Brian Baird (WA-03): 202-225-3536
John Barrow (GA-12): 202-225-2823
Allen Boyd (FL-02): 202-225-5235
Travis Childers (MS-01): 202-225-4306
Lincoln Davis (TN-04): 202-225-6831
Betsy Markey (CO-04): 202-225-4676
Jim Matheson (UT-02): 202-225-3011
Michael McMahon (NY-13): 202-225-3371
Glenn Nye (VA-02): 202-225-4215
John Tanner (TN-08): 202-225-4714
Harry Teague (NM-02): 202-225-2365
Bart Gordon (TN-6): 202-225-4231
Jason Altmire (PA-4): 202-225- 2565
John Boccieri (OH-16): 202-225-3876
Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24): 202-225-2706.
Scott Murphy (NY-20): 202-225-5614

Although an aide said that the topic was “to be determined,” I think we can safely assume that health care will come up.  The question is, what new scheme will result from this meeting?

See Michelle Malkin, “What are Pelosi and the House Democrat women up to now?”

Like I said in my lastest email blast, “President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and other Democratic Party leaders in Washington D.C. are absolutely determined to pass their destructive ObamaCare legislation with all of the negative consequences that nationalized healthcare will bring,” and the process to pass health care has become “an outrageous tale of changing the rules in the middle of the game.”  After pushing the “Slaughter Solution” (passing healthcare without a vote), it’s anybodies guess what Pelosi will come up with next.  Wait and see..

Updated Call list: 16 Dems who voted NO and now may switch their votes to YES!

Rep. Jason Altmire just reiterated (over and over and over) on the Sean Hannity Show today that he will vote with his constituents on the healthcare bill.  This may sound good to some, especially since his constituents are clearly opposed to the Senate bill.  A recent poll produced these results for Altmire’s district (PA-4).

• 76% oppose using tax dollars to pay for abortions (61% strongly oppose)
• 74% oppose taxpayer funding of abortions as part of healthcare reform (63% strongly oppose)
• 64% agree that abortion and abortion funding have no place in healthcare legislation (54% strongly agree)
• 58% would be less likely to vote to re-elect Congressman Altmire if he votes for healthcare legislation that includes federal government funding of abortion (46% would be much less likely)

The problem is, he refuses to declare himself a “NO” vote.  What does this tell you?  PLEASE CALL AND TELL HIM TO VOTE “NO.”

The Hill is reporting that Jason also opposes the “deem to pass” strategy (Slaughter Solution).  So why is he still “undecided?”

Altmire’s Washington D.C. Office: Phone - 202-225-2565; Fax - 202-226-2274

Altmire’s Aliquippa Office: Phone - 724-378-0928; Fax - 724-378-6171

Altmire’s Natrona Heights Office: Phone - 724-226-1304; Fax 724-226-1308

FIND HEALTHCARE “SWING VOTES” HERE

Glen Meakem is a successful technology entrepreneur, venture capitalist, and conservative talk radio show host, who offers information and insights on how individuals and our nation can be more successful. Glen’s unique perspective has been shaped by his experiences as founder, chairman and CEO of the B2B internet success Freemarkets Inc - which he founded in 1995, took public in 1999, and sold to Ariba in 2004. In 2005, Glen co-founded Meakem Becker Venture Capital, a firm that invests in early stage start up companies. Concerned about the liberal political agenda that has gripped the United States and his home state of Pennsylvania, Glen launched the Glen Meakem Program in 2008. Glen served as an officer in the United States Army Reserve and is a veteran of the First Gulf War. He also earned his MBA from Harvard Business School. For more information about Glen and the Glen Meakem Radio Program, or to read his blog, please visit http://glenmeakem.com.

The bad news is that President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and other Democratic Party leaders in Washington D.C. are absolutely determined to pass their destructive ObamaCare legislation with all of the negative consequences that nationalized healthcare will bring.

BUT THE GOOD NEWS is that beginning with the “Tea Party” grass roots, conservatives have put up a formidable fight against the government takeover of our health care system. And this conservative opposition - evident at protest rallies and town hall meetings across the country - has become nothing less than a deeply inspiring chapter in the history of our nation. In addition, given the strength of our fight, we just might win this battle!

FIND HEALTHCARE “SWING VOTES” HERE

An Outrageous Tale of Changing the Rules in the Middle of the Game

When he was a United States Senator back in 2005 and Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, President Obama stated on multiple occasions that consistent with Senate rules and the intent of our nation’s founders, judicial appointments, executive appointments and significant legislation should all be passed with 60 vote super majorities in the Senate. Indeed this is the well established legal procedure taught in schools and utilized year after year in Washington to prevent what liberal Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) has called the “tyranny of the majority.”

Consistent with legal precedent and all of these high minded statements, Democrats pursued majority votes in the House and super majority votes in the Senate throughout 2009 to pass their health care plans. And with a massive majority in the House of Representatives and a 60 vote super majority in the Senate, the Obama Administration approached health care and other issues thinking they would be able to pass extremely liberal (”left wing” or “socialist”) legislation with only Democratic Party votes.

But then their problems began. First, many normal Americans actually read drafts of the legislation and found many highly disturbing elements that were very far from the mainstream of American thought and practice. When Americans read the fine print (that many in Congress never bothered to read) they found hundreds of billions of dollars of cuts to Medicare, tax payer funding of abortions, special deals for favored constituencies, and new taxes that would strongly encourage businesses to dump tens of millions of Americans off of private insurance and into government provided Medicaid. When regular Americans tried to voice their concerns at Tea Party rallies and town hall meetings, we were called “extremists,” “evil mongers” and even “Nazis” by people like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. Soon, Republican Party opposition hardened to the point where no Republicans in the House or Senate were willing to support the legislation and even some moderate Democrats voiced concerns. And so, President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid failed to fulfill their original goal of passing their health care nationalization into law by the August 2009 Congressional recess.

Despite the initial setback, in the late summer of 2009, even with numerous polls showing a clear majority of Americans in opposition to their health care plans, President Obama and other Democratic Party leaders decided to ram their nationalization project through Congress using only Democratic Party votes - clearly Chris Dodd’s “tyranny of the majority” had “come home to roost.” And that is when the Democrats started to change the rules of the game in mid stream.

Did you ever play a game or sport in the school yard with a bully who cheated to win - a kid who could not face losing, so tried to use physical intimidation to change the rules in the middle of the game? I remember very well standing up to a sixteen year old boy when I was just twelve over just such an injustice. Well, knowledgeable psychologists often say that you cannot understand adult politics unless you understand the interpersonal dynamics of the playground and what we have had over the past seven months is a classic case. When Senator Ted Kennedy died last August, Democratic leaders instantly lost their 60 vote strangle hold over the U.S. Senate. Before Kennedy died, Massachusetts law stated that if a U.S. Senator from Massachusetts died in office, a new Senator had to be elected in a special election and that the seat would remain empty for the approximately 90 days it would take to hold a special election and seat a new Senator. But, this law and the resulting timetable were disruptive to President Obama and the Democrats schedule for passing their health care nationalization. So, did they work within the law and moderate the bill in order to garner the support of at least one or two Republicans? Or, did they wait until a new Senator was legally elected before moving on with their plans? Did they respect the rule of law in America? No, the Democratic Party bullies in the White House and on Capital Hill were determined to win at all costs and for them the end (nationalized health care) justified the means, including sacrificing the integrity of our laws (the very essence of our constitutional democracy). Thank goodness George Washington and our Founding Fathers were much better people and much better leaders who could see through the trees to the big picture of what was really important. If our founders had had the values of modern Democratic Party leaders like Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, America would have descended into despotism generations ago.

Anyway, with strong encouragement from the White House, the Democrats who controlled the Massachusetts legislature rushed to change Massachusetts state law so an interim Senator could immediately be appointed by Democratic Party Governor Deval Patrick. The Massachusetts State legislature passed this cynical change and Governor Patrick signed it into law while the late Senator Kennedy’s grave was still fresh. But unfortunately for the Democratic Party leadership, another problem emerged. You see, under the Massachusetts State Constitution, any law change cannot go into effect for at least 90 days. So did Governor Deval Patrick respect his state’s constitution and put the law above his own ego and power? Heck no, because the Democratic Party does not want Massachusetts and the United States to be ruled by laws - not when they have strong majorities. No, they want us to be ruled by their charismatic men and women in charge. So, Governor Patrick bypassed the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as originally written by John Adams and voted into law over two hundred years ago and declared a “state of emergency” in order to appoint leftist Paul Kirk immediately to the U.S. Senate, and allow Democrats to keep their 60 vote majority. Apparently, the fact that President Barack Obama wanted his health care legislation passed seven months ago constituted “an emergency.”

[Sorry to be writing so much on this, but I believe it is critical to point out this total disdain for constitutional democracy especially at a time when another prominent liberal Democrat, New York Times columnist Tom Friedman, is now publicly arguing that Chinese Authoritarian rule is superior to American constitutional democracy because the Chinese government can make "enlightened decisions" without political opposition. Tom, go tell that to the 30 million Chinese people killed by the Chinese Government because the government under Mao wanted a "cultural revolution" in the 1960s. Or go tell it to the parents of the children killed in shoddily built government schools during the 2008 earth quake in China -- the parents who are now being forcibly persecuted because they dared to publicly criticize the government. Tom Friedman and many other liberals should spend a few weeks reading some basic history and psychology to understand the wisdom and incredible staying power of American constitutional democracy.]

Back to our story! American citizens in general and Massachusetts citizens in particular were justifiably outraged by the Democratic Party’s naked power grab in Massachusetts, and discontent was brewing nationwide over this sort of behavior coupled with out of control government spending, irrational energy policy, the threat of health care nationalization, and increasing unemployment. The national outrage against the Democrats was evident in both the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial elections held last November, when conservative candidates defeated liberal incumbent Democrats by huge margins. But in spite of these defeats, the Democrats continued their push to pass ObamaCare.

Then, in reaction to all the abuse of power and all the left-wing socialist overreaching, a miracle happened. Yes, hell must have frozen over during the cold winter of 2010 because on January 19, 2010, the citizens of Massachusetts reminded us where the original American Tea Party occurred and where the original sons of liberty lived by electing conservative Republican Scott Brown in the special Senate election. During the campaign, Scott Brown ran as the “41st vote” against ObamaCare, and his victory in what is usually the most liberal of liberal Democratic Party controlled states was won by a significant margin.

By now, President Obama and his cohorts had gotten two different health care plans passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate in Washington, but there were significant differences between the two, including scandals over the “Louisiana Purchase,” the “Corn Husker Kickback” and a series of other unsavory deals used to obtain Democratic Party votes in the U.S. Senate. The normal, legal process for passing a law - the process that the Democratic Party leadership had been following and that we all learned in civics class in school is that the two bills would have to be brought together into one compromise bill through a conference committee between the House and Senate and then approved in final form by a majority vote in the House of Representatives and a super majority vote (60 votes to pass) in the Senate. Remember, that Democratic Party Senator Chris Dodd, Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, President Barack Obama and others are all on the record in 2005 describing this process as the Founder’s intent, constitutional and necessary to prevent “arrogant power grabs” and the “tyranny of the majority.” But now, the rejection of Obamacare in Massachusetts and the seating of Senator Scott Brown would prevent the Democrats from obtaining their super majority in the Senate and effectively kill the bill.

What would leaders who actually respected our constitution have done in this situation? They would have recognized that the difficult process our constitution (and subsequent laws and rules) requires was designed so that major legislative changes could only occur if very large majorities of the American people support the change. Effective, humble leaders who are willing to listen to feedback would have recognized the need to step back, broaden the discussion and try another approach. Instead of this “small d” democratic approach, the “capital D” Democrats in the White House and Congress decided to try to bully their way to national health care by once again changing the rules in the middle of the game.

Are you as angry as I am yet?

Anyway, after losing their filibuster proof majority in the Senate, Democrats changed their tune and began demanding a simple up or down vote on health care. Of course, under our constitution, the House could legally approve the Senate bill with just a simple majority. But many Democrat Party members in the House of Representatives do not like provisions in the Senate bill, including tax payer funding for abortions (the Senate bill has been condemned by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops), $500 billion of cuts to Medicare reimbursements, huge new taxes on private health care plans, as well as all the unseemly special interest deals. (Wasn’t this supposed to be the most ethical and transparent White House and Congress in history? Oh well, I guess that was just more campaign rhetoric. Easy come easy go.) But what did the House Democratic Party leadership do when they could not go to a normal conference committee, negotiate changes and then go back to the House and Senate for votes under the normal law making process? Easy, just change the rules again by using the “budget reconciliation process” which requires only a simple majority vote in the Senate, to pass major new legislation. Forget that this is a direct and incredibly hypocritical contradiction of everything the Democratic Party leadership said back in 2005. Remember in 2005, when the Republicans even discussed using “reconciliation” to approve a judicial nominee back in 2005, Democratic Party leaders called it the “nuclear option” — a threat to our constitutional democracy. But, now that they want to use it to pass major legislation in 2010 that will effect 20% of our economy and impact every individual American, it is just “a simple majority vote” and the majority in the Congress should have absolute power. This is outrageous, breathtaking hypocrisy!

Fortunately, millions of Americans are as outraged as I am - not only at how breathtakingly bad this Obamacare health plan would be for our country, but at the complete power hungry, unconstitutional arrogance displayed by the Democratic Party leadership. And millions of Americans from all across our country have been calling, emailing and visiting their Representatives in Congress. The result last week was that even with the “promise” to use reconciliation in the Senate to “fix” the bill, Nancy Pelosi still could not get enough votes to pass the Senate bill with a simple up or down vote in the House of Representatives. So, over the past few days, the Democrats launched the “Slaughter Solution,” a new scheme through which Congressmen would not have to vote on ObamaCare at all, but simply vote on the reconciliation measures which would “deem” the original Senate bill to have passed. This latest attempt at a midstream rule change is clearly unconstitutional, a fact that was stated by the Senate parliamentary when he said that the House must vote on the Senate bill first AND the President must sign it into law before any “fix” could be considered.

But that ruling has not deterred Democrats in Congress from their reconciliation strategy. Democratic leaders have prepared a “shell bill” in the House Budget Committee, and passed it onto the House Rules Committee Monday.

In the mean time, Barack Obama delayed his Asian trip (no doubt disrupting months of planning by foreign heads of state, the U.S. Secret Service and many others) to try to push his health care plan through.

Time will tell, but regardless of your political ideology, the rule breaking actions and attitudes put on display over the past seven months constitute atrocious behavior that demonstrates just how wise our Founding Fathers were to divide power so thoughtfully across so many people in our government and society.

My gut as I write this Monday evening is that the Democrats will fail to pass their health care nationalization bill. I think that moderate Democrats from swing districts are now so worried about both supporting an unpopular bill and being identified with of the bad behavior by Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid that they will walk away from their leadership and oppose the bill. I think Obamacare will die the death it deserves.

Oh, and by the way, my experience as a twelve year old playing basketball with the cheating sixteen year old bully after school provides some hope. I took some punches from the older boy that day, but I delivered some as well, and walked away bruised, but with my pride having won the basketball game. We conservatives are still recovering from the lumps we took in recent years, but we are fighting very hard for what is right and just, and I am very hopeful that we will eventually win the day.

I have one final thought on all of this midstream rule changing and rule breaking. After observing this, is it any wonder that so many Democratic Party leaders have been exposed as having cheated on their individual taxes? It seems this arrogant bunch really do believe that the rules apply to everyone but themselves.

ObamaCare Increases Current Healthcare Premiums

Speaking of “up or down,” President Obama declared last week that his healthcare bill would lower annual healthcare premiums for Americans. According to Obama’s “Organizing for America” website, health premiums for the average American would be reduced by $2,500 a year. But Democratic Senator Dick Durbin (from Illinois) disagreed on the Senate floor stating on March 10th that “Anyone who would stand before you and say, ‘well, if you pass healthcare reform, next year’s healthcare premiums are going to go down,’ I don’t think is telling the truth.” And the Congressional Budget Office recently found that the Senate bill will INCREASE a family’s current healthcare premiums by as much as $2,300 a year. Do Democratic Party leaders even know what is in the bill? Nancy Pelosi stated that we need to pass the bill so that we can find out. Amazing!

This week is critical in the fight against ObamaCare. Please visit my website and find the list of Healthcare “Swing Votes” in the House of Representatives. Please make the time to call these Congress people and tell them to vote against this terrible bill.

ON THE ECONOMY

Sara Mohsin, founder and owner of Mohsin Mortgage Company joined me on the program this weekend to discuss the current state of the national and Pittsburgh housing markets. More than ever, this is a time to obtain good sound counsel if you are thinking about buying or refinancing a home. Sara and her team provide terrific service, honest advice, and access to competitive lenders. For more information on Mohsin Mortgage, click here.

Dr. Allan Meltzer, Professor of political economy at Carnegie Mellon’s Tepper School of Business, and a nationally renowned expert on economics also joined me on the program. Allan shares the common view that we will have a very slow economic recovery. Usually, big recessions are followed by big recoveries, but this time there is simply too much uncertainty regarding the implementation of the liberal progressive agenda in Washington D.C. People from all walks of life including business decision makers don’t know how high their taxes will be on everything from income to health care (remember the huge Democratic Party tax increase already on the books for January 2011 and current proposals to jack taxes up even higher), how high energy prices will be in the coming years (think Cap and Trade), how strong labor unions will become (think card check), and how far-reaching future federal regulations will be (think proposed regulations on banks, financial markets, energy companies, trucking companies, etc.). Until these uncertainties are resolved we simply cannot move forward economically. Allan also points out that historically, big societal problems are solved by entrepreneurs, not by government bureaucracies.

SOME THOUGHTS ON ISLAM

About one week ago, one of my daughters asked me about the spread of early Islam. She is currently studying early medieval history, including the rise and spread of Islam during that time. I explained that the essential teaching of Islam was a belief in and complete submission to one God (Allah). I will not go into detail here, but this monotheistic doctrine was and is appealing to many people, especially in the Middle East. The prophet, Muhammad, who founded the Islamic faith, also taught that Islam must be spread around the world by a variety of means, including violence. Muhammad himself amassed a huge army and carried out at least 70 different military attacks against non believers. Muhammad was born in the year 570 to a noble Arab clan in the eastern part of the Arabian Peninsula. When he was approximately 40 years old around 610, he began to “receive and speak” the Koran in his native Arabic language. The new faith founded by the Prophet Muhammad and emerging from Arabia inspired and energized the Arab people and spread like wild fire by military conquest through Persia, parts of what is now Turkey, Egypt, Northern Africa, and Spain. The early military spread of Islam was finally stopped by an Army led by Emperor Charlemagne at the Battle of Tours in southern France in the year 732.

The day after my daughter and I were talking, I heard about last week’s massacre in Nigeria. Apparently, a group of Islamic herdsmen in the contested central part of Nigeria targeted three different Christian villages and killed at least 400 Christian people, including pregnant women and children. Some reports say that as many as one thousand Christians were killed. In the pre-planned, coordinated attack, the Muslim militants set up nets and animal traps outside of people’s huts in the middle of the night. At 3 am, they fired AK-47 assault rifles into the air to cause a panic. When the Christians tried to flee their huts and villages, they were caught in the nets and animal traps. Once caught, the Christians - including men, women and children - were hacked to death with machetes.

I have met and know many non-violent Muslim people and there is no doubt that there are many such people in the world. However, we must confront the fact that there are radical Islamists in many countries around the world who are still operating by medieval rules and are attempting to spread their faith and have their way through violence. The 9/11 atrocity was an example and so was this massacre in Nigeria. Non-Muslims have been frequent targets, but even Muslim moderates who are opposed to an Islamic dictatorship form of government or who are members of a different Muslim sect from the terrorists are even more frequently the victims of the violence. Just last week, Islamic terrorists targeted Iraqi citizens who went to the polls to vote freely in democratic elections. But in spite of this violence, which left at least 50 Iraqis dead, 60% of the population exercised their freedom to vote anyway. And in Iran, people continue to protest the Islamic totalitarian regime, even after numerous executions, and murders in the streets of Tehran by government forces.

I really respect all who are courageous enough to stand up to the violence and I really hope that many more moderate Muslim’s will have the courage to stand up and chart a new, modern course for Islam. In addition, we must be realistic about the threat and stand our ground.

ANOTHER TAX-DAY TEA PARTY

Finally, I will be speaking at this year’s Tax Day Tea Party in downtown Pittsburgh on April 15. The event will be held in Mellon Square and will begin at 12 noon. Please join me and speak out against the liberal agenda that is being implemented by the progressives in Washington D.C. A lot has happened during the past year since the Tea Part Movement began. We must keep up the fight! Remember, the great news is that we are having an impact. Thanks for listening and thanks for your support.

Glen Meakem is a successful technology entrepreneur, venture capitalist, and conservative talk radio show host, who offers information and insights on how individuals and our nation can be more successful. Glen’s unique perspective has been shaped by his experiences as founder, chairman and CEO of the B2B internet success Freemarkets Inc - which he founded in 1995, took public in 1999, and sold to Ariba in 2004. In 2005, Glen co-founded Meakem Becker Venture Capital, a firm that invests in early stage start up companies. Concerned about the liberal political agenda that has gripped the United States and his home state of Pennsylvania, Glen launched the Glen Meakem Program in 2008. Glen served as an officer in the United States Army Reserve and is a veteran of the First Gulf War. He also earned his MBA from Harvard Business School. For more information about Glen and the Glen Meakem Radio Program, or to read his blog, please visit http://glenmeakem.com.

Proudly sponsored by 

via the Allegheny Institute.

Has the availability of gaming money weakened the resolve of officials to make the hard spending choices that should be made? For example, it’s difficult to sit across the negotiating table with public sector unions and demand concessions when they know additional revenue from gaming taxes is expected. We’ve seen this time and again with the transit unions who have stood firm in their demands knowing the Governor would, and of course did, ride to their rescue with more money. As a result labor costs, the largest component of the budget, keep climbing.

While some may argue that gaming money has kept taxes from rising as much as they would have otherwise and is therefore a benefit, it is just as logical to argue that a consequence of gaming dollars is more government spending, which, in recessionary times becomes extremely difficult to maintain. If gaming funds had been used exclusively to actually cut taxes as opposed to filling budget holes or raising expenditures, it would be a different matter. Gaming money has by and large enabled governments to increase spending or put off making needed cuts.

Read the entire article here.

This weekend, I discuss how the Democrats have abandoned the “rule of law,” in their never ending quest to pass ObamaCare.  I also talk with Sara Mohsin of Mohsin Mortgage Company, and Dr. Allan Meltzer, Professor of political economy at Carnegie Mellon Tepper School of Business about the current state of our economy.

FIND HEALTHCARE “SWING VOTES” HERE

(AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

SCROLL FOR UPDATES

Rep. David Dreier (R-San Dimas, CA) is the ranking Republican on the Rules Committee in the House.  He just issued a memo outlining the problems that Democrats face in moving forward with the “Slaughter Solution.”  Dreier also estimates at NRO’s The Corner that the Democrats are currently 10 votes shy from passing healthcare in the House.

Over the weekend, Democratic leaders made clear that they plan to finish their government takeover of health care no matter what the political consequences promise to be.  On Meet the Press, David Axelrod (pictured here) actually threatened Republicans who promise to campaign on repealing legislation if passed, stating “make my day.”

Let’s make his day!

PLEASE KEEP UP THE PRESSURE!

UPDATE: More on Rep. David Dreier here and here.

Latest from Dan Spencer at RedState, “Have the Democrats Got the Votes?“  The bottom line is that Democrats still do not have the votes, but they may be getting closer to passing ObamaCare via the Slaughter Solution.

Rep. Jason Altmire is now saying he is not sure how he will vote on the Health Care bill.  See Hannity’s Rep. Count.

9 to 5 summary (March 15): from ALLAPUNDIT via HotAir.com.

UPDATE: JASON ALTMIRE IS STILL UNDECIDED! I just heard Rep. Altmire on the Sean Hannity Show.  He kept saying that he will vote with his constituents.  The problem is, his constituents do not like the healthcare bill.  Yet he refuses to declare himself a “NO” vote.  What does this tell you?  PLEASE CALL AND TELL HIM TO VOTE “NO.”

After meeting with Democratic Leaders Tuesday evening, Nancy Pelosi has settled on a new strategy to ram Government Health Care down the throats of the American People.

Her new strategy appears to rely on passing a reconciliation bill along side the Senate Health Care bill in the House.  The Senate bill could not become law without the passage of the reconcilation “fix.”

From Jed Babbin and Connie Hair at Human Events…

First, it would contain the Senate-passed healthcare bill, with the Cornhusker Kickback, the Second Louisiana Purchase and every other bribe that propelled it through the Senate.

Second, it would contain a “reconciliation” bill that would make both policy amendments and purported budget fixes, making the bill palatable to even staunch abortion opponents such as Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) who promised to lead a group of a dozen abortion opponents in voting against the bill if his concerns weren’t satisfied.

Third — and this is where it gets into the “you gotta be kidding” range — it would make the passage of the first item, the Senate bill, contingent on the Senate passing the second reconciliation part.  Kinda, sort of.  And that would be based on a letter to be obtained by Pelosi with the signatures of at least 51 Senators or used car salesmen.

Both the Senate and House Parliamentarians are expected to rule of this latest strategy, and their blessing is far from assured according to the New York Times.

But Pelosi has at least one other major obstacle if she plans to use reconciliation to “fix” the abortion language in the Senate bill and appease the Stupak crowd.  At a March 2, 2010 press conference on health care, she stated that both “abortion” and “immigration” could not be addressed in a budget bill requiring only 51 votes in the Senate (she carefully avoids repeating the word “reconciliation”).  Watch the video and read the partial transcript below.

The issue of reconciliation begins around the 1:45 minute mark of the video…

Reporter’s question…

“It seems pretty clear that two of the issues that are going to be very difficult to handle procedurally, are issues that really can’t be done under reconciliation, and yet are important, abortion and immigration in particular. Can you give [us] a sense of how you plan to go about bridging the gap that is so wide in the first place. Abortion cannot be handled under reconciliation. It doesn’t seem so anyway, so how do you get [there?].”

Speaker Pelosi’s Response…

“Well, just for those of you who… we’re talking about a process where we use a simple majority to pass legislation. So, without any fancy names, a simple majority. And under… that’s a budget resolution. Under the budget resolution, you can only deal with issues that are essential to the budget. None of these policy issues are, so they won’t be dealt with in the budget. Neither of these issues is essential to the bill. This is not an immigration bill. This is not an abortion bill. It is a bill about affordable healthcare for all Americans. That is the momentum that will take us to a majority vote in the Congress.”

There you go!  According to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Reconciliation cannot be used to change abortion language.

• More on “Stupak’s Folly”

• THE SLAUGHTER SOLUTION! What a name!  Trying to pass ObamaCare without a vote in the House.

  So much for an up or down vote for the American People

UPDATE

Democrats appear to be moving forward with the “Slaughter Solution” with the help of both the House and Senate Parliamentarians.  Brian Darling of RedState explains, “Behind closed doors, the Obama Administration, House and Senate Democrat leaders are cutting a secret deal on ObamaCare [again].  They have come up with a way to pass the Senate version of ObamaCare in the House WITHOUT ANY HOUSE MEMBERS HAVING TO VOTE DIRECTLY ON THE BILL” (EMPHASIS MINE).  Brian does a great job of summarizing last nights “closed door” meeting.  The Bottom line… Democrat leaders still appear confident that they will pass ObamaCare into law.  Now, they are working behind closed doors with the Parliamentarians to make this happen.  WOW!  KEEP UP THE PRESSURE!

UPDATE:

SENATE PARLIAMENTARIAN RULES THAT OBAMA MUST SIGN BILL INTO LAW BEFORERECONCILIATION CAN MOVE FORWARD

This is huge!  More from Philip Klein at the American Spectator.  I wonder what the Democrats will try next?

Gorbachev in 1987. From Wikipedia

By Dr. Paul Kengor
Originally published at The Center for Vision and Values
March 10, 2010

The media jumps at anniversaries of historical figures and events. For those of us who write about history, we, too, seize these opportunities to teach history, especially history Americans should know.

Here’s one such case: Can you believe it has been 25 years since Mikhail Gorbachev came to power? Gorbachev seized the reins of the Soviet state on March 11, 1985. As an illustration of how much the world has changed since-in part because of Gorbachev-I was reminded of this anniversary by a journalist from no less than Pravda; that is, the Slovak version of Pravda.

For those unfamiliar with the term, Pravda was synonymous with the grand un-truth that was Soviet communism. I say “un-truth” because, in fact, Pravda is a Russian word that means Truth. In truth, however, for the first seven decades of its existence, nothing published in Pravda was believable. This official Soviet mouthpiece epitomized what the brilliant Czech, Vaclav Havel, called “the communist culture of the lie.”

It was Havel, recall, who was the face of the Velvet Revolution that oversaw the peaceful end of communism in Czechoslovakia. As the first elected president of Czechoslovakia, Havel also oversaw the nation’s split into two good states: the Czech Republic and Slovakia. And now, today, a reporter at the Slovak version of Pravda calls me, a free-market/Reagan conservative, to ask my thoughts on the contributions of Mikhail Gorbachev. How the world has changed.

This brings me to Gorbachev. Liberals in the West woefully exaggerated Gorbachev’s positions and role in ending the Cold War. Their misunderstandings and misrepresentations were based on a fatal combination of wishful thinking, partisan politics, and blind adherence to ideology-an irrepressible desire to credit Gorbachev at the expense of Ronald Reagan.

The reality is that both men-Gorbachev and Reagan-were critical to ending the Cold War, along with Pope John Paul II, Margaret Thatcher, Lech Walesa, and Vaclav Havel, to name a few.

The most important thing that liberals got wrong-even as Gorbachev himself reiterated it a thousand times-was their failure to understand that Gorbachev’s first priority, from the outset, had been to save and sustain the USSR, not to mention the entirety of the Soviet Bloc in Eastern Europe, to the point where he even initially opposed taking down the Berlin Wall. This fact is undeniable, as Gorbachev emphasized in his best-selling 1987 book Perestroika. To this day, he calls the breakup of the USSR his greatest regret. (See, for instance, “Soviet Union ‘should have been preserved,’” interview with Mikhail Gorbachev, USA Today, April 6, 2006.)

At the same time, however, Gorbachev also sought to create a peaceful USSR. He vigorously opposed totalitarianism. To get there-and here’s where conservatives need adjustments in their understanding-Gorbachev took several monumental steps that, unwittingly, led to the implosion of the USSR and the Soviet Bloc. These ranged from freedom of press, speech, assembly, and religion, to the introduction of political pluralism (democracy) by formally ending the Soviet Community Party’s constitutional monopoly on power. These were wonderful feats.

No doubt, much of what Gorbachev did was prodded by other forces, whether internal-the inherent un-workability of communism-to external: the actions of the likes of Reagan, John Paul II, Thatcher, Walesa, and Havel. In fact, all of these figures publicly called for such changes before Gorbachev, and understood far better than Gorbachev what the changes would unleash. As Ronald Reagan put it in a speech in Cambridge, England, “As is always the case, once people who have been deprived of basic freedom taste a little of it, they want all of it. It was as if Gorbachev had uncorked a magic bottle and a genie floated out, never to be put back in again.”

That’s exactly right. Nonetheless, intentionally or not, Gorbachev’s actions enabled millions throughout the USSR and Eastern Europe to remove their chains-and their walls. Those uncorked freedoms today allow a Pravda reporter from the former Czechoslovakia to call me for a frank appraisal on Mikhail Gorbachev-25 years later.

On that, I will finish with this thought: There were two other meaningful anniversaries relating to the Soviet Union in the last week: On March 5, 1953, Stalin died, leaving this world for another he murderously denied. On March 8, 1983, Ronald Reagan gave his Evil Empire speech, succinctly describing the pernicious system that annihilated some 20-70 million people beginning in 1917.

Alas, that is what Mikhail Gorbachev ended, and quite deliberately: He stopped Stalinism and closed the Evil Empire. Even as he tried to preserve the USSR, it would be neither Stalinist nor evil. He deserves our gratitude for his role as executioner and pallbearer.

Sure, the Gorbachev story is complicated, a mix of the intended and unintended. Ultimately, however, it has a happy ending. To mark the birth of Mikhail Gorbachev’s ascension to power is to also mark the death of Stalin’s Evil Empire. And that’s a moment worth celebrating.

- Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. His books include “The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan’s Top Hand,” “God and Ronald Reagan,” and “The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism.”

This is a compelling question.  Consider the following…

All of this on top of the fact that the successful and bi-partisan Welfare Reform Act of the 1990s was overturned in President Obama’s $787 billion stimulus.

Health Care “Swing Votes” are here!

One of the main tenets of the political left is that the United States is fundamentally flawed and needs to be “fixed.” According to liberals, the best way to fix our nation is to constantly increase the size and scope of government. Liberals believe that a larger and more powerful government is the only way to solve societal problems and supply everyone with “their fair share.” Of course, there are no angels in government so a huge and pervasive bureaucracy and powerful politicians will never create fairness. However, they will limit individual freedom and liberty, as well as discourage personal responsibility (think “Cap and Trade,” “Card Check,” and “ObamaCare”). The end result of this liberal thinking is a population increasingly dependent on the government for economic survival and a much less dynamic, less energetic, less creative and weaker country - just look at Greece. But the United States is not a small country like Greece. The U.S. was the first broad based constitutional democracy in history and has been the leading free country in the world - economically, politically, artistically, scientifically, intellectually and militarily - for about one hundred years. A weak, declining America would not just be bad for Americans, it would be a tragedy for a world that would become much less stable if we become weak.

Some of this week’s headlines

On February 23, the House of Representatives (currently controlled by Liberals) passed a racist bill that is intended to create a separate government for individuals who are descendants of native Hawaiians. This bill, called the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, sets aside land, and grants special privileges and power to anyone who is “a direct lineal descendant of the aboriginal, native people who - resided in the islands that now comprise the State of Hawaii on or before January 1, 1893.” This bill is unconstitutional, is overwhelmingly rejected by the people of Hawaii (only 34% support it), and is opposed by the United States Commission on Civil Rights because it discriminates on the basis of race. But Liberals in the House passed the bill anyway largely along party lines (245 to 164).

Just last week, Harvard researchers released a study that concluded fuel prices must rise significantly if we are to achieve any meaningful reduction in atmospheric CO2 levels. According to the report, in order to meet the Environmental Protection Agency’s targeted reduction in CO2 emissions of 14% from 2005 levels by 2020; our government must use new taxes to raise gasoline prices to $7 per gallon. That’s right - SEVEN DOLLARS per gallon. Do you think that would have a little negative economic impact? I wonder who will vote for this.

After ignoring numerous and repeated calls over the past 18 months for his resignation as the Chairman of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, our nation’s chief tax writer, Rep. Charlie Rangel, finally agreed to “temporarily step down” last week. Of course, Rangel reached this conclusion only after he learned that there were not enough Democrat votes in the house to save him. Rangel is under an ethics investigation on many issues, including his trips abroad that were paid for by undisclosed political supporters, his failure to pay taxes and accurately report on personal assets and income, his illegal use of rent-controlled apartments in New York and his solicitation of contributions for a university center to be named after him. Who are these angels in government who do not pursue their own interests and who are supposed to solve all of our problems? Certainly, Charlie Rangel is no angel.

But neither is Rep. Pete Stark, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s first choice to replace Rangel. Stark has said that President Bush personally enjoyed sending troops to “get their heads blown off” in Iraq. He threatened Rep. Scott McInnis (R-CO) in 2003 with physical harm and called him a “fruitcake” on the House floor. (I thought calling someone a “fruitcake” was politically incorrect, but I guess liberals are allowed to say and do pretty much anything as long as they support the “correct” policy positions advocated by liberal pressure groups and the liberal media. The word hypocrisy definitely comes to mind.) Stark called Rep. Nancy Johnson (R-Conn) an “insurance industry whore” for opposing HillaryCare in 1995, and stated that she learned all she knew about medicine during “pillow talk” with her physician husband. This guy is unfit to be in Congress, let alone hold a committee chairmanship. Fortunately for all of us, he resigned his appointment after one day.

Similar outrageous behavior, so common among sitting Democrats in Washington D.C., is leading many Democrat Party Congress people to resign this year rather than seek reelection. On Thursday evening, liberal Massachusetts Rep. William Delahunt became the 17th retiring Democrat, ending his 40 year career in elected service. Delahunt was facing a tough reelection. His district broke for Scott Brown by a wider margin than any other in Massachusetts during the January 19th special Senate election; he has referred to Venezuela’s left wing dictator Hugo Chavez as his “excellent friend,” and voted for the PelosiCare bill last November.

Choice and Competition in Public Education

Jeremy Resnick, executive director and co-founder of Propel Charter Schools joined me on the program. Jeremy is a fantastic guy with a real vision for improving the quality of public education in Western Pennsylvania. The first Propel School opened in 2003, was located in the basement of a hospital, and served 176 students. Today, Propel serves 2,000 students (K-12) in six different school locations, and must manage a huge waiting list. Propel is now ranked among the highest public school performers in the state, and offers a real alternative to the failing Pittsburgh Public School system. The majority of students who attend Propel schools come from inner-city, poor and challenged backgrounds. School Districts are opposed to Charter Schools like Jeremy’s, because they offer families real alternatives to the status quo public education system. For more information, visit Propel’s website.

Health Care

In a nut shell, despite the Scott Brown victory in the Massachusetts special election, President Obama and the Democratic leadership in Washington D.C. are choosing to forgo bipartisanship and ram the Senate healthcare bill through the House. They are also claiming that they will use “reconciliation” to “fix” the bill once it passes.

Let’s be clear, the Senate bill provides federal funding for abortion (even President Obama admitted this at the so-called “Healthcare Summit” held at the Blair House two weeks ago), reduces Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements, reduces the number of Doctors, forces tens of millions of Americans off of private insurance and onto public plans, raises taxes in the middle of difficult economic times, and busts the Federal budget. This bill does nothing to control costs, but instead will dramatically increase health care costs in the United States. It also creates an unconstitutional mandate for all Americans and businesses to purchase insurance, and empowers unelected and unaccountable healthcare advisory boards to decide what types of care are ultimately available. The Wall Street Journal has called the bill “one of the worst pieces of legislation ever.”

The House will vote on this awful Senate bill, complete with all of the special deals that were made prior to Christmas, including $300 million to secure Sen. Mary Landrieu’s vote (”The Louisiana Purchase”), $100 million to secure Ben Nelson’s vote (”The Cornhusker Kickback”), and $250 million for Sens. Patrick Leahy and Bernie Sanders of Vermont (maybe we’ll call this one “The Socialist Spending Spree” since Bernie Sanders is the only publicly declared socialist in the United States Senate).

Definition of Hypocrisy

In order to appease uneasy House Democrats who do not like the Senate bill, Democrat Party leadership is promising to use reconciliation to “fix” the healthcare bill. Somehow, Representatives who oppose abortion spending, and Representatives who demand abortion spending will be happy with reconciliation results. Also, a special deal will be made to exempt labor unions from paying the “Cadillac tax” on expensive healthcare plans. And those who wholeheartedly support the House bill will see a strong public option inserted into the Senate bill. Yes, President Obama appears committed to use reconciliation to ram through his health care plan.

In 2005, Republicans threatened to use reconciliation to overcome the filibustering of President Bush’s judicial nominees. The GOP argued that denying an up or down vote on qualified appointees based on political ideology was unprecedented. But Democratic Senators were outraged and called this the “nuclear option.” Then Senator Barack Obama worried that Republicans would change the character of the Senate and create “absolute power” for the majority. “And that’s just not what the founders intended” he said. Then Senator Hillary Clinton claimed that Republicans would destroy the delicate balance that our system of government has obtained “for immediate gratification of the present President.” Senator Chuck Schumer exclaimed “We are on the precipice of a Constitutional crisis.” Senator Harry Reid referred to the “arrogance” of the “Republican administration.” Senator Dianne Feinstein proclaimed, “It begins with judicial nominations, next will be executive appointments, and then legislation.” And Senator Joe Biden stated, “This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power grab. I say to my friends on the Republican side, you may own the field right now, but you won’t own it forever. And I pray [to] God that when the Democrats take back control, we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.” Needless to say, Barack Obama, Joe Biden and the Democrats’ current power grab is beyond anything anyone could have imagined in 2005. How the Democratic Party leadership of the United States could condemn the threatened use of “reconciliation” for lower court judicial nominees back in 2005, and now gleefully flaunt their intended use of reconciliation for legislation that would impact almost 20% of our nation’s economy is a blatant and highly disturbing show of hypocrisy at its worst. These are not principled states people, but self serving, power hungry, leftist politicians who are determined to get their way no matter what it takes. The American people deserve so much better. You can listen to all of the sound bites here.

The bottom line is that we must stop ObamaCare in the House. It must never pass, because as soon as it does, the Senate bill becomes law. Dick Morris has compiled a list of “Swing Votes” in the House. Each Representative on the list has indicated some interest in voting for the Senate bill. Find the list of these Democrat Party Representatives along with their phone numbers here. Call them and tell them that you oppose the Senate bill, and that you oppose any use of reconciliation for health care. And tell them that you expect them to vote “NO!” And if they vote to ram this health care nationalization down our throats now, let’s vote them out in November.

Thank you for your encouragement and for listening to the Glen Meakem program. I really appreciate it. If you missed my program two weekends ago on Marxism, “What it is and why it failed,” please take some time to listen to it. If you find it insightful, please encourage your friends and family to listen to it as well. And please, keep up the fight against the spread of Marxist ideas in our Country. Together, we will continue to have a positive impact.

Glen Meakem is a successful technology entrepreneur, venture capitalist, and conservative talk radio show host, who offers information and insights on how individuals and our nation can be more successful. Glen’s unique perspective has been shaped by his experiences as founder, chairman and CEO of the B2B internet success Freemarkets Inc - which he founded in 1995, took public in 1999, and sold to Ariba in 2004. In 2005, Glen co-founded Meakem Becker Venture Capital, a firm that invests in early stage start up companies. Concerned about the liberal political agenda that has gripped the United States and his home state of Pennsylvania, Glen launched the Glen Meakem Program in 2008. Glen served as an officer in the United States Army Reserve and is a veteran of the First Gulf War. He also earned his MBA from Harvard Business School. For more information about Glen and the Glen Meakem Radio Program, or to read his blog, please visit http://glenmeakem.com.

Proudly sponsored by 

Arnold Beichman (1913-2010)

By Paul Kengor
Originally published at The Center for Vision and Values
March 8, 2010

Editor’s note: A longer version of this article first appeared in The American Spectator.

Some 2,000 years ago, the great Ancient Library in Alexandria, Egypt burnt to the ground, taking with it a vast reservoir of irreplaceable information, subsequently reduced to ashes, lost to history, and leaving the rest of us groping in ignorance at many questions we’ve ever since scrambled in vain to piece back together.

I know this over-dramatizes the point, but there truly are certain individuals so incredibly knowledgeable in their areas of expertise-possessing a vast reservoir of information within the invisible shelves of their minds-that when they leave this world, that information turns to ashes with them. They are, really, national treasures-irreplaceable.

When it comes to the history of arguably the most fascinating of centuries-the 20th century-and specifically the long battle against militant Soviet communism, which stretched from 1917-91 as the predominant, defining ideological conflict of the last 100 years, few figures knew as much as Arnold Beichman. (The other who comes to mind, among the living, is Herb Romerstein.) Arnold passed away on February 17 at the age of 96, gleefully outliving the miserable Soviet Union and its seedy cast of butchers and tormentors, and taking with him not only body and soul but mind-a mind overflowing with valuable information. That which Arnold was unable to record on paper, or transfer to others who recorded it on paper, has gone with him, now irretrievable.

I didn’t know Arnold well, certainly not as well as friends of Arnold’s like John Podhoretz, who wrote a beautiful tribute to the man in Commentary, but I did know him well enough to place a call or an email when I found myself in a corner on some research task, unable to find answers even with all the power of the Internet. Inevitably, I’d get to the point where I’d say to myself: “I need to call Arnold.” Arnold was a walking, talking, human search engine-and a very lively (and very short) one at that.

The first time I met him in person was when we hosted him at Grove City College a few years ago for a lecture at our Pew Fine Arts Center. Before Arnold held forth, sharing with students a quarter of his age, we sat with him at dinner and picked his fertile brain. He supplied answers easily, happily, scattered with his colorful expressions: “That son-of-a-bitch!” he exclaimed to polite company, taken aback as Arnold described a source who-by his estimation-had sold out his country during the Cold War.

I saw him again more recently at a Hoover Institution function in Washington, D.C. “What do you need to know?” he asked me with a grin, primed to pump out details. My response: “Tell me about Henry Wallace and Eleanor Roosevelt….” “Oh, my,” Arnold began with a laugh.

I wish I had brought a tape recorder.

(For the record, Henry Wallace was one of the more in-depth research efforts to which Arnold devoted a lot of time. I don’t know if he ever pulled all of that information together.)

The last time I tapped Arnold’s brain was last spring. I had a question about a certain New York Times writer from the 1940s, a well-known liberal. An extremely popular web source-Wikipedia no less, which is hardly conservative-described the writer as a “Stalinist.” Of course, this was no small charge. I knew Arnold would address it carefully. Despite the left’s caricature of Arnold as a recalcitrant Cold Warrior, he was always exceedingly cautious in drawing necessary lines of distinction, treating every individual fairly, relentlessly pursuing the truth, and never mislabeling or smearing anyone.

“No,” Arnold started. “I don’t know of any evidence that he was a Stalinist, or even a communist. He was very much on the left, but not that far on the left.”

“By the way,” he continued, as I perked up in anticipation for whatever gem might come next. “Did you know there was a communist cell at the New York Times in the 1930s? Congress looked into it. Did an investigation and a report….”

No, I did not know that. That’s another of those inconvenient things that liberal historians and journalists have studiously forgotten about. When I responded to Arnold’s tip by scouring the web, I found nothing. I soon discovered, however, via old-fashioned research-meaning a stroll to some old library shelves-that Arnold was (of course) right. Such a cell did exist at the Times.

The details on that are better delayed for another article at another time. For now, however, this gets back to my main point: I would’ve never known this if not for Arnold. Once again, the Beichman Library had been open for business.

Alas, the tragedy of the Beichman Library was that its stock was immaterial. With its namesake’s passing, it is now closed. I-we-can’t go there anymore. If only we could have downloaded its owner’s brain.

It’s a great loss, of course. But such is an even greater testimony of a life well spent, of vigorously using-in service of good, and against evil-the talent God had bestowed. May Arnold Beichman (1913-2010) rest in peace.

- Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. His books include “The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan’s Top Hand,” and “The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism.”

Call list: 16 Dems who voted NO and now may switch their votes to YES!

SCROLL FOR UPDATES: Here is the bottom line. We simply cannot trust the Democrats.  Approximately half of the so-called moderate “Blue Dog” Democrats voted for PelosiCare in the House last November.  And now, some of the 39 Democrats who initially voted against PelosiCare have indicated they are undecided on how they will vote this time around on the Senate bill.

Here is a list (compiled by Dick Morris) of potential “SWING VOTES” in The House.  Please call these Representatives and urge them to vote “NO” on the Health Care legislation currently being considered in Congress.  We must keep up the pressure.  The next House vote (currently scheduled for March 18)  could be President Obama’s last shot at passing his national takeover of health care.

From Dick Morris:

Find FAX numbers here.

UPDATES:

• Robert Gibbs, President Obama’s Press Secretary indicates that Democrats will do “whatever it takes to get health care done.“
• President Obama offers judgeship to the brother of Jim Matheson (UT), who remains undecided on the upcoming healthcare vote.  More here.
• President Obama “invited” ten Democrats who initially voted “NO” on PelosiCare to the White House Wednesday evening (March 3, 2010).
• Bart Stupak announced that 12 democrats will change their vote from yes to no over abortion language in the Senate bill.
• Although Pelosi is bleeding votes right now, we must pressure Democratic Representatives to stand strong.  Apparently the Senate is preparing a powerful “gesture” meant to encourage Representatives in The House to vote in favor of the bill.
• DEMOCRATS STILL DON’T HAVE THE VOTES! PLEASE KEEP UP THE PRESSURE!
• Rep. Dan Lipinski (D-IL) is now a “NO” on ObamaCare.
• Massa claims that The Dems got rid of me because of my healthcare vote.  Audio here.
• Here’s another count. Dan Perrin of RedState.com states, “Keep fighting. Keep pounding the Cost whip count. They do not have the votes.  If we keep hammering, they will not get the votes…”
• “WHO ARE THE SWING VOTES FOR OBAMA?” Matt Lewis states that at this point, “It’s anybody’s guess what will happen.”
• Politico is reporting that Nancy Pelosi’s grip on the House is slipping…
• KEEP UP THE PRESSURE!:  ASSOCIATED PRESS IS NOW REPORTING THAT “Prospects are good for resolving a dispute over abortion.”  Stupak stated, “I’m more optimistic than I was a week ago.”  More here.
• UPDATED VOTE COUNT: from Jim Geraghty at National Review Online. Possibly 216 no votes?
• Intrade jumps above 60% (betting on ObamaCare passing), Harkin says health care will be “done” by March 27, and Stupak thinking of voting in favor of the Senate Bill. Here is is great days end “ROUNDUP” for March 9 on health care.

————————————————————————————-

• MARCH 10 - Recycling headlines.  From DRUDGE ‘END’ OF THE ‘END GAME’ OR ‘THE END’?
• From Michael Tanner of the CATO Institute, “Final ‘Reform’ Push: Twisting Arms,” in The New York Post.

• NRCC HAS A NEW INTERACTIVE LIST OF “SWING HEALTHCARE VOTES” HERE! PLEASE MAKE USE OF IT!

• Pelosi’s New Healthcare Plan.

The truly revolutionary American idea of government as the servant of the people may be fading away. Many of today’s so-called “civil servants” are a protected, privileged class. While Middle America struggles through a difficult recession, a lot of government employees have lived on the gravy train.
Here are some facts to buttress that assertion:

Since the recession began in 2008, a period during which approximately eight million private-sector workers lost their jobs and millions more saw their income decline, the number of federal employees is increasing at a 7 percent per-year rate and their income is holding up quite nicely. According to the Cato Institute, the average federal worker’s pay and benefits now approximates $120,000 per year, or roughly double the compensation of the average private-sector employee. Factor out the lavish government fringe benefits and look at salary only, and the civil servant is still far ahead: $71,197 vs. $49,935.

During this recession, the percentage of federal employees earning annual base salaries above $100,000 increased from 14 to 19 percent. The number of Defense Department employees being paid more than $150,000 per year increased from 1,868 to 10,100. Before, the Department of Transportation had one employee with a salary above $170,000, but now has 1,690.

As a gesture toward fiscal responsibility, President Obama reduced what was supposed to be a 2.4 percent raise in federal salaries this year to 2.0 percent. That still compares quite favorably to the zero-percent cost-of-living increase that Social Security recipients’ have received.

Also on tap are handsome pay raises for the employees of the Federal Housing Administration. The FHA has distinguished itself recently by incurring a loss of $54 billion in a mismanaged home-loan business. And of course we can’t neglect to mention the CEOs of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, who have been cleared to receive as much as $6 million in salary this year while being subsidized to the tune of over $100 billion in monetary transfusions from the Treasury and the Fed.

Other federal agencies may not be losing money by the tens and hundreds of billions of dollars in such an obvious way, but money appropriated for them by Congress still seems to vanish into a black hole. For example, statistics from 2006 showed that if all the federal dollars spent by antipoverty programs had been given directly to Americans below the poverty line, a poor family of four would have received $67,000. The actual aid received by poor Americans is less than half that amount. What explains such glaring inefficiency? Most of those funds are consumed by the cushy pay packages of the army of bureaucrats who administer those programs. And let’s not even get into the Department of Agriculture, which has one bureaucrat for every nine or ten full-time farmers.

The preferential treatment received by government employees was also reflected in how last year’s stimulus money has been spent. According to ProPublica, the District of Columbia received more than four times as much money per capita as the average of the 15 states that received the most money. (Oh, did I mention that members of the Pelosi/Reid Congress voted themselves a 6 percent increase in funds for their staffs and other support?)

It isn’t just the federal government workers who have an unusually lucrative setup. Gov. Christie of New Jersey recently announced his intention to reform the pension plan for the Garden State’s public employees. Consider an incredible fact: According to Christie, a 49-year-old state employee who had contributed $124,000 toward his retirement is eligible to receive $3.3 million in pension payments and another half-million dollars in heath care benefits over the rest of his life; and a retired teacher who had put $62,000 toward her pension and not a penny for health care is scheduled to receive $1.4 million in pensions and $215,000 in health care benefits. Taxpayers pay for this.

This story is repeated over and over in a number of states that now teeter on the brink of bankruptcy due to billions of dollars of obligations to state employees. It’s hard to refer to these people-many of whom, of course, are wonderful, decent human beings-as civil “servants” when their salaries and/or benefits are so much higher than those of the taxpayers who pay for the generous compensation packages of their government “servants.”

Abraham Lincoln’s ideal of government “of the people, by the people, for the people” seems to have become government of the governing elite, by the governing elite, and for the governing elite. The current imbalance can’t continue. Something’s got to give.

- Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson is an adjunct faculty member, economist, and contributing scholar with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College.

This week, I take a step back from the current news flow and focus instead on the recurring failure of Marxism (communism & socialism) as a political and social ideology, and how this ideology caused so much pain, destruction, and death in the 20th Century.

NOTE: click here to access “The Lawyers’ Party”

Short primer on Marxism

One of the key tenets of Marxism is that all human history is the history of class struggle where workers - unhappy with their social position - force societies to progress through a series of economic systems, all of which are defined by the means of production. According to Marx, this struggle first manifested itself in slave societies, where slaves had no rights or guarantees, but were forced to work for their owners / the Aristocracy (such as in Greece and Rome). During the middle ages, slave societies gave way to feudal societies, and serfs (no longer slaves) were promised food, shelter, and protection (against invading armies) by the ruling class in exchange for loyal service. According to Marx, this medieval struggle eventually ushered in Capitalism during the 18th and19th centuries. Although the capitalist economic system allowed working class individuals to gain a social and economic footing, they continued to be exploited by the Bourgeoisie (the owning class). It is this continued exploitation that would eventually lead to a communist revolution and the establishment of communist society, where workers would own the means of production and there would no longer be an “exploiting class.”

Marx believed that workers are forced to compete with each other over limited economic and natural resources within a Capitalist society. As a result of this competition, workers are alienated from themselves (they do not take ownership of what they produce and therefore can only be themselves away from work) and from each other (they cannot work together with other workers).

Most importantly, Marx argued that human nature changes over time. He believed that as a result of communist revolution, people would change from being self-interested individuals who focus on their own interests and the interests of their families, to being “species beings” — individuals who would only be interested in the good of the community (over their own self interest or the interest of their families).

Marx also argued that capitalist competition creates unemployment and low wages for workers with the living standards and situation of workers growing more and more desperate until the end of the capitalist era. He also theorized that competition between capitalists who owned businesses would lead to absolute victory for some businesses and death to others, forcing the eventual creation of monopolies in each major industry with a resulting extremely small group of capitalist owners with all the wealth and power in society. The desperate workers would then eventually rise up and violently overthrow these owners establishing the class free, communist society.

Marx Plain Wrong About Many Things

Marx’s view of history was limited, flawed, and Eurocentric. The fact is, human history has never been limited to class struggle. As a result, Marx failed to account for individual leadership, individual initiative, ethnic struggle, religious struggle, philosophical development, technological innovation, organizational dynamics and economic advancement, among other things.

Marx’s view of human nature was also wrong. Human nature is a constant in both history and biology. It is natural for individuals to be motivated by self-interest, or an innate desire to provide basic necessities and comfort for themselves and their families, as well as just simply to build and achieve. Contrary to what Marx taught, it is noble for individuals to work hard and provide a safe home sanctuary for their family. Doing so nurtures young individuals and contributes productive citizens to the next generation. Every individual is different, but people naturally want to maximize their own situation in life according to what is important to them. Some want to provide for themselves and their families, make their lives better and achieve. Others seek power or pleasure. Others even just want to maximize their own internal feeling of contribution and sacrifice. No matter what, evolutionary biology teaches us that Marx was just plain wrong because none of us would be here if we or our forbearers did not look out for ourselves. (Isn’t it just a delicious irony that Darwin just blows Marx out of the water?) The truth is that people can never and will never be “species beings.” Remember Milton Friedman’s famous rhetorical question, “Where are these angels who are going to order society for us?” The flaws of human nature (the human condition) remain constant, whether individuals work for a government bureaucracy or the private sector. Both biology and history teach us very clearly that the best answer is to decentralize power through freedom and competition, not to centralize it through violence.

Marx also had the economics completely wrong. He simply failed to understand that the human race is incredibly productive, and capable of immense skill growth, innovation, and adaptation. He failed to understand that competition requires collaboration. He failed to understand the importance of entrepreneurship and innovation. He failed to understand that the “economic pie” is not fixed, but growing in size. In short, Marx failed to predict the enormous growth of the middle class and the enormous increase in the standard of living that capitalist economies have created (and continue to create) around the globe.

Finally, Marx failed to understand the benefits of personal liberty and freedom. People are happy when they are free to pursue their own economic, political, personal and religious agendas. But when a political ideology or a government based on an authoritarian or totalitarian ideology removes or restricts these human pursuits, individuals eventually rise up and rebel. I could name hundreds of examples, but think about East Germany in 1989, the Soviet Union in 1991, or Iran today.

Results of Marxism

Marx failed to understand human history and the human spirit. And his ideology provided ruthless dictators with the pretext to kill hundreds of millions of people. Yes, during the 20th Century, Marxism became a neo religious justification for the worst tyranny and human rights abuses in human history. Marx’s followers carried out genocide, caused environmental degradation, destroyed basic human rights & freedoms, inflicted poverty, inflicted death, and inflicted modern enslavement onto their fellow human beings.

In the name of Marxism, twenty to fifty million people were killed in Russia under Stalin, and millions more died in the Soviet Union before and after Stalin’s reign. In the name of Marxism, twenty to sixty-five million people were killed in China under Mao during “The Great Leap Forward” and “The Cultural Revolution.” In the name of Marxism, at least 1.5 million Cambodians were killed by the Khmer Rouge following the fall of Pnom Penn and Saigon. In the name of Marxism, at least four million Koreans have either starved to death or been killed since 1990 in North Korea. And in the name of Marxism, Castro has killed thousands and thousands of Cubans since he seized power in the late 1950s. Even Hitler, although his National Socialist Ideology contained its own brand of racism and nationalism, used elements of Marxism to justify his rule and the killing of many millions.

But milder forms of Marxism (democratic socialism) have also produced hardships in countries around the world, including France, Spain, and Sweden. All three of these countries have experienced slow economic growth, high unemployment, lower standards of living than comparable countries, huge government bureaucracies, limits on personal freedom and fulfillment, declines in relative global authority, and societies increasingly run for the benefit of government workers.

Even Great Britain and the United States had multi-decade dips into socialist policies that culminated in the 1970s with high unemployment, high inflation, no growth, lack of entrepreneurship, and diminished expectations for the future. Fortunately, regular middle class people in Great Britain under Margaret Thatcher and in the United States under Ronald Reagan caused a massive movement back towards economic freedom and capitalism that dramatically strengthened those two countries and eventually spread to the old communist block, China, India and other countries lifting 3 billion people out of the economic misery of Marxist regimes.

The bottom line on Marxism is that at its core it was plain wrong and when it was implemented in any form; it proved to be a disaster!

The United States and Socialism

In spite of these failures, President Obama and the liberal left are trying to force a socialist agenda down the throats of the American people. Lech Walesa, the former President of Poland who spearheaded the movement that led to the fall of Communism in his country, recently voiced his concerns regarding the United States while visiting Chicago this winter. Through an interpreter, he stated that the U.S. does not “lead morally and politically anymore. The world has no leadership. The United States was always the last resort and hope for all other nations. There was the hope, whenever something was going wrong, one could count on the United States. Today, we have lost that hope.” When asked if America was moving towards socialism, Walesa replied, “Yes. It looks a little bit like that.”

There is no leader alive today in the world with greater credibility on these issues than Lech Walesa and we should heed his warning and make changes before it is too late!

Remembering the Thatcher and Reagan Revolution

To put even more “flesh on this bone,” Dr. Paul Kengor, Professor of Political Science at Grove City College and Director of The Center for Vision and Values joins me on the program to discuss the emergence of many socialist policies in the United Kingdom and the United States after World War II as well as the resurgence of economic freedom under Thatcher and Reagan. And together, we consider why - after all of the destruction, economic pain, and death caused by various forms of Marxism over the past 100 years - there are American citizens within the United States who still embrace Marxist political ideals.

I hope you find this program insightful and enlightening. If you know of any friends or family members (perhaps high school or college students) who are enthralled with Marx or socialist political thinking, please direct them to this episode. Remember, you can down load and share the mp3 for free (thanks to my sponsors for making this possible).

I also appreciate your encouragement and support. Please feel free to email your feedback to me at glen@meakem.com or to leave comments on the post at glenmeakem.com. Thanks for listening and thanks for reading.

Have a great week!
Proudly sponsored by

On the eve of the German offensive against France in August 1914, Kaiser Wilhelm confidently asserted to some departing troops, “You will be home before the leaves have fallen from the trees.” The German monarch was known neither for his prescience nor intellect and undoubtedly was einege Apfelstrudel short of a Dutzend, but his sentiments on this matter were not unique. Other military and political leaders were busy rummaging through their wardrobes to ensure that full dress uniforms for autumn would be available at a courier’s grasp for the inevitable march through their enemy’s capitol; after all, last summer’s garb is so-o-o-o, well, last summery. The last thing a monarch needed was to be fashion-challenged at the time of triumph.

This colossal arrogance generated colossal horrors, which, a half-century later, relegated the war’s participants to the status of effete sideliners-sideliners, that is, to greater historical dramas taking place elsewhere in the world. European hubris had political consequences far beyond the fortunes of national leaders, nearly all of whom put themselves first and their countries second. At lower levels in a political or military hierarchy, arrogance generates losses that are measured in the thousands, often multiplied many times. At higher levels, the fate of nations or entire civilizations is in the balance. In short, there is a geometric progression of consequences in the politics of arrogance, and politics informs all decisions in government, the military, and society in general. The inherent resistance to criticism and blindness to reality that are characteristic of oversized egos magnify such consequences.

Sometimes nations beat the math and survive the politics of arrogance practiced by leaders who identify their personal fortunes with the destiny of their country. For instance, in the opening campaigns of the Civil War, adulation of George B. McClellan reverberated hugely inside the echo chamber of his own ego, generating a conclusion that “God had placed a great work in [his] hands,” and the fate of his country rested solely with him. In fact, McClellan was an able organizer but an inept commander whose battlefield judgments were ludicrous and whose incompetence unquestionably lengthened the war. Unfazed by criticism, McClellan still ran against “the well-meaning baboon” Lincoln, who beat him soundly in the 1864 election. God, Grant, and “the original gorilla” saved the Republic to persevere, at least until another megalomaniac strode across the political platform to gain America’s attention.

Few fit this description better than Woodrow Wilson, particularly since he compared himself favorably to Jesus Christ, whose major shortcoming in Wilson’s view was the failure to produce a plan for peace. Wilson trumped the Ten Commandments by adding four-the Fourteen Points-and burned his life out leading a crusade for a cause few Americans cared about, the League of Nations. Wilson finally concluded that his countrymen were not ready for the grand project he had in mind for them. It’s hard to get more arrogant than that, but at least Wilson’s haughtiness produced few adverse consequences; international organizations are singularly inept at preventing war, and America’s membership in the League likely would have meant little. But Wilson’s politics of arrogance rendered him impervious to such considerations.

Which brings us to the present, with an administration filled with people whose self-esteem would make the Kaiser blush. America has a leader who reprises Sonny & Cher’s trademark song with the words, “You’ve Got Me, Babe.” Indeed, Mr. Obama’s use of the personal pronoun suggests a new political formula to calculate arrogance-call it the “I-Test”-which refers to the frequency the President uses that letter in his speeches. But it’s not just him; his supporters numbered millions who were swept into the “we are the change we’ve been waiting for” movement, and the American Left still views the current political situation the way the German leadership looked upon Europe in August 1914: now is the time to strike, we may never have an opportunity like this again.

But it is almost impossible to conceive of the United States over the next decade “beating the math” to overcome a McClellan-like ego or vitiate a Wilsonian-type moral crusade. Efforts to create a European-style social democracy likely will produce a European outcome: a debt-ridden menagerie of stagnant societies smothered under a thick cloak of bureaucratic mediocrities oozing with self-importance. The prevailing politics of “never letting a serious crisis go to waste” so far has generated national debt estimates that cannot possibly be sustained without the United States suffering in economic terms what imperial Germany did in military terms during the Great War.

The question is, can this politics of arrogance be stopped? To this, another German, Otto von Bismarck, had an answer: “God protects fools, drunks, and the United States of America.” Bismarck is no longer around to give advice, which leaves America with only one alternative to combat our own politics of arrogance.

God help us.

- Dr. Marvin Folkertsma is a professor of political science and Fellow for American Studies with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College. The author of several books, his latest release is a high-energy novel titled “The Thirteenth Commandment.“

GOP RESPONDS

Gotta watch this Video from naked emperor news and posted at Breitbart TV…

Obama Flashback: Dems Should Not Pass Healthcare With a 50-Plus-1 Strategy

Remember, in 2005, then Senator Obama and fellow Democrats called Reconciliation an “arrogant power grab.”

Somodevilla/Getty: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with Rep. Charles Rangel in 2009.

This from NBC and Hot Air.

After discovering that there were enough votes in The House to strip him of his powerful Ways and Means Committee Chairmanship (meaning that at least 39 Democrats would side with Republicans), Rangel decided to “temporarily step down” before the vote could take place. Rangel is still under an ethics investigation regarding his trips abroad, failure to pay taxes and accurately report on personal assets and income, his illegal use of rent-controlled apartments in New York and his solicitation of contributions for a university center to be named after him.

• After ignoring for more than a year numerous and repeated calls for his resignation, sources indicated yesterday afternoon (March 2, 2010), that Rangel would finally step down as Chairman.

• BUT THEN, yesterday evening (March 2, 2010), Rangel emerged from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office and proclaimed that he was still the Chairman.

• NBC News reports Wednesday Morning (March 3, 2010) that Rangel had decided to take “a leave of absence” while the Ethics Committee finished its investigation.

One thing is for certain, Charlie is no angel.

Read More About Charlie Rangel’s Corruption Here

This political cartoon, originally published during the Great Depression, could easily run today.

In spite of socialism’s repeated failure throughout history, it continues to be a part of current political debate.

Click here for video of a 1948 cartoon produced by Harding college, which also eerily reflects the current political debate raging in Washington.

• Finally, Charlie Rangel Steps Down… Sorta!

• Even the New York Times calls for Rangel’s Gavel

• Just How Corrupt is Charlie Rangel?

• Charlie Needs to Resign!

• Charlie Rangel can’t pay his taxes

• Charlie’s 20 years of unreported rental income

This is a great question.

From the article…

While China rings in 2010 as the year of the tiger, American families and taxpayers might soon be able to refer to 2010 as the year school choice became the norm. Five states in particular are worth watching: Illinois, Indiana, Florida, Virginia and New Jersey.

Ironically perhaps, Illinois is home to the most notable opponents of school choice in D.C. - Senator Durbin, the chief architect of the plan to eliminate the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, Education Secretary Arne Duncan who exercised school choice by purchasing a home in northern Virginia where the schools - unlike those in the District - are acceptable, but who opposes school choice for low-income students in that same District, and President Obama, himself a scholarship recipient as a child and who has enrolled his two children in the poshest private school in D.C. Yet in Illinois, a robust voucher initiative has been introduced by an unlikely champion: the Rev. James Meeks, a Democratic state senator.

Find the entire article here.

Find more articles on education here.