As you are probably aware of by now, Republicans introduced a series of amendments to the Health Care Reform Bill that the Democrats successfully fought to keep out. I thought it would be interesting to take a look at the things Democrats decided to stand up and protect you, the American people from. Here is my top ten list of amendments that were stricken by the left.
10. Democrats fight to raise your taxes.
The Democrats were able to beat an amendment offered by Senator John Cornyn - to drop the 3.8 percent tax on investment income. Good to see the Democrats focused on raising taxes in a bad economy.
9. Democrats fight to keep you unemployed.
The Republicans wanted employers who hired people who have been laid off by the massive job cuts of the Obama economy to be protected from increased costs of employment that the Health Care Reform bill brought on, but Democrats bravely stood up for your right to be funemployed by beating back a measure introduced by Senator Susan Collins - would waive any employer penalties for new workers hired who had been previously unemployed.
8. Democrats fight to ensure decreased funding for health coverage for the elderly.
Republicans used the amendment process to try to ensure continued funding of health care for the elderly, but Democrats fought hard and were able to block the provision by Senator Orrin Hatch - would block cuts to the Medicare Advantage program.
7. Democrats fight to increase the cost of getting an education.
With the high cost of higher education already making college out of the reach of many Americans, the Republicans introduced an amendment that attempted to ensure that the government would not add to the existing burden. Democrats, however, rose up to defeat the amendment offered by Senator Lamar Alexander - a measure requiring a reduction in student loan interest rates.
6. Democrats fought to keep their health care better than yours.
Having just decided to reduce funding to Medicare Advantage, it is no surprise that Democrats fought this amendment by Senator George LeMieux - would force members of Congress to receive healthcare coverage through Medicaid.
5. Democrats fight to balance big government on the backs of the elderly.
Having lost the health care battle, Republicans were forced to concede to the left on their desire to grow the size of Government. They did, however, make on last ditch effort to make sure this growth wouldn't come at the expense of the elderly. Democrats successfully killed this effort by ensuring no senior will be left alone when the killed the amendment introduced by Senator Judd Gregg - to block the use of any savings from the Medicare health plan for the elderly to pay for new government spending in the health bill.
4. Democrats fight to burden veterans with higher health care costs.
There was a day when going off to face down the enemy on the battle field was appreciated in this Country. Republicans wanted to keep that day alive, but Democrats took a firm stand to ensure that placing your life on the line for your Country wouldn't get you any special favors by defeating the amendment by Senator Orrin Hatch - to stop a medical device tax from applying to devices used for veterans' care.
3. Democrats fight to raise taxes on those earning less than $250,000 a year.
Even President Obama has claimed to embrace that idea, but Senate Democrats made sure it would be no more than campaign rhetoric when they tabled the amendment by Senator Mike Crapo - to ensure that families earning under $250,000 a year do not get hit with a tax increase.
2. Democrats fight to protect themselves from the law they just imposed on you.
Perhaps you are skeptical that this health care reform will be any good. Democrats proved that they are too when they defeated an amendment by Senator Charles Grassley - would require the president and members of Congress purchase insurance through the exchange.
1. Democrats fight to keep sex offenders viable.
As more and more liberal judges let more and more sex offenders off with light sentences, perhaps you have taken some comfort in the thought that eventually these rapists will get old and their junk won't work anymore. Well, that idea took a setback as Democrats fought to make sure that sex offenders will be able to receive erectile dysfunction drugs when the beat back an amendment offered by Senator Tom Coburn - would bar insurance plans on the exchange from covering erectile dysfunction drugs for child molesters and rapists.
Wow, isn't it nice to see these leftists working so hard for us?
How many people would like a proposal that holds insurance companies accountable?
Well, under the health reform bill that passed yesterday, Obama most certainly did hold the health insurance companies accountable. If by holding them accountable you mean ordering every American to either pay them money or be fined, that is. Wow, way to be tough on those insurance companies. Hey, is there any way you could hold me accountable? I am just like those darned insurance companies, after all.
President Barack Obama accused insurance companies of placing profits over people and said Republicans ignored long-festering problems when they held power as he sought to build support Monday for swift passage of legislation stalled in Congress.
Why, just yesterday I was hauling a load of generic ice cream. You know, the cheap stuff. So I asked myself, who really buys cheap ice cream? You know what I concluded? That's right, poor people do. That's when it dawned on me that I could put people over profits, haul this ice cream for free, and make it cheaper for the poor people. Of course, if I did that, I would soon be even poorer than the poor, and not even be able to afford the ice cream I was hauling. So then I figured, heck. It's my name on the bills. Technically, I am responsible for this ice cream until the receiver takes possession of it and signs for it on the bills. Why don't I really put people ahead of profits and park on the side of the road and open up the doors and let people help themselves? But if I did that, the Government would come after me for giving away the shippers ice cream, and then I would really be in trouble. But why would Obama want to put me in jail for putting people over profits? Hmmm... I guess he just hates poor people and doesn't want their children to have ice cream. I guess he must be in the pockets of big dairy who eat their ice cream in front of poor children and laugh at them because they don't have any.
Most Americans would need to line up insurance, starting in 2014, or get slapped with a fine. The pain would be small at first -- $95, or up to 1 percent of income, whichever is greater, for an individual. By 2016, the fine would increase to $695, or 2.5 percent of income.
Yes, President Obama cares so much about the poor that he has now ordered them buy health insurance from those evil insurance companies that have been ripping people off. Judging from my last observation, I clearly didn't understand compassion. Now, however, I believe I have a handle on it. So I decided I should drive into a poor community and eat ice cream in front of poor kids, all the while laughing at them for not having any. Then, when I finished my ice cream, I should sell the remaining ice cream (at a hefty profit, because I care more about that then children, of course) to the poor kids. Some of them wouldn't have enough money to buy the ice cream, of course, but that can be taken care of as well. From those children I would just take whatever money they did have, and not give them any ice cream at all. Other children would have no money at all, so there would be nothing to take from them, and they would get no ice cream. That way it would be fair and, most importantly, compassionate to everybody.
This was clearly the best plan of all. It was fair, it punished me by giving me a bunch of new customers, and it helped the poor by taking their money and not giving them any ice cream. Without delay, I proceeded to set my plan into action. It was great. Kids were so happy to see me there eating ice cream. Those with money began lining up to buy their ice cream. Those who didn't have enough began to make their donations. Those with no money started crying (from joy, I am sure) and headed home. But then, before I could even make my first sale, Michelle Obama showed up and started kicking the bowls of ice cream out of the hands of the little fat kids, telling them they were going to get diabetes.
At this point, I decided that I'm perfectly comfortable with being a mean spirited Republican who places profits ahead of people. Of course, I know that I am evil because not everyone can afford to pay me to haul something. I know that I hate the poor because not everybody can afford what I haul. And I know that I should really be ashamed of myself for wanting to use my profits for what I wish, rather than spending as the Government sees fit. But I do find some small comfort in the fact that under my plan, at the end of the day, at least somebody gets to be happy and eat a bowl of ice cream.
In perhaps some of the worst news yet for President Obama's push for health care reform, a recent study found that 81% of Americans believe that the bill being pushed towards becoming law will cost more than the Government claims it will. How bad is this for Obama? In short, 79% of Americans can correctly answer that the earth revolves around the sun. You do the math. But the facts coming out on this poll are worse than the opinions about it.
Also of concern here is the promise of President Obama not to raise taxes on 95% of Americans. FOX News is reporting that this promise would be broken by the health care reform as it stands.
A nonpartisan study is casting new doubt on President Obama's campaign pledge not to raise taxes on the middle class.
The Senate health care bill crucial to saving President Obama's signature domestic initiative will hit the wallets of a quarter of all Americans making less than $200,000 per year, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Joint Tax Committee that assessed the way the bill would hit taxpayers directly through new taxes and fees and indirectly through taxes levied on health care providers and passed on to consumers.
The committee also determined that the bill would subsidized insurance premiums for 7 percent of taxpayers -- about 13 million people -- while some 73 million people would face higher costs from the new fees and taxes.
The potential tax increases in the bill could pose significant problems for the president as he makes his final push for health care reform because he promised to protect middle-class Americans from any tax hikes. Republicans already are pouncing on the committee's analysis.
"For every family that gets some benefit from this program, in other words, a premium subsidy, three families are going to get a tax increase and those three families obviously include the bulk of people you'd call middle class America," Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, told Fox News.
Democratic leaders are scrambling to gather enough votes to pass the bill in the House later this month so that changes House members want can be added in the Senate through reconciliation, an unusual tactic that allows a simple majority in the Senate to counteract a filibuster by the minority. The steps are part of Obama's final push to pass a comprehensive health care reform bill.
The analysis comes as the Congressional Budget Office updated its cost tally of the Senate bill, estimating that the last-minute changes made to the bill before it was passed Christmas Eve upped the price to $875 billion, from $871 billion. The CBO also estimates that the bill would reduce the federal deficit by $118 billion over a 10 year period, revised down from $132 billion.
But the projection could be undermined by future spending needed to administer parts of the bill, including up to $10 billion for the IRS, up to $20 billion for Health and Human Services and up to $50 billion for "grant programs and other provisions."
As I have pointed out before, this CBO analysis of the Health Care Reform Bill is highly skeptical anyway. Now before you take the Democrat talking point here, and say that I don't accept what the CBO says if I don't like it, let's pause for a moment here and look at what the CBO really said.
It’s true that the CBO’s admittedly rough estimate said the bill could reduce the deficit below its projected level by “as much as” about $1 trillion over 20 years — but it also said the reduction could be half of that amount. And it noted the estimate is subject to a great deal of uncertainty.
CBO normally gives estimates for 10-year periods, and the nonpartisan entity doesn’t like to go beyond that. It said the Senate bill could produce a net deficit reduction of $132 billion over 2010-2019. For the next decade, CBO said the reduction would be “in a broad range between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of GDP.” Senate Democrats estimated that would mean a reduction of $650 billion to $1.3 trillion.
That is a far cry from what the Democrats are saying. So no, I'm not opposed to what the CBO said. First off, to say that the CBO says that they bill will do these things is false, when the CBO calls its own estimate a "rough estimate". Second, the CBO prefaces their results by telling us that they don't typically give estimates beyond ten years. Finally, the CBO said the bill could, not would, do these things. Hence, for President Obama to throw these numbers out there saying that the CBO has said these things will happen is the economic equivalent of my saying that I don't typically plan six months ahead, and I'm not sure if I will be in the area at that time, but if nothing else comes up I will try to go to your wedding being called a firm RSVP.
So now, we see the CBO beginning to adjust the numbers down, and the Joint Tax Committee adjusting the tax expenses up, and this makes me question the logic of this bill somehow being a win for Obama. I understand that the President desperately needs a win here, but how do we calculate a win? Forget process, and all the talking points, and just look at the bill in light of the poll numbers the Democrats themselves have been touting. Here are the questions that were asked in the poll that they claim shows Americans favor the bill when they understand what is in it.
6. Now I’m going to read you some SPECIFIC proposals people have made to change the health care system. As I read each one, please tell me if you personally favor or oppose this change. Here’s the (first/next) proposal…. (INSERT ITEM—READ AND RANDOMIZE) READ AS NECESSARY: Do you favor or oppose this proposal (to change the health care system)? ALWAYS ASK ITEMS a-c AS A GROUP, IN ORDER: Favor Oppose DK a. Requiring that all Americans have health insurance, with the government providing financial help to those who can’t afford it 59 36 5 =100 b. Requiring most businesses to offer health insurance to their employees, with tax incentives for small business owners to do so 75 20 5 =100 c. If health coverage is required for everyone, imposing fines on individuals who don’t obtain coverage and on larger businesses that don’t offer it 28 62 10 =100 d. Requiring health insurance companies to cover anyone who applies, even if they have a pre-existing medical condition 76 19 5 =100 e. Creating a government-administered public health insurance option to compete with private plans 50 42 8 =100 f. Creating a new insurance marketplace – the Exchange – that allows people without health insurance to compare plans and buy insurance at competitive rates 81 13 6 =100 g. Preventing insurance companies from dropping coverage when people are sick 59 38 3 =100 h. Imposing a tax on insurers who offer the most expensive health plans, the so-called Cadillac plans, to help pay for health care reform 34 55 11 =100 7. Now please think about the proposals I just described to you. ALL of these proposals are included in Barack Obama’s health care reform plan. Having heard these details, what is your OVERALL opinion of Obama’s plan – do you favor it or oppose it? Favor Oppose DK CURRENT TOTAL 48 43 9 =100 Men 43 49 8 =100 Women 52 38 10 =100 Republicans 18 74 8 =100 Democrats 83 10 7 =100 Independents 34 57 9 =100 Conservative 26 68 6 =100 Moderate 54 35 11 =100 Liberal 79 16 5 =100
Notice, amongst Republicans the numbers are 18% for and 74% against. With Independents, the number becomes 34% for and 57% against. The swing comes from Democrats who support it 83% to 10% opposed. However, a few key things were left out of the questions. Notice, there was no mention of the tax increases on medical devices, the tax increases on the middle class, the potential of one being thrown in jail for failing to get health care, and the huge cuts to Medi-Care. Based on the fact that only 34% support the tax increase on insurance companies, and only 28% support the fines on individuals who don't get health insurance, I'm wiling to bet that adding a few of the other things that this bill does would change those numbers a bit.
Lastly, I believe that the sample group should also be mentioned when looking at the results of this poll.
SAMPLE SIZE/MARGIN OF ERROR FOR KEY SUBGROUPS: 908 Registered Voters (plus or minus 3.8) 488 Men (plus or minus 5.3) 521 Women (plus or minus 5.0) 259 Republicans (plus or minus 6.9) 319 Democrats (plus or minus 6.5) 399 Independents (plus or minus 5.8)
On last week's show, I discussed how President Obama has managed to anger both sides of the aisle with the health care reform process. Pro-Life voters were lashing out at the Senate version, while Pro-Choice groups were upset at efforts to reach out to Congressman Stupak. I wondered aloud how a politician manages to get both sides of the aisle shooting at him. Typically, the easiest answer is the right one, so I supposed that he is just a bad politician, which he is. A story, however, that I heard today makes the issue much clearer.
In its first year, the Obama administration was on track to deport some 400,000 immigrants -- far more than during George W. Bush's last year in office. On the anniversary of Obama's inauguration, Hoy, the Spanish-language newspaper in Chicago, ran a full-page picture of the president on its cover under the headline "Promesa Por Cumplir" ("Unkept Promise"). The sense of betrayal among Latinos -- especially immigrants -- is palpable, just as it was after Obama's 2006 vote on the border fence.
As president, Obama has followed the cerebral strategy that increased enforcement will win support for immigration reform. But if there is no serious progress on the issue, many disillusioned Latinos will stay home in November. Others will decide that because Democrats can't deliver on immigration reform, they might as well vote Republican on the values issues. Depressed Latino turnout in Illinois may well cost the Democrats the Senate seat that Obama once held.
There are so many issues where President Obama has promised one thing and done another that he has literally become his own worst enemy. Understand that when you promise something, it is a logical expectation that people will expect you to at some point deliver on that promise. Hence, in the case of immigration, neither side is happy with the President. Those who support the promised reform expect it and will continue to demand it. Those who oppose it aren't happy that it hasn't happened either, because they are waiting for the other shoe to drop.
If this were one single issue, perhaps he could get away with it. The problem is that there are far more broken promises than kept ones. Obama was credited with a kept promise on shutting down GITMO when one of his first moves was to issue an executive order to do just that. A year later, however, and the facility not only remains open, but the Administration is openly back to square one, considering holding enemy combatant trials there.
President Obama promised that he would "use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws." He has not done so, and in fact, his administration has angered the gay community by pushing to dismiss a challenge to the defense of marriage act.
Are you following the logic here? As liberal commentators complain that President Obama is being painted as a radical by the right, and defend him by saying that the hard left is labeling him a centrist, they fail to fully understand the problem. Yes, he is being fired upon by both sides. Is that fair? Absolutely. Because both sides are still waiting on him to keep his promises. It is hypocritical to use the left's anger at his broken promises to attack the angst on the right that he might actually keep some of them.
The President has wasted a year pushing for health care reform. Will this be another broken promise? That remains to be seen. The general political consensus seems to be that he wins if it passes because he has spent so much time on it that he will never be able to win the support of its opponents. If it fails, he will then lose the support of those who have pushed for this reform.
Time will tell if that logic is correct or not. What time will never tell is where he might be today if he had focused on what people want, rather than what they don't want. At this point, Obama's political capital is completely spent, and he finds himself sitting in the halls of Congress with a cup, begging for a vote. The one thing that is for sure, there is nothing left to spend on his other unpopular pet projects, like civilian trials for terrorists and further stimulus projects. The fact that he is unlikely to be able to keep the few promises left unbroken is not just reason to criticize those who fear he may do so.
Congressman Eric Massa (D, NY) has resigned due to allegations of misconduct towards a male staffer. His problems come on the heels of Charlie Rangel's own ethics problems that ousted him from his chairmanship of the Ways and Means Committee. But Congressman Massa isn't exactly going quietly. His comments aimed at members of the Obama Administration are a shocking look into the life of a Washington insider. Some of them can be heard here. Yet if you think that a screaming match between two naked politicians is a funny way to go, stick around to see how Congressman Massa got here in the first place.
The Offense:
A male staffer has accused Congressman Massa of grabbing him and joking about having sexual relations with him at a wedding party in January. Congressman Massa has now admitted to the allegation. He claims, however, that he is being forced out for a much different reason.
“Mine is now the deciding vote on the health care bill,” he said, “and this administration and this House leadership have said, quote-unquote, they will stop at nothing to pass this health care bill, and now they’ve gotten rid of me and it will pass. You connect the dots.”
“The future of the Democratic Party rests on passing this health care bill,” he continued. “They can get anyone to say anything about me concerning anything at all, and in fact they did.”
The White House is dismissing these claims as "ridiculous", but a look at the unequal treatment of the two offending parties listed here would make one second guess that position. Charlie Rangel, who faces more serious allegations of tax evasion and accepting illegal gifts, has to resign his chairmanship yet sticks around to vote on health care. Massa is forced to leave. Parroting the White House line is a reuters article.
Massa's departure brings the number of Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives to 253, with 178 Republicans.
His departure is not likely to have a big impact on Pelosi's ability to round up votes to get a final healthcare overhaul bill to President Barack Obama.
Massa voted against the bill that passed the House in November in a close vote. Four vacancies bring the number of House members to 431, which means 216 votes will be needed to pass the sweeping healthcare overhaul.
"I'm sitting there showering, naked as a jaybird, and here comes Rahm Emanuel, not even with a towel wrapped around his tush, poking his finger in my chest, yelling at me because I wasn't gonna vote for the president's budget," Massa said. "Do you know how awkward it is to have a political argument with a naked man? ... It's ridiculous."
Boy, President Obama, you sure know how to pick them. Yet, even with this news, it seems that Eric Massa is leaving Washington D.C. in a slightly less ridiculous way than the way in which he arrived. How does one top rumors of same sex sexual harassment and two elected officials arguing politics naked in the shower, you ask? As always, I deliver.
It seems that Congressman Massa wanted to make a big splash with the environmental community when he headed off to D.C. to start his now abbreviated freshman term in Congress. And what better way to do that then in a hydrogen powered car. His idea hit a few speed bumps, but Massa was up to the challenge.
Massa, now faced with a problem he could understand and wrap his brain around, decided that the best way to make sure the second car would appear when he needed it was … wait for it … TO TOW A SECOND FUEL-CELL CAR BEHIND A FULL-SIZE SUV! (!!?)
Problem solved!
All Massa had to do now was get the second fuel-cell car back home to New York. What he needed, then, was … wait for it … w a i t f o r i t … A SECOND FULL-SIZE SUV!
That’s a fuel-cell powered car driving approximately half the distance from NY to DC, followed by a full-size SUV towing a second fuel-cell powered car, and a second full-size SUV to tow the second fuel-cell powered car back home.
SO, that small fleet of 3 vehicles (with 1 in tow) drove 200 miles each under their own power (600 total driven miles), then one of them drove 200 miles back (800 total driven miles). The second car drove 100 miles under its own power, followed by the second SUV (1000 total driven miles), then the second SUV drove back to NY (300 more miles, for 1,300 driven miles), which means this caravan of four (4!) vehicles traveled approximately thirteen-hundred (1,300!) total miles to deliver one (1!) freshman congressman from New York to Washington DC.
Why does anyone take these people seriously? Here we have a President and a Congressman, both alleged environmentalists, who upon winning office, create more pollution than their predecessors, and are all the while lauded for their environmental efforts. President Obama immediately beefed up to "the most monstrous presidential limo yet". And who can forget his 800 mile pizza delivery? It seems that, if nothing else, these two have their own hypocrisy in common.
I have some friends and family who supported President Trump from early on in the process. From time to time they will ask me when I will admit that I was wrong about him. "If Trump does x... If Trump gets y... If Trump supports a policy that results in z... will you admit that you were wrong?" My answer is always "no", because I wasn't wrong. To be clear, I could be wrong in practical application, but that isn't what an election is about. Elections are about theory and speculation and, generally speaking about judging records. Trump had no record to speak of, and his history of stances on issues was all over the map. I opposed his candidacy for several major reasons, all of which are proven valid in this single issue we now refer to as the "travel ban". Here were my reasons.
If you're not familiar with Justice with Judge Jeanine, it is a show on the FOX News Network starring Jeanine Pirro. She is known for her over-the-top rants where she serves up gobs of fresh red meat for her largely hard right wing audience. While it's not unusual for her to be a little fast and loose with the facts, she has been known to occasionally return from the break with a correction from her producers. Last night, however, there was no such correction to an outright lie she told on the show, and the matter being discussed should have (at the very least) contained a disclaimer from the host. I would cut her some slack, but as a former prosecutor and judge, she should be well aware of what proper protocol should have been here.
It's not cute anymore, Republicans. The President of the United States is completely detached from reality, and you can't fix that. You can't cover it up, you can't explain it away, and let me make this as clear as I possibly can for you. You cannot possibly undo the damage you are doing to the party brand by trying to pretend this man is anything other than completely unhinged. I'm watching Sean Hannity borrow guests from the Alex Jones show in an attempt to bolster Trump's conspiratorial claims. I'm seeing relatively mainstream conservatives make themselves look like the crazed fringes of the paranoid right wing. Don't believe me? Look at this.
CBO normally gives estimates for 10-year periods, and the nonpartisan entity doesn’t like to go beyond that. It 
