For the group of U.S. Senators up in 2010 — the ones facing the independent voters that turned 2:1 against the Democrats in the New Jersey and Virginia elections — they will each be tagged all election cycle with providing the one vote needed for ObamaCare to come before the Senate. They could have stopped it, but they did not.

The vote on cloture on the motion to proceed needs 60 votes, and therefore every Democratic Senator and every Democratic Independent can be accurately accused of providing the winning vote for Senator Reid to proceed to the very unpopular bill.

This message, I am certain, will make it into campaign commercials in 2010.

Below is a list of the Democratic Senators up in 2010, and the email contact links for each of their offices:

Bayh, Evan - (D - IN) Class III 131 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-5623 Web Form: bayh.senate.gov/contact/email/

Bennet, Michael F. - (D - CO) Class III 702 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-5852 Web Form: bennet.senate.gov/contact/

Boxer, Barbara - (D - CA) Class III 112 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-3553 Web Form: boxer.senate.gov/contact/email/policy.cfm

Burris, Roland W. - (D - IL) Class III 387 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-2854 Web Form: burris.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm

Dodd, Christopher J. - (D - CT) Class III 448 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-2823 Web Form: dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/3130

Dorgan, Byron L. - (D - ND) Class III 322 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-2551 Web Form: dorgan.senate.gov/contact/contact_form.cfm

Feingold, Russell D. - (D - WI) Class III 506 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-5323 Web Form: feingold.senate.gov/contact_opinion.html

Inouye, Daniel K. - (D - HI) Class III 722 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-3934 Web Form: inouye.senate.gov/Contact/Email-Form.cfm

Leahy, Patrick J. - (D - VT) Class III 433 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-4242 Web Form: leahy.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Lincoln, Blanche L. - (D - AR) Class III 355 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-4843 Web Form: lincoln.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

Mikulski, Barbara A. - (D - MD) Class III 503 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-4654 Web Form: mikulski.senate.gov/Contact/contact.cfm

Murray, Patty - (D - WA) Class III 173 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-2621 Web Form: murray.senate.gov/email/index.cfm

Reid, Harry - (D - NV) Class III 522 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-3542 Web Form: reid.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm

Schumer, Charles E. - (D - NY) Class III 313 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-6542 Web Form: schumer.senate.gov/new_website/contact.cfm

Specter, Arlen - (D - PA) Class III 711 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-4254 specter.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Co…

Wyden, Ron - (D - OR) Class III 223 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510 (202) 224-5244 Web Form: wyden.senate.gov/contact/

Phone calls are not going through at all now. Try calling my phone or any phone. It is not even the switchboard anymore. The entire Senate phone system has collapsed.

Keep melting the phones!

REDSTATE WEB EXCLUSIVE

November 19, 2009
MEMORANDUM
FROM: Michael Hammond
RE: The Reid Bill: The Mandates, Public Option,
Regulation, Rationing, and Taxes

EDITORS NOTE

Harry Reid’s objective has been to secret the provisions of the most important piece of legislation in our lifetimes until he could cram it down Americans’ throats because there was insufficient time to analyze and mobilize against it. To some extent, he has succeeded. I have done what I could, given the need to disseminate this at least a day before the Senate moved to cloture on the motion to proceed. I have therefore focused on the mandates, the public option, regulation, rationing, and taxes.

THE NUMBERS

-Cost:

-Reid’s phony number: $847 billion

-Including $247 billion in costs passed in separate legislation or achieved in phony regulatory fixes: $1.094 trillion

-Including both the $247 billion “doc fix” and $465 billion in phony Medicare cuts which no one believes will be made: $1.569 trillion

-For the first ten years when the bill actually goes into effect: about $2.5 trillion

-Deficit:

-Reid’s phony number: -$127 billion

-Including $247 billion in costs passed in separate legislation or achieved in phony regulatory fixes: +$120 billion

-Including both the $247 billion “doc fix” and the $465 billion in phony Medicare cuts which no one believes will be made: +$585 billion

-Medicare Cuts: $465 billion

-Tax Increases: $376 billion+++

SUMMARY

-This bill would require virtually every American to have –- not just insurance -– but the type of insurance approved by the Obama administration. The cost of this insurance is projected by PriceWaterhouse to be $25,900 for a family policy by 2019. This is dramatically more than the premiums if Congress did nothing, with the only difference being that you would be required to pay the inflated premiums, under penalty of fine and, ultimately, imprisonment.

-You would almost certainly not be allowed to keep the insurance and providers you currently have. Virtually all of the 10.2 million seniors on Medicare Advantage would lose care. Virtually all non- unionized employers would find it in their economic interest to dump their employees onto the exchange. States would have a strong economic incentive to dump Medicare recipients onto the exchange. And the individual and employer “grandfather” clauses are full of holes.

SPECIFICS

IMMEDIATE CHANGES: Section 1001 would prohibit giving different types of benefits, based on the ability of employees to afford them and therefore would make it illegal for more highly compensated employees to opt for premium plans (section 1001, as inserted into section 2716 of the Public Health Service Act (hereafter “PHSA”)).

Section 1001 also bans lifetime limits on coverage or annual limits on coverage exceeding statutory limits, thereby outlawing the cheap plans which many young, healthy Americans prefer.

Every customer who does not get a summary of benefits which precisely complies with section 1001 could result in a fine of up to $1,000 per customer.

Section 1001 (section 2717 of the PHSA) requires the HHS Secretary to set “reporting” standards dealing with “health care provider reimbursement structures” which would —

-“improve health outcomes through implementation of activities such as quality reporting, effective case management, care coordination, chronic disease management, and medication and care compliance initiatives…”

“implement activities to prevent hospital re-admissions through a comprehensive program for hospital discharge that includes patient-centered education and counseling, comprehensive discharge planning, and post discharge reinforcement by an appropriate health care professional…”

-“implement activities to improve patient safety and reduce medical errors through the appropriate use of best clinical practices, evidence based medicine, and health information technology…”

All of these provisions seem to be a wide-open invitation to regulations implementing health care rationing, in the guise of reporting requirements.

Section 1201 (inserting section 2705 into the PHSA) and 1001 (section 2717(a)(1)(D) and (b) of the PHSA) create wellness programs which allow consideration of behavioral issues in setting premiums and, presumably, determining activities which are so dangerous that coverage might be suspended. The definition of “wellness” includes same very broad issues, including obesity and “lifestyle.” But even these broad categories are not exclusive and do not prohibit, for example, the consideration of firearms ownership. Section 1201 specifically prevents consideration of the health of a person for purposes of setting rates, but, for any other “health status factor,” premiums can vary by up to 30%, which may be increased to 50% under the discretion of the HHS Secretary. A “reward may be in the form of a discount or rebate of a premium or contribution, a waiver of all or part of a cost-sharing mechanism (such as deductibles, copayments, or coinsurance), the absence of a surcharge, or the value of a benefit that would otherwise not be provided under the plan.” The “wellness” program qualifies under this section if it “has a reasonable chance of improving the health of … participating individuals.”

The Reid bill (section 2718(b) of the PHSA) requires a rebate if, in any given year, private premiums exceed medical payments by a given percentage.

Under section 2794 of the PHSA, the HHS Secretary would review “unreasonable” insurance premiums and can require insurers to “justif[y]” their rates.

By prohibiting the consideration of preexisting conditions (section 1101) and severely limiting the ability of Americans to buy cheap policies with high deductibles and copayments, the bill insures that the cost of insurance will go through the roof. This is particularly ironic because the ostensible reason for the bill is the escalating health care premiums -– and the effect of the premium increases on small business.

Section 1101 of the bill sets up “high risk pools.” The initial “high risk pools” will supposedly cost $5 billion. But, in an unusual provision, the Secretary is authorized to somehow “make adjustments” “for any fiscal year [in which there are insufficient funds].”

Section 1102 would spend $5 billion on reinsurance for employment-based plans for people who are part of one of those plans and who retire prior to 55 –- a provision which, I’m guessing, was a payoff to labor unions.

Section 1104 gives the HHS Secretary the authority to promulgate broad rules with respect to “electronic standards.” Subsection (b)(2), for example, amends the Social Security Act to require the Secretary to “adopt a single set of operating rules … with the goal of creating as much uniformity in the implementation of the electronic standards as possible.” The same section goes on to require health plans to certify, in writing, “that the data and information systems for such plan are in compliance with any applicable standards…” It goes on to provide that a health plan is not in compliance unless it “demonstrates to the Secretary that the plan conducts the electronic transactions … in a manner that fully complies with the regulations of the Secretary…” Furthermore, anyone who provides services to a provider must comply as well. Again, the section requires health plans to certify to the Secretary “in such form as the Secretary may require, … that the data and information systems for such plan are in compliance with any applicable revised standards and associated operating rules…” The Secretary is authorized to conduct “periodic audits” to insure this is so, and substantial penalties are provided for.

GRANDFATHER CLAUSE: The language of the grandfather clause is interesting: Section 151(a)(1) provides: “Nothing in this Act … shall be construed to require that an individual terminate coverage under a group health plan or health insurance coverage…” Not to quibble, but this is different from saying that the grandfathered plan satisfies the mandate. Furthermore, grandfathered plans are exempted from Subtitles A and C, but neither contains the mandate.

Section 1251(d) specifically grandfathers health benefits offered pursuant to collective bargaining agreements.

MANDATED COVERAGE: Subtitle D defines the “qualified health plan” which Americans must have, under penalty of law. It must have “in effect a certification … that such plan meets the criteria for certification described in section 1311(c).” (Section 1311(c) says: “The Secretary shall, by regulation, establish criteria for the certification of health plans as qualified health plans.”) The mandated plan must also include statutorily mandated benefits [section 1302(a)], including mental health parity, “behavioral health treatment,” preventive care (including gym memberships), and pediatric dental care. And these statutory requirements are not exclusive, and section 1302(b)(4)(G) lays out a variety of generalized considerations which the HHS Secretary would use to set and revise benefits which Americans would be required to payt for. Subsection 1302(c) would limit deductibles and copayments. Subsection 1302(d) would set “levels of coverage,” but the levels would be based wholly on financial issues such as the levels of deductibles. With the exception of a young person under 30 who obtained a hardship certification from the government or who could not buy “affordable” coverage (section 1302(e)), a healthy person could not buy catastrophic coverage, or coverage that forced him to pay for “services” (such as maternity services) that he did not need or want, or coverage that forced him to subsidize persons whose lifestyle choices had made them very sick.

ABORTION: Section 1303 sets out the rules for funding abortion. The public option would be required to fund abortions for any abortion which was allowed by the Hyde amendment, as it existed for the six previous months. Thus, if the Hyde amendment were amended to provide abortions in “health of the mother” cases (i.e., abortion-on-demand), the public option would have to provide abortions in those cases without any accounting artifices whatsoever. However, by segregating private and public funds, the HHS Secretary can allow the public option to immediately fund all abortions, including third trimester and partial birth abortions. We have seen, in connection with section 1008 of the Public Health Services Act, that Planned Parenthood is experienced in setting aside one room for abortions and another room in the same building for condoms –- and claiming that the condom money is not being used for abortions. In addition, for the first time in American history, under section 1303(a)(1)(D), the federal government will become a guarantor that abortion coverage is available to everyone in the country. Persons receiving subsidies would be subject to the same phony segregation rules. There is “non-state-and-federal preemption” language in section 1303(b) which is of dubious value. State parental consent laws could not be overturned, but state laws requiring abortion coverage also could not be preempted. Current conscience protection would not be affected, but it is far from clear that it would be extended in the way that would be required to cover the new applications created by this law. Finally, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act would be explicitly grandfathered. Liberals have argued for some time that failure to provide abortions in cases where other medical services are funded constitutes discrimination on the basis of sex under that statute.

MEDICAID: Would be expanded to cover those earning up to 133% of the federal poverty level.

RATIONING: The central mechanism for rationing medical care among non-Medicare-covered individuals is section 1311(c), which says: “The Secretary shall, by regulation, establish criteria for the certification of health plans as qualified health plans.” This open-ended grant of authority would allow the Secretary to write into “certified” policies a limitation on benefits in cases where treatment is not regarded as complying with “best practices.” Other sections are even more explicit: Section 1311(g) sets up a “strategy” to save money through, inter alia, “the implementation of activities to improve patient safety and reduce medical errors through the appropriate use of best clinical practices.” Finally, there are the $465 billion in Medicare cuts. Although the bill pretends that reductions in benefits and eligibility will be prohibited, it is unrealistic to assume that a Congress which cannot carry through with a 1997 commitment to cut the increase in doctors’ reimbursements by $247 billion will be able to comply with $465 billion in cuts. The result will be “rationing by under pricing.” The chief actuary for Medicare and Medicaid predicts that hospitals and providers will not treat persons at the levels of reimbursement which will result from this bill.

Sections 1321 et seq. provide various mechanisms for state “flexibility,” but, by and large, apply only to states that are willing to throw even more money away than the statute requires.

Section 1331 would give the states “flexibility” to establish basic health programs for low-income individuals not eligible for Medicaid because they earn between 133% and 200% of the poverty level. On a related issue, one conservative think tank has found that virtually all 50 states would find it to their financial benefit to dump all of their Medicaid beneficiaries into the exchange. Although the CBO has not scored this eventuality, estimates are that it would increase costs of the program by $2 trillion.

Section 1333 is a nod to GOP calls for interstate sales of insurance, but it applies only in accordance with open-ended HHS regulatory authority to limit it and only if licensed in each state.

Section 1401 sets up a “refundable” health tax credit (which means that the government sends a check to people who otherwise have no tax liability). The credit equals “the excess … of the adjusted monthly premium … over 1/12 of the product of the applicable percentage and the taxpayer’s household income for the taxable year.” The applicable percentage is “2.8 percent, increased by the number of percentage points (not greater than 7) which bears the same ratio to 7 percentage points as the taxpayer’s household income for the taxable year in excess of 100 percent of the poverty line for a family of the size involved, bear to an amount equal to 200 percent of the poverty line for a family of the size involved.” This is the easy part. The credit, which is supposedly intended for low-income, relatively uneducated Americans, goes on with 26 more pages of special rules and definitions.

Section 1402 reduces copayments, deductibles, etc., for persons earning less than 400% of the poverty level, in accordance with a sliding scale.

Section 1421 et seq. create s “small business tax credit” for employers with fewer than 25 employees. Under these provisions, a small business can supposedly deduct 50% of the exorbitant forced premiums required by this bill. If the average annual wage is over $40,000, the employer could not benefit from this section. If the average annual salary is below $40,000 (and the average cost of a family policy is, as PriceWaterhouse estimates, $25,900 by 2019), this would still mean that the cost of the bill to small employers would be over 1/3 of the employees’ gross pay.

Section 1501 would require virtually everyone in the country to have –- not just insurance –- but government-approved insurance. The statute justifies this by a 1944 case [U.S. v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association] holding that “insurance is interstate commerce subject to Federal regulation.” Of course, the question of whether “insurance” is interstate commerce is different from the question of whether not buying insurance (i.e., not doing anything) is interstate commerce. Furthermore, there is the question of whether a legally forced payment which is used to provide for the health care of others is a tax –- a tax not imposed by Congress, as required by Article I, Section 8, but imposed by bureaucrats and private parties — and whether, furthermore, it is a capitation tax not commensurate with the census and not authorized by the Sixteenth Amendment. If the individual fails to comply, he will be subject to an IRS-administered fine, which, by 2017, will be $1,500 for a married couple, indexed for inflation ($2,250 for a married couple with a dependent 19 year-old). And, if the individual fails to pay the fine, because, for example, he cannot afford either the premium or the fine without selling his house or his business, he can be sentenced, notwithstanding the Schumer amendment, to up to $250,000 in additional fines and up to five years in prison. There is an exemption for persons who would have to pay in excess of 8% of income for insurance.

Section 1511 et seq. provide for employer responsibilities. Section 1511 provides for automatic enrollment in the case of employers with over 200 employees. Under section 1513, an employer with employees eligible for the exchange who does not provide insurance must pay the “applicable amount,” times the number of employees. The “amount,” laid out in 26 U.S.C. 4980H(b)(2)(B), is up to $600 each for each employee. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the potentially negative impact on jobs, this figure is low enough to make it almost always economically preferable to dump employees onto the exchange, rather than paying the spiraling costs of premiums under government-mandated insurance, even given the puny tax benefits which are made available under that section.

TAXES: (1) There is a 40% tax on insurance with premiums over $23,000 ($8,500 for individuals). Because these are not indexed to premium costs -– and because the average premium will soon be in excess of this level -– this is another Alternative Minimum Tax in the making. (2) The increases in small business taxes (for those filing taxes using Schedule C) would cripple jobs creation. The Medicare payroll tax would increase for these earners from 1.45% to 1.95. (3) In addition, there are increased taxes on HSA distributions (section 9004), increased taxes on flexible spending arrangements under cafeteria plans (section 9005), an annual fee on pharmaceutical manufacturers which would be passed on to the consumer (section 9008), an annual fee on medical device manufacturers and importers which would be passed on to the consumer (section 9009), an annual fee on health insurance providers which would be passed on to the consumer (section 9010), elimination of the deduction for expenses allocable to Medicare Part D (section 9012), a tax on the very sick by increasing from 7.5% to 10% of income the level at which you can deduct health care expenses (section 9013), and the bo-tox tax (section 9017). This is in addition to the massive penalties imposed on the uninsured.

Quoting the email:

CIO Customer Service Bulletin – Problem Notification —
Assistant Sergeant at Arms; Chief Information Officer

Date: November 20, 2009
Time: 11:30 AM
Affected Service: Telephones

Problem/Symptom/Status: We are experiencing a high volume of calls which is having an impact on call transfers and voice mail. We are continuing to monitor the situation. Whenever possible offices are encouraged to retrieve and delete messages from the voice mail system throughout the day and evening.

Affected Location(s): All
Master Ticket Opened: No
Estimated Time to Restore: Unknown

Why not buy Senator Landrieu for $100 million, since the United States is electronically creating $1 trillion a year to finance our debt, what’s another $100 million?

When the crash comes, this is will be Exhibit A of how the Democrats do not care about your tax money, how they are greedy and irresponsible with public monies and why they cannot be trusted with their hands on the U.S. currency printing press. They cannot say no. They keep spending and spending and spending and they will never stop.

Aside from the moral and financial implications of this sorid tale — the politics of it make little sense.

(Here is the let me get this straight moment:) giving Mary Landrieu $100 million for Medicaid (the Federal and State funded program to provide health care to the low-income) will help her politically because (please take the multiple choice quiz below):

a) Medicaid voters will have voted against her in the 2010 mid-term election, this will help with that wavering constituency;

b) Medicaid voters make up the independents and moderate Democrats and Republican voters who oppose the health bill;

c) Medicaid voters who left the state after Katrina by the hundreds of thousands, have moved back to Louisiana;

d) None of the above.

And the answer is d), none of the above.

This $100 million is the cover story for her yes vote, and she will no longer be a U.S. Senator, since the demographics of Louisiana have changed so profoundly, and the vast majority of voters who have left are Democrats.

The prayers of her Republican opponent have been answered — she is going to vote YES.

Good-bye Senator Landrieu.

And why does he need to get 60 votes twice — even before he a) gets to consider any health care bill on the Senate floor, and b) before he can have a vote on final passage.

And what about the whole reading of the bill, that Senator Coburn is threatening?

Filbusternomics 101 (to all you typo and grammar police — I made up the word):

The first rule of the U.S. Senate is that the institution runs on the rule of unanimous consent. The U.S. Senate can operate under any type of rules or any procedures, provided there is unanimous consent.

Second, the most powerful words on the floor of the U.S. Senate are “Mr. President, I object.”

Objecting to any unanimous consent agreement immediately forces the U.S. Senate to operate under its rules, which can be changed only by a two-thirds of the body voting in the affirmative vote.

The next biggest step up the escalation ladder is the filibuster — which the Republicans are going to do to ObamaCare.

A filibuster is when a Senator speaks at length. He or she monopolizes the Senate floor. Senators who are filibustering have been known to read the phone books. A Senator could read anything, a 2,078 page bill, for example.

There will be a filibuster of the motion to proceed. The motion to proceed is a debatable motion to determine if the U.S. Senate wants to debate the bill that the motion is allowing the Senate to proceed to consider, in this case, it may be either the House passed ObamaCare bill, or another House passed tax bill that the Senate will proceed to consider — then strike and insert the merged ObamaCare bill.

In order for the Senate to even consider the House passed ObamaCare bill or another House passed tax bill that they want to use as a shell for the merged Senate bill — Senator Reid needs 60 votes to stop the filibuster of the motion to proceed.

If Senator Reid loses one Democratic or Independent Senator, the motion to proceed fails, and Senator Reid goes back to the back rooms to try again. Likely with Exhibit A (the failed vote) for the hard-core leftists and liberals about why they need to make compromises or they will get nothing. (In general, all the Democrats up this year would probably be very pleased to see the cloture vote on the motion to proceed fail, since they would avoid many tough, walk-the-plank-type votes. Should one Democratic Senator vote against cloture on the motion to proceed, then likely others will too, since Senator Reid will lose the vote, regardless of whether any other Senator votes yes, so, its a free no vote.)

If every Democratic and Independent Senator votes for cloture on the motion to proceed, then the Senate will begin consideration of the ObamaCare legislation, and the debate could last two or three or four weeks.

The next 60 vote event is the cloture motion on the filibuster of the bill itself. Think of this as a filibuster which prevents a final vote on the bill, without first a 60 vote margin to clear. To repeat, there can be no final vote on the bill until another cloture vote occurs, which again takes 60 votes. Should cloture on the bill fail (Senator Reid does not get 60 votes) then the bill fails, and Senator Reid could try again, but usually, that is not the case. And in this case, having another vote will be very unpopular with the U.S. Senators (you mean I have to walk the plank, again?)

The conventional wisdom is that if there is a public option, then Senator Lieberman will vote against cloture on the bill (not on the motion to proceed) and the bill will fail. This is how you get to four weeks on the Senate floor, with the Democratic Leadership attempting to manage changes to the bill by unanimous consent or through votes on amendments. On the other hand, there are key things in the bill or which may be added to the bill which do or could create huge divisions among the Democrats — the public option, tax increases, Medicare cuts, second amendment rights amendments (guns), immigration and abortion, for starters.

So the entire bill, should the Senate actually begin to consider it, will look and feel like a rugby scrum, often violent, sometimes bloody and very chaotic. But for rugby players, oh, so much fun!

Now, there has been much ado about the threat by Senator Coburn to force the reading of the bill, which he says he will do. This is a classic delay tactic that any Senator can use, and can not be stopped.

This is Crunch Time on ObamaCare

– Urge Senator Evan Bayh to tell Harry Reid “I’m not your puppet!”

Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://gunowners.org/ordergoamem.htm

Thursday, November 19, 2009

This week will be as important as any week in our lifetime in determining whether the anti-gun health care bill moves forward.

As a result of the mandates in the Senate bill, all of your gun-related health data can be dumped into a government database that was created in section 13001 of the stimulus bill. This includes any firearms-related information your doctor has gleaned . . . or any determination of PTSD, or something similar, that can preclude you from owning firearms.

The vote this week will be on shutting down a Republican filibuster of the bill. And the key votes will be five Democrats: Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, and your very own Evan Bayh of Indiana.

The Senate and the House have a great tradition of conservative Democrats: Democratic Senators Jim Allen of Alabama, Harry Byrd, Jr., of Virginia, and (former Democratic) Congressman Virgil Goode of Virginia were, in their day, as pro-gun and fiscally responsible as any Republican.

The question is whether any conservative or even “moderate” Democrats survive, or whether we are left with a bunch of cowards who will do whatever their leftist leadership demands of them.

In the House, every evidence is that the so-called “Blue Dog Democrats” were nothing but a stable of Pelosi puppets. The Blue Dogs whined and complained about the deficit spending created by the bill, but when push came to shove, Pelosi was able to get just enough of the supposedly moderate Democrats to do her bidding and support her bill.

Is this the case in the Senate as well?

1) The “moderate” Democrats in the Senate have demanded seventy-two hours to examine any legislative language — and a CBO assessment based on final legislative language. They will not get this before this week’s vote. The question is whether they were serious.

2) The “moderate” Democrats in the Senate have demanded a bill which does not send the deficit spiraling into the stratosphere. The Reid bill will add over a hundred billion dollars to the deficit, when you consider the $210-247 Medicare “fix” Reid is trying to sneak through on separate legislation. It will add over A HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS TO THE DEFICIT IF YOU DISCOUNT THE PHONY MEDICARE “CUTS.” Was the promise worth the paper it was written on?

3) The “moderate” Democrats have promised a bill which will not tax the middle class. But the Reid bill will impose enormous costs and taxes -– not only on the middle class, but on the sick and elderly.

This is a week in which a handful of senators will make history. Will they be heroes and champions? Or liars and cowards? We will see.

They are being told that this is their chance to “make history.” But history seldom rewards those who break their word because they are frightened of their masters.

ACTION: Write Senator Evan Bayh. Tell him to vote against “cloture” on the “motion to proceed” to the Senate ObamaCare bill.

You can contact Senator Bayh by going to his webform at:

http://bayh.senate.gov/contact/email

—– Pre-written letter —–

Dear Senator Bayh:

This week will be as important as any week in our lifetime in determining whether the anti-gun health care bill moves forward.

As a result of the mandates in the Senate bill, all my gun-related health data can be dumped into a government database that was created in section 13001 of the stimulus bill. This includes any firearms-related information your doctor has gleaned . . . or any determination of PTSD, or something similar, that can preclude you from owning firearms.

The vote this week will be on shutting down a Republican filibuster of the motion to bring the bill up –- “cloture” on the “motion to proceed.”

The Senate and the House have a great tradition of conservative Democrats. The question is whether any conservative or even “moderate” Democrats will remain independent, or whether they will just do whatever their leftist leadership demands of them.

In the House, every evidence is that the so-called “Blue Dog Democrats” were nothing but a stable of Pelosi puppets. And the only question was which ones Pelosi would choose to dance at the end of their strings, and which would be allowed to lie crumpled up in the corner.

Is this the case in the Senate as well?

1) You have demanded seventy-two hours to examine any legislative language — and a CBO assessment based on final legislative language. You will not get this before this week’s vote. The question is whether you were serious.

2) You have demanded a bill which does not send the deficit spiraling into the stratosphere. The Reid bill will add over a hundred billion dollars to the deficit, when you consider the $210-247 Medicare “fix” Reid is trying to sneak through on separate Legislation (S. 1776).

It will add over A HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS TO THE DEFICIT IF YOU DISCOUNT THE PHONY MEDICARE “CUTS.” Was your promise worth the paper it was written on?

3) You have promised a bill which will not tax the middle class. But the Reid bill will impose enormous costs and taxes -– not only on the middle class, but on the sick and elderly. Did you mean what you said?

This is a week in which you will make history. Will you be a hero and a champion? Or a Reid puppet? I have faith that you will live up to your calling.

You are being told that this is your chance to “make history.” But history seldom rewards cowards who break their word because they are frightened by their “masters.”

Please, show me and the people who elected you that you are the hero we elected you to be. Vote against “cloture” on the anti-gun health care bill.

“Our dollar is crashing, while the price of gold is soaring. The budget deficit has never been worse - and the president wants to float even more debt for health-care and energy initiatives.

“By the end of this presidential term, we may add another $9 trillion to our already astronomical $11 trillion debt. Unemployment has already topped 10 percent. This quarter’s trade deficit reached a near-historic high. Our debtors and oil exporters talk of scrapping the dollar as the common international currency.

“American hesitation abroad reflects the shaky economic news. In Afghanistan, we can’t decide whether to seek victory or admit defeat — or simply vote present by keeping the status quo. President Obama reached out to enemies like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. But so far they remain unimpressed, despite his apologizing for an assortment of supposed past American sins.”

From Politico:

“It’s classic politics of our time that if you look at the campaign last year, presidential, you can’t find a mention of public option,” Lieberman said. “It was added after the election as a part of what we normally consider health insurance reform — insurance market reforms, cover people, cover people who are not covered.”

“It suddenly becomes a litmus test. I thought Democrats were against litmus tests.”

The Lieberman filibuster bunker has hardened, and Senator Reid can’t breech it.

And you know what that means, right? Lets all say it together, Senator Reid has to throw the public option left wingers like Senators Franken, Brown, Burris and Rockefeller over the side, who are pounding their chest and the table about the absolute need for the public option.

These public-option-in-the-sky Senators will not like being tossed over the side.

The question is, as Senator Reid throws them overboard, will they plead for a fig-leaf public option deal? Essentially, will they ask to only be thrown mostly overboard (for those Monty Python er, Princess Bride fans, it’s like being mostly dead) or will they grab Senator Reid and take him with him as they go, just over the principle of the public option, and because they don’t like being thrown overboard?

There is going to be pushing and shoving on the deck of the USS Public Option, and I’ll be reporting the splashes, as they happen. (Grab the popcorn.)

So in the little sit down with the President, the Chinese made clear they did not believe a word of the President’s promises about ObamaCare not adding to the deficit.

The Chinese asked uncomfortable questions about the cost of ObamaCare:

Guess what? It turns out the Chinese are kind of curious about how President Barack Obama’s healthcare reform plans would impact America’s huge fiscal deficit. Government officials are using his Asian trip as an opportunity to ask the White House questions. Detailed questions.

Boilerplate assurances that America won’t default on its debt or inflate the shortfall away are apparently not cutting it. Nor should they, when one owns nearly $2 trillion in assets denominated in the currency of a country about to double its national debt over the next decade.

Turns out that when you lie to everyone, no one believes you. Untrue claims that President Obama makes in the speeches to Joint Sessions of Congress about not adding to the deficit, making mystery cuts to Medicare, or not funding abortion, or not allowing illegal immigrants to gain access to his health care benefit, are actually listened to by other nations.

And the economic implications and the national security implications of a President who no one believes are profound, and none of them are good.

Sounds like the Chinese do not believe that a Democratic Congress and President Obama will do anything about the growing deficit. The only thing the Trillion-dollar President can do is spend more Trillions — first on the stimulus, then another trillion plus on health care. And because the world refuses to buy more of our debt, the Fed has printed (you guessed it) a trillion dollars in the last year to give to banks, with instructions to buy our T-Bills in our debt (rigged) “auctions.” This is how we are paying for our deficit, we are printing money. And our Trillion dollar President keeps spending.

The rational reaction of the Chinese (as opposed to the irrational action of spending a trillion dollars on health care) reminds me of a sign I saw at the 9/12 demonstration:

“frustration has been growing among some lawmakers over the delay, especially as they are asked repeated questions about a bill they have not yet seen.

“I don’t think the bill text is being shown to anybody,” Mr. [Senator] Nelson said last week.”

According to CNN: “In fact, no one has seen the Senate bill.”

They a have a phrase out West for this — all hat, no cattle.

I call it a vapor bill — all hype, no bill.

What about the bills that passed the U.S. Senate Finance Committee and the Health. Education, Labor and Pension Committees? Well, they are merely guideposts, not actually what the Senate will attempt to vote on — Senator Reid is changing both Committee’s bills in his own image, and has been since October 13th when the Senate Finance Committee passed its bill — more than one month ago.

So where is the Senate bill? According to Senator Reid and everyone else, it is still being worked on. Under construction, with parts of the bill being changed and dropped, new ones added, to accommodate the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the bill’s cost.

Senator Reid has been getting such bad news from the Congressional Budget Office that he floated a increase in the Medicare payroll tax last week.

Senator McConnell, the Republican Leader in the Senate, said that 99 U.S. Senators have not seen the bill. How much does the bill cost — good question. How much in new taxes does the bill levy — good question.

And Senator Reid needs 60 votes on the motion to proceed to the House bill, so Senator Reid can strike and insert a bill no Senator has seen — and Senator Reid says he is bringing before the Senate this week. Uh, huh.

But according to reports by CNN and Reuters, Senator Reid does not have 60 votes, he has 57 votes. If Senator Reid loses one of the 60 votes he needs on the motion to proceed, the entire bill fails, and does not come up before the U.S. Senate.

And Senator Reid expects his party’s Senators to vote for a bill they have not had time to study, or adequately review the score? Apparently he does. Or perhaps he wants the bill to fail so he can stop the political bleeding that this toxic bill is causing the Dems, the White House’s irrational focus on health care notwithstanding.

There is so much that is so wrong with this picture. Does this all strike you as the workings of a banana republic?

Is it any wonder the independent voters are bolting from the Democrats? Do they have any idea how silly they look? They have been working since January on health care, and still they do not have a bill and still they do not know how much it costs. But they are pushing higher taxes, and half a trillion in Medicare cuts. No surprise that the world is losing faith in the U.S. dollar and fleeing it: (Dollar falls, sending gold to a record high.)

Senator Reid’s bill is a truly vaporous — shape-shifting in content and cost and taxes — with Senator Reid and CBO trying to conduct this floating mass into something appealing that can be agreed upon by 60 U.S. Senators. But the vapor bill keeps being buffeted by the shifting winds of politics.

And then there are other show stopper issues. One of which, CNN explains, could deny Senator Reid his 60 votes:

“To secure the votes of anti-abortion Democrats, House Democratic leaders passed a health care bill that prohibits abortion coverage in a government-sponsored plan and in private plans that accept anyone using government subsidies to buy insurance coverage.

In the Senate, Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Nebraska, said he would vote against any bill without those restrictions. But abortion rights Democrats, including many of the 17 Senate women, may object.”

And the pro-life, pro-abortion fight inside the Democratic party has nothing to do with CBO — so perhaps Senator Reid’s the-CBO-ate-my-homework excuse is true, but it may be that politically irreconcilable differences are the real problem with revealing the text of the bill.

As James Carville told CNN, President Obama only has 57 votes.

Reuters James Pethokoukis is reporting that Senators Liberman, Landrieu and Nelson are at NO, and Bayh maybe too. Pethokoukis is reporting the same thing Hammond said in his memo, that reconciliation is a no-go. (Politico is reporting, correctly, that reconciliation rules would strip the Stupak amendment.)

As we all know, no 60 votes, no laundry. (Senator Reid needs 60 votes to break the filibuster on the motion to proceed to consider the bill. If he does not get 60 votes, ObamaCare never comes up on the Senate floor.)

There are whispers in Washington watering holes that some Dem Senators are quietly hoping Senator Nelson will vote against cloture on the motion to proceed. This will let the Senators who are up in 2010 off the hook from the nightmare of proceeding to this politically toxic bill. They want to avoid the bill, and avoid the litany of tough votes on immigration, hundreds of billions of new tax increases, the bill’s $1 Trillion plus in massive new spending, abortion, rationing of care and other killer amendments, including some on Second Amendment rights (guns).

Senator Nelson is essentially being asked to save the Democratic Party from the Jonestown Kool-Aid brigade at the White House and in the U.S. House leadership, who, even in the wake of:

1) the off-year elections results that saw the Independents vote against Democrats 2:1,
2) the Gallup poll +4 Republican Generic ballot, and
3) the brutal polling data against ObamaCare

refuse to understand that this bill is pure political cyanide.

It makes Machiavellian sense, instead of these Senators being forced to drink the Kool-Aid, for Senator Nelson to force feed the Jonestown Kool-Aid down ObamaCare’s throat. All while the other 2010 Senators vote with the White House and keep the liberal attack dogs off of themselves.

Senator Nelson is the best situated to do the deed: Moveon.org and the Deaniacs don’t get very far in Nebraska.

On the other hand, these watering hole whispers about Senator Nelson may not by true. Senators Nelson, Landrieu, Lincoln-Davis and Bayh may correctly believe that if they do not vote against cloture of the motion to proceed, the only recorded vote they will have on ObamaCare is a Yes, which will likely become the focal point of those voters in their state who are strongly opposed — and in the states the Senators mentioned above are from, “strongly opposed” make up their largest block of voters.

WEB EXCLUSIVE FOR REDSTATERS

November 13, 2009
MEMORANDUM
FROM: Michael Hammond
RE: Where We Are on ObamaCare

AN OVERVIEW OF WHERE WE ARE

At the beginning of this process last spring, I identified a four-step strategy to defeat ObamaCare: (1) Back Chuck Grassley and Mike Enzi away from a deal which gives Democrats 90% of what they want. (2) Take reconciliation off the table. (3) Secure 41 Senate votes. (4) Use procedural roadblocks to prevent Harry Reid from playing “let’s make a deal” on the Senate floor.

We have accomplished the first three of these four objectives. Negotiations have collapsed, and Senate Republicans are unified. Reconciliation is off the table. We have 41 votes against the Reid bill. And the final step -– the Senate floor procedure –- is wholly within our control.

It would have been a gratuitous unexpected blessing if we had won in a way we had never anticipated –- if the Pelosi-puppet “Blue Dog Democrats” had refused to give Pelosi the 218 votes she needed to prevail in the House. We hoped –- but didn’t really expect –- that the Pelosi puppets would show courage, but they didn’t.

Now, with the American people opposing ObamaCare by a 54-to-42% margin in the most recent poll –- and with 40% of the opponents feeling strongly –- and with those figures being much more dramatic when you move away from a handful of “90% blue” east coast/west coast cities -– the outcome of the battle teeters on a knife’s edge, as it has always done since the beginning of the year.

WHAT WE NEED TO DO

First, we need to keep pounding Maine, Nebraska, Arkansas, Louisiana, Indiana, and Connecticut. Secondary targets include North Dakota, Nevada, and Montana.

Second, we need to emphasize that the key votes are the cloture votes and, particularly, cloture on the motion to proceed.

Third, we need to object to using an unacceptable House bill as the base bill in the Senate. We should make the unacceptability of the House bill in the Senate a central weapon in our arsenal against cloture on the motion to proceed. If it is on the floor and if procedurally possible, we should move to table it.

Fourth, should the Senate move to proceed to the bill, we need to insure that a “gatekeeper” amendment is put in place to keep Reid from floor negotiations to make an unpassable bill passable. This is similar to our strategy which killed the immigration amnesty bill.

If Reid puts an “amendment tree” in place in order to prevent Republican “killer amendments,” we should deny him unanimous consent to set aside his gatekeeper in order to do anything. Our argument is that we, not Reid, should decide what amendments we can or can’t offer.

If Reid does not put an amendment tree in place, we need to offer a gatekeeper immediately, at the beginning of the process. I have drafted such a gatekeeper, and it is in Senate hands.

Fifth, we need to begin laying the groundwork for nixing a conference and “ping-ponging” any bill that comes out of the Senate. In order for a bill to go to conference, the Senate must adopt three successive filibusterable motions: The motion to disagree with the House. The motion to request a conference. The motion to instruct the chair to appoint conferees. Given that Dems have made it transparently clear that they intend to use the conference to jettison the compromises they made to get to conference, it shouldn’t be difficult to get 41 votes against these three motions.

If the bill cannot go to conference, it must be “ping-ponged” between houses. This means that every time it comes back to the House or Senate, it is, at least in theory, fully amendable, as though it had never been considered by either body.

THEMES

-A number of Republicans, including Mike Pence, used my $1.3 trillion cost figure on the floor, without any Democratic rebuttal. But using the figure without explaining it is like telling a joke without
revealing the punchline. The punchline is this: -Nancy Pelosi lied when she said this bill costs $894 billion -– a figure she pulled out of her ear. CBO scored it at $1.055 trillion. And that figure can be reached only if you don’t count the $210-247 billion AMA bribe (the “doc fix”) which is being sneaked through on a separate bill (H.R. 3961). The real cost of the bill is between $1.3 trillion and $1.5 trillion, once you factor in this Bernie Madoff-type fraud scheme. And, if you assume that a Congress which is trying to repeal the $247 billion in Medicare cuts it promised in 1997 is not going to be able to achieve the $426 billion in Medicare cuts it is promising now, the cost is between $1.8 and $2 trillion. And the increase in the deficit is between $800 billion and $1 trillion.

THEME: ONCE YOU DISCOUNT THREE BERNIE MADOFF-TYPE FRAUD SCHEMES BEING PUSHED BY THIS BILL’S PROPONENTS, THE TOTAL COST OF THE BILL IS BETWEEN 41.8 AND $2 TRILLION, AND THE INCREASE IN THE DEFICIT IS BETWEEN 800 BILLION AND $1 TRILLION.

-Everyone, including CBO, admits that this bill would dramatically increase insurance premiums. Wellpoint says they could triple. Price Waterhouse places premiums at $25,900 for a family of four by 2019. Liberals blast Price Waterhouse’s failure to consider the effect of subsidies, but push their own Kaiser model which fails to consider the effect of tax increases on premiums.

THEME: THIS BILL WOULD INCREASE PREMIUMS FAR FASTER THAN THEY WOULD INCREASE IF CONGRESS DID THING -– BUT WOULD REQUIRE PEOPLE TO BUY EXPENSIVE OBAMA-APPROVED POLICIES UNDER PENALTY OF LAW. SINGLES WOULD NOT RECEIVE ANY SUBSIDIES OR DISPENSATION IF THEIR INCOME WAS OVER $44,000. AND, IF YOU COULDN’T AFFORD THE PREMIUM, YOU WOULD PAY A 2.5%-OF-INCOME FINE. AND, IF YOU COULDN’T AFFORD THE FINE, YOU COULD GO TO PRISON FOR FIVE YEARS.

-You can’t “keep the insurance you currently have” if you are one of the 10.2 million seniors with Medicare Advantage. You can’t “keep the insurance you currently have” after five years, if you receive insurance through your employer and, as is nearly certain, your insurance is not Obama-approved. You cannot “keep the insurance you currently have” if you are an individual and your policy changes in any way, perhaps even as a result of a premium increase.

THEME: IN SHORT, YOU CAN’T KEEP THE INSURANCE YOU CURRENTLY HAVE. VIRTUALLY EVERYONE WILL BE REQUIRED TO HAVE POLICIES APPROVED BY THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION.

From today’s New York Times: “Reid Mulls Medicare Tax Increase.”

Uh, huh. (Dem Lemmings Unite!)

Answer: when they lose some elections.

Oh, they did lose elections in VA and NJ — only twice in the history of Virgina has the GOP taken all three top state positions, and this is one of those two times. And the exit polls show the independents voting for the GOP by a 2 to 1 margin in both NJ and VA.

After the Dems lost these elections, they barely passed health care reform out of the House. And still Sen. Reid and the White House and the House Leadership will not change their pass-health-care mantra.

What is ironic is the Dems have been down this road before, with President Clinton — and they somehow believe that a farther left reform with a government run health insurance plan is going to make everything politically better. But even in Ohio and Connecticut polls show that it is not going to be OK.

The Dems won’t discipline those who got them to this politically painful place because the Democratic party’s pursuit of health care reform is not politically rational. They are all collectively putting their hand in the flame, and will not pull it out.

But for those not in the White House, or House or Senate leadership who are thinking rationally about politics, what must be really really annoying is to have listen to Mr. Pass Health Care Reform and the Pass the Public Option — Paul Krugman of the New York Times — now give political advice about growing jobs.

Mr. Pass Health Care Reform and the Public Option writes: “We could, for example, have New-Deal-style employment programs.” (In Krugman’s world, the government is always the hero.)

Just to give you a sense of how unbelievably politically stupid Krugman’s idea is: picture legions of America’s unemployed voluntarily working in work gangs, in government issued overalls, staying in government built camps, eating government issued food. Imagine the visuals. Remind you of anywhere?

Here is where it reminds Krugman of:

“Perhaps such a thing is politically impossible now — Glenn Beck would describe anything like the Works Progress Administration as a plan to recruit pro-Obama brownshirts — but we should note, for the record, that at their peak, the W.P.A. and the Civilian Conservation Corps employed millions of Americans, at relatively low cost to the budget.”

Krugman, knowing his own idea is politically DOA, still wants Congress to do it. Remind you of health care?

Note to Congress and the White House: Krugman keeps telling you to do politically stupid things. Don’t do them.

“A majority of likely voters (72%) believe that a modern American electoral tradition will hold and the President’s party will lose seats in the upcoming 2010 Congressional elections. Forty-one percent of likely voters believe the Democrats will lose seats, but not the majority in either the House of Representatives or the Senate while nearly one-third (31%) believe Congressional Democrats will lose at least one of their two majorities.

“Only 5% believe Republicans will lose seats in the 2010 elections and 14% say it will be a close election and there will not be a major shift either way. Even a majority of Democrats surveyed (56%) believe their party will lose seats in the election, while a majority of Republicans (54%) believe they will gain the majority in at least one house of Congress.”

It’s true, the patient known as ObamaCare is looking blue and convulsing on the table as Senators Reid and Durbin wonder what to do about these many symptoms (per Costa):

1. Time. Costa does not say it, but Senator Coburn is threatening to have the bill read, front to back, all 2,000 pages, prior to each amendment. Hmmm. Costa’s point is time is on the side of ObamaCare’s death by thousands of pages of text.

2. President Obama. Can you say radioactive and toxic for moderate Dems running for re-election — Costa — didn’t say that, I am taking some liberties.

3. GOP Amendments. Guns and immigration, guns and babies, guns and taxes, guns and spending, guns and Medicare cuts, guns and government control of your health care, guns and health care rationing — did I mention guns? (OK, so Costa did not mention guns.)

4. Abortion. (See entire internet on Stupak.) For extra points, see Senator Nelson (D-NE) and Stupak amendment in the U.S. Senate.

5. The public option. Ah, the liberal’s shimmering holy grail — its right there, but oh, I think I see it — but it is elusive isn’t it — See Google for “Senator Lieberman (I-CT) public option.”

Not mentioned by Costa but in play: health care rationing, immigration, death panels, health care databases (guns), privacy, Medicare cuts, taxes and spending.

Senator Reid’s very qualified and really one of the best press guys in the city, announced yesterday that Senator Reid has filed the paperwork so the he will be able to proceed to the cloture motion on the motion to proceed next week.

This means that if Senator Reid gets 60 votes, he can bring the House bill up before the Senate.

If he does not get 60 votes, no bill comes before the U.S. Senate. Or Senator Reid may do what he did on the Doc fix — the unpaid for $250 billion Medicare spending bill — bring it up so it can fail — and then go back to the backroom to negotiate. Pretty clear and simple, yes?

For more information about what the future for ObamaCare will be, here is today’s video interview with Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) about his views of the Senate health care bill. Pay attention to the Senator’s quote “it’ll never get here.”

Then, turn off the sound, watch the interviewer and the Senator’s body language. What do you see?

Wow. Yeah.

So if you are the head of one of the world’s largest religions, and your leadership believes (presumably given the careful and slow nature of the Vatican, such a belief would be grounded in extensive research and fact) that alien life exists (while publicly stating alien life could exist), why would the Vatican be spending time and resources on this issue?

The answer is pretty straight forward, the Vatican is preparing for the day when the rest of the world knows — as opposed to believes — that alien life (that is intelligent visitors) exist.

The Vatican, and for that matter every other major religion, needs to be prepared philosophically and lay down a foundation of theology that is consistent with the existence of alien, intelligent life.

Simply put, the Vatican is preparing for the day aliens are revealed, or reveal themselves in an unambiguous manner.

Prudence dictates being prepared in this regard. Perhaps the whole Galileo Galilei inquisition thing has modified the Vatican’s approach to theologically disruptive discoveries.

(Also) looking at it through the other end of the telescope, the Vatican is preparing humanity for this knowledge by making public its efforts.

How do alien’s structure their society? Do they believe in God? (I think the answer is YES on that one, since they are intelligent — and oh boy, what fun that would be to tease the atheists on that.)

Do aliens use money? How is their society organized, are they a democracy? If not, how are resources allocated? Has technological advances in energy generation and space travel ended the need for working as humans do? Do telepathic powers re-define the political and economic structure of society — if everyone can read everyone’s thoughts?

My own view on the existence of alien life is that Earthlings will look back at the time when humans did not believe in the existence of intelligence alien life in same manner which we now look back at those who believed the earth was flat.

Wait, hold on, I think it’s EBE (Extraterrestrial Biological Entities) on the other line — uh, hello? (They want to talk, er communicate thoughts? on exopolitics on RedState.)