Posted by: Debby Durkee | March 9, 2010

Ideas to rollback left-wing outrages.

Debby's Web Finds
Ideas to rollback left-wing outrages.

Today the focus is on the left-wing outrages of Obamacare and out of control spending and ways to roll both back. One is put forth by a pundit. The other by two courageous Republican congressmen.

The case for Obamacare repeal.

Rich Lowry over at National Review Online reminds us that if the health care bill is passed (and it is looking more and more like it might) all is not over. The absolute force with which this Democrat bill has been rammed and crammed and seems to never die has raised the hackles of the country. That will not soon subside, and it will leave a bad taste in Americans’ mouth for some time.

If Pelosi somehow succeeds, Democrats will tell themselves they’ve finally attained a goal that has eluded them since Truman. But it won’t be over.

If the bill becomes law, it will suffer a legitimacy gap that will make it vulnerable to repeal.

One, it will have passed on strictly partisan votes. This wouldn’t matter if the bill were a routine matter, say the annual appropriations bill for Health and Human Services, instead of a reordering of one-sixth of the economy…

Two, its skids were greased with rotten deals. Democrats hope to eliminate the special provisions that have tarred the bill in a separate package of “fixes.” Regardless, the bill wouldn’t exist in its current form if key senators hadn’t been bought off with hundreds of billions of dollars in legislative bribes. That taint can’t be undone.

Three, a parliamentary trick is necessary to its final passage. Because Democrats no longer have 60 votes for the bill in the Senate, they have to pass their fixes under “reconciliation,” short-circuiting the normal amendment process…

Four, the bill has been sold under deliberately false pretenses. Pres. Barack Obama can’t admit the bill’s real purpose is to cover the uninsured no matter what the fiscal consequences. So he sounds like GOP budget hawk Paul Ryan when he talks about it. Obama insists that it will cut the deficit, bend the cost curve down, and reduce premiums, when it’s likely to do the opposite on all three counts.

Five, the bill is abidingly unpopular.   Snip –

Tom Daschle, warned Democrats long ago that bulldozing reform through on a narrow basis would make it liable to repeal. He cited the example of Australia, where reforms were passed, repealed, and passed again throughout the 1970s and 1980s. In the U.S., Obamacare-style insurance reforms were passed, then fully or partially overturned in Kentucky, New Hampshire, and Washington after those states suffered spiraling premiums and insurance-market meltdowns. 

Lowry says reversing any of this won’t be easy. Republicans will have to have 60 votes in the Senate and then Obama will veto the repeal. They do have some breathing room since the effective dates are several years down the road. Republicans might have to wait until a new Republican president is elected.

…Even if it passes, Obamacare won’t be a “gained cause,” but a source of unremitting, high-stakes contention.

Let’s hope it doesn’t get that far, but  we must fight on if it does. Read it all here:

Amendment to limit federal spending.

Republicans Jeb Hensarling and Mike Pence recently introduced a constitutional amendment to limit federal spending. This is a great step forward, and one many Americans could get behind. There are lots of ideas popping up to limit the power of this out of control government. Let’s spread this around. This is from an unsigned editorial in the Washington Times.

When government grows, prosperity shrinks. So does freedom. With those powerfully simple truths in mind, Rep. Jeb Hensarling, Texas Republican, and Rep. Mike Pence, chairman of the House Republican Conference, on March 3 introduced one of the most intriguing constitutional amendment proposals in years. Their Spending Limit Amendment merits great attention and with a few tweaks will deserve enthusiastic support.

Except in times of declared war or when two-thirds of each house of Congress decides otherwise, the amendment would limit “total annual outlays” of the federal government (except repayment of principle of the national debt) to “one-fifth of economic output” of the country. Mr. Pence and Mr. Hensarling, along with original co-sponsor Rep. John Campbell, California Republican, note that federal spending of 20 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) has been the historical average since World War II, and spending didn’t breach 23 percent in a single year for more than four decades. Under the current spending explosion, however, outlays have risen from exactly 20 percent to a near-astronomical 24.7 percent in just two years, with the trend line heading toward 40 percent over the next two decades.

By foisting mind-boggling amounts of debt onto generations yet unborn, this spending is so unsustainable as to be immoral. It’s also completely counterproductive in the short term. “You cannot have unlimited government and unlimited opportunity,” Mr. Hensarling said Thursday on a media conference call. He’s right. So was Mr. Pence when he repeatedly emphasized that limited government and minimal debt are essential elements to national security. That’s because domestic spending sprees crowd out available resources for security and because overspending often puts us in hock to foreign governments that buy our debt.

The writer says there is one thing that might need to be changed in the proposed amendment. You can read about what that might be here:

Read it all here:


Bookmark and Share


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: