Capitol Notebook

Believe it or not, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, in the course of promoting passage of the Senate version of ObamaCare, said that they need to pass the bill in order for people to really know what's in the bill.

Yes, really...

“You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other.  But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket.  Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting. 

“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."

We're not exactly sure why the bill would need to be "passed" in order for people to "find out what is in it".  Maybe because, once it's law, people can read it...since the US Code of Laws is actually a public document?  read more »

Leave it to the always insightful Michael Barone to put things in perspective.  Case in point is his column today discussing how the Democrats have put themselves squarely in the middle of the mess they are currently in...and his take on the complaints that the reason why they can't get something done (despite their big majorities) is Republican opposition.

There's a reason it's hard to pass unpopular legislation on party-line votes. It's not the Senate rules. It's called democracy.

Exactly.  And, given the latest polls on the issue - and on the coming elections - you could take that one step further and say "public opinion".

The biggest (political) problem with ObamaCare is that the public doesn't want it, as poll after poll after poll has demonstrated.  The latest comes from Rasmussen, which shows (ominously for Obama) that the more Congress and the public focuses on the issue, the more opposed they become to it. 

Currently, 53% of Americans are opposed to the pending Senate version of the bill, and only 42% support it.  Keep in mind that these numbers come AFTER Congress spent over a year working on the issue, Obama made dozens of speeches and town hall appearances, and after the highly covered health care "summit" meeting with Congress that Obama sponsored.  55% think Congress should scrap the whole thing and start from scratch.  read more »

Now that the Obama administration has decided to double-down on health care and demand passage of the Senate version of ObamaCare...and the White House has set a timeline of two weeks to get it done...it's safe to say that we're about to see some of the most severe arm twisting in political history. 

In fact, if you thought it looked bad the first time around, (when the House version passed by only 3 votes, and the Senate version passed that chamber by the bare minimum), you haven't seen anything yet.

Why is that?  Because the Democrats decided to forget about a conference committee, (the usual process of ironing out differences between House and Senate bills), and push the existing Senate bill through the House.  The problem is that it must be passed WITHOUT any amendments or changes whatsoever.  This is because, if it is changed, the Senate would have to approve it all over again...and this time there are 41 Republicans, (thanks to Scott Brown's win in Massachusetts), that can sustain a filibuster.  read more »

As we move into what should be the final (and most important) phase of the debate over ObamaCare, it's of course critical that members of Congress hear from as many of their constituents as possible.

And given Obama's speech outlining how he wants Congress to move forward, and Nancy Pelosi's recent statements, it looks like they intent to move forward with using the trick of the Senate budget reconciliation rule to pass this monstrosity.  This puts the near term focus on the House.

Below you'll find a list of the names and contact numbers for what appear to be the "swing votes" in the House on this issue.  If one of them is YOUR Representative it is VITAL that you contact them now and let them know how you feel.  If you would rather send them (or even all members of Congress) a fax, click here.

Contact them today...  Then pass it on!  read more »

People who are pushing for Pelosicare, Reidcare or Obamacare will say reconciliation is a good and moral practice. They will site "Great" presidents who have used it. Or will they? Nobody printed on the US dollar has used it. Nobody who face is on a mountain has used it. No these people who are so honored warned against the tyranny of the majority and set in place protections against it - The 2/3rds rule. Reconciliation has been used to remove spending. It has been used to introduce changes to legislation. It has never been used to make massive changes in Government. Our greatest leaders never used it - Why would they? They were leaders not dictators.

2/3rds can be a difficult number. It is required to change the constitution or remove a president. Reconciliation was created to allow the congress to act quicker on small maters of state to prevent a filibuster. A filibuster requires 2/3rds to end it - It can be used at anytime but it is rarely used.

Our leaders have decided that 2/3rds may not be required to change 1/6th of our economy and impose a federal requirement that people must purchase insurance.

   read more »

Voters in Texas made it unmistakably clear how they feel about their right to publicly acknowledge God in their primaries yesterday.

In the course of voting for (or against) nominees for public office, Texas Republicans were presented with a series of ballot questions.  Among them, Question 4, stating:

The use of the word “God”, prayers, and the Ten Commandments should be
allowed at public gatherings and public educational institutions, as
well as be permitted on government buildings and property.  YES OR NO

The result? 95% YES, 5% NO.

How's that for being clear about where the people in this country stand on questions of religious liberty?  I think it's safe to say we have a consensus on this issue...despite what the folks who run radical left organizations like the ACLU and the Alliance for the Separation of Church and State may say.

After being thoroughly reprimanded by the American people in town meetings last summer, in Tea Party events, and most recently in elections in Virginia and the liberal states of Massachusetts and New Jersey, and after the president's charade "bipartisan" summit last week, the Democrat leaders, led by Barack Obama, are arrogantly determined to push through ObamaCare by Easter.  

It is ironic that the Democrats have picked the Christian holiday of Easter as their deadline to ram through the most radical pro-abortion bill in American history, which will result in huge increases of abortions all across America, many paid for by American taxpayers.   

Indeed, Douglas Johnson, the legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee in "LifeNews.com" said:  "Every version of the health care bill has contained multiple pro-abortion mandates and federal subsidies for abortion  --  except for the version that was fixed by adoption of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, over Speaker Pelosi's objections.  

"But President Obama and Senator Reid succeeded in keeping that fix out of the Senate bill  --  indeed, the Senate produced a final bill that is the most pro-abortion single piece of legislation to reach the floor of either house of Congress since Roe v. Wade."     read more »

It looks like the American public is going to have to endure (and oppose) at least one more version of ObamaCare before we can finally be done with it.

The White House announced that Obama would pitch the newest version of his "plan" tomorrow.  Essentially, it looks like that plan will be "part" of the existing plans, with the addition of a few ideas that they call "Republican" ideas.

Of course this goes on against the backdrop of talk by the Democrat leadership (and the White House) that they will now look to use the budget reconciliation process to pass the bill.  Which means they're going to attempt to get around a Republican filibuster by using a rule that was designed for the budget process...not legislation that can remake 1/6th of the US economy.

But you're not likely to hear Obama (and even few Democrats) use the word "reconciliation"...or any talk about using the special rule to pass his big program.  Instead, they're rephrasing the talking points to use the term "simple majority".  Of course, they're quick to overlook the fact that their proposal doesn't even come close to having a "simple majority" of support among the American people.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has taken the retooling of euphemisms to the next level, saying that "The bill can be bipartisan, even though the votes might not be bipartisan".  read more »

Today, the United States Supreme Court refused to get involved in a lawsuit regarding a Ten Commandments display on public land in Oklahoma.  This is a warning to conservatives and to other Americans who believe in religious freedom that elections have consequences.   

The fact that a center-right U.S. Supreme Court can refuse to allow a Ten Commandments display on the grounds of a county courthouse in Stigler, Oklahoma is sobering.  The additional fact that Barack Obama is quickly filling the federal court vacancies with legislate-from-the-bench left-wingers is truly terrifying.   

An 8-foot-tall stone Ten Commandments monument has been on public property since the year 2004.  Some atheists, egged on by the ACLU, challenged the monument through a lawsuit and a federal appeals court in 2009 ruled that the Ten Commandments monument was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion by the county commission.   

Apparently, the United States Supreme Court is going to let the various circuit courts of appeal around the country make decisions on individual cases because in 2005, the nation's top court ruled in two cases that whether or not the Ten Commandments could be displayed on this government property or that government property would be determined on a case-by-case basis.    read more »