A guest blog from Dennis Lund, Mandate Amendment supporter from California. Written March 24, 2010, a precursor to the events of today:
I have said before, when I am wrong, I will not hesitate to admit it. The recent passage of the Health care Bill, after I did a postmortem on it, is a case in point. Actually, I was wrong on two counts. The first being that I believed the election of Sen. Scott Brown, was a final nail in the coffin. Clearly in retrospect that assessment was in error.
Additionally, I believed that the Democrats would conduct the legislative process on this bill in an open, non-partisan, honest, non-corrupted manner and one which was in compliance with the Constitution. I was not only wrong, I was terribly naïve. The Democrats are clearly capable of anything – legislative or procedural.
Do you recall watching candidate Obama, promising hours of debate and committee meetings on C-span during the past year? Well, neither do I. So much for openness!
Defenders of the process will point out that 161 Republican amendments were added to the bill. That would be 161 out of 721, not a strong record. The fact of the matter is this is a Democrat Bill! As I mentioned in a previous column the Democrats should have sought a real compromise that would have garnered Republican support. Instead, a line was drawn and future election results will determine the impact of this action.
Honestly, who really knows what is in this bill? Even Queen Nancy stated “We have to pass the health care bill so that you can find out what is in it”. Gosh, maybe I am just not nuanced enough to comprehend what she is saying, but it seems to me that we have a right to know what our employees are going to do before they actually do it.
The list of corrupt sections of this bill should send shivers down the spine of any supporter of honesty in government, which apparently excludes those who are celebrating this as a victory. We have heard of the Louisiana Compromise and the Cornhusker Payoff (later withdrawn); apparently even blatant corruption has a limit for some (notable exceptions would be: John Conyers, Alcee Hastings, Chris Dodd and Charlie Rangel). Even California got a few bones thrown their way in a promise to deliver water to central valley farmers. But the classic case is one rarely mentioned. “This ‘Bismarck Bank Job’ provision looks like exactly the sort of backroom deal that makes the American people hate Washington” stated Rep. John Boehner, the House minority leader.
So what is the Bismarck Bank Job? Well the health care bill effectively outlaws private student loans. As reported in USA today, the ‘Bismarck Bank Job’ is described as “the most blatantly political move in the legislation, which was an exemption that would allow a state-run bank in North Dakota (alone among the states) to continue to offer loans directly to students” In simple terms the laws of the land on this subject apply equally to all of the other 49 states. You don’t like it? Well, you can just move to North Dakota!
Why did North Dakota alone receive this benevolence? Was it because Senator Kent Conrad was wavering on the Bill and his vote was desperately desired?
Michelle Malkin’s columns report on an additional 20 items of a similar, although many are lesser, instances of such blatant “compromises” that were reached amongst Democrats to insure their votes. One does have to wonder; if this bill is so good for the country, why were so many old school, shady deals needed to make it happen?
Some have said that the Constitution is a ‘living and breathing’ document, one that needs to be adjusted periodically. On this note I will admit to being an old school kind of guy. I believe that the Founding Fathers were a pretty smart group who put together a new concept, a new contract that defines how the government is to act, based on rules established by the “consent of the governed.” One of those rules is that laws need to be voted on, not “deemed” to have been passed. This idiotic notion was ultimately rejected, but how could it have even been seriously considered?
This bill now establishes that the government can dictate to you how to spend your money. It is bad enough that they tax us on everything they can. They are now telling us how to spend on health insurance that which they do not take away from us. And at a price they determine from companies they select and command to provide a minimum level of coverage.
No doubt our elected leaders in Washington know the law inside and out. When asked which clause of the Constitution allows Congress to force us to spend our money, as dictated by them, the Congressman from Detroit, John Conyers responded: ““under several clauses…the good and welfare clause…and, uh…a couple others.”
The Good and Welfare clause? Really gives you faith in our leadership doesn’t it?
How also could President Obama agree to write an Executive Order so as to garner the vote of Rep. Stupak and his colleagues? Does this mean that the President of the United States has now established a price for the issuance of an EO? Wow, I thought Bill Clinton established a new Presidential low when the Lincoln Bedroom was being used as an efficient source of revenue that would make Conrad Hilton envious.
Yes, this one was lost, for now, but time will tell who the real losers are. Frankly, those who are willing to shred the Constitution to get what they want are the real losers.
© 2010 suisunwritersgroup