Posts Tagged ‘congress’


March 25, 2010

Senate Dems Oppose Republican Bill To Extend Unemployment Insurance Without Adding To the Debt


Are you kidding me??  Way to show restraint moonbats!

“National Debt Has Increased Over $2 Trillion Since President Obama Took Office” – Last Month Was The “Largest Monthly Deficit In History” 

“The Latest Posting From The Treasury Department Shows The National Debt Has Increased Over $2 Trillion Since President Obama Took Office. The debt now stands at $12.6 trillion. On the day Mr. Obama took office it was $10.6 trillion.” (“National Debt Up $2 Trillion On Obama’s Watch,” CBS News, 3/16/10)

“The Government Ran Up The Largest Monthly Deficit In History In February, Keeping The Flood Of Red Ink On Track To Top Last Year’s Record For The Full Year. The Treasury Department Said Wednesday That The February Deficit Totaled $220.9 Billion, 14 percent higher than the previous record set in February of last year.” (“Budget Deficit Sets Record In February,” AP, 3/10/10) 

By 2020, Interest Payments On The Debt Will Approach $1 Trillion A Year 

CBO: “Net Interest Would More Than Quadruple Between 2010 And 2020 In Nominal Dollars … It Would Expand From 1.4 Percent Of GDP In 2010 To 4.1 Percent In 2020.” “Under the President’s budget, debt held by the public would grow from $7.5 trillion (53 percent of GDP) at the end of 2009 to $20.3 trillion (90 percent of GDP) at the end of 2020. As a result, net interest would more than quadruple between 2010 and 2020 in nominal dollars (without an adjustment for inflation); it would expand from 1.4 percent of GDP in 2010 to 4.1 percent in 2020.” (Douglas Elmendorf, CBO Director, Letter To Sen. Inouye, P.2, 3/5/10)

CBO: The Cost Of Yearly Interest Payments To Increase From $209 Billion In 2009 To $916 Billion In 2020.

•    CBO: “Outlays: Net Interest … 2009… 209 [Billion Dollars].” (Douglas Elmendorf, CBO Director, Letter To Sen. Inouye, P.13, 3/5/10)

•    CBO: “Outlays: Net Interest … 2020… 916 [Billion Dollars].” (Douglas Elmendorf, CBO Director, Letter To Sen. Inouye, P.13, 3/5/10)

CBO: “The Additional Borrowing Related To The President’s Revenue And Spending Proposals Would Generate About $800 Billion More In Interest Costs Over The 2011–2020 Period.” (Douglas Elmendorf, CBO Director, Letter To Sen. Inouye, P.6, 3/5/10)


55 Dems Must Have Forgot About This Exchange

March 25, 2010
Sessions Amendment: Eligibility Verification
Senator Sessions has proposed a first-degree amendment (#3701 – link) to the Health Care Reconciliation Bill, H.R. 4872, to require use of an effective system to verify that only those eligible to participate in the taxpayer-subsidized insurance exchange do so.Background:
  • Section 1411 of the health care Act provides the procedures for determining eligibility for participation in the Exchange.  The amendment makes these procedures more robust and effective and eliminates the discretion of the DHS Secretary to alter eligibility formulas.
  • The amendment adds a requirement that an applicant provide a sworn statement specifically attesting to the fact that the enrollee is a citizen, a U.S. national, or an eligible lawful permanent resident.  The amendment also requires that eligibility be demonstrated with documentation. 
  • It then requires that each exchange shall verify eligibility verification in accordance with the way eligibility for other federal health related programs is established and verified under the Social Security Act.
  • Additionally, the amendment directs the exchanges to rely upon the DHS Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program.  SAVE is a program designed to aid agencies granting benefits in determining an applicant’s immigration status.  It does not make determinations but is rather an information service.
  • The Amendment maintains the current 5 year waiting period for legal aliens to receive welfare benefits.
  • This amendment implements the President’s promise to a joint session of Congress that his health care proposals “would not apply to those who are here illegally.”

    If Obama didn’t lie then why did 55 Democrats vote to kill this amendment? 

     The vote result was 55-43.
    The Motion to Table (kill) Sessions Amendment #3701 to H.R. 4872, the Reconciliation Bill, is agreed to.

    55 Dems Voted To Increase Taxes On 14.7 Million People With Incomes Less Than $200,000

    March 25, 2010
    Risch Amendment: Lower Itemized Deduction Threshold
    Senator Risch has offered an amendment (#3645 – link) to repeal the increased limitation on itemized deduction for medical expenses included in the health care bill.


    • Current law allows Americans to take an itemized deduction for medical expenses that exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI) until the end of 2010. A provision of the Senate health care bill that is now law increased that limitation starting in 2011, raising it from 7.5 percent of AGI to 10 percent.
    • This provision raised $15.2 billion to help pay for health care reform.
    • The Risch amendment would return the limitation back to 7.5 percent by repealing Section 9013 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care act (the Senate health care bill).
    • This is paid for by lowering the income threshold for health expenditures that determines the exception from the individual mandate from 8 percent to 5 percent.
    • The itemized deduction for medical care is a broadly taken deduction that benefits millions of Americans making less than $200,000 or $250,000; President Obama make a “solemn pledge” that he would not raise taxes on this group.
    • By limiting this deduction and raising the level of necessary medical expenses needed before the deduction could be taken, President Obama and Congressional Democrats are raising taxes on all Americans who take advantage of this deduction.
    • According to materials provided by the amendment sponsor, data from the Joint Committee on Taxation shows that 14.8 million taxpayers will be affected by this tax increase, and 14.7 million of them have incomes less than $200,000.
    • Lowering this threshold back will be a tax cut on millions of Americans who will have more affordable access to medical needs, and help them afford the unsustainable cost increases that will result from the Democrats’ health care reform.


    SEN. MAX BAUCUS (D-MT): “One Other Point That I Think It’s Very Important To Make Is That It Is True That In Certain Cases, The Taxes Will Go Up For Some Americans Who Might Be Making Less Than $200,000.” (Sen. Baucus, Floor Remarks, 3/23/10)

    SEN. MARY LANDRIEU (D-LA): “Yes, We’ve Had To Raise Some Taxes And Fees To Pay For This Bill.” (CSPAN’s Washington Journal, 12/22/09)








    57 Dems Vote Against Keeping Premiums Affordable

    March 25, 2010
    Barrasso Amendment: Requires Legislation Not Increase Premiums Senator Barrasso has offered an amendment (#3582 – link) to require that premiums will not increase as a result of passage of the legislation.


    • The amendment makes implementation of the health care law and the reconciliation bill contingent upon a certification from the Secretary of Health and Human Services that such legislation “would not increase premiums more than the premium increases projected under existing law.”
    • The Congressional Budget Office has previously found that the Senate bill would RAISE premiums in the individual market by an average $2,100 per family. At a time when many families are coping with job losses and struggling to make ends meet, they should not be forced by the federal government to buy more expensive health insurance they may not need, want, or be able to afford.
    • During his campaign, President Obama’s campaign plan promised that his reform would reduce premiums for the average family by $2,500 “by the end of my first term as President.” This amendment would ensure that Democrats’ actions match their rhetoric.
    • The reconciliation bill includes language that would apply the health law’s new benefit mandates to “grandfathered” plans. These new mandates on existing plans violate the President’s promise that “If you like your current plan, you can keep it” as well as his pledge to lower premiums Ð because if you like your current plan, you will have to pay more for it (presuming it still exists at all).
    • The Hippocratic Oath for physicians states that medicine should “first, do no harm.” This amendment ensures that all Americans will not be financially harmed by the impact of the Democrat reforms.


    Under Dem Healthcare Law “Premiums Will Continue To Rise,” “Healthy Families Will Be Picking Up Most Of The Bill”

    SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL): “Anyone Who Would Stand Before You And Say Well, If You Pass Health Care Reform, Next Year’s Health Care Premiums Are Going Down, I Don’t Think Is Telling The Truth. I Think It Is Likely They Would Go Up, But What We’re Trying To Do Is Slow The Rate Of Increase.”(Sen. Durbin, Floor Remarks, 3/10/10)

    AP: “Buyers, Beware: President Barack Obama Says His Health Care Overhaul Will Lower Premiums By Double Digits, But Check The Fine Print. Premiums Are Likely To Keep Going Up Even If The Health Care Bill Passes, Experts Say. … ‘There’s no question premiums are still going to keep going up,’ said Larry Levitt of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a research clearinghouse on the health care system.” (“Fact Check: Premiums Would Rise Under Obama Plan,” AP, 3/17/10)

    •    “The Budget Office Concluded That Premiums For People Buying Their Own Coverage Would Go Up By An Average Of 10 Percent To 13 Percent, Compared With The Levels They’d Reach Without The Legislation. That’s mainly because policies in the individual insurance market would provide more comprehensive benefits than they do today.” (“Fact Check: Premiums Would Rise Under Obama Plan,” AP, 3/17/10)

    Senate Dems Vote To Keep Sweetheart Deals

    March 25, 2010

    McCain Amendment: Remove Sweetheart Deals
    Senator McCain has offered an amendment (#3570 – link) to strike the “sweetheart deals” included in the health care law and the reconciliation bill.


    • The amendment repeals the following “sweetheart deals” included in the health care law and the reconciliation bill:
      1. Increase in Medicaid disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments just for Tennessee (Section 1203, page 71 of H.R. 4872);
      2. Increase in Medicaid DSH payments just for Hawaii (Section 10201, page 2132 of H.R. 3590);
      3. The “Louisiana Purchase” to increase Medicaid funding just for Louisiana (Section 2006, page 428 of H.R. 3590);
      4. Increased Medicare reimbursement just for frontier states (Section 10324, page 2237 of H.R. 3590);
      5. Medicare coverage just for Libby, Montana residents exposed to environmental hazards (Section 10323, page 2222 of H.R. 3590);
      6. A $100 million hospital funding provision intended to benefit Connecticut (Section 10502, page 2354 of H.R. 3590); and
      7. Extension of Section 508 hospital reimbursement provisions just to Michigan and Connecticut (Section 10905, pages 2205-06 of H.R. 3590)
    Arguments in Favor:
    • Citizens in other states should not be asked to see their taxpayer dollars funding special “backroom deals” for certain locales.
    • The public outrage over the “Cornhusker Kickback” included in H.R. 3590 may lead many to believe it is long past time for Congress to strip out ALL of the “backroom deals” included in the Senate bill – rather than using the reconciliation measure to add more of them.
    • Given President Obama’s campaign promises of transparency – including his famous pledge to televise negotiations on C-SPAN – the American people deserve action consistent with Democrats’ rhetoric.
    • If Democrats support this government takeover of health care, they should be willing to support the legislation on its own merits – without the need to add on extraneous “backroom deals” in order to win votes.

    RESULTS:  54 Democrats Voted To Keep The Special Deals In Health Reconciliation Bill.





    Full Medicaid Disproportionate Share Payment (DSH) For Tennessee.

    “EXTENSION OF DSH ALLOTMENT.—Section 1923(f)(6)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396r-4(f)(6)(A)) is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘‘(v) ALLOTMENT FOR 2D, 3RD, AND 4TH QUARTERS OF FISCAL YEAR 2012 AND FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013.—Notwithstanding the table set forth in paragraph (2): ‘‘(I) 2D, 3RD, AND 4TH QUARTERS OF FISCAL YEAR 2012.—In the case of a State that has a DSH allotment of $0 for the 2d, 3rd, and 4th quarters of fiscal year 2012, the DSH allotment shall be $47,200,000 for such quarters. ‘‘(II) FISCAL YEAR 2013.—In the case of a State that has a DSH allotment of $0 for fiscal year 2013, the DSH allotment shall be $53,100,000 for such fiscal year.’’”

    (“Amendment In The Nature Of A Substitute To H.R. 4872,” 3/18/2010, P. 67)


    “Obama’s New Health Care Proposal Keeps Louisiana Medicaid Provision.”
    (“Obama’s New Health Care Proposal Keeps Louisiana Medicaid Provision,” New Orleans Times-Picayune, 2/22/10)

    “Obama’s Plan Is Silent On Two Other High-Profile Legislative Deals In The Senate Bill. The First Provision Sends $300 Million In Additional Medicaid Funding To Louisiana And Was Widely Viewed As A Sweetener To Win Moderate Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu’s Vote Last Fall.” (“Deals Remain In Obama’s Plan,” Politico, 2/22/10)

    “…There Are Controversial Special Provisions Of The Senate Health Reform Bill That President Obama Leaves Untouched. First Up, The ‘Louisiana Purchase.’ … [Sen. Mary] Landrieu Said In A Speech On The Senate Floor Feb. 4th That Critics Should ‘Shut Their Mouth.’” (“White House Cuts Special Help For Nebraska, But Other Deals Remain In Reform Bill,” ABC News, 2/22/10)

    •    “And Reid Already Has Established A Dangerous Precedent, By Dangling $300 Million In Medicaid Funding For Louisiana To Win Landrieu’s Support For Bringing The Bill To The Senate Floor. Months Earlier, Reid Had Carved Out His Own Medicaid Exemption For Nevada. One addition he made to the Senate bill, an increase in the Medicare payroll tax for high earners, has raised concerns with Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (Maine). Snowe, the only Republican who has been at least somewhat supportive of Democratic reform efforts, cited its potential to harm small businesses.” (“Reid’s Recipe For Getting Health-Care Deal Done,” The Washington Post, 12/4/09)



    “There Is Also Not Specific Mention In The President’s List Of Fix-It, Of A Special Proposal Aimed At A Connecticut Research Hospital, But Open To Other Hospitals… So Those Provisions Apparently Still Remain.” (“White House Cuts Special Help For Nebraska, But Other Deals Remain In Reform Bill,” ABC News, 2/22/10)

    •    $100,000,000 For “Health Care Facility” “At A Public Research University In The United States That Contains A State’s Sole Public Academic Medical And Dental School.” “(a) APPROPRIATION.—There are authorized to be appropriated, and there are appropriated to the Department of Health and Human Services, $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2010, to remain available for obligation until September 30, 2011, to be used for debt service on, or direct construction or renovation of, a health care facility that provides research, inpatient tertiary care, or outpatient clinical services. Such facility shall be affiliated with an academic health center at a public research university in the United States that contains a State’s sole public academic medical and dental school.” (Manager’s Amendment To H.R. 3590, Pg. 328)



    “The Secretary Shall Establish A Pilot Program In Accordance With This Subsection To Provide Innovative Approaches To Furnishing Comprehensive, Coordinated, And Cost-Effective Care Under This Title To Individuals Described In Paragraph … [An Individual] Is An Environmental Exposure Affected Individual Described In Subsection (E)(2) Who Resides In Or Around The Geographic Area Subject To An Emergency Declaration Made As Of June 17, 2009.” ‘‘(A) PRIMARY PILOT PROGRAM.—The Secretary shall establish a pilot program in accordance with this subsection to provide innovative approaches to furnishing comprehensive, coordinated, and cost-effective care under this title to individuals described in paragraph (2)(A). … ‘‘(2) INDIVIDUAL DESCRIBED.—For purposes of paragraph (1), an individual described in this paragraph is an individual who enrolls in part B, submits to the Secretary an application to participate in the applicable pilot program under this subsection, and— ‘‘(A) is an environmental exposure affected individual described in subsection (e)(2) who resides in or around the geographic area subject to an emergency declaration made as of June 17, 2009.” (Manager’s Amendment To H.R. 3590, Pg. 195-196)

    •    “On June 17, 2009, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson Issued A Public Health Emergency (PHE) Finding At The Libby Asbestos Superfund Site In Northwest Montana. Over The Past Several Years, Hundreds Of Cases Of Asbestos-Related Disease Have Been Documented In The Communities Of Libby And Nearby Troy.” (EPA Website, Accessed 12/19/09)

    “Another Provision The President Has Asked Reid To Consider Removing Was Promoted By Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) On Behalf Of Residents Of Libby, Mont.” (“Obama Presses Reid To Cut Special Deals From Health Bill,” Politico, 3/11/10)

    Facts of Congress

    March 25, 2010

    Unfortunately there were no videos of Congress using reconciliation to prevent a filibuster.  I wonder why that is?? 


    “I recognize that the filibuster can be used for unfortunate purposes. However, I am also aware that the Founding Fathers established the filibuster as a means of protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority — and that protection, with some changes, has been in place for over 200 years.”   

    Barack Obama – 2005

    New Medical Symbol

    March 24, 2010

    To prepare for the new healthcare reform package, we felt it necessary to develop a new medical symbol that accurately depicts the Health Care Plan you will be getting.

    Joe Biden was correct; it is a big fucking deal!!




    Bart Stupak Sells Out Pro-Life Movement

    March 22, 2010

    Pro-life conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly points out that Bart Stupak is naively trusting that the president will not immediately rescind the Executive Order. She writes:

    “Perhaps Mr. Stupak and his fellow pro-life Democrats forget that President Obama’s first Executive Order was the repeal of the Mexico City Policy to allow for international funding of abortion.”

    Bart Stupak can no longer say he is pro-life!

    Congress can revoke a presidential executive order by passing a bill by a veto-proof (2/3 vote) majority. For example, in 2003 Congress unsuccessfully attempted to revoke President Bush’s Executive Order 13233, which had rescinded Executive Order 12667 (Reagan). The bill, HR 5073, did not pass.


    “Planned Parenthood strongly opposes the Stupak/Pitts amendment, which would result in women losing health benefits they have today. This amendment would violate the spirit of health care reform, which is meant to guarantee quality, affordable health care coverage for all, by creating a two-tiered system that would punish women, particularly those with low and modest incomes. Women won’t stand for legislation that takes away their current benefits and leaves them worse off after health care reform than they are today.

    “While Rep. Stupak claims that his amendment simply applies the Hyde amendment to health reform, nothing could be further from the truth.  The Stupak/Pitts amendment would result in a new restriction on women’s access to abortion coverage in the private health insurance market, undermining the ability of women to purchase private health plans that cover abortion care, even if they pay for most of the premium with their own money.

    “The fact is, the majority of private health insurance plans currently offer abortion coverage, and the Stupak/Pitts amendment would result in the elimination of abortion coverage in the new insurance market created under health care reform. The Stupak/Pitts amendment upends the carefully crafted compromise in the House bill and unambiguously restricts women’s access to care.”

    Will Nancy Pelosi honor a presidential executive order over her former deputy chief of staff?  Cecile Richards served as deputy chief of staff for Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and played a key role in her election as the Democratic Leader in the House of Representatives. 

    What’s a federally funded abortion amongst friends anyway?


    March 20, 2010





    March 17, 2010

    Obama & Company are set to “deem” the Senate healthcare bill passed!  Yes, this has been used in the past, but not to the sum of 1 trillion dollars!!  Is this even legal?  Not according to the U.S. CONSTITUTION!!

    Article 1 – The Legislative Branch
    Section 7 – Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential Veto

    All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

    Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

    Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.