AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Really? So your position here is that an American Senator that did not favor passing a law is now a hypocrit for following it once it is the law of the land?

However your condemnation of Republicans passing tax cuts is well taken. This is why true (meanie/selfish) conservatives want to elect true paygo legislators who would have cut back on many government programs concurrently with those tax cuts.

The revolutionary’s purpose is to undermine the system by taking from the haves and giving it to the have-nots, and then see what happens;
The most basic principle for radicals is lie to opponents and disarm them by pretending to be moderates and liberals;
The radical organizer does not have a fixed truth"truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing; he is a political relativist.

Obama plans to ram HealthCare thru, no matter what 'We The People' think!!

On March 5th of last year, firefighter Travis Ulerick, of Dublin, Indiana, introduced President Barack Obama at a White House summit on health care. Upon hearing the first rumblings of dissent about the President's plan, Ulerick tells USA Today he thought at the time: "I definitely think it's going to have to be a huge consensus." It's now 12 months later, and the only consensus that exists among the American people is strong opposition to the President's health care plan.The White House, however, is now completely uninterested in establishing a consensus for their health care plan before they jam it through Congress. Today, in a speech from the White House, President Barack Obama will urge Congress to move swiftly to pass his health care plan by implementing a legislative tactic that can be used to pass legislation that has failed to gain broad support among the American people. It's known as reconciliation.

Reconciliation has been used in the past, but only for procedural reasons, not because the underlying policy change was unable to muster 60-vote support. So, for example, the 1996 welfare reform law signed by President Bill Clinton was passed through reconciliation, but it also ended up getting 78 votes in the Senate (28 of them from Democrats). President Ronald Reagan also passed seven bills through reconciliation, but every single one of those bills passed through a Democratically-controlled House and won Senate votes from both parties. Never has reconciliation been used to pass any bill on purely partisan lines.

In an attempt to provide some political cover for his nakedly-partisan health care push, President Obama released a letter yesterday identifying "four policy priorities" that "I am exploring." Specifically he is "open" to: 1) random undercover investigations of health care providers that receive reimbursements from Medicare and Medicaid; 2) $50 million in cash for states that reform medical malpractice laws in ways the White House approves of; 3) increased spending on Medicaid; and 4) language that clearly allows Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) to qualify as health insurance.

The White House has not yet released any legislative language for any of these "policy priorities." In fact, his letter does not even promise that whatever legislation the White House does eventually offer will contain language on each of these issues. He only says he is "exploring" the issues. This is beyond a sham of bipartisanship. Details matter. The American people must be allowed to see real legislative language and they must be allowed the time to read and comment on it before any votes are taken.

Most importantly, simply adding so-called conservative ideas to the bill does not change the fundamental direction of the proposal. The bills before Congress, including the President’s new additions, would still result in a massive shift of power over health care financing and delivery of care to Washington politicians and bureaucrats. The public has spoken, and it does not want a federal take over of health care.

Julia Denton of Yorktown, Virginia, another of the Obama administration's hand-picked March 5 health summit attendees, tells USA Today: "The legislation as proposed is so long and tough to read that people are afraid of it. Health care is such a highly personal issue. I cannot see how anyone will win if unpopular reforms are forced through over vigorous opposition." Denton is 100% correct. The American people should not have unpopular health care reform forced down their throats in the face of strong bipartisan opposition. At a bare minimum they should have the opportunity to see actual legislation from the White House and be allowed to speak to their members about it while they are home in their districts over Easter break.

Conservatives should continue to press the Administration and leaders in Congress for bipartisan solutions that are based on elements of common ground, including letting states take the lead on health reform, tackling the tax treatment of health insurance, sensible insurance market reforms, and an honest commitment to fixing existing health care programs that the government already controls.

For real bipartisanship to work, the President must set aside the current proposals that are based on consolidating power over health care in Washington and instead embrace solutions that would give individuals and families more control over health care dollars and decisions. Simply adjusting the magnitude of the existing proposals or adding so-called conservative provisions does not change this fundamental direction.

Reconciliation has been used in the past, but only for procedural reasons, not because the underlying policy change was unable to muster 60-vote support --

This is a pure lie. Bush's tax cuts were passed using Reconciliation rules and required Cheney to be the 50th vote.

When your correspondents cannot get basic history straight, what is the point of reading them?

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa052701a.htm
Dateline: May 27, 2001
...Meeting in a rare weekend, pre-holiday session, Congress on Saturday gave its final approval to the deepest tax cuts since 1981. The compromise bill reduces all income tax rates by three percentage points by 2006.

In the House, the bill won the votes of 211 Republicans, 28 Democrats and one independent. One independent and 153 Democrats voted against it.

In the Senate, 12 Democrats voted for the bill, as did 45 Republicans and newly independent Sen. Jeffords of Vermont. Republican Senators McCain of Arizona and Chaffee of Rhode Island joined 31 Democrats in voting against the bill....

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/february_2010/41_favor_obama_s_health_care_plan_56_oppose

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Date
Favor
Oppose

Feb 21-22
41%
56%

Feb 9-10
39%
58%

Jan 20-21
40%
58%

Jan 16-17
38%
56%

Jan 8-9
40%
55%

Jan 3
42%
52%

Dec 29
39%
58%

Dec 27
40%
55%

Dec 18-19
41%
55%

Dec 12-13
40%
56%

Dec 4-5
41%
51%

Nov 29
41%
53%

Voters still strongly oppose the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats and think Congress should focus instead on smaller bills that address problems individually rather than a comprehensive plan.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 41% of voters favor the proposed health care plan, while 56% oppose it. Those figures include 45% who strongly oppose the plan and just 23% who strongly favor it.

Support for and opposition to the plan are at the same levels they’ve been at since just after Thanksgiving.

Democrats continue to strongly support the health care plan much while it is opposed by Republicans and voters not affiliated with either major party. Seventy percent (70%) of the Political Class strongly favor the plan, while 57% of Mainstream voters strongly oppose it.

Sixty-three percent (63%) of all voters say a better strategy to reform the health care system would be to pass smaller bills that address problems individually. Twenty-seven percent (27%) still think passing a comprehensive bill that covers all aspects of the health care system is a better idea. Eleven percent (11%) are undecided.

Sixty-five percent (65%) of those who strongly support the president’s plan favor a comprehensive approach, while 85% of those who strongly oppose the current plan say smaller, individually-focused bills are a better way to go.

Here's the recent record: The 1995 Balanced Budget Act was passed in reconciliation. The final vote was 52 to 47. The 2001 Bush Tax Cut was passed in reconciliation. The final vote was 58 to 33. The 2003 Bush Tax Cut was passed in reconciliation. The final vote was 50 to 50, with Dick Cheney casting the tie-breaking vote. The 2005 Deficit Reduction Act was also passed in reconciliation with a 50 to 50 vote and a Cheney intervention. The 2006 Tax Relief Extensions Act was passed in reconciliation. The final vote was 54 to 44.

Reconciliation has been used in the past, but only for procedural reasons, not because the underlying policy change was unable to muster 60-vote support --

Here's the recent record: The 1995 Balanced Budget Act was passed in reconciliation. The final vote was 52 to 47. The 2001 Bush Tax Cut was passed in reconciliation. The final vote was 58 to 33. The 2003 Bush Tax Cut was passed in reconciliation. The final vote was 50 to 50, with Dick Cheney casting the tie-breaking vote. The 2005 Deficit Reduction Act was also passed in reconciliation with a 50 to 50 vote and a Cheney intervention. The 2006 Tax Relief Extensions Act was passed in reconciliation. The final vote was 54 to 44.

This is a pure lie. Bush's tax cuts were passed using Reconciliation rules and required Cheney to be the 50th vote.

When your correspondents cannot get basic history straight, what is the point of reading them?

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa052701a.htm
Dateline: May 27, 2001
...
Among details of the final tax cut package are:

Top tax rate of 39.6 percent drops to 35 percent by 2006
The 36 percent tax rate drops to 33 percent
The 31 percent tax rate drops to 28 percent
The 28 percent tax rate drops to 25 percent
Child tax credit doubles from $500 to $1000 per child by 2010
Federal tax on large estates is eliminated by 2010
Relief for the marriage penalty tax is provided
Contribution to education savings accounts raised from $500 to $2000
IRA contribution limit increases from $2,000 to $5,000 per year
401(k) plan contribution limit increases from $10,500 to $15,000 per year
The plan also creates a new 10 percent tax rate, effective from Jan. 1, 2001. ...

http://lugar.senate.gov/services/pdf_crs/Filibusters_and_Cloture_in_the_Senate.pdf
...
Senate Rule XXII. however, known as the "cloture rule," enables Senators to end a filibuster on any debatable matter the Senate is considering. Sixteen senators initiate the process by presenting a motion to end the debate. The Senate does not vote on this cloture motion until the sevond day after the motion is made. Then it usually requires the votes of at least three-fifths of all Senators (normally 60 votes) to invoke clotures. Invoking cloture on a proposal to amend the Senate's standing rules requires the support of two-thirds of the Senators prestent and voting.

Here's the recent record: The 1995 Balanced Budget Act was passed in reconciliation. The final vote was 52 to 47. The 2001 Bush Tax Cut was passed in reconciliation. The final vote was 58 to 33. The 2003 Bush Tax Cut was passed in reconciliation. The final vote was 50 to 50, with Dick Cheney casting the tie-breaking vote. The 2005 Deficit Reduction Act was also passed in reconciliation with a 50 to 50 vote and a Cheney intervention. The 2006 Tax Relief Extensions Act was passed in reconciliation. The final vote was 54 to 44.

For a bill to be passed in reconciliation after at least one Senator's declaration to filibuster the bill, AND there were NOT at least two-thirds of those voting in the Senate to end the filibuster.