Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Democratic Congresswoman Dina Titus speaks with nursing students this month while touring Touro University in Henderson.
Thursday, July 23, 2009 | 2 a.m.
For a lawmaker who has been tarred as a tax-and-spend liberal, Democratic Rep. Dina Titus took a step toward rewriting the narrative by voting in committee against her party’s health care bill, saying she opposes the proposed tax hikes on small businesses and upper-income households needed to pay the $1 trillion tab.
The vote was strategic. Titus is the first Democrat to represent the politically split 3rd Congressional District in the Las Vegas suburbs. She won the seat last year having campaigned on her support for health care reform.
Titus has said she wants coverage for the 47 million people nationwide who have no insurance. Nevada has a greater portion of uninsured residents than most states — nearly 500,000 residents, or 18 percent of the population.
But Titus also wants to allay concerns of fiscally conservative voters who are worried about rising government spending and skeptical of her record on taxes.
Eric Herzik, chairman of the political science department at the University of Nevada, Reno, said Titus’ no vote in the House Education and Labor Committee allows the freshman congresswoman to burnish her anti-tax credentials among more conservative voters while leaving the door open to support the final bill.
The health care bill making its way through the House proposes taxing upper-income earners — individuals earning more than $280,000 and households with income exceeding $350,000 — to pay for coverage for the uninsured.
The surtax would be tiered to rise with incomes. Households earning $350,000 to $500,000 would face an additional 1 percent tax; those earning $500,000 to $1 million would be taxed 1.5 percent; and those earning more than $1 million would be subject to a 5.4 percent surtax.
Many small-business owners fall in these categories. Additionally, small businesses with more than $250,000 in payroll would be subject to an 8 percent increase in payroll taxes.
Supporters say slightly more than 1 percent of households and 4 percent of small businesses would be hit with the new taxes.
The bill aims to bring in more than $500 billion in revenue to pay for the $1 trillion over 10 years, and cut nearly $500 billion in costs.
But the House’s fiscally conservative Democrats, as well as Titus and other freshmen elected in 2008 from traditionally Republican districts, have been resisting the tax plan.
Last week, on the eve of historic votes in two of the three committees considering the bill, Titus joined more than 20 lawmakers in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in opposition.
“We are extremely concerned that the proposed method of paying for health care reform within this legislation will negatively impact small businesses,” Titus and the others wrote.
On Friday a busload of the recalcitrant lawmakers was sent to the White House for a sit-down with President Barack Obama and his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel.
Titus said she told the president her concerns about the tax plan.
“In Las Vegas, in the suburbs, you have lots of small businesses, small shopping centers, small restaurants,” Titus said.
Titus represents the Southern Nevada expanse beyond the hotels and casinos of the Strip. These neighborhoods are home to a mix of middle-income and affluent households, and some of the region’s attractive planned communities.
While the income thresholds may seem high in some regions, Titus said “in today’s world and our district, it’s not a realistic figure.”
“A family like that probably has two kids in college, a house that’s upside down, a car payment,” she said.
Titus is crafting her views carefully, much the way her predecessor, former Republican Rep. Jon Porter, tried to balance his views as the Republican district began trending Democratic.
Even though Titus beat Porter in 2008, the margin was slim. She will be up for reelection next year in a district where Democrats now outnumber Republicans, but the surge included new Obama voters. Nevada’s Democrats remain more conservative than most.
Elections in her district often turn on independent voters. Those unaffiliated with either party have told national pollsters they are concerned about government spending and the growing national debt.
Titus must show her district she is fiscally prudent, and not the “Dina Taxes” character in opposition campaign ads.
Pelosi has floated the idea of having the surtax apply only to millionaires — taxing those households earning more than $1 million. Titus says she could support that.
“If they have to have a millionaires’ tax, most of my people don’t fit in that category,” Titus said, “and I think would understand the benefit that accrues more than makes up for that.”
In fact, even if the proposed surtax remains at the current income levels once the final bill comes to the floor, she might support it — depending on how the rest of the bill looks.
Her committee vote last week wasn’t the final word.
“I will see what else is in there,” she said. “That wasn’t an indictment of the bill; it was a statement that we can do better.”
So if taxing people earning $280,000 or households earning $350,000 is in the final bill, it’s not a deal breaker?
“That’s right.”
One of the first things that Ms. Taxus did in DC in her first session was to vote for a tax increase.
She normally loves loves loves tax increases.
Perhaps she realizes the people in her district do not love love love tax increases.
I will not hold my breath. This session of Congress will not end until next year. I am confident she will not control her urge to raise taxes some more.
It is just as bad to raise more debt to pile on to our children.
She is just another out-of-control multi-trillion deficit spender mixed in with tax increases.
Is anyone's mind changed by what 'SgtRock' (Nance) writes?
It's a set up. Allowing first term Congressmen to vote against the plan for their reelection but staying loyal at the end to make sure it passes. Fooling the voters doesn't work.
What our congresswoman will soon come to realize is that the Republicans are the party of "NO" and no matter what she does they will NEVER support her.
What she will also realize is that, all though she may come off as well inentioned in this article, it's the Democratic base that convinced many voters accross the country that reformng health care was a MAJOR priority. (That wasn't hard to do as Democrats and Republicans both know the curant system is broken). That goes for red, blue, and purple districts. If reforming health care fails this time aound...all Democrats will suffer at the ballot box, because folks like myself, who braved 110 degree weather to work on these campaigns will just as well stay home!
This being said, I wish her every success in crafting this legislation.
Stuart & Robert Wyman-Cahall
Las Vegas, NV 89142
"Additionally, small businesses with more than $250,000 in payroll would be subject to an 8 percent increase in payroll taxes"
I can hear the casino honchos sweating right now. They are probably starting their next "whine session" on how the casinos are losing more money and this tax increase will just destroy them......
(One casino alone can probably pay for half the uninsured here in Las Vegas)
mschaffer, I don't even read what SgtRock Nance writes because I consider it a waste of time. He's not interested in rational discussion he just needs attention which lots of posters are willing to give him as they attempt to reason with him. When a conversation gets hijacked by him because people fall for his tricks and respond to him, I have to skip a lot of comments to find anything worth reading.
Strategic or not, the problem with Titus' no vote early on is that it simply helps fire the opposition to the health plan. Intent to join in supporting the plan when it comes to final vote is not useful if the plan does not come to final vote because the real nay-sayers triumph.
SgtRock.. you wrote "I will not hold my breath" ..
..just wanted you to know that, your statement was the most depressing thing I read today...
.
Big mistake. For those in Titus' position, health care reform MUST pass. Esp for them. They have to show that Dems can "get it done." If not, then why vote for them?
As long as the Republicans insist on lying, and weak Dems keep caving in, we are the ones who take it in the ear.
"The congressional Joint Tax Committee estimates that it would have no impact at all on 96 percent of small business owners -- broadly defined as any taxpayer with as little as $1 of business income -- and that only half of the 4 percent of small business owners who would be affected derive more than a third of their income from a business.[2] At the same time, the House plan would enhance the ability of small businesses to offer affordable, quality health insurance to their employees (see box below)."
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=vie...
I am all for an alternative to insurance companies gouging the public. I think we should not settle for less than the same type of government-funded health care coverage Titus and the rest of congress enjoys. I also feel that the Federal government should do the following to pay for healthcare and the needed social services for (legal) Americans:
1] Tax non-profits.
2] Reduce or eliminate all foreign aid until our deficit is paid.
3] Rescind all government paid benefits, including social security and medicare to those retired Americans (especially former politicians) making over $200,000 a year.
4] Eliminate the IRS completely and use a sales tax system.
5] Raise the taxes on imports from China to balance the trade deficit.
6] Deport all illegals and disqualify the "anchor babies" as American citizens.
7] Enforce the laws regarding the hiring of illegals and raise the fines on businesses employing them by 100 fold.
8] Eliminate the lobbyists.
9] Seize off-shore business shells, assets, and off-shore bank accounts, operating against US Law.
10] Fine any congressman/woman caught in an adulterous action $500,000 and immediate dismissal without future benefits. (make it tougher than the military code)
11] Regulate banking and financial products, imposing fines and imprisonment for violations.
12] NO MORE corporate bailouts. Make each corporation accountable for every penny they received. If they cannot account for it, they must return it.
This small list would probably eliminate the deficit and provide healthcare for everyone.
Get tough, America. It's time to focus on home and cleaning up the $hithole of DC politics and the ideology of greed we've lived under.
Alright rep. Titus, I'm glad to see you take a neutral fiscal stance on this healthcare pile. Hope you stick with it. I've looked at some of what has been proposed thus far and it looks like a thousand pages of garbage.
Interesting humor sunvisitor, you've wasted your precious time commenting on a poster that you ignore and disagree with. Perhaps a comment board where everybody agrees with YOUR OPINION would be more suitable. Any thoughts on the article?
Actually Katie, I believe if we have the surcharge tax only on governemnt workers, we would find millions to pay for the uninsured.
Just think of part-time Legislators, the governor and all of the staff in Carson City paying a 10% surtax plus the over-paid county commission with their staff. You can not tell me millions could be squeezed out of these over-paid individuals to help the poor.
Why is it solutions to our problems always start with taxing/stealing from small business who earn less than the politicians? Small Businesses create jobs and grow this economy not politicians.
All of the current and ex-members of Congress are millionaires be it Republicans or Democrats. In addition, they raise millions in campaign contributions. Congress has been causing all of the problems and they are raking in the money. They created the current housing financial crises by forcing low/non-downpayment mortgages onto the market and thinking everyone should own a home. Renting at times is a better solution. So these same individuals are going to "solve" health care. My guess anything done will be greased with heavy campaign contributions, be burdensome and not effective. Just look at the VA.
Instead allow insurance companies to compete accross state lines by eliminating state insurance commissions (saves state's budget) and allow individuals to directly contract with healthcare providers at discounted rates.
It's morally wrong to leave 100 million Americans un or underinsured, 1 illness away from financial ruin. And it's wrong to burden small business with the outrageous insurance costs also -- found a cool site; Balkingpoints ; incredible satellite view of earth
Good for her...better not be a political ploy tho. Some say better watch her. We will be watching what she says with how she VOTES. Accountability or Praise will follow.
This strategic vote risks alienating the progressive activists who phoned, canvassed attended events and donated to Rep. Titus. Many volunteers, motivated because she campaigned on health care reform, are shocked and disappointed. The electoral cost of writing off this volunteer base might be higher than loss of a small percentage of non-partisan voters.
Titus's only opponent is not even raising money yet and the state GOP is moribund as an organization. With the NSDP in high gear, her seat is defensible, given an enthusiastic army of volunteers.
WHOA, Harry don't read it just jam through Reid, has just said they will not vote on healthcare until summer (vacation) is over."We need to think about this and not jam it through".
could it be? nah
ynotjohn
That makes sense what you posted.
Also - don't you think it's about time ALL the politicians and gov't workers put a small percentage into the social security system? Or, drop their own employee-financed retirement plan and put their fair share into the social security system? If they did that - then social security may stick around longer than 2039!!! Some of those gov't employees have a VERY impressive pot of money waiting for them, even after just having a gov job for 10 years!!!
dina titus- paid for by blue cross and blue shield. bet she'll have a nice warchest of money for next election. democrat my ass
Interesting laundry list from transplanted. Now that Calif. is sinking as fast as the Lusitania, schools and colleges are on the receiving end of some get-tough budget cuts to the tune of billions cut from UC and Cal-State. Tuition at Cal-State is going to rise 20% immediately. A lot of students are going to decide that college is a ripoff, and they are probably right.
People use Europe as a health-care model that we should strive for. Britain gives its citizens free health care, but they have a corrupt student-loan system and a lot of credit card debt. France has free health care and free colleges, but I suspect that it's a more socialistic society than most of us would like to have (ie. it is a less free society than most of us are used to).
If the Obamacare plan is so great, why is it that not a single member of Congress, nor the President, would agree to go on it as a show of good faith?
"If the Obamacare plan is so great, why is it that not a single member of Congress, nor the President, would agree to go on it as a show of good faith?"
How about those who think government can't run health insurance surrender their VA medical benefits, Medicare, and Congressional health benefits first? After all, if the private sector is so great they should have NO problem getting insurance there.
Douglas,
I thought you said you were through with me! Welcome back, I'm glad to see they didn't honor your request to delete your user name.
What I'm saying, is that these people that are telling us how great this plan is and trying to shove it down our throats, are not even willing to use it. Do you not think that's a little hypocritical? If I believed my words, and I were trying to make the same point, I would stand by my product. The fact that they don't, and have even written a provision into the bill that forbids Congress from even being considered for this healthcare for at least 6 years, don't you think that's mighty strange?
They have written in a clause that protects them from their own health care bill. If that's not appalling to you, I don't know what would be.
" Do you not think that's a little hypocritical?"
No - since the fundamental part of the reform bill is "If you like your insurance, you keep it." That's been in the bill text since day one.
What I find hypocritical are the ones who slam the public option or laud the private industry while still receiving their health benefits from the government.
Douglas just proved the point. Obviously, can't expect Obama or any other politician to take a government plan, so an attempt to turn the table around!
Oh yea, there is a provision that if you have a private healthplan, you are forbidden to go on the government plan unless you qualify under certain rules. If private sector is so bad, why won't they just let anyone on the government plan!
Dina Titus is a poser, hypocrite and traitor to the "real Democrats" whose votes were needed to elect her.
Ethically, Dina Titus is no better than John Ensign. Her comments, actions and votes in today's Sun story, exposed the fact that she will sell out her unemployed, uninsured Democrat constituents, just to try to get re-elected.
She can tack to the right, but she will lose the left and her seat in Congress, because there WILL BE a left of center Democrat who will rip her character to shreds in the next Democratic primary.
Count on it.
Douglas,
Don't you think, as a show of good faith, that it would do wonders if the President and Congress stood up and said, "We have so much faith in this health reform, that we are going to be the first in line. We wouldn't ask you to do anything we wouldn't be willing to subject ourselves and our families to."
Don't you agree Douglas, that it would definitely ramp up public confidence in this health care reform?
"Don't you agree Douglas, that it would definitely ramp up public confidence in this health care reform?"
No, I don't. Because Republicans would charge that Democrats are just grandstanding for political gain, or argue that they're going to use the public confidence swell to ram single-payer through (depsite the fact that Obama himself is opposed to single-payer).
"If private sector is so bad, why won't they just let anyone on the government plan!"
Um, because people like you would complain that the whole bill is just a trojan horse for single-payer?
So, just to clarify,
You think it's better for Congress and the President say to us, "It's really good....for you, but I don't want it for me or my family."
You think that is preferrable to saying, "We stand by this plan and we will be the first in line for it!"
I just want to hear you say it one more time. It's a yes or no question.
Is DINA a DINO?
What Titus does not understand, nor do many Democrats, is there is no way to get a Republican vote for health care reform. Just look at the conservatives here. Give them facts and they ignore them, deny them, or change the subject. Dems and Independents outnumber the wingnuts 4:1. 80% of voters want UHC. Yet, one man, Max Bauchus is holding up the whole thing. He knows that if it gets to a conference committee, his time of gorging at the pig trough of bribes, er, contributions, is over. He is going to do everything he can to stop it, just as if he were a Republican.
Dems like Titus need to learn how to stand up and stand by their promises.
Titus is trying to regain traction with all of the constituents that blasted her over he Cap & Tax vote. Her office was inundated with hate mail from Nevadans.
henderson, why would you want to force the president or congress to go on a proposed new public insurance plan? Isn't the point for people to keep their current insurance if they want to?
I thought I was perfectly clear Mia, perhaps you should re-read my post.
Also, I never said they should be "forced." Seriously, read my posts again. You definitely missed something.
Most of these businesses are incorporated. Medical insurance would be a write off anyway under any new plan. What kind of accountants do all these $250k a year people have anyway? Titus is a dittohead.
henderson writes: "What I'm saying, is that these people that are telling us how great this plan is and trying to shove it down our throats, are not even willing to use it. Do you not think that's a little hypocritical?"
Who is shoving things down your throat, henderson?
Isn't the whole idea that if you like your present health insurance company you can do whatever you like? You don't have to go onto a public insurance plan; it would just be another option available to you if, for example, your present health insurance plan dumps you.
This is the same lady that rolled over on her freinds to keep her butt out of prison.They did time for the same thing she did,so her words and or comments mean nothing! Im still waiting for the democraps to blame this all on Bush.
Mia, we are paying for it or have you not heard?
henderson, no one is forcing you to live in America. If you don't like the laws, you can move to another country or elect some more "family values" consweratives who will work to deny Americans affordable healthcare, if that's what you want.
What law are you referring to?
Any laws, henderson.
That's really so weird because I never complained about any laws. You honestly don't make any sense.
Let's cut off her insurance. Small businesses have difficulty competing with large ones because they can't match medical benefits. Titus is a dingbat, I'll never vote for her again.
henderson writes: "That's really so weird because I never complained about any laws. You honestly don't make any sense."
It was my impression that you were complaining about things being shoved down your throat, henderson.
Maybe that was a different henderson.
"Small businesses have difficulty competing with large ones because they can't match medical benefits."
The House bill offers tax credits for small businesses to offset the health benefits they offer to their employees. In addition, businesses with fewer than 25 employees would be exempt from this bill.
From BusinessWeek:
"Susan Nash, an attorney with McDermott Will & Emery who specializes in employee benefits, says companies may find it more attractive to pay fines for part-time employees, who are typically not offered benefits now, rather than incur the cost of insuring them. But when it comes to full-time workers, 'there is a hugely paternalistic culture among employers in this country when it comes to health benefits,' she says, noting that the vast majority of companies with 50 or more employees already offer benefits. Companies with 25 or fewer are exempt from the fines."
The same article states that 68% of companies with 200 or fewer employees already offer health benefits.
health care amendment proposed by Rep. Dean Heller (R-Nev) on july 22, 2009, rejected by house democrats including Shelley Berkley (Nev.),
house amendment was to keep illegals from getting health care under obama care...
http://www.fairus.org/site/News2/1881189...
"house amendment was to keep illegals from getting health care under obama care..."
Yeah it was rejected, because it's redundant. The Senate Committee chaired by Senator Max Baucus of Montana has already gone on record that undocumented immigrants would not be covered by the health care reform. "It's too politically explosive," were his exact words.
The Senate version of the legislation is explicit about this point - illegal immigrants will not be covered.
Doug Demon
That's what I'm saying. Titus claims the bill would be hard on small businesses (are there any left?) But if they can offer their employees competitive insurance packages they will be better able to compete with large company benefits. This would help them recruit and retain better talent. So if they pay a little more tax, they should get it back with less recruiting costs and related personnel costs. Plus healthy employees produce a more efficient workforce with less turnover and absenteeism. (Cobra exempts 20 or less companies in most states.) If you are not going to cover small company employees, then what good is the Bill?
Why not put a sales tax on junk food. (e.g.Gas taxes pay for road upkeep.) The poor get food stamps so they would be protected. If someone pays an extra $5 on $100 of groceries, big deal if their medical needs are secure. Maybe people will by less sugar, fat and crap food and improve their health.
Dina is a Dino, She tinks she is going to have it both ways, she'll be a one termer.
The health bill does not include any requirements to show proof of citizenship or immigration status of those receiving taxpayer funded health benefits. Restrictions on illegal alien enrollments are not clearly enforced under the House bill. It is very vague and has no enforcement capability to it.
Heller's amendment would have ensured that applicants would have to show eligibility through the Income and Eligibility Verification System and the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements system. By using systems that are already in place for Welfare & other benefits, we could have used this to limit fraud and abuse, and make certain that this taxpayer funded healthcare plan is reserved for citizens only. So while democrats say that this healthcare will not be available to illegals, they refuse to take any measures whatsoever to require applicants to establish proof of eligibility.
"So while democrats say that this healthcare will not be available to illegals, they refuse to take any measures whatsoever to require applicants to establish proof of eligibility."
You know, except for the text of bill itself
"Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States," the draft bill reads.
Or the text of Senate Bill:
"NO FEDERAL FUNDING.--Nothing in this Act shall allow Federal payments for individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States."
In fact, the Senate version of the bill defines an "eligible individual" as "a citizen or national of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence or an alien lawfully present in the United States," meaning that illegal immigrants are barred from eligibility in any of the programs established by the Senate bill.
The enforcement mechanism already exists. Heller's requirement was redundant and dilatory.
It's comical how representatives like Heller (R-Nev) are proposing amendments for a bill they're going to vote lockstep against, no matter what.
So why not show eligibility through the Income and Eligibility Verification System and the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements system that we currently use for Welfare recipients to determine eligibility? The system is already in place, why would Democrats be against using it as an eligibility standard for this healthcare program if they are intent on excluding illegals?
Shouldn't there be something written in the bill to thwart abuse? The failure to ensure that eligibility standards will be in written into the legislation raises a huge red flag. In light of Obama's statements sbout wanting to make an exception for illegal children, I don't believe what they are telling us. If they meant what they are saying, they would have gladly accepted the amendment in light of "bipartisanship" and to sway more republicans to favor the bill. Some of you say the bill is redundant, I don't believe it is. Even so, the government has never been shy about redundancy before, and if it would push the bill a little farther along, why not? If it doesn't change the plan, why not? If it makes more people secure, why not? If it would be a show of good faith, what's the harm?
Henderson, Representative Dean Heller (R-NV) is the very same clown who proposed another amendment to force all members of Congress to discard their current insurance and sign up for whatever public health insurance plan comes out of America's Affordable Health Choices Act (H.R. 3200).
There's no "good faith" to be had with those idiots... they're all going to vote against the bill anyway.
Exactly. The democrats are saying this healthcare is great, but they wont have it for themselves. Also, while they don't plan on making it available to illegals, they are not writing in verbiage that mandates specific eligibility requirements be met either.
Obama has already stated that he thinks exemptions should be made for illegal minors.
"The democrats are saying this healthcare is great, but they wont have it for themselves."
Because then the Republicans would turn right around and claim that Democrats really want to force people off of their insurance plans and look, they gave up their benefits so obviously they're going to force you to give up yours.
It's not that hard to see the tactics that would be employed.
They really should just forget about trying to be "bipartisan" and simply try to pass the best and most effective bill they can because the Republicans aren't going to vote for any bill that threatens one penny of profit of the health care insurance industry.
Why do you need any Republicans?
You have a majority in both houses and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and the US Presidency.
"Why do you need any Republicans?"
Because it would really honk the wingnuts off?
But if they don't want to play ball, in October we can go straight to "reconciliation" - no filibusters so we only need a simple majority in both houses to pass it.
If they don't pass healthcare reform or it they pass the crap that is coming from the US House then it will be a giant big stone that will hang on the Democrats' necks come next year elections.
Cuz...yo guys in control.......
"If they don't pass healthcare reform or it they pass the crap that is coming from the US House then it will be a giant big stone that will hang on the Democrats' necks come next year elections."
Funny, because Republicans are arguing the opposite.
If it's such an albatross, why are Republicans saying that they need to stall it for political advantage in 2010?
If it would be more advantageous to let it go through and then pound Democrats over the head with it, why not do it?
"Funny, because Republicans are arguing the opposite.
If it's such an albatross, why are Republicans saying that they need to stall it for political advantage in 2010?
If it would be more advantageous to let it go through and then pound Democrats over the head with it, why not do it?"
You are making no sense whatever.
Republicans can't stall it even if they wanted to.
Democrats have FULL control of both houses.
Most Republicans are fighting tooth and nail against it for it is bad for the country.
Blue Dog Democrats are so afraid of it for they believe it will destroy the Democratic party's majorities if the current house version gets into law and it will cause many Blue Dogs to lose their seats.
Each time the Blue Dogs go home, they are getting a hear full from voters in their districts or states.
The only people who are stalling the bill now are Blue Dog Democrats.
Pelosi, Obama and other Democrats wanted it to pass it now so that they will not have to deal with it in the fall and get it away as much as possible from the 2010 elections but the Blue Dogs got in the way.
The Blue Dogs put an end to that nonsense of ramming that crap down the throat of the American people.
It is all up to the Democrats what gets pass and if it gets passed.
Republicans can't even filibuster unless Democrats join their ranks.
The Democrats have full control.
There are no excuses for passing a terrible bill like the House bill.
If Americans lose their good insurance of which over 70% are happy with or their good health care of which over 70% are happy with or have to pay higher taxes then all that will be on the Democrats' heads.
Blue Dogs understand that and are afraid.
Even Ms. Taxus (Titus) is not that dumb.
Titus took a bath on Cap & Trade. I know her office was absolutely inundated from constituents that couldn't wait to get her a$$ out of office over that. I am not surprised that she is trying to ingratiate herself in some way. That's what we like...keep listening!
That's why I say the Democrats should just put together a decent bill and forget about trying to win over the moonbat Republicans, most of whom will never help President Obama and the Democrats succeed in improving anything for Americans.
Like Rush Limbaugh who wants President Obama to fail and Americans to suffer under Democratic leadership, Republicans are hoping for America to crash and burn because they see that as their only path to regain the power they crave.
the govt put together a decent bill???
that a good joke...
Si se puede!
chhttp://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/07/21/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5178652.shtmlildren!
"Republicans can't even filibuster unless Democrats join their ranks."
Yes they can - Democrats are down 2 members at the moment (Kennedy and Byrd have been in and out of the caucus due to illness).
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/07/21/...
I messed up the link.
Question - do children CHOOSE to cross the border illegally? Or are we punishing them for the sins of the parents?
Republicans don't really care about children... just fetuses.
So for clarity, are you in favor of covering illegal aliens under this healthcare bill?
"So for clarity, are you in favor of covering illegal aliens under this healthcare bill?"
Great, you want a yes or no answer to question that can't be answered yes or no.
You make no distinction between adults who cross the border illegally (who should not be covered) and children who cross because their parents are crossing (which is a much more murky issue because there is a difference between a 2-year-old and a 16-year-old in terms of personal autonomy).
And there you go, that is just one of the fears people have when it comes to this healthcare bill.
I personally believe that we will end up not only using taxpayer money to fund healthcare for every smoker, drinker, drug abuser, obese person, but illegal immigrants as well.
Taxpayers should not have to pay for illegal immigrants or their illegal immigrant children.
Keep in mind we will already be forced to pay for the anchor babies that are born here.
The Republicans are just running through their same tired bag of parlor tricks and dog whistles, this time to undermine and sabotage health care reform legislation.
After the Republicans are finished pushing all of their "immigration" buttons they'll move on to their gay shtick and offer countless "Defense of Marriage in Healthcare" amendments, followed by more amendments to post The Ten Commandments in all hospital waiting rooms and another to repeal the estate tax (for people who don't buy the public health insurance, of course).
And then they'll all vote against it, down to the last wingnut.
There's your "bipartisan good faith."
I have a serious problem with taxes being collected to care for illegals. Sorry if that bothers you.
"Keep in mind we will already be forced to pay for the anchor babies that are born here."
Then ask your congressmen to amend the Constitution to modify the Citizenship Clause.
Of course, it won't apply to "anchor babies" already born here.
satire follows:
Deport anyone who is not directly related by blood to Native Americans (Indians, etc.). That should clear up all of these issues and eliminate most of the conversation. Only problem is who would take them.