I am beyond frustrated over the upcoming vote on health care and the methods being used by nanny minded socialists to close the deal. We have fuzzy accounting, underhanded political maneuverings, obfuscations, payoffs, and a an outright disregard for what is desired by the people who will actually have to pay for this monstrosity.
A few moments ago I heard a newscast that regurgitated the results of a study conducted by the CBO on this monstrosity. Once that finely adjusted machine produces a number or an analysis it is too often perceived to be the final answer.
Of course, that is not the way that the Congressional Budget Office works. The CBO produces projections based on the parameters and information it is given. It is not allowed to make assumptions because these are supplied within the parameters. If the CBO does not receive plausible parameters it will still issue an answer that is based on what it has received.
Bruce at QandO:
Again, remember – the CBO’s scoring assumes absolutely no changes in the bill, revenue streams or projected spending over those 10 years. That’s absolute nonsense on a saltine cracker and we all know that. There is no way those revenue streams remain constant, there’s no way the spending on health care – if this is enacted – won’t be increased as the bill is built upon and despite the CBO’s guess for the following 10 years in which it says it will continue to “save” money, there’s very little to support that premise. In fact, the most telling line in the whole CBO report is this one:The parameters supplied are too ridiculous to be plausible but the CBO must do the best that it can with what it is given.Our analysis indicates that H.R. 3590, as passed by the Senate, would reduce federal budget deficits over the ensuing decade relative to those projected under current law—with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range between one-quarter percent and one-half percent of gross domestic product (GDP).3 The imprecision of that calculation reflects the even greater degree of uncertainty that attends to it, compared with CBO’s 10-year budget estimates.
Of course, that only deals with the implausible fuzzy numbers, it does not address the any of the other problems.
For instance we have the political maneuverings of house Democrats that includes the use of the Slaughter Rule. This is an unconstitutional maneuver that would allow House members to vote on amending a bill on which it has never voted. From the WSJ via Powerline:
The Slaughter solution attempts to allow the House to pass the Senate bill, plus a bill amending it, with a single vote. The senators would then vote only on the amendatory bill. But this means that no single bill will have passed both houses in the same form. As the Supreme Court wrote in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), a bill containing the "exact text" must be approved by one house; the other house must approve "precisely the same text."What of obfuscations?
These constitutional rules set forth in Article I are not mere exercises in formalism. They ensure the democratic accountability of our representatives. Under Section 7, no bill can become law unless it is put up for public vote by both houses of Congress, and under Section 5 "the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question . . . shall be entered on the Journal." These requirements enable the people to evaluate whether their representatives are promoting their interests and the public good. Democratic leaders have not announced whether they will pursue the Slaughter solution. But the very purpose of it is to enable members of the House to vote for something without appearing to do so. The Constitution was drafted to prevent that.
Ever heard of the Medicare Doctor Fix? Depending on who you talk to, this will add $250-$350 billion to the cost of health care over the next ten years. Yet, there is no way that the current Obamacare legislation, even with the rest of its smoke and mirrors, can stay under the $1 trillion threshold if the Medicare doctor fix is included in the current bill. So, it is simply is not.
Another wonderful idea that has attached itself to Obamacare is a capacitor of sorts. A capacitor is an electrical device that stores an electrical charge until a sudden burst of energy is needed. The capacitor contained within Obamacare takes four years to charge--that is, four years of tax collection to provide enough capital in which to jump start the program. That is correct...Obamacare, in its first ten years of tax collection, will only provide six years of medical care.
Despite the fuzzy math, the political maneuverings, and the slights of hands employed by socialists, there are still a number of congressmen unwilling to pull the trigger on this deal without a little pork. Michelle Malkin is keeping track of the bacon grease. Deals for Tennessee, North Dakota, and California are new ones to watch, and you can always dig through the links to find the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, Christopher Dodd's hospital helper, etc.
Finally, there are the polls. A majority of the American people are not in favor of this bill. To those wanting to finally put a stake through the heart of this great experiment we call America, a little polling makes not a bit of difference.
There are rallies taking place all over the country tomorrow. The big one and even citizens from the People's Republic of Michigan are getting in on the act.
America...this is a big deal. We need to turn the tide.