Right Wing Granny

Investors.com posted an article on Thursday about the federal budget and its looming deficits.  It included a chart:

This is what our deficits look like in the future.  The article points out that by 2020 our national debt will be $20.3 trillion, an increase of 171 percent in ten years.  Last year, debt as a share of our Gross National Product was 53 percent; by 2020 it will be more than 90 percent. 

The article points out the coming tax increases:

"The increases include: $843 billion for a cap-and-trade energy tax; $743 billion for health reform; nearly $1 trillion in taxes on upper-income families and small businesses; $468 billion on banks, multinationals and virtually all other businesses; and miscellaneous proposals that would add $111 billion to America's tax bill."

Unless someone in Congress has the courage to put the brakes on the spending proposals of the current administration, we can expect our children and grandchildren to pay a much higher percentage of their income to the government than we do now.  We can expect unemployment to remain at 10 percent or above, and we can expect our children and grandchildren to wonder why the economic opportunities that were available to their parents are not available to them.

Yesterday Breitbart.com reported on one of the problem areas in passing healthcare reform--the President and the Senators disagree on the basic bill.  The President has stated that he wants specific projects for specific states taken out of the bill; the Senators want to leave the extra money for individual states in the bill.  The Senate approved healthcare reform bill sends $600 million to Vermont in the next ten years for additional Medicaid payments, and almost as much to Massachusetts. Connecticut gets $100 million to build a hospital and Florida residents get to keep Medicare Adavantage insurance.  There are also specific extra benefits for Montana, West Virginia, Wyoming, and North and South Dakota.

The reason for the President's opposition to the provisions of the bill regarding specific states is the appearance--back room deals have become very unpopular and many of the provisions in this bill look like payments for votes.  The exception that the President is willing to leave in is the $300 million for Louisiana.  President Obama regards that as a necessary expense to rebuild after hurricane Katrina. 

I really hope this bill does not pass, but if it does, the amount of money it will cost every taxpayer is almost unimaginable.  It will not lower health insurance payments or healthcare costs--the only thing this bill will reduce is the quality of healthcare in America.

Roll Call reported yesterday that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi hopes to pass the President's healthcare reform bill next week.   She stated that the House would pass the Senate bill and then make changes to the bill via the reconciliation method.  The changes to the student loan program will also be put in the reconciliation bill.  (Despite the fact that Congress is saying that the transfer of the student loan program to the government will save money, there are many analysts who believe it will cost money because of defaults on loans and other expenses). 

The article points out:

"On the abortion issue, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) underlined comments he made yesterday suggesting the House will forge ahead without adding strict language to appease Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and other anti-abortion-rights Democrats. Hoyer said the Senate approach -- which Stupak has assailed as too weak -- cannot be tweaked "per se" in the reconciliation package. "We'll have to deal with it pretty much as it is at this point in time," Hoyer told reporters Friday."

If I were a pro-life Democrat, I don't think I would be too happy with this deal. 

If you are opposed to the Medicare cuts and government takeover of healthcare in the present reform bill, please follow this link to Hugh Hewitt's blog and click on the link to email your Congressman and a number of blue dog Democrats.  It takes less than a minute, and may be the only way to stop this bill.

 

Today's Houston Chronicle reports on the battle for textbook content that has been going on in Texas.  The State Board of Education has tentatively approved the standards for Social Studies currriculum that will be used in the state.  Because Texas sets the standard for the nation in curriculum (evidently because they buy such a large number of textbooks), the standards they set will eventually be used throughout the country.

Yesterday's New York Times also reported on the events in Texas (although from a slightly different angle).  According to the New York Times:

"After three days of turbulent meetings, the Texas Board of Education on Friday approved a social studies curriculum that will put a conservative stamp on history and economics textbooks, stressing the superiority of American capitalism, questioning the Founding Fathers' commitment to a purely secular government and presenting Republican political philosophies in a more positive light."

All right, let's look at some of the decisions made about those supposed 'Republican political philosophies':

• Experts had recommended students study the impact of cultural movements in art, music and literature, such as Tin Pan Alley, the Beat Generation, rock and roll, the Chicano Mural Movement, country-western music and hip-hop. The board's seven social conservatives, joined by Geraldine "Tincy" Miller, R-Dallas, considered some of the hip-hop lyrics offensive and voted to eliminate hip- hop as an option for students to consider.
• ...the proposed standards reflect the desires of his constituents to emphasize "personal responsibility and accountability" and "to honor our Founding Fathers, and our military.
• The proposed standards include a section on teenage suicide, dating violence, sexuality, drug use and eating disorders which required the teaching of "the importance of personal responsibility for life choices."
• Conservatives passed one amendment, for instance, requiring that the history of McCarthyism include "how the later release of the Venona papers confirmed suspicions of communist infiltration in U.S. government." The Venona papers were transcripts of some 3,000 communications between the Soviet Union and its agents in the United States.  

The proposed standards face a public hearing and a final vote in May.  There is a reason that the name of this site is 'rightwinggranny.'  I support the teaching that American capitalism is superior.  Show me any other country in the world that feeds more people and allows more people the opportunity to succeed.  We don't guarantee success--we just guarantee the opportunity to allow everyone to work hard and achieve their goals. 

I hope this curriculum will be put in place--it may help the cultural decline that America has seen in recent years to remind our children that they live in a land of opportunity and that they alone are responsible for their actions.

Heritage.org posted a tutorial today for those of us who do not understand exactly what is involved in the reconciliation process.  Yesterday the Senate Parliamentarian ruled that a bill must be signed into law by the President before it can be changed and reconciled with the House bill.  Well, that was yesterday; this is today. 

This article reports:

"Reports have come out today that the Parliamentarian has not ruled that the President must sign a law before it is considered a law for reconciliation purposes. First, they came up with a strategy to get Obamacare passed in the House without the House ever voting on the bill, now they have come up with a strategy and a ruling to get the Obamacare bill to qualify as law without the President signing the law. President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Majority Leader Reid should not support efforts to violate the clear words of the Constitution to pass Obamacare."

It should be obvious to those leaders in Congress who believe that they must pass this horrible bill that the are going against the American people and against the U.S. Constitution.  They need to find something else to focus on (or maybe we can send them all home for the rest of the year).

The article points out that a bill is not a law until it is signed into law by the President.  To use the reconciliation process between the House and the Senate before a bill is law is totally unconstitutional.

To try to cram this bill through in this manner is political suicide in an election year.  I hope some of the Democrats in Congress believe in self-preservation.

USA Today has posted an article today stating that some states will be delaying taxpayer refunds for up to five months due to budgeting problems.  The states that have said that they will be delaying refunds are Alabama, Hawaii, Idaho, Kansas, New York, and North Carolina.  If this is not illegal, it should be (unless they are paying interest!).  A tax refund represents an overpayment of taxes by a taxpayer.  The state refunds that money because it is not entitled to keep it.  This is the equivalent of taking money from someone without their permission with the idea that eventually you will pay them back.  I really do think it's time for a taxpayers' revolt--this is revolting!

This article is based on two sources--the Washington Examiner yesterday and the New York Post yesterday.  The Washington Examiner reported that House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter has come up with a plan to get the healthcare reform bill through Congress.  Any resemblance between her plan and the U.S. Constitution or the rules of the House or Senate is purely coincidental.  According to the National Journal's Congress Daily:

"Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.

"Slaughter has not taken the plan to Speaker Pelosi as Democrats await CBO scores on the corrections bill. 'Once the CBO gives us the score, we'll spring right on it,' she said."

This is amazing.  The reason for this, however, is very simple.  On December 16th rightwinggranny.com ran a story about Nancy Pelosi saying that the House Democrats would not be voting on controversial bills unless the Senate voted first.  This makes sense.  The entire House is up for re-election every two years.  Only one third of the Senate is up for re-election every two years.  It is very unusual for major legislation to be passed in an election year--and the healthcare legislation is not popular.

If this bill is passed in the House as is, Democrats running for office can expect to be reminded of Medicare cuts, Cornhusker kickback, Louisiana Purchase, etc.  That's why they don't want to go on record as voting for the Senate bill as is.

The New York Post concludes:

"So now Democratic leaders say they'll package a two-for-one vote: Moving the original Senate bill simultaneously with a "reconciliation" bill -- thus, if the House votes for the bill of fixes, the main Senate bill will be deemed to also have passed. Then the reconciliation bill will go back to the Senate, where it only needs 50 votes (plus Vice President Joe Biden's) to pass.

"Hmm. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say that Congress can deem a bill to have passed. Pelosi & Co. aren't just making up policy as they go, but also procedure -- possibly unconstitutional procedure, at that. All to enact a bill remaking a sixth of the US economy over the 3-1 opposition of the American people."

This is going to be fun to watch. 

This notice came from a municipality in Texas, but it applies across the country:

2010 Census to Begin
BASIC ADVICE: 

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal posted an article by Scott Rasmussen and Doug Schoen about the problems in passing the current healthcare reform legislation.  The article points out that public opposition to the bill has not significantly changed in the past four months.  Generally speaking, Democrat voters support the bill and Republican voters oppose it.  However, one of the groups consistently opposing the bill is senior citizens, who tend to vote in mid-term elections.  The polls generally show that for every person who supports the bill, there are two who oppose it.

The article points out:

"Why can't the president move the numbers? One reason may be that he keeps talking about details of the proposal while voters are looking at the issue in a broader context. Polling conducted earlier this week shows that 57% of voters believe that passage of the legislation would hurt the economy, while only 25% believe it would help. That makes sense in a nation where most voters believe that increases in government spending are bad for the economy."

Voters at this point have concluded that reducing the deficit is important.  They are becoming convinced that major spending initiatives are not a valid part of deficit reduction.  There is also the public perception of the cost of individual healthcare if the bill is passed.  Only 17 percent of people polled believe the healthcare reform bill will reduce the cost of their care.  The majority of Americans have health insurance and 76 percent are happy with their current coverage.  The perception is that if healthcare reform passes, they will have to switch to another insurance provider.  The thought of the paperwork involved in that switch is enough to cause anyone to oppose the bill!

The article concludes:

"The reason President Obama can't move the numbers and build public support is because the fundamentals are stacked against him. Most voters believe the current plan will harm the economy, cost more than projected, raise the cost of care, and lead to higher middle-class taxes.

"That's a tough sell when the economy is hurting and people want reform to lower the cost of care. It's also a tough sell for a president who won an election by promising tax cuts for 95% of all Americans."

It would be nice if after all this debate on the current healthcare reform bill, it could be scrapped and replaced by a ten or fifteen page bill that would actually bring positive changes to the healthcare insurance industry.  Unfortunately I think that will happen right after pigs fly.

On Monday, The Hill reported on the Democrat plan to include an overhaul of federal student lending in the healthcare reform bill. 

The article points out:

"President Barack Obama has made reforming student loan programs a high priority of his first term, and the savings created by lending directly to students could save the government $67 billion over 10 years.

"But the student loan industry estimates that nearly 35,000 jobs would be lost if the federal government lent directly to students and only let private companies service the loans."

This move would drive out private sources of student loans and make the student loan program strickly a government and government-run program.  Aside from my normal reluctance to see the government take over any part of the private sector, it seems to me that the potential for abuse in a government-controlled student loan industry is astronomical.   Who determines who gets the loans?  Who determines the amount of the loans?  Who determines the payback conditions of the loans?  It seems to me that the government's track record on lending money is not particularly good--remember the sub-prime mortgage market?  Frankly, I wouldn't trust a government agency to do anything if I could avoid it.  And please explain to me why we need to include this in the healthcare reform bill!