Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Does this inspire you to ask any questions?

You gotta love that stimulus plan. Touted by the Obama Administration as necessary to get the US economy going again after President Bush and the GOP get blamed and bashed for everything including the recession and the so-called financial meltdown. Let’s not talk about how it would keep unemployment from rising above 8%. (now over 10%) And let’s not talk about all the jobs it would create. (up to 4 million) But how about those stimulus checks to taxpayers that are supposed to increase consumer spending and boost the economy. Seems the only thing they may boost are those same American taxpayers.

Over fifteen million taxpayers may have to pay back some of that tax credit. Are you one of them?

The problem comes because certain groups of taxpayers were advanced more than they were entitled to receive under the credit. That includes working teenagers who are claimed by their parents as dependents; single taxpayers with more than one job; or married couples where both spouses work.

An IG has reported the problem. The IRS disagrees with parts of the report. Yet the cause of the problem within the wonderful tax system may not be changed and the whole thing may happen again in 2010. And if you read the entire article from WSJ linked in this post you may react like most do when reviewing discussions on the topic of taxes. The information raises more questions than answers.

You might enjoy a little personal anecdote related to this story. Several months after filing my 2008 return the refund came in the mail. The return was filed on the deadline and the refund arrived sometime in June. There was a letter that came separately and this taxpayer prepared for bad news. No, the IRS did not tell this taxpayer about errors that would cost fines, penalties and $$ due the Internal Revenue Service. They explained they had taken the liberty of adding more to the refund in the form of stimulus money.

Red flags went up. First thought was what will this cost me on next year’s return. But alas, the fine folks at the IRS offered the option of not accepting the additional refund money. Not being one to kick a gift horse in the mouth and while concerned about a subsequent shortfall and not liking government stimulus anything I held on to the check. Maybe if one waits long enough the decision on whether to accept or not will be determined by a news report explaining why not to take the porkulus money.

After waiting until last month I reluctantly deposited the check. Most of the refund was not about the stimulus funds. Maybe I can leave the porkulus part in some sort of interest bearing account or investment vehicle. It may take the sting out of any shortfall later. And if I owe nothing because of it in a future return it could stay aa an investment to help later generations payback all the money government is wasting right now. You know, those billions in bailouts, porkulus and reform legislation we cannot afford. Like the $300 porkulus check the IRS sent me.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The left enjoys referring to the GOP as the ‘party of no.’ Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has press releases whining about the GOP holding up nominations or confirmations of President Obama. David Hamilton was confirmed for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals by the US Senate in a 70-29-1 vote. The ‘not voting’ member is a Republican. Ten of the 70 voting ‘aye’ for confirmation are Republicans. The occasional support for the GOP from Senator Lieberman was not available this time as he voted to confirm. Read the rest of this post and the links to consider the implications of this event. Do the math. Had the 11 members of the GOP voting ‘aye’ or not voting opposed the nomination what would the outcome have been?

One question is presented in advance. Are the Republicans who voted to confirm David Hamilton RINOs?

An article from NRO in March of 2009 discusses ACLU Hamilton as a nominee for the US Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Follow the link to gain some insight on the nominee who was confirmed this week.

Seventh Circuit Candidate David Hamilton—An ACLU “Moderate”! [Ed Whelan]

In an article headlined “Moderate Is Said to Be Pick for Court,” the New York Times reports that President Obama’s first nominee to a federal appellate court seat is expected to be David F. Hamilton. Hamilton, appointed by President Clinton to a district judgeship in Indiana in 1994 (despite the ABA’s “not qualified” rating), is expected to be named to the Seventh Circuit.

An excerpt from Senator Leahy on the Hamilton nomination for the Seventh Circuit.

“I believe our confirmation decisions should not be based on partisan considerations, much less on how we hope or predict a given judicial nominee will ‘vote’ on particular issues of public moment or controversy. I have instead tried to evaluate judicial candidates on whether they have the requisite intellect, experience, character and temperament that Americans deserve from their judges, and also on whether they indeed appreciate the vital, and yet vitally limited, role of the Federal judiciary faithfully to interpret and apply our laws, rather than seeking to impose their own policy views.”

Senator Lugar believes Judge Hamilton “is superbly qualified under both sets of criteria.” So do I. Judge Hamilton is a well-respected Federal judge not known for partisanship or an ideological agenda. In light of his superb record, broad support, and unanimous “well qualified” rating from the American Bar Association, it is no wonder Judge Hamilton’s nomination for this important appellate seat has the support of both home state Senators. He should be confirmed with a strong bipartisan majority.

Interesting comments from Leahy considering every judicial nomination is partisan in nature. It would be good if this were not the case but it is. And Leahy’s characterization that this nominee has been selected based on his qualifications is absurd. (Of course, that is merely this blog’s opinion)

The following is the result of Roll Call Vote 349 (In the YEAs group and the Not Voting Group, Republicans voting in support of the nomination are in bold type.)

YEAs

Alexander (R-TN) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH)
Burris (D-IL) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Chambliss (R-GA) Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND) Cornyn (R-TX) Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY) Gregg (R-NH) Hagan (D-NC) Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT) Inouye (D-HI) Johnson (D-SD) Kaufman (D-DE)
Kerry (D-MA) Kirk (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lugar (R-IN) McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ) Merkley (D-OR) Mikulski (D-MD) Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY) Shaheen (D-NH) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (D-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI) Tester (D-MT) Thune (R-SD) Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM) Warner (D-VA) Webb (D-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs

Barrasso(R-WY) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY) Burr (R-NC) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA) Johanns (R-NE) Kyl (R-AZ) LeMieux (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Risch (R-ID) Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Vitter (R-LA) Voinovich (R-OH)
Wicker (R-MS)

Not Voting - 1

Hutchison (R-TX)


David Frank Hamilton was first elevated to the status of judge by virtue of a Clinton nomination in 1994. (record from Thomas LOC, below)

Nomination: PN1469-103
Date Received: June 08, 1994 (103rd Congress)
Nominee: David F. Hamilton, of Indiana, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Indiana vice S. Hugh Dillin, retired.
Referred to: Senate Judiciary
Reported by: Senate Judiciary

Legislative Actions

Floor Action: June 08, 1994 - Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Committee Action: September 21, 1994 - Committee on Judiciary. Hearings held.
Committee Action: September 28, 1994 - Committee on Judiciary. Ordered to be reported favorably.
Floor Action: September 28, 1994 - Reported by Mr. Biden, Committee on the Judiciary, without printed report.
Floor Action: September 28, 1994 - Placed on Senate Executive Calendar. Calendar No. 1289.
Floor Action: October 07, 1994 - Confirmed by the Senate by Voice Vote.

Organization: The Judiciary

Control Number: 103PN0146900

Final note: Do the GOP members voting to confirm Hamilton or not voting demonstrate conservative principles?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Senate approves ACORN/abortion radical judge David Hamilton (Michelle Malkin) 

“I do realize that those types of things shouldn’t happen,” Adams said in that statement. “I need to specifically apologize to the Bills, their fans, our fans and the NFL.

That may be. But the goofy NFL makes little sense in handing down this fine. $250,000 from an owner for flippin’ the bird. At least two players have been fined for the same ‘offense.’ One at $7,500 and one at $10,000.

The NFL fined former 49ers owner Eddie DeBartolo $1 million after he pleaded guilty to a felony and suspended him for the 1999 season.

Since then, the biggest fine handed down by the NFL to an individual was $500,000 to New England coach Bill Belichick for the Spygate scandal. The league also fined the New York Jets and former coach Eric Mangini $125,000 in September for violating its rules on injury reporting with Brett Favre last season.

NFL logic apparently dictates one million for a felony, half a million for elaborate cheating, a quarter mil for flippin’ someone off and half that for breaking reporting rules.

This strategy does not seem to be working given all the ‘infractions.’ But then it’s just about the money. Nevermind the ‘bird’ infraction should not equal half of that for cheating or a quarter of what a felony raises for the league.

How much should the league be penalized for extorting the public for stadiums, overcharging for tickets and limiting viewing as they move to pay per view everything? And the college ranks are following suit. Unless you do it their way, you can watch any team but your own on traditional network broadcasts.

None of your tax dollars go to the schools featuring the college football teams, right?

The trends in sports programming combined with the feeble offerings in television overall allow one to drastically reduce if not eliminate old viewing habits. Eventually, only true couch potatoes who would watch anything as long as food and drink are available will be the revenue for the industry. But they probably know that already. Which is why they offer what they do…. too little for too much.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Upbeat Conservative News, ACORN May Collapse (applause)

Upbeat Conservative News, WH Exposed: Blocking Ft Hood Probe

Upbeat Conservative News, Feds Seize Iranian Front Mosques

Upbeat Conservative News, Obamacare May Die in Senate

Upbeat Conservative News, Politico Notices WH Can’t Count

Upbeat Conservative News, Obama Calls Opposition extremists

Upbeat Conservative News, Will Dems Throw Reid Under the Bus

Upbeat Conservative News, Immigration an Obamacare Killer?

Upbeat Conservative News, Dems Push Cap & Tax, GOP Boyco

Upbeat Conservative News, NY-23 Winner Opposes Public Option

Upbeat Conservative News, Maine and the Military Ban

Upbeat Conservative News, Homosexuals Blame Obama

Upbeat Conservative News, Special interest rejected in Maine

Upbeat Conservative News, Maine votes down same sex marriage

Upbeat Conservative News, Review of GOP election W-L Nov 3

Upbeat Conservative News, Deja vu, 1994, angry voters and…

Upbeat Conservative News, Katie Couric = DNC puppet

Upbeat Conservative News, Govt Motors Stiffs Taxpayers

Upbeat Conservative News, Obama Support Fading

Upbeat Conservative News, Dems 2010 Prospects Fading

Upbeat Conservative News, ACORN=DNC=White House

Upbeat Conservative News, ACORN = DNCs Little Helper

Upbeat Conservative News, Obama Rookie Year a Dud

Upbeat Conservative News, One liberal thinking. (no kidding)

Upbeat Conservative News, Just in…. Boehner’s an Idiot

Upbeat Conservative News, Voters are in a foul mood. Really?

The quote below from Senator Akaka is one of the latest related to constitutional questions being raised about healthcare reform legislation.

Sen. Akaka Says ‘I’m Not Aware’ of Constitution Giving Congress Authority to Make Individuals Buy Health Insurance
Thursday, November 12, 2009
By Nicholas Ballasy, Video Reporter

(CNSNews.com) – Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) says he is “not aware” of the Constitution giving Congress the authority to make individuals purchase health insurance, as the health care bills in both the House and Senate require.

Another commonly quoted statement on this issue expresses the notion that state laws require one to carry auto insurance. Several other quotes feature various legislators essentially guessing about the whole matter. These quotes or sound bites may best demonstrate what is wrong with the present push for healthcare reform.

It suggests that many in Congress and the White House may have no idea what they’re doing. Such a sentiment is no stranger to observations of those in public office. The following information is also no stranger in mixing political agendas and legislation.

“We find his statements to be overly optimistic, misleading and, to some extent, contradicted by one of his own advisers,” the Annenberg FactCheck.org Web site reported at the time. “And it masks the true cost of his plan to cover millions of Americans who now have no health insurance.”

Masking the true cost of healthcare is exactly what Democrats have done, Moffit says.

“You’re going to see higher premiums, you’re going to have higher taxes, you’re going to have higher premiums for Medicare,” Moffit tells Newsmax in an exclusive interview. “And you’re not getting a bend in the spending curve, but rather a $1.3 trillion dollar explosion in additional spending over the next 10 years.

“So I don’t know what the White House thinks we’re drinking, but the truth of the matter is, none of this is believable,” he says.

Moffit says taxpayers’ first installment on healthcare’s hidden costs may come as early as next week, when the House is scheduled to take up the $210 billion “doctor’s fix” bill.

Feel free to follow the link and read the rest as it provides an example of what you see is not exactly what you get. Legislative maneuvers by unscrupulous politicians afford them political cover while stiffing the taxpayer and even those who view more government spending as a boon for their wallets. This entire exercise in healthcare reform is the dangerous ruse as it has been characterized by many since the charade began.

Obamacare Vote Chicanery Debunks Moderate Democrat Myth
Thursday, November 12, 2009 3:06 PM
By: Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

Don’t assume that the 38 Democrats who voted against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s extremist version of healthcare reform wouldn’t have supported it if their votes had been needed.

The days before the final passage on Saturday were not filled with stirring appeals to get Democrats to back the bill so much as an auction to decide whom to let off the hook.

Knowing that the bill probably be political suicide for any red-state Democratic member of Congress, particularly the freshmen, the House leadership had to negotiate with its members to assure that the 38 defectors were the ones who needed the political cover the most.

This blog published a post on November 8th expressing a similar analysis as the one provided above. Another analysis being supported on this blog deals with the GOP and their alternative reform plan. Just as the CBO has scored liberal healthcare reform plans as too expensive and lacking in benefit to the public, their scoring of the GOP alternative suggests exactly what the GOP claimed. It is a first step for improving healthcare in the US that provides savings and more coverage for uninsured without breaking the bank. Allowing this great nation to move more slowly and carefully with respect to reform and avoid the risk of massive new debt, deficits and taxes that would cripple the economy.

The liberal power grab agenda and its centerpiece legislative coup of healthcare reform should raise red flags on anyone’s political radar. The same attempt to induce massive panic among this nation’s citizens was carried out during the Clinton administration. Healthcare did not cause the economy to collapse then and it will not now. The same cannot be said for legislation like HR 3962 or other liberal proposals currently in Congress.

Addressing healthcare reform as proposed by the GOP alternative in smaller steps is prudent, responsible and logical. Progress can be measured along the way. Problems can be avoided or corrected with much more ease. The nation will not need to accept the risk of an ‘all in’ strategy as suggested by the liberals in Congress and the White House. Their’s is a gambling strategy our nation cannot afford. But then their agenda is not about healthcare reform. It is about the expansion of government and the political power grab they seek.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

One of Senator Harry Reids’ recent press releases was whining about the GOP holding up confirmation of Obama nominees. It was stated that this is hurting the country by not allowing the administration to get on with their agenda. The Democratic party may have nothing to offer but they have excuses. How about the long list of Obama nominees who bowed out after being exposed as, most commonly, tax evaders. Yet they still managed to get Tax Cheat Tim Geithner confirmed as Secretary of the Treasury. A department that has been plagued by incompetence in this and the previous administration. So what else is going on with Obama staffers?

Well, for all practical purposes Anita’s Dunn. It’s great when a person’s name fits the story like that. A low-profile aide to President Obama will soon be managing the public face of his Administration. Dan Pfeiffer was named the next White House communications director on Nov. 10, following the announcement that current communications chief Anita Dunn will step down by the end of the year.

Other reports on Dunn’s exit come in two flavors. The right claims she is being thrown under the bus for the Fox News fiasco and generally not performing to the Messiah’s satisfaction. The left echoes the White House claim she only planned on staying a matter of months due to family considerations. You would think those looking for a public statement to explain getting fired could come up with a new one. The family considerations angle is really cliche as well as not believable.

(CNSNews.com) – The acting inspector general of AmeriCorps said he shredded White House documents at the request of an agency press spokeswoman that pertained to the controversial firing of the previous inspector general, who was ousted after investigating a political ally of President Obama.

That’s a pretty good story. Considering the former IG was fired for spanking those involved in the misuse of Americorps funds. Apparently President Obama was not fond of that transparency and accountability.

White House Counsel Greg Craig is expected to announce as early as Friday that he plans to step down from his post following a rocky tenure, people familiar with the matter said.

Craig, the top lawyer at the White House and a close aide to President Barack Obama, has helped lead the administration’s efforts on several national-security policies that initially enjoyed popular support but have since become liabilities for Obama.

So to Senator Reid’s accusation the GOP is hurting America by holding up Obama nominations one could answer this way. Hey Harry, if the GOP is in fact holding up your nominees they may be doin’ y’all a favor. The ones that make it past getting nominated are not doing so well. Those who bowed out under scrutiny before the process indicate poor choices as well. And this post only reviews a tiny fraction of the failures. So just to improve the coverage let’s just mention one more, Van Jones.

Add Congress to the White House record of incompetence and a power grab agenda that includes healthcare and other parts of the private sector and you have the liberal recipe for disaster. Too bad it’s the only recipe they know. With any luck at all we can make it to the 2010 elections, clean house and repair the damage done.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

You could be a little troubled these days with all the talk about politicians and how they respond to matters and issues of the day. President Obama is certainly not immune to analysis or the opinions it generates. Since the mainstream media or those organizations generally considered to be the establishment media rarely open a critical eye toward the President the rest of us must fill the void. After all, the President has pledged his administration would be transparent and accountable. So let’s all help him fulfill that promise.

On the topic of shootings at Fort Hood by Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan the President said the following among other things. “But it is all the more heartbreaking and all the more despicable because of the place where it occurred and the patriots who were its victims.” It should come as no surprise that the community organizer-in-chief is often credited for being a great orator. And he has taken a lot of heat for his habitual use of teleprompters. But make no mistake, little if anything he says in public has escaped the scrutiny of the PR machine and focus groups or the rest in his inner circle. In evidence in the quote above is selecting the word ‘its’ when referring to the ‘victims’ of Hasan. There’s that strategy to appease the terrorists by calling these events ‘man-made’ disasters.

Sorry Mr President but all this is a little troubling. In his weekly Internet and radio address, Mr. Obama says those who responded to the rampage represent the best of America. “We saw soldiers and civilians alike rushing to aid fallen comrades; tearing off bullet-riddled clothes to treat the injured; using blouses as tourniquets; taking down the shooter even as they bore wounds themselves,” he said. Mr President, did you once acknowledge Kimberly Munley by name?

The president, hoping to calm potential ethnic tension, reminds the public about the diversity of those who defend the U.S. “They are Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus and nonbelievers. They are descendants of immigrants and immigrants themselves. They reflect the diversity that makes this America. But what they share is a patriotism like no other,” he said.

Just by virtue of the fact the statement above was made in response to the Fort Hood shootings by Hasan demonstrates the flaw in that argument. This one must have gotten by the PR machine or the arrogance of the White House assumed you wouldn’t notice. Hasan wasn’t sharing that patriotism part, Mr President. At least at the end of the item below you refer to Hasan’s actions as a ‘crime’. Pat yourself on the back, Mr President.

My prayers go with those who were killed or injured as well as for their families. A special acknowledgment should be expressed for those who responded to the call that day. Although it has been reported Kimberly Munley does not want to be called a hero her actions were incredibly proficient and courageous. Hope she recovers from her injuries as if they never happened. Same sentiment for the others injured.

Let’s not dishonor those who died with more appeasement, Mr President.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The Beltway snipers and the Fort Hood killer: Peas in a jihad-inspired pod (Michelle Malkin) 

The Stupak amendment (passed on Nov 7) to ban public funding of abortions within HR 3962 (passed in the House 220-215 on Nov 7, 2009) suggests political maneuvers of the smoke and mirrors variety. Some have suggested that Democrats who claim to be pro-life do so to placate some voters in their districts and for other purposes. The question raised by this in terms of HR3962 asks if those liberals who objected to this amendment in the debate before the vote on Saturday voted in favor of HR 3962 anyway? Unless they are part of the 39 Dems who voted against the bill it suggests some kind of liberal kabuki dance. And a similar question applies to the GOP since they may have known well in advance of their passionate public statements in the debate how the vote was going to turn out.

This post starts a review of the 39 Dems who voted against HR 3962. In alphabetical order the first one up is John Barrow of the GA-12th. After Barrow was elected the Georgia state legislature went Republican in both houses for the first time since Reconstruction. Subsequent redistricting of the 12th left Barrow representing a much more Republican district. All of this is according to Wikipedia. If accurate, what do you suppose Rep John Barrow (D) from the GA 12th’s first consideration was on voting against HR 3962? Could it be he wants to get re-elected in a district that now leans right?

According to the roll call vote 884 on the Stupak amendment mentioned above Mr Barrow voted in favor of it like 63 other Democrats. 194 of them voted no. Parsing the 64 Dems voting for the Stupak amendment and the 39 Dems voting against HR 3962 and other voting trends among Dems will indicate how much trouble liberals can expect in 2010.

More posts will be published on this later. Until then, one final note, the GOP indicated all Republicans would vote against HR 3962. How will they explain Rep Joseph Cao’s aye vote? The LA-2 hasn’t been represented by a Republican since the 19th century? And after all, how tough was it to defeat indicted Rep William J ‘Cold Cash’ Jefferson after the feds found $90k in his freezer? Hmmm, another re-election concern influencing a congressman’s actions? Say it ain’t so?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Health care takeover roll call vote — and what GOP Rep. Joseph Cao got from Obama; Plus: Organizing for America hustles more money (Michelle Malkin) 

1134PM EST

House is adjourned until Monday. HR3962 passed 220-215
1131PM EST

nothing but resolutions and other crap going on right now.

1130PM EST

Normally you could criticize POLS for making gratuitous statements but of all people, Waxman, deserves a hand for thanking the grunts that put this crap together, as he says, through an unending set of nights and weekends to comply with POLS stupidity.

That’s right, left or right, H/T to the poor grunts who had to produce the stuff POLS are trying to sell you.

1033PM EST

Takin’ a break. Cantor is currently discussing tort reform.

1020PM EST

The Stupak amendment passed, 240 - 194

1015PM EST

The vote results should be coming soon.

1010PM EST

Now would be a good time for readers to submit comments. It doesn’t matter whether you’re a liberal or conservative. Just say what’s on your mind on this topic. Barring expletives your comment will not be deleted. Of course spam gets you spanked.

1002PM EST

This is a good time to remind readers to email or phone their elected reps to oppose HR3962.

958PM ESt

A fifteen minute time limit was announced for a recorded vote on the amendment.

956PM EST

A voice vote on the Stupak amendment followed by a request by Stupak for a recorded vote.

950PM EST

John Dingell cites the NYT fish wrap as a source to support HR3962. Need anyone say more. How pathetic.

944PM EST

Right now and for the last twenty minutes John Boehner is spanking the liberal healthcare reform fiasco for what it is…. more government intervention in citizens lives… with no benefit as advertised by the libs.

935PM EST

blogosphere update:

Liveblogging, Pt. 2: The hurry-up House debate on health care

927PM EST

John Boehner must have read this blog as he is doing a decent job this evening.

920PM EST

Eric Cantor just made the point offered here a few entries ago on the GOP plan.

915PM EST

Rep Anthony Weiner (D-NY) just helped the GOP. He says they opposed Social Security when it was proposed years ago. He also says they opposed Medicare when it was proposed. And he says they oppose the current liberal plan.

Had this country taken a different path on these issues in the past and now we would not be suffering from the crushing debt and high taxes that could have gone for individuals designing their own American dream rather than making millions dependent on what we have now.

910PM EST

The debate continues. Given the Democrats are dissin’ the GOP plan for healthcare reform the following needs to be posted.

The CBO concludes the GOP plan will lower insurance premiums and reduce the deficit without raising taxes on families and small business.

753PM EST

The live bloggin’ will be suspended for now. Tune in to C-SPAN for live coverage. Contact your elected reps via email or phone to express your opinions.

748PM EST

More pro and con statements on the amendment by various members.

745PM EST

Rep Diana DeGette (D-CO) opposes the amendment.

742PM EST

Stupak offers the amendment. The one that does not allow public funding of abortions.

732PM EST

It’s back to quick quips by both sides as time is running out on debate. Only a few minutes remain. Then what?

728PM EST

Moran from Kansas (R) indicates the bill creates 111 beauracracies and cuts only one, Medicare.

718PM EST

Boehner asks Miller if the bill is passed and goes to conference (with the Senate) will Miller guarantee the Stupak amendment will be retained. In other words Boehner asked for guarantees the majority would not change what is voted on in the House and Miller would not.

It may be political but it also demonstrates you cannot trust passing healthcare reform.

717PM EST

Rep Dan Burton (R-IN) expresses the $730 billion in new taxes for HR3962 as well as the trillion dollar plus cost of the bill. We’re over 10% on unemployment and this bill kills more jobs. (of course these posts are summaries and not verbatim quotes)

710PM EST

Now most of the debate is limited to very brief statements by those being recognized to speak. That is why these postings have slowed. There is less than 21 minutes total left to each side for this debate.

651PM EST

Rep Chu from CA among other things claimed she supports the bill so a woman’s kids in California can get glasses but she doesn’t have vision care coverage.

Most vision care coverage this blogger has seen cost about as much as paying for the exam and glasses yourself. And many optical services offer discounts that make it affordable. But by all means, pass a trillion dollar plus bill to pay for such things if it actually does.

One last blogger comment on this, if you cannot afford children then don’t have them. At least not until you can afford them. Duh.

640PM EST

Rep Brett Guthrie (R-KY) gave a list of taxes HR3962 places on individuals and businesses. Here are two of them. Tax penalty if you don’t buy health insurance and taxing health savings plans.

637PM EST

Suffice it to say the Speaker is spilling out her usual dribble. No substantive contribution to the debate, just Kennedy anecdotes and a list of liberal organizations supporting the legislation.

Have you ever stopped to consider those who support this bill do so because they don’t care where the money comes from as long as it keeps coming? How’s that going to reduce the cost of healthcare? And how silly is it to think someone else will have to pay for it?

631PM EST

Now we have to suffer through a speech by Nancy Pelosi.

630PM EST

Rep Judy Biggert R-IL just answered the question in a unique way. She had offered an amendment to guarantee citizens could keep the health insurance they have if they want to. The Democratic party majority defeated the amendment.

How’s that for an answer Mr Andrews !!!

625PM EST

Here’s a hint where you can find the answer to the last entry. Sec 202, pp 91-92 and Sec 303, pp 167-168.

615PM EST

Rep Rob Andrews (D) challenged the GOP to show where in the bill it says people will be forced into the public option.

610PM EST

Tim Pawlenty was brief and to the point. All the contradictions like hurtin’ seniors with the bill but AARP supports it. Killing the doctor/patient relationship but AMA supports it.

Hmmm, he’s got a point!!

609PM EST

Here comes Petri from Wisconsin. Unemployment is 10.2% and Congress will break the bank and the economy with this silly bill. Not his words but this is… budgetary train wreck.

606PM

A sad, sad anecdote from Rep Lynn Woolsey (D-CA-6) about not having insurance with three children. Oops. Her time expired.

6PM EST….

Blowhard George Miller just finished another OMG we’re all gonna go broke if we don’t pass healthcare reform speech. He of course didn’t mention going broke from no job or all the tax increases this bill will require.

From Newsmax…..

AMA Members Revolt Over Obamacare Endorsement

Friday, November 6, 2009 6:54 PM
By: David A. Patten

The American Medical Association (AMA) is facing a rebellion from some of its members, who have introduced a resolution to revoke the organization’s endorsement of the Democrats’ healthcare proposals.

How about THAT endorsement, Mr President!!!

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

What the Pelosi Health-Care Bill Really Says
Here are some important passages in the 2,000 page legislation.

By BETSY MCCAUGHEY

The health bill that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is bringing to a vote (H.R. 3962) is 1,990 pages. Here are some of the details you need to know.

What the government will require you to do:

Click here.

Betsy McCaughey knows a thing or two about this issue. Legislators who haven’t read the bill and anyone interested in how this bill will hurt you should follow the link for the complete story. It’s a jaw dropper. McCaughhey covers more than 12 sections in her WSJ article.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Another example of how political motivation blurs the lines in the GOP on being a politician or standing for conservative values.

Republicans are unanimously opposed to the sweeping legislation.

Signaling the unease of some freshman Democrats in swing districts, Rep. John Adler of New Jersey said Friday he will vote against the bill. Mr. Adler, who won his first term in 2008 with 52% of the vote, said the House bill “does not do enough to contain costs.”

He added, “Congress should not pass a bill that costs more than $1 trillion” over 10 years.

Are Republicans unanimously opposed to HR3962 and the other healthcare reform plans proposed by the Democrats for purely political reasons or because this reform violates conservative principles? There is the distinct possibility current reforms violate sections of the US Constitution as well but that’s another story for another time. As is the question of why this unanimous GOP opposition is not demonstrated on other issues like illegal immigration?

The Democratic majority has been unable to produce party unity on healthcare reform as reports indicate the Saturday vote on HR3962 may be delayed. Vulnerable Democrats are worried about the 2010 elections. The GOP has similar concerns about their possible comeback in those same elections. And yet both parties seem unwilling to accept widespread rejection by the public and respond responsibly. The fight is purely political.

The Senate may not be able to arrange a vote until next year. That would take a toll on Obama’s first term. The liberal agenda now seems destined to ride completely on the outcome of healthcare reform legislation. If incomplete into next year their 2010 aspirations are vulnerable. But the GOP may suffer along with them as voters express their anger at the ballot box.

As this fiasco continues other issues suffer from neglect, incompetence or both. The President’s support is fading. Congressional approval ratings are still in the tank. There is no economic recovery. Unemployment has reached a new high above 10% and some say it is actually higher. And all politicians can do is play politics with an issue most regard as secondary at best.

Shelve the damn healthcare issue for now. Attend to national security, national defense, border control, immigration enforcement and domestic policy related to economic matters. In other words, limited government that reduces taxes, national debt, deficits and spending. If those items are ever effectively solved then revisit healthcare reform if anyone other than liberal politicians is interested.

Until then, get conservative or get out.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com