March 17-18, 2010
Mar 17 00:15 Now That's An Incentive Mar 17 02:40 King vs. Rep. Haws: A Tale of the Tape Mar 17 10:34 NEJM Finding: Half of the Doctors Retire if Obamacare Passes Mar 17 12:07 The Gift That Keeps Giving Mar 17 15:36 Blogger Conference Call Notes Mar 17 23:32 Slaughter Solution Will Be Challenged Mar 18 00:34 Sen. Ortman Gets It Mar 18 12:24 Constitutional Arguments Aplenty Mar 18 15:43 Coburn Plays Hardball With Vulnerable House Democrats
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
Now That's An Incentive
This article should be all the incentive wavering Democrats need to vote against Pelosicare. Here's what I'm talking about:
The president will refuse to make fund-raising visits during November elections to any district whose representative has not backed the bill. A one-night presidential appearance can bring in hundreds of thousands of dollars in funds which would otherwise take months to accumulate through cold-calling by campaign volunteers.TOL has it bassackwards. A threat from President Obama is threatening to campaign for a Democrat if he/she votes against the bill. That'd put the fear of God in a Democrat. Look at the results when President Obama campaigned with Creigh Deeds, Jon Corzine and Martha Coakley. Getting a presidential visit this year is like getting the Kiss of Death.
Mr Obama's threat came as the year-long debate over his signature domestic policy entered its final week.
I'm betting that President Obama will have a net negative effect on the midterm elections for Democrats. Far more Democrats will be hurt by his agenda and his campaigning than will be helped.
That isn't to say that the Democrats' problems were all caused by President Obama. There's a ton of culprits who share the blame for the wave election heading in the Democrats' direction, starting with Sen. Reid and Speaker Pelosi, then extending down to the Democrats' 'middle management' of Sen. Schumer, Rep. Slaughter, Chairman Rangel, Sen. Baucus, then extending down to progressives like Maxine Waters and Lynn Woolsey before finishing at the feet of SEIU President Andy Stern.
That's before talking about the corruption of the Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback and the special exemption Bill Nelson got for Florida's seniors currently enrolled in Medicare Advantage.
The bottom line is this: This bill is sinking daily because President Obama can't make the case for why this legislation will help families and small businesses. To be fair, I don't think anyone could make that case.
I vehemently disagree with this observation:
The bill would extend health coverage to about 30 million uninsured Americans and would bar insurance companies from refusing coverage to people with pre-existing health problems.Here's how it would read if it were written accurately:
The bill would extend health coverage to about 30 million uninsured Americans and would bar insurance companies from refusing coverage to people with pre-existing health problems until this new entitlement bankrupts America, at which point, everyone would be on their own.The Democrats can wave the CBO report around all they want. The American people know that you can't add 30,000,000 new patients while cutting Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements and expect better outcomes. Just because the Democrats keep repeating that line doesn't mean people will eventually trust them. If anything, the Democrats' claims will go in one ear, then out the other. At some point, the American people will just ignore the Democrats' claims.
I'd privately been skeptical that the bill could be stopped. The more media reports I hear, the more I'm beginning to think that this bill won't pass. Last week, Karl Rove and Mort Kondracke, two political opposites if ever that existed, both said that they'd give health care a 40 percent chance of passing. Monday night, Fred Barnes said the Weekly Standard's guy covering the health care debate figured Speaker Pelosi was 15 votes short. Finally, Bart Stupak told Greta last night that he thinks Speaker Pelosi might have fewer than 200 votes for the Senate bill.
For all their arm-twisting and corrupt dealings, Speaker Pelosi doesn't appear to be any closer to passing the Senate bill than when they started. Perhaps that's because rank-and-file Democrats have finally started listening to the people saying they don't want government-controlled health care.
In the end, that might prove to be the strongest incentive of all.
Posted Wednesday, March 17, 2010 1:25 AM
Comment 1 by Brent Metzler at 17-Mar-10 07:17 AM
Are you serious? Creigh Deeds, Jon Corzine and Martha Coakley were just unfortunate anomalies. Of course every Democrat who is running for reelection this Nov is going to want Obama to do a fundraiser for them. Money is money, and some incumbents are going to win, and others lose. But I don't think that turning down a fundraising opportunity is going to help Democrats get reelected.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 17-Mar-10 08:17 AM
Brent, the money won't help. It never does in wave elections.
Right now, Republicans hold a 10 point advantage over Democrats in the generic ballot question, 45%-35%. When polled on health care, independents abandon the Democrats by a 2:1 margin. That's been the case since last summer.
Comment 3 by Brent Metzler at 17-Mar-10 09:26 AM
Brent, the money won't help. It never does in wave elections.
Well, there goes my incentive to donate to politicians this year
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 17-Mar-10 09:42 AM
Brent, Consider the context of my statement.
What I said is that money won't save a politician that's on the wrong side of a big issue like health care.
King vs. Rep. Haws: A Tale of the Tape
Tuesday morning, King announced that he was running for the HD-15B seat currently held by Larry Haws. In this morning's edition of the St. Cloud Times , Rep. Haws said that Minnesota's budget can't be balanced by spending cuts alone:
"I don't think we can entirely do this by reduction, nor can we spend our way out of it," Haws said. "The key to balancing (the budget) is sustainability and true reform." Haws also said he's working on legislation to allow counties and cities to combine services and operate more efficiently.That's a nice sounding soundbite but it doesn't reflect Rep. Haws's record. For instance, Rep. Haws's idea of health care reform is to move more small businesses onto MinnesotaCare . By contrast, King told KNSI's Cassie Hart that eliminating health insurance mandates that drive up costs but don't improve health care outcomes would be his priority.
When it comes to education, Rep. Haws is out of touch with Central Minnesota. In September, 2007, Rep. Haws attended the League of Women Voters Education Forum , along with Rep. Gottwalt and Sen. Clark. On the issue of funding, Tarryl said that the state needed more revenues to improve educational outcomes. Rep. Gottwalt disagreed, saying that the legislature had to do a better job of prioritizing spending. After hearing Rep. Gottwalt's answer, Rep. Haws replied " Maybe we do need to prioritize ." Based on the stunned look on his face, this wasn't Rep. Haws being sarcastic. It was like it was a new concept for him.
King's first priority with the budget is to determine where each dollar is spent, whether we're talking about K-12, Higher Ed or elsewhere, then determining whether the money that was spent in the previous biennium can be justified again this biennium.
Another plus in King's favor is that King can tell the difference between needs and something from a political ally's wish list . That's essential in prioritizing spending and in protecting taxpayers' wallets.
Rep. Haws's record doesn't suggest that that's how he arrives at what should be spent. It's more likely that he pays more attention to his special interest allies than to his constituents' priorities.
In fact, King said that the first piece of legislation he wants to submit if elected is to make zero-based budgeting Minnesota law. Leader Zellers said that he totally supports King's reform before telling King that he'd want that to be the first bill submitted in the 2011 session.
Another difference between Rep. Haws and King is how they'd prioritize on what to fund through the bonding bill. At Tuesday morning's announcement, King said that he'd like to see legislators not look just at the construction jobs generated by the bonding projects but also what value the community would get from the project after it's built.
Based on the things he's recommended for past bonding bills, Rep. Haws's requests have been more reactionary than visionary. To be fair, Rep. Haws supported the building of the science building on the SCSU campus, as did King.
Economically speaking, the biggest difference that I've seen is that Rep. Haws views the bonding bill as the state's main jobs bill whereas King thinks in terms of building an economy that relies on innovation and the private sector creating new and sustainable jobs.
The next biggest difference between Rep. Haws and King is with taxes. Rep. Haws has voted too often for tax increases. King believes that we should first find out whether we're spending the taxpayers' money wisely before thinking about raising taxes.
King believes that stabilizing Minnesota's budget sends the signal to businesses that Minnesota won't attempt to pass tax increases each year. That alone will strengthen the private sector while giving small businesses the incentive to invest in their businesses and create long-lasting, high paying jobs.
A couple of years ago, I had the privilege of working with King, Rep. Laura Brod and Rep. Matt Dean on what essentially is a vision statement for Minnesota. The central theme to that document was essentially to get government out of the way so that Minnesota's entrepreneurs would unleash their creativity in creating a more prosperous Minnesota.
That meant lowering taxes, shrinking the regulatory burden Minnesota puts on small businesses and keeping unfunded mandates to a minimum.
I've known King long enough to know that he's a man of gravitas and a great public policymaker. When I look at Rep. Haws's record, what I see is a man who is a reactionary and a man who votes too often for status quo policies.
Central Minnesota needs a visionary leader. The only man fitting that description is King Banaian. That's why we must elect King this November to represent the residents of HD-15B in the Minnesota legislature.
Posted Wednesday, March 17, 2010 2:40 AM
No comments.
NEJM Finding: Half of the Doctors Retire if Obamacare Passes
The New England Journal of Medicine commissioned a poll that should scare Democrats. This isn't the type of news that politicians can ignore:
Health Reform and Primary Care PhysiciansYou can't reform health care without having enough physicians. It's physically impossible. I highlighted in this post something from a study done by the American Medical Students Association, aka AMSA:
46.3% of primary care physicians (family medicine and internal medicine) feel that the passing of health reform will either force them out of medicine or make them want to leave medicine.
There would be a removal of profit-motive in health care. The driving force behind the health industry would be patient care and not profit maximization.Removing the profit motive of any profession will get you less of that product or service. The NEJM's study verifies that.
Again, according to AMSA's study, here's the downside to single-payer:
Increased access to preventive care and the ability of government to purchase prescription medications in bulk would also help drive down health care costs. However, the corresponding drop in revenue for pharmaceutical companies could lead to a reduction in overall research and development, slowing down technological advancement.Without a profit motive, new miracle cures won't be developed nearly as quickly. How many people would be willing to pay less in exchange for getting fewer life-saving cures? I'm betting that far more people would be willing to pay a little more in exchange for those life-changing drugs and procedures. I'm betting that because Americans always want added value from whatever they buy.
Ed nails it with this analysis :
If we want to maintain access to the health-care system, we need to maintain and increase the provider supply. Policy makers should note the pricing signals being sent by ObamaCare. If it discourages almost half of all current primary-care physicians now, what will that supply look like in ten years? It won't be growing, especially with the industry's eminences grises taking a pass on mentoring new talent into the field. The best and brightest will turn away from medicine to other fields, probably the law, which will get a huge boost from ObamaCare, leaving future positions to be filled by others.Rejecting Obamacare is the only sane option. There is little to be gained and much to be lost if Obamacare is enacted.
To put it in simplest terms, that's an easy cost-benefit analysis.
Posted Wednesday, March 17, 2010 10:45 AM
Comment 1 by MOCKBADOC at 17-Mar-10 12:50 PM
Nicely written. I am glad to see that I won't be alone in walking away from primary care medicine when this monstrosity is rammed down our throats.
Of course, it won't make a bit of difference, even if we all quit. In fact, I'm not sure that isn't their intention. If/when we leave, it paves the way for our complete replacement by nurse practitioners and physician assistants.
They can ruin health care without me.
I'm going Galt.
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 17-Mar-10 01:18 PM
You seem to be of the lingering but mistaken opinion that the Democrats running the asylum have any mental faculties with which to ponder the obvious consequences of their actions. They do not. That it is impossible to give more people better care for less total money does not matter one whit, when your head is filled with rainbow dreams and unicorn schemes.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 17-Mar-10 02:47 PM
I'm under no such delusion. I think they can think to a limited amount but that they want what they want when they want it.
The Gift That Keeps Giving
This morning's article about King announcing his candidacy for the HD-15B seat currently held by Larry Haws includes a couple quotes from Rep. Haws, one of which is a gift to King. Here's what Rep. Haws said that got my attention:
Haws also said he's working on legislation to allow counties and cities to combine services and operate more efficiently.Rep. Haws joined with Larry Hosch and Tarryl Clark in submitting legislation that would create a new county for St. Cloud. The proposed name for the new county would be Wobegon County. The problem with the legislation is that, when they announced it, they hadn't done the logistical homework, as evidenced in this Strib article :
The legislators could not document potential savings from a merger or how many jobs might be involved, saying they are cognizant of the potential for turf wars. The bill suggests a nine-member county board for the first two years and then a seven-member board after that.First, let's be clear about something important. I'm not criticizing the idea. I'm criticizing the fact that Rep. Haws, Rep. Hosch and Sen. Clark didn't do the homework needed for this to be considered a serious plan. They didn't take into account the logistics involved in implementing their plan.
Here's an important quote from Rep. Haws that must be factored into this equation:
"I cannot remember a time in my St. Cloud time that this hasn't been discussed," Haws said.This is important because Rep. Haws retired as a teacher at Cathedral High School before I graduated from CHS in 1974. Rumor has it that he greeted the first settlers who first moved here during the Lincoln administration but that can't be verified.
Before he was elected to the state legislature, Rep. Haws was a Stearns County commissioner, which holds the vast majority of St. Cloud residents. This should've given Rep. Haws unique insights into the challenges that the Wobegon project presented. At minimum, Rep. Haws should've done enough homework to identify savings that would be realized if his plan was implemented.
It isn't unreasonable to think that, considering the fact that this idea has been around for years and considering the fact that Rep. Haws was a county commissioner, Rep. Haws should have identified cost savings.
Isn't it reasonable to expect a legislator with the vast amount of government experience that Rep. Haws has to have more answers on a project (a) that's been around for years and (b) that he's submitting in legislative form?
I'm also curious why Rep. Haws would tout a project that he can't prove would save St. Cloud taxpayers money. If you're going to tout something, shouldn't it be something that saves money?
The bottom line is this: Rep. Haws wants to be seen as an innovator. That won't happen if he doesn't do his homework first.
Posted Wednesday, March 17, 2010 12:07 PM
No comments.
Blogger Conference Call Notes
This afternoon, I participated in another Whip's Office blogger conference call. Kevin McCarthy and Parkerr Griffith were the congressmen on the other end of the line. Also participating in the call were Matthew Continetti of the Weekly Standard, Jed Babbin of Human Events and James Antle of the American Spectator.
The biggest news from the call came when Kevin McCarthy said that Democrats currently have 206 votes for Pelosicare. McCarthy also said that he thought that Democrats had gone backwards from last week, partially due to the Slaughter Solution. Apparently, that path isn't sitting well with fence-sitting Democrats.
Jed Babbin's question focused on why House Democrats would trust their Senate counterparts, referencing the line in Animal House that says "It's your fault. You trusted us." We were told that alot of Democrats don't trust Senate Democrats to get the House's corrections passed.
Griffith made an astonishing statement in response to my question about actual health care reform. Rep. Griffith said that health care won't be achieved by this bill because we're already experiencing a doctor shortage which will get substantially worse if Obamacare is passed. Griffith said that much more money had to be invested in schools to train tomorrow's physicians, especially with cardiologists and primary care physicians.
Griffith said that the whip team knows everything about each undecided congressman, including the demographics of his district, his popularity, whether he's in a safe seat and how popular the president and Speaker Pelosi are in his district. They even know whether he wants a special project built in his district or if his state is experiencing a Medicaid shortfall that needs fixing.
Follow this link to read Matthew Continetti's post about the call. This link will take you to James Antle's post and update of the call.
Posted Wednesday, March 17, 2010 3:39 PM
No comments.
Slaughter Solution Will Be Challenged
Mark Levin's Legal Landmark Foundation has announced that they will file an appeal to the Democrats' health care bill the minute President Obama signs it into law, if it gets that far. On a similar front, Megyn Kelly interviewed Michael McConnell, formerly a judge on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals and now a constitutional law professor at Stanford. Here's the partial transcript of the Kelly-McConnell interview:
MCCONNELL: Well that's right because Article I, Section VII of the Constitution lays out a procedure by which legislation has to be passed. And it requires that both houses of Congress, both the Senate and the House, seperately pass any piece of legislation before it goes to the president for his signature.Think of that part of the transcript as the foundation for discussing the constitutionality of the rule. Here's the part of the transcript that deals with what's specifically required for constitutional passage of a bill:
And along the way, Article I, Section V then further specifies that, upon the demand of one-fifth of the members of the House or the Senate, that the yeas and the nays must be recorded on the journal. The purpose of these provisions is to make sure that, when our senators and representatives are voting on the people's business, that they do so on the record and that their constituents can later see what they've done.
MCCONNELL: The Supreme Court has been quite clear and consistent that in order to comply with Article I, Section VII, the exact same text of a bill has to be passed by both the House and the Senate. Now as I understand this procedure, the idea is that the House would take the Senate version of the bill, and not actually voting on it, would deem it passed by virtue of passing a vote adopting seperate legislation which amends the bill in order to eliminate all those special deals and so forth.Here's what Levin told his radio audience :
"I cannot predict if we would win or lose; this is not as simple as some would have you believe, but I want to put the marker down right now and make it clear to members of the House of Representatives who think the quickest way to pass this is to adopt a rule that assumes that they voted on an underlying bill when they didn't, that is going to be challenged if they do it," Levin said on his nationally syndicated radio show Tuesday evening.McConnell's explanation is exceptional, untangling a mess by explaining it in layman's terms. What he's saying is that the Slaughter Solution isn't constitutional because the Constitution requires that the exact same bill with the exact same language be voted on and passed by both the House and the Senate. In Judge McConnell's opinion, the Slaughter rule wouldn't meet those requirements because the House would vote on a seperate bill that corrects the bill the House refuses to vote on.
"What I'm trying to do, though, is make it very clear to those Democrats who are on the fence, and who think that this somehow is going to protect them, that it won't because we're going to expose you," Levin said.
One never knows for certain how Anthony Kennedy will vote but the other justices are totally predictable.
Judge Napolitano was on Cavuto this afternoon. He said that there's no question that the "deem and pass" rule is unconstitutional. He then said that it isn't likely that the Supreme Court isn't likely to undo the bill because of this tactic. That's a direct contradiction to what Judge McConnell said here:
The Supreme Court has been quite clear and consistent that in order to comply with Article I, Section VII, the exact same text of a bill has to be passed by both the House and the Senate.It appears as though Judge McConnell based his opinion on court precedent. Otherwise, how could he say that the Supreme Court has been clear and consistent in its rulings? I'd further add that this isn't just a messy political fight over arcane Senate or House rules. This is about a foundational part of the Constitution.
Judge McConnell rightly points out that Article I, Section V of the Constitution was put in place so We The People know what our representatives and senators are doing in Washington.
I'm not judging the outcome because SCOTUS has gotten things wrong in the past and there is a certain level of uncertainty with any jury, whether that jury is made of 12 citizens or 9 people in black robes. I'm just saying that I believe Judge McConnell more than Judge Napolitano in this instance because he apparently is basing his opinion on Supreme Court precedents.
What isn't said in all of this is that this is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg in terms of constitutional challenges. That alone is enough to throw a wrench into Jim Clyburn's whip count. That's before we start talking about how the CBO numbers will impact whether they can use reconciliation. That's way before talking about Bart Stupak, who told Megyn Kelly that there are people on his list that Rep. Clyburn doesn't know are part of his group.
If I were forced to guess, I'd guess that the Democrats' bill won't pass but it's nothing more than a guess.
Posted Wednesday, March 17, 2010 11:46 PM
No comments.
Sen. Ortman Gets It
Wednesday, State Sen. Julianne Ortman introduced a legislative resolution that would instruct Minnesota's Attorney General to file a lawsuit against the federal government questioning the constitutionality of the individual mandates in the bill.
"The legislation being considered by Congress is unconstitutional and threatens the rights of Minnesotan citizens," Ortman said. "The State of Minnesota has a responsibility to act now to protect and defend itself and its residents from an abuse of power by the federal government."I've written before that the ICC is the Democrats' catchall constitutional clause when they want to control our lives. It's been stretched beyond recognition. Sen. Ortman is right that the ICC was intended to give the federal government the authority to keep trade between states flowing without hindrance. It wasn't intended to give the federal government the authority to force people to buy things.
Ortman referenced several unconstitutional elements in the bill, including an individual mandate that would force U.S. residents to buy health insurance. Proponents of HR3590 argue that the Commerce Clause contained in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the authority to impose this mandate; however, Ortman sees this as a clear abuse and violation of the Commerce Clause.
"The Commerce Clause authorizes Congress, in a limited role, to regulate commercial activity that affects interstate commerce," said Ortman. "It has never been used to force anyone to buy anything; it is used to regulate economic activity, not inactivity."
Stretching the ICC to allow the federal government to mandate the behaviors and policies of the individual states would essentially nullify the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Those constitutional amendments were clearly designed to limit the federal government's authority.
I wonder where the AP found the 'constitutional experts' it quotes in this article :
Constitutional law experts say the move is mostly symbolic because federal laws supersede those of the states. But the movement reflects a growing national frustration with President President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.These alleged experts are obviously full of it. Federal laws don't supersede the laws of the states. Each has its own jurisdiction.
The U.S. Constitution outlines which repsonsibilities are federal responsibilities. Generally speaking, anything not totally contained in a state is a federal responsibility. Affirmative responsibilities like maintaining a military is a federal responsibility, too.
According to the Tenth Amendment, those responsibilities not given to the federal government are the states' responsibilities. PERIOD. Furthermore, states can't cede authority to the federal government because the authority isn't their's to cede. That authority is the people's authority.
Sen. Ortman gets that.
Posted Thursday, March 18, 2010 12:34 AM
Comment 1 by Walter Scott Hudson at 18-Mar-10 04:04 AM
"Constitutional law experts say the move is mostly symbolic because federal laws supersede those of the states." What a joke. Listen, the only reason there IS a federal government is because the States created it. The powers it has are enumerated and limited. And any state has the right at any time to reclaim its full sovereignty through succession.
I saw in an MPR article regarding the Minnesota Tea Party Patriots a reference to what they're now calling "10thers," folks who believe the 9th and 10th Amendments grant states the right to nullify excessive federal laws. It's an obvious attempt to disparage constitutionalists by grouping them rhetorically with "Birthers" and "Truthers" as fringe moonbats to be mocked and ignored.
Constitutional Arguments Aplenty
Idaho isn't the only state that's planning on filing a lawsuit against the federal government over the Democrats' health care legislation. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli announced that he'll sue the federal government on behalf of the people of Virginia:
Cuccinelli has long said he was examining the legal issues and suggested he would likely file suit. Brian Gottstein, a spokesman for the office, said this afternoon that a lawsuit is now a definite. Gottstein would provide no details of the legal rationale for such a suit, indicating the process is "still being worked out."Not only will Mr. Cuccinelli file a lawsuit against the federal government questioning the constitutionality of the individual mandate but he's considering filing suit challenging the constitutionality of the Slaughter Solution, too:
Virginia last week became the first state in the country to pass a state bill declaring it illegal for the government to require individuals to purchase health insurance, a key part of bills under consideration on Capitol Hill.
Dear Speaker Pelosi:This isn't a debate about trivial House or Senate rules. It's a debate on whether the House or Senate are accountable to the people they represent. Put differently, We The People demand that our senators and representatives accept responsibility for their actions.
I am writing to urge you not to proceed with the Senate Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act under a so-called "deem and pass" rule because such a course of action would raise grave constitutional questions. Based upon media interviews and statements which I have seen, you are considering this approach because it might somehow shield members of Congress from taking a recorded vote on an overwhelmingly unpopular Senate bill.
This is an improper purpose under the bicameralism requirements of Article I, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, one of the purposes of which is to make our representatives fully accountable for their votes. Furthermore, to be validly enacted, the Senate bill would have to be accepted by the House in a form that is word-for-word identical (Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998)). Should you employ the deem and pass tactic, you expose any act which may pass to yet another constitutional challenge.
A bill of this magnitude should not be passed using this maneuver. As the President noted last week, the American people are entitled to an up or down vote.
Sincerely,
Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II
Attorney General of Virginia
Judge Michael McConnell explained it perfectly when he told FNC's Megyn Kelly this:
MCCONNELL: Well that's right because Article I, Section VII of the Constitution lays out a procedure by which legislation has to be passed. And it requires that both houses of Congress, both the Senate and the House, seperately pass any piece of legislation before it goes to the president for his signature.Earlier in the interview, McConnell said that the Supreme Court "has been quite clear and consistent" on related cases.
And along the way, Article I, Section V then further specifies that, upon the demand of one-fifth of the members of the House or the Senate, that the yeas and the nays must be recorded on the journal. The purpose of these provisions is to make sure that, when our senators and representatives are voting on the people's business, that they do so on the record and that their constituents can later see what they've done.
For a bill to become law, both the House and the Senate have to pass the identical bill. Article I, Section V guarantees that a recorded vote is required if one-fifth of the House or Senate requests a recorded vote.
I'm betting that the Supreme Court would love settling this issue once and for all.
I've heard pundits say that the courts prefer staying out of political fights. That's true. This isn't just a political fight, though. It's a judicial fight, too, because our government can't work without a vibrant checks and balances regime. Without the Supreme Court keeping Congress within the Constitution's framework, Congress could change rules on the fly and place itself above the Constitution. That's sending a terrible message to Congress.
Passing this bill would only be the first step in the health care fight. The courts will be littered with constitutional challenges on the bill.
Posted Thursday, March 18, 2010 12:29 PM
No comments.
Coburn Plays Hardball With Vulnerable House Democrats
God bless Sen. Coburn. Today, Sen. Coburn told vulnerable Democrats that he'll filibuster any ambassadorships or any special deals they've negotiated . Here's what he said:
SEN. TOM COBURN (R), OKLAHOMA: I want to send a couple of messages to my colleagues in the House.In other words, Sen. Coburn is telling House Democrats that they'll never collect on their special deals because he'll filibuster them into the ground.
If you voted no and you vote yes, and you lose your election, and you think any nomination to a federal position isn't going to be held in the Senate, I've got news for you. It's going to be held.
Number two is, if you get a deal, a parochial deal for you or your district, I've already instructed my staff and the staff of seven other senators that we will look at every appropriations bill, at every level, at every instance, and we will outline it by district, and we will associate that with the buying of your vote. So, if you think you can cut a deal now, and it not come out until after the election, I want to tell you that isn't going to happen. And be prepared to defend selling your vote in the House.
There's another thing that Democrats have to consider after Sen. Coburn's declaration, which is that these Democrats will have flipped for nothing by voting for a bill most of them don't like.
Why on God's green earth would a supposedly moderate Democrat from the midwest or the south change their vote to pass a bill that (a) will lead to their defeat this November and (b) is a bill they have to hold their noses while voting for this legislation.
Another thing not contained in the Coburn article that's going to make people mad is a new special carveout for the Bank of North Dakota:
The package of fixes to the Senate health care bill contains a special provision for student loans that applies only to the Bank of North Dakota. The provision was written by Sen. Kent Conrad, the Democrat from North Dakota. Conrad is chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, which is taking the lead in managing the reconciliation bill in the Senate.This is obviously a special deal that got included in the health care bill so that Earl Pomeroy can say that he brought home the bacon for his state. This is important because Rep. Pomeroy might not get re-elected because of his support for the Democrats' health care legislation.
The provision would allow the Bank of North Dakota to continue to originate and service student loans even though a pending overhaul says that all such loans will originate through the U.S. Department of Education, beginning July 1. The bill stipulates that only North Dakota residents attending North Dakota schools would be eligible for the loans.
The Democrats' health care legislation isn't popular in North Dakota, which means it's pretty much like everywhere else in the nation. Rep. Pomeroy's support for the Democrats' health care legislation is causing his job approval ratings to plummet.
The American people are upset with the corruption that they see happening to pass the Democrats' health care legislation. They don't care that Republicans and Democrats alike have lit up the 'legislative Christmas tree'.
What the American people are most upset about is that Democrats have ignored the will of the American people for over a year while crafting this legislation. The Democrats, starting with President Obama and Speaker Pelosi, have told the American people that they don't know what's in the bill. They've told the American people that this administration knows best.
That isn't playing well with the American people because they've reached the conclusion that this administration is both corrupt and inept.
I'd like to take the time to thank Sen. Coburn for playing hardball with House Democrats. If they plan on getting cushy jobs inside this administration or if they were promised special deals for their district, those promises won't be kept because Sen. Coburn is leading a gang of senators that will put a halt to these bribes.
Follow this link if you'd like to take time to email Sen. Coburn for thanking him for playing hardball.
Posted Thursday, March 18, 2010 3:56 PM
No comments.
