How Obamacare Repeal Could Get A Senate Vote

Looking forward to this funeral.



Now that the House has followed through on its promise to pass Obamacare repeal legislation, Democrats are now, quoting House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD), "open to better ideas." Even President Obama declared that "I'm willing and eager to work with both Democrats and Republicans to improve the Affordable Care Act. But we can't go backward."

Actually Mr President, passing this monstrosity was backward. Despite Senate Majority Leader Reid's resistance, an up or down vote on repealing Obamacare can hit the Senate floor. From the Heritage Foundation:

"Once the Senate receives the bill, any Senator can use Rule 14 to object to the second reading of the bill. This procedural objection will “hold at the desk” the House-passed bill and allow the Senate to act on the full repeal measure.

If the bill is referred to committee, it will never get to the Senate floor. This procedural objection by one or a number of Senators will stop the bill from being referred to the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP). If the bill is referred to committee, there is little to no expectation that the committee will pass the bill, let alone have one hearing on the bill.

Objecting to Rule 14 would hold the bill at the desk of the Senate and would put H.R. 2 on the Senate calendar. This procedure could be done with a letter or call from one Senator to the party leader. This would allow the Senate Majority Leader to commence debate on the matter when he so chooses. It is unlikely that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–NV) would move to proceed to the bill, yet there is a procedure that any Senator can use to force a debate.

Any Senator can use Rule 22 to commence debate on H.R. 2 if they have held the bill at the desk. Rule 22, the filibuster rule, states:

Notwithstanding the provisions of rule II or rule IV or any other rule of the Senate, at any time a motion signed by sixteen Senators, to bring to a close the debate upon any measure, motion, other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, is presented to the Senate, the Presiding Officer, or clerk at the direction of the Presiding Officer, shall at once state the motion to the Senate, and one hour after the Senate meets on the following calendar day but one, he shall lay the motion before the Senate and direct that the clerk call the roll, and upon the ascertainment that a quorum is present, the Presiding Officer shall, without debate, submit to the Senate by a yea-and-nay vote the question: “Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?”

And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn—except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting—then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.

If any Senator can gather 16 signatures on a cloture petition, then they could file that petition with the clerk of the Senate. This would commence a proceeding that would end with a vote requiring 60 votes to shut off debate on a motion to proceed to a full repeal of Obamacare within two days of the filing of the petition. It is expected that Senate liberals would use Rule 22 to filibuster a full repeal of Obamacare. This would put many Senate Democrats in the interesting situation of voicing support for so-called “filibuster reform” while at the same time using the filibuster rule to block an up or down vote on Obamacare.

Once a bill is held at the desk, they can gather 16 signatures, then wait until the appropriate time to file cloture. They could do so next week or next year. If the courts continue to declare parts of Obamacare unconstitutional and the American people continue to despise this law, then the probability of full repeal may go up over time. At a minimum, Senators have the power to force a vote on full repeal of Obamacare if they have the will to do so."

So this vote can happen whether Harry Reid wants it or not. I believe that Sen. Reid is afraid of a vote. Some reasons come from The Liberal Lie, The Conservative Truth:

"If Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid ignores the call for a vote, if he refuses even to debate the issue, there will be hell to pay... Currently, in 2012, the Democrats are expected to have 23 seats up for election, including 2 Independents who caucus with the Democrats, The Republicans are expected to have 10 seats up for election. Based on the results from the last election, the Democrats lost far more than the Republicans. If the issues are the same in 2012 (and I believe they will be...) and the Democrats become the "Party of NO" by denying debate and votes on bills in the Senate. Then the Dems will suffer for it badly, possibly even worse than they did this last go around. Also, there is the issue of redistricting which will also make re-election for Obama or for any Democrat in 2012 more difficult. So, in short, it isn't pointless. Victory is not measured just in clear wins in floor votes, but in what potential damage can be done to the opposition long term. Having worked in several campaigns, you learn those things... It's political jujitsu..."

In short, Democrats, especially in red states, have a lot to lose with this vote, because they'll be on record for the 2012 elections. When Obama vetoes it, he'll also be on record.

Background Reading:

WSJ: The Repeal Vote
Heritage Foundation: How to Repeal Obamacare in the Senate
The Liberal Lie, The Conservative Truth: Harry Reid Fears Repeal Vote In Senate

Will Public Sector Unoins Take Responsibility?

There's at least one who won't. (HT WSEU-24.org)



Looks like AFSCME won't take responsibility for their role in the States' financial crisis. From the NY Times:

"Policy makers are working behind the scenes to come up with a way to let states declare bankruptcy and get out from under crushing debts, including the pensions they have promised to retired public workers.

Still, discussions about something as far-reaching as bankruptcy could give governors and others more leverage in bargaining with unionized public workers.

“They are readying a massive assault on us,” said Charles M. Loveless, legislative director of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. “We’re taking this very seriously.”

Mr. Loveless said he was meeting with potential allies on Capitol Hill, making the point that certain states might indeed have financial problems, but public employees and their benefits were not the cause."

I totally disagree. Public sector union workers salaries, benefits and pensions make up a great deal of the states budget. In many cases, these same workers on average earn at least double what their counterparts in the private sector make. The private sector and state governments are no longer willing to foot the bill. For Example:

"New York’s new Democratic governor, Andrew M. Cuomo, is expected to call for a one-year salary freeze for state workers, a move that would save $200 million to $400 million and challenge labor’s traditional clout in Albany.

Republican lawmakers in Indiana, Maine, Missouri and seven other states plan to introduce legislation that would bar private sector unions from forcing workers they represent to pay dues or fees, reducing the flow of funds into union treasuries. In Ohio, the new Republican governor, following the precedent of many other states, wants to ban strikes by public school teachers.

Some new governors, most notably Scott Walker of Wisconsin, are even threatening to take away government workers’ right to form unions and bargain contracts.

“We can no longer live in a society where the public employees are the haves and taxpayers who foot the bills are the have-nots,” Mr. Walker, a Republican, said in a speech. “The bottom line is that we are going to look at every legal means we have to try to put that balance more on the side of taxpayers.”

But it is not only Republicans who are seeking to rein in unions. In addition to Mr. Cuomo, California’s new Democratic governor, Jerry Brown, is promising to review the benefits received by government workers in his state, which faces a more than $20 billion budget shortfall over the next 18 months.

“We will also have to look at our system of pensions and how to ensure that they are transparent and actuarially sound and fair — fair to the workers and fair to the taxpayers,” Mr. Brown said in his inaugural speech on Monday.

Many of the state officials pushing for union-related changes say they want to restore some balance, arguing that unions have become too powerful, skewing political campaigns with their large war chests and throwing state budgets off kilter with their expensive pension plans.

Bottom Line: The private sector is tighening its belt. It's now time for the public secotor to do the same. The Unions must either adjust, or face the consequence of having contracts expire, voided, or even have the states try to deploy a union busting campaign.

Background Reading: (Thanks TD for the Link!)

NY Times: A Path Is Sought for States to Escape Their Debt Burdens

NY Times: Strained States Turning to Laws to Curb Labor Unions

Global Citizens Show Obama Love

What gradually happened over time. (HT AR15.com)



Global citizens everywhere showered the Obamas with lovingkindness during their first year in the White House. From MSNBC:

"Saudi Arabia's king was the most generous gift-giver, according to documents released by the State Department on Tuesday.

Saudi King Abdullah gave Obama, his wife and daughters nearly $190,000 in luxury baubles in 2009, including the single most valuable gift reported to have been given to U.S. officials that year: a ruby and diamond jewelry set, including earrings, a ring, a bracelet and necklace, for the first lady worth $132,000.

But don't be looking for the first lady to be wearing the dazzling gems anytime soon. By law, most gifts to U.S. officials must be turned over to the government and the jewelry has already been sent to the National Archives.

Other gift-givers:

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi was a distant runner up to King Abdullah, with gifts for the first family worth a little under $33,000. The Italian haul included silk ties, a gold watch, a crystal table and candlesticks. Berlusconi also gave nearly $2,000 worth of ties and scarves to members of Congress in 2009, including the speaker of the House at the time, Nancy Pelosi.

Chinese President Hu Jintao gave Obama a $20,000 silk embroidery of the first family.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy and his wife sent perfume and a $4,500 black Christian Dior handbag.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown gave the president a pen and holder made from the wood of the warship HMS Gannet, which played a role in Victorian era anti-slavery efforts, along with two biographies of Winston Churchill with a total value of $16,510.

Israeli President Shimon Peres, with an apparent eye toward peacemaking, gave Obama a bronze statue of a girl releasing doves, worth $8,000.

Pope Benedict XVI gave the president a gilt-framed mosaic of St. Peter's Square, a decorative gold coin with the pontiff's profile and several books valued at $7,905.
Britain's Queen Elizabeth presented Obama with framed portraits of herself and her husband, Prince Philip, worth $775.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas offered the U.S. leader $521 in gifts, including the least expensive item listed by the State Department: a $75 bottle of olive oil."

Given the current state of affairs, the love and adoration has waned over time. Particularly from the Vatican, Israel, and France. Eastrern Europe feels like their not getting support from America, especially with regards to the Russians. The scene here in the United States is well documented. He looks more and more like a one term president.

Background Reading:

MSNBC: Foreign gifts piled up for Obamas in first year

The Big Shock: Update: Certain Teacher Unions Say Pensions Don't Payout Enough

They sure have the nerve. (HT IFT)



Upon futher review (always wanted to say that!) adjustments had to be made. See comments section for details.

Teacher unions insatiable appetite for cash continues unchecked. This time it's in the form of the Illinois Federation of Teachers. From ChampionNews.net:

"One of the top legislative priorities of the (Illinois Federation of Teachers)is a plan they call "80, 30 and out." It would allow teachers to retire after 30 years with a pension equal to 80% of their salary. This is in contrast to the current plan of 35 years at 75% of salary.

If implemented the "80, 30 and out" plan would mean a teacher (or administrator) could retire at age 51 with full pension equal to 80% of the average of his last four years salaries.

Here's the quote from the IFT-AFT website:

* An increase in the ceiling from 75% to 80% of earnings for all retirement systems
* A "30 years and out" with no penalty retirement option for all systems

Even the Teachers Retirement System, a state agency under the Department of Insurance, supports retirement at age 55 with 30 years. This should come as no surprise since 6 of the 13 members of the Board of Trustees is required to be a teacher or former teacher. Democratic governors appointed the other seven members of the board after receiving millions of dollars in political contributions from the teacher unions. Blagojevich alone received over $1.7 million from the teachers including checks for $300,000, $300,000, $250,000, $225,000 and $200,000.

Unions are out of touch but not out of money.

The teacher unions in Illinois have more money available to spend than any other Illinois political group. They have contributed over $45 million to Illinois politicians since electronic records began in the 1990's. To see which politicians got how much see "Golden Handcuffs..." Their 160,000 members keep sending in their dues every payday (they are deducted automatically and submitted to the local union by the school districts.) Since we know teachers' salaries go up every year by 7%, the union dues keep stacking up in the union's bank account. The (IFT) itself had revenue of more than $47 million in 2009.

The teacher unions are inherently political organizations because only by political means can they increase transfers of wealth from the private sector taxpayers to their members. Increases in teacher salaries, benefits and pensions come about by the political assignment of an ever-increasing percentage of available tax revenues to the benefit of the teachers at the expense of less powerful political groups such as the poor and the elderly. How can the poor and the elderly compete with the teacher union's $45 million in political contributions?

That is how teachers at Avoca District 37 can sign a contract for 35% salary increases (minimum) over the next five years with political approval while politicians, at the same time, cut $90 million from the Department of Human Services, money originally earmarked for the handicapped, mentally ill and poor seniors. This is how $45 million in political contributions begets $100,000 salaries for 9-month part-time public employees. Too bad the poor don't contribute more maybe then they would get increases too."

Here's how Illinois citizens can beat back this greed:

"First, instead of increasing pensions the governor should revert the pensions back to where they were when they were "guaranteed" by the state constitution in 1980. That would be 60% at age 60 growing to a maximum of 70% at age 66.

Second, he should also insist on a sharing of risk between employees and employer. If the pension funds do not earn a rate of return assumed by the trustees then the cost should be split 50/50. Currently the entire investment risk lies with the taxpayers.

Third, the maximum pension any public employee could earn cannot exceed the average family income for Illinois currently about $75,000/yr.

Fourth, replace as many pension trustees as possible with accountants, actuaries and businessmen so we can have an honest, taxpayer friendly appraisal of investments and benefits.

Fifth, use Wisconsin's K-12 system as a model for pay and benefits reform in Illinois. See WI - IL comparison here.

Illinois taxpayers are ready for comprehensive pension reform. We'll have to defeat the Springfield establishment/Illinois Combine to get it. It will be worth it so we can have a future for our families.

Background Reading:

ChampionNews.net: Teacher Unions Say Pensions Are Too Low

Public Sector Lunacy: Pensions

Here we go again. (HT 50States.com)



In recent weeks, there has been growing sentiment against public sector employees with bloated salaries and gold plated benefits. This post will fan those flames. From ChampionNews.Net:

"How is it possible in this time of want, where the Illinois Department of Human Services is cutting $90 million from services for poor children and the needy elderly, we still feel obligated to take taxpayer dollars and fund public pensions at 200% of a public employee's salary?

We have this false idea that all corruption involves illegal actions. As we know the public pension system in Illinois was constructed in a legal framework of unlikely premises and assumptions that basically had no chance of long-term success. Instead, career politicians used it to reward long-term campaign contributors.

In effect the pension system is a form of money laundering, whereby those who give money to politicians get their investment back many times over in salaries and benefits. That is how $45 million in political contributions by Illinois teachers K-University resulted in a $45 billion TRS pension deficit, 1,000 times the contributions received.

State employees who work a normal 45-year career will retire on more income than when they worked.

State employees are a group we haven't talked much about but on the whole they have the best pension deal in the state. A state employee who works from age 21 to age 66 (like most of us do in the private sector) will retire on take-home pay 20% or greater than when he worked.

That's because he gets 75% of his pay plus Social Security. So if he was making $80,000 and retired after 45 years he would get $60, 000 state pension and about $24,000 in Social Security or $84,000/yr. Additionally upon retirement he does not pay Social Security (7.65%) or pension contribution (4%) or state income tax (3%). Therefore his take-home pay goes from $68,000 to $84,000. Yes his retirement take-home exceeds his working salary.

Notice that by paying only 4% into the state pension he gets $5,000/mo retirement income while paying 6.2% into Social Security he gets $2,000/mo. He pays less and gets more thanks to the generosity of the Illinois taxpayer.

How many private sector employees do you know who will be retiring on more than they made when they worked? Not many I would bet."

Now here's what Gov. Quinn should do, but won't because he's a big government Chicago Democrat:

"The next governor should campaign on the theme "Hit the reset button on pensions."

Let's take all public retirement benefits back to where they were in 1970 when the p1ensions were guaranteed. Get rid of early retirements, get rid of free health care and let's start over from that point.

How could the public employees complain? That is what was guaranteed, so that's what you will get. All the upgrades and increases folded into the plans in exchange for political contributions since then will be reversed.

In February this year (2010) there were two non-binding referendums on funding public pensions.

Here is the exact question asked: "Shall the Illinois General Assembly and the Governor take immediate steps to implement meaningful pension reform which will relieve the unsustainable burden on local taxpayers?"

By overwhelming margins of 87% and 91% voters approved implementing "meaningful pension reform." In November at least 12 more communities will vote on this exact issue. I predict that the outcome will result, once again, in overwhelming approval of "meaningful pension reform."

That should prove beyond a doubt that comprehensive pension reform is supported by a large majority of Illinois taxpayers and any successful politician is going to be out front in implementing this most important of reforms."

If Illinois is to get out of this mess, the public sector must be held in check. That includes tax and spend Chicago Democrats in Springfield.

Background Reading:

ChampionNews.Net: Pension Insanity: $75,000 Salary Turns Into $155,000 Pension for One Kindergarten Teacher

Illinois: Land Of Larceny

How I long for the land of Lincoln and Reagan. (HT 50States.com)



As we've entered a new year, Illinois continues to move in the wrong direction thanks to Springfield. From The Northwest Herald:

"Land of Lincoln? Land of Larceny.

Democrat Gov. Pat Quinn of Chicago, House Speaker Mike Madigan of Chicago, and Senate Majority Leader John Cullerton of Chicago – see a theme? – shut Republicans out of discussions and then complained that no Republicans supported their monstrosity. They showed contempt toward their Republican colleagues and the millions of citizens they represent.

The governors of Indiana and Wisconsin appeared on Illinois radio stations soon after the vote and crowed about their states’ controls on spending and taxes – and welcomed businesses to move to their states, which many no doubt will.

Our so-called representatives said they had to lift another $7 billion from our wallets to fix Illinois’ $15 billion budget deficit, which has been years in the making. Yet in doing so they promised to spend $1 billion more on “education” over the next four years, demonstrating they don’t represent “us” so much as narrow constituencies that send Democrats campaign cash and votes.

Meanwhile, Wisconsin’s new governor, Scott Walker, has called government employees “haves” and private-sector workers “have-nots” and wants to take health insurance and pensions out of collective bargaining and rework the remainder of contracts with government workers. He also supports business tax cuts.

Because of our lawmakers’ disrespect for the state Constitution and the laws they enact – a disrespect that until Wednesday was bipartisan – Illinois has the nation’s worst unfunded pension liability, conservatively estimated at more than $80 billion. We also have the worst credit rating among the 50 states, and the worst budget deficit as a percentage of total spending.

Tax hikes almost always fail to generate the expected revenue, because people do what they can – including moving to other states – to avoid them.

Even if by some near-miracle Illinois sees the promised take from the tax hikes, the core problems remain. We’ll still have a multibillion-dollar deficit, climbing Medicaid costs, soaring employee pension and health insurance costs, rising debt loads, etc.

If tax hikes worked, there’d be no budget crisis: Illinois has repeatedly raised taxes, fines and fees. Tax hikes haven’t worked because lawmakers spend whatever money comes in and more.

In 1990, Illinois had 21 congressional districts. That’s about to fall to 18 because Illinois has lost population relative to other states.

The 2010 Census showed states with no income tax or other low taxes have enjoyed the strongest growth in jobs and population. Those states are gaining congressional seats at our expense.

Illinois ranks 48th among states in net population growth, job growth, and economic performance, according to the American Legislative Exchange Council. Expect Illinois soon to rank last in all those categories."

I will have to check if the recall option is available. We have to reverse course.

Background Reading:

Northwest Herald: Today’s Illinois more like ‘Land of Larceny’