If you don’t find this hilarious, please write and tell me why.

Tangentially related would be this explanation of why I do not exist.

Reminds me I need to link to Mike more. Preston and the gang, too.

Not that the Democrats care about original intent, but Byrd says that reconciliation was never meant to be used to ram through a bill of this sort.

Nurse cashiered and “debadged” for supplemental therapy sessions:

SHAMED Macmillan nurse Sara Dale cared for cancer-stricken wives – then bedded their husbands after they died.

The attractive divorcee, 39, has been fired by hospital bosses over allegations she had THREE such romances.

And she has been “debadged” by the Macmillan cancer support charity.

Dale, who worked as a community Macmillan nurse for nearly 13 years, met the men through her job at Queen Elizabeth NHS Hospital in King’s Lynn, Norfolk.

Their terminally-ill wives were being treated there.

And following their deaths, she embarked on relationships with the grieving widowers.

As sex among the elderly (particularly men) appears tied to longevity, obviously some provision must be made in any truly comprehensive health care reform. Or not, as per meep’s analysis below.

Underneath the fold: Kyl and Cantor’s memo assessing reconciliation strategy, in case you don’t care to grab the pdf.

TO: Interested Parties
FR: Senate Republican Whip Jon Kyl and House Republican Whip Eric Cantor
DT: March 10, 2010
RE: Will the Democrats’ “Go It Alone” Approach to Health Care Work?

Recently, President Obama endorsed using a partisan reconciliation process to override the
objections of the American people and ram through Congress a government take-over of
America’s health care system:

“President Obama on Wednesday endorsed the controversial tactic known as
reconciliation…” (The Washington Post, 3/3/10)

If all goes according to the Democrats’ plan, the House will pass the Senate’s health care
overhaul and it will be signed into law, with its “kickbacks,” “back-room deals,” and the Senate
version of the “Cadillac” tax increase. House Democrats then hope to “fix” some—but not all—
of the problems with a fast-track reconciliation bill. The Senate would take up the House-passed
reconciliation bill, pass it, and send it to the president for his signature. Finally, a series of fixes
outside of reconciliation might move through both the House and Senate later.

If this sounds messy and a bit like a high-wire act, it should. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin
said:

“If we go the reconciliation route, we will be testing some reconciliation rules and
provisions that have never been tested before.” (Politico, 3/3/10)

But let’s be clear: House Democrats must pass the Senate’s health care overhaul before the
Senate will even consider “fixing” it. And, while it seems like Senate Majority Leader Harry
Reid intends to take up the reconciliation package, it is far from certain that he can get it
through the Senate without any changes whatsoever.

That could put nervous House Democrats in a position of being “BTU’ed,” which is
Washington-speak for a scenario where House members vote on an unpopular issue that the
Senate refuses to take up, resulting in a significant loss of House seats in the following election.

House Democrat leaders have confirmed they are nervous about the Senate’s lack of certainty:

“Members want some assurance that those items they have problems with are, in fact,
modified before they vote for the Senate bill. I don’t know that it’s impossible, but it’s
difficult.” (House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Politico, 3/2/10)

“House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said last month that the House did not
trust the Senate’s ability to act.” (The Hill, 2/28/10)

BEFORE HOUSE DEMOCRATS VOTE ON THE SENATE’S UNPOPULAR HEALTH
CARE OVERHAUL, HERE ARE SOME IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS:

1) House Democrats Must First Approve The Controversial Senate Bill

House Democrats may find comfort in focusing on a reconciliation bill that amends a small
number of provisions in the Senate’s health care bill, but that ignores two important points.
First, the base bill, which will not change in reconciliation, is highly unpopular with the
American people. Second, House Democrats must vote to approve the entire Senate bill, warts
and all, before some of the objectionable provisions can be removed by the reconciliation bill.
Here’s what House Democrats will be voting for if they vote for the Senate bill:

Increased health spending (according to CMS, bends cost curve up, not down)
Nearly $500 billion in Medicare cuts
Over $500 billion in tax increases
Health insurance premium hikes
$1 trillion bill that relies on double counting and gimmicks
Cornhusker Kickback
Louisiana Purchase
Carve-outs for Florida seniors only
Tax on health care plans (JCT says will lead to increased health care costs for consumers)
Targeted tax on small construction firms suffering from record employment losses

2) The Senate Provides No Certainty

It is not uncommon for the House to vote for a bill, only to see the legislation languish in the
Senate. That concern is magnified when such legislation is so unpopular with the American
public. Recently, House Democrats voted for a controversial scheme called Cap and Trade. To
this date, the Senate has not taken up the House’s Cap and Trade proposal. In fact, Senator John
Kerry (D-MA) has declared it all but dead.

House Democrats must trust the Senate to complete the reconciliation two-step. Many don’t:

“So they’re going to say, ‘Okay, vote for this bill, because it would do X,’ but under
reconciliation, X may not make it past the parliamentarian’s gate… We’re not sure what’s
in it [and] we don’t know whether it’ll pass the Senate anyway.” (Congressman Brian
Baird (D-WA), Salon, 3/3/10)

Let’s break down the problems Democrats will face with reconciliation:

A. Reconciliation Cannot Be Used to Make Policy Changes:

Provisions included in reconciliation must deal directly and primarily with spending and
revenue. Provisions that have no budgetary impact or that have a budgetary impact that is
merely incidental to the policy goal of the provisions (a determination which is made by the
Senate Parliamentarian — see below for further discussion) are subject to the “Byrd Rule”
and, as such, a point of order. Overcoming the Byrd Rule point of order requires 60 votes.

According to the former Senate Parliamentarian:

“Part of the Byrd Rule is that if something is in there, not for its budgetary effect, but for its
policy effect, that invokes something called the incidental test and it can be thrown out.”
(Former Senate Parliamentarian Robert Dove, MSNBC, 3/1/10)

This means that Democrats probably cannot use the reconciliation bill to make changes to
abortion and immigration provisions, or to include the President’s new insurance
regulation proposal. At face value, these would appear to violate the Byrd Rule.

It also means that provisions that were added to the original House bill to gain the support of
certain lawmakers cannot be included in reconciliation. For example, Rep. Dennis Cardoza
(D-CA) publicly stated that he voted for the House bill only after adding a provision
authorizing a new program to benefit medical centers in his district. That provision, which is
not in the Senate bill, would appear to be subject to the Byrd Rule point of order.

Even the president’s proposal to hold the Social Security trust fund harmless from the impact
of his proposed changes may run afoul of the requirement that reconciliation cannot make
any changes to the Social Security program.

B. Reconciliation Contains Several Complicated Deficit Tests:

The reconciliation bill must reduce the deficit over the next five years, and it must not
increase the deficit over ten years (2010 to 2019) or increase the deficit by more than $5
billion in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods (2020-2029, 2030-2039, 2040-2049, or
2050-2059).

Why is this important? The president has proposed increased spending, scaling back the
“Cadillac” tax, and imposing higher Medicare taxes to cover the difference. But because
revenue from the “Cadillac” tax was projected to grow much more quickly than revenue from
the Medicare tax will grow1, additional taxes may be needed—even beyond what is being
suggested in the press. How can the American economy, and small businesses in particular,
begin to create jobs if even more taxes are imposed?

C. Chances Are Good That The House Will Have To Vote On The Reconciliation Bill Twice:

While many are speculating as to what provisions the Senate Parliamentarian will determine
violate the Byrd Rule, it is only speculation. In the past, the Senate Parliamentarian has
refrained from giving a definitive ruling on items that may violate the Byrd Rule until the bill
is on the Senate floor. If the point of order is sustained and not waived by 60 senators, then
the provision is stripped from the bill and the remainder of the bill is sent back to the House.

Consider, for example, the last time Congress considered a controversial bill under
reconciliation, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. The House passed a conference report on

1
Revenues from the Cadillac tax are expected to grow by 10 to 15% a year in the second decade, according to CBO,
whereas revenues from the Medicare tax would only grow at about 5% a year. In addition, the health care subsidies that
the president proposes to expand would grow by approximately 8% thereby out pacing the 5% tax increase.
the bill that it believed would survive all Byrd Rule points of order. The Senate ultimately
sustained three points of order (one relating to cost sharing for emergency room care). The
House then had to revote on the bill minus the three provisions.

3) Less Senate Support Puts House Democrats in Difficult Position and Could Mean
Senators Will Support Amendments to the Reconciliation Bill

A. With 59 Senate Democrats and Independents, up to nine Democratic Senators can vote
against the bill on passage or on any given amendment (with Vice President Biden breaking
any ties). But at one time or another, as many as twelve Senate Democrats have expressed
concerns about using reconciliation to facilitate enacting a health care overhaul.

Those twelve Senate Democrats represent nine states. At a minimum, the Senators who vote
NO on final passage of reconciliation will be putting House Democrats from their states who
may have already voted YES in a difficult position, given how extremely unpopular the
health care overhaul is with the American public. These House Democrats could be
particularly affected by that dynamic:

Congressman Marion Berry (AR)
Congressman Rick Boucher (VA)
Congressman Russ Carnahan (MO)
Congressman Gerry Connolly (VA)
Congressman Joe Donnelly (IN)
Congressman Brad Ellsworth (IN)
Congressman Baron Hill (IN)
Congressman Steve Kagen (WI)
Congressman Charlie Melancon (LA)
Congressman Alan Mollohan (WV)
Congressman Glenn Nye (VA)
Congressman Tom Perriello (VA)
Congressman Nick Rahall (WV)
Congressman Mike Ross (AR)
Congressman Ike Skelton (MO)
Congressman Vic Snyder (AR)

B. In the Senate, it may take just 51 votes to pass reconciliation, but it also only takes 51 votes
to adopt germane amendments.

The germaneness test for amendments to a reconciliation bill in the Senate could be fairly
broad (possibly as broad as the jurisdiction of the Finance and HELP committees);
meaning popular amendments might garner 51 votes.
Also, the amending process in the Senate can be fairly chaotic. Once debate time has
concluded the amending process continues with votes being held in rapid succession (so-
called “vote-a-rama” or “vote-a-thon”). This is the time when discipline could break
down and amendments could be adopted, which would send the bill back to the House.

4) A Second “Clean-up” Bill Is Highly Unlikely

There is some speculation that the provisions of the Senate bill that could not be fixed using
reconciliation might be fixed in a separate bill that would not have reconciliation protection.
This is highly unlikely for two reasons:

Most major bills in the Senate have to meet a 60 vote threshold for passage. If the
Majority had 60 votes to fix the Senate-passed bill, then there would be no need for them
5

to try to use reconciliation. There has been some public discussion about a third bill (not
reconciliation) to address the abortion issue. It should be noted that when language
similar to the “Stupak language” was offered by Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE), the
amendment only received 45 votes.
Controversial bills cannot be done quickly in the Senate. Even routine bills can take
several days because the Senate generally allows for amendment. After spending all of
December and a week or two on a reconciliation bill, does anyone believe that Senator
Reid would be willing to spend time on a third health care bill?

5) So What Will Happen?

In the world of legislating, nothing is certain. But, what is clear is that House Democrats cannot
count on the Senate being able to pass a reconciliation bill that makes all the fixes to the Senate
health care bill currently being sought.

House Democrats who vote for the Senate health care overhaul can be certain of one thing if
it passes—it will become law over the objections of the American people. And they will spend
the rest of the year explaining that vote, whether or not the Senate passes a reconciliation bill to
“fix” it.

With that in mind, we believe House passage of the Senate’s health care bill will ultimately be
decided by the 37 remaining House Democrats who voted NO to a government take-over last
November, and the following 21 House Democrats who originally voted YES, but may now be
on the fence:

Congressman Michael Arcuri (NY)
Congressman Marion Berry (AR)
Congressman Tim Bishop (NY)
Congressman Dennis Cardoza (CA)
Congressman Chris Carney (PA)
Congressman Jim Costa (CA)
Congressman Joe Donnelly (IN)
Congressman Steve Driehaus (OH)
Congressman Brad Ellsworth (IN)
Congressman Gabrielle Giffords (AZ)
Congressman Baron Hill (IN)
Congressman Paul Hodes (NH)
Congressman Dan Maffei (NY)
Congressman Harry Mitchell (AZ)
Congressman Bill Owens (NY)
Congressman Earl Pomeroy (ND)
Congressman Mark Schauer (MI)
Congressman Kurt Schrader (OR)
Congressman Zach Space (OH)
Congressman Dina Titus (NV)
Congressman Charlie Wilson (OH)

By the way, Michael Totten has a wonderful long post about Romania 20 years after the fall of the communist regime. It ends this way:

I’ve always wondered what democrats who grew up in communist countries thought of communists who grew up in democratic countries. Hardly anyone in the West ever voted with their feet, so to speak, by moving to a communist country, but communist dictatorships created millions of refugees who fled their homelands for Western democracies. East Germans were willing to risk being shot to make a run over the wall, Cubans are still willing to risk drowning to reach Florida, yet once in a while I still meet Westerners who have a warm spot in their hearts for regimes like Castro’s.

“What do you think,” I asked her, “of people in the West who think communism is a good idea but haven’t actually experienced it? There are quite a few people who admire the system in Cuba. You know the types I mean. The people who wear Che Guevara t-shirts.”

“Ah, yes,” she said. “They are ridiculous. But somehow I can understand them. Let’s take the example of France. In France they were all socialists when they were young. Sartre was a close friend of Castro’s. Gerard Depardieu was a close friend of Castro’s. They believed in this ideal, but after they saw what Stalin did they couldn’t look to the Soviet Union. So they turned their hopes to Cuba. Then they saw what Castro did. The only one who still seemed to live up to the ideal was Che Guevara. So they turned to Che Guevara. I understand them. They were wrong their entire lives, and it is difficult to admit this.”

Communism is based on two faulty premises: 1) That the ideological elite are much brighter than they are; 2) That the masses are much dumber than they are. Despite the talk about the glorification of The Worker, it is structurally elitist.

In its advanced stages, this induced moronicity can result in Hanks Syndrome. No analysis of what provoked the Rape of Nanking.

“Everyone who didn’t agree with Lenin was a shithead.” Some things never change.

From the Atlantic: the case for raising the retirement age. I could quote from the article, but I think the graph says everything necessary:

Survivorship to age 65 is also a piece of the problem, but while that has improved, it’s not improved as drastically as the life expectancy at older ages. There have been a few big mortality changes over the past 100 years or so: drastically reduced childhood mortality [due to vaccines, better public health], improved treatment for heart disease [so first heart attacks have been pushed back from 40s and 50s to the 60s], and then better health for the old.

This is all good, but there are financial repercussions – if you were planning to retire at age 60, you need to be prepared to live off your savings for 30 years. [at least...those expectancies are just the averages, and it's just for right now] Think you can do that?

And if you were expecting to live off someone else’s earnings via Social Security and Medicare, first, those benefits aren’t that cushy [and you end up having to pay a lot out of pocket with Medicare], and second, are you sure there will be enough people to live off of? Especially if these people are taking benefits at first eligibility at age 62?

The upside-down demographics are being worked through in Europe right now [example: Ireland]. Luckily, the U.S. has the leisure to watch those countries implode with their benefit designs before we reach our cliff. Sounds like fun.

They do such a good job teaching us to read…

…who better to teach us about sex?

CDC Stuff

About 21 percent of women were infected with genital herpes, compared to only 11.5 percent of men, while 39 percent of blacks were infected compared to about 12 percent for whites, the CDC said.

More CDC Stuff

At the end of 2007, the CDC estimates that there were 571,378 people living with HIV/AIDS in the 39 states and dependent areas that have a history of confidential name-based HIV reporting, based on reported diagnoses and deaths2. However, the total number of people living in the USA with HIV/AIDS is thought to be around 1.1 million.

Unrelated: At what point are we going to stop tolerating Public School Teachers from preying on our children?

March, 2010

A Racine high school teacher was charged Monday with paying a male student to allow him to touch and take nude photos of the student, according to a criminal complaint.

More fun with Google News

This tells us a great deal, I am afraid, about these people. I didn’t find it funny. I found it lame. I found it unworthy of those who would “give us the news”. What is it about low brow “humor” that is so scintillating? Is this really nothing more than the verbal version of homosexual flirtation? I mean, two guys on two different cable shows going down the same path… apparently to both stereotype Gay Men while concurrently holding hands under the table (or smacking the others’ ass in the shower)… in order that their jock-ish, frat boy selves feel reassured about their heterosexuality.

I am no proponent of the Lifestyle. I don’t get it at all, in fact. Yet, at the same time, is this sort of juvenile verbal tickle fight really worthy? Does it really serve to promote the meme that somehow men who serve together are no more than cell mate lovers and that Gay Men are somehow nothing but light-slippered, 14 year old pubescent girls??

Just lame.

Another was even more irate, lashing out at the public for scapegoating AIG employees. “To be honest with you, I really hope it blows up. I think the U.S. taxpayer deserves to lose a trillion dollars over this thing for the way they have behaved.”

And then he turned on politicians who had joined the anti-AIG posse. “They only care about the next election, just like we only care about the next bonus. Well, none of them cares about the country, none of us cares about the institution,” he said, adding: “They really don’t care, and I really don’t care. And frankly, if a trillion dollars gets lost, fine.”

The AIG retention bonuses have rankled many in the public because the company has received a federal rescue package of about $180 billion in loans, stock investments and other commitments from the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department. Closing down AIG Financial Products’ trading portfolio has been vital to stemming further losses and repaying the public money.

Chi-Town hustler, DC muscler, the President’s Chief of “Staff”
Always wired, feared, admired, really have got to laugh
Ballerina, who’d sell his grandma, to get what he demands
And now he’s naked, godforsaken, I’m just glad it ain’t his gland

Fuckin’ retards, leftist douchebags
Thought Baracky was a God
They’re complainin’, public option
Won’t be included in the law

Foul-mouthed Rahm, he drops the f-bomb
In the auditorium
They’re surprised, hadn’t surmised
They’d get tossed under the bus

But oh how it feels so odd
Standing here by the shower
Dripping–and then I hear him, when he says loudly
(When he says) threat’ningly

“Listen up you fucking asshole
You’d better vote for healthcare reform
If you don’t then I will screw you
Just like Massa had his ass reamed”

Chi-Town hustler, DC muscler, Obama’s Chief of Staff
Always wired, feared, admired, really have got to laugh
Ballerina, who’d sell his grandma, to get what he demands
Put on some clothes, cover your hose, Tiny Gangster right-hand man

Iowahawk sends along:

Oh Candy Crowley have you seen them yet,
Oh but they’re so spent out.
Buh-buh-buh-Baracky and the Jets.
O but they’re weird and they’re wonderful,
Baracky is a-really keen
He’s got the Prada boots
Versace suits
And some JCPenney mommy jeans.