ObamaCare Target List
— Gabriel Malor

If you intended to pick up a telephone, send a fax, an email, or a letter (although a letter is too slow to matter), here are my suggestions for Dems leaning toward voting against the healthcare bill. They are "maybes" who have not publicly declared, but who may need a gentle nudge from their constituents.

Jason Altmire (PA-4)
332 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202-225-2565
202-226-2274(fax)

John Barrow (GA-12)
213 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515
p: (202) 225-2823
f: (202) 225-3377
(email form)

John Boccieri (OH-16)
1516 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-3876
(email form)

Allen Boyd (FL-2)
1227 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-5235
(202) 225-5615 Fax
(email form)

Lincoln Davis (TN-4)
410 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: 202.225.6831
Fax: 202.226.5172
(email form)

Scott Murphy (NY-20)
120 Cannon HOB
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-5614
(202) 225-1168 (fax)
(email form)

Glenn Nye (VA-2)
116 Cannon HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-4215
Fax: (202) 225-4218
(email form)

Heath Shuler (NC-11)
422 Cannon House Office Bldg.
Washington, DC, 20515
Phone: (202) 225-6401
Fax: (202) 226-6422

John Tanner (TN-8 )
1226 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-4714
Fax: (202) 225-1765
(email form)

Harry Teague (NM-2)
1007 Longworth HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-2365
(email form)

I've given you their D.C. contact info. If you can't get through there, go here to look up their local offices and talk to some of the staff there.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:22 AM | Comments (39)
Post contains 248 words, total size 2 kb.

Top Headline Comments 3-19-10
— Gabriel Malor

For commenting on the linked Top Headlines in the sidebar at right. You can also use it to share your own Top Headlines. A sticky of this thread is at the top of the sidebar on the main page.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:05 AM | Comments (81)
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

Whip Count 3-18-10: 192 Yes, 211 No
— Gabriel Malor

Now let's talk about useful whip counts and whip counts that, well, aren't. The Hill's whip count, which is tracking in terms of "firm", "leaning", and "likely" votes, is useful. It lists which member goes in which group and why. FireDogLake's whip count, which most closely matches my own in the totals if not all the placements, has a helpful table to track votes.

By contrast, Fox News' whip count has nothing except the score, which it thinks as of this writing is 214-217. There is no explanation of how they got that number or why. Now, that's about as useful as a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest. It does nothing but encourage folks to DON'T JUST STAND THERE, PANIC!

For the record, none of the people tracking votes on this bill have it as close as 214-217. Except Fox News. Now, maybe Fox has info the rest of us don't, but I rather suspect they're busy making news instead of reporting it. Please don't declare defeat prematurely. There was some wailing and gnashing of teeth earlier today, but no one is ready to call it quits. Pelosi doesn't have it yet. We'd know if she did.

That said, there were some big changes today, so on with the whip count:

Pelosi picked up four votes from Betsy Markey, Bart Gordon, Luis Gutierrez, and Solomon Ortiz. Markey and Gordon had been "maybes." Gutierrez is the fellow who made the bizarre switch from "yes" to "pass my immigration bill and we'll talk." Well, today the President announced that he supported Gutierrez's immigration reform framework and Gutierrez promptly switched back to "yes." The other sponsor on the immigration reform bill was Solomon Ortiz, who was thought to be a "maybe", but who can securely be put in the "Voting Yes" group.

Three congresscreeps came out of that group, however, when Dina Titus, Mike Capuano, and John Tierney announced that they are now undecided. Let's not be fooled. I think they're looking for a payoff of some kind and will switch back, but for now they're something for Pelosi to worry about and I'm putting them in the maybe group.

Another possible "yes" to "undecided" is Bobby Rush, but this is so transparently a request for a bribe, that I'm not moving him. I know I said I'd go by their public statements, but his "I'm still thinking about it" claim is inherently unbelievable.

The big surprise of the day was this morning's announcement from Steve Lynch on local radio that he will vote against the bill. Everyone thought he was a "yes" so that pulls another from Pelosi's total, which means her score for the day is a wash. She picked up four and lost four. Unless you're prone to jumpiness around sudden movement, today's events shouldn't have set you off.

Finally, Travis Childers, comes out of the "maybe" crowd and goes to the "Not No Way" group.

And, as ever, the group of timid "maybes" telling their constituents by phone that they will vote no, but not announcing to the media, includes Lincoln Davis and Harry Teague. Davis, Teague, and John Boccieri are expected to announce their position on Friday. Actually, Teague said he'd decide today (Thursday), but his announcement was that he was still thinking about it.

All told, Pelosi has 192 "definitely voting yes." This leaves her 24 votes shy of the necessary 216. There are 28 maybes, 13 who voted "no" on the November House bill.

Thanks to David, Jack, Myryea, Lawrence, Paul, enoxo, Josh and Nick. The categories and names are below the fold: more...

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 08:37 PM | Comments (256)
Post contains 1008 words, total size 7 kb.

CBO: Obama/Pelosi? Ummm...they lie.
— Purple Avenger

Actual ObamaCare™ 10 year cost is well over $2,000,000,000,000 and that's using the insane Alice in Wonderland scoring rules congress compels the CBO to use.

...To see the bill’s true first-decade costs, we need to start the clock when the costs would actually start in any meaningful way: in 2014. The CBO says that Obamacare would cost $2.0 trillion in the bill’s real first decade (from 2014 to 2023) — and much more in the decades to come.

But $2.0 trillion wouldn’t be the total ten-year costs. Instead, that would merely be the “gross cost of coverage provisions.” Based on earlier incarnations of the proposed overhaul, the total costs would be about a third higher (the exact number can’t be gleaned from the CBO’s analysis, which is only preliminary and is not a full scoring) — making the total price-tag between $2.5 and $3 trillion over the bill’s real first decade.

How would we pay for all of this? According to the CBO, by diverting $1.1 trillion away from already barely-solvent Medicare and spending it on Obamacare, and by increasing taxes on the American people by over $1 trillion....

...And what would we get for all of this? The CBO says that health insurance premiums would rise by 10 to 13 percent in the individual market, in relation to current law. The Medicare Chief Actuary says that the percentage of the gross domestic product spent on health care would also rise in relation to current law, increasing from 17 percent today to 21 percent in 2019. And, as the CBO reports in its latest scoring, as of 2019 there would still be 23 million people in America lacking health insurance...

Such a deal eh? Never before has "pay more get less" tasted so good! If the Robber Barons of old were alive to see this they'd bow their heads in awe of the shear brazenness and magnitude of this public fleecing and realize they'd operated like amateurs even during their heyday. more...

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 07:43 PM | Comments (113)
Post contains 337 words, total size 3 kb.

Overnight Open Thread
— Maetenloch

Happy Thursday M&Ms. And yeah it's an early ONT. Consider it a reward for the compulsive site reloaders.

The Japanese soldier who stayed behind

I think I first heard of Japanese soldiers still hiding in the jungle from a Gilligan Island episode where the castaways were held prisoner by a Japanese holdout. I assumed it was all made up until years later when I heard about the story of Hiroo Onoda who kept fighting for 30 years after the war.

On March 9 1974, Lieutenant Hiroo Onoda, from the Japanese Imperial Army Intelligence, surrendered after almost 30 years of hiding on a Philippine island. He had been a member of an elite commando unit and was given special orders in 1944 before being sent to Labang islands in the Philippines to conduct guerrilla warfare.

You are absolutely forbidden to die by your own hand. It may take three years, it may take five, but whatever happens, weÂ’ll come back for you. Until then, so long as you have one soldier, you are to continue to lead him. You may have to live on coconuts. If thatÂ’s the case, live on coconuts! Under no circumstances are you to give up your life voluntarily.

For the next 30 years he stayed in the jungle initially with 2 companions then alone and occasionally terrorized nearby villagers. He refused all attempts to convince him that the war was long over even from emissaries of the Japanese government. Finally in 1974 his original commander from the war, Major Yoshimi Taniguchi, traveled to the island and personally ordered him to surrender through a megaphone. And he did, dressed in his old uniform and with his sword and rifle still in good condition. He is still alive today at 87 years old and now splits his time between Japan and Brazil.

I've read his book, No Surrender:My Thirty-year War, and highly recommend it. It's interesting to see things from his perspective. You both admire him for his determination and resourcefulness but also feel sorry for him for all the years wasted in the jungle. more...

Posted by: Maetenloch at 05:30 PM | Comments (1014)
Post contains 562 words, total size 5 kb.

Four Years of Nothing (But Taxes)
— Dave in Texas

This urgent thing that must be done now, must be done for some other reason than actually helping Americans with their health care. (chart via table 2 of today's CBO report, courtesy Geoff).

the dramatic improvement of healthcare for Americans

We're clued into this but most of the middle are not, so it bears repeating. There will be no improvement in health care coverage for Americans for four years after this piece of crap passes. What will happen for four years?

Taxes. Taxes, and businesses working and adjusting to figure out how these things affect the bottom line, and of course where taxes and operating expense crossover.

So there is an immediate impact. Just no immediate improvement. Ok actually no long term improvement either but I'm playing on their turf with this argument to make a point.

So Natoma Canfield will have to rely on the current system, given the calendar and all. Fortunately for her, the current system is working to take care of her, and I wish her all the best in her fight.

Think about that in the context of the woeful anecdotes and ask "uhm, if they kinda cared about these awful things, wouldn't this be sort of geared toward helping make a difference for them?"

Answer your own question. Which is very efficient.

Also, I think Gabe mentioned this earlier, Obama has postponed his trip to Indonesia and Australia while this thing works its magic in the House.

Until June.

UPDATE: Obamacare in fifteen seconds. more...

Posted by: Dave in Texas at 03:24 PM | Comments (290)
Post contains 262 words, total size 3 kb.

Another No to Yes: Betsy Marky of Colorado
FoxNews Says Count Is 214-217
— Ace

She was a "maybe" before and someone I think most figured would flip to "Yes."

On the plus side, Gabe thinks it will cost her her seat in November.

But there's another yes.

Fixed Headline: Whoops, got confused, it's No to Yes.

Fox's Whip: Their count -- how they're pinning down "maybes" I don't know -- says Pelosi is short a couple of votes.

Oh: Earlier Fox had it as 211 to 220, so there's either been momentum in favor of destroying the country or FoxNews never had it right to begin with.

Posted by: Ace at 01:45 PM | Comments (331)
Post contains 119 words, total size 1 kb.

Rumors: Two House Democrats Already Promised Administration Positions?
— DrewM

Maybe Tom "Don't Screw With This" Coburn had some specific folks in mind when he said House Democrats who walk the plank for ObamaCare shouldn't expect cushy landings in the Executive Branch.

Seems Bart Gordon, a No the first time around who just announced that he's a yes, might be in line to take over NASA.

If true, this has at least two implications. First, the administration is willing to throw Charlie Bolden under the bus. Second, theyÂ’re also willing to throw the new plans for NASA under the bus for health care, because Gordon (who just happens to be the relevant committee chairman) has expressed skepticism about them.

Insty also says another Tennessee Congressman John Tanner might be named Ambassador to NATO.

I hear Brussels is lovely this time of year.

It's not clear if this kind of stuff is covered by "Hope" or "Change".

BTW- Tom Coburn needs a cool nick name. The Hammer is taken and The Sheriff has been damaged beyond repair.

What do you think?

Posted by: DrewM at 12:53 PM | Comments (334)
Post contains 186 words, total size 1 kb.

Should Opponents Of Health Care Bill Hope The Democrats Use The Slaughter Solution? ADDED: Two More Yes Votes
— DrewM

I think the Slaughter Solution is an affront to the Constitution but...if this monstrosity (an affront to freedom) is going to pass should we hope the Democrats use the most noxious means possible to do it?

I'm not optimistic that if the House uses Slaughter that it will be knocked down by the courts but others seem to think it might be. It would be awful to have to hope all of this rides on which side of the bed Anthony Kennedy gets up one day but it's better than nothing.

If it's going to pass, and at the moment I fear it will, then at least we'd have another bite at the apple. I have no faith in the repeal effort (it will be '12 at the earliest, which assumes Obama is defeated and not likely to get 60 votes in the Senate) so the courts maybe out best hope.

There's also the chance to hit Democrats during the midterms with their ugly procedural power grab to 'deem' a bill passed instead of voting on it. I think that will for the most part be lost in the fight over the passage or failure of the bill itself but hey, any weapon in a fight.

The question is, would using Slaughter be enough cover to turn a no into a yes and thus pass the bill when it otherwise would have failed? My guess is no. The votes are the votes at this point. The procedure probably won't change anyone's mind. But it's not possible to know either way for sure.

The Democrats haven't announce they are going to use Slaughter and the Republicans are going to try to gum up the Rules Committee works but I say if they are going to pass this thing, let them make it as ugly as possible.

Related: The Democrats have picked up 2 No to Yes votes today. Gutierrez (who was a yes, who went to no and back to yes now) and Gordon (a 'Blue Dog')

Posted by: DrewM at 12:15 PM | Comments (159)
Post contains 372 words, total size 2 kb.

Don't Sweat the Slaughter Vote/Griffith Resolution outcome as a Proxy for Health Care
— Jack M.

I'm gonna throw a quick post up to try to re-assure y'all that this is still a fight worth engaging in, even after the House endorsement of the tyrannical "Slaughter solution."

It is awfully tempting to think (and I'm sure the Dem Leadership will soon be using this as a talking point) that the 222 votes for Slaughter means that the Dems have the 216 they need for passage of the bill.

After all, if they are willing to brazenly BS you about the CBO score, why wouldn't they BS you about this?

The truth is that this really isn't a proxy vote for the bill, except on the "no" side. The 203 who voted against the rule will likely all be No's on the bill's "deem vote" too.

But the Yes voters? Not necessarily.

Why? Because on procedural votes, parties guard these outcomes jealously. To lose a procedural vote introduced by the minority is seen as a direct rebuke to party leadership, as it temporarily gives the minority the upper hand on setting the floor agenda.

And in the House, you never give the minority party an opening. In fact, the House is institutionally set up to frustrate the ability of the minority to do anything of significance. That's 99% of what the Rules committee is designed to do.

So, about the Yes votes.

Some of them will be No's on the final roll call. But they aren't going to go out of their way to kick their party leadership and their President any more than they have too.

So they are hedging their bets, in a sense. They've voted to keep the door open for Pelosi and Obama, even though they may ultimately vote against the bill.

Would it have been preferable for them to vote No on the rule? Absolutely.

I may write about this more in the future...but House members are essentially insecure critters.

And that's a good thing. They are more accountable to the people of their districts because of it. Whereas most Senators look in the mirror and see a future President, most House Members look in the mirror and worry that they are going to get primaried by the highest-profile car dealer (who often has greater name recognition due to the ads that run all the time on local shows)in their district.

This means that they aren't going to rebuke their leadership when they have what they perceive to be a free vote to "stand with their party."

And Slaughter was pretty much a free vote for these Dems. They've burnished their party creds, even if they decide to vote no.

(Granted, it's not much.....but House members are often afraid to buck their leadership any more than they have to do so.)

So take heart and keep the phone calls going. It isn't really a proxy vote (in the sense that Cloture votes on Senate filibusters often are).

It's a last chance for some of these guys to claim they are team players. And to still vote no.

Edit: Changed the title to make it clear that I was referring to this afternoon's vote on the Parker Griffith (R-AL) effort, rather than a direct vote on Slaughter's rule.

Posted by: Jack M. at 11:17 AM | Comments (143)
Post contains 561 words, total size 3 kb.