“do not allow yourself (or your boss) to get into a discussion of the details of CBO scores and textual narrative. Instead, focus only on the deficit reduction and number of Americans covered.”

This goes to the heart of what has been so wrong about the entire health care debate. The whole episode has been legislating by talking points. The Dems make claim about what they intend to do, but never provide any actual legislative text to demonstrate that is, in fact, what they are doing. They say their proposal will ‘crack down’ on insurance companies, yet their legislation would require every American to buy the companies’ product. Every business should face such a ‘crack down.’

The entire memo is below, for your enjoyment/disgust. We doubt you’ll find a better example of the desperation and panic gripping Democrat offices than these two pages.

DemHCMemo –

I called one more time. This time she said, “If you call one more time, we will notify Capital Police.” I asked why my conduct warranted involving federal law enforcement agents. She said I was “harassing” her. I tried to explain that trying to convince a representative to change his or her vote didn’t constitute “harassment.” Before I could fully explain, she hung up again.

I called back. This time, I asked to speak to her supervisor in order to report her repeated hanging up as well as the threat she made. I was placed on hold. Thinking I was holding for her supervisor, I was shocked when a Federal Agent with the Capital Police picked-up the telephone.

At first, the Agent was curt with me. He claimed I was harassing Mr. Garamendi’s staff by continually calling after being told to stop calling. I asked him when it became a federal crime to lobby a congressman. He said that it wasn’t but it was a crime to “harass” congressional members and staff pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 223. I told him I was an attorney (which I am) and that I would research the statute he had cited.

After researching 47 U.S.C. 223, I called Mr. Garamendi’s office again and asked to be transferred back to the Capital Police Agent. The Agent picked up the phone and I explained to him that the statute he cited was not controlling since it only prohibits people from calling with the specific intent to harass. I further explained that I was simply trying to voice my concerns with the intent of getting Mr. Garamendi to change his mind, not to harass his staff. The Agent eventually agreed with my position and said he would call Mr. Garamendi’s office and instruct his staff that I was within my rights to call my congressman and voice my concerns.

After I hung up, I realized that this story should be told. Besides being an attorney, I’ve also had the privilege of serving this great country in the United States Marine Corps. Having seen the ugly legislative process the Senate Bill had been through, I saw this as not just another tactic to pass the Senate Bill at all costs, but also as an affront to our liberties.

While I’m fortunate enough to be able to legally challenge what happened today, others aren’t. The sad part is the democrats know this. They know that Americans unfamiliar with federal jurisprudence can easily be silenced when threats to involve federal agents are made. They know that most Americans don’t want trouble and they’ll go away rather than face the possibility of having to explain themselves to federal agents. That’s why I found this tactic appalling, as a Marine, as an attorney and as a proud American.

During my final contact with Mr. Garamendi’s staff, it was confirmed to me that he would vote for the Senate Bill no matter what. I was told that I was wasting my time by calling. Mr. Garamendi is a junior member of the House of Representatives. He was just elected via a special election last November. He has made it clear that he is willing to forsake his constituents in order to please the Speaker of the House.

Speaker Pelosi has said that she will stop at nothing to get the Senate Bill passed. She publicly stated that she would “pole vault over a wall” if barriers stood in her way. While that may be an amusing spectacle, it is indicative of what happened to me today. Apparently, threatening Americans with federal crimes to silence them is the latest tool in Speaker Pelosi’s dirty bag of tricks.

In the coming days, I’m sure more stories will develop illustrating the “win at all costs” tactics being employed by democrats. It’s these tactics that have appalled a majority of Americans to the point that the Senate Bill has overwhelmingly been rejected by the American people. When we try to explain that to Speaker Pelosi’s Caucus, we are threatened with criminal sanctions. We are told to shut up or face federal agents. Such treatment may be acceptable in the former Soviet Union, but it’s repulsive in the country I love and served. Is this hope and change?

The Frank bill’s price tag for future bailouts was clear — $4 trillion.

Sen. Dodd’s bill proposes the same bailout authority but makes matters even worse — he leaves the check blank.  Taxpayers will be on the hook for any amount.

Dodd’s bill gives the Fed “emergency lending authority” to “any “ entity or market utility, program or facility that the Financial Stability Oversight Council determines is or is likely to become “systemically important.”

But don’t worry. They have to report back to Congress why they used this authority within seven days after they use it. But– they only have to disclose who they helped “within one year” and only if they deem that it won’t hurt the “effectiveness of the program”

Still thinking maybe this isn’t a bailout?  Well, on page 1306, one of the requirements is that the Fed has to report to Congress  “ the expected or final cost to the taxpayers of such assistance.”

So, to summarize–the Fed has authority to lend money to any entity it deems fit, in any amount it sees fit but has to report after the fact how much it cost the taxpayers but they only have to tell you who they gave it to if they want to.

If that doesn’t sound like a bailout to you, then I’m selling some oceanfront property in Arizona that I’d like to talk to you about.

Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee have made it clear they are trolling for a deal on this issue. But for all the hand wringing, technical talk and political doublespeak on this issue it boils down to two simple yet distinct paths for dealing with failing companies–bailout or bankruptcy. Either the taxpayers are on the hook to spend money on these companies or they are not.

Dodd’s bill clearly puts taxpayers on the hook. So any sort of compromise that involves “emergency lending authority” is merely negotiating the terms, size or scope of the bailout and any vote for this bill or its negotiated cousin is a vote in favor of bailouts.

Hopefully the Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee can see that.

Fiorina grabbed headlines—good, bad and ugly—with her infamous “Demon Sheep” video earlier this year. Following the release of that video, her campaign pledged that more would be on the way. This latest offering, which is already being dubbed the “Boxer Blimp,” takes Boxer to task for her record in the Senate. California Republicans say that is something that has been little examined in the course of previous campaigns, but which is essential to highlight in a year where the three-term Senator’s approval ratings are lagging while California’s economy remains on proverbial life support.

Fiorina, with the aid of her ad guru Fred Davis, certainly seems intent on doing just that, even by controversial means.

Meanwhile, an advocacy organization called Build Them Both is urging President Obama to step in “fix” it all. “Build Them Both urges President Obama to step in and – with the stroke of a pen – hire each company to build its proposed new tanker. This will put 100,000 Americans to work, provide the Air Force more tankers more quickly and offer massive taxpayer savings over building only one,” says the group’s spokesperson Carrie Giddins, who is also a Democratic political operative.

Build Them Both, which does not disclose its funders, further argues that the United States should yield to French threats and “European outrage.”

But the “build them both” solution would actually be the worst of all possible ideas. It would, in fact, be a terrible deal for taxpayers. The costs of building two tankers would be astronomical, costing taxpayers more upfront and long term. Designing and building two separate refueling tankers would require two separate sets of specifications. It would also require training two separate groups of pilots and maintenance crews and developing and maintaining distinct resupply networks. Its important to note that Northrop’s partner EADS/Airbus was proposing to build a completely different plane; which would require its own hangars, air base taxiways and landing strips. All of these considerations carry enormous costs.

And of course one cannot forget the principal reason Northrop decided its bid would ultimately be unsuccessful: The jobs it was proposing to create would for the most part have been European – mainly French – jobs. This was confirmed on Wednesday with the release of a new study.

Protectionism is a serious threat to our economic health. But this is not a case of protectionism. Northrop backed our of its deal with EADS/Airbus because they partnership was offering a bad deal, one that would have cost an extraordinary amount or money for little value to U.S. taxpayers.

At issue is a CARB measure known as the “Cool Cars” rule that requires the application of certain additives to window glass. The theory behind the mandate is that reflective windshields will prevent cars from overheating, and thus reduce reliance on air conditioning, which affects how much fuel is burnt by a car. Proponents of climate change theory attribute changes in temperature to human activity, including the burning of fossil fuels, whereas skeptics charge that such theory amounts to a load of hot air.

What is certain in the debate over this mandate is that CARB’s action has a lot of people hot under the collar: While the glaze ostensibly prevents excess solar heat from entering cars, critics say it also seriously degrades the signal sent by a whole host of electronic devices, including GPS navigation systems, cellular phones and—perhaps most critically— ankle monitoring bracelets worn by felons, which utilize GPS technology.

On that point, which regulators and legislators have to-date not acknowledged, law enforcement groups and victim rights advocates have been expressing “grave concerns” about the new regulation. In a recent letter obtained by Capitol Confidential, the California Police Chiefs Association, the California Narcotics Officers Association and the California Peace Officers’ Association cautioned that the new regulation “threatens to undermine an already imperfect monitoring tool.”

Warning that prison overcrowding and budget shortfalls necessitate the release of additional felons, none of whom could be properly monitored under the regulation, the glaze would “virtually vitiate the effectiveness of GPS monitoring.” “At a time when the public safety of California communities is being challenged as never before,” the letter reads, “the crippling of important GPS monitoring and the utility of cellular phones to seek emergency assistance is not helpful.”

In line with the disconcerting reminder from law enforcement that “horrific crimes” take place when the GPS signal of ankle monitoring devices are dropped, Crime Victims United of California also wrote state regulators last month that the group had “serious concerns” with the new initiative. “Given the difficulty in adequately monitoring the prison, jail and parolee population as it is this regulation should be halted immediately as it will result in even greater problems for the state in monitoring its GPS population,” the group’s president wrote. “[T]his approach to global warming is unacceptable and has crime victims in an uproar.”

Typically, criticisms of California’s approach to combating the perceived threat of climate change have tended to center on the impact of state initiatives on jobs. Just this week, California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office indicated that the state’s climate change policy would likely lead to “modest” job losses in the short term.

This new uproar could, observers say, result in CARB easing its “Cool Cars” regulation.

Laura Meckler of the Wall Street Journal reports:

Lawmakers working to craft a new comprehensive immigration bill have settled on a way to prevent employers from hiring illegal immigrants: a national biometric identification card all American workers would eventually be required to obtain.

Under the pre-text of halting illegal immigration, Congress may consider forcing citizens to carry an ID card as a condition of citizenship.  For those who mistrust big government and treasure freedom, this idea should be revolting and a shocking example of a bad idea run wild.  American citizens’ freedoms have been eroding over the past few years, yet this idea is much more than an erosion of rights.  It is an all out assault on the idea that Americans have a natural right to be free of government monitoring.

The Wall Street Journal further reports:

Under the potentially controversial plan still taking shape in the Senate, all legal U.S. workers, including citizens and immigrants, would be issued an ID card with embedded information, such as fingerprints, to tie the card to the worker.  The ID card plan is one of several steps advocates of an immigration overhaul are taking to address concerns that have defeated similar bills in the past.

Adding the national ID cared idea to the mix will cause both the right and the left to band together against this provision forcing all Americans to carry an identification card containing fingerprints and other biometric information.  To say this is an invasion of privacy is an understatement.  There is no provision in the Constitution that grants the federal government the power nor the right to force Americans to be fingerprinted and to carry an identification card against their will.  This is not a new idea

Senator Schumer stated at a subcommittee hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Immigration, on July 21, 2009 that any employer identification system needs to include a means to “authenticate the employee’s identity by using a specific and unique biometric identifier. This identifier could be a fingerprint, an enhanced biometric picture or other mechanism.”  Schumer went on to say that “any new biometric-based employment system must have extensive checks at the beginning of the system to prevent illegal aliens from creating a false identity to enter into the new database. And, as I mentioned before this, we need to do this with the entity administering the new employment-verification system — will have access to public records, government databases, to ensure that the person seeking to enter the new employment-verification system is, in fact, the person they claim to be, and the person has legal status.”  Schumer supports the creation of a new government bureaucracy to monitor your work status and to audit you if a government bureaucrat decides that your status is suspect.  In essence, you are guilty of being an illegal immigrant, until you can prove otherwise.

This is the same federal government that has a hard time maintaining an accurate No-Fly list. The No-Fly list has prevented members of Congress from flying and is known to be riddled with errors, yet we are readying a database containing all American citizens.  CBS News reports today

Current and former intelligence, counterterrorismand U.S. government officials provided The Associated Press a behind-the-scenes look at how the no-fly list is created. They spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive security issues.  Despite changes over time, the list remains an imperfect tool, dependent on the work of hundreds of government terrorism analysts who sift through massive flows of information. The list ballooned after Sept. 11 and has fluctuated in size over the past decade. In 2004, it included about 20,000 people. The standards for getting on the list have been refined over the years, and technology has improved to make the matching process more reliable.

The immigration bill is proving to be a heavy lift for Schumer and Graham, why they would add a national ID card to the mix defies logic.  More from the WSJ:

The uphill effort to pass a bill is being led by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), who plan to meet with President Barack Obama as soon as this week to update him on their work. An administration official said the White House had no position on the biometric card.

Clearly the Obama Administration recognize that this is a controversial issue that is incidental to the debate on immigration reform.  Forcing all Americans to carry ID cards will cause may libertarian leaning liberals, who would usually support a reform effort, to have second thoughts about an immigration reform effort.  No matter what you think of comprehensive immigration reform, this issue may prove to be an issue that could take down the bill.

The biggest objections to the biometric cards may come from privacy advocates, who fear they would become de facto national ID cards that enable the government to track citizens.

I would contest that assertion in the WSJ report and say that the biggest objections come from average everyday citizens who don’t want any further freedoms taken away in the name of stopping illegal immigrants from working in the United States.  Both conservative and liberal groups will line up against this idea, because it is a frontal assault on basic freedom.

“It is fundamentally a massive invasion of people’s privacy,” said Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. “We’re not only talking about fingerprinting every American, treating ordinary Americans like criminals in order to work. We’re also talking about a card that would quickly spread from work to voting to travel to pretty much every aspect of American life that requires identification.”  Mr. Graham says he respects those concerns but disagrees. “We’ve all got Social Security cards,” he said. “They’re just easily tampered with. Make them tamper-proof. That’s all I’m saying.”

The American Civil Liberties Union will line up with conservative groups against this idea.  Groups like Gun Owners of America will rightly see this as a first step toward national gun registration and privacy groups will see this as a first step toward the national ID card being used for more than merely proving to an employer that you are a citizen.  Right and left have been on record in the past as being against the idea that all Americans have to carry identification cards as a condition of citizenship.

U.S. employers now have the option of using an online system called E-Verify to check whether potential employees are in the U.S. legally. Many Republicans have pressed to make the system mandatory. But others, including Mr. Schumer, complain that the existing system is ineffective.

E-Verify seems like a reasonable alternative to forcing all Americans to carry an ID card, yet business groups and immigrant advocacy groups resist the system’s universal implementation.  E-Verify is a government run Internet based system where an employer to electronically verify the eligibility of an employee.  This seems like a much less invasive way to take care of the problem than a national ID card.

Most European countries require citizens and foreigners to carry ID cards. The U.K. had been a holdout, but in the early 2000s it considered national cards as a way to stop identify fraud, protect against terrorism and help stop illegal foreign workers. Amid worries about the cost and complaints that the cards infringe on personal privacy, the government said it would make them voluntary for British citizens. They are required for foreign workers and students, and so far about 130,000 cards have been issued.

The Brits seem to have it right.  If you are a foreign worker or student, a biometric card makes sense, but the federal government does not have the right to force citizens to carry ID cards.  The federal government derives power from the consent of the governed and any strong arm attempt by the federal government to impose a card on citizens ignores the nature of our constitutional democratic republic.

A person familiar with the legislative planning said the biometric data would likely be either fingerprints or a scan of the veins in the top of the hand. It would be required of all workers, including teenagers, but would be phased in, with current workers needing to obtain the card only when they next changed jobs, the person said.

Does this sound like the way citizens should be treated in a free nation?  Mandatory fingerprinting or scanning the hands of all Americans is a scary idea.

Mr. Schumer said employers would be able to buy a scanner to check the IDs for as much as $800. Small employers, he said, could take their applicants to a government office to like the Department of Motor Vehicles and have their hands scanned there.

This idea by Senator Schumer would allow the federal government to have your biometric data.  Furthermore, if you have to go to a state Department of Motor Vehicles, then the state you work in will have your fingerprint and other mandatory biometric data.  This is a crazy idea and hopefully it does not get past the idea stage.  The fact that his is a bipartisan idea should strike fear in the hearts of all those who mistrust big government.  Our elected officials in Washington, D.C. seem to more and more out of touch with the average American citizen every day.