Sen. Tom Coburn, the Oklahoma Republican who developed a close friendship with President Obama when they served together in the Senate, is threatening to have the entire health care bill read on the Senate floor.

Senior Senate Democratic aides had heard Coburn was considering having potentially thousands of pages read aloud in effort to stall passage. “If he did this it would be even outrageous for a guy who’s become known as Dr. No around here,” one of them told POLITICO.

Good luck on getting Coburn to back down on this: we’re talking about a guy who has a hold on a veterans’ bill because it’s not addressing his concerns about cost duplication and discrimination. We’re also talking about a guy with an approval rating somewhere around 60 with his constituents - so that argument is out, too.  Ed Morrissey thinks that this could delay the bill for up to half a year; I don’t expect it to go that far, but Coburn’s poised to be able to do one heck of a monkeywrenching job on the health care rationing bill for at least the rest of 2009…

Moe Lane

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

Climate change belief given same legal status as religion

In a landmark ruling, Mr Justice Michael Burton said that “a belief in man-made climate change … is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations”.

The ruling could open the door for employees to sue their companies for failing to account for their green lifestyles, such as providing recycling facilities or offering low-carbon travel.

Photo credit : PA

Mr Nicholson hailed the Employment Appeals Tribunal ruling as “a victory for common sense” but stressed climate change was “not a new religion”.

He said: “I believe man-made climate change is the most important issue of our time and nothing should stand in the way of diverting this catastrophe.

“This philosophical belief that is based on scientific evidence has now been given the same protection in law as faith-based religious belief.

“Belief in man-made climate change is not a new religion, it is a philosophical belief that reflects my moral and ethical values and is underlined by the overwhelming scientific evidence.”

By my own count the Speaker and the President are light at least ten votes — and could be light as many as twenty three — depending on the dynamic on the House floor.

The problem is that some yes votes could get changed to no as the loss becomes apparent — why take a beating for a tough vote when the thing is going down?

Members of Congress will not take a beating, just for the sake of taking a beating. They will switch votes, and that is how you get to the fifty to fifty-five House Dems voting no.

The smart play for the Speaker is to don the robes of Mother Protector — I will save my House Members from Walking the Plank — we are waiting for the Senate to vote first. That way her House Members are protected against the bill dying in the Senate, without having taken a tough vote.

As one Senate Dem lobbyist told me yesterday, “Reid can get on the bill, he just can’t get off.” Translating from Washington-speak: Senator Reid can get past the filibuster of the motion to proceed, he just cannot end the filibuster against the bill itself. It is like Senator Reid’s own version of Hotel California hell — he can check in but he can never leave.

This is why the smart play for the Speaker and the White House is to punt. And Harry Reid’s offense takes the field.

Reid then takes the blame if he can’t get into the end zone. The Speaker merely points out the obvious: I was acting in the best political interest of my members. Why should we take tough votes on Medicare cuts, guns, immigration, abortion, taxes, spending, mandates (government control) and watch the Senate fail? (Again.)

But the continued forever quest for the holy-health care grail is making her look like Captain Ahab and the search for the Great White Whale — which in the end he found — it killed him, his ship and all but one of his crew.

If the reaction to waiting for the Senate is an acknowledgment that Senator Reid will fail, then this underlines even stronger the reason why the vote should wait — unless the goal really is to force the political death of some of the red state Democrats.

Failing is Succeeding

On the other hand, there are two arguments making the rounds in Washington about why the Speaker should have the vote, and lose the vote.

First, notwithstanding her dictum that she “does not like to show weakness,” she will first and foremost end the misery of the walking health care political nightmare she is living. Health care has divided her caucus, radically divided it. There are not just petty differences — but raw, unadulterated anger and hatred that you save for members of your own side. Some on the left want the Blue Dogs to lose and have argued that forcing a vote will insure losses by the Blue Dogs. (The Blue Dogs understand that they are hated in some quarters to the point of those doing the hating wish them dead, politically speaking.)

Her caucus is being ripped apart. She is living night and day health care pain, and has been for months. At some point you have to put down the razor blades and knives and stop your team from cutting itself anymore.

So, immediately ending the political pain for her team is the first result of losing the vote. The pain of losing will be shorter lived than the current poked-in-the-eye-with-a-sharp-stick-pain, where every opposed organized lobby and angry citizen just keeps pounding day and night on her and her flock, who in turn are fighting each other.

Second, losing the vote means her left wing base is intact in San Francisco and nationally. She took the risk, she delivered a liberal’s fantasy-health-reform bill to the progressives. It is not her fault that the left did not have the strength to pass it — she went well beyond the call of duty to try and get it passed.

Third, the country, just like the Speaker’s caucus, is continuing to be harmed by the uber-health care focus. There are other problems that need the attention of the U.S. House.

Finally, if the Speaker does not have the vote now, is waiting going to make getting the votes any easier? Or is waiting going to illustrate to everyone that the Speaker has never had the votes for her health care plan. She doesn’t have them now, and never did have the votes.

It is time, Madame Speaker, to act in the interest of your caucus and let them off the hook. Don’t force them to walk the plank. Wait for the Senate. Then again, perhaps saving Sen. Reid’s skin is more important to the Speaker than saving her own members from this brutal vote.

The Democratic House Leadership has completely lost touch with fiscal reality.

The following is a cut and paste of a media statement by the ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, Senator Gregg (R-NH):

Senator Gregg: Updated CBO Estimate of House Bill Pulls Back the Curtain on Majority’s Intent to Grow Government by $3 Trillion

Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee today commented on the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) more detailed cost estimate of the manager’s amendment to the House health reform bill.

Senator Gregg stated, “The CBO estimate released last night finally sheds light on the smoke and mirrors game the majority has been playing with the cost of their health care reform proposal. Over the first 10 years, this legislation builds in gross new spending of $1.7 trillion – and most of the new spending doesn’t even start until 2014. Once that spending is fully phased in, the House Democratic bill rings up at more than $3 trillion over ten years.

“Additionally, this bill cuts critical Medicare and Medicaid funding by $628 billion, accounts for nearly $1.2 trillion in tax and fee increases and will explode the scope of government by putting the nation’s health care system in the hands of Washington bureaucrats. The $3 trillion price tag defies common sense – we simply cannot add all this new spending to the government rolls and claim to control the deficit.

“If we continue to pile more and more debt on the next generation, they will never be able to get out from under it. The health care system needs reform, but this massive expansion of government, financed by our children and grandchildren, is the wrong way to proceed.”

Let’s unpack a typical paragraph:

Will loyal members inform on others for harboring suspiciously moderate views?

Err, no.

Will anyone judged guilty have to wear a sign saying “Republican In Name Only” as penance?

Err, no.

Will there be re-education camps?

Err, no.  Also: cheapening to the memory of victims in the tens of millions.

Will deviationists face the Enhanced Interrogation Technique of being forced to listen to the wit and wisdom of Glenn Beck, at ear-splitting volume, for days on end?

Err, no.

Eugene Robinson’s thesis, such as it is, is to try to claim that Republican defeats on Tuesday night were due to conservative meddling while the more numerous Republican successes were due to the forces of moderation who must stand against us awful, awful Tea Partiers*. While it’s fun to watch a writer from the Washington Bob McDonnell’s Thesis Post try to claim that the GOP’s sweep of Virginia was done despite the best efforts of conservatives, it doesn’t excuse his sloppy thinking.  Nor does it justify recasting principled conservative opposition to a candidate who wasn’t chosen in a primary, did not subscribe to basic conservative principles**, and who refused to show even the most basic loyalty to the Republican party in terms of being the first salvo in a GOP civil war.

I mean, I understand why he wants one.  It’s the Democrats’ only hope right now.

Moe Lane

*There’s also the usual Democratic obsession with former Alaskan governor Sarah Palin.

**Including the Don’t spend money that you don’t have, you idjits one.

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

Early last month, Caldwell’s office issued subpoenas for records from ACORN’s New Orleans office, where the organization — now moving its national headquarters to Washington — has long been based. …

In a statement, ACORN’s attorney Pamela Marple said the group was told the raid was ordered because of reports that workers loyal to Beth Butler, the recently fired head of ACORN’s Louisiana branch, had been taking computer data and other items out of the office.

“Over the last two months, ACORN has been cooperating with a variety of governmental entities across the country to provide requested information and documents,” Marple wrote. “We were told that the AG’s office has no criticisms of ACORN’s cooperative efforts, but rather that the warrant was issued because of concern that former local ACORN staff members had, and may intend in the future to remove or alter electronic documents.”

An ACORN official also said Caldwell’s investigators will copy the hard drives from ACORN’s computers and return them next week. The computers contain all payroll information for the national organization, the official said.

H/T dennism

Anything approaching the recommended punishment would be the longest sentence ever meted out on given to a U.S. Congressman.

Jefferson will be sentenced on November 13 by Federal Judge T.S. Ellis III in Alexandria, VA.

The New Orleans Times-Picayune reports:

“Because Congressman Jefferson’s crimes against the people of the United States were exceptional in their sheer number, length and breadth, the United States respectfully requests that this Court sentence the defendant within the applicable guideline range,” the memorandum states. “While the guidelines sentence calculated by the Probation Office is lengthy, it is appropriate, in that Congressman Jefferson’s criminal activities have surely caused or substantially added to the loss of public confidence and trust in our nation’s highest levels of government.”…

According to the memorandum, “law enforcement agents learned of several wire transfers from offshore territories into U.S. financial accounts that were either controlled by the defendant or whose proceeds were made available for his benefit.”

The government’s conclusion: “Given the age of the defendant, the severity of the sentence calculated by the Probation Office, the defendant’s frequent travel overseas and unexplained wire transfers from overseas locations to financial accounts used by the defendant, the defendant cannot rebut the presumption at sentencing that he is a risk of flight.”

{emphasis added}

The Democrats have to know that NY-23 was a fluke – they can’t count on gross Republican miscalculation in 2010.  Meanwhile, Democratic efforts to write off the New Jersey and Virginia losses by blaming them on bad candidates simply don’t ring true. 

In Virginia, Creigh Deeds was not a bad candidate.  In the primary, despite being vastly outspent, he hammered the powerful Terry McAuliffe.  He had the endorsement of the Washington Post, which argued that of three strong Democratic primary candidates, in the general election, “Deeds’ moderate platform would have the broadest appeal.”  On liberal blog sites, Deeds was the overwhelming favorite as the best candidate, the one most likely to win the general election.  

Jon Corzine was not a bad candidate, either – he could self-fund his race, an enormous advantage, and outspend any opponent 3 to 1, as he did to Chris Christie.  He had been elected statewide twice before.  What Corzine was, was a bad governor.  And why was he a bad governor?  Because he followed the same type of policies that the Democrats are now pursuing on a national level.  Maybe someone will notice that.

It has been noted lately that the Democrats plan to hold on next fall is to go negative, and to do so early – to “vaporize” opponents, as Harry Reid says.  But that is exactly what both Deeds and Corzine tried to do.  Corzine, who won by 11 points in 2005, lost by 4 this year.  Deeds, who lost to the same man in the attorney general race 4 years ago by fewer than 350 votes, this time lost by 18 percentage points.  Meanwhile, President Obama embraced and campaigned with both men.  Yet McDonnell won by the biggest margin for a Republican ever, and Christie by the largest margin for a Republican in 24 years.  Thus, the Democrats’ two key strategies to hold on in 2010 (other than pray for a better economy) failed miserably – Obama couldn’t save them, and relentlessly negative campaigning couldn’t save them.  These men were not bad candidates, as their past success and praise for them suggests – rather, they were running on bad issues in a time in which Democrats are increasingly blamed for the nation’s difficulties.

In the other Congressional special election, California’s 10^th District, Lt. Governor  John Garamendi won by 11 points after heavily outspending his opponent in a district won by his predecessor in 2008 by 34 points, in which Democrats have an 18 point edge in voter registration, and which Obama carried by 31 points.  Not much to crow about.

Down ballot, in races for lower offices, including state legislatures and mayors, it gets worse.  Republicans rolled to easy double digit victories in the Virginia Attorney General and Lt. Governor races.  In the Lt. Governor’s race, Bill Bolling, who won by just 1 percent in 2005, won by 12 points.  Republicans gained 6 seats (pending one recount) in the State Assembly, giving them a 61-37-2 majority.  Republicans gained a seat in the New Jersey House.  Republicans took control of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and won six of seven statewide races in the Keystone State.  Republicans gained in the heavily populated New York City suburbs , taking control of both Westchester County and Nassau County for the first time in a decade.  They even gained a couple seats on the New York City Council (in addition to the re-election of their sort-of Republican Mayor Bloomberg).  In Michigan, in a special election for a state  senate seat that had gone Democratic by 61-39 when it was last up in 2006, the Republican flipped the landslide around and won 61-36.  Republicans also flipped a New Hampshire state house seat in a special election. 

When the Republicans are rolling up victories in the northeast corridor and in Michigan, the Democrats have to be worried.  But Republican successes weren’t limited to such recent Democratic stomping grounds.  In liberal Washington state, a Republican captured 58 percent of the vote to win a state House seat controlled by Democrats for 22 years, and Republican candidates steamrolled to landslide victories to easily retain seats in two other special elections for state house. 

We might also note that the Republicans picked up two Democratic seats in special elections last month, winning a previously Democratic state house seat with 63% of the vote in a special election in Tennessee last month, and also picking up a formerly Democrat held state house seat in Oklahoma.    

Even in the safest of Democratic bastions, the Democrats underperformed.  In a special state house election in Missouri, for example, Democrats held a safe Democratic seat with 61 percent of the vote.  Sounds impressive, but in 2008, in what was also an open seat race, the Democrat carried the district with 69 percent of the vote .   This year’s showing, in fact, was the worst for the Democrats in the district since at least 1994. Meanwhile, Republicans romped to victories in safe Republican state legislative seats in South Carolina, and two races in Georgia.

Democrats held most of their big city mayors, but Republicans did to as incumbent mayors did well throughout the country, in what were mostly non-partisan races.  But a few offices changed party control, however, usually away from the Democrats, and many in the battleground Midwest and in the northeast, where the GOP is supposed to be dead. 

Toledo elected independent Mike Bell, ending 20 years of Democratic control.  An independent also defeated an incumbent Democrat in Dayton.  Republicans picked up the Mayor’s office in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.   In an open seat race in Manchester, New Hampshire, Republican Ted Gatsas kept the Mayor’s office in GOP hands with the best showing by a Republican in the city in more than a decade.  In another open seat Mayor’s race, in Norwich, Connecticut, Republican Peter Nystrom easily won election to an office previously held by a Democrat.  Republicans also won the Mayor’s office in Stamford for the first time since 1993, winning 55 percent of the vote in a city with a 2-1 Democratic edge in voter registration.  A Republican ousted the Democrats from the Mayor’s office in Stratford, Connecticut, and the GOP picked up council seats throughout the state.  You have to wonder if Chris Dodd was watching. 

Republicans picked up Mayor’s offices out west, too.  In a non-partisan race in Washington’s 4^th largest city, Republican Tim Leavitt defeated labor-backed, 14 year incumbent Royce Pollard, saying, “My opponent seems to think government creates jobs. Creating jobs is done by the business community. Where government can help out is by getting out of the way.”

The Democrats did pick up one mayor’s office of note, in Charlotte, North Carolina, but Republicans returned the favor by taking the Mayor’s slot away from the Democrats in Greensboro.  Democrats were left to find solace in such holding actions, such as not losing as many state assembly seats in New Jersey as they had thought they might. 

Republicans ought not, and probably cannot, sit around and hope they can ride into office in 2010 merely on a bad economy and Democratic ineptitude.  For one thing, the economy is resilient enough, and the Democrats and the Fed have thrown enough money into it, that the economy and the unemployment numbers should be improved and improving a year from now.  We need to press forward with common sense solutions to everyday concerns, and be explaining now why the President’s economic policies are retarding, rather than helping, the economy to recover.  And we should keep emphasizing the value of freedom.  But we can’t just expect 2010 to fall into our laps.  That said, Tuesday was a very good night for Republicans, and the more one looks at it, the harder it is for Democrats to claim otherwise. 

So now she’s launched prematurely, shot the wad of endorsements she has in the middle of a week, rushed to pander to the right by appearing in the OC Register, but even that’s not enough. Now she’s making outrageous attacks on Chuck DeVore and the rest of us who favor an Internet free of burdensome government regulation.

You hear in this debate, you hear analogies, you hear references to, you see pictures about and depictions of individuals that are truly stunning, and you hear it all the time. People — imagine five years ago somebody comparing health care reform to 9/11. Imagine just a few years ago had somebody walked around with images of Hitler. Hopefully we can get back to a discussion about the issues that are important in this country that we can do so without being personally disagreeable and set up comparisons to things that were so insidious in our history that anybody in any profession or walk of life would be well advised to compare nothing to those atrocities.

See Mary Katharine Ham & Hot Air for more: see here and here for images along those lines. And yes: there’s more. There’s disturbingly more, in fact.

Moe Lane

Crossposted to Moe Lane.

The Obama administration has faced a vocal and growing opposition to the radical so-called net neutrality advocated by folks like Crawford and FCC Chair Julius Genachowski. Bi-partisan opposition, I hasten to add. The radicals in the administration, whose views are shared by the President, in true czar fashion avoid honest debate on the issue at all costs. Even, it would seem, internally.

From The American Spectator:

“[Summers] and other senior Obama officials were unaware of how radical the draft Net Neutrality regulations were when they were initially internally circulated to Obama administration officials several weeks ago. ‘All of sudden Larry is getting calls from CEOs, Wall Street folks he talks to, Republicans and Democrats, asking him what the Administration is doing with the policies, and he isn’t sure what they’re talking about,’ says one White House aide. ‘He felt blind-sided, and Susan was one of those people who heard about it.’”

This looks to be classic scrambling for cover on the part of Summers. As Big Government notes:

Sources say that such ongoing concern and criticism regarding the push for net neutrality could further impact the thinking of key Obama advisers -including Summers and potentially Obama strategist David Axelrod -and ultimately result in the administration backing away from net neutrality entirely. The White House aide cited by the Spectator notes that radical figures within the administration “are just a bunch of targets on our back that we can’t shake.”

That last line is a keeper. The full quote obtained by the American Spectator: “They haven’t done us any good on any level, and now they are just a bunch of targets on our back that we can’t shake.” Yes, that’s in reference to the radical elements appointed all over the administration, not just the net neutrality extremists.

This won’t be the end of the net neutrality war. Nothing with the Obama administration ever seems to end. But it is one more radical leftist shown the door, and that’s a good thing on its own. It’s also yet another reminder of that Neil Steven’s refrain: Elections Have Consequences.

Did members cut spending? End funding of abortion? Enforce the prohibition against illegal immigrants getting the new health care benefit? Cut the $759 billion in new taxes? Curtail the gun health care database? Stop the Medicare cuts? No, oh. I see.

Sounds a whole lot like that famous line, “I voted for it, right before I voted against it.”

Blue Dogs and other Democratic Members of Congress are deluding themselves if they think they can state publicly they voted yes, to improve it. Or that a conference with the White House, the Senate and the House will produce a bill closer to the U.S. Senate’s version.

Instead, they are looking hard for excuses to do the wrong thing.

And if they are looking to end the unending political pain of the Speaker’s health care politics — then the way to end it is to end the bill, and vote no.

Otherwise, they will have to defend their vote in their election, and vote again on the Conference Report — if the bill makes it through the Senate, a very dubious proposition.

Instead, they will be walking the plank, the bill then dies in the Senate — and many of their number will then die in November, 2010.

You can also download it here.

Tomorrow at one p.m. Congressman King will join his Republican colleagues and Americans from across the nation seeking to have their voices heard in the health care debate for a second House Call press event. Republicans and other participants will deliver a message that the American people reject a government takeover of health care.

What: Second Health Care “House Call” on Washington

Who: Republican Members of Congress Americans concerned about our health care future Other Guests - TBA

When: Saturday, November 7, 2009 at 1:00 p.m.

Where: U.S. Capitol

Probably the closest thing the US Army has experienced prior to this in its history occurred in July 1867 when Captain Thomas Custer, acting under orders from his brother, Lieutenant Colonel George Custer, tracked down three deserters, wounding two and killing one. Where Lieutenant William Calley and Captain John Compton participated in mass murders (347 Vietnamese civilians at My Lai on March 16, 1968 and 40 Italian prisoners of war at Biscari, Sicily on July 14, 1943, respectively) the victims were not their own troops.

The murderous rampage of Dr. Nidal Malik Hasan has entered the annals of military history as a unique betrayal of the traditional relationship between an officer — and a physician — and the men entrusted to his care by virtue of his rank.

Did it have to happen?

The past six years have been a watershed for the American military. It has demonstrated conclusively that it can match insurgents on the battlefield, develop civil infrastructure out of whole cloth, and recruit a volunteer force while embroiled in two wars. Unfortunately, it has also failed.

The virtue of the American military has always been its ability to take whatever manpower that was available and make from it a soldier (used here generically to describe a soldier, sailor, airman, or marine) loyal to the republic even when the individual loyalty of the individuals might have been nebulous. Confederate prisoners became “galvanized Yankees” on the frontier freeing up Federal troops to fight their own kinsmen. German immigrants fought in France in World War I and II. We are all familiar with the 442 Regimental Combat Team and the 100th Battalion formed from Japanese-Americans and their courageous service in Europe. Native Americans, with no great reason to love the American government, did love the Army and fought with as scouts, line infantrymen, and Code Talkers.

What has happened in the past 6 years is that assurance that the men in uniform were if not loyal Americans at least loyal to their comrades has been shattered.

The tip of the iceberg appeared in 1998 with the arrest of former Special Forces sergeant Ali Mohammed, a former major in the Egyptian army before immigrating to the United States and joining the US Special Warfare Center at Fort Bragg, NC.

In September 2004 SFC Abdullah Webster was sentenced to prison for refusing to deploy to Iraq. Testifying on behalf of Sergeant Webster was Air Force Chaplain (Captain) Hamza Al-Mubarak who claimed it was better for Webster to die than to fight fellow muslims.

In 2003 Army Chaplain (Captain) James Yee was arrested and charged with espionage and sedition based on his dealings with al-Qaeda prisoners at Guantanamo. He avoided court martial because the government was concerned with classified information that might come out at trial. His assistant, Airman Ahmad al-Halabi, was convicted by a court martial. Civilian translator Ahmed Fathy Mehalba, also stationed at Guantanamo, was arrested and convicted at the same time.

In 2004 Army Specialist Amir Abdul Rashid was arrested, and eventually sentenced to life in prison, for providing sensitive information to al-Qaeda.

In 2008 Navy Signalman Hassan Abu Jihaad was sentenced to ten years for divulging classified information to al-Qaeda.

And no one can forget that on March 23, 2003, the eve of our invasion of Iraq, Army Sergeant Hasan Karim Akbar tossed a hand grenade into the command post of 1st Brigade, 101st Airborne Division killing two officers and wounding fourteen others including the brigade commander. He is now on death row at the US Disciplinary Barracks and presumably will soon have the services of his own private shrink.

This list doesn’t include the numerous John Walker Lindhs and Adam Gadahns out there. They, at least, made their sympathies plain.

Obviously, it is unfair to tar all muslims in the military through association with this short, yet impressive, list of muslims who have betrayed their uniform and their country. There is no doubt that many muslims serve this nation in uniform and do so honorably.

But at some point a frank conversation needs to take place on what it means when the nation can no longer rely on one identifiable demographic to uphold the oath they have taken. More importantly it calls into question the impact on combat readiness when there is a perception that muslim soldiers in your unit are as likely to kill you as they are to kill the enemy.

Clearly it is a very touchy subject. One of our most enduring myths is that America was founded on the idea of religious freedom and religious discrimination is one of the vices that we’ve largely abandoned as a people.

During World War II we didn’t commission Japanese nationalists or ardent Nazis. During th Cold War we did our best to not commission members of the Communist Party. The reasons were obvious. Holding a commission confers certain privileges, while the odd Nazi or commie in the ranks might not be a threat a commissioned officer who took his oath “with purpose of reservation and evasion” is a significant danger. Oddly enough, in the case of Major Hasan, Article IV Section 3 of the US Constitution would allow him to serve as a commissioned officer in the military even if a decision were made to bar muslims from enlisting in the Armed Forces.

One of the enduring fallacies of the Bush Administration’s prosecution of the War on Terror was the refusal to admit that islam was neither peaceful in nature nor a disinterested observer in the war. This is not to say that all muslims are members of al-Qaeda, but to blithely ignore the religious dimension of the war was simply wrongheaded. To continue to ignore the particular vulnerability of muslim troops and officers to the propaganda on the grounds and label that very unremarkable observation as being racist or xenophobic is a fatal error. As we saw yesterday at Fort Hood.

Major Hasan’s rampage simply brings an issue which should have been addressed years ago back to center stage. Knowing what we know, how to we make sure these incidents of murder and sedition stop? Forever.

GOUVERNEUR, NY - Congressman-elect Bill Owens was sworn in at noon today.

Owens indicated in a press release that he was now in favor of the bill in direct contrast to his earlier position during his campaign.

According to Politico.com, Mr. Owens assured voters that he felt the public option had no place in the health care reform bill.  Contrary to that position, Mr. Owens now indicates that he intends to vote in favor of the bill even though it now contains a public option.

More at the link, including the three other promises that Owens has already broken. I would like to believe that this is a record of some sort, but it’s probably not.

Moe Lane

PS: Do not expect any so-called ‘Blue Dog’ or supposed ‘conservative’ Democrat to voluntarily get in the way of their party’s health care rationing bill.  They vote as they are bid - and the ones doing the bidding are not their constituents.

Crossposted to RedState.

Not wanting to drop everything and flee lest he scare the children, the President calmly finished the book, then left to a profoundly changed America. Ever since then, the left has excoriated President Bush for continuing to read “My Pet Goat.” Barack Obama, careful to never have such a moment, has just failed miserably.

You can hear the audio, with Fred Thompson’s commentary over it, here. It is profoundly disturbing and disrespectful to the families of the victims and the soldiers at Ft. Hood, Tx.

Instead of acting to not alarm unsuspecting kids, Obama couldn’t be bothered to interrupt his cool-guy image and interest-group pandering.

President Obama had his press conference about the Ft. Hood incident in conjunction to an address of American Indians. Before the President could be bothered to address the grieving, the wounded, and the dead, he had to thank everyone for a wonderful conference, thank the Department of the Interior for hosting it, attribute to one attendee a Congressional Medal of Honor the attendee never won, and go on ad nauseam about the wonders of the conference. Just listen to him.

It would have been one thing to give a brief thank you and get to the pressing matter of the day. But the President had to be the cool-guy pandering to favorite interest groups. And the military is decidedly not a favorite interest group.

Today, the teleprompter should be fired.

Speaker Pelosi’s health care bill H.R. 3962 was drafted without committee hearings or markups behind closed doors by Speaker Pelosi and a very limited number of her inner-circle.  Weighing in at more than 2,000 pages, Pelosi’s bill will cost the American taxpayers $1.2 trillion over the next ten years.

Real reform of our health care system is needed.  We must help those who want health insurance but cannot afford it.  We must expand access to health care in rural America.  We must fix our medical malpractice laws so that doctors can focus on saving patients rather than paying lawyers.  And we must expand our investments in preventative care.  However, that doesn’t mean we should throw out the car because it has a soft tire.  This country still has the best doctors, the best treatments, the best researches, and the best hospitals in the world.  Improvements need to be made, but not at the cost of potentially destroying our current health care system, saddling our children and grandchildren with trillions of dollars of debt, decreasing our standard of care, and burdening American families and small businesses with $729.5 billion in new taxes.

I will continue to oppose Speaker Pelosi’s government run health care legislation and any legislation that comes before Congress that includes a public option.

Congressman Frank Lucas represents Oklahoma’s Third Congressional District.  For more information, visit his website at www.house.gov/lucas.

I’ve got the short list. I hear these are the members most vulnerable to pressure against the Democrats’ health care legislation:

Allen Boyd (FL) at 202-225-5235

Collin Peterson (MN) at 202-225-2165

Kathy Dahlkemper (PA) at 202-225-5406

Tim Holden (PA) at 202-225-5546

Jim Cooper (TN) at 202-225-4311

Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin (SD) at 202-225-2801

Joe Donnelly (IN) at 202-225-3915

Ben Chandler (KY) at 202-225-4706

Zack Space (OH) at 202-225-6265

Charles Wilson (OH) at 202-225-5705

Gabrielle Giffords (AZ) at 202-225-2542

Harry Mitchell (AZ) at 202-225-2190

Henry Cuellar (TX) at 202-225-1640

Dennis Moore (KS) at 202-225-2865

Mike Ross (AK) at 202-225-3772

Don’t wait for orders from HQ, you know what to do.

Call 202-224-3121 or go here to get the direct dial number of your Congressman.

WHIPPING LIST

1. John Adler (D-NJ)
2. Jason Altmire (D-PA)
3. John Barrow (D-GA)
4. Marion Berry (D-AR)
5. John Boccieri (D-OH)
6. Dan Boren (D-OK)
7. Leonard Boswell (D-IA)
8. Allen Boyd (D-FL)
9. Bobby Bright (D-AL)
10. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA)
11. Chris Carney (D-NJ)
12. Ben Chandler (D-KY)
13. Travis Childers (D-MS)
14. Gerry Connolly (D-VA)
15. Jim Cooper (D-TN)
16. Jim Costa (D-CA)
17. Jerry Costello (D-IL)
18. Henry Cuellar (D-TX)
19. Kathleen Dahlkemper (D-PA)
20. Artur Davis (D-AL)
21. Lincoln Davis (D-TN)
22. Steve Driehaus (D-OH)
23. Chet Edwards (D-TX)
24. Brad Ellsworth (D-IN)
25. Bart Gordon (D-TN)
26. Parker Griffith (D-AL)
27. Debbie Halvorson (D-IL)
28. Baron Hill (D-IN)
29. Jim Himes (D-CT)
30. Tim Holden (D-PA)
31. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA)
32. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH)
33. Larry Kissell (D-NC)
34. Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL)
35. Frank Kratovil Jr. (D-MD)
36. Daniel Lipinski (D-IL)
37. Betsy Markey (D-CO)
38. Jim Marshall (D-GA)
39. Eric Massa (D-NY)
40. Jim Matheson (D-UT)
41. Mike McIntyre (D-NC)
42. Michael McMahon (D-NY)
43. Charlie Melancon (D-LA)
44. Walt Minnick (D-ID)
45. Alan Mollohan (D-WV)
46. Dennis Moore (D-KS)
47. John Murtha (D-PA)
48. Glenn Nye (D-VA)
49. James Oberstar (D-MN)
50. Bill Owens (D-NY)
51. Tom Perriello (D-VA)
52. Gary Peters (D-MI)
53. Collin Peterson (D-MN)
54. Earl Pomeroy (D-ND)
55. Nick Rahall (D-WV)
56. Ciro Rodriguez (D-TX)
57. Mike Ross (D-AR)
58. Mark Schauer (D-MI)
59. Adam Schiff (D-CA)
60. Kurt Schrader (D-OR)
61. Heath Shuler (D-NC)
62. Ike Skelton (D-MO)
63. Adam Smith (D-WA)
64. Zack Space (D-OH)
65. Bart Stupak (D-MI)
66. John Tanner (D-TN)
67. Gene Taylor (D-MS)
68. Harry Teague (D-NM)
69. Charlie Wilson (D-OH)

Rep. John Adler (D-NJ): “We Will Be Unable To Support Any Health Care Legislation That Doesn’t Meet The President’s Goal Of Driving Down And Holding Down Cost Of Health Care As Determined By The CBO.” “Sustainability requires that the burden on the American taxpayer and the federal budget be limited. To that end, we will be unable to support any health care legislation that doesn’t meet the President’s goal of driving down and holding down the cost of health care, as determined by the CBO.” (Rep. John Adler, Letter To Speaker Pelosi And Leader Hoyer, Link, 10/14/09)

Rep. Jason Altmire (D-PA): Adding To The Deficit Is A Deal Breaker. For Altmire, the deal breaker would be whether the legislation adds to the federal deficit. He has said he will not support a bill that does not pay for itself. He also wants to see cost-cutting measures in health care and tax breaks for small businesses if they end up with an employer-based mandate to provide coverage. (Matt Snyder, “Dems Eye ‘Public Option’: Area Reps Outline Health Bill Stance,” The Herald, 10/28/09)

Rep. John Barrow (D-GA): “We Will Be Unable To Support Any Health Care Legislation That Doesn’t Meet The President’s Goal Of Driving Down And Holding Down Cost Of Health Care As Determined By The CBO.” “Sustainability requires that the burden on the American taxpayer and the federal budget be limited. To that end, we will be unable to support any health care legislation that doesn’t meet the President’s goal of driving down and holding down the cost of health care, as determined by the CBO.” (Rep. John Barrow, Letter To Speaker Pelosi And Leader Hoyer, Link, 10/14/09)

Rep. Marion Berry (D-AR): Rep. Berry Has Concerns Regarding How The Plan Is Paid For. Democrat Marion Berry of Arkansas, a member of the self- described fiscally conservative Blue Dog Coalition, said he still hasn’t decided if he’ll support the overhaul because he wants to see the changes in the bill. He said his biggest concern is how the plan is paid for. (James Rowley and Kristin Jensen, “House To Unveil Plan With Public Option, Wealth Tax,” Bloomberg, 10/29/09)

Rep. John Boccieri (D-OH): Opposes Penalties On Small Business. Boccieri, who replaced a retired moderate Republican this year, still has concerns with the bill — he opposes some of the small-business penalties and thinks leaders can still find more savings, and he also recently signed a letter asking them to codify a pre-existing abortion ban. (Patrick O’Connor, “House Health Debate Hits Crunch Time,” Politico, 10/29/09)

Rep. Dan Boren (D-OK): “The Worst Thing We Could Do In A Recession Is Raise Taxes, And This Bill Does Just That,” Said Mr. Boren, Who Also Said He Feared The Proposal Would Lead To A Single-Payer National Health Care System. Some Democrats from more conservative districts, like Representative Ike Skelton of Missouri, Representative Dan Boren of Oklahoma, Representative Jim Marshall of Georgia and Representative Bobby Bright of Alabama, made it clear they would oppose the measure. “The worst thing we could do in a recession is raise taxes, and this bill does just that,” said Mr. Boren, who also said he feared the proposal would lead to a single-payer national health care system. “Finally, I do not believe that the possibility for taxpayer-funded abortion has been clearly and emphatically removed from this legislation.” (Carl Hulse, “House Democrats Seek Allies for Health Care Vote,” The New York Times, 11/6/09)

Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-IA): Bill Language Is Not Sufficient To Prevent Federal Funding For Abortion. “While some assert that language contained in variations of H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, is sufficient to preclude federal funds being used for abortion, we do not agree.” (Rep. Leonard Boswell, Letter To Speaker Pelosi, Link, 9/29/09)

Rep. Allen Boyd (D-FL): “We Will Be Unable To Support Any Health Care Legislation That Doesn’t Meet The President’s Goal Of Driving Down And Holding Down Cost Of Health Care As Determined By The CBO.” “Sustainability requires that the burden on the American taxpayer and the federal budget be limited. To that end, we will be unable to support any health care legislation that doesn’t meet the President’s goal of driving down and holding down the cost of health care, as determined by the CBO.” (Rep. Allen Boyd, Letter To Speaker Pelosi And Leader Hoyer, Link, 10/14/09)

Rep. Bobby Bright (D-AL): Bill Will Note Reduce Costs. ”I fear this bill will not reduce long-term costs, and our debt and deficits will suffer and balloon in the years ahead,” said Rep. Bobby Bright, D-Montgomery. He said he also opposes the bill because it contains a government option and surcharges on small businesses and individuals. (Mary Orndorff, “2 Alabama Democrats: No,” The Birmingham News, 10/30/09)

Rep. Dennis Cardoza (D-CA): Bill Still “Has A Ways To Go.” There has been a significant improvement that I helped fight for,” said Rep. Dennis Cardoza, D-Merced, who added: “I still think it has a ways to go.” (Michael Doyle, “Moderates See Health Progress,” The Fresno Bee, 10/30/09)

Rep. Christopher Carney (D-PA): Bill Language Is Not Sufficient To Prevent Federal Funding For Abortion. “While some assert that language contained in variations of H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, is sufficient to preclude federal funds being used for abortion, we do not agree.” (Rep. Christopher Carney, Letter To Speaker Pelosi, Link, 9/29/09)

Rep. Ben Chandler (D-KY): Continues To Have Reservations About The Bill. Chandler spokeswoman Jennifer Krimm said her boss would be going over the bill “to see whether or not it meets the needs of Kentucky families.” “Chandler will continue to have reservations about any bill that does not lower costs, protect small businesses, safeguard our rural hospitals and maintain quality care for all Kentuckians - especially our seniors,” she said. (James R. Carroll, “Health Care Bills Wait On Bayh, Hill And Chandler,” The Courier-Journal, 11/1/09)

Rep. Travis Childers (D-MS): “I Cannot Vote For Legislation With This Big Of A Price Tag In Today’s Economic Climate ”. “First and foremost, I cannot vote for legislation with this big of a price tag in today’s economic climate,” Childers said. “I would also like to see legislation that contains stronger language to prohibit federal funding for abortion and provides equal access to care for individuals in rural communities. My concerns in these areas have not been sufficiently addressed by this legislation.” (“Rep. Travis Childers Says He Won’t Vote For House Health Care Bill,” The Commercial Appeal, 11/4/09)

Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA): “I’m Not Persuaded Any Sort Of Tax Increase Is Needed.” “‘I’m not persuaded any sort of tax increase is needed,’ said Rep. Gerald Connolly, a first-term Democrat from Virginia. He suggests Democrats should focus more on finding budget savings. ‘The jury is still out on what, if anything, we have to do for revenue enhancement.’” (Greg Hitt And Martin Vaughan, “Health Bill In House Relies On Wealth Tax,” The Wall Street Journal, 7/11/09)

Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN): “We Will Be Unable To Support Any Health Care Legislation That Doesn’t Meet The President’s Goal Of Driving Down And Holding Down Cost Of Health Care As Determined By The CBO.” “Sustainability requires that the burden on the American taxpayer and the federal budget be limited. To that end, we will be unable to support any health care legislation that doesn’t meet the President’s goal of driving down and holding down the cost of health care, as determined by the CBO.” (Rep. Jim Cooper, Letter To Speaker Pelosi And Leader Hoyer, Link, 10/14/09)

Rep. Jim Costa (D-CA): Incremental Approach “Would Be A Lot Better Than Trying To Do Everything At Once.” Costa, moreover, stressed that incremental progress “would be a lot better than attempting to do everything at once.” (Michael Doyle, “Moderates See Health Progress,” The Fresno Bee, 10/30/09)

Rep. Jerry Costello (D-IL): Bill Language Is Not Sufficient To Prevent Federal Funding For Abortion. “While some assert that language contained in variations of H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, is sufficient to preclude federal funds being used for abortion, we do not agree.” (Rep. Jerry Costello, Letter To Speaker Pelosi, Link, 9/29/09)

Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX): Bill Language Is Not Sufficient To Prevent Federal Funding For Abortion. “While some assert that language contained in variations of H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, is sufficient to preclude federal funds being used for abortion, we do not agree.” (Rep. Henry Cuellar, Letter To Speaker Pelosi, Link, 9/29/09)

Rep. Kathleen Dahlkemper (D-PA): “We Cannot Support Any Health Care Reform Proposal Unless It Explicitly Excludes Abortion From The Scope Of Any Government-Defined Or Subsidized Health Insurance Plan.” “We believe in a culture that supports and respects the right to life and is dedicated to the protection and preservation of families. Therefore, we cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan. We believe that a government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan, should not be used to fund abortion.” (Rep. Nancy Dahlkemper, Letter To Speaker Pelosi, Link, 6/25/09)

Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL): “Because We Risk A Disaster If We Get This Wrong, I Will Vote No On The House Legislation,” “I am a supporter of health care reform who believes that the House leadership’s approach is not the best we can do,” Davis said in a statement. “Because we risk a disaster if we get this wrong, I will vote no on the House legislation and continue to root for a final bill that fixes the holes in our health care system and contains soaring costs in both the private and public sectors.” (Michael O’Brien, “House Dem: Health Bill Risks ‘Disaster’“ The Hill, 10/31/09)

Rep. Lincoln Davis (D-TN): Bill Language Is Not Sufficient To Prevent Federal Funding For Abortion. “While some assert that language contained in variations of H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, is sufficient to preclude federal funds being used for abortion, we do not agree.” (Rep. Lincoln Davis, Letter To Speaker Pelosi, Link, 9/29/09)

Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-OH): Bill Language Is Not Sufficient To Prevent Federal Funding For Abortion. “While some assert that language contained in variations of H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, is sufficient to preclude federal funds being used for abortion, we do not agree.” (Rep. Steve Driehaus, Letter To Speaker Pelosi, Link, 9/29/09)

Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-OH): Abortion Should Not Be A Part Of A Government Plan Or Exchange. “If there is a federal government plan or an exchange, abortion just should not be part of it,” said Driehaus, D- West Price Hill. (Peter Urban, “Health Reform: Abortion Key For Driehaus,” Cinncinatti.com, 11/4/05)

Rep. Chet Edwards (D-TX): Opposes Any Bill That Increases The Deficit Or Lowers Quality Of Care. “This new bill is 1,990 pages long, and I intend to read every word of it before deciding how to vote. … As I review the bill, I will focus on whether it would reduce health care costs for families and businesses, protect Medicare for seniors and whether it is paid for. I will oppose any bill that results in a socialized health care system, increases the deficit or undermines the quality of our private health care system.” (Todd J. Gilliam, “Pelosi Health Reform Plan Is Tightrope For Some Texas Democrats”, The Dallas Morning News, 10/29/09)

Rep. Brad Ellsworth (D-IN): Will Oppose If Taxpayers Money Funds Abortion. “As I have said all along, we cannot afford to put off health care reform. The costs to all of us - in premiums and out-of-pocket expenses - will only continue to rise if nothing is done,” Ellsworth said. “That being said, as I made clear to House leadership, I have significant concerns about the current abortion language, and if I suspect the bill will result in federal taxpayer dollars being used to fund abortion, I will oppose it.” (Thomas B. Langhorne, “Ellsworth Draws Line At Funding Abortions,” The Evansville Courier and Press, 10/3/09)

Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN): “I Can’t Support It As It Stands Now”. Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Murfreesboro, announced Wednesday that he will vote against a House bill to reform the nation’s health-care system. “Although the current House bill has improved in some areas, I can’t support it as it stands now,” Gordon said in a written statement. “I am concerned about a mandated government-run public option, and I do not like this bill’s financial impact on the state of Tennessee.” (Bill Theobald, “Rep. Bart Gordon Of TN Opposes House Health-Reform Bill,” The Tennessean, 11/5/09)

Rep. Parker Griffith (D-AL): “I Was Hopeful That We Would See A New Bill That Aggressively Tackled Tort Reform, Addressed The Growing Problem Of Physician Shortages In Our Nation Hospitals, And Did Not Include A Public Option. This Did Not Happen, And I Cannot Support This Bill.” “As I began to read the bill, it became clear that a government-run public option would remain the foundation of the legislation’s aim,” said Griffith, D-Huntsville, a retired doctor. “I was hopeful that we would see a new bill that aggressively tackled tort reform, addressed the growing problem of physician shortages in our nation hospitals, and did not include a public option. This did not happen, and I cannot support this bill.” (Patricia C. McCarter, “Congressman Parker Griffith Won’t Support Newly Unveiled Health Care Reform Bill,” The Huntsville Times, 10/29/09)

Rep. Debbie Halvorson (D-IL): “We Will Be Unable To Support Any Health Care Legislation That Doesn’t Meet The President’s Goal Of Driving Down And Holding Down Cost Of Health Care As Determined By The CBO.” “Sustainability requires that the burden on the American taxpayer and the federal budget be limited. To that end, we will be unable to support any health care legislation that doesn’t meet the President’s goal of driving down and holding down the cost of health care, as determined by the CBO.” (Rep. Debbie Halvorson, Letter To Speaker Pelosi And Leader Hoyer, Link, 10/14/09)

Rep. Baron Hill (D-IN): “Troubled” By Medical Device Tax. “I’m also quite troubled by the heavy tax placed on medical device manufacturers a large employer in Southern Indiana.” (Rep. Baron Hill, “Hill Studying New Health Care Reform Proposal,” Press Release, 11/2/09)

Rep. Jim Himes (D-CT): “We Will Be Unable To Support Any Health Care Legislation That Doesn’t Meet The President’s Goal Of Driving Down And Holding Down Cost Of Health Care As Determined By The CBO.” “Sustainability requires that the burden on the American taxpayer and the federal budget be limited. To that end, we will be unable to support any health care legislation that doesn’t meet the President’s goal of driving down and holding down the cost of health care, as determined by the CBO.” (Rep. Jim Himes, Letter To Speaker Pelosi And Leader Hoyer, Link, 10/14/09)

Rep. Tim Holden (D-PA): Bill Language Is Not Sufficient To Prevent Federal Funding For Abortion. “While some assert that language contained in variations of H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, is sufficient to preclude federal funds being used for abortion, we do not agree.” (Rep. Tim Holden, Letter To Speaker Pelosi, Link, 9/29/09)

Rep. Paul Kanjorski (D-PA): “We Cannot Support Any Health Care Reform Proposal Unless It Explicitly Excludes Abortion From The Scope Of Any Government-Defined Or Subsidized Health Insurance Plan.” “We believe in a culture that supports and respects the right to life and is dedicated to the protection and preservation of families. Therefore, we cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan. We believe that a government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan, should not be used to fund abortion.” (Rep. Paul Kanjorski, Letter To Speaker Pelosi, Link, 6/25/09)

Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH): Bill Language Is Not Sufficient To Prevent Federal Funding For Abortion. “While some assert that language contained in variations of H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, is sufficient to preclude federal funds being used for abortion, we do not agree.” (Rep. Marcy Kaptur, Letter To Speaker Pelosi, Link, 9/29/09)

Rep. Larry Kissell (D-NC): Rep. Larry Kissell Announced He Will Vote “No” On The Bill Being Presented. The Obama Administration’s push for health care reform suffered a severe blow from North Carolina’s Eighth U.S. Congressional District after Democratic Rep. Larry Kissell announced he will vote “No” on the bill being presented. In a statement, Kissell said the bill’s $399 billion in proposed cuts in Medicare benefits forced his hand. “From the day I announced my candidacy for this office, I promised to protect Medicare,” he said in the statement. “I gave my word I wouldn’t cut it and I intend to keep that promise to the citizens of the Eighth District and the senior citizens of the nation.” He continued to say he believes “comprehensive health care and insurance reform is necessary,” but could not vote for the bill as it is currently written. (Phillip D. Brown, “Kissell Opposes Health Care Plan,” Richmond County Daily Journal, 11/4/09)

Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-FL): “As The Bill Stands Right Now, I am Not Going To Be Able To Support It ” As the bill stands right now, I am not going to be able to support it,” said Kosmas, who added that the measure is too expensive and doesn’t do enough to curb the rising cost of U.S. health care. “This is an extremely difficult decision, as you can well imagine.” (Mark K. Matthews, “Orlando-Area House Democrat Kosmas Opposes Health Bill,” The Orlando Sentinel, 11/5/09)

Rep. Frank Kratovil Jr. (D-MD): “We Will Be Unable To Support Any Health Care Legislation That Doesn’t Meet The President’s Goal Of Driving Down And Holding Down Cost Of Health Care As Determined By The CBO.” “Sustainability requires that the burden on the American taxpayer and the federal budget be limited. To that end, we will be unable to support any health care legislation that doesn’t meet the President’s goal of driving down and holding down the cost of health care, as determined by the CBO.” (Rep. Frank Kratovil Jr., Letter To Speaker Pelosi And Leader Hoyer, Link, 10/14/09)

Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D-IL): “We Will Be Unable To Support Any Health Care Legislation That Doesn’t Meet The President’s Goal Of Driving Down And Holding Down Cost Of Health Care As Determined By The CBO.” “Sustainability requires that the burden on the American taxpayer and the federal budget be limited. To that end, we will be unable to support any health care legislation that doesn’t meet the President’s goal of driving down and holding down the cost of health care, as determined by the CBO.” (Rep. Daniel Lipinski, Letter To Speaker Pelosi And Leader Hoyer, Link, 10/14/09)

Rep. Betsy Markey (D-CO): Bill Retains Several Objectionable Features From HR 3200. “I still have concerns about the cost of the bill, about making sure that what we’re really doing is providing access to affordable care, because that should be our ultimate goal,” the Fort Collins Democrat said in a telephone interview with the Coloradoan. Markey has said she would have voted against the previous House version of health care reform, known as H.R. 3200, and the proposal outlined by Pelosi retains several features of the earlier bill that Markey found objectionable. (Robert Moore, “Markey Cool And Uncommitted To Pelosi’s Reform Bill,” The Coloradan, 10/30/09)

Rep. Jim Marshall (D-GA): “The Present House And Senate Bills Miss The Opportunity To Begin This Critical Migration. That’s Why I Oppose Them” Unfortunately, the present House and Senate bills miss the opportunity to begin this critical migration. That’s why I oppose them. If these bills are defeated, then perhaps we can get reform that fundamentally changes the payment system, reform that can simultaneously improve access, maintain (or improve) quality and dramatically reduce costs. (Rep. Jim Marshall, “Capitol Comments: Two Georgia Congressmen Tackle Health Care,” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 11/2/09)

Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY): “We Will Be Unable To Support Any Health Care Legislation That Doesn’t Meet The President’s Goal Of Driving Down And Holding Down Cost Of Health Care As Determined By The CBO.” “Sustainability requires that the burden on the American taxpayer and the federal budget be limited. To that end, we will be unable to support any health care legislation that doesn’t meet the President’s goal of driving down and holding down the cost of health care, as determined by the CBO.” (Rep. Eric Massa, Letter To Speaker Pelosi And Leader Hoyer, Link, 10/14/09)

Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT): Skeptical Bill Is Much Different Than Bill Came Out Of Committee, Where He Voted Against It. Matheson, Utah’s lone Democrat in Congress, voted against his party’s reform package when it came before the Energy and Commerce Committee earlier this year. And he doesn’t feel all that warm and fuzzy about the version released this week by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. “I don’t know how much it has really changed from when it came out of committee,” he said Friday. (Matt Canham, “Matheson Prefers Senate’s Health Reform Bill To House’s,” Salt Lake Tribune, 10/30/09)

Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-NC): “We Cannot Support Any Health Care Reform Proposal Unless It Explicitly Excludes Abortion From The Scope Of Any Government-Defined Or Subsidized Health Insurance Plan.” “We believe in a culture that supports and respects the right to life and is dedicated to the protection and preservation of families. Therefore, we cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan. We believe that a government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan, should not be used to fund abortion.” (Rep. Mike McIntyre, Letter To Speaker Pelosi, Link, 6/25/09)

Rep. Michael McMahon (D-NY): “While No Time Is A Good Time, This Is Certainly Not A Good Time To Be Raising Taxes On Anyone …”. He noted that the surtax is not indexed for inflation, as the previous iteration was. “So the people that it hits will continue to grow, and that’s true in my district and the city of New York as a whole,” said McMahon, who represents Staten Island and a part of Brooklyn. He said effective tax rates could top 50 percent for some of his constituents, if you add the surtax on top of the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts at the end of next year and state and local taxes. “While no time is a good time, this is certainly not a good time to be raising taxes on anyone,” McMahon said. “So this is a real concern for me.” (Peter Cohn,” Health Reform Revenue Raisers Will Provide Much Fodder,” Congress Daily, 11/5/09)

Rep. Charlie Melancon (D-LA): Rep. Melancon Concerned With Cost Of Bill And The Inclusion Of The Public Option. Melancon spokeswoman Robin Winchell said Friday that Melancon is “concerned that many of the issues he raised with the original House bill still have not been resolved in a way that will make it work for Louisianians.” Melancon has expressed concerns with the cost of the measure and has said a “public option,” which is included in the Democratic proposal, would be “problematic” for him. (Bruce Alpert and Jonathan Tilove, “Melancon, Cao Left In Limbo; Stances Uncertain In Health-Care Battle,” The Times-Picayune, 10/31/09)

Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-WV): Bill Language Is Not Sufficient To Prevent Federal Funding For Abortion. “While some assert that language contained in variations of H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, is sufficient to preclude federal funds being used for abortion, we do not agree.” (Rep. Alan B. Mollohan, Letter To Speaker Pelosi, Link, 9/29/09)

Rep. Walter Minnick (D-ID): “We Will Be Unable To Support Any Health Care Legislation That Doesn’t Meet The President’s Goal Of Driving Down And Holding Down Cost Of Health Care As Determined By The CBO.” “Sustainability requires that the burden on the American taxpayer and the federal budget be limited. To that end, we will be unable to support any health care legislation that doesn’t meet the President’s goal of driving down and holding down the cost of health care, as determined by the CBO.” (Rep. Walter Minnick, Letter To Speaker Pelosi And Leader Hoyer, Link, 10/14/09)

Rep. Dennis Moore (D-KS): “We Will Be Unable To Support Any Health Care Legislation That Doesn’t Meet The President’s Goal Of Driving Down And Holding Down Cost Of Health Care As Determined By The CBO.” “Sustainability requires that the burden on the American taxpayer and the federal budget be limited. To that end, we will be unable to support any health care legislation that doesn’t meet the President’s goal of driving down and holding down the cost of health care, as determined by the CBO.” (Rep. Dennis Moore, Letter To Speaker Pelosi And Leader Hoyer, Link, 10/14/09)

Rep. John Murtha (D-PA): “We Cannot Support Any Health Care Reform Proposal Unless It Explicitly Excludes Abortion From The Scope Of Any Government-Defined Or Subsidized Health Insurance Plan.” “We believe in a culture that supports and respects the right to life and is dedicated to the protection and preservation of families. Therefore, we cannot support any health care reform proposal unless it explicitly excludes abortion from the scope of any government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan. We believe that a government-defined or subsidized health insurance plan, should not be used to fund abortion.” (Rep. John Murtha, Letter To Speaker Pelosi, Link, 6/25/09)

Rep. Glenn Nye (D-VA): “We Will Be Unable To Support Any Health Care Legislation That Doesn’t Meet The President’s Goal Of Driving Down And Holding Down Cost Of Health Care As Determined By The CBO.” “Sustainability requires that the burden on the American taxpayer and the federal budget be limited. To that end, we will be unable to support any health care legislation that doesn’t meet the President’s goal of driving down and holding down the cost of health care, as determined by the CBO.” (Rep. Glenn Nye, Letter To Speaker Pelosi And Leader Hoyer, Link, 10/14/09)

Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN): Bill Language Is Not Sufficient To Prevent Federal Funding For Abortion. “While some assert that language contained in variations of H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, is sufficient to preclude federal funds being used for abortion, we do not agree.” (Rep. James Oberstar, Letter To Speaker Pelosi, Link, 9/29/09)

Rep. Elect Bill Owens (D-NY): Opposes Medicare Benefit Cuts And Tax Increases On The Middle Class. Bill Owens is opposed to: Opposes: Medicare benefit cuts. We can all agree that there are inefficiencies and waste in the system, but any savings should be used to strengthen Medicare. Opposes: Taxing health care benefits. Opposes: Increasing taxes on the middle class in any way. (Bill Owens, Bill Owens On Health Care Reform, Campaign Release, billowensforcongress.com, Accessed 11/5/09)

Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA): Won’t Support A Program That Funds Abortions. Perriello said he does not currently support any of the three proposals in congress. He said he won’t support a program that funds abortions, but he said it’s starting to sink in with people that the feds aren’t trying to do away with private insurance. “You still hear concerns about it being a public mandate rather than a public option. People are going to be given a wide range of choice between private insurance and maybe, or maybe not, a public option. I think people are starting to understand that,” Perriello said. (Brian Damewood, “Locals Sound Off Over Health Care,” wset.com, 8/18/09)

Rep. Gary Peters (D-MI): “Doesn’t Anticipate Legislation Will Meet All His Criteria.” Rep. Gary Peters (D-MI) said he and some House Dems “remain undecided on health care reform bills, but there’s no reason the debate cannot continue into early” ‘10. “There are some parts of the [House] bill I like, and some parts I don’t like.” Voting on the bill “in pieces may not be feasible, under House rules,” but Peters “said he doesn’t anticipate legislation that meets all of his criteria. His top priority is reducing spiraling costs, as insurance premiums continue to rise much faster than workers’ wages.” Peters: “If all you’re going to do is pour more money into a fundamentally dysfunctional system, you’re only adding to the dysfunction”. (Selweski, “Peters Says Health Care Debate Can Extend Into 2010,” Oakland Press, 9/23/09)

Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN): We Are Adding More Entitlements When We Can’t Pay For The Ones We Have Now. “I wish people would quit asking about the public option because it’s not what the issue is. This is complete ideology run amuck. The issue is we are not reforming Medicare. We are adding more entitlements without being able to pay for the entitlements we have now.” On the Medicare-payment reform studies in the House bill, Peterson added, “There are not reforms there, it’s a study. “I mean. I have so many problems with this bill I don’t even know where to start - too much government bureaucracy, not making the reforms that we need to make in the health care system overall. “I don’t think there’s any way that I could support what they’re doing unless they start over. That’s how bad it is. (Tom Scheck, “Collin Peterson A Firm No On Health Care Bill,” Minnesota.publicradio.org, 10/30/09)

Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-ND): “We Will Be Unable To Support Any Health Care Legislation That Doesn’t Meet The President’s Goal Of Driving Down And Holding Down Cost Of Health Care As Determined By The CBO.” “Sustainability requires that the burden on the American taxpayer and the federal budget be limited. To that end, we will be unable to support any health care legislation that doesn’t meet the President’s goal of driving down and holding down the cost of health care, as determined by the CBO.” (Rep. Earl Pomeroy, Letter To Speaker Pelosi And Leader Hoyer, Link, 10/14/09)

Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV): Bill Language Is Not Sufficient To Prevent Federal Funding For Abortion. “While some assert that language contained in variations of H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, is sufficient to preclude federal funds being used for abortion, we do not agree.” (Rep. Nick Rahall, Letter To Speaker Pelosi, Link, 9/29/09)

Rep. Ciro Rodriguez (D-TX): “We Will Be Unable To Support Any Health Care Legislation That Doesn’t Meet The President’s Goal Of Driving Down And Holding Down Cost Of Health Care As Determined By The CBO.” “Sustainability requires that the burden on the American taxpayer and the federal budget be limited. To that end, we will be unable to support any health care legislation that doesn’t meet the President’s goal of driving down and holding down the cost of health care, as determined by the CBO.” (Rep. Ciro Rodriguez, Letter To Speaker Pelosi And Leader Hoyer, Link, 10/14/09)

Rep. Mike Ross (D-AR): Public Option Doesn’t Solve The Problem. U.S. Rep. Mike Ross, D-Prescott, leader of the conservative Blue Dog Coalition of House Democrats, said in an e-mail this afternoon he was “disappointed” to see that the new House bill includes a public option. “I remain unconvinced that a government-run public option will do anything to reform the health insurance industry. I believe we should accomplish health insurance reform through legislation and regulation,” Ross said. Ross said he remains hopeful that the bill will be modified into “something I can support.” (John Lyon, “Stossel Talks Health Care; Lincoln Won’t Rule Out Filibuster”, ArkansasNews.com, 10/30/09)

Rep. Mark Schauer (D-MI): Opposes Medical Device Tax. Schauer also opposes a proposed tax on medical device makers like Portage-based Stryker, which he says could potentially cost jobs in West Michigan. (“House Democrats Unveil Health Care Reform Plan”, WWMT.com, 10/29/09)

Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-OR): “We Must Have Health Care Reform … But We Need To Do It In A Way That Controls Costs For Families, Businesses And Taxpayers.” Democratic Rep. Kurt Schrader has said he is on board with a public option, but only with conditions aimed at cost containment. “We must have health care reform in this country,” Schrader said in a statement. “But we need to do it in a way that controls costs for families, businesses and taxpayers.” (John Yaukey, “Oregon Senators Back Public Option As Start For Health Reform,” The Statesman Journal, 10/26/09)

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA): “We Will Be Unable To Support Any Health Care Legislation That Doesn’t Meet The President’s Goal Of Driving Down And Holding Down Cost Of Health Care As Determined By The CBO.” “Sustainability requires that the burden on the American taxpayer and the federal budget be limited. To that end, we will be unable to support any health care legislation that doesn’t meet the President’s goal of driving down and holding down the cost of health care, as determined by the CBO.” (Rep. Adam Schiff, Letter To Speaker Pelosi And Leader Hoyer, Link, 10/14/09)

Rep. Heath Shuler (D-NC): Bill Language Is Not Sufficient To Prevent Federal Funding For Abortion. “While some assert that language contained in variations of H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, is sufficient to preclude federal funds being used for abortion, we do not agree.” (Rep. Heath Schuler, Letter To Speaker Pelosi, Link, 9/29/09)

Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO): Opposes The Public Option, Bill Cannot Fund Abortion. In a statement to The Hill, Skelton said, “While the bill unveiled last week is an improvement over the bills considered by House committees during the summer months, it does not represent the right balance for the people I represent and I do not intend to support it. “I oppose the creation of a new government-run public option and continue to have serious concerns about its unintended consequences for Missourians who have private insurance plans they like. I remain concerned about the bill’s impact on rural hospitals and doctors. The proposed reductions to Medicare reimbursement could further pinch the budgets of rural healthcare providers. “And I worry that the House bill does not clearly prevent federal funds from being used for abortion services. As a pro-life member of Congress, I cannot support a reform bill that would allow taxpayers to fund abortions.” (Dan Rendlett, “Senior Democrat Opposes Health Bill,” The Hill, 11/4/09)

Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA): “We Will Be Unable To Support Any Health Care Legislation That Doesn’t Meet The President’s Goal Of Driving Down And Holding Down Cost Of Health Care As Determined By The CBO.” “Sustainability requires that the burden on the American taxpayer and the federal budget be limited. To that end, we will be unable to support any health care legislation that doesn’t meet the President’s goal of driving down and holding down the cost of health care, as determined by the CBO.” (Rep. Adam Smith, Letter To Speaker Pelosi And Leader Hoyer, Link, 10/14/09)

Rep. Zack Space (D-OH): “Bill Most Not Saddle Ohio’s Small Businesses With Costly Mandates.” Protecting Ohio’s small business - Our small businesses have seen their premiums increase an average of 18% more than those in larger firms, and any legislation must work to keep these costs down. Any health reform bill must not saddle Ohio’s small businesses with costly mandates and must provide crucial assistance to our small businesses owners. (Rep. Zack Space, “Space To House Leaders: Health Care Legislation Must Include Strong Rural Health Care And Help For Small Businesses,” Press Release, 11/2/09)

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI): Stupak Will Vote Against Bill If Abortion Language Remains Unchanged, Even If It Costs Him His Seat. Rep. Bart Stupak said Speaker Pelosi is not pleased with his effort to change abortion-related provisions in the healthcare bill being crafted by the House. … If Stupak wants a vote on the House floor to strike the language, and predicts he would have the votes to pass such a provision.