I do believe I've resurrected the perfect golden oldie to summarize the status of independents' love affair with Barack Obama and the latest incarnation of the megalomaniac health care reform bill: "Too much (government), too little (change of the bill), too late".
The Associated Report has a story today that Obama is working primarily with the Senate bill and looking to massage certain elements offensive to union members (i.e., limiting the tax-advantaged status of gold-plated health care benefits for union members) and providing a few gratuitous Republican concessions which I've predicted in earlier posts, e.g., medical malpractice tort reform, Medicare fraud reform, a rollback of cuts in doctor fees for Medicare patients and/or interstate health insurance marketing. The report makes it clear that Obama realizes that he won't attract any GOP support, given the fact that the huge tax, spend and regulatory policies, federal government empire building and insurance mandate policies are still intact; it seems that it's more of a public relations ploy in the aftermath of last week's health care summit to portray Obama as receptive to Republican input. (It should be noted that these have been well-known for some time and never made it into either version of the bill.)
Supposedly Obama is focusing his intention on flipping 9 of the 39 Democrats whom originally voted against the House version (which had a public option, tax hikes and mandates, etc.), whom are retiring (and hence won't face the wrath of constituents this fall) or first-term Democrats from red or purple districts. I am skeptical that a window-dressed version of the highly unpopular Senate health care plan will sway any of those Congressmen. In fact, unless the President reinstates House abortion language by pro-life Democrats to the Senate bill (which may undermine Democratic support in the Senate), I think Pelosi will have a hard time holding on that faction; also, a number of House liberals had earlier stated that the Senate plan, absent a public option, was dead on arrival. I find it hard to believe that Pelosi would schedule a vote without having the votes in hand, but it's conceivable that Pelosi would do so to show she made a good faith effort and to put dissenters on the spot, potentially vulnerable to progressive challengers in upcoming primaries, i.e., "who lost health care reform?".
 |
| Courtesy of Mick Coulas (c) 2006 |
I do realize that Obama has an obsession with political spin and symbolic acts, but as for these modest window-dressing add-ons to the Trojan horse health care reform bill, I would like to relevantly quote two of the 3 Democratic leaders. Nancy Pelosi: "The debate that you saw will start over, itsy bitsy spider, little teeny, tiny — you can't do it." Barack Obama: "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig,"
The Jim Bunning Unemployment Benefits Funding Kerfuffle: Thumbs Down
The retiring two-term Kentucky Republican senator (who previously served several terms as a Congressman) is best known for being one of only 18 major league baseball pitchers to hurl a perfect game (retiring all 27 opposing team at-bats in a 9-inning game). Unfortunately, in the game of politics, he has scored an error--an error not of principle, but one of prudence. He has allowed himself to be used in a PR stunt by the shameless Democrats in the Senate wanting to demagogue that the GOP is insensitive to the needs of unemployed people and to score a point of what they want to prove are typical examples of the GOP allegedly abusing minority rules, particularly with health care reform. (My guess is that they are trying to set up a rationale for using the budget reconciliation option, sometimes euphemistically referred to as the "simple majority rule". The budget reconciliation process has been used for tweaking revenues (taxes) or established program spending, never to initiate a major policy, never mind one involving the operations of a sector constituting about about one-sixth of our economy.) [As I write, it appears that the Senate has reached an agreement for a couple of votes this evening to defuse the crisis.] Among other things, Bunning showed a lack of common sense by protesting a reporter getting too close to a Senator-only elevator while being videotaped, something that has the effect of reinforcing an elitist image.
The gist of the controversy is as follows: the Democrats have reacted to public anger over the mounting federal deficit by applying pay-as-you-go, i.e., if you ask for $10B here, you need to offset that by cuts elsewhere. There was a $10B stop-gap bill for extending unemployment benefits and miscellaneous other funding (e.g., the Department of Transportation). The Democrats wanted to pass this bill through as an "emergency" funding bill; in essence, the emergency status allows them to bypass pay-as-you-go. Bunning and other fiscally conservative conservatives are tired of what they regard as cynical game-playing by Democrats whom pay lip service to PAYGO but then vote "emergency" on a regular, vs. infrequent basis when it's not really an emergency but the majority's lack of due diligence in finding compensatory budget cuts elsewhere.
One of the rules for allowing "emergency" status is a normally perfunctory request for unanimous consent. In this case, Bunning objected. and started a one-man filibuster. Majority Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell offered Bunning one amendment to the bill late last week. (I believe that Bunning wanted to attach the money to last year's Democratic Party Stimulus Bill. Bunning held out for 3 amendments, worried that his amendment would be rejected. Reid refused.) It appears that Bunning agreed to end the filibuster under the same terms he rejected last week.
I loathe the fact that the liberal mass media materially misled people and made out Bunning out to be some heartless Scrooge. You would think that they know enough about filibusters to realize that Reid could have voted to cloture at almost any time because at least half of the Republicans would have voted for cloture. It was a contrived crisis, and Reid and everybody (except the media) knew it.
I give credit to Bunning for exposing Democratic hypocrisy. The problem is, you don't do this over a $10B bill, and you don't pick a fight over unemployment benefits in a struggling economy--that's like keeping a retirement check from grandma whom is living month-to-month on her pension. OF COURSE, THE DEMOCRATS ARE FISCALLY IRRESPONSIBLE. The smarter tactic is to give them all the rope they need to hang themselves; all you have control over is your own vote.
I can already see the Democratic class-warfare talking points this fall with Jim Bunning serving as the face to "let them eat cake" GOP indifference, exploiting economic fear, uncertainty and doubt and raising the prospect of the GOP balancing the budget on the backs of the unemployed. Let us recall the sage advice from Kenny Rogers:
You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away and know when to run
You never count your money, when you're sittin' at the table
There'll be time enough for countin', when the dealin's done
Every gambler knows that the secret to survive is
Knowing what to throw away and knowing what to keepPolitical Cartoon
Lisa Benson isn't the only taxpayer shocked by Democratic progressive hubris in an unprecedented federal bureaucratic entanglement with the private health care sector, willing to abuse traditional Senate minority rights in the process.
If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.
Albert Einstein
Musical Interlude: Memory Songs
Frank Sinatra, "It Was a Very Good Year"
Commodores, "Three Times a Times"
Barry Manilow, "The Old Songs"
Classics IV, "Traces"
Barry Manilow, "Memory"
