Posted on 09/29/2009 8:19:18 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
President Obama and liberals in Congress seem intent on passing comprehensive health care reform, even though polls suggest it is unpopular with the American people. And despite the potential political risks to moderate Democrats, the President and left-wing leadership in Congress are determined to pass the measure using a rare parliamentary procedure.
The Senate plans to attach Obamacare to a House-passed non-healthcare bill. Ironically, nobody knows what that legislation looks like, because it has not yet been written. Yet many members plan to rubber-stamp Obamacare without reading or understanding the bill.
The Senate Finance Committee worked furiously last week to mark up a “conceptual framework” of health care reform. The committee actually rejected an amendment by Sen. Jim Bunning (R.-Ky.) to mandate that the bill text and a final cost analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) be publicly available at least 72 hours before the Finance Committee votes on final passage.
The following four-step scenario describes one way liberals plan to work the rules in their favor to get Obamacare through the Senate:
Step 1: The Senate Finance Committee must first approve the marked-up version of Sen. Max Baucus’ (D.-Mont.) conceptual framework. Then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) can say that two Senate Committees have passed a health care bill, which will allow him to take extraordinary steps to get the bill on the Senate floor.
During the mark-up last week, members had difficulty offering amendments and trying to make constructive changed because they lacked actual legislative text and Baucus made unilateral last minute changes. For example, the AP reported that “under pressure from fellow Democrats, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee decided to commit an additional $50 billion over a decade toward making insurance more affordable for working-class families.”
Step 2: Sen. Reid will take the final product of the Senate Finance Committee and merge it with the product of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, which passed on a party-line vote in July.
Usually, a bill is voted out of committee, and then the Senate takes up the final product of the committee so that all 100 senators can have a hand in the process. With some help from the Obama administration, Reid will decide what aspects of the HELP and Finance Committee bills to keep.
Step 3: Now, Obamacare will be ready to hitch a ride on an unrelated bill from the House. Sen. Reid will move to proceed to H.R. 1586, a bill to impose a tax on bonuses received by certain TARP recipients. This bill was passed by the House in the wake of the AIG bonus controversy and is currently sitting on the Senate Legislative Calendar.
The move to proceed needs 60 votes to start debate. After the motion is approved, Sen. Reid will offer Obamacare as a complete substitute to the unrelated House-passed bill. This means that the entire healthcare reform effort will be included as an amendment to a TARP bill that has been collecting dust in the Senate for months.
Step 4: For this strategy to work, the proponents would need to hold together the liberal caucus of 58 Democrats (including Paul Kirk who was named last Thursday to replace Sen. Kennedy), and the two Independent senators (Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Bernie Sanders of Vermont). These members will have to all hold hands and vote against any filibuster. Once the Senate takes up the bill, only a simple majority of members will be needed for passage. It’s possible one of the endangered moderate Democrats, such as Sen. Blanche Lincoln (Ark.), could vote to stop a filibuster then vote against Obamacare so as not to offend angry constituents.
Once the Senate passes a bill and sends it to the House, all the House would have to do is pass the bill without changes and President Obama will be presented with his health care reform measure. If this plan does not work, the Senate and House leadership may go back to considering using reconciliation to pass the legislation.
Adopting this secret plan will not strike most Americans as a transparent, bipartisan, effective way to change how millions of Americans get their health care.
******
Brian Darling is director of U.S. Senate Relations at The Heritage Foundation.
Okay, my top-of-the-hour news just reported that the language to prevent taxpayer funds from providing for abortions has been defeated -- if Stupak and the pro-life folks in the House stand by their principles (and I've got to believe they will on this), the bill has no chance of passage back through the House.
Exactly. Labor is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it.
Debt is a claim on the borrower's future labor, or on the lenders?: I guy gets a loan to buy a house, now he has a claim on the carpenter's labor. But the bank has an IOU, a claim on the borrower's future labor. But the only thing gained is the interest paid for the temporary assignment of this claim to borrower.
The bank gave the loan borrower a certain number of "claims on future labor". In turn, the bank owns claims on future labor of the borrower.
The difference is that the bank didn't have to do any work itself in order to obtain the claims on future labor of the borrower. The borrower does have to do work to pay off its claims.
This seems too abstract to me. I think of one as the opposite of the other
We're taught to do that. We think just in terms of numbers, but we don't think in terms of "vectors" - what those numbers really mean. We just accept their "scalar" value.
It's like the difference between speed and velocity. Speed tells you how fast you're going. Velocity tells you how fast, and in what direction.
Money is never created without the same amount of debt having been created first. Never.
But wouldn't that mean there are more claims on future labor than there is labor? In other words, that now a unit of actual labor > a unit of claim on labor (money)? It now takes more of these claim tickets to purchase labor? Isn't this the very definition of inflation?
Yes! You get it! And yes, that is EXACTLY what inflation is. That's why the international bankers have to crash credit every so many decades in order to steal the underlying capital, while at the same time greatly reducing the claims on future labor. It's the only way to keep the scheme going. Otherwise, we would eventually enter hyper-inflation and the gig would be up.
This squares better with the idea that inflation redistributes money (capital, wealth) from the owner of those credits to the debtor.
It does. That is why inflation is always kept in check at a "reasonable" level. Understand, inflation is an inherent part of the cycle - and it's what our Federal government feeds on (not the Fed, the Federal government).
It is through inflation that us workerbees are encouraged to "make our money work for us" by creating new wealth. The bankers then pull the "credit rug" out from under the consumer every 80 years or so and steal a big chunk of the wealth that was created.
It sounds like you understand this pretty well. Keep pondering on it.
Then it originated in the Senate. I see your point, but if only the number is the same, or if the same tax and spend portions were not in the house bill, this method would seem to severely violate the intent of the constitution.
Yes...and by the time its all said and done the Federal Reserve’s policies will have tanked most of the banks holding mortgage notes. Those of us American’s left able to pay a mortgage will be writing a monthly check to the Federal Government. And THAT is what its all about!!
That's why the international bankers have to crash credit every so many decades in order to steal the underlying capital, while at the same time greatly reducing the claims on future labor.
How is that done? Can you do it without crashing debt at the same time? Isn't the upshot that other debtors have much of their debt erased? A jubilee of this sort can't be exclusive, can it?
That is why inflation is always kept in check at a "reasonable" level...
I can see that, keeping the erosion of the value (of work) to a steady stream. But this is a geyser. But didn't you say the deflation, not inflation was imminent? (Or did I misread?)
workerbees are encouraged to "make our money work for us" by creating new wealth. The bankers then pull the "credit rug" out from under the consumer every 80 years or so and steal...
And they'll do this by calling in loans, devaluing stocks, and screwing bond holders? And that's why some fear the collapse of IRA's and the like?
You're saying that the banks are doing this, not the government. But I don't see banks getting into real estate or industry--too much work I would think.
I was thinking of a another scenario: Inflation and attendant devaluation of dollar is expected. Banks trade dollars for foreign currency, then hold that currency until inflation is full tilt. Then, they convert foreign currency back into more dollars and payoff a chunk of debt, default loans, bad investments, etc. An economist friend assured me that this would be nigh impossible, given Fed oversight and legal constraints. But I'm not so sure; what did they do with stim money? He also told me they were concerned about deflation, not inflation.
Still paradoxical, to my mind.
Aw, hell.
Why did the hubster and I work are tails off, save, etc., etc? Starting to feel really foolish. Seems the Chicago way is to have someone else pay your freight, cheat on everything, then chow down on wagyo beef. Boy, have we been stupid.
Whoops read your response incorrectly. Glad to know you think it will strengthen.
The latter part of my previous response still applies. I am REALLY tired of crooks, cheats, and con-men/women.
What do you think are the factors which will contribute to its growing strength?
The U.S. dollar is still the reserve currency of the developed world.
2/3rds of our physical dollars already reside overseas, since people in other countries trust them.
The dollar always rises in relation to other world currencies in times of economic trouble - and we will be seeing a whole lot more economic trouble coming down the pipe.
I would tend to agree with you, especially on the intent, but Congress has been doing this with legislation for decades, I doubt it would make it past the first gate in any kind of challenge, due to the fact that the Constitution specifically allows Senate amendment, even if that amendment strikes the initial language. The parliamentarian does not block it or object to the procedure.
Crashing "credit", and crashing "debt" are one and the same. So is crashing "money".
Debtors have their underlying debt (claims on their future labor) erased - but at the expense of giving up their wealth (land and home) to the banker. The bank did absolutely nothing to deserve holding claims against that future labor - so they get wealth (land and home) for free - minus the costs of pushing a few papers around their desk.
I can see that, keeping the erosion of the value (of work) to a steady stream. But this is a geyser. But didn't you say the deflation, not inflation was imminent? (Or did I misread?)
There is NO inflation geyser (even though the gold company commercials would like you to believe otherwise).
Yes, the Federal government is issuing new debt like a drunken sailor - BUT the amount of credit ("money") destruction going on in our economy is far greater. This means there is LESS money, not more like you're being led to believe. Less money for approximately the same level of goods/services = deflation. Major deflation = depression.
And they'll do this by calling in loans, devaluing stocks, and screwing bond holders? And that's why some fear the collapse of IRA's and the like? You're saying that the banks are doing this, not the government. But I don't see banks getting into real estate or industry--too much work I would think.
That's my point. The banks don't want to do the physical work. They have a system set up where they can create credit out of thin air and have you pay for it, with interest. If you default, then the bank gets the wealth you've worked so hard for. The banks are using the backs of hard-working people to do their labor for them.
The Federal government is just along for the ride. They depend on inflation to obtain their power structure. That's why they're freaked out right now - their power structure is about to implode due to deflation. To compensate for this, they are shoving through the health care bill - not because they care about health, but because it creates a huge new government trust fund from 18% of our economy that they can steal money from (and replace the money with Treasury security IOU's).
I was thinking of a another scenario: Inflation and attendant devaluation of dollar is expected. Banks trade dollars for foreign currency, then hold that currency until inflation is full tilt. Then, they convert foreign currency back into more dollars and payoff a chunk of debt, default loans, bad investments, etc. An economist friend assured me that this would be nigh impossible, given Fed oversight and legal constraints. But I'm not so sure; what did they do with stim money? He also told me they were concerned about deflation, not inflation.
Banks will play whatever games make them the most money. They run our entire econony - not the Federal government.
I appreciate your knowledge and replies.
Sorry about other countries, but sure am happy to hear your optimistic view.
What you say is true today. That money=debt.
But that is only because we use FRNs which are a debt based currency. It was not always so. We used to have currency that was backed (not 100% though) by gold and silver. This currency was redeemable in silver and gold
FRN = Federal Reserve Note
Beyond our paper currency our other money exists as computer blips. Does this money=debt? If you want to show me go right ahead
This is true.
Beyond our paper currency our other money exists as computer blips. Does this money=debt? If you want to show me go right ahead
Yes, computer blips are debt, and computer blips are money - just electronic money.
Money is simply a representation of the way that we trade debt. More specifically, money is the way that we trade claims on future labor.
If you take out a $1,000 loan from your bank, then that is a $1,000 electronic debt to you and $1,000 of electronic money in your bank account. You can exchange your $1,000 of electronic money for $1,000 of physical money if you wish - but the principle still holds: money is debt, and debt is money.
Thanks for the link!
The author writes a good piece - but reaches the wrong conclusion.
We are not like Japan was during 1989. The Japanese went through "stagflation" during their lost decade. Stagflation is high inflation with high unemployment.
We are in deflation mode - negative inflation with high unemployment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.