Via Jim Geraghty

Senate Democrats have abandoned plans to use a fast-track parliamentary strategy to avert a threatened Republican filibuster and pass a health care overhaul — a signal that they are considering major policy concessions to moderates.

The most significant of these could be restructuring or dropping altogether a proposed

government-run insurance plan — the so-called public option — that many liberals consider a necessary part of the overhaul.

One possible fallback is a proposal by Thomas R. Carper, D-Del., to create a government-sanctioned insurance plan that would be available only in states deemed to lack affordable private insurance plans. Under Carper’s plan, the insurance plan would be structured as a private nonprofit entity, run by a board appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate…

But Democratic leaders had used the threat of reconciliation to try to corral support for the health care bill from moderates in both parties. That tactic largely failed.

“I think the more people studied [reconciliation], the more people realized that is not a very good way to do substantive legislation,” said Budget Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D…

In a meeting Nov. 16 with Democrats who support a Medicare-like public option, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., indicated that he did not plan to try to move a health bill through reconciliation, other Democrats said.

“I’m not going to quote him, but suffice to say, after the meeting was over I thought it was unlikely,” said Bob Casey, D-Pa.

Regan LaChapelle, a spokeswoman for Reid, said, “We are not ruling anything out, but Sen. Reid is continuing to work to put together a bill that will garner the 60 votes needed to overcome a Republican filibuster…”

…[Carper's] proposal is similar to one Maine Republican Olympia J. Snowe offered that would create a “trigger” for the public option, making it available only if private insurers fail to meet deadlines and targets for affordable insurance plans.

Carper said he was still discussing how the government would determine whether private insurance in a state is unaffordable. A bill the Finance Committee approved (S 1796) deems insurance unaffordable if premiums consume more than 10 percent of a policyholder’s income.

The government would lend money to the new nonprofit for startup costs. After that, Carper said, the plan would have to be self-sufficient.

Got that Senator Boxer? One job created in San Diego so far - at a time when the unemployment rate in California is 12.2%. You would think San Diego could have created more jobs than that merely putting up signs touting the expenditure of ’stimulus’ dollars - a practice that Boxer supports.

Simply put, the Motion to Recommit gives the minority party one last chance to force a vote on a change to the underlying bill. Here’s a summary sent out by the Republican leadership of the Motion to Recommit on the health care overhaul:

The Republican Motion to Recommit H.R. 3962, Speaker Pelosi’s Government Take-Over of Health Care, would amend the bill to add medical liability reform (savings of $54 billion) and use the savings achieved to create a “Seniors Protection and Medicare Regional Payment Equity Fund.”

The fund would require the Secretary to prioritize funding to protect those seniors hit hardest by the cuts to Medicare under Speaker Pelosi’s bill.  Specifically, the purpose of the fund would be to:

• Preserve seniors’ access to Medicare Advantage,
• Protect seniors’ access to medically-necessary care (including seeing doctors and hospitals without waiting in lines, and preventing coverage determinations based on cost), and
• Address payment inequities and geographic variations in Medicare that hurts seniors who live in areas with high-quality, low-cost services.

The Pelosi Government Take-Over of Health Care cuts more than $500 billion from Medicare, leaving seniors with reduced benefits and fewer choices.  While at the same time, the Pelosi bill protects trial lawyers by not addressing real medical liability reform, a critical reform that would reduce health care costs for all Americans.  The Republican motion to recommit offers Members a choice on who to protect: seniors or trial lawyers.

Naturally, almost every Democrat in the House of Representatives voted against the motion. They are bound to face commercials attacking them for supporting their trial lawyer buddies instead of Medicare recipients. Here’s a taste:

As Geraghty says:

I suspect we’ll see a lot of forlorn-looking senior citizens looking out windows in campaign ads next year. I think they’re hiding behind the curtains, lest they be spotted by the roving bands of death panelists.

On election night Mangano came within 237 votes of knocking off the incumbent Suozzi, with more than 7,500 absentee ballots yet to be counted. Mangano told me this morning that the County Board of Elections now puts him just 106 votes behind, as the actual machine counts have been reconciled against the unofficial election night tallies. The 7,500 absentee ballots will be opened late this week, but ballots from Republicans outnumber those from Democrats by more than 750.

Mangano’s campaign was built around dissatisfaction with government that had promised reform and sound fiscal management, but had failed to deliver. Tom Suozzi had said that Republicans had too many patronage employees - then he increased the count. He said that people were overtaxed, but he raised taxes instead of cut them. He complained about deficits, but couldn’t balance the budget himself.

Mangano - who has previously run with the backing of New York’s Conservative Party - campaigned on a straightforward message:

• Cut wasteful spending
• Fix the broken property tax assessment system
• Create jobs and promote economic opportunity
• Repeal Suozzi’s energy tax

The voters responded. And even though Mangano was given little chance to win, and had little money to spend, his campaign succeeded. He started out with nothing more than ‘handshakes and shoe leather.’ He made sure that as quickly as donations came in, they went back out - for flyers, mailers, signs, and later for TV time. Mangano was a candidate with a message, running against a failed Democratic administration. He’s come a tremendous distance because the voters know the County needs commonsense fiscal management.

With a population of more than 1.3 million, Nassau is one of the nation’s most populous and wealthiest counties. Along with Fairfax, VA, Westchester, NY, and places like Montgomery and Bucks counties in Pennsylvania, it is a bellwether for GOP fortunes in suburbs nationwide. It’s also particularly instructive because Nassau is a County where Republicans were discredited. The previous Republican administration had been seen as inefficient and corrupt, and was blamed for high taxes, wasteful spending, and economic mismanagement. For a Republican to win in Nassau, voters would have to be so upset with the Democratic incumbent that they are willing to take a chance on the same party they rejected just a few years ago. If voters in Nassau are willing to flip back to Republicans just a few years after rejecting them, so will voters elsewhere.

Mangano is now on the verge of an extraordinary victory n a critical race. Suozzi himself had challenged Eliot Spitzer in a 2006 gubernatorial primary, and was trying to decide whether to run for Senate, Attorney General, or some other statewide post. His prominence on Long Island made him a strong contender. With a win in the absentee ballots and the recount process, Mangano will cut that effort short.

While Mangano seems to have the votes to win, you can bet the well-funded Democrat machine won’t give up easily. You can help ensure that the will of the voters is upheld, by donating now.

Cross-posted to theconservatives.com.

For example, here’s Owens during his opening statement in last night’s candidate debate:

owens-healthcare-reform

Congress needs to overhaul the world’s best health care system ‘as rapidly as possible?’

Who does that sounds like?

Today Speaker Pelosi - whom Owens will support if elected - debuted her health care bill. It’s a freight train of big government. It costs $200 billion more than the $900 billion Pelosi claims it costs. It puts government in charge of private insurance rates. It contains 13 new tax hikes.   It makes marriage counselors Medicare providers. It includes a ‘millionaire’s tax’ on people making $500,000.

Cross-posted to theconservatives.com

Creigh Deeds needed to find a way to avoid more verbal fumbles. Saying something new revealed a serious weakness for Deeds: he really can’t discuss the substance of an issue without doing fatal damage to his tax-raising campaign. So what’s the solution? Instead of saying anything new, Creigh is just repeating himself:

In a gubernatorial debate that covered little new ground, Virginia Democrat R. Creigh Deeds went to an extreme.

Mr. Deeds, during the candidates’ fourth debate Tuesday night, repeated nearly verbatim the two-minute closing remarks he delivered during their third debate the previous week, even though polls show voters are not identifying with the message…

“Creigh has a stump speech,” said Deeds spokesman Mike Gehrke. “He likes to get across certain points about who he is and why he is running and that is not something that changes for him. His story is what it is and he’s comfortable with it.”

Well, there’s a certain elegance to this solution. At this point Deeds’ campaign is mostly about avoiding mistakes that will lead to major downballot losses in the State legislature. If Deeds can just avoid making headlines, Democrats might still keep a few seats in Richmond. And recognizing that it’s hard for a gubernatorial candidate not to make headlines at all, perhaps the next best thing is to make the headlines for repeating the same things over and over again.

Remember: Any help you give Bob McDonnell will benefit candidates up and down the ticket.

Conservative Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) has endorsed former Florida state House Speaker Marco Rubio (R) in Florida’s open Senate race.

Inhofe’s endorsement means he will oppose the NRSC-back candidate in the race, Gov. Charlie Crist (R).

“Like me, Marco believes that the federal government works best when it returns dollars, decisions and freedom to our local communities and families,” Inhofe said in a statement. “In the Senate, Marco will stand up for America’s taxpayers, not with President Obama and dangerous big government spending.”

The Inhofe endorsement comes a week after Rubio announced raising a strong $1 million in the third quarter. His campaign appears to have new life, as Crist’s standing as the presumptive nominee begins to be called into question.

Rubio is clearly coming on strong. And with Inhofe now backing him - in addition to Senator Jim DeMint - we’re likely to see more endorsements in the weeks ahead.

Rubio is going to win this race. Help show your support by donating here.

Democratic U.S. Senate hopeful David Hoffman late Thursday released copies of his federal income tax returns for the past five years and, with a sharp shot at competitor Alexi Giannoulias, challenged him to do the same…

Mr. Hoffman also repeated his pledge to place his assets in a blind trust if he’s elected to the Senate, and challenged Mr. Giannoulias to match him.

“The personal finances of each candidate should be of interest to voters, especially given the serious concerns that have been raised about the shareholders of Broadway Bank — 100% owned by the Giannoulias family– who pulled $70 million in dividends out of the bank just as increased loan defaults put the family’s bank on shaky financial ground, according to a recently published report” in Crain’s Chicago Business, Mr. Hoffman said in a statement.

We know that Barack Obama is one of the rarest commodities in politics: a clean politician from Chicago. Not only is he clean, he’s a different kind of politician. He wouldn’t just back the horse that the Illinois Democratic machine selects; he would insist that the man who seeks to occupy his Senate seat is as clean as Roland Burris he was is, right?

All that being the case, I’m sure we can count on the White House to join Hoffman in calling on Giannnoulias to release his financial records. The voters deserve to know.

The Department of Homeland Security directorate of science and technology is moving office furniture around these days, apparently to fit more folks into available space. Buzz has it that the musical chairs is even going on in the suites on the Vermont Avenue side reserved for the top officials. We’re told that Tara O’Toole, whose nomination to be undersecretary of that operation is being held up in the Senate, has picked out some snappy blond furniture to grace the potential undersecretary’s office.

According to Senate sources, O’Toole’s confirmation vote is currently being delayed by a Republican hold.

O’Toole’s nomination is dogged by a number of concerns. As Amanda Carpenter reported not long ago, some have expressed concern over her past association with a Marxist group - which O’Toole suggests was not really Marxist:

…O’Toole, whose confirmation as undersecretary of science and technology is pending, came under fire from conservatives in 1993 when she revealed she belonged to a study group called the Northeast Feminist Scholars, originally known as the Marxist-Feminist Group 1…

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine asked Dr. O’Toole about the group, saying, “You had a controversy in your previous confirmation, that just for the record, because it’s likely to come up at some point again, I would just like to give you the opportunity to respond to…”

Dr. O’Toole said too much fuss was made about it. She said it was a “a group of academics, again, many of whom were economists. And they met three times a year for a weekend, and we discussed topics such as aging parents, math phobia among women, books that we read, international events and so forth. It did not do any political advocacy. It was not Marxist in any way, shape or form. But that had … been the title back in the ’60s and ’70s. And during my last nomination in 1993, when that came to light, some of the senators became concerned.”

According to reports, O’Toole also failed to reveal her ties to a drug industry lobbying group.

President Obama’s nominee at the Department of Homeland Security overseeing bioterrorism defense has served as a key adviser for a lobbying group funded by the pharmaceutical industry that has asked the government to spend more money for anthrax vaccines and biodefense research.

But Dr. Tara O’Toole, whose confirmation as undersecretary of science and technology is pending, never reported her involvement with the lobbying group called the Alliance for Biosecurity in a recent government ethics filing.

The alliance has spent more than $500,000 lobbying Congress and federal agencies — including Homeland Security — since 2005, congressional records show.

And as Erick has previously reported, O’Toole is an ally of John Murtha:

Well, let’s follow the money. Joel McCleary is a founding partner of Four Seasons Ventures. He is also a founder and company director at PharmAthene.

James Ervin, another founder of Four Seasons Ventures, also lobbies for PharmAthene. Four Seasons Ventures is invested in PharmAthene.

Ervin is a central figure in Murtha’s world. Those seeking access and money from Congressman Murtha go through Ervin.

McCleary is an advisor to a proposed manufacturing facility the Department of Defense and HHS plan to build in Murtha’s district and also to the Center for Biosecurity, which is connected to the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC).

Here is where O’Toole comes back in.

UPMC is a primary funder of the Center for Bioscience, in addition to being its founder.

O’Toole runs the place, McCleary sits on the board, and Ervin gets money flowing to PharmAthene and various other projects.

In turn, O’Toole tells the Senate that PharmAthene is on the board of the Alliance for Bioscience and, in fact, chairs the Alliance from what I’ve been told. But O’Toole, remember, having first testified to direct financial ties between the Alliance and the Center, now says there are none.

More troubling, O’Toole says she is in no way connected to $30,000.00 in contributions flowing to Murtha from UPMC academics all in one day, but O’Toole just so happened to also give a large sum to Murtha on the exact same day. O’Toole says she was not aware that colleagues of hers at UPMC were all pooling money to give to Murtha on the exact same day she too gave the largest contribution she’d ever given to him.

More troubling, it appears that PharmAthene, UPMC, the Center, and the Alliance all have common ties to Murtha through a lobbying group — an issue as yet unexplored by the Senate.

There’s also more about O’Toole at Wired.

Has O’Toole gotten word that the hold is about to be lifted on her nomination, or is she just arranging for an office at DHS because she’s a sunny optimist? We’re counting on Republicans in the Senate not to approve her without getting answers.

As noted for much of the year, the Garden State’s economy is in rough, rough shape, with unemployment high and climbing. But the state has found some surprisingly good data on private-sector job creation, and those numbers were the centerpiece of campaign ads by incumbent Gov. Jon Corzine, particularly July’s estimate of 13,000 new private-sector jobs.

And then, a month later, the state said, “Whoops, private-sector employment didn’t increase by 13,000 jobs, it increased by 5,600,” a fairly significant revision. That prompted me to look back to the previous releases, where I found that the intial number was revised downward in June, and May, and April, some months by a few hundred, one month by as much as 4,300…

The fact that the state is four-for-four in the initial numbers making the job-creation environment look a little better than it is — giving Corzine just enough to claim he’s “creating jobs” in commercials — adds a very interesting wrinkle to this Star-Ledger story:

In the midst of a tough re-election campaign focusing on his stewardship of the economy, Gov. Jon Corzine’s office recently instructed his cabinet officers to orchestrate events showcasing job creation.

In an Oct. 5 e-mail obtained by The Star-Ledger, Corzine deputy chief of staff Mark Matzen asked the commissioners of several departments to “come up with an event or two or three that show job creation or economic development in the private sector.” The events, planned for this week, would “get our message out” that “the economic policies of Governor Corzine are working,” in part by generating “stories in weekly as well as daily newspapers,” Matzen wrote.

“I know that it might be a stretch for some of you, but please be creative,” the e-mail states. “While many programs might not created (sic) jobs directly, they do have some connection to job creation either through training, giving money to sustain employment or create demand for workers.”

When a state agency consistently makes mistakes in the governor’s favor, on the central issue of the campaign, it’s worth looking at twice. And when you have the governor’s senior staff both admitting that there are no new jobs to tout, and encouraging political operatives in state agencies to be ‘creative,’ it prompts questions about whether the state is cooking the books.

Indeed, if the initial numbers are suspect, why would anyone rely on the revised numbers? Corzine would have us believe that while the nation is hemorrhaging jobs, New Jersey is mostly breaking even.

Is that a credible claim?

When a group like ACORN racks up more than a dozen convictions in the state, and submits tens of thousands of questionable or false voter registration forms, you have to expect that the Secretary of State is going to have the chance to explain what she did to fight corruption.

But instead of bragging about what she has done to stop the criminal acts by ACORN and its employees, Carnahan has worked hand-in-glove with the organization for years. The Missouri GOP has asked for copies of all correspondence between ACORN and Carnahan’s office. The result is more than 1,400 E-mails - including these:

Michael Slater (Project Vote Executive Director) to Ron Berry (Carnahan’s Political Director), 3/15/2007: “We very much appreciate having the ability to share information with y’all.”

Michael Slater to Mindy Mazur (Carnahan Chief of Staff) and Ron Berry, 3/21/2007: “I have a very quick research question… I presume Republicans beat the drum of voter fraud as a rationale for the photo ID law, can you steer me to a source to find a quote providing an example of that?”
-Mindy Mazur responds to Michael Slater, 3/21/2007: “There’s one from last year on ‘perception’… ill (sic) see if I can find it.”
-Mindy Mazur responds to Michael Slater, 3/21/2007: “I have a few others too… will send shortly.”

Jeff Ordower (Head organizer for ACORN) to Ron Berry, 10/2/2008: “Again, we’ll do an event whenever Robin can make it to St. Louis, though book closing date is best.”

Jeff Ordower to Carnahan staff and others after the defeat of the photo id legislation in the Missouri General Assembly, 5/17/2008: “This was a great team effort. Thanks everyone for your help.”

This and much more is available at this website from the Missouri GOP. If you want a quick overview, check this out:

ACORN’s lawbreaking has been widely recognized for years. But while some Democrats have put upholding the law above political interest (take for example, Buddy Caldwell), Robin Carnahan has been only too happy to make it easier for ACORN to break the law, as long as it helped her political career. She cannot be allowed to dodge her complicity in lawbreaking, while ACORN funds her campaign and deploys its ground troops to win her a Senate seat.

Red State has endorsed Carnahan’s Republican opponent, Representative Roy Blunt. Donate to him here.

West Virginia Democrat Rep. Alan Mollohan apparently is undeterred by an ongoing Justice Department investigation of his earmarking practices because his 2010 earmark requests includes a $2 million item for a project that will benefit several of his campaign contributors, and a former staff member who is also a real estate investment partner.

The project is a new National Guard facility in Parkersburg. The lead partner and project manager in the development group on the project is Vandalia Heritage Foundation. Steven Allen Adams of West Virginia Watchdog describes the extensive links between Mollohan and Vandalia:

“Vandalia is run by Laura Kuhns, who serves as president and CEO for the non-profit group. She was a staff member of Mollohan from 1986 to 1990. She married Donald Kuhn and the couple returned to West Virginia, where she eventually took a job with the West Virginia High Technology Consortium, one of the five groups receiving the bulk of Mollohan’s earmarks,” Adams reported.

“Between 2006 and 2007 Laura and Donald Kuhn donated a combined $5,400 to Mollohan. The Kuhns and Mollohan families have jointly invested in properties on Bald Head Island, N.C. The properties had a total value in 2006 of $2 million,” Adams said…

“Officials associated with the National Guard project also gave campaign donations to Mollohan. Parkersburg Mayor Bob Newell gave $250 towards Mollohan’s 2008 re-election. Both Keith Burdette and Cam Huffman with the Wood County Development Authority donated a combined $2,500 to Mollohan between 2006 and 2008. Burdette and Huffman are also registered lobbyists with the West Virginia Ethics Commission,” according to Adams.

More information at West Virginia watchdog.

With so many ethics headaches looming, it’s no wonder Democrats are beginning to talk about killing the independent House ethics office.

Hayworth charged that in 2005 Salter tried to “blackmail” him into stopping his public criticism of McCain’s comprehensive immigration-reform bill. Hayworth said his chief of staff got an e-mail from Salter indicating that McCain might retaliate by commenting in the media about Hayworth’s links to the then-unfolding Jack Abramoff lobbyist corruption scandal.

Hayworth further suggested that Salter was responsible for planting false information in the Washington Times that said Hayworth was the “target” of an Abramoff-related Justice Department investigation. The Abramoff scandal helped Democrat Harry Mitchell upset Hayworth in 2006.

“Now do I know for a fact that Mark Salter was that unnamed source? No, I don’t,” Hayworth told his listeners. “But could a reasonable person connect the dots after, to be polite you could call it a threat, to be more realistic you could call it a threat of blackmail, in that memorandum?”

Salter denies the charge, but both he and McCain have been known for a shoot-from-the-hip style, and a willingness to alienate GOP colleagues. McCain in particular has been prone to explode when dealing with Republican opponents of his immigration reform ideas. Would it really be a surprise if the man who considered a party switch in 2001, and who contemplated becoming Kerry’s vice presidential candidate in 2004, and who attacked Republican colleagues over immigration - had also threatened a Republican colleague over it?

Hayworth was a solid conservative who held a GOP-leaning seat for 12 years. He was ultimately cleared by the Department of Justice in December, 2007 - slightly more than a year after he was defeated for re-election, largely because of questions regarding his supposed ‘links’ to Abramoff.

If McCain contributed to that narrow loss, he ought to answer for it.

Update: It’s come to my attention that JD Hayworth has previously published the text of the E-mail his Chief of Staff received from McCain aide Mark Salter. Judge for yourself if McCain was trying to blackmail Hayworth:

Salter says after he sent this E-mail, he got an angry E-mail back and ‘that was the end of it.’ A news search shows that stories about Hayworth and Abramoff increased significantly after this point, but that doesn’t prove anything.

• Dr. Hershey Garner: more than $10,000 in donations to Democrats since 2001.
• Dr. Mona Mangat: $500 in donations to Barack Obama last year.
• Dr. Amanda McKinney: $2,750 in donations to Democrats since 2001.
• Dr. Alice Chen: $1,810 in donations to Barack Obama since last year.
• Dr. Michael Newman: $4,550 in donations to Democrats since 2001.
• Dr. Jason Schneider: $600 in donations to Democrats since 2001.
• Dr. Stanton McKenna: $1,000 in donations to Democrats since 2001.
• Dr. Biron Baker: $500 donated to Barack Obama last year.
• Dr. Nick Perencevich: $500 in donations to Democrats since 2008.
• Dr. Elaine Bradshaw: $500 in donations to Barack Obama last year.
• Dr. Boyd Shook: $3,500 in donations to Democrats since 2002.
• Dr. Tracy Nelson: $1,500 in donations to Barack Obama.
• Dr. Winfred Parnell: More than $5,700 in donations to Democrats since 2001.
• Dr. Gary Goldbaum: $300 in donations to Democrats since 2004.
• Dr. Jan Sarnecki: $3,400 in donations to Democrats since 2004.

A “Power Plan” document begins: “Oklahoma ACORN has been virtually non-existent since its glory days in Tulsa, over 20 years ago. 2007 is Year Zero.”

It continues with a five-year plan to obtain “power”:

“Therefore, the route to power is twofold: First, build powerful city organizations in Oklahoma City and Tulsa that can control these municipalities. Second, become an influential organization by shaping a handful of strategic legislative districts that, by themselves, can change who controls the state legislature.”

“(W)e will be seen as the force that is making Oklahoma a progressive state in the way that it was 100 years ago.”

“By using this power to win significant changes for working people, by the end of our 5 years, we will have legitimized the progressive takeover of the statehouse and head into 2012 with a real possibility of changing what Oklahomans look for and expect out of their Congressional delegation.”

We’ve seen that in states where it succeeds, ACORN is associated with criminal conspiracy, fraud, tax evasion, and other violations. The people of Oklahoma are fortunate ACORN did not succeed in its ‘Power Plan.’

I’ll salute Pawlenty for one thing: we at Red State have done our best to hammer home the point that prospective 2012 candidates had better engage in 2010, and Pawlenty seems to get it. His new Freedom First PAC is clearly and explicitly focused on the elections before 2012. I’m glad to see that Pawlenty’s first real step onto the national scene is set on the right goal - even if there is legitimate question about the effectiveness of these PACs generally.

Pawlenty makes clear that his PAC is all about promoting freedom - first and foremost economic freedom. He spoke about promoting choice in medical care and education, and advocating for limited government. The word ‘freedom’ came up a lot.

This is all to the good. But it is a little vague. And when I asked Pawlenty how much he hoped to raise and donate, or how many races he intended to involve himself in, or what the criteria were for determining whom to support, the responses were again a little vague. On the one hand, perhaps that’s to be expected. This is after all, the first day of the PAC. Still, it would have been nice to come away with a more concrete sense of Pawlenty’s plan - particularly given the big buildup to the call.

I come away with the sense that this will probably just be another leadership PAC - which is fine, of course - but that it will probably operate very much like most other leadership PACs. The rhetoric generally seems to match what I hear from other conservative candidates and officials. (Just for fun, count how many conservative candidates use the name ‘Freedom’ in their PACs.)

I hope that the Governor does more with it, however - raises and distributes more money, backs more ‘diamond-in-the-rough’ conservative winners, and shows up in more districts than any other 2012 hopeful. If he hopes to contend for the GOP nomination - an idea he is obviously entertaining - that would a great hook.

Please consider participating in National Call Congress Day this Tuesday, October 6th sponsored by Patients First, a project of Americans for Prosperity. At joinpatientsfirst.com, you can enter your phone number and you’ll receive a call, connecting you immediately to your legislator with…well, just about the least effort possible. Busy during the day? No worries. If you use this tool after business hours, you will be connected to voicemail. (Imagine an intern telling their supervisor, “Um, we received 400 voicemails overnight… You might want to listen to some of these.”)

Want to do more? Consider blogging or Tweeting about the event. Email your friends and family. Anything you can do to help more people be heard on Capitol Hill will make a difference! It’s critical to make these calls to legislators who may be on the fence about particular elements of the bill, but all Americans should call their legislators no matter what stance their representatives take. Congressmen and senators who are right on this issue need our support and a call to encourage them and say thank you can do as much good, if not more, than calling to express concerns.

Nearly 250,000 have signed the Patients First petition telling Congress, “Hands off my health care!” Tens of thousands have joined Patients First at its nationwide bus rallies and town hall meetings. Now, thousands of active Facebook fans are getting involved, downloading our Facebook application and RSVPing for National Call Congress Day via Facebook. These aren’t numbers to dismiss. Visit joinpatientsfirst.com for all the details.

Click the link to learn more, or to link up to Patients First on Facebook. By deluging Congress next Tuesday - right when Congressmen and Senators are trying to push rationing through - we can protect the care we have now, and set the stage for sensible, pro-market reform.

The offending provision is on Pages 80-81 of the unamended Baucus bill, hidden amid a lot of similar legislative mumbo-jumbo about Medicare payments to doctors. The key sentence: “Beginning in 2015, payment would be reduced by five percent if an aggregation of the physician’s resource use is at or above the 90th percentile of national utilization.” Translated into plain English, it means that in any year in which a particular doctor’s average per-patient Medicare costs are in the top 10 percent in the nation, the feds will cut the doctor’s payments by 5 percent.

Forget results. This provision makes no account for the results of care, its quality or even its efficiency. It just says that if a doctor authorizes expensive care, no matter how successfully, the government will punish him by scrimping on what already is a low reimbursement rate for treating Medicare patients. The incentive, therefore, is for the doctor always to provide less care for his patients for fear of having his payments docked. And because no doctor will know who falls in the top 10 percent until year’s end, or what total average costs will break the 10 percent threshold, the pressure will be intense to withhold care, and withhold care again, and then withhold it some more. Or at least to prescribe cheaper care, no matter how much less effective, in order to avoid the penalties.

As National Right to Life Executive Director David N. O’Steen, Ph.D., has previously noted, “It’s like a game of musical chairs, in which there is always one chair less than the number of players - so no matter how fast the contestants run, someone will always be the loser when the music stops.”

Although Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) voted against the Kyl Amendment because he disagreed with its budget offsets (required under the committee’s rules), he earlier said, “As I try to put my feet in the shoes of a doctor, I don’t know how you separate out overutilization that is really overutilization. There is no way of knowing when you go through the year, what you are going to do at the end of the year.” He warned that the provision could come back to “haunt us” in a few years.

The Senators who voted to keep this provision are:

Max Baucus, MT