With Rep. Pelosi’s picks announced today, the SuperCongress is set. From The Associated Press:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s appointment Thursday of three Democrats to Congress’ new debt-reduction supercommittee completes the roster of a panel whose members are already being tugged in competing directions.

Pelosi selected Reps. James E. Clyburn of South Carolina and Xavier Becerra of California, who both are members of the party’s House leadership, and Maryland’s Chris Van Hollen, the top Democrat on the Budget Committee. The choices bring racial diversity to the supercommittee because Clyburn is black and Becerra is Hispanic.

The 12-member panel, divided evenly among Democrats and Republicans, has until Thanksgiving to propose $1.5 trillion in 10-year budget savings. If it does not propose a package or if Congress doesn’t approve it, $1.2 trillion in automatic budget cuts will be triggered.

(more…)

From the Associated Press:

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor pulled out of talks with Vice President Joe Biden on a deficit reduction-debt ceiling deal, saying they had reached an impasse over Democratic demands for tax increases to be paired with spending cuts wanted by the GOP.

The Virginia Republican said in a statement that the Republican-dominated House simply won’t support tax increases, and that he wouldn’t participate in the budget meeting scheduled for Thursday. Cantor said that it’s time for President Barack Obama to weigh in directly on the budget because Democrats insist on negotiating some tax increases.

(more…)

Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) has filed a simple amendment to the Patriot Act protecting the rights of Americans to lawfully carry a firearm.  His Amendment would stop federal agencies from collecting gun records under the Patriot Act.  The amendment preserves two provisions of current law that protects gun owner privacy from a Patriot Act exemption.

The Paul Amendment (SA 328) states in part “no provision of this Act or an amendment made by this Act shall be construed to authorize access to firearms records in the possession of licensed under Chapter 44 of title 18 of the US Code.”  The purpose of the Amendment is to “clarify that the authority to obtain information under the US PATRIOT Act does not include the authority to obtain certain firearms records.”  Seems like a non-controversial clarification of the powers of the federal government with regard to the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.

Leadership in both parties disagree and have been doing everything to block consideration of the Paul Amendment. Neil McCabe at Guns and Patriots reported yesterday on Facebook that “finessing arcane procedural tactics, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., blocked the amendment by withdrawing his own bill for Patriot Act extension for consideration and then attached it to an unrelated bill.”  McCabe further reported that Reid was overheard on the Senate floor expressing an interest in avoiding this vote.  That was yesterday, now Republicans in the Senate Leadership are actively opposing the Paul Amendment to the Patriot Act.

In an Email obtained by Big Government from a Senate Republican Leadership staffer for Senator Jon Kyl (R-Arizona) to Republican staff below titled “OPPOSE the Paul Firearm Amendment” argues for Republicans to block the Paul 2nd Amendment protection legislation:

(more…)

In the days before ObamaCare, there was a clear delineation between the American medical industry and the government.  The industry would invest – often with the assistance of government policy initiatives — in finding cures and the government would ensure the new drugs were safe.  It was a simple equation that worked and helped make American medicine the envy of the world.

Since the election of President Obama and the enactment of his government takeover of our health care system, the emphasis is no longer on finding cures but limiting cost.  In fact, limiting cost is taking precedent over protecting the safety of patients.

The foundation of this effort was laid in the president’s ill-fated stimulus plan.  A provision in the bill set aside over $1 billion for “comparative effectiveness” research – certainly a “shovel ready project” if we every saw one – but that is a debate for a different day.  Betsy McCaughey of the Hudson Institute warned that the provisions “treats health care the way European governments do: as a cost problem instead of a growth industry.” Rep. Charles Boustany Jr., (R-LA) a heart surgeon, warned that it would lead to “denying seniors and the disabled lifesaving care.”  Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) unsuccessfully proposed amendments to bar the federal government from using the research to eliminate treatments for the elderly or deny care based on age.  How right they were.

The National Institute of Health will release their first high profile multi-million study next week to determine whether the drug Avastin (the same drug the Food and Drug Administration is trying to deny to breast cancer patients) can be injected into the eye to combat wet age related macular degeneration instead of the FDA approved drug Lucentis.  Avastin was never approved for this purpose but the cost of Avastin is cheaper than the cost of Lucentis.

(more…)

Senator Jon Kyl and a group of Senators – including Sens. Mitch McConnell (Ky.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), and Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) have introduced critical legislation that seeks to protect the doctor and patient relationship from the oncoming onslaught of ObamaCare.

Known as the PATIENTS Act, the bill works to protect the individualized relationship between doctors and patients ensuring that new government rules and mandates that put a premium on cost never interfere with the practice of quality medicine.

To better understand how that will happen if ObamaCare is not defunded or repealed, it is critical to understand the nature of “comparative effectiveness research.” In order to save money for the cost of socialist health care regimes, bureaucrats often play the “comparative effectiveness research” card to mandate that doctors provide inferior care and treatment that often does not work.

These studies, for which there is nearly a billion dollars worth of funding in the ObamaCare bill, become the basis of bureaucratic mandates that substitute the government’s judgment for that of a doctor. For instance, if a government study says that drug X is as effective as drug Y (which is cheaper), the government will often begin to deny coverage for drug X forcing the doctor to use drug Y. In some instances, patients only respond to drug X. Doctors and patients should never be forced to take drugs that don’t work. Doctor’s need to be able to make these decisions without interference from a bureaucrat. That is what the Kyl bill seeks.

This is not a theoretical argument any longer.

(more…)

It’s hard not to imagine that some bureaucrats that the National Institute’s of Health were not thinking of Robert Burns’ “best laid plans of mice and men” when they heard the results of a recent “comparative effectiveness” study of the drugs Lucentis and Avastin.

“Comparative effectiveness” studies are the shoehorn for government interference between the doctor/patient relationship. These studies allow bureaucrats to dictate health care decisions that should be made by doctors by determining that certain drugs or treatments are comparable and the cheaper drug becomes the one the government covers for treatment. The ObamaCare takeover of our health care system appropriated nearly $1 billion for these studies.

The National Institute for Health (NIH) initiated a study into the “comparative effectiveness” of the drugs Lucentis and Avastin – both made by the same manufacture. The basis of the study was to determine whether Avastin could be used as a substitute for Lucentis when treated macular degeneration. Avastin was never approved by the FDA for macular degeneration while Lucentis was tried, tested and approved for such purpose.

The initial test results showed the danger of such a strategy.

(more…)

Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) has introduced critical legislation that aims to stem the coming tide of rationing of America’s health care services. The PATIENT’s Act will ensure doctors and patients have the final say about medical treatment and new ObamaCare created “comparative effectiveness research” will not put a government created barrier to better treatment.

On the surface, there is nothing inherently wrong with “comparative effectiveness research.” Advocates believe it will save the taxpayers money by studying whether alternative and cheaper treatments are just as effective as currently prescribed methods of treatment. ObamaCare appropriated nearly $1 billion for such studies.

The problem, however, is when government takes that research and mandates a “one-size-fits-all” health care regimen that does not fit every patient . And with government mandated to reduce the cost of health care, these studies will assuredly become the intellectual justification of rationing. Here’s why.

Doctors have a unique relationship with their patients. They know how they respond to treatments. Government bureaucrats do not know, and frankly do not care, how an individual responds. They care about the big picture – the bottom line. If they can show cost savings by swapping a drug, they will do it. That appears to be happening with the drugs Lucentis and Avastin.

(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…)

Winston Churchill – the statesman who defined champagne as “bottled sunshine” – often suffered bouts of deep depression.  He called that frequent companion his “black dog.”   After their drubbing in 2008 and Obama’s legislative tsunami – pausing, not ending in the enactment of the healthcare reform bill – some Republicans appear ready to settle in for a long political winter with Churchill’s black dog curled up at their feet.

Former presidential speechwriter David Frum, apparently eager to hug the black dog, wrote that the passage of Obamacare is the Republicans’ Waterloo, and that while they may retake the House or Senate this November, that wouldn’t matter because “This healthcare bill is forever.”

Frum merely gives voice to the thinking of the Old Republican Establishment.  They are comfortable in the minority, smiling – as former House Minority Leader Bob Michel used to – at the inability to direct national policy, adept at getting re-elected without the burden of leadership.

Frum’s reference to Waterloo is almost apt.  But the enactment of Obamacare isn’t the Republicans’ Waterloo.  If Frum knew his military history, he’d see it not as Waterloo, but as Marengo: a defeat that turned what could have been a devastating defeat into a crushing victory for Napoleon in June 1800.

(more…)

Several hours into last month’s marathon health care summit, President Obama became exasperated.  Republican lawmakers Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Jon Kyl had plainly laid out their party’s objections to his massive legislation by emphasizing a major philosophical point of departure between the two parties.   Democrats place a great deal of faith in the effectiveness and wisdom of the federal government in handling complex social and fiscal issues, they said, whereas Republicans view centralized planning and onerous regulation with a jaundiced and skeptical eye.  This virtuosic issue-framing wouldn’t do, Obama concluded:  “Any time the question is phrased as, ‘Does Washington know better?’ I think we’re, kind of, tipping the scales a little bit there—since we all know that everybody is angry at Washington right now,” he griped.

Indeed.  Ryan and Kyl were stating the obvious: The American people don’t trust big government.  Reinforcing those insecurities and applying them to the health care debate was precisely the point of raising the issue, and the president knew it.  In fairness, negative perceptions of government bureaucracy certainly pre-date the Obama administration and the current “reform” battle.  Cracks about the DMV’s inefficiencies and the Post Office’s red ink have long been political punch lines.  (Oddly, Obama once unfavorably cited the Post Office while advocating increased federal involvement in health care).  Those warmed-over bromides notwithstanding, much of today’s scorn for big government can be laid at the feet of policies proposed and instituted by President Obama and his party.  Americans’ skepticism toward government intervention has grown more acute after a series of recent high-profile federal flops.

“Making Home Affordable” was the federal program introduced in February 2009 that touched-off Rick Santelli’s infamous Tea Party-catalyzing rant.  It was a $75 Billion mortgage program devised to protect homeowners from foreclosure.  Nobody relished the thought of fellow citizens being forced from their homes, but critics of the plan argued it would reinforce foolish bank lending practices, reward individuals for living far beyond their means, and punish responsible taxpayers with current mortgage payments.  Epitomizing the program’s backwardness was the case of bus driver Minta Garcia.  According to CNN, Garcia had managed to “buy” an $800,000 home that her family couldn’t remotely afford.  Inevitably, she soon fell hopelessly behind on her payments.  Thanks to Obama’s tax-funded munificence and empathy, she and others like her could qualify for personalized government bailouts.

(more…)