You put one of theirs in the morgue.
No Runny Eggs
The repository of one hard-boiled egg from the south suburbs of Milwaukee, Wisconsin (and the occassional guest-blogger). The ramblings within may or may not offend, shock and awe you, but they are what I (or my guest-bloggers) think.
Day by Day cartoon
Archive for the 'Health Care Reform' Category
March 19, 2010
March 17, 2010
Wednesday HOT read – Field v. Clark
Yes, there is a reason why I fully-capitalized “HOT” in the title. Once you’re done reading the portion of the opinion of the Supreme Court in Field v. Clark (courtesy Justia.com) dealing with a challenge regarding differences between an “enrolled” bill as signed by the President and the same bill as voted out of Congress, your blood will be boiling at the worst decision of SCOTUS ever, yes, even worse than the Dred Scott decision.
First, a bit of background. Yesterday, Mark Tapscott kicked over an anthill when he found that Nancy Pelosi and Louise Slaughter are hypocrites when it comes to the Constitutional requirement that a bill that is presented to the President be voted on by both Houses in identical form. Ed Morrissey, among others, noted that the group Pelosi and Slaughter sided with in 2005 lost their challenge that the House passed a slightly-different (specifically, a two-character difference) version of a bill than the Senate, with the appellate court relying on Marshall.
That led me to the actual Marshall decision, and I note that, while there is a dissent-in-part, that dissent does not extend to this portion of the opinion of the Court. Rather than excerpt it, I’ll give you the entire section that deals with the differences between the “enrolled” and “voted upon” versions of the bill in question, starting at 143 U.S. 662:
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
Duties were assessed and collected, according to the rates established by what is known as the “Tariff Act of October 1, 1890,” on woolen dress goods, woolen wearing apparel, and silk embroideries, imported by Marshall Field & Co., on silk and cotton laces imported by Boyd, Sutton & Co., and on colored cotton cloths imported by Herman, Sternbach & Co. 26 Stat. 567, c. 1244, § 1.
The importers severally protested against the assessment upon the ground that the act was not a law of the United States. Upon appeal to the Board of General Appraisers under the Act of June 10, 1890, known as the “Customs Administrative Act,” the decision of the collector in each case was approved, c. 407, secs. 14, 15, pp. 131, 137. The judgment of the board having been affirmed by the circuit courts of the United States in the respective districts in which these matters arose, the cases have been brought here for review.
The appellants question the validity of the Act of October 1, 1890, upon three grounds, to be separately examined.First. The seventh section of Article I of the Constitution of the United States provides:
“All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills. Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if the approve, he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections, to that house in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of that house shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other house, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and, if approved by two-thirds of that house, it shall become a law. But in all such cases, the votes of both houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each house, respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.”
“Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States, and, before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or, being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two-thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.”
The Revised Statutes provide that“Whenever a bill, order, resolution, or vote of the Senate and House of Representatives, having been approved by the President or not having been returned by him with his objections, becomes a law or takes effect, it shall forthwith be received by the Secretary of State from the President, and whenever a bill, order, resolution, or vote is returned by the President with his objections, and, on being reconsidered, is agreed to be passed, and is approved by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, and thereby becomes a law or takes effect, it shall be received by the Secretary of State from the President of the Senate, or Speaker of the House of Representatives, in whichsoever house it shall last have been so approved, and he shall carefully preserve the originals.”
The original enrolled act in question, designated on its face “H.R. 9416,” was received at the Department of State October 1, 1890, and, when so received, was attested by the signatures of Thomas B. Reed, Speaker of the House of Representatives, and Levi P. Morton, Vice-President of the United States and President of the Senate, and had thereon these endorsements:
“Approved October 1, 1890 BENJ. HARRISON”
“I certify that this act originated in the House of Representatives.”
“EDW. MCPHERSON, Clerk”
It is made the duty of the Secretary of State to furnish to the congressional printer
“a correct copy of every act and joint resolution as soon as possible after its approval by the President or after it has become a law, in accordance with the Constitution, without such approval.”
That duty was performed by the Secretary of State with respect to the act in question, and the act appears in the volume of statutes published and distributed under the authority of the United States. Rev.Stat. §§ 210, 3803, 3805, 3807, 3808.The contention of the appellants is that this enrolled act, in the custody of the Secretary of State and appearing upon its face, to have become a law in the mode prescribed by the Constitution, is to be deemed an absolute nullity in all its parts, because — such is the allegation — it is shown by the congressional records of proceedings, reports of committees of each house, reports of committees of conference, and other papers printed by authority of Congress, and having reference to House Bill 9416, that a section of the bill, as it finally passed, was not in the bill authenticated by the signatures of the presiding officers of the respective houses of Congress and approved by the President. The section alleged to have been omitted was as follows:
“SEC. 30. That on all original and unbroken factory packages of smoking and manufactured tobacco and snuff, held by manufacturers or dealers at the time the reduction herein provided for shall go into effect, upon which the tax has been paid, there shall be allowed a drawback or rebate of the full amount of the reduction, but the same shall not apply in any case where the claim has not been presented within sixty days following the date of reduction, and such rebate to manufacturers may be paid in stamps at the reduced rate, and no claim shall be allowed or drawback paid for a less amount than five dollars. It shall be the duty of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, to adopt such rules and regulations, and to prescribe and furnish such blanks and forms, as may be necessary to carry this section into effect. For the payment of the rebates provided for in this section there is hereby appropriated any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated.”
The argument, in behalf of the appellants, is that a bill, signed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and by the President of the Senate, presented to and approved by the President of the United States, and delivered by the latter to the Secretary of State, as an act passed by Congress, does not become a law of the United States if it had not in fact been passed by Congress. In view of the express requirements of the Constitution, the correctness of this general principle cannot be doubted. There is no authority in the presiding officers of the House of Representatives and the Senate to attest by their signatures, not in the President to approve, nor in the Secretary of State to receive and cause to be published, as a legislative act, any bill not passed by Congress.
But this concession of the correctness of the general principle for which the appellants contend does not determine the precise question before the Court, for it remains to inquire as to the nature of the evidence upon which a court may act when the issue is made as to whether a bill, originating in the House of Representatives or the Senate, and asserted to have become a law, was or was not passed by Congress. This question is now presented for the first time in this Court. It has received, as its importance required that it should receive, the most deliberate consideration. We recognize, on one hand, the duty of this Court, from the performance of which it may not shrink, to give full effect to the provisions of the Constitution relating to the enactment of laws that are to operate wherever the authority and jurisdiction of the United States extend. On the other hand, we cannot be unmindful of the consequences that must result if this Court should feel obliged, in fidelity to the Constitution, to declare that an enrolled bill, on which depend public and private interests of vast magnitude, and which has been authenticated by the signatures of the presiding officers of the two houses of Congress, and by the approval of the President, and been deposited in the public archives as an act of Congress, was not in fact passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate, and therefore did not become a law.
The clause of the Constitution upon which the appellants rest their contention that the act in question was never passed by Congress is the one declaring that
“Each house shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, except such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy, and the yeas and nays of the members of either house on any question shall at the desire of one-fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.”
Article I, Section 5. It was assumed in argument that the object of this clause was to make the journal the best, if not conclusive, evidence upon the issue as to whether a bill was in fact passed by the two houses of Congress. But the words used do not require such interpretation. On the contrary, as Mr. Justice Story has well said,
“the object of the whole clause is to insure publicity to the proceedings of the legislature and a correspondent responsibility of the members to their respective constituents. And it is founded in sound policy and deep political foresight. Intrigue and cabal are thus deprived of some of their main resources by plotting and devising measures in secrecy. The public mind is enlightened by an attentive examination of the public measures; patriotism and integrity and wisdom obtain their due reward, and votes are ascertained, not by vague conjecture, but by positive facts. . . . So long as known and open responsibility is valuable as a check or an incentive among the representatives of a free people, so long a journal of their proceedings and their votes, published in the face of the world, will continue to enjoy public favor and be demanded by public opinion.”
2 Story on the Constitution §§ 840, 841.
In regard to certain matters, the Constitution expressly requires that they shall be entered on the journal. To what extent the validity of legislative action may be affected by the failure to have those matters entered on the journal we need not inquire. No such question is presented for determination. But it is clear that in respect to the particular mode in which, or with what fullness, shall be kept the proceedings of either house relating to matters not expressly required to be entered on the journals; whether bills, orders, resolutions, reports, and amendments shall be entered at large on the journal, or only referred to and designated by their titles or by numbers — these and like matters were left to the discretion of the respective houses of Congress. Nor does any clause of that instrument either expressly or by necessary implication prescribe the mode in which the fact of the original passage of a bill by the House of Representatives and the Senate shall be authenticated or preclude Congress from adopting any mode to that end which its wisdom suggests. Although the Constitution does not expressly require bills that have passed Congress to be attested by the signatures of the presiding officers of the two houses, usage, the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings, and the rules under which the two bodies have acted since the organization of the government require that mode of authentication.
The signing by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and by the President of the Senate, in open session, of an enrolled bill is an official attestation by the two houses of such bill as one that has passed Congress. It is a declaration by the two houses, through their presiding officers, to the President that a bill, thus attested, has received, in due form, the sanction of the legislative branch of the government and that it is delivered to him in obedience to the constitutional requirement that all bills which pass Congress shall be presented to him. And when a bill thus attested receives his approval and is deposited in the public archives, its authentication as a bill that has passed Congress should be deemed complete and unimpeachable. As the President has no authority to approve a bill not passed by Congress, an enrolled act in the custody of the Secretary of State, and having the official attestations of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, of the President of the Senate, and of the President of the United States carries on its face a solemn assurance by the legislative and executive departments of the government, charged, respectively, with the duty of enacting and executing the laws, that it was passed by Congress. The respect due to coequal and independent departments requires the judicial department to act upon that assurance, and to accept as having passed Congress all bills authenticated in the manner stated, leaving the courts to determine, when the question properly arises, whether the act so authenticated is in conformity with the Constitution.
It is admitted that an enrolled act thus authenticated is sufficient evidence of itself — nothing to the contrary appearing upon its face — that it passed Congress. But the contention is that it cannot be regarded as a law of the United States if the journal of either house fails to show that it passed in the precise form in which it was signed by the presiding officers of the two houses and approved by the President. It is said that under any other view, it becomes possible for the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate to impose upon the people as a law a bill that was never passed by Congress. But this possibility is too remote to be seriously considered in the present inquiry. It suggests a deliberate conspiracy to which the presiding officers, the committees on enrolled bills, and the clerks of the two houses must necessarily be parties, all acting with a common purpose to defeat an expression of the popular will in the mode prescribed by the Constitution. Judicial action based upon such a suggestion is forbidden by the respect due to a coordinate branch of the government. The evils that may result from the recognition of the principle that an enrolled act in the custody of the Secretary of State, attested by the signatures of the presiding officers of the two houses of Congress and the approval of the President, is conclusive evidence that it was passed by Congress according to the forms of the Constitution would be far less than those that would certainly result from a rule making the validity of congressional enactments depend upon the manner in which the journals of the respective houses are kept by the subordinate officers charged with the duty of keeping them.
The views we have expressed are supported by numerous adjudications in this country, to some of which it is well to refer. In Pangborn v. Young, 32 N.J.Law 29, 37, the question arose as to the relative value as evidence of the passage of a bill of the journals of the respective houses of the legislature and the enrolled act, authenticated by the signatures of the speakers of the two houses and by the approval of the governor. The bill there in question, it was alleged, originated in the House and was amended in the Senate, but as presented to and approved by the governor did not contain all the amendments made in the Senate. Referring to the provision in the Constitution of New Jersey requiring each house of the legislature to keep a journal of its proceeding — which provision is in almost the same words as the above clause quoted from the federal Constitution — the court, speaking by Chief Justice Beasley, said that it was impossible for the mind not to incline to the opinion that the framers of the Constitution, in exacting the keeping of the journals, did not design to create records that were to be the ultimate and conclusive evidence of the conformity of legislative action to the constitutional provisions relating to the enactment of laws. In the nature of things, it was observed, these journals must have been constructed out of loose and hasty memoranda made in the pressure of business and amid the distractions of a numerous assembly. The Chief Justice said:
“Can anyone deny that if the laws of the state are to be tested by a comparison with these journals, so imperfect, so unauthenticated, that the stability of all written law will be shaken to its very foundation? Certainly no person can venture to say that many of our statutes, perhaps some of the oldest and most important, those which affect large classes of persons or on which great interests depend, will not be found defective, even in constitutional particulars, if judged by this criterion. . . . In addition to these considerations, in judging of consequences, we are to remember the danger, under the prevalence of such a doctrine, to be apprehended from the intentional corruption of evidences of this character. It is scarcely too much to say that the legal existence of almost every legisaltive act would be at the mercy of all persons having access to these journals, for it is obvious that any law can be invalidated by the interpolation of a few lines or the obliteration of one name and the substitution of another in its stead. I cannot consent to expose the state legislature to the hazards of such probable error or facile fraud. The doctrine contended for on the part of the evidence has no foundation, in my estimation, on any considerations of public policy.”
The conclusion was that, upon grounds of public policy as well as upon the ancient and well settled rules of law, a copy of a bill bearing the signatures of the presiding officers of the two houses of the legislature and the approval of the governor, and found in the custody of the Secretary of State, was conclusive proof of the enactment and contents of a statute, and could not be contradicted by the legislative journals or in any other mode. These principles were affirmed by the New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals in Freeholders of Passaic v. Stevenson, 46 N.J.Law 173, 184, and in Standard Underground Co. v. Attorney General, 46 N.J.Eq. 270, 276.
In Sherman v. Story, 30 Cal. 253, 276, the whole subject was carefully considered. The court, speaking through Mr. Justice Sawyer, said:
“Better, far better, that a provision should occasionally find its way into the statute through mistake, or even fraud, than that every act, state and national, should at any and all times, be liable to be put in issue and impeached by the journals, loose papers of the legislature, and parol evidence. Such a state of uncertainty in the statute laws of the land would lead to mischiefs absolutely intolerable. . . . The result of the authorities in England and in the other states clearly is that at common law, whenever a general statute is misrecited, or its existence denied, the question is to tried and determined by the court as a question of law — that is to say, the court is bound to take notice of it and inform itself the best way it can; that there is no plea by which its existence can be put in issue and tried as a question of fact; that if the enrollment of the statute is in existence, the enrollment itself is the record, which is conclusive as to what the statute is, and cannot be impeached, destroyed, or weakened by the journals of Parliament or any other less authentic or less satisfactory memorials, and that there has been no departure from the principles in the United States except in instances where a departure has been grounded on, or taken in pursuance of, some express constitutional or statutory provision requiring some relaxation of the rule in order that full effect might be given to such provisions, and in such instances the rule has been relaxed by judges with great caution and hesitation, and the departure has never been extended beyond an inspection of the journals of both branches of the legislature.”
The provisions of the California Constitution, in force when the above case was decided relating to the journals of legislative proceedings, were substantially like the clause upon that subject in the Constitution of the United States. The doctrines of the above case were reaffirmed in People v. Burt, 43 Cal. 560. But it should be observed that at a subsequent date, a new Constitution was adopted in California under which the journals have been examined to impeach an enrolled bill. County of San Mateo v Southern Pacific Railroad Co., 13 F.7d 2.
A case very much in point is Ex Parte Wren, 63 Miss. 512, 527, 532. The validity of a certain act was there questioned on the ground that although signed by the presiding officers of the two houses of the legislature and approved by the governor, it was not law because it appeared from the journals of those bodies, kept in pursuance of the constitution, that the original bill, having passed the house, was sent to the senate, which passed it with numerous amendments, in all of which the house concurred, but the bill as approved by the governor did not contain certain amendments which bore directly upon the issues in the case before the court. The court, in a vigorous opinion delivered by Mr. Justice Campbell, held that the enrolled act, signed by the president of the senate and the speaker of the house of representatives and the governor, is the sole exposition of its contents, and the conclusive evidence of its existence according to its purport, and that it is not allowable to look further to discover the history of the act or ascertain its provisions. After a careful analysis of the adjudged cases, the court said:
“Every other view subordinates the legislature and disregards that coequal position in our system of the three departments of government. If the validity of every act published as law is to be tested by examining its history, as shown by the journals of the two houses of the legislature, there will be an amount of litigation, difficulty, and painful uncertainty appalling in its contemplation, and multiplying a hundred-fold the alleged uncertainty of the law. Every suit before every court where the validity of a statute may be called in question as affecting the right of a litigant will be in the nature of an appeal or writ of error or bill of review for errors apparent on the face of the legislative records, and the journals must be explored to determine if some contradiction does not exist between the journals and the bill signed by the presiding officers of the two houses. Where the law is to be declared by the court, it must inform itself as best it can what is the law. If it may go beyond the enrolled and signed bill, and try its validity by the record contained in the journals, it must perform this task as often as called on, and every court must do it. A justice of the peace must do it, for he has as much right, and is as much bound, to preserve the Constitution and declare and apply the law as any other court, and we will have the spectacle of examination of journals by justices of the peace, and statutes declared to be not law as the result of their journalistic inquiry, and the circuit and chancery courts will be constantly engaged in like manner, and this court, on appeal, have often to try the correctness of the determination of the court below as to the conclusion to be drawn from the legislative journals on the inquiry as to the validity of the statutes thus tested. . . . Let the courts accept as statutes, duly enacted, such bills as are delivered by the legislature as their acts, authenticated as such in the prescribed mode.”
In Weeks v. Smith, 81 Me. 538, 547, it was said:
“Legislative journals are made amid the confusion of a dispatch of business, and therefore much more likely to contain errors than the certificates of the presiding officers to be untrue. Moreover, public policy requires that the enrolled statures of our state, fair upon their faces, should not be put in question after the public have given faith to their validity. No man should be required to hunt through the journals of a legislature to determine whether a statute, properly certified by the speaker of the house and the president of the senate and approved by the governor, is a statute or not. The enrolled act, if a public law, and the original, if a private act, have always been held in England to be records of the highest order, and, if they carry no ‘death wounds’ in themselves, to be absolute verity, and of themselves conclusive.”
To the same general effect are Brodnax v. Commissioners, 64 N.C. 244, 248; Nevada v. Swift, 10 Nev. 176; Evans v. Browne, 30 Ind. 514; Edger v. Randolph County Comm’rs, 70 Ind. 331, 338; Pacific Railroad v. Governor, 23 Mo. 353, 362, et seq.; Lottery Co. v. Richoux, 23 La.Ann. 743. There are cases in other state courts which proceed upon opposite grounds from those we have indicated as proper. But it will be found upon examination that many of them rested upon constitutional or statutory provisions of a peculiar character, which, expressly or by necessary implication, required or authorized the court to go behind the enrolled act when the question was whether the act, as authenticated and deposited in the proper office, was duly passed by the legislature. This is particularly the case in reference to the decisions in Illinois. Spangler v. Jacoby, 14 Ill, 297; Turley v. County of Logan, 17 Ill. 151; Prescott v. Canal Trustees, 19 Ill. 324; Supervisors v. People, 25 Ill. 181; Ryan v. Lynch, 68 Ill. 160; People v. Baranes, 35 Ill. 121. In the last-named case, it was said:
“Were it not for the somewhat peculiar provision of our constitution, which requires that all bills, before they can become laws, shall be read three several times in each house and shall be passed by a vote of a majority of all the members-elect, a bill thus signed an approved would be conclusive of its validity and binding force as a law. . . . According to the theory of our legislation, when a bill has become a law, there must be record evidence of every material requirement, from its introduction until it becomes a law. And this evidence is found upon the journals of the two houses.”
But the court added:
“We are not, however, prepared to say that a different rule might not have subserved the public interest equally well, leaving the legislature and the executive to guard the public interest in this regard, or to become responsible for its neglect.”
The case of @ 73 U. S. 511, was relied on in argument as supporting the contention of the appellants. The question there was as to the time when an act of Congress took effect, the doubt upon that point arising from the fact that the month and day, but not the year, of the approval of the act by the President appeared upon the enrolled act in the custody of the Department of State. This omission, it was held, could be supplied in support of the act from the legislative journals. It was said by the Court:
“We are of opinion, therefore, on principle as well as authority, that whenever a question arises in a court of law of the existence of a statute, or of the time when a statute took effect, or of the precise terms of a statute, the judges who are called upon to decide it have a right to resort to any source of information which in its nature is capable of conveying to the judicial mind a clear and satisfactory answer to such question, always seeking first for that which in its nature is most appropriate, unless the positive law has enacted a different rule.”
There was no question in that case as to the existence or terms of a statute, and the point in judgment was that the time when an admitted statute took effect, not appearing from the enrolled act, could be shown by the legislative journals. It is scarcely necessary to say that that case does not meet the question here presented.
Nor do the cases of South Ottawa v. Perkins, 94 U. S. 260; Walnut v. Wade, 103 U. S. 683, and Post v. Supervisors, 105 U. S. 667, proceed upon any ground inconsistent with the views we have expressed. In each of those cases, it was held that the question whether a seeming act of the legislature became a law in accordance with the Constitution was a judicial one, to be decided by the courts and judges, and not a question of fact to be tried by a jury, and without considering the question on principle, this Court held, in deference to the decisions of the Supreme Court of Illinois interpreting the constitution of that state, that it was competent for the court, in determining the validity of an enrolled act, to consult the legislative journals.
Some reliance was also placed by appellants upon section 895 of the Revised Statutes, providing that
“Extracts from the journals of the Senate, or of the House of Representatives, and of the executive journal of the Senate when the injunction of secrecy is removed, certified by the Secretary of the Senate or by the Clerk of the House of Representatives, shall be admitted as evidence in the courts of the United States, and shall have the same force and effect as the originals would have if produced and authenticated in court.”But referring now only to matters which the Constitution does not require to be entered on the journals, it is clear that this is not a statutory declaration that the journals are the highest evidence of the facts stated in them, or complete evidence of all that occurs in the progress of business in the respective houses, much less that the authentication of an enrolled bill by the official signatures of the presiding officers of the two houses and of the President, as an act which has passed Congress and been approved by the President, may be overcome by what the journal of either house shows or fails to show.
We are of opinion, for the reasons stated, that it is not competent for the appellants to show, from the journals of either house, from the reports of committees, or from other documents printed by authority of Congress, that the enrolled bill, designated “H.R. 9416,” as finally passed, contained a section that does not appear in the enrolled act in the custody of the State Department.
Allow me to translate that for you – as of right now, the ONLY court-acceptable evidence that an “enrolled bill” actually passed Congress, or was even introduced into either House of Congress, is the signatures of the Speaker of the House and the Vice President (or presumably the Senate President Pro Tempore) on said “enrolled bill”. That’s right – a troka of the Speaker, Vice President and President have had the power to unilaterally enact law regardless of the other 534 members of Congress and indeed the Constitution for the last 118 years.
March 16, 2010
Give them an inch, they’ll take you a mile
Mark Tapscott has this morning’s episode of Rank Hypocrisy. Paraphrasing Mark:
- In 2005, due to a transcription error by the Senate secretary on a single item, the House passed a debt-ceiling-raising bill that was slightly different than the version that passed the Senate. The Senate clerk, realizing the error after the House passed it, changed the item, presented it to the presiding officers, who both signed it and sent it to President Bush, who proceeded to sign it.
- Public Citizen filed suit in an attempt to annul the law (ultimately unsuccessful), saying that it violated the requirement that identitcal version of a bill be passed by both Houses of Congress before it becomes law.
- Joining Public Citizen with amicus briefs – Nancy Pelosi, Louise Slaughter and Henry Waxman.
Nothing more needs to be said.
March 12, 2010
Just. Fucking. Sick.
No, I’m not going to fucking apologize for the language, not after reading this shit-for-brains “reasoning” to fund and mandate abortion coverage in PlaceboCare 4.0 given to Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) and relayed to the National Review (emphasis in the National Review’s post):
What are Democratic leaders saying? “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak says. “Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue — come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we’re talking about.”
Those dildo-sucking genocidal asshats have no fucking shame, or brains for that matter. Not only do they admit that PlaceboCare is now all about killing the unborn, this at a time when they’re losing the generational battle on abortion, but they also admit that this fucked-up repugnant piece of shit bill is nowhere near fucking “revenue-neutral”.
March 11, 2010
Open Thread Thursday – Slaughtering the votes
Let’s try again, this time with feeling. I’ll be away from the bunker most of the day, and it’s Thursday, so it’s the perfect time for Open Thread Thursday. Today’s band choice is inspired by Louise Slaughter’s plan to pass PlaceboCare 4.0 without having the House actually vote on Version 3.0.
For those of you who missed the lowlights of that plan, they’re going to take a pass on voting on the Senate version (partly because it is so toxic, SanFranNan can’t get to 216 with that bill as-is, partly because they can’t trust the Senate or Teh Won to hold up their ends of the bargain), instead working on Wreconcilation and stating that, if that gets 216, the leadership will stipulate that vote also applies to the Senate bill, even though that bill will never have been voted upon.
Bold prediction – if that gambit is used, the Supreme Court will strike down the entire thing before the end of 2011, and it won’t be a 5-4 vote.
Now that I’ve given you some material, it’s your turn to feed the beast.
Jim Geraghty applies bracketology to PlaceboCare
There are certain benefits of having the PlaceboCare vote drag on into March Madness. Jim Geraghty breaking down 32 potential yes-to-no flippers into 4 brackets of the don’t-include-us-in-next-year’s-NIT is one of them…
The best part was Jim working “Badger” into the preview of Steve Kagen (D-Green Bay). Somehow, I don’t think he’ll rise up like a Phoenix.
March 6, 2010
March 5, 2010
Friday Hot Read – Charles Krauthammer’s “Why the Health Care Bill is a Failure”
I don’t believe I can do a better job than Charles Krauthammer explaining the failure of PlaceboCare. I’ll “borrow” the part where Krauthammer explains why the sum is worse than the parts:
Allow me to demystify. Imagine a bill granting every American a free federally delivered ice cream every Sunday morning. Provision 2: steak on Monday, also home delivered. Provision 3: A dozen red roses every Tuesday. You get the idea. Would each individual provision be popular in the polls? Of course.
However (life is a vale of howevers) suppose these provisions were bundled into a bill that also spelled out how the goodies are to be paid for and managed — say, half a trillion dollars in new taxes, half a trillion in Medicare cuts (cuts not to keep Medicare solvent but to pay for the ice cream, steak and flowers), 118 new boards and commissions to administer the bounty-giving, and government regulation dictating, for example, how your steak was to be cooked. How do you think this would poll?
Perhaps something like 3-1 against, which is what the latest CNN poll shows is the citizenry’s feeling about the current Democratic health care bills.
However, I do disagree that the body blow was how to pay for it. The Senate had before it, at a point when they needed absolutely no Republican support and no need for what Michelle Malkin has aptly called “Wreconciliation”, a bill that did everything the Left has ever wanted out of PlaceboCare but one “minor” detail – full federal funding for and a mandate on private insurance to provide abortion-on-demand. In order to get that into PlaceboCare, they sacrificed the official public “option” (with no real change in the cost), shifted a big part of the payment of the costs from “the rich” to businesses deemed to be too generous with their health-care plans, and threw in so much bribery that the House initially blanched at taking it up.
American Jihadists
If you hear the word “jihad,” what comes to mind? Outside of an immediate thought of “Islam,” how about one of this:
A crusade or struggle characterized by the participants willingness to sacrifice their own lives for the benefit of said crusade or struggle.
It’s now apparent that the Democrat leadership of President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry, dancing on another 36,000 job deaths, Reid, have decided to do anything and everything they can to pass Placebocare. Which version or what is actually contained in Placebocare doesn’t even matter to them anymore. They will enact any version or combination of the government takeover of health care that they can find enough votes or contrivance of procedures to get it passed.
The vehicle that is getting the most focus for enacting Placebocare is via reconciliation. For the life of me I can’t figure out how they use reconciliation as there isn’t a bill that both Houses are working on. In my mind, the only way to get Placebocare passed, as things stand today, is to convince the House to pass the Senate bill just as it stands.
Whether the Democrats attempt reconciliation, pass the Senate bill or use some other mechanism, the implications on their November prospects are the same; Horrible! Note the following quotes and polls:
“What the President is really asking House Democrats to do is hold hands, jump off a cliff and hope Harry Reid catches them,” Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Senate Republican Conference said. “And, Harry Reid will have no incentive to catch them because by the time he gets to the reconciliation bill, the President will have already signed the health care bill into law.”
“It was another emphatic denunciation by [Democratic Rep. Stephanie] Herseth Sandlin of the reconciliation process, a controversial technique allowing Democratic leadership in the Senate to bypass an otherwise required 60-vote super majority. And it also was a clear rejection of the Senate version of health-care reform, approved when Democrats still had the 60 votes needed for a super majority.” (Kevin Woster, “Herseth Sandlin says no to Senate health bill, reconciliation,” Rapid City Journal, 03/04/10)
“House Democrats have said they don’t trust the Senate to actto make changes to the Senate bill, which the House would likely have to pass before they’re able to take up a new bill to make changes to that original legislation.” (Michael O’Brien, “Stabenow: House and Dems hammering out final health bill details,” The Hill, 03/04/10)
“… 48 percent saying lawmakers should work on an entirely new bill and a quarter saying Congress should stop all work on health care reform.” (Paul Steinhauser, “CNN Poll: Health care provisions popular but overall bills unpopular,” CNN, 02/24/10)
Even Howard Dean, no shrinking violet when it comes to larger government and bureaucratic controls, recognizes that budget gimmickry of Placebocare will cause the Democrats pain not only in 2010 but also in the 2012 election:
“The plan, as it comes from the Senate, hangs out every Democrat who’s running for office to dry — including the president, in 2012, because it makes him defend a plan that isn’t in effect essentially yet,” Dean said during an appearance on the liberal Bill Press Radio Show.
With the heated, negative perception of Placebocare, even amongst the Democrats themselves, a reasonable question would be, “Why, if the results are surely political death, would Obama, Pelosi and Reid push for the passage of Placebocare?” The answer is very straight forward; the Democrat leadership is perfectly willing to commit political suicide for themselves and all those around them, if they are able to move their crusade forward. Obama, Pelosi and Reid are American jihadists.
If you believe that my use of the term “jihadist” is nothing but hyperbole, you haven’t been paying attention. Look at the words of Nancy Pelosi. Numerous publications including the WSJ, have reported Pelosi telling members of her caucus that she is willing to lose seats if they can pass Placebocare. More to the point, were the Democrats to lose the number of seats that they are now estimated to lose, Pelosi herself would certainly lose the Speaker position.
One of the confounding challenges of combating Islamic jihadists is that they don’t fear their own death. In fact, Islamic jihadists are told that they will garner a great reward in the afterlife if they sacrifice their physical bodies. In like manner, the Democrats are willing to sacrifice their political lives to ensure the securing a key victory in their crusade. President Obama and Nancy Pelosi have been working hard to ensure the House jihadists that they too will receive great rewards should they lose their political life.
In the end, whether Placebocare succeeds or fails in the House will depend on one thing; will the House members choose the life they know or will they choose the rewards promised them in their political afterlife?
March 4, 2010
Thursday Hot Read – Andrew C. McCarthy’s “AWOL in the Bunning Battle”
(H/T – Michelle Malkin)
Andrew McCarthy unloaded on the Senate “Republicans” who dumped all over Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) for daring to ask that, in a budget of $3,600 billion, that $10 billion in excessive spending (or 0.28%) be found to pay for a month’s extension of unemployment benefits that were already extended from 6 months to 15-17 months depending on the state:
In sum, Bunning’s battle gave Republicans a chance to make points about runaway deficit spending, the fraudulence of PAYGO posturing, the foolish redistribution of wealth to create expensive and unproductive government jobs, unemployment-benefit extensions that Democrats refuse to pay for and that actually increase unemployment, and the monstrous rationing that would be wrought by Obamacare. So, did Republicans rally behind Bunning? Not a chance.
Why? Why abandon this fight when the GOP has the facts on its side? Why no enthusiasm when a year of Obama’s forced march to crony socialism has the public more receptive than ever to the case for slashing government? Simple: Republicans are afraid of being demagogued — as Democrats and the media demagogued Bunning — as wanting to cut off funding (i.e., money we don’t have) for unemployment insurance and the usual laundry list of other Big Government baubles like COBRA coverage, satellite TV dishes, the “highway trust fund,” etc. Republicans also did not want their own sorry PAYGO history rehashed.
Here’s the sad truth: For all the shining they did at last week’s White House “summit” on health care, when it gets down to actually putting the brakes on the Big Gummint Express, most of today’s Republicans are AWOL. They’re great at the debate society. But making the fight on something concrete, really saying no when it means grinding redistribution to a halt, means taking the slings and arrows. No thanks, they say, let’s just make the whole thing go away on a voice vote, the sooner the better. Indeed, while Senator Bunning should be lauded for engaging this fight, it is telling that he took it on only after deciding not to seek reelection.
In a Corner post this past weekend called “Transformation,” I dissented from the heady palaver on the Right about how Democrats are headed for a November Waterloo. I think the Left has already factored in the inevitability of setbacks — perhaps heavy setbacks — in the next few election cycles. While our side swoons over the prospect, the statists coldly calculate that these losses are a price well worth paying in order to impose a transformative takeover of the economy.
It is a perfectly rational calculation for two reasons.
First, with a significantly bigger and more powerful government bureaucracy, there will be many avenues for leadership to reward Democrats who lose their seats after casting the unpopular votes necessary to enact the Left’s program. White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, who spent his post-Clinton wilderness months in a lucrative sinecure at Freddie Mac, knows well how this game works — and, under Obama’s command, the economy is becoming one big Freddie.
Second, and more important, Democrats know the electoral setbacks will only be temporary. They are banking on the assurance that Republicans merely want to win elections and have no intention of rolling back Obamacare, much less of dismantling Leviathan.
For my money (while I still have some), that’s an eminently sound bet. The Bunning battle, in which the GOP was nowhere to be found, is the proof. Bunning just wanted Congress to live within its gargantuan means. Yet, the Washington Post ridiculed him: “angry and alone, a one-man blockade against unemployment benefits, Medicare payments to doctors, satellite TV to rural Americans and paychecks to highway workers.” That’s outrageously unfair, but it is a day at the beach compared to the Armageddon that would be unleashed upon any attempt to undo Obama’s welfare state on steroids.
As it turns out, Republicans didn’t have the stomach for a fight over wealth transfers that plainly exacerbate the problem of unemployment. Why would anyone think they’d take on a far more demanding war, in which Democrats and the legacy media would relentlessly indict them for “denying health insurance to millions of Americans”?
Even if the GOP gets a majority for a couple of cycles, even if President Obama is defeated in his 2012 reelection bid, Obamacare will be forever. And once the public sees that the GOP won’t try to dismantle Obamacare, it will lose any enthusiasm for Republicans. Democrats will eventually return to power, and it will be power over a much bigger, much more intrusive government.
The historical strategy of the Left has been to create a new Leviathan growth of Socialist government every 30 years, stave off defeat of said Leviathan until it becomes so ingrained into the culture that even those that would have worked to kill it both before it its creation and during its infancy accept its place in the culture (which usually takes 15-20 years), then repeat the cycle.
March 2, 2010
A face tells a thousand words
(H/T – Kevin Fischer)
I’m actually surprised that CNN ran with this short montage of Teh Won’s facial expressions while Republicans were making their points at the PlaceboCare “summit” last week….
As Kevin said, “Sure Obama wanted to listen to Republicans….really he did!” And we have a “slightly-used” bridge to sell you.
January 11, 2010
Socialism Is So Passe!
President Obama and Kathleen Sebelius were out touting a new study on the benefits of placebocare this weekend. The study purports to show that industries with higher health care costs grow at a slower rate than those with lower health care costs. In an effort to somehow draw an “OMG” from the reader, the Center for American Progress cites:
Over the period 1987 to 2005, for example, the workforce in the amusement
and recreation industry—where about 29 percent of workers have insurance through
their jobs—grew by about 2.1 percent. In contrast, in the hotel industry—where 54 percent
of workers have employer-provided insurance—the workforce grew about 1 percent.
And in the paper industry—where about 85 percent of workers have insurance—the
workforce shrank by 1.9 percent.
While this is not the point of this post, I can’t pass by without saying “no shit Sherlock!” The study claims to normalize the results for a whole host of factors but isn’t this one of those times where all the economic mumbo jumbo isn’t really necessary? Isn’t this handled with a good ol’ fashioned smell test?
Is it really so hard to understand that between 1985 and 2005, the amount of discretionary income increased significantly thus increasing money spent for “entertainment” and “hospitality?” Is it also so hard to figure out that those two industries are fairly labor intensive and that there doesn’t appear to be any immediate automation solutions for the ride operators at Disneyworld or housemaids at your favorite Motel 6. On the other hand, automation in nearly every manufacturing process has been replacing the need for DNA based humans at a rate multiple times faster than evolution can generate a human who never tires or needs sustenance. Is it really so hard to figure this stuff out?
Anyway, back to the point of the post.
Obama and Sebelius are touting that the Senate version of placebocare will dramatically slow the rise in costs for healthcare. They further claim that while lowering costs, it will dramatically increase “benefits” for all us schlubs. Their specific list of benefits are:
_People with illnesses or medical conditions will be able to buy affordable health insurance.
_Children with such conditions will no longer be denied coverage.
_Small-business owners who can’t afford to cover their employees will get tax credits to help them do so.
_Insurance companies will be required to offer free preventive care to their customers and will be prohibited from dropping coverage when someone becomes ill.
“In short, once I sign health insurance reform into law, doctors and patients will have more control over their health care decisions and insurance company bureaucrats will have less,” Obama said.
I’m not the PHD that the earlier study researchers are but I have a couple of questions:
- How are you going to slow the growth of “costs” when you will need to add 100s, 1,000s, probably 10,000s of new federal employees to manage the monstrosity that will be placebocare?
- How are you going to slow the gowth of “costs” when you will be providing below cost health care for: People with illnesses or medical conditions who are not currently able to buy affordable health insurance and Children with such conditions who will no longer be denied coverage, Small-business owners who can’t afford to cover their employees tax and finally Insurance companies will be required to offer free preventive care to their customers and will be prohibited from dropping coverage when someone becomes ill?
Folks, while there has been plenty of happy talk about “hope and change” for reducing the cost structure of health care, I have not yet seen even one concrete example of where placebocare will enable that to happen. I have seen numerous examples, as the ones I just listed, where placebocare will force insurance companies to take on dramatic increases in costs. Somehow, the folks in Washington believe that they can force companies to accept new costs and prevent them from passing those costs on to their customers.
There has been considerable discussion about whether Barack Obama’s policies are leading us towards Socialism. Big government, all controlling, massive public programs all sound like the economies we see in Europe. In fact, I believe Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would like us to look like Europe. However, we’re not headed towards Europe of the 21st century, they are past that. we’re headed directly towards Europe, specifically, Italy of the first half of the 20th century. If you take a look at what is happening to industry after industry under the Obama administration, you will find something that looks surprisingly like Mussolini’s approach in Italy. Folks, with what has happened to banking, car production, healthcare and soon energy under the EPA’s threats, we have zoomed right past Socialism and are implementing on a full scale the economics of Fascism.
January 7, 2010
ChickenS*!?
I hate to say “I told you so!” But, “I told you so!”
A week ago I told youabout the debate that Birdman and I were having about placebocare. In a nutshell, Birdman believes that eventually, self preservation will rule and some portion of the Democrats will jump from the placebocare express. My argument has been that this train was not going to stop. Democrats who got in the way would be rolled over and those who voted for it and got nailed by their constituents, would have cushy administration jobs promised to them.
I told you so!
You’ve heard the news, Byron Dorgan of ND and Chris Dodds of CT have both announced they will not run next year. The reasons for not running are obvious.
For Dorgan, he represents one of the most conservative states in the nation. He has ignored polling that made Ben Nelson look wise in his placebocare vote and flipped his constituents the bird by voting for placebocare. Numerous polls are out showing that if the current Republican Governor of ND ran, Dorgan would pine for the level of support that Walter Mondale received in his race against Ronald Reagan.
Dodd’s the same but different. Placebocare isn’t his undoing, the financial debacle of last year was. Turns out Chris was getting some special favors from the folks he was supposed to be policing. Even the normally reliable Democrat voters of Connecticut couldn’t stand the level of corruption and hypocrisy that Dodd portrayed. All recent polls showed Dodd losing to everyone and anyone in a Senate rebid.
There have been several Democrat Representatives that have announced their retirement. However, none of those have the visibility of either of the two Senators who recently announced their retirement. Rumors and most prognostication, say that we are no where near the end of the announced retirements. I expect we may well hear similar announcements from Blanche Lincoln, Arlen Specter and (get ready, here’s my big bet) Harry Reid.
The latest generic Congressional ballot poll by Rasmussen shows the Republicans now leading by 9 points. The most notable part of this astounding lead is that it is not so much that the Republicans are getting more support as it is that the Democrats are losing support on each and every front.
As they do every time they get power, the Democrats have over reached and tried to foist their vision of remaking the country not in the mold of Europe, but Eastern, Soviet Bloc, Europe, upon all of us. Fortunately, they are being resisted on all sides and will surely lose their stranglehold on both Houses this year if not their leadership altogether.
While I’m obviously happy about what is happening to the Democrats I am disappointed by one thing. The people who think Marxism is such a great thing that they are voting to have it implemented against the people’s will should have to stand for another election and get the final verdict of their constituents. If they did, I have no doubt they would hear, loudly, clearly and in a snarky British accent:
“YOU are the weakest link. Goodbye!”
December 30, 2009
And Yet, They Proceed
Folks,
I have run out of words and thoughts that would attempt to explain the thinking of the left. As the posts by Birdman, Steve and myself discuss, we are each unable to reconcile the high desire of self preservation that every elected official has with the “CHARGE” mentality of forging ahead with placebocare.
In an attempt to create a mental picture of what I’m seeing, imagine that the look out on the Titanic had just spotted the iceberg while it was still about two miles off. Most of us would expect that upon notification, the Captain would tell the helmsman to slow down and steer a course to avoid the iceberg. If Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid were that Captain, I’d see them responding by telling the helmsman to set a course directly for the iceberg and yell loudly for the engines to be increased to “full speed ahead.” They would do this because while they know there will be casualties, they’re OK with those casualties.
The latest evidence of Pelosi and Reid giving the American people the middle finger comes from Rasmussen. Amongst their latest findings:
- Seventy-eight percent (78%) of voters nationwide say it’s at least somewhat likely that the health care reform legislation working its way through Congress will cost more than projected.
- Eighty-one percent (81%) also think passage of the legislation is at least somewhat likely to lead to higher middle-class taxes.
- The survey finds that 68% believe the legislation will increase the federal budget deficit.
No more is it sufficient to say that the American people are not in favor of placebocare. With the latest Rasmussen results, we are now able to say that up to 81% of the American people believe that both Houses of Congress AND President Obama are lying to them about the implications of this legislation!
Stop for a moment…………………………………………..Just sit still………………………………………Sip your coffee…………………….breath deeply………………………………………consider that last statement…………………
Up to 81% of the American people believe that both Houses of Congress AND President Obama are lying to them about the implications of this legislation!
And yet, they proceed!
December 29, 2009
Re: Coming Out
Shoebox and Birdman have been having a spirited debate on the future of PlaceboCare. While I hope that Birdman is right that this can still be scuttled, I’m of even a more sour opinion than Shoebox. Allow me to put in my 2-cents’ worth:
- There are actually three versions of PlaceboCare out there: the version that passed the Senate on a party-line vote (the hijacked H.R. 3950), lacking any sort of public option but financing abortion-on-demand; the version that barely passed the House (H.R. 3962), lacking financing for abortion-on-demand but having a public option; and H.R. 3200, still lurking in the shadows and having both the public option and financing for abortion-on-demand. Of the three, only H.R. 3200 and a completely-unamended version of H.R. 3950 would not have to go through a 60-vote test in the Senate.
- The limited debate on H.R. 3950 strongly suggests that there would be 50 votes (plus Biden) in the Senate for H.R. 3200.
- If Nancy Pelosi can get a majority to support an nearly-unchanged (from the Senate-hijacked) version of H.R. 3950 (or even a completely-unchanged version), it is likely that she would also be able to get a majority for H.R. 3200. After all, the bigger stumbling block in the House has been abortion-on-demand funding.
- If Scott Brown pulls off the upset in Massachusetts and wins next month’s special election to permanently fill Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat (and if the ‘Rats seat him), the Democrats would not be able to get to 60 votes for either an amended H.R. 3950 or a Senate-considered H.R. 3962 (at least without the defection of one of the Maine Wonder Twins).
- As Shoebox said, Pelosi doesn’t much care about losing 40 ‘Rats, especially if they’re
BlueLap Dogs. I’ll add to that by saying Harry Reid and company aren’t at all worried about losing a majority in the Senate. Indeed, given the lack of NRSC/NRC support for Brown, I have my doubts about the Republicans’ desire to pick up even one net seat in 2010. - However, I disagree with Shoebox that just “anything” will mollify the moonbats’ anger that full-out Communism hasn’t broken out yet. If the Dems lose control of the House in 2010, it will be in large part because the ‘bats stayed home to protest “nothing” being done, much like how the Republicans lost control in 2006. That is the threat that Pelosi will respond to.
Damn, I hope I’m wrong. I REALLY hope I’m wrong.
Coming Out
Well, it’s official now. I feel the need to get it off my chest.
Birdman and I have been having an ongoing, private debate. He believes placebocare will yet meet its Waterloo. His primary belief, which he outlines nicely here, is that the looming deficit will be the piece that brings enough Democrat votes together with Republicans, to kill this freedom obliterating bill. I don’t want to make Birdman sound like a myopic Pollyanna. He also believes that abortion, public option or a host of other issues could also cause the bill to stall. In short, if I may paraphrase, he believes there are too many moving pieces and too many Democrats who will have to face election next year, to hold together the votes that were there on the passage of the original House and Senate versions.
I on the other hand, have complete confidence in the Democrats to push this bill through to the end. Let me lay out my rationale.
- As I wrote yesterday, Payola Palooza is now in play. Any Democrat member that Pelosi or Reid would need in a second vote, now have a price tag on their head. Most Senators have already been bought. Representatives go for much much less. While there is a lot of talk about deficits, Harry, Nancy nor President Obama really care about them when it comes to passing this legislation.
- Obama is in trouble. Read any poll you want and it is clear that Obama’s approval is falling on all political fronts. Heck, even African Americans are down in the 60% approval level. If Obama fails to get placebocare passed it could be argued that he is Ofer in his first year with no where to go but down. All of his chips are in on placebocare. He’ll get Nancy and Harry to do everything possible to keep him from becoming irrelevant before his first State of the Union.
- Elections – all the talk about Democrats having to face the electorate is a smoke screen. Nancy Pelosi has already said she expects to lose up to 40 seats next year. She considers these “transitional” seats. She believes that they are the Democrat version of RINOS and should be replaced by more vigilant Marxists!
- To the argument that Birdman makes about self preservation, I present exhibit A. Expect to see many more “centrist” Democrats to announce their “retirements” in the next few weeks. These are people who know they are dead people walking i.e. vote for the bill and they won’t get reelected, vote against the bill and Pelosi will have them cleaning the Republican urinals until they retire. Oh, and if you think, “poor people, they’ll be out of work!” Don’t worry, for anyone that goes willingly, Nancy has cushy, high paying and high pension jobs lined up for each of the votes she needs to buy.
- It doesn’t have XXXXX (name your favorite feature.) Sorry, it doesn’t matter whether it is the public option, abortion, the deficit or any of the other items id’d as “deal breakers.” None of them will ultimately be “deal breakers!” In the end, the far left, the moderate left and all other versions of the left will accept anything that will pass with the understanding that if they pass it now, regardless of what is actually passed, they can fix it later. Perfection is not required, passing something, anything is!
- Finally, history! There is no doubt that every Democrat looks at this bill as historical. While I admit to not understanding it, I see a similar pattern with placebocare as there was with the election of Barack Obama. It was clear from early on that Obama was a Marxist and apologist who would do this country harm. Objective people, people who actually wanted to look at the information, saw through the veneer of public persona that was being created. Unfortunately for our country, in the end, too many people got caught up in the sale of “change” and the historicity of the first black president. Placebocare is on the same track. Any logical, thinking person can see the line of broken promises we’ll experience if placebocare is based. That said, this isn’t about logic. This is all about emotion and history for the Democrats.
There, now you’re on the inside of a debate that Birdman and I have had for several weeks. Don’t get me wrong, I hope I’m wrong and Birdman is right. Unfortunately, I’m used to the Democrats going against anything that resembles America but I’m hoping to be pleasantly surprised!
December 28, 2009
Placebocare – Payola Palooza
The toner hasn’t yet set on the Harry Reid’s version of placebocare and positions are already being taken on how the House and Senate will reconcile their bills. The AP has an enlightening article that quotes numerous Democrat Representatives laying out how they see the House and Senate bill harmonizing:
James Clyburn, a strong advocate for the public option, when asked whether the final bill would be required to have a public option answered:
“We want a public option to do basically three things: Create more choice for insurers, create more competition for insurance companies, and to contain costs. So if we can come up with a process by which these three things can be done, then I’m all for it. Whether or not we label it a public option or not is of no consequence.”
Representative Chris Van Hollen said:
“Before the House was to give up the public option, we would want to be persuaded that there are other mechanisms in whatever bill comes out that will keep down premiums. We’ve got to make sure that the final product is affordable.”
At first blush, these and other similar quotes, look like the normal “congressionalese” that is spoken any time a negotiation is about to take place. However, in light of what we just watched in the Senate, particularly with the purchase of Ben Nelson’s vote (a side note: I thought “Pay for play” was illegal? Wasn’t that what Blagojevich and Burris were/are accused of?), comments like these need to be understood in a whole new way.
“Hey, I’m not fixated on a name. I want to make sure we accomplish some specific goals,” is what appears to be Clyburn’s thoughtful response. However, let’s take another look at Clyburn’s quote after putting on our official “Ben Nelson, you too can look like a whore” brand reading glasses. With our special glasses, what initially looked like a principled, practical response, now reads:
“I could be persuaded to give up the public option. First, while I don’t care if it actually does it, I need to be able to tell my constituents that the bill does three things: Create more choice for insurers, create more competition for insurance companies, and to contain costs. I’m sure we can add several hundred pages of confusing language that will give the impression that we’ve done this even thought we won’t. Second, after seeing what has transpired in the Senate, I’ve developed a price that my vote can be purchased for. Whether we end up having a public option or not is of no consequence as long as I get the appropriate gratuity!”
Let’s now look at Representative Van Hollen’s comment. After you’ve used your official “Ben Nelson, you too can look like a whore” brand reading glasses once, subsequent quotes are much easier to decipher.
“Before I give up the public option, I would want to be persuaded that there are other mechanisms in whatever bill comes out that will keep down premiums. We’ve got to make sure that the final product is affordable. I expect other taxpayers to be subservient to the sluggards of my district so that my constituents will not have to pay any of the ridiculous taxes that have been placed in this bill. With this benefit and the agreed to publicity that the DHCC will guarantee to provide me on this topic, I should be well on my way to buying myself another term in the House!”
Now that we’ve seen the vote purchasing in the Senate we will never again read or hear, any comment by any Congressperson about what he/she will or won’t accept in legislation without thinking, “I wonder how much they expect to be bribed for their vote?” Keep you pair of “Ben Nelson, you too can look like a whore” brand reading glasses handy. You’ll be reaching for them every day from now until November of 2010!
December 23, 2009
My Colleague, the Senator From the State of Denial
Late this afternoon, Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell waved the white flag. As reported by RollCall, McConnell made an agreement withHarry Reid to pass a two month extension on the debt limit and waive the remaining time required to get to the final vote on the passage of Placebocare. McConnell, recognizing that he never had any bullets (heck, even Barney Fife at least had one bullet) decided it was the better part of valor to waive the time and allow a timely departure for the Christmas holiday for all senators and staff rather than hold to the last second and be labeled a Scrooge on top of the label of “dolt!”
By Christmas there will be two versions of Placebocare that couldn’t be more different. In fact, about the only thing the two bills have in common are the allegation that they both pertain to health care. Now that both houses have passed a bill, the questions become these: Can the two bills be reconciled and if they are, will both houses vote to support the reconciled bill?
The question of whether the bills can be reconciled is obvious. Nancy, Harry and Rahmwill do anything and everything to get a bill that will go back to both chamber floors. Don’t think for a second that there will be an issue that one of them can’t strong arm or buy their way through. So, that leaves the question of whether the reconciled bill can be passed.
There’s lots of new bad news out for President Obama the Democrats and Placebocare. In a new Quinnipiac poll, 72% oppose using any public money from placebocare to pay for abortions. The same poll found that by a margin of 52% to 36%, Americans oppose placebocare and by a margin of 56% to 38% they disapprove of the way that President Obama is handling the issue of health care reform. Perhaps most significant out of the Quinnipiac poll is that there is no economic or age demographic that now supports Obama’s handling of placebocare. Not even the young people support Obama on placebocare any longer.
The latest Rasmussen polls are even more damaging to President Obama and Placebocare. After having shrunk to about a 10 point deficit, Rasmussen now shows that public opinion is back, and holding, near it’s high of a 15% deficit, and that’s the good news!
Early today, Rasmussen released it’s daily presidential tracking report. After hitting a new high, or rather low, of -19 ten days ago, the trend had been improving for President Obama recovering to a -12 a week ago. However, in the past few days the trend has not only reversed, it’s reversed at a staggering rate. On December 20th, the rating was -15. In just two days the poll leaped to a -21, a 6 point swing! Does anyone thing it coincidence that the health care votes are occurring during the same time frame as this dramatic change? The same daily poll shows even amongst African-Americans Obama’s support is now only 58%. Do you remember when 90% of African-Americans voted for President Obama?
Finally, early last evening, Rasmussen released the latest generic poll. Republicans now lead Democrats by 8 points, the highest level this year and the highest level for a considerable period of time.
Back to the question. It’s clear that placebocare is shunned everywhere and by everyone. It’s clear in all the polls, including President Obama’s favorability rating, that the public is rigidly set against the bill. That said, I won’t put one penny of a bet against Nancy, Harry and company and their ability to rig another set of votes. I will say this though, if the Democrats manage to pass this bill, the political tables will turn 180 degrees from where they were in 2008. In 2008 you almost couldn’t buy an election if you were a Republican. If placebocare is passed, in 2010, Democrats won’t be able to buy an election and that’s saying something! The fact that the Democrats either don’t see this or believe that they can somehow avoid it is a willingness to suspend disbelief that is far worse than that required by Hillary Clinton when she questioned General Patraeus!
Regardless of the way that placebocare proceeds from here, I have a suggestion for the Republicans. Rather than the normal congenial hand off of time on the chamber floor i.e. I yield my time to the good Senator from the State of XYZ, I propose that the Republicans brand the Democrats in a way that will keep the issue in the forefront for the foreseeable future. I propose the Republicans brand the Democrats what they are by saying each time, “I yield my time to the good Senator from the State of Denial!”
December 22, 2009
Tuesday Hot Read Part Deux – Scott Gottlieb’s “Obamacare – No Exit”
This piece from the American Eneterprise Institute could also be titled, “You can have any health insurance plan you want, as long as it’s black Communist Red.”:
All of which brings us to the question of whether you’ll be able to spend extra money to add benefits that exceed the government’s basic package or opt out of that plan entirely. The bill doesn’t address this question directly–yet I can say with great confidence that it will be costly and in some cases impossible.
The bill leaves these issues in the hands of the bureaucracies that will write the law’s enabling regulations. And it’s clear both what the spirit of the Obama plan and the habits of these bureaucracies will produce.
I’ll temporarily stop the quote to remind you that under the current version of PlaceboCare, anything that the bureaucrats write will essentially not be reviewable by Congress. Let’s continue.
The overriding goal of this reform is to turn health insurance into a more “egalitarian” benefit that’s the same for everyone, regardless of income, personal preference or need. So rules written under President Obama to implement the Obama plan are a sure bet to intentionally curtail anyone’s ability to wrap around this national coverage with a supplemental policy or to contract privately with doctors to pay your way out of its limitations.
This is exactly what the bureaucracy’s done with Medicare. Doctors accepting Medicare can’t contract privately with Medicare patients to bill for services that Medicare doesn’t cover. Nor can patients buy added coverage to help plug Medicare’s gaps. (The “Medigap” that many seniors now buy are tightly regulated by the government to limit how much they expand on Medicare’s basic benefits; they mostly just help defray co-pays.)
In short, beneficiaries are trapped inside the Medicare insurance scheme, just as they’ll soon be trapped inside the ObamaCare exchanges. Doctors can’t offer benefits not covered by the government plans, and patients can’t buy extra insurance to make up for many gaps….
The very rich, of course, will be able to buy their way out of ObamaCare. Many of the best doctors will go cash only, opting entirely out of the Obama program, to cater to a wealthy clientele. But only the truly affluent will have the cash to escape.
You’re An Egotistical Boor
And you’re stupid too!
I chronicled last week, how Al Franken is easily the most egotistical, boorish member of the Senate. In less than 6 months, Franken has managed to alienate more Senators than President Obama has alienated world leaders in almost a year. While Franken is egotistical and boorish, we find out today that these are not his worst traits. No, his worst trait is that he’s plainly stupid.
As the light begins to shine on Harry Reid’s disaster of placebocare, we find that several states including Nebraska, Louisiana, Vermont, Conneticutt and Massachusetts received sweat heart deals to secure the vote of their senators. We also see that several special interest; AARP, longshormen, under construction private hospitals as examples, received sweat heart deals to secure the votes of the senators that were lobbying for them.
Seeing all the money tossed about to secure votes for Reid’s abomination, I started looking to see what goodies Minnesota received. I looked in the first 500 pages and found…..nothing. I looked in the second 500 pages and found….nothing. I looked through the entire bill for something good for Minnesota and found….nothing. Well, not exactly nothing. I did find one thing that Senator Franken was able to obtain.
In one of his few position statements about placebocare, Franken stated that the implementation of a medical device tax:
will seriously threaten thousands of American jobs and deter innovation
With that brief statement, Senator Franken put his large foot down. He wasn’t going to stand for taxes on an industry that has over 300 companies in Minnesota and is the core of a significant state industry not to mention thousands of jobs. Senator Franken stood for the principle right up until the point where he had to choose between his principles and being a member of the good ol’ boys club. Guess which he chose?
Oh, Al will tell you he got something for Minnesota. Yeah, he managed to get an entire year delay in the implementation of the tax! I fail to understand how a tax that “could threaten thousands of American jobs” doesn’t threaten those jobs if it is implemented a year later! Maybe the jobs that will exist for one more year will now be counted as “saved” jobs?
Al, you’re amazing!
Even Harry Reid agrees with me that Al Franken is a pathetic senator. In discussing why all the pork and special interest provisions were in the placebocare bill, Reid justified it by saying:
“That’s what legislation is all about,” said Reid at the press conference. “It’s the art of compromise.”
Later, in explaining why some senators got a lot for the vote while others didn’t, Reid said:
“If they don’t have something in important to them, it doesn’t speak very well for them.”
So, there you have it. While other senators negotiated for millions, nearly billions of dollars for their constituents, Al Franken gave away jobs, just not immediately. I never thought I’d say it but Harry Reid and I have one thing in common; we both believe Al Franken is stupid!
Oh, BTW, Senator Klobuchar, while you may have a slightly less grating personality, you too are stupid!
Tuesday Hot Read – Erick Erickson’s “We Are No Longer a Nation of Laws. Senate Sets Up Requirement for Super-Majority to Ever Repeal Obamacare”
Yes, folks, you read the headline right – The Dingy One has, as part of the Dingy version of PlaceboCare, made it “out of order” for either House of Congress to overrule any decision rendered by the Death Panels (aka the Independent Medicare Advisory Boards) (emphasis in the original):
To change the rules of the United States Senate, there must be sixty-seven votes.
Section 3403 of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment requires that “it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.” The good news is that this only applies to one section of the Obamacare legislation. The bad news is that it applies to regulations imposed on doctors and patients by the Independent Medicare Advisory Boards a/k/a the Death Panels.
Section 3403 of Senator Reid’s legislation also states, “Notwithstanding rule XV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, a committee amendment described in subparagraph (A) may include matter not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Finance if that matter is relevant to a proposal contained in the bill submitted under subsection (c)(3).” In short, it sets up a rule to ignore another Senate rule.
Senator Jim DeMint confronted the Democrats over Reid’s language. In the past, the Senate Parliamentarian has repeatedly determined that any legislation that also changes the internal standing rules of the Senate must have a two-thirds vote to pass because to change Senate rules, a two-thirds vote is required. Today, the Senate President, acting on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian, ruled that these rules changes are actually just procedural changes and, despite what the actual words of the legislation say, are not rules changes. Therefore, a two-thirds vote is not needed in contravention to longstanding Senate precedent
And that motherfucker had the balls to say that he hoped the Senate would return to civility once he finishes fucking everybody over. Well, FUCK HIM AND THE HORSESHIT HE SPEWS OUT!
Revisions/extensions (8:40 am 12/22/2009) - With a tip of the hat to Ed Morrissey, here is the video of Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) questioning the Parliamentarian of the Senate on this:
December 21, 2009
Cash for Cloture worked – PlaceboCare now greased in the Senate
Michelle Malkin has the sordid details, as well as the newest catch-phrase. We know what Mary Landrieu’s and Ben Nelson’s prices were. The question is, what was Joe Lieberman’s?
Time for a start of another PlaceboCare carol:
On the first day of PlaceoCare, Dingy Harry took from me
My right to not pay for your health care.
On the second day of PlaceboCare, Dingy Harry took from me
Two Senators’ bribed votes,
And my right to not pay for your health care.
On the third day of PlaceboCare, Dingy Harry took from me
Three trillion dollars,
Two Senators’ bribed votes,
And my right to not pay for your health care.
On the fourth day of PlaceboCare, Dingy Harry took from me
Forty Republicans’ Sunday,
Three trillion dollars,
Two Senators’ bribed votes,
And my right to not pay for your health care.
On the fifth day of PlaceboCare, Dingy Harry took from me
All the nation’s gold,
Forty Republicans’ Sunday,
Three trillion dollars,
Two Senators’ bribed votes,
And my right to not pay for your health care.
It’s late, so I’ll leave this unfinished, at least for now.
December 19, 2009
John Kerry To The Rescue!
In less than 72 hours, Ben Nelson went from centrist Democrat to Ashley Dupre in comparison to Mary Landrieu’s saloon girl pricing commands.
On Wednesday, reports were out that argued that Ben Nelson could not support any form of placebocare that didn’t have the sign off of Nebraska’s chapter of national right to life. Also on Wednesday, The Weekly Standard published a poll showing that while 51% of Nebraskans approved of Nelson’s job, 67% opposed placebocare and 61% said they would be less likely to support Nelson if he voted for placebocare.
In spite of the risk to his political career, today after receiving lots of financial goodies for Nebraska and a poorly worded attempt at hiding the fact that abortion will ultimately still be required by placebocare, Nelson has agreed to vote for cloture. Assuming there are no other Democrat whores whose conscience can be bought, it appears that the Senate will be passing Harry Reid’s version of placebocare.
With the now apparent, imminent passage of placebocare, a question arises. With the polls solidly against placebocare in places like Nebraska and other fly over states, how do Democrat Senators expect to pass placebocare out of the Senate and not receive reelection repercussions? Easy, they’ll pull the “John Kerry!
in October 2003, Kerry voted against an $87 billion supplemental funding bill for U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. He did support an alternative bill that funded the $87 billion by cutting some of President Bush’s tax cuts. Whenit was apparent the alternative bill would not pass, he decided to go on record as not supporting the legislation to fund soldiers. It was after this combination of positions and votes that Kerry uttered his now infamous quote:
I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.
Cloture, or the approval to proceed, requires 60 votes in the Senate. This is the issue that has stymied Harry Reid until now. However, the final vote for the passage of a bill, only requires a simple majority or 51 votes. In fact, if the vote is split at 50/50, Vice President Joe Biden would cast the deciding vote. While it now appears that Reid has spread enough of our money around to get 60 votes for cloture, you can bet that there will be no where near 60 votes for the final votes.
Between today and whenever the final vote comes, you can bet that Senators like Jim Webb, Ben Nelson, Byron Dorgan, Evan Byah and a few others, will be talking about how they are yet “unsure” as to how they will vote on the final vote. They will talk about the need to “move the process forward.” In fact, I’m certain that several Democrat Senators will vote against the final passage of the bill. Not too many, something less than 10 will vote against the bill, but there will be some who believe voting against the final bill will give them political cover.
By voting against the final bill, these supposed “moderate” Democrats will go back to their states and attempt to claim that they weren’t really for the atrocity that is placebocare. When they return to their states, these senators will tell their constituents that they voted for the bill before they voted against the bill. Actually, this is an incredibly difficult maneuver as it is not the “John Kerry” but the “Reverse John Kerry.” I doubt you’ll see many of these folks successfully execute the move. Several of those attempting this move will get zeros, not from the Russian judges but from their home state constituents!
If you haven’t seen it, here’s the last ditch plea from the Republican Senators. If you have a phone and have a Democrat Senator, especially ones about to attempt the “Reverse Kerry,” call them and let them know that no matter how hard they try to explain otherwise, they will be held accountable for all votes that had any part in allowing placebocare to become law!
December 16, 2009
Cartoon of the day
Sarjex, the semi-official cartoonist of Hot Air, captured the struggle to keep PlaceboCare from becoming law…
Go back Demon Placebo, back from whence you came. Leave the good people of America alone.
[No Runny Eggs is proudly powered by WordPress.]
Loading ...
