Author Topic: Abuse of Power?  (Read 821 times)

Kazan

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 6803
  • Sic vis pacem, parabellum
Abuse of Power?
« on: March 03, 2010, 08:43:41 AM »
Why is Obama so obsessed with this "healthcare" bill? Is it just pure arrogance to push this even though it has been rejected by the American people ( his employer I might add ). And if they manage to do it what will it do the political landscape for the next decade?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704625004575089362731862750.html

A string of electoral defeats and the great unpopularity of ObamaCare can't stop Democrats from their self-appointed rendezvous with liberal destiny—ramming a bill through Congress on a narrow partisan vote. What we are about to witness is an extraordinary abuse of traditional Senate rules to pass a bill merely because they think it's good for the rest of us, and because they fear their chance to build a European welfare state may never come again.

***
The vehicle is "reconciliation," a parliamentary process that fast-tracks budget measures and was created in 1974 as a deficit-reduction tool. Limited to 20 hours of debate, reconciliation bills need a mere 50 votes in the Senate, with the Vice President as tie-breaker, thus circumventing the filibuster. Both Democrats and Republicans have frequently used reconciliation on budget bills, so Democrats are now claiming that using it to pass ObamaCare is no big deal.

Yet this shortcut has never been used for anything approaching the enormity of a national health-care entitlement. Democrats are only resorting to it now because their plan is in so much political trouble—within their own party, and even more among the general public—and because they've failed to make their case through persuasion.

"They know that this will take courage," Nancy Pelosi said in an interview over the weekend, speaking of the Members she'll try to strong-arm. "It took courage to pass Social Security. It took courage to pass Medicare," the Speaker continued. "But the American people need it, why are we here? We're not here just to self-perpetuate our service in Congress."

Leave aside the irony of invoking "the American people" on behalf of a bill that consistently has been 10 to 15 points underwater in every poll since the fall, and is getting more unpopular by the day, particularly among independents. As Maine Republican Olympia Snowe pointed out in a speech last December, Social Security passed when Democrats controlled both Congress and the White House, yet 64% of Senate Republicans and 79% of the House GOP voted for it. More than half of the Senate Republican caucus voted for Medicare in 1965. Historically, major social legislation has always been bipartisan, because it reflects a durable political consensus.

Reconciliation is the last mathematical gasp for ObamaCare because Democrats can't sell their policy to Senator Snowe, any other Republican, or even dozens of Democrats. This raw exercise of political power is of a piece with the copious corruption and bribery—such as the Cornhusker kickbacks and special tax benefits for union members—that liberals had to use to get even this far.

Democrats often point to welfare reform in 1996 as a reconciliation precedent, yet that bill passed the Senate with 78 votes, including Joe Biden and half of the Democratic caucus. The children's health insurance program in 1997 was steered through Congress with reconciliation, but it, too, was built on strong (if misguided) bipartisan support. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that created Schip passed 85-15, including 43 Republicans. Even President Bush's 2001 tax cuts, another case in reconciliation point, were endorsed by 12 Senate Democrats.

The only precedent within historical shouting distance is Ronald Reagan's 1981 budget, which was controversial because it reshaped dozens of programs. But the Senate wasn't the problem—it ultimately passed the budget 80 to 14. The real dogfight was in the Democratically controlled House, where majority rules have always obtained, yet Reagan convinced 29 Democrats to buck Speaker Tip O'Neill. Reconciliation, in other words, wasn't used to subvert the 60-vote Senate threshold, but rather to grease the way for deficit reduction.

The process was designed for items that cut spending or affect tax revenue, to meet targets in the annual budget resolution. Democrats want to convert it into a jerry-rigged amendment process: That is, reconciliation wouldn't actually be used to pass ObamaCare per se. Instead, it would be used only to muscle through substantive changes to the bill that passed the Senate on Christmas Eve, without which 216 House Democrats won't vote for it. So Democrats would be writing amendments to current law that isn't in fact law at all—and can't become law without those amendments.

President Clinton preferred to use reconciliation to pass HillaryCare in the 1990s, but he was dissuaded by West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd, who argued that it would be an abuse of the process. Mr. Byrd, author of a four-volume history of Senate rules and procedures, told the Washington Post last March that "The misuse of the arcane process of reconciliation—a process intended for deficit reduction—to enact substantive policy changes is an undemocratic disservice to our people and to the Senate's institutional role," specifically citing health reform and cap and trade.

***
Regrets, they've got a few. Yet these Democratic Sinatras will still do it their way. President Obama is expected to endorse reconciliation in remarks this morning.

The goal is to permanently expand the American entitlement state with a vast apparatus of subsidies and regulations while the political window is still (barely) open, regardless of the consequences or the overwhelming popular condemnation. As Mr. Obama fatalistically said after his health summit, if voters don't like it, "then that's what elections are for."

In other words, he's volunteering Democrats in Congress to march into the fixed bayonets so he can claim an LBJ-level legacy like the Great Society that will be nearly impossible to repeal. This would be an unprecedented act of partisan arrogance that would further mark Democrats as the party of liberal extremism. If they think political passions are bitter now, wait until they pass ObamaCare.

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39497
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Abuse of Power?
« Reply #1 on: March 03, 2010, 08:51:15 AM »
KAZAN - ITS ALL ABOUT THIS. 

________________________ ________________________ _

Cloward–Piven strategy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


 This article may need to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please help by adding relevant internal links, or by improving the article's layout. (December 2008)

The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined by Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, then both sociologists and political activists at the Columbia University School of Social Work, in a 1966 article in The Nation entitled "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty." The two argued that many Americans who were eligible for welfare were not receiving benefits, and that a welfare enrollment drive would create a political crisis that would force U.S. politicians, particularly the Democratic Party, to enact legislation "establishing a guaranteed national income."[1]

Contents [hide]
1 The strategy
2 Focus on Democrats
3 Reception
4 References
 
[edit] The strategy

Cloward and Piven’s article is focused on forcing the Democratic Party, which in 1966 controlled the presidency and both houses of the United States Congress, to take federal action to help the poor. They argued that full enrollment of those eligible for welfare “would produce bureaucratic disruption in welfare agencies and fiscal disruption in local and state governments” that would “deepen existing divisions among elements in the big-city Democratic coalition: the remaining white middle class, the white working-class ethnic groups and the growing minority poor. To avoid a further weakening of that historic coalition, a national Democratic administration would be constrained to advance a federal solution to poverty that would override local welfare failures, local class and racial conflicts and local revenue dilemmas.”[2] They wrote:

The ultimate objective of this strategy—to wipe out poverty by establishing a guaranteed annual income—will be questioned by some. Because the ideal of individual social and economic mobility has deep roots, even activists seem reluctant to call for national programs to eliminate poverty by the outright redlstribution of income.[2]

[edit] Focus on Democrats

The authors pinned their hopes on creating disruption within the Democratic Party. "Conservative Republicans are always ready to declaim the evils of public welfare, and they would probably be the first to raise a hue and cry. But deeper and politically more telling conflicts would take place within the Democratic coalition," they wrote. "Whites – both working class ethnic groups and many in the middle class – would be aroused against the ghetto poor, while liberal groups, which until recently have been comforted by the notion that the poor are few... would probably support the movement. Group conflict, spelling political crisis for the local party apparatus, would thus become acute as welfare rolls mounted and the strains on local budgets became more severe.”[3]

Michael Reisch and Janice Andrews wrote that Cloward and Piven "proposed to create a crisis in the current welfare system – by exploiting the gap between welfare law and practice – that would ultimately bring about its collapse and replace it with a system of guaranteed annual income. They hoped to accomplish this end by informing the poor of their rights to welfare assistance, encouraging them to apply for benefits and, in effect, overloading an already overburdened bureaucracy."[4]

[edit] Reception

Historian Robert E. Weir argues that the original goal of the strategy was to bring about a crisis in the welfare system that would require radical reforms.[5] A major article in the New York Times in 1970 investigated the welfare system and discussed the impact of the Cloward–Piven strategy.[6] Howard Phillips, chairman of the Conservative Caucus, was quoted in 1982 as saying that the strategy could be effective because "Great Society programs 'had created a vast army of full-time liberal activists whose salaries are paid from the taxes of conservative working people.".[7] Robert Chandler claimed, "The socialist test case for using society's poor and disadvantaged people as sacrificial “shock troops,” in accordance with the Cloward–Piven strategy, was demonstrated in 1975, when new prospective welfare recipients flooded New York City with payment demands, which may have contributed to the bankrupting of the state government."[8] Other observers credit the city's bankruptcy to the mismanagement caused by politics, encouraging "frequently maturing short-term debt that left officials constantly scrambling to pay off loans"[9]

[edit] References
^ Cloward, Richard; Piven, Frances (May 2, 1966). "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty". New York: The Nation. p. 512. 
^ a b Cloward, Richard; Piven, Frances (May 2, 1966). "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty". New York: The Nation. p. 510. 
^ Cloward, Richard; Piven, Frances (May 2, 1966). "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty". New York: The Nation. p. 516. 
^ Reisch, Michael; Janice Andrews (2001). The Road Not Taken. Brunner Routledge. pp. 144–146. ISBN 1-58391-025-5. http://books.google.com/books?id=f0iC56biZOgC&pg=PA145&lpg=PA145&dq=cloward+piven+crisis+strategy&source=web&ots=FS1gpmnk4K&sig=6u84VMirF97Qjb0x4lb6PYZNxgo&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result
^ Weir, Robert (2007). Class in America. Greenwood Press. pp. 616. ISBN 978-0-313-33719-2. http://books.google.com/books?id=YS69fMlIUX0C&pg=PA616&dq=%22cloward-piven+strategy%22&client=firefox-a
^ Richard Rogin (1970-09-27). "Now It's Welfare Lib". New York Times. p. SM16. 
^ Robert Pear (1984-04-15). "Drive to Sign Up Poor for Voting Meets Resistance". New York Times. 
^ Chandler, Richard, "The Cloward–Piven strategy", The Washington Times, October 15, 2008.
^ http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/05/nyregion/recalling-new-york-at-the-brink-of-bankruptcy.html
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy"

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Abuse of Power?
« Reply #2 on: March 03, 2010, 09:40:56 AM »
reagan wouldn't have gotten his legendary budget passed without using reconcilliation.

BM OUT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8229
  • Getbig!
Re: Abuse of Power?
« Reply #3 on: March 03, 2010, 09:48:16 AM »
reagan wouldn't have gotten his legendary budget passed without using reconcilliation.

Ummm,thats what it supposed to be used for.Not a takeover of a sixth of the economy.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39497
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Abuse of Power?
« Reply #4 on: March 03, 2010, 09:50:05 AM »
Ummm,thats what it supposed to be used for.Not a takeover of a sixth of the economy.

Exactly - even Byrd who authored this said as much. 

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Abuse of Power?
« Reply #5 on: March 03, 2010, 09:56:02 AM »
"Ummm,thats what it supposed to be used for.Not a takeover of a sixth of the economy."

Actually, Reagan imposed his will to drop top tax brackets from 70% to 28%.  He gave the farm to the oil companies (which they still enjoy 30 years later).  He rebuilt Treasury Dept.  He created federal energy reserves.  he ENDED wage and price controls.  Hell, he implemented a three year contraction of the money supply by the Federal Reserve

In the 30 years since Reagan donkey punched the Dems and pushed his agenda thru using reconcilliation, I'd say it's a safe bet he has affected something *pretty close* to 1/6 of the economy, if not a great deal more.  Reagan did what he felt was right for Americans - Obama is doing the same.  Only difference is, you agree with reagan and you don't with Obama.

BM OUT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8229
  • Getbig!
Re: Abuse of Power?
« Reply #6 on: March 03, 2010, 09:57:09 AM »
"Ummm,thats what it supposed to be used for.Not a takeover of a sixth of the economy."

Actually, Reagan imposed his will to drop top tax brackets from 70% to 28%.  He gave the farm to the oil companies (which they still enjoy 30 years later).  He rebuilt Treasury Dept.  He created federal energy reserves.  he ENDED wage and price controls.  Hell, he implemented a three year contraction of the money supply by the Federal Reserve

Are you saying that in the 30 years since Reagan donkey punched the Dems and pushed his agenda thru using reconcilliation, I'd say it's a safe bet he has affected something *pretty close* to 1/6 of the economy, if not a great deal more.  Reagan did what he felt was right for Americans - Obama is doing the same.  Only difference is, you agree with reagan and you don't with Obama.

Again,Byrd wrote the dam thing and said its to be used for budget decisions.Keep trying though.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Abuse of Power?
« Reply #7 on: March 03, 2010, 09:59:25 AM »
Byrd is a former KKK member, BILLY.  he even held the title of "Exalted Cyclops".


I'm not going to put much credit into what a man like that says.  But you can.

BM OUT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 8229
  • Getbig!
Re: Abuse of Power?
« Reply #8 on: March 03, 2010, 10:02:07 AM »
Byrd is a former KKK member, BILLY.  he even held the title of "Exalted Cyclops".


I'm not going to put much credit into what a man like that says.  But you can.

He wrote the freaking bill!!!!!!He is the concience of the senate ,deemed that by YOUR liberal heros.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39497
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Abuse of Power?
« Reply #9 on: March 03, 2010, 10:02:21 AM »
Byrd is a former KKK member, BILLY.  he even held the title of "Exalted Cyclops".


I'm not going to put much credit into what a man like that says.  But you can.

 ::)  ::)  ::)

12secGT

  • Getbig III
  • ***
  • Posts: 580
Re: Abuse of Power?
« Reply #10 on: March 03, 2010, 10:12:08 AM »
"Ummm,thats what it supposed to be used for.Not a takeover of a sixth of the economy."

Actually, Reagan imposed his will to drop top tax brackets from 70% to 28%. Yes, and created MORE revenue to the fed then ever seen before. He gave the farm to the oil companies (which they still enjoy 30 years later). Enjoy?? The liberals tax the oil companies over 50% BEFORE the oil goes on the market. Oil companies do not set the price. Thieving speculators do. He rebuilt Treasury Dept.  He created federal energy reserves.  he ENDED wage and price controls.  Hell, he implemented a three year contraction of the money supply by the Federal Reserve

In the 30 years since Reagan donkey punched the Dems and pushed his agenda thru using reconcilliation, I'd say it's a safe bet he has affected something *pretty close* to 1/6 of the economy, if not a great deal more.  Reagan did what he felt was right for Americans - Obama is doing the same.  Only difference is, you agree with reagan and you don't with Obama.
My answers to your nonsense are in red... Again 240, you are attacking a man who did more good for this country and the world than any president after combined.

BodyProSite

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1096
Re: Abuse of Power?
« Reply #11 on: March 03, 2010, 10:49:01 AM »
240 is over looking one small thing.  Reagan and his admin loved America, and capitalism. So most Americans had faith and were proved to be correct for having faith in Reagan so he was supported in reconciliation.  Obama has proven that he cant even run a fucking cash for clunker car program.  He told us that if we want to know what he is all about to look at who he surrounds himself with. Well he is surrounded by many people that admit to hate capitalism and the free market, and admit to being socialist and communists. This is why many dont support him in reconciliation. The fact that him and his commie admin are still dieing to ram this down the American citizens throat is just more proof of lack of love for America and Americans and more reason for Americans to not support him.

What Reagan used reconciliation for is not even comparable to what the bammer is trying to use it for.   APPLES AND ORANGES!!!!

BodyProSite

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1096
Re: Abuse of Power?
« Reply #12 on: March 03, 2010, 03:13:14 PM »
lol  bammer says the people deserve a vote,  is this what he calls a vote??  lol

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102396
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Abuse of Power?
« Reply #13 on: March 03, 2010, 03:29:09 PM »
where did i attack reagan, guys?

He was 100% correct to do what he did.  there are times and places when reconciliation is a way for making a good idea a reality.

Soul Crusher

  • Competitors
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 39497
  • Doesnt lie about lifting.
Re: Abuse of Power?
« Reply #14 on: March 03, 2010, 03:34:35 PM »
Check this out guys.  How desperate is this mofo to pass Deathcare?

Unreal.  Imagine if GWB did this?

________________________ ________________________ _______

Obama Now Selling Judgeships for Health Care Votes?
Obama names brother of undecided House Dem to Appeals Court.
BY John McCormack
March 3, 2010 6:15 PM

     
Tonight, Barack Obama will host ten House Democrats who voted against the health care bill in November at the White House; he's obviously trying to persuade them to switch their votes to yes. One of the ten is Jim Matheson of Utah. The White House just sent out a press release announcing that today President Obama nominated Matheson's brother Scott M. Matheson, Jr. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

“Scott Matheson is a distinguished candidate for the Tenth Circuit court,” President Obama said.  “Both his legal and academic credentials are impressive and his commitment to judicial integrity is unwavering.  I am honored to nominate this lifelong Utahn to the federal bench.” 

Scott M. Matheson, Jr.: Nominee for the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Scott M. Matheson currently holds the Hugh B. Brown Presidential Endowed Chair at the S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah, where he has been a member of the faculty since 1985.  He served as Dean of the Law School from 1998 to 2006.  He also taught First Amendment Law at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government from 1989 to 1990. 

While on public service leave from the University of Utah from 1993 to 1997, Matheson served as United States Attorney for the District of Utah.  In 2007, he was appointed by Governor Jon Huntsman to chair the Utah Mine Safety Commission.  He also worked as a Deputy County Attorney for Salt Lake County from 1988 to 1989.  Prior to joining the University faculty, Matheson was an associate attorney from 1981 to 1985 at Williams & Connolly LLP in Washington, D.C.

Matheson was born and raised in Utah and is a sixth generation Utahn.  He received an A.B. from Stanford University in 1975, an M.A. from Oxford University, where he was a Rhodes Scholar, and a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1980.

So, Scott Matheson appears to have the credentials to be a judge, but was his nomination used to buy off his brother's vote?

Consider Congressman Matheson's record on the health care bill. He voted against the bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee back in July and again when it passed the House in November. But now he's "undecided" on ramming the bill through Congress. "The Congressman is looking for development of bipartisan consensus," Matheson's press secretary Alyson Heyrend wrote to THE WEEKLY STANDARD on February 22. "It’s too early to know if that will occur." Asked if one could infer that if no Republican votes in favor of the bill (i.e. if a bipartisan consensus is not reached) then Rep. Matheson would vote no, Heyrend replied: "I would not infer anything.  I’d wait to see what develops, starting with the health care summit on Thursday."

The timing of this nomination looks suspicious, especially in light Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak's claim that he was offered a federal job not to run against Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania primary. Many speculated that Sestak, a former admiral, was offered the Secretary of the Navy job.

TAGS: Barack Obama, Democrats, Health care, Jim Matheson, Obamacare, politics, Scott Matheson
Go Back