You get my two cents every day on this blog - now I need yours!

The end of the year is a natural time to evaluate one's direction and priorities in life. I've been doing a lot of thinking lately, and due to various life circumstances and the shifting of career winds, I have reluctantly concluded that my current blogging habits are unsustainable over the long haul, so a change is coming to 2Cents. I haven't yet decided what that change will be; rather than tinker for a long time with small tweaks or make willy-nilly swerves in style or presentation, I wanted to get some input from you. If you've visited this blog more than once, or if you ever intend to visit this blog again in the future, I'd like to hear your opinion - I will most definitely take it into account in the upcoming changes! So, please take 60 seconds of your time to answer just a couple questions on the side of the page about what you want to see here. Your input will be invaluable in how I plot the future of 2Cents, and will ultimately benefit you, as well, by tailoring this blog to your tastes.

I've read that polls generally get about a 5-10% response rate, and my own polls in the past have been fairly consistent with that. Not one to settle easily for mediocrity, I'd love to get closer to 50% response rate on this one, and more if possible. Seriously, it will only take a few seconds of your time, so just buzz through it real fast (don't make me beg...!). Feel free to drop a comment or send an e-mail if you'd prefer that method of communication.

Thank you very much, and have a Happy New Year!!

DemCare Update

I wanted to give you another update on the DemCare debacle that's barreling down on us like a freight train. Most of this is more strategic than tactical, so it's information to tuck away for future reference.

First, rest assured that the Dems' strong-arming of DemCare through the Senate didn't exactly make them more popular than ever. Quite the opposite, in fact, with 58% in opposition and only 39% in support now. In fact, there's so much anger over it that there's already talk of the GOP running in 2012 on the repeal of DemCare.

A look at history shows us that never has a bill with such high unpopularity been pushed into law with such a slim party-line vote. Other examples have ended badly for the party doing the pushing, too.

Part of that, I'm sure, is that the American people understand how Congress works. A full 78% believe that DemCare's enormous multi-trillion dollar projected costs will be just a drop in the bucket when things are all said and done.

So what's the timeline with DemCare? What can you expect to see out of it? Heritage lays it out:

2010: Physician Medicare payments decrease 21% effective March 1, 2010

2011: “Annual Fee” tax on health insurance, allocated according to share of total premiums. Begins at $2 billion in 2011, then increases to $4 billion in 2012, $7 billion in 2013, $9 billion in the years 2014, 2015, and 2016, and eventually $10 billion for 2017 and every year thereafter. Two insurers in Nebraska and one in Michigan are exempt from this tax.

2012: Medicare payment penalties for hospitals with the highest readmission rates for selected conditions.

2013: Medicare tax increased from 2.9% to 3.8% for incomes over $250,000 (joint filers) or $200,000 (all others). (This is stated as an increase of 0.9 percentage points, to only the employee’s share of the FICA tax.)

2014: Individual mandate begins: Tax penalties for not having insurance begin at $95 or 0.5% of income, whichever is higher, rising to $495 or 1% of income in 2015 and $750 or 2% of income thereafter (indexed for inflation after 2016). These penalties are per adult, half that amount per child, to a maximum of three times the per-adult amount per family. The penalty is capped at the national average premium for the “bronze” plan.

2015: Establishment of Independent Medicare Advisory Board (IMAB) to recommend cuts in Medicare benefits; these cuts will go into effect automatically unless Congress passes, and the President signs, an override bill.

2016: Individual mandate penalty rises to $750 per adult ($375 per child), maximum $2,250 per family, or 2% of family income, whichever is higher (capped at the national average premium for the “bronze” plan). After 2016, the penalty will be increased each year to adjust for inflation.

2017: Itemized deduction for out-of-pocket medical expenses is limited to expenses over 10% of AGI for those over age 65.

Just so you know.

The best news of the past week, though, was this little ditty from rock star conservative Senator Jim DeMint:

When Senator DeMint engineered, and Republican Leader McConnell actually objected to the appointment of the conferees, he was really handing the ball off to the left wingers — progressives if you will — and now they have their shot to either hold their own clan members who are against the Senate compromises and force them to vote No, or have their policy demands be ignored and take the crumbs from Senator Nelson’s and Senator Lieberman’s table.

Now, because of the Senator DeMint’s objection, unless the House votes for the Senate bill unchanged — which is highly unlikely (see below) — then the Senate ObamaCare bill must be amended on the House floor to gain the votes they need to pass it on the House floor. And because of Senator DeMint’s objection to the appointment of the conferees, there will be no conference, or conference report.

If the House amends the Senate bill, they then have to send the amended bill back to the Senate — where all the 60 vote margin cloture votes still apply — cloture on the motion to proceed, and cloture to end the filibuster and cloture on any amendment.

Do I believe that this objection to the appointment of the conferees will kill ObamaCare? Yes, if the progressives or those 64 House Democrats who voted for the Stupak amendment do not roll over and play dead.

This monkey wrench may explain why the White House is putting out the word that it wants the health care bill to pass the House after the State of the Union, in February.

Dan Perrin goes on to lay out the case for why this is the kiss of death for DemCare, but I'm not so optimistic. Why? Because it depends entirely upon Democrats to stand on their supposed principles, even if they are completely opposite of conservatives'. If there's one thing we can count on when it comes to Democrats, it's that they can be bought.

Still, there's hope, I guess. Regardless, it's good to see at least a little fight in someone on the Right.

There's my two cents.



Related Reading:
Dodd heckled back home over DemCare vote
Ben Nelson trails potential challenger by 31 points
Dems wave white flag on cap-n-tax due to difficulty with DemCare
Lawsuits threatened over DemCare
8 Reasons why the Dems will lose the House in 2010
10 new reasons DemCare can still be killed
The health care fight is not over

Another Terrorist Attack On U.S. Soil

One Islamic terrorist attempted to ring in the Christian holiday with mid-air explosions:

Yesterday, Jasper Schuringa, a video director and producer from Amsterdam, told CNN how he helped the cabin crew to subdue Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the 23-year-old who reportedly ignited a small explosive device on board the plane Friday as it prepared to land in Detroit.
The New York Daily News reported:

Schuringa said he heard a sound that reminded him of a firecracker and someone yelling, “Fire! Fire!”

He saw Abdulmutallab’s pants open and he was holding a burning object between his legs.

“I pulled the object from him and tried to extinguish the fire with my hands and threw it away,” Schuringa said.

He said he then screamed for water and pulled Abdulmutallab out of his seat and dragged him to the front of the plane.

This happened within hours of Dem Rep. John Murtha's claim that Al Qaeda was no longer a danger to America. Funny thing about that, huh?

Anyway, in a decisive and powerful response to this latest attack on American soil (the 28th foiled attack since 9/11)...the Obama administration did nothing for three days. Then they re-enacted the very same quote-between-golf-shots statement that Michael Moore famously panned George W. Bush for several years ago.

Then they decided to implement a new policy that forces all passengers to stay in their seats for the last hour of every flight. You know, it'll work very similar to how liberals insist on the idea that preventing law-abiding Americans from owning their own guns means that criminals won't continue to pursue their nefarious schemes. Liberal stupidity at its finest, in other words, that will likely lead to more lives lost.

They also ignored the fact that it was an Al Qaeda operative who did it, and even more festive, the whole operation was planned by Al Qaeda operatives who were formerly held at Gitmo, currently operating out of Yemen. Can we now agree that it is a really, really bad idea to put the court system in charge of national security policy? But you knew that already. Everyone outside of Washington knows that.

The Obama administration is comically reversing itself all over the place on whether or not the 'system worked'. At least, it would be comical except for the fact that 300 or so Americans came within minutes of losing their lives. Ah, those lovely and tolerant liberal policies!

And, by the way, they are also refusing to interrogate the terrorist, make him uncomfortable, or take away his underwear. He is reportedly safe and tidy in a hospital, though he is rather sad and nursing some guilt over his sexual urges. Aw shucks, that makes it all okay, doesn't it? He has also reportedly warned that there are many more like him coming to America. Wow, with all that liberal cracking down, it's hard to imagine how they could possibly succeed, isn't it?

Depressingly, the State Department had at least two chances to connect the dots and stop this guy before he got on the plane, but failed to do so until the terrorist's neighbor noticed the open flame coming out of his pants (and not the kind like Bill Clinton or Tiger Woods has).

Makes you feel safe, doesn't it?

All this points to a dangerously absent President. Heritage lays out the case using just the events of the past couple days:

What you did not hear between this attempted attack on our nation and 3:00 pm EST today, was President Obama’s voice. Over 72 hours; almost three days later.

During this time period, the world also witnessed something equally distressing. Thousands of Iranians took to the streets demanding a regime-change in their own country. Of course, the current Iranian regime is not only trying to fast track its way towards a nuclear weapon, but also is the major benefactor of the attacks our troops face in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan. This is a brutal regime with no regards for the safety of its own people, yet alone ours. Freedom fighters are dying in the streets hearing the sounds of gunfire, tear gas and chaos. What they have not heard is the sound of President Obama’s voice. Not until 3:00 pm today, and even then, it was just a whisper.

And what was the President doing since Friday morning? He played a round of golf. He went to the gym. He played a game of basketball. He went to the beach. He went out to dinner with friends. He picked up a new game, tennis. All very acceptable and time-consuming pursuits on an event-free vacation. Nobody begrudges a young father spending time with his family over the holidays.

But the Office of the President bears some extra responsibility and yes, burden. As former White House Deputy Press Secretary Scott Stanzel astutely points out, this was a president who was woken from sleep at 6:00 am to learn he had won the Nobel Peace Prize but wasn’t even informed of this attack on our homeland for over two hours. And if anyone knows the President’s priorities, it is his closest advisors.

Sure, everyone needs a vacation. But as President, you don't ever really get 'time off' like the rest of us do. Obama delayed his vacation in order to offer moral support to shaky Dems passing DemCare into committee (not even signing it into law, mind you), but he can't be bothered with supporting the cause of freedom around the world when the people of one of our greatest enemies are trying to rise up and overthrow that enemy from within.

This absenteeism, among many reasons, is why the greatest danger to America is our very own President.

There's my two cents.

Merry Christmas!

First, some fun stuff. I couldn't help ripping off Andy McCarthy:

To All My Liberal Friends:

Please accept with no obligation, implied or explicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2010, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere. Also, this wish is made without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee.

To All My Conservative Friends:
MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Here's the story in Lego form:

I absolutely love this video of silent monks 'singing' the Hallelujah Chorus:

Now, to turn things a little more serious, here's a terrific dramatic video from Anchoress via Hot Air:

Outstanding!

And the main event, of course, from the Bible itself:

Luke 1:26-38
Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a town in Galilee, named Nazareth, to a virgin who was to be married to a man named Joseph, of the family of David; and the name of the virgin was Mary.

And the angel came in to her and said, "Peace be with you, to whom special grace has been given; the Lord is with you."

But she was greatly troubled at his words, and said to herself, "What may be the purpose of these words?"

The angel said to her, "Have no fear, Mary, for you have God's approval. And see, you will give birth to a son, and his name will be Jesus. He will be great, and will be named the Son of the Most High: and the Lord God will give him the kingdom of David, his father:
He will have rule over the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there will be no end."

Mary said to the angel, "How may this be, because I have had no knowledge of a man?"

The angel in answer said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will come to rest on you, and so that which will come to birth will be named holy, Son of God. Even now Elisabeth, who is of your family, is to be a mother, though she is old: and this is the sixth month with her who was without children. For there is nothing which God is not able to do."

Mary said: "I am the servant of the Lord; may it be to me as you say." And the angel went away.

Luke 2:1-20
Now it came about in those days that an order went out from Caesar Augustus that there was to be a numbering of all the world. This was the first numbering, which was made when Quirinius was ruler of Syria. And all men went to be numbered, everyone to his town.

Joseph went up from Galilee, out of the town of Nazareth, into Judaea, to Bethlehem, the town of David, because he was of the house and family of David, to be put on the list with Mary, his future wife, who was about to become a mother. And while they were there, the time came for her to give birth. She had her first son; and folding him in linen, she put him to rest in the place where the cattle had their food, because there was no room for them in the house.

And in the same country there were keepers of sheep in the fields, watching over their flock by night. An angel of the Lord came to them, and the glory of the Lord was shining round about them: and fear came on them.

The angel said, "Have no fear; for truly, I give you good news of great joy which will be for all the people: For on this day, in the town of David, a Saviour has come to birth, who is Christ the Lord. This is the sign to you: you will see a young child folded in linen, in the place where the cattle have their food."

And suddenly there was with the angel a great band of spirits from heaven, giving praise to God, and saying, "Glory to God in the highest, and on the earth peace among men with whom he is well pleased."

When the angels had gone away from them into Heaven, the keepers of the sheep said to one another, "Let us go now to Bethlehem, and see this thing which has come about, which the Lord has made clear to us."

They came quickly, and saw Mary and Joseph, and the child in the place where the cattle had their food. And when they saw it, they gave them an account of the things which had been said to them about the child. All those to whose ears it came were full of wonder at the things said by the keepers of the sheep.

But Mary kept all these words in her heart, and gave much thought to them. Then the keepers of the sheep went back, giving glory and praise to God for all the things which had come to their ears and which they had seen, as it had been said to them.

Mary Christmas, everyone!

It's Christmas Eve...

...the kids are excited to open presents tomorrow, we're tracking Santa on Google Earth, and very few of you are probably reading this on Christmas Eve night. Just a brief message, then.

I'm going to take a few days off to spend with family. I might do a late-night post or two if there is some really big news, but I suspect it'll be pretty quiet. I've been a complete slacker in terms of responding to comments, so I'll try to get caught up on that in the next few days, too. I've also got some very important questions on which I need input from you. So, when you come back, please help me out with a moment of your time...more on that in a couple days.

Let us now take a moment to say a prayer for our military men and women and their families - they offer a tremendous sacrifice to preserve our way of life in this blessed nation, and deserve our heartfelt thanks and appreciation.

Despite all of the fights and legitimately concerning issues we debate on a daily basis, I still firmly believe that we live in the best nation in the history of the planet, and that we have uncountable blessings for which to be thankful. The most important of those is, of course, the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Let's keep that in mind as we tear open gifts, gorge ourselves with delicious food, and enjoy numerous family traditions tonight and tomorrow. There's no Christmas without Christ, so let's keep Him as a part of our celebrations.

Tapper Busts Obama In Another Lie

The last remaining legitimate reporter covering the White House, Jake Tapper at ABC, does the fact-checking that used to be standard practice for journalists:

Yesterday, Barack Obama told the Washington Post that he never campaigned explicitly on the public option for health care reform:

Those elements are in the House and Senate versions of the legislation; their competing proposals will have to be reconciled in conference committee next year. The House bill includes a government-run insurance plan favored by progressive Democrats; the Senate version does not. “I didn’t campaign on the public option,” Obama said in the interview.

Maybe Obama would have been better off by saying, “That’s not the public option I thought I knew.” As Jake Tapper documents in his fact-check today, Obama not only campaigned on a public option, those pledges for a government-run insurance plan still exist on his campaign website:

It depends on what the meaning of “campaign” is.

Was it a major emphasis of his campaign? Not after he won the Democratic presidential nomination.

But did he mention it? Was it part of his “campaign”? Yes.

It certainly was, as Jake finds rather easily on a search of the Obama campaign website, his campaign literature
, and even a Washington Post questionnaire that the Post themselves neglected to check when publishing his denial without comment. One might think that such a categorical denial would prompt a reporter to check his paper’s own archives, but apparently the Post is more comfortable having Jake do that for them.

Of course, you can hear Obama advocating the public option himself in this appearance at Planned Parenthood:

All of Obama’s statements come with expiration dates — all of them.

Apparently both to the Right, like this one, and to the Left, which begs the question of why anyone bothers to listen to him anymore.

There's my two cents.

Another Slide On Gitmo

Things like this are why Obama's taking some serious heat from his own Left flank:

The New York Times reports:

Rebuffed this month by skeptical lawmakers when it sought finances to buy a prison in rural Illinois, the Obama administration is struggling to come up with the money to replace the Guantánamo Bay prison.

As a result, officials now believe that they are unlikely to close the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and transfer its population of terrorism suspects until 2011 at the earliest — a far slower timeline for achieving one of President Obama's signature national security policies than they had previously hinted.

I consider this to be a very good thing, of course.  Keep it up!

There's my two cents.

Some Final DemCare Wrap-Up Thoughts

Here are two great wrap-up posts that I thought really struck home.  Excerpts follow.

Should we be mad at Republicans?

There's been a lot of anger among conservatives directed at Republicans leading up to the health care bill passing the Senate this morning. Is this anger justified? My answer is yes, but I mean that in a different way than other conservatives.

...conservatives should be angry at them. The reason why we have a liberal in the White House and why Democrats control overwhelming majorities in Congress is that Republicans failed badly when they were in power. Democrats were in a position to push a government takeover of the health care system, because when Republicans controlled things, they didn't advance free market solutions. After Hillarycare was defeated in 1994, the sentiment was that they dodged a bullet, and could go back to ignoring the issue -- while Democrats were quietly plotting for the next time they were in control. Sure, health savings accounts were a good thing, but they were narrow in scope, and far overshadowed by the largest expansion of entitlements since the Great Society in the form of the Medicare prescription drug plan.

By the time this year rolled around, Democrats were in power and Republicans were discredited. Meanwhile, all of the special interest groups (insurers, drug manufacturers, hospitals, the AMA and AARP) were on the side of those in power so they could carve up the pie at the expense of the rest of us. It was going to be an uphill battle to begin with, but Republicans dithered for months, and settled on a strategy that ended up focusing on protecting Medicare from cuts rather than going after something like the individual mandate, which would have struck a blow at the heart of Obamacare.

By the time it got to the Senate floor, I don't think any tactical decisions by McConnell could have made up for more than a decade of Republican blundering.

You reap what you sow, and the GOP spent years morphing into the Diet Democrat party.  Thus, the liberal takeover.  The key now is to learn from that mistake, correct it, and remember it as we move into the future.  Clearly, Democrats cannot be trusted with running the country in a way that is sustainable for the long term, nor in a way that preserves freedom and prosperity, so the GOP is our only hope.  If they fail, the country fails.


An "Unusually Good Bill Clinton"

Harry Reid got his 60 votes earlier this morning. Some initial thoughts:

• The mainstream media is going to go back into campaign mode, to see that some form of Harry-Nancy-Obama-care, or is it Obama-Nancy-Harry-care, gets passed. The NY Times already is on the case pressing the big lie: "The Senate voted Thursday to reinvent the nation's health care system, passing a bill to guarantee access to health insurance for tens of millions of Americans and to rein in health costs as proposed by President Obama."
• The mainstream non-big media types also will join the campaign. Jonathan Chait at The New Republic is on the case: "Why the health care bill is the greatest social achievement of our time."
• The blogospheric self-appointed liberal wonks are joining the campaign. Ezra Klein is on the case: "It was the first time the body had been in session on Christmas Eve since 1963. That's fitting, as it's arguably the most important piece of legislation the body has passed since 1963."
• The left-wing Democratic noise machines will join in with background support to make sure the media doesn't stray. Matthew Yglesias, paying homage to his "boss" John Podesta, is on the case: "The health care bill passed!"

But no one can outdo the "unusually good Bill Clinton," our President Barack Obama who can say things with a straight face and moral indignation that would make Bubba blush:

"This bill will strengthen Medicare and extend the life of the program. It will make coverage affordable for over 30 million Americans who do not have it — 30 million Americans.

And because it is paid for and curbs the waste and inefficiency in our health care system, this bill will help reduce our deficit by as much as $1.3 trillion in the coming decades, making it the largest deficit-reduction plan in over a decade."

I'm out of breath from explaining, hundreds of times, why this is a monstrous lie. But it is on its way towards passage with the help of the mainstream media, mini-media pundits, and blogspheric sycophants.

Merry Christmas. Rest up. You'll need it for the final battle in January.

That's the bottom line.  We need to keep fighting this, no matter what.  As Bill Kristol said, we also need to keep fighting against every facet of the radical Leftist agenda.  By persevering and fighting effectively, we can make this victory a Pyrrhic one rather than a successful liberal takeover of the nation.

DemCare isn't law yet, though it likely will be soon.  We need to keep our eyes on the ball, start working toward a victory in 2010 with a renewed GOP based on core conservative principles, and immediately start talking up a repeal of this monstrosity.  It won't be as good a solution as preventing it from being enacted at all, but it's better than rolling over and giving up.

And finally, a note to all those who voted for hope and change last November...be careful what you wish for.  You just might get it...

There's my two cents.

You Can Have Any Color You Want, As Long As It's Black

That's what Henry Ford said about the color selection of his famous Model T.  Sounds like Obama's saying the same thing about your future health care plans:

The plan before the Senate creates a set of 50 state-based insurance "exchanges" that are established as markets for health plans. Consumers must buy policies from their employers or through the exchanges--but, either way, their choice of coverage is limited to one of four basic insurance plans that the government sanctions.

Private insurers will still compete to offer policies but must model their coverage on one of these four templates. In short, the Senate bill explicitly standardizes health benefits and then establishes elaborate mechanisms (including subsidies and penalties) to pay for them.

Here's the rub: While these four plans vary from low- to high-cost options, the benefits offered under them are pretty much the same. The difference between the cheaper and pricier plans is mostly the amount of cost sharing (e.g., you pay less for insurance if your co-pays are higher).

In effect, the plan creates a single national health-insurance policy. Consumers' only real option is to trade higher co-pays for lower premiums. But we'll all get the same package of benefits established by a series of new agencies and an "insurance czar" seated in Washington.

Once the exchanges are in place, the individual market--the ability to go directly to an insurer and buy a health-care policy--will disappear. You'll have only two places to buy insurance, in the exchanges or through your workplace.

So much for all those promises of keeping your current doctor and plan if you like them.

This is precisely what conservatives have been warning about for months, and given the poll numbers, I think the American people have figured it out.  What's profoundly disturbing is that the Democrats in Congress and the White House really don't care.

Remember: they are going to exempt themselves from DemCare.  It's only for peons that need to be controlled...

There's my two cents.

Final Pre-Christmas DemCare Update

I had a huge stack of links to summarize and pass along to you, but by the time you read this the Senate will be in the process of passing DemCare, probably by a vote of 60-40. Here are the ones that haven't now become irrelevant:

Dems vote to continue bribing each other
Dems vote down amendment to strip state bribes from DemCare
White House attempts to bribe Stupak into caving on abortion
Senate bill will eliminate private insurance
Hopium Den: White House Declares Public So Wild for Comprehensive Piece of S*** Their Approval Will Rocket to 60%
Blue Dogs in heat
Establishment Republicans don't get it
DemCare is unconstitutional
Young, Invincible, and Now Forced to Shell-Out for Health Care
Health care and immigration
Nothing voluntary about DemCare mandate
CBO Reponds to Republican Inquiry: After Careful Research and Analysis, We Conclude There Is No Such Thing as Magic Beans
Speaking of Magic Beans and the Doc-Fix...
Palin: I told you so!
The Senate needs Martian gold, unicorns, and alien slaves to make the Healthcare Rationing bill work financially
Joker outbreak!

Now, here are a few links that still very much apply.

Ben Nelson was caught voting against the cash-for-cloture amendment before voting for it. Not surprising, unless you consider the sheer brazenness of someone trying to hide their desire to be bought.

Heritage reports on the 6 key things on which the House Dems will have to cave if they are to pass the Senate version of the bill. These are not small things, either, including the public option and Medicare expansion. It should be interesting to see how this stuff works out. If nothing else, the conflict between the Senate and the House is likely to cause some fireworks, though they're desperate enough to go to extreme measures to pass something. And, of course, the Democrats, which means they each have a price. We'll see.

It is probably at least partly for this reason that one of the top Dems in the House is saying that she'd rather see them scrap the Senate version and start over.

For a glimpse of the future under DemCare, we need to look at the tanning industry:

What did the tanning industry ever do to deserve being singled out for a new 10% surtax on all indoor tanning services in Harry Reid's Manager's Amendment?

The tanning tax was a substitute for the cosmetic surgery tax (a/k/a Botax) in the prior bill.

This may seem inconsequential, and to some extent it is. The revenues raised will be insignificant in terms of the overall cost of health care. It also is unlikely that the tanning industry will be able to defend itself. And there doesn't seem to be a pro-tanning political movement.

The purported justification is the claim that use of tanning services contributes to skin cancer, although it seems that overuse of tanning services might be the culprit. But so is over-sunning at the beach or poolside, so why not tax beach clubs and shut down public pools? The justification for a tanning tax results from the same pseudo-scientific logic being used at the state level to try to tax sodas and sugary drinks.

The random nature of this tax is what is worrisome. An out-of-favor industry, with no substantial political muscle, is singled out by an avaricious Congress at the last minute in a secret backroom deal.

The significance of the tanning tax is that the government, in its thirst for funds to fund government expansion, will attack the weakest link. Today, the tanning industry is the weakest link, tomorrow who will it be?

This is essentially the same argument I've offered before on smoking bans. It may be tanning salons today, but what happens when it's your industry tomorrow? If we're going to stand against any government takeovers of private industry, we need to stand against all government takeovers of private industry.

Bill Kristol writes that DemCare could be a Pyrrhic victory:

Wikipedia ... defines a Pyrrhic victory as "a victory with devastating cost to the victor." It also provides this quotation from Plutarch's Life of Pyrrhus, describing the aftermath of the battle of Asculum in 279 BCE:

"The armies separated; and, it is said, Pyrrhus replied to one that gave him joy of his victory that one more such victory would utterly undo him. For he had lost a great part of the forces he brought with him, and almost all his particular friends and principal commanders; there were no others there to make recruits, and he found the confederates in Italy backward. On the other hand, as from a fountain continually flowing out of the city, the Roman camp was quickly and plentifully filled up with fresh men, not at all abating in courage for the loss they sustained, but even from their very anger gaining new force and resolution to go on with the war."

So: Pyrrhus's victory became Pyrrhic because the victorious party lost many of its supporters--but also because the opposition didn't abate in courage, was able to gain new recruits, and had the force and resolution to go on.

[So] how should Republicans move forward?

1. Keep fighting on health care. Fight for the next few days in the Senate. Fight the conference report in January in the Senate and the House. Start trying to repeal the worst parts of the bill the moment it passes, if it does.

After all, never before has so unpopular a piece of major legislation been jammed through on a party-line vote. This week, Rasmussen showed 57% of voters nationwide saying that it would be better to pass no health care reform bill this year instead of passing the plan currently being considered by Congress, with only 34% favoring passing that bill. 54% of Americans now believe they will be worse off if reform passes, while just 25% believe they'll be better off. Making the 2010 elections a referendum on health care should work--if Republicans don't let up in the debate over the next year.

2. But don't fight only on health care. Republicans need to expand the battlefield. The rest of the past week's news--some Gitmo prisoners being released back to the battlefield, while others are to be brought to the U.S.; the Copenhagen farce and the EPA CO2 regulation; an Obama-appointed "safe schools czar" who's more interested in safe sex than safe schools--reminds us that there are many fronts for conservatives and Republicans to fight on, ranging from economic policy to social issues to national security.

3. And broaden the base for the fight. Many Republicans--especially Republican elected officials--fret that the Republican party remains unpopular. Don't worry about that. It will take a while longer to repair the damage that's been done in recent years. ... The good news is that, for the first time in more than two years, the Democratic party has a negative favorable/unfavorable rating, of 35 to 45 percent.

The most striking result in the NBC/Journal poll is that the Tea Party movement has a net-positive 41 percent to 23 percent score. The American public is in a populist/conservative/libertarian mood. Republicans need to adopt that mood, channel it into sound policies, and learn to trust the people, without worrying that they haven't all yet signed up to GOP orthodoxy.

So: Fight on with respect to health care. Fight on other fronts. And recruit new fighters. In a word: Fight.

Sounds like a good strategy to me. I think the base is primed and ready to fight; the question is whether or not we have enough elected leaders ready to engage with us.

So, the vote is going on now, and will almost certainly pass. What happens next? From what I've read, there are two basic methods the Dems could use to push DemCare into law. First, they could start up the conference committee where House and Senate reps haggle out a final bill which will have to be passed again by both bodies. This is treacherous because some of the key components of DemCare are polar opposites in the two versions as they are currently written. For example, the Senate version doesn't contain the public option because several Dem Senators wouldn't accept it; the House version, however, does contain the public option because a big bloc of Dem Reps said they wouldn't accept a bill without it. Obviously, there are lots of potential traps in doing this.

More likely is the continuation of what we've seen so far: back room deals done in secret. The term being thrown around is 'ping pong':

When Democrats took over Congress in 2007, they increasingly did not send bills through the regular conference process. “We have to defer to the bigger picture,” explained Rep. Henry Waxman of California. So the children’s health insurance bill passed by the House that year was largely dumped in favor of the Senate’s version. House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel and other Democrats complained the House had been “cut off at the knees” but ultimately supported the bill. Legislation on lobbying reform and the 2007 energy bill were handled the same way — without appointing an actual conference.

Rather than appoint members to a public conference committee, those measures were “ping-ponged” — i.e. changes to reconcile the two versions were transmitted by messenger between the two houses as the final product was crafted behind closed doors solely by the leadership. Many Democrats grumbled at the secrecy. “We need to get back to the point where we use conference committees . . . and have serious dialogue,” said Rep. Artur Davis of Alabama at the time.

But serious dialogue isn’t what Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid are interested in right now. Look for the traditional conference committee to be replaced by a “ping-pong” game in which health care is finalized behind closed doors with little public scrutiny before the bill is rushed to the floor of each chamber for a final vote.

The math is simple - Reid cannot afford to lose a single vote in the Senate, but Pelosi can afford to lose a bunch in the House. So, it is likely that the House will end up giving in and accepting the Senate bill over their own. After all, the Dems know they're playing for the long haul (emphasis mine):

As written, the Senate health care bill will force every American to purchase a government-approved insurance policy or pay a tax. It will expand Medicaid by 15 million people. It will create a new government-run long-term care insurance entitlement, called the Class Act, that even Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad called "a Ponzi scheme of the first order, the kind of thing that Bernie Madoff would have been proud of." And it will create new government-run insurance exchanges on which individuals would use government subsidies to buy government-designed insurance policies.

Taken together, this legislation enables to federal government to get its hands on every aspect of the health care system -- and it's only a matter of time before it tighten its grip. Just listen to what Democrats are saying now.

"What we need to do is lay a strong foundation," Sen. Ron Wyden said in an interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow last week. "A foundation that we can build on in the years ahead. We are not going to get everything we want in round one, but we are going to get a foundation that we are going to build on in the years ahead."

Sen. Jay Rockefeller told the New Republic "that liberal advocates could try again another year to push for the reforms that didn't make it into the current bill." He said, "You know we're going to be back next year, and the year after that, and the year after that."

And in comments on the Senate floor on Friday, Sen. John Kerry argued that Democrats shouldn’t even wait that long. Kerry explained ... "When it comes to historic breakthroughs in America, especially in social policies, you make the best deal that you can, and immediately, you start pushing for ways to improve the deal."

And as evidence, he noted that Medicare and Medicaid have greatly expanded over time.

If this health care legislation becomes law, Democrats will attempt to use the new infrastructure they built to add stricter regulations, more subsidies, and additional mandates. They will continue to incrementally expand existing government-run programs such as Medicaid. And as health care spending spirals out of control, instead of faulting government intervention, liberals will blame the absence of a public option.

All along, opponents of the pending legislation have argued that it was just one step on the long march to a government takeover of health care. And now, with victory in sight, Democrats are proving their critics'point.

So you see, this may be a smaller step than the Left hopes, but it is nevertheless a critical one on the road to government control of health care.

Good-bye freedom, good-bye, America.

There's my two cents.

Channeling Quin Hillyer On The Will To FIGHT

I expressed in an earlier post about the anger that is simmering against the Republican party for failing to represent the wishes of the clear majority of Americans on DemCare.  Without realizing it, I was channeling Quin Hillyer's column at The American Spectator.  Since he's a much better wordsmith than I am, I'd like to post what he said, too.  This is excellent, so read the whole thing:

Byron York in effect defends Mitch McConnell here from my various recent criticisms. Now Byron is a superb reporter. First rate. He gets "scoops" frequently, and knows his stuff, and is utterly tireless. But in this post, part of his logic is, well, illogical. And as for how McConnell weighs his priorities, that's a value judgment on McConnell's part, but as a value judgment, I wold argue that it stinks. I certainly disagree with Byron's conclusion that McConnell used his supposedly weak bargaining position to "get as much as he could."

First, the logic: Somehow, it is supposed to make it better that "It was Reid who wanted to leave more than McConnell." But that is exactly my point: IF it was Reid who wanted to leave early, then it gave McConnell LOTS of bargaining power. If McConnell had said, okay, if you want to leave early, I WILL insist on finishing the full 30 hours of debate when we get back after Christmas -- i.e., not have a vote on Christmas Eve -- then Reid either would have had to push the vote beyond Christmas, or hold it late on Christmas Eve, NEITHER of which he wanted to do. The whole point is that, as I clearly wrote, "if the Dems want to get out of town before the ice storm, then make them do so without passing this Obamacare bill. Make it THEIR tough choice. Make THEM face the consequences of not being able to get out of town."

Byron reports (as did a commenter named "Andrew" on this site yesterday) that in return for leaving early, McConnell scored the supposed coup of forcing a series of votes related to TARP and the debt limit when the Senate returns in January. Gee, that's nice. We're fighing over one-soxth of the economy, and major philosophical and constitutional issues, and McConnell is happy about another show vote or two on something, the debt limit, that NEVER EVER EVER pays big political dividends, because most of the public understands it is a pro forma vote. Again and again and again through the years the GOP makes a big deal out of the debt limit vote, and again and again and again it causes a momentary blip for about 12 hours and then people forget about it. Of course the debt matters -- but Americans object not so much to the debt as to the size and intrusiveness of government, and to all the actual laws, policies, and spending decisions that cause the debt to go up.They know the debt limit vote is an effect of bad policy, not the bad policy itself.

A Senate aide says this: "We're going to force them to vote on ending TARP, deficit control -- things they don't want to do. And it'll be on the first day back, when everybody's paying attention." That's tactically goofy. Everybody is paying attention NOW. People resent the hell out of a bill being forced down their throats without adequate time to read it, just before Christmas. This thing could have been portrayed as the Christmas Eve Massacre. NOTHING is more dramatic than a Senate leadership so bound and determined to shove a vastly unpopular major bill down the throats of the public that it forces the vote at 9 p.m. on Christmas Eve. THAT's drama for you. THAT makes people angry. That's like putting a lump of coal, AND a lump of dog droppings, in the stockings of the 60 percent of the public that is against this monstrosity. Instead, McConnell and company fold their tents, make no dramatic fuss, and fail to drive the point home.

Now, think about this. What would have happened to the debt limit vote if McConnell had stuck to his guns? As Byron himself reports, "The Senate has still not voted on a bill to raise the nation's debt ceiling. It has to do so by tomorrow, before lawmakers leave for the year." So... if the debt limit MUST be raised before Christmas, too, then why not fight on that front, too? Play hardball on BOTH. Hold the debt limit hostage to the health care bill by agreeing to the debt limit vote ONLY if the final health vote is pushed off until after the New Year.

Priorities, priorities. The debt limit gets voted on about twice a year. Totally screwing up the health care laws of the country for eternity happens, oh, one time and one time only in the history of the United States. This health care bill isn't just another piece of legislation. It's Horatio at the Bridge. The threat of it has inspired millions of people to go to TEA Parties and town hall meetings and to write and email and call their congressmen. It is not the debt limit that has people up in arms; it's health care. People are scared. People are not just angry but furious. And they see a congressional leadership that originally shunned them at the TEA Parties, that rode the public's energy ad leadership during this health care fight so far rather than being ahead of the curve, and that refused to do scorched-Earth tactics in the Senate to beat it.

Reid and Obama now have nearly a month to figure out how to massage the supposedly dreaded votes on the debt limit. And they also get to celebrate a HUGE HUGE victory on health care, and celebrate it now, without paying quite the same price they would have paid if the GOP had stood firm.

As a supposed tactical victory for McConnell, this is like Napoleon getting off of Elba and thinking he would return to glory. Anybody who knows history knows what happened to Napoleon next.

Wasted opportunities, all because of the failure to FIGHT like the base wants.  If the Republican party can't do better than this, and do it in a hurry, the country is truly lost.

There's my two cents.


Related Reading:
Why the 'angry mob' is angry
The Fight Caucus is born!

For Your Amusement

Gateway Pundit posted on the same Rasmussen poll I did a couple days ago showing Obama's growing unpopularity.  Sorry for the redundancy on that, but his post is worth reproducing because of the comparison at the end:

A Good Solid B+

Barack Obama's approval index number dropped to a new low today.
Rasmussen reported:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 25% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Forty-six percent (46%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -21 That's the lowest Approval Index rating yet recorded for this President (see trends).

At the end of his second term President George W. Bush had a 43% disapproval rating.

In less than one year Barack Obama managed to pi$$ off more people than George W. Bush.
Nice work, Barack.

We know. It must be Bush's fault.

Worse after 1 year than Bush after 8??  Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha...!!!

There's my two cents.

It's So Critically Important That It'll Wait Until...February?!

I'm not quite sure what to make of this (emphasis mine):

Politico's Mike Allen and Alexander Trowbridge have some bad news for Democrats, especially in the Senate, where Harry Reid has kept the chamber locked in battle over ObamaCare for weeks in an attempt to hit the finish line by Christmas.  Barack Obama plans to put the health-care overhaul on the back burner until after the State of the Union address, pushing any conference between the House and Senate off until February.  Instead, Obama plans a "hard pivot" towards jobs and the economy:

The White House privately anticipates health care talks to slip into February — past President Barack Obama's first State of the Union address — and then plans to make a "very hard pivot" to a new jobs bill, according to senior administration officials.

Obama has been told that disputes over abortion and the tight schedule are highly likely to delay a final deal, a blow to the president who had hoped to trumpet a health care victory in his big speech to the nation. But he has also been told that House Democratic leaders seem inclined, at least for now, to largely accept the compromise worked out in the Senate, virtually assuring he will eventually get a deal.

Internally, White House aides are plunging into a 2010 plan calling for an early focus on creating jobs, especially in the energy sector, along with starting a conversation about deficit reduction measures, the administration officials said.

Both will be major themes for his first State of the Union speech, which will likely take place on Jan. 26 or Feb. 2. White House aides are in the early stages of planning for the national address, but Obama will not only trumpet what he has described as his "B-plus" performance in 2009 but also set the stage for the 2010 congressional campaigns.

This tells us that the White House has done some legwork in the House and found that the lower chamber is not going to adopt the Senate version as is, as Politico also reports this morning:

House Democrats insisted Tuesday they have no plans to roll over for the Senate in upcoming negotiations on a health reform bill, even as they acknowledged it would be all but impossible to reinsert a public insurance option or force the so-called millionaire's tax on the Senate.

Either move would disrupt Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's no-margin-for-error 60-vote majority. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her leadership team seem to have their sights set on lower-profile – but no-less important – differences, like boosting affordability credits in the final bill and starting the insurance exchange a year earlier, which they did in the House.

Wha-huh??

I thought that health care was a crisis that needed to be fixed NOW (never mind the fact that the 'benefits' didn't kick in until after the next Presidential election)!  Where the heck is this coming from?

Hot Air supplies some applicable commentary:

The longer that debate drags, the further Obama drops in the polls, which is why this move only makes sense if the White House sees weeks more futility in the health-care overhaul debate.  Even liberal commentators like the Seattle Times editorial board want Democrats to shelve ObamaCare and start paying attention to the fact that unemployment has spun out of control on their watch.  Deficits are even more wild, as Obama's OMB Director Peter Orszag was forced to acknowledge when he admitted that he had underestimated deficits over the next ten years by 22%, or $2,200,000,000,000.

Unfortunately for Democrats in Congress, that move tosses them under a very big bus.  They wanted to close this debate as early as possible in order to allow anger over the unpopular measure to ebb in time for their re-election campaigns.  Under the new timing, Congress would have to consider ObamaCare and cap-and-trade in rapid succession, just in time for the summer and fundraising time.  Unlike last year, Democrats won't be able to avoid appearing in public and being surrounded by Tea Party protests, and those two agenda items will provoke them to even more fury than last year.

The other term for "hard pivot" is "dithering."  The more Obama dithers, the less likely ObamaCare becomes.

All of those political considerations are true, but I'm still not sold.

And I'm not alone:

HotAir via Politico is reporting that the Obama administration has learned that there is sufficient resistence in the House to the Senate plan that the push to pass final legislation, after conference, will be delayed until after Obama's January State of the Union address.

I'd like to believe it, but I can't help the feeling that this is disinformation put out by Rahm Emanuel to ease the pressure on Congressmen and Senators over the holiday break.

If this is true, then the Democratic Senators rushing to pass a bill by Christmas are about to jump off a political ledge without a parachute.

This legislation will not survive until February. It is having trouble surving until January. And if by some chance the momentum can survive until February, it simply will keep open an issue on which Obama and Democrats are losing public support daily.

If Obama really is planning to delay a conference and final passage until February, this is the best Christmas present to those who care about killing this bill.

It would be, no doubt, and I'd gladly take it!

Obama has shown little regard thus far for anyone's well-being but his own, but even he has to understand that if he forces Congressional Dems to walk the plank too many times, he will hand Congress to the GOP on a silver platter next November.  Many Dems will gladly follow his ideological madness, but there are plenty more who actually want to keep their jobs, and without a clear majority in both houses, Obama's agenda grinds to a sudden halt.

I'll believe this delay when I see it.  Until then, my cynical crap-ometer is reading off the charts...

There's my two cents.

Dear Senator McCaskill...

As expected, Claire-Bear talked tough on DemCare, saying she would oppose it if it added to the skyrocketing deficit, then she supported it anyway.  Below is an e-mail that I just sent to her office, with the most important part highlighted here:

Senator,

Last week, you stated in an interview (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9CIQ8AG0&show_article=1) that you would 'absolutely' vote against the Senate health care bill if it raised health care costs and the deficit.  Your statement echoed remarks by the President (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-save-award-and-making-government-more-efficient-and-effective) that critics' suggestion that the Senate bill would increase costs and the deficit didn't 'hold water'.

This position is, I presume, based on the CBO's December 19 analysis (http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/108xx/doc10868/12-19-Reid_Letter_Managers_Correction_Noted.pdf) of Harry Reid's manager's amendment (http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act.pdf).  That analysis contained some major assumptions that can legitimately be questioned, but for the sake of argument, let's assume it to be accurate.

The CBO has announced (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/23/gop-senator-senate-health-care-increase-federal-deficit/) that the initial numbers were incorrect.  In a letter to Sen. Jeff Sessions, the CBO said, in part:

"The improvement in Medicare's finances would not be matched by a corresponding improvement in the federal government's overall finances. CBO and JCT estimated that the PPACA as originally proposed would add more than $300 billion ($246 billion + $69 billion + interest) to the balance of the HI trust fund by 2019, while reducing federal budget deficits by a total of $130 billion by 2019. Thus, the trust fund would be recording additional saving of more than $300 billion during the next 10 years, but the government as a whole would be doing much less additional saving.

CBO has not undertaken a comparable quantitative analysis for the PPACA incorporating the manager's amendment, but the results would be qualitatively similar. The reductions in projected Part A outlays and increases in projected HI revenues would significantly raise balances in the HI trust fund and create the appearance that significant additional resources had been set aside to pay for future Medicare benefits. However, the additional savings by the government as a whole—which represent the true increase in the ability to pay for future Medicare benefits or other programs—would be a good deal smaller.

The key point is that the savings to the HI trust fund under the PPACA would be received by the government only once, so they cannot be set aside to pay for future Medicare spending and, at the same time, pay for current spending on other parts of the legislation or on other programs."

In effect, the CBO is saying that the Senate bill counts the same dollars twice, once for future Medicare spending and once for paying down other parts of the legislation.  Since that is obviously not possible in the real world outside of government accounting circles, the Senate health care bill in the real world will actually increase the deficit.  In the light of this new information from the CBO, I would like to inquire as to whether or not you are preparing to reverse your position on the bill.

Thank you

I await her answer with baited breath.

There's my two cents.

PS - I think it would be fun if lots of people wrote and called her about this turnaround in the numbers and held her accountable for her previous pledge to oppose DemCare if it hit the deficit.  If you do so, please e-mail me or drop a comment to let me know what response you get, and I'll post the best ones.

One Can Only Imagine...

Robert Costa at NRO reports:

In a surprise move, Sen. Jim DeMint (R., S.C.), chairman of the Senate Steering Committee, will seek a vote this afternoon on an amendment to prohibit the practice of trading votes for earmarks in the United States Senate. "Americans are disgusted by the earmarks, kickbacks, and backroom deals that have been used to buy votes for this health-care takeover," says DeMint to NRO. "I hope we can put every senator on record on whether they support this legislative bribery, and we'll know who is part of the problem."

The vote will be to suspend the rules of the Senate to get an up-or-down vote on his amendment. Motions to suspend Senate rules require the affirmative support of two-thirds of the Senate — 67 when all 100 senators are present and voting. It is important to note that DeMint's amendment would apply only to future legislation, not the current health-care bill.

Cool!  Not only is there considerable anger about this particular unsavory aspect of Congress (and on this, at least, both parties are very, very guilty), but this strikes me as precisely the kind of thing that Senate Republicans would have been doing for several weeks now if they really wanted to wreak havoc on DemCare in an attempt to actually kill it with a thousand small cuts.  As an added bonus, it'll be really interesting to see how the various Senators go on record in terms of the open buying of their votes.  Some are quite proud of their pork, of course, but I'm guessing there are more than a few who are now squirming because they pretend to be fiscally responsible when they're outside of Washington.

One can only imagine how things might have played out differently on DemCare if Sen. DeMint or Sen. Coburn was Minority Leader rather than Mitch 'Toss in the Towel' McConnell.

There's my two cents.

Republican Does Not Equal Conservative

They're definitely not the same thing:

It is highlighted in this comment here with the guy weighing in as the mouthpiece of the establishment GOP.

And then there is my response.

One of the things I always find amusing is the leadership flacks for the GOP who come to RedState to lecture you and me that we are ignorant boobs who really don't know how anything works because we are not on Capitol Hill.

If only we were there we would know. And yet this guy gets several points wrong, including saying that the minority cannot force votes in the Senate when, in fact, we are seeing Jim DeMint do that [today] when he forces a vote on the constitutionality of the individual mandate.

But we're all just rubes.

It is comments like that first one that generally show how much contempt the GOP leadership has for you and me. Mitch McConnell spent the better part of yesterday parading around a host of talk radio shows and television shows to say the GOP would never give up and would never give in. They would fight until the bitter end.

Then he threw in the towel today because by golly it might snow in D.C. tomorrow night.

There is a reason the tea party movement outperforms the GOP in polls. The tea party movement has the perfect opportunity now to capitalize on the contempt GOP leaders show for the base and launch a coup of the party at the local level. The tea party activists can take over their local GOP precincts and through them take over their local and state parties, thereby taking over the national party.

The GOP is ripe for the taking by conservatives. And we might as well so we get a few leaders and staffers who don't hold activists in contempt.

I called both McConnell's office and Bond's office this morning and asked for an explanation of why the Senate GOP decided to give up the fight.  The staffers had no answer, and were just passing along comments.  The nice lady in McConnell's office mentioned that she'd been getting a lot of that question today.  I'll bet she has.

This is precisely the reason for the simmering anger in the GOP base.  We have to scream and shout and drag them along to get them to even talk tough, and even then it only lasts a couple days.  God forbid we'd actually get some real spine and action out of them!

The polls show a huge majority opposes DemCare, on any number of grounds (abortion, cost, unconstitutionality, shady back room deals, lack of transparency, destroying freedom, take your pick).  We've seen months of tea parties across the nation where literally millions of every day Americans have gathered to express their frustration with Washington.  Obama's approval ratings have tanked.  The economy still sucks and unemployment is through the roof, but the Dems insist on expanding government and taking over health care instead.  If there was ever a time when the Republican party could make a glaring statement that WE ARE DIFFERENT AND WE MEAN BUSINESS, this was it.

They failed, and failed badly.

If they couldn't -- or worse: WOULDN'T -- do it on DemCare, what hope is there for a stand on anything else?

The problem we have now is that most Americans lack real representation right now, and we know it.  Only the crazy kook fringe Left is represented in Washington right now; everyone else is adrift without a voice during a time of big national turmoil.  The country is largely conservative, but the Republican party can't seem to find its way back to the conservative principles that the country wants to see.  The Democrats never will, of course, but the GOP should find it a very simple thing to come home to its base, but they're unfortunately only giving it a half-hearted attempt.  Sure, they held firm and put up all 40 votes against DemCare on the cloture vote.  Yippee.  But what did you do to try to KILL it over the past couple months?  Almost nothing.  It passed out of all the Senate committees with GOP support.  As debate rolled on, there were no poison pill amendments, no killer add-ons, no sustained attempts to bog down the Senate indefinitely until the Dems were shaken to the core, no publicized drama, nothing.  It was one handshake after another in a long string of aw-gee-shucks-we-tried-really-hard-but-we-wanted-to-get-along-more-than-win moments that have infuriated the people living outside of Washington.  The American people are angry and want to see action, but the GOP isn't following through.  The message we need to communicate with crystal clarity to our elected reps in Washington right now is: WAKE THE HELL UP!!!

Or we'll wake you the hell up at the next election.

There's my two cents.

Massive Pre-Christmas DemCare Update

Wow, there's been a LOT going on with DemCare.

Harry Reid and the Democrats appear to be headed to a legislative victory, passing DemCare on Christmas Eve when very few Americans will be paying attention. One of the biggest problems with this whole thing is that this will be the first time in history that every American will be forced to purchase a good or service regardless of whether or not they want to (if they don't, they face fines and jail time). In short, it's pretty damned unconstitutional, and some conservatives are making a point of bringing that up. Not that it'll make much of a difference, of course - the Dems have been doing a fine job of ignoring the Constitution lately.

Now that the conclusion to this looks likely, RedState ponders the failed strategy employed by Mitch McConnell. It ain't pretty:

The Senate Republican Leadership under Mitch McConnell and Lamar Alexander told us to trust them.

They were going to offer a series of “messaging amendments” to point out all the flaws in the health care legislation. The rest of us said no — force a vote on the legislation while the Dems did not have 60 votes.

They ignored us.

Then we said drag out the legislation as long as possible. They ignored us until votes were scheduled, making the dragging out impossible. When the scheduled time for the votes came, it did not matter if the bill was being read, the votes would happen.

Along the way, McConnell and Alexander pooh-poohed anyone who suggested the messaging strategy was doomed to failure.

There were 501 amendments offered.

Mitch McConnell offered only one.

Lamar Alexander? He did not offer a single one.

So intent on avoiding being labeled by their friends in the press and on the aisle opposite as “the Party of No,” they rolled over and became the “Party of No Problem.”

The Senate GOP Leadership’s fall back claim is that they only had 40 seats. Well, Mitch McConnell started with 55. Had he done his job when Ted Stevens fell to scandal in 2007, we would probably have a Republican Senator from Alaska. Likewise, in offering up a host of Republicans with little to distinguish them from the Democrats, his ultimate strategy had to focus on keeping Olympia Snowe on board instead of picking off just one Democrat.

There will still be some fighting left as the Senate and the House have to battle over the final version, but I'm not counting on any pledges from so-called pro-life Democrats in the House to stand firm. Show me the last time any Dem held the line against the party on principle, and I'll consider a retraction...but I'm pretty sure no one will find one.

Remember how Barack Obama promised that he wouldn't allow federal funding of abortions? HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius recently admitted that DemCare will require every American to pay for abortions:

What's that? Everyone will pay for abortions? Once again:

...everybody in the exchange would do the same thing, whether you’re male or female, whether you’re 75 or 25, you would all set aside a portion of your premium that would go into a fund, and it would not be earmarked for anything, it would be a separate account that everyone in the exchange would pay.

Ah, okay. Part of everyone's tax dollars would go into a fund which would be used to pay for abortions. So much for that promise, huh, Mr. President? And what do the American people think of this idea? A new Quinnipiac poll shows Americans oppose it by a ratio of 3 to 1. But hey, Obama clearly doesn't give a damn about what the American people think on anything, so it's no sweat.

While we're on the subject, Quinnipiac also finds that Indies oppose DemCare in general by almost 2 to 1.

Now, the next steps. There are some procedural hurdles to jump in the next two days, but the vote will probably take place on Christmas Eve. It's another sign of McConnell's failure. Case in point, via Michelle Malkin:

I listened to Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell on Sean Hannity’s radio show yesterday.

He sounded tired and barely able to rally the troops against the Democrats’ government health care takeover.

He told Sean’s guest host at the end of an obligatory-sounding critique of Harry Reid that, and I quote, “We’re going to fight ‘em all the way to the finish line.”

That’s what he said:

“We’re going to fight ‘em all the way to the finish line.”

Before the cloture vote on sneaky Sunday, Sen. John McCain had sounded the same message with more energy, invoking John Paul Jones and vowing: “We have not yet begun to fight.”

Well, the fight’s been called off.

McConnell has thrown in the towel:

The Senate will hold a final vote on healthcare reform at 8 a.m. on Christmas Eve.

Under Senate rules, the GOP could have insisted that the vote not occur until 7 p.m. but Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) took to the Senate floor Tuesday afternoon to announce an agreement that allows senators to depart Washington sooner to begin the Christmas holiday.

Hot Air seems to think McConnell got something out of this: debate on massive spending on January 20th, the day Obama gives his state of the union address.

Actually, the early vote will achieve something the late vote couldn’t: A full day of media devoted to a bill the public hates and which both left and right agree is garbage. Good luck getting people to watch the news after dark on Christmas Eve; now, thanks to the new arrangement, they’ll have almost 12 extra hours to stew about it before the holiday draws them away. McConnell knows what he’s doing here.

Eh, I think I'm with Malkin and most of the others on the Right who think McConnell simply caved. If nothing else, the past few weeks have proven that Reid cannot be trusted to keep his word or play by the rules. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Reid just didn't follow through on the January debate, and then what will McConnell do about it? Zippo. Too bad, so sad, you got screwed again and should have seen it coming (we all did).

Here are a couple more of the more scathing comments.

Quin Hillyer:

Rather than forcing the Dems to the utter edge, for a nighttime vote on Christmas Eve, McConnell has agreed to let the vote go forward early that morning, in order to get everybody out of there before an ice storm.

This is pitiful, or rather Pitiful with a capitl "P." If it is so important to the Dems to get this done before Christmas, well, then, make them suffer for it. On the other hand, if the Dems want to get out of town before the ice storm, then make them do so without passing this Obamacare bill. Make it THEIR tough choice. Make THEM face the consequences of not being able to get out of town.

Well, yeah, the GOP says, but what about the poor Republican staffers? Shouldn't they get to go home?

In a word: NO. Not if it will mean the difference between the Senate passing this thing before going home to face their constituents, or not passing it before facing their constituents at Christmas. Sorry, Charlie. Some things require sacrifice. I was a staffer on the Hill for five years. I knew what I signed up for. Staffers are often unsung heroes, to be sure, and so many of them have done such yeoman's work on all this that they deserve our thanks. But thanks do not equal giving leave to abandon the fight at such a time. This is the domestic political fight of our very lifetimes. It should be taken to the mat, to the breaking point, or to whatever other cliche applies.

If the Senate gets caught in town for Christmas, that would be Reid's fault. He is the one, not the GOP, who insisted on passing this before Christmas, before adequate reflection, before facing costituents. For him to do so even if icy sleet is coming down and killing Christmas plans would be a powerful symbol to the public of how unreasonable Reid and the Dems are being. Or at least, that s how it should have been portrayed.

Instead, McConnell caved like an injured puppy trying to escape a grizzly bear. The vote will be early in the morning on the 24th. It will be a formality. No drama. No symbolism. Just capitulation.

So yes, that makes him a loser.

And every other Republican Senator along with him. I think I'll have some choice words for Kit Bond today.

RedState:

An ice storm is coming. Some of the Republicans don’t want to get stuck in D.C. for Christmas fighting for freedom.

So Mitch McConnell and Harry Reid have agreed not just to vote on the health care package on Thursday morning, but also to lift the debt ceiling.

Then they’ll fly home. All before the sun even makes it to its peak position in the Christmas Eve sky.

Yes, the GOP got the Democrats to go to Christmas Eve. But only for show and face saving.

The GOP will vote against the health care package having not run out the clock, and then they’ll help the Democrats raise the debt ceiling.

As Roll Call puts it, “Under the agreement between Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), votes on final passage of the health care bill and a two-month extension to the debt limit sometime before early afternoon on Christmas Eve.”

Two blows for freedom with Mitch McConnell’s cooperation.

We need a Churchill, not a molehill as the GOP leader.

Good thing George Washington wasn’t a wimp when it came to crossing the Delaware in an ice storm on Christmas night.

By the way, why stick around? We know the Democrats have the votes. Make them own it. If we’re going to throw in the towel early, the GOP should en masse pack up and go home. Leave the Dems alone by themselves to do in the Republic.

Elections have consequences, and the current crop of GOP leaders is not only incompetent but spineless. That's what got us into the world of trouble we're in right now.

They SUCK.

There's my two cents.



Related Reading:
Serious racial discrimination in DemCare
The list of payoffs that got Reid his cloture vote
Conservative leaders against the unconstitutional individual mandate