Deem and Pass Wasn't Used - This Time

The use of “deem and pass” was narrowly averted when two Democrats sitting on the House Rules Committee voted against the use of the “Slaughter Solution” that was intended to forward the Senate Bill through the House of Representative without requiring members to actually vote on the Bill. While the deem and pass rule has been around since the 1930’s, it has never been used to forward legislation of this magnitude through the House without an actual vote. Deem and pass was dubbed the “Slaughter Solution” after Louise Slaughter (D-NY), the chairwoman of the House Rules Committee that proposed its use to move the Healthcare Bill out of the House.

Louise Slaughter, that ironically represents Erie and Niagara Counties in New York, expected fellow Democrats on the Rules Committee to climb into their own barrels and follow her over the “falls” by approving the use of this legislative trick. Fortunately, Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA) and another, yet unnamed Democrat on the Rules Committee realized that this was tantamount to political suicide and voted against the measure. This reduced the vote in favor of deem and pass to the slightest margin of seven for and six against, making it’s use politically dangerous as each one would be seen as the deciding vote in their own district.

America may be a diverse culture with a vast chasm between the political ideologies of the people but they all agree that our government should act with honor. To use this rule would be seen as a corruption of the legitimate process of government. It’s true that deem and pass has been used by both Parties over the past eighty years and pretty much for the same reasons; to pass unpopular or costly legislation while still providing more cowardly members of Congress the ability to go home and tell their constituents they didn’t vote for the Bill. This time, the healthcare bill is so widely despised and has been so closely followed that even deem and pass would not provide the cover that nervous Democrats had hoped for. In fact, once the light of day had been shown on this process, the American people issued a thunderous rejection of the apparent misuse of power so loud that even the Rules Committee thought twice about the consequences.

What I found disturbing is the media’s ready acceptance of this incredibly deceitful process. Except for right wing TV and talk radio, the main stream press had no problem with using deem and pass; citing the historical use of the process. I said I found it disturbing, but does not mean I found it surprising. After all, there are many versions of deem and pass that can be found all over America. The press itself is guilty of similar practices; writing entire stories based solely on damaging quotes by unreliable sources. Since they were merely quoting someone else, they could run with a story that would politically hobble someone they considered an enemy without actually having to bear the responsibility of slandering them. “Hey…I didn’t say it…I just reported on someone that did!” Of course if the subject screamed loud enough, had proof that the accusations were false or threatened a law suit, the press could always bury a single sentence retraction in a rarely read section of the paper that would satisfy the legal world that they corrected the misstatement.

A perfect example of the use of a deem and pass look alike can be found in the global warming / climate change debate. The UN climate panel relied heavily on reports issued by the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia; the same CRU that has recently been exposed willingly manipulating climate data, thwarting the release of information under the British equivalent to the Freedom of information act and conspiring with other global warming proponents to hide information that was contradictory to their claims. The UN climate panel had also created alarming climate reports warning of catastrophic consequences if CO2 levels were not drastically reduced. As it turns out, the UN climate panel used an article about melting glacial ice from a rock climbing magazine and a non-professional paper on the subject authored by a college student. When confronted with these damaging facts, the UN climate panel shrugged it off saying that they apologize for the errors but there is still overwhelming evidence to support climate change (and the U.N.’s global money grab to fight it) but they would conduct further study into the materials they use for their reports. In other words, they deem the crisis is real and passed the blame.

I wonder if I can use deem and pass myself? I could pay sales tax on a new home entertainment system and “deem” that my Federal taxes have been paid as well. No, that wouldn’t work because the Federal government really doesn’t like competition where criminal acts are concerned. I could have a sugar free coke with six slices of pizza and “deem” that I am on a diet or perhaps I could throw out one of the cigarettes in my newest carton of 200 and “deem” that I am cutting back. Yes, we could all use some version of deem and pass but somehow, it just doesn’t feel right to an honest person and it shouldn’t feel right to our elected officials.

Congressional procedure has become so corrupted by lawyers and modern politicians that nearly anything seems possible and the only justification they offer these days is “Well, they did it!” Have things descended that low? Has the Congress become so corrupt that they no longer think about whether or not it is the right thing to do but instead rationalize their actions on what someone else has already gotten away with? If that is true, then what will the future hold? Will we leave morality out of the equation and clone humans to use their bits and pieces for organ transplants or medical experiments? After all, what makes us human? We have already cloned chickens and sheep so cloning is possible and can it really be murder if these unwilling donors were never born? Impossible? Well, the abortion argument has already cheapened our conception of human existence and turned that into a question of when is a person really a person? What would happen if lawmakers began to deem people “non-people”?

As it stands now, our society’s view on the rights of the unborn are left entirely up to the woman that is carrying the unborn. The right to choose is based on the sovereignty of one’s own body and those that choose life have in essence, chosen to deem their unborn child a person worthy of protection. While pro-choice advocates fear that a woman’s right to choose abortion is threatened by the religious right, what they should fear more is the radical left. John Holdren, President Obama’s “Science Czar” has already weighed in on the right to choose and it is truly frightening. In the 1970’s, Holdren was one of the eco-kooks that believed the greatest threat to the earth was the explosion of human population. In a book Holdren co-authored with Anne H. Ehrlich titled “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment” the pair proposed forced abortion and mandatory sterilization to stave off an impending overpopulation crisis. Holdren and his Hench-woman actually went as far as suggesting retroactive abortion where children below the age of two that faced severe physical or mental disabilities could be “deemed” to be unviable and in fact, unborn since they were incapable of life independent of special means. Children deemed “unborn” could be disposed of neatly and legally within the framework of existing abortion legislation once they were lawfully considered unborn.

Oh yes, there are number of ways that deem and pass have made it beyond our legislature and into everyday life. It is the ways that it could be used in the future that should make rational people very nervous indeed. Just because the Congress didn’t have the nerve to use it this time does not mean it won’t rear its ugly head later when the public is too occupied with something else to notice. After all, that’s how it was used before and with great success. Whatever the political landscape is after the 2010 and 2012 elections, it is clear that the Democrats have provided us with some valuable insights. These devious rules and procedures must be routed out with strong enough language that they can never be used again. While the Party in control may be tempted to used the same rules to move their agenda forward, those temptations must be resisted and these rules must be forever retired if we are ever to return to a lawful, honorable and pure constitutional Republic.

Paul

Here Lies the Rupublic - May She Rest in Peace

While the talking heads tally the latest count of pro and con votes for healthcare, Nancy Pelosi predicts a vote will take place by late next week. The President has postponed his trip to Asia so he can strong-arm…oops…I meant persuade wavering Democrats for an additional three days. One thing is clear; Pelosi will only proceed to a vote if she is certain of the outcome and that certainty will either be purchased in more promises through back room deals or through the threats of retribution in the form of base closures and the diversion of stimulus money.

A sizeable amount of the stimulus funds remains unspent and many could not understand why the Congress would pass a jobs bill for even more money when so much stimulus money is still waiting for distribution. A quick accounting of stimulus dollars show that the funds that were distributed were focused in areas that were represented by Party faithful by a factor of two to one and that districts represented by Republicans with higher unemployment rates and more dire economic expectations were largely ignored. The eyes of the nation are on the healthcare debate and talk of backroom deals like the Louisiana Purchase (Hi Mary) and the Cornhusker Kickback have infuriated the public so intensely that Democratic leadership can no longer risk such blatant examples of vote buying. What they can do is point to the huge pile of stimulus money still waiting to be spent and wink at those that are on the fence.

Democratic leadership will stop at nothing to get this vote done before the Easter break because the one thing they fear more than anything else is the possibility of the public getting to speak with their representatives before a vote can be taken. After all, those angry people that attended the town hall meetings last August nearly upset the whole reform conversation. Now that the opposition to this bill has been cemented even further and Congressional approval ratings are at their lowest point in recorded history, any contact between Congress and constituent would damage the chances for passage beyond repair. Apparently, this latest push and deadline is meant to prevent that contact from ever happening. Is this democracy? Is this representative government?

The argument has been made that in a Republic, we elect representatives that best reflect our values and then trust them to vote their conscience. If that were true in every case and the will of the people can only be counted on Election Day, then why do so many elected officials claim a “mandate” if they win election by more than a mere majority? When there is overwhelming opposition to any legislation then the will of the people must determine the outcome or the validity of representative government becomes impaired. A Republic can only survive if the governed have confidence that they are actually being represented.

Today, we have little confidence in that representation and even less faith that our confidence can be restored. The 2010 elections will be more than a commentary on this President and his Congressional colleagues; it will be a turning point in the history of our nation. I sadly predict that healthcare bill will pass by hook and mostly by crook and that the Democrats will suffer a major defeat in November because of it. However, if the November election does not usher in a new breed of politician that will act with dignity and honor to restore the faith of the electorate, I have little hope that the United States will escape the grave consequences brought on by the last hundred years of Progressive meddling.

The latest assault on our Constitution is already being planned if the White House and Nancy Pelosi cannot secure the votes to get the bill past the house in the manner prescribed by law. As I discussed Friday, Representative Louise Slaughter (D-NY) has suggested that since the House and the Senate have already passed similar bills, the Senate bill should just be sent to the President without a House vote. If that is attempted, I can envision a fire storm among the electorate that can only end in disaster. People were already incensed at the news that if the Bill passed through the house, the Senate intended to use reconciliation to effectively negate the vote of newly elected Republican, Scott Brown. The Slaughter plan would represent a new low for the most corrupt Congress of the century; negating not only Scott Brown’s vote, but the representative vote of the American people.

Not even during a state of emergency has this amount of power been seized by an obvious minority of elected officials. This is not the opening day of World War III and there is no looming threat of an asteroid collision with earth. There is nothing about this bill that would require such extraordinary and dictatorial measures be taken to secure its passage. If Congress can perpetrate such a clear and dangerous abrogation of due process then the rights guaranteed by the Constitution may only be a signature away from extinction. The legislative rules that Louise Slaughter and Nancy Pelosi obviously consider an issue of mere formality are really the basis of representative government. To use this tactic means that the sheer will of Progressive ideologues can and will create laws, administrations and regulations without the need for even a simple majority. Where is your Republic then?

Blatant chicanery has marred the healthcare bill ever since it was proposed. The kickback schemes that encouraged members of Congress to prostitute their votes (Hi again Mary…and you thought I forgot you!) were only the beginning. The President promised he would not sign a bill that added to the deficit so they began skimming major spending deals out of the bill only to be hidden within other less obvious resolutions. The “Doctor Fix” that would stabilize Medicare payments to doctors is valued at nearly three-hundred billion dollars, would have added every penny of that fix to the deficit. They needed that “fix” to secure the silence of doctors so it was cut from the healthcare bill and now resides quietly and uncounted in the latest jobs bill. It still adds to the deficit but just not as part of the healthcare bill.

The Presidential promise of “If you like your current insurance, you can keep it” has slowly transformed into “If you like your doctor, you can keep him.” Not many picked up on that because it was repeated so often that the minor change of two words was barely noticeable. But the change of those two words makes all the difference in the world. Certain plans will be grandfathered in as long as they meet the new government established requirements while the rest will be replaced. Even grandfathered plans have a shelf life and will be terminated under this bill by 2019.

The President assured everyone that the cost of insurance plans would go down with passage of this bill but now it seems that the reduction the President was talking about is relative to the new expanded coverage mandated by the bill and in fact, current plans will see an increase of ten to thirteen percent almost immediately. The President also said that abortion is not covered under the healthcare bill but even Planned Parenthood is calling for support for the President’s bill because of the new access to abortion the plan will provide.

Lie after lie has been told to gain support for this bill and now that the lies have failed and the truth is too widely known to obscure it with platitudes and sob stories, Progressives are desperate to save it. Reconciliation would have shoved it down your throat but Ms. Slaughter and Ms. Pelosi are now planning a different and more painful route to the gastrointestinal tract. Progressives are like roaches. Most of their work must be done in the dark and they usually scatter when the lights go on. Hopefully, enough people will launch a preemptive strike and flood the Congress with letters and phone calls to warn them we are watching. The Slaughter plan must not be allowed to stand or the Republic will fall as an emboldened President and his Congressional henchmen continue chopping away at our Constitution to create more loopholes in order to advance his radical agenda.

Paul

Legislation Without a Vote - A New Low in Congressional History

It looks like we can add Representative Louise Slaughter (D-NY) to the list of people that are showing signs of mental duress in Washington. First there was her odd story during the Healthcare summit of call she received from some phantom constituent. According to Ms. Slaughter, this person had to resort to wearing her dead sister’s dentures because she had no health insurance and could not afford her own. About the only thing missing from that exchange was the image of her grasping at the air trying to catch the imaginary butterflies circling her head. Apparently Louise’s condition has worsened and she has slipped beyond eccentricity and is now living in her own little world; a world where the Congress has a whole new set of imaginary rules they can use to pass healthcare reform so her friend can stop wearing someone else’s teeth.

The Senate Parliamentarian has already ruled that a Bill that has not been signed into law cannot be subject to reconciliation and that places a difficult burden on House Democrats. They must accept the Senate Bill as written and pass it without modification so that the President can sign it before any reconciliation measure is possible to work out the differences between the House and the Senate versions. Of course the Senate crafted their own bill because there was no possible way the House bill could have passed the Senate. There is in fact, no reason to believe that the Senate will yield on anything the House wants once this thing has actually been signed into law. Herein lays the quandary. Certain House Democrats will not vote for the bill unless they have concrete assurances that their issues will be acted on in reconciliation and the Senate says they can offer no such assurances on a bill that has not been made law yet. Catch 22.

Now in another leap into the bizarre, Slaughter has suggested her own idea to move the Healthcare Bill forward; an idea that seems to appeal to her fellow dementia sufferer, Nancy Pelosi. Her thoughts are that since the House passed a bill and the Senate passed a bill, we’ve both passed a bill already. Let’s skip the vote and send this to the President since we both passed a bill! Well, the only problem with that idea is that they both passed different bills. Even the President’s odd-ball compromise presented just prior to the Healthcare summit was only a list of un-scored ideas that would modify the Senate bill and if any of those changes were incorporated into the Senate bill then, in fact, the Senate bill really hasn’t passed either….has it?

All jokes aside, this is a critically serious issue. To use the “Slaughter” plan, Congress would have to abandon every known rule of the legislative process and not only ignore the public rejection of this bill but circumvent the justifiable opposition posed by other members of Congress as well. The reason this bill has not passed on its own merit is that there is a bi-partisan rejection of it on a number of critical issues. To use Slaughter’s idea to move it out of the house would not only damage the efficacy of the Democratic Party as they face a difficult election year but would also raise serious questions about the legitimacy of the Federal government as legislation ceases to be legislation and wants becomes laws through the dictates of a minority group of radical ideologues.

The loss of legitimacy is a serious charge, but have any of the processes used in conjunction with this Congress and this President resembled anything we have ever seen in the past? Agency heads threatening Congress to pass legislation “or else”; threats of using reconciliation to pass bills that have not even been signed into law; the use of Presidential executive orders to seize an additional thirteen million acres of land to deny access to oil, gas and coal reserves and now, the Progressive wing of a single Party bypassing all of Congress to achieve a bullet point on their agenda?

True Democracies are never overthrown by violent means; they are consumed by malevolent forces from within. The apathy of an appeased electorate opens the door for the systematic encroachment on personal liberty under the guise of “providing for the good of the people”. The government can only provide a benefit if we agree to surrender certain rights in that area. What is the Healthcare bill really about? Well, Nancy Pelosi unwittingly admitted that the other day. In a speech she was giving about the “wondrous” gift they are about to give the American people she said that for the first time we will be able to address the health of the nation. Pelosi continued: this is more about “diet than diabetes”. Really? And how does the bill accomplish that lofty goal unless there will eventually be mandates controlling your diet?

Cass Sunstein, Obama’s regulatory Czar, would love nothing better that to see people “nudged” into a meat free diet. He’s even said in papers written earlier in his career that animals should be represented by attorneys. Well, with health mandates we can just “regulate” you away from those barbarous acts of eating poor defenseless animals and dispense with the need for animal lawyers altogether. Don’t forget the nuts and bolts of this plan are not described in the bill itself. They will be crafted later by the massive new agency and controlling board it will create; a controlling board appointed by Barack Obama and guided by the wisdom of Cass Sunstein.

Some may yell out “That is absurd! The United States government doesn’t have the right to tell me what I can eat!” Well, that’s true (for now) but they didn’t have the right to tell people they can’t smoke either. What they have seized the right to do, now that the Constitution is nothing but an obstacle to skirt, is tax something out of existence. One of the first acts of the Obama administration was to increase the sin tax on cigarettes more than 250%. Of course anti-smoking activists applauded the move with little consideration of how heavily the application of “sin” taxes depends on who is identifying the “sin”. Now that the likely targets for the new healthcare sin taxes will be hamburgers, fries and a cold soda, how do the supporters of cigarette taxes feel about delegating that amount of control to the government now? A little cheated maybe?

But wait, there’s more! Red meat has been accused of causing heart problems and cancers, so kiss your delicious steaks goodbye. Sugar? I’m sorry…diabetes. Salt? Well, New York is already working to ban that from restaurants because of the link to high blood pressure so that’s probably out too. Butter; cream; candy and that dreaded of all criminals…pizza! Life is about to become very bland indeed.

If you’re willing to foot the added expense of the “chubby-foods” sin tax you can still eat like its 1999 but the part we don’t know is if the new healthcare guidelines will impose insurance premium surcharges for people that don’t fit the healthcare board’s idea of physically fit. What’s your BMI? How much do you exercise? Are you engaged in risky behavior like skiing or skydiving? You know anything that can harm you is bad and therefore in dire need of behavioral modification.

That is just a dream though. This is the United States of America; the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave! The Federal government just doesn’t have that kind of power under the Constitution. But then again, what does the Constitution mean anymore if laws can be passed by ideological zealots that can get away with only pretending there was a legitimate vote? Sounds like Election Day in the old Soviet Union doesn’t it? One candidate scoring a landslide victory… that’s a perfect example of Progressive Democracy for you!

God help us now!

Paul