…of Speaker Pelosi admitting that she’s fine with sending people who don’t want to be insured to jail (H/T: Infidels are Cool); but I’m not all that happy with the results. Which is interesting, because I’m also not happy with the notion of throwing poor people into jail just because Speaker Pelosi wanted to raid taxpayer wallets and pocketbooks for the benefit of the Democratic Party’s various special interest groups.
Again.
See also Hot Air, AoSHQ - and probably everybody else soon enough.
…at least, I would be if I was daft enough to take seriously Speaker Pelosi’s suggestion that you can take a 1,900 page bill and understand it in 72 hours. Fortunately, neither did the NRCC - which is why they’ve come up with this handy pacing clock. a page every two minutes, folks. Every page of which references/rescinds/alters a bunch of other laws, which probably themselves reference/rescind/alter a bunch of laws in their turn. With no breaks for three days.
Excuse me: it’s now page 603. By the time I get this published, page 604. And I’m reasonably certain that most of the Democratic legislators that put this monstrosity together haven’t made it past the table of contents, at that.
The House Republican Conference has compiled the following list of the 110 new Obamacare boards, bureaucracies, commissions, and programs created in H.R. 3962, Speaker Pelosi’s legislation for a government takeover of health care:
1. Retiree Reserve Trust Fund (Section 111(d), p. 61)
2. Grant program for wellness programs to small employers (Section 112, p. 62)
3. Grant program for State health access programs (Section 114, p. 72)
4. Program of administrative simplification (Section 115, p. 76)
5. Health Benefits Advisory Committee (Section 223, p. 111)
Give House Democrats credit: their latest version of the health care rationing bill actually moved the numbers a little. Just not in the way that they hoped.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi introduced the House version of health care reform legislation last week, but most voters are still opposed to the effort.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 42% now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s down from 45% a week ago but unchanged from two weeks ago.
Much obliged; the drop in support from the last time the Democrats unveiled a version of health care rationing was starting to abate, so having this handy reminder of who’s running Congress these days - and the implications - is really, really handy. Some people might quibble that if Democrats wanted to be really helpful they’d have scheduled their latest announcement last Saturday, but I’m not greedy. This will do nicely for tomorrow’s races.
Remember Obama’s effort to try a “test” for tort reform? (We don’t actually need a test, since it has worked to lower medical malpractice coverage and help increase access to doctors in states that have tried it.) Well, Pelosi’s bill has an anti-tort-reform measure. On pages 1431-1433 of the 1990 spellbinder, there is a financial incentive for states to try “alternative medical liability laws.” But look — you don’t get the incentive if you have a law that would “limit attorneys’ fees or impose caps on damages.”
See Hot Air for more, including a link to the actual language and a reminder that the Democrats never had any intention of doing anything at all to disconcert trial lawyers. Which is the point that I’d like to hammer home, here: there is no reason to be surprised at this. We knew back in August that something like this was going to happen; and this is precisely the sort of political doubletalk that the people opposing the Democrats’ health care rationing bill have come to expect from the current ruling party.
So. To any random Democrats reading this: when Nancy Pelosi looks you in the eye and tells you that the new health care bill addresses tort reform, she is lying to you. Because she thinks that you are stupid.
Yesterday, the Washington Post broke a blockbuster. A memo was leaked detailing all the current House Ethics Committee investigations. And guess what, most of them are Democrats. In fact, the only Republican mentioned in it was Sam Graves, who has been cleared by the Committee.
So what did we learn? The Post says, regarding the inquiry of lawmakers tied to PMA, a now defunct lobbying shop, that “the inquiry was broader than initially believed”. And we learned that there is yet another investigation of Charlie Rangel:
Ethics committee staff members have interviewed House Ways and Means Chairman Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) about one element of the complex investigation of his personal finances, as well as the lawmaker’s top aide and his son. Rangel said he spoke with ethics committee staff members regarding a conference that he and four other members of the Congressional Black Caucus attended last November in St. Martin. The trip initially was said to be sponsored by a nonprofit foundation run by a newspaper. But the three-day event, at a luxury resort, was underwritten by major corporations such as Citigroup, Pfizer and AT&T. Rules passed in 2007, shortly after Democrats reclaimed the majority following a wave of corruption cases against Republicans, bar private companies from paying for congressional travel.
David Corn at Politics Daily has a smart take that Rangel will ultimately become a symbol of a corrupt Democratic Congress and Nancy Pelosi’s broken promise to drain the swamp.
Why might the Post article and this widening investigation of ties between lawmakers and lobbyists — neither of which relate to Rangel — matter for him? Though the probe has not yet found any of these House members guilty of wrongdoing, this episode will place pressure on Pelosi and her colleagues to show they’re not a party of sleaze. Consequently, Rangel is more vulnerable to the Republican’s campaign against him. If the PMA investigation heats up, he would make a great sacrificial lamb. And if the GOP continues to pursue Rangel, his party, burdened by this other ethics investigation, will have a tougher time protecting him.
If there was ever any doubt that Nancy Pelosi is officially America’s Crazy Aunt, that doubt was eradicated today. In her weekly press briefing some sycophantic reporter lobbed the set up question that seems to be part of the White House’s “hit back” strategy (to make this less ralph-inducing I’d suggest you read it aloud and insert the appropriate lip smacking and slurping noises):
Madam Speaker, in terms of the political tone, the tone of the debate, Hoyer said earlier this week he thought it was the most vitriolic since ‘93-’94. And around that time we also saw acts of domestic violence, domestic terrorism. How concerned are you about the tone of the political debate, in terms of people talking about anti-government rhetoric and so on and the possibility of violence?
To which she responded:
Well, I think we all have to take responsibility for our actions and our words. We are a free country, and this balance between freedom and safety is one that we have to carefully balance.
I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw this, myself, in the late ’70s in San Francisco. This kind of rhetoric was very frightening, and it created a climate in which violence took place.
So I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made, so that understanding that some of the people — the ears that it is falling on are not as balanced as the person making the statement might assume.
But, again, our country is great because people can say what they think and they believe. But I also think that they have to take responsibility for any incitement that they may cause.
After noting, that based on the question it would seem that Steny Hoyer’s grasp on reality is fairly tenuous also, one can’t help but observe that 1) this certainly wasn’t the set of rules Pelosi was playing by in 2001-2008 when, by this standard, she actively encouraged the vandalization of ROTC and recruiting offices and the killing of American soldiers in Iraq, 2) there are laws against inciting violence and if she thinks these are being broken she should have the courage to point out the instances, and 3) her interpretation of the entire Moscone-Milk-White episode in San Francisco is just deranged.
Were Pelosi, or for that matter Hoyer, possessed of something that even vaguely resembled a sense of shame they would be locked in a cheap motel room right now with a cellophane bag, a roll of duct tape and a bottle of Muscatel. That the Speaker of the House can equate disagreeing with the horrendous policies of the Democrat party with an incitement to violence only indicates the moral degeneracy of the leadership of that party.
After Congressman Joe Wilson (R-SC) rejected Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s ultimatum to offer a mea culpa on the floor of the House for his outburst during President Barack Obama’s address on Wednesday evening or face a formal admonishment, Democratic leaders are now moving to introduce a resolution to censure Wilson.
But Republican responses to the pending censure might explain why some prescient Democrats, perhaps guilty of similar actions under the last administration, were uneasy with assuming the role of disciplinarian: several key Democrats are weathering their own controversies, including Reps. Charlie Rangel (D-NY), chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means committee, Jack Murtha (D-PA), and Pete Visclosky (D-IN).
“Call it the Glass House of Representatives effect,” writes Politico’s Glenn Thrush.
The censure is “another stunning example of hypocrisy,” said Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele in a statement. “Congressional Democrats are wasting taxpayers’ time and resources on a legislative measure to censure Congressman Joe Wilson so they don’t have to talk about their exceedingly unpopular health care plan.”
While the proposed censure has galvanized Republican legislative opposition to the President and Speaker Pelosi, it represented low-hanging fruit for many Capitol Hill communicators – an opportunity to revive fading Democratic controversies.
“If we are going to march Members down to the well of the House to apologize, Joe Wilson is going to have to get in line behind Nancy Pelosi, who attacked the intelligence community who protects us, Charlie Rangel who cheated on his taxes, Jack Murtha – a walking scandal, and we all know how the Democratic leadership tried to protect William Jefferson” said Steele.
The Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), has shut down Democrat efforts to punish Joe Wilson (R-SC) for yelling at Barack Obama during Obama’s speech to Congress.
George LeMieux, Charlie Crist’s errand boy and the newest Republican Senator, is calling for Joe Wilson to be censured. That puts Charlie Crist’s errand boy to the left of Nancy Pelosi.
LeMieux remains undecided on government run health care, supports cap and trade, and supports the President’s big spending agenda.
George LeMieux says he is “a Charlie Crist Republican.” What we are learning about Charlie Crist Republicans is that they are not Republicans at all, just placeholders for a left wing agenda.
If you’ve ever been stuck on hold with a congressional office in the past, at least you’ve been able to enjoy some good patriotic music, as opposed to the lilting tones of generic smooth jazz that have been driving elevator users insane for decades. For years, congressional offices have played patriotic anthems as the background music during hold times.
It’s no surprise when a Southern Democrat in a GOP-leaning seat - someone like Parker Griffith - runs like a scalded dog from Nancy Pelosi. Indeed, if Democrats hold a narrow edge in the House after the 2010 elections - a genuine possibility - they will nervously count the Blue Dogs to see how many will withhold votes from Pelosi.
Rep. Dennis Cardoza said Tuesday that he’s pushing the Obama administration to emphasize job creation, especially in the San Joaquin Valley where the unemployment rate in some areas is at Great Depression-era levels.
“Really, what we need now is jobs. We need people to be put back to work,” said Cardoza, D-Merced. “Twenty percent unemployment is not a sustainable situation…”
It was only a matter of time before it started. The Democrats are beginning to turn on each other as their poll numbers sink and Republicans’ numbers start to rise.
“The bill that’s coming through the House, with or without the public option, isn’t good for America,” Adler said matter-of-factly. “We have Congressional Budget Office projections of a trillion-dollar increase in costs that will have to be borne by taxpayers or insurance purchasers; meaning businesses and households. Either way, that’s a cost we can’t afford.”
But it’s not just Adler. Seriously endangered Democrat Parker Griffith of Alabama believes Nancy Pelosi is too divisive to be Speaker.
Rep. Parker Griffith, a former oncologist from Alabama, told a town hall meeting this week that Pelosi is too divisive to be speaker. “I would not vote for her [again],” he added. “Someone that divisive and that polarizing cannot bring us together.”
With one Blue Dog Democrat speaking out like that, it can only be a matter of time before other Democrats also start speaking out against both Pelosi and Barack Obama.
It’s also time to get other Democrats on the record about Nancy Pelosi. In fact, if you are going to a town hall meeting (see the calendar on the right) you might want to ask, “Do you agree with Blue Dog Democratic Congressman Parker Griffith that, in his words, Nancy Pelosi is too divisive?”
The idea of postponing health care reform–until, say, the economy improves– doesn’t seem appealing to many Democrats now. But it might soon. The problem, as Michael Goodwin’s recent column points out, is that the issues waiting in the wings–should health care leave the stage–are even worse, from the Democrats’ political perspective. Cap and trade, immigration legalization, “card check”–these are not what you’d call confidence building appetizers leading up to the main course of Obama’s presidency. Plus the Afghan War! At least a clear majority of the public wants something done about health care….
It’s easy to forget that, even if Obama’s health care effort is bogging down, the effort itself still serves his presidency as a crucial time-waster, tying up Congress and giving him a reason to postpone (or the public a reason to ignore) those other divisive, presidency-killers.
It was not until after 1994 that Bill Clinton really stretched his legs. As much as Clinton had “gays in the military” and “Hillarycare” in the months before the Republican take over of Congress, he’s really known for what? Well, if we’re serious about his legacy — Kosovo, Welfare Reform, Standing Up to Newt, and Impeachment.
Clinton shines as a model of what a Democratic Presidency can be when fighting against Republicans at home and in multinational coalitions abroad. Impeachment has a mixed meaning for him, but among Democrats and Independents, they typically see it as out of control Republicans and a philandering President with the President coming out looking better than the GOP.
Republicans controlling Congress gave Bill Clinton a political opposition from which he could set himself a part. Clinton could be contrasted with the GOP. He could not, pre-1994, viably do that because his party controlled the White House and Congress.
See it for yourself below, as Bill Burton, a spokesman for Barack Obama’s White House, says:
I don’t think that Speaker Pelosi was just claiming that people were wearing swastikas [at health care town hall meetings]; people are showing up to events with swastikas, dressed up as Hitler, with signs invoking Nazi Germany, so that’s not something that’s being made up.
Video:
The DC Examiner’s David Freddoso tried to run down this claim, and hit a stone wall:
White House spokesman Bill Burton’s statement on television earlier today that people are showing up at health care town halls dressed up as Hitler was outlandish enough that I had to call the White House and ask if there is anything to substantiate it.
As of this evening, the White House has offered no explanation for this bizarre claim.
By the way, the laugher line of Burton’s interview was the seven-word claim, “We’re trying to have a constructive debate.”
Calling your opponents a dangerous mob of swastika-wearing Hitlers and calling out SEIU thugs to beat them into submissive silence (not to mention setting up an informant tipline by which those who question Obama’s health plan in “casual conversation” can be turned in to the government) is one heck of a way to “have a constructive debate,” there, Bill. Well done.
UPDATE: According to The Hill, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has now taken to referring to those who question Obamacare as “evil-mongers.” Classy, Senator.
At a health care town hall today, President Barack Obama told a New Hampshire audience that he has never claimed to be an advocate of a single-payer health care system, alleging that his Republican opponents were employing “scare tactics” to derail substantive health care reform.
“I have not said that I am a supporter of a single-payer system,” he said, channeling former presidential contender John ‘I voted for it before I voted against it’ Kerry.
But in August of last year, Obama touted single-payer systems as a promising solution to the ailing health care system at a New Mexico town hall. Eliminating private insurance companies and instead opting for a pseudo-Medicare system with the government footing the bill for all health care-related expenses, he said, would be a more effective means to provide greater coverage than our system’s current iteration.
“If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system,” said then-Senator Obama. “I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody.”
Evidence of Obama’s open embrace of single payer health care systems dates farther back than 2008, much to the chagrin of the White House’s professional wordsmiths, who no doubt spent hours retooling the president’s message for today’s town hall.
Unequivocally expressing his support for a government-run health care system, Obama said to a crowd of AFL-CIO members in 2003, “I happen to be a proponent of single-payer, universal health care coverage.”
Obama’s evolution on the extent to which the federal government should meddle in the private marketplace of health care coverage is one that speaks to the White House’s justifiable concern they may be losing the debate. Obama and Congressional Democrats are anxious to stem the tide of fleeting public opinion, and both have gone to great lengths to cast their opponents as fear mongers.
Yesterday morning USA Today ran an Op-Ed by Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, which for ease of discussion I will attribute to Pelosi. The title is ‘Un-American’ attacks can’t derail health care debate, which frankly I find amusing since I don’t recall a debate on that or any other subject this year, actually happening on Capitol Hill. She bounces back and forth between oooohing and aaaahing about how awesome (butterflies, rainbows, unicorns, fairy dust) government takeover of your personal health care decisions would be, and berating freedom-loving Americans (bad conservatives! Flyover country! Hitler! Astroturf! Limbaugh! Goblins!) for strongly expressing their opinions to their elected representatives, and oppressively running into union thug fists with their faces.
She’s right about one thing: Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American.
As it happens, “drowning out opposing views” is an area of expertise for Speaker Pelosi.
(Via RS Diarist rechief) Turns out that the Drudge rumor was right: Pelosi & Hoyer really did write an op-ed with the title ‘Un-American’ attacks can’t derail health care debate. And it’s precisely what I expected, too. Which is to say, an op-ed that can write this:
Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American.
…without even a hint of a sign of a suggestion that the authors mean by that condemnation the physical violence done to conservatives by SEIU members (noted here and here). Which is actually not surprising: they don’t. It’s them that are doing it, so it’s by definition OK. And if you don’t like that observation of mine, then the Democratic party’s leadership is perfectly welcome to prove me wrong by issuing a terse statement saying that they do not support SEIU’s violent tactics. Until then, they can own the actions of their blueshirts.
