Reid: 'Why Would We Want To' Help One Kid With Cancer?

I understand that it's tiresome to listen to conservatives whine about the media. It is. Even for those of us doing it, it is. But that doesn't make out complaints invalid or unimportant.

Take a minute and try to imagine what the media response to Harry Reid's comment would be if uttered by a Republican.

It would be very different than it's going to be...

Romney Taxes - Information and a question

First, the information, in the form of a Note From Trustee Brad Malt with highlights from the Romney's accounting firm:

Regarding the PWC letter covering the Romneys’ tax filings over 20 years, from 1990 – 2009:

In each year during the entire 20-year period, the Romneys owed both state and federal income taxes.

Over the entire 20-year period, the average annual effective federal tax rate was 20.20%.

Over the entire 20-year period, the lowest annual effective federal personal tax rate was 13.66%.

Over the entire 20-year period, the Romneys gave to charity an average of 13.45% of their adjusted gross income.

Over the entire 20-year period, the total federal and state taxes owed plus the total charitable donations deducted represented 38.49% of total AGI.

During the 20-year period covered by the PWC letter, Gov. and Mrs. Romney paid 100 percent of the taxes that they owed.

Now the question.

Assuming that the information in question is accurate, does someone want to try to make the case that the Romney's have not paid their "fair share"?

Ok, one more question - how despicable is Harry Reid?

"Round and round and round in the circle game..."

In which the NY Times reveals itself, yet again, to be a simple, partisan rag...

In 2005, the Republicans in the United States Senate were frustrated by the Democrats' use of the filibuster to thwart Presidential nominations to the Federal judiciary, and were particularly concerned with the threat of a filibuster on Supreme Court nominees, which had never previously happened. Because of this, they contemplated a rule change to eliminate, or significantly limit, the filibuster, a change that was termed the "nuclear option." The mainstream press, as represented here by the New York Times, was appalled. This despite the fact that, with Democrats in the White House and control of the Senate, they had favored filibuster reform. No, they were just wrong earlier, and their new, more fully matured position, was the right one. Clearly, the filibuster was wrong. A problem.

March 29, 2005 - Walking in the Opposition's Shoes

While the filibuster has not traditionally been used to stop judicial confirmations, it seems to us this is a matter in which it's most important that a large minority of senators has a limited right of veto. Once confirmed, judges can serve for life and will remain on the bench long after Mr. Bush leaves the White House. And there are few responsibilities given to the executive and the legislature that are more important than choosing the members of the third co-equal branch of government. The Senate has an obligation to do everything in its power to ensure the integrity of the process.

A decade ago, this page expressed support for tactics that would have gone even further than the "nuclear option" in eliminating the power of the filibuster. At the time, we had vivid memories of the difficulty that Senate Republicans had given much of Bill Clinton's early agenda. But we were still wrong. To see the filibuster fully, it's obviously a good idea to have to live on both sides of it. We hope acknowledging our own error may remind some wavering Republican senators that someday they, too, will be on the other side and in need of all the protections the Senate rules can provide.

On May 5, 2005, a little over a month later, they provided space on their editorial page to former Senator George Mitchell to make the same case against filibuster reform. Clearly, when the Democrats were in the minority, the filibuster was a vitally important tool for stopping the depredations of a Republican President and Senate. They recognized, at this time, the folly of their earlier position, that the filibuster was an archaic, anti-democratic nuisance, allowing Republicans to prevent the noble Democrats in the Senate and White House from getting done the vital work of the nation.

So, what goes around comes around. Again. As the editorial board has decided, again, that the principled (certainly not partisan or biased, but principled) position on the filibuster is that it must be reformed.

Fed up and rueful, Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, made a startling admission on Thursday: he should have reined in the filibuster rule last year, when he had a chance...If Mr. Reid helped enact the proposal of [Senators Udall and Merkley], he would instantly make Congress more efficient and more democratic...We have supported eliminating the filibuster for judicial and executive nominees. Making other filibusters harder would be good for both parties. If Mr. Reid remains majority leader in January, he should lead the reform.

And, of course, they're not actually lying when they say that they "have supported eliminating the filibuster for judicial and executive nominees" - they're just conveniently omitting the fact that, when it was their guys doing the filibustering and not the other guys, it was A-OK with them.

Because it's not about principle. Never has been, never will be. The Times, despite its pretense to being a non-partisan purveyor of the news, is a partisan political actor. They are pro-Democrat, anti-Republican, leftist progressives and, to the extent that there's ever a "principle" behind their positions, that's the extent of it.

And it's been really obvious for a really long time. This was not hard to see coming, as this piece from 2006, during the "nuclear option" debate and the Alito nomination, demonstrates...

[I]f the Republicans don't change the rules, the Democrats will, as soon as it becomes in their best interest to do so. Is there any chance that a President Hillary Clinton nomination to the Supreme Court, a nominee with majority support in the Senate, could be kept off the court by a Republican minority with impunity? That a majority supported nominee could be filibustered without hysterical screeching from the legacy media? Of course not. The New York Times would compose frothy rants encouraging the Democrats to, for the good of the country, change the rules to overcome the obstructionists, so that they could back to the work of the American People...

Agreement reached

Who could have seen it coming?

...There won't be a default, because they'll come to some agreement that prevents it. No one wants it, so it won't happen. Much ado about, well, not nothing, but about something that's not going to happen.

- Me, July 15

Tonight:

Senate leaders will meet with their caucuses Monday morning to present a bipartisan agreement to raise the debt limit and cut spending between $2 trillion and $3 trillion.

Both Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) endorsed the deal on the Senate floor.

“I am relieved to say that leaders from both parties have come together for the sake of our economy to reach historic, bipartisan compromise that ends this dangerous standoff,” Reid said.

“The compromise we have agreed to is remarkable not only because of what it does, but because of what it prevents: a first-ever default on the full faith and credit of the United States,” he said.

Reid said he would present it to his Democratic colleagues at 11 am and expressed confidence it would pass Congress. Reid said he would have to meet with his colleagues before giving the final green light.

President Obama took the podium in the White House briefing room a short while later to announce that the leaders from both parties in the Senate and House had accepted the deal.

Looming Democrat-caused Federal Government Shutdown

So, we're going to shut down the Federal Government, small pieces of it anyway, for a little while. The House GOP thinks so...

Republican leaders are preparing the House for a government shutdown, as they plan to distribute a pamphlet about the mechanics of a partial congressional work-stoppage to all lawmakers’ offices Tuesday morning, according to several senior House aides.

It’s the strongest signal yet that House Speaker John Boehner believes the White House and Congress could fail to strike a deal on a long-term funding bill before the government’s authority to spend money runs out on Friday. Talks came to a standstill Monday, amid amplified partisan recriminations.

And the administration thinks so...

The process of shutting down the federal government is underway.

With the clock ticking towards Friday’s federal budget deadline and President Obama hosting congressional leaders for budget talks at the White House on Tuesday, top administration officials have instructed agency officials to begin sharing details of shutdown contingency plans with top managers. This marks the next step toward both curtailing government operations if a budget impasse occurs and informing federal workers whether they are considered “essential” personnel who would stay on the job despite a shutdown.

Count me as giving two thumbs way up. There won't be enough of it down long enough to make a real dent in the financial crisis, but it's better than caving and continuing to spend in a manner that makes drunken sailors look like conservative, prudent financial managers.

(Q: What's the difference between the spending habits of drunken sailors and the spending habits of politicians?
A: Drunken sailors spend their own money, and stop spending when it's gone!)

But there's one point that cannot be made often enough. There may be is partisan wrangling going on right now, but this is not a bipartisan shutdown. The Democrats, and the Democrats alone, are responsible for this situation. And if we had an objective media in this country, rather than just the media wing of the Democratic Party, everyone would know it. If there were a truly objective press, every single story on this coming shutdown would include, in its opening paragraph, the information that this shutdown results from the failure of the last Congress, in which the House was run by Democrats and the Senate was run by Democrats, to even attempt to pass a 2011 budget for the Democrat President to sign. Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid and President Obama had plenty of opportunity to fund the Federal Government for the 2011 Fiscal year, and chose not to.

So, here's a primer on the shutdown for the media to use (which they won't, because it doesn't fit with their perma-storyline of Democrats-good, Republicans-badgreedyracist)...

Q: Why is the Federal Government going to shut down?
A: Because there's no budget.

Q: Why is there no budget?
A: Because the Democrats thought that passing one would be more politically damaging to them than not passing one.

Q: Are you sure it isn't because the Republicans blocked it?
A: Quite sure. The Republicans had no power to block a budget. The Democrats never even attempted to pass one.

Q: So which party is responsible for the government shutdown?
A1: (US Media) The eeeeeevil, greedy, heartless, desirous-of-old-people-dying-in-the-streets Republicans!
A2: (Reality) The Democrats.

Speaking truth to power

Not one of these is my rep, but I love this letter from the House GOP Freshmen to Harry Reid...

Mr. Reid,

We the undersigned call on you and the Senate to pass a long-term Continuing Resolution; a resolution that hears the calls of the American people and makes reasonable, responsible spending cuts.

Mr. Reid, your record on spending in the Senate is one of failure. You have failed to pass a budget, failed to restrain spending, and failed to put our country on sound fiscal footing.

We do not accept your failure as our own.

The American people did not send us here to fail. Make no mistake: any government shutdown is the result of your lack of leadership. America has a $14 trillion debt and you offered a mere $6 billion in cuts. The House heard the calls of the American people and offered $61 billion in cuts, but the Senate has not sent us a Continuing Resolution in return.

We have received nothing from the Senate except denials of the dire straits of our nation’s fiscal health.

The House of Representatives is accomplishing what we were elected to do. We’ve cut spending. We’ve terminated wasteful programs. We’ve funded the government.

Mr. Reid, we are letting you know that we will rally on the Senate steps every day until you pass a long-term Continuing Resolution. We call on all Americans to join our fight in restoring our country’s fiscal health.

The House of Representatives is doing our job, Mr. Reid. The Senate needs to start doing theirs.

Mr. Reid, it’s time to pass a bill.

Bound together and determined,

...

Separated at birth - Harry Reid and Miracle Max...

Senate spending bill contains thousands of earmarks

The $1.2 trillion bill, released on Tuesday, includes more than 6,000 earmarks totaling $8 billion, an amount that many lawmakers decried as an irresponsible binge following a midterm election in which many voters demanded that the government cut spending.

"The American people said just 42 days ago, 'Enough!' . . . Are we tone deaf? Are we stricken with amnesia?" Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a leading earmark critic, said on the Senate floor, flipping through the 1,924-page bill as he pounded his desk.

Miracle Max didn't like it when his wife said the name "Humperdinck." He stuck his fingers in his ears, and ran around the room, humming and singing, "I can't hear you!"

That's how Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi (who, interestingly enough, resemble Miracle Max and his wife) are responding to the American people and the message that they sent last month...

The Strategic Angle - Jim Geraghty on National Review Online

Excellent piece on the strategy and tactics of the Reid-Angle race by Jim Geraghty, who has been all over it on National Review Online.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, finds himself with only one remaining advantage: money.

He’s a fossil in an anti-incumbent year, his job-approval and personal-favorability ratings are terrible, the state’s unemployment and housing troubles are probably the nation’s worst, and the next Nevadan to rave about Reid’s smooth charisma will be the first. For a long while, everyone in Nevada politics has known Reid had one shot at reelection: Define Angle early, destroy her reputation in an onslaught of negative ads, and eke out a victory in a low-turnout matchup.

“Reid gets it, but he thinks we’re going to play by the normal challenger playbook and sit on our cash,” says Jordan Gehrke, deputy campaign manager for Angle. “Republicans across America will be there to support us if we’re still in a competitive race after Labor Day. But that means they have to see us fighting back now, and so that’s what we’re doing.”

Read it all...

I have not yet decided what would give me more pleasure come November 3rd - a Republican controlled Senate that includes Harry Reid, or a Democrat controlled Senate that doesn't. Obviously, a Reidless Republican Senate is the best case, but given the choice between one or the other of the first two, it would be a tough choice to make.

Health care discussion

UPDATE2: Content added on 3/24 at 6:36 AM - scroll down
UPDATE: Content added on 3/22 at 9:34 AM - scroll down
Original Post added on 3/22 at ~8:00 AM

I've heard it said that a fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. I may be a fanatic, at this point, with regards this so-called "health-care reform" bill, soon to be signed-into law despite its glaring constitutional deficiencies. There are likely to be several posts about this before the week is over, mostly saying the same things, or linking to other people saying the same things. If you are as sick of this whole topic as I am, this may irritate you. And there's certainly a possibility that I'm just going to stop, because rather than releasing frustration, every keystroke and article read are increasing it.

So consider yourself warned.



Some health care thoughts from discussions I've had elsewhere with Someone Else (SE)¹. This may get longer as the day goes on...


LB: I would love to have someone explain a) where the United States Constitution empowers the federal government to require that individual citizens purchase health insurance, and b) how this legislation will cut the federal budget deficit.

SE: a) The same place where it says Congress may make laws???

LB: That's not good enough. The Congress has limited powers which are specifically enumerated in article 1, sections 7 & 8. If they've got the power to make you buy health insurance, it's in one of those. I don't see it - maybe you could point it out to me. One would assume that would also mean that they have the power to make you buy diapers or cat food or velvet Elvis paintings or dwarf pornography, if that were to strike their fancy. If not, if you really think that Congress doesn't have the power to make you buy products you don't want, how is health insurance any different? If you do believe that they've got that power, well, your property isn't your property anymore, is it? You'd best hope they decide to let you keep it, since you've decided that you've no right to it.

SE: b) reduce the overall costs of Medicare and Medicaid (Oh, my, government run socialized health care!!).

LB: What experience with government, at any level, has convinced you that it's capable of doing ANYTHING efficiently? What on earth makes you think that Medicare and Medicaid are going to get less expensive now that the government's going to put more people on them? What government agency have you ever seen run more efficiently, effectively and cheaply than a comparable private enterprise?

SE: I think I'd look at the issue from another angle. Defeat of health care reform in Congress is the only obstacle to its fruition. Can you realistically foresee a constitutional challenge to the legislation?

LB: Are you suggesting that this somehow does NOT get a constitutional challenge?

"Attorneys general in three states — Virginia, Florida and South Carolina — have indicated they will file legal challenges to the measure, on the grounds that it violates the Constitution by requiring individuals to purchase insurance."

NY Times

There's a large group of state attorney's general who had a conference call last night and are planning a multi-state lawsuit. "We plan to file the moment Obama signs the bill. I anticipate him signing it tomorrow. Check back for an update at that time. I will post a link to the lawsuit when it is filed. It will lay out why the bill is unconstitutional and tramples individual and states rights."

http://www.facebook.com/TexansForAbbott/posts/107160575974748

Now, what the courts will do with is anyone's guess, but it's absolutely going to the courts. That's not even a question.

Look, we're either governed by a Constitution which means something or we're not. The powers of Congress are enumerated in Article I, section 8. Keep in mind that the 10th amendment decrees that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Now go back to Article I, section 8, and tell me where the constitutional authority for forcing citizens to purchase any specific product is. (Hint: The reason it's hard to find is that IT ISN'T IN THERE!)

UPDATE: Bumped at 9:34 AM

SE: No suggestion of that at all. I'm simply looking at the likelyhood of success of the challenge as telling.

No doubt the challenge will have an excellent argument as you've intimated, however the view is clearly partisan and the speed and urgency of its timing smacks of political drama more than anything.

LB: Seriously, is the Constitution a partisan document? If the Federal Government has the power to force citizens to buy a product, from whence does that power spring? Cite me an article and section, quote some text.

Again, I don't know what the courts will do. They've allowed the federal government to do a great many things which are not sanctioned by the Constitution. That doesn't mean that they'll allow this, but who knows?

But if it's a partisan argument to be saying, "hey, the Constitution is supposed to limit the power of the federal government, and We The People have NOT granted them the power to take this step," then hell yes, I'm partisan. I know for damned sure which side of that argument I want to be on.

It isn't enough that someone thinks that it might be a good idea. It isn't enough that Nancy Pelosi has the best intentions in the world (a premise which I don't grant anyway, but for purposes of discussion...) It wasn't enough that Richard Nixon's men thought it was vital to the national interest that he be re-elected, or that he thought it was important to preserve the prerogatives of the executive branch. If the Constitution doesn't give them the right to do it, they can't do it, and you can't acquiesce even if you like the result. Because once you've ceded this ground, how do you argue against the next thing, the one that you DON'T like? How do you argue when they pass a law decreeing that all American citizens must purchase a gym membership and food from specified "healthy food" dealers, because after all, it's for their own good? Either there's a legitimate constitutional power being exercised here or there's not. If not (and I believe that there's not), they must not be allowed to do it. If there is, show me where in the document that it comes from.

UPDATE2 (4/24):
SE: Repeal it? Really? Wow. Huh. Unconstitutional? Really? Huh. Don't think I've ever seen so much kicking and screaming among supposed adults. Or so much sore loser-ness. 'But Daddy! sniffle...cry...I want the Big ice cream cone!! And I don't want anyone else to have ANY!

LB: The high deficit concern on the part of Republican voters has been there for years - disgusted conservatives are a big part of the reason that the Democrats won the Congress in 2006, at which point in time, the deficit explosion began. Before that, it was trending downward.

http://lyflines.blogspot.com/2010/01/disconnect-between-rhetoric-and-reality.html

And if you believe that the Federal Government is constitutionally empowered to force a private individual to purchase some good or service from a private company, please show me, article and section, from whence that power derives. Because I don't see it. I think that the "individual mandate" is unconstitutional. Blatantly. I've yet to see a compelling argument that it's not.

And it's just plain wrong to be forcing people to buy things they don't want. Seriously, if the government can make you purchase health insurance, what can't they make you purchase? And why not? Where's the constitutional prohibition on making all citizens subscribe to pay pornography channels to keep the adult film business in the black? Yeah, they're probably not going to do that, but if they wanted to, is it your position that it would be constitutionally permissible? If it isn't, how is it that they can make a single man buy health insurance that includes (and charges for) pediatric, gynecological and maternity services?

We live, at least theoretically, in a constitutional Republic. Our representatives are supposed to be bound by the constitution. If you, as apparently they, don't give a damn what the constitution says, then be honest and say it. But don't whine and moan when those of us who do believe that the government should be bound by it express that.

As for repeal, that can't happen with Obama in the White House. But a majority of the American people, according to all of the polling data, did not want this bill and still don't. The bill's been 10+ points underwater in the polls for seven months now, and they still bribed congresspeople and twisted arms and forced it through. It's a constitutional abomination. It has special deals all over the place, including airports for Bart Stupak's district, every other state paying Nebraska's share of the Medicare costs in exchange for Ben Nelson's Christmas Eve vote, etc.

And that "don't want anyone else to have any" is a disgusting comment. The idea that this bill is going to make anything better for anyone is a fantasy. This is a delusional bill that allows the people who support it to climb into bed at night secure in their virtue, because they "care" about "the less fortunate," and ignore the fact that it's going to drive up costs, drive up premiums, put people out of work, put companies out of business, stop innovation and bring the country closer to the brink of bankruptcy. But hey, it's those EEEEVIL Republicans that don't care about anyone...



¹ - Someone Else is two different people at first posting - again, that may change...

Bunning

US Senator Jim Bunning, who angered many people last week by refusing to consent to a bill extending several federal programs:

Last week, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., asked to pass a 30-day extensions bill for unemployment insurance and other federal programs. Earlier in February, those extensions were included in a broader bipartisan bill that was paid for but did not meet Sen. Reid's approval, and he nixed the deal. When I saw the Democrats in Congress were going to vote on the extensions bill without paying for it and not following their own Pay-Go rules, I said enough is enough.

Many people asked me, "Why now?" My answer is, "Why not now?" Why can't a non-controversial measure in the Senate that would help those in need be paid for? If the Senate cannot find $10 billion to pay for a measure we all support, we will never pay for anything.

America is under a mountain of debt. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said in a hearing last month that the United States' debt is unsustainable. We are on the verge of a tipping point where America's debt will bring down our economy, and more people will join the unemployment lines. That is why I used my right as a United States Senator and objected.

Amen.

Unfortunately, Bunning was the only one to take this stand, and it lasted only a week.

Tea party challenge to Reid

This strikes me as a very bad idea.

Sun columnist Jon Ralston is reporting that the Tea Party has qualified as a third party in Nevada and will have a candidate in the Senate race to battle for the seat held by Majority Leader Harry Reid.

The party has filed a Certificate of Existence but needs to get 1 percent of the electorate to vote for its candidate in November to permanently qualify, according to the report.

Ralston reported that Jon Ashjian will be the Tea Party's U.S. Senate candidate on the November ballot. Ashjian still must declare his candidacy.

The likeliest result of a serious effort by a third-party anti-tax senate campaign in Nevada is the reelection of Harry Reid, as the Tea Party and Republican candidates split the (substantial and likely majority) anti-Reid vote. This would be a classic example of cutting off one's nose to spite one's face, or letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

I very much hope that it does not happen.

Is reconciliation still on the table?

Wow. I mean, just wow...

"In comments reported by Congress Daily, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s top health care aide Wendell Primus admitted top Democrats have already decided on the strategy to pass the Senate's pro-abortion, government-run health care bill.

"Primus explained that the Senate will use the controversial reconciliation strategy that will have the House approve the Senate bill and both the House and Senate okaying changes to the bill that the Senate will sign off on by preventing Republicans from filibustering.

“'The trick in all of this is that the president would have to sign the Senate bill first, then the reconciliation bill second, and the reconciliation bill would trump the Senate bill,' Primus said at the National Health Policy Conference hosted by Academy Health and Health Affairs.

“'There's a certain skill, there's a trick, but I think we'll get it done,' he said."

I've been predicting, for some time now, that the Republicans were going to take back the House of Representatives in November, but that the Senate was probably out of reach. If this happens, the Senate becomes not only in reach, but likely.

It's difficult to imagine a bigger expression of contempt to the voting public than this would represent...

Reality check

When the President addresses the nation this evening, one of the things that he is certain to do is to tell us how much better off we are than we were a year ago, because he's working to make things better. There will be comments about "the last eight years" or "the prior administration" and the whole tone and tenor of it will be about how much better off we are with Democrats in charge.

But there are a couple of details that people ought to be aware of.

1. Spending bills are, constitutionally, the responsibility of the House of Representatives.
   Article 1, Section 7:
   

   All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives

   Presidents do traditionally send budget proposals to Capitol Hill, and negotiate for what they will or won't sign, but the budget is primarily the responsibility of the House of Representatives.
2. The House of Representatives has been controlled by the Democrats since January of 2007, three years ago.

The controlling legal authority for fiscal year 2008, which ran from October 2007 through the end of September 2008, was a budget that George W. Bush signed, but was written by the Democrats in the House of Representatives. The controlling legal authority for fiscal year 2009, which ran from October 2008 through the end of September 2009, was a budget that George W. Bush signed, but was written by the Democrats in the House of Representatives. The $787 billion stimulus package (about 5.5% of the 2009 GDP [and no, it wasn't all spent in 2009]) was passed exclusively by Democrats and signed into law by President Barack Obama.

So when he stands up tonight and talks about the budget deficit, when he proposes a "freeze" that doesn't touch the vast majority of government spending, when he hauls out the rhetoric of fiscal responsibility and when he talks about jobs, here are two charts that you can refer to as a reality check.

This first chart shows the US federal surplus or deficit for the last 15-20 years, color-coded by the party controlling the House of Representatives for each year, because that's the party primarily responsible for the budget.



The second chart shows the US average unemployment rate, again, color-coded by the party in control of the budget process.



For all of Barack Obama's complaining about "the last eight years" and the "previous administration," you can see that the massive increase in the deficit and the unemployment rate coincide with a change in color from Republican red to Democratic blue.

I'm not going to make excuses for George W. Bush - he should have acted to curb the growth of government. The Republican Congress in 2003-2004 did a dreadful job, exhibiting profligate spending much like the Democrats of yore.

It's time for the Democrats in Congress to stop being so humble, to stop letting George W. Bush take credit for their accomplishments. The Democrats own this economy right now, and Barack Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and their foot soldiers ought not be allowed to continue claiming otherwise. The deficit right now is the Democrat's deficit. Harry Reid's and Nancy Pelosi's deficit. Barack Obama's deficit. Period.

"it’s unclear how, if at all, the White House can set the agenda..."

Jennifer Rubin:

the real impact of the polls and the Democratic departures/retirements: those struggling not to be swept out in the 2010 wave will increasingly look at each and every vote through the prism of their own electorate and re-election self-interest. Yes, what a novel concept! But that was not the story in 2009, when congressmen and senators were persuaded over and over again to ignore everything else (e.g., polls, town hall attendees, jammed switchboards) and adhere to the Obama-Reid-Pelosi line. That dynamic is very likely to reverse itself — leaving the “leadership” to chase after members, while members attune themselves to voters back home. In this environment, it’s unclear how, if at all, the White House can set the agenda. After all, it was Obama who got his party into this position, and his fellow Democrats may be less than amenable to taking further direction from the guy that sunk their party’s fortunes.

Pelosi: House doesn't have the votes for the Senate bill...

This gives me happy feet:

Emerging from a closed-door meeting with her caucus, the House speaker vented frustration with the massive version of the legislation.

"In its present form without any changes I don't think it's possible to pass the Senate bill in the House," said Pelosi, D-Calif. "I don't see the votes for it at this time."

...

Pelosi didn't present a blueprint for how Democrats might proceed on health care, except to say that "everything is on the table."

"We're not in a big rush. We'll pause," Pelosi said. "We have to know what our possibilities are."

That's why we voted on Tuesday.

Of course, the Law of Unintended Consequences is always lurking. It's not inconceivable that they'll put together a bill that is able to get the support of Snowe or Collins or Voinivich, something that they can present that might be more popular than not, and pass something. But right now, it sure looks unlikely that they're going to be able to accomplish anything too bad, and that's a very good thing...

Obama to Congress: You'd better not do what I've been demanding that you do!

Great news, everybody!

President Obama warned Democrats in Congress today not to "jam" a health care reform bill through now that they've lost their commanding majority in the Senate, and said they must wait for newly elected Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown to be sworn into office.

That's great to know, isn't it? President Obama is going to protect us from the predatory depredations of that out-of-control Congress which has spent the last year trying to do exactly what President Obama demands that they do!


I'm reminded of The Office's Secret Santa episode:

"When you need my help because I am ruining everything, don't look at me!"

- Barack Obama Michael Scott, the Oval Office

Sunday Steyn

Steyn:

Looking at the millions of Americans it leaves uninsured, and the millions it leaves with worse treatment and reduced access, and the millions it makes pay significantly more for their current health care, one can only marvel at Harry Reid’s genius: government health care turns out to be all government and no health care. Adding up the zillions of new taxes and bureaucracies and regulations it imposes on the citizenry, one might almost think that was the only point of the exercise.

Some people still thinks it's stoppable. I'm less optimistic. I guess it's true that either the House has to pass the Senate bill, as is (unlikely), or each has to vote again on a modified bill. It also seems to be the case that they're not going to work on it again until February. (How that's compatible with the rush to the Christmas Eve Senate passage is unclear to me.) In any event, the prospect is not becoming more appealing with the passage of time...

If the process is corrupt, what can we expect the results to be?

Megan McCardle is talking process this morning. Just like I did a couple of weeks ago, for the same reason:

to a libertarian, process matters. Having a good process is better than getting a good outcome, because a good process is one that maximizes your chances of getting good outcomes over time.

She's disturbed by the process which has produced the current Obamacare monstrosity Health Care Reform Bill. (As am I.)

This is not a complaint that those damned Democrats are insisting on trying to pass parts of their agenda. But I really do think that in the process, they've discovered some troubling innovations that are going to make our political process substantially worse in the future.

Before you stop reading, no, this is not another in the long litany of free-market outrage against lobbying and log rolling. These things are outrageous. They're also how business has been done in Washington for 200 years. I would prefer that they not happen, but they are not so remarkable as to be worth complaining about.

My procedural complaints are somewhat more obscure. The biggest one is that I am beginning to believe that in order to get this bill passed, the Democrats basically gutted the CBO. Not because they were working with the CBO to get estimates--that's the CBO's job, to provide Congress with a cost. But rather, because this bill was something novel in the history of legislation. Previous Congresses wrote bills, and then trimmed them to get a better CBO score: witness the Bush tax cut sunsets. But the Congressional Democrats started out with a CBO score they wanted, and worked backward to the bill. They've been pretty explicit about the fact that no one wants this actual bill; rather, the plan is to pass basically anything, and then go and totally rewrite it when the budget spotlight is off. I'm not aware of any other piece of legislation that was passed this way.

Essentially, the Democrats have finished the process of gaming the CBO scores. They're now meaningless. You don't pass a piece of legislation that bears any resemblance to what you intend to end up with; you pass a piece of legislation that gets a good CBO score, and then go and alter it piece by piece.

Well, she's right, of course. The process has been appalling. It should come as a surprise to no one that a process that couldn't possibly produce a piece of legislation worth supporting has produced a piece of legislation that isn't worth supporting.

Are people aware of what's being done?

Is anyone paying attention? Everyone's busy, I know, but are people aware of all that this Congress is trying to ram through during Christmas week? Is everyone ready for unrepealable death panels?

Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) pointed out some rather astounding language in the Senate health care bill during floor remarks tonight. First, he noted that there are a number of changes to Senate rules in the bill--and it's supposed to take a 2/3 vote to change the rules. And then he pointed out that the Reid bill declares on page 1020 that the Independent Medicare Advisory Board cannot be repealed by future Congresses...

According to page 1001 of the Reid bill, the purpose of the Independent Medical Advisory Board is to "reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending." For any fearmongers out there tempted to call an unelected body that recommends Medicare cuts a "Death Panel," let me be clear. According to page 1004, IMAB proposals "shall not include any recommendation to ration health care"--you know, just like the bill says there's no funding for abortion.

What is being done is breathtaking. And it just keeps coming, and they don't seem to care.

Did the stimulus backlash enable the health care bill?

Peter Wehner (H/T Instapundit):

This health-care bill may well be historic, but not in the way the president thinks. I’m not sure we’ve ever seen anything quite like it: passage of a mammoth piece of legislation, hugely expensive and unpopular, on a strict party-line vote taken in a rush of panic because Democrats know that the more people see of ObamaCare, the less they like it.

The problem isn’t simply with how substantively awful the bill is but how deeply dishonest and (legally) corrupt the whole process has been. There’s already a powerful populist, anti-Washington sentiment out there, perhaps as strong as anything we’ve seen. This will add kerosene to that raging fire.

It is unprecedented. There has never been, at least in my lifetime, a bill passed that was simultaneously this big and this unpopular. It's hard to imagine that it has ever happened. Generally, representatives and Senators are somewhat responsive to their constituencies, because they want to keep their seats.

This may be a case where the backlash against this Congress has been so significant, and so fast, that it's actually enabled a legislative monstrosity. So many Democratic representatives, because of prior votes on stimulus, cap-and-trade and, yes, health care, are already dead-men walking that they've got no incentive to moderate. Might was well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb. The Tea Party movement, the attacks on the stimulus and the entire socialist agenda of the administration, has created in the congress the freedom of action that comes to those with nothing left to lose. As Tom Joad said, "it don't take no nerve to do somepin' if there ain't nothin' else you can do," and they've put themselves in a situation where there ain't nothin' else they can do.

Yeah, Nancy Pelosi's going to lose the speaker's office, but her seat is safe, and she's willing to sacrifice the speaker-ship for the "historic" health care bill. Harry Reid's fully committed to the health care bill. He cannot possibly escape even if the bill goes down. His only prayer of keeping his Senate seat is getting the health care bill through, signed, and subsequent vast infusions of Soros-capital and Acorn-labor for his re-election campaign.

And neither of them care a whit for the "blue dogs" that are going to lose. They are, many of them, short-termers anyway, elected in the last two cycles on the strength of disaffection with Republicans, and serving the purpose of the entrenched liberal leadership now as pawns to be sacrificed in achieving the great liberal dream of government-run health care.

Mr. Obama has revived the worst impressions of the Democratic party – profligate and undisciplined, arrogant, lovers of big government, increasers of taxes. The issues and narrative for American politics in the foreseeable future has been set — limited government versus exploding government, capitalism versus European style socialism, responsible and measured policies versus reckless and radical ones.

Barack Obama is in the process of inflicting enormous damage to his presidency and his party. And there is more, much more to come.

Hopefully, a year from now a Republican House of Representatives and a much more closely divided Senate can begin to mitigate some of the damage to the country. But this health care bill, if passed in to law, is going to damage the health care system in this country, and our economy, for a long, long time, regardless of what happens in November...