…and I have just determined that while I have a laptop, I have an internet connection, and I have a video camera (currently holding two clips of Pat Toomey) - I do not have a cable that will allow me to transfer video from the camera to the laptop, and then use to show the rest of you via the Internet.
So expect a whole lot of video downloading on Sunday, apparently.
Moe Lane
House Energy and Commerce Committee Democrats voted 31-28 to reject an amendment from Reps. Roy Blunt (R-MO), Phil Gingrey (R-GA), and Lee Terry (R-NE) that would have opened up the multiple-plan health coverage options available to Members of Congress to the public at large.
Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY), who spoke at length yesterday about the need to ensure Americans have access to the same quality health coverage that Congress gets, came out against the measure when the Republican trio offered him a chance to put his vote where his mouth was.
“People will say to us, ‘Why can’t we have the same thing you guys have?’” said Gingrey. “We ought to give everybody in this country an opportunity to get this.”
E&C Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) responded that, in his view, opening up the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan to the general public was unacceptable “because it strikes the public plan.” E&C Health Subcommittee Chair Frank Pallone (D-NJ) said the proposal to let the public into Congress’ health plan was based on “a false assumption” that the result “is going to be somehow better” than segregating Congress’ health care from that of the great unwashed.
A separate amendment sponsored by Rep. Roy Blunt would have put all members of the committee on the record about the desirability of the Democrats’ “public option” by forcing them to vote for or against the automatic enrollment of all federal elected officials from Congress to the President in that public health coverage plan.
“We’ve been challenged by many constituents that ‘if there’s going to be this government plan, shouldn’t you be a part of it?’ I agree with my constituents that if were going to pass this plan, we ought to put ourselves in it,” said Rep. Lee Terry (R-NE). North Carolina Republican Sue Myrick concurred, saying, “If this is a good plan for them, it ought to be good enough for us.”
With its mandatory subjection of Washington officials to the same health coverage those officials have been working to force the American public into, Blunt’s proposal was indeed, as Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) put it, “a put-up-or-shut-up amendment.”
Rather than either put up or shut up, though, Waxman saved his fellow pro-government health insurance colleagues (and his endangered Blue Dog coalition) from having to go on the record about their willingness to accept the same health coverage they are offering the rest of America by dismissing the amendment on procedural grounds without holding a vote.
In an ultimate CYA cop-out move, Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) argued that the amendment was outside the jurisdiction of the committee because it would affect the benefits of members of Congress. Waxman upheld her with a ruling of the chair, and the amendment was dismissed.
Yesterday Erick reminded us that 4 Blue Dogs are selling out to liberals like Nancy Pelosi and Henry Waxman on health care. We are hearing that the Energy and Commerce Committee may vote on the bill today. Your calls are having an impact. Members of Congress know that you are calling.
You can stop the health care bill. You can stop a government take over of health care now.
Contact your Representative here: http://www.redstate.com/action.
Tell your family, your friends, your neighbors, people at your church, whoever. Get them on the phone. Send them that link.
Now is the time to act.
This morning, the Commerce Department published the much-awaited first look at US second-quarter GDP. You’re going to hear in the news that the recession is officially over, because the economy is reported to have shrunk in Q2 at a 1.0 percent annual rate. This compares with 6.4% in the first quarter. The report also includes a large downward revision to the Q1 number, as well as downgrades to consumer spending statistics for 2008.
Exactly what does it mean to say that the economy shrank by 1.0 percent in Q2? It’s a comparison of the value of the nation’s economic output between Q1 and Q2, expressed as an annualized percentage. The economy got smaller in Q2 compared to Q1, but at a much slower rate than it had declined in Q1 from Q4 ‘08. There’s a limit to how far you can keep declining. The economy is no longer in free-fall.
Financial markets are taking this report as borderline bad news, however. The thing that jumps out of the report is that all the improvement in the economy(which is to say, the decline in the rate of decline) is due togovernment spending at all levels. Consumers aren’t spending more. Rather, they’re saving more.
So are we creating the conditions for a return to private-sector growth? The answer isn’t necessarily no. I think we’re creating the conditions to broadly transition the economy from a consumer-directed one to a government-directed one. The vitality and dynamism of such an economy will be far less than what Americans are used to, but that doesn’t mean we won’t have growth.
I hope you work for a defense contractor or government-funded healthcare provider, though. (Government spending on defense rose over 10% in Q2.) It’s also going to be very, very good to work for a government, since civil servants will get (and keep) gold-plated benefits, while private employees will get more uncertainty.
I’ve been saying this for five months now, in this space and elsewhere: this outcome perfectly matches the on-the-ground trends I’ve been seeing in my own businesses this year. Defense companies and health companies are spending. The bailed-out financial companies are spending. The governments are spending.
Everyone else is cutting.
Yesterday afternoon, House Energy and Commerce Committee member Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) proposed an amendment to the House health care overhaul bill to allow for federal funding of elective abortion coverage for those enrolled in the “public option,” to mandate that every regional Health Insurance Exchange contain at least one private insurance plan that offers abortion coverage, and to permit taxpayer subsidies of those private insurance plans and others that cover elective abortion.
The Capps amendment passed 30-28, with E&C Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA), Capps, and 28 other Democrats voting in favor of mandating (and allowing taxpayer funding to be used to subsidize) abortion coverage.
Taxpayer dollars do not currently pay for, or subsidize, insurance plans that cover elective abortion services. This amendment, if the health overhaul bill to which it is attached is passed and signed into law, would alter that policy, using the tax dollars of every American - pro-life or pro-choice - to subsidize abortion coverage (and, by extension, abortion services).
Late last night, Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) responded to the Capps amendment’s passage by proposing an amendment of his own. Pitts’s proposal would have prohibited the federal government from requiring any insurance plan — including the “public option” — to provide coverage for abortion (with the three chief exception of rape, incest, and life of the mother).
E&C passed the Pitts amendment by a 31-27 vote, with Waxman among the “Yea” votes. However, after the votes were in and the amendment passed, Waxman decided he wanted to change his vote, and so brought the amendment back up for “reconsideration” and a re-vote.
The second time around, Waxman voted against the amendment to prevent abortion coverage from being mandated in health insurance plans. He also convinced Blue Dog Democrat Bart Gordon (D-TN) to switch his vote from Yea to Nay, and pulled conflicted Blue Dog Zack Space (D-OH), who had managed to sit out the first round of voting, back into the debate. Space, who voted in favor of the Capps amendment earlier yesterday afternoon, succumbed to pressure from Waxman and cast his vote against the Pitts measure.
The result was a 30-29 defeat of the measure — a reversal of the initial outcome, and the Democratic preservation a health care overhaul bill that not only allows, but mandates, taxpayer-funded abortion coverage and services.
Many of us will be headed to Atlanta today for our first RedState Gathering.
Tonight, we’ll hear from Roy Blunt, Pat Toomey, Jim DeMint, and Rick Perry. Then we’ll watch a special presentation of John Ziegler’s new movie.
Tomorrow, Tom Price, Karen Handel, a super secret special guest, Ken Cuccinelli, Michael Williams, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Nikki Haley join us.
We’re also going to do two workshops. One will be on becoming better online activists and the other on being better offline activists.
250 activists from across the country will be coming. And we’re already planning for next year.
Registration is closed for this year, but you may want to start planning for next year. Same weekend. Same place. Even better.
That headline was originally used by Republicans on the Hill, but it is accurate in every way.
The Democrats are working toward some “unintended consequences” that are very, very obvious and the effects are going to be disastrous for our economy.
As the House Republican Conference notes,
Press reports indicate that Finance Committee negotiators may require employers that do not offer coverage to pay for half of the cost of any Medicaid beneficiaries employed by the firm, as well as the full cost of any “low-income” subsidies for individuals with income up to three times the federal poverty level ($66,150 for a family of four).
Groups from the Heritage Foundation to the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities have criticized the Finance Committee proposal, which could in practice lead to hiring discrimination against low-wage workers. For instance, a single mother would prove much less attractive to an employer from a financial perspective than a college-age student from a wealthy family—the former would cost the firm additional money in “fair share” contributions, while the latter would not.
In many cases, the cost of the “fair share” penalty may actually exceed the “pay-or-play” tax on businesses proposed in the House legislation. For instance, under the House bill (H.R. 3200) an employer who cannot afford to offer health coverage would pay $1,664 in tax penalties per year for a full-time worker making $10 per hour. If that employer were subjected to a “fair share” contribution equaling even half of the cost of insurance subsidies in the Exchange, the tax on that business would be significantly higher—as average subsidy amounts would total nearly $5,000 per year under most legislative proposals being considered. A “fair share” penalty of $2,500 would serve as a further disincentive to hire low-wage workers, as employers would be hit with high tax penalties on only a certain segment of the targeted workforce—individuals from poorer backgrounds.
As the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities noted, “the [“fair share”] proposal also could discourage the hiring of low-income people with disabilities who have no choice but to enroll in Medicaid” in order to obtain proper treatment for their disabilities.
All of this is obvious to people who’ve run businesses. But then the Democrats drafting this stuff wouldn’t know anything about that.
Last night, during yet another attempt to mark up the House health overhaul bill, Rep. Henry Waxman’s (D-CA) House Energy and Commerce Committee took up and voted down (33-25) an amendment by ranking member Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) to prevent the implementation of a little-known provision in the bill that would cause the highly-publicized surtax on high earners to double if the cost of the health overhaul is higher than expected.
The “surtax” (read: tax increase) “doubles in the year 2013 if there is a study by the Office of Management and Budget that determines certain savings have not occurred,” said Barton. “The effect of the Barton amendment would be that beginning 2013, only those citizens who make over $1 million would have their taxes increased by the surtax.”
The bill currently increases the taxes of those making $280,000 ($350,000 for couples) by 1 percentage point, those making $400,000 ($500,000 for couples) by 2 percentage points, and those making more than $800,000 ($1 million for couples) by three. The provision Barton’s amendment was designed to forestall was an automatic increase of these rates by two percentage points across the board if CBO determines in 2013 that the overhaul is costing more than lawmakers currently expect it to — something that is a near-absolute certainty.
For whatever reason — perhaps it was Congresswoman Carolyn Kilpatrick’s stubborn insistence on a fully-funded, competitive “public option” for her black constituents, whom she seems to think have no other option in life but to be on the public dole — Rep. Zack Space (D-OH) is rumored to have withdrawn his support from the ongoing negotiations over HR 3200, the Orwellianly-titled “Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009.”
One of four Blue Dog Democrats whose willingness to continue negotiating about the fine points of the thousand-page bill was the only thing keeping the possibility of a pre-recess vote on life support, a withdrawal by Space would effectively end E&C’s ability to continue marking up the health overhaul bill, at least for the present.
Even if he relented this evening and returned to the negotiating table, though, the compromise amendment stemming from the Blue Dog capitulation — which has not yet been written — would have to be completed by noon Friday if it is going to be considered by E&C during the markup period, which Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) has said would end at 2:00pm.
Additionally, the four Blue Dogs whose compliance has allowed the bill to remain alive in the Energy and Commerce Committee had predicated their support on their inspection of a Congressional Budget Office scoring of the compromise bill they are helping to craft — and, reportedly, no such score has been forthcoming to date.
If you want to figure out what a politician is up to, pay attention to what he accuses his opponents of doing. Chances are, the accuser is probably doing it himself.
It is with that thought in mind that we take a look at President Barack Obama’s now infamous determination from afar that the police in Cambridge, Massachusetts, “acted stupidly,” in arresting Harvard Professor, and Obama friend, Henry Louis Gates. The president has since re-calibrated that remark, offering in his pre-eminent law enforcement opinion that Gates should not have been arrested for verbally assaulting Sgt. James Crowley and causing a public scene in front of his home in protest of the police coming to protect him and his property from potential vandals.
But the “acting stupidly” comment still hangs over the incident and over the White House like a dark cloud. Obama put it there with his inability to restrain himself from commenting on the Gates affair at last week’s White House press conference. And in so eagerly labeling the Cambridge Police, Obama has unwittingly provided the lens through which to view his first six months as president. For the Obama Administration has been acting stupidly almost since the very first day of his presidency.
Contra Allahpundit. As one of Jake Tapper’s commenters noted, that way nobody else would have been able to get a word in edgewise. Looking at the body language, that might have been for the best.
This really is iconic for Dizzy City, isn’t it? Four guys sitting around trying to pretend that their casual meet-and-greet-with-smiles-that-don’t-reach-the-eyes aren’t being filmed by umpteen billion different members of the media. No wonder the cameras kept moving around: the people that weren’t having cold beer were just as much part of the story as the people that were.
Crossposted to Moe Lane.
Everybody is aware of political polls. Most conservatives view most polls as suspect at best, a propaganda tool of the American left. Demonstrating the foundation of that suspicion is not required to make my point, so I won’t bother, but a typical conservative will dismiss out of hand any poll not from Zogby or Rasmussen.
While both the majority media and the political left have their purposes for fudging their public polls to accomplish political ends, it’s also true that the political left wants to know the true numbers. Even crooked businesses will show one set of books to the IRS, yet keep another set that shows the true state of the business. They are, after all, in the business of making a profit.
So I ask you this: do you really think that if the Democrats really believed Obama’s approval-disapproval rating was 58-30 (CBS News/NYT, yesterday), and the Democrats led 50-44 (Gallup, 2 weeks ago) in a generic congressional ballot, the House Blue Dogs would have given the finger this week to Pelosi, Emanuel, and Obama, and the leadership would have allowed such impudence?
Nah, me neither.
But maybe they believe Obama is actually down to 48-51, and the Democrats trail 39-42. like Rasmussen says. I submit to you that both the Obama administration and the Democrats on Capitol Hill are very, very interested in the Rasmussen polls, particularly the presidential tracking poll and the generic congressional ballot.
And they are alarmed.
Shall we look at some numbers?
There’s a revealing quote buried inside Politico’s account of a revolt by liberal members of the House Democratic caucus over the deal between Rep. Henry Waxmam (D-CA) and four members of the Blue Dog Caucus. Liberals are upset that the deal effectively guts the public option in President Obama’s healthcare takeover. And as is usually the case, when liberals get upset, the truth about the contempt that they harbor for their core constituencies begins to show. How else can this comment by Rep. Carolyn Kilpatrick be explained?
At one point, Carolyn Kilpatrick (D-Mich.), a former Congressional Black Caucus chairwoman, expressed outrage that conservatives would insist on significant cuts and a weakening of the public option, arguing that many of the Blue Dogs were letting down their black constituents, who make up 25 percent to 40 percent of their voters, in some instances.”
Yeah, that’s right. Opposing the public options on cost grounds betrays blacks. Because, you know, all blacks are destined to be on the public dole, right Congresswoman?
If you’re surprised that he would renege on a campaign promise:
Bethesda-based USEC on Tuesday accused President Obama of reneging on a campaign pledge after the Energy Department turned down the company’s request for $2 billion in loan guarantees for a new uranium enrichment project in Piketon, Ohio.
[snip]
“We are shocked and disappointed by DOE’s decision,” USEC chief executive John K. Welch said in a statement. “President Obama promised to support the loan guarantee for the American Centrifuge Plant while he campaigned in Ohio. We are disappointed that campaign commitment has not been met.”
[snip]
While campaigning in southern Ohio last August, Obama praised the USEC project. “Under my administration, energy programs that promote safe and environmentally sound technologies and are domestically produced, such as the enrichment facility in Ohio, will have my full support,” he said later in a letter to Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland (D). “I will work with the Department of Energy to help make loan guarantees available for this and other advanced energy programs that reduce carbon emissions. ”
(Via The Conservatives.com)
This afternoon I took a trip to downtown Circleville, Ohio to catch a stop on Rob Portman’s just launched RV Tour. Rob spoke to grassroots leaders from the area and stressed the importance of this race; and Ohio in general in 2010.
He stressed how important it was to avoid giving President Obama and Democrats in Congress another rubber stamp for their liberal agenda. He noted that on a host of issues (health care, energy, taxes, the deficit, etc.) the Democrats are pushing liberal policies out of line with the common sense conservatism and values of Ohio.
He noted that the stimulus was rushed through and yet is having little to no positive impact on Ohio despite the Democrats grandiose promises. He noted that on issues like Cap and Trade and Health Care the Democrat proposals are simply going to raise taxes and kill job growth in Ohio.
I was lucky enough to have a chance to talk with Rob briefly on the RV. In the video clip below he stressed these same issues and highlighted why this race is so important.
I have an endearing soft spot for Lamar! Alexander. Having grown up overseas, I was never familiar with guns. In college, while he was campaigning for President, Lamar! came through Georgia on the campaign trail. I got to go with him to a skeet shooting event. It was my first time sheet shooting. I did horribly. But Lamar taught me how to hold, load, and handle a shot gun.
Sometimes we have to smack down our friends who wander off the reservation. I always hate knocking Lamar!, but lately he’s been deserving of several fists of conservative anger to the face.
I did so last week when Lamar! played lapdog to Barbara Boxer and co-sponsored legislation that would clearly support taxpayer funded abortion.
Hogan rightly knocks him again today for going all Lindsey on us and supporting Sotomayor.
I guess he heard about the other Lindsay showing up on the doorstep of her lesbian lover, having a breakdown, and ol’ Lamar! got confused and decided to stick up for Graham.
The taxpayer funded abortion issue, playing lapdog to Barbara Boxer, and supporting Sotomayor are inexcusable for the third ranking Republican in the Senate.
Just as inexcusable is Lamar! siding with Democrats to destroy the coal mining industry.
Alexander has introduced legislation with Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.) to ban the controversial practice of mountaintop-removal coal mining. He said he hopes to stop the shearing of mountaintops in West Virginia and Kentucky and prevent a resurgence of the practice in Tennessee, which has relatively little mining but was the site of mountaintop removal in decades past.
This move will severely impact coal production, raise energy prices for consumers, and put many people out of work. It will also increase our consumption on foreign energy — something Lamar! says he opposes, but so far is doing nothing about.
Lamar! says he wants to offset this with more nuclear energy, but his allies on the coal mining issue have no interest in that. Undeterred, Lamar! has decided to shut down the industry, put people out of work, and jack up energy costs for you and me.
With Republicans like Lamar!, who needs the Democrats?
Remember Charlie Rangel? The Congressman illegally renting multiple apartments in New York City subject to rent control who is under investigation by the House Ethics Committee? Back in the 70s, he beat his predecessor, Adam Clayton Powell, in a primary over, among other things, shady dealings in the Bahamas. Now Rangel appears to have his own shady dealings in the US Virgin Islands.
The long and short of it is that Chairman Rangel is defending a provision of the bailout that allows the government of the Virgin Islands to subsidize (paid for with US excise taxes) the building of facilities for Diageo, the makers of Captain Morgan rum. Oh. And Rangel has a lot of donors in the Virgin Islands.
This one is a little complicated. So let me walk you through it.
Next week, the U.S. Senate will vote to confirm Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court. We know this will happen – and it is, as her supporters like to remind us, expressly because elections do have consequences. Democrats have 60 Senators and the President is a Democrat.
But how Republicans handle the vote is critically important – both with respect to their ability to unify behind a coherent set of guiding principles, and because failure to express clear opposition to Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy will leave open the door for those who oppose her to be labeled racist and anti-hispanic.
Just as Senate Republican leadership was beginning to come together to make the case – behind the efforts of Sens. McConnell, Sessions, Kyl, Cornyn and others – along comes Lamar Alexander. The third-ranking Senate Republican this morning joined John McCain’s lap-dog (Lindsey Graham, if you had to ask…) to stick a knife in the back of Republicans, the Constitution and Conservatism by announcing his support for the nominee.
The man in charge of the Senate Republican Conference message – yeah, that’s right – is absolutely killing the message… a message that should resonate with many Americans… that Judges cannot make the law, that race should not inform an impartial judiciary and that the Constitution must be respected and followed.
