Posts Tagged 'senate'

Don’t Blink

This Saturday morning, July 23rd, the Senate was originally scheduled to vote on Cut, Cap and Balance, the Republican plan to cut $111 billion out of this year’s deficit, trim $4 trillion over ten years, and present a balanced budget amendment to the states.  Instead, Harry Reid moved the vote up to Friday morning, calling it a waste of time and the worst piece of legislation to ever come to the Senate floor.  It failed to pass on strict partisan lines.

Senator Schumer called the bill “Cut, Cap and Kill” because he insisted that the bill would kill Medicare.  Debbie Wasserman-Schultz declared in the House of Representatives that the bill would kill seniors and that it was the Paul Ryan plan on steroids.   The only problem is that in three different places Cut, Cap and Balance specifically exempted Medicare and Social Security from cuts and caps.  Had Republicans known, some of them might have been a little bit more up in arms about the bill.  It was actually a very good compromise.  It cut and cap wasteful spending on liberal social programs and government bureaucracy, not hot buttons like military, Social Security and Medicare.

Perhaps that is a more reasonable explanation of why Harry Reid went back on his promise to allow debate on Cut, Cap and Balance and instead moved the vote up.  Perhaps someone in the Senate actually read the bill and told Reid what was in it.  And then, as if scripted, suddenly news outlets started declaring a deal between Boehner and Obama that was so close Reid needed to get this bill off the floor and stop “wasting time” on it.  The only problem is there was no such deal.  Somebody was lying to provide the sense of urgency needed to cut off debate on Cut, Cap and Balance before it got out that Democrats were lying about it killing Medicare.

This has become the name of the game in budget talks.  Neither side is willing to give in because both sides know that 2012 elections hang in the balance.  The difference is that Republicans have actually gone so far as to write a good compromise bill.  Democrats can’t vote yes on it, not because it “kills Medicare” or kills seniors.  They can’t vote on it because passing Cut, Cap and Balance would destroy Democrat re-election hopes for 2012.  It would be a huge Republican victory because Republicans came up with it.

On the other hand, Democrats can’t write a plan of their own.  They haven’t submitted a budget in over 800 days, and they can’t submit one now or that will also destroy their chances of getting re-elected in 2012.  Democrats can’t write a bill that says “We want to raise taxes so that we don’t have to cut spending as much” and still win in 2012 because the vast majority of the country doesn’t want Democrats to raise taxes so that they can spend more.  They are spending enough already, and we are taxed enough already.  On the other hand, Democrats can’t write a plan saying “Ok, no higher taxes, just cuts” or they will lose their class warfare base.  The liberal base of the Democrat party does not want a bill that doesn’t raise taxes on the “rich”.  It’s not about raising revenue, it’s about punishing upper classes more.

Republicans submitted a plan and it was a good plan.  Obama has signaled that he is willing to let the country default on its debt rather than compromise with Republicans.  Democrats have proven that they are the party of no on a budget deal.  If Republicans end up caving in order to save our credit rating, I hope Americans get the right message.  It doesn’t mean Republicans are wimps and we need to get rid of them.  It means they can only do so much with just a majority in the House.  We need to give them the Senate and the Presidency in 2012 if we expect anything to get accomplished.


Abortion Compromise?

“All mutual concession in the nature of compromise must necessarily be unwelcome to men of extreme opinions.” – Democrat Millard Filmore, December 2, 1850

Millard Filmore was celebrating the success of a series of compromises that kept slavery legal, caused the Federal Government to be in charge of capturing runaway slaves, and in return admitted California as a free state and kept slavery out of the territories of Utah and New Mexico. This got me thinking.

In a debate in Florida for the Senate seat, Charlie Crist accused his Republican opponent Marco Rubio of being radically against abortion.  Crist then claimed he himself is pro-life.  He is among a growing number of so-called moderate Republicans and independents who think we must compromise on abortion and not emphasize it in elections.  Some Republicans suggest we compromise by allowing some early abortions in order to stop late term abortions and partial birth abortions.  Here is my question, what compromise on slavery would Crist have been happy with?  Is it an ok compromise to make California a free state if it means leaving people in Georgia enslaved?
Compromises on the life and death issue of abortion puts us on the wrong side of the issue no matter what side we are coming from. Abortion is contrary to the constitution, to basic human rights, and to a civilized culture. Yet the left argues that it is constitutional. As though this is some moral determining factor, the left argues that it is the law of the land, therefore it is right. Again, this echoes the moderates of a century and a half ago.  Consider these words:

“I believe that involuntary servitude (slavery), as it exists in different States of this Confederacy, is recognized by the Constitution. I believe that it stands like any other admitted right, and that the States where it exists are entitled to efficient remedies to enforce the constitutional provisions. I hold that the laws of 1850, commonly called the ‘compromise measures,’ are strictly constitutional and to be unhesitatingly carried into effect…I fervently hope that the question is at rest, and that no sectional or ambitious or fanatical excitement may again threaten the durability of our institutions or obscure the light of our prosperity.” – Democrat Franklin Pierce, from his inauguration, 1852.

The left and the middle are portraying pro-life Republicans as radicals.  Thank God for radicals like Harriet Beecher Stowe, John Brown, Frederick Douglas, and the “black Republican” Abraham Lincoln.

Should true pro-lifers compromise on abortion because our opponents tell us that is how to win elections?  Unless moderate Republicans can provide an example of a compromise on slavery they would be comfortable supporting in which the practice was allowed to continue, I will continue to be counted among the “sectional…ambitious…radical” members causing “excitement” about the issue. I will continue to hold my “extreme” position. I cannot in good conscience sacrifice millions to save millions when all should be saved.

May those who are truly pro-life recross to my side of the line in the sand, and may we continue to fight until every baby is granted not just their constitutional right to life, but their divinely-endowed right to life.

The Blindside?

Nancy Pelosi heard that the American people want a no-vote on Obamacare, but I think she misunderstood.  Instead, she is giving us no vote on Obamacare.

But wait, you ask.  How is that constitutional?  Don’t the House and Senate have to pass a bill before the President can sign it into law?  Yes.  So how is Pelosi going to pass the Senate bill without forcing her Democrats to go on the record and vote for it?

What has become known as the Slaughter Solution was not originally designed to be a devious tactic or to push bills through that the party leadership wants but the American people don’t.  Originally it was designed as a time saver.  The normal process is that the House writes a bill and passes it, the Senate writes their own version and passes it, then they get together and work out their differences.  After that the House and Senate put together identical bills based on their conferences and then each pass it again.  The Slaughter Solution allowed the House to avoid writing and passing a whole new bill by writing a mix of amendments to the Senate bill and then passing it.  Then the Senate passes the House amendments.  That way, the House can say the original Senate bill was “deemed to have passed” by passing the amendment package.

Confused?  That is what Pelosi is counting on.  Pelosi is counting on this because confusion on the Slaughter Solution is the key to her strategy.  Discounting the vigilance of the American people, Pelosi’s Slaughter play is pure genius.  And it’s not about figuring out how to pass Obamacare without voting on it.

What Pelosi is doing with the Slaughter Solution is giving her Democrats cover to vote for an amendment package that the Senate either cannot or will not pass with reconciliation.  While Stupak might see the ruse and refuse to vote for this, it gives the phony pro-life bluedogs exactly the excuse they have been looking for to get back in the Left’s good graces.

Here is how it will go down.  The bluedogs and “conservative” Democrats will announce that they are undecided on the Senate version of Obamacare.  They will tell their conservative voters that they disapprove of the kickbacks.  They will tell their union bosses that they disapprove of the Cadillac tax on high priced insurance polices.  They will tell the pro-life majority in our country that they would never approve of taxpayer funding for abortion.  And to fix that, they will vote for Pelosi’s reconciliation amendment package.

Pelosi’s amendment package will repeal Ben Nelson’s kickback, it will prohibit any federal funding for abortion and therefore any insurance funding for abortion, it will remove taxes on high price insurance plans, and it will never be passed by the Senate.  The Senate cannot use reconciliation to pass a bill with heavy social implications such as banning insurance coverage for abortion.  The Senate also cannot use reconciliation to pass a bill that increases the deficit by cutting unpopular taxes.  And of course, the Senate cannot pull together the necessary votes if the bill does not include the bribes it took to get Senators like Landrieu and Nelson on board.

Think about it.  If the Senate could pass the House amendments through reconciliation or any other means, why don’t they just pass the House bill that is already written?  Why amend the Senate bill to look like the House bill and then just pass the amendments?  Why would the Senate pass a package containing everything they specifically left out of their bill?

So when the House passes Obamacare with the reconciliation package, and the Senate votes down the reconciliation package, the Senate bill will go to Obama to be signed into law in it’s current form.  Abortion will be funded, Senators will get their kickbacks, House Democrats can claim they took a stand against abortion funding and for the unions, and Obama can finally claim the second major policy victory of his Presidency (the stimulus pork bill being the first).

But it gets even better.  Harry Reid may decide not to pass the House amendment package through reconciliation.  After all, the point is not to pass the House changes.  Instead of simply discarding the House amendments and sending the bill as is to the President, Reid may go ahead and push for a normal supermajority vote on the House reconciliation plan.  That way Senate Republicans can either give Democrats bi-partisan support of Obamacare by voting for the Pelosi reconciliation package with it’s union favors and higher spending, or they can give Democrats bi-partisan support in voting down the Stupak’s abortion amendment and repeal of the Democrat kickbacks.  The Democrats could actually turn the split in their own party into a split in the Republican party; something they haven’t succeeded at yet in this debate.

In the end, for the ignorant and uninformed voting majority of Americans, this strategy is a guaranteed success.  The only thing that can stop Pelosi, Reid and Obama now is vigilance and a strong statement from the American people that we know what they are up to.  So it comes down to this: if you are not against it, you are for it.  Call your Congressman and ask them for a definitive stance on Obamacare.  If they say they are not sure, undecided, or would only support it with the reconciliation amendments, call them on it.  And a vote for Pelosi’s reconciliation package, no matter how good it sounds, is nothing more than a vote for the Senate version of Obamacare.

Republicans have been played into a corner.  Only the American people can stop Obamacare now.

Stupid Stupid Stupak

We thought Obama’s healthcare takeover was dead.  We may be wrong.

One thing is for sure, we probably aren’t going to see a new bill.  In order to ditch the current junk bill and prepare a new bill, the House and Senate would have to have some potential of actually agreeing with one another.  With the pro-life Democrats in the House and not enough Senators willing to break their rules and use reconciliation to pass social policy, a new bill would be almost as likely than an actual bi-partisan compromise.

But Obama doesn’t need a new bill.  All he needs is for the House to pass the bill that the Senate passed before Brown was elected in Massachusetts.  There’s only one problem, and I highlighted this back in November: the Senate bill funds abortion and the House doesn’t want that.

Whereas the Senate bill funds abortion, the House bill makes it so that abortion cannot be covered by insurance companies.  That is just one of the costs of government run insurance.  When the people pay for your healthcare, the people can decide what healthcare you can get.  In an act of uncharacteristic heroism, Representative Bart Stupak ensured that the House bill had an amendment that does not allow the government to buy our insurance if that insurance covers abortion.  It was the only way Pelosi could get enough votes to pass their version.  Since the government will soon fund every insurance company, companies would no longer be allowed to insure abortions.  It would almost make passing the bill worth it.

Stupak had been the last line of defense against the House passing the Senate bill, but now he is talking about making a deal.  What would a Democrat, willing to put his career on the line to protect the unborn, sell his soul for?  In this case, nothing.  Stupak instead is about to fall for the oldest trick in the book.

It’s like in the movies when the evil interrogator says “Tell me what I want to know and I’ll let you go free!”  We all know what’s really going to happen.  They can’t make changes to the Senate bill without the Senate having to pass it again, which won’t happen.  What they can do is tell Stupak that if he votes for the Senate bill, they will pass a “fix” bill with his amendment.  Obama has already been talking about passing a second fix bill because face it, he knows as well as we do that the current bill is crap.  Even Steny Hoyer could only muster a “better than nothing” when describing the current healthcare bill.  Stupak may be close to making this deal.  He will vote for the Senate bill with nothing more than a promise from Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid that the Democrat leadership will write, pass and get a Presidential signature on a bill that says no government funded insurance plan can cover abortion.  Come on Stupak, think about it.

If the Democrat party with complete control over both houses of Congress cannot pass their own healthcare reform bill, there is no way they will pass a second bill placing any sort of limits on abortion.  If he lets this bill pass, it will be Stupak surrounded by millions of taxpayer funded aborted babies, with Stupak saying, “But you promised nobody would get hurt!”

The True Waterloo: Abortion

Late Saturday night, House Democrats and one Republican passed HR 3962.  This more than 2,000 page bill included payoffs to many of the more conservative Democrats who were sitting on the fence, but still it only squeaked by.  Despite the bill’s passage, there was one major victory for conservatism in the bi-partisan Stupak-Pitts amendment that bans federal funding for abortion.  The amendment reflected a shift in social values in the US, highlighted by a Gallup poll earlier this year showing that the majority of Americans oppose abortion.  The amendment enjoyed the support of 69 Democrats.

Democrats may not have realized this, but the Stupak-Pitts amendment goes much further than HR 3962.  In fact, that one amendment is a knife in heart of the Democrat universal healthcare agenda.  Unwittingly, Democrats have helped make HR 3962 non-implementable.

Under HR 3962, health costs and health insurance premiums will go through the roof.  Democrats pay for universal healthcare by taxing healthcare universally.  They tax insurance companies, tax doctors, tax health product manufacturers, tax pharmaceuticals, and of course, tax you.  What do they do with all that tax money?  They give it back to us disproportionately so that we can all buy insurance.  Through this wealth redistribution, healthcare costs far more but the government subsidizes it.   Without the government subsidy, most Americans will not be able to afford these higher rates.

The Stupak-Pitts amendment makes it so that not only can the government not offer abortion in it’s cheaper public option (which do not be mistaken, will put every other insurance company out of business), but government cannot subsidize abortion in other insurance plans.  At the much higher health costs under HR 3962, this will make abortion a luxury that only the rich will be able to afford.

Already Democrats are in full revolt against one another.  One side realizes that their radical attempts to use federal funds to pay for abortion will destroy their party’s power.  For some Democrats it is even a violation of conscience.  On the other hand, the more liberal wing of the party realizes that without catering to the radical factions in the party they will lose their base.

One thing is for sure, a final bill cannot have the Stupak-Pitts amendment in it.  When the government is paying for or subsidizing every approved health insurance plan, and the government is not allowed to pay for or subsidize abortion, then abortion has been effectively killed in the United States.  On the other hand, a Democrat style health takeover bill will not pass the Senate without an abortion amendment and barely passed the House with one.  Either the abortion amendment or the healthcare takeover has to go.


Outrage: Why the Left Deserves Condemnation from the Homosexual Community

The homosexual community used to argue that it should be no one’s business what people do in their own bedroom.  If HBO and the far left have their way, it will be everyone’s business.  They are out to destroy the careers of prominent politicians based solely on their rumored sexual orientation.

In the last couple days, the film Outrage, by Kirby Dick (yes, that’s his name),  hit the small screen on HBO.  Dick’s film is a “documentary” (not that that word actually means anything anymore) about all the public politicians who are hiding their homosexuality.  Whether offering solid evidence, rumors, or pure conspiracy theory, Dick targets any politician who might be trying to protect their privacy by not coming out of the closet.

Apparently, if you are gay you have no right to personal privacy.  Among those who Dick attempts to drag out of the closet is Florida’s Republican governor Charlie Crist, who is recently married.  Apparently if you fit one or two of the physical stereotypes, that also means you are gay and deserve to be dragged out of the closet.  Crist has reiterated that he is not gay, but that does not stop the bigots on the left.

The outrage is not that there are members of the government who are closet homosexuals or fit some bigot’s conspiracy theory, but won’t come out and fight for the radical left’s agenda.  The outrage is that the left is willing to abuse homosexuals and non-homosexuals to satisfy their political agenda.  How many gay politicians have had their careers ruined by these conspiracy theorists?  Larry Craig is either straight, or gay and very concerned for his own family and career.  Instead of respecting his rights to privacy, the left has dragged him into the public square and turned him into a mockery.  Was it for his own good or for the good of the homosexual community?  No.  It was for the good of the left who knew that Larry Craig’s scandal would help win them elections.

Crist is a strong Republican who is running for the Senate next fall.  Right now the Democrats don’t have a shot at defeating him.  All that could change if the left succeeds in getting voters to believe that he is a closet homosexual who is too scared to come out of the closet.  Every homosexual who is interested in protecting their own rights should ask themselves, does making these accusations help the homosexual community?  Or does it just help the Democrats win elections?  Does attacking a straight man and labeling him because of the way he talks or moves help homosexuals?  Or does it ruin the career of an individual based solely on the left masterfully playing on people’s prejudices?

Kirby Dick’s pretenses of trying to get Republicans to vote for homosexual marriage by ruining their lives and careers is nothing more than sickening deception.  The left deserves the strongest condemnation from both homosexuals and heterosexuals for these cheap political ploys.

A Ribbon for Participation

When it came to the 2016 Olympics bid, at least we showed up.  In fact, as far as showing up goes, America deserves a gold medal.  We sent Oprah, Michelle Obama, and when that didn’t work, we sent the leader of the free world, President Barack Obama.  Obama came to Copenhagen like the god the rest of the world thinks he is, and even offered them a speech from his golden teleprompter.  He made lots of sacrifices to be there, such as putting the war in Afghanistan on the back burner.  Some are calling this a colossal failure.

Turns out, they’re wrong.  In fact, now that we have lost the Olympics bid AP is reporting on exactly why we never wanted it in the first place.  Turns out, the Olympics are expensive and not good for much more than name recognition for your city.  Chicago already has name recognition since the President of the world came from there. According to the AP we should be very happy that Chicago only got fourth in the 2016 Olympics bid.

I would imagine Obama knew ahead of time that the Olympics would be nothing more than a multi-million dollar bill that America can’t afford during this recession.  If you think about it, Obama has been setting this up for a while now.  Whether it was badmouthing the US to the UN and explaining why the US doesn’t deserve any special treatment, talking about all the problems we have,  his amazing display of incompetence in his dealings with Iran, or perhaps just the simple level of arrogance and assumption in his Olympic bid, Obama purposefully hijacked our prospects in Copenhagen.

What else would explain the world still seeking to punish the US even after we obeyed them in the 2008 election?  After voting the evil Republicans out, we all figured the rest of the world would finally love us once again.

Sure, we haven’t passed universal healthcare.  If you go on any political forum you will discover how freakishly obsessed foreigners are with the US passing universal healthcare.  On Obama’s Facebook page he will often post updates about healthcare, which are met with constant praise, worship, and cries of affirmation from Europeans, South Americans, and Canadians.  Perhaps Obama’s failure to pass universal healthcare explains how easily Copenhagen snubbed him.  Then again, considering how bad for Chicago the Olympics would have been, maybe the delay on universal healthcare has been intentional.  After all, even though Representative Grayson attempted to blame the delay on Republicans, Democrats own the House and Senate with all the votes they need to pass universal healthcare tomorrow if they wanted to.

Obama had to make the appearance.  Daley and the AFL-CIO were counting on Obama to bring home the bacon for Chicago like he did as a Senator.  Obama couldn’t risk losing his base.  But Obama also had to do what is right for our country, and according to the Associated Press, that was losing the Olympics bid.  And those poor naive Rio De Janeirans, they’re still celebrating.

Share This Blog

Bookmark and Share