Massachusetts Treasurer blasts state health care plan, a model for ObamaCare

jpye — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:00:32 -0500

We are told that ObamaCare will bring down costs and reduce the budget deficit and all these other wonderful things. Supporters of the bill need only look to Massachusetts to see how wrong they are in those claims.

Massachusetts Treasurer Tim Cahill, a Democrat turned independent, says the health care reform law that passed in his state in 2006 is breaking the budget. He also took some shots at health care “reform” efforts on the national level, which are very similar to the Massachusetts plan:

“If President Obama and the Democrats repeat the mistake of the health insurance reform here in Massachusetts on a national level, they will threaten to wipe out the American economy within four years,” Cahill said in a press conference in his office.

Echoing criticism leveled by congressional Republicans in recent weeks, Cahill said, “It is time for the president, the Democratic leadership, to go back to the drawing board and come up with a new plan that does not threaten to bankrupt this country.”
[…]
Cahill said the law is being sustained only with the help of federal aid, which he suggested that the Obama administration is funneling to Massachusetts to help the president make the case for a similar plan in Congress.

“The real problem is the sucking sound of money that has been going in to pay for this health care reform,” Cahill said. “And I would argue that we’re being propped up so that the federal government and the Obama administration can drive it through” Congress.

Commonwealth Connector, the independent state agency established to help residents find the health insurance, has “totally failed,” to create competition and connect people with affordable insurance, Cahill said, pointing out that 68 percent of the residents it serves receive subsidized care.

“We haven’t done anything about driving down costs,” Cahill said. “We haven’t helped small business. We haven’t changed the way we pay for health care and the way we deliver it.”

As Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute noted in my podcast with him a couple weeks ago, the failures of the Massachusetts plan are apparent. Get ready for a catastrophe with ObamaCare.

Obama Administration denies FOIA requests more often than predecessor

jpye — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:24:34 -0500

If you had any question whether or not President Barack Obama was fulfilling his pledge for transparency, this story should convince you that he worse than George W. Bush:

The review of annual Freedom of Information Act reports filed by 17 major agencies found that overall, the use of nearly every one of the open-records law’s nine exemptions to withhold information rose in fiscal year 2009, which ended last October.

Among the most frequently used exemptions: one that lets the government hold back records that detail its internal decision-making. Obama had directed agencies to stop using that exemption so frequently, but that directive appears to have been widely ignored.

Major agencies cited that exemption to refuse records at least 70,779 times during the 2009 budget year, compared with 47,395 times during President George W. Bush’s final full budget year, according to annual FOIA reports filed by federal agencies. Obama was president for nine months in the 2009 period.

Departments used the exemption even though the Justice Department’s Office of Information Policy, which advises them on FOIA, told them after Obama took office that they could exercise discretion and disclose such records. Doing so “will be fully consistent with the purpose of the FOIA,” it said.

That’s the hope and change we were waiting for.

C-SPAN launches site with 23 years worth of video

jpye — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 13:01:36 -0500

The folks over at C-SPAN have come up with a way to waste more of my time, launching a website containing every show that has aired since 1987.

Of course, none of the health care negotiations we were promised by President Barack Obama will be on the website. However, they do provide us with a list of memorable moments over the last 23 years that shaped American politics and changed the world, for better or for worse.

ObamaCare update: Vote counts, the Slaughter Solution and toxic poll numbers for Dems in toss-up districts

jpye — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 10:31:45 -0500

It’s hard to say where ObamaCare is going to wind up. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says that Democrats will have the votes by the time they bring the bill to the floor. Rep. John Larson (D-CT), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, says they already have the votes.

Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC), who has been counting votes for the majority, told The Hill that the vote could be put off past Easter (April 4th). House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) shot down both Larson and Clyburn, saying that a vote will come “later in the week.”

To top all of this, President Barack Obama is warning House Democrats that he will not support or campaign for them if they cast a vote against this major part of his domestic agenda. Some Democrats may actually welcome this, as they view their re-election to Congress as more important than Obama’s presidency.

It’s also unclear whether Democrats will use the Slaughter Solution (named after House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter). This rule would deem the Senate version of the health care bill passed up passage of the fixes via reconciliation by the Senate. Such a move could provide political cover during campaigns this fall by giving members in tough re-election bids an excuse to say they didn’t cast a vote for ObamaCare.

The Washington Post editorialized against this idea yesterday:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters Monday that she is leaning toward a parliamentary maneuver under which the House would vote on a package of changes to the Senate-approved reform bill, and the underlying Senate bill would then be “deemed” to have passed, even though the House had never voted on it. That may help some House members dodge a politically difficult decision, but it strikes us as a dodgy way to reform the health-care system. Democrats who vote for the package will be tagged with supporting the Senate bill in any event. Why not be straightforward about it?

Republicans are calling the move unconstitutional, and they have a case. Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution states that each bill much pass the House and Senate before being signed into law. This is the same argument made in briefs from then-Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Rep. Henry Waxman and Rep. Louise Slaughter during a unsuccessful lawsuit against using the “deem-and-pass” rule to increase the debt ceiling.

As noted, this is not a new rule, however, it has never been used for legislation with such major policy implications. Republicans are promising to force a vote on its use, and they may have some Democratic support in that effort.

What can we say right now? According the count at The Hill, there are 36 Democrats leaning “no” or are firmly against the bill (38 are needed for defeat). This includes eight members that voted for ObamaCare in November. They indicate that 55 members are sitting on the fence right now. However, the leftists at Fire Dog Lake count 190 for the bill and 206 against (205 to 209 with leaners).

Separately, CNN reports that only 11 votes are needed to defeat ObamaCare. So no matter what estimates you are reading, it’s going to be a close vote.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), who has been a “no” vote because he favors a single-payer system, will switch. He held a press conference this morning to announce his vote.

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), who is voting against the bill because he feels it provides for taxpayer-funded abortions, believes that Democratic leaders are still short on votes. Other outlets have indicated that they were at least ten votes short.

Polling still indicates that Americans are still against ObamaCare. A survey sponsored by MSNBC and the Wall Street Journal shows a plurality of voters are against the bill:

The survey found that opinions have solidified around the health-care plan, with 48% calling it a “bad idea” and 36% viewing it as a “good idea” when presented with a choice between those two. That gap is consistent with surveys dating to the fall.

Polling in ten battleground districts held by Democrats across the country, all of whom are considered to be on the fence, indicates that voters oppose ObamaCare by large margins (you can those margins here). It’s clear this vote may well end some members careers if they choose to back an unpopular piece of legislation that will have such a huge impact on constituents lives.

Here’s my prediction: I really do hope I am wrong, but I’m convinced that Democratic leaders and President Obama will be able to twist enough arms to get the bill passed by the end of the weekend.

US credit rating in jeopardy

jpye — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:01:59 -0500

Moody’s says that the the United States is a step closer to having its credit rating downgraded:

The U.S. and the U.K. have moved “substantially” closer to losing their AAA credit ratings as the cost of servicing their debt rose, according to Moody’s Investors Service.
[…]
Under the ratings company’s so-called baseline scenario, the U.S. will spend more on debt service as a percentage of revenue this year than any other top-rated country except the U.K., and will be the biggest spender from 2011 to 2013, Moody’s said today in a report.

“We expect the situation to further deteriorate in terms of the key ratings metrics before they start stabilizing,” Cailleteau said. “This story is not going to stop at the end of the year. There is inertia in the deterioration of credit metrics.”

The sad state of things is that there is no indication that spending habits are going to be scaled back. As we’ve pointed out here at UL before, the CBO recently reported that the budget deficits over the next ten years will add $9.8 trillion to the national debt.

As recently noted, the longer term picture is even worse. If our credit rating is downgraded, it means the cost of servicing debt will cost more due to the increased risk of loaning us money.

The cost of Washington’s fiscal irresponsibility is destroying this country.

Obama backs DNA database

jpye — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:04:01 -0500

A few months ago, Brett Bittner wrote about a proposal in the Georgia General Assembly that would allow law enforcement to collect the DNA of an individual arrested of a felony. This is obviously troubling as essentially suspends civil liberties for someone that has not yet had their day in court, nor been convicted by a jury of his peers.

It seems that President Barack Obama supports a federal DNA sampling database for individuals suspected of certain crimes, similar to laws already on the books in several states:

[Politico’s Josh] Gerstein posts a televised interview of Obama and John Walsh of America’s Most Wanted. The nation’s chief executive extols the virtues of mandatory DNA testing of Americans upon arrest, even absent charges or a conviction. Obama said, “It’s the right thing to do” to “tighten the grip around folks” who commit crime.

When it comes to civil liberties, the Obama administration has come under fire for often mirroring his predecessor’s practices surrounding state secrets, the Patriot Act and domestic spying. There’s also Gitmo, Jay Bybee and John Yoo.

Obama told Walsh he supported the federal government, as well as the 18 states that have varying laws requiring compulsory DNA sampling of individuals upon an arrest for crimes ranging from misdemeanors to felonies. The data is lodged in state and federal databases, and has fostered as many as 200 arrests nationwide, Walsh said.

Let’s see, Obama was opposed to the PATRIOT Act, but supported its renewal. He also has backed other measures that infringed on protections in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Bob Barr was right, each president views the powers left by his predecessor as a floor not a ceiling. Barack Obama is no better than George W. Bush.

Rep. John Duncan (R-TN): "There is nothing conservative about the war in Afghanistan"

jpye — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 12:03:57 -0500

During debate over legislation that would have required President Barack Obama to begin bringing troops in Afghanistan home by the end of the year, which was overwhelmingly shot down, Rep. John Duncan (R-TN) explained to his colleagues the fiscal and constitutional case for ending military actions in the Graveyard of Empires:

March Madness (not talking about ObamaCare)

jpye — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 11:25:08 -0500

Our friends over at The Liberty Papers have a college basketball bracket running for March Madness. I despise basketball, but despite that, I’ll be playing. You should too.

Is the Slaughter Solution constitutional?

jpye — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 09:09:15 -0500

As you may know, Democrats may try to use the so-called “Slaughter Solution,” a rule that could be inserted in the ObamaCare legislation that would allow the Senate version of the bill to be passed once the fixes are approved by Congress. Essentially, this allows members to vote for the rule and not the bill itself.

Former federal judge Michael W. McConnell writes that this gimmick would be unconstitutional:

To become law—hence eligible for amendment via reconciliation—the Senate health-care bill must actually be signed into law. The Constitution speaks directly to how that is done. According to Article I, Section 7, in order for a “Bill” to “become a Law,” it “shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate” and be “presented to the President of the United States” for signature or veto. Unless a bill actually has “passed” both Houses, it cannot be presented to the president and cannot become a law.To be sure, each House of Congress has power to “determine the Rules of its Proceedings.” Each house can thus determine how much debate to permit, whether to allow amendments from the floor, and even to require supermajority votes for some types of proceeding. But House and Senate rules cannot dispense with the bare-bones requirements of the Constitution. Under Article I, Section 7, passage of one bill cannot be deemed to be enactment of another.

The Slaughter solution attempts to allow the House to pass the Senate bill, plus a bill amending it, with a single vote. The senators would then vote only on the amendatory bill. But this means that no single bill will have passed both houses in the same form. As the Supreme Court wrote in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), a bill containing the “exact text” must be approved by one house; the other house must approve “precisely the same text.”

These constitutional rules set forth in Article I are not mere exercises in formalism. They ensure the democratic accountability of our representatives. Under Section 7, no bill can become law unless it is put up for public vote by both houses of Congress, and under Section 5 “the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question … shall be entered on the Journal.” These requirements enable the people to evaluate whether their representatives are promoting their interests and the public good. Democratic leaders have not announced whether they will pursue the Slaughter solution. But the very purpose of it is to enable members of the House to vote for something without appearing to do so. The Constitution was drafted to prevent that.

It doesn’t seem like Democrats are serious about using the Slaughter Solution. They probably considered it, but they know that they’ll be crucifed over it, and rightly so.

Cartoon of the Day: Democratic Party suicide watch

jpye — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:00:17 -0500

Over at Investors Business Daily, Michael Ramirez provides us with the best description of what Democrats are doing to themselves by pushing ObamaCare:

Recent posts by jpye