Even the most ardent liberal can't defend this

Didn't we all take a civics class in high school that taught us how a bill becomes a law in this country? I know I did, so that brings me back to health care. Regardless of your opinions on health care reform or the health insurance industry, you can't defend what Congress is doing to pass the Democrats bill into law. Don't know what I mean? Well, here's the process they are planning on using. 1. They know they don't have the votes to pass the Senate bill in the House without amendments, which they can't get under a normal legislative process because that would allow the Senate to filibuster it if they didn't like the changes (they would). Since they can't even get the Democrats to agree, they can't pass this bill into law, period. However, using the reconciliation procedure, they can bypass the will of the Senate by passing the bill, then passing the changes they want and sending those to the Senate for consideration which would then only require a 51 vote majority under the rules of reconciliation. The fact that this procedure was developed and intended and almost always only used for budgetary bills in the past notwithstanding, this is the process they need to follow, no matter how onerous we may find it.

However, they've gone a step further. They can't get 216 votes to pass the Senate bill without changes, which they can't do under reconciliation. So, how to get around that? They are going to use the Slaughter rule, which is an uncommon but not unheard of method of moving things forward in the House but which was never intended to be used to avoid voting on legislation. This is how it will work. Pelosi will attach the Senate bill to the reconciliation bill since they can get the votes on the bill to "change" the Senate bill. However, after that bill passes, she will separate the Senate bill from the changes bill and send that to the President for his signature, having deemed that the Senate bill passed the House because the reconciliation bill passed, even though they clearly don't have the votes to pass the Senate bill. This goes beyond onerous, but leaps right on into undemocratic. However, this bill, now having been deemed to have passed even though we all know it wouldn't, now goes to the President along with the Senate bill and he signs it into law, without it ever having received an up or down vote in the House. Then, maybe, the Senate will pass the reconciliation legislation, but don't count on it. Whether the Senate passes reconciliation or not, this country will now have government health care designed, not to help people, but to solidify power for the government and themselves. This means they've now jumped right on past undemocratic and into unconstitutional territory. Article 1, section 7 of the U.S. Constitution states:

"Section 7 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill."

The relevant statement here is that "in all such cases, the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be recorded on the journal of each house respectively". This means they actually have to vote on it in the House. Period. If they can't pass the Senate bill, they can't move forward on reconciliation. Period. Any other reading of this doesn't make sense, yet they want us to believe that they can just decide the bill has passed because another related bill did pass. This is the most egregious power grab in this country's great history and if we allow it to stand, we will be guilty of, not stealing from but bankrupting our children's posterity. That is the most politically immoral act this country can do, to destroy our children's future. That is what this bill is about. Period.

Senate nixes earmark ban

Well, surprise surprise! The Senate doesn't want to ban earmarks! I can't really say I'm surprised. I'm not even surprised that 15 Republicans broke ranks and voted no with the Democrats. After all, this is a huge scheme for politicians at the national level to vie for re-election. See, everybody hates earmarks (pork) unless they benefit from them. It is the same mentality about government intrusion and entitlements. Everyone loves to hate those things, right up until they benefit from them. The 1-2 billion dollars a year spent on earmarks, while a waste, aren't really the problem with the budget. After all, 2 billion dollars out of 1.2 trillion isn't even the .2. It is .002 percent, at most, of the federal budget. Medicare and Social Security are 50 percent, give or take. The military is 16 percent and the list goes on. Even NASA, one of the smallest agencies in the budget is still 1 percent, still much more significant than earmarks. So, am I surprised they have chosen not to ban earmarks? No, am I upset they've chosen not to ban earmarks? Not really. It is the "non-discretionary" spending that needs to be addressed along with some of the bloated federal agencies if we are ever going to get a handle on the budget. Earmarks bans, while nice, serve only to appear to be acting in a fiscally responsible manner. It is nothing more than a political stunt, not a real act of responsibility. When they start actually cutting things that need to be cut, then an earmark ban wouldn't even be necessary. In the meantime, they think they can appease us by banning .002 percent of the federal budget. Nothing more than an empty political stunt.

Pro health care rallies -- really?

I was reading an article on FoxNews.com about a pro health care rally today in Washington, D.C. It seems strange that the "media wing of the Republican party" would report on a pro government health care rally taking place in D.C. This, especially seems surprising consider some bloggers don't believe these rallies are getting their proper coverage. I can sympathize with him. After all, the 9/12 rally in DC that had anywhere from tens of thousands to 1 million marchers, depending on who you want to listen to only got brief mentionings in the news media. So, considering this rally in DC and the rally the blogger is concerned about got a thousand or maybe thousands of marchers, I'd say little to no mention is certainly consistent with attempting to minimize the 9/12 march as much as possible. I guess I'm actually surprised that the media hasn't covered these and tried to hype them up but maybe journalists do occasionally do their jobs.