Massachusetts Administration Blames Mass Health Plan for Huge Budget Deficit - Previews of Coming Attractions

From the Springfield Republican: The State of Massachusetts, who's budget is overwhelmed by the rising cost of the Massachusetts Universal Health Care program, is another $295 Million in the red. The administration blames the increase in the number of low income residents using the program as part of the problem. The balance of the blame lays in the increase in needs for homeless shelters and a drop in fees collected by the state. With the rate of unemployment in the majority of Massachusetts at the national average or more (See the 4th District), the ability to collect taxes has had a real impact on the program.

This raises the question: with the Obama Health Care Program, and across the board taxes to take place immediately, how on earth are they going to pay for this when unemployment is at 10% nationwide, and there is no indication that the situation is going to ease anytime soon? As companies either close or layoff workers in order to avoid having to go bankrupt - (See manufacturer Caterpillar estimates cost at $100 millionChicago Tribune)with the new mandates, the situation will only worsen - increased unemployment with an increase in taxes.

It boggles the mind that any one group of individuals who are allegedly so bright have made such as mess of this great nation in so short a time.

Congress Suspends Rule – For Deem and Pass Measure – Health Care Reform without a Vote!

How the Evangelicals Helped to Elect Barack Obama

Yesterday, 222 Congressional Representatives, gave there “Yeas” to a resolution to suspend the rules under HR1190. This was sponsored by Massachusetts 3rd Congressional District’s Democrat James McGovern. vote tally here.
This resolution sets in motion the ability for the Speaker to move legislation through the Congress without one member taking a vote. It is known as the Slaughter Rule.

The Slaughter rule is defined as follows :(Benjamin Daniels.com)
“The Slaughter rule is only a simplifying mechanism that allows the House to pass its version of the bill using the reconciliation procedure without having to take a separate vote on the politically difficult Senate bill. In fact, Members will still be on the hook for voting for “health care reform” no matter which way you slice it: they’ll have voted on both the adoption of the Slaughter rule and on the fix bill, which constitute the whole thing.”

In other words, those Democrats who are up for re-election in 2010, would, in essence, be able to pass a bill without voting on it, thereby, saying to constituents: “I did not vote for the Health Care Reform Bill”. The problem with this scenario is that many American’s are paying attention, and understand that by voting to use the bill, in order to dodge having to take a vote on it, is basically the same as voting for this piece of legislation in the first place. To find out if your congressional representative is that type of coward a list of those voting Yea, is to be found at the end of this article.

In addition, one this particularly ill-crafted, patched together, piece of legislation is thrown at the American public (while still be written), all bets are off for the November election. Anyone with a “D” next to their name will be finding it difficult to impossible to retain their seats in November.

Perhaps ironic that the dodge tactic is entitled “The Slaughter Rule”, when it comes to the general election. The angst towards this particular piece of legislation is so high; there is no way that it won’t spill into the 2012 elections. In other words, the damage done to the Democrat brand will be so severe, that they may end up being a third party behind the new Tea Party by the time this is over.

This was predictable in April of 2008. At that time a group of evangelical leaders, including one James Dobson outlined the evangelical plan to bring down the Democrat Party in total - by allowing Barak Obama to become President. The premise: Once Obama and his merry men got their hands on the country, it would be destroyed and the people would be so fed up that they would, in turn, vote the entire bunch out of office. This group planned not to endorse one Republican in 2008, and by doing so, they used their influence on a huge block of voters to either stay home or vote for Obama. It was a set up of grand proportions and it appears to be working.

Although one would point this individual in the direction of a rubber room for suggesting that a handful of Evangelical Church leaders had the ability to outsmart Obama and his handler, David Axelrod, hold onto that straight jacket a second – It is suggested that one view the chilling video of Dobson with Sean Hannity, in which Dobson states his intentions quite clearly. (Available by searching YouTube, or this blog). Therefore, the allegedly intelligent Barak Obama (grades not produced), along with Axelrod (who tried the whole how to elect Obama out on Massachusetts with Deval Patrick, including using the same repetitive slogan of “yes we can”), we’re not the masterminds of electoral politics, but pawns in the broader scheme of things.

Can this health care reform bill (and the immigration reform and the cap and trade), be reversed? Absolutely, once the Congress is in the control of semi-sane men and women, who are not afraid to stand and vote, or not vote if the occasion arises. How hard it is to pull back legislation? Historically, not that difficult, as bad bills passed have been rescinded several times. The most recent rescission was Barak Obama’s rescission of a Bush Bill which did not allow global funding for abortion. The process: Write a new bill over-riding the old bill. This requires a presidential signature, and one must understand that Hades would freeze over before Obama saw a second term. Therefore, any bad bill (and we can expect a host of them) can be undone – it is not a quick fix, but a process is in place to correct mistakes made.

What must be a priority and a lesson to every single American eligible to vote, is that researching ones potential choice for Congress, Senate, or the Presidency, is imperative, before one pulls that lever – and that is regardless of political affiliation, although as previously stated, one might have more choices, rather than fewer, should this bill pass either by straight vote, or by no vote at all. Those choices will be: Republican’s, some form of the Tea Party and lastly, what’s left of the Democrat Party.

House members who voted to use the Slaughter Rule and leaning towards retirement if up for re-election (many of these are retiring) in 2010:
Altmire
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boccieri
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson (IN)
Castor (FL)
Chandler
Chu
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Connolly (VA)
Conyers
Costa
Courtney
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Edwards (MD)
Edwards (TX)
Ellison
Ellsworth
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Foster
Frank (MA)
Fudge
Garamendi
Gonzalez
Gordon (TN)
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Heinrich
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson Lee (TX)
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kilroy
Kind
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee (CA)
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Loebsack
Lowey
Luján
Lynch
Maffei
Maloney
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McMahon
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor (AZ)
Payne
Pelosi
Perlmutter
Peters
Peterson
Pingree (ME)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Quigley
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Space
Speier
Spratt
Sutton
Tanner
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Titus
Tonko
Towns
Tsongas
Van Hollen
Velázquez
Visclosky
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Yarmuth

From Gallup to Rasmussen - Obama Approval Plummets - Drags Party With Him - Analysis

Romney and Obama, writing on the wall for 2012

Rasmussen now has Obama’s approval rating at 44%, with disapproval at 55% of the population, while Gallop shows the President’s approval rating at 47%with 46% disapproval.

Although pundits have noted that the health care reform issue is built along partisan divides, it is apparent that given the aforementioned statistics, the numbers of identified Republicans and Democrat are insufficient to complete a poll; therefore, the administration has lost the independents, along with moderate Democrats.

The other problem the administration faces is the fact that those who would have followed blindly in the past are now paying attention to every facet of the news (media) regarding health care reform. From boomers to current retirees, the local news, Network nightly news, no longer is sufficient in order to keep them informed. The scope of attention paid to this particular bill by the “masses” (Socialist term for those thought to be too simple not to understand what’s going on), has increased to the point where should the President and like-minded Congress continue to ram legislation through that the majority of people are not keen on, then 2010 will be an historical election. The norm for mid-terms is that party in power (so to speak), will lose a number of House and Senate seats; it is the ebb and flow of the Congress that has been in force since the two major political parties solidified their hold on the American public.

Should this shenanigans (there is no other word for what is going on now), continue, then 2010 will be a bloodbath for the Democrats, no matter what procedural “tricks” of rule bending the Democrats try to pull in order to get the bill passed without actually voting on it in the House. That tactic is in place two reasons, one: they may or may not have the number of votes necessary to bring it to the floor in order to pass, and two: this will allow those members who would have voted for the Senate version of the bill (sight unseen mind you), to say “I didn’t actually vote for it”. That will not fly with the public. What will occur and is now occurring is a total collapse of the Democrat brand, whereby, the local dogcatcher would be better off changing political parties in order to retain his position.

American’s have the ability to paint one political party with the same brush – one need only look back at the Bush Administration to understand that the media driven frenzy against Bush and all “Republican’s” in general resulted in the losses in 2006 and 2008; other forces aiding in degrading the brand included the ever-present Progressive leadership at the nations universities, the power mad, no longer relevant unions, and a host of groups such as “Emily’s list” (pro-democrat/pro-abortion), drove public perception of the administration and anyone associated with the brand down to the point where it was a “crap shoot” (shades of Barney Frank) for any incumbent Republican electability during those two election cycles.

The Democrats saw both election cycles through rose colored glasses, however, believing that by merely attaining control, they were given a mandate to do what-ever they felt they could get away with. The old “middle class tax burden” was played to the hilt by Obama and any other Democrat campaigning, until the people (masses) bought it. Now, as in any other product that is deficient, the buyer’s remorse has set it, and in spades. The independent is not the only identified voter that has begun to jump ship. Moderate Democrats have been changing parties, from unaffiliated or Republican, on the local city levels, in of all places, Massachusetts; desperately trying to distance themselves from the “brand”.

The problem with this, as with any brand gone bad, is that returning buyer loyalty is a long tough road. The severity of the distaste for the party vis a vis Obama and key members of Congress, has reached a point where it may not be possible for a Democrat to win a seat, or retain a seat, within the next four to eight years. The problem arises when any party gains strength based on a bad brand, thereby having total control of the nation. One can be assured however, should the Republicans return to power (and that is a given as of this moment), then it will take a long time to unseat them, regardless of the media, and regardless of other sources – including unions, to sway or change voters’ minds. Once they have that power, it is hoped they will use it judiciously – first and foremost by immediately repealing the legislation on Health Care Reform, or more to the point, opting for reform that will truly make a difference (tore reform, allowing carriers to sell across state lines – and staying out of state business. A return to fiscal conservatism is what is needed, along with an appreciation for our nation, one which allows us to be “proud of our country”, somewhere along the line, a mandate should be passed regarding curriculum taught in all public schools to include civics from an early age.
In Massachusetts and states across the nation, individuals are looking at their government closely for the first time, and whoever holds the reigns will be reminded from now to eternity that those that attain as seat by election, did so by the people and for the people.

To those Democrats in Congress and the Senate, no matter how “blue” a state may appear, the simple fact is that retirement is the only option, if and only if, they do not begin to distance themselves and make it plane to the people they represent that they are either against or for unpopular policies such as the current brand of health care reform. These statements need to be made now and they need to be made public across their districts, that may save a seat, although one can hazard to guess it may also be too little too late.

To get a clear picture of how badly the brand is degrading, visit the election polls at Real Clear Politics. This particular Internet service combines all polls taken to produce an average. What makes this site the most unbiased is that it includes polls from organizations that are clearly partisan (both from a Conservative and Liberal standpoint). The designation of party in any particular poll is by color, the same red and blue (and grey for independents), that has become the norm identifier. Understand that these polls are based on internal party (primary) races as well; therefore, one is seeing some blue designations. However, most of the data is red.

Prediction: 2010 – both the House and the Senate are now in play.
Prediction: 2012- Obama will be challenged by a member of his own party, possibly Hillary Clinton, and may not make it out of the primary. However, regardless of who runs, the nod will go to a Republican. As of now, the front-runner appears to be Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts. Additional House and Senate Seats will so go to the Republicans.