March 22, 2010 • 3:40 PM 0
Cartoon by Erin Bonsteel
On National Review online, Jeffrey H. Anderson has written a piece called, “The Battle Is Lost, and the War Has Begun”. His views are worthwhile to read on this day after our hard fought battle against Obamacare has ended in defeat. Mr. Anderson is right, I believe, concerning the conflicts to come over this Bill that was narrowly passed in the House last night. Obamacare is not the last word on our health care system. It will not stand, but neither will it have its legs cut off in quick fashion. And, let us not lose sight of the fact that this is only the opening gambit in a war against the American people and their Constitution. Obama and his soldiers will not long linger on this victory. They have immigration “reform”, Cap and Trade, card check, regulation of the airwaves and internet, among other things, still to accomplish.
It is important for us to ensure that the passage of this Bill is simply a “Pyrrhic Victory”. Read its definition:
The phrase is named after King Pyrrhus of Epirus, whose army suffered irreplaceable casualties in defeating the Romans at Heraclea in 280 BC and Asculum in 279 BC during the Pyrrhic War. After the latter battle, Plutarch relates in a report by Dionysius:
The armies separated; and, it is said, Pyrrhus replied to one that gave him joy of his victory that one more such victory would utterly undo him. For he had lost a great part of the forces he brought with him, and almost all his particular friends and principal commanders; there were no others there to make recruits, and he found the confederates in Italy backward. On the other hand, as from a fountain continually flowing out of the city, the Roman camp was quickly and plentifully filled up with fresh men, not at all abating in courage for the loss they sustained, but even from their very anger gaining new force and resolution to go on with the war.-Wikipedia
Obama has expended tremendous political capital, as well as financial capital, to pass this very unpopular Bill—the thing that will define his Presidency. We, on the other hand, are like the Romans that Pyrrhus describes, “not at all abating in courage for the loss they sustained, but even from their very anger gaining new force and resolution to go on with the war”.
Ben Stein offers these words of comfort and encouragement in the aftermath of this exhausting contest:
For those of us who still believe in the Constitution, I offer the words of the great civil rights anthem, “We shall overcome, ” and “We are not afraid.” In that spirit, we continue the fight for the return to Constitutional government. Loyal to the nation and the Constitution, but most certainly opposed to the subversion or either.
As Churchill said, “In war, resolution. In defeat, defiance.” And this is a war for Constitutional government. A war of words, to be sure, but a war we must win.
For those of you who have read J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, (or have at least seen the movies), remember that the Balrog did not pass Gandalf on the bridge, but took him into the void using one last desperate lunge. However, even then Gandalf did not stop fighting it, and in the end the Balrog was defeated. May this be a parable for our own circumstances and give us true hope.
Hang on until November, and during the ensuing 7 months let our battle cry be, “Resist. Roll back. Repeal.”
God bless you. God bless our beloved America.
March 18, 2010 • 4:01 PM 0
At National Review Online, Jim Geraghty just posted a list of those vulnerable Democrats who voted for the “Slaughter Rule”, a.k.a., “demonpass”. At the top of the list is Rep. Jason Altmire. In my previous post today, I provided a link to his interview with Sean Hannity that occurred yesterday. If you haven’t already viewed the interview, you may want to do that now. Here is what he said about the “Slaughter Rule” yesterday.
HANNITY: The Slaughter Rule–are you for it or against it?
ALTMIRE: Absolutely, absolutely against it. It’s within the rules. I don’t think it’s the appropriate way to do healthcare.
HANNITY: Deem and pass, it’s the same thing?
ALTMIRE: It’s the same thing.
I posed a question in my last post asking whether these Reps are ignorant or lying. What’s your call on this one?
March 18, 2010 • 1:06 PM 0
Over the past three days I have been offline due to the huge Nor’easter that blew through New Jersey over last weekend. However, I have been closely following, as I am sure all of you have been, the race toward a final vote on Obamacare. The general consensus is that this vote will take place on Sunday, if the Bill is indeed posted on the internet today and 72 hours elapse before the vote is taken.
Now, I am not at all sure which Bill will be posted on the internet. Will it be the Senate Bill, or the House Reconciliation Bill or both? And, why should we care about the House Reconciliation Bill? Why does anyone want to know how the CBO scores it? What difference does its language make? If passed, it is not the Bill that will become law; the Senate Bill will become law. The Senate Bill is the only Bill that is guaranteed to become law. The House Reconciliation Bill is simply a “wish list” from those House Democrats that have concerns about the Senate Bill. As we are all aware, just because a “wish list” exists, never means that it will be fulfilled. However, in listening to the Democrat “fence-sitters”, I have the distinct impression that they are waiting with bated breath for the “language” of the Reconciliation Bill before they decide how to vote on the Senate Bill. This is absolute nonsense, but this is exactly what they are saying.
This morning, for example, it was reported that Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) stated that he “likes the CBO numbers”, (reportedly ~$940 billion over the next ten years). Now, remember, these are the numbers for the House Reconciliation Bill, i.e., the one that is not going to become law after the House vote. Rep. Smith went on to say that he understands the contents of the Senate Bill, but that he wants to make sure that he understands the items added by the Reconciliation Bill before he decides how to vote. Got that?
Other Democrats have used this convoluted, and flawed, logic to explain their decision making process. In his recent interview with Greta Van Susteren, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) seemed to exhibit split personality disorder as he tried to explain his reasoning about the upcoming vote. For the sake of simplicity, it may be useful to think of these personalities as “Stupak-A” and “Stupak-B”.
REP. BART STUPAK, D – MICH: … We’re still not planning on voting for health care unless we can address some concerns. As I said before, there’s many concerns with this bill, especially with the House — with our vote, we sort of pass the Senate bill without any amendments. It goes to the president, he signs it, and then we have to do reconciliation. What if reconciliation does not get through? I mean, I’m sure we can pass it in the House, but what about the Senate?
Members of the House are very uncomfortable, in a way, voting on a piece of legislation and you don’t know — going to be corrected by the Senate. We have over 250-some pieces of legislation sitting in the Senate, waiting for them to pass it. Is this going to be another one?
VAN SUSTEREN: Well, are…
STUPAK: That’s — that’s a concern. You’re asking us to vote for a very unpopular bill, and the correction, if you will, may never come.
Okay, so far so good. Rep. Stupak (Stupak-A) seems to grasp the inherent defect of the House Reconciliation Bill. He then morphs into Stupak-B.
STUPAK: We expect a long week. But the few members that I’ve seen, their votes haven’t changed. No one has seen the reconciliation, the correction bill, if you will. No one has seen it. So it’s hard for members to pledge their vote on a piece of legislation we’ve never seen. I have deep concerns with this bill, especially on the abortion language. And he [Hoyer] also knows that I don’t give up until we can get matters resolved. And hopefully, we can resolve these matters yet.
…representations are made to members that, you know, Look at this, you should really do this. And members are saying, Sure, we’re open-minded. We’ll look at it. We’re trying to work this out, whether it’s abortion language, whether it’s the doctors’ payment, whether it’s the sweetheart deals that are found in the Senate bill.
We haven’t seen any language to placate our concerns. There’s been a lot of discussions, but no language yet. So again, we’re open-minded. We’re willing to work with the administration, willing to work with House leadership, but we want to see the legislation. We want to make sure it takes care of concerns.
What “language” is he talking about? The “language” of the House Reconciliation Bill. That is what Stupak-B says will convince him, and his like-minded colleagues, to vote “yes” on the Senate Bill and make it law, i.e., that the “language” of the House Reconciliation Bill is acceptable. But, immediately prior, Stupak-A had said that he did not trust the Senate to change the bill that the House passes to reflect the House Reconciliation Bill’s “fixes”. Confused yet? Wait, there’s more. Stupak-A reappears and continues:
STUPAK: Remember, all the Senate needs to do is throw one monkeywrench or something different in that piece of legislation, the whole thing falls apart.
VAN SUSTEREN: So you think the Senate will — if you see the reconciliation package before you vote on the Senate bill, essentially, you would be fine if the language is right? You’d trust everyone?
STUPAK: No, I didn’t say that.
VAN SUSTEREN: OK.
Okay? Poor Greta, she seems bewildered at this point, but not as bewildered as she will be, because next Stupak-A and Stupak-B both speak simultaneously:
STUPAK: I just can’t vote for it. I mean, until you see the language, Greta, it’s really hard to say you’re going to do this or that.
Greta did not seem to fare better with Rep. Lipinski (D-IL). It is notable that he, too, is afflicted with split personality disorder. Consider the following excerpt of his interview during On The Record:
VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Have you heard anything from the leadership, from Speaker Pelosi or Congressman Steny Hoyer in the last five or six days?
LIPINSKI: Yes. I just simply told them I cannot vote for the Senate abortion language.
VAN SUSTEREN: Who did you speak to?
LIPINSKI: I talked to Steny.
VAN SUSTEREN: What did he say?
LIPINSKI: We talked a little about it. He said well where do you see this does cover abortion? I plainly went through the bill and said I think it’s very obvious that funding is in there. I just cannot vote for that.
VAN SUSTEREN: Did he give you any indication he would be willing to move off that language and change that language to satisfy you?
LIPINSKI: As of that time, no. There was no indication of that.
VAN SUSTEREN: Were you offered anything? OK we understand you don’t like that language, would this be OK, or would you like something else?
LIPINSKI: No. And I’m really letting Bart Stupak — we can only have one real person who is in charge in terms of working on any kind of language, because the last time we went through the same thing when the bill was in the House.
And it wasn’t until the last minute that they came to us and said OK, we can — we understand we need to change the abortion funding language. And they did it.
VAN SUSTEREN: Is it uncomfortable going again your party?
LIPINSKI: It is never comfortable being in a Democratic caucus and having such overwhelming support for the bill — obviously not enough to pass it, but yes, it’s uncomfortable. But it is something on this issue especially that I know this is where I’m at. And most of the caucus is not in the same place, but I know this is the right thing.
VAN SUSTEREN: Is there anything at all short of changing the language that would make you change your mind? Anything offered to your district to anything else to you to change your mind that would give you any wiggle room so you can accept that language?
LIPINSKI: Absolutely not. If that language is not changed, I will vote no.
Crazy-making, isn’t it? Will the real Rep. Lipinski please stand up? However, my personal favorite is the exchange between Rep. Altmire (D-PA) and Sean Hannity:
ALTMIRE: I haven’t seen the final language, I don’t think I’m asking too much to read the final bill and see the CBO score and hear from my constituents before I make my decision.
Uh, Rep. Altmire, you have the final language of the Bill that will become law if you vote for it.
ALTMIRE: I’m going to give them a chance to rectify those [concerns] in the reconciliation package.
Hannity then listed items included in the Senate Bill, e.g., abortion funding, the Cornhusker Kickback, etc. and asked Altmire whether he supported a bill including these. He made the following perplexing reply:
ALTMIRE: Not if we had voted in isolation. I’m going to give them a chance to make this right…before I make my decision.
Somehow, all of these Congressmen have conflated the Senate Healthcare Bill with the House Reconciliation Bill. Either they are ignorant about how a bill becomes a law, or they are simply lying about their indecisiveness. There is a Schoolhouse Rock episode that would fix the former. Nothing at all fixes the latter.
March 2, 2010 • 12:58 PM 1
Obamacare Version 4.0 snuck up on us.
This morning Fox News reported that on Wednesday, Mr. Obama will announce a “smaller version” of his Healthcare plan that may include some “Republican ideas”. He really was listening during the bi-partisan “Healthcare Summit”. Uh-huh.
There seems to be some confusion among the Democrats about exactly how much “smaller” Version 4.0 will be. Nancy Pelosi opined that it will be “big enough”. So, smaller, but not that much smaller. A price tag of around $1 trillion over the next ten years is still probable. The prevailing opinion is that this scaled back version would still seek to cover an additional 30 million people over the next ten years. (Note the important point that healthcare coverage does not equal actual healthcare). This plan is expected to still include mandates for everyone to buy health insurance, and it would still include government regulations on insurance companies and employers. Despite excluding a government-run health insurance plan that would “compete” with private companies, the mandates and regulations nevertheless smack of a government take over of the health insurance industry.
Including the Republican ideas for tort reform and buying across state lines might be a step in the right direction, depending on how they are actually implemented. During the “Healthcare Summit”, Mr. Obama seemed to be willfully misunderstanding the difference between allowing people OUT of a state to buy elsewhere vs. allowing companies INTO a state in order to sell policies. Melody Barnes, a White House policy advisor, parrots the President’s position:
“We’re going to be borrowing from those conversations…to come up with a bill that we hope can receive bipartisan support,” Barnes said.
Press Secretary Robert Gibbs indicated Friday that the White House would work on GOP ideas for health reform over the weekend. Barnes identified two: tort reform and allowing insurers to sell policies across state lines. (My emphasis).
The Democrats seem to artlessly misstate the Republican idea of buying health insurance across state lines, pretending that they are proposing the same thing Republicans are—they are not. This provision as the Democrats interpret it begs the question: What will be done, if anything, about state mandates? As long as these are in place, increasing the number of companies that are allowed to compete within a state would make no appreciable difference in the cost of coverage, since they, too, will be required to only provide policies that meet the mandates of a state. This will not create true competition, nor does it offer true freedom of choice. And how Mr. Obama and the Democrats will define “tort reform” is anyone’s guess.
Putting lipstick on a pig does not come close to describing what Obamacare Version 4.0 will attempt to do. It’s more like gluing feathers onto a pig in an effort to convince us that it is really a kosher turkey! No matter how it is spun, passing this kind of bill creates the foundation for socializing American healthcare. Will it be enough to garner the necessary Democrat votes in the House? Maybe. Will it convince the American people that it is a bi-partisan bill? I don’t think so. Bottom line—kill this turkey, because it’s still the same pig it always was, and this pig just can’t fly .
December 17, 2009 • 10:35 AM 0
A couple of days ago, I posed a question that, in part, observed that the POTUS leads in the exact opposite direction that he proposes to go. In this piece from biggovernment.com, the author asks, “Is it opposite day?”
Nowadays, my strategy when listening to anything coming from the Left is to remember the famous words of Willie Wonka, “Strike that. Reverse it.” Then, surprisingly enough, they actually make sense.
Turning to the continuing fallout from “Climategate”, Icecap has reported that Russian climate data on temperatures was manipulated by the Hadley Climate Center. A good, but fairly distressing, read.
Finally, since “’tis the season” for gift-giving, here is a list of books that make great presents for you, someone else and especially for your “Progressive” friends and family. HO! HO! HO!
Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt
The Road to Serfdom by F. A. Hayek
The Forgotten Man by Amity Shlaes
Climate Change and Green Policies
Climate Confusion by Roy Spencer
The Deniers by Lawrence Solomon
The Green Crusade: Rethinking the Roots of Environmentalism by Charles T. Rubin
Red Hot Lies by Christopher Horner
Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death by Paul Driessen
U.S. Constitution and Capitalism and Socialism
Liberty and Tyranny by Mark Levin
How Capitalism Will Save Us by Steve Forbes
The 5000 Year Leap by W. Cleon Skousen
Witness by Whittaker Chambers
U.S. Supreme Court
Men In Black by Mark Levin
My Grandfather’s Son by Clarence Thomas
Obviously, there are many great books out there. However, these are the ones that I know first-hand from reading them myself. Each has helped to broaden and shape my reasoning, as well as deepen my thinking beyond a “talking-points” mentality. All are an antidote to the constant “Progressive” rhetoric of the current day. It is not enough to be against a position, policy, bill, etc. Not only do we need to know why we are against something, but also why we are for something else instead. I highly recommend that you treat yourself, or someone you love who shares well, to one or two of these this Christmas to make it a merry one. Remember, our New Year, with its promise of the 2010 elections is fast approaching!
November 13, 2009 • 5:53 PM 0
Yesterday, former President George W. Bush spoke at Southern Methodist University. As he described the vision for the George W. Bush Policy Institute, it felt as if I had awakened from a nightmare to find a bright morning full of possibilities. President Bush stated his goal of “continued public service” guided by the same personal values that guided his presidency, to wit, empowering the individual to take advantage of opportunities, free markets, personal responsibility, freedom and the dignity and value of the individual. Furthermore, President Bush emphasized that the Bush Institute would be non-partisan, impact the real world, set goals and measure results. He outlined four major areas in which the Bush Institute would work: education, global health, freedom and economic growth.
Previously, I might have not listened to this speech at all. If I had, it would not have had the same impact on me. Yesterday, his words fell on my ear like rain after a particularly dry spell. After ten months, (has it been only ten months?), of hearing tortured “Obamaspeak”, the same slick boilerplate speeches, the lectures on greed and profit, not to mention the tiring rhetoric that, predictably, ends up blaming “the Former Administration” for worsening conditions, Mr. Bush provided genuine and powerful images of America, great and prosperous again. This was a speech of substance, not soaring rhetoric. It was a speech that touched and moved my spirit. It was the speech of an adult. It was a speech that never once produced a “shout out”, or overused words like “robust”, “transparency”, “sustainable”, “back from the brink”, “teaching moment”, “at the end of the day”, etc., etc., etc.
His themes kept catching both my attention and imagination: accountability, measurable outcomes, partnership instead of paternalism, not dictating strategies to others, and above all, freedom. It fell to Mr. Bush to correct the glaring omission of the Obama Administration at Berlin with respect to the contribution of President Reagan in ending the Cold War. Mr. Bush, with pride, told the story of how the words of Mr. Reagan encouraged and supported those who fought for freedom behind the Iron Curtain, and eventually allowed them to prevail. As he described his “Freedom Initiative”, Mr. Bush built on this theme. What emerged was the picture of internet technology reaching out to dissidents with the message, “as you stand, we will stand with you”. Using the internet to effect the destruction of totalitarian regimes reminded me of the way that radio, the cutting-edge technology of its day, was used to reach behind the Iron Curtain through Radio Free Europe. It was a good memory and a powerful one.
Next, President Bush turned to the “Economic Initiative” of the Bush Institute. He stated clearly that it was “not the job of Government to create wealth, but to create the environment in which it thrives”. He opined that as this Country moves through the current economic downturn it would be tempting to replace the free market private sector with the “blunt instrument” of Government regulation and control. But in terms of economic growth, he said, “the problem is not too little government but too much”. The “Economic Initiative” will focus on economic growth both at home and abroad. Promoting free trade, as over against protectionism, and cheap, clean, abundant energy.
Finally, Mr. Bush spoke about the promotion of “social entrepreneurship” and empowering women in all areas through these initiatives. Before introducing his wife, former First Lady, Laura Bush, he made a last forceful statement, “I am convinced”, he said, “that the women in the Middle East will lead the move to democracy. They will have an ally in the Bush Institute.”
For one brief shining moment, yesterday, I caught a glimpse of America—strong , prosperous, mighty, benevolent, God-fearing and just. That is my America, not the one that apologizes, victimizes, coerces, begs foreign money, creeps relentlessly toward socialism, appeases dictators and gives its own, at home and abroad, platitudes and empty promises in the midst of their great need. Until I heard Mr. Bush yesterday, I had not realized how much I missed his manner, his humor and his steady, unwavering belief in our purpose as a great people who have been immeasurably blessed by this Country. God bless you, Mr. Bush for refreshing my soul.
In 2010, let us all resolve to find and work for those, who like President Bush will truly discharge their duties as our elected officials with integrity. Let us find and work for those who share the kind of values delineated in this speech. Let us find and work for those who share a vision for this Country in keeping with her founding principles. Let us believe that in so doing, we will stretch one brief shining moment into
a lifetime of lifetimes.
November 10, 2009 • 6:21 PM 0
It is easy to become side-tracked by all of the events coming at us. Anniversaries at Berlin and Iran, the killings at Ft. Hood, the renewed murmurings about Cap and Trade and the increasingly dismal unemployment numbers. It is almost easy to forget that the House passed its version of “healthcare reform” late on Saturday night. As their “Magic Medicine Show” took center stage to resounding applause, our liberty and prosperity was drug off, unceremoniously, with a noose around its neck.
Now the “healthcare reform” debate moves to the Senate, our last best hope for its defeat. Therefore, the pressure on our elected representatives in the Senate, must not relent. It is past time for those who are “undecided” about an Obama-type “healthcare reform” to inform themselves and join in the fight against this monstrosity. And it is high time for any who believe that Government take-over of healthcare is the road to ruin and have remained silent in their opposition to find their voices.
Today, a friend of mine (hat tip to Joy), forwarded me a picture and comments that, in a pithy way, identifies the fears that the majority of us have with respect to Government-run healthcare. At Bloomberg, The Financial Times and National Review Online there are articles that discuss the obstacles to the present Bill being passed by the Senate. These may help you feel a bit better about the possibility of defeat. Read through them to raise your spirits.
If you are still having difficulty understanding the “Obamaspeak” included in the “Healthcare Reform” bills, Ross Kominsky has written a humorous “dictionary” for you over at Human Events. My recommendation is to check it out before tackling the article by Dr. Gratzer at Investor’s Business Daily about the expense of Government Healthcare Reform. For more on the exorbitant cost watch the video from CF&P Foundation below. Dan Mitchell speaks to one of issues that should persuade the greatest number of people against this Bill, especially in this time of economic distress. If there is someone out there who does not feel terror over the loss of freedom this Bill causes, perhaps the crushing cost of it will cause some.
Over at Red State, Erick Erickson has a thoughtful article that warns about opposition to the Healthcare Reform bills becoming too narrowly focused. I agree wholeheartedly that we who are fighting against Government Healthcare must focus on the larger picture lest we win a few battles yet lose the war.
Finally, I wanted to include a couple of quotes from the esteemed Thomas Sowell. These provided me a different prospective, as well as sounding a warning for the future. My hope is that they provide you with the will to continue to stand against this centerpiece of the “Progressive” agenda. It must not pass!
“One of the few advantages to the country in having Congress overwhelmingly in the hands of one party is that the lack of need to compromise lets the leaders of that party reveal themselves for what they are — in this case, people with unbounded arrogance and utter contempt for the right of ordinary people to live their lives as they see fit, much less the right to know as citizens what laws are going to be passed by their government. The question is whether voters will remember on election day in 2010.”
“Even if this country can survive intact and unharmed after the Obama administration — or, heaven help us, two terms of Obama — the gullibility that led to his being elected in the first place will still be there for some other slick demagogue to come along and get the power to put the American way of life, and even our physical safety, at risk again.”
— Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. © 2009 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
November 9, 2009 • 8:22 PM 0
(title of this post from a Guns n’ Roses song of the same name)
NOTE: The author of this post is Caesar 10044. He holds a PhD in History. These are his reasons why the current liberal ascendancy cannot last.
1) Barack Obama already appears haggard and joyless. His lying is probably making him sick. History will remember him as “Barack the Unready”.
2) Speaker Pelosi is already a laughingstock and will probably suffer a nervous breakdown out of fear of being caught-out in her lies, (a la Tell Tale Heart),
3)Rahm Emanuel is good at street fighting, but I predict that he will blow up at the wrong person at the wrong time.
4)Expect a backlash against paying the huge taxes and utility increases that the “Cap and Trade” Bill will establish. (I believe that Al gore will eventually be discredited).
5)Should Health Care Reform pass, there will be a backlash against the taxes that will proceed the implementation of the actual Health Care.
6)It is heartening that the first, real bipartisan action is to have Congess compel Mr. Obama to remove his “czars”. Without them, his power base is weakened.
7)There is a good chance that those radical Democrats, as well as the “Blue Dogs”, who voted for “Pelosicare”, will be looking for new careers in 2010.
8)As people see their own taxes rise, the public will demand that Rangel and others who have not paid their taxes finally receive their just deserts.
9)People will finally become exasperated at not being able to tell jokes about Obama.
10)I believe that the Health Care Reform bill will be successfully be blocked in the Senate.
11)If a ‘second stimulus’ comes to pass, it will cause enough discontent that moderates and independents will start listening to the ‘Tea Party’ movement.
12)In the foreign policy area, Obama’s decisions about Afghanistan will continue to make him look weak. If Iran develops a nuclear device, Obama will look even worse, especially with respect to our allies. If Israel acts on its own and bombs Iran’s nuclear facilities, (as it did in Iraq), Obama will look even more ineffectual. (Remember, Likud is in power.)
13)If Democrats are expected to “fall on their swords” on behalf of their Congressional leaders (who view them as expendable) the Democrat party will become even more divided and have a lack of trust within its ranks.
14)More young people than one would think do not want to be paying for something created by people who they are realizing lied to them about its benefits to them. (Graduating college students are already realizing this.)
15)The recent Government take-over of the student loan industry, making no private loans available once “caps” are reached, means no Graduate School for many students. Less education will make it harder for younger people to compete for jobs with 30-somethings. It will be too late to blame Bush when they realized this.
16)Look at Great Britain and their “love affair” with Blair. Now they are sick of Labour and cannot wait for their defeat.
17)People only tolerate corruption when times are good. (Look up what happened to Bertie Ahern in Ireland if you don’t believe me.)
November 5, 2009 • 7:29 PM 0
Today, as I watched those who traveled to Washington D. C. to rally against H.R. 3962, (it was streamed by Fox over the internet), I was heartened. Not only were the GOP representatives passionate, but also gave me hope that future leaders will indeed emerge who represent our founding principles. And, the people who attended are true examples of the patriots of old.
A number of Republicans referred to their own Health Reform Bill. Fox reported the following:
“The Republicans have put forward their own version of health care reform as an alternative, but the Congressional Budget Office estimated that their plan-while keeping premiums down and costing a mere fraction of the cost of the Democrats’ bill-would cover only 3 million more Americans. The Democrats’ bill is projected to cover 36 million.”
As I have discussed before, I am skeptical of the number of uninsured that seems to change each and every time one of the “progressives” in the Government talks about it. If I wanted to be very cynical, I would again point out that the Democrat bill leaves 4% uninsured, or approximately twelve million. That number is equivalent to the actual number of currently uninsured American citizens. If the Republican bill covers 3 million of these twelve million then we would be left with about 9 million uninsured. However, I am sure that this is NOT the math that they used. I continue to believe that Democrats are not mathematically inclined.
In a related article Fox also reported an interesting related factoid about H.R. 3962:
“Though the bill is estimated to expand coverage from the current 83 percent to 96 percent of legal U.S. residents, the windfall of projected penalty payments also exposes a potential contradiction in reform. A significant part of the plan to expand coverage relies financially on fines from the uninsured.”
Now, this sounds a lot like how E-Z Pass in New Jersey was originally supposed to be funded. The thought was that ample revenue for the program would be generated from tickets issued to those drivers who approached the E-Z Pass lanes at too great a speed. However, very few did not observe the posted limit. As a result, little revenue was generated from fines and E-Z Pass was soon going broke. When will these folks ever learn from the mistakes of the past?
In the midst of the rally this afternoon, the POTUS, of course, needed to make his daily T.V. appearance. He showed up unannounced in the White House Press room to share that both the AMA and the AARP had endorsed H.R. 3962. Commenting on the AARP endorsement the POTUS said:
“They’re endorsing this bill because they know it will strengthen Medicare, not jeopardize it. They know it will protect the benefits our seniors recieve, not cut them.”
(Too bad that Joe Wilson was outside at the rally at the time. We could have used his clear, sweet voice from the back of the room denouncing this statement.)
House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va) responded to the AARP endorsement in a slightly different way:
“It’s really puzzling why the AARP would endorse a bill that cuts $500 billion from Medicare. I suspect they will get a lot of pushback.”
I am hoping for a lot of pushback from EVERYONE. The vote is scheduled for Saturday. The POTUS is going to drop by and schmooze the Democrats that may be teetering tomorrow. We need to keep the pressure on our Representatives, even they are lost causes. If I can continue to contact my sorry Representative, Bill Pascrell, you can call or e-mail your Representative. If we are to go down, let us go down fighting.