[GeronL]

Will they really??

Slow it down??

Oh won’t we just be so grateful. //sarcasm

[mikelets456]

Are they expecting a carpet bombing of the white house?

[b4its2late]

Block!

[nathanbedford]

Since writing the following vanity in the wake of the health-care summit, we have been able to go to school on the courageous but beleaguered spectacle of Senator Jim Bunning fighting virtually alone for reason in the United States Senate. The spectacle teaches us that the Republicans have no stomach for the kind of fight which I describe below. It is not just the Susan Collins of Maine who spoke out against Bunning but it is also Mitch McConnell who, as caucus leader in the Senate, was conspicuously absent.

I am afraid Republican Senators will see no personal advantage in bringing upon themselves the full fury of the establishment media which they just witnessed unleashed against Senator Bunning. The Republicans will doubtless choose the softer path of accepting defeat with suitable loud and indignant protests knowing that they will prosper at the polls in November. If they shut down the government now, they risk November.

Here is the vanity:

RECONCILIATION OR NUCLEAR OPTION?

In the wake of yesterday's summit on health care reform one must ask, what were the Democrats up to and did they accomplish what they set out to do? Let's peel away some onion

The Democrats profess to have arranged the conference so that leading members of the House and Senate could reason together that bipartisanship might bloom and a compromise on health care reform might be achieved as the participants grasp hands and sing kumbaya as they dance around the anointed one. Nobody on Free Republic believes that anything remotely so noble could possibly animate the calculations of the Obama administration and the Democratic Party.

The summit was arranged by the Democrats to provide Obama with a forum in which she would demonstrate as he did in the Maryland summit with the house his mastery of the subject and his dominance as the Alpha male over the benighted Republicans. The demonstration would reveal for the whole country that the Republicans were the party of no and public support for their position, or more precisely, public opposition to the health-care reform bills would diminish. If that objective were the purpose of the meeting, the Democrats did not achieve their goal. If anything the Republicans demonstrated their mastery of the subject and the Democrats looked ill informed and ill at ease. But I do not think that was exactly the motivation for the summit.

I believe the Democrats are looking down the road and there are two or three factions who see the path ahead from different perspectives. The president knows that he is not up for reelection until 2012 and, anyway, as a radical ideologue he is certainly as concerned with fashioning a legacy as he is with an election three years away. The Democrats from safe districts (assuming after Massachusetts that there are such districts), especially those in the house like Nancy Pelosi who are in leadership and who enjoy relative immunity from the generalized irritation of the voters, see the fate of the health-care bill to be a judgment on their leadership and so they are for passage of some bill at virtually any cost, or at least at any cost to other more vulnerable Democrats such as the Blue Dogs. There are the black Democrat Congressman who are immune from election losses and whose constituencies will support virtually any strong-arm methods the Democrats choose to use. Finally there are the vulnerable Democrats, the Blue Dogs and many senators who a few months ago had reason to believe that their seats would be secure in 2010.

Only the last group has much to fear from strong-arming healthcare through Congress by way of nuclear option. In fact, in the majority of these categories of Democrats will be reelected so long as their base comes out. Hence, from their perspective they have more to fear from passive failure to enact health care insurance reform then they do from the indignant reaction of moderate and independent middle America whom they understand from the polls is generally opposed to the legislation. Of course, that means that there is a real and no doubt growing rift within the Democratic Party as the interests of those in vulnerable seats become clearly more and more endangered by those in safer seats. But, as we shall see later, maybe not.

As Obama, Pelosi and the African-American Democrats size up the situation, they are impelled toward a cram-down by way of "reconciliation." They fear only the reaction from their base for want of ardor on their part.

So the drama moves toward a nuclear option showdown. In this context, the summit can be seen as a softening up barrage to prepare the battlefield for reconciliation. Confronted with reconciliation, the Republicans can either raise hell and hope to gain ground in the next election, hoping that sometime between now and five years when the reconciliation bill must expire without healthcare having kicked in, they can prevent its extension. Alternatively, the Republicans can aggressively counterattack by filing virtually an infinite number of amendments and delay the vote indefinitely. They could have each amendment read word by word etc.

Once the Republicans do that they have effectively shut down the government. It is not even a generation ago that we ran through this scenario when Gingrich and the House Republicans dragged a very reluctant Bob Dole and his go- along to get- along Republican Senatorial colleagues, to White House sessions to negotiate for a balanced budget. More than Monica Lewinsky resulted. The Republicans lost that public-relations battle.

It might well be that the Democrats know why Republicans lost that battle, the press went to war against Gingrich and the Republicans. Republican solidarity cracked in the wake of sob stories about sleigh ride drivers in Yellowstone being out of work. The Democrats might well now be calculating that the press will so disparage the Republicans as "the party of no" that they could even turn around their electoral chances in November, just as occurred after Monica delivered her pizzas.

So the summit as conducted by the leading Democrats who are impelled toward a cram down could be seen as a reconnaissance in force to probe Republican solidarity and test public reaction in the wake of the conference. I think public reaction will have less of an impact on their strategy than we might think and for the reasons expressed above. If the Democrats were testing the media, they must be on balance disappointed with the reaction in the establishment press. But that does not mean they cannot enlist the media in a crusade against the Republicans who can be painted as shutting down the government without which they believe no man can exist.

For their part, Republicans must realistically assess their resolution to carry on to the end. We saw how Olympia Snowe flirted with the enemy. We know that Graham will seek to gain center stage by triangulating against the Republicans. Scott Brown is an unknown quantity, especially after his vote on the jobs bill. It would be fatal to start to shut down the government if the center does not hold. If Republicans buckle halfway through, the entire dynamic could change before November 2010. Clearly, shutting down the Senate with amendments is a tactic which should not be started if only to be abandoned. Either Obama or the Republicans will emerge from such a battle, but not both. The Nuclear Option is our equivalent of regicide and we all know what happens to those who try to kill the King and fail. The press will probably be against the Republicans. Most of the Democrats have nothing to lose. Many of the Democrats who do have something to lose are looking for a game changer. Chaos is certainly a game changer. Republicans must be certain that resolve on their side is greater than the resolve on the Democrat side.

The Democrats have every incentive to drag the country into chaos. Barack Obama personally, as a radical redistributionist and a Manchurian Marxist who was a disciple of Saul Alinsky, might very well actually welcome such chaos. Under these circumstances reconciliation could easily become a "nuclear option." That is not to say that Republicans ought not to fight the matter with every weapon and with every amendment at their disposal. It is only to say that they should heed the advice of General James Longstreet on the eve of Pickett's charge and not go into battle with only one boot on.

To paraphrase Shakespeare:

If it were done when 'tis done, then t'were well. It were done resolutely.

[rep-always]

We need to call. Shut down the Capital switchboard. I have been calling all day. We need to keep the pressure on. This dirtbag must be stopped.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Normally i don’t like to see strategy announced in advance.

But in this case, it is imperative that we give details of our strategy, and that we demonstrate that it will work.

Because the fight here is to convince the House democrats that they CANNOT COUNT ON reconciliation turning out the way they want.

That is the battle. If the house democrats THINK they can trust reconciliation, they WILL pass the senate health bill, and it will become law.

After that, blocking reconciliation will be a pretty much useless endeavor. And in fact, we might WANT to support reconciliation at that point, because it might well make the senate bill better.

Think about that — if the Senate bill IS LAW, would we oppose a reconciliation that eliminated payoffs for states, added 4 ideas the republicans wanted, and fixed the abortion funding (not saying these area what will be in reconciliation, just showing how it might well be in the republican interest to support reconciliation).

This is the real problem here. We have already gotten a bill past the 60-vote threshold. That bill is a disaster. But if the house votes on it, it will be law, and that will be the new baseline for our actions.

If the hosue democrats figure that out, and decide they can live with whatever we throw into reconciliation, they might be convinced to pass the senate bill.

So it is imperative that we show them how we will change the reconciliation to make it unacceptable to them.

And it is important we make the democrats pay for voting for the original senate bill while pretending they would get another shot at fixing it or stopping it later.

[wny]

I understand debate is limited to 20 hours, but I also read there’s no limit on the number of amendments that can be offered. Here’s what I’d do: take the tax code, all 100,000 pages of it, add a paragraph to the end. Call it an amendment, object to unanimous consent and insist the entire amendment be read aloud. The reading aloud doesn’t count against the 20 hours. I’m sure there is an ample number of federal codes, statutes, standards and regulations pertaining to healthcare, taxes, insurance etc., that can be introduced as amendments. No unanimous consent, read ‘em all. The new President will be inaugurated before they finish reading all this crap.

[Leftism is Mentally Deranged]

Democrats see their chance to force this country into socialism without the people realizing it. According to Wikipedia, government spending was at 36% of the GDP in 2006. Add a few percent for state and local, and it is probably at 40% Add 17 to that for “healthcare” and you get 57% of the economy controlled by the federal government.
They are keeping their eyes on the dream.

[Deo volente]

"So my guess is, before this is all said and done, that if they want to pass it, they may be able to pass it, but we're going to do everything we can on the side of the American people to try and stop a really bad bill from passing," the South Dakota senator added.

So in the end the Republicans will cave, as always...Not surprising.

[GailA]

OBAMANOMICS—TRICKLE DOWN DESTRUCTION of the economy

SET THEIR LOCAL AND DC LINES ON FIRE!

PLEASE ASK THEM TO REPEAL THE BIG NEW FEES in TRICARE for Life, the retired Military over 65 secondary health ins. which they passed in a DOD bill. They promised our Military these benefits, and our Military have earned them.

Bambi doesn’t keep his promises...so buyer beware!
Sen Scott Brown’s number is 202-224-4543

Capitol Hill switchboard is 202-224-3121

Lots of local demwit phone numbers on this thread

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2408217/posts

Rename, repackage, rewrite it a tad smaller, and sell another pig in a poke. NO COLAs for granny, retired Military or retired fed employees. BIG NEW fees for Tricare for Life retired over 65 Military’s secondary health ins.
(DOD bill already passed, delayed but goes into effect 2011 NEEDS TO BE REPEALED!

OBAMA’s WAR ON SENIORS http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2433867/posts/

New Dem mantra: Woof, woof eat dog food granny....ala let them eat cake. http://www.lifenews.com/bio3058.html
Friday, February 19, 2010

Obama says slight fix will extend Social Security
http://townhall.com/news/us/2010/02/19/obama_says_slight_fix_will_extend_social_security

Health Care Rationing for Seniors Another Problem in New Obama Plan http://www.lifenews.com/bio3058.html
Medicare tax may apply to investment income (ObamaCare tax hike)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2460988/posts

SOCIALIZED MED THREAD http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2462963/posts

TRI CARE FOR LIFE This from a google search:

http://economicspolitics.blogspot.com/2009/05/tricare-for-life-is-obama-trying-to.html

This option would help reduce the costs of TFL, as well as costs for Medicare, by introducing minimum out-of pocket requirements for beneficiaries. Under this option, TFL would not cover any of the first $525 of an enrollee’s cost-sharing liabilities for calendar year 2011 and would limit coverage to 50 percent of the next $4,725 in Medicare cost sharing that the beneficiary incurred. (Because all further cost sharing would be covered by TFL, enrollees could not pay more than $2,888 in cost sharing in that year.) http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9925/12-18-HealthOptions.pdf

http://www.vawatchdog.org/09/hcva09/hcva110609-1.htm
Bill Would Restrict Veterans’ Health Care Options 11/06/09
Buyer and McKeon Offer Amendments to Protect Veterans and TRICARE Beneficiaries

Congress plans to block Tricare fee increases
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/10/military_tricarefees_blocked_100709w

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/10/military_tricarefees_blocked_100709w/

By Rick Maze - Staff writer, Oct 7, 2009

Tricare fee increases imposed last week by the Defense Department will be repealed by a provision of the compromise 2010 defense authorization bill unveiled Wednesday by House and Senate negotiators.
Snip The fee increases were announced on Sept. 30 and took effect on Oct. 1, but the defense bill, HR 2647, includes a provision barring any fee increases until the start of fiscal 2011.

Snip

Retired Army Maj. Gen. Bill Matz, president of the National Association for Uniformed Services, said the announcement of fee increases was shocking considering that the Obama administration promised earlier this year to hold off on any new fee Tricare fee increases until fiscal 2011.

“President Obama and DoD assured NAUS and the entire military family earlier this year that there would rightly be no increases in any Tricare fees” in fiscal 2010, Matz said. “We took them at their word, and I can’t believe that a co-pay increase like this was allowed to go forward,” he added.

[fortheDeclaration]

If the House passes the Senate version, it becomes Law (after the President signs it) and what the Senate does or doesn't do is irrelevant.

This is an issue for the House, not the Senate.

[Tatze]

One problem with this, as I understand it. The first step in this reconciliation process, is for the House to pass the Senate bill.

So even if the reconciliation process is blocked, Bambi still has the Senate bill, passed by both chambers, that he can sign into law. Yes? No?

[Political Junkie Too]

At issue is the new bill of healthcare legislation changes the House is expected to pass under budget reconciliation rules.

I don't understand what has happened.

Is this the same bill that was passed in the Senate? Are they supposed to be reconciling the House and Senate versions of the bill?

What about the "new changes" that Obama added after last week's meeting? Is that in the bill? Wouldn't that make it a new bill requiring new votes in the House and Senate?

Or are they using a budget reconciliation process to vote on a new bill, discarding the old bill?

Where are we now? I've lost track of things.

-PJ

[Oldpuppymax]

I do HOPE this will be the case. My question is, who will drag Mitchie the Kid out from under his desk to join the fray??!!

[SuziQ]

I just hope that ALL the Republicans vote against it, and the RINOS don’t fall for Obama’s inclusion of ‘some’ Republican ideas. It’s still a dog of a bill, and the main point remains; it’s a government takeover of health care, and the Republicans should be TOTALLY against it!

[Sparticus]

This ticks me off to no end!

I’ve been mailing my Democratic representatives voided checks made out to “Your Opponent in 2010” along with a picture of myself holding a “vote the bums out” sign.

[Sparticus]

This ticks me off to no end!

I’ve been mailing my Democratic representatives voided checks made out to “Your Opponent in 2010” along with a picture of myself holding a “vote the bums out” sign.

[hope]

BamBam says the health care debate is over...They want to make healthcare a constitutional right...just like they did with abortion.

[jersey117]

Hasn’t he heard the latest? Our dictator said there will be no more debate.