Posts Tagged ‘Pelosi’

I receive news alerts from the New York Times. This morning, I received this news alert related to job numbers:

U.S. Economy Adds 290,000 Jobs in April; Jobless Rate Rises to 9.9%

Three minutes later, wunderkind Senate Policy Committee staffer Chris Jacobs sent out an email:

169,000 Jobs Short…

While it’s welcome news that the economy created jobs last month, it’s worth putting it in context.  Not only do the jobs figures reflect a temporary bump in hiring of short-term government bureaucrats for this decade’s census, but they also fall far short of the number of jobs Democrats themselves promised during the health care debate.  In her opening statement at the White House summit, Speaker Pelosi noted that passage of the health care bill “will create 4 million jobs – 400,000 jobs almost immediately.”  But today’s jobs figures for April show that the private sector created only 231,000 jobs during the month – meaning that this month’s employment figures miss Democrats’ own mark for job creation by nearly half.  And job growth within the health care sector actually declined from March to April by 16,000 workers, according to the BLS survey.

Of course, it’s hard to argue that any legislation imposing over half a trillion dollars in tax increases will create jobs in the first place.  In other words, the Speaker – having taken her own advice that “we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it” – may well find that passing a $2.6 trillion government takeover of health care will kill jobs, rather than create them.

The Gray Lady must have felt squeamish – or they got a call from Capitol Hill - because 11 minutes later another news alert came across the transom:

Four-Month Rise Strengthens U.S. Job Outlook

It’s kinda cool that one smart Senate staffer can who offers instant response to news can rattle the cage of the self-proclaimed “most important” newspaper in the world.

Now that the health care “reform” bill has been signed into law, details that should have been disclosed and debated before the vote are starting to emerge.  Obviously, Nancy Pelosi meant it when she said they’d have to “pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

Amid the flurry speculation and assertions about the bill is to when and if the pre-existing conditions of children will be covered. Such uncertainty is yet another reason why a bill with major implications for everyone in America should never have been drafted in secrecy or have been exempted from standard procedure.

One of the most outrageous revelations is that staffers who work for Members in Leadership or for Committees, the primary authors of the bill itself, may not be required to purchase insurance through the state-run exchanges.

If it’s not good enough for the authors of the bill, why should the American people be stuck with it?

Speaker Pelosi muscled the Democrat health care bill through to passage Sunday night on a 219-212 vote giving President Obama a major legislative victory and very likely sacrificing the political careers of at least 30 House Members and maybe even the Democrat House majority.

While Democrats say the American people are the winners, the real winners are the big insurance and the big drug companies.  This bill is yet another big bailout of corporate America.

The insurance companies will receive subsidies to the tune of $400 billion and guaranteed customers because the government will now force nearly every American to buy their product.  Drug companies will continue to make record profits because they were given a sweetheart deal that prevents generic drugs from coming to market.

This Wall Street Journal editorial lays out what is in store. It’s not pretty.

This week’s votes don’t end our health-care debates. By making medical care a subsidiary of Washington, they guarantee such debates will never end. And by ramming the vote through Congress on a narrow partisan majority, and against so much popular opposition, Democrats have taken responsibility for what comes next—to insurance premiums, government spending, doctor shortages and the quality of care. They are now the rulers of American medicine.

The process to passage wasn’t pretty either.

While liberal Democrats are fulfilling their dream of a cradle-to-grave entitlement, their swing-district colleagues will pay the electoral price. Those on the fence fell in line out of party loyalty or in response to some bribe, and to show the party could govern. But even then Speaker Nancy Pelosi could only get 85% of her caucus and had to make promises that are sure to prove ephemeral.

Most prominently, she won over Michigan’s Bart Stupak and other anti-abortion Democrats with an executive order from Mr. Obama that will supposedly prevent public funds from subsidizing abortions. The wording of the order seems to do nothing more than the language of the Senate bill that Mr. Stupak had previously said he couldn’t support, and of course such an order can be revoked whenever it is politically convenient to do so.

We have never understood why pro-lifers consider abortion funding more morally significant than the rationing of care for cancer patients or at the end of life that will inevitably result from this bill. But in any case Democratic pro-lifers sold themselves for a song, as they usually do

…

We also can’t mark this day without noting that it couldn’t have happened without the complicity of America’s biggest health-care lobbies, including Big Pharma, the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, the Federation of American Hospitals, the Business Roundtable and such individual companies as Wal-Mart. They hope to get more customers, or to reduce their own costs, but in the end they have merely made themselves more vulnerable to the gilded clutches of the political class.

While the passage of ObamaCare marks a liberal triumph, its impact will play out over many years. We fought this bill so vigorously because we have studied government health care in other countries, and the results include much higher taxes, slower economic growth and worse medical care. As for the politics, the first verdict arrives in November.

One of Obama’s main arguments for passing his health care proposal is that it will reduce the deficit and create hundreds of thousands of jobs. Pelosi has even made the claim that the bill would create 400,000 jobs “almost immediately” (really, immediately?)

However, a study released today by Americans for Tax Reform Foundation and Beacon Hill Institute, a part of Suffolk University, blows a hole right through that claim.

Beacon’s study shows that rather than creating jobs, the Democrat health care bill will cost more than 700,000 jobs.

Ron Bonjean, communicator extraordinaire, takes the bark of this tree in this piece.

The national unemployment rate is fluctuating from double digit figures to the current rate of 9.7 percent. Millions of Americans haven’t had a job in more than a year and still receive unemployment benefits from the federal government. And now our nation’s debt is threatening our worldwide credit rating due to the trillions of dollars in runaway spending.

So given this drastic situation, why has the Democratic leadership tackled this fundamental problem of economic growth by proposing a massive government takeover of healthcare? It will threaten to place our country further in debt with billions in government subsidies to cover unfunded mandates and the federalization of the healthcare insurance industry. Businesses will be forced to pay major fines for not covering employees. Translation: The healthcare proposal will be a mammoth job killing terminator with a federal license to destroy American small business.

Every day that the White House spends on other issues besides working to create the right conditions for positive job growth is another day that millions of unemployed American voters grow angrier. A better idea would be for the majority to just call in sick to work since they aren’t doing the job voters want them to perform. Faking a head cold might be a better approach because if they pass this healthcare bill, many Democrats who vote for it will probably be looking for work after November.

If Democrats don’t pass health care “reform” by March 26, then the two-week Easter recess could end up looking a lot like last August, when the American electorate made it abundantly clear that they did not favor a government takeover of health care. At least that is the intent of some Republicans, according to this story in the Washington Examiner.

“If health care doesn’t get done by Easter,” says Republican Rep. John Shadegg, “then we need to make Easter look like last August.”

The Democrats continue to push the narrative of inevitability, but even that is wearing thin, given that they have been pushing that narrative since last April. One thing for certain: never have the American people been offered such a stark difference in philosophy over the role of government than what the Democrats are trying to ram through Congress in comparison to what the Republicans would offer as solutions.

The question is whether the moderate Democrats will listen to the American people or Nancy Pelosi.

Nancy Pelosi has hit new heights in craziness. Her definition of legislative debate is to pass a bill, then learn what it does. She actually believes that the Democrat health care bill needs to pass, so then the American people can find out what is in it.

Call it the “trust me, you don’t need to know what’s in this bill until after it passes” factor.

“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”

So legislation shouldn’t be debated, because that can be, you know, really confusing… foggy, so to speak.

So Nancy is there to clear up the fog. Isn’t that nice of her?

The Democrat Dictionary version of transparency: read the bill after it passes.

UPDATE: Thanks to a friend of mine who posted it on Facebook, we have a clip of Pelosi’s quote.

Obama will lay out his vision on how to pass comprehensive health care reform today, defying, yet again the will of a majority of Americans who have repeatedly rejected government run health care.

Democrats know they have a short fuse on getting this passed. If they can’t pass a bill by the end of March, it is highly unlikely that they will pass anything this year. The reason is that there is a two-week recess starting on March 26. Democrat leaders know that if their members go back to their districts without a bill passed, there is no way that after two weeks of hearing from their constituents (and right before tax day) that they will pass the bill.

In politics, this is known as raw cynicism.

It is a testament to the ideology of Democrat leadership that they know that their proposal is counter to the will of most Americans, and yet they are determined to pass it any way – and change the rules to get it done.

They will pay dearly for their decision in November, but as Pelosi has said, “this is a once in a lifetime opportunity.”

The next three weeks will be the most important and consequential to the role of government in the lives of the American people as we have seen in my political experience.

And it scares me to death.

Sometimes even I can be shocked by the hubris of Washington, D.C. politicians. It takes a lot, given that I have worked in the town in one way or another for the last 16 years. This quote from Nancy Pelosi about the health care reform issue even leaves me shaking my head.

“They’ve had plenty of opportunity to make their voices heard,” she said on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday morning. “Bipartisanship is a two-way street. A bill can be bipartisan without bipartisan votes. Republicans have left their imprint.”

No, Madame Speaker, a bill cannot be bipartisan if it receives the votes of only one party.

Even if you bought her line that it’s bipartisan because “Republicans have left their imprint,” you would be hard pressed to see what imprint that might be. The truth is that there was no imprint on the House bill passed last November. The only imprint that was something that Pelosi did not want was the language banning federal funding of abortion. That was an amendment drafted by Democrat Bart Stupak. That was Democrat Bart Stupak.

This is how Democrat’s define issues. Call it the “Democrat Dictionary.”  Speaker Pelosi can maintain her delusional belief that the health care bill is bipartisan, but in doing so she greatly enhances the chances that “Speaker” will be dropped from her title after the elections in November.

President Obama’s “health care summit” last week broke very little new policy ground, but one thing is clear: Democrats are determined to pass their health care bill no matter what the American people want.

Some people have asked me why the Democrats would so willfully reject the will of the American people and push try to push this through. Obama and Democrat leadership know that with every passing day, reform becomes harder to pass because the closer we get to election day, the less likely moderate Democrats are to support it. Obama, Pelosi and Reid also know that if they don’t get it done this year, it will never happen, because they are going to lose seats in both the House and the Senate in November.

Another thing to consider is the dynamic of the 2012 election. Rahm Emanuel is the smartest Democrat operative in the nation. He knows politics, and he knows history and he recognizes that if Republicans capture the House in 2010, Obama’s reelection chances in 2012 at least double. Think about Clinton’s ability to “triangulate” with the Republican majority, thereby making him look more reasonable.

So, Rahm and Obama are willing to throw as many House members into the wood chipper as it will take to pass a bill, majority be damned, because a majority is actually bad for Obama after next year. The thing to watch is whether Democrat House members will be more influenced by White House pressure, or by pressure of constituents and voters back home.

In watching the summit, I was struck by a number of things. First, I was very impressed with the Republicans strength on the policy of health care reform. President Obama repeatedly tried to cut off any Republican who spoke about portions of the current plan with which they disagree. On several occasions, the President cut off the speaker and announced that he was interested in what they liked about his plan, not what they didn’t. In other words continuing his theme that bi-partisan reform consists of Republicans agreeing to Democrats ideas.

The Democrats also attempted to dominate the amount of speaking time. The Democrats/President spoke for 233 minutes, with Republicans getting 110 minutes of speaking time. However, the Republicans were very efficient with their time and Sens. Lamar Alexander R-TN), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and House members Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Paul Ryan (R-WI) stood out in particular as hitting the main points with devastating precision. spoke about the need to eliminate (or at least reduce) waste, fraud, and abuse in health care.

At first, the Democrats were somewhat successful in appearing to agree with Republican principles and claiming their bill did many of the things Republicans were proposing. For instance, many Republicans suggested allowing the purchasing of insurance across state lines. Several Democrats insisted that their bill did just that. They were attempting to claim that their “exchanges” would do that; they do not. However, as the summit progressed, Republicans made it clear they were better prepared and had mastered the facts better than the Democrats.

At one point Senator McCain (R-AZ) made a very effective speech, noting how corrupt the process of crafting the legislation had been, including the many sweetheart deals included in the bills to buy votes. This clearly stung Obama, and the best he could come up with was a remark that the election is over – as if McCain’s points were mere political talking points used in campaigns. This was a big win for Republicans.

Finally, President Obama ended the summit by declaring that he has come a long way towards the Republicans by offering his latest proposal (which is largely the Senate-passed bill) and that now it is up to Republicans to decide which Democrat proposals they could accept. He intimated that they had the next several weeks (he mentioned 6 weeks once) to help Democrats pass their bill or he will pull it and Americans will know that Republicans put their political interests before the best interests of Americans. And then, the President noted, “that’s why we have elections.”

The media has played this as having been a “tie, going to Republicans.” If that is the MSM take, than clearly Republicans gained the most out of the summit. As has already been discussed by many commentators, Republicans brought their “A” game, while Democrats came across as mostly parroting talking points, not actually discussing solutions. Even Rush Limbaugh has said that Republicans proved him wrong by how well they did.

Here is a sampling of some of the immediate reaction in the press.

CNN’S DAVID GERGEN: “Intellectually, The Republicans Had The Best Day They’ve Had In Years.  The Best Day They Have Had In Years.” (CNN’s “The Situation Room,” 2/25/10)

· CNN’s DAVID GERGEN: “The Folks In The White House Just Must Be Kicking Themselves Right Now. They thought that coming out of Baltimore when the President went in and was mesmerizing and commanding in front of the House Republicans that he could do that again here today. That would revive health care and would change the public opinion about their health care bill and they can go on to victory. Just the opposite has happened.” (CNN’s “Live,” 2/25/10)

NPR’S MARA LIASSON: “I Think That The Republicans Made Their Arguments Very Well.” (Fox News, 2/25/10)

CNN’S WOLF BLITZER: “It Looks Like The Republicans Certainly Showed Up Ready To Play.” (CNN’s “Live,” 2/25/10)

· CNN’S WOLF BLITZER: “And The Republicans Had Less Speaking Time, But They Took Full Advantage Of Every Minute They Had.” (CNN’s “The Situation Room,” 2/25/10)

THE HILL’S A.B. STODDARD: “I Think We Need To Start Out By Acknowledging Republicans Brought Their ‘A Team.’ They had doctors knowledgeable about the system, they brought substance to the table, and they, I thought, expressed interest in the reform.  I thought in the lecture from Senator John McCain and on the issue of transparency, I thought today the Democrats were pretty much on their knees.” (Fox News’ “Live,” 2/25/10)

CNN’s GLORIA BORGER: “The Republicans Have Been Very Effective Today. They Really Did Come To Play. They Were Very Smart.” (CNN’s “Live,” 2/25/10)

· BORGER: “They took on the substance of a very complex issue. … But they really stuck to the substance of this issue and tried to get to the heart of it and I think did a very good job.” (CNN’s “Live,” 2/25/10)

· BORGER: “They came in with a plan. They mapped it out.” (CNN’s “Live,” 2/25/10)

POLITICO: “By The Afternoon, However, Both Sides Took A More Substantive Approach That Played To The Republicans’ Benefit, given Democratic attempts to portray them as unreasonable and partisan.” (“Six Hours Later, Stalemate Remains,” Politico, 2/25/10)

FOX NEWS’ CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: “The Republicans Really Helped Themselves. The argument against them, it’s the party of no, they have no ideas, they are against anything, they’re nihilists. In fact, they spent seven hours, I think, presenting a very strong case. They’re knowledgeable. They have ideas. They are interested in reform, but they have differences. Lamar Alexander was dazzling, Paul Ryan was rapier sharp in rebutting all of the smoke and mirrors that the democrats had presented.” (Fox News, 2/25/10)

JAMES CARVILLE: “First, In General, You’d Have To Say, By The Most Part Most Of These People Were Pretty Knowledgeable, They Had Done Their Homework … I Thought That Senator Alexander And Senator Coburn Did Great…” (CNN’s “The Situation Room,” 2/25/10)

FOX NEWS’ BRET BAIER: “Republicans Had A Strong Day Making Their Points.” (Fox News’ “Live,” 2/25/10)

WASHINGTON POST’S MICHAEL GERSON: “The Democrats’ Health-Care Ambush Failed”(Michael Gerson, Op-Ed, “The Democrats’ Health-Care Ambush Failed,” The Washington Post, 2/25/10)

President Obama is telling the Justice Department to find a different location than New York City for the terror trial. Mayor Bloomberg had expressed concern about the trial taking place in Manhattan and even liberal Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer wanted it somewhere else.

It begs the question: if you can’t do it in New York, where, pray tell, do you think you can do it? It certainly won’t be well received anywhere else. Maybe since Speaker Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid have been so gung ho about civilian trials of terrorists, they should do the trial in either San Francisco or Las Vegas.

Actually, Vegas seems like the perfect venue. It’s all for show anyway.

This whole episode is going to continue to damage Obama’s credibility on the war on terror, or whatever his administration calls it these days. The bottom line is that terrorists should not be tried in civilian courts in the first place.