|
|
Saturday Morning Videos: Healthcare Endgame
March 13, 2010 Matthew Cochrane
| |
With the House agreeing to vote on health care legislation next week, I thought it best to highlight a few crucial arguments being made against the bill in this week’s Saturday Morning Videos.
First, for those confused about the obtuse parliamentary rules being used to pass the bill, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor does a good job of breaking the process down:
This next video captures rare moments when Democrats speak frankly about what exactly the bill entails:
Former Reason magazine editor Virginia Postrel talks about the weaknesses and strengths of our current system. Postrel has the vantage point of being both a kidney donor and a breast cancer survivor and uses here experiences to draw several key lessons. Most interestingly, she discusses her use of the extremely expensive, but effective, wonder drug Herceptin – and how the single-payer system in New Zealand blocks it use due to its high costs.
Finally, last week George Will cut to the crux of the argument: liberals believe people are too stupid to choose which health care options are best for them.
| |
|
|
Do the Republicans Finally Get It? House GOP Bans Earmarks
March 12, 2010 Matthew Cochrane
| |
House Republicans are finally showing signs of a genuine conservative revival. After months of observing their constituents protest reckless government spending, the GOP members of the House banned all earmarks, a welcome, if overdue, move. Kevin Williamson writes:
Through a change to House rules, Democrats in that chamber of Congress have banned earmarks that deliver funds and contracts to private, for-profit enterprises. Senate Democrats probably will ignore their colleagues’ new policy, but House Republicans have just one-upped it, voting amongst themselves to forgo all earmarks, whether to businesses, local and state governments, or nonprofit institutions. They will do so unilaterally, giving up their earmarks while challenging Democrats to do the same.
This is one sign that the GOP is getting serious about rededicating itself to the cause of fiscal restraint, and the politics are pretty good: Either the Democrats will be shamed into going along, or the Republicans will have a vital edge on a very popular issue.
The Democrats’ earlier ban meant little; only 10% of all earmarks go toward private companies. The vast majority is set aside for non-profit organizations and state and local governments. Williamson explains this also gives fiscal conservatives the moral high ground in the battle against reckless government spending:
Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona has been a reliable crusader against earmarks, and he’s pleased that the moratorium will give Republicans a chance to rebuild their reputation for fiscal discipline. “I’ve wanted for years just to challenge Democratic earmarks,” he says, “but I couldn’t in good conscience do that when we had 60 percent of the earmarks, and then 40 percent [after the GOP lost its majority].” And he likes the timing, too: “The Democrats are going to be under tremendous pressure to follow suit and ban all earmarks. Right now, the Democrats are in a particular pickle because of health care, where they need every vote. It’s going to be very difficult for them to make a change this unpopular with their caucus and keep the votes they need for health care.”
Hopefully, this represents a leaner, meaner Republican Party. Not only is it good politics, it’s good policy. Here’s hoping the Republicans have finally found their way out of the wilderness and are willing to reclaim their former mantle as the grown-up party. We all know it’s not going to be the Democrats. And the country needs at least one.
| |
|
|
Abortion is Not Healthcare: Democrats Willing to Risk Obamacare Over Abortion
March 12, 2010 Matthew Cochrane
| |
Years ago, in her New York Times bestseller Godless, Ann Coulter wrote that liberalism was a religion and its sacrament was abortion. Coulter explained, in her characteristically acerbic tone, that liberals would defend abortion-on-demand before all other principles. Liberals scoffed at the notion then, but it now seems to have been proven true. If health care reform fails to pass the House, it will be because of the Democrats’ insistence on including federal funding for abortions. Fox News reports:
The health care reform bill passed by the Senate on Christmas Eve appears to be dead on arrival in the House, as six anti-abortion Democrats intend to join the ranks of lawmakers who plan to vote against the legislation, Fox News has confirmed.
Six new no votes would be enough to kill the Senate bill, and several more fence-sitting lawmakers are under pressure from both sides of the aisle.
Foremost among the six nos is Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., whose anti-abortion amendment to the House version of the legislation got the bill passed in that chamber last year.
In addition to Stupak, Rep. Dan Lipinski of Illinois has gone on the record as changing his vote to no if asked to pass the Senate bill, which some argue doesn't do enough to forbid tax-funded abortions. "Protecting the sanctity of life is a matter of principle," Lipinski said.
Stupak claims there are even more representatives willing to vote no if the abortion language is not changed. Political analyst Michael Barone thinks the arithmetic “doesn't add up.” He writes:
The House passed its version of the health bill in November by 220-215. Of those 220, one was a Republican who now is a no. One Democrat who voted yes has died, two Democrats who voted yes have resigned, and one Democrat who voted no has resigned as well. So if everyone but the Republican votes the way they did four months ago, the score would be 216-215.
But not everyone is ready to vote that way. The House bill included an amendment prohibiting funding of abortions sponsored by Michigan Democrat Bart Stupak. The Senate bill did not. Mr. Stupak says he and 10 to 12 other members won't vote for the Senate bill for that reason. Others have said the same, including Minnesota's James Oberstar, chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and Dan Lipinski, a product of the Chicago Democratic machine.
Mrs. Pelosi may have some votes in reserve—members who would have voted yes if she needed them in November and would do so again. But we can be pretty sure she doesn't have more than 10, or she wouldn't have allowed the Stupak amendment to come forward at the last minute the first time. She also might get one or two votes from members who voted no and later announced they were retiring.
But that's not enough…
To be sure, Pelosi maintains that she has the votes necessary to pass the bill and, to date, she has proven to be startlingly effective at squeezing every last drop of political capital from the rank-and-file House Democrats.
Whatever the outcome, it will be excruciatingly close. Conservatives should not let their guard down and maintain pressure on these pro-life Democrats to keep their word to uphold the sanctity of life.
Please contact their offices and let them know you support them!
Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-IN) (202) 225-4636
Rep. Joe Donnnelly (D-IN) (202) 225-3915
Rep. Baron Hill (D-IN) (202) 225-5315
Rep. John Boccieri (D-OH) (202) 225-3876
Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN) (202) 225-4231
Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) (202) 225-6131
Rep. Chris Carney (D-PA) (202) 225-3731
Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA) (202) 225-4711
The leg work is done, all you need to do is take a few minutes from your day and call these numbers. Please let these representatives know you support them for their stand on the sanctity of life. If these representatives cave at the last second, Obamacare will be passed and federal funding will be allotted for abortions. Please call!!!
| |
|
|
The Sad Conclusion to the Eric Massa Saga
March 11, 2010 Matthew Cochrane
| |
The sad saga of Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) might finally be over. Massa, who is resigning next week, stated he was being railroaded out of Washington by Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s Chief of Staff, for refusing to vote “yes” for health care reform. On Monday, Politico reported:
Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) says the House ethics committee is investigating him for inappropriate comments he made to a male staffer on New Year's Eve — and that he's the victim of a power play by Democratic leaders who want him out of Congress because he's a "no" vote on health care reform.
"Mine is now the deciding vote on the health care bill," Massa, who on Friday announced his intention to resign, said during a long monologue on radio station WKPQ. "And this administration and this House leadership have said, quote-unquote, they will stop at nothing to pass this health care bill. And now they've gotten rid of me, and it will pass. You connect the dots."
Several, on the left and right, doubted Massa’s claims, pointing to inconsistencies in his story and contradictory accounts from his staff. Glenn Beck locked up an exclusive interview with Massa on his popular Fox News show the very next day. Before the hour long interview, Beck engaged in a long and heated argument on his radio show with Michelle Malkin on whether Beck should have given Massa his television show’s platform to tell his side of the story (things really start to get heated up around the three minute mark):
Beck conducted his hour long interview in which Massa repeatedly apologized, stated it was his fault he was resigning from Congress and failed to reveal any new allegations against Obama or Emanuel. Beck concluded the interview by apologizing to his audience for wasting its time and called Massa a liar.
The next day Beck invited Malkin back on his show and apologized, claiming she was right and that he should have never extended an invitation to Massa to appear on his television show:
Will this mark the end of Massa’s fifteen minutes of fame? Let’s hope so. Regardless of whether Massa’s resignation helps or hurts the passage of healthcare, America should not tolerate scandal-ridden, slimy politicians in Congress.
| |
|
|
Go Fish: Obama Administration Eyes Recreational Fishing Ban
March 10, 2010 Matthew Cochrane
| |
The Obama administration is now considering adopting legislation which might severely restrict and, even ban, recreational fishing in regions around the United States. ESPN reports:
The Obama administration will accept no more public input for a federal strategy that could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing some of the nation's oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters.
This announcement comes at the time when the situation supposedly still is "fluid" and the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force still hasn't issued its final report on zoning uses of these waters.
That's a disappointment, but not really a surprise for fishing industry insiders who have negotiated for months with officials at the Council on Environmental Quality and bureaucrats on the task force. These angling advocates have come to suspect that public input into the process was a charade from the beginning.
This type of envirofascism has been seen before – in Canada:
"When the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) completed their successful campaign to convince the Ontario government to end one of the best scientifically managed big game hunts in North America (spring bear), the results of their agenda had severe economic impacts on small family businesses and the tourism economy of communities across northern and central Ontario," said Phil Morlock, director of environmental affairs for Shimano.
"Now we see NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and the administration planning the future of recreational fishing access in America based on a similar agenda of these same groups and other Big Green anti-use organizations, through an Executive Order by the President. The current U.S. direction with fishing is a direct parallel to what happened in Canada with hunting: The negative economic impacts on hard working American families and small businesses are being ignored.
"In spite of what we hear daily in the press about the President's concern for jobs and the economy and contrary to what he stated in the June order creating this process, we have seen no evidence from NOAA or the task force that recreational fishing and related jobs are receiving any priority."
Furthermore, the Obama administration’s task force consists of several members with strong ties to environmental groups that have actively sought to ban recreational fishing:
Led by NOAA's Jane Lubchenco, the task force has shown no overt dislike of recreational angling, but its indifference to the economic, social and biological value of the sport has been deafening.
Additionally, Lubchenco and others in the administration have close ties to environmental groups who would like nothing better than to ban recreational angling. And evidence suggests that these organizations have been the engine behind the task force since before Obama issued a memo creating it last June.
While I am not an avid fisherman, I have several friends who are. Some of my fondest memories as a child are of fishing alongside my dad and family in the Everglades. Besides being a pastime acquired by America’s earliest colonists, recreational fishing plays an important part in the economy. Several poor people use fishing as an important supplement to feeding their families. I am beginning to wonder if the Obama administration considers any freedom off-limits to the ever-growing tentacles of big government. If Obama, who has consistently stated his desire to transform America, considers any distinctly American way of life worth preserving.
I am especially interested to hear our friend, the Lizard Master, on this subject, being a liberal and avid fishing enthusiast. If he responds, I'll update this post with a link.
| |
|
|
|
|
