Senate Republicans have managed to get 10 hours of debate on the motion to proceed. Harry Reid initially wanted just 1 hour of debate.

Republicans, though, have dropped the idea of reading the bill on the floor. And now they will need one Democrat or Independent Joe Lieberman to join them in a filibuster.

One Senate aide summed it up this way:

“Under the rules, we would only have been entitled to one hour of debate before the vote. Now we have all day to flip one Democrat,” the aide said. “The reading would’ve been to an empty chamber after the vote had happened, press would’ve gone home, and Americans would’ve turned the channel. Now it’s show time.”

I should add, this effort is not without its shenanigans from the mischievous Senator Reid. In a post at Red State, Senator DeMint explains the meaningfulness of this vote and what Reid plans to do:

A defining moment is coming in this year’s health care debate.

Yesterday, Democrat leaders announced they may soon bring Harry Reid’s new health care bill to the Senate floor in an effort to grant the President’s wish for a government takeover of our nation’s health care by Christmas. This is in spite of the fact that 99 senators have never seen Reid’s new bill that was written in secret. Reid even hinted he may rush to a vote before the bill’s been public for 72 hours, as even Democrats have demanded.

To begin debate on this new version of Obamacare, Reid will play a shell game. He needs 60 senators to “vote to proceed” to an unrelated piece of legislation, and once he clears that hurdle he will strike that bill’s text and insert his new health care bill. But don’t be fooled by senators that will say they oppose a government takeover but just wanted to allow debate on health care, they are not being honest.

The simple fact is this: Any senator that votes to proceed to the Reid-Obama bill is voting for a government takeover of health care.

Why? Because, President Obama and Harry Reid cannot pass a government takeover without clearing 60 vote procedural hurdles in the Senate — but they also know that vulnerable Democrats likely cannot win reelection if they vote for this unpopular bill. So they want all Democrats to stick together on the vote to proceed, then some Democrats will vote against final passage of the bill and claim they tried to stop it.

Senators who say they just want to allow for debate are trying to deceive their voters while giving President Obama the crucial votes he needs to pass a government takeover of health care.

Voters should be watching and remember who stands up for their freedom and who stands with the special interests who want to ram through this takeover.

Again, to see the senators we need to target review my previous post here.

Cross-posted at CMNJ.

Independents now also have an extremely unfavorable view of this Congress. A Gallup poll shows their approval of the Pelosi-Reid Congress at an abysmal 14%. As I reported last week, only 45% of independents want their representative re-elected. Additionally, according to a CBS poll, Barack Obama’s approval among independents has dropped precipitously since April – from 63% then to 45% now.

All of this obviously bodes quite well for Republicans in 2010.

Here is the story from Politico:

Mounting evidence that independent voters have soured on the Democrats is prompting a debate among party officials about what rhetorical and substantive changes are needed to halt the damage.

 Following serious setbacks with independents in off-year elections earlier this month, White House officials attributed the defeats to local factors and said President Barack Obama sees no need to reposition his own image or the Democratic message. 

Since then, however, a flurry of new polls makes clear that Democrats are facing deeper problems with independents—the swing voters who swung dramatically toward the party in 2006 and 2008 but who now are registering deep unease with the amount of spending and debt called for under Obama’s agenda in an era of one-party rule in Washington. 

A Gallup Poll released last week offered a disturbing glimpse about the state of play: just 14 percent of independents approve of the job Congress is doing, the lowest figure all year. In just the past few days alone, surveys have shown Democratic incumbents trailing Republicans among independent voters by double-digit margins in competitive statewide contests in places as varied as Connecticut, Ohio and Iowa.

Obama’s own popularity among independents has fallen significantly, too. A CBS News poll Tuesday showed the president’s approval rating among unaligned voters falling to 45 percent — down from 63 percent in April.

You can read the rest of the story here.

Also, while I am on the subject of independents, here is an interesting article from Zogby explaining the difference between independents and moderates.

Cross-posted at CMNJ.

But just what are the prospects for a Republican takeover of Congress next year? If the Pew Research findings released yesterday are any barometer, one would have to say pretty good. In fact, the anti-incumbent sentiment uncovered by Pew Research is worse than about any time in their two decades of polling. The current climate is similar to 1994 and 2006, which should give Republicans reason for optimism. According to Pew:

The mood of America is glum. Two-thirds of the public is dissatisfied with the way things are going in the country. Fully nine-in-ten say that national economic conditions are only fair or poor, and nearly two-thirds describe their own finances that way – the most since the summer of 1992. An increasing proportion of Americans say that the war in Afghanistan is not going well, and a plurality continues to oppose the health care reform proposals in Congress.

Despite the public’s grim mood, overall opinion of Barack Obama has not soured – his job approval rating of 51% is largely unchanged since July, although his approval rating on Afghanistan has declined. But opinions about congressional incumbents are another matter.

About half (52%) of registered voters would like to see their own representative re-elected next year, while 34% say that most members of Congress should be re-elected. Both measures are among the most negative in two decades of Pew Research surveys. Other low points were during the 1994 and 2006 election cycles, when the party in power suffered large losses in midterm elections.

Support for congressional incumbents is particularly low among political independents. Only 42% of independent voters want to see their own representative re-elected and just 25% would like to see most members of Congress re-elected. Both measures are near all-time lows in Pew Research surveys.

Here are some key findings from Pew’s polling:

% Who Want To See Their Representative Re-Elected

• 11/94: 58%-Yes vs. 25% No
• 11/06: 55%-Yes vs. 25% No
• 11/09: 52%-Yes vs. 29% No

% Who Want To See Most Representatives Re-Elected

• 11/94: 31%-Yes vs. 51% No
• 11/06: 37%-Yes vs. 46% No
• 11/09: 34%-Yes vs. 53% No

Pew’s research also shows that Republicans are far more enthusiastic about voting next year:

…voters who plan to support Republicans next year are more enthusiastic than those who plan to vote for a Democrat. Fully 58% of those who plan to vote for a Republican next year say they are very enthusiastic about voting, compared with 42% of those who plan to vote for a Democrat. More than half (56%) of independent voters who support a Republican in their district are very enthusiastic about voting; by contrast, just 32% of independents who plan to vote for a Democrat express high levels of enthusiasm.

And the biggest problems for Democrats is how they are bleeding independents (as was the case in last week’s NJ election which saw Christie win this key group 2:1)

Public frustration with Congress may have serious electoral implications for incumbents in the 2010 midterm elections. Only about a third (34%) of registered voters say they think most members of Congress should be re-elected next year, which is on par with ratings during the 1994 and 2006 elections. Meanwhile, just 52% of voters say they want to see their own member re-elected, approaching levels in early October 2006 (50%) and 1994 (49%).

In November 1994, 68% of Democrats and 55% of Republicans favored the re-election of their own member of Congress, which is comparable to the current figures (64% of Democrats, 50% of Republicans). But today, just 42% of independents want to see their own representative re-elected, compared with 52% of independents on the eve of the 1994 midterm elections. 

Partisan feelings about incumbents were the reverse in 2006, when the GOP held majorities in the House and Senate. In November 2006, 69% of Republicans, 52% of Democrats and 45% of independents wanted to see their own member of Congress re-elected.

As with all polls, this is just one snapshot in time. But barring a 180 degree turn by the Democrats in Washington, as well as in the economy, 2010 is shaping up to be a bloodbath for blue nation.

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!

The Republicans have a lot more leverage in the Senate than their colleagues in the House. This, of course, starts with the filibuster. Republicans would need one other senator (assuming they can keep RINOs like Olympia Snowe on the reservation) if they are to successfully filibuster the healthcare bill that emerges from behind Harry Reid’s closed doors. Senator Lieberman, as Michael pointed out, plans to filibuster any measure with a public option.

Should the Republicans fail in their effort to filibuster, they would need 11 senators to defeat the bill. Which begs the question, which senators should we target? I asked that very question to one of my contacts on the Hill. And according to this Senate GOP source, the following senators would be the ‘most important and persuadable’: 

• Blanche Lincoln – Arkansas
• Michael Bennet – Colorado
• Ben Nelson – Nebraska
• Evan Bayh – Indiana
• Mary Landrieu – Louisiana
• Mark Pryor – Arkasnas
• Mark Warner – Virginia
• Mark Begich – Alaska 

My source considerd these senators ‘less persuadable, but still possible’: 

• Kent Conrad – North Dakota
• Byron Dorgan – North Dakota
• Claire McCaskill – Missouri
• Tim Johnson – South Dakota
• Jim Webb – Virginia 

And lastly, these senators were described as ‘probably not persuadable, but couldn’t hurt’: 

• Bill Nelson – Florida
• Kay Hagan – North Carolina
• Mark Udall – Colorado

As we know, this entire process has utterly lacked transparency, with Republicans shut out of the process and Harry Reid working behind closed doors to merge/cherry pick from three Senate measures. This process is apparently taking longer than Reid anticipated and my understanding is that the Senate bill may not be voted on until December.

When the bill finally reaches the Senate floor, the first important vote will be on the Motion to Proceed. Like any bill, this requires a majority vote but can also be filibustered. If the Motion to Proceed passes, then the bill comes up for debate.

Aside from any potential filibuster, Senate Republicans will use all parliamentary procedures at their disposal. There is talk of actually having the entire bill read on the Senate floor. Republicans also would propose a ton of amendments, all of which would require debate.

In sum, there is more reason for optimism that this could be stopped in the Senate. However, Democrat Senators will also be under immense pressure from their caucus to support Obama’s top legislative priority. Thus, it will require an even greater amount of pressure from all of us. And the senators listed above are are where we need to start.

Also, I would point out that, according to the Senate calendar, two breaks are upcoming in November which would offer people the opportunity to see their senators back in their home states. They are as follows:

For Senate contact information click here.

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!

A very, very sad day for America.

Yeas – 220

Nays – 215

One Republican vote. 39 Democrats opposed.

However, politically the right move for the GOP was to vote AGAINST the amendment. This way pro-life Dems would not want to vote for the larger (and more dangerous) healthcare bill.

But National Right to Life pressured Republicans. They told them that even a ‘present’ vote would be considered a ‘no’ vote, thus affecting their rating from that group. Only one Congressman, Rep. Shadegg had the guts to vote present. The rest of the Republicans went along.

Additionally, earlier today in the debate Rep. Boehner, in a heated exchange with Charlie Rangel, asked for reassurance that the amendment would be in any final bill. No such commitment was given. So, even with the passage of the Stupak Amendment it may well be meaningless.

Now, pro-life Dems will be able to freely vote for the bill. The vote is due fairly soon. And if it passes by a small margin with the support of pro-life Dems it is the Republican’s own fault.

And it’s also the fault of a one-issue, myopic group - National Right to Life.

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!

Rep. Stupak: Health care has the votes whether anti-abortion amendment passes or fails. Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) told reporters that regardless of the outcome of the vote on his amendment, which would severely restrict coverage of reproductive health issues, the House health care bill is headed for passage. He is whipping support for the amendment and estimates he has 225 votes. If he’s right, the amendment will pass, and he predicted enough pro-life Democrats will vote yes on the final bill to put it over the top. But if it fails, he said, enough pro-lifers will have been satisfied to have had their vote on the floor that they’ll turn around and support the final bill anyway.

[UPDATE] More info on the undecideds: Politico

The President just met with Pelosi and other Dem House leaders. They are trying to twist arms to get the last votes. We need to pressure them to stop. Personally, I just got through to Rothman’s office and told them to make sure he votes NO or suffer the consequences next year.    

Here are the key Representatives to call:

• Allen Boyd (FL) at 202-225-5235 – UPDATE: Voting NO
• Collin Peterson (MN) at 202-225-2165 – UPDATE: Not picking up, mailbox full
• Kathy Dahlkemper (PA) at 202-225-5406 – UPDATE: Not picking up, mailbox full
• Tim Holden (PA) at 202-225-5546 – UPDATE: No answer, Hearing NO
• Jim Cooper (TN) at 202-225-4311 – UPDATE: Voting YES
• Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin (SD) at 202-225-2801 – UPDATE: Not picking up, mailbox full
• Joe Donnelly (IN) at 202-225-3915 – UPDATE: Not picking up, mailbox full
• Ben Chandler (KY) at 202-225-4706 – UPDATE: Leaning NO
• Zack Space (OH) at 202-225-6265 – UPDATE: Not picking up, left message
• Charles Wilson (OH) at 202-225-5705 – UPDATE: Not picking up, mailbox full
• Gabrielle Giffords (AZ) at 202-225-2542 – UPDATE: Voting YES
• Harry Mitchell (AZ) at 202-225-2190 – UPDATE: Voting YES
• Henry Cuellar (TX) at 202-225-1640 – UPDATE: Not picking up, mailbox full
• Dennis Moore (KS) at 202-225-2865 – UPDATE: Not picking up, mailbox full
• Mike Ross (AK) at 202-225-3772 – UPDATE: Not picking up, left message

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

Red State has more on the key Congressmen/women. But this is the 11th hour in the House. Call NOW to make your voice heard.

PELOSI: Buy a $15,000 Policy or Go to Jail

JCT Confirms Failure to Comply with Democrats’ Mandate Can Lead to 5 Years in Jail

Friday, November 06, 2009

Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail.  The JCT letter  makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.

In response to the JCT letter, Camp said:  “This is the ultimate example of the Democrats’ command-and-control style of governing – buy what we tell you or go to jail.  It is outrageous and it should be stopped immediately.”

Key excerpts from the JCT letter appear below:

“H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax.” [page 1]

                                                         - – - – - – - – - -                                                   

“If the government determines that the taxpayer’s unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…” [page 2]

                                                         - – - – - – - – - -    
                                                

“Criminal penalties

Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses.  Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:

• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3]

When confronted with this same issue during its consideration of a similar individual mandate tax, the Senate Finance Committee worked on a bipartisan basis to include language in its bill that shielded Americans from civil and criminal penalties.  The Pelosi bill, however, contains no similar language protecting American citizens from civil and criminal tax penalties that could include a $250,000 fine and five years in jail.

“The Senate Finance Committee had the good sense to eliminate the extreme penalty of incarceration.  Speaker Pelosi’s decision to leave in the jail time provision is a threat to every family who cannot afford the $15,000 premium her plan creates.  Fortunately, Republicans have an alternative that will lower health insurance costs without raising taxes or cutting Medicare,” said Camp.

Can you say, ‘fascism?’

And here some more video of the rally from AFP.

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!

We were greeted by several terrific addresses from Congressional Representatives like Michelle Bachmann, Mike Pence and Scott Garrett. Mark Levin, Jon Voigt and our own Steve Lonegan also joined the chorus of speakers.

Afterwards, our delegation fanned out - some meeting with Congressman Garrett and others with Reps. Rothman and Adler.

Here is the first of my videos from the rally. Unfortunately, I was much too far away to capture all the speakers but this will give you a sense of the size of the crowd and you can hear all the speeches in their entirety. I will upload more later (as it’s been a bit time-consuming!). So please look for more shortly.

And at the end of the day, a rainbow formed over the Capitol! A sign of good fortune? We can only hope!

Also, here is an article of interest on yesterday’s protest focusing on Steve Rothman.

Cross-posted at Conservatives with Attitude!