Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MJ who wrote (76808)	12/25/2009 2:31:38 PM
From: lorne	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 224750

Got to wonder how much this democrat might have pocketed personally... guess money controls votes..just like hussein obama .. big money got him in the White House IMO. Ben Nelson Attacks Pro-Life Advocates, Defends Pro-Abortion Compromise by Steven Ertelt LifeNews.com Editor December 24, 2009 lifenews.com Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Facing an enormous backlash for becoming the 60th vote for a health care bill that his language allows to fund abortions, Ben Nelson is striking back. In comments both on and off the Senate floor yesterday and today, Nelson lashed out at pro-life advocates and is defending his much-maligned compromise. In a Senate floor speech on Tuesday, Nelson defended the abortion language he added to the Senate-passed health care bill. He said when his legitimate amendment to ban abortions failed, he compromised. "I began the process of trying to find other solutions that I thought equally walled off the use of federal funds and made it clear that no federal funds would be used," he claimed. However, as the head of Nebraska Right to Life informed LifeNews.com, Nelson ditched pro-life advocates by refusing to allow them to provide analysis on the language -- which ultimately was found by every pro-life group to fund abortions. Upset that he is now regarded as a sellout, Nelson struck back. "Now, apparently I didn't say, 'Mother, may I?' in the process of writing that language because others took issue with it, even though they cannot constructively point out how it doesn't prohibit the use of federal funds or wall off those funds or keep them totally segregated. They just didn't like the language," he said. "You know, it's unfortunate, though, to continue to distort and misrepresent what happens here in the body of the Senate. It's difficult enough to have committees, difficult enough to have cooperation. It's difficult enough to have collegiality. When politics are put above policy and productivity, this is what we get," he continued. Nelson said he would be "happy" if the Stupak or original Nelson amendment holds up in the conference committee. Meanwhile, Nelson is coming under fire from the Washington Times, which ran an editorial on Tuesday condemning his compromise as pro-abortion. The Times says, "On Page 41 (lines 5-8) of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's manager amendment, the proposed rules mandate that everyone buying insurance through new exchanges or through the new government-run plan must pay a monthly abortion premium to be used for elective abortion services." "This fee applies 'without regard to the enrollee's age, sex or family status.' That means that people who have no possibility of wanting an abortion themselves will pay for others to have them. On Page 43 (lines 1-7), insurance companies will be required to assess the cost of elective abortion coverage, and on Page 43 (lines 20-22) they are mandated to charge a minimum of at least $1 per enrollee per month to cover abortion," the newspaper notes. "Many Americans wanted to believe Mr. Nelson was a decent man of his word, but the senator caved in when his vote could have made a difference for the lives of the unborn. A politician can't get any more despicable than that," the paper concluded. Even the liberal Washington Post things Nelson is disingenuous. Michael Gerson spoke with Nelson over the phone Thursday morning. Gerson says Nelson "insisted that the legislative language on abortion he accepted accomplishes most or all of what the Stupak amendment does in the House." "Nelson has a background in the insurance industry, and he explained to me in detail how premium payments covering elective abortion would be segregated in his approach. He stands, as far as I can tell, alone among pro-life leaders in this view of the compromise, which is criticized by the National Council of Catholic Bishops, the National Right to Life Committee and Congressman Bart Stupak himself," Gerson added. "The fact remains that the federal government, under the Reid-Nelson approach, would subsidize private health insurance plans that cover abortion – a departure from longstanding policy," Gerson added. "I did not find these explanations compelling," he concluded of Nelson's insistence that his language doesn't fund abortions. ACTION: Respond to Nelson at (202) 224-6551 or bennelson.senate.gov

To: MJ who wrote (76808)	12/25/2009 5:42:51 PM
From: lorne	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 224750

Senate changes 'rules' to protect 'death panels' Fine print would require 67 votes to consider amendments December 22, 2009 By Bob Unruh © 2009 WorldNetDaily wnd.com Sen. Jim DeMint Majority Democrats in the U.S. Senate pushing for President Obama's vision of a government takeover of health care have inserted in the fine print of the 2,000-plus page legislation a provision that it would take a supermajority of 67 votes in the Senate for future legislative bodies to even consider amendments to its provisions for "death panels." The revelation comes from the RedState.com blog, which analyzed the provisions and cited a challenge to the plan from Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C. After being told by Democrats that the provision changing a standing Senate rule didn't actually change the rule but was just a change in the procedure of the rule, DeMint was frustrated: DeMint: "And so the language you see in this bill that specifically refers to a change in a rule is not a rule change, it's a procedure change?" Presiding officer: "That is correct." DeMint: "Then I guess our rules mean nothing, do they, if they can redefine them." RedState's blogger wrote, "If ever the people of the United States rise up and fight over passage of Obamacare, Harry Reid must be remembered as the man who sacrificed the dignity of his office for a few pieces of silver. The rules of fair play that have kept the basic integrity of the Republic alive have died." Specifically, the provision in the legislation forbids considering amendments or changes to the regulations that would be imposed on Americans by the bill's Medical Advisory Boards, panels set up to make decisions about provisions for medical care. Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin at one point famously called them "death panels" because among the decisions they could make would be to withhold life-saving treatments from patients. The provision comes in Section 3403 of Reid's "manager's amendment" to the health care takeover plan that is facing yet another vote in the Senate this week. The bill that would mandate abortion funding nationwide. The bill states, "It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection." That subsection addresses rules and regulations that doctors would be ordered to follow by the "Independent Medicare Advisory Boards a/k/a the Death Panels," RedState reported. The section also orders, "Notwithstanding rule XV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, a committee amendment described in subparagraph (a) may include matter not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Finance if that matter is relevant to a proposal contained in the bill submitted under subsection (c)(3)." "In short, it sets up a rule to ignore another Senate rule," RedState's analysis by Erick Erickson said. DeMint jumped into action, questioning whether the current vote should require a two-thirds supermajority because it changes rules. "I know that there have been amendments to bills that we required two-thirds because they include rule changes," he said. Democrats, however, said the rule change wasn't really a "rule change." DeMint argued his point. "As the chair has confirmed, rule 22, paragraph 2, of the standing rules of the Senate, the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the senators present and voting. Let me go to the bill before us, because buried deep within the over 2,000 pages of this bill, we find a rather substantial change to the standing rules of the Senate… Clearly a rule change. "This is not legislation. It's not law. This is a rule change. It's a pretty big deal. We will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a Senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law. I'm not even sure that it's constitutional," he continued. According to the transcript, the "rule change," however, was determined by majority Democrats to be a "procedural" change instead. "We have included rules changes in this legislation yet we're ignoring a rule that requires a two-thirds cloture vote to pass it. I believe that it's unconstitutional. It subverts the princples that … we've operated under and it's very obvious to everyone that it does change a rule," DeMint continued. "It's clear that our rules mean nothing if we can redefine the words that we use in them." On the blog's forum, one participant said, "Power may shift back to the right in 2010 and 2012. But Fedzilla and its appetite for power grows none-the-less. It is not by accident." Added another, "Aren't they saying that the words mean whatever they say they mean?" One even asked for an exemption to the "no profanity" rule on the blog. "We're being steamrolled by this Congress. The worst part about this story is that the average voter will pay no attention to any story about Senate rules and procedures and the media won't cover it because, well, they're the media." DeMint, in an earlier commentary, raised even more fundamental questions about the health care socialization plans. "There's not a word in the Constitution about the government deciding what medical tests private health insurers should pay for. Nothing about the government deciding how much executives on Wall Street should earn, or what kind of light bulbs and cars we should buy. … There's nothing about these or many other things in the Constitution because they have nothing to do with the proper role of a federal government in a free society," he said.

To: MJ who wrote (76808)	12/26/2009 5:48:22 PM
From: Hope Praytochange	2 Recommendations Respond to of 224750

The Senate Postmortem Every Democrat cast the deciding health-care vote. In the post-dawn hours on Thursday the Senate passed ObamaCare 60 to 39, in the first vote on Christmas Eve since 1895 and after the longest consecutive session in Congress since World War I. We are thus heading toward the first U.S. entitlement program dragged across the finish line on a straight partisan majority, a bill that even its most fervent supporters admit is "flawed" but better than nothing. It is far worse than nothing. The bill itself is an unprecedented arrogation of federal power over one-seventh of the economy, and even its closest antecedents, Medicare and Medicaid, passed in 1965 with the support of both parties. Reflecting the political consensus that has always inspired durable social reform in America, those entitlements cleared the Senate with more than half of the GOP caucus voting in favor. It takes hard partisan work to drive off Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch, John McCain, Bob Bennett, Judd Gregg, Mike Enzi and the Senate's other Republican moderates or deal-makers who earlier this year were prepared to compromise. Some 18 Senate Republicans voted to more than double the size of the children's health insurance program in 2007 over the opposition of President Bush, and Mrs. Snowe and Messrs. Grassley and Hatch and others have long joined with Democrats for health-care subsidy expansions that most Republicans dislike. The GOP had no choice but to oppose this plan or completely abandon its principles. View Full Image Associated Press Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Mrs. Snowe in particular genuinely wanted to support reform, and she voted to send the Finance Committee version to the floor in October. Majority Leader Harry Reid promptly tacked hard to the left, trying, among other things, to resurrect the government-run "public option" that was untenable among Democratic moderates and even the White House had long ago left for dead. The bill Democrats approved on Christmas Eve was drafted "in the shadows, without transparency, just to garner the necessary 60 votes and nothing more," as Mrs. Snowe put it in a statement on Sunday. A law so sweeping and complex that no one can understand it but that will affect the lives of all Americans was thus rushed to passage with little real debate, and less reflection. The Senate considered only 20 of the more than 450 amendments filed. Those votes were revealing nonetheless, showing that certain Democrats oppose core parts of ObamaCare even as they voted for the final version. Nebraska's Ben Nelson—now justly famous for a Medicaid payoff in return for his vote—and Virginia's Jim Webb voted for the McCain amendment that would have stripped out cuts totalling more than $400 billion in future Medicare spending to fund "universal" health insurance. Along with Blanche Lincoln (Arkansas) and Evan Bayh (Indiana), the duo also supported changes that would have excluded tax increases on individuals earning under $200,000, as President Obama promised during his campaign. The tax amendment failed, 45-54. So these Senators were against the heart of the bill before they voted for it, as John Kerry has been known to say. In remarks on Monday after a crucial late night cloture vote to meet an arbitrary Christmas deadline, Mr. Obama added that "Medicare will be stronger and its solvency extended by nearly a decade." But as the Congressional Budget Office noted in a memo on Wednesday, the claim isn't true except on paper, since money taken out of the accounting gimmick of the "trust fund" to pay for subsidies today can't simultaneously be spent on Medicare benefits tomorrow. Messrs. Bayh, Nelson and Webb voted in favor of an amendment sponsored by Mr. Gregg that would have eliminated this double counting. These Democratic fence-sitters and Joe Lieberman ended up killing the public option, but in the end they gave Mr. Reid and the White House what they needed. We trust voters in Nebraska, Louisiana, Indiana, Virginia and elsewhere noticed that these votes ultimately ensured the passage of a bill that will increase insurance costs, retard medical innovation and sorely damage the country's fiscal position. And it may get worse before it becomes law. The left has thrown a faux tantrum over the Senate bill, hoping to leverage changes toward even higher costs and taxes as it now goes to House-Senate conference. Democratic leaders are already saying this won't be the usual conference, with public votes, but will be negotiated by a few barons plus White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel in a backroom. Whatever changes they make to appease the left will be sprung on everyone else and once again rushed through both houses, a la the Senate bill. Every Democrat in the Senate cast the deciding vote for this spectacle, which will soon give them ownership of the U.S. health-care system.