Combs Spouts Off

"It's my opinion and it's very true."

  • Calendar

    December 2025
    S M T W T F S
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    28293031  

  • Recent Posts

  • Tag Cloud

    al qaeda barbarism big government blogging colorado congress corruption culture democrats denver economics economy elections environmentalism firearms freedom global warming gop gun control guns health care human rights humor iraq islam islamofascism israel journalism leftists liberty media bias military moonbats msm music obama politics presidential candidates republicans socialism soldiers spending terrorism war weather

  • Archives

Posts Tagged ‘health care’

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »

Dems abandon Slaughter plan

Posted by Richard on March 20, 2010

With even some of their supporters criticizing the outrageous and unconstitutional plan to "deem" the Senate health care bill passed without voting on it, House Democrats have backed down and agreed to a vote:

The House Sunday will have to pass a Senate-authored health care bill that many House members don't like. They have crafted a smaller bill that makes changes to the Senate bill, including new language that will exempt labor unions from much of the impact of an excise tax on expensive insurance policies. Democrats wanted to pass the smaller bill and then "deem" the larger, unpopular bill to be passed without ever voting on it directly. But they received considerable backlash, with even Democrats in their own caucus complaining about the tactic.

"We've had sanity prevail here and I'm very pleased about that," said Rep. Dennis Cardoza, D-Calif., who is a member of the House Rules Committee, which on Saturday spent hours debating the bill and the process that will be used to consider it.

According to a top Democratic leadership aide, the House will vote on the smaller bill first, then hold an up or down vote on the Senate bill.

The dirty little secret about the "smaller bill that makes changes to the Senate bill" is that it's of no real consequence. If the House passes the Senate bill unchanged, it's been passed by both houses, and the President can (and will) sign it into law in a heartbeat. The bill with the changes will have to go to the Senate. Once their version is signed into law, what incentive do Senate Democrats have to even seriously consider, much less pass, a bill that makes changes they don't want? 

Call or email the representatives on this list and tell them that if they're planning to vote for the Senate bill because of the changes being made in the separate House bill, they're fools. Or they think their constituents are. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

ObamaCare will create jobs

Posted by Richard on March 19, 2010

The inimitable Mark Steyn (emphasis added):

Last Thursday, the California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board voted to set up a committee to examine whether condoms should be required on all pornographic film shoots.

California has run out of money, but it hasn't yet run out of things to regulate.

For a government regulatory hearing, the testimony was livelier than usual. Porn star Madelyne Hernandez recalled an especially grueling scene in which she had been obliged to have sex with 75 men. The bureaucrats nodded thoughtfully, no doubt contemplating another languorous 18-month committee assignment looking into capping the number of group-sex participants at 60 per scene.

The committee will also make recommendations on whether the "adult" movie industry should be subject to the same regulatory regime and hygiene procedures as hospitals and doctors' surgeries. You mean with everyone in surgical masks? Kinky.

If you've ever been in the filthy wards of Britain's National Health Service, it may make more sense after the passage of ObamaCare to require hospitals to bring themselves up to the same hygiene standards as the average Bangkok porn shoot.

One can make arguments for permitting porn and banning porn, but there isn't a lot to be said for the bureaucratization of porn. Hard to believe there will be California bureaucrats looking forward to early retirement on gold-plated pensions who'll be getting home, sinking into the La-Z-Boy and complaining to the missus about a tough day at the office working on the permits for "Debbie Does The Fresno OSHA Office."

Meanwhile, ObamaCare will result in the creation of at least 16,500 new jobs. Doctors? Nurses? Ha! Dream on, suckers. That's 16,500 new IRS agents, who'll be needed to check whether you — yes, you, Mr. and Mrs. Hopendope of 27 Hopeychangey Gardens — comply with the 15 tax increases and dozens of new federal mandates about to be "deemed" into existence.

This will be the biggest expansion of the IRS since World War Two — and that's change you can believe in. This is what "health" "care" "reform" boils down to: fewer doctors, longer wait times, but more bureaucrats. …

Read. The. Whole. Thing.  

And then go here for the Code Red list of representatives to contact to stop this economy-destroying government takeover of the health care industry. And go here to email your representative and the 58 Blue Dog Democrats. And then go here to add to the more than 1 million faxes sent  to Washington opposing government-run health care. 

We're coming down to the wire, folks, and the Socialist Democrat leaders are trying to paint this as a done deal in order to sway some fence-sitters into voting their way. But they still don't have the votes — if they had the votes, they'd have started the roll call immediately instead of waiting until Sunday. This Obamination of a bill can still be stopped if you make your voice heard loud, long, and often, and start right now.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The truth about health insurance profit margins

Posted by Richard on March 16, 2010

As the President continues, in speech after speech, to demonize the health insurance industry as greedy exploiters of consumers raking in inordinate profits, it seems like a good time to look at the actual data, which refute such demagoguery.

Dr. Mark J. Perry did exactly that last month in a Carpe Diem post. He found that the Health Care Plan industry ranked 88th out of 215 industries, with a profit margin of 3.4% (and even that was inflated by one outlier, Wellpoint, due to a one-time surge in profits from the sale of a division).

Perry did the heavy mathematical lifting of calculating just what that profit margin means for the typical consumer (emphasis added): 

America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the industry's trade association representing 1,300 members, reported last October that annual health insurance premiums averaged $2,985 for individual coverage and $6,328 for family plans in 2009. Using the industry average profit margin of 3.4% means that insurance companies make about $100 per policy in profits for individual coverage, and a little more than $200 in profits for each family policy.

So even if we could strip away 100% of the health insurance industry's profits, it would only save patients between $100 and 200 per year in health insurance costs.

Wow. $100 to $200 per year. So if the government take-over of health care is enacted and completely wipes out the private health care insurance industry (and make no mistake, that will be the long-term consequence), it might save each of us $100 to $200 per year. But only if a bunch of government bureaucrats can deliver the same quality of service with no increase in overhead or decrease in efficiency. 

If you believe that will happen, you're not familiar with the Postal Service. Or the Social Security Administration. Or the Veterans Administration. Or the Department of Education. Or the DMV. Or …

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

When will the time for talk really be over?

Posted by Richard on March 16, 2010

I thought it was about a week ago that President Obama, at a campaign-style rally, argued that everything to be said about health care "reform" had already been said and that "The time for talk is over," so I Googled it. I was apparently remembering his speech on March 8 in Philly. But according to Google, he also said it on March 11. And February 5. And December 18. And July 21. And who knows how many more (I didn't check all 603,000 hits).

So if the time for talk has been over since last summer, why has the Prez continued giving the same demagogic and tiresome speech, misrepresenting the bill and the opposition to it ("some people say we should do nothing"), about three times a week for eight months? Why does he keep trotting out poster children for "reform" like Natoma Canfield (who, contrary to what Obama implied, is in no danger of losing her house and is receiving top-notch care at the excellent Cleveland Clinic)? 

Apparently, when the Prez says, "The time for talk is over," he really means, "The time for the rest of you to talk is over. Just shut up and do what I tell you."

Personally, I think the time for talk is over, too. And so is the time for vote-buying, deal-making, rule-breaking, threats, and subversion of the democratic process. Stop it all and hold a roll-call vote in the House right now. Or tomorrow morning. Under Roberts' Rules of Order, calling the question is almost always in order. Isn't there some equivalent rule in the House? The Republicans should do whatever is possible under House rules to force a vote right now. 

Clearly, if Pelosi had the votes to ram through this government take-over of the health care industry, the roll would already have been called. Do these rabid socialist ideologues get an indefinite period of time to cajole, bribe, and coerce more of their own party into line? I should hope not. Somebody call the question!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Slaughtering our form of government

Posted by Richard on March 12, 2010

Just when you think Congressional Democrats can't get any more brazen, contemptible, and outrageous in their effort to cram government-controlled health care down our throats despite overwhelming opposition by the American people, along comes the "Slaughter Solution." Mark Tapscott explains (emphasis added):

Would House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her fellow House Democratic leaders try to cram the Senate version of Obamacare through the House without actually having a recorded vote on the bill?

Not only is the answer yes, they would, they have figured out a way to do it, according to National Journal's Congress Daily:

"House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday.

"Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.

…

Each bill that comes before the House for a vote on final passage must be given a rule that determines things like whether the minority would be able to offer amendments to it from the floor.

In the Slaughter Solution, the rule would declare that the House "deems" the Senate version of Obamacare to have been passed by the House. House members would still have to vote on whether to accept the rule, but they would then be able to say they only voted for a rule, not for the bill itself.

Why don't the Socialist Democrats just drop the fig leaf of representative government entirely? They could save a lot of time and pointless posturing and pretense if the President simply deems the bill to have passed both Houses of Congress and immediately signs it into law. Come fall, Reid and Pelosi could shepherd through rules deeming all the incumbent Democrats to have been reelected. Then the President could deem the Constitution to have been amended and declare himself President for Life. 

I deem these people to be enemies of the Constitution, our liberties, and our way of life. 

Go here right now to quickly send an email to your congresscritter and to the 58 members of the Blue Dog Democrat coalition. Tell them how angry you are and how adamently opposed to this outrageous attempt to rule against the will of the people and impose government control of health care on us. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Why voters are rejecting ObamaCare

Posted by Richard on March 10, 2010

In Tuesday's Wall Street Journal, Scott Rasmussen (president of Rasmussen Reports) and Doug Schoen (pollster for President Clinton) examined the polling numbers on ObamaCare. They noted that the numbers have been remarkably stable. For the past four months, the percentage opposed has ranged from 52% to 58%. More significantly, the percentage strongly opposed has been about double the percentage strongly in favor (41% to 20% in the most recent survey).

A deeper analysis suggests some reasons why, despite their best efforts, the President and his lackeys minions allies haven't been able to budge the numbers (emphasis added): 

… Polling conducted earlier this week shows that 57% of voters believe that passage of the legislation would hurt the economy, while only 25% believe it would help. That makes sense in a nation where most voters believe that increases in government spending are bad for the economy.

When the president responds that the plan is deficit neutral, he runs into a pair of basic problems. The first is that voters think reducing spending is more important than reducing the deficit. So a plan that is deficit neutral with a big spending hike is not going to be well received.

But the bigger problem is that people simply don't trust the official projections. People in Washington may live and die by the pronouncements of the Congressional Budget Office, but 81% of voters say it's likely the plan will end up costing more than projected. Only 10% say the official numbers are likely to be on target.

As a result, 66% of voters believe passage of the president's plan will lead to higher deficits and 78% say it's at least somewhat likely to mean higher middle-class taxes. Even within the president's own political party there are concerns on these fronts.

None of this matters to the socialist ideologues determined to "transform" America, as I noted on Sunday. They're going to try to defy the American people no matter what the political cost.

Tea Party Patriots announced today that National Coordinator Jenny Beth Martin has been told by two "reliable sources" in Washington that the Blue Dog Democrats are starting to cave and that House Speaker Pelosi may soon have the votes to pass the Senate bill. If you want to help stop this "Obamination" from destroying our country, take action now! Follow that link to see TPP's recommendations for what you can do now, along with lists of congresscritters to contact and how to do so. Check their calendar for scheduled events in your area. A personal visit to a representative's local office is the best thing you can do, as TPP noted: 

The absolute most effective thing that you can do is to go to the office of the Congressmen who are on the fence and still undecided on this government takeover of health care bill. Let the Undecided Congressmen see the live faces of the people who do not want this health care bill shoved down our throats. Make them look in your eyes.

But if you can't do that (or you know it's pointless with your particular congresscritter), phone calls are good. So are emails. Even blast emails and blast faxes sent through one of the many organizations that make that easy for you (here's one) are better than sitting back and doing nothing.

As Mark Steyn explained in the column I quoted from on Sunday, the stakes are immense.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Dems want fundamental change at any price

Posted by Richard on March 8, 2010

A few days ago, I saw Bob Beckel argue that if the Republicans really believed that passing ObamaCare will be a disaster for the Democratic Party, they'd lay off a bit and let it pass to assure themselves of success in November. Beckel is a political hack, not a man of ideas. His argument is based on the assumption (itself no doubt based on projection) that people like John Kyl, Steve Shadegg, and Paul Ryan would put their party's success ahead of the nation's future.

The people in power in the Democratic Party aren't like Beckel. They're hard-core ideologues, and they're willing to sacrifice their strong majorities in Congress and even a second Obama term in order to fundamentally transform America. The inimitable Mark Steyn understands what's at stake: 

… I've been saying in this space for two years that the governmentalization of health care is the fastest way to a permanent left-of-center political culture. It redefines the relationship between the citizen and the state in fundamental ways that make limited government all but impossible. In most of the rest of the Western world, there are still nominally "conservative" parties, and they even win elections occasionally, but not to any great effect (Let's not forget that Jacques Chirac was, in French terms, a "conservative").

The result is a kind of two-party one-party state: Right-of-center parties will once in a while be in office, but never in power, merely presiding over vast left-wing bureaucracies that cruise on regardless.

Republicans seem to have difficulty grasping this basic dynamic. … The Democrats understand that politics is not just about Tuesday evenings every other November, but about everything else, too.

…

Once the state swells to a certain size, the people available to fill the ever-expanding number of government jobs will be statists – sometimes hard-core Marxist statists, sometimes social-engineering multiculti statists, sometimes fluffily "compassionate" statists, but always statists. The short history of the post-war welfare state is that you don't need a president-for-life if you've got a bureaucracy-for-life: The people can elect "conservatives," as the Germans have done and the British are about to do, and the Left is mostly relaxed about it because, in all but exceptional cases (Thatcher), they fulfill the same function in the system as the first-year boys at wintry English boarding schools who, for tuppence-ha'penny or some such, would agree to go and warm the seat in the unheated lavatories until the prefects strolled in and took their rightful place.

Republicans are good at keeping the seat warm. A bigtime GOP consultant [ed.: the Republican equivalent of Bob Beckel] was on TV, crowing that Republicans wanted the Dems to pass Obamacare because it's so unpopular it will guarantee a GOP sweep in November.

OK, then what? You'll roll it back – like you've rolled back all those other unsustainable entitlements premised on cobwebbed actuarial tables from 80 years ago? Like you've undone the federal Department of Education and of Energy and all the other nickel'n'dime novelties of even a universally reviled one-term loser like Jimmy Carter? Andrew McCarthy concluded a shrewd analysis of the political realities thus:

"Health care is a loser for the Left only if the Right has the steel to undo it. The Left is banking on an absence of steel. Why is that a bad bet?"

A commenter at Big Journalism put it well: 

A lot of conservatives seem to grasp the idea of Islamic extremists who proclaim "we love death more than you love life", but don't allow for the possibilty that extreme leftists may cherish "the fundamental transformation of America" more than a reelection.

Don't sit back and say, "Just wait until November." And don't tolerate anyone who does. Our values, our liberty, our way of life — all the things that make the United States better than the sclerotic Eurosocialist states are at stake in this battle. ObamaCare must be stopped!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Paul Ryan: Hiding spending doesn’t reduce spending

Posted by Richard on February 26, 2010

Based on Ann Althouse's recommendation (HT: Instapundit, who has other good comments and links), I watched this 6-minute video of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) at the health care summit. Excellent command of the fiscal facts, delivery, and a closing that emphasized the liberty issue. This guy has a bright future. Check it out:


[YouTube link]

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Health care summit summary

Posted by Richard on February 26, 2010

I didn't watch any of today's health care kabuki theater, and I've only done a cursory review of the news, analysis, and opinion pieces about it. But here's what I've gathered happened.

The Republicans offered substantive, well-reasoned alternative proposals, pointed out serious problems with the Democrats' massive plan, and exposed the Democrats' untruths about that plan. 

The Democrats counter-argued as follows: 

One of my constituents had to take her kid to the emergency room, and … and … it wasn't even an emergency! That shouldn't happen in America!

One of my constituents had to wear her dead sister's false teeth! That shouldn't happen in America!

One of my constituents had her face gnawed off by badgers! That shouldn't happen in America!

The President concluded by appealing to bipartisanship: 

I've decided all the Republican ideas suck. I hope some of you Republicans will see the light and embrace what I've decided is best for America. But it really doesn't matter, because we're going ahead with it anyway. Forget what I said about the importance of the filibuster and the sanctity of Senate rules and tradition back when I was a Senator for a few months. We're going to cram this thing down your throats with 51 votes!

 That's about all there was to it. 

Oh, yeah, I almost forgot — there was that issue of equal time and fairness. The Republicans objected to the fact that Obama and the Democrats got much more time than they did. The President countered with something like this: 

My time doesn't count because I've decided not to count it. And I'm the President. So there.

The final tally, according to the Republicans: Obama, 119 minutes; other Democrats, 114 minutes; Republicans, 110 minutes.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Fleeing Canada for health care choice

Posted by Richard on February 23, 2010

A statist politician presiding over a government with a single-payer health care system has uttered the most succinct, pithy, and on-point argument possible against government-controlled health care. Via Mark Steyn:

If I were minded to make a health care TV ad, I'd rustle up the Premier of Newfoundland's interview on NTV last night. Justifying his decision to eschew the pleasures of the monopoly government health care system he presides over for heart surgery in a Florida hospital, Danny Williams told his fellow Newfs:

It's my health, it's my choice.

As Scaramouche points out, there's your slogan. 

By the way, the Canadian state does not accept that proposition, which is why, if a Canadian such as Mr Williams wishes to exercise his choice he is obliged to leave the country.

If the Democrats cram Obamacare down our throats, where will Premier Danny Williams and his countrymen go to exercise health care choice? Where will we go? 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Obama touts Vegas, Obamacare, and dental hygiene

Posted by Richard on February 20, 2010

I've got a bumper sticker from the Independence Institute that has a circle-slashed Obama logo and says "He's not my doctor" (a take-off on the one popular among leftists during the Bush years that said "He's not my president"). Now I think I need another one that says "He's not my dentist, either."

While in Sin City today trying to prop up the fading electoral hopes of Harry Reid, the President completely forgot that he'd previously denounced corporate meetings in Las Vegas as unseemly and gambling trips to Las Vegas as irresponsible. Suddenly, he was cheering for the Vegas tourism industry he'd done such harm to earlier. 

Las Vegas Mayor Oscar Goodman still refused to meet with the President.

But this is really about dentistry. Presented with a "What's in it for me?" question about Obamacare from a dentist, the President "hoped" that it would include dental and vision coverage. Hey, the new plan that Obama, Reid, and Pelosi have been crafting in secret is reportedly all but finished — so he should know what it includes, shouldn't he? 

According to the President, cavities in children are a "huge" national problem that hinders their ability to get a good education. Really. 

And he wants everyone to floss. I wouldn't be surprised if the new Obamacare plan included an individual mandate to floss. And wash behind your ears. 


[YouTube link]

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Coming to America — for health care

Posted by Richard on February 3, 2010

From Mark Perry:

CANADA'S NATIONAL POST — Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams will undergo heart surgery later this week in the United States. He is expected to be away from four to six weeks.
A decision to leave Canada for the surgery, especially if it is available here, raises questions about the Premier's confidence in Newfoundland's health care system.

MP: This raises the question: Where will U.S. politicians go for heart surgery if we ever adapt Canadian-style health care?

Thanks to Bob Wright.

Good question. There are other good questions, too. What about the average Canadian who can't afford to come to the U.S. for health care and simply has to wait his turn on the long waiting list? What about the average American if ObamaCare gets rammed through (they're still working feverishly to accomplish that) and we're all in the same boat as the Canadians? 

And why are the clowns in Congress and the White House intent on emulating the socialist health care systems of countries whose leaders flee those systems and pay dearly to get treated here instead?

UPDATE: Investor's Business Daily noted that the independently wealthy Williams couldn't get "world class" treatment in Canada, even if he paid for it himself, because the government controls even private care: 

That means long lines of rationing as well as lower-quality care. It's so bad that even the premier prefers to head to the States.

He's not alone. Other premiers, including Quebec's Robert Bourassa in 1990, have sought that care, as has Member of Parliament Belinda Stronach in 2007. According to the Fraser Institute, 41,000 Canadians, or 1% of the population, were referred by their own doctors for nonemergency medical care abroad in 2009, a rise of about 10% from a year earlier.

Thousands more don't even wait for a referral, leaving the country to seek treatment on their own. Clinics in U.S. cities like Buffalo, Seattle and Detroit do a booming business with Canadian medical tourists. Canadian newspapers are filled with U.S. doctors advertising their services.

For the wealthy Williams, U.S. health care paid for out of pocket is a viable option. Not so for Canada's poor. If the U.S. moves to a Canadian-style health care model, not even the rich will be able to run from the unpleasant side effects of a socialist system.

The same kinds of controls that mandate rationing and lower-quality care even for paying, private patients in Canada are built into the U.S. Senate and House health care take-over bills. The ones we simply have to stop.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Make the negotiations open

Posted by Richard on January 14, 2010

Remember when candidate Obama promised transparency in the creation of a health care plan, that negotiations would "be on C-SPAN," and that "the public will be part of the conversation and will see the choices being made"? Newt Gingrich remembers, and he has the video:


[YouTube link]

In a Dec. 30 letter [PDF], Brian Lamb, CEO of C-SPAN, asked the President and the leadership of the House and Senate to "open all important negotiations, including any conference committee meetings, to electronic media coverage" and pleaded with them "to allow the public full access, through television, to legislation that will affect the lives of every single American."

The campaign promises were broken. Lamb's plea was ignored. The secret meetings to craft a government take-over of health care continue. Nothing — not even the overwhelming opposition of the voting public — can be allowed to slow their headlong rush toward socialism.

Today, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid met for eight hours behind closed doors in the White House, and they're rumored to be "very close" to having put together a deal. A deal that we know almost nothing about, and probably won't even have a chance to read before Pelosi and Reid try to ram it through Congress without debate. 

This is outrageous, arrogant, elitist, and profoundly undemocratic. Please sign the Center for Health Transformation's letter to the President and Congress calling for open negotiations and the posting of all legislative language on thomas.gov. And contact your senators and representative. This has to stop!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Gov. Ritter is latest Dem to bail

Posted by Richard on January 5, 2010

On the heels of the news that Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) won't seek reelection and that Sen. Chris Dodd, too, has decided to slink away quietly rather than face a humiliating defeat, Denver's 7News has now reported that Gov. Bill Ritter has also pulled the plug on his reelection campaign:

DENVER — Gov. Bill Ritter, who was in for a tough re-election fight this year, canceled a scheduled fundraiser on Tuesday night and has decided not to seek re-election, according to Democratic sources familiar with the governor’s plans.

There was no word on why Ritter chose not to seek re-election.

The Call7 Investigators have learned that a press conference will be held Wednesday.

The "leak" came out of Washington, suggesting that the DNC and/or Obama administration are behind his sudden interest in spending more time with his family. It's rumored that he'll get an appointment to a job in the Obama administration — maybe Czar of Whatever We Don't Already Have a Czar For. 

It's also rumored that the purpose of having the unpopular Ritter step aside is to entice State Rep. Andrew Romanoff into abandoning his primary challenge to the equally unpopular Sen. Michael Bennet and going for the governor's race: 

ABC News is reporting that former Rep. Scott McInnis is the likely GOP nominee and will have a far clearer shot at becoming governor in an open seat race. Colorado is likely to now be a potentially good pickup opportunity for Republicans.

However, Democrats are far from ready to concede the race just yet, ABC News reported. Former House Speaker Andrew Romanoff has been a thorn in the national Democrats side with his primary challenge to appointed Sen. Michael Bennet. Several Democrats believe Romanoff will now take a serious look at the governor’s race instead of continuing his Senate battle.

Ritter's decision may have been influenced by his dismal poll numbers, like a recent Rasmussen poll showing him trailing McInnis by 40% to 48%.

If poll numbers are any indication, we may see a bunch of congressional Democrats deciding to spend more time with their families. Among likely voters, the Democrats are cratering in Rasmussen's generic congressional ballot (emphasis added): 

Republican candidates start the year by opening a nine-point lead over Democrats, the GOP's biggest in several years, in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot.

The new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 44% would vote for their district’s Republican congressional candidate while 35% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.

…

The latest generic ballot numbers highlight a remarkable change in the political environment during 2009. When President Obama was inaugurated, the Democrats enjoyed a seven-point advantage on the Generic Ballot. That means the GOP has made a net gain of 16 percentage points over the course of the year. Support for Democrats has declined eight points since Obama's inauguration while Republican support is up nine points.

…

There has been a notable shift this week among women, who now favor Republicans slightly 40% to 38%. Last week, women favored Democrats 45% to 38%. Men prefer Republicans 49% to 32%, showing little change over the past week.

Among all voters not affiliated with either party, the GOP leads 48% to 17%.

That last set of numbers really strikes me. Among independent voters, support for the Democratic candidate is in the toilet.

If that isn't enough to give Dems everywhere pause, maybe the polling numbers from that bluest of blue states, Massachusetts, will do so. Among likely voters, Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley leads Republican Scott Brown by only nine points. And if you dig further into the numbers, they're even more disturbing for Coakley (emphasis added): 

Twenty-one percent (21%) of those likely to vote in the special election have a very favorable opinion of Coakley, while 22% have a Very Unfavorable view.

For Brown, the numbers are 25% very favorable and 5% very unfavorable.

Special elections are typically decided by who shows up to vote and it is clear from the data that Brown’s supporters are more enthusiastic. In fact, among those who are absolutely certain they will vote, Brown pulls to within two points of Coakley. That suggests a very low turnout will help the Republican and a higher turnout is better for the Democrat.

I donated a few bucks to Brown a while back. A Brown victory is very much a long shot (Dems have something like a 6-1 voter registration advantage in Massachusetts), but I figure if he can get within a few percentage points, it should scare the beejeebus out of a bunch of Dems. Maybe make them think twice about supporting Obamacare and the rest of the headlong rush to a Socialist America. 

And if, by some miracle, Brown pulls off a win — wouldn't it be the most delicious irony ever to have the deciding "No" vote on Obamacare cast by the man elected to replace Ted Kennedy?

I can dream, can't I? 🙂 If you'd like to help the dream, go here and contribute what you can. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 3 Comments »

The beginning of the end for democracy

Posted by Richard on December 23, 2009

The Senate health care bill contains a provision so outrageously anti-democratic, unconstitutional, and fraudulent that Harry Reid and everyone associated with it ought to be tarred, feathered, and ridden out of Washington on a rail. Bill Wilson of Americans for Limited Government blasted it (emphasis added):

In the Reid Substitute, under Section 3403 in a section entitled “Limitations on Changes to this Subsection,” it 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.”

Section 3403 establishes the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (IMAB), which would “reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending” under the Reid substitute. Wilson said that is “rationing.”

“The whole purpose of this panel is to ration health care to seniors, no question,” Wilson said.

…

The Senate rules change was exposed on the floor of the Senate by Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), as reported by the National Review Online. Senator DeMint said, “This is not legislation. This is 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 repeal the law.”

A Senate rule change requires a two-thirds vote. And the Senate cannot constitutionally enact a rule that binds the House: 

“This is completely unconstitutional,” Wilson noted, pointing to Article I, Section 5 of the Federal Constitution, which states: “Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings…”

But the Democrats' lapdog parliamentarian simply dismissed Sen. DeMint's objection. I'm sure if this abomination of a bill is passed, the same pissant parliamentarian will dutifully rule that this provision, once enacted, can't be changed without a two-thirds vote. So, without a two-thirds majority, the Democrats are going to enact a provision that can't be changed without a two-thirds majority! 

Reid applied this rule change only to the section dealing with IMAB and not to the whole bill. I guess that shows how critical he thinks this board, which will control who gets what care when, is to their total control of health care. And it shows he doesn't have the balls to go all-out just yet. 

But this is a first cautious step down the road these Democratic Socialists sorely want to travel. If this bill passes and this outrageous rule change stands, I predict we'll see many more efforts to enact unrepealable legislation in the future. This is a means to ensure that even if they lose their majority, the changes they enact now can never be reversed (at least as long as they control at least a third of the votes).

The Democratic Socialists running this country, from the President to the Senate and House leadership and down through the ranks of their rabidly leftist minions, are profoundly undemocratic at heart. Think about the implications of enacting laws that can't be changed or repealed: if broadly applied, future elections become irrelevant. The people who know what's best for us are decreeing how we are to be governed (in defiance of strong public opposition), and we will not be able to overrule their decisions. Ever.

If this effort succeeds and is replicated, we're on our way to no longer being a democratic republic.

Hugo Chavez no doubt approves. 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »