Health Care Reform: Dead

It pains me to say this, but I think it's true. Hope it's not, because Republicans and Democrats alike agree we need it.

I think the much-ballyhooed health care reform plan is dead. Kaput. No more.

Well, most of it anyway, the part that would radically change health care. There may be a concurrent resolution or something nifty and feel-goody that gets passed to mark the achievement of doing some fine talking, but I don't think that anything is going to pass the muster.

Too much sausage is getting made on either side. It's hurting the quality of the meat, the meat of course being the reform itself.

Each side can and will blame the other. They'd both be right. Some stubborn folks on not just each end of the aisle but stubbornness on each pew of each aisle has lead to a gridlock, despite some, I'm sure, wonderful progress on those respective side.

It came to me reading the Washington Post this morning. Senate Democrats are making noise about the lack of a public option in the finalized bill. This sent everyone in a position to get to their battle stations.

Speaker Pelosi says there will be a public option in any bill the House approves. Blue Dogs like Arkansas' Mike Ross say they won't sign anything with a public option, losing 50 or more crucial votes. 100+ members of the Progressive caucus and others say they won't vote for it if there's a lack of one. Gridlock.

The Senate Finance Committee is the last frontier of the health care bill. They are struggling admirably to arrive at a bipartisan conclusion. This will — according to Sen. Blanche Lincoln's numerous speeches at home — not include the public option, since it doesn't prove to be a "viable plan." Now Senate Democrats are ready to stand in the way of the 20 months of compromise that's been hashed out in the Finance Committee. Stalemate.

Lincoln, Ross, the President, and others have often clamored that the scary option in health care reform is "to do nothing." They certainly make a strong argument, with nearly 20 percent of every dollar Americans spend going toward health care, health care costs rising at nearly six times the rate of income, and the unsustainability of that path. Even Republicans confess that the system is flawed and outdated, if not completely broken.

But with each group at the ready to bring this bipartisan thing to a screeching halt — now, with no chance of a partisan bill being rammed through either — I think it's dead.

That's just me though. Maybe we'll try it again in another 15 years.

States Approving Gay Marriage Just Dandy for Ark. Delegates

The Gay Marriage-Gay Rights agenda that most on the Right feared would sweep in with a cataclysmic bang once Obama et al. assumed office is on the move, but with no bang, nor whimper.

That doesn't mean it isn't being effective.

To date, five states, with Maine being the latest and Iowa (Iowa?!) being the first, have passed state legislation to make gay marriage a-okay in their respective states. The decisions are catching national headlines and causing some to shift awkwardly in their seats, like an auto mechanic roped into watching Project Runway.

Pelosi yesterday offered what on the surface appeared to be a cold statement about the Gay Rights agenda and its place on the legislative docket — saying it would not take the focus away from Congress' goal to create jobs, meaning, don't hold your breath — but in fact, likely, progress that agenda through a more constructive avenue:

Send it to the states.

One of the most recent examples of Congress passing the buck could be viewing in the historical context of the Employee Free Choice Act (not to bring that behemoth up again, but it was the best example of which I could think). The House, after having dealt with the issues to no avail in two separate sessions cried 'Uncle,' saying they weren't going to move on it until the Senate had done something first.

To put it in a local perspective, that's why the Arkansas Democrats in Congress weren't under nearly as much scrutiny this year, while Sens. Pryor and (especially) Lincoln dealing with the tiresome issue of card check. The House had passed it off.

Comes now the entirety of the Congress, both House and Senate, taking a back seat and letting someone else (state legislatures) deal with this tiresome and radioactive issue of Gay Marriage. I wager that when this issue comes up, you will be able to see these delegates kick back in a chaise lounge and sip on a banana daiquiri at the thought, excited to see someone else take their licks.

No one will be more relieved than Southern Democrats, namely, anyone from Arkansas, save the Fightin' 3rd's John Boozman, the state's only Republican delegate. It's for the same reason that the congressional delegates were at ease about Card Check; This is someone else's fight now, and not ours.

Arkansas, collectively, will never vote in favor of Gay Marriage in the near or likely distant future. It just doesn't fly down here, whether you like that fact or you don't. The Democratic Senators and Congressman are now free from being pinned against their party and their constituency which, after seeing this whole Arlen Specter meltdown, is pretty potent.

Now it would be up to the State Senators and Representatives, likely of the Democratic persuasion, to push any such Gay Rights agenda, and I would say there are a great many things that are more likely than that happening: Me hula-hooping for eighty-straight hours, Blake Rutherford not referencing the West Wing, John Brummett helping a kitten out of a tree. These are all in the same vein of the 'pigs flying' reference I am currently boycotting due to the overdosage of that pun being facilitated during the current Swine Flu panic.

Their constituency has become quite accustomed to seizing any and all priority from the national Democrats. Anything contrary would resemble a fighter pilot pulling a level to his ejection seat, and the legislator would go flying out of the dome in the Capitol building.

I think this will likely be the way of things for the next long while. The environments are respectively hospitable for the causes. California is obviously very pro-Gay Rights and will likely adopt legislation as such. I would not expect anything like that from Arkansas, Mississippi, or Louisiana, although you do have to keep an eye on those wacky Cajuns. Texans, too, they're equally wily. You can never really expect what they're going to do.

This is all, mind you, wholly independent of any musings about whether opposing Gay Rights is an affront to liberty and justice or whether endorsing Gay Rights is a rallying point for the decimation of the American Family/Way of Life. This is just looking at the numbers, the politics, rather than the morality that may be implied on either side of the fence.

Morality and Politics have never been good bedfellows in the first place.

Newt Again? What is this? 1993?

1993 was a pretty good year. I was in Ms. Abbott — now Mrs. Harmon's — classroom in Benton, Arkansas, and life was good. The film's of the year were phenomenal: Philadelphia. The Fugitive. Rookie of the Year. Groundhog Day. Last Action Hero. I also think that's the year I got a Sega Genesis. Like I said, the times were enviable.

'93 was also a good year for a Representative with an amphibian moniker.

I say 1993 had to have been a good year for Newt Gingrich because of what it produced: 1994. Contract with America. Sweeping Republican pwnage. Not to pat him on the back too much, not much of that era still stands today, but the early to mid-nineties was Newt's obvious prime.

Hence, it should come as no surprise to see Newt's face everywhere these days. '09 looks remarkably similar to the conditions which wrought the '94 mid-term landslide, with a few important distinctions.

1993: House, Senate, Executive; all Democrats.

2009: Ditto.

Newt is on the forefront of similar circumstances and naturally, would enjoy a similar result. He'd love the same sort of congressional revolt toward the Right. The GOP would love the same sort of congressional revolt toward the Right. Republicans are in a pretty low state. Talk shows are being widely purported as their best and brightest at this point. Es no bueno for those guys.

I get the thought process: If it ain't broke don't fix it. Newt did wonders then, why not now?

Because that was 16 years ago.

Come on, guys. That's Newt Gingrich. If the party is trying to gain a new appeal in the nation and actually move in that more appealing direction, why oh why would it turn toward antiquity? The values that permeated that time which was ripe for a new approach to new problems are not the same that the GOP needs to utilize in order to get themselves out of this existential funk.

You can't make any progress (the kind of progress Republicans can get behind) with regressive tactics, not in this case anyway. Now there's word that the RNC has raised more money than the DNC this past month. That's a better start.

While I would definitely agree that Congress, not the White House, as Obama will likely be insurmountable, ought to be the focus of the RNC, and Newt proved he knows Congress, innovation ought to also be a focus. Maybe the two are connected, as this article talking about the likelihood of Newt in '12 running for the Executive. Said one GOP strategist, "He's always been the idea man."

But come on, the guy's name is 'Newt.'

Making Tim Tebow Mad By Voting Against His Bill Will Lead To Your Ultimate Demise

Florida's Equal Access Policy — which allows home-schooled children to participate in public school programs — allowed a son of missionaries to fling some pigskin around.

Worked out pretty well for both him and the state which allowed him.

I can't see any reason why Sen. Gilbert Baker's bill to allow Arkansas' home-schoolers to do the same thing should fail.

What's the detriment? So long as the insurance is up, the student academically qualifies according to state standards, and the kid lives within driving distance of the school, what's the rub?

The rub I hear most often is that the school would have to finance a person who is not a student. "They've made their bed," opponents say. "Now they have to sleep in it. Now they have to pay the consequences of this decision."

The argument that the priorities of some outsiders shouldn't take the priority over an insider, who attends the school, has some merit. If there is a roster limitation or something (which I'm not sure there is), perhaps there is a reasonable argument that says if there's no room, the kid who goes to the school in question should get the spot.

But I bet that there will always be enough room for another kid. So long as he can contribute to the team, and he isn't a detriment, and all of the aforementioned qualifications are met, why not let the kids play? Is some legislator worried that his boy won't be in the pocket come fall?

At the very least, we can make the pool a little deeper for those Razorbacks. God knows their running a little thin these days. Although, I heard decent things from Spring Practices this past week.

Tumbleweeds Infest Legislative Halls

LITTLE ROCK — Tumbleweeds have swarmed into the capitol in what most call "The most exciting event to happen in the legislature in weeks."

The collection of rounded grassy refuse rolled all the way from the Senate chambers to the main atrium where a swift wind from an open door blew it right to the steps leading up to the Governor's office.

It remained there for twenty minutes before the custodian was allowed to remove it from the premises.

In the House, Rep. Ann Clemer, R-Benton, took an eight-hour nap as yet another Dan Greenberg bill was violently powerbombed, and Speaker Robbie Wills completed nearly half of the numbers in his daily Sudoku on the House floor.

In the Senate, Pro Tem Bob Johnson allowed AG Dustin McDaniel to showcase his Egyptian slideshow, full of museums, random people from Egypt, and another museum. A rush of excitement as Sen. Jimmy "JayJay" Jeffress, D-Crossett, dozed off and Sen. Tracy Steele, D-North Little Rock, put Jeffress' hand in warm water.

More as that story develops.

-------------

No. Seriously. Is there anything else of value going on? No controversy? Harrelson's Human Cock Fighting bill might turn some heads, and Jon Woods has apparently been blessed with enough teen angst to maybe bring up another tax-cutting bill, that Beebe will assuredly say is a no-go, but really? Nothing else? I suppose that the whole "No New is Good News" Rule might apply, but please. This is just painful.

Thank God that end is in sight. But wait, how many more bills were filed before the deadline?...

Shoot me. Just shoot me.

GOP Governors: Thanks, but Meh...No Thanks

Strolling across the AP wire, I ran across this little tidbit that I found exceptionally remarkable, yet ultimately futile and meaningless at the same time, and since paradoxes amuse me, I thought I'd share it.

It seems that several GOP Governors are considering saying 'no' to the literally billions in federal funding that the stimulus will provide for their respective states.

So is this looking a federal gift horse in the mouth or mere political posturing? Wait, those are both negative things. Wait...huh?

I'm still trying to figure this little bit out. So some governors are tossing this around, as if they will be the one's to turn down literally billions of dollars that would be directly inserted into their states. They talk a big game, but I'd be shocked to see any of these Republican governors balk at the federal stimulus.

Apparently one of these governors — South Carolina's Mark Sanford — rubbed their Democratic congressmen — James Clyburn , the No. 3 man in the U.S. House — the wrong way, causing him to put some clauses into the make up of the stimulus bill that will make legislators able to override any pesky gubernatorial hurdles in getting the respective state stimulus money.

So these conservatives can elbow with their conservative buddies in their conservative primaries, claiming that they were against it to the point of turning it down, knowing all the while that they'll get that money anyway.

Apparently a big concern is attachments, or set up programs that will use the stimulus money budgets in the long-term, eventually running state economies into the ground one the federal funds expire.

Maybe these people ought to be more worried about their competency being questioned with regard to budgeting. If you can't figure out some short-term uses for a (hopefully) once-in-a-lifetime federal gift in a way that won't hinder long-term sustenance, I'd have a bigger problem with that than with putting up a fight about the stimulus.

Like it or not, the stimulus train is moving now, whether those in the GOP are on the platform or on the tracks. While I don't think that these leaders would genuinely put their politics and political ambitions in front of the livelihoods of their constituents, like the Democratic leader of South Carolina Carol Fowler claims, I certainly think that these people aren't thinking of the immediate future as much as their ideal and long-term futures.

Political ideals can shift or adapt momentarily, without permanent transfiguration, as conservatives have to deal with a questionable inheritance from the Democratic House, Senate and Executive. There might be good reason, as a conservative, to feel uneasy about such a proposal. But the check is in the mail, and no amount of political posturing is going to unwrite it.

Plus, who wants to be known as the guy who turned down a kajillionbajillion dollars?

UPDATE: Apparently Sanford isn't one of those guys. He says he's taking the dough. “Being against it doesn’t preclude taking the money,” Sanford said, which is like saying "I hate chocolate but I love Hershey bars."

Blago Strikes Again in the Form of Burris!

"Seat this man from Illinois!" they clamored.

"It's in the Constitution!" they roared.

"Illinois is being denied its proper representation in the United States Senate!" they bemoaned, slightly out of breath, because that's a mouthful to bemoan.

...a little premature now perhaps?

U.S. Senator Roland Burris was appointed to the Senate by ex-Gov. Rod "Cabbage Patch Genius" Blagojevich in the absence of some other guy whose name escapes me at the moment. Oh yeah. Barack Obama? Yeah, I think he got appointed to do something else.

Anywho, were Blago anybody but Blago — a name which has become synonymous with "liar," "cheat," "fink," "sleaze," "carnival worker," "pedophile," and "hack" —this appointment would have gone on with out suspicion or reservation. But under the remarkable circumstances surrounding our favorite Illinoisan, some people rightly balked at the idea.

Understand this wasn't at all because of Burris himself, but because of the man to whom he would owe his appointment. After saying the Senate would initially bar him from entry, after sitting down with the guy, they thought he'd be alright and backed off, allowing him in as one of their own.

But apparently, a little more digging needed to be done.

Burris is now under investigation by the ethics committee under suspicion of perjury. He remarked under oath that he had never campaigned or raised money for Blago in the past and had some questionable dealings with Rod's brother, Rob (real original names by the way, Mom and Pop Blagojevich), a rather high bar when determining whether or not this appointee has a history of any affections toward the then-soon-to-be-now-ex-governor.

This just bugs me, because the entire time the Burris deal was in the news, the pace felt a little too fast for me. I mean, governors have been ousted before (Jim Guy Tucker ring any bells for you native Arkansans?), but this was a pretty serious offense on the part of Blagojevich. One that likely dealt with other people, mind you; this couldn't have been a one man show.

There had to be people on the other end. And if the Chicago Sun-Times' Mark Brown is at least partly right, and Burris was literally begging anyone who had ears for an appointment, doesn't it rub someone the wrong way that maybe —and this is pure speculation— Burris could be one of those purchasers?

That's the whole point. But expedience took precedent over thoroughness, even if Burris is acquitted of all suspicions or charges. If they had done their jobs in the first place, perhaps this mess could've been sorted out earlier.

'Innocent until proven guilty' never applied to public appeal, and suspicion is wholly independent from guilt or innocence, merely a means to one of those ends. And suspicion carries its own weight.

I said in an earlier piece regarding the economic stimulus that I look forward to seeing if it will be labeled as noble expedience or stubborn hastiness on the part of Obama and Congress to get that bill passed. I think the latter, now using our premiere-view 20/20 hindsighting lenses, now applies .

Oh, I Thought Your Seat Belt Wasn't On...What's In the Trunk?

A bill is currently advancing through the Arkansas Legislature that irks me on various levels for varying reasons.

Senate Bill 78 would make the act of not wearing a seat belt a primary offense, meaning that they can be pulled over for that reason and that reason alone. Right now, one can only be given a ticket if they are already pulled over and have previously failed to click it.

So if I'm flying down I-30 headed to God's Country, Saline County, Arkansas at about 73 miles per hour, and a police officer sees that my seat belt is not fastened, bingo. I'm pulled over and may be issued a ticket, if the officer claims that I, indeed, was not wearing the seat belt that I indeed fasten every time I drive, mostly out of sheer reflex — my father was and is still a stern advocate of buckling up. And he's a rather large fellow who could crush most men, and most certainly a growing boy, with his bare hands.

My first point of ire was the same as Senate Minority Leader Denny Altes, R-Fort Smith. “How are you going to be able to enforce this law?”

State Police Director Col. Winford E. Phillips, speaking for SB 78, said very plainly that an officer would have to see the violation first, and if he cannot see that the seat belt is being worn, he (or she, ahthankyou) has no reason to stop the car.

How is an officer supposed to be able to hawkeye a driver's left shoulder to determine whether or not they're wearing a seat belt? It just doesn't seem feasible unless one is in a congested area, like downtown or something.

But I'm rather concerned with that other point: The reason.

An officer must have good cause or reason to pull someone over. You swerved, you sped, you tossed your slushie cup, what have you. Police officers have a lot of latitude to say whether or not someone has done these things, and understandably so. There's no telling how many lives have been saved by officers getting swerving drunks off the road and in jail where they belong.

But might law enforcement officers be granted undue latitude with this law? It's based, after all, with what they perceive, not an act that might be verified by any other number of means, like a swerving man might knock over a trash can, or pop a curb or something. With this, it's mere appearance; it looks like that guy might not be wearing a seat belt, and the sirens blare.

Many will be quick to jump this commentary as that of an anarchical alarmist — someone who is ever-fearing the heavy hand of the Man, and swift to accuse police of brutality, racism, and any other vice that seems often contrary to common sense. That is not the case. I know many, many police officers and many, many of them are fine upstanding individuals who would never dare to do such things.

But why bring up the question? Why even allow the idea in people's minds? I asked a colleague of mine one time whether or not he thought Hillary Clinton's being married to Bill, who went around collecting money from other nations for his charitable fund, created a conflict of interest. He replied that in actuality no, it didn't matter but that that didn't matter; there was a newfound reason to be suspicious.

I don't think that police will be more inclined to do dastardly deeds, but I'd rather them not be under more scrutiny therein.

And how many more lives are saved by pulling over numerous people who may in fact be wearing their seat belts? How many people swerving drunkenly, undetected by police officers who have someone pulled over because of their safety belt? There are a gamut of questions that would need to be rectified.

I don't think I'll have to spend too much time thinking about it. I believe police do — and rightfully so — have bigger fish to fry.

Sen. Pryor: The Magic Number is $789 Billion

I had a chance to speak with Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Arkansas, this morning in a telephone conference call with other media folk, and Pryor said that he had some breaking news on the Stimulus & Recovery Package or the Spend & Swindle Package, whichever way you're taking it now.

Pryor says that the magic number the Senate and House hope to agree upon in an upcoming special committee prior to its re-vote in the House is $789 billion.

Pryor also said that in the Senate, Democrats reached across the aisle and made bipartisan amendments to slim what he said was at one time in the $900 billion range on the stimulus, and that he supported the bill following the addition of said amendment.

"We decided to make some cuts that ultimately focused more on job creation and recovery," said Pryor (which is kind of funny, because I thought that's what the entirety of the bill was supposed to be focused on — woe to me and my boundless ineptitude).

The special joint committee between the House and the Senate is expected, so says Pryor, to try to work out the disparity between the House and the Senate bills, which is in fact the same bill, down to $789 billion.

I'm reading around and many are saying that the bill is supposed to be much higher, with the Senate bill being around $838 and the House version around $820, and you'd think it'd be in that ball park, but Pryor said otherwise, straight from the horse's mouth.

He said that this is an ear-mark free bill and isn't like the New Deal, full of government handouts. Rather, it will be mostly handled by the private sector. Whether or not he's talking about the same private sector that tanked on Obama's ole buddy Geithner yesterday wasn't discussed in the phone call. Let's keep em crossed that there's another one he was talking about.

Pryor also said that he was "optimistic" about the bill passing in the House, and said that Democrats were going to try harder than ever to get at least a little more than zero Republican votes on the bill in the House. The Senate stimulus got three whole unnecessary Republican nods from Senatoritas Susan Collins of Maine, Olympia Snowe also of Maine and Senator Arlen "Not Related to the Murderer Phil" Spector of Pennsylvania, likely ruining his shot at renomination in his own primary but receiving a nice pat on the back from across the aisle.

The special joint committee includes Senators Cochran, R-MS, Grassley, R-IA, Reid, D-NV, Baucus, D-MT, and Inoyue, D-HI, while the House is bringing Obey, D-WI, Rangel, D-NY, and Waxman, D-CA. If Democrats are really pumped up about bipartisanship and getting this thing passed amicably in the House, they might've started by including some on this joint whittling discussion, don't you think?

Locally, Arkansas is sitting pretty if the stimulus bill passes, Pryor said.

The Senator said that the Natural State is slated to receive $360 million for "shovel ready" projects. Pryor said that "shovel ready" didn't mean that a shovel was necessarily involved and that I was just being silly, but rather it meant that it's a project due to start in the next 180 days at most, with some beginning even 60 and 90 days from now.

"Arkansas currently has $1.1 billion scheduled in projects in the next 180 days," Pryor said. "People may complain 'We're only getting $360 million,' but there's a third of those projects taken care of instantly."

Obama is wanting to sign this deal by the end of the week, and his proposal knew very little bounds. Despite how these Republicans might struggle or how these Democrats might genuinely want and amicable resolution, the Democrats have more firepower and are lead by a guy who wants nothing more than to get this thing rocking and rolling on all cylinders ASAP. Like it or not, it's coming.

Of course, hindsight is 20/20. I look forward to seeing if this will be labeled as noble expedience or stubborn hastiness.

UPDATE: Just remember you heard it here first.

Stimuwhat? Stimuthis

I just received a lovely bit of columnar from our dear friends at the Austin Statesman about their proposal for their slice of the stimulus pie.

Nearly a million in Frisbee golf.

Not kidding either. Austin wants to build a new 36-hole Frisbee golf course in addition to the other mainstream repairs to roads and infrastructure for which the stimulus seems most intended for. Apparently from the desk of the Wall Street Journal (who so callously and tyrannically doesn't allow free access to their material...the old timey print-media types), and claim that Austin may have been outdone in their attempts at frivolity.

Chula Vista, California wants a leash-free area for dogs at a half-million, Lincoln, Nebraska wants a new golf course for three easy payments of $999,999.99, and last but not least, Boynton Beach, Florida put in for a multi-million dollar butterfly and turtle cage. I mean, we're talking about billions for dollars in buy-outs, what's a couple half million.

I've had lengthy discussions with my friend, an Austin-native, now a Dallas refugee, and I can't for the life of me put my finger on the exact problem, other than that this seems like an inherent affront to the sensibilities of what this bailout is supposed to be about.

It seems bad because there are people across the country — Detroit, for example — where people aren't struggling to find a way to squeeze in eighteen holes of butterflyful golf, but trying to make dollars out of dimes, scrapping the very bottom of the very last piggy bank they can find.

But Arkansas — although not so frivolously — has already brought up a potential snagging point with this stimulus. I got to interview Gov. Mike Beebe's assistant when Obama made his outline for the stimulus on January 8th.

While on board with the stimulus, Beebe said that a lot of his discussions with Pres. Obama were based around making sure that Arkansas was not left out of the stimulus picture, even though the state was and is doing relatively well in the trenchant economy. Beebe used the term "good stewards" to describe the state of Arkansas' economy.

Austin is doing very well, a positive and thriving economy based primarily on the technology industry. So, shouldn't it stand to reason that they ought to be rewarded for their good management of their economy? Ought they be rewarded with a couple of holes of Frisbee golf?

My concluding thoughts — and I suspect my Longhorn friend's are as well — are that no, they ought not be granted such luxuries while others toil in near financial ruin. Their reward is that they don't need the stimulus. Their reward is that when it's all said and done, God willing, everyone will be doing well, while they are doing the best. That initial inkling of suspect spending seems to be right on. This stimulus is a pickle, indeed.

But it's a nice thought. With this Frigid February breathing down my neck, I could toss a discus or two.