What I'm Reading Today
Obama’s war on fishing?!?!?!
Longtime readers know I love to fish and have been at war with the anti-fishing nuts at PETA for years.
JWF flags a story today from ESPN about Obama regulatory maneuvers that look to limit fishing access:
The Obama administration will accept no more public input for a federal strategy that could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing the nation’s oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters.
This announcement comes at the time when the situation supposedly still is “fluid” and the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force still hasn’t issued its final report on zoning uses of these waters.
That’s a disappointment, but not really a surprise for fishing industry insiders who have negotiated for months with officials at the Council on Environmental Quality and bureaucrats on the task force. These angling advocates have come to suspect that public input into the process was a charade from the beginning.
“When the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) completed their successful campaign to convince the Ontario government to end one of the best scientifically managed big game hunts in North America (spring bear), the results of their agenda had severe economic impacts on small family businesses and the tourism economy of communities across northern and central Ontario,” said Phil Morlock, director of environmental affairs for Shimano.
“Now we see NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and the administration planning the future of recreational fishing access in America based on a similar agenda of these same groups and other Big Green anti-use organizations, through an Executive Order by the President. The current U.S. direction with fishing is a direct parallel to what happened in Canada with hunting: The negative economic impacts on hard working American families and small businesses are being ignored.
Sacrificing jobs for the green agenda. Conducting Kabuki theater on public input. Business as usual for the Obama White House.
See United We Fish for more info on how to push back.
Will Stupak be bought on Demcare?
Conflicting signs on pro-life Democrat Rep. Bart Stupak’s stance on Obamacare negotiations:
Plus: At a town hall meeting last night, he told constituents that the briber-in-chief had invited him to the president’s box to watch a Russian opera performance. Stupak said he turned down the invite.
Minus: He told an AP reporter in between meetings yesterday that he’s growing “more optimistic” that he can cut a deal on government abortion funding in the bill that will make him happy.
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said the White House and the Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives have been pressuring him not to speak out on the “compromise” abortion language in the Senate version of the health care bill.
“They think I shouldn’t be expressing my views on this bill until they get a chance to try to sell me the language,” Stupak told CNSNews.com in an interview on Tuesday. “Well, I don’t need anyone to sell me the language. I can read it. I’ve seen it. I’ve worked with it. I know what it says. I don’t need to have a conference with the White House. I have the legislation in front of me here.”
…In his interview with CNSNews.com on Tuesday, Stupak said that the White House “asked me just to hold off for awhile and not to say anything about this language. But as soon as the news broke that they had this [compromise], and they got the 60 votes, folks were asking me, and I’m not going to run from the issue I’m going to stand up and say, ‘Look, here’s my objections.’ Here – it’s not just my objections – but there’s a number of my [colleagues] who feel strongly about this issue, and these are the parts that have to be fixed.”
Stupak said he is not alone in being pressured from the White House and the House Democratic leadership – other pro-life Democratic colleagues apparently are, as well. But they plan to hold firm, he said.
“We’re getting a lot of pressure not to say anything, to try to compromise this principle or belief,” Stupak said. “[T]hat’s just not us. We’re not going to do that. Members who voted for the Stupak language in the House – especially the Democrats, 64 Democrats that voted for it – feel very strongly about it. It’s been part of who we are, part of our make up. It’s the principle belief that we have. We are not just going to abandon it in the name of health care.”
“We are not just going to abandon it in the name of health care.”
Good time to remind him of his words.
Stupak’s contact info:
2268 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225 4735
(202) 225 4744 – Fax
***
Walker Campaign: They said it couldn't be done
Wall Campaign: Wisconsin Insurance Commissioner says Feingold health care takeover won't rein in costs
FDIC Report and Banks
Click here for a printer-friendly version of this article
The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) released its Quarterly Banking Profile (QBP) for year-end 2009. Things have never been worse for the banking system: bad loans (loans that are 90 days or more past due) account for 5.37% of all loans and leases, an all-time record; net charge-offs (NCOs) – losses taken on bad loans – totaled $53.0 billion, or 2.89% (annualized), in the fourth quarter which is also the highest rate ever recorded in the QBP’s 26 year history. Banks did not increase loss reserves fast enough to compensate for the growth in charge-offs and nonperforming loans. As a result, ratio of reserves to bad loans fell to 58.1%, the lowest level since mid-1991 and almost certainly too low to absorb all of the expected losses. The FDIC labeled 702 insured depository institutions as “troubled” up 68% from 416 at-risk banks in June 30, 2009. The rate of deterioration may have slowed, but things have not stopped getting worse.
The QBP also provides insight into the credit crunch facing small business. In 2009, bank balance sheets shrunk by 5.3%, the largest amount on record. However, all asset classes did not fare equally: loans to businesses fell by 18.3% and accounted for 37% of the decline in total assets. By contrast, banks’ securities holdings actually grew by a whopping 23% during 2009. As a result of these shifts, securities accounted for 19% of total bank assets at the end of 2009 – up from 15% in 2008; business loans shrunk from 11% of bank assets in 2008 to only 9% at the end of 2009.
The reason for the shift was the steep yield curve: banks can borrow at next to nothing, thanks to a fed fund rate that is less than 0.25% and buy Treasury securities that yield 3.65%. The average net interest margin for banks in the fourth quarter was 3.49%, which also happens to be the average difference between the 10 year Treasury yield and the fed funds rate. Banks have no incentive to extend loans to business borrowers when the credit risk-free spread is that attractive. Moreover, banks’ poor health also boosts demand for credit risk-free U.S. Treasury securities because banks need to marshal the capital they have to absorb expected losses on the nonperforming loans already on their balance sheet.
The Administration has responded to the decline in business lending with an expansion of SBA and a plan to buy $15 billion in securities collateralized by small business loans. Given the reported shift in balance sheets, effectively the plan was for Treasury to issue $15 billion in new debt, purchased largely by banks, to buy small business loans from banks so that they could purchase more Treasury securities. While this seems ridiculous (because it is), the Treasury has little choice in the matter given its enormous funding needs. Treasury can’t ask banks to shift their portfolios back towards loans without potentially causing its own borrowing costs to go up.
Morgan Stanley released a report the same day as the FDIC’s QBP that wondered whether the government would seek to avoid a debt crisis by taking things a step further and requiring banks to accumulate more Treasury securities. Mandating large Treasury holdings would provide a supportive bid that would hold funding costs down. It would also provide an outlet to place new debt issuance if rumors about China’s declining appetite for dollars turn out to be true.
Solving the U.S. debt crisis through bank regulation was also hinted at by the head of the Bank for International Settlements – the association of central banks – in a recent speech. He argued than banks should hold “a sufficient stock of high-quality liquid assets to be able to survive a month-long loss of access to funding markets.” Depending on how this rule is structured, it could have virtually the same effect as the regulation suggested by Morgan Stanley given the unrivaled liquidity of Treasuries.
U.S. banks are in very bad financial condition. So too is the federal government. Don’t be surprised if the two issues are linked in the coming year through a strategy to use new “liquidity regulation” on banks as a pretext for regulation really aimed at preventing a U.S. debt crisis.
Image: Photo Credit: Getty Images Author: e21 Staff Editorial Publication Date: Monday, March 8, 2010 Display Date: 03/08/2010 Hide Photo / Caption: 0 adminKapanke Campaign: Listen to voters on health care reform
How do you spell “tone-deaf?”; Update: Obama joins the cheerleading squad
“Today is a big day in America. Only 36,000 people lost their jobs today, which is really good.”
***
Commenter jsr: “With any luck November 3 we will be able to say: ‘Today is a big day in America. Over 300 congressmen lost their jobs today, which is really good.’”
***
Update: Obama says “Woo-hoo, too!”
President Barack Obama boasted Friday that his economic recovery efforts were showing results after the national unemployment rate stayed at a steady 9.7 percent for February.
Obama, touring a small business in Arlington, Va., said that the 36,000 jobs lost last month was ‘actually better than expected’ considering the massive snowstorms that devastated the East Coast.
Jim Geraghty tweets: “Reid says our jobs numbers are ‘really good;’ I haven’t felt this reassured since Janet Napolitano told us ‘the system worked.’”
The Obama way: Bluster, bully, bribe
My syndicated column looks at the White House bribe-a-thon. On a related business-as-usual note: Campaign Donors Working On Policy At The White House. On another business-as-usual note: Cashing out of the Obama administration.
***
The Obama Way: Bluster, bully, bribe
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2010
The White House took great offense this week when conservatives suggested President Obama might be trading a judicial appointment for a wavering Democrat’s vote on his health care reform plan. “Absurd,” a miffed administration official told Politico.com. Wherever could the American people get such an impression? Let us count the ways.
On Wednesday, the very day President Obama hosted ten swing Democrats who had opposed the expansive health care takeover bill in November, the White House issued a press release trumpeting the nomination of Scott M. Matheson, Jr., to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Matheson just happens to be the brother of Democrat Rep. Jim Matheson of Utah – one of the 10 invitees invited to sip wine and nosh on calorically-correct appetizers with the arm-twister-in-chief.
The seat on the 10th Circuit has been vacant for nearly a year. When one of the judges, Michael McConnell, resigned to take a lucrative post at Stanford Law School last summer, Matheson – Rhodes Scholar, law school professor, and dean — let the White House know right away he wanted the job. For nearly a year, there was no action. Liberal groups have been complaining for months about the glacial pace of Obama’s judicial nominations – a predicament they blame not solely on obstructionist Republicans, but on Obama’s own team of incompetent, indecisive foot-draggers who put the issue at the bottom of their priority list. (It’s worth noting that Utah GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch supports Matheson’s candidacy.)
As the National Law Journal pointed out at the beginning of this year, the Obama administration has been slower than the Bush administration in sending judicial nominations to the Senate, “ submitting 12 circuit nominations last year compared with 28 for Bush in 2001. The White House last named a circuit nominee on Nov. 4.”
Now, out of nowhere, comes announcement of Matheson’s nomination – in the heat of White House vote-grubbing to salvage the Democrats’ government health care designs? To quote Dana Carvey’s old Church Lady character on Saturday Night Live: How conveeenient.
Let us consider the possibility, for a brief moment, that this is all merely coincidence. Is the White House so fantastically blind and tone-deaf that it failed to detect the blood-red flags and blaring alarm bells that Scott Matheson’s judicial nomination would raise coming on the very day President Obama was wooing his brother, Jim? Incorrigibly corrupt or incorrigibly stupid. Take your pick.
The perception of a Judgeship-for-Obamacare-vote deal is, of course, horribly unfair to Matheson, who seems more than qualified for the position. But full blame for creating that unmistakable perception lies squarely at the feet of the rank opportunists in the White House whose timing is worse than a broken metronome.
This debacle comes on the heels of damning disclosures about other possible White House bribery. Democrat Rep. Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania admitted to veteran Philly newsman Larry Kane that Team Obama dangled a “high-ranking” position in the administration if he dropped out of the Senate race and left incumbent Republican-turned Democrat Sen. Arlen Specter alone. In Colorado, the Denver Post reported last fall that Deputy White House Chief of Staff Jim Messina “offered specific suggestions” for an Obama administration job to far Left Democrat Andrew Romanoff if he withdrew his challenge to White House-backed incumbent Democrat Sen. Michael Bennet.
And earlier this month, the Washington Times noted that Mary Patrice Brown, the person assigned by Justice Department to oversee an internal investigation into the shady dismissal of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation cases, is now “the leading candidate for a federal judgeship – for which she is being vetted by some of the same offices she supposedly is investigating.”
So, wherever did we get the impression that pay-for-play is the Obama way? Somewhere, Chicago corruptocrat Rod Blagojevich – who wanted to play, but didn’t get paid — is laughing bitterly.
Reconciliation and the Misuse of Senate Procedures
Click here for a printer-friendly version of this article
On Wednesday, President Obama gave a heavily anticipated speech about his vision for the future of health care reform, both in terms of substance and procedure. One of the primary takeaways (that has those inside the beltway chattering) is that the President’s suggested using reconciliation procedures to pass the health care legislation – a move that would require only a simple majority vote rather than the seemingly insurmountable 60-vote hurdle faced by “regular” legislation. Though the arcane workings of Senate procedure are rarely a scintillating conversation topic, it’s important to understand exactly what this move will mean in terms of limiting debate, precluding virtually any amendments, and undermining the legislative process in the world’s greatest deliberative body.
As we previously discussed here, reconciliation is a legislative process that was introduced in 1974 in order to facilitate the passage of legislation to reduce the deficit, reign in spending, and allow Congress to more easily control the fiscal course of the nation. This is important: reconciliation is a deficit reduction tool and was not designed to facilitate the passage of legislation that should be subject to the normal legislative process. When reconciliation was created, it was acknowledged that Congress needed a separate set of tools to make it more likely that deficit reduction measures (namely spending cuts or tax increases) would actually pass, in order to ensure the fiscal health of the nation. Most importantly, reconciliation bills are effectively filibuster-proof, meaning they only require a simple majority (in the case of the Senate, 51 votes) to pass.
However, equally important and often overlooked, reconciliation bills also have a very strict rule for the type of amendments that can be offered. The strict germaneness tests that apply to amendments make it extremely hard to amend a reconciliation bill without lining up 60 votes to overcome procedural hurdles. Why does this matter? If reconciliation is used to try and pass sweeping health care reform, the bill could pass with virtually no amendments – no participation from the minority and no attempts to improve the massive overhaul of the health care system. To put this in perspective, during the last iteration of the health care bill in the Senate, over 800 amendments were filed during the bill’s consideration by the Senate Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP) and over 500 amendments were filed during the bill’s consideration by the Senate Finance Committee. Does anyone really think that the health care reform bill will have reached such a state of perfection that it needs no amendment at all during further consideration? No changes – whatsoever – to any of the numerous provisions? No minor tweaks to improve the monumental program changes?
The bill should be subject to regular legislative consideration and be open to a full amendment process, allowing each Member to offer changes in order to represent their constituents. Limiting amendments through the use of reconciliation, in this case, is inappropriate and an abuse of the system.
Many Democrats have countered that this is not the first time the reconciliation process has been used to pass legislation that has little to do with deficit reduction. While it’s true that reconciliation has been used to pass legislative changes that blur the “deficit reduction” line, the Senate Budget Committee reports that an overwhelming majority of those reconciliation bills (89%) have had bipartisan support. In fact only two reconciliation bills have become law on a straight party line vote—the bill to increase Clinton-era top marginal rates to 39.6% and 36% (the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993), and the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. It has been recently argued that reconciliation was used to pass the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, however both of those bills passed with a bipartisan vote unlike the partisan vote likely on the health care bill. To claim that the use of such a truncated and specialized process as reconciliation is appropriate for legislation as divisive, partisan and outside the scope of deficit reduction as the current health care bill is, is a misuse of the process and an abuse of the Senate procedures. In fact, Democratic Senator and author of the original reconciliation procedures, Robert C. Byrd, firmly opposed the use of reconciliation for President Clinton’s health reform plan in 1993. He was able to prevail over the Democratic majority and prevent the use of reconciliation then. It’s unfortunate that the current political landscape has caused procedural amnesia in the majority party.
Byrd tempered his previous view last week with a letter to the editor of the Charleston Daily Mail, though his comments merely suggest that he will not take a strong stand against the Democrat plan and it remains clear that he supports the use of reconciliation for measures that would truly reduce the deficit. (Critics claim that after removing the budgetary gimmicks contained in the current health care bill, it would have the opposite effect on the deficit.)
As Senator Judd Gregg, Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee, succinctly notes in a recently-published white paper, “While some view reconciliation as a magic bullet for ramming through partisan legislation, the origins, requirements, and limitations of reconciliation make it ill-matched for sweeping policy measures such as comprehensive health care reform.” One of his final thoughts in the piece rings especially true: the decision to use the reconciliation process for health care reform this year is not based on budget considerations, but on political ones. While this may seem trivial or unimportant to those who don’t spend their days contemplating arcane Senate procedures, the practical effects of using this process are very clear. Americans may well end up with a sweeping health care reform that was not subject to proper debate, and in which Americans (through their elected Senators) were never afforded their (necessary) opportunity to amend and improve the bill. Instead, partisan tactics may be employed to pass a bill that isn’t subject to the necessary legislative process and as a result does not fully realize and reflect the best interests of Americans, but rather serves the partisan goals of a party that’s already lost votes (see Scott Brown).
Jennifer Pollom is the Director of External Affairs at e21 and was the Appropriations and Budget Counsel for the Senate Republican Policy Committee.
Image: Photo Credit: Getty Images Author: Jennifer Pollom Publication Date: Friday, March 5, 2010 Display Date: 03/05/2010 Hide Photo / Caption: 0 adminU.S. Rep. Steve Kagen gets heat over campaign donation from New York Rep. Charles Rangel, who faces ethics probe
La Crosse's debt load leaves little budget room for new parking ramp
(author unknown)
The Chicago Way: Judgeships for Demcare votes?
There are no coincidences in Obama world, I’ve joked many times on this blog.
This one looks like a quid pro quo, smells like a quid pro quo, and quacks like a quid pro quo:
Tonight, Barack Obama will host ten House Democrats who voted against the health care bill in November at the White House; he’s obviously trying to persuade them to switch their votes to yes. One of the ten is Jim Matheson of Utah. The White House just sent out a press release announcing that today President Obama nominated Matheson’s brother Scott M. Matheson, Jr. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Let us consider the possibility, for a brief moment, that it is merely coincidence.
Is the White House so fantastically blind and tone-deaf that it failed to detect the blood-red flags and blaring alarm bells that Scott Matheson’s judicial nomination would raise coming on the very day President Obama is wooing his brother, Jim?
Incorrigibly corrupt or incorrigibly stupid. Take your pick.
***
Allahpundit reminds us of Obama’s words this afternoon: “I will do everything in my power to make the case for reform.”
Whatever it takes: Borrow, bully, bribe.
It’s the Chicago Way. It’s the Demcare way. And it stinks to high heaven.
***
GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann calls for an investigation: “What in the world is going on in the White House?”
National security stone wall: Fox tells you what Holder won’t
Corruptocrat AG Eric Holder refused to disclose the names of the terror lawyers in the DOJ. But you can find out what Team Obama doesn’t want you to know by heading over to the breaking news at FoxNews.com.
A day after a conservative group released a video condemning the Justice Department for refusing to identify seven lawyers who previously represented or advocated for terror suspects, Fox News has uncovered the identities of the seven lawyers.
The names were confirmed by a Justice Department spokesman, who said “politics has overtaken facts and reality” in a tug-of-war over the lawyers’ identities.
“Department of Justice attorneys work around the clock to keep this country safe, and it is offensive that their patriotism is being questioned,” said Justice Department Spokesman Matt Miller.
The video by the group Keep America Safe, which dubbed the seven lawyers “The Al Qaeda 7,” is the latest salvo in a lengthty political battle.
For several months, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has led an effort to uncover politically-appointed lawyers within the Justice Department who have advocated for Guantanamo Bay detainees or other terror suspects.
“The administration has made many highly questionable decisions when it comes to national security, ” Grassley said in a recent statement. “[Americans] have a right to know who advises the Attorney General and the President on these critical matters.”
An extensive review of court documents and media reports by Fox News suggests many of the seven lawyers in question played only minor or short-lived roles in advocating for detainees. However, it’s unclear what roles, if any, they have played in detainee-related matters since joining the Justice Department.
Fun fact: Assistant Attorney General Tony West, who works in DOJ’s Civil Division, represented “American Taliban” John Walker Lindh for several years.
Read the whole thing. You have a right to know. Now you do, thanks to the news organization that the White House communications team has spent the last year trying to delegitimize.
Viva transparency!
Here comes the reconciliation “nobody” is talking about; Update: Oba-kabuki lab coat props reappear; “Make your voice heard;” McConnell: “National referendum”
Scroll for updates…
Photoshop: Leo Alberti
It’s official. After months of threatening to push the button on the so-called nuclear option, reconciliation — the parliamentary maneuver that Harry Reid said “nobody” is talking about and that President Obama said Americans didn’t care about last week — is a go.
Politico this morning quotes Tom Harkin signaling the green light:
Sen. Tom Harkin told POLITICO that Senate Democratic leaders have decided to go the reconciliation route. The House, he said, will first pass the Senate bill after Senate leaders demonstrate to House leaders that they have the votes to pass reconciliation in the Senate.
Harkin made the comments after a meeting in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s office including Harkin and Sens. Baucus, Dodd, Durbin, Schumer and Murray.
When asked whether the leaders had made the decision, Durbin said: “We are moving ahead with a version of the health care reform bill that we believe has a good chance of passing both the House and the Senate.”
He then put the onus on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to signal whether she can provide enough votes to pass the Senate bill, followed by a package of fixes through reconciliation.
Last night, Jake Tapper said President Obama was ready for reconciliation:
White House officials tell ABC News that in his remarks tomorrow President Obama will indicate a willingness to work with Republicans on some issue to get a health care reform bill passed but will suggest that if it is necessary, Democrats will use the controversial “reconciliation” rules requiring only 51 Senate votes to pass the “fix” to the Senate bill, as opposed to the 60 votes to stop a filibuster and proceed to a vote on a bill.
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have been awaiting the president’s remarks direction on how health care reform will proceed.
In his remarks, scheduled to be at the White House, the president will paint a picture of what he will say will happen without a health care reform bill – skyrocketing premiums, everyone at the mercy of the insurance industry as recently seen with the 39% premium increases proposed by Anthem Blue Cross in California.
He will note that the “fixed” bill will include the proposal for a new “Health Insurance Rate Authority” to set guidelines for reasonable rate increases. If proposed premium increases are not justifiable per those Health Insurance Rate Authority guidelines, the Health and Human Services Secretary or state regulators could block them.
The plan to pass the bill includes having the House of Representatives pass the Democratic Senate health care reform legislation as well as a second bill containing various “fixes.”
The president will call for an up or down vote on health care reform, as has happened in the past, and though he won’t use the word “reconciliation,” he’ll make it clear that if they’re not given an up or down vote, Democrats will use the reconciliation rules as Republicans have done in the past.
The GOP is preparing for battle, according to Sen. John Thune:
Republicans are preparing to raise points of order and other roadblocks to the healthcare bill, a member of the Senate GOP leadership said Tuesday evening.
Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), the fourth-ranking Senate Republican who serves as chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, said the GOP is prepared for a number of scenarios in which they would seek to slow down or halt passage of healthcare legislation once it comes back before the Senate.
“I still think it creates a lot of problems when it comes back to the Senate because there will be lots of points of order that will lie against the bill in the Senate, and obviously, we will, hopefully, have the opportunity to raise some of those,” Thune said of the health bill during an appearance on Fox News.
At issue is the new bill of healthcare legislation changes the House is expected to pass under budget reconciliation rules. Under those rules, the legislation only has to achieve a simple majority in the Senate instead of the 60 normally needed to end a filibuster. Such a maneuver would effectively sidestep Republican opposition to the health bill.
“You know, I don’t want to concede that it’s going to pass for sure yet,” Thune said. “I still think that there’s a lot of clock left in this game.”
The NRCC has gone code red.
Hugh Hewitt says: Let a million amendments bloom.
Steve Ertelt reports that Pelosi is still lying about abortion funding.
Phone/contact list for target House Dems here.
Your handy video flashback of the day via Naked Emperor News/BreibartTV:
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.
***
One more terrific reconciliation photoshop from Maksim at The People’s Cube:
***
Substratum says conservatives must control the narrative on reconciliation. A reminder about Robert Byrd:
Control the narrative on Senate reconciliation and leveraged pressure against wavering House members is yours. Public knowledge of Byrd’s strong feelings against using reconciliation for healthcare as outlined here and here. This knowledge alone kills the meme that reconciliation is a harmless little fuzzy bunny that has been used before by Republicans and therefore it is perfectly acceptable to use it to overhaul 1/6 of the U.S. economy.
Ubiquitous public awareness the architect of Senate reconciliation is against using the procedural tactic to pass ObamaCare will cause vulnerable House members to reach for the Maalox and lose trust in both the process and the end result in terms of the blowback by their constituents and the unceremonious end of said Representative’s political career. Pelosi would find it even harder to garner support for ObamaCare; nobody is willing to fall on a sword for the queen of contempt. In short, House members will be tainted by the Senate procedure.
To state it another way, the Senate procedural maneuver will effectively scare away votes in the House. This will work if the GOP starts talking – and talking a great deal. Wide exposure on Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, talk radio, and in the blogosphere will only aid our cause and the goal to kill ObamaCare for good. There will be an argument that reconciliation will only be used to pass “fixes” to the bill. However, if the bill will not pass without reconciliation, then it is clear that reconciliation is the means by which the entire healthcare system will be overhauled. The argument falls apart and reconciliation is once again front-and-center as the means by which ObamaCare will be passed.
****
Update 1:54pm Eastern: Obama is on the tee-vee again, with white lab-coated doctor props flanking him on stage again.
Flashback October 2009: Spin doctors for Obamacare.
Obama claims that “If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.”
GOP House staffer Michael Steel responds:
If that line sounds familiar, it’s because it was a staple of the President’s rhetoric on health care last year.
We haven’t hear it in a while because it’s not true. Media outlets, including the Associated Press and ABC News debunked the claim thoroughly, noting that even White House officials acknowledged the president’s rhetoric shouldn’t be taken “literally.” Eventually, the White House press office took it out of the President’s speeches.
Why is it coming back now? Does the White House think reporters have forgotten it isn’t true?
2:11pm Eastern. “Make your voice heard,” Obama urges. Unless you’re a member of that Tea Party angry mob. Remember: The White House wants you people to shut up and get out of the way.
***
WaPo” Defining “nuclear.”
2:46pm Eastern. GOP Sen. McConnell responds to Obama: “I would say to my Democratic colleagues, you ignore the overwhelming desires of the American people at your own peril.” If Demcare gets rammed down Americans’ throats, McConnell says midterms will be a “national referendum” on the issue.
Wall Campaign: An abuse of power
Rep. J. Ott: Wisconsin update / “Global Weirding” / Climategate
NJ Gov. Chris Christie shows what leadership looks like
If you are sick of the fecklessness and fiscal responsibility fakers in Washington, here is something to lift your spirits.
Read Mish’s review of NJ Gov. Chris Christie’s austerity speech and action plan outlined at a meeting of the Garden State’s League of Municipalities here. I’ve been longing for a public official with the courage and audacity to say “suck it up”, take responsibility, stand up to the unions and the permanent Nanny State, and make the tough choices that other politicians keep pretending they don’t have to make or keep kicking down the road.
Chris Christie is the real deal. Partial transcript thanks to Mish. Read the whole thing:
In the time we got here, of the approximately $29 billion budget there was only $14 billion left. Of the $14 billion, $8 billion could not be touched because of contracts with public worker unions, because of bond covenants, because of commitments we made accepting stimulus money. So we had to find a way to save $2.3 billion in a $6 billion pool of money.
When I went into the treasurer’s off in the first two weeks of my term, there was no happy meetings. They presented me with 378 possible freezes and lapses to be able to balance the budget. I accepted 375 of them.
There is a great deal of discussion about me doing that by executive action. Every day that went by was a day where money was going out the door such that the $6 billion pool was getting less and less. So something needed to be done.
People did not send me here to talk, the people sent me here to do. So we took the executive action we did to stop the bleeding.
As we move forward, and we evaluate what we need to do three weeks from now in our fiscal year 2011 budget address, you all need to understand the context from which we operate.
Our citizens are already the most overtaxed in America. US mayors hear it all the time. You know that the public appetite for ever increasing taxes has reached an end.
So when we freeze $475 million in school aid, I am hearing the reverberations from school boards saying now you are just going to force us to raise taxes.
Well there is a 4% cap in place as you all know, yet school boards continue to give out raises which exceed that cap, just on salary. Not to mention the fact that most of them get no contribution towards the spiraling increase in health care benefits.
Now, we are going to reduce spending at the state level. And we are going to continue to reduce it because we have no choice but to do so. Our obligation to you is twofold. One, is to let you know that. So I’m’ letting you know that.
Second to work with the legislature to give you the tools helping you to reduce spending at the municipal level. Now the pension and benefit reform package that was passed unanimously in the senate this week begins to give you some of those tools.
But it is only a beginning.
Do we need to change some of the rules of arbitration to level the playing field to allow municipalities and school boards to have a more level sense of collective bargaining?
I think the evidence of ever increasing raises being given to public sector workers as a result of the arbitration system tells us that we do. [Applause From Mayors]
But you have to stand up and give the support to the legislators in this building to get them to do that. I can guarantee you this, that more pension and benefit reforms which I will consider arbitration reform to be one of them, are things that when they come to my desk, they will be signed. [Applause From Mayors]
Because we can no longer continue on a path where we say we are going to reduce spending at the state level but we are not going to give you any tools to do that at the municipal level and the school board level.
By the same token I am tired of hearing school superintendents and school board members complain that there are no other options than raising property taxes. There are other options.
You know, Marlboro, after a two year negotiation, they give a five year contract giving 4.5% annual salary increases to the teachers, with no contribution, zero contribution to health care benefits.
But I am sure there are people in Marlboro who have lost their jobs, who have had their homes foreclosed on, and who cannot keep a roof over their family’s head there is something wrong.
You know, at some point there has to be parity. There has to be parity between what is happening in the real world, and what is happening in the public sector world. The money does not grow on trees outside this building or outside your municipal building. It comes from the hard working people of our communities who are suffering and are hurting right now.
Using Guns to Protect Liberty
The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard oral argument in McDonald v. Chicago — the Second Amendment case with implications far beyond gun rights. The Court is quite likely to extend the right to keep and bear arms to the states and thereby invalidate the Chicago handgun ban at issue, but the way in which it does so could revolutionize constitutional law. Comments Cato scholar Ilya Shapiro, "McDonald provides the perfect opportunity not just to allow people to protect themselves against oppressive state laws but to revive the privileges or immunities clause."
- "Using Guns to Protect Liberty," by Ilya Shapiro and Josh Blackman
- "Revive 'Privileges or Immunities'," by Timothy Sandefur
- Why McDonald Matters, featuring Timothy Sandefur (MP3 )