September 23-25, 2009
Sep 23 01:08 Franken Embarasses Himself Sep 23 04:55 Is AARP Betraying Seniors? Sep 23 06:21 Mark Lloyd's Tall Tales Sep 23 07:59 The Faces Of Betrayal Sep 24 03:18 Coborn's In the Crosshairs? Sep 24 10:06 ACORN Won't Follow Through Sep 24 11:10 They Work For Us Sep 24 13:13 Seifert Fundraiser Notes Sep 25 09:32 Baucus Feeling the Stress?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Franken Embarasses Himself
Yesterday, Al Franken made a patronizing speech that ranks right up there with John Edwards saying that Christopher Reeve would walk if we elected John Kerry. Here's part of what Franken said:
In prepared remarks, he said of Smith, "he's made us even more proud with his tireless efforts to end cancer. The most important thing we must do for cancer patients right now is to pass national health reform. Today, there are thousands of cancer patients who are going without the care they need."It's embarassing to think that that's the type of drivel that we'll have to put up with over the next 5 years. Franken is a passionate supporter of a single-payer health care. That means Franken supports a system that single-payer advocates admit will reduce discoveries of life-saving drugs and treatments :
Although there are some advantages and some disadvantages to each system, universal health care confers the greatest number of advantages. They include:If Franken weren't a thoughtless ideologue, he'd examine whether the policies he advocates hurt or help patients. Based on what's known about single-payer systems worldwide, they're light years behind the United States' health care system, especially in terms of discovering life-saving drugs, treatments and technology.
- Every individual would receive necessary medical coverage, regardless of age, health, employment, or socio-economic status.
- Health care spending would decline because centralized billing procedures would reduce administrative overhead. Consequently, a larger percentage of the cost of health care would actually be spent on patient treatment.
- 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 .
- Patients can choose their physician and physicians can choose the most appropriate treatment for their patients.
- 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.
Liberals are always quick to talk about everyone having insurance in Europe and Canada but they're hesitant to talk about the fact that 5,000,000 of Canada's 33,000,000 people don't have a primary care physician . What good is universal coverage if there aren't enough doctors to see patients? Cancer doesn't cure itself.
If Franken wanted to truly represent Minnesota, he'd drop the ideologue stuff, then sit down with industry experts about the different components involved in health care. That won't happen because Franken thrives on being a bitter partisan. The worst part is that he isn't a particularly bright bitter partisan.
Unfortunately, that isn't shocking news.
Posted Wednesday, September 23, 2009 1:08 AM
No comments.
Is AARP Betraying Seniors?
Many of AARP's members are seniors living on limited fixed incomes. AARP knows this. Despite knowing that, AARP is taking advantage of seniors :
Arthur Laupus joined AARP because he thought the nonprofit senior-citizen-advocacy group would make his retirement years easier. He signed up for an auto insurance policy endorsed by AARP, believing the advertising that said he would save money.Here's more information curtesy of Mr. Laupus:
He didn't. When Laupus, 71, compared his car insurance rate with a dozen other companies, he found he was paying twice the average. Why? One reason, he learned, was because AARP was taking a cut out of his premium before sending the money to Hartford Financial Services Group , the provider of the coverage.
Laupus stumbled onto something that many members of the world's largest seniors' organization don't know: The group, formerly called American Association of Retired Persons, collects hundreds of millions of dollars annually from insurers who pay for AARP's endorsement of their policies.
After Laupus discovered his AARP car insurance rate was too high, he became determined to learn more about how his membership money was being spent. In September, he traveled to AARP's Washington headquarters, two 10-story buildings that are connected by an enclosed, landscaped atrium.What a bunch of self-centered jackasses these people are. They obviously don't practice the time-honored tenet that they work for their members. That's what's known as arrogance. If I wasn't a magnanimous person, I'd call for people to jump ship on AARP. Simply put, these guys put themselves first. They certainly shouldn't be allowed to advertise that people can save thousands of dollars on car insurance.
He strode into the lobby, dressed in khaki pants and a blue checkered shirt, hoping to take a tour. He noted the brass doors and the marble that stretched as far as he could see.
"It says to people that we're a very wealthy organization and we can afford to spend your money," Laupus says. After showing his AARP card and telling a guard he'd been a member for more than 20 years, he was turned away. "We don't give tours," the guard told him. Laupus asked again, and the guard called AARP's membership department, which also denied the request.
Frankly, it's difficult to argue that AARP isn't a collection of parasites.
It gets worse :
This week the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced it was investigating Humana for providing "misleading" information regarding the Administration's proposed cuts to Medicare Advantage policies-and prohibited other Medicare Advantage plans from providing similar information on how Democrat health "reform" could take away their current coverage.Based on this information, it isn't a stretch to say that this administration believes in a play-for-pay system. Those that sign onto their agenda are spared while organizations that stand on principle while representing their clients are penalized. It's time that this administration stopped that habit.
Yet the Administration's edict prohibiting plans from communicating with their beneficiaries failed to include AARP, which sponsors a Medicare Advantage plan but has been a prime advocate of Democrats' government takeover of health care- quite possibly because AARP has been supporting a health care overhaul from which it stands to gain overall handsomely. Even as AARP advocates for cutting Medicare Advantage plans by more than $150 billion, an analysis of the organization's operations reveals that it stands to receive tens of millions of dollars at the expense of seniors' medical care-with Democrats' full approval...
Michelle Malkin gets the scoop on what AARP's game is:
A Hill source summed it up for me this way: "AARP has endorsed a huge reduction in funding of Medicare Advantage, which touches over 10 million middle-lower income seniors. If Medicare Advantage funding is reduced, and seniors are forced out of the program, they become potential buyers of the heavily-promoted and very profitable Medicare Supplement program sponsored by AARP (MediGap is 70% of AARP's annual income).It's time that people abandoned AARP. The more I read, the more convinced I am that they're nothing but a bunch of elitist parasites. I don't see much use in an organization like that.
Posted Wednesday, September 23, 2009 5:03 AM
Comment 1 by Gary Brown at 23-Sep-09 07:22 AM
Got a quote from Amica for car and home. No commissioned middle-man.
Great service.
They pay dividends, too.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 23-Sep-09 07:32 AM
Good for you, Gary.
Mark Lloyd's Tall Tales
In her Washington Times article , Amanda Carpenter highlights FCC Diversity czar Mark Lloyd's provocative statement about Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez's rise to power. Here's what Lloyd is quoted as saying:
"The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled, worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government, worked to oust him," Mr. Lloyd said. "But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country."Lloyd must know this is trouble because he issued this statement through the FCC:
"The point I was trying to make was that there was dramatic social change in places like Rwanda and Venezuela and that media played an important part in that. I am not a Chavez supporter. I do not support any political leader other than the president of the United States. I do believe all Americans would benefit from more opportunities to participate in media and that the answer to ugly speech is not censorship, but more speech ."That's a perfectly nice-sounding statement. Unfortunately, it has nothing in common with other things he's said, especially this :
"It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press. This freedom is all too often an exaggeration . At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.Forgive me for playing the cynic but that last clip doesn't sound like a fierce advocate of the First Amendment. It's insulting that Mr. Lloyd would expect us to believe the official statement when his pro-censorship quote is captured on a YouTube video.
" The purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance."
You can't say that "the answer to ugly speech is not censorship, but more speech" in one statement, then say that the First Amendment "is all too often an exaggeration" another time, then expect to maintain any credibility whatsoever because cnesorship has nothing to do with the First Amendment.
For Mr. Lloyd's edification, the First Amendment is the cornerstone of our Constitution; it isn't an exaggeration in any sense of the word. Those of us who live in flyover country cling to our First Amendment rights as tightly as we cling to our guns and our religion.
John Halpin, a senior fellow at the center who was the lead author on the study he wrote with Mr. Lloyd, said in a statement to the Washington Times, "Part of the FCC mandate is to promote localism, diversity and competition in the media. ...It isn't the FCC's responsibility to level what it perceives as an unlevel playing field. In my opinion, the reason why there's such an imbalance is because conservative talk show hosts produce a better product than do liberal talk show hosts. It appears as though that's what most of America thinks, too.
"When 91 percent of the talk radio programming broadcast each weekday is solely conservative, despite a diversity of opinions among radio audiences and the proven success of progressive shows in key cities, the market has clearly failed to meet audience demand. Our goal has always been clear: We want more free speech and diversity of views in the media, not less."
The moral of that story is simple: MARKETS WORK!!!
To accept the diversity argument, you'd have to accept as fact that it's more important that liberals' First Amendment rights are protected than it is to protect conservatives' First Amendment rights. I'd love hearing the FCC argue that before the Supreme Court. Good luck getting that past the Roberts Court.
Mr. Lloyd's opposing statements signifies that he isn't a man of integrity. They indicate that he'll say anything to anyone to keep controversy away from his doorstep.
That isn't the type of man that I want protecting my First Amendment rights. In fact, Mr. Lloyd's statement tells me that he should resign ASAP.
Posted Wednesday, September 23, 2009 6:28 AM
No comments.
The Faces Of Betrayal
If this article is right, then Speaker Pelosi's face is the new botoxed face of betrayal. Here's what the Hill is reporting:
Speaker Pelosi is backing away from a deal she cut with centrists to advance health reform, said a source familiar with talks.If Speaker Pelosi hijacks this bill after Mike Ross negotiated a deal with Henry Waxman, she'll destroy her credibility with Blue Dogs. If she loses them, then she'll lose their support for major parts of the Democrats' agenda, meaning that she'll possibly suffer a number of humiliating defeats.
Pelosi's decision to move away from the agreement that was made with a group of Blue Dogs to get the bill out of committee would steer the healthcare legislation back to the left as she prepares for a floor vote.
Pelosi is planning to include a government-run public option in the House version of the healthcare bill. She wants to model it on Medicare, with providers getting reimbursed on a scale pegged to Medicare rates. "The speaker is full-steam-ahead," said a senior Democratic aide.
This isn't just about Pelosi backing out of the deal either:
Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.) and a group of fellow Blue Dogs had negotiated a deal with Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) in July that would remove the link to Medicare. Under that plan, officials with the government-run plan would negotiate individually with providers.Anyone who negotiates an agreement on legislation, then backs out of that agreement, deserves whatever he gets. Anyone who backs out of a deal that they've negotiated shouldn't complain that their credibility disappeared.
That move, which drew howls of protest from liberal members, prevented the bill from getting stuck in committee. But Ross returned from the August break saying he couldn't support a public option under any circumstances, essentially withdrawing his support for the deal.
These conflicts and hard feelings are only part of the reason why I discount Harry Reid's blustering about using the nuclear option :
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid threatened on Tuesday to use a procedural maneuver to steamroll opponents of health care reform, even as a Senate panel began delicate negotiations over a package that could have the best chance at passing.Sen. Reid must think that the American people take him seriously. Just because he holds the post that LBJ once held doesn't mean that people think of him in that same light. NOTE TO SEN. REID: We pay attention to what's happening. We know that it isn't likely that the Finance Committee bill will make it out of committee before the end of next week.
The Nevada Democrat, who has issued similar threats before, spoke as the Senate Finance Committee began debate over Chairman Max Baucus' reform plan. Reid threatened to use a budgetary tool called reconciliation, also known as the "nuclear option", that would allow Democrats to pass key parts of the legislation with a simple majority, as opposed to the 60 votes needed to avoid a Republican filibuster.
"If we can't work this out to do something within the committee structure, then we'll be forced to do the reconciliation," Reid said, adding that he views that as a "last resort."
"It remains to be seen as to whether we will have to do reconciliation. I am confident and hopeful we won't have to do that, but time will only tell," Reid said.
If Reid tries employing the nuclear option, then he's in for an even bigger headache. Sen. Judd Gregg is working on a list of points of order to ask whether parts of the Finance Committee bill have to be seperated into a policy bill and a appropriations bill. Experts told Newt Gingrich that the points of order, followed by the floor vote, could take another week.
Assuming that the House passes a bill, then the bills need to go to conference committee to iron out the differences between the House bill and the Senate's bills. Considering the fact that Pelosi is likely to appoint hard left representatives as conferees, I'm expecting the conference committee to be contentious, possibly even testy.
If those aren't enough hurdles, then there's this: Senate rules dictate that the nuclear option can't be used after October 15. That's why most pundits are saying that President Obama won't get a health care bill to his desk before Thanksgiving.
Posted Wednesday, September 23, 2009 8:04 AM
No comments.
Coborn's In the Crosshairs?
On Sept. 9, Coborn's Inc. issued a memo that talked about two pieces of federal legislation that they think might hurt their profitability, which would necessarily affect the job security of their employees. Here's the most alarming section of the memo:
Health Care Bill (HR 3200)MPR got its hands on the memo and wrote about it in this article . Here's what MPR had to say about the memo:
We need to control costs without destroying access to high quality health care. The current federal health care legislation promotes a huge shift from private sector coverage to government-run health care coverage...We estimate that it would erase more than a third of our profits! As an employee-based company, this would hit all of us hard. It would curtail our growth and result in layoffs.
The president of Coborn's, a St. Cloud-based grocery chain, is urging his employees to oppose health care reform legislation.First off, I find it alarming that MPR would include Chris Coborn's campaign contribution history in the story. The article's focus should've been on the merits of the pending legislation, not Chris Coborn's campaign contributions.
In an internal memo (pdf), Coborn's president and CEO Chris Coborn asks employees to e-mail or write letters to legislators opposing two pieces of legislation. He said the proposed health care reform bill and a union organizing measure are serious threats to the future of the company.
Coborn's spokesman Steve Gottwalt said the company frequently shares information with its employees about factors affecting its business.
"In this case, we wanted to share some basic information about what legislation is coming forward in Washington, and how employees and others might be able to impact that legislation by letting their concerns and thoughts be heard. That's pretty much it," said Gottwalt, who is also a Republican state representative.
Coborn has given money to candidates from both parties, but he leans Republican by a ratio of more than 5-to-1 in his contributions.
Editor's note: This story was updated to clarify that Steve Gottwalt was speaking on behalf of the company, and not in his capacity as a state legislator.
In fact, I don't see why this is a story at all. What's a big deal about a company telling its employees about legislation that might affect them personally? I'd argue that Coborn's did the right thing in alerting its employees to this legislation. After all, it's legislation that might affect the employees' employment status and their access to high quality health care benefits.
Steve's point that "employees and others might be able to impact that legislation by letting their concerns and thoughts be heard" is especially laudable. Steve knows the importance of constituent/representative communications by because he's a state legislator.
Having lived in St. Cloud all my life, I know that Coborn's isn't an ideology-driven company. Simply put, they're seen as a comapny that offers stable employment to young people. They simply want to keep growing their company while looking out for their employees' best interests.
Instead of conveying that, MPR chose to view this memo through a partisan lens. Shame on them for not doing their due diligence.
Posted Thursday, September 24, 2009 3:18 AM
No comments.
ACORN Won't Follow Through
ACORN has filed a lawsuit against James O'Keefe, Hannah Giles and Andrew Breitbart that nobody thinks they'll follow through on. Last night on OTR, Greta opined about such a lawsuit. This morning, Greta posted her thoughts on the lawsuit :
ACORN just filed a lawsuit against the two with the undercover camera and filed against someone who has a website who posted/published the video. The decision to file suit is real dumb for them and it doesn't matter if they are right about the two party consent law in Maryland.I don't know if Greta stayed at a Holiday Inn last night but I know that she's a real life attorney. She knows what she's talking about with regards to civil suit discovery. Last night, she kidded that she wishes that they'd include her in the lawsuit so that she could get ACORN's communications and financial reports delivered to her office.
Why are they so dumb?
By filing a lawsuit, ACORN just opened itself up for FULL DISCOVERY!! They are going to get hit with interrogatories, requests for production of documents, depositions etc. And who will get deposed? Just about everybody! And if discovery produces evidence of a crime? You can be sure that the evidence will be fed ex'd to the Justice Department!
Yes, ACORN will try and limit the scope of discovery to the issue of one party consent to taping...but discovery rules are really, really, really broad. I sure would hate to be rolling the dice on this one if I were ACORN and if I had something to hide!
If ACORN goes through with this lawsuit, then they'll lose. If that happens, then ACORN will have the right to sue the attorney who gave them this awful advice.
It's important that we highlight how Greta would've advised ACORN had she been ACORN's attorney:
By the way, what would have been my legal advice to ACORN if they were my client? I would have told them to lie low and just hope the heat passes and not to file suit....but they have done the opposite. They have just given 3 parties the right to ask them a billion questions (UNDER OATH) and demand billions of documents etc! And how about risk of video taped depositions of ACORN officials? The more I think about this, the more I wonder whose good idea this was!ACORN has been super-secretive about their documents. That's understandable since their communications likely would reveal their interactions with SEIU, with other left wing fringe groups and who's contributing to them. It would also identify which government agencies they've gotten money from, which would be helpful in eliminating their federal and state funding.
Yes, idiots.
Unless I miss my guess, Mr. Breitbart is likely smiling the smile of a lifetime and saying something like "I've died and gone to heaven." It isn't unreasonable to think that he's already made a call to hire a team of attorneys.
Keep checking back for more updates. right now, though, every conservative and good government liberal should be smiling. Their dreams of eliminating a huge chunk of corruption is suddenly alot more possible, thanks in large part to ACORN's apparent legal stupidity.
Posted Thursday, September 24, 2009 10:11 AM
No comments.
They Work For Us
Yesterday, the Senate Finance Committee defeated a GOP-sponsored amendment that would've required the committee to post the Baucus bill online for 72 hours. Here's how MSNBC reported it :
During the mark-up of the Senate Finance Committee's health-care bill this morning, Senate Democrats were successful in defeating a GOP-sponsored amendment that would have delayed the bill's passage.While it's true that the amendment would've caused a delay in passing the bill, it's equally true that it would've provided greater transparency, too.
The amendment, sponsored by GOP Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky, would have required that the legislative language and the final cost analysis from the Congressional Budget Office be posted on the committee's Web site for 72 hours before the committee votes on the final bill.I don't care what the practice of the Senate Finance Committee has been. This is an important piece of legislation and alot of people want to read the bill. Just because alot of career politicians won't read the bill doesn't mean that the American people won't read it. Somebody's got to. If Congress won't read the bills, then it's We The People's responsibility. (In essence, we're becoming the check and balance system for lazy politicians.)
While the amendment, on its face, may seem reasonable by providing transparency for Congress and the public to read the bill, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus said it would take at least two weeks for the staff to write the bill that way.
The practice at the Senate Finance Committee during the past 30 years, under both the leadership of Democrats and Republicans, is that the committee votes on bill using "conceptual language," or what some call "plain English." No other committee works under this practice.
While conceptual language may have been the standard in the past, Republicans say this bill is too big, too important, and impacts too many people to handle it as business as usual.
This is a perfect example of what's fueling the TEA Party movement. Career politicians are refusing to do the most elemental part of their jobs, then essentially telling the American people what they will or won't do.
THEY WORK FOR US!!! THEY DON'T TELL US WHAT THEY WILL OR WON'T DO!!! PERIOD!!! WE TELL THEM!!!If Democrats keep practicing the politics of 'We've never done it that way before', then alot of those Democrats will be collecting retirement checks in January, 2011, because the American people are demanding total accountability. If this group refuses to be transparent in their actions, then we'll replace them with honest politicians.
The Sunlight Foundation's Lisa Rosenberg summarizes the 72-Hour Rule well in this post :
Had there been a 72-hour rule in place before the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, due consideration could have been given to whether the vast expansion of the federal government's ability to engage in secret searches of U.S. citizens was warranted. Had there been a 72-hour rule in place when Congress passed the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act of 2007, consumer advocates could have warned Members of Congress that the bill included weak safety standards for FDA reviews of drugs and medical devices. Had a 72-hour rule been in place before any omnibus appropriations bill was passed, billions of dollars of wasteful government spending could have been eliminated.It's obvious that the 72-hour rule would've improved alot of legislation. That begs this question: Shouldn't we take our time more often and get the legislation right rather than operate from the premise that 'We've got to move fast because we've got to do something'?
Congress faces a decision. They can try hiding what's in the legislation and get defeated in their next election or they can make the system more transparent and improve the process. Whichever decision they make, they shouldn't make the mistake that they won't be held accountable. In this election cycle, there are three things that are guaranteed: death, taxes & being held accountable.
Posted Thursday, September 24, 2009 11:22 AM
No comments.
Seifert Fundraiser Notes
Last night, I attended a fundraiser for GOP gubernatorial candidate Marty Seifert as a member of the press. The event was held at the home of former state Rep. Jim Knoblach. Jim now serves as Seifert's campaign manager.
While I won't take a position on who I'll support at this time, I can report that Marty is a force to be reckoned with, both for the GOP nomination and in the general election.
It's apparent that regulatory and fees reform will be a priority in a potential Seifert administration. During his presentation, Rep. Seifert highlighted the fact that a distiller's license in Minnesota costs $30,000 annually in fees. In Iowa, that distiller's license costs $350 per year. (After the presentation, a friend who works in the aeronautics business told me that the licensing fee in Minnesota is $3,000, while it's only $300 in South Dakota, which is quite a dramatic difference.)
While it's accurate to say that fees reform would be a major part of Marty's economic agenda, it's equally true that Marty wants to focus on the principle of limited government, I suspect because that's the only way we can break out of the DFL's never-ending cycle of increasing taxes.
It's also clear that Marty's campaign won't take Central Minnesota for granted. There's alot of GOP votes here in Central Minnesota. Marty's campaign won't be satisfied with only winning the base. Their plan is to engage independents with a distinctly common sense conservative message.
Attending the event had other benefits than just taking in Marty's presentation. I got to talk with Mike LeMeiur, who lost a tight race to Al Doty in 2008, losing by only 76 votes in a definitely DFL-friendly year. That DFL-friendly mood is quickly evaporating, thanks mostly to people's disenchantment with President Obama's and Speaker Pelosi's radical agenda.
In fact, people were frequently mentioning how independents are fleeing the Democratic Party like they were selling radioactive waste. One person told me that the Tarrance Group, one of the most reputable polling companies out there, said that independents age 45 and older are really souring on the Democrats' agenda.
If that's the care, and I think that's accurate, then Democrats are facing a potentially miserable election cycle.
The other noticeable thing at the event is the enthusiasm of the activists there. Conservatives nationwide have been discouraged the last 2 cycles. That attitude has disappeared entirely.
If I'm invited to other candidates' events, I'll file reports on them, too.
One final thing that was noticeable was that Marty hadn't lost his sense of humor. That was apparent when he said that "Republicans have an embarrassment of riches. The Democrats have just embarrassments."
Originally posted Thursday, September 24, 2009, revised 25-Sep 12:59 AM
Comment 1 by Leslie Davis at 25-Sep-09 02:51 PM
Now that's really funny. Embarrassment of riches or just embarrassment. Guffaw! Guffaw!
I wish I could stop laughing for a few seconds. Guffaw! Guffaw!
Baucus Feeling the Stress?
Based on this video, I'd say that Senate Finance Committee Chairman Baucus is feeling extremely fatigued:
Based on the exchange in this video, I'd say that Sen. Baucus is feeling stressed. I've never trusted him because he seemed like a 'too-clever-by-half' politician. Still, I've never seen him this combative before. I suspect that that's because he's under alot of pressure from Rahm Emanuel, the Nutroots and the CBO. I can't imagine the political consequences of failing to get this passed quickly.
Everything about the path this legislation is taking says that someone's trying to pull a fast one on the American people. Ernest Istook summarizes it perfectly here :
So those who want to read the bill cannot - because there is no bill. Instead, senators are working from a mere outline (if 200 pages can be called "mere") by Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., plus 564 "conceptual" amendments. Only after Baucus' committee approves it would staff be instructed to go back and write a bill that had already been approved! That could run to at least 1,500 pages.While I'm worried about the unintended consequences of this legislation, I'm equally worried about the intended consequences that the Democrats' legislation will carry with it. The adage that "the devil is in the details" should be our guidepost. What the Democrats are essentially doing is asking the American people to trust them.
It's a crafty solution to the problem described by Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., "What good is reading the bill if it's a thousand pages and you don't have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?"
Democrats such as Sen. Kent Conrad, D-ND, claim that it's better to work from a "plain English" outline rather than the arcane language often found in complex legislation. But how would senators be certain that the ultimate gobbledygook is a correct translation if they don't review it before voting? In essence, senators are denying lay citizens and learned experts the ability to monitor the work, to help avoid unintended consequences and to blow the whistle on intended ones.
To this point, nothing they've done indicates that they're trustworthy.
Another indicator that something is wrong with this legislation is a brief exchange between Kent Conrad and Sen. Baucus. Sen. Conrad asked if they'd heard anything new from CBO since they started the mark-up. Sen. Baucus' response was chilling to American taxpayers: he said that he'd heard from them but that "it isn't something" that he wanted to talk about in committee.
My bet is that the deficit-neutral scoring that the legislation got before it was introduced has disappeared. My bet is that the bill has gotten considerably more costly and that it's running a significant deficit during the first decade.
That's purely an opinion at this point but it's only an opinion because the bill's real language isn't posted online.
The fact that these idiots are hiding the bill from us is reason enough to melt down the Senate switchboard. King is particularly upset with the Democrats' hiding the bill's language from us. First he notes Tom Carper's rationalization:
Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.) described his attempts at reading the legislative language of a bill: "You read it and say, 'What did that say?'" The committee, he said, uses "plain language so that even I can understand" a bill.Next King registers his disapproval of Carper's rationalization:
I wouldn't accept that excuse from my students. Why do Delaware voters accept it from Carper?The Finance Committee Democrats should be, but won't be, embarrassed about this admission. Think about this: King puts higher expectations on his students than Senate Democrats put on themselves. That's unforgiveable.
Told that it would take two weeks to comply with the Bunning amendment, Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, said, "If it takes two more weeks, it takes two more weeks. I don't understand, what is the rush?"Republicans have rightly criticized Sen. Snowe for being a RINO. Still, I've been impressed with how steadfast she's been in insisting on a transparent process and with keeping the cost of the bill under control. She's been a good soldier throughout.
Yet Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., wants the bill on the floor by the start of October and says he's willing to cancel the Oct. 10 Columbus Day recess to move the bill. In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is talking about similar quick action.
By controlling both the calendar and the available information, proponents try to control communication, public awareness, and the all-important political spin.
It's time that Sen. Baucus and other Democrats, minus Blanche Lincoln, were reminded that they work for us, that our wishes are their commands. In fact, it's time to contact them and tell them that they'd better start listening better, which means that they need to post the bill in its arcane language ASAP.
Posted Friday, September 25, 2009 9:37 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 26-Sep-09 06:39 AM
I do not see Baucus as anyone's favorite person these days, and I expect the spectrum has that view, aside from the insurance industry and its lobbyists. I wonder about his future in Montana, as its Senator. His future is assured, fiscally, since he's delivering he will be cared for, but my feeling is the Dems who want more should cut off his pet water projects for his being such an obstructionist. If he poisons my healthcare well, then dry his irrigation wells.
Comment 2 by eric z. at 26-Sep-09 06:41 AM
Also, in terms of lack of transparency, Baucus and Grassly sit together in committee, and whisper a lot.
