Update: Plan C: Obama set to introduce “much smaller” health-care bill on Wednesday. If true, we need to stay on top of this and ensure we don’t get railroaded into RINOCare (government backed insurance cartels) or any other unsavory legislation. RINOCare would be the Republican’s Waterloo. Watch your GOP Senator and Representative like a hawk. If you want my advice, visit the Social Security Institute every single day to find out if your GOP Senator or Representative is about to row you down the creek and throw away the paddle. SSI is run by Dr. Larry Hunter, former policy advisor to President Ronald Reagan. Watch for Trojan Horses to single-payer and public option. This is not over yet.

Upon further thought, this may be, as Hot Air is reporting, nothing more than Obama’s plan with a few Republican ideas in it. If so, it is still a government takeover of healthcare and the fight will continue to kill the bill. Contact your Representative and Senators and ensure they do not support any bill that does not start over from a clean slate.

—————–Original Post

If ever a narrative needed to make it far and wide, it is the following one. When the main architect of reconciliation comes out against it so strongly, I would consider that quite newsworthy.

The Democrat talking heads have a new talking point – the Republicans have used reconciliation before so we can too. They fail to mention the differences between the use of reconciliation in the past and the intent to use it today to shove an unpopular bill down an unwilling public’s throat, and in the process fundamentally impact over 1/6 of the U.S. economy while inserting monumental government bureaucracies between you and your doctor, in the end creating rationing, higher taxes, killing innovation, and reducing our quality of care. While other solutions exist which avoid destroying the best medical system in the world, the Democratic leadership and the President of United States show little interest in pursuing free market solutions and instead are prepared to play the role of tyrants by simultaneously ignoring the will of the minority in the Senate and the majority in the country.

Senator Byrd best expresses why using Reconciliation to jam ObamaCare down America’s throat degrades the U.S. Senate and violates the spirit of our system of checks and balances. Why is Senator Byrd’s opinion so important in the matter? Because the Senator from West Virginia is one of the authors of the reconciliation process and a current serving U.S. Senator. He is also a Democrat. Let’s see what the Senator says about reconciliation and healthcare:

Using reconciliation to ram through complicated, far-reaching legislation is an abuse of the budget process. The writers of the Budget Act, and I am one, never intended for its reconciliation’s expedited procedures to be used this way. These procedures were narrowly tailored for deficit reduction. They were never intended to be used to pass tax cuts, or to create new Federal regimes. Additionally, reconciliation measures must comply with Section 313 of the Budget Act, known as the Byrd Rule, which means that whatever health legislation is reported from the Finance Committee or legislation from any other Committee that is shoe-horned into reconciliation will sunset after five years. Additionally, numerous other non-budgetary provisions of any such legislation will have to be omitted under reconciliation. This is a very messy way to achieve a goal like health care reform, and one that will make crafting the legislation more difficult…

…It is the one place in all of government where the rights of the numerical minority are protected. As long as the Senate preserves the right to debate and the right to amend we hold true to our role as the Framers envisioned. We were to be the cooling off place where proposals could be examined carefully and debated extensively, so that flaws might be discovered and changes might be made. Remember, Democrats will not always control this chamber, the House of Representatives or the White House. The worm will turn. Some day the other party will again be in the majority, and we will want minority rights to be shielded from the bear trap of the reconciliation process…

…While I support the admirable budget priorities outlined in this resolution, I cannot and will not condone legislation that puts political expediency ahead of the time-honored purpose of this institution.

Newsmax also reports the Senator as stating that using reconciliation in this manner is

an outrage that must be resisted.

Why Republican rebuttals do not include the opinion of the architect of reconciliation is beyond me. I have yet to hear a single talking head speak of the Senator Byrd’s opinion of using reconciliation. Reconciliation has never been used in such an abusive manner for such far reaching legislation. To do so amounts to nothing short of rule by tyranny, and it is the moral responsibility of level-headed leaders to recognize and identify it as such. Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and any legislator who supports the use of such a tactic to expedite unpopular and liberty stealing legislation is acting the tyrant.

During the summit, President Obama stated:

The American people are not all that interested in procedures inside the Senate.

With this statement Obama is either outright lying, completely out of touch with the American people, or believes we lack the necessary intelligence to understand the procedure. None of these options should provide the reader with much comfort. The first is inexcusable, the second shows a lack of competency, and the third is patently insulting. As Michelle Malkin reported:

Oh, really? A new USAToday/Gallup poll reports that 52 percent of Americans oppose using the procedural maneuver to pass the health care bill in the Senate on 51 votes rather than the 60 votes required to end any filibuster.

In the end, it is clear the word tyrant must be used to described anyone who supports using reconciliation in the manner currently under consideration for healthcare. It is also clear the statements and opinion of Senator Robert Byrd be repeated and repeated often. The American people must know the architect of the process is strongly against using it to pass healthcare and that doing so is a tyrannical act. The meme must spread and spread far.

Going farther, passage in the House of the Senate bill is also a tyrannical act. The people of this country have made it very, very, clear, this bill is not wanted, it is not liked, and Congress should start over. No amount of spin by empty Democratic talking heads is going to change this reality.

Pass this bill by reconciliation – or pass it at all – and all bets are off. When the GOP retakes Congress, it will be clear – and expected of them – to invent rules to kill ObamaCare by any means possible. The traditions and comity of the Senate will already be destroyed, the Democrats in the House will have demonstrated both their severe intellectual myopia and ideological clinging, so why not continue the tradition and just de-fund ObamaCare or pull some other bit of trickery. While repealing ObamaCare at the federal level sounds good, I would much rather watch a blanket of ObamaCare nullification legislation fall across this country. If the Democrats feel like opening Pandora’s box, don’t come crying to me when the law of unintended consequences rears its head. The Democrats will have shown the country that you can pretty much do whatever the hell you want.

Let me be clear (my God, I sound like Obama): I still think ObamaCare is dead, reconciliation is a deflective strategy, the votes do not exist in the House, and the current Democratic posturing is to placate the base as the Dem leadership looks for an exit strategy.

However, the fact remains many Democrats were willing to cram a government take over of healthcare legislation through regardless of the consequences. It is the our job to ensure the country does not forget. Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are Socialists at best and Marxists at worse. Their willingness to use every questionable trick possible to achieve their power grab regardless of the wishes of a clear majority in this country is the very definition of rule by tyranny. Many of their colleagues are just as duplicitous and come November they must and will pay very dearly for their condescending and contemptuousness attitude towards America and its people.

The moderate base of the Democratic party must ensure Pelosi and Reid pay for their arrogance and willingness to sacrifice the political careers of their colleagues in pursuit of an ideological goal – a pursuit characterized by the obsessive-compulsive tendencies of the neurotic. Obama, the ideological brother of Reid and Pelosi, is recognized less for his skills as a leader and oratorical genius; his tendency to prevaricate is now legendary as he loses credibility at a pace only a NASCAR driver could appreciate. The shine is off the shoes – and we see the dirt, the obfuscation, and the real intent of this President. The fig leaf is gone and there is no rock to crawl back under.

As the Chines proverb says: May you live in interesting times.

Related:

Still want ObamaCare? UK health care horror: 1,200 die needlessly in filthy, blood-splattered hospital. The bad part is, this is not a joke or a parody.

Kyl: Republicans do not want to stall health bill with unlimited amendments:

Forcing amendments (although I don’t think we will even get to this point) is a good strategy as one can force the Democrats to take difficult votes. I certainly hope McConnell is paying attention.

It would be in the Senator Kyl’s best interest to recall the GOP was exposed as wanting to put up a lackluster fight against ObamaCare so its passage would guarantee GOP gains in November. The Senator would also be best served to remember when a team of organizations exposed not only this GOP tactic but the betrayal of Senator DeMint by many in the Senate GOP when he tried to slow down ObamaCare by removing unanimous consent.

Roll over on reconciliation and see where that gets you in November. The American people do not want ObamaCare so you had BETTER OBSTRUCT and use a little strategical thinking here or face the consequences. The gains in the electorate can disappear as quickly as they appeared. The narrative of GOP weakness is not an animal that needs feeding, especially given the excellent performance at the healthcare summit. Now is not the time to remove the spine.

Precious: The Day ObamaCare Died – American Pie Parody

Dems: Screw bipartisanship, full steam ahead on Obamacare hara-kiri

Is Obamacare doomed?

Pelosi’s challenge

“Reconciliation is a dodge” and more Monday morning reads

Pelosi And The “Bullet In The Head” Factor

Are Democrats choosing to run off a cliff with ObamaCare?

CNN: We need a radical procedure to save the ObamaCare patient

Challenges of the two bill strategy.

Keep in mind that in order for Reconciliation to work, the House must pass the Senate version first.

A couple of thoughts after reading Kim Strassel’s Wall Street Journal article The Summit Sideshow:

There is a concern about how many free passes Pelosi gave to conservative Democrats to vote against ObamaCare during the House vote last year in an effort to provide them political cover. In reality, the concern is not ours, but Pelosi’s.

Those who voted no have seen what happened to those who voted yes. Plummeting poll numbers of conservative Democrats who voted yea on the bill are not encouraging signs for their nay counterparts, so why flip and ruin your political career? For Pelosi? I don’t think so.

Pelosi faces many challenges. One, hold the yes votes. Two, flip the no votes on enough conservative Democrats to pass ObamaCare, and three, hope that retiring conservative Democrats who voted yea originally are not convinced that vote hastened their departure and will express their displeasure at the Pelosi, Reid, Obama triumvirate that seems hell-bent on destroying the Blue Dog conservative Democratic caucus and political careers in the process.

Look for a lot of no votes to stay that way. Especially after yesterday’s lackluster performance by the Democrats at the healthcare “summit”, I don’t see a lot of Representatives rushing towards the cliff for a leadership that has demonstrated nothing but contempt and disregard for the political careers of their colleagues in what amounts to an obsessive-compulsive neurotic rush to shove an unpopular bill down an unwilling public’s throat.

Add to that Senate pressure and a promise by Senate Republicans to throw enough amendments at any reconciliation attempt to keep the ball rolling until 2050. The only way out of that trap will be for the Democrats to evoke the Bryd Option and kill the fillibuster. How many Senate Democrats will sign on to that, and if you are a House member from a state with a Senator that stands firmly against that tactic (a true nuclear option), how do you stand on your vote for ObamaCare? The pressure will be enormous to buckle and vote against ObamaCare. The same argument holds for reconciliation itself.

Newsmax is reporting today that Senator Byrd, the architect of the reconciliation process said using reconciliation to expedite health-care reform would be “an outrage that must be resisted.”

Eric Cantor makes the case that Pelsoi faces an uphill climb getting votes for ObamaCare. I think the problem is an even bigger one that described by Representative Cantor.

I think this bill is dead.

Related:

Pelosi losing grip on the House?

Oba-Kabuki: A box-office bomb

Health Care In Spinsville

Does Pelosi have the votes to pass Obama’s new bill?:

Ironically, for all of the left’s endless whining about the filibuster, it ain’t the Senate that’s their biggest problem anymore. A simple question for you from Philip Klein, who’s been counting heads in the lower chamber for weeks: Given that they’re starting with only 217 “yes” votes, who’ll be stupid enough among the no’s to flip in favor of what even David Brooks is calling a “fiscal time bomb”?

Of the 39 Democrats who voted against the House health care bill [in November], 31 of them were elected in districts that went for John McCain in 2008, according to a TAS analysis. One of the Democratic “no” votes, Rep. Parker Griffith of Alabama, has subsequently switched parties. Given that a Republican who campaigned on being a vote against the health care bill was just elected to fill the Senate seat once held by Ted Kennedy in a state that went for Obama by 26 points, it’s hard to see why anybody in a McCain district who already voted “no” would decide switch their vote to “yes.”

While Obama won the districts of the remaining eight “no” votes, in six cases, he won by only single digits, making them potentially competitive races this time around. And a closer look at several members who represent these areas are not very encouraging to proponents of Obamacare…

The biggest problem she faces is that President Obama’s proposal maintains the abortion provision in the Senate bill, rejecting Rep. Bart Stupak’s more restrictive language. When the bill passed the House the first time around, 41 Democrats voted for the health care bill only after voting for the Stupak amendment. Any of them could explain switching to a “no” vote on a final bill by citing abortion funding. Stupak himself has said there are at least 10 to 12 Democrats who voted for the bill the first time who would vote against it if it didn’t include his amendment (he reiterated Tuesday morning that the Senate abortion language adopted by Obama was still “unacceptable”). One of his co-sponsors, Rep. Brad Ellsworth, said at the time that he was only able to vote for the bill after the Stupak language was adopted, and he’s now running for Senate in Indiana, where a Rasmussen poll taken last month shows voters oppose the health care legislation by a 23-point margin.

An alternative explanation from former Bush economist Keith Hennessey: They know they don’t have the votes and this is all just a blame-shifting exit strategy.

It is possible that we are witnessing uncoordinated Democratic leaders each pursuing their own exit strategy in anticipation of legislative failure:

• The President proposes a “compromise” and blames Republicans for being unreasonable and unconstructive. Legislative failure is the Republicans’ fault, not the President’s.
• Speaker Pelosi continues to press for a two bill strategy in which the House and Senate will pass a new reconciliation bill. If the Senate cannot or will not do so, legislative failure is the Senate’s fault, not the House’s or Speaker Pelosi’s.
• Supported by outside liberals, Leader Reid points out that the House could just take up and pass the Senate-passed bill. Legislative failure is therefore not his fault or the Senate’s.

ObamaCare is dead and very unpopular with 58% opposing the current bill before Congress, but that does not stop the One from calling, what even CBS is admitting, a faux bi-partisan meeting with the GOP in a last ditch attempt to salvage his failing plan. Obama seems to understand how Newton’s first law of motion applies to legislation; legislation in motion will remain in motion and legislation at rest will remain at rest unless acted on by an external force. As ObamaCare is most certainly at rest and dead, Obama has nothing to lose and the GOP has nothing to gain by this farcical display. To flip it around, Obama has everything to gain and the GOP has everything to lose by attending the so-called healthcare summit.

Attend or not attend, the liberal media will spin the story in Obama’s favor, so again – why the hell is the GOP leadership committing such a explicit act of stupidity? ObamaCare is treading water and the GOP is about to throw it a lifeline. From the CBS story:

What these presidential appeals for bipartisanship always mean is: do it my way.

(AP)Mr. Obama said he “won’t hesitate to embrace a good idea from my friends in the minority party.” But he wants his way. He wants his energy policy enacted along with his jobs bill, his financial regulatory reform and his health care plan.

And if the opposition continues to block his objectives, he said he “won’t hesitate to condemn what I consider to be obstinacy that’s rooted not in substantive disagreement but in political expedience.”

When a sitting president calls for bipartisanship by the opposition – he really means surrender. And if they block his proposals, its “obstinacy” and not political views they hold as strongly as he holds his.

So my first instinct is to state that attending the summit, if ObamaCare subsequently passes, the GOP attendance will be scored by the grassroots of this country as a vote for ObamaCare. As Representative Eric Cantor already committed to attending, the GOP better pray that Obama does not walk circles around them as he did recently during the Republican retreat in Baltimore:

This wasn’t supposed to be televised, incidentally, but both sides agreed to it at the last minute in the name of showing the public how bipartisan they are. The GOP figured it’d give them a platform to prove that they actually do have policy ideas of their own, but I think the format ended up benefiting Obama more than them. He was on camera the whole time; he did most of the talking; he got to show that he’s perfectly capable of extemporaneous debate even with multiple prepared challengers lobbing questions. (Which should have been clear after 20+ debates in 2008, but the TOTUS jokes have taken on a life of their own.) Even conservatives I follow on Twitter were saying that he seemed more appealing in this format than in his thousand speeches last year. Who knows? Maybe that means we’ll see more of this.

Update: Not surprisingly, White House aides tell HuffPo they’re ecstatic with how things went while GOP aides tell NBC it was probably a mistake to let the cameras roll. Oh well.

Prior to Representative Cantor’s foolish committal to attend the One’s Hail Marry summit, I was quite pleased to read the letter from House Republican Leader John Boehner and Rep. Cantor (House Republican Whip) to Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel:

Washington, Feb 8 –

February 8, 2010

The Honorable Rahm Emanuel
Chief of Staff
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. Emanuel:

We welcome President Obama’s announcement of forthcoming bipartisan health care talks. In fact, you may remember that last May, Republicans asked President Obama to hold bipartisan discussions on health care in an attempt to find common ground, but he declined and instead chose to work with only Democrats.

Since then, the President has given dozens of speeches on health care reform, operating under the premise that the more the American people learn about his plan, the more they will come to like it. Just the opposite has occurred: a majority of Americans oppose the House and Senate health care bills and want them scrapped so we can start over with a step-by-step approach focused on lowering costs for families and small businesses. Just as important, scrapping the House and Senate health care bills would help end the uncertainty they are creating for workers and businesses and thus strengthen our shared commitment to focusing on creating jobs.

Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward on health care in a bipartisan way, does that mean he will agree to start over so that we can develop a bill that is truly worthy of the support and confidence of the American people? Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said today that the President is “absolutely not” resetting the legislative process for health care. If the starting point for this meeting is the job-killing bills the American people have already soundly rejected, Republicans would rightly be reluctant to participate.

Assuming the President is sincere about moving forward in a bipartisan way, does that mean he has taken off the table the idea of relying solely on Democratic votes and jamming through health care reform by way of reconciliation? As the President has noted recently, Democrats continue to hold large majorities in the House and Senate, which means they can attempt to pass a health care bill at any time through the reconciliation process. Eliminating the possibility of reconciliation would represent an important show of good faith to Republicans and the American people.

If the President intends to present any kind of legislative proposal at this discussion, will he make it available to members of Congress and the American people at least 72 hours beforehand? Our ability to move forward in a bipartisan way through this discussion rests on openness and transparency.

Will the President include in this discussion congressional Democrats who have opposed the House and Senate health care bills? This bipartisan discussion should reflect the bipartisan opposition to both the House bill and the kickbacks and sweetheart deals in the Senate bill.

Will the President be inviting officials and lawmakers from the states to participate in this discussion? As you may know, legislation has been introduced in at least 36 state legislatures, similar to the proposal just passed by the Democratic-controlled Virginia State Senate, providing that no individual may be compelled to purchase health insurance. Additionally, governors of both parties have raised concerns about the additional costs that will be passed along to states under both the House and Senate bills.

The President has also mentioned his commitment to have “experts” participate in health care discussions. Will the Feb. 25 discussion involve such “experts?” Will those experts include the actuaries at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), who have determined that the both the House and Senate health care bill raise costs – just the opposite of their intended effect – and jeopardize seniors’ access to high-quality care by imposing massive Medicare cuts? Will those experts include the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, which has stated that the GOP alternative would reduce premiums by up to 10 percent? Also, will Republicans be permitted to invite health care experts to participate?

Finally, as you know, this is the first televised White House health care meeting involving the President since last March. Many health care meetings of the closed-door variety have been held at the White House since then, including one last month where a sweetheart deal was worked out with union leaders. Will the special interest groups that the Obama Administration has cut deals with be included in this televised discussion?

Of course, Americans have been dismayed by the fact that the President has broken his own pledge to hold televised health care talks. We can only hope this televised discussion is the beginning, not the end, of attempting to correct that mistake. Will the President require that any and all future health care discussions, including those held on Capitol Hill, meet this common-sense standard of openness and transparency?

Your answers to these critical questions will help determine whether this will be a truly open, bipartisan discussion or merely an intramural exercise before Democrats attempt to jam through a job-killing health care bill that the American people can’t afford and don’t support. ‘Bipartisanship’ is not writing proposals of your own behind closed doors, then unveiling them and demanding Republican support. Bipartisan ends require bipartisan means.

These questions are also designed to try and make sense of the widening gap between the President’s rhetoric on bipartisanship and the reality. We cannot help but notice that each of the President’s recent bipartisan overtures has been coupled with harsh, misleading partisan attacks.

For instance, the President decries Republican ‘obstruction’ when it was Republicans who first proposed bipartisan health care talks last May. The President says Republicans are ‘sitting on the sidelines’ just days after holding up our health care alternative and reading from it word for word. The President has every right to use his bully pulpit as he sees fit, but this is the kind of credibility gap that has the American people so fed up with business as usual in Washington.

We look forward to receiving your answers and continuing to discuss ways we can move forward in a bipartisan manner to address the challenges facing the American people.

Sincerely,

House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH)
House Republican Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA)

I have also read Gibbs sorry excuse for a rebuttal to the Boehner and Cantor letter. Gibbs letter is proof positive they other side is bankrupt of ideas and is rehashing the same old tired rhetoric. It also shows they smack of desperation and have nothing substantial to say. Gibbs basically channeled Obama’s typical generalites (see page 2 of the Politico story).

By sending this letter and then accepting the invitation, it’s time to hold the feet of the GOP to the fire. They asked for it, and now its time to pay the piper. If the GOP wishes to continue to forge and nurture the relationship it has enjoyed with grassroots organizations and voters across this country, then it is time to step up to the plate and prove your worthiness. Therefore, I submit the following if ObamaCare passes subsequent to the meeting (the following scores apply to the GOP):

• The meeting will take place at a round table with no teleprompters allowed. If this agreement is not accepted the meeting is off. Failure to secure this agreement prior to the meeting will be scored as a vote for ObamaCare.
• The President and Democrats in both Houses have already said they will not start over. More to the point a Politico story states that “Obama hopes to walk into the Feb. 25 summit with an agreement in hand between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on a final Democratic bill, so they can move ahead with a reform package after the sit-down.” The GOP must make this an issue and call out the President on the false premise of the entire event. If agreement is reached on a final bill, what is the purpose of the meeting? Where is the bi-partisanship if the bill was agreed to a priori to the event? Failure to do so will be scored as a vote for ObamaCare.
• The President stated that reconciliation will not be taken off the table. As this amounts to shoving an unpopular bill down American’s throats and trampling on minority rights in the Senate, the entire premise of the summit is again called into question and the President’s real agenda for the meeting exposed. The GOP must challenge the President on this point. Failure to do so will be scored as a vote for ObamaCare.
• The GOP must insist they be able to invite House Democrats opposed to the measure. If they are not allowed to do so, the meeting is over. Failure of the GOP to insist upon this provision will be scored as a vote for ObamaCare.
• The GOP must be allowed to invite officials and lawmakers from those states that has passed or are working on passing legislation/resolutions challenging the constitutionality of the individual mandate. Failure of the GOP to insist upon this provision will be scored as a vote for ObamaCare.
• The GOP must be allowed to invite their own experts, including but not limited to actuaries from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and members from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. Failure of the GOP to insist upon this provision will be scored as a vote for ObamaCare

Again, whether the GOP attends or not, the liberal media are going to spin, spin, spin. This “summit” is a disaster in the making; we have everything to lose and nothing to gain. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have dug a deep hole, jumped in and are now extending their hands for our assistance in extricating them out of a disaster of their own making. If Republicans help revive this bill, they will lose a number of us out here in the voting world. I fear going to this summit will be a turning point.

If the Senate is going to use reconciliation, they are going to do it with or without this summit and I doubt they are going to use it, although the summit may embolden the House to pass the Senate version if Obama plays his cards right. I and many others have VERY strong reservations about this summit. The House GOP needs to think really hard and ensure the President does not use this as a platform to railroad over any real discussions. Equal time, no teleprompters, the President at a table and not lording over the event from a podium, and all the above relevant conditions met prior to the GOP accepting this offer and during the event itself.

The President wants no preconditions for good reason; the entire “summit” loses its utility if it is controlled in such a way as to force the President to address the issues related to the bill on terms not entirely of his own making. If the meeting is held, use it to highlight the flaws in the bill and remind the President why the American people do not like this bill. Bring your testosterone boys, you are going to need it. You made the promise, you wrote the letter, now it’s time to deliver. Failure to do so would be very bad….for you.

A piece of advice for the GOP: as three-quarters of independents now have a favorable view of the Tea Parties, either turn down the offer or bring your A game.

Oh, and let’s not forget that we may have a bill here that fines and imprisons people for not having insurance. I would like to see these aspects discussed if they are indeed in the bill. Also, last I heard – it’s so hard keeping up with all the changes – the current Senate bill places some type of constraint or rules requirement on future chambers to amend or repeal certain aspects of the bill. If true, I want to know the details and hear Obama’s response.

Update: It does not appear, at least to me, this is a done deal yet:

When asked by Greta Van Susteren on Fox News last night if Republicans would attend, Boehner said he was awaiting answers from the White House.

“There are a number of questions I’d like answered before I give you or the President an up or down answer,” Boehner told Fox News last night.

Boehner spokesman Kevin Smith told HUMAN EVENTS last night that they have not received a formal invitation, any details on the event or a response to their letter.

Keep up the pressure folks.

Update 2: Dr. Hunter agrees:

Now, Republicans have reverted to their old ways and appear prepared to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory once again. Instead of negotiating the point of departure of their own defeat, Republicans should be insisting on postponing any consideration of healthcare reform until after the new Congress convenes in 2011. This Congress has lost all legitimacy where healthcare is concerned. This is a lame duck Congress, and it is time for it to fold its wings and float on the pond in silence and inaction until the people have an opportunity to vote for a new Congress a few months hence.

So, here we go again. Hey, Republicans, heads up, ears open, eyes on the prize: Object, Obstruct and Delay any effort by the White House and congressional Democrats to revive the death march toward nationalization of healthcare. And most importantly, don’t do anything to allow RhinoCare to be resurrected from the dead.

Remember, obstructionism in defense of liberty is no vice and cooperation in pursuit of tyranny is no virtue.

This Congress is lame; don’t give it legs.

Read the whole thing.

In other news:

Porkulus II: Return of the Phony Jobs Boondoggle

WaPo/ABC poll shows Obama losing command of the issues

The Negotiations Fraud

Will the Stupid Party Blow It?

Reconciliation, the public option, and Demcare revival

UPDATE: News today at Hot Air via Townhall: Dem sources: Senate “fix” for ObamaCare could add another $300 billion to price tag; Update: Dems ready for reconciliation, says Kyl

Here is something most people don’t know: Senators already expressed their opinion that reconciliation should not be used to pass ObamaCare last year. Here is what most don’t know about the budget conference report for fiscal year ’09:

Dem leaders are looking into reconciliation, a parliamentary maneuver only requiring 51 votes, to shovel pieces of an unpopular healthcare bill through the Senate. The Senate rejected this approach to pass healthcare legislation last year TWICE (unanimously in one case and by a 79-14 margin in the second case). While provisions to require 60-votes should have been included in the Budget Conference Report that came out of the House and Senate conference on each chamber’s respective Budget Resolutions, they were not. The question is why, while the answer points to yet another duplicitous backroom decision that ignores not only the will of the entire Senate, but in today’s environment also ignores the will of the American people writ large by the voters of Massachusetts on a bill that 2/3 of the country does not want.

For a description of the United States budget process see here.

The United States House Committee on the Budget and the United States Senate Committee on the Budget are responsible for drafting budget resolutions. Following the traditional calendar, by early April both committees finalize their drafts and submit it to their respective floors for consideration and adoption.

A budget resolution, which is one form of a concurrent resolution, binds Congress, but is not a law, and so does not require the President’s signature. The budget resolution serves as a blueprint for the actual appropriation process, and provides Congress with some control over the appropriations process. No new spending authority, however, is provided until appropriation bills are enacted.

Once both houses pass the resolution, selected Representatives and Senators negotiate a conference report to reconcile differences between the House and the Senate versions. The conference report, in order to become binding, must be approved by both the House and Senate.

The federal government’s fiscal year currently begins on October 1st and ends on September 30th of the next calendar year.

So the United States House Committee on the Budget and the United States Senate Committee on the Budget each create a Budget Resolution for amending and voting by the respective chambers. This is followed by a selection of conferees by each chamber who will then meet to hash out a single Budget Conference Report that each chamber will subsequently vote on.

Dr. Hunter, former policy advisor to President Ronald Reagan and President and CEO of the Social Security Institute writes the following:

The only way to defeat Reconciliation is to be prepared at a moment’s notice to pivot from a localized strategy precisely tailored to threaten targeted Democrats’ weak spots to a national campaign aimed not at the substance of ObamaCare so much as the fairness and political prudence of jamming something as enormous and contentious as healthcare reform down the throats of the American people with fewer than a majority of sitting Senators voting in favor of it. The strategy to defeat Reconciliation must be aimed at the Democratic Party as a whole questioning its judgment, prudence, fairness and wisdom. The task at this point will be to characterize Reconciliation as political thuggery, totally unacceptable in the American democratic process; to raise such national outrage at the strong-arm tactics of Reconciliation that Democrats understand the American People will not tolerate it and will throw them out of office at the first opportunity.

Here is a suggested framework on which to build a strategy against Reconciliation:

Senator Reid threatens to tie dissenting Senators’ hands behind their backs with procedural restrictions on amendments, gag them with strict limits on debate and pummel the long tradition of minority rights in the U.S. Senate by ramming ObamaCare through the Senate with a bare majority or even with fewer than a minimum 51 votes of sitting Senators, if necessary, by having Vice President Biden break a 50-50 tie.

The parliamentary maneuver Senator Reid would use to pass ObamaCare by less than a majority vote of sitting Senators is known as “Reconciliation.” Reconciliation is an extraordinary budgetary procedure designed specifically to ensure passage of an annual budget and avoid a stalemate leading to a complete shutdown of the federal government. Reconciliation was not designed and never intended to circumvent regular order in the Senate to ram through controversial and far-reaching legislation such as healthcare “reform.”

Democratic Senator Robert C. Byrd, one of the authors of the Reconciliation procedure and foremost authority on the history of Senate rules and procedure describes what happens under Reconciliation this way:

“Under reconciliation’s gag rule there are twenty hours of debate or less if time is yielded back, and little or no opportunity to amend.”

This is political thuggery—political assault and battery upon the American People pure and simple. Senator Byrd best expresses why using Reconciliation to jam ObamaCare down America’s throat degrades the U.S. Senate and violates the spirit of our system of checks and balances:

“Using reconciliation to ram through complicated, far-reaching legislation is an abuse of the budget process…With critical matters such as a massive revamping of our health care system which will impact the lives of every citizen of our great land, the Senate has a duty to debate and amend and explain in the full light of day, however long that may take, what it is we propose, and why we propose it…We must not run roughshod over minority views. A minority can be right…Ramrodding and railroading have no place when it comes to such matters as our people’s healthcare.”

That is why Senator Byrd says, “I cannot, and I will not, vote to authorize the use of the reconciliation process to expedite passage of health care reform legislation.”

What Majority Leader Reid is hiding from the American public is the fact that a huge bipartisan majority of Senators agreed with Senator Byrd, when they were writing this year’s budget resolution back in April, that Reconciliation should not be used to railroad ObamaCare through the Senate.

During deliberations on the Senate Budget Resolution earlier this year, Senator Jim DeMint introduced a point-of-order amendment that would require a 60-vote majority to pass “any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that eliminates the ability of Americans to keep their health plan or their choice of doctor (as determined by the Congressional Budget Office).” The Senate approved the DeMint Amendment unanimously.

Subsequently, before the Senate Budget Resolution went to a Conference Committee where differences with the House Budget Resolution were to be worked out, DeMint offered a motion to instruct the Senate Conferees not only to insist on retaining the 60-vote provision in the final Conference Report but also to widen the scope of the provision to cover any provision and so forth that decreases the number of Americans enrolled in private health insurance while increasing the number enrolled in government-managed, rationed health care. The DeMint motion to instruct conferees to insist on the 60-vote requirement for healthcare passed the Senate by an overwhelming vote of 79 to 14.

As a matter of congressional comity, the House ordinarily would have been expected to accede to the Senate provision since it affected Senate rules that applied only to the Senate. But mysteriously the 60-vote rule was stripped from the resolution in the dead of night, behind closed doors and out of sight of the rest of the Senate and the American People. Remarkably, Senate Budget Committee Chairman, Kent Conrad, must have fallen asleep during the Conference Committee meeting because he allowed the Demint 60-vote requirement to be removed from the Budget Resolution in Conference.

Now, Senator Reid stands on the flimsy excuse that the DeMint amendments are irrelevant because they were not in the final Budget Resolution Conference Report. But make no mistake, the 60-vote requirement—which was TWICE voted for by huge, bipartisan majorities in the Senate and did not affect the House—wasn’t in the final Budget Resolution Conference Report ONLY because Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad thumbed his nose at three fourths of his colleagues and took it upon himself contrary to the will of the Senate to unceremoniously strip their 60-vote rule out of the Conference Report.

With one-sixth of the U.S. economy at stake, the Senate should insist upon abiding by its own rule, which it TWICE adopted by overwhelming bipartisan votes. Why would Senator Reid insist upon using a provision the Senate TWICE agreed should NOT be used on healthcare because they knew it wouldn’t be right to pass a bill that divides the nation into feuding factions by a slim 50 votes?

Harry Reid’s argument that he is justified in jamming ObamaCare down America’s throat because there is no rule against it—actually because one rogue Senator took it upon himself to reverse the will and judgment of the entire Senate and eliminate a rule Senators thought was right and appropriate—is the pure sophistry of a tyrant.

The question is, what justifies the Senate in violating its own cherished norms and traditions? Why does Senator Reid refuse to abide by the 60-vote rule on healthcare the Senate TWICE voted to impose on itself by huge bipartisan majorities? Why does Senator Reid ignore the authoritative judgment of fellow Democrat Robert Byrd that it would be wrong, wrong, wrong to steamroller ObamaCare through the Senate under Reconciliation?

If Senator Kent Conrad had performed his duties correctly, then reconciliation would not even be on the table. An point-of-order amendment allows a Senator to raise a point-of-order objection and require adherence to the 60-vote requirement. Remember, this passed unanimously. The instruction-to-conferees amendment which passed 79-14 is supposed to require the Senate conferees insist the 60-vote rule be included in the final Budget Conference Report. Yet it was not.

This is not and never will be a parliamentary argument. However, from a PR perspective, the Democrats can be forced into a defensive posture and answer to the American public why – why do they feel the rest of us must follow rules while they can just chose to ignore them at a whim? It is this elitist “rules for thee but not for me” attitude that turns most of us off to Washington to begin with. The spirit of the 60-vote rule and minority rights they voted on in 2009 will not just disappear next year. The 2010 Budget Resolution from the Senate must contain the point-of-order amendment and the motion to instruct the Senate conferees that were stripped out the final Budget Conference report in 2009, effectively neutering the will the Senate. To allow this to continue in order to pass extremely unpopular legislation would be just one other example of elitists making up the rules and using disingenuous tactics to secure their ability to trample the will of the governed. We must insist they follow their own rules now as well as later in the next fiscal year. Just because somebody conveniently forgot to insist on the will of the Senate during conference with the House is no excuse not to adhere to self-imposed rules. Now is the time to display qualities of discipline and character – especially now. No more games, not more hiding, and no more dishonesty.

The American people have spoken. They are sick and tired of backroom deals, late night votes, broken promises of transparency, and now to top it all off the Democrats in the Senate are talking about using a procedure they agreed would not be used while allowing that will to be usurped by a committee chairman asleep at the wheel.

Fairness, abiding by the rules. Wake up Senator Reid – Americans hate backroom deals – they feed into the narrative of sneaky, shadowy, elitist weasels that is costing your party dearly and will continue to do so. The fact remains that it was the will of the Senate that reconciliation be taken off the table for this fiscal year and subsequently that will was ignored in conference. However, ignoring the will of a legislative body in a conference report does not nullify that will. A declaration cannot be summarily dismissed because somebody or some group decided not to champion a resolution even when instructed by a vote of 79-14 in the to do so. The Democrats, who have been backroom dealing and skulking in the shadows since this thing began, are about to ignore their own will if they follow through with reconciliation.

One is only as good as their word. Any Democratic Senator who now attempts to use this procedural trickery may be called a great asset by their progressive allies – maybe – but the rest of America will make it clear they were off by two letters and make their will known at the ballot box.

To pass healthcare legislation via this procedural bypass of minority rights, therefore impacting over 1/6 of our economy, would be the very definition of duplicity. It would be the very definition of audacity.

Related:

Breaking: Lincoln will oppose reconciliation

ObamaCare: Night of the Living Dead Bill

Reconciliation flip-flopper of the morning

Oh my: GOP ready to boycott ObamaCare summit?

Howard Dean, DFA, Launch Campaign Encouraging 51-Vote Health Care Bill. That headline should scare you.

If we ignore the following strategy to stop the 51-vote option to pass healthcare (known as reconciliation), we do so at our country’s peril. It would be a real tragedy if all the battles we have won – the town halls, the march on DC – all the efforts that went into stopping ObamaCare, were for naught. We can still lose the war. This is one way to help guarantee this will not happen, but it will require a little work on the part of the reader to follow closely the arguments below. They are not difficult and can be summarized neatly as follows:

• Reconciliation is a way to require only 50 votes to pass legislation, with the Vice President breaking the tie. It does have downsides, but they can be overcome with future legislation. It only requires patience.
• Think of the below as pressuring Republicans to force the Democrats into a defensive public relations posture – not as a parliamentary maneuver.
• Do NOT allow Republicans to avoid this strategy by claiming it makes them look obstructionist. They have the outline of a bill.
• Keep in mind that reconciliation is possible and no matter what the downsides appear to be, they can be overcome in the future. Anyone who tells you otherwise is politically naive.
• Only the grassroots has the power to make this happen. The same people that marched on DC, went to town halls, and stood up for this country have the power to realize this strategy
• Republicans are not necessarily your friends on this. Lump them together with the Democrats. The only difference is how the strategy is used to pressure each party.

Keep the following in mind as you continue reading: FORCE THE DEMOCRATS TO DEFEND IGNORING A RULE THEY AGREED TO AND THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO GROUND TO STAND ON. You will see this again below.

For completeness, here is a description of Senator Demint’s amendments:

During deliberations on the Senate Budget Resolution earlier this year, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) introduced a point-of-order amendment that would require a 60-vote majority to pass “any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that eliminates the ability of Americans to keep their health plan or their choice of doctor (as determined by the Congressional Budget Office).” The Senate approved the DeMint Amendment unanimously.

Subsequently, before the Senate Budget Resolution went to a Conference Committee where differences with the House Budget Resolution were to be worked out, DeMint offered a motion to instruct the Conferees not only to insist on retaining the 60-vote provision in the final Conference Report but also to widen the scope of the provision to cover any provision and so forth that decreases the number of Americans enrolled in private health insurance while increasing the number enrolled in government-managed, rationed health care. The Demint motion to instruct passed the Senate by an overwhelming vote of 79 to 14.

As a matter of congressional comity, the House ordinarily would have been expected to accede to the Senate provision since it affected Senate rules that applied only to the Senate. Remarkably, Senate Budget Committee Chairman, Kent Conrad, allowed the Demint 60-vote requirement to be removed from the Budget Resolution in Conference.

Often, I will hear the tired old argument that these amendments are a non-issue. The false assumptions are usually presented by a detractor mired in parliamentary maneuvering and unaware of the public relations side of the strategy to use the above amendments to stop reconciliation, which would only require 50 votes to pass healthcare reform. The argument goes something like this:

The instruction was not in the Budget Conference Report but it passed anyway. The other amendment appears to rely on a CBO finding that hasn’t happened yet on a bill that hasn’t had a floor vote yet.

Another argument I often hear, and one I myself am guilty of propagating, is that reconciliation would amount to a Swiss cheese approach to legislation, with only some pieces of legislation meeting the criterion for consideration under this maneuver. I won’t go into the details here as to why, there are plenty of articles and posts written on the subject. The author of such an argument often goes on to say that, because of this shortcoming, reconciliation is not to be feared. This is patently false and politically naive. Allow any scaffolding, foundation, or skeleton of ObamaCare to pass via reconciliation and I will bet you the farm that later down the line that Swiss cheese morphs into a full-block of all you eat ObamaCare cheese. Liberals are patient – very patient. Give them the scaffolding and foundation and they will legislate full-blown ObamaCare into existence. It will only be a matter of time. So enough of this “do not fear reconciliation” nonsense. Take it off the table.

Once again it is up to the grassroots to get involved and put serious pressure on the Senate concerning these amendments and make known our expectation that these amendments be adhered to because of the promise by unanimous vote in one case and a vote of 79-14 in the second. If we shame enough Democrats the possibility increases that votes will be lacking in the Senate even for Reconciliation. It is up to the us to pressure Republicans to make this an issue. Republicans, as we all know too well, are prone to rolling over and need prodding on a regular basis. To borrow a Texas phrase, it’s like herding cattle.

The amendments passed. Therefore, if the Senators wish to be seen as men and women of character, they should follow the rules they set out for themselves. No more rules for thee (you and me) but not for me (the elitist politicians). No more spineless non-responses and no more pompous attitudes. If the 9/12 DC march taught Republicans and Democrats anything, it is the grassroots is real, we are big, and we will vote.

Here is an outline of the facts. Here is an outline of how to use the reality that these amendments were voted on in the past with the purpose of stopping reconciliation and preserving minority rights in the Senate to stop Democrats from forcing tremendous changes to 1/6 of our economy.

• The Senate insiders have tried all along to dismiss the DeMint provisions on technical grounds by ignoring the facts that got us to the current situation. The grassroots must be ruthless and relentless in pushing the Republicans to do the right thing and make this an issue.
• It is all about constructing the right narrative.
• If we start listening to excuses from insiders, our movement will be hijacked by the establishment (beltway insiders, including politicians of both parties), which is exactly what they will try to do.
• The establishment’s attempt to hijack the movement is less about elbowing for who gets credit than about herding us so we don’t rock the boat and make life uncomfortable for them. What they fail to realize is they are the cattle and we are the cowboys. We herd them, not the other way around.
• First, by any stretch of the imagination any bill currently under consideration by the Senate satisfies the conditions set down in the original DeMint Amendment that passed by unanimous consent. I would love to debate anyone arguing otherwise.
• We can argue all day whether or not CBO would rule otherwise but that gives up the fight before it even begins. The CBO doesn’t have to rule on anything since the provision has been stripped. I suspect any detractors of this strategy of talking to a Republican insider or getting their information from one second or third hand.
• Of course CBO hasn’t yet ruled whether or not a bill satisfies the DeMint conditions, because it is not law yet. But the pertinent point is that the DeMint Amendment is not law precisely because it was dropped unceremoniously in conference contrary to the will of the Senate as evidenced by a huge bipartisan majority (79 votes). How did that happen? The Senate Budget Committee Chairman who voted for the measure twice on the floor of the Senate and was under instructions from his Senate colleagues to insist on the Senate provision in conference turned his head.
• The establishment would love to make this about a parliamentarian maneuver rather than what it really is – a public relations disaster – one that would force any Senator to explain to their constituents why they voted on an amendment to protect minority rights and stop reconciliation and then subsequently chose to ignore that very vote. This is a favorite technique used to keep strategy control firmly within the hands of the insiders.
• That is why we have to construct the narrative and control it from the outside rather than allowing the insiders to set the terms of the debate.
• This is a very simple story. The Senate made a rule and then broke other rules in the dead of night to throw it in the garbage. The Senate passed a rule committing itself not to consider under reconciliation any healthcare reform bill that satisfied certain conditions. It left it to CBO to determine whether the bill would satisfy those conditions but it is self evident that any bill currently under consideration does satisfy them. The Senate then instructed its conferees to insist on retaining that amendment in conference.
  

  The Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad betrayed his colleagues and acted contrary to their instructions. We know for a fact that it was he because the House conferees had no political purchase on the provision. It could only be stripped out with Conrad’s acquiescence.

• Now someone wants to turn around and argue that the DeMint amendment doesn’t apply because it is no longer in the Budget Resolution and, oh by the way even if it were still in the Budget Resolution it wouldn’t make any difference anyway because CBO would not certify any current bill under consideration as satisfying the conditions established by the amendment.
• Of course the DeMint amendment doesn’t apply, but they had to cheat to strip it so that it wouldn’t apply
• We should not allow ourselves to be conned into defending status quo rules when other rules and long tradition of the Senate had to be broken to get us to this status quo – this is so Republican.
• Instead, we should be arguing that the Senate should abide by the rule it adopted for itself anyway because it should still be in the resolution and would be in the resolution if the Democrats hadn’t played games and the Republicans hadn’t slept through them.
• As for CBO, we must simply assert that the only way CBO could possibly not certify a bill as satisfying the conditions of the amendment is if they were being manipulated by the Democrats. This is not as far fetched as you think. Recall Obama met with the CBO director – the first time a President has ever done that.

In closing:

• The Republicans have the rules and the politics on their side, and they have simply been unwilling to pick up the ball and run with it just as they were unwilling to fight ObamaCare and RINOCare until we made it impossible for them not to.
• We have to stick the ball in their hands and push them out front so either they run with it or get crushed. We have to re-focus the debate on fairness, abiding by the rules.
• We have an ally. Oddly enough, Democrat Robert C. Byrd provides us the best arguments for not passing healthcare reform under Reconciliation.

The establishment knows how to play the game and that is why they take us to the cleaners on a regular basis – in the past. Now its our turn. Spin cycle anyone?

It’s up to us, the grassroots. We can’t go all wobbly on America now.

The American people will want to know why was it stripped to begin with? More importantly, why wouldn’t the Senate abide by its own rule? The House has no say in it. FORCE THE DEMOCRATS TO DEFEND IGNORING A RULE THEY AGREED TO. THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO GROUND TO STAND ON.

Kill ObamaCare. Hit the reset switch. Then we can do it right. Simple free-market solutions exist which can drive down costs without liberty destroying legislation that favors big government and/or big business and without the budget busting price tag attached to all these proposals.

Update: Why this is reaching a critical moment: Howard Dean, DFA, Launch Campaign Encouraging 51-Vote Health Care Bill. If we ignore the following, we do so at our country’s peril. This strategy will work.

Keep the following in mind as you read this post: FORCE THE DEMOCRATS TO DEFEND IGNORING A RULE THEY AGREED TO. THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO GROUND TO STAND ON. You will see this again below.

In this post, I argue how the coup de grace is nigh for ObamaCare. I also point to this post that details Senator Jim DeMint’s amendments how they can be used to kill reconciliation. From the second post:

During deliberations on the Senate Budget Resolution earlier this year, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) introduced a point-of-order amendment that would require a 60-vote majority to pass “any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that eliminates the ability of Americans to keep their health plan or their choice of doctor (as determined by the Congressional Budget Office).” The Senate approved the DeMint Amendment unanimously.

Subsequently, before the Senate Budget Resolution went to a Conference Committee where differences with the House Budget Resolution were to be worked out, DeMint offered a motion to instruct the Conferees not only to insist on retaining the 60-vote provision in the final Conference Report but also to widen the scope of the provision to cover any provision and so forth that decreases the number of Americans enrolled in private health insurance while increasing the number enrolled in government-managed, rationed health care. The Demint motion to instruct passed the Senate by an overwhelming vote of 79 to 14.

As a matter of congressional comity, the House ordinarily would have been expected to accede to the Senate provision since it affected Senate rules that applied only to the Senate. Remarkably, Senate Budget Committee Chairman, Kent Conrad, allowed the Demint 60-vote requirement to be removed from the Budget Resolution in Conference.

One comment on first post linked above comes from jfxgillis:

G.J.:

To take them in reverse order, the motion to instruct simply isn’t operative anymore. The instruction was not in the Budget Conference Report but it passed anyway.

The other amendment appears to rely on a CBO finding that hasn’t happened yet on a bill that hasn’t had a floor vote yet.

The amendments only passed in the first place because they don’t matter.

Once again it is up to the grassroots to get involved and put serious pressure on the Senate concerning these amendments and make known our expectation that these amendments be adhered to because of the promise by unanimous vote in one case and a vote of 79-14 in the second. If we shame enough Democrats the possibility increases that votes will be lacking in the Senate even for Reconciliation. It is up to the us to pressure Republicans to make this an issue. Republicans, as we all know too well, are prone to rolling over and need prodding on a regular basis. To borrow a Texas phrase, it’s like herding cattle.

The amendments passed. Therefore, if the Senators wish to be seen as men and women of character, they should follow the rules they set out for themselves. No more rules for thee (you and me) but not for me (the elitist politicians). No more spineless non-responses and no more pompous attitudes. If the 9/12 DC march taught Republicans and Democrats anything, it is the grassroots is real, we are big, and we will vote.

The Senate insiders have tried all along to dismiss the DeMint provisions on technical grounds by ignoring the facts that got us to the current situation. The grassroots must be ruthless and relentless in pushing the Republicans to do the right thing. It is all about constructing the right narrative. If we start listening to excuses from insiders, our movement will be hijacked by the establishment (beltway insiders, including politicians of both parties), which is exactly what they will try to do. But hijacking the movement is less about elbowing for who gets credit than about herding us so we don’t rock the boat and make life uncomfortable for them. What they fail to realize is they are the cattle and we are the cowboys. We herd them, not the other way around.

First, by any stretch of the imagination any bill currently under consideration by the Senate satisfies the conditions set down in the original DeMint Amendment that passed by unanimous consent. I would love to debate anyone arguing otherwise.

We can argue all day whether or not CBO would rule otherwise but that gives up the fight before it even begins. The CBO doesn’t have to rule on anything since the provision has been stripped. I suspect my detractors response above has been talking to a Republican insider or is getting his information from one second or third hand.

Of course CBO hasn’t yet ruled whether or not a bill satisfies the DeMint conditions, because it is not law yet. But the pertinent point is that the DeMint Amendment is not law precisely because it was dropped unceremoniously in conference contrary to the will of the Senate as evidenced by a huge bipartisan majority (79 votes). How did that happen? The Senate Budget Committee Chairman who voted for the measure twice on the floor of the Senate and was under instructions from his Senate colleagues to insist on the Senate provision in conference turned his head.

The reader may be asking why Senator DeMint is not pushing this issue hard – after all they are his amendments. The answer is obvious – he knows his cowardly Republican colleagues won’t stand up and fight and he doesn’t think the grass roots can be mobilized by this kind of procedural argument, which seems to be confirmed by my detractor above. If we allow ourselves to get intimidated by the technical details and try to explain and discuss them so we pass the test as Senate parliamentarians, we will lose the American public. The parliamentarian test is another favorite technique used to keep strategy control firmly within the hands of the insiders. That is why we have to construct the narrative and control it from the outside rather than allowing the insiders to set the terms of the debate.

Republicans always allow themselves to be cowed. They know that as politicians they are a dreadful lot, their political skills leaving much to be desired. They reveal this inferiority complex by this kind of timid, overly cautious behavior. Well, sometimes cattle need prodding. We need to take up the issue and insist on it. We must put ourselves in the drivers seats. The Senate Republicans are our passengers, our guests, and it is we who must take them along for a ride – not the other way around. Then let the Democrats stand on technicalities after placed on the defensive. The American public will see right through them.

This is a very simple story. The Senate made a rule and then broke other rules in the dead of night to throw it in the garbage. This is the same way these jokers have destroyed the Constitution. The Senate passed a rule committing itself not to consider under Reconciliation any healthcare reform bill that satisfied certain conditions. It left it to CBO to determine whether the bill would satisfy those conditions but it is self evident that any bill currently under consideration does satisfy them. The Senate then instructed its conferees to insist on retaining that amendment in conference. The Senate Budget Committee Chairman betrayed his colleagues and acted contrary to their instructions. We know for a fact that it was he because the House conferees had no political purchase on the provision. It could only be stripped out with Conrad’s acquiescence.

Now someone wants to turn around and argue that the DeMint amendment doesn’t apply because it is no longer in the Budget Resolution and, oh by the way even if it were still in the Budget Resolution it wouldn’t make any difference anyway because CBO would not certify any current bill under consideration as satisfying the conditions established by the amendment. Of course the DeMint amendment doesn’t apply, but they had to cheat to strip it so that it wouldn’t apply — we should not allow ourselves to be conned into defending status quo rules when other rules and long tradition of the Senate had to be broken to get us to this status quo – this is so Republican. Instead, we should be arguing that the Senate should abide by the rule it adopted for itself anyway because it should still be in the resolution and would be in the resolution if the Democrats hadn’t played games and the Republicans hadn’t slept through them.

As for CBO, we must simply assert that the only way CBO could possibly not certify a bill as satisfying the conditions of the amendment is if they were being manipulated by the Democrats.

The Republicans have the rules and the politics on their side, and they have simply been unwilling to pick up the ball and run with it just as they were unwilling to fight ObamaCare and RHINOCare until we made it impossible for them not to. We have to stick the ball in their hands and push them out front so either they run with it or get crushed. We have to re-focus the debate on fairness, abiding by the rules. Oddly enough, Robert C. Byrd provides us the best arguments for not passing healthcare reform under Reconciliation. Just ask yourself this: If the situation were reversed, would the Democrats be wringing their hands and being so fastidious? One guess, and my bet is you will get it right. Why, because if you are reading this chances are you are smarter than most politicians. I know you, not personally, but I have met hundreds like you and color me impressed. For any mindless ObamaBots who are reading this, the answer is – of course not.

The establishment knows how to play the game and that is why they take us to the cleaners on a regular basis – in the past. Now its our turn. Spin cycle anyone?

It’s up to us, the grassroots. We can’t go all wobbly on America now.

The argument that the Senate would have rejected the entire conference report if it really wanted the amendment in is weak. First, it all happened so fast I am sure only a couple of Democrats realized it was gone. The Republicans voted against the Resolution anyway. This was a set up and we are falling into the trap they set. Finally, we have to make it clear that this was not a provision in dispute between the House and Senate, which would have given the “it-passed-anyway-without-it” argument more saliency; this was a provision the House didn’t care about and the Senate was on record by huge bipartisan majorities in favor of twice.

The American people will want to know why was it stripped to begin with? More importantly, why wouldn’t the Senate abide by its own rule? The House has no say in it. FORCE THE DEMOCRATS TO DEFEND IGNORING A RULE THEY AGREED TO. THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO GROUND TO STAND ON.

So how do you put the pressure on Republicans to make this an issue and subsequently push enough Democrats away from Reconciliation because the political stakes are too high? Copy this link (http://tinyurl.com/m6ywb7) and sent it out to everyone you know. Send it to the Tea Parties, make it viral, and continue to take back this country. Or feel free to use this material as you wish. Copy it, paste it, put it on your own blog. A good friend once told me of a quote by President Ronald Reagan.

There is no limit to what you can accomplish if you don’t care who gets the credit.

Amen. I am not looking for recognition, instead I am looking for the day to arrive when I turn on my computer, go to my favorite blog or internet news site and read: Healthcare Reform Dies.

Can you imagine? This is a group effort, it is a grassroots effort. None of this would be possible without millions of disillusioned citizens taking their grievances to the government, or putting in their time going to rally’s, protests, marches, writing on blogs, and organizing local tea party chapters. This is truly an amazing time in the history of this country.

We did it on 9/12, we can do it again.

Kill ObamaCare. Hit the reset switch. Then we can do it right. Simple free-market solutions exist which can drive down costs without liberty destroying legislation that favors big government and/or big business and without the budget busting price tag attached to all these proposals. I live in Texas and the benefits of tort reform by itself are quantifiable and beneficial to both patients and doctors.

Update: Reader SteveL in the comments asks the question why only a few are taking up this issue? The answer lies in the post above – it is how the establishment has gamed the system. I reply that I have contacted major bloggers on the issue and have yet to hear back from them. Nobody is interested. However, should ObamaCare pass and later analysis indicates the above approach would have killed it, then at least I was on the right side of history. I have contacted some Tea Party groups, including the national chapter. It has only been a couple of days for the later, so I am still holding out hope.

In other news and opinion:

Does Anybody Actually Like the Baucus Health Care Bill?

Doctors Threaten to Go Galt if ObamaCare Passes

ACORN’s Comprehensive Ho-migration Reform

The Useful Idiots Are After Rush Limbaugh Now

President Obama: Back to Square One on Health Care

ObamaCare: Who loves the Baucus bill?

Coward-in-Chief

Gallup: Obama under 50% on Afghanistan, economy, health care, deficit

Obama’s solution on illegals and health care? Amnesty; Update: Video added

Rasmussen: ObamaCare hits highest disapproval rate yet

A few more myths from the White House

Major Update 2: There is a meme making its way through the internet the Jim Demint amendments don’t matter. NOT TRUE.

Major Update: ObamaCare coup de grace is nigh. It is time to strike the death blow.

The battle now turns to preventing the Senate from jamming ObamaCare down the throats of the American People under Reconciliation. The end game is underway and the momentum is swinging toward the opponents of ObamaCare. Or to mix metaphors, ObamaCare opponents are on the green, and all they have to do is sink the putt. Can anybody here play this game? After Saturday’s impressive demonstration on the National Mall there is no doubt the grass-roots movement for freedom, privacy and limited government can hit a very long drive and knows how to chip onto the green. The question remains: Can they putt? Let’s hope so.

Can we stop reconciliation? You bet we can. Read Senate Ignores Jim Demint Amendments That Kill Reconciliation And How We Can Use It. The Senate passed these two amendments – one unanimously and the other by a margin of 79-14 – both which kill reconciliation. The Dems choosing to ignore their own amendments is shameful. We must follow the rules, but if you are a Senator, well rules be damned. It is exactly this privileged mentality of “rules for thee, but not for me” that fuels much of the anger directed at the Congress these days.

The grassroots Tea Parties carried a great deal of energy during the Congressional August recess over the break. That energy, which appeared non-coherent and at the local level, showed its national teeth September the 12th, 2009 during the march on DC. It is long past the time when this energy needs to be concentrated like a laser beam in one place – the Senate, or we WILL see bill pass that is contrary to fiscal responsibility and an outright danger to healthcare in this country. Like any form of energy, there is always a portion which is lost to other factors. In a automobile, the engine’s energy is used to power the vehicle, but much of it is lost to friction and heat. There is never a free lunch in nature. The same is true of informational energy. Undirected informational energy is wasted energy. Now, more than ever, we need to direct that energy or it will all be for naught. We will get the healthcare we deserve.

From the Social Security Institute:

The Hill reports that Senate Democratic Leadership remains optimistic they can produce a RHINOCare “bipartisan compromise” on healthcare reform that will get 60 votes. If not, Democratic Leader Harry Reid said they are prepared to jam ObamaCare down the American People’s throats under the special parliamentary maneuver called Reconciliation, which severely restricts the number of amendments that can be offered, stringently limits the time for debate and allows the Senate to pass a measure by a mere simple majority, contrary to the normal rules and long tradition of the U.S. Senate.

Now is the time for the grass-roots movement that put a million people on the National Mall last Saturday to rise up as one and (1) insist that Republicans not cave in to a RHINOCare “compromise” that would impose a mandate on individuals forcing them to purchase health insurance (a so-called “individual mandate”); and (2) demand that the Senate consider healthcare legislation under the REGULAR ORDER — NO RECONCILIATION.

Read more about the Individual Mandate here. . .

Read why RINOCare and the Individual Mandate is contrary to all GOP principles here. . .

Democratic Senator Robert C. Byrd explains why passing healthcare reform under Reconciliation would be an abuse of the budget process and contrary to the time-honored traditions of the U.S. Senate here. . .

And let’s not forget, The Story The Media And Major Blogs Are Not Reporting: Senate Ignores Jim Demint Amendments That Kill Reconciliation And How We Can Use It.

If we don’t win this, the Tea Parties will lose momentum. Once Congress realizes we speak in generalities and our energy is not focused on specifics, that’s it – everyone came to the party, had a good time, and went home. If we lose this, how successful do you think we will be with Cap-and-trade or Card Check or whatever other nightmare Obama has in store for us?

This adds a sense of urgency to our mission: Snowe falls away, leaving Senate Dems without GOP support on healthcare. Marcus comments and drives the point home:

With the Jim Demint amendments going national that increases the probability that enough Dems will not support reconciliation, which these two amendments address.

BLAST this link out to all your friends and have them blast it out. Blast it to the tea parties. Here is a shortened version of the link to this post that you can copy and paste into an email: http://tinyurl.com/ndork4. Use twitter and the social networks, the ShareThis button at the bottom of this post – whatever method works for you. It’s time to drop the hammer on ObamaCare, hit the reset switch and start over.

In other news and opinion:

Video: Mob boss or union boss?

ObamaCare getting even more partisan and more unwieldy

Whatever Happened to the 9/13 March?

Senate Democrat website: With no action, uninsured to reach 101 million by 2019

ObamaCare: Does the media matter?

45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul. Via Instapundit.

Report: Rules of engagement led to soldiers’ deaths

Too Much Obama Can Be Hazardous to the President’s Health

Audio: What would Wilson say to Carter?

ACORN: Hey, maybe we do need to clean house

Snowe bails on “compromise” ObamaCare bill; Update: Baucus plan cuts Medicare

Reason: The center’s paranoia is the most threatening

Your Morning Health Care Roundup: Exeunt Snowe, Republicans

Update: The Nightmare That Is The Senate Finance Committee Healthcare Proposal – RINOCare Gone Wild. Are you ready for governement controlled health insurance cartels? Socialized healthcare vs. fascist healthcare, the dangerous bi-partisan compromise.

The endgame is here and the most important aspect that could kill the above linked post concerning the Senate Finance Committee healthcare bill and any other form of ObamaCare is being ignored by not only the media, but major bloggers everywhere. The only other reference I can find other than on the Social Security Institute website (see link below) is from FreedomWorks. Given that these two amendments kill any chance of reconciliation, I am at a loss to explain the complete lack of interest in this topic.

There were two amendments offered by Senator DeMint prior to the health bill conferences and debate in the Senate – a point-of-order amendment and instruction to conferees. The following is taken directly from an email Mr. Uhler received from Dr. Lawrence Hunter of the Social Security Institute that was forwarded to me and placed in the first link above. Dr. Hunter also has a very long and distinguished career and served as policy advisor to President Ronald Reagan during Reagan’s second term. He also served as a Member of the Board of Advisors for the NTLC:

During deliberations on the Senate Budget Resolution earlier this year, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) introduced a point-of-order amendment that would require a 60-vote majority to pass “any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that eliminates the ability of Americans to keep their health plan or their choice of doctor (as determined by the Congressional Budget Office).” The Senate approved the DeMint Amendment unanimously.

Subsequently, before the Senate Budget Resolution went to a Conference Committee where differences with the House Budget Resolution were to be worked out, DeMint offered a motion to instruct the Conferees not only to insist on retaining the 60-vote provision in the final Conference Report but also to widen the scope of the provision to cover any provision and so forth that decreases the number of Americans enrolled in private health insurance while increasing the number enrolled in government-managed, rationed health care. The Demint motion to instruct passed the Senate by an overwhelming vote of 79 to 14.

As a matter of congressional comity, the House ordinarily would have been expected to accede to the Senate provision since it affected Senate rules that applied only to the Senate. Remarkably, Senate Budget Committee Chairman, Kent Conrad, allowed the Demint 60-vote requirement to be removed from the Budget Resolution in Conference.

Prior to the above statements by Dr. Hunter is information of great importance:

However, with a united Republican front in the Senate, Democrats would be hard pressed to jam a bill as comprehensive and detested as ObamaCare down Americans’ throats. Current polls indicate that more people oppose ObamaCare than support it. Moreover, Senate Republicans stand on very strong procedural grounds for resisting a bum’s rush on government-run healthcare through the Reconciliation process. It would take an act of extraordinary arrogance and recklessness for the Democratic Leadership to use Reconciliation this way.

If agreed upon to be enforced, the Demint amendments would in effect kill the reconciliation process and force 60 votes to pass ObamaCare in its present form – even with the co-operative option, which is nothing more than a Trojan horse for what ultimately will become a single-payer system. Mr. Uhler has identified five Republican Senators that need to align themselves with the party and forgo their proclivity to reach across the aisle. If this story goes national and pressure is brought to bear on these five Republican’s to stand firm with their party, then it is reasonable to assume the above conclusion from Dr. Hunter to be correct. Under these circumstances I do not believe the Democrats in the Senate would have the votes to commit “an act of extraordinary arrogance and recklessness”. However, wide public knowledge of the amendments and the subsequent pressure on Senators to follow their own rules requires national exposure. The average American is completely unaware of the procedural hurdles that Senator Jim Demint placed to block the ramming of a very unpopular plan onto the American people.

One could reasonably ask themselves why the public must follow rules, where the Senate can choose to ignore them. It will focus attention on the contempt that some Senate elitists have for the public. However, to date no major conservative talk show, media outlet, or think tank has covered this tactic. Everyone is talking about Blue Dogs killing the legislation. While certainly one strategy to pursue, I personally believe Blue Dogs have a habit of growling but, at the end of the day, many of them will roll over. I prefer a multi-pronged strategy that would include the above approach outlined by Dr. Hunter. On the legislative front, what is called for is combining public pressure on the Blue Dogs in the House and placing pressure on five Senate Republican’s to stand firm with their party and not negotiate ObamaCare Lite with the cooperative option replacing nationalized health care. Instead the public should insist the Demint rules be followed. This could very well kill the bill as it exists today. We could then press the reset button and start talking about real reform.

Using Reconciliation to force feed ObamaCare to an unwilling nation would backfire in ways that Democrats will find difficult to imagine. That is the type of atmosphere some liberals, such as Chuck Schumer are willing to create now and for the foreseeable future.

Here is the link to the story on the Social Security Institute article from Dr. Hunter:

In other news and opinion:

As the Byrd Rule Flies: Why Dems Can’t Use Reconciliation to Pass Radical ObamaCare

Co-ops a federal-subsidy trough

From Moe Lane at Redstate: Howard Dean threatens primary challenges on public option ‘no’ votes.

Is ObamaCare Constitutional?

Blue Dog: Hey, maybe we should start over on ObamaCare. Won’t happen, but this can be killed in the Senate. I am still astounded nobody has picked up on this yet.

ObamaCare: Does the media matter?