The Health Care Vote Really Was Historic!!

The Liberals like to tell us that Sunday's vote on health care "reform" was historic. They are right.

Never before has the U.S. Congress voted on a bill so massive, so intrusive, that affects every person in the United States, all the while showing absolute contempt for the will of the American people and a total disdain for the voices of opposition.

Never before has Congress been so blatantly corrupt, so nakedly unashamed (and even proud!) of the backroom deals, bribery, threats, and extortion that were all required to get this bill passed by the slimmest of margins.

It was an historic event.

Hurricane Katrina was historic, too. As was 9/11, Pearl Harbor, Nixon's resignation, Clinton's impeachment, and the Mura building bombing.

Historic does not necessarily mean good for America.

With the health care "reform" bill, we saw an historic abdication of responsibility, an historic display of hubris and political self-gratification, an historic corruption of the American political process, and an historic shift in the government/populace relationship that might be forever damaged.

John Boehner was right, Democrats; you should be ashamed of yourselves.

I know I am ashamed of you.

CBO: Health Care Reform May "Reduce Access to Care"

According to a blog post on the Weekly Standard's Web site, Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Douglas Elmendorf has defined the "death panels" that have been alleged to be an integral part of the Obama/Democrat health care "reform" efforts.

In a letter to Sen Harry Reid, the Weekly Standard has discovered, the cuts to Medicare may well necessitate health care rationing:

It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved, and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care.

Shouldn't we all slow down and figure out if these alleged Medicare savings could be achieve through "greater efficiencies" or by slashing care for our Seniors before we institute these reductions?

After all, the provisions in the health care "reform" won't kick in for four more years; it seems that such a waiting period would allow some further investigation.

But, even if the savings work, it seems that they aren't savings at all:

Republicans, emboldened by a new letter from the Congressional Budget Office, accused Democrats on Wednesday of "Bernie Madoff accounting" for double counting the savings from Medicare as a means to pay for the Senate health care bill.

Check this out from CBO top-dog Elmendorf:

..(the) government counts money two ways, either through trust fund accounting, in which money is borrowed from future Medicare payments to pay for existing Medicare programs but is like a revolving line of credit, or unified budget accounting, in which the trust fund money is borrowed from Medicare but then spent on other health care programs that don't generate money to be be paid back into Medicare later.

Say what?

Even after we find out if this works or grandma gets left out in the medical cold, the Liberals in the Senate are trying to make sure no one fixes -- I mean, changes -- the Medicare "reforms" later on.

In a questionably Constitutional, and definitely immoral, provision, Harry Reid et. al. want to block any changes to the Medicare "reforms" they are instituting:

"it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."

Once the Death Panels are firmly established, the Libs want no one to take them away.

One can only hope that the Republicans gain some traction with their charges that parts of the Senate bill are unconstitutional.

Two key issues seem to be attracting the bulk of the legal threats: a mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance and the special treatment that states like Nebraska are getting in the bill.

"I don't believe Congress has the legal or moral authority to force this mandate on its citizens," Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev said in a statement.

But, lest anyone think that the Liberals have no interest in the Constitution, Harry Reid calls the efforts to ensure Constitutionality as "a sign of desperation."

Yes, Harry, we are desperate. You must kill this bill before it kills the best medical system in the world.

Will Obama Actually Pass Health Care Reform as an Earmark on a TARP Bill??

According to the Heritage Foundation, Obama and the Democrats plan to pass the health care overhaul as an "earmark" on an un-related piece of legislation: "... the entire health care reform effort will be included as an amendment to a ...TARP bill (on limiting executive pay) that has been collecting dust in the Senate for months."

I know what you are thinking: But haven't republicans ever done the same thing?

Certainly, it is a common trick on Capitol Hill to slip items into other legislation to ensure passage. It is a slimy trick that I thought Obama was going to rise above.

The outrage here is that the health care "reform" affects every single person in the United States.

I should think that something that will touch the lives in as basic and personal way as health care and health coverage would not be shuffled under the rug and slipped through without an actual vote on the issue.

Especially when every poll shows 60-70% of Americans are opposed to the plan they are trying to sneak through.

So much for change in Washington; so much for openness and transparency; so much for medical care in the U.S. if this thing actually passes.

Do as Feds Say, Not as They Do: Fannie and Freddie Give Bonuses -- Despite Losing Money

This is getting too easy.

Fannie Mae plans to pay retention bonuses of at least $1 million to four key executives as part of a plan to keep hundreds of employees from leaving the government-controlled company.

Fannie lost $59 billion last year and begged $15 billion from the federal government. And the losses are expected to continue:

Fannie Mae's losses are likely to continue, the company said. "We expect the market conditions that contributed to our net loss for each quarter of 2008 to continue and possibly worsen in 2009," the company said.

But, despite the catastrophic losses, Fannie plans to dole out "retention bonuses of at least $1 million to four key executives."

In response to this "federally run mortgage giant" paying bonuses to executives who helped drive the company deep into the red, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) demanded of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner: "It is time that we stop rewarding failure."

No. I am sorry. Cummings said that about AIG; he has been silent on the Fannie bonuses.

Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-MA angrily compared the Fannie bonuses to "the captain and the crew of the ship reserving the lifeboats."

Ooops. Lynch was criticizing AIG too. I am sure he will be out there protecting the tax payers from the Fannie bonuses any day now.

TV talking heads are chattering about these "retention" bonuses; why pay a retention bonus to anyone in this economy? Where else are these people going to work?

Ugh; that was AIG, too, huh?

Meanwhile, over at Freddie Mac, the other "federally run mortgage giant," bonuses are on the way too. Like sister Fannie, Freddie has lost tons of money -- $50 billion last year alone. And keeping in the family tradition, Freddie came to Washington with hands out, hands much larger than Fannie.

However, unlike Fannie, Freddie has yet to disclose the amount of the bonuses and to whom they are being paid.

Old friend Barney Frank (D-MA) was quick to demand the names of the executives receiving the money:

Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chairman of the Financial Services Committee, demanded that the company submit to Congress a list "of people who received the bonuses..." If the names were not provided "without restriction," Frank warned, he would ask the committee to vote to subpoena them.

"We do intend to use our power to get the names," Frank wheezed in anger.

Ooops, I did it again! If you couldn't guess, Frank wasn't talking about Freddie Mac.

Well, members of Congress stumbled over each other to get the tax payers' money back from the Freddie executives:

"Recipients of these bonuses will not be able to keep all of their money," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said.

"If you don't return it on your own, we will do it for you," echoed Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. "So for those of you who are getting these bonuses, be forewarned -- you will not be getting to keep them."

Darn it. AIG.

It must be the late hour. I keep expecting the same voices who condemned AIG for handing out bonuses despite the company losing money to be railing against Fannie and Freddie for handing out bonuses despite the company losing money.

I just know that the Democratic power elite will not stand by as Freddie and Fannie spend tax payer bailout funds on big-buck bonuses for a few rich executives.

Right?

I best not hold my breath....

Obama: Time To Put Aside Childish Things -- NOT!!

At his inauguration, way back on Tuesday, the new president promised that it is "the time has come to set aside childish things."

Apparently, he doesn't heed his own advice.

At a meeting on the "stimulus" package today, he announced his opposition to the Republican's concerns with a curt "I won."

The sources of the report do not indicate if Obama stuck his tongue out after saying that, or held his thumb to his nose and waggled his fingers accompanied by a hearty Nah-Nah-Nah-Nah.

House Minority Leader John Boehner reportedly responded with a sheepish I know you are, but what am I...

Thanks, Barack, for not being childish and not taking the oppositions opinions seriously.

Obama: The First Change is Lowered Expectations

Just hours after the Barack Obama victory, Democrats are already backing away from the "Change" mantra that hurtled Obama to the White House.

According to The Hill website, U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is toning-down the rhetoric of the campaign, instead calling for fiscal responsibility.

A wave has swept this country, a wave of hope, hope for the future, a befuddled Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, as reported in the Cleveland Plain Dealer. Not a mandate for an ideology, a mandate for change, for hope.

Reid had not yet gotten the memo, as he prattled off the list of objectives: fixing the economy, developing renewable energy, helping middle class, improving the schools, and defend country. Plus one odd charge about kids not being able to go to school when they want to.

However, the TimesOnline reported before the election that Team Obama "have drawn up plans to lower expectations for his presidency," fearing that Obama could not live up to expectations.

Expectations that he fostered!

According to the Times, Obama told a Colorado radio station:

The first hundred days is going to be important, but it’s probably going to be the first thousand days that makes the difference, he said. He has also been reminding crowds in recent days how “hard” it will be to achieve his goals, and that it will take time.

Obama's plans are certainly muted by the relative small margin of victory, pulling only 5% more voters than John McCain. Obama's margin of victory was lower than the victories of Reagan ('80,'84), Bush ('88), Clinton ('96) and only slightly higher than Clinton in 1992.

His electoral college victory was middle-of-the-pack, trailing Reagan, H.W. Bush, and Clinton also.

As Harry Reid said, tonight one journey begins and another long, long journey begins...