Our Treasury Secretary expects no drop in unemployment, but the Treasury’s program of seizing homes and turning them over to the homeless continues unabated.
Steny Hoyer’s office says yes:
The Congressional Budget Office has long been a pivotal, though indirect, player in Congressional politics, but it’s hard to think of a time when a bill has hinged so precariously on its findings. This morning, reports areÂ trickling out of Democratic offices, includingÂ Whip Steny Hoyer’s, that the CBO score (which will be officially released this afternoon) contains some pretty good news for health reform proponents.
Marc Ambinder says apparently:
Apparently, the CBO says that the bill would reduce Medicare expenditures by about 1.4% per year, extending the solvency of the program by nine years. Thirty-two million Americans will be covered — about 95% of all those eligible. The cost over decade one: $940 billion. The release today will help Speaker Nancy Pelosi fulfill her promise of providing 72 hours to review the bill before the vote, which is on tap for Sunday.
Rep. Paul Ryan says no (PDF):
The Congressional Budget Office has confirmed that there is currently no official cost estimate.Â Yet House Democrats are touting to the press â€“ and spinning for partisan gain â€“ numbers thatÂ have not been released and are impossible to confirm. Rep. James Clyburn stated he wasÂ â€œgiddyâ€ about these unsubstantiated numbers. This is the latest outrageous exploitation by theÂ Majority â€“ in this case abusing the confidentiality of the nonpartisan Congressional BudgetÂ Office â€“ to pass their massive health care overhaul at any cost.
If ObamaCare passes, it is hard to take seriously the claim that Obama will ever be able to stand-up to our creditor nations (India, China, Japan, etc.)? He already is disrespected (if liked) throughout the world. If ObamaCare passes, and the largest increase in the welfare state in two generations becomes law, he will be a laughing stock, as well.
Update: The CBO itselfs weighs in (PDF):
Although CBO completed a preliminary review of legislative language prior to itsÂ release, the agency has not thoroughly examined the reconciliation proposal to verify itsÂ consistency with the previous draft. This estimate is therefore preliminary, pending aÂ review of the language of the reconciliation proposal, as well as further review andÂ refinement of the budgetary projections.
Third, our decision rests on the narrow ground that the procedures authorized by the Line Item Veto Act are not authorized by the Constitution. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 is a 500-page document that became “Public Law 105-33” after three procedural steps were taken: (1) a bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate approved precisely the same text; and (3) that text was signed into law by the President. The Constitution explicitly requires that each of those three steps be taken before a bill may “become a law.” Art. I, S. 7. If one paragraph of that text had been omitted at any one of those three stages, Public Law 105-33 would not have been validly enacted. If the Line Item Veto Act were valid, it would authorize the President to create a different lawone whose text was not voted on by either House of Con gress or presented to the President for signature. Something that might be known as “Public Law 105-33 as modified by the President” may or may not be desirable, but it is surely not a document that may “become a law” pursuant to the procedures designed by the Framers of Article I, S. 7, of the Constitution.
The Slaughter rule — an attempt to allow Democrats to deny they did not vote for the wildly unpopular Senate Health Care Plan — would have members vote on a different text (that is, one deeming that text passed), rather than the text itself. Therefore, according to Clinton v. New York (a 6-3 decision, where the majority opinion was written by John Paul Stevens), the Slaughter rule is unconstitutional. Thus, if the Slaughter Rule is used to pass ObamaCare, ObamaCare was never passed by Congress, and cannot be enforced.
Frankly, as a strict constructionist, I’m not really happy with this. But I would be delighted if John Paul Stevens’ judicial activism was the iceberg that sank ObamaCare!
Congressmen may have to run from their constiuents…
… over rage against a bill that may be struck down anyway.
The best possible result for America would be if ObamaCare is enacted, the Democrats lose the House and Senate over it, and the Supreme Court rules ObamaCare unconstitutional shortly after the election.
Warren Buffer, perhaps Obama’s most successful and influential supporter, tries to get Obama to save what’s left of his presidency by abandoning his push for ObamaCare
Americans should hope that President Obama ignores Warren Buffet’s warning. It is important that the White House is injured as badly as possible in the 2010 elections. Obama’s injury to his party will be greatest the more he pushes ObamaCare and the less he does to reign in Tim Geithner. So while it is best for the country for Obama to abandon his policy proposals and dismiss Tim Geithner, he should do so the day after the elections.
11:35pm — A somewhatÂ stunning statement from Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA): “If Coakley had won, I believe we could have worked out a reasonable compromise between the House and Senate health care bills. But Since Brown has won and the GOP now has 41 votes in hte Senate, that approach is no longer appropriate. I am hopeful that some GOP Senators will be willing to discuss a revised version of health care reform because i do not think the country would be well served by the health care status quo. But our respect for Democratic procedures must rule out any effort to pass a health care bill as if the Massachusetts election had not happened. I hope there will be a serious effort to change the senate rule which means that 59 votes are not enough to pass major legislation, but those are the rules by which the health care bill was considered and it would be wrong to change them in the middle of this process.”
Thank youÂ Massachusetts!
MSNBC Anchor Keith Olbermann promises civil disobedience if ObamaCare passes
Most people are not as lucky at Mr. Olbermann, in their ability to fight the law. But good luck to him. His fight against ObamaCare — which may involve going to jail and conviction in federal court — is a stand for freedom.
According to the New York Times, Bill Nelson (D-FL) wants to stop ObamaCare from gutting Medicare. Of course, this is a bad thing. The only good thing of ObamaCare — and one that its more sophisticated fans often point out — is that it guts Medicare. Sure it might grant coverage to illegal aliens and tax young families in order to subsidize the old and sick, but as Obama’s supporters have insisted over and over, reform is needed to prevent us from subsidizing morbidity into extreme old age.
Bill Nelson’s amendment, supported for tactical reasons by some Republicans, would prevent any cost savings, and simply speed up the transfer of American political and economic authority from Washington to Beijing.