Posts Tagged ‘votes’

Leading Democrat Expert On Health Care Turns Against Boondoggle ObamaCare

September 4, 2010

Apparently Ron Wyden joins such illustrious Democrat company as John Conyers (“What good is reading the bill…?”), Nancy Pelosi (“We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it”), and Ben Nelson (“I don’t think you want me to waste my time to read every page of the health care bill”), in not bothering to read the evil ObamaCare bill that he personally voted for and vigorously supported.

I’m wondering if the only Democrat who actually bothered to read the health care takeover bill he voted for is John Dingell, who accurately said of the bill, “It takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.”

Here’s the story of Democrat Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) actively turning against the ObamaCare boondoggle:

SEPTEMBER 3, 2010
Wyden Defects on ObamaCare
The Oregon Democrat breaks ranks with the White House
.

Most Democrats have come to understand that they can’t run on ObamaCare, but few have the temerity of Ron Wyden. The Oregon Senator is the first to break with the policy underpinnings of the bill he voted for
.

Last week Mr. Wyden sent a letter to Oregon health authority director Bruce Goldberg, encouraging the state to seek a waiver from certain ObamaCare rules so it can “come up with innovative solutions that the Federal government has never had the flexibility or will to implement.”

One little-known provision of the bill allows states to opt out of the “requirement that individuals purchase health insurance,” Mr. Wyden wrote, and “Because you and I believe that the heart of real health reform is affordability and not mandates, I wanted to bring this feature of Section 1332 to the attention of you and the legislature.”

Now, that’s news. One of the Democratic Party’s leading experts on health care wants his state to dump the individual mandate that is among ObamaCare’s core features. The U-turn is especially notable because Mr. Wyden once championed an individual mandate in the bill he sponsored with Utah Republican Bob Bennett. We have differences with Wyden-Bennett, but it was far better than ObamaCare and would have changed incentives by offering more choices to individuals and spurring competition among providers and insurers.

Mr. Wyden should have known better than to vote for ObamaCare given his market instincts and health-care experience. Even so, the price for his support included the Section 1332 waivers that he is now promoting. In addition to the individual mandate, states may evade regulations about business taxes, the exact federal standards for minimum benefits, and how subsidies are allocated in the insurance “exchanges”—as long as the state covers the same number of uninsured and keeps coverage as comprehensive.

Medicaid also grants some indulgences toward state flexibility, even if those waivers are difficult to acquire. The Secretary of Health and Human Services would need to approve the ObamaCare alternative of Oregon or any other states, and the waivers don’t start until 2017, three years after ObamaCare is supposed to be up and running. It is also hard to see how anyone in the current Administration would grant them.

These practical realities aside, Mr. Wyden’s move may be more important as a political signal. Mr. Wyden is running for re-election this year. And while he is now well ahead of GOP challenger Jim Huffman, in a year like this one he has cause to avoid becoming Barbara Boxer or Patty Murray, who may lose because they’ve remained liberals from MSNBC central casting.

This sort of thing also isn’t supposed to happen to newly passed entitlements. Democrats have long believed that once an entitlement passes, however unpopular at the time, voters and business will grow to like it and then Republicans begin to come around. The exception was a catastrophic-coverage program to replace private “Medigap” policies, which Democrats passed in 1988 and repealed a year later amid a public furor.

On ObamaCare, Democrats are having the first political second thoughts, at least in this election season. Mr. Wyden is essentially saying that what his party passed is not acceptable, and if such thinking builds, opponents may have a real chance to replace ObamaCare with something better.

Democrats are now actively running from the Democrat Party and the Democrat Platform.  Democrats are running campaign ads that literally omit the fact that they are Democrats.  They are running as opponents of Obama and his agenda.  They are running in droves as opponents of Nancy Pelosi (even when such Democrats actually VOTED for her as House Speaker).

These same cowardly and corrupt Democrats who were in lock step passing Obama’s Marxist agenda are now claiming that they will offer an “independent voice.” But no, they won’t.

Never forget, “Democrat” actually stands for “Demonic bureaucrat.”  And whenever Obama or Democrat leadership needs a vote from a Democrat, they’ll get it.  Votes are largely assigned in the party machine.  Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will allow vulnerable members to vote ‘no’ on their pork barrel bills if they have enough votes to pass them.  But virtually all of those representatives and senators who voted ‘no’ on bills like the $862 billion stimulus and ObamaCare would have voted ‘yes’ if it had been necessary for them to do so.

And just as many Democrats said they’d vote against ObamaCare until they voted for it (think Bart Stupak and his gang of supposedly pro-life Democrats) – often getting incredibly sweetheart deals for their treachery (think “Louisiana Purchase,” think “Cornhusker Kickback,” among others), the fact of the matter is that you can’t trust Democrats to follow through with whatever the hell they promise they will or won’t do.  If you like relentless liberal socialism, then vote for Democrats.  But don’t be stupid and vote for your Senator or Representative because they say they’ll oppose Obama.  Because the next time they’re needed, they’ll be right back on board, voting as they’re told to vote.

I mean, quit being Charlie Brown thinking Lucy will finally hold the football so you can kick it.  She won’t.  And Democrats won’t oppose the liberal agenda; they’ll support it, they’ll be its footsoldiers, just like they were the last two years.

ObamaCare is more than just bad.  It is evil and it will lead to rationing and Sarah Palin’s death panels in spades.  There are 160 new federal bureaucracies created under ObamaCare, in the nearly 2,400 incomprehensible pages of the bill, and every single one of them both individually and through bureaucratic pinballing will ultimately amount to a death panel.

The stimulus was equally awful for our economy.  And Americans overwhelmingly recognize that, just as they overwhelmingly recognize that ObamaCare was awful.

If you want less of this, please don’t vote for the party that imposed it.  Vote for the party that united against it: the Republican Party.

Democrats have repeatedly demagogued Republicans as “the party of no” even when THEY had been the party of no when Republicans were in charge.  But being the party of no is a GOOD THING when the party in power seeks to pass one awful, America-destroying bill after another.

Advertisements

What To Look For In Defeating The Democrats’ Nuclear Option

March 2, 2010

I most certainly hope Carole is correct in her article below.  In any event, hers is a good article describing the key hurdles Democrats intent to force their ObamaCare boondoggle through will have to overcome.

Obama’s House Is Leaking Votes
By Carole on Feb 28, 2010

There’s been much speculation lately on the fate of Obamacare in the US Senate. The ins and outs of reconciliation, once a little known technicality in the rules of that legislative body, are now common knowledge to political junkies of all ideologies. But the actual death bed of the president’s unpopular and obscenely expensive plan will most likely be the US House of Representatives.

Even if Democrats have the 51 votes they need in the Senate and the Republicans decide against proposing a flood of amendments that could indefinitely stall the reconciliation bill, Mr. Obama and his accomplices would still have to get the votes needed to pass Obamacare in the House.

In November, the House passed its version of health care reform with just two votes to spare; prevailing 220-215 with the help of Representative Anh “Joseph” Cao (R-Louisiana) who has said he will not back it again. (source) And Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) won’t be able to count on all of her fellow Democrats this time around either.

Two major changes that will affect this round of voting:

The first is the radical change in the political climate since November of 2009. While some Democrats who claim to be fiscally conservative and who represent traditionally Republican districts were somehow able to ignore the messages sent by voters in New Jersey and Virginia, they cannot ignore the one sent from Massachusetts just last month. The election of Senator Scott Brown (R-Massachusetts) clearly demonstrated what is likely to happen to the careers of elected officials who support Obamacare despite the wishes of their constituents.

The second major difference between November’s vote on health care reform and the next one in the House is that the bill passed last year included the Stupak Amendment. Of the 219 Democrats who voted ‘yes’ last time, 40 did so only because the bill contained that amendment preventing taxpayer dollars from being used to fund abortions. Those 40 representatives will almost certainly switch their ‘yes’ votes to ‘no’ since the new version of the bill being pushed by President Obama would strip out the abortion restrictions in favor of Senate language that many consider unacceptable. (source)

Republican House Whip Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) recently outlined the House changes since that first health care bill passed and said he now believes there’s no way to pass health care in the House with only Democratic votes. According to Mr. Cantor’s count, Speaker Pelosi doesn’t have more than maybe 202 votes; well short of the 217 needed to pass the second (and hopefully final) Obamacare bill. (source)

The last time President Obama and his cronies came up short on votes for his signature domestic issue, they started bribing Senators with hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to get the votes they needed. The public now wise to this tactic and Senators Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana), Blanche Lincoln (D-Arkansas) and Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) have become examples to their legislative brethren of what happens to the political prospects of anyone who chooses Team Obama’s arm twisting and bribes over the expressed wishes of their constituents.

I personally believe that the Senate Republicans would be wise to first inform/threaten to use their option to shut down the Senate with endless amendments, and then follow through if the Democrats actually try to use reconciliation (aka the ‘nuclear option’).

Why?  Because I think the public would turn further against the nuclear option if they understand how extreme this tactic is, and just what the consequences of pursuing it would be.

Here’s what Senator Robert Byrd, who not only wrote the reconciliation procedure but is a Democrat to boot, said of the Democrats’ attempt:

Americans have an inalienable right to a careful examination of proposals that dramatically affect their lives. I was one of the authors of the legislation that created the budget “reconciliation” process in 1974, and I am certain that putting health-care reform and climate change legislation on a freight train through Congress is an outrage that must be resisted.

Using the reconciliation process to enact major legislation prevents an open debate about critical issues in full view of the public. Health reform and climate change are issues that, in one way or another, touch every American family. Their resolution carries serious economic and emotional consequences.

The misuse of the arcane process of reconciliation — a process intended for deficit reduction — to enact substantive policy changes is an undemocratic disservice to our people and to the Senate’s institutional role. Reconciliation, with its tight time limits, excludes debate and shuts down amendments. Essentially it says “take it or leave it” to the citizens who sent us here to solve problems, and it prevents members from representing their constituents’ interests. Everyone likes to win, and the Obama administration, of course, wants victories. But tactics that ignore the means in pursuit of the ends are wrong when the outcome affects Americans’ health and economic security. Let us inform the people, get their feedback, allow amendments to be considered and hear opposing views. That’s the American way and the right way.

If the public says it wants an end to the partisan bickering, they need to realize that the nuclear option would create nothing short of a full-blown war that could poison our political system for years, even decades, to come.

If the Democrats who deceitfully keep talking about “bipartisanship,” they should bloody well get one.  And the American people should be told in advance what that total war the Democrats will be starting would look like.

Second, I think it is vital that the American people be informed of just what the Democrats themselves said about the use of the nuclear option just a few years ago.

The following is a very short summary of the statements (fully cited here) made by key Democrats about how vile the use of reconciliation would be:

  • It is “a change in the Senate rules” that “would change the  character of the Senate forever.”
  • It is “majoritarian absolute power” which is “just not what the founders intended.”
  • It is “the precipice of a crisis, a constitutional crisis.”
  • It evaporates “the checks and balances which have been at the core of this Republic.”
  • It is “almost a temper tantrum.”
  • It is the abandonment of the concept of “a check on power” and an     abandonment of that which “preserves our limited government.”
  • It is something that “will turn the Senate into a body that could have its rules broken at any time by a majority of senators unhappy with any position taken by the minority.”
  • It “is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power.”
  • It “is a fundamental power grab.”
  • It “is a tyranny of the majority.”
  • It is “where the majority rules supreme and the party of power can dominate and control the agenda with absolute power.”
  • It is a “naked power grab.”
  • It is to “change the rules, break the rules, and misread the Constitution so that they will get their way.”
  • It is “The Senate … being asked to turn itself inside out, to ignore the   precedent to ignore the way our system has worked, the delicate balance   that we have obtain that has kept this Constitution system going, for immediate gratification of the present President.”
  • It is “the way Democracy ends. Not with a bomb but with a gavel.”

How can it possibly be that – when the Republicans merely CONSIDERED using it in a way that nevertheless didn’t come anywhere NEAR the Democrats’ takeover of our entire medical system representing one-sixth of our national economy – it was so terrible, but now it is somehow justified???

The fact of the matter is that the Democrats condemn their present course as genuinely evil in their very own words.

We need to defeat health care.  It is amazing that fully 60% of the health care system is now already controlled by the government, which is running it a mind-boggling deficit of unfunded liability.  On what planet is it sane to say we need to save a failing system that has been taken over by the government by giving the government even more total control?

An analogous example would be for me to hit your car engine with a sledge hammer.  And when it starts running really crappy I tell you that all I need to do to fix the problems is give it another couple of good hard whacks.

I end by citing an article that every American should read which reveals what our health care system will one day look like if the Democrats’ sledgehammer attack is allowed to proceed.

Hillary Clinton Strategy for Remaining in Race Now Obvious

May 21, 2008

If it wasn’t already clear before, Hillary Clinton’s strategy now seems quite obvious.

She is going to avoid bitter personal “mudslinging attacks” that will undermine her own political future along with her rival’s, and instead focus on the issue of her superior general election viability.

She is claiming that she will remain in the race through the bitter end unless the votes and delegates are counted in Florida and Michigan. Rather than presenting herself as the cynical, manipulative, power-hungry, utterly self-centered politician who is determined to stay in the race even if her party burns down around her, Hillary Clinton is presenting herself as the selfless champion of the will of the people. How noble of her!

We see here the schism that too often lies between substance and rhetoric in modern Democratic politics. Normally, Republicans are the ones on the unpopular side of this divide, but here the victim is clearly the more liberal Barack Obama. When Florida and Michigan (seeking to be more ‘relevant’) violated the DNC’s rules by determining to hold their primary earlier, all the Democratic presidential candidates agreed to abide by the DNC’s exlusion of those states’ delegates. But now, regardless of the rules that she personally accepted, Hillary Clinton is claiming that the states’ decision to violate DNC rules has nothing to do with the people of the states that made the decision. They are, in the words of Mongo from Blazing Saddles fame, merely “pawns in game of life.” Obama played by the rules, and is calling for those rules to be followed.

Hillary Clinton gets to throw out the rules that she agreed to accept in what is clearly a self-serving gesture, and take the credit for being the champion of the “victims” in Florida and Michigan. It’s the same play that Democrats relied upon today when they (as the ones who actually caused our current energy crisis by refusing to allow domestic oil production) proceeded to hang the blame on the oil companies and the White House.  On a day like this, it’s frankly fitting that a Democrat would use the same junk rhetoric against her own party.

If Hillary gets Florida and Michigan included, as she demands, she will clearly be able to officially claim that she obtained more of the popular vote than Barack Obama.

And, of course, it is now practically an article of liberal faith – from the 2000 election – that the candidate who wins the popular vote should be president.

Hillary today said, “We believe that the outcome of our elections should be determined by the will of the people. Nothing more. Nothing less. And we believe the popular vote is the truest expression of your will. We believe it today just as we believed it back in 2000 when right here in Florida you learned the hard way what happens when your votes aren’t counted and a candidate with fewer votes is determined the winner.”

Notwithstanding the obvious insult to President Bush, Hillary Clinton’s statement serves to show that the Democratic position is – and has been – that such things as “the rules” shouldn’t matter, and that the process should rather be used in a cynical, self-serving way to attain partisan or personal advantage.

Do you think for a nanosecond that if the roles were reversed, Hillary Clinton would not be demanding that the process both candidates agreed to be followed? For that matter, do you think that if Barack Obama were in Hillary’s shoes, he wouldn’t be demanding the same things that Hillary is demanding now?

Including the delegates from Florida and Michigan will not affect Barack Obama’s lead in the ultimate measure that determines the winner – the delegate count. But it will undermine Obama as the nominee who failed to win the popular vote.

Rather than attempt to chop Obama down with bitter attack ads, Clinton will continue to focus on Obama’s inability to build a coalition capable of winning in November.

Her remaining in the race (oh so selflessly for the sake of those tired, poor huddled masses yearning to have their primary votes counted in Florida and Michigan) will have its own culminative effect on the Obama run, as the fractured Democratic convention bears the same fruit as all the fractured conventions that have occurred before.

Hillary’s plan is to allow Obama to be the latest McGovern-Dukakis-type fiasco, and then loudly trumpet to Democrats, “I told you so.”

She will claim that she was trying to point out Obama’s manifold weaknesses as a candidate for the good of the party, but Democratic leaders refused to listen to her wisdom.

Which will position her – as the wise leader who understood the dynamic all along – to make her own run from a superior political position in 2012.