Constant Conservative

There is little question that Representative Slaughter has a space laid out for her in the history books. The question is whether she will be known as the person who made it possible for the health care “reform” legislation to pass, or whether she will be known as the one who precipitated a crisis of confidence in the House of Representatives to perform its constitutional role? Of course, right now, all we really know is that enough representatives said “go ahead with the funky vote.”

The Hill has more:

Democrats shot down a Republican effort to force an up-or-down vote on the Senate healthcare bill on Thursday afternoon.
In a 222-203 vote, Democrats beat back a GOP resolution offered by Democrat-turned-Republican Rep. Parker Griffith (Ala.) that would have forced lawmakers to vote on the Senate healthcare bill separately from the series of fixes they hope to make to that legislation.

All Republican lawmakers who voted opposed the measure, which had the effect of ending the GOP’s effort to force a vote. They were joined by 28 Democrats, who broke with party members on the vote.

222 Democrats supported the measure, though, meaning enough to proceed. Three members of both parties did not vote.

I do not currently know who the 28 Democrats were who voted against it, but there is no guarantee that they will vote the same way for the next step in the process. In the words of the old song “one thing is certain, nothing is sure in the game of love law.”

Much has been written with reference to the Slaughter solution for the current health care legislation impasse. However, I’ve not seen a clearer argument against this solution than the following from Michael W. McConnell. I’m linking you to the write up in PowerLine because the article is behind the paywall at the WSJ.

Here is the key piece:

[]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.”

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.[]

Imagine that. The Constitution was drafted to prevent trickery from occurring at the very highest levels of government. Here is hoping and praying that a sufficient number of legislators will understand that what they are attempting via the Slaughter solution is patently un-Constitutional.

A long time ago in a land far away there was a set of laws. These laws were unusual for the time in that they could not be revoked by the ruler of the land (whether they were good law or bad law). Daniel benDavid references this in his book:

Now, O king, issue the decree and put it in writing so that it cannot be altered—in accordance with the laws of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be repealed.

It would seem that Senator Reid and friends are interested in bringing back the good old days. In this video, Jim DeMint points out a few problems with doing so:

This has not been in the news so much lately because all the talk now is of reconciliation, but it should be under discussion because, as far as I know, this language is still in the Senate bill which would become law via the misbegotten reconciliation slaughter process.

Does anyone one else find it funny (in an odd way) that conservatives are the ones trying to ensure that it is possible to change things in the future while progressives are attempting to prevent the possibility of the same?

Thanks to those who emailed me about this.

Senator Reid was not (I believe) the majority leader at the time of this interview. Nonetheless, I’ve no reason to believe that he has changed his beliefs in the last couple of years.

He appears to believe that our taxes are voluntary because we have the option of not paying them to the government immediately upon earning the income. By this reasoning, payment for my groceries is also voluntary since I can choose to defer actual payment until some future time, too. Incredible.

Of course, Senator Reid probably doesn’t accept my phraseology. Sorry, sir. I’m just working with the English language here.

HT: FairTax

Yet another person who is touting wind power as South Dakota’s future while failing to get the basics:

[]Doug Sombke says South Dakota is known as the “Saudi Arabia” of wind for its wind energy potential.[]

I wouldn’t say it is known as that. Rather, it has been called that–as has every other Great Plains state as well as the whole region and other states here and there. Does the wind blow here? Yes, just like it does in a number of other places.

[]But investing in wind power is difficult right now because it’s expensive to transmit and hold it.[]

Transmission and storage of power is always expensive. It has been for a long time. It will continue to be. This is not an issue which is unique to wind-generated power but rather one which is inextricably tied to electricity, however it may be generated.

[]It’s a struggle Sombke compares to projects like the interstate highway and hydro–electric dams. Opponents had said the country couldn’t afford them but they happened anyway.[]

To say that something was considered too expensive but that it was purchased anyway is hardly a positive statement. Looking at the examples given, however, we find that the interstate highway system has paid for itself many times over. One could say that the highway system has been the single largest expediter of the increase in commerce among the several states.

Hydro-electric dams, on the other hand, have been a bit of a mixed bag. Unlike highways, one cannot replace a bit of one at a time and their replacement costs are insanely large.

That aside, wind power (unlike hydro power) is incredibly inconsistent. Therefore, it is unreliable. This in itself creates enormous issues with the grid–as noted by our English cousins.

If supporters of wind power wish to convince the general population that this is indeed the next big thing for South Dakota, there are a few things which could be done:

1. Be honest about the weaknesses of wind power. Any power source has weaknesses, whether that source be nuclear, hydro, coal, wind, sun, etc. Don’t treat us as fools and tell us wind power has no substantive downsides.
2. Show us, don’t tell us, that it is financially feasible. Point out particular windfarm installations which have paid back more than their installation + maintenance costs over a reasonable investment period (10, 20 years).
3. Do not talk about upcoming breakthroughs in the technology and how that is going to make everything work if we can just wait a bit longer.

And finally, and this is enormously important, do not say things like:

[]“Agriculture can actually be a financial benefactor of the right kind of climate legislation if it comes with renewable energy incentives,” Johnson said.[]

How many of you think that agriculture needs to finance “the right kind of climate legislation” to get more subsidies? That’s what Mr. Johnson is saying here. Here’s hoping he doesn’t know what “benefactor” means and what he was really trying to say was that agriculture is happy to get more subsidies if that’s part of a climate change bill.

Either way, it’s not the sort of statement which appeals to anyone outside of the wind power industry. It is most assuredly not a reason to support a commerce-crippling cap and trade bill based on crumbling climate science.

My house, along with millions of others, received a letter this week telling it that it would be receiving another letter shortly. The English portion of it read as follows:

[]About one week from now, you will receive a 2010 Census form in the mail. When you receive your form, please fill it out and mail it in promptly.

Your response is important. Results from the 2010 Census will be used to help each community get its fair share of government funds for highways, schools, health facilities, and many other programs you and your neighbors need. Without a complete, accurate census, your community may not receive its fair share.[]

Others have already noted that it was rather wasteful to send out something telling us that we will be receiving something later. In fairness to the Census, however, one must remember that by so doing they are providing work for the Post Office–which could use the revenue.

That aside, I’d like to look at the use of “fair share” in the second paragraph. First, the reference in both places is to a community–not people. A slight difference, true, but a difference none the less. It apparently takes a community to receives its fair share of government largess. No reference is made to individuals or small disadvantaged groups getting their “fair share.” After all, that would be divisive and intolerant. Instead, we are told that communities receive this so that they can then benefit “you and your neighbors.” In fact, these are for things that we “need.” See, we can’t live without the good old government programs.

Of course, this is very much the way the federal government likes it to work. In brief, here is an ideal system: I work and earn money, from which the federal government takes a generous helping of cash. The federal bureaucrats then dole out the cash to various state and local governments. These entities are also run by bureaucrats–who are largely more intelligent than you and I. They decide who gets what and why they get it.

It is quite revealing that the letter says absolutely nothing about the constitutional mandate for the census, which is as follows:

[]An Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.[]

The letter also says nothing about the original point of the enumeration–which is to ensure that representatives are allocated in accordance with population.

Let me say very simply. I do not want my community to gets its fair share. I do not want to get my own trickle down fair share. I do want to keep the share that I work for and use that to provide for my wife, my children, my parents–and those who may not have that which I do. I would like to do this without interference from the government. I would like to do it through my church, my family, my friends and acquaintances. I would like to use just enough middle men to ensure that those I’m helping do not usually know who is doing the helping. I do not want to do this by giving my earnings to the government and trusting that they will do better things with them than I would.

One last point. The government funds talked about in the letter? Those aren’t properly the property of the government. Everything the government “owns” is held in trust for the citizens. Of course, putting it out that the government has funds for all of the communities makes it out as a loving father, or perhaps a wealthy uncle. Unfortunately, it has already broken our grandchildren’s piggy banks, as it were, to fund a number of enormous future liabilities.

Remember, if you don’t fill out the census correctly, a bureaucrat somewhere will lose his wings.

It would appear that we have an answer to a question I posed a yesterday, after Representative Herseth Sandlin was invited to meet with the President and hear why she needed to get with the program:

[]The South Dakota Democrat confirmed during a telephone conference call with reporters that she won’t vote for the Senate version of health-care reform, just as she didn’t vote for an earlier version approved by the House of Representatives.

As for an additional piece of legislation being developed by President Barack Obama to answer some concerns about the existing Senate bill, Herseth Sandlin said she won’t vote for that if it comes to the House by way of the reconciliation process in the Senate.

“I will not vote for the Senate bill as is,” she said. “I will not vote for a package of changes that would go through the reconciliation process.”[]

Sounds good to me. Let’s give Representative Herseth Sandlin credit for sticking to her previous position in light of the fact that nothing has really changed in the interim–except certain people’s desires to make this happen no matter what it might do to hurt (as well as help) the general citizenry.

While it is difficult to know the precise motivations which supported her “No” the last time around, it would appear that the pressure to say “Yes” is reaching maximum:

[]President Barack Obama invited Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin and nine other House Democrats to the White House Wednesday night where the president tried to convince them to vote for the latest version of his health care initiative.[]

Calling it “his . . . initiative” seems to be stretching things a bit. Rather, he took one of the existing bills, mixed it with a bit of special Republican topping and is apparently trying to lay claim to result. But, I digress. The question is, where will Representative Herseth Sandlin be after all of this wooing?

[]Herseth Sandlin on Wednesday praised Obama’s inclusion of Republican ideas but said she has not decided how she would vote on the revamped proposal.

Herseth Sandlin said the earlier House health care bill did not meet the dual goals of increasing access to quality care while cutting costs.

She said she will examine the language of the latest Obama proposal to see if it accomplishes those twin goals.

“There are many details yet to be determined, and as this package comes together, I will closely examine the legislation to determine its effect on South Dakota families, businesses and health care providers,” she said in a prepared statement. “It’s also critically important to understand the impact on the cost of health care going forward.”[]

If she is to be honest, then the latest bill does not meet the goals of “increasing access to quality care while cutting costs” either. Of course, she might just be waffling to ensure that she gets a nice meal at the White House, but I think it unlikely. It is more probable that some dealing is going on right now (and will continue over the next several days).

Unfortunately, I’m concerned that the thinking behind some who are backing this bill (and even some who are not currently, but may in the future) is not unlike the thinking behind electing the first permanently tanned president–they want to be part of something big, something historical, something that just causes people to break out in an updated chorus of “I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing.”

Of course, there is nothing in the Constitution which would support teaching the world to sing, or providing for massive government interference in the health care economy.

Here is hoping and praying that Representative Herseth Sandlin clearly sees what this legislation would do to her constituents and follows up her previous “No” with a repeat of the same.

The following video must be watched to be believed. It is discouraging, but it reminds me (at any rate) what the difference is between a lawyer and a non-lawyer.

HT: PowerLine

A few days ago, I wrote about flood insurance and how it wasn’t really insurance. Now, it appears it is not even a government giveaway:

The federal flood insurance program has dried up just days after FEMA was in South Dakota urging homeowners to buy it because of the threat of flooding. Congress failed to extend the National Flood Insurance Program, so it expired Monday.

The National Flood Insurance Program is essentially the only place anyone can buy flood insurance. Almost every local insurance agent across the country use the program to cover homeowners during a flood.

As noted previously, the reason that the government is “essentially the only place anyone can buy flood insurance” is simple: only our government is going to underwrite a sure loss.

Here is the other problem with the flood insurance program–what the government gives, the government may take away. Right now, the government has taken it away. It may well give it again later–when Senator Bunning is satisfied that the Congress is not spending even more money it does not have, but I wouldn’t necessarily bet on it.

I was previously unaware that a sitting member of the US Senate had been inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame. It would appear that Senator Bunning of Kentucky is such a man. He came under fire this week because of his refusal to let an extension of unemployment benefits be voted on unless the cost of the bill was to be offset elsewhere.

Some folks are quite unhappy with his actions:

Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) should be ousted from the Baseball Hall of Fame because of his block on extending unemployment benefits, according to a group that advocates for the unemployed.

The benefits expire Sunday.

“The most obscene thing he can do is prevent jobless Americans from getting their $350 a week unemployment check,” Rick Sloan, acting executive director of Ur Union of Unemployed, a grass roots organization for unemployed Americans, told The Hill.

Hear that? The senator is “preventing jobless Americans from getting their … check.” It would appear that the speaker of the particular quote does not understand that there is no ownership in the equation. If the employers paid unemployment insurance premiums (taxes by another name) to cover those who became unemployed, it was done so with the understanding that the benefits would expire after a given time (and generally at the point where the premiums dollars were used up).

Now, while I may object to the means by which unemployment payments are made, I understand that they are done so in accordance with current law. There is, however, no requirement that the payout term which is to expire tomorrow be extended.

All of that aside for a moment, there is this little thing called “paygo” which is short for “pay as you go.” You and I understand it in the context of spending the money which we have. Congress is to do the same based on some rules on which the members recently agreed. Therein lies Senator Bunnning’s  argument. He believes that this bill could be passed–as long as the money for doing so is found elsewhere and the paygo rules are followed. The sticking point–there are a number of exceptions to paygo. One simple one (by comparison with some of the other exceptions) is that the rules may be suspended in an emergency.

Of course, this means that all one has to do is wait for anything to become an emergency and then paygo is bypassed and spending continues without regard to actual funds on hand.

Everyone has known for months that the unemployment benefits–which have already been extended once or twice–were to run out tomorrow. Why is the vote on this only coming up now? Couldn’t one see a few weeks ago that the economy was unlikely to make itself so much better in the short term that unemployment numbers would drop precipitously–negating the basis for more benefits?

So, keep in mind as you read about the heartless Senator Bunning that he is trying to (much like years ago) play by the rules. Here is hoping that some of his fellows will follow his lead in this regard.

In honor of the summit today, I thought it would be of benefit to have a few views of the situation from some of the voices on the conservative/libertarian side of things:

Legal Insurrection thinks that the summit is indicative of the “fight coming to a head” and thinks that:

Obama’s plan is neither a starting point nor an endpoint. It is a dead end of government expansion paid for with borrowed money and developed through a process in which Democrats have refused to consider alternatives to bigger government.

His encouragement to Republicans? Don’t be bullied.

Melissa Clouthier calls the summit a “power play” on the part of the President:

The President will get up in front of Republicans and say that they’re obstructionist. The President will make bold statements that force grin-and-bear-it Democrats to go along to get along.

Her encouragement for Republicans? This isn’t about you.

Heritage (via Conn Carroll) finds that this summit is a bit of a sham:

That means the White House must convince a sizeable chunk of conservative Democrats to switch their votes. Brown University political scientist James Monroe says that is the true purpose of today’s event: “House Democrats have told Obama, ‘Move the needle on public opinion,’ and that’s what this is about.”

His encouragement to Republicans? A majority of Americans are not in favor of any of the Democrat’s proposed plans for changing the health care system.

Michelle Malkin is covering things live. Here are her comments (and realtime video of the unfolding events).

CATO is also doing live coverage with full audience interaction.

Whatever the outcome of today’s discussion, I’ll make the following prognostication: The President will claim victory, the Democrats will claim victory and the Republicans will claim victory.