One Republican vote: “bipartisan support”

Louisiana Congressman Joseph Cao (R-LA) had long been a holdout, intending to vote against the House version of the health care bill.

The White House worked on him for weeks, to convince him to vote for it. As a result, he gave in, voted for it, and as a reult:

The health care reform bill passed by a 220-215 vote Saturday. Cao’s backing denied the Republican Party the ability to claim a unanimous rejection of the bill, and it allows Democrats to claim some semblance of bipartisan support.

Clouture

Cloture is a rule in the Senate that limits the time for debate for a bill. It is usually used to end a filibuster (a process by which Senators can debate a bill endlessly, in an attempt to keep it from passing. Filibusters had their heyday in the late 1880s and early 1900s. Democratic Louisiana Senator Huey P. Long once held the floor by continuing to talk for 24 hours straight (he was opposed to the Civil Rights Act)). It can also be used to prevent a potential filibuster.

The Senate can prevent this by invoking cloture. That happens when 60 Senators vote for it.

The rule was started in 1915, under President Wilson. Since that time, it has been invoked only 5 times.

The current vote, on Saturday, November 21, marks the sixth time.

Will the Real Obama please stand up?

Remember back in July when Professor Gates of Harvard was arrested? That was on the afternoon of Thursday, July 16.

Less than a week later, on Wednesday, July 22, on a prime-time news conference, Obama said

… I think it’s fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there’s a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That’s just a fact.”

In other news, on Thursday, November 5, Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan went on a shooting spree and killed 13 people (including Francheska Velez and her unborn child) and wounding 38 others.

As of today, Tuesday, November 16, Obama’s latest statement is

… President Obama on Friday cautioned against jumping to conclusions on the motive of the suspect.

“We don’t know all the answers yet and I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts,” Obama said in the Rose Garden of the White House.

Yet another czar

There seems to be no end to the number of “czars” Obama will appoint. (For the record, the official title is “Senior Policy Advisor”.)

The latest comes to light in recent news, although the appointment was made last June.

Washington — President Obama has appointed Kimberley Teehee as his chief adviser on Native American issues. The president says he has appointed Teehee, who is a member of the Cherokee Nation, to fill the newly created position of senior policy adviser for Native American affairs.

American Indians exempt from the Health Care bill

Exempting Native Americans From Mandate

Speaking at the National Indian Health Board Consumer Conference here, Health and Human Service Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the president supports an exemption from that mandate for individual American Indians and Alaskan Natives. “I’m going to make it very clear,” she said, “the administration strongly believes that the individual mandate and the subsequent penalties don’t apply to American Indians or Alaska Natives.”

California income tax increase

As everybody knows, California is running out of money. Someday, they might stop spending, but in the meantime, they have an option not available to the rest of us: they’ll simply take more money out of our paychecks.

Since they can’t actually raise taxes without a lot of bother,

Sacramento lawmakers have authorized a 10% increase in the amount of taxes withheld from worker paychecks starting November 1 and through 2010.

But the lawmakers say this isn’t a tax increase. OK, how about calling it a compulsory interest-free loan from taxpayers to the state?

If you end up owing less than they took out, they’ll graciously give it back to you in 2011, when you file your return.

Unless, of course, they’ve run out of money again:

What happens come April if the state doesn’t have enough money to pay the tax refunds it owes its citizens? Will taxpayers get IOUs the way state contractors did last year when Sacramento ran out of money?

The WSJ article concludes with:

They claim to want to steal only from the rich, but their latest withholding ruse is showing that they’ll steal from anyone with a paycheck.

There is one thing we have to fight back with: increase your allowed exemptions. Here is the California withholding form DE 4. All employers have a means to change your state and federal withholding allowances.

Tax law is complicated, and the consequences are drastic and unpleasant, so be very careful if you decide to go this route. As a minimum, you should have last year’s return, and a complete record of this year’s withholdings before you change anything.

Hilary admits it

Our charming, diplomatic Secretary of State was in Pakistan the other day, trying to drum up support for our side, and reassure them that we’re [from the government] and we’re here to help.

As usual with the World’s Smartest Woman, she got a little testy when the Pakistani miltary told her they had no idea where Osama bin Laden was hiding. During a meeting at Lahore University, one student had the temerity to ask

“What guarantee can the American give Pakistanis that you guys would not betray us like you did in the past?”

(He’s probably not going get to be the next ambassador to the U.S.)

But then, at a later meeting, there was a slip of the tongue:

We (the United States) tax everything that moves and doesn’t move, and that’s not what we see in Pakistan.

That’s the Democrats’ ideal:

If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
— Ronald Reagan, 1986

The clammy tentacles of government

Just when we thought things are slowing down, they come up with a House bill that runs 1990 pages. It’s estimated to be about 400,000 words (many of which are incomprehensible legalese). There’s an online version. It’s a 3+ megabyte pdf.

The paperback version of War and Peace is 1296 pages, about 560,000 words. The longest novel we can find so far is that one by Proust. Amazon says it’s 4211 pages. I don’t really count it, because it’s published in seven volumes, and almost no-one has read any of them. I’ve heard it’s a foolproof insomnia cure.

Let’s say a good reader can read 200 words/minute (but that’s for a novel, not a math textbook). 400000 words / 200 words/min = 2000 minutes = 33.33 hours. The Bill is certainly denser than a math textbook, so I’d say it’s reasonable to allow 3 times as long to read it: 100 hours, or 4 days, round the clock. Now try to remember on Thursday what you read on Monday.

The tentacles

That’s only part of the problem. The annoying part is that this bill reaches down into the details of our lives, micro-managing on a level unheard of before now. Consider this part:

Page 1213: There is language in the bill regulating vending machines, to ensure everyone will see nutrition labels on items before purchasing their food. See language here:

‘SEC. 2572. NUTRITION LABELING OF STANDARD MENU ITEMS AT CHAIN RESTAURANTS AND OF ARTICLES OF FOOD SOLD FROM VENDING MACHINES.

(viii) VENDING MACHINES.—In the case of an article of food sold from a vending machine that—
‘‘(I) does not permit a prospective puchaser to examine the Nutrition Facts Panel before purchasing the article or does not otherwise provide visible nutrition information at the point of purchase; and

‘‘(II) is operated by a person who is engaged in the business of owning or operating 20 or more vending machines, the vending machine operator shall provide a sign in close proximity to each article of food or the selection button that includes a clear and conspicuous statement disclosing the number of calories contained in the article.

When I buy a candy bar from a vending machine, I really don’t care what the calorie count is – I just want a sugar hit or a chocolate fix.

The only reasonable conclusion from this is that They think we’re helpless children, incapable of making even the slightest decisions without the advice of our keepers.

Enough is enough. It’s time for these people to retire, to go back to annoying their neighbors, and leave the rest of us alone.

Humpty Dumpty in the White House

Lewis Carroll wrote Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass. One of the characters she meets along the way is Humpty Dumpty, a garrolous fellow with peculiar ideas about words. Words mean, he explains to Alice, just exactly what he means them to mean:

(Humpty Dumpty) There’s glory for you!’

`I don’t know what you mean by “glory”,’ Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don’t — till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”‘

`But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument”,’ Alice objected.

`When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

`The question is,’ said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

`The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master — that’s all.’

Like Alice, we might be a little puzzled as to what this has to do with the White House. Do pay attention.

In a recent interview with George Stephanopoulos, Obama answered a question about taxes.

Stephanopoulos asked

… when “the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t [buy insurance]. . . . How is that not a tax?”

… to which Obama answered (after deftly trying to evade the question)

No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore . . .” In other words, like parents talking to their children, this levy — don’t call it a tax — is for your own good.

Well, if it’s for your own good, and it’s not a tax, it’s a levy, it must be all right.

Unfortunately, the word “levy”, as a noun, means “The act or process of levying”. That’s not much help, so we go to “levy” as a verb: “To impose or collect (a tax, for example)”.

So while Obama prefers not to call a tax a tax, but rather a levy, he fails to realize that a levy is in fact a tax.

Obama keeps at it:

“No, but — but, George, you — you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase.”

One of the Old Greek Guys – Epicurus – was fond of asking people to “define your terms”. Voltaire also thought that was a good idea, especially if people intend to carry on a meaningful conversation.

Stephanopoulos lays down his trump card:

He then had the temerity to challenge the Philologist in Chief, with an assist from Merriam-Webster. He cited that dictionary’s definition of “tax” — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”

[Keep in mind two important points: "imposed by authority" (in other words, pay up or else), and "for public purposes".]

Obama fields that one like a typical liberal – he ignores it:

“George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. . . .”

["Stop trying to confuse me with facts."]

There’s no retreat:

Mr. Stephanopoulos: “But you reject that it’s a tax increase?”

Mr. Obama: “I absolutely reject that notion.”

Even though it is “imposed by authority”, and “for public purposes”.

The problem is, Obama has such a faint grasp of economics that he wouldn’t recognize a tax if he saw one. He seems to believe that people owe the government mountains of money, and they should be more than happy to just send all their moldy old greenbacks to Washington.

White Coats for Obama

The President keeps slugging away, just as if the loss of his old hometown to the Olympics isn’t news any more.

Here’s a photo of a Rose Garden speech:

It’s from a Reuters news article

Let’s think back a bit. How many doctors wear white doctor-coats any more? A few, yes, but not many.

And how many that still do, wear them out in public?

Correct: none.

This is just another example of childish showmanship that seems to be a hallmark of the Obama administration.

Two of the doctors identified in the Photo are Dr Monma Mangat (Allergy & Immunology, Internal Medicine, Pediatrics, practicing in Florida), and Dr Hershey Garner (oncologist, Arkansas).

Dr Garner donated $2684 to Obama’s camagn in 2008, $2000 to John Kerry in 2004, and $1000 to the DNC in 2004.

There’s certainly nothing wrong with putting your money where your scalpel is, but now that we know that Dr Garner is a strong supporter of Democrats, his presence at the speech is understandable.

There’s no information on Dr Mangat’s contributions.

Update: The New York Post has a photo of the preparations:

Staffers handed out white doctor-coats to those who forget to bring theirs. If they weren’t wearing white coats, we simpletons out beyond the Beltway might think they’re physicists, or accountants, or insurance salesmen, or plumbers (no, wait – everybody knows plumbers don’t wear suits).

I’m almost surprised the White House didn’t make them wear stethoscopes, but somebody probably told them that would be a little over-the-top.

But the real question to these doctors is, why do they support this plan? What do they expect to get out of it? As nearly as we can see (since the bill itself is still in a a state of flux), they’ll get more rules, more red tape, more patients, longer hours, …

Doctors vs. Obama, Part II

More from Investor’s Business Daily:

Massachusetts is one of the states that have a plan similar to the one the administration is proposing. From the IBD atricle:

• Seven of 18 specialties — dermatology, neurology, urology, vascular surgery and (for the first time) obstetrics-gynecology, in addition to family and internal medicine — are in short supply.
• The percentage of primary care practices closed to new patients is the highest ever recorded.

Britain is way ahead of us in this area (and many others besides):

In Britain, a lack of practicing physicians means the country has had to import thousands of foreign doctors to care for patients in the National Health Service.
British doctors, demoralized by long hours and burdensome rules, simply refuse to see patients at nights and weekends.

Let’s not forget Canada:

Canadian physicians who have to deal with the stringent rules and income limits imposed by that country’s national health plan have emigrated in droves to other countries, including the U.S.

But where are they going to go when our system is no better than theirs or Britain’s?