The reason we HAVE to repeal Obamacare.....If it can't get done now then in 2012 we need to vote in a Republican Senate and President to finish the job....there's nothing "wonderful" about this woman's story....
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Repeal of Obamacare is the Right First Step!!!!
The Republicans are right here...America does NOT WANT this Obamacare bill...they didn't want it when it was put into law using corruption, back room dealings, rule twisting...AND they don't want it now...Much of the midterm election results were about Obamacare even though the Democrats won't admit it...Pelosi said we have to pass it know what's in it...well Nancy it got passed, we know what's in the bill now and we like it even less now than we did then....It has to go..and making a formal repeal where we can count votes pro and con is the right place to START!
Democrats, Republicans spar over health care reform
By JENNIFER HABERKORN & CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN | 1/4/11 4:07 PM EST
Even before the new Congress opened for business, Democrats and Republicans on Tuesday began refighting the epic battle over health care reform and the House Republican plan to repeal the new law next week.
Incoming Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) defended the Jan. 12 vote as the fulfillment of an election mandate, arguing there was no need to hold hearings or allow amendments because “this health care bill has been litigated.”
The soon-to-be House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), in turn, put up a strong defense, foreshadowing the role she plans to take once the new Congress begins Wednesday. She accused Republicans of being hypocrites: They ran on fiscal austerity but in pushing repeal, they would swell the deficit – since the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the law would cut the deficit by $143 billion over the next 10 years.
“So to say we’re going to repeal it is, just as has been said by my colleagues, is to do very serious violence to the national debt and deficit,” Pelosi told reporters.
The sharp exchanges signaled that, at least for the next week, health care would dominate the debate in the House as the parties settle into their new roles in the minority and majority. Democrats and Republicans squabbled over policy and procedure Tuesday, giving the new Congress a sense of deja vu.
House Republicans suggested that they won’t allow amendments or an open debate on their bill to repeal the health care law, citing the extensive legislative process Democrats undertook last year.
“Most people here and elsewhere believe this health care bill has been litigated,” Cantor said. “It’s a straightforward document.”
The move drew a rebuke from Democrats, who argued that repealing the benefits in the reform law warrants additional hearings and time. They’ve dubbed the Republican proposal “NoCare.”
“The Republicans’ NoCare plan would raise the number of uninsured by 32 million, balloon the deficit, raise health care costs for seniors, and raise taxes on small businesses that provide health care for their employees,” said Rep. Pete Stark (D-Cailf.), outgoing chairman of the House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee. “No wonder they want to skirt their own rules to jam this bill through.”
Republicans plan to hold a vote on repealing the legislation on Wednesday. A vote on the rule for the debate is expected this Friday. Cantor justified the quick vote as something the public wants and one of the key promises Republicans made during the mid-term election.
“The American people are expecting quick action on the part of the new Republican majority,” he said.
Cantor went so far as to suggest the CBO fudged its cost analysis of the health care law, saying it did what it was asked by the Democratic majority to come up with a bill that appeared to reduce the deficit.
“I think most people understand the CBO did job it was asked to do by the then-Democratic majority,” Cantor said. “Everybody knows that beyond the 10-year window this has the potential to bankrupt the federal budget and the states.”
The bill is expected to sail through the Republican-controlled House but be blocked by Democrats in the Senate. From there, House Republicans say they plan to try to repeal the legislation piece by piece.
Cantor would not comment on which pieces are going to be targeted first. He said that responsibility will be given to the oversight committees and committees with health jurisdiction, including Ways and Means, Education and Labor and Energy and Commerce.
Democrats pounced on the Republican approach.
“It is insincere to run on a platform of openness and fiscal discipline and then in one of your first acts as the majority party brings major legislation to the floor without any public hearings and without paying for the trillion dollar cost of repeal,” the outgoing Democratic chairmen of the Education & Labor, Ways & Means and Energy & Commerce committees wrote in a letter to their Republican counterparts on Tuesday. “Repealing the health care law will increase the deficit, kill jobs, increase taxes, and deny care to women, children, and seniors.”
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) called the repeal effort “disingenuous” and “nothing but political theater.”
Democrats, Republicans spar over health care reform
By JENNIFER HABERKORN & CARRIE BUDOFF BROWN | 1/4/11 4:07 PM EST
Even before the new Congress opened for business, Democrats and Republicans on Tuesday began refighting the epic battle over health care reform and the House Republican plan to repeal the new law next week.
Incoming Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) defended the Jan. 12 vote as the fulfillment of an election mandate, arguing there was no need to hold hearings or allow amendments because “this health care bill has been litigated.”
The soon-to-be House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), in turn, put up a strong defense, foreshadowing the role she plans to take once the new Congress begins Wednesday. She accused Republicans of being hypocrites: They ran on fiscal austerity but in pushing repeal, they would swell the deficit – since the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the law would cut the deficit by $143 billion over the next 10 years.
“So to say we’re going to repeal it is, just as has been said by my colleagues, is to do very serious violence to the national debt and deficit,” Pelosi told reporters.
The sharp exchanges signaled that, at least for the next week, health care would dominate the debate in the House as the parties settle into their new roles in the minority and majority. Democrats and Republicans squabbled over policy and procedure Tuesday, giving the new Congress a sense of deja vu.
House Republicans suggested that they won’t allow amendments or an open debate on their bill to repeal the health care law, citing the extensive legislative process Democrats undertook last year.
“Most people here and elsewhere believe this health care bill has been litigated,” Cantor said. “It’s a straightforward document.”
The move drew a rebuke from Democrats, who argued that repealing the benefits in the reform law warrants additional hearings and time. They’ve dubbed the Republican proposal “NoCare.”
“The Republicans’ NoCare plan would raise the number of uninsured by 32 million, balloon the deficit, raise health care costs for seniors, and raise taxes on small businesses that provide health care for their employees,” said Rep. Pete Stark (D-Cailf.), outgoing chairman of the House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee. “No wonder they want to skirt their own rules to jam this bill through.”
Republicans plan to hold a vote on repealing the legislation on Wednesday. A vote on the rule for the debate is expected this Friday. Cantor justified the quick vote as something the public wants and one of the key promises Republicans made during the mid-term election.
“The American people are expecting quick action on the part of the new Republican majority,” he said.
Cantor went so far as to suggest the CBO fudged its cost analysis of the health care law, saying it did what it was asked by the Democratic majority to come up with a bill that appeared to reduce the deficit.
“I think most people understand the CBO did job it was asked to do by the then-Democratic majority,” Cantor said. “Everybody knows that beyond the 10-year window this has the potential to bankrupt the federal budget and the states.”
The bill is expected to sail through the Republican-controlled House but be blocked by Democrats in the Senate. From there, House Republicans say they plan to try to repeal the legislation piece by piece.
Cantor would not comment on which pieces are going to be targeted first. He said that responsibility will be given to the oversight committees and committees with health jurisdiction, including Ways and Means, Education and Labor and Energy and Commerce.
Democrats pounced on the Republican approach.
“It is insincere to run on a platform of openness and fiscal discipline and then in one of your first acts as the majority party brings major legislation to the floor without any public hearings and without paying for the trillion dollar cost of repeal,” the outgoing Democratic chairmen of the Education & Labor, Ways & Means and Energy & Commerce committees wrote in a letter to their Republican counterparts on Tuesday. “Repealing the health care law will increase the deficit, kill jobs, increase taxes, and deny care to women, children, and seniors.”
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) called the repeal effort “disingenuous” and “nothing but political theater.”
The next Crisis....Govenment Unions....
Government Unions are the next BIG crisis, but per this article from the Heritage Foundation the Federal Government should NOT ever consider bailing them out...rather they need to figure out how to do away with these unions at city, state and federal levels....
No Bailouts for Government Unions
New York City’s Department of Investigation (DOI) announced Friday that it is looking into reports that some Sanitation Department supervisors told workers to slow their snow removal efforts as a protest against budget cuts. DOI spokeswoman Diane Struzzi told Businessweek: “What we are looking at is whether there was intentional misconduct relating to the snow removal, whether or not there was a slowdown.”
The investigation was prompted by statements from City Councilman Dan Halloran (R–Queens) who told The New York Post Thursday that three plow workers from the Sanitation Department and two Department of Transportation supervisors alerted him to the plot: “They were told [by supervisors] to take off routes [and] not do the plowing of some of the major arteries in a timely manner. They were told to make the mayor pay for the layoffs, the reductions in rank for the supervisors, shrinking the rolls of the rank-and-file.” Between 660 and 720 sanitation workers called in sick for the cleanup of the blizzard—more than double the usual rate. But Halloran admits he has no proof of an organized slowdown, and Sanitation Officers Association President Joe Mannion adamantly denies any plot: “Absolutely not, there was no slowdown.”
Any deliberate slowdown by the Sanitation Officers Association would be not only morally reprehensible but also illegal under New York state law. The Public Employees Fair Employment Act (aka the Taylor Law) specifically forbids New York government unions from striking. But since its inception the Uniformed Sanitationmen’s Association has challenged the law, and Transit Workers President Roger Toussaint was even jailed for violating the law after a 2005 strike.
The sanitation union is currently upset with the mayor’s office over the demotion of 100 Sanitation Department supervisors, about 10 percent of the supervisory force. As cities and states across the country continue to face mounting budget gaps, disputes between government unions and the populations they serve are only going to grow. No less a Progressive icon than President Franklin Delano Roosevelt foresaw the inherent problem with letting government employees unionize, writing in 1937: “All government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. … The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress.”
The problem with government unions is that, unlike the private sector, governments have no competitors. If a union ends up extracting a contract from a private firm that eats up too much profits, that firm will lose out to the competition. But when a union extracts a generous contract from government, there is no check on that spending. Instead of being disciplined by more efficient competitors, the government just pays for higher spending with higher taxes or borrowing.
But now that states have been taken over by government unions, thanks to generous donations to the controlling state political parties, states might be reaching the end of their credit limit. States and municipalities currently have around $2.8 trillion worth of outstanding bonds and even more hidden liabilities in the form of pensions estimated to be as much as $3.5 trillion.
Despite these liabilities, Moody’s recently improved the credit ratings of a number of local governments. Why? For the same reason that Moody’s gave their highest ratings to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: anticipated federal government bailouts. Explaining their higher ratings for state and local government debt this October, Moody’s wrote: “The federal government has broadly channeled cash to all state governments during recent recessions and provided support to individual states following natural disasters.”
The American people cannot afford to bailout Wall Street, let alone Wall Street and government unions. Congress should act to make sure creditors know that states will not be bailed out by the federal government.
No Bailouts for Government Unions
New York City’s Department of Investigation (DOI) announced Friday that it is looking into reports that some Sanitation Department supervisors told workers to slow their snow removal efforts as a protest against budget cuts. DOI spokeswoman Diane Struzzi told Businessweek: “What we are looking at is whether there was intentional misconduct relating to the snow removal, whether or not there was a slowdown.”
The investigation was prompted by statements from City Councilman Dan Halloran (R–Queens) who told The New York Post Thursday that three plow workers from the Sanitation Department and two Department of Transportation supervisors alerted him to the plot: “They were told [by supervisors] to take off routes [and] not do the plowing of some of the major arteries in a timely manner. They were told to make the mayor pay for the layoffs, the reductions in rank for the supervisors, shrinking the rolls of the rank-and-file.” Between 660 and 720 sanitation workers called in sick for the cleanup of the blizzard—more than double the usual rate. But Halloran admits he has no proof of an organized slowdown, and Sanitation Officers Association President Joe Mannion adamantly denies any plot: “Absolutely not, there was no slowdown.”
Any deliberate slowdown by the Sanitation Officers Association would be not only morally reprehensible but also illegal under New York state law. The Public Employees Fair Employment Act (aka the Taylor Law) specifically forbids New York government unions from striking. But since its inception the Uniformed Sanitationmen’s Association has challenged the law, and Transit Workers President Roger Toussaint was even jailed for violating the law after a 2005 strike.
The sanitation union is currently upset with the mayor’s office over the demotion of 100 Sanitation Department supervisors, about 10 percent of the supervisory force. As cities and states across the country continue to face mounting budget gaps, disputes between government unions and the populations they serve are only going to grow. No less a Progressive icon than President Franklin Delano Roosevelt foresaw the inherent problem with letting government employees unionize, writing in 1937: “All government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. … The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress.”
The problem with government unions is that, unlike the private sector, governments have no competitors. If a union ends up extracting a contract from a private firm that eats up too much profits, that firm will lose out to the competition. But when a union extracts a generous contract from government, there is no check on that spending. Instead of being disciplined by more efficient competitors, the government just pays for higher spending with higher taxes or borrowing.
But now that states have been taken over by government unions, thanks to generous donations to the controlling state political parties, states might be reaching the end of their credit limit. States and municipalities currently have around $2.8 trillion worth of outstanding bonds and even more hidden liabilities in the form of pensions estimated to be as much as $3.5 trillion.
Despite these liabilities, Moody’s recently improved the credit ratings of a number of local governments. Why? For the same reason that Moody’s gave their highest ratings to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: anticipated federal government bailouts. Explaining their higher ratings for state and local government debt this October, Moody’s wrote: “The federal government has broadly channeled cash to all state governments during recent recessions and provided support to individual states following natural disasters.”
The American people cannot afford to bailout Wall Street, let alone Wall Street and government unions. Congress should act to make sure creditors know that states will not be bailed out by the federal government.
More Corruption by Democrats...This time it's "Dirty" Harry Reid....
More evidence that Obama, Reid and Pelosi will bend every rule, act in conflict with the Constitution and the founders to get what they want....It has NOTHING to do with what is best for the American People.....This IS the most corrupt democrat party, Democrat leaderships, Administrations and Presidents ever!!!!
The Fight for the Filibuster
When does a day last three weeks? When Senate Democrats want to rewrite the rules of the Senate to make it easier for the Majority Leader to end debate and block the amendment process.
This Wednesday, the United States Senate is set to meet for its first “legislative day” of the new Congress, and a group of progressive Senators are expected to introduce changes to the Senate rules designed to limit the use of the filibuster. But the left has not settled on a single rule change plan. To buy time to get his troops in line, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–NV), rather than simply adjourning until January 24, is expected to recess the chamber, meaning the Senate will technically still be in the same “legislative day” when they reconvene on January 24. Maybe if Reid spent less time manipulating the rules to his narrow partisan advantage, the minority would not need to resort to the filibuster in the first place.
The filibuster is unquestionably constitutional. Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution states clearly: “Each house may determine the rule of its proceedings.” And from the founding of the country, the Senate was designed to be a more deliberative body. In his Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, James Madison wrote: “In order to judge the form to be given [the Senate], it will be proper to take a view of the ends to be served by it. These were first to protect the people against their rulers: secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led.” This is why all 435 Members of the House—but only one-third of the Senate—face election every two years.
Contrary to what the Progressives believe, the slow progress of legislation through the Senate is a feature, not a bug, of the Framers’ design. In his 1833 treatise on the Constitution, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story explained that “a good law had better occasionally fail, rather than bad laws be multiplied with a heedless and mischievous frequency. Even reforms, to be safe, must in general, be slow.” The first effort to speed legislation through the Senate came, of course, from Progressive President Woodrow Wilson, who pressed Senate Democrats to create Rule 22, which allowed the Senate to end debate on a measure if two-thirds of the body agreed. That number has since been lowered to today’s 60-vote threshold.
The left and their media allies love to bemoan the fact that the minority in the 111th Congress set a record for filibustering legislation. Left unreported by the media is that Reid manipulated the rules of the Senate to shatter a little record of his own. A tactic commonly referred to as “filling the amendment tree” allows a Majority Leader to offer up a series of non-substantive amendments that take up all the time allotted for debate. This prevents the minority from offering any amendments to a bill. Reid justified this tactic to The Huffington Post in July: “This isn’t a new method that I dreamed up. Anytime there is an election there is not a leader who is dumb enough to put a bill on the floor that is subject to amendments.”
So how many times has Reid used this “filling the tree” tactic that is specifically designed to shut out substantive amendments from the minority? According to the Congressional Research Service, Reid employed the procedure a record 44 times, more than the past six Majority Leaders combined. Senator Olympia Snowe (R–ME) took to the floor to protest its use during debate on a defense authorization bill:
First and foremost, the Senate should have the ability to debate more than the three amendments the Majority Leader is allowing, especially as this bill is the largest discretionary authorization measure that Congress considers, that the bill describes the policies and programs that provide resources and direction to the nearly 2.4 million men and women of the military—active, reserve and civilians, including the courageous Americans serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that two of the three amendments don’t even relate to the military. It is therefore imperative that Senate deliberations on the defense bill be conducted without limitations and in a manner that allows for the consideration of all related amendments that Senators may wish to offer.
If the Senate narrows or eliminates the filibuster, Reid will have even less incentive to allow debate and amendments. The Senate will cease to be a deliberative body, and the majority party will have unfettered power to pass legislation and confirm nominees with little or no debate. This is not what the Founders intended.
The fight over the Senate filibuster is one of limited government versus big government. If you believe that ideas should be debated openly and transparently, and meet the test of intellectual opposition before they are voted into law and affect our lives, then you want the filibuster to stay. If you prefer an unchecked activist government that can more easily legislate bad ideas into law through a more rushed process, then you may be open to the left's latest gambit.
Today, at 2 PM, Senator Lamar Alexander (R–TN) will speak at The Heritage Foundation in defense of the filibuster. In his planned remarks, which you can watch live later today here, Alexander says: “Voters who turned out in November are going to be pretty disappointed when they learn the first thing Democrats want to do is cut off the right of the people they elected to make their voices heard on the floor of the U.S. Senate.”
The Fight for the Filibuster
When does a day last three weeks? When Senate Democrats want to rewrite the rules of the Senate to make it easier for the Majority Leader to end debate and block the amendment process.
This Wednesday, the United States Senate is set to meet for its first “legislative day” of the new Congress, and a group of progressive Senators are expected to introduce changes to the Senate rules designed to limit the use of the filibuster. But the left has not settled on a single rule change plan. To buy time to get his troops in line, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–NV), rather than simply adjourning until January 24, is expected to recess the chamber, meaning the Senate will technically still be in the same “legislative day” when they reconvene on January 24. Maybe if Reid spent less time manipulating the rules to his narrow partisan advantage, the minority would not need to resort to the filibuster in the first place.
The filibuster is unquestionably constitutional. Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution states clearly: “Each house may determine the rule of its proceedings.” And from the founding of the country, the Senate was designed to be a more deliberative body. In his Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, James Madison wrote: “In order to judge the form to be given [the Senate], it will be proper to take a view of the ends to be served by it. These were first to protect the people against their rulers: secondly to protect the people against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led.” This is why all 435 Members of the House—but only one-third of the Senate—face election every two years.
Contrary to what the Progressives believe, the slow progress of legislation through the Senate is a feature, not a bug, of the Framers’ design. In his 1833 treatise on the Constitution, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story explained that “a good law had better occasionally fail, rather than bad laws be multiplied with a heedless and mischievous frequency. Even reforms, to be safe, must in general, be slow.” The first effort to speed legislation through the Senate came, of course, from Progressive President Woodrow Wilson, who pressed Senate Democrats to create Rule 22, which allowed the Senate to end debate on a measure if two-thirds of the body agreed. That number has since been lowered to today’s 60-vote threshold.
The left and their media allies love to bemoan the fact that the minority in the 111th Congress set a record for filibustering legislation. Left unreported by the media is that Reid manipulated the rules of the Senate to shatter a little record of his own. A tactic commonly referred to as “filling the amendment tree” allows a Majority Leader to offer up a series of non-substantive amendments that take up all the time allotted for debate. This prevents the minority from offering any amendments to a bill. Reid justified this tactic to The Huffington Post in July: “This isn’t a new method that I dreamed up. Anytime there is an election there is not a leader who is dumb enough to put a bill on the floor that is subject to amendments.”
So how many times has Reid used this “filling the tree” tactic that is specifically designed to shut out substantive amendments from the minority? According to the Congressional Research Service, Reid employed the procedure a record 44 times, more than the past six Majority Leaders combined. Senator Olympia Snowe (R–ME) took to the floor to protest its use during debate on a defense authorization bill:
First and foremost, the Senate should have the ability to debate more than the three amendments the Majority Leader is allowing, especially as this bill is the largest discretionary authorization measure that Congress considers, that the bill describes the policies and programs that provide resources and direction to the nearly 2.4 million men and women of the military—active, reserve and civilians, including the courageous Americans serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that two of the three amendments don’t even relate to the military. It is therefore imperative that Senate deliberations on the defense bill be conducted without limitations and in a manner that allows for the consideration of all related amendments that Senators may wish to offer.
If the Senate narrows or eliminates the filibuster, Reid will have even less incentive to allow debate and amendments. The Senate will cease to be a deliberative body, and the majority party will have unfettered power to pass legislation and confirm nominees with little or no debate. This is not what the Founders intended.
The fight over the Senate filibuster is one of limited government versus big government. If you believe that ideas should be debated openly and transparently, and meet the test of intellectual opposition before they are voted into law and affect our lives, then you want the filibuster to stay. If you prefer an unchecked activist government that can more easily legislate bad ideas into law through a more rushed process, then you may be open to the left's latest gambit.
Today, at 2 PM, Senator Lamar Alexander (R–TN) will speak at The Heritage Foundation in defense of the filibuster. In his planned remarks, which you can watch live later today here, Alexander says: “Voters who turned out in November are going to be pretty disappointed when they learn the first thing Democrats want to do is cut off the right of the people they elected to make their voices heard on the floor of the U.S. Senate.”
Just part of the reason California is in BIG financial trouble....
Just PART of the reason California is in big financial trouble....and part of the reason that Obama's push to make America one big welfare state is wrong. Handing out government money does nothing to grow the economy in a healthful way...it makes people dependent and less likely to work and really contribute to society....just look at how well the extensions of unemployment benefits have helped to reduce the nation's unemployment. The untold part of this story is that if this is happening in California it has to be happening in other states as well.....We need to get back to personal responsibility and accountability and drastically reduce entitlements...
This is EXACTLY why on one watches Letterman anymore...
This is EXACTLY why no one watched Letterman anymore....He's nothing but an old liberal white guy that isn't funny anymore.....
Monday, January 3, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)