Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
MB
Rep. Stupak: White House Pressuring Me to Keep Quiet on Abortion Language in Senate Health Bill – CNSNews.com
Rep. Stupak: White House Pressuring Me to Keep Quiet on Abortion Language in Senate Health Bill
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
By Pete Winn, Senior Writer/Editor
(CNSNews.com) – Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said the White House and the Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives have been pressuring him not to speak out on the “compromise” abortion language in the Senate version of the health care bill.
“They think I shouldn’t be expressing my views on this bill until they get a chance to try to sell me the language,” Stupak told CNSNews.com in an interview on Tuesday. “Well, I don’t need anyone to sell me the language. I can read it. I’ve seen it. I’ve worked with it. I know what it says. I don’t need to have a conference with the White House. I have the legislation in front of me here.”
The Michigan Democrat succeeded last month in getting 64 House Democrats to join him in attaching his pro-life amendment to the House version of the health-care bill. The “Stupak amendment,” as the provision is known, would prohibit the federal government from allocating taxpayer money to pay for any part of any health insurance plan that covers abortion except in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is in danger.
Obamacare sparking 10th Amendment rebellion, action in seven states | Washington Examiner
Obamacare sparking 10th Amendment rebellion, action in seven states
By: MARK TAPSCOTT
Editorial Page Editor
12/22/09 6:01 PM EST
Looks like the steadily growing list of constitutional, ethical and political outrages that constitute the Harry Reid version of Obamacare is sparking a rebellion in the states, as AP reports South Carolina’s attorney general plans to investigate the vote-buying that surrounded the proposal in the Senate majority leader’s office.
According to AP, South Carolina’s Henry McMaster is being joined by the attorneys general of Michigan and Washington state in a suit to determine the constitutionality of the Obamacare proposal. Their initiative was prompted by a request from South Carolina’s two senators, Lindsay Graham and Jim DeMint, both Republicans.
Attorneys-general in at least four other states are also considering joining McMasters, according to AP.
Graham has been all over cable news today visibly angry about the vote-buying by Reid that secured the votes of Senators Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, as well as possibly other senators as yet unknown.
DeMint has also been active, especially on the issue of the Reid amendment’s provision seeking to bar future congresses from changing even a single word of Section 3403 on the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (IMAB).
The IMAB will become the federal health care ground zero under Obamacare if it becomes law. Ed Morrissey at Hot Air has a link to DeMint’s floor speech on the issue and additional information, analyses, and links.
Nelson’s deal with Reid has attracted the most attention because it exempts Nebraska from paying its share of Medicaid expenses in perpetuity. Medicaid expenditures are among the most expensive federal mandates on state governments, and the Obamacare bill will significantly increase costs for all other states that don’t somehow wangle a similar deal.
It also raises a constitutional issue, which McMasters explained in a statement issued earlier today:
“The Nelson provision is unusual in that there is not cut off date or phase out. Many provisions in federal law have a sunset date — say 2, 5, 10, or even 20 years– but this provision will continue in perpetuity. Quite obviously, this issue raises very serious concerns about equity, tax fairness as well as the constitutionality of having federal tax levies and mandates that treat one state differently from all the others.
via Obamacare sparking 10th Amendment rebellion, action in seven states | Washington Examiner.
Kristol: It Could Still Go Down
I’ve assumed for the last couple of days that the Democrats would succeed in passing the health care bill, and that our job was to make sure it turned out to be a Pyrrhic victory. Now I’m not so sure the legislation can’t still be derailed.
Two reasons:
First: the reaction to the deal-making. One friend e-mails, “uncharacteristically, I’m getting calls from relatives who want to talk about all the unseemly deals being cut to get the health bill through…that seems to have hit a nerve, as much as the price-tag.” That’s my sense too. Now combine the unseemly deals with Reid’s pathetic defense of them yesterday. According to Reid, “this legislation is no different than the defense bill we just spent $600 billion on.” As Dana Milbank points out in the Washington Post, “That would be the bill with more than 1,700 pet-project earmarks.” So when Reid says, “It’s no different than other pieces of legislation,” he’s giving up a lot—health care reform was supposed to be different. It was special, historic, a moral imperative, and so forth. If it’s no different, if it’s just another piece of cobbled-together legislation, why not kill this mess and start over?
Second: the issue Jim DeMint raised on the floor of the Senate last night. Why did the authors of the legislation want to specially protect the Independent Medicare Advisory Board by making it difficult for future Congresses to legislate in that area? Because the heart of the bill is the attempt to get control of our health care permanently in the hands of federal bureaucrats, who would allegedly know better than doctors and patients what’s good for them, and who would cut access to care and the quality of care so there’s more money left over for various big government liberal social programs.
As people learn more about the sleazy sweetheart deals and the creepy permanent death panels—this thing could still go down in the House next month in the face of popular outrage.
Posted by William Kristol on December 22, 2009 09:52 AM | Permalink
Email the article Kristol: It Could Still Go Down to a friend:
via The Weekly Standard.
Obama’s failed his words
The president’s actions and tactics haven’t matched his lofty language, breeding a cynicism that has doomed his cause.
By Jonah Goldberg
December 22, 2009
On his own terms, President Obama is a failure.
During the presidential campaign, he fought hammer and tongs with Hillary Rodham Clinton on the best way to govern. Clinton, casting herself as a battle-scarred political veteran, argued that diligence, dedicated detail work and working the system were essential for success.
Obama, donning the mantle of a redeemer descending from divine heights, argued that his soaring rhetoric was more than “just words” but a way out of the poisonous, partisan gridlock of yesteryear. Early on in New Hampshire, he proclaimed that his “rival in this race is not other candidates. It’s cynicism.”
Occasionally the Obama-Clinton argument was explicit — such as when they sparred over who was more important to the Civil Rights Act, Martin Luther King Jr. or Lyndon Johnson — but it was always there, implicit in everything from their body language and stagecraft to position papers and platforms.
The great irony of it all is that it seems they were both wrong.
Obama’s rhetoric in fact looks to be the best way to achieve a Clintonian agenda. But a Clintonian agenda is the worst possible way to live up to Obama’s rhetoric.
From his 2004 keynote speech onward, Obama rejected the partisan divide. He earned points by insisting that invidious descriptions of political opponents were deleterious to civic health and distracted us from the fact that “we are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.”
POLITICO learns Rep. Parker Griffith will announce today that he’s switching parties to become a Republican.Photo: AP
Exclusive: Rep. Parker Griffith switches to GOP
By JOSH KRAUSHAAR | 12/22/09 10:57 AM EST
POLITICO has learned that Rep. Parker Griffith, a freshman Democrat from Alabama, will announce today that he’s switching parties to become a Republican.
According to two senior GOP aides familiar with the decision, the announcement will take place this afternoon in Griffith’s district in northern Alabama.
Griffith’s party switch comes on the eve of a pivotal congressional health care vote and will send a jolt through a Democratic House Caucus that has already been unnerved by the recent retirements of a handful of members who, like Griffith, hail from districts that offer prime pickup opportunities for the GOP in 2010.
The switch represents a coup for the House Republican leadership, which had been courting Griffith since he publicly criticized the Democratic leadership in the wake of raucous town halls during the summer.
Griffith, who captured the seat in a close 2008 open seat contest, will become the first Republican to hold the historically Democratic, Huntsville-based district. A radiation oncologist who founded a cancer treatment center, Griffith plans to blast the Democratic health care bill as a prime reason for his decision to switch parties—and is expected to cite his medical background as his authority on the subject.
via Exclusive: Rep. Parker Griffith switches to GOP – – POLITICO.com.
U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) questions the Parliamentarian of the U.S. Senate through the chair about changes to the Senate Rules hidden within…
Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) pointed out some rather astounding language in the Senate health care bill during floor remarks tonight. First, he noted that there are a number of changes to Senate rules in the bill–and it’s supposed to take a 2/3 vote to change the rules. And then he pointed out that the Reid bill declares on page 1020 that the Independent Medicare Advisory Board cannot be repealed by future Congresses:
December 22, 2009
Mr. Obama: Tear Down Your Wall of Secrecy
By Monte Kuligowski
Everyone has gotten the memo by this point: Do not question Barack Obama. Even conservatives have been warned by other conservatives about mentioning the secrecy issue: It’s pointless and can only harm conservatism.
Recently, Rusty Humphries broke the rule and asked Sarah Palin if she would make the “birth certificate an issue” if she runs for office. In her answer, she noted that people “still want answers” and “it’s a fair question.” Her enemies pounced quickly, casting her as a wild-eyed conspiracy theorist.
The real issue, however, is not about birthers or theories or racism or whatever else you want to add. The real issue is about the secrecy of Barack Obama, and it involves more than the release of his complete birth records. Hospital records; high school, college and law school records; transcripts; writings; and passport info have been requested, and all are being withheld by Obama.
Mr. Obama is presented as the smartest man in the country, yet we have not seen his college course list or grades. Hmm, hmm, hmm.
A normative democratic society cannot allow a president to continue to speak disingenuously about transparency while withholding basic information.
We happen to have a president who touts openness, accountability, and transparency in a way that is unparalleled when compared to all previous presidents. Yet we know less about this man than about his predecessors. Consequently, there are twists of irony and feelings of distrust at almost every turn in the Obama presidency.
I therefore suggest a couple of reasons for the president to hit the reset button and release the requested information.
via American Thinker: Mr. Obama: Tear Down Your Wall of Secrecy.
CBO pegs Nelson’s deal for Nebraska at $100 million – The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room
CBO pegs Nelson’s deal for Nebraska at $100 million
By Michael O’Brien – 12/20/09 08:59 PM ET
Nebraska will receive $100 million in assistance for its Medicaid program under provisions in the Senate’s healthcare bill negotiated by Sen. Ben Nelson (D).
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) informed lawmakers on Sunday night that the section of the manager’s amendment to the Senate’s health bill would cost $1.2 billion over 10 years.
Nelson managed to win a share of the section of the manager’s amendment on Equitable Support for Certain States, which will provide Nebraska, along with Massachusetts and Vermont, support in paying its share of additional costs to Medicaid in the health legislation.
The provision, which Republicans have derided as the “Cornhusker Kickback,” actually provides Nebraska the least of the three states. Vermont will receive $600 million over 10 years, while Massachusetts will receive $500 million. The money to Nebraska had previously been reported to be $45 million.
via CBO pegs Nelson’s deal for Nebraska at $100 million – The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room.
DICK MORRIS: How Obamacare Will Hurt Young People – by Dick Morris | FrontPage Magazine
How Obamacare Will Hurt Young People – by Dick Morris
Dec. 21, 2009
A detailed analysis of the Obama health care program now before the Senate indicates that it will force big premium increases for all families, especially for those under 30 years of age.
The study, by the consulting firm of Oliver Wyman, concludes that premiums for individuals will rise by $1,576 and $3,341 for families by under the bill. Young people will be hit the hardest. The study predicted that premiums for new health insurance policies purchased by the youngest third of the population would rise by 35 percent under the bill.
These increases will stem from the bill’s provisions that bar insurance companies from raising rates on sick people and from excluding people based on pre-existing conditions. Both of these mandates will mean higher costs for the younger and healthier population. This bill is, in effect, a tax on the young.
Nor will subsidies do much to mitigate the impact. To get a subsidy under the bill, you have to earn less than about $80,000 a year (combined household income) and have spent between 2 percent and 10 percent of your income on premiums.
So a couple making a combined income of $40,000 would have to pay about 5 percent of their income, $2,000, before they could get subsidies. Those making $60,000 would have to pay about 8 percent of their income — $4,800 – before they could get a subsidy.
via How Obamacare Will Hurt Young People – by Dick Morris | FrontPage Magazine.
It’s All a Lie: Copenhagen and Global Warming
GUEST COLUMN | BY ALAN CARUBA | DECEMBER 18, 2009
As delegates in Copenhagen wrap up the greatest fraud perpetrated worldwide in the modern era, there is only one thing you need to know. It is all a lie.
It was a lie from the first moment a scientist like James Hansen told Congress on June 23, 1988 that the planet was going to be roasted by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and it was a lie when Al Gore wrote Earth in the Balance and there were still more lies in his Oscar-winning documentary, An Inconvenient Truth.
A British court banned the documentary from being shown in their schools unless a long list of disclaimers was read to the students before his lies were inflicted on them. American students were not so fortunate. Indeed, as I have said many times before, global warming has been a form of child abuse, causing needless anxiety and fear for countless children on whom it was inflicted.
But how could such a lie be perpetrated on such a vast stage and for so long? My answer to you is “the Soviet Union.” From its inception in 1917 when the czarist monarchy was overthrown and Marxist theory, Communism, was imposed on Russia, whole generations were forced to suffer under this huge lie that the state would provide everything for everybody.
It is such a popular lie that it has been resurrected in Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador. It returned the Sandinistas to power in Nicaragua. In the last century, millions died under the Communist banner, but that lie never seems to die.
Little wonder then that, when Hugo Chávez, Venezuela’s communist dictator addressed the conference, Andrew Bolt of Australia’s Herald-Sun reported that he received “a rousing round of applause.” He was followed by Zimbabwe’s despicable president, Robert Mugabe, who decried “these capitalist gods of carbon burp and belch their dangerous emissions.”
A conference that celebrates such communist blather betrays its true intent. No American President should participate in such a naked display of contempt for capitalism.
A really Big Lie told often enough acquires the verisimilitude of truth. Global warming, however, was dependent on a different kind of truth, one subject to vigorous review and challenge; it is scientific truth and no matter how many lies were told by the global warming scientists, there were others who stood their ground and challenged them.
The Communists Behind Obama’s Health Care Goals – by John Perazzo | FrontPage Magazine
by John Perazzo – Front Page Magazine
December 23, 2009
The polls have been clear for quite some time: By a substantial margin, Americans oppose the efforts of Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats to enact a massive overhaul of the U.S. healthcare system, one that would greatly expand the federal government’s role.
Significantly, the President’s deeply held positions on healthcare were derived largely from the influence of a politically aggressive group of longtime Marxists whose worldviews were consistent with those Obama had already developed from other radical influences in his life. But before we examine who those particular Marxists were, let us establish, with certainty, what Obama’s long-term objectives for healthcare actually are.
As an Illinois state senator in 2003, Obama unambiguously told an AFL-CIO conference:
“I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer, universal healthcare [plan]…. That’s what I’d like to see.”
In a single-payer system, a government-run organization would manage the healthcare of every man, woman, and child in the United States—collecting all related fees and paying out all related costs.
At an SEIU Health Care Forum on March 24, 2007, Obama sang the same tune—though this time he conceded that the attainment of his ultimate vision might require a gradual, incremental approach:
“There’s going to be, potentially, some transition process. I can envision a decade out, or 15 years out, or 20 years out…”
In the summer of 2008, when a campaign audience member asked him to comment on single-payer healthcare, Obama candidly replied:
“If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system.”
via The Communists Behind Obama’s Health Care Goals – by John Perazzo | FrontPage Magazine.
from → Barack Obama, Health Care, Politics