Sen. Brown's Support of DADT and START leave America a Sitting Duck

I wish advocates of repeal of DADT like Sen. Brown would explain how they plan on replacing the 32% of Marines and members of our special forces that indicated in the Pentagon survey that they would leave the service. Maybe students will be lining up at Harvard to join the ROTC when it's allowed back on campus or the advocates of repeal have received commitments from thousands of homosexuals, Unitarians and atheists to make good the losses, now that those knuckle dragging evangelicals have been shown the door. I don't believe they have the slightest clue how to keep the combat units and our military capabilities from dissolving before our eyes while engaged in two wars. They're shooting first and asking questions later during this lame duck session of Congress. Essentially, Sen. Brown is voting to break the offensive capabilities of our military.

If Sen. Brown is comfortable breaking America's sword, he at least believes in preserving its shield right? Not if he continues to support the ratification of New START he doesn't. Despite the protestations of the Obama administration the treaty precludes America from working on missile defense. The Russians insisted language be included in the preamble to the treaty stating exactly that and despite many senators' requests to review the negotiating record the Obama administration has refused to release it. What is Obama hiding? With Hugo Chavez signing an agreement with Iran to place medium range missiles capable of hitting the U.S. in Venezuela this isn't an academic exercise.

The simple fact is that neither of these issues need to be resolved in the lame duck session of Congress and shouldn't be, they're simply too important to rush. As much as advocates of repeal of DADT would like us to believe that the Senate must act before the courts do, it just isn't so. The ninth circuit hasn't even heard arguments yet and then the case would be appealed to the Supreme Court. Any decision imposed by the courts is at least a year away. What's driving the push for repeal at this reckless pace is politics, specifically the heavy losses Democrats suffered in the midterm elections. The Democrats' political "shellacking" is also driving the headlong push to ratify New START. They're more afraid of putting the votes off to make sure they get them right than they are with getting them right for the American people. Politics should never trump national security, period.

Sen. Brown should enjoy the praise of the liberals he's enabling, but he should understand that they won't be with him in 2012. Just ask Charlie Baker how effective being to the left of President Obama helped attract liberals to his gubernatorial campaign. Hint, he got thumped because he alienated conservatives in the bargain.

The Deem and Pass Abomination

Artwork by Jim Geraghty

We grew up with idealistic visions of democracy and our Republic thanks to the good folks at Schoolhouse Rock. Who knew in 30 short years would we become a Banana Republic. From the NY Post:

Dems' 'deem' scheme
Last Updated: 2:34 AM, March 17, 2010

Posted: 2:12 AM, March 17, 2010

Nancy Pelosi is a coward, a bully and a hypocrite -- and Barack Obama is hiding behind her skirts.

So what does that make him?

Pelosi obviously can't find enough votes in her own party for ObamaCare, so the House speaker is preparing to approve the president's health-care bill by legislative legerdemain -- that is, by not voting on it.

And to hell with the Constitution.

Not to mention President Obama's long-abandoned vow that the health-care-reform process would be "completely open and transparent."

Indeed, Pelosi has just the opposite in mind: She intends to employ an arcane bit of backroom alchemy known as "deem and pass," in which the House would vote on a few less-controversial fixes to the Senate's health-care bill.

Then, under terms of a special rule, such passage would automatically mean that the House "deems" that the entire bill has been approved.

Say what?

Well, Pelosi says, "no one wants to vote for the Senate bill."

No kidding.

If they did, it would have become law long ago -- and now midterm congressional elections are rapidly approaching.

This would seem to be a pretty good argument for scrapping the bill and starting all over again.

Au contraire.

Instead, Pelosi plans to stand the Constitution on its head and ram through legislation that the American people overwhelmingly oppose -- and that even members of the president's own party in Congress don't want.

But what makes this even more outrageous is that Pelosi and New York Rep. Louise Slaughter, who proposed the idea, know full well just how wrong it is.

Because five years ago, they and a number of Democratic colleagues joined in a lawsuit charging that the use of "deem and pass" by the Republicans was unconstitutional.

True, they lost that case, but on procedural grounds -- the courts never ruled on the constitutionality of "deem and pass." And the Supreme Court ruled in 1998 that each house must pass the exact same text of a bill before it becomes law.

Anyway, "deem and pass" has been used in the past only for routine, non-controversial issues.

Using it to radically overhaul the nation's entire health-care system -- one-sixth of the economy -- would be a thumb in the eye to the fundamental principles governing the United States of America.

In practical terms, it most certainly would lead directly to years of litigation over its legality. How that would reduce health-care costs and help the uninsured is a mystery.

Moreover, if the ploy is successful, it won't be the last time it's employed. Not by a long shot.

Stumping for ObamaCare in Ohio on Monday, the president declared: "I don't know about the politics, but I know what's the right thing to do."

Tearing a hole in the Constitution is the "right thing to do"?

No, it's not.

Even a reliably Democrat supporting paper like The Washington Post has a editorial titled "Deem This". Robert Gibbs doesn't believe the American people care about "process". He should ask Senator Brown (R-MA) what he makes of that theory. I'm fairly positive that Sen. Brown would tell him that if it weren't for the "Cornhusker Kickback" used to buy Ben Nelson's vote, he wouldn't be the junior senator from MA. Nancy Pelosi, with the backing of President Obama will see for herself how much the American people care about the process if she decides to shred the Constitution by going the "deem and pass" route. If the Democrats pass a government takeover of health care in this manner, I doubt you'll need more than your fingers and toes to count the Democratic caucus in the House next January.

A Very Close Call

"Sen. Tom Harkin, the chairman of the Senate Health Committee, said negotiators from the White House, Senate and House reached a final deal on healthcare reform days before Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts.
Labor leaders had announced an agreement with White House and congressional representatives over an excise tax on high-cost insurance plans on the Thursday before the special election.
[snip]
Harkin said “we had an agreement, with the House, the White House and the Senate. We sent it to [the Congressional Budget Office] to get scored and then Tuesday happened and we didn’t get it back.” He said negotiators had an agreement in hand on Friday, Jan. 15"

We should all be very proud of what we accomplished against great odds. Knowing how close they came to realizing their dream of nationalizing health care helps explain their denial that the special election result had anything to do with Obamacare. This fight is far from over, as President Obama said in his SOTU "we don't quit". Neither can we.

On to November.

Massachusetts Miracle

The Democrats will not give up easily. You know the stakes. What are you doing in the next three days to ensure a Scott Brown victory?

The Coakley Treatment

Our Attorney General and wannabe senator showing her common touch. Ms. Coakley, may I be so bold to suggest that the next time one of your campaign thugs decks someone, offer the guy a hand up.

Coakley's Soft Spot: Cap and Trade

We've all seen Rasmussen's numbers, Brown's winning independents 65-21 and still down to Coakley by 9. Which means that Rasmussen doesn't see many independents turning out to vote on the 19th. If you've made calls for Scott, I can guarantee you the folks who've responded " I haven't thought about it" when asked if they'll be supporting Scott are independents. So how do we energize(no pun intended)independents to get out and vote in numbers big enough to carry Scott to victory? My suggestion, Martha Coakley's support of cap and trade legislation.
We need the voters' of MA to know that Martha Coakley wants them to pay more to heat and light their homes, watch the Pats,C's,B's and Sox on the big screen and fill their gas tanks.

A sample ad: I'm sure the folks who get paid to do this kind of thing can come up with something much better.

A shot of a furnace as it comes rumbling to life. A sound all too familiar to Baystaters' this winter. Announcer, "Martha Coakley wants you to pay more to heat your home".

A shot of a lightbulb going on. Announcer, "Martha Coakley wants you to pay more for electricity".

A shot of someone pumping gas(it could even be Scott filling up his truck). Announcer, "Martha Coakley wants you to pay more for gas". Remember, then candidate Obama claimed to be fine with $4 gas. His only complaint is that it happened too quickly.

Then some quick numbers on the screen of the economic impacts of cap and trade(I recommend using those from Heritage).

End with Scott saying something along the lines of " Until the scientists' are 100% positive that it will do any good, I don't think Baystaters' should pay one penny more than they have too to keep warm this winter".

I believe that if we get independents' thinking voting for Coakley is going to cost them money every time the furnace kicks on, they'll show up at the polls and vote for Scott. Call it a benefit of having the election in the middle of winter.

Vote For Balance

There is an old adage that making legislation is like making sausage. Meaning the squeamish best look away if they want to enjoy the end product. However, there are and must be limits in both processes. What Majority leader Reid (D-NV) did to the process of legislating to get the health bill through the US Senate would turn even a strong-stomached butcher green at the gills.

Gone were the promises of open debate on C-Span. Instead we had a rushed debate against an arbitrary Christmas deadline. Why the rush? Because this bill is a monstrosity unworthy of the term reform.

For the first time in our history, Americans will be mandated to purchase health care or pay a fine to the federal government, the House version even has provisions to send people to jail. Once the government assumes the power to mandate behavior we are on a very slippery slope. Today they will mandate we purchase healthcare, tomorrow it could be mandates to buy a hybrid vehicle or fines for eating fast food.

This bill also engages in accounting that would make the folks at Enron blush. From the Congressional Budget Office(CBO):
"To describe the full amount of hospital insurance trust fund savings as both improving the government's ability to pay future Medicare benefits and financing new spending outside of Medicare would essentially double-count a large share of those savings and thus overstate the improvement in the government's fiscal position." That's called cooking the books. When you combine it with the 21% cut in payments to doctors' to the tune of $210 billion that they will then "fix" in seperate legislation, instead of modestly cutting the deficit in its first 10 years it actually adds over $300 billion. And the real kick in the pants, again from the CBO, this legislation will cause insurance premiums to increase faster than they would if Congress does nothing at all.

The aspect of this process that has justifiably received the most attention is Harry Reid's outright buying of votes with taxpayer money. Sen. Mary Landrieu received $300million for her vote, not bad considering Thomas Jefferson only paid the French $15 million (in 1803 dollars) for the original Louisiana purchase. In what has been called the "cornhusker kickback" Sen. Nelson (D-NE) has ensured that Nebraska will have its Medicaid tab picked up by the Feds forever while the other 49 states are facing a financial tsunami. Last but not least, ethically challenged Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) was allowed to sneak in a provision at the last minute for a mere $100 million for a little homestate pork to aid his flagging re-election chances.

None of this would be possible if Harry Reid didn't have a super-majority of 60 votes in the US Senate. The voters of MA have an opportunity to restore a bit of balance to our government by electing Scott Brown to the Senate and denying Harry Reid his super-majority. Keeping Harry Reid shy of 60 votes means that he will have to negotiate in good faith with Republicans(he calls us "evil-mongers") and the resulting legislation will be more palatable to the American public.

You can bet that if Reid keeps his super-majority he will use the same formula: hyper-partisanship, shady accounting and corrupt bargains in coming legislative battles. Cap and Trade, which represents a massive tax on energy consumption and comprehensive immigration reform ie. amnesty are already in the legislative pipeline. How's your stomach?

Is A Brown Win Possible?

I believe Scott Brown has a chance, albeit a slight one, to shock the political world on January 19th. Call this assessment one part innate republican optimism and one part observations from Ward 2, Newburyport on primary day.

For starters, the lack of intensity by democrats yesterday was simply stunning. MA hasn't had a Senate vacancy since 1984 and turnout was pathetic. What's behind the apathy? One theory expressed to the Daily News "I think it's because people aren't particularly excited about this race. They don't see a big difference in the candidates. They seem pleased with them all," Erickson said." I agree with the first part of this statement and think the second part is dead wrong. There wasn't a dimes worth of difference seperating the 4 democratic candidates on the major issues of this campaign and that's the problem.

If people are excited about a candidate they are going to express it by volunteering or at least showing up to the polls to vote. Yesterday, the only campaign that had folks holding signs was Scott Brown's. Admittedly, it was a bit chilly out there yesterday, but it wasn't unseasonably cold, it is December after all. This lack of excitement is the canary in the coal mine moment for the democrats and they ignore it at their peril.

The US Senate is currently debating legislation on: health care, energy, a potential second (jobs bill) stimulus and a promise/threat of taking up "immigration reform". If enacted these bills will transfer unprecedented power to the Federal government and registered democrats responded to this by staying home. If the majority of democrats in MA were excited by this agenda they would have voted in large numbers. The truth is that this agenda is only popular with the far left of the democratic party, even here in deep blue MA and independents are scared to death by it.

Some completely anecdotal, unscientific examples from yesterday. An independent voter approached me to tell me that he had voted for Scott. He also told me the guy at the desk told him he was requesting the "wrong ballot", just part of the joy of living in MA. Another told me he works for a small plumbing supply company and if the health care bill passes they will be forced to cut their employees from 55 down to 49. They don't want to do this, they simply can't afford to pay the mandates that will be imposed by this legislation.

So, how does all this help Scott? Martha Coakley will be campaigning on issues that only appeal to a small percentage of voters. If Scott Brown and this is a big if, can convince the independens that are a majority of voters in this state to cast a ballot for a republican, probably for the first time in their lives he has a fighting chance.

To give Scott a fighting chance the republicans in the US Senate need to stand up and fight instead of playing nice guy. This election needs to be fought on big issues. The principal one being a victory by Scott Brown denies the democrats 60 votes for the federal takeover of health care.

Another Big Government Republican

The eyes of the nation will soon focus on Massachusetts. We have it in our power to deny Harry Reid a filibuster proof majority. Which is why it's so disappointing that one of our candidates in the upcoming special election is choosing to act more like a Democrat than a Republican. Massachusetts-style big government is the path we should not follow and any Republican that hasn't been in a coma for the last 60 years should know better. So why is Jack E. Robinson looking to out Democrat the Democrats?

The answer. Mr. Robinson has caught bailout fever. He wants to give all public transportation systems and their riders a bailout. From the Herald:

“(The government) put $185 billion into (troubled lender) AIG. That would fund the T for 40 years,” Robinson said yesterday. “There is money to be used smartly and intelligently.”

Robinson, who is running against state Sen. Scott Brown for the GOP nomination in the race for the late U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s vacant seat, is suggesting the MBTA bailout as part of a proposal to make all public transportation nationwide free. Robinson aides said there are cities in Washington and Oregon that offer free public transit."

His plan is meeting the typical response. “I think that’s awesome,” 33-year-old commuter Jason Harris of Boston said. “Free is great.”. One would hope that someone who has reached the age of 33 would realize that other Americans would be paying for his "free ride". While Mr. Harris doesn't have the slightest concept of economics, I have no doubt he is one of those smug, more enlightened than thou Democrats that populate the Commonwealth.

We need a Republican that is going to fight tooth and nail against the statist policies of the Obama administration not emulate them. Scott Brown should be our next US Senator.