama] legislation would result in a slight decrease in gross domestic product compared with CBO's baseline economic forecast." Put another way, the CBO static scoring projected that Obama's big government pork giveaway would hinder economic recovery. Dynamic scoring by economists shows a much worse destiny.
But Obama warned, "If nothing is done, this recession might linger for years. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse."
Now, after a quick assessment of the Obama Recovery through October, one is stuck with the conclusion that his spending spree has resulted in 10.2 percent unemployment -- except, of course, in such places as Washington, DC, where government jobs are immune to recession.
That would be double-digit unemployment -- so now you know why Obama cleverly framed his recovery program in terms of jobs "created or saved." His administration announced that through October, the American Recovery Act had "created" or "saved" 640,329 jobs. However, a growing number of skeptics, even among his once-adoring media, found some very questionable accounting methods used to come up with that figure.
Asked about some of the discrepancies, Obama's Recovery Czar, Ed Pound, responded, "Who knows, man, who really knows?"
Recovery reality check: Remember when Obama claimed, "This is our moment, this is our time to turn the page on the policies of the past, to offer a new direction"?
That is a reference to Obama's v Reagan's policies, big government solutions v. free enterprise solutions.
Ronald Reagan's economic policies unleashed an unprecedented period of growth, which continued right up until the financial sector collapse in '08, a calamity resulting from policies implemented during the Clinton years, which undermined the values of derivatives used as collateral due. Those policies, as we now know, gave license for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to back high-risk loans to unqualified buyers, thereby setting the stage for the subprime mortgage meltdown and the crash of 2008.
Recall that in 2005, Sen. John McCain sponsored the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act, saying, "For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ... and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. ... If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole."
McCain noted that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regulators concluded that profits were "illusions deliberately and systematically created by the company's senior management."
McCain was right, but Democrats, including Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, ensured that nothing would be done to alter current practices at Fannie and Freddie. "These two entities ... are not facing any kind of financial crisis," Frank said at the time.
The net result of the derivative dilution was a crisis of confidence in the U.S. economy, second only to that which led to the Great Depression.
Remember when Obama claimed, "We are fundamentally transforming the United States of America"? Well, we're in mid-transformation, and how are things looking now?
Obama also said, "Generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was our time."
Indeed, his time to saddle them and their children with unprecedented debt, not only from his "stimulus" folly, but next up, ObamaCare, and then his job-killing cap-and-tax scheme.
If you think you can count on the administration's estimates of the true cost of ObamaCare, think again. The Washington Times recently reminded us of the estimated cost of Medicare shortly after Democrats implemented it in 1965. Then, it was predicted to cost $12 billion by 1990. In actuality, it cost $98 billion, which is to say the original estimate was short by more than a factor of seven.
In my home state of Tennessee, we've already been there and done that. Our state's version of ObamaCare, known as TennCare, implemented by Democrats in 1994 ostensibly to contain healthcare expenses, has quickly grown to consume more than a third of state revenues.
The CBO now says that the $1 trillion estimated cost of ObamaCare is "subject to substantial uncertainty." How's that for qualifying understatement?
As for the big picture, U.S. National Debt topped the $12 trillion mark this week, or approximately $39,000 for every man, woman and child in America, and the federal deficit that Obama now pretends to be concerned about hit a record high $1.42 trillion for fiscal year 2009.
Obama's administration projects that the national debt will top $14 trillion by this time next year, and my sense is that they're being modest. At the current pace, within 10 years our national debt will exceed our Gross Domestic Product.
Of these staggering debt figures, Obama now claims, "I intend to take serious steps to reduce America's long-term deficit because debt-driven growth cannot fuel America's long-term prosperity."
But, what's his real endgame?
We can be certain that Obama's solution to deficits will not be less government. Instead, it will be unprecedented tax increases, a.k.a., socialist redistribution of wealth, a.k.a., "the fundamental transformation of America."
The Tax Foundation now estimates that to offset deficits, "Federal income tax rates would have to be nearly tripled across the income spectrum," with the lowest bracket at 27 percent and the highest at 95. Even the CBO estimates that rates would have to exceed 80 percent, and that's before state and local taxes.
Comrades!
Do you get the picture, folks?
Obama will succeed in his effort to socialize the U.S. economy, using the tax code as his hammer and sickle, unless growing ranks of Americans object to the fact that he has no constitutional authority to do so.
In the meantime, Patriots, keep your powder dry.
http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2009/11/19/the-biggest-lie-yet/
Of course, it is all about race with those who dislike Obama, all 283 people they polled.
Labels:
Conservatism,
Democrats.,
Obama,
Obamacare,
Racism
Study finds race affects attitudes on Obama policy obama, health, racism - Front Page - The Orange County Register
Thanks to Fousesquawk
"Some have touted the election of Barack Obama as heralding a “post-racial era,” but prejudice swayed some from voting for the black man and is causing many to be wary of his policies, according to a new study led by UC Irvine's Eric Knowles."
I am so tired of this argument! According to
Mr. Knowles many of us did not vote for the
"black man" because we are prejudice. Oh
no, does that mean we are bigots, racists,
card carrying members of the KKK and
American nazi party? Not even close,
Mr. Knowles. For many of us it is about
Obama, what he represents through his
policies and agenda. It has nothing to do
with Obama being a black man. I could
care less if he was Chinese, a Jew, white,
Hispanic, Korean, whatever. I do not
like Obama because of what is doing to
our country and where he, and the
Democrats want to take to the United
States. Here is a suggestion Mr. Knowles:
try talking to more than 283 people before
you make assumptions about 300 million
Americans.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/obama-51165-ocprint-health-racism.html
Thanks to Fousesquawk
I am so tired of this argument! According to
Mr. Knowles many of us did not vote for the
"black man" because we are prejudice. Oh
no, does that mean we are bigots, racists,
card carrying members of the KKK and
American nazi party? Not even close,
Mr. Knowles. For many of us it is about
Obama, what he represents through his
policies and agenda. It has nothing to do
with Obama being a black man. I could
care less if he was Chinese, a Jew, white,
Hispanic, Korean, whatever. I do not
like Obama because of what is doing to
our country and where he, and the
Democrats want to take to the United
States. Here is a suggestion Mr. Knowles:
try talking to more than 283 people before
you make assumptions about 300 million
Americans.
There are more of us than you think.
The number is growing larger every day.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/obama-51165-ocprint-health-racism.html
Report states the Health care bill from the House will reduce senior care. That is just for starters.
Nonpartisan agency says House bill would reduce senior care - washingtonpost.com
By Lori Montgomery Washington Post
"The report offers the clearest and most authoritative assessment to date of the effect that Democratic health reform proposals would have on Medicare and Medicaid, the nation's largest public health programs. It analyzes the House bill, but the Senate is also expected to rely on hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicare cuts to finance the package that Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) hopes to take to the floor this week. Like the House, the Senate is expected to propose adding millions of people to Medicaid."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/14/AR2009111402597.html?hpid=topnews
By Lori Montgomery Washington Post
"The report offers the clearest and most authoritative assessment to date of the effect that Democratic health reform proposals would have on Medicare and Medicaid, the nation's largest public health programs. It analyzes the House bill, but the Senate is also expected to rely on hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicare cuts to finance the package that Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) hopes to take to the floor this week. Like the House, the Senate is expected to propose adding millions of people to Medicaid."
So how many years will our children and their
grandchildren have to 'bend over' to keep
paying for this trainwreck of a bill? The taxes
of the welfare states in Europe keep climbing
higher and higher. But wait, Obama promised
us "hope and change."
Just ignore that $787,000,000,000
cost, folks Move along, move along
there is nothing to see here.
Most polls show government health care losing ground. Here is a timely opinion why.
Labels:
Health Care Plan,
Lies and Deception.,
Obamacare
Arthur C. Brooks: Why Government Health Care Keeps Falling in the Polls - WSJ.com
Tip of the mug to Dymphna at G of V.
Arthur C. Brooks is a most interesting
fellow. I borrowed this from Dympha
@ Gates of Vienna:
He took over the leadership of the American Enterprise Institute last year. There were many people under consideration for the job. The fact that he was chosen above all the others speaks to his extraordinary ability both to to lead and to listen.
He’s also an accomplished musician, having been part of more than a thousand performances as a French horn player.
I have also enclosed below the link to
Dymphma's fine article and commentary
of Mr. Brook's opinion. If you have not
checked out Gates of Vienna, please do
so. You will not be disappointed!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704335904574495131591949574.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2009/11/why-america-will-never-like-obamacare.html#readfurther
Tip of the mug to Dymphna at G of V.
Arthur C. Brooks is a most interesting
fellow. I borrowed this from Dympha
@ Gates of Vienna:
He took over the leadership of the American Enterprise Institute last year. There were many people under consideration for the job. The fact that he was chosen above all the others speaks to his extraordinary ability both to to lead and to listen.
He’s also an accomplished musician, having been part of more than a thousand performances as a French horn player.
I have also enclosed below the link to
Dymphma's fine article and commentary
of Mr. Brook's opinion. If you have not
checked out Gates of Vienna, please do
so. You will not be disappointed!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704335904574495131591949574.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2009/11/why-america-will-never-like-obamacare.html#readfurther
Congress keeps their golden calf heath insurance while we get band aids and superglue.
Labels:
Congress,
Health Care Plan,
Obamacare
Jillian Bandes : Congress Keeps Gold-Plated Health Care... For Themselves - Townhall.com
If you think Congress and others in the swamp
are going to 'lower'themselves to Obamacare,
think again. They have lied about this to the
American people that this will not be the case.
So maybe England is better...? Read on, please!
If you think Congress and others in the swamp
are going to 'lower'themselves to Obamacare,
think again. They have lied about this to the
American people that this will not be the case.
So maybe England is better...? Read on, please!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
