Senate Democrats Just Wasted Days Passing a Bill That Violated Constitution, Have They Ever Read It Before?

The food safety bill that was passed in the Senate two days ago may be nixed by the House because, apparently, Harry Reid nor anyone else in the Senate has ever read the document that they swore to uphold:

A food safety bill that has burned up precious days of the Senate’s lame-duck session appears headed back to the chamber because Democrats violated a constitutional provision requiring that tax provisions originate in the House.

By pre-empting the House’s tax-writing authority, Senate Democrats appear to have touched off a power struggle with members of their own party in the House. The Senate passed the bill Tuesday, sending it to the House, but House Democrats are expected to use a procedure known as “blue slipping” to block the bill, according to House and Senate GOP aides.

The debacle could prove to be a major embarrassment for Senate Democrats, who sought Tuesday to make the relatively unknown bill a major political issue by sending out numerous news releases trumpeting its passage.

Section 107 of the bill includes a set of fees that are classified as revenue raisers, which are technically taxes under the Constitution. According to a House GOP leadership aide, that section has ruffled the feathers of Ways and Means Committee Democrats, who are expected to use the blue slip process to block completion of the bill.

So, all of that precious time that was devoted to this bill was all for naught. There is very little time in the lame-duck session, and Reid wasted it by overreaching his authority.

So, either the bill will be dropped entirely, or the House will pass their own version. If the House does pass another version, then, the Senate will have to debate the bill and vote AGAIN to be able to send it to the White House for Obama's signature.

I love Ed Morrissey's line regarding this: "Yesterday, Senate Democrats were crowing about this bill. Today, they’ll be eating crow."

Senate Democrats Refuse To A Waste Good Crisis: Move To Quintriple Offshore Oil Taxes

The BP oil spill in the Gulf has lead to a resurgence of anti-oil sentiments in the US. The "drill, baby, drill" chants have been completely forgotten by many people, after they saw helpless birds covered in oil on the news and in the papers over the last few weeks.

Now, this has been the pattern throughout our more recent history. When gas prices skyrocket, people want to drill until there is an accident. Then, people's desire for more oil will dwindle until gas prices go up, again.

We are currently in the swing away from drilling. A recent Rasmussen poll shows that support for offshore drilling has noticeably fallen, since the BP oil disaster.

The Democrats in the Senates have decided to take advantagetake advantage of the sudden shift in the public opinion on the subject:

Senate Democrats are moving to quintuple the tax that oil companies pay into an oil spill liability fund.

The move would raise $15 billion over the coming decade as Congress seeks to shore up the fund in the wake of the catastrophic spill in the Gulf of Mexico. But it's also being used to ease a tax hike passed by the House on investment fund managers.

The new legislation would raise the tax on oil produced offshore from 8 cents to 41 cents per barrel. That's nine cents higher than legislation that passed the House last month.

The tax changes are being made as the Senate again takes up grab-bag legislation extending unemployment benefits and a variety of expired tax breaks enjoyed by both individuals and businesses Senate Democrats are moving to quintuple the tax that oil companies pay into an oil spill liability fund.

The move would raise $15 billion over the coming decade as Congress seeks to shore up the fund in the wake of the catastrophic spill in the Gulf of Mexico. But it's also being used to ease a tax hike passed by the House on investment fund managers.

The new legislation would raise the tax on oil produced offshore from 8 cents to 41 cents per barrel. That's nine cents higher than legislation that passed the House last month.

The tax changes are being made as the Senate again takes up grab-bag legislation extending unemployment benefits and a variety of expired tax breaks enjoyed by both individuals and businesses

A rise in taxes in oil will ultimately cause gas prices to go up, again. This will further cripple the economy and prevent it from quickly recovering from this recession. If this is enacted, $4 gas may seem cheap compared to what is coming.

I'll concede that the massive cost for the Gulf clean-up should be shouldered by BP, but why should every other oil company and, ultimately every American, suffer for one company's incompetence. It's unrealistic to think that gas won't go up at all, as a result of the cost of the spill, but we don't have to make a bad situation even worse.

Bad Timing or Another Cornhusker Kickback for Ben Nelson's Support for Obamacare

There has been another questionable money transfer given to Nebraska power structure. This time was received by Nebraska Democratic Party from the Democratic National Party only four days after Sen. Nelson's "yes" vote for the Senate's healthcare reform bill:

ABC News' Jonathan Karl reports: The timing doesn't look good. Four days after Sen. Ben Nelson voted in favor of the Senate health care reform bill, the Democratic National Committee cut a $459,000 check to the Nebraska Democratic Party, which was promptly used to tout Nelson’s "courageous" vote. Three days later, the DNC sent the Nebraska party another $20,000.


The transfer is noted in the last FEC filings and was first noticed by the left-leaning Americablog, which says the payment looks like a "payoff": “I'm sure a lot of Democratic candidates running in 2010 would appreciate that kind of spending on their behalf, too. Nelson, however, isn't up for reelection until 2012, so why get the money now, only four days after Nelson voted for the weakened health care bill?”

The DNC says this was not a payoff; it was an effort to defend Nelson in the face of unrelenting attacks by critics of health care reform.

“We, the Democratic Party, were defending a Democratic senator from attacks from the health insurance industry and other special interests for his support of reform. Senator Nelson is not the first Democrat we have defended from these attacks and he will not be the last. We've spent money directly in support of House Democrats who have supported reform in the form of TV and radio ads and we've also worked with state parties to defend Democrats like Senators Nelson, Lincoln and Dorgan who have stood up to the insurance industry in support of reform,” said DNC spokesman Hari Sevugan.

The DNC gives money to every state's parties at one time or another. So, having the national party give a state's party money is not odd. It is the timing that makes this very suspicious. This didn't happen a month after the vote or 6 months, or even a year. It was four freaking days. The only thing that might make it seem unrelated is the fact that Nelson is not up for re-election until 2012. Still, the coincidental timing is too much to ignore.

Coakley Claims There's No More We Can Do in Afghanistan, Our Job There is Done or Something

The special election to replace the recently departed Sen. Ted Kennedy is set to take place in Massachusetts a week from today, January 19th. It has been a brief but intense battle in between Democrat Martha Coakley and Republican Scott Brown. Polls have it anywhere in between a Coakley blowout to a Brown 1-point victory. However, it's going to be very tough to turn the very liberal state purple. If the Republicans pull it off it'll break the Democrat's filibuster-proof majority, after holding it for only one year.

They had their final debate yesterday. Coakley, of course, played the "Bush Sucks" card that all Democrats have been using to garner support for the past three years.

Brown went after Coakley for being soft on terrorists, which is a normal talking point to hit Democrats with during campaigns. However, Coakley said something about the War on Terror that seemed to justify all of Brown's accusations:

Coakley, the state attorney general, said she disagreed with Obama's decision and believes there are better ways to fight terrorist organizations than sending troops into every country where they have a presence. She also said it's time to bring home the troops still in Afghanistan.

"This is not about sending troops everywhere where we think al-Qaida is," she said. "I think we have done what we can in Afghanistan."

She is, basically, wanting to waive the white flag in Afghanistan. This would be a disaster as the Taliban and Al-Quaeda would no doubt return more emboldened then ever. They would claim a victorty over their "Great Satan", the United States. There would be no stopping them as they would feel like they could get away with pulling off further attacks as America would eventually cave.

In contrast, Brown supported the troop surge in Afghanistan and spoke out against letting captured terrorists "lawyer up".

Healthcare reform bill was, also, debated as, predictably, Brown opposed and Coakley unequivocally supports the bill, but it was the Afghanistan issue that really brought out how liberal Martha Coakley really is.

PS: Here's a video that I thought was really telling of this point:

Sen. Ben Nelson Won't Vote Yes on Healthcare Bill With Government Option or Federal Funding of Abortions

Democratic support for the healthcare bill has sprung another leak. This time it is Senator Ben Nelson out of Nebraska:

In a warning sign for the White House, Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska tells ABC News that he'll vote to block any health care bill that looks like the bill passed by the House.

Why is he thumbing his nose at Harry Reid, Pelosi, and the millions that are uninsured?

"Well, first of all, it has more than a robust public option, it's got a totally government-run plan, the costs are extraordinary associated with it, it increases taxes in a way that will not pass in the Senate and I could go on and on and on," Nelson said in an interview that is part of ABC News' Subway Series with Jonathan Karl.

"Faced with a decision about whether or not to move a bill that is bad, I won't vote to move it," he added. "For sure."

The $1.1 trillion price tag on the House bill, Nelson said, is "absolutely" too high.

The $1.1 trillion quote is, actually, on the low side, but that is besides the point. This is just another trillion plus government boodoogle that will end up hurting more than it will help.

Consider the stimulus plan, Obama said that we must pass it, or we will reach 10% unemployment without it. He used fear to rush it through. Well, we passed it, and were still at 10% plus

There is one thing about the House bill, however, that Nelson does like: the strict ban on any abortion coverage by insurance plans bought with government subsidies. Unless the Senate bill includes a similar provision, Nelson said, he'll vote against it.

"Federal taxpayer money ought not to be used to fund abortions," Nelson said. "So whether it is subsidies on premiums or whether it is tax credits or whatever it is...it should not be used to fund abortions."

That's another dagger in the bill and NOW's heart.

In response to Bill Clinton's comments earlier, he said something that sounds a bit familiar:

"What I heard him say is that you don't have to let the desire for perfection get in the way of the good," Nelson said. "And that makes a great deal of sense. But I would add the caveat that we have to be sure it is not a bad bill, that it doesn't add to the deficit, that it doesn't increase taxes, and that does, in fact, control the growth in costs."

I think he read my post right before the interview. So, I'm taking all the credit for his Damascus moment.

With the Senate needing 60 votes to pass anything and all 40 Republicans against it at this time, Reid needs all 60 Democrats to pass it. He cannot afford one defection, but he has at least 3 (Lieberman, Landrieu, too) so far and at least three more (McCaskill, Lincoln, Bayh) that could commit to a no vote. This isn't good for Sen. Reid.

Even Senile Former KKK Kleagles Posing As US Senators Can't See Any Benefit From "Cap and Tax" Bill

West Virginia Democratic Senator Bobby Byrd has formally came out against the bill that would enact a huge tax on carbon emissions:

He is not yet back to work in the Senate chamber, but U.S. Den. Robert Byrd is opposing "cap and trade" legislation pushed by the Obama administration.

The 91-year-old Byrd, Dave., was released from an unidentified Washington, D.C. hospital last week after a month-long stay for a Stagg infection. He expects to return to the chamber before the Senate begins debate on "cap and trade" - which is tentatively set for this fall, according to Byrd's office.

"I cannot support the House bill in its present form," Byrd said in a statement. "I continue to believe that clean coal can be a 'green' energy. Those of us who understand coal's great potential in our quest for energy independence must continue to work diligently in shaping a climate bill that will ensure access to affordable energy for West Virginias. I remain bullish about the future of coal, and am so very proud of the miners who labor and toil in the coal fields of West Virginia."

This is not totally surprising. After all, West Virginia is heavily reliant on coal for their economy. If this bill is passed, it could devastate the state's economy. It could even very well throw the economy in such a tailspin that it'll cause a deep depression.

Sen. Byrd is doing the right thing in this instance for West Virginians. It would be a disaster for their economy in these already sluggish times.

Food Police Go After Sugary Drinks Including Coke, DP, Etc to Pay For Obama's Healthcare Plan

The first went after cigarettes. Now, they're going after other things that they deem bad for us so they have to tax out the wazoo. This time they're thinking about adding more taxes on the soft drink market in the middle of a recession to punish overweight people into eating better:

Senate leaders are considering new federal taxes on soda and other sugary drinks to help pay for an overhaul of the nation's health-care system.

The taxes would pay for only a fraction of the cost to expand health-insurance coverage to all Americans and would face strong opposition from the beverage industry. They also could spark a backlash from consumers who would have to pay several cents more for a soft drink.

This will further hurt the economy in a time that it needs help not hinderence.

Didn't they learn anything from Gov. David Patterson's attempt at a "fat tax"?

People don't want more taxes.

Senate Republicans Able to Fight Off Democrats Earmark Overspending For Now

Senate bogs down over $410 billion spending bill
By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – The Senate, tied up in a fight over a huge omnibus appropriations bill, will have to pass a stopgap spending measure Friday in order to avoid a partial government shutdown.

The Senate worked late on Thursday trying to pass the $410 billion appropriations bill, which was denounced by Republicans — and a handful of Democrats — who said it was bloated and filled with wasteful, pork-barrel spending projects. Democratic leaders were forced to postpone a final vote on the measure until Monday under pressure from GOP senators who complained that Democrats hadn't allowed them enough opportunities to offer amendments.

With the vote postponed, senators need to pass a stopgap spending measure by midnight Friday to prevent a shutdown of most domestic agencies. Midnight is when a temporary law that keeps the government in business, mostly at 2008 levels, expires.

Before canceling the vote, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he was one vote short of the 60 needed to close debate and free the bill for President Barack Obama's signature.

Democrats and their allies control 58 seats, though at least a handful of Democrats oppose the measure over its cost or changes in U.S. policy toward Cuba. That meant Democrats needed five or six Republican votes to advance the bill.

None of the GOP's amendments is expected to pass, but votes on perhaps a dozen are now set for Monday night, Reid said.

The huge, 1,132-page spending bill awards big increases to domestic programs and is stuffed with pet projects sought by lawmakers in both parties. The measure has an extraordinary reach, wrapping together nine spending bills to fund the annual operating budgets of every Cabinet department except for Defense, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs.

The measure was written mostly over the course of last year, before projected deficits quadrupled and Obama's economic recovery bill left many of the same spending accounts swimming in cash.

And, to the embarrassment of Obama — who promised during last year's campaign to force Congress to curb its pork-barrel ways — the bill contains 7,991 pet projects totaling $5.5 billion, according to calculations by the GOP staff of the House Appropriations Committee.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., Obama's opponent in the presidential campaign, called the measure "a swollen, wasteful, egregious example of out-of-control spending" and again criticized Obama for pledging to sign the measure despite his earlier promises on such spending.

"It doesn't sound like he's willing to use his veto pen to back up his vow," McCain said.

The pet projects — called earmarks — run the gamut. They include $190,000 for the Buffalo Bill Historical Center in Cody, Wyo., $238,000 to fund a deep-sea voyaging program for native Hawaiian youth, agricultural research projects, and grants to local police departments, among many others.

While earmarks have come under attack from conservative watchdog groups and cable television commentators, lawmakers in both parties seek them, arguing that they best know the needs of their states and home districts. Under a long-standing tradition, Republicans get about 40 percent of them since they are the minority party.

Several lawmakers took to the floor during the week to defend their projects, including Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who backed $1.7 million for pig odor research. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., promised $3.8 million to preserve and redevelop part of old Tiger Stadium to help revitalize a distressed area of Detroit.

By a 52-42 vote Thursday, Democrats cleared the way for the Obama administration to reverse a rule issued late in the Bush administration that says greenhouse gases may not be restricted in an effort to protect polar bears from global warming. Another Bush administration rule that reduced the input of federal scientists in endangered species decisions can also be quickly overturned without a lengthy rulemaking process.

The big increases — among them a 21 percent boost for a popular program that feeds infants and poor women and a 10 percent increase for housing vouchers for the poor — represent a clear win for Democrats who spent most of the past decade battling with President George W. Bush over money for domestic programs.

Generous above-inflation increases are spread throughout, including a $2.4 billion, 13 percent increase for the Agriculture Department and a 10 percent increase for the money-losing Amtrak passenger rail system.

Congress also awarded itself a 10 percent increase in its own budget, bringing it to $4.4 billion. But the House inserted a provision denying lawmakers the automatic cost-of-living pay increase they are due next Jan. 1.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/congress_spending;_ylt=AuxCYhBd9d.H7NY1HnHDXWas0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTJicjJic2xjBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwMzA2L2NvbmdyZXNzX3NwZW5kaW5nBHBvcwM3BHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA3NlbmF0ZXJlcHVibA--
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

The Senate GOP had small victory last night when they were able to stop Harry Reid from cramming another pork-filled spending orgy down the country's throat, at least for now.

They are going to try to cut some of the spending down, but it'll be a tough fight to say the least. They must keep the turncoat caucus (Specter, Snowe, and Collins) from being defecting and try to get some of the blue dog Democrats to say no to pork.

This is a battle that is very important for the Republican leadership to win.

One More Step Toward Socialism

Stimulus bill narrowly survives Senate test vote

By DAVID ESPO
AP Special Correspondent

Obama Calls for Swift Action on Economy

WASHINGTON (AP) -- An $838 billion economic stimulus bill backed by the White House survived a key test vote in the Senate on Monday despite strong Republican opposition, and Democratic leaders vowed to deliver legislation for President Barack Obama's signature within a few days.

The vote was 61-36, one more than the 60 needed to advance the measure toward Senate passage on Tuesday. That in turn, will set the stage for possibly contentious negotiations with the House on a final compromise on legislation the president says is desperately needed to tackle the worst economic crisis in more than a generation.

The Senate vote occurred as the Obama administration moved ahead on another key component of its economic recovery plan. Officials said Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner would outline rules on Tuesday for $350 billion in bailout funds designed to help the financial industry as well as homeowners facing foreclosure.

Monday's vote was close but scarcely in doubt once the White House and Democratic leaders agreed to trim about $100 billion on Friday.

As a result, Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania broke ranks to cast their votes to advance the bill.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., battling a brain tumor, made his first appearance in the Capitol since suffering a seizure on Inauguration Day, and he joined all other Democrats in support of the measure.

"There is no reason we can't do this by the end of the week," said Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. He said he was prepared to hold the Senate in session into the Presidents Day weekend if necessary, and cautioned Republicans not to try and delay final progress.

He said passage would mark "the first step on the long road to recovery."

Moments before the vote, the Congressional Budget Office issued a new estimate that put the cost at $838 billion, an increase from the $827 billion figure from last week. Ironically, the agency said provisions in the bill intended to limit bonuses to executives at firms receiving federal bailout money would result in lower tax revenues for the government.

"This bill has the votes to pass. We know that," conceded Sen. John Thune, a South Dakota Republican who has spoken daily in the Senate against the legislation.

As if to underscore its prospects for passage, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a prominent and powerful business group, issued a statement calling on the Senate to advance the measure.

Even so, in the hours before Monday's vote, Republican opponents attacked it as too costly and unlikely to have the desired effect on the economy. "This is a spending bill, not a stimulus bill," said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.

Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., ridiculed the bill. "The emperor has no clothes! Somebody has to say it. I'm referring to this additional bailout, this spending bill that spends everything we've got on nothing we are sure about."

All 36 votes in opposition were cast by Republicans.

The two remaining versions of the legislation are relatively close in size - $838 billion in the Senate and $819 billion in the House, and are similar in many respects.

Both include Obama's call for a tax cut for lower-income wage earners, as well as billions for unemployment benefits, food stamps, health care and other programs to help victims of the worst recession in decades. In a bow to the administration, they also include billions for development of new information technology for the health industry, and billions more to lay the groundwork for a new environmentally friendly industry that would help reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil.

At the same time, the differences are considerable.

The measure nearing approval in the Senate calls for more tax cuts and less spending than the House bill, largely because it includes a $70 billion provision to protect middle-class taxpayers from falling victim to the alternative minimum tax, which was intended to make sure the very wealthy don't avoid paying taxes.

Both houses provide for tax breaks for home buyers, but the Senate's provision is far more generous. The Senate bill also gives a tax break to purchasers of new cars.

Both houses provide $87 billion in additional funds for the Medicaid program, which provides health care to the low income. But the House and Senate differ on the formula to be used in distributing the money, a dispute that pits states against one another rather than Republicans against Democrats.

There are dozens of differences on spending.

The Senate proposed $450 million for NASA for exploration, for example, $50 million less than the House. It also eliminated the House's call for money to combat a potential flu pandemic.

On the other hand, the Senate bill calls for several billion more in spending for research at the National Institutes of Health, the result of an amendment backed last week by Specter.

---

Associated Press Writer Andrew Taylor contributed to this story.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CONGRESS_STIMULUS?SITE=OHLIM&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts
Tell your grandkids to hold their wallets close.