The American Spectator

"No Guarantees"

Posted by Philip Klein on 11.7.09 @ 2:53PM

The House is in the midst of a 4 hour debate ahead of a vote sometime tonight on the health care bill. House Minority Leader John Boehner just asked Rep. Henry Waxman if he could guarantee that the Stupak amendment to prevent federal funds from being used to cover abortion will survive once the bill is reconciled with the Senate. The idea, of course, is that Democrats are using the Stupak amendment as a means to attract the votes of pro-life Democrats who are currently on the fence about supporting the larger bill, even though it could (and quite possibly will) be stripped down the road. In response to Boehner, Waxman said if the Stupak amendment passes it will become the position of the House heading into negotiations with the Senate, but he could offer "no guarantees" as to whether the anti-abortion language would make it into the final bill.

The vote on the Stupak amendment raises an interesting dilemma for pro-life Republicans. Do they vote for the Stupak amendment even though it will, presumably, make it easier for Nancy Pelosi to secure passage of the health care bill? Or do they block the amendment to help kill the bill as a whole, even if it means losing their best opportunity to make sure tax dollars aren't subsidizing abortions?  Then again, the best means of preventing tax money from funding abortions is to make sure the health care bill doesn't pass in the first place. Phil Kerpen of Americans for Prosperity is urging Republicans to vote "present" on the Stupak amendment as part of the greater effort to kill the bill. Of course, the risk of doing that is that they could vote down the Stupak amendment, and still see the bill pass anyway, only without the pro-life protections. Tough call.  

UPDATE: Bart Stupak says there are 225 votes to pass his amendment, Roll Call reports..

1 Comment | Add a Comment

Government Takeover is a Double-Edged Sword

Posted by Philip Klein on 11.7.09 @ 11:47AM

Liberals are upset that Democrats gave in and supported a vote on an amendment to prohibit federal funds from being used to subsidize abortions.

"They totally caved because they couldn’t find the votes for their bill. Now they’ll try to jam it down the throats of pro-choice Dems," writes David Dayen on Fire Dog Lake, who describes the measure as a "ban abortion coverage in the private individual and small group market by passing the bill tomorrow."

The Washington Post's Ezra Klein laments that, "Because of the limits placed on the exchanges, most of the participants will have some form of premium credit or affordable subsidy. That means most will be ineligible for abortion coverage."

The New Republic's Jon Cohn, meanwhile, writes that the measure would make it "more likely that millions of American women will no longer be able to purchase insurance that covers abortion services"

But there should be a very important lesson in this. If you don't want government to be involved with dictating what kind of insurance people can purchase with their own money, then don't support a health care bill that forces individuals to purchase government-designed insurance policies from a government-run store.

2 Comments | Add a Comment

Too Big To Succeed

Posted by Greg Scandlen on 11.7.09 @ 10:01AM

I participate in a number of discussion groups, often with highly educated experts in health policy. In recent months it has become increasingly difficult to even discuss the health reform proposals. There are so many versions and iterations of all these bills and amendments that it has become nearly impossible to discuss any of it. And some of it isn’t even exposed yet, like Reid’s bill. CBO keeps scoring this, that and the other, and it is hard to match up the particular CBO score with the right bill or amendment, let alone compare specifics.

Yet every provision is critically important, and not just by itself, but how it interacts with the other provisions.

It feels like a shell game, and it is small wonder people are edgy about the whole enterprise. Too many moving parts, too little clarity, too much rhetoric and jargon, and all tainted with political ambitions.

I think we are way beyond what the legislative process is capable of doing. There is literally no one in Washington who knows what it is they are voting on anymore.

It would be far better to take all these topics one bite at a time, by which I mean separate bills for --

-- Medicare payment reform
-- Insurance regulation
-- Assistance to the needy
-- Management technology upgrades
-- Workforce initiatives
-- Quality improvement initiatives
-- Professional liability reform

Each of these is complex by itself. Blending them all together into a single bill is simply impossible.

For example, I agree that we need to completely overhaul the regulatory regime currently in place for insurance. Each state has completely different statutes for the individual, small group, and large group markets. Some states have separate regulations for Blue plans, commercial companies, and HMOs. Then ERISA exempts self-funded employers from any state regulation. Regulatory reform is an enormous challenge all by itself and the current bills are way too vague on how, or even whether, that is supposed to happen. For instance, it is not at all clear what will be the state and federal roles for regulating carriers that participate in the Exchange. Who oversees their solvency, reserves, accounting, investment practices? If a company markets exclusively through a national Exchange, what is its state of domicile? Will HMOs continue to be regulated by separate agencies than other carriers as they are in California? Who will regulate brokers?

Or take the workforce issue. We are facing substantial shortages of primary care physicians and nurses as the Baby Boom generation retires. Expanding insurance coverage will aggravate the problem. Plus there are new technologies coming on-line all the time. How do we get enough technicians to run the machines?

 It is not just a matter of giving scholarships to med students or opening more slots in dental schools. The whole licensure and oversight regime currently in place needs to be re-examined. Everyone who looks at it concludes it is a mess. Why at least could there not be interstate reciprocity for licensing and disciplinary actions? Why can’t a physician who is licensed in Arizona prescribe drugs for patients in New Mexico? Or how is it that a doctor who is disciplined in one state can set up shop in the adjoining state?

And on and on and on. Because this thing is so big, we are not paying enough attention to the critically important REAL issues.

6 Comments | Add a Comment

Down to the Wire in the House, Focus Turns to Abortion

Posted by Philip Klein on 11.7.09 @ 9:52AM

As of now, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is still intent on pushing though health care legislation at some time tonight. With all Republicans expected to vote against it, Pelosi needs to make sure she doesn't lose 40 Democratic votes, or else she won't get the 218 votes needed to pass. According to the Politico, at least 23 Democrats are firm no votes at the moment.

President Obama is scheduled to visit the Capitol today to make a late push for Democratic votes, while House Republicans have called for another "House Call" protest in front of the Capitol today at 1 p.m.

The big news this morning is that there will be a floor vote later today on anti-abortion Democrat Rep. Bart Stupak's amendment to apply the Hyde language to the current health care legislation, which would mean that the government plan could not pay for abortion, and women could not use federal subsidies to purchase health insurance policies that cover abortion.

Liberals have said that they could not vote for a bill if it includes the amendment, because they argue it would go beyond the language of the Hyde amendment since women would also be applying some of their own money to purchase insurance through the exchange.

“I forsee a return to the dark ages,” Alcee Hastings warned, according to the Hill. “I’m 73, I’ve seen these dark things, they use these coat hangers and die.”

And Planned Parenthood in a statement, declared, "A vote for Rep. Stupak’s amendment is a vote to weaken women’s access to comprehensive reproductive care and to take away private benefits that women currently have."

Jan Schakowsky, on C-SPAN this morning, drew a distinction between today's vote, which she called the "first step" and the vote on the ultimate bill once it gets reconciled with whatever comes out of the Senate. She said if the final bill includes the Stupak amendment, she would vote against it.

1 Comment | Add a Comment

Alabama vs. LSU and Nancy Pelosi vs. the American People

Posted by Robert Stacy McCain on 11.7.09 @ 6:52AM

A struggle of world-historical importance will take place today when the University of Alabama hosts the LSU Tigers in Tuscaloosa. Yet we who care about this existential crisis of civilization -- SEC football is rivaled only by NASCAR as an unassailable bastion of American exceptionalism -- are being forced to suffer an unwelcome distraction.

Nancy Pelosi wants a House vote on health care today, and a major motivation for her panic-struck haste is the desire to funnel taxpayer support to Abortion Inc.:

Planned Parenthood and other pro-abortion groups have been hit hard by the economic meltdown -- seems a lot of their supporters were Bernie Madoff's friends like Jeffrey Picower -- and this is one reason there is such a frantic urgency for the "public option" on the Left.
Ann Coulter has said that abortion is the sacrament of the Church of Liberalism, and the Democrats desperately fear that they're missing opportunities to kill babies because of the funding shortage caused by the bankruptcy of their Ponzi-scheming friends. So now they want to bankrupt the rest of us to bail out the baby-killers, and trying to do it secretly by sneaking through their plan on a football Saturday.

This is not merely wrong, it's evil. Stop ObamaCare now. And Roll, Tide, Roll!

10 Comments | Add a Comment

Golden State Showdown

Posted by Philip Klein on 11.6.09 @ 7:17PM

Earlier today, Brian noted the endorsement race between former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina and California Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, but I thought I'd add a few broader points about the sure-to be contentious California Senate primary.

It's pretty clear that DeVore, who has less built-in fundraising advantages and lacks institutional support, will try to Scozzafava-ize Fiorina. Essentially, his best bet is to portray her as a liberal who is being thrust upon voters by the establishment, while he tries to galvanize grassroots activists -- and grab the online donations that go along with it. This much was pretty clear when DeVore spoke at a Spectator Newsmaker Breakfast in August. At the time, Fiorina wasn't even running yet, but he blasted her as a "rich moderate" and "self-funded dilettante."

Fiorina, for her part, comes into the race with more institutional support and should have plenty of financial resources, so her challenge will be to calm fears that she's really just another liberal Republican, while at the same time making the case that she'll be more electable statewide.

When it came to New York's 23rd Congressional race, the case for Doug Hoffman was a no-brainer for conservatives. Scozzafava was a liberal on both economic and social issues -- as evidenced by her ultimate endorsement of Bill Owens -- and she was running in a district where a conservative candidate had a reasonable chance of victory. Things are a bit more murky in California. It's much harder to see somebody who describes himself as a movement conservative winning a state that Obama carried by 24 points than it was to see the possibility of Hoffman winning a district that Obama carried by 5. And while Scozzafava had a very clear liberal record, it's not yet clear where Fiorina is ideologically. For what it's worth, in a recent interview Fiorina said she did not support the Wall Street bailout or economic stimulus package, which would put her to the right of Charlie Crist on the issue. On abortion, she said that she believes that life begins at conception and that she's "personally pro-life" while adding that government policy should be focused on reducing abortions and promoting adoption. She also said that she's opposed to government funding for abortion. I imagine that social conservatives will want to hear a bit more on this front, because when some politicians say they're "personally pro-life" it still means that they think it should be up to each individual woman whether or not to choose abortion. But either way, her remarks certainly put her well to the right of Scozzafava, who was openly pro-choice.

So I think there are a lot of factors that will play into this race going forward. Will a long campaign show Fiorina to be as liberal as DeVore says, or is she more conservative than a lot of people currently perceive? Is DeVore the real deal, or are there some things in his voting record that may tarnish his conservative credentials? Who will look more electable against Barbara Boxer come next June's primary? Of course, there are all the other non-ideological factors that will also play into the race. Fiorina, for one, had a very controversial tenure at Hewlett Packard, where she pushed through a contentious merger with Compaq, and was eventually ousted. Without getting into the merits, the point is that Fiorina made her fair share of enemies during her days as a corporate executive, and my guess is that they'll be ready and willing to come out swinging against her, potentially resulting in some very unflattering stories she'll have to fend off. While I'm somewhat familiar with Fiorina's history in the business world from my days as a financial reporter, I'm less familiar with DeVore's background beyond what he's said directly and what I've read to this point. But the same thing applies. How will his biography hold up over the course of a seven month primary that is sure to be expensive and brutal?

Either way, it should be one of the Senate races worth keeping an eye on.

30 Comments | Add a Comment

Helpful Ramesh

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 11.6.09 @ 6:04PM

He advises moderate Democrats who are going to vote against their leadership to announce their positions now.

2 Comments | Add a Comment

Hero Injured

Posted by Reid Collins on 11.6.09 @ 4:43PM

The outrages of Ft. Hood and Orlando have become occasions once more for journalistic misuse of the language.

If you were shot but not killed, you were "wounded." The policewoman credited with stopping Ft. Hood's murderous Major is a "heroine."

Count, if you like, the number of times "injured" is referred to the many who were actually wounded, but don't bother to count the times the little lady shows up as a "hero."

9 Comments | Add a Comment

Thank God Obama "Saved" Jobs

Posted by Asher Embry on 11.6.09 @ 4:25PM

Too few have looked critically at the 640,329 jobs the Obama White House reported as “saved or created” by the Stimulus. Those who looked have been left incredulous by the many examples of world-class exaggeration, distortion, and  bureaucratic bungling -- just in time for the unemployment rate to soar to 10.2%.

Thank God Obama “Saved” Jobs
     By Asher Embry

Barack and Joe on Friday raved
About the million jobs they “saved.”
A closer look and you will see
What Webster’s calls: hyperbole.

Wanna see a good example?
Evidence is clear and ample.

$1000 bucks to cut the lawn
“Saves” 50 jobs? That’s quite a con!
And how could $15,000 grease
The way to “save” 5-score police?
$900 draws the biggest hoots:
Nine jobs “created” making boots.

Don’t trust this count from Joe the Vice,
We know some jobs were counted twice.
And many “saved” jobs, people say,
Were really just a raise in pay.
Some jobs they “saved” were threatened but
They’d never really have been cut.
Still others “saved” more jobs by far
Than they admit there even are.
And typos caused the count to grow
By thousands more, as now we know.

So, all in all, what we can state:
This White House sure can obfuscate.
Who’d ever think they’d get away
With counting “saved” jobs anyway?

The ruse could only work this well
With Press still deep in ‘Bama’s spell.
Perhaps that spell is broken when
Our unemployment’s over 10.

(You can read more of Asher Embry's Political Verse at www.politicalverse.com.) 

6 Comments | Add a Comment

Louisiana Attorney General Raids ACORN Office

Posted by Matthew Vadum on 11.6.09 @ 3:18PM

Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell's investigators have raided ACORN's headquarters in New Orleans.

A warrant was executed at ACORN's office at 2609 Canal Street and not at 1024 Elysian Fields Avenue, a former funeral home that used to serve as the radical advocacy group's headquarters.

The cash-strapped group has put the Elysian Fields Avenue office up for sale.

7 Comments | Add a Comment

I've Invented a New Game

Posted by Joseph Lawler on 11.6.09 @ 2:12PM

I've invented a game where first you take what Pres. Obama wrote about the dire consequences without his stimulus:

And if nothing is done, this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits.

Then you switch it around so that he's talking about what did happen with the stimulus:

And if [we pass my stimulus], this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits.

And suddenly he's a prophet!

Jon Stewart invented a similar game a few years back, one about Bush's justifications for invading Iraq. For some reason he isn't up for making up similar games with a Democrat in the White House.

1 Comment | Add a Comment

Re: DeMint Endorses DeVore

Posted by Brian O'Connell on 11.6.09 @ 1:40PM

Regarding Fiorina's base, she gained conservative support on Thursday  from  Senator Tom Coburn along with much of the Republican mainstream following her announcement on Wednesday. DeVore has a big mountain to climb both with national and California conservatives if he wants to secure the right-wing base. Still, the endorsements from prominent national leader Jim DeMint and Congressman Tom McClintock (R-CA) are a start.

Update: timeline adapted.

Add a Comment

The Whip Job Ahead of the Democrats on the Way to 218

Posted by W. James Antle, III on 11.6.09 @ 1:34PM

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) has posted a useful list of 69 Democrats who have expressed opposition to the speaker's health care bill, with quotes. With zero Republican defections, a large number of wavering Democrats will have to be brought in line. The closer the final vote is to 218, every Democrat in a tough district who votes for the bill will be able to be blamed for the outcome. Who wants to volunteer to be the Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky of the 2010 election cycle?

1 Comment | Add a Comment

DeMint Endorses DeVore

Posted by Brian O'Connell on 11.6.09 @ 12:12PM

Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) endorsed California US Senate candidate Chuck DeVore Tuesday, one day before former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina formally announced her campaign at a "green detergents" plant. Fiorina is likely to have the support of mainstream Republicans, and her personal wealth indicates that DeVore has a huge uphill climb in terms of fundraising. DeMint's PAC, the Senate Conservatives Fund, has already poured thousands into the Marco Rubio senate campaign in Florida, where the conservative Rubio is running against the more moderate Governor Charlie Crist. If national conservative leaders begin to support DeVore, it could make for an interesting competition.

Update: Timeline adapted.

1 Comment | Add a Comment

Obama in Feb.: Without Stimulus Bill, "Unemployment will approach double digits."

Posted by Philip Klein on 11.6.09 @ 11:59AM

Here's what President Obama wrote when pushing the economic stimulus bill in a February Washington Post op-ed titled, "The Action Americans Need": 

And if nothing is done, this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits.

Good thing we passed that stimulus bill and staved off double-digit unemployment. Er, scratch that.

Add a Comment