Please note that you can leave a comment on any of our posts at our Facebook page.  Subscribers can also comment at length at our Angel's Corner Forum.

OUR DAILY SNIPPETS ARE HERE.

TUESDAY,  MARCH 23,  2010

BUZZING – AT 7:03 P.M. ET:  Much buzz today about Hillary Clinton's remarkable blunder in her speech yesterday to AIPAC, the pro-Israel group.  You know, in diplomacy you've got to get the basics right.

Clinton, in an obvious and award attempt to appease the pro-Israel crowd, which is none too pleased with her recent confrontation with Israel, officially denounced the naming of a square in Ramallah after a Palestinian terrorist.  She blamed Hamas.

Trouble is, Hamas isn't in control of Ramallah, which is on the West Bank.  Hamas controls Gaza.  The Palestinian Authority controls Ramallah. 

The secretary has to go to a better bookstore and buy a book of maps.  It need not be expensive in these tough times.  Softcover versions are available.  Better prices can be had online through Amazon or Barnes and Noble. 

That kind of mistake, coming from someone who sometimes appears to know every neighborhood in Jerusalem, and even the street signs and graffiti, is inexcusable. 

There's a lot of amateurism in our foreign policy, a foreign policy that produces no results.  At first I tended to blame only Obama, but it's time Clinton took her lumps as well.

March 23, 2010     Permalink

REPEAL! – AT 6:18 P.M. ET:  That is the rallying cry of Republicans.  Repeal the monstrous "health" bill.  But is it possible?  Some say you can never repeal a benefits bill because people get used to the benefits.  Bill Kristol disagrees:

The editors of National Review sensibly counsel conservatives, in the wake of last night’s victory for Obamacare: “‘Nil desperandum’--never despair.” I agree, though I’m more inclined to the mock-Latin motto of the Harvard band: “Illegitimi non carborundum”--don't let the bastards get you down.

Why not? Because we can repeal it.

As National Review’s editors explain (and see also the strong Wall Street Journal editorial this morning), this legislation “will increase taxes, increase premiums, and increase debt, while decreasing economic growth, job growth, and the quality of health care.” So it will--if it is allowed to go into effect.

And...

...the message will have to be not just repeal but also replace--replace Obamacare with sensible reforms. What’s more, working out exactly how to repeal and replace the parts of the legislation that will already be in effect is an important task, one to which I know Paul Ryan has already given some thought.

But the details of the replacing and reforming are secondary. Repeal is the heart of the matter. It should be the heart of the message.

Finally, on Obama's role:

He won a short-term victory, but one that will turn out to mark an inflection point on the road to defeat, and the beginning of the end of the Democratic party’s dominance over American politics...Obama’s Waterloo will be November 6, 2012.

And then comes repeal, and the opportunity for renewed and revitalized conservative governance.

COMMENT:  From Kristol's mouth to you-know-who's ears.  Our side is in a fighting mode.  But let's make the fight intelligent.  Kristol is right that we can't just yell repeal.  It's repeal and replace.  Get rid of the burden, but solve the problems in the health-care system.  Then we shine.

March 23, 2010   Permalink

GREAT REPORTING – AT 5:44 P.M. ET:  Nobody knows more about explaining the economy, and economic history, than Amity Shlaes, formerly of the Wall Street Journal, now of Bloomberg.  She demolishes a lot of the propaganda used to sell the health bill: 

Everyone knows the bill will widen deficits over time. Entitlement and mandate expansions always do. And everyone knows that health-care reform isn’t about fiscal rectitude. As Peter Orszag, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote last summer, the point of the proposal “was never to generate savings over the next decade.” It was to insure the uninsured.

Oh.  I guess we were misinformed.

The question is how can lawmakers get away with their misrepresentation? One answer lies in the structure of the Congressional Budget Office, the government’s official accountant. Its job is to establish an honest price: to tell legislators and voters what a policy will cost in the short, medium and long terms. That CBO work is important because Americans rightly sense that the politicians’ math is rigged...

...The CBO’s rules make it hard for the group to fulfill its own mandate. You’d think, for example, that the CBO would use its own parameters when it crunches numbers. Instead, the CBO must use the same mathematical assumptions supplied by the very lawmakers who wrote the bill the group is evaluating. No matter how improbable those formulas are.

Former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin, writing in the New York Times, described the group’s process as “fantasy in, fantasy out.”

And that is how those numbers were sold to us, or at least sold to those who weren't watching too carefully.

CBO rules often preclude common sense. Its forecasters can’t take into account any other legislation when studying the price tag of a proposed bill. That enabled the forecasters costing out House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s bill to overlook this fact: Medicare spending increases will force tax increases, which in turn will hurt growth.

Oh.  Maybe we should tell the Dems to write that down.

This dynamic is permitted because the answers the CBO supplies make it easier for politicians to sell their bills. They’re happy. And so, for the moment, are voters who are painfully aware that the U.S. federal budget can’t cover new entitlements, yet accept such legislation as a balm for that pain.

And...

The CBO’s structural failure benefits the Democrats this week. Indeed, Pelosi is teaching Republicans something: the bigger the misrepresentation, the greater the credibility with voters. Croon to them a tune about entitlement, and they forget that you’re clearing a path for a tripling of the tax on dividends.

COMMENT:  Hitler once said that people would sooner believe a big lie than a small one.  Many politicians eventually learn that.  Sad, isn't it?

March 23, 2010   Permalink

A MODEST BOUNCE FOR OBAMA – AT 9:44 A.M. ET:  We've been cautioning that public reaction to the health bill might not be as favorable to Republicans as they think.  Success in passing the legislation brings a kind of "we love winners" mentality.  Rasmussen confirms our caution:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 31% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-one percent (41%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -10 (see trends).

The President is enjoying a modest bounce following the weekend of health care activity in Congress. The number who Strongly Approve of the President has not been higher than today’s total since November. The Approval Index rating of -10 is the President’s best in over a month.

The bounce comes from Democrats who are pleased with the passage of the health care plan. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of Democrats now Strongly Approve of the President’s performance while 70% of Republicans Strongly Disapprove. As for those not affiliated with either major party, 23% Strongly Approve and 45% Strongly Disapprove.

And...

Overall, 48% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-two percent (52%) disapprove.

That's also a very strong showing for this president at this time.

COMMENT:   Most bounces last only a few days for the bouncee.  We'll see how long this is sustained.  There are some pundits warning that health care can turn out to be a net plus for the Dems, depending on how it's sold between now and November.  That risk is there.  The Republicans should take nothing for granted.

March 23, 2010   Permalink

MARCH OF THE FRAUDULENT CLAIMS – AT 9:03 A.M. ET:  As readers know, we've been following the Toyota saga.  We've watched as an overheated initial reaction to claims of unintended acceleration turned to skepticism.  The skepticism is justified.

Now we have one more claim that's been debunked.  The action occurred about six miles from where Urgent Agenda is written.  From Fox:

According to Police Captain Anthony Marraccini, driver error caused the crash of a Prius on March 9th 2010 in Harrison N.Y. and not faulty brakes.

In an investigation of the incident, Harrison Police Captain Marraccini said the brakes had not been applied, a finding that contradicted claims from a 56 year old woman who told police that the car had accelerated as she drove down her employer’s driveway and hit a stone wall. The woman told police that she had hit the brakes but the car did not respond.

A number of people have "come forward" to claim faulty Toyotas after the original publicity, but this police officer has done his job.  From his statement:

"The vehicle accelerator was compressed and there was no brake application. We looked at data extracted from the car’s computer system. We looked at the vehicle diagnostic trouble code and we have video taped every key stroke that Toyota made while they extracted the data so we know the data is reliable and trustworthy..

"...Sensors on the gas pedal showed that the throttle position was depressed fully by the driver. The data indicates the accelerator was depressed. There was no pressure applied to the brakes at the time. The shift sensor was in drive and the accelerator sensor indicated that accelerator was fully depressed. There is no indication that the brake lamps were on."

COMMENT:  There is now a move on to install "black boxes" in all newly manufactured cars.  It should be done.  We will learn a great deal about actual accidents, and authorities will be able to debunk false statements made to the police.

March 23, 2010   Permalink

SOWELL ON THE HEALTH BILL – AT 8:34 A.M. ET:  One of the most brilliant conservative writers of our time has weighed in on what has just happened in Congress.  As usual, attention must be paid to Tom Sowell:

With the passage of the legislation allowing the federal government to take control of the medical care system of the United States, a major turning point has been reached in the dismantling of the values and institutions of America.

Even the massive transfer of crucial decisions from millions of doctors and patients to Washington bureaucrats and advisory panels-- as momentous as that is-- does not measure the full impact of this largely unread and certainly unscrutinized legislation.

Nobody says it better. 

With politicians now having not only access to our most confidential records, and having the power of granting or withholding medical care needed to sustain ourselves or our loved ones, how many people will be bold enough to criticize our public servants, who will in fact have become our public masters?

I hadn't thought of it that way.  Now I'm thinking of it that way.

The corrupt manner in which this massive legislation was rammed through Congress, without any of the committee hearings or extended debates that most landmark legislation has had, has provided a roadmap for pushing through more such sweeping legislation in utter defiance of what the public wants.

The problem is that Democrats don't believe the public is smart enough to know what it wants, so more enlightened souls, graduates of our "best" universities, must do it for them.

They say that, in politics, overnight is a lifetime. Just last month, it was said that the election of Scott Brown to the Senate from Massachusetts doomed the health care bill. Now some of the same people are saying that passing the health care bill will doom the administration and the Democrats' control of Congress. As an old song said, "It ain't necessarily so."

The voters will have had no experience with the actual, concrete effect of the government takeover of medical care at the time of either the 2010 Congressional elections or the 2012 Presidential elections. All they will have will be conflicting rhetoric-- and you can depend on the mainstream media to go along with the rhetoric of those who passed this medical care bill.

Finally...

The last opportunity that current American citizens may have to determine who will control Congress may well be the election in November of this year. Off-year elections don't usually bring out as many voters as Presidential election years. But the 2010 election may be the last chance to halt the dismantling of America. It can be the point of no return.

COMMENT:  Tom Sowell is not a man who writes wildly.  Take his comments to heart.  The left has gathered more power in Washington than it has ever had.  It intends to use that power.  If you want to know how ruthless the exercise of that power can be, just look at our colleges and our school systems.  Case closed.

March 23, 2010   Permalink

IN THE SENATE – AT 8:17 A.M. ET:  Even though President Obama is expected to sign the health bill into law, it having passed both houses of Congress, Republicans will still try to block changes in the bill in the Senate, requiring the package of changes to go back to the House.  From The Washington Times:

President Obama on Tuesday is expected to sign into law the health care overhaul, but the battle over alterations demanded by House Democrats is just beginning in the Senate.

Republicans are preparing a series of amendments and objections to the secondary bill designed to force Democrats to take difficult political positions.

Republican Sen. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa said Monday he plans to introduce an amendment to require the president, Cabinet members and White House staff to buy their insurance through the government exchanges. As written, the overhaul prevents them from going to the exchanges because they get their insurance through their employer.

No chance that will pass.  Democrats consider Obama administration officials as royalty, and one doesn't tamper with royalty.

Senate Democrats are expected to have the 51 votes they need to pass the package of changes under reconciliation rules. So the drama will rest with the Senate parliamentarian, who will decide whether the Republicans' objections are legitimate, and with Republicans, who will decide how long they plan to try to block the bill.

Any change the Senate makes to the legislation would force the House to take another tough vote to pass the plan and possibly kill it.

Top Senate Democrats have said that they have asked the rank-and-file to vote against every amendment to the bill -- even if they agree with them.

Why let principle stand in the way? 

Look, these are parliamentary maneuvers.  They probably won't work, but at least the GOP is giving it a shot.  Chances are we'll have Obamacare.  And we'll have the bill that goes with it.  It will be up to the Republicans to come up with an alternative that is so well put together that the public will demand that it replace Obamacare.  Can the GOP do it?  Well, we're not talking about a bunch known for great imagination, but this will be the challenge that will define them for a long time.

March 23,  2010     Permalink

MONDAY,  MARCH 22,  2010

WASN'T SHE ONCE THE HEALTH-CARE LADY? – AT 9:18 P.M. ET:  Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who once tried to get Hillarycare passed when she was first lady, is now doing foreign policy.  Notice the difference? 

Today she made an absurd speech to AIPAC, the strongest pro-Israel group.  It had been a highly anticipated address because of the recent dust-up between the Obamans and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over Israeli home-construction policies in Jerusalem.

The speech was absurd because nothing Clinton says is being taken seriously any longer.  She has become Obama's poodle, or pit bull, or whatever breed she prefers.  She defended the American position on Israeli settlements, but missed an opportunity to at least somewhat apologize for the inflated rhetoric she'd used on a friend.  (Contrast that, please, to the mush that the Obamans hand out toward our enemies.)

Of course she delivered the usual "unshakeable bond" lines – the standard applause lines inserted into the speech by some magical computer program – and got polite applause.

But the really absurd part came when she announced, for the 41,642nd time, that the United States regards an Iranian nuclear weapon as unacceptable.  That's nice.  She then outlined what America is doing about the prospect, and you could just double over laughing.  Even The New York Times, not known for its lack of sympathy for Secretary Clinton, couldn't contain itself in reporting the story:

Mrs. Clinton sought to build solidarity with Israel on one area where they clearly have common ground: the potential nuclear threat from Iran. In the most enthusiastically received part of her speech, she promised to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. She said the Obama administration was seeking sanctions with “bite.” That characterization was a modest, but noticeable, retreat from her language last year, when she said the United States sought “crippling sanctions.”

Modest retreat?  That was a surrender, hands in the sky, give up your weapons.   The United States has gotten absolutely nowhere in its "engagement" with Iran.  Nowhere.  Yet Clinton parrots the line, as if there's a serious chance of getting effective sanctions, and a serious chance of ending Iran's quest for the bomb.

I guess people have to applaud her, but I'm beginning to think that a polite silence might be the best way to send her the message that we know the whole Iran act is bogus.

March 22, 2010   Permalink

STATES TO SUE ON OBAMACARE – AT 7:56 P.M. ET:  Obamacare is heading for court even before it goes into practice.  A former Republican congressman, now attorney general of Florida, is leading the charge.  From Reuters:

MIAMI, March 22 (Reuters) - Florida's attorney general will file a lawsuit with nine other state attorneys general opposing the healthcare legislation passed by Congress, a spokeswoman said on Monday.

"The health care reform legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives last night clearly violates the U.S. Constitution and infringes on each state's sovereignty," Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, a Republican, said in a prepared statement announcing a news conference.

"On behalf of the State of Florida and of the Attorneys General from South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Pennsylvania, Washington, North Dakota, South Dakota and Alabama if the President signs this bill into law, we will file a lawsuit to protect the rights and the interests of American citizens."

Add Virginia:

NEW YORK, March 22 (Reuters) - Virginia's attorney general said he plans to sue the federal government over the healthcare reform legislation, saying Congress lacks authority to force people to buy health insurance.

Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli, a Republican, said on Monday that Congress lacks authority under its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce to force people to buy insurance. He said the bill also conflicts with a state law that says Virginians cannot be required to buy insurance.

"If a person decides not to buy health insurance, that person by definition is not engaging in commerce," Cuccinelli said in recorded comments. "If you are not engaging in commerce, how can the federal government regulate you?"

COMMENT:  Shakespeare had one of his characters advocate that we shoot all the lawyers.  Before we do that, let them win this case.

March 22, 2010   Permalink

AH, YES, THEY ARE DOING THIS FOR "THE PEOPLE" – WHICH ONES? – AT 7:25 P.M. ET:  A CNN poll taken over the weekend, while the representatives of the people were serving us in the House, show that "the people" aren't too fond of what was done for them. 

A new CNN Opinion Research poll, conducted over the weekend as the House debated Obamacare, finds that 59 percent of Americans now stand opposed to the health care legislation in Congress. Just 39 percent of the poll’s 1,030 respondents said they favored the bill.

These numbers shouldn’t come as a surprise — even to the White House. In fact, The Washington Post reported this morning that “President Obama is set to begin an immediate public relations blitz aimed at turning around Americans’ opinion of the health-care bill.” The White House plan will be both a short-term strategy to shore up political supporters of the legislation and a long-term effort to bolster Obama’s legacy.

Reshaping the legislation’s image will take place in three phases, White House aides said: the immediate aftermath; the seven months until the November midterm elections; and the several years that follow, during which many provisions in the measure will gradually take effect.

Of course, given the findings of the CNN poll, the White House has it’s work cut out.

COMMENT:  It might have been a good idea for the White House to conduct an effective PR blitz before the House vote was taken.  Of course, our side would have countered with a truthful picture of that this monstrosity will do to the country.

The fighting on health care has just begun.  For us, once the bill becomes law, it will be an uphill struggle.  But it's a struggle that can be won with better ideas. 

Suggestion:  The GOP should put Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin in charge of the counterattack. The guy is terrific, and knows how to make the argument.  To see Congressman Ryan in action, go here.

March 22, 2010   Permalink

THEY WILL NOT BE MISSED – AT 7:05 P.M. ET:  Bypassed in all the commotion over the passage of Obamacare, which will insure that all of us live to 120 with no aches and pains, is the fact that a less-than-venerable organization is shutting down.  Again, from Fox:

CHICAGO — The once mighty community activist group ACORN announced Monday it is folding amid falling revenues — six months after video footage emerged showing some of its workers giving tax tips to conservative activists posing as a pimp and prostitute.

"It's really declining revenue in the face of a series of attacks from partisan operatives and right-wing activist that have taken away our ability to raise the resources we need," ACORN spokesman Kevin Whelan said.

Sure.  It has nothing to do with the corruption within the organization.

Several of its largest affiliates, including ACORN New York and ACORN California, broke away this year and changed their names in a bid to ditch the tarnished image of their parent organization and restore revenue that ran dry in the wake of the video scandal. They will continue to operate under their new names and aren't affected by ACORN's decision to shut down.

Translated:  They will continue to do what ACORN did.

ACORN's financial situation and reputation went into free fall within days of the videos' release in September. Congress reacted by yanking ACORN's federal funding, private donors held back cash and scores of ACORN offices closed.

Earlier this month, a U.S. judge reiterated an earlier ruling that the federal law blacklisting ACORN and groups allied with it was unconstitutional because it singled them out. But that didn't mean any money would be automatically be restored.

COMMENT:  Look, there is absolutely nothing wrong with organizations that wish to service and represent the poor.  Organizations like that are a great part of the American tradition.  But the groups have to be honest, capable, and uphold the law.  And they actually have to provide real services.  The poor are among the most vulnerable in our society, and easy scammed.  The scams are often carried out by those claiming to be helping them. 

March 22, 2010   Permalink

SOMETHING NOT RIGHT HERE – AT 7:01 P.M. ET:  Something has clearly been botched in a terrorism case.  A very bad guy may soon be walking the streets.  I hope they're not our streets.  From Fox:

WASHINGTON — A suspected Al Qaeda organizer once called "the highest value detainee" at Guantanamo Bay was ordered released by a federal judge in an order issued Monday.

Mohamedou Ould Slahi was accused in the 9/11 Commission report of helping recruit Mohammed Atta and other members of the Al Qaeda cell in Hamburg, Germany, that took part in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Military prosecutors suspected Slahi of links to other Al Qaeda operations, and considered seeking the death penalty against him while preparing possible charges in 2003 and 2004.

U.S. District Judge James Robertson granted Slahi's petition for habeas corpus, effectively finding the government lacked legal grounds to hold him. The order was classified, although the court said it planned to release a redacted public version in the coming weeks.

Robertson held four days of closed hearings in the Slahi case last year.

"They were considering giving him the death penalty. Now they don't even have enough evidence to pass the test for habeas," said Nancy Hollander, an Albuquerque, N.M., attorney representing Slahi.

COMMENT:  There's be more on this story, but clearly someone is slipping between the cracks.  Let's see if Eric Holder's Department of Justice for Some can get this reversed.  Don't hold your breath.  Breath holding isn't covered by Obamacare.

March 22, 2010   Permalink

A NAVY WARNING – AT 9:28 A.M. ET:  There are other things happening besides the seizing of one sixth of the American economy by the Democratic Party in the House.  The Navy is issuing a stark warning about a new Al Qaeda maritime attack.  From superb defense reporter Bill Gertz, at the Washington Times:

The Navy is warning ships sailing in waters near Yemen that al Qaeda is planning seaborne attacks similar to the 2000 suicide boat bombing of the USS Cole.

A warning notice posted on the Web site of the Office of Naval Intelligence and dated March 10 stated that the alert was issued to promote security for shipping companies and other vessels transiting the piracy-plagued region.

"Information suggests that al Qaeda remains interested in maritime attacks in the Bab-al-Mandeb Strait, Red Sea, and the Gulf of Aden along the coast of Yemen," the special advisory notice stated.

A U.S. counterterrorism official said the warning was intended to boost awareness of the threat of al Qaeda attacks such as the Cole, which killed 17 U.S. sailors, and a later attack on a French oil tanker that killed one crew member.

"Extremists on the Arabian Peninsula continue to look to maritime interests as possible terrorist targets," the official said.

According to the warning notice, the exact method of any planned attack is not known but it "may be similar in nature to the attacks against the USS Cole in October 2000 and the M/V Limburg in October 2002, where a small to mid-size boat laden with explosives was detonated."

More sophisticated attack methods could include missiles or projectiles fired at ships.

COMMENT:  Sooner or later, we'll be hit again, either at home or in some American position overseas.  There are some new isolationists in the liberal wing of the Democratic Party who would like us, in the pathetic words of George McGovern, to "come home America."  More rational voices must prevail.  The threat continues, and will probably go on for decades, as did the Cold War.

March 22, 2010   Permalink

MORE REACTION – AT 8:43 A.M. ET:  We're searching for the most interesting reaction to last night's bloodshed on the House floor.  Rich Lowry, conservative stalwart, has some very sobering thoughts on what happened to America in the House vote:

If the enactment of a program for universal coverage fulfills a long-standing goal of the Democrats, this wasn't how it was supposed to happen -- with public opinion firmly opposed, with protesters chanting just steps away from the Capitol, with procedural contortions and brazen deals, with blatantly dishonest accounting, with a wave of popular revulsion threatening to undo their work.

The undoing would have to wait for a new, Republican president.  Obama would veto any undoing, and it takes two thirds to override. 

Democrats sealed their majority yesterday with a characteristically farcical deal over abortion.

The Senate bill provides federal funding for the procedure, in a departure from the long-standing prohibition of such funding under the Hyde Amendment. Pro-life Democrats led by Michigan's Rep. Bart Stupak didn't want to support the Senate bill without the Hyde-like restrictions that were in the version first passed the House.

But they folded for a legally meaningless executive order purporting to preserve the status quo as defined by Hyde.

The bill makes the entire category of "pro-life Democrat" look dubious.

Actually, the whole category of "moderate" Democrats is looking more dubious this morning, although 34 brave Democrats did in fact vote against the bill.

And Obama's role?

Despite his silky rhetoric, when push came to shove, he adopted the partisan hardball beloved by lefty bloggers to forestall serious compromise and work his ideological will.

Obama stands exposed as the kind of unabashed liberal Democrat who hasn't won a presidential election since 1964. The first electoral test for this iteration of Obama, shorn of all pretense to moderation, comes in November.

The mid-term elections will in large part be a referendum on health care, as the exclamation point on top of a vaulting agenda of government aggrandizement.

Democrats won the battle within their caucus to pass a large-scale bill that threatens to change the relationship between citizen and government. But they haven't yet won the battle for the country.

That begins today.

COMMENT:  Republicans must be careful not to oppose, and leave it at that.  The GOP must present to the American people an attractive alternative, and it must work the details.

March 22, 2010   Permalink

THE ASTERISK IN THE SENATE – AT 8:21 A.M. ET:  Action on health care now shifts to the Senate, but some of the news stories describing what will happen there leave out a critical point.  The future of the process may depend on one man – Vice President Joe Biden.

The Senate parliamentarian will be asked to rule on whether the Senate can simply ratify "fixes" to the health-care bill voted by the House last night, or must send its own actions back to the House again, which would open up the health-care debate in the House once more. 

Republicans are optimistic that the parliamentarian will rule in their favor on some items, meaning opening House debate once more.  But the parliamentarian's word isn't final.  Vice President Biden, in his position as president of the Senate, can overrule the parliamentarian.  If he does, the Senate will simply approve the House's "fixes" by simple majority, defying a ruling by the parliamentarian and substituting the vice president's political ruling.  Sparks will fly, but will Americans care?

March 22, 2010   Permalink

THE MORNING AFTER PILL – AT 8:08 A.M. ET:  The dust hasn't cleared, and may never clear, over the House's passage of health-care "reform" last night.  A bill that very few lawmakers have actually read was passed by a narrow margin, with not a single Republican supporting it.  Thus we march forward united...not.

Fox News reports on the bill and the start of the aftermath:

A bloc of pro-life Democrats turned out to be the linchpin to passage of the Senate's massive health insurance overhaul Sunday night, as President Obama cemented a 219-212 victory with a pledge to issue an executive order "clarifying" abortion language in the Senate bill.

The leader of the so-called "pro-life" bloc, Bart Stupak of Michigan, caved in the end, accepting a presidential statement that "clarified" the president's position that the bill doesn't permit the funding of abortion, except in specific cases.  Stupak now faces Republican opposition in November for what had been considered a relatively safe seat. 

The House also voted 220-211 to support a "reconciliation" bill aimed to "fix" provisions in the Senate bill that many House Democrats opposed but viewed as better than nothing.

The Senate was scheduled to begin debate on those "fixes" on Tuesday, the earliest day that Obama would sign the original legislation.

Republicans will use parliamentary devices to try to block the fixes, forcing Democrats to accept the Senate version whole.

Republicans remain passionate in opposition to the bill, and did not budge, even when the outcome of the House vote appeared inevitable.  They were lead by Minority leader John Boehner:

Clearly angered by the impending vote, Boehner shouted at lawmakers that they can not go back to their constituents and claim to have read the bill, saved money, created jobs or acted openly in their pursuit of the legislation.

Saying the actions taken by the House to get the bill passed discredits the Congress, Boehner, R-Ohio, slowly raised his voice as he demanded lawmakers answer simple questions.

"Can you go home and tell your senior citizens that these cuts in Medicare will not limit their access to doctors or further weaken the program instead of strengthening it? No, you can not," Boehner said to shouts of support from his GOP caucus. "And look at how this bill was written. Can you say it was done openly, with transparency and accountability without backroom deals struck behind closed doors, hidden from the people? Hell, no you can't."

Boehner warned lawmakers that they will have to face the music if they vote for the legislation.

"In a democracy you can only defy the will of the people for so long and get away with it," he said.

COMMENT:  There is no sign that the bitter divisions will heal soon, or ever.  What should have been a bipartisan effort turned into a very partisan affair.  The big question now is whether Americans, who opposed the bill in every public-opinion poll taken, will now accept it.

March 22,  2010   Permalink

SUNDAY,  MARCH 21,  2010

BULLETIN:  HEALTH PILL TAKEN – AT 10:50 P.M. ET:  The House has passed the Senate version of the health bill, 219 to 212, with 34 Democrats voting against. 

The vote was closer than had been expected. 

March 21, 2010    Permalink

BATTLE OF THE SENATE – AT 8:27 P.M. ET:  As John Hinderaker writes in the post below, Republicans haven't yet begun to fight on health care.  ABC's "The Note" has a prediction on the next battle action:

ABC News' Z. Byron Wolf reports: The House bill has not yet passed and already we are seeing the reconciliation fight start in the Senate.

Senate Republicans say they can get the whole package of reconciliation fixes – the fix-its that make the Senate plan palatable to House Democrats - thrown out with a trump card procedural motion. And they say Democrats are slow-walking a decision from the parliamentarian until the House passes the Senate bill.

That means the Senate bill, which everyone in the House seems to universally hate, will be the law of the land.

This afternoon Senate Republicans say Democrats won’t meet with them and the parliamentarian – a charge Democratic staffers call “absurd”. (The timing of the allegation also works as a last-minute, probably too-late message to wavering House Democrats).

Bottom line: Don’t expect the health reform debate to end tonight even though the health reform bill will become law as soon as Obama signs the Senate bill.

Should the House pass the Senate bill and the package of reconciliation fix-its tonight, Senators will take over the reconciliation fix-its as soon as Tuesday.

That will set in motion a week or longer parliamentary floor battle with points of order, references to the budget act, the Byrd Rule and more.

And...

If Republicans can get the parliamentarian to agree with them even once, whatever ultimately passes the Senate will have to go back to the House.  And Democrats in the House quietly admit that its very likely they will have to vote again on the reconciliation fixes at some point down the road.

COMMENT:  What an incredible situation.  The whole thing can still come down.  Stand by.  I haven't seen legislative combat like this in my lifetime.  It's true that the extension of the draft passed the House by only one vote in 1940, but the continuing controversy over that was ended for us by the Japanese on December 7, 1941.

The closest thing to what we're seeing now was the civil rights debate in 1964.  But the civil rights package had bipartisan support then.  This health bill has zero bipartisan support. 

I am absolutely curious to see how the American people, in polls, react to what's going on. 

March 21, 2010   Permalink 

REACTION TO THE INEVITABLE – AT 7:58 P.M. ET:  Reaction is starting to come in from conservative sources to the inevitable passage of the health-deform bill in the House.  The most thoughtful so far, I think, is from John Hinderaker at Power Line:

With collapse, passage of the Democrats' government medicine bill is assured. This is a dark day in American history; one of the darkest. But there are many reasons for optimism. Here are a few:

* The health care battle is just beginning. Next, the Senate will try to enact the House's "fixes" to the original Senate bill. Some Senators say that won't happen. If not, then President Obama has the option of signing the original Senate bill--now passed by the House--Cornhusker Kickback and all. I assume he would do that, but the resulting blowback from House Democrats, not to mention the American people, would be something to behold.

* The health care bill's taxes will go into effect promptly, but its substantive provisions are, for the most part, deferred for four years. This means that we have plenty of time to repeal the legislation...

* I've never been prouder to be a Republican. The party's Congressional leaders have fought this battle to the end on behalf of the American people--with intelligence, toughness, persistence and good humor. The contrast between the parties has never been starker than in today's debate. If any intelligent Democrats were watching--there must be some left--they had to be embarrassed for their party.

* Paul Ryan has emerged as one of the conservative movement's strongest spokesmen. In the years to come, I think we will hear the words "I'm a Paul Ryan Republican" with increasing frequency.

* The health care debate has energized the conservative movement and awoken the sleeping giant, that is, the American people....

* Barack Obama has used his political capital--pretty much all of it--on unpopular legislation that will continue to rile the voters for years to come. As a result, Obama is a remarkably unpopular second-year President....

So, be of good cheer. To paraphrase a great American, we have not yet begun to fight.

COMMENT:  I think many of us feel pretty much the same.  If there's any issue that should have been handled with class and dignity, it's the health care of citizens.  Look at the way this was done.  The United States House of Representatives looked like the Chicago City Council deciding where to put sewer pipes.

March 21, 2010   Permalink

WELL, IT'S PRETTY MUCH OVER IN THE HOUSE – AT 7:19 P.M. ET:  From The New York Times:

WASHINGTON — The House on Sunday took the most critical step yet toward adoption of legislation to overhaul the nation’s health care system and guarantee access to medical insurance for tens of millions of Americans, all but assuring a hard-fought but politically risky victory for President Obama and his party.

Again, the myths go forward.  All Americans have reasonable access to the health-care system, even if they don't have insurance.  It's awkward, it's in need of reform, but we're not, under the current system, leaving bodies in the streets. 

By a vote of 224-206, the House approved the key procedural measure necessary to pass the legislation, showing that Democrats and Mr. Obama had succeeded in cobbling together the votes they need to achieve a goal sought by presidents and progressives for more than a half-century.

I love the term "progressives," don't you?  Many of these "progressives" have a disturbingly warm feeling for some of the trendiest dictatorships.

The action came after a year of intense partisan combat, weeks of legislative brinksmanship and a last round of procedural roadblocks thrown up by Republicans, with the White House and Congressional leaders scrambling in the hours leading up to the vote to win over enough wavering Democrats to assure passage. The last outstanding challenge was finding a way to allay the concerns of Democrats who feared the bill would allow the use of federal money to pay for abortion or for insurance covering the procedure.

House Democrats clinched their victory on Sunday with an agreement on abortion. Democratic opponents of abortion rights, led by Representative Bart Stupak of Michigan, announced that they would vote for the legislation after Mr. Obama promised to issue an executive order “to ensure that federal funds are not used for abortion services” if the bill passed.

Mr. Stupak described the order as a significant guarantee that would "protect the sanctity of life in health care reform.” But supporters of abortion rights said it merely reaffirmed what was in the bill.

I have no idea which is the case.  But if the system is administered by "progressives," you may be sure that abortions will be paid for.

Following the procedural vote, on setting the rules for debate on the legislation, the House proceeded to debate the underlying bill and a package of changes. It was expected to vote later Sunday on two separate measures needed to complete its work: the health care bill passed by the Senate in December, and a package of changes to that bill that will be sent back to the Senate for its approval on a simple majority vote under a procedure that allows Democrats to sidestep a Republican filibuster.

The Senate is the last barricade.  The story says the changes can be approved by a simple majority vote in the Senate.  Republicans will try points of order to argue that some of the proposed changes don't fall within the "simple majority" rule. 

My guess is that this thing will eventually become law in an elaborate ceremony signed by the president.  Then will come the process whereby the law is put into practice, and the American people will have to decide whether they like a more socialized form of medicine.

March 21, 2010   Permalink

LATEST RASMUSSEN POLL ON HEALTH PLAN – AT 10:01 A.M. ET:   From Scott Rasmussen:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has scheduled a House of Representatives vote today on the health care reform plan proposed by the President Obama and congressional Democrats. Yet while in Congress there has been months of posturing and shifting of political tactics, voter attitudes have remained constant: A majority oppose the plan being considered by the legislators.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone poll, taken Friday and Saturday nights, shows that 41% of likely voters favor the health care plan. Fifty-four percent (54%) are opposed. These figures have barely budged in recent months.

Another finding that has remained constant is that the intensity is stronger among those who oppose the plan. The latest findings include 26% who Strongly Favor the plan and 45% who Strongly Oppose it.

The partisan divide remains constant as well. Seventy-four percent (74%) of Democrats favor the plan, while 87% of Republicans are opposed. As for those not affiliated with either major party, 34% are in favor, and 59% are opposed.

That independent vote, if it holds up, can kill the Dems this November.

Still, 50% of all voters say they’re less likely to vote this November to reelect a member of Congress who votes for the health care plan.

Fifty-seven percent (57%) believe that if the plan passes, the cost of health care will go up. Only 17% believe the plan will achieve the stated goal of reducing the cost of care.

At the same time, most voters (54%) believe that passage of the plan will hurt the quality of care.

COMMENT:  What an endorsement!  But a word of caution:  If the bill passes, it's possible that the White House spin machine, plus some early benefits, might sway some people in the "pro" direction.  So we have to keep up the fight even after passage.  And we can't just argue for repeal.  We have to argue for replacement with something better, and have that replacement ready to explain to the American people – a health-care contract with America.

March 21, 2010   Permalink

BULLETIN AT 9:53 A.M. ET:  Major House Dem claims victory on health vote.  From CNN:

Washington (CNN) -- Democrats have the 216 votes needed to pass health care reform legislation in the House on Sunday, the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus told CNN.

"This is a historic day and we are happy warriors," Rep. John Larson, D- Connecticut, told CNN's "State of the Union." He added, "We've got the votes."

But the chief deputy whip in the House, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Florida, cautioned, "We don't have a hard 216 right now." Schultz made the statement to "Fox News Sunday" just as Larson was speaking to CNN.

Wasserman Schultz added, "I firmly believe we will have 216."

"This fight is not lost, yet," said House Minority Leader John Boehner on NBC's "Meet the Press."

COMMENT:  This could be Dem hype, or it could be real.  But what a spectacle – trying to get the bare minimum to pass a bill of this magnitude.  What leadership, what vision.  Why, we're in the presence of another Lincoln.  Or maybe it's a Mercury.  Or an Edsel.

March 21, 2010   Permalink

PETRAEUS FOR PRESIDENT? – WE DOUBT IT – AT 9:43 A.M. ET:  From London's Telegraph, via the Vancouver Sun:

U.S. Gen. David Petraeus is being strongly suggested as the Republican presidential candidate to stand against Barack Obama in 2012.

Speculation is growing that the shrewd and articulate commander credited with turning around the Iraq war is contemplating a run for the White House.

Next week, he will deliver a speech at St Anselm College in New Hampshire, a traditional staging post in the state where the first presidential primaries are held every four years.

Each of the last eight presidents has spoken at the college on the way to victory.

It will be the latest in a series of engagements where the head of U.S. Central Command -- which covers the Middle East and Central Asia including Afghanistan -- has veered into foreign policy discussion.

Petraeus has consistently denied any ambitions to run for the presidency, once joking: "What part of 'No' don't you understand?"

COMMENT:  This is going to pop up from time to time until 2012.  The chances of Petraeus running are not great.  His chances for a draft are poorer.  His chances at election, competing with Obama, are problematical.

First, Petraeus would be running against his own commander-in-chief.  The question would legitimately be asked:  If you think he's that bad, why didn't you resign earlier?

Second, he's a Rockefeller Republican, not exactly in style in today's Republican Party.

Third, military officers usually do not fare well in politics.  John McCain, a genuine hero, was defeated in 2008.  Our last military president was Dwight Eisenhower, who was also seen as a statesman.  That was half a century ago. 

Fourth, he's, at best, an average speaker. 

Petraeus is a fine man, and his surge strategy in Iraq worked.  But by 2012 the surge will be distant history.  Remember that Wesley Clark, who oversaw NATO's action in Bosnia, tried to get the Democratic nomination for president, and didn't come close.

Barring some major surprise, I wouldn't rate this story too highly.

March 21, 2010   Permalink

PRAISE FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES – AT 9:28 A.M. ET:  You don't see words like that here very often.  However, The Times is to be praised for publishing the best, and most devastating, analysis of the real cost of the health bill to be voted on today: 

ON Thursday, the Congressional Budget Office reported that, if enacted, the latest health care reform legislation would, over the next 10 years, cost about $950 billion, but because it would raise some revenues and lower some costs, it would also lower federal deficits by $138 billion. In other words, a bill that would set up two new entitlement spending programs — health insurance subsidies and long-term health care benefits — would actually improve the nation’s bottom line.

Could this really be true? How can the budget office give a green light to a bill that commits the federal government to spending nearly $1 trillion more over the next 10 years?

The answer, unfortunately, is that the budget office is required to take written legislation at face value and not second-guess the plausibility of what it is handed. So fantasy in, fantasy out.

Yeah, we kind of suspected this.

In reality, if you strip out all the gimmicks and budgetary games and rework the calculus, a wholly different picture emerges: The health care reform legislation would raise, not lower, federal deficits, by $562 billion.

Oh.  Well, here, let me get out my checkbook. 

There follows a careful exposing of how deceitful the bill actually is, including this:

Finally, in perhaps the most amazing bit of unrealistic accounting, the legislation proposes to trim $463 billion from Medicare spending and use it to finance insurance subsidies. But Medicare is already bleeding red ink, and the health care bill has no reforms that would enable the program to operate more cheaply in the future. Instead, Congress is likely to continue to regularly override scheduled cuts in payments to Medicare doctors and other providers.

Removing the unrealistic annual Medicare savings ($463 billion) and the stolen annual revenues from Social Security and long-term care insurance ($123 billion), and adding in the annual spending that so far is not accounted for ($114 billion) quickly generates additional deficits of $562 billion in the first 10 years. And the nation would be on the hook for two more entitlement programs rapidly expanding as far as the eye can see.

Knowing the way Congress usually acts, the picture may actually be worse.

The stakes could not be higher. As documented in another recent budget office analysis, the federal deficit is already expected to exceed at least $700 billion every year over the next decade, doubling the national debt to more than $20 trillion. By 2020, the federal deficit — the amount the government must borrow to meet its expenses — is projected to be $1.2 trillion, $900 billion of which represents interest on previous debt.

The health care legislation would only increase this crushing debt. It is a clear indication that Congress does not realize the urgency of putting America’s fiscal house in order.

If this thing passes we should all be required to write a note to the next generation, apologizing.  Although maybe we can ease the apology by pointing out that we did leave our kids reality TV, the legacy of John Edwards, and Barack Obama's foreign policy.  Be proud, be proud.

March 21, 2010   Permalink

THE RUMBLE – AT 9:16 A.M. ET:  It has a bit of the feel of "West Side Story."  The House will clash on, then vote on, health care today or tonight, at least according to the script.  The sides will soon gather in the House chamber, on the bad side of town, for a rumble. 

The Washington Post has the latest:

House leaders decided Saturday to stage a vote on the Senate's health-care bill, dropping a much-criticized strategy of allowing lawmakers to "deem" the landmark legislation into law. But the outcome of that vote remained in doubt as a pivotal bloc of Democrats continued to withhold its support over fears that the bill would open the door to the federal funding of abortion.

House leaders were working to secure their votes late Saturday with the promise of an executive order affirming President Obama's commitment to a longstanding ban on public abortion funding except in cases of rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother. Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio), a key antiabortion vote, said she thought the document would be insufficient to bring the entire group of about 10 antiabortion Democrats onboard.

Senior Democrats predicted a cliffhanger when the House is expected to vote Sunday night, saying they are likely to clear the 216-vote threshold for final passage by the narrowest of margins. Democratic leaders huddled in the office of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) late into the evening, reviewing the final list of commitments.

COMMENT:  What a way to seize one sixth of the national economy and decide the medical fate of the entire population – a party-line affair that may pass by a few votes, without a single Republican in support.  All truly historic legislation, as Bill Kristol pointed out yesterday, has had bipartisan support.

March 21,  2010   Permalink