First of all, I need to disclose a conflict of interest.  I am a huge fan of the Jersey Shore, so please do not construe my commentary as critical of Snookie or any of the others on the show.  I feel the pain of all those in America who want to tan without paying a massive new tax to the federal government.  What’s next?  Taxing gym memberships or Laundromats.

An army of Internal Revenue Service agents have been hired to enforce the new taxes contained in ObamaCare.  Snookie and her Jersey Shore pals should watch out, because the IRS has hired 81 agents to crack down on any tanning salons that don’t pay the new Obamacare 10% excise tax on tanning.  Let’s say a serious tanner buys a package for $100 per month.  Get ready to hand over $1o per month to Uncle Sam.

According to Paul Bedard at US News, the IRS has to hire an army of federal bureaucrats to take more of your money pursuant to the mandates in ObamaCare and we are not merely talking about the tanning tax enforcement squadron.

The Internal Revenue Service says it will need an battalion of 1,054 new auditors and staffers and new facilities at a cost to taxpayersof more than $359 million in fiscal 2012 just to watch over the initial implementation of President Obama’s healthcare reforms. Among the new corps will be 81 workers assigned to make sure tanning salons pay a new 10 percent excise tax. Their cost: $11.5 million.

That is correct.  81 new bureaucrats to travel the nation to see if tanning salons are paying the 10% tax.  They need to make sure that underground tanning salons don’t pop up next to Meth Labs and illegal casinos.  Who knows what will happen if somebody sets up a tanning bed in their basement to make some money without paying the new ObamaTax.  Maybe some jail time for that ObamaCare criminal.

(more…)

Senator David Vitter (R-LA) introduced legislation yesterday to prevent the Federal Reserve from secretly bailing out states with budget problems.  Senators Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Mike Crapo (R-ID) have joined the effort and signed onto S.251, the State Bailout Prevention Act.  This legislation music to the taxpayer’s ears.

The Hill reports that Senator Vitter wants to use this legislation to slam the door on state and local bailouts by the federal government.

With the State Bailout Prevention Act, Vitter is looking to make legally binding an earlier commitment from Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke that the central bank would not make loans to states and municipalities struggling with budget gaps and large debt burdens. Testifying before the Senate Budget Committee on Jan. 7, Bernanke said states “should not expect loans from the Fed.”

Vitter is memorializing the Bernanke promise into law.  Because of Bernanke’s promise, one should expect the Federal Reserve to wholeheartedly support this effort by Senators Vitter, DeMint and Crapo.  This law would make it the iron clad promise of the federal government not to use taxpayer money or taxpayer backed loans to prop up, bail out and otherwise enable state and local governments in deep financial distress because of irresponsible budgetary decisions.

The legislation is a comprehensive effort to shut the door on all of the federal government’s financial tools available today to bailout states and localities.  This legislation follows on the heels of the termination of President Obama’s “Build America Bonds” (BABs) created in the President’s so called “Stimulus” plan.  The BABs were tax free federal bonds that served to provide a rolling blue state bailout for states that have spent more than they take in.  The BABs expired at the end of 2010 and conservatives blocked all efforts to renew these bonds.

(more…)

The left has been messaging for over a year that the Senate should abolish the filibuster.  They now are desperate to seize complete control of one chamber of the federal legislature so they can play defense against Speaker of the House John Boehner’s (R-OH) conservative agenda and lock Senate Republicans out of the legislative process.  Now is the time and the liberals are ready to pull the trigger of what some call the “Nuclear Option” to restrict the rights of individual members of the Senate to engage in extended debate.

Liberals in the Senate are ready for high noon today as the moment for them to start a procedural fight to chip away at the filibuster.  They hope this ploy will result in a successful power grab.  Liberal Senators and allies on the left have been preparing for months for this moment so they can strong arm through the Senate a change in the rules that will grant them complete control over the Senate’s agenda.

Expect liberals in the Senate to offer a resolution to lower the threshold to shut off debate.  They plan on arguing that the Senate is not a continuing body, notwithstanding the fact that the Senate’s rules state otherwise.  They are intent on forcing through this change to the rules with only a simple majority of Senators.  This ploy is a violation of the constitutionally authorized rules of the Senate and may be an unconstitutional power grab.

I wrote almost a year ago on Big Government that the filibuster is the friend of conservatives.

(more…)

Today, the Senate will vote to increase taxes on American job creators.  Ironically, the November unemployment numbers came out yesterday and unemployment has risen to 9.8%.  Only in Washington would politicians think that this is the time to punish job creators by raising taxes.

This is not the time to raise taxes on job creators, yet the Senate will vote on the Obama tax plan today that imposes tax increases on families making over $250,000/yr and individuals making over $200,000/yr.  If the Obama plan is signed into law, get ready for 10% unemployment numbers again.

The Heritage Foundation has put together a comprehensive analysis concluding that tax increases on “the rich,” will keep unemployment numbers high and punish the poor.

This analysis shows that the economic harm of raising taxes on investment, small businesses, and upper-income filers affects households of all types. An economy with fewer employment opportunities results in lower wages and lost consumption and savings. Households across the income spectrum are left with lower disposable income. The attempt to raise additional revenues by raising taxes on the productive sectors of the economy, particularly dur­ing a period of recovery, harms the very citizens the revenue would be used to aid with social welfare programs.

On Thursday, the House passed what House Speaker-designate John Boehner (R-OH) called a “chicken crap” proposal to raise taxes with no opportunity for amendments. The House package, the Obama tax increase plan, has almost no chance of passing the Senate today.  The House vote was 234-188 and was a vote to increase taxes on job creators.

(more…)

It’s a full court press by the Obama Administration.  The goal: to hurry the Senate into approving the stalled nuclear arms treaty, the New START Treaty, with Russia during the Lame Duck session.   This treaty is flawed, yet the Administration and allies in the Senate want to rush passage, because they are unwilling to seriously address shortcomings contained within the four corners of the Treaty and secret side agreements cut to secure Russian consent.

Last week, President Obama tried to buy the vote of linchpin Republican Sen. Jon Kyl by promising billions in “nuclear modernization” funds—a top priority for the defense-minded conservative.  At the NATO conference, he conjured up a rump meeting with Dmitry Medvedev, allowing the Russian president to warn of “very unpleasant” consequences should the treaty fail.  The President then dispatched Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to the TV talk show circuit to make the dubious assertion that Ronald Reagan would’ve loved this treaty.

Signed by President Obama earlier this year, the New START treaty purports to limit strategic warheads held by the U.S. and Russia while establishing a new, bilateral inspection system.  The President calls the treaty “a national security imperative,” but skeptical Senators want more time to study the deal.  They’ve also demanded to see the negotiating record to see if negotiators entered a side agreement to halt the U.S. missile defense program—a claim made by members of the Russian Duma.

The Administration has stone-walled the document request for months.  Yet now it insists lawmakers must vote on the treaty—without this critical information—in a matter of days.

Why the rush?

(more…)

Senator Tom Coburn (R-O K) put out a report this morning titled “Federal Programs to Die for: American Tax Dollars Send Six Feet Under” showing rampant waste, fraud and abuse in government programs.  This report has put together programs totalling $1 billion in federal monies given to the dead.  For those to say that cutting waste, fraud and abuse is an empty slogan, this report shows that stopping checks to the dead is a means to save one billion of your tax dollars.

Delaware Republican candidate for Senate Christine O’Donnell was stopped from citing “waste, fraud and abuse” as a means to lower the estimated $13.6 trillion national debt during a debate aired on CNN.  According to a Daily News transcript published on October 14, 2010:

Arguably the toughest moment for O’Donnell came when she was asked to outline what programs she would cut to slash government spending and reduce the national deficit, two major themes of the Tea Party platform.  Before she responded, Blitzer told her she could not simply say cut waste, fraud and abuse because “everybody says that.”

This report shows that the elimination of waste, fraud and abuse is an important element of a comprehensive program to reduce the federal debt.  According to the Coburn Report, dead people received checks from the federal government in the form of Stimulus, aid to cool and heat homes, housing, prescription drugs, and medical supplies.  Dead people are receiving checks from Uncle Sam and you are paying for it.

(more…)

Senator Barack Obama campaigned for President against the “politics of personal destruction” and a future President who could “bring Democrats and Republicans together.”  As President, Obama has denounced opponents of the Administration and brought partisanship to a new level.  The latest attacks from the President and his allies bring to mind enemies lists of the past.

As a Senator running for President, Barack Obama sounded like a politician who would not use Chicago machine-style politics to demonize opponents and crush dissent.  On December 15, 2007 in Waterloo, Iowa, Senator Obama said the following (as quoted by MSNBC) in response to charges of past drug use and lack of experience coming from Senator Hillary Clinton’s campaign:

There’s a history of politics being all about slash and burn and taking folks down and what I recall the Clintons themselves calling the politics of personal destruction, which they decried. And my suspicion is that that’s just not where the country is at. They are not interested in politics as a blood sport.

Evidently, Senator Obama did not like being the recipient of criticism, yet was perfectly comfortable using it himself to trash opponents later in his campaign and as President.  (more…)

For-profit education is under assault from elitists who hate the idea of free market educational institutions.  It is also under attack from bureaucrats at the U.S. Department of Education who are trying to make it hard for students to arm themselves with the education needed to find a job.  Elitism is alive and well at the Department of Education.

The Department of Education announced this week that they are “on schedule to implement new regulations of the for-profit education sector dealing with gainful employment and 13 other issues to protect students and taxpayers.”  The non-profit sector feels threatened; therefore allies in the Administration are trying to use the power of the federal government to provide non profit schools a competitive edge to slow the growth of for-profit institutions.  For-profit institutions are the trend and they are becoming more popular.

Senator Jim Risch (R-ID) has introduced legislation to prevent the Department of Education from denying federal financial aid to students attending for-profit colleges and vocational certificate programs.  Senator Risch said of his effort:

The ‘gainful employment’ rules could deny hundreds of thousands of students access to the training and skills development they need to secure a job in today’s troubled economy.  Highly-skilled workers are in high demand in certain sectors and propriety schools are uniquely qualified to meet that need.  It is simply irresponsible for the government to throw roadblocks in front of students and institutions at a time when job creation in America should be the administration’s number one priority.

Senator Risch’s legislation, S.3837, the Education for All Act, would forbid the Department of Education from singling out students from proprietary and vocational institutions and treat them differently than other students.  These institutions have proven to be uniquely qualified to help students find jobs in today’s complex economy. (more…)

The Obama Administration has some explaining to do.  Politico reports in a Friday story that 2011 could be a tough year for an Administration facing numerous oversight hearings on issues ranging from the controversy over the Justice Department’s handling of the New Black Panther Party investigation to the numerous bailouts administered by Obama Administration officials.  Specific allegations from Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA) regarding the use of government sponsored propaganda should raise ethical flags, if not legal ones, for Americans who don’t want tax dollars used to promote the big government ideas of President Barack Obama.

From Politico:

If President Barack Obama needed any more incentive to go all out for Democrats this fall, here it is: Republicans are planning a wave of committee investigations targeting the White House and Democratic allies if they win back the majority.

An investigation of the Obama Administrations use of government sponsored propaganda to promote the left wing agenda of the President is one of the areas planned for investigation.  A report from the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform released August 16, 2010 indicates that members of the Obama Administration may have broken the law implementing the President’s public relations and propaganda efforts.  Congressman Darrell Issa, Ranking Member of the Committee, has been a critic of the Obama Administrations misuse of federal monies and he has put out this staff report, “Analysis of the First Year of the Obama Administration:  Pubic Relations and Propaganda Initiatives.”

The  Report summarizes:

Since the beginning of the Obama Administration on January 20, 2009, ordinary Americans have financed and been exposed to an unprecedented number of public relations and propaganda efforts. Federal spending for public relations contracts rose to historically-high levels during the Bush Administration. Under one-party rule in 2009, the White House used the machinery of the Obama campaign to tout the President’s agenda through inappropriate and sometimes unlawful public relations and propaganda initiatives. Congress buoyed the Administration’s propaganda efforts by increasing federal spending on public relations for the first time since 2005.

(more…)

The New START Treaty is an idea that may harm American national security.  The agreement between the United States and Russia purports to reduce nuclear weapons between two superpowers, yet, in an effort to get the Russians to sign the Treaty, President Obama may accede to a side agreement that will end missile defense.  Missile defense is a means to protect the United States from a rogue nuclear missile and a deterrent to a missile attack from Russia.  Any agreement to dismantle missile defense would a mistake.

The Treaty is officially referred to as the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.  On April 8, 2010, President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed the treaty.  The New START Treaty, 111-5, was signed in Prague on April 8, 2010 then submitted to the Senate on May 13, 2010.  The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has had numerous hearings on the treaty and intends on a vote before the August recess.  For this treaty to pass, 67 Senators need to vote in favor of ratification.  The Democrat Caucus only has 59 members, therefore they need 8 Republicans to support the treaty for it to pass.  Republicans have the power to block this treaty or to stop consideration until the next Congress.

The White House has been very aggressive in efforts to get this treaty passed by the end of the year.  On Friday, Peter Baker of the New York Times reported that “with time running out for major votes before the November election, the White House is trying to reach an understanding with Senate Republicans to approve its new arms control treaty with Russia by committing to modernizing the nuclear arsenal and making additional guarantees about missile defense.”  The only way for this Treaty to pass in the Senate in a manner that would truly protect missile defense would be to add a reservation during Senate consideration of the treaty.  A reservation, offered during the consideration of the treaty much like an amendment to legislation, specifically stating that a diminution or reduction in missile defense is not on the table and not part of any side agreement would have the desired outcome of protecting missile defense.

(more…)

The President is expected to sign the financial overhaul bill today, yet he might want to pause a moment to consider not signing this bill because of the potentially unconstitutional racial and gender preference provisions buried in the massive bill.

Four members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights have signed a letter complaining that Section 324 of the conference report titled the “Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act” “includes a section on race and gender that even those who pride themselves on keeping up with national affairs may have failed to notice.” This provision, which can be found on page 172 of the conference report, may lead to unconstitutional racial and gender preferences being forced on financial institutions covered by the new law.

As the Becker-Posner blog argues, this over 2000-page long bill is “complex, disorderly, politically motivated, and not well thought out reaction to the financial crisis that erupted beginning with the panic of the fall of 2008.” One of the critiques leveled by Gary Becker and Richard Posner is that “the bill adds regulations and rules about many activities that had little or nothing to do with the crisis.” It is clear that the lack of racial and gender preferences had nothing to do with the financial meltdown in the fall of 2008. Section 342 is a special interest provision that has no relevance to financial services reform and may lead to this law being deemed unconstitutional by the courts.

The letter from members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights was signed by Commissioners Peter Kirsanow, Ashley Taylor, Gail Heriot, and Todd Gaziano. In the letter these experts in civil rights law explain that the legislation “requires that each covered agency establish an ‘Office of Minority and Women Inclusion’ responsible for ‘all matters of the agency relating to diversity in management, employment, and business activities.’” This law will empower federal bureaucrats to issue rules and regulations governing the financial sector of the economy, if those businesses are doing any work for the federal government.

(more…)

Remember all of those bold statements that the so called “Troubled Assets Relief Program” (TARP), the Bailout of Wall Street Bill, was a one time deal and our federal government should and will never do it again.  Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner testified in January of this year before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:

Many Americans look at what happened with AIG, and the rest of the financial rescue, and simply ask:  Why was it necessary?  Why was it fair for the government to take taxpayer money and put it into an institution that had mismanaged itself to the edge of collapse?  The answer is that it was not fair, and it was not something our government should ever have to do.  But those Americans, those families and business owners who played by the rules and played no role in giving rise to this recession, should understand that if the government had failed to act, that failure would have unleashed substantially greater damage upon them.

If TARP “was not fair” and not “something our government should ever have to do,” then why is Congress trying to impose the TARP model on small business?  Congress will consider legislation this week to establish TARP, Jr. for small businesses to be administered and run by none other than Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner. The House is considering H.R. 5297, the Small Business Lending Fund Act that provides “temporary authority to the Secretary of the Treasury to make capital investments to eligible institutions in order to increase the availability of credit for small businesses.”

The legislation creates a federally run new bureaucracy called the “Small Business Lending Fund. ”  To qualify a financial institution has to have less than $10 billion in assets and the new creation would have up to $30 billion in new investment authority.  This allegedly temporary program is set up “without further appropriation of fiscal year limitation,” i.e. not temporary, to purchase “preferred stock and other financial instruments” from small business as a means to infuse money into local banks with the condition that they lend to failing small business.  Local banks will be lending in exchange for equity small business, therefore these banks will be using federal monies to buy equity in companies.  This is an idea born from socialism and one that will harm the free market for small business, because failure will be rewarded by federal subsidies while success will be punished.

(more…)

Elena Kagan may be hostile to the view that the 2^ndAmendment to the Constitution protects American’s individual right to keep and bear arms.  Bloomberg reports today, “Kagan Was ‘Not Sympathetic’ as Law Clerk to Gun-Rights Argument.”  With the evidence presented by the Los Angeles Times that Kagan was very active in the gun control agenda during her time as counsel for the President Bill Clinton Administration, a thorough examination of Kagan’s views on the 2^nd Amendment is merited.

Bloomberg Reports that “Elena Kagan said as a U.S. Supreme Court law clerk in 1987 that she was ‘not sympathetic’ toward a man who contended that his constitutional rights were violated when he was convicted for carrying an unlicensed pistol.”  In the wake of the District of Columbia v. Heller decision holding that the 2^nd Amendment is an individual right, it is incumbent upon Senators to explore the views of Solicitor General Elena Kagan on American’s civil right to own a firearm. More from Bloomberg:

Kagan, whom President Barack Obama nominated to the high court this week, made the comment to Justice Thurgood Marshall, urging him in a one-paragraph memo to vote against hearing the District of Columbia man’s appeal. The man’s “sole contention is that the District of Columbia’s firearms statutes violate his constitutional right to ‘keep and bear arms,’” Kagan wrote. “I’m not sympathetic.”

(more…)

House leaders are preparing to ram through ObamaCare this week  without a vote.  Not only is the legislation unconstitutional, but the process being used to pass it is unconstitutional.  The House is preparing a rule that would consider the Senate-passed version of ObamaCare passed in the House even though members would never directly vote on it.  That would violate Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution.

Here is how the trick would work:  In the House, the Rules Committee sets up the parameters for debate on legislation.  House leaders are considering a complicated rule that would be structured so that a vote on the rule setting down the structure for the ObamaCare debate would allow the Senate’s version of health care reform to pass without a vote.  First, there would be a vote on a rule.  If the rule is passed by the House, then the House would vote on a health care budget reconciliation measure that is an amendment to the Senate passed ObamaCare bill.  If that reconciliation measure passes, then reconciliation goes to the Senate and the ObamaCare legislation is deemed passed without a direct vote.  The plan for the legislation is unclear.  House leadership will either structure the rule to either immediately present ObamaCare to the President for his signature or they will hold the bill and deliver it only if the Senate passes a health care reconciliation measure.  Either way, the Constitution and the American people are the losers.

Understand that this procedure is drafted in a way so your average American can’t understand it.  The simple way to understand the situation is that the House is trying to pass a bill without a vote.

The Constitution states that the House and Senate are supposed to pass identical versions of a bill before the President can sign it into law.  One of the reasons for this tricky procedure is to provide cover for moderate Democrats who don’t want to vote for the Senate-passed ObamaCare bill because it includes the federal funding of abortion.

Michael McConnell, Professor and Director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School, explains it this way at the Wall Street Journal today:

(more…)

President Barack Obama’s highly anticipated Blair House Summit was sold as a bipartisan negotiation on ObamaCare between House and Senate leaders of both parties.  The White House claims that this day long meeting is an opportunity for the American people to witness a negotiation between Republicans and Democrats.  If you tune into this event, you will not see any negotiation.  You will witness a desparate President trying sell a warmed over version of ObamaCare.  Even for a President well known for his exceptional ability to communicate, the Administration’s attempts to sell a plan that is offensive to a substantial majority of Americans has proven to be an epic failure.

The fact of the matters is that in anticipation of this so called negotiation, the Democrats are crafting a reconciliation strategy.  Reconciliation is a fast track partisan strategy for the Democrats to change the rules of the game so they can avoid a filibuster in the Senate.  I call this new strategy to pass Obamacare the Health Care Nuclear Option because it will blow up what remains of bipartisanship in the Capitol and put the United States on a pathway to European style government run health care.

Furthermore, the American people explicitly reject ObamaCare and don’t want it.  So much for consent of the governed.  This Summit is going to be a day long press conference for President Obama and the ObamaCare Cheerleading Squad to try one last time to sell the President’s health care plan that includes unpopular mandates, higher taxes and cuts to health care providers. (more…)

Yet another leftist has attacked the Senate filibuster.  The chorus from the left is growing and one can only assume that this coordinated attack is evidence that liberal Senators are readying a challenge to the Senate’s filibuster.  The left absolutely hates the fact that they have to deal with that pesky Constitution that protects and promotes transparency, debate and dissent.  They are intent on tossing aside the idea in the Constitution that we are a democratic republic with States being represented by two Senators with the right to extended debate and unlimited amendment.

This conspiracy by left wingers has a specific goal — to abolish dissent in the Senate, exterminate Republican participation in the democratic process, and marginalize moderate Democrats.  It seems the left is willing to stomp all over the Senate’s rules to get a public option, regulate Wall Street into the Stone Age and pass global warming legislation before the end of one of the coldest winters on record in American history.

Harold Meyerson groused in the L.A. Times that the Senate has yet to follow the House in establishing government run health care through the establishment of a Public Option for ObamaCare:

(more…)

Left wingers (including but not limited to the New York Times, Mother Jones, Think Progress, Washington Monthly and Ezra Klein) are trying to eliminate dissent in Congress by engaging in a coordinated attack on the idea of the Senate filibuster.  Clearly, the left hates extended debate and they are advocating that Vice President Joe Biden eliminate the filibuster by decree as President of the United States Senate.  They have no shame.

If you hate big government, you should love the Senate filibuster.  The filibuster serves the good government purposes of slowing legislation.  This allows citizens to understand and participate in the legislative process, provides scrutiny for complicated legislation and slows the process to confirm nominees.  The left absolutely hates the filibuster, because the filibuster prevents liberal Democrats from steamrolling moderate Democrats and Republicans when trying to pass legislation or confirming extremist judges with minimal debate.  A veteran Senate staffer tells Big Government that “the filibuster is a tool to slow down and make people really consider things. For those that believe in freedom and limited government the less the Congress does the better.”  Of course the left’s goal is to exterminate the filibuster from the Senate rules by setting the table for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to argue that a filibuster is unconstitutional, then for Vice President Biden to order that the rule be ignored.  (more…)

Transparency be damned.  It seems as if many of the elites in Washington, D.C. were for transparency before they were against it.

President Barack Obama, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid all promised and pledged transparency as part of a covenant with the American people to allow them to take power.  Those promises have been broken.  One Senior Congressional Staffer tells Big Government that “for elected officials that promised the most transparent Congress ever, I never believed them, but it is stunning how fast they are going back on their promises as if they think the voters are too dumb to remember things they said 3 years ago.” (more…)

Do you want a good laugh?  Check out this press release from January 18, 2006:

Democrats from across the country today unveiled their Honest Leadership and Open Government Act. In the Great Hall of the Library of Congress, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, were joined by Senator Barack Obama and Congresswoman Louise Slaughter and their Senate and House colleagues to shine a spotlight on the Republican “pay for play” politics that put special interests first at the expense of the priorities of the American people and signed a pledge to restore honest leadership and open government.

(more…)

Saturday is a big day in the Senate for ObamaCare.  Congressional Quarterly reported that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) will unveil his manager’s package of changes to the Senate version of ObamaCare on Saturday morning and immediately file cloture to shut off debate on the package.  This package of changes to the bill and special interest projects were crafted by Reid to buy the support of members wavering in his caucus, including Senators Ben Nelson (D-NE), Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Jim Webb (D-VA).

Nobody knows if any acceptable compromise is possible at this point in the debate.  Liberals in the Democrat Caucus are mad because the public option has been scrapped and moderates are concerned that this bill has become so politically unpopular that a vote for any version of ObamaCare is the functional equivalent of political suicide.  If the Reid Amendment passes, then the President will be one step closer to victory.  If ObamaCare goes down in flames, then Monday may prove to be the President and Senator Harry Reid’s health care Waterloo.

(more…)