The Snooper Report

I know.  The question is a rhetorical one.  Get over it.

Chris Frates / The Politico: Payoffs for states get Reid to 60

Ben Nelson’s “Cornhusker Kickback,” as the GOP is calling it, got all the attention Saturday, but other senators lined up for deals as Majority Leader Harry Reid corralled the last few votes for a health reform package.

Nelson’s might be the most blatant – a deal carved out for a single state, a permanent exemption from the state share of Medicaid expansion for Nebraska, meaning federal taxpayers have to kick in an additional $45 million in the first decade.

But another Democratic holdout, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), took credit for $10 billion in new funding for community health centers, while denying it was a “sweetheart deal.” He was clearly more enthusiastic about a bill he said he couldn’t support just three days ago. [...]

See that post to read MORE vote buying.  Never let it be said that I have warned the entire Nation about this unconstitutional federal congress.  Where is it in the USC where votes can be purchased?  Anywhere?  Aren't the congress critters supposed to do what the people tell them to?

Democrat Compares Health-Care Opponents to Nazis

This article is just one more rush to stupid...

[...] "Far from appealing to the better angels of our nature, too many colleagues are embarked on a desperate no-holds-barred mission of propaganda, obstruction and fear. History cautions us of the excesses to which these malignant, vindictive passions can ultimately lead. Tumbrils have rolled through taunting crowds, broken glass has sparkled in darkened streets. Strange fruit has hung from Southern trees. Even this great institution of government that we share has cowered before a tail-gunner waving secret lists." (Emphasis added.) [...]

I have her vindictive passions resting serenly on my web gear.  Any takers?  Go read that entire article.  Bring some ammo while you are at it.

Sen John Kyl responds...

[...] "For the most part, I certainly recall the long conversations that the ranking Republican, Sen. Grassley, and the chairman of the committee had. I know they worked in good faith and it would be best if we did that. It's to that end that I want to speak to some comments that a colleague earlier made today, and I don't know whether it's frustration or maybe just the lens through which partisans view things and their opponents, unfortunately, that spawned the remarks earlier today from one of our Democratic colleagues. But in either event, his characterization of his Republican colleagues, I think, requires response ....

"Now, I wouldn't believe my ears, these references to one of the first and most vicious attacks on the Jews by Nazis, hanging of blacks. The majority leader's remarks last week comparing the Republicans' position on health care to the pro-slavery movement were largely ignored as the clumsy offhand ramblings of a partisan, but the references earlier today appeared to be not off-the-cuff mistakes but prepared text, deliberately delivered by one of the brightest minds of the Senate ...

"There are honorable people on both sides of the aisle who obviously have to agree to disagree. But our colleague attributes no good motive to Republicans whose ‘passions' are simply ‘malignant' and ‘vindictive.' . . . I wonder if my colleagues really believe that our position is animated by hatred. Why else would we oppose this legislation? ...

"Does my colleague really believe that this is why I oppose the legislation, or my colleague, John McCain? . . . I don't like this bill. That's why I oppose it. ...

"But finally, my colleague turned the world upside-down by arguing about the only reason that we're here the week before Christmas is because of Republican bad behavior, that we ruined the holidays . . . because we followed the procedures of the Senate that require the reading of the bill. . . The reason it's read is so our staff would in fact have time to read it, to advise us -- we didn't all have time to read it ourselves -- and to advise the public, our constituents, of what's in it. Again, we received it yesterday, we're voting on it tonight. That's very little time to know everything that's in there, and the more we learn about what's in there, the angrier a lot of people get. ...

"This is why we oppose the bill. It's why we don't like the process. We respect what our constituents are telling us. We believe this bill will be bad for them and it will be bad for our country. Our Democratic colleagues have a different position. Neither their position nor ours is malignant, nor should they be expressed vindictively." [...]

I oppose it because it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.  Vindictive?  Since when is rightfully following the USC vindictive?  Like I said earlier above..."I have her vindictive passions resting serenly on my web gear."

Is the Objection to Obamacare Fueled by White Supremacists, Or Is it the ONE TRILLION Dollars in New Taxes?

I'd say it is the unconstitutionality of it myself.

Douglas Elmendorf / Director's Blog: Correction Regarding the Longer-Term Effects

CBO has discovered an error in the cost estimate released yesterday related to the longer-term budgetary effects of the manager’s amendment to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Correcting that error has no impact on the estimated effects of the legislation during the 2010–2019 period. However, the correction reduces the degree to which the legislation would lower federal deficits in the decade after 2019. [...]

Mistakes?  MISTAKES?  2019?

OBAMA'S SENATE WHORES TO VOTE ON OBAMACARE AT 1AM - THE WITCHING HOUR

I'll be watching.

Michael O'Brien / The Hill: CBO issues correction: Health bill nixes deficit less than thought

[...] While the CBO's estimates of the board's and overall bill's impact in its first 10 years of the legislation are correct, Elmendorf wrote, the program's effects on deficit reduction during the second decade of the program were overestimated. [...]

Michelle Malkin: CBO already revising its Demcare math

John McCormack / Weekly Standard: Can Stupak Kill Obamacare in the House?

I most certainly hope so.

Are there enough votes in the House to pass a health care bill very close to the one the Senate is preparing to pass? Bart Stupak says the Senate bill's abortion language is "unacceptable" and has pledged to lead a group of pro-life Democrats to vote against final passage if the issue isn't resolved. How many votes can Stupak bring with him?

In November, House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said that the Stupak amendment got them "10 votes" for the bill.

"Without that language, we were around 212, 214," Clyburn said in November (if that's true, the Stupak amendment actually only got 6 or 8 votes for the bill). The House bill originally passed 220 to 215. [...]

We shall see what a "blue dog is".

Whatever happens tonight and by the end of the year, EVERYONE that voted for this unconstitutional Bill MUST be ejected by Americans in 2010, 2012 and 2014.

The Snooper Report.
Join us as we Take Our Country Back.
Sic vis pacem para bellum
Fight Accordingly