Abuse of Power

Abuse of Power - WSJ.com

An undemocratic disservice to our people and to the Senate's institutional role.'

A string of electoral defeats and the great unpopularity of ObamaCare can't stop Democrats from their self-appointed rendezvous with liberal destiny—ramming a bill through Congress on a narrow partisan vote. What we are about to witness is an extraordinary abuse of traditional Senate rules to pass a bill merely because they think it's good for the rest of us, and because they fear their chance to build a European welfare state may never come again.
***

The vehicle is "reconciliation," a parliamentary process that fast-tracks budget measures and was created in 1974 as a deficit-reduction tool. Limited to 20 hours of debate, reconciliation bills need a mere 50 votes in the Senate, with the Vice President as tie-breaker, thus circumventing the filibuster. Both Democrats and Republicans have frequently used reconciliation on budget bills, so Democrats are now claiming that using it to pass ObamaCare is no big deal.

Yet this shortcut has never been used for anything approaching the enormity of a national health-care entitlement. Democrats are only resorting to it now because their plan is in so much political trouble—within their own party, and even more among the general public—and because they've failed to make their case through persuasion.

"They know that this will take courage," Nancy Pelosi said in an interview over the weekend, speaking of the Members she'll try to strong-arm. "It took courage to pass Social Security. It took courage to pass Medicare," the Speaker continued. "But the American people need it, why are we here? We're not here just to self-perpetuate our service in Congress."

Leave aside the irony of invoking "the American people" on behalf of a bill that consistently has been 10 to 15 points underwater in every poll since the fall, and is getting more unpopular by the day, particularly among independents.[...]

Reconciliation is the last mathematical gasp for ObamaCare because Democrats can't sell their policy to Senator Snowe, any other Republican, or even dozens of Democrats. This raw exercise of political power is of a piece with the copious corruption and bribery—such as the Cornhusker kickbacks and special tax benefits for union members—that liberals had to use to get even this far.

The bastages.

Astroturfing: Obama plans to flood conservative talk radio with liberal talking points

Astroturfing: Obama plans to flood conservative talk radio with liberal talking points | Washington Examiner

Organizing for America, the powerful activist organization with some 13 million email addresses that grew out of the Obama campaign, has launched a new website -- http://radio.barackobama.com. The website provides users with the name of a talk show that's going on right at that moment and what is being discussed. Users can listen live to the radio program directly from the website.

The purpose of the website is supply the President's supporters with liberal talking points on health care reform. Supporters are then encouraged to call in to conservative talk radio shows armed with the talking points provided and "report your call."

It's not exactly the fairness doctrine, but it doesn't seem transparent either. If you can't beat 'em, astroturf 'em

ASTROTURDs

“A Reading Guide to the Senate Bill’s Backroom Deals”

Michelle Malkin » “A Reading Guide to the Senate Bill’s Backroom Deals”

the Senate Republican Policy Committee has compiled “A Reading Guide to the Senate Bill’s Backroom Deals.”

Keep it handy:

The White House recently released its own health care proposal[ii] in the form of changes to the 2,733 page legislation (H.R. 3590) that passed the Senate in December.[iii] While the proposal purports to remove the “Nebraska FMAP provision” that saw 49 other states funding Nebraska’s Medicaid largesse (known as the “Cornhusker Kickback”), it does not address other deals negotiated by Democrats in the Senate legislation. Many other backroom agreements are included in the Senate bill, which the White House has now endorsed as the platform for Democrats to enact “health reform” into law:

Page 428—Section 2006, known as the “Louisiana Purchase,” provides an extra $300 million in Medicaid funding to Louisiana.[iv]

Page 878—Section 3201(g), known as the “Gator Aid” provision, shields certain Florida residents from Medicare Advantage cuts. In December, 57 Senate Democrats voted not to extend this special deal to all Medicare beneficiaries.[v]

Page 2132—Section 10201(e)(1) provides an increase in Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments for Hawaii, meaning 49 other states will pay more in taxes so that Hawaii can receive this special benefit.

Page 2222—Section 10323 makes certain individuals exposed to environmental hazards eligible for Medicare coverage. The definition used in the bill ensures the only individuals eligible will be those living in Libby, Montana.

Page 2237—Section 10324 increases Medicare payments by $2 billion in “frontier states.”[vi]

Page 2354— Section 10502 spends $100 million on “debt service of, or direct construction of, a health care facility,” language which the sponsors intended to benefit Connecticut.[vii]

Page 2394—Section 10905(c) includes language exempting Nebraska Blue Cross/Blue Shield and Michigan Blue Cross/Blue Shield from the new tax on health insurance companies, despite an Administration-released report calling Michigan Blue Cross/Blue Shield’s 2009 rate increases “disturbing.”[viii]

Page 2395—Section 10905(d) exempts Medigap supplemental insurance plans sold by Mutual of Omaha, headquartered in Nebraska, from the new tax on health insurance companies.

These specific agreements and provisions also do not display the full scope of the White House’s legislative deal-making. For instance, the head of the pharmaceutical industry said the Administration approached him to negotiate a secret arrangement with his industry: “We were assured, ‘We need somebody to come in first. If you come in first, you will have a rock-solid deal.’”[ix] And former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean publicly admitted at a town hall forum that “The reason that tort reform is not in the [health care] bill is because the [Democrat Members] who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers.”[x]

Unionized Rhode Island Teachers Refuse To Work 25 Minutes More Per Day, So Town Fires All Of Them

Unionized Rhode Island Teachers Refuse To Work 25 Minutes More Per Day, So Town Fires All Of Them

A school superintendent in Rhode Island is trying to fix an abysmally bad school system.

Her plan calls for teachers at a local high school to work 25 minutes longer per day, each lunch with students once in a while, and help with tutoring. The teachers' union has refused to accept these apparently onerous demands.

The teachers at the high school make $70,000-$78,000, as compared to a median income in the town of $22,000. This exemplifies a nationwide trend in which public sector workers make far more than their private-sector counterparts (with better benefits).

About time people started standing up to them.

The school superintendent has responded to the union's stubbornness by firing every teacher and administrator at the school.

A sign of things to come?

Let's hope so.

ACORN funder confimed to head Corporation for National and Community Service

ACORN funder confimed to head Corporation for National and Community Service | Washington Examiner

Democrats just can't stay away from ACORN. Even as scandal piles on top of scandal, they continue to embrace the organization. The latest is that the Senate just confirmed Patrick Corvington as chief executive of the Corporation for National and Community Service. Corvington and ACORN have quite the history [...]

The foundation Corvington worked for also funded the AFL-CIO, the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, National Coucil for La Raza and other extreme left-wing groups.

Why liberals are lawyers' puppets

EDITORIAL: Why liberals are lawyers' puppets - Washington Times

When President Obama and his liberal Democratic allies squeal at the Supreme Court decision allowing corporations to exercise freedom of political speech, somebody should ask them why they aren't as horrified by the enormous campaign expenditures by the one industry that treats liberal politicians like chattel servants.

The industry in question is the bar of big-money plaintiffs' lawyers. A study called "Trial Lawyers Inc.," released Feb. 9 by the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, tells the tale.

For years, during every election cycle, lawyers as a whole have donated more money than any other industry to federal and state political campaigns. This largesse included $780 million for federal and $725 million for state elections in the past decade alone. The bulk of that cash comes from plaintiffs' attorneys. Each cycle, 90 percent or more of that jackpot-justice cash goes to Democrats. Plaintiffs' firms are four of the top seven donors to the campaigns of embattled Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat, also is deeply in political debt to these lawyer groups.

How Congressional Black Caucus got around McCain-Feingold

Hot Air » Blog Archive » How Congressional Black Caucus got around McCain-Feingold

In the wake of the Citizens United v FEC decision by the Supreme Court, Democrats in Congress have pledged legislative action to restore the rejected components of the McCain-Feingold legislation, claiming that they have a mission to stop corporate influence on elections. Some have suggested amending the Constitution to limit the First Amendment. However, as the New York Times reports today, one select group of Democrats have had no problem cultivating corporate influence, and doing so by working around the McCain-Feingold restrictions their party claims to champion [...]

Now, consider that $55 million in light of the outrage expressed over the last few weeks over the court’s Citizens United decision. Here’s Barack Obama, scolding the court during the State of the Union speech: [...]

Open the floodgates for corporations? Spend without limit? Bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests? Maybe Congress should first pass a bill that stops members of Congress from shaking down corporations to pay off mortgages. The CBC has spent the windfall on annual casino outings, big Beltway parties, golf trips, and more. In one instance, they held a fundraiser for scholarships and spent more on the caterer than they did on funding education.

Where did the rest of the $54 million go over the past five years? It went to establishing Congressional incumbents into a power network that illegitimately handicaps challengers in Congressional elections. And what let them do it? The campaign finance laws that Democrats insist were blocking corporate influence before Citizens United.