The Political Fish

Promises made, Promises broken.

So it is in politics I suppose. Conservatives nationwide rallied around Scott Brown just a few short weeks ago in his bid to fill the seat vacated by the passing of the late Senator Ted Kennedy.  Conservatives then had their hearts broken this past week when Scott Brown, the self proclaimed 41st vote, voted with the Democrats to end debate and bring the Senate Jobs bill to a final vote.

Does Scott Brown really believe that the “son of stimulus” bill will really spur growth? (By the way, be sure to check out FlemingandHayes.com linked above, new friends that I met at CPAC and doing an excellent job doing citizen journalism from Massachusetts.)

“The last stimulus bill didn’t create one new job,” Brown said in response to a question about a jobs bill pending in the Senate. He added that the stimulus may have retained some jobs

Before Conservatives tear their garments in mourning at this vote, here is my take on what took place. Scott Brown, for all the hype surrounding him, is not a true conservative. He is the definition of a moderate or as he dubbed himself…a Scott Brown Republican. His victory in Massachusetts was a referendum on the Obama agenda, but this jobs bill really does not fit into that hard left agenda. This likely was a political move on his part, remember his job is to represent his constituents. The majority of voters in Massachusetts are in fact Independents, not Democrats or Republicans. Typically the state has veered to the left of center. A vote on this jobs bill gives Brown a whiff of bipartisan behavior and offers an olive branch to his left of center supporters.

For conservatives out there who are likely to blast me for these words, let me be perfectly clear. I am by know means handing out a pass to Senator Brown on this. I offered my time and money in support of him, as did many others across the country. His vote is a disappointment, but I do not view it as a complete abandonment of the conservatives that worked tirelessly to get him elected.  It is a break from his own words of being the 41st vote and not the 60th, but he kind of left it open that he would certainly not tow the GOP party line on every vote.

Senator Snowe from Maine

And lets remember, he is not alone. The jobs bill passed the Senate today by a 70-28 margin, bringing on board many within the GOP wing of the Senate.  Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine (notorious RINO’s) also voted for the bill, along with Kit Bond of Missouri and George Voinovich from Ohio.

Senator George Voinovich (R-OH)

What all of these Senators need to realize is that the government will not create job growth. The only influence Capitol Hill can have on the economy is to get out of the way and free up the marketplace for some of that dreaded American entreprenurialism. Government quits creating instability in the small business world, we get jobs. It works every time. Now, there is no doubt that the administration will be touting the erroneous “jobs saved” statistic down the road, but really…is 15 billion dollars worth of a second jobs bill really going to have an impact on the American economy when a similarly crafted 787 billion dollar jobs bill had little effect? Oh wait..I forgot, Joe Biden told us that it saved two million jobs.

Before we as the conservative movement totally abandon the Scott Brown we came to love in the election cycle, lets try and keep it together and realize that A. He is a politician and B. We need him to help stop the freight train that is the Obama agenda. 

In ObamaNation, 15 billion dollars is a mere drop in the hat when you look at his deficits. This olive branch may be worth the investment to stop the more damaging elements of the Obama agenda.

Or maybe not, you tell me.

Update: Check out the CPAC Blogger of the Year Ed Morrissey’s take on the issue on HotAir.com.  He posted an update on the bottom of the page, where retiring Indiana Senator Evan Bayh declares Scott Brown the cure. Classic

Retiring Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana said Monday that electing more lawmakers like new Republican Sen. Scott Brown may be the “ultimate cure” for partisan gridlock in Washington.

Brown’s upset victory over a Democrat who held a double-digit lead a week before Massachusetts’ special Senate election last month signaled that voters wanted “more practical problem solving,” Bayh said in an interview Monday on ABC-TV’s “The View.

“Scott Brown is a good example of what I think the ultimate cure might be,” Bayh said. “My read on what happened in Massachusetts is the vast majority of moderates and independents rose up and said enough already.”

Note: "I'm leaving Washington because of excessive partisanship" is political-talk for "I'm going to lose in a landslide and I want to get out now."

From the Associated Press:

Media reports say that Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana has decided to not seek re-election.
The Indianapolis Star reports that Bayh is attributing his decision to excessive partisanship that makes progress on public policy difficult to achieve as the motivation for his decision.
Bayh scheduled a Monday afternoon news conference in Indianapolis. The Associated Press left messages seeking comment at his Senate office and for state Democratic chairman Dan Parker, who is Bayh’s  campaign manager.

This is huge for the Republicans and their bid to win back the majority.  The folks at fivethirtyeight.com had Bayh’s seat as the ninth-most likely to change parties this November.   After all, Bayh is quite popular in his home state; he has faced re-election from the voters three times and has claimed at least 62.0% in each of them.

The question is, who will the Republicans trot out as their Senate candidate?  Some believe that Rep. Mike Pence, who I mentioned as a 2012 Presidential Hopeful, could be that candidate.

These guys don’t seem to get it. This is some of the better spin I have heard recently as a reaction to the Scott Brown victory in Massachusetts. Believe it or not, Howard Dean is suggesting that had Obama been more of a leftist than he already is, he would have won…not the Republican centrist brown. It’s a laughable argument at best, but Dean was able to sit there with a straight face and peddle this garbage.

I suppose the Democrat Party needs to try and spin this any way they can so it does not turn into a full-blown party implosion but this…this is some priceless stuff.

There are a few classy Democrats left out there. Senator Jim Webb’s office tonight released a statement in the wake of the upset in Boston. From Ben Smith.

In many ways the campaign in Massachusetts became a referendum not only on health care reform but also on the openness and integrity of our government process. It is vital that we restore the respect of the American people in our system of government and in our leaders. To that end, I believe it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated.

A wonderful political play by Mr. Webb. I just have to wonder if the majority leader, as well as the President feels the same way. So far no response has been seen on these comments.

It is however the right thing to do. Paul Kirk, who has been occupying the seat formerly held by Ted Kennedy since his death, is no longer a player in the debate. He had his moment to cast the 60th vote, and he rubber stamped the Obama agenda as everyone expected. Scott Brown has declared that he will not.

What oh what will you do Majority Leader Reid?

Healthcare reform (the Obama takeover plan that is) is now officially on life-support. Maybe we can have a Senate that will work as one to come up with real reform. It can still be considered the greatest deliberative body in the world. Lately it has become a disgrace.

In the words of Scott Brown tonight, we can do better. Maybe Senator Webb’s statement is a start.

UPDATE:

Barney Frank agrees??? Wow, this one took me back a step. From USA Today.

Democratic leaders now must consider whether to push for final approval of the health care bill. They have been trying to negotiate a compromise bill that would reconcile the differences between bills approved in the House and Senate.

Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank, a strong supporter of the health care legislation, said Brown’s victory means Congress will have to “start over on health care.” He said he will vote against any bill rushed to the floor before Brown can be sworn in.

 

With the reconciliation of the health care bills nearing a close, discussion has once again turned to whether its enactment should ultimately require sixty votes (the amount required to overcome a filibuster) in the Senate, or whether such sweeping legislation should be able to pass with a simple majority.  Those who favor the simple majority approach may wish to reconsider.

When in power, both parties complain that they are unable to legislate freely, saying that the American people have bestowed upon them a mandate (which they interpret to be a divine right) to govern.  But when not in power, the respective parties find themselves grateful for, and frequently avail themselves of the right to filibuster certain legislation or nominees.  Thus, the ability to filibuster remains in part because both parties understand that the political pendulum swings both ways, and it does so frequently.  Indeed, since 1979, majority control of the Senate has changed hands five times (including 2001, when Sen. Jeffords changed from Republican to Independent), an average of once every six years.  Were fifty-one votes (or fifty plus the Vice President) sufficient to enact far-reaching legislation, the country would be forever reversing itself on major policy matters.

But perhaps the more compelling reason to require sixty votes is that the Senate is really only a quasi-representative body at best.  Unlike the House of Representatives, representation in the Senate is not proportional to population, but rather two votes are given to each state regardless of size.  The result is that the smallest twenty-six states are given fifty-two out of one-hundred Senate seats, even though they only comprise roughly seventeen percent of the American population.  By contrast, the five largest states –California, Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois — comprise approximately thirty-eight percent of the general population, but are only given ten out of one-hundred Senators.  In other words, a majority can be achieved in the Senate even if it is only supported by a small fraction of the country.  At least by requiring sixty as opposed to fifty votes, we balances the scales somewhat.

One of the reasons why our Founding Fathers opposed term limits was because they wanted the Representatives to always be accountable to the people.  They argued that a “lame-duck” Congressman would act in his own best interests, and not those of his constituents, while he waited for his term to expire.  Now, I am in favor of term limits, but I see the point the Founding Fathers were trying to make.

That being said, I was a little disappointed to see that two Democrat Senators, Chris Dodd (D-Connecticut) and Byron Dorgan (D- North Dakota) have decided that they do not want to face the wrath of the voters in 2010.  Pity.

Its the new year everybody, 2010 is upon us.  I’m sure most if not all celebrated the new year in some way, but Congress is going to ruin that celebration. In fact, at the stroke of midnight they did just that. See, the House of Representatives had passed measures that would keep some key tax provisions on the books for another year. Thats a good thing right? Well, unfortunately Harry Reid in his rush to force a Christmas vote on his disasterous healthcare bill failed to address the House’s measure, therefore all of the tax provisions that were set to be extended…well, they all expired at the stroke of midnight.

Grab your wallets everyone. It was either a disasterous oversight on the part of the Senate Majority Leader, or it was a planned oversight designed to continue to follow the progressive mantra of tax and spend. From the Heritage Foundation, here is a brief overview of some of the tax provisions and cuts that have recently expired.

The House has passed legislation (H.R. 4213) that would have extended 63 current tax provisions, but the Senate failed to bring this bill to a vote. Thus, all of these provisions expired at midnight last night. Notable provisions as reported today by Tax Notes include:

• Deduction of state and local general sales taxes (section 164) (Personal Tax Incentives)
• Additional standard deduction, up to $500 for individuals and $1,000 for couples, for state and local property taxes (section 63) (Personal Tax Incentives)
• Research tax credit and alternative simplified credit (section 41) (General Business Tax Incentives)
• New markets tax credit (section 45D) (Community Assistance Provisions)
• Empowerment zone incentives (sections 1391 and 1202) (Community Assistance Provisions)
• Renewal community tax incentives (sections 1400E, 1400F, 1400I, and 1400J) (Community Assistance Provisions)
• District of Columbia Investment Incentives (sections 1400, 1400A, 1400B, and 1400C) (Community Assistance Provisions)
• Net disaster loss designation and $500 limit per casualty for personal casualty losses attributed to federally declared natural disasters (section 165) (General Disaster Relief Provisions)
• Expensing for qualified disaster expenses (section 198A) (General Disaster Relief Provisions)
• Biodiesel and renewable diesel incentives (section 40A) (Energy Incentives)
• Alternative motor vehicle credit for heavy hybrids (section 30B) (Energy Incentives)

Although the House has acted and passed its version of the Tax Extenders Act of 2009, the Senate failed to act on similar legislation, as a result the following additional key tax provisions will expire:

• Increased exemption levels for the individual alternative minimum tax (section 55) and personal tax credits allowed against the AMT (section 26)
• Exclusion of unemployment compensation benefits from gross income (section 85)
• Alternative fuel mixture tax credit (section 6426(e))
• Reduced estimated tax payments for small businesses (section 6654(d)(1)(D))

The question is, will Harry Reid work quickly when they come back in session to pass legislation that will re-up all of these tax breaks, or will the Democrat controlled Congress continue to stifle small business growth. I won’t be holding my breath. Happy New Year from the United States Senate.

It was late at night. The stress of the impending doom that is the healthcare bill was weighing heavy on the minds of the United States Senators. Maybe Senator Baucus just couldn’t take it anymore. We will never know, but watch this CSPAN video from that Christmas Eve morning and see for yourself. You decide.

Drunk with Power maybe??

Humana Inc, one of the nations largest healthcare insurers is the new target of the United States Government employing political intimidation and hardball tactics on the private company in response to a letter they sent out to their customers enrolled in the Medicare Advantage program about looming changes coming their way through the new health care reform bill, currently being brokered by Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT). This is amazing by even Obama administration standards to go after a private company voicing its opposition to the Presidents plan. From WSJ.

Earlier this month, Humana sent a one-page letter to its customers enrolled in its Medicare Advantage plans, which offer private options to Medicare beneficiaries. Humana noted that, because of spending cuts proposed by Democrats, “millions of seniors and disabled individuals could lose many of the important benefits and services that make Medicare Advantage health plans so valuable.” The Kentucky-based company also urged its customers to contact their Representatives. Pretty tame stuff, as these things go.

Mr. Baucus took it as a declaration of war. He complained to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the federal health-care agency, which on Friday duly ordered Humana to cease and desist. CMS claimed the mailer was “misleading and confusing” and told the company it has opened an official probe as to whether the mailer violated laws about how the insurers that manage Advantage plans are allowed to communicate with their customers, as well as other federal statutes.

“Please be advised that we take this matter very seriously and, based upon the findings our investigation, will pursue compliance and enforcement actions,” CMS concluded, ominously. Humana could be fined or booted from Medicare Advantage altogether.

Ah yes, nothing like the government vendetta against a private company, who one might consider the expert on the subject of health insurance reform. Now I am sure all of the haters out there will tell us that the only reason Humana would dare send that type of letter out is because they are the big greedy corporation ready to kill off any and every person on their rolls if it can save them a dollar, its the typical scare tactic from marxist progressives. But check out the facts here, they can after all be stubborn things.

In fact, the Baucus draft legislation slashes $123 billion over the next decade from Medicare Advantage, which Democrats hate despite the fact that almost one-fourth of beneficiaries have chosen it over traditional fee-for-service Medicare. One reason seniors like it is because private insurers focus on quality and preventive care and try to manage benefits, as opposed to simply paying bills.

A new study from America’s Health Insurance Plans, the industry trade group, finds that seniors on Advantage in California spent 30% fewer days in hospitals over fee-for-service patients, based on federal data. Democrats say that insurers are “overpaid,” but the cuts—as Humana correctly noted—mean that seniors may lose this coverage.

Mr. Baucus doesn’t want seniors to be educated about these facts, and obviously he’s willing to use his enormous power to punish any private company that doesn’t affirm his, well, creative version of reality. Nearly half of Humana’s yearly revenue comes from Medicare Advantage, and the insurer says that it is complying in full with the CMS investigation. Yesterday, the agency also barred all Advantage insurers from providing similar information to their beneficiaries.

Where are the Republicans in Congress standing up to this sort of over the top tyrannical behavior on the part of Baucus and the CMS. This is clearly part of their overarching strategy of intimidation and stifling of dissent in this country. We have watched it happen with all of the brushing aside of the teaparty movements, the outcry at the townhalls this past summer and every other opposing view of the Presidents healthcare proposal. It seems that once again, powerful Congressman are being allowed to run amock, while their colleagues stand idly by and watch. If Humana broke the law in their communique to their customers, then so be it, prosecute them. But the writing is on the wall here that the plan is to spin around some vague interpretation of a law and make an example.

It is sickening behavior on the part of the Obama administration. It does however fit the character of this Chicago-thugocracy that currently resides in the White House.  Its a non-violent crackdown on the part of the United States Government to silence dissent. Its un-Constitutional and needs to be called out. I am sure we  won’t see it on the DNC’s Call em Out website though.

I guess the term “ILLEGAL aliens” doesn’t mean much to certain Senators on Capitol Hill these days. Obama hasn’t passed out free citizenship amnesty to all just yet, so for the time being illegal aliens are still…ahem…illegal. Check out the story from Judicial Watch.

An influential senior Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee is withholding support for his party’s recently drafted healthcare reform bill because illegal immigrants won’t benefit under the plan. 

The only Hispanic in the U.S. Senate, New Jersey’s Robert Menendez, doesn’t like the way illegal aliens are treated in the bill, recently released by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, and refuses to vote for it until changes are made. This could create a huge problem, according to the congressional newspaper that broke the story, because Menendez has considerable leverage and may represent the committee’s deciding vote. 

Specifically, Menendez objects to the portion of the bill that forbids illegal immigrants from buying health insurance through newly created exchanges that will be set up to cut costs. The senator, once among the highest ranking Democrats in the U.S. House, has joined forces with Hispanic advocacy groups that have denounced the proposed measure’s emphasis on legal and illegal immigrants. 

Sickening how race-based politics gets in the way of that pesky rule of law thing….Shame on you Senator Menendez!