A Zogby Poll this week illustrates the stark choice facing
Senate Democrats as they have to decide whether or not to vote for ObamaCare. The
poll shows that Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln, high up on the list of
vulnerable Senate Democrats seeking reelection in 2010, literally faces a
choice between being reelected and voting for the bill.
Harry Reid can pass a bill in the Senate that has no public
option or an easy opt-out, shallow subsidies for the uninsured, a low total
cost, weak penalties for not having insurance, no coverage for abortion and no
general tax increase (except for the premium and medical device taxes).
And Nancy Pelosi can pass a bill in the House (on final
passage) that has a public option with no opt-out, steep subsidies for the
uninsured, harsh penalties if they don’t buy insurance, a higher cost, full
abortion coverage and a surcharge income-tax increase.
The question is: Can either one’s bill pass the other’s
chamber?
I was gone last weekend, so I wasn’t paying too much
attention to the floor debate and amendment process that surrounded the
healthcare bill.
That is why I was surprised when I saw Republicans (except
for Rep. John Shadegg, Ariz.) vote for an amendment that made it easier for
Democrats to pass their healthcare bill.
My understanding of the role of the minority is to be as
unhelpful as possible, especially when the majority is passing legislation that
not only offends the very principles of the minority, but will bankrupt the
nation to boot. Read more...
The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation reported that the House version of the healthcare bill specifies that those who don’t buy health insurance and do not pay the fine of about 2.5 percent of their income for failing to do so can face a penalty of up to five years in prison!
It was the French general Ferdinand Foch who said during the First World War: "Hard pressed on my right. My center is yielding. Impossible to maneuver. Situation excellent. I attack."
Foch’s tactics during the Great War, as it was called back then, unnecessarily killed hundred of thousands of French troops at the Battle of the Somme, leading to his eventual dismissal and an unhappy place in history.
Forget the spin and the slop. The real winner of the 2009 elections is the public official and candidate who has championed the core insurgency driving the election. It is Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul.
Paul embodies the anti-Washington, anti-tax, anti-big government, anti-financial insiderism viewpoints that are galvanizing large numbers of activists and voters. It is not a majority, but a majority has never been Ron Paul's goal. Paul is a conviction politician, an idea man, an advocate and a change agent.
Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi came to power with a pledge to “drain
the swamp” of what she called the Republican “culture of corruption.”
Yet Pelosi has been shockingly silent when it comes to the
current House ethics committee investigations of several lawmakers — mostly
Democrats — who allegedly steered hundreds of millions of dollars in federal
earmarks to clients of an influential lobbying group, which in turn lined the
legislators’ coffers with millions of dollars in campaign contributions.
There is much to ponder today — an escalation in
Afghanistan, the disaster that is Pakistan, elections Tuesday that could hit
Democrats hard and historic healthcare reform hanging in the balance.
But I am going with Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.). I know he
has had too much press and that you have already read too much about him this
week, but I want you to know that someone is fighting back against the weeping,
offensive showman who represents the 8th district of Florida.
One of the original earthquakes that helped weaken the
foundation of the once-impregnable Democratic majority in the House was the
check-kiting scandal of 1992.
I was working for the House Minority Leader, Bob Michel, at
the time.
In 1992, ATM machines were just starting to become
ubiquitous, and many old-time members still went to the House Bank to get money.
Most Viewed RSS Feed »
