Democrats Clear Path for Health-Care Bills

The health-care protection would be at the heart of a compromise version of the fiscal 2010 budget, which Democratic leaders in the House and Senate hope to push through both chambers early next week. That would provide Mr. Obama with a symbolic victory in time to mark his 100th day in office Wednesday.

Congressional aides who described the deal Friday cautioned that a few details of the blueprint remain to be finalized, including the amount of spending on education. But they stressed that the essential framework of the budget had been hammered out in a late-night negotiating session Thursday, and top Democrats were busy Friday briefing colleagues.

Even after a budget is adopted, action will be required on separate legislation to spend the money on specific items. But the outline is significant, particularly in the legislative protections it confers on priorities such as Mr. Obama's health-care plan.
Overhauling the nation's health-care system is a top Obama goal, and Democrats in the House and Senate are determined to begin moving legislation this summer. But the initiative is certain to be contentious: It would come with a big price tag and a possible mandate that everyone who can afford health insurance must buy it.

In the House, Democrats have firm control of the levers of power and will be able to push through a health bill as long as they build consensus within their ranks. But passage is more complicated in the Senate, where members have wide latitude to block bills.
Under normal Senate rules, the support of 60 senators would be needed to thwart the Republicans' likely attempt to kill any health-care overhaul with a filibuster, a procedural move that can stall legislation indefinitely.

Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D., Mont.) said he is hopeful of reaching bipartisan consensus on a health-care package. He has been convening a series of roundtables with senators, health analysts and industry officials to work on building wide support for the effort from both parties.

"When we jam something down someone's throat, it's not going to last," Mr. Baucus said.
In the event he fails, the emerging budget deal would allow Democrats to overcome a filibuster because it gives health-care provisions "reconciliation" protection. That categorization shields bills from procedural delays and requires just 51 votes to pass. Democrats currently have 58 seats in the Senate. President George W. Bush used reconciliation to overcome Democratic opposition and enact his major tax cuts.

Republicans nonetheless blasted the move to shield health care from a filibuster as divisive. "Ramming through a partisan plan that needs only a simple majority to pass is a far cry from the bipartisanship that has been promised," New Hampshire Republican Sen. Judd Gregg said.
The budget blueprint also includes filibuster-proof protections for an Obama plan to overhaul student-loan programs, congressional aides said. The proposal would cut back on federal subsidies that now go to private loan companies, and would steer the money instead to direct assistance for needy students and others going to college.

The $3.6 trillion budget, which generally tracks the White House proposal unveiled in February, provides a framework for the government's spending and tax priorities for the coming fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1. The blueprint would make good on a promise by Mr. Obama to sharply trim the federal deficit, bringing it down to about 3% of gross domestic product in 2014 from more than 8% in 2010, congressional aides said. It would also increase the government's nonmilitary spending by a little more than 7% over 2009.

Even If “Janbo” Wore Camo, Still Borders She Dunno

Liberals are asserting that since Barack Obama is president, conservatives now believe dissent is patriotic. Not exactly, dissent is not necessarily patriotic nor is it unpatriotic. When Bush was president, liberals argued all their dissent was patriotic. Actually, it was mostly just nitpicky policy differences. Bush wasn’t taxing the rich, imposing draconian “enviro-anal” regulations or growing government enough for their liking.

But one liberal dissent that wasn’t patriotic was their opposition to the Iraq War after it started. Their cutesy phrase “We support the troops, but not their mission” never quite cut the mustard. Then, claiming that the Iraq war was un-winnable is even more laughable now since the US has indeed won.

There used to be a distinctly American policy that was, “Politics ends at the water’s edge.” While entry into a war can be hotly debated, once troops’ boots hit foreign soot, all the “why were fighting there” arguments should essentially end. Still, politicians and pundits can debate the best way to win. Well, liberals have practically blown that out of the water.

Now, let’s say Obama decided that tiny Tahiti was a threat to national security and should be invaded. Many conservatives would rightly argue that’s a stupid idea and a complete waste of the military. Conversely, “anti-war” liberals would be all for bombing the Tahitians because in their eyes Obama can do no wrong. Remember their protests when Clinton bombed Bosnians, not!

As absurd as a Tahiti invasion might seem, Obama could actually do it. His foreign policy, started during his campaign, is to anger our allies while kowtowing to our enemies. While rebuffing Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu such that he cancels his scheduled US trip, Obama instead listens stoically to third world teapot despots making anti-US diatribes never once defending the nation he supposedly leading. Thanks “O Capitulator in-chief.”

Anyway, once war began, many conservatives would support winning as quickly as possible and with minimal loss of life. Yes, criticism would continue especially if the war became prolonged, or the tactics seemed questionable. For example, if the war lasted more than a day, it probably wasn’t a good idea to invade with just an army of one, Homeland Security Secretary, “Janbo” Napolitano.

Imagine for a moment her storming the beach wearing only camo, bullets strings crisscrossing her chest and mangled damp crested hair. Not pretty though her “do” isn’t much different dry, but the belief that Tahitians would be so fearful that Godzilla had somehow re-emerged from the deep and desert their island in droves would be a highly optimistic strategy at best.

The only positive in this invasion tour de farce would be that it keeps Janbo out of Washington, and such limit the damage she’s doing to homeland security. As if illegals didn’t have enough incentive to violate immigration laws, she recently declared that illegally crossing the border is not a criminal but instead a civil offense. All real Americans should take offense at her statement except maybe Obama because his citizenship has never actually been substantiated.

With Swine Flu raging in Mexico, Janbo decided that a strong border wasn’t needed to stop it. After all America needs an illegal flu to do the job of sickening that domestic diseases simply won’t do.

And when Janbo’s not angering returning vets with false accusations of being a threat to the nation they just risked their lives defending, she’s perturbing the Canadians by claiming that the border that’s needs securing is theirs because that’s where the 9/11 hijackers crossed.

In fact, none came from Canada. Instead they entered via Visa Express, which was a Clinton program that allowed Saudis to come here by filling out a simple form requiring no background checks whatsoever. Janbo would probably enthusiastically support a similar plan today even after 9/11. Since we’re not fighting terrorists anymore, instead during her confirmation hearings she called them, “Manmade disaster causers.”

Then, Janbo compounded her PMS, “Public Misstatement Syndrome,” by saying, “There are very real differences between what Canada allows in their country and who is allowed in the United States.” This prompted an editorial from the Canadian newspaper, The National Post, titled, “The Border for Dummies.” It asked, “Can someone please tell us how Napolitano got her job. She appears to know as much about border issues as a late night call in yahoo.”

Some are demanding that Janbo resign, but that really wouldn’t change anything because the incompetence goes all the way to the top. Cause if this administration could be any more clueless when it came to foreign policy, it’s unfathomable to imagine. Incidentally, when told many weren’t happy with her halfhearted apology to veterans, Janbo responded, “That’s what their going to get.” And that’s because she’s got so little to give.

Bush on the Brain

Lost in a wilderness, you might eat some delicacies not normally found in your diet such as snake. These critters may taste just like chicken, but snake isn’t custom at many of the usual outlets. In a restaurant, a server won’t be asked, “Do you have snake steak.” In a grocery, the butcher will never hear, “I’ll have a pound of snake, please.” But when desperately hungry, snake could just be the meal that saves the day.

When liberals argue that America lost its values with Bush’s enhanced interrogation techniques (EIT), what values would they be? And who died and made liberals the arbiter of American values, anyway? They value nothing but political power. And, they don’t understand that nations operate differently during times of war.

The Roman Empire, a democratic republic, would appoint a dictator in times of war. Okay, that was a civilization that existed two thousand years ago. During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in direct violation of the US Constitution. He even imprisoned journalists.

Did he lose American values? Isn’t Obama compared to Lincoln? What good would it serve to preserve American values when America itself is lost? Yet, liberals have become so loony; they will impugn anyone who’s won a war even if in the process millions of lives were spared.

For instance, President Truman ordered the bombing of two Japanese cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Not only did he save American lives, he also spared many Japanese ones as well.

Daily Show host, John Stewart, argues that since Truman didn’t detonate the first bomb 15 miles off shore, Truman was a war criminal! Stewart seems just a bit historically challenged. First, America had only two atomic bombs. Enriching Uranium to weapons grade took time. Second, Japan didn’t surrender until a second city was destroyed.

And essentially, they only surrendered because they believed America had more bombs. Had America wasted one offshore, the war would have probably continued leading to even more lives lost. Unfortunately, Stewart is typical of the lunacy that’s running congress and the White House today.

Let’s define torture. For one man’s torture is another man’s turn-on especially in San Francisco. Liberals claim waterboarding is torture even though Special Forces must undergo it as part of their training. Oh well, they deserve it for choosing the military as a career. Now, I find listening to loony liberalism torturous. So, should all DNC media pontificators be censored?

One detainee in particular was waterboarded about a gazillion times. Actually, it was 183 but who’s really counting. Supposedly this was excessive, but that figure is only the number of times water was applied not the actual sessions of waterboarding. That was 15. Yet, what this really demonstrates is that EIT could be preformed on a terrorist many, many times, and he still lives to spill the beans.

Suppose Bush had chosen instead to torture detainees by forcing them to be passengers in a vehicle driven by that notorious drunk, Senator “Hiccup” Ted Kennedy (D-MA). Could anyone survive such a frightful experience more than once? An undeniable fact is less people have died being waterboarded than as a passenger of “Ole Tanked-Out Ted.”

Obama argues that the “core” question is whether EIT was even needed. Well, the terrorists didn’t talk until it was employed. Obama even praised Winston Churchill for never torturing Nazis. This is after Obama returned a bust of Churchill given during Bush’s tenure.

But, Churchill did torture Nazis in a prison called “the Cage.” The Brits interrogated over 3,500 Germans sometimes brutally. Even “The Free French” movement savagely beat Nazis with British complicity.

And didn’t Obama torture New Yorkers by authorizing a jet to fly low over Manhattan for supposedly a photo op? Or was it just a dry run for his buddies? Still, Senator Schumer (D-NY) blamed Bush by attacking his FAA appointee who’s still in office. Apparently, Obama has yet to find a Democrat aviation guru that hasn’t cheated on his taxes.

What’s really ludicrous is while Obama releases the “Gitmo torture photos,” he considered the fly-over photo classified.

And, didn’t Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel say, “Never waste a crisis?” Just imagine liberals’ reaction had Karl Rove uttered something similar. Yet, I’m tortured knowing this administration is exploiting every crisis to pass more of its leftist agenda.

Liberals constantly harp that Bush made America less safe even though there’s been no further attacks. Yet, we are safer and liberals’ complaining about torture proves it.

For if they felt an attack was imminent, they would be fully supportive of torture just to protect their own skins. Just ask House Squeaker Nancy Pelosi when she’s not lying. But, they’ll never give Bush any credit for defending this nation because they got “Bush on the Brain.”