Jamesb101.com

commentary on Politics and a little bit of everything else

Is President Obama playing Defense when he should be leading the Offense?

 

Talkandpolitics has been on this for a quite a while about Obama….

The man simply waits on almost every issue until he see’s how the cards fall….

Then he acts…..

This is not new for him…

He did this when he served in the Illinois legislature….

Preferring to abstain from votes in order to not get go on record  with his views or stance…

 

We now find ourselves in a situation where the Republicans , embolden by the recent Mid-Term results in the House are calling the shots…..

While the Democrats scramble to get their point across…

Now I know Boehner is the Speaker of the House so money bills come from him first…

And I know he’s got a solid majority….

 

But when was the last time you heard Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi mentioned up on Capital Hill?

Vice President Biden…Who is the lead for the White House Budget talks…Is schudeled to go on the road after next week…

Does he go?

If so….

We know Obama isn’t gonna step in….

 

So here we are waiting to see WTF is gonna happen….

Again….

The President…Who IS a Democrat…

Seems to be playing a GOP song…

Coming out for more budget cuts….

Strangely silent on the Labor battle in Wisconsin after endorsing it…

And doing absolutely nothing while the country fumes over a rise in gas princes that has nothing to do with current supply levels….

 

I keep defending President  Obama because even after this he’ll somehow find a way to come out on top…

I know he will….

But frankly….

Talkandpolitics does a have a point…

The guy just doesn’t lead…

He just jumps in at the last minute to do a deal most of the time it seems….

That’s who he is…..

As in when he plays ‘hoops’….

A Defensive player……


Who remarkily wins…..

 

From Polticaldog101….

 

March 6, 2011 Posted by | Blogs, Counterpoints, Editorial, Government, Law, Media, Men, PoliticalDog Calls, Politics, Polls, Projections, The Economy, Updates | , , , , | Leave a comment

The final Healthcare Bill will be more like the tamer Senate version….

Pelosi spent two hours addressing her Caucus via conference call on Thursday for the first time since she agreed to let the Senate bill serve as the vehicle for delivering a congressional health reform bill to the White House.

While this whole thing was dominating the headlines…you had to know things where going to play out this way….it had to …..Pelosi and Reid let the liberals and progressive’s have their say in the house….they let them have their vote…..no big fight with all those people running for re-election….let them go on record…..

But in the end…. I said Obama just wanted a bill…and that’s how it played…..

From day one I said Liberal and Progressives got captured in Iowa.…. ‘on the cheap’….

A whole lot of Obama looks a lot like Hillary Clinton….. two year’s ago…..

She has to be shaking her head …a lot these days…..

Haley Barbour was right…this President can surely sell what he wants…….

And right now….I’ll buy in……

January 7, 2010 Posted by | Government, Healthcare, Law, Media, PoliticalDog Calls, Politics, The Economy | , , , , | Leave a comment

13 GOP Attorney General’s want the “Nebraska Compromise” stripped from the Healthacare Bill….

They have written to Speaker of the House Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid formally requesting Senator Ben Nelson’s (D- Neb.) sweetner be eliminated as illegal……

Here’s more…..

“The fundamental unfairness of H.R. 3590 may also give rise to claims under the due process, equal protection, privileges and immunities clauses and other provisions of the Constitution,” they wrote.

The state officials say they are “contemplating” legal action but would not go through with it if it is removed from the bill. They claim they do not find any other Constitutional objections to the bill.

Some Republicans have argued that the bill’s individual mandate to buy health insurance also violated the Constitution.

…..and this is copy of the letter…….

December 30, 2009

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi

Speaker, United States House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Harry Reid

Majority Leader, United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

The undersigned state attorneys general, in response to numerous inquiries, write to express our grave concern with the Senate version of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“H.R. 3590”). The current iteration of the bill contains a provision that affords special treatment to the state of Nebraska under the federal Medicaid program. We believe this provision is constitutionally flawed. As chief legal officers of our states we are contemplating a legal challenge to this provision and we ask you to take action to render this challenge unnecessary by striking that provision.

It has been reported that Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson’s vote, for H.R. 3590, was secured only after striking a deal that the federal government would bear the cost of newly eligible Nebraska Medicaid enrollees. In marked contrast all other states would not be similarly treated, and instead would be required to allocate substantial sums, potentially totaling billions of dollars, to accommodate H.R. 3590’s new Medicaid mandates. In addition to violating the most basic and universally held notions of what is fair and just, we also believe this provision of H.R. 3590 is inconsistent with protections afforded by the United States Constitution against arbitrary legislation.

In Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S 619, 640 (1937), the United States Supreme Court warned that Congress does not possess the right under the Spending Power to demonstrate a “display of arbitrary power.” Congressional spending cannot be arbitrary and capricious. The spending power of Congress includes authority to accomplish policy objectives by conditioning receipt of federal funds on compliance with statutory directives, as in the Medicaid program. However, the power is not unlimited and “must be in pursuit of the ‘general welfare.’ ” South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 207 (1987). In Dole the Supreme Court stated, “that conditions on federal grants might be illegitimate if they are unrelated to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs.” Id. at 207. It seems axiomatic that the federal interest in H.R. 3590 is not simply requiring universal health care, but also ensuring that the states share with the federal government the cost of providing such care to their citizens. This federal interest is evident from the fact this legislation would require every state, except Nebraska, to shoulder its fair share of the increased Medicaid costs the bill will generate. The provision of the bill that relieves a single state from this cost-sharing program appears to be not only unrelated, but also antithetical to the legitimate federal interests in the bill.

The fundamental unfairness of H.R. 3590 may also give rise to claims under the due process, equal protection, privileges and immunities clauses and other provisions of the Constitution. As a practical matter, the deal struck by the United States Senate on the “Nebraska Compromise” is a disadvantage to the citizens of 49 states. Every state’s tax dollars, except Nebraska’s, will be devoted to cost-sharing required by the bill, and will be therefore unavailable for other essential state programs. Only the citizens of Nebraska will be freed from this diminution in state resources for critical state services. Since the only basis for the Nebraska preference is arbitrary and unrelated to the substance of the legislation, it is unlikely that the difference would survive even minimal scrutiny.

We ask that Congress delete the Nebraska provision from the pending legislation, as we prefer to avoid litigation. Because this provision has serious implications for the country and the future of our nation’s legislative process, we urge you to take appropriate steps to protect the Constitution and the rights of the citizens of our nation. We believe this issue is readily resolved by removing the provision in question from the bill, and we ask that you do so.

By singling out the particular provision relating to special treatment of Nebraska, we do not suggest there are no other legal or constitutional issues in the proposed health care legislation.

Please let us know if we can be of assistance as you consider this matter.

Sincerely,

Henry McMaster

Attorney General, South Carolina

Rob McKenna

Attorney General, Washington

Mike Cox

Attorney General, Michigan

Greg Abbott

Attorney General, Texas

John Suthers

Attorney General, Colorado

Troy King

Attorney General, Alabama

Wayne Stenehjem

Attorney General, North Dakota

Bill Mims

Attorney General, Virginia

Tom Corbett

Attorney General, Pennsylvania

Mark Shurtleff

Attorney General, Utah

Bill McCollum

Attorney General, Florida

Lawrence Wasden

Attorney General, Idaho

Marty Jackley

Attorney General, South Dakota

Ok, how far is this going to go?……Does a state have a chance against something the majority party wants?…..the Supremes can read the tea leaves also……

Stay tuned….

December 30, 2009 Posted by | Breaking News, Government, Healthcare, Law, Media, Politics, The Economy | , , , , , | 9 Comments

13 GOP Attorney General's want the "Nebraska Compromise" stripped from the Healthacare Bill….

They have written to Speaker of the House Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid formally requesting Senator Ben Nelson’s (D- Neb.) sweetner be eliminated as illegal……

Here’s more…..

“The fundamental unfairness of H.R. 3590 may also give rise to claims under the due process, equal protection, privileges and immunities clauses and other provisions of the Constitution,” they wrote.

The state officials say they are “contemplating” legal action but would not go through with it if it is removed from the bill. They claim they do not find any other Constitutional objections to the bill.

Some Republicans have argued that the bill’s individual mandate to buy health insurance also violated the Constitution.

…..and this is copy of the letter…….

December 30, 2009

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi

Speaker, United States House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Harry Reid

Majority Leader, United States Senate

Washington, DC 20510

The undersigned state attorneys general, in response to numerous inquiries, write to express our grave concern with the Senate version of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“H.R. 3590”). The current iteration of the bill contains a provision that affords special treatment to the state of Nebraska under the federal Medicaid program. We believe this provision is constitutionally flawed. As chief legal officers of our states we are contemplating a legal challenge to this provision and we ask you to take action to render this challenge unnecessary by striking that provision.

It has been reported that Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson’s vote, for H.R. 3590, was secured only after striking a deal that the federal government would bear the cost of newly eligible Nebraska Medicaid enrollees. In marked contrast all other states would not be similarly treated, and instead would be required to allocate substantial sums, potentially totaling billions of dollars, to accommodate H.R. 3590’s new Medicaid mandates. In addition to violating the most basic and universally held notions of what is fair and just, we also believe this provision of H.R. 3590 is inconsistent with protections afforded by the United States Constitution against arbitrary legislation.

In Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S 619, 640 (1937), the United States Supreme Court warned that Congress does not possess the right under the Spending Power to demonstrate a “display of arbitrary power.” Congressional spending cannot be arbitrary and capricious. The spending power of Congress includes authority to accomplish policy objectives by conditioning receipt of federal funds on compliance with statutory directives, as in the Medicaid program. However, the power is not unlimited and “must be in pursuit of the ‘general welfare.’ ” South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 207 (1987). In Dole the Supreme Court stated, “that conditions on federal grants might be illegitimate if they are unrelated to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs.” Id. at 207. It seems axiomatic that the federal interest in H.R. 3590 is not simply requiring universal health care, but also ensuring that the states share with the federal government the cost of providing such care to their citizens. This federal interest is evident from the fact this legislation would require every state, except Nebraska, to shoulder its fair share of the increased Medicaid costs the bill will generate. The provision of the bill that relieves a single state from this cost-sharing program appears to be not only unrelated, but also antithetical to the legitimate federal interests in the bill.

The fundamental unfairness of H.R. 3590 may also give rise to claims under the due process, equal protection, privileges and immunities clauses and other provisions of the Constitution. As a practical matter, the deal struck by the United States Senate on the “Nebraska Compromise” is a disadvantage to the citizens of 49 states. Every state’s tax dollars, except Nebraska’s, will be devoted to cost-sharing required by the bill, and will be therefore unavailable for other essential state programs. Only the citizens of Nebraska will be freed from this diminution in state resources for critical state services. Since the only basis for the Nebraska preference is arbitrary and unrelated to the substance of the legislation, it is unlikely that the difference would survive even minimal scrutiny.

We ask that Congress delete the Nebraska provision from the pending legislation, as we prefer to avoid litigation. Because this provision has serious implications for the country and the future of our nation’s legislative process, we urge you to take appropriate steps to protect the Constitution and the rights of the citizens of our nation. We believe this issue is readily resolved by removing the provision in question from the bill, and we ask that you do so.

By singling out the particular provision relating to special treatment of Nebraska, we do not suggest there are no other legal or constitutional issues in the proposed health care legislation.

Please let us know if we can be of assistance as you consider this matter.

Sincerely,

Henry McMaster

Attorney General, South Carolina

Rob McKenna

Attorney General, Washington

Mike Cox

Attorney General, Michigan

Greg Abbott

Attorney General, Texas

John Suthers

Attorney General, Colorado

Troy King

Attorney General, Alabama

Wayne Stenehjem

Attorney General, North Dakota

Bill Mims

Attorney General, Virginia

Tom Corbett

Attorney General, Pennsylvania

Mark Shurtleff

Attorney General, Utah

Bill McCollum

Attorney General, Florida

Lawrence Wasden

Attorney General, Idaho

Marty Jackley

Attorney General, South Dakota

Ok, how far is this going to go?……Does a state have a chance against something the majority party wants?…..the Supremes can read the tea leaves also……

Stay tuned….

December 30, 2009 Posted by | Breaking News, Government, Healthcare, Law, Media, Politics, The Economy | , , , , , | 9 Comments

Something interesting on pro-life, and the democrats in the House….

I was listening to a  WNYC, talkradio show this morning (Brian Lehrer)…on it, someone said something quite interesting…only 13% of americans have their insurance company pay for abortions……the conversation went on about how the House majority wanted to keep abortion in the new Healthcare bill….but Rep Stupak doggedly put together a group of votes, and in the end got a deal to have the abortion payment part of the bill striped from the House version….the guest on the show related that the pro-choice representatives number about 150, and the pro-life members are about a third of that number ( and she was only talking about DEMOCRATS )…but on this bill, Stupak and his group prevailed…..

But I just let that sink in…. only 13%?….87% pay out of their own pockets ( so no one knows, huh?)……I guess Nancy Pelosi isn’t so dumb after all…….

November 9, 2009 Posted by | Healthcare, Politics | , , , , , , , | 5 Comments