During the August recess, at least 23 House Democrats pledged opposition to the health care reform bill being pushed by House Leadership, including Nancy Pelosi. If 16 more Dems join the 23 already opposed to the legislation — assuming all Republican remain united against the plan — Pelosi won’t have enough votes to pass it.
The bill’s price tag and opposition to the government-run public option are among the reasons moderate Democrats have indicated they will vote “No.” But as many as 100 members of Pelosi’s caucus have suggested they will not for for a bill that doesn’t include the so-called “public option.”
Below is the list of 23 House Dems opposed to the legislation as compiled by The Hill:
John Adler (N.J.)
Jason Altmire (Pa.)
John Barrow (Ga.)
Dan Boren (Okla.)
Rick Boucher (Va.)
Allen Boyd (Fla.)
Bobby Bright (Ala.)
Travis Childers (Miss.)
Jim Costa (Calif.)
Henry Cuellar (Texas)
Parker Griffith (Ala.)
Frank Kratovil (Md.)
Betsy Markey (Colo.) Eric Massa (N.Y.) — Doesn’t believe the public option in the current legislation is strong enough Jim Matheson (Utah)
Charlie Melancon (La.)
Walt Minnick (Idaho)
Tom Perriello (Va.)
Earl Pomeroy (N.D.)
Heath Shuler (N.C.)
Bart Stupak (Mich.)
John Tanner (Tenn.)
Gene Taylor (Miss.)
Families who fail to get health insurance could be fined up to $3,800 under a health care reform plan proposed by a top Senate negotiator.
Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., who as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee is leading talks among the “Gang of Six” senators to hammer out a bipartisan compromise, offered what he described on Tuesday as a “framework” and not a “final product.”
But the detailed proposal comes just days ahead of a self-imposed Sept. 15 deadline for such a deal. Baucus is pushing his committee members hard to hammer out a bill, and those details come as strong suggestions.
The framework, a copy of which was obtained by FOX News, includes what amounts to a no-choice option. It would make health insurance mandatory, like auto insurance.
Despite the uproar, President Obama today is delivering his much-anticipated speech to the nation’s school children from Wakefield High School in Arlington, Virginia. But as pointed out by Byron York today in the Washington Examiner:
[W]hen President George H.W. Bush delivered a similar speech on October 1, 1991, from Alice Deal Junior High School in Washington DC, the controversy was just beginning. Democrats, then the majority party in Congress, not only denounced Bush’s speech — they also ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate its production and later summoned top Bush administration officials to Capitol Hill for an extensive hearing on the issue.
Then House Majority Leader Richard Gephardt complained at the time that “The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the president.”
And, according to Mr. York:
Rep. William Ford, then chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, ordered the General Accounting Office to investigate the cost and legality of Bush’s appearance. On October 17, 1991, Ford summoned then-Education Secretary Lamar Alexander and other top Bush administration officials to testify at a hearing devoted to the speech.
Next week, the U.S. Supreme Court will rehear arguments in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, a case that could reverse certain limitations on core political speech imposed by the the 2002 McCain-Feingold law and other chilling precedents.
In an op-ed published today on Human Events Online, CFIF director of public policy Sam Batkins writes:
Citizens United is the first of three cases in which interested court-watchers will have their first opportunity to observe [newly confirmed] Justice Sotomayor and get a better idea of her impact on the jurisprudential leaning of the Court.
In addition to Citizens United, the Court, including Justice Sotomayor, is scheduled to hear other high-profile cases after its term formally begins in October on issues dealing with the Establishment Clause and property rights, among others.
As Batkins notes:
Many court-watchers and scholars have reviewed Justice Sotomayor’s lengthy record as a lower court judge without really being able to predict her judicial philosophy on many of the hot-button issues before the Supreme Court. Soon, however, we’ll all be provided more clarity, at least on issues dealing with property rights, the establishment clause and political speech.
Much has been written about President Obama’s new Green Jobs Czar, Van Jones. Indeed, it is no secret that he is an unapologetic liberal. But did you know that, according to Jones, the reason Obama’s progressive agenda is faultering is because Republicans are… “A**holes?”
That’s right. But have no fear progressives; Jones claims that he can be an “a**hole” too. In fact, Jones states that he and other progressives advising the President “are gonna have to start getting a little bit ugly” in order to advance their agenda.
Here’s Jones during a lecture he gave at Berkley back in February:
President Barack Obama will address a joint session of Congress on health care reform in prime time on Wednesday, Sept. 9, a senior official tells POLITICO.
Obama will receive House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid at the White House the day before for a previously scheduled sit-down.
The last time a president addressed a joint session of Congress that wasn’t a State of the Union, or the traditional first address by a new president, was Sept. 20, 2001, when President George W. Bush spoke on the war on terrorism following the 9/11 attacks. …
The desire of some in Congress to shut down conservative talk radio through the re-imposition of the “Fairness Doctrine” or by other regulatory means is fairly well documented. But did you know that the Majority Leader of the United States Senate wishes his state’s largest newspaper “out of business?”
Sherman Frederick, publisher of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, discussed the incident during which Harry Reid made his hopes known in a column published this weekend:
On Wednesday, before he addressed a Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce luncheon, Reid joined the chamber’s board members for a meet-‘n’-greet and a photo. One of the last in line was the Review-Journal’s director of advertising, Bob Brown, a hard-working Nevadan who toils every day on behalf of advertisers. He has nothing to do with news coverage or the opinion pages of the Review-Journal.
Yet, as Bob shook hands with our senior U.S. senator in what should have been nothing but a gracious business setting, Reid said: ‘I hope you go out of business.’
Later, in his public speech, Reid said he wanted to let everyone know that he wants the Review-Journal to continue selling advertising because the Las Vegas Sun is delivered inside the Review-Journal.
Read Frederick’s full column and response to the incident here.
In last week’s Freedom Minute, CFIF’s Renee Giachino reads several provisions in H.R. 3200, the House health care reform bill, and asks you to decide whether it’s the right prescription for America.
Congress’ popularity has been in the dump for some time now. That’s why it’s not surprising that a large majority of voters believe that the entire Congress should be thrown out of office and that we should start anew.
According to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, “57% [of U.S. voters] would vote to replace the entire Congress and start all over again.” A mere one in four voters, or 25%, would vote to keep the current Congress. 18% are unsure what they would do.
Other highlights of the survey include:
70% of voters unaffiliated with either major political party would vote to replace ALL members of the House and Senate.
A mere 14% of voters give the current Congress a “good” or “excellent” rating for performance.
74% of voters trust their own economic judgement over that of Congress.
75% of voters say Members of Congress are more interested in their own careers than helping the people they are supposed to represent.
At a luncheon meeting this week with Harry Reid and the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, the Majority Leader suggested that the Senate would not be voting on the the dubiously-named “Employee Free Choice Act” any time soon. According to Reid:
We have too many other things on our plate.
The news spread quickly throughout the policy community yesterday. And despite some having done so already, it is way too premature to start claiming victory on this issue.
Make no mistake… Card Check will rear its ugly head once again.
Despite the departure of many high-profile advertisers and the constant attacks by the Left, the number of viewers who watch Glenn Beck’s 5 pm television show on Fox News has skyrocketed. In fact, on Wednesday night alone, Beck’s viewership topped more than 3 million people.
To put that into perspective, CNN’s Situation Room was the second most watched cable news show during the same pre-prime time time slot that evening with a mere 688,000 viewers. And, Beck had nearly three times the number of viewers in the 5 pm slot than their beloved Keith Olbermann, whose show airs on MSNBC during the prime 8 pm time slot.
Perhaps the far Left should be asking themselves who in fact is really out of touch with the American people.
According to Congressman Pete Stark (D-CA), the reason the moderate blue dogs are opposed to or are working to change the House health care bill is because they are “brain dead,” looking for campaign contributions from insurance companies, and are promoting “a right-wing agenda.”
Stark made the comments during a conference call today with reporters, which was hosted by the ultra-liberal Campaign for America’s Future. According to an Associated Press piece, Stark’s specific words were:
They’re for the most part, I hate to say, brain dead, but they’re just looking to raise money from insurance companies and promote a right-wing agenda that is not really very useful in this whole process.”
Why is medical malpractice reform not in the health care reform bills making their way through Congress? That’s a question many of us have been asking for months. We now have the answer, care of Howard Dean and Congressman Jim Moran.
At a recent townhall meeting, Moran was asked by a constituent about the issue. (That was after Moran forced the gentleman to show him his ID before asking the question.) Howard Dean decided to take a first stab at answering by saying:
This is the answer from a doctor and a politician. … Here’s why tort reform is not in the bill. When you go to pass a really enormous bill like that, the more stuff you put in it the more enemies you make. Right. And the reason why tort reform is not in the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everybody else… And that is the plain and simple truth.
Congressman Moran followed up by saying, “That’s a very honest answer.”
In other words, President Obama and Congressional Democrats have no problem taking on the American people — the majority of whom are opposed to ObamaCare — but they wouldn’t dare take on their well-funded buddies in the trial bar.
Regardless of one’s political affiliation or ideology, today’s news of Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s passing is upsetting. Kennedy, an unapologetic liberal — indeed, an icon on the Left –served more than 40 years in the United States Senate and was a fearsome advocate for the causes he took on. Indeed, in the heat of more than a few legislative battles over the years, many in the center-right community found themselves cursing his name, while at the same time wishing he played for our team.
When I sat down this morning to write this post, I must confess that I was lost for words. Then I stumbled upon Bill Bennett’s words on NRO’s The Corner. Bennett wrote:
He assaulted our causes and nominees with vigor and rancor. Still, in his day he was a powerful orator — and historians will mark his speech to the 1980 Democratic convention as a high water mark and example.To his supporters, I simply give them his words, and leave the rest to historians: ‘For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die.’To the American Left, he was their lion.To the American conservative movement, he was our bane.But today, we put the politics aside and wish him and his family God’s peace.
The White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) today released its mid-year long term deficit projections. While the 2009 deficit estimates came in at $262 billion less than predicted earlier in the year ($1.58 trillion total), OMB’s 10-year projection increased to a whopping $9 trillion, or $2 trillion more than previously estimated.
That’s a lot of money – so much, that it’s hard for the average person to even comprehend.
Fortunately, John Lott, economist and author of “Freedomonics,” has a great opinion piece today on FoxNews.com that helps put the figure in perspective. For starters, Lott writes that the new OMB projection “likely underestimates the deficit by at least another $1 trillion,” which means the real 10-year deficit number is probably closer to $10 trillion. Elaborating on what that means for you and your family, Lott writes:
Ten trillion dollars simply is a lot of money. Whether it is an individual going into debt or a country, spending the money now means that we have less to spend on other things. In the case of ten trillion dollars of national debt, it comes to over $33,000 per person– $130,000 for a family of four. The $130,000 is the amount of taxes that a family is going to have to pay back, somehow, and people have to ask what their family could have gotten for that much money. Is the benefit they get from the government spending all this money greater than what they could have gotten if they had spent that money themselves?
Interrupting his vacation on Martha’s Vineyard today, President Obama announced plans to appoint Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke to a second term.
OAK BLUFFS, Mass., Aug. 25 –With Bernanke at his side in a schoolhouse-turned-briefing room on this vacation island, Obama said Bernanke has helped to steer the country through one of its worst financial crises.
President Obama on Tuesday renominated Ben Bernanke for another term as chairman of the Federal Reserve, citing “his background, his temperament, his courage, and his creativity” as reasons he should continue in the nation’s most powerful economic policy making job.
In an op-ed published in The Washington Post today, RNC Chairman Michael Steele highlighted details of a “Seniors’ Health Care Bill of Rights.”
Protecting Our Seniors
GOP Principles for Health Care
By Michael S. Steele
Monday, August 24, 2009
Americans are engaged in a critical debate over reforming our health-care system. While Republicans believe that reforms are necessary, President Obama’s plan for a government-run health-care system is the wrong prescription. The Democrats’ plan will hurt American families, small businesses and health-care providers by raising care costs, increasing the deficit, and not allowing patients to keep a doctor or insurance plan of their choice. Furthermore, under the Democrats’ plan, senior citizens will pay a steeper price and will have their treatment options reduced or rationed.
Republicans want reform that should, first, do no harm, especially to our seniors. That is why Republicans support a Seniors’ Health Care Bill of Rights, which we are introducing today, to ensure that our greatest generation will receive access to quality health care.
When it come to health care, Representative Eric Massa (D-NY) says definitively that he will vote against the wishes of his district, which he labels “one of the most right wing Republican districts in the country.” Massa supports a single-payer, government-run system.
According to a new Rasmussen Reports survey, a majority of American voters (54%) believe doing nothing is better than passing the health care reform proposals currently making their way through Congress.
60% of Democrats support the Congressional plans
80% of Republicans say passing nothing is better than passing the plans in Congress
66% would rather the legislators take no action vs. 23% who would like to see the Congressional plans passed
The extreme Left, led by Former Dem Party Chairman Howard Dean, is up in arms over the Administration’s hint that it may willing to forgo a government-run public insurance option in an attempt to strike a deal on health care reform. And it appears the Deaniacs are having an impact.
CNN is reporting that White House Aide Linda Douglass has sent out a written statement making clear the President still supports the “public option.”
WASHINGTON (CNN) — The White House sought to reassure jittery supporters Monday that President Obama is not abandoning the fight for a public health insurance option.
President Obama “believes the public option is the best way” to reform health care, a White House aide says.
The assurance came amid a media firestorm ignited over the weekend by administration officials seeming to indicate a willingness to drop such an option in order to secure congressional approval of a health care reform bill.
“The president has always said that what is essential is that health insurance reform must lower costs, ensure that there are affordable options for all Americans, and it must increase choice and competition in the health insurance market,” White House aide Linda Douglass said in a written statement.
“He believes the public option is the best way to achieve those goals.”
CFIF Freedom Line Blog RSS Feed
CFIF on X
CFIF on YouTube