Hey, They're Just Being Fair

Joe Biden redefines the health care policy built on wealth redistribution as "just being fair." It's become increasingly clear the administration doesn't have a clue about business, the economy or job creation. How long before Michelle takes to a balcony to belt out Don't cry for me?

Elizabeth Warren: The economy will face another “very serious problem”

In a CNBC interview Elizabeth Warren, Chair of the TARP Congressional Oversight Panel, warned that half of all commercial mortgages will be underwater by years end.  Warren explains the ominous implications of this news:

“They are [mostly] concentrated in the mid-sized banks,” Warren told CNBC. “We now have 2,988 banks—mostly midsized, that have these dangerous concentrations in commercial real estate lending."

As a result, the economy will face another “very serious problem” that will have to be resolved over the next three years, she said, adding that things are unlikely to return to normalcy in 2010.

Warren's concern concentrates on the potential for problems in midsized banks, but also refers to plans to sell the 7.7 billion shares held by the Treasury acquired during the bailouts last year. The implications of a divestiture of that magnitude creates a good deal of uncertainty and Warren claims to have had difficulty gaining clarity on the company's future plans.

Warren is much more direct, however, when discussing the path forward for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac:

Warren said it’s time for the government to "pull the plug" on mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

“I’m one of those people who never liked public-private partnership to begin with. I think what they did was use public when public was useful and private when private was useful,” she said. “And I think we’ve got to rethink that whole thing.”

I wonder what Maxine Waters will have to say about that news. Perhaps Warren hasn't heard the news there is no crisis at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Much of what Warren says in this interview is not necessarily news. One of my earliest posts on this blog focused on an interview with Warren where she made the same points about the commercial lending market. Warren warned of this again in February prompting Tim Geithner to suggest a less than inspiring solution to the potential problem. Again, not much new there. Perhaps what is newsworthy here is her conclusion, we will not return to normalcy in 2010.

Frankly, this news much like Warren's previous warnings, isn't likely to get lots of play in the media because it offers little hope for Democrats.  One of the more interesting pieces in the news yesterday was an admission, albeit anonymously the Democrats were knowingly sacrificing their majority in voting for Obamacare. Their best possible hope would be a sudden resurrection of the economy in time for the midterm elections. Warren all but seals the tomb on that potential. It is almost unfathomable what damage Democrats would take at the polls should a string of midsized banks begin to collapse before that time. I would think Geithner's suggested bailouts could be a final straw. I am quite confident Democrats will be devastated in November regardless, so let's hope that happens without the "assistance" of another banking crisis.  There will be enough to clean up as it is.

Alan Grayson and Rick Sanchez Tag Team Jordan Marks

Via Newsbusters who also has a transcript in case anyone wants to verify that the insanity word for word, because it is just that incredible. Alan Grayson seems to be going for some sort of award for inflammatory speech. Here is a sample:

GRAYSON: You know, listen, people like you -- people like you -- and it's very apt that your name is Marks -- people like you, your dreams turn into other people's nightmares. And it's time you owned up to it.

MARKS: We as conservatives believe we have winning principles and we stick by these principles. Small government.

GRAYSON: Your principles are violence.

MARKS: I don't think anyone and my principles are --

GRAYSON: Anger, hatred and violence.

MARKS: In fact, in the charter of my personal organization, it says if you are a person that does do the so-called acts that happen towards these congressmen, you're kicked out of my organization.

GRAYSON: Oh, yes.

MARKS: You can go look it up online. We are a public organization.

GRAYSON: See if that helps to bring back the dead.

Rick Sanchez never challenges Grayson, rather he seems just as committed as Grayson in promoting the impression tea parties are built around a core of violent fringe lunatics. Remind me again, which party had one of its contributors arrested for making death threats against Republican Congressman Eric Cantor?

Every day the media continues to assist Democrats in promoting this outrageous narrative that those who oppose health care are dangerous, is another day I come closer to being convinced this country has been hijacked and held hostage for the sake of a failing presidency. Interviews like this should be held up for the vile propaganda they are. The bright spot in this? Jordan Marks handles the Grayson/Sanchez insanity with ease.

A question for anyone who might know, how in the world did Alan Grayson get elected in a right leaning district. Heaven help us if this lunatic is sworn in with the next Congress.

Shocking News Item: Sebelius Threatens Insurers

Kathleen Sebelius penned a threatening note to Karen Ignagni, lobbyist for AHIP (health insurance) warning insurers they dare not try to take advantage of the Democrats' failure to include the exclusion for pre-existing conditions in their prized piece of legislation.  Why should the disapprobation of the insurers stop now, after they willingly cooperated with Democrats for more than a year?  Chief Cheerleader for all things health care at The Washington Post gives the alternate title: Sebelius to Insurers: Make my day.  These are the children in charge of the country.

Sebelius absurdly threatens to do what Democrats seem to specialize in these days, issue an executive fiat to paper over their ineptitude at governing.  If that doesn't work they can always drag a few holdouts before Congress for a bit of public humiliation.  Ezra Klein counts the many ways insurers lose because Democrats can't keep track of what they included and/or promised in their mountainous legislation:

The losers here are actually the insurers. As far as I can tell, their reading of the law is legitimate. And they have a lot to lose from a fight with the administration. It's not obvious that Sebelius actually can change this with a stroke of her pen, but there are plenty of other things she can do with a stroke of her pen that will make the insurance industry's life very, very difficult. And since this policy actually isn't a very big deal -- fairly few kids are uninsured because their preexisting conditions are keeping them off their parents' plan -- I'd guess that the administration and the insurers reach some sort of accord on this.

I am still baffled why Democrats think none of this will backfire on them when a HHS Secretary is given this much power under a Republican administration.  Sebelius can't force the insurers help cover over Democrats' failure to write coherent legislation, though she isn't above trying.  Surely, *asking* for the insurers to cooperate in light of the Democrats own blunder is too much to hope for.  The only alternative this administration finds acceptable is to run roughshod over whoever or whatever is in their way.  What will they ever do about themselves?

Laura Ingraham Challenges Matt Lauer and the Dinosaur Media

Via Breitbart
Though I was out today and missed a good bit of television news coverage, I wouldn't have likely caught this segment between Laura Ingraham and Matt Lauer if I were home.  Today is one of those shows I go out of my way to avoid, the bias is becoming increasingly intolerable.  Laura Ingraham is the perfect guest for a much needed smack down of the smirky Matt Lauer.

Laura doesn't wait to challenge Lauer beyond her first sentence.  Ingraham challenges the objectivity of a report that had just aired where the implicit message was Sarah Palin had people "too riled up" that segued to reports of violence.  Lauer takes the heat and gets a bit riled up himself.  Ingraham doesn't let up and lays a nice one on Lauer saying, "we're smart here Matt, we know what's going on."  Lauer goes on to make the usual left wing media dodge, "Sarah Palin is a polarizing figure."  Guess who Ingraham claims is the real polarizing figure?   Notice how Lauer continues to get increasingly nasty after that point until he ends by asking Ingraham to rate the chances the the health care "law" will be repealed.  As Ingraham makes clear, anything can happen when a very unpopular bill becomes a very unpopular "law".

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Health Care May be Hazardous to Re-election

Politics Daily  has a fascinating round up of polling analysis broken down by state showing Obama in trouble in a few key states he won in 2008.  I am sure it will come as no surprise that health care has hurt him quite a bit.  Bruce Drake notes:

"In the states polled by Rasmussen where Obama is in negative territory, he often is deep in negative territory because those who "strongly" disapprove range from 40 percent to 50 percent. Sometimes, the "strongly" disapprove nearly matches or does match the percentage of those who approve. The same is true in those states where a majority disapprove of the health care reform plan he advocated."


One key state that stood out was Ohio which is particularly interesting because the state has been crucial to winning the last few elections.  The polling for health care is very bad there and it seems the hope for Democrats in the state may rest on Obama's popularity there:

PPP says 53 percent disapprove of the job Obama is doing while 40 percent approve, and 7 percent are undecided.

Independents disapprove by a 63 percent to 32 percent margin, with 6 percent undecided. Fifty-four percent oppose his health care plan while 39 percent support it, with 6 percent undecided. PPP's Dean Debnam, commenting on the Ohio Senate race, observed, ""None of the candidates in Ohio is really standing out right now. But if Barack Obama's numbers in the state remain this low it's not likely to elect a Democratic Senator this year. His popularity could be the deciding factor in this race."

Two numbers stand out, keeping in mind PPP is a left leaning pollster, 63% of Independents disapprove of Obama while only 39% over all support health care.  This doesn't bode well for Obama or Democratic hopefuls in this election.  I am not sure what could increase his popularity other than repealing health care but it appears he has his work cut out for him there.

 Because I am in Pennsylvania I naturally was interested in those results.  Obama won Pennsylvania readily in 2008 but there does appear to be some buyer's remorse setting in.  The latest Rasmussen poll tells the tale:

Rasmussen says 51 percent disapprove of Obama's performance (with 41 percent "strongly" disapproving) while 48 percent approve. Sixty-five percent oppose the health care reform plan he backed (with 57 percent in strong opposition) while 31 percent favored it. Sixty percent say he did a poor job of handling the issue, 9 percent rate it fair, and 30 percent grade it good or excellent.

 Pennsylvanians are really opposed to this health care legislation which seems to have put Obama underwater in a state he won.  The same is true in Florida and we all know how key Florida can be in determining the outcome of elections.  It looks to me Virginia and most of the states that turned blue for the first time in 2008 have recovered from their hope and change hangover.  Of course 2012 is a long way away and much can change in the interim.  Still, it looks as though if the election were held today Obama would join the ranks of the "one-termers," quite readily.

For those interested in polling, be sure to read through Politics Daily state-by-state breakdown.  One thing to note, however, Research 2000 polls are paid for by Daily KOS and seem to me the rosiest of rosy scenarios for Democrats.  Though there are a few there that can't hide the unpopularity of either Obama or his agenda, believe me they seem to be trying in those polls to hide what they can.  Keep that in mind when reading analysis of those polls.  The rest of the polling information is pretty interesting so be sure to take a look.

The Postpartisan President Appoints Craig Becker in Recess

President Obama bypassed the Senate to make 15 recess appointments including the controversial Craig Becker who was blocked in the Senate when two Democrats joined with Republicans to oppose his nomination. The postpartisan President explains:

"The United States Senate has the responsibility to approve or disprove of my nominees,” Mr. Obama said in a statement. “But if, in the interest of scoring political points, Republicans in the Senate refuse to exercise that responsibility, I must act in the interest of the American people and exercise my authority to fill these positions on an interim basis.”

Is the appointment of Becker in the interest of the American people? That seems highly debatable. Becker states quite clearly in the following Naked Emperor he supports the hiring of illegal aliens,"It's had a discriminatory effect."


Needless to say union leaders are thrilled with Becker's appointment:

But perhaps no group will be as heartened as union leaders.

For months they had complained that Mr. Obama was too timid in responding to Republican opposition to Mr. Becker, a former associate general counsel for the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and the Service Employees International Union. Labor leaders were also unhappy that the labor relations board has been largely paralyzed since January 2008 because only two of its five seats have been filled since then. Mr. Obama also appointed Mark Pearce, a New York labor lawyer, on Saturday to fill a fourth seat on the board.

It is laughable that the unions have been largely paralyzed in this administration. This is entirely in the "interest of the American people," however, and likely to stimulate jobs - for illegal aliens. Thanks for thinking of us.

Sorry Dems,There's no Cure for What Ails You

One week later, the truth of this is more evident.  If you were angry when it passed, "hold that thought" until November.  Congressional approval ratings of 11% are fatal  but it is up to us to keep up the fight until then.

See Cartoons by Cartoon by Gary McCoy - Courtesy of Politicalcartoons.com - Email this Cartoon

Jill, has a round up of a few great posts over at Potluck, be sure to take a look.  

More Vaporous Threats on the Left - Patrick Murphy Earning Murtha's Seat

Greg Sargent challenges whether Rep. Eric Cantor "jumped the gun" in referencing a bullet shot through his campaign office window during a press conference on Thursday.  Sargent questioned Cantor's spokesperson Brad Dayspring making continual reference to a police report that concluded the incident was an "act of random gunfire."  Sargent presses Dayspring on details of Cantor's statement in light of the conclusions from the police investigation in a "what did he know and when did he know it" report including whether details of the bullet's trajectory had been discussed with police prior to Cantor's press conference.  This is the hard-line investigative journalism that gave Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford the opportunity to portray Woodward and Bernstein in "All the President's Men" after all.

Contrast Sargent's hard-hitting investigative reporting with that of The Philadelphia Inquirer" report on "threats" to Congressman Patrick Murphy (D PA-8) after he voted for the health care legislation last week:

U.S. Rep. Patrick Murphy has received threats since voting for the health-care overhaul last Sunday night but there have been no acts of vandalism against his home or his district offices, a spokeswoman for the congressman said today.

Kate E. Hansen declined to disclose details of the incidents, which she said are under investigation by the FBI and the Capitol Police, the agency charged with protecting members of Congress.

"It's being handled," Hansen said.

 The very last line of the Inquirer report adds, "Local police said they had no recent reports of vandalism at Murphy's district offices in Bristol Borough and Doylestown Borough, nor at his home."  Funny how that works out, no police report, no hard-hitting investigative journalism.

The report goes on to mention the "flurry of threats" and includes a quote from Rep. Bob Brady (D PA) who is "a little worried about people going home now - there are going to be a lot of town hall meetings."  It will come as no surprise to Patrick Murphy's constituents there would be no quote from Murphy let alone one referencing town hall meeting.  Murphy only conducts town halls via telephone with the able assistance of  the AARP.  Still, one wonders, did the Inquirer attempt to obtain a quote from Murphy and why the inclusion of one from Brady.  Is Brady an easier "get" now that Murphy has been given the nod for a seat on the Appropriations Committee vacant since the death of his mentor John Murtha?

It would be shocking had there been  any credible reports to police of acts of vandalism or violence to Congressman Murphy's offices or  residence.  His constituents fully expected him to vote with Speaker Pelosi as he always does.  Still, Congressman "Patlosi," as he is known locally, mentioned listening to thousands of his constituents when announcing his decision to vote for the bill despite the obstructionist strategies by national tea party groups evidently designed solely to prevent Murphy from hearing from constituents who opposed the health care bill. Murphy's spokesperson Kate Hansen  explained their phones were jammed with tea party phone calls when pressed for an explanation why constituents who opposed the bill were unable to get through to voice concern:

 "These calls are not organic and are being organized by a number of different national tea party activist groups that are executing an obstructionist strategy to deliberately prevent offices from functioning as they're supposed to (and) be able to accept feedback from constituents."

We are asked to believe then only pro-reform calls and inorganic tea party calls got through to Murphy's office.  These are the pro forma explanations Congressman Murphy's constituents have come to expect and are rarely disappointed.

Further complicating Murphy's ability to listen to his constituents was a power failure that forced his Doylestown PA office  to close for several hours the Monday prior to the vote.  You can read this on the sign posted on the door to his office quite plainly thanks to the light shining behind the sign.  I guess tea party folks in Florida and Texas were behind that obstruction as well.

To say that Hansen and Murphy have something of a credibility problem is a bit of an understatement.  Still, Murphy's alleged threats get none of the scrutiny that Cantor's statement enjoys.   Cantor's office had a bullet penetrate the window at some trajectory and the left all but calls on Arlen Specter to reassemble the Warren Commission.

Congressman Murphy, through his spokesperson, advances another vaporous threat, without a shred of evidence, as contribution to the growing liberal narrative those who oppose health care are dangerous.  The media laps it up and regurgitates without question.  Never let it be said Murphy isn't doing his part for the cause.    This is a fact that is widely known locally.  Murphy doesn't concern himself with local opinion, however, his loyalty is saved for Nancy Pelosi.  Murphy will be richly rewarded after having proven himself loyal and every bit as worthy as John Murtha to fill that coveted seat on the Appropriations Committee.   It would be a pity if Democrats "jumped the gun" and presumed Murphy re-elected before voters have their say in November.

Legislate in Haste, Repent in November

First they forgot to cover pre-existing conditions in children.  Then it was that big promise that children could stay on their parents plan until they were 26 years old.  Businesses are now reporting they will take a beating in new expenses.  Now it seems retirees will as well because the plan raises revenue by eliminating tax break that kept retirees on company prescription-medication plans.  Millions of seniors will be dumped onto Medicare part D plans as a result.    So much for the "you-can-keep-your-current-plan" pledge.  Ed Morrissey finds the bad news buried in in this AP report.   Ed writes:

The Democrats in Congress argued that they would gain $5.4 billion in revenue by eliminating the tax break enacted in the 2003 Medicare Part D program as an incentive for businesses to keep their retirees out of the Medicare system.  Instead, they have given businesses a reason to dump their retirees out of the private networks and into the Part D system now.  Not only will the expected tax revenues never appear, but now we will have to spend a lot more money covering those prescriptions out of public funds.  The seniors in these programs will suffer most of all, as the Part D coverage is vastly inferior to the private plans offered by businesses in the private sector.

Businesses have been warning Democrats about this for months according to the AP report so it's tough to blame the Democrats for not having read this.  It seems more like they didn't want to hear it because they would have to find $5 billion somewhere else to pay for this monstrosity.   The alternative explanation would be they knew this might be a result and didn't care.  Frankly either explanation is credible at this point considering how poorly Democrats have handled this legislation.

Democrats own the health care system at this point and there will be plenty of time between now and November to analyze the fallout of their failure to consider the  real implications of their legislation.  Thus far, their big deal legislation is looking more like a monstrosity and less like a masterstroke.  Good luck with that in November.

Unsustainable, That's What They Are

Sing it with Nat King Cole, unsustainable through near and far.  Like a song of debt that clings to me, the CBO finds the 2011 Obama administration budget unsustainable in every way:

President Obama's fiscal 2011 budget will generate nearly $10 trillion in cumulative budget deficits over the next 10 years, $1.2 trillion more than the administration projected, and raise the federal debt to 90 percent of the nation's economic output by 2020, the Congressional Budget Office reported Thursday.

In its 2011 budget, which the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released Feb. 1, the administration projected a 10-year deficit total of $8.53 trillion. After looking it over, CBO said in its final analysis, released Thursday, that the president's budget would generate a combined $9.75 trillion in deficits over the next decade.

 That's why Democratic majorities are so regrettable.  And forever more that's how they'll stay... at least until November.
More at Potluck
Via Memeorandum

Don't Worry About Paying Your Mortgage

Remember Minta Garcia, the school bus driver with the $800,000 home?  Garcia once begged Obama on CNN, "Stop the foreclosures."  From her mouth to Chairman Obama's ears.  The Washington Post  reports the Obama administration will require lenders to slash or eliminate mortgage payments of the unemployed for up to six months though the administration may allow lenders to permit borrowers to skip payments altogether.

Oh, but there is more:

The administration's new push also seeks to more aggressively help borrowers who owe more on their mortgages than their properties are worth, offering financial incentives for the first time to lenders to cut the loan balances of such distressed homeowners. Those who are still current on their mortgages could get the chance to refinance on better terms into loans backed by the Federal Housing Administration.

The problem of "underwater" borrowers has bedeviled earlier administration efforts to address the mortgage crisis as home prices plunged.

Officials said the new initiatives will take effect over the next six months and be funded out of $50 billion previously allocated for foreclosure relief in the emergency bailout program for the financial system. No new taxpayer funds will be needed, the officials said.

So, no new taxpayer dollars are required, just the old taxpayer dollars they had laying around.  I feel better already.  Let me say I have sympathy for anyone unemployed during this awful economy particularly under the leadership - for lack of a better term - of this president.  Perhaps if the administration had targeted their efforts on  "J O B S" everyone, including the President, would be far better off.

Nevertheless, there does come a point where people are taught through such intervention, there is no need to plan for a rainy day.   Robin Koerner at "The Moderate Voice," is asking himself why he bothered:

A few months ago, the principal on my mortgage was comfortably more than the place was worth, and my low income was in decline. So I did the responsible thing, cut my expenses back to the bone, and raised and moved whatever money I could to cover it, and to try to pay it down. I wanted to deal with the fact that I was upside down on the mortgage and dangerously exposed to future rate increases; most of all, I wanted simply to reduce my monthly payments.
Why did I bother?

If I had not been so responsible, Obama’s plan (I still cannot quite believe it) would have given me (via my bank) YOUR money, humble tax-payer, as a gift to reduce my mortgage, and I would have gained to the tune of many thousands of dollars.

The President is quite generous in this election year with OUR money as he uses it to toss to the plebes in hopes of assuaging residual anger they were last to get a bailout.  The Loney Conservative notes the bad optics in an election year:

Well, he can’t have any more Obamavilles pop up, or foreclosure related suicides, now can he? Of course not. That would create an image of a failed presidency. It’s the same thinking that was behind food stamps. Politicians don’t want images of millions of people standing in line for bread and cheese.

There is always that potential, isn't there, it's really all about him.  It's as though he suddenly realizes people are struggling because Axelrod suggested the visuals weren't working or something.   I am sure there will be a whole new array of victims trotted out for stump speeches so Obama can claim to have saved them from being tossed in the streets by evil bankers and their Republican allies.  Lest we forget, the Wall Street crew financed Obama's campaign, now they will be ordered about to save the Democratic majority.   Guess when this is all set to be put in effect?   September, timing is everything when you're putting on a show.

More on this at Memeorandum

Legislation Addresses Mal-distribution of Income

Real Clear Politics has the video but here is the money quote of the day:

Sen. Max Baucus (D): "Too often, much of late, the last couple three years the mal-distribution of income in America is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle income class is left behind. Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America."

Where exactly might I find the bit in the Constitution that enables the Federal Government to address the mal-distribution of income? Evidently there were no dictionaries on hand in 1787 and the poor Founding Fathers confused enumerated with innumerable. Who knew?

Wildly Popular Health Care Law Has Majority Support for Repeal

H/T: Hot Air
Rasmussen's latest poll, conducted two nights after the health care bill was passed, shows a majority supports repeal of the bill:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, conducted on the first two nights after the president signed the bill, shows that 55% favor repealing the legislation. Forty-two percent (42%) oppose repeal. Those figures include 46% who Strongly Favor repeal and 35% who Strongly Oppose it.

In terms of Election 2010, 52% say they’d vote for a candidate who favors repeal over one who does not. Forty-one percent (41%) would cast their vote for someone who opposes repeal.

Not surprisingly, Republicans overwhelmingly favor repeal while most Democrats are opposed. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 59% favor repeal, and 35% are against it.

Most senior citizens (59%) also favor repeal. Earlier, voters over 65 had been more opposed to the health care plan than younger adults. Seniors use the health care system more than anyone else. But 58% of those 18 to 29 also support repeal of the plan which requires all Americans to have health insurance.

This ought to put a crimp in the latest efforts to show Americans are slowly warming up to health care legislation. The big surprise here is the sudden awakening of the 18 to 29 age group. Obama never mentioned the mandate when I saw him address a group of college students in Pennsylvania two weeks ago. He did, however, emphasize they would be able to stay on their parents plan until they were 26, which was greeted with enthusiasm. Too bad they left that part out of the bill. Though that provision is likely to be fixed as it was included in reconciliation, Democrats left out another major promise to cover children with preexisting conditions. Read the bill much Democrats? It seems the answer to that question is a resounding, HELL NO!

Democrats vulnerable in the coming midterm elections must take a moment's pause when they hear the senior citizens who always come out to vote support repeal by 59% as do 59% of independent voters. Jennifer Rubin thinks this puts taking the Senate on the table:

but it’s no longer inconceivable that the Senate could flip, leaving the remaining Democrats (especially those up for re-election in 2012) quaking. Republicans have excellent to good shots at picking up Pennsylvania, Delaware, Colorado, Arkansas, North Dakota, Nevada, and Illinois. Throw in Wisconsin (if former governor Tommy Thompson runs) and California as competitive states, and you see a pathway to a GOP Senate takeover.

Will remaining Democrats who survive the midterms continue to ignore the will of the voters? Perhaps we might find those survivors amenable to overriding a presidential veto to repeal the bill.

More on this at Memeorandum

Shuster Gets Spanked by Kevin Jackson

Democrats are living in perilous times in these days since they passed their legislation to save all humanity. There are stories cropping up by the minute painting a grim portrait of savagery and violence against dainty Democrats who really only wanted to help their fellow-man after all. Curiously absent from these reports, however, is the report of a single arrest associated with crimes. Not a single police report been proffered as proof some dangerous right-winger is responsible for these alleged heinous crimes. Do I detect the familiar odor of manure in the air?

Don't get me wrong, there are fringe elements associated with both sides of the political spectrum, so I won't rule out the possibility that there may be some truth behind some of the reporting. Neither will I rule out that there is fear mongering involved here hoping to cast those who oppose this health care debacle as dangerous radicals. Nothing would squelch the likelihood your average Joe might speak out against the legislation better than creating the wide spread illusion that everyone opposed is a loon.

Despite a severe shortage of evidence, the cheerleading media is running wild with the news radical right-wingers have been terrorizing the villages ever since the bill passed. Ace cheerleader at MSNBC, David Shuster was stopped dead in his tracks, however, by conservative blogger Kevin Jackson, of The Black Sphere. It does my heart good to see someone give Shuster a well-deserved spanking, metaphorically speaking of course.

‘The BIG Black Lie’ Author Debates MSNBC’s Shuster on Tea Pa
Uploaded by burghnews. - Up-to-the minute news videos.

The Tax Man Cometh

Harvard economist Greg Mankiw looks into his crystal ball and sees the potential for European level tax rates in America's future. Though Mankiw sees some potential merit in aspects of the health care bill, he believes it will add significantly to our long-term fiscal problems. He wonders how long before the President comes clean with the American people that his spending programs require higher taxes:

The Obama administration's political philosophy is more egalitarian and more communitarian than mine. Their spending programs require much higher taxes than we have now and, indeed, much higher taxes than they have had the temerity to propose. Here is the question I have been wondering about: How long can the President wait before he comes clean with the American people and explains how high taxes needs to rise to pay for his vision of government?

I hope Mankiw is not holding his breath waiting for the Obama administration to come clean. He shirked the responsibility when he created the deficit reduction committee.

Charles Krauthammer sees the VAT tax in our future to solve the problem. Ed Morrissey notes this was debated while the bills were being written. Clearly it was scrapped knowing Americans would overwhelmingly reject a bill that was paid for with such a tax. Nevertheless, the day of reckoning is coming and with it higher taxes. Be prepared:

Erectile Dysfunction Drugs for Sex Offenders: It's a Good Thing!

Via Memeorandum
Politico has the text of an amendment introduced by Senator Tom Coburn as part of the  GOP strategy to force Democrats to make some awful votes (in an election year) just to avoid sending the health care bill back to the House for another vote.   Senator Coburn gets serious props for the creativity put into this amendment:

No Erectile Dysfunction Drugs To Sex Offenders – This amendment would enact recommendations from the Government Accountability Office to stop fraudulent payments for prescription drugs prescribed by dead providers or, to dead patients. This amendment also prohibits coverage of Viagra and other ED medications to convicted child molesters, rapists, and sex offenders, and prohibits coverage of abortion drugs. (Note: the creation of exchanges could allow sex offenders to receive taxpayer-funded Viagra and other ED drugs unless Congress expressly prohibits this action – see additional background attached)

Watching Democrats vote against a ban on coverage of erectile dysfunction prescription drugs for rapists might be just the group therapy we need while we wait for the Supreme Court challenges to begin.  I have to applaud the inclusion of a provision to prohibit fraudulent prescriptions being written by dead providers to dead patients.  Lovely ads those will make this year when Senator Blanche Lincoln casts her vote against this masterful amendment.

Allahpundit  makes an excellent point as he explains what's in store for Democrats:

So anything the GOP proposes — anything — they’re basically bound to vote no on. And Coburn knows it. One tasty shinola sandwich, coming up! Although I’m confused: If, as the left has convinced itself, ObamaCare is pure win for them politically (see, e.g., today’s ridiculously overhyped Gallup poll), what’s the aversion to another House vote? In fact, why not ping-pong the bill back and forth between the chambers for another month, loading it up with ever more crowd-pleasing amendments? It’s time to own the glorious political victory that looms in November, liberals.

 Democrats should relish the opportunity to cast another vote for the still wildly unpopular health care bill they dare the GOP to make an issue of in the midterm elections.  Can we play poker with these liberals sometime?    How long before we see a Hitler finds out Harry Reid supports Viagra for Rapists parody?  The over/under for the “Why does Harry Reid want to give rapists erections”? video is two days after this vote.  I'd expect the Hitler parody to hit about the same time.

Stuck With Stupak

Here's the perfect accompaniment to my my latest post at our group blog Potluck:

Full story from Major Garrett
More at Memeorandum and Carol's Closet

Paul Ryan - This Thing is a Fiscal Frankenstein

Politico has a nice video of Paul Ryan explaining the gimmicks used to game the CBO score. There is not much new offered but I thought this worth a post regardless. I have been involved in a ridiculous facebook debate where I am being informed how this fiscal train wreck is really going to save money. Some appear to be buying hook,line and sinker into some of the media regurgitations of Democratic talking points. I am not sure there is much that can change minds of those who really want to believe this is the miracle the administration paints it to be. Nevertheless, the more people are armed with the facts when confronted with these arguments the better. I have to admit I have a tough time passing up the opportunity to post a good Paul Ryan video.

This was just too good to pass up and there are more in the series posted at Politico if you would like to see the entire in-depth interview or selected parts. I highly recommend the video where Ryan explains the coming debt tsunami if you have the time.

Joe Biden - What a Classy Guy

UPDATE: BAGHDAD BOB GIBBS AGREES

Introducing Obama as he prepares to sign this fiscal train wreck known as health care legislation, Joe Biden is caught on open mic saying this was a "BIG F***ING DEAL." Tell us something we don't know Joe. I am sure it will be a big deal for the young people now forced to purchase insurance or the 16000 new jobs at the IRS. It's not every day you get to sign billions in new taxes and a half a trillion in Medicaid cuts into law. It's probably a Big f'ing deal for the 60% of maintstream voters who support suing to repeal the law. Yes sir, Mr. Vice President, you nailed it this time. Stay classy:

The Blowback Begins

Via Memeorandum A CNN poll of 1030 adults, not voters or registered voters but adults, shows Obama underwater in his job approval with 46% approving and 51% disapproving. The earliest CNN poll tracking Obama's approval was conducted in February 2009 showed an amazing 76% approving of Obama's performance. These were not the lowest points for Obama, however. Measuring President Obama's performance on the Federal Budget deficit a full 62% disapproved. He scored lower on all measures of the economy while he fared better on scores on his performance as Commander-in-Chief.

CNN is quick to add that respondents overwhelmingly approve of President Obama as a person with 70% saying they did approve. I think this is possibly the least meaningful metric asked in these tracking polls. It is worth noting that Obama's personal approval was nearly identical to that o George W. Bush. Something tells me if I went back to read a write up on Bush's polls, I would be less likely to find that personal approval mentioned.

It is likely that Obama's poll numbers will see a bump in coming days. If I were a betting woman, I would guess the bump will come entirely from Democrats who are relieved the massive tax increases and government health care regime is going to be the law of the land, for now anyway.

Speaking of statistics, Megan McArdle is on something of a tear these days challenging the dramatic arguments used to sell health care. Read the whole post but here is a nice taste:

During that debate I heard a lot about the 20-45,000 people who were dying from lack of insurance every year. I heard about how US mortality indicators lagged behind the rest of the developed world. I heard about infant mortality. I heard, over and over again, about medical bankruptcies, and how medical bills were bankrupting America. I heard about the CBO score that said this bill would be deficit neutral. Let me know if I've missed anything, but it seems to me that mortality, financial protection, and deficit-improvement were the three major planks upon which this bill was sold. They are certainly the bulk of the anecdotes that fill heart-rending articles and presidential speeches.

Forgive me, but to my admittedly naive ears, this sounds like what you are saying is that you think that if we cover the uninsured, we will have lower mortality rates, fewer medical bankruptcies, and a lower deficit.

Megan wants the ObamaCare cheerleaders (*cough* Ezra Klein) to put their money where their mouths are, so to speak. It is a nice little takedown particularly coming from a recovering Obama voter.

Pundette has a great round up unraveling the sausage making that led up to ObamaCare.

Jay Cost who blogs at Real Clear Politics thinks this legislation makes Obama himself politically vulnerable and details his analysis in a lengthy post.  The short version is the legislation is structured to hide the true costs and deficits it will naturally incur when the bill is implemented.  The tricks Democrats used to hide the costs are what will ultimately get them in the end:

 After decades of developing a reputation for defending the interests of senior citizens, the Democrats have put it in serious jeopardy with this legislation. And they've done so right at the moment when demographic shifts are making the senior population more powerful than ever.

Why create such an imbalance between winners and losers? The Democrats are not fools. Why would they do this?

The answer is pretty simple: to hide the true cost of the bill. They don't want to push a $2 trillion program now because this country is facing the greatest deficit crisis it's seen in decades - and such a price tag does not make for good politics these days.

Lastly, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli was interviewed by Greta Van Sustern on his plans to file a lawsuit in Virginia's Rocket Docket challenging the mandate immediately after the bill is signed today. Eleven states in total plan to file suit, including, Florida,South Carolina, Alabama, Nebraska, Texas, Pennsylvania, Washington, Utah, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Greta interviews the Attorney General of Florida by phone as well in the following clip.  Be forewarned  you will have to suffer through about one minute of cat fighting from The View, Greta included in the lead up to the Attorney General interviews. There is a bit of outrage from Rush Limbaugh's show that makes The View clip less painful.

Patrick Kennedy is All Choked up About ObamaCare

Lucky me, day one of ObamaCare and I come down with a virus. Well, better today than a year from now I guess and this is not likely to be one of those things that I would end up seeing a doctor for anyway. I feel immensely relieved about ObamaCare, however, after watching this video of Patches Kennedy explaining how the sun shines out of Obama's every orifice and the all that is wrong in the world is now made right by making a new middle class entitlement which we can't afford.

Interesting that Rep. Kennedy focuses on those denied medical treatment. I seem to recall one Mary Jo Kopechne was denied medical treatment or am I mistaken.  It was probably because in those pre-ObamaCare days being a woman was still a pre-existing condition. Well, it was that or his father wasn't exactly the saint the Democrats would have us all believe. Listen to Patches as he babbles on about his father, Obama and lies of the health insurers. He gets riled up at the end though gives an emotional statement on how proud his father would be of Obama. The clincher though is his praise of St. Nancy of Assisi at the very end. I hope mental illness is covered in ObamaCare.  There are more than a few who seem to be in dire need of help, Patches most of all:

The Gentleman From Wisconsin

I know that many of us are feeling lost, even beaten tonight after that shameful abuse of power displayed in Washington. I refuse to lay down and accept defeat. Today starts us on our way to delivering a massive wakeup call to those in Washington who callously ignored the voice of the American people. We are 7 months or so from making that happen.

One of the rewards in this long first battle has been the emergence of real leadership on the right. I continue to be amazed by Paul Ryan. His speech tonight moved me. I have a sneaking suspicion that a certain man residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue trembles, at least internally when Paul Ryan begins to speak. As Martha Stewart would say, that's a good thing.

Paul Ryan vs Debbie Wasserman-Schultz - Guess Who Wins?

From Fox News Sunday, Debbie Wasserman Schultz attempts to argue with Paul Ryan over the Catholic Church of all things, oy vey!   Then to make matters worse Wasserman-Schultz argues over deficit reduction with Ryan - game, set, match.   If the Democrats do succeed in passing this travesty be prepared for Americans to suddenly become very very familiar with the contents of the chart Paul Ryan uses in this video.

They Still Don't Have the Votes - UPDATE: Stupak Caves

Breaking Stupak Voting Yes? - Game over if true - Stupak denying this
Baird switches vote according to Fox -  The Dems must have twisted enough arms to get their votes.
Pelosi carrying gavel used by John Dingell to pass Medicare.  Fitting to pass the entitlement that will bankrupt the US.


The Hill reports conflicting accounts of where the vote stands right now:

In a sign of some uncertainty, though, heading into the vote, one of Democrats' chief deputy whips said Sunday that they may not have a hard head count with enough votes at this point.
"We don’t have a hard 216 right now," Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said during an appearance on "Fox News Sunday."

She did express confidence that Dems would hit the number, adding, "I firmly believe we will have 216."

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told NBC’s "Meet the Press" that “there are still members who are looking at it and making up their mind, but we still think there are going to be 216-plus votes when we call the roll.”

 It will all come down to Stupak who claims he has 8 currently in his block.  He was scheduled to hold a press conference at Noon which was cancelled.  Who knows where they are exactly, but Dan Perrin claims to have sources on both sides saying they do not have the votes.

Jill has more on the sham executive order and Nice Deb has a plea from the Catholic Bishops not to pass the bill.  Katherine Lopez calls it a "dangerous non-binding show:"

The reality of this or any other text, though is: It is meaningless legally. It has no binding effect. I don't know a single lawyer with a working knowledge of the Constitution, Congress, and the Executive, who says otherwise.

Will update this post with news as it happens.  Check our group blog Potluck for news as well.

Where in the World is Loretta Sanchez? - UPDATED

Hot off the wires: Rep Loretta Sanchez is MIA and listed as a no by Democratic leadership:

Sanchez was nowhere to be found on Saturday — she was in Florida on a fundraising jaunt, two Democratic sources said — and while leaders expected her to return for the Sunday vote on final passage, they weren’t assured. What’s more, leaders now list the Orange County Democrat as a “no” vote.

Sanchez’s office did not return a request for comment Saturday evening. She cast her last vote shortly after 6 p.m. Friday and missed all seven recorded votes on Saturday, a review of the record shows.

Democratic hand-wringing about her status — geographically and intentionally — underlines just how tight the margin has become for leaders trying to zero in on 216 votes as the clock ticks down to their appointed deadline. Leaders are still hunting for a winning coalition of votes — and still struggling for a breakthrough abortion fix that will convert three or four holdouts angling for tougher protections against public funding of the procedure.

Sanchez this week told the Orange County Register that she needs to be satisfied that the health care overhaul is affordable. “The Senate bill is a bad bill,” she told the paper.

RTR, but this is a potential upset and shows this is definitely not over. Certainly not as over as Democrats want us to believe. Matheson and Space are both no votes and it looks as though a deal with Stupak is back up for consideration. Pelosi must be steaming, yikes what a thought that is. Someone throw a bucket of water on the Bit, excuse me, Witch - please!

H/T: Jay Cost
UPDATE:
Jane Hamsher @ Firedoglake is genuinely surprised by this development:

Sanchez voted “yes” last time.  She faces a well-funded GOP challenger, Van Tran, in the 2010 election. Although Obama carried her district by 60%, Schwarzenegger won it in 2006 as did Bush in 2004.  It has a growing Vietnamese community, which Tran hopes to capitalize on.  “They come out and vote in large numbers, and they’re 2-to-1 Republican,” he told the Associated Press.

This makes Nancy Pelosi’s job considerably harder.  Sanchez’s jump could be a sign that there are members who have been quiet about their positions and hoping they’d never have to take the vote.  But with the fear of tough elections ahead looming large, more could follow her lead.  I know there’s a tendency to look at these votes as carved in stone once members commit publicly, but I fully remember what happened to Ciro Rodriguez during the Cap and Trade vote:

Sanchez represents a D+5 district. Yes, she faces a well funded challenger, but there are others who are in far more perilous positions than she.  Self-preservation is a powerful force yet Obama called on vulnerable Democrats to lay down their jobs to save  his own.  I will not suggest that we have proof positive Pelosi won't find a way to wrangle up the votes she needs but she clearly does not have them now.  Those who have yet to declare their positions may well have been dodging declaring a position in hopes this would all fall apart.

The Democrats started this "fauxmentum" push to passage hoping to build a sense of inevitability.  It strikes me as a strong possibility they found themselves the day before the "historic" vote not having the votes and not wanting to delay the vote for fear of losing the air of inevitability they'd built.

The Anchoress tweets the news Bill Clinton has been enlisted to make last minute calls to move the fence sitters off the fence.   I have serious doubts Clinton is looking to help Obama do what he could not.  I am fairly certain Clinton hasn't forgotten how he was painted a racist by the Obama campaign.  The Clintons are notorious grudge holders, I would love to be on the line hearing those calls.  I wonder if Clinton helped Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky write this helpful advice:

I still remember how, after I voted, Bob Walker jumped up and down on the House floor, yelling "Bye-bye, Marjorie!" I thought, first, that he was probably right. Then, that I would expect better behavior from my kids, much less a member of Congress. And then, that he was a remarkable jumper.

I am your worst-case scenario. And I'd do it all again.

In recent days I have become something I never imagined: a verb. I hear that when freshmen enter Congress they are told, "We don't want to Margolies-Mezvinsky you." I had no idea that when I voted for the Clinton budget, I was writing the first line of my obituary.

It seems to me that Loretta Sanchez has opted to ignore Marjorie's advice.  Perhaps Marjorie might have fared better had she listened to her constituents instead of her "conscience."   It is inarguable the holdouts in Stupak's group are listening to both their constituents and their consciences.  Here's hoping some in that group aren't swayed by a worthless executive order, they'd be ignoring their constituents and consciences if they were so easily fooled.   It looks as though they would be the deciding votes for this disaster.  Who really wants that on their conscience?

Paul Ryan Takes on Slaughter and the Rules Committee

This is great television. Louise Slaughter is suddenly interested in debating Paul Ryan's health care bill rather than discussing the one they plan to ram down the country's throat tomorrow. Paul Ryan is happy to comply however, and Slaughter is slaughtered. You know the old saying don't bring a knife to a gun fight? Slaughter had a butter knife and was no match for Ryan's guns.



Other health care news: Rules, we don't need no stinkin rules, or something to that effect came out of the mouth of Rep. Alcee Hastings.

An executive order on abortion language? Is this enough for Stupak? Obviously they desperately need his votes.

More trouble in the Rules Commmittee. Democrats continue to find new and improved ways to make this fiasco as bad as it can get.

Pelosi Strikes a Deal With Stupak - Chaos Ensues UPDATE

UPDATE: Press conference cancelled Stupak is finished with Pelosi Ooooh.

That Rep. Brad Ellsworth would be walking the plank for ObamaCare could mean one of two things. Either the desperate Dems were short votes or were there with no room to spare.  As Ellsworth is Congressman from Indiana running to fill Evan Bayh's Senate seat, it seems unlikely a vote for ObamaCare would do much to spur his election chances along. The subsequent announcement Rep Harry Teague (NM) would vote no, makes clear the Democrats were not flush with yes votes with room to spare as they would have us believe.  Though Teague faces a tough re-election, given the choice between losing a seat in the House vs a seat in the House and the Senate, Teague's seat seems more expendable.

Clearly, Pelosi was up against a wall.  Hence we have the news she struck a deal with Bart Stupak to have a vote on  his amendment in a tie-car legislation co-sponsored by Marion Berry, Sanford Bishop, Joseph Cao, Kathy Dahlkemper, Steve Driehaus, Marcy Kaptur, Dan Lipinski, Alan Mollohan, and Nick Rahall.  The co-sponsors appear to be previous yes votes who were members of Stupak's block.  Cao, the lone Republican remains a committed no vote but  the remaining 8 have voted yes previously and are in far better positions than someone like Ellsworth to cast a vote for the bill now.

Yet another reason to suspect Pelosi needed those Stupak votes was the chaos that followed the assorted leaks spreading the  news of the potential vote on Stupak's Concurrent Resolution amending abortion language.    Jane Hamsher writes:

Pro-choice members of the House, however, are demanding that the vote on the Concurrent Resolution happen before the House confirms the Senate bill. If in fact it passes, they plan to vote against confirming the Senate bill. They want Rep. Diana Degette to release the names of the 41 cosigners to her letter who pledged to vote against any bill that restricts a woman’s right to choose, and they are angry that the White House has been whipping to push through the Stupak deal.

“It is outrageous that a Democratic Speaker, a Democratic Majority Leader and a Democratic President should support rolling back women’s reproductive rights,” says one member of the group.

It seems most unlikely Pelosi invited this chaos merely to have extra votes for show.  If Pelosi had her votes,  they'd be voting as has been said many times.   Allahpundit thinks Pelosi might be looking  to have spare votes so she can set a few serious plank walkers free.  Anyone who switches from a yes to a no at this point has already declared their allegiance to party first.  It is not beyond Democrats, however, to think no one will notice this nonsense so anything is possible.

Stupak seems to think he has a viable strategy and the votes to pass a Concurrent Resolution on abortion in the House and Senate.  This should be treated  with some skepticism, but Pelosi appears willing to give him the vote.  The good news, the progressives led by Rep. Diana Degette are demanding the vote take place prior to the vote on reconciliation that will deem the Senate bill into law.  Degette claims to have the votes to prevent passage of the reconciliation bill should Stupak's bill pass.  Stupak, however, claims he is confident he has the votes to pass his Concurrent Resolution after the reconciliation vote takes place.  Personally, if Stupak's vote has the progressive women in this much of an uproar, by all means demand Stupak's vote goes first.  Let the internal Dem squabbling implode this bill to smithereens.  Stupak is giving a press conference at 11 AM, we'll soon find out how this plays out.   I am hoping for a cat fight or two and lots of chaos on the sides.

More on this at Memeorandum

Altmire Voting No, Boyd Yes, and a Fracture in the Stupak Block- Bad News- UPDATE: Cantor Claims Dems Are Bluffing

He's been listening to his constituents, well isn't that novel:

"I regret that this year-long process of debating health care reform has resulted in a final product that I cannot support," he said. "The cost of inaction on health care is great, but it would be an even bigger mistake to pass a bill that could compound the problem of skyrocketing health care costs."

In a live interview on KDKA-TV News at 6 on Tuesday, Altmire said his constituents would help him make the final decision.

"I'm deciding it by doing everything I possibly can to hear what they have to say," he said "The rallies at my office, the phone calls, emails, and letters that are coming in to Washington and in the district."

What he heard from his constituents was the vast majority of them opposed this health care reform. So, is this a big win for "nomentum?" It is tough to say. Rep. Alan Boyd of Florida has declared he will vote for the bill. Boyd is facing a tough primary challenge from the left in a R+6 District. Go figure. Clearly some who were annoyed on the left decided his previous no vote merited a primary challenge as punishment. Though they couldn't have known about the importance of this vote at the time, the challenge does seem to have bought them another yes vote.

It's looking grim. Breaking news Brad Ellsworth is breaking with the Stupak coalition to vote yes. So where does this leave the Stupak coalition? Looks as though we will find out tomorrow at 11 AM.

Update: Stupak's office sent out an email saying he will hold a press conference with "other pro-life" members at 11:00a.m. to discuss the health care bill. Maybe all the pro-life Democrats cut a deal?

If they've made a deal then this is done. Stay tuned.

UPDATE: Eric Cantor claims Democrats are bluffing and details why in the link. Byron York concludes:

Who is correct? It's clear the Democrats are working around the clock to create a sense of momentum and inevitability about the vote. But the fact is, there are still enough unknowns to say the outcome is entirely in doubt.

Dems Advised To Avoid Discussion of CBO Scores - UPDATE

Pat Austin has a great report on the most recent Mark Levin interview with Paul Ryan. This is really a must listen to interview on its' own merits, but particularly important when you read the following confidential memo obtained by Big Government.(memo embedded below)  Democrats are advised:

“do not allow yourself (or your boss) to get into a discussion of the details of CBO scores and textual narrative. Instead, focus only on the deficit reduction and number of Americans covered.”

The Democrats have good reason to avoid discussion of the CBO score. Paul Ryan makes hash of the Democrats' deceptive CBO score in the interview. He is hoping to get a letter from the CBO backing up the ways the CBO score can be distorted. I have a sinking feeling those overworked folks at the CBO might be slow to get that letter out.  Hopefully I am proven wrong on that point.

As you will see in the confidential memo, there is more here. As Ed Morrissey notes Democrats plan to introduce separate legislation this spring to repeal the Medicare cuts to doctors. This is often referred to as the doc-fix. Democrats do not want this discussed for fear their plan will derail their plan to ram this health care bill through with the deceptive claim of deficit reduction. Ed writes:

Basically, this is an admission that the numbers the Democrats submitted to the CBO were entirely false, and that they plan to make this bill a deficit expander in the spring. It’s a breathtaking admission of deceit and hypocrisy — and its exposure should have the media asking more questions about that CBO scoring and putting Democrats in the hot seat over it.

Any Democrat using supposed deficit reduction ought to be challenged on the details of the CBO score.  The liberal media isn't likely to do this, however.  The only way to force the media into covering something of this scale that hurts their president or their liberal causes is to drag them kicking and screaming by spreading the news until they can't avoid it.  As Dan Riehl notes all the true deceptions in ObamaCare will come to light once it passes.  Ultimately this entire episode backfires on the Democrats possibly for many years to come.  The media should be holding the Democrats feet to the fire, however, before this passes.  There is nothing to stop concerned constituents from challenging this deception.   Let's put every effort into stopping this before the Democrats ram this through.



DemHCMemo -

UPDATE: TPMDC has a report stating that Democrats are denying the memo's authenticity. Big surprise on that news. Politico originally posted the memo has taken it down until they can investigate the matter further. This all seems irrelevant. The fact remains that Democrats plan to introduce separate legislation that will cost an additional $300 billion which erases any of the supposed deficit reduction. Moreover, the same tricks and double counting schemes used to game previous CBO reports are employed here as well. The plan will cost well over 2 trillion when all is said and done. Watch the video at the last link where Paul Ryan explains how the bill stimulates jobs. IRS jobs, 15,000 to be exact. Those agents will be busy making sure each of the 300 million citizens of the US have insurance and it meets government standards. Oh Joy!

John Boccieri (OH-16) Announces He Will Vote Yes- Uses Natoma Cantfield as Excuse

I just watched Boccieri make this announcement on MSNBC.  As he made the announcement he lamented that it may cost him his job.  Let's work to make that happen.  Boccieri used the Natoma Cantfield story which has been proven false as an excuse for casting the vote that may cost him his job.  Natoma Cantfield is in no danger of losing her home and receives care in a top cancer facility according to Fox News:

Natoma Canfield, the cancer-stricken woman who has become a centerpiece of President Obama’s push for health care reform, will not lose her home over her medical bills and will probably qualify for financial aid, a top official at the Cleveland medical center treating her told FoxNews.com.

Though Canfield’s sister Connie Anderson said her sibling is afraid she’ll lose her house and Obama warned at an Ohio rally Monday that the patient is “racked with worry” about the cost of tests and treatment, she is already being screened for financial help.

Lyman Sornberger, executive director of patient financial services at the Cleveland Clinic, said “all indications” at the outset are that she will be considered for assistance.

“She may be eligible for state Medicaid … and/or she will be eligible for charity (care) of some form or type. … In my personal opinion, she will be eligible for something,” he said, adding that Canfield should not be worried about losing her home.

“Cleveland Clinic will not put a lien on her home,” he said.

An earlier Bloomberg report indicated the Democrats were 6 votes short of reaching the 216 yes votes they need to proceed with a vote on Sunday.  Boccieri had been leaning in recent days toward voting yes, despite having voted no in November.  Presumably the White House was well aware Boccieri planned to vote yes.

They're Still Short on Votes

AoSHQ has a very good whip count I have been following, along with one on the left at Firedoglake.  I have spent literally hours going over these in hopes of finding some sense of where the Democratic leadership truly is in lining up their votes.  It all comes down to these maybes (from AoSHQ):

Maybe:
That leaves the maybes. There are now fifteen who voted "yes" the first time, but have refused to commit to voting the same way this time:
Sanford Bishop (GA-2), Tim Bishop (NY-1), Mike Capuano (MA-8 ), Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-8 ), Bill Foster (IL-14), Baron Hill (IN-9), Paul Kanjorski (PA-11), Alan Mollohan (WV-1), Bill Owens (NY-23), Tom Perriello (VA-5), Earl Pomeroy (ND-All), Nick Rahall (WV-3), Zack Space (OH-18 ), John Tierney (MA-6), Dina Titus (NV-3).

And there are thirteen left who voted "no" the first time who could be victims of Rahm-in-the-lockerroom-with-the-lead-pipe bullying or Cornhusker Compromise bribery because they haven't declared yet what they plan to do:
Jason Altmire (PA-4), Brian Baird (WA-3), John Barrow (GA-12), John Boccieri (OH-16), Rick Boucher (VA-9), Allen Boyd (FL-2), Lincoln Davis (TN-4), Jim Matheson (UT-2), Scott Murphy (NY-20), Glenn Nye (VA-2), Heath Shuler (NC-11), John Tanner (TN-8 ), Harry Teague (NM-2).
So Pelosi needs 24 out of 28 maybes to break her way.

My take, for what that is worth, they still have a job on their hands getting their final votes.  Ace has the current no votes at 211 while Firedoglake has 210.  They're both close but I think AoSHQ has Chris Carney (PA-10) as a no whereas FDL does not.  Senator Coburn was shrewd when he threatened to hang up confirmations for future Federal jobs for any of those switching from no to yes.  It is among this group where you will find those final votes and those that vote will almost certainly lose their election.  In addition, there are egos to consider.   While the White House may argue that Rep. A doesn't want to be the one to kill health care, Rep A is likely thinking but what about me.  Now if Rep. A were someone like, oh say, Altmire, he isn't likely to take the plunge off that plank willingly.   This is merely a hunch on my part but after watching him for a few days I am willing to bet he isn't the most likely person to put Obama's needs over his own.   


Though there are a few who can be easily flipped to yes here, primarily because their re-elections might be a bit less difficult than others, most on that list of 28 are pretty vulnerable.    After those easier to flip votes are secured, we're likely to see a bit of a stalemate as each waits until someone else offers to walk the plank.  Anyone egotistical enough to think they might survive the plank walking is going to want assurances they won't have to vote on this again.  There is absolutely no way anyone can give that assurance.    I am going to go out on a limb and guess that Sunday voting is a long shot.  If your Congressman/ Congresswoman  is on that list today is the perfect day to get on the phone and tell him or her not to jump.  


More on Memeorandum