Is FCC Declaring ‘Open Season’ on Internet Freedom?

How can we ever hope to influence China, Iran and other undemocratic regimes to provide more Internet access and freedom to their citizens and businesses when our FCC is proposing a radical take back of existing Internet freedoms without legitimate authority or justification?

The FCC, in proposing to change the definition of an “open Internet” from competition-driven to government-driven is setting a very dangerous precedent; that it is acceptable for countries to preemptively regulate the Internet for what might happen in the future, even if they lack the legitimacy of constitutional or legal authority to do so, or even if there is thinnest of justification or evidence to support it.

How can we ever hope to influence China, Iran and other undemocratic regimes to provide more Internet access and freedom to their citizens and businesses when our FCC is proposing a radical take back of existing Internet freedoms without legitimate authority or justification?

The grave mistake the FCC is making in the broader international context is claiming that private companies are the primary threat to Internet freedom and free speech, and not governments. History and common sense tell us only Governments have the effective coercive power to dictate real censorship.

The FCC is effectively declaring “open season” on well-established Internet freedoms.

It is perversely providing legitimacy, justification and political cover for undemocratic countries like China and Iran to hunt down dissidents online and censor free speech while using the Orwellian doublespeak of regulating to “preserve an open Internet.” Undemocratic regimes are always looking for “openings” and excuses to further crack down on their people’s freedom of speech and assembly. Surely, the FCC must appreciate that internationally, actions speak louder than words.

The FCC’s proposed “Open Internet” regulations are illegitimate. First, they offend constitutional due process in that they assume companies are guilty of anticompetitive behavior until proven innocent; the FCC would regulate roughly 2,000 companies, for what one has admitted it did, and for what the FCC alleges another has done. Second, they offend constitutional equal protection in that they treat similar companies very unequally. Third, they offend constitutional protection against Government takings because they ban competitive companies from pursuing business models that are legal today. Fourth, they offend constitutional free speech because the FCC apparently does not agree with the Supreme Court that companies have constitutionally-protected freedom of speech.

The FCC’s proposed rules also overstep the FCC’s legal authority. Without congressional authorization of net neutrality legislation, the FCC is granting itself near limitless jurisdiction over the Internet. Moreover, the FCC’s proposed rules are arbitrary and capricious. They would arbitrarily reverse FCC precedent and factual determinations; arbitrarily move the competitive goalposts mid-game; and regulate competitive companies’ business practices more strictly than any monopoly in the last 75 years.

Further undermining America’s credibility to lead on the Internet policy going forward is that the proposed Internet regulations are not justified. They are a solution in search of a problem. The near perfect voluntary industry compliance over the last several years simply does not warrant a permanent ban on legal business behavior. To top all this off, the FCC has offered no evidence of market failure to justify regulating this competitive marketplace.

In sum, America risks both Internet freedoms and its Internet policy leadership when it proposes such a radical policy change without the legitimacy of constitutional or legal authority or the justification of facts. International Credibility 101 says: if you want others to follow your lead, be worthy of following.

BigGovernment.com

ObamaCare–The Worst Bill Ever

The Wall Street Journal had a great  editorial on Monday about Pelosi’s Healthcare plan and described it as the worse bill EVER.

Epic new spending and taxes, pricier insurance, rationed care, dishonest accounting: The Pelosi health bill has it all.

The Worst Bill Ever

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has reportedly told fellow Democrats that she’s prepared to lose seats in 2010 if that’s what it takes to pass ObamaCare, and little wonder. The health bill she unwrapped last Thursday, which President Obama hailed as a “critical milestone,” may well be the worst piece of post-New Deal legislation ever introduced.

In a rational political world, this 1,990-page runaway train would have been derailed months ago. With spending and debt already at record peacetime levels, the bill creates a new and probably unrepealable middle-class entitlement that is designed to expand over time. Taxes will need to rise precipitously, even as ObamaCare so dramatically expands government control of health care that eventually all medicine will be rationed via politics.

Yet at this point, Democrats have dumped any pretense of genuine bipartisan “reform” and moved into the realm of pure power politics as they race against the unpopularity of their own agenda. The goal is to ram through whatever income-redistribution scheme they can claim to be “universal coverage.” The result will be destructive on every level—for the health-care system, for the country’s fiscal condition, and ultimately for American freedom and prosperity.

•The spending surge. The Congressional Budget Office figures the House program will cost $1.055 trillion over a decade, which while far above the $829 billion net cost that Mrs. Pelosi fed to credulous reporters is still a low-ball estimate. Most of the money goes into government-run “exchanges” where people earning between 150% and 400% of the poverty level—that is, up to about $96,000 for a family of four in 2016—could buy coverage at heavily subsidized rates, tied to income. The government would pay for 93% of insurance costs for a family making $42,000, 72% for another making $78,000, and so forth.

At least at first, these benefits would be offered only to those whose employers don’t provide insurance or work for small businesses with 100 or fewer workers. The taxpayer costs would be far higher if not for this “firewall”—which is sure to cave in when people see the deal their neighbors are getting on “free” health care. Mrs. Pelosi knows this, like everyone else in Washington.

Even so, the House disguises hundreds of billions of dollars in additional costs with budget gimmicks. It “pays for” about six years of program with a decade of revenue, with the heaviest costs concentrated in the second five years. The House also pretends Medicare payments to doctors will be cut by 21.5% next year and deeper after that, “saving” about $250 billion. ObamaCare will be lucky to cost under $2 trillion over 10 years; it will grow more after that.

• Expanding Medicaid, gutting private Medicare. All this is particularly reckless given the unfunded liabilities of Medicare—now north of $37 trillion over 75 years. Mrs. Pelosi wants to steal $426 billion from future Medicare spending to “pay for” universal coverage. While Medicare’s price controls on doctors and hospitals are certain to be tightened, the only cut that is a sure thing in practice is gutting Medicare Advantage to the tune of $170 billion. Democrats loathe this program because it gives one of out five seniors private insurance options.

As for Medicaid, the House will expand eligibility to everyone below 150% of the poverty level, meaning that some 15 million new people will be added to the rolls as private insurance gets crowded out at a cost of $425 billion. A decade from now more than a quarter of the population will be on a program originally intended for poor women, children and the disabled.

Even though the House will assume 91% of the “matching rate” for this joint state-federal program—up from today’s 57%—governors would still be forced to take on $34 billion in new burdens when budgets from Albany to Sacramento are in fiscal collapse. Washington’s budget will collapse too, if anything like the House bill passes.

• European levels of taxation. All told, the House favors $572 billion in new taxes, mostly by imposing a 5.4-percentage-point “surcharge” on joint filers earning over $1 million, $500,000 for singles. This tax will raise the top marginal rate to 45% in 2011 from 39.6% when the Bush tax cuts expire—not counting state income taxes and the phase-out of certain deductions and exemptions. The burden will mostly fall on the small businesses that have organized as Subchapter S or limited liability corporations, since the truly wealthy won’t have any difficulty sheltering their incomes.

This surtax could hit ever more earners because, like the alternative minimum tax, it isn’t indexed for inflation. Yet it still won’t be nearly enough. Even if Congress had confiscated 100% of the taxable income of people earning over $500,000 in the boom year of 2006, it would have only raised $1.3 trillion. When Democrats end up soaking the middle class, perhaps via the European-style value-added tax that Mrs. Pelosi has endorsed, they’ll claim the deficits that they created made them do it.

Under another new tax, businesses would have to surrender 8% of their payroll to government if they don’t offer insurance or pay at least 72.5% of their workers’ premiums, which eat into wages. Such “play or pay” taxes always become “pay or pay” and will rise over time, with severe consequences for hiring, job creation and ultimately growth. While the U.S. already has one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the world, Democrats are on the way to creating a high structural unemployment rate, much as Europe has done by expanding its welfare states.

Meanwhile, a tax equal to 2.5% of adjusted gross income will also be imposed on some 18 million people who CBO expects still won’t buy insurance in 2019. Democrats could make this penalty even higher, but that is politically unacceptable, or they could make the subsidies even higher, but that would expose the (already ludicrous) illusion that ObamaCare will reduce the deficit.

• The insurance takeover. A new “health choices commissioner” will decide what counts as “essential benefits,” which all insurers will have to offer as first-dollar coverage. Private insurers will also be told how much they are allowed to charge even as they will have to offer coverage at virtually the same price to anyone who applies, regardless of health status or medical history. (Anyone that knows anything about insuring people or about actuarial figures  knows this is insane and will run the insurance companies out of business and leave – - – guess what? The GOVERNMENT PLAN of course and a single payer system that Pelosi wants.)

The cost of insurance, naturally, will skyrocket. The insurer WellPoint estimates based on its own market data that some premiums in the individual market will triple under these new burdens. The same is likely to prove true for the employer-sponsored plans that provide private coverage to about 177 million people today. Over time, the new mandates will apply to all contracts, including for the large businesses currently given a safe harbor from bureaucratic tampering under a 1974 law called Erisa.

The political incentive will always be for government to expand benefits and reduce cost-sharing, trampling any chance of giving individuals financial incentives to economize on care. Essentially, all insurers will become government contractors, in the business of fulfilling political demands: There will be no such thing as “private” health insurance.

Wallstreet Journal online

“Tea Party” Voters Present Challenge for GOP

Well maybe the tea parties are finally going to move the GOP back to the conservative side by keeping the pressure on.

The Republican party is expected to make gains in the 2010 congressional elections, but the party’s plans may be hampered by the “tea party” movement that gained steam over the summer, the Wall Street Journal reports.

Protesters around the country this year demonstrated against President Obama’s stimulus package and health care plans, giving Republicans a chance to unify and energize its base after four years of dismal election results. Those demonstrators, however, do not necessarily identify with the Republican party simply because they do not identify with Democrats.

The GOP is preparing to make a comeback with 2010 candidates that can appeal to broad constituencies, according to the Journal. For example, Dede Scozzafava is running in a special election next month for an open House seat representing upstate New York. Local Republican representatives chose Scozzafava for her political experience and commitment to family values, even though she supports abortion rights. Tea party activists, however, are getting behind Doug Hoffman, who calls himself the real conservative. The split among conservatives has left their Democratic opponent in the lead.

The Journal points to other examples in which the conservative activism of the summer has worked against the Republican party. Florida Gov. Charlie Crist, a moderate but popular Republican, is running for the Senate, but faces a primary challenge from former Florida House speaker Marco Rubio, who is seeking tea party members’ support.

Liberal Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who gained some notoriety this summer for striking back against extreme protesters, said Wednesday that he thinks Republicans made a mistake by encouraging the “tea party” movement.

“I think the conservatives made a big mistake morally as well as tactically,” he said on HLN’s Joy Behar Show. “I think they thought they were benefiting from all these crazies going out and venting. I think they realized that got in the way of the rational arguments they wanted to try to make … So, I think you’ll still see some of the negativity [remain], but it won’t be as supported by the Republican apparatus.”

The disaffected sentiment of conservatives who joined in the protests this summer has been embraced by personalities like Glenn Beck, who has gained a strong following from both his Fox News TV show and nationally-syndicated radio program. Last month, Beck told CBS News’ Katie Couric that he believes the country would have been worse off with Republican Sen. John McCain as president than it is with Mr. Obama.

During the interview, Beck told Couric his viewers “don’t care about the parties, they care about their life… They say, ‘the Republicans have betrayed me, the Democrats have betrayed me… I don’t see an exit strategy here.’”

CBSNews.com.blogs

Hate crimes bill – law by the weekend?

Well the Democrats finally got it………they had to attach it to the Defense Appropriations Bill to get it passed, because as a stand alone bill it had no chance. Now I’m hoping someone like the ACLJ  challenge the Constitutionality of this bill immediately. The Hate Crime bill is unconstitutional no doubt about it. It violates the 1st, 14th amendment and double jeopardy.

A spokesman with the American Family Association says the hate crimes bill passed Thursday afternoon by the House could have a chilling effect on free speech and religious freedoms in the nation. If the bill passes the Senate, federal prosecutors will be able to intervene in cases of violence against people because of gender, sexual orientation, “gender identity,” or disability. (See Associated Press story below)

Bryan Fischer is director of issues analysis for the American Family Association. The bill passed by the House, he says, is alarming.

“For the first time in American history we are criminalizing thought,” he laments. “Thomas Jefferson said the reach of legislation should extend to actions only and not to opinions – and now we are punishing people not just for what they did, but what they were thinking when they did it.

“It’s also going to have a chilling effect on freedom of speech, especially religious speech. And [in] other places where these hate crimes bills have gone into effect, pastors have wound up in jail or fined for preaching a biblical view of homosexuality.”

Fischer says he would not be surprised if the bill passes through the Senate by the weekend. “I suspect the president is putting pressure on some Democrats in Congress to get this done so he can sign it by Saturday night,” says the AFA spokesman. ”[That very evening] he’s going to give the keynote address at the Human Rights Campaign dinner. That’s the major homosexual advocacy group in the nation.  I think he wants this scalp on his belt walking into that dinner.”

He also has concerns about overturning such legislation in the near future. (Let’s hope the courts overturn this, as they should,it’s unconstitutional) “Something like this is going to be very difficult to repeal,” Fischer admits. ”It’s doable, but again [there's] a slim chance that Republicans or conservatives will have control of either the House or Senate in 2010 – so we’ll be fighting a rear-guard battle for some time now.”

The hate crimes amendment is attached to a $681-billion Pentagon policy measure that now heads to the Senate.

OneNewsNow.com

Ron Clark Academy singing for health care reform on CNN

Well here we go again………more indoctrination of our kids.

CNN features kids singing for healthcare reform

Students from the Ron Clark Academy sing in support of President Obama’s health care overhaul legislation. They performed in the CNN studio, with lyrics displayed for viewers at the bottom of the screen.

Singing to the tune of Miley Cyrus’ “Party in the USA,” students from the Ron Clark Academy appeared in the CNN studio to perform in support of President Obama’s health care initiatives. “Obama says everyone needs health care now,” they sang.

The performance, carried on CNN and complete with follow-along scrolling lyrics at the bottom of the television screen for viewers, appeared to echo an earlier incident among school children who were asked to sing campaign slogans in support of Barack Obama. Republicans later used the New Jersey elementary school children’s video to rally their base in fund-raising environments, citing a “fanaticism” among Obama supporters. It was unclear under what context CNN chose to air the performance or why it was hosted in their studio, but this is not the first public appearance from the Ron Clark Academy – the Atlanta-based private school was also invited to sing at Obama’s inauguration.

In case you didn’t catch all the lyrics, here are some of the more interesting ones: Obama says everyone needs health coverage in America now. We need to insure those 47 million, but the government doesn’t know how. Deductibles getting higher every day. I got my bill and I’m thinking NO way…. Capricious coverage is killing me.… Bipartisan support was tried so we wouldn’t be denied. But Joe Wilson yelled, “You lie!”

digitaljournal.com

Jay Rockefeller to insert Public Option into Baucus Health plan

Well some of the Democrats are hell bent on the public option. Especially Sen. Jay Rockefeller and Sen. Charles Schumer both Democrats of course determined to have another government takeover this year….this time 16% of the US economy in the health care business. Socialized medicine.

After months of anticipation and blown deadlines, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus Wednesday finally unveiled his bill to overhaul the nation’s health-care system. The Montana Democrat did his best to sell the controversial proposal, stressing that it was largely in line with the principles laid out last week by President Barack Obama: it has a 10-year price tag of less than $900 billion, doesn’t add to the deficit and includes a mechanism to ensure that those with pre-existing conditions can’t be denied coverage. But Baucus’ relentlessly positive spin couldn’t change the fact that for all the wrangling and delays not a single Republican signed on to his much-touted bipartisan bill. Even more troubling for anyone hoping there might be some resolution any time soon, many of Baucus’ fellow Democrats had lots of negative things to say about the controversial proposal, treating it as nothing more than a first offer to be bargained over.

“Everyone should understand that it is just the beginning,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. “There’ll be some changes before the markup starts and then there’ll be some changes during the markup.” (See 10 players in health-care reform.)

“There’s much more work to be done,” said Russ Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat.

Asked if she could vote for the bill right now, Senator Blanche Lincoln, an Arkansas Democrat, smiled coyly. “There’s always room for improvement,” she said. “I’ve got an opportunity to make improvements so we all look forward to that.”

“I’m going to do my best to fix the legislation,” declared Oregon Senator Ron Wyden.

“It’s a work in progress,” hedged Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu.

Still, senators shouldn’t hold their breath that they will be radically changing the bill, at least in the formal markup expected in committee next week. It’s unlikely that any amendments that basically change the framework will be accepted, Baucus told reporters before unveiling his bill. The Montana Democrat has not even given up on the hope of some Republican support. But despite his apparent confidence, Baucus may still need to work to win over enough wavering Democrats to get the bill through the finance committee. Here are their five biggest issues with the legislation, and what Baucus can – or in some cases cannot – do to assuage these fears.

1. The Public Option

All four other versions of health-care reform legislation that have emerged from the House and Senate include a government insurance option that would compete with private plans to help keep costs down (and mean a government takeover of the Health care business I might add.). Republicans across the board have denounced the proposal, many calling it the first step to socialized medicine. In a nod to the concerns of his G.O.P. colleagues and some moderate Democrats, Baucus introduced an alternative to the public plan: non-profit state or regional cooperatives that, except for some seed money from Washington, would be exclusively financed by members’ premiums. The hazy concept of co-ops has been pushed by North Dakota Democrat Kent Conrad, who was part of the bipartisan so-called Gang of Six that worked to draft the Baucus bill, but many health policy experts view it was as a poor substitute for a public plan; in fact the Congressional Budget Office, in its scoring of the deficit impact of the bill, stated that it didn’t believe the co-ops as proposed by Baucus would attract many members. Liberals see the plan as letting insurers off the hook. “Senator Baucus’ health care bill released today is like a dream come true for the insurance industry,” screamed a statement by Justin Ruben, executive director of the progressive group MoveOn.org.

See more about health care.

Senator Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat and a longtime champion of the public plan, said he intends to introduce an amendment to insert the federal alternative into the bill, though there was no word if Baucus would accept such an amendment. “The proposed co-op model is untested and unsubstantiated and should not be considered as a national model for health insurance,” Rockefeller said. If Dems choose to go it alone without any Republican support it’s possible they could include such a plan in the final version of the bill. But many moderate Democrats such as Landrieu and Nebraska Ben Nelson have said they could not vote for a public plan, complicating the prospect of getting the 60 votes they would need to prevent a Republican filibuster.

News.Yahoo.com

House Republicans Call for Hearing on Health Insurance Company ‘Gag Order’

The Senate votes against transparency as the administration silences a private insurer for exposing the president’s health care proposal. Meanwhile, AARP is allowed to tout reform as it awaits payday. The Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday voted 12 to 11 against allowing two weeks for the Congressional Budget Office to complete its cost analysis of the health care bill pushed by Montana Democrat Max Baucus and to put the bill online in its original wording.

Instead, the Senate panel passed another amendment to require the committee to post the full bill online in “conceptual” rather than the actual legal language. This makes it impossible for the CBO to evaluate the cost of the bill. Republicans suspect Democrats are trying to put their preferred version of the bill online, rather than letting people read the actual bill as proposed — something few, if any, members will do — and then decide for themselves.

To further keep the American people in the dark, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which administer benefits under Medicare, issued what can only be called a gag order after Humana warned its Medicare Advantage customers in a letter that the president’s plan might cause them to lose some benefits.

“We are concerned that the materials Humana sent to our beneficiaries may violate Medicare rules by appearing to contain Medicare Advantage and prescription drug information, which must be submitted to CMS for review,” said acting CMS director Jonathan Blum.

Or could it be that Humana got caught pointing out the emperor has no clothes?

Investors.com

Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee wrote a letter Thursday to Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., urging a hearing on the decision to launch a probe into Humana over a mailer Sen. Max Baucus claimed misled seniors about proposed changes to Medicare.

House Republicans on Thursday called for a hearing to examine the Obama administration’s decision to probe a major insurance company, at the behest of Sen. Max Baucus, over a mailer to customers about health care legislation — a move they call a politically motivated “gag order” on critics of the Democratic plan.

Republican criticism has swelled since the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services launched a probe into Humana, at the request of Baucus, D-Mont., over a mailer Baucus claimed misled seniors about proposed changes to Medicare.

Humana, one of the largest private carriers serving seniors under the Medicare Advantage program, focused its mailer on the potential for cuts to the service, which were being debated in the Finance Committee on Thursday.

Republicans say the administration was essentially punishing Humana for questioning the plan and firing a warning shot at any other companies that might be thinking of doing the same. The Department of Health and Human Services on Monday not only targeted Humana, but sent out a broad directive to all Medicare Advantage participants, telling them to “immediately discontinue all such mailings” and remove any such material from their Web sites.

Robert Zirkelbach, spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, said the order went out to about 200 companies Monday night, just as the Senate Finance Committee was about to start debate on its version of health care reform.

“This is an effort to stifle any dissent,” he said.

“They are silencing opposition to the president’s Medicare cuts,” said Sage Eastman, spokesman for Rep. Dave Camp, ranking Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee.

Camp and the other minority members of the House Ways and Means Committee wrote a letter Thursday to Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., urging a hearing in order to “investigate the unusual and potentially politically motivated decision by CMS to eliminate the flow of factual information from private health plans to their enrollees.”

The original Humana mailer said: “While these programs need to be made more efficient, if the proposed funding cut levels become law, millions of seniors and disabled individuals could lose many of the important benefits and services that make Medicare Advantage health plans so valuable.”

It urged seniors to sign up with Humana for regular updates on the legislation and encouraged them to contact their lawmakers in Washington.

Humana was expressing concern about proposals to cut Medicare and Medicaid spending by about $500 billion over 10 years — including payments to Medicare Advantage plans by about $125 billion.

Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf on Thursday agreed that seniors in the Medicare Advantage plans could see reduced benefits under Baucus’ legislation.

But Baucus said the proposed bill would not cut benefits.

“I’m not going to let insurance company profits stand in the way of improving Medicare for seniors,” he said in a statement, calling efforts to mislead seniors “wholly unacceptable.”

Democrats continued to assert that the company had made a false claim and that Republicans were again demonstrating their affinity for the insurance industry.

Baucus said the mailer could be a violation of federal regulations. However, Republicans responded with Clinton administration guidance that prohibiting such information would violate basic freedom of speech and other constitutional rights of the Medicare beneficiary as a citizen.

AARP, which also helps administer Medicare plans in conjunction with United Healthcare, has weighed in on that part of the health care debate as well — only on the other side.

The AARP continues to feature ads on an affiliated Web site defending the Medicare changes. One ad blasts critics for spreading “myths and scare tactics,” and claims the reforms will not “hurt” Medicare but “actually strengthen it by eliminating billions of dollars in waste and lowering drug prices.” Another AARP article declares, “Controlling the rising costs of Medicare doesn’t mean cutting benefits.”

Eastman said AARP is not being held to the same standard.

“If you’re going to silence the critics you need to silence the proponents too,” he said. “This clearly smacks of politics.”

A representative with the AARP could not be reached for comment.

FoxNews.com

Dems block GOP amendment to demand for more time on Obamacare bill

What was that Obama said before being elected?

1. Make Government Open and Transparent
2. Make it “Impossible” for Congressmen to slip in Pork Barrel Projects
3. Meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public (republicans shut out?)
4. No more secrecy
5. Public will have 5 days to look at a Bill
6. You’ll know what’s in it (Republican Senators didnt know)
7. We will put every pork barrel project online

Dems block GOP demand for more time on ObamaCare

Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday turned back a Republican amendment to wait 72 hours and require a full cost estimate before the final committee vote on the health care reform bill.

It was the committee’s first vote out of more than 500 amendments awaiting them, in what has already been a contentious mark-up session.

The amendment would have delayed a vote on the final bill for about two weeks to allow the Congressional Budget Office to complete its final analysis on the cost and implications of the legislation.

Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln was the only Democrat to vote with Republicans for the amendment, further signaling that she may be an attractive swing vote for Republicans.

Instead, the panel passed an alternative amendment that would require the committee to post the full bill, in “conceptual” instead of legal language, as well as as a CBO cost estimate.

Separately, a bipartisan group of House lawmakers on Wednesday announced their own effort to force Democratic leaders to give members of Congress — and the public — 72 hours to review legislation before any bill is brought to the floor for a vote.

The measure, sponsored by Rep. Brian Baird, Washington Democrat, and Republican Reps. John Culberson of Texas and Greg Walden of Oregon, would require House leaders to post all non-emergency legislation online, in its final form, three days before a vote.

The lawmakers have begun circulating a discharge petition that would force House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to hold a vote on their bill, which has been stuck in committee for months.

GOP lawmakers in particular have hammered Mrs. Pelosi and other Democratic leaders for rushing long, complex bills through the House.

“The American people are angry that Speaker Pelosi didn’t allow the public and their elected representatives to read the trillion-dollar ’stimulus’ bill or the national energy tax before they were rammed through the House,” Minority Leader John Boehner, Ohio Republican, said Wednesday. “Congress can, and must, do better.”

In the Senate Finance Committee debate, Democrats argued that the amendment, offered by Sen. Jim Bunning, Kentucky Republican, was merely an attempt to stall President Obama’s top legislative priority.

“This is fundamentally a delay tactic,” said Sen. John F. Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat.

Chairman Max Baucus, Montana Democrat, promised committee members that they’d have a preliminary analysis of the bill before they vote.

Republicans said the full analysis, which details the cost and implications of the bill, is necessary to inform their vote.

“It’s what [the public] expects us to do anyway — read a bill before you vote on it,” said Sen. Charles E. Grassley, ranking Republican on the panel.

Further complicating the process is the fact that the Finance Committee works on “conceptual language” — plain English explanations that are later turned into legislative text.

The committee has always worked with conceptual language with the understanding that if a lawmaker finds a discrepancy later, the chairman can change the text to reflect what was intended.

Democrats argued that the conceptual language made it easier to understand what the committee is voting on, but Republicans said that the legislative details are significant.

Rushed floor votes on the stimulus bill and the cap-and-trade energy bill — both of which totaled more than 1,000 pages — have fueled calls from the public that lawmakers read bills before voting on them. The House resolution is supported by several public-interest groups, including the Sunlight Foundation, which point out that hasty votes can result in unintended consequences, such as the provision tucked into the stimulus bill that had the effect of authorizing executives of bailed-out insurance giant AIG to receive retroactive bonuses.

Earlier this summer, Mrs. Pelosi told a reporter she would allow a 48-hour waiting period prior to bringing health care legislation up for a vote.

The discharge petition requires 218 signatures to force a vote on the bill, which has 98 co-sponsors. There are currently 256 Democrats and 177 Republicans in the House.

WashintonTimes.com

Joe Wilson-Pete Stark Where was the outrage then ?

Rep. Pete Stark Calls Bush A Liar Twice On House Floor

The House voted Tuesday 240 to 179 for a rare disciplinary resolution, accusing Wilson of a “breach of decorum” that brought “discredit to the House.” It was a near party-line vote. All but seven Republicans voted “no” and 17 Democrats declined to support the resolution, voting “no” or “present.”

The House historian’s office said that no “resolution of disapproval” had been passed to upbraid a member of the House in the past 20 years.

abcnews.com

Since democrats are acting particularly sanctimonious about Wilson and pretending they’ve never seen anyone call the president a liar before, let’s take a trip down memory lane…

Here’s  Rep. Pete Stark calling President Bush a liar on the floor of the House not once — but twice back in October 2007 while Congress was in session. Where was their outrage then?

Health Care: The Conservative Alternative in the House

Perhaps the most blatant “disinformation” being promulgated in the health care debate this year is that there are only two choices for American health care: putting the federal government in charge or allowing insurance companies to run the show.

Perhaps the most blatant “disinformation” being promulgated in the health care debate this year is that there are only two choices for American health care: putting the federal government in charge or allowing insurance companies to run the show. While the President, congressional Democrats in charge, and, to a degree, the media have done all they can to shut out Republican ideas, the truth remains that there is a third path, a correct path.

Republicans have put forth bold ideas that can transform American health care in a positive way — without a government takeover of medicine. Before the August recess, I joined with a number of colleagues to introduce H.R. 3400, the Empowering Patients First Act. Our solution is built upon the principle that when individuals are given control and ownership, we will achieve full access to coverage and see the entire system move in a positive, patient-centered direction. While we join in the national critique of the President’s misguided proposal, we also offer positive solutions for health care reform.

*Full Access to Coverage

First, all people should have the financial wherewithal to purchase private, personal health plans. As cost is the biggest barrier to coverage, H.R. 3400 employs a hybrid tax structure to ensure that there is no financial reason for a person to go without coverage. Based on factors such as income and family size, the legislation offers tax credits and deductions, which are advanceable and on a sliding scale, so the less wealthy and those without employer-provided plans will be able to purchase coverage.

A true market for Americans to purchase this personal private coverage, however, does not currently exist. For patients to have real choices, we must create a functioning marketplace for all to gain coverage they select. To achieve this, under the Empowering Patients First Act, all Americans would be able to use pre-tax dollars to buy coverage on the open market, leveling the playing field with employer-provided care that already receives this benefit. And to provide Americans greater purchasing power, the legislation allows for robust pooling mechanisms so that people can come together freely to drive down prices. These pools will provide a place for those with pre-existing conditions to find coverage at an affordable price. And there is the opportunity to purchase health insurance across state lines, which is currently barred.

Finally, we cannot fully bring down costs without addressing the runaway medical liability crisis. From exorbitant malpractice insurance premiums to the remarkably expensive practice of defensive medicine, it is my experience that the current culture of litigation costs patients hundreds of billions of dollars. And these costs do nothing to provide better care, but rather serve only as a defense against unyielding personal injury lawyers. H.R. 3400 tackles this problem with the creation of new health courts that trust the expert opinions of medical professionals. When malpractice suits are brought through specialized courts and viewed through the perspective of medically appropriate care, rather than a lottery mentality, we will see a decline in frivolous lawsuits and the need for costly defensive medicine.

*Patients in Charge

But providing access to affordable care only gets us half way to our goal. A 21st century American health care system should put the customer — the patient — in charge of the system. To truly transform American health care in a patient-centered way, we must give control and ownership of health coverage to individuals — to patients.

Currently, most people receive their care from their employer or the government. This makes someone else, not the patient, the customer. H.R. 3400 offers people the option to utilize a system that would put them in charge. This means that employers could provide their workers with the opportunity to purchase the care that best fits their individual needs, rather than just what is offered at work. Building on the new marketplace previously discussed, we can give patients seemingly limitless coverage options. What’s more, if a Medicare or Medicaid beneficiary would prefer a private, personal plan, they would have the option to move their resources and purchase whatever coverage they believe best suits them and their family. And all of these purchasing decisions will be made easier with the transparency created by new health plan and provider portal websites where patients can compare rates and information about coverage options and treatment.

All of these things give patients choices, portability, and control. And when patients are empowered with the ability to vote with their feet, we will, by necessity, see insurance companies become much more responsive to our personal needs.

Finally, all this can be accomplished without raising taxes a single penny. On top of the cost savings associated with lawsuit abuse reform, greater competition, and reining in waste, our plan is fully paid for by reducing spending, which has gotten way out of control. Instead of growing government, the Empowering Patients First Act says that Washington must once again set priorities in our budget — just like American families do every single day.

*The Third Path

Rather than a government takeover of medicine or allowing the unsustainable status quo to persist, there is a third path. No bureaucrat — one from either the government or an insurance company — should get between you and your doctor. By empowering patients, we can preserve what is good with our current system and improve what ails it, all without threatening the world class quality of care that we enjoy in America. So the next time the President asks what Republicans want to do for health care, we must all respond: empower patients!

HumanEvents.com