I totally agree with the analysis right up until the last line. I'm not so convinced that the current crop of Democrat leaders isn't that foolish. I think one of the most dangerous things about Barack Obama is that he is not simply your average politician, he's an ideologue. Ideologues -- defined as "a person who zealously advocates an ideology" -- are likely to do extreme things based purely on their personal agenda, at the expense of anything and everything else. Bill Clinton was similarly a far Left politician, but he was also pragmatic. When he saw the writing on the wall, he chose self-preservation rather than self-sacrifice. Do you really think he would have agreed to things like welfare reform or balancing the budget if it hadn't been for the staunchly conservative GOP-dominated Congress dragging him kicking and screaming into it? Of course not. But he wasn't an ideologue, and chose the path of least resistance when the rubber met the road.The New York Times offers a strong hint that Democrats in the Senate will use the budget reconciliation process as a cover to move ObamaCare through the chamber to avoid a filibuster. The Democrats will "go it alone," the headline reads, although the actual report makes the how of that rather ambiguous. And well it should, since the Democrats know — or should know — that to try reconciliation would be an invitation to a war that would bring Congress to a screeching halt:
Given hardening Republican opposition to Congressional health care proposals, Democrats now say they see little chance of the minority's cooperation in approving any overhaul, and are increasingly focused on drawing support for a final plan from within their own ranks.
Top Democrats said Tuesday that their go-it-alone view was being shaped by what they saw as Republicans' purposely strident tone against health care legislation during this month's Congressional recess, as well as remarks by leading Republicans that current proposals were flawed beyond repair.
Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, said the heated opposition was evidence that Republicans had made a political calculation to draw a line against any health care changes, the latest in a string of major administration proposals that Republicans have opposed. …
The Democratic shift may not make producing a final bill much easier. The party must still reconcile the views of moderate and conservative Democrats worried about the cost and scope of the legislation with those of more liberal lawmakers determined to win a government-run insurance option to compete with private insurers.
In fact, the article never mentions the word "reconciliation," the process by which the Senate approves a budget for the federal government. Under the rules of reconciliation, no cloture vote is needed, as the chamber has a Constitutional duty to produce a budget. Some Democrats have threatened this for months, notably Chuck Schumer, but the plan has a couple of big flaws. First, the Democrats have to convince the Senate parliamentarian, ostensibly non-partisan, to agree that the bill is primarily budgetary. No one in their right mind could honestly make that judgment about massive regulation of 15% of the American economy. They're likely to get denied before they even get started.
However, if they do manage to get past that obstacle, the Republicans can shut down the Senate for the next year. Those unfamiliar with the parliamentary procedure may not realize that a great many steps get skipped by unanimous consent. Bill-reading is just one example. One Senator can force each and every bill to be read aloud at every appearance it makes on the Senate floor, including when they are sent to committee. For ObamaCare and cap-and-trade, one bill reading could take a week, keeping the Senate floor locked off from any other business.
Traditionally, Senators give each other the courtesy of unanimous consent to allow business to proceed at a normal pace. If the Democrats try to force ObamaCare through reconciliation, that unanimous consent will dissipate faster than an Obama expiration date. It won't take the entire Republican caucus to gum up the works, either; it only takes a single objection to end unanimous consent, and the GOP has more than a couple of conservative firebrands who will gladly toss sand in the gears to stop Harry Reid from steamrolling them.
Democrats might think that this will gain them sympathy with the public, but not if they're breaking rules to pass an increasingly unpopular and intrusive piece of legislation. It will create a firestorm of anger even worse than what we've seen in the townhalls thus far. They would be signing their way to minority status, especially in the House. They can kiss the rest of their agenda goodbye for the rest of this session, too, including cap-and-trade. Even budgeting will prove very difficult.
There's a reason the Times didn't mention reconciliation. It's a bluff. Not even Harry Reid is this foolish.
However, from way back in the campaign days, we've seen that Barack Obama is, first and foremost, a far Left ideologue. Always has been, and there's no reason to think he won't always be. He summed it up nicely himself in his oft-repeated campaign pledge to 're-make America'. Remember his complaints about the Constitution itself being not redistributive enough? He clearly believes this country is founded on a flawed conservative, individual-centric philosophy, and he's out to change it to what he thinks is correct: a centralized, government-centric philosophy. Added to that mix, he has imbibed on the heady mixture of being 'historic', the first black American President. His ego knows no bounds, as he seems to drink in the open adoration of the leg-tingling, worshipful media. Call me crazy, but I just don't see him choosing self-preservation over his ideology, certainly not when he still has super-majorities in Congress to do his bidding. He'll angle for ruthless leverage -- Chicago style, of course -- over his own Democrat rank-and-file long before he would do that. And there, as they say, is the rub - can he strong-arm enough of them in line to do carry his ideological agenda forward, even at their own expense? We don't know yet.
Still, it's his ideology that's the danger here. He's on a mission to undermine the foundations of America, replacing them with his far Left philosophy -- call it socialism, statism, whatever -- and I wouldn't bet against him doing everything in his power to accomplish that, even if it meant killing his own second term.
Remember, the last two times Democrats have held the White House and super-majorities in Congress, we've seen the two largest expansions of government power and entrenchment in the history of the nation. In the past six months, Obama has already done the same, but to an exponential degree that dwarfs the previous attempts. It is entirely possible, in my opinion, that he is so committed to his far Left agenda that he will poison the waters of his own well on a particular battle if he knows it will win him the war. It comes back to that concept of entrenchment, and the permanence of government interference in Americans' lives. I think he'll fall on his own sword if it means liberal Democrat control over the nation for the next 100 years, especially if he gets the credit for making it happen. And make no mistake, some of these things are irreversible. Tax rates and foreign policy can be modified almost immediately with a new administration; socialized medicine cannot. To give the government control over the literal life and death decisions of every man, woman, and child in this country is to give the government so much power that it can only be withdrawn through open revolt.
I could be way off on this. I'm not a professional pundit, and I don't have an Ivy League pedigree. More than anything, I hope I'm wrong. But...what if I'm not? Health care will lead to direct government control over our lives, and all manner of day to day policies (think light bulbs, trans fats, etc.). Cap-and-tax will stifle domestic energy to such an extent that we'll be hanging by a thread for our energy needs, and what happens if those hostile foreign nations cut the thread? Amnesty will transform millions instantly from law breakers to full citizens, many of whom actually believe that half of the nation belongs to Mexico, and some of whom are certain to be radical Islamic terrorists; if they vote, it will most certainly be Leftward. To enshrine the empathy standard on the judicial bench from top to bottom will undermine the consistency and fairness which the Constitution and the law should afford to every American, instead ruling by who is the most deserving victim in any particular instance.
To allow these things (and others) to go unchecked is to dump piranhas into your bathtub before a relaxing soak.
We need to mobilize all efforts at defeating every government expansion and destructive policy Obama proposes before they become the law of the land. We must think prevention because there is no rollback of some of these things. Even a superpower can be brought to its knees with a thousand bloody paper cuts. When you throw in a few bone-deep gashes too, it's certain death.
There's my two cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment