Harry Reid’s Pipe DREAM
September 15, 2010 11:59 A.M.
By Mark Krikorian
Senator Reid announced yesterday that next week he’ll present the DREAM Act amnesty as an amendment to the defense spending bill. This is the bill that already includes the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” and allows elective abortions at military hospitals. Maybe you could use “support the troops” as a cudgel to get one of these things through; but to pack amnesty, gay rights, and abortion into a single defense bill and expect critics to be intimidated into voting for it strains credulity. I assume this is just a desperate attempt by him to motivate demoralized left-wing constituencies to help drag his sorry carcass over the finish line on November 2. But, as one writer observes, it is fodder for his opponent:
But Reid also sets a potential trap for himself, opening the door for Republican opponents — specifically Nevada challenger Sharron Angle — to emphasize his Washington insider habit of manipulating legislation so as to further his own political ambitions. “Harry Reid,” one can imagine the voice-over actor intoning, “would rather cater to interest groups than give our troops the support they need.”
And for those who say the DREAM Act would be a small amnesty, for just a handful of “kids,” the Migration Policy Institute, a pro-amnesty outfit, has estimated that 2.1 million illegal immigrants could benefit from it — not that much smaller than the 2.8 million who were legalized under the 1986 amnesty.
Showing posts with label Harry Reid. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Harry Reid. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Monday, January 11, 2010
Explaining Racist fool Sen. Harry Reid
In case you were confused as to why Obama & other Democrats are "supporting" and "forgiving" this idiot, This chart will explain all !
Monday, October 26, 2009
Health Care Debacle Update: The Undertaker Takes The Stage
The Undertaker is not a WWF wrestler.
The Undertaker is none other than Nevada Sen. Harry Reid (D), who is so inspiring that he reminds me of an undertaker from the movies.
T.U. showed up today with a "new plan"
The Public Option 'Opt-Out' [Stephen Spruiell]
It looks like the Democratic leadership is coverging around a "public option" government-run insurance plan. Reid et al hope to bring moderates on board by allowing states to opt out:
Mr. Reid spent the weekend shoring up support for the bill from Democrats in the chamber. But some key moderate Democrats signaled Sunday that they remain uneasy about main planks of the legislation. "I certainly am not excited about a public option where states would opt out," Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.) said on CNN's "State of the Union."
This would give states more power to dictate health choices to their residents. We should be moving in the opposite direction by creating a national marketplace for health insurance. (See Duncan Currie's piece today for more on that.) That's not to endorse the public option — far from it. It's just to say that a public option with an "opt out" for states might actually be worse than one that's available to everyone. At least the latter leaves the door open for a future reform allowing people to purchase health insurance across state lines.
The Opt-Out Cop Out [Michael G. Franc]
So, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his colleagues have agreed to include a still undefined government-run health plan in the newest Senate health-reform scheme. The big unanswered question is whether the public plan is "robust" enough to sway liberals. Maybe so, because Senate Democrats also felt it necessary to allow States that find this particular road to serfdom intolerable to "opt out."
What should we make of this latest development?
First, liberals in and out of the Senate prevailed.... for now. My guess is that this is just a temporary – but politically necessary - feint to the single-payer wing of the Democratic party. (“We love you guys; we need you; you are part of the family. And, believe us, we’ll do everything — everything! — in our power to achieve a “robust” public plan.”) But, once it becomes clear that the magical 60 votes are lacking, Reid and the president will explain to their base that it is time to move on. There’s plenty of time, they’ll say. We’ll come back for the rest later. Will it appease the leftist masses? Unclear.
Second, Maine Senator Olympia Snowe is back in the Republican fold. Left hanging out there in the ether is the murky and unworkable “trigger” proposal she favors, under which the government would not get to run a health plan of its own until various complex cost criteria are met. Thus, the next phase of health reform will be conducted on an entirely partisan basis. Until, that is, the hard Left is forced to admit defeat and agrees to move on to an alternative (but equally lethal) approach that could lure Snowe back.
Finally, don’t expect many states to successfully liberate their citizens from the government-run option. Though details are lacking, Reid noted that in order to opt out state legislatures (presumably in cooperation with the governor) would have “to act” before 2014. This suggests that a one-vote majority of obstructionists in one chamber of a state legislature, by refusing to act, can consign a state’s residents to an eternity of government-run health care. The deck will be stacked in favor of the default option — i.e., a government plan. Cass Sunstein and admirers of his "Nudge" theory of policymaking must be smiling.
Bear in mind that in 17 states Democrats control both houses of the legislature and the state house. Public plan, anyone? In another 24, Democrats control at least one legislative chamber or the governor’s mansion. Count those states as leaning strongly toward a public plan. That leaves a total of only 9 states where Republicans run the entire show — Texas, Utah, South Carolina, South Dakota, North Dakota, Missouri, Idaho, Florida, and Georgia.
Given the highly partisan nature of health reform, the 41 states with mixed or total Democratic control are unlikely to press the opt-out button. But, ironically, state legislative and gubernatorial elections between now and 2014 could very well become referendums on the merits of government-run health care.
Last observation: opting out does not result in some sort of a Milton Friedman-esque free market utopia. Residents in opt-out states will still have to grapple with all the other pitfalls of government-run health care — individual and (maybe) employer mandates, higher premiums, government designed health-benefit packages, etc.
------------
As for the Undertaker's sidekick, Blinky (aka Nancy Pelosi (D - CA) her big contribution today was to say let's not call it the Public Option anymore, let's call it the "Consumer Option" and maybe people won't know what the hell we are talking about.
The Undertaker is none other than Nevada Sen. Harry Reid (D), who is so inspiring that he reminds me of an undertaker from the movies.
T.U. showed up today with a "new plan"
The Public Option 'Opt-Out' [Stephen Spruiell]
It looks like the Democratic leadership is coverging around a "public option" government-run insurance plan. Reid et al hope to bring moderates on board by allowing states to opt out:
Mr. Reid spent the weekend shoring up support for the bill from Democrats in the chamber. But some key moderate Democrats signaled Sunday that they remain uneasy about main planks of the legislation. "I certainly am not excited about a public option where states would opt out," Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.) said on CNN's "State of the Union."
This would give states more power to dictate health choices to their residents. We should be moving in the opposite direction by creating a national marketplace for health insurance. (See Duncan Currie's piece today for more on that.) That's not to endorse the public option — far from it. It's just to say that a public option with an "opt out" for states might actually be worse than one that's available to everyone. At least the latter leaves the door open for a future reform allowing people to purchase health insurance across state lines.
The Opt-Out Cop Out [Michael G. Franc]
So, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his colleagues have agreed to include a still undefined government-run health plan in the newest Senate health-reform scheme. The big unanswered question is whether the public plan is "robust" enough to sway liberals. Maybe so, because Senate Democrats also felt it necessary to allow States that find this particular road to serfdom intolerable to "opt out."
What should we make of this latest development?
First, liberals in and out of the Senate prevailed.... for now. My guess is that this is just a temporary – but politically necessary - feint to the single-payer wing of the Democratic party. (“We love you guys; we need you; you are part of the family. And, believe us, we’ll do everything — everything! — in our power to achieve a “robust” public plan.”) But, once it becomes clear that the magical 60 votes are lacking, Reid and the president will explain to their base that it is time to move on. There’s plenty of time, they’ll say. We’ll come back for the rest later. Will it appease the leftist masses? Unclear.
Second, Maine Senator Olympia Snowe is back in the Republican fold. Left hanging out there in the ether is the murky and unworkable “trigger” proposal she favors, under which the government would not get to run a health plan of its own until various complex cost criteria are met. Thus, the next phase of health reform will be conducted on an entirely partisan basis. Until, that is, the hard Left is forced to admit defeat and agrees to move on to an alternative (but equally lethal) approach that could lure Snowe back.
Finally, don’t expect many states to successfully liberate their citizens from the government-run option. Though details are lacking, Reid noted that in order to opt out state legislatures (presumably in cooperation with the governor) would have “to act” before 2014. This suggests that a one-vote majority of obstructionists in one chamber of a state legislature, by refusing to act, can consign a state’s residents to an eternity of government-run health care. The deck will be stacked in favor of the default option — i.e., a government plan. Cass Sunstein and admirers of his "Nudge" theory of policymaking must be smiling.
Bear in mind that in 17 states Democrats control both houses of the legislature and the state house. Public plan, anyone? In another 24, Democrats control at least one legislative chamber or the governor’s mansion. Count those states as leaning strongly toward a public plan. That leaves a total of only 9 states where Republicans run the entire show — Texas, Utah, South Carolina, South Dakota, North Dakota, Missouri, Idaho, Florida, and Georgia.
Given the highly partisan nature of health reform, the 41 states with mixed or total Democratic control are unlikely to press the opt-out button. But, ironically, state legislative and gubernatorial elections between now and 2014 could very well become referendums on the merits of government-run health care.
Last observation: opting out does not result in some sort of a Milton Friedman-esque free market utopia. Residents in opt-out states will still have to grapple with all the other pitfalls of government-run health care — individual and (maybe) employer mandates, higher premiums, government designed health-benefit packages, etc.
------------
As for the Undertaker's sidekick, Blinky (aka Nancy Pelosi (D - CA) her big contribution today was to say let's not call it the Public Option anymore, let's call it the "Consumer Option" and maybe people won't know what the hell we are talking about.
Monday, May 11, 2009
I Laughed at Pelosi & Reid's expense:
NY Post sports pages today:
CBS TV Golf analyst David Feherety was forced to apologize for making a joke to make a point; one that nobody even heard that appeared in a local Dallas magazine.
Faherty has been to Iraq the past two Thanksgivings and he created a foundation to help woulnded soldiers.
This is what he said in the magazine:
"From my own experience visiting the troops in the Middle East I can tell you this … Despite how the conflict has been protrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any US soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there’s a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death".
I for one think his joke was pretty darn funny !
Feherety came under criticism and came out with a real and legit apology for insulting Pelosi and Reid. Not sure it was warranted, but I guess he needed to avoid a liberal boycott of CBS golf. Golf has enough problems with the Dems questioning corporate sponsorships of events as it is.
Contrast this episode to Wanda Sykes using a national TV platform following Obama to call Rush Limbaugh a traitor and wish that he die a horrible death from kidney failure. Did anyone ask Wanda to apologize ? Will she do so on her own. Don't hold your breath.
Just another media double standard example. And Feherty's joke was actually funny. Sykes just sounded petty and stupid (some of her earlier material was funny; the Limbaugh stuff was just crass).
CBS TV Golf analyst David Feherety was forced to apologize for making a joke to make a point; one that nobody even heard that appeared in a local Dallas magazine.
Faherty has been to Iraq the past two Thanksgivings and he created a foundation to help woulnded soldiers.
This is what he said in the magazine:
"From my own experience visiting the troops in the Middle East I can tell you this … Despite how the conflict has been protrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any US soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there’s a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death".
I for one think his joke was pretty darn funny !
Feherety came under criticism and came out with a real and legit apology for insulting Pelosi and Reid. Not sure it was warranted, but I guess he needed to avoid a liberal boycott of CBS golf. Golf has enough problems with the Dems questioning corporate sponsorships of events as it is.
Contrast this episode to Wanda Sykes using a national TV platform following Obama to call Rush Limbaugh a traitor and wish that he die a horrible death from kidney failure. Did anyone ask Wanda to apologize ? Will she do so on her own. Don't hold your breath.
Just another media double standard example. And Feherty's joke was actually funny. Sykes just sounded petty and stupid (some of her earlier material was funny; the Limbaugh stuff was just crass).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
