Opinion and discussion by “real” people about world and life events.

Jan 23, 10:17 AM EST

Obama hunkers down as health care falters

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR and ERICA WERNER
Associated Press Writers

WASHINGTON (AP) — Cool and confident, President Barack Obama basked in applause as he promised jittery Democratic lawmakers a coast-to-coast health care victory tour to sell the bill’s benefits upon its passage.

It seemed like a foregone conclusion at that point, just over a week ago. Now a rebuke from voters in Massachusetts has brought Obama’s health care overhaul to a defining moment. Having reached closer than any president to making health-care-for-all part of the social safety net, Obama may yet see his goal slip away.

The loss of their 60th Senate seat on Tuesday night in Massachusetts struck fear into Democrats. The president, who two weeks ago was driving deals to settle disagreements among House and Senate Democrats, sent mixed signals this past week that betrayed a lack of certainty about his intentions.

Old divisions resurfaced, leaving Democrats confused and frustrated.

Obama on Friday sought to recover his equilibrium. “I didn’t take this on to score political points,” a defiant Obama told workers in recession-weary Ohio. “And I’m not going to walk away just because it’s hard. We’re going to keep on working to get this done – with Democrats, I hope with Republicans – anybody who’s willing to step up.”

Step up. That’s what some Democratic lawmakers are saying Obama needs to do.

“I think he has got to get even more deeply involved,” said Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md. “He’s a key facto, and we have to see exactly to what degree he wants to play that role.”

“He has the ability to bring us all together,” said Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., one of the negotiators in recent White House talks. “He did that … to try to resolve the differences between the House and Senate. Again, it’s going to take that kind of leadership.”

Associated Press reporters interviewed lawmakers and other important players to reconstruct a pivotal moment for Obama’s signature issue – and his presidency.

—

SO NEAR

Detached and cerebral Obama was not. Two weeks ago, the president cut through the mind-numbing details of the 2,000-page Democratic health care bills to find workable compromises.

Summoning House and Senate leaders to the White House, Obama sat them down to settle their major remaining differences. Among the issues: a Senate tax on high cost insurance plans deeply opposed by labor, and a strong desire by House lawmakers to make premiums more affordable.

Obama listened to each side, but kept pushing lawmakers to find middle ground, participants said. He made rapid progress, working past midnight as he also coordinated the U.S. response to the earthquake in Haiti. A deal was reached on the insurance tax.

A week ago Thursday, Obama went to the Capitol to address House Democrats at their issues retreat. He beamed with optimism.

“It’s reform that finally offers Americans the security of knowing that they’ll have quality, affordable health care whether they lose their job or change their job or they get sick,” he said. “And that’s why I’ll be out there waging a great campaign from one end of the country to the other, telling Americans with insurance or without what they stand to gain.”

Things were about to change.

That same day, a respected independent poll showed Republican Scott Brown overtaking Democrat Martha Coakley in Massachusetts, with the race to succeed the champion of health care – the late Edward M. Kennedy- too close to call.

Political alarms went off at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue even as the health care talks were close to concluding. By Friday a week ago, Obama and the congressional leaders were down to final options on the major disputes. The White House also scheduled a last-minute trip by Obama to try to save Coakley’s campaign.

Last Sunday, as Obama campaigned in Massachusetts, White House aides and their allies began floating a fallback plan if Coakley were to lose, depriving Democrats of undisputed control over the Senate. Audaciously simple, it called for the House to swallow hard and pass the Senate bill, maybe fix it later.

—

DISARRAY

The scene Tuesday evening in the cavernous meeting complex beneath the Capitol was like a mirage. House leaders were briefing Democrats on progress at the White House talks the week before. It would be rendered moot by the results from Massachusetts.

Lawmakers came to work Wednesday morning facing a new reality. Democrats no longer had the votes in the Senate to keep Republicans from blocking the health care bill, and the rest of Obama’s agenda. With the loss of Kennedy’s seat, Obama seemed to retreat – and stumble.

In an interview with ABC News, the president who only days before had been functioning as nightshift foreman of the health care talks said it wasn’t his role to delve into the details of legislative strategy. He suggested lawmakers might want to regroup around a smaller package of popular measures.

With House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., trying to gauge support for passing the Senate’s bill, Obama’s candor unnerved White House aides, who scrambled to reinterpret their boss’ remarks.

It was no use. After meeting with Democratic lawmakers Thursday morning, Pelosi delivered the news that she didn’t have the votes to pass the Senate bill.

Suddenly every Democrat had his or her own idea about what to do next. Some wanted to move on, noting that jobs and the economy are more important to voters than health care. Many called for scaling back the bills to more manageable and understandable dimensions. Some demanded a heroic attempt to enact comprehensive changes.

Old divisions broke into the open again.

Not two weeks ago, Pelosi was close to a final handshake with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. By Thursday, she dismissed the Senate bill as a nonstarter tainted by backroom deals. Reid complained that the House doesn’t listen to him. Pelosi huffed that the House, unlike the Senate, doesn’t have surprise elections.

By Friday, Obama was back to arguing that comprehensive health care legislation remains the best route for the nation.

Democrats are now in a self-imposed cooling off period of uncertain duration. No decisions have been made on how to salvage health care.

“This was always threading a needle,” said Dodd.

The irony, he went on to say, is that the loss of Kennedy’s seat has brought Democrats to their current predicament. Dodd said he wouldn’t want to go visit Kennedy’s grave at Arlington National Cemetery right now, as he did on Christmas Eve when the Senate passed its version of the bill.

“I’m afraid he might pop out at me.”

—

Associated Press writers Chuck Babington and Alan Fram contributed to this report.

News from The Associated Press

It’s a very weak house if one brick can cause it to collapse and that appears to be what is happening now that there is going to be a new Republican Senator in Washington next month.  This is a very sad commentary on the state of our faltering government.

And is Obama changing to accommodate what is so obviously what the people want?  Hell no.  He is on the campaign trail once again to push “Obamacare”.  Has the thought ever occurred to ANYONE in Washington that if it takes THIS much work that there might be a problem??

Has the thought ever occurred to Mr. Obama that he can only blame Bush for so long before someone slaps duct tape over his mouth?  Bush, like him or not, was our president for the past 8 years and didn’t spend as much money for his collective 2 terms as Obama has in his first year!!!

And again he is clamping down on banks.  I am old enough to remember the stories of my grandparents who lived through the Great Depression and what was the straw that broke the camel’s back?  THE FAILURE OF THE BANKS!!!  I do NOT advocate what has been frivolous actions by our banking system in the past, but come on!!!….  Anymore clamp downs just might bring the banks to their knees.

Arrogance at it’s ugliest.

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!! 

Utah HB67: Health Care Nullification

07. Jan, 2010  Written by: Michael Boldin

Utah State Representative Carl Wimmer has introduced House Bill 67 (HB67), which, if passed, would require the state “to opt out of federal reform when the state determines that opting out is in the best interest of the citizens of the state.”

20-25 states are expected to consider similar legislation in the 2010 legislative session. Click here to see current bill tracking on Health Care Nullification efforts.

My question, though, is this – does the state of Utah have the resolve to say “NO!” to national health care if (and when) the federal government tells them that it doesn’t care about HB67?

Hard to say for now – and Rep. Wimmer’s statements imply that instead of really standing up to D.C., this is just a way to start a court battle:

“I have no doubt whatsoever this bill will result in a lawsuit and will result in the state going to court against the federal government so we can enforce our law”

Personally, I don’t have too much hope for the federal government (through the courts) restraining the power of the federal government – but I’d certainly be happy if they do.

In the Virginia Resolution of 1798, James Madison wrote of the principle of “interposition”:

That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the federal government, as resulting from the compact, to which the states are parties; as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact; as no further valid that they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the states who are parties thereto, have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them.

Here Madison asserts what is implied in nullification laws – that state governments not only have the right to resist unconstitutional federal acts, but that, in order to protect liberty, they are “duty bound to interpose” or stand between the federal government and the people of the state.

The bottom line? State Reps who seriously want to champion the constitution are going to have to stand up to the federal government and protect the rights of their citizens – whether the politicians in D.C. or the federal courts give them “permission” to or not.

I sure hope Rep. Wimmer is on board…

Michael Boldin is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center. He was raised in Milwaukee, WI, and currently resides in Los Angeles, CA.

Utah HB67: Health Care Nullification | Tenth Amendment Center Blog

In order for this site to remain and be successful, I need feedback and posts from people other than myself.   This is not a vanity blog, it is a blog for everyone.

PLEASE REGISTER, POST, AND COMMENT!!  And send others who would enjoy this blog.

Thanks

Someone put some real thought into organizing a plan (see below) that Americans could adopt into law which just might correct the “corrupt political system” that we have had to deal with for many years.  If you feel the same way, please copy and forward it to your friends and maybe, just maybe, someone will take the action necessary to fix this mess that, for decades, has had a stranglehold on all of us.

CONGRESS CAN BE FIXED!!!!!

A group of concerned citizens are promoting the adoption of what is being called the “Congressional Reform Act of 2009.”  The basis of their plan contains eight provisions, all of which would probably be endorsed by those who drafted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

You may think such a movement is impossible, but, let me remind you the approval rating of Congress is lowest of any entity in Government, and now is the time for Americans to join together to reform Congress – the entity that is supposed to represent all of us. 
We just need to get a Senator to introduce this bill in the US Senate and a Representative to introduce a similar bill in the US House.  In a very short period of time these persons will become American hero’s.

***********************************

Congressional Reform Act of 2010

1. Term Limits:  12 years only.  One of the possible options is as follows:
A.  Two Six year Senate terms
B.  Six Two year House terms
C.  One Six year Senate term and three Two Year House terms
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.  The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

2.  No Tenure / No Pension:
A congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.  The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

3.  Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security:
All funds in the Congressional retirement fund moves to the Social Security system immediately.  All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.  The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, server your term(s), then go home and back to work.

4.  Congress can purchase their own retirement plan just as all Americans.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.  The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

5.  Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise.  Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.  The Founding Fathers envisioned  citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

6.  Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.  The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

8.  All contracts with past and present congressmen are void effective 12/31/2010. 
The American people did not make this contract with congressmen – congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.  The Founding Fathers envisioned  citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.  Abraham Lincoln