You probably thought it was outrageous that SEIU president Andy Stern has persecuted his own members and driven away large chunks of his own organization.

You probably thought it was incredible that he dropped tens of millions of dollars on politics after leading a split in labor because the other federation was spending too much on politics.

You probably thought it was horrifying to hear how SEIU badgers — almost terrorizes — companies that don’t cave into the union’s card check demands.

Even with all that, you’ll probably still manage to be shocked that Stern has criticized Sen. Joe Lieberman and Sen. Ben Nelson for halting disastrous health care legislation by saying, “There are a lot of terrorists in the Senate who think we are supposed to negotiate with them when they have their particular needs that they want met.”

Stern has flown the cuckoo nest. We wonder if the rest of the labor movement really wants to tie their wagon to this guy.

We’re taking this step because something as important as the Democrats’ health care bill, with its Medicare cuts and tax hikes, should not be slapped together behind closed doors.  Secret deliberations are a breeding ground for mischief, including sweetheart deals that end up not being discovered until it’s too late (see: Sen. Ben Nelson’s “Cornhusker Kickback.”)

Of course, the American people should be able to see how every bill is coming together, but it’s even more important to adhere to this common-sense standard when we’re talking about transforming one-sixth of our economy and implementing drastic changes to the way in which Americans live.

I believe President Obama knows that, which is why he pledged on no fewer than eight occasions to hold public health care negotiations and broadcast them on C-SPAN.  He said it was important for the American people “to know what’s going on.”  Last week, C-SPAN called on congressional leaders to make good on President Obama’s pledge; countless editorial boards coast-to-coast issued similar pleas.

Still, negotiations continue behind closed doors among a handful of Washington Democrats and their liberal special interest allies, including the leaders of organized labor, who were brought into the White House earlier this week to talk health care.

Republicans believe the American people deserve a seat at the table, and this discharge petition to force a vote on Rep. Buchanan’s transparency resolution is our best shot to make it happen. I will sign it and I am urging all my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, to do the same.

Rep. Buchanan’s resolution is part of a transparency initiative Republicans first introduced in November to make Congress more open and accountable to the people it serves.  We are also calling for votes on the following reforms:

• Read the bill. All bills should be posted online for a minimum of 72 hours before being brought to a vote on the House floor.
• Show the votes. Members’ committee votes should be posted online within 48 hours so the American people can see how their representatives voted.
• Ban “phantom amendments.” Committees should be required to post the text of adopted bills online within 24 hours of adoption to end the practice of “phantom amendments” being added to bills secretly after they pass at the committee level.
• Bring sunlight to the Rules Committee.  Cameras should be allowed in the secretive House Rules Committee, the panel that decides which bills and amendments come to a vote.

Republicans will continue to insist on transparency so that every piece of legislation, no matter how big or small, is subject to the maximum amount of public scrutiny.  Learn more by visitinghttp://gopelader.gov/readthebill.

Thousands of  emails leaked to the Internet from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom appear to substantiate a growing body of research that questions the idea of man-made global warming. Climate-gate has the potential to emerge as an unexpected gift to Republican candidates in this year’s midterm elections. But there’s the rub.

With the exception of Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), and a handful of other elected officials, Republicans have been reticent to engage and debate the dubious claims of human induced global warming, laments Steve Milloy, editor and founder of JunkScience.com.

“Too many of them don’t understand the issue and the extremism that stands behind green activism,” he observes. “They are afraid of being labeled as anti-environment and are just not well-equipped or well informed enough to confront policies that could result in an unprecedented expansion of government power.”

At the very least, 2010 Republican challengers could invoke the email scandal to demonstrate how research has been falsified and distorted to advance a political agenda at odds with the economic well-being of many Americans. This in turn could open the way to a larger discussion of global warming science and the role of the United Nations.

Waxman-Markey (H.R. 2494), which passed the House last year by a 219-212 vote in June, calls for reducing total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. The legislation would impose a “cap and trade” regime that limits the amount of carbon dioxide that could be released into the atmosphere. Companies exceeding their prescribed limit would have to buy “carbon allowances” in a government-contrived system.

At least six Democratic senators are now urging the White House to back away from pushing “cap and trade” in the midst of an election year. Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) are among those who have expressed reservations.

Virginia’s Bob McDonnell very deftly turned Waxman-Markey back against his Democratic opponent in last year’s race for governor. His landslide election victory should encourage other Republican candidates looking to capitalize on economic concerns.

“Cap and trade is opposed by most employers in Virginia because they see what it’s going to do to the cost of goods and services,” McDonnell explained in an interview. “It is strongly opposed by the coal industry, for instance, which is vitally important to Southwest Virginia. Cap and trade is just bad policy and the more citizens understand that it’s going to increase their electricity rates over time the more they are going to oppose it.”

Nationwide data measuring the impact of Waxman-Markey in a new study commissioned by the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF) yielded the following results:

• Cumulative loss in gross domestic product (GDP) up to $3.1 trillion (2012-2030)
• Employment losses up to 2.4 million jobs in 2030
• Residential electricity price increases up to 50 percent by 2030
• Gasoline price increases (per gallon) up 26 percent by 2030.

The NAM/ACCF study includes data on all 50 states.

In Virginia, for example, the NAM/ACCF study estimates that at least 41,400 jobs could be lost by 2030 as a result of lower industrial output that would follow from higher energy prices. Virginia residents would also see their disposable income reduced by $103 to $235 per year by 2020 and $608 to $1,096 by 2030 as a consequence of Waxman-Markey.

There’s no question that industrial states stand to lose the most and this should become a point of contention in 2010, just as it was in the Virginia governor’s race. But free market advocates who are looking to unseat cap and trade proponents now have the added benefit of climate-gate.

Even as cap and trade stalls in the U.S. Senate, the Obama Administration now appears poised to use the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) endangerment finding on Co2 to make an end run around democratic channels.

This maneuvering suggests that the economic arguments standing alone will not be sufficient over the long-term and must be co-joined with scientific data that can be included in litigation challenging the endangerment finding. But Republican candidates should get started now in exposing anti-scientific research that underpins alarmist positions on global warming.

In their messaging to voters they can draw from the expertise of numerous, well-credentialed skeptics who have found expression for their own research, despite the best efforts of the scientific establishment.

Over 31,000 scientists, including over 9,000 Ph.Ds, have signed off on a petition circulated through the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine that states human activity is not responsible for causing catastrophic disruption of the earth’s climate system. Moreover, over 700 scientists have now endorsed a U.S. Senate minority report that questions man-made global warming.

Charles Dunn, dean of the Regent University School of Government based in Virginia Beach, Va., sees opportunities for Republican candidates running in parts of the south and the mid-west especially. As it turns out, these are some of the same states that would be disproportionately affected by cap and trade.

Liberal media organs and Democratic operatives sought to make an issue out of McDonnell’s connection with Regent University during the campaign. In the end, Dunn suspects this coverage may have actually benefitted the Republican candidate in that it further heightened his esteem among social conservatives. Consequently, McDonnell was better positioned to make an issue out of energy policy because his base was already solidified, he surmises.

Throughout the campaign, McDonnell emphasized his support for expanded nuclear power and for offshore drilling. That’s what the public likes to hear and Republican candidates in other states can build on this approach by asking their Democratic counterparts to account for the junk science that constrains American ingenuity.

Exhibit A is the outright bribe extracted by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Corn Huckster State) from Sen. Harry Reid. As a result of Nelson’s performance in his role of Hamlet in the health care deliberations, we will have two health care systems in this country; one for Nebraska and one for the other 49 states.

In its quixotic attempt to ensure everyone has health insurance, the Reid legislation greatly expands Medicaid eligibility. Because Medicaid is a program whose costs are split between the federal and state governments, this expansion in eligibility raise costs dramatically for states. States will be forced to either raise taxes or cut other services to accommodate the forced increase in Medicaid spending.

Unless that state is Nebraska.

Below is the text for Nelson’s bribe. Under this language the federal government will forever cover the costs of Medicaid expansion in Nebraska. Taxpayers in every other state will forever be responsible for the expanded Medicaid program in Nebraska.

Outrageous doesn’t do justice to describe this situation. Sen. Nelson also secured an exemption from a new insurance tax for non-profit companies in his state. Mutual of Omaha and Nebraska’s Blue Cross/Blue Shield won’t have to pay a tax other companies will be required to pay.

There is next to nothing honest about the entire health care debate anymore. The current legislative text was released just hours ago. The first votes are expected within hours. The health care sector accounts for 1/7th of our economy. And the “World’s Greatest Deliberative Body” will have just hours to consider its radical transformation. However much they say the legislation will cost, don’t believe it. Rarely has a bill been so manipulated to hide its true cost.

Consider this from the most recent CBO estimate of the cost of the legislation:

These longer-term calculations assume that the provisions are enacted and remain unchanged throughout the next two decades, which is often not the case for major legislation. For example, the sustainable growth rate (SGR) mechanism governing Medicare’s payments to physicians has frequently been modified (either through legislation or administrative action) to avoid reductions in those payments, and legislation to do so again is currently under consideration in the Congress.

And this,

The legislation would maintain and put into effect a number of procedures that might be difficult to sustain over a long period of time. Under current law and under the proposal, payment rates for physicians’ services in Medicare would be reduced by about 21 percent in 2010 and then decline further in subsequent years.

(Hey, American Medical Association, how’s that endorsement of this bill working for you?)

And, this gem:

It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved, and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care.

Soon, 60 Senators will vote for this.

From the office of U.S. Senator Mike Johanns:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Ann Marie Hauser (202) 224-4796

October 5, 2009 Chris Hunt (402) 476-1400

Jake Thompson (202) 224-8795

JOHANNS, NELSON INTRODUCE BILL TO BAN FRAUDULENT ORGANIZATIONS FROM RECEIVING FEDERAL MONEY

WASHINGTON – Senators Mike Johanns and Ben Nelson today introduced a bill to cut off all federal funding for any organization whose employees have been convicted of voter fraud. The bill comes after Senator Johanns successfully barred the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), whose employees have been convicted on 70 counts of voter fraud, from receiving funding via three spending bills recently passed by the Senate.

“Senator Nelson and I strongly believe in the protection of taxpayer dollars, and this bill is a clear way of working towards that goal,” Johanns said. “Let the message be clear: Americans should not be helping to fund any organization whose employees use the money to commit fraud or any other reprehensible practices.”

“This legislation builds on actions taken to cut off federal funding for ACORN,” Nelson said. “To further protect taxpayers’ money, this bill extends that prohibition to all forms of federal assistance, and all groups who violate our election laws. And we require a report, so Congress can know exactly which organizations we need to watch out for.”

Full text of the legislation can be found here.

Today, the Committee voted on an amendment from Sen. Cornyn which would have delayed expansions in Medicaid until steps had been taken to get its error/fraud rate down to 3.9%, the average of all government programs. Details below:

Cornyn Amendment #C30 to America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009

Short Title: Reducing waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicaid program.

Description of Amendment: Prior to implementing the mandatory Medicaid program expansions in the Chairman’s Mark, the Secretary of Health and Human Services must certify that states have implemented program integrity and quality improvement measures specified in the Chairman’s Mark and that the Medicaid program’s average Payment Error Rate Measurement is less than 3.9 percent.

Offset: No offset needed.

 Republicans

CHUCK GRASSLEY -yes, ORRIN G. HATCH -yes, OLYMPIA J. SNOWE -yes, JON KYL -yes, JIM BUNNING -yes, MIKE CRAPO -yes, PAT ROBERTS -yes, JOHN ENSIGN -yes, MIKE ENZI -yes, JOHN CORNYN -yes

Democrats

MAX BAUCUS -no, JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER -no, KENT CONRAD -no, JEFF BINGAMAN -no, JOHN F. KERRY -no, BLANCHE L. LINCOLN -no, RON WYDEN -no, CHARLES E. SCHUMER – no, DEBBIE STABENOW -no, MARIA CANTWELL -no, BILL NELSON -no, ROBERT MENENDEZ – no, THOMAS CARPER -no

Not Agreed to (10-13)