Time to play “what do you ‘deem’ as so?”

Posted by: Sister Toldjah on March 18, 2010 at 9:28 pm

Hey, since House Dems think they can “deem” something as passed without even voting on it, I’ve decided to play a “deem” game of my own – except mine won’t cost taxpayers a trillion bucks.

As I wrote on Twitter, I believe my birthday should be a national holiday. I deem it so. So far, I’ve gotten four Twitter friends to agree with me. If I were a Dem, now would be the time I’d start trading money/favors for votes.

So, with that said – what do you deem as so?

Update/OT – 10:04 PM: The “Fanmail” section has been updated. Remember, newest additions are at the bottom of the page. And don’t forget about the language warning.

 

Sen. Coburn to House no-to-yes flippers: Go ahead. Make my day.

Posted by: Sister Toldjah on March 18, 2010 at 6:47 pm

Mega-ouch:

Fox News provides the relevant part of the transcript from the Senate Doctors presser:

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., warned Thursday that he and the staff of several other GOP senators will be monitoring with a microscope any potential payoffs to Democrats that materialize down the road in exchange for their vote on the health bill.

“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,” Coburn said at a news conference. “And be prepared to defend selling your vote in the House.”

Republicans are playing hardball after several “sweetheart” deals emerged in the Senate-passed health care bill, including the so-called “Cornhusker kickback” — which would spare Nebraska certain Medicaid costs.

That provision was stripped in a package of changes introduced Thursday, but Coburn suggested Democrats might try to avoid the appearance of a quid pro quo — giving something in return for votes — by arranging for juicy payoffs down the road, like a federal appointment or local project.

As Democratic leaders try to win over just a few more hold-outs to reach the 216 votes needed to pass the Senate-approved bill in the House, the feisty Oklahoma Republican said he’ll have his eye out for exactly that kind of deal.

“If you voted no and you vote yes, and you lose your election, and you think (your 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,” Coburn said.

“No. 2 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. We will look at every appropriations bill at every level, at every instance, and we will outline by district, and we will associate that with the buying of your vote.”

FDL’s got the latest news on the Whip count. It’s tight. Very tight. As I wrote on Twitter, I’m sick thinking about all the backroom wheeling and dealing going on behind close doors, using our tax $$ to buy votes for this monstrosity of a “reform” bill in advance of the anticipated Sunday House vote. Have a House member who is wavering on whether or not to vote for this bill? Call them. Email them.

Don’t give up.

More: Check this out:

From The NRCC’s Code Red:

From HumanEvents.com: “Most interesting rumor from the Hill yesterday: Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.) who announced his retirement from Congress has been promised the job of NASA administrator in exchange for his vote, and Rep. John Tanner (D-Tenn.), another retiring Democrat, has been promised an appointment as U.S. Ambassador to NATO in exchange for his vote. It will be interesting to note any job announcements from this Tennessee duo post-House retirement. Both voted against passage of the House bill back in November.”

Disgusting.

 

Why the CBO’s latest numbers on the House version of ObamaCare are a joke

Posted by: Sister Toldjah on March 18, 2010 at 12:44 pm

Kevin Glass explains:

[...] Analysis from the Congressional Budget Office has pegged the “new” plan at $940 billion and includes eye-popping deficit reduction numbers.

There’s chatter from Capitol Hill is that some Democrats are going to use the second-decade deficit reduction numbers as a justification to vote for the bill. These numbers claim deficit reduction “up to $1.2 trillion.”

What’s not noted is the heaps and heaps of qualifications that the CBO has repeatedly put on their second-decade numbers. This includes phrases such as “a detailed year-by-year projection… would not be meaningful because the uncertainties involved are simply too great” and “the legislation would maintain and put into effect a number of procedures that might be difficult to sustain over a long period of time.”

Basically the CBO is saying that there’s no way Congress can actually enact many of the Obamacare provisions that Democrats claim they’re going to. But the CBO is forced to grade the bill as it’s written. [...]

Plus, from page 1 of the CBO report:

“Although CBO completed a preliminary review of legislative language prior to its release, the agency has not thoroughly examined the reconciliation proposal to verify its consistency with the previous draft. This estimate is therefore preliminary, pending a review of the language of the reconciliation proposal, as well as further review and refinement of the budgetary projections.

Ed Morrissey and Allahpundit have more on the CBO’s numbers as well as the smoke and mirrors scheme behind the Democrats’ attempts at putting a price tag on it all.

Senator Kyl:

Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl released a statement going after the rising price tag of the bill, which was less than $900 billion when it went through the House and the Senate the first time.

“Every time a new iteration of the Democrats’ health-care bill is unveiled, the price tag goes up,” Kyl said. “The only thing that remains the same is that the American taxpayer will be on the hook to pay for it.”

Yep.

Keep melting the phones. Keep emailing. (House linkSenate link)

 

States pushing back against ObamaCare mandates

Posted by: Sister Toldjah on March 18, 2010 at 9:45 am

The Associated Press reports that states all across the country are pushing back against healthcare “reform,” specifically in response to the possibility that their residents and businesses could be forced into buying health insurance by the federal government (via MM):

BOISE, Idaho — Idaho Gov. C.L. “Butch” Otter on Wednesday became the first state chief executive to sign a measure requiring his attorney general to sue Congress if it passes health reforms that force residents to buy insurance. Similar legislation is pending in 37 other states nationwide.

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.

Democrats are hoping to pass a version of the reform by this weekend.

Last week, Virginia legislators passed a measure similar to Idaho’s new law, but Otter was the first state chief executive to sign such a bill, according the American Legislative Exchange Council, which created model legislation for Idaho and other states. The Washington, D.C.,-based nonprofit group promotes limited government.

“Congress is planning to force an unconstitutional mandate on the states,” said Herrera, the group’s health task force director.

Otter, a Republican, already warned U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in December that Idaho was considering litigation if health reform went through. He signed the bill during his first such public ceremony of the 2010 Legislature.

“What the Idaho Health Freedom Act says is that the citizens of our state won’t be subject to another federal mandate or turn over another part of their life to government control,” Otter said.

These types of bills may be more symbolic in nature than anything else, but they send a powerful message to the Obamacrats in Washington, DC on behalf of the people who live in those states that health insurance mandates and fines are not welcomed:

These state laws would directly conflict with the national health care bill that Democrats are trying to pass, which includes a requirement that all individuals get health coverage or face a tax penalty.

Several legal analysts said if Congress enacts a national health care law, it would supersede any state laws written to block them.

“I think most of the states that are passing these laws understand that they can’t trump federal law with state law,” said Professor Jonathan Siegel at George Washington University Law School. “But what they get out of it is symbolic effect. They’re sending a message to the federal politicians that they don’t like the health care mandate.”

Such state laws might not be the only legal challenge to Democratic health care legislation.

Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, a Republican, on Tuesday sent a letter to the other 49 state attorneys general, asking them to join him “in preparing a legal challenge to the constitutionality of whatever individual mandate provision emerges, immediately upon the legislation becoming law.”

To view the bill signed into law by Otter, click here. The Virginia bill is here.

 

Weds. Open Thread

Posted by: Sister Toldjah on March 17, 2010 at 9:01 pm

Must clean my office up. Tonight.

Got a new post up at the Lair listing some things that I feel are just flat out not cute (some based on recent experiences). Look forward to seeing your additions to the list.

St. Pat's Day 2010

A woman reacts after kissing a member of the U. S. Army's 1st Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment during the 183rd Savannah St. Patrick's Day parade, March 17, 2010 in Savannah, Ga. St. Patrick's Day was first celebrated in Savannah in 1813, when the Hibernian Society planned a private gathering.
(AP Photo/Stephen Morton)

Happy St. Pat’s Day %%- :)

 

Anyone catch the interview Bret Baier did with President Obama? (UPDATE: VIDEOS ADDED)

Posted by: Sister Toldjah on March 17, 2010 at 7:06 pm

I can’t wait til the transcript/video is posted online. I don’t think I’ve ever seen the President so defensive. And, of course, he did not answer a single question. Very revealing – or, rather, “transparent.”

As I wrote on Twitter, true journalists like Baier & Garrett are the REAL reasons Obama and Company (& the left) can’t stand Fox. Has very little to do w/ Hannity & O’Reilly.

As I was writing this, the transcript has been posted. Video clips to come soon.

Oh, and did I tell you Brit Hume was on Fox tonight going back and forth with Baier about the interview with the Prez? That was the icing on the cake for me. :D ;;)

Update – 7:27 PM: Link to the videos. Make sure to watch both parts.

Part 1:

Part 2:

 

Healthcare premiums to go down “3,000 percent” under ObamaCare?

Posted by: Sister Toldjah on March 17, 2010 at 9:33 am

A couple of days ago, in a speech in the battleground state of Ohio, President Obama made a shall we say lofty, ambitious claim about healthcare premiums and how much they supposedly would go down under ObamaCare. Sweetness and Light has the video of his remarks. David Gibberman at The American Thinker breaks the numbers down:

Monday in Strongsville, Ohio, President Obama said that ObamaCare will reduce health insurance premiums by “3,000 percent.” Considering that a 50 percent decrease in premiums would mean that we’d be paying half as much as we now pay for health insurance and that a 100 percent decrease in premiums would mean that we’d be paying nothing for health insurance, President Obama is telling us that insurance companies will actually start paying us money to keep our health insurance.

If your current health insurance policy costs $5,000 a year, insurance companies will pay you $145,000 a year (2,900 percent multiplied by $5,000). If you’re fortunate enough to be paying $25,000 a year for health insurance, insurance companies will pay you $725,000 a year. There’s no word whether you can purchase a more expensive health insurance policy to increase the amount of money that insurers pay you each year.

ST reader GWR, who tipped me off to this story, quipped in email:

My guess is that someone programmed the wrong number into the teleprompter and Obama has so little comprehension of basic math or the realities of paying for insurance that he didn’t find anything wrong with it.

That would be my guess, too – esp. if you take a look at the relevant part of the transcript:

Now, so let me talk about the third thing, which is my proposal would bring down the cost of health care for families, for businesses, and for the federal government. So Americans buying comparable coverage to what they have today — I already said this — would see premiums fall by 14 to 20 percent — that’s not my numbers, that’s what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says — for Americans who get their insurance through the workplace. How many people are getting insurance through their jobs right now? Raise your hands. All right. Well, a lot of those folks, your employer it’s estimated would see premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent [sic], which means they could give you a raise. (Applause.)

[Sic], of course, means:

Sic is a Latin word meaning “thus”, “so”, “as such”, or “in such a manner”. In writing, it is placed within the quoted material, in square brackets – or outside it, in regular parentheses – and usually italicized – [sic] – to indicate that an incorrect or unusual spelling, phrase, punctuation, and/or other preceding quoted material has been reproduced verbatim from the quoted original and is not a transcription error.[1]

With that being said, did he actually mean to say 300% or 30%? Probably 30%, but so far, no acknowledgement/correction/clarification has been made by the WH that the TOTUS perhaps had a hiccup on Monday in Ohio (yes, we must blame the TOTUS, not the POTUS, because the POTUS is never wrong, you see …).

And speaking of Obama’s Monday speech, the AP reports that a cancer-stricken woman he’s been using as part of his centerpiece for healthcare reform actually is in no danger of losing her house, contra to what both O and his administration (including spox Robert Fibbs) have asserted about her situation more than once:

A woman championed as the Obama administration’s emblem for health care reform does not have to choose between her home and her health, according to officials at the Ohio hospital where she is being treated.

With a self-reported annual income of about $6,000, Natoma Canfield is a prime candidate for financial aid in the form of Medicaid — the federal health care program for low-income and disabled people — or charitable assistance.

And the Cleveland Clinic said it has no intention of putting out a lien on Canfield’s house — or letting the billing process interfere with her treatment.

“It appears that I think she’ll be fine,” said Lyman Sornberger, the hospital’s executive director of patient financial services. “By nature of the fact that she was not early on rejected by either program, that’s a key indicator that she will most likely be eligible.”

Canfield was stunned last month when she unsealed a handwritten letter from none other than the president himself. She had written to Obama before the holidays to request that he count her as a “statistic,” as she put it, among the scores of Americans unable to afford health insurance — but she never expected to get a response.

“I still can’t get over the thrill of opening that,” said Canfield, 50, who is undergoing chemotherapy treatments for leukemia.

Obama traveled to northeast Ohio on Monday to champion Canfield’s plight as proof of why health care reform is so urgently needed. The self-employed cleaning worker also stole the spotlight at Tuesday’s White House press briefing, when she was mentioned several times by press secretary Robert Gibbs as a make-or-break vote on Obama’s health care overhaul loomed over lawmakers.

“I think there are many that would want to conflate this process into something that’s different than the product; that is different than the heart-wrenching stories of people, as I’ve said, like Natoma Canfield … who made a decision to give up her health care to keep her house, a gamble that she’s lost,” Gibbs said.

Canfield’s not the only one who is stunned. I’m seriously stunned that the PrObama AP would even report this. I had previously seen it reported only on Fox, and I mentioned it briefly in this post yesterday. As I insinuated there, Ms. Canfield isn’t the first person whose story the President has hijacked, twisted, and misrepresented in order to get his ultra left wing agenda shoved through Congress, and sadly, she won’t be the last.

It’s understandably a thrill for Ms. Canfield to have the President use her story as a symbol of all that is wrong with our current healthcare system, but it’s not a thrill for anyone else desirous of having an open, honest, and up front debate free of misleading anecdotes and personal stories meant to persuade people purely on an emotional rather than factual basis. I wish her all the best, but for this President and his admininstration I have nothing but contempt for the way they have shamelessly and purposely manipulated her story in order to sell this monstrosity of an unpopular bill to the American people.

This, my dear readers, is “transparency” you can believe in – but not the type of “transparency” candidate Obama promised while on the campaign trail. Chalk it up as another one in a long line of broken promises, pledges I suspect he had no intentions of ever keeping.

 

VIDEO: One of the many reasons we should all dig Sen. Jim Inhofe

Posted by: Sister Toldjah on March 16, 2010 at 7:06 pm

Responding to The Goracle’s claim in a Feb. 28th NYT opinion piece that climate skeptics were a part of a “criminal generation,” Inhofe gave a speech on the floor of the Senate yesterday blasting both Gore and other global warming alarmists on their repeated false claims on data and their routine demonization of anyone and everyone who disagrees with them. And he did it using a priceless Weekly Standard cover (via Ed Morrissey):

The above clip is a short version of the complete speech, which you can watch/listen to in its entirety – or read the transcript, if you prefer – here. This, from the transcript, is classic Inhofe:

As a private citizen, Mr. Gore asked not to have to disclose his income and assets, as he did– as I do, as others do in this Chamber in his years in Congress and the White House. When he left government in 2001, he listed assets of less than $2 million, including homes in suburban Washington and in Tennessee. Since then his net worth has skyrocketed, helped by timely investments in Apple and Google, profits from books and his movie, and the scores of speeches for which he can be paid more than $100,000 …..a speech. I suggest now that price may be going down a little bit for Al Gore.

Mr. Gore’s spokeswoman would not give a figure for his current net worth, but the scale of his wealth is evident in a single investment of $35 million in Capricorn Investment Group. …..

It goes on and on. I ask unanimous consent to submit the rest of this for the Record because it is pretty good reading.

“Marc Morano, a climate change skeptic who was recently a top aide to [me], Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, said that what he saw as Mr. Gore’s alarmism and occasional exaggerations distorted the debate and also served his personal financial interests.”

I say don’t feel sorry for Al Gore. He is doing fine right now.

LOL. Make sure to read/watch the whole thing.

 

Once upon a time, some Democrats were opposed to Slaughter-like solutions

Posted by: Sister Toldjah on March 16, 2010 at 10:39 am

And you’ll never guess which three. Well, maybe you will. Mark Tapscott writes:

But put aside the present for the moment and step into my time machine. Dial the date selector back to 2005 when the Republican majority in Congress approved a national debt limit increase using a self-executing rule similar to the Slaughter Solution.

Guess who went to federal court to challenge the constitutionality of the move? The Ralph Nader-backed Public Citizen legal activists. Here’s the argument they made:

“Article I of the United States Constitution requires that before proposed legislation may “become[] a Law,” U.S. CONST. art. I, § 7, cl. 2, “(1) a bill containing its exact text [must be] approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate [must] approve[] precisely the same text; and (3) that text [must be] signed into law by the President,” Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 448, 118 S.Ct. 2091, 141 L.Ed.2d 393 (1998).

“Public Citizen, a not-for-profit consumer advocacy organization, filed suit in District Court claiming that the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Pub.L. No. 109-171, 120 Stat. 4 (2006) (“DRA” or “Act”), is invalid because the bill that was presented to the President did not first pass both chambers of Congress in the exact same form. In particular, Public Citizen contends that the statute’s enactment did not comport with the bicameral passage requirement of Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution, because the version of the legislation that was presented to the House contained a clerk’s error with respect to one term, so the House and Senate voted on slightly different versions of the bill and the President signed the version passed by the Senate.

“Public Citizen asserts that it is irrelevant that the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate both signed a version of the proposed legislation identical to the version signed by the President. Nor does it matter, Public Citizen argues, that the congressional leaders’ signatures attest that indistinguishable legislative text passed both houses.” (Emphasis added)

And now for the kicker, guess who joined Public Citizen in that suit with amicus briefs:

Nancy Pelosi
Henry Waxman
Louise Slaughter

Hmm. Now, is this not a flip-flop of epic proportions? Of course it is. The left will be quick to point out that Republicans are “flip-flopping” on the issue of Slaughter-type solutions. Not so fast, says Andy McCarthy:

The bad news for present purposes is that they lost the case. The D.C. Circuit in Public Citizen v. U.S. District Court upheld the procedure. Upheld in this case does not mean endorsed. The Court did not say the self-executing rule was constitutional. It said it could not reach the question due to the standards of deference that apply between departments of government: If the presiding officers of both houses of Congress attest that their respective chambers have passed a piece of legislation, the Court is required to accept those representations as conclusive.

That doesn’t mean it is proper for government officials to execute a procedure that violates the Constitution, nor does it mean that a presiding officer should attest something that is not true. It does, however, suggest that it may be an uphill battle to get a court to declare the process null and void.

Mark is correct to point out that raising the debt ceiling is (regrettably) a routine, uncontroversial practice. Byron made a similar point yesterday in running down the handful of times the “self-executing” procedure has been followed. The key here is that in each instance, at issue was something that was non-controversial or almost ministerial — not, as with heathcare, an unpopular, bitterly opposed, ragingly controversial socialization of the private economy.

I think Democrats are mistaking a customary short-cut for a substantive precedent.

Yeah, I’ll say.

In related news, opponents of ObamaCare are making their voices known today by marching on Washington.    Pat Austin has the who, what, when, and where of what’s happening.

Update – 11:40 AM: It’s heating up even more on the Hill:  House Republicans to force vote on Pelosi’s Slaughter House solution

 

Say, Mr. Obama? Would you please campaign for Democrats in my state?

Posted by: Sister Toldjah on March 15, 2010 at 8:59 pm

Because I’d like to see this happen over and over and over come November and beyond …

(via Jim Geraghty)