They are whipping up the simple people and the politically disengaged people to think that Obama and the Congress will take away or at the least weaken Medicare when they are putting together Health Care Reform.
But, like me, I bet you didn't know that as recently as this past April the GOP in the House tried to weaken Medicare by allowing private insurance companies to take it over. It was part of the GOP Health Care Reform bill they proposed.
House, Senate budget plans boost Obama agenda but expose vulnerabilities
At the same time, the debate also exposed
political weaknesses in his House GOP rivals.
Republicans in the House had even more
defections on their alternative budget, losing
37 of the chamber's more moderate members
in a 293-137 tally that rejected cuts to
Medicare and the Medicaid health care
program for the poor and disabled.
What is more, GOP leaders are clearly
nervous that votes in favor of the GOP
alternative have exposed their members to
political danger.
The plan, drafted by Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, top Republican on the House Budget Committee, called for eventually replacing the traditional Medicare program with subsidies to help retirees enroll in private health care plans. Current beneficiaries would keep their coverage and those 55 and older also would go into the current system.
Critics of the plan said the Medicare subsidies would inevitably not keep pace with inflation and that people in poor health might end up uninsured, while many needy people on Medicaid could lose coverage.
But did Republicans vote to "end," "abolish," and "kill" Medicare? It's provocative, but it's a supportable claim. In April, 137 Republicans voted in support of a GOP alternative budget. It didn't generate a lot of attention, but the plan, drafted by the House Budget Committee's Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) called for "replacing the traditional Medicare program with subsidies to help retirees enroll in private health care plans."
The AP noted at the time that Republican leaders were "clearly nervous that votes in favor of the GOP alternative have exposed their members to political danger."
So as much as the GOP say they won't touch Medicare, they already tried to. So far it was a dirty secret that the Media hasn't put out there. But I'm passing this along and hope that others will too. Hypocrisy, they name is GOP!
The more Republicans press Dems on Medicare, the more we're likely to hear about the fact that a majority of the House Republican Caucus voted this year to kill Medicare as we know it, privatizing it out of existence.
House Republican Whip Eric Cantor charged on Thursday that too much of the burden of bankrolling a new health care system would fall on small businesses at a time when job creation is virtually nonexistent.
At the same time, the Virginia Republican said he doubts that a version of the plan in the House can win passage before members of Congress leave for their August recess. "If they're going to get this passed next week, it's going to have to be a changed bill," he said.
Rep. Eric Cantor was on c-span this AM touting his and the GOP stance on this. Will it work? Will the Blue Dogs hold up the bill helping the GOP postpone the bill until after the August Recess?
The article goes on to quote David Axelrod:
Senior White House adviser David Axelrod reiterated President Barack Obama's plea for lawmakers to act now.
"The bottom line here is right now health care premiums have doubled over the last decade. Out-of-pocket costs up by a third," he said. "Health care costs are growing three times the rate of wages."
"It's an unsustainable path," Axelrod added, "and the government is being crunched by it, businesses are being crushed by it. We have to respond."
And the moderates (Blue Dogs) are holding up the works:
In the House, Democratic leaders struggled to win over rebellious moderates and conservative rank-and-file party members who are demanding changes to the bill. The dispute has forced Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., to postpone work on the legislation for three straight days while he negotiates.
Waxman's committee is the last of three panels trying to finish the legislation. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Wednesday she has the votes to pass a bill in the House, which is scheduled to break for its monthlong recess at the end of next week. However, the Speaker hasn't scheduled a vote.
So what is the solution? We need to get at least one Bill passed before the break. It would be good if it were the House bill.
FireDogLake is circulating a petition. Here's their email about it and a link to sign the petition:
Great news - in just one day, more than 17,000 people signed our petition to tell the House to not go on vacation until it passes health care reform. Thank you for your support!
Can we make it to 25,000 by tomorrow? Forward this email to your friends and ask them to sign our petition
.
Tomorrow we'll deliver your signature to the Representatives who'd rather go on vacation than pass health care reform - and we'll show you what happens afterward.
Thanks for your help,
We have to get moving on this or, as Obama said, we will lose the opportunity "The Stars are aligned".
Described as a Church or Christian Fellowship House, this place on "C Street" in Washington D.C. also serves as a residence for numerous members of Congress. The members of this organization tagged as "The Family" regard it as Refuge; a place to be able to, be their self, and get relief from the aggressive agendas of Washington, D.C. Evidently having been in existence for quite some time, outside of public knowledge, Secrecy seems to be a critical component of this organization. Strangely, it is also rumored that the Members believe that they are "Chosen Ones" appointed by God to see over the rest of us peons or "less than", people of the United States and maybe even the entire world.
Several extra-marital affairs of Congressional leaders, that have recently made the news, were reportedly disclosed to the members of The Family, long before becoming public knowledge. The way that they handled the cover-up and the disclosure of their inequities, was with counsel from The Family. This in itself brings question to what the philosophy and general beliefs of this "Covert" Klan may be. Some with knowledge of the inner workings of The Family declare that it is structured like a "Mafia". This meaning that loyalty to The Family comes before job, career or even blood family, and that the members are bound by oaths of Secrecy. It also implicates, for lack of better words, that this could be considered a pseudo-religious "Cult", mostly consisting of the wealthy, public figures, and government officials.
snip
This seems to be the realization of the greatest fears of some. By and large, as best we know at this time, these "Family" members are largely followers of the far-right faction of the Republican Party and their political agenda. As knowledge of this organization becomes public, its very existence is a rather troubling story. Just how off track with our Democracy is this group? How many elected officials are parts of this "cult"? To what extent is the Secrecy Oath binding? Would they hide a crime committed by a member? Is there an agenda in regard to the future of our country? How much influence on our governing has this group already had? Who, by name, are its members? I expect that the cat may be out of the bag and we will be finding out a lot about them in the future. I have just ordered the book by Jeff from Amazon.com, where you also can find it at a very modest price. Maybe we all need to know what's up with The Family and the secretive "C Street" complex.
A Mafia type cult? And these are some of our representatives in Congress?
And there is a female group as well that you can read about at Roll Call.
The movement was founded in Seattle in 1935 by Abraham Vereide, a Norwegian immigrant and traveling preacher who had been working with the city's poor. He opposed President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal and was worried that socialist politicians were about to take over Seattle's municipal government.[3][5] Prominent members of Seattle's business community recognized his success with those who were "down and out" and asked him to give spiritual direction to their group who were "up and out." He organized prayer breakfasts for politicians and businessmen that included anti-Communism and anti-union discussions. Vereide was subsequently invited to set up similar meetings among political and business leaders in San Francisco and Chicago.
By 1942, the organization had moved headquarters to Washington, D.C., where it helped create breakfast groups in the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives. In 1944, the organization's name was changed to International Christian Leadership, then in 1972, to The Fellowship Foundation. It was at this time that the group's leaders decided to lower the Fellowship's public profile by decentralizing its leadership. snip
The movement in the U.S. is incorporated in the United States as a tax-free 501(c)(3) organization operating under the name The Fellowship Foundation. While they conduct no fundraising operations, they reported revenues of more than $12 million in 2003 from donations. Its mission statement is:
To develop and maintain an informal association of people banded together, to go out as "ambassadors of reconciliation," modeling the principles of Jesus, based on loving God and loving others. To work with the leaders of other nations, and as their hearts are touched, the poor, the oppressed, the widows and the youth of their country will be impacted in a positive manner. It is said that youth groups will be developed under the thoughts of Jesus, including loving others as you want to be loved.
Their primary activity is to develop small support groups for members of Congress, businesspersons, and anyone else who is interested in the teachings of Jesus. Prayer groups have met in the Pentagon and at the Department of Defense.[
And the participants are many government officials:
A large number of members of the United States Senate and Congress, mostly Republicans, are resident or non-resident members of the Family or are associated with it. Boarders at the Family's house on C Street currently include Senators Tom Coburn, R-Okla., John Ensign, R-Nev., Don Nickles, R-OK, Jim DeMint, R-S.C., and Sam Brownback, R-Kan. and Representatives Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., Bart Stupak, D-Mich., Joseph Pitts, R-Pa, Heath Shuler, D-N.C., and Mike Doyle, D-Pa.[8][9][10]
The group's leader, Doug Coe, has been a spiritual mentor for Hillary Clinton.[11][12] When asked about Doug Coe’s influence on Hillary Clinton, however, people close to her told NBC News in 2008 that she does not consider him one of her leading spiritual advisors and that Senator Clinton has never contributed to Coe’s group, is not a member of The Fellowship, had never heard of any of the controversial sermons obtained by NBC News, and does not consider Doug Coe to be her minister.[13]
Doug Coe's son, David Coe, also works for the organization and is considered the presumptive heir. David Coe has suggested that members of The Family "are here to learn how to rule the world."[6]
The Fellowship also has ties to "The Falls Church," whose members include Fred Barnes, executive editor of the Weekly Standard magazine, and Michael Gerson, former chief speechwriter for President George W. Bush and a Washington Post columnist. Falls Church Anglican split from the Episcopal Church in December 2006. The Prime Minister of Australia was hosted at the C Street Center in 2009.
When you read all this, with all the connections, it is very scary. That this "Family presumes to want to take over our government and how far back it goes. Cult? Why do I think of the Da Vinci Code?
GOP Reps. Ed Royce (Calif.) and Jeb Hensarling (Texas) plan to offer a barrage of amendments and rhetorical broadsides as the Financial Services Committee on Thursday begins marking up a bill to overhaul the rules governing the financial sector and create a powerful new regulator, the Consumer Financial Protection Agency.
They stand little chance of defeating the legislation in committee — Democrats hold a double-digit advantage in seats on the Financial Services panel. But the conservative lawmakers will try to scale back the bill’s reach and use the markup as a forum for making their case for free markets and limited government oversight.
snip
But Hensarling and Royce, who came to Congress a decade apart and represent different regions, share a common philosophy on limiting the role of government that will underlie GOP opposition to the bill.
Hensarling, a protégé of former Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas), is among the the most outspoken conservatives in the House.
He frequently offers amendments on the House floor to cut federal spending and scale back federal programs. As a former leader of the Republican Study Committee, Hensarling, whose districts includes parts of Dallas and its suburbs, managed the failed bid of Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) to oust Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) in 2007.
snip
Hensarling said: “The left seems to believe that if only we will empower some sort of ruling, enlightened elite, that only then can consumers hope for fairness and justice. We believe that the best form of consumer protection comes from competitive markets — competitive markets that are vigorously policed for abuse and fraud.”
Hensarling’s views often provoke eye rolls from Democrats. But his relentless ideology has earned him the top Republican spot on the Financial Service Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit. He’s also popular with the wealthy financial services industry, which could be a key source of campaign funds if he ever opts to run for the Senate, as some expect.
The big give away is that Hensarling is a protege of Phil Gramm. The person we have to thank for no oversight in the Financials and the collapse of our economy. And competition did so well with Consumer Protection, didn't it!
And who better to determine this? William F. Buckley. He writes in the National Review "The Waning of the GOP".
The political problem of the Bush administration is grave, possibly beyond the point of rescue. The opinion polls are savagely decisive on the Iraq question. About 60 percent of Americans wish the war ended — wish at least a timetable for orderly withdrawal. What is going on in Congress is in the nature of accompaniment. The vote in Congress is simply another salient in the war against war in Iraq. Republican forces, with a couple of exceptions, held fast against the Democrats’ attempt to force Bush out of Iraq even if it required fiddling with the Constitution. President Bush will of course veto the bill, but its impact is critically important in the consolidation of public opinion. It can now accurately be said that the legislature, which writes the people’s laws, opposes the war.
snip
But beyond affirming executive supremacy in matters of war, what is George Bush going to do? It is simply untrue that we are making decisive progress in Iraq. The indicators rise and fall from day to day, week to week, month to month. In South Vietnam there was an organized enemy. There is clearly organization in the strikes by the terrorists against our forces and against the civil government in Iraq, but whereas in Vietnam we had Hanoi as the operative headquarters of the enemy, we have no equivalent of that in Iraq, and that is a matter of paralyzing importance. All those bombings, explosions, assassinations: we are driven to believe that they are, so to speak, spontaneous.
So Buckley sees that the Iraq war is not going well. Mr. Buckley, please talk to the president!
