Using “reconciliation” to smash through unpopular legislation

Posted By Neal Boortz On March 4, 2010 (6:28 am) In Voices and Choices

While Barack Obama didn’t explicitly say it, he opened the door for Democrats to use reconciliation to pass healthcare reform. And that is exactly what they intend to do. Obama says:

“[N]o matter which approach you favor, I believe the United States Congress owes the American people a final vote on health care reform. We have debated this issue thoroughly, not just for a year, but for decades. Reform has already passed the House with a majority. It has already passed the Senate with a supermajority of sixty votes. And now it deserves the same kind of up-or-down vote that was cast on welfare reform, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, COBRA health coverage for the unemployed, and both Bush tax cuts — all of which had to pass Congress with nothing more than a simple majority … I have therefore asked leaders in both of Houses of Congress to finish their work and schedule a vote in the next few weeks.”

Never mind the .. dare I say it .. hypocrisy surrounding this approach. Here is not one but four different examples of Obama demagoguing the use of reconciliation.

CBS Interview 11/2/04
My understanding of the Senate is that you need 60 votes to get something significant to happen, which means that Democrats and Republicans have to ask the question, do we have the will to move an American agenda forward, not a Democratic or Republican agenda forward?

Change to Win Convention 9/25/07
The bottom line is that our healthcare plans are similar, the question once again is, who can get it done? Who can build a movement for change? This is an area where we’re going to have to have a 60% majority in the Senate and the House in order to actually get a bill to my desk. We’re going to have to have a majority to get a bill to my desk. That is not just a fifty plus one majority.

Obama Interview with the Concord Monitor 10/9/07
You’ve got to break out of what I call the sort of fifty plus one pattern of presidential politics. Maybe you eke out a victory of fifty plus one. Then you can’t govern. You know, you get Air Force One, there are a lot of nice perks, but you can’t deliver on healthcare. We are not going to pass universal health care with a fifty plus one strategy.

Center for American Progress Conference 7/12/06
Those big-ticket items: fixing our health care system. You know, one of the arguments that sometimes I get with my fellow progressives, and some of these have flashed up in the blog communities on occasion, is this notion that we should function sort of like Karl Rove where we identify our core base, we throw ‘em red meat, we get a fifty plus one victory. See, Karl Rove doesn’t need a broad consensus because he doesn’t believe in government. If we want to transform the country, though, that requires a sizeable majority.

And then lest we forget this from Robert Byrd in 2005. When Republicans wanted to use reconciliation to stop the Democrat filibuster of Bush judicial nominees, Robert Byrd compared the strategy to Nazi tactics. Seriously!Here’s what he had to say back then:

Many times in our history we have taken up arms to protect a minority against the tyrannical majority in other lands. We, unlike Nazi Germany or Mussolini’s Italy, have never stopped being a nation of laws, not of men.

But witness how men with motives and a majority can manipulate law to cruel and unjust ends. Historian Alan Bullock writes that Hitler’s dictatorship rested on the constitutional foundation of a single law, the Enabling Law. Hitler needed a two-thirds vote to pass that law, and he cajoled his opposition in the Reichstag to support it. Bullock writes that “Hitler was prepared to promise anything to get his bill through, with the appearances of legality preserved intact.” And he succeeded.

Hitler’s originality lay in his realization that effective revolutions, in modern conditions, are carried out with, and not against, the power of the State: the correct order of events was first to secure access to that power and then begin his revolution. Hitler never abandoned the cloak of legality; he recognized the enormous psychological value of having the law on his side. Instead, he turned the law inside out and made illegality legal.

Please, folks; if you won’t fight for your liberty, how about fighting for the future of your children and grandchildren.

Other articles that you may enjoy

• June 5, 2009 — Blame America’s parents for this mess (0)
• September 5, 2009 — Labor Day celebrated across the US (1)
• November 2, 2009 — AP sources: House health bill totals $1.2 trillion (0)
• January 5, 2010 — US revoking Visas after Detroit airliner incident (0)
• May 18, 2007 — Why are they lying about Ron Paul? (2)

Article taken from SmallGovTimes.com – http://www.smallgovtimes.com
URL to article: http://www.smallgovtimes.com/2010/03/using-reconciliation-to-smash-through-unpopular-legislation/

 

Cap-and-Trade treason

Posted By Alan Caruba On April 27, 2010 (6:30 am) In Voices and Choices

If you thought that the way the Obama administration and its cohort of Democrats in Congress rammed through the takeover of the nation’s healthcare system was appalling, prepare to watch the same process applied to Cap-and-Trade. Your government no longer represents you, the voter, the citizen.
 
Cap-and-Trade (H.R. 2454) allegedly is about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but there is no scientific justification for this because there is no “global warming” that requires it, nor is manmade, anthropogenic, generation of carbon dioxide (CO2) a threat to the planet. Just the opposite, everything dies without it; all vegetation and all animal life. Life on Earth would thrive if there was even more CO2.
 
To what end would Congress impose such emission limits when they do not exist throughout China, India, third world “developing” nations, and are being abandoned by European Union nations where the Kyoto Protocol limits have harmed their economies?
 
Global warming has been exposed as a massive hoax and fraud. Why would the United States Senate proceed to enact a bill based on it? In essence, it will make some corporations, utilities, and people very rich and impoverish the rest of us.
 
Having passed the House, the Senate will be handed a huge bill that, like healthcare, few will have read before they vote. It will impose the largest tax the nation has ever seen.
 
The act will bless the various “exchanges” created for the sale and trade of “carbon credits” that have no value whatever. It creates a bubble comparable to the sub-prime mortgage debacle that triggered the 2008 financial crisis and resulting recession.
 
The amount of CO2 will not be reduced because the Earth produces 97% of all the CO2 in the atmosphere. Even then, that amount is the smallest part of the atmosphere that consists of more than 95 percent water vapor!
 
Cap-and-Trade is an act of betrayal because it will destroy the U.S. economy, destroy jobs, and further impoverish Americans in a variety of ways. 
 
The Cap-and-Trade Act that has already passed the House will be put in play by Senators John Kerry, Lindsey Graham, and Joseph Lieberman. It was created in the House by Rep. Henry Waxman and Rep. Edward Markey. They know the bill will set in motion the destruction of the nation whose life’s blood is affordable and abundant energy use.
 
Just as the Obama administration moved swiftly to acquire ownership of General Motors and Chrysler, to take over insurance giant AIG, control one sixth of the nation’s economy through the healthcare act, and is now seeking to expand the regulation of Wall Street, Cap-and-Trade will ensure the destruction of the nation as manufacturing flees to other parts of the world.
 
Beginning one year after enactment, homeowners will not be able to sell their homes without complying with onerous and unnecessary energy and water “efficiency” standards. These standards, moreover, will increase annually. Within five years, 90 percent of the residential market will be controlled by the government.
 
On April 19, the Environmental Protection Agency announced new guidelines for “Energy Star” homes requiring them to increase “efficiency” by 20 percent more than those built to the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code. Home ownership, already the largest expense for Americans, will be further increased by required upgrades.
 
According to the Congressional Budget Office, in a few years the average cost of energy use to every family of four will be $6,800 per year. No one will be exempt from energy taxes and you can expect the cost of a gallon of gasoline to rise beyond $4 to European levels.
 
In Europe, industrial carbon quotas have enriched the continent’s biggest energy users such as steel and cement makers. Their surplus carbon permits, often provided for free, are estimated to be worth more than $4 billion at current market rates by 2012. There is no scientific justification for them.
 
It will be the U.S. government that will determine who receives the initial free “carbon credits”, thus giving corporations that have supported Cap-and-Trade a huge advantage over those who do not. Not only will the government rake in billions from the taxes to be imposed, but utilities will raise their prices and pass it along to consumers. 
 
There is no need whatever to reduce use of so-called “fossil fuels.” There is no need for the “efficiency” and “conservation” measures that will be imposed. If the government would permit access to the nation’s vast reserves of coal, oil and natural gas, none of this would be needed, but it will not.
 
The nation is under attack from within by a consortium of fanatical environmentalists and rent-seeking corporations and utilities seeking to profit from these government mandates and limits.
 
It is the perfect storm. It is treason.
 
Editor’s Note:  Politico.com: (4/24/10) The planned Monday unveiling of a bipartisan climate bill was postponed after one of its three authors, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), said that he couldn’t support the legislation if Democrats moved it to the backburner to focus first on immigration reform. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) announced the postponement Saturday evening, saying that “external issues have arisen that force us to postpone only temporarily.”

 

Obamacare Blowback dumbfounds disbelieving Democrats – Garry Reed

News & Commentary from the liberterrain…

The Democrats, like the Neocons before them, seem genuinely baffled that people despise them.

They can’t comprehend that millions of Americans, forced to bend over for an unwanted Obamacare colonoscopy without so much as a dollop of petroleum jelly, might be a mite PO-ed.

The Broken Window Fallacy Reapplied: Democrats impose
   their economic “policies” on their subjects but cry, “Not in
   my back window!” (courtesy Ludwig von Mises Institute)

---

More economic idiocy:

• Retelling the Tale of the Broken Window
  
• The middleclass czar
  
• The Great Depression comes to Cowtown
  
• Libertarianism 101: What’s the libertarian position on Economics?

A CBS News article reports people responding in kind, with an eye for an eye reply that implies, “What’s good for the unassuming citizen ought to be good for the elitist lawmaker.”

Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-MO), found a coffin in front of his house meant to symbolize Obamacare-aborted babies (but according to many Republicans may symbolize Carnahan’s political future.)

This is nothing compared to the millions who believe they live in a land of property rights finding bulldozers in front of their homes with slick-talking politicians and their rich developer buddies shoving eminent domain documents in their faces.

What’s good for the law-abiding is good for the lawmaker.

Others who voted for Obamacare decry the threats filling their voicemail, mailboxes and inboxes.

But that’s nothing compared to the monumental mound of laws that threaten all citizens with fines, arrest, prosecution, imprisonment and even death by trigger-happy law enforcers for failing to conform to every whim of the law creators.

What’s good for the law-abiding is good for the lawmaker.

Yet the most ironic, and perhaps poetic, responses are the bricks thrown through Democrats’ windows.

This is the “Broken Window Fallacy” come to life.

This is the heart of Keynesian economic theory much embraced by modern collectivists such as the Obama brigades.

When a window is broken it puts a glass repairman to work. He can then afford a faux Rolex from a pawnbroker who buys a bassoon from a musician who buys a moose head from a taxidermist and so on, benefiting the entire community.

(Libertarians know it’s a fallacy but the left calls it a “policy.” Recommended reading: Retelling the Tale of the Broken Window.)

So Democrats should relish their busted windows. This is a grassroots jobs creation bill, a populist stimulus package, a spontaneous redistribution of wealth so beloved by Comrade Obama during his Hope and Change campaign.

As the folks at Broken Window Watch put it, “Almost every economic policy proposed by Congress is some variant of the Broken Window Fallacy.”

What’s good for the law-abiding is good for the lawmaker.

 

Obama’s Approval Rating Lowest Yet, Congress’ Declines

March 18, 2010

Slightly more disapprove than approve of Obama

by Jeffrey M. Jones

PRINCETON, NJ — President Barack Obama’s job approval is the worst of his presidency to date, with 46% of Americans approving and 48% disapproving of the job he is doing as president in the latest Gallup Daily three-day average.

“Americans hold Congress in far less esteem than they do the president — 16% approve and 80% disapprove of the job Congress is doing.”

Obama’s approval rating has hovered around 50% since November, but in the last two days has declined to the point that slightly more Americans now disapprove than approve of his performance in office.

The new low ratings come during a week in which the White House and Democratic congressional leaders are working to convince wavering House Democrats to support healthcare reform, which they hope to pass using a series of parliamentary maneuvers in the House of Representatives and Senate.

Americans hold Congress in far less esteem than they do the president — 16% approve and 80% disapprove of the job Congress is doing, according to the latest update from a March 4-7 Gallup poll. That is just two points off the record-low 14% Gallup measured in July 2008. Gallup has been measuring congressional approval since 1974.

Congress’ image improved during the early part of the Obama administration, peaking at 39% in March 2009. But by last month its ratings were back to where they were before Obama took office, mainly due to a loss in support from Democratic identifiers.

Bottom Line

Public support for President Obama and Congress — both of which were running near their low points prior to the beginning of this month — continues to slip. That is an ominous sign heading into this year’s midterm elections. As of now, Gallup’s tracking of congressional election preferences suggests a close House race, and a much worse performance for Democrats than in the 2006 election that restored the party to majority status in Congress.

Survey Methods

Results for Obama job approval are based on telephone interviews with a random sample of 1,478 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted March 15-17, 2010, as part of Gallup Daily tracking. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

Results for congressional job approval are based on telephone interviews with a random sample of 1,014 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted March 4-7, 2010. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±4 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones and cellular phones.

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

 

The cost of President Barack Obama

Posted By Neal Boortz On March 9, 2010 (6:25 am) In Voices and Choices

There is one thing that Democrats, Republicans and Independents can all agree on – the debt we owe is our greatest long-term threat to national security. By a two-to-one margin, Americans of all demographics and political parties believe that the amount of money we owe to China is now a greater long-term threat than radical Islam. They’re right, but it’s must worse than that. The level of debt facing this country will destroy the dreams of our children and grandchildren. It is hard to imagine that future generations will have the opportunity to pursue anything close to the lifestyle we enjoy as they are faced with this crushing debt to retire.

Just how bad is this problem? Read on …..

Last Friday, the Congressional Budget office released a report stating that our projected debt is actually going to be much higher than the White House predicted. Wow! Now who didn’t see THAT coming? The CBO says that Obama’s budget is going to lead to annual deficits averaging $1 trillion for the next decade. The White House’s prediction was an annual budget shortfall of $853 billion for the next decade. Why the discrepancy? Obama expects to bring in more tax revenue. The CBO, on the other hand, does not believe the Obama economy will be able to generate the tax revenue because it expects less economic growth. In fact, the CBO predicts that the deficit will never fall below 4% of the GDP under Obama’s policies and “would begin to grow rapidly after 2015.”

(By the way, as of right now our predicted annual deficit for this year is $1.5 trillion – a post WWII record at 10.3% of our economy.)

But back to this report … the CBO says that deficits of that magnitude would force the Treasury to continue borrowing at prodigious rates, sending the national debt soaring to 90% of the economy by 2020, while interest payments on the debt would also skyrocket by $800 billion over the same period.

Speaking of interest rates, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell puts our interest rates into perspective. He says, ” … in just four years the administration predicts the government will have to spend more just to pay interest on the federal debt than it spends on the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, HUD (Housing and Urban Development), Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Treasury, and the Corps of Engineers, Environment Protection Agency, GSA (General Services Administration), NASA, National Science Foundation, Small Business Administration and the Social Security Administration — combined.”