THE SLAUGHTER SOLUTION Updated

The left's desperation over ObamaCare is getting to be quite revealing.  They are willing to make just about any promise, grease any palm, to get this thing passed. 

They will offer up an amendment for abortion that they promise they will pass - eventually. But House dems have to vote first - just take the Senate's word for the whole amendment thing - they're good for it.

Really.

They are willing to turn a well respected, 92 year old Senator into a hypocrite for the cause.  They are even willing to offer your brother a judicial appointment if that does the trick.  If those persuasions weren't enough, there is always a little arm twisting to get you to see the light.

The dems have been shut down at every turn, though. so now they are pulling out all the stops, and legality apparently isn't a necessary requirement anymore.

Rep. Louise Slaughter, chairwoman of the House Rules Committee, has come up with a solution to Pelosi's dilemma.  Madame Speaker is short on votes and no matter how she tries, she's just not able to win them over.  At least her method of pushing out the dead weight has helped her a little.  Unfortunately, she still can't manage to cross the finish line.  That's where the Slaughter Solution comes in.

In a nutshell, the House will pass a rule that says they 'deem' the Senate bill passed by the House - without actually voting on and passing it in reality. 

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.

Isn't it nice that in the land of unicorns and rainbows in which our congress now lives wishes really do come true? 

It seems that all Pelosi has to do now is wish for health care to pass, and presto! consider it done.  This goes beyond bending the rules.  Would someone please check out the trash bin behind the Capitol and see if the Constitution is in it?  Maybe the Dalai Lama has seen it. 

They have actually resorted to trying to pass the bill without a vote.  In the Constitution is very clearly states how a bill becomes a law (emphasis mine):

First, a bill must pass both houses of Congress by a majority vote. After it has passed out of Congress, it is sent along to the President. If the President signs the bill, it becomes law.

Please note the very first thing that is required is for both houses of Congress to pass the bill by a majority vote.  Rep. Slaughter must have a case of Clintonitis, but instead of wondering what the definition of "is" is, she is wondering what the definition of "vote" is.   Let me give you a clue, madame chairwoman - "deeming" something does not constitute a majority vote.  Unless, of course, Queen Pelosi has somehow managed to turn our constitutional republic into a monarchy/dictatorship.

Radio host Mark Levin (formerly a constutional lawyer) is calling for Slaughter's expulsion.  He calls this effort "brazen" (via American Thinker):

Here we have the President of the United States and Congressional leaders actually talking about the possibility of a brazen and open violation of one of the most fundamental aspects of our Constitution and Republic! How we actually make laws!Let me be as clear as I know how. If this is done, this will create the greatest Constitutional crisis since the Civil War. It would be 100 times worse than Watergate.

...It would be government by fiat... meaning there would be no law... the mere discussion by officials in this government is such a grotesque violation of the actual legislative function of Congress [that it] puts us... at the brink. At the brink.

This really is a frightening step.  This is in violation of everything this country was founded on. 

There is a tiny part of me that wants them to pass this epic piece of manipulation, graft and backroom deals they call a bill this way.  There's no way in hell it will pass the sniff test with the Supreme Court.  It will get thrown out and we will be rid of it forever.  Maybe we'll get a twofer and get rid of the progressives, too.

Oh, and if the bill isn't bad enough as it stands, the House is also talking about adding in the nationalization of student loans for good measure.  After all, if you're going to send out a nice big "screw you" to the american people, you may as well double down.

As a bonus, Obama's trip to Asia has been postponed and all congressional hearings have been cancelled to focus on health care. Aren't these the same people who ridiculed John McCain for delaying a debate and suspending his campaign to deal with the financial crisis?  What was it they said?  Something about multitasking and grandstanding, wasn't it?  The economy and unemployment can wait.   After all, health care is number...um...eight on the public's priorities list. 

The stench of desperation is getting rather cloying these days, isn't it?

UPDATE:  Former Bush appointee Judge Michael McConnell weighs in (via The Volokh Conspiracy):

The Slaughter solution attempts to allow the House to pass the Senate bill, plus a bill amending it, with a single vote. The senators would then vote only on the amendatory bill. But this means that no single bill will have passed both houses in the same form. As the Supreme Court wrote in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), a bill containing the “exact text” must be approved by one house; the other house must approve “precisely the same text.”

With all due respect, I beg to differ on one point.  The Slaughter Solution attempts to allow the House to pass three bills with a single vote - don't forget the nationalization of the student loan industry that they have tucked into the reconciliation. 

Aside from that, bravo!

BEWARE THE TRAP Updated

I was quite skeptical of the 'health care summit' proposed by President Obama.  Considering the sneaky, backdoor dealings of this administration so far, I figured it was just a trap. The more I hear about it, the more I think my first instinct was right.  I had hoped that the democrats had seen the writing on the wall and were tacking to the center, but, as usual, it seems to be all smoke and mirrors. 

This whole things smacks of  a show for the American people by a remarkably media savvy administration.  The Democrats are attempting to look reasonable and willing to compromise.  If the republicans refused the meeting, they would look surly and partisan.  Unfortunately, accepting is just as much of a trap, because now they will be harangued, browbeaten and used as political cover for the mess of a bill that democrats are single-mindedly trying to ram down our throats.   Republicans requested starting from scratch and the Democrat's response is to bring their 2000 page nightmare of a bill (public option included) to the table, along with the hollow threat of reconciliation.

It's incredible that they are still talking about reconciliation - if this is possible, why haven't they done it?  Why bother with this meeting?  This whole exercise is pure propaganda, in my opinion.

Obama saying he will look at any options the Republicans bring to the table is more empty talk.  Sure, he'll look at their proposals - and then discard them for the behemoth public option he is so desperate to pass.  This isn't about reconciliation and compromise - it's about the Republicans bending to Obama's will and passing the 2,000 page nightmare Pelosi and Reid have cooked up and can't get enough of their own people to vote for.

This is just a dog and pony show to try to make the Republicans look like the party of no yet again.

Personally, I think the 'party of no' designation is a good thing.  They have been staunch in their denial of all things socialist.  They have been united in their condemnation of the insane spending policies of this administration.  They have held the line and refused to bend to pressure, bribery and threats.  They listened to the millions of Americans protesting the actions of this administration and tried their best to do the will of the people.  They said no to the radical agenda being pushed on us, and I, for one, am grateful, because it seems like those in power just aren't listening.  So, please 'obstruct' away!

This whole 'summit' idiocy is a desperate ploy by the Democrats to place the blame on the Republicans for health care reform not passing, because they realize the American people know that the only thing holding them back is themselves. 

Democrats are great at shifting blame - after all, they managed to blame all of Nancy Pelosi's spending and deficit inducing policies on George Bush (oh, and Pelosi refused to approve a 2009 budget from Bush, so the whole "budget for the entire [2009] fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House" argument is a load of hooey).  The President may suggest the budget and spending policies, but Congress holds the purse strings. 

We were finally bouncing back from 9/11 and Katrina and bringing down the deficits when Pelosi took over.  In 2007, the year Pelosi became Speaker, the deficit was $163 billion - down from a high of $413 billion in 2004.  In 2008, Pelosi's agenda started to affect the country.  The result?  A $455 billion deficit, which has been blamed entirely on Bush.  But that wasn't enough.  They have also tried to blame the staggering $1.3 trillion deficit of 2009 on Bush and the Republicans as well.  They blame TARP for most of the deficit - a bill they voted for as well, including Pelosi, Reid and then-Senator Obama.  But TARP wasn't what blew up the deficit - Stimulus, the omnibus spending bill and a $3.6 trillion budget did that.  They increased spending by about 18%, and are still trying to blame the resulting deficit on a man who hasn't been in office for over a year.

Over and over again this administration has proven themselves to be duplicitous, conniving, hyper-partisan and willing to stoop to any low to further their socialist agenda.

I personally hope the Republicans boycott this sham of a summit.  It's a trap, pure and simple.  I suggest they embrace the title 'Party of No' and say no to this summit and this health care plan.   They are in agreement with more than 60% of the country if they do.

UPDATE:  Via HotAir' s Quote of the Day:

“And then when unemployment numbers started proving to be much, much tougher and it started becoming more clear that the stimulus package hadn’t worked properly, they just kept plowing ahead on health care. And this isn’t a communications problem. This is a reality problem. And I think they just made some grave miscalculations and as it became more clear that they had screwed up, they just kept doubling down their bet.
“And so I think, no, this is one of the biggest miscalculations that we’ve seen in modern political history.”

The exit quote for Cook's interview is fantastic:

But if I had a choice of the Republican Party's problems right now or the Democratic Party's problems, I think you could triple the Republican Party's problems and I'd still rather have their problems than the problems facing Democrats.

Amen, brother....

PRESIDENT'S DAY Updated

Happy President's Day!

Today has been set aside as a day to remember two of our greatest Presidents.  On this day we celebrate Abraham Lincoln's birthday on Feb. 12th and George Washington's birthday on Feb. 22nd.  These two men are inarguably the greatest presidents our nation has ever seen. 

One man created the Office and set the bar for being President.  The other finished the work of our Founding Fathers in ensuring that all men truly are created equal. 

Washington knew that as the first, he would be setting the precedence for the office and would be held up as an example.  Luckily for our young country, he was a man of great honor and integrity. He saw the boundless possibilities of the nation and it's people, but saw, too, the potential for grasping men bent on exploiting that greatness.  He came from a time when dictatorships were the rule, not the exception.  It was his mission to prove that there could be another way.

For Lincoln, the mission was to live up to the spirit of the Constitution by ensuring the Blessings of Liberty to all.  He had to practically destroy the country in order to do it, but it needed to be done, and we are stronger for it.  The hard choices that he made allowed us to live up to our rhetoric of being a shining beacon of freedom and equality to the rest of the world.   His bravery and unswerving devotion to the cause of freedom has made him a revered and beloved icon of American history.

As we celebrate these great men, let us study them and use them to compare and contrast potential leaders of the future.  We need people of strong moral fiber who understand that kicking the can down the road is not a good strategy; eventually there is always a price to pay, and someone must step up and make the hard choices, political expediency be damned.  We need people who revere the Constitution; those who see it not as a flawed document that needs revision for modern times, but as a magnificent document that has created the greatest country in the world, whose citizens enjoy an unprecedented level of freedom and prosperity.

We have been a remarkably blessed country.  Not just in wealth and freedom, but blessed by the amazing people who have brought us to where we are today. 

But we can't just sit around and wait to be saved.  If someone can't be found, then perhaps We the People, having learned the lessons of the past from the great men who came before us, can light the path and save ourselves.   That means staying awake, alert and vigilant; fulfilling the promise of the Constitution and returning this country to the ideals that made it great.  There will be hard choices ahead, and possibly very tough times, but as Washington and Lincoln have taught us, some things are worth the sacrifice.  

Our country has been through crises before and survived.  I hate to think that people like Obama, Pelosi and Reid can bring us down.  They are the types who expect us to crumble before their claims of 'consensus', give in to their engineering, be oblivious to their schemes.  That is the problem with revising history - you are changing reality to fit your perspective, and sometimes reality has a nasty little slap to the face in store.  They underestimate our intelligence, patriotism and fortitude at their peril.  We are made of sterner stuff than that; we can survive anything they dish out and come out the other side victorious and the better for it. 

With men like Washington and Lincoln as our models, we can't go wrong.

UPDATE:  RealClearPolitics' Jay Cost has a great piece on George Washington.

HARRYCARI IS REALLY SCARY

HarryCari is being analyzed, and boy, is it scary. The word 'tax' is used 183 times.

That can't be good.

It allegedly would cover an additional 31 million Americans for a total of 94% insured. But, at a cost of $2.5 trillion, I'm thinking it would be an awful lot cheaper to just flat-out pay for nice Cadillac plans for the 31 million. Heck, let's throw in the remaining 6% uninsured for good measure - it would still be cheaper than the horror story that is HarryCari!

Now Harry is taking a page from Nancy Pelosi's book and is trying to force a vote on a Saturday night before a holiday, preferring to wear down rather than win over. How much time is being allotted to navigate a 2,074 page piece of legislation that will reshape 1/6th of the economy? 10 hours.

God help us all.

HOFFMAN AND PELOSI

Things are really heating up in chilly Upstate NY. The 23rd district, to be exact.

Apparently there are some serious...anomalies in the vote results. According to an email sent out by Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate:

• his campaign received faulty information on election night,
• inspectors read numbers incorrectly over the phone,
• a loss in Jefferson county has turned into a 400+ lead,
• not one but four districts incorrectly entered his vote total as zero.

So far, a 5,000+ 'win' for Owens has trimmed down to 3,000+, with 10,000 absentee ballots to go. The odds are good that Owens will still end up the victor, since Dede Scozzafava was still on the ballot at the time they went out. Of course ACORN and the unions seem to be involved, according to the Hoffman campaign. No concrete proof yet, though, so the jury's still out on that.

What surprises me is that no one seems to be talking about the legitimacy of Owen's vote for PelosiCare - perhaps because even without his vote it would still pass. But it certainly does illustrate the desperate measures Pelosi and co. are willing to sink to, all the way to allowing an uncertified civilian to vote for Congressional legislation.

The fact that the State Board of Elections Communications Director John Conklin sent a letter to the House Clerk explaining there was no winner yet in NY-23, no matter what the press are reporting is getting zero play. What's next, Nancy swearing in some buddies for the day to pass amnesty and 'working out the details' of the vote's legitimacy later? She seems to be playing politics pretty fast and loose lately, no?

Taken alone, this incident could be considered a minor glitch. But combined with the hyper-partisan strong-arm tactics, the manipulation of the press, the demonization of dissent, the KSM kangaroo court they are planning on setting up and the utter lack of concern - nay, disdain - for what the majority of America wants, this is starting to really look like a dictatorship. I'm just not sure who the dictator is - Obama or Pelosi.

Is there such a thing as a co-dictatorship?

PELOSICARE HORROR BILL PASSES HOUSE

Well, history was made last night. The worst bill in the history of this great country passed the House.

Proving what an unpopular stinker of a bill it is, it barely passed, 220-215. It limped over the finish line with just two more votes than necessary.

Queen Pelosi, of course, reveled in her victory, with her fawning syncophants bowing, scraping and clamoring for her autograph. Gag. What's worse is, that is the only reason why those bills were unwrapped - God knows they weren't opened to be read....

Rep. Cao has officially replaced Dede Scozzafava as the new posterpol for getting rid of RINOs. I'm sure Dede's having quite a laugh right now, considering Bill Owens, who ran against the public option for his entire campaign, voted for Pelosicare. Not that it matters - she would have, too.

The interesting thing is that most experts thought Her Imperial Highness would breeze that hideous behemoth of a freedom stealing, job killing, tax generating economy bomb through with a larger majority. Seems there are more CYA democrats than she thought.

His Holiness came down to mingle with the little people, Rahm 'The Enforcer' Emanuel no doubt skulking about in the shadows. The charm machine was set to 11and the pitch was made to be a part of history. I don't know about them, but this is definitely NOT the legislation I would want to go down in history for.

Well, now it's in Harry Reid's hands.

Why am I not reassured?

PELOSICARE HORROR PROVISION OF THE DAY: PART 4

Wow, is this one a doozy. It turns out some of those 3,345 'shalls' have some really stiff penalties.

Today, Rep. Dave Camp R-MI, ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee released a letter from the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT). This letter outlines the taxes and criminal penalties involved in non-compliance of the insurance mandate.

If you do not "maintain acceptable health insurance coverage" (the level of acceptability is entirely at the discretion of the federal government), you will be subject to an additional 2.5% income tax. This includes if you lose your insurance due to losing your job and not being able to afford a new policy because you're unemployed.

If you still continue to thwart Queen Pelosi by refusing to insure yourself, you will be subject to:

"• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3]"

So, if you're on Welfare, you don't have to pay anything. But if you are busting your hump to make a living (and pay for the people on Welfare) and end up losing your job because of the economically suicidal policies the administration is enacting, you will then be fined and possibly imprisoned. Is it just me or does it make more sense to skip the unemployment and go straight to Welfare? If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

BTW - did I mention her policy is going to cost $15,000? That is the lowest cost family non-group coverage available under her plan. Who the hell can afford that? I thought the whole point of this insurance 'reform' was to bring down costs and make insurance affordable for everyone.

Boy, if you think the prisons are overcrowded now, just wait 'til this thing kicks into effect.

Sounds like the American version of storming the Bastille is going to be on the revolutionary agenda after all.

PELOSICARE HORROR PROVISION OF THE DAY: PART 3 Updated

Today's horror provision isn't just a horror, it is also in direct violation of both they Hyde Amendment and the Smith Amendment.

Nancy Pelosi is determined to force her far-left progressive agenda down our throats. One of the major provisions that Americans are against is government funded elective abortions. The Hyde Amendment prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for elective abortions under Medicaid/care, and the Smith Amendment prohibits federal funding of abortions under the federal employees health benefits plans.

Pelosi's plan requires at least one insurance plan offered in the government exchange to cover elective abortions. On top of that, a monthly abortion premium will be charged to anyone enrolled in the government option. These premiums will be paid into a Treasury account that will be an abortion pool to pay for elective abortions.

Well, only people who opt into the plan will have to pay that, some will argue. The problem is, the way the bill is set up, eventually the only option will be the government (excuse me, consumer) option, and so all of us will eventually be paying into the pool. Maybe not next year or in five years, but, down the road, when all the private insurers are eventually driven out of business (which is the ultimate end result of the legislation), we will all be subject to it.

It will be interesting to see what the blue dogs make of this. So far, there are 43 democrats who have vowed to vote no on the health care legislation if there is abortion funding in it, so I'm sure Nancy will be twisting arms extra hard over the next 48 hours. Hopefully the blue dogs will stand firm against this abomination.

Yesterday they said the vote would be held Saturday, but I am hearing now that it will be Sunday. Sounds like Nan took a count and realized she's coming up short. What I'd really like to see is some blue dogs telling her they will vote yes so that it comes to the floor and then vote no to kill it once and for all. They would be heroes in my mind, and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be alone.

UPDATE: A Planned Parenthood director just stepped down after two events - she witnessed an abortion ultrasound, and she got a directive to stop pushing prevention and start pushing abortions due to tough economic times. According to Ms. Johnson, "her bosses told her to change her "priorities" and focus on abortions, which she said made money for the office at a time when the recession has left them hurting." I mention this in this update because I find it interesting that A) Planned Parenthood is 'hurting' and needs to promote more lucrative abortions, and B) that Pelosi, a big supporter of Planned Parenthood, has conveniently opened the floodgates of federal funding. Let's not forget C) it turns out Pelosi's former deputy chief-of-staff, Cecile Richards, is now President of Planned Parenthood.

What a coincidence.

PELOSICARE HORROR PROVISION OF THE DAY: PART 2

Today's horror is two-fold.

First, the scoring of Pelosi's bill rings in at $1.2 trillion. But she still insists that it will help reduce the deficit - not just in the first decade, but also in the second. I don't know what she's on, but it must be in the hallucinogen family.

So what does that $1.2 trillion buy us?

111 brand spanking new bureaucracies.

Oh goody, just what we need - more government!

Oh, and just for good measure, the word 'shall' appears 3,345 times in the bill. How much you wanna bet each one of those 'shalls' is backed up with a penalty or fee if we don't comply?

Democrats are denying that there are so many bureaucracies, saying they are 'demonstration projects', and the new agencies are just new 'projects' (rebrand, rebrand, rebrand!):

"A Democratic source dismissed the list of "bureaucracies" as an exaggeration, calling them "demonstration projects" instead.
"The programs and demonstration projects they list aren't new agencies but rather new projects," the source told Fox News. "And they're sensible ways to test new policies before more broadly implementing them. ... Many of the programs and demonstration projects are things that Republicans themselves have called for and supported." "

Yes, because we all know that programs and projects the government implements are hardly ever made permanent. If you read the quote carefully, you will note that the source says they are "ways to test new policies before more broadly implementing them", which means they will be implemented eventually, right? Unless they are trying to get us to believe they will admit to a mistake and dismantle an agency...sorry, I need a minute to get the laughter under control.

Anyhoo, of course they have to mention that there are republican ideas included in those 'projects' to give it an air of acceptability. What ideas would those be? Not funding abortion? No. Tort reform? No. Opening up state lines for a free-market insurance solution? No. Restricting illegals from accessing coverage with the public option? No.

Yeah, sounds real bipartisan.

I'm an optimist at heart, so the silver lining of this behemoth is that 111 new bureaucracies should mean more jobs.

Well, at least in 2013, when the plan goes into effect. I'm sure we can hang on 'til then....it's not like our taxes are going to go up astronomically in the meantime!

Oh, wait....

PELOSICARE HORROR PROVISION OF THE DAY

I'm sure there will be many more posts under this heading as more and more of the legislation is read and disseminated, but this first one is quite a doozy.

One of the major reforms to health care the American public has demanded is tort reform. It would save billions if enacted - $54 billion, to be exact.

So, is tort reform one of the ways they are allegedly bringing down costs?

Eh, not so much.

Turns out San Fran Nan has shown her love for trial lawyers. Not only is there no provision for tort reform, but the woman has the gall to actually make sure states can not reduce fees or cap damages without being penalized. So any hope the states may have had for controlling costs is just blown out the window.

Happy lawyers make better donors, eh Nancy?

JUMPING INTO THE VAT

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, on PBS's 'The Charlie Rose Show' Monday, said, "Somewhere along the way, a Value Added Tax plays into the - of course we want to take down the health care cost, that's one part of it, but in the scheme of things, I think it's fair to look at a Value Added Tax as well."

So what is a value added tax, anyway?

Well, the short answer is that it is a consumption tax that is added at each stage of production according to the value added to the product and included in the cost to the consumer.

The long answer? VAT is common around the world, and ranges from 5% all the way up to 25%, and would effect every good purchased. According to the Washington Post,

"a 25 percent VAT could do it all: Pay for health-care reform, balance the federal budget and exempt millions of families from the income tax while slashing the top rate to 25 percent. A gallon of milk would jump from $3.69 to $4.61, and a $5,000 bathroom renovation would suddenly cost $6,250, but the nation's debt would stabilize and everybody could see a doctor."

So a VAT would pay for our many entitlements, but we would feel it every time we purchased something. Don't forget, that VAT is in addition to whatever state sales taxes might be applicable. This is a hefty tax, and, although it technically is levied on manufacturers, the purchasing public will really be paying the price.

This is also a major redistributive mechanism, because a VAT of between 10-14% would generate enough revenue that families making under $100,000/year (about 90% of households) would be exempt from paying income tax, and even those in high tax brackets would enjoy a slight reduction in tax rates. Provided, of course, that the greedy little piggies at the Washington trough allow exemptions and reductions. I don't recommend you hold your breath on that one.

They will most likely attempt to spin it as a tax on all those mean old corporations who are - gasp - profiting from their endeavors. How dare they?! Businesses aren't supposed to make dirty old money, they're supposed to take care of us and give us stuff and be really, really nice and...hey, is that a unicorn peeping out from behind that pretty rainbow?

Back in the real world that all of us outside of D.C. have to live in, a VAT means that, while they can technically say with a straight face that this isn't a tax on the middle class, this is a tax on the middle class, and a big one, at that.

THE CALIFORNIA MICROCOSM

There are those of us who have been a bit riled up over the drastic increase in government since President Obama took office, and feel that government should be small and not intrude into everyday life (not to mention our free markets) too much. Those on the left saw fit to ridicule us and reiterate how necessary it is for a prosperous country to have a large, strong, omnipotent government dictating and regulating all facets of American life.

So who is right?

Well, if California is anything to go by, I'd have to say that the left are not just wrong, but delusional. A study of regulation and bureaucracy by California State University at Sacramento (a state-run school, not a private entity, by the way) found that a major reason for the economic collapse of the state is due directly to the ridiculous amount of regulation involved. To the tune of nearly $500 Billion.

Imagine the tab if they manage to 'fundamentally transform' the rest of the country in California's image. Considering it seems like San Francisco's Nancy Pelosi is in charge of the domestic agenda, that possibility isn't as remote as most of us would like.

As the trendy folk might say, we're Californicated.

Check out the whole report here.

RETREATING FROM THE RETREAT

Wow. Not even 24 hours after leading democrats backed away from the public option, suddenly it is creeping back onto the table. Sounds like they are being pressured by their far-left base. I haven't seen so many flip-flops since my last trip to the beach!

I'm not surprised, though. The public option is the entire reason d'etre for the health care reform package. The whole point is to get to a single-payer program, according to statements Obama has made in the past, and that can only be accomplished with a public option. They are getting backlash from their base, though, and so are walking back from their walking back.

Something to be wary of - they are testing the waters on a 'co-op' plan. I mentioned it in my last post. It might be a good idea, but it might possibly be a public option in disguise. I will be keeping tabs on it, for sure.

Remember, the democrats are masters of 'rebranding'. Single-payer raised alarm bells? Call it a 'public option'. Wise to the public option thing? Call it a co-op. Sounds very collectivist and trendy, doesn't it? So harmless, so...for the people.

We must continue to bring pressure to bear on them about their plans to steer us into their ultimate goal of single payer health care. We must be ever more vigilant, because our opponents are slippery and have a habit of changing the rules to suit their purposes. In the bizzarro world of the liberal elites, up is down, good is bad, wrong is right. Words are things to be manipulated, meanings changed, definitions redefined.

According to the House, only the Senate has removed the public option - the word is that the House bill won't pass without it. So was the Senate walk-back a red herring? Testing the waters to see what the base's backlash will be like?

Or is it just that the level of tone-deafness on the part of the House, and most notably Speaker Pelosi, is so high that they still think the push-back on public option is mere astroturf by a minority of insurance industry funded 'fringe' groups?

Perhaps they simply don't care what the majority of the public wants. Perhaps she is so drunk with power that she feels she doesn't need to pay attention to the obvious mandate by the people against it. Interesting how, back in November, a 53%-46% vote was depicted as an 'overwhelming mandate from the people', but 54% of voters polled recently who would prefer NO health care reform over the 35% who want reform is nothing to pay attention to.

Talk about selective hearing!

It's time to start telling them what we WANT, not just what we don't want. Scrap the bills. Tort reform. Streamline Medicaid/Medicare. Regulate insurers and require them to allow portability, access without employment and eliminate pre-existing conditions.

We're making progress, without a doubt. Every attack they've made against us has backfired on them. We must press our advantage, not sit back on our laurels. This isn't just health care that we are fighting for - it's 1/6th of the largest economy in the history of the world. Remember what Thomas Jefferson said:

"A government that is big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have."

Remember, too, the nine scariest words in the English language, according to Ronald Reagan:

"I'm from the government and I'm here to help."