Debt Ceiling back again!!!

Congress acted prior to the flip of the calendar to avert the "Fiscal Cliff" by raising the top nominal tax rate on those making over $450,000 while extending a plethora of "tax cuts" for everyone else. In addition Congress did not extend the payroll tax holiday which took money out of the depleted SSN kitty. Over the past few days we witnessed history with the swearing in of our President as it was a peaceful transition of power. Also, MLK was celebrated and Roe v. Wade had it's 40th anniversary.

Today, the House of Representatives will vote on raising the Debt Ceiling to ensure the United States can pay its debt for the next three months. The GOP lead House also put in a provision that if the Senate cannot pass a budget then the payroll of both houses of Congress would be held in escrow and if they are unable to establish a budget by the end of the 2014 budget year Congress still get's paid. Here is the bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:H.R.325:

Some see the extension of the Debt Ceiling with the caveat of the no pay clause as a gimmic by the GOP. While Congress should give back their pay and not get paid going forward until a budget is passed, it is really just a gimmic by the GOP because the no pay pledge is really just a deferral of payroll. That being said, others claim that the United States is Constitutionally obligated to pay all debts incurred by the Government. Actually under Article 1 Section 8 the Constitution reads:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Can someone please help me understand where it states that Congress is Constitutionally obligated to pay all debts? I see that Congress has the power to pay the Debts but I don't read that as it is obligated to pay the Debts.

Obama budget defeated 99-0 in Senate

Obama budget defeated 99-0 in Senate

Since taking office, President Obama has not signed nor has Congress passed a single budget. It is the Constitutional duty for the Senate to pass a budget which only needs 51 votes to do. President Obama has routinely complained that Republicans in Congress have obstructed his abilities to get things done despite having nearly two years of control of both the House and the Senate.

Yesterday President Obama's budget was put to the test again and again it failed to garner just 1 vote in either chamber of Congress. Why might this be? And how can Democrats continue to say that Republicans are obstructing passage of crucial legislation? Soon we will need, Democrats will argue, to raise the debt ceiling. Which begs the question - Why have one if all we do is vote to raise it again? Gov. Brown of California is facing a $16 Billion short fall this year. Is the US Dollar going to be the next Euro to crumble? I as a Minnesotan do not  feel that my or any other Minnesotan's taxpayer dollars should go to bailout California. Sounds a lot like Greece to me!

The Politics of the Payroll Tax Cut

Before going on vacation the Senate passed a temporary bill that would extend the payroll tax relief, passed previously under the Bush tax cut plan, for the first two months in 2012. The bill passed with bi-partisan support while ignoring the House passed version that called for a yearlong payroll tax relief. Originally, President Obama wanted a yearlong payroll tax relief and is now pushing House Speaker Boehner to pass the Senate bill. Instead of complying with President Obama's request, the House never entertained the bill instead they put forth a resolution that the Senate identify members of their chamber for a conference committee to iron out the difference between the two bills. That being said, much is being blown out of portion on the payroll tax relief. President Obama and Democrats are saying that without passing the Senate Bill the average America will see their payrolls slashed by $1000.

Now, this $1000 does not come out in the first or second check one will receive in 2012; rather it is spread out over the entire year. What are being missed in this conversation are two things: that the payroll tax is actually what fuels SSN and Democrats railed against the extension of Bush tax cuts last year. The payroll tax is that line item known as FICA that adds money to SSN. During the past debt ceiling discussion the Democrats said that Republicans were looking to take away SSN benefits to seniors. By extending the payroll tax relief it is projected to underfund SSN by $250M. SSN is already set to be paying out more than it takes in with then next decade. Democrats are now arguing that the extra 2% reduction in payroll tax will help stimulate the economy but when the lame duck Congress was in place in 2010 Democrats voice opposition to extending the Bush tax cuts because it didn't result in stimulus of the economy.

If Congress is serious about ensuring more people have money in the pocket to spend and stimulate the economy they why not pass real tax reform. While I know that scrapping our tax format all together for a flat tax is not likely to take place why not alter all the tax brackets downward by the 2% and leave FICA alone. Even companies that deal with payroll acknowledge that instituting a two-month temporary fix will make a logistical nightmare and increase payroll expenses. How does that help or encourage a business owner to hire a new employee? I hope the Speaker Boehner sticks to his guns and demands that Congress agree to a permanent fix or at the minimum a one-year extension; something the President Obama wants anyway.

Senate votes down ban on earmarks, 39-56 - The Hill's On The Money

Senate votes down ban on earmarks, 39-56 - The Hill's On The Money

In a show of bipartisan support the Senate voted down an amendment that would have banned all earmarks for 2012 and 2013. Voters went to the mid-term voting booths with one message in mind - stop spending that increases the deficit.

"I believe I have an important responsibility to the state of Illinois and the people I represent to direct federal dollars into projects critically important for our state and our future," Durbin said. I think this is telling and really disturbs me. The money that our Federal Government brings in should be going for Federal Projects and not State projects. This reliance by States on Federal handouts is just another reason why we have seen an erosion in the 10th Amendment and a lack of accountability of the Federal Government by the States. Sen. Durbin is correct that he has the responsibility to ensure that Illinois has a voice at the Federal level but it should be directed at protecting the Rights of Illinois to be free of Federal mandates like "No Child Left Behind", highway funding, and the health care mandate to name a few.

We need to start electing officials that are willing to go to Washington D.C. and wrestle back control that the States have willfully lost through decades of poor representation of their elected House of Representatives and Senators. That is part of the message, I believe, the Tea Party movement is trying to assert. To allow the further erosion of the 10th Amendment is to put the United States on the same financial footing as Greece and Ireland.

On a side note I started reading a book my daughter gave me for my birthday: Lincoln President-elect: Abraham Lincoln and the Great Secession Winter 1860-1861 by Harold Holzer

Why are we skirting the Conference Committee for health care reform?

Yesterday President Obama went on the offensive for a final push on Democrats plan for health care reform at Arcadia University near Philadelphia. The speech was fiery and brought back memories of the type of speeches Obama gave during his election. The goal set by Obama is to have a reform bill on his desk prior to the Easter break. While we all can agree that reform is required in the health care industry to bring down costs and reduce premiums. President Obama has it right when he said, "The price of health care is one of the most punishing costs for families, businesses and our government. The insurance companies continue to ration health care…That's the status quo in America, and it's a status quo that's unsustainable" (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/08/health.care/index.html?hpt=T2).

I do not think anyone, Republican or Democrat, will disagree with the assessment by Obama. Even though Obama appears to think differently when he said, "You had 10 years. What were you doing?" That is a great question but should not be the reason to forge forward with the Senate's version of reform. A few weeks back leaders from both parties sat down for a six-hour chat to come to a common ground on health care reform. Now the current Senate bill does not contain the items the Republicans spoke of during the summit. The message yesterday by Obama was the first time he was clear about the process to follow moving forward to achieve reform. Obama wants the House of Representatives to pass the Senate bill as is then after Obama signs the bill they will go back and "fix" the bill.

Why not use the process established to reconcile bills that pass Congress when language is different? The Conference Committee is supposed to convene when the bills differ and then re-introduced for both chambers of Congress to pass. Instead of this process the Obama administration wants to end run the process because they lost their filibuster-proof super majority in the Senate. Obama claims that his administration is doing what is best for America; yet Americans are voicing opposition to the bill through the election in Massachusetts and polling data too. If the reform is strong enough and is bipartisan the filibuster threat in the Senate by Republicans will be for not. Sen. Brown (R-Mass) has already proven that he will not play partisan politics.

I agree with President Obama that the status quo cannot be sustained. At the same time, I cannot support the use of reconciliation to pass legislation that will impact America like health care nor can I support the House of Representatives passing the Senate bill as is in hopes that a separate package of changes will be introduced and passed. The arrogance of our elected Representatives to think that Americans do not see what is going on is staggering. Since the U.S. Constitution was ratified it has been treaded on. We need to stand up to our two-party system and demand more from our elected officials. President Obama, I agree with you reform is needed, please do not follow the path of passage you profess rather allow the Conference Committee to make the changes and have both chambers of Congress vote on it. What is wrong with following this approach?

Congress vote on health care per the Constitution not with “parliamentary gimmicks”

President Obama said on Wednesday, "The American people want to know if it's still possible for Washington to look out for their interests and their future. They are waiting for us to act. They are waiting for us to lead. And as long as I hold this office, I intend to provide that leadership. I don't know how this plays politically, but I know it's right. And so I ask Congress to finish its work, and I look forward to signing reform into law" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/health/policy/04health.html?nl=us&emc=politicsemailema1). In a letter sent out by President Obama on Wednesday he stated, "I strongly believe that Congress now owes the American people a final vote on health care reform. Reform has already passed the House with bipartisan support and the Senate with a super-majority of sixty votes. Now it deserves the same kind of up-or-down vote that has been routinely used and has passed such landmark measures as welfare reform and both Bush tax cuts."

I agree with President Obama that Americans deserve a vote on health care reform but not through the reconciliation process. Americans in Massachusetts spoke loudly, remind you Massachusetts has socialized medicine, by sending a Republican to the Senate on the key platform promise to derail Obama-Care. No one disagrees that reform is needed and what is included in the 2700 page bill is not it. It creates over 100 new government agencies, establishes over 50 new taxes, mandates all Americans have health insurance or face fines and/or imprisonment, and does not pass Obama's "Pay Go" pledge.

The Pew Institute put out a poll, http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=953, asking Americans what the Top Priorities for 2010 are. The top five are: 1) Economy 83%, 2) Jobs 81%, 3) Terrorism 80%, 4) Social Security 66%, and 5) Education 65%. Health Insurance is tied in 10^th at 49% with Military, Energy, and Crime. So when the Obama says Congress owes America to vote on health care reform perhaps he needs to refocus as people are more concerned with other items. But if Obama wants Congress to move forward with a vote then follow the proper legislative process by going to Conference Committee and having both houses of Congress to vote. Yes, reconciliation has been used in the past and each time the average vote for the passage is 67 votes in the Senate. Right now Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) would be lucky to get 51 and the 51^st vote may have to be cast by Vice President Biden.

If the health care reform put forth, passed by the House and Senate, is right for America then allow the legislative process, without gimmicks such as reconciliation, run its course. Citizens will contact their representatives to have their opinion heard. To ram it through Congress as is being threatened is not how our Fore Fathers envisioned the Constitution to work when they risked their lives to create. I agree with Obama, let's demand Congress vote without "parliamentary games" and go through the natural process. What is the White House afraid of? The Democrats had every vote they needed last year to pass health care reform but obviously Americans spoke as some within the Democrat ranks could not sign on or get the blessing of their constituents.

Sen. Bunning is doing what all members of Congress ought to do; be fiscally responsible.

Breaking news struck around 6:30 p.m. that Sen. Bunning (R-KY) had reached a deal with Senate Democrats to end his objection to extending funds for unemployment benefits that put thousands of government workers on furlough starting last Monday. "I hope Senate Democrats tonight vote for their own 'pay fors' and show Americans that they are committed to fiscal discipline. I will be watching them closely and checking off the hypocrites one by one" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35675122/ns/politics-capitol_hill/). Many accused Sen. Bunning as being a hypocrite for his past votes on spending and tax cuts while objecting to hold Democrats to their own "pay as you go" bill. Sen. Bunning did vote against "pay as you go".

The objection raised by Sen. Bunning was refreshing to see a member of Congress to stand up others in the chamber to demand fiscal responsibility. I have been reading Facebook, media outlets and various blog sites as it pertains toward the objection raised by Sen. Bunning. When Sen. Bunning first made his objection last week he asked for Majority Leader Sen. Reid (D-NV) to use the Stimulus bill to pay for the $10B instead of passing the current bill without a funding source. I understand that $10B may be viewed as insignificant compared to the trillions of dollars being spent. Many, even some inside of Sen. Bunning's party, complained that he was hurting Americans by holding up the funding.

Sen. Bunning should be applauded for his stance regardless if it late in the game. A stance needs to be taken. The last time we went to the ballot box to vote for President of the United States many pulled the lever for Sen. Obama because he promoted change and hope. Even though many, those who took the time to vet Obama, knew his run to the middle was a charade and the true Obama leans extremely to the left. Since taking office we have seen a quadrupling of the deficit, a rise in the debt ceiling, broken promises to change Washington and to get people back to work. Obama has failed on nearly every campaign promise. Sen. Bunning is not running for re-election this year so perhaps this is why he is standing on principle and holding things up and the feet of the Democrats to the fire. I really don't care his reasoning; I am just happy to see a member of Congress to stand up and demand to know how we are going to pay for the $10B extension of unemployment benefits.

It will be interesting to see how the vote comes out and the deal made to pay for this extension.

Obama to meet Party Leaders to discuss Health Care Reform on C-SPAN

During the pregame show for the Super Bowl, CBS's Katie Couric interviewed President Obama and the topic of health care came up. President Obama, in a gesture of bipartisanship, announced that he wants to meet with leaders of both parties to "go through systemically all the best ideas that are out there and move it forward." The Democrats had the votes last year to pass health care reform without a single Republican vote. Now President Obama wants to meet with Republican leaders to find a way to pass a key piece of legislation. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said today, "If we are to reach a bipartisan consensus, the White House can start by shelving the current health spending bill" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35296874/ns/politics-health_care_reform/). While I doubt that Democrats will be okay with starting over at square one, Sen. McConnell does have a point.

Much of what is in the Democrat health care bills will not achieve the desirable outcome of lowering costs and reducing premiums. It will be interesting though on February 25^th when President Obama sits down for a 4-hour discussion on health care. This time it will be on C-SPAN. The election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts stirs the pot a bit as his major platform item was to stop the Democrat health care bill. Why this is a strong indication to the Obama Administration is that Massachusetts only has about 14% of its citizens registered as Republicans. That means that Independents and Democrats voted for Brown thus sending a message to Washington on the health care issue. Some may see the 4-hour discussion as a publicity stunt or grand standing by Obama; I rather look at it as an opportunity for Republicans to get their message out on reforming health care.

By extending the bipartisan olive branch Obama can score points with the American public after the backlash from closed-door negotiations with Democrats that lead to special provisions for Nebraska and Louisiana. At the same time though, it could be his Waterloo as it gives Republicans an opportunity to one up the president and have their ideas displayed for all to see. The move to have it televised is a smart move by the president, especially since he campaigned on allowing all negotiations and debate to be aired on C-SPAN. My hope is that they will streamline the bill that calls for the creation of at least 35 new agencies to watch over reform. Do we really need more agencies? Does government need to get bigger? Perhaps the white elephant will get discussed during this meeting and we will see movement to eliminate entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

2010: The Year that Americans take back the United States of American?

Today is December 31, 2009 and many within the land will be partaking in the annual New Year's Eve party. No matter the location one is at, many will be throwing out the old and ringing in the new. Several of us will make resolutions with the plan to follow through with them. As we watch the ball drop, count down 2009, and usher in 2010 prepare yourself for what lies ahead. America has several concerns before her shores but the biggest concern America faces' heading into 2010 is from our elected officials and the special lobbyists that control them. 2010 needs to mark the year that Americans stand up to their elected officials and take back the United States from their money hungry lobbyists and place freedom, liberty, and the United States Constitution on the front burner.

Shed your ideology. Challenge those that turn to government for answers and solutions to their situations in life. 2010 needs to be a time when Americans reverse the tide of bigger government and out of control spending. Congress, namely the Senate, before leaving on the December break passed a resolution that allowed the Fed to increase the debt ceiling. Essentially our Senators said to the Fed, "Go ahead, and print more money because we have more spending initiatives in 2010." Accountability of our elected officials has been replaced by apathy and acceptance that government is the answer. That is evident with the historic election of Barak Obama. Barak Obama promised transparency. Barak Obama promised that he'd not sign a bill with pork or pet projects included. Barak Obama said he would not surround himself with former lobbyist. All of these things he has gone back on.

Now, Barak Obama is not alone. Many in our Congress were in Congress when warnings were being made by highly educated people that the housing and financial markets were being propped up and a bubble was on the horizon. Now, these same members of Congress are attempting to be front and center to say they have the answer. Really? Can we as Americans accept this blindly? No. We need to stand up to government and demand a leaner and smaller government. It is time that our President stands up to the lobbyist, to Congress, and the World and say that we will no longer bend to the will of others. Tell Congress that I will not sign a bill that is not free of pork and has been fully vetted. When Congress comes back, Sen. Reid and Rep. Pelosi will meet in conference, with others, to hammer out merge of the House and Senate versions of the health care reform.

President Obama can send a strong signal to Congress by demanding that all conference committee meetings be aired on C-Span and any discussions on merging the health care bills be done in the public eye. That is the type of transparency Obama ran on and that many elected him to bring to Washington. So as you sip your drink of choice this evening and usher in 2010, prepare yourself and commit yourself to bring accountability to government. As our Founding Fathers did, it will take a grassroots campaign to bring about a smaller government and restore the freedoms that have been eroded slowly since the first session of Congress over 200 years ago. Happy New Year!!!

As an aside, The Hamburg Post is hearing a rumor that a special guest blogger will be kicking off 2010. Be safe and, again, Happy New Year!!!!

Reform: Does it exist in the Senate health care bill?

This morning the Senate just passed, 60-39, Sen. Reid's manager's amendment and paved the way for passage of the Senate version of health care reform by the Christmas deadline. Regardless if the bill passes the Senate it will take several weeks of hard negotiations in conference committee as Congress hammers out some major differences between the House and Senate versions. A friend of mine on Facebook posted an interesting article put out by the FDL. The article written by Jane Hamsher points out 10 reasons to kill the Senate health care bill:

1. Forces you to pay up to 8% of your income to private insurance corporations — whether you want to or not.
   
2. If you refuse to buy the insurance, you'll have to pay penalties of up to 2% of your annual income to the IRS.
   
3. Many will be forced to buy poor-quality insurance they can't afford to use, with $11,900 in annual out-of-pocket expenses over and above their annual premiums.
   
4. Massive restriction on a woman's right to choose, designed to trigger a challenge to Roe v. Wade in the Supreme Court.
   
5. Paid for by taxes on the middle class insurance plan you have right now through your employer, causing them to cut back benefits and increase co-pays.
   
6. Many of the taxes to pay for the bill start now, but most Americans won't see any benefits — like an end to discrimination against those with preexisting conditions — until 2014 when the program begins.
   
7. Allows insurance companies to charge people who are older 300% more than others.
   
8. Grants monopolies to drug companies that will keep generic versions of expensive biotech drugs from ever coming to market.
   
9. No re-importation of prescription drugs, which would save consumers $100 billion over 10 years.
   
10. The cost of medical care will continue to rise, and insurance premiums for a family of four will rise an average of $1,000 a year — meaning in 10 years, your family's insurance premium will be $10,000 more annually than it is right now.
    

The article does offer links to parts of the bill that support the assertions made by the author. See the entire article here: http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/12/21/10-reasons-to-kill-the-senate-bill/

Other points of interest in the Senate bill are the bonuses, or bribes, given to certain Senators to get their vote. Florida seniors are now exempt, grandfathered in, from Medical Advantage cuts. Nebraska will have all Medicare and Medicaid payments made by the Federal Government after the three window closes. Vermont and Massachusetts will get additional Medicaid funds. The AMA supports the bill after hearing that 5% tax on cosmetic surgeries and cuts to elective coverage were dropped from the Senate bill. Does the Senate bill really create reform? Will it raise taxes? Will it increase your premiums? Should Congress pass something just to pass something?

Senator Sanders (I-VT) just admitted on Morning Joe that the insurance and drug companies will make out "like bandits" from this reform. If that is the case, then why pass legislation under the guise of "reform"?

Health Care Reform Now, Implementation in 4 Years

Over the past months I have sent several emails and called our Senators many times to express my opinion and solutions for health care reform. While I have been able to get timely responses, although the same form letter, from Sen. Klobuchar (D-MN) the same cannot be said for Sen. Franken (D-MN). Our two Senators have been working hard to eliminate the tax proposed on medical device companies to which they have been able to lessen the rate of tax. Yesterday, I finally received an email from Sen. Franken on the topic of health care reform and here is what it said:

Dear Chris,

Thank you for contacting me about health reform. I appreciate you sharing your views on this issue of critical importance.

When I traveled around the state during the month of August, Minnesotans were asking three basic questions about health care. How are we going to bring down the costs of health insurance? What happens if one of my kids has a pre-existing condition, and I lose my job, or want to switch to a better job? If something bad happens to my family, are we going to have to sell the house or go bankrupt trying to pay off the medical bills? These are the questions I heard most, and they are all great questions. And now they are the ones that I'm focusing on in the Senate.

We must pass health reform this year because too many Minnesota families are burdened with high health care costs, and are afraid of losing the coverage they have. Premiums for Minnesota residents have risen 90 percent since 2000, and 444,000 Minnesotans went without health insurance in 2008. If we don't act now, Minnesota families will pay an average of 40 percent of their annual income in health care costs by 2016. This path is unsustainable.

If you or your spouse loses a job, hits a rough patch or falls sick, you should not need to worry about health insurance. And if you want to pursue a small business venture but are afraid to leave your current job, concerns about health insurance shouldn't stop you.

Health reform will bring real change for Minnesota. If we pass health reform, insurance companies won't be able to deny you coverage or charge more because of pre-existing conditions. There will be no annual or lifetime caps on benefits. Minnesotans without insurance would be able to buy a high-quality plan through the health insurance "Exchange," which works like a Travelocity for health insurance. For Minnesotans who are having trouble making ends meet, there will be subsidies to purchase Exchange plans, similar to the current MinnesotaCare program.

Every day that I'm here in Washington, I'm proud that Minnesota sets the standard for health care quality in this country. Health systems like the Mayo Clinic provide coordinated, patient-centered care that the rest of the nation can look to for leadership. Minnesota's not-for-profit health insurance companies also create a unique environment which puts patients before profits. Minnesota's commitment to health care quality is commendable, but I know we can still do better.

As a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, I recently introduced a bill with the Minnesota model in mind that requires insurance companies to spend at least 90 percent of health insurance premiums on health services, not wasteful administrative costs and profits. I've also introduced S. 2734, the Diabetes Prevention Act, which is bipartisan legislation to help the 57 million Americans with pre-diabetes to make healthy lifestyle choices and prevent diabetes from developing. This will save lives and money, in Minnesota and across the country. 

In the coming weeks, I'll be working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to move sensible health reform legislation that will benefit Minnesotans by bringing much needed quality, affordability, and security to our health care system. Please be assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind throughout this process.

Thank you again for contacting me, and please don't hesitate to do so in the future regarding this or any other matter of concern to you.

Sincerely,

 

Al Franken
United States Senator

I agree with Sen. Franken that pre-existing conditions ought not to be something that insurance companies disqualify people for and agree that premium hikes are on an "unsustainable" path. Where I differ with Sen. Franken is the importance of passing reform before the end of the year. Now, if the reform before Congress actually did reform the industry I would support a push to pass health care reform prior to year end. A question I sent to Sen. Franken and Sen. Klobuchar, both via email and by phone, was this: While we all acknowledge that premiums, affordability, and cost are all factors that are pushing reform for the health care industry, why then will the United States government take the next four years collecting taxes before implementing reform?

Sen. Franken said, "Health reform will bring real change for Minnesota" in his letter above but what the Senator fails to say is that it will not bring "real change" until four years after it is signed. Why is this? If health care reform is drastically required, why then delay the implementation? Just as I struggle with the notion that a public option will increase competition to the point that will reduce premiums and save costs, I struggle with the notion that we will be taxed for four years before implementation of reform. Plus, reform that is being debated is nothing but a band aid. President Obama ran on the stance that the debate on health care would be transparent, yet groups like PHARMA and AARP have met privately with Obama to cut deals. President Obama has brought the Democrat Caucus to the White House for private conversations. Where is the transparency?

Do our elected officials believe that American's are naïve to believe that if reform is passed and not implemented for four years after that that health care insurance company will not use that time to get all they can? For those readers that live in Minnesota take a moment to send a message to our Senators: http://www.healthreformscam.com/fax-minnesota-senators/ .
Now, Sen. Reid plans to have around the clock debate in hopes to pass a bill out of the Senate, how is debate at 1 am open and transparent to the American public?

Procedural Rules Backfire on Republicans

Sen. Sanders (I-VT) stepped to the Senate floor yesterday to offer an amendment (http://www.c-span.com/pdf/sanders_amend_2837.pdf) to establish a single-payer system for the United States. Typically when an amendment or a bill is offered the reading is waived. Not on this occasion. Sen. Coburn (R-OK) objected to the waiving of the reading thus the Senate Clerk started reading the amendment. After an hour of reading the amendment the clerk was only on page 25 of 366 (per the pdf above even though it was reported that the bill was over 750 pages). It was not until about 2:30 p.m. CST that Sen. Sanders came back to the floor and withdrew his amendment.

During his close, which is afforded every author the opportunity to make a final plea, Sen. Sanders turned the table on the Republicans by making a motion to table the Hutchison/Thune amendment. The Hutchison/Thune amendment (http://www.c-span.com/pdf/hutchison_motion.pdf) was a one page amendment that would have returned the Senate health care reform bill back to the Finance Committee to align the taxes and fees established with the start of provisions within the Senate Health Care Reform Bill. The motion made by Sen. Sanders to table the amendment, officially killing the amendment, passed 56-41. The turnabout is that Sen. Sanders, after watching his amendment reading waiver objection, snuck in the motion to table prior to finishing his close. The move is not something normally done during Senate rules; rather it was a Democrat response to a parliamentary procedure enlisted by the Republicans to slow down the debate on health care.

While it was comical to watch, the latter move by the Democrats were a bit more devious in the respect to sabotage a bipartisan effort for health care reform. Now, I wish the Senator from Vermont had not withdrawn his amendment as the debate on a single-payer system, I think is important, would have taken place. I am assuming that Sen. Sanders had posted his amendment on his webpage three days prior to it coming to the floor. I do acknowledge that the move by Sen. Coburn was a stall tactic but at the same time our current Congress has a recent track record of reading what they vote on. The debate will rage on today and the Republicans will continue to use procedural rules to delay the vote on the health care bill. Is it right? Is it bad politics?

The question at hand is what type of reform still remains with the stripping out of the public option and the expansion of Medicare? President Obama promised on the campaign trail that the health care reform debate would be held on C-SPAN and nothing would be done behind closed doors. In fact, just the opposite it taking place with the White House deals with PHARMA, AARP, and deals within the Democrat ranks. While many will tire of the procedural gimmicks to delay vote on health care, I am willing to wait for a bill that does reform a system in desperate need of reform. As for the Hutchison/Thune amendment that was the sacrificial lamb in the procedural rule game does raise a valid concern: Why are we all going to be taxed for four years before "reform" is implemented?

Sen. Reid marginalizes Slavery

"Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let's start over'. If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right. When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough'. When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn't quite right. When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). I have been watching a lot of the health care debate this summer first hand and have witnessed a lack of bi-partisan approach to health care reform.

During August we heard from the media and Democrats that public radio and Republicans were using scare tactics to sway public opinion. When average Americans showed up at the town hall debates, they were marginalized by the media as a fringe group. Now, Sen. Reid is likening the debate on health care reform to slavery. WHAT!!!! Sen. Reid needs a history lesson as it was under a Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, that the country went to war in an effort to end slavery. I do not see how going to war with one's own citizens is a "slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough" approach; rather it says quite the opposite. Where is the deal, how can anyone, let alone the Senate Majority Leader, assert that health care reform debate equates to emancipation, suffrage, or civil rights is pathetic at best.

The words spoke; see above, by Sen. Reid marginalizes emancipation, suffrage, and civil rights. Health care is not a right nor does the current health care system restrict the rights of others. Health care costs are skyrocketing and premiums continue to rise thus making it difficult for all in America to afford health care insurance but health care is not a right. Does it make sense for a society to succeed that a robust health care system is required; yes. Does the current form of health care reform really reform health care; no. Not only that, Sen. Reid and House Speaker Pelosi do not need the support of one Republican in Congress to pass health care reform. So it begs the question: Who is really digging in their heels?

Those digging in their heels are one-issue Democrats. Sen. Nelson (D-Neb.) amendment to deny taxpayer funds to pay for abortion was killed on the Senate floor yesterday to which the Senator warned that he will filibuster the bill if strict abortion language is not put in the final version. On the other side of the issue, many in the House of Representatives vow not to support a bill unless a public option exists. Moderate Democrats are at odds with their more Liberal brethren. Yes, Republicans are not in favor of the type of reform being proposed but their votes are not warranted to pass "reform". But I digress.

The assertion made by Sen. Reid that health care reform ranks in the annuals of history with emancipation, suffrage, and civil rights just proves the lunacy that exists in the leadership of the Democrat party. Even though I am a white male, I feel outraged by the marginalized comments by Sen. Reid as it belittles those that gave their lives to emancipation, suffrage, and civil rights. We all agree that reform is needed in health care but Sen. Reid's statement trumps any fear mongering alleged during the August research. Or am I missing something? Is health care reform on the same level of emancipation, suffrage, and civil rights?

Sen. Mikulski’s Pandora Box Amendment passes

Yesterday the Senate starting moving forward with the amendment phase of health care reform. Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) proposed an amendment (http://mikulski.senate.gov/_pdfs/BAI09N48.pdf) will require all health plans to cover comprehensive women's preventive care and screenings at no cost to women. The amendment passed 61-39. Currently the Sen. Reid's (D-NV) health care bill relies on the United States Preventive Services Task Force to recommend minimum coverage. It was the US Preventive Services Task Force that created a stir in the health word with their recommendation that women wait until 50 years old before getting mammograms.

Not only will mammograms be available for women at no cost so will cervical cancer screenings, pregnancy and postpartum depression screenings, screenings for domestic violence, annual women's health screening, and family planning services but will not include abortion; at least not yet. Passing the bill on the surface seems like a no brainer but it is a slippery slope. Remember the goal of health care reform is to reduce skyrocketing premiums and eliminate waste, inefficiencies, and fraud in the system to reduce costs. The amendment, as scored by the CBO, will cost taxpayers $940 million over 10 years. By requiring insurance companies to provide these preventative screenings will not result in the goals of health care reform.

Whenever a company, large or small, is taxed more, in this case told to cover additional services for free, the cost of the new tax is passed along to the consumer. The company does not feel charity and absorb the cost. So ask yourself, who is going to pay for the new services being offered at no cost? Everyone that pays a premium or uses a clinic or hospital for other services since the insurance company will need to recoup their "free" services someplace else. The slippery slope aspect comes into play because the next step will be to cover preventative screenings for men too. It only makes sense from the same rationale being applied to the requirement of preventative women screenings being offered for free. Then what? Everyone will see their premiums increase and the fees for other clinic and hospital services as well.

Now do not get me wrong. I think it is important for people to obtain preventative screenings to ensure themselves better health as they age. Where I struggle is to cloak this amendment and others like it, under the guise of "Health Care Reform". It is not reform to require an insurance company to provide services for free when the goals is to reduce costs and make insurance affordable for all. The Republicans offered, what some call a dual amendment, an amendment that would remove the US Preventative Task Force from the equation and leave preventative medicine decisions in the hands of the medical profession. That amendment failed.

I do not like sounding like a broken record, especially when some construe that to me being an ideologue, but in order to get real reform in the industry we need to open up competition. The easiest way and cost effective way to achieve increase competition is to remove the anti-trust exemption and allow interstate commerce of insurance. Allow the free market forces to work for the next three years, either bill being proposed wouldn't enact "reform" for at least three years from passage, and pass a law or regulation that prevents insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. Americans will find that by going this route that free market forces will achieve the goals of reform in regards to lower premiums and costs. Some may argue that if that is the case, "Why does it not already take place?" To that the answer is simple; anti-trust exemption.

The questions to ask ourselves going forward are: Does the amendment create a slippery slope? If so, is the slope worth it? Does the amendment assist in health care reform? Does the amendment reduce costs? Will the amendment make health insurance more affordable for all? Nearly everyone one of these questions were ignored or not brought up when debating the amendment. We cannot obtain real reform on emotional decisions.

Senate Health Care Debate Gets Good News/Bad News from the CBO

"In the greatest country on Earth, no American should die simply because they don't have health insurance. We have a historic opportunity to enact meaningful health care reform that will work to stabilize the economy, provide quality for millions of Americans," stated Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) on the Senate floor Monday (http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/30/senate-debate-begins-with-baitsmanship/). While one is hard pressed to locate a single America that does not feel reform is needed to control escalating insurance premiums and cost of health care. The trouble is that Congress is off the mark with either bill being discussed. The central tenet of the House bill is a public option while the Senate version has one with an opt-out clause. For the majority of the year thus far, Congress members have touted their take and pimped their vote all under the guise of health care reform.

I still, as of this post, not heard one signal argument that unequivocally demonstrates how adding only one option to the pool of options for health care is going to drive down costs and premiums so all can afford health care. In order for reform to have the desired affects – affordable choices and lower costs – Congress needs to scrap the public option and replace it with legislation that will open state borders for the purchase of health care insurance and remove the anti-trust exemption that health insurance companies currently enjoy. Open up competition will lead to lower premiums. The Congressional Budget Office(CBO) estimates that in the best-case scenario that premiums would go down for most Americans by 2016 due to government subsidies while a worst-case scenario results in a little more than 10 percent of policyholders will experience a decrease even after the subsidies. In fact the CBO estimates that, under the worst-case scenario, the majority of Americans will see no effect or an increase up to 13 percent. The assessment can be seen at http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10781/11-30-Premiums.pdf.

Again, why are we allowing Congress to pass a bill that does not achieve the goals in all scenarios? Why not allow market forces to work through increase competition? Some may argue that free market forces are not enough. To that I agree slightly. To assist free market forces the government will need to repeal the anti-trust exemption. Let's demand true reform from Congress. If the CBO is correct and the best-case scenario does take place, we will be looking at higher taxes in order to fund government rule health care. It is the greatest Ponzi scheme every done if we allow our Congress to pass "reform" in its present state. Neither bill will start for at least three years after passage. In the meantime our "reform" does nothing but collect taxes; taxes that will have to be raised to cover the costs.

That being said, it is time for Congress to pass true reform that takes effect immediately and does not raise our taxes. As Jonathan Gruber, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, states" This is not delivering huge premiums savings to the insured. But the flip side is that here's a bill that reduces the deficit, covers 30 million people and has the promise of lowering premiums in the long run" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/30/AR2009113004391_2.html?hpid=topnews). I don't know about the rest of you but Government said that Social Security was going to be there for me when I retire and we all know that it will be insolvent in the near future. If the bill does nothing but establish more government in our lives then why are we sitting idly by and allow Congress to pass "reform" that reforms nothing and will raise our taxes?

Beware of China’s Role in the Health Care Debate

Americans stay on your toes this weekend as the Democrats in the Senate look to vote this Saturday to bring Sen. Reid's health care reform bill to the floor for debate. In order to open debate, on the bill, the Senate will need 60 votes to bring the bill to the floor. Republicans are looking to stall the process by requiring the bill be read word-for-word which is something typically motioned waived and accepted without objection. Normally I agree with dispensing of the reading but in this case it is extremely important that the entire bill be read. By reading the entire bill, Americans can be assured that our elected officials are not voting, again (Stimulus Bill), without reading the bill in its entirety. Per Senate rules all bills are to be read three times on three separate legislative days. Reading the bill once is sufficient and I hope that Republicans do not use this procedure to delay a vote.

The CBO scored the Senate bill and put the price tag at $849B over ten years. The Senate version, according to the CBO, would reduce the deficit by $127B. The CBO report can be seen here: http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10731/Reid_letter_11_18_09.pdf. Part of the scoring includes the belief that 1/3^rd of States will opt-out of the program and the start of the public option is push backed to 2015. A few concerns here: 1. What if no States opt-out? 2. If reform is needed, why are we waiting until 2015?

I understand that if a public option is passed and a Health Benefits Advisory Committee is established it will take time to iron the red tape out but 6 years? Do our elected officials believe that we are naïve and stupid? I think so. During those six years it will give the government an opportunity to tie the public option, Medicare, and Medicaid to the States in a manner that if they opt-out it will cost them Federal funds much in the same manner the transit dollars were tied to the lowering of the DWI limit, speed limit, and drinking age. The States need to learn, and the citizens of those States, that we cannot continue to allow the growing beast in Washington D.C. to exert so much power over our lives. Thomas Jefferson sums it up best, "Dependence begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the designs of ambition."

Concerns are already being raised by Governors over the Senate health care bill because it will shift responsibility to paying for the expansion of Medicare and Medicaid onto the States. My hope is that the States will now finally use this abuse of Federal power to exert their 10^th Amendment rights. The trouble is that too many States have become drunk on the Federal tit and may not be sober enough to fight for their rights. Granted we are the United States but our Founding Fathers wrestled with the concept of a central government leading to tyranny. In just over 200 years we have seen the central government of the United States grow in power and stature.

We hope that all elected officials are looking out for the best of all Americans but let's face it, what is good for California may not be applicable for Minnesota and vice versa. Government ought to be local. The role of our Federal Government is a growing beast that must be tamed before it consumes us all and ruins the great land we have all come to cherish. The mounting debt and unchecked actions by the Federal Reserve already have our biggest benefactor worried about repayment of debt. China is not looking favorably on the actions of the United States and is looking to replace the American dollar as the standard world currency.

The health care reform being proposed by Congress will only exasperate the problem. We can achieve reform without $900B bills. The Federal Government needs to be reminded of their limited role and I hope citizens of the different States realized that too. More is at stake than reform of the health care system with the two bills floating through Washington D.C. Our future as a country rides on the shoulders of our States to exert the power granted them in the United States Constitution to stand up the tyranny of central government that resides in Washington D.C. Or fear the wrath of the debt collector.

Whether you agree or disagree with actions being taken on health care reform be wise to the beast that grows in Washington D.C. Be wise to the mounting debt and the day of reckoning when the debt collector comes calling. It is not too late to stem the tide. Call your local representatives and Governors to lit the fire of defending the 10^th Amendment and reclaim what is rightfully the States.

Massachusetts: Just say No!!!!

Yesterday an Icon in the political landscape succumbed to the illness that had kept him from performing his duties as the Senator of Massachusetts. Sen. Ted Kennedy who had been battling a tumor took his last breath and will be buried Saturday in Arlington National Cemetery alongside his two brothers. The vacuum left by Sen. Kennedy will be missed by the left as he was often dubbed the "Liberal Lion". Once Minnesota's Senate race was decided the Democrats held a 60-seat filibuster proof Senate majority. With the death of Sen. Kennedy and the law in Massachusetts the filibuster proof hold for Democrats is no longer. Or is it? The Massachusetts state law stipulates that in cases when a Senate seat becomes vacant during term a special election will take place 5 months after the seat become vacant.

A push in Massachusetts, both locally and nationally, is being made to pressure the state to change the law to give Democrat Gov. Deval Patrick to power to appoint an interim Senator until a special election can be had. Several weeks back Sen. Kennedy sent a letter to the Democrat hierarchy of the state to make a case to change the law and give power to the governor to appoint an interim Senator. Up until yesterday the major players in Massachusetts Democrat hierarchy had remained silent when Gov. Patrick broke that silence by saying to the Boston Globe, "I'd like the Legislature to take up the bill quickly and get it to my desk and I will sign it." While I recognize that having both Senate seats is critical to keeping ones state's voice heard in the Senate, it is the political game that is being played out that sickens me.

Back in 2004 the Democrats in Massachusetts legislature rejected the very legislation that is being discussed right now. At that time it appeared likely that Sen. Kerry would be elected President of the United States and to ensure that Massachusetts had equal representation in the Senate a bill was proposed to give the governor the power to appoint an interim Senator. The bill was voted down because the governor at the time was Rep. Gov. Mitt Romney. It appears that hypocrisy is seeping into the political game once again.

The health care debate is an important one and having all voices equally represented is important. That being said, perhaps Massachusetts should stay the course to allow the debate on how to reform health care rage on. President Obama has an ambitious goal of getting reform done by year end. While I commend the president for setting a goal, I do not see it as realistic especially in light of recent deficit reports. The current tab is outrageous and it doesn't even include $1.2T health care reform or the "Cap and Tax" program.

If Massachusetts reverses course to appease the Democrats it will be an abuse of political power. The citizens of Massachusetts ought to be ashamed of themselves if they allow their politicians to entertain legislation to change the process for filing vacant Senate seats. We in Minnesota saw the abuse of political power during the Franken and Coleman debacle. Citizens of Massachusetts learn from the mistakes of Minnesota and demand your state legislature leave the status quo alone.

A win for State rights: Thune Amendment fails passage

State Rights were defended yesterday in the Senate when an amendment presented by Sen. John Thune (D-S.D.) fell two votes short, 58-39, of passage. Dissenters used State Rights and the increase of gun violence as their key reasons for voting against this amendment. For years the States have seen an erosion of rights afforded them by the Constitution either by passage of legislation or the end run by mandates on Federal money.

The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does allow for all Americans to keep and bear arms. Sen. Thune argued that “An individual should be able to exercise their Second Amendment constitutional right and be able to travel through individual states as long as they live by the laws of those states.” I agree with Sen. Thune and nearly every state that has ‘conceal and carry’ law state that only permits approved in that state are recognized. That being said, if it our right as Americans to keep and bear arms, then no state or federal regulation ought to bar anyone from bearing arms across state lines.

Why ‘conceal and carry’ when one has the right to openly carry? Sen. Dianne Feinstein warned that Thune’s amendment “is a grave threat to public safety. Concealed-weapons laws that work in rural states may not be suitable in urban areas. What’s good for Iowa or Alaska may not be good for California or New York.” Sen. Feinstein listen to yourself and apply that logic to other legislation and issues facing our nation; gay marriage, smoking bans, or Cap and Trade.

The NRA states that “the right to self defense does not end at state lines.” I agree completely with the NRA and the supreme law of the land already gives one the right to “bear” arms across state lines. All one has to do when crossing state lines, regardless if one has a ‘conceal and carry’ permit, is to keep their gun visible at all times. The Supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution, already permits this. Openly bear your arms and exercise your Constitutional right!!!!

Health Care Industry: Control costs before establishing a public plan!

The Senate’s Health committee passed along a bill that would bring health care to more people than any other bill in the past 15 years. The trouble is that the bill does not focus solely on controlling costs. As I read the newspapers on the health care debate there is one controlling issue; need to reduce costs. Since cost of plans are increasing and the share of employee premium payments continue to rise, why are we focused on an all or nothing public option?

The president is back on television in interviews and advertisement to tout the need and press upon the American public that, “Make no mistake the status quo on health care is not an option for the United States of America.” While I agree with this stance, the simple notion that a public option will suffice and bring done costs is insane. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY, stated, “Our broken system is working very well for private health insurers but not for American consumers.”

The answer from the Obama administration and many Democrats is a public option. Medicare and Medicaid are going to be bankrupt. Many will point to the escalating cost of health care as the root issue. I beg to differ. The root cause is beaurocratic involvement. The Government does do some things well, which may be way the Framers looked to limited the size of government, but they do not do entitlement programs well. Our Congress has mismanaged social security by allowing it to be part of the general fund and not leaving it in the special fund it was originally established in.

I agree something needs to change. The change needs to take place with costs. Before any public plan can be established or even discussed, we need to control the costs of health care. Government can influence cost control, not by offering a public option, by regulating the industry.

First, allow any citizen in any state to be able to purchase a health care plan from any state in the union. By opening up the options it will increase competition and through increase competition American’s will see the cost of the programs become less expensive.

Secondly, mandate that every American purchase catastrophic health insurance and stipulate that insurance companies cannot reject insurance due to pre-existing conditions. While I am not a big fan of being told that I must have the insurance, I am also not a fan of a government public option that would do more harm than good.

Finally, establish guidelines for medical lawsuits with the AMA in exchange that all hospital, clinics, and doctors must take all forms of insurance. The establishment of lawsuit guidelines will assist in driving down one of the biggest expenses for the industry; medical malpractice insurance. By requiring the acceptance of all forms of insurance it will force hospital and clinics to focus on preventative care to keep people healthy.

By moving in this direction the cost to the American public will be minimal compared to the potential $2.2T that we will be looking at under the Obama plan. Contact your Senator and Representative to concentrate on cost cutting measures in the health care industry instead of establishing an expensive entitlement plan.

Minnesota Senate Race: How Minnesotans contributed to quagmire

Easter Monday has arrived and Minnesotans still only have one sitting Senator in the United States Congress. The Three-panel judge review of 400 rejected ballots which resulted in a net gain to Al Franken. Norm Coleman’s camp intends on taking the fight to the Minnesota Supreme court and possibly onto the Federal level. Many are worried that Minnesota is not getting fair representation and that Norm Coleman is just dragging out the recount for political gain.

After the original election results were counted, Norm Coleman held over a 700 vote lead and then after the recount Al Franken led by 225 votes. The swing resulted in the counting of rejected absentee votes. We all agree that if one voted that one’s vote needs to be counted. Minnesota faces a larger problem going forward regardless of how Coleman/Franken shakes out. As was evident during the Canvassing Board review of votes, the application of voting rules were not applied equally.

By allowing the election results to be reviewed by the Canvassing Board, Minnesotans watched a breakdown in the democratic process. According to Minnesota statute, M.S.204C.22, all ballots must be counted if it is possible to determine the voter’s intent. Determine voter intent? WHAT!!! As a citizen that votes, I do not want someone determining my intent which is why I follow the instructions on the ballot. Voter’s who cannot follow the simple instructions is to blame for the actions taken after the election results were announced.

That being said, all ballots that did not follow instructions – absentee and ones cast on Election Day – ought to be tossed out. Count only the ballots that Minnesotans followed the instructions correctly then crown the victor. The Minnesota statute needs to be revised to ensure a Canvassing Board does not have an opportunity to determine voter intent through the bias of their political affiliation. There are ample examples to prove that voter intent was not applied equally. Personally, I don’t care which clown gains the seat. Just apply the rules equally.