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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sdgla who wrote (557310)	3/28/2010 10:52:34 AM
From: combjelly	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575637

"OK.. I'll bite. Please be more specific." Well, about the only thing true was the bit about the Fonz. Now, true, Obama might eventually destroy the Democratic Party, who knows what the future will bring?, but this bill won't do it. It is more than a little hyperbole to write "Standing in arrogant defiance of the will of the American citizenry". He wasn't arrogant, nor is he in defiance of the will of the American people. Granted, there are some he is in defiance of, but they aren't the majority. And what dirty tricks were pulled? And to paint the grandstanding of some state AG's wasting tax payer money trying to buff their resume for their gubernatorial runs as something good is a bit much. Now, you are quoting something from pajamas media. And they do have a solid track record of not being constrained by rational thought. " You Ulysses E. McGill ?" Since I don't have a clue who that is, I'd say it is a 'no'.

To: Sdgla who wrote (557310)	3/28/2010 12:34:59 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575637

OBAMA'S RESPONSE TO SCANDALOUS OBSTRUCTIONISM.... It's not like Senate Republicans gave President Obama much of a choice. The White House has sent dozens of qualified nominees to the Senate for key government posts. If given up-or-down votes, the nominees would be confirmed, so Republicans have blocked votes at a rate unseen in American history. Consider: at this point in Bush's presidency, there were five nominees pending on the Senate floor. For Obama, the number is 77. The president had to decide whether to tolerate GOP obstructionism undermining the government's ability to function. Obama made his perspective quite clear yesterday afternoon. President Obama, making a muscular show of his executive authority just one day after Congress left for spring recess, said Saturday that he would bypass the Senate and install 15 appointees, including a union lawyer whose nomination to the National Labor Relations Board was blocked last month with the help of two Democrats. Coming on the heels of Mr. Obama's big victory on health care legislation, Saturday's move suggests a newly emboldened president who is unafraid to provoke a confrontation with the minority party. Just two days ago, all 41 Senate Republicans sent Mr. Obama a letter urging him not to appoint the union lawyer, Craig Becker, during the recess. Mr. Obama's action, in defiance of the Republicans, was hailed by union leaders, but it also seemed certain to intensify the partisan rancor that has enveloped Washington. "The United States Senate has the responsibility to approve or disprove of my nominees," Mr. Obama said in a statement. "But if, in the interest of scoring political points, Republicans in the Senate refuse to exercise that responsibility, I must act in the interest of the American people and exercise my authority to fill these positions on an interim basis." The full list of nominees to receive recess appointments is online here. On average, the 15 nominees have waited seven months for an up-or-down vote, but Republicans have blocked them all, knowing that the will of the Senate would lead to their confirmation. This was the first time Obama has made use of this power The president said in a statement, "I simply cannot allow partisan politics to stand in the way of the basic functioning of government." It's worth fully appreciating the extent to which the president's move reflects deep animosity. Kevin Drum explained the context of the National Labor Relations Board move, in particular. Years ago, after Republicans filibustered a Carter nominee to the NLRB, the two parties made a deal: the board would have three appointees from the president's party and two from the other party. So after he took office Obama nominated two Democrats and one Republican to fill the NLRB's three vacant seats and got support from a couple of Republicans on the HELP committee for the entire slate. But when it got to the Senate floor John McCain put a hold on Becker, and his nomination -- along with the others -- died. Fast forward to today and Obama finally decides to fill the board using recess appointments. But what does he do? He only appoints the two Democrats. This is not what you do if you're trying to make nice. It's what you do if you're playing hardball and you want to send a pointed message to the GOP caucus. You won't act on my nominees? Fine. I'll appoint my guys and then leave it up to you to round up 50 votes in the Senate for yours. Have fun. Again, the patient president seemed reluctant to go down this road, but petty Republicans just kept pushing. Yesterday, Obama pushed back.

To: Sdgla who wrote (557310)	3/28/2010 1:01:48 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575637

The GOP's Dirty Health-Care Secret by Matthew Dallek Republicans are screaming that Obamacare’s mandates are a “stunning assault on liberty,” as one put it. That’s ironic, since Richard Nixon, Bob Dole, and Bill Frist all embraced the idea. The new mandate requiring Americans to buy health insurance is “the most egregious, unconstitutional legislation that we can remember,” said South Carolina Republican Attorney General Henry McMaster. He is among more than a dozen state attorneys general who have filed a lawsuit asking the courts to declare the mandate unconstitutional because it is “an unprecedented encroachment” on the rights of both individuals and the states by the federal government. The political scrum that’s erupted over the mandate plan is deeply ironic—given that the idea has been warmly embraced by elements of the right since at least the early 1970s. Far from the “stunning assault on liberty” decried by Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, the individual mandate is partially traceable to conservative embrace of an anti-Medicare, pro-free-market health-reform agenda. President Nixon’s Office of Management and Budget Director Caspar Weinberger believed that providing insurance to all Americans was a worthy goal, for instance. At the same time, he opposed reforms that would expand a government-run health-care system. So, as Daily Beast contributor Adam Clymer recounts in his fine biography of Sen. Ted Kennedy, Weinberger proposed a “solution” that would put the burden on employers “by requiring them to insure their workers.” This was an “employer mandate,” and it appealed to Weinberger among others because it ensured that health care in America would remain in the hands of the private sector, not fall under control of Washington. The bombastic rhetoric characterizing mandates as the end of liberty and the lawsuit filed by the attorneys general have a hypocritical, hyperbolic cast about them. While Nixon-era efforts to enact universal coverage ultimately faltered, the mandate concept didn't die. Instead, the idea that individuals should be required to buy insurance in the private marketplace gained intellectual momentum and attracted its share of political defenders during debates over Bill Clinton's proposals in the early 1990s. Conservatives were drawn to individual mandates for two related reasons. First, they would strengthen rather than undermine the private insurance marketplace. Second, they would provide a constructive laissez-faire alternative to the liberal single-payer approach to achieving the goal of national health insurance. It was conservative because it was a responsible idea friendly to the health-care marketplace—and embraced personal responsibility as a virtue. Author David Frum pointed out in his 1996 essay collection What’s Right: The New Conservative Majority and the Remaking of America that the individual mandate was among three major conservative reform ideas circulating at the time. Endorsed by Stuart Butler of the conservative Heritage Foundation and conservative economists such as Milton Friedman and Wharton’s Mark Pauly, individual mandates as an idea were at least partially generated by pro-free-enterprise intellectuals. “Heritage figured that since everyone in the country was getting some form of health coverage anyway, everyone ought to buy it,” explained Frum. “But unlike most liberal schemes, the Heritage plan imposed the obligation to buy insurance, but on individuals rather than employers.” During the early '90s debate, the individual mandate and Heritage plan generally even came to “[look] like a daring free-market reform.” More than just a dust-gathering think tank idea, the individual mandate won plaudits from some prominent Republican elected leaders. In late 1993, Senate Leader Bob Dole cosponsored legislation with John Chafee that would have required individuals to buy health insurance. More recently, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist praised individual mandates as conservative and welcome steps toward health reform. Not all conservatives have been enamored of the idea, of course. Libertarians “disliked ordering people to buy insurance,” said Frum; even Butler walked away from his plan in the end. (Republicans, like Democrats, have had their own disputes over the smartest, most principled approach to reforming health care and achieving universal coverage.) Still, the bombastic rhetoric characterizing mandates as the end of liberty and the lawsuit filed by the attorneys general have a hypocritical, hyperbolic cast about them. Individual mandates have historically been regarded, at times, as a conservative agenda—one that would deliver on the promise of universal coverage while strengthening the private health-insurance system. It’s no small irony that instead of celebrating the triumph of their market-based approach to reforming health care, some conservatives in 2010 are denouncing the plan as the end of America as we know it. Matthew Dallek teaches history and politics at the University of California’s Washington Center. He is the author of The Right Moment: Ronald Reagan's First Victory and the Decisive Turning Point in American Politics. thedailybeast.com